Trial Day 22 - Closing Arguments & Deliberations

>> Good morning, your honor, may I proceed. >> Yes, please.

“>> Your honor before the court today, we have the matter of formal forces, Lindsay Clancy.”

Ms. Clancy is present, she is represented by a current heaven running ten, the Commonwealth is represented by Assistant District Attorney, Jennifer Spraygan, Assistant District Attorney Shayne Buckingham. >> Morning, everyone. Good morning, council.

Good morning, Ms. Clancy. - Hi, I'm the party's ready for the jury. - Yes. - All right, we'll bring it in. - Poor, all right, fairer than you are.

- Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, all persons having anything to do with all the y'all. William Sullivan, justice of the spirit of the one. Now sit in your club at the gym for the final. Ronnie, if you're ready to, shall be heard.

By the same, you've gone a lot from Massachusetts, call this down the session. Please, be seated. - Party morning, you're on a May, I foresee. - Yes, please.

- You're on a people of the court today.

“We have a continuation of the jury trial”

in the matter commonwealth for us as Lindsey Clancy. Ms. Clancy is present. She is represented by attorney Kevin Roddington. The commonwealth is represented by assistant district attorney Jennifer Spray, an assistant district attorney

shared in Buckingham. - Thank you, Madam Clerk. Good morning, everyone. - Good morning. - Well, you know how we're going to start this.

I'm going to ask you those questions. And just the case you're wondering, this is podium up here. Me, then I'm going to talk to you for quite a while this morning, it does.

All right, so first, let me ask you the questions.

Is any member that jury read, see, and heard, or over anything from any source about any aspect of this case that would affect your ability to be a fair and impartial juror? Secondly, is there any other matter

or concern bearing on your services during this case that anybody needs to bring my attention at this time? Again, as I've said for weeks now, thank you for following those instructions.

And so where we are now in the process is, I just want to explain a little bit to you. We're going to do what they call, we call the arguments in charge, all right? And that just means, I'm going to give the charge

as my instructions. All right, I'm going to instruct you on the law that you are to apply in this case to the facts that you're going to find. And then the argument part is we're going to hear

the closing arguments from the attorneys. And when we do it, a way I do it is I kind of split it up.

So I'm going to give you, first half of my instructions

will talk a little bit about the specific charges in this case, and then after the closing arguments I'll come back and give you some more general instructions about how the burdens of proof and how you are to go forward and do your deliberations

and handle the deliberations. So they take a while, all right? And they can be, as I said, rather dry, but they are dry. And so what the parties in myself have agreed to do is I'm going to print out, we printed out the instructions

that I'm going to read to you. So you'll have those with you, all right, as we go through this morning. And so some people find that helpful to read along and comprehend some people don't.

So if it's distraction, you don't have to read it. But some people find it helpful, so we thought would do that. You also should know that you'll have these instructions. You can bring these with you in the deliberations. So you'll have this whole outline of what the law is,

so that you are to apply, all right? So at this point, if we could hand out the copies of the instructions, we already have those. I forget how efficient our code office is here are.

“So I'm going to start the instructions now, all right?”

Now, so my instructions on the law are going to be delivered to you in two phases.

As I said, first, I'm going to instruct you

on the specific indictments that have been brought against Ms. Clancy. After I conclude my instructions regarding the charges, the assistant district attorney, Ms. Sprague, will end attorney writing to each deliver their closing

argument. Remember, the arguments of counsel are not themselves evidence. They're provided to assist you in organizing and understanding the evidence that's been presented

during the trial in the conclusions that each party would like you to draw from that evidence at the conclusion of the attorney's closing arguments will give you the second part of my jury instructions. And in that phase, I will give you a go over a number

of very important principles that will guide your overall evaluation of the evidence, your deliberations, and your eventual verdict. The instructions are to be taken and considered in whole.

So you consider all my instructions as a whole.

You'll notice as I said, I'm reading these instructions to you. Excuse me, I apologize for doing that, but I have to give these instructions clearly and accurately. So as I said, you assist you in your deliberations. I provided you with written copies of these instructions.

However, those written instructions are not a substitute for the oral instructions I'm giving now. So please, listen carefully. All of my instructions are equally important. You're not to overemphasize one portion

of these instructions or ignore other portions. These charges have specific factual elements that the Commonwealth must establish beyond a reasonable doubt. And I'll review those elements with you in detail at this time.

“Now remember that the law presumes the defendant”

to be innocent of the charges against her. This presumption of innocence is a rule of law that compels you to find the defendant not guilty unless, until the Commonwealth produces evidence from whatever source that proves that the defendant

is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Now I want to go into the instructions that are specific to this case.

First, I'm going to have a drink of war.

Thank you. Now, in this case, Ms. Clancy's charge with three counts of murder. And when I talk first about the issue of criminal responsibility, all right?

Now, to prove the defendant guilty of any crime, the Commonwealth must first prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was criminally responsible

“at the time the alleged crime was committed.”

The Commonwealth bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime with which he is charged and also that the defendant is criminally responsible for her conduct. The defendant has no burden to prove a lack of criminal responsibility.

Criminal responsibility is illegal term.

A person is not criminally responsible for her conduct if she has a mental disease or defect. And as a result of that mental disease or defect, she lacks the substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality

or wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law. The phrase mental disease or defect is a legal term. Not a medical term. It need not fit into a formal medical diagnosis.

The phrase mental disease or defect does not include any abnormality characterized only by repeated criminal conduct. It is for you to determine in light of all the evidence, whether the defendant had a mental disease or defect.

If the Commonwealth has proved you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not suffering from a mental disease or defect at the time of the killing, the Commonwealth has satisfied its burden of proving that the defendant was criminally responsible.

If the Commonwealth has not proved you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not suffering from a mental disease or defect at the time of the killing,

“then you must consider whether as a result”

of a mental disease or defect, the defendant lacked the substantial capacity, either to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law,

to establish that the defendant had the substantial capacity to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any mental disease or defect that may have existed did not deprive the defendant for ability

to behave as the law requires. That is, to obey the law. The word "appreciate" means understand rather than merely to know. Criminality means the legal significance of conduct.

Wrongfulness means the moral significance. The Commonwealth must prove that the defendant knew and understood that her conduct was illegal or that it was wrong. It's not enough for the Commonwealth to show

that the defendant merely knew or was intellectually aware that her conduct was illegal or wrong. Rather, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a mental disease or defect did not deprive the defendant of a meaningful understanding

of the legal or moral significance of her conduct. The defendant must have been able to realize in some meaningful way that her conduct was illegal or wrong.

or proof, you may consider all the evidence that's been presented at this trial. You may consider the facts underlying the crime and evidence of the defendant's actions before and after the crime.

You may consider the opinions of any expert who testified and give those opinions whatever way you think they deserve. Now, in a moment, I'll instruct you on the elements of the offense that the Commonwealth alleges that the defendant has committed.

“Remember that the Commonwealth must prove”

you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was criminally responsible at the time that the crime was committed. That is, that the defendant did not lack criminal responsibility at that time.

Therefore, it is the Commonwealth burden to prove at least one of the following beyond a reasonable doubt. One, that at the time of the alleged crime, the defendant did not suffer from a mental disease

or defect or two, that if the defendant did suffer from a mental disease or defect, she nonetheless retained the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of a conduct and to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law.

Now, as I previously instructed you, your decision should be based solely on the evidence and the law of this case. If the defendant is found not guilty

“by reason of lack of criminal responsibility,”

the district attorney or another appropriate authority may in generally does petition the court to commit the defendant to a mental health facility or to bridge water state hospital. If the court concludes that the defendant is mentally ill

and that her discharge would create a substantial likely good of serious harm to herself or others, then the court will grant the petition and commit the defendant to a proper mental health facility or to bridge water state hospital.

Periodically, the court reviews the order of commitment if the defendant is still suffering from mental disease or defect in its still dangerous than the court will order the defendant to continue to be committed to the mental health facility

or to bridge water state hospital. There is no limit to the number of such renewed orders of commitment as long as the defendant continues to be mentally ill and dangerous. If these conditions do continue,

the defendant may remain committed for the duration of her life. If at some point the defendant is no longer mentally ill and dangerous, the court will order her discharge from the mental health facility or from bridge water state hospital

after a hearing. The district attorney must be notified of any hearing concerning whether the person may be released and the district attorney may be heard at any such hearing. However, the final decision on whether to recommit

or release the defendant is always made by the court.

Now, I'm going to go over at this point the specific elements of the charges against this cleansing. So I want to talk first about murder in the first degree. The defendant is charged with three separate indictments charging murder, one count each relating to core clancy,

dosenclancy, and calenclancy. The instructions I'm going to give now apply to each separate indictment relating to each child. There are two different degrees of murder. The is murder in the first degree and is murder in the second degree.

If you find the defendant guilty of murder, you shall decide the degree of murder. The Commonwealth alleges that the defendant committed murder in the first degree on the following theories. First, that it was murder with deliberate premeditation,

and then second, and or it was murder with extreme atrocity

or cruelty. To find the defendant guilty on any of these theories of murder, you must be unanimous. That is all of the deliberating jurors must agree that the Commonwealth has committed's burden

approving every required element of that theory beyond a reasonable doubt.

“You should check the appropriate box or boxes on the verdict slip”

as to each theory of what you agree unanimously. And I'll go over a little bit later, the verdict slip, and how that is going to be handled. Now, so if you're unable to agree unanimously that the Commonwealth has met as burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

either of these theories of first degree murder, you shall consider whether the Commonwealth has proved the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of murder in the second degree. So I'm going to begin by instructing you on the elements

in the additional requirements of proof

for each of these theories of murder in the first degree.

And then I'll instruct you on murder in the second degree.

in the first degree with deliberate premeditation.

“To prove the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree”

with deliberate premeditation, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements. One, the defendant caused the death of core a Clancy Dawson Clancy End or Calon Clancy. Two, the defendant intended to kill core a Clancy

Dawson Clancy End or Calon Clancy. That is the defendant consciously and purposefully intended to cause core a Clancy's Dawson Clancy's End or Calon Clancy's death. And three, that the defendant committed the killing

with deliberate premeditation, that is, she decided to kill after period of reflection. I'll now discuss each of these requirements in more detail.

The first element is that the defendant caused the death

of core a Dawson End or Calon Clancy. And the defendant's act is the cause of death, where the act in a natural, continuous sequence results in death without which death would not have occurred. The second element is that the defendant intended to kill

core a Clancy Dawson Clancy End or Calon Clancy. That is, the defendant consciously and purposefully intended to cause the death. The third element is that the defendant committed the killing with deliberate premeditation.

That is, she decided to kill after a period of reflection. Deliberate premeditation does not require any particular length of time of reflection. A decision to kill may be formed over a period of days, hours, or even seconds.

“The key is the sequence of the thought process.”

And it would be first the consideration whether to kill.

Second, the decision to kill. And third, the killing arising from that decision. There is no deliberate premeditation where the action is taken so quickly that a defendant takes no time to reflect on the action and then to decide to do it.

In deciding whether the defendant intended to kill the deceased and whether she formed that intent with deliberate premeditation, you may consider any credible evidence that the defendant suffered from a mental impairment or was affected by her conception of prescription drugs.

A defendant may form the required intent and act with deliberate premeditation, even if she suffered from a mental impairment or consumed prescription drugs. But you may consider that evidence.

“Now, I want to talk about the second theory of first remurder,”

which is murder with extreme atrocity or cruelty. Now, you shall consider this theory of murder in the first degree, regardless of whether or not you find that the Commonwealth has proved murder in the first degree with deliberate premeditation, which I just discussed.

To prove the defendant guilty of murder with extreme atrocity or cruelty, the Commonwealth has proved the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt. One, that the defendant caused the death of chloroclancy, Dawson-Clancy, Endor-Callan-Clancy. Second element, the defendant

either A intended to kill Chora, Dawson, Endor-Callan-Clancy. B. She intended to cause grievous bodily harm to Chora, Dawson, Endor-Callan-Clancy, or C. Intended to do an act, which in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have known

to create a plain and strong likelihood the death would result. The third element was that the killing was committed with extreme atrocity and cruelty. It should express extreme atrocity or cruelty, I'm sorry.

I'll now discuss each of these requirements in more detail. The first element to this theory is that the defendant caused the death of Chora-Clancy, Dawson-Clancy, Endor-Callan-Clancy. A defendant's act is the cause of death,

where the act is a natural and continuous sequence. Results and death without which death would not have occurred. The second element is about the defendant's intent, which the Commonwealth must prove in at least one of three ways. These are that the defendant A intended to kill Chora,

Dawson, Endor-Callan-Clancy, or B intended to cause grievous bodily harm to Chora, Dawson, Endor-Callan-Clancy, or C intended to do an act,

a reasonable person would have known

“created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result.”

As you can see to this intent element, the Commonwealth satisfies his burden if it proves the defendant's intent beyond a reasonable doubt in any one of those three ways.

The first way of proving intent that the defendant intended to kill

is the same as the second element of murder in the first degree with deliberate pre-meditation, which I discussed a few minutes ago. The second and third ways of proving intent are different from any element of murder in the first degree with deliberate pre-meditation.

So, the second way is that the defendant intended to cause grievous bodily harm to Chora, Dawson, Endor-Callan-Clancy. Grievous bodily harm means severe injury to the body. The third way to prove this is that the defendant intended to do an act, which in the circumstances known to the defendant,

a reasonable person would have known created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result.

Let me help you understand how it analyzed this third way

of proving the defendant's intent.

“You must first determine whether the defendant intended”

to perform the act that caused the death. So, if you find that the defendant intended to perform the act, then you must determine what the defendant herself actually knew about the relevant circumstances at the time. She acted.

Then you must determine whether, under the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have known that the act created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result. In deciding whether the defendant intended to kill,

intended to cause grievous bodily harm, or intended to do an act, which in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have known, created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result, you may consider any credible evidence that the defendant suffered

from mental impairment, who was affected by her consumption of prescription drugs. A defendant may have the requisite intent even if she suffered from a mental impairment or consumed drugs, but you may consider such evidence in determining

whether the Commonwealth has proved this element.

Now, the third element in this theory is that the killing was committed

with extreme atrocity or cruelty. Extreme atrocity means an act that is extremely wicked or brutal, appalling, horrifying, or utterly revolting. Extreme cruelty means that the defendant caused the person's death by a method that suppressed,

surpassed the cruelty inherent in the taking of a human life.

“You must determine whether the method or means of killing”

is so shocking as to amount to murder with extreme atrocity or cruelty. The inquiry focuses on the defendant's actions in terms of the manner and means of inflicting death, and on the resulting effect on the deceased. In deciding whether the Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt

that the defendant caused the death with extreme atrocity or cruelty, you must consider the following factors. One, whether the defendant was indifferent to or took pleasure in the suffering of the deceased, two, whether the defendant's method or means of killing

was reasonably likely to substantially increase or prolong the conscious suffering of the deceased or three, whether the means used by the defendant were excessive and out of proportion to what would be needed to kill a person. In considering whether the means used by the defendant were excessive

and out of proportion to what would be needed to kill a person, you may consider a, the extent of the injuries to the deceased, b, the number of blows delivered. C, the manner, degree, and severity of the force used, and d, the nature of the weapon, instrument or method used.

You cannot make a finding of extreme atrocity or cruelty, unless it is based on one or more of the factors that I just listed. You may consider the defendant's mental condition at the time of the killing, including any credible evidence of mental impairment or the effect on the defendant

of her consumption of prescription drugs in determining whether the Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the killings with extreme atrocity or cruelty, a defendant may have committed the killing

from a mental impairment or consumed prescription drugs,

“but you may consider such evidence in determining”

whether the Commonwealth has proved this element.

Now, now I want to talk about murder in the second degree.

In order to prove murder in the second degree, the Commonwealth has proved the following elements. One, that the defendant caused the death of coroclancy, Dawson Clancy, Endor-Cowling Clancy. Two, that the defendant, A, intended to kill coroclancy,

Dawson Clancy, Endor-Cowling Clancy, or B, intended to cause grievous bodily harm to coroclancy, Dawson Clancy, Endor-Cowling Clancy, or C, intended to do an act, which in the circumstances known to the defendant, the reasonable person would have known

created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result. The requirements of proof for murder in the second degree are the same as for murder in the first degree with extreme atrocity or cruelty, but without the element that the killing was committed with extreme atrocity.

“I discussed those elements earlier when I discussed”

the charge of the theory of first-degree murder

committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty. So they're listed in that other section. Now, I want to talk about manslaughter. If you find that the Commonwealth is not proven the charges of first-degree or second-degree murder,

you shall consider the lesser offense of manslaughter. Now, manslaughter is an unlawful killing unintentionally caused by one or reckless conduct. One or reckless conduct is intentional conduct that creates a high degree of likelihood

that substantial harm will result to another person. You know, mission or failure to act may constitute one or reckless conduct only where the defendant has a duty to act. To prove that the defendant is guilty of manslaughter because of one or reckless conduct,

the Commonwealth must prove the following elements beyond reasonable doubt.

“One, that the defendant caused the death of Cora”

Dawson indoor-calinclancy. Two, that the defendant intended the conduct that caused the death of Cora Dawson indoor-calinclancy. And three, that the defendant's conduct was one or reckless. I'll now discuss each element in more detail.

The first element is that the defendant caused the death of Cora

Dawson indoor-calinclancy, as I've said before, the defendant's act was the cause of death where the act in a natural and continuous sequence results in death without which death would not have occurred. The second element is that the defendant intended the conduct

the cause of the death. The Commonwealth is not required to prove that the defendant intended to cause the death. And the third element is that the defendant's conduct was one or reckless.

One and a reckless conduct is conduct that creates, excuse me, a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm will result to another. It is conduct involving a grave risk of harm to another that a person undertakes within difference, too,

or disregard the consequences of such conduct. If the defendant realized the grave risk created by her conduct, her subsequent act amounts to want in a reckless conduct, whether or not a reasonable person would have realized

the risk of grave danger. Even if the defendant did not realize the grave risk of harm to another, however, the act constitutes want in a reckless conduct. If a reasonable person knowing what the defendant knew,

would have realized that the act pose a risk of grave danger to another. It is not enough for the Commonwealth to prove the defendant acted negligently that is in a manner that reasonably careful persons would not have act.

The Commonwealth was proof that the defendant's actions went beyond negligence and amounted to want or reckless conduct as I've defined that term. So in deciding whether the defendant knew or should have known her conduct created a high degree of likelihood

that substantial harm would result to another, you may consider any credible evidence that the defendant suffered from a mental impairment, who was affected by her consumption, a prescription drugs. A defendant may have the requisite knowledge,

even if she suffered from a mental impairment or consumed prescription drugs, but you may consider such evidence in determining whether the Commonwealth has proved this element. So that's my instructions on the specific elements of the charges

So at this point, I'm going to ask the attorneys

to deliver the closing arguments.

“I just want to remind you, as important as they are,”

the closing arguments are not evidence. And I'll go over that a little bit later by just wanting to remind you that. And so after we go through the closing arguments, I'll come back and give you the balance of my instructions

on the law. And so, Council, there is about five weeks ago that we met like this, and I indicated to you that thank you for incredible service. And that's all of us mean that sincerely.

You took literally more than a month out of your lives and sat here, mentally, incredibly, through some of the toughest,

“most gut-wrenching things that any present can be subject to and I think.”

I indicated that, sadly, here is carried this problem with them for years. And the service that you had performed,

I have never seen before.

You have listened to evidence. You have been fair. You have been objective. You've listened to the judges instructions. And you've carried them into your heart

consistent with here, both, which is a very, very song. Pass between government and Lindsey who has placed herself on her country, which country you are as a jury of the peers. When you consider what's at stake here in the sense of what we've been dealing with.

All right. Dalton. Kalman. She knows. Was.

That's why we think of Kweren.

That's, Kalman. They are the victims of this case. They are the victims of the horrible horrific act that has been laid at your feet as jurors to decide whether or not Lindsey is guilty. You're in a reasonable doubt as his honor instructive you, and we'll instruct you,

what that means. That standard of proof that we as citizens in this country are so blessed to have proof beyond a reasonable don't be for the government, charges any citizen with a crime. I don't care how many cops you've had in India.

I'm going to be a citizen here, how many people are sitting in the front row, and they're all going to sit there and be proud of this prosecution. I told you in the opening statement that this is a prosecution that has ripped the soul out of this girl. This is what they had.

This is their family, how they turn into this, how, because of the damn medicine, and the lousy medical care that she got. You can true as many paid experts as you want to come in here and tell a jury, "Oh, well, she didn't say that she heard voices inside her head. She said she heard voices from outside her head. She said she was making chicken McNuggets. There was a bowl in the soul for it.

“She wasn't making chicken McNuggets. She said something as I think and I'm used,”

and I try real hard to tell you what my opinion is that this woman was acting in her right when these children were killed. So, when you consider the evidence in this case, you consider the person who is in front of you, who is the defendant as the government refers to her, and this is uneal, wouldn't like me tell you. Even though a person is a defendant,

with a crime, he has the burden of proof. His assistance had the burden of proof. To prove number one,

“that Lindsey is guilty of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt and then prove number two,”

that Lindsey, at the time, killed her children, was not suffering from a mental disease or defect that caused her to have a lack of substantial capacity to appreciate, to know, to realize that what was being done while she was in a psychosis. But we'll laugh about that. She's just another woman. I guess it's just going to make an excuse. She's depressed. GAD, general anxiety. You're a couple of pills, should be all right. You know, from looking at

the objective evidence in this case, this young lady, believe me, I don't have many clients like that. This young lady did nothing wrong in her life. She was an artist, a daughter, a wife, and a done good mother. You can see from the objective evidence. You can see and you'll have all the exhibits for you to look at and you can see by looking at these photographs which you will have in the jury room. You can see the Facebook postings. You can see what she

indicates about, for example, I just randomly grabbed this one. A son, my prince,

that they would have, you think, she killed him first, truly because she didn't like him.

“That is repulsive. So she's living real life with Pat, her kids, have a great time at summer. Life is”

good. She had to go back to work and in opening statement, I told you I said, watch the evidence, watch the manipulation because that's what this case was built upon originally. And how it developed as the case progressed until it's in front of you. And how does that happen?

Well, in the very beginning, when all the way back to when the first thing I want one call,

you had to stop it through, was made. You could hear it in the voice, back last time, horror, what he had obviously experienced. You can see from the evidence that's before you, the injuries that she suffered. You will have in the jury room, the exhibits that indicated the extent of the injuries from, I don't have to go through all of them, the extent of the injuries to slitting her throat, to slashing her wrists, throwing herself out of window,

let all the evidence for window open, screen slash, oh no, screen wasn't slash, might bad. That's what she thought, it's called "Intolusion." She was in the psychosis when she thought, probably right here, sitting here, believes that she slashed the screen, she didn't, subjective evidence. And why did we spend almost a week showing you the extent and the severity of that suicide attempt? The reason that we had to do that is because they were arguing that it was a thick suicide,

dinky little cuts, no bleeding. She didn't mean to kill herself. She's going to throw herself

“out the window, I guess, and slide down the house. Remember that one hanging off of the window,”

sliding down the house and then she screwed up, and she heard us all bad, you know, that's not what

very significant suicide effort, slashing her wrists, slitting her throat, and isn't it interesting

when you consider objective evidence googling, slitting her throat, googling suicide, googling, drugs, googling, side effects, googling, ketamine treatments, googling, all of these drugs, googling the effects of toxic medications. Larazochem, certeramine, hydroxyzene, lorazochem, bisphorone, lorazochem, busphorone, trazochone, flaxtheme, zopadene, merdeseme,

one of the vadsochem, queen of pain, diacepem, diacepem, peterepen, because all of them have

jagged heavy descriptions to see, and obviously she wasn't assuming all of these at the same time, because one thing this kid did was try to do what she was supposed to do. She took the drugs and she was told to take them. She was religious in her obligations to take care of her health. She went to Dr. Tots when she was a young lady, living in her house with her husband,

inner babies, respected nurse, wife, friend, mother, should have kept drinking. That was a big deal,

“wasn't it? Remember that? We just know assassinate this young lady in every which way we can.”

Remember that evidence? I was concerned, she was drinking by drinks a day. She was worried about you heard the evidence, the evidence. Up to 2019, they talking about. She wasn't drinking while she had her kids. She wasn't drinking while she's breastfeeding. She would have a couple of ears with a friend's bag and put that over in the dad pile right here. We spent all that time showing through Dr. Lava Sadis testimony that this was a legitimate, dreadful, horrific,

suicide attempt. You think about this beautiful young girl throwing herself out of a window. That's a corner. I don't know if you have a plate full. I challenge you until this jury, why we spent the week showing that she can't even ask you a witness counsel. The dress that

“jury said, their witnesses, serious suicide attempt. Remember that? Try to kill us off. So another”

back off on that military, a serious suicide attempt. That's where I said, watch the evidence. Watch the manipulation. Remember the argument with the bands. She took the bands out of the bag, put gloves on. Talks to Dr. Lava Sadis on the zone, slams the bands down out of the paper bag. Does the movement of the bands and yells at Lava Sadis says, "Wrapped, do we just wrapped?" You weren't nodded because you got to get lengthy tightening the band, right? You got to hold it.

You got to hold it for a minute. You got to hold it for two minutes. Three minutes. Four minutes. That's why she needed the bands, not nodded. And then she said, "It's like this.

“Let me explain open." Remember that? Dr. Lava Sadis said, "Yeah, I saw what you did.”

And she walked away like if the gloves were on fit moment, quite on number two. What did Patrick Quancy testify to? You heard his testimony. He indicated clearly, unequivocally. There were nodded around the next, those children. To the point where he had to struggle. And it's your memory, not mine. If I say something, you don't recall. Forget it. It's what you remember the evidence to be.

over his head. And a police officer saw through the window.

It's horrific stuff. But it's objective. And it shows the manipulation. This government, this prosecution is a mess. They wouldn't take their evidence and argue to you that she did not tie a knot and walk away. Because as Dr. Lava Sadis said, you're talking about four, five seconds for somebody passes out. Now, they got to have the four minutes.

“And that's what the evidence shows, isn't it? So, as we move on,”

when is he's in the hospital? And this whole thing about conversations and she's talking

to people and the kids are in the basement. Her throat was crushed. You heard the name one more thing.

You drive the difference. Whether or not there's a conversation about with a children area. Try to kill myself, the kids are in the basement. All that you determined. Whether or not that was something that could be disturbed. And the police investigation, because as it's on an indicates, you know, there were two things here. Number one proofing on the reasonable doubt that she's guilty in number two, proofing on the reasonable

“doubt that she was not suffering from a disease or defect as it's on her instructed you”

at the time of these killings. Those are the two things they have to prove. And when the police

charge somebody with a criminal offense, they have an obligation to investigate. At the end of the day, when you're talking about, well, we've got the charges are before the court. You can sit there in the court. You can feel proud of yourself. Do a good investigation. Even though, you'll see the photograph of the cup and the power. What is it? They don't even analyze. Do they take pictures? Did they analyze? Did they test the blood? Did it

lousy investigation? Well, that's okay because she was guilty and they put her in the hospital. And she's the evil woman killed three innocent kids. And they're going to stand there while she's chained to the bed. Paralyzed, you heard testimony from Dr. Zanzel, the work little fluffy cuffs that were secure and heard of the bed. It was handcuffs. Not the medical treatment. Medical treatment would be, you know, restraints. So you don't do whatever pulled

lines out of things. We're talking about when the big man were in there with their guns and their badges and their sitting outside the door. And they're going to make sure that when's the currency paralyzed, chained to the bed, doesn't get up and run away from the hospital, I guess. And they just have to suffer their way through whom I guess I wear it. I don't know if it's

“shipped. I had to wear it that night. This is the treatment. And what's important about that”

is what kind of treatment this young lady got on the healthcare providers. Remember, Meg Collins. She came in this court, Meg, you might remember. The tall woman, she went blind here, swayed away, unbelievable, unbelievable. She was not only a nurse taking care of her in the hospital, she advocated for her. She stood up for her patient. She protected her. During the pandemic, you know that Meg Collins was in that emergency room when half of us were

hiding at home behind that computer. It was hoping that we're not going to die in a week, drinking that shidenay at 11 o'clock in the morning. Meg Collins was in a hospital treating people and advocated for them. That's something of what nursing is all about. Not having attitude, not treating somebody like that to be distained. And what's even worse, she comes out of a coma. She is intubated. She has had major, major surgery. Of her broken crushed spine, vertebrae, ribbed,

thyroid, massive, massive, not my words, medical records, massive testimony, blood transfusion for the blood loss. And when someone, your great evidence, comes out of surgery, you know,

that somebody has when they're in a hospital bed, laying at paralyzed, unable to feel the

lower half of their body, but able to feel with the medicine and the pain medication and everything else, the damage to the spine, and then the hospital has immediate. Remember the other doctor,

“I think he was back to shot. In the end, women wicked, impressive. She was amazing.”

She had facts. She was able to tell you exactly what she observed. He was able to tell you what they were doing to treat Lindsay. She treated her, like a human being. She's a damn good doctor. Came in here and told you all of her observations about her and told you one of the things that

ultimately that they were concerned about, is they had to have this big confidulation about,

we're going to take her off the, you know, what is it, the health care process. They had to have lawyers. They had to have people there. They had to have her standing documents. They had to determine whether in which she was going to be signing something to have her parents take over because Pat was not going to be responsible for her care. Lawyers, cops, handcuffs. Do I need a lawyer? Write that down. Where I wrote this. Write that down. Boy, she went at a lawyer. That's a bad thing.

“Let's be guilty. Let's put that in a guilty pile. That's why she said that in a hilarious”

statement, dealing with all of these people about that issue. But what's even more in the hilarious? Do you think about it, as I said, you're either in the Paul because of the manipulation. Paul says, "Oh, big deal. I'm friends with the guy. You've read evidence that I call them. I was with Pat and made her two after this incident in the bedroom with all the blood. I was with Pat taking evidence that the police didn't even see in their thumb investigation.

And I was able, as you know now, certainly, to grab this, why wouldn't the police have grabs? They're all empty. You can see when they were prescribed. You can see what they are. You can see what she took. We're going to test them. We'll take a handful of pills.

“We'll be the guy saying that. Yes, that he tough to take a handful of pills. What no?”

They were crushed. Oh, they were crushed. Okay. Where's the residue? Where's the crusher? Where's anything? Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter. Great investigation, guys. So you have a situation where they leave this behind. They don't even look at what? What of them? And again, you're not memory. One of them testifies, well, they might have looked at it and started and just didn't see it. Seriously? They got out of the kitchen. They

seized every pill bottle that was in the cabinet, along with the books. And speaking of books, one of the things that they found, uh, smoking gun. Good moms have scary thoughts. Hallelujah. Put that in the guilty pile. We're going to put this in a plastic bag. We're going to show it to a jury so they know that this young lady had scary thoughts. Turns out that you're a lot of gave it to her. You have this evidence. You have evidence of sleep aids. You have evidence

in the bag. Obviously, this stuff was just thrown in it. It wasn't in a bag. One of them was, when I started and said this thing here and it seized it. And we held it for three and a half years. And they're going to care about it. No. You've got evidence that, please know that they had it. They could have it. They could have it. They could analyze it. Who would have they wanted? They didn't have it. Just here. You've got evidence.

This is a little wish chat that they bought on their honeymoon in Hawaii. Many years prior to even having kids. When you look inside, you see that there's all sorts of little folded up pieces of paper. Some of them are dated, some of them are mine. They go all the way back to 2017, 2018, 2020. And they reference her wishes to have healthy kids, her wishes for

her kids to be successful for wishes to have a good birth. Second time around,

like to get what they rubbed in. This woman,

live it for her kids until she had the pleasure running into Dr. Tufts of her two months experience. And after she ran into Dr. Tufts, it was not a wonderful life anymore. And what did Dr. Tufts do? And everybody laughs at me. I said the television. Okay, I know it's a telemedical thing on your telephone, on a zone. Take more pills. You have the medical reference. You heard the testimony. You know her concerns. You know her fears. Does this seem

like a young lady that didn't care and wanted to school a more drugs? I have somebody that's another

“pulse of allegation. I think the evidence is pretty cool. There's no basis for that at all.”

She was scared, September, into October, 22, young, vibrant, had working. You've heard all this not my words. Witnesses words, holding goals for herself, had working nurse, had working mother, would take the kids to the Kingsbury club. That's another thing. Sounds pretty snowy, doesn't it? Well, they're at the Kingsbury club. It's a swimming pool. And a place where you can exercise. Watch the manipulation. Because now you've got a situation where you've got manipulation with

the Kingsbury club. You've got manipulation with these other items here. And you've also got manipulation of, all the size of, told Lindsay, what to say, say that you're hearing voices. Think about how ugly that is. Because you know, beyond a reasonable doubt, even though we don't

“have any proof, you get no burden. You heard from Sheila, remember Sheila? The woman that's the,”

you know, the Reverend or whatever, she's the chaplain at the Brigham and Woman's Hospital. She didn't know Lindsay from, from anybody that night when she came in all broken up. And she told you that she continued. She was there when Lindsay came out of, was excavated. She was there when Lindsay was going through her treatments. She was there for eight days before Paul's eyes all, even knew Lindsay existed.

But they would be in here telling you that Lindsay saw psychologists because the lawyer went and got the psychologists to go and speak to her. And then you have these guys here, the cops, the evidence meetings, talking about it. You're talking about it. Must have been the shrink. Must have been the psychologist. Must have been Zaisel. He's the guy that told her what to say, and he did not. How can you ruin a man's reputation with the career that he has had and still

has thankfully to put him in a position where he tells a broken young woman who is vilified by a society for killing her three children that he goes in the hospital and tells her to say, she's her invoices disgusting. So now you know that she told Sheila,

first, that she'd heard voices, command hallucinations. She didn't say command. A heard voices,

who was a male voice told me, you had these other guys that came in, the government's reputal witnesses, very, very impressive, very, very impressive. The first two, Mac, we're going to say, you've got the other doctor as well. So Mac is why he was freaked out when I

“asked him where he stayed. The other guy looked at me like a size of a bucket, why did I ask where he stayed?”

Whatever point is, they don't see her for years, years, and why? The other guy, he could help her, I think it was helping. He had to wait until they, maybe it was the last man I should get. They had to process his payment from the DA's office through the school. Who cares? If you have an obligation to try and be objective, to try and even look as though you're confident

this young lady and have her in a room and question her? One, right after the other,

“wouldn't you like to sit there and be questioned by Dr. Mac? Why would that be an experience?”

The three hours, four hours. In the other guy he's going to pet the his questions editor as well between that period. The next day, she can take tests and then go back ahead of again with Mac and with Halbrun. And she was cooperative. She was pleasant. She was friendly. She answered the

questions and she owned what she did. She never ran from anything. She's going through

valuation. After evaluation. After evaluation. Recorded. You'll have the video to look at. As they're questioning her as she's sitting there in a wheelchair, hour after hour after hour, after three years after this incident. But that's okay. You're busy. Paul Zanzel was there literally in Brigham and Women's because I call them because I was asked to represent the young lady, the great evidence. I saw her in the hospital. I saw her laying in the bed broken.

I saw her laying in the bed practically dead. I reached out to Dr Zanzel and I asked him please

“and he talked to this woman. Concern as he testified for her mental well-being. What kind of demons?”

What kind of harer was in her mind? As she lay the apparelized and herded and medicated,

swollen, twos, cops, chains. He went and talked to her. Big deal. I asked him to go. You judged the credibility of a person. Did Paul Zanzel have the ring of truth when he told you that he's there out of the humane feeling to try to help this young lady? And he's been five birth sites for three to half years. Same thing of shield. Why would shield him? For all this time?

This was Wednesday as she testified at the Troopsbury hospital. She was lucky to pay.

She's not a hire again. She's not somebody that's coming into say something at my request.

She loves. She loves housing. He's a good kid. He's a beautiful soul. See, you have Zanzel that has been with her all that time. You've got shield of who's been with her all that time. You've got evidence that a woman died and lived in Connecticut come up and they stay and they visit with her and that they sit with her in God forbid they actually sometimes had dinner.

“Remember that? They get the Troopsbury records. Boy, there's a good school up.”

Let's go through the Troopsbury records and see what she's doing on the anniversary of the deaths. How about on the abrupt days? Can you see them sitting there going through the medical records? Okay, doctor. What did she do then? She propelled herself down the hallway. Met with her parents laughed. Had dinner. Watch TV. Talked on the telephone. Go ahead, the band. She's not crowed up in the fetal position. Wailing, self-flage waiting. Constantly,

the three and a half years, she's acting like a human being trying to exist. But they go through the records and they want to get those dates and use them against her manipulation. And then you consider with three weeks away from the trial. The guy yesterday is looking up to the heaven as well. He's testifying. She's a tells you that he wanted to establish a rapport.

Can you imagine? You know that you're three weeks away from your murder trial. And you know that this is doctor number three who's been hired by the government to come in and evaluate you and testify against you. And he's going to look. He's going to establish a rapport. There is no rapport, but yet he was a cooperative. She was friendly. Interestingly enough, just like the treating doctors don't talk to each other.

They don't communicate with each other. They don't have access to medical records. She sends the hippiforms. They don't know what her records have, but they know for sure what Doctor Reshick had in his report. They know for sure what Doctor Zaisel had in his report.

But then you have the MMPI and the other psychological tests that were administered to

her on the second day of the Mac problem team interviewing interrogating questioning her.

“She passes the MMPI testimonies for them. She answered the MMPI honestly.”

And they're pertaining to the state of mind. They're pertaining to questions about what occurred. They're questioning this young lady as to what president of mind was then in the middle and now. And she didn't lie. She didn't malenga. She didn't exaggerate and mourn for it. If anything, she minimizes. But she certainly was off the chart on the suicide scale.

And then you have testimony from Doctor Reshick that could say Zaisel after crying.

And they would pay for the testimony. Rob Payne, like I said, not to jury so much with the judgment. Self-Christie ever with anybody to pay. These doctors came in and testified. Tell Reshick, the man is something out of a scary movie. He has the world record of investigating, examining, and treating people in psychosis that killed the children. Go aside. He has a world renowned record for checking

figures to see if a person is malingered. Their doctor agreed that his article on Voices is a leading article with research in the world. Their doctor agreed that he, though Reshick, is an expert. I'm a lingering. You heard him testify by Zel because he had surgery. And he showed up by Zelman and testified that again, four months after this incident,

he met with Lindsay, he evaluated Lindsay, compared, looked at all the records just like all the

“rest of them. Everyone says, they look at all the records of Lucy, put to grandeur, and remember it's everything else.”

He indicates clearly in his opinion that she was in a state of psychosis at the time of this death, times three. Has any of the government doctors reported that, one of them, however, said it's possible either way. That's not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The other one, Mac, you can accept his testimony if you wish, but I suggest that he probably won't. And then you left with the doctor yesterday. Who didn't even know,

he didn't even know what killing during the course of the psychosis wasn't when I was questioning about him. He agreed and I said, don't just agree with me, just agree with me because I said that.

He basically said, yeah, kind of expert testimony is this. It's a mess.

But the government uses them to try to rebut, Ben Lake Phil Resnek, who tells you that she was suffering from a horrific mental disease in defect at the time, the killing of her beautiful children. Why the hell? In the fact that under the law, as his owner has given you, she's not criminally responsible. And the burden is on them right here. Prove to you that at the time of the killing, the doctor, Resnek says that she was suffering from a disease

of defect. As Dr. Zanzel said, she was suffering from a disease of defect. As Dr. Kondi said, she was suffering from a disease of defect and Kondi took you down the road of all of these medications. As a cycle pharmacologist, as a cycle doctor, that specializes in description medications. And you get the evidence. You're able to look at that and determine, see what the side effects are, what she was complaining of, and look at her records. I mean, they have really turned her inside out.

I mean, they've got every single text, every single, every single picture, everything that she did,

“and college, oh, that's another thing. She lied, according to the, yeah, you have to, that's not,”

she lied to her to Pat about being on a prozo. They were dating for three months. She's living in Protestant. She meets this kid. She thinks that she might like them.

what a year ago when I was studying from my exams, because I'm nervous about

“packing in public, I get on a prozac. Seriously, that's what the government is arguing in this case.”

You're going to have this journal, which talks about her being, is how controlling she does manipulation. In the opening statement, you may recall that the district attorney said that she was a hired, charging, manipulating woman that was controlling and everything in their life was controlled. And she ran it to the water, to the carrots, to the beats. You look in this book, and as you might recall, Ms. Rossi testified,

when asked, did you feel that she was being controlling of you? Because she says, for example, Monday, 1024, Kellen, put down for a nap. Hopefully, we'll nap for two hours. If you wake,

“shortly, let him resettle himself, bottle, when he wakes up, then it goes on and on,”

makes salad, roaming lettuce. He likes peppers, broccoli, cut the sweet potatoes and chunks. Thank you, with the hat. Another good score. You look at her journals that she took. You'll see, as you go along in the dates that she's recording in these journals. She's talking

about the drugs that she was prescribed. And look at the first page, look at how detailed

dates, how she felt, can noograms, pros, act, and it goes on like that, goes on and through, November into December, December 9th, 10th, 11th. Horrible intrusive thoughts. Horrible thoughts in the AM. Horrible thoughts. Horrible thoughts. No motivation. And then, finally, horrible thoughts. No motivation. Deeply depressed. Then, that's around the time she went to women in an infant's hospital, right? Looking to help. Look at this. As she runs into January,

there's nothing other than little chicken scratches, because her mind was gone. In January, as she's on these drugs, and she's suffering from what you've heard as post-partum depression that can lead to post-partum psychosis. And you have these men coming in here that don't even know psychosis from schizophrenia as experts telling you that if a woman doesn't have these symptoms, like it's a disease, a symptoms of post-partum depression within four weeks.

That's it. Lights out. You're not a person that can be considered. You're not a real person. The purpose is that post-partum depression and/or post-partum psychosis. Well, I suggest that

these were. I suggest the second guys were. And the third, we'll actually have to know it's

your memory. If the Germany Mac even knew, I think he said four weeks. You can go up to a year, a longer. Well, we don't really know because you heard the evidence. There's no evidence

“there's nothing in the DSM, but that's the Bible. God forbid, you should go to Europe. You should”

look at the World Health Organization records. You should look at the way they treat pregnant women that have problems with their children. No, women most advanced country in the world. But we still have doctors that come in and quote on a murder trial and talk about four-week cut-off.

When something that they don't even know exists, they've never treated it. They've never written about it.

You have terrorism experts. You have an expert that comes in and talks about his focus and his interests and his biojuvenals and drugs. Like I said, kids that like to drink in smoke weed. Those are the experts quote and quote. To support their burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lizzy was not suffering. And the disease had defect at the time. She killed a child. None of them have this. October. This is not an evidence. It's microidentifications to be able to

look so. But basically it shows clearly and adequately the depths of despair that this young kid was in. Trying to raise three kids. Trying to be a wife. Ready to go back to work. Did anyone say that she was just lazy? It just didn't want to go back to work. The manipulation. They're arguing.

to leave a kid's, especially counting. Because she loved her children. They work her life

manipulation. And when you consider the journals, you know, you know, watch them over there,

“the sharing, with Jack Nicholson. Remember the same when he's sitting there in a state of complete”

psychosis and he's writing a book and he's typing and the wife finds the book and opens it up and looks at it. This is all working. No play makes Jack a doll boy. All work in no play makes Jack a doll boy repeated after repeated after repeated and he says the alike it. You look at the records of her googling drugs. You look at how many times I was of the night and he afternoon. She's

looking this stuff up in between. Take a care of the family. In between all of the stuff that was

going on with visiting doctors, seeing doctors, going to Rhode Island, being told, "No, we can't help you. Call on the hook. So it's like hot one. We can't help you. Call on another. So it's like hot one. We can't help you. My God, what did she have to do? She was reaching out for a help and she was not getting it. She turns herself in to McLean Hospital. You saw the doctor. Nice one. She's testifying. She didn't know. I suggest you that she didn't know how to have anything,

well, psychosis involving a young lady like her going through what she was gone through. The government bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They bring, for example, Ian Whiffen. You might remember him was the guy that I guess he'd develop, they helped develop celebrate. What do you think when you look at the records? You don't measure on an apple. Well, I shouldn't say Apple Watch because we know that they didn't

have it. Watch but on the self, you don't measure going down the stairs. You measure a stair climbing,

“right? That's what the testimony was. And there were three stairs that were climbed.”

Okay, the last record is 5.38. At 5.38 pm, we went through that on cross. What happens to the phone? Don't know. It was on the bed. It was a drop on the bed and left the effort 20 minutes. She could have been anywhere in the house during all that period of time, right? You've got a compressed period of time to Patrick leaves to go to the restaurant, pick up the CV and oh, you've heard the guy yesterday saying, and then she sent them off to go to CVS. It's on the way. It's on the way that

she didn't want him out of the house long. She was in the stress. She wanted him home to help with the bathing, to help with the kids, to help put him into bed. How long is he going to be gone? She Googles it. Is that something that is so nefarious? You think that was right or wrong, worrying with the book above? Good month is having dad thoughts. When God, she actually Googled the time frame. Well, Patrick, we take to go to 3v and pick up the food and then leave.

And it's not that CVS on the way. So I guess the government is suggesting. She's not in a set of posts. So she's Googling mirror wax because the doctor earlier that day told her that the baby needed corporate needed mirror wax. Why would she do that? Because remember the government's opening when they told you, she wasn't suffering from the set of posts. She was a woman that didn't want to live a life anymore. Wasn't happy being a mother. Didn't want to live that

life. So she's going to kill a kids. And hopefully throw herself out the window and not

“paralyze herself and then she could run off into the sunset, I guess. That's what the theory was.”

Along with the fact that it wasn't a real good suicide, it was fake. Well, now we know, don't we?

The mess that this young lady was in, in her brain, my brain is being damaged. I will never be better.

That's the evidence that you have in this case. Bird and the proof is on them to prove to you that at the time, she killed these three beautiful kids that she just wanted to move on with her life. Make suggest to you, just as there's no chicken nugget residue. And when you look at those photographs, there's a slice of a cucumber, there's a slice of a carrot, there's no chicken nuggets in that bowl. Patrick wouldn't know what the kids were eating. She was the one that would cook

the adena. She was in the refrigerator, but the guy yesterday is like, "Oh, no, Patrick said it." The child was eating the chicken nuggets in the bowl. No. She was getting food out for the two kids.

she's delivering. And finally, remember, it was a big deal about whether or not the voices

“are within the head, whether or not they're outside of the head. Dr. Resyx, article with the largest”

research on voices, lingering in God's world, indicates that 38% of almost a thousand people that were exited, report voices from inside their head and it stops. You're going to buy that guy yesterday? He has no one he's talking about. This young lady is not guilty of killing her fruit children because she was suffering from a disease and defect as his honor instructive you. And they're not going to be able to prove otherwise. And it's there, but not as. Thank you.

I come up. There's no dispute. That Lindsay Clancy was suffering from mental illness

and that she tried to kill herself. There's no dispute about that. All of the evidence that you've heard, even the experts that the Commonwealth put before you, say that she was suffering with a mental illness and she tried to kill herself. That's not the issue in this trial. The issue is whether at the time she killed Korra Dawson in County. She knew the difference between right and wrong and whether she could conform her behavior to the requirements of the law.

This case is not about our mental health system or how it treats women or what's in the DSM5

“and what's not. That's a distraction to get you angry and passionate about an important issue”

but an issue that's not on trial here. What's on trial here, what the issue is here, is what Lindsay Clancy did the night of January 24, 2023 and what her mental state was at the time. And you can use her psychological history and records the treatment records to look at both before and after she killed the kids. So look at how she got to that point. What her thought process was, what her motivation was. But it's not that the system or the DSM or any of that

that caused her to strangle her kids. In fact, she had more access to treatment and care and support than a lot of people do. She had health insurance that covered multiple doctors, multiple specialty

“programs, treatment at South Shore at Mass General, her stay at McLean. She had prescription”

coverage to cover the different trials she went through. She had supported home. She had 18 weeks of maternity leave with the opportunity to extend that as much as she needed, which is excellent, which is what all women should have. But she had that. She had support from both sides of her family, hers and patterns. The two older kids, Cori and Dawson, were in preschool three and a half days a week. And she had the nanny, a wane who helped with with cow and in three moreings a week.

And she also helped them with housework and with food prep. This wasn't a woman suffering from a lack of care, a lack of resources. She had an abundance of help and abundance of care. She had all of that and more. And you know, this doesn't mean that she wasn't struggling, that she wasn't dealing with mental health issues. She had depression. Whether that's from bipolar or a major depressive disorder or who's parting depression, it all boils down to she was depressed. And she was

trying to deal with that, trying to get help for that. But it wasn't the fault of the providers that she was struggling with this or that she wasn't getting better. They were doing the best they could. You have the record you heard the testimony. They were doing the best they could with the

information she provided them. And that wasn't always accurate information. That wasn't always

the full picture. And they were doing the best they could with her level of cooperation and compliance with the plan. Take her medications. You know from the records and from the pill bottles what she was prescribed and how she was supposed to take those medications. And you know from the pill bottles what she actually took. And sometimes those two things didn't align with what she told her providers

for one 25 mg pill a day for seven days. And then to go up to the 50 mg after seven days.

She told Dr. Tuff's that she took the pills for as prescribed for seven days. Went up on the eighth day to 50 mg and that's when she had the insomnia and the other side effects and symptoms. She told Patrick that she took the pills for seven days and they had no effect. So she called Dr. Tuff's who then told her to increase the dose. Well you know what she told Patrick is not accurate because the pill bottle says, "Take it for a week and then increase it." That was the plan for the beginning.

That wasn't the result of a phone call to Dr. Tuff's. And you know what she told Dr. Tuff's is an accurate either because only seven pills were taken from the bottle. So that leads you to options. Either she took the medication as prescribed one pill a day for seven days and then didn't increase it, which she says is what caused the side effects in the insomnia or what she did was not take it as prescribed. She didn't do it seven days and ease into it and then increase it. She either

missed a dose or increased it early before she was supposed to. Either scenario is not good. She

“knows as a nurse the importance of following the instructions of your medications. She knows how important”

is to follow the plan and do what's on the bottle and do what your provider tells you and to give that accurate information to your provider. She didn't say I went up a dose went up to 52 early. Maybe they could have adjusted that and tried the 25 milligrams from longer and easter into it. But no, she told her that she did what she was told and then went up and had these problems. So you can see that in a lot of the medication she has. You have the pill bottles that were

turned in by Patrick and a lot of them don't even have many pills missing from the bottles. Some of them have not. The abuse bar prescription, the first one, was only two pills missing.

The second prescription, no pills missing. The limital, she never took those pills at all until

the night she tried to kill herself. So there's a lack of compliance there, a lack of a fall of a lack of communication with her providers about what was happening with her and how she was taking the medications. And if that's much you to believe that this is a woman who's begging for help and willing to do anything and everything her providers tell her to do to get better. And she was asking for help. She was. She wanted help. She wanted to get better.

But she wanted to get better on her own terms, doing things for a way when she thought she should do them. And as a nurse, she knew that's not the right way to approach it. She knew that an accurate medical history, accurate information about your side effects and symptoms, what your thoughts are, that's important for your providers to know and she didn't do it. And it seems that the reason that she's not necessarily going to complain and she's doing what she wants to do is she has this

desire to be herself again. She just wants to go back to who she was and she wants it now and she doesn't want any side effects. She just wants to be herself again and wants it now. And that's understandable. That's relatable to more than get that magic pill that will fix you immediately and you can go back

“to being yourself. But she knew that's not how it worked. And you know that's what she was thinking”

because in the searches on her phone, she's searching for things like which any depressive works to fastest, how fast as well but you turn work. And she's searching all of these different

medications for the side effects and symptoms. Some of them that she never even discusses with

her doctors. And you know again, it's relatable that she wants to get back to where she was but she had discussions with her providers about how these medications work and that it takes time for them to get into your system that takes time for them to work. She even texted her mother about that about how she knew that she had to be patient that it took weeks for the amateur to wait for example to get into her system and work. And she knew all of this. And she just, she couldn't be

patient. She couldn't wait. She wanted faster. She even told Dr. Tufts, it's the note in the records that she knew the problem was that she wasn't focusing on one provider and following one plan. She knew that going from Dr. Dr. Practice to practice self-short at NGH to different programs

“not the best way to deal with the situation. She said it in her own words to Dr. Tufts.”

They need to stick with one provider and stick with one plan to see if it works. And she actually turned down help from at least two locations at various points.

about them or the witnesses say about them or or defense. You could look at the records themselves.

“Page nine, it tells us it says right there. Patrick was the one who said over medication”

was the issue. Not the doctors there. Not the people evaluating her. What they put was depression, RO rule out adverse medication effects. That means they have to look into what to see if medications are problem. But there's a difference between an adverse effect to symptom or a problem with a medication and being over-medicated, taking too much of a medication

and taking too many at one time. There's a difference there. And women and infants never

said she was over-medicated. What they also don't do is turn her away. It's not that she went there and they said can't help you go away. They told her it's in the records based on the onset of her symptoms. They weren't sure if it was postpartum or peripartum. They saw she had an issue.

“They wanted to help her. It says there, we offered her. They offered her three programs.”

They offered her the inpatient medical management program. They offered her a partial hospitalization program for general mental health and they offered her an outpatient program. It shows they put a lot of thought into that into offering her this care. When they gave her

three separate options, considering she's a young mom, maybe she doesn't want to be away from home.

But we'll give her the option of being in the hospital and getting her medications right. But we'll also give her the option of the partial hospitalization where she can be here during the day and go home to her kids in the evening. And then that third option of being an outpatient and being able to be at home with her kids and come in for appointments. It was very thoughtful of them. It was very well planned out to give her these three options.

And it's kind of the exact opposite of just turning someone away and saying, "Go away, we can't help you." And her response, "I'm going to talk to my provider about it for guidance." And she goes to Dr. Tuss. She sees Jolata at some point. You look at the records.

She never discussed those options with them. She told them that women and if it's turned

her away and said she didn't qualify for the program. She didn't discuss those three programs that they offered her. So basically they give her this offer of help. It's three different forms of help. And she doesn't want to do them. It doesn't discuss them with a provider. And also that first whom she goes to the mass general to the emergency room, they offer her a bed at McLean and she turns it down. She wants help. I won't say and she doesn't want help.

But she's making these decisions and doing these things that aren't helping her get help, that are turning away help because she wants to help in a certain way in a certain time frame. And you know, all during this time between September and December of 2022, she's interacting with friends with family, teachers, gym staff, the nanny, people at gymnastics, interacting with them, and public spaces, and public ways driving her kids around. All throughout that time,

able to know the difference between right and wrong, able to conform her behavior to the law and to the requirements of society and interacting with others and presenting herself as a functioning adult, a functioning mom. You know that she knew the difference between right and wrong during that time because she had those thoughts at the beginning of December of harming her kids. And she told Patrick and her mother about them. But who she didn't tell

“is important in very telling. She didn't tell a single provider, not tough, not gelada, not”

dead from the calister, not dukes, no one at McLean, no one at NGH, no one at South Shore, didn't tell any of them. And why? Because the police might take away her kids. That's a rational thought that telling mandated reporters that you're having a thought of harming your kids, that they might be taken away for their safety. That's a rational thought. And it also shows she knew it was a bad thought, a wrong thought. Because you don't think someone's

to take your kids away because you're thinking something positive or neutral, it's because it's bad, it's because it's wrong, it's against the law. So she knew that it was wrong. And she was able to conform her behavior to the law, because she didn't tell those providers.

depression. And not only did she not tell them, she lied to them. They asked her, "Are you having

“thoughts of harming others? Do you have a homicidal ideation?" She told Teth Snow. She told to”

lot of know. She told Duke Snow. She told Goodheart, no. Every day at McLean, she said no. And NGH, she said no. So not only is she hiding it, she's lying about it. She's controlling her behavior, she's controlling the presentation. She presents to her providers. Then you two heard being admitted to McLean. You know, up to that point, all of the drugs she's taken from September 3 December. They weren't given at the same time. The most she ever had at one

time was two to three medications. And usually, if it was three, that third medication was the

benadroller, the hydroxyzy and that's like benadroller, or the adivine or valium as needed for anxiety. The most of the time, it was two medications. And the way they did those medications, you heard

“from Dr. Satthaf, a man who's examined thousands of patients with psychosis, who's treated women”

with postpartum psychosis, who's treated women who have killed their children. That man who apparently has no expertise, you heard from him that the medication trials were reasonable and rational. She tried a medication. It didn't work, or they had side effects. They stopped the medication.

They tried something else. They tried a different combination. And unfortunately, with mental health,

there's no blood test or cat skin or MRI that you can do that says, well, you have bipolar, or you have schizophrenia. And unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. So what the providers have to do is rely on what the patient is telling them. Hope that information is accurate. rely on what they're observing about the patient and make a diagnosis. And then based on that diagnosis, of a treatment plan. And every patient reacts differently to medication. One patient could do

fine on it. The next not. So they have to do that trial and error process. And it's normal. It's

“typical. It's reasonable. And that's what they did for her. And even if you believe that the number”

of different medications she took over that time, or the combination of those medications affected her negatively. After McLean, they were out of her system. Some of them have been out of her system for months, as well as she stopped in October. Other than pills she stopped in November or December. And that last one is very cool, but she really had a bad reaction to, is out of her system. The only medication she's on leaving McLean is trasodone for sleep

and valium for anxiety. And that's it, and she leaves there. And why does she leave there? You want to go to Cois birthday party. And that's that's relatable. That's understandable. She wants to be that mom again who can grow her daughter a party and enjoy it. It's completely understandable as she would want to leave. But she also knew she wasn't there. She knew how she was feeling. She knew she was depressed. She knew she needed help. But she wanted to be that mom she was more.

And there was nothing McLean could do to keep her there. She said she denied suicidal ideation. She denied homicidal ideation. She said she wasn't hearing voices or seeing anything. They saw the entire time she was there in no sense of psychosis. In fact, every doctor she saw from Tufts in September all the way through Tufts at January 23rd. None of them saw any signs of psychosis ever. So they're all wrong. All these different doctors at all these different

practices. They're all collectively together wrong. That doesn't make sense. That she sells when she's leaving McLean no signs of psychosis. And they even give her a test a task to do to see if she can manage her mental health outside of the hospital. Make an appointment. Pick a doctor. We can complete it. And she does it. She decides on Dr. Tufts. She makes the follow-up appointment. She gets the documentation and gives it to them. Showing she can manage her mental

health. They have to let her go at that point. She's there voluntarily. There's no grounds to keep her if she's not showing she's a danger to herself for others. So they let her go home. And at home, again, all throughout January, she's showing her ability to know right from wrong

First is the birthday party. She's throwing the birthday party. She's monitoring the kids,

“making sure typical mom birthday party stuff. Everyone's eating, getting cake, singing happy birthday.”

You saw her in the video. She appeared happy and smiling, normal. Everyone that interacted with her see it said, it seems a little tired, but okay. The museum of science, you have that video. The museum of science in Boston can be crawled in and overwhelming on a good day. And she's there with three kids under five with her husband. You see her monitoring them, caring for them, doing the exhibits, showing them what to do with

the exhibits. If you watched that video and you didn't know who the Clancy family was,

and we asked you, pick out the woman who is depressed. Pick out the woman who wants to kill

herself. Pick out the woman who is about to kill her kids. You couldn't pick her out. She's completely calm. All her behaviors are typical and normal, because she's able to control her behavior. She's able to be suicidal and feel those things, but control her behavior, control her thoughts, and present that image to the world. She's able to do it at the Cape Cotter as well. It's the most scenario. She's able to watch the kids when Patrick goes to brunch.

She's able to watch the boys when Patrick and Corgo skiing on the 16th. She's able to interact with the carnies on January 22nd. And yeah, they both initially said she was quiet, but then

they both admitted she was always kind of quiet. But she was able to interact with them, chat with

them in the kitchen, seemed okay. In between January 7 and January 21st, her mother never comes to the house to intervene. Her sister, a licensed social worker, mandated a porter, never comes to the house to intervene or help. Never makes a report. And they're in contact with her every day, texting with her, calling with her, almost every day. And never see any signs that they should be concerned or worried or intervene. And you have those text messages between the defendant in a mom.

And her mom, obviously, was very attentive, very caring. Ask very pointed questions.

“How are you doing? How are you sleeping? How are the medications?”

Obviously, it's a very concerned loving mom. How does Lindsay answer? I'm getting a little better. I'm sleeping better. She said the only time her sleep was interrupted is of course I had a belly ache or one of the kids was up, but she's doing better every day. She's sleeping better. She's feeling better. She still says I'm not myself. I'm not where I want to be, but she's moving in the right direction. And we have that text from her mom. The

day she leaves on the 22nd headed back home and glad to see you're doing so much better. Now her mom, now, wants you to believe that she lied to her that she wasn't doing better and she just just tried to encourage her. But there's so many things you can say to your daughter who's

“struggling with mental health other than lie to her if you want to encourage her. You know,”

you've got this. Take a day by day. I'm here for you. We're going to get through this. But she wants you to think she lied to her when she said she was doing better. But you know that was an ally. You know that she was doing better or seem to be and that her mom said I'm glad you're doing so much better because Patrick said the same thing. He said she was doing better in January. Every day was better. The 24th was the best day. They had hope

because that's what she wanted to show them. The only person during that time that she gave even a little glimpse of maybe she wasn't doing that much better was Dr. Tufts. And she told Dr. Tufts that she was feeling depressed, which is why Dr. Tufts prescribed the 10 milligrams of of emitriptalina day. Very low dose. And then she told Dr. Tufts again, still not helping. And so Dr. Tufts raised it to the 20 milligrams. Again, a very low dose.

A dose a child could take. And that shows how cautious and conservative Dr. Tufts was being in the treatment of this patient who would have those interactions with medications previously. She was being cautious and conservative in acting with care for the patient by slowly increasing the medication. But even with Dr. Tufts, she still doesn't deny having a suicide plan.

Show no signs of psychosis. All the way up to January 23rd. Nothing.

“And if you look at their journal, you look at this journal that the first counsel showed you.”

She is very detailed. Excuse me, about when she took medication, what she took. The amount she took. What the effect was? From months, starting in October, and going all the way up to January. It works stops. January 18th. Someone who's been so meticulous about everything. All the way up to January 18th, and it just stops. As she's decided, she's done trying. She's decided that it's too much,

and she doesn't want to do it anymore. And so she just stops keeping trust of the prescriptions. And let me get to January 24th. Everything that happened that day, every person she interacted with, every situation she was in,

“shows you as she knew the difference between right and wrong, and she could conform her behavior to the law.”

The doctor's appointment first thing in the morning. She's able to drive there. She's able to

interact with medical professionals. She's able to see him absolutely fine in the morning. And this is a doctor who's treated the kid since core was a baby. This is a pediatrician who's known the family and is known Lindsey for almost five years. A woman who's trained, trained, and recognizing the signs of postpartum depression, she told you she looks for flat-out that she looks for teariness and some other things that she told you. She's not none of that. She was

able to control herself and interact with her in a perfectly normal, concerned motherland. He'll be able to get home from that appointment. She plays with the kid. She takes them outside. She's sending

those messages and photos to her mom and to Patrick. Basically saying, look, this is a good day.

I'm having a good day. Everything's good. I'm getting better. Here's proof. This is what I'm doing. You start to see the planning at about four o'clock in the afternoon. When this is on her phone, you can see her search for mirror lax, kids mirror lax at four o'clock too. And then a little while later at four o'clock, you see her search for take-out from 3v. And then immediately after, she does the album map search to see how long it takes to get to 3v. Well, defense wants you to

believe that she was checking that because she didn't want him gone for too long. She wanted him home. She was a distress. If you're in distress, don't send him anywhere. Make food at home, have him cook. Get delivery. Get door dash. Go to the one of the other restaurants that Patrick mentioned that we're two minutes down the road. And she didn't have to look up on Apple maps to see where this restaurant was. You heard from Patrick. They had been there at least three times

in the months before. She had lived in that area for four years. She knew where it was. She knew generally how long it would take to get there. What she needed to know was how long specifically on that night it would take to get there. Because she knew she would have a limited amount of time to do what she wanted to do. And what she had decided to do was to kill the children and then kill herself. And so she needed to know not generally, but exactly how much time will I have.

And then obviously sees that that's not enough time. So then she searches CVS. And not only did she search CVS, she calls them. Call them and ask them if they have kids in their relax and they say no, but they have GDLX and one other medication. And then she asks, is it in stock? Because she needs to know not only what they have, but is it in stock? Because she's adding to this area that she's sending Patrick out on.

And she has to make sure she's not interrupted. She doesn't want that call of 533. She wants him to go to CVS and have the medication there and get it and then go on to 3v.

“So she has time to do what she needs to do. So that's why she's calling to see what they have”

and make shorts and stuff. It's a level of planning there and thinking and decision making that Dr. Satha referenced. And then after that, she takes Patrick, you know, it's been a long day

And he asks for what she's getting. She tells him the Mediterranean parable. He says he's getting the pork belly of the loado. 510 p.m. she's calling that order in. She's talking to the hostess. She gets the order accurate. She is able to answer questions about how she wants her food. She's able to recall and give Patrick's phone number and his name is the person picking up. And then Patrick's leaving to go get the food. And as he's leaving, the kids are in the living room

on the couch eating. The defendants in the doorway of the basement door. And she says to him,

"Oh, basically, oh, by the way, can you go to CVS?"

“I think like it's this last minute thought. Like, "Oh, by the way, can you get this?" And not”

something that she's been planning for over an hour. She knew about the pdLax and she knew about 3v and she knew all of that before she even asked him about dinner. But it's like, "Oh, can you go to CVS on your way and get kids pdLax?" And he of course is like, "Sure, I'll get that." And he has out the door at 515 and you know that's the time he leaves because he says to her, "You know, just text it to me." And that's such a normal kind of interaction that we had in your

common sense of life experience. You're headed out the door to run an errand and someone in your home says, "Oh, well, you're out. Can you get me X, Y, and Z?" And you're like, "Yeah, sure, just text it to me because you don't want to get there." Like, "Uh, what did they want me to get?" It's such a normal

“interaction, right? Can you get this for me? Sure, text it to me. And he heads out the door”

and she texts it to him at 515 p.m. And then he goes to CVS, even though she's told him what to get and they have it, he still makes that call at 533. She calls him back at 534. And then he heads out to 3v and then comes home. And when he gets home, what's the things on the counter? And it's quiet. It's quiet in a way that a house with three kids under five should not be during waking hours. So he calls out to them, no answer. He goes to the basement door and opens it and yells down and

no answer. And he closes the door. He calls her phone, no answer. He goes upstairs and is able to unwap the door and see the blood and see the window open and go down to her. And when he goes down to her, she's no longer actively bleeding. He doesn't have to put pressure on any of her wounds.

“And he says to her, what did you do? In her responses, I tried to kill myself.”

And then it's where the kids in the basement. It's not. I heard a voice. I was compelled to do this. I didn't want to do this. Go help the kids. They're in the basement. Go save them. No. It's, I tried to kill myself and the kids are in the basement. And defense won't you believe that conversation couldn't have happened because of how she sounded on the 911 call,

but you heard from the doctors, people can deteriorate over time. When he first gets there,

she's able to talk to him. And as that progresses, she's losing the ability to talk. And there's nothing in the medical records or about her throat being crushed or a thyroid being crushed. You can look at that. Her thyroid was bruised. Her vertebrae would broken, but her throat wasn't crushed. She had the ability to make sound into community. And if you listen to the 911, he's talking to her. And then he's answering the 911

dispatchers about what she said. So even if we can't hear her clearly, and we can't understand what she was saying, he could. You know from all of the evidence that you have, putting aside the experts, but all the evidence you have in terms of crime scene photos and videos and the witness testimony in the medical records, you know how she killed them, where she killed them, what time she killed them, and the order that she killed them in. Even without what she told the

doctors about the order, that's something you can infer from the evidence. Because you know, in order to bring the kids to the basement and strangle each one of them, and then come up stairs

and get a knife and have a phone call, and then go upstairs to the second floor and either take

candles or pills or crush them however she did it, take the pills, and then cut herself and it's not just one three cuts, it's the hesitation marks, and then the cuts themselves. And then you know

the pooling in front of the mirror is someone basically the blood dropping down and someone there

for a period of time, and then over closer to the window, the same thing. So she's bleeding in front of the mirror for a period of time, over by the window for a period of time, and then she goes out of the window. And whether she dove out or climbed out and slid down, whatever you think that evidence shows from the shingles and everything you've seen, whatever happened, she goes out of the window and she's on the ground. And by the time Patrick gets there, she's no longer bleeding.

So for all of that to happen, in that short amount of time, while Patrick's gone, she had to have started killing the kids immediately after he left. Now defense wants you to believe that it was after the phone call, that after the phone call she heard the voice and killed the children.

But there's a few things about that that don't make sense. First is what she told Dr. Stathoff,

that when she gets the call she's at the fridge getting, she can not get out of the fridge to make dinner. You heard from Patrick when he's leaving, Dawson is sitting on the couch eating chicken nuggets and green beans out of a bowl. There's the crime scene photo of two bowls on the couch. Yes, the pink one seems to have some vegetables in it, but there's the blue one there as well. And Patrick saw Dawson eating the chicken nuggets and green beans.

“So why would the defendant make that up? Why would she say she's doing that during the phone call?”

Because if she's already killed the kids, because of a voice and being compelled and being against her will and she's like a puppet, then she can't get a call and miss it and then call the person back and have a conversation and then hang up. A puppet can't do those things. Those are decisions and choices and actions that she's controlling. So she has to explain away the phone call because her behavior and her ability to have the phone

call don't make sense if she's being compelled by a voice, if she's not in control. And you, brother on that, you have the phone, you have the flight's client, there were two flights client, you can see you have Ian Whiffins report, you can see there were two flights client.

The first ends at 5.33. So it makes sense that she has killed the kids in the basement and she has

come up the stairs and at 5.33, she's in the kitchen and she's getting the knife and then Patrick calls. Everything she's done, everything from the research to making sure what they have to telling them to get it to, making sure it's on stock, all of that, and he still calls her, he still interrupts her. And then she gets the knife and she goes upstairs and she's at the top of

“the stairs by 5.38. So the phone calls from 5.33 to just before 5.35. So if you want to believe”

that the voice has happened, the voice happened after the call, and the killing of the kids happened after the call, between 5.33 and 5.38, she doesn't go down and come back up and come back up and come back up and come back up. There's nothing on that phone about that, and there wouldn't be enough time for her to bring those kids down to the basement and strangle each one in three minutes. You heard from the doctors and Dr. Lapisada included, it could take after 30 seconds or each

child to go unconscious. And then strangulation would have to continue for another one to two minutes to cause death. And Dr. Lapisada wanted you to believe that the band could just stay there around their next by themselves. But you have the bands, their exercise bands, you pull them. They resist, you let go, they snap back. I had to hold them up to show her, and it circles like a around someone's neck. And when I let go, they expanded. They don't stay around someone's neck on their

“own. You have to pull them. And you know they weren't nodded. Patrick never testified that there's”

not they were nodded. So I'll take this one. He testified that he didn't have a clear memory, but he remembered that they were possibly looped. And I asked him like, "When you're tying your shoe that first loop before you do a bow?" And he said, "Yeah, kind of like that." So not nodded, not tied, but even his memory wasn't the best you heard him on that call. And that's why we had

you knew that he had the phone with him. When he found each kid. Because his voice never sounded

like he was in another room. It always sounded so painfully right there. And so you know he's holding the phone. And he's not untying knots. And he wouldn't have had the time to unty knots. And that's short amount of time. And then you have the firefighters looking in the window, seeing him with Dawson. If he's not untying and not or unlooping something, they say they see him in an unwinding

“motion unwrapping. That's why you had to listen to the 911. To show that she did stand over”

their limp bodies and strangled them for one to two minutes after they went unconscious. Because

those weren't nodded. They weren't tied. They don't just stay there on their own.

And even if you wanted to believe that at 538 she goes upstairs and puts the phone on the bed. And then she goes down and kills the kids. And she does everything. 538 to just after 6 p.m. Because he's making the call to work 609. There was not enough time between 538 and just after 6 p.m. to kill all three kids to get the knife to take the pills to cut herself to bleed. To go out of the window, just stop bleeding and patch it to get there. In 20 odd minutes,

it's not enough time. So you know, she killed those kids as soon as he left. And when she got the call from him, she had already strangled them. And she didn't come. She didn't ask for help. She didn't say, "Oh my God, what have I done?" She's a nurse. She didn't go down and try to do CPR and help them. No, she lied. She stayed calm. She presented herself as normal. She had complete control over

her behavior in her emotions. She had a normal conversation with him. Because she didn't want him coming. Oh, because she needed to finish her plan.

“She still had to kill herself. So why did she do it?”

No, defense would have believed that a mother who was this good, who loved her kids this much,

which we're not denying, would never harm her kids this way unless she was so mentally ill that

she was hearing these command voices and had no choice. But you know, that's not the one we live in. Dr. Resent told you, most women who kill their children do it in child abuse. Most women who kill their children don't do it because of mental illness. Mothers kill their children and it's horrible and it's awful, but it happens. So why did she specifically do it? She was depressed. She was exhausted. She was done. She didn't want to try anymore. She

“felt damaged. But those kids, those kids were her protective factor. Those kids were keeping her”

from ending her misery. And so she had to remove the protective factor. And I'm not saying she was happy about it. I'm saying that it was what she had to do to end her misery. But it was a choice. She could have kept trying. She could have, you know, moved down to her mothers. She could have just, she could have killed herself and left her kids alive. But it was a choice to take them with her. It was a horrible choice. And it's a choice that

that we don't want to think about that a mother could make because that doesn't make us feel safe or comfortable in this world. But it's a choice she made. She knew it was wrong because she sent Patrick out to do it. She could conform her behavior because she waited until he was gone and didn't tell him what was going on in those phone calls. Didn't call 911 for help. Didn't lock herself in a bathroom upon hearing these voice, this voice. She knew it was wrong.

She didn't take advantage of this situation. She created this situation. This opportunity to do what she wanted. And when she walked in the hospital and she knew she was alive and the kids weren't, she knew what she did was wrong. She said she felt horrified. And then while still

it was after surgery and she's hilarious. Look at the records. She had surgery in the 27th.

“She's asking if she has a lawyer on the 26th. "Do I have a lawyer?" Because she knows what she did”

was wrong. And then we get the justification and the excuse of the voice. And there are a few

reasons why the voice doesn't make sense. The first is she immediately obeyed it. Dr. Resnick,

they're expert. The one who knows everything about postpartum psychosis. He teaches other psychiatrists and psychologists. He writes books and chapters and articles about how this is a huge red flag. If someone immediately obeys a voice, you heard him talk about Andrew Yates about how she heard voices to kill her children for months. And when did she do? She committed herself five times. She tried to kill herself twice to avoid harming her children because it's self. That was all accurate.

Let's move on from that. Lindsay Clancy, here's his voice one time, and does it? Doesn't try to lock herself in the bathroom, call Patrick, call him in one one. Doesn't try to leave. You know, yeah, leaving little children alone for 20, 30 minutes, not the greatest option, but it's better than killing them. She doesn't try any tactics to avoid the voice. She just obeys. Another red flag that Resnick was asked about in teachers and writes about

is that she only heard the voice one time. She never heard it before, and she hasn't heard it since.

Somehow that works. It's a red flag that she's making up the voice. Another one is that what she said, the voice holder isn't consistent.

“At the hospital, she says the voice that you have to kill your children so you can kill yourself”

because they'll suffer without you. What she tells a lot of the doctors is it says this is your last chance you have to kill the kids so you can kill yourself. And then she tells the chaplain, you have to have a third version. You have to kill the kids so you can kill yourself because they're in danger. There's these three different versions. Another flag that red flag, it doesn't make sense that the voice,

she's saying the voice says all these different things. And then the third thing, the fourth thing,

rather, that doesn't make sense about the voice, is that it's vague in its command. It doesn't tell her how to kill the kids where with what? Nothing. It says kill the kids so you can kill yourself. So she had to choose where the basement. She had to choose how strangulation. She had to choose with what? Exercise ban. Choose again. Exercise ban. Choose again. Exercise ban. She had to choose how to kill herself. Now if you're being compelled by this voice,

you have no free will whatsoever. You're just doing your body's acting on the voice. Why wouldn't you just kill yourself the same way you killed the children? You strangled them, you hang yourself. That's acting on compulsion. That's no choice. She tried three different ways. And none of them similar to what happened to the kids. And I'll take this other quarter now and explain to you why we go out into the superficiality of the wounds and why we go out into

the height of the window and why we go out into how she didn't take enough pills to actually kill herself. We're not saying she didn't want to kill herself. We're talking about that third

“prom of suicideality that Dr. Sat talked about. Remember you talked about a loneliness and”

feeling burdensome but that third category capability. She wanted to kill herself but her natural instinct to live was fighting against that. So she took pills but you heard the toxic colleges. They were all at therapeutic levels or below except the cerical which was a little elevated. She caught herself but you saw the cuts on the meaty, meaty pot of her arm horizontally. No arteries. No major blood vessels. Did it need to be said to the next day? The one

internet didn't need to be stitched at all. She knew as a nurse. Those weren't going to kill her but she was trying and then going out of the window. 12 13 feet. She landed the wrong way and ended up paralyzed on the frozen ground but you know the idea that following out of a 12 foot window

trying in all these different ways but she just couldn't get over that third prom the capability

“of actually killing herself and that goes against it being a voice because if she's compelled to do it”

if this voice is making her do it she would just do it. There would be no fight. There would be no struggle. There would be no resistance to dying but there was. I guess the third one is Dr. Zaisal.

We've never said that he told the defendant what to say. Not one witness, not one piece of

evidence. The only person that said the doctor Zaisal that we were trying to say Dr. Zaisal told her to make up the voice is defense counsel. He's the only one who asked about it. He's the only one that brought it up. We had never said that in this courtroom and no witness is said that that we've asked. She knew what she did was wrong. She could conform her behavior to the law and chose not to. And she didn't expect to have any consequences because she expected to die

“with her children. And we get to what we have to prove is that our secret is to deliver”

premeditation and extreme atrocity and cruelty. You know it was deliberate premeditation because of the way she killed them and the way they died. And the order also shows a rationality. The order she killed them in. Because who we're in Dawson are older. If she had tried to straighten the one in front of the other, they would have known this is bad. And they would have tried to intervene or run in height. And she had a very limited time. She didn't have time to try to

find a child who ran off and hit. So taking Dawson first and moving him to a separate room,

having coercing with Kellyn and having Dawson going in another room. That's rational. That makes sense. That's ordered thinking. And we didn't show you that post that she made about Dawson being a handful and not being compliant to show she was a bad mom. We showed it to you because it proves she knew that he was a handful. She knew that he was less likely to be compliant to just go along. She knew that he might struggle. And so it made sense rationally to remove him and separate

in first and kill him first. And she brought him into that room into the office and closed the door. And she wrapped that band around his little neck. And she squeezed until he was unconscious. As the blood's pulling in his face and causing those blood vessels to burst, calling, causing him pain in panic and confusion. And defense calls Dr. Lepasata to say no, it wasn't 20 or 30 seconds. It was only five or 10 seconds that until he won unconscious.

“I'm sorry. How many seconds is it okay for them to have been in pain and panic and confusion?”

How about it? It wasn't okay for one second for any of those children to feel that. And they all felt it all for up to 30 seconds. And then she continued strangling their left bodies for one to two minutes to make sure they were dead. The deliberate pre-minitation and then extreme atrocity and cruelty. The indifference that she showed to their pain, to their struggle, to their suffering, leaving them there on the floor with the bands around

their neck completely indifferent because she had a plan and she was following it through. Just think of that, the being strangled and the pain and the confusion that they're going through. And then and it's being done by their mom. Their mom is the one that's hurting them. Their mom is the one that's killing them. That's extreme atrocity and cruelty. She didn't see them in that moment. As individual human beings, with rights, with dreams, with futures,

individually belonging to them. You heard about the three kids, Kora wanted to be a doctor and a

mom, Dawson wanted to be a firefighter. Kallen never got the chance to dream, who knows what

future he would have dreamed for himself. She killed them and she left them there on the floor with the bands around their neck. She didn't bring them up to their beds and put them with a

She left them discarded on the basement floor like broken toys because she was done playing the game.

You know to a moral certainty. She is guilty. All right. Thank you, council. No. It was the jury seeing here for what. They may need to short break. They would. All right. So we're going to return now to the instructions that I have in rereading my instructions. I just kind of want to make sure that something's clear. So I'm going

“to ask you to go back to as a page six. I think we'll be talking about murder in the second degree.”

Nobody get there. All right. Great. Just kind of wanted to make clear that you may consider the defendant's mental condition at the time of the killing, including any credible evidence of mental impairment or the effect on the defendant for a consumption of prescription drugs

in determining any of the elements in the murder in the second degree charge as well. I mentioned

that for some of the others but specifically for the charge in the murder of the second degree there's an element regarding intent. Okay. So I just kind of wanted to make that clear. Probably is suggested in that but as I've read through it, it just kind of wanted to remind you that you can, as I said, you can consider the defendant's mental condition at the time of the killing

“including any credible evidence of mental impairment or the effect on the defendant of”

a consumption of prescription drugs and determining the elements in murder in the second degree. All right. So I hope that clear things up rather than confusing you any. Now I'm going to go to the general principles in regards to this case. All right. Now as I said before, I'm incorporating these instructions that I gave earlier before the closing arguments with these instructions. So I want to talk about the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof. Once again,

the indictments against this clear only in accusation. They're not evidence. The defendant has denied and she's guilty of the crimes charged in these indictments. The law presumes the defendant to be innocent of the charges against her. This presumption of

“innocence is a rule of law that compels you to find the defendant not guilty unless and until”

the Commonwealth produces evidence from whatever source that proves that the defendant is guilty

beyond unreasonable doubt. This burden of proof never shifts. The defendant is not required to

call any witnesses or produce any evidence since she is presumed to be innocent. The presumption of innocence stays with the defendant unless until the evidence convinces you unanimously as a jury that the defendant is guilty beyond unreasonable doubt. It requires you to find that a defendant not guilty unless your guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. You're verdict whether it is guilty or not guilty must be unanimous. All right. Now, reasonable doubt. The burden is on the

Commonwealth to prove beyond unreasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charges made against her as it just told you. But what is proved beyond unreasonable doubt? Well, the term is often used and probably pretty well understood that what's not easily defined. Proof beyond unreasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt for everything in the lives of human beings is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. The charges prove beyond unreasonable

doubt if, after you've compared and considered all of the evidence. You have in your minds an abiding conviction to a moral certainty that the charge is true. When we refer to moral certainty, we mean the highest degree of certainty possible in matters relating to human affairs based solely on the evidence that has been put before you in this case. I've told you that every person is presumed to be innocent until she is proved guilty and that the burden of proof is on

the prosecutor. If you evaluate all the evidence and you still have a reasonable doubt remaining, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and must be acquitted. It is not enough for the Commonwealth to establish a probability, even a strong probability that the defendant is more likely to be guilty than not guilty. That is not enough. Instead, the evidence must convince you of the defendant's guilt to a reasonable and moral certainty that convinces your understanding

and satisfies your reason in judgment is jurors who are sworn to act conscientiously on the evidence. This is what we mean by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I want to talk about my function,

fairly, efficiently and in an orderly manner. It is also my responsibility to rule on what you may

consider as evidence and to instruct you on the law that applies in this case. It is your duty

“as jurors in this case to accept the law as I stated to you. You should consider all of my”

instructions as a whole. You may not ignore any instruction or give special attention to anyone instruction. You must follow the law as I give it to you whether you agree with it or not. That's not just because I'm the judge. It's because every person who comes to court for trial is equal and is subject to the same law. And if jurors in each case were to apply what they thought the law should be and the jurors in different cases had different views than the parties in those cases

would not be treated equally. The law that I'm instructing you on is the law that it has been established

by our legislature and our pellet courts and it applies to everyone and you must apply the law as I instruct you. Function to the jury, your function is to determine the facts of this case. You are the sole and exclusive judges of the facts. You alone determine what evidence to accept how important any evidence is and you do accept and what conclusions to draw from all the evidence. You must apply the law as I give it to you to the facts as you determine them to be in order to decide

“whether the common law is proven its case. You should determine the facts solely on a fair”

consideration of the evidence. You are to be completely fair and impartial and you are not to be

swayed by prejudice, by personal likes or dislikes towards either side or by any personal view

you may have the nature of the claims or the defenses in the case. Your decisions must rest solely on the facts that you find and the law that I give to you in these instructions. No, I need to be influenced by any personal likes or dislikes you've come to feel towards any party or any attorney. In this courtroom every person is equal and is entitled to a fair and impartial verdict in accordance with the evidence and the law. You are not to decide this case based on anything you may have

read or heard outside of this courtroom that it with the exception of that is the observations you made at that deal and I'll talk about that a little bit later. You are not to engage in any guesswork about any unanswered questions that remain in your mind or to speculate about what the court on court real facts might or might not have been beyond what has been proved by the evidence.

“You should not consider anything that I've said or done during the trial is any indication of any”

opinions as to how you should decide this case. If you believe that I've expressed or hinted at any opinion about the facts in this case please this regard it. I have no opinion about the facts or what your verdict ought to be that is solely and exclusively your duty and your responsibility. Now I'll talk about function of counsel. It was the duty of the lawyers in this case to object to in the other side offered evidence which that lawyer believed was not admissible under

our law. They also had an obligation to ask to speak to me at the sidebar about questions the law which the law requires me to rule on outside of the hearing. The purpose of such objections in ruling is not to keep relevant information from you. You should not draw any inference favorable or unfavorable to any attorney or their client from objecting to proposed evidence or asking me to make such rulings. That is the function and responsibility of the attorneys

in this case. Now what is evidence? As I told you you are inside with the facts are solely from the evidence admitted in this case and not from suspicion or conjecture the evidence consists of the testimony of witnesses as you recall it and any documents, photographs or videos or other things that were received into evidence as exhibits. You may also consider any observations that you made while at the view that we took earlier in the trial. In this case there may be certain

documents or photographs that are rented multiple times. This does not mean that that evidence is any more or less important than any other evidence. You the jurors will decide how to evaluate the evidence that is what weight to put to it. Now in reviewing documents in evidence you might find that there are some information that have been wiped out or redacted. This is because the court has made some legal rulings about what evidence is relevant to this case. You should

not draw any negative inference against either party based on these redactions nor are you to speculate about what information has been redacted. In addition a stipulation a couple of stipulations

that has been made between the parties. The contents of such stipulation may be accepted by you as facts and relied on you along with other facts that you find based on the evidence. Now of course the quality or strength of the proof is not determined by the sheer volume of evidence or the number of witnesses or exhibits. It's the way to the evidence. It's strength in turning to prove the issue at stake that's important. Some things that occur during a trial are not evidence

and you may not consider them as evidence in deciding the facts of this case. A question put

to a witness is never evidence. Only the answers are evidence. So if a witness agrees with a

fact or a proposition contained in a question, then the fact or proposition agreed to is evidence. However, if a witness disagrees with a fact or proposition contained in a question, then the fact or proposition is not evidence simply because it was suggested in the question. You would have to look elsewhere for evidence about that issue. You may not consider any answers that I've stricken. They're not evidence. It cannot be used by you as evidence or considered by you for any purpose.

The opening statement, closing arguments of the lawyers, not evidence. They're only intended to assist you in understanding the positions of the party. My instructions, anything that I've

said during the trial, not evidence. So if you're a memory of the testimony differs from the

“attorneys or mind, you are to follow your own recollection. You must consider the evidence as a whole.”

Now, I'll talk about direct and circumstantial evidence. There are two types of evidence that you may use to determine the facts in this case. There's direct evidence and there's circumstantial evidence. The law allows both direct and circumstantial evidence in a criminal case and circumstantial evidence alone. Maybe sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Direct evidence is one of witness testifies directly about the fact that it's sought to be proved based upon

what he or she claims of seeing her or felt with their own senses. And the question there is whether you believe that witness or not. Circumstantial evidence is one of witness when no witness. I'm sorry, let me say that again. Circumstantial evidence is one of witness contestified directly about the fact that sought to be proved, but you were presented with evidence of other facts, then asked to draw a reasonable inferences from them about the fact that sought to be proved.

“There are, however, several things you should keep in mind about Circumstantial evidence.”

The first one is that you may draw inferences and conclusions only from facts that have been proved you beyond a reasonable doubt. The second rule is that any inferences or conclusions you draw must be reasonable and natural based on your common sense in good judgment. In a chain of Circumstantial evidence, it's not required that every one of your inferences and conclusions be inevitable, but it is required that each of them be reasonable, that they all be consistent with one

another, and that together they establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Infraences must never be based on conjecture, surmise, guesswork, or assumption.

And whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial, the commonwealth must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt from all of the evidence presented in the case. Now, I'm going to talk about the credibility of witnesses. It's going to be your duty to decide all the disputed questions of fact. You are going to have to determine which witnesses to believe

“and how much weight to give their testimony. You should give the testimony of each witness”

whatever degree of belief and importance that you judge in his fairly entitled to receive. You are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses, and if there are any conflicts in the testimony, it's your function to resolve those conflicts and to determine where the truth lies. You may believe everything a witness says or only part of it or none of it at all. If you do not believe a witness is testimony that something happened,

of course your disbelief is not evidence that it did not happen. When you disbelieve a witness, it just means that you have to look elsewhere for credible evidence about that issue. And when deciding whether to believe a witness and how much importance to give a witness is testimony, you must look at all the evidence, draw on on your own common sense and experience of life. Often it may be not what a witness says, but how the witness says it,

that might give you a clue whether or not to accept that witness's version of an event as

The frankness or lack of frankness and testifying whether the testimony is reasonable or unreasonable,

“probable or improbable. You may take into account how good an opportunity”

the witness had to observe the facts about which the witness testifies, the degree of intelligence the witness shows, and whether the witness's memory seems accurate. You may also consider any motive that the witness may have for testifying and whether the witness displays any bias in testifying and whether or not the witness has any interest in the outcome of the case. Now, we'll talk a little bit about prior inconsistent statements.

When you evaluate the testimony, the witness gave here in court, you may consider

whether that witness made any earlier statements that differ from a contradict in any way

they're in court testimony. That earlier statement is generally admitted into evidence solely for your consideration in evaluating the witness's credibility or believability. If you determine

“that an earlier statement is different from the way the witness testified in court,”

you may decide that the witness's credibility or believability is affected adversely or you may decide that it's not adversely affected, but that is the only purpose for which you may use that earlier statement. You may not consider the earlier statement as evidence or poof of truth of any fact contained in the statement. Now, Flippsala and talk about prior consistent statements now, all right? The testimony of a witness may be rehabilitated or supported by showing

that he or she previously made statements. They're consistent with their present testimony. The prior statement is admitted into evidence solely for your consideration in evaluating the credibility of the witness. Should you find the prior statement to be consistent, you may consider the prior statement only in connection with your valuation of the credence to be given to the witness's present testimony in court. You are not to consider the prior statement

as establishing the truth of any facts contained in that statement. Now, when I talk about the defendant's statements, they were made to evaluating psychiatrists or psychologists. You may not consider the defendant's statements made to a psychiatrist or psychologist in their evaluation of the defendant as establishing the truth of any facts contained therein. Those statements cannot be used by you as evidence of premeditation, extreme atrocity, or cruelty, or specific

intent to kill. Such statements are admissible only as they relate to the basis of the doctor's opinion of the defendant's mental condition. Now, my talk about evidence of post incident conduct. Now, if you have heard some evidence suggesting the defendant's actions after the killings, I'm not suggesting that these are the facts because the facts are your exclusive domain, but there is some evidence to that effect. And I mentioned it here to describe the legal point

that's implicated. If the Commonwealth has proven that a defendant did any of these things, you may consider whether such actions indicate feelings or consciousness and guilt by the defendant and whether in turn such feelings have killed my tend to show the defendant's actual guilt of the offenses with which he's been charged. You are not however required to draw such inferences and you should not do so unless they appear to be reasonable in light of all

the circumstances in this case. If you decide that such inferences are reasonable,

“it will be up to you to determine how much importance to give them. But you should always remember”

that there may be numerous reasons why a person not responsible for the crimes charge by do the things attributed to her, such conduct does not necessarily reflect feelings or consciousness of guilt. So please bear in mind that a person having feelings of guilt is not necessarily guilty in fact for such feelings or sometimes found in innocent people. So finally, remember that standing alone, consciousness of guilt evidence, if you find it was any,

is never enough by itself to convict a person of a crime. You may not find the defendant guilty

on such evidence alone, but you may consider it in your deliberations along with all the other evidence that was presented at the trial. I want to talk next about expert witnesses. Now, there were a number of expert witnesses in this case. This term refers to witnesses who have specialized training or experience in a particular field. Generally, in cases that are tried in our courts, both civil and criminal witnesses may testify only to facts that are within

Because of a particular witness has specialized training in their field, there's not put that

witness on a higher level than any other witness. And you are a treat and expert witness, just as you would treat any other witness. You may believe all of the experts testimony, none of it or anything between those two extremes. There is no requirement if you believe in expert, merely because they are an expert. As with any other witness, it's completely up to you to decide whether you accept the testimony of an expert witness,

including the opinions that the witness gave. It's also entirely up to you to decide whether you accept the facts relied on by the expert and decide what conclusions if any you draw from the

“expert's testimony. You must, as has been explained, keep firmly in mind that you alone decide”

what the facts are. If you conclude that an expert's opinion is not based on the facts as you find

those facts to be, then you may reject the testimony in the opinion of the expert in whole or in part. You are also free to reject the testimony in the opinion of an expert witness in whole or in part. If you determine that the witness's opinion is not based on sufficient education, experience, or that the testimony of the witness was motivated by some biased or interest in this case. You may have noticed that this Clancy did not testify at this trial. The defendant

has an absolute right not to testify since the entire burden of proof in this case is on the Commonwealth to prove that the defendant is guilty. It is not up to the defendant to prove that

she is innocent. Under our system of law, a defendant has a perfect right to say to the Commonwealth

quote, "You have the burden of proving your case against me beyond a reasonable doubt. I do not have to say a word," unquote. The fact that the defendant did not testify has nothing to do with the question of whether she's guilty or not guilty. You are not to draw any adverse inference against the defendant because she did not testify. You are not to consider it in any way or even

“discuss it in your deliberations. You must determine whether the Commonwealth has proved its case”

against the defendant based solely on the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits. Now, I'm going to talk about that. You will have all the exhibits and the stipulations with you in the jury room. If there is a need to play an exhibit or if you want, the court will make a computer available for you to use. The things you heard be say were marking for identification only are not evidence and you're not going to have those items with you in the jury room

because they're not technically part of the evidence. We marked them so we could keep track of them as we went from witness to witness and it'd be a clear record of some of the rulings I made. So, coming back, however, the exhibits that we're introduced in evidence, you'll have those with you. You alone will decide the weight that they deserve to receive and helping you make your

“ultimate judgment about whether the Commonwealth has proven its case. You're not required to believe”

something simply because it's written on a piece of paper or it appears in a photograph. You're not, of course, required to disbelieve it just because it appears there. Whether to believe when an exhibit purports the show and how much weight to give the exhibit is entirely up to you to decide. Now, the view earlier in the trial, we drove by some sites and visited an address in Duxbury as they told you at the time, we referred that as a view. The purpose of the view

was to help you better understand the evidence that you heard during the trial and to help you appreciate the location and its surroundings. The view is part of the case. If you observations that you made while on view, maybe used and considered in your deliberations in reaching reverting. Now, I want to talk a little bit about some photographs. The Commonwealth has introduced certain photographs depicting the victims. You'll have those photographs with you during your deliberations

that the images depicted are not pleasant. As I instructed you at the time that you were introduced, your verdict must not, in any way, be influenced by the fact that these images are unpleasant or graphic. The defendant is entitled to a verdict based solely on the evidence and not one based on pity or sympathy for the decidence which might be occasioned by the images depicted. Consider those exhibits. Only as they may draw attention to a clinical, medical status or

nature of the victim's injuries, the cause of their death, or to the nature of the incident itself. Now, about notes. At the outset of the case, I spoke to you regarding the use of notes and I

precedent over your independent recollection of the facts. Whether you took note to you didn't,

“you must rely on your own memory. Do not use your notes to try to persuade your fellow jurors”

of the accuracy of your reflections and no jurors should be influenced by the notes of other jurors. Your notes are not official or even unofficial transcripts. Now, you'll talk about the use of phones or computers. During your deliberations, you must not communicate with or provide any information to anyone by any means about this case. You may not use any electronic device or media such as a computer or a phone to communicate to anyone, any information about this case,

or to conduct any research about this case until I accept your verdict. Kind of want to make that real clear. So, if somebody has a question in that jury room, you are not allowed to try and answer it by anything other than through the exhibits and evidence you for it. We said so I just kind of want to make that real clear. Nobody is to use a phone to communicate to try and look, I don't talk to anybody while you're deliberating, don't try and look up anything, things like that.

All right, just kind of make that as clear as I can. Now, before I go any farther, I have to do one more duty, and that's to select the four person of the jury. We have a four person for two purposes. The first is to act as your facilitator. That's the gatherer everyone around the deliberation table to be sure that everyone has a full and fair opportunity to speak and to share their views and

to ensure that all of you are always deliberating together as a group as you work to reach the

verdict in this case. The second purpose of the four person is to act as you spokesperson here and open court. So when you're ready to return your verdict, we'll bring your bail on back out as a group, Alaska, and remain standing, and we'll ask the four person on everyone's behalf if you reach the verdict. If you have, we'll go through the process of having that verdict reported by the four person on your behalf and then it's recorded in the case. All right, so those are the two roles of the

four person. So in this case, I'm going to appoint in C-18, during number 257 as the four person of this jury. Okay, now, members of the jury, if during the course of your deliberations,

“you should have a question about the law or about my instructions on the law and by telling”

this, I'm not suggesting you'll have one, but if you should, you should do the following. All right,

you should all first agree on the form of the question. Had the four person write it down on a piece of

paper and the four person, she give it to the court officer, we'll bring it to me. I'll call the lawyers together. We'll consider your question and how I should respond to it, and then I'll leave the bring it back out here in the courtroom and respond you here in open court with an answer or if it's appropriate, I might just write the answer down and respond to your question and send it back to the jury room. So now, that process, it caused a lag time between when you ask the question,

get it sent out here and meet with the lawyers, decide how we answer it and get the answer back to you. So if you can continue to keep deliberating while waiting for my response, by all means do so. If you cannot go further without my response and stop it, I'll get my response you as quickly as I can. If it's necessary to communicate with me on any matter during the deliberations, I'd ask you to do so in writing, send me a note and I'll respond to it. You're instructed,

not to talk to anyone else, but any aspect of the merits of this case during your deliberations, that includes the staff, court officers, lawyers, witnesses, parties, family members, friends, acquaintances, anyone. Now, your communications with the court officers should have to do just matter as a scheduling and breaks when you come back to the court and that kind of thing, but even with them, I don't discuss what's going on inside that jury room if you can.

“Now while you're in the jury room, you should all talk about this case only in the presence of”

each other. That is, at some point, we'll have lunch brought to you. So if you'd like, you may as a group decide to suspend your deliberations, have lunch, and then return to the deliberations. We might decide you'd like to work through lunch while the liberate either way. The only thing we can't have is some of you eating lunch separate from others while the liberate. So no subcommittees in the sense. What you do is a group. All right. You do it all together.

Now, now I'm going to get to a difficult part, reducing and sending out the jury.

All right. When we obtain a jury at the beginning of a trial, we never know whether some

the jurors to be excused from further jury duty. To avoid having to start the trial all over again,

“if that should occur, we impaled in this case 18 jurors, even though the case will be eventually”

decided by 12 of you. And we made that decision, because this is a lengthy case over the summer. The time has now come to reduce that number. This is especially difficult in this case. We're all 18 of you. It've been equally dedicated and attended this case during the course of this trial, but the case is to be decided by 12. All right. And so the way it's done is the clerk will draw the alternate names who put all the numbers, the exclusion of the four person, and then we'll draw

out the names randomly for the alternates. And the purpose of the alternate for those of you who are

selected is that even during the course of deliberations, sometimes things happen. You know, some one of the deliberating jurors has gets sick or a family emergency. And so we may, it happens, it happens fairly regularly. It would have to substitute one of the alternatures into the deliberating jurors. Because if you didn't, if we didn't have the alternate jurors still here, we'd have to

“start all over again. So that's why we do it. It does make it easier. But I thought I'd just explain”

you why we have to do that. So let's say put in here, fake makes you an alternate juror don't take it personally. Your presence to this point and continuing availability if you should be needed is an important contribution. The core officers will make use comfortable as possible while the jury deliberates. If you're an alternate juror, you should not discuss this case with anyone at all while the deliberations are ongoing. Nor discuss it among your fellow alternates as the need might

come up that you have to join in the deliberation. So in other words, the alternate jurors can't have their own kind of informal deliberations. And it's very difficult. I just kind of want to make that clear that you have to do that or you cannot do that. So at this point, I'm going to ask the clerk to reduce the jury at this point. The following jurors are chosen as well. Journal number 157 and seat number 11, journal number 162 and seat number 12, journal number 385 and seat number 14,

journal number 122 and seat number 6, journal number 124 and seat number 7, journal number 245 and seat number 15. All right, thank you. Now, when they kind of forgot to talk about, I mentioned it with a four person in everyone. You guys are the verdicts. This is the verdicts. This is what it looks like. It will be a verdicts lip for each count. And it says right, there's a count regarding Chora Clancy, there's a count

regarding Dawson Clancy, there's a count regarding Calon Clancy. You know, in each of those, there's a box for not guilty, not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility. Guilty of murder

in the first degree by the theory of deliberate permeditation or extreme atrocity in cruelty,

there's a box for guilty of murder in the second degree, there's a box for me and slot. So when you have reached the unanimous verdict as to which verdict it is, the fourth person is to check that box that is applicable to the decision, sign it, and date, and let the court officers know we have verdicts. Okay, so it's pretty self-explanatory, I just kind of wanted to let you know that. I'm now. I know I'm not telling anything you don't know. When I tell you they're reaching a verdict

in this case is not necessarily going to be an easy task. It's going to require quantitative service on your part, and a quantitative just approach to your duty is jurors. I suggest, especially, they each approach it with a mutual respect for the opinions of your fellow jurors. They have a disposition to listen to each other. Don't be afraid to change your own opinion

“if the discussion persuades you that you should but don't come to a decision simply because”

other jurors feel it's the right decision. It's your decision. Each of you must decide this case for yourselves, and you should do so only after you consider all the evidence discussed it fully with your fellow jurors, and listen to the views of your fellow jurors. You all heard the same evidence.

to arrive at the truth, and you're all under the sanction, and the same oath that you took

his jurors at the start of this trial, when you agreed to well and truly try the issues between the parties and accordance the evidence in the law. Now, I'm about to submit this case to you,

“and I need not remind you that you have an awesome responsibility, but I believe that you'll”

be, that you will bring to bear all the wisdom and the judgment and the conscience that you possess in reaching your verdict in this case, all that we can expect from you is that you decide this case with integrity and with principle. Now, everyone is feelings, assumptions, perceptions, fears, stereotypes, those are implicit biases that we may not be aware of. These hidden thoughts can

impact what we see, and hear how we remember what we see, and hear how we make important decisions,

because you're making such an important decision in this case. I strongly encourage you to evaluate the evidence carefully. Resist jumping to conclusions based on personal likes or dislikes, generalizations, gut feelings, prejudices, sympathy, stereotypes, or biases. The law demands

“that you return to just verdict based solely on the evidence. Your individual evaluations of”

that evidence, your reason in your common sense in these instructions. Our system of justice is counting on you to render a fair decision based on the evidence and not on biases. Please have confidence in what you're about to do. I have that confidence in you. I don't think I've ever seen a more dedicated group of jurors in any trial that I've ever been involved in.

You're all people of intelligence in common sense collectively. You're bringing a truly powerful

force to determine the truth of the matters in this case, and I, as I said, have great confidence with this case in your hands. Your honest thoughtful and fair and be that as you took the old to be, I am completely confident. They'll be able to arrive at it just verdict, whatever that verdict may be. So at this time, I'm going to ask the, if I can see, counseled side by just for second, and then we'll have the clerks swear in the court officers, and then you'll be sent out

“to do a break. You should be solemnly swear that you will take charge of the scary and keep them”

in some convenient place until they have a degree, that you will not speak to them yourselves. No, sir, for anyone else to speak to them, except by order of the courts will help you God. As to the alternate jurors. Keep the hands raised. Do solemnly swear that you'll take charge of these alternate jurors and keep them in a convenient place, separate and apart from the other members that you will not speak to them yourselves. No, sir, for anyone else to speak to them,

except by order of the courts will help you God. Thank you. All right. As to the jury, you may now retire to consider your verdict. Thank you. All right, we could be seated. I guess one to make one comment. It really is unless you've tried a difficult murder like this one. You may not be aware how difficult and tough it is to try a case like this. It's emotionally taxing. It's intellectually challenging. It's physically exhausting.

So I just wanted to commend all three council for their work in a reference in this case in this trial. I know how challenging it's been for them. So I just kind of wanted to acknowledge it and thank them for their efforts in regards in this case. I'm sitting before we break. Can I see council just in regards to a couple of the exhibits? All right, we're going to do is I'm going to bring the jury back and just excuse them till tomorrow morning. Okay. All right, George Andrew.

Let's go to the other side as you can see. All right, President Kona Koma, we have 12 deliberating terrors and six alternates in the matter of commonwealth versus Lindsey, Clancy, all of the party's a present. All right, thank you, Madam Clerk. I wanted to bring you in. It's been a long day for everyone. So what I'm going to do is excuse all of you till tomorrow morning, nine o'clock. I just want to, as you can imagine,

I want to reiterate those instructions. Now you are either deliberating jurors or alternates possibly to deliberate. So I can't stress it even more than I have for the last five weeks. Don't read anything about this case. Don't talk about this case with anyone. Even at all. Don't

nine o'clock. What will happen? Have you come in? I'll bring you in. I'll ask you those questions.

“I'll just turn you right around and have you back to liberating. All right. And so with that,”

my thanks to everyone. Excuse you till tomorrow morning. Thank you.

Go. All right.

“Here's the next floor in this close session. All right. Excuse you. Anything we need to do with the dress before tomorrow?”

Congratulations. Council. Thank you everyone. It would be a recess still tomorrow. Thank you.