Law&Crime Sidebar - 7 Fiery Moments From Lindsay Clancy’s Closing Arguments

Episode Date: August 27, 2026

Closing arguments have concluded in Plymouth County, Massachusetts, in the trial of Lindsay Clancy, a mother accused of strangling her three young children to death. While the defense argued Clancy suffered from a severe mental defect that left her unable to understand her actions, prosecutors contended that her elaborate planning and deliberate choices proved she knew right from wrong. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber breaks down the major closing argument moments that will ultimately decide whether Clancy faces first-degree murder charges or is found not guilty by reason of insanity.HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson, Heather Berzak & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrimeTwitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

What's on trial here, what the issue is here, is what Lindsay Clancy did the night of January 24th, 2023. Lindsay Clancy, the mom at the center of a brutal murder trial, may soon find out how the jury judged her actions and the consequences for the deaths of her three young children. Because attorneys for the Commonwealth and Clancy went head to head in a Massachusetts courtroom today laying out their closing arguments. How does this turn into this because of the damn medicine and the lousy medical care that she got? So was Lindsay Clancy out of her mind when she allegedly strangled her children or did she kill them in cold blood?

The issue is whether at the time she killed Cora, Dawson, and County. She knew the difference between right and wrong. This young lady is not guilty of the killing of her. children because she was suffering from a disease and defect. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by law and crime. I'm Jesse Weber. We're here.

After just over a month, five weeks, we are here at closing arguments in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial out in Massachusetts. This is big because there is little doubt that this mother killed her three young children, eight-month-old Callan, three-year-old Dawson, five-year-old Cora, by strangling them to death with exercise bans. That's not really the question. is whether she is criminally responsible. And now the jury has multiple options here.

I'm going to talk about that. And I'm going to highlight the big moments from the closing arguments. Now, look, I will tell you, many times you're going to hear experts say that by the time closings happen in a trial, jurors have already made up their mind. Sure, they're going to go into deliberations and they'll talk about it, but individual jurors have already come up with how they're leaning. That could be true. Not sure.

That's the case here. Given how complex this case is, how complicated it is, how you had conflicting accounts and testimony from so many different witnesses, in my mind, in my opinion, this jury may need each side to properly summarize the evidence and the main points and present a coherent summation and argument laying it all out. I think they paid very careful attention to the closing arguments, that they needed it in this case. Now, what happened? So before we even got to the closing, something very important happened. The judge laid out the different options in jury instructions. So this is the law, this is the framework, this is the roadmap by which the jury is going to go. Now, I'm not going to get too specific into the details and the elements because it can be a bit legalese and a bit dry, but here you go.

This is what you need to know. The jury has multiple options here. They can find Lindsay Clancy guilty of the top charge of first degree murder. Two theories of first degree murder, by the way. Remember, the prosecution has to prove these, any of these charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, this is first-degree murder for each child, okay? Two theories. One, a murder committed with deliberate premeditation, meaning she caused the children's deaths.

She intended to kill them. She consciously and purposefully caused the deaths and decided to kill after a period of reflection. Theory two, a first-degree murder. murder committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty. Now, what does that mean? Well, it basically means that she caused their death, she intended to kill them, or she intended to cause grievous bodily harm, or intended to do an act in which a reasonable person,

the circumstances would be that a reasonable person would know that death would result, and that the killings are especially heinous or atrocious or cruel because you'll think about the circumstances by which these kids were killed, but also that their mother allegedly did that. So that's two different theories for first-degree murder, okay? They also, alternatively, they could find Lindsay Clancy guilty of second-degree murder. Now, it's the same elements causing death, intent to kill, or intend to cause grievous bodily injury, or intend to do an act in which a reasonable person would know that death would result.

Same kind of thing, except, unlike first-degree murder, there's no extreme atrocity or cruelty. You don't need that. That's option two. So the first degree murder, second degree murder. They could also, and this was new, this was added to their options, they could find Lindsay Clancy guilty of manslaughter, an unlawful killing, unintentional, but it's done through wanton or reckless conduct, conduct that creates a likelihood of harm to a person. So this could be a potential middle ground option, right? You know, jurors could go into the deliberation room and say, are we really not going to hold her criminally responsible? I'll talk about that in a second.

but maybe we don't feel it was premeditated. Maybe we don't feel it was a second-degree murder, but maybe it was manslaughter, kind of a middle-ground option, to hold her criminally responsible. Maybe. Prison sentence would be different for manslaughter rather than first-degree murder,

but this is also the key, okay? The judge said that Lindsay Clancy, to be found guilty of any of this, the prosecution has to prove that the defendant was criminally responsible, and that is the key throughout this whole trial because of what's the case. the defense has been arguing. This postpartum psychosis, insanity defense, that she's not criminally

responsible due to a mental disease or defect, and as a result, she lacked the capacity to appreciate her criminality or wrongfulness of her actions, or she couldn't conform her conduct to the requirements of the law, that it doesn't have to fit into a specific medical diagnosis. This is more of a legal consideration, the Commonwealth has to prove that she knew and understand that her conduct was illegal or wrong. And the judge informed the jury that if she is found not guilty because she lacked criminal responsibility, the DA or another appropriate party may petition the court to transfer her to a mental health facility or hospital. And she will be kept committed there as long as she is mentally ill. And she could potentially be discharged if she poses no serious harm

to herself or others. Now, the court would be responsible for granting that petition, and it would be up to the court to decide whether or not she would ever be released. But here, the jury was just made aware of that. Now, before we go into the closing arguments, just want to let you know something. We're kind of limited here on Sidebar how much we can show you of every piece of evidence in a case, but that is why we have the case files on the Long Crime Plus app, and we have it for Lindsay Clancy. So we're opening up the evidence vault on all these major cases. So you can inspect, let's say, the raw body cam footage or the 911 calls or the crime scene photos, the full trial tapes, all firsthand.

Plus, you get ad-free streaming of all your favorite long crime and court TV shows. You can see the full picture for an entire month free. Head on over to longcrimeplus.com. Enter promo code sidebar, and you can start exploring all that today. Okay, with that in mind, let's go to the closing argument. So in Massachusetts, the defense actually goes first in the closing, not the prosecution. So first up, defense attorney Kevin Redington. And he didn't hold back.

He went right after the prosecution. from the very start. This is a prosecution that has ripped the soul out of this girl. This is what they had. This is their family. How does 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 a 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 right when these children were killed. That was Reddington's tone. And he was just getting started. He went after the prosecution's investigation, law enforcement's investigation, calling it sloppy and complete. He pointed out that the police didn't test the powder on a cup or nightstand, didn't analyze blood,

said that this case was built on assumptions, not evidence. And before even getting there, he started with something personal because he wanted the jury to see his client, Lindsay Clancy, not as a monster, but as a woman, a nurse, a wife, a mother who loved her kids. And as you heard, he really tried to humanize her, young lady, girl, that she is the victim here. 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. It caused 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 another woman, I guess it's just going to make an excuse. She's depressed. GAD, general anxiety, give her a couple of pills, she'll be all right. You know from looking at the objective evidence in this case, this 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. And then Reddington turned to the physical evidence, the injuries, the blood, the window. He wanted the jury to see what Lindsay Clancy did to herself and why that matters. 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.

And how does that happen? Well, in the very beginning, went all the way back to one of the first 911 call that you had to suck it through, was made. You could hear in the voice, Pat Clancy horror, what he had obviously experienced. You can see

from the evidence that's before you, the injuries that she suffered. You will have in the jury room the exhibits that indicated the extent of the injuries from, I don't have to go through all of them, the extent of the injuries to slitting her throat, to slashing her wrists, throwing herself out a window, blood off over the bedroom floor, window open, screen slashed, oh no, screen wasn't slashed, my bad. That's what she thought. It's called a delusion. She was in a psychosis.

when she thought that probably right here sitting here believes that she slashed the screen. She didn't. Subjective evidence. And why did we spend almost a week showing you the extent and the severity of that suicide attempt?

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 just 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 and Lindsay screwed up. And she hurt herself bad. You know that's not what happened. And Redington went after the prosecution's demonstration with the exercise bans, right? The tools that were used to kill these three young children, arguing that just because the ban fell apart in court, it didn't really prove anything.

He argued that the prosecution was ignoring the timeline, was ignoring Patrick Clancy's own testimony, because the exercise bans not only go into intent, they also go to a time frame as well. But take a look. Watch the evidence. Watch the manipulation. Remember the argument with the bands. She took the bands out of the bag, put the gloves on, talks to the doctor, Lappasada on the zone, slams the bands down, out of the paper bag.

Does the movement of the bands and yells at Lopacetta and says, Rapped. They just wrapped. They weren't knotted? Because you've got to get. Lindsay, tightening the band, right? You got to hold it. You got to hold it for a minute.

You got to hold it for two minutes, three minutes, four minutes. That's why she needed the bands, not not it. 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 gloves won't fit moment, quarter number two.

What did Patrick Clancy 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 the police officers saw through the window. This is horrific stuff. But it's objective, and it shows.

the manipulation, this government, this prosecution is a mess. By the way, according to our long crime reporter, scandal host, Sierra Gillespie, Clancy's grandmother actually choked up at hearing this bit about the bans. Okay. Now, Reddington then pivoted to what he called the prosecution's manipulation, pointing to everything from how his client was treated in the hospital, to what he called a sloppy investigation, to the way the prosecution he claims used her own medical records against her. And what's important about that is what kind of treatment this young lady get the health care providers.

Remember Meg Collins? She came in this court. Meg, you might remember. Tall woman, short blonde hair, squared away. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. She was not only a nurse taking care of her in the hospital.

she advocated for her. She stood up for her patient. She protected her. She comes out of a coma. She is intubated. She has had major, major surgery of her broken, crushed spine, vertebrae, ribbed, thyroid, massive, massive, not my words,

medical records, massive. lawyers, cops, handcuffs. Do I need a lawyer? Write that down. Where are? You're out there somewhere. Write that down. Why, she wanted a lawyer. That's a bad thing. Must be guilty. Let's put that in a guilty pile. That's why she said that in a delirious state, dealing with all of these people about that issue. But what's even more nefarious, you think about it, as I said, your eye on the ball because of the manipulation.

It's tough to take a handful of pills. Remember the guys saying that yesterday? Tough to take a handful of pills. Well, no, they were crushed. Okay. Where's the residue? Where's the crusher? Where's anything?

Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter. Great investigation, guys. And speaking of books, one of the things that they found, smoking guns. Good moms have scary thoughts. Hallelujah.

Put that in the guilty pile. God forbid. She's not rolled up in the fetal position, wailing, self-flagellating, constantly. For three and a half years, she's acting like a human being trying to exist. But they go through the records and they want to get those dates

and use them against her manipulation. Remember, he's trying to raise reasonable doubt that these were premeditated, intentional, conscious killings. And Reddington then walked the jury through Lindsay Clancy's writings, journals, showing these entries that were made in November and December where she documented her horrible, intrusive thoughts,

lack of motivation. And then he pointed to January, right, the month that she allegedly committed these killings, where her notes devolved into like these chicken scratches. You look in this book, and as you might recall, Ms. Rossi testified, when asked, did you feel, that she was being controlling of you

because she says, for example, Monday, 1024, Callan, click down for a nap. Hopefully, we'll nap for two hours. If you wake shortly, let him resettle himself. Bottle when he wakes up. Then it goes on and on. Make salad. Romaine lettuce. He likes peppers, broccoli.

Cut the sweet potatoes and chunks. Thank you, with the hat. Another good score. You look at her journals that she took. You'll see, as you go along in the dates that she's recording in these journals, she's talking about the drugs that she was prescribed. And look at the first page.

Look at how detailed dates, how she felt, 10 milligrams, Prozac, and it goes on like that, goes on through November into December. December. December 9th, 10th, 11. horrible intrusive thoughts, horrible thoughts in the AM, horrible thoughts, horrible thoughts, no motivation. And then finally,

horrible thoughts, no motivation, deeply depressed. Then, that's around the time she went to women in an infant's hospital, right? Looking for help. Look at this. As she runs into January, there's nothing other than, little chicken scratches because her mind was gone.

He then brought up an interesting analogy. He pointed to the movie The Shining, comparing Clancy's desperate Googling to Jack Nicholson's character, typing all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. This is not an evidence, it's my for identification to be able myself. 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 were 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 Callan, because she loved her children. They were her life.

Manipulation. And when you consider the journals, I don't know, you know, you know, you know, 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 and says, all working no play makes Jack a doll boy. All working no play makes Jack a doll boy. Repeat it after repeated, after repeated, and he says, do you like it? You look at the records of her, Googling,

drugs. You look at how many times, how many 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. Culling a 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. And then when you look at those photographs,

There's a slice of a cucumber, there's a slice of a carrot. There's no chicken nuggets in that bowl. Patrick wouldn't know what the kids were eating. She was the one that would cook their dinner. She was in the refrigerator, but the guy yesterday is like, oh, no. Patrick said the child was eating the chicken nuggets in the bowl. No, she was getting food out for the two kids, not the little baby,

two kids, the dinner. There's no evidence that she's lying. There's no evidence that she's wondering. And finally, you remember there 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. Resnick's article with the largest research on voices in the lingering 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 burden, not as. Thank you. So those are the highlights from the defense, Kevin Redington's name, okay?

This isn't a case about a monster. It was about a woman who was failed by the system. She was trying to do the right thing. She was trying to get help. You only go from this loving mother to a killer because of something that happened to you. A woman in psychosis who didn't know right from wrong, leaving them, leaving the jury with an important reminder that the burden is never on the defense. Put that to the side. Then it was the prosecution's turn.

It was the Commonwealth's turn. And you had assistant DA, Jennifer Sprague, step up to the podium. And she actually agreed with the defense on one thing. There's no dispute that Lindsay Clancy was having a problem, that there was a mental illness. But she said that's not the issue here. There's no dispute that Lindsay Clancy was suffering for mental illness and that she tried to kill herself.

There's no dispute about that. All of the evidence that you've heard, even the experts that the Commonwealth put before you say that she was suffering for mental illness and she tried to kill herself. That's not the issue in this trial. The issue is whether at the time she killed Cora,

Dawson, and Cali. She knew the difference between right and wrong and whether she could conform her behavior to the requirements of the law. 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 24, 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 the 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 Patrick's. 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. 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 records, 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. And you know from the pill bottles what she actually took.

And sometimes those two things didn't align with what she told her providers, what she told Patrick, what she told her mother. Putting the impetus, the fault, the responsibility on Lindsay Clancy. And Sprague then turned to Lindsay Clancy's own words and actions and how important it was as a nurse to be honest with her providers, her medical health providers, but that she wasn't. She knows as a nurse the importance of following the instructions of your medications.

She knows how important it is to follow the plan and do what's on the bottle and do what your provider tells you and to give that accurate information to your provider. She didn't say, I went up a dose, went up to 50 too early. Maybe they could have adjusted that and tried the 25 milligram for longer and eased her into it. But no, she told her that she did what she was told and then went up and had these problems. Putting the fault on Clancy, putting the responsibility on Clancy, highlighting these conscious, deliberate actions. And then she pointed to the pill bottles themselves and argued that Lindsay Clancy was looking for a quick fix. But she wasn't telling her doctors really what was going on.

The Lomictal. She never took those pills at all until the night she tried to kill herself. So there's a lack of compliance there, a lack of follow over, a lack of communication with her providers about what was happening with her and how she was taking the medications. And if that's allowed you to believe that this is a woman who's begging for help and willing to do anything and everything her providers tell her to do to get better. And she was asking for help. She was. She wanted help. She wanted to get better. But she wanted to get better on her own terms, doing things her way, the way she thought she should do them.

and as a nurse she knew that's not the right way to approach it. She knew that an accurate medical history, accurate information about your side effects and symptoms, what your thoughts are, that's important for your providers to know. And she didn't do it.

And it seems that the reason that she's not necessarily fully compliant and she's doing what she wants to do is she has this desire to be herself again. She just wants to go back to who she was. and she wants it now.

And she doesn't want any side effects. She just wants to be herself again and wants it now. And that's understandable. That's relatable to want to get that magic pill that will fix you immediately. You can go back to being yourself. But she knew that's not how it worked. And you know that's what she was thinking

because in the searches on her phone, she's searching for things like which antidepressant works the fastest. How fast does well Butrin work? And she's searching all of these different medications for the side effects and symptoms, some of them that she never even discusses with her doctors. And, you know, again, it's relatable that she wants to get back to where she was, but she had

discussions with her providers about how these medications work and that it takes time for them to get into your system, and it takes time for them to work. She even texted her mother about that, about how she knew that she had to be patient, that it took weeks, or the amyptoleon, for example, to get into our system and worked. And she knew all of this. And she just, she couldn't be patient. She couldn't wait. She wanted faster.

Women and infants never says she was overmedicated. 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 peripartum. They saw she had an issue. They wanted to help her.

It says there, we offered her. They 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. It shows they 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 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. According to Spray, Lindsay Clancy knew the difference. between right and wrong, pointing to examples of what she told her husband and mother, but she didn't tell the providers. Why? Because Sprague argues it's because Lindsay Clancy knew she would lose her kids. You know that she knew the difference between right and wrong during that time because she had those thoughts at the beginning of December of harming her kids. And she told Patrick and her mother about them. But who she didn't tell is important in very

telling. She didn't tell a single provider. Not Tufts, not Jolada, not Jennifer McAllister, not Dukes, no one at McLean, no one at NGH, no one at Selt Shore. Didn't tell any of them. And why? Because the police might take away her kids. That's a rational thought that telling mandated reporters that you're having a thought of harming your kids, that they might be taken away for their safety, That's a rational thought.

And it also shows she knew it was a bad thought, a wrong thought. Because you don't think someone's going to take your kids away because you're thinking something positive or neutral. Sprigg then turned to McLean and why Lindsay Clancy left. And even if you believe that the number of different medications she took over that time or the combination of those medications affected her negatively. after McLean, they were out of her system. Some of them have been out of her system for months. Zolov, she stopped in October. Other pills she stopped in November or December.

And that last one is Syracool that she really had a bad reaction to is out of her system. The only medication she's on leaving McLean is tracidone for sleep and Valium for anxiety. And that's it when she leaves there. And why does she leave there?

He wants to go to Corey's birthday party. And that's, that's relatable. That's understandable. She wants to be that mom again who can throw her daughter a party and enjoy it. It's completely understandable while she would want to leave. But she also knew she wasn't there.

She knew how she was feeling. She knew she was depressed. She knew she needed help. But she wanted to be that. Mom, she was more. And there was nothing McLean could do to keep her there. She said she denied suicidal ideation. She denied homicidal ideation.

She said she wasn't hearing voices or seeing anything. They saw the entire time she was there, no signs of psychosis. In fact, every doctor she saw from Tufts in September all the way through Tufts, January 23rd, none of them saw any signs of psychosis ever. And then she pointed to the videos. And they even give her a test, a task to do, to see if she can manage her mental health outside of the hospital, make an appointment, pick a doctor, make an appointment.

And she does it. She decides on Dr. Tufts. She makes the follow-up appointment. She gets the documentation and gives it to them, showing she can manage her mental health. They have to let her go at that point. She's there voluntarily. There's no grounds to keep her

if she's not showing she's a danger to herself, others. So they let her go home. And at home, again, all throughout January, she's showing her ability to know right from wrong and to conform her behavior to the requirements of the law in all the activities she does in January. First day is the birthday party. She's throwing the birthday party. She's monitoring the kids, making sure, you know, typical mom birthday party stuff. Everyone's eating, getting cake, singing happy birthday. You saw her in the video. She appeared happy and smiling. Normal.

Everyone that interacted with her, said, seems a little tired, but okay. The Museum of Science. You have that video. The Museum of Science in Boston can be crowded and overwhelming on a good day.

And she's there with three kids under five with her husband. You see her monitoring them, caring for them, doing the exhibits, showing them what to do with the exhibits. If you watch that video and you didn't know who the Clancy family was, and we ask you, pick out the woman who is depressed.

Pick out the woman who wants to kill herself. Pick out the woman who was about to kill her kids. You couldn't pick her out. She's completely calm. All her behaviors are typical and normal because she's able to control her behavior. And then there was this moment, really, really important. Sprague said, you start to see the planning. 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, trained in recognizing the signs of postpartum depression. She told you, she looks for flat affect. She looks for teariness and some other things that she told you. She saw 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. 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 Mir relax, Kids Miralax at 4.02. And then a little while later at 413, you see her search for takeout from 3V. And then immediately after she does the Apple Math 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 where 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. She then brought up another key point, the calls to CVS. And not only does she search CVS, she calls them, calls them and asks them if they have kids Marialax and they say no, but they have pedialax and one other medication. And then she asks, is it in stock? Because she needs to know not only what they have, but is it in stock? Because

she's adding to this errand that she's sending Patrick out on. And she has to make sure she's not interrupted. She doesn't want that call at 533. She wants him to go to CVS and have the medication there and get it and then go on to 3V. So she has time to do. what she needs to do. 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 text Patrick. You know, it's been a long day. Can we do 3V? Then there was this really important moment where Sprague walked the jury through what happened when Patrick Clancy came home, highlighted point that is very important for the prosecution's argument, that this was not someone in a psychosis. It was someone who made choices. And then comes home. And when he gets home,

puts the things on the counter and it's quiet. It's quiet in a way that a house with three kids under five should not be during waking hours. So he calls out to them no answer. He goes to the basement door and opens it and yells down and no answer. And he closes the door. He calls her phone, no answer. He goes upstairs and is able to unlock the door and see the blood and see the window open and go down to her. And when he goes down to her, she's no longer actively bleeding. He doesn't have to put pressure on any of her wounds. And he says to her, what did you do? In her responses, I tried to kill myself. And then it's where are the kids? in the basement.

It's not, I heard a voice, I was compelled to do this, I didn't want to do this, go help the kids, they're hurt, they're in the basement, go save them. No, it's, I tried to kill myself. The kids are in the basement.

You know from all of the evidence that you have, putting aside the experts, but all the evidence you have in terms of crime scene photos and videos and the witnesses, testimony and on the medical records, you know how she killed them, where she killed them, what time she killed them, and the order that she killed them in. Even without what she told the doctors about the order, that's something you can infer from the evidence. Because you know

in order to bring the kids to the basement and strangle each one of them. And then come upstairs and get a knife and have a phone call and then go upstairs to the second floor. and either take handfuls or pills or crush them, however she did it, take the pills, and then cut herself, and it's not just one, three cuts, it's the hesitation marks, and then the cuts themselves. And then you know she bled in a couple spots for a little while, because you heard from Sherry Crook, the pooling in front of the mirror is someone, basically the blood dropping down and someone there for a period of time, and then over closer to the window, the same thing. so she's bleeding in front of the mirror for a period of time

over by the window for a period of time and then she goes out of the window and whether she dove out or climbed out and slid down whatever you think that evidence shows from the shingles and everything you've seen, whatever happened, she goes out of the window and she's on the ground and by the time Patrick gets there she's no longer bleeding. So for all of that to happen

in that short amount of time while Patrick's gone. She had to have started killing the kids immediately after he left. And she went on to explain more about why the defense's argument, this idea of a voice compelling Lindsay Clancy to kill her children and then herself, why this doesn't add up.

Now, defense wants you to believe that it was after the phone call, that after the phone call, she heard the voice and killed the children. But there's a few things about that that don't make sense. first is what she told Dr. Satoff that when she gets the call, she's at the fridge, getting chicken nuggets out of the fridge to make dinner. You heard from Patrick.

When he's leaving, Dawson is sitting on the couch eating chicken nuggets and green beans out of a bowl. There's the crime scene photo of two bowls on the couch. Yes, the pink one seems to have some vegetables in it, but there's the blue one there as well. And Patrick saw Dawson eating the chicken nuggets and green beans.

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 the phone call don't make sense if she's being compelled by her voice. If she's not in control. And then finally, she got to the why. Why would Lindsay Clancy a mother do this to her kids? 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 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, you know, 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. All right, you know we're going to keep a careful eye on what happens next, right? So for the verdict and every up-to-the-minute detail,

and update about this case. Make sure you watch our long crime trials and court TV YouTube channels to see what's going on. We'll continue to follow it here on Sidebar as well. Thank you so much for joining us. As always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you get your podcast.

You can also check us out on NBC's Peacock as well. If you want to follow me, X Instagram, My News Nation show, Jesse Weber Live, Monday through Friday, 11 p.m. Eastern. See you next time, everybody.