Transcript of Lindsay Clancy trial | Mental health remains in focus during emotional day of testimony

Tonight, more questions about Lindsay Clancy's mental health.

Were there any signs of psychosis or signs of mania or homicidal ideation? No.

The defense fighting to prove postpartum psychosis can strike in an instant.

When it hits you, it just hits you. Bang. Quick, right? Correct.

Plus, a lot of chatter online about what the prosecution is wearing. Is it deliberate? Coming Commonwealth Confidential: The Lindsay Clancy Trial starts right now.

Well, it started as it usually does in court today. That was until sobs cut through the room as medical examiners discussed their autopsy findings. Good evening, everyone. I'm J.C. Monahan.

And I'm Glenn Jones. Lindsay Clancy could not contain her emotions as they went over the injuries she caused to her firstborn. 5-year-old Cora. NBC 10's Mary Marcos joins us live outside Plymouth Superior Court.

Mary, you were in the courtroom when those emotions started to run high, and the judge reminded the jury that they need to separate those feelings from the facts in this case, but many of them were emotional. Testimony about a 5-year-old's autopsy interrupted by the sobs of the mother who killed her.

We're going to take a break.

Dr. Barbara Vidal-Olson was just getting into Cora's exam.

And after that break, she finished with 3-year-old Dawson's, testifying they both died of strangulation.

These photos of Dawson's face, the, the particular hemorrhaging on the face appear to be darker than those and more expansive than those on Cora's face. The fact that there are more present in Dawson is indicative that there were moments where some blood did reach or push through.

Police officers who guarded Clancy's hospital door also taking the stand, confirming that investigators had a theory about the male voice she says commanded her to kill all 3 children in their Duxbury home.

It was the psychologist that planted that idea in her mind. That's the theory, isn't it?

That would be the theory.

Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, got a court order for that psychologist to see her in the hospital after a 20-foot fall from the second-story window.

Lindsay used that doctor's cell phone to call him from the hospital, right?

Yes.

During the conversation, Lindsay communicated to Patrick that she had heard voices in her head.

Clancy's therapist from South Shore Hospital's perinatal program testifying that the children's death and her suicide attempt came about a month after she reported having intrusive thoughts.

She had the thoughts that she told me about, about no longer wanting to be here.

There were several law enforcement officers on today's witness list that did not take the stand. We could hear from them tomorrow. Live in Plymouth, Mary Marcos, NBC 10 Boston.

All right, Mary, thank you. Joining us tonight on our panel is criminal defense attorney Peter Ellekin and NBC 10 courtroom insider Sue O'Connell. Thank you both for being here. It's a tough day to cover this trial. As Mary explained, two abrupt recesses during the afternoon session when the autopsy of Clancy's daughter was brought up. Once proceedings resumed, you could hear her sobbing throughout the rest of the afternoon. And that brings us to a viewer question. Actually, we got several like this one from Patricia. It is, is it required, Patricia says, that the defendant remain in the courtroom during disturbing testimony such as Lindsay was subjected to today. Peter, I'll start with you on that one. I have to imagine there is a way to excuse her from these really disturbing images and discussions about her daughter. And if that's right, how is it orchestrated? Who makes the request? How does it happen?

Well, first of all, um, This may be the exception because— and this is the exception because normally you want your criminal defense attorneys, myself, wants the defendant next to me because they can be whispering in my ear, "Oh, that person's lying," or "That's not true," or "Here's what you need to say." And it would be terrible if they were outside the room. And after the cross-examination is over, it's like, "Peter, you should have said this and asked that. You didn't know this, huh?" And so that's important here, though. You do know it's not an absolute requirement. And I almost wonder why the prosecution would even want her there, because her sobbing is so heartrending that if you were to be open to the idea that she was psychotic at the time, anybody would be sobbing. I hate to give examples like this, but if somebody comes up to any of us and says, "Oh, you were asleep, but now that you woke up, we want to tell you all your children are dead and you were the killer," and the natural reaction would be to be sobbing the rest of your life. Any of us.

So then that's the question of then why, right? I mean, this trial is gruesome enough, and I know the prosecutors have to do their job, but today they essentially walked us through how to strangle a child, what the autopsy would look like. That's not up for debate. She has said she did this crime. Why is the prosecution then making the jury sit through all of that when that is not up for debate? That's not the question at hand.

That's the million-dollar question, and we're all asking that because I've— most of us have thought that this case, this This— the verdict is not going to be make or break on how horrible the crime was. And they want to keep hitting you over the head with it. It's always going to be about— I mean, because we're all in lockstep. I mean, the defendant, defendant's attorney, the Clancy supporters, everybody says, yeah, this is the most monstrous, horrific nightmare any of us have ever heard of. But then the big bottom line question here is you know, was she criminally responsible?

And so just so that we have a parallel here, I know you were in the courtroom when, when 911 call was played. That was Patrick Clancy's voice. He was not in the courtroom when the sound was played.

No. And, and, you know, the jurors had a very visceral reaction to that. And to your point and to the earlier question, you know, we're supposed to be, as the government, right, we are supposed to be taking care of the jurors, right? And if they are being just bombarded with this really graphic, gruesome testimony and autopsy photos to a point which we have all agreed on has happened, which is a fact, will they start thinking that this is gratuitous? Why are we going through this again? Of course, the children deserve to have the, the manner of their murder presented to the jury— how violent it was, how they struggled, the horror that they experienced. But do we need to pass that on to the jurors in order for them to decide the fact of whether she was psychotic or not and criminally responsible, which is what the issue here is, not the manner of their death.

Right.

All right. Defense Attorney Kevin Reddington was clearly frustrated with the line of questioning. And we've been talking about whether or not this makes the prosecution look bad. Now that we've actually got these facts, which are no longer in dispute, what else does the prosecution have to present here? Have they done enough? To, to rest their case?

Not likely. They've scored just a few points where they, for example, they make it clear that none of the, none of the daycare providers, none of the providers there were aware that she was psychotic. They didn't think she was talking. So that's the main point they keep making again and again. But while they put— why did they put these people on to testify? They seem to be helping the defense again and again, that this is a woman who was doing everything she could to help herself. She loved her family. She loved her children. She loved her job. She loved her life. And, um, reaching out and grasping for help, and she doesn't seem to get it. And the one overarching thing that I'm really hit by this whole case is that there's— nobody seems to be in charge of her care, right? You would figure there would be one person who's got the big picture. Okay, I know every medication. I know But every person we ask—and I don't want to knock any of these therapists, because they're probably very dedicated people who probably do a good job, but maybe it's the nature of the system here—that nobody knew what anybody else was doing.

They'd say, "Were you aware that she was—went to the emergency room? Were you aware that she did this—she's on this medication?" Yeah. And it's like—so, she's going—everybody's—it's like lost in a big soup here. Nobody knows what's going on with each other.

Well, to add to that, earlier in the day we heard testimony from Leticia Dukes. That's another mental health clinician who worked with Clancy in the months before the murder. She, like every other healthcare witness, testified again that Clancy showed no signs of postpartum psychosis. However, she did check the boxes for postpartum depression. And we heard that today when Reddington read— there's a Mass General Hospital research project on postpartum that he basically had, and it was like, check, check, check, check, check. But it never reached the psychosis part. Did that— was that a win for anyone or a loss for the, for the defense? I don't know where that, that landed.

Well, we are learning more about, um, Lindsay Clancy's state, which I think, to your point, is not really helping the prosecution. If we back up a couple of days, you know, the idea that she might be bipolar was not in the conversation, and now it seems pretty clear that there was a working diagnosis of some sort to explore whether she was bipolar, and if she was, Some of the meds she was on were going to make things worse for her and make it very difficult for her to operate. Could that lead to a psychotic break that's not postpartum psychosis? So the more information that we get from these providers, these mental health providers, we may not get to psychosis. But now we've got this, this woman who I believe was one of the more qualified people on the stand affirming that list, that, yes, it's a spectrum. It's not just this, that or the other thing. And Lindsay had most of the symptoms. Of postpartum depression and the postpartum list that, that Reddington read to her. So it's, it's sort of like, what are we, what are we doing here?

All right, so I know you were in the courtroom for the morning session today. There were a couple of sidebars. One of them, I know you commented in our Slack channel, was pretty animated. Can you let us know what it is you were able to gather from that conversation?

Yeah, I mean, this was about whether or not Reddington could ask the state trooper about this theory, right? And I have to say, the prosecution— Reddington is a defense attorney, and I might cut defense attorneys a little bit more slack. You're not working for the government, and you're there doing your thing. But I just felt like the prosecutors, the ADAs, were just making faces and rolling their eyes. And the judge, who is just really easygoing and a very good communicator and really seems to be trying to solve problems— and, you know, Reddington was stepping in and out of the conversation. Their body language really was communicating that they were angry about this and they didn't like what was happening. And I felt that was a disservice to their case, to the jury, because clearly Reddington won, right? Clearly he got to get up there and ask those questions. They may not really understand the significance of why he introduced this theory early that, that was debunked. I mean, they're not lawyers and they don't follow this like we do.

It takes a little time to thread this all together. This is like planting seeds, right?

So they see them up there kind of stamping their feet, being angry about something, and then he says this thing that's kind of innocuous to them. So I just, I just wonder what kind of message the jurors are taking from the prosecutor's body language and how they're acting.

I'm thinking they're saying, I'm sorry I ended up on the jury. I'm sure.

Sue and Peter, thank you very much for joining us. Don't go anywhere. We're discussing something worn by one of the prosecutors that's caught a lot of attention online. That's after the break. But first, we want to take a moment to remember Cora Dawson and Kallan Clancy, the young victims in this case. Commonwealth Confidential, we'll be right back.

Ultimately, what were your impressions of how she was doing? For those reasons, this motion should be denied. There were only 14 pills left in that bottle, correct?

Correct. Okay, those were just little snippets of Plymouth County Assistant District Attorney Shannon Buckingham wearing a particular hair accessory. You may have notice the bows. Joining us now to talk about it is former prosecutor Margaret McClain. Margaret, there has been a lot of talk online about Buckingham's choice of accessory. I mean, some days you may have noticed it's dark, other days it's just a ribbon. Some days her hair bow is large, we're talking like JoJo Siwa level. So either way, it's like drawing attention, right, that we've both been talking about.

No doubt about it, people are talking about—

I'm not criticizing the fashion. I'm wondering, as Prosecutor, is that a calculated move? The things you wear, the jewelry, whatever it is, glasses, and in this case, bows. Is that on purpose?

Yeah, I think it is on purpose because I think it's to represent Cora, who used to like to wear bows. That came out in the opening statement. But I will tell you, I'm livestreaming this with legal analysis every day from gavel to gavel, and my chat will not stop talking about the bows. And actually, when I first noticed it early on, I'm like, Wow, that is so— it felt distracting to me. It felt out of place. It's something I would not have done as a prosecutor because I just— again, you're trying to— you're trying the facts of this case. I think it's distracting and it might annoy one of the jurors.

I was going to ask you, Margaret, to the point you were making about Cora, I think you could argue the prosecutor's job is to represent the victims. And if that is her intent here, isn't that intent pure? Are you worried it might be even antagonistic to the defendant?

I think it's actually pure because I do believe that the prosecutors believe in their case 100%. Tim Cruz brought these charges, you know, for a reason. And so they're behind their case and they want justice for these victims. And that is clear throughout from the very beginning. If you listen to their opening statements, which I re-listen to those all the time, So she— they really care about these victims. And, uh, you know, but I, I think that— I don't know, in my opinion, I do think that after a while it does get distracting and it's a little too obvious. And I sometimes— my chat, I feel, is how a jury may respond, and everybody in my chat is annoyed. So I got to believe jurors are annoyed.

We, I think, are getting similar emails. The jury, we know, is asked to avoid anything on TV or online related to the case. Prosecutors, do they keep themselves in that similar kind of bubble, just focusing on the case? I'm just wondering, because if she did go online, she'd see—

so in fact, she couldn't avoid it if she went on social media.

Yeah, I know everybody's talking about it. I don't think these two prosecutors are going on social media or watching. They might watch your show though, because it's— I wouldn't be surprised. But I doubt they're listening to all this content online. But I have a feeling they go home, they prepare for the case. It seems like they're straight and narrow, and that's their job. In fact, some, some people in my chat have criticized them for not being emotional enough throughout the trial.

All right. Well, Margaret, thank you for helping us through what's been a pretty explosive issue on social media, I got to say.

We appreciate it. Thank you, Margaret. Well, our courtroom insider Sue is back with us. So, Sue, just like the Karen Reed trial, the Clancy case has been getting a lot of attention. It got attention locally, then it's nationally we're hearing from it. So that brings us to a viewer question that came in. Rose is curious. We saw many family members at the trial of Karen Reed, as well as supporters outside the courthouse. Why have we not seen her, meaning Lindsay Clancy's family and/or supporters in the courtroom for Lindsay?

Her family is there. Her mom and dad are there. There are a couple of rows behind, right behind Lindsay and the defense table. Two nurses sit that, that take care of Lindsay Clancy anytime she needs it. And her parents are there. There's a woman, I believe, from a local church who was there every day. A family priest has been there. There have been other people who are there supporting Lindsay in one way or another. And there's also a contingent of people who are not necessarily there to support whether Lindsay is guilty or not guilty, but want to raise awareness about postpartum depression. Mm-hmm. And so people have come from all over the world to share their stories. I met a man from Canada a kind of a different story, obviously not postpartum depression, who had a psychotic break and killed his son. And he travels the world to talk about being aware of these issues. So it's not like an anti-Karen Reed, pro-Karen Reed. It's an awareness issue. Today there was a protester outside the courthouse who was protesting the district attorney by himself out there. So it's, it's a more complex, not binary sort of reaction.

Well, and also, let's keep in mind the way the cameras are in the courtroom is very different from Karen Reed, where we you could see a lot of people. We really can't see much.

Yeah, there are— general public is there, as well. And lawyers come in and out. You just don't see them.

You mentioned Clancy's parents being there. Dorothy has a question that is relevant to that. She wants to know, can those parents interact with Lindsay? For example, can they have lunch together at the lunch breaks? Are you seeing anything that would suggest that they can or can't?

No, I think Lindsay gets taken off to a separate area. I see her nurses go to the DA's office across the hall and then come back. We generally see Lindsay's parents in the hallway. I don't know if they directly see her at these breaks at all, but I haven't seen any interaction between them at all.

All right, Sue O'Connell, courtroom insider, thank you very much. And thank you for joining us tonight. We appreciate having you. Stay with us for continuing coverage of the Lindsay Clancy trial. And if you have questions, we do want to hear from you. As you can see, we answer as many as we can. Commonwealth.confidential@nbcuni.com.

Just a reminder again, if you are pregnant, you're, you're a new mother, and you are in crisis, the National Maternal Mental Health Hotline provides free, confidential support 24/7 in English and Spanish. Call or text the hotline at 1-833-852-6262.