Hidden True Crime - Inside the Lindsay Clancy Trial: The Battle Before Opening Statements

Episode Date: July 26, 2026

The Lindsay Clancy trial is officially underway, and before a single witness has testified, the courtroom is already erupting with high-stakes clashes over evidence, expert witnesses, the haunting 911 call, autopsy photos, and the defense's postpartum psychosis strategy. In this episode, we break down everything that happened during the first week of trial—from explosive exchanges between prosecutors and defense attorneys to Judge William Sullivan's key rulings that could shape the entire case. Whether you believe this was premeditated murder or the result of severe postpartum psychosis, this trial is poised to answer one of the most difficult questions in modern true crime. Sponsor: OneSkin- Get 15% off OneSkin with the code HIDDEN at https://www.oneskin.co/hidden #oneskinpod 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

One of my favorite things about getting dressed in the summer is finding those few pieces that somehow work for so many occasions. And lately, Quince's 100% organic cotton waffle stitch open cardigan has become one of my favorite layering pieces. It is perfect when I am headed into an over-air-conditioned courtroom or studio, and I have been pairing it with their brown Italian leather sandals, which is they have become another favorite because they are so comfortable while still looking polished. And that is what I love about quince. They make elevated essentials using premium materials like organic cotton, European linen, and Italian leather without the traditional retail markup. One thing I always say about quince is I love how timeless it is. It is simply timeless. Everybody knows I like some trendy things. But ultimately, what I like in quality pieces is this sort of timeless look. And their quality is incredible. Everything feels timeless instead of trendy. They also have beautiful pieces

for your home from bedding and bath to kitchen essentials and furniture. Make your summer wardrobe feel easier and timeless. Go to quince.com slash hidden true crime for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns now available in Canada too. Yes, Canada too. That's Quince, Q-U-I-N-C-C-E dot com slash hidden two crime for free shipping and 365 day returns quince.com slash hidden true crime. It's the Commonwealth presenting the evidence in this case to prove that the defendant killed those children and the manner in which they were killed. Now, if defense would like us to reduce some of these witnesses, that would mean not talking

about one of the children. So if he would like to tell me which of these children don't matter. You know what? I'll tell you. We don't need that. All right. That's the Commonwealth. The prosecution arguing.

that if they have to lessen their witness list, one of the children Lindsay Clancy killed would be forgotten, matter less than the other victims. Yeah, wow. The judge shut that down fast, but the friction on both sides in this trial is just, wow, I have never seen anything like it, and how both sides of prosecution and defense

are already revealing their personalities before a single word of opening statements has even been uttered. So yes, the Lindsay Clancy trial, it officially kicked off this past week. And the tension is already, well, you saw it there. It's impressively intense already. Jury selection started Monday. But honestly, the unexpected story right now is the flurry of motions. And we're going to go over everything.

We'll be following this trial closely. So thanks for being here. and supporting our work because three innocent children, Cora, Dawson, and Callan deserve justice. And what that justice looks like in this case is, well, at this time, it's uncertain, and it varies greatly, depending on who you ask. So we'll be following every piece of evidence, the witnesses, the testimonies. So thank you for supporting us by subscribing and hitting that tiny bell for live alerts because along with you, hidden true crime wants to understand what justice means for these innocent victims. We want to understand the why behind this case in trial and what lies hidden.

What does justice mean for three children killed by their own mother? The woman who brought them into this world took them out of this world. That much is no. It's been said that go to God baby were some of the last words that Lindsay said to her babies as they took their last breath while being strangled with exercise bans. So the question at the heart of this trial is why Lindsay killed her children. The Commonwealth, the prosecution, led by assistant district attorney, Jennifer Sprague is sticking firmly, and I mean firmly, to its narrative of first-degree murder. They're arguing that Lindsay was lucid, rational, and fully aware of what she was doing in the days and hours leading up to her killing her three children. Cora, age five, Dawson, age three, and Callan, eight months old.

Their theory is that she planned the killings by sending her husband, Patrick Clancy out of the house for takeout and medicine, thus first-degree premeditated murder. It seems as if they are prepping to argue that Lindsay is no different than infamous child killer Susan Smith, who was convicted of killing her young children. The defense, Lindsay's defense, on the other hand, could not be more different. They are preparing to argue a complete lack of criminal responsibility when it comes to Lindsay Clancy. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington says that Lindsay was being overmedicated for postpartum depression and spiraled into postpartum psychosis. A well-known case of postpartum

psychosis is Andrea Yates. Andrea Yates was thou not guilty of killing her five children because of postpartum psychosis. And it seems as if the defense is preparing to argue that this is pretty much Andrea Yates 2.0. This trial is expected to run six to eight weeks. And the witness list is massive, massive, more than 200 names. So it's no wonder to me that the defense is arguing that the prosecution ought to maybe lessen their witness list. But Judge William Sullivan actually ordered both sides to consolidate the list. So prospective jurors could be screened for any prior connections to this witness list, right? Judge Sullivan also denied Lindsay's attorney, Kevin Reddington's request to sequester the jury, like the Richard Allen trial in Delphi, Indiana, where the jurors

actually had to stay in a hotel for weeks. Instead, the judge said he is going to check in with the jurors daily to make sure they are avoiding media coverage. Take a listen. I will set up an ass the jury. If they were a remaining before, it's effective his ability to be fair and apart. So I'm going to ask them every day. whether or not they've seen anything. It's also going to instruct them not to view any articles of social media in regards to this during the course of that. And I'll follow up every day to make sure they follow those instructions.

So I'm going to deny this motion. So that's a compromise. But you can tell the defense wanted that extra layer of protection. This case is everywhere. And keeping jurors sort of insulated or away from biased media coverage. evidence that might not be presented in court, this is going to be a challenge. So before jury selection even started, the Commonwealth raised concerns about some of the names attorney Redington added to his witness list. He argued that these witnesses, though, are necessary to rebut claims the prosecution

might make right out of the gate during opening statements. Well, the judge sided with the prosecution for now, but left the door open to revisit the issue if something changes during the trial. One of the biggest early battles was over Reddington's attempt to call mothers who have experienced postpartum depression or psychosis. So Lindsay's attorney naturally wanted these mothers to testify about their own symptoms, their own frightening experiences and their own moments of losing touch with reality. Redington argued that their voices could help the jury understand what Lindsay might have been experiencing. He even said these women could speak in a way

that expert witnesses simply cannot because they've experienced postpartum depression. As you can well imagine, I have been contacted by many people who have, in a very moving emotional fashion, advise me of these horrific issues that they've been dealing with, with postpartum depression,

postpartum psychosis, hearing the auditory commands, having intrusive thoughts to hurt or kill their partner or their children, infanticide, as a result of postpartum psychosis, medication issues, contributing to the postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis. And it's so easy for us as a society to say in a troubling case like this, oh my God, she's guilty, throw away the key, put her in jail and just be done with it because it makes everybody feel better. It's a feel-good reaction that, okay, somebody has been punished because of doing a very bad thing. But as we know, when you're dealing with the issues of lack of criminal responsibility, I don't like the term insanity, but nevertheless, unless when you're dealing with somebody who is suffering from a medical defect or a disease,

and they have actually experienced something that is so outside the ken, if you will, of jurors, of normal people, for us to believe that somebody's hearing voices, the initial reaction from any one of us, I think, in this courtroom would be, come on, you're not hearing voices. What are you talking about? You're making this up. You're trying to avoid responsibility. But it is true, and it happens, and it is an affliction that people have put up with. And if they are permitted to testify, as their experience themselves as to post-partum depression, psychosis,

the concerns and the fear that a woman has, and I say as a woman has, because guys don't know about this. You know, we're so quick to go out, we're mighty and strong, we have many beers, and we're real quick to say, throw away the key on it. But a woman who has suffered and has put up with this affliction should be able to testify and say, probably in an emotionally charged fashion very credibly, I too have heard these command voices.

I too acted on the command voices. I too have had insomnia. I too have had hedonism where I don't even care if I live or die. I have no emotion. I can't feel. I can't laugh. I can't love. I can't hate.

And I think that that is important. Now, before I disclose the identity of these people, it seems to me that what I have to do is present the general legal issue to you as a preliminary gatekeeper almost, where you would say, hypothetically, I think upon sufficiency of proof, it is admissible. And I am inclined, you're the judge, to allow that evidence before a jury,

at which point I would then, of course, disclose the identity of the people with their knowledge and consent, their medical backgrounds, and the government could then send their cops out to interrogate them or intimidate them, or talk to them or do whatever they want to do. But if they get on that witness stand, they have credible evidence to give.

So it's a two-part. I can't really give their names and addresses without knowing. You may say, as a matter of law, it's not admissible. Somebody's individual experience with a narcotic, with a drug, with a disease or a defect, is not admissible in a sense of the specifics of a trial. And if that's the case, then it shuts down the issue, and that's the end of it.

But I had to raise the issue preliminarily. The prosecution, though, pushed back on that. ADA Sprag warned that if these women testified, the state would have to dig into their medical records, essentially creating a trial within a trial, which it does make sense. And then I think what we come to is it becomes more prejudicial than probative in that say you allow 16 people to come in and testify to that,

then the Commonwealth gets to rebut that with their own witnesses, women who suffered from postpartum depression and psychosis, who did not kill their children, who locked themselves in a room to keep themselves from harming their children, who got in a car and drove away so they didn't harm their children. And so then it becomes a trial within a trial. And it's more prejudicial than probative. There's no rule allowing the admission.

And it would delay the trial, in all honesty, because then we would be filing a motion for discovery on these witnesses, their medical records, having them interviewed by police, which would take time. So I would object to this motion. I'd like to know who these people are that were walking themselves in rooms and getting in their cars to avoid killing or hurting their children. Just go on Facebook. They're all over. Ultimately, Judge Sullivan denied the motion saying experts can provide that information without turning the trial into something emotionally overwhelming.

The older I get, the less interesting. I am in just sort of chasing skin care trends. I would rather use products backed by real science that I can stick with, call it good, and that is why I have been loving one skin. I have been using their moisturizer for a while now, actually, and I have noticed that my skin, it just feels healthier. It's smoother. It feels hydrated. It has become one of those products. I really just look forward to using to Dr. John uses it too, and we are both huge fans. What makes one skin different is this proprietary OSO and peptide. It was developed by longevity scientists to target the so-called zombie cells that contribute to visible skin aging.

And with their summer bundles, you can get their skincare paired with SPF essentials to help protect your skin. So while also addressing the visible signs of aging. So one end done, SPF and scientifically backed moisturizer. It's from over a decade of longevity research. One skin is helping you unlock your healthiest skin now as you age. And for a limited time, try one skin with 15% off using code hidden at one skin.com slash hidden. That's 15% off all one skin with code hidden. We love this science-backed skin care. After you purchase, they'll ask where you heard about them. Please support our show by telling them that we sent you.

Another major moment came when the judge ruled that the prosecution will be allowed to play. Patrick Clancy's haunting 911 call from that night of January 24, 2023. It is described as agonizing, and it captures Patrick returning home after about 45 minutes away, realizing that the house was too quiet, and then discovering the unimaginable. The motion describes him calling out for the children, finding their bodies, one by one in the basement. I cannot imagine. And then yelling for help. At one point, he allegedly screams, she killed the kids. None of us have heard that audio yet. We have heard about it, but we have not heard that audio. But I imagine it's going to be extremely difficult.

We also learned that autopsy photos of the children will be shown to the jury. The prosecution argued that the evidentiary value outweighs any inflammatory effect. and the judge agreed. These photos will be used to support the Commonwealth's theory of malice of premeditated murder of the extreme atrocity or cruelty. And then there's an issue of expert witnesses. The judge granted the prosecution's motion to exclude four experts that Attorney Reddington had added to his list, quote, at the last minute. So ADA Sprague accused him of doing that deliberately to catch the state off guard. Take a listen. Now, defense counsel is an experienced attorney who understands the rules and by providing these names at this last minute a week

and a half before trial was a strategic and intentional act to surprise us with these witnesses and not allow us to be prepared for them. We have a right to prepare for witnesses to obtain materials, especially with expert witnesses to find out where they testified before, what publications have they written, what is the basis of their expertise, and to get rebuttal evidence and or witnesses to be prepared for trial. If the Commonwealth had attempted to do the same at this last minute and bring up expert witnesses, they would be excluded without question. And I know the standard is different for prosecutors, but we all still have to follow Rule 14. And to allow defense counsel

to call these experts would be fundamentally unfair to the Commonwealth. All right. Yeah, Mr. Rittington. First of all, I can't remember the last time, the government, let alone defense, was excluded from presenting testimony by way of, quote, experts, end quote. Generally, it's a matter of fairness.

What are they going to testify to? Does the government, in this case, they've got like 39 people working on this case, Judge, and to suggest that they need time to prepare for cross-examination of fundamental witnesses that depend on the direction of their case. For example, I have an emergency room doctor. He's a board-certified emergency room doctor

that I consult with to help me understand and interpret the medical records, the extensive medical records, South Shore Hospital dealing with the initial admission and the injuries, bringing a woman's hospital. She coded on this fake suicide. She coded and literally her hat stopped at Brigham a woman's hospital. I need to know terms that I don't understand that this Dr. Velkovish is going to assist me with and has been assisting me with them.

Now, I don't know what the government is going to say in their opening statement. So I can stand here right now and tell you in all likelihood. I wouldn't call Dr. Velkovich as a witness on this case. But it depends on what they say in their opening statement. In the event that after their opening statement, there are issues in play that I feel I would be calling the doctor. I certainly would supplement. And they've already got all their CVs.

I've already given them the CVs. As it relates to the psychiatrists, I've given them the CVs. I've given them voluntarily videotapes of their interview and evaluation of Lindsay. I have given them their notes. They've got every scrap of paper that my doctors. That would be Dr. Zizel, Dr. Resnick, and Dr. Spinelli.

As it relates to, for example, the other doctor that's referenced in the defense disclosure to the government, Dr. Condi. Dr. Condi is not one of my experts. Dr. Condi is an individual who filed an affidavit dealing with the atrocious failure to have medical care that is consistent with the standard that is applicable, and that's on the civil suit. I summons them. He doesn't know me. I haven't sat down with him and gone over evidence and everything else. I said, you're a witness in that case. You filed an affidavit, I'm summonsing you, and I did. I have spoken with him and I gave the government the affidavit that

he filed in the civil suit. You then have my crime scene, if you will, blood spatter evidence. I don't expect that I'm going to be calling Dr. Kahneman. But when we get into this thing where they wanted to have white boards and drop fluids on it and experiments in front of the jury, you remember that I objected, filed an objection, filed a brief, and indicated that I would have to have, I wanted

at Dobeer hearing. Your Honor allowed that. I then spoke to Mr. Condi, Dr. Condi, I should say, who I've dealt with before. Very, very well-known crime scene reconstruction, gentlemen, very qualified, board certified, on the boards and all these things. I'm not going to use them, because we, as you know,

are not going to be doing the experiment on the board. I am still going to consult with him as it relates to evidence that I think I have to ask him questions about but right now as I stand here I don't expect to call him so that's that's dr. Kandi on the affidavit on the civil suit my crime scene blood spatter expert I have my board certified emergency room doctor and then I have Dr. Lappasata everybody knows dr. Lappasata she's no stranger to the courts I've used her on many many many murder cases over the years

Lepasota as I stand here now, I don't know if I'm going to call her or not. It depends on, again, what the government argues in their opening. If they argue something in their opening that opens the door for me to slam them with Dr. Lapacetor, you can bet I will call her. But they don't need weeks to prepare for cross-examination. That's ludicrous to suggest that. So I think I have complied and then some with Rule 14. So I'm asking that the court, not at this early stage, strike the witnesses because I don't know if I'm calling them yet.

And if I do, they'll get a report. They already have all their CVs. The judge did not shut the door completely, though. He told Reddington that they can revisit the issue after opening statements or later in the trial if the prosecution's witness introduces opinions that need rebutting. So that brings us into Monday. July 20th, when things finally switched from pretrial motions into the actual. seating of the jury. Now, Plymouth County Superior Court was packed on Monday. And let me tell you a little bit about Plymouth in a city known as America's hometown, a city that holds a great deal of prominence

in American history with the Mayflower and the pilgrims, the founding of New England, folklore of the first Thanksgiving feast. This is a community, Plymouth, not just steeped in Puritan tradition. It was founded on Puritan tradition. And just an hour north is Salem, Massachusetts. Salem, where the same Puritan tradition, that same Puritan tradition, influenced the Salem witch trials, where women who suffered violent fits or exhibited strange behaviors were deemed witches and executed. It's interesting. And in this Plymouth courthouse, about 130 prospective jurors filed in, settling into the benches while Judge Sullivan walked them through what this case is about. After hearing instructions, the jurors were sent, or prospective jurors were sent into a separate

room to fill out questionnaires, and then one by one, they returned to the courtroom to answer questions from the judge and both legal teams. During his instructions, Judge Sullivan laid out the prosecution's allegations in simple terms, plain language. He told the room that the comment Commonwealth believes Lindsay murdered her three children using exercise bans in the basement of their duck spray home on January 24th, 2023. He explained that the prosecution's theory is premeditation. The defense, he said, will argue lack of criminal responsibility, the legal term for what most people think of as the insanity defense. He also broke down what that actually means in legal terms. Lack of criminal responsibility requires a mental disease.

or defects so severe that a person can't distinguish right from wrong or can't conform their behavior to the law. And importantly, Lindsay doesn't have to prove she lacked criminal responsibility. The burden is entirely on the prosecution to prove that she was criminally responsible. By the end of Monday, five jurors have been selected. Their goal is 12 deliberating jurors and six alternates, so 18 total. Day two moved things along. By Tuesday afternoon, 12 jurors, 12 jurors had been seated, two-thirds of the panel. The breakdown at that point was seven women and five men. One juror, chosen on Monday, had to be excused, so that dropped the count back down, but they kept moving. On Wednesday, the number climbed again. 17 jurors were selected by the end

of the day. A lot of jurors are being requested for this trial, understandably. And finally, by Thursday afternoon, after four full days of selection, the jury was complete. Two jurors were excused early that morning, briefly dropping the count to 15, three new ones were added. The final group is 12 women and six men, with 12 deliberating jurors and six alternates. And while all of this was happening, another issue surfaced, Judge Sullivan announced that he would hear a motion from Patrick Clancy, the children's father, asking the court to restrict public access to certain trial exhibits, understandably. Well, Patrick is represented by attorney David Meyer, and Meyer made it clear right away that Patrick, Patrick's not trying to block transparency

from the courtroom. He's not trying to block evidence from the jury. But he is asking that pieces of evidence be kept from being distributed outside of the courtroom to keep the sanctity. and privacy of some very traumatic things. Take a listen. Thank you, first of all, Judge, for the opportunity to be heard. As everyone is aware, I'm not here as a lawyer representing the Commonwealth. Neither am I here as a lawyer in any way representing the defendant. And on behalf of Patrick Clancy, the father of the three trial victims in this case, he recognizes, and I recognize on his behalf that he has no authority, no standing, and no intention of suggesting to this court or

to the attorneys how to try their case, how to conduct direct or cross-examination, and perhaps most importantly, what evidence or exhibits should be introduced during the trial. Mr. Clancy, respectfully, Judge, is not seeking to close the courtroom at any time during the trial. Mr. Clancy is not seeking to address the admissibility of any evidence. or to exclude any evidence from the jury, and he's not in any way seeking to prejudice the Commonwealth or the defendant in any way. What Mr. Clancy is seeking through counsel, Your Honor,

respectfully, is to restrict, in a very limited way, the display and access to certain specific limited items of evidence and exhibits at trial to the jury, to the court, to counsel, to the court reporter, or the session clerk, and to the court officers. That is the necessary parties who will be involved in trying the case. Under the Massachusetts Victim Bill of Rights, Patrick has the right to be heard through counsel. Meyer argued that some items are simply too sensitive and too personal.

It would be devastating, they argue, to be released publicly. He asked the court to mark specific pieces of evidence for this request, the recording of Patrick's 911 call. all images of the children, whether taken before the incident, at the scene, or after their deaths, any video recordings, and the clothing worn by the children. He also asked that Patrick's written materials and correspondence be marked as exhibits and impounded. Meyer cited Massachusetts Supreme Court Rule 119, which allows a judge to limit or suspend electronic coverage of certain evidence. He actually pointed to two previous court cases where courts restricted media access to protect

victims' privacy. In those cases, the media was given transcripts instead of recordings. He referenced Commonwealth v. Winfield and Commonwealth v. Chisholm, both involving child victims, where the courts decided that privacy sort of outweighed the media's First Amendment rights. So basically, this feels like a father trying to protect what little he has left of the three children he grieves. So once Meyer finished laying out his request, the courtroom kind of switched back into a tense back and forth about what should and shouldn't be allowed beyond those walls. ADA Sprague did not fight him on the media access question. She told the judge she would defer to whatever he decided, but she made it clear that the Commonwealth

intends to play the 911 call for the jury. I'm going to speculate they might even play that during opening statements. She also said that none of the children appear in the crime scene photos and that the prosecution has no intention of broadcasting images of the children. She did point out, though, however, that photos of the kids have already been widely distributed publicly before this trial even began, which is true. Before. their deaths even. But she still left the final decision to the judge. And then Reddington stepped in and the tone changed.

He reminded the court that Lindsay had already stipulated to every piece of evidence from the crime scene. He argued that the district attorney's office is trying to inflame the jury by putting these items into evidence and by calling Patrick Clancy to testify. Let's call us Davis Bay, Judge. I have been in this court every time we've had pretrial hearing indicating to the, the court that the circumstances of the death is not in dispute. The circumstances of this horrific act are not in dispute. Repeatedly, the government has argued that they have a right to try their case, to present their evidence. Sure, they do. But even though we're in a court, let's talk a little bit about humanity. Let's talk a little bit about how we should try this case.

I have indicated repeatedly that we stipulate to every piece of evidence that they want. I have respectfully objected to you with the introduction of this stuff going into the trial. I understand your ruling, and quite frankly, it makes sense. You're trying a case. What I can't fathom is the district attorney's intent to put a, a circus in front of this jury that's calculated to just inflame the passions of the jury

repeatedly placing in evidence, items such as having Patrick Clancy, who's a young man who has suffered one of the worst tragedies that anyone could ever suffer.

How that guy is still an emotional, not an emotional basket case is beyond me, And he has been. But nevertheless, he is trying hard to move on with his life. He has, as the court is aware, they're divorced. He's remarried. He has a family. He has his extended family.

Your Honor heard statements, and I know for a fact that it's true, that his family, totally innocent people that have nothing whatsoever to do with this case, are being harassed daily by news media, the New York Post, and all the rest of these. types of salacious news media outside their door. This is his family. Some of them are in California. They have nothing to do with this case.

But nevertheless, they are being hounded by the media. And the district attorney wants to put that guy on the witness stand and show little onesies with bodily fluid of his child. And they want to have him stand there. Oh, they're going to let him stand in the hall. while we listen to the 911 call. Mr. Redington, that's another issue. That's another motion.

The question we have right now, respectfully, is Mr. Myers' request as to how we should deal with this in regards to the media. I agree with Mr. Myers' request, as I told you with the sidebar. I think it's very appropriate. I think he argued it effectively. I think that Your Honor is well aware that you have the authority under the SJC rules to enter limiting orders, if you will, as to publication, as to what media can publish, what photographs they could look at and report. And I agree with what he had indicated to you and

his argument. All right. But I still want to say that I think it's reprehensible the way the government is trying this case. He went on to say. Sprague tried to respond, but Judge Sullivan cut her off. And actually, the judge got heated. He said he wanted to stay focused on the motion and would take the matter under advisement. I understand why defense counsel would want to brush past what happened to these children, whitewash away what happened and focus on something else. Here's what we're going to do. We're going to end that now, all right?

So he gets an opportunity to say it? No, I stopped that. And if you want to address that in a different way, then we've got another motion. five minutes that we're gonna probably be talking about that. So let's talk about that then. This is a, you know, I let council go and think it was going to wrap back up, and I didn't see that it was going to wrap back up in regards to the request.

So that's why I stopped it. All right. This is not accomplishing anything in regards to the question of, access to these four pieces of evidence. So I've got everybody's position. I've heard the arguments from council. What I'm going to do is I'm going to take it under advisement. And then what I'm going to do is issue an order probably tomorrow morning.

And parties know I've listened to the tape, that 911 tape. I have looked at the autopsy photographs. I have looked at a crime scene video, which I imagine is where the crime scene pictures will come from. And so I'm familiar with the universe of the evidence that we're dealing with right now. I want to take tonight, go over the arguments from part. That's why I'm stuck a little bit everybody. I just want everybody to be focused on that issue.

So I'm going to take this matter the request of Mr. Clancy under advisement, and I will be issuing an order in regards to that request sometime tomorrow morning. Then came another defense motion. Ruddington asked the court to limit the number of first responders who could testify. The prosecution had 14, 14 firefighters, police officers and EMTs on their list. Reddington argued that hearing from all of them would be prejudicial. This motion is asking that Your Honor would direct the Commonwealth, since apparently the Commonwealth will not agree voluntarily to restrict the presentation of a large number of first responders to this tragic incident. First of all, you know, let's face it, you know, firefighters, EMTs, police officers, you know, they're all wonderful people.

They're doing the Lord's work. What these people have gone through or would go through and have gone through in their jobs cannot be underscored. And that's to be respected and embraced. But to present them one after the other in this trial, I suggest to the court, without sounding as though I'm trying to minimize the horror of what transpired here and what these good employees of the municipalities had to. to endure and see and probably to this day are suffering post-traumatic stress from it. Legally and objectively, I suggest, Your Honor, that it serves no purpose other than to inflame

or try to inflame the passions of the jury, one right after the other, after the other, offering them water, offering them time to gather themselves. And it may have worked in the grand jury, but it shouldn't work on a jury trial. said the motion might be premature, he pointed out that they don't yet know what subsequent witnesses will say. The prosecution pushed back, arguing that multiple victims require multiple witnesses. So in a typical murder case with one victim, we would be proving deliberate premeditation and or extreme atrocity of cruelty. Either one of those, proving first degree murder, you'd have to prove that the defendant's actions caused the death. And the way we do that is,

with the person finding the body, then the people who treated the body trying to save that person, then the medical staff at the hospital treating them and then declaring them dead, and then the autopsy confirming that the actions of the defendant wore the cause of the death.

Here, unfortunately, we have three victims, so that multiplies those witnesses by three. We also have the defendant herself who was treated at the scene, so then that's a fourth multiplier. Then you also have Patrick Clancy, who was so devastated upon finding his children in the manner that he found them, that he was in an awful state and had to be brought to the hospital as well.

So that's multiplying the people here by five. Now, when the first responders arrived at the home that night, they thought they were responding to one victim, the defendant. Then they found out that the children were there, and they found them in the state that they were in. And it was a chaotic scene. They're asking for more help. They're trying to figure out what's going on.

They're trying to treat these children. And so there's a lot of handing off. People start CPR. People move on to another child when someone else arrives who's better equipped to deal with, say, a baby versus a five-year-old. And so we have multiple people working on these children trying to save their lives and then get them to the hospital and get them treated. And unfortunately, none of them survived. But the Commonwealth did not choose the number of victims, the defendant did. The Commonwealth did not choose the ages of the victims, the defendant did.

The Commonwealth did not choose the horrific nature in which they died. the defendant did. It is not the Commonwealth putting on a circus or a parade. It's the Commonwealth presenting the evidence in this case to prove that the defendant killed those children and the manner in which they were killed. Now, if defense would like us to reduce some of these witnesses, that would mean not talking about one of the children. So if he would like to tell me which of these children don't matter. You know what? I'll say you. We don't need that. All right? We don't need that. right now for both of you is this is a motion saying that there's going to be cumulative evidence I don't know what's going to be presented so how can I say that witness two doesn't bring

anything extra after witness one I understand the theory the commonwealth and I'm not telling the commonwealth how to try their case I'm not and I'm just I've been, I guess, the issue has been brought up that the defendant views the Commonwealth's approach one way. The Commonwealth views it a different way. I'm the one who's going to have to decide, and I don't have anywhere near enough information right now to determine if something violates, you know, section 403. But I understand the Commonwealth's position. there's a number of witnesses, and they all may very well bring something unique to the Commonwealth's case. So it's really what I'm probably going to be doing as we go through this is have everybody come over here to the sidebar,

hopefully calmly, talking about an offer proof, and is this witness bringing something? If they do, fine. restricting the Commonwealth thing. I just appreciate the fact that it was brought to my attention. Now I can be aware of it and we can just deal with it as the trial goes on. Just like, you know, I mean, like we said, all of us have tried a number of homicides. So we know how it's done. And so I'm aware of how Commonwealth has to prove multiple elements in every case. And so I'm I'll be cognizant of that. So I guess probably just so you'd be prepared that the defense objection will be, it's cumulative. And we come over here, and if there's some reason why there's something else that this witness brings or reason why you want to call, then we'll deal with it at that point.

The Commonwealth will be prepared. All right. So Judge Sullivan announced that he would rule on Patrick Clancy's motion on Friday morning. And he did. He ultimately ruled that the children's autopsy, photos and the 911 call will be for courtroom presentation only. He ordered the media not to record, not to display, or distribute these pieces of evidence, but reporters can discuss the contents, and it will be presented to anyone physically in the courtroom. In his Friday morning order,

Sullivan wrote, quote, in the father's request and the impounded supporting materials, the court finds that any such access, recording, display, reproduction, distribution, or other dissemination by the media will create a substantial likelihood of harm or other harmful consequences to the father and the family of Cora Clancy, Dawson Clancy, and Callan Clancy. He added that the order will, quote, apply with the same scope, force, and effect to any individuals or members of the public. Specifically, nothing in this order shall limit or restrict either the Commonwealth or defendant from introducing, presenting, or utilizing the aforementioned items of evidence at the trial of this matter. Members of the public present in the courtroom are permitted to listen to

and observe the evidence as presented during the course of the trial, end quote. And with that, court is recessed until Monday at 9 a.m. That's tomorrow if you're watching this the day we put it out. And that is when opening statements will begin, followed by jury instructions and the first witnesses taking the stand. And we'll be there to bring you all of it. But while we're waiting for everything to get going, I think it's worth getting a fill for everyone who's going to be involved in the trial. Trials like this can get overwhelming and knowing who's who can make things a little easier to follow, at least for me. That's what I do. I want to learn the landscape. I want to understand the culture of Plymouth, the sort of Puritan tradition that goes deep and for a reason.

Again, Salem Witch Trials, an hour north. I want to understand the players here, the prosecution, the defense, the family, what everyone is arguing here, why everything matters. So we're going to be following this. What, again, remains hidden. Honestly, based on everything that I've seen so far, Judge William Sullivan seems to be steady. He seems to be reasonable, like sort of this reasonable presence, and he's clearly not interested in letting either side turn this trial into more of a spectacle. Judge Sullivan's been around the legal world forever. Before he even became a judge, he spent decades in Quincy doing both criminal and civil work. I learned a lot about him. He started out as a prosecutor in Norfolk County back in the early 80s, and then he switched over to defense work and built a

reputation as someone who really knew what he was doing. Because he's lived on both sides, prosecuting and defending, he comes across, in my opinion, as someone who understands how each side sort of thinks, and you can already see that in how he's handling this case. He was also, he was nominated to the Superior Court in 2014 by Governor Deval Patrick. People who worked with him back then described him as calm, fair, someone who expects a lot from the people around him, even prosecuting who had to go up against him, said they respected him, which isn't something you hear all the time. One of the cases that has sort of shaped how people see Judge Sullivan, at least how I see him, was the Nathaniel Fagita trial. Judge Sullivan was not a judge on this trial. So Nathaniel

was a teenager who killed his ex-girlfriend, Lauren Astley. This was a brutal, brutal heartbreaking case. So Judge Sullivan, he was actually Fijita's defense attorney, Nathaniel Fijita's defense attorney, and he did not pretend that the killing did not happen. Instead, though, what did he argue? Well, he argued that Nathaniel had a brief psychotic break, yeah, which I think really gives him a unique perspective, right, presiding over this trial for Lindsay Clancy. The case, Nathaniel's case blew up nationally and ended up on 48 hours where Sullivan actually talks about the mental health side of it. He only did the interview because the family asked him to,

because they were worried that the mental health piece would get lost in all of the noise. A lot of jurors in my experience almost don't want to believe that can affect somebody to this level, that it could cause you to do something that you don't understand. A lot of times the jurors want somebody who's just out there howling at the moon or, you know, but it's a lot more subtle than that.

I think the lesson is that this type of depression, this type of mental illness is very common, especially in young males. During his nomination hearing, Judge Sullivan talked about how heavy that trial was for him. He said that you could walk into the courtroom and feel the sadness in the air. Judges don't usually say things like that out loud. Most of them keep their personal reactions sort of tucked away in a professional way. but he didn't pretend it was anything other than absolutely devastating. He's also someone who thinks a lot about how the law works.

He's questioned the constitutionality of dangerousness hearings, not because, in my opinion, I don't think it's because he's soft on crime, but because he remembers when only federal prosecutors could hold someone pretrial. He's watched the system change over the years, especially after high-profile tragedies. and he is not afraid or shy about saying when he thinks things have swung too far. But he's also clear that once he's on the bench, his personal opinions do not matter. He follows the law as it's written.

People who have worked with him say that he represents the best of the profession. He can be aggressive when he needs to be calm when the situation calls for it, and he respects the process. Norfolk County's DA even said prosecutors, We're sad to see him leave private practice because he made them better. He went to Notre Dame, then Boston College Law School, served on the judicial nominating commission and has been involved in a bunch of bar associations. He is reportedly married, has three kids, and now he will be the one overseeing one of the most emotional trials Massachusetts has seen in a long time.

So now that we've talked about the judge, Judge Sullivan, let's get into the man leading Lindsay's defense because Kevin Reddington, he's a lot. But you can absolutely tell why people call on him when their whole life is hanging in the balance. He's intense. He's experienced. He has this big, almost electric presence that makes you pay attention. Reddington's been doing this for more than 40 years. He is not just a local name. He's one of the most well-known defense attorneys in the region. Boston Magazine once called him the affable Reddington and named him the best criminal defense lawyer in the state.

He's also part of the American College of Trial Lawyers, basically a tiny top tier club of trial attorneys, hardly anyone gets invited in. But honestly, in my opinion, what makes him stand out is his whole vibe. He's like not this polished, like corporate PR approved attorney. He's known for his tattoos, like one in Latin that says never represent an informant. Then he has this other one, Milan Labé, which basically means come and take them. Honestly, it fits him. I think he sort of gives off this vibe of really nothing scares him.

One article I read, it says he's a motorcycle riding grandpa, and on his Jeep, he has a license plate that says NG, which stands for not guilty. His office is just as intense, I've heard. He has a frame newspaper clippings from his biggest cases, shelves full of skulls, swords, daggers, and pieces of evidence that he has kept after acquittals, like brass knuckles. Yeah. And a pistol. Stuff most attorneys. I mean, maybe they'd keep him around. I don't know. It's dramatic. But people have described it more like a museum of all. the battles he's been through and he's been through a lot. His client list is basically a tour through some of Massachusetts most wild and notorious cases. He's represented Mo Vaughn, the Red Sox player

who was acquitted of drunk driving in the late 90s. He's defended Michael McDermott, who killed seven co-workers in Wakefield. And get this, he actually won the case of Terese Rogers. Teresa Rogers is a woman who stabbed her boyfriend in the eyes while he was sleeping by convincing jurors that she had battered woman syndrome and acted during a temporary break from reality. And there's more. There are other cases. Let's keep going. He represented Catherine Gregg.

So a notorious Boston mobster, Wydie Bulger's longtime girlfriend is Catherine. And after she spent 16 years on the run with him, yeah, he was. represented her. He represented Catherine Dixon, who killed an elderly couple for drug money. He's defended landlords charged in fatal fires, people accused of manslaughter, and even a former Milton Academy teacher who was extradited from Thailand on sexual assault charges. He's even defended cases in front of Judge Sullivan, in front of Judge Sullivan. He knows Judge Sullivan, including a man named Jack Callahan from Duxbury, who killed his father during what he described as a baptism-style exorcism.

I mean, yeah. And yes, he also briefly represented Jen McCabe in the Karen Reed case. And if you remember the chaos around that trial, who can't? I didn't even cover it, and I saw the chaos. It has been reported that he actually confronted Turtle Boy and basically told him,

you do not want to dance with me. That's a quote. Turtle Boy, whose real name is Aiding Kearney, is now facing multiple indictments for witness intimidation and conspiracy. That whole situation was a mess, but Reddington clearly does not flinch at confrontation. So it's easy to see why Lindsay Clancy would want someone with his level of experience on her side. He has spent decades defending people in cases where the public already decided they were guilty.

Reddington is used to having the odds stacked against him, and he fights anyway. He's not quiet. He's definitely not gentle. he's trying to win. And for Lindsay, that's exactly the kind of attorney she would want. Now, let's talk about the woman leading the Commonwealth's case. Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague. She has a much different energy compared to Reddington. I think this is where the intense tension is coming in. You can already start to get a feel. Why? When you learn about these people. Because Jen, seems very structured and like she's not trying to win people over with her personality.

She is reportedly being assisted by ADA Shannon Buckingham and Julianne Campbell. Sprague works under Norfolk County DA Michael Morrissey and handles serious violent crime cases. She's experienced and she is respected and is clearly trusted with complicated, high pressure prosecutions. But she seems to also have a very rigid style. In other words, she brings the Puritan vibe with her. And she focuses on the facts as she interprets them. You could see that in the way she fought to keep the postpartum mothers off the witness list.

She didn't entertain the idea that their experiences might not help the jury understand what Lindsay was going through. She went straight to the technical argument, that it would turn a charge of the jury. trial into a trial, right? There would be a trial within a trial. And sure, it's a legitimate legal point. But it also shows how unwilling she is to let anything soften the prosecution's theory. And then there's how she's handling the evidence. She wants the 911 call plate. She wants the autopsy photos shown. She wants the jury to sit with the full weight of what happened in that basement and what happened to those victims, those children. And yes, those things are. And yes, those things

part of this case. But some people are already arguing that the way she pushes for them feels almost punitive, right? Again, she brings that Puritan vibe. We are in Plymouth, Massachusetts. And she's also had moments where her comments land with esteem, like when she told the judge that if the defense wanted fewer first responders to testify, that have to choose which child doesn't matter. That line, there's a reason that I wanted to start with that line. There's a reason that I wanted to start with that line. It is so sharp. And Judge Sullivan stepped in to shut that down. Sprague is clearly competent and prepared. I think we can all appreciate that she's fighting hard for justice for the children. That's her job. And she takes that responsibility seriously. She's unwavering. But this case,

as many that have been following understand, it is complicated. And the jury is going to have to decide whether they believe the state's theory that Lindsay planned this or whether her mental health was the driving force behind everything that happened. It is obvious the Commonwealth doesn't accept the postpartum psychosis explanation. And Sprague's approach shows that. She's not the emotional voice in the room, but she's also not the villain. She's the state. She represents the structure, right? She's rules. She does rules well as, you know, as we've seen. And the obligation to argue is hers that Lindsay acted with intent. That's her job. And because of that, her tone and strategy to me feels it's firm. We'll see. How about this? We'll see how I feel about her as this trial unfolds. I'm I'm listening, I'm watching. She's presenting the case that the Commonwealth believes is true, and ultimately it's going to come down to what the jury sees in the evidence. So again, thank you

for sticking with us as we cover this trial in detail. This trial matters because, as I've stated before, and I'll state it again, there are some trials that simply end with guilty or innocent, a verdict, and that there are other trials that maybe ask something of us, I think this trial is going to ask something of us, too, not just a verdict. And I think a lot of us are going to have our assumptions and long-held beliefs questioned, that maybe we're going to think about things a little bit differently as this trial goes on. As for me, I am keeping a very open mind. I want to listen to both sides. I want to understand the evidence. I want to understand the testimony and it will be bringing that each day of this trial as we break this down together.

We will also throughout this trial have Dr. John Matthias, a criminal psychologist with us as well, weighing in on the evidence and what he understands from his experience and his view. Stick with us. Thank you for supporting us as we cover these trials. May justice be served. She's got a breakaway. She's all alone. She's going.

She's going. Oh no, wrong goal, kiddo. It's chaos out there. Their stomachs don't have to be. Introducing Kulturalel Kids Probiotics Plus Electrolites. Sugar-free, more hydrating than water alone, from the number one pediatrician recommended brand. Youth soccer is never boring, but your kid's stomach should be.

Culturaloreal probiotics, the science of a boring gut. See website for details. At Cox, your Internet and mobile price won't change for five years. That's five New Year celebrations. Five Valentine's days. Five Fourth of July's. Five Halloween. Five Thanksgiving.

And five summers that go by too fast. Through it all, your price stays the same with our five-year price-lock guarantee. Cox, a step ahead. Requires two-gig speeds and gig unlimited mobile. Taxes and fees excluded from price lock. Mobile data speeds reduced after 20 gigs.