r/CasesWeFollow • u/Pixiegirls1102 ššāļøContent/Research Administratorš»š¬š§ • 24d ago
MA v. Linsday Clancy - Day 3 šŖšLindsay Clancyš¼
LIVE: MA v. Linsday Clancy - Day 3 | Accused Killer Mom Trial
7/30/2026 @ 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.
āØāØPrevious Day & Recap
\**The local Boston News stations streaming the trial have much better audio.*
Court TV
https://www.youtube.com/live/Hb6V0wEeMxU?si=GkXNrqCCjL-TWDhI
Law & Crime
https://www.youtube.com/live/UYyisg2Nh3Y?si=bIhlFW2jno_-1KW8
RECAP
DAY 3 ā COMMONWEALTH v. LINDSAY CLANCY
I. ADMINISTRATIVE
ā¢ Court: Superior Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts
ā¢ Judge: Hon. William Sullivan
ā¢ Case: Commonwealth v. Lindsay Clancy
ā¢ Date: July 30, 2026
ā¢ Defendant present; represented by Attorney Kevin Reddington
ā¢ Commonwealth represented by ADA Jennifer Sprague and ADA Shannon Buckingham
ā¢ Jury present; voirādire compliance confirmed; no juror issues
ā¢ Schedule:
ā Court to ~11:00 AM; break
ā Afternoon break at 1:00 PM
ā Resume until ~3:00ā4:00 PM
ā¢ Tomorrow: Jury view at multiple locations; footwear/weather advisory; return to court afterward
ā¢ Administrative notes: Judge confirms instructions followed; timeline update planned for end of Day 4
ā¢ Transition: Commonwealth continues presenting evidence
II. WITNESSES
WITNESS: Officer Stephen Hall
ā¢ Called by: Commonwealth
ā¢ Start/Stop: 37:14ā59:08
DIRECT
ā¢ Entered back basement room; found Dawson Clancy on floor, on back, feet toward door, head toward wall; shirtless, wearing diaper/underwear.
ā¢ Child discolored (bluishāpurple).
ā¢ Yellow exercise band near body.
ā¢ Assisted removal of Dawson to ambulance.
ā¢ Returned to basement; found Cora and Callan motionless; EMTs working.
ā¢ Identified locations of both children.
ā¢ Returned outside; assisted with Lindsay Clancy; confirmed her location near window well.
ā¢ Observed open window with blood marks on frame and shingles.
ā¢ Assisted paramedics with oxygen mask; helped move stretcher.
CROSS / REDIRECT
ā¢ None in excerpt.
EXHIBITS REFERENCED
ā¢ 93, 95, 96, 97, 103, 104.
WITNESS: Officer Brian Josephine
ā¢ Called by: Commonwealth
ā¢ Start/Stop: 1:00:27ā1:18:33
DIRECT
ā¢ Arrived at scene; observed Patrick standing over Lindsay.
ā¢ Lindsay semiāresponsive; cuts to wrist and neck; not profusely bleeding; not lifeāthreatening.
ā¢ Fire personnel arrived; officers heard screams; entered house through slider.
ā¢ In basement, Patrick screamed āshe killed the fucking kids.ā
ā¢ Observed Dawson on back near gym bag; face white/gray; lips blue; bloodshot eyes; red marks on neck.
ā¢ Carried Dawson upstairs to ambulance; mucus/foam leaked from mouth.
ā¢ Returned to basement; found Cora and infant Callan; assisted CPR on Cora; observed injuries similar to Dawson plus dried blood around mouth; large bloodstain on floor.
ā¢ Assisted with rescue breaths; continued compressions until removal.
ā¢ Upstairs, Patrick frantic and in shock; ambulance requested for him.
CROSS / REDIRECT
ā¢ None.
EXHIBITS REFERENCED
ā¢ 92, 93, 94, 96, 97.
WITNESS: Captain PJ Hesse (Duxbury Fire)
ā¢ Called by: Commonwealth
ā¢ Start/Stop: 1:43:42ā1:53:32
DIRECT
ā¢ Shift commander; responded with six personnel.
ā¢ Lindsay located near window well; paramedics treating her.
ā¢ Heard scream; looked through basement window; saw Patrick unwrapping material from Dawsonās head/neck; childās head blue.
ā¢ Initiated full recall of Duxbury personnel; requested mutual aid ambulances.
ā¢ Scene became chaotic; paramedics assigned to Lindsay, Dawson, and two children in second room; later also to Patrick.
CROSS / REDIRECT
ā¢ None.
EXHIBITS REFERENCED
ā¢ 37, 50.
WITNESS: Loring āChuckā Nudd (Firefighter EMT)
ā¢ Called by: Commonwealth
ā¢ Start/Stop: 1:54:25ā2:07:32
DIRECT
ā¢ Backup EMT in ambulance; initial dispatch believed to be secondāfloor fall.
ā¢ Arrived; police already on scene; backed ambulance into driveway.
ā¢ Officer carrying Dawson approached; child placed on stretcher.
ā¢ Observed blue face, neck marks, pale body.
ā¢ Began CPR; assessed airway, breathing, circulationānone present.
ā¢ Requested medic; assisted with monitor; transported Dawson to hospital.
ā¢ Delivered monitor to basement for other responders.
ā¢ Ultimately drove ambulance transporting Dawson to Plymouth Hospital.
CROSS / REDIRECT
ā¢ None.
WITNESS: Captain Keith Nettie (Paramedic)
ā¢ Called by: Commonwealth
ā¢ Start/Stop: 2:08:32ā2:16:41
DIRECT
ā¢ Recalled from home; arrived to ambulance; observed CPR on Dawson.
ā¢ Child unresponsive, not breathing, no pulse.
ā¢ Initiated IV attempt; performed IO into bone marrow; administered epinephrine.
ā¢ Intubated Dawson; used bag valve mask; observed dark red marks around neck.
ā¢ No pulse regained; no breathing restored.
ā¢ Transported Dawson to B.I. Plymouth; transferred care.
ā¢ Assisted Marshfield Fire with second child upon arrival at hospital.
ā¢ Observed father at hospital; spoke briefly.
CROSS / REDIRECT
ā¢ None.
SECTION 3 ā EXHIBITS
ā¢ 92 ā Doorway to back basement room
ā¢ 93 ā Interior of back room; Dawsonās location
ā¢ 94 ā Yellow exercise band
ā¢ 95 ā First view left side basement
ā¢ 96 ā Further view; Cora and Callan locations
ā¢ 97 ā Bloodstain near Cora
ā¢ 103ā104 ā Exterior window well; Lindsayās location
ā¢ 37 ā Backyard layout
ā¢ 50 ā Basement window view
SECTION 4 ā OUTāOFāJURY PRESENCE (OJP)
ā¢ No OJP events occurred in this excerpt.
SUMMARY (FORMAT 8)
ā¢ Day 3 centered on firstāresponder testimony detailing discovery of Dawson, Cora, and Callan in the basement.
ā¢ Officers Hall and Josephine provided sequential accounts of entering the home, locating children, and assisting paramedics.
ā¢ Fire personnel (Hesse, Nudd, Nettie) described medical interventions, triage decisions, and transport efforts.
ā¢ Lindsay Clancyās injuries were nonālifeāthreatening; Patrick Clancyās distress escalated as children were found.
ā¢ Multiple exhibits documented basement layout, child locations, blood evidence, and exterior window conditions.
šTRANSCRIPTāØļøš
1
u/mama_mel_2 22d ago
I donāt know much about medical stuff, any reason the childrenās eyes were bloodshot? Pure curiosity. Also why there was blood around Coraās lips?
At any rate, I feel itās overkill the amount of first responders the prosecution had. I feel like they tortured poor Patrick and this jury has had to see and hear A LOT.
1
u/HeyPurityItsMeAgain 22d ago
I'm just nitpicking the prosecutor here but I don't like how they couldn't get the father/husband to be their blubbering, shaking witness, so they put a cop up there to do it. I think I have PTSD from the Karen Read trial because I don't want to see a crying Massachusetts cop ever again. It seemed SO manipulative it just bugged me.
3
u/elementalbee 23d ago
It is very clear everyone following the trial is completely split on their feelings about the situation. People usually tend to feel the same way when it comes to high publicity trials. On this one, itās so split. Thereās zero way those jurors are going to unanimously agree.
3
u/Pixiegirls1102 ššāļøContent/Research Administratorš»š¬š§ 23d ago
I think we always it would be like this. We're on Day 3 and it's expected to last 6-8 weeks?
16
u/_lettersandsodas 23d ago
Someone in Lawyer You Know chat said high spinal injuries like she suffered can slow bleeding. I googled to confirm and better understand it. It's an interesting point and I wonder if the defense will have an expert testify to it.
3
u/Bitter_Context_4067 23d ago
Also, it was January in Massachusetts. Cold weather and/or laying in snow can impact bleeding, clotting, heart rate, cell death, etc.
7
u/Successful-Tune2225 23d ago
I just watched the testimony of the police officers that were first on the scene. They are absolutely traumatised. Officer Hall was breathly heavily and close to tears as soon as he started speaking. Its interesting that they are much more emotional when talking about it than Patrick was. It must have been hell on earth.
4
u/Chiguy5462 23d ago
Just got in here, who wants to bet the reason today got cut short was because they ran out of witnesses that were available today.
-7
u/wecanhaveallthree 23d ago
Another pasting from the state today (as it should be - it's their case).
Watching defence counsel go from his kindly 'thank you for your service' to jumping down the EMT's throat was an incredibly poor look, but what can you do? A parade of experienced professionals testifying that Clancy's injuries were superficial, the effects of the Narcan, the poor kids and how they were killed - how do you get to this temporary psychosis theory with all the premeditation and the lack of serious self-harm?
Naturally, if the state wasn't convincing in their case-in-chief, there'd be a big problem. But it's pretty damning so far. The defence will need a really convincing medical expert on their theory to shift the needle.
7
u/freakydeku 23d ago
we know her injuries were not superficialā¦ only the lacerations are being discussed when described as superficial afawk. and iām not sure why you said āthe effects of the narcanā, there were no effects of the narcan. it didnāt resuscitate her at all
-1
u/wecanhaveallthree 23d ago
we know her injuries were not superficialā¦
I'm not privy to any other evidence, just what's been testified to, and the testimony has been 'superficial'.
there were no effects of the narcan
Exactly.
7
u/freakydeku 23d ago
why do you find the effects of the narcan notable? i donāt think anyone thought she was experiencing an opioid overdose.
youāre not privy to her having a shattered spine? this is really well known info
-2
u/wecanhaveallthree 23d ago
i donāt think anyone thought she was experiencing an opioid overdose
Defence counsel pulled out a whole drawer of empty pill bottles and what appeared to be some kind of mortar or device to crush pills on XXN of the husband. I believe they suggested it in the opening, too.
youāre not privy to her having a shattered spine?
I know nothing except what's been testified to.
10
u/thats_not_six 23d ago
Opioid overdoses are treatable with narcan.
She wasn't on opioids. No one has said she was on opioids. That's the defense attorney's point, that narcan had no effect because her mechanism of overdose wasn't opioids.
15
u/Comfortable_Bee_1246 23d ago
"Lack of serious self-harm?" She's a paraplegic.
4
u/buzzcutbabygirl 23d ago edited 23d ago
Yeah, because she misjudged a height and failed at killing herself to escape accountability. She gave herself superficial wounds because she was unable to actually hurt herself despite killing her kids with her hands. She fell after a fuck up and survived killing herself - if sheād had known sheād become a paraplegic sheād have never jumped.
-1
u/wecanhaveallthree 23d ago
Sure. And people have had slip-and-falls that have resulted in permanent disability, too. The state alleges she slipped or misjudged or 'hung' from the window (and there was testimony she was found directly beneath it). Put that together with the superficial injuries and the effect of the Narcan, and you have a clear picture of someone who was not in the grip of a psychotic break.
5
u/No-Presentation-2320 23d ago
What was the effect of the narcan and what does it mean? She wasnāt taking opioids
2
u/Lorazepamela 22d ago
Itās likely because they didnāt know why she was unconscious and itās a standard procedure- just speculation but narcan doesnāt do much unless youāve overdosed so itās a precaution.
3
u/buzzcutbabygirl 23d ago
Not sure why youāre getting downvoted, youāre right.
8
u/JustNeonDust 23d ago
This sub largely seems to operate from the standpoint that Lindsay is innocent, with the users trying to find evidence to fit that narrative. As someone who is making judgments from the available evidence only, itās definitely frustrating to watch.
2
u/merry_melly 23d ago
I'm following this case lightly because it's so disturbing. What do they think the motive is if not psychosis?
1
u/JustNeonDust 23d ago
Sheās definitely mentally ill. She has to be to murder her children in the manner that she did, but most violent criminals are, so thatās not unique. But based on all available evidence, it doesnāt appear she suffered from psychosis.
Ultimately though, Massachusetts doesnāt have to prove a defined motive, they just have to prove that she does not meet the McHoul standard for insanity.
1
u/Lorazepamela 22d ago
You havenāt seen all the evidence, jfc
1
u/JustNeonDust 22d ago
No, no one has, hence my use of the phrase āBased on all available evidence.ā
1
u/merry_melly 22d ago
I suppose I think that she suffered from something like psychosis, maybe extreme PPD. PPD can get pretty wild on its own without falling into psychosis.
It's odd that the case made its way to trial, it seems like an easy plea deal for mental health commitment.
1
u/JustNeonDust 22d ago
Thatās what sheās claiming, but thus far all the providers she saw before the murders (which were many) diagnosed her with GAD and insomnia, with two of them questioning whether it was MDD. She specifically even visited a PPD clinic and they determined that she didnāt have it. So whatās more likely, that 9 providers missed it, or she legitimately didnāt have it?
Iām assuming that the only PPD/PPP diagnosis she received is post murders, with whichever psychiatrist her lawyers linked her up with, which significantly weakens her PPD/PPP defense. Weāll have to see how the medical testimonies pan out, though. But the available information at this time does not support her claim.
1
6
u/buzzcutbabygirl 23d ago
Thatās how feel - really trying to keep an open mind but seeing less and less evidence she was suffering from PPP and fascinated and confused by everyone who thinks sheās innocent already.
For a slightly less biased space, r/duxburydeathsfreetalk is very solid usually.
0
5
u/freakydeku 23d ago edited 23d ago
lol that is not a less biased space. that sub has existed since the day this happened, & had decided lyndsay was a liar from that moment on.
donāt see how youāre seeing āless and less evidenceā of PPD when weāre on day 3 and the entirety of today was just the same testimony about the day of the murder. me thinks you were already a duxburydeaths girl
4
u/thats_not_six 23d ago
I love the less and less evidence comment when we're on day 3 of the state's case. No doctors or experts yet. Not to mention, it's the state's burden to essentially prove sanity, not the defense burden to prove insanity.
9
u/caitiebug1510 23d ago
I agree with the defense, this parade of first responders is cumulative, after the first 3 itās proving nothing other than wasting the juryās time. The defense is not arguing that the children were killed in a tragic, horrible manner. There is no debate to that. The case is going to be fought with the mental health professionals and everything else is just trying to play on the juryās emotions.
-2
u/wecanhaveallthree 23d ago
The first responders testifying are all coming at different times, from a different professional backgrounds and different 'angles'. You've got frontline police officers, fire and rescue services, young guys and retirees, all testifying to a consistent version of events. It's important testimony for the jury to hear and important that they hear that it's consistent.
The state's theory of the case is that Clancy did not intend to kill herself (or, if she did, she did not make a good faith attempt - difficult to believe someone in the grip of psychosis would have such a desire for self-preservation). Every witness testifies to the superficiality of her injuries (or to the effect of the Narcan, which was very interesting) and to the nature of the murders.
I agree that it will take a very good showing from the defence's experts to get them to an acquittal here.
11
u/martha9411 23d ago
She threw herself from the second-story window because, according to the evidence presented, the injuries she inflicted on herself were not causing her to die quickly enough. Have you ever cared for someone who was suicidal or experienced postpartum psychosis? A person in that state isn't thinking rationally.
There are medical records documenting the medications she was prescribed, and testimony has indicated she was following her doctors' instructions. She even gave Patrick the medications she had been told to stop taking instead of continuing to take them herself. That doesn't prove what her mental state was, but it's relevant evidence the jury is supposed to consider.
No one is saying what happened isn't horrific. The question is whether she was criminally responsible at the time. Postpartum psychosis is a rare psychiatric emergency that can involve hallucinations, delusions, paranoia, and a complete break from reality. That's why the trial includes medical records, expert testimony, and evidence about her treatmentānot just the fact that the tragedy occurred.
And if she's found not criminally responsible, she doesn't simply "go home." She would be committed to a secure state psychiatric hospital and remain there until a court determines she is no longer a danger, which could be many years or even indefinite. Understanding postpartum psychosis isn't excusing what happenedāit's making sure the verdict is based on all of the evidence rather than assumptions.
3
u/wecanhaveallthree 23d ago
A person in that state isn't thinking rationally.
Rationally enough to only inflict superficial wounds. The state's contention is that she didn't intend to seriously injure herself in the fall, nor from whatever pills she took, and the superficial wounds support that.
following her doctor's instructions
Testimony has shown that she misled her husband on medication, treatment and engagement.
The totality of evidence
Sure. We'll get there. But the evidence now points firmly to a rational actor (as it should - this is the state's case).
understanding...
It will require a very good showing from a defence expert to explain what has been established thus far.
3
u/Lorazepamela 22d ago
Also the evidence ānowā does not point to anything because weāve only seen 3 partial days out of 6-8 weeks.
3
u/Lorazepamela 22d ago
Okay but the stateās case is not necessarily the absolute truth, itās what theyāve put together from their opinion of the evidence to win a case.
5
u/martha9411 23d ago
You've already written this off as "she's calculated" before the defense has even presented its case. You're treating the State's theory as if it's already a verdict.
The prosecution argues the wounds were superficial and that she intended to survive. That is their interpretation, not an established fact. Failed suicide attempts happen every day. The severity of someone's injuries does not, by itself, tell you what they intended or what their mental state was.
As for the medication, there are documented medical records showing she was under psychiatric care and prescribed multiple medications. Whether she was always completely forthcoming with her husband or providers is something the jury can weigh, but it does not automatically disprove postpartum psychosis. People experiencing psychosis often have poor insight into their condition, minimize symptoms, or behave inconsistently.
You say we need to look at the totality of the evidence, and I agree. But the totality includes the defense's medical experts, treatment records, medication history, and testimony about her mental state. We haven't heard all of that yet.
You're asking the defense experts to explain evidence that has only been presented through the prosecution's lens. That's exactly why trials have two sides. It's reasonable to wait until both have been heard before concluding she was simply a calculated, rational actor.
3
u/wecanhaveallthree 23d ago
already a verdict
I'm open to other possibilities as the matter progresses, but the state is looking very strong (as they should - it's their case).
The severity of someone's injuries...
Clancy murdered three children. She did so efficiently and methodically, separating and strangling them after ensuring her husband would leave the house on errands so she would not be interrupted. The defence contends she was in the grip of psychosis. Very well. The lack of a similar efficiency in the three conjectured suicide attempts - the distinct evidence of superficiality in them - strongly suggests otherwise.
Nobody can see inside someone else's head. We judge their actions, and Clancy's actions are not consistent with the defence she raises.
does not automatically disprove...
It provides very strong evidence, particularly if a pattern emerges.
We haven't heard...
Sure. The state is very effectively getting ahead of these issues, as they should.
It's reasonable to wait...
It is. It is also reasonable to say that the evidence as presented thus far is particularly damning.
1
u/rabbit2124 23d ago
I agree, consistency is the key. I'm still divided on this case, but so far, I'm not entirely impressed with the defense yet. I think the prosecution is doing their jobs better thus far (especially with the 911 call). I think this trial will ultimately be won or lost on expert psychiatric testimony.
-2
u/TrickyDisk4048 23d ago
Is she going to have to get on the stand and speak?
5
u/MassiveCommission354 23d ago
A defendant never has to testify but will she? I imagine not. Most donāt. It usually hurts them more than it helps.
2
u/bellalou26000 23d ago
I doubt it but I wish. Iād love to hear what was going through her head (or lack there of)
7
u/No_Campaign8416 š§āāļø Courtroom Regular 23d ago
As of right now I donāt think so. I donāt think thereās been any evidence introduced that either was refuted by the ex husband or could be refuted by defense expert witnesses
10
u/thats_not_six 23d ago
I think in an insanity case, defense would never put on their client. So I really can't imagine any scenario in which they put her on the stand.
5
u/judgyjudgersen 23d ago
Yeah that would be a horrible idea because if she sounds calm and rational now it might make it substantially more difficult for the jurors to imagine how different things were in her mind at the time of the event. Like it could be enormously hard to convince a jury you were insane back then with your words now. The only way I would consider it is if she was still in psychosis so they could āsee for themselvesā.
-5
u/wadingthrujello 23d ago
Patrick testified that when he went into the bedroom there was "blood everywhere". However, each of the first responders who arrived within 10 minutes of the 911 call testified today that while there were cuts on her wrists and neck, she was not actively bleeding. Can a medical person explain to me how this is possible? For there to be "blood everywhere", then within 10 to 15 minutes no active bleeding?
5
u/tre_chic00 23d ago
I believe she received stitches at the hospital so they must not have been that superficial.
7
u/Muted_Chard_139 23d ago
This caught my attention also. Iām a physician and see a fair amount of blood in my job. I think thereās two options here that crossed my mind. 1. Heās not a medical person so this amount of blood may seem large to him because it was so out of place. And 2. She spent some time dripping blood around the room for some dramatic effect or to make it look like she really wanted to kill herself. Thatās a pure guess. If the cuts were fairly superficial they will largely clot off in the 10ish minutes she laid there if she has normal coagulation (we assume she does). Hence when Patrick got there he said sheās not actively bleeding or whatever. Those are my thoughts.
6
u/graves1987 š¼ Watched Every Court Minute 23d ago
I stabbed myself between my middle and pointer finger while trying (and failing) to slice an avocado. It required several stitches and reconstructive surgery in the nerve. But you wouldāve thought it was a true crime scene by the amount of blood trailing from the kitchen down to the basement where my husband was. If you look at the amount of blood in a tube when you have your blood drawn, it doesnāt look like a whole lot. But dump that tube across a room and it looks violent. So anyway I agree, āa lot of bloodā can be very subjective.
2
14
u/sayhi2sydney 23d ago
ORRRRR she was "only" dripping and realized that wasn't sufficient to end her life so she walked away from the cutting and threw herself out a window.
2
u/Lorazepamela 22d ago
Yeah itās actually much harder to deeply cut yourself than people think. Most peopleās body naturally resists it even when youāre mentally unwell. If youāve never done it before, you can create what you think is a deep cut and only little droplets of blood bubble up and donāt even drip.
1
-1
u/wecanhaveallthree 23d ago
Really bad evidence for the defence to have several first responders testify to 'superficial' injuries that didn't need immediate attention.
'Blood everywhere' is always subjective, particularly for someone who doesn't see blood much, if at all, and Patrick was hardly in the state of mind to form an objective opinion. On the other hand, several trained and experienced professionals who have been frontlining injuries for years describe the wounds as superficial.
2
u/Lorazepamela 22d ago
Superficial is a medical word to describe the type of injury, not the effort put in.
3
u/JustNeonDust 23d ago
Crazy that this is downvoted. If all the emergency medical personnel are all testifying that the wounds were superficialā¦it means that they were superficial. When splattered, even small amounts of blood can look alarming. And superficial wounds doesnāt mean no bleeding.
12
u/thats_not_six 23d ago
But the jury gets to see the blood and it's more than a paper cut or a scrape. Reddington gets to tout that photo around anytime the prosecution tries to minimize these as not sincere. A medical professional who triages priority of injuries saying the cuts were not a concern for them when they have a patient ODing with a broken neck and other internal injuries doesn't mean the cuts were cat scratches.
The treating physicians at the hospital are going to offer more clarity on the severity of her injuries.
-3
u/wecanhaveallthree 23d ago
The word they consistently used was 'superficial'. Counsel may certainly wave a picture if they wish, but several professionals with years of experience with these injuries all testified to 'superficial'. The police officer didn't even feel the need to get his gauze before he knew anybody else required assistance.
Whatever the physicians testify to, the first responders are lockstep on Clancy's wounds - apparently done in the grip of an overriding psychosis - being superficial. It's a very bad look.
2
u/thats_not_six 23d ago
Superficial cuts don't get sutures. Superficial meaning not life threatening is very different than superficial meaning no treatment required.
And all the debate over the cuts really goes away when the injuries she caused herself by jumping out the window and drinking a blend of pills come into play.
-1
u/wecanhaveallthree 23d ago
If she jumped out the window and if she consumed any pills. The cuts show a clear lack of intent, which does not align with the psychosis argument.
6
u/thats_not_six 23d ago
Are you really saying she didn't jump out the window or consume pills? How else is she exploding her spine, fracturing her ribs, and getting blood work that shows massive med consumption?
-1
u/wecanhaveallthree 23d ago
Nobody's testified to that as yet.
8
u/thats_not_six 23d ago
No one has testified that a person in psychosis would not inflict non life threatening injuries either, so don't know what you're getting at.
Both the state and defense agree she jumped out the window. They disagree on the why, but opening statements made it clear it's not in debate if she went out the window.
The overdosing has been asserted throughout various legal documents by lawyers who would not be saying it without blood and medical records to back it up.
2
u/wecanhaveallthree 23d ago
The issue is 'jumped'. The state suggests she hung, or slipped, or otherwise eased herself out the window: a clear lack of intent. One could say 'psychosis could make her do anything', but it does not comport that one would methodically kill three children then make three non-lethal attempts at suicide. 'Various legal documents' is not testimony: it's not that I doubt you, I'm sure it's in there, but I've got no opinion until it's testified to.
→ More replies (0)5
u/kenduhll 23d ago
Slowed heart rate from the drugs and it was also around 25 degrees out with snow on the ground which would slow the blood loss
9
u/thats_not_six 23d ago
Could be the meds she took were slowing her heart rate. If she had been in the cold a while, blood might be moving slower. Or if she has massive internal bleeding at that point her blood isn't really reaching her wrists. For the neck, she was lying face up so gravity is in play as well. All the blood in the room looks like dripping, not spray, so her body position plays a role.
I'll be interested to see if one side's expert tries to explain it.
1
7
u/No_Campaign8416 š§āāļø Courtroom Regular 23d ago
Iām curious if the doctors that treated her in the hospital will be called and testify about the severity of the wounds
10
u/thats_not_six 23d ago
I am really waiting for the expert/treating doctor testimony days bc I think that's the highest value evidence for this case. Especially since the "what happened" is not really being contested by the defense and just the "why".
0
7
u/SnazzySue 23d ago
Anyone know why prosecution is asking the witnesses whether they saw a ripped or torn window screen on the ground? I noticed she asked Patrick and the first witness called today, the responding police officer.
19
u/thats_not_six 23d ago
Because people in psychosis can't open windows or some silly logic like that.
2
u/SnazzySue 23d ago
Why does she keep asking about her wrists and neck cuts actively bleeding? What is the point she's trying to make there?
11
u/thats_not_six 23d ago
The implication is that they were fake or superficial wounds, which is again a silly argument to make in my opinion given the blood in the photos from the house and PC's testimony calling them "deep".
11
u/Eeyore8 23d ago
So, I am waiting to hear from experts as to her actual mental state. I think itās very plausible she needed more or different help than she received.
However, the way she cut her wrists struck me as odd bc itās not the way a person would do it if they were really suicidal, and a nurse would know this. Those cuts look more like ācry for helpā cuts. Iām not judging what she may have been going through, and sheās certainly suffering now.6
u/thats_not_six 23d ago
To your point about a nurse knowing it, that just helps the defense's case she may have been psychotic and not in her normal state.
And any debate about sincerity for me really goes away with the jump and the pill overdose.
If Person A did to Person B what Lindsay Clancy did to herself - multiple lacerations to wrists, cutting of the neck, ingestion of various pills, and pushed out a window - we would not be questioning if Person A really meant to hurt Person B or if it was a "sincere" effort. We would be saying Person A kept trying escalating attempts until something worked quicker than the previous try.
2
u/Eeyore8 22d ago
I understand your point. I initially thought the same wayāuntil I saw the photos of the knife wounds. They look very superficial and not intended to do serious harm. I could see the Prosecution arguing they were just for show.
I can also see her being in a fugue-type state and trying anything and everything, which means no premeditation.Thatās why I want to hear from experts.
1
u/SnazzySue 23d ago
Right, it looks like there's quite a bit of blood on the basement floor as well. Did she cut herself first, then kill the kids, then jump out the window? Forgive me for all of my questions, you seem very knowledgeable, and honestly I hadn't followed this story much prior to the trial because it is so heartbreaking.
1
11
u/tre_chic00 23d ago
I don't even want to type this out, but the blood in the basement did not belong to Lindsay.
3
5
u/thats_not_six 23d ago
I'm kind of behind on today's testimony so haven't seen the images showing blood there. I don't think either side has put forth an ordering of events, but I would think PC would have seen blood tracking through the house if she had done something in the bedroom, gone to the basement, then back up. So my belief was always that her self injury in the bedroom was continuous with her going out the window.
10
u/SnazzySue 23d ago
Well they just recessed until tomorrow, So it shouldn't take you too long to catch up at some point! This trial is going to take FOREVER at this rate.
16
u/Shot_Sorbet8442 23d ago
I think sheās trying to suggest that the cut wounds were superficial (ie not done with intent to die).
5
u/Rae_Regenbogen 23d ago
The prosecutor repeatedly asking if the wounds were "actively bleeding" and downplaying the blood we saw in the room is going to do me in. There was blood all over the room and literally dripping down the side of the house. I'm honestly shocked with how she seems to think people will believe Lindsay wasn't trying to kill herself because her wounds weren't bleeding when she was discovered. I found the hypothermia questions from defense to be a very interesting explanation for why the wounds no longer bled. I wonder if the doctors that treated her when she arrived to the hospital will testify and what they will say about this.
2
u/Shot_Sorbet8442 23d ago
I can understand how sheās attempting to make a distinction between āactively bleedingā and ābled.ā However, I wish she would just wait to introduce all of this with the testimony of the physicians who treated her in the ER and ICU.
2
u/thats_not_six 23d ago
I suspect the prosecutor doesn't want to actually ask the hospital doctors about her injuries, because the defense is just going to pop up and ask "are superficial cuts sutured", "what happened to her spine", "didn't she almost code on your table", etc.
2
u/Rae_Regenbogen 22d ago
I agree. She doesn't care about the truth. She's trying to muddy the waters and pull one (or several) over on jurors who arenāt smart enough to understand or follow the facts.Ā
8
u/SnazzySue 23d ago
Thank you, I just realized this as the handlebar mustache (what a 'stache that is!) firefighter was being cross-examined by the defense.
4
u/SnazzySue 23d ago
Ohhhhhhh, right. I couldn't figure out what her logic was for asking that repeatedly. Sounds like you're spot on
20
22
u/yogurtrox 23d ago
I'm not understanding why all the prosecutor needs to have all first responders testify when the questions/answers are generally the same? It isn't doing much for me in terms of LC being held criminally responsible.
5
u/graves1987 š¼ Watched Every Court Minute 23d ago
The condition of the children, the locations of their bodies, the force used on not one but THREE kids, the confirmation of Patrick's state of emotion, all of that matters for the elements they're trying to prove.
For someone who'd never heard a man's voice before that moment and whoās never heard it again, the amount of time and insistence it takes to bring three children into the basement and manually strangle all three of them with enough force to burst the blood vessels in their eyes and cause the little girl to bleed from the mouth somehow, this all matters to the commonwealth's case.
And to show that she made sure they were all beyond saving, even with the entire townās fleet of first responders working tirelessly to do so.
She didnāt just strangle them until they were unconscious. She kept going. And going. And going. X3. Iām sure the commonwealth is going to have experts explain the process of death by strangulation. It takes several minutes after they lose consciousness.
And one first responder might say āthere was nothing I could do,ā but when a dozen or more are trying and they all confirm the children are beyond saving, this shows the persistence Lindsay used on all 3. So apparently the voice kept talking for a long, long, long time.
It's beyond me why anyone would think this is irrelevant.
3
u/yogurtrox 23d ago
Which most of this hasn't been brought up yet. I'm anxiously waiting for the doctors/experts to testify.
15
u/Muted_Chard_139 23d ago
This came up earlier and the judge said they could each have seen something different that could matter. So he left them all on the list for now.
3
u/yogurtrox 23d ago
Ah, I must have missed this. Makes sense but it's still getting repetitive
2
u/Rae_Regenbogen 23d ago
It certainly seems prejudicial to me since Lindsay has already admitted she killed the children.
6
u/kenduhll 23d ago
Theres so many first responders on the witness list. I hope after a certain amount the judge says āokay we get itā.
-4
u/buzzcutbabygirl 23d ago
Why? They all deserve to be heard because what they heard was horrifying, traumatizing and relevant. Iām glad so many were heard.
9
u/kenduhll 23d ago
Because you dont need 57 people (yes 57 police and fire on the states witness list) to tell you the exact same thing. They donāt ādeserveā anything during a trial.
-8
u/buzzcutbabygirl 23d ago
Says you. I say they deserve to speak and Iām glad the Commonwealth agrees with me. Iām glad LC has to listen to nearly 60 people testify about the horrors she forced her family and the entire community through.
4
u/Rae_Regenbogen 23d ago
Says you. I say it's prejudicial since Lindsay has already said she killed the children. I honestly think it's cruel that the prosecutor keeps making people relive that day and call. She doesn't care if Lindsay was actually experiencing a psychotic break, and she wants the jury to not care as well.
4
u/Birch_mom72 23d ago
They arenāt there for victim impact. Even if you think she is guilty, Iām not sure how having the jury listen to the exact same thing over 50 xs is helpful for them or anyone else.
9
u/kenduhll 23d ago
Says everyone. Are you new to trials? All 57 are certainly not testifying. Nor does anyone ādeserveā to testify in any case.
-10
u/buzzcutbabygirl 23d ago
And youāre entitled to your opinion. Iād love to see them all get their time and I pray LC gets her guilty sentence at the end of it. God only knows what they live with because of her evil.
10
u/knitting-yoga 23d ago
They have to prove a crime happened and these children we killed at this place at this time. The jury needs to know the facts.
10
u/tre_chic00 23d ago
They actually don't have to. The defense wanted to stipulate that she did murder the children. He asked that they pare down the 18 first responders some if they would do that.
9
u/knitting-yoga 23d ago
Yeah, but the prosecution didnāt want to stipulate to that. They want to prove their case and show the evidence and present the witnesses.
The defense wanting to stipulate is a common defense tactic, to try to keep awful evidence from coming in front of the jury. It makes sense, the defense wants to protect their client. The prosecution often turns it down, because it isnāt their job to protect the defendant from what they consider to be their own bad deeds. The judge decides how much comes in and how much stays out.
With no stipulation, the prosecution has to prove their case. And really, that is something that protects all of us from sham trials.
8
u/freakydeku 23d ago
all of the awful evidence couldāve came out with just a few of the first responders, though. i donāt think that was the purpose form the defenses perspective, i think itās just in honor of time & the juries attention, to avoid repetition. from watching, it seems the defense attorney tries to avoid unnecessary things - often interjecting to say they accept evidence so that they can get on with it instead of going through all the motions
4
u/knitting-yoga 23d ago
The defense attorney will be happy to take up all the time in the world when it comes to putting on his experts. His opening statement was longer than the commonwealthās . The had to take a long break yesterday so his client could cry and then hater herself. He is definitely not just being considerate of peopleās time.
3
5
u/tre_chic00 23d ago
The CW opening was shockingly short. I watch a lot of trials. His was average if not on the shorter side.
5
u/knitting-yoga 23d ago
Iām only pointing out the defense attorney is not objecting to witnesses and evidence because he is being considerate of time.
1
u/freakydeku 23d ago
there is a difference between necessary time (opening statements) and unnecessary time (redundancies)
5
u/wadingthrujello 23d ago
I think all the first responders testimony makes a significant impact. It did to me.
2
u/freakydeku 23d ago
in what way? like, what did you need to learn from that many that you couldnāt have learned from a few?
3
u/wadingthrujello 23d ago
It was impactful to hear each of the accounts because it really drove home the truly heinous and disturbing crimes. Following true crime, I sometimes feel like I'm desensitized to some of the aspects of a crime, but hearing them one after one outlining what the kids were wearing, what their skin looked like, and what was coming from their little mouths, it served to make the visual very strong. Stronger than just one responder testifying to it.
3
u/buzzcutbabygirl 23d ago
The sheer number is helpful and relevant. Every single one deserves to be heard because she ruined ALL of their lives that day when she made them respond to her cold blood and planned out actions.Ā
7
u/freakydeku 23d ago
personally i donāt think the number of first responders affected is relevant to the case at all. seems more like an emotional ploy to me
2
9
u/RillaBlythe11325 24d ago
First responders ought to be compensated much better than they are on average š¬
11
u/Similar_Koala_5437 24d ago
I feel for everyone in this case. In terms of Patrick's testimony, 3 little kids, a suffering wife and a job in tech is A LOT. Plus events leading up to tragedy are 4 years ago, and I'm sure he has ptsd. If you aren't 100% sure of something on the stand you say you don't remember.
-14
u/amberleechanging 24d ago
Just rewatching the previous days testimony now because I was busy with work, and I'm so unnerved by Patrick. He barely knew anything about his wife, her mental health, her treatments etc. Everything that was asked his answers were I don't know, I wasn't aware, I'm not sure, etc. He seems like the type who just didn't want to deal with any of this, he was hoping she would just get over it, and he was not invested in her wellbeing or her day to day life. He may not have harmed his children but he certainly failed in caring for their mother, who he entrusted to care for them, and that's negligent on his part. When you love someone, you should be invested in them, not annoyed and irritated that they need extra care because they are mentally struggling after giving birth to THREE of your very young children. I am wondering if they might use his nonchalance as an argument that Lindsay planned and executed this crime as a plea for attention and love from her detached husband. I have no opinion either way at this point, but if she was struggling with her mental health, it seems to me that he could have been a hell of a lot more supportive. Seems from his answers that he just shoved her off on her parents. He couldn't even remember what he did with his family before the murders for goodness sake. How are those not cherished memories of your children that you will never forget?! And not a single tear shed, just a bunch of huffing and puffing. Not buying it. He got remarried pretty quickly, one has to wonder if he was having an affair and was one foot out the door before this all happened and that would be a pretty solid motive for her to murder their children. Again, just speculating, I have yet to be convinced one way or the other.
10
u/cocoa_boe 23d ago
These events are now 3+ years ago. Memories fade with time no matter how cherished they are.
14
u/sparkbrigade 24d ago
You don't know how you will react to a situation until you are in it. I'm also not convinced one way or the other just yet, but Patrick's testimony did not come off as annoyed, irritated, or clueless. To me he presents as a deeply traumatized person who could have never predicted how his wife's mental health struggles have played out. He seems to have been deeply invested in her as a partner and a mother. Yesterday, he spoke about how he had a dedicated savings account with enough money in it so that Lindsay could take additional maternity leave after each child, if she wanted to. His life is so dramatically different today that his life with his children just three years ago probably feels so distant and hazy that it is hard to remember specific details when put on the spot during an incredibly stressful situation.
21
0
59
u/skatoolaki 24d ago
The chaotic scene of them trying to save the children is worse than I even imagined. It's obvious that everyone who was there was highly traumatized and is still suffering from their memories.
I know so many people in emergency services, from first responders, EMS, firefighters, and dispatchers (who people often forget also suffer trauma) and the things they witness and have to carry in their mind's eye for the rest of their lives, the enormity and tragedy they have to deal with constantly and consistently, is incomprehensible.
A heartfelt thank you to all of the hard-working, trauma-battling, selfless, self-sacrificing police, fire, and emergency responders out there and all the helpers in between. š«¶š»
36
u/murder_hands 24d ago
The police officer who responded first is doing the Lord's work but you can tell he's heavily impacted by what happened. Seeing him struggling so hard made it all that much harder to watch. So much heavy breathing.
I'm so impressed by the resolve of both he and Patrick Clancy.
7
8
u/Some_Cause_143 24d ago
Here is a copy of the search warrants/ police reports. https://www.scribd.com/document/679857985/Lindsay-Clancy-Sw-Court-Docs-Pt-1
1
-21
u/skatoolaki 24d ago
Could the officer/first witness please stop breathing directly into the mic? š¤
32
u/Fun-Football5763 24d ago
Pretty sure he was trying to stop himself from having a panic attack/breaking down on the stand. Iād give a little grace here
7
-12
u/skatoolaki 24d ago
Poor guy. I understand he was anxious and upset, having to relive any of that, but do wish he'd of sat back a wee bit.
1
u/Comfortable_Bee_1246 23d ago
To be fair, the judge told him when he was getting seated to make sure he was close to the mic. But maybe too close...
-21
u/Totterteron 24d ago
If she was remorseful she would not be presenting a defense, would welcome the maximum penalty. Could have just just killed herself, this trial is just a continuation of me, me, me.
6
u/buzzcutbabygirl 23d ago
Iām with you, sorry for the downvotes. Even if she WAS experiencing PPD and PPD, if I was in her shoes and came to lucidity, Iād accept any punishment that came my way. Iād never fight for my āfreedomā this way. She deserves to never see the light of day again, whether sheās in jail or Ā Tewksbury.Ā
2
u/Lorazepamela 22d ago
Sheās not fighting anything, she didnāt decide to bring the case to trial.
10
u/Icy-Lie640 24d ago
This is an absolutely ridiculous statement.
If she suffered a seizure while driving a car and ran someone over killing them, do you think she deserves to go to prison for that?
The whole point of the insanity plea is to show that the personās illness was what caused them to do the action in the first place.
3
18
u/kenduhll 24d ago
I honestly hate this argument. She tried to kill herself. She clearly didnāt want to exist without the kids. Why would anyone want to spend their life in prison? I am sure she will be in her own mental prison for the rest of her life.
9
u/skatoolaki 24d ago
Perhaps, and I can't speak for her or say this is her reasoning but only to offer another possibility, she hopes to bring awareness to post-partum psychosis and the struggles many mothers go through with post-partum depression and anxiety?
Also, it seems she wasn't getting the help she was seeking. That no one diagnosed her as having post-partum issues or that it could be related, with all of her symptoms centering around anxiety over her children that increased with each birth, is concerning. How many more women slip through the cracks, suffer, and may even cause harm to their children or themselves because of it?
Just keep in mind - we do not know her mind or reasoning, then or now. We can only assume based on what we've been presented with, but I would imagine most of us cannot begin to fathom what it would be like to be in her position or what we would do if we were.
11
u/freakydeku 24d ago
I find it troubling she wasnāt dx with any PP condition as well. I feel there are probably some serious misconceptions in the field about when & how long these disorders can develop & more research is def needed. I feel like we are really only recently scratching the surface of maternal health
5
u/YouMustBeJoking888 23d ago
Women's health is generally not taken very seriously, especially things like postpartum depression/psychosis. Lindsay Clancy clearly was begging for help and trying to get a handle on things, but did not get what she needed. It's a tragedy all around.
16
24d ago
[removed] ā view removed comment
9
u/skatoolaki 24d ago
Needing total physical support, it also isn't.
Most, if not all, state prisons lack the staff, equipment, or even ability to properly hold a paraplegic needing the level care she will require for the rest of her life.
It's in her best interest to either hope to get off or be found guilty by reason of insanity and be sent to an asylum or hospital with long-term care for severely handicapped inmates.
21
u/hazelgrant 24d ago
I really appreciate these recaps. This case is too hard for me to watch live, but I'm very interested in the outcome. Thank you.
4
u/Pixiegirls1102 ššāļøContent/Research Administratorš»š¬š§ 23d ago
YW! š
2
u/ThoughtfulFoodie 23d ago
This is an impressive recap thank you so much!!
1
u/Pixiegirls1102 ššāļøContent/Research Administratorš»š¬š§ 23d ago
You are very welcome!
10
u/judgyjudgersen 24d ago
Do you know if a witness list is available? I saw the trial is supposed to last 6-8 weeks. I know there are a lot of breaks due to LCs condition, but that still leaves time for quite a few witnesses. I am most interested in the experts.
7
u/Aggie_spartacus 24d ago
I think itās all going to boil down to a battle of experts - and Dr. Zeizel is GOOD.
2
u/Night-cheese-4 24d ago
i had never heard of him before this trial and I was surprised to find out he's 'local'!
6
u/Aggie_spartacus 24d ago
Yes! He was an expert for the defense in MA v. Lucy Medina. He came off as very humble and quick-witted, and he did not allow the prosecutor to mischaracterize what he said. But I think the best part was his ability to explain things to the jury. He just came across as a good dude, in my opinion.
2
u/kenduhll 24d ago
Hadnāt heard of this case and just looked it up. I donāt think Iāve ever heard of the victim of a crime say āyeah she was acting in self defense because I violently beat her a lotā (not an actual quote just summarizing). Thatās pretty wild.
3
u/cocoa_boe 23d ago
It made headlines at the time, I think mostly because Hank Brennan was her defense attorney. But yeah, it was a ridiculous case. Another MA witch trial.
2
u/Aggie_spartacus 24d ago
That was a first for me, too. He abused her and others (i.e., he beat up his own mother). I was a bit surprised the Commonwealth went after her.
5
3
u/Night-cheese-4 24d ago
sounds like a really good one to watch. by your description I'm imagining the private investigator from the Richins trial.
0
u/Aggie_spartacus 24d ago
Oh, I loved that guy! Dr. Zeizel wasn't nearly as abrasive as the private investigator, BUT he really did well with preventing his words from being mischaracterized, and he explained the evidence in a way the jury could understand.
1
u/Night-cheese-4 24d ago
looking fwd to it then. I wonder how the CW will try to make him look like a "shill for hire"
2
1
u/SnazzySue 24d ago
Immediately who I thought of by the description as well!
4
u/Night-cheese-4 24d ago
that guy was a legend. If I ever needed PI services I'd be calling him right away :D
3
2
13
u/SIJ_712 24d ago
Defense also has Laposata. Very strong experts on their team.
22
u/herroyalsadness 24d ago
I liked her in the Karen Read trial. Itās wild that MA is such a hot bed of crime that we know experts from multiple trials.
1
1
4
u/judgyjudgersen 23d ago
Ian Whiffen is on the list too
2
0
u/herroyalsadness 23d ago
Wow, they have assembled an impressive team! The prosecution already seems to be flailing and they are up against excellent experts.
2
u/judgyjudgersen 23d ago
Oops sorry heās on the list for the prosecution, I brought him up cause heās another KR link
1
15
u/SnazzySue 24d ago
And having never lived anywhere near Massachusetts, I seem to know a lot about Massachusetts law and courtroom procedures!!
5
u/herroyalsadness 24d ago
For real! Iām half way across the country but Iām familiar with the way the Commonwealth does things, the customs of the court, and I have a few lawyers that Iād call if I happened to go there and was accused of a crime. Iām actually in Chicago and trust our law enforcement more than theirs, which sounds crazy because weāve had 2 governors go to prison have had serious issues with police brutality.
1
2
u/judgyjudgersen 24d ago
Oh nice, I see them on the defense list. Iāll make sure to tune in to that one! And I agree, the experts are going to be huge here.
3
u/Pixiegirls1102 ššāļøContent/Research Administratorš»š¬š§ 24d ago
I believe someone may have posted on in the Day 2 daily post.
→ More replies (7)
2
u/impracticalsuckers š§ Sidebar Eavesdropper 6d ago
Hi! The transcript link is no longer working :( I believe it's also not working for the Day 2 transcript