Hidden True Crime - Lindsay Clancy’s Defense Comes Out Swinging—Prosecution Fires Back | Closing Arguments

Episode Date: August 28, 2026

Lindsay Clancy’s fate goes to the jury—and Lauren Matthias breaks down the sharply conflicting closing arguments on Hidden True Crime. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington attacks the investigation and the prosecution’s psychiatric experts, arguing that severe mental illness left Clancy not criminally responsible for the deaths of Cora, Dawson, and Callan. Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague argues that Clancy’s actions demonstrate planning and an understanding of right and wrong. From the disputed evidence surrounding postpartum psychosis to the judge’s final instructions, we examine both sides’ last appeals and the questions jurors must weigh as deliberations begin. Sponsors: ASPCA Pet Health Insurance: To explore coverage, visit https://www.aspcapetinsurance.com/HIDDEN. For terms and conditions, visit https://www.aspcapetinsurance.com/more-info/state-documents-and-sample-policies/. Products are underwritten by Independence American Insurance Company or United States Fire Insurance Company and distributed by PTZ Insurance Agency Ltd. Hims- Ready to reach your goals? Visit https://hims.com/hidden to get a personalized, affordable plan that gets you. 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. Finally, after five long weeks of evidence, expert opinions, heartbreaking photographs, medical records, hours upon hours of testimony, right? I've never seen so much testimony. We finally, finally have reached closing arguments in the Lindsay Clancy trial. Both sides. arguing their cases. There are no more witnesses to call, in other words, both the defense

and the prosecution have rested, and everything the jury has heard is now on the table. The defense has spent the trial arguing that Lindsay was experiencing a severe psychiatric illness, ultimately postpartum psychosis, and that she's not criminally responsible for what happened to her children, but the Commonwealth, the prosecution, see it very differently. Their argument is that Lindsay was mentally ill, yes, but that mental illness did not prevent her from knowing right, from wrong, or from making deliberate choices. They believe that she planned what she was going to do, waited until Patrick left the house, killed her children, and then attempted to take her own life. And now, after weeks of hearing both sides build their cases, it is time for the attorneys to take

everything they had presented and put it together for the jury. The defense went first, and Reddington came out swinging, as he always does. I mean, he always comes out swinging, arguing that the Commonwealth has manipulated the evidence, relied on flawed expert opinions, and failed to meet the very high burden of proving that Lindsay was criminally responsible for the death of her children. I don't care how many cops you have in here, how many DAs are sitting here, how many people are sitting in the front row, and they're all going to sit there and be proud of this prosecution. I told you in the opening statement that this is a prosecution that has ripped the soul out of this girl. This is what they had. This is their family.

How does it turn into this? How? because of the damn medicine and the lousy medical care that she got. You can troop as many paid experts as you want to come in here and tell the jury, oh, well, she didn't say that she heard voices inside her head. She said she heard voices from outside her head.

She said she was making chicken McNuggets. There was a bowl on the sofa. She wasn't making chicken McNuggets. She said something as I think and I muse and I try real hard to tell you what my opinion is that this woman who's acting in her right mind when these children were killed.

So, when you consider the evidence in this case, you consider the person who is in front of you, who is the defendant, as the government refers to her. And this is honorable, I wouldn't like to tell you, even though a person is a defendant in that system of justice,

you don't have to defend against anything. The government has the burden of proof. When the DA decides to charge someone with a crime, he has the burden of proof. His assistants have the burden of proof. To prove, number one, that Lindsay is guilty of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt and then prove number two that Lindsay at the time killed her children was not suffering from a mental disease or defect because, her to have a lack of substantial capacity to appreciate to know to realize that what was being done while she was in a psychosis but we'll laugh about that just just another woman I guess it's just

going to make an excuse she's depressed GAD generally anxiety give a couple of pills she'll be all right you know from looking at the objective evidence in this case this is this is young lady, believe me, I don't have many clients like that, this young lady did nothing wrong in her life. She was a nurse, a daughter, a wife,

and a darn good mother. You can see from the objective evidence, you can see, and you'll have all the exhibits for you to look at, and you can see by looking at these photographs, which you will have in the jury room,

you can see the Facebook postings, You can see what she indicates about, for example, I just randomly grabbed this one, a son, my prince, that they would have you thinking. She killed him first cruelly because she didn't like him. That is repulsive. So she's living real life with Pat, her kids. Having a great time that summer. Life is good.

She had to go back to work. And in opening statement, I told you, I said, watch. the evidence. Watch the manipulation. Because that's what this case was built upon originally and how it developed as the case progressed until it's in front of you. Reddington then went back to the evidence surrounding Lindsay's suicide attempt. He reminded the jury about the severity of her injuries, the slashes on her wrists and throat, the blood throughout the bedroom and her attempt to throw herself out the window. He explained that he had spent so much time presenting evidence about those injuries

because the prosecution had initially suggested that Lindsay's suicide attempt was fake. The reason that we had to do that is because they were arguing that it was a fake suicide. Dinky little cuts. No bleeding. She didn't mean to kill herself. she's going to throw herself out the window, I guess, and slide down the house. Remember that one hanging off of the window? Sliding down the house in Lindsay screwed up.

And she heard herself bad. You know that's not what happened. You know that she made the testimony of Dr. Belkevich that she made a very, very significant suicide effort, slashing her wrist, slitting her throat. And isn't it interesting when you consider objective evidence? Googling slitting a throat

Googling suicide Googling drugs googling side effects Googling ketamine treatments

googling all of these drugs Googling the effects of Tufts medications Larazepam, Cercerline, hydroxazine, Larazepam, busferone, proserone,

flaxidine, xaltidine, Murgazine, clonedazepam, quidapine, diazepam, diazepam, quidapain. It goes on and run and run and run and run. We have the descriptions to see. And obviously, she wasn't consuming all of these at the same time because one thing this kid did was try to do what she was supposed to do. She took the drugs as she was told to take them. She was religious in her obligations to take care of her health.

she went to Dr. Tuts when she was a young lady living in her house with her husband and her babies respected nurse wife, friend, mother, should have kept drinking, huh?

That was a big deal, wasn't it? Remember that? We're just going to assassinate this young lady in every which way we can. Remember that evidence? I was concerned. She was drinking. Five drinks a day. She was worried about you. You heard the evidence. The evidence up to 2019, they talking about. She wasn't drinking while she had her kids. She wasn't drinking while she's breastfeeding. She would have a couple of beers with her friends. That's bad.

Put that over in the bad pile right here. We spent all that time showing through Dr. Lappasata's testimony that this was a legitimate, dreadful, horrific suicide attempt. you think about this beautiful young girl throwing herself out a window. That's a corner. I don't know if you have to play pool. I challenge you to tell this jury why we spent a week showing that she committed as your witness. Counsel, address the jury. He said, their witnesses. Serious suicide attempt.

Remember that? Tried to kill us off. So now they back off on that and they'll agree. Serious suicide attempt. That's why I said, watch the evidence. Watch the manipulation. Well, Reddington then went back to the exercise bands, actually. So he went back to the exercise bands, used to strangle those beautiful children,

and reminded the jury about Sprague's demonstration for Dr. Lopasada. She took the bands out of the bag, put the gloves on her. Talks the doctor, Lappasada, on the Zoom, slams the bands down, out of the paperback. Does the movement of the bands and yells at Lappasana and says, Racked. They just wrapped. They weren't knotted?

Because you've got to get Lindsay, tightening the band, right? You've got to hold it. You're going to hold it for a minute. You've got to hold it for two minutes, three minutes, four minutes. that's why she needed the bands not not and then she said it's like this and they sprang open remember that Dr. Lappasata said yeah I saw what you did

and she walked away like if the glove home fit moment quarter number two what did Patrick Fancy testify to you heard his testimony he indicated clearly unequivocally they were knotted around the necks of those children. To the point where he had to struggle, and it's your memory, not mine.

If I say something, you don't recall, forget it. It's what you remember the evidence to be. But clearly, I would suggest, he struggled to get it off of Bassans over his head. And a police officer saw through the window. This is horrific stuff. But it's objective. and it shows the manipulation. This government, this prosecution is a mess.

They would take their evidence and argue to you that she did not, tie it not and walk away, because as Dr. Lepasana said, you're talking about four, five seconds, so somebody passes out. They're going to have the four minutes, and that's not what the evidence shows is it?

If you've listened to Hidden to Crime for a while, you probably know Lily Bell right there. She's the unofficial head of HR. She is very loved, very spoiled, and has also proven that she can find trouble when no one is looking. She had a pretty scary accident when she was a puppy, so we know firsthand how quickly a normal day with a pet can turn into a trip to the vet. Today's episode is sponsored by the ASPCA Pet Health Insurance Program. The ASPCA Pet Health Insurance Program offers customizable accident and illness plans that can fit your budget, your lifestyle and even your pet's particular quirks.

Because let's be honest, vet bills can add up fast. ASPCA pet health insurance has been around for almost 30 years and has covered over one million pets. And when it's time to submit a claim, it's easy. Just use their app and receive reimbursement for eligible vet bills directly into your bank account so you can get back to focusing on what really matters your pet. To explore coverage, visit ASI. P-C-A-Pet Insurance.com slash hidden.

That's ASPCA pet-insurance.com slash hidden. Again, that's ASPCA pet insurance.com slash hidden. This is a paid advertisement. Insurance is underwritten by either Independence, American Insurance Company or United States Fire Insurance Company and produced by PTZ Insurance Agency Limited. The ASPCA is not an insurer and is not engaged in the business of insurance. Reddington then went back to Lindsay's condition after the killings, particularly the statements

Patrick reported hearing when he found her outside. He reminded the jury that Lindsay had suffered catastrophic injuries to her throat and neck had taken medication and was eventually heard on the 911 recording making only guttural sounds. He argued that the jury would have to decide what could actually be established about that conversation and what was simply being reconstructed afterward. That brought him back to the two things he said the Commonwealth had to prove that Lindsay was guilty of killing her children beyond a reasonable doubt and that she was not suffering from mental disease or defect that substantially affected her ability to understand what she was doing. And then Reddington attacked the investigation itself. He argued that

police had an obligation to investigate the evidence rather than simply build a case around the assumption that Lindsay was guilty. One example was the cup found near the bed that contained what appeared to be crushed medication. Reddington pointed out that the substance hadn't been tested. His argument was essentially that the jury couldn't know what was actually in that cup because investigators had not established it scientifically. From Reddington's perspective, that was part of the larger problem with the prosecution's case. Evidence that could have answered important questions wasn't always tested or fully investigated. He argued that the case had increasingly become about portraying Lindsay as an evil woman who deliberately killed her three children rather than fully

considering whether she had been experiencing a devastating psychiatric illness at the time. He reminded the jury of the testimony about Lindsay being restrained to her hospital bed with actual handcuffs while officers remain nearby. She had suffered catastrophic injuries, including a crushed spine, broken vertebrae, damaged thyroid, and significant blood loss that required transfusions. After major surgery, she was intubated, medicated, and eventually came out of a coma in a confused and delirious state. Reddington contrasted that with the people who cared for her, particularly nurse Meg Collins and another physician who testified about Lindsay's treatment, He described them as health care professionals who treated Lindsay like a human being and advocated for her.

He then brought up the meeting surrounding Lindsay's care and the involvement of lawyers, police, and questions about who would make decisions for her. The state insinuated that Lindsay's request for a lawyer was suspicious, but in Redington's view, she was a severely injured and confused patient trying to understand what was happening to her. And then from there, he returned to the evidence he believed police had failed to investigate properly. Reddington talked about the medication bottles he had personally found in Lindsay's bedroom when he went there with Patrick shortly after the killings. He pointed out that the bottles were empty and argued that investigators could have examined them to determine what Lindsay had taken. He also returned to the cup containing what appeared to be crushed medication. The substance had never been tested and no pill crusher or medication residue had been taken. documented, right? Reddington questioned how the prosecution could rely on what evidence,

that evidence, right, while acknowledging that investigators never even figured out what was actually in the cup. And, you know, and that blows my mind, too, I will admit. They never investigated what was actually in that cup. He then pointed to other items. The police had seized. Speaking of books, one of the things that they found, smoking gun. good moms have scary thoughts Hallelujah put that in the guilty file We're going to put this in a plastic bag We're going to show it to a jury so they know that this young lady

Had scary thoughts Turns out That you'll let it gave it to her So you have This evidence You have evidence of sleep aids You have evidence in the bag Because obviously this stuff was just thrown in there

It wasn't in a bag When I saw it inside this thing here and seized it, and we held it for three and a half years. Anybody care about it? No. You heard evidence that the police knew that I had it. They could have it, they could look at it, they could analyze it, do whatever they wanted to. It didn't have to. Just here, you've read evidence.

This is a little wish jar that they bought on their honeymoon in Hawaii many years prior to even having kids. When you look inside it, you see that there's all sorts of little folded up pieces of paper. Some of them are dated, some of the mine. They go all the way back in 2017, 2018, 20. And they reference her wishes to have healthy kids, her wishes for her kids to be successful, her wishes to have a good birth. Second time around, hoping for a good birth,

worrying about the child with the, about the, I forget, where they rub the thing. Reddington returned to the period when Lindsay's mental health started deteriorating in September and October 2020. He described her as a hardworking nurse and mother who had been active with her children and involved in their lives, that she was until she became acquainted with Dr. Tufts. This woman lived for her kids until she had the pleasure running into Dr. Tufts of her two months experience. and after she ran at the Dr. Tots it was not a wonderful life anymore

and what did Dr. Tops do and everybody laughs at me I said the television okay I know it's a telemedical thing on your telephone or on a Zoom take more pills you have the medical records you heard the testimony you know her concerns

you know her fears does this seem like a young lady that didn't care and wanted to score more drugs or somebody that's another repulsive allegation. I think the evidence is pretty important. There's no basis to that at all. She was scared. September,

until October, 22, young, vibrant, had working, you've heard all this, not my words, witnesses' words, holding goals for herself, hardworking nurse, hardworking mother would take the kids to the Kingsbury Club.

That's another thing. Sounds pretty snooty, doesn't it? Well, they're at the Kingsbury Club. It's a swim and pool and a place where you can exercise. Watch the manipulation. Because now you've got a situation where you've got manipulation with Kingsbury Club. You've got manipulation with these other items here. And you've also got manipulation of all's eyes up.

Told Lindsay what to say. Say that you're hearing voices. Think about how ugly that is. Because you know, you earned a reasonable doubt, even though we don't have any proof. You had no burden. You heard from Sheila. Remember Sheila?

The woman that's the, you know, the Reverend or whatever, she's the chaplain at the Brigham and Women's Hospital. She didn't know Lindsay from anybody that night when she came in all broken up. And she told you that she continued. She was there when Lindsay came out of, was excavated. She was there when Lindsay was going through her treatments. She was there for eight days before Paul Zaisal. even knew Lindsay existed. But they would be in here telling you that Lindsay saw the psychologist

because the lawyer went and got the psychologist to go and speak to her. And then you have these guys here, the cops. They're having meetings talking about it. You're talking about it. Must have been the shrink. Must have been the psychologist. Must have been Zaisel. He's the guy that told her what to say.

And he did not. How can you ruin a man's reputation with the career that he has had and still has, thankfully, to put him in a position where he tells a broken young woman who is vilified by a society for killing her three children that he goes in the hospital and tells her to say she heard voices. Disgusting. So now you know that she told Sheila. first that she heard voices. Command hallucination. She didn't say command.

I heard voices. It was a male voice. Told me, you had these other guys that came in. The government's rebuttal witnesses. Very, very impressive. Very, very impressive. The first two. Mack, we got outside. You've got the other doctor as well. So Mac is why he was freaked out when I asked him where he stayed. The other guy looked at me like his eyes were bucket.

Why did I ask where he stayed? whatever. Point is, they don't see her for years, years. And why? The other guy, Helbron, I think it was Helbrin. He had to wait until they, maybe it was the last name, I forget.

They had to process his payment from the DA's office through the school. Who cares? If you have an obligation to try and be objective, to try and even look as though you're competent and objective, Why would you wait for so long? Why would you go with another guy? Why would you take this young lady and have her in a room and question her one right after the other?

Wouldn't you like to sit there and be questioned by Dr. Mack? Boy, that would be an experience, three hours, four hours. And the other guy is going to pepper his questions at her as well between that period. The next day, she can take tests. And then go back at it again with Mack and with Halvern. And she was cooperative. She was pleasant. She was friendly.

She answered the questions, and she owned what she did. She never ran from anything. She's gone through evaluation, after evaluation, after evaluation. Recorded, you'll have the video to look at as they're questioning her, as she's sitting there in her wheelchair hour after hour, three years after this incident, but that's okay. They're busy. Paul Zaisal was there.

literally in Brigham Women's because I called them. Because I was asked to represent this young lady who heard evidence. I saw her in the hospital. I saw her laying in the bed broken. I saw her laying in the bed practically dead. I reached out to Dr. Zizel. And I asked him, please, when you talk to this woman, concerned as he testified for her mental well-being.

What kind of demons? What kind of horror was in her mind? as she lay there paralyzed and herding and medicated swollen, tubes, cops, chains. He went and talked to a big deal. I asked him to go.

You judge the credibility of a person. Did Paul Zizel have the ring of truth when he told you that he's there out of a humane feeling to try to help this young lady? And he's been by her side for three and a half years. Same thing in Sheila.

Why would Sheila for all this time visit with Lindsay, as she testified, at the Tewksbury Hospital, she's not a hired gun. She's not somebody that's coming in to say something at my request. She loves Lindsay. He's a good kid. He's a beautiful soul. Reddington also addressed Lindsay's parents visiting her at Tewksbury. He pointed out that they continued spending time with their daughter,

eating meals with her watching TV and talking with her. He argued that the prosecutors had gone through those records, looking for moments that could be portrayed negatively, including dates surrounding the children's birthdays and the anniversary of their death. Yeah. But Redington's point was that Lindsay was still a human being just trying to exist despite everything that had happened. Then he returned to the government's psychiatric evaluations. He reminded the jury that Dr. Sauthoff had met Lindsay for the first time only weeks before the trial roughly three years after the killings. Reddington questioned how meaningful it was for Sothoff to talk about establishing a rapport with someone that she knew had been hired by the government

to evaluate her. It tells you that he wanted to establish a rapport. Can you imagine, you know that you're three weeks away from your murder trial, and you know that this is doctor number three, who's been hired by the government, to come in and evaluate you and testify against you. He's going to establish a rapport. There is no rapport, but yet he was cooperative, she was friendly. Interestingly enough,

just like the treating doctors don't talk to each other. They don't communicate with each other. They don't have access. says to medical records. She signs the hippoforms. They don't know what her records are, but they know for sure what Dr. Resnick had in his report. They know for sure what Dr. Zaisal had in his report. They know for sure what Meg Spinelli had in her report, and they incorporate that into their report. But then you have the MMPA and the other psychological crisis that were administered to her on the second day of the Mack, Pallgren team, interviewing,

interrogating, questioning her. She passes the NNPI. Testimony is presented. She answered the NNPI honestly. And they're pertaining to whose state of mind. They're pertaining to questions about what occurred. They're questioning this young lady as to what her state of mind was then, in the middle, and now.

And she didn't lie. She didn't malinga. She didn't exaggerate and more importantly. If anything, she minimizes. but she certainly was off the chat on the suicide scale. And then you have testimony from Dr. Resonet, Dr. Zizel, Dr. Cicarnley, and they were paid for their testimony. We're all paid, like I said, not the jury so much,

but the judge myself, Chrissy, I don't know. Anybody gets paid. These doctors came in and testified. Tell Resnick, the man is something out of a scary movie. He has the world record. of investigating, examining, and treating people in psychosis that kill their children. Philicide. He has a world-renowned record for checking fakers to see if a person is malingering.

Their doctor agreed that his article on voices is a leading article with research in the world. Their doctor agreed that he, Bill Resonet. is an expert on the lingering. You heard him testify by Zoom because he had surgery, that he showed up by Zoom and testified that, again, four months after this incident, he met with Lindsay, evaluated Lindsay, compared, looked at all the records,

just like all the rest of them, everyone says, look at all the records, the police report for injury and everything else. He indicates clearly, in his opinion, that she was in a state of psychosis at the time of this. death, times three. Has any of the government doctors rebutted that? One of them held on and said, it's possible either way. That's not proven the unreasonable doubt. The other one, Mack, you can accept his testimony if you wish, but I suggest that you probably won't. And then you

left with the doctor yesterday, who didn't even know, didn't even know what Killing during the course of the psychosis was. And when I was questioning him about it, he agreed. And I said, don't just agree with me. You just agree with me because I said that? He basically said, yeah, what kind of expert testimony is this? It's a mess. If you've ever tried to lose weight, you know the frustrating part isn't necessarily knowing what you're supposed to do. It's finding something you can actually stick to long term. And that's where weight loss by HINS comes in. HINZ offers accessible and affordable. FDA approved GLP1 medications, including the WigoV pill and the WigoVie pen. With Wigovi at HINZ lose up to 20% of your body weight when combined with diet and exercise.

It helps you regulate your appetite, eat less, and keep weight off. Plus, Wigobi is the first ever GLP1 pill for weight loss, so there are no needles needed. Everything happens online. You'll connect with a licensed provider who will determine if treatment is right for you. If prescribed, your medication is delivered right to your door, no insurance necessary. Ready to reach your goals? Visit Hymns.com slash hidden to get personal. affordable plans that get you.

That's HIMS.com slash hidden. HIMS.com slash hidden. Weight loss by HIMS is not available in all 50 states. Weigobi is the registered trademark of Novo Nordisk AS. To get started and learn more, including important safety information, Wegoby clinical study information and restrictions, visit hymns.com. Reddington, then return to the prosecution's portrayal of Lindsay as control.

controlling and manipulative. He pointed to Lindsay's journals, including detailed notes about her children's routines, meals and naps. What prosecutors had characterized as controlling behavior, he argued, was simply Lindsay trying to organize her household and care for her three children. Her personal journals also documented. They're documented her worsening mental state. Early entries described her medication and how she was feeling. By December, the entries repeatedly mentioned horrible intrusive thoughts, no motivation and deep depression. Then as January approached, the writing became increasingly sparse and difficult to read. Reddington argued that the journals showed a woman whose mental state was deteriorating,

not someone calmly plotting to escape her life. That tied into another major point he made about postpartum psychosis. He challenged the government's reliance on the DSM-5's four-week postpartum onset period that other medical organizations recognize as a much longer window and that the evidence presented at trial did not establish that postpartum psychosis becomes impossible after four weeks. He criticized the government's experts for treating that four-week period as an absolute cutoff despite knowing that this timeframe is under medical debate. Redington contrasted that with the testimony and research presented by the defense witnesses

who argued that postpartum psychiatric illnesses can continue after that narrow window. And then he returned to the argument the state made about Lindsay, just not wanting to go back to work. Those are the experts, quote, unquote, to support their burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay was not suffering from a disease or defect at the time she killed the children. You don't remember this. Octobite.

This is not an evidence. It's micro-identification. patience to being of itself. But basically, it shows clearly and unequivocally the depths of despair that this young kid was in trying to raise three kids, trying to be a wife, ready to go back to work. Did anyone say that she was just lazy or just didn't want to go back to work? Manipulation. They're arguing. She didn't want to go back to work. She didn't want to go back to work because she didn't want to leave her kids, especially counting, because she loved her children. They were her life. Manipulation. And when you consider

the journals. I don't watch the movie there, The Shining, with Jack Nicholson. Remember the scene when he's sitting there in a state of complete psychosis? And he's writing a book and he's typing. And the wife finds the book and opens it up and looks at it. It says, All working no play makes Jack a doll boy. All working no play makes Jack a doll boy. Repeat it after repeat it after repeated.

And he says, do you like it? You look at the records of her Googling drugs. You look at how many times. I mean, hours of the night in the afternoon, She's looking this stuff up, in between taking care of the family, in between all the stuff that was going on with, visiting doctors, seeing doctors, going to Rhode Island, being told, no, we can't help you. Call on a hoot, suicide hotline, we can't help you.

Calling another suicide hotline, we can't help you. My God, what does she have to do? She was reaching out for help, and she was not getting it. She turns herself in to McLean Hospital. You saw the doctor, a nice one. She says, she didn't know, I suggest to you that she didn't know having anything, low psychosis involving a young lady like her going through what she was going through. Then Reddington turned to Ian Wiffin's testimony about the cell phone data.

Reddington reminded the jury that the phone record show three instances of stair climbing. The last recorded activity was around 5.38 p.m. three instances of stair climbing. But after that, the phone's location and activity did not establish exactly where Lindsay had been for what she had been doing for the next several minutes. Reddington argued that the prosecution's timeline depended on assumptions about what Lindsay was doing during that period. He also returned to Patrick's trip to 3V and CVS. Oh, you heard the guy yesterday say,

and then she sent him off to go to CDS. It's on the way. It's on the way that she didn't want him out of the house long. She was in the stress. She wanted him home to help with the baby, to help with the kids, to help putting them to bed. How long is he going to be gone?

She Googles it. Is that something that is so nefarious? You think that that goes right along line with the book about good mothers having bad thoughts. My God, she actually Googled the time frame that Patrick would take to go to 3B and pick up the food and leave,

and stop at CBS on the way. So I guess the government is suggesting. She's not in a psychosis. So she's Googling Miralax because the doctor earlier that day told her that the baby needed Corbett needed Murrill X. Why would she do that?

Because remember the government's opening when they told you, she wasn't suffering from the psychosis. She was a woman that didn't want to live a life anymore, wasn't happy being a mother, didn't want to live that life. So she's going to kill her kids and hopefully throw herself out the window and not paralyze herself and then she could run off into the sunset, I guess. That's what their theory was, along with the fact it wasn't a real good suicide, it was fake. Well, now we know, don't we?

the mess that this young lady was in in her brain, my brain is being damaged. I will never be better. That's the evidence. That's the evidence that you have in this case. He then returned to the food evidence. The prosecution had questioned Lindsay's account of preparing chicken nuggets and vegetables for the children, remember that? But Reddington argued that there was no evidence proving she had lied, right? The bowl did not contain chicken nugget residue, but that didn't mean that Lindsay

had fabricated the story. His larger point was that the prosecution had repeatedly taken ambiguous pieces of evidence and presented them as proof of deception. And Reddington argued there was still no evidence that Lindsay was malingering. In other words, there was no evidence that Lindsay was ever lying, malingering. Reddington ended his closing by returning to one of the prosecution's arguments about Lindsay's reported hallucinations. He was, returned to the prosecution's argument of those reported hallucinations, whether the voice she described came from inside or outside her head. And finally, you remember, it was a big deal about whether or not the voices are within the

head or whether or not they're outside of the head. Dr. Rezick's article with the largest research on voices malingering in the world indicates that 38% of almost. a thousand people that were examined report voices from inside their head. And it stops. You're going to buy that guy yesterday? He doesn't know what he's talking about. This young lady is not guilty of the killing of her children because she was suffering from a disease and defect as his honor instructed you. And they're not going to be able to prove otherwise. And it's their brain, not as. Thank you. Well, up next, it was the Commonwealth's turn. In other words, the government's turn, the prosecution's turn. The Commonwealth is the government.

ADA Sprague began by making clear that the Commonwealth was not disputing that Lindsay was mentally ill or that she attempted suicide. The question was what her mental state was at the exact time she killed, Cora, Dawson, and Callan. The issue for the jury was whether Lindsay knew the difference between right, and wrong, and whether she could conform her behavior to the requirements of the law. She said that this case isn't about the mental health system, how it treats women, or what's in the DSM-5. This case is not about our mental health system or how it treats women or what's in the DSM-5 and what's not. That's a distraction to get you angry and passionate about an important issue, but an issue that's

not on trial here. What's on trial here, what the issue is here, is what Lindsay Clancy did. the night of January 24th, 2023, and what her mental state was at the time. And you can use her psychological history and records, the treatment records, to look at both before and after she killed the kids,

to look at how she got to that point, what her thought process was, what her motivation was. But it's not a system or the DSM or any of that that caused her to strangle our kids. In fact, she had more access to treatment and care and support than a lot of people do. She had health insurance that covered multiple doctors,

multiple specialty programs, treatment at South Shore at Mass General, her stay at McLean. She had prescription coverage to cover the different trials she went through. She had support at home. She had 18 weeks of maternity leave with the opportunity to extend that as much as she needed, which is excellent, which is what all women should have.

But she had that. She had support from both sides of her family, hers and Patrice. The two older kids, Cora and Dawson, were in preschool three and a half days a week. And she had the nanny, Elaine, who helped with Callan three mornings a week. And she also helped her with housework and with food prep. This wasn't a woman suffering from a lack of care, a lack of resources. She had an abundance of help, an abundance of care.

She had all of that and more. And, you know, this doesn't mean that she wasn't struggling, that she wasn't dealing with, with mental health issues. She was. She had depression. And whether that's from bipolar or being a depressive disorder or postpartum depression, it all boils down to she was depressed, right? And she was trying to deal with that, trying to get help for that. But it wasn't the fault of the providers that she was struggling with this or that she wasn't getting better. They were doing the best they could. You have the record. You heard the testimony. They were doing the best they could with the information she provided them.

And that wasn't always accurate information. That wasn't always the full picture. And they were doing the best they could with her level of cooperation and compliance with the plan. Take her medications. You know from the records and from the pill bottles what she was prescribed and how she was supposed to take those medications. Thank you for all your comments. It's really interesting what all of you were thinking.

Sprigg used Zoloft as one of her main examples. The bottles showed that Lindsay was supposed to take 25 milligrams for seven days and then increased to 50. Lindsay later told Dr. Tufts that she had followed that plan, but Sprague said that only seven pills were missing from the bottle. She argued that this raised questions about whether Lindsay had taken the medication as prescribed, increased the dose too early or stopped following the plan altogether. She reminded the jury that Lindsay was a nurse and understood the importance of accurately reporting

medications, side effects, and symptoms to her doctors. Sprague argued that the same issue appeared with several other medications. Some bottles had very few pills missing. Some had none. And Lindsay never took the Lomictal prescription until the night that she attempted suicide. Sprague characterized Lindsay as someone who wanted help, but wanted it on her own terms. She wanted to feel like herself again quickly without side effects and became frustrated when treatment took time. She also pointed to Lindsay's searches for which anti-deprikes. depressants worked fastest, how quickly well butrin work, and the side effects of various medications. She argued that those searches showed Lindsay understood that psychiatric medications took time to work, but she wasn't willing to wait. Sprague then returned to women and infants hospital, arguing that the defense had mischaracterized what happened there. She said that according to the records, Lindsay wasn't actually turned away. It tells us, it says right there. Patrick was the one who said overmedication was the issue. Not the doctor's there, not the people evaluating her. What they put was depression, RO rule out adverse medication effects. That means they have to look into it to see if medication's a problem. But there's a difference between an adverse effect, a symptom or a problem with a medication and being over-medicated, taking too much of a medication or taking too many at one time. There's a difference there. And women and infants never says she was over-medication. And women and infants never says she was over-medication.

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

It says there, we offered her three programs. They offered her the inpatient medical management program. They offered her a partial hospitalization program for general mental health. And they offered her an outpatient program. And she also put a lot of thought into that into offering her this care. When they gave her three separate options, considering she's a young mom, maybe she doesn't want to be away from home. But we'll give her the option of being in the hospital and getting her medications right. But we'll also give her the option of the partial hospitalization where she can, you know, be here during the day and go home to her kids in the evening.

And then that third option of being an outpatient and being able to be at home with her kids and come in for appointments. It was very thoughtful of them. It was very well-planned out to give her these three options. and it's kind of the exact opposite of just turning someone away and saying go away we can't help you and her response I'm going to talk to my provider about it for guidance and she goes to dr tufts she sees gelata at some point you look at the record she never discussed those options with them she told them that women and infants turned her away and said she didn't qualify for the program she didn't discuss those three programs that they offered her so basically they give her this offer

of help, three different forms of help, and she's just, no, doesn't want to do them and doesn't discuss it with a provider. And also that first time she goes to Mass General to the emergency room, they offer her a bed at a claim, and she turns it down. She wants help. Mom's saying she doesn't want help, but she's making these decisions and doing these things that aren't helping her get help, that are turning away help because she wants to help in a certain way. Spray continued by arguing that Lindsay's behavior throughout the fall and winter showed she understood right from wrong and could control how she presented herself to other people. From September through December, she said that Lindsay was interacting normally with friends, family teachers, gym staff, the nanny, and people in the community. She was driving her children around, taking them places, and functioning as a mother.

Sprague argued that this mattered because Lindsay wasn't just experiencing thoughts and being unable to control herself. She was making decisions about what she told people and how she presented herself. Sprague pointed specifically to Lindsay's intrusive thoughts about harming her children in early December. Lindsay told Patrick and her mother, but she didn't tell any of her health care providers. According to Sprague, that distinction was important. She argued that Lindsay understood that telling a mandated reporter about thoughts of harming her children could result in authorities becoming involved and potentially taking the children away. I didn't tell any of them. And why? Because the police might take away your kids. That's a rational

thought. But telling mandated reporters that you're having a thought of harming your kids that they might be taken away for their safety, that's a rational thought. And it also shows who knew it was a bad thought, a wrong thought. Because you don't think someone's sicker to take your kids away because you're thinking something positive or neutral. It's because it's bad. It's because it's wrong. It's against the law.

So she knew that it was wrong. And she was able to conform to the behavior to the law because she didn't tell those providers. She went in and met with them and talked about what she was experiencing and talked about her depression. And not only did she not tell them, she lied to them. They asked her, are you having to? having thoughts of harming others. You have homicidal ideation. She told Tufts no. She told

Gilada no. She told Duke's no. She told Goodhart, no. Every day at McLean, she said no. At MGH, she said no. So not only is she hiding it, she's lying about it. She's controlling her behavior. She's controlling the presentation she presents to her providers. Sprague then addressed the medication. She told the jury that Lindsay wasn't taking a huge combination of drugs all at once, most of the time she was taking two medications, sometimes with a third medication like Benadryl, Hydroxazine, Ativan, or Valium as needed. Dr. Sothoff had testified that the medication trials were reasonable. One medication would be tried, and if it wasn't effective or caused problems, it would be stopped and something else would be tried. Sprague explained that

psychiatric treatment often involves that kind of trial and error because there isn't a blood test, cat scan or MRI that can simply tell a doctor whether someone has bipolar disorder, depression, or another psychiatric condition. Instead, doctors have to rely on the patient's history, what the patient reports, what they observe, and how the patient responds to treatment. Everyone responds differently to psychiatric medication. So adjustments are often necessary. And Sprigg argued that even if the jury believed that some of Lindsay's medications had negatively affected her, most of those medications were no longer in her system by the time she left McLean. Zoloft had been stopped months earlier. Other medications had been discontinued in November or December,

and the Syracool reaction had already passed. When Lindsay left McLean, she was taking tracidone for sleep and Valium for anxiety. Sprague also said that Lindsay wasn't forced to leave McLean. Lindsay wanted to go home for Cora's birthday party. And because she was there voluntarily and denied, suicidal thoughts, homicidal thoughts, hallucinations, and other symptoms of psychosis, the hospital didn't have grounds to keep her there. And when she returned home, Sprague said the same pattern continued. She organized Kora's birthday party, monitored the children, participated in the celebration, and appeared happy and normal in the video.

At the Museum of Science, she was caring for all three children in a crowded environment. She was also able to care for the children at the Cape Cod House, interact with the Cary family. and manage ordinary activities throughout January. Spriggs point was essentially that if you watch those videos without knowing who Lindsay was or what was about to happen, you wouldn't necessarily identify her as someone who was suicidal or psychotic. She appeared calm, functional, and engaged with her children. Her family interactions were another part of that argument.

Lindsay's mother and sister were communicating with her regularly, right? but apparently neither of them saw a need to intervene. Lindsay's mother repeatedly asked about her sleep medications and how she was feeling. And Sprague said that Lindsay consistently told her that things were getting better. She still didn't feel completely like herself as she described herself as moving in the right direction. Patrick also testified that Lindsay seemed to be improving in January. When Sprague pointed to January 24th as the day he believed she seemed the best. The one person, Lindsay continued to tell that she was.

struggling was Dr. Tufts. Lindsay reported ongoing depression, which led Tufts to prescribe amatryptylene and eventually increased the dose from 10 milligrams to 20 milligrams. Sprigg characterized that as another example of Tufts being cautious and conservative with her treatment. But even at that final appointment on January 23rd, Sprigg told the jury that Lindsay still denied having a suicide plan, denied wanting to hurt anyone, denied hallucinations, and showed no obvious signs of psychosis. Then there was the journal. Lindsay had kept extremely detailed records for months documenting medications, dosages, date, symptoms, and how she felt after taking them.

But that documentation stopped on January 18th. It's as if she's decided she's done trying. She's decided that it's too much and she doesn't want to do it anymore. And so she just stops keeping trust of the prescriptions. And then we get to January 24th. everything that happened that day, every person she interacted with, every situation she was in shows you she knew the difference between right and wrong and she could conform her behavior to the law. The doctor's appointment first thing in the morning. She's able to drive there.

She's able to interact with medical professionals. She's able to seem absolutely fine and normal. And this is a doctor who's treated the kids since Cora was a baby. This is a pediatrician who's known the family and has known Lindsay for almost five years. a woman who's trained in recognizing the signs of postpartum depression. She told you she looks for flat affect, she looks for tearyness

and some other things that she told you. She's on none of that. She was able to control herself and interact with her in a perfectly normal concerned mother way. Able to get home from that appointment. She plays with the kids. She takes them outside. She's sending those messages and photos to her mom and to Patrick

basically saying, look, this is a good day. I'm having a good day. Everything's good. it, I'm getting better. Here's proof. This is what I'm doing. You start to see the planning at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon. When this is on her phone, you can see her search for Miralax. Kids Miralax at 402.

And then a little while later at 413, you see her search for takeout from 3V. And then immediately after she does the Apple Map search to see how long it takes to get to 3V. Well, defense wants you to believe that you know, she was checking that because she didn't want him gone for too long. She wanted him home. She was in distress. If you're in distress, don't send him anywhere. Make food at home, have him cook, get delivery, get DoorDash, go to one of the other restaurants that Patrick mentioned that were two minutes down the road. And she didn't have to look up on Apple Maps to see where this restaurant was. You heard from Patrick, they had been there

at least three times in the months before. She had lived in that area for four years. She knew it was. She knew generally how long it would take to get there. What she needed to know was how long specifically on that night it would take to get there because she knew she would have a limited amount of time to do what she wanted to do. And what she had decided to do is to kill the children and then kill herself. And so she needed to know not generally, but exactly how much time will I have. And then obviously sees that that's not enough time. So then she searches CVS. And not only does she search CVS, she calls them, calls them and asks them if they have kids Mirallax and they say no, but they have pediolax and one other

medication. And then she asks, is it in stop? Because she needs to know not only what they have, but is it in stock? Because she's adding to this errand that she's sending Patrick out on. And she has to make sure she's not interrupted. She doesn't want that call at 533. She wants him to go to CVS and have the medication there and get it and then go on to 3V, so she has time to do what she needs to do. So that's why she's calling to see what they have and make sure it's in stock. It's a level of planning there and thinking and decision-making that Dr. Sataf referenced. And then after that, she texts Patrick, you know, it's been a long

day, can we do 3-V? And he's on board with that. And she's like, okay, check up the menu. Let's get on this. And he asked her what she's getting. She tells him the Mediterranean Parable. He says he's getting the portfolio photo. 5.10 p.m. She's calling that order in. She's talking to the hostess. She gets the order accurate. She is able to answer questions about how she wants her food. She's able to recall and give Patrick's phone number and his name as a person picking up.

And then Patrick's leaving to go get the food. And as he's leaving, the kids are in the living room on the couch eating. The defendant's in the doorway near the basement door. And she says to him, Oh, basically, oh, by the way, can you go to CBS? Acting like it's this last minute thought, like, oh, by the way, can you get this? And not something that she's been planning for over an hour. She knew about the PDLX and she knew about 3D and she knew all of that before she even asked him about dinner.

But it's like, oh, can you go to CVS on your way and get kids PDLX? And he, of course, is like, sure, I'll get that. And he has out the door at 515. And you know that's the time he leaves because he says to her, you know, just text it to me. me. And that's such a normal kind of interaction that we had in your common sense of life experience. You're headed out the door to run an errand and someone in your home says, oh, while you're out, can you get me X, Y, and Z? And you're like, yeah, sure, just text it to me. Because you don't want to get there. You're like, oh, what did they want me to get? It's such a normal interaction, right?

Can you get this really short? Text it to me. And he heads out the door and she texts it to him at 5.15 p.m. And then he goes to CVS, even though she's told him what to get and they have it, he still makes that call at 533. She calls him back at 534, and then he heads out to 3V, and then comes home. So Sprague said that when Patrick got back, the house was eerily quiet, right? There was no response when he called for the children. He opened the basement door and called down, but still, heard nothing. He then tried Lindsay's phone before going upstairs. and that's when he discovered the blood and the open window. Patrick found Lindsay outside and asked her what she had done.

According to his account, she responded that she'd tried to kill herself. And when he asked where the children were, she told him they were in the basement. Sprague also emphasized what Lindsay did not say. She did not tell him that she had heard a voice. She did not say she had been commanded to hurt the children. She did not tell him she didn't want to do it or that someone else had. made her do it. Reddington had questioned whether that conversation was even possible because Lindsay's speech on the 911 call basically just sounded like grunts. But Sprague told the jury that

people can deteriorate physically after an overdose or serious injury. Lindsay could have been able to speak when Patrick first found her and then lost the ability as time passed. She also challenged the defense's description of Lindsay's injuries. Sprague argued that even though her vertebrae was broken and her thyroid was bruised, the medical records did not describe her throat as being crushed. And even though the jury could not understand Lindsay's words on the 911 recording, Patrick testified that he could understand her. And from there, Sprague returned to the crime scene and the timeline of the killings. She argued that the physical evidence allowed the jury to reconstruct what happened without relying entirely on Lindsay's later statements. The children had been strangled in the basement.

that Lindsay then came upstairs, obtained a knife, took medication, cut herself, and eventually went out the bedroom window. She said that the blood evidence was important to that timeline. There were areas where blood had pooled, suggesting Lindsay remained in certain locations for a period of time before moving elsewhere. Eventually, she went through the window and ended up on the ground where Patrick found her. And because all of this happened while Patrick was gone, Sprigg argued that Lindsay had to have started killing the children. almost immediately after he left. She said that directly conflicted with the account Lindsay later gave to Dr. Sauthoff

when she described being at the refrigerator getting chicken nuggets during the phone call from Patrick. Sprague pointed out that Patrick had testified that Dawson was already sitting on the couch eating chicken nuggets and green beans when he left. There were also two bowls visible in the crime scene photographs. So why would the defendant make that up? Why would she say she's doing that during the phone call? because if she's already killed the kids because of a voice and being compelled and it being against her will and she's like a puppet then she can't get a call and miss it and then call the

person back and have a conversation and then hang up a puppet can't do those things those are decisions and choices and actions that she's controlling so she has to explain away the phone call because her behavior and her ability to have a phone call don't make sense if she's being compelled by her voice if she's not in control. And you further on that, you have the phone. You have the flights climbed. There were two flights climbed. You can see you have Ian Wiffin's report. You can see there were two flights clients. The first ends at 533. So it makes sense that she has killed the kids in the basement and she has come up the stairs. And at 533, she's in the kitchen and she's getting the knife. And then Patrick calls. Everything she's done, everything from

the research to making sure what they had, to telling him to get it to, making sure it's unstock, all of that, and he still calls her, he still interrupts her. And then she gets the knife and she goes upstairs and she's at the top of the stairs by 538. So the phone calls from 533 to just before 535. So if you want to believe that the voices happened, the voice happened after the call, and the killing of the kids happened after the call. between 533 and 538,

she doesn't go down and come back up and come back up and come back up. There's nothing on that phone about that. And there wouldn't be enough time for her to bring those kids down to the basement and strangle each one in three minutes. You heard from the doctors and Dr. Lappasado included. It could take up to 30 seconds for each child to go unconscious. And then strangulation would have to continue for another one to two minutes. to cause death. And Dr. Lappasado wanted you to believe that the band could just stay there

around their necks by themselves. But you have the bands. They're exercise bands. You pull them. They resist. You let go. I snap back. I had to hold them up to show her in circles like around someone's neck. And when I let go, they expand it. They don't stay around someone's neck on their own. You have to pull them. And you know they weren't nodded. Patrick never testified that they were nodded. So I'll take this one. He testified that he didn't have a clear memory, but he remembered that they were possibly looped. And I asked him, like, when you tie in your shoe that first loop before you do a bow, and he said, yeah, kind of like that. So not nodded, not tied, but even his memory wasn't the best. You heard him on that call. Finally, Sprague pointed to Patrick's

911 call. The jury had heard his voice as he discovered each child, and the Commonwealth argued that the recording made it clear he was physically right there with them. He was holding the phone while discovering what happened. If the bands had actually been tightly nodded, Sprigg argued that Patrick wouldn't have had time to untie them from each child while simultaneously discovering the scene and speaking with 911.

The Commonwealth's larger point was that the timeline phoned at dinner and CBS searches, phone calls, crime scene evidence, and Patrick's account all fit together in a way that showed what they believed was deliberate actions and decision-making rather than three killings carried out in a sudden, uncontrollable, psychotic state. Sprague then returned to the firefighters who looked through the window and saw Patrick with Dawson. Their observations, she argued, supported the idea that the bands had to be actively unwound from the children's necks. They weren't tied in knots that Patrick

simply had to untie and they wouldn't have stayed in place without continued force. And that mattered because the Commonwealth's experts had testified that strangulation continued after the children lost consciousness. Sprague argued that Patrick's actions on the 911 call combined with what the firefighters saw supported the conclusion that he had to unwind the bans from their necks after discovering them. She then went back to the timeline, even if the jury accepted the defense's theory that Lindsay went upstairs around 538, left her phone on the bed, and then went back downstairs to kill the children. Sprig argued there still wasn't enough time before Patrick returned in roughly 20 minutes Lindsay would have had to kill all three children,

get the knife, take the medication, cut herself, bleed, climb out of the window, and end up outside before Patrick Ory. The Commonwealth's position was that the killings therefore happened almost immediately after Patrick left. Because he's making the call to her at 609. There was not enough time between 538 and just after 6 p.m. To kill all three kids to get the night, to take the pills, to cut herself, to bleed, to go out of the window, to stop bleeding, and Patrick to get there.

In 20-odd minutes, it's not enough time. So you know she killed those kids as soon as he left. And when she got the call from him, she had already strangled them. and she didn't tell him. She didn't ask for help. She didn't say, oh my God, what are I done?

She's a nurse. She didn't go down and try to do CPR and help them. No, she lied. She stayed calm. She presented herself as normal. She had complete control over her behavior and her emotions. She had a normal conversation with him because she didn't want him coming home

because she needed to finish. her plan. She still had to kill herself. So why did she do it? No, defense would have you believe that a mother who was this good who loved her kids this much, which we're not denying. Would never harm her kids this way unless she was so mentally ill that she was hearing these command voices and had no choice. But you know, that's not the ones we live in. Dr. Resnick told you most women who kill their children do it in child abuse. Most women who kill their children don't do it because of mental illness. Mothers kill their children, and it's horrible and it's awful, but it happens.

So why did she specifically do it? She was depressed. She was exhausted. She was done. She didn't want to try anymore. She felt damaged. But those kids, those kids were her protective factor. Those kids were keeping her from ending her misery.

And so she had to remove it. the protective factor. And I'm not saying she was happy about it. I'm saying that it was what she had to do to end her misery. But it was a choice. It was a choice. She could have

kept trying. She could have moved down to her mothers. She could have just, she could have killed herself and left her kids alive. But it was a choice to take them with her. It was a horrible choice. And it's a choice that that we don't want to think about that a mother

could make because that doesn't make us feel safe or comfortable in this world. But it's a choice she made. She knew what was wrong. Sprague pointed to Lindsay's behavior as evidence that she knew what she was doing was wrong. She waited until Patrick was gone. She did not tell him what was happening during their calls. She did not call 911. She did not lock herself away from the children after supposedly hearing the voice.

Instead, she created the opportunity. to carry out what she had decided to do. Even after waking up in the hospital and realizing the children were dead, Sprague argued that Lindsay understood the seriousness of what she had done. She described herself as horrified and asked, do I have a lawyer? The defense had characterized that as something she said while delirious after surgery, but Sprague argued that the medical records actually showed that she asked about a lawyer before surgery. And then came the Commonwealth's attack on the command voice. Sprague argued there were several

reasons to question whether it was genuine. One was how quickly Lindsay obeyed it. Dr. Resnick had discussed cases such as Andrea Yates, where the woman reportedly heard voices telling her to kill her children for an extended period and repeatedly sought ways to protect them from those commands. Lindsay, by contrast, reported hearing the voice only once and immediately acted on it. Another issue was that Lindsay had never reported hearing that voice before and hadn't reported hearing it again. The Commonwealth also highlighted the different versions Lindsay gave about exactly what the voice told her. What she said, the voice told her isn't consistent. At the hospital, she says the voice said, you have to kill your children so you can kill yourself because they'll suffer without you.

What she tells a lot of the doctors is it says, this is your last chance, you have to kill the kids so you can kill yourself. And then she tells the chaplain, you have to, a third version, you have to kill the kids so you can kill yourself because they're in danger. There's these three different versions. Another flag that, red flag, it doesn't make sense. But the voice, she's saying the voice says all these different things. And then the third thing, a fourth thing, rather, that doesn't make sense about the voice is that it's vague in its command. It doesn't tell her how to kill the kids where, with what? Nothing.

It says kill the kids so you can kill yourself. So she had to choose where, the basement. She had to choose how strangulation. She had to choose with what? Exercise ban. Choose again, exercise ban. Choose again, exercise ban. She had to choose how to kill herself.

Now, if you're being compelled by this voice and you have no free will whatsoever, you're just doing, your body's acting on the voice. Why wouldn't you just kill yourself the same way you killed the children? You strangled them, you hanged yourself. That's acting on compulsion. That's no choice. She tried three different ways. And none of them similar to what happened to the kids.

And I'll take this other quarter now and explain to you why we got into the superficiality of the wounds and why we got into the height of the window and why we got into how she didn't take enough pills to actually kill herself. We're not saying she didn't want to kill herself. We're talking about that third prong of suicidality that Dr. Sackoff talked about. Remember he talked about aloneness and feeling burdensome.

but that third category capability. She wanted to kill herself, but her natural instinct to live was fighting against that. So she took pills, but you heard the toxicologist, they were all at therapeutic levels or below, except the cerebral, which was a little elevated. She cut herself, but you saw the cuts

on the meaty pot of her arm horizontally. No arteries, no major blood vessels, didn't need to be stitched the next day. The one on her neck didn't need to be stitched at all. She knew as a nurse, those weren't going to kill her because she was trying and then going out of the window 12 13 feet she landed the wrong way and ended up paralyzed on the frozen ground but you know the idea that falling out of a 12 foot window is going to definitely kill you not necessarily and so she wanted to

she was trying she was trying in all these different ways but she just couldn't get over that third prong the capability of actually killing herself and that goes against it being a voice because if she's compelled to do it, if this voice is making her do it, she would just do it. There would be no fight. There would be no struggle. There would be no resistance to dying, but there was. From there, Sprague moved into the first-degree murder charges and the Commonwealth's requirement to prove deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity of cruelty.

The order in which Lindsay killed the children, she argued, demonstrated rational planning. She said that since Dawson was older, he was more likely. to resist or understand that something was wrong. So the state believes that Lindsay separated him from the other children and took him into the office. Cora and Callan remained together. Sprague explained that the defense had questioned why the Commonwealth showed the jury evidence describing Dawson as difficult or less compliant. She said that it wasn't intended to portray Lindsay as a bad mother, but to show that Lindsay

knew her son's personality and knew he might resist. And then Sprague described, what the children experienced. And she brought him into that room, into the office, and closed the door, and she wrapped that band around his little neck. And she squeezed until he was unconscious. As the blood's pulling in his face and causing those blood vessels to burst, causing him pain and panic and confusion. And defense calls Dr. LaPasada to say, no, it wasn't 20 or 30 seconds. It was only five or 10 seconds until he wanted to.

unconscious. I'm sorry. How many seconds is it okay for them to have been in pain and panic and confusion? How about it wasn't okay for one second for any of those children to feel that? And they all felt it all for up to 30 seconds. And then she continued strangling their left bodies for one to two minutes to make sure they were dead. Deliberate premeditation. And then extreme atrocity and cruelty, the indifference that she showed to their pain, to their struggle, to their suffering, leaving them there on the floor with the bands around their necks, completely indifferent because she had a plan and she was following it through. Just think of that.

The being strangled and the pain and the confusion that they're going through and it's being done by their mom. Their mom is the one that's hurting them. Their mom is the one that's killing them. That's extreme atrocity and cruelty. She didn't see them in that moment as individual human beings with rights, with dreams, with futures, individually belonging to them. You heard about the three kids.

Cora wanted to be a doctor and a mom. Dawson wanted to be a firefighter. Callan never got the chance to dream. Who knows what future he would have dreamed for himself. She killed them, and she left them there. on the floor with the bands around their necks. She didn't bring them up to their beds and put them with their favorite stuffed animal

and cover them out gently and lovingly, leaving them peacefully there. No. She left them discarded on the basement floor like broken toys because she was done playing the game. You know to a moral certainty. She is guilty.

Tubby. After that, the judge went through the jury instructions before sending the jurors out to deliberate. He reminded the jurors that when they considered the second-degree murder charge, they could also consider Lindsay's mental condition at the time of the killing, including credible evidence of mental impairment and the effects of her prescription medications. It was especially relevant because second-degree murder included an intent element, and the judge wanted to make sure the jurors understood that her mental state could be considered when evaluating those elements. From there, he went over the basic rules the jury had to follow.

Lindsay was presumed innocent, and the burden remained entirely on the Commonwealth to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That burden never shifted to the defense, and Lindsay was not required to prove her innocence or present any evidence at all. Any verdict had to be unanimous. He explained that reasonable doubt did not mean every possible or imaginary doubt. Instead, the evidence had to leave the jurors with an abiding conviction of guilt to a moral certainty. A strong probability was not enough. The judge also reminded them that they were the sole judges of the facts. They had to decide what evidence they believed, what weight to give it, and what conclusions could reasonably be drawn from it. They could not let personal feelings, sympathy, prejudice, outside

information, or speculation influenced their decision. He explained what counted as evidence and what didn't. Testimony admitted exhibits and the observations they made during the jury view could be considered. But the lawyer's opening statements and closing arguments, questions asked by attorneys, anything the judge said during the trial and anything that had been stricken were not evidence. He also told them not to speculate about information that had been redacted from the exhibit. The judge spent some time explaining the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that both were valid and that circumstantial evidence alone could be enough to prove guilt. But any inferences the jurors made had to be reasonable and based on facts actually established by the evidence,

not guesswork or assumptions. There were also detailed instructions about evaluating witnesses. The jury could believe all of the witness's testimony, part of it, or none of it. They could consider things like a witness's demeanor, memory, opportunity to observe possible bias, motive, and whether their testimony made sense. The judge also explained that prior inconsistent statements could be considered when evaluating credibility, but generally couldn't be treated as proof that the facts in those earlier statements were true. Prior consistent statements could similarly be considered only when evaluating credibility. And since so much of the defense case involved psychiatric evidence,

the judge specifically addressed statements, Lindsay made to the psychiatrist and the psychologist who evaluated her. He told them that they could not treat those statements as proof that the facts contained in them were true. Those statements could only be considered as they related to the basis for the expert's opinion about Lindsay's mental condition. They could not be used as evidence of premeditation, extreme atrocity, or cruelty, or specific intent to kill. The judge also addressed the evidence of Lindsay's conduct after the killings. If the jurors believe the Commonwealth had proven that she engaged in certain post-incident actions, they could consider whether those actions can

suggested consciousness of guilt, but they didn't have to draw that inference, and the judge stressed that such behavior could have other explanations. Even if the jurors believed someone felt guilty, that did not necessarily mean that person was actually guilty. And consciousness of guilt evidence alone could never be enough to convict. The same basic principle applied to the expert witnesses. The jurors weren't required to believe an expert simply because that person had specialized training. They could accept all, some, or none of an expert's testimony and could reject an opinion if they believed it wasn't supported by the facts, adequate expertise, or was influenced by bias. And then came in important instruction about Lindsay herself.

The judge reminded the jury that she had an absolute constitutional right not to testify. her decision not to take the stand could not be held against her in any way, and the jurors were not even allowed to discuss that fact during deliberations. The Commonwealth had to prove its case using the evidence presented at trial. The judge went over the exhibits as well, explaining that the jurors would have the admitted evidence with them in the deliberation room. They would decide how much weight to give each exhibit and the fact that something appeared in a photograph or document didn't automatically make it true.

He also reminded them about the jury view explaining that their own observations during that visit could be considered as part of the case. And there was another very specific warning about the photographs of the children. The judge acknowledged that some of the images were graphic and unpleasant, but told the jury that their verdict could not be influenced by those images out of pitiful. or sympathy, they could consider the photographs only for legitimate evidentiary purposes, such as the nature of the injuries, the cause of death, or what happened during the incident. Before sending the jurors out to begin deliberation, the judge gave the jury strict instructions about deliberations. They could not use their phones or computers to research anything

about the case, communicate with anyone, or look for answers outside the the evidence. If they had question about the law, they had to submit it in writing through the jury foreperson and the judge would confer with the attorneys before responding. He also emphasized that deliberations had to happen as a group. They weren't supposed to form separate groups or have their own side discussions about the case. Everyone needed to have a chance to speak, listen to the other jurors, and make their own decision. And then he selected the foreperson, juror 257, who we've learned is a female, and this four person would serve as the group's facilitator and spokesperson when the verdict was returned. And since there had originally been 18 jurors, remember how many they chose because this was going to be such a long trial?

Well, the court had to reduce the jury to the 12 who would actually deliberate. And that turns out to be nine women and three men. nine and three men. Six jurors were randomly selected as alternates. That is three women and three men. So equal numbers there. The alternates were instructed not to discuss the case with anyone, including one another, because they could still be called upon if something happened

that prevented one of the deliberating jurors from continuing. Finally, the judge showed the jury the verdict slips. There would be a separate verdict form for each child with options. including not guilty, not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility, first degree murder based on deliberate premeditation, first degree murder based on extreme atrocity or cruelty, second degree murder and manslaughter. And before sending them out,

the judge gave them one final reminder. They didn't have to agree simply because one juror felt strongly about something. But they also needed to be willing to listen and reconsider their own views if the evidence and discussion persuaded them to do so. He specifically warned them about implicit bias, reminding them that everyone carries assumptions and perceptions they may not even realize they have. He urged them to set those things aside and face the verdict only on the evidence, their reason and common sense, and the law he had given them. And then, after the court officers were sworn in and the final final,

instructions were complete, the judge told the jurors they could retire to consider their verdict. And here we are with the jurors deliberating. I mean, not the second. They've gone home, but it is now deliberation time, right? How long this verdict will take is to be determined. I always say that I get how long jurors deliberate wrong. It's something I typically do, get things wrong. I've gotten a couple right, but I'm going to suspect that this deliberation might take a very long time. Usually, from my experience covering trials,

if the verdict comes back quickly, it means that they all felt strongly about one thing. If it takes a long time, they're clearly divided and have to spend a lot more time going over. The evidence and coming to a conclusion together. They also, interestingly, have four choices, essentially. First-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter, or innocent because of criminal responsibility. That's heavy. So 12 jurors, as the judge said, have to unanimously agree on the verdict, and there are essentially four choices in front of them.

I suspect this is going to take a while, but I have been run plenty when it comes to deliberation. So we shall see. Once the verdict has come in, we will certainly try to take that live with all of the jury. of you. So stand by, whether or not we can do a long verdict watch or not to be determined, but either way, once the verdict comes back, and Intrue Crime will try to be live with all of you as we listen. This is a really heavy verdict. Nobody wins. And I think ultimately, this will set a precedent for a very long time for women's health, for postpartum health, or psychosis for charges in Massachusetts for so much, for so much.

The case that has been most compared to this case is Andrea Yates. And if you all remember, Andrea Yates drowned. Horrific, horrific, horrific. Her five children in the bathtub, right? She was found guilty of murder at her first trial. but because of Park Dietz who's been mentioned in this trial who there was false witness a false testimony given that trial that verdict was overturned and her attorney George Parnum then represented her again and she was found not guilty by for reasons because of insanity psychosis again I have an interview with her attorney here I have interviewed him during this trial George Parham and his thoughts on the matter. I also have an interview. I mentioned it. Many of you mentioned it in this chat of

my dear friend, a friend of mine for over 30 years, who openly shares her experience for the first time, actually. I'm so grateful for her about her experience with postpartum psychosis. So, there you go. There you go. I see, thank you to the the moderators, this has been a really heavy trial. Trace on the case, I want to mention. Trace on the case and I, one of our moderators, we were together a couple days ago, a few days ago, it's all a blur. But we were just together, two days ago, I think, right? We were just together at the Samuel Bateman sentencing. It was good to see you, Trace on the case. And thank you to our other moderators as well. So we will also have in the meantime updates on the Sam Bateman

sentencing and those victim impact statements. So stay tuned for those. And we have a lot of things planned. So yeah. Yeah. I'm just kind of hanging out, continuing to talk because it feels overwhelming. I think I'm just like comfortable here. I'm used to us being here every night together.

But that's the latest. That's what's going on. And yeah, thank you, everyone, for being here. And until. there is a verdict. Good night.