Hidden True Crime - FBI Psychiatrist Says Lindsay Clancy KNEW What She Was Doing — Defense Fights Back | Days 21 & 22

Episode Date: August 27, 2026

Lauren Matthias breaks down Days 21 and 22 of the Lindsay Clancy trial as the Commonwealth’s rebuttal case comes to a close with critical testimony from its final experts. FBI senior psychiatrist Dr. Gregory Saathoff challenged key parts of Clancy’s account, including the command voice she says told her to kill her three children, and testified that he believed she was criminally responsible and capable of controlling her actions. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington fought back in a lengthy cross-examination, highlighting psychological testing that showed no evidence of malingering and challenging Saathoff on auditory hallucinations, postpartum illness, medications and the evidence behind his conclusions. Now, with the prosecution resting, the Lindsay Clancy case heads to closing arguments and the jury. Sponsor: JonesRoad- Use code HIDDEN at https://jonesroadbeauty.com to get a Free Gift with your first purchase! #JonesRoadBeauty #ad About Hidden True Crime What started as a simple conversation at their dinner table became a captivating podcast. Join the dynamic duo of Dr. John Matthias, a criminal psychologist, and Lauren Matthias, an investigative journalist, as they delve into the psychological facets of unthinkable crimes every week. Their unique perspectives and in-depth analysis offer a fresh take on true crime storytelling. Thank you for your support through sponsorships, subscribing, listening, and becoming a Patreon member at⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/HiddenTrueCrime⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hello, Hidden Gems. Missed you. Yesterday last night. Yesterday we were in Flagstaff, Arizona. And we were the courtroom camera for the Sam Bateman sentencing. If you remember, Sam Bateman from False Me, Trust Me a False Prophet. His victims gave the most compelling, heartbreaking, and heartlifting. victim impact statements. We are working on getting those as well. So again, hit subscribe,

hit notification. Thank you for supporting us. And we will have a lot of that shortly. I also posted earlier today, an interview with a woman, a friend of mine who has experienced postpartum psychosis. And she shares her experience. So I hope you watch that as well. And today, to not bury the lead, The prosecution rested officially. Tomorrow are closing arguments, closing statements. So let's go over the last two days. We'll start with Tuesday and go through today. So Tuesday picked back up with ADA Sprague's direct examination of Dr. Kirk Heilbrun.

And Sprague started by asking about peritramatic disassociation, something that can happen during an extremely foresight. frightening or traumatic event. And Hale Brun explained that a person might feel like what's happening isn't real or almost like they're watching themselves go through it. And while they can sound psychotic, he said it's actually a recognized response to trauma. And he believed that Lindsay showed signs of this during the killings. And she described feeling like it wasn't really her and that she was simply responding to the voice and taking action. But Heilbrun pushed back on that idea that there was no decision-making involved.

Okay, he said the killings took roughly 18 to 20 minutes and during that time multiple decisions had to be made where it would happen which child would be killed first. What to say to keep them from panicking, how each child would be strangled, what would be used and in what order. He said that Lindsay also had to make decisions about how she would attempt to take her own. own life. And from there, Sprague brought the jury back to the two possibilities that Hyl Bruin had laid out the day before. And yesterday, when you went through the two options that you considered that this was psychosis with command hallucinations or suicide with altruistic philicide, is your testimony that it's either or or it's one or the other? It's my testimony that Those were the two possibilities that seemed to have some evidence.

But at the end of talking to her testing, reviewing all the information, doing the collateral interviews, everything I did as a part of this evaluation, the evidence much more strongly, in my opinion, supported the second explanation, which was the serious suicide attempt accompanied by killing the children out of love. So Sprague then turned to hail Heil Brun's three days of interviews with Lindsay and a change that he noticed by day three. During the first two days, he said Lindsay was attentive and responsive and her memory was good, especially considering more than three years had passed. She remembered dates, medications, dosages, times, and other details. But on day three, when they started discussing her mental state during the killings, Hiya Brun said that Lindsay became much more. cautious and guarded. He started hearing, I don't remember and I don't recall more often. Sprague then brought up something Lindsay Roe after waking up at Brigham and Women's Hospital. She was intubated and could not speak so staff had her right her answers. And when asked about her mood,

Lindsay wrote one word, quote, horrified. But when Heil Brun asked her about that during the third interview, Lindsay said she did not remember writing it or why she would have felt horrified. Sprague then pointed to another statement in those hospital records. Lindsay reportedly told a treatment provider, a treatment provider, that she believed she needed to kill the children because they would suffer without her. And when you asked her about it on the third day of interviewing her, did she recall that statement? Yes, that statement in Brigham and Women's to the attending psychiatrist was made in the context of

her thinking about what happened let me see if I can find it here yeah she was asked about what the the voice had said on that afternoon and her response was it had said you have to kill yourself so you can kill the kids and also said the kids will suffer without you

and when I asked her about that whether the voice had said that she said no the voice only said this is your last chance. You have to kill the kids so you can kill yourself. So I'm going to move to strike that's not this point. No, overruled. So the two differences where at Brigham, she's saying,

the voice said you have to kill yourself so you can kill the children and that the children would suffer without her. Versus after that when she says the voice only said, you have to kill the kids so you can kill yourself, is the fact that she's giving two different statements significant in your evaluation. As I talked about in my testimony yesterday, when there is inconsistency, that's something that alerts me to the possibility of inaccuracy. And two statements that are mutually exclusive or inconsistent suggest to me that there is a problem. One of them, at least, is not accurate.

Another important piece of evidence that Heilbrun, for Heilbrun, was Lindsay. phone call with Patrick during the time frame of the killings. Patrick called at 5.53, remember that? Lindsay missed that call, but called him right back at 534. Highl Bruhn said that stood out because it interrupted what was otherwise a crucial period of time, right, and gave investigators a very precise timestamp. He had also interviewed Patrick, who said Lindsay sounded distracted, like she was in the middle of something, but not unusually different. As Patrick explained, she was often in the middle of something while home with three kids. The call also helped narrow down the timing. Patrick left around 5.15 and returned around 6 o'clock putting that phone call almost directly in the middle.

Sprag then asked whether Heilbrun saw anything suggesting that Lindsay was focused on herself or her future. he pointed to hospital records showing that several days later, Lindsay was becoming more future-oriented, right, and beginning to think about what her life might look like going forward. But Heilbrun said he did not interpret that as Lindsay being self-centered. And is there any significance to that state of mind or those thoughts in your evaluation of her? Well, I don't think that she was in any way over this or thinking only about herself. It's something that I noticed when I evaluated her in April is that she is still grieving.

She's still in mourning for those kids. And she used language like, I have lost everything and I don't want to be here. So I would not think of Lindsay Clancy as someone who is really self-centered or oriented only to herself. She is grieving her children. And you mentioned yesterday the emphasis she had on control of thought and control of her life. How did that come into play in your evaluation in terms of what? was done here. One of the considerations is why she got to the point where she decided to take her own life.

And she's an individual who for most of her life has been disciplined and like to control things, like to work hard, like to accomplish things. And one of the things that was striking about what happened with her between October and January is that she seemed to be doing her best talking to the the doctors, talking to the therapist, working on trying to get things accomplished in terms of lessening the anxiety and getting the right medications. And it wasn't working, and she couldn't help make it work. She could not control that through hard work and discipline and so on. And that had to be very frustrating. And I think got her to the point where it was very difficult

for her to actually think about not being hopeless and going on with her life and so on. Dr. Did you form an opinion to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty as to whether or not the defendant was suffering from a mental disease or defect at the time she killed her children? I did, yes. And what is that opinion? That opinion is yes, she was. She was experiencing bipolar-2 disorder depressive symptoms. and there were other things that were exacerbating that, making it worse.

One is the sleep problems and probably the continued adverse reactions to medication and so on. But yes, in my opinion, she did have a mental disease or defect on January 24th. And, Dr. To a reasonable degree of psychological certainty, did you form an opinion as to whether or not the defendant appreciated the criminality or wrongfulness of her conduct when she killed her children? I did, yes. And at the end of my report, I was very careful about how I phrased this. And so sustained. You can just answer the question regarding your opinion. So yes, you formed an opinion? I did, yes. And what is that opinion? That opinion is that she retained an awareness of the illegality of killing others, including killing her children. Her moral awareness of the wrongfulness of this killing was influenced by her strong desire to die. And if she were dead,

not to leave her children behind. Some of this perception was realistic. For example, my children will suffer without me because they would have suffered, I think, and some of it was distorted. For example, nobody else can care for my children. But her awareness of the illegality and moral wrongfulness of such killing is best appraised by understanding these acts as a serious suicide attempt combined with altruistic suicide, killing her children out of love,

rather than as a response to command hallucinations. And did you form an opinion to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty as to whether Ms. Clancy was able to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law when she killed her children? Yes. And what is that opinion? That her capacity to conform a conduct to the requirements of the law is, again, best understood by considering the seriousness of her suicide attempt

and her strong desire not to leave her children. She demonstrated self-control throughout the day on January 24th, and her actions between 5.15 and 6 p.m. that afternoon were influenced by her depression and her hopelessness about her life and the desire to end the pain she had experienced since October. Although this depression and hopelessness influenced her decisions, she retained control over whether, when, and how she carried it out and the inclusion of her children. And, Dr. Did you form an opinion to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty as to whether or not the defendant was criminally responsible when she killed her children?

Yes. And what is that opinion? My opinion, my clinical opinion, since I'm not the decision maker here, but my clinical opinion is that she was criminally responsible on January 24th. Thank you. Your Honor, I'd move to submit the PowerPoint for identification. I'm sorry? For identification.

Okay. Thank you. That may be done. Doctor, I'd just like to ask you about one of the things you just said to this jury that apparently stood out in your mind. And that would be the dichotomy of the difference between two statements that Lindsay made, One being, I believe, in the hospital. And you felt that there was a subsequent statement that was made by her that contradicted that.

It was different from that. And that would be after three days of you and Mack testing her. Is that right? Can you just say, is it right around? Mr. Reddington, it's not quite right. Okay. Why don't we do with this way? You just told this year that Lindsay made a statement to you at the conclusion

of the three days that you and Mac were questioning her and testing her and interviewing her. Is that said? Yes or no? What I would say is... Yes or no? No. Did you tell this jury, in addition,

that Lindsay made a different statement when she was in the hospital? Yes and no. What I said to the jury is... I'm asking you, sir, did you make that statement to this jury? What I intended to say. No, not what you intended. Can you answer my question?

Yes or no? No. Now, is Dr. Helbrun aware of the concept of post-intensive care syndrome? Post-intensive care syndrome. Yeah, Picks. It's called Picks. No, I have not heard of post-intensive care syndrome. Dr. Heldron aware of when a person is coming out of maybe, surgery and has been subject to anesthesia that it is known that they have delusions, hallucinations, make statements that don't make sense. Are you aware of that sir?

Yes, I'm aware of that. And is that in your personal experience, professional experience, because you didn't know what pixel was when I asked you, right? Yes, it's not from my personal experience or my professional experience. You received a notification to evaluate Lindsay Clancy on this criminal case from the district attorney's office, right? Yes. I think my favorite makeup is the kind where someone says, you look good, but they can't necessarily tell me what I did differently. I still want my skin to look like my skin, and that's exactly why I have become such a huge fan

of Jones Road Beauty. Their miracle bomb gives me that fresh, glowing, put-together look without feeling like I'm I've covered everything up. I can literally use my fingers, blend it in, and it just enhances my skin instead of masking it. And I love that it can do the work of several different products without making my routine complicated. The older I get, the less interested I am in piling on a million different things. I want makeup that's easy, looks natural, and still feels like me. And Jones Road really nails that. If you've been wanting to try Jones Road Beauty, use code, hidden at Jones Road Beauty.com to get a free gift with your first purchase. That's Jones Roadbeauty.com

code hidden. Reddington then turned to how much Heilbrun was being paid since the state had asked the defense experts the same question. So Heilbrun said he bills $300 an hour and he has already spent about 180 hours on the case before coming to Plymouth. That's a lot. That's roughly $54,000 so far with the total continuing to increase through his testimony. Redington also established while Heilbrun received from the defense, including Dr. Resnick's video interview with Lindsay and notes and reports from Dr. Margaret Spinelli and Dr. Paul Zaisal. But despite Redington telling Heilbrun to reach out with any questions, the two had never actually spoken before the day of Heilbrun's testimony. So Redington then

spent quite a bit of time going through Hal Brun's background. And his CV is nearly 70 pages long, this curriculum by T, VT. So Howlbrun is a clinical psychologist affiliated with Park Deets and associates. Yes, that Park Dietz, the one who was partly responsible for the appeal in Andrew Yeats' case. And then it was ultimately overturned. And then in her new trial, she was sound innocent because of insanity. That's Park Dates. So anyway, his forensic work spans decades. Redington did ask specifically about his experience with postpartum psychosis. Heilbrun recalled working at Florida State Hospital in 1982 with a therapy group of four or five severely mentally ill women. He would kill their children. Redington emphasized that that was more

than 40 years ago. And from there, he walked through Heilbrun's extensive experience, work involving the FBI, Bureau of Prisons, departington. Department of Justice, violent risk assessments, juvenile justice, forensic evaluations, competency to stand trial, and workshops for prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges. So by the end, the jury had heard about more than 130 lectures and workshops, along with numerous publications, books, chapters, and articles. And one title caught Reddington's attention. It's a publication called, quote, handling difficult cross-examination. been a fair amount of juvenile work and handling difficult cross-examination integrating perspectives

combining substance with style and learning what does that mean handling difficult cross-examination well one of the things that people as forensic psychologists need to do is convey what they have done in a way that is effective and so there are things that you can a jury? To a jury, to a judge, to an attorney, various kinds of... Well, when you're dealing with an attorney, sir, you're presenting information to the attorney. You're not dealing with difficult cross-examination, are you?

Could you repeat the question, please? Sure. You wrote about handling difficult cross-examination, integrating perspectives, combining substance with style. Yes. And what is 25 words of left? What is that basically telling people? How to...

What? cross-examination? It's how most effectively to convey the results of the evaluation that you have done. And then, again, just hundreds of articles on topics that the jurors can look at because your resume is in evidence. Finishing it off on that end, sexual abuse behavior, juvenile forensic mental health, violence, risk assessment of juveniles, behavioral measure of sexual, offense behavior, influencing third-party informant observations dealing with juveniles.

Should the courts coerce offenders into substance abuse treatment? Is there one article, one, that you wrote about a woman who is pregnant, who is undergoing post-partum depression, and, God forbid, psychosis? No. But you did write an article. 49 years ago, you published an article on psychosis in 1977 with your dad. Well, you were in college apparently, right? Right? Yeah, I was his research assistant at that time when I was in college, yes.

Okay. And this is before you entered graduate school, and you used the diagnostic framework that no longer exists. Didn't you? It was a long time ago. Right. And actually, it was three years before the DSM was even written. DSM-1, back in the Stone Age. It was a while ago.

That's the only article you ever wrote dealing with that issue. Is that correct, sir? Dean with what issue, sir? Postpartum psychosis. Ah, yes. I mean yes, thank you. So, make arrangements with the district attorney's office

to get all this discovery that I sent you, that the DA sent you, police reports that you went through with the jury, and you read it, right? Yes, that's right. And you must. to talk to the DA's before you saw Lindsay, right? Yes.

Okay. How many times? I don't remember how many times. Well, you're building for it all that, right? Anytime I spend on a case like this, I record and it gets built. Of course. So you do have records, but who cares at this point? I mean, you hear testifying based on your opinion at the request of the prosecutors, right?

I'm here based on, yes, at this point, I've completed the evaluation and don't remember things like how many times I talked to the DAs as part of it. But basically in your conversations with these two prosecutors, sir, do you talk to the state police at all, detectives? I reviewed a massive amount of reports, some by the state police, some by other individuals. So I reviewed records for many, many hours. And when you get involved with this case three years later, or two and a half years later, you'd agree with me that it was quite publicized, right?

Yes, I would agree with that. You've heard of confirmation bias, I'm sure. I have indeed. Yes. And however many times you talked to the DAs and review the information, would you agree with me, sir, that before you met with Lindsay and Tewksbury, you pretty much had an idea that this woman was a beast, killed her three kids, didn't you? I would not agree with you at all.

So you had an open mind when you went in there to talk? Tewkesbury to see and speak to for three days, Lindsay Clancy? I did my best to have an open mind, yes. He told us yesterday, you had some difficult decisions to make, correct? Yes, that's correct. So when did you first meet Avron? When did I first meet him? That probably would have been late 2025, early 2026.

Okay. around the same time that you first got involved with the case? No, it would have been considerably after I first got involved with the case. Where did you meet him? Where did I meet him? That's what I said. Where did you meet him? Virtually. Oh, virtually.

Yes. So it's like a Zoom thing or something. Exactly. You ever meet him in person before you went to Tewksbury? No, I did. So did you guys have a plan to meet up somewhere before you went to evaluate Lenson? In the lobby of the hospital. Okay.

Did you stay? somewhere the night before? I did, yes. We just stay. I don't remember. Were you with Mack that night? No. No?

You stay in a private house? No. You stay in a hotel? Yes, I did. Wasn't a van down by the river, for sure, right? I don't remember the name of the hotel, but it was a hotel in Ticksburg. So you're in a hotel. You meet with Abram Mack in the parking lot, and then you go into Tewksbury Hospital to meet

with this young lady, right? Correct. And the two of you, day number one, you spend how many hours, the two of you questioning her? Four and a half. And day number two, you don't bring back with you, you're by yourself and you administer the psychological testing, correct? Correct. And how long was that, sir? Three hours. And day number three, how long did you speak to Lindsay in the hospital? Three hours. So what was your total period of time over a three-day period that this young woman who's dealing with you? and Avram Mack? Ten and a half hours.

So for ten and a half hours, this young lady is in a room, in a wheelchair, being questioned by you and Abram Mack while she's on medication, right? Yes, that's correct. And she was still answering your questions, trying to be cooperative and being affable and friendly, you put in your report, right? Yes, that's right. Did it any time she expressed to you that she was tired and wanted to take a break? We offered her in the beginning.

My question, sir, was... Oh, he's not going to... Hold on, hold on. Would you ask a specific question, Dr. if you listen to that question, okay? My question, sir, was, at any time, did you or Avram Mack offer to her to take a break? Yes.

Did she accept that offer? Once she did and once she did not. And basically indicated that she wanted to get through this interview and get it over with, right? Yes. You weren't her buddy going there to talk to her those three days, were you? No.

She knew that you were there on behalf of the district attorney's office to testify against her in a trial and say to a jury that she knew and was able to conform to the wild. She killed her three days. Isn't that right?

No, that's not right. All right. In a van down by the river, for those that are too yuck to know the van down by the river. It's a classic joke. Saturday Night Live, Chris Farley, R-I-P, Chris Farley.

You were hilarious and made us all laugh. But a van down by the river. An SNL or Saturday Night Live joke. It was so good. It was so funny. All right. The questioning then returned to Heilbrun's diagnosis. He confirmed Lindsay had bipolar two disorder,

which he considered a serious. mental disease. Reddington focused on how Heilbrun had described Lindsay before the killings, hardworking, highly disciplined and motivated. He asked whether she was controlling. Heilbrun said that depended on what he meant by controlling. Reddington gave the example of a mother leaving very detailed instructions for a babysitter, down to how small to chop the carrots and how to prepare the chicken nuggets. Hale Brun agreed that showed discipline and a certain amount of control, but said he wasn't using those traits for or against Lindsay. He was simply trying to understand the overall picture of her behavior thoughts, feelings, and symptoms. Reddington then highlighted

Lindsay's background. She was a good student, earned excellent grades, highly motivated through college and nursing school. Hyle Brun acknowledged that he had not interviewed Lindsay's former co-workers or reviewed her employment evaluations from Massachusetts General Hospital. Reddington asked if he would describe Lindsay as an incredible mother. Heilbrun said that he would describe her as a very good mother. And Reddington tried to make a broader, a broader point that throughout this trial, outside of the state's case, there's been very, very little negative testimony about Lindsay as a wife or as a mother.

And in fact, sir, in the past six weeks or five weeks, there hasn't been one person that's had one thing bad to say about her other than these two. Isn't that right? Sustained. Did anybody, to your knowledge, come into this court in front of this jury and say that Lindsay Clancy was a bad wife? I don't know. How about bad mother?

Again, I don't know. So in your readings about her as a mother, you were able to see that she would sing to her, Darduk, when she put her to bed. That's in the reports. You read the reports, right? You might have to ask me that question. You know Rascal Flats? I'm sorry?

Rascal Flats. You ever heard of them? No. Okay. So if I suggest to you, sir, that Lindsay would say to her daughter every night, is that important to you in your evaluation? Yes. You didn't know that, though, apparently, right?

I knew that she was very good. with her kids, paid a lot of attention to them, spent a lot of time with them, and really enjoyed it. Even right up to within hours of their killing, she was making snowmen with them, right? Yes, she was playing with the two older children out in the backyard. And then bringing her life experience, which you testified yesterday, that she never had any abuse in her life, was raised by loving mother and father. Good student, hard worker, great mother, good friend, wonderful wife. She then randomly decides to kill her children by strangling them.

The facts with you. Yes, sir, right? No, not right. So one of the things you testified to yesterday is that, and you went like this and said that this is difficult, but then you were able to power through and tell the jury that Lindsay didn't like to leave a kids alone. He got anxious about that. Remember telling that this year? I do.

This is one of the things that you kind of had on that you felt was important in your evaluation, right? It was an important part of my evaluation that she did not like to leave her kids and it made her anxious, yes. That's one of the bad thing is for a mother not to want to leave her children

and be anxious when they're out of her home, right? Well, it depends. It could be difficult and so on depending on how anxious and even disabling it was if she just couldn't leave her

kids. But on the other hand, if it just reflected that she was close to them and wanted to be with them and wasn't a problem or disabling, then it's not a problem. Did you know, sir, that Pat's mother and father would come over to the house and babysit to the kids when Lindsay and her husband would go out?

the dinner or go out to a movie or go out with their friends. Did you know that, sir? Yes. Did you know that the children were actually in learning sprouts school? Did you know that? Yes. Hyle Brun said Lindsay's anxiety about leaving her children was another important piece of the puzzle when evaluating her mental state.

He focused on just how significant the anxiety really was. Howell Brun explained that not wanting to leave your children is not inherently concerning it becomes an issue if the anxiety is so severe that it interferes with your ability to function. And Lindsay did leave her children. Her parents babysat so she and Patrick could go to dinner, see movies or spend time with friends. The children also attended little spreads. Halbrun said Lindsay did experience anxiety at drop off, particularly when the children cried. Patrick had described the same thing.

He told Heilbrun that Lindsay sometimes struggled. to leave the kids, including on their fifth anniversary date night, but they still went out. Redington then went back to Lindsay's treatments and medications. Hylbun agreed that Lindsay was initially reluctant to take an SSRI because she was breastfeeding, right? Remember that and worried about the medication getting into her breast milk? So once she stopped breastfeeding, she began taking it and her dosage was later increased. then Reddington went back to the summer of 2020. That before the end of September of 2022, this young woman was living her life with her husband and her kids.

Summer 22, happy at a great time. Did you agree with that, sir? I do. And when she saw Tufts from September end up until the killing of these children and the state of her condition that you told the jury was confusing. Do you remember using that word yesterday? It was confusing with these number of diagnoses that she dealt with? Yes, I did use that word. And the confusing with the number of drugs that was one drug in top of another drug and stopped this drug, stop that drug. That was confusing, wasn't it, sir? Yes, it was. And it was confusing and upsetting to her

and her husband to the point where they went to these doctors and said to them, you're turning her into a zombie, right? Yes, that's right. But prior to seeing Tufts and the other healthcare providers. She was a happy woman, wasn't she? She was in many respects, happy, pleased with her life. So she wasn't happy in an unqualified way, but she was, yes, she was very happy with certain aspects of her life.

So as September turns into October, middle of October, October of thereabouts, how is she doing at that point between her depression, anxiety, drugs prescribed? How was she doing? She was anxious about going back to work, but she hadn't started taking the drugs that were prescribed. Get a little finished. Go ahead.

Go ahead, Doug. Yes. In September, she was anxious about returning to work. She had not yet started taking the medications that Dr. Tufts had prescribed, though. How about a text that she had sent to her mother? On October 20th, sir, I know you're indicating your report. You've had a chance to review all of the computer searches, text messages, Apple Watches, all that stuff, right? Yes, that's right.

All right. Read that text, please. October 20th. This is a text that she sent to her mother, read it. Would you like me to read it out loud? I'd like to read it out loud. All right. Mom, will you please come up?

and stay with me for a bit. I'm really sick. Something is wrong. I had horrible insomnia all night, and I just don't know how I'm going to get through the day. I started taking the medicine my doctor prescribed for anxiety, and I think it's made things worse. It's just really scary, and I don't want to be alone. Did her mother come up the next day and stay with her? Oh, I don't know. I'd have to go back and look at the records. I'm sure. You know, sir, that she actually climbed into the bed with a mother to sleep with a mother when the mother was saying with her during this period of time. No, I didn't know that. Reddington then moved into November when Lindsay's problems with sleep had become significant.

Her mother-in-law, Sue, Lansy, who was also a labor and delivery nurse, helped connect Lindsay with another provider, Julie Paul. Lindsay met with her before Paul left the position about a week later and then began seeing Nurse Gillotta, remember. Ohio Boone agreed that insomnia was actually one of Lindsay's first complaints after starting medication in October. Lindsay believed the medications were affecting her badly. At one point, she even described feeling like they were damaging her brain. But she still had hope. She wanted to get back to feeling like herself. But instead, things got worse. And by late November, Lindsay said that she was close to the end of my rope. An analogy Reddington acknowledged was

particularly unfortunate given what ultimately happened. She described feeling off, disconnected, and almost zombie-like. She reported panic symptoms, disorientation, forgetfulness, and feeling disconnected from her own body and from other people. Heilbrun agreed that Lindsay described being in a disassociative state and believed medication was contributing to it. Then came December, which Heilbrun described is probably Lindsay's worst month. she was reporting horrible intrusive thoughts, including thoughts of harming herself and at times

thoughts of harming her children. And that led Redington to another major question. How thoroughly did anyone treating Lindsay actually explore what those thoughts meant? I have the same question. Are they coming from inside your head? Are they male voices? Are they female voices? Anybody ask anything about thoughts, what they were?

According to the medical record, it's not according to your. guess. That's a standard kind of question when you're being used? My question, sir, is you read the medical records? No, overruled. Can you answer that question based on Dr. Helbrin's review of the medical records of what this young lady went through in that hell that she was living?

Is your question, did someone ask her about hallucinations? Yeah, if I come to you for help and I say, I've got intrusive thoughts about killing myself and drive the bit, I'm thinking about killing my kids, I've got these thoughts on my head. Did you ask me? There are questions.

Lots? What about it? Does anybody ask that question? Yes, that's a standard question that psychiatrists ask at the beginning of each appointment. It's a standard mental status question. Did any one of those psychiatrists ask Lindsay Clancy that question, according to the medical records? Anyone? Ms. Clancy completed the answer to those questions.

What question? number of occasions, if I might. Sure. What questions? Finish that question, and I'll let you have that question. Okay. Is the answer? Questions such as, are you hearing voices, if so, describe those and so on. And the typical response that she gave in, as part of a question like that, was no. How about when someone says, I've got dark thoughts?

Does anybody, professionals ask? What are the dark thoughts? If somebody said I'm having dark thoughts, then the follow-up question would be, tell me more. What are the thoughts? Tell me, just give me some descriptions of what you're having, what you're thinking, what it's like, and so on. So if a patient goes to a doctor and says, I'm having these intrusive thoughts, I'm having dark thoughts, I'm having thoughts of, at the same time frame in December, she's talking about harming the children, correct? She said that those thoughts had come to her at times. At times?

Yes. And she'd mentioned that to her husband, didn't she? That's what she said, yes. She mentioned, did you talk to her husband about it? Yes, I did talk to her husband. You said that to him? Yes. A couple of times she said it to him, right?

A couple of times she said, I'm having thoughts, and he asked her, give me more detail if he could, And she said, they're just thoughts. It's not a plan, that sort of thing. You got this girl living in her house with her kids saying she's having dark thoughts, saying she's thinking of harming the children. And Patrick's response, according to that testimony, is just basically just pile it through it and be okay. No, world.

No, that was not his response, as he described it. He asked more questions because one of the things that she had been dealing with for some time are thoughts about hurting herself and possibly the kids. And so what he did was try to get more information about the details. He asked questions that a mental health professional would also ask, which is how often, what do they like? Do you have a plan? Things like that.

And she pretty consistently said, no, I don't have a plan. And this is how often it happens, but they're just thoughts. So let's talk about that because that's apparently the standard reaction if a patient comes to a doctor and says, I'm having dark thoughts, intrusive thoughts. I'm thinking of hurting myself. I'm thinking of hurting the kids. You say, do you have a plan? That's a question you ask, right? That's one of the questions that you ask.

That's the person says, nah, I don't have a plan. I'm just having any such. And you just basically move on, give them more drugs. What do you do? No, you don't move on. You're aware that the person has reported having those thoughts and you've appraised the risk. and the risk has to do with things like how imminent is it, how serious is it, are there means, is there a plan, what sort of detail is involved and so on.

And so basically what you do at that point is you take it seriously, but you also try to describe how seriously to take it. So, good. So Redington established that Lindsay had been reporting these intrusive thoughts. when she was asked whether they were her own thoughts or auditory hallucinations, Lindsay said they were her own, but they were unwanted and they were intrusive. Halburn agreed that Lindsay appeared to answer those questions honestly and cooperated with the evaluation. He saw no indication that she was trying to fabricate what she was experiencing. And then December 15th, the day Lindsay

described as literally one of the worst days of her life, her symptoms and intensified, thoughts becoming harder to manage. Patrick, taking her to the hospital. As a result of that, her husband Pat, took her to the hospital, right? Correct. And you indicated that it looked like she was having general anxiety symptoms, right? That's your testimony yesterday. It looked from what the records reflected, that anxiety was something that they were focused. focusing on her experiencing. And then you said in your testimony, but not so much the postpartum. What does that mean?

It means that in December, she would have been seven months away from giving birth to Kowlin. And consequently, it was less likely to be postpartum than depression for other reasons or or bipolar or major depression or something like that, rather than postpartum depression or postpartum psychosis, something like that. Because you know that postpartum is not a medical diagnosis. That's just the fact that you had a baby, right? I do know that, yes.

Okay. And when she went to that hospital, did they provide any help for her or any medication or what happened on December 15th? She did not stay in the hospital very long. And so, no, she didn't remain there long enough to get the kind of help that you would usually get on an impatient basis. But the next day or thereabouts, she goes back to C-Tops, right? Yes. Okay.

So she immediately tries to reach out to help to help to anybody that would listen to her, right? She was trying hard to get help. She was trying hard to get help. She was trying hard. And then came December 20th, another bad day. Patrick drove Lindsay to women and infants hospital in Rhode Island, which had a program specifically focused on postpartum mental health. Lindsay spent about eight hours there being evaluated, participating in different activities, including group discussions and art therapy, but ultimately she was not accepted into the postpartum program.

The hospital determined she wasn't appropriate for that particular level of care. Howell Brun had testified that Lindsay was given other options, including inpatient treatment for medication management, a general partial hospitalization program, or continuing outpatient treatment. Well, okay. So patient treatment. plans to follow up with her outpatient provider for guidance.

That's what you said yesterday, right? Yes. And she did the next day, right? Yes. And do you think that a doctor who has been licensed as a physician psychiatrist advertising that they specialize in post-partum post-natal issues is qualified to treat the young woman with this simpleology that she brought to that desk? I'm sorry, to the television.

set? I don't understand your question. Well, you know that she never met. Tufts never met this girl. She never met her, ever, until she sat in that witness stand. I understand that their treatment was done remotely. Was remotely? So when I say the television, that's what I mean. It's like you run a Zoom, you run whatever. That's I apologize for that. Yes. Yeah. So she went the next day and actually remotely accessed a meeting with Dr. Tufts, right? Yes. And then she went back onto her schedule with Dr. But that didn't help so much. Is that correct? You indicated that she was still numb.

She was still having suicidal ideation, things of that nature, right? Correct. Okay. One of the things that you said, though, sir, yesterday is that her admission to the hospital was because they did not feel, and I quote, that she did not necessarily fit into their program. Do you call that? You mean their failure to accept her into the day program?

The failure to help her, period. They told her to leave. It's my understanding that what they said was that you don't fit with our program because it's not a postpartum phenomenon, and that's what the program is about. Did you really read those records? Yes. Yes, I did. And I wrote something about in my report.

I wrote something about it. question. Okay. Yes. So you read the records from that women in Infants Hospital and wrote out. Yes. Oh, Ms. Jerry, right? Yes. And what was the word, the language, the word Sally, you just said to me that they didn't accept her because of what? Yes. You rephrase that. What was it you just said to this jury they wouldn't accept her? Why? It was a day program for women experiencing postpartum difficulties. And their evaluation of Ms. Clancy was that, that her difficulties were more related to general mental health, but not particularly

to postpartum difficulties. And so she did not, if I might. Yeah, you might. If she might be more appropriate for somebody, she might be more appropriate for a general mental health program, but not so much for a postpartum day program, which is what they had. So they didn't say that you don't need help.

They just said that you don't fit with our program. Would it surprise you to know, sir, that they said that she didn't fit with their program, as you put it, because of the overlay of overmedication that her doctors had caused to that point? Do you have any memory of that at all? There were questions that they raised about the medication. It wasn't just questions. They said that's the reason. The secondary diagnosis as to why they wouldn't accept this young lady is because of the medications

that she had been prescribed? Over medicated? The... Do you recall saying that in those records? Yes, I recall the diagnosis of depression, which was not specified further because there were medical medicine complications. Do I have to get the medical records

and read them to you? I actually have something in my report, so I can read it back to you. Can you pull it out and tell me what the discharge diagnosis was? Reddington then had Heilbrun look more. more closely at the women's and infant records. Lindsay's discharge diagnoses were generalized anxiety disorder and depressive disorder with the depression possibly related to adverse drug effects.

The record is also documented passive suicidal thoughts. Lindsay described feeling crazy depressed, numb, unable to feel love and like her life was becoming a disaster. She later told Heilbrough, she felt hollow like a shale. or a zombie. By December, friends and family also described Lindsay struggling to get out of bed, walk, maintain her hygiene, and care for the children. One of our goals was simply to get off the medication and sleep. Hal Brun agreed that severe sleep deprivation can cause serious problems and it can contribute to psychosis. And Dr. John definitely watched that show. That's exactly what

he said. Everybody is under plain Lindsay Clancy's lack of sleep. Even sleep deprivation can cause and contribute to psychosis. Anyway, women and infants recommended tapering Lindsay off Syracille and following up with an outpatient provider. And this became important because the records showed that the hospital tried to contact Lindsay's nurse practitioner, Gillotta, Rebecca Gelada, didn't receive a call back. Halbrun acknowledged that he may have seen that note, but he did not include it in his report. Reddington then moved to the night of the killings, and the moment Patrick found Lindsay after she jumped in the second story window. Now, one of the other things that you had made reference to, sir, is that you relied on, is when her husband came home and found Lindsay on the ground in the snow after she had, jumped out the window.

He spoke with her, is what you told this jury. Yes. And can you tell us again what it is that he said to her and what she said to him? He said, what did you do? And she said, I tried to kill myself. And then he said, where are the kids? And she said, in the basement.

Now, what is your source of that information, sir? It was in the records. And I also did a collateral interview. So wait. Patrick Clancy. Did you listen to the 911-1-1? No, I did not.

If I tell you, would you be surprised, sir, that she had significant damage not only to her back, her spine, and was hemorrhaging, but also to her throat? No, I would not be surprised. That was a, she injured herself very badly when she jumped out that window. If I suggest to you, sir, that if you listen to her, to the 911 tape as it relates to Patrick Clancy interacting with her that she can only make grunting noises. Would you be surprised at that?

I would be surprised, yes. Can you never listen to that tape? I did not. So I have seen a lot of discussions about that clip already with people wondering if Reddington is insinuating that Patrick is lying. Yeah. I can't believe it. But I've also seen others say that while he might not actually believe that Patrick is lying,

he could just be trying to plant seeds of reasonable doubt with the jury. I don't know. You'll have to let me know what you think. But I do want to say this. I was in the courtroom during that 911 call. I'm actually quite surprised that Halpern has not listened to it. Yes, you can hear Lindsay speak in the 911 call. Patrick tells the 911 operator that she's in and out of consciousness.

He's saying, Lindsay, Lynn, stay with me, Lynn, hey, I'm here, Lynn, and for a while she'll be out, and then she'll come back and she'll say something. At one point, you can hear her say, I'm scared, very faint towards the beginning. So yes, you can hear Lindsay speak in the 911 call. And Patrick says she's in and out of consciousness. Reddington and then went into Lindsay's five-day hospitalization at McLean Hospital. She ultimately asked to be released so she could attend Cora's birthday, as you remember, birthday party.

At discharge, Lindsay denied hallucinations or suicidal or homicidal thoughts. Records described her as cooperative, pleasant, no psychosis, no anxiety, and her mood as good. So Redington pointed out, he actually emphasized this, that before leaving the locked psychiatric unit, Lindsay would have been evaluated to determine whether she was safe to go home. Heilbrun agreed. So afterward, Heilbrun said Lindsay seemed to have a small shred of hope. She believed getting off Syracquil might help because she thought the medication was causing many of the problems. But within about a week, her intrusive suicidal thoughts returned, and Heilbrun agreed they were severe. Reddington then returned to Heilbrun's timeline, highlighting the continuing

insomnia, anxiety, and numb zombie-like feelings that Lindsay reported after starting medication. He focused on what Lindsay was actually doing to get better. Chart. One of the things she also said is that she was focusing on making the anxiety, helping the anxiety getting better through medication, right? Yes. It was also counseling. She went to the counseling through Letasha Dukes, Ms. Jolada, was still treating her, correct? The counseling was limited. But yes, that is correct. She was involved in some counseling. So it was limited. Is that a bad thing?

Did this woman not want to go to anybody that would help her, sir? Are you trying to tell the jury that she was avoiding help? Sustained. Next question. So it was limited? How was it limited? It was short-term and supportive as opposed to something where in the field you might pick a cognitive behavioral therapist, which is empirically supported for things like anxiety and depression. and patients and things like that. Who makes that decision?

Does a person like this make that decision, sir? Is it up to the patient to make a decision of cognitive whatever it is you just said? Yes, it's certainly one of the things that an individual can do is looking for a referral from somebody who would be a cognitive behavior therapist or something like that. So yes.

Go ahead. I want to cut you off. I'm finished. I'm finished. I'm finished. She was focusing on trying to make this anxiety and make her feelings about her feelings go away. She wanted to be herself again, right?

Yes, that's right. There's nothing wrong with that, right, for a person who wanted to do that? Not at all. Okay. You indicated that she was concerned about resolving her problems on the district attorney then asked you about if this is some type of her taking control of her life. You indicated that she is trying to her. trying to take control of the life. Remember that?

I testified that it was important that she felt in control and that she could make things happen and improve things through focusing in discipline and hard work. And that's what you've already agreed, that she was a person that wasn't afraid of hard work, right? Yeah, on the contrary, she worked hard and she got a lot of results from work. So that's not an issue that would be a something that would be a black mark against her that she's trying to take control of her life as it relates to these medications and what they're doing to her and her internal feelings of postpartum if that's what she believed i was not trying to develop black marks against her i was just sorry i thought you said you're right right next question i thought you said yesterday that you know you put two marks over this category three marks over this category this is possible that's possible you were considering these things right uh that that was on another issue okay

So as it relates to resolving the problems, that would include talking to doctors about different medications to try, researching medications on her own. This is your testimony. Asking friends and family for tips. Really? You're supposed to ask friends and family for tips about your mental psychosis, your mental state? I'm not sure what the question is. Well, Dr. Helbrin testified yesterday as it relates to in response to questions from the district attorney. about her resolving her problems, including talking to doctors about different medications

to try researching medications on her own and asking friends and family for tips. Dection, is there a question? Yeah, the question is, is that good medical advice, sir, to tell a sick person who comes to a doctor for help to go ask their friends and family for tips? One of the things I would say is that when you want very much to improve, you, of course, ask your doctor and whoever else you're working with. you might also ask other people in the family or friends, any recommendations that they might have. That's sort of something that you do. And when you say sort of something you do,

what are you referring to the women that come to with doctor and the postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis, and ask for help that they should go talk to their neighbors? I think that one of the things that's kind of a natural human inclination is to talk to people who are close to you, friends and family and so on, and say, this is a problem I'm having. Do you have any advice? can you help in anyway? And then over the course of the time that she was going through this experience into late January, she had a lot of providers offer a lot of diagnoses, and there were a lot of complicated considerations, so much so that the diagnosis that was given to her,

being at that time adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressions, generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, bipolar disorder, too, postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis, postpartum stress disorder. Those are your words, sir. Yes. Reddington then goes through this long list of diagnoses that Lindsay had received or that providers had considered because just in January, that included anxiety and depression, major depressive disorder bipolar disorder bipolar two, postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis among others. He also returned to Heilbrun's opinion that Lindsay was experiencing adverse reactions to psychotropic medication. Halbrun stated, yes, that these medications are meant to improve psychiatric symptoms, but in some patients, they can make symptoms worse.

And based on his review of Lindsay's records, he believed she was one of those patients. Happen. Look at her. You look at her, sir. Did she have adverse reactions in your mind after you evaluated her, looked at the medical records, and looked at all of the scripts that she had? Do you believe that she had adverse reactions sustained as the form? Do you believe that she had adverse reactions?

To the medication note, she had been prescribed since September? Did she have adverse reactions, sir, up to the time of late January when you had no problem answering questions for the DA yesterday. Does she have adverse reactions into late January? I believe she was having adverse reactions from the time she began taking the medication in October. up to and including January. Do you think that the treatment that she got from Tufts and Jolada was good? Objection. No, ruled.

I don't know. That's not something that I evaluated as part of my evaluation of Ms. Clancy. You testified yesterday that she was returning to exercising in December. And then the district attorney followed up and indicated, well, she went to the Kingsbury Club in December. Remember that question? I don't actually. No? Do you know what the Kingsbury Club is? It sounds pretty fancy. I don't, actually.

Do you know that it's just an exercise place with a pool? You can bring your kids in a little restaurant? Once again, I don't know what the Kingsbury Club is. Well, there's no problem with a woman trying to exercise to try to avoid drugs and try to get herself out of any depressed state that she might be in after having a baby, right? No problem with that. On the contrary, it's a good idea. She can do it, and it's something that she used to exercise all her life. That's right. help manage her mood and do better. One of the questions the DA asked you yesterday is about the manic state,

hypomantic state, and exercise or things of that nature. And you answered that she did some exercise. She did one with some exercise right after heaven to count, didn't she? She did. What did she do? She got up at 4 a.m. She ran three miles. She did half an hour on the peloton, did an exercise class.

So she was doing a fair amount of exercise. about a road race shortly after she had to be able. Yes, it's my understanding that she did that too. During that period of time, watching and exercising and running and road races and all the rest, sir. Would you agree, sir, that that coincided with the same time that they were involved with the height with the cleaning out of the garage and removing property and selling things? You agree with that? Yes.

Do you agree that at the same time she was doing the beach blanket bingo or whatever it is on television where she's selling people things like videos? and lost money doing it? Would I agree what? Would you agree that she was selling videos online and it turned out that it was a scam and she lost her money? I would agree that she was involved in something like that.

I didn't know that she lost her money. We have the scam, we have the hypo-cleaning, all of that. Would you agree? But that is just a little bit indicative of what you said to this jury that you were struggling We're trying to find mania, manic, Iquivate.

I agree with that. I would agree that those could be symptoms of a manic episode, which I was having a hard time identifying as she was clearly experiencing something like that. But I did end up with a diagnosis of bipolar 2, and that reflected my thinking that some of those things that Mr. Reddington has just described could be symptoms of a manic disorder, although I'm less serious than a bipolar one diagnosis. Well, then Redington, again, as you saw there brought up, Lindsay's exercise continued talking about it. He agreed it can help with depression, anxiety, and Lindsay had used it throughout her life to manage her mood.

But after giving birth, according to Heilbrun, she was exercising intensely, sometimes getting up around 4 a.m., running three miles, using a peloton, taking classes, and participating in a road race. And around the same time, Lindsay and Patrick were cleaning out the garage, getting rid of belonging, selling things. She had also gotten involved with Beach Body, or as Reddington called it, the scam that cost her money called Beach Blanket Bingo. Reddington asked whether all of this could be evidence of the hypomatic symptoms. Howbrun had struggled to identify was one of them. Do you recall this morning indicating that you recounted that Lindsay told you that she felt, quote,

like it wasn't her, end quote, as though she were watching herself commit the killings, and that she was simply responding to the voice rather than consciously deciding what to do. Do you remember saying that? I do, sir. Yes. Would you agree that that description is consistent, almost black-letter definition with profound disassociation? I, my testimony was... No, no, no, is that, sir, consistent with profound disassociation?

No, it is consistent. So the answer is no. The answer is no? Well, I was about to give the rest of the answer. I'm sure you were, but the answer is no, is what you're saying, right? I just read to you what you testified for this year or this morning, right? You used... Hello, did I read what your words were this morning?

I don't remember exactly what my words were this morning. If Dr. Helgren told this juror that when Lindsay was talking to you and or Mac in the hospital, she felt, and I quote, like it wasn't her, as though she were watching herself, commit the killings and that she was simply responding to the voice rather than consciously deciding what to do, end quote. Question is, would you agree, sir, that that watching oneself is consistent with disassociation? Disassociation that is peritramatic, which is what I testified. So the answer is yes.

Well, you said profound dissociation, so the answer was no. Last time I knocked out profound. I'm just asking. Oh, yeah. Okay. It is consistent with disassociation. It is consistent with peritramatic dissociation. Okay. Yes.

Briefly, what is this association? Dissociation is sort of the sense that you are removed from yourself. You're not feeling like yourself. It's something like you're in a position where your sense of time and your sense of self are altered. and it's also the sort of thing where you don't feel as if it's you anymore. Sometimes you feel as though you're watching a body that's you, but it's not really you. And this association you agree on the DSM using that book is in fact defined as an altered mental state. Is that correct?

Yes. Okay. And would you agree with me that in your evaluations of life, Lindsay, after you guys had the chance to speak to her and consider all of the documentation, your opinion ended up, using your words, being in your mind two possible explanations. We talked about that, right? Yes, we did. Okay.

And then you indicated that there were some possible things that made me believe that there was severe mental illness involved, right? Yes. And there was severe mental illness involved, right? There were some possible things that made me think that it might have been a psychotic, episode. Right, but there were severe mental illness, illnesses involved here, right?

Yes, there were. Okay. It's just the question of which kind. Semantics. Yes. You talked about thought broadcasting, right? Yes. Thought broadcasting, sir, would be if somebody hears a voice and is concerned that somebody else might have heard,

right? No. Thought broadcasting. Are you aware that Nancy Plancy indicated to anyone that she was hearing or having these intrusive thoughts in her mind yes or no yes did she indicate that she was afraid people could read her mind or knew what these spots were or whatever they were in her mind intrusive thoughts she was afraid of that and so one of the reasons that i ask her about the difference between hallucinations i hold on please i can't be more question. All right. And then if the Commonwealth wants to follow up, they'll be able to do that.

All right. Go ahead. Did she, according to Dr. Helburn's review, all the information in all the hours of time? Yes. Determine that she was afraid that people could read her thoughts or knew what her intrans of dark thoughts were. Yes. Who did she say that to them? Just quote. Well, she said it to me.

She said it, Dr. Mac. Yeah, I'm sure she said it to Mac, too. Put you guys aside. Who else, like people, normal people, did she say that to it? Nothing at all the normal, but I mean people like friends or family or citizens or whatever. I believe she said it to Patrick. Okay. And she may have said it to others as well.

She may have said it to others as well. I don't remember who else she said it to Patrick. Well, how can you come in here and testify about a young lady that is saying to people, that she's having thoughts that are intrusive and back and that she's worrying that other people are reading her mind and know about it, and you don't even know who she said it to. No, overall. One of the things that she said

is that she, her thoughts were kind of intrusive and loud and, I mean, that sort of thing. And one of the things that she said was that she thought that because of that other people, might be hearing them or might know what they were. Like even worried about dropping little Kara off at the school and she was afraid that the teachers could hear her voices or thoughts? She read that. I did read that and that's one of the reason I ask her for the difference. When I asked you if there were any, so that refreshed your memory, that there was another person

that she was concerned about. Yes, I believe that's right. Yes. How about her friends? Do you recall her telling her friends that she was worried about the teachers being able to read her thoughts? I do not. You indicated yesterday that one of the concerns or one of the issues of possibilities was at the time of the killings was acute psychosis, right? I thought one of the possible explanation. I don't want to let you run off, sir. No. Next question.

Do you agree, sir, that you testified yesterday that at the time of the killings, one of the possible concerns that you had was whether or not there was an acute psychosis. one of the possible explanations for her motivation and her state. So the answer is yes, right? No, overall. That's what you said yesterday, right? Not exactly the way you phrased it, and that's what I'm responding to. The questioning then turned to postpartum illness. Kyle Brun again agreed that postpartum itself isn't a diagnosis.

His concern was timing Lindsay was about eight months past giving birth when the killings happened. He said the sources he relied on general. place postpartum conditions much closer to childbirth, although he acknowledged that different organizations use different timeframes. I'll just point out this, the interview I did today with my friend, it was through like 18 months. Anyway, Reddington asked about the world health organization's guidance, but Kyle Brun said he wasn't familiar enough with its specific time frame to answer. Reddington impressed him what he meant when he said postpartum was less likely explanation for Lindsay's conditions.

And then you indicated, now it could be something else, and there was certainly some stuff that I saw that were symptoms of depression and other sorts of things that she experienced in January, but it was given the time, it was less likely, I thought, to be postpartum. What did you mean by that? I meant that she was eight months after giving birth to Callum, and if you look at that, you look two sources of authority, which I relied on the DSM-5 in the Cleveland Clinic, then neither one of those would suggest that postpartum was the more likely explanation as opposed to something else. So if we put aside the DSM, when was the DSM, strike that, would you agree that the DSM virtually

only mentions the whole concept of post-partum psychosis, post-partum depression in two paragraphs? I would agree that they don't consider it to be a mental diagnosis in the same sense that other diagnostic areas are described in that manual. Okay. Okay. That should change? No, overall. Do I think it should change?

Yeah, you. The way I look at this is that the DSM-5 in the Cleveland Clinic and the World Health Organization reflect different outcomes. And I think that one of the things that they do on the conservative end is they reflect something that is basically a month, excuse me, a month or two months. And one, something else on the very extended end is a good bit longer. I think it depends on a number of things in terms of how it changes. And I'm not in a position to offer informed opinion on that, really. Obviously.

Objection. They'll be stricken. Doctor, if Ms. Clancy had a genuine command hallucination, which in fact did cause her to feel compelled to carry out the killing of her children in herself, would you agree that she lacked substantial capacity to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law? If in fact that was a genuine command hallucination that she believed? That would depend on a number of things. It would depend, for example.

Let's not go through a number of things. So your answer is no? And my answer would be it depends. Okay, so it depends. Next question. Would you agree, sir, that in December of 2022, and she told you that at that time frame she had these thoughts that were in her head that would, quote, pop into her head,

intrusive thoughts that included that her brain was damaged and that she had to kill herself. And she told you that, right? She did. Do you believe she was telling you the truth, sir? Yes. That was good. Good. I stand corrected in one regard, sir.

This morning, I started off my questions by asking you about 49 years ago when you published an article on postpartum psychosis, and you agree. You were in college or something. But in fact, it was not post-partum psychosis. It was about schizophrenia, wasn't it? I have to think back 49 years, but I think that's right, yes. Transcripts of interviews with 32 schizophrenic patients, 15, male, 17. Female, all with primary, a secondary paranoid symptomology, were edited only to delusion-relevant material. Is that refreshing memory, sir?

It does. Okay. So it wasn't post-partum psychosis. You're never written about post-partum psychosis, right? That's right. Okay. So finally, sir, would you agree? And if you don't, just say, no, I don't agree.

Postpartum depression. Are there tests that can be administered to? I'm not talking about a guy who's upset about his job. I'm talking about a woman who's just had a baby, who's going through the postpartum period, exhibiting signs of depression and or psychosis, okay? Yes. All right.

Would you agree with me? A person can complain that the 11th, able to laugh or see the funny side of their life. Is that a symptom, sir, if you know? Are you asking if that's a symptom of postpartum depression specifically or depression more generally? Oh, no, I'm asking you about postpartum depression, sir. That's what I'm talking about right now. All right.

Okay. Do you agree that a patient would complain that they're less able to laugh and see the funny side of life? That's a symptom of depression. You're going to tell me it's a symptom of depression constantly. My question is, do you agree that it's a simple? of postpartum depression? Yes. Okay.

Lindsay wanted to get back to the person she had been before her symptoms began, and she had also experienced thoughts of harming herself. She did. Okay. So those are all of the postpartum depression symptoms that a person can have, according to Mass General Hospital's three-year review of post-partum depression, psychosis. So she hit all of these symptoms, right? Those are symptoms of postpartum depression.

They're also symptoms of depression. I don't care what I'm asking you, sir, are they symptoms of postpartum depression? Yes. And there's a tool that psychologists can use with a woman who's coming to a doctor for help because of the symptoms of postpartum depression. Is that correct? Yes. And what is that tool? I don't know what the tool is, but I'm sure there,

is a measure of it, yes, of postpartum depression. Okay. Have you ever used that measure? I have not. Have you ever read about it? Possibly. Do you even know what it is? I don't know what it is.

How about postpartum psychosis, sir? Same study. Hearing voices or a voice commanding a person to act? That's in the DSM, right? Yes. Okay. Command hallucinations, yes. Delusional beliefs or distorted reality is a symptom that a person can complain of, right?

delusional beliefs uh and the false beliefs yes yes just next next statement confused disorganized thinking she had that right she would it's in your report i think that she was baking or making or doing something making a pie or something

and forgot where she was she was yes she was having trouble with memory attention and concentration all right anxious and worried for no good strike that apologize severe sleep deprivation she had that right yes rapid moods swings. She had that, right? Not sure she had that. Well, how about the time that Patrick told you

that she would repeatedly find herself in the living room on a sofa and bury your head in the pillow and rock back and forth crying hysterically? When you said mood swings, that implies that at one moment you're feeling down and sad and depressed and in another moment you're feeling quite differently. Right. I don't see that the mood swings she had. Oh, all right. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah, I don't see that she was experiencing mood swings so much as she was experiencing symptoms of sadness and feeling down and lack of motivation, which are symptoms of depression. What is acesthesia? A-K-A-S-T-H-E-S-I-A, I believe.

Yeah, I'd have to look that one up. Okay. Feeling overwhelmed. She felt overwhelmed? She did, yes. Not herself, family seeing the change? Obviously, right? Repeat the question, please.

Yeah, not herself. Semi-colon. family seeing the change. Yes, correct. Lord knows. I mean, the mother-in-law, the father-in-law, her mother, her father, her husband, neighbors, people could see the change in her, right?

Yes, they could. So Reddington then returned to thoughts of her children. I'll bring to an agreement that this was a significant warning sign. Lindsay had experienced self-harm ideation, but when Reddington asked whether she had poor insight toward the end of January, Halperman disagreed. He believed Lindsay had a fairly good understanding of where she was mentally, the difficulties she was experiencing, and many aspects of her condition.

And that finished Reddington's cross-examination, which meant ADA Spray was back up again for redirect. She started by addressing the long list of symptoms Reddington had just gone through. She asked Halbrun whether the symptoms identified as signs of postpartum depression. If they could also occur in general depression, Halberton explained they could. Many of the symptoms of depression include major depressive disorder. They could also appear in bipolar and bipolar 2 disorder. He reiterated, though, that after completing his evaluation, he believed Lindsay's correct. was indeed bipolar 2 disorder.

And why was that? One of the reasons, as I testified yesterday, is that she has been in Tewksbury for three and a half years, and that is her diagnosis of record bipolar disorder. What that indicates to me is that having had the chance to see her prescribed medications and do a number of things, that they really think that she has a mood disorder, of a fluctuating kind, a bipolar sort, as opposed to a major depression or some other kind of

disorder. Now, you were asked by defense counsel about the fact that you interviewed Ms. Clancy three years, a little over three years after she killed her children. And your testimony was it's better to interview the person as soon as possible, right? Correct. But you were able to watch Dr. Resnick's interview of the defendant about three months, three and a half months after the incident happened, correct? Yes.

And you were able to review all of her records leading up to when she killed the children, and then after she killed the children all the way up the present day, correct? Yes. Is that something that you typically have when you do these forensic reviews that much information, medical history and information on a patient? I had more records information in this case than I have ever had in my career. And so, also, were you aware that you weren't allowed to interview the defendant until the court gave permission?

I really was and I didn't know how the process worked. But as soon as you were informed that you could meet with the defendant, you did, correct? Yes. And the fact that you had all of these resources, the records, the prior interviews, the recorded interviews of witnesses, the criminal file, the collateral interviews that you did, did that in any way aid you in overcoming whatever deficits you might have had in interviewing her three years later? It did, yes.

And how so? Because of how extensive the records were from different people, different observations, different times and so on, they in effect created something that I would have tried to do myself if there had been fewer records available. So I would have tried, for example, to... Well, I'm going to object to what you would have done. No, overruled. I would have tried to conduct a number of collateral interviews.

I would have tried to go out and get some of the rules. records myself if they'd not been available and provided to me. Usually I have to work a lot harder to get 10% of the records that I had in this case. And you were provided with her complete psychiatric history from September through present day, correct? I was. Now, you were asked about being retained by our office and speaking to the prosecutors in the case.

did anyone from my office or myself or Ms. Buckingham ever tell you what your decision or what your evaluation to say in this case? No. And did we ever put any pressure on you in any way, shape, or form to come out on what defense counsel calls our side? No. And he also asked you about your interview itself with a defendant. At any point in time, was your conversation with Ms. Clancy hostile or aggressive or rude? in any way. No. Sprague returned to Heilbrun's three-day interview with Lindsay, despite Redington's questions about how long those sessions were. Hyle Brun said Lindsay was never hostile,

hostile or rude, never asked to stop, even declined a break on the third day. Sprague then asked when he formed his opinion about Lindsay's criminal responsibility. And howlun said very, very late in the process, after reviewing the records, evaluating Lindsay for three days, and conducting collateral interviews. He said that was intentional because he wanted to avoid confirmation bias, forming a conclusion first, and then focusing on evidence that supports it. Sprague then returned to Lindsay's difficulty leaving her children. Albrun said that mattered because if Lindsay was contemplating self-harm,

she may have also been thinking about what would happen to her children without her, whether they would suffer and who would care for them. They revisited Lindsay's many different diagnoses and medications. Heilbrun said that the wide range of diagnoses made it difficult to determine exactly what was happening, whether the medications were appropriate and whether she was having adverse reactions. Sprague started talking then about Lindsay's intrusive thoughts. Albrun emphasized that Lindsay generally described these as internal, not external voices or hallucinations, except for what she said happened on January 24th.

She described the experiences as coming from inside her own mind. Sprague pushed back on the idea that Lindsay had been completely well until medication entered the pitcher. Halbrun said Lindsay had already sought treatment because she was struggling with anxiety and Patrick's paternity leave ended and she was preparing to return to work. Then came another important point. Halbrun said the records did not show Lindsay telling her, providers or the hospitals that she was having thoughts of harming her children. Instead,

her records repeatedly documented denial of homicidal thoughts and hallucinations. And with the exception of her suicidal period in December, denials of self-harm ideation thoughts as well. Her providers did not document signs of psychosis. Sprigg then returned to women in Infins Hospital. She pushed back on Redington's suggestion, that Lindsay had simply been turned away. Heilbrun agreed that while she wasn't accepted into their postpartum program, the hospital offered other options, including inpatient medication management, a general partial hospitalization program, and continued outpatient care.

And the hospital explained why. Lindsay's symptoms appear relatively late in the postpartum period and were not clearly connected to perinatal factors. Sprague also challenged the idea that Lindsay simply got to. got worse and worse, Halbrun said the clearest deterioration happened from October through December. After leaving McLean in January, there were signs of improvement, including better sleep and improvement in her mood. Finally, Sprague returned to disassociation, psychosis, and command hallucinations. Halbrun emphasized that disassociation doesn't mean someone loses control of their actions.

In psychosis or hearing a command hallucination, it doesn't automatically. means someone no longer understands right from wrong or is unable to control their behavior. You were asked about psychosis and whether someone in psychosis would automatically act on a command to hallucination and you said not be responsible and you said it depends. Is that correct? Why does it depend. Because symptoms of psychosis, including command hallucinations, don't necessarily take away your knowledge, your understanding, or your self-control. They can in some instances, but in other instances, they don't.

And one of the things that people do to try to retain more control is things like distracting themselves, praying, doing other things that... that basically make a difference in terms of supporting and boosting their self-control. And so there's no automatic connection between any mental disorder, including psychotic mental disorders, and the legal standard for knowing that something is wrong or conforming one's conduct of the requirements of the law. That's why we go through all this in such detail. Next question.

Doctor, can someone who is experiencing psychosis with a command to hallucination, can that person know the difference between right and wrong? Yes. It's outside. We don't say this question. Next question. And can someone who is experiencing psychosis can form their behavior to the law? Same objection.

No, overall. In some cases, they can, yes. And is that what you were talking about just a few moments ago, when someone can be in a state of psychosis, hearing a command, telling them to do something, and they try to avoid doing what they're told to do. Yes. And you gave some examples, but someone trying to distract themselves with music or something like that, correct? Yes.

I'm going to stop objecting, but I have a standing objection to the leading, Judge. This is my objection. It's redirect. I'll allow the calm up to use a leading question to direct the witness to a certain area of inquiry and then just non-leaning questions at that point. I have nothing further. Thank you. All right.

Well, Red, he came back with, again, a few more questions about Howlbrun's psychological testing. Howbrun confirmed that Lindsay's MMPI results showed no indication, no indication, that she was exaggerating symptoms, that she was lying or delineable. deliberately trying to deceive him. I have to pause. I think it's interesting. This confuses me with the, if she's saying,

she's hearing voices, right? But nonetheless, Redington emphasized that the test was administered nearly three years after the killing. So it reflected Lindsay's condition when she took it, not necessarily her mental state

on January 24th. And then he questioned how everyone about research, suggesting auditory hallucinations can be experienced. That's coming from inside or outside a person's head. Howard said he wasn't familiar

with that particular study. And with that, Heilbrun finally, after days, was dismissed. Well, the Commonwealth then had still yet another witness.

I couldn't believe it. I was like, oh my gosh, I was like the kid in the car on a road trip with his parents going, are we done yet? Are we done yet? No, no. The common.

Unwealth called its final rebuttal witness, Dr. Jeffrey Sauthoff, a psychiatrist who was served as a senior psychiatrist for the FBI's behavioral analyst unit since 1996. And Sauthoff is also a professor at the University of Virginia and has decades of experience in forensic psychiatry corrections and treating serious mental illness. He's evaluated defendants for competency and criminal responsibility, testified for both prosecutors and defense attorneys, and has treated thousands of severely mentally ill patients, including several women who had killed their children.

He also had specific experience with postpartum psychosis. In 1987, Sauthoff co-authored research involving two women who developed postpartum psychosis after taking a medication. Bromocryptine, krypton, correct me nurses in the chat. But this medication, they say it was then used to suppress lactation. He believed their paper was the first published study

specifically documenting that connection. Spragdon asked him to explain psychosis. Sothoff said psychosis is a symptom, not a diagnosis, and it can appear in several ways. Some might experience hallucinations, most commonly hearing voices. They might have delusions or fixed false beliefs or think that their speech might become severely disorganized. A person doesn't need to experience all three to be psychotic. Sothoff compared psychosis to a fever. The symptom tells you something is wrong, but you still have to determine what's causing it. Psychosis can result from medical conditions, drugs, or psychosis. psychiatric illnesses, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Bragg then turned to Sauthoff's involvement. In Lindsay's case, he was asked by the Plymouth County DA's office to conduct a forensic

evaluation, although he explained that he wasn't personally paid by prosecutors. Any payment went to his department at UVA, while his salary remained the same. Sauthoff reviewed an enormous amount of material, Lindsay's psychiatric and medical records, hospital records, police reports, grand jury materials, videos, pharmacy records, and reports from both the prosecution and defense experts. He described the amount of information in this case as unusually extensive. Sauthoff also interviewed Lindsay twice over Zoom for a total of 11 hours. Separately interviewed Patrick, acknowledged that remote interviews have limitations. He said that they didn't prevent him from evaluating Lindsay. And because the

interviews were recorded, the entire interaction could later be reviewed. So Ms. Clancy stated to me and some other evaluators that her hallucination, that of an external voice, something coming from outside, outside of her head, occurred when she was standing at the refrigerator. She said that she was in the process. of making her children their dinner when she received a call from Patrick Clancy, return the call, and then as soon as she finished the call with Patrick Clancy, she said that that is when she heard the voice. This is your last chance. You have to fill your kids and then kill yourself. And so that was what she told a number of us. There are also other

accounts that she made to individuals that were quite a bit different to Dr. Spinelli, for example. She said that the voice happened at 510 or 5.15 p.m. as soon as Patrick Clancy left on his errands and that the voice she described the voice to Dr. Spinelli as increasing in intensity but saying this is your last chance you have to kill your kids before you kill yourself but also that it was that her children would suffer if she did not do that when I asked her about the voice that she heard, again, she said that it started really right after the telephone call at 534 with her husband, Patrick. And she said it was a man's voice, it was very clear. It was external.

In other words, it came from outside of her head. that it was constant. So this phrase, this is your last chance, you have to kill your kids and then kill yourself, was something that was repeated over and over and over and over again during that period that she strangled her children. And then just as soon as it started, it stopped

at the, when she had finished killing the children, strengthening the children. Dr. Was there anything about what she reported to you about the voice that was significant to you in your evaluation? And if so, why? Well, what was significant to me is that she had not spoken about hearing voices before that in any of the, any of the mental health professionals, the psychiatrists, the nurse practitioners, the physicians and staff in the emergency departments or at McLean. And so this was the first time that she reported, that was documented, but also that she experienced an auditory hallucination according to what she told me.

So that was unusual. And then also what was very unusual was the fact that the voice stopped with the death of or the strangling of her youngest son, Callan. and that she went upstairs and then proceeded to engage in behavior in an effort to kill herself, but that the voice had stopped as soon as she had strangled her last, Callan, her youngest child. I could stop you there for a moment and ask you. You said that it's unusual that this was the first time that she had heard this voice. Why is that unusual? Well, she had certainly suffered with symptoms of mental illness, depression, and anxiety, you know, most specifically, anxiety that she had reported to Dr. Tufts in mid-September.

And then certainly the symptoms that later on included suicidal ideation and also what she said were dark or intrusive thoughts to harm her children that she mentioned to her husband and her mother on, I think, two occasions. And, Dr. You also mentioned that it was unusual that the voice stopped after Callan was killed. Why is that unusual? Well, I've worked with, I'm compared to other patients that I've treated who have had command auditory hallucinations. I'm going to object to that. You want to the same objection that was raised with the flow. Keltsky, I see it.

After the sidebar, Sauthoff explained that in his opinion, it's not typical for someone in psychosis to hear a voice only one time, never before, never after. He also said it's not common for that voice to go on constantly for an extended period of time. He also considered it unusual for someone to experience psychosis through a voice alone without accompanying delusions. Sprig asked about Lindsay's fear that if she told medical providers about thoughts of harming her children, the children would be taken away. But Sot-Hop did not consider that belief delusional. He explained that health care professionals are mandated reporters when they believe a child may be at risk. So from his perspective, Lindsay's concern that disclosing thoughts about harming her children could lead to an assessment or intervention to protect them, was rational. Again, my friend that I interviewed today had that same fear. When Sauthoff

reviewed the records and spoke with Lindsay, he also did not find any other delusional beliefs surrounding the alleged voice on January 24th. Spragdon asked whether it was typical for someone experiencing psychosis to hear a command and immediately act on it. Sotov said no, well, Reddington objected and asked for a hearing to test Sothoff's qualifications on that topic before he continued giving his opinion. But the judge allowed the testimony to proceed. So then the questioning moved to the detail surrounding the phone call between Patrick and Lindsay. Lindsay had told Sothoff that when Patrick called her at 5.33 p.m. and she called it back at 5.34, she was preparing dinner for the children. She specifically remembered being at the refrigerator

or with the door open and getting chicken nuggets for them. But Patrick gave Sauthoff a different account. Patrick said that when he left the house, the children were already eating chicken nuggets on the couch. He specifically remembered Dawson eating chicken nuggets and green beans from a bowl. Crime scene photographs also showed a bowl on the couch. To Sauthoff, those accounts did not line up. He considered that significant because when a forensic psychiatrist is trying to determine

someone's mental state at the time of an offense, The details surrounding what actually happened matter. And here, Lindsay's account and Patrick's account are substantially different, which raises questions about the accuracy of Lindsay's recollection. The same concern applied to the different versions Lindsay had given about the voice itself. And in terms of what you testified about earlier about the defendant giving you one version of what the voice told, her and giving Dr. Spinelli a different version of what the voice told her. Is there any significance in your evaluation to that?

Yes. And what is that? Well, again, it's markedly inconsistent. Ms. Clancy was very clear with me about the time that the voice started and that it was constant for a period of time. time until the children were killed, and then it stopped. And according to Dr. Spinelli's report, Ms. Clancy stated that the voice started much, much earlier, actually, when Patrick Clancy left. And so we're talking about a significant difference in

time. And those two just, they don't matter. match. So it's hard to, which version is the one that I should consider. Well, Sprague then moved into what Sauthoff described as a difference between how Lindsay sometimes appeared outwardly and what she later said she was experiencing internally. He found examples going all the way back to nursing school when Lindsay was treated for significant anxiety and prescribed psychiatric medication. But Patrick told Sothoff he didn't even know about it at the time. Sothoff said he saw similar differences. In late 2022 and January 2023, Lindsay sometimes texted that she was doing well. And her social media presented a different picture from the level of distress she later described, which let's be honest. Like social media isn't necessarily true and what we're always going through. Anyway, he focused on LaMecraised. a medication used to treat bipolar disorder. Lindsay said multiple providers recommended it and she

failed the prescription, but ultimately chose not to take it because she feared a serious rash. What stood out to Sot-Hoff was that he found no evidence she told the prescribing provider that she had decided not to take it, information that could have allowed the doctor to consider another option. He also saw differences between how Lindsay later described feeling like a zombie and McLean and what was documented in her records at the time. Thothoff said those differences mattered because doctors can only make treatment decisions based on the symptoms a patient communicates to them. He finally pointed to Lindsay's appointment with Dr. Tufts on January 23rd,

just one day before the killings, when Lindsay denied suicidal or homicidal thoughts. And did you also take note of the appointment Dr. Tuffs had with the defendant on January 23, 23, in the records, and the fact that the defendant denied experiencing suicidal or homicidal ideation in that meeting. Yes. And how was that significant if it was? Well, Ms. Clancy had been looking into alternative treatments

and had discussed with Dr. Tufts earlier the potential for eschatamine. This is an FDA-approved medication that has to be administered by a doctor within a facility, but it can have rapid positive effects in treating depression. And so in that note, Dr. Toffs wrote that the potential for eschatamine treatment, or transcranial magnetic stimulation were ones that they were exploring. Dr. Did you discuss with Ms. Clancy or did she describe to you in any detail her ability to suppress her feelings and kind of mold her behavior into what she wanted people to see? Yes.

And what does she tell you about that? Well, I believe it was a Christmas time with her family, a morning breakfast in which she stated she was not feeling well, not doing well, but yet felt the need to act like she was cooking and helping her husband cook. And she questioned why she would do that or engage in that behavior when her family knew that she was struggling and having difficulties. So she used the word fake with regard to just how she was attempting to present to her family. So this was on reflection in talking to me about that behavior at that time. And did she also tell you about an incident at Spalding Hospital when she was interacting with a friend of her? hers who was visiting there after she went to Spalding Hospital for rehabilitation. Yes.

And what did she tell you about that? She told me that this friend who visited was a long-time friend from when they were both really quite young. And that when this friend visited, Ms. Clancy engaged in trying to remember how she characterized it gossip really talking about kind of the old times and catching up basically on on news that this friend i believe her name was amy amy bevins they had similar or shared experiences And so Ms. Clancy told me she was upset at Spalding Hospital because this superficial conversation that she had without discussion of the incident of 24 January, 2023, that that gave an impression, maybe a false impression of Ms. Clancy. and that it hurt the friendship as a result. And she felt that Spalding Hospital had they provided better psychiatric care,

better mental health care, she would not have been so superficial in talking with her friend. Does she also express anger to you that the staff at Spalding had prioritized her spinal cord injury needs? over her mental health needs? I'm sorry, can you repeat that? Did Ms. Clancy tell you or express anger to you that the staff at Spalding Hospital had prioritized her spinal cord injury needs over her mental health needs?

Yes. Then questioning turned to January 24th, that horrific day, particularly Lindsay's decision to send Patrick out on errands. Sondhoff had asked Lindsay to explain how the plans for that afternoon came together. and Sautha then asked Lindsay about how she actually took the medication. And he said that she couldn't provide many details, including how many pills she'd even taken.

He found that significant because she remembered other parts of that night much more clearly. Patrick told Sothoff, Patrick later told him at least, that Lindsay had crushed the medication into the powder. That's what we had heard too. And he found a wine tumbler beside the bed with some powder still. inside. Lindsay said she mixed the medication with lemonade, although Patrick said a lemonade wasn't something they typically kept in the house. Thothoff said the lemonade could make sense because crushed pills would be extremely bitter. What stood out to him was the process involved in preparing it. And I want you to hear this part because I saw a lot of discussion about this

online. Crushing pills is really a challenge if you don't have the right equipment. If you don't have like a mortar and a pestle that they might have in a pharmacy. And so what I wondered about was that process of crushing the pills to the point that they were powder in order then to put them in lemonade and then drink them. And so that is, I mean, to crush pills, significant number of pills into fine powder is not an easy thing to do, particularly if you don't have the right equipment. It's just kind of a laborious process.

And she also did not, it was Patrick Clancy who told me, about the door being locked. And she told me she'd not recall locking the door. I don't know. I mean, I don't know. I saw many people say they disagree with this. That most pills aren't hard to crush it all. And you definitely don't need a mortar and a pestle to do it.

People with pets crush up pills to put their, you know, right, to put the medication in the food every day. But apparently for Sauthaf, that was part of what he meant when he described. Lindsay's attempt at self-harm and requiring decision-making, basically having to take all of these methodical steps. He also learned from Patrick that the bedroom door had been locked. Lindsay told Sot-Hoff that she did not remember locking it. We've heard that too. She does not remember locking the door. The questioning then returned to how Lindsay had strangled the children. In terms of Ms. Clancy's ability to execute the strangulation of her children, is there anything

about how she did it, what she did that stood out to you and your evaluation? Yes. And what is that? Ms. Clancy told me that she, after the phone call with her husband, she returned the call, that that was when she took Dawson down the steps into her husband's office to strangle him. And I asked Ms. Clancy about what she remembered about how she said to Dawson to get him to go down the steps and leave his sister and brother upstairs. And was there resistance, verbalization, you know,

said her crying? And she said she could not recall that. She could only recall bringing him down the steps and then strangling him. And then she repeated that the next child was Cora, that she went back upstairs and did not recall. how she got Cora down the steps, how Cora came down the steps, but then brought her into a different area, kind of a living room area in the basement and strangled Cora. And then lastly, that she went up to get Callin.

And I asked her, I said, where was Callin upstairs? And she said, well, maybe in a playpen, you know, often, you know, she said she couldn't really remember, but then bringing Callan down and he was the last child to be strangled all during this time where this voice is over and over again saying this is your last chance. You have to kill the children before you kill yourself. Dr. Is there any significance to the fact that this voice is telling her to kill the children, but not telling her how to kill the children? Yes.

And what is that? You know, just like adults, children have a will to survive, strong, strong will to survive. I think it's just part of being human. And so I know that Dr. Resnick described Ms. Clancy as acting as if she were a puppet, but the children are not puppets. And just in looking at the Cape Codder video where Ms. Clancy is holding Callan and Dawson and Cora are there, I mean, they both are active. They can walk, they can run. and and so to make the determination about

I'm going to see counsel the sidebar well essentially I'll just say this the judge ended the after the sidebar the judge ended the day finally because and then according to the judge Sullivan he was like pretty much you know what But with the rate we're going because Reddington still has to cross-examine this witness, we're probably going to see closing arguments Thursday.

That would be tomorrow. And he called it a day. And we're going to get into that cross-exam right now because it is, we're finally on Wednesday. And Wednesday resumed with Dr. Gregory Sauthoff's direct examination and the voice Lindsay said she heard. because Lindsay says that this voice told her one thing, kill the kids so you can kill yourself. Thothoff said it didn't tell her where or how or what order or even how to kill herself.

He thinks that's significant. Lindsay had limited time while Patrick was gone right. Patrick was only gone for 50 minutes, less than an hour, 54, I think. Yet she made those decisions, acted quickly, handled an unexpected call from Patrick. during the killings. So to Sothoff, that shows she maintained control over the sequence of her actions.

So then Sprague turned to the interpersonal psychological theory of suicide. Sotov said it has three components, feeling isolated or misunderstood, feeling like a burden and having the capability to take your own life. That last component, especially interesting, he said, because even someone who is extremely suicidal must overcome the natural instinct to survive. Salthal then compared those components with what Lindsay told him and what he found in her medical records. Sprague returned then to the intrusive thoughts.

Lindsay reported during the fall and into January. Lindsay said Adavon sometimes made those thoughts go away. Sotha found that important because Ativan treats anxiety, right? It isn't an antipsychotic. In his opinion, the fact that Atavans, resolve the thought supported the idea that they were internal thoughts rather than external hallucinated voice. Sprague asked whether someone experiencing command hallucinations could still know right from wrong. He said yes. A person hearing a command isn't automatically compelled to follow

it. They can make decisions based on their values, surroundings, and potential consequences. Sprague asked Sothoff for his ultimate opinion about Lindsay's mental state on January 24th, 2023. Yes. And what was that opinion? I believe that Ms. Clancy was suffering from a mental disease or defect. And I felt that based upon the presentation, a bipolar two diagnosis seemed to make the most sense given the symptoms of insomnia that she had.

that were precipitated by the Zoloft. And this was just very, very significant. And while it didn't fulfill all the criteria or many of the criteria, if she were a patient of mine, I would diagnose her as bipolar two, is I would want to make sure that any doctor who saw her afterwards would be very wary of using an SSRI. antidepressant in treating her.

And doctor, you mentioned the drug effects, so a lot of hand effect and SSRIs might have an effect. Is there a difference when you're treating someone and they're taking medications between being overmedicated and having an adverse reaction to medication? Yes. And what is the difference? Well, when we think about side effects,

that is an example of a medication having, a response. Now, sometimes we have side effects when we're not necessarily over-medicated, but we put up with those side effects. When there is too much medication, certainly we can experience those side effects, for example, over-sedation, or there are some medications that can cause stimulation, so people are not able to sleep. So then this brings questioning back to medication and the difference between side effects, adverse reactions, being over-medicated, Sautoff agreed that Lindsay experienced side effects from some medications, most concerning with severe insomnia after starting Zoloft, going 48 hours without sleep.

He considered that an adverse reaction serious enough that the medication needed to be stopped, and it ultimately was. She had problems with Klanazepam and Syracuse. Well, Besot-Hoff said experiencing side effects didn't necessarily mean Lindsay was over-medicated. In his opinion, her providers were responding to the symptoms she reported, and he didn't see evidence that she was being given toxic or excessive doses. He noted that Syracille was increased fairly quickly, eventually to 400 milligrams, but Lindsay never actually took that full dose. After McLean, she was taken off Syracquil and discharged on Trasidon and Valium.

Dr. Tuff later added a low dose of ammatryptylene. And from there, then we got to one of the biggest questions Sothoth had been asked to evaluate. Did Lindsay understand the difference between right and wrong on January 24, 2023? Yes. And what was that opinion? My opinion is that she did have the capacity to appreciate right from wrong. And what do you base that on? Well, on a number of things.

Ms. Clancy had just met with her psychiatrist, Dr. Tufts, the day before. And in that discussion with Dr. Tufts, as documented, she denied suicidal ideation, and she also denied thoughts of harm to others. And also, there was an ongoing conversation. regarding future possible treatments, eschatamine or TMS, which I spoke about yesterday, that could be employed to help her. Also, with regard to the appreciation between right and wrong, the planning involved prior to the strangling over children, I thought was significant. for distance of 3V, the searches of CVS, all done prior to her sending fairly late in the afternoon

a text asking her husband if he didn't mind take out from 3B and then adding on. So that planning, that preparatory planning, I thought was significant. The avoidance of witnesses. A witness during a time when one is committing a crime can intervene, not just report, but also intervene. And so the fact that this was done without any witness present during a time where she had asked the potential witness to go on a longer errand,

Also, I thought, was significant concealment is another thing that we, that I think indicated an understanding of right and wrong. I mean, the children were strangled all in the basement. And according to Mr. Clancy, the door to his office had been closed when he arrived to the basement. timing timing was really really significant in this there was a window of time that miss clancy was aware of uh in which she would need to kill her three children as well as to kill herself which she expected uh would happen then the next second legal question was asked could lindsay conform her behavior to the law. Zodhoff said, yes, he pointed to Lindsay's behavior throughout January 24th.

She took Corr to a pediatrician, played with the children, built a snowman, sent family photos, and prepared their meals all without anyone noticing anything unusual. Thelthoff described her behavior as organized and controlled that day, including during the killings. He again pointed to Patrick's unexpected phone call. Lindsay didn't ask for help or tell him she was in distress and said she called him back and reassured him, allowing him to continue his errands rather than potentially coming home. To Sauthoff, that showed Lindsay could control her behavior and conceal what was happening. So when Sprague asked for his ultimate opinion, Sauthoff said Lindsay was criminally responsible

when she killed the children. But then came cross-examination. Redington was up. And first, he emphasized that Sot-Hoff did not become involved in the case. until early 2026 this year and interviewed Lindsay months later over Zoom, or television, as Reddington calls it. Sutthoff acknowledged that evaluating someone closer to the crime can be helpful, but said medical records and observations are actually more important.

Redington established that Sothoff is salaried by UVA rather than paid hourly for his case. He didn't know much, how much. the university was billing the DA's office. Redington then went through Sauthoff's extensive government and forensic work, including corrections, the FBI crisis response, terrorism, violence, and hostage negotiation. And then Redington tried to characterize Sauthoff as a quote, I love it, government man.

He's a government man. The prosecution objected and the judge sustained it, but, you know, he said it. Redington then went through Sauthoff's publications, which covered everything from extremism and terrorism to suicide, violence, hostage negotiations, and national security. And then he returned to Sot-Hop's postpartum psychosis research, emphasizing that it was published more than 40 years ago. And eventually, Redington got to his broader point. What exactly was Sauthoff's primary area of expertise and how much of his work actually involved, postpartum psychosis? Those topics correctly, sir? Correct.

Invited lectures, talk about extremism, extremism, terrorism, the future of policing, children in long-term abductions, how to prevent terrorism, mass shooters, U.S. prisoners, religious rights, religious radicalization, terrorism and the unknown enemy. basically that's what your focus is, sir, correct? No. And that's coupled with your experience of the two people or so that you recall dealing with in your, it's not a practice, but working for the Bureau of Prisons or the state for Virginia,

the people that are in jail, that is the sum total to be respected of Dr. Sadov, correct? I mean, you treated two people, you've written a lot about terrorism and other issues that we went through. That's not at all correct characterization. I'm sorry, because I read your resume, right? Right?

Yes. Okay. And I related what you indicated to the jury, your experience, when I asked you about patients or treating people, I said that right, right? I've been treating patients and I continue to for the last 40 years. Now, in all of your experience, sir, have you ever treated a woman suffering from postpartum psychosis? Yes.

When? In the late 1980s and also during the 1990s, when I ran a unit in a state hospital. So this would be women, 1980s, about 30 years ago or 20 years ago, depending on which one, in a prison that you were? No. Oh, was it?

In a state hospital. State hospital. Were they committed? Were they there because they wanted? wanted to be there? Were they committed by order of the court? Yes. Yes, what? Usually committed? Okay. So other than that, sir, do you have any interest in writing, knowledge about post-partum depression, post-pratom psychosis? Well, it really is a requirement when you assess and treat women to be aware of their histories and

and making determinations. So that has continued really throughout my career, men and women. What did you just say, can you repeat that again? You're treating women with what? Treating women with psychiatric problem, serious illness, psychosis. So when you define for the district attorney the concept of, let's say, psychosis yesterday, were you referring in any degree to a woman who has had a baby and is in a period of postpartum depression, shall we say?

Yes. Okay. And when and how were you treating those people? That was during the period of 15 years when I ran a unit of men and women who came in with serious psychiatric symptoms. So what would you do? Would you analyze them? Would you talk to them, counsel them? What would you do while they're in the hospital?

Well, do a full assessment with a multidisciplinary team and make determinations about proper treatment, proper therapy, medications, and the like to treat the symptoms. And generally, what would the symptoms be, sir, in your experience? Symptoms of postpartum depression? Okay. Well, certainly within that period of time around birth or after birth. Reddington then focused on this, continued with the postpartum depression,

and he agreed that the symptoms can include suicidal thoughts, guilt, difficulty concentrating, major changes in sleep. He agreed that postpartum depression can rapidly develop into postpartum. psychosis. They discussed timing as well. While the DSM uses a four-week postpartum specifier, Sotthoff acknowledged that other organizations recognize much longer periods, sometimes up to a year. Reddington then asked about testing. Thot-Haw said there is no single medical test for postpartum depression, but there is the Idenbra scale, Edenbra scale, a screening tool used to measure depressive symptoms, and Lindsay had taken it multiple times.

Her scores ranged from roughly 19 to 23 out of 30. Sauthoff agreed that anything above 15 was concerning and Lindsay's scores were increasing over time. So when Reddington characterized that as Lindsay getting progressively worse, Sauthoff actually agreed that she was getting worse as time went on. Lindsay had concerns about Lemitl and Reddington clarified that Lindsay wasn't and simply worried about a minor rash from Lickdil, she had researched the medication and knew there could be serious reactions. Lindsay had been prescribed a series of psychiatric medications

without enzyme, metabolite, or thyroid testing. Reddington asked Sauthoff directly whether he considered that overall treatment approach reasonable. The test, there's no thyroid test, but we still have the pill factory through Dr. Toffson and into Dr. Jolada for that period of time. You're telling this jury that that is, in your opinion, reasonable little, little drug doses that she was prescribed. Is that what you're telling this jury, sir? That it was reasonable to prescribe? Yeah, there's drugs, one right after the other, and then stopping the SSRI, not weaning off, stopping it flat out.

Is that reasonable? Objections. Sustained. Just as to form. Is it reasonable, sir, in your opinion, to tell someone who's on an SSRI, such as. expressed concerns that she was not following a plan and that it would be, would have been better for her had she tried to stick with a plan. Is that that one sentence in all of the medical records where it makes reference to the fact that she said something like, I should have stuck with the plan? Is that what you're referring to?

Yes. Okay. My question, sir, sir, was, Dr. Tufts. Dr. Paul, Dr. Gelada. Nurse practitioner, Paul, and July. I apologize. Again, that's right, my bad. Nurse practitioner, Jolada, up to that point, bringing us into November,

these people, and other emergency room visits that she had, she was not going out looking to score drugs off of drug prescriptions. Is that fair? Correct. And she, in fact, looked up Tufts, but she didn't even know, who Tufts was. She went online and Googled postpartum depression and found an expert. Isn't that right? That's my understanding. But she was only practicing for like a

month or two. Was she, in your opinion, to a reasonable degree, a psychiatric certainty? An expert? Objection. Overall. It depends on the amount of training that she received, not just as a physician and a resident, but also in the area of women's health. Reddington actually went through Lindsay's efforts to get help. Dr. Tufts, Nurse Jalata,

counselor Letitia Dukes, emergency department and Mass General. By then, Lindsay was reporting severe insomnia, feeling numb, hollow, and unlike herself. Mass General recommended inpatient treatment at McLean. Lindsay initially chose to go home. Then in December, she was referred to women in Ibn's Hospital in Rhode Island, for postpartum treatment, spent about eight hours being evaluated.

Redington kind of explained this as Lindsay essentially being turned away. Sauthoff disagreed. He said the hospital believed another program was more appropriate because Lindsay was much further from postpartum than most of the women in that program. Redington then pushed back on the idea that Lindsay had not followed treatment recommendations. After women and infant, she contacted Dr. Tufts almost immediately. and plan to see her the next day. He also pointed out that Lindsay called the Aspire hotline, the suicide hotline more than once discussing suicide.

So I'll have confirmed that the hotline directed her back to her health care provider rather than recommending hospitalization. And then they discussed Lindsay's treatment, Reddington bring out back to Lindsay's treatment at women and infants hospital in Rhode Island. Reddington said that one of the concerns documented by the doctors there involved the medications Lindsay had been prescribed by Dr. Tuffs and Nurse Dallata. Dr. Sothoff agreed, yeah, that was a problem. It wasn't just a matter of the doctors deciding Lindsay wasn't experiencing postpartum depression.

There were also concerns about the complicated combination of psychiatric symptoms and medication she had been taking. Those medications included SSRIs like Prozac and Zoloft. Redington then explained the physical and hormonal changes that occur. During pregnancy and after childbirth, Dr. Sautthawth was asked about GABA or gamma amino butyteric acid and its role in the brain, which is a neurotransmitter in the body. Yeah, you know, Dr. Reddington here bringing the questions. After the recess, Reddington returned to the hormonal changes,

can happen postpartum and how they affect the brain. And Sauthoff explained that neurotransmitators like dopamine, serotonin, that one's a big one for me, norepinephrine, all play a role in mood and psychosis and psychiatric medications can affect those systems. Redington asked about those significant hormonal changes, how they could contribute to brain dysfunction, intrusive thoughts, impulsive behavior. Sauthoff, of course, agreed, it was all possible. And then there was a sharp turn back to what happened after Patrick found Lindsay outside.

Did I hear you say that Patrick is the source, the third party collateral source of Lindsay saying, I tried to kill myself. Is that what you said? Let me rephrase it by you. I mean, did you tell the jury about an hour ago, that. When her husband found her on the ground? Yes, sir, something to that effect. Something to that effect, okay.

And did you listen to the 911 tape when Patrick was actually speaking with Lindsay as she's laying prostate and snow on the ground, broken back and slashes and slits? Yes, I did. Did you hear her response to Patrick's comment? What did you do? No. Did you hear her respond? to anything other than what would be described as guttural grunts. Not on that call.

So when this conversation occurred, and this is the conversation that you're talking about, where she said, I tried to kill myself, kids are in the basement, he then goes into the house, right? Correct. So now we have the EMTs and people are helping her out. We've seen the medical records. You know what the injuries were. You know the damage to a throat.

You know the damage to a thyroid, right? Yes. And is it you had testimony to a reasonable degree of doctor or certainty that a person with those injuries, with the prescription drugs that were crushed up that she consumed with a broken neck, would be able to have a conversation? Based on the witness testimony from her husband, yes. Okay. So let's put the witness testimony from Patrick aside for a minute.

And you listened to the 911 call. Are you telling this jury that she had a conversation that you could discern what she was saying? Not on the 911 call. No. Would you agree that they were all grunts? Yes, from what I heard. So Patrick goes in the house, relates to the fact that he found the children. And you told the jury that his office door was closed, is what he said?

Is that right? Yes. Where did you get that from? I believe Patrick told me that. Is that in your report? Yes. And when he told you that, when was that conversation that you had with Patrick? When I interviewed Patrick Clancy.

Okay. So you read the grand jury minutes, right? Yes. You read the police report, right? Yes. You know that Patrick went up the stairs, and when he went up the stairs, the door was locked, right? Meaning the bedroom door, not the office door. Correct.

And then he was able to open the door, right? Yes. And there was blood on the doorknob, right? There was blood in the room on the floor. Certainly. We'll talk about that, but there's blood on the doorknard, right? Was there blood on the doorknob, if you know? I don't recall.

Do you recall there being blood drops in the area of the door itself, like, you know, where you have the threshold? But what appeared to be blood, because nobody tested it. We don't know what it is, but it appeared to be blood. I don't recall the specific. I know that there was blood that was observed. Okay. And you would agree that there was a lot of blood drops, drips on the mirror, drops on the floor,

drops on the nightstand, right? That's my recollection. And you looked at the photographs in your investigation and looked at the testimony, third-party collaterals, as you testified yesterday, right? Yes. And you told the jurors that one of the things that was of interest to you is the fact that there was a glass or a wine mug or something that had crushed narcotics or I think I used the word antipsychotic drugs crushed up inside that cup.

Do you remember that? Yes, wine tumbler. Thank you. How do you know they were antipsychotic drugs? I don't recall saying that they were antipsychotic drugs. Oh, did you say they were drugs? I thought I said medications. Medications.

So drugs, medications, and they were crushed up? there was evidence of powder on the on the tumbler that Patrick told me about and I went back and look more closely at the the photographs and saw that did you look more closely at the nms laboratory or the state police crime laboratory or any testing that was done on the powder yes and was there a report that said that indeed it was crushed up medication They wouldn't. They didn't indicate whether or not they were pills or... I'm not going to ask about pills or powder.

Did they ever test the residue? Not that I'm aware of. So how do we know that that's even drugs or medications or whatever word you want to use? It was Patrick Clancy's observation. So basically when you're testifying, sir, and you're waxing on about all of the facts of the case that you took into consideration prior to your opinion for the DA in this case, you're getting a lot of it from Patrick, is that right? That aspect he brought up to me, yes.

Okay. So the crushing of the pills, was there a pill crusher found in the bedroom? Not that I'm aware of. Was there any residue found anywhere in the bedroom? Not that I'm aware of. So if someone's in a psychotic state and they're going to kill themselves and they're taking the pills. Yesterday you said the fistful of pills and then the DA said after a painful question is that they were crushed. you agreed that they were crushed, wouldn't there be a residue? A residue?

Yeah, you know what a residue is, right? Yes. Was there a residue on the table and the nightstand anywhere? Not that I saw. So there's no pill crusher, right? Not that I saw. There's no investigation by the police to determine what was in that powder, right? Not that I'm aware of.

There's no indication that there's any residue on or in the actual nightstand next to the bed, right? right? Does it seem appropriate, sir, that a person would be in a psychotic state after slashing their wrist and slicing their throat and ready to propel themselves out of window would neatly put the bottles into the draw of the nightstand, but would they just scatter them around the bedroom floor, not caring? I'm not, I'm not aware of the exact sequence of the events in terms of. Well, if I tell you, sir, that a couple of days after this incident, I went into the home, with Patrick, and I was able to locate in the bedroom right next to the bed with all the blood all over the place. This draw, and inside this draw, would be a lot of medication bottles.

Does that refresh your memory on your investigation as to what happens to the bottles? They're all empty. Yes. Okay. So how did they get in the drawer? How did they get in the drawer? I don't know. You can fingerprint them, right? did you know, did anybody do any testing at all in this investigation? If you know, you told the jury yesterday you read all the stuff,

Grand Jury, Minutes, police reports, lots of witnesses. I did not read that. Is it your understanding, sir, that a person can be in a state of psychosis and I guess misremembered something? Reddington was very specific when he asked the next question. Whether psychosis could cause someone to misremember events or develop fault memories. and Sotthoff agreed that it could. It was a great point to make. He pointed to Lindsay's claim that she cut the window screen with a turkey knife before jumping, but the screen wasn't actually cut. Still, Sotthorff said he didn't believe Lindsay was lying or malingering when she told him that. Redington then returned to Sotov's claim that Lindsay sometimes presented herself differently to her family than what she was actually feeling. Well, Sotov pointed out that the day before the killings,

when Lindsay's parents were staying at the house, and she continued sending family photos, including one of herself and the children, with their snowman that day. Reddington asked whether there was anything unusual about a mother sending that photo to her own mother. Sautov said no, but he believed the photo did not reflect the distress that Lindsay had previously described.

And that led Reddington to ask, had saw her ever actually spoken with Lindsay's mother, had he ever? If you talk to the mother? Pardon me? Did you talk to the mother? No, I tried to. Did you review police reports or statements?

You tried to? How'd you do that? Would you do call her up and say I want to talk to you? No. Did the district attorney call him up? I asked Ms. Clancy, who would be good for me to speak with? And she said her husband and her family. Okay.

So based on that, what did you do? I contacted the district attorney. Which one? Which one of these two? Ms. Sprague. Ms. Sprague. Okay. You spoke to Jen Sprague, and what did you say to? Attorney Sprague.

Was it? Attorney Sprague. I spoke to Jen Sprague and what did she tell you? To herty Sprague. She told me that she would reach out and attempt to see if I could interview Mr. Clancy and and Ms. Clancy's family. Okay. So did you do that? Did you reach out to her mother? Did I reach out? Yeah. No.

Did someone tell you that she wouldn't speak to you? Yes. And when was this, sir, about two months ago? It would have been probably June 5th. This is August, right? Pardon me. We're in August right now, right? Yes. You called to speak to the mother in June, right? Yes.

Yes. Come on. Yes. Okay. And when you called the mother, did she say, I did not call the mother. Okay. So the answer is you did not call the mother. Who told you that you couldn't talk to the mother? Ms. Sprague. Attorney Sprague, please. Right. Attorney Spray. Now, when Attorney Sprague called you and said you cannot talk to the mother, did it ever occur to you to reach out to me? You're being objective at all. No. Did you know, sir, that Lindsay had signed repeatedly every and any hippo form that was needed by the DA or, other cops to get access to every single medical record that she had, probably going back to when she was in grammar school. Did you know that? I know she's been open to it, and she told me that I would, she would like for me to speak with them. Right.

And she's been open to pretty much anything and everything that was asked about it as far as of signing documents, getting medical records, doing interviews, videotaping, making appointments, to talk to guys like Mack in Helbrun and you in Tewksbury Hospital, right? I'm sorry, can you repeat the question? All of your investigation, sir, led up to the fact that you were going to meet with Lindsay two months ago, two months prior to our beginning, this five-week triple murder trial. Is that fair? That's true.

And you told this jury that you wanted to establish a rapport with this kid? Yes. Do you think for one minute when you're trying to put her in jail for her life that she wants to talk to you and have a rapport? Sustain, next question. Did you establish her rapport? I believe so. She was cooperative? Yes.

She was polite? Yes. She was pleasant? Yes. And I asked her at the end if there was any question that I had asked that made her feel uncomfortable and she responded in a positive way. Okay. One of the things that you told the jury is that you felt that she was malingering, or basically lying, I guess you were telling the jury in your opinion that she was making stuff up to make herself look like she's crazy when she killed the children? Is that what you told the jury? I didn't use those words. No. You were a little more finesse than I was. But nevertheless, sir, you're talking about malingering, right?

Yes, the statement's about the auditory hallucination. Excuse me. Answers yes. You were talking about malingering is my question. Yes and no, right? That's all. Yes. Okay. And when you're talking about malingering, sir, basically that would be when a person finds it in their interest to basically exaggerate or lie to an investigating psychiatrist, right? Correct. And that would be because it's in their interest like, I want to pretend that I'm crazy, so Jerry thinks I'm crazy and I don't have to pay for a crime. That would be in a criminal sense, right?

Yes. Workman's crime cases, you know, a guy gets hurt in a truck, and then they end up having interviews, guys like you to make sure to see if, in fact, they legitimately hurt for a workman's comp claim, right? Yes. Or a civil case, like an auto accident, right? Yes. And there are tests that can be administered to people to see, from a psychiatrist's standpoint,

whether or not there is objective indicia of the fact that the person is indeed malingering. Yes. And what are those tests? Well, I'm not a neuropsychologist, but there's a test called the SERS, also the Tom's test of memory. So there are certain tests that can be given by a neuropsychologist to assess malingering about certain aspects, certain issues. You've also heard, I imagine, of the MMPI, which is the Minnesota multifacic personality inventory test, right? Yes. And that's one that has different scales that you can examine to determine if somebody is lying or malingering or exaggerating.

or anything like that, right? Correct. And you know that Dr. Helbrun administered that very test for Lindsay about, I don't know, two months before you got there, right? Yes. Which would be about four months from now where we stand now, right? Something like that. And would you agree, sir, that even though it would have been perhaps better

to actually meet with Lindsay within the first six months after the incident or a year even or maybe even two years. But nevertheless, it still has reliability and validity. Does it not? when it's administered to her. The MMPI does, yes. Okay. And you know, sir, that she, in fact, had no impact on the scales at all,

with the exception of likelihood of suicide. Yes, that's my understanding. So Reddington then returned to Dr. Resnick, a recognized expert in Philocide and Malingering, who had also evaluated Lindsay. Resnick specifically considered whether Lindsay was lying, exaggerating or being deceptive and concluded she was not. Reddington challenged another inconsistency that Zotov had identified

because of Lindsay's account of preparing food for the children. He pointed to photographic evidence that appear to support at least part of Lindsay's description that she was making food. From there, Reddington returned to auditory hallucinations and clarified an important point, a genuine hallucinated voice can be experienced either inside or outside someone's head. Thotov agreed. And Lindsay had described hearing a loud, deep male voice coming from outside herself,

commanding her to kill her children. Sotov acknowledged that an externally experienced voice could absolutely be a genuine auditory hallucination. Reddington put the state's theory of what happened to Lindsay directly to Sauthoff and asked if he agreed. Would you agree, sir, based on your investigation, police reports, statements of witnesses, grand jury, photographs, videos, interviews, interviews of Lindsay, review of witness statements, all of that you told us yesterday that you reviewed, that in fact, on January 24th of 2023, Lindsay made a calculation. decision. She was a woman who no longer liked the life she thought she wanted. It was getting harder and harder for her to control. And when she saw the opportunity to escape, she made the selfish choice to take it and to take Cora, Dawson, and Callan first before attempting to take her own life. Continuing on, sir, she chose to manipulate her providers, seek out a quick and easy

fix when she was feeling depressed and anxious and when she didn't get what she expected, she chose the alternate route, she would seek a different doctor, she would change medications after days, she disengaged from treatment that she didn't like the plan, and after only four months in treatment, she made a choice, a deliberate and intentional decision that she did not want to try anymore, and because no one could take care of her kids the way she wanted them to she had to take them with her too would you agree that the evidence in your opinion supports that contention sir well there's a lot in that yeah it is do you agree that it would support your contention sir or would not i think that statement that you read really minimizes what she was going through

okay all right thank you fascinating right what a great lawyer in my in that moment he used the prosecution's words against them. And right there, he said, it minimizes what she was going through. Well, Sprague and not Jen Sprague, not Ms. Sprague, but Attorney Sprague, Attorney Sprague got back up for redirect. She first clarified Sauthoff's clinical experience. And despite Reddington's focus on his government work, Sotov said his primary role has always been treating patients with serious mental illness, hundreds of women experiencing psychosis. Sprague returned to his first-hand experience with postpartum psychosis.

And then Sauthaf described two women who developed psychosis shortly after childbirth. One heard voices telling her to kill her baby and became suicidal, but rather than act on that, both women's psychotic symptoms ultimately resolved after the medication was stopped. Selt Huff also pushed back on the suggestion that terrorism, was his primary area of expertise. He said he considers himself first and foremost a practicing clinician. Sprague returned to the timing of postpartum illness. Sotha said the World Health Organization Guidance generally describes these disorders

as beginning during pregnancy and within about six weeks after delivery. She clarified the testing issue. Sauthaus saw nothing in Lindsay's records indicating additional blood testing was necessary. and her thyroid, the thyroid had been tested in November, and her thyroid was normal. So on Lemitol, Sauthoff said, the serious rash that Lindsay feared was very rare. More importantly, if a patient decides not to take a prescribed medication, the doctor needs to know so other treatment options can be considered. And then Sprague returned to Lindsay's severe sleep problems. Sotov agreed, sleep, deprivation,

can contribute to psychosis, but said Lindsay's sleep progressively improved while she was at Mickley. Sprague returned to something Sothoff had said on cross-exam. When Redington described Lindsay as, by all accounts, a happy wife, mother, and daughter, Sot-Hoff had said no. Sprague asked him to explain why. And Sprague then asked him to briefly explain why he believed Dr. Tuff's treatment approach had been reasonable. So looking at the medical notes and communications between Lindsay and Dr. Tufts, Dr. Sothoff said he found Dr. Tufts to be very responsive to Lindsay's symptoms and concerns.

She repeatedly adjusted the treatment based on how Lindsay was doing. Sprague then returned to Lindsay's visit at women in infants hospital. Reddington had suggested during cross-examination that whenever a doctor told Lindsay to do something, she immediately followed through. Sprague pointed out that women and infants offered Lindsay three different treatment options in patient hospitalization, partial program, outpatient program. According to the records, Lindsay said she would speak with her existing provider for guidance. Sprague asked about the records from Nurse Jolada. Dr. Sothoff recalled that there was no indication Lindsay ever discussed those three options with Jalada or another provider afterward. Sprague then returned to the Aspire Suicide Hotline calls.

Redington challenged. He had challenged Dr. Sothoff on where he'd gotten that information about those calls. Sprague brought up a December 8th, 2022 note from Letitia Dukes and asked Dr. Sotth to review it. He confirmed that this was the record he had been referring to. The note documented that Lindsay had contacted the Crisis Support Center, spoke with an aspire clinician virtually. she told them what she was experiencing and it was ideation, but because she didn't have a plan, and since she didn't have that plan,

a clinician determined that she did not meet the criteria for inpatient. But Sprague said that the clinician didn't just dismiss her. She said that Aspire recommended the Lindsay attended day program and provided resources. The clinician also recommended either an IOP or PhP to help her build coping skills and a support community. Sprague then returned to Patrick's account of finding Lindsay outside. Now, you were asked about the statements Patrick made regarding his interaction with the defendant

when he found her outside in the snow. And is it correct that he told you, he found her and said, what did you do? And she said, I tried to kill myself. Yes. And did she then say, did he say, say, where are the kids? And she said they are in the basement. Yes. Did he then tell you that he then called 911? I don't recall exactly when he told me that he called 911.

What I recall is his statement about what she said to him. And that was her statements to him when he immediately found her on the ground? Correct. And you're aware that at some point he made a 911 call, correct? Yes. And during that 911 call that you listened to, you didn't hear the defendant saying any words at that point, correct? I did not. And as a physician, are you aware that someone who's been injured can deteriorate over time?

Yes, particularly after an overdose. And can they be speaking in one moment and then unable to speak moments later? Yes. Now, you were also asked about the crushed up pills and whether there was any residue on the nightstand or anywhere in the house that the police saw, correct? Yes. And there was no residue in the photos, correct? Not that I saw. But you don't know when she crushed up the pills, do you?

I don't. If she had crushed them up earlier in their day, there wouldn't necessarily be residue, correct? Correct. If she had crushed them up days before and put the empty bottles in a drawer, there wouldn't necessarily be residue, correct? It's sustained. Yes.

There were many texts between the defendant and her mother in January, correct? Yes. And from January 7th until January 22nd, when Ms. Clancy's mother and father visited her at her home, the text messages clearly indicated that they were in two separate locations, correct? Yes. And in those text messages, the defendant repeatedly told her mother that she was doing a little bit better, a little bit better, sleeping's a little bit better, correct?

Yes. You were asked about Dr. Resnick and how many articles and how many books he's written and how he's well known in this area, correct? Yes. And are you familiar with Dr. Resnick's teachings about malingering and about psychosis? Yes. And is it fair to say that Dr. Resnick teaches others that one of the red flags to look for in the lingering? No.

I tell him what he's read. I tell him what she wants him to say. No, hold on. Let me hear the question, of course. Are you aware that one of the red flags that Dr. Resnick teaches to look for in malingering and faking hearing voices is that someone automatically obey? is the command. Yes. It's stricken at this time.

Can I see Cald? The issue of collateral interviews then came up because remember, collateral interviews are the interviewing of her family members or people that know her. And Dr. Sothoff had asked the prosecution to help arrange interviews with Lindsay's parents and her sister. And he was aware that a phone message had been left for Paula Musgrove asking whether she and her husband would be willing to meet with him on June. 11th, 2026, but they did not return the call. An email had also been sent to Lindsay's sister,

Allison, asking whether she would meet with Dr. Sotha. Her response indicated that she was waiting to hear from Kevin, aka Reddington, about whether she should participate in Dr. Sothoff's assessment and would respond after speaking with him. But she never followed up. So after that, Sprague had no further questions. Reddington briefly took over again to clarify one more thing. You could say maybe get a little closer to the microphone. I had problems. I'm sorry. During the time that

Ozga, her sister said she's waiting to hear from Kevin and I'm the Kevin that I was on trial on a month long federal case. Out of my office. You didn't know that, did it? I did not know that. Did you ever think to call me directly or my secretary, my office manager, to ask about me

reaching out to these people? No. That's all I have, Jeff. Anything else? No. Thank you, Doctor. Thank you. So after that, the Commonwealth, guys, believe it or not, believe it or not, the Commonwealth rested its case.

And the judge addressed the jury and explained what would happen next. Yeah, tomorrow is a big day. Tomorrow they will hear closing arguments. Get their jury instructions and then begin deliberating. So after the jury left the court and it moved into a conference. So Redington first, a charge conference, Reddington first renewed the defense's motion for a required finding of not guilty. The Commonwealth objected and the judge denied it.

From there, they went through the judge's proposed instructions, starting with criminal responsibility. The Commonwealth didn't have major objections, the basic criminal responsibility instruction, but they did object to the portions dealing with intoxication from prescription medications. Buckingham argued that there wasn't any evidence

that Lindsay had been so impaired by her medications on January 24th that she wasn't able to form criminal intent. She pointed out why she felt that way, and Reddington ultimately, though, agreed with the Commonwealth on one point. One point. He said he also didn't believe the jury needed an instruction on voluntary intoxication, since this wasn't a case involving someone intentionally taking illicit drugs. So both sides agreed

those portions should be left out. And the judge said he was strongly inclined to do that. They went through additional points to make that they need in the jury instructions and sort of explaining this is what we want, this is what we don't want, and the defense or the prosecution agreeing or disagreeing, and the judge essentially deciding ultimately what will be in jury selection, or not selection, instructions, jury instructions, and what won't be in jury instructions. So Redington asked the judge to make clear that when the jury considered whether Lindsay understood the wrongfulness of her conduct, that could. include whether she understood it was morally wrong, not simply whether it was illegal.

And he objected to some language about the abnormality characterized only by repeated criminal conduct, arguing that it didn't really fit the evidence in this case. So he asked the judge to remove language saying all that you need to determine because he felt that minimized the seriousness of the issue for the judge. jury. The more significant dispute came when they reached, here you go, manslaughter. Manslaughter is back on the table. So the Commonwealth objected to giving the jury an involuntary manslaughter instruction. Buckingham relied on the Massachusetts case involving an intentional battery and argued that conduct like strangling someone, which is obviously capable of causing

death, should not be reduced to involuntary manslaughter simply by calling it want to. or reckless. But Reddington disagreed. He argued that if the jury believed Lindsay intentionally committed the acts that caused the deaths, but didn't find the mental state necessary for murder, and also didn't find that she was legally, not criminally responsible, then manslaughter needed to be available as a middle ground. He argued for voluntary manslaughter based on diminished capacity. His position was that even if the jury rejected the defendant, the defendant's his claim of postpartum psychosis and decided Lindsay was criminally responsible, they could still find that her postpartum depression and her impairment affected her ability to form the level

of intent required to murder. Reddington specifically said he didn't believe the evidence established postpartum psychosis, but he argued there was still evidence that Lindsay was suffering from postpartum depression, taking multiple psychiatric medications. In his view, that evidence could affect the jury's assessment of malice premeditation and whether she was capable of understanding the wrongful, the full wrongfulness or cruelty of what she was doing. He then raised another issue involving prescription medication, this time asking the judge to consider an instruction on involuntary intoxication.

So now he's kind of flipping. His argument knows that Lindsay wasn't abusing illegal drugs or intentionally getting intoxication. She was taking medications that had been prescribed to her, and the defense had presented evidence about the potentially serious psychiatric efforts and warnings associated with some of those medications. The Commonwealth opposed that as well arguing that there wasn't a separate instruction that fit the circumstances and that the defense was free to argue the medication evidence when discussing intent and criminal responsibility.

The judge actually pointed out that some of what Redington was, wanted could be already covered by manslaughter instruction. The proposed language allowed the jury to consider evidence of mental impairment or the consumption of prescription drugs. Redington agreed that if the judge fashioned the instruction, that way, it could cover both the voluntary and involuntary manslaughter theories without labeling it as either one. So then, Redington made one of the defense's other major requests. He asked for an instruction concerning the point.

police investigation. The defense wanted the jury instructed that they could consider deficiencies in the police investigation when deciding whether the Commonwealth had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Redington pointed out and argued that this wasn't just a case of a few things being missed. He described the investigation as essentially no investigation at all. He said police had accepted almost immediately the Lindsay had strangled the children and moved on without adequately investigating other physical evidence. He pointed to questions surrounding the window screen, blood evidence, the door and sliding and siding, the medication bottles, whether there was evidence that medication had been crushed.

He argued there were numerous unanswered questions because investigators had not thoroughly tested everything. They had it preserved pieces of evidence. Well, the Commonwealth, of course, strongly disagreed. Buckingham said the defense could certainly argue any alleged problem. with the investigation during closing arguments, but she didn't believe the evidence supported giving jury a special instruction about this.

She pointed out that there were photographs of the screen taken off the day of the incident, testimony about the window and the blood outside the house, and testimony explaining why certain evidence wasn't collected immediately. She noted that investigators later returned to collect evidence and that testing established that the blood outside belonged to Lindsay.

As for the medication bottles and drawer buckingham acknowledged there were questions about those items, but said the jury had heard testimony explaining why they weren't flagged or tested in the way the defense wanted. So here we go. After hearing both sides, the judge made his decisions. He said he would give a manslaughter instruction based largely on the language already contained in his proposed instructions. But he would not give the instruction for the intoxication, or he would not give the instruction for the bad police investigation,

as well as the involuntary intoxication instructions relating to criminal responsibility. So the voluntary intoxication instructions were going to be left out with both sides agreeing that the evidence didn't support them. The defense would still be allowed to argue all of its points about the police investigation, and Reddington could argue,

Reddington could argue that those alleged deficiencies created reasonable doubt. He just wouldn't have a special instruction from the judge, right? Telling the jury how to consider those deficiencies. So, heading into closing arguments tomorrow, the jury was going to have several possible paths now in front of them. Finally. I mean, because we were like two extremes this case. They would hear the instructions on first degree murder, including deliberate premeditation

and extreme atrocity or cruelty, as well as second-degree murder. This is huge. They would also have a manslaughter option with the ability to consider the evidence of mental impairment and prescription medications in that context. But they would not be specifically instructed

on voluntary or involuntary intoxication. That's not what that is. They would not receive that special instruction that the defense had requested. Once those decisions were made, the judge told the attorneys he'd have a cleaner, final version of the instructions ready the next morning so they could prepare their closing arguments. It was really a huge moment. There is now a third option, second degree murder. So outside the courtroom this afternoon, Reddington talked to some reporters and discuss what he hopes to convey to the jury tomorrow.

He also had something to say about Patrick Clance. as well, which was very interesting. Take a lesson. Same pretty much. For the best for women's health ever. Thank you. I appreciate it. I asked you this morning, Mr. Reddington, what you hope to convey in the closing

who didn't really have an answer to you. No, I don't. Well, I hope to convey that I truly, you know, care and love, I love her. She's just such a marvelous, sweet, innocent person. She's just amazing and so strong and just trying so hard

to get up from She's just been beat down for three and a half years. And she feels that he's had a fair trial with the judge and the jury's been very attentive. And all we can do is hope for the best. I'm confused about the discussion. Women that support her. Do you want to say she said anything about women raising postpartum, psychosis? She's very concerned, especially as a labor and delivery nurse.

She's very concerned about women's rights. The fact that women are pretty much marginalized. I think it's readily apparent. The DSM is a joke. I couldn't get into the social implications in the trial. understandably, but if the United States would take a lesson from Europe, Belgium, England, France, Peru, a lot of these countries, they take care of their women that have psychosis, keep them with their babies. They don't rip the babies away from them and put the women in jail where we do. Did Lindsay speak when she was outside on the ground? Because it was confusing that the psychiatrist said that Patrick said she did. I wouldn't believe him if he said in the middle of a blizzard that it was snowing up, okay? So I don't care what the psychiatrist.

said you heard that, well, no, you didn't, unfortunately. If you were in the courtroom, you would have heard the tape. She was unable to speak. She just moaned and made grunting noises, that's all. So why would Patrick say that? How do I know? All right. At the charging conference, you were talking about the investigation, the police.

Do you think that's something that you're going to bring up in closings? It's a difficult, if you remember back to when I filed the motion for the bifurcation, I was arguing to the judge, it's difficult because a defendant on the lack of criminal responsibility, defense has to be a defecutive. to basically admit that he or she is guilty before you're able to do that. So you're not able to attack the issue

of whether or not the government can prove that the person did the case, but that still is in play. They still have to prove that she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And then if, in fact, she's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then you get into the issue of lack of criminal responsibility. So that's the dilemma

that we have. And that's why I filed the motion to bifurcate. So the issue is, yeah, it's still open, and it's up to a jury to decide the way. Really interesting that he's he's talking so freely to reporters. So tomorrow's a big day. We'll be watching. We'll be covering. And we will see you tomorrow night. Yes, we do have another YouTube video that was posted earlier today. I hope you guys all watch it, especially for those that are up and watching. Go check out my interview that I posted today, exclusive. I had postpartum psychosis and intrusive thoughts. Postpartum psychosis exclusive interview. Go check it out. I think

it's so interesting as I've been processing this case. So check it out. Thank you everyone for being here. And thank you for the gifts. Thank you for your questions. It's so late. I always stay up to ask questions, but we're worth three hours in. So I'm going to take off early. But thank you, thank you, thank you for your support of our channel. And we have the Sam Bateman victim impact statements coming for all of you as well as an interview with an juror that attended that sentencing. So stay tuned. Hit subscribe, hit notifications, and thank you so much for being our gens. We'll see you.