The Biggest Takeaways From Inside The Courtroom Of The Lindsay Clancy Murder Trial: Reporter

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: On the evening of January 24, 2023, while her husband was running errands, Lindsay Clancy strangled her three young children with exercise bands in the basement of her Duxbury, Massachusetts home. She then slashed her throat and wrists before jumping out of a second-story window. This attempt to take her life left her partially paralyzed. Now she's on trial for the first-degree murders of her five-year-old daughter, Cora, three-year-old son, Dawson, and eight-month-old son, Callan. Prosecutors argue that she should be held criminally responsible for their deaths because she knowingly strangled her kids, quote, with no hesitation, with deliberate premeditation, and extreme atrocity and cruelty. Clancy's team is instead arguing that this trial is a referendum on postpartum psychosis, a severe mental health illness that she was suffering from when she killed her children, and because of that, she should not be held criminally responsible for their deaths. Sierra Gillespie, the host of Long Crimes Scandal, has been covering this case and joins Forbes True Crime to discuss. Hi, everybody. I'm Brittany Lewis, the host of Forbes True Crime. Joining me now is Sierra Gillespie. She is the host of Long Crimes Scandal. Sierra, [00:01:10] Lindsay Clancy: thanks so much for coming on. Yeah, thank you for having me. I'm a big fan of the show, [00:01:14] Speaker 1: so I'm excited to talk with you. And I'm a fan of yours, and I've been listening to your coverage of the Lindsay Clancy trial on your podcast, Scandal. And I really want to talk about that today because we've all been watching this absolutely heartbreaking story and case play out in a Massachusetts courtroom. Lindsay Clancy, she's a former labor and delivery nurse. She's on trial for the murders of her three young children, five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson, and eight-month-old Callan. And there's no argument as to who killed her kids. Even her own team isn't denying that she strangled them with exercise bans before attempting to take her own life. But instead, the fight in the courtroom is over whether or not she's criminally responsible for their deaths. And the Commonwealth says that she is. They say that on the night of January 24th, 2023, she acted, quote, intentionally, rationally, and swiftly to accomplish a very specific goal to kill. But her team claims she was just a woman who was trying to get help. She's a victim of a medical system that failed her. And she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time that she killed her kids. So she's not criminally responsible. So to start off the conversation, what do you make of this case? [00:02:28] Lindsay Clancy: I mean, I've been covering this case really since it happened way back in January of 2023. And the attention that this case has gotten has just grown larger and larger. I mean, it was shocking when it first happened, especially in a nice area of Duxbury, Massachusetts. It's really an idyllic, historic, nautical, beautiful town, by the way. No one would expect a family to be shattered in this way. But I think now it's garnered even more attention because we're finally getting a look inside the mind of Lindsay Clancy. I mean, we've heard from those closest to her, Patrick, her husband at the time. Her journal entries had been read aloud for the court. We heard about the autopsy. And now, this week on the stand have been medical professionals who've treated her throughout her condition. And so I think it really is just opening dialogue for a lot of people about postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis. And it really is kind of fueling the internet monster [00:03:20] Speaker 1: in all this. There's been a lot of nuanced conversation on this trial, on this case, on the story, especially as it relates to mental health. But I do want to focus now on Patrick Clancy. He was the first witness. He is Lindsay Clancy's former husband. He is the father of their three kids. But in a statement just days after his kids were killed, back in the beginning of 2023, he said that he had already forgiven Lindsay and he implored others to do so as well. And in an interview with The New Yorker, about a year and a half to two years after the tragedy, he said this, I wasn't married to a monster. I was married to someone who got sick. And while he was on the stand, he said that she was a dedicated mother who was trying to get help herself. So when you're thinking about his testimony overall, what stuck out to you? And whose side does it help more, the Commonwealth or the defense? [00:04:16] Lindsay Clancy: I think Patrick Clancy is clearly the star witness in all of this, right? And of course, he's called by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He's the first witness. So they're truly coming out swinging. But to your point, I don't know that he helped the Commonwealth. I mean, yes, he had to talk about really specific things. His 911 call was plagued during his testimony. Thankfully, he was able to leave the room. And of course, the clothes that the children were wearing at the time and the exercise bands that were used to strangle them were also shown to the jury during Patrick's testimony. So this is really just heart-wrenching testimony that of course the Commonwealth wants to play on because they say it's murder, right? But for the defense, they say that Lindsay was not criminally responsible because she was undergoing a mental break at the time. So honestly, I think that Patrick Clancy's testimony helped the defense more because he did say things like what you're saying. She was a really good mom. She cared about her kids. She was diligent with her notes. For example, when they had a nanny, Lainey, as they called her, she took notes about Callan. You know, this is what he's eating. This is when he's sleeping. Kind of, you know, a list of things to keep track so that he was on a good sleeping schedule, a good eating schedule. He was saying over and over, she was a really good mom who had some issues. We tried to get her help. She had XYZ treatments. She went to these centers, et cetera. And so I do think that he did a good job helping the defense showing, yes, she was in treatment. Yes, she was trying to get help. But I don't know if you want to talk about this, the way that the internet has kind of turned on Patrick Clancy since his testimony. And since this case has garnered a lot of attention, that's something I just did not expect. [00:05:47] Speaker 1: I certainly didn't expect it either. And what do you make of that? Because regardless of what you think about this case, everyone can agree just how heartbreaking it is. It is so tragic. At the end of the day, we are talking about three young children who were killed. What do you make of the internet conversation surrounding Patrick Clancy? [00:06:08] Lindsay Clancy: I think this is so hard because in this case, there are no winners. Truly no one is a winner. And in any murder case, right, the victim has passed away, likely of something pretty severe if it's murder. So their family and friends are mourning. But here it's Lindsay saying, yes, I did do this, but she had a mental break. That's kind of what happened there, at least according to the defense. And I'm so interested in the way that the world has turned against Patrick Clancy. I just truly did not expect it because to your point, he came out afterward and said, I wasn't married to a monster. I loved Lindsay. She was a good mom. She was having a mental break. And honestly, we only heard from him on the GoFundMe page. And then we heard from him again in that New Yorker article a year or two ish after that. And then the first time we heard from him again was his testimony. And I went into it thinking, oh my God, I feel for this man. You know, he has to get up in front of everyone, relive the worst moments truly of his life in front of the world because everyone's watching this live stream, right? But what I didn't expect is for everyone to turn on him in this way where they're calculating everything. Oh, it says that his Surface Pro sent the email after he said that he was at CVS. Does that mean that he framed Lindsay Clancy? This truly never would have crossed my mind, all of the details here. And I have to talk about the prosecution here too, because a lot of people are calling into question, why is Lindsay Clancy charged with murder when there is so much evidence saying that she had mental health issues. A lot of people have made it akin to a witch hunt, so to speak, which is interesting because we're based out of Massachusetts. Now, I'm not saying that that's the case at all. But what I am saying is that the prosecution did want to bring three murder charges. So if there truly was evidence against Patrick Clancy, why wouldn't they have brought murder charges against him as well? I just I think that it's kind of an internet monster. It's not necessarily fact what's kind of out [00:07:54] Speaker 1: there. And even Lindsay's team isn't pointing any fingers. They're saying, yes, she did kill these kids. However, she shouldn't be criminally responsible because of her mental state at the time of their killings. But there has been a lot of testimony that she was a good mother. Her own ex-father-in-law, Patrick Clancy's father, got on the stand and said the same thing, that she was very good with the kids. They were an all-American family, the little family of Patrick, Lindsay, and their three kids. The former nanny, yes, she was only with the family for four months, but she was with them for the four months leading up to January 2023. And she said she was a very good mother. That's what that former nanny testified. When you're thinking about those testimonies, they're also paired with first responders, as well as medical professionals, medical examiner, psychiatrists. Does anything else stick out to you? And is there any person or testimony that is extremely good for the prosecution? [00:08:55] Lindsay Clancy: You know what's sticking out to me most? It isn't necessarily a witness that has been called, but rather the cross-examination brought on by defense attorney Kevin Reddington. I mean, he's known Massachusetts and maybe even nation and worldwide as an amazing defense attorney. And I think anybody who's watching this trial gavel to gavel will tell you the same. I mean, he's really, really pushing a lot of witnesses. I mean, some people have even, my friends or people who are commenting on my show, whatever it may be, are reaching out and saying, why is he being so intense on cross-exam of these medical professionals? It's not something that you generally see because a lot of people were called to the stand after Lindsay had sustained that fall, the cuts that she had to her wrists and throat. And they were talking about kind of severe things, both at, you know, Brigham and Women's Health and then also South Shore Hospital. And Kevin Reddington was really going in on the cross-exam. And I do think that stood out to people, kind of just to put in the mind of the jury, okay, were they treating this woman, Lindsay Clancy, as if she was going through this mental health issue? Or were they just treating, you know, her symptoms at the time? I think it calls a lot into question, but for the prosecution, right? Because we're still in the Commonwealth's case in chief. I think they have done a pretty good job of bringing out Patrick Clancy, of course. He was really, really important. The medical professionals that we've had. Again, I do think recently, specifically Dr. Jennifer Tufts, who was mentioned in the civil lawsuit that Patrick Clancy brought, the malpractice allegations that he brought against Jennifer Tufts and a couple of others. I think that she did a decent job describing what happened. But once again, the Commonwealth has, or excuse me, the defense has poked holes in all of this saying, hold the phone. You never even saw her in person. You had what? A dozen telehealth appointments. And this woman who would later go on to attempt suicide, you didn't even see her in real life. You didn't think it was important to institutionalize her. You had her starting on medication after medication. And so again, it's really hard because I believe the Commonwealth is doing their job. I believe they're trying the hardest that they can. But just me watching all of this play out, I think it's a really uphill battle for them. [00:10:54] Speaker 1: To that point, I mean, Reddington, he was getting almost combative with that doctor going over the notes saying, well, you didn't write this and going back and forth that way. Another witness, he was saying, did you look over your notes? This is a murder trial for God's sake. Why are you not more prepared or something to that effect? And those have been going massively, massively viral. And I'm curious because the burden of proof is obviously on the Commonwealth, right? They have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she is criminally responsible. She was sound mind. She knew what she was doing while she was doing it, and she could control her actions while she was doing it. Do you think they're going to get there? And I know we're in week three of this trial. We have a few weeks to go, probably. [00:11:39] Lindsay Clancy: What do you think? I think it's really tricky, right? Because the Commonwealth keeps going in and asking all of these medical professionals who have treated Lindsay or things of the like. And it seems like their line of questioning, if I'm following it, is Lindsay was of sound mind. A lot of the doctors are questioned, could you understand her? Did she have slurred speech? Did she have hallucinations? Did she have things like that? And by and large, they say, I could understand her. She made sense. She did mention that she was going through postpartum depression and she had some issues with her mental health status. However, there was nothing that was a red flag for me. So I think that's really what the Commonwealth, their best bet is here, saying she was of sound mind. She made sense. She was, you know, she was able, the day of the murders, allegedly murders, she was able to take Cora to the doctor. She built a snowman with the kids. She was able to call three of the restaurants and the person, the hostess working, was able to understand her. She ordered things off the menu. Okay. All signs point to that. Lindsay Clancy was of sound mind at the time. I don't know if they truly are going to get there though. And I'll tell you why. It's the jury. Because they're there in the courtroom and you and I just watching it on the live stream, we can feel the emotions, right? I know that your viewers who are watching this can sense, you know, the tense emotions that are going on in the courtroom. And I will tell you as somebody who's been in the courtroom, you can literally feel it. You truly can because there's Lindsay Clancy sitting in a wheelchair, Kevin Reddington, you know, yelling for less of a lack of a better term at some of these witnesses on the cross exam. It's really getting the jurors to pay attention. And I kind of clocked the jury and I really do think that their emotions are coming out here. I mean, they were crying during the 911 call. There wasn't a dry eye in the entire jury box. They've taken notes specifically when Elaine Rossi Laney, the nanny said, you know, I love Lindsay. She's a really good mom. All the jurors writing it down. And so I think this is really tough because it plays on so many emotions and the burden of proof against your point is on the Commonwealth. I just am not sure if they're going to meet it. And it's always interesting to watch what [00:13:43] Speaker 1: exactly the defendant is doing right during certain moments in a trial. And you've seen Lindsay Clancy break down numerous times during this trial. She was crying at one point when the 911 call was played. She was crying at a different point when the medical examiner was discussing her son's autopsy. How is the jury looking at her and what is it like seeing her in that courtroom? [00:14:09] Lindsay Clancy: Honestly, it's really stark to see Lindsay Clancy in the courtroom because, you know, when the court proceedings begin, the judge walks in and the bailiff says, "All rise." So everyone stands up, of course. And I remember very specifically being in the courtroom rising. I was right behind Lindsay and she can't rise, right? She is paralyzed from the waist down. She's in a wheelchair. And so I think that is evidence that's literally on display at all times that she attempted to end her life because she's paralyzed. She jumped out of a second story window. That is something you can't ignore. So even if there's emotionally gripping testimony in the jury box, the jurors can always glance over at Lindsay and be reminded that she is living as somebody who survived a suicide attempt here. So I think that is really stark. And the jurors are paying attention, by the way. They look at the witnesses. They look at both sides, the Commonwealth and, of course, the defense. But you can't help but look at Lindsay. And when she's crying and she's breaking down, I mean, it's up to the jury to decide, is she feigning her emotions? To me, it seems real. To me, it seems like when she's hearing the 911 call or when they're talking about the autopsy of Callan, it truly looks like she is breaking down. And one other thing I'll say about Lindsay that's very stark is it's her and Kevin Reddington, you know, in the front. The first row behind her isn't her family. In fact, it's her nurses who are there. Her family is the second row behind her. So to have her nurses who are literally there to help her move because she's in a wheelchair. Once again, I think that's just a really stark visualization for the jury. [00:15:35] Speaker 1: And something as someone who is not in Massachusetts has only been watching this on the live stream. We couldn't hear that 911 call, but the people inside the courtroom could. And I listened to your podcast episode about Patrick Clancy in general. And you were talking with someone you work with, one of your colleagues who was listening to that 911 call. And he said, this is something, and I've covered a lot of cases, a lot of trials that's going to stick out to me for the rest of my life. The sounds he was making when he realized that his three kids, what had happened, were like the sounds of an animal. I mean, it was just horrifying. There wasn't a dry eye in the room. Talk to us a little bit about that and what impact that that call you think is going to have on this case. You know, I do wonder if that 911 call [00:16:22] Lindsay Clancy: was played on the live stream, that we, the media, were able to put it out for the world. If maybe then the dialogue surrounding Patrick Clancy, the narrative, these allegations that he really committed these alleged murders and made Lindsay cover up for him. I wonder if that 911 call was played, if people would feel differently. Because my photographer was in the courtroom at the time, and I've worked with this guy for years. He's silly. He's funny. He's always joking. He's one of my good friends. And I've never seen him like this. I truly, I have chills right now just talking about it because to see him, you know, my usual guy laughing and joking when he's talking to me about this, he's like, I will never forget it. I will go to bed and I will hear the screams, the guttural, visceral reaction that Patrick Clancy had. Again, I literally have chills just talking about it and thinking about it. And I didn't even hear it. I mean, this is secondhand from someone who I know really well. And just to see the impact on the jury that he said was completely crying. There was not a dry eye in the jury box after that. I mean, I think that that piece of evidence is something that they won't forget. It happened on one of the first days of the trial. And I guarantee that they are going to be talking about it during deliberations, because how can you ignore something like that? It's going to stick with them probably for the rest [00:17:35] Speaker 1: of their lives. And that's what every reporter who was in the courtroom that has talked about listening to that has said, I cover a lot of trials. This is going to stick with me for the rest of my life. That's just how emotional it was. And guttural is the word that I've been hearing over and over again. But something that both sides have been using is Lindsay Clancy's journal. Parts of her journal have been read by both the prosecutor as well as the defense. And I'm curious what you make of that and how these different passages are playing into this because the prosecutor said these lines from the journal. It's like I'm so desperate to get a mental health break from taking care of everyone that my mind is trying to make something physically wrong with me. And I'm completely overwhelmed trying to take care of the three kids. I feel like I'm drowning every day. And her team said these lines. I have crazy brain fog. I feel like I can't make a plan. I can't carry it out. I'm really worried about going back to work and not being able to function with the brain fog and things like I feel completely disconnected with my baby. I feel like I'm going through the motions every day. Since both sides are using this journal and nitpicking excerpts, I'm curious, what side do you think is more effective [00:18:48] Lindsay Clancy: at utilizing this? What's landing more? Oh, that's a tricky question, right? Because I think the Commonwealth, as they pointed out in their opening statements, kind of the preamble for all of the evidence and the witnesses that they're going to call everything that they're kind of laying out in their case in chief, they said, if no one can have, if I can't raise these kids, me being Lindsay Clancy, if I can't raise these kids, right, then no one can. They essentially are saying, you know, she didn't want to be a mom anymore. She was over it. She made these kind of detailed notes for her nanny and the directions weren't being followed. She just didn't want to be a mom anymore. She wanted to go on with her life. And so those passages that you just read there where she's talking about, I'm drowning. I can't do this anymore. You know, it's just too much. That kind of does go to the prosecution's case or their theory, right? That she just, she can't be a mom anymore. It's just too much for her. But again, I kind of feel like the defense and their excerpts that they read are hitting more with the jury. First of all, because honestly, most of us either have some sort of mental health diagnoses or we have a family friend or a coworker or whoever, we know somebody who has some sort of mental health issue. And I think that's really what has stood out to me in this case. I mean, I'm not a mom, but I have been diagnosed with depression, anxiety, OCD. I kind of got the trifecta here. But when we're talking about postpartum depression, I had no idea how common this is. One in four women are diagnosed with this and of postpartum psychosis, one in 2000 women. So it's more rare, but it does happen. And I truly feel that the jury is going to hear all of this and say, oh my God, you know, I remember my sister-in-law, she was really struggling after she had kids or I myself was really struggling or the anxiety, the depression, whatever it may be. She talks about brain fog. She talks about a lot of symptoms that once again, I'm not a mom, but I can empathize with her because I think, you know what? I've had all of those symptoms too. A lot of the medications that Lindsey Clancy has been prescribed, I myself as a reporter have been on. So I think that's where it's so hard that I'm trying to report on the facts here and doing the best I can, but truly the defense and their arguments with these journals, I think it really pulls on your heartstrings if you or someone you know has been affected by mental health. So I think the journal really does help the defense. [00:20:59] Speaker 1: And to that point, I mean, the conversation, especially surrounding postpartum and postpartum depression has really evolved over the past couple of decades, right? Because before it was called baby blues and everyone I know that has either known someone with postpartum depression or has suffered from it themselves has said that is not an accurate description of what I felt. What I felt was so dark and baby blues is a glossy way to describe it. That's nowhere near accurate. And I think a lot of the conversation, especially online has really evolved around mental health and postpartum depression. And when you're thinking about types of cases where a mother kills her children, they're very rare, but everyone knows Andrea Yates and other cases, Susan Smith. I'm curious when you're thinking about the Lindsey Clancy case, broadly speaking, what do you think this represents? [00:21:52] Lindsay Clancy: Oh, I mean, I think this is what I keep saying over and over. This is a monumental case. It truly is, because at the very least, if down the line there aren't laws or statutes passed, okay, I mean, I would hope for some sort of change. But if not, it's opening the dialogue. To your point, I mean, Andrea Yates, we've all heard the story, but I think since then, you talked about the baby blues. Back then, that's kind of what we called it. And we were like, oh my God, this woman, Andrea Yates, I mean, I know that there was some sympathy for her. And I believe she was found not guilty by reason of insanity. I'm not sure the exact term out of the state of Texas, a little different than here in Massachusetts. But regardless, there was some sympathy, not what we're seeing now. I mean, my friends this weekend were like, have you seen anyone who says Lindsey Clancy is a murderer? And I said, besides the Commonwealth, no. No one is saying that. And so I think the way that this case is going to go down in history is that it opened the floodgates, so to speak, in terms of discussion for postpartum depression and psychosis. I know that the Boston Globe has written multiple articles about this, but they did a really interesting one relating to laws in Europe, in England, for example, specifically, that they have a different threshold for mothers who are experiencing what they are deemed as postpartum depression or psychosis if they are charged with murder of their children. And I am wondering if maybe we'll see a change like that after this. Will the Commonwealth of Massachusetts make some sort of change? Will it open the dialogue for other states or federal law? Who's to say? I don't really know. But at the very least, I think it's very important that we remember this is something that a lot of women struggle with, a lot of people struggle with. And so I think that's really what's [00:23:26] Speaker 1: going to kind of stick with us. And also the big fact is that Lindsey Clancy kept trying and trying to get help. Do you think that we're seeing those attempts play out in the court of her attempts of trying to get help over and over and over again? How much do you think that hurts the Commonwealth case? [00:23:49] Lindsay Clancy: I really think it does hurt their case because this isn't like we have one doctor on the stand, she had one. Oh, she was on Zoloft and then she kind of stopped, whatever. No, this is doctor after doctor after doctor who was called on the stand, who treated Lindsey Clancy. There's a whole host of medications that she's been on. I mean, I can't even remember all of them. There's so many. And I do think that Kevin Reddington, the defense attorney, is doing a good job of pointing out what she was on, what it means, what it's treated for, and all of these different doctors just one after another. I really think it does show that Lindsey was trying to get help. At the very least, we read from her journal where she said, I want help. I need help. She was in multiple facilities. I mean, New Year's Eve, she was in, I believe it was Mass Gen. Then after that, she went to McLean in Massachusetts. Prior to that, she was in Rhode Island for treatment. So there are multiple times that this happened. It wasn't just a, oh, I went to the doctor one time, whatever. No. I mean, if you put them all together, and I do believe that jurors, when it comes time for deliberation, they're going to look at a timeline of all of this. She went to the doctor on this day, this day, this day. If you pile it together with all of those telehealth receipts and appointments that she had, for example, with Jennifer Tufts, I mean, I think it's hard to say that she wasn't [00:24:56] Speaker 1: asking for help when she so clearly was. And we are currently in week three of this trial. It's expected to last a couple of weeks. What specifically are you looking out for next? [00:25:07] Lindsay Clancy: Oh, I'm so interested in what the defense is going to bring because the Commonwealth is doing what they can, right? I mean, they're bringing these doctors who are saying over and over again, you know, she was of sound mind. Yes, she had mental health issues, but does a depression or anxiety diagnosis mean that you should get away with murder, quote unquote? No. So I think, I mean, I think they're bringing all that they can. But for the defense, I'm so interested to see what they bring, because we've already seen the heat on cross-exam. So if Kevin Reddington is calling his own witnesses, I do think that's going to be interesting. And something else that we have to remember here, too, is that Lindsey Clancy is pleaded not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, which in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, it means she lacks criminal responsibility. So after both sides present, we have to have a little bit more presentation from the Commonwealth because they're going to try to prove she was criminally responsible. She was of sound mind. So we have a lengthy trial ahead of us, and I'm excited for those next two phases of the case. And as we see more play out in the courtroom, [00:26:09] Speaker 1: I hope you can come back on and join me and talk about things from your perspective in Massachusetts. Thank you so much for coming on. I appreciate it. And until next time. Yeah. Thanks for having me. [00:26:23] Speaker ?: Thank you.