Lindsay Clancy’s fate now rests on a difficult question for a Massachusetts jury: Was she so mentally ill when her three children were killed that she could not understand what she was doing, or did she know the killings were wrong and remain in control of her actions?
That question took center stage Tuesday as forensic psychologist Dr. Kirk Heilbrun continued his testimony for prosecutors at Plymouth Superior Court. Heilbrun said Clancy was dealing with serious mental illness and severe depression in January 2023. Still, he said she understood the wrongfulness of killing her children and knew the act was illegal.
Heilbrun said Clancy’s mental health had deteriorated badly in the months before the killings. He described depression, hopelessness and a strong desire to end what she saw as unbearable emotional pain. But he said her thinking did not fit the picture of a woman completely overtaken by acute psychosis.
Instead, Heilbrun said Clancy appeared to believe that she could not die and leave her children behind. He said that belief may explain why she killed the children before attempting suicide herself. He described the theory as “altruistic filicide,” meaning a parent kills a child while believing, however wrongly, that the child will be better off dead.
The defense strongly disputes that explanation. Reddington has argued that Clancy suffered postpartum psychosis and experienced voices commanding her to kill her children and herself. Defense psychiatrist Dr. Phillip Resnick testified that she was psychotic when the killings happened and could not appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions.
Heilbrun challenged that account. He said Clancy told him she heard a voice instructing her to kill the children and herself only during the killings. He also pointed to differences in her descriptions of what happened. In his opinion, a voice appearing for only that short period and never returning did not fit the usual pattern of acute psychosis.
Heilbrun also focused on what happened during the killings themselves. He said the act took roughly 18 to 20 minutes and required a number of decisions. From his perspective, that matters because it suggested that Clancy continued making choices rather than simply acting as if she were being controlled by an outside force.
Reddington spent much of Tuesday challenging Heilbrun’s evaluation. He questioned the psychologist about his professional background, his experience with postpartum conditions and the fact that he interviewed Clancy about three years after the killings. Heilbrun agreed that an evaluation closer to the time of an offense is generally preferable.
The defense also questioned Clancy’s medical treatment. Reddington brought up her history of anxiety and depression, the medications she had been prescribed and concerns about possible adverse drug effects. Heilbrun acknowledged records showing anxiety and depression but maintained that his overall evaluation did not support the defense theory of acute psychosis.
Prosecutors have another important argument. They say Clancy’s actions showed planning and awareness before her husband left the home. The state has pointed to errands she asked Patrick Clancy to run, along with other evidence presented during the trial, as signs that she knew what she was doing and had control over the situation.
The children, Cora, Dawson and Callan, were 5, 3 and 8 months old. Clancy killed them on Jan. 24, 2023, at the family’s home in Duxbury before attempting suicide. Patrick Clancy returned home after running errands and discovered what had happened.
The trial nearly took another turn Monday when Heilbrun mentioned Clancy’s Catholic faith and the idea of suicide as a mortal sin. Reddington asked Judge William Sullivan for a mistrial, arguing that the testimony was improper. The judge denied the request and told jurors to disregard the religious references.
Now, after weeks of testimony about Clancy’s mental health, medications, treatment and the events surrounding the killings, the case is nearing the jury. Closing arguments are expected Wednesday. The jurors will then decide whether Clancy understood the wrongfulness of her actions and could control them under Massachusetts law.
The possible outcomes are stark. A finding of criminal responsibility could lead to a first-degree murder conviction and life in prison without parole. A finding that she was not criminally responsible could instead result in an indefinite commitment to a secure state mental health facility.
Leave a Reply