MA v. Lindsay Clancy Day 2

Shelgren, S-H-E-L-G-R-E-N.

Speaker 17 (03:04:25):

And what is your date of birth?

Saria Shelgren (03:04:26):

9/3/89.

Speaker 17 (03:04:28):

And where do you work?

Saria Shelgren (03:04:29):

I currently have two jobs. I work at a doctor's office and I also work at ThreeV. It's a restaurant in Plymouth.

Speaker 17 (03:04:37):

And how is ThreeV spelled?

Saria Shelgren (03:04:39):

It's spelled out, the number three, T-H-R-E-E, with a V at the end.

Speaker 17 (03:04:47):

And how long have you worked at ThreeV restaurant?

Saria Shelgren (03:04:49):

Since 2019.

Speaker 17 (03:04:51):

And where is it located?

Saria Shelgren (03:04:52):

In Cordage Park, in Plymouth.

Speaker 17 (03:04:56):

And in 2023, in January of 2023, what was your role at ThreeV restaurant?

Saria Shelgren (03:05:03):

I was a hostess then.

Speaker 17 (03:05:06):

And directing your attention further, to Tuesday, January 24th, 2023, were you working that night?

Saria Shelgren (03:05:12):

Yes, I was.

Speaker 17 (03:05:13):

And what shift were you working?

Saria Shelgren (03:05:14):

I work an evening shift. Usually, I would arrive between 4:45 and 5:00.

Speaker 17 (03:05:19):

And when would your shift end?

Saria Shelgren (03:05:21):

Typically, between 8:00 and 9:00.

Speaker 17 (03:05:24):

And what was your role as a hostess?

Saria Shelgren (03:05:28):

Greet patrons, take takeout orders, give takeout orders, seat people, generally help with the running of the restaurant front end.

Speaker 17 (03:05:40):

And directing your attention to 5:10 P.M., did you receive a call for a takeout order?

Saria Shelgren (03:05:45):

Yes.

Speaker 17 (03:05:46):

And was that a male or a female?

Saria Shelgren (03:05:48):

It was a female.

Speaker 17 (03:05:49):

And did that person place an order?

Saria Shelgren (03:05:51):

Yes.

Speaker 17 (03:05:52):

And do you recall what she ordered?

Saria Shelgren (03:05:53):

Yes.

Speaker 17 (03:05:54):

What was that?

Saria Shelgren (03:05:55):

It was a order of risotto and a Mediterranean power bowl.

Speaker 17 (03:06:00):

And the power bowl, is that considered a type of salad at ThreeV?

Saria Shelgren (03:06:04):

Yes.

Speaker 17 (03:06:04):

Did you ask any follow-up questions about the order of the salad?

Saria Shelgren (03:06:08):

Yes.

Speaker 17 (03:06:08):

What did you ask?

Saria Shelgren (03:06:09):

We ask, if it doesn't automatically come with protein, it's something that we always ask, "Do you want to add a protein?"

Speaker 17 (03:06:15):

Does the Mediterranean power bowl automatically come with protein?

Saria Shelgren (03:06:18):

No, it does not.

Speaker 17 (03:06:18):

So, did you ask the woman if she wanted protein?

Saria Shelgren (03:06:21):

Yes.

Speaker 17 (03:06:21):

And what was her response?

Saria Shelgren (03:06:22):

"No, thank you."

Speaker 17 (03:06:25):

And did she also give you the name and phone number of the person who would be picking up the order?

Saria Shelgren (03:06:31):

Yes.

Speaker 17 (03:06:32):

And is that something that you enter into the system as you're entering the order?

Saria Shelgren (03:06:35):

Yes.

Speaker 17 (03:06:37):

Did you have any trouble understanding the woman?

Saria Shelgren (03:06:39):

No.

Speaker 17 (03:06:40):

Did she appear to have any trouble understanding you or the questions you were asking her?

Saria Shelgren (03:06:44):

No.

Speaker 17 (03:06:45):

Did her voice sound slurred or impaired in any way?

Saria Shelgren (03:06:48):

No.

Speaker 17 (03:06:49):

Was there anything out of the ordinary about this interaction?

Saria Shelgren (03:06:51):

No.

Speaker 17 (03:06:53):

Directing your attention to 5:54 P.M., was the order picked up?

Saria Shelgren (03:06:57):

Yes.

Speaker 17 (03:06:57):

And was it picked up by a male or a female?

Saria Shelgren (03:06:59):

A male.

Speaker 17 (03:07:00):

If we could pull up Exhibit 30 footage, and are you depicted in the video here?

Saria Shelgren (03:07:14):

Yes.

Speaker 17 (03:07:15):

And where are you?

Saria Shelgren (03:07:16):

I'm standing behind the host stand.

Speaker 17 (03:07:17):

And so for the record, the hostess stand, or the host stand, is in the upper left-hand corner?

Saria Shelgren (03:07:23):

Yeah, it's that black stand. It has a wooden frame around the top.

Speaker 17 (03:07:27):

So, am I pointing to the right area?

Saria Shelgren (03:07:28):

Yes.

Speaker 17 (03:07:30):

In the upper left corner?

Saria Shelgren (03:07:31):

Yes.

Speaker 17 (03:07:31):

If you could play that for a moment. And if you could pause it, please. So, we're at 5:54:19 P. M. You see the individual who picked up the order?

Saria Shelgren (03:08:02):

Yes.

Speaker 17 (03:08:03):

And which individual is that?

Saria Shelgren (03:08:05):

The man in the dark jacket that entered last.

Speaker 17 (03:08:08):

And is he the person behind the couple at the host stand?

Saria Shelgren (03:08:11):

Yes.

Speaker 17 (03:08:19):

And showing you what's been marked as Exhibit 31. Do you recognize this?

Saria Shelgren (03:08:31):

Yes.

Speaker 17 (03:08:32):

And what do you recognize it to be?

Saria Shelgren (03:08:34):

That is one of our printouts that comes with orders. We attach those to the bags for takeout and have a copy for ourselves as well.

Speaker 17 (03:08:44):

And displaying it. Okay. Here, in the line where it says "Patrick" and then a phone number, is that where you would enter in what the person calling gives you for the information of the person picking up the order?

Saria Shelgren (03:09:03):

Yes.

Speaker 17 (03:09:15):

Was there anything out of the ordinary about your interaction with that gentleman?

Saria Shelgren (03:09:21):

No.

Speaker 17 (03:09:21):

I have no further questions.

Speaker 18 (03:09:21):

Attorney Reddington?

Mr. Reddington (03:09:22):

I have no questions. Thank you, ma'am.

Speaker 18 (03:09:26):

All right. Thank you, ma'am. You may step down. Thank you. Watch your step, please. All right. Counsel, can I see you at this time? Thanks again, everyone.

Julia Jenae (03:09:40):

All right. They are taking a bit of a break, and we understand that that actually turns into an early lunch break for these jurors. So, let's bring back in our guest who is watching with us. We have trial attorney Terri Austin, who's been providing analysis on this case all day. Terri, it has been a difficult day for jurors, sometimes a lunch break is even more than that, and I think that's what's going to be the case today. They can't talk about what they just went through together as a jury, but sometimes a break is certainly necessary.

Terri Austin (03:10:12):

Exactly, and I think that's why the judge is giving them an early break. He's enabling them to take in what they heard and to get past it, because it was extremely emotional, and maybe that's why we have these two witnesses, the CVS witness, the ThreeV witness. Those are the people who saw Patrick Clancy before he ended up going home and finding his wife on the ground and his three children, who obviously were killed. But I do believe that there was a possibility to avoid these two witnesses altogether. You saw that Reddington did not cross-examine them. Both of them were short, they could have stipulated to this. If I'm sitting on that jury, I'm thinking, why are you wasting my time, prosecution, listening to what he ordered? I know she's trying to show that the defendant, Lindsay Clancy, knew what she was doing, it was planned, and it was organized.

(03:11:04)
Frankly, I think that's something that even the defense could stipulate if he can get an expert to say you can be both psychotic and planned, and those two things are not mutually exclusive. So, maybe he doesn't want to admit that here, and maybe that's why he is allowing these people to go on, and didn't offer to stipulate, but I probably would've stipulated to that.

Julia Jenae (03:11:26):

Well, let's talk about that, Terri, a little bit more, because actually, the defense attorney has tried to stipulate to things in this case and it has been rejected by the court or the prosecution. He wanted to stipulate to pretty much everything involving the death of these children. They didn't want the clothing to come in, the autopsy photos, the crime scene photos, the first responders who are going to be testifying to exactly what happened, because he has said during pretrial motions, "I would stipulate to all of this. We don't even have to have a guilt phase. She's admitting guilt. She's not admitting that she was not insane at the time, and we could just have a phase that focuses on her mental health. Was this psychosis something where she didn't understand right from wrong?" Do you think that that would've been the way to go, that the court should have agreed with him, but clearly, that didn't happen?

Terri Austin (03:12:16):

I think the prosecution has a right to make the argument. I saw that argument, that's when the prosecution got, in my opinion, a little snippy, saying, "Yes, I know the defense doesn't want to hear all this, but I have a right to bring on my case," which she does. But maybe what could have been done, I see why no one is going to agree, the judge is not, the prosecution is not, they're not going to agree that it's skip the guilt phase. But there could have been instances where these small minor witnesses aren't that necessary and do waste the time of the court, where the judge could have encouraged the prosecution to say, "Look, you can have an affidavit from each of these people. You can stipulate to what they're going to say. No one is objecting to the fact that they came."

(03:12:58)
But she's got to put on her case. The judge is giving her leeway. And I think the defense, Reddington, is an amazing defense attorney. I think we've all been saying that, and I think he made the argument and the judge basically was not having it.

Julia Jenae (03:13:12):

So, this witness definitely sets up something that these jurors are going to be going on soon, and that is a jury view. That's already been agreed to. The judge has ordered it, and so they are going to go to that CVS. They're going to go to ThreeV. They're going to go to the home. And right now, they have heard from the witnesses at those locations, so it's going to be important. That could be a reason, Terri, what do you think, as to why these people needed to come in and maybe stipulate to, or share with the jury, certain things to anchor them to these locations that they are going to be seeing in person?

Terri Austin (03:13:46):

Overkill, in my opinion, going to all three locations. Maybe going to the home. You have photos, you have 3D representations, and you heard Reddington argue, "You know, you're going to get to see all this and you're going to go to the scene." I would have, if I were the judge, said, "Yes, you can go to the house," but I don't think they need to go to the CVS. For what purpose? The defendant had nothing to do with the CVS. Patrick walked to the CVS. What are we going to see, where he walked and picked up the drugs? What difference does that make? And why are we going to the ThreeV? He picked up the food. There's no doubt that he picked up the food. Complete total waste of time. It's hard to get a jury to get on a bus, or however they're being transported, to make sure everybody gets out, to make sure that they all see the same thing, and to make sure no one goes off and sees something else.

(03:14:32)
I mean, going to a scene is not the easiest thing in the world. I would've limited, had I been the judge, to just the home. And in fact, I may not have even done the home, but I do think the prosecution has a right to put on its case. The judge is being very careful, and he is allowing the prosecution to go forward and to prove their case, so that's why we're seeing three things.

Julia Jenae (03:14:52):

No, I agree. The logistics of a jury view, not easy, not simple. It is an undertaking to get all of these different people. And there's 18 jurors that are going to be going to these different locations. They've got to be protected. There's got to be security. You've got to remove other people from these locations. I don't know if they're going to go into the ThreeV and into the CVS, but the prosecution says they want them to feel the distance, feel the amount of time that it took to get to these locations. I mean, this is probably why we have this six to eight-week trial, Terri, because we can already tell at the onset, the meticulousness and thoroughness that this prosecution is going to be taking in going through the facts of this case.

Terri Austin (03:15:36):

That's right. And I think that they could have gotten the time and the distance from a GPS. We know how long it takes. We can measure it out. We can present that. I don't think they need to go. What if it's raining? What if a juror doesn't want to mess up their hair? What if they're not feeling well? What if they can't walk? What if they have someone on that jury who has a disability and isn't able to maneuver as well? So, I think it's going to be very difficult to do all three. Obviously, the judge has allowed it. The jury knows that they're going to be viewing this. He's keeping them posted, in terms of timing. And who knows, maybe it'll add a little bit more depth as far as the prosecution is concerned, and maybe those jurors will be able to appreciate the time and the distance.

(03:16:15)
But again, I would've argued it, just like we know Reddington did, and I would've objected to it because I think it's a waste of time. And I'm honestly thinking if I'm a juror, and I think some of these jurors may be thinking, why are we doing all of this? And that'll hurt the prosecution at the end of the day.

Julia Jenae (03:16:32):

Yeah, the in-person looking at exhibits versus inside of the courtroom. Now, speaking of exhibits, you can, as our viewers know, they can look at those exhibits. We have them up on our website, so you can go to courttv.com to see the evidence gallery, and it's going to be updated every day. We are going to take a break while they are on that break inside of the courtroom. And when we come back, we're going to talk more about this case. We also will have a live interview with someone who is inside of that courtroom during the playing of that emotional 911 call that was blocked from the public, but it was very apparent just how heavy that evidence was. Don't go anywhere.

(03:17:09)
Welcome back to Court TV Live, I'm Julia Jenae. And we are continuing our coverage out of Plymouth, Massachusetts, in the case against Lindsay Clancy, a mom on trial for killing her three kids. She does not deny that she did that, but her defense says she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time and should not be held criminally responsible. The first witness for the prosecution was one who broke all of our hearts, Patrick Clancy, the father and former husband of the defendant. And I want to bring in someone who was inside of the courtroom for the most emotional of moments that happened today. We have Director of Photography for Law and Crime and Court TV, Richie Morganson is with us, Morganstern rather, there in Boston, Massachusetts.

(03:21:58)
Richie, thank you so much for joining us. I know you're on a lunch break at this time, so we certainly appreciate your time. You have been the eyes and ears in the courtroom for those moments where we have to go off the record. And I know it's difficult, even for us, as journalists, take us to the moment when that 911 call, I know the audio had to be turned down for the public, but you were still able to hear what was played.

Richie Morganstern (03:22:21):

Yes. Of course, after hearing it, I think it was a great idea that the public did not have to hear this. A lot of us have been doing this for a while, but today was something else. It wasn't necessarily all the moments of him crying out and screaming, it was sometimes those moments of silence, where he was trying to get himself together, where you could kind of just hear his soul being physically ripped out of his body. And you could just tell he knew that he wanted to save them, but at the same time, you could just hear how he was just kind of falling apart from each... He couldn't even speak a full word, speaking to dispatch, just trying to explain what was going on. And then you could just tell from the courtroom, members of the jury were breaking down. Obviously, Lindsay was breaking down. It was quite the show for emotion at that point.

Julia Jenae (03:23:33):

Absolutely, and we can feel that. Thank you for describing it for us in that way. Because we're seeing now, the image that you were able to take during that, where the camera was pointed at Lindsay. And I understand there were even parts of this testimony where her attorney was holding her hand. The image we're seeing now, she's got both hands over her face, but did you see any change in emotion from her during that time that you had the camera pointed at her?

Richie Morganstern (03:24:01):

No. She wept-

Julia Jenae (03:24:00):

... at her?

Richie Morganstern (03:24:01):

No, she wept and even after the judge had called recess, she was surrounded by her nurses and she was crying until the moment she was brought out of the room and I couldn't see her any longer.

Julia Jenae (03:24:18):

You mentioned the jurors. My heart goes out to them because they are the ones in this courtroom that did not sign up for anything. They were chosen to fulfill their duty, their service, their civil service, and are having to be exposed to all of this. What was it like after the call was over? I know they were given a break, but did you notice anything? Did you notice them looking at Lindsay or looking at the gallery at all?

Richie Morganstern (03:24:45):

I think everybody had a moment to themselves. I think they were all feeling it personally. I'm pretty sure when they were choosing the jury, they selected some people that had children. So anybody that was a parent in that room was feeling that emotion at the moment. And I don't think they were actually directing any anger at anybody at that moment. They were feeling it. Some people red in the face with tears literally running down their eyes or running down their face.

Julia Jenae (03:25:16):

I'm so glad that you're able to share the emotion of it. There was something that the judge told these jurors at the beginning to separate or be able to separate the emotion from the facts. The prosecution wanted to share this, even though Patrick Clancy didn't want to even be in the room for it, and he's the one who asked for it to not be shown to the public. Did you gather anything from it that you felt is actually helpful to understand whether or not Lindsay Clancy was having a psychotic break? We know from the motion about this particular call, the prosecution says you can hear how quickly the volume in his voice rises when he finds a child and goes down, then rises again when he finds another child, and they say that shows-

Richie Morganstern (03:25:55):

Oh.

Julia Jenae (03:25:56):

Tell me, Richie, you're reacting to that. Tell me what that was like.

Richie Morganstern (03:26:00):

Yeah. Those are the moments where you really start to realize what's happening here because he's in disbelief, and he's frantically moving around the home and just discovering one child after the other. And he just saw his wife moments ago on the ground with a cut open, blood everywhere. And then he's realizing now that his children are gone and he's trying to save them. He's saying a bunch of stuff that's inaudible. I can't really understand everything he was saying because it was so broken up. But I don't think anybody really was able to feel anything other than the horror of the situation as it just crystallized to everybody's heart.

Julia Jenae (03:26:51):

Could you hear Lindsay at all in this call? I know he was with her when he first made the call because he thought she was the one victim.

Richie Morganstern (03:27:00):

Yes, you could hear her in the background. Her voice was a little bit more muffled. I think she had some liquid or something in her throat because you could hear the gargling a little bit as she was doing her screaming and calling out.

Julia Jenae (03:27:16):

Was anyone else unable to stay inside of that courtroom? We know Patrick did not want to be there. I know Lindsay has family that's there in the gallery. Did you see anyone else leave, leave before, leave during this call being played?

Richie Morganstern (03:27:30):

I was super sensitive to making sure I wasn't going to capture anything that wasn't supposed to be captured. The only person I saw leave was Patrick.

Julia Jenae (03:27:38):

All right. And you've been doing an incredible job, Richie. It's one of those cases that we even tell ourselves as colleagues, "Take care of yourself," because these are some very heavy issues and heavy information that's coming out inside of that courtroom. Another layer of that was the exercise bands that were shown inside of the courtroom today. Patrick Clancy understandably did not want to be there for that. Did you notice anything about that moment inside of the courtroom?

Richie Morganstern (03:28:06):

You could tell at that moment the tension was really starting to build again. It's one thing to hear it and visualize it, but when you saw the bands come out, you have a whole new understanding of that moment and what he was going through. When he said they were tied in a certain way where you were tying your shoelace, but minus the bow, I think it just locked in to everybody. And you really start to wonder yourself what is going on in her mind when she that?

Julia Jenae (03:28:40):

And I want to let our viewers know that this could be one of the reasons, not could be, they put it in their motion, and it's one of the reasons that the prosecution wanted to bring this evidence to the jury, even though it's so devastating to hear, even though it may hurt more than help in terms of moving the case for her being not insane and not, they say that she is criminally responsible. But they say those exercise bands were tied in a certain way. And you mentioned it tied like a shoelace the first time and not the second time. And that his voice, the swiftness in which we're hearing the wails of when he finds the children, that shows, and this is the most horrific part of it all, that she would have held the exercise band for a long period of time, that it wasn't a situation where she double knotted it and left.

(03:29:31)
I mean, those details that these jurors have to take in, they are difficult, but they are important. According to the prosecution, they say that can help these jurors determine whether this was someone who was cold and calculated and committed premeditated murder or someone who was in the throes of a psychotic break. So do you think that that was clear for the jurors or did that emotion feel so heavy that it's hard to even get through those facts even though the judge told them they need to pay attention to the facts?

Richie Morganstern (03:30:00):

Yeah, I question it myself as far as the order of witnesses because now they've been hit so hard with the emotional aspect of it that they're probably trying to logically think of how this came together in her mind. And I think the rest of the trial defense is going to be able to just start to give that character of her and how she was in not the right frame of mind. And I think that the prosecution's going to have a tough time really trying to bring everybody back to that emotional state to where they were feeling those types of feelings. So I'd wonder myself why they did it in that order and how the jury's going to react once we start bringing in some actual experts in medical and psychological evaluation.

Julia Jenae (03:30:56):

Are we getting a sense of whether Patrick Clancy is coming back today? It wasn't necessarily said on the record. Are you hearing anything there in the courtroom about his cross-examination?

Richie Morganstern (03:31:06):

I would actually be surprised if he came back today, but I did not hear anything else. It does seem like the state does have some more witnesses lined up for the remainder of the day.

Julia Jenae (03:31:16):

All right. Richie Morganstern, thank you so much for joining us and for sharing all of that. It's illuminating for us. You're doing a wonderful job for us, so we really appreciate everything that you're being able to bring to our viewers. We'll let you get back inside of that courtroom. We have to take a break, but we have more of the Clancy trial coming up after this.

Speaker 23 (03:35:44):

They were strangled, deliberately and meticulously killed by this defendant on January 24th of 2023.

Speaker 22 (03:35:55):

I suggest to you that the issue of consideration is what was going on in that woman's mind.

Speaker 23 (03:36:03):

This was a woman who acted intentionally, rationally, and swiftly to accomplish a very specific goal. To kill.

Speaker 22 (03:36:12):

This is a woman that was suffering from psychosis at the time that she went down to that basement.

Speaker 23 (03:36:21):

She drew her husband out of the house, their father, so that she had the opportunity and the time to carry out these murders.

Speaker 22 (03:36:29):

This is the young woman that, with her husband, who tried very hard to get the help she needed.

Julia Jenae (03:36:39):

Welcome back to Court TV Live. We are following day two of the case against Lindsay Clancy. You saw there some of the clips from the opening statements. And today these jurors heard some of the most emotional and horrific evidence that they're going to see in this trial. That is through the testimony of the ex-husband of the defendant who's also the father of these three children. Right now, court is on a lunch break. So the jurors are taking a break. It may take a little longer than normal in a case where they have seen such difficult testimony and evidence that they have heard play inside of that courtroom. But once they reconvene, we will take you there live back inside of that Plymouth County, Massachusetts courtroom.

(03:37:21)
While we wait, we are going to take a look back at the timeline of this case because it is important. The prosecution absolutely wants these jurors to feel every moment of what they say was a crime. The defense says she doesn't bear criminal responsibility because of her mental state. So here's a look at some of the major time points of this case. At 4:02 PM, the defendant, according to the prosecution on the day in question, searched for, quote, "Kids Miralax" on her phone. And then at 4:13 PM, she searches, "Take out ThreeV." So the restaurant, we just heard from a hostess from ThreeV. About 30 minutes later, she called CVS and talked with someone about children's Miralax. So again, this is someone that prosecution has brought to the stand, brought the manager so that they could talk about being inside of that store at the time. 4:53 PM, there was a text to Patrick asking him if he wanted takeout from ThreeV.

(03:38:23)
And then there are calls at 5:10 PM. ThreeV, Lindsay speaks to the hostess to place an order. That hostess took the stand to say she seemed like nothing was out of the ordinary. It seemed like a normal call. And the order is placed for 5:15 PM and that's when Patrick leaves the house. He's seen on surveillance video just about 10, 15 minutes later at CVS first. Patrick calls Lindsay because he's trying to figure out making sure if he has the right prescription. She doesn't answer. Then she calls him back and tells Patrick exactly what medicine to get. He has said that she did not seem out of the ordinary. Nothing alarmed him about how she sounded on the phone.

(03:39:07)
At 5:37, he made that purchase at CVS. 5:54, he then picks up their takeout from ThreeV. Remember, he left home at 5:15. So once he arrives home, it's 6:09 PM. Less than an hour has passed, but he arrives home and that's what these jurors heard inside of the courtroom. The 911 call of his discovery of first his wife outside on the lawn, and then each of his children inside the basement of their home. Let's bring back in trial attorney Terri Austin, who's been analyzing this case for us. Terri, in the reading of that timeline, is there anything that stands out to you that may be helpful to this jury in any way in determining criminal responsibility?

Terri Austin (03:39:51):

Well, it's a very condensed timeline, like you said. I mean, it's 45 minutes. It's less than an hour between the time he left the home and got back from the CVS and picking up the food. And I think what the prosecution is trying to show here is that this was very planned. We know that the defendant sent Patrick out to pick up the drugs for her little girl, for Cora, and to pick up the food for all of them. She ordered the food. There was no problem. We saw the two witnesses from, one from CVS and one from ThreeV Restaurant. They all said that she sounded perfectly normal on the phone. So they are trying to show that this timeline means this was planned. This was intentional. She took just enough time. She mapped it out. She knows how long these errands are going to take, and that she murdered her children.

(03:40:44)
This was intentional, premeditated, planned murder. I think what we're going to have to see on the defense side, Reddington is going to have to make sure when he does the cross-examination of Patrick Clancy, whenever he comes back on that stand, that it's clear there was no idea that anything was going to happen. Clearly had Patrick Clancy thought something was going to happen, he would not have left. He would have had the parents come. He would have had her institutionalized. He would have stayed by her side. And I think what the medical experts are going to have to say to support the theory that this was psychosis is it's possible for her to plan this out, to have dinner, et cetera, and still have these voices in her head telling her that she has to kill the children. And this was something to save the children she had to do, whatever the voice was and whatever it said, that she couldn't control herself.

(03:41:38)
Remember, under the law in Massachusetts, it's a two-pronged approach. There's cognitive and there's volitional. She has to show that she was not aware of her wrongfulness and she wasn't able to conform herself to the requirements of the law. So those are the things she's going to have to show, and the medical experts are going to have to come in and defend her in this case.

Julia Jenae (03:41:59):

Terri, you're mentioning voices, you're mentioning psychosis, and that reminds me of something that stood out to me in Patrick's testimony today. He was asked about visiting his wife after this incident, talking to her on the phone or being able to communicate with her, and that she used the word psychosis. And the prosecutor asked, "Have you ever heard her use the word psychosis before?" And he said, "I didn't know what psychosis was until this happened." Talk about that because when we go through a trial like this that is so difficult in terms of the details, but he had been through all of this with his wife, the anxiety, the postpartum depression, but he hadn't heard anything before about psychosis. It can sometimes be a trial like this where someone for the first time is understanding what that even means.

Terri Austin (03:42:48):

Well, that's exactly right. And it's not as though... Look, we can't predict when a psychotic episode is going to occur. If we could, we wouldn't have any psychotic episodes. We'd do something to prevent it from happening. I think one of the weaknesses in this case is the fact that Patrick wasn't told every single little thing about the medications. He wasn't told every single thing about what she was going through. He'd not heard the word psychosis. But you know what? Maybe Lindsay Clancy didn't know it was psychosis. Maybe after this happened, she was cognizant enough to figure out, "Well, I don't know what happened. My God, how could I have done this?" And then she figured out she was going through a psychotic break or perhaps she talked to some of the doctors that she was dealing with when she was put into the hospital. So it's very difficult to know exactly what is going on as you're going through it.

(03:43:46)
They are not medical experts. The medical experts are the ones who are going to have to help them through this psychotic break. And I'm not surprised that he never heard that word. And I don't think she was aware of what was going on. Frankly, I think if she knew she was going to have a psychotic break, this would not have happened. Both of them did the best they could, in my humble opinion, to avoid anything like this happening.

Julia Jenae (03:44:08):

Yeah. The prosecution is certainly pushing back on that and using that part of the testimony to try and suggest that her attorneys told her that word. But Kevin Reddington has said that that is absolutely not the case. He didn't supply the defense to his client that early on in this case. We're going to keep talking about it. Terri, please stand by. When we come back, we are going to check in, see if they're back from that lunch break, and break down more that is happening ahead in this case.

Speaker 24 (03:48:46):

Duxbury, Massachusetts, a quiet seaside town was shattered by an unthinkable tragedy. Lindsay Clancy, a young nurse, devoted wife, and mother of three, was seen as the picture of perfection. But police say behind the smiles in family photos, darkness took hold. On a cold January night, investigators say she strangled her children, Cora, Dawson, and baby Callan. All that before attempting to take her own life. Clancy's husband, Patrick, returned home to a scene of unimaginable horror. Now, the once trusted nurse faces murder charges as her defense claims she suffered from severe postpartum psychosis. Prosecutors call it calculated. Her attorneys say it's a symptom of a mind lost to illness.

Julia Jenae (03:49:40):

A husband's testimony is on pause inside of a Plymouth County, Massachusetts courtroom. The Lindsay Clancy trial continues as both sides battle over one central issue, criminal responsibility. And we are still waiting to hear when her ex-husband and the father of the three victims in this case, Patrick Clancy, is going to be returning to the witness stand. His direct examination seems to be over, but we anticipate there is going to be cross-examination coming soon. Right now, they're on that lunch break. Here's a live look inside of the courtroom. And once they come back from that lunch break, we will take you back into the courtroom. We understand from the photojournalist that's there inside of the courtroom for us, Richie Morganstern, he says that it seems like the state has many witnesses lined up for the rest of the day. So there's a possibility that Patrick may not return to the stand as anticipated.

(03:50:32)
While we continue to wait, let's bring back in our guest who is watching along with us, trial attorney Terri Austin, who's been helping us break down exactly what these jurors have to decide. It is a difficult one. It's not, do they believe that she did it? Do they believe that she is the exact reason for the deaths of her children? They've got to determine whether she was legally sane and understood her actions when it happened. You broke it down wonderfully, Terri, earlier, but I want to ask you this. How as either a prosecutor or a defense attorney, how do you keep these jurors thinking about that very narrow part of this? It's outside of the horror of it all. It's outside of even all of the medication. You've got to keep them on task of did she understand or appreciate the criminality of her actions? And if not, then they can find her guilty.

Terri Austin (03:51:27):

I think we're going to see the defense do more of that. Right now, the prosecution is being fairly broad in the presentation. I think going through the timeline, obviously you have to make sure the jury understood what was going on, particularly as it relates to that day. And so I think the prosecution is trying to lay out what occurred and trying to point out from a timeline perspective that the defendant knew what she was doing, she knew it was wrong, and that she could have conformed her conduct. What I think we're going to see the defense say is, "Look, there is no argument that this happened." And I think he's going to try to get that out through his cross-examinations when he finally does do the cross-examination of Patrick Clancy and through other cross-examinations that we're going to see of the prosecution's case.

(03:52:21)
But during closing arguments, I definitely think that Reddington is going to focus on the question here, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is whether or not it was someone who could appreciate that what she was doing was wrong and could she conform her behavior? And if not, if you believe and you listen to our medical experts and we had these medical experts who got up there and they testified and you heard them say that it's possible she could have this postpartum, not only depression, but psychosis, she could be hearing the voices in her head and not able to conform her behavior, not understand that what she's doing is wrong, and planning this because that is what the voice is telling her to do. A psychosis is hallucinations. It's delusion. You've got to have those medical experts. And I think that we're going to see more of that when we see the defense case and certainly when we see the defense closing.

Julia Jenae (03:53:23):

Is it a problem that Patrick Clancy on the stand said that he didn't remember his wife ever saying that she was hearing voices before this happened?

Terri Austin (03:53:32):

It's funny because when he said that, I thought that I had heard somewhere, I don't know if it was during one of the openings or whether or not it was in the GoFundMe or whether the New Yorker magazine, but I thought I had heard somewhere that he did hear that she had some thoughts of both suicide and harming the children. But I think the question that was asked, if I'm not mistaken, by the prosecution, was in January of that year. She made it a specific timeframe. So I think that's why we're hearing some inconsistencies. I saw some of the comments actually on your YouTube channel, and I think some of the viewers are confused. I think what the prosecution was trying to get at is beforehand in January, did you know that she had these tendencies? And I think he did not know that in January. He did not know that prior to coming and going to the store and leaving her by herself.

Julia Jenae (03:54:25):

Right.

Terri Austin (03:54:25):

He may have heard it another time.

Julia Jenae (03:54:27):

January.

Terri Austin (03:54:27):

But not-

Julia Jenae (03:54:28):

He heard it back in September, maybe even November, I think, when she started the [inaudible 03:54:35] type drug. But I was asking specifically about voices though, because I think the prosecution is trying to thread that needle. She didn't necessarily say a male voice was telling her to do things, and that hasn't come out in the evidence yet until after. When he talked to her, when she was hospitalized, that's when she told him that the reason she did it was because a man's voice told her, "You're going to run out of time. You have to do it now, basically, or else." Does it matter that he didn't know that particular part? He did say that she had thoughts of harming herself and even harming the kids prior to.

Terri Austin (03:55:08):

Right. I think that it's a slight weakness in the defense case that he didn't know more. I mean, if you think about the whole timeline back September, January, right before it happened, the more he knows, the better it looks for the defense, because it means that Lindsay is sharing things with him. It means that she's not hiding anything. It means that they're together trying to make sure that nothing untowards happens to either Lindsay or those children. So I think there's going to be some forgiveness here that he doesn't remember exact times of when she said what she said. And I don't think that's a big point that is going to be held against the defense, but it is a weakness in their case.

(03:55:54)
Look, they don't have a burden of proof here. Obviously, prosecution has the burden of proof here, but I don't think that they're going to be able to show that she was criminally responsible for this case. I mean, it's a shifting burden here. It starts out with obviously you're saying, and then you have to show from a defense perspective that you have some mental illness, but then it's back on the prosecution from a burden standpoint to show that she was criminally responsible. I don't think they have enough here. And I think the little holes they have, one being that he's not sure of the timing of when she told him what exactly about the medication or her psychosis or her illness. I don't think that's a big enough problem that it will hurt the defense.

Julia Jenae (03:56:37):

Yeah. In Massachusetts, the prosecution has that burden to show that she is not insane or that she didn't appreciate the criminality versus the defense, which is that way in some jurisdictions. Terri, before we have to go, can you react to what we heard from Richie Morganstern when he talked about what it was like inside of that courtroom for the 911 call?

Terri Austin (03:56:58):

I saw the photos of her, obviously, her crying, holding both the hands. It's got to be really difficult for that jury to not only hear and see and listen to that 911 call, but to watch her. I mean, this is not a malingerer. This is not someone who's faking. Frankly, I think she should be on suicide watch 24/7. So hearing the 911 call was difficult for those jurors and difficult for our photographer and anyone who heard it. But it was devastating for her. She regrets this till the day she dies, I'm telling you. And I think that that's going to... I mean, obviously you hear the judge talk about charging the jury and instructing them, "Don't let sympathy... Just look at the facts, just look at the law." But I do think it's going to affect that jury that she is being so genuine in the 911 call.

Julia Jenae (03:57:51):

It is certainly a difficult day for everyone involved. Terri Austin, thank you for helping us understand things a lot more. We've got to get to our break. When we come back, more coverage of the Lindsay Clancy trial.

Speaker 25 (03:58:02):

Coming-

Julia Janae (04:02:08):

Welcome back to CourtTV Live. I'm Julia Janae. Thank you for being with us this Wednesday afternoon where we are in the state of Massachusetts. Did Lindsay Clancy know what she was doing when she killed her children? We are watching her trial play out. Here's a live look inside of the courtroom. The jury remains on their lunch break and testimony is going to start up again soon. We don't know who's going to be on the stand next. Now, before the break though, emotions boiled over as the 911 call was played for the jurors, but not the public.

Speaker 26 (04:02:38):

[inaudible 04:02:57].

Speaker 28 (04:03:02):

Jurors have exited the courtroom. The court's in session. Please be seated.

Speaker 31 (04:03:05):

We'll be in recess at this time.

Speaker 29 (04:03:06):

Thank you.

Speaker 28 (04:03:06):

Court all rise.

Speaker 30 (04:03:15):

We're in recess. Please exit the courtroom. Way out the courtroom, please. Thank you.

Julia Janae (04:03:36):

That was the moment after the 911 call was played. Lindsay Clancy's reaction to it, we understand from people who are inside of that courtroom that she was sobbing throughout the playing of that 911 call. You even noticed there, she has attendants who are with her because she is still in a hospital. That's where she is housed after she comes back to the courtroom and leaves the courtroom for the day. She has two attendants, two nurses who are there to basically check on her to make sure that she's okay during this trial. The prosecution says that this former labor and delivery nurse, that was her job, that she was rational and that she was methodical. But her attorneys say no, she was in the midst of a severe mental health crisis when little Cora, Dawson, and Callan died.

(04:04:21)
Earlier today, Patrick Clancy was on the stand and he detailed for these jurors what he discovered that day. Prosecutor had him to go through each and every room of his house that he went to, what he noticed first on his wife, then when he noticed his son, his next son, and his daughter. And he kept his composure throughout much of that testimony, and as was agreed to by these parties, he left so that he did not have to hear that 911 call, see the clothes that his children were wearing that day, or the exercise bands that were used in the death. We are continuing to wait for court to start up again, so let's bring in our panel of guests to talk about where we are in this case and whether or not the prosecution is going to be successful, especially in a claim that there was some malingering or faking by the defendant.

(04:05:13)
Joining me now to discuss criminal defense attorney Jo-Anna Nieves is with us, and former deputy public defender in LA County, Philip Dube here as well. It is great to see you both. It is a difficult day for these jurors. Philip Dube, I'll start with you. What stands out to you the most about today versus the first day, which was difficult as well for them, where they had to listen to the beginning from Patrick Clancy?

Speaker 27 (04:05:36):

First of all, it's such a pleasure to be on with Jo-Anna. She has great legal acumen. Honestly, she's terrific. Okay. Morning, afternoon, wherever you are. I'll tell you what stands out to me. This poor jury has to sit through some pretty tedious, monotonous, in my opinion, irrelevant testimony about someone's demeanor in a drug store. And by the way, I though it was a missed opportunity not to cross-examine those clerks and the store manager. The reason why is I think they could have made hay out of their lack of training. I don't want to disparage or downgrade the duties and obligations and job description of people who work in a CVS pharmacy, but make no mistake about it, they are not trained in recognizing psychosis, hallucinations, delusional disorder. They're there just to ring up sales and reconcile the books at the end of the day and make sure the shelves are stocked.

(04:06:35)
So I would have said something like, for example, "You didn't get any training, for example, in nursing school, in medical school to take this job. You're not familiar with the outward symptoms of certain disorders." And certainly not everybody coming into the drug store is exhibiting symptoms. So for example, "Did you ever have anybody in line vomiting that needed medication?" So if you haven't seen that kind of stuff, you don't know how to recognize forms of psychosis and delusional disorder. And then the jury's going to be looking at the prosecutor asking themselves why do they even call these people to the stand? Because in the end, it'll make it look like they're simply incompetent to recognize the symptoms of the mentally ill. So that's how I would have played it. So I think the prosecution's case fell short with those witnesses.

Julia Janae (04:07:21):

Yeah, the restaurant hostess said she didn't hear anything out of the ordinary from Lindsay Clancy when she put in the order. Jo-Anna Nieves, this is a situation where the judge has told these jurors that you need to set aside your emotions even though this is indeed emotional. You need to be able to look at the facts. This was before the children's pajamas, the clothes that they were wearing that day, were shown to the jury. Is it even possible for them to set aside a day like today, which is rife with emotion?

Jo-Anna Nieves (04:07:52):

I don't think it's possible, Julia. I mean, that's what this case is all about and that's what the prosecution is hinging their whole case on, the emotion and the atrocity of it all, just that impact of the death and loss of these three young children. And they're really depending on how it affects the jury in order to lay the foundation of their case. We're not in that courtroom, and just as bystanders hearing and seeing the reactions, I know I'm having an emotional reaction to it all. I don't know how you're able to keep it together, seeing every little bit of this. So I think that it's not a real possibility to just remove emotion altogether.

(04:08:35)
And another thing I wanted to mention was with these witnesses that they called, Patrick did not observe what was going on because, like Philip was mentioning, she's not qualified to do so. Even though he's there day in and day out, these witnesses testified that, no, there was nothing abnormal about the call. And similarly, he likely saw nothing abnormal about her behavior that day. And he's taking a lot of heat for not doing more. And I just wanted to point out that the lack of noticing this is not uncommon, whether you're working in a store, a restaurant, or picking up food at the request of your wife.

Julia Janae (04:09:13):

Oh yeah, absolutely. I want to shift gears to another topic that I hear coming up. It's kind of threaded through the prosecution's case so far, and I'm wondering if I'm going to hear it more, and I'm happy to get you all's opinion on whether or not you think this is the route that they are taking. And that has to do with whether or not they think that, or they're going to tell this jury that Lindsay Clancy was faking symptoms or even faking her own the taking of her life, the attempt to take her own life. We heard through the testimony of Patrick Clancy today that she had these cuts on her neck and on her wrists. And the prosecution spent time asking him questions, which you could feel that he did not want to be answering a lot of these questions, but they wanted to know whether or not he saw any blood coming from the cut on her neck.

(04:09:57)
And he said, "It could have been, I can't even remember." And they kept asking, "Did you have to put pressure on it? Didn't the 911 operator say if there's a cut on her neck, put pressure on it, you didn't do that, you didn't feel it was necessary." Where are they going with this, Philip, when they suggest that those cuts, it sounds like that's what they are suggesting to this jury, that they were superficial in nature. Do you think that's what they are suggesting, first of all?

Speaker 27 (04:10:27):

Oh, of course, because they're not deadly wounds. I mean, if they were deep enough and she had completely exsanguinated, then that would make sense. But the fact that they're so superficial, it doesn't really show an intent to end one's life. But the real question then is what purpose would it serve other than attention getting? It's almost like a form of factitious disorder, sort of like the converse of Munchausen by syndrome. I'm sorry, Munchhausen by proxy syndrome, where you're inflicting injury on others for adulation and getting people help. But when you're doing it to yourself, it's almost like an attention getting device. So I don't know where the prosecution is going with it. Maybe Jo-Anna can weigh in on it, but I'm not seeing the relevance of it, frankly.

Julia Janae (04:11:08):

Yeah, Jo-Anna, give me your opinion on this. Is that what they are suggesting to this jury?

Jo-Anna Nieves (04:11:14):

I definitely think it's what they're suggesting, but it's a big ask to get the jury to believe that she saw one, two, three, four, five different providers, she was actually prescribed medication, she was seeking out treatment, she did an outpatient type program and that she was confiding in her husband, and all of this was for this long con of setting up this fake suicide just so she could kill her kids and get away with it. I think it's just a big ask to digest that kind of theory.

Julia Janae (04:11:53):

We've got a clip from the prosecution's opening statement where they really give two reasons as to why she jumped out of the window. Let's listen to that and then talk about it.

Speaker 32 (04:12:04):

After only four months in treatment, she made a choice, a deliberate and intentional decision that she did not want to try anymore. And because no one could take care of her kids the way she wanted them to, she had to take them with her. She drew her husband out of the house, their father, so that she had the opportunity and the time to carry out these murders. She maintained the ability to control her conduct, conform her conduct when she attempted to kill herself to escape the consequences.

Julia Janae (04:12:41):

So Philip, we're hearing there on one point, the prosecution is saying that she wanted to take them with her, suggesting this was a murder suicide and that she had a plan even before taking the lives of her children, but then they say that she was trying to escape the consequences by jumping out of the window. Is that two things that they're giving to this jury, and how problematic is that if they are doing that?

Speaker 27 (04:13:04):

It makes no clinical or legal sense. How would she benefit either way? If the end game would be to end the lives of the children and herself, how is that perpetrating a fraud or engaging in some type of a con? It makes no sense. And it makes it look like they're desperate and they're looking for some type of motive or explanation for what she did. And in the end, what it really shows is how obtuse their thinking is in terms of the effects of PPP, the effect that it has on the mind and the body. So hopefully the experts will set the Commonwealth straight and let them know that they just don't frankly know what on earth they're talking about.

Julia Janae (04:13:47):

And Jo-Anna, it seems like they are trying to give this jury a motive. And I think the jury would want to know a motive. If this isn't legal insanity, then what was the reason?

Jo-Anna Nieves (04:13:59):

Yeah, and I think in every case, everybody wants to understand what was going through their head at the time that this crime was committed. And that really is the crux of this case. Was she in touch with reality or not? What was she thinking? Did she appreciate the wrongfulness and was she able to comport herself as required by the law? And I think that what the prosecution could have done here is really weave a lot of the anticipated expert testimony that they're going to put on that would contradict the defense's testimony in their opening statements. So kind of highlight what we would be expecting to hear from these experts that would support the claims that they're making that all of this calculation and deliberation is not something you would see in an organized fashion from somebody who is actually experiencing psychosis. I think they are opening, did just kind of generally touch on subjects, but it would have laid the groundwork for the direction that we're seeing them go right now.

Julia Janae (04:14:57):

Philip and Jo-Anna, stand by, we've got to slip on a break, but when we come back, we're going to talk more about this case. They are still on a lunch break, but there's still something that's up in the air. What is going to happen when Patrick Clancy takes the stand again? He still has not finished his cross-examination. It hasn't even started yet. So we'll talk with our guests about what the defense should do on cross.

Speaker 33 (04:32:00):

(silence)

Kevin Reddington (05:25:22):

Excuse me. I'm going to approach you, sir, with this document and just ask if you can recognize the handwriting?

Patrick Clancy (05:25:30):

Yeah, that looks like her handwriting.

Kevin Reddington (05:25:32):

Looks like Lindsay's handwriting?

Patrick Clancy (05:25:33):

Yep.

Kevin Reddington (05:25:35):

So I'm going to [inaudible 05:25:38].

Judge William Sullivan (05:25:35):

Any objection?

Jennifer Sprague (05:25:35):

Yes.

Judge William Sullivan (05:25:42):

All right, if I could see counsel.

Speaker 34 (05:25:47):

Bit of an objection there. So they're going on sidebar. Let's bring back in our guests who are standing by. We have with us Joanna Nieves, who's watching along with us. Joanna, Patrick is back on the stand. What are you picking up on with cross-examination now? Does he seem a little bit more relaxed than he did on direct examination?

Kevin Reddington (05:26:03):

Can you see that, Mr. Clancy?

Patrick Clancy (05:26:03):

Yeah.

Joanna Nieves (05:26:06):

No, not really. I think this is probably a very difficult thing for him no matter who's asking the questions. I think he did a really great job of staying composed for the most part on direct. And so-

Kevin Reddington (05:26:21):

You see the first word? What's the date? If you can read it. I can't.

Patrick Clancy (05:26:22):

It says May 11th, 2015.

Kevin Reddington (05:26:25):

And does that indicate, would that, to your knowledge, be around when she started working as a labor delivery nurse?

Patrick Clancy (05:26:33):

I thought she started a little early, but I'm not sure.

Kevin Reddington (05:26:37):

You see the name of the little girl that was born on that date that was her first delivery?

Patrick Clancy (05:26:42):

Yeah.

Kevin Reddington (05:26:43):

What's the name?

Patrick Clancy (05:26:44):

It's Cora.

Kevin Reddington (05:26:46):

And is that the reason you guys named Cora Cora?

Patrick Clancy (05:26:51):

It was, yeah.

Kevin Reddington (05:27:00):

Can you tell the jurors, as a husband living with Lindsay over the years, what kind of a mother was she?

Patrick Clancy (05:27:12):

She was very dedicated. She did everything. She started reading them books at three months and she made up songs for them. I remember she used to make Green Eggs and Ham for Cora because she liked that book.

Kevin Reddington (05:27:34):

Is that one of the Dr. Seuss books?

Patrick Clancy (05:27:36):

Yeah. She brought them to music classes.

Kevin Reddington (05:27:41):

You're quite the musician yourself, isn't that right?

Patrick Clancy (05:27:43):

I play a few instruments, yeah.

Kevin Reddington (05:27:45):

You play guitar?

Patrick Clancy (05:27:49):

Yep.

Kevin Reddington (05:27:49):

In your home, one of the things that appears to be striking is that almost every room, other than maybe a, well, actually a bedroom, but was dedicated to children. Would you agree with that?

Patrick Clancy (05:28:02):

Yeah.

Kevin Reddington (05:28:03):

But you didn't have a fancy dining room, right?

Patrick Clancy (05:28:05):

We did not, no.

Kevin Reddington (05:28:06):

What did you have in the dining room?

Patrick Clancy (05:28:08):

We had the table that I grew up with.

Kevin Reddington (05:28:11):

How about stuff on the wall in the different rooms, did she put things, wall hangings on the walls for the kids?

Patrick Clancy (05:28:17):

There was a lot of art projects, stickers, things like that.

Kevin Reddington (05:28:23):

Were they hanging from the wall?

Patrick Clancy (05:28:27):

Yeah.

Kevin Reddington (05:28:33):

One of the photographs that the government had. [inaudible 05:28:36].

Jennifer Sprague (05:28:35):

[inaudible 05:28:36]. Oh, yeah.

Kevin Reddington (05:28:36):

Was photograph that... Excuse me. If you can identify for us, is this photograph a fair and accurate depiction of one of your rooms?

Patrick Clancy (05:28:52):

Yeah.

Kevin Reddington (05:28:53):

And what room would that be?

Patrick Clancy (05:28:54):

That's the playroom.

Kevin Reddington (05:28:56):

[inaudible 05:28:56] this room?

Judge William Sullivan (05:28:57):

Any objection?

Jennifer Sprague (05:28:58):

No.

Judge William Sullivan (05:28:58):

All right. That may be admitted.

Speaker 35 (05:29:04):

Exhibit 58.

Judge William Sullivan (05:29:07):

Thank you.

Kevin Reddington (05:29:08):

If I may put Exhibit 58 up so the jurors in the zone can see it. There's some kind of like, looks as though it's boxed out window. So are we standing in the kitchen looking into that room through that boxed out window?

Patrick Clancy (05:29:23):

Yeah.

Kevin Reddington (05:29:26):

And all those objects, obviously, they're in that room would be kids' toys and things of that nature, right?

Patrick Clancy (05:29:30):

Right.

Kevin Reddington (05:29:33):

Do you recognize this photograph as being just a sample or sampling of the kids' rooms?

Patrick Clancy (05:29:45):

Yeah.

Kevin Reddington (05:29:46):

Do you know which room that was?

Patrick Clancy (05:29:47):

I think it was Dawson's.

Kevin Reddington (05:29:50):

Okay. [inaudible 05:29:50].

Judge William Sullivan (05:29:50):

Any objection?

Jennifer Sprague (05:29:51):

No.

Judge William Sullivan (05:29:51):

All right. That may be admitted.

Speaker 35 (05:29:52):

Exhibit 59.

Judge William Sullivan (05:29:52):

All right. Thank you.

Kevin Reddington (05:30:01):

This one here has a bunch of stickers. It's got Bruce Lightyear or whatever his name is over to the right, and it's got an alphabet, A, B, C, D, things of that nature, correct?

Patrick Clancy (05:30:12):

Yeah, it's PAW Patrol.

Kevin Reddington (05:30:13):

Okay. And again, following through on that same theme, you recognize this photograph as well being another portion of that wall?

Patrick Clancy (05:30:21):

Yeah.

Kevin Reddington (05:30:23):

And what are those? Decals?

Patrick Clancy (05:30:25):

Yeah, they're just big stickers.

Kevin Reddington (05:30:28):

Okay. In the interest of time, Your Honor, I would just say you also identified this as being one of the kids' walls. Would that be what you were telling us would be art projects?

Patrick Clancy (05:30:39):

Yeah.

Kevin Reddington (05:30:40):

And they were hanging on the wall?

Patrick Clancy (05:30:42):

Correct.

Kevin Reddington (05:30:43):

Who hung them on the wall?

Patrick Clancy (05:30:45):

I think Lindsay did.

Kevin Reddington (05:30:47):

And would she also take hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pictures of the kids?

Patrick Clancy (05:30:53):

Yeah.

Kevin Reddington (05:30:56):

Do you recall her putting together a little collage saying newborn, one month, two months, three months, four months, and then hanging that on the wall?

Patrick Clancy (05:31:06):

Yeah, she did it for each kid.

Kevin Reddington (05:31:08):

And which child was that?

Patrick Clancy (05:31:11):

That one's Dawson.

Kevin Reddington (05:31:12):

Dawson. Did you have occasion to see her interact with Dawson as a [inaudible 05:31:25]?

Judge William Sullivan (05:31:24):

Hey, did you wish to introduce those photographs?

Kevin Reddington (05:31:36):

[inaudible 05:31:28]. Thank you. I appreciate it. [inaudible 05:31:36].

Speaker 35 (05:31:36):

Exhibit 60 and 61.

Judge William Sullivan (05:31:36):

Okay. Thank you.

Kevin Reddington (05:31:37):

Can you describe for the jurors her relationship with Dawson? I know he was a little kid, but I mean, to your observation, did she love Dawson?

Patrick Clancy (05:31:46):

She loved Dawson very much.

Kevin Reddington (05:31:48):

Did she resent him?

Patrick Clancy (05:32:01):

No.

Kevin Reddington (05:32:01):

You are familiar with, as her husband, Lindsay's, let's say, use of social media such as Facebook, right?

Patrick Clancy (05:32:10):

Yes.

Kevin Reddington (05:32:12):

Can you tell us, would you look at her Facebook a lot and pictures that she would post?

Patrick Clancy (05:32:18):

To be honest, no, not really.

Kevin Reddington (05:32:19):

Okay. Were you able to identify any of her postings on Facebook?

Patrick Clancy (05:32:26):

Probably.

Kevin Reddington (05:32:28):

Okay. Representative over the years or the period of time, I'm going to ask if you can identify this particular Facebook.

Jennifer Sprague (05:32:44):

Your Honor, if we may approach briefly.

Judge William Sullivan (05:32:47):

Sure. Yeah. Counsel.

Speaker 35 (05:32:47):

Exhibits 63 through 75.

Kevin Reddington (05:39:23):

Mr. Clancy, and if I ask a question and it's difficult or if you need a break, I'm sure that [inaudible 05:39:30] we'll certainly give you a break. If I push too hard, just let me know. All right?

Patrick Clancy (05:39:36):

Yeah, yep. Appreciate it.

Kevin Reddington (05:39:38):

Okay. So again, just representative of the Facebook postings that Lindsay would post as the mother of your children, this, for example, would be July of 2018. Can you tell the jurors who that would be?

Patrick Clancy (05:39:54):

That's Cora.

Speaker 36 (05:39:54):

[inaudible 05:39:56].

Kevin Reddington (05:40:03):

Moving...

Speaker 37 (05:40:03):

Moving forward, say June of 2021. Can you tell us who that...

Patrick Clancy (05:40:15):

That's Cora and Dawson.

Speaker 37 (05:40:22):

Okay. Again, the end of July 2021.

Patrick Clancy (05:40:26):

That's us with Cora and Dawson.

Speaker 37 (05:40:33):

Okay. August 2021.

Patrick Clancy (05:40:36):

Dawson.

Speaker 37 (05:40:36):

Okay. End of August 2021.

Patrick Clancy (05:40:45):

It's Cora and Dawson.

Speaker 37 (05:40:50):

August, again, of '21?

Patrick Clancy (05:40:52):

It's Cora and Dawson.

Speaker 37 (05:41:01):

December one of '21.

Patrick Clancy (05:41:05):

It's Cora and Dawson.

Speaker 37 (05:41:07):

Is that first day of preschool?

Patrick Clancy (05:41:09):

Yeah.

Speaker 37 (05:41:17):

September of '21.

Patrick Clancy (05:41:22):

That's Lindsay and Cora.

Speaker 37 (05:41:24):

And was that some kind of like a family fun day, if you recall, where there was a box of things for kids to get in?

Patrick Clancy (05:41:30):

Yeah.

Speaker 37 (05:41:37):

Okay. End of September of '21. Callan?

Patrick Clancy (05:41:44):

No, that's Dawson.

Speaker 37 (05:41:45):

Dawson. Okay. September '21. Callan was born when? I'm sorry.

Patrick Clancy (05:41:50):

May 2022.

Speaker 37 (05:41:52):

Okay. And Christmas Eve, December 24th of 2021.

Patrick Clancy (05:41:59):

That's Cora's birthday.

Speaker 37 (05:42:00):

Okay. And that's her birthday party that year?

Patrick Clancy (05:42:02):

Yeah.

Speaker 37 (05:42:03):

Now that's 2021, right?

Patrick Clancy (05:42:06):

Correct.

Speaker 37 (05:42:07):

Fast forward one year, and that would be December, Christmas of 2022, right?

Patrick Clancy (05:42:14):

Right.

Speaker 37 (05:42:15):

And was that when you guys had the birthday party for Cora at the trampolines?

Patrick Clancy (05:42:20):

No.

Speaker 37 (05:42:21):

When was that?

Patrick Clancy (05:42:22):

I believe it was January 7th.

Speaker 37 (05:42:24):

Okay. But that would've been for that particular birthday, right?

Patrick Clancy (05:42:28):

That was for the birthday with friends because most people weren't available on Christmas Eve.

Speaker 37 (05:42:32):

Christmas Eve, right.

Patrick Clancy (05:42:33):

Yep.

Speaker 37 (05:42:41):

Okay. And then down. Again, September 1st of '22. Remember when that was taken?

Patrick Clancy (05:42:46):

Yeah, that's with Callan and Dawson.

Speaker 37 (05:42:48):

And was that your yard?

Patrick Clancy (05:42:50):

That's in the backyard.

Speaker 37 (05:42:51):

Backyard. Okay. This would have been September of '22, obviously right before '23, right?

Patrick Clancy (05:42:58):

Right.

Speaker 37 (05:43:04):

And again, for this one here, July of '22, can you tell the jurors, you guys had a pretty good summer that year?

Patrick Clancy (05:43:14):

It was a good summer. Yeah. That was on Cape Cod.

Speaker 37 (05:43:16):

This picture was on Cape Cod?

Patrick Clancy (05:43:16):

Yeah.

Speaker 37 (05:43:31):

A couple of points that I wanted to raise, sir, with you. We have an email sent from your, is it Surface Pro? Is that what it's called?

Patrick Clancy (05:43:47):

That was my laptop. Yeah.

Speaker 37 (05:44:01):

I'm going to approach you, sir, and ask if you can identify this as being an email that you sent.

Patrick Clancy (05:44:06):

Yeah.

Speaker 37 (05:44:07):

Okay. Could I offer that, Your Honor?

Judge (05:44:15):

Any objection?

Speaker 38 (05:44:17):

I'd just like to know the purpose of-

Speaker 37 (05:44:18):

Purpose?

Speaker 38 (05:44:18):

Yes.

‍