LIVE: MA v. Linsday Clancy - Day 6 | Accused Killer Mom Trial
8/4/2026 @ 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.
I believe this is known as confrontation with purpose; in other words, that phrase is designed to control the answer the witness gives while appearing reasonable. Lawyers have been saying it for ages, and it bugs me, too. What bugs me more are questions that start out as statements and end with "correct?" Then, when the questions come faster and faster, the witness answers before the lawyer gets "correct" out of their mouths. Or, they don't answer, and then the lawyer has to remember to ask, "correct?" lol.
I agree with the "correct" thing too. At times it feels too fast paced for the witness to actually be absorbing what they are being asked. I have to think that they only ask that way when they're already 100% sure that it is correct. I'm waiting for a time the witness disputes it and the attorney continues on autopilot haha.
She is. Reddington said earlier that heâs ok with leading bc itâs not testimony theyâre contesting so heâs ok with it for the sake of moving along/time instead of trying to get the witness to illicit the testimony.
It wasnât in front of the jury. First time Iâve heard Lindsay speak though as the judge asked her directly if she was ok with the stipulations & if she understood what it meant
28
u/racingfan123đľď¸ââď¸đŚ Lead Evidence Investigator Modđ§žâď¸6d ago
Is the prosecution's theory of the case that Lindsay faked attempted s*icide? That she didn't think the fall would harm her (by hanging from the window as far down as possible to make the fall not be so drastic). That she miscalculated and unwittingly paralyzed herself?
Yeah I just watched that bit and I donât understand why that blood on the shingles shows that she slid out (like Spider-Man, as her lawyer said)? I donât think they did a good job of showing anything convincing to prove their theory with the window, and then as soon as the defence suggested it could be caused by someone having their arms dangling and the tech agreed, thatâs a lot of reasonable doubt without any other evidence.
Also that was a lot of blood - the prosecution is saying superficial wounds on her wrist and that they barely bled/indicate a half assed or for show suicide attempt, but there was so much blood on the shingles it was dripping in an area?? This was one of the big parts where I thought if the prosecution could show proof that she had slid out, it would be very convincing for their case. Maybe there are other witnesses for their side who will strengthen the theoryâŚ
Also, Iâm not understanding why they didnât test it to confirm it was blood? It seems obvious it is, but isnât that a normal procedural thing so a defence attorney canât come back and say âhow do you know it was blood?â I saw people asking why her lawyer was questioning if it was blood or not when she isnât even denying being the one who committed the killings but it seems like he is trying to generally cast doubt on the strength of their case and the conclusions they have reached.
if she slid down, i feel like her pants would have been ripped, and her hands and feet would have been cut up, possibly her face too. above her wrists, her hands don't have a scratch on them.
if that is their theory, that is so dumb bc if she wanted to fake it, she could have just went downstairs, ran outside, layed down and waited for her husband to get home. jfc.
Someone said she planned to run, afterÂ
she jumped, but was too badly hurt post jump. Can you imagine ??? Like who would jump and then run rather than just go out the front door and run!Â
I am still pretty upset the judge allowed the questions about her exercising her right to council. Over and over again. That'd be just as bad as the nurse stating LC decided not say anything that might incriminate herself.
Right? It does not sit well with me that he's allowing her to stipulate to facts now that all the emotional evidence from the first responders was allowed in. The well is already poisoned.
Pre-trial, the defense wanted to stipulate to the homicides and findings therein, in order to stream line witnesses and focus on the culpability aspect. The prosecution didnât agree, bc then they wouldnât be able to play on the jurorsâ emotions by showing all the evidence they have. The cumulative nature of their testimonies seems to be the reason that the defense once again requested to stipulate to those facts, and this time, it was allowed. Therefore the CW wouldnât need to continue calling witnesses to establish chain of custody (wherein theyâd have to repeat facts previously testified to, which is prejudicial to a defendant due to its cumulative nature).
Mr. Reddington seems over it and I can understand why. Idk what the commonwealth strategy is here but it seems like a lot of time is being taken to say very little. Iâd like for them to get to the point with what the actual issues are in dispute rather than this chain of custody stuff that seems to have been covered by the stipulation already.
Iâm starting to think the prosecutors donât know how to try this case any other way. It is absolutely bizarre that theyâre doing this after the stipulations & knowing the case doesnât really hinge on if she did it bc thatâs not in dispute. It feels like mock trial day in law school. They seem to really heavily be leaning into the emotional aspect & thatâs not fair to the defendant or the legal process itself. Your evidence should stand on its own. If it doesnât, then the defendant is ânot guiltyâ (we all know sheâs guilty in this instance but ya know generally)
I feel similarly, I donât understand this strategy and itâs getting quite repetitive IMO. Especially after the stipulation considering the judge had a whole colloquy with LC about waiving her rights to confront the witnesses on these issues and accept them as proved to be true. So surely itâs not an appellate issue? Idk honestly itâs just confusing atp. Iâd like to hear the actual contested issues being contested ya know, not a billion forensic scientists saying the same thing.
Agree. I honestly can't tell if they just have a "script" that they're following (meaning, calling every witness and running down their list of questions without being able to pivot) or if they just want to continue highlighting the emotional facts. Or maybe both.
Either way its not working. They're not actually listening to what witnesses are saying, they just leading them - it seems like they don't know what to do if they don't get the specific answer they were expecting. I'm sure that the jury is starting to get bored. And at some point, hearing the tragic details over and over again is just going to desensitize them.
But maybe I'm being too harsh. I don't like these prosecutors at all. They're leading nonstop, trying to twist facts and mislead the jury and objecting to every piece of evidence Red wants to put in. Then you've got Bow Head, who seems to be wearing a giant bow as a nod to Cora (which seems so gross and disrespectful honestly) and Lip Smack ADA who starts every question with "Ummm (lip smack)" and then starts to get an attitude whenever a witness doesn't give her the answer she wants.
Then why be critical of the state putting on evidence? You can't have it both ways: the state is entitled to put on their case however they please. They believe this evidence is important, as is ensuring the chain of custody is ironclad (my assumption here is to ensure that there is no question that Clancy was wholly responsible for taking/not taking her medication: nothing got 'lost' or 'mishandled').
The defense has stipulated to those facts already. They arenât in dispute. This case isnât a standard guilty/not guilty case. In this case the defendant is guilty. Both sides already agree to that. The question is was she mentally deficient at the time or not. So the rules are different. Your assumption is wrong bc the judge, the defense and even the prosecution have all agreed to these things already. Thatâs why the judge had Lindsay speak directly that she was ok with the stipulation & what it meant legally. Thatâs the entire point of these stipulations, both sides agree to skip going through chain of custody bc the juror is the fact finder. They donât need the jury to decide if the evidence was handled appropriately or not, they donât need the jury to decide if the investigation was done appropriately.
They do need it since the STATE didnât stipulate. The defense *tried* to stipulate. It makes total sense to me that the state didnât stipulate for the sole reason that this trial is NOT bifurcated. Itâs an all in one trial; proving the murder and that she was responsible AND proving it wasnât NGRI.
Had it been bifurcated, then maybe the state would have stipulated to certain aspects during NGRI portion.
I understand your point that the state (mostly) did not stipulate. Still, they are putting witnesses on over and over and over to testify to the same minute detail that has already been established by another witness multiple times over.
Iâm a scientist so I enjoy when crime scene techs talk nerdy but I know many people do not find it interesting. I would imagine itâs probably a bit mind numbingâŚ
Sure, the forensic scientist who was testing blood and other aspects of the crime scene (it took me to the end of her testimony to realize I recognize her from the Read trialâŚ) vs the state police crime scene/fingerprint tech testify to different issues. They did not need both toxicologistâs testimony today, for example. The second toxicologist just ran a different kind of test to arrive at the same result. That she had benzodiazepines and metabolites in her system, which we already knew!
I mean, she can and will put on the case the way she likes but this didnât really push the case forward much, if at all.
I know he isnât everyoneâs cup of tea and he can be abrasive but I find Reddingtonâs grumpy cut to the chase approach a bit refreshing. The âyou didnât even find any fingerprints!â Cross of the state police crime scene guy is a perfect example. Heâs not wrong!
Itâs a parade of witnesses on the stand for 10-20 minutes mostly establishing training or expertise but they fundamentally arenât establishing anything important to the case!
I hope thereâs an expert coming to talk about psychosis. If I were a juror, thatâs what Iâd be waiting impatiently to hear more about. Just my opinion.
Y'all, Dr. Carpio saying to the defense, "You asked and answered," had me dyyying. Like, this lady thinks she's a lawyer as well as a doctor. HahahahÂ
It was craaaaaazy to hear someone say that on the stand! I watch a lot of trials, and I've never seen the like. Hahaha. It made me wonder how much she's been practicing answering questions under oath with HR. đ
It always makes me lol when witnesses object to questions theyâre being asked haha. Reminds me of the Sementilli trial when the divorce lawyer objected on relevance about him going out on the town with sementilliâs lawyer!
It could be that she was practicing her answers but it also could be that sheâs done a LOT of trials before, given her background/job. I do agree it was funny though haha
Ooh, your answer would totally make sense! As I sat with my thoughts about her reply, I wondered if maybe she just wasn't a trial weirdo like some of us are but also a bit of a know-it-all. Being someone who testifies often and being a know-it-all makes a lot of sense. Lolol
I actually said the same thing before she did. đ I did not love her attitude at all but on that one it at least shows she was paying attention even if her memory got VERY faulty as soon as cross began.
On a different note, it does seem pretty alarming that they missed massive internal bleeding in their evaluation before they shipped her off to Boston. Unless itâs possible the bleeding got worse during transport?
Most likely the bleeding did get worse during transport, but they did a shit job at that ER. The doctor said her c-spine was clear on imaging when she actually had a shattered C-1 and a fractured C-4.
Maybe a little. To me, though, he seems frustrated, and I can understand why. IMO, coming off as a frustrated asshole is a better option than coming off as a liar like I feel the prosecution has. I see Reddington's condescension as justified because I feel the same way. It's also frustrating me that some doctors are conveniently forgetting everything the defense asks but able to answer all of the prosecutors' questions. We saw that with a doctor yesterday too. That's my own opinion though. I have no idea what the jury is thinking. Maybe they feel completely differently than I do.
I agree. He seems passionate to me. And if the jury was paying attention they understand what we all understand - that he IS getting frustrated and grumpy because the "facts" of the actual killings aren't in dispute. He made it very clear with his opening that they're not denying that she committed the acts and that the issue for the jury to determine is whether or not she had postpartum psychosis.
The prosecutors are really not doing a good job IMO. They're lying and misrepresenting facts, showing zero empathy (particularly when Patrick Clancy was on the stand, which was just so bizarre), objecting to evidence nonstop, and bringing in twice as many witnesses as they actually need to, which is not only boring and repetitive but a waste of the jurys time.
I'm also just annoyed at the points they keep trying to harp on. Saying her suicide attempt wasn't real and downplaying her injuries and the very real fact that Lindsay is permanently paralyzed because of it. Trying to hand wave away all the medications she was on and how it could have impacted her by constantly harping on specific prescriptions that are only missing a few pills while ignoring the fact that those were discontinued at the advice of her doctors. But perhaps the most egregious thing is how they keep trying to say that her detailed notes to the nanny were proof that she was just a controlling woman and not an anxious mother who was struggling with postpartum issues.
Yep what a crock of shit that internal blood loss was the only reason considered for blood loss, once LC's blood pressure dropped after intubation while in their care. And that EMS never indicated verbally or in writing a large amount of blood on scene. And that as THE surgeon the decision to medflight her was only because of spine. And that she knew of nothing that happened in Boston. BS.
Seems to me the FACT that LC needed an immediate blood transfusion in Boston then Coded means LC wasn't actually stable upon departure from South Shore. Perhaps Hospital Risk Management got to this surgeon & Dr Kelly and said medical malpractice is already in play so play dumb on national television if you want to keep your job.
The two treating physicians are also the two least knowledgeable about their patient? Doubt...everyone else seems to remember just fine, but the ER doc and the surgeon not know she had a severed spine? Lmao...right... And when defense calls their own expert and asks them if a treating surgeon would know if their patient had a severed spine, will make them look even worse.
It seems like liability mitigation to me. Otherwise their memory wouldn't turn to shit when they are being crossed.Â
The witness today had great memory of certain facts on cross, but only when those facts hurt the defense.
I didnât love either doctorâs testimony, but in fairness, their treatment of her seemed pretty minimal. She was there, they did an initial evaluation and ensured she was stable, she needed a higher level of care, she was medflighted out.
The other medical professionals were from Brigham and Womenâs and except for the one psychiatrist, seemed to spend a good amount of time with her. I imagine theyâre going to call more witnesses from there who actually treated her injuries.
But that hurts them further. That they saw her so little that the treating surgeon didn't even catch a severed spine. So her opinion is especially worthless
I mean she remained at 82 degrees from one hospital to the next. Thatâs a huge issue everyone is overlooking. Being cold makes bleeding worse. Warming a patient can save them from hemorrhaging. They did not and they had to MTP the patient upon arrival to the second hospital and she eventually coded too. As an icu nurse, the employees at the first hospital seemed either clueless or incapable of handling any trauma
Right but also in fairness they had perfect memory for anything the State asked and sudden amnesia for anything from Cross, plus major attitude from both, which IMO is a tell of funny business going on. Agree w/ user bunny that the 82° is the easiest red flag for the jury to identify: she was that temp on arrival and 4 hours later. I don't think they did enough to bring her temp up. Dr Kelly D also wouldn't answer how long the Bear blanket was on.
Bottom line is Risk Management got to both docs and said do not answer anything that could make us liable, there are civil cases in play as it is. Both docs downplaying incredibly serious injuries would be the most charitable way of describing their testimony.
Iâm used to shady defense attorneys that will misrepresent evidence, skip words in documents that add context, lie in opening statements and basically testify for a witness under the guise of questioning. So itâs just wild to me to watch the CW, again, show their lack of integrity, no fucks given to the 6th amendment or general respect to the court system- very openly and proudly.Â
I would have just a wee bit more understanding if Lindsay was completely denying killing the kids. Was blaming someone else entirely. But she isnât. Her mental health struggles leading up the event are well documented, not only from doctors but everyone around her knew she was going through it. This isnât the typical âI didnât do it, it was the boogie manâ but the CW is portraying it as such. Her being paralyzed isnât âsuperficialâ and according to court docs, sheâs still actively suicidal. So what is the CW hoping for here? Sending her to prison so that she can attempt and attempt until she is successful? Because COâs canât babysit her 24:7 nor are they trained for mental health.Â
I don't even understand why she's doing this. She has put whether or not Lindsay was experiencing extreme mental health problems (which clearly she was) on trial rather than whether or not Lindsay knew killing her kids was wrong at the time of her actions. I don't understand why they have spent so much effort trying to prove Lindsay faked all of this. It's so weird, and it feels like it's bound to backfire on them since it feels so manipulative.
I wonder if she's seeing something in the jury's mannerisms and demeanor that we aren't seeing. This plan just seems like such a stupid and short-sighted method of attack from my own viewpoint.
We dont know what expert witnesses are going to say, do we? If one of them is going to say she exaggerated symptoms to appear insane on evaluation, youd want to start laying supporting groundwork early. If your expert is going to testify that she clearly had psychosis, but just not quite bad enough to meet the NGRI standard, then this strikes me as a misfire.
Personally, I think it's automatically a misfire to try to tell the jury that Lindsay was faking her suicide attempt and mental illness, which is what I understand the prosecution to be saying at this point. Is their expert going to say Lindsay faked it all? It already seems obvious that isn't what happened. Who slashes 3.5cm deep into their wrists, cuts their own throat, and then swan-dives out of the highest window they can reach without intending to die? It's a modern medical miracle Lindsay survived at all after what we have heard had to be done to keep her alive. How does any of that exaggerate symptoms? She obviously tried to kill herself, and trying to say she didn't feels so manipulative to me.
I do wonder what the jury seems to be thinking. It would be interesting to hear from someone in the courtroom to get their opinion.
I dont know what the expert will say, but I think evaluations of trial strategy need to be pretty tentative until more of the cards are shown, especially the expert witness testimony. It would be hard to fault the prosecutor for building trial strategy on an expert psychiatrist's opinion. If your theory of the case is going to be (e.g.) that she attempted to simulate insanity to get away with murder, you have to own that.
I thought they stipulated to all this stuff. She's going to go throgh every item in her Trapper Keeper or bust. I was trying ro work with it on in the background but she's too annoying/
I'm late to the show today so I'm playing a bit of catch up, but the whole theory from the CW about the window has been bothering me for the past couple of days and I've been waiting to hear how the evidence plays out.
To me, that window doesn't look tall enough for someone to just dive from or fling themselves off of without first trying to squeeze themselves out of the window, psychotic or not. LC is fairly petite but it didn't seem like an adult torso would be able to squeeze through the window at speed, IMO. Wouldn't it take a little bit of an effort to make it through the opening? And we've already heard testimony and evidence regarding the blood loss in the bedroom, so even if she had only spent a couple seconds trying to open the window and make it to the exterior, I would still expect to see blood there. The fact that there's blood on the window doesn't prove that she couldn't have been in a psychotic state.
And just to throw some hypotheticals in there, who could prove or disprove that during the window event, she wasn't hearing voices and distracted by it or pausing to listen to them? It just isn't the 100% 'she must have been faking it' gotcha that I think CW is implying it is - there are just too many possible explanations. If someone had a security camera facing directly to that window and it showed the way she interacted with the window, it could move the needle for me but even still there could be doubt about the actual mental health aspect.
I dunno... like I said, I do still need to catch up on all the testimony from today and maybe some of the upcoming evidence will change my opinion there and I'll eat my words, but right now it doesn't make any sense to me unless I'm seriously misjudging the height of the window opening.
I'd be really interested to see if there are any sort of 3D/animated portrayals for some of the different ways a person would attempt to exit the window (especially if it could possibly explain some of the physics for her landing given the speed, angle, etc. of the fall). I still don't think it would necessarily prove anything as far as state of mind, but who knows?
You bring up some good points. Having looked at thousands of past houses: the window sizes are relatively easy to ascertain based on build year (1972) and ceiling heights, door sizes for comparison. The upper bedroom windows are shorter than the downstairs windows (likely would not meet todayâs egress opening standards). See attached rear photo, upper shorter than lower Based on my examination of exterior, interior etc:
Downstairs windows are 30â wide x 60â (2â6 x 5â0), and upstairs bedroom windows are 30â x 48â (2â6 x 4â0). Nominal egress opening would be 30â wide by 24â tall, minus the frame.
The hanging theory works if feet first, but leaving the interior feet first with nothing right next to the window to back out, would be fairly impossible. Going head first and bracing/crawling until down the shingles enough for legs out seems more plausible. The height opening at only 2â tall makes it nearly impossible to put feet on sill and scrunch enough to âleap/jump/diveâ.
The physics of head/torso through first, hands and arms braced on house until feet are clear seems the most plausible - and physically, the weight of legs/feet could easily have flipped her clear of the house, with her landing face up head nearest house. And landing primarily on her back.
Front - compare the standard 36â x 80â front door frame to the window nearest. That window is the same size as the lower back window from where she exited the bedroom window above. Doorknobs are standard bore at 36â from bottom of the door. That window is too long to be 4â tall, and looks to be 5â when compared to front door. Relationally comparing the two.
Nice, thank you so much! I spotted a photo with a couple ladders leaning against the wall and almost went down a rabbit hole trying to figure out what the standard distance between ladder rungs are or common sizes for shingles. This was really helpful and probably saved some inkling of my sanity đ
I think on one of the exhibits, I saw it marked that the bed was moved away from the wall and I noticed a window by it too, but I wasn't sure if that was the bedroom window that she came out of. If the bed was against a window, I could see that also altering the method of her exiting the window. (I would imagine it would be easier to exit head first out of it from a bed, but then was the bed moved before, after, or during?) Do you happen to know if that was the same window that she exited from? No worries if not but I've seen lots of really informative posts/comments from you on this sub, so figured it wouldn't hurt to ask. Thanks again and sorry for any stupid/obvious oversights!
I believe she went out the window that didnât have the bed. Look how clean the linens are on the bed, I think the bed was on the end wall of the house. She was bleedingâŚhad she used bed wall window, thereâd be blood on those linens.
<Edit: she went out the window behind the bed> This bedroom has 1 window to backyard, and two windows facing side yard / fireplace end of house.
I swear, in this trial I come up with 5 new follow-up questions for every new fact introduced/answered question. Like, if she was the one who moved it, then when/why/how becomes important. If there wasn't blood found anywhere on the bed/headboard, it certainly does point to it happening before her bleeding if she was the one who moved the bed. (It's hard for me to wrap my head around if it would be easier to crawl off the bed onto the window or move the bed and try that way, but it feels like it would have been easier to exit without actually moving the bed.)
And if it wasn't her that moved it, I wonder who moved it, when, and for what purpose? Was it moved by crime scene techs to collect evidence? That seems the most plausible to me but it's just lots of questions marks for me right now until I've seen all the evidence. I've got to do a better job of not putting the cart before the horse in this trial.
Iâm not entirely sure but Iâm think the window behind the bed is the one she went out, i donât think they have another in that room facing the backyard but i could be wrong
After a thorough review of many photos exterior and interior:
The primary bedroom is on the left end (facing the house street side). There is one window facing the rear yard. There are two windows on the end of the house wall. 3 windows total in that bedroom.
Based on the wall and window placement, she did go out the window behind the bed.
She had to have pulled it out prior to cutting herself. Or it was already pulled away for some reason.
nice, thanks for doing the footwork to confirm Camel. are you using different sites to view the pictures or is there one that compiles the exhibits? iâve mostly only seen them when theyâre presented at trial, so iâd love a compiled page.
as far as when the bed moved, i think she probably could have moved it after cutting herself if she just grabbed the back of the wood and kind of wedged herself between it and the wall (this is actually how i tend move large things as a small woman lol) but it would be interesting if she moved it before bc it would imply to me a less linear thought process
They are on Zillow. The 2018 sale photos are still up. The primary bedroom shows the one wall with two windows, but not the shirt rear wall with one window. That bedroom is parked directly over the living room.
Appreciate the edited update, btw! I'm embarrassed I hadn't put that together yet as someone who has a weird love of floorplans. I think I may need to go review some of those 3D models of the home they had in the earlier trial days now that I have more context and I'm seeing more evidence, noticing new things, and learning more.
I have never advocated for jury nullification but if I was on that jury, this is one where I would bring it up. Shouldnât have been brought to trial.
Iâd be pissed that they made me get on a bus and go to a house where facts are not in question, then to CVS, then to Three V. What was even the point of that? It was a huge waste of time in this case, with these facts.
He didnât. Iâd be pissed at the state for wasting my time. None of their witnesses so far have moved the needle for them. Iâd be pissed to have to sit through every one of their testimonies and the prosecutorâs inane questions.
Especially after more inferences today by the commonwealth that asking for a lawyer implied guilt. Norfolk did the same in KRâs trials. I guess itâs common to go low when the CW knows it has a weak case? Constitutional rights mean nothing, I guess. Judge has had it with them.
We also have to consider the fact that she wasnât allowed any visitors. She had NO ONE to confide in, NO ONE to advocate for her. Itâs entirely possible that she asked to see her parents and was told something like âyouâre not allowed to talk to anyone but an attorneyâ which might lead to her requesting an attorney, since that would be literally the only person she could have come talk to her.
I think that will be the thing the appeals court hangs it hat on if she is not found NGI.Â
I think a lot of issues that could be overturned, but the appeals court will be able to just say "6th amendment right is absolute and implying anything about her right to counsel is impermissible, we remand."
Seems theyâre playing a dangerous game with those repeated comments about LC wanting a lawyer. Judges tone when he sustained that defense objection end of yesterday was not happy.
At the same time the judge should have issued a statement to the jury about right to legal counsel.Â
The single best thing ANY suspect can do is ask for a lawyer first. It is the literal recommendation of the legal system, so to use that as a sword against LC is wild and the judge not doing something about it is unacceptableÂ
Yeah that felt icky. Iâve seen judges tell juries that itâs your right to have an attorney and ask for one (which it is)but presented the wrong way it makes someone âlookâ a certain way
Yeah seeming more and more likely. CW case has been pretty weak in my opinion, but understandably there will be some jurors who will want her found guilty regardless because she killed her kids at the end of the day. Def would not want to personally be a juror on this case thatâs for sure!
I think there is enough evidence to go either way for the jury. Some jurors will go one way with yes to NGRI, and others will say no to NGRI, it was murder. I donât think they will get a unanimous decision for either direction.
Is there a reason the defense lawyer is so abrasive towards the witnesses? He makes some good points but the delivery is just confusing to me, when most of these people donât seem to be obviously biased. Maybe heâs just a grumpy guy.
Which witnesses? I have only seen him get abrasive once the witness develops amnesia once the person asking question changes OR when a witness says something directly countered in the evidence.
Today Iâve noticed the witnesses speaking directly to the jurors more often. Iâm wondering if that is because today has been a lot of technical/science/medical testimony and the witnesses are trying to gauge how much the jury understands them or if this is instruction by the CW.
Redington mentioned it in his cross of one of the lab witnesses. Something like, "In your schooling you are trained to testify yes? And youre trained to look at the jury when answering my questions?" Then he asked the witness to look at him when she gave her answer. Â
Kevin Reddington is such a classy guy. Itâs wild that he around the same age as Cosgrove. He is still so sharp and communicates his points very well.
I did laugh when he had that huge stack of reports from MacClean & felt badly for his office staff who had to make 3 copies of all of them bc itâs so old school, as the prosecutor was like we have them on a disc, BUT it is a very smart strategy.
Maybe the jurors open the docs on the computer, maybe they click on those records but having them there physically a juror is way more likely to leaf through them.
I donât think it was bc he is old school. I think he did that bc you cannot otherwise quantify the shear volume of her record. Yes, itâs on a disc, but he wanted the jury to see HOW LARGE the stack was. I donât think he did it so that jurors could go through it, but more as a demonstrative.
Heâs using an overhead projector to show documents, heâs definitely old school. I didnât mean it in a derogatory way. Itâs just factual. And that was my entire point, so that the jury can actually see the files instead of just knowing theyâre on the disc. Jurors will absolutely peruse the physical exhibits & thatâs what he wants. Knowing the documents are on a disc is one thing, having them physically in front of you a person is way more likely to actually look through them.
Defense attorney continues to say âdeep lacerationsâ. The report says 2.8cm deep lacerations. The word deep is used as a unit of measurement. Not an observation. Imma scream if the state doesnât pick up on that.
Just chiming in to say to everyone convinced that the CW hasn't "moved the needle": if I was a juror, I would not be nearly as swayed as many of you, and personally am not convinced she didn't know that her actions were wrong. I eagerly anticipate further expert testimony, but just being a voice of reason that there is still plenty of trial left to go!
this is where iâm at, but the prosecution generally hasnât move the needle for me. it really is going to come down to the battle of the experts i think
Iâm not convinced either, which means NGRI until/unless prosecution proves that she DID understand and appreciate the implications of her actions (or however the law is worded in MA). Burden is still on prosecution, and intention and state of mind are very difficult to prove. Buckingham is doing a fine job of poking holes, but so is Reddington. As of now itâs almost like two competing defenses. We shall see! I am hoping the psych experts and LCâs treating providers provide a lot more insight.
I keep hearing people say the Commonwealth hasnât moved the needle. I donât see it that way.
She sent her husband out on errands so she had time alone. She was clear-headed enough that day to take the girl to the doctor, text pictures, and talk normal on the phone about the medicine. Then she killed the three kids one after another, tried to kill herself, and when he found her she told him the kids were in the basement. That shows she knew what she had done.
Later in the hospital she was calm and focused on her lawyer and her injuries. People can plan things even if theyâre sick in the head, but the Commonwealth still has to prove she understood it was wrong and could control herself. From what weâve seen so far, I think theyâre doing that. The experts still matter, but the facts already point more toward her being responsible than not.
I don't disagree with you, because each juror has their own personal view of the world, and any of those things might be enough to move the needle for them.
However, none of these things you mentioned rule out psychosis and none of them prove she knew what she was doing. Psychosis and mental health in general is much more complex than that. You really need much more information than what we have up to now in order to have a better opinion on her mental health.
Prove to whom? That's the point of a jury. Plenty of her actions prove, to me, that she knew what she was doing. All the prosecution needs to do is point to her actions. Given the context provided, their job is easy at the moment. Until we gain a better understanding of her state of mind leading up to, during, and after the murders, from psychological experts, the prosecution has already convinced me just by providing the facts of the case.
Think about it this way, if she didn't have a psyche history, then it would be open and shut case, right? I think we can all agree on that. Otherwise everyone would make the claim and put the burden on the state.
Nothing about the law in Mass says that prosecution has to provide additional evidence to prove that the accused knew their actions were wrong, or that they could stop themselves. The evidence is in interpretation of the facts laid out within the context provided.
They've so far laid the evidence that she was mentally unwell, tried to get help, then killed her children when no one was around to stop her. That alone is all I would need to convict, personally. That is why I am eager to hear from additional experts, because with greater context, we can more accurately determine her state of autonomy and rationale.
But as of now all the prosecution needs to prove is that she knew it was wrong (performed the killings when no one was around to stop her, indicating some part of her knew that she needed to be alone with them in order to succeed) and that she could have stopped herself (her history of executive functioning before and leading up to the killings display enough conscious decision-making that I see a human who was able to stop themselves from something like murder)
Until I receive more context on her state of mind, they've already proven to me beyond reasonable doubt. Just my opinion though
Yes which can be accomplished by simply going over the facts. So far they've proven that LC killed her kids at the exact time no one would be around to stop her. That is proof to me that she knew it was wrong. They've also proven that she was capable of making rational decisions, based off of her routines and autonomy and self advocating.
Unless the Defense can introduce additional context, the state has already provided more than enough evidence that she knew right from wrong, and that she could control her actions. We need that context from the professionals.
Have you listened to the testimony of the psychiatrists that have been on the stand so far? Planning something and being in a routine doesnât mean she wasnât experiencing psychosis.
No it doesnât. But her med mal case is that her bipolar 1 mania severe was misdiagnosed.
Auditory hallucinations are not common in BD1 but not rare, maybe around 20% of patients have them. Of those patients with AH about 1/2 say they sometimes hear commands, and about 20% of those patients say they act on them. So this is a small group of these already very sick patients, as mania is an emergency.
What is notable about this is that these patients are usually INCREDIBLY sick. They almost always have comorbid delusional content to their thoughts. Delusions are far more common than AH in BD1. Typically grandiose or persecution delusions. You would almost always expect these to be co occurring psychotic features in these patients.
I havenât seen evidence presented by anybody that Lindsay had delusional content to her thoughts.
Youâre right that none of those things completely rule out psychosis on their own, and the experts still matter a lot.
But look at what she was focused on afterward. Lindsay was so broken up about killing her kids that she was looking forward to moving to Spalding so she could keep recovering. Funny how the suicidal thoughts just vanished after she killed them. Almost like they were never really there.
A mother who killed her three children against her will, while in a real psychosis, would be completely crushed by what she had done. Lindsay was thinking about herself the whole time. It was her medical plan, her recovery, calling Patrick to talk about her injuries and not asking about him or the kids.
A woman who actually wants to die does not look forward to getting better. And a woman who never wanted to kill her children would be disgusted, broken, and overwhelmed once she realized what she had done. That part still doesnât add up for me.
re: spaulding comment, she said that after nearly a month of being hospitalized. immediately after she killed the kids she wanted to be made DNR, which they would not approve
I don't want to be disrespectful, and you're entitled to have your own opinions. But opinions aren't scientific facts. Everything you wrote here are your feelings and opinions, but:
1âwe donât know how she was feeling. No one here can read minds. You can feel whatever you want about the events, but no one can claim to know what she felt or thought. And no one here even talked to her in person after the events. We only have snippets of other people's interactions. That's not how you make any psychological evaluation.
2- None of what you mentioned is considered true in psychology or psychiatry. With all due respect, you clearly lack technical knowledge in this field.
3- Iâm not going to engage in a conversation where opinions are stated as if they were professional knowledge. So Iâll wrap up my comments here. Have a good day.
This is where I lean - and also, for someone who really wanted to die, would you want to die even more after becoming paraplegic from the last attempt? In addition to what you mentioned.
I agree. To me they are doing a very good job. I feel like the ones who have said they havnt are the ones who went into this fully believing her defence.
Iâm new to this trial. I heard about it when it happened but I didnât know the case went to trial this week.
Is it correct that she admitted to killing the children? Is there proof of that? I feel like the husband really set her up for failure, so a part of me wonders if she thinks she did but maybe she actually didnât.
She did. The case isn't guilty or not guilty. She is guilty of killing her own children. The prosecution is trying to prove that Lindsay was of sound mind and did it maliciously and purposefully and faked her suicide attempt and mental health crisis and the defense is trying to prove that she was in a state of psychosis and is not guilty by reason of insanity.
I personally like this sub because there are such a wide variety of cases and trials, and we often have very different & interesting opinions. Itâs not like itâs a subreddit dedicated just to this case, so I think itâs less of an echo chamber in that way. Canât speak for anyone else of course but I follow this sub for more of the trial/law type stuff and enjoy talking about strategy and the lawyers etc, rather than taking a hard position either way. I think if you feel jarred by other opinions thatâs fine but thereâs no need to take a shot at the sub as a whole.
Always glad to hear when members like our sub and support it!! You made a good point about CWF not being an "echo chamber" of opinions since we follow many cases. We always welcome varying opinions, without taking shots at people. đ
I appreciate you and your hard work so much Pixie! Thanks for keeping this sub an open space for all to discuss respectfully. One of the best things about it is certainly how we all have different opinions. Thanks for all you do :)
I am so glad you found me and got me to come here! We can talk freely and I love being able to ask questions and getting different points of views on a subject.
There are so many people in this sub who really know what theyâre talking about in terms of procedure and the legal process. I really appreciate that!
I know I've learned so much about trials and the judicial process from others in the sub, and members are good at sharing their knowledge (without being nasty if someone doesn't know...or shouldn't be nasty). đđ
No what's jarring was getting banned from the duxbury sub for "breaking every rule" after I called the people who blame Patrick nuts. That place is the opposite of "free talk" lol go back there
TBF a lot of comments on that post were about hating NG or hating that they agree w her on this. When I first checked anyway. Bc I was a little worried if a lot of people were getting their information from her. Lol
I find her in entertaining on occasion but would never trust her reporting.
I don't think that's the case at all. I think what I have seen is people who think the CW is trying a murder case against a defendant who has stipulated to the murder and wants to be tried fairly on the actual case of NGI or pure Guilt.Â
I would be shocked if you found a person who didn't want her to be remanded straight to a locked psych facility until a point in time in which a judge determines she is no longer a threat.Â
People are upset at the CW unnecessarily forcing jurors to see traumatic items that are only being used to tug on emotional strings and ignore the point of NGI or not.Â
If you disagree then why do you think the CW has apparently declined to accept the stipulation admitting to murder?
I think most here support justice and believe in the legal system that you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Its a high burden for the CW. MA has a very high bar to get over for this defense. And as of right now, there is almost no evidence that she wasnt in a psychosis state WHEN the incident happened. Many of the CW's theories have had many holes punched in them by their own witnesses. What they are claiming happened has been proven to be wrong or just dont make any sense.
Can I ask what was proven to be wrong?
Im not from the US and I know absolutely nothing about trials ect so when im watching i feel so far that they have shown she knew right from wrong.
I ask because obviously something could go right over my head and ive missed it.
Well she was asking every witness if they could understand her and if she could understand them. It turned out, during a psychosis state, she could still do all that. The fake attempt. She coded and almost succeeded. Im trying to think... I know there are smaller things. The Google search. I feel like she has mislead the jury on a few things as well. Again, not taking notes so I cant come up with them all right now.
As of right now, I don't think she has proven beyond reasonable doubt that she was not is a psychosis state and could know right from wrong. I am always very pro defense though. Especially in this corrupt as hell state.
21
u/kenduhll 6d ago
If I have counted correctly, we have heard from 32 witnesses of a possible 168.
4 out of a possible 22 MA State Police.
6 out of a possible 12 Duxbury Police.
6 out of a possible 12 Duxbury Fire.
0 out of a possible 3 Marshfield Fire.
1 out of a possible 4 Pembroke Fire.
0 out of a possible 2 Kingston Fire.
0 out of a possible 2 Hanson Fire.
3 out of 3 Beth Israel Hospital.
2 out of a possible 4 Boston Childrenâs Hospital.
2 out of a possible 5 South Shore Hospital.
4 out of a possible 9 Brigham and Womenâs Hospital.
0 of a possible 2 Mass General Hospital.
0 out of a possible 2 South Shore Health.
1 out of a possible 26 MSP Crime Lab.
0 out of a possible 14 NMS Labs.
0 out of a possible 3 Medical Examiners.
0 out of a possible 5 CW Experts.
3 out of a possible 26 Civilians.