Lindsay Clancy Tears Up as Judge Discusses Kids' Deaths

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: and I believe that is the defendant's motion to limit witnesses. Is that correct? That's the motion we have. All right. Now what I'm going to, I've read the motion, all right? I've read, I've read the grand jury minutes from all the individuals who have scheduled to testify. So I'm going to hear from the defendant just in regards to this, then I'll hear from the Commonwealth. So, Mr. Reddington. Thank you. And I will restrict the hyperbole, Your Honor. [00:00:51] Speaker 2: This motion is asking that Your Honor would direct the Commonwealth since apparently the Commonwealth will not agree voluntarily to restrict the presentation of a large number of first responders to this tragic incident. First of all, you know, let's face it, you know, firefighters, EMTs, police officers, you know, they're all wonderful people. They're doing the Lord's work. What these people have gone through or would go through and have gone through in their jobs cannot be underscored. And that's to be respected and embraced. But to present them one after the other. In this trial. To testify to and I would very briefly, I don't even have to mention their names, but. The Duxbury Fire Department paramedic detailed to the home at 47 Summer Street dealt with dealing with the defendant, Lindsay Clancy, treating with her outside with her injuries. The Duxbury Police Department, Duxbury Police Department, Sergeant, went to the house, heard noises. Stephen Hall is a Duxbury Police Department officer, saw the defendant, heard screaming in the basement. The Duxbury Police Department, another individual heard screaming in the basement, went in, saw the kids in the basement. Another firefighter heard noises, was outside. Another firefighter, Duxbury Fire Department EMT, saw Lindsay on the ground, was treating Lindsay, heard screams coming from the house, went into the house, describes the basement scene. Another Pembroke Fire Department, another Pembroke Fire Department individual paramedic, same idea. Another Pembroke Fire Department paramedic, was in the house. Duxbury Firefighter EMT, saw the other EMT carrying two kids out of the basement, saw two children on the floor, described the basement. Marshfield, Marshfield Fire Department paramedic, went in the basement, saw the children laying on the floor in the basement, on their backs facing upward. Saw blood, would appear to be blood around the nose of one of the children. Another firefighter, Marshfield, assisted in the basement, heard the screaming, yelling and made his observations. Another firefighter, from Duxbury, in the basement, saw the little children wearing onesies and feeties, laying on their backs on the basement floor, assisted as he could. Another Duxbury Fire Department individual, basement. Another Kingston Fire Department, mutual aid gentleman, assisted in the basement, describes what he saw in the basement. Another Kingston Fire Department individual, saw Pat, heard the screaming and went downstairs, describes what he saw in the basement. Another Duxbury Fire Department individual, responds to the scene, describes the scene, and then Duxbury Fire Department individual, responds, saw Patrick in the kitchen, saw him sobbing and made observations of the scene. So that was what was presented to the grand jury and is what, from what we can see, is what the government would try to present at this trial. And I suggest to the court, without sounding as though I'm trying to minimize the horror of what transpired here, and what these good employees of the municipalities had to endure and see and probably to this day are suffering post-traumatic stress from it. So, legally and objectively, I suggest to Your Honor that it serves no purpose other than to inflame or try to inflame the passions of the jury, one right after the other, after the other, offering them water, offering them time to gather themselves. And it may have worked on the grand jury, but it shouldn't work on the jury trial. [00:05:14] Speaker 1: Councilor, is this motion, I understand the rationale behind it, but isn't this motion kind of a little premature? Because, I mean, if you're talking about something being cumulative, don't I have to hear what the first witness says first, and then ask for the Commonwealth if there's an offer of proof, if there's anything different that this witness saw or did or is going to bring to the jury? And I guess what I'm saying, it's difficult for me, sitting here right now, to tell the Commonwealth, you can't call witness number two without knowing what witness number one is going to say. I appreciate this kind of flags the issue for me, it's helpful. You know, I went back and pulled out proposed rule 403 that talks about, you know, needlessly presenting cumulative evidence, so I could be aware of that, got the cases pulled out for that. But I don't have everything in front of me, that's the way I was looking at it right now. But Commonwealth? Thank you, Your Honor. [00:06:23] Speaker 3: So in a typical murder case with one victim, we would be proving deliberate premeditation and/or extreme atrocity or cruelty. Either one of those, proving first-degree murder, you'd have to prove that the defendant's actions caused the death. And the way we do that is with the person finding the body, then the people who treated the body trying to save that person. Then the medical staff at the hospital treating them and then declaring them dead. And then the autopsy confirming that the actions of the defendant were the cause of the death. Here, unfortunately, we have three victims. So that multiplies those witnesses by three. We also have the defendant herself, who was treated at the scene. So then that's a fourth multiplier. Then you also have Patrick Clancy, who is so devastated upon finding his children in the manner that he found them, that he was in an awful state and had to be brought to the hospital as well. So that's multiplying the people here by five. Now when the first responders arrived at the home that night, they thought they were responding to one victim, the defendant. Then they found out that the children were there and they found them in the state that they were in. And it was a chaotic scene. They're asking for more help. They're trying to figure out what's going on. They're trying to treat these children. And so there's a lot of handing off. People start CPR. People move on to another child when someone else arrives who's better equipped to deal with, say, a baby versus a five-year-old. And so we have multiple people working on these children trying to save their lives and then get them to the hospital and get them treated. And unfortunately, none of them survived. But the Commonwealth did not choose the number of victims. The defendant did. The Commonwealth did not choose the ages of the victims. The defendant did. The Commonwealth did not choose the horrific nature in which they died. The defendant did. The defendant did. It is not the Commonwealth putting on a circus or a parade. It's the Commonwealth presenting the evidence in this case to prove that the defendant killed those children in the manner in which they were killed. Now, if defense would like us to reduce some of these witnesses, that would mean not talking about one of the children. So if he would like to tell me which of these children don't matter. [00:08:34] Speaker 1: You know what? I'll tell you. We don't need that. All right? We don't need that. The question right now for both of you is this is a motion saying that there's going to be cumulative evidence. I don't know what's going to be presented. So how can I say that witness two doesn't bring anything extra after witness one? I understand the theory. The Commonwealth, and I'm not telling the Commonwealth how to try their case. I'm not. And I'm just -- I've been -- I guess the issue has been brought up that the defendant views the Commonwealth's approach one way. The Commonwealth views it a different way. I'm the one who's going to have to decide, and I don't have anywhere near enough information right now to determine if something violates, you know, section 403. But I understand the Commonwealth's position. There are a number of witnesses, and they all may very well bring something unique to the Commonwealth's case. So it's really -- what I'm probably going to be doing as we go through this is have everybody come over here to the sidebar, hopefully calmly, talking about an offer of proof. And is this witness bringing something? If they do, fine. I'm not restricting the Commonwealth thing. I just -- I appreciate the fact that it was brought to my attention. Now I can be aware of it, and we can just deal with it as the trial goes on. Just like, you know, I mean, like we said, all of us have tried a number of homicides. So we know how they -- it's done. And so I'm aware of how Commonwealth will -- has to prove multiple elements in every case. And so I'll be cognizant of that. So I guess probably just so you'd be prepared that the defense objection will be it's cumulative. And we come over here, and if there's some reason why there's something else that this witness brings, or a reason why you want to call, then we'll deal with it at that point. [00:10:59] Speaker 3: Commonwealth will be prepared. [00:11:01] Speaker 1: All right. All right. So I'm not -- I'm going to take no action on this, assuming that it will be raised again in the next couple of weeks. We'll deal with it as it comes up. I appreciate the parties -- this is exactly why we have motions to eliminate. So I know that this is an issue that's coming up. I appreciate the Commonwealth setting out what their response is, so I'm kind of ready for that as well. So I'm going to -- I'm not going to take any action on that motion and eliminate. Like I said, I'm sure we'll be talking about that a little bit later. Anything else we need to address today? Counsel? No, Your Honor. All right. Defendant? No. All right. So the plan -- we're going to be in recess on this matter until Monday. Parties should be prepared to give openings. I'll give a very brief pre-charge at that point. And then we will just begin with the evidence hopefully Monday morning. And I will try to get that order out in regards to Mr. Clancy's request sometime tomorrow morning. All right. So, again, I want to thank everybody for kind of helping me get through these issues today. And thank you for all your hard work on this. So, we'll be in recess until Monday morning on this. All rise. [00:12:23] Speaker 4: All rise. All rise. This matter is continued to Monday, July 27, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. for the jury trial. Please play the courtroom, please. [00:12:34] Speaker ?: Thank you.