Lindsay Clancy murder trial: closing arguments set after 85 witnesses

Testimony in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial has concluded after 85 witnesses. Closing arguments are scheduled for Thursday in Plymouth Superior Court.

Lindsay Clancy trial moves to closing arguments after final witness testifies

Testimony in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial concluded Wednesday in Plymouth Superior Court, Massachusetts, after jurors heard from 85 witnesses over the course of the case. Google News MT reports that prosecutors rested their case Wednesday afternoon following three rebuttal witnesses, with closing arguments now scheduled for Thursday.

The final witness called was Dr. Gregory Saathoff, a professor of emergency medicine and forensic psychiatrist with FBI experience. Saathoff stepped down from the stand at approximately 1 p.m., after which the jury was dismissed for the day.

Following the close of testimony, prosecutors and defence counsel met with Judge William Sullivan to settle final jury instructions and determine the exact options that would appear on verdict slips.

Verdict options confirmed

Prosecutors objected to involuntary manslaughter being included as a verdict option, but Judge Sullivan ruled it would remain. Clancy can be found guilty of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, or manslaughter. The jury may also return a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. A straight not guilty verdict is considered unlikely, as Clancy's own defence attorney has acknowledged that she killed her children.

"The judge will charge the jury on the lesser offence of manslaughter and it's up to them what they feel is appropriate," defence attorney Kevin Reddington said outside the court. "She's been beat down for 3.5 years, and she feels she's had a fair trial with the judge and the jury's been very attentive. All we can do is hope for the best."

Judge Sullivan also denied a defence request for a so-called "Bowden instruction," which would have allowed jurors to consider the consequences of an allegedly insufficient police investigation. Each side will be given one hour to present closing arguments.

Cross-examination of final witness

Reddington opened his cross-examination of Saathoff by noting the expert had not interviewed Clancy until more than three years after the killings. He went through Saathoff's curriculum vitae in detail, pointing out that the psychiatrist had "written a lot about terrorism" but relatively little on postpartum depression. Saathoff acknowledged he had last treated a patient suffering from postpartum psychosis in the 1990s.

Reddington pressed Saathoff on Clancy's reported complaints of dark thoughts and homicidal ideation to doctors and those around her.

"The homicidal ideation, as I understand, was just voiced to her husband and her mother," Saathoff replied.

"Just voiced? Is that like talking about the Red Sox?" Reddington said. "She's talking about homicidal ideation of her children."

Reddington also challenged Saathoff on testimony concerning crushed pills found in a wine tumbler in Clancy's bedroom, questioning whether the substance had been confirmed as medication. Saathoff stated the observation had been made by Patrick Clancy.

Exchanges between Reddington and Saathoff grew heated at several points, including when the defence attorney questioned why Clancy and her mother had declined to speak with the prosecution's expert.

"Do you think for one minute when you're trying to put her in jail for her life that she wants to talk to you?" Reddington said, before Judge Sullivan intervened.

Reddington concluded his cross-examination by quoting from the prosecution's opening statement, which described Clancy's decision to kill her children as a selfish choice made because she no longer wanted her life. Saathoff responded that the characterisation "really minimises what she was going through."

Prosecution's key arguments from Saathoff

Saathoff had begun testifying Tuesday. He interviewed Clancy in May and June of this year, asking her about a voice she said commanded her to kill the children. She told him the voice ceased once the killings had ended. Saathoff also noted what he described as inconsistencies in her account.

When back on the stand Wednesday, prosecutor Jennifer Sprague asked whether the voice Clancy heard had given her specific instructions on where or how to kill the children. Saathoff said it had not, and that this was significant.

"It indicated that she had control," he said.

On the question of Clancy's suicide attempt, Saathoff called it "very serious," even as prosecutors have previously emphasised that the self-inflicted cuts were not deep.

"The fact that the lacerations were not deep doesn't mean that she wasn't intending to kill herself," he said.

Sprague asked Saathoff whether Clancy had been overmedicated — a central plank of the defence's case. He acknowledged she had experienced "some significant side effects from some of her medication," but maintained she retained the ability to appreciate right from wrong.

Saathoff stated his medical opinion that Clancy was criminally responsible for the murders, citing what he described as a significant degree of planning: sending her husband Patrick to a CVS pharmacy and to collect takeout food, and selecting the basement and exercise bands as the means of killing.

"It's my belief that she expected to die and that by the time that Mr. Clancy arrived she would have successfully been able to take her life," he said.

Background

Clancy, 36, has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in the strangulation deaths of her three children — 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan — at the family's Duxbury home on 24 January 2023. She acknowledges she killed the children. Her defence argues she should not be held criminally responsible because she was overmedicated and suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time. Prosecutors contend she was not psychotic and had planned the murders.

The jury of 12 women and six men has heard evidence since 27 July.

If convicted of first-degree murder, Clancy faces life in prison without the possibility of parole. If the jury finds she was not criminally responsible, she will be committed to a state psychiatric facility in Massachusetts.

Source: Google News MT