Nobody outside the Lindsay Clancy jury room knows what the nine women and three men deciding her fate are thinking. They have heard five weeks of testimony, listened to competing psychiatrists reach sharply different conclusions from much of the same evidence, examined photographs and videos, and been given hundreds of exhibits connected to the deaths of Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months.
During deliberations Friday, however, jurors specifically asked to examine two categories of evidence again. They wanted to see Clancy’s prescription pill bottles and the blood-covered carving knife she used on herself after killing her children.
Neither was used to kill the children. Cora, Dawson and Callan were strangled with exercise bands in the basement of their Duxbury, Massachusetts, home on January 24, 2023.
Instead, both pieces of evidence concern Lindsay Clancy herself and two questions at the heart of the trial. What medications was she actually taking before the killings, and what did she do once her three children were dead?
The request does not tell us which verdict the jury is considering. It does, however, make the particular evidence jurors chose to revisit especially interesting.
Medication has been everywhere in this trial. Clancy was prescribed numerous psychiatric drugs as doctors attempted to treat her worsening mental health during the months before the killings.
Her defense has portrayed that treatment as chaotic and damaging, arguing that Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis and had been failed by the medical professionals who were supposed to help her. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington drove the argument home during closing arguments with perhaps his bluntest summation of the case, saying the “damn medicine” did this.
The physical evidence raises a more complicated question because being prescribed a medication and actually taking it are not the same thing. Earlier in the trial, prosecutors drew attention to prescription bottles from which relatively few pills appeared to have been removed. Their suggestion was that Clancy was not necessarily taking all the medications associated with her name.
The defense challenged that interpretation. Patrick Clancy testified that some bottles containing pills were discontinued prescriptions that Lindsay was no longer supposed to take after doctors changed her medication or dosage. Other bottles recovered from her nightstand, he said, represented active prescriptions. State Police also recovered bottles including Trazodone, Diazepam and Amitriptyline from the home.
That dispute makes the jury’s renewed interest in the bottles particularly significant. Jurors may simply be reviewing the exhibits carefully, but they could also be trying to untangle one of the most confusing parts of the case. Not what Clancy had been prescribed over several months, but what she was actually taking around January 24.
A long list of medications sounds alarming, particularly when presented alongside evidence of a woman repeatedly seeking psychiatric help, but prescriptions accumulated over time do not necessarily describe what was happening inside Clancy’s body on the night of the killings. If some medications had already been discontinued, others were taken inconsistently and still others had barely been used, the total number prescribed says relatively little on its own about her condition that evening.
The same collection of bottles could support the defense in a different way. It may reinforce the argument that Clancy’s treatment had become confusing and unstable, with medications being added, removed and adjusted while her mental health continued to deteriorate.
The photographs allow jurors, and now the public, to examine the physical evidence rather than a tidy medical chart summarizing months of treatment. What they are seeing are the remnants of that treatment sitting inside the Clancy home. Somewhere among those bottles may be part of the answer to a question both sides have spent weeks arguing about.
Read more
The knife raises a different set of questions. After strangling her children, Clancy went upstairs and used a large carving knife to cut her wrists and neck before going through a second-story window. The fall caused catastrophic spinal injuries that left her paralyzed. Police later found the blood-covered knife on a nightstand in the master bedroom, while crime-scene photographs showed blood elsewhere in the room, including near the window.
The seriousness of Clancy’s self-inflicted knife wounds became unexpectedly contentious during the trial. Several medical witnesses described the cuts as superficial or not especially deep, although one wrist wound required sutures. The defense strongly rejected any suggestion that Clancy merely staged an attempt to kill herself. Whatever the severity of the knife wounds, attorneys pointed to the fact that she then went through a second-story window and permanently lost the ability to walk.
There are several reasons jurors may have wanted another look at the knife. They could be considering whether its size and blade are consistent with the injuries described by witnesses, revisiting the prosecution’s early attention to the relatively limited knife wounds or simply trying to understand an object they previously encountered mainly through photographs and testimony.
The knife also sits at the center of a much larger question concerning what Clancy’s suicide attempt says about her state of mind after the children were dead.
The defense can reasonably argue that a woman who cuts her own throat and wrists before going through an upstairs window was plainly experiencing an extraordinary psychiatric crisis. The prosecution offers a less sympathetic interpretation. Clancy’s actions after the killings can also be viewed as evidence that she understood something terrible had happened and grasped the consequences of what she had done. Under that reading, the suicide attempt was not simply another inexplicable act within a psychotic episode. It was a response to the murders she had just committed.
That cannot resolve the question of criminal responsibility by itself. A person experiencing psychosis can attempt suicide, just as someone who fully understands what they have done can try to kill themselves after committing murder. In a case centered almost entirely on what Clancy understood, intended and believed during a relatively short period, however, the order of events matters. She killed three children, left the basement, went upstairs, used the knife on herself and then went through the window.
Jurors must decide what was happening in her mind throughout that sequence.
Read more
It would be reckless to claim that the jury’s request means it is moving toward conviction, just as it would be reckless to say it shows jurors are accepting the defense. A request can begin with one juror and may reflect disagreement, curiosity or nothing more significant than a panel determined to work carefully through the evidence. Lawyers following the case have cautioned against treating ordinary jury requests as coded messages about an eventual verdict.
What the request tells us is that somebody inside that jury room believed the medications and the knife were worth examining again.
After weeks of arguments about diagnoses, postpartum psychosis, bipolar disorder, psychiatric evaluations, medical records and competing expert opinions, jurors returned to something unusually physical. They wanted another look at the bottles containing the pills and at the knife still stained with Clancy’s blood. None of those objects can tell 12 jurors whether Lindsay Clancy understood the wrongfulness of killing Cora, Dawson and Callan. They can only provide another piece of evidence from which the jury must try to reconstruct her state of mind.
As jurors confront the extraordinarily difficult choice between a mother rendered incapable of criminal responsibility by psychosis and a mentally ill woman who nevertheless understood what she was doing. They apparently believe those objects may help them decide.
