Trial Day 1

Full Trial Audio: Lindsay Clancy Triple Murder

The first day of the trial for Lindsay Clancy, charged with three counts of murder in connection to the deaths of her children—B. Horvath Clancy, Jocelyn Clancy, and Callum

Key takeaways

• The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The Commonwealth bears the full burden of proving guilt on all three murder charges.

Main topics

• Jury selection and swearing-in
• Indictment reading for three counts of murder

Notable quotes

The defendant is presumed to be innocent unless and until she's proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

Day one concluded with jury instructions, formal indictment reading, and

Transcript preview

Speaker 5 (0:01) Full trial audio. Everything heard in court. No silences to skip. Speaker 3 (0:06) All right. Speaker 1 (0:12) Yes, please. Speaker 1 (0:23) All right, Council, good morning. Good morning. Ms. Clancy, good morning. I apologize, everybody. We had some technological problems here, but I think we're ready to go forward. Before we continue, can I see Councilor Seibart just briefly? Speaker 3 (0:41) All right. Speaker 3 (0:56) Yes, Speaker 1 (1:00) please. Speaker 7 (1:02) jury trial in the matter of Commonwealth v. Lindsay Clancy. Ms. Clancy is present. She is represented by Attorney Kevin Reddington, and the Commonwealth is represented by Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprite and Assistant District Attorney Shannon Buckingham. Speaker 1 (1:22) Thank you, everyone. I'm sorry. That's the technology that we have here. I apologize. Before we get going, I want to ask you just a couple of questions to make sure that everyone was able to follow my instructions from last week. And so the first question would be, is any member of the jury read, seen or heard or over anything about any aspect of this case that would affect your ability to be fair and impartial as a juror? Speaker 1 (1:49) All answers no in the negative. Number three, the last question I just want to ask you, is there any other serious matter of concern bearing on your service as a juror in this case that anybody needs to bring to my attention? Very good. Thank you again for following those instructions. And Madam Clerk? Speaker 7 (2:07) Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please stand and raise your right hand. Speaker 7 (2:14) Do each of you solemnly swear that you shall well and truly try the issues between the Commonwealth and the defendant according to your own and still help your God? I do. Thank you. You may be seated. Speaker 7 (2:26) Members of the Charter of the Hockens, the weeks of evidence, on document number 2383CR00198, offense 001, on the charge of murder. The jurors of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on their oath present that Lindsay M. Clancy of Duxbury in the county of Plymouth, on or above January 24, 2023, at Duxbury in the county of Plymouth, did assault in B. Horvath Clancy. Intent to murder her in my such assault and beating did kill and murder said former Clancy On target number 2383CR00198 offense 002 on the charge of murder, the jurors of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on their oath present that Lindsay M. Clancy of Dexbury in the County of Plymouth on or about January 24th, 2023 at Dexbury in the County of Plymouth did assault and beat Jocelyn Clancy. with intent to murder him, and by such assault and beating did kill and murder the said Dawson Clancy. On docket number 2383 CR0019, offense 003, charge of murder. The jurors for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on their oath present that Lindsay M. Clancy of Duxbury Speaker 7 (3:53) about January 24th, 2023, at Duxbury in the county of Plymouth, did assault and beat Callum Clancy, intent to murder him, and by such assault and beating, did kill and murder the said Callum Clancy. To these indictments, the defendant, the bar, pleads not guilty, and for trial, places herself upon the country. Which country you are. You were sworn to try the issues. If she is guilty, you shall say so. If she is not guilty, you shall say so and no more. Now I'm going to the jury. How can I hear evidence? Speaker 1 (4:29) All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Now, members of the jury, and really, this is the first time I can technically call you members of the jury because you don't become the jury in this case until you take that great oath that was just given. And that's an oath that has been given to jurors for hundreds of years here in Ocala, Massachusetts, where you've sworn to well and truly try this case. We have confidence that you're going to be able to do that. And so what I'm going to do at this point is I'm going to give what we call a pre-charge. And all that really is is kind of an orientation to you to the procedures that we're going to have as the case goes forward and kind of go over some of the terminology that you might hear to give you a little bit of an idea what some of the principles of the law are that you'll have to apply to the facts as you find them. So as we go through this, I just kind of, again, I'm going to. explain it, and then after that, we're then going to go right into the opening statements of counsel. All right, so first, as you know, this is a criminal case, and the defendant was charged by the way of an indictment on three counts. Now, you have to understand that an indictment is not itself any evidence of the defendant's guilt whatsoever. It's merely the formal way of accusing a person of a crime in order to bring her here to this courtroom. for trial. You are not to draw any inference of guilt from the indictments or from the fact that she was indicted and formally charged. Now, in every criminal case, the defendant is presumed to be innocent unless and until she's proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The law requires the commonwealth, that is the prosecution, to prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The law does not require the defendant to prove her innocence or to produce any evidence. At the end of this trial, you must find the defendant not guilty unless the Commonwealth has proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has committed each or any of the offenses with which he's charged. Now, I'll more formally instruct you on what reasonable doubt is later. But a charge is proved beyond a reasonable doubt if after you've compared and considered all the evidence. You have in your minds an abiding conviction to a moral certainty that the charge is true. It's going to be your duty, the duty of the jury, to determine whether the Commonwealth has proved its case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. And that decision has to be based only on the evidence and the law that's presented here in the courtroom during the trial of this case. Now, the defendant has been charged in three counts of murder. There are two different degrees of murder. There's murder in the first degree and murder in the second degree. If you find the defendant guilty of murder, you shall decide the degree of murder. The Commonwealth alleges that the defendant committed murder in the first degree on the following theories. Murder with deliberate premeditation and or murder with extreme atrocity or cruelty. Now, to prove the defendant guilty of any crime. The Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was criminally responsible at the time the alleged crime was committed. The Commonwealth bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime with which she's charged and also that the defendant is criminally responsible for her conduct. The defendant has no burden to prove a lack of criminal responsibility. Criminal responsibility is a legal term. A person is not. criminally responsible for her conduct if she has a mental disease or defect, and as a result of that mental disease or defect, lacks a substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality or the wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law. Now, just so you know, at the end of this trial, I will go over all of those legal principles in much greater detail. All right, so I just kind of wanted to give you a little bit of kind of an outline of what the law is on these charges. Now, I want to go over how the trial is going to proceed. So as soon as I'm done giving you this kind of pre-charge, the attorneys for the Commonwealth and the defendant will have an opportunity to present their opening statements. The Commonwealth goes first. The assistant district attorney will make her opening for the Commonwealth, and after that, the defense may choose to make an opening statement at that time. They could defer to give it later in the trial, or they could just not give an opening at all, because remember, the burden of proof is not on the defendant. After the opening statements, one thing I did want to tell you, the opening statements are very important, but they are not evidence. They really, at least to call it when I was a lawyer, kind of just roadmaps. So you can kind of see where the case is going. So you can kind of see what each party's position is. All right. But they're not evidence. It's important for you to keep that in mind. After the opening statements, the Commonwealth will then have their opportunity to introduce evidence in support of the charges. After that, the defendant may present evidence in her behalf if she wishes to. But she's not obligated to do so at all. Remember. The government, the Commonwealth, has the burden of proof, and the defendant doesn't have to produce any evidence whatsoever. Now, there also, in this case, may be some rebuttal evidence. So you may, and we'll go over that, kind of how that works in regards to the case when we get to that point. All right. Now, what is the evidence? Well, the evidence is generally from testimony. This is where the witnesses will testify from generally here. There may be some documents. There may be some videos. There may be some audios. And in addition to the evidence, we're going to take what we call a view. And the view, and I'll go over that again also a little bit later, but a view is we're just going to go to a number of spots and sites that may be relevant in this case. We're going to do that probably sometime either later this week or sometime next week. And I'll keep you advised as to that. So you can kind of check the weather and kind of how we're going to go. So that would be generally the evidence. After the evidence is done, we'll go into what they call the closing arguments of the attorneys. Again, very important, but not evidence. All right. And then after the closing arguments, I get to come talk to you again. And at that point, I give what they call the judge's charge or just the instructions. And really what it means, I'm just going to explain to you what the law is. And you're going to have to take the facts that you find during the course of this trial and apply the law that I give to you to arrive at the verdict. And I'll explain what the law is in much, believe me, much more detail at the end of this trial. Now, I just kind of wanted to go over everybody's kind of function in this trial as we go forward. My function is pretty simple. All right. My function is to see that the case is tried in a way that's orderly, fair and efficient. It's also my function to decide on questions of law that might come up during the trial. And as I said, to instruct you what the law is that you have to apply. And it's your duty as jurors to accept the law, as I stated to you. All right. What's your function? Well, your function is to determine the facts in this case. You are the sole and exclusive judges of the facts. You alone will determine what evidence to believe, how important any evidence is that you do believe, and what conclusions all the believable evidence leads you to. You are going to have to consider and weigh the testimony of each and all the witnesses who will appear before you, and you alone will determine whether to believe any witness and what extent to which you do believe that witness. It's going to be your responsibility to resolve any conflicts in testimony that might arise during the course of the trial, and it's your duty to determine where the truth lies. That's your function. Now, you should, I want to comment, I'm going to sometimes be making rulings on objections and evidence issues. I'm going to be talking to the attorneys and talking sometimes to witnesses. Don't try to read into what I'm doing. In other words, I have no opinion as to what your verdict should be. So if you think you are, you're trying to read between the lines, don't. All right? I have no opinion. Now... Speaker 1 (13:37) Also, during the course of the trial, you may hear either of the three lawyers objecting. Don't hold that against the attorneys. That's their job. And generally, the objections go towards the admissibility of some of the evidence or the questioning. It might be a different form that's needed. And that's what they're supposed to do. So don't hold it against either side if they're making objections. And what will happen is... Sometimes I'll just rule right from here where I'm sitting. It may be an objection. If I say, well, that's sustained, that means I agree with the objection. And a lot of times the question is just asked a different way. If I say overruled, it just means I disagree with the objection, and the question can go forward and the answer can be given. All right, so that's just kind of the shorthand we use. There's going to be times during the course of a trial that I have to talk to counsel over at Sidebar. When I say sidebar at this point, that's going to be over here. In this courtroom, this is the sidebar. And so a lot of times I'll have to talk to counsel over here because the law requires me sometimes to make decisions outside of your hearing. So we do that over here. It can be annoying. I know that. But we do it over here because it's actually quicker than if we ask you to. leave the courtroom because you've now seen you'd have to stand up, file out one by one, all the way down to the jury room. The court officer then says they're all in the jury room. Then I talk to the lawyers. Then we resolve that. You have to then file all the way back. So we found it's quicker. And so a lot of times those things really move a case along. So I apologize if we do it, but that's the reason we do it, and that's the reason why we do it in the courtroom. If we're doing a sidebar conference, anybody needs to stand up. Kind of stretch your bed back You look those are pretty comfortable chairs, but maybe sitting there for a while by all means do that But when when we're over here at sidebar don't discuss with any other jurors kind of what's going on or what you think's going on over here Right, so you just want to stretch you can Now if during the course of this trial anybody needs to communicate with me about anything just let the court officer know and they'll let me know and I'll talk to the the attorneys will deal with any of your concerns or any issues. Speaker 1 (16:00) Until this case is submitted to you after my final instructions, you must not discuss it with anyone, even your fellow jurors or your family, friends, or employees. All right? So it's important that you keep an open mind and not decide this case in any way until the entire case has been submitted to you. All right? That sounds easy at this point because you haven't heard anything. But as the case gets going, it gets harder and harder sometimes, even in the jury room. You can't start deliberating. Until you hear all the evidence. You can't start talking about it until you hear all the evidence. Until you know the law, you've got to apply. All right? We're going to allow you, as the case goes forward, to take notes. All right? And so anybody who wants to take notes, you can. You don't have to. Some people find it helpful to remember. Some people find it distracting. So it's up to you. That's your option. All right? You should know that. Those notes are your notes. By that I mean we can't let you take them home, but at the end of each day they're collected, they're put in a secure place, nobody reads them, I don't read them, the attorneys don't read them, nobody reads them. At the end of the trial, they're destroyed. But just some people, if you want to do it, we'll hand those out in a couple of minutes. Now, I want to just kind of go over just some cautions. as we're getting ready to start this trial. First, as I said already, please keep an open mind. Don't form any judgments or conclusions or views as to any aspect of this case. You haven't heard all the evidence, and you must keep an open mind throughout this case and until the case is given to you in your deliberations. Two, as I said, don't talk about this case, about any aspect of the case, with family, friends. acquaintances or anybody like that. Speaker 1 (17:55) Three, don't talk to any of the witnesses or parties or attorneys involved in this case. They've been instructed not to talk to you. We really want you to be comfortable. All right? And so if you do pass by one of the people involved in the case, if they go by you and don't say anything to you, don't hold it against them. Don't think they're not being respectful. They're following my instructions. We just want you to be comfortable throughout the course of this trial. Now. Speaker 1 (18:26) Another caution is during the time that you serve on this jury, there may be reports about this case in newspapers or social media or on the television. You may be tempted to look or listen. Don't do it. My instruction to you is do not read anything about this case. Don't listen to anything about this case. If something comes on, turn it off. Or if somebody starts talking about it, just say you can't talk about it. And you can blame me. That's my instruction. Speaker 1 (18:55) Sometimes during the course of a trial, evidence is presented that produces an emotional reaction. And that might happen in this case. But as jurors who have taken the oath to follow the law, I'm instructing you that the law says you must separate any emotional reaction on your part from the informational value and weight of the evidence. You must find the facts in this case based only on the evidence. I may go into that a little bit later, but I just kind of wanted to remind you of that in regards to that. Don't do any research on this case. If you have any questions about things as you go forward, you're not to do any independent research. You've got, as I said before, you've got three very, very experienced lawyers. They'll get you the information that you're going to need. to come to the right verdict. All right? You can't do any research. The other thing is don't visit the scene of any place that's described during the course of the testimony. So no field trips. All right? As I said, we very well may be taking a view or to go see some of these places later on in the trial. But that's the only time you should be there. Because at that point, you'll be under the supervision of the court officers, the court, the attorneys will be there. So that's the only time you're going to be allowed to do that. Now, I think the reason for all of these cautions is probably pretty clear, but it's just we need to ensure that a fair and just trial is given to all the parties in this case. So if you follow those instructions, you'll be able to do that. In regards to the schedule. As I told you, what we're generally going to do is go start at 9. We're going to go to 11. Might be a little bit, might be off kilter a little bit today because of this part of the procedures. Go to 11, then we'll go till 1. There'll be a break from 1 to 2. And we'll generally go 2 to 3.30 or 4. Now, after saying that, as I told you, I think everybody, this is a case. that we may not be sitting every day, all right? And we may have to break early on certain days. So what I'm going to try and do as best I can is give you as much notice and explain to you kind of where we are as we go through the case. And then, so that being said, we're not sitting tomorrow, all right? Something's come up that has nothing to do with any of the participants, but we can't sit. So... The thought would be we'll hopefully go most of the day today, then Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. As the week goes on, then I'll address you about how it looks for the next week. We'll try as best we can to keep you up to date in regards to the schedule and also the progress that we're making on this case. Speaker 1 (22:04) That's pretty much what I wanted to address you in this pre-charge. These instructions are very preliminary. They're intended, as I said, just to acquaint you with the procedure and the framework of how this case is going to go forward. I'm going to talk to you later on in the trial in a much more detailed explanation of what the law is and what your obligations are. But I know. I know that you're going to try this case according to the oath that we talked about that you took as jurors, where you promised you would well and truly try the issues between the defendant and the Commonwealth according to the evidence in the law. If you follow that oath and try this case without fear or prejudice or bias or sympathy, you'll arrive at a true and just verdict. I'm confident of that. And also, have confidence in yourself. All right? You can do this. The lawyers and I asked a number of questions, and we all decided and chose that you would be the people who could make this decision. So everyone has confidence in you. You should have confidence in yourself in regards to sitting on this jury and delivering the just verdict on this. So at this point, I'm going to now see if the Commonwealth is prepared to give their opening statements. Come on. Spucky, sorry. Speaker 6 (23:29) ladies and gentlemen. Cora. She had just turned five. She was sweet, silly, smart. She loved sparkly dresses and wearing bows in her hair. She loved princesses and baby dolls. She even tried to convince her preschool teachers at the beginning that her name was Sophia because she loved the Disney character Sophia the first so very much. Dawson. He was three. A boy's boy. He was a bit rambunctious, but funny, full of energy. He loved trucks, construction trucks, fire trucks. And he spoke with a raspy little voice. Callan. Callan was just eight months old. Always smiling, with chunky cheeks. A sweet little baby. We are here, ladies and gentlemen, because they are not. They were strangled. Deliberately and meticulously. Speaker 6 (24:41) Killed by this defendant on January 24th of 2023. One by one, she wrapped exercise bands around each one of the kids' necks and pulled until their little bodies were limp and lifeless. First Dawson, then Cora, and finally Callie. Speaker 6 (25:06) Your job, ladies and gentlemen, is not easy in this case. The evidence will be difficult to see, to hear, to process. Testimony of witnesses, family. Speaker 6 (25:22) Friends, teachers, people who knew the Clancy family, people who saw them regularly, people who saw them on the day in which this defendant killed them, they're all going to come before you. And it may be heartbreaking to hear what they have to say. You'll see photographs. Speaker 6 (25:43) Of the crime scene, you'll hear testimony from first responders. They're going to tell you about what they discovered when they came into the Clancy home at 47 Summer Street in Duxbury on January 24th. You'll hear evidence about the defendant during that time period, observations of her physical appearance, her demeanor. You'll hear testimony about what she was reporting to her friends and family and doctors during this time period. The list of Speaker 5 (26:11) witnesses is quite long. Speaker 6 (26:14) Law enforcement, firefighters, friends, family, teachers, crime scene investigators, forensic scientists, toxicologists, medical examiners, experts. We expect over the next few weeks that you will be able to or will be able to present to you a clear picture of what was occurring in the Clancy household on January 24th of 2023. We ask that you keep an open mind when you're hearing this evidence, and during the course of the trial, don't forget that you use your common sense and your life experience. Those Speaker 7 (26:50) are things that you bring as jurors Speaker 6 (26:52) to the courtroom every day, and it's what's going to take you into the deliberation room at the end of this trial. So what happened? On January 24th, 2023, it had recently snowed. It was, in fact, a Tuesday. Tuesdays were days that Cora and Dawson usually went to preschool. They attended the Learning Sprouts Preschool in Duxbury. But they didn't attend on Tuesdays, so on this day, they were home. On this particular day, Cora, who had just turned five, had an appointment at the doctor's, an annual checkup. And so the defendant brought her first thing in the morning to the doctor's. Defendant's husband, Patrick Clancy, was home and he was caring for Callen and Dawson while defendant took Cora to the doctor. Pretty normal. You'll hear and see that Patrick and the defendant exchanged text messages that morning. Patrick sends a photo of Dawson, who had just dressed himself that day and was jumping for joy. And he sends that text to the defendant while she's at the doctor. And while at the doctor, the defendant sends a text of Cora and her little Johnny and mask to Patrick. Speaker 6 (28:10) When the defendant and Cora returned home that morning, Patrick went downstairs to his basement office to do work, same as he had normally done on any other day since returning from paternity leave, and then the defendant was charged with caring for the kids for the rest of the day. She put Callum down for a nap, bundled up Cora and Dawson, took them outside to the backyard, and played in the snow. They built a snowman. Speaker 6 (28:39) The defendant sent pictures of the snowman and the kids in the snow to Patrick when he was working in the basement and her mom, who was living in Connecticut, who had just been there that weekend but had gone home. The day proceeds as normal. You'll hear Patrick describe it as a good day, actually. In the late afternoon, around 4 p.m., the defendant searched on her phone for kids' Marillax. She searched takeout for UV. And she opened the Apple Maps on her phone and searched the route that it would take to get from their house to the 3B restaurant in Plymouth. She searched how much time and how far it was. Now, this restaurant had been a place that the family had eaten before, but wasn't their normal takeout spot. Speaker 6 (29:30) She also called CVS and asked them about the kids' PediaLax or MiraLax. And that's because at the doctor earlier that day, the doctor had recommended a laxative for Cora because she had some stomach issues. She had complained of an upset tummy at school Speaker 7 (29:47) the day before, you'll Speaker 6 (29:48) hear. She had some issues where she didn't like to go to the bathroom at school, a little bit embarrassed. Speaker 6 (29:55) suggested the PDLX. So she calls CVS and she confirms that they actually have it at their local CVS in Kingston. Then she sends a text to Patrick and asks if he wants to get takeout, if 3V is okay. She didn't feel like cooking dinner. It was a long day. He says, sure. She calls in the order. When Patrick leaves the house around 5.15 that evening, everything is normal, seems normal. He sees Dawson eating chicken nuggets and green beans on the couch before he walks out the door. Patrick leaves to go to 3V, and he's going to stop at CVS on the way there. That's when the clock starts, ladies and gentlemen. The defendant knows that Patrick has to stop at CVS, go to 3V. She knows that it's about five miles from their house to get to the restaurant. She knows approximately how much time she has for him to go there and come back. Speaker 6 (31:01) She then takes the children down into the basement. She separates Dawson from Cora and Callan, and then she proceeds to wrap exercise bands around each child's neck and pull until they are dead. She leaves the bands wrapped around each child's neck and goes back upstairs. In the kitchen, she gets a knife, and then she proceeds to the second floor of the home. Speaker 6 (31:29) In the middle of this, she misses a call from Patrick. He's at CVS. He misses the call. She calls him right back, and they talk for 14 seconds. Nothing that she does or says in that phone call is of concern to Patrick. He proceeds on his task, and she proceeds with hers. She goes to the second-floor master bedroom, locks the door, crushes up some pills, and attempts to take her own life. Speaker 6 (31:59) She uses the knife she got in the kitchen to slash her wrists and her neck. She moves the bed away from the wall, away from the window. She opens that window and goes out. She lands on the cold, hard ground. Shortly thereafter, around 6 p.m., Patrick comes home. He's got the takeout bag and the CVS bag with the medicine. He enters into the house through the mudroom door into the kitchen area, places the bags down. Eerily quiet. He calls to the kids. No answer. He calls to the defendant. No answer. He takes out his phone and dials the number for Lindsay's phone, defendant's phone. No answer. He then goes upstairs and finds the master bedroom door locked. He opens it and enters the room, sees blood, and the window open. Speaker 6 (32:59) He then goes to the backyard, and that's where he finds the defendant. He's on the ground, outside that window, moaning and mumbling. At 6.11 p.m., he calls 911 for help. First responders arrive to the home almost immediately. He's still on the phone with 911 when the responders arrive, and they go right to the backyard and tend immediately to the defendant. Speaker 6 (33:25) While they're with the defendant, Patrick tells the first responders, I need to find my kids. He had asked the defendant where the kids were, and she told them they were in the basement. So when he went in the house, that's the first place he went, down into the basement. He's still on the phone with 911 when he finds each child with an exercise band still wrapped around their neck. He screams for help, and Speaker 7 (33:53) he says he killed the kids. Speaker 6 (33:58) Efforts made to resuscitate Cora and Dawson were futile, but first responders from Duxbury and the surrounding communities were persistent, and they kept trying to resuscitate them all the way to the hospital. Speaker 7 (34:12) But when they arrived at the hospital, there was nothing more Speaker 6 (34:15) that medical staff could do for Cora and Dawson. The staff at Beth Israel were able to get a heartbeat on Callen, but he never... Started breathing on his own. He never regained consciousness. He had no brain activity. Nonetheless, he was transferred to Boston Children's Hospital, where he died three days later on January 27th. The defendant was taken to South Shore Hospital and then transported subsequently to Brigham and Women's in Boston. She had multiple traumas, including spinal injuries, as well as superficial injuries to both her wrists and her neck. She is paralyzed. Speaker 6 (34:59) We expect during the course of this trial that you'll hear the defendant made claims that either right after Patrick left the house or after he called her from the CVS, depending on which version of the events she's telling, she heard a voice, a male voice, a voice that she had never heard before, a voice that she never heard again. And that voice told her that it was her last chance. She had to kill the kids so that she could kill herself. She immediately took action when she heard the voice, with no direction or details from the so-called voice, and she killed the children. Once she killed the children, the voice stopped. Speaker 6 (35:49) When you consider this information in the course of the trial, ladies and gentlemen, I ask that you consider the source, the timing, Speaker 7 (35:55) the substance of Speaker 6 (35:57) her Speaker 7 (35:58) statements about this voice. Speaker 6 (35:59) You're also going to hear from, or you may hear from, forensic psychologists and psychiatrists who talk about what's called command hallucinations and voices that people hear before they do something. And when you hear that testimony, I ask that you keep in mind the details. of what she's saying the voice told her and the details of when this voice spoke to her. Another important thing to remember throughout the course of this trial is that this is not a case about the Lindsay Clancy that sits before you today. This case is about the Lindsay Clancy on January 24th, 2023, at the time of the crimes. Speaker 6 (36:44) This was not a woman in the throes of psychosis on January 24th, 2023. This was a woman who acted intentionally, rationally, and swiftly to accomplish a very specific goal, to kill. You'll see in here evidence about all the things that she did that day, what she did in the days leading up to this incident, leading to the murders. You'll hear her spending time with her family and friends. You'll hear her appearing to be in good spirits and doing better for all intents and purposes. On that very day, you'll hear she interacted with people at the doctor's office. She came home and took care of the kids. She talked to people on the phone via text message. The evidence will show you she was not psychotic that day. Speaker 6 (37:39) Throughout the evidence in this trial, you will learn about the defendant being the classic overachiever in school, in her personal life, in her nursing career. She was someone who liked to control every little detail of her life, of her family's life. In contrast to pictures you'll see of the doting mother, the dedicated nurse, you'll also see a side of Lindsay Clancy that's different. Somebody extremely controlling, meticulous, and manipulative. The days were laid out with specificity. Strict schedules were expected to be maintained. Food was planned carefully. Sleep was scheduled to the minute. And at the time after Callan was born, her last baby, the family had to adjust. And by all sources that I expect you're going to hear at that trial, that summer was great. Speaker 6 (38:41) But after Patrick had finished his paternity leave and was back to work full time, when she no longer had a nanny to watch the baby do laundry, tidy up the house, follow her schedule, when she was responsible for it all, it was hard. It was hard for her to maintain that control. It was hard for her to bond with her kids. And in efforts to maintain control, she withheld information from her husband, from her doctors. She reported serious symptoms that were inconsistent with her daily activities, you'll hear. And ultimately, on January 24th, 2023, the defendant made a calculated decision. This was a woman who no longer liked the life she thought she wanted. It was getting harder and harder to control. And when she saw the opportunity to escape. She made the selfish choice to take it and to take Cora, Dawson, and Callen first before attempting to take her own life. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not a public debate about women's mental health and how the medical system treats women. This case is about this defendant, Lindsay Clancy. There is no dispute that she was dealing with mental health issues during this time period prior to the murders. There'll be medical records, medical doctors, mental health professionals that will talk about treatment, prescriptions, hospital visits. All that's going to be before you. The evidence will show that this defendant had a means and access to mental health that most people don't. And she chose to deal with her mental health issues in the worst way. She chose to manipulate her providers, seek out the quick and easy fix when she was feeling depressed and anxious. And when she didn't get what she expected, she chose an alternate route. She sought a different doctor. She changed medications after days. She disengaged from treatment when she didn't like the plan. Speaker 6 (40:56) After only four months in treatment, she made a choice, a deliberate and intentional decision that she did not want to try anymore. And because no one could take care of her kids the way she wanted them to, she had to take them with her. Speaker 6 (41:17) Despite all the precision that she exhibited that day, you'll hear, the timing of it all, the swiftness of the killings, overcoming the interruption of Patrick's phone call, what she did not anticipate was that she would not be able to complete the act by killing herself. Speaker 6 (41:37) Ladies and gentlemen, people with mental illness commit crimes every day and are responsible for them. The fact that someone may suffer or have a mental illness, a mental disease or defect is not the end of the inquiry when it comes to guilt or innocence. It is whether a person can appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of the conduct and conform their conduct to the law. Do they know what they were doing and can they control their actions? Speaker 6 (42:08) The evidence in this case will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant coldly and efficiently executed first Dawson, then Cora, and finally Callan. One by one, she strangled the life out of each one of them. She did so with no hesitation, with deliberate premeditation, and extreme atrocity and cruelty. She is criminally responsible. Speaker 6 (42:35) for the murders because the evidence will prove to you that she knew exactly what she was doing. She drew her husband out of the house, their father, so that she had the opportunity and the time to carry out these murders. She maintained the ability to control her conduct, conform her conduct, when she attempted to kill herself to escape the consequences. Speaker 6 (43:00) At the conclusion of this case, we're going to come back, and we're going to ask that you return guilty of the murders of Cora Clancy, Dawson Clancy, and Callan Clancy, because the defendant committed those crimes. Speaker 1 (43:18) All right. Thank you, counsel. Mr. Reddington, do you wish to give an opening? I Speaker 2 (43:23) do. Please, the easel man, please turn on the TV screen so that the jurors are able to hear this. You know, normally, we thank jurors for... Speaker 2 (43:38) your life, your jobs, your family. Coming to court, listening to a trial, certainly is a service that's provided by you as citizens, but in this case, God bless you. You people are going to have to listen to some of the most horrific things. Look at some of the most horrific things. Injurers It's a beautiful system. You pass between, as you've heard Don Clark say. You probably don't remember it, but it's all language. It was back to old England. It says that you as Germans pass between the government, them. And she places