'Crying' Millionaire Mom Killed Her Kids: Cops

We are following a major development in the case of the mom from the wealthy Massachusetts town accused of killing her children and then fleeing across state lines leaving their bodies for police to find. When asked where the children were the defendant told her aunt that she had killed them. Jeanette McCausland is facing two charges of murder. I'll read you what the indictment says about what she allegedly did. Star Wars The Mandalorian and Grogu is now streaming on Disney+. What are you waiting for? Hop on. The must-see galactic adventure comes home on Disney+. This is the way. Our only chance is to work together. I like this kid. Always wear your seatbelt. Star Wars The Mandalorian and Grogu now streaming on Disney+. Rated PG-13. I'll share what Jeanette McCausland's attorney has reportedly said about that. We're on the case presented by Law and Crime. I'm Chris Stewart. I'm going to warn you the details of this story they are very difficult and this is a case that's tough to talk about each time it comes up but today we're talking about the case of Jeanette McCausland. This mom from one of the wealthiest communities in the country, Wellesley, Massachusetts, who is facing some awful accusations. Police say that she was going through a custody battle with her husband and then on a night in April she allegedly strangled her seven-year-old son and six-year-old daughter and then she fled to Vermont. Here's Jeanette from her court appearance last month. Each time we've seen her in court she's kept her head down. She's currently living at a corrections facility for women in the western Massachusetts city of Chicopee. Now we just learned her case is going to a whole new level because a grand jury has indicted Jeanette McCausland for the murders of her seven-year-old son Kai and her six-year-old daughter Ella. Jeanette's case now moves to Superior Court in Massachusetts and we'll talk about what that means going forward, what it means for if and when we'll see her go on trial. Here's the indictment. This is the part related to the death of Jeanette's son and you can see it alleges that Jeanette McCausland was killed by a woman named Jeanette McCausland. Jeanette, quote, did assault and beat KM with intent to murder him and by such assault and beating did kill and murder said KM. Now Jeanette allegedly told a police officer, quote, I strangled them and I tried to kill myself when she was asked where her kids were back in April. Jeanette McCausland was scheduled to be in court for a probable cause hearing on Thursday but prosecutors said they were not ready to move forward because we still don't know the official manners of death for her child. Jeanette McCausland was scheduled to be in court for a child. Jeanette McCausland been delays at the office of the chief medical examiner and the prosecutor on the case said that the medical examiner had not yet been able to determine the manner and means of death, but should have that determination available within the next few weeks. But I also want to talk about some of the comparisons that have been drawn between this case and that of Lindsay Clancy, who was also from Massachusetts, just about an hour away from Wellesley. Clancy, of course, strangled her three children inside her home in Duxbury, Mass. in January of 2023. Jeanette McCausland's attorney has reportedly responded to some of those comparisons, and we'll get to what he had to say in just a moment. But I want to talk about where this case began and who Jeanette McCausland is, because this is a person who appeared to have the life that so many people dream of having. She and her husband lived in a $1.5 million home in Wellesley, Massachusetts, which is not just one of the most expensive homes in the United States, but it's also one of the most affluent suburbs of Boston. And it's one of the wealthiest towns in the country. Jeanette and her husband, they appeared to have gotten married in Costa Rica in 2016, and then they have these two beautiful children, Kai and Ella. Jeanette was working as an acupuncturist at a highly rated clinic in the area. It seemed like a great life, but it's a great life that appears to have started to crumble in 2025. Records show that her husband filed for divorce in October 2025. I mean, you think of where we are in 2026 and just how much can change in just a year. And in this way, the worst of ways, when you think of the allegations. Now, the complaint related to the divorce shows that Jeanette's husband cited an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Details of that have yet to be released. The document states that Jeanette McCausland's husband wanted custody of their two children, and he also wanted the house they lived in in Wellesley on Edgemore Avenue. And he also wanted the house they lived in in Wellesley on Edgemore Avenue. In November, Jeanette McCausland responded with a counterclaim. And in that claim, she said she wanted custody of the children. So you have this back and forth that's been going on in this divorce, which unfortunately we see often. And then a major moment happened on April 16th. Not just a major moment in the custody battle, but potentially a major moment in the criminal case that's now playing out. A motion was filed for a neutral third party to look into who, should have custody of the children. And that third party is called a guardian ad litem. They were appointed on April 21st. This is someone who would help determine what custody would look like of these two children. Then three days later, a call. Star Wars, The Mandalorian and Grogu is now streaming on Disney Plus. Hop on. The must-see galactic adventure comes home on Disney Plus. This is the. Star Wars, The Mandalorian and Grogu, now streaming on Disney Plus. Read PG-13. Came in that something had gone terribly wrong. On April 24th in Bennington, Vermont, police say they were called to the home of the of Jeanette McCausland's aunt. Bennington's a community about 120 miles from Wellesley. Now, this aunt said she was not expecting Jeanette McCausland to be there. Jeanette McCausland appeared at the home of her aunt, Sandra Madison, who resides in Bennington, Vermont. Ms. Madison later reported to Bennington police officers that the defendant had knocked on her window, and at first she had not recognized her niece. Ms. Madison observed the defendant to be hysterical and to have a large cut to her throat. Ms. Madison brought the defendant inside and attempted to calm her down. Something clearly was wrong. McCausland's aunt told police that she noticed that the blood on her niece's neck was dry. She said that McCausland told her that she tried to take her own life. The aunt then said McCausland told her this. The defendant explained to her aunt that she had tried to kill herself. Ms. Madison asked the defendant where her husband was, and the defendant told her aunt that she had killed them. Police in Vermont then called police in Wellesley, Mass., and told them to get to that home on Edgemore Avenue where Jeanette McCausland and those children lived. Here's dispatch audio as authorities made entry. Now, initially, a call was made to get emergency responders on scene, EMS, but that call was canceled. Medic 1, disregard the well-being check, canceled prior to arrival with PD on scene. Police matter. After confirming the defendant's residence, Bennington police contacted the Wellesley Police Department and asked that they conduct a welfare check at that home. Wellesley police responded to that location, Your Honor, and upon entering to conduct a well-being check, they were not able to contact the Wellesley Police Department. Medic 1, disregard the well-being check, found two deceased children, 7-year-old Kai and 6-year-old Ella McCausland. The call, again, Your Honor, is asking that the defendant be held without fail. Within the hour of police making this terrible and horrifying discovery inside of the house, officers say they got on the phone with Ella and Kai's dad. I'm sorry to keep following you, but the father is on the phone now. I can solve it on the phone. I believe he knows what's going on. WHDH-TV has the arrest warrant for Jeanette McCausland. The detainee is on the phone with the father, and the father is on the phone with the father. The details are difficult to hear. But police say McCausland allegedly admitted to officers that she strangled her two children in her bed, then she tried to take her own life. Her aunt allegedly told officers that she said, quote, I wanted the three of us to go to God together, but it didn't work. McCausland was sent back to Massachusetts after her arrest in Vermont to face charges. That is where she has been ever since. When she made her first court appearance, we could see a scar on her neck. Prosecutors presented evidence to a grand jury in Norfolk County, Massachusetts, and we learned this week that Jeanette McCausland has been indicted by that grand jury, and her case now goes to superior court. There's also been comparisons drawn between this case and that of Lindsay Clancy, even though Jeanette McCausland allegedly killed her kids more than three years after Lindsay Clancy killed hers. But what McCausland did happened before Lindsay Clancy's trial, which really took her story and brought it to an entirely new level of national news. This is what Jeanette McCausland's attorney allegedly said about any comparison. comparison between his client and Lindsay Clancy after Jeanette McCausland was in court last month. He said, quote, this is not Lindsay Clancy 2.0. Jeanette McCausland is her own woman, but there's been a discussion, a discourse that's opened up in this country about whether or not we want to criminalize mental illness. Join us now to talk more about this criminal defense attorney, Will Korman from Massachusetts. Always good to have you here on Law and Crime. What do you make of the comparisons that some have drawn between Jeanette McCausland and Lindsay Clancy? I think the important thing to recognize is this. I mean, from the Lindsay Clancy case and even beyond, there has been a recognition that mental illness is a situation and it is a real problem. And the question then becomes, do we criminalize mental illness and how do we deal with these sort of circumstances? Mental illness obviously has to be the defense in this case. And if I were the defense attorney, that's the path I would go down. There really is no other path. Joseph Krawski, who I know you know, is the defense. Rated PG-13. The attorney for Jeanette McCausland. And it was interesting because like the quote that we had, you know, on one hand, he's saying this is not Lindsay Clancy 2.0. That is not what this case is. But then at the same time, there is this mental health awareness that out of Lindsay Clancy, like we've seen, not just in Massachusetts, but across the country. What do you make of that approach, especially when you do have, you know, as we were just talking about, like these comparisons, um, between the two cases? So obviously in the Lindsay Clancy case, we were dealing with a postpartum depression issue. The kids here are much older than that. That can't be the same defense that we're using here. But I do think mental illness is real. I do think mental illness causes people to sometimes do unfathomable and tragic things. And that's an appropriate defense for a case like this. How does, you know, the, you know, typically courts in Massachusetts, and I know like for people who've been following the Lindsay Clancy case, they, they probably, you know, again, have more awareness about this, but, you know, clearly Jeanette McCausland was going through a bad time in her life. And in one way, I think if you're a prosecutor, you say like, there's your motive. Like the guardian ad litem was appointed three days prior. On the flip side of it, if you're a defense attorney, you say, well, look at what this woman was going through. Her life was falling apart. Um, and that's, that's where the issue of mental health, like really stemmed from of what was going on in her life. Like typically, how does that play out in court? Well, for a mental defense, for a mental, health defense to have any legs to it, it has to be a little bit more than just something going on in the last few days. So it wouldn't surprise me if during the course of this case, we learned what this woman's, uh, entire mental health history was her family history. Uh, was there anything, um, genetic involved or their, did she have parents or siblings or aunts or uncles who also suffered from either depression or bipolar disorder or any other mental health issue? And then again, as you so correctly said, I think there's much more awareness around mental health, around maternal mental health and around mental health as a possible defense. Well, and I, I think also like she drove to Bennington, Vermont, you know, it's like 120 miles from Wellesley. Um, and to drive from one location to another, I mean, I don't know if she stopped at stoplights. I don't know if she like what it looked like on the road, if she was speeding a hundred miles per hour to make it to her aunt's house in Bennington. But I just think of that drive as well. Like in, in, if you're, you know, from a prosecutor's standpoint, like attacking a mental health defense, like even knowing, like the rules of the road, is that something that could like play out in court and saying like, this is a woman who was still though going through something traumatic potentially and had done something terrible, like was still in her, in a right state of mind as she was fleeing. Sure. I mean, the prosecutor, as you correctly said, is going to point out every single thing that this woman did that was sane or made sense or wasn't abnormal. Um, like you said, going up the street, driving, however you want to call it, driving up the street, driving, driving, driving, however she drove the ability to even drive a car to go with a specific destination in mind. All those, the prosecution would argue are, uh, symptoms or indicia of someone who is rationally thinking, but the defense attorney is going to say, look, just because you know, the rules of the road, just because you, the ability to operate a motor vehicle, that doesn't necessarily mean that you are of the right state of mind. Those two things can coexist at the exact same time. And, you know, not to, you know, draw a comparison to Lindsay, Clancy, but I think when you look at like how Kevin Reddington kind of built a mental health defense in his case, it, it clearly didn't end in acquittal for Lindsay Clancy or being found not guilty by reason of insanity. Like a lot of people say like he did a very good job, like presenting their side of the story. And a lot of times I feel like we see cases where the mental health defense falls flat. Like when you're building up, you know, and, and if you are, you know, the defense attorney for Jeanette McCausland in this case, like what does that like effective mental health defense really look like? I think it looks like this. It's, it's, it's not a flash in the pan. You really do need to draw parallels and draw examples from everything that was going on in this woman's life for as far back as you can. So in order for the mental health defense to be effective, you can't simply say on this day, all of a sudden she had a mental illness. I think you would really need to dig into her background, dig into her past, dig into her family's past, see whether or not there's anyone else who's had a mental illness who has suffered from any sort of mental illness, and then draw parallels between those people and this woman and this woman and her subsequent actions. The, the new development that we're following this week is that Jeanette McCausland has been indicted by a grand jury. And now it moves to superior court. It's different in every state with how the court system works, but like, what does that mean going forward in Massachusetts? Sure. So in Massachusetts, we have a two-tiered court system. We have district courts that hear misdemeanors and low-level felonies. And then we have superior courts that-- Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu is now streaming on Disney+. Hop on. This is the way. I like this kid. Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu, now streaming on Disney+. Rated PG-13. Rated PG-13. Here, higher level felonies, murder, things along those lines. The case, a charge of murder cannot be heard in the district court. So it has to go through the district court into the superior court. That's just how these things always go. So now the case is going to go to the secure court, which is located in Norfolk County, same court where Karen Reid was tried. And that's where this case is going to play itself out next. Yeah. I feel like, you know, nationally people have, uh, started to become aware of like the county system, uh, in, in the greater Boston area, whether it's like Clancy or Karen Reid. And then now, you know, we see this case playing out, you know, looking at the divorce. And so three days prior to Jeanette McCausland, allegedly killing her children, um, in, in just a horrific fashion, uh, in any case, obviously it would be horrific, um, to take the lives of a six and a seven year old, but there was a guardian ad litem that was appointed, uh, in this kind of divorce proceeding that was playing out. Like, um, typically what does that look like? Like when we try to look at like what was happening in her life, you know, the three couple of days before like what happened, like, what is a guardian ad litem and like, how would that potentially like have looked in her life? Sure. So in the probate courts in Massachusetts, judges outsource investigations to individuals who are called guardian ad litems. Sometimes they're attorneys, sometimes they're psychologists, sometimes they're social workers. Uh, it it's a, it's a group of people who've gone through this process. Uh, it's a, it's a group of people who've gone through the process. Uh, it's a group of people who've gone through some training in order to how to do investigations for the purposes of the probate and family court. And they are tasked with a variety of things. In this particular instance, it could have been, you know, the judge wants the guardian ad litem to interview family members, to interview the mother, to interview the father, to interview teachers in order to determine, um, some sort of, uh, or come up with some answer regarding, uh, custody or visitation. And clearly in this case, the judge in the probate court decided that an investigation was warranted and they should take a look. At how the parents interact with one another. And usually it's designed towards, uh, usually it's designed to determine what a custody arrangement or visitation arrangements arrangement is going to be. How long, and I know every case can be different, but like typically in a case like this, um, like how long does an investigation like that go on for? It can go on for a while. Um, the fact that a guardian ad litem was appointed three days prior, there's a good chance of guardian ad litem hadn't done very much. That would be really, really, really fast. Um, so I think realistically the guardian ad litem was appointed and they were probably just beginning to get their bearings and get their arms around the case to figure out what to do next. You know, this happened back in April of this year. Um, and, and a lot of times for us, I think as, as, you know, as we cover these stories, you know, it'll be a development like this where, you know, she's been indicted and we'll talk about the story, but I mean, on a day-to-day basis, like what is the defense attorney doing as they build their case? Um, especially in one like this, where it may not be, you know, kind of a, a mystery as to how the children died or who allegedly did it as it is in this case, what are you doing on a day-to-day basis on a case like this? In a case like this, you're really digging into the psychiatric and mental health background of the client and the client's family in order to buttress the mental health defense moving forward. And that's what all the energy is geared towards right now. Like you said, there's no question as to how these children tragically died. There's really no question as to how it happened or who did it. So the question really becomes, how do we develop this mental health defense in as robust a form as possible? And that really is digging through records, digging through this woman's prior life, digging through her history to see whether or not there's anything that happened along the way that the defense attorney can then use to say, see, this is something that has plagued this woman for a significant period of time. And here are all the examples moving forward from whenever she was first diagnosed to now as to how her mental health has impacted her life and what she does. How often do you talk, like if you had to, you know, and I know you've been talking about this a lot, but how often do you talk about this? How often do you talk, like if you had to, you know, and I know you've been talking about this I know that we're kind of just speculating on a grand scale, but like, how often are you actually talking to your client? I know she's in chickpea right now in a, in a woman's facility. I mean, every defense attorney handles it differently and every client handles it differently as well. But in a case like this, where you're relying on the client to provide you with at least the firsthand set of information, sign releases, so on and so forth. You know, it's a collaborative process. I know this attorney very well, trust me, he is talking to his client quite frequently. And then, and this is, kind of a question that would go back to the Lindsay Clancy trial, like when it comes to mental health and Massachusetts in some ways is different than other states. Like, unfortunately, we're following a story. There's a woman in Corey Walsh who allegedly killed her son in, in Illinois. But like when it comes to like the burden on a mental health case, like where does that lie in Massachusetts? Sure. So what ends up happening is once there's a defense that's put out there of a mental health defense, the burden is actually on the government, on the Commonwealth of was sane at the time uh that they committed the crime and again sane is a term of art but that they were not suffering uh from a mental health issue uh when they committed star wars the mandalorian and grogu is now streaming on disney plus what are you waiting for hop on the must-see galactic adventure comes home on disney plus this is the way our only chance is to work together i like this kid always wear your seat belt star wars the mandalorian and grogu now streaming on disney plus read pg-13 the offensive question and this is just kind of a more of a general like massachusetts question that like i've i've kind of thought about just because there's been two very high profile i mean you could argue in the last couple of years like the two most high profile cases have been um karen reed and lindsey jones and i've been thinking about this for a long time and in like both ways like the outcomes for the commonwealth have not been what they went in looking for um have those cases had and especially because this case is going to play out in the same county as karen reed did like have those cases had an impact and i mean at least in the legal community on like prosecutors and maybe pressure they have to deliver convictions when you know twice now um it hasn't gone their way well i mean what first of all the karen reed case uh blew up uh it impacted uh the court system and impacted communities and impacted police chiefs as a matter of fact that the attorney the district attorney ended up not running for re-election uh and there's a a new prosecutor who's gonna we have an election coming up in a couple weeks and there's going to be a new district attorney in norfolk county um literally in a matter of months so obviously there's a lasting impact and i i think that the folks in norfolk county were not happy with how um the prior district attorney was going to be able to run for re-election and i think that the district attorney handled that case uh the karen reed case uh and i think that uh he made a decision not to run for re-election i don't know if he would have won if he run uh quite frankly i don't think he would have but he made the decision not to run and i'm sure it's in no small part due to the community backlash regarding uh the karen reed case from both directions quite frankly yeah and obviously that case is very different than the one that we're talking about with jeanette mccausland and there's obviously a lot of differences as well between the lindsey clancy case and jeanette mccausland um but we'll see what plays out you and where this case goes from there she has been indicted case heads to superior court we'll see what happens next uh will corman criminal defense attorney from massachusetts always great to have you on law and crime thanks for being here thanks for having me that will do it for on the case presented by law and crime i'm chris stewart we'll see you next time