Inside the Final Days of the Lindsay Clancy Trial

of suicide and the killing of children.

So please listen or watch with care.

“We'll have resources at the end of the episode.”

I'm not going to declare a mistrial this time. What I am going to do is I'm going to bring the jury in, I'm going to tell him to dish we got it, I'm going to tell him that's an inappropriate era of inquiry, and that this witness is understanding of Catholic dog marrathic teaching is irrelevant. That was the judge in the Commonwealth versus Lindsey Clancy case in one of several tense

moments this week as the trial comes to a close. Now this was a shocking moment in the trial when one of the prosecutions expert witnesses brought up the Clancy family's Catholic faith while on the stand and it led to defense attorney Kevin Reddington requesting a mistrial immediately due to intentional misconduct. Lindsey Clancy, the Ducksberry Massachusetts mother, has been on trial for the past five weeks

for the killing of her three young children, five-year-old Kora, three-year-old Dawson, and eight-month-old Kallen.

“As a reminder, Lindsey is paralyzed from the waist down as a result of jumping from her”

second story window after killing her three children that night in her own attempt to kill

herself. Now there is no question as to whether Lindsey killed her children, now what the jury has to decide is whether she should be held criminally responsible. The defense argued that she experienced undiagnosed postpartum psychosis that took away her ability to control her actions and therefore that she should not be found criminally responsible.

They also argued that her condition was exacerbated by the 13 different psychiatric medications she had been prescribed. I do want to emphasize, though, that it is the prosecution that has the burden of proof here.

I'm 48 hours correspondent Natalie Morales, and this is case by case.

Now we've been following this case closely in our last several episodes for our continuing coverage. You can check the case by case feed wherever you find your podcasts. You can also watch episodes of case by case on the 48 hours YouTube channel, or by searching case by case on Paramount Plus.

Returning this week is CBS News Legal Analyst Caroline Polisi, who has covered this case with us before.

“Caroline, so great to always have your insights and your input on this very important case.”

Thanks for being here. Thanks for having me, Natalie. Caroline, this has become such an emotionally divisive case for those who have been watching closely, both inside and outside the courtroom. It's a case, as we've said, it has garnered such huge interest at sparked lots of important

conversations regarding mental health, particularly maternal mental health. Now the courtroom and Plymouth Massachusetts has been packed for weeks, and Caroline, what we've really seen, this has become a battle of the medical experts with conflicting and sometimes opposing testimony throughout the past five weeks, and some very tense moments. So I want to start by asking you about an intense moment during the rebuttal.

After that it fenced, rested their case. The prosecution then called forensic psychologist Dr. Kirk Heilbron to the stand. He had evaluated Lindsay an April of this year, and he recounted what she told him about her recollection and state of mind at the time of the killings three years ago. Let's play some of his testimony.

One of the things that she said when asked about what happened is that in the course of strangling each child, she said, "Go to God, baby, go to God." And that was part of her expectation that she and the children would be together in heaven with God. She was raised as a Catholic, and this, as I understand, Catholic considerations that's not necessarily what happens, but when I ask her about that, when I said, "Isn't

suicide a mortal sin?" Yeah, I see Council over here. Well you heard immediately there, that's Clancy's Defense Attorney Kevin Reddington, then calling for that mistrial, here he is asking Judge Sullivan. It's a concern I have, because this is just over the top.

It's the same thing again, talking about religion, talking about heaven, talking about killing people in the impact of the affected would have on Lindsay, as well as for children.

has previously brought up the concept of the mortal sin, based on your ruling in the past,

“in conjunction with the fact that they brought it up again, I believe it was intentional”

misconduct, and I feel that the court should grant the motion for mistrial. The judge, as we heard, denied the motion for mistrial, but how could this now affect the case?

Yeah, that's right, Natalie. I mean, remember, this wasn't actually even the first time

that the defense had objected to this line of questioning. I mean, the prosecution had actually previously asked Lindsay's mother-in-law at the time, her former mother-in-law now about her being in the Catholic Church, about her being active there, and then proceeded to ask the question, "Are you aware that murder is a mortal sin?" Yeah, I mean, it was shocking to hear that court. I just want to replay a little bit of that

here just so you get a more of a feel for it. Now, are you an active member in the Catholic

“Church? Yes. So you're aware that murder is considered a mortal sin?”

Yes, I mean, as a defense attorney, I can't even begin to express how highly inappropriate

that line of questioning was, and even more agree just this first time because it's actually

coming from the prosecutor, right? The second time they argued it was inadvertent. They didn't know he was kind of going to go there, but the prosecutors, they know the rules of evidence. I mean, they explicitly prohibit inquiring about a witness's religious beliefs. Not only is it inflammatory and prejudicial, but it's not even relevant, right? It doesn't go to the ultimate issue in this case. I mean, you can't un-ring that bell, right? So to speak,

I mean, ultimately, yes, no mistrial, the judge ruled no mistrial, but honestly, I mean, this could be a really compelling issue on appeal. If there is a conviction in this case, really one of the strongest issues for an appeal that I've seen in a long time in a trial. So the prosecution brought their last or bottle witness to the stand on Wednesday. Dr. Gregory Sattoff, he's a forensic psychiatrist at the University of Virginia and a senior

“psychiatrist for the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit. Caroline, how effective was he as a witness?”

Yeah, I mean, I was saying, utterly, things are really getting messy here right at the end of the prosecution's case. I mean, I think a little bit, their narrative is getting away from them. So much so that Kevin Reddington on his recross of this final witness, who, by the way, has, you know, very heavy-hitting credentials. I mean, he's, he's the head of the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit, and I think was, was quite credible. Their expert witnesses.

I mean, they showed compassion for this woman. Essentially, their argument is that she was in a really serious mental crisis. They just disagree on what that exactly was. And so we're seeing evidence here that the prosecution is putting on that she just was in a really, really deep, depressive state, a postpartum depression, not necessarily a postpartum psychosis. So this is where the case sort of rises and falls for the jurors. There's been a lot

of conflicting testimony about what her ultimate diagnosis was. Ultimately, you know, it's

up to the jury to decide what her state of mind was on that night. Right. And she was never

diagnosed with postpartum psychosis. The defenses witnesses began to take the stand on August 17th. Now, defense attorney Kevin Reddington called a number of people to the stand who could speak to who Lindsey is as a person. And what they may have known about what she was going through at the time and leading up to her killing the kids. Now, among those called her mother and her former mother-in-law, let's play some of their testimony

from first starting with Lindsey's mother here. At what point, if any, did you become aware that your daughter was suffering from the symptom of? In late October. And how did that come about? She sent me a text message. You call when that was? Yes, that was on October 20th. Now, you're on the government has introduced into evidence the entire of the phone dumps if you will. And I think they put it on a desk and it's probably thousands of pages. But I

do have the text thread that deals with that time frame in October. Mom, will you please come up and stay with me for a bit? I'm really sick. Something is wrong. I had horrible insomnia all night. And I just hope no, how I'm going to get through the day. I started taking the medicine. My

And I don't want to be alone. Heartbreaking to hear that testimony from her mother. And then

here now is a snippet of Lindsey's former mother-in-law as well on the stand. She reached out to me in November and told me that she felt unwell. Did she describe any symptoms for her? She did. She felt mostly she had insomnia. She was losing her appetite. She was very anxious and sad. Did she tell you that she was seeing doctors? Yes. And at some point, did you recommend

did she come to you and ask you for help regarding seeing a doctor? Yes, she asked for my support.

“And did you obviously gave it to me? Yes. And what did you do to make any recommendations for them?”

I reached out to my colleagues who were running a clinic for

women that were struggling post-bottom. With your observations of Lindsey's, whether or not she was offered it all, will we just spurn it and not see doctors? She was breathing. Begging for help. Begging for help as you heard there. So here you can see, according to the testimony, Lindsey reached out to both sides of the family for support in the months before the killings. So Caroline, how does this fit into the defense's broader approach?

Yeah. I mean, I think like you said, these witnesses really build the case that Lindsey Clancy and those closest to her all really knew she was unwell. I think that defense is trying to just prove that there are multiple instances of Lindsey asking for help and that she really wouldn't have asked for help if she was secretly planning on killing her children. Right. Now, the prosecution then cross-examine Lindsey's mother. I want to play some of that for you here. Now, you testified

indirect examination about the statements that Lindsey made in December about having thoughts about harming the children. Was when in December was that? I don't exactly remember, let's say, early to mid. Well, December probably or maybe earlier, rather than mid to December. I don't exactly remember one. Okay. And when she made the statement that she had thoughts of harming the children,

“did either you or Patrick ask her what she meant by that? I believe I remember Pat asking her”

if she felt like she couldn't be alone with the children and she said no. And after she made those statements, did you have any thoughts about committing her? No. Did you have any thoughts about having or come stay with you and Connecticut away from the children? No. Were you concerned for the children's safety at that point in time? No, because I was there. So, Caroline, what is the point that the prosecution seems to be making here? Yeah, I think you can see the prosecution

furthering this argument that Lindsey was of sound mind. She may have been struggling, but in those weeks leading up to when she killed her children, she was, you know, coherent. She was thoughtful. She was able to complete tasks. I mean, they do concede that she was, you know, experiencing

serious mental health problems, but this overarching theory is that basically, she was, yes,

depressed and anxious, but not psychotic. Yeah, and Caroline, that exchange that we heard, it felt a little bit like there were questioning, you know, the moms and like, what did you do about it? Right. How did you take that? Like, it's almost as if they were putting some of these witnesses in the position of having to defend themselves and sort of defend their actions. Um, you know, there were these, as you know, these, like multiple instances where Lindsey's mom

had these really, like, tourist responses to the prosecution's questioning and she'd, you know,

“say things along the line of, I don't recall or, you know, that's what the text says in response.”

And you can tell when, when, when, when it's to start to, to get that way, um, you know, it's really escalating intention. Well, the defense also brought forensic psychiatrists and psychologists to the stand to could speak to Lindsey Clancy's treatment and alleged postpartum psychosis. One notable witness uh, was forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Philip Resneck. Now, Resneck, if you know the name, uh,

Domer case case case and Casey Anthony trials. He also testified for the defense of Andrea Yates.

Now, Yates for those who may not remember, she was that Houston, Texas woman who confessed to drowning her five children in their bathtub back in 2001. She was found not guilty by reason of insanity and she was committed to a psychiatric facility where she remains to this day. So Resneck evaluated Lindsey Clancy and her parents about four months after the Clancy Children were killed and the defense attorney Kevin Reddington brought him to the stand last

Friday morning. I'm going to replace some of his testimony here.

“And I believe the jury has heard from various creators such as Dr. Tufts, uh, and uh,”

nurse Dolada and others, uh, and her own anguish about how depressed she was, where she actually

felt she couldn't function for brainless damage. She would never be the same, uh, so the, uh,

the, she definitely met the definition of a major depression as well as this bipolar phenomena, not with respect to the postpartum aspect, um, to this, uh, Clancy's symptoms began with in three months of Cales birth that would be considered a postpartum, uh, onset, uh, then of course she had considerable difficulty over the next five months and at the time of the crime itself on January 24, 2023. His plan to see was crancetly supotic. So in that sense, she had a postpartum

psychosis. So Carolina, I want to talk about what we just heard here because, uh, you know, like your take on the merit of having an expert witness like this when we talk about Jeffrey Dahmer Casey, Anthony Andrea Gates, probably being the most close case to this one. I mean, Dr. Reznik is no stranger to criminal trials of this caliber with this national attention. Yeah, I mean, in fact, he's actually a leading expert on what's known as Philicide. It's, it's

a relatively rare occurrence, um, but it's, it's one parent's killed their children. Um, and as you said, he, he really gained credibility in my mind when he noted that he had been retained by the defense in the Casey Anthony trial, but he, he said he couldn't be helpful to their defense,

“which I think sort of speaks volumes in that he clearly came to and comes to independent conclusions”

when he's being retained, even if it, you know, doesn't go the way, uh, they wanted to, um, this is like, you know, a huge issue for cross examinations for, for any experts. It's, it's known as retention bias. So, you know, you often often see lines of questioning where, implying that these people are sort of like higher guns for the prosecution or the defense that they're, you know, getting paid thousands of dollars to come up with a conclusion or, or, or, you know, an idea or, um,

you know, a, a ultimate resolution that fits with the narrative for the, for the side that they've been retained by, um, to me, you know, Dr. Resenix seemed very credible. Well, the defense rested its case on Friday, August 21st, that same day the Commonwealth

called additional witnesses to the stand in the prosecutions were bottled. First on the stand

was forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Abram Mac, who evaluated Lindsey Clancy back in April this year and shared his opinion on her diagnosis. Here's some of his testimony from the prosecutor's questioning. opinion about her diagnosis in the span from 2022 to 2023 is that she suffered from what's called a major depressive episode. That probably is a part of what's

“called a major depressive disorder. But the important point about it is the major depressive episode.”

What, what, what made you come to that conclusion based on her presentations? The information about her feelings and the progression of her illness, um, highlighted that it was best represented by a major depressive episode. It's a condition defined in DSM 5. Um, we're an individual, uh, displays problems with mood, problems with, um, feeling pleasure, feelings of guilt or worthlessness, problems with appetite, problems with sleep, um, preoccupation with death or suicide,

poor concentration or energy, perhaps also what's called psychomotor,

And you also were able to review records, um, from, um, Jennifer Tufts from an, um, an appointment

with the defendant the day before the incident occurred, correct? I did. And again, in those

“records, um, did you find anything that would have been suggestive of mania or hypomania?”

Not of mania or hypomania, no. What about psychosis? Did you observe any of that? I did not, throughout the period in question. All right. So as we've mentioned over and over again, Caroline, you get these conflicting testimonies. What is the jury facing here? I mean, Dr. Mac seems to have a completely different opinion on Lindsey Clancy's diagnosis. And I mean, I can imagine that is going to be really tough for the jury to then have to decide again, who has the most

credibility here. And also the timing of when he interviewed Lindsey Clancy, I know that came into question as well because it was just, you know, it was April, um, of this year and versus three years ago when the killings happened. Yeah, that was a huge line for, for, for cross. But I mean, now, this, this is the heart of this case. This is like a rorschach test, right? You, you have like the same evidence being used on both sides. So here we see these different experts using her,

you know, the symptoms and what she told providers both sort of using them in different ways and giving Lindsey these different diagnoses at the time that the killings took place. So on the defense side, you have, you know, Dr. Resner saying that she was in a state of postpartum psychosis. And he really described that really vividly where she was, you know, hearing, and experiencing these auditory command hallucinations, telling her to kill her children,

which she was, you know, physically unable to resist acting upon. And that's, that's really

“important that point because that's essentially the legal standard for not criminally responsible.”

So he described her as like a puppet who wasn't controlling the strings. So, you know, and then we have on the prosecution side, you know, Dr. Maxing, well, no, she was experiencing all of these symptoms. However, that's more indicative of, yes, the serious mental health crisis, but not psychosis. He's saying instead it was a major depressive episode, you know, and that even in the depths of this very deep depression, she still was able to know the difference between

right and wrong and she would have been able to conform her conduct to the law. And that's again,

the standard. And that's ultimately what the jury's going to decide in this case.

100th of 2013. We're on the right path. The biggest advantage of Shopify for me is that we're going to need a technical advantage for the world. We can all be convinced about the background and the front end. And so it was like in the beginning of the online shop. If you're going to have a look at the platform, then you'll be the platform that's actually a look. It's just the main thing. And our whole story is over. Now, there's a constant test on Shopify.com.

Well, as we've said, the Clancy case has certainly dominated headlines and social media for the past few weeks. You know, on the one hand, the case has sparked some really meaningful conversations on postpartum mental health and treatment. And on another hand, we've seen people online follow the case so closely that some of you even come up with a few pretty wild theories and conspiracies out there. Now, Captain Caduto is an assistant professor of media science at Boston

University. She says there's actually a name for this. It's called forensic fandom. Caduto

broke down this phenomenon in an interview with the Guardian. She says it's basically when true

crime viewers start playing detective rather than being a spectator. And I'm sure Caroline, you've seen a lot of that and heard a lot of people talking about it even on your own social media. Yeah, Natalie. I mean, I've definitely seen some of that on my feet. I mean, people are really homing in on every little detail in this case, picking apart the timeline for example. You know, her body temperature. I mean, a lot of viewers have picked up on a lot of really, you know,

my new evidence in this case. Let's talk more about this high profile nature of this case. I mean, last Thursday, hundreds of women were waiting outside the courthouse wearing pink in support of Lindsey Clancy and CBS News reported that the judge actually questioned the jurors

“one by one. What can you tell us about that? And why was that questioning necessary?”

Yeah, the jury was sworn in and then each one was questioned individually because the judge

there were these throngs of Lindsey supporters, you know, a sea of pink. And you can see how

“witnessing those supporters might impact how the jury sees this case. Remember, they're warned”

every single day. Do not consume any media about this case. Don't go on social media. Don't do their own research. Don't even discuss this case with anyone, not even their spouses. So, you know, it's hard to do that in this day and age, Natalie. I mean, just seeing those protests could have had an impact on the review of the case, which is, you know, an outside influence,

which is considered legally improper. Just to note that in almost all high profile cases that get

extensive media coverage, judges do go to great lengths to make sure that jurors are not exposed to media coverage. And that's, you know, why we sometimes hear of jury's being sequestered.

“Although, we're seeing that less and less. But, you know, I think of famously the OJ Simpson”

trial, Kizzi Anthony Bill Hasby, those jurors were sequestered. Yeah. On Monday, seemingly in response to Lindsey supporters, people were then out there in white shirts. They were also seeing outside the courtroom. And they wore the white shirts in remembrance of the Clancy Children. And, you know, as we said, this has really become this, you know, sadly, you hate to put it this way, but almost watercolor conversation. I mean, I get asked about it. You get asked about it as

well, how we feel about the case, who is more credible in the case. I mean, as you said, passions are on all sides here and very raw, very emotional. And as we come to a close here, I think Caroline, an important reminder to place some testimony from Lindsey's mother, who, you know,

“I think really brought it home to so many of us. I know what she said really stayed with me. I want”

to play some of that here. I love my grandchildren with all my heart. And you never know what it's

like to love a grandchild. And she told you to become a grandmother. And it was the most beautiful thing. I love them with all my heart. Yeah, I think so many in that moment were just thinking about those beautiful three children. I can't imagine what it must have been like for members of the Clancy family to take this stand. And it really does serve as a reminder of what was lost back in January of 2023. I mean, three innocent children. They were loved and missed to this day.

And the loss of these children is it's just what makes it so difficult for everyone in the courtroom. I mean, of course, including the Clancy family who've had to, you know, relive one of their worst days in a public setting. You just can't sadly take that thought out of your head, what what all have experienced emotionally on so many sides at this case. But we want to thank you once again, Caroline, for joining us this week and breaking it all down for us again.

Thanks for being here. Thank you so much for having me. Well, once again, we do want to take this moment to say that if you or someone you know may be experiencing a mental health crisis, contact the 988 suicide and crisis lifeline, just call or text 988. Also, if you are pregnant or have just had a baby, you can dial or text the national maternal mental health hotline at 1-833-TLC-Mama. And we'll be back next week with another episode of Case by Case. Be sure to rate and review

let us know which cases you're following and which cases you would like us to follow. And carefully. Told from the soldiers who risk everything. There's just way too many of them and way too few of us. And featuring exclusive unseen footage. Special ops true, now streaming on Paramount Plus.