Lindsay Clancy trial | Final rebuttal witnesses paint defendant as unreliable narrator

The Lindsay Clancy Trial: Commonwealth Confidential

The final rebuttal witnesses in the Lindsay Clancy trial present forensic psychological evidence challenging her defense of being an unreliable narrator

Key takeaways

• The forensic experts argue that Clancy made deliberate decisions during the killings, suggesting she was not acting under hallucinations.
• Experts point to inconsistencies in Clancy's accounts, such as when the voice first appeared, raising doubts about her reliability.

Main topics

• Criminal responsibility in cases of alleged psychosis
• Inconsistencies in defendant's testimony about hallucinations

Notable quotes

My clinical opinion is that she was criminally responsible on January 24th.

Is it typical for someone in psychosis to hear a voice only one time, never before, never after?

Conclusion

The final rebuttal testimony strengthens the prosecution's argument that Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible

Transcript preview

Speaker 4 (0:02) Tonight, the Commonwealth's final rebuttal witness called to the stand. When I asked her about the voice, she said that it started really right after the telephone call with her husband. Lindsay Clancy's state of mind still up for debate as her alleged criminal responsibility is brought back into the spotlight. Speaker 7 (0:26) She retained an awareness of the illegality. of killing others, including killing her children. Speaker 4 (0:32) A forensic psychologist shares his conclusions. But is it enough to convince the jury? Commonwealth Confidential, the Lindsay Clancy trial, starts right now. Speaker 3 (0:47) And testimony is nearing the finish line in the case of the Duxbury mother accused of killing her children. Good evening, everyone. I'm JC Monahan. And Speaker 1 (0:54) I'm Glenn Jones. The prosecution had its final witness on the stand, then closing arguments. Soon the case will be in the hands of the jury. NBC 10's Mary Marcos was inside Plymouth Superior Court today. Mary, walk us through the day's testimony. Speaker 5 (1:09) Well, guys, as you said, this is some of the last testimony the jury is going to hear before they start to deliberate. And it challenged one of the most important parts of her defense. Speaker 7 (1:19) Is it typical for someone in psychosis to hear a voice only one time, never before, never after? Speaker 3 (1:29) No. Speaker 5 (1:29) Psych experts questioning Lindsay Clancy's command hallucinations. There Speaker 7 (1:34) are just many ongoing decisions that have to be made to accomplish. a killing like this in 18 to 20 minutes. Dr. Speaker 5 (1:45) Kirk Heilbrunn spent three days evaluating Clancy after she killed her children. He says her decisions suggest she was in control of her actions. Speaker 7 (1:53) My clinical opinion is that she was criminally responsible on January 24th. In Speaker 5 (1:58) other words, he believes Clancy knew what she was doing and could stop herself, even though she says a male voice commanded her to do it. Speaker 4 (2:05) This is your last chance. You have to kill your kids and then kill yourself. Speaker 4 (2:12) was something that was repeated over and over. Dr. Speaker 5 (2:15) Gregory Sothoff testified that Clancy strangled the children one at a time. First, three-year-old Dawson, then five-year-old Cora, then eight-month-old Callen. The Speaker 7 (2:25) order in which to strangle the children, is that a decision that has to be made? That's another example of the decision, yes. They Speaker 5 (2:31) pointed to inconsistencies in her interviews, like when the voice started. Speaker 7 (2:35) When there is inconsistency. that's something that alerts me to the possibility of inaccuracy. Speaker 5 (2:46) Dr. Sotthoff will be back on the stand tomorrow to finish his testimony. Then the judge says closing arguments will take place on Thursday. Live in Plymouth, Mary Marcos, NBC10 Boston. As Speaker 3 (2:56) always, Mary, thank you. Joining the conversation now is NBC10 chief legal analyst Michael Coyne and criminal defense attorney Elise Hirschhorn. Welcome to both of you, of course. Dr. Halliburton said Lindsay Clancy should be considered criminally responsible. Take a listen to the full exchange with the prosecution. Speaker 7 (3:12) The choice of where to strangle the children, does that have to be a choice of where that happens? Yes. The decision of how to strangle them, is that a decision that needs to be made? Yes. The way in which to kill herself, were those decisions that had to be made? Yes, they were. Did you form an opinion to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty as to whether or not the defendant was criminally responsible when she killed her children? Yes. And what is that opinion? My clinical opinion is that she was criminally responsible on January 24th. Speaker 3 (3:47) OK, so there we are with Dr. Halbern, the second rebuttal witness called. Let's not forget, though, the prosecution has called more than 70 witnesses at this point. As we just heard, he concluded that Clancy was aware that killing her children was illegal. Did his testimony, was a statement as declarative as that, is that enough for a jury? Speaker 6 (4:07) It could be. If a jury is looking for information that supports the conclusion that she committed first-degree murder, then both parts of that are very helpful to the prosecution. And that's the problem, because he answered the ultimate question that's before the jury is, did she—was she— criminally responsible for her actions. And that's really a role for the jury to decide. They're aided with his testimony, and it really does support the prosecution's position, but they'll have to decide whether he's credible at the end of the day. AMY Speaker 1 (4:38) GOODMAN. Right. You've reminded us many times, Elise, that the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. Did they get there? Did they get any closer today? Speaker 8 (4:46) I don't think so. I mean, we have a witness that wouldn't be testifying unless