Lindsay Clancy knew killing her three children was wrong and understood it was against the law, a forensic psychologist testified Tuesday as prosecutors pushed back against the defense claim that she was in the grip of severe postpartum psychosis.
Dr. Kirk Heilbrun, a prosecution rebuttal witness, told jurors that Clancy was suffering from a serious mental illness when the children died on Jan. 24, 2023. But he said her illness did not erase her ability to understand what she was doing or control her actions. His testimony went straight to the main question in the trial: whether Clancy should be held legally responsible for the killings.
Heilbrun said Clancy appeared deeply depressed and hopeless at the time. He said she had been dealing with emotional pain for months and wanted to end that pain by taking her own life. But, in Heilbrun’s view, she also believed she could not leave her children behind if she died.
That belief led Heilbrun to describe the killings as what he called “altruistic filicide.” His explanation was that Clancy believed she was protecting her children from suffering after her own death. He rejected the idea that an acute psychotic episode with command hallucinations was the main reason she killed them.
A major point in his testimony was Clancy’s claim that she heard a voice telling her to kill the children and then herself. Heilbrun said she reported hearing that voice only during the roughly 18 to 20 minutes in which the killings took place. He called that pattern highly unusual and said other parts of her account did not always remain consistent.
Heilbrun also told jurors that carrying out the killings required a series of decisions. He said the events could not have happened without Clancy continuing to make choices during that period. Prosecutors have used that point to argue that she retained enough control to be held criminally responsible.
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington pressed Heilbrun about his qualifications, his evaluation of Clancy and the limits of examining her about three years after the killings. Heilbrun acknowledged that earlier evaluations are generally better when trying to determine a person’s mental state at the time of an offense. He also acknowledged being paid about $54,000 for his work on the case.
Reddington questioned Heilbrun about Clancy’s treatment for anxiety and depression after the birth of her youngest child. He also raised the medications she had been taking and whether she had been overmedicated. Heilbrun agreed when asked whether Clancy had been a good mother before the killings.
The defense has presented a very different picture. Psychiatrist Dr. Phillip Resnick testified that Clancy was “frankly psychotic” when she killed the children. He said she experienced command hallucinations and was not able to understand the wrongfulness of what she was doing. Other defense witnesses also supported the claim that postpartum psychosis left her unable to control her actions.
The children were 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan. Clancy has admitted killing them at the family’s Duxbury home before attempting to take her own life. Her husband, Patrick Clancy, had left the house to run errands and returned to find the children.
The trial has now entered its final stretch at Plymouth Superior Court. The defense argues that Clancy should not be held criminally responsible because of her mental condition. Prosecutors say she was severely depressed but still knew what she was doing and understood that it was wrong.
The case took another tense turn Monday when Heilbrun mentioned Clancy’s Catholic faith while discussing her beliefs about death and the afterlife. Reddington asked for a mistrial, but Judge William Sullivan rejected the request and instructed jurors to disregard the religious comments.
Heilbrun continued testifying Tuesday as the prosecution’s rebuttal case moved toward its end. Closing arguments are expected Wednesday, after which the jury will have to decide whether Clancy was legally responsible for the deaths of her three children or whether her mental illness made her not criminally responsible at the time.
If Clancy is found not criminally responsible, she could be committed to a secure state mental health facility for an indefinite period. If convicted of first-degree murder, she could face life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Leave a Reply