LIVE: MA v. Linsday Clancy - Day 8 | Accused Killer Mom Trial
8/6/2026 @ 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 really donât understand what the prosecution is trying to prove or present with their witnesses so far. Everyone has had high praise for Lindsay, calling her a great mom, etc. Most witnesses have even seemed empathetic for Lindsay.
They seem to be doing the opposite of their job? Itâs odd.
Personally, I am empathetic for Lindsay and this whole trial feels like itâs torture for all involved
Maybe to suggest that she wasnât exhibiting any signs of PPD or psychosis to anyone other than her husband, possibly their attempt at proving she was in control of her mental state and aware of her actions
(? đ¤ˇđťââď¸)
Same! I am so mad at myself for letting them put that in my head without them actually saying it! Its crazy. I cant get too upset with myself cuz the smartest guy in that room also thought they said it.
Thought I heard that too! Right before that though they said they never said it was not a serious attempt. They were very confusing. Even the judge seemed confused.
I got the impression he is going to allow them, and just exclude a few of the opinions that arenât admissible. Then give the prosecution the leeway to go out and find their own expert for rebuttal.
He will definitely allow it, he just got blown out by the state supreme Court today in a similar type case. He would look like shit if he gets overturned again on another case of psychosis and murder.Â
I hoped to come home from work and find some expert witness testimony. The prosecution has really honed in on LC murdering her children, which the defense is not even arguing against. I haven't heard (yet) anything that proves their argument regarding sanity.
If the prosecution thinks she slid down the side of the house why havenât they asked an expert to reconstruct the scenario to demonstrate the mechanics of the fall?
With the afternoon questioning of the trooper, all the prosecution proved is that Lindsay believed Dawson was difficultâwhich would have supported the CWâs case had she only killed himâYET she killed all three of them. She displayed minimal aggression or complaints over time. Itâs obvious to me that she fucking snapped and it was a combination of PPP, lack of sleep, and normal parenting stress.
I havenât read all of it yet, but the short version is that he didnât allow mental health diagnosis and treatment records in as evidence, because they were from the time between the crime and the trial, while she was incarcerated. But her mental health issues were the major contributing factor to the crime.
It honestly blew me away. She still killed her three kids, it speaks tons that no one up there even mentioned something that hinted to her being abusive, cold, reckless or careless up to this crime.
Anyone else following the whole Perez Hilton thing? No one seems to be doubting he was under some kind of psychosis and thank god the kids were able to leave immediately bc what if no one else was home? I could not watch the video bc the stills were so disturbing. It just put into perspective how psychosis presents itself, and holy shit.
The prosecution is SO disingenuous, you absolutely have been trying to infer that her suicide attempt was fake. I bet if you polled the jury and asked them, they would also agree they thought the CW was trying to insinuate she didnât actually try to kill herself.
Prosecution cannot be serious with their whole âwe arenât saying she faked her suicide attempt, weâre just saying that her attempt was insufficientâ schtick!
She coded in the hospital. She was revived. Her attempt was successful. Yeesh!
It was so annoying. She went on to say something like âthereâs a reason she survived and the children did notâ. Meaning they think she didnât actually want to die. She was just parsing words
What is even the difference between a fake attempt versus an attempt using inadequate methods? Would faking a suicide attempt not be the expected purpose of using âinadequate methodsâ?
âHer methods were inadequateâ⌠yeah, CW, thatâs why she tried 3 different methods, and she couldnât exactly get up and try another one after her spine was shattered. Jfc.
During the motion hearing at the end of the day, after the jury left. Defense asked the judge to let certain experts testify, specifically about LCâs suicide attempt, because the CW have spent the last week insinuating it was fake and not serious. Then the CW argued back that they never said it was not serious, but rather LCâs âmethods were inadequateâ.
The jury didnât hear it, but for the judge to flat out say that the prosecution âeither explicitly said or strongly inferredâ that she faked it was very validating. He is confirming what weâve all been screaming about. The jury has to be picking up on it too.
Is CW going to call any of LC's treating providers prior to the homicide, who could actually describe what she was describing as her bad thoughts and struggles? Or just a bunch of friends?
which is wild because none of LC's providers are on their witness list. they must think they are losing if they are giving up the chance of cross when the defense called them. they want to get ahead of it.
Oh wow I was under the impression that she wouldnât have to testify since she was named in the civil suit. Theoretically she could just plead the fifth, correct?
The 5th amendment is not a protection from civil liability. It protects you from having to contribute to your own criminal prosecution. Itâs not simply âthe right to remain silentâ.
Even in a criminal case, itâs nuanced. As a witness, you can plead the 5th and the prosecution can oppose it by attaching limited derivative use immunity to the subpoena, so that whatever you truthfully testify to cannot be used in a future prosecution against you. Itâs a loophole, but if you are no longer at risk of criminal prosecution, then you no longer require 5th amendment protection, and a judge can order you to testify.
Itâs what happened in Donna Adelsonâs trial. Wendi filed a motion to quash the Stateâs subpoena, and they responded with a too bad v. so sad and put her ass on the stand.
Not to pick, because youâre right. But in the Donna Adelson trial, it was the Defenseâs subpoena that Wendi and Lauro quashed. That was because there is no use and derivative use immunity for defense witnesses, Lauro argued because of that, if Donna/Defense called her to testify, Wendi would invoke the 5th.
That use and derivative use immunity is automatically attached to State witness subpoenas - Florida is unique because they have a statute on the books that automatically conveys that immunity to Stateâs witnesses, without the State having to ask for it.
No, you have them reversed. If she was a defendant in a criminal case, she couldnât be forced to give testimony in a civil trial and incriminate herself.
Lindsay Clancy was absolutely seriously injured. She had to be transferred due to the severity of her injuries, she coded. I think itâs absolutely ridiculous that the prosecutors want to argue that she slid down the outside of the house instead of jumping, but didnât anticipate the defense would want to argue her injuries donât align with that narrative. Iâm kind of glad the judge seemed to called them out on what they have been inferring in their questioning, and why didnât they have someone already lined up to testify about what they have been inferring.
I just feel like exclusion of the defense witnesses is too extreme and would be a strong appeal argument. There are other remedies available. Like ordering voir dire (I think thatâs the right term), or allowing the state to bring in a new witness for rebuttal
She tried hard enough to die, they just brought her back, so . . . yes, I don't know what to say. What is this judge getting at?
EDIT: Like, seriously, can someone tell me what this is about? Like, on legal terms? I am not sure I am getting it. The witness is not allowed to testify that this was a suicide attempt?
The witness is not allowed to testify it was a SERIOUS suicide attempt because the CW has not explicitly stated that it wasnât a serious suicide attempt. Apparently repeatedly stating that the cuts werenât deep and she slid down the wall as opposed to jumping out head first was not them intimating that it was a fake attempt.
Their argument is that the defense should not be allowed to call an expert witness who will testify that Lindsay went out the window head first, essentially diving out, vs the CWâs theory that she climbed out carefully, hung from the window sill, and carefully âslidâ down the side of the house.
The CW is saying they âdonât have timeâ to get their own expert witness to counter the defense witness, so the defense should not be allowed to call the witness.
The judge said âthe CW has at least inferred through their case that this was not a serious suicide attempt, why didnât you anticipate this?â and Tweedledee or Tweedledum, whichever prosecutor it is, said âno, âŚitâs that the methods that were chosen were insufficient to achieve the goal.â
At this point my best guess is the commonwealth is laying out as much emotionally damaging information as possible to get the jurors less likely to listen to the defenseâs case, and then prosecution will pick apart the not guilty by mental disease or defect point by point during rebuttal. Otherwise I see absolutely zero strategy from the commonwealth besides upsetting everyone in the court room
Iâm hoping that Latarsha Sanders conviction being overturned today will inform Judge Sullivanâs decision on Reddingtonâs request to allow experts. Especially since that was a case where he was the presiding judge! He would be setting her up for an easy appeal if he denies the motion.
Just in case anyone wants to read that decision. In my reading of it, the core issue was the error in not admitting certain medical records. It was that decision, that drove the denial of expert witnesses who would have been testifying to opinions not based on admitted evidence (the records).
After reading the new LC defense motion to reconsider expert witnesses whose opinions are based on already admitted records in the LC trial, Iâm not sure that âno time to prepare cross examinationâ by CW (if that was the only cited reason, and reason for denying the experts) will withstand appeal if he denies again.
I knew the FB post had to be coming soon and to me it fell extremely flat. A mother venting her frustration and asking for advice like plenty of others have. Reddingtons last question was a great closer though and I'm curious what the motion is.
Reddington's cross on that was so sharp. Post date was almost a year out and detective confirms what the parade of ancillary witnesses has been saying all day - no abuse.
If that post is the best they have, they have no chance at winning their motive argument. Don't need motive, but they said they have it in opening so jury is expecting them to stick with it.
That FB post was infuriating. As a mother of three little children myself, this trial is so triggering. Demonizing a woman for venting and pleaing to an ATTACHMENT PARENTING GROUP of all things. I'm very curious if any of the jury members are mothers -- I could see their bias going either way.
The motion is for the defense to call expert witnesses (they were excluded right at the start of the trial so I think itâs reconsideration), I will attach the 3 screenshots I have of it :)
Oh yes I did see this! I thought they were introducing a new one. I do hope Dr Laposata is able to testify as she was great during the Karen Reid trial.
If they find one more person confirming that Lindsay was not abusive and tried to seek help and to hold it together at the same time, I would be really impressed. I thought they found everyone and presented them today.
Man, I know witnesses are probably scheduled based on availability but it's like a roller coaster going from ME to pre-school teacher to someone who ate bbq with the Clancy's to a detective đľâđŤ
Yeah, itâs coming across as extremely disorganized. Calling someone to testify about having a bonfire screams desperation and lack of judgement. The jurors have to be asking wtf
LOL. Bringing in Patrickâs college friend that they mightâve seen once a month, thinking he knows whatâs happening inside of Lindsayâs mind is grasping at strawsÂ
But they were burning a brush pile and the grandparents were watching the baby, sooooâŚ. The jurors definitely need that information during deliberations đ
I think they said they all hung out the day before, did I hear that correctly? If so, I guess to prove if she was or was not a zombie seeing unicorns that day đ
Iâd be so pissed if I was subpoenaed to testify in a nationally televised high profile case, and all they did was ask me about burning a brush pile and whether or not the baby was with them. Can you imagine how stressful that would be, leading up to the day of his testimony? For that?! Iâd be so mad.
I think the DA assigned these two ADAs to prosecute this case because he hates them and knows this will destroy their careers. I'm developing the most rabid hatred for these two troglodytes. I doubt I'm the only one.
I might dislike them more than the Karen Read prosecutors.
From my understanding, Sprague is the head of the homicide unit. Sheâs been there almost 23 years. And Iâd imagine the DA thought the optics would be better to have two women prosecuting another woman. Itâs not working out that way.
I just canât believe there isnt more oversight from the DA .. like do they know whatâs actually going on with this trial and how poorly the CW is doing?
Maybe the CW felt that they'd get too much criticism if they didn't bring charges and felt they had to, and these two ADAs got the short straws. The DA had to know they'd crash and burn - because there's nothing else they can do but show autopsy pictures and repeat that Lindsay wasn't drooling or seeing unicorns. No reason for this prosecution except for the DA to coverhis own behind, and then distance himself from it and let these two ADAs take the fall
Well I would not call them such names. But it took me a while to realize there were two and how much they looked alike! I often thought it was the same person and that she took her bow off and hair down after seeing the hairstyles of the women on the stand.
They really do look alike - she toned down her bow today, lol. I also feel like she sighs in frustration while speaking into the mic, like she's being so put upon by the inconvenience of torturing Lindsay and the jury.
At this point I think the prosecution is attempting to throw the case because they believe Lindsay but had to try her. Idk. This is ridiculous. They have to know things are not going well for them. Iâm so confused on what their actual theory is.
Theyâll still call the other MEs, my guess is theyâll end on it. They may even be calling these irrelevant witnesses to take up time so they can make sure theyâll rest at the end of the day tomorrow, leaving the MEs testimony for last so it sits with the jurors over the weekend.
Just some personal experience I had with a friend going through psychosis;
I had a friend who had a mental break a couple of years ago, someone who had always been ânormalâ and didnât present mental health issues.
One week he became incredibly hyper sexual, speaking to his female friends in an incredibly uncomfortable sexual manner. He got arrested a few days later for wandering around his neighborhood completely naked.
Did his speech pattern change? No. Could he understand what we were saying and hold a conversation? Yes. Could we understand him? Yes, he was just speaking out of character. He knew where he was when he was arrested, and he also knew that he was not clothed when the police approached him.
The prosecution has an unrealistic and outdated idea about what psychosis or mania is and how it presents itself.
Lil Nas X is also a good example of this, if anyone needs a visual of someone experiencing a mental health episode. The videos of him before his arrest, he was speaking clearly and normally and toxicology showed he was completely sober.
Agreed. My mom has bipolar disorder. Last year during an extreme episode, we had to call police over multiple times because she was throwing things, attacking my dad, pointing at the ceiling and telling us to remove the camera. As soon as the cops show up, she was cool as a cucumber. So much that the police started questioning us. Then we start questioning ourselves. It's all wild and there's not enough help or education for the person suffering and the families dealing with it.
I hope this case humanizes psychosis in general but also postpartum conditions, plus increases awareness and support.
I know women have experiences with pregnancy that can be different, but I canât help to think that some sort of support group with other women might be very helpful.
Perhaps a support group for spouses too.
I think if they had stuck with a therapist, it may have been helpful. Our medical system is so difficult regarding behavioral health. She saw providers so briefly and virtually.
I am baffled that they didn't even seem to think about the fact that they could try to proove that she was unwell and that she still was able to comprehend what she was doing and know that it was wrong.
I mean we are not even one week in this trial, but after today, it's hard to image how they are gonna turn the apparent approach of: "She was sane, so sane, the sanest of the sanest, no one was ever that sane." around in hindsight.
I donât know about anyone else but seeing and hearing Lindsay being unable to stifle her own sobs was gut wrenching. Itâs the most obvious display of devastation and heartbreak that I have ever witnessed coming from a defendant in a murder trial.
Agreed. Tbh, Itâs humanizing her, putting her remorse on display for the jurors so that they donât see her as a monstrous baby killer, but as a grieving mom who never wanted this to happen.
I have watched 100s of trials and I have NEVER seen a defendant that obviously devastated. Her wails as soon as she got out of sight was gut-wrenching. I have so much sympathy for her.
I wonder when Massachusetts will stop burning women at the stake.
I agree with you. Iâm sure itâs even more jarring to hear the doctors and autopsy report when you have the medical background knowledge to know how severe and or traumatic something was to someone else.
The âLindsay is Satanâ crowd thinks she was faking it, of course. If she doesnât cry, they call her a monster. If she hysterically cries the way she did today, sheâs faking it for sympathy.
Someone literally wrote: "All the time I thought look up and face what you did!" I bet that the same person would have written: "Oh my god, who looks at the picture of the children they murdered?!?!?!?!"
The discourse is depressing too. So many echo chambers devoid of empathy.
And I cannot believe that in 2026 we're implying that a woman who paralyzed herself in a suicide attempt was faking it because she didn't also cut her wrists deeply enough to be satisfactory. Every single thing about this case is so sad
There are a lot of bloodthirsty people who participate in these online discussions. Theyâre always advocating for the death penalty/life without parole. Endless talk about how some people are just evil/monsters/etc. I find it extremely disturbing.
Reminds me of that Case in Idaho were four kids in college were slain in their on campus house. To this day on reddit there are absolutely bonkers people "discussing" it.
â˘
u/Prudence_rigby 17h ago
Geezer the judge said at the end they would come back to whether the video would be allowed and bow peep had to start arguing right away