Law&Crime Sidebar - 'Male Voice' Told Lindsay Clancy to Kill Kids?

Episode Date: August 25, 2026

In Plymouth County, Massachusetts, mother Lindsay Clancy stands accused of killing her three young children—Cora, Dawson, and Callan—in a tragic case that has shocked the nation. While Clancy admitted to the killings, the central question turns on her mental state and key testimony surrounding a male command voice she allegedly heard. Was it acute postpartum psychosis, or a convenient defense to lessen her culpability? Law&Crime's Jesse Weber analyzes the conflicting evidence and is later joined by Law&Crime reporter and host of the Scandal podcast, Sierra Gillespie, to break down the latest courtroom developments.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: For free and unbiased Medicare help, dial [phone] to speak with my trusted partner, Chapter, or go to www.askchapter.org/lawandcrime *Paid Partnership*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.

She alluded to having heard a voice. A voice that allegedly told Lindsay Clancy to kill her children. He said she heard a man's voice telling her that if she didn't do it now, she would lose her chance or something like that. But the prosecution says this story about that voice, it emerged in a critical 18-minute window. Well, because it provides a convenient way of lessening your own culpability. Lindsay Clancy has admitted she killed her three kids, but was she in control when

she did it? That answer may come down to one thing, the voice. Who heard about it, what they heard, and what exactly they were told. We are going to be zeroing in on that voice, and we will let you decide. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by law and crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Lindsay Clancy, this is the woman that all of America has been talking about because she is the mother accused of strangling to death her three young children. Cora Dawson, Callum. Now, here's the thing. This is what makes this case very different. There is no dispute really about what happened on January 24th, 2023 because Lindsay Clancy admitted to killing her kids. I say no dispute. You'll see there's certain things on social media. We're not even going to. to touch that. The question is, the legal question for this jury that's hearing this case, the one that they have to answer is, why? That's the critical question. Because her defense says she wasn't in control, that she was hearing a male voice, a command, one that was very straightforward,

allegedly saying, you have to kill the kids before she potentially did harm to herself. The legal question that this jury will be confronted with is whether or not she was criminally responsible. Did she suffer from a mental disease or defect that put her in a position where she could not conform her actions to the law? That she could not appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions, the illegality of her actions. Was this a conscious voluntary action? Now, this voice, this alleged command, was something the prosecution argues, only manifested during the roughly 18-minute window that it took to kill her children. And that's significant.

Because one of the prosecution's witnesses on rebuttal, this is Dr. Kirk Hybron, referred to this as a convenient explanation for her actions. Now, the defense is saying, no, this is psychosis. This is a postpartum psychosis. So the question that we're left with, the question that the jury is going to be left with is this, did Lindsay Clancy really hear this voice or does she just need you to believe that she heard it? Can a hallucination even really be proven or disproven? So we're going to try to answer this based on what we know from this testimony. And in a bit, we're going to also hear from our friend Long Crime Reporter, host of scandal, Sierra Gillespie. She's been doing a terrific job covering this case. And, She is on the ground reporting live from Massachusetts on this case. So we're going to bring her on a little bit. Now, before I even get into all this, you know this is a massive case, right?

One that we've been following here on law and crime. So one of the things that we do when we have a big case like this or the other big cases that we follow, we're kind of limited in how much we can show you on our YouTube shows. Well, if you haven't heard yet, so we have this case file section on the Long Crime Plus app. This is exactly what you need because we're opening up the evidence vault so you can inspect all of this for yourself, the raw body cam footage, the 911 calls, the crime scene photos, the full trial tapes, all first hand. You can see it for yourself. Plus, you get ad-free streaming of all your favorite long crime and court TV shows.

So you can see the full picture, by the way, for an entire month free. Head on over to longcrimeplus.com. Enter promo code sidebar, and you can start exploring today. Again, check it out if you want a more full 360-degree picture of this case. Okay, back to this. So for now, if the defense is going to convince a jury that Lindsay Clancy was actually, acting on a command from a hallucination, they need to show that this wasn't something that she just made up after the fact, right? So, enter Sheila Kavanaugh. She is a board-certified

chaplain at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. She's been reportedly doing this work for seven years. And she was the first person that Lindsay Clancy spoke to after she was ex-dibated, meaning after they removed the breathing tube. You recall that there was an allegation that Lindsay Clancy also tried to kill herself, that she jumped out of a window. So she was called to testify as a witness for the defense. Now, Kavanaugh showed up to the ICU on the morning of January 25th, 2023. So that's the day after the killings. Lindsay was still in the neck brace.

She was still covered in bandages. She couldn't speak. But by January 31st, that tube was out. Okay? Here is what Kavanaugh told the jury about that conversation. Did she make any other statements to you? She did. She alluded to having heard a voice, and the voice, according to Lindsay, told her that if she did not follow the command, neither she nor her children would be safe. And did she indicate whether it was a male voice, a female voice, loud, soft?

She alluded to the fact that it was a male voice and it was persistent. Any further conversation that you recall about that, not about general things. That came up several times. I visited Lindsay minimally 14 times while she was hospitalized at the Brigham. And the voice conversation came up several times during several of our visits. So Kavanaugh says that this voice came up repeatedly. But here is where the prosecution pushed back because Kavanaugh testified, she kept notes. So the prosecution questioned her about those.

notes you wrote very detailed notes that are contained in the Brigham and women's hospital records regarding your interactions with Lindsay Clancy didn't you yes I did and in all of these notes that detail every time you interacted with her you never once wrote that she told you she heard a voice or what that voice said correct correct and you also said that this voice talking about the voice came up in several of your meetings correct correct and you never once wrote about any of it and any of your very detailed notes, correct?

Well, Chaplin notes are not verbatim transcripts of patient conversations. I'm not there to evaluate the patient. I'm there to bear witness to their suffering. Okay, but the question was, you did not document those statements in your notes, correct? Correct. But you did document some other statements in those notes, correct? Perhaps. All right, real quick, before we go any further, got something important to tell you about.

Did you know that the Medicare annual enrollment period is right around the corner? And look, if you or someone you love is on Medicare, you really need to pay attention. Because the truth is, Medicare can be really, really frustrating. And honestly, pretty confusing. Millions of seniors, they're on the wrong Medicare plan. They don't even know about it. That's why I'm telling you about Chapter, our sponsor. Chapter has unbiased independent Medicare advisors who are salary-based.

They're not paid on commissions, so they're not trying to sell you something. to help you understand your options and find the plan that best fits your needs. The call is completely free. There's no pressure to enroll in anything. If you're already on the right plan, they're going to tell you. But look, if there's a better option for your situation, they'll walk you through it step by step. Look, most people, they can review their options in under 20 minutes.

Historically, seniors who've worked with Chapter, they have saved an average of more than $1,100 a year. So don't guess when it comes to your Medicare coverage. Call Chapter today at 845-493-37-9. Again, that's 845-493, 3791. You're going to speak with a real person who can help you understand your options. And again, that call is completely free. Now, the defense did explain that chaplains aren't there to take evidence.

They're just there to comfort people. But Kavanaugh documented several things that Lindsay Clancy said or allegedly said, for instance, on February 6, 2023. So that's less than two weeks after the killings. Kavanaugh wrote that Clancy shared her fears about, quote, not being able to walk again. But she also wrote that Clancy was, quote, visibly engaged, energized and hopeful. February 9th, she noted that Lindsay Clancy spoke hopefully of being discharged. February 13th, she wrote that Clancy feels she has gained considerable physical strength and agility and that she feels deserving of this in light of recent events.

February 16th. She apparently wrote that Clancy was playing cards with her mother, laughing, expressed hopefulness. Seemingly the point here from the prosecution is this allegedly persistent male voice never made it into these notes. So that's the chapel, okay? The defense, though, isn't relying just on her. They have another witness that we want to talk about. Someone who was there for a phone call that cuts right to the heart of this case. I'm talking about Dr. Paul Zizel. He is a forensic psychologist who's been involved in this case since the very beginning. He was brought in by Lindsay Clancy's defense attorney Kevin Redington, and he's visited Clancy over 45 times, but the first time he saw her was on February 4th, 2023. So that's 11 days after the killings.

At that point, Clancy was still in the ICU. She still had tubes, wires everywhere. She was still handcuffed to the bed. And Dr. Zaisal says she asked him for one thing to call her husband Patrick. So she did. And while the first call went unanswered, two days later, February 6th, Patrick apparently picked up the phone. Here is what the doctor told the jury about that call. Tell us what she said to Patrick in your presence on the speakerphone at that point. She had told Patrick that she loved him very much. She was unable to express a lot of emotion, but she expressed a lot of emotion.

but she expressed love for him. And she had said that she heard a male voice ordering her, telling her that she didn't have any choice, but she had to kill her children and then kill herself. Now, have in mind your background, your career, your, Did you tell Lindsay Clancy to lie or make that up and pretend that she was hearing voices? No. Do you have any conversation or any suggestions to her at all that she should say she heard voices or anything like that?

Absolutely not. Why did you let her call her husband on your cell phone? I let her call a husband out of human compassion. Now the prosecution tried to poke some holes there, suggesting that the doctor had planted the idea or that he coached her into saying this. So on cross-examination, they really went after that one thing that the doctor couldn't explain away, seemingly the records. Now, you've described in your testimony in this court,

repeated auditory hallucinations about wanting to kill herself or that she should kill herself and that she is damaged or her brain is damaged, right? That's correct. Now, did you have a conversation with her in one of these 35 hours about that particular voice or thought or belief? So, when I meet with Ms. Clancy, it's not as if I have one conversation on one of the 35 hours. To have thoroughness and exactitude, one does what we call intra-rater reliability. In other words, over the period of time, to confirm what's... someone says to you to help endorse the veracity or accuracy of that, you'll ask that question

in a multitude of different ways. So I don't just ask once, did you hear a voice on that day? I asked in different ways over time, and her answers pretty much remain the same. So when you quote in your report, when question about the nature and content of these horrible thoughts, Ms. Clancy stated, quote, like a really bad and intrusive thought that I didn't feel like it was mine, telling me I should kill myself, your brain is damaged, you're never going to get better, end quote. Where does the quote come from? What does the quote come from? Right.

She had said that to me. To you, at some point? Yes. Okay. And this is well after the incident occurred, correct? Yes. And you reviewed all the records to know that she did not endorse that she was hearing of voice to any of her providers between September and January 23rd of 2023.

So when someone- Yes or no, sir. That's a difficult question to say yes or no from because sometimes if someone says something that's inaccurate, it's not an affirmatory or a negative response that's misleading. My question to you, though, was where in the records from September to January 23rd or 2022 did she tell any of the provider she saw that she heard a voice telling her to kill herself? It's not in the records. Significant. Significant. So here's where we're at.

Dr. Zaisal says he heard Lindsay Clancy tell Patrick about the voice. The chaplain claims that Lindsay Clancy told her about the voice. But Lindsay Clancy apparently never told any of her doctors, according to the records. Now, the defense says she was afraid to tell them because she was afraid that she would lose her kids, that she was terrified that if she admitted what was happening in her head, the state would take them away. But the prosecution has a response to that. And it comes from their expert, Dr. Kirk Howbrun. Now, this doctor is a forensic psychologist who's testified over 330 times. He was the one who evaluated Lindsay Clancy in April of 2026.

He spent three days with her, reviewed thousands of pages of records, and he came to a very different conclusion about that voice. Did you then consider evidence against acute psychosis with command hallucinations? I did, yes. And what did you see? One of the reasons, well, the first bullet point here is that the way she described this is happening is that she heard a voice that she'd never heard before, experienced an hallucination. And she's never experienced it since. And she's never experienced it since, but she only experienced it for the 18 minutes or so that it took to kill the children. And to put it mildly, that would be a very, very unusual pattern or manifestation of how this kind of thing comes about. Very unusual. I've been doing this kind of evaluation for many,

many, many years, and I'm always very careful when someone tells me that they experience the symptom only during the course of committing an offense. Why is that, doctor? Why are you careful when someone tells you that they only experience this voice during a criminal offense? Well, because it provides a convenient way of lessening your own culpability. I mean, it's always possible, but as I said, I find it very, very rare. Whereas an explanation for why somebody did something, somebody might look at that and say it's a convenient way of somebody looks at me and I don't have the same culpability that I would otherwise.

That was yesterday. Today, the defense got their turn to cross-examine. And as of this recording, that cross-examination is still ongoing. Now, we haven't heard the full picture yet, but defense attorney Kevin Redington went right after the doctor's credentials, pointing out that his experience is largely in juvenile justice and violence risk assessment, not postpartum psychosis. He pressed the doctor on the fact that he didn't interview Lindsay Clancy until more than three years after the killings. And he highlighted the $54,000 the prosecution has paid him for his work on this case so far.

You see that very typically, or are you getting paid for your testimony or your work or you hire a gun. We see that a lot. Okay. Here's the thing. For all of the doctor's skepticism about this voice, there is one person who apparently heard that voice before any defense lawyer ever got involved. You know who that is? Patrick Clancy, her ex-husband. He was the first person that Lindsay Clancy told about the voice.

and the first person to testify about it in this courtroom. Here's what he said. She said she heard a man's voice telling her that if she didn't do it now, she would lose her chance or something like that. And did she also tell you that she had had a moment of psychosis? I don't recall. Did she mention the children at all during that call? I don't think so.

I mean, not directly. had she ever mentioned psychosis to you before no I didn't know what psychosis was until after this happened did she ever tell you she was hearing a man's voice before no and this is the clash at the heart of the case or at least part of it and it will very soon be up to the jury to decide which explanation makes more sense I've said it before I'll say it again I think that this is just one component

of a very complicated case where you should not be surprised if this jury takes a very long time to deliberate. I do not think that there is an easy answer here. In my legal opinion, looking at all the testimony that we have so far, all the evidence, I feel like this is going to be a battle between the jurors. And there is a question about whether or not they will come to a consensus on guilt or not. So now let me bring on somebody who knows this case backwards and forward. has been covering it from the very beginning and is now live in Massachusetts, outside of that courtroom we have with us. The host of scandal, Long Crimes' very own, Sierra Gillespie, Sierra, thank you so much for coming on.

It's really good to see you. It's great to have you on my show. I've been going on your show so much. I'm glad I get to have you on the sidebar. First, I just want to start off. What is the scene like outside that courtroom? Because the reporting from the last several weeks, right, has been you see, an influx of Lindsay Clancy supporters.

Is that what you're seeing today? Yeah, Jesse, it's a crazy juxtaposition to go from the last time I was here, which was jury selection, and it was pretty much only reporters. Now I'm here as we're inching closer to closings, and it is crazy. I mean, the amount of reporters has doubled, if not tripled. The courtroom is packed. This morning, there was a line for people who are just spectators who want to get in. And I do think that there has been an outpouring of support for Lindsay.

These spectators, by and large, the ones that I've spoken to, say that they are in favor of her. They realize that she was going through postpartum psychosis. At least that's what they believe. And so it's interesting to see and feel what the courtroom energy is like now. And talking about the courtroom, what happened today in court? Because obviously, you know, we're coming on. I was talking a little bit about what we can expect. What happened in court today?

Okay. So today, the Commonwealth wrapped up their direct of one of their rebuttal witnesses. This is Dr. Kirk Heilbrun, and he was talking about Lindsay Clancy. You know, the whole defense's argument is that she was undergoing psychosis at the time, right? And I think this was a pretty strong witness for the Commonwealth because he said, hey, you know what? She really did have mental health issues. I truly believe that she was trying to die by suicide, which is interesting because in the past,

it almost seemed like the Commonwealth was insinuating that maybe perhaps she really didn't want to commit suicide. But this witness says no, I do believe she wanted to die by suicide. She was undergoing terrible mental health. And yet, I don't think she was undergoing psychosis at the time. I do believe she was criminally responsible. So that's a huge win for the Commonwealth, right? But on the opposite side of things, of course, when the cross-exam started going, defense attorney Kevin Reddington really brought it asking a lot of pointed questions. trying to poke holes in the argument here. And he did have a couple of good things

that were said by this witness, but honestly, we can kind of feel ourselves getting closer and closer to those closings. We have one more witness at the time of this recording. So I mean, who's to say when we're gonna have the jury deliberating on this verdict? Can you just amplify a little bit more about what the cross-examination of Dr. Habern was,

what the defense really tried to poke in. I was telling our viewers that initially he was focused was focusing on his credentials. But in terms of the substance of Hal Brown's conclusions, what was the defense trying to argue here? Yeah, it's interesting. You mentioned his credentials because I think that came back on cross and recross where Kevin Reddington was like, okay, hold the phone. You've never even reported on or commented on postpartum depression or psychosis. And he said, admittedly, no, I have not. So I think that was a good way for him to say, okay, really? Are you really an expert in all of this? And from there, I think he got the witness

to admit a couple of positive things for the defense, I mean, on this cross-exam, how Lindsay had an adverse reaction to some of her medications, because this is something we've heard throughout this entire trial, right? The defense is saying that Lindsay Clancy was allegedly over-medicated that could have potentially led to what they say was psychosis. And so for this doctor, an expert witness for the Commonwealth to say, okay, yeah, she did admittedly have adverse reactions to some of these medications to manage her mental health issues, I do think that that was partially a win for the defense. And one of the themes that we've been focusing on here on this show is the voice, that

Lindsay Clancy allegedly heard this voice. I laid out a bunch of testimony we've heard so far. In your opinion, as somebody who's been covering it, you know, a criminal defendant, if the jury believes they were hearing a voice commanding them to kill, that's significant. That is significant for a mental health defense. In your opinion, how strong has that evidence been presented by the defense and also a little bit, you know, came up during the prosecution's own witnesses. I mean, Patrick Clancy talked about it too, but like in general, how strong do you think it is that evidence of the voice? I think this command hallucination, the idea that she was hearing an external voice, it kind of cuts both ways, right? Okay. So if the defense says, yes, she did hear

this voice, that's a red flag. Anyone who hears any sort of voices like this, we know that something's going on with their mental health. That will lead to the idea that she was going through postpartum psychosis at the time, right? Okay, but on the Commonwealth side of things, they continue to point out that leading up to that day in question, January 24th, 2023, she never reported to Dr. Jennifer Tufts, nurse practitioner, Rebecca Jolotta. She never said, hey, I'm hearing voices, not when she was at MassGen or woman in infants in Rhode Island. So she never said any of those things. And even the witness that was on the stand today was saying, I've never had a case where the defendant only heard voices one time. And it's an interesting timing that she only heard it one time the day of these

killings. So if she did really hear the voices, yes, that's great for the defense. But on the other side of things, if she only heard them once, I mean, does that help them? So back to your question, Jesse, though, if the jury, if they believe that, right? If they believe that she really heard voices, I do think that would lean more toward the defense, that she wasn't criminally responsible. But if they don't believe it, that's really the question. Then is she, to be held, criminally responsible?

Let me ask you this. I don't know where you were seated today in court, but did you get a view of Lindsay Clancy? How is she appearing? Yes. Yeah, yeah, I did. And it was interesting to on cross-exam because at this point, we know Kevin Reddington, right?

We feel like we know him. And he's very animated. He does a great job of captivating the jury, which we can talk about if you want to. But at one point he even went over behind Lindsay and, you know, was talking to the witness and saying, are you telling me this woman right here, he had his hands on her shoulders? And she looked very stoic. She is paying attention.

Clearly, she is, you know, following things. She's looking at the defense attorney, the witness, whoever may be speaking. She's following along. But she looks very somber. And I will say the same thing for her family today. I mean, when I saw them during jury selection, obviously this isn't a happy time for anyone, but they almost look exhausted. I mean, we're weeks and weeks into this.

It's very emotional. They kind of have their shoulders hung. They're kind of, oh, my God. That's kind of the feeling that I'm getting from Lindsay and her family. You mentioned the jury. How are they reacting to this? The jury, first of all, I don't envy the jury, right, Jesse? I mean, the things that they have to consider,

the things that they've seen with autopsy photos or heard with the 911 call, very graphic and harrowing images that they'll have, probably for the rest of their lives. But what I will say about the jury is that they're paying attention. I was looking at their notebooks. It's like cover to cover, page to page, all filled out. They're writing things down. They're paying attention.

I didn't see anybody who was zoning out or dozing off. Nothing like that. I mean, I do think that the jurors are taking their job very seriously. And so I feel like deliberations, it's going to be a pretty big discussion. I think this is going to be one of the longest deliberations that we've seen, let alone if a jury can actually come to a consensus on this. I know that there's stats that say a jury already makes up their mind before closing arguments, that sometimes even after opening statements. But I think once they have an opportunity to debate this and deliberate this and go back and forth with their fellow jurors,

I think it's going to take some time. Even though I have conversations with people about this case, completely divided on it. So that's what I'm going to be looking at for. Talk to me about scheduling. So what is happening next? Do we know when closing arguments are going to be? Do we know if their prosecution has any more witnesses? Do we know when deliberations are going to start?

Okay, so here's the plan as we have it right now at the time of this recording. After the lunch break, a third and final rebuttal witness is going to be called for the Commonwealth. And here's what we don't know factor is the fact that the questioning recently on the cross of all of these rebuttal witnesses has been long. So it could be short. It could go long. It could trickle into tomorrow because of court. wraps at about four o'clock. So if they are able to wrap up this witness today, it's possible they take tomorrow off to kind of prepare the judges in the past said, it's okay. You know, we can

kind of discuss it and talk about it if both sides want to prep and have a day off before closings, which would mean closings would then be on Thursday. It's possible, though, that this witness trickles into tomorrow and closings are tomorrow afternoon. So at this point, it looks like the jury would likely have the case Thursday or maybe even Friday. Do we know if there's sequestered or there's any conditions placed on when they begin their deliberation? As of now, I haven't heard anything about any sort of sequestration. I believe that they're still able to go home or wherever they live. Just the basic things of you can't discuss this until it's time for deliberations. This is going to be fascinating. This is going to be fascinating to see.

We're going to follow it here on Cybar. We're following it every day with you on scandal. You've been doing tremendous reporting. I really appreciate you taking the time, Sierra. Thank you so much. Yeah, thanks for having me, Jesse. And that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you should 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.