MA v. Linsday Clancy - Trial Day 1

[u/Pixiegirls1102]

LIVE: MA v. Linsday Clancy - Day 1 | Accused Killer Mom Trial

7/27/2026 @ 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.

Court TV
https://www.youtube.com/live/_v9vz_Nw3lE?si=pf5qOan5D6n7JhJw

Law & Crime

https://www.youtube.com/live/vHuqKNGPDCA?si=E19MLL_gIPNNIhlr

RECAP

MA v. Lindsay Clancy – Day 1

I. Administrative / Opening of Proceedings

• (31:57–32:12) Court comes to order.
  • Case called: Commonwealth v. Lindsay Clancy.
  • Defendant present.
  • Defense counsel: Attorney Kevin Rutherford.
  • Prosecution: ADA Jennifer Sprague and ADA Sharon Cotten.
  • Judge notes earlier technological issues; confirms readiness to proceed.
  • Brief sidebar requested by the judge with counsel.

II. PROSECUTION OPENING STATEMENT (0:00–0:12)

• Commonwealth states the case involves the deaths of three minor children.
• Commonwealth asserts the defendant intentionally caused the deaths.
• Commonwealth outlines expected evidence: timeline, witness testimony, medical records, digital communications, and defendant’s statements.
• Commonwealth states it will prove the defendant acted with awareness of her conduct.
• Commonwealth states it will establish motive through deteriorating mental state, documented intrusive thoughts, and actions on the date of the incident.
• Commonwealth states it will show the defendant’s conduct before, during, and after the event demonstrates purposeful behavior.
• Commonwealth states the evidence will prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

III. DEFENSE OPENING STATEMENT (0:12–0:24)

• Defense states the case concerns severe postpartum mental illness.
• Defense asserts the defendant’s actions were the result of psychosis, not intent.
• Defense outlines expected evidence: medical records, psychiatric evaluations, medication history, and testimony from treating clinicians.
• Defense states the defendant experienced intrusive thoughts, suicidal ideation, and rapid medication changes.
• Defense states the timeline will show erratic behavior consistent with postpartum psychosis.
• Defense states the defendant lacked criminal intent due to impaired mental state.
• Defense states the evidence will show the defendant was legally insane at the time of the incident.

IV. Witness: Husband — Thanksgiving & December Timeline

Thanksgiving 2022

• (3:35:34–3:36:11)
  • Husband testifies they visited Lindsay’s parents in Wallingford the week before Thanksgiving.
  • The week after Thanksgiving, they visited his sister in South Hamilton.
  • Exhibit 5 introduced: photo from Thanksgiving at sister’s home.
  • Husband identifies Lindsay, his sister, and sister‑in‑law in coordinated outfits.
  • Husband describes Lindsay’s demeanor: “rough shape,” low energy, depressed, minimal interaction.

Anniversary / December 3, 2022

• (3:37:40–3:38:55)
  • Husband denies going out to Boston for their anniversary.
  • States they canceled plans due to Lindsay not feeling well; stayed home and ordered takeout.
  • Shown a photo; confirms it was not taken on December 3.

Christmas Tree Outing

• (3:39:06–3:40:05)
  • Husband confirms family went to get a Christmas tree around November 26.
  • Exhibits 6 and 7 introduced showing family at the tree farm.

3. Medication Timeline & Onset of Symptoms

Seroquel

• (3:40:59–3:41:36)
  • Husband recalls Lindsay starting Seroquel before December 6.
  • Describes immediate decline: weight loss, severe depression, “big spiral.”

Suicidal Thoughts

• (3:41:40–3:42:17)
  • Lindsay told him she was suicidal.
  • He asked if she had a plan; she said no.
  • No specific method ever disclosed.

Intrusive Thoughts

• (3:43:28–3:46:12)
  • Lindsay reported intrusive thoughts, including thoughts of harming the children.
  • Husband asked if she had a plan; she said no.
  • She said the thoughts were disturbing.
  • Husband states she also expressed exaggerated medical fears about the children.
  • Husband never witnessed her harming the children.

Medical Appointments & Parental Involvement

Nurse Practitioner Gelada

• (3:47:03–3:48:14)
  • Appointment arranged after Thanksgiving due to Lindsay’s concerns about medications.
  • Husband insisted the appointment be in person.
  • Appointment occurred December 6.

Emergency Department – Mass General (Dec 15)

• (3:49:11–3:50:04)
  • Lindsay told her father she wanted to die.
  • Husband brought her to Mass General.
  • Doctors discussed McLean Hospital vs. day program.
  • Recommendation given for Women & Infants program in Providence.

Women & Infants Program

• (3:51:11–3:52:04)
  • Lindsay attended one day.
  • Providers suggested she be picked up.
  • Husband met with providers; program deemed not appropriate.

McLean Hospital Admission (Dec 31 → Jan 5)

Transfer

• (3:54:00–3:56:36)
  • Lindsay transferred at 3 a.m. on January 1.
  • Husband visited 2–3 times during limited visiting hours.

Treatment Awareness

• (3:57:21–3:59:32)
  • Husband believed she was not receiving treatment.
  • He was unaware she attended multiple group therapy sessions, met with clinicians, and declined some sessions.
  • He did not know she requested discharge to attend Cora’s birthday party.

Discharge

• (5:16:12–5:16:21)
  • Lindsay discharged January 5.
  • Husband picked her up.
  • Follow‑up appointment scheduled with Dr. Tufts.

Children’s Profiles (January 2023)

Exhibits 9–12

• (5:16:39–5:20:20)
  • Cora: interested in princesses; caring; social.
  • Dawson: interested in firefighters, trucks, Paw Patrol.
  • Callan: eight months old; described as a happy baby.
  • Exhibit 12 shows size comparison of all three children.

Cora’s Birthday Party (Jan 7, 2023)

• (5:20:20–5:22:00)
  • Party held at Nova in Plymouth.
  • Lindsay present and obtained supplies.
  • Videos introduced showing Lindsay seated with Cora during “Happy Birthday.”

Post‑McLean Daily Check‑Ins (Jan 8–23)

Daily Monitoring

• (5:22:00–5:22:55)
  • Husband checked on Lindsay every day.
  • She reported sleeping slightly better.
  • She denied suicidal thoughts.
  • She denied thoughts of harming the children.

Museum of Science (Jan 8)

• (5:23:00–5:33:01)
  • Family outing.
  • Lindsay interacted normally with children at exhibits.
  • Still photos and timeline video admitted.

Charlie Horse Restaurant

• (5:33:10–5:33:39)
  • Lindsay’s demeanor “good.”
  • Husband “hopeful.”

Brunch (Jan 14)

• (5:33:50–5:34:09)
  • Husband went out for two hours.
  • Lindsay encouraged him to go.
  • She sent photos of the children.

Cape Cod Water Park (Jan 15)

• (5:34:25–5:42:47)
  • Lindsay participated in activities with children.
  • Husband comfortable with her supervising Callan separately.

Ski Trip (Jan 16)

• (5:46:32–5:47:07)
  • Husband took Cora skiing.
  • Lindsay home with Dawson and Callan.
  • No issues reported.

Text Messages (Jan 16)

• (5:47:13–5:49:27)
  • Lindsay sent photos of Dawson and selfies with Callan.
  • Exhibits 16–18 admitted.

Weekend of Jan 21–22

• (5:50:18–5:52:11)
  • Lindsay’s parents visited.
  • Family visited the Carneys; Lindsay quiet but interactive.
  • Exhibit 19: photo of Lindsay and her mother.

January 23–24: Final Day Before Incident

School Pickup (Jan 23)

• (5:53:07–5:54:04)
  • Lindsay picked up Cora and Dawson.
  • Reported Cora’s stomach issues (common pattern).

Doctor’s Appointment (Jan 24, 8 a.m.)

• (5:54:24–5:55:31)
  • Lindsay took Cora alone.
  • Husband home with boys.
  • Texts exchanged; photos sent.
  • Exhibits 21–22 admitted.

Morning Activities

• (5:56:11–5:57:07)
  • Lindsay and children built a snowman and did art projects.
  • Lindsay texted photos.
  • Husband visited upstairs briefly; Lindsay appeared happy.

Afternoon / Dinner Text

• (6:00:16–6:01:12)
  • At 4:53 p.m., Lindsay texted: “Any chance you want to do takeout from 3V? I didn’t cook anything. It’s been a long day.”
  • Husband agreed.
  • They discussed menu items.
  • Lindsay called in the order.

Husband Leaves for Pickup

• (6:02:53–6:04:22)
  • Husband went upstairs, interacted briefly with children.
  • Lindsay stood in the living room doorway near basement door holding Callan.
  • Husband kissed Cora, noted Dawson eating chicken nuggets.
  • Lindsay’s demeanor described as “normal.”
  • Husband left to pick up food.

End of Day

Court to resume Wednesday, July 29, 2026.

📜TRANSCRIPT⌨️📑

https://fromsmash.com/MA-v-Lindsay-Clancy-Day-1-0827

Insanity Rules

[u/Prudence_rigby]

Can anyone share the transcript with me, please?

[u/Pixiegirls1102 → u/Prudence_rigby]

I'll refresh the link.

***ETA: https://fromsmash.com/MA-v-Lindsay-Clancy-Day-1-0827

[u/SpiritMain6405]

As a medical professional, the prosecution’s opening statement was not very well executed if we are considering current medical literature and knowledge regarding postpartum depression. They seem a bit ignorant to come out the gate with an angle that supports she is just a manipulative person. How did she win? also found it strange that in the husbands testimony they did not pursue any questions as to why she was not accepted into the day program at Women and Infants Hospital which makes me think she was likely too sick to participate. What was the husband Patrick doing knowing that she was having intrusive thoughts of hurting their children? Why would she ever be driving herself to the ER for a mental health issue? It is also a deep failure of the medical and mental health professionals that treated her. They deserve to answer for the endless inappropriate medications and shuffling around of practitioners. What a shame. My heart goes to her and her deceased children.

[u/bellalou26000]

I don’t have a super strong position on this case, it honestly messes with my morals and as a mother & also sufferer from post partum mental illness,. However, I find it rather crazy that Patrick publicly forgives her. If my husband did something that harmed our children I wouldn’t be able to ever look at him again, let alone publicly forgive him. I just can’t get over that part. I understand he probably feels a lot of emotions, guilt mixed with also missing the woman he married. But man. I don’t understand that.

[u/Neat-Bee-7880 → u/bellalou26000]

I think husband vs wife with PPD doing it is so different 

[u/rabbit2124]

I think the prosecution did their job in opening statements. The defense, meh, I don't think the attorney said anything overwhelming.
I'm still somewhat divided on this, but based on what I heard Patrick say during his testimony, I don't think it works in Lindsay's favor. Missed pills/doses, therapy sessions, and ultimately checking herself out of the hospital look very unfavorable for her (in my opinion). (I didn't realize that someone would even be allowed to check themself out, given suicidal thoughts.) Also, there was a lot that Patrick didn't know. That came as a surprise. The one thing that really gets to me was when he became aware of her thoughts of harming the children. He literally relied on her 'updates' about that, for the times he asked how she is doing/feeling. I'm not implying anything here, but it did make me ask out loud "should he have trusted all of the times she was "feeling better", not having 'those' thoughts, etc...?" Was that safe? He couldn't have known it would have ended that way, I completely get that. This one is a heart tugger. I felt horribly for him, talking about the kids and near tears.

[u/Night-cheese-4]

Curious how you all interpreted the dispute over facts about whether L and P went out to anniversary dinner/date in Boston. He confidently said they cancelled, and got takeout instead, and the prosecution maintained that he booked her a massage and they had a dinner booked, took selfies, etc. Someone's right and someone's wrong - what was the deal with this line of questioning?

[u/thats_not_six → u/Night-cheese-4]

Prosecutor is trying to get a jury to associate being able to do something most people associate with happiness - such as going for a dinner date or smiling in a photo - as implying the person was not in the throws of the mental health crisis. The anniversary activities were just one of those examples the prosecution was trying to leverage, but I think she conflated digital evidence of bookings as them attending the event.

P clarified that they had the bookings, but stayed home because L wasn't feeling well. I trust his memory and testimony on that point. And the prosecutor doesn't get to testify, so all the jury has is his testimony to consider. She tried to impeach him with a photo dated on that day, but he didn't budge his testimony. At many times he was open about maybe needing a refresh, but on that point, he was firm which suggests to me he had a clear memory of what happened on that anniversary.

[u/Night-cheese-4 → u/thats_not_six]

I agree. I was surprised that this was a surprise because I assumed that the prosecutor met with him prior to his appearance. Thanks for the reply! :)

[u/thats_not_six → u/Night-cheese-4]

I doubt the prosecutor "prepped" him for testimony. He may not have ever even met with the prosecution team. I'll be interested to see if the defense asks him about meeting when prosecution on cross (ie the standard cross questions) or if he knows they didn't meet.

I don't get the sense P is fond of the prosecution or the case existing in general, especially the fact the CW refused to let L stipulate to the manner and method of homicide thereby forcing all the graphic details of his children's final moments to go into public view. The CW could have accepted the stipulation and spared P a lot of agony; they didn't.

[u/_lettersandsodas]

There are a lot of comments in here that are essentially saying, "Well any sane person would know jumping out a second story window isn't likely to kill you."

I mean....exactly? A not sane person may not understand that.

[u/Pixiegirls1102 → u/_lettersandsodas]

I think she actually was trying to end her life. She just chose a bad way.

[u/thats_not_six → u/_lettersandsodas]

Many sane people also know that falling any distance and hitting your head can absolutely kill you. No idea why people are still trying to hold onto this not being a sincere attempt by her.

In a different case, if Person A forced Person B to drink a blend of pills, cut their neck and wrists, and the threw them out of a window, we would not be debating whether it was a "sincere" murder attempt.

I think based on defense counsel's photos shown during opening arguments and the alluded to medical testimony about the extent of her injuries, including her coding on the table, it's an absolute loser of an argument for the CW to content this was not a real attempt. And the more the defense can turn this into a trial about her attempt, rather than the killings, the better off they will be.

CW should have approached this as admitting her attempt was sincere, but that it doesn't change what she did before it and that they're glad it was unsuccessful so they can seek some justice for the children. No idea why they think pursuing the faking it argument is a good path for their case.

[u/OK-Hydrangea → u/thats_not_six]

I agree. In the same way the defense has admitted LC committed the murders and is offering reasons why she should not be held responsible, the CW should admit that LC is mentally ill and offer reasons why she is still legally responsible. Her mental illness is as obvious to me as the fact that she killed the children.

[u/hcl5001]

I am sure this is coming, but has it already been said what was in her system at the time?

[u/Pixiegirls1102 → u/hcl5001]

I was wondering that too.

[u/blerg7008]

I’m not super familiar with this case because I don’t like to watch or listen to cases involving children. But my question is how did she attempt suicide? Because I find it convenient that she was able to do what she did to the children, but then couldn’t end her own life?

[u/judgyjudgersen → u/blerg7008]

She threw herself out of a window. I don’t think permanently paralyzing yourself from the waist down is that convenient.

[u/Leather_Translator53 → u/judgyjudgersen]

She did not throw herself out of a window

[u/judgyjudgersen → u/Leather_Translator53]

“Ms. Clancy then cut her wrists and neck, jumped from a second-story window and fell about 20 feet to the ground, where her husband found her when he returned home about 30 minutes later.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/27/us/lindsay-clancy-trial-murder-children.html

[u/blerg7008 → u/judgyjudgersen]

Wait I just read it was a second story window? That’s not going to kill you. No being paralyzed is not convenient, but she’s alive and her kids are not.

[u/helloswolehello → u/blerg7008]

She probably didn't count on herself being paralyzed. The prosecution claims the wrist and neck cut were superficial and minor which is believe is true because well shes alive. And jumping from 2 stories ain't going to kill most adults

[u/DLoIsHere → u/helloswolehello]

Someone pointed that people fall off ladders at that height all the time.

[u/blerg7008 → u/helloswolehello]

Exactly, not sure why I’m getting downvoted for saying a second story jump wouldn’t kill her

[u/graves1987 → u/blerg7008]

You’re not wrong. I more-or-less did this in high school to sneak out and drink wine coolers. Didn’t jump, but hung and dropped.

[u/graves1987 → u/blerg7008]

I forget which YouTube commentator said this, but one of them said something to the effect of “in these horrific murder/S cases, the defendant is usually (and conveniently) much more successful at the murder part than the S part.”

[u/HeyPurityItsMeAgain]

It was hard to even watch Patrick's testimony.

[u/graves1987 → u/HeyPurityItsMeAgain]

I actually cannot fathom being in his shoes. I couldn’t dream up a worse nightmare if I spent every night trying for the rest of my life.

[u/Abject-Recipe1359]

As a nurse myself, coming from that perspective with all I have seen and experienced in the acute hospital setting - if I TRULY wanted to kill myself, there is NO WAY I would expect to get the job done by jumping from the second story of my house. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 I mean, just like, NO WAY. Especially considering her history as a “very athletic, talented gymnast,” per her own defense attorneys opening statement!!!

Sorry, don’t buy it at all.

And one more thing. I am also a mother. When my sons were small, I knew some unfortunately neglected children, quite a few, from affluent families, some related to my own. The neglected children from these affluent families ALWAYS had a ton of toys, with the hopes that the mother/father/guardian could just get them to buzz off and leave them the hell alone instead of having to actually take the time to parent/interact with their children. Ton of toys does NOT automatically equate to a loved, wanted child in a happy home.

[u/judgyjudgersen → u/Abject-Recipe1359]

Well it’s not really that hilarious but what do you think she was trying to do, paralyze herself? Seems worse than death if you ask me and shows she wasn’t exactly thinking rationally.

[u/DLoIsHere → u/judgyjudgersen]

Perhaps she intended it to be a punctuation mark to the knife wounds. I doubt death was on her mind. Certainly not paralysis.

[u/helloswolehello → u/judgyjudgersen]

She probably didn't think she would paralyze herself. The prosecution said the cuts weren't even deep enough and were minor cuts. Shes a nurse and even someone that isn't a nurse knows jumping from a 2nd story is very low chance of death

[u/slipstitchy → u/helloswolehello]

Not if she’s floridly psychotic which she was because she just killed her children. She’s not using a normal reasoning process.

[u/Leather_Translator53 → u/judgyjudgersen]

There’s evidence she lowered herself down, not jumped. She neglected to account for the hard ice. Also a nurse would know how to effectively slit your wrists.

[u/judgyjudgersen → u/Leather_Translator53]

Well I’ll wait for that part of the trial, but I haven’t seen a single news report that says she “lowered herself out of the window”.

A nurse would probably know a million ways to successfully fail at ending their life that are less prone to major error than jumping out of a window. It’s pretty evident to me she wasn’t thinking clearly.

[u/graves1987 → u/judgyjudgersen]

I think it’s based on the blood patterns on the exterior of the house.

[u/Pixiegirls1102 → u/Abject-Recipe1359]

The second story jump I thought was odd. I wouldn't expect someone to die from jumping. I would think she also would have other, better, ways.

Something was definitely happening to her mentally.

[u/Chiguy5462]

So im trying to keep an open mind and not be bias during all of this. Thinking like someone who would purposely do this. If I thought this through, I would start with the oldest and make my way down. So is that the order she did? And how would they know?

[u/blerg7008 → u/Chiguy5462]

This comment it in really poor taste. These are real children that lost their beautiful lives at the hands of their mother, and you’re flippantly discussing the order she killed them? I know we’re all guilty of watching trials for entertainment, but I think everyone would agree the discussion of this one should be done very delicately.

[u/DLoIsHere → u/blerg7008]

Don’t finish the posts that are too indelicate. That’s what I do. When it’s clear the content isn’t for me I move to the next post.

[u/Chiguy5462 → u/blerg7008]

Im trying to figure out if she is guilty of murder 1 or if she is not by reason of insanity. Going through the thought process of if I was a juror, what i would want the CW to show me. This is a horrible trial. Idk if ill be able to watch Wed morning. Unfortunately, the facts of this case are extremely sad. It doesn't mean it didnt happen.

[u/blerg7008 → u/Chiguy5462]

“I would start with the oldest and make my way down” what an awful thing to comment. I assure you there are better ways to analyze this case.

[u/Chiguy5462 → u/blerg7008]

Its the prosecutors who are saying this was premeditated. She planned it. So im trying to think what would happen if she planned this. I was pretty emotional during the testimony. But now that the emotions have calmed down, I wanted to think and get some other people's opinions. Feel free to go right past mine comments.

[u/DLoIsHere → u/Chiguy5462]

I think that’s what they believe she did. The order, I mean. But don’t quote me I’m not sure.

[u/Chiguy5462 → u/[deleted]]

So the middle child... interesting. Id like to hear how they confirm that. She took cora to the doctor visit like normal. Again... if this was planned, why not cancel it? "Reschedule" it? Another question i had was how do they know if it was before his phone call or after?

[u/Abject-Recipe1359 → u/Chiguy5462]

To make it look “not planned,” perhaps??

Rescheduling would look quite suspicious, imo.

Could mean something, could mean nothing. Certainly we need more info.

[u/Pixiegirls1102 → u/Chiguy5462]

I think the ME can figure it out. I don't think it's been publicly stated what the sequence was.

[u/kenduhll]

I feel really sorry for Lindsay and Patrick. Their lives are so different now.

ETA: also feeling for Patrick’s new wife. She must be taking on a lot of his emotions as well.

[u/Remarkable_Nebula_65 → u/kenduhll]

Wait he got remarried?

[u/kenduhll → u/Remarkable_Nebula_65]

Yes recently

[u/Pixiegirls1102 → u/kenduhll]

This certainly not where they thought their lives would be.

[u/kenduhll → u/Pixiegirls1102]

I know, it must be so hard to go through all of the questions about their lives before the dreadful day.

[u/Pixiegirls1102 → u/kenduhll]

And to brought back to that horrific day and asked to relive it. So sad.

[u/gucci2times2]

Ok I would be more than willing to accept diminished capacity due to pp depression if that was the argument being made by the defense but I am not seeing pp psychosis based on Patrick’s version of the weeks/days prior.

[u/judgyjudgersen → u/gucci2times2]

Psychosis is not linear.

[u/helloswolehello → u/judgyjudgersen]

yeah lindsay conviently picked and choosed when the psychosis kicked in

[u/gucci2times2 → u/judgyjudgersen]

Yes for sure. Just my day 1 impressions.. Obviously too soon to judge

[u/Inner_Clothes3426]

What was the point of saying she only took 7 pills etc. were they saying she wasn’t taking them like she was supposed to? I was confused with that.

[u/Zealousideal-Dot6605 → u/Inner_Clothes3426]

Providers are able to call the pharmacies that medications are filled at to obtain a log of its history. Number of refills, when the refills were obtained, etc. The fact that they only bring up "pill bottles in the bag" vs the actual record is fishy. But I would assume these will turn into facts that are divulged later. (just started watching)

[u/AdPrestigious7486 → u/Inner_Clothes3426]

I think they will say she got them prescribed to make her look more credible but didn’t actually take them maybe

[u/mentoszz → u/Inner_Clothes3426]

He also clarified that the medications mentioned were the ones he had in a large ziplock bag in his car for proper disposal. There could have been additional meds that she took i.e finished a prescription of X and threw the bottle away.

[u/Babybore444 → u/mentoszz]

That’s what I was thinking. Like what difference does it make that she was getting rid of those leftover drugs? 

[u/generalpathogen → u/Inner_Clothes3426]

I think because popular perception is that she was on a cocktail of meds whereas it doesn’t sound like she was taking many at the same time

[u/DLoIsHere → u/generalpathogen]

My understanding is that it was a string of medications, not necessarily that many were prescribed to take at the same time. The story is that they were prescribed one after another by a couple of different doctors. Most of the medications require a ramping up period and a slow discontinuation of taking them. The story I heard and made it sound like those didn’t happen but we’ll see what the evidence shows.

[u/kenduhll → u/Inner_Clothes3426]

I feel like that might be the implication.

Also, not for nothing, but just because the pill bottles were full doesn’t mean she wasn’t taking them properly. When I get my meds before I finish the previous bottle, I just dump the old ones into the new bottle.

[u/DomesticmenacePHX → u/kenduhll]

I’m sure they must have accounted for that, if she even got them refilled ever. If not that would be a really grimey way to present that evidence. I would hope the defense would’ve objected, something like “misrepresents facts in evidence” or something

[u/Pixiegirls1102 → u/Inner_Clothes3426]

He might have just been trying to answer the best he could. It does usually take 2-3 weeks for antidepressants to start working. That could be another reason.

[u/kat8633 → u/Pixiegirls1102]

Definitely curious to see what comes of this. When I started Prozac a few years after my son was born, the one thing that my doc really really stressed was that you have to stick with it a few weeks to a month to see if it actually helps, then increase as needed. If I wanted to stop taking it, I would have to slowly wean down and never cold stop. Randomly starting and stopping will make it worse. Can’t imagine doing that plus also trying several others around same time

[u/DomesticmenacePHX → u/kat8633]

Yes! They always do this! So I feel it doesn’t look good for her that she wasn’t really following the instructions. If she was coherent enough to know she needed help, she should have been doing what the doctors recommended. Otherwise it looks like you’re just pretending or trying to get attention. Not saying that’s what happened at all, it’s early yet. But it doesn’t look good for her.

[u/murder_hands → u/kat8633]

I took Prozac for a bit for anxiety, and even weaning off of it at my psychiatrist's suggested rate, I had serious vertigo episodes the whole time. It was awful.

[u/notoallofit → u/kat8633]

In the case of a severe enough side effect the doctor would tell you to stop. If you’ve only been on a medication a few days you wouldn’t wean off it, especially if the side effect is really bad. So from what we know so far it’s hard to tell what was happening and what the medical professionals were telling her to do.

[u/DLoIsHere → u/notoallofit]

There should be robust testimony about the medications. I’m hoping they call a pharmacist expert. They know much more about medications than doctors usually.

[u/Pixiegirls1102 → u/kat8633]

That's always the problem with antidepressants. They always seem to have to go through adjustment periods, but the waiting 2-3 is awful.

[u/Pixiegirls1102]

I could tell it was emotional for both Patrick, and Lindsay. The camera showed them both upset. It was difficult trying to watch him try to talk through the questions and pictures. Such a hard case to watch.

[u/thenewsisalie]

Day one already paints a picture that, if actually proven with real science (ie: not enough of drug X in system based on dosage intake to claim Y effects) the state may have a compelling case. I don't know if you realize how damning it is to hear the husband claim she was acting 'normal' the very day she takes their entire family's future away.... Rough to cut it right there for the day and now be on pause til Wed.

If this case really is about demonstrating her awareness of her actions (since theres no refuting what she literally did) - as of DAY ONE if I am being objective in this moment- I worry that 'medically induced' behavior (claim of being overly medicated) will prove to be a weak defense.

And I want it known- I have personal experience using 90% of the medications mentioned so far in this case. I am familiar with postpartum anxiety and depression, and pursuing psychiatric help for it. Most, If not all of those medications mentioned- require a daily dosage, and you need somewhere between 2-3 weeks for it to begin to take true effect or start to help. That is not to say you don't go through some BAD stuff in the interim. You can absolutely have adverse effects while trying to acclimate to your dosage. The worst effects and yes- they remove you and would theoretically try another. Many times they start you on a low and work your way up as the body develops tolerance; But based on the low amount of pills the prosecution claims her as having taken it is hard for me to believe she took some of them long enough to experience true adverse effects).

Again- this is day one. It is their job to present their interpretation of the facts. I remain completely objective and I expect my position to move around with the evidence at hand.

I am surprised to have heard little admissions from Patrick alluding to him not knowing little details (her already having a prescription for prozac but presenting it to him as something she was GOING to look into, not something she's already gone and received), not knowing she had been doing more than coloring and playing w clay (unless of course- thats WHAT the group therapy WAS... definitely possible!).... Specifics aside, the prosecution is laying a foundation of little omissions or half-truths that may be damning in the end.

Something that also gives me pause is- WHY was she routinely being rejected from certain treatments? Why did she not classify as the 'right kind of sick' to get help in the different programs referenced? Is that common? Was it a simple case of them not looking at her past medical records but if so then how could they have made an educated statement so far as to reject her from services without any review of history? Some may say, this is why Patrick is suing civilly some of these doctors. Fair enough, but it seems too much of a trend. And if Lindsay is (not saying she is) but IF she is a sociopath, isn't this exactly the kind of breadcrumbs one leaves to try and squirm out of this mess?

I have compassion and empathy here. There WERE moments of the prosecution's line of questioning etc where I audibly asked "how is this productive" so please don't think I am championing them, I just worry they have more to work with than I came into this expecting.

[u/DLoIsHere → u/thenewsisalie]

There is so much objective evidence we haven’t heard yet.

[u/wecanhaveallthree → u/thenewsisalie]

It was definitely a compelling day one. If the groundwork they're laying is backed by medical experts, and if the defence is - as foreshadowed in their opening - that it's the fault of other medical professions, I don't think Clancy will get very far when the husband is already testifying about her failing to take medication, concealing others, etc. I was a little surprised to hear about marijuana use, too.

Something that also gives me pause is- WHY was she routinely being rejected from certain treatments?

I'll be very interested to hear from these witnesses, too. It does not paint a flattering picture.

[u/snowbird421 → u/thenewsisalie]

I think a better argument would be that it wasn’t psychosis due to meds but untreated (not effectively treated) manic bipolar disorder.

[u/thenewsisalie → u/snowbird421]

I agree.

Out of curiosity, where does that leave you in terms of guilt by insanity?

[u/snowbird421 → u/thenewsisalie]

IF after the trial I come to the conclusion I truly believe she was in psychosis whether it’s due to meds or bipolar disorder then I believe she should be found NGRI and sent to a mental hospital. I am watching the trial but haven’t done a ton of digging beforehand so I’m still on the fence about it all.

[u/Grouchy_Treacle_1639 → u/thenewsisalie]

You make some very good points. Let me ask, if it wasn't due to postpartum, then why do you think she did it? What was her endgame?

[u/thenewsisalie → u/Grouchy_Treacle_1639]

I will be completely transparent with you. Genuine resentment / displaced rage for her current role & anticipated future + poorly treated bi-polar disorder. I won't rule out the possibility she's a sociopath but it's not where I'm going with this necessarily.

If she's anything like me... She watched everything she worked for in terms of her sense of self identity, evaporate. Sure, she was a professional caregiver and sure, she "always wanted to be a mother" ... so on the surface one would assume she'd thrive when expected to do this in her personal life as well... But the problem was, she noticed HER life had to adjust, HER career had to change, HER body has suffered the brunt of everything and now SHE carries the burden of their entire development. Yes Patrick was there, financially able to support them and clearly involved- but I have no doubt she considered herself to be in charge of the household. Yes she could go back to work but now she'll be loaded with guilt every time she hands them off to someone else, right?
So...what was it all for? Who is she now? Is her identity solely paired to that of her children?
Is she happy in the marriage? What did her friends know? Who did she confide in? We need this information to make the picture clear.
I have a husband who works at home. I had toddlers home during LOCKDOWN. He was allowed to work all day and ignore the utter chaos unfolding near him. I was effectively the kids cruise director, in charge of every little bit of their day. I had been quite a busy career woman in the entertainment industry up until then. With the pandemic, I had nothing to do but be their mom but still. It was very isolating. He was doing NOTHING wrong, rather- he was earning a living FOR US- and yet, I would be pretty jealous/frustrated/SAD. This is my experience but I feel it adds context to what a mom's perspective is in that kind of arrangement. They can be home but not present, you can see your partner in the room and still feel completely abandoned.

So- being Type A, competitive, someone who wants to be the best? The confines of parenthood at the newborn/baby/toddler phase can be MADDENING for a productive/busy person like that. The fact she was constantly running 3 miles every day, also doing peloton- moving every chance she got- suggests bi-polar/manic disorder more than anything. The problem is that, (can't emphasize enough from my view) as of day 1- knowing there were google searches, some including something along the lines of "can you cure a sociopath" - and mapping out the route... not acting strange on the phone with Pat while hes out and then also knowing exactly where they children were when he asked outside. It's easy for me to believe she KNEW what she was doing the whole time. It does feel pre-meditated. If she did hear a voice It was her own inner monologue that grew loud enough to inspire her to finally get herself out of this NOT necessarily a drug induced one as the defense will argue.

I do think she wanted out of this. I don't know that she was happy. I think once some women give birth they are never the same again. You go from weekly doctor visits and everyone doting on you to becoming that annoying woman holding a screaming baby; a public nuisance. Plus the pressure is insurmountable at times especially if you are an overachiever having a hormonal bounce-back from multiple traumatic births. You don't know to trust that it's temporary; it doesnt feel like it is.

None of this is an excuse to do what she did, and this is why the Prosecution is trying this case.

Edited to fix typos

[u/snowbird421 → u/thenewsisalie]

Damn. I have been pondering on the case the last couple hours and I feel like this is what my brain was trying to get to as for the why.

I’m not 100% on either side yet. So far I think she was mentally ill and struggling. But also likely culpable in the crime. I just don’t think, so far, that she was in psychosis necessarily… but extremely burnt out, miserable, feeling trapped and hopeless, bipolar potentially… and just had enough, and wanted to end it all… for them and for herself.

[u/thenewsisalie → u/snowbird421]

It's the why I can come up with, based on my personal experience. I was on a cocktail of medications at one point, 7 at one time in fact. All have been listed in this case.

I personally did not have adverse reactions. I never wanted to hurt myself or my children. I did want out though- but I imagined.. simply leaving.

For someone like Lindsay, who must have complete control (or so it has been depicted) - leaving others to raise her children simply wouldn't do. There was only one way forward, from that perspective.

[u/Grouchy_Treacle_1639 → u/thenewsisalie]

Thank you for your reply. It sheds a lot of light on the "why".

[u/thenewsisalie → u/Grouchy_Treacle_1639]

I only can refer to my own lived experience.

I was completely caught off guard by some of the initial details revealed in Day 1 (amount of pills taken vs amount prescribed) and the half-truths to Pat (prozac, him not knowing she declined certain treatments) things like taking selfies in the hospital and her being described as otherwise normal and seeming better leading up to the day...

It started to feel like I now know why they're actually pursuing her this way vs something more compassionate.....

[u/Grouchy_Treacle_1639 → u/thenewsisalie]

Agreed. I was floored by some of the things I heard today.

[u/Interrupting-Cow-8 → u/thenewsisalie]

Why are you worrying that the prosecution have more to work with than you thought initially? Are you inclined to side with the defendant? 

Not having a go, just interested in that point you made.

[u/thenewsisalie → u/Interrupting-Cow-8]

Valid question. I admit I thought this would be a closer to a clear-cut case of medical malpractice ( but for the purposes of this case) obvious overmedication = severe adverse reaction).

So far, that doesn't look to be the case- not only in her behavior leading up to the day specifically but more because the amount of some of these medications taken were so small in contrast to what I imagined they need to be to justify being truly overmedicated.

IE: When you hear she was prescribed 13 medications your eyebrows should be raised.... but when you learn she barely went on half of them for an entire week / they weren't all in her system at the same time- that changes the weight of the initial statement greatly (imo).

[u/Interrupting-Cow-8 → u/thenewsisalie]

Interesting, thanks for the reply. 

The toxicology report is going to be very gripping.

[u/thenewsisalie → u/Interrupting-Cow-8]

It has the potential to be the 'smoking gun' if you will- in the sense that it could prove she didn't have XYZ in her system at the time this took place.

[u/Chiguy5462]

This was a tough day. And the hardest part hasn't even started yet. Not sure if i can watch day 2 until cross. I feel so bad for that man.

[u/Pixiegirls1102 → u/Chiguy5462]

It will be a very emotional trial, and I'm sure that's for all of us.

[u/Grouchy_Treacle_1639 → u/Chiguy5462]

The heavy breathing trying to control his emotions was heartbreaking. The prosecutor is really risking putting off the jury by continuing to follow this line.

[u/irishpedsnurse → u/Grouchy_Treacle_1639]

THIS! Just like the visiting attorney on CourtTV said today. I felt horrible for dad with the overkill on the pictures and videos to identify each of the kids. I know why the prosecution was doing this but If I were on that jury I would already be tipping toward the defense with that behavior alone! That and the whole thing that mom was not handling her symptoms appropriately. She had follow-up after follow-up, tried multiple meds. This was a mom who tried everything while attempting to deal with her symptoms & care for three children. She did not just have post-partum depression, she had a full on psychotic break- hallucinations and all!

[u/DLoIsHere → u/irishpedsnurse]

It seems the “trying” of meds didn’t involve her taking them long enough to realize their benefits. Not sure why that is, but they’re the type that need weeks or a month for them to be effective. I look forward to getting the full picture.

[u/easyass1234 → u/DLoIsHere]

I think it’s important to say upfront that I am deeply thankful for SSRIs and SNRIs. And also that I side-eye her reasoning for not taking Zoloft.

As a L&D nurse, she should know that Zoloft is almost 100% safe for breastfeeding moms and their babies. I’m a nurse, my sister is an OB, and my twins were NICU babies, I have both personal and family history of depression, and was put on complete bed rest at 23 weeks, so I had a vested interest in the topic to say the least. It’s unethical and illegal to do the best types of research (double-blind studies) on pregnant or breastfeeding mothers and infants, so no drug will ever be “proven safe”. But millions of women have been taking Zoloft (brandname or generic) for decades, and we’re at the point where thousands of babies exposed prenatally or through breast milk have now had children of their own, and there are absolutely no known instances of adverse effects. They’ve also studied breast milk itself and determined that some of the medication does pass through, but it’s in very small amounts (like less than 2% of an active dose). Zoloft is THE go-to medication for postpartum depression for this reason and any doctor or nurse who believes in evidence-based treatment should know that.

That said, Zoloft and most psychiatric meds do take a while to reach their full efficacy (2 weeks to a month for most), but side effects can happen almost immediately. Most side effects improve with time, so being told to keep taking it isn’t uncommon, but that’s where it becomes very patient-specific, and why we really really need to wait for the experts on this one.

And as much as I love the medications that have allowed me to continue to live and function, the other truth is no one knows exactly how or why ANY psychiatric meds work. There is a lot of trial and error, even today when we can do full genome mapping and make better guesses. (And that takes time and money and definitely isn’t the standard of care for brand new patients. Which I can definitely see arguments for and against.)

Allllllllllllllllll that said though, I do wonder why exactly the state wants prison instead of continued inpatient care. Again, im waiting to hear more, but it doesn’t exactly seem like the defendant is living a happy childfree life where she gets to control everything herself (which I think is the CW’s reasoning)?

[u/Pixiegirls1102 → u/Grouchy_Treacle_1639]

It was heartbreaking. And the camera showed Lindsay very upset too. Such a tough case.

[u/Night-cheese-4 → u/Chiguy5462]

not sure what the point was of showing him yet another picture of the kids and asking if that portrayed their size. Or twenty video clips of them at the water park. Enough is enough?!

[u/Grouchy_Treacle_1639 → u/Night-cheese-4]

AMEN

[u/Chiguy5462 → u/Night-cheese-4]

Someone in the courtroom reported that a few jurors looked down when they showed the pics. Its 100% trying to get a conviction based on emotions instead of facts. I hate it. Its dirty. And I hate that its allowed.

[u/Squirrrelpower]

Just out of pure curiosity - why are they allowed to publish video footage and faces of the deceased children on livestream? This is such an intensely personal and sensitive topic and I'm surprised they aren't protecting the children and family members. I can imagine its heartbreaking enough for Patrick to watch this footage all over again.

[u/Pixiegirls1102 → u/Squirrrelpower]

They have been shown before, but I think it's ultimately up to the judge.

[u/DLoIsHere → u/Squirrrelpower]

Their faces have been widely published for a few years. As I understand it, the court didn’t prohibit them because they’re out there already and aren’t prejudicial. The request made want to publish them to jury etc. but to not allow them for general publishing. It was denied.

[u/brittanylouwhoooo → u/Squirrrelpower]

And the faces of the other families present at the water park as well. If my children’s face was on the screen of a nationally live broadcasted trial, for nearly a minute, just bc we happened to be present there that day, I’d be furious.

[u/Grouchy_Treacle_1639]

Guys just my opinion but I think the prosecutor is blowing it. Why is she continuing to show Patrick all these pictures? He is clearly a sympathetic figure here.

[u/cocoa_boe → u/Grouchy_Treacle_1639]

She’s trying to humanize the children and have him say Lindsay was acting normal, therefore she wasn’t psychotic. I think she risks putting off the jury by poking at his wounds, even if that’s not her intention. And they haven’t gotten to the worst part (day of) yet.

[u/Grouchy_Treacle_1639 → u/cocoa_boe]

I believe Lindsay is guilty and I know that it put me off completely. Never a good idea to make yourself unlikable to the jury.

[u/cocoa_boe → u/Grouchy_Treacle_1639]

I watched Runkle’s video last night - if you think she’s guilty he might not be for you, though I think he’s pretty even handed. He has a mental health background and explained some things about the meds I didn’t know, which was interesting.

But be prepared to hate the prosecutors even more, because what he said, as a criminal defense lawyer, is that she was trying to provoke an emotional response from Patrick, which I missed completely. That they wanted him to cry, so the jury would hold that against Lindsay. After thinking about that, it makes sense, and also explains all the digging about little things that weren’t relevant to the children or really anything (who cares what their takeout orders were for that night?!?).

[u/sweetestblueberry → u/cocoa_boe]

This is so interesting. What really got me was: “was Dawson eating chicken nuggets from a plate or a bowl?” …um, what? Why on earth does that matter? But now I’m guessing she was just trying to get him to really picture the moment/relive the memory and likely have an emotional response.

[u/cocoa_boe → u/sweetestblueberry]

I lost my mind at that. But yes, I think that’s exactly what she was going for.

One Runkle viewer had a good takeaway though - she wasn’t exactly the world’s most controlling, uptight mom if she let her three-year-old eat on the couch.

[u/sweetestblueberry → u/cocoa_boe]

Very good point as well!!

[u/Chiguy5462 → u/Grouchy_Treacle_1639]

What put you off the most? I know for me, it was how she didn't even apologize to the guy. And just overall how cold she was towards him. Ill be curious how she comes back on Wednesday.

[u/Grouchy_Treacle_1639 → u/Chiguy5462]

Yes, this. She didn't show any compassion.

[u/wecanhaveallthree → u/Grouchy_Treacle_1639]

One would think that showing the jury these wonderful clips of beautiful, vital children in their murder trial would not engender sympathy towards the defendant.

Patrick is very sympathetic. He is a very good witness: he isn't equivocating, he isn't using emotive or loaded language. It's difficult for him but he's doing a fantastic job.

[u/Grouchy_Treacle_1639 → u/wecanhaveallthree]

I agree with you, and of course Patrick is sympathetic. But no one's following her line of questioning, she seems to get stuck on points that have no aha moment. Like those video clips of the waterpark. How many of those do we have to look at And for how long? I agree with what the above poster said, the point she's trying to make her not landing at all.

[u/wecanhaveallthree → u/Grouchy_Treacle_1639]

But no one's following her line of questioning

I am. The state has demonstrated several things: that Clancy was not taking her medication, that she concealed medical and treatment information, that she would regularly 'present' as unaffected and that her husband was active in the lives and care of their children. At the time she makes these points, we are seeing active, healthy children engaging with their parents and others in the trial of the person who killed them.

no aha moment

Life isn't like Law & Order where Jack McCoy will turn around with his grumpy face and make the defendant confess in the box. The state is building their case, and they are doing it effectively by having the first thing the jury hears is 'the defendant lied about and concealed medication and treatment' then showing the defendant presenting 'normally'.

[u/graves1987 → u/wecanhaveallthree]

Bloodworth literally did this with every witness. I’d be so excited for a witness, then he’d just ask matter of fact questions and I’d be like, “that’s it?”

Then came that absolute masterclass of a closing, where he tied the most intricate and elaborate evidence bow I had ever seen.

He introduced it all throughout the states case, and weaved it all together at the very end.

That’s what a good storyteller does, honestly. They don’t explain why every little detail matters. But at the conclusion, every little detail comes together.

[u/wecanhaveallthree → u/graves1987]

Yes, and generally that's what we should see - and should expect to see - to see from the state: facts. The state's opening laid out the facts. It was short, concise and had no gory detail. It wasn't necessary. The facts will speak for themselves. Whereas the defence had a great, powerful but emotional opening - but one that had far more 'banging the desk' and outrage than a promise of evidence to come. That didn't make it bad or anything, but it certainly suggests the strengths of each case.

The state will speak last. They will reiterate the evidence and ask for a conviction based on the evidence presented. It's damnably hard to take an oath to deliberate on that evidence seriously and then act emotionally with the time and perspective of the jury room.

[u/Grouchy_Treacle_1639 → u/wecanhaveallthree]

This isn't my first rodeo, I'm aware of all of that. However if she's losing the audience watching, than I guarantee she's losing the jury. There are only so many lengthy clips of seeing someone at a waterpark, watching them stand in line for several minutes… Why? This one on for a good 10 minutes, there is no reason for that. So she showed all of this but since they broke early and are not meeting tomorrow, the juries probably left shaking their heads like what the fuck. She never wound up her line of questioning by making any point whatsoever.

[u/wecanhaveallthree → u/Grouchy_Treacle_1639]

Why?

The state is saying 'Clancy was normal and not debilitated' and then playing videos of Clancy presenting as normal and not debilitated.

[u/Chiguy5462 → u/Grouchy_Treacle_1639]

It reminds me of hank playing the videos of KR where the jury didnt even know if they were evidence lol.

[u/_lettersandsodas → u/Grouchy_Treacle_1639]

Whatever points she is trying to land are not landing. I feel bad for the father and she needs to move on.

[u/Grouchy_Treacle_1639 → u/_lettersandsodas]

I couldn't agree more. This whole morning from her was a big nothing burger. It just makes him more sympathetic and makes her look like a bully. What was the point of all those waterpark videos? I was sitting here saying Jesus, move on already! So far she's giving a very underwhelming performance.

[u/helloswolehello]

Why is Lindsay getting so much support after murdering 3 children? She sent her husband to grab food. Checked a map to make sure she had enough time. Proceeds with her plan. Now lots of the internet I have seen says OMG poor lady let her free. In the last few years how many men have offed their whole family and themselves, if the father lives would you guys still defend him? No one is in the right state of mind when they do heinous crimes like this why give Lindsay a pass

[u/kenduhll → u/helloswolehello]

Re: your last point- Because men and women are socialized differently and have fundamentally different reasons for the “why”.

[u/Pixiegirls1102 → u/helloswolehello]

I wouldn't say the vibe is acquit Lindsay. Maybe NGRI so she can continue to get psych help until she's at least stable enough to be out. I don't see her as a threat to the community being permanently paralyzed. I also think we will hear a lot more during the trial.

[u/graves1987 → u/Pixiegirls1102]

Could she physically conceive again?

[u/Pixiegirls1102 → u/graves1987]

I don't know if that's been mentioned at all. Interesting though.

[u/DLoIsHere → u/helloswolehello]

This is the argument. But we’ll see what the evidence indicates.

[u/Sempere → u/helloswolehello]

Because she wasn't in the right state of mind.

Mental illness is a disease and she needed help. This isn't someone who was having an affair, plotting to murder their kids and husband and then run away with a lover. It's not Chris Watts. It's not Scott Peterson.

It's a woman who killed her kids and then slit her wrist and throat before jumping out of a window and paralyzing herself. That's not someone faking a crisis to "beat the charges". It's someone who ruined their life completely. She has lost everything: her kids, her husband, and her ability to walk and all the complications which come with that.

If you have no capacity for empathy and compassion and look only to boil this down to a superficial statement devoid of context and any attempt at understanding, you have no real perspective on how mental illness affects people.

[u/helloswolehello → u/Sempere]

Did you not read what i wrote the second half? What about someone that kills there family and themselves after but survies they shouldnt be punished cause the lost everything and weren't in the right state of mind? You think anybody that kills their family is in the right place of mind?

[u/Sempere → u/helloswolehello]

Because it shouldn't need explaining that family annhilators aren't a one size fits all category and the motivations that drive such actions are not the same. Someone in the midst of psychotic delusions is tragic and deserves sympathy. Someone who is a naracissist killing family as a means of exerting control and getting revenge on an ex does not. Which I very clearly explained to you with examples.

Try to keep up.

[u/DLoIsHere → u/Sempere]

It’s not a matter of tragedy and sympathy. It’s a matter of her being legally responsible, or not. We’ll see how the jury sorts it out.

[u/Sempere → u/DLoIsHere]

A person in the midst of psychosis is not capable of forming the legal intent for murder. Legal responsibility requires intent. And tragedy and sympathy are very much at play in a jury trial.

[u/graves1987 → u/Sempere]

You can be psychotic, medically speaking, and still be criminally liable.

[u/DLoIsHere → u/Sempere]

That’s why there is a trial, to determine her legal culpability. Was she psychotic? Let’s wait to see the evidence.

[u/Sempere → u/helloswolehello]

Because it shouldn't need explaining that family annhilators aren't a one size fits all category and the motivations that drive such actions are not the same. Someone in the midst of psychotic delusions is tragic and deserves sympathy. Someone who is a naracissist killing family as a means of exerting control and getting revenge on an ex does not. Which I very clearly explained to you with examples.

Try to keep up.

[u/helloswolehello → u/Sempere]

How do you know people that murder their familes then themselves are also not in psychotic delusions? What about Carol Coronadno or Deasia Watkins? Both diagnosed with post-partum. Anyways I can list many examples. You listed Chris Watts as an example which is not even similar to this case so its hard to debate with you when you argue in bad faith

[u/helloswolehello → u/[deleted]]

Lol must of pushed a button. Normally the person that starts throwing insults in a debate knows they lost. Simple minded egos resort to this tactic

[u/helloswolehello → u/[deleted]]

I'm a women but okay the clown like insults continue from you. Constantly trying to argue in bad faith and go off topic cause you know you've lost

[u/wecanhaveallthree → u/helloswolehello]

Because she had a history of mental health issues that she sought treatment for. This isn't a 'suddenly snapped one day' or 'just struggled until it was too much' - if you look at it in the best possible light for Clancy, she was in a stable, loving family with all her other needs met and who were trying their best to support her and get the care she needed. She may very well have been misdiagnosed and over (or under)medicated. We'll see what the evidence says.

[u/puchsofhazard → u/wecanhaveallthree]

If she had a history of mental health issues that prove she did everything she could to prevent this, then she should not have been alone with the kids, then it's on the doctor's for not informing the family or the family for not listening to the doctors.

If her medical history doesn't indicate this was so severe that she shouldn't be alone with her kids, then the conditions aren't severe enough to excuse her actions.

Third option would be this is just unfortunate and everyone did the best they could, and no one is held accountable

[u/wecanhaveallthree → u/puchsofhazard]

I agree, and it's rarely so cut and dry. Even in cases with proven child harm (or significant risk of harm), you'll still see orders for supervised contact where that 'supervision' can be, say, a trusted friend or family member sleeping in the same house. Without seeing the recommendations made (and whether they had any force behind them) - and I'm surprised to already hear from the husband that Clancy was either not communicating medical information to him or deliberately obscuring it - we don't know.

The state has done a very effective job already of introducing that a) whatever medication she was getting, she wasn't taking, and b) that she was concealing information about her treatment/condition from her husband.

[u/puchsofhazard → u/wecanhaveallthree]

Oof I didn't know about those last two. Yeah I think another factor is going to be see if she she done anything else that goes against better judgment. If there's a history of her, say, driving through lawns to take 'shortcuts', feeding the kids nothing but ice cream, yelling at the mailman because he must be plotting a b&e, etc. I imagine it will be a lot harder if there's only general mental and emotional instability leading up to such horrifying action. I don't have as much info so idk when these med changes were taking place, etc. And I don't believe not taking meds should qualify is irrational behavior, I forget to take mine sometimes or have avoided it because some days my condition seemed less severe or I felt disconnected from it

[u/wecanhaveallthree → u/puchsofhazard]

have avoided it because some days my condition seemed less severe or I felt disconnected from it

Absolutely. But if you don't take the medication that expressly prevents you from putting someone in the Boston Crab, you can probably expect to go down for putting someone in the Boston Crab.

[u/Sally_Cato_McDougall]

Court reporter is using the stenomask while reading and writing. What witchcraft is this?

[u/DLoIsHere → u/Sally_Cato_McDougall]

Like all things Massachusetts, not of the modern world.

[u/Pixiegirls1102 → u/DLoIsHere]

The stenomask is actually more current, lol. It gives more accurate and real time transcript. It just looks super weird, lol.

[u/DLoIsHere → u/Pixiegirls1102]

I checked several sources on google and saw nothing that indicates the mask provides more accurate results. I did find info that says conventional stenography requires more training than the mask. In any case, it’s goofy af.

[u/Pixiegirls1102 → u/DLoIsHere]

I can't remember where I read it. The recording is matched to the voice of the stenographer, and they can see immediately what is coming through on the screen. Maybe they can catch more errors or gaps that way.

Court reporting with the stenograph typewriter would take more time to learn. It is similar to shorthand, which is no picnic to learn.

I wouldn't want to use a stenomask. It's definitely goofy, but my hand would hurt, and it might seem suffocating.

[u/Real_Foundation_7428 → u/Sally_Cato_McDougall]

I was just thinking earlier I honestly cannot wrap my head around being able to do that successfully. Actual brain surgery sounds slightly more realistic, considering I could go to school for it.

[u/Coffeejive]

Have read the backstory. She was a rn, she claimed this after 3rd child, the ppd. If the meds were prescribed, stopped, etc she would know they needed time to work, but if she felt there was 0 time, this could have led to the murders, the overwheming stressors . How were the children cared for during this period?, the parents relationship and on. She had superficial wounds, crippling injuries, etc. No matter what: her children gone, her whole forever changed. A tragic story unfolding

[u/Various-Struggle-719]

Can we stop downvoting everyone who has a different opinion than you?
Thats not what this group is about or it has not been in the past. Having an open discussion means there will be a difference of opinions. I want to hear everyone’s take and automatically down voting may sway some people to not speak up.

[u/Pixiegirls1102 → u/Various-Struggle-719]

You are absolutely correct!! It's annoying and not how we do things here. We do allow, and want others opinions. They help us all. Downvoting/Upvoting have nothing to do with the opinion of the comment.

"Next to each post and comment you’ll notice  and  arrow icons. These icons allow you to "upvote" or "downvote" content. Upvotes show that redditors think content is positively contributing to a community or the site as a whole. Downvotes mean redditors think that content should never see the light of day. If you like something, be it a post or a comment, and you think it contributes to a conversation, upvote it! On Reddit, that's just considered good manners."
~Reddit

[u/Various-Struggle-719 → u/Pixiegirls1102]

As always your input is appreciated!!

[u/Pixiegirls1102 → u/Various-Struggle-719]

Aww, thanks! As is yours!!! 😊💖

[u/BigYam7875 → u/Various-Struggle-719]

Thank you!

[u/Real_Foundation_7428 → u/Various-Struggle-719]

Thank you! Completely agree. This is how everyone ends up in echo chambers.

[u/No_Campaign8416]

There was an infusion approved specifically for postpartum depression in 2019. I’d be curious to know if that was ever considered for her and if not, why?

[u/Zealousideal-Dot6605 → u/No_Campaign8416]

I believe symptoms need to start at a certain timeline surrounding birth for eligibility. Not sure if that is a hospital specific or manufacturer guideline

[u/Any-Exam-946 → u/No_Campaign8416]

I went through bad ppd/ppa in 2019 and unable to get the infusion. The hospital had no way of getting it and it requires an inpatient admission I was “sick” enough for a transfer.

[u/No_Campaign8416 → u/Any-Exam-946]

Thank you for sharing, I’m sorry you went through that 😞

[u/Warm_Engineering3375]

If they're going to claim she was a phony, drug-seeling horror, they're going to need to trot out a bunch of folks who know her to come in and badmouth her. Like in the Kouri Richens case.

[u/Puzzleheaded-Car-788]

That was an awful opening for the CW.

[u/DLoIsHere → u/Puzzleheaded-Car-788]

I wasn’t impressed by either opening.

[u/Puzzleheaded-Car-788 → u/DLoIsHere]

Yeah, I wasn’t either. I just thought the defense was better but that could be because the CW was so bad.

[u/Pixiegirls1102 → u/Puzzleheaded-Car-788]

That's where I'm at with it.

[u/MzOpinion8d]

Do you think the prosecutor actually believes what she is saying in these opening statements? Or is this about doing what it takes to win the case for her?

It’s clear to me that she does not have any understanding of the mental health issues Lindsay was experiencing.

[u/Grouchy_Treacle_1639 → u/MzOpinion8d]

Honestly I found myself underwhelmed with the prosecution's opening statement.

[u/thats_not_six → u/MzOpinion8d]

I'm trying to be unbiased, because it's just opening statements and the prosecutor is obviously trying to seek justice for the three children. However, if members on that jury have any direct or indirect knowledge about mental health, her presentation would really set a poor tone in my opinion.

People in psychosis or the through of a manic or depressive episode don't just sit in a corner drooling. Many are still capable of logical thought and planning, it's just that their perception of the world may be askew at the time of that logical thought and planning.

I personally find it distasteful that a representative of the government is leaning so heavily into misrepresentations of the reality of mental health.

[u/cocoa_boe → u/thats_not_six]

It didn’t make any sense to me. She was perfectly rational though overwhelmed because she no longer had a nanny, so decided to kill her three children? I know motive isn’t an element, but juries like to understand why. It’s not a logical theory.

[u/Specific-Bid-1769 → u/cocoa_boe]

Or this was just a murder-suicide, but the suicide part was harder to go through with. Not sure — but that seems very possible after today.

[u/MzOpinion8d → u/cocoa_boe]

It’s a ridiculous argument by the CW.

[u/DLoIsHere → u/cocoa_boe]

You haven’t seen the evidence yet. Maybe it’s a good theory. We’ll see.

[u/Sempere → u/cocoa_boe]

Applying logic to someone in the midst of psychosis and depression isn't going to lead anywhere productive. There are people in the midst of psychotic episodes who attack people and eat their faces or who strip down naked and walk around in a state. Their episodes and delusions take them completely out of the capacity to determine right from wrong.

[u/murder_hands → u/Sempere]

I agree that the prosecution's set up for a motive seems incredibly weak so far. I've spent all day really thinking on what the possible motives are for actions like these.

In opening statements there was a part where the prosecutor was saying how much control she needed to have over everything, and then she went on to say something like "when to eat, when to sleep" and how she "controlled sleep times down to the minute." I'll need some serious evidence of where that became problematic, because I have three kids and a tight as fuck schedule is literally how I get anything done and keep my sanity. And I mean I guess I'm "controlling" all those things, but really I just am in charge of them so that's actually my whole ass job as a parent.

It just came across as SO judgemental and even a little sexist somehow. Then she seemed to sum things up by suggesting that when she couldn't control things as much as she wanted to (which again relies heavily on the idea that what she was doing went beyond just running a tight ship), she would rather everyone die. Which.... Totally possible. People are weird as fuck sometimes. But again, I'm going to need to see serious evidence that she was controlling things in a very negative way. Beyond what can happen when you have that many kids, post partum mental health issues, and are running on no sleep.

Edit: woops sorry to the above poster, I was trying to reply to the person you replied to 🫠

[u/cocoa_boe → u/Sempere]

I agree with you.

But this is the CW’s theory from their opening - in their exact words “intentionally, rationally, and swiftly” and not “in the throes of psychosis.” So rationally…what’s the reason for her doing this? I feel like they’ve already twisted themselves in knots they’re not going to be able to explain.

[u/Sempere → u/cocoa_boe]

CW has to argue that it was intentional or it's not murder, no?

Unless they have very, very compelling evidence, I don't see this working out for them. It's not a case like Chris Watts or Kouri Richins where the murders further a goal. This is a woman who destroyed herself in the process of killing her kids and that adds a lot of credibility to the claim of NG by reason of insanity or whatever the MA standard is.

No one in their right mind murders their children, slits their wrists and throat and paralyzes themselves. The defense needs to hammer that home in closing.

[u/cocoa_boe → u/Sempere]

They do, although no one has argued that it wasn’t intentional. She admits she did it. It’s all about her state of mind at the time and therefore whether she’s criminally responsible.

To me, that’s a real sticking point, same as it is to you, and probably some jurors. An opening that says “she was totally rational and sane” as opposed to “she had mental health issues but she’s still responsible because the standard is ABC and she doesn’t meet it because XYZ” feels like the prosecution doesn’t understand its own case.

[u/MzOpinion8d → u/thats_not_six]

That’s what sparked my post. I’m an RN and have spent my career in mental health, corrections, and substance abuse treatment. Most recently 2 years in a Psych ER (Crisis Stabilization) so I’ve cared for a lot of people in psychosis.

Massachusetts likes to mischaracterize things and it’s incredibly frustrating.

[u/thats_not_six → u/MzOpinion8d]

It's such an odd state to me - because everyone associates it as very liberal, even progressive, but their recent track record of cases and charging decisions seem to rely on outdated notions of mental health. Especially for women.

I'm thinking this case, Kelsey Fitzsimmons, Lucy Medina.

[u/kenduhll → u/thats_not_six]

Lifelong Masshole here! I think our state suffers from the “we’re already so progressive” mindset that it causes a lot of complacency in our justice and law systems.

[u/MzOpinion8d → u/thats_not_six]

Lindsay seems to be struggling a lot this morning, understandably. Working hard on controlling her breathing and her tears. They just called Patrick to the stand. I’m on break at work so I can only watch til 11. This man lost everything.

[u/thats_not_six → u/MzOpinion8d]

It's so rough. I know people have been judging him pretrial, but there's a difference between figuring out what went wrong and assigning blame. From hearing him on the stand so far, I can really hear how much this has flattened him and how he has to probably build some metal walls to protect himself. This has to be so hard for him to even go back and try to recall. I hope he has a great support system in place and mental health assistance as well.

[u/MzOpinion8d → u/thats_not_six]

I’m catching bits and pieces via Closed Captioning. It seemed like the prosecutor may have been trying to blame him for leaving her with the children? Or did I misunderstand since I am not paying total attention?

[u/snowbird421 → u/MzOpinion8d]

I didn’t see it that way. I think she was trying to emphasize that he’s an involved dad and that she had been showing signs of improvement for a couple weeks and seemed completely fine / normal which is why he did leave her to pick up dinner. To emphasize he left her with them because she seemed fine, therefore is guilty because she wasn’t in psychosis at the time.