LIVE: MA v. Linsday Clancy - Jury Selection | Accused Killer Mom Trial

[00:02:45]Ducksberry, Massachusetts, a quiet seaside town, was shattered by an unthinkable tragedy. Lindseay [music] Clancy, a young nurse, devoted wife, and mother of three, was seen as the picture of perfection. But police say behind the smiles and family photos, darkness took hold. On a cold January night, investigators say she strangled her children, Kora Dawson, and baby [music] Ken. All that before attempting to take her own life. Clancy's husband, Patrick, returned home to a scene of unimaginable horror. Now the once trusted nurse faces murder charges as her defense claims she suffered [music] from severe postpartum psychosis.

[00:03:32]Prosecutors call it calculated. Her attorneys say it's a symptom of a mind lost to illness.

[00:03:40]>> Welcome back to Court TV Live. I'm Julia Jana. Thank you for being with us as we are covering a lot here on Court TV today, but our focus this hour is on Plymouth County, Massachusetts. Jury selection moving into high gear today in that murder trial for Lindsay Clancy.

[00:03:55]The Ducksbury mother is accused of strangling three of her young children, Kora, Dawson, and Kalin. This all happened back in 2023. And the breaking news this hour has been that 17 jurors are seated with attorneys now working to finalize one more spot. They want in total 18 before those opening statements begin. The prosecution says that Clancy planned out the murders, contending that she committed these strangulations during a brief window of time that she created, that she sent her husband out on an errand at a distance that she knew would give herself the time that she needed to do this killing. Now, the defense says that yes, she did these killings, but she is not criminally responsible, that she was overmedicated and suffering from potential postpartum psychosis at the time. So again, this is day three of jury selection. We're going out to on the ground there in front of this courthouse to get an update from Sierra Gillespie, who's been joining us all week. She's the host of Scandal, a podcast on the Law and Crime Network, and she is live there at the courthouse.

[00:05:00]Sierra, it seems like every time we come to you, you have some breaking news.

[00:05:03]Sometimes jury selection can move pretty slow, but what is the latest this hour from your vantage point?

[00:05:11]Yeah, Julia, this morning I spoke to defense attorney Kevin Readdington and he said, "Today's the day. We're going to see the jury." And so far, it seems like he wasn't lying. Juror after juror has been seated. And now the way that it stands is 17 jurors have been seated.

[00:05:26]We're only looking for that final one.

[00:05:28]And kind of here's the breakdown. There are 10 women and there are seven men.

[00:05:32]And the most recent juror I saw that was seated honestly 10 minutes ago, she was an older woman. She looked like she could maybe be retired um senior citizen kind of era of her life. So potentially a mother or grandmother. I know that's kind of a topic of discussion. We haven't been able to confirm that anyone is a mom or father on this actual jury, but I mean the odds are pretty likely if we're going to have 18 people that somebody here is a parent. So we'll see what happens if before the end of the day we have 18 people seated on this jury.

[00:06:02]>> Sierra, I'm so curious. How long is it taking to seat these jurors? Because the way that it's being reported, even though there are some lols, there are some jurors who get excused and sometimes we see a repeated amount of those that are excused, it doesn't seem like the attorneys spend an awful lot of time with each juror. I know they filled out a questionnaire, but tell me what it seems like for you. You're sitting there inside of the courtroom.

[00:06:28]>> Yeah. Okay. So, let me kind of paint the picture for you. What happens is that a prospective juror is called up to the witness stand and that's where Lindsay Clancy herself is right next to her defense attorney. There's also the two representatives from the prosecution, the Commonwealth and the judge. So basically what goes down is the judge asks normal questions that you would have in any jury anywhere in America. He asked things like, okay, the defendant has the right to testify, also the right not to testify. Would you hold it against them if they didn't testify?

[00:06:57]He's also asking things like, you know, this is a 6 to 8 week jury selection.

[00:07:01]Are you going to be able to handle that?

[00:07:02]I mean, there have been some college students who have said, "Hey, I got to go back to school. I don't think I'm going to be able to be here for this."

[00:07:07]So, we ask kind of the basic questions.

[00:07:09]And after that, that's when both sides kind of start the questioning. What I've kind of noticed with the pattern is the judge will just dismiss someone if they say, you know, I'm biased against Lindsay Clancy, which I literally heard moments ago before I'm coming on air with you. A woman said, I heard too much about this case. I'm biased. I won't change my opinion. I I think she's a murderer. And then, you know, they're like, "Okay, you will be excused." So, after all of that happens, then both sides kind of discuss and they ask further questions. These are kind of harder to hear because the judge is more loudspoken. These others are kind of more quiet, but it goes back and forth between the prosecution and the defense.

[00:07:45]And after that, I mean, it could be pretty quick. They could be up there for anywhere between two to five minutes at most.

[00:07:52]>> That is actually very interesting to me.

[00:07:54]Every voadier situation could be different depending on where it is and the details of the case. What have you observed about the defendant? I know she's very involved in this process.

[00:08:03]She's right there near these potential jurors as they are being questioned. Uh were there any moments today? We saw her on video frowning some about something that was being discussed. Were you in there for that?

[00:08:17]Yeah. So, I have been keeping a close eye on Lindsay literally all day today.

[00:08:22]And it is a bit different her persona today versus yesterday. Yesterday, some people were just speculating. I heard them in the gallery under the hallway.

[00:08:30]They were saying maybe she's medicated.

[00:08:32]She seems very kind of like zonked out.

[00:08:34]She kind of seemed blurred or um her vision blurred or you know, she had a stone face. Today, I didn't clock that as much. I watched her follow. If the defense was talking, she'd look at them.

[00:08:45]If the prosecution's talking, the witness, whoever it may be, she's kind of following as you normally would, making eye contact, looking at the person who, you know, is speaking. So, it seems to me she's following along.

[00:08:55]And she does seem to be more with it, so to speak, today. I mean, yesterday she looked I again, I don't want to say catatonic, but she looked, you know, nothing. Now, today, I saw her fixing her hair. I saw her kind of fiddling.

[00:09:08]And I saw her doing things that everyone is doing in the courtroom after they're there hour after hour after hour kind of, you know, looking down at her lap, you know, whatever it may be to kind of help pass the time. So, it does seem like she is at least engaged today.

[00:09:20]>> Sierra, you've been bringing us great details from inside of that courtroom.

[00:09:23]We're all anticipating when this trial is going to start. And with just one more juror to seat, it sounds like it could happen at any minute. I'm understanding from my producer that the lunch break is actually taking place now. So, what's your take on where we could be in terms of when a trial will start and when this jury is going to be sworn in?

[00:09:44]>> You know, a lot of my information today comes straight from the defense, straight from Kevin Readington. I spoke to him this morning and he said, "You know what? We're seating a jury today."

[00:09:53]And after that, he said, "I want to do openings today. I'm ready." The judge says, "No, that's not going to happen."

[00:09:59]So Kevin said, "Okay, let's do them on Thursday." Now, this is still kind of up in the air right now. if a jury is seated today, which at this point seems kind of likely, um he said that he would be willing to do openings tomorrow on Thursday, but it seems like the judge almost wants to push it off until Friday. It doesn't seem like we're going to be in a world where we wait until Monday for that because again, this is a 6 to 8 week trial that we have going on here. We got to get it underway at some point to kind of make some sort of headway here. And I do think it's worth noting that we have confirmed today. We reported it this morning with Ted that the first witness is going to be Patrick Clancy himself. So I mean we're all eager to see what he has to say when he takes the stand after the openings are presented.

[00:10:41]>> Absolutely. It's going to be a big moment and we're going to watch it all together. Sierra Gillespie, thank you so much for all of those details from there in Plen County, Massachusetts. Let's bring in our guests of legal experts, our panel. There we have with us criminal defense attorney Joseph Krosky Jr. And we have attorney and former prosecutor Tommy Pope and former law enforcement and domestic violence expert officer Claudia King is with us. It's good to have all of you. I'm so eager to get your takes on this case as we are awaiting the start of this trial that as Sierra said it's expected to last six to eight weeks. Joseph Kroski Jr. you are there in Massachusetts. I really want to get your take on how this jury selection is going. You heard Sierra talk about the length of time that these attorneys are spending with each potential juror and they're doing their strikes as they go along. What is the insight that you can provide on it?

[00:11:33]>> So, relatively speaking, compared to other states and jurisdictions, jury selection in Massachusetts moves fairly quickly. Uh, the judge does a nice job bearing out and screening out uh jurors that exhibit any type of bias based on those general questions. this case, Judge Sullivan also had them fill out a questionnaire which really allowed the attorneys to hone in on specific areas of concern. Unlike other states, we don't do a panel voard where it's kind of a freewailing question and answer from attorneys and I prefer that because sometimes questions are posed that go out of bounds. So, look, this is moving a little more quickly than I anticipated because uh having being a lawyer up here that practices in that courthouse, it seems like everyone knows about the case and everyone's formed an opinion one way or the other. But, you know, it's been a week and I think they'll get that juror today and probably start with openings fresh tomorrow morning.

[00:12:35]>> Uh, Claudia King, let's talk about the jurors that we have so far. We've got 10 women and seven men. So, it's looking like we're going to have a pretty even in terms of gender on this on this jury panel. We don't know who the alternates are going to be. So, there is the possibility that there could be six alternates and they all could be the same gender. So, it would leave a very different looking jury panel. But, what are your thoughts when you see that part of this?

[00:13:02]You know, Julia, I think there's been a lot of talk about what type of juror that each side wants, but at the end of the day, I really feel like that's kind of open because this case is is such a difficult one for people to process and deal with that I think instead of looking at whether somebody's a mom or a dad, it's really more important to focus on can they really take in all of this evidence and listen to the experts and the other witnesses. es and keep their minds open until the end of testimony and then come together to make that decision. So, I'm also surprised that it's going so quickly. I think we thought it might go till the end of the week. So, this is a good sign, I think.

[00:13:47]>> Yeah. Tommy Pope, what do you think about the swiftness of this jury selection? Do you think perhaps we won't need all eight weeks for this trial?

[00:13:55]>> Uh, I'm always hopeful as a prosecutor.

[00:13:58]I feel like the director in a play and you just almost want it to be over so you can get to the end. But South Carolina is a lot like uh Joseph said their court is we don't have this long extended board hour. The judge usually keeps it tight. He does most of the questioning and so I think as far as the speed it reflects the judge, you know, keeping things tight and the rules up there that allow that not to get off track. And so I I agree. I think we'll have a jury soon. Uh and the type of juror um it cuts both ways because you know again back on Smith I remember people saying no matter you know I fought depression I fought postpartum depression but I would never take the life of my life of my children. So you see that, but the flip side is it makes us uncomfortable when the murderer is not the the bad guy like the carjacker, but is instead the mother because a lot of us leave every day with our kids at the house with mom and so so they may be looking to find something to explain why it would not happen to them. In other words, you know, she must have mental issues that would not ever visit my family. And it gives them some comfort.

[00:15:08]So, I really think you can see it ultimately cut in both ways.

[00:15:11]>> We're going to talk a lot more about that, the picture that these jurors are going to get of Lindseay Clancy, not just the action she took that day, but the actions that were taken before. So, let's get to our break. Our entire panel is staying with us. And when we come back, we're going to continue to monitor that jury selection, but talk about what we can expect in this upcoming trial.

[00:19:37]A Massachusetts courtroom is nearing a full jury panel in a murder trial that is happening soon for Lindsay Clancy.

[00:19:44]She's a 36-year-old mother who faces murder charges in the deaths of her three children in a case that centers heavily around maternal mental health.

[00:19:53]Defense attorney Kevin Readington laid the groundwork for an insanity defense, citing severe postpartum depression, potential postpartum psycho psychosis, and horrific over medication.

[00:20:06]>> They put her on a number of medications.

[00:20:10]They put her on Prozac, which your honor is well aware is what's known as SSRI, selective serotin reuptake inhibitor.

[00:20:18]Your honor knows that along with some of these medications, they have the blackbox warning from the FDA may cause suicidal ideation, may cause homicidal ideiation. She was on Adavan, she was on benadryil, and then she ended up being told, "Okay, because she was complaining about the effects of the Prozac, they said, "Stop the Prozac. We'll find something else." They put her on Remron.

[00:20:40]Then they added on Cerakquil. And your honor, I attached from David Benjamin, the toxicologist, some papers with the submission. And you can see the side effects that this cerakil causes. She was having bad thoughts. She was having worsening depression. Her husband suffered through that phase. Her parents were well aware of the fact that she was suffering from this depression and depressive phase. She wasn't sleeping.

[00:21:03]This is a significant issue between the postpartum depression as well as possibility of postpartum psychosis that is pretty much ignored. But nevertheless, with the overlay of the SSRI and the history and your honor has some uh emails and things that people would reach out to me from all over the world indicating that their daughter had the same problem that they had the same problem. Your honor is are well aware that many times when people are on Prozac or on SSRI, workplace violence, homicides, family homicides.

[00:21:42]This is clearly a tragic, which is a word that's used too much in the criminal justice system, but this really is a tragedy. This case, >> the steps leading up to this tragedy are going to be important for the jury.

[00:21:56]Again, we're waiting for that full panel of 18 to be seated. 17 have been seated so far. Lindsay Clancy sought care through emergency room visits, paranatal specialists, and a 5-day voluntary stay at the man Psychiatric Hospital.

[00:22:11]However, her only reported diagnosis there, general anxiety disorder, something the prosecution points out as evidence that Clancy was aware of what she was doing.

[00:22:23]The police were able to find several notebooks in the defendant's home pursuant to a search warrant and also notes on her phone that were similar to journal entries. In the months, weeks, and days preceding January 24th, 2023, the defendant meticulously detailed her daily activities, her children's lives, her mental state, and her medication use. Her writing was clear, precise, and articulate. She never indicated that she was hallucinating, delusional, or had disordered thoughts or speech.

[00:22:54]>> All right, let's bring in our panel of experts. We have still with us criminal defense attorney Joseph Kroski Jr. We have attorney and former prosecutor Tommy Pope and former law enforcement officer Claudia King. Tommy Pope, I'm going to start with you. You are the prosecutor who very notoriously prosecuted a woman successfully who killed her two children. There were elements of after the fact in terms of the penalty phase with Susan Smith where there were allegations of depression. But here we have a defendant who is actively trying to get help. That is different, is it not, than bringing up an undiagnosed mental health issue after the fact in the penalty phase.

[00:23:36]>> I think it certainly gives more credibility. I think as you heard her attorney delineate before the court, the fact that she's seeking, seeking, seeking may be something that would resonate with certain particular jurors as as we've discussed in the past, you know, that the insanity issue or the McN issue according presented up there is basically do you know right from wrong and and I think that's what they were saying with the notes that she was lucid. Uh likewise on the day of the uh the crime in question, you know, were you able to, for example, order the food that you told your husband to go get or things of that nature. In other words, you're connected enough with reality to do the normal things that would show you know right from wrong and what the societal rules are. So that'll be the split I think there. But again, from a pure mitigation, not necessarily a a proof standpoint, but a mitigation standpoint, I certainly think it it it resonates with me personally that she's seeking help versus uh, you know, bringing it up when the time comes for a trial after you've committed a crime.

[00:24:42]>> Yeah. though the other side of it.

[00:24:44]Claudia, I got this really interesting viewer message yesterday, something that was posted and it was about this from a viewer, Jennifer Leaglia, and she writes, "Why should Lindsay Clancy's mental illness automatically inspire more sympathy than the mental illness of, let's say, a school shooter or a mass murderer?" We recognize as a society they may be mentally disturbed, but it does not stop us as a society from holding them legally responsible for deliberately killing people. What are your thoughts on that even from a law enforcement standpoint perhaps arriving at these scenes where there are so many people who are struggling with mental health episodes?

[00:25:24]>> Absolutely, Julia. And I think that is one of the problems here is it's more than just whether or not somebody was dealing with mental illness. But did they recognize right from wrong? Were they able to look at what they were doing and understand right from wrong?

[00:25:43]And if so, were they able to stop themselves from doing what they were doing? So that's really where we're going to have to go with the evidence here. one way or the other is I don't think there's any question that she was suffering from mental illness for sure and she tried to get help for that. So are the doctors that treated her going to say no she just had anxiety and that's it so she did know what she was doing or are they going to say it rose to a level where she could not understand right from wrong in those moments that she killed her children?

[00:26:19]Joe, can you tell us the definition or the examples of legal insanity in Massachusetts? Are there other cases that you recall that have similar facts to this one in the state? And do you see the prosecution in their opening statement showing a lot of ownership of the fact that she was sick in a way?

[00:26:40]>> So in Massachusetts, we are a minority jurisdiction. It's on it's incumbent upon the government. They've got the burden of persuasion to prove beyond a reasonable doubt both that a defendant that raises the lack of criminal responsibility knew right from wrong appreciated the wrongfulness of their conduct, but even if they did, they could stop themselves.

[00:27:03]I I think it's a little bit of symbolism from the government here in just suggesting because uh Miss Clancy could plan things out, because she could function, that she somehow wasn't mentally ill. Uh people that are suffering from mental illness can certainly plan things. They can plan good things. They can plan bad things.

[00:27:25]What I think this trial is really going to focus on. Even if she could appreciate what she was about to do and did was a terrible, tragic thing. Could she help herself? And I think unequivocally the answer is going to be no. This wasn't a simple reaching out for a little bit of help. There's at least 13 documented instances where fairly contemporaneous to this horrible tragedy. She reached out for help. She expressed uh suicidal ideiation which is usually accompanied by homicidal ideiation. And you know this is drive by mental health treatment sometimes. I looked at one of the mental health uh teleaalth appointments she had lasted a mere 17 minutes. I I do agree with the other guests. I I think these treatment pro providers are going to be awfully defensive if they're called to testify because they missed it here.

[00:28:19]>> And that could be why we're looking at such a lengthy trial that so many of these different medical not only experts but actual treating doctors are going to be taking the stand. Let's take a listen back to a clip from the defense attorney talking about the doctors that are going to be involved in this case. This is the defense psychiatrist rather.

[00:28:40]She's in a very surreal state. It feels dreamlike to her as she's described to me on multiple occasions. And individuals who can present as being lucid and linear and clear thinking do not make those people not mentally ill. They have the capacity for on occasion to be able to do things that they've been doing for a long period of time. When you have delusional thinking, fixed beliefs that are unchangeable, and hallucinations, namely command hallucinations telling you to do things, telling you to do things that are malevolent, and you believe those voices that are telling you you need to follow what they say, that's when things go downhill.

[00:29:28]>> And Tommy Pope, what do you think is the sentiment generally? And these jurors are going to be told they need to look at the evidence that's inside the courtroom of course, but the sentiment about you heard Joseph saying drive by healthc care. There are issues with the health care system and a lot of people feel it more intimately than others because of what they've experienced.

[00:29:47]What do you think they are going to feel when it comes to blaming medication versus perhaps blaming illicit drug use which sometimes we see from defendants?

[00:29:57]This is medication that would have come from a doctor. There's a list of all of those medications.

[00:30:03]>> I think that, you know, again, you you touched on it. We always tell jurors, you don't leave your life experience in the door. You know, you want you to bring your life experiences in. And and I think that that prescribed medication would get some latitude that that illicit drugs perhaps would not, even though they can be as powerful or as detrimental uh to the user. you know, if she is showing she's comporting with the doctor's uh instructions or requirements and taking what she and striving to do it, I think that that does endure to the benefit of the defense to go not only is she trying, she's taking, you know, advice from people whose job it is to address these things. And then as I've said previously too, a juror is going to seek for some reason that this would not happen to their loved ones because again this defendant is not the the the stranger. This defendant is is a a family member, a a friend from work. You know, she presents as as the last person you think would be taken lives. And I think that makes a jury unsettled. And so they dig deeper looking for a reason to explain it.

[00:31:16]>> Oh yeah, absolutely. We have get to get to our break, but we're going to keep the conversation going. We're still waiting on jury selection to give us the breaking news of a full jury panel being seated. And as we mentioned, the details of [music] this case, they're difficult to hear. They're going to be difficult for all of these jurors. We're going to listen to what the opening statements may look like in [music] this case.

[00:35:43]Welcome back to Court TV Live. I'm Julia Jana. Thank you for following along with us. It's day three of jury selection there in Massachusetts in the trial for Lindsay Clancy. And her defense attorneys, they don't dispute that she killed her three children by strangulation. But they are pursuing an insanity defense. They argue that the former nurse suffered from a severe postpartum psychosis and that she was not legally responsible, not criminally responsible for her actions, but prosecutors say she was well aware of her actions. And they cite the meticulous planning, the researching, and the fact that she created a window of time to act. So, we got a preview of what the opening statement in front of the jury will be like during the arraignment hearing that happened back in 2023. prosecution laid out the day of what they say was murder. Let's take a listen back to that.

[00:36:34]On the morning of Tuesday, January 24th, 2023, the defendant took her 5-year-old daughter, Core, to the pediatricians for an appointment. She interacted with a receptionist, nursing staff, and a doctor. There were apparently no issues with the defendant's demeanor or behavior as she completed the appointment and was allowed to leave with Core without any issues or concerns. When she returned home, she went outside with Core and her three-year-old son, Dawson, to play in the snow. They built a snowman. The defendant sent photos to her mother and to the defendant. Strike that to her husband. [music] She texted with them.

[00:37:11]Nothing in the text was out of the ordinary or any sign of any distress or trouble.

[00:37:16]Back inside later that day at 4:02 p.m., the defendant searched on her phone Kits Mirillax. She then searched takeout 3V via her cell phone at 4:13 p.m.

[00:37:29]Immediately after doing that, she used Apple Maps on her phone to determine how long it would take [music] someone to drive from her home in Duxberry to 3V restaurant in Plymouth, so she would know how long someone would be gone if they ran that errand. She next went on the CVS website at 4:47 p.m. [music] and then called CVS on Summer Street in Kingston. She spoke to the manager of CVS and asked if they had the kids Mirax. The manager told her no, but they had other similar [music] medications.

[00:37:59]According to the manager of CVS, her voice did not sound slurred or impaired in any way. [music] She had no trouble understanding the defendant, and it was a perfectly normal conver conversation.

[00:38:10]At 4:53 p.m., the defendant texted her husband, who was working in his home office in their basement. She texted, "Any chance you want to do takeout from 3V? I didn't cook anything. It's been a long day." This was an unusual request, as when the family ordered takeout, they usually go somewhere closer to home, but it was a place that they had been in the past.

[00:38:31]Patrick Clancy texted back yes, and then the defendant asked him to check the menu. At 5:06 p.m., the def the the husband texted the defendant um asking uh what she was going to get. She responded a Mediterranean power bowl.

[00:38:47]She spelled it correctly and it was something that was on the menu. He then told her that he wanted the scallop and pork belly risoto. At 5 10 p.m., the defendant called 3V restaurant to place the order. She got the order correct.

[00:39:02]She gave the correct name for pickup.

[00:39:03]Patrick, the hostess who took the call, said there was nothing out of the ordinary about this call. She was able to understand the defendant, that um her voice was not slurred or impaired in any way.

[00:39:17]At 5:15 p.m., Patrick Clancy headed out the door to run these errands at the defendant's request. As he left, she texted him PDLX liquid stool softener.

[00:39:28]Surveillance footage shows Mr. Clancy at CVS on Summer Street in Kingston at 5:32 p.m. He goes to the medication aisle, the children's medication aisle. Phone records show that he called the defendant at 5:33 p.m. and she did not answer the phone. She then calls him back at 5:34 p.m. and the call lasted 14 seconds. He's there at the store unsure of which medication to get and she tells him exactly what she wants. He had no issues communicating with her. It was a completely normal call. although he did mention that she seemed like she was in the middle of something.

[00:40:05]He is on surveillance footage during this time exiting that aisle and appeared to be using his phone. He then heads to the register, makes his purchase, and leaves the store at 5:37 p.m. He's next seen on footage at 3V restaurant at 5:54 p.m. He picks up the the food and he's out of there within a minute. When he arrives home, the first thing he noticed was the silence.

[00:40:29]He did not see or hear the defendant or the children. He actually called her cell phone at 6:09 p.m. looking for them and she did not answer. He went to their bedroom on the second floor and the door was locked. He was able to open it and when he looked inside, he saw blood on the floor in front of a full-length mirror and the window open. He immediately runs downstairs and into the backyard where he finds the defendant laying on the ground.

[00:40:56]She appeared to have cuts on her wrists and neck, but he stated to 911 that those wounds were no longer bleeding.

[00:41:02][music] She was conscious. He called 911. During this time, he [music] asked the defendant, "What did you do?" She responded to him, "I tried to kill myself and jumped out the window."

[00:41:17]During the 911 call, Patrick can be heard asking the [music] defendant, "Where are the kids?" He later told police that she replied in the basement.

[00:41:26]So immediately after this happened, she knew what she had done and she knew where the kids were.

[00:41:32]Still with us, Joseph Krosky, Tommy Pope, and Claudia King. Claudia, I'm going to start with you listening to that level of detail. I mean, these prosecutors are going to go granular.

[00:41:42]They are going to go second by second in these hours leading up to the strangulation deaths of these children.

[00:41:49]Even hearing that she answered the phone when her husband called, she gave him lucid instructions and went back to what she was doing. What's standing out to you listening back to that timeline?

[00:42:01]That very thing, Julia, is what is standing out to me is that in the middle of this alleged psychotic break, that she was able to make that phone call to him and communicate with him clearly and not say anything about what was obviously going on in that moment. And the other thing I found interesting was that when he found her and asked, you know, what did she do? She only mentioned herself. I tried to kill myself, said it very clearly and plainly, and didn't mention the kids until he asked about them. So, if I were on the jury, I would really need to hear some expert evidence as to how she was able to do those things clearly and coherently if she was in the middle of a psychotic break.

[00:42:46]>> Joseph, what's standing out to you? I'm noticing she's in the hospital bed during that arraignment, and she's in a much more improved position now. But if you're the defense, do you want these jurors to believe that she's still in some way mentally ill now, even though that's not required for her to be found, not criminally responsible?

[00:43:06]>> So, I I think I got to point something out now. Kevin Readington hasn't conceded yet she's responsible for the death of the children. I think that's going to be forthcoming to engender some credibility with this jury. But it's interesting strategically he might wait to raise that. Uh her condition might be much improved, but she's paralyzed. She is reduced to a wheelchair. So this in my mind was not a fain suicide attempt.

[00:43:35]Again, I think there's going to be a battleground here. A a DSM5 mental illness with uh psychosis. You can still plan, but I think you see what the prosecutor is trying to do. They're trying to make her look methodical, premeditated, cold, dispassionate. So, I I think that the defense is going to really have to attack that theory of the government and through expert testimony show and demonstrate both anecdotally, empirically, through the science that people with mental health illnesses can still plan and carry out really heinous things. And the fundamental question is why else would she do it? I mean, she could have divorced her husband. She could have left. She could have contrived, slurred speech that day. Uh, this is someone that clearly was in the throws of a psychotic episode.

[00:44:27]>> A quick followup, Joseph, what's the verdict form going to look like? I know you said that some of these things haven't been argued yet in court, but is it going to be guilty, not guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity, guilty, but insane? What does that typically look like in Massachusetts?

[00:44:43]>> Right, that you'll get a uh not guilt.

[00:44:47]You'll get a not guilty or not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility. And the reason that they have that on there is because not guilty by way of lack of criminal responsibility does not mean that the person is automatically free to go. They can be committed uh committed to a state mental health hospital subject to uh reviews. I think it's every 40 days to every 6 months to see whether or not their release would pose a danger to the community.

[00:45:15]>> Tommy Pope, we've talked about more of what the prosecution's opening statements are going to look like. What do you think the defense opening statement is going to look like? Because to Joseph's point, there could be something very different that we hear from the defense. We're assuming that they are going to completely take ownership and only focus on that. But they did ask this judge to bifrocate the guilt phase and the insanity or criminal responsibility phase and that was denied.

[00:45:42]>> I I think they lean into why would a mother ever do this you know but for mental health issues and again that you know I've said that several times now with the jury you know because the jurors are going to have questions.

[00:45:57]I mean we all do. That's why this case is of interest. why, you know, if you're just suicidal, why do you take the lives of the children? Now, traditionally, it's been because they didn't want to leave them behind without a mother, as you know, I've seen in similar cases, but I again, I think leaning into no one in their right mind, that sounds cliche, but no one in their right mind would ever take the lives of these three beautiful children. So I think you can kind of play the prosecution hand against themselves, you know, by, you know, bringing out what beautiful children they were and how, you know, you know, she would have never done this in normal circumstances if she was in control of her facilities. Oh yeah. Her faculties, >> these are going to be difficult opening statements, a difficult trial, of course, for all of the people who are connected to it, but I really feel for these jurors because some of the cases involving children are the most difficult for jurors. We learned some breaking news today from reporter Sierra Gillespie who's inside of that courthouse and courtroom talking to the parties that we understand who the first witness will likely be for the prosecution. And when we come back, we're going to look [music] at what we can expect as the first witness in the Lindsey Clancy trial, including testimony from [music] her ex-husband and the victim's father, Patrick Clancy.

[00:51:21]The Lindsay Clancy trial that we are following in Massachusetts, it centers on the deaths of three little children, a 5-year-old Kora, three-year-old Dawson, and eight-month-old Kayn Clancy.

[00:51:31]Their mother was a former labor and delivery nurse at Massachusetts General Hospital. She's facing murder charges while she was held while being held at a state psychiatric facility. And we learned today that the victim's father, this is according to the defense attorney, Patrick Clancy, is going to be the first witness for the state in this case. But we have some information about what he may talk about. He sat down for an interview with the New Yorker back in 2024. It could give us a preview of what he could testify to. some of the quotes from that article. In it, he says that his wife explained to him that she heard voices commanding her to kill the children and then herself because it was quote her last chance. And when asked if she planned this event, Lindsay said no.

[00:52:16]It was just like a snap of the fingers.

[00:52:18]Let's bring back in our panel of experts. Criminal defense attorney Joseph Krosky Jr., attorney and former prosecutor Tommy Pope, and former law enforcement officer Claudia King.

[00:52:27]Claudia, everyone's attention is going to be on Patrick. He is the central figure because he is the remaining relative of these children of the victims. He'll have victim advocates with him potentially because he has that connection to the state. Then obviously he has a connection to the defense as well through someone that he was married to. What are your thoughts when you're even thinking about Patrick Clancy during this investigation? because there are even times that police will look into more the husband in a tragedy like this.

[00:53:03]>> Yes, I'm sure that they definitely did do that and look into him. And what is interesting is he's going to be the one that can give us the best look at what was going on with Lindseay Clancy that day, the days before, and the days after. outside of any experts, he's the closest one to her that can talk about what she was experiencing and what it looked like every day. So, all eyes will be on him. And both sides need to be very careful with him because he is a victim and he is, as we believe, standing beside her still. So, both sides need to play it very carefully um with him. And >> Joseph, what do you think about him being the first witness potentially?

[00:53:51]It sets the stage, right? I think by then we'll know what the defense is going to be. Uh this is really an opportunity for the defense to make the government's first witness their witness. It seems by all accounts that he is still very much on board uh with the defense in this case. So I think what they're going to hammer out on cross-examination is the juxiposition, right? The Lindsey Clancy he married.

[00:54:17]The Lindsey Clancy that was a delivery nurse at Mass General Hospital. The Lindsey Clancy that dressed in a kid and loved those kids versus the Lindsey Clansancy of the last 60 days prior to the date that you know those children died. He also can provide some historical information. I think there's information out there in the pleadings that you know she suffered from uh during all three pregnancies with some postpartum and he can testify how the third time it was exponentially worse.

[00:54:50]So I think the defense is going to make the government's witness their witness.

[00:54:55]>> That is really interesting insight and something for us to pay attention to.

[00:54:58]Let's take a look back at the New Yorker article a little bit more from it because it may be something that he is cross-examined on or asked about. In this article, when Patrick asked her asked the defendant about her searches about ways to kill be ways to kill before her children's death, he said that Lindsay responded, "Yeah, for myself because I was suicidal for two months." And before her hospitalization in late December, she allegedly confessed to Patrick that she had thoughts of wanting to die and that she felt numb to them. According to that interview, there was an iPhone note written the day before the killings where Lindsay described her condition as quote, "Just a touch of postpartum anxiety." Tommy Pope, you're a former prosecutor. What's it like being a prosecutor? Your star witness is someone who may be supporting the defendant and they are the victim that jurors may be looking at you being their champion.

[00:55:51]>> It's tough because you're in a I think Joseph's right. it there's a great great risk of of this witness being turned not against you per se but but painting the picture that the defense wants to paint. We actually had that in the Smith case my sheriff who I needed to put up for factual information and and much like here the husband you maybe the timeline of the food and the text and all that you've got to use him to authenticate that. But then the sheriff was favorable and he was the godfather of Susan Smith. And so when the defense got up, I mean, they were just it was softball after softball that he gained the defense. And uh so there's a distinct possibility. I think Jose spot on with that. That's the risk. And you know, maybe behind the scenes we'll see something different than what you're seeing, you know, when it comes out the jury, you know, to the jury from what we saw in that article. But, uh, it's a very risky move and you've got to balance. Is it important that I get my facts straight out early or and risk gaining that sympathy for the defense?

[00:56:58]>> Yeah. And will the support that he has for his former wife, will that come up during even his direct? Depends on their questions. Okay. I'm going to go around the horn with everyone because we are again anticipating those openings to happen this week. Claudia King, outside of Patrick Clancy, who's no doubt the number one witness to pay attention to, who else are you looking forward to hearing on the stand in this case?

[00:57:21]I am looking forward to the expert testimony to really explain postpartum psychosis and the side effects of the medications that Lindseay Clancy was taking.

[00:57:32]>> Joseph, who's the next most important witness?

[00:57:35]>> Uh, some late breaking information.

[00:57:36]Openings are going to be Friday morning at 9:00 a.m. is what my source tells me.

[00:57:42]Uh, I'm looking forward to I know there's several experts, but one that specializes in maternal f much like battered woman syndrome. It's an evolving science and it's more recognized now than it ever was before.

[00:57:55]That's what I'm going to really pay attention to.

[00:57:58]>> Tommy Pope, final comments.

[00:58:00]>> You know me, I'm the fact guy. I want to hear the facts. I want to hear them played out and then that lays on top of the expert testimony. But, you know, I don't normally want an expert testimony to carry the day.

[00:58:13]>> All right. A fantastic panel today, guys. Joseph Krosky Jr., Tommy Pope, and Claudia King. You heard Joseph say we're expecting those openings potentially on Friday to begin. We'll continue to monitor closing arguments. We also are paying attention to California where it's day two of the preliminary hearing for singer David in the death of [music] teen Celeste Rivas Hernandez. Don't go anywhere. You're watching Court TV.