MA v Lindsay Clancy, Part 6

0:00I just bought a new automobile the same way they did in the 1900s when movies were silent. Wow. Well, I just got this Jeep from Flexcar. All my smack of rules go to paying off the hefty value this little gas buggy lost the second I chugged out of the dealership to toot. Okay. Well, Flexcar includes maintenance and insurance and I can switch to an F-150 or Mercedes anytime. What are you high on, Gigglejuice? Buying a car supposed to be the bum deal you pretend is the bison's berries. I have no idea what you're saying. The first and only months to month car lease, Flexcar, you drive everything. Kitchen and bathroom professionals know what goes behind the tile matters. That's why trade pros trust Fiber cement, party backer board to keep tile firmly in place, resist cracking, and help block moisture. Chosen in over 40 million kitchens and bathrooms, party backer board, what the best build on. Shop now at participating Home Depot, Lowe's, and floor into core stores. For more information, visit jameshardy.com slashhardybacker.

1:01For weeks now, we've heard more than 100 hours of testimony, dozens of witnesses, and two completely different explanations for the unthinkable. And then Lindsey Clancy's fate was put in the hands of the jury. This is a 13th Jura podcast where we unravel complex court cases, investigations, and true crime stories. From high profile trials to the mysteries that still lead questions unanswered. We examine the facts, weigh the evidence, and explore the arguments shaping each story. Just as the jurors do. I'm your host, Brandy Churchwell. Today's episode is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts versus Lindsey Clancy. The trial, part six. By the time the jury walked into that courtroom for closing arguments, there really wasn't much left that the two sides agreed on. But there was one very important thing. Nobody was disputing what happened to Kora, Dawson, and Callen Clancy. And that is exactly where Defense Attorney Kevin Reddington began.

2:01He told the jury that Kora, Dawson, and Callen were the victims in this case. The victims of an absolutely horrific act. But the question these jurors now had to answer was not whether Lindsey killed them. It was what was happening inside Lindsey Clancy's mind when she did. Reddington began by showing the jury a picture of the Clancy family in happier times. They're standing on a front porch, arms around each other, smiling for the camera. This is what they had. This is their family. Then Reddington brought out another picture. This one was Lindsey in a hospital bed. Tubes coming out of her handcuffed to the bed, unable to move. He asked the jury, how does that turn into this? How does this turn into this?

3:02How? Because of the damn medicine. And the lousy medical care that she got. That question really became the foundation of his closing argument. Reddington wanted the jury to look at the stark difference between those two photographs and ask themselves, what happened to Lindsey Clancy? How did she get from there to here? And his answer was blunt. The medication, the medical care, and a woman whose mind, the defense says, had deteriorated to the point that she was no longer herself. That is where Reddington wanted the jury looking. Not just at whether she could drive a car or make dinner, or take the children to appointments, or carry on an ordinary conversation. He wanted them to consider what could have happened to a woman everyone described as a loving mother that would lead her to do something so completely at odds with everything they know about her. And underneath all of this was probably the simplest argument that Reddington made.

4:02Look at who Lindsey Clancy was before this happened. She was a nurse, a daughter, a wife, and by virtually every account this jury heard, a devoted mother who loved these children. Then something changed. At one point, Reddington brought out the wish jar that Lindsey and Patrick had bought on their honeymoon. This is a little wish jar that they bought on their honeymoon in Hawaii. Many years prior to even having kids. And when you look inside, you see that there's all sorts of little folded up pieces of paper. Some of them had dated, some of them are, 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, her wishes to have a good birth.

5:03The second time around, hoping for a good birth, worrying about the child, but the about the, if you get, where they rubbed and thing like. This woman lived for her kids until she had the pleasure running into doctor, toughs of her two months experience. And after she ran into Dr. Tuffs, it was not a wonderful wife anymore. And that brought him directly into another major theme of the defense's case. Lindsey tried to get help. Beginning in the fall of 2022, Lindsey began struggling with depression, anxiety, insomnia, suicidal thoughts, and frightening thoughts involving her children. She sought treatment in began seeing Dr. Tuffs, who had only recently begun practicing independently. And from there, the defense argued Lindsey's mental health continued to spiral. She saw provider after provider. She tried medication after medication. She meticulously kept

6:06track of what she was taking and the side effects that she believed she was experiencing. She went to the emergency room. She went to McLean. She kept asking for help. And according to the defense, instead of getting better, her mind continued to deteriorate. For Reddington, this wasn't the story of a mother who suddenly decided that she was done with her children. It was the story of a mother whose mind had become profoundly ill. While the people and systems she turned to for help failed to recognize just how sick she had become. And in many ways, by the end of this trial, this had become a battle of the experts. Because ultimately, the jury had heard highly credentialed experts look at much of the same evidence and reach very different conclusions about what was happening inside Lindsey Clancy's mind. So part of the jury's job was going to be deciding which of those experts they believed. And Reddington made no secret about who he thought they should trust. He pointed them back to Dr. Philip Resnick. Resnick evaluated Lindsey approximately four months after the killing.

7:08Much closer in time to January 24th than the experts brought in later by the Commonwealth. But Reddington's bigger argument was about expertise. He reminded jurors that Resnick spent decades studying and working in the very areas at the center of this case. Psychosis, command hallucinations, malingering, and mothers who killed their children. And perhaps most importantly, Reddington pointed out that even the prosecution's own experts acknowledged Resnick's stature in the field. Then he contrasted that with the experts the Commonwealth brought in to rebut him.

8:33Reddington argued that these were doctors who had not spent their careers studying post-partum psychosis. And yet the Commonwealth was asking this jury to accept their conclusions over the conclusions of someone who had spent decades studying precisely the kind of symptoms that Lindsey claimed to be experiencing. And timing mattered too. Resnick met with Lindsey about four months after the children died. The Commonwealth's rebuttal experts evaluated her years later. By then, Lindsey had been through years of treatment, years of evaluations, and years of living with what had happened. So Reddington's argument to the jury was essentially this. If this case comes down to whether you believe Lindsey Clancy was psychotic, if it comes down to whether that voice was a genuine command hallucination or something invented later, if it comes down to whether she was malingering, who is the expert that you trust to answer those questions? For the defense, the answer was Dr. Resnick. He indicates clearly in his opinion that she was in a state of psychosis at the time

9:38of this death, James 3. Reddington argued that the government's rebuttal experts simply did not have the experience with post-partum psychosis that justified asking this jury to reject the defense experts who did. He reminded them that even the prosecution's witnesses acknowledged Dr. Resnick's expertise in areas, including voices and malingering. And most importantly, he argues they weren't able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsey was not in psychosis at the time that she strangled her children. As any of the government doctors rebutted that, one of them held her and said, it's possible either way. That's not proof the other reasonable doubt. The other one, Mac, you can accept his testimony if you wish, but I suggest that you 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

10:38him about it. He agreed and I said, don't just agree with me, just agree with me because I said that and he basically said, yeah, kind of expert testimony is this, it's a mess. But the government uses them to try to rebut, a man like Phil Resnick, who tells you that she was suffering from a horrific mental disease and defect at the time, the killing of her beautiful children. Why the how in the fact that under the law, as his honor has given you, she's not criminally responsible. But Reddington's argument went beyond simply asking the jury to believe his experts over the Commonwealth's because there was another theme that ran through almost his entire closing. One we had heard from the defense throughout this trial, manipulation. And when Reddington began making his arguments on this topic, the closing's got heated. We'll be right back.

11:44You know those pieces in your closet that you find yourself reaching for over and over again? Like the sweater that somehow just works with everything. The jeans that you know will always fit just right. Or the bag that you carry everywhere. Those are the pieces that earn a permanent place in your wardrobe. And that's exactly what Quince does so well. I've talked about Quince before. And this is one of those sponsors where I can actually tell you about something that I own and genuinely love. I ordered one of their cashmere shirts and it has very quickly become one of those pieces in my closet that I reach for over and over again. It is so soft. It feels incredibly high quality and it's just easy. I can throw it on with jeans and look put together without really having to think about it. And those are always the clothes that end up becoming my favorites. That's what Quince does so well. They make elevated everyday essentials using premium materials like Mongolian cashmere, organic cotton, and washable silk. Their designs are timeless,

12:44thoughtfully crafted, and made to be worn again and again. And the price is probably what surprised me the most. Their 100% Mongolian cashmere sweaters start at just $50. So you're getting that softness and quality that you would expect from a luxury brand without paying the luxury brand price. And it's definitely not just cashmere. Quince has premium stretched denim, leather bags and footwear and beautiful 14 karat gold jewelry that can be the finishing touch that pulls an entire outfit together. But they also go way beyond your closet. They bring that same approach to hotel quality bedding and bath, kitchen essentials, and even thoughtfully designed furniture. Basically, they have those elevated everyday pieces for your wardrobe and your home. And one of the reasons they're able to keep the prices so reasonable is that Quince works directly with ethical factories and cuts out the middlemen. Everything at Quince is priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. So you're paying for the quality instead of the brand markup. So if you've been looking for

13:46some new pieces for fall, this is a great time to check them out. Find the fall pieces that you'll reach for most at Quince. Download the Quince app for app exclusive offers or go to quince.com slash brandy. Get free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK too. That's quince.com slash brandy. During closing arguments, defense attorney Kevin Reddington accused the prosecution of repeatedly taking pieces of evidence that in his view were innocent or incomplete or simply open to interpretation and presenting them to the jury in the most sinister way possible. His argument was that they decided who Lindsay Clancy was and then they tried to make the evidence fit that version of her. They portrayed her as controlling, calculating, manipulative,

14:51a woman who carefully planned what happened that night and then tried to manipulate everyone afterward. And Reddington told the jury, go back and actually look at the evidence that they used to build that picture of her. Take for example all of those lists and schedules that Lindsay made for the children. The prosecution pointed to her meticulous record keeping as evidence of how controlling she could be. The detailed instructions for the nanny, the schedules, the notes about exactly what needed to be done. But Reddington flipped that around. He argued that those weren't the actions of a controlling woman. They were the actions of an attentive mother. She wrote down what her children needed. She made sure the people caring for them knew their routines. She even put a heart on the notes. He argued that the same thing was true of the records that Lindsay kept about her own treatment. For months she carefully documented the medication she was taking, the dosages, the side effects, and the horrible thoughts she was experiencing. Until January. Then, according to Reddington, those meticulous notes began deteriorating into what he described as almost chicken

15:55scratch. And for the defense, that matters because their argument was that Lindsay wasn't becoming more calculated as January 24 approached, she was falling apart. Look at this. As she runs into January, there's nothing other than little chicken scratches because her mind was gone. To the prosecution, Lindsay's record keeping showed control. But to Reddington, the deterioration of those records showed the exact opposite. Her mind was deteriorating too. And that wasn't the only example he accused the prosecution of manipulating. Reddington argued that they had even taken her records from Tukesbury and tried to use completely ordinary behavior against her. Essentially, look, she's talking to people. She's cooperating. She's functioning like a human being. The three and a half years, she's acting like a human being trying to exist.

17:00But they go through the records and they want to get those dates and use them against her manipulation. Reddington gave more examples of what he called manipulation. Remember that Facebook post about Dawson? The prosecution had used that as evidence about Dawson being difficult or a handful to support its theory about why he may have been killed first. Reddington was furious about that. He held up another Facebook post. This one was a picture of Dawson where Lindsay had written the caption, My Son, My Prince. Reddington held up that photograph and essentially asked the jury, do you really believe she hated this child? He called their suggestion repulsive. A son of my prince that they would have had him think she killed him first, cruelly because she didn't like him. That is repulsive. Then there were Lindsay's injuries. The prosecution had questioned whether her suicide attempt was

18:01as serious as the defense claimed. Reddington reminded jurors that even the state's own experts did not support the idea that this was simply a fake or superficial attempt to make it look like she had tried to kill herself. They had heard medical testimony about significant injuries to her wrists and neck. They knew she ultimately went out a second story window and suffered catastrophic spinal injuries. And in a heated moment, Reddington looks directly at the prosecutors and begins challenging them to tell the jury why they spent so much time trying to show that this wasn't a serious attempt to take her own life. The judge stops Reddington telling him to address the jury instead. I challenge you to tell this jury why we spent a week showing that she had this as your witness. Counsel, address the jury. He said their witnesses. Serious suicide attempt. Remember that? Try to kill herself. So another back off on that. Nile agreed. Serious suicide attempt.

19:10That's where I said, watch the evidence. Watch the manipulation. Reddington pointed out that after the Commonwealth's own expert said it was a serious suicide attempt, the prosecutors backed off that argument. So his point was look at the actual evidence and not the characterization the prosecution puts around it. And Reddington turned that accusation of manipulation into one of the more memorable visuals of his closing. He pulled out a quarter. The idea was basically this. He was putting down a challenge like putting your money on the table in a game of pool. Every time Reddington got to one of the big pieces of evidence that he believed the prosecution had distorted or misrepresented, he put another quarter down on the table. And with each one, his message was essentially, hey, I'm challenging you to explain this. By the end, there were three quarters, three challenges to the prosecution's version of evidence.

20:11And it gave the jury a very simple visual representation of the argument that he had been making from the beginning of this trial to watch the evidence and watch the manipulation. So let's look at what Reddington was putting those quarters down for. As I mentioned, the first was challenging the prosecution to explain to the jury why they spent so much time on the quote unquote fake suicide attempt, only to back off of that argument once their own experts disagreed with them. The second quarter was about the exercise bands that were used on the children. Reddington accused prosecutors of creating the impression that Lindsay would have had to continuously hold those bands tightly around each child's neck for several minutes. But he reminded jurors that Patrick had removed the bands when he found the children, and he testified that he untied them. Reddington challenged the state's interpretation of exactly how those bands had been positioned. Quite a number two. What did Patrick plant, he testified to?

21:13You heard his testimony. He indicated clearly unequivocally. They were nodded around the neck, 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. But clearly, I would suggest, he struggled to get it off of Dacen's 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. For the third quarter, Reddington returned to one of the most important disputes in this entire trial. The voice that Lindsay says she heard, telling her to kill the children and then herself.

22:14Prosecutors had questioned why that voice didn't appear in Lindsay's medical records before the killings. During the trial, testimony even came out that they had raised the possibility that Dr. Zazels visit with Lindsay could have influenced Lindsay's later account. All the way up. Told Lindsay what to say, say that you're hearing voices. Think about how ugly that is. He reminded the jury there was another witness, Chaplin Sheila Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh testified that Lindsay told her about the male voice. And that disclosure occurred before Dr. Zazels could have planted anything in Lindsay's mind. She was there for eight days before Paul Zazel even knew Lindsay existed. But they would be in here telling you that Lindsay saw the psychologist because Deloia

23:19went and got the psychologist to go and speak to her. And then you have these guys here. Cops. They have meetings. Talking about it. You're talking about it. Must have been the shrink. Must have been the psychologist. Must have been Zazel. 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 her society for killing her three children that he goes in the hospital and tells her to say she heard voices. Disgusting. Those quarters weren't the only examples that Reddington gave of what he called manipulation by the prosecution. Again and again, he told the jurors essentially the same thing. Watch the

24:21evidence. Don't just accept the way the Commonwealth characterizes it. Go back to what the witnesses actually said. Look at the photographs. Look at the records and look at the data. And eventually, that brought Reddington to the final hours of January 24th. Because this is where the two sides interpretations of the evidence really collided. The prosecution's theory was that Lindsay deliberately created an opportunity to be alone with the children. She sent Patrick to pick up dinner and then added another stop at CVS for medication for Cora. All, according to the commonwealth, to buy herself enough time to carry out a plan. But Reddington told the jury, look at the route. CVS was actually on the way. His argument was that this wasn't Lindsay inventing some elaborate errand to get Patrick as far away from the house as possible. Her daughter needed medicine. CVS was along the route and Patrick stopped there on his way to pick up dinner. And then there were the chicken nuggets. Remember, Lindsay would later say that she was standing near the fridge,

25:23getting ready to make chicken nuggets for the children when she heard the male voice telling her that this was her last chance, that she had to kill the children and then herself. The commonwealth argued that that didn't fit the timeline. Patrick testified that when he left the house, the children were already eating chicken nuggets. So, according to the prosecution, Lindsay couldn't have been standing at the refrigerator preparing those nuggets when she heard the voice. I suggest you just as there's no chicken nugget residue. And then 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 dinner. She was in the refrigerator, but the guy yesterday is like, oh no. Patrick said that the child was eating the chicken nuggets in the bowl. No, she was getting food out for the two kids, not a little baby, two kids with dinner. He pointed to the bowl and argued there were no chicken nuggets in it,

26:24just vegetables, including the carrot and cucumber. His argument was that Patrick could have seen the children eating and just assumed that he knew what they were eating. Lindsay was the one who actually prepared their meals, and if you believe Readdington's interpretation, suddenly, Lindsay's account fits the evidence very differently. Patrick leaves, the children are eating their vegetables. Lindsay goes to the fridge to get the chicken nuggets. Patrick calls, they speak briefly before hanging up. And that's when she says she hears the voice. Then Readdington pointed to the digital evidence. Her phone activity stops. And that matters because the Commonwealth was asking this jury to reconstruct what Lindsay was thinking based on this incredibly tight timeline. They interpreted the searches, the calls, the errands, the stairs, and the phone activity as evidence of planning. But Readdington was asking them to see something completely different. Not a woman who had carefully engineered the perfect opportunity to murder her children, but a normal evening,

27:26unfolding right up until something inside of Lindsay's mind catastrophically changed. And that was really where he left the jury. Two sides could look at the same timeline, the same exact photographs, the same exact digital evidence, until two completely different stories about what happened. The question was, which story the evidence actually supports? And Readdington reminds the jury that the burden is on the prosecution. This young lady is not guilty of killing her fruit children because she was suffering from a disease and defect as his honor instructed you. And they're not going to be able to prove otherwise. And it's their burden, not as. Thank you. We'll be right back. Shop the Sirwin Williams Labor Day Sale and get 35% off paints and stains, August 28th through September 9th. Whether you're refreshing your interior or exterior, we've got the colors to

28:29bring your vision to life. And with delivery, getting everything to your door is easier than ever. Shop online to have it delivered or visit your neighborhood Sirwin Williams store. Click the banner to learn more. Retail sales only, some exclusions apply, see store for details, delivery available on qualifying orders. Kitchen and bathroom professionals know what goes behind the tile matters. That's why Trade Pro's trust Fiber cement, party backer board, to keep tile firmly in place, resist cracking, and help block moisture. Chosen over 40 million kitchens and bathrooms, party backer board, what the best build on. Shop now at participating Home Depot, Lowe's, and floor into core stores. For more information, visit JamesHearty.com slash HeartyBacker.

29:32Once the defense finished their closing arguments, it was the Commonwealth's turn. Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Spriggs stood up and almost immediately tried to narrow the jury's focus. Because after listening to Reddington talk about failed medical care, inexperienced providers, medications, postpartum mental illness, and a health care system that the defense says failed Lindsey Clancy. Spriggs response was essentially, that is not what is on trial. 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 Lindsey Clancy did the night of January 24th, 2023, and what her mental state was at the time.

30:35And Spriggs actually began by conceding two things that might surprise you if you haven't been following this trial closely. The Commonwealth was not arguing that Lindsey Clancy was not mentally unwell, and they were not arguing that her suicide attempt was fake. Spriggs told the jury that there was no dispute that Lindsey was suffering from mental illness, and no dispute that she tried to kill herself. But she said, that is not the question you have to answer. The question was whether, at the time, Lindsey killed Korra Dawson and Callan, she knew the difference between right and wrong, and whether she had the ability to conform her behavior to the requirements of the law. And from there, Spriggs began her attempt to dismantle the defense closing almost point by point. First, she directly attacked Reddington's argument that Lindsey had been failed by the people she turned to for help. Spriggs argued that Lindsey actually had access to an extraordinary amount of care and support. She had health insurance, prescription coverage, maternity leave, support from both

31:37sides of her family, a nanny helping with the children, and medically, she had access to multiple doctors, emergency care, specialized programs, and ultimately inpatient treatment at McLean. Spriggs argument was not that every treatment worked because clearly it didn't. Her argument was that the providers could only treat the patient who was sitting in front of them. Based on the information that patient gave them, and according to the Commonwealth, Lindsey did not always give them the complete picture. 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. Spriggs said that Lindsey was not compliant with the plans that her providers had given her.

32:41For example, there were only seven Zoloft pills missing instead of nine. And one of the medication she was prescribed, she never took until the night of the incident. 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 about 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 when the way she thought she should do them. And as a nurse, she knew that's not the right way to approach it. The prosecution also pushed back on the argument that Lindsey was overmedicated. Spriggs told the jury that Lindsey seemed to be searching for what she called a magic pill that would give her immediate relief. But when a medication didn't work quickly enough, she would stop taking it and move on to something else. Spriggs also pointed to treatment options

33:42that Lindsey was offered but did not pursue, arguing that help was available to her even if it wasn't always in the form that she wanted. And she challenged the characterization that women and infants believed that Lindsey was overmedicated. According to Spriggs, that concern came from Patrick, not from the women and infants providers themselves. Spriggs went back to the thoughts that Lindsey had in December about harming her children. Remember, Lindsey told Patrick about those thoughts, and she told her mother, but she did not tell her healthcare providers. And according to Spriggs, that was incredibly important. Because Lindsey had explained that she was afraid that if she told a mandated reporter about the thoughts of harming her children, the police might take the children away. Spriggs told the jury, that is a rational thought. You know that she knew the difference between writing 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,

34:50not toughs, not gelata, not jettin from the callister, not dukes, no one at McLean, no one at NGH, no one at Cell Shore, didn't tell any of them. And why? Because the police might take away your 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 going 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 because 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. She went in and met with them and talked about what she was experiencing and talked about her

35:53depression. And not only did she not tell them, she lied to them. They asked her, are you having thoughts of harming others? You have homicidal ideation. She told toughs, no, she told gelata, no, she told dukes, no, she told good heart, no. Every day at McLean she said no, at 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. To the prosecution, that demonstrated two things. First, Lindsay understood those thoughts were bad. She understood that there could be consequences if she disclosed them. And second, she was capable of controlling what she said and how she presented herself. So where the defense saw a woman desperately asking the medical system to save her and being failed again and again, sprays saw a woman who absolutely wanted help, but as spray put it,

36:54wanted that help on her own terms. And that brought spray to something that we've talked about throughout this trial. Lindsay's ability to function. The defense has been weeks explaining that a person can be severely mentally ill, even psychotic, and still drive a car, care for children, carry on conversations, and appear completely normal. Spray didn't necessarily dispute that as a general proposition. Her argument was that when you put all of Lindsay's behavior together, it showed something important about her ability to control herself. Throughout the fall, she interacted with doctors, family members, teachers, gym employees, the nanny, and other parents. She drove, she cared for the children, and then look at January, she threw Kora's birthday party, she took the children to the museum, she went to Cape Cod, she cared for the boys while Patrick was away, she interacted with friends and family. And just two days before the killings, Lindsay's own mother left the house believing that her daughter was doing better. Patrick said the same thing,

37:56January 24th, he said, was her best day. Again, spray wasn't saying that that meant Lindsay wasn't depressed. Her point was that Lindsay could experience depression, suicidal thoughts, and terrible internal distress while still controlling her outward behavior. And according to the commonwealth, January 24th showed exactly the same thing. This is where Spray's closing really turned to the timeline, because the defense had just told jurors that CVS was on Patrick's route, that the children hadn't necessarily eaten their chicken nuggets, that Lindsay's account of standing at their fridge writer when the voice suddenly spoke to her could fit the evidence. But Spray told them that it didn't. The commonwealth theory was that Lindsay began creating the opportunity that she needed while Patrick was still in the house. She searched for the medication that Kora needed, she looked up how long it would take to get to 3v. Then she searched for CVS. But Spray emphasized something important. Lindsay didn't just look up CVS. She called, she asked what they had available,

38:58and she asked whether it was in stock. Why would that matter? Well, according to Spray, it's because Lindsay needed to know that Patrick wouldn't get there, discover they didn't have what he needed, and immediately come home. She needed him gone. And then she asked, 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 errand that she's sending Patrick out on. And she has to make sure she's not interrupted. She doesn't want that call at 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. And once Patrick left, the commonwealth argued Lindsay began killing the children. Spray used the phone and Apple data to reconstruct what she believed happened next. She argued the digital evidence showed Lindsay moving between floors in a way that fit the commonwealth's timeline, including returning upstairs after the children had already been killed. And then Patrick called. That phone

40:03call was enormously important to the prosecution's theory. Because according to Lindsay's later account, once she heard the command hallucination, she immediately obeyed it. She described herself almost as a puppet, no longer in control. But Spray asked the jury to consider what Lindsay did when Patrick called her during that period. She answered him. She spoke to him, and she didn't tell him what was happening. She didn't say she had heard a voice. She didn't tell him that the children were hurt. She didn't tell him to call 911. She carried on the conversation. And to spray, that was evidence of control. And it was evidence that Lindsay knew what she was doing was wrong. Which brought the commonwealth to perhaps the most important piece of the defense case, the voice. Spray asked the jury to look at when this voice appears in the evidence. Not in September or October or anytime in the fall or holidays or while she was at McLean. No where in the records before January 24th. According to Lindsay, that was the first time she had ever heard a voice like this. And then

41:07after the killings, she never heard one again. The defense said that that was entirely possible. Their experts explained that psychosis can be episodic and that a command hallucination can occur suddenly. But the commonwealth's experts saw those same facts as red flags. And Spray argued that Lindsay's account of immediately obeying the voice created another problem. Because if Lindsay truly lost the control, the instance she heard it, the commonwealth argued her behavior afterward doesn't really make sense. Because she could communicate with Patrick. She could move through the house. She could take steps to kill herself. And according to the prosecution, she could conceal from Patrick what had happened until he returned home. So Spray offered the jury a completely different explanation for January 24th. Lindsay was mentally ill. She was depressed. She was suicidal. And the children, the commonwealth argued, had become the thing preventing her from ending her own life. Her protective factor. So why did she specifically do it? She was depressed. She was exhausted. She was

42:16done. 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. Spray's theory was that Lindsay decided that in order to end her own suffering, she first had to remove the thing that would otherwise keep her alive, the children. And Spray was careful about one part of that argument. She didn't tell the jury that Lindsay didn't love the children. And she wasn't saying that Lindsay was happy about killing them. But she did say that it was a choice. And according to the commonwealth, the events of January 24th showed that Lindsay knew that choice was wrong. She waited until Patrick was gone. She didn't tell him what she was doing. She didn't call for help. Didn't call 9-1-1. And when Patrick called,

43:19she didn't tell him what was happening inside the house. Spray's argument was that Lindsay did not simply take advantage of an opportunity that happened to present itself that evening. She created the opportunity. She didn't take advantage of this situation. She created this situation. This opportunity to do what she wanted. And that ultimately was a line the commonwealth wanted this jury to draw. Mental illness? Yes. Suicidal? Yes. Struggling desperately in the months before January 24th? Yes. But legally unable to understand that killing her children was wrong or unable to control her actions because of a mental disease or defect? According to the commonwealth? No. We'll be right back. Before I swish to wealthfront, my APY was probably 0.1. One-size-switch stitching. With a wealthfront cash account, earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash.

44:21I can trust. Wallfront is taking care of me. Make your money earn more. Get started at wealthfront.com. Clients were paid $1,000 for their testimonials creating a conflict of interest. 3.3% APY as of January 30th, 2026, is represented at variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 265% new client groups with 3 months on up to $150,000. Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investing account for a 0.25% increase. Cash account offered by wealthfront brokerage LLC member, Fennel SIPC, not a bank. 4.3% APY as of January 30th, 2026, is represented at variable and earned on funds swept to program banks.

45:274.3% APY as of January 30th, 2026, is represented at variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 4.3% APY as of January 30th, 2026, is represented at variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 4.3% APY as of January 30th, 2026, is represented at variable and earned on funds swept

46:31to program banks. 4.3% APY as of January 30th, 2026, is represented at variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 4.3% APY as of January 30th, 2026, is represented at variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 4.3% APY as of January 30th, 2026, is represented at variable and earned on funds swept

47:33to program banks. 4.3% APY as of January 30th, 2026, is represented at variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 4.3% APY as of January 30th, 2026, is represented at variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 4.3% APY as of January 30th, 2026, is represented at variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 4.3% APY as of January 30th, 2026, is represented at variable and earned on funds swept

48:38to program banks. 4.3% APY as of January 30th, 2026, is represented at variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 4.3% APY as of January 30th, 2026, is represented at variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 4.3% APY as of January 30th, 2026, is represented at variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 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. Korra wanted to be a doctor and a mom. Dawson wanted to be a fighter fighter. How I never got the chance to dream, who knows what future he would have dreamed for himself.

49:38She killed them and she left them there on the floor with the bands around their necks. She didn't bring them up to their beds and put them with their favorite stuffed animal and cover them up gently and lovingly, leaving them peacefully there. No. 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. With the closing arguments finished, the case officially belonged to the jury. But before they could begin deliberating, Judge Sullivan had to explain exactly what the law required them to decide. And despite everything we've heard over the last several weeks, the central question really just comes down to this. Was Lindsey Clancy criminally responsible for what she did on January 24th? Under Massachusetts law, having a mental illness by itself is not enough to make someone not criminally responsible.

50:40The jury has to consider whether because of a mental disease or defect, Lindsey lacked the substantial capacity to either appreciate that what she was doing was wrong or conform her behavior to the requirements of the law. And importantly, once that issue was raised, it was the Commonwealth's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsey was criminally responsible. The judge made a point that I think really cuts through some of the confusion that we've seen surrounding this case. It isn't enough to say, of course she knew that killing her children was wrong. The question is, what Lindsey's mental disease or defect did to her ability to appreciate that wrongfulness or control her behavior at the time? And for each of the three children, the jury was given a separate verdict slip with five possible choices. They could find Lindsey guilty of first degree murder, either through deliberate premeditation or extreme atrocity or cruelty. And that would carry a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

51:40They could find her guilty of second degree murder, meaning they found her criminally responsible for murder, but the Commonwealth had not proven first degree. And that carries a life sentence, but with the possibility of parole. They could find her guilty of manslaughter, a lesser homicide offense, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years on each count. They could find her simply not guilty, or they could find her not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. And this one is important because it does not mean that Lindsey simply leaves the courthouse a free woman. If the jury reaches that verdict, the Commonwealth can, and generally does, petition to have her committed to a psychiatric facility. A court would then determine whether she is mentally ill and whether releasing her would create a substantial likelihood of serious harm to herself or others. And that commitment can be renewed again and again for as long as she remains mentally ill and dangerous. There is no maximum number of renewals, meaning theoretically she could remain hospitalized for the rest of her life.

52:43But if a court eventually determines that she is no longer mentally ill and dangerous, she could be released. So those were the choices now sitting in front of 12 jurors. First degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, not guilty, or not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. The jury began deliberating Thursday afternoon. They deliberated for a few hours that first day without sending any questions to the judge. Then on Friday, we got the first indication of what they were looking at. The jury asked to see two pieces of physical evidence that had not initially been sent back to the deliberation room with them, Lindsey's prescription medication bottles, and the knife that she used during her suicide attempt. The jury returned Monday and deliberated for another full day. No questions, no verdict, but they did ask to leave a little earlier than usual. Then on Tuesday, September 1st, everything changed. Less than an hour after the jury resumed deliberations for their fourth day, the judge announced that he had received another communication from them.

53:44In this time, it wasn't a request for evidence. Well, members of the jury, I've got your question and the question is, after many hours of deliberation, we are unable to come to unanimous decision. After roughly 17 hours of deliberations, the jury was telling the court that they could not agree. But Judge Sullivan was not ready to declare a hung jury. He reminded them just how much evidence they had heard in this case, more than 80 witnesses and more than 300 exhibits. And he told them to go back to the jury room and keep trying. And they did. They spent the rest of the afternoon trying again, but no verdict came. Just before 3pm on Tuesday afternoon, Judge Sullivan brought the jury back into the courtroom and sent them home for the day. But as the jurors were leaving, there was one more bizarre development outside the courthouse. On Tuesday afternoon, Massachusetts State Police arrested 56-year-old Dawn Light of Sutton, Massachusetts, after a court officer reported seeing her recording jurors as they were leaving the courthouse for the day.

54:45According to police, Light was in a restricted employee-only area where the jurors exit. When she was confronted, she denied filming the jury. Police say she gave them permission to look through her phone. And while there was initially nothing in her camera roll, they found video of jurors in her recently deleted folder. Light says this was all a misunderstanding. She told reporters that she had gone to the courthouse because she wanted to see Lindsey Clancy and was trying to get a video of Lindsey, not the jurors. But she was arrested and charged with aggravated intimidation of a witness or juror, which is a felony. She pleaded not guilty at her arrangement on Wednesday. Prosecutors asked for $50,000 cash bail. But the judge instead released her on her own personal recognizance with conditions, including that she stay away from the courthouse and have no contact with jurors or witnesses. And because this happened right in the middle of deliberations, Judge Sullivan individually questioned the jurors about the incident before allowing deliberations to continue. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington later said the judge found no issues they would prevent them from continuing.

55:49So somehow, after more than five weeks of testimony, more than 80 witnesses, hundreds of exhibits, a rally outside the courthouse, multiple reports from the jury that they were struggling to reach a decision, we can now add someone being arrested for allegedly filming the jurors to the list of things that happened during this trial. And with that behind them, the jurors went back into the jury room once again to try to answer the question that they had been wrestling with for days. Then on Wednesday afternoon, the jury sent another note. For the second time, they told Judge Sullivan that they were deadlocked, writing, quote, after much deliberation, we are still unable to come to a unanimous decision. In quote, this time, the judge brought the jury back into the courtroom and read what is called the two erudry gas charge, sometimes referred to as the dynamite charge. Basically, this is an instruction Massachusetts judges can give to a deadlock jury as one of the final attempts to help them reach a unanimous verdict. Judge Sullivan reminded the jurors to listen to one another with an open mind and to seriously consider the opinions of the people who disagreed with them.

56:52But he was not telling anyone to give up an honestly held belief just for the sake of reaching a verdict. Instead, he reminded them that the people sitting in that jury box had heard all the same evidence, taken the same oath, and had the same responsibility to determine whether the Commonwealth had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. And when he told them there is no reason to suppose that the case will ever be submitted to 12 persons who are more intelligent, more impartial, or more competent to decide than you are. In other words, go back into that room, listen to one another one more time, reconsider your positions where appropriate, and see if there is any way you can reach a unanimous decision without abandoning your own conscientious judgment. The jury went back to deliberate, but after nearly two more hours, they still did not have a verdict. They asked to go home for the day and Judge Sullivan told them to return Thursday morning and try again. At that point, they had deliberated for roughly 30 hours over five days. They had twice told the court they couldn't agree, and the judge had now given them one of the strongest instructions available to try to break that deadlock, and still no verdict.

58:04The jurors returned to deliberations on Thursday morning, and just when we thought this was headed toward a straightforward hung jury, things took a pretty extraordinary turn. Late Thursday, the jury sent Judge Sullivan another note, and while the actual note has not been made public, according to Lindsay's attorney, Kevin Reddington, the four person revealed that this jury appears to be split 11 to 1, with one holdout juror. But the issue apparently goes beyond one juror simply disagreeing with everyone else. According to Reddington's description of the four persons note, the other jurors are saying that this one juror refuses to listen to the law, the judge has given them regarding reasonable doubt. And that distinction is really important. A juror is absolutely allowed to disagree with the other 11. They are allowed to believe the Commonwealth proved its case even if everyone else disagrees. And no juror should ever change an honestly held decision just because 11 other people want them to. But what a juror cannot do is refuse to apply the law the judge gives them, so Judge Sullivan individually questioned the jurors under oath, and then brought everyone back into the courtroom and once again explained reasonable doubt.

59:14He reminded them that proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt. But that the Commonwealth carries the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Reddington wasn't satisfied. He asked the judge to remove the holdout juror arguing that if the four person is accurately describing what is happening inside that room, then this isn't simply an 11 to 1 disagreement. His argument is that they have a juror refusing to follow the court's instructions. Judge Sullivan refused to remove the juror. And then Friday morning everyone came back to court and the defense pushed the issue again. Reddington argued that this juror had already sworn to the court that they could follow the law, both during jury selection and again when questioned the day before. So if the four person is correct that this person is now refusing to apply the law on reasonable doubt, Reddington argued that the juror essentially lied when they said they could follow those instructions. The defense wanted Judge Sullivan to conduct a further inquiry into that juror. But the judge said no. Judge Sullivan said he is not going to investigate further into what is happening during deliberations. And he is not going to put himself in the position of deciding whether the one juror is right or the other 11 are right.

1:00:27And that is a really delicate line for a judge to walk because the secrecy and independence of jury deliberations are incredibly important. A judge can't start investigating a juror simply because that juror disagrees with everyone else. At the same time jurors have an obligation to deliberate and to follow the law exactly as the judge gives it to them. For now, Judge Sullivan has decided he does not have sufficient basis to remove this juror. So the holdout stays. And the same 12 jurors went back into that jury room Friday morning for day seven of deliberations, which means we now know something we didn't know when they first started telling the court they were deadlocked. This isn't six against six. It isn't seven against five. According to what has been revealed in court, 11 jurors appear to be on one side and one juror is holding out. And unless something changes inside that jury room on Friday, that one juror could ultimately be the difference between a verdict and a mistrial. And at the time of this recording, that's where we leave it. The jury is still deliberating and whatever happens next, I'll have an update for you on the next court report.

1:01:36But before we close this chapter, I want to bring it back to the three people at the center of this case because after weeks of talking about the healthcare system, postpartum, diagnoses and medications, experts and timelines, criminal responsibility and reasonable doubt. It can become easy for a trial this complicated to become about the legal questions, but this case exists because three little lives were lost. Kora was five, Dawson was three, and Callan was just eight months old. Throughout this trial, we got little glimpses of who they were, not just his names in a case, but as children who were deeply loved, who had personalities and favorite things, and who should have had entire lives ahead of them. Whatever happens next in this case, there will never be a legal outcome that changes what happened to Kora, Dawson and Callan. So as we close this trial, I think those last words should belong to them. Kora, Dawson, Callan. May they always be remembered for the lives they lived, and not simply for the way those lives ended.

1:02:44My name is Brandy Churchwell, creator and host of the 13 Jura Podcast. If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to follow the show on your favorite podcast platform and leave a rating or review. It helps more listeners discover the podcast. And if you know someone who would find this case as fascinating as you did, share this episode with them. For additional episodes, case updates and more information about the podcast, visit our website at 13JuraPodcast.com. The evidence has been presented, the arguments have been made, and now comes the same question faced by every Jura. What do you believe? Thank you for listening.