Hidden True Crime - Judge REPRIMANDS Prosecution After Lindsay Clancy “Mortal Sin” Testimony — Mistrial Denied | Day 19

Episode Date: August 25, 2026

The Lindsay Clancy trial took a dramatic turn on Day 19 as the prosecution continued its rebuttal case. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington finished his contentious cross-examination of psychiatrist Dr. Avram Mack, challenging his experience, his evaluation of Clancy nearly three years after the killings, and his conclusions about postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis and criminal responsibility. Then psychologist Dr. Kirk Heilbrun took the stand and revealed that Clancy told evaluators she said “go with God” to each of her children while killing them, believing she and the children would ultimately be together in heaven. Moments later, testimony about Catholic teaching and suicide as a “mortal sin” prompted Judge William Sullivan to stop the proceedings and sharply admonish the prosecution after he had previously barred similar testimony. The defense sought a mistrial, but the judge denied the request. Lauren Matthias breaks down the major testimony, courtroom clashes and what it could mean as the Lindsay Clancy murder trial moves closer to its conclusion. 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. Holy cow, Monday. Today was huge in the Lindsay Clancy case. For those watching, rather than just listening, you will notice, yes, it looks like I'm probably in a hotel and I am. I am not in Massachusetts, though. I am elsewhere. We are just, we are covering a lot of things.

I'll just say that. So stay tuned because tomorrow we'll be covering both the Lindsay Clancy trial as well as something else that is very important to stay tuned. But stick with me because like I just said, today, Monday was huge in the Lindsay Clancy trial. Just when I thought we couldn't have any more massive bombshells. We are winding down the state's rebuttal case. And today we heard from what I believe, personally, was one of the strongest witnesses that the prosecution has presented in this entire trial. Well, until, until the very last thing he said, because what started as incredibly compelling testimony from Dr. Kirk Heilbrun ended with the courtroom literally in a tailspin. Reddington moving for a missed trial, and the judge making it very clear he was not happy.

Heilbrun offered what I thought was one of the most plausible explanations. Honestly, we've heard for why Lindsay Clancy may have killed her own children outside of the insanity defense. He walked through her mental health medications, severe insomnia, her suicidal thoughts, and ultimately laid out two possible explanations for what happened on January 24, 2023. And then he brought up mortal sin again. Remember just last week, the judge warned the Commonwealth about bringing religion into this case and instructed the jury to disregard it. But it happened again. We'll get to all of that because before Heilbrun took the stand, Reddington finished his fiery cross-examination of Dr. Avram Mack.

Mac appeared by Zoom, and Reddington came out swinging. He started with Mack's experience testifying specifically about criminal responsibility. Mack estimated he had only testified on that issue once or twice before, although he had formed opinions in other criminal responsibility cases. And from there, Reddington turned to Mack's work with Park Deeds and Associates, the forensic consulting group through which he was retained in this case, So Park Deets Associates, as I mentioned, in our last trial recap on Friday, the name Park Dietz is especially interesting here because of the Andrea Yates case. Yates was convicted in 2002,

excuse me, Yates was convicted in 2002 of murdering her five children after drowning them in a bathtub. It horrified the nation. Well, Dietz testified for the prosecution in that first, trial for Andrea Yates and gave false testimony about a law and order episode involving a woman with postpartum depression who drowned her children and was found not guilty by reasons of insanity. That episode didn't exist. His testimony became a major issue on appeal and Andrea Yates' conviction was overturned and then at her second trial, she was found not guilty by reason of insanity, postpartum psychosis. And of course, the Yates case has been repeal. repeatedly compared to Lindsay Clancy's case. And I just interviewed Yates's attorney,

George Parnham, about this whole ordeal. You can go listen to that. So hearing the Park's, Park Deets name come up here, it definitely caught my attention. So Mack explained, though, that he had worked through Park Deeds and associates at different points in his career, but also took cases elsewhere and had previously worked in forensic roles for the state of Maryland. Reddington then brought up two previous cases where Max's qualifications or forensic approach had been questioned. Max said he did not remember either one. He did. However, remember a federal case in Florida involving the temporary assistance for needy families? Take listen. It should be tested by way of blood or urine. And your argument, sir, was because they are of a class that would be more likely to commit a crime or or have suicide or drug use.

Did you testify to that? That is not the way that that testimony or that report was presented. No, I said, your answer is no. Let's keep it that way, your answer is no. So you recall, sir, that there was an appeal, and in fact, on the appeal, it was determined that, again, yet again, you were not qualified to offer a relevant opinion

because, number one, you never studied the 10th population. You call that? No, that is not the correct conceptualization. It says you. Number two, that you did not survey any data. Recall that, sir. Specifically in Florida is the nuance on that issue. And number three, that you had no research whatsoever on the data that you based your opinion on. Would you agree with that, sir? No. Do you agree, sir, that the court held that you relied on other researchers' studies and didn't make any effort whatsoever to

form an opinion based on your own research. Do you agree with that? I don't remember the specific language of the court. All right. Do you recall that ultimately your testimony was stricken? No, I don't believe that it was stricken. Okay. In any event, sir, you would agree with me that you have a memory of Aver Mack being subject to this attack, if you will, by the attorneys on behalf of the people that were involved with TANF, right? You remember that much, right? Yes. I do. Thank you. Now, in summary, sir, you're here to testify in front of this jury regarding your testimony and opinion that you've given regarding Lindsay Clancy's state of mind at the time of the killing of her children. Is that correct? Yes. And you evaluated her in 2026. Is that right? Yes.

So you really evaluated her about three years after the incident that occurred in January 22, right? January 2023. So you do recall the date that the incident occurred, 23, right? Right. Okay, the answer is right. Okay. And in reference to your answer, sir, you would agree with me. that there was a significant passage of time between the incident in 2023 and when you saw her

about two or three months ago, right? Correct. Okay. And you drove out there with the guy that's going to be in here testifying in about an hour or so. Helbron. Is it Helbron or Heilbron? When you say that, I drove out there. I'm just asking the guy's name.

Is it Helbrin or Heilbrun? You'll have to ask him how he likes to pronounce it. Well, did you know how to call him or what's calling him when you were out there with him for two days? It Tewksbury? Turk. Kirk, okay. I mean, I had the same question.

Heilbrun or Heilbrun. I'm going with Heil. Anyway, Kirk. We can call him Kirk too. Anyway, Reddington also focused on how Mack and Heilbrun coordinated their evaluations and more importantly, what Mack knew before he ever sat down with Lindsay. Matt confirmed that he had already reviewed records about her before the interview, although he couldn't say exactly when he reviewed the cell phone extraction records.

Reddington then went through the extensive materials Mac had reviewed before evaluating Lindsay including reports from defense experts, Dr. Resnick, Dr. Spinelli, and Dr. Zaisal, as well as DCF records from February 3rd, 2023. He was given those by Dr. Heilbrun. So Redington also established that the DCF records, DCFS records were from the investigation after the children's death. There were no previous DCFS reports involving Lindsay abusing her children before their death. The list of records Mac had reviewed was extensive. He had records from aspire mental health, including the treatment provided by Dr. Tufts as well as records from nurse practitioner Jolotta. He had also reviewed records from Boston Children's Hospital, Brighamon Women's Hospital, McLean Hospital,

Spalding Rehabilitation Hospital, and Tewkesbury Hospital. The Tewksbury Records alone covered the period from March 27th, 2023 through April 1st, 2026, shortly before. Mac met with Lindsay. Reddington pointed out that there were roughly 7,000 pages of records. On top of all of that, Mack had reviewed toxicology records, police reports, grand jury testimony, police interviews, and witness interviews. Mac had also spoken by phone with members of the prosecution team, although he couldn't remember exactly when or for how long. Reddington, he then turned to money. Mack testified that his forensic work could bring in several hundred thousand dollars a year,

with some cases coming through Park Deats and associates and others though, directly from attorneys or organizations. At one point, Reddington asked whether the prosecutors had told Mack, what a terrible case.

It was that Lindsay had strangled her three children. There was an objection which was sustained, so Reddington moved on. The next question got to the same basic point in a different way.

Did Mack know the factual allegations of the case when he became involved? He said he did. Mack said the factual allegations had been conveyed to him, and that led directly into one of Reddington's bigger themes, confirmation bias. Reddington asked Mack whether he was familiar with the term. Mack was, and he explained that confirmation bias involves having an idea about what you're looking for and then gathering information that supports that idea, right? We all have some confirmation bias. We always try to remember. We don't know what we don't know.

Stay open, but confirmation bias, that's a real thing. Reddington then asked whether when a forensic psychiatrist was retained by a prosecutor, there was a risk that a psychiatrist would go into an evaluation with a confirmatory bias, confirmation bias, essentially hoping to reach a conclusion that would help the prosecution, but Mack rejected that. Redington then returned to how Mack and Dr. Kirk, Heilbrun, Heald Brun conducted their evaluation. The first day lasted roughly four to five hours, with the two taking turns asking questions in following up on different subjects.

According to Mack, Lindsay was cooperative throughout the process. She was polite, affable, and answered their questions. The following day, Heilbrun returned to Tewksbury by himself to conduct a psychological testing that brought Reddington to an important distinction. Mack was a psychiatrist, while Heilbrun was the psychologist who administered the psychological testing. Reddington asked about the kinds of things. tests that could be used in a forensic evaluation, particularly tests that could help identify whether someone was exaggerating or minimizing symptoms.

Mac agreed that assessing the reliability and validity of a person's responses was an important part of forensic evaluation. Radington focused on the MMPI's case scale. It looks at the validity and reliability of someone's responses, like whether or not they're lying, right, or malingering. Reddington called it, again, like the lie scale. But Mac, he pushed back, seeing it doesn't necessarily show that someone is deliberately lying. Rather, certain response patterns can make the test unreliable.

Let me ask you again. What is your understanding of what the K-scale is seeking to find out? I answer this in the context of the purpose of the NMPI and what the NMPI is designed. What are you smiling for? This is not funny, sir. Next question. Next question. MMPI, K-scale, focus.

What does it mean, sir? So the MMPI is an assessment of personality. And it is a set of questions that the individual responds to to provide the test and to provide the user of the test to understand what is their personality like. The K-scale is a set of questions embedded in the MMPI that are designed to see whether or not the individual is exaggerating in their responses, generally speaking.

Okay. Well, that distinction became important because Reddington then established that Lindsay's MMPI testing did not show evidence of malingering or exaggeration or lying. Mac agreed that as far as the MNPI was concerned, all testing indicated that Lindsay's case scale,

it was valid. And so from there, Reddington moved into the different diagnoses that had been considered for Lindsay, particularly bipolar disorder. Mack, he acknowledged that nurse practitioner Jolada had considered that possibility that Lindsay had bipolar two disorder. Redington then asked about the relationship between bipolar disorder and antidepressants, specifically SSRIs. And bipolar two is quite common. Is it not, sir, is a precursor of a person who is suffering

from post-partum depression or post-partum psychosis? I don't understand your question. Okay, well, how about is it appropriate in Dr. Max's opinion to give a person suffering from bipolar 2 or bipolar 1 in SSRI? An individual, there is a need in one's practice, traditionally at least, that if an individual might be suffering from bipolar 1 or bipolar 2 to avoid using SSRI medications, however, that has been reduced in terms of our worry about that over time, but that was maybe 20 years ago, 15 years ago, something that psychiatrists were more concerned about, but the concern has

lessened over time. It has. So in your opinion, sir, it's okay to give a woman who is coming to you for help who's been diagnosed with a bipolar 2. It's okay to give it the SSRI, in your opinion. Is that what you're telling this, jury? That's not what I said. Oh, okay. Tell me what you said. I said the concern about the relationship between necessarized and mania or bipolar disorder has lessened,

but that doesn't necessarily mean the people's practices have changed. And when you say mania, what does that mean to you, sir? Mania is a state defined in the DSM. I believe we discussed this the other day. Go ahead. What is it? What are the symptoms of mania? So mania is a condition, and it's defined not only by symptoms that I'm going to mention,

but also by a time frame. And as we discussed the other day, it is a mood state that is used as a building block for bipolar type 1. So one would need to see seven days consecutive, and where the following symptoms, for at least of the following symptoms are present, most of the day for all of these days. days. And that would include a thought process called flight of ideas. Secondly, distractibility. Thirdly, an engagement in activities that are pleasurable but have painful consequences. Rapid speech, or pressure, what we would call pressured speech. Pressured speech.

Additionally, grandiosity and an exaggerated amount or extra-ed speech. amount or except degree of goal-directed behavior. And what is your, go ahead. Go ahead. What is your understanding, sir, of the symptoms of bipolar two? So bipolar two, well, we didn't finish the definition of bipolar one, but in terms of bipolar type two, in terms of bipolar type two, one would need to have had a major depressed episode.

I believe we discussed that the other day as well. And also, one needs to have had what's called a hypomanic episode, which is similar to a manic episode, but lesser in terms of time course that's required, and only three out of the seven symptoms are required. So bipolar two, you would agree with me, sir, is in fact a major or a serious mental illness, right? Yes.

And your opinion, after you had your opportunity to go back, back again with Kirk on the third day and interview Lindsay in Tewkesbury Hospital. And how long did you interview her for the third day asking your questions? I'm not sure. I remember it was perhaps three hours. So after you completed your evaluation, you came to a conclusion that, in fact, Lindsay was suffering from a major mental disease or defect to wit. bipolar two. Is that correct?

No. No. So why don't we look at your report and you tell me what your ultimate opinion was of your diagnosis of Lindsay after evaluating her, sir? I think I said this the other day that my... Why don't you say it again, sir? Yes, I'm happy to. My opinion was that, that is, that she suffered from a major depressive episode and that that was a part of major depressive disorder.

Well, looking at your reports, sir, on your conclusions, would you agree with... Do you have your report? Do you have your report, sir? I see it's eye by just for a second. Well, Redington then pointed out that Heilbrun and Resnick diagnosed Lindsay with bipolar 2, while Spinelli diagnosed bipolar 1. So bipolar 2, 2, bipolar 1. But Mack pushed back when Redington tried to connect those diagnosis to postpartum depression,

bringing them back to the DSM's four-week time frame for peripartum onset. The frame designated for the diagnostic specifier called with postpartum onset is four weeks. Okay. And that's your opinion, right? Well, I believe that's what the DSM says. Okay. Let's talk about the four-week period, the four-week period in which that specifier may be at. Okay.

You recall saying that a person can be postpartum, and it has to be within four weeks. Do you recall saying that Friday? What I would have intended to say. No, no. What did you say to the, come on, what did you say to the jury last Friday? Doctor, please listen to the question and just answer the question as asked. Okay. And then if the Commonwealth has any redirect, they can follow up with your.

your questions. Go ahead. Thank you. Do you recall saying that the person has to be postpartum within four weeks according to the DSM? Recall saying that? Me that specifier, yeah. Right. Well, you understand, sir, that every woman that has a baby for the rest of their life is postpartum, because postpartum, quite frankly, means having a baby, right? Sure. So. But that wouldn't be the specifier with postpartum onset. Yeah, but you can't, postpartum is not a disease, doctor. Post-potam... That is defined in terms of four weeks. Okay. According to you, right?

You understand that World Health Organization is different, right? If you're talking about the ICT. What is that time frame, sir? I'm not sure what it is. I think you said it was 12 weeks. How about the proposal to amend the DSM-5 text revision, or TR. What's the proposal for that? Well, there's a proposal specifically around the proposed diagnosis called postpartum psychosis, and for that it's a six-week period. So you've got four weeks, you've got six weeks, you've got 12 weeks. Would you agree, sir, that post-partum depression,

post-partum psychosis can occur up to a year or even a year or longer? I don't know, but I'm telling you what the DSM says in terms of how to diagnose it and how to code it. By the way, no matter how each of us might feel about this case, can we all agree that hearing red say post-potem is something I'm going to miss when this is over? All right. Reddington then turned to Lindsay's three and a half years at Tewksbury. Despite her bipolar diagnosis and continued psychiatric treatment, Mack said she had not demonstrated any signs of mania. Meck also acknowledged that Lindsay continued reporting anxiety at Tewksbury, although he wasn't necessarily seeing outward signs of it, but she was taking medication at Tewksbury, including

a low dose of gyprexia, clonadine, tracidone, and the occasional propranolol. Reddington then went back to the fall of 2022 after Lindsay started Certraline, which was increased from 25 to 50 milligrams. Her record shows significant sleep problems, including going more than 48 hours without sleep. Reddington focused on an important distinction. Lindsay wasn't sleeping, but did she actually feel like she didn't need sleep? Mack said, no. His understanding was that Lindsay desperately wanted to sleep, but couldn't,

which is different from decreased need for sleep associated with mania. And that distinction mattered because Mack had already explained that the decreased need for sleep was one of the symptoms of mania. And would you agree with me that one of the symptoms, sir, that you would be concerned about as a psychiatrist is when a woman who was postpartum after having a baby is complaining of a number of symptoms, one of which is that she went a long period of time unable to sleep but didn't feel that she had the need to sleep. That's textbook, isn't it?

Well, the DSM textbook refers to a decreased need for sleep as the seventh element of mania. Okay, so that is an indicia of mania. Can I get that out of you? The way it's written is a decreased need for sleep. Okay. I don't know the decrease in. And then the medical... Go ahead.

I think she desperately wanted to sleep. Is that what you think, sir, or is that what your opinion is based on the medical records? That is my understanding based on the totality of the information. Okay. So is it your understanding? that she also exhibited signs or symptoms of postpartum depression. To the extent that she had depression in a period after having had a baby, that is not how DSM would refer to it, but as you said, everybody would be postpartum in that regard.

So my opinion is that she had major depressive episodes in this year or within four or five months following birth. Sure. You're familiar with the postpartum psychosis. You're familiar with that, right? There's the concept of having psychosis. Are you familiar with postpartum psychosis, sir? Yes or no?

I'm familiar with a proposed diagnostic entity called postpartum psychosis. And the idea that people can have psychosis as a mental disorder at other times. You're familiar with the Department of Mental Health and Medicine? Massachusetts, right? Yes. You're familiar with the funding of the Department of Mental Health for the Massachusetts child psychiatry access product. You're familiar with that, right?

No. Called the MCPAP that focuses on postpartum psychosis and postpartum depression. Are you familiar with that, sir? No. Would you agree with me that when a person has a child and is within the postpartum period that they may present to a doctor with symptoms that might lead the doctor to believe that they are suffering from postpartum depression. Would you agree with that? I'm not familiar with that particular program. I'm happy to know you're happy, but I'm just asking,

sir, about postpartum depression. Forget the program. You're not familiar with the program. We get it. I'm asking you now, sir, about your familiarity with postpartum depression. Yes. Okay. And there are symptoms of postpartum depression. Fair to say? Postpartum depression. Are there symptoms, sir? Yes. I am familiar.

Okay. And forget the DSM. Let's just focus on the symptoms as you understand it for postpartum depression, which according to you has to occur within the first four weeks of birth, but quite frankly, it could be six weeks. It could be 12 weeks. It could be a year, right? You said forget the DSM, except that making diagnoses in psychiatry,

require them authority, and we utilize in this country the DSM. Maybe we shouldn't? Right. So, are you familiar, sir? You're not familiar with MCAP from others in Massachusetts. You're not familiar with that subsidiary of the Department of Mental Health, right? No. Are you familiar with the Department of Mental Health Postpartum Psychosis Provider Training?

In other words, what the LASCWs are learning and what the psychologists or psychiatrists working for the DMH are learning about postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis. Are you familiar with those standards? No. How about the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale? We talked about that Friday. You're familiar with that, sir? I am.

But you don't feel it's important. You think the regular GAD scale, general anxiety scale, is sufficient, I guess, right? I don't think I did that. Oh, okay. So do you think that the Edinburgh Postnatal depression scale is important? as a tool for a diagnosing physician dealing with a woman that's within the time frame and exhibiting symptoms of post-patom depression? Yes.

Okay. So what was Lindsay's scale, if you know now, you had the weekend, I imagine to look it up? I don't offhand know what it was. Okay. So if I offhand told you that it was pretty much off the chart, would that have any impact on your opinion as to the utility of the post-Nableness? depression scale that was administered to her? No, sustained.

I mean, all rules, me ask. Sorry. It's a scale that elicits distress, which she had, and it elicits depression, which she had. And it's not just limited to distress and depression. It's focused on, and again, I'll read it, the Edinburgh post-natal depression scale, right? Right.

So not all the answer is right. Had diagnosis of depression. She was being treated for them. All right. So in any event, you don't utilize, apparently, the EPDS, right? You don't utilize in your practice, whatever that may be? Correct. Okay.

Not that I'm against it. I just haven't had the opportunity to use it in some time. Right. Just like you think that, you know, an epistemist, a tear, I guess, when a person has a baby, right? I'm sorry? Remember Friday you said that when a baby is born and the woman suffers a tear? that you called it a particular name? An episiotomy.

Right. When there's a need for a tear for a tear, there are several different degrees. No, no, no, no, wait a minute. Hold on now. Hold on. Excuse me, sir. Friday, you said that the epitiotomy is, in fact, a tear.

Do you remember saying that? I'm not sure exactly in the wording. Did somebody tell you that you were way off base on that testimony Friday, sir? I'm not sure what you're referring to. I'm referring to you. you saying that in a piece of anatomy is a tear and it's not. And your honor, is there a question before the witness?

I already asked the question. I'm looking at him and staring back at me. All right. Why don't you just hold on? You can rephrase that. Do you remember saying Friday that peace got to me is a tear? Do you remember saying that to this jury, sir?

For the exact words that I stated. Okay. Did anybody, did anybody, did anybody, did anybody over the weekend tell you that in fact, you were wrong and that it is a surgical procedure and that a natural tear has nothing to do with that procedure other than repairing. Did anybody talk to you about that at all over the weekend? No.

Okay. No. Reddington then started walking Mack through Lindsay's symptoms of depression, feeling emotionally flat, unable to laugh or enjoy things. And Mac agreed those symptoms appeared in her medical records. Reddington continued walking Mack through Lindsay's symptoms, loss of interest or pletka. pleasure, anxiety, panic and feeling overwhelmed, repeatedly trying to connect them to postpartum depression. Mack agreed Lindsay had reported those symptoms but resisted the postpartum label.

Repeatedly, at one point the judge even stepped in telling Mack that if he couldn't answer a question as phrased, he should simply say so. Reddington continue walking Mack through Lindsay's worsening symptoms, depression, inability to enjoy things, daily crying, and ultimately suicidal thoughts. He then tried to tie those symptoms to postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis. Matt continued and continued pushing back on the terminology. So when Redington got to Lindsay's report of hearing a male voice telling her to kill her children, Mac agreed hearing a voice would be evidence of psychosis, but he would not agree that it automatically meant postpartum psychosis.

Number one, hearing voices. Would you agree, sir, that hearing voices is indicative of having a symptom of postpartum psychosis? You're referring to a condition or an illness called postpartum psychosis, and I don't know that I can answer questions as a psychiatrist based on that. Would you agree, sir, that when a person is suffering from postpartum psychosis, you understand that term, do you not? When we elicit, are you asking about... Do you understand the term postpartum psychosis?

It's real easy. Do you understand that term? It's actually not easy. It's serious. But when we do elicit psychosis after a birth, we take it very seriously. Typically... Who's we? Who's we?

We take it seriously. Who's we? We, psychiatrists. I as a psychiatrist. Yeah. So would you agree with me, sir, that... when you are diagnosing, if you do, a patient that's coming to you for help after having a baby, so it's postpartum, and has been through, let's say, postpartum depression, and is now complaining

of hearing voices or voice commanding her to act. That is a symptom of postpartum psychosis. Yes and no. Is it? That would be psychosis. I don't know exactly based on your hypothetical as to whether it would count as the proposed postpartum effect of this illness disease, but it certainly would be a concerning symptom or sign. Okay, so if you had administered the Edinburgh test, that is something that may have assisted you in evaluating the claim that the person is hearing voices, because that's one of the things that you would be concerned about with the patient, right? You're always concerned if you're encountering somebody who's hearing voices, especially if they're new.

Especially if they're a mother, right? Anybody. How about thought broadcasting? You ever heard of that? Yes. Okay. How about a patient that says that they're worried about hearing voices and they're worried that people such as teachers

could hear the voices in their head? Is that something that would concern you? Yes. How about if the person was afraid that somebody is able to hear the voices in their head and would call the police or DCF and they'd lose their kids? Is that something that would concern you? hypothetically, yes, it would be a... How about actually, in this case, with Lindsay Clancy?

Did you come across that in all of your investigation? I came across, in my evaluation, a period where she worried that people could hear what she was thinking. That's different, first of all, from thought broadcasting. But in either event, as I said, she was in a serious psychiatric state and she was suffering. How about number two, post-patter of psychosis symptomology? Delusional beliefs with distorted reality. Did she complain to Tufts or Jolada about having distorted reality being disassociated? Things weren't real.

Do you recall coming across that? There were times that in the context of some of the medications she was taking that she felt that things weren't real, yes. Okay. So my question, sir. to all. My question, sir, is whether or not she complained of that to her health care providers. You'd agree with me that she did, right? Yes. Okay. Reddington then pressed Mack on whether postpartum psychosis can come and go with someone appearing completely normal between episodes. Mack would not agree seeing postpartum psychosis is still a proposed diagnosis, and it's, of course,

it has not been formally established. So Reddington challenged him directly. Did Mack believe postpartum psychosis is a legitimate mental illness? I'm not sure I understand exactly the context that you just stated. Okay, the context on giving it is... The natural course of an illness called postpartum psychosis, that illness has not been refined. It's not something that we, in psychiatry, at least as far as I'm aware,

can talk about as an illness where we understand its typical course. Okay, okay, time out. Time out. Are you telling me, Doc, you're done with that answer? I'm done. Okay, good. You're telling me, sir, that you don't, basically, you don't believe or buy post-patter psychosis. Is that what you told me? I didn't say that at all. Okay. So you do believe that post-partum psychosis is a serious mental illness?

I don't think it's a matter of belief or not belief. I'm aware of how to elicit the symptom or sign of psychosis. I'm also aware that there's a proposal for an illness that would be recognized, where we understand its typical course and how it progresses that has been proposed and that has not been approved for use in psychiatry. Approved by who? By the American Psychiatric Association. The APA, so you're supposed to go love. By the team that, let me see if I can finish, by the particular body within the American Psychiatry. Do you agree?

that postpartum psychosis is a legitimate disease or defect. Yes or no? When you have a symptom or sign of postpartum of psychosis at any time, but particularly in the postpartum period, it is a legitimate finding and something to be concerned about and to treat. Okay. And when you say within the time frame, you're referring to the Dr. Mack time frame of four weeks, right?

No, I think, as I said, any time that a person has psychosis. Okay. So the issue about four weeks have to do with how we would diagnose it or what wording we would use to diagnose it, but that doesn't have to do with the reality of the individual. Okay, so anytime that there is a psychosis, and if it's postpartum, you would agree that you can put the two words together

in its postpartum psychosis, right? You would not utilize that in your diagnostic terminology. Okay. Well, you would agree, sir. You would see that, and you would be concerned about it, According to the DSM, you would not utilize that. I'm sorry. Doc, if you could repeat that answer, we had some problems following it. Go ahead.

So the presence of psychosis is always of concern, especially if it's new onset. To the extent that we are talking about the proper terminology of labeling something, whether it is postpartum onset or not, the DSM provides guidance as to the timeframe. That is different than my saying that is not serious condition. So symptom number one complaint, according to the Mass General Hospital, major research project, along with the Department of Mental Health, dealing with postpartum psychosis, would indicate that hearing voices, a voice commanding her to act is a symptom of postpartum psychosis. Do you agree with that?

Yes or no. Just give me a yes or no. I can't answer. Okay. The answer is no. The answer is no. So the next symptom was delusional beliefs and distorted reality. Again, Mac asked what authority Reddington was relying upon and whether he was talking about psychosis generally or the proposed illness of postpartum psychosis.

Eventually, Matt gave the broader answer that he had found no evidence of psychosis. psychotic features in Lindsay's medical records. Reddington returned to Lindsay's reports of feeling disconnected from reality and asked Mack if she was saying she had never indicated that she was out of touch with reality or experiencing a disassociative state. Mack acknowledged that he had seen the component Reddington was referring to, but he didn't consider it, strictly speaking, evidence of psychosis or dilution. Reddington wasn't letting the distinction go.

he again asked whether distorted reality and delusional beliefs could be symptoms of postpartum psychosis or postpartum psychosis. Your answer is no, right? No, she did not display psychotic features. I didn't ask about psychotic features. I'm asking you about delusional beliefs and distorted reality, doctor. That is a type of psychosis. So I didn't see any evidence of any psychotic features throughout the medical records. So it's your understanding from reviewing her medical records that Lindsay never indicated that she was not participating in reality, that she was in a disassociated state, that she was out of touch with reality.

You're telling this, Jerry, you never saw that? I did see that evident, that component that she dismissed her position. I don't see that as a sign, strictly speaking, of psychosis. It may have been in some cases, but I don't see any signs. psychosis or delusions? Like in this post-plata psychosis, sir, you'd agree that delusional beliefs distorted reality is a symptom.

Yes or no? Not waxing and waning with your answer. Yes or no? Are you referring to an authority there? I agree. Doctor, hold on. Here's the way this works. All right? You don't really ask a lot of questions. You answer the questions. I told you before, if you can't answer a question

the way it's framed, just let me know. and I'll tell counsel to frame it a different way, all right? So that's the rules. That's how it works here. So go ahead, Mr. Riggton. Thank you. Would you agree, sir, that a symptom of postpartum psychosis with a woman who is coming to a physician for treatment

indicates that they appear to have normal periods between episodes of disassociation where they're calm, they're even laughing, and they can drive cars, they can talk to people, they can use telephones, all of that, right? That description may be of other things, but it's not necessarily a psychosis. How about severe sleep deprivation, sir? Do you agree that severe sleep deprivation is a symptom when you're considering the whole of the patient complaining of various symptoms?

Severe sleep deprivation is a symptom of post-partum psychosis? I can't answer the question the way you phrased it. Okay, so let's say postpartum psychosis, you're somewhat familiar with it, and would you agree that severe sleep deprivation is a symptom of it? I can't answer the question. Okay, you can't answer it, okay. How about rapid mood swings? Would you agree that rapid mood swings are a symptom of postpartum psychosis, sir? I'm not sure I understand your question.

Okay. How about a person saying that they're not herself? I want to be myself. I want to go back to being myself. I can't be myself. Is that a complaint that is a complaint that is a, symptom of post-partum psychosis, sir? It might be.

If the person has psychosis. Okay, the answers it might be. Did Lindsay Clancy indicate that she wanted to go back to being herself? Yes. Now, did she also, was there any evidence, sir, of thoughts of harming her children? Periods when she had impulses or intrusive thoughts about harming her children. And when you say intrusive, if I come to you and if a person comes to you and post-partum psychosis is on your radar and says that they're having intrusive thoughts about harming their

children, would you not ask them what that means? In other words, is it a voice in their head? Is it their thought process? What is it? Do you ask that question? Did anybody ask that question when she was complaining about having intrusive thoughts about suicide, for example? Did anybody ask her what that meant, voices in the head or thoughts? I believe that the clinicians at McLean at Mass General, Dr. Gelada, Dr. Tufts, all asked about or all made inquiries to understand the nature of her suicidal ideation. Do you believe that based on your review of the medical records and based on your review of the numerous cocktail of drugs that were prescribed to her that she received good medical care from Jolada and Tufts? No, the rule. I don't have an opinion on that.

I agree with the person that said, Lindsay looks very focused today. She looks alive. It's, it's, she is looking more aware and more involved. I agree. Reddington returned to Lindsay repeatedly saying she wasn't herself, something Mac acknowledged along with her self-harming thoughts. But when Reddington tried to pull all of her symptoms together and asked whether they strongly pointed to postpartum psychosis, Mac again would not agree.

Reddington changed direction, began asking, whether Lindsay should have received additional medical testing while being prescribed psychiatric medications. Reddington asked about blood work testing. Mack said those tests can be useful, but he didn't recall seeing any evidence that they were done. Despite Lindsay and Patrick reporting changes that she was experiencing on the medications, he didn't really see anything else. The last area Reddington covered was thyroid testing. How about a woman who is complaining that during the postpartum, which goes on ad infinitum, is complaining of postpartum depression symptoms and or postpartum psychosis.

It's important to check their thyroid level, isn't it? It would be important to check thyroid in multiple different psychiatric conditions. So the answer is yes, right? The answer is yes. I'm not sure that that physically answers your question. I don't care. Thank you. That's all I have, Judge. I mean, I don't care. I'm done. Anyway, that was good. I don't care. I don't care.

Yeah, what a lawyer. Then it was the state's turn for redirect. ADA, Buckingham first clarified Dr. Max Roll. Mack explained that he wasn't an investigator. He had been retained to perform a psychiatric evaluation of Lindsay's mental condition. at the time of the January 24th, 2023 killings. Mack said he reviewed a large volume of records, including additional Tewkesbury State Hospital records that came in shortly before he met with Lindsay.

He also explained that his interview required permission from the court and the parties and took place on April 10th and April 12th, 26. Buckingham addressed Mack's payment and relationship with Park Deats and associates. Max said he was paid, regardless of his conclusions, and worked with a firm

with the firm as an independent contractor. Matt also explained that he and Hale Brun had never met before this case. They evaluated Lindsay together because there was only one opportunity to examine her and Hale Brun separately conducted the psychological testing. Matt confirmed the interviews were recorded and Lindsay was repeatedly offered breaks, which she declined. Buckingham also revisited the Florida case Reddington had used to challenge Max qualifications. Mack explained that the case involved substance use

among receiving TAMF benefits, and his opinion relied on nationwide data rather than Florida-specific TAMF data, which was one reason the court ultimately did not qualify him as an expert. Mack emphasized that the case had nothing to do with criminal responsibility, Buckingham then returned to the DSM.

Mack explained that peripartum onset, in quote, periparamanza is a specifier. It adds information to an underlying diagnosis like bipolar or depressive disorder, including when it began. But the underlying diagnosis itself is based on the person's symptoms and clinical presentation. Buckingham then returned to Mack's own diagnosis. Despite reviewing the opinions of other clinicians, Max said he reached his own conclusion. Lindsay had experienced a major depressive episode based on DSM criteria. According to him, many of the symptoms Reddington had just spent so much time walking through on cross were, according to Mack, symptoms of that major depressive episode.

So in other words, when Mack said Lindsay had experienced major depression, he was not dismissing those symptoms. Those symptoms were part of the reason. He reached his diagnosis. So then Buckingham has no further questions. Reddington asked one final question about whether his office controlled when Mack could visit Lindsay. Mack said he didn't know whether Reddington's office was involved. The judge then stepped in telling Mack to stop

because he had already answered the question. And with that, Mac was dismissed. Mac was done. Dunzo Mac. Well, the state, next rebuttal witness was Dr. Kirk Halebrun, or excuse me, Heilbrun. There was an argument about the pronunciation, but I think it's Hylebrun, Dr. Kirk, we can call him Kirk. Dr. Kirk Heilbrun, a forensic psychologist and a professor at Drexel University. He conducts forensic evaluations

for courts and attorneys. He teaches forensic assessment in law. He is board certified in both clinical and forensic psychology. Sprague then went through Hale-Hile Bruins decades of forensic experience, including working in a state psychiatric hospital with people found incompetent to stand trial or not criminally responsible. He eventually served as chief psychologist at Florida State Hospital and later as clinical director of a forensic unit in Virginia. And at Drexel, his work included conducting forensic evaluations for judges and attorneys, and he supervised people providing services to individuals, returning to the community after federal prison time, people under the jurisdiction of the federal mental health court and people who had been released after being exonerated

following a false conviction. He had conducted research and supervised students working in psychology and law. Over his career, Dr. Halebrun had published roughly two, 240 articles, book chapters and books covering areas, including aggression and violence, juveniles, mental disorder adults, offenders, forensic assessment, ethics, and malingering, and deception. Two areas of particular interest to his work were risk assessment and forensic mental health assessment. So risk assessment, that's what forensic psychology is.

It involves looking at different influences that could contribute to violent behavior, like how much risk is there for releasing this person back? into society. And then a forensic mental health assessment involves understanding procedures used when psychological and psychiatric evaluations are being conducted for legal proceedings. It's legal. Are they competent to stand trial? He spent the previous 15 years providing continuing education and mental health and legal

professionals. He presented 50 lectures and workshops on subjects, including forensic assessment, risk assessment, treatment, sexual offenders, and ethics. Sprague then asked about the difference between a forensic evaluator and a treating psychologist, seemingly drawing a contrast with defense expert Dr. Zaisal, who referred to Lindsay as his patient. Heilbrun said he wouldn't call someone he was evaluating a patient, but he would call them an evaluwe. A therapist's job is to help their patient, whereas a forensic evaluator's job, job is to reach an accurate impartial conclusion, whether it helps the person being evaluated or not.

He also said he would never conduct a forensic evaluation on someone he had previously treated because of two roles could create conflict of interest. His courtroom experience is extensive. He has testified at approximately 330 times for both juveniles and adults has covered cases like and sentencings, transfer competency to stand trial, mental state, civil commitment, personal injury. He has done it all. So Sprague then asked whether Heilbrun had ever been hired by prosecutors but reached the conclusion that favored the defense. He said yes, emphasizing that his conclusions do not always favor the side that hired him. So that led to retention bias or the risk that an evaluator could favor the side the hired them. He said he actively guards against that by gathering

information from multiple sources using different methods rather than simply accepting one side's version of events. When asked about if he specializes in things, Kyle Brun said he doesn't specialize in one particular diagnosis and he sees that as an advantage. It helps him guard against confirmation bias, reaching a conclusion too early and then focusing on evidence that supports it. Instead, he tries to consider the different possibilities, follow the evidence wherever it leads. Finally, Sprague asked about his leadership experience. Dr. Heilbrun had served as a chair in his department at Drexel University for 15 years. As president of two national organizations within forensic psychology in the United States,

one was the American Psychology Law Society, the other was the American Board of Forensic Psychology. Sprague then moved to submit Dr. Heilbrun's CV, his very lengthy CV, into evidence, and the judge indicated it could be admitted. Sprague turned then to the evaluation itself. Heilbrun has been reviewing this case, Lindsay's case since January, 2025, and in April 2026, he spent three days evaluating Lindsay. On days one and three, he and Mac interviewed her together, first about her background, her history, later about her thoughts, feelings, and behavior around the killings. On the second day, Heilbrun met with her alone to conduct psychological testing. Heilbrun reviewed an extensive amount of evidence, including medical and police records, defense expert reports, digital evidence, interviews, and surveillance footage.

By the time he testified, according to Heilbrun, he'd spent 180 hours on the case, including roughly 10 and a half hours evaluating Lindsay. collateral interviews included Lindsay's former husband, Patrick, and her mother-in-law sue. Dr. Heilbrun had also requested an interview with Lindsay's sister, but she decided not to participate. He had not requested an interview with Lindsay's mother. Sprague went back to the fact that Dr. Heilbrun and Dr. Mack had conducted two of the interviews together. They asked why they had chosen to do that together. Well, Dr. Heilbrun explained that joint interviews were something he sometimes did, particularly in training settings. So was he training, Dr. Mack?

I don't know. But in this case, many of the questions they wanted to ask about Lindsay's background and history were going to overlap. So it was, in other words, convenience, I guess. Rather than having Lindsay answer the same question twice, they could conduct that portion together and save time. Seems very strange to me, actually. Because you kind of need to establish like a relationship. But what else? Okay. So the third day followed a similar idea, but the subject matter was much more specific. They wanted to go through Lindsay's thoughts, feelings, behaviors leading up to that horrific day, January 24th, 2023 in very detailed, very like step by step fashion. Since they expected some of those questions to overlap, they could either ask

them together or have one doctor asked them while the other reviewed the recorded interview. Sprague asked whether the two doctors reached a joint diagnosis after conducting those interviews. You know, I was like, yeah, did you? Here you go. So on. So no, we wrote separate reports. We actually did not agree on that diagnosis. Now, if we could have that. In terms of your evaluation of Ms. Clancy, including the records and the collateral interviews and your interviews of her, did you form some main conclusions? I did, yes. And if you could tell us, what were your major findings regarding Ms. Clancy's mental health history before September of 2022. She had a fairly limited mental health history before September 2022.

This was, she did experience some anxiety related to achievement. She's a very strong student in school and she got straight A's, basically. She experienced some anxiety while in nursing school doing case presentations because you have to stand up in front of a group. And that made her kind of anxious. And then she had some anxiety connected with her three pregnancies, some in the beginning about the ultrasounds and so on. And some sort of as she was returning to work. So after each child, she'd have some time off with a child, and then after several months, she would return to work. And on each of those occasions with Cora and Dawson and Callan, she had some anxiety because she didn't like to leave her children.

That was an important consideration for her, whether it was dropping them off at school or returning to work or or leaving them with a babysitter or going out with friends, going out on date night. She didn't like to leave them. And so those were some of the things that were connected with her mental health history before September of 2022. And this was in the context of her growing up as a highly achieving individual, getting very strong grades, competing in sports and competitive cheerleading. These are all things that the anxiety probably pushed her a little bit more in the direction of doing this very well, because she was a very hardworking and highly self-disciplined individual. She also grew up in a family that was close and comfortable and had a number of friends that she was, she spent time with both as a girl and a teenager and so on.

But she was very highly achieving. And I think one of the important aspects of her mental health history before September of 2022 is that she really did not experience anxiety in a way that interfered very much with her functioning. She had about six months' worth of treatment for the anxiety connected with a nursing school. But it was not something that interfered with her life very much prior to September of 2022. And Dr. Did you also learn that growing up as a child, she didn't experience any type of abuse, witness any domestic violence, have any sort of trauma? or anything like that as she was growing up. So after that was asked,

Heilbrun looked at Lindsay's childhood using the adverse childhood experiences or ACE's questionnaire. Her score was zero. She reported no childhood abuse, no domestic violence, no other sort of adverse experiences measured by the test. Heilbrun said,

this was consistent with what he learned from others about her childhood. Heilbrun moved then to September, 2022, about 12 weeks after Callan was born. Lindsay was becoming increasingly anxious and depressed about leaving him and returning to work. Again, she'd always struggled with leaving her children. But this time, Callan was breastfeeding and would not take a bottle. So Lindsay worked night shifts and worried about what would happen, right?

If she went back to work, she would work night shifts. What happened if you woke up while she was gone and wouldn't eat? It was causing her anxiety. So in September, Lindsay sought treatment from Dr. Jennifer Tufts. She was prescribed Zoloft for her anxiety. She initially hesitated because she was breastfeeding, but began taking it in October. And then Hyburn said that that's when things got worse, her anxiety did not improve. She started experiencing significant insomnia and stress.

By November, these symptoms had become severe enough that she wasn't able to return to work. She reached out to her mother-in-law, Sue Clancy, while struggling with anxiety, raising thoughts, or raising heart, loss of appetite, serious insomnia. Lindsay also believed the medications were making her worse. By late November, she described herself as near the, quote, end of her rope, struggling with severe insomnia, panic, disorientation, feeling almost zombie-like and disconnected from her body. So according to Heilbrun, those problems continued into December.

And by that month, she was experiencing what she called horrible intrusive thoughts, quote horrible intrusive thoughts including quote your brain is damaged you need to kill yourself end quote so later some involved harming the children bahal brun emphasized an important distinction lindsay described these as her own unwanted thoughts not voices or auditory hallucinations they were her own thoughts he testified that he specifically asked lindsay about this distinction during the evaluation, and she told him the thoughts felt like her own thoughts. They were unwelcome and intrusive, but they weren't voices. So according to Hal Bruin, Lindsay did not report experiencing auditory hallucinations

until January 24th. By December, Lindsay was severely depressed, had unintentionally lost 15 pounds, described feeling numb and zombie-like, and although her sleep improved somewhat, the depression remained severe. to December 15th, one of what she described as her worst days, Patrick took her to Mass General. Five days later, she sought help at Women and Infants Hospital in Rhode Island. Lindsay wasn't accepted into its postpartum day program, according to Heilbrun. The provider believed her symptoms were more consistent with general anxiety and depressive disorders

than the postpartum condition that particular program treated. Well, Spray clarified that although Lindsay wasn't accepted, into the postpartum program, women and infants offered other treatment options. That included inpatient partial hospitalization. Lindsay's response was that she planned to discuss those options with her outpatient provider. Kyle Brun said he found no record that Lindsay followed up on those specific options. Instead, she returned to her existing outpatient treatment. On January 1st, Lindsay was admitted to McLean Hospital after experiencing severe,

severe self-harming thoughts. Her records listed postpartum depression and major depressive disorder, and Lindsay identified insomnia as her biggest concern. She reported that being hospitalized made her more anxious than being at home. When asked about suicide, Lindsay said she wouldn't kill herself because of her children and her mother, what Halbrun described as protective factors or reasons that someone could keep somebody from acting on self-harming thoughts. Lindsay remained at McLean for five days by January 3rd. She was documented as having no safety concerns, being at minimal risk if she returned to the community. She described her mood as numb, denied delusions, hallucinations, ongoing, self-harming thoughts, or even homicidal thoughts.

So then she's discharged on January 5th, and she's described as cooperative. She's described as pleasant. The records indicate no psychosis, no self-harm or homicidal thinking. So she leaves McLean, Lindsay tells Heilbrun she had a, quote, small shred of hope, in part because she'd been taken off Syriquil, but she believed was causing the problems. But within a week, she said, the intrusive, self-harming thoughts returned. Heilbrun also emphasized again that after Lindsay began Zoloft in October, her anxiety did not improve, and she developed severe insomnia, a new symptom along with feeling numb and zombie-like. Halbrun noted that Lindsay had placed a lot of hope in medication. While she had had some counseling, he tried to emphasize she wasn't receiving therapy like CBT, cognitive behavioral therapy, to help her work, to help her work through what she was

experiencing. So instead, she was looking to medication, talking to doctors, doing her own research, asking friends and family for any suggestions they had. Heilbrun called it mixed evidence surrounding Lindsay's diagnosis. From October through January, different providers gave her a range of diagnosis, including anxiety, depression, bipolar, postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis. PTSD came later after January 2023. Halbrun said there were several factors complicating Lindsay's diagnosis.

So here they were. She was taking psychotropic medication and appeared to be having adverse reactions. She was experienced serious sleep deprivation for roughly three months. This is happening just months after giving birth. Lindsay was anxious about returning to work leaving Callan because he was breastfeeding, wouldn't take a bottle. Exercise was another factor. Lindsay had always used running yoga, other exercise demand and her anxiety, but she stopped

when she began to what she believed were adverse medication reactions taking away one of her usual ways of coping. Spray asked whether Dr. Halbrun was aware that Lindsay had been able to return to exercising on several occasions in December and January, including going to the Kingsbury Club, where she was a member. He said he was, but from a clinical perspective, Sprigg asked whether exercise was something

he would recommend to someone in Lindsay's situation, in addition to medication and to therapy. He said it could be helpful if it worked for the person, right? So some people use it effectively through their lives to manage anxiety, particularly when anxiety is severe enough to require treatment, right? Kyle Bruin then gave his own diagnosis of Lindsay, bipolar to disorder. So he said, he acknowledged this was a difficult diagnosis because of Lindsay's many different

symptoms and previous diagnoses. She clearly experienced a depressive episode. But bipolar disorder also requires a period of elevated mood, symptoms that can include increased energy, decreased sleep, racing thoughts, kind of like feeling unusually powerful or important, being able to keep going without getting tired. That was where he had initially struggled with the diagnosis. He could not find what he considered to be like a clear manic episode in her history. There were periods after the birth of her children when she described feeling really good,

feeling on top of the world, feeling really like especially close to her husband and children. When he looked at those periods more closely, they didn't seem to resemble like mania, right? The manic episode. So they appeared more consistent with Lindsay simply feeling good and then returning to exercising. So the absence of like an obvious manic episode is this one thing that made Dr. Heilbrun hesitant before diagnosing bipolar disorder. Ultimately, though, another part of Lindsay's history influenced his conclusion. Lindsay had been at Tewksbury for more than three and a half years where she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder.

Heilbrun found those records, particularly important, including her response when a mood stabilizing medication have been discontinued. Ultimately, again, he diagnosed Lindsay with bipolar 2. He described this as a less severe form of bipolar disorder. He said he chose bipolar 2 because he had not found evidence of a clearly manic episode before January 24. One example that had come up as possible mania was Lindsay and Patrick cleaning out their garage, filling in the about 20 trashbacks. Halpern didn't see it that way. Neither did Lindsay nor Patrick describe it as manic.

Patrick said they'd both been working hard to clean the garage out together. They wanted to. Halpern explained the differences in bipolar. Bipolar 1 requires a manic episode. Bipolar 2 involves the less severe hypomania. So when asked whether Lindsay showed signs of hypomania, he said it was less clear. He hadn't seen a clear manic episode.

But believe some of her behavior, could potentially, potentially reflect a less severe elevated mood state. He explained that bipolar disorders can typically emerge in adulthood, often in someone's 20s and 30s. And then the questioning moved to the next section of the PowerPoint, criminal responsibility evaluation. And so, Dr. Heilbrun said that he had not been brought in to the case to just diagnose Lindsay or describe her symptoms. This was about criminal responsibility. This was a criminal responsibility

evaluation. He had to consider the legal standard for criminal responsibility in Massachusetts, then determine how Lindsay's mental condition related to that standard. He understood what the judge would ultimately instruct the jury on the law, but his understanding of the Massachusetts standard was that a person wasn't criminally responsibility if at the time of the offense they suffered. from a mental disease or defect and as a result lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of their conduct or to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. Dr. Heilbrun broke that down into three components. First, there had to be a mental disease or defect. Second, that mental disease or defect had to

affect the person's capacity to understand what they were doing was criminal or wrong. Third, it could affect their capacity to control their behavior and conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. He explained that this was why he had spent so much time examining Lindsay's symptoms when those symptoms began and how they developed. But he couldn't stop there. He also had to determine how those symptoms affected Lindsay's ability to understand the wrongfulness of her conduct or control her behavior. And that standard remained in his mind throughout the entire higher evaluation. Dr. Habrin said he had even put it on the first page of his report because he wanted to make it clear from the beginning that those legal questions were guiding his evaluation

on Lindsay's records, his interviews with her and her psychological testing. Sprigg asked what psychological testing Dr. Habrown conducted. He said they were several. One involved what forensic psychologist called response style. So during an interview, someone might provide information as accurately and reliably as they can within the limits of their memory. Other possibilities a person could exaggerate or fabricate, right? Malingering. Or they could go the opposite direction and minimize or deny symptoms that were actually, that they were experiencing. So determining which response style was present was an important part of a forensic evaluation and one of the tests Dr. Halpern administered was the Minnesota

multifacic personality inventory. As we know, the MNPI, this test contains the scales that helped him evaluate whether someone was responding reliably or exaggerating. And then there were other reasons for this testing as well, though. He wanted to look for symptoms associated with severe mental illness, right? Hallucinations, delusions, mental disorganizations, mental disorganization. What mental disorganization is, according to the doctor, it could involve difficulties staying focused on what's being discussed, getting off topic or going into tangential areas instead of remaining focused on the original subject.

Side note, by the way, pause. Is anybody else like diagnosing themselves with a bunch of stuff? I'm like, mental disorganization. Okay, sounds like me sometimes. Anyway, sorry, back to what we're talking about. That was interesting, though. mental disorganization, difficulty staying focused on what's being discussed, the irony, getting off topic, going into different areas than the original subject. So he also wanted to examine the symptoms Lindsay reported experiencing around January 24th, 2023.

Depression, another major area he wanted to measure. Lindsay had reported significant depression. So the psychological testing gave him another way to assess how severe those symptoms were. and then there was suicidal thinking, particularly important because Lindsay had reported self-harming thoughts leading up to January 24th. Dr. Halbrun wanted to examine her thoughts, feelings, behavior related to the self-harming thoughts, and then leading up to that horrific date and around that January 24th date. So at that point, lunch break in court, boom, after lunch breaks, break continues, returns to the psychological testing. Dr. Habroun had conducted this on Lindsay and asked, then he was asked to explain the result.

Here we go, the MMMPI. He immediately pointed out one important limitation. The test had been administered about three and a half years after the alleged offense. Yeah, that's kind of a limitation. So much of what was measured reflected Lindsay's mental state in April 2026 this year, rather than 2023. I would say this is kind of a big limitation, but okay, moving on. Dr. Habrne explained that reconstructing someone's mental state from years earlier is challenging. Yeah.

And some of the tests asked Lindsay to think back on how she'd been doing at the time of the killings. So while the MMPI focused on how she was doing at the time she took the test, this is what he said. And this was, of course, three and a half years after the alleged offense. So it's going to describe, much of it is going to describe her thinking and feeling and behavior in April of 2026 rather than January of 2023. But it's something that that's always a challenge when you try to reconstruct what happened some time ago. And so some of these tests were administered from the standpoint of what was it like for you back then. But the MMPI was delivered in terms of how you're doing right now. And she, on the response style scales that I talked about earlier, she showed a slight tendency to underreport, to deny unusual experiences.

Although she did that in a way that was pretty sophisticated. She's a bright woman. And so given this, we kind of take into account a little bit, the fact that she might be underreporting a little bit in terms of what's really wrong with her. However, there are a number of what we call clinical scales on this test, and she was not elevated on any of them, meaning that she's not actively symptomatic in many areas or in great. distress in certain ways. But there was one scale that is elevated, and that is the suicide and death ideation scale, thinking about suicide and death. And I should say that Ms. Clancy has been on one-to-one suicide precautions, which is the highest level of precautions that a hospital can take since she came to Tewksbury.

This is a very long time to be on that kind of precautions. And what it says to me is that she was at risk for suicide. She remains at risk for suicide. And so she still is. And so Dr. Harbin explains he administered two different measures of the suicide intent, right? So one is the Beck suicide intent scale. other was the Columbia suicide severity rating scale. So it was when Lindsay answered one of those measures based on how she would have responded

around January 2023. The results suggested that what she'd experience at the time had been a very serious suicide attempt. Okay. So very serious. And when she answered both measures based on how she felt at the time of the evaluation, the results indicated that she remained at high risk for suicide. So that again was consistent with why she remained on one-to-one supervision at Tewkesbury. The next test was the brief symptom inventory.

Dr. Heilbrun administered that under two different conditions, he asked Lindsay to describe how she was doing currently. And around April, 26, and then separately asked her to describe how she'd been doing in January 2023. And when she answered based on January 2020, she endorsed a number of symptoms. She described feeling extremely depressed and having little to no interest in things. She had thoughts about death and dying, hopelessness about the future, feeling very self-conscious around people. She said that she felt something was wrong with her mind. She reported depression, suspiciousness, memory problems, difficulty with attention, and difficulty with concentration.

So we gave an example of the concentration problems, Lindsay described. And she said that she could be cooking and forget which step she was on. I mean, gosh, I'm like, this is anybody else feeling like this is them? Most of the symptoms were consistent with depression. I'm like, okay, okay, listening. Sorry, back to Lindsay, though. This is really interesting to me. So she would forget steps that she was on.

Most of the symptoms were consistent with depression. Dr. Halbrun believed the results provided a good indication that Lindsay was experiencing significant depression during this period, although she appeared to have improved somewhat compared with how she'd been feeling in December. Okay. So then another test was the obsessional beliefs questionnaire. This was interesting to me. This contained three different scales. The first measured beliefs surrounding personal responsibility. or estimation of threats.

So Lindsay was not elevated on that scale, but the second measured perfectionism and certainty. Again, not elevated. Okay. And then Dr. Heilbrun acknowledged though that Lindsay had always been hardworking, but the testing did not show and elevate the level of perfectionism on that measure at the time of testing. Third scale was called importance and control of thoughts,

and that one was elevated. to the importance and control of thoughts. That one is elevated. Dr. Heilbrun explained that controlling her thoughts and what was happening in her mind had always been important to Lindsay. She had been someone who worked hard and tried to main control over her life.

And he connected that result to what he had learned about the month leading up to January 24th. I'm going to pause there and say, that's really fascinating to me because in the episode with Dr. John, go back and watch it, he talks about that, people that try to control their thoughts and how that can backfire. It's just fascinating to me to hear this. Okay, so since October, Lindsay had been trained very hard to get control over the problem she was

experiencing. She wasn't succeeding, right? The next psychological test was a hallucination scale. She, Lindsay had endorsed several statements on that test. She agreed that sometimes a passing thought could seem so real. It frightened her. She also endorsed having difficulty concentrating because she became distracted by her thoughts, something she had experienced back in 2022, 2023. There were also statements involving hearing voices, but Dr. Halbrun emphasized the timing. Lindsay endorsed having previously experienced a person's voice. when no one was there, only in connection, he said, with January 24th. Same was true for the statement about hearing a voice speaking to her thoughts aloud.

And when asked whether she'd been troubled by hearing voices in her head, she again endorsed that only for January 24th. Then Dr. Halbrun moved into the final section of his PowerPoint, which dealt with something he'd considered particularly important, which is particularly important, which is a question. which is the question of why. Why Lindsay killed her children? Which is why it was important for me to consider her motivation for killing her children. And this is something that if you look at Lindsay Clancy would be described as so out of character that I'd just like to know what was

what could possibly have been going on. Because, for instance, when I talked to her and talk to her husband as well about how do you discipline your kids, it was never spanking, it was never hands-on, it was never anything like that. They both felt bad when they yelled at the kids. So it was one of those things that to imagine her doing something like this is really seemed so out of character that I thought it was very important to try to figure out why it might have happened. So this is how I approach it. The other thing about the why question is it could well be something that is valuable to know when we're thinking about whether she understood that

something was wrong or when she was thinking about whether she could conform her conduct to the requirements of the law or control herself, the why question seemed important. So if I could have the next slide. Sure. And evaluating the why did you come up with two possible explanations? I did, yes, which is on this slide. And so can you explain that, please?

I can, yes. There are a number of reasons in my experience why people harm one another, why people kill one another. And most of these reasons ended up not applying to Ms. Clancy. I mean, it wasn't job-related. She wasn't in the military, the police. Didn't have to do with money or property or fame or anger or being callous or abusive or being afraid or doing it and something.

None of those there was any evidence for. But there were a couple of things that started to have some evidence for. And this is what it looked like. One is the psychosis, the possibility that there's a possibility that. that she had a severe mental illness, experiencing hallucinations, delusions, that sort of thing. And as part of that on January 24th, experienced those symptoms that we're going to talk about in a minute. And I'm calling that the first bullet point. They're acute psychosis with command hallucinations.

The second possible explanation was as part of an attempt to take one's own life as part of a suicide, one might harm one's children if you thought that would prevent them from suffering. And let me see if I can give you an example of that. If one of us were to learn and we had no doubt in our mind that the Holocaust was coming tomorrow, and we thought that was going to be awful, and I can't live through that, and so I'm going to take my own life, if I had children, The question might come up, do I take them with me? Do I take their lies as well? Now, I'm not saying that I would definitely do that, but what I'm saying is that it would come up as a possibility in what I thought about.

And so there ended up being, in my mind, two possible explanations for why she did what she did. The first being the acute psychosis with command hallucinations. And the second being, this was a serious suicide attempt. And she wanted the children to be with her so she wouldn't be separated from them. And so they wouldn't have to suffer after she was gone. Now, in a minute, I'm going to talk about the evidence that I saw supporting each of those. But I will tell you right now, in advance of talking about that, that most of the evidence that I saw supported the second one and not the first. And so, Doctor, if we could go to the next slide and you could talk to us, tell us what evidence you saw for acute psychosis with command hallucinations.

Yes. The first was that's what she said. I asked her that question and that's the way she explained it happened. She said sometime on the afternoon of January 24th, 2023, that she heard a voice. and the voice said, this is your last chance. You have to kill the kids so you can kill yourself. If she actually heard a voice like that, that would be evidence of psychosis being experienced and what we call command hallucinations where the voice is instructing her to do something. There were some other possible things that made me think that it could be, a severe mental illness that she was experiencing, and two, in particular. One was thinking that others might know her thoughts. Now, this is something that is a symptom of psychosis called

thought broadcasting if it's experienced in a certain way. In thought broadcasting, if I'm experiencing that, I literally have the idea that if I'm thinking it, you can hear what I'm saying, just as if I were putting it on the television or podcast or a movie or whatever. It's just coming out that way. I ask her about that and she said, and other people ask her about that too, and she said it was not thought broadcasting, but these were very vivid thoughts. And she thought that it might be that people could hear them as vivid and strong as they were. The second possible symptom is that thinking police might take her children.

Now, some of the records, in some of the records I saw people saying, well, this looks like a paranoid delusion to me. And I will tell you that it didn't look either paranoid or like a delusion to me. And here's why. I'm a healthcare professional. And that means that in Pennsylvania and every other state I know, know, I'm a mandated reporter. If someone tells me in therapy or in an assessment that they think that a child is going to be injured or severely hurt or that might happen, then I'm required by law

to contact child line in Pennsylvania. Ms. Clancy is a labor and delivery nurse. She's a health care professional as well. And so it's one of those things where if she had thought, if she had said to a psychiatrist, psychologist, anyone providing treatment, that she thought she was experiencing ideas like she might harm her kids, she would know as a mandated reporter that they were legally required to report that. Now, that might not mean that the police would literally come and take her kids away, but it would mean that there would be an investigation. She would have to answer questions, and it might be that for a period of time she would be separated from the children. And doctor, is it?

I thought he was done. I don't know. We'll find out. Were you done? I just want to ask a follow-up question about your last point. Is that okay? Yes, that's okay. And so you mentioned you didn't think it was a delusion.

Is it true that a delusion is a fixed, false belief? Yes, that's a way it's defined. And so Ms. Clancy, thinking that if someone knew she thought of harming her kids, her kids might be taken away, that's not a false. belief, correct? Well, that was what I was trying to say is that it is not a false belief. It's quite possible that it could come to pass. And if you could continue with your discussion of why, the evidence you saw for acute

psychosis. Yes. The other point there at the bottom is that it's appealing as an explanation because it could explain acts that seems so out of character for her. You don't have to get complicated at all. It's just I had a psychotic episode. I heard a voice. The voice told me to do something terrible.

I did it. And after considering the evidence for acute psychosis command hallucinations, did you then consider evidence against acute psychosis with command hallucinations? I did, yes. And what did you say? One of the reasons, well, the first bullet point here is that the way she described this is happening is that she heard a voice that she did. never heard before, experienced it an hallucination. And she's never experienced it since,

but she only experienced it for the 18 minutes or so that it took to kill the children. And to put it mildly, that would be a very, very unusual pattern or manifestation of how this kind of thing comes about. Very unusual. I don't know. I've been doing this kind of evaluation for many, many years. And I'm always very careful when someone tells me that they experience the symptom only during the course of committing an offense. Why is that, doctor? Why are you careful when someone tells you that they only experience this voice during a criminal offense? Well, because it provides a convenient way of lessening your own culpability.

I mean, it's always possible, but as I said, I find it very, very rare. Whereas an explanation for why somebody did something, somebody might look at that and say it's a convenient way of somebody looks at me and I don't have the same culpability that I would otherwise. So another consideration involved, whether what Lindsay experience could be classified as postpartum psychosis because by the time of January 24th, 2023, Lindsay was approximately eight months removed from the birth of Callan. So Dr. Heilbrun said that many authoritative sources, including the DSM-5, right? We know this in the Cleveland Clinic, usually kind of say the postpartum

psychosis is usually occurs within a much shorter period following childbirth, off around like the first one or two months. The further someone is, you know, from birth, the less likely that it became that the condition would be maybe classified as postpartum. That did not mean that Lindsay could not have experienced another form of mental illness. Dr. Halbrun acknowledged that she'd experienced significant depression and other symptoms during January, but based on the timing, he'd considered postpartum psychosis less likely. Another concern was inconsistency in Lindsay's descriptions of the voice. When Dr. Halbrun asked her what the voice had said, she gave him one.

specific account. She said, the voice told her, quote, this is your last chance. You have to kill your kids so you can kill yourself. So according to Lindsay, that was what the voice repeated for approximately 18 minutes. 18 minutes, the voice repeated that, essentially the entire period during which she killed the children. But Dr. Howell-Brun had found other versions of the story in the records. For example, when Lindsay was hospitalized after the killings, She told a psychiatrist attending that the voice had said different things. Those statements included ideas like the children would suffer without her or that she had to take the children with her. Dr. Heilbrun considered those differences as important.

The question became which version was accurate, right? Was the first version accurate or was the second version accurate? Or were neither completely accurate? He explained that the accounts couldn't all be accurate if Lindsay had told some people, that the voice said only one thing and told others that it said that plus additional things. Sprague then attempted to ask whether a third version of the story would also be significant. There was an objection that the question was speculative and lacked a factual foundation. The judge allowed Sprague to reframe it as a hypothetical.

And under that hypothetical, if someone had already given two different accounts of what a voice told them and then provided a third version, would that matter in evaluating the consistency of their account hypothetically? So Dr. Heilbrun said, yes. The more inconsistencies, the harder it becomes for him to conclude that one version was the accurate account. And then another area of research that he had considered involved malingered hallucinations. Never heard that term before, but malingered hallucinations. So hallucinations that are exaggerated or fabricated, Dr. Heilbruner, and had reviewed research looking in how people who genuinely experienced hallucinations

tend to describe them compared with people who inaccurately report having hallucinations. And one of the factor involves whether the voice was experienced internally or externally. So a genuine hallucination is perceived as an external voice rather than simply a person's own thoughts. Lindsay's case, she described the voice as external. So that aspect of her account was more consistent with the genuine hallucination. And then there's another factor. According to one research source, Dr. Heilbrun reviewed, 88% of people reporting command hallucinations also experienced a related delusion.

Lindsay had not reported any accompanying delusion. So on those two factors, one aspect of her account looked more consistent with a genuine hallucination while the absence of a related delusion raised a concern about possible exaggeration. Frequency and control were another consideration. Genuine psychotic hallucinations were more often. intermittent. They could come and go over time with a person hearing a voice, having it stop and experiencing again. Lindsay's experience was different. She reported that the voice was continuous for roughly 18 to 20 minutes and then it stopped. She had not heard it before that

period and had not heard it since. She did not report having any control over the voice or over her actions in response to it. The content of the hallucination provided a mixed picture. Research suggested genuine hallucinations were often familiar and could involve a voice of either gender, although the voices were generally described as clear rather than vague. Lindsay's description was clear, but the voice was unfamiliar and was a single male voice. So Dr. Heilbrun didn't count that factor in either direction. Finally, he looked at how Lindsay responded to the voice and whether she attempted to cope with it or to reduce its influence. People experiencing genuine hallucinations sometimes tried to make the voice a stop or reduce their impact.

You might pray, listen to music, use some other strategy to distract. People who inaccurately report hallucinations are less likely described those kinds of coping mechanisms. But again, and then he says, Lindsay had not reported trying to stop the voice or distract herself from it or otherwise reduce its influence. But I want to point out that she had been hearing things and trying to control her. her thought actually for some time. That was also part of what John discussed that she had been trying earlier. When Dr. Heilbrun put all of these factors together,

he found approximately three points that made Lindsay's account more consistent with an exaggerated or fabricated hallucination. One factor was more consistent with a genuine hallucination, while another was mixed. Sprague then raised what might seem like a contradiction. Earlier, Dr. Halbrun had testified that Lindsay's psychological testing

showed a tendency towards minimizing or underreporting rather than malingering, right? Exactly. She would minimize or underreport, but she doesn't lie. She doesn't exaggerate. She's not malingering. So how could the testing suggest that she wasn't generally malingering? While his analysis of the voice raised concerns that she may have exaggerated or fabricated that particular experience.

I have the same question. I'm like, this isn't making sense. So Dr. Habrune explains that psychological testing was better at identifying broad patterns of malingering. Someone who's trying to fake a mental illness might take what he called a shotgun approach, claiming to experience a wide variety of unusual or extreme symptoms. Those types of response patterns could often be detected through specialized testing. But there was another possibility.

Someone could answer the vast majority of questions, honestly, accurately, while exaggerating or fabricating one specific symptom or experience. that kind of isolated exaggeration was much harder for psychological testing to identify. So in a case like this, Dr. Halbrun said psychologists could not simply rely on the test results. They also had to examine the individual symptom itself, look at how it was described, compare it with the person's overall presentation, compare it to relevant research, evaluate whether the reported experience made sense in the context of the disorder being considered. And then Sprague moved to the next slide.

and asked whether there was additional evidence against acute psychosis, and there was. Dr. Halburn went back to what he saw as the central question, whether the experience Lindsay described was actually a hallucination, or whether it could have been a thought. She'd already explained why the reported hallucination seemed unusual to him. It never happened before, and it hadn't happened since. And according to Lindsay, it was constant for approximately 18 minutes. but if the experience wasn't an external hallucination at all. If it was instead an unwanted intrusive thought,

then it would fit much more closely with the symptoms Lindsay had already been experiencing for months, intrusive thoughts about harming herself, thinking about suicide struggling with the idea that her brain might be broken or damaged, and she'd been having thoughts about how difficult things were becoming. So Dr. Halper explained that if the statement, this is your last chance you have to kill the kids so you can kill yourself was actually an intrusive thought rather than a hallucinated voice, it would fit into the pattern of thoughts she'd been experiencing for some time. Dr. Halbrun continued explaining why he believed the

statement Lindsay described as a voice could have actually been an intrusive thought. So by January 24, she'd already been experiencing thoughts about hurting herself and thoughts about hurting the children, along with a number of other unwanted thoughts. So if the statement was actually a thought rather than an auditory hallucination, it would fit with the pattern she had been experiencing. The explanation made more sense, more sense to Dr. Habrune, than the idea that Lindsay suddenly experienced an external voice she never heard before for the first time and only during the 18 or so minutes when the children were killed. Then he pointed out some other what he thought was evidence of what happened when Patrick Clancy came home that evening. So Patrick came home around 6 p.m. January 24th. Found the house quiet, right?

At first Patrick thought maybe the family might be playing hide and seek. He called downstairs and didn't get an answer. He called upstairs, didn't get an answer. So when he went upstairs and found the bedroom door locked, he used his key to get inside and saw blood and an open window. Patrick ran back downstairs where he found Lindsay lines semi-conscious, right? So his first question to her was, what did you do? And from what we know, and according to Dr. Habroon, Lindsay says, I try to kill myself.

That response was to him important to his analysis because if Lindsay had actually experienced a command hallucination telling her to kill the children and then herself, Lager Howbrun thought she might have responded differently. She might have said something like, I did what I had to do. do or I did what the voice told me to do. But that's not what Lindsay said and said she immediately described what had happened as a suicide attempt. So Dr. Habroun did say that this fits with his overall interpretation of what happened to have been a serious and highly lethal suicide attempt. So I think it's kind of interesting that the state spent so much time during the beginning of

trial trying to insinuate that Lindsay's attempts weren't that serious or were possibly fake when their own expert witness right now, the best one, in my opinion, they've ever had is describing it as very serious. Well, Halbrun also questioned Lindsay's memory that night. She initially said she couldn't remember what happened and was later told about it. There were some, there were some additional inconsistencies in terms of whether she knew that when I ask her whether she was aware that it was illegal or immoral, she said, basically, I wasn't thinking about this at all. No thoughts, no decisions, none of that. It was just all action. One of the things that Dr. Resnick wrote in his report is that she was intellectually aware that it was wrong or illegal, but not morally. And what she said to me is that I just don't think, I wasn't thinking about that at all. I didn't know any of that.

And if we could go to the next slide, I think if you could describe for us the evidence that you saw for suicide combined with altruistic philocyte. Yeah. Altruistic felicide is a term that's used that means killing your kids out of love, not because you're trying to be cruel or for material gain or because you want them out of your lives or any of that. but killing them out of love so that you could basically they wouldn't have to suffer, so you could prevent their suffering. And what she did, I thought, was begin with what I said a minute ago was a highly lethal and very serious suicide attempt. And that was preceded by...

It was proceeded by months of thoughts and impulses about you should harm yourself, you should kill yourself, your brain is damaged, that sort of thing. And that, I think, is the beginning of the way to understand what happened that day. The second point is that, as I've said before, she didn't like to leave her children, whether that was for date night or school or going back to work or anything. She did not like to leave her children. And if she had taken her own life, then her children would have been without her, and she thought that they would suffer. And she'd been having these thoughts, both about herself and about her children over a several month period.

And the other thing that I will say is that she was in pain. She was suffering. She was doing a little bit better than she had been before she went into McLean. But she was still in pain. suffering, I think she was even desperate. And that is something that is often characterizes people who try to take their own life. They're in pain, they're suffering, and they're trying to put a stop to it. And I think when she decided at some point that she was going to put a stop to it, then she had to answer the question of what to do about the kids. And she didn't want to

leave them. And she was convinced that they would be, they would suffer without her. and further evidence that you saw for the suicide combined with altruistic suicide? There was. One of the things that she said, I want to ask about what happened, is that in the course of strangling each child, she said, go to God, baby, go to God. And that was part of her expectation that she and the children would be together in heaven with God. She was raised as a Catholic.

and this, as I understand, Catholic considerations, that's not necessarily what happens, but when I ask her about that, when I said, isn't suicide of mortal sin? Yeah, can I see counsel over here? So I'm going to ask you, let's go back to the jury room, and then we'll bring you back in a couple of minutes, all right? And this is where things go sideways, because remember, this had already, happened, right, just last week. The prosecution brought up mortal sin during Sue Clancy, Patrick Clancy's mother's testimony. The judge instructed the jury to disregard it. And then Reddington decided at that point not to seek a mistrial, but now religion has come up again. And this time, Reddington moved for a mistrial.

Let's keep watching. Yeah. Sidebar conference. I think the defendant made a motion. I'm going to allow an argument in regards to the motion. I'll hear first from the defendant and then I will hear from the Commonwealth. Mr. Rangenton. Thank you, Judge. Your Honor, this has been obviously

a long trial and a lot of work on the part of everybody involved from the court to the staff to the prosecutors to myself and needless to say, the strain on Lindsay Clancy. I have to move for a mistrial reluctantly.

The reason is that this is intentional misconduct on the part of the prosecution. You know that this whole idea of injecting Roman Catholic faith, the concept of mortal sin, into this trial occurred, I don't even remember now, about a week ago, and I objected, but before I could get the objection out, you're on ahead of sit the sidebar at the same time, and very forcefully, in my opinion, indicated to the jury, is that they should not consider that to any degree. At the time, I put on record the fact that I did not feel that I felt that the court's instructions were sufficient.

They were forceful. They were right on point. And we move forward without a motion for a mistrial. I made a tactical decision. But unfortunately, at this point, it's a concern I have because this is just over the top. It's the same thing again, talking about religion, talking. talking about heaven, talking about killing people and the impact of the effect that it would have on Lindsay, as well as her children. The fact that this is not the first time that it occurred during the trial and the prosecution has previously brought up the concept of mortal sin,

based on your ruling in the past in conjunction with the fact that they brought it up again, I believe it was intentional misconduct, and I feel that the court should grant the motion for Mr. L. All right, thank you. Kamala? Thank you, Your Honor. The question I asked the witness did not ask for any testimony about religion, about Catholicism, about mortal sins, or anything like that. And the slide is still up on the screen. There's nothing on the slide about Catholicism, about mortal sins, about any of that. The witness was explaining his reasoning. I don't think it was intentional on part of the witness either. If we look at his interview of Ms. Clancy, one of the things that this witness has to do, is determined whether the defendant knew the wrongfulness of her conduct. And that can be either that it was criminally wrong or morally wrong. And he explored that with her in the interview and asked her about whether she knew it was legally wrong and she said she had no concept of legal consequences. And then he went on to ask her about moral wrongfulness and about her religion and

whether she knew it was morally wrong. And she did say that she had knowledge that suicide was considered sinful. So I believe that's where the witness was going and trying to explain his reasoning. I don't think he was intentionally trying to inflame the jury or cause an issue in this case. I know I certainly wasn't because I didn't ask a question about her religion or a question that would invoke that kind of response. I asked him to explain what was on the slides, and that's not on the slides. So there was no intentional conduct by the Commonwealth. That was not where I intended to go with this questioning. And I don't think that the witness intended to do any harm either. He was just explaining his rationale. So I would ask that the jury

be instructed to disregard the answer, and I can speak to the witness and tell him not to talk about that reasoning behind his thoughts, that he can testify about his conclusions, but to leave that portion of his reasoning out of his testimony. Well, he's a concern I have, is what the witness did say in regards to go to go to God, baby go to God. That was statements that had been made in evidence already. And then he indicated that was prior to her expectation that she and the children would be together in heaven with God. All right. Now we're getting a little closer to problematic area. Then he testified she was raised as a Catholic. And as I understand Catholic considerations, that's not necessarily what happens.

how is any of that proper at this point? But it was not, I'm not going to declare a miscrial this time. What I am going to do is I'm going to bring the jury in. I'm going to tell them to disregard it. I'm going to tell him that's an inappropriate era of inquiry and that this witness's understanding of Catholic dogma or Catholic teaching is irrelevant. it. What's, you know, there's no evidence of his background or training or haven't been to the

seminary or any of that. And so I think, and that's where he, he injected that. And so I am giving that. But the Commonwealth, I'm going to strongly, in perhaps the strongest language, talk to him and let him know that there's, he can't go into that. And so, and then my. thought is we're going to bring the jury back in. I'm going to give them that instruction, and I'm going to send them home. I don't want them leaving here today with the last thing

they heard was a discussion about this witness's understanding of the Catholic teaching. That's not the last thing they're going to hear. And so my thought is that as best I can is to address that and minimize the damage or prejudice, because I do. presume that this jury will be able to follow those instructions. And so, so that would be my thought. We'll come back. That will give the Commonwealth plenty of time to talk to this witness, to let him know the areas that he should and should not go into. And then we can come back tomorrow and we can resume his direct examination and cross-examination. All right. So that'll be my thought. we'll bring the jury in. I'll give them that instruction, and then we will

recess until tomorrow. Okay? Just for the record, that could I know the objection? Sure, absolutely. All right, so we're ready for the jury? This court's an honest session. We proceeded. All right. I'm going to the record. We're going to have a second-up child. I'm all-partisan. All right. All right. Well, members of the jury,

just before we broke, it was a testimony from that last witness. And I just want to I give you some instructions in regards to that testimony. And I just wanted to let the religion that the defendant was raised with is absolutely an inappropriate area of testimony. It is to be stricken. It is not to be considered. I can't be any more clear of that. It cannot be considered.

Secondly, the witness is understanding of Catholic teachings and considerations. again, is immaterial. It's irrelevant. It is to be disregarded based on that testimony. All right. And so because we had a little bit of a delay due to this, what I'm going to do is I'm going to excuse you until tomorrow. All right.

And so the thought is, we'll come in. We'll finish up with this witness. I believe the Commonwealth has another witness at that point. And then we'll talk about where we go. I apologize for any kind of confusion or delay. But I just wanted to make sure you had those instructions with you. when you left here today. All right?

So I'm sorry, but so I'll see you tomorrow. Thank you. Okay, well, there you go. That's where court ended, clearly, for the day. Heilbrun still has more testimony. And the state says it has one final rebuttal witness after him. And then finally closing arguments. I thought we'd be hearing closing arguments tomorrow.

But I mean, I don't know. We'll see. Probably not. You know, or last week. This is a very long trial, very long trial. So we'll see you tomorrow. Also tomorrow, we will be a couple of places. We are dividing forces, the Hidden Two Crime Team. And so, as I often say, stick with us.

Because there's a lot of really important things happening. And we will have it all for you, as well as the Lindsay Clancy trial. and the rebuttal witnesses and closing arguments, as well as some things that are happening in Arizona this week. So stay tuned. See ya.