Transcript of Lindsay Clancy trial | Psychiatrist grilled by defense about mental health decisions

Tonight, back on the stand, the psychiatrist who had an appointment with Lindsay Clancy the day before the murders.

But she's your patient and she's really gone downhill bad.

She wasn't doing well.

The defense cross-examines Clancy's doctor about prescribed medications and side effects.

Do you know that Zoloft is not indicated for generalized anxiety? Why'd you give her Zoloft?

Everything we learned from the testimony of a key prosecution witness. Commonwealth Confidential. The Lindsay Clancy trial starts right now.

After 14 telehealth appointments and a family tragedy, today is the second day Dr. Jennifer Tufts has ever seen Lindsay Clancy in person. Good evening to everyone, I'm Jacey Monahan.

And I'm Glenn Jones. The psychiatrist was the main witness today, and the questions were tough. She had to defend her mental health treatment of Clancy, including an appointment the day before she murdered her 3 kids. NBC 10's Mary Marcos joins us live outside Plymouth Superior Court. Mary, good evening.

Good evening. That psychiatrist wrote at least half a dozen prescriptions for Lindsay Clancy, and her lawyer didn't hesitate to point out that she hadn't been writing them for very long. The psychiatrist who saw Lindsay Clancy the day before she killed her kids taking the stand.

I thought about how I could best help her.

Dr. Jennifer Tuff started seeing Clancy about a month after she finished her residency.

So when a patient comes to see you with a month under your belt and they're sick and they're looking for help, you wait for them to volunteer facts to you?

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington went through all 14 appointments from when they first met on September 15, 2022, up until January 23, 2023.

She told you that she had been feeling, you know, numb and no emotion for 17 days straight.

I'm not sure about 17 days straight, but that's how she was feeling.

Lindsay's former mother-in-law also referred her to a perinatal program. The The nurse practitioner who ran it spoke to the side effects of her many medications.

I was working with Lindsay to try and find a medication that would make her feel more comfortable. She was feeling very uncomfortable, very anxious.

Reddington pressed Tufts about why all of their appointments took place via video call.

It didn't seem like there was anything that I was missing or that there was any need to see her in person.

And arguing over what she wrote in her medical records.

You put not hyper, Comma. Pressured speech.

Yes, but your interpretation is incorrect.

As opposed to yours?

Both Patrick and Lindsay Clancy are separately suing several of her providers, including Tufts. Another is expected to take the stand tomorrow. Live in Plymouth, Mary Marcos, NBC 10 Boston.

Mary, thank you. Joining us on our panel tonight is NBC 10 Chief Legal Analyst Michael Coyne and NBC 10 Courtroom, of course. Sue O'Connell, thanks for being with us. Tough day for Dr. Tufts. Return for cross-examination today. Right away, this was a very different feeling from Friday. Take a listen.

Did she call suicide hotlines?

I was not aware that she did.

Did you ever ask her?

I don't think I specifically asked that question specifically.

Did you ask her anything? Did you beat around the bush? Maybe you ask her anything about suicide hotlines?

I don't think I asked her about suicide hotlines.

Would it surprise you to know that she called suicide hotline in that time frame not once but twice and was turned away? You guys were on the front line of this, aren't you?

Well, that was a little bit more of Reddington. If you remember on Friday, of course, when the assistant DA was up there, it was obviously a much softer touch at this point. But Reddington's trying to advocate for his client, and to do that has to erode at the, you know, confidence, the jury's confidence in her doctors. Do you think with Tufts he did that today?

I do. I do. I think it would be hard not to come away with the impression that she was in over her head from early on, and that never really got much better. And especially, it also told us a lot about the state of our mental health system, that you don't get access to records, you're relying on too much information from the patient, as opposed to the medical data. There's a lot to worry about, I think, for all of it. And I think it gave the jury a number of reasons to have reasonable doubt.

Sue, I just wanted to ask you, you were in the courtroom. There was so much discussion about drugs, and there are the over-the-counter name and the—you know, what do you call it? Generic name. And there are dosages. And did people look like they were really grasping onto it or just waiting for it to end?

Yeah, there were a number of people who were taking furious notes. During this. I'm thinking a few of them might be in the medical profession or the technical profession. And I think, and you let me know if I'm wrong on this, Michael, I think sometimes the defense has a better opportunity with this because they can be conversational about the things that they are presenting. So while the prosecution has to get up and say, this does this, it's this, those, boom, boom, boom, he gets to go up and go, okay, so what's it called again? How do you do it? And he's got his handy-dandy do-it-yourself chart. Where he's just putting it up there and showing it instead of showing a screen of evidence. So I think he's making it very accessible for people on the stand. And remember, this is also maybe the third or fourth time they have heard these medicines. So they are also becoming more educated as they hear them.

A good prosecutor could do that too, though.

No, sure. Yes, he's very conversational. Well, like one of the best. Oh, yes, absolutely. And the prosecution really is leading all their witnesses. So instead of a conversation, it's yes, No, yes, no. And generally you want the story to come out of the witnesses' own mouths. It's more believable when it does, uh, instead of just simply affirming what the prosecutor has to say. And that's boring. Yeah, it is. And he's creating that conversation, that exchange with the witness where the juries are leaning and saying— I think oftentimes saying, yeah, I had that question too.

Yeah, you could see them watching him back and forth.

Well, listen, I think for, for me at least, all of my sorrow and sadness in this case is, is about the kids. But I do have to remark, feeling a little sorry for Dr. Tufts on the stand there. I wonder, is there a way where Kevin Reddington staunchly defends his client without shredding the reputation of Dr. Tufts? Because I note she was an available psychiatrist who said, yes, I'll see you, and now she's in some deep water.

Well, and I agree, generally, um, I don't think he shredded her reputation. What he did do is undercut her credibility and her expertise, at least at this point in time when she first started out treating this patient. Uh, and, and I know it seemed harsh. I'm a lawyer, so I'll, I'll take a slightly different view. I thought he was somewhat charitable, uh, in the manner in which the cross-examination— she has to go.

Compared to the other psychiatrist that was on for McLean, compared to other ones. I mean, I agree with— in the courtroom, it did not feel like she was being shredded. It felt like she was just being questioned about what she did, why she did it, and what her decision was.

Do you think there's a successful career for her after this trial?

I don't know. I don't know in what career, but maybe. I mean, you know, the reality that I'm hearing from people in the business is the mistake was she was in over her head and didn't have a supervisor helping her. When you have a nurse, a doctor, a pilot, a first responder as a client. And if they say to you, I have thoughts about killing my children or killing myself, they can lose their licenses, they can lose their careers. So there's an expertise that has to happen in order to evoke that and treat them more aggressively, to Kevin's point, without waiting for them to tell you. She may not have known how to do that. That may not be her fault, but who's her supervisor? These are the questions the civil case will bring up.

Okay, fair enough. Well, and we talked about how they were telehealth, which is very common now, but the way that Reddington presented it— and again, he's fighting for his client— I don't think he's helping the overall discussion about mental health. I think it's taken a hit on this because telehealth now is actually really accessible to people. She didn't have to find a babysitter to do it. I, I've done telehealth from my car, you know, pull over. Otherwise I would have had to cancel the appointment. So I actually have more access. And but they made it sound like through the TV is how Reddington—

I wanted to agree with you on that point, but at the same time, when I heard out loud for the first time that the first time she saw Lindsay Clancy in person was when she walked into the courtroom, I mean, that shakes you by the shoulders. It must have for the jury.

Well, the jury is over 50, right? I think there are some jurors that are over 65, right? And they may not be as used to as we are telehealth. I mean, for all of our doctors, not just— so I think every time he says on the TV, I think he is showing that there is, there is some care that he's implying that she didn't get. You know, again, to your point, J.C., I'm on— I haven't seen a doctor in real life in forever. I only see them on the TV.

Can we play— can we play a little bit of that, that sound so people at home can kind of get an idea of what it was like in the courtroom today on this topic? After what is it, 14—

you said that there were 14 appointments that you've had with Lindsay during that period from September till January? Yes. Every single one of them were by telemedicine with me. Yes. Until you came in this courtroom Friday, you never saw this woman in person?

Correct. I do want to note that when the assistant DA was up there, she said you can do both. Lindsay didn't ask to see in person. I mean, I don't know everybody's situation, but it sounded like it was an option.

Telehealth is a good thing. But when someone's in real crisis or really needs emergency treatment, I think legitimately we can question, is it enough? Because for many situations, it's fine. In this situation, hindsight says it was not enough.

We've had situations where it's a bring the person to the emergency room so someone can put eyes on them. Right. That's the phrase that you hear. I'm all for telehealth and I agree, but, you know, putting eyes on someone when they're in a crisis situation is a call that the psychiatrist has to make.

All right, Michael, Sue, thank you so much for your insight. Don't go anywhere. We're taking a closer look at the civil lawsuits this case has sparked and we're answering viewer questions. But first, we want to take a moment to remember Cora Dawson and Kallan Clancy, the young victims in this case. Coming up with Confidential, we'll be right back. We're back now with Michael Cohen, and joining us also is criminal defense attorney Elise Hershon. It's good to have you back. Let's turn our focus to the civil lawsuits this case has sparked. There are two, and Dr. Jennifer Tufts is among the defendants in both. She was asked about it today in court.

You're a defendant in a very large lawsuit, are you not? Yes. You wouldn't happen to be represented by an attorney, would you? I am. And the fact that you have an attorney is your right under the Constitution. It doesn't mean that you're guilty of anything, right? Right. Okay. And you know that the outcome of this case is very very major to the outcome of your lawsuit.

I don't actually know that.

For some extra context, we've compiled a few facts of both suits. One of them is a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Patrick Clancy. The defendants are listed there. You note Dr. Tufts is first, and the lawsuit includes her employer, Aster Mental Health. A snippet from the court document says the failure to recognize the erosion of Clancy's mental health resulted in tragedy and allegations that Lindsay took the lives of her children. Now, here's a look at the suit filed by Lindsay Clancy. It's for personal injury and loss. Again, Dr. Tufts is listed among the defendants. It's taking action against the, quote, catastrophic failure of multiple medical providers to properly diagnose, treat, and monitor Lindsay's severe postpartum psychiatric condition. So this question is for the both of you. And Elise, since you just joined us, let's start with you. We just— we brought in the civil case that are not happening yet. And obviously, even though it's your right to have a lawyer, of course, it doesn't come across that way when he says that. It's more note to the jury, she's lawyered up. And that's okay to do.

Well, I think Kevin Redington did a very smart thing. So from the outset and after the direct examination on Friday, after the prosecution asked this doctor the questions, Attorney Reddington was preparing to go after two things, and I anticipate— and he did. Number one, the bias, right? So he's trying to draw questions to everything that this doctor testified to on Friday by showing that she has a dog in the fight. Anything that she admits on the stand in the criminal trial can be used against her, right? And you admitted in the civil case, it can be used to impeach her inconsistent statements. If she admitted some sort of wrongdoing, then that can lose the civil case. The civil case has a much lower burden of proof. It's preponderance of the evidence, more likely true than not. But the criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt. So if the beyond a reasonable doubt, if she's testifying at that high standard in a civil case, it's almost easier for that to come in as an admission. So she's not going to be on the stand and say, yeah, I messed up with the medications. Yeah, I should have known, you know, the day before she did this.

I should have picked up on these behaviors. She can't admit mistake because then she's in trouble in the civil case. And that was exactly the point Attorney Reddington came across today. I think he did it very effectively. He did it strongly. He was commanding that room, but basically saying you can't believe what she's saying, that she treated everything correctly, that she didn't notice any psychotic behavior because it would— it was self-serving.

Well, I guess it explains why she actually said the words, I was not negligent. She said that on the witness stand.

Well, because it would go— what it— why he was asking is as as Elise points out, it goes to bias. As of right, you can inquire into bias because it affects the witness's credibility. And when you have a multimillion-dollar lawsuit that you are one of the many defendants, including her employer as well— Social Health System is also a defendant in that suit— it does give you a reason why you might testify favorably to defend both yourself and your employers.

And I suppose none of us should be surprised there are civil suits At least I wonder if you're surprised there are two. So a wrongful death lawsuit brought by Patrick Clancy on behalf of his children— he's the executor of their estate— and then one for Lindsay Clancy for her partial paralysis. So they're two entirely different issues.

I don't do medical malpractice or wrongful death suits myself, but in terms of clearly those suits are related and based on information that will be gathered in this criminal trial And I'm sure that the lawyers involved in the civil suit are watching this so closely. But essentially, Patrick Clancy, as you said, is bringing a suit on behalf of what he lost, which was his children, um, and blaming them— the medical system for that, the overprescribing, the misdiagnosis, um, a whole slew of accusations. And Lindsay Clancy's lawsuit, from what I understand, is about her pain and suffering that her that, you know, she's essentially in her own prison in her own body that only half of it works. So they're both based on the same events, but very different claims and very different things that they have to prove.

All right. And they've been damaged in different ways.

Sure. No, I can acknowledge that.

And you may not want those cases to get tried at the same time, although the court can still consolidate them at some point, both for discovery and trial if they choose.

All right. Let's get to a viewer question really quickly. We've talked so much about medications and telehealth visits including mentions of Patrick Clancy at one of those appointments. Could there be a chance he's called back to the stand? It's a question on the minds of viewers, including Alex in Mansfield. Alex writes, would the defense typically call back a witness that the prosecution has already called? So in this case, Alex is asking specifically about Patrick Clancy.

Theoretically, they could. He's on, uh, both witnesses' list. He's on the defendant's list. However, I believe he was finished with the cross-examination. He didn't ask to recall him, uh, and a lot of times what would worry the court is if you now recall him, he may have listened to testimony along the way of the prosecution, and you don't want witnesses conforming their new testimony then to what they've already heard from other witnesses.

Okay, we have one more question that came to us from a longtime viewer, from Angie LeMaster. She asks, Will Lindsay Clancy take the stand in her defense?

Certainly she has a right to and it's her decision. But from my experience, absolutely not. We've seen and Sue has reported, you know, what anything that we can't see happening on the stream. She is really a shell of a person. She is very emotionally unstable. Her own lawyer has presented to the court essentially that she's on suicide watch. So— and she's having trouble even getting through hearing all this. Horrific testimony and having to relive what she knows already happened and what she knows she did, right? They've admitted, basically conceded, um, that she took the lives of her children.

Thank you. Before we're out of time, extra viewer questions in there, but we want you to keep sending us your questions and stay with us for continuing coverage of the Lindsay Clancy trial. And if you do have a question, this is where you can send it: commonwealth.confidential@nbcuni.com.

If you know someone or you yourself is in crisis, call 988 to to Suicide and Crisis Lifeline. You can also check out 988lifeline.org.

And an important reminder, if you are pregnant or 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 833-852-6262.