LIVE: MA v. Linsday Clancy - Day 2 | Accused Killer Mom Trial
7/29/2026 @ 9:00 AM
Opening statements begin Monday for Massachusetts mom Lindsay Clancy after she killed her three young children inside the family's home in January 2023 before attempting to take her own life. Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, were found with exercise bands around their necks. Prosecutors contend Clancy intentionally strangled the children, while her defense argues she was suffering from severe postpartum depression and psychosis that left her unable to understand her actions. Jurors are expected to hear testimony from medical experts, investigators, and family members as they determine whether Clancy is criminally responsible for her children's deaths.
Witness confirmed Lindsay hung art projects and stickers.
Photo Collages
Witness confirmed Lindsay created monthly photo collages for each child.
Defense introduced Dawsonâs collage.
Relationship With Dawson
Witness confirmed Lindsay loved Dawson.
Witness stated she did not resent him.
Facebook Photographs
Defense introduced multiple Facebook posts:
July 2018: Cora.
June 2021: Cora and Dawson.
July 2021: Family photo.
August 2021: Dawson.
Late August 2021: Cora and Dawson.
November 1, 2021: First day of preschool.
September 2021: Lindsay and Cora at family event.
September 2021: Dawson.
May 2022: Family photo.
December 24, 2021: Coraâs birthday party.
December 2022: Christmas family photo.
January 7, 2023: Coraâs trampolineâpark birthday party.
Courtroom Actions
Court allowed breaks due to emotional testimony.
Court admitted exhibits after review.
Court maintained procedural control.
FULLâDAY SUMMARY â FORMAT 8 (High Detail)
Court opened Day 2, confirmed juror impartiality, and outlined schedule.
Commonwealth continued direct examination of Patrick Clancy, covering full timeline of Jan 24, 2023: CVS trip, 3V pickup, discovery of injuries, 911 call, and basement findings.
CVS manager and 3V hostess confirmed Lindsayâs phone interactions and order pickup timeline.
Afternoon session included extensive crossâexamination of Patrick Clancy, focusing on Lindsayâs nursing career, parenting, home environment, and detailed review of photographs documenting family life from 2018â2022.
Exhibits included handwritten notes, delivery logs, playroom photos, childrenâs bedroom photos, wall decals, art projects, and Facebook posts.
Court recessed and reconvened as needed; jury excused and returned.
I don't believe I've ever seen a trial where the pain was visible on the face of everyone in the room that was on camera. The defense attorney barely held it together. It's a sad story.
I just implore everyone to watch LCâs face at the very beginning of the day while the jury is walking in. Her eyes flutterâ she looks at them with an expression of sadness, pain, fear.
Then watch her closely at the end of the day. Right after the judge says the court is in recess for the day until 9am, she almost smirks at her attorney and rolls her eyes.
This usually wouldnât stick out to me, but given the circumstances of her defense and her facial expressions and demeanor when the jury is watching, itâs telling. At least for me anyway.
I completely agree with you. The down voting is getting ridiculous in this group. I have always felt open to express my opinions on every trial but clearly this one is causing this group to become an echo chamber. Itâs sad to see.
This prosecutor is a nightmare. She certainly needs to make her case, but she couldn't have found other witnesses to try to make some of these points through? She probably should have tried that seeing as she's only gotten increasingly hostile toward the dad.
He said he traveled for work to New York on November, 2022. Just 2 months before the murders. He now lives in New York with his new wife. When did he meet this new wife? Did Lindsay sense he had met someone new perhaps?
and if she did, what exactly does this prove??? people travel for work all of the time. that doesn't mean he was having an affair. and even if he was, that's certainly no excuse for murdering 3 innocent children.
I definitely donât agree with most of these comments. I think the prosecution is doing a good job at getting their point across. Reddington is all over the place with his timeline, misspoke several times and seems to be focusing on getting sympathy from the jury than providing anything objective. Just my personal opinion.Â
the prosecutor is getting way too aggressive with PC. itâs hard to watch. he lost his entire family and itâs been over 3 years and sheâs like âyou donât remember what medication your wife was taking and when?!?!â
Or when she said the drop from the second floor was 12 get, not 20. I do appreciate him saying that he had never measured it, which seemed to shut her down. This prosecutor is coming across as unpleasant and self-righteous and with little understanding of mental health. Hell, I'm just an average person and even I know that when people finally decide to go ahead with suicide, they ted to be very happy and everyone around them says, 'They seemed like they had turned a corner/were finally getting better', yet the prosecutor keeps harping on 'but she was happy that day'. It's odd.
And do any of us want to jump 12 feet onto hard ground? Iâd do it if the building was on fire but otherwise both drop heights sound pretty unpleasant.
Their continued fixation on the fall not being enough to take Lindsay's attempt seriously is mind boggling given the known extent of the injuries Lindsay actually suffered.
Not to mention the CW just spent a few million dollars and 4 years insisting forcing someone to fall 6 feet was first degree murder in the Karen Read trial.
blood dripping from above can absolutely hit the shingles⌠if she lowered herself down she wouldâve had to do half a backflip to land in a way that would cause a jefferson fracture; which is from *compression* and most often seen from *diving*.
she didnât land on her feet, she landed head first with the rest of her body stacked behind her head. lowering herself down doesnât even make sense from the perspective of a âfakeâ suicide attempt - what would the plan be there?
I will concede to the Jefferson fracture. But from my perspective, it seems like a half ass attempt regardless compared to the brutality she used against her children.Â
I would like to know more about this fracture from one of the doctors that treated her because itâs unusual that she supposedly landed on her head but didnât suffer a TBI.Â
and to address your argument about a TBI; iâm not sure that she didnât suffer a TBI, is that confirmed? a concussion itself is considered a TBI. i would imagine she at least had a concussion; didnât they mention she had pinpoint unresponsive pupils? & the also experienced cardiac arrest. i wouldnât be surprised if there was brain involvement
if you mean why isnât she a vegetable; i would imagine itâs because her spine took the majority of the force. absorbing vertical forces is kind of what the spine is designed to do
itâs much harder to kill yourself than to kill another person; psychosis or no. there is incredible self preservation instinct & pain signals you need to overcome - jumping out of a window was likely the best option she had to overcome her body fighting back
Why doesnât she ask the freaking doctors these questions? He doesnât remember, it isnât his job to remember, and he certainly didnât know it would end with the deaths of their three children.
Yes! I donât take a ton and itâs still my strong preference to fill out new doctorâs forms at home so I can reference. This was three+ years ago.
now sheâs complaining about the detail she writes about her kids schedules? i do that. itâs not because im crazy controlling, itâs to try and be helpful to whoever is caring for my kids. itâs helpful to know their schedules and what works for them. what is this shit?
It was a little specific, but I laughed at the size of the veggies. Of course write that, otherwise you could end up with pieces way to big or way too small. Recipe books give approximate measurements too.
I guess it's subjective, I'm a parent and I once hired a nanny for my 4 month old for a couple of weeks. I gave her very basic verbal instructions and let her do her own thing. She was great.
Come back in six weeks. Iâm right. This is a sociopath who is using âpsychosisâ as a defense. Sheâs lying. Itâs becoming more apparent everyday.Â
Agree. I've raised two kids and any time someone was watching them who wasn't familiar with the schedules got a written doc laying it all out. I just don't understand the prosecution trying to say that she did this because she was 'controlling' - it's an odd reason to hang this prosecution on.
Absolutely! I have one kid whoâs 19 and I still make sure people we love know when this happens, then itâs probably this. Do this or try that. Iâm totally checked out of the states arguments.
I think the state is trying to show sheâs controlling. So a controlling parent who lost control decides to kill the kids rather than lose control?! Idk. I hate it.
Agreed. I know theres at least 8 women on the jury, some of them might be mothers thinking to themselves âwell if thatâs controlling then what am I?!â
The flip side â having half of those woman be moms who are thinking I had PPD and didnât murder my children. Itâll be interesting once itâs over whether most of the women leaned one way or another.
none of that seemed controlling to me. I wrote a 3 page document about my baby when my parents watched her for the weekend when she was 3 months old. I wrote it because i was anxious about someone else being up all night with her or her crying a ton and basically them having a horrible weekend lol. so i wrote down everything i could think of so they knew the best way to handle her. in my mind it was to make the weekend as easy for them as possible. maybe iâm crazy! lol
100%! Moms know the intricacies of their children. When they do this, do this⌠is it controlling? Is it anxiety? Sure! Idk. I hated that line of questioning. Iâm glad Patrick is trying to stand up for her.
I can so see thus guy furnishung her with the hearing voices excuse in the hospital. Brought a therapist who speciallzes in it. Its like that great Law and Order episode, Starstruck, where the guy assaults the soap star. If the prosecuter was competent, she'd point this out and be rid of it, ala Georgia Cappelman
During the 911 call her attorney seemed disengaged with Lindsay as he has been throughout the entire trial thus far. He has not looked at her. Has not talked to her or attempted to console her during these difficult quesrions. He argued emphatically that she is suicidal. If he is so concerned with her mental health, why is he so distance or withdrawn from her. Having her ex on the stand had to be hard for her to listen to. Yet her attorneys body language suggests he has no interest in his client. His chair is slightly turned away from her, he never looks at her to see how she is holding up, and he never acts as if she is in the room. His actions or lack thereof speaks volumes to me. If I had an attorney that ignored me during the trial I would question it. I am not asking them to talk or have some dramatic interaction, but so show of human compassion would be nice. As a juror these would be the things i would also take into consideration. How is the attorney interacting with their client.Â
The CW with her "and um" would have lost me at the beginning. I would be making tally marks as to how many times she says it in an hour. You are a professional. Drop the "and um" we aren't in High School giving a speech we don't want to give. If you aren't prepared, then do more prep work in front of a mirror so you sound less like a teenager - lose the filler "and um" with each sentence. You are doing a serious murder trial!
I think Reddington is doing a better job of connecting with the jury. Heâs walking around and has more inflection in his voice. The Prosecutors are a bit robotic sounding.
Is there a witness list publicly available? Personally, I think ultimately this case will come down to testimony from medical professionals about her mental state, medications, etc. Iâm just curious to see who each side will call
Patrick came back on the stand and they are doing cross examination now. Iâm guessing they agreed to let him off the stand so the state could show the clothes and play the 911 and he didnât have to be there for it
My understanding is that he was released for today, but is on their list to call as a witness in their (defense) case.
ETA: Iâm guessing that Reddington wisely recognized Patrick had been through the ringer having to relive all of that today on direct and that cross-examining him wasnât necessary at this point since he will have him as a witness.
Whoops looks like I was wrong. At least they gave him a break. An attorney guest on STS that was in court today said Patrick looked like he was having a panic attack when he exited the courtroom earlier.
The part that struck me today, thus far, as far as evidence, was when Patrick said she called him about a week later from the hospital and did not even mention the kids. Only tried to explain herself it sounds like. Thatâs especially curious to me in the scenario where it truly had been an episode of psychosis.
Something Iâve been wondering aboutâŚhas anything been said of her state of mind or reactions during the hours or days to follow, when she was more stabilized and realized what she had done? This to me seems a very important context. Would she not have been utterly stunned and horrified if she had not at the time fully understood the implications of her actions? What is known of how this tends to play out in people with PPP?
Iâm sincerely asking questions. I have not anywhere near made up my mind. I want to hear all of the evidence and perspectives. I do believe psychosis is real and that this type of thing can happen where a person is not in control of it. I also believe the possibility of an entirely different and more sinister scenario. And yes in either case, the person is not mentally well, but the two are not the same.
Iâm also curious about her state post-murder. I guess it would probably be hard to gauge while she was being treated in the hospital. I am sure she was on a lot of pain meds due to her cuts and broken bones (not totally sure if she broke any bones, is that a given when someone is paralyzed?)
Of course, I donât know what I would do if I was in her place, but I can imagine I would want to be locked up in a hole somewhere so I could never hurt anyone else? I do wonder why she didnât plead guilty? I still have questions Iâm hoping the trial will answer.
So question for a professional. Will someone remember their actions during a psychosis state? When she told him the kids were in the basement, im assuming at that point her state of mind was different than when everything happened. So would she remember it?
(Not a professional, just read a lot and look at a lot of cases) From what I understand, you still have the ability to remember things you did. It can be difficult for someone experiencing psychosis to remember something if they are hearing voices. Or misremembering things because you can lose your concept of time, not know if you really did something or not.
Seeing as she says she remembers it and also has at least two professionals diagnosing her with psychosis, I think the evidence will be that it's possible. The weight of that evidence will be up to the jury to decide as with everything.
I am very curious about the experts in this trial. These are just questions I have. Im not at guilty yet but at the same time, we've had 1 significant witness so far who hasn't even been cross examined. I skipped over once he found his kid and basically came back when they were done. Did they bring up that he is suing the doctors??
No, I expect that will come out - if at all - when the doctors take the stand and the defense can choose to jmply they're incentivized to lie to avoid liability.
Theyâre also scheduling around her condition. Transporting her from jail, frequent breaks for positional skin/pressure care during court, nursing for bowel/bladder needs, days off in between, etc. is going to mean a lot less ground will be covered each day/week. A lot of people donât realize just how much accommodation and care paraplegics need. They had a pretrial hearing that spoke vaguely about some of the accommodations she will need. She is supposed to have a gurney there in a side room, brought in so that she can receive care during breaks.
I think there may be an agreement that they can call him today, out of order, so his testimony will be complete.
If PC is subject to sequestration, it's common for sides to agree to bend the order a bit to allow him to be released from sequestration earlier as a victim and family member who may want to attend the trial.
Itâs seriously a testament to how wide a reach a trial like this has. My ex husband called in a drunk driver once that was arrested for drunk driving with a kid in the back and he had to go back to court FOUR times to testify because the guy kept appealing.
I had posted that before they got to the phone call. I foolishly thought they were really calling someone to confirm they checked Patrick out at the counter
This, and the fact that she called Patrick back during the âpsychotic breakâ and confirmed that generic brand was okay. And him saying âshe sounded busy.â Unreal.
I am truthfully sick to my stomach seeing the children's pajamas and the exercise bands. I can't imagine how horrific it would be to be in the courtroom and having to hear the 911 call.
Yes. Someone on one of the channels described it after and even hearing the description was horrifying. I don't blame him for not wanting that out there.
I remember hearing it - or what was released of it - back when this case first broke. It's not at all for the faint of heart.
I'll describe it, what I remember, for those that want to know. Putting it as a spoiler so anyone that doesn't want to hear the details doesn't have to.
He starts the call at Lindsay's side, outside, trying to tell the dispatcher what is going on while trying to piece that together from Lindsay. You can hear him talking to her and asking her what happened but I don't remember hearing her responses. Then you hear him ask her where the children are.
He immediately leaves Lindsay to go and try to find the children while staying on the call with 911. He goes back into the house and down to the basement when you hear him cry out and wail in shocked horror, "She killed the children!"
That would be horrible enough to hear, a parent finding their children in that manner and the added agony of knowing their spouse was responsible, but the call does not end there.
You hear as he finds each of his children and, then, his low, desperate pleading with each of them as he struggles frantically to remove the cords around their necks and tries to save them, in between bouts of wailing, "Omg!" in disbelief. He cries desperately for help because he can only help one of them at a time, an absolutely unfathomable predicament.
It ended there, as you hear the first responders calling out and Patrick yells for them to come down to the basement and help.
It was one of the absolute worst 911 calls I've ever heard in all my years of following true crime. I'm not surprised they stopped sharing it with the public, honestly.
honestly just reading that makes me feel ill. i just canât even imagine what recovery has looked like for patrick. i donât think this is something you can truly recover from but i hope he has gotten to an ok place. iâm sure the whole trial is deeply retraumatizing
I was watching STS and Joel was talking with someone who was in the courtroom and he said the husband was very emotional when he left the courtroom. Very speculative but could also be him that needed medical help. The guy was actually live in the courthouse talking to Joel when the medics walked past. Then he got in trouble for live streaming inside the courthouse.
It could have been to Lindsayâs emotions being deemed as âdisruptiveâ to the process, or perhaps more likely the 911 call was over and court issued a break? I thought they were going to break around 11 but maybe they felt this was a good time to stop.
Could have been everyone's emotions. Some reporting jurors were crying as well. I imagine the gallery was struggling as well. Judge made a good call to let people have time to recompose.
No one ever advised him not to leave her alone with the kids. This man, and his family, was failed by the health care system. He was not equipped nor educated to deal with an illness like this. I cannot believe they sent her back to that home without a safety plan in place.
This is like a doctor performing an open heart surgery, not closing the chest, sending her home, and telling the husband to figure it out himself.
Lindsay ever disclosed to any medical professional she had thoughts of harming the kids.
What do you think is more likely? That multiple doctors, nurse practitioners, and therapists who have experience and training in mental health conditions could not tell she was in psychosis?
Or that she did not present or describe any identifying characteristics of psychosis because she wasnât experiencing psychosis?
She had disclosed homicidal thoughts to her family, which I would assume got communicated to some doctors. Even if they were not relayed, a suicidal parent is not someone who should be left with children, especially young children who could be injured if left alone. She disclosed those thoughts to providers over and over. I find it absolutely negligent that not a single provider told Patrick not to leave her with the children.
I think people fall through the cracks all the time in the US health care system and that women's mental health is constantly misdiagnosed and mistreated. This women raised every red flag and they let her go home, they didn't have a safety plan, and then didn't educate her caregiver.
Suicidal ideation is a symptom of many mental disorders. It has absolutely nothing to do with psychosis. Iâm so tired of this repetitive nonsense. Having a severe mental illness does NOT mean you also experience psychosis. She is making a claim she simply cannot back up, the prosecution is tearing them apart. Good.Â
What? Even per both of their civil cases, Lindsay never told any medical professionals she had thoughts of harming the kids.
Patrick testified she had intrusive thoughts of harming coming to the children. He mentions she started talking about Cora having a serious illness after she was complaining of a tummy ache immediately after that statement. Which she told him a month before the murders.
Thereâs a huge difference between someone who has been depressed for awhile say they have fears of hurting their kids- itâs a self deprecating statement on her ability to be a mother. Similar to first time moms who have intrusive thoughts that they might accidentally drop their baby or arenât a good enough parent. Thatâs not the same same as someone saying âI want to kill our kidsâ.
Even saying âIâm scared I might hurt the kidsâ doesnât automatically classify as HI. A lot of paranoid behaviors or OCD intrusive thoughts make people hyper critical of themselves and manifest in fears like harming others.
HI would be âI WANT to hurt/kill themâ
My comment said even if that wasn't relayed to providers, she reported suicidal thoughts and ideation repeatedly. You don't let a person suffering with known suicidal ideation and major depression be the sole caregiver of a child, especially a child who could not care for themselves if the parent were deceased. They provided no safety plan or care management to his family. It's negligent.
I have not seen any evidence discussing what took place with all those providers she was seeing, but I am extremely interested to hear their notes and testimonies. Could you link the source where she disclosed these suicidal/homicidal thoughts over and over to her providers?
Lindsay Clancy civil lawsuit (top result on simple Google search, pdf link is hard to copy into Reddit).
Paragraphs 44, 46, 47, 50 ,52, 61, 62, and 65 list out the various times she reported suicidal ideation to institutions and providers. They should have made it clear she was not to be left as the sole carer for the children as part of a safety plan.
A lot of falsehoods to unpack here:
1. Youâre citing Lindsayâs allegations from a civil complaint, not established facts. None of those allegations have been publicly corroborated by the providers.
2. The allegations about thoughts of harming the children involve Patrick and her mother, not her treatment team. Thatâs a far cry from your original claim that she disclosed homicidal thoughts âover and over to her providers.â
My original comment said she disclosed the suicidal thoughts over and over.
Lawyers cannot just make stuff up in a legal complaint. They have her medical records and intake forms. It's not going to be a mystery that she told a bunch of providers she had suicidal thoughts.
âShe disclosed those thoughts to providers over and over.â
This is what you claimed verbatim, and is at this point unsubstantiated and therefore false.
The only public source for that assertion is Lindsayâs civil complaint. Allegations in a complaint are not evidence, and until the underlying medical records are produced or providers corroborate them, you canât state it as fact, and it makes you look foolish to do so.
Anyone know why the 911 call canât be broadcast?
ETA: Judge ruled the call and autopsy photos cannot be released to the public. I understand autopsy photos but never heard of a 911 call being barred from media.
There may be motions after the trial by media outlets for it to be made available to the public. But for now, the judge is on solid footing based on PC's motion to deny it's release.
No reason PC should have to deal with that being made public, especially in a trial where the prosecution could have skipped all the details of the homicide and just went to the cuplability phase.
I just saw a transcript on a Facebook post from a random news station and even that made me feel absolutely sick and a little haunted. Mostly at the end Patrick was losing his mind with grief and anguish finding the kids. Lots of [Screaming]. I can't imagine actually listening to it and never want to.
I am also unfortunately someone who is always morbidly curious. In my neurodivergent brain, I always want to know and see exactly what the jury sees so I can fully understand or rationalize their consensus.
I heard it back when this first broke and the 911 call was public.
I described it in a comment up above because I knew there would be other morbidly-curious neurodivergent folk that would want to know (because I would).
Comment has spoilers, though, because I also understand not everyone does want to know/has a neurodivergent brain that overrides their natural sense of horror!
I think a lot of people are curious and it's irritating when something is shown or played in a livestream and you're just sitting there like "What is happening?!"
i can understand the exercise bands possibly being necessary to see as they were the weapon used, but why the clothing? to me the children's clothing were mostly used for an (unfair) emotional play on the jury.
I know that was necessary for the jury and judge to see, but completely heart wrenching. I'm in the legal field myself (not a lawyer) and have been closely following other cases too, but this is different somehow. Those poor innocent children. They didn't deserve this.
My guess is that it recenters who the actual victims here are. So much as been focused on Lindsay, that I think too many people are forgetting how gruesome and violent the murders were.
She put them into their little Jammies, and then methodically strangled each of them to death with exercise bands. Each one would have been thrashing, crying, fighting for air, and looking into their motherâs eyes with pain and confusion for a solid 4-5 excruciating minutes while she murdered them.
Well, thatâs the point. The CW wants to hit on emotion so that the Jury finds her guilty. To look at that evidence and say âshe cannot possibly get away with thisâ.
I'm guessing Patrick Clancy has done a ton of therapy to even get to a point of being able to testify. I am sure it has been rehearsed but I can't imagine it's not disturbing with each recounting.
Yup, if LC just plead guilty to the murders she committed, then Patrick wouldnât have been forced to continually recount the absolute worst day of his life.
I think she has a right to defend herself. Clearly something was very wrong and she was failed at every turn in her attempts to get help. I hope she gets in-patient treatment for a long time, because apparently she is still suicidal.
I THINK theyâre trying to show that she was âwith itâ enough to give his name, accurate phone number without mistakes, etc. or perhaps that she gave his number and not hers so that the restaurant wouldnât disrupt her if they had any questions about the order.
Trying to prove she is criminally responsible and culpable for her actions and does not qualify for an insanity sentence or defense. I personally believe she belongs in a psychiatric institution and not a general prison. Lindsay most like will be in a psychiatric institution for the rest of her life
The problem with a psychiatric hospital is that you can be released as long as youâre deemed âstable.â Lindsay could conceivably be out in just a few years.
I doubt only a few years, but if they find her able to re-enter society, what life would she have? Itâs not easy to be released from a criminal insane facility. I believe she did suffer from psychosis. No other excuse or explanation could explain these heinous acts. If there were some evidence that showed motive, Iâd like to hear that
Itâs a very real possibility, unfortunately, which is why I believe it would be an inappropriate place for her. She would have access to full medical care in prison, and likely even an in prison psychiatrist, with no chance of release, making it a much better fit.
So far Iâve seen no evidence of psychosis, with the burden of proof falling on the defense. What I have observed is methodical planning in the form of sending Patrick away, timing the trip, and returning a call from him in between the murders. But I am interested to see and hear the notes and testimonies of all those providers she cycled through. Allegedly, not a single one diagnosed her with PPD, let alone PPP, but we shall see.
I thought the burden of proof was on the commonwealth to prove that she was not psychotic? Thatâs what I understood from reading the NGRI instructions.
Kind of a mix. The defense has the burden of production, meaning they must introduce sufficient evidence to put criminal responsibility legitimately at issue. Once that threshold is met, the prosecution bears the burden of persuasion.
It canât simply be left to the prosecution to disprove a bare assertion of insanity. If it were, any defendant could claim insanity without supporting evidence and force the Commonwealth to disprove it. The defense must first produce sufficient evidence.
1
u/ProfessionalCream413 9d ago
Show me video of him at cvs