Lindsay Clancy Case Rocked by Explosive Witness Testimony

There's no evidence, I suggest, from the government that would rebut the fact that there is evidence of lack of criminal responsibilities. Lindsey Clancy's defense starting off strong. She was begging for help. Did she get any help from the suicide hotline? She was turned away. She was not faking. There was no evidence of any malingering. And the cross-exam gets intense. Now, are you an active member in the Catholic Church? Yes. So you're aware that murder is considered a mortal sin? Counsel, can I see you over here? Plus a look at Lindsey's life since the death of her children. Lindsey Clancy has bad days and worse days. This is Scandal, presented by Law & Crime. I'm Sierra Gillespie. After weeks of testimony from Commonwealth witnesses, Lindsey Clancy's defense begins its case in chief. That means we heard from those closest to Lindsey, her own family, for the first time. She said, this isn't me. I just want to feel better and enjoy my kids again. I had this gut feeling that something was off and that she was really struggling. I'd argue another major witness for the defense was from the other side of the family. Lindsey's former mother-in-law, Patrick Clancy's own mother, testifying for the defense. She loved her children, all of them, very, very much. There's also been expert testimony. Focusing on Lindsey's mental health status. She had said that she heard a male voice ordering her, telling her that she didn't have any choice, but she had to kill her children and then kill herself. But we can't talk about these witnesses without highlighting some tense moments from cross-exam. You keep saying, you're sure there were bruises, that you're sure that there was this or that, that's not shown in any photographs or medical evidence. So you're not sure, are you? You're assuming. No, I'm sure. Did she tell you that she had consumed a weed gummy before going to the ER that day? She did not. Okay. And in your experience as a nurse, is that sometimes a reaction to THC or CBD or some sort of weed, that somebody might have a fascination? I don't know. So let's get into it. The most influential defense witnesses we've seen so far at the time of this recording. Now, just this week, Lindsey Clancy's defense, headed by renowned attorney Kevin Reddington, began its case in chief. Lindsey has been charged with three counts of murder in the deaths of her children. Five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson, and eight-month-old Callan Clancy. This happened on January 24th, 2023 in the Clancy's Duxbury, Massachusetts home. Lindsey used exercise bands to, strangle each of her children before attempting to take her own life by taking some crushed up pills, slitting her wrists and throat, and jumping out of a second-story window. She did not die and has since been charged with the murders. Police say her then-husband, Patrick Clancy, was running errands at the time. Now, Lindsey's defense has been the same pretty much from the start. She admits, yes, she did kill her kids, but she argues she's not criminally responsible because she wasn't of sound mind at the time. Now, in most states, it's often defined as the "insanity defense" or "not guilty by reason of mental defect or disease." In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, it's "criminal responsibility." Lindsey's team says she was suffering a mental break at the time stemming from postpartum psychosis. And based on the Commonwealth statute, that's true. The entire burden of proof is on the Commonwealth here. Not just the usual "did she do it" burden of proof, no. The Commonwealth must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Lindsey Clancy was criminally responsible for her death. That she was criminally responsible because she was of sound mind at the time of the killings. The defense is giving its all to show that Lindsey was not of sound mind at the time. And for that, we've heard from Lindsey's friends, family, medical experts who evaluated her. And let me also say, before any defense witnesses were ever called, Kevin Reddington tried to have the entire case thrown out altogether. Kevin Reddington: My suggestion to the court is that the evidence that's been presented on this case against Ms. Clancy, um, does, I would suggest, does not run in the name of the people who are responsible for her death. Um, does, I would suggest, does not run in the name of the people who are responsible for her death. suggest does not rise to the level under Rule 25, where even if you take the Latimer standard and determine that the evidence would be decided in the light most favorable to the government at this stage of the case, I think the Brunette-Silvera case places, as they describe it, an obligation to prove a negative as part of their case in chief on the government. I suggest to Your Honor that the evidence that has been presented in this case is overwhelming, that this young woman was clearly and unequivocally suffering from a mental disease or defect, that it was occupying her waking hours, her life, that she considered all of her avenues. She attempted to go to these health care providers, using the term loosely, that she went to these people. She had medication after medication after medication. She was obviously acting, I suggest to the court, in a state that was observed by witnesses that, in fact, that she was suffering from mental disease. She was suffering from a mental disease, a defect, and then ultimately this horrific incident. So under that Brunette-Silvera case, there's no evidence, I suggest, from the government that would rebut the fact that there is evidence of lack of criminal responsibility. So under Brunette-Silvera and the cases that were cited in that opinion, respectfully, I would suggest that a required finding of not guilty should be entered on the case. The matter should be reduced down, if you will, from premeditated malice or forethought. I would suggest that that there be no thought of cruelty and atrocity to second degree. I'm not arguing at this stage, Conwell v. Gray or any of its progeny, as to manslaughter, but I think the court, certainly in its wise exercise of discretion, has the ability and the right to reduce the charge to second degree murder or enter a required finding. All right, counsel, thank you. Conwell. Ruddington made his pitch, but it was ultimately turned down. Well, I had an opportunity to take a look at Brunette-Silvera. So based on that and based on the, uh, standard, uh, as described, uh, that I have to apply at this point, I'm going to deny, uh, the defendant's motion. With that, the defense began its case in chief, calling on one of Lindsay's close friends and former co-workers at MassGen Hospital. In the years that you were working with her, were you able to observe, I mean, did she like being a nurse? Did she want to work or was she a good nurse? What's your opinion? Lindsay loved being a nurse. Um, she was really good at being a nurse. She was really good at being a nurse. She was compassionate. She was kind. She was a patient advocate. She was the type of nurse that you wanted taking care of you, um, or your loved one when you walked onto our unit. Um, did you observe, for example, that on occasion when she would be involved with the delivery of a baby that she would become emotional? Lindsay was often emotional during, um, birth, um, of, complete strangers. She would, she would cry and she would just say, "That was so beautiful." Um, you could just tell that she really loved being in that setting. Hemp testified that Lindsay was very caring for both her patients and her own children. So Lindsay and I worked the night shift together. Um, and often on the night shift, you get to have an opportunity to really get to know your co-workers and celebrate things that are happening in their lives or support them with things that are not going so well. Um, Lindsay asked a lot of questions of her co-workers about parenting. Um, simple things is she would poll the nursing staff about monogram lunch boxes, um, right down to, um, sleeping habits. Um, what questions do you ask a daycare provider to make sure that you're in the right place? Um, she was often asking her co-workers, um, childcare, parenting tips. Lindsay often, uh, checked in on her kids while they were sleeping at night. Um, again, we worked the night shift and she had the ability to look at her phone and see what Cora or Callan were doing in their cribs. Um, and she shared that with a lot of us. Um, there was one particular night, um, that Cora was crying. She was probably about six months old and Lindsay never let Cora cry. Um, she was always at that point in parenting and she was very, um, communicative about that. And Cora was crying on the monitor. It was the middle of the night and I, maybe after 10 minutes, she started to call Pat and he wasn't answering. And she got really worried that one Cora was crying, but now Pat wasn't answering his phone. Um, so in the middle of the night, she, she called the police to do a another case. One that Lindsay Clancy's case has drawn a lot of parallels to that would be the case of Andrea Yates. This happened back in 2001 when Yates, a mother of five drowned all of her children in the bathtub of her Houston, Texas home. She was tried twice the first time in 2002, when she was found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison. But in 2005, this conviction was overturned. She was retried in 2006 and found not guilty by reason of insanity. And since then she's in high security mental health facility. So for obvious reasons, many people have compared this case to the andrea yates case and it's actually one that lindsey already knew about district attorney asked and around zoaft and expressing issues of um being a parent were you aware of any incidents where lindsey was with you and a woman did in fact express concern that she wanted to hurt herself or her child there there was um a particular patient that lindsey was um on staff when this patient arrived it was a a patient that arrived to the unit that had plans to harm herself while she was pregnant and we had a conversation lindsey was brand new um it was the summer that she had just started um and we had a conversation about mental health in pregnancy and postpartum um and and i asked her if she had ever heard of the andrea yates case and she hadn't and i explained that to her and she cried and she said how could a mother hurt her children thank you the defense's argument is that lindsey was not of the right mind based on the treatment she received and the mixture of medications she was on so with that testimony we just played they attempt to prove lindsey in her right mind would never have killed her children but prescriptions like zoloft which lindsey was prescribed can have side effects and again it's up to jurors to decide whether they believe that or not but they will have to consider other testimony like that of lindsey's family i will say on thanksgiving in particular is when the first time i saw her in person after quite some time um i had known she had not been doing well via text message communication that we had um i think on thanksgiving she um you know her her mood did not look good or energy you know she didn't seem very energized um it definitely seemed off from how i've seen her in the past and were you aware that uh that carried through from november into uh december around the holiday season if you had stayed in touch with her yes and can you tell us what you observed about her around the holiday season as it related to her from your observations and your texting and your communications with lindsey how did she appear to you at that point um the beginning of december it seemed like she very much decompensated um i do remember her saying at one point at the beginning of december um something along the lines of i'm in a really tough spot um and knowing what she had shared with me previously about um how her mental health was um i had this gut feeling that something was off and that she was really struggling and i asked her if she was safe what did she say she said yes at that point lindsey's sister testified that her symptoms got worse around christmas time of 2022 the end of december so i think it was more along the same of you know that she is really not feeling well her mood is down um she's feeling numb she's feeling hopeless um i believe at the very end of the month she told me she had had suicidal ideation every day for a month things briefly looked up after lindsey's stay at mclean hospital and core's birthday party in early january 2023 and then the call that no one expected and then of course the horrible day were you aware did somebody call you and tell you that the children had been killed yes one of them still survived and ultimately passed yes and do you recall who told you that yes who was that my mother and as a result of getting the call from your mother what did you do i jumped in the car packed a bag and i sped up to south shore hospital which is where i was told she was the prosecution pushed back on cross arguing lindsey's sister never reported that something was offered that the kids could be unsafe you are a licensed social worker correct correct and you're a mandated reporter correct yes and at any point in time between january 1st 2023 and january 24th 2023 did you have enough concern about the safety of the kids or the safety of your sister to file a report as a mandated reporter no lindsey's mom also testified for the defense saying it was lindsey's dream to be a mother but that she saw a shift in lindsey after the birth of Callan I noticed that she was had become very anxious she was she told me she was anxious about going back to work because Callan was having trouble taking a bottle and she didn't feel right about leaving him on October 20th 2022 Lindsay said her mother this text mom will you please come up and stay with me for a bit I'm really sick something is wrong I had horrible insomnia all night and I just don't know how I'm going to get through the day I started taking the medicine my doctor prescribed for anxiety and I think it's made things worse it's just really scary and I don't want to be alone so as a result of that did you come up to Duxbury yes same day and tell us about that what happened that day at the end of October Lindsay had been I believe she went to the emergency room that day and she had come home she was feeling a bit better she told me that she couldn't sleep she was very anxious and she was afraid and how long did you stay with her at that point yes um I believe at that point I stayed for about a week over the fall of 2022 Lindsay's mom stayed with her frequently making trips from her home in Connecticut to Duxbury Massachusetts you knew she was on medication at that point yes I knew she was seeing doctors at that point yes so tell us uh is there an incident that came to your mind that you recall that uh occurred on one evening that indicated to you how seriously she was suffering um there were many um one particular evening that was disturbing to me was that I mean she was afraid she was afraid to be alone and she actually asked if she could sleep with me when was that that was late November early December and did she indeed sleep with you on that occasion she did at that point Lindsay seemed almost paranoid did she express to you concern that uh in this time frame that people at the school teachers and other people would be able to know what she was thinking and would think that she wasn't a good mother because she was sick yes she said the school knows some that something's going on because I'm not driving my car to you know they see that I'm not driving my car to pick the kids up another highly anticipated witness was called for the defense this week Susan Clancy Lindsay married my son Patrick and we had a very good relationship and obviously you and your husband were the grandparents of the three little kids yes and uh well how was your relationship with the babies beautiful and um tell us how frequently to your memory you were able to visit with your son Lindsay and of course your grandchildren at least a couple times a month we would see them Sue Clancy essentially gave a glowing review for Lindsay as a mom she was very nurturing very loving she was a wonderful mother wonderful did you ever see her treat her middle son Dawson bad because he didn't like him no did she love Dawson in your opinion she loved her children all of them very very much but the pattern continued Sue Clancy testified she saw changes in Lindsay after Callan's birth even recommending she see professional Julie Paul did you find that that Lindsay was interested at all times trying to get better and see doctors very much so did you find at all you have an opinion with your observations of Lindsay as to whether or not she was offered help and would just spurn it and not see doctors and not she was begging for help she testified about Lindsay struggling around the holiday season of 2022 and that laid the foundation for the Commonwealth to question about that same time frame on cross-exam and um do you remember telling the grand jury that during Thanksgiving things were better I don't recall well do you remember her saying that she she said things were better do you remember that vaguely okay um you were asked what was Lindsay like during the big Thanksgiving gathering what observations did you make answer she smiled the girls all had Thanksgiving t-shirts on that sort of matched we took a picture she mostly focused on the kids and interacting with the cousins and the aunts and uncles at one point she went off a little into the distance and I approached and asked her how she was doing and she said I'm trying hard to get better I'm still working at it I asked about her sleep I thought that was important and also the fact that she lost some weight she didn't have an appetite and she said things were getting better okay she also testified she had breakfast at the Clancy's Duxbury home on Christmas morning of 2022 and that led to some intense cross exam and then what did you guys do after breakfast we went to church and um fair to say you've previously testified that breakfast was great yes and that church was beautiful Yes. And in fact, the defendant, she told you that it was great and that she was glad she went to church that day on Christmas Day. Yes, she did. And then after that, you're aware they went down to Connecticut to see her family. Right. Yes. After a sidebar, jurors were instructed. All right. And what that means is you are not to consider it for any reason or any purpose. Okay? On redirect, Sue Clancy testified to Lindsay calling a suicide hotline multiple times, something that's going to come up again later. She asked you about options that were available to Lindsay, correct? Yes. And you mentioned one of them was that she could go to the women and infants program in Rhode Island that specializes in perinatal and post-partum, right? Yes. You know that she went there, right? Correct. You know she was turned away because she was over-medicated, right? Yes. You also know that they gave her numbers to call suicide hotlines, right? Yes. She called twice, not once, but twice, and again was turned away. Isn't that right? Yes. And this leads into the medical testimony. The defense called an emergency medicine doctor who actually treated Lindsay after her suicide attempt. His testimony went to undermine the prosecution's potential theory that Lindsay didn't really want to go to the hospital. He also said she didn't want to go to the hospital because she didn't want to go to the hospital because she didn't really want to go through with this suicide attempt. Now, in your experience for a number of years in the emergency room, have you had occasion to treat people that have tried to commit suicide or successfully committed suicide by cutting their throat? Multiple times. Multiple times. And can you tell us, in your opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, sir, as to whether or not this injury or these injuries that you observe were consistent with what you've seen in other suicide attempts? Multiple times. Sustained. Well, can you tell us, did that look like an effort to pretend or fake a suicide? Sustained. Well, when you looked at the injuries, did you make a determination that they appeared to have some impact on the human body of Ms. Clancy? Yes. What was that? They were consistent with self-injurious behavior. The intent, I can't gauge, but. He testified Lindsay showed no signs of suicide. How about the wrist? What did you observe about the wrist injury, sir? So she had two full thickness lacerations, one on the left, one on the right. What does that mean? It means that she made it all the way through the epidermis and the dermis, which is what makes up the skin in the wrist, and into the fatty tissue, which is the next layer. Okay. Are you familiar in your experience, sir, with hesitation wounds in a suicide attempt? Yes, to some extent. What does that mean? It means typically that they're more kind of subtle, weaker attempts to hurt yourself, not necessarily anything that's going to be deep to the structures of the skin, but more just scrapes along the surface. Okay. And you noticed some of those on the neck area as well. Is that correct? There were multiple of those on both the neck and the wrists. As it relates to the injuries to the wrist, did you observe any vascular obstructions or penetration? Of the cervical, strike that, fascia? There was not. Okay. The defense used testimony from forensic doctor Donald Condy to follow up on Lindsay's medication use. He spoke about the possible side effects of what she was prescribed. Well, Zoloft is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, which is a type of antidepressant that started being used around 1988, I believe. Prozac was the first one. Zoloft was the second. When it works to be helpful, it combats both anxiety and depressive symptoms that people might have. It also has, in some people, an effect of causing a feeling of jitteriness and increasing anxiety. So it's something that. Does have some potential side effects as well as beneficial effects. Dr. Condy testified it takes a while for antidepressants to kick in on users, but that the side effects can come on rapidly. He also testified about the possibility that Lindsay has bipolar disorder, something that the defense has maintained from day one. In reference to the bipolar disorder that we touched upon, sir, is that something that's a consideration when you're treating, as a psychiatrist, a woman who's coming to you for help and expressing concern? Is that something that you're concerned about, the symptoms that we've talked about? Yes. Why? Well, some people with bipolar disorder, especially given the fact that depression is a prominent symptom in bipolar disorder, become suicidal and can even commit suicide. So that's a very serious possibility that has to be considered. Did any of the nurse practitioners consider that as a possible diagnosis? The records indicate that Ms. Clancy was frequently asked if she had a plan to kill herself, even after she reported having what was called passive suicidal ideation. But it was reported very, very frequently in the records. And here's where I have to refer to some statistics. I've been throwing out the stats that one in four women experience postpartum depression, and one in a thousand experience postpartum psychosis. And that is true. With a caveat. A viewer wrote in to me and suggested that those stats go way up if the mother was previously diagnosed with bipolar disorder. So I looked it up. According to the National Institute of Health, if a woman has pre-existing bipolar disorder, her chances of experiencing postpartum psychosis are increased by up to 200%. Again, this is straight from the National Institute of Health. It's their statistic. And that means if Lindsay has bipolar disorder. She was at an extra risk of experiencing postpartum depression and psychosis. Dr. Conde suggests that some of Lindsay's actions after the birth of Callan Clancy show she was experiencing bipolar disorder. There was talk in the records of an episode where Ms. Clancy and her husband cleaned out the garage. But it was difficult to tell from the records whether or not that represented what we would call a hypomanic episode. Is there a lot of references to exercise? There were a lot of references to exercise. And exercise can be a very useful thing. That's one of the things that a woman in postpartum may very well be prescribed to do by a doctor or a nurse practitioner like Gelada, right? I believe that nurse practitioner Julie Paul recommended a long run at one point. So there's nothing wrong with a woman going to, let's say, Kingsbury or whatever it is? Or taking her kids to the local gym with a swimming pool and trying to get some exercise in the postpartum stage. That doesn't, that's something you would hold against her, right? No. Okay. Now, how about, are you aware that within a very short period of time after she had baby Callan that she actually ran a road race? Yes. Is that indicative of a person? A person that's kind of ramped up and doing these things you're talking about? It's unusual to decide to run so soon after delivering a baby. I believe that she ran on the day that she might have delivered her last child, Callan. That's correct. This next part is really important. The Commonwealth asked Dr. Conde about possible auditory hallucinations. And as far as your conversations about hallucinations and auditory hallucinations go. You indicated that at some point, or at points, I think was your testimony, that the defendant did hear a voice. But you're aware that she never reported to Jennifer Tufts that she heard a voice? She did not. She never reported to Rebecca Gelata that she heard a voice, did she? She did not. She never reported to Leticia Dukes that she heard a voice? She did not. And the only time she's ever said that she heard this voice? She said that she heard this voice was on January 24th of 2023. Is that fair to say? Correct. The Commonwealth is arguing Lindsey never reported hearing voices until after the kids were killed. But the defense came with an explanation. So when the district attorney asks you whether or not Lindsey, after all the symptoms that we've already gone through, told Rebecca Gelata that she heard a voice, told Dr. Tufts that she heard a voice, and denied that she heard a voice, would you agree that there are reasons that a woman would not tell the doctor or minimize their symptoms out of fear? Yes. What kind of fear? Fear of what? Well, in the records it's stated that Ms. Clancy reported she was worried that her children would be taken away from her, perhaps by the Department of Children and Families, if she reported very severe symptoms. The other thing is, as a health care professional, boards of registration sometimes take a dim view of people who have been in treatment for certain psychiatric illnesses. And so, She might have been concerned about her nursing license, but that's speculation. So there are other reasons why a person may be concerned about telling health care providers, mandated reporters, that they're hearing voices, correct? Yes. Would you agree with me that you don't have to see the proverbial unicorn in the corner to your health provider to be suffering from psychosis? Yes, that's true. The next defense witness was Dr. Elizabeth Lapusada, who testified Lindsay did not fake her suicide attempt and that the autopsy photos of the children shown to jurors were worse than their actual injuries. But it was her testimony on cross-exam that really stood out to me. So hitting the frozen ground, the icy frozen ground, not a bump or scratch or scrape on her top of her head. And then within her head, there was no brain bleed. There was no hemorrhaging. There was no injuries. There was no injury into her brain itself. Nothing showed up on the CT scans, correct? Correct. Her brain was fine. Her skull was fine. I'm sure she probably had some scalp bruising under her hair. You're sure because that goes along with what you're guessing at, how the fall happened, correct? You can't be sure because you didn't see the head, correct? You say you're sure, but you didn't see her head. I saw the medical. I saw the medical records and I examined all of those. I'm sure she had some bruise on the top of her head to the backside, as I showed in my diagram number four. I'm sure there was some bruising on her scalp under her hair, but that was not a major concern at the time she was taken into the hospital. You keep saying you're sure there were bruises, that you're sure that there was this or that that's not shown in any photographs or medical evidence. So you're not sure. You're not sure, are you? You're assuming. No, I'm sure. Okay. Let me show you some photographs here. Excuse me. No, I'm. No, let me show you. I'm asking the questions. Oh, okay. Go right ahead. Let me show you some photographs of the defendant that were taken at the hospital of her head. Do we have sharing privileges on the computer? showing you here photo of the top of the defendant's head yes i see this no swelling correct oh we just see her hair there's no blood on the white sheet correct well i'm sorry i couldn't hear what you just asked me there's no blood on that very white sheet correct um well i don't see what's under her head but that's not relevant to understanding that she did fall head first okay so you're saying she fell head first from 13 feet onto hard frozen ground and had no visible injury okay so you're saying she fell head first from 13 feet onto hard frozen ground to the exterior of her head yes and you're saying that she excuse me i'm it was a yes or no question doctor listen hold on doctor listen to the question answer the question and then we'll just go from there go ahead if you want to re-ask that question doctor yes or no she fell to the ground frozen ground and that had no apparent injury to the exterior of her head correct okay correct the commonwealth pushes dr lapisada on how long it would take to strangle someone with a ligature in terms of minutes and it gets so tense that at one point lindsey even starts crying later ada jen sprog demonstrates with actual exercise bands from an evidence bag so we do the band doctor wrap around the child's neck several times and then left there i guess you can't see it from where you are but it just fell apart and it didn't stay in a circle yeah i sort of saw what you did so what was that i said i saw that you saw it so it was left there and it fell apart correct yeah what you just did sure yeah thank you yeah what you just did sure yeah thank you all right all right thank you doctor you saw the exercise band there it's some pretty crucial evidence in this trial and this is just one of those cases where everyone wants to take a deep dive into all the evidence we have and now you can for behind every major scandal is a paper trail the public rarely gets to see if you haven't heard yet you can go beyond the headlines with case files on the law and crime plus app this is where you get direct access to the raw evidence uncensored body camera recordings crime scene images video recordings of interrogations and so much more you can analyze the facts and uncover the truth for yourself plus you get ad-free streaming of all of your favorite long crime and court tv shows unlock the evidence room today head over to lawandcrimeplus.com enter promo code scandal and start your 30-day free trial now a major piece of evidence we've been talking about this entire case is lindsay's medical records we heard from commonwealth witnesses who had treated her but this week we heard from a defense witness dr paul zeisel who's seen lindsay about 45 times since january of 2023 he was actually there when lindsay made her first call to patrick after killing her kids the conversation i had with ms glancy at that time was one where i asked if she knew what she was so i did what's called a mental status exam a brief mental status exam it's orientation to time place location she didn't know where she was wasn't quite sure what time it was she knew who she was and uh she told me that she remembers what happened but it was very fuzzy and foggy at the time she had been on medication for the significant pain post-surgery uh while in that hospital room and during the course of that interview with her did she express any concern to you about her husband patrick yes she did she said since 11 days prior to my meeting with her which would have been january 24th 2023 she had no contact with patrick she wanted to know how he was doing she wanted to know if she could call him and find out where things are with her and with him and how he was faring and to just speak with him she expressed concern about her family yes she did did she express concern about what had happened yes did she ask you or did you offer to her the ability to speak to her husband patrick she asked me if she could use my cell phone to call her husband did she do that yes she did did you hear the conversation yes i told her we'd call it would have to be on speaker phone and tell us about that conversation so that first phone call i believe on the 24th he did not pick up we left she left a message i did not leave a message we then called back two days later on the sixth and after the two days had transpired and the call was made on the sixth did she have a chance to talk to patrick Yes. Yes. She had told Patrick that she loved him very much. She was unable to express a lot of emotion, but she expressed love for him. And she had said that she heard a male voice ordering her, telling her that she didn't have any choice. But she had to kill her children and then kill herself. Now, doctor, have in mind your background. Your background, your career, your. Did you tell Lindsay Clancy to lie or make that up and pretend that she was hearing voices? No. Did you have any conversation or any suggestions to her at all that she should say she heard voices or anything like that? Absolutely not. Why did you let her call her husband on your cell phone? I let her call a husband out of human. This next piece of testimony is objected to and eventually withdrawn, but listen to what Dr. Ziesel starts to say. Why would you see her in the lockup? I would see Lindsay Clancy in lockup because the nature of presentation in this court has been gutted. gut-wrenching for anyone who would be exposed to such horrific. He called this case gut-wrenching and horrific. And this next piece of testimony is just that. Now, as that time went on into the period of Thanksgiving up to around Christmas, did she continue to reach out to people for help, such as suicide hotlines? Yes, she reached out to. The answer is yes. Yes. Why did she call a suicide hotline? She was worried about killing herself. And did she get any help from the suicide hotline? She was turned away. How about the second time she called a suicide hotline? She was turned away. How about when she went to the Women and Infants Program in Rhode Island? They told her she was not a good fit for the program. Why? Because she was overly medicated. And did she continue to seek help from health care providers? Yes. The defense expert testified that Lindsay tried to get help but was turned away multiple times. And while she didn't report hearing voices, she reported on other concerning things. She felt that her brain was damaged. She felt that she should kill herself. And she's never going to get any better. Did she also express fear? That people could hear her thoughts and that anything adverse would happen in her life regarding being a mother and having children? Yes. That's called thought broadcasting. And what was her concern about the children? Her concern was that when people could hear her thoughts, her children would be removed from her care. Bottom line, Dr. Zeisel testified he believes Lindsay was not in her right mind at the time of the killings. My opinion is that she did have. Indeed, a mental disease or a defect that's a legal construct, not a DSM-5 one, but she had bipolar disorder with postpartum psychosis. In addition, she was unable to conform her behaviors to the rule of law, and she had no appreciation for the wrongfulness of her act. On Cross, the Commonwealth pointed to multiple reports from the hospital that Lindsay was of sound mind and acting appropriately. They even suggested that Dr. Zeisel. They have possible confirmation bias. Given that she's my patient, yes, I wrote she was my patient. That's correct. Okay. And you're aware of, again, the APA guidelines on forensic psychology where it warns therapeutic-forensical conflicts. Providing forensic and therapeutic psychological services to the same individual involves multiple relationships that may impair objectivity and or cause exploitation or other harm. You're aware of that, Section 4.02? Yes. And in this particular case, since the beginning, you've appeared regularly in court hearings, right? Yes. You've appeared with Attorney Reddington at arraignment proceedings? At his request, yes. Both here and at Tewksbury State Hospital where you were sitting next to the defendant? Yes. And you're aware of the danger, this idea of confirmation bias, of having multiple relationships and conflicts. type of work, correct? Yes. And that's why it's important not to be treating somebody as a patient when you're also evaluating them for this type of legal issue, right? Of course, you cannot be the therapist and the examiner. The therapist is an advocate. The examiner looks for the truth. On Redirect, jurors heard for the first time what Lindsay's life is like now, how she reacts to what she's done. I didn't hear that she's laughing and partying and having a good time while she's in the Tewksbury Hospital. Did you see anything like that? No. Lindsay Clancy has bad days and worse days. And when you speak with her and meet with her, doctor, has she ever mentioned her children? Because apparently, according to the questioning that you underwent, she never talks about her kids. She does speak about her children. What did she say? She really loves them and misses them and thinks of them every single day, almost every moment of the day. We were all waiting with bated breath for the case in chief that the defense had to bring, and they're for sure bringing it. But has it been everything that we expected? Are they doing a good job? Who's the best witness? For their argument? These are all questions I'm going to ask today's guest. It's friend of the show and criminal defense attorney, Will Corman, out of Massachusetts, by the way. Will, it's great to see you. Thank you for coming on today. Thank you for having me again. Okay. So for our viewers, we're recording this morning. It's Thursday morning. This video is going to premiere later today. So we don't know exactly what happened so far on Thursday, but so far at the time of this recording, are you impressed or unimpressed with the case in chief from the defense? I think Kevin Reddington, honestly, one of the greatest lawyers out there, and he's doing, it's almost a masterclass in how to put on a case like this. I agree. I mean, it's so interesting to watch him. He's very calculated. He is thinking 10 steps ahead, almost like a game of chess. I feel like he definitely knows what he's doing. And at the very start, before he even called any witnesses, he tried to have the case completely thrown out. He's kind of said this from the beginning, you know, my client doesn't deserve to be charged with murder, hoping to have it thrown away. Is this something that normally happens? I think it's a very, very good point. I think it's a very good point. When they call their final witness, you have to ask for that. It doesn't mean that you really think it's going to happen. Sometimes it means you hope it's going to happen, but you have to do it every time. And it's almost always for appellate purposes. Okay. That makes sense. I know a lot of people are drawn to this case and they may be first time trial watchers. So they've never seen this before. They're not attorneys and unfamiliar with something like that. So it makes sense that he was doing that for the potential appeal of all of that. But eventually he does go, he calls his witnesses. And I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you, who do you think is the best witness we've seen so far in terms of testimony? Dr. Zizel, hands down, hands down. He did a great job explaining methodically what he did and the conclusions he got to. He got out of the way and attorney Reddington got out of the way. The fact that they've worked together in the past and they have a relationship, honestly, watching the two of them with their questions and answers, you could show that video to law students. It was perfect. And Dr. Zizel did a great job both on direct with attorney Reddington and a wonderful job when he was cross-examined by the prosecutor. You know, in his testimony, there were many things that stood out because he was on the stand for a while. They really covered a lot of information because he obviously has observed Lindsay. He's gone through, you know, her medical records and all the paperwork, all of that. But something that I cannot stop thinking about is him testifying to her calling the suicide hotline multiple times and essentially being turned away saying, OK, well, you don't have a plan. So you're not going to carry it through. OK, kind of good to go. Like talking about that, talking about how he believes definitively she was not in the right mind at the time. And postpartum psychosis, I feel like this is something that is underlying throughout this entire trial. But is that something that's really important for the jurors to understand? Because it can be kind of complex. Sure. I mean, any mental health defense is complex. But I think Dr. Zizel did a great job exactly or explaining exactly how the system failed Lindsay Clancy and who we are. I mean, it's so hard as somebody who has her own mental health struggles. I know a lot of people watching do some jurors might even. I mean, we look at this and think, OK, if we need help and we're reaching out, we should have help. Right. And we saw time and time again where she was prescribed prescription after prescription. She saw multiple different doctors. She was institutionalized at one point. And to see all of that and still the outcome of this case, it's heartbreaking at the very least. But I want to talk about the cross here, too, because the prosecution is bringing it in terms of cross. It's interesting to see their differences between direct and on cross. And Dr. Zizel's cross, they basically were saying, OK, is it possible you have confirmation bias here? Like you want to see the psychosis. So you are. So can you talk about the cross of it? Sure. I think the prosecutors did a fine job at cross examining Dr. Zizel. His responses show just how professional he is. You know, even so much as, you know, he was asked a question both on cross and direct and then would turn and look at the jury to give his answer. This is a gentleman who knows what he's doing. This is a polished expert witness. But on the same on the same hand, he doesn't come across as stuffy or, you know, too uptight as a witness. So I understand why the prosecution was going the way they were about confirmation bias. I think it's almost all they had to go on. So I'm not surprised at the direction they went. And I think he fended those off very well. I tend to agree with you in terms of how he presents I do remember him looking at the jury talking directly to them because honestly sometimes when I'm watching these cases and we have like a medical expert I did not go to med school I'm not a doctor so some of the terms that they use or descriptions go over my head I truly don't know what they mean and I feel like Kevin Reddington and Dr. Ziesel specifically do a good job of saying okay here's this long term whatever it may be let's dumb it down for lack of a better term so lay people like myself Sierra and the jurors can understand what's going on and I think he did a really good job of that because some of the stuff here is really complex as we talked about and I think they did a good job of making it understandable another defense witness I want to talk about too is Susan Clancy this is Patrick Clancy's mother now Lindsay's ex-mother-in-law what did you think about her testifying for the defense? I thought it was great I thought it's very important uh almost really important to me because I think it's a really important thing to do because I think regardless of what her testimony could be I think it's important to show that she's willing to testify on behalf of Lindsay Clancy uh I think that's from a strategic standpoint I thought calling her as a witness was was smart again it almost wouldn't matter what she said obviously if she was going to testify that she think Lindsay is horrible and so on and so forth you would have known that ahead of time and not called her but barring that any other reason to call her was a brilliant tactical move I think the direct was good it was calm and I know you're going to ask me about the cross-examination and candidly I I just don't understand it I mean okay so the direct yes I was I thought that it was a great move by them for Sue to get up there and say Lindsay was a great mom I believe her quote was she's begging for help she was begging for help but you're right I gotta ask about the cross because there were a few things that stood out to me we've got the conversations that Lindsay had with her therapist basically asking Sue you know did you know that she was like not that into the news you did you know she didn't want to leave the kids with you let's ask about that part first do you have any indication of why they talked about that you know I I think that they I think the prosecution is has their job obviously is to show that Lindsay Clancy knew what she was doing uh from beginning to end and this was a planned calculated horrific scenario uh and I think that when they were trying to maybe rile up Sue Clancy a little bit maybe get her to uh at least spin in a negative way something about Lindsay it it didn't work but I I think that's why they were asking questions in in that particular manner and asking those particular questions trying to drive some sort of wedge between Sue and Lindsay okay it makes sense I mean the prosecutors are trying to do their job they're trying to get testimony out of these defense witnesses that could help their case to prove that she's criminally responsible that's their whole goal here right but something I really didn't expect was when they asked you know you're a practicing Catholic whatever it may be are you aware that murder is a mortal sin immediately there's a sidebar right there what do you think went on in that sidebar I I mean we're always guessing what happens at sidebars right I I have uh I certainly haven't followed this trial as closely as you um but I don't know what that question was all about I don't know what the purpose of that question was uh I can't imagine why they asked that question it makes no sense it was key to draw either an objection from uh attorney Reddington or even the judge on his own uh and I think the sidebar the judge probably said something along the lines of I don't know why you're asking that it's an absolute improper question I'm going to strike it and you need to move on um but again I I don't know what that question was for I I mean that question has people talking because it's not something we generally see in a courtroom it's kind of a mic drop moment in a courtroom and I do have to wonder I mean the judge says okay this is stricken jurors please ignore this question you know kind of delete it from your mind but sometimes I feel like if this is me and I'm told not to think about it I'm gonna keep thinking about it like they're instructed don't focus on this but I guess in terms of jurors we never know exactly what they're thinking right or what's going on in the deliberation room but how does that work they're told not to think about this but maybe they still are I mean do you have any insight into that well you know unfortunately the system isn't perfect right and uh we ask jurors not to consider a lot of things so this is just one of a number of questions where an objection was raised and sustained and then the judge has to inform the jurors at the beginning of the trial if I if I sustain an objection you are not to consider the question or the answer in the jury room it happens in every single trial and we ask a lot of jurors we ask them to not focus on things that they're not supposed to hear now um this is sort of an unusual one because again despite having done criminal defense for almost 30 years I I don't know what the purpose of that question was I don't quite get it um but having said that you know we asked jurors to do that all the time things happen in courts are courts are fluid trials are fluid they're dynamic and things uh change all the time and we often ask jurors to put something out of their mind to not consider something sometimes there's whole witnesses who testify partially and a judge for some reason throws that witness out and says you can't consider anything that witness said so um do jurors think about it you know I I I I have faith in the system so I'm not quite sure how to answer that but it's hard you know the phrase is it's hard to unring a bell yeah exactly and I mean I do think that the jurors are taking their job seriously when I've been there in the courtroom I've seen them paying attention to the witness paying attention to the questions writing in their notebook being kind of you know paying attention at the very least so I do think they're taking their jobs seriously it's just something I'm starting to think about as we get closer to deliberations because what is that going to look like and something that I'm wondering if they're going to talk about is the hearing voices because while this was in the prosecution the Commonwealth's case in chief they asked witness after witness did Lindsay Clancy ever say that she heard voices to a lot of the medical professionals did she ever seen that she was undergoing psychosis at the time and oftentimes they said no she never mentioned voices nothing like that now on the other hand I think that's something that we need to think about on defense Kevin Reddington has had you know Dr zaizel for example or a couple of others who say maybe she was nervous coming forward saying hey I hear voices she knows that that's wrong quote unquote something's wrong here and she might lose her kids she might you know she might have been undergoing psychosis but could still present as she wasn't I mean so it's kind of hard it kind of cuts both ways who do you think is winning so to speak in that argument so as you aptly said right individuals with various degrees of mental illness even psychosis can still function in society like normal folks and and we don't know what's going on between the ears of just about anybody so as far as who's winning that argument again you know Dr zaizel did a great job explaining what he knows and why he knows it um you know I I I think that the government in their closing argument is going to repeatedly mention the fact that this doctor was asked whether or not uh Lindsay faint-eared voices they said no this doctor was asked they said no all these doctors on the prosecution side were asked is a very important question but just because somebody is or isn't hearing voices obviously that's not the standard if you hear voices therefore you were in some sort of psychosis but if you don't you're not I mean that makes no sense um but obviously Lindsay has told Dr zaizel that she was hearing these voices and these voices were telling her to do some horrific things and why would you say that as soon as you got to the hospital again you're right maybe if the goal is is to keep your kids and keep your kids safe I don't necessarily know that you want to tell a doctor immediately something that you think may result in your kids being taken away yeah I mean it's compelling that one of the first things that she did at the hospital was ask for an attorney asked to change her proxy she finally mentioned psychosis to Patrick he testified he only ever heard of it after the children were already killed and same with the hearing voices so that's kind of a win so to speak for the Commonwealth but then to your point why would she mention all of this if she was nervous about having her kids taken away I think the defense did a good job of countering it and all of this kind of hinders on the criminal responsibility right because just to remind everyone regardless of the tick tocks that are out there or Instagrams Lindsay Clancy has admitted that she killed her kids but she says she's not criminally responsible because she was having a psychotic break undergoing postpartum psychosis at the time so the burden here is on the Commonwealth to prove that she was criminally responsible and she says I read this statute multiple times and it's confusing for me I'm sure it's confusing for jurors can you kind of explain what they're going to have to determine in terms of criminal responsibility sure and and it's confusing for lawyers too so so let's be fair I I mean the fact of the matter is this is the government Kevin Reddington has put forward a defense that says my client admits to doing this guilt or innocence as to the actual underlying events is not the question the question is is was she uh essentially mentally sound at the time this happened and we are saying she was not so it's what's called an affirmative defense and that changes it so normally the government has to prove whether or not somebody is guilty or innocent did they do I'm sorry the government needs to prove whether or not someone is guilty did they commit the crime here again as you said regardless of what's been thrown out there on TikTok and other social media Lindsay Clancy has admitted that she committed this crime crime the government now needs to in order to rebut what the defense has put out there they need to show that she was sane at the time this happened that this was something she did purposefully, that the murder of these poor children was something she did willingly and knowingly. And it's the defense's burden to show, no, she wasn't in her right mind. There were things going on. She had psychosis. She was insane at the time that she did this. And that's the difference in this sort of case. Whether or not she killed the kids is something she's admitted to. It's horrible. It's tragic. But she has said, I did it. And the question now is just simply whether or not she was so impacted by some mental health issues, some mental health trauma, that she isn't responsible for her own actions. It really comes down to Lindsay Clancy's mental status at the moment that each of the children were killed. And that's, I mean, we've heard a lot of testimony. We've got a lot of information. The jurors have a lot to sift through. I'm wondering if the Commonwealth has met their burden here, what way the jury is going to go. I know I'm going to be watching. I know you will be too. Will Corman, thank you for coming on Scandal. We'd love to have you back on for more insight. Thanks for having me. We're going to continue to follow this case and bring you all of the latest updates right here on Scandal. And for complete live coverage of this case, make sure to tune into Law & Crime where we're streaming this with gavel to gavel coverage. And that is where today's episode of Scandal leaves us for now. If you like what you saw and you want to see more or connect with me on places like Instagram, you can find me at Sierra Gillespie. Thanks for watching today's episode of Scandal. As always, I'm your host, Sierra Gillespie, and I'll see you next time. See you next time.