Two HUGE Mistakes Rock the Lindsay Clancy Trial : Undermined by Its Own Legal Strategy Errors

 Two HUGE Mistakes Rock the Lindsay Clancy Trial : Undermined by Its Own Legal Strategy Errors

Today was day 15 of the Lindsey Clansancy trial and somehow both sides managed to make a huge mistake. First, the prosecution went after a witness that I think they clearly should have left alone. Patrick Clancy’s mother, Susan. They crossed a line the judge clearly did not like it, and I don’t think the jury will either.

 But then the defense gave the prosecution an extraordinary gift. One of Lindsay Clancy’s own experts took the stand and once the prosecution got her talking, she gave them damaging testimony on one of the worst possible issues for the defense. And it went on for nearly 20 minutes, probably the 20 longest minutes of the entire trial for the defense.

 And by the time it ended, I certainly was left wondering how much damage did this defense witness do to Lindsey Clancy’s case. Hi y’all, I’m Lawyer Lee. Please hit that like button. It will really help with the video. And let’s get into it. At every trial, there are a few witnesses who are just forbidden. You can attack some witnesses.

 You can skewer some witnesses if you have the right information, but you cannot do that with every witness. And sometimes there is a witness you just have to leave alone. You just have to accept that they’re not fully on your side and you have to live with it. Do what you can, but be gentle. Patrick Clancy’s mother, Susan Clancy, was one of those forbidden witnesses in my opinion.

 She testified for the defense for Lindsay even though she lost her three grandchildren. She had nothing but good things to say about Lindsay. And that is frankly a miracle in the context of this case. ” She was very nurturing, very loving. She was a wonderful mother. Wonderful. ” Did you ever see her treat her middle son Dawson bad because you didn’t like him? ” No.

” Did she love Dawson in your opinion? ” She loved her children. all of them very very much. ” You might expect Susan Clansancy to hate Lindsay. At a bare minimum, you would figure she probably would at least be conflicted about how she feels about Lindsay given what Lindsay is accused of.

 But Susan appears to be convinced, just as her son, Lindsay’s ex-husband Patrick is, that Lindsay was sick. She was not evil. Now, Susan Clancy did not really have all that much to say on behalf of the defense. In other words, she didn’t really take the case anywhere. She was mostly there to show the jury that the Clansancy family does not blame or hate Lindsay.

 They’re supporting her. ” Find that Lindsay was interested at all times trying to get better and and see doctor ” very much so. Did you find at all? Do you have an opinion with your observations of Lindsay as to whether or not she was offered help and would just spurn it and not see doctors and not have treatment? ” Begging for help.

 Lindsay was struggling. We were all very concerned. ” When you have a witness like Susan Clancy, in my view, she’s untouchable, or at least she ought to be untouchable. This is a witness who is sympathetic. She’s done nothing wrong. and attacking her would be a mistake. I believe it makes you look like the big bad lawyer, which is not a good look for a lawyer in the courtroom.

 Yet, that is exactly what the prosecutors did. Susan is the one who hooked Lindsay up with her contact at Southshore, nurse Paul. And the prosecution hinted that Susan’s connection with nurse Paul is the reason that Lindsay and Patrick filed a civil lawsuit against pretty much all of Lindsay’s mental health providers except for nurse Paul.

” You’re aware Julie Paul is one of the only um prescribers that the defendant um encountered that’s not personally named in a civil lawsuit that’s pending, don’t you? ” I’m not sure. The prosecutor also made some digs about whether Lindsay really trusted Susan Clancy. For example, the prosecutor pointed out that the kids never came over to Susan’s house.

So, at any point, they they never stayed over. ” We decided together it was best for them to be in their own beds at their own house with all the belongings. and Lindsay’s parents were very actively involved in staying over and helping out. So, it was the best decision that they stay home in their own beds.

” So, prior to the um November of 2022, did you and your husband ever come and stay over the night so that um Patrick and Lindsay could go off? ” We never did stay at their house. The prosecution seems to be really trying to divide Lindsay and Lindsay and Patrick even from the parents. Apparently Lindsay didn’t need help enough that she was willing to accept it from Susan.

 But the blow below the belt in my view was telling Susan that Lindsay had taught smack about her to Lindsay’s therapist. And are you aware that um Lindsay told one of the therapists that she wasn’t close with you as in-laws and that she ” I didn’t know that. No. ” That she said she doesn’t generally allow the in-laws to watch her children.

” I did watch the kids. ” Okay. But are you aware that she told the therapist that? ” No. ” Are you aware she told the therapist that she didn’t have any particular reason why and that they don’t bug me about it either? ” I don’t I didn’t know any of that. There is no reason, no reason at all to say this to Susan, the mother-in-law.

 When Susan told the jury that she was close to Lindsay, close to the family, I remembered what she said to the therapist, and I think multiple jurors will remember that also. So, why tell Susan? It’s potentially hurtful, humiliating to her right here on the stand in public. And what does it add to the case for the prosecution? The jury already knows what Lindsay said and it’s too late really to drive a wedge between Susan and Lindsay.

 Susan’s already on the stand in testifying for the defense. But then the prosecutor absolutely crossed a boundary in her questioning of Susan. She took Susan back to remembering that last Christmas when they were all together. Here’s what happened. ” Do you remember breakfast on Christmas Day? ” Yes. ” Was that at their house or someplace else? ” Their house.

” Okay. And then what did you guys do after breakfast? ” We went to church. ” And um fair to say you’ve previously testified that breakfast was great. ” Yes. ” And that church was beautiful. ” Yes. ” And in fact um the defendant, she told you that it was great and that she was glad she went to church that day on Christmas Day.

” Yes, she did. ” Now, are you a active member in the Catholic Church? ” Yes. ” Okay. So, you’re um aware that murder is considered a mortal sin? ” Yeah. Council, could I see you over here? ” Watching this, I was doing a fullon home alone. Like, I cannot believe that she just asked that.

 I was totally stunned that she would ask that question. This was, in my view, a huge mistake. Obviously, it offended the judge who let’s let’s all come up right now. And I think the prosecutor was thinking that this was a way to show that Susan was biased, that maybe Susan was concerned that if she believed Lindsay committed murder, then Lindsay had committed a mortal sin.

 So Susan wanted Lindsay to be found not guilty because she was not criminally responsible because the psychic load of dealing with the idea that Lindsay was a murderer and had committed a mortal sin was just too great. But, you know, this is Boston. There is a very good chance that there are Cathollets on the jury and the prosecutor is cross-examining a sweet grandmother who lost three grandchildren, but who nonetheless is forgiving and kind.

 So, I am stunned that they asked this question. The judge came back and gave the jury what’s called a curative instruction. Now, the pool video didn’t quite capture the first couple of words, but you will get the drift. Here’s what happened. All right. And what that means is you are not to consider it for any reason or any purpose. Okay.

All right. Council, ” I thought that the jabs might stop at that point after the judge dealt with that up at bench, but they did not. The prosecutor suggested that Susan had not shown up for Lindsay during that last month when Lindsay was in such crisis. Were you at the house much between January 7th and January 24th? ” I don’t remember.

” Do you recall previously um reporting that you hadn’t been at the house? ” I don’t remember. ” Now, the prosecutor could have been suggesting that maybe this witness just didn’t have a lot of information about that last month, but she’d already told the jury that that she didn’t have a lot of information about what had happened in the final month.

 The prosecutor added in the suggestion that maybe Patrick also was unconcerned about Lindsay. So unconcerned that he dropped her off in a mental health clinic and then went skiing until they made him come back and pick her up. ” She went to Women and Infants. ” So that’s the one day where Pat dropped her off and went skiing and then came back. Right.

” I believe so. ” In my view, Susan Clancy was not a witness who should have been treated harshly. I think that approach backfires with a witness like Susan. But the defense came to the rescue of the prosecution with an enormous mistake of their own. Dr. Laposada was a defense expert who talked about, among other things, how Lindseay Clancy was hurt when she went out the second floor window of her home.

 The defense says this was an attempt by Lindsay to kill herself. The prosecution has hinted that Lindsay did not try to unal alive herself, but the fact is she cut her wrists, her neck, she took pills, she jumped out a window, and she nearly died twice that night. So, is this argument really going to win the case? And is it really all that important anyway? The question is whether or not she was criminally responsible for what she did to the children, not whether she tried to unalive herself. But Dr.

 Dr. Laposada was there to give the defense position that Lindsay’s cuts to her wrist, her neck were real. They were consistent with the suicide attempt. And Dr. Laosada also said that Lindsay didn’t just jump out the bedroom window. She dove out head first. Dr. Laposada testified that Lindsay’s C1 vertebrae basically exploded when she hit her head on the ground and her lower vertebra then sheared and that is what paralyzed her. She is permanently paralyzed.

” So she had um a bending injury and she also had a right posterior rib injury. You can see on the left hand panel her shoulders are also hitting the ground and that caused a fracture of the right first rib in the back and the flexion of her neck also damaged her thyroid gland and some of her um voice box cartilagages.

” The prosecutor insisted that the evidence suggested Lindsay had not hit her head. And you’re saying that she fell with such force that she burst her C1 vertebrae and then broke other vertebrae in her back and broke ribs. Correct. ” Yes. Just the force of a free falling body. Yes. Uh her scalp was intact.

 The forces were transmitted to C1. So through her head, ” very very a very common finding when you go head first and hit your head. ” Showing you here photo of the top of the defendant’s head. ” No. ” Yes, I see that. ” No swelling. Correct. ” Oh, we just see her hair. ” There’s no blood on that very white sheet. Correct.

Um, well, I don’t see what’s under her head, but that’s not relevant to understanding that she did fall head first. ” The doctor handled those arguments, but fell apart when she was asked about her testimony in another case from back in 2011. This was excellent cross by the prosecutor and impressive research to find this exact case with such onpoint testimony.

 I don’t think the jury is going to make its decision on whether or not Lindsay tried to unal alive herself that night or whether she dove out the window or jumped. But they are going to make their decision based on whether she was in psychosis and lacked the capacity to understand that what she was doing was wrong and to do the right thing instead.

 And that is why the prosecution wants to get into evidence how long it took to kill each child. If it took several minutes to kill each child, that exponentially multiplies the terror for the children as well as the time in which Lindsay could have come to her senses to stop doing what she was doing. The prosecution clearly wanted that testimony.

 And when they put one of their witnesses, the medical examiner, on the stand, they asked a series of questions about how long it would take. But from the prosecutor’s reaction, the medical examiner apparently did not give them quite the testimony that they were expecting. So then the prosecution had a detective tell the jury what the medical examiner had told him earlier about how long it would take to kill each child separately by strangulation.

 The defense objected. They discussed it at a sidebar, but probably the defense said it was hearsay. That was a decent appeal issue for the defense. And of course, it was not nearly as strong hearing this testimony from the detective as it would have been hearing it from the medical examiner.

 But as you are about to see, the defense’s own witness got all of this in evidence for the prosecution. And it was really bad. And it went on for about 15 or 20 minutes because the defense then tried to get up and repair what had happened, but instead it just ended up getting worse. It started when the prosecution asked Dr.

 Laosada about a case she had testified in 15 years ago. Dr. Laosada said she didn’t remember what she had said when she testified in that case, which of course is not at all surprising. But the prosecutor said, “But this is medical knowledge. Surely you still have your medical knowledge.” And that is the moment at which Dr.

 Laposada felt the need to prove herself. And so she explained and gave all kinds of details on the absolute worst issue for the defense. To her as a medical examiner, this seemed normal. But to the public, to the jury, not at all. I’m only going to give you a small sampling. This went on for a long time. ” It was a woman who had uh killed her 8-year-old daughter by esphixxia.

So, in that case there, you didn’t testify that it was 5 to 10 seconds. You testified that it was 10 to 20 seconds and that if there’s any struggling, it could be longer. Correct? ” Um, yes. You were also asked in that same trial, doctor. The question put to you in that trial was, “But once that unconsciousness set in, you agree with me that there had to have been a consistent application of pressure, either suffocation, strangulation, or compressions of the chest for two to three more minutes continuously while

the child was unconscious.” Correct. And you answered, “I think that’s a fair statement.” Is that still your me medical knowledge? ” Um, that’s a different case. that was not liatured or that was a manual. ” Either way, you’re talking about the compression of the neck causing a loss of oxygen and blood.

 Correct? ” Um, yeah, there are many ways that can occur and the the the way the pressure is applied um is is very important in understanding how long it takes to become unconscious. These are um the the children here um were the victims of what we call liature strangulation. Um the fry case that it’s coming back to a little now that was a manual strangulation and also a body compression which is a totally different type of esphixia.

” Do you see what I mean? This is not helping the defense. In fact, the witness is talking about the third rail for the defense in this case, which is the liature strangulation of the children. That is the worst fact of the entire case for the defense. The fact they would rather run from the exercise band around the necks of the Clancy children. And it took time.

 This witness is giving the prosecution how long it took. And the witness heaped on more details about what happened. ” In order to become dead, brain dead, you need you the the physiology is that the you become unconscious within 5 to 10 seconds and then you need then you’re unconscious. But that’s not dead. Then that continued constriction of the blood flow has to be still continuously applied for the brain to die.

” Correct. So ” So that’s Yeah. So that’s the that is what happens and that’s what happened to the Clancy children. The liatures were wrapped around. They went unconscious in five to 10 maybe 20 seconds probably less than 20 seconds because it was a um a liature not a manual strangulation. So it was immediately compressed unconsciousness within 10 seconds and then death within 5 to 10 minutes after that ” with continuous pressure.

” With continuous pressure around the neck. ” Yes. because this is a liature strangulation. ” Thank you. ” Not man. ” This is the defense’s worst nightmare. So, the defense got up to try to save this, but only made things worse as the doctor taught even more. ” Ligure strangulation as opposed to manual strangulation.

Tell us in your mind what that means. ” Oh, well, they’re they’re very very different. Um manual strangulation means that you have somebody has used their hand and they’ve pressed either side of the neck. Okay, that the hand is manual strangulation. Strangulation means that you have stopped the blood flow that comes out of your brain and the corateed artery continues to pump oxygenated blood into your brain but it can’t drain out through the jugular veins.

 So with then you with continuous pressure then you the blood can’t get in because it can’t flow out. It’s kind of like stopping up a pipe. uh and then so you go unconscious within 5 to 10 seconds but then with continued pressure you your brain dies. So the difference between manual and ligature is that manual can be kind of an off and on thing.

 You may put you you have a jugular vein on either side of your neck. So if you’re using a hand you might compress one um greater than the other. You might let go. the person that you’re trying to strangle may um struggle and remove your hand a little bit. ” I want you to notice too the defense lawyer’s posture. He has his legs crossed even while standing and crossed away from the witness.

 Strong body language of disliking what’s being said, rejecting what’s being said. And it is terrible for the defense because it is reminding the jury of how horrific what actually occurred was. This is not what the defense wants. And the prosecution got back up on redirect and with one brilliant demonstration made things if possible even worse for the defense.

 The defense had gotten Dr. La Pasada to agree that maybe Lindsay didn’t have to apply continuous pressure. Maybe once the bands were in place, she could just walk away. The defense wants that because the alternative is just an unbearable thought, frankly. She would have to stay there applying pressure. The prosecutor pointed out that the bands were not tied around the neck.

They were just wrapped. And then she got out the actual band and did a simple illustration right there in the courtroom. Don’t you band doctor wrapped around the child’s neck several times and then left there. I guess you can’t see it from where you are, but it just fell apart. It didn’t stay in a circle. ” Yeah, I I sort of saw what you did.

 So, ” what was that? ” I said I saw that. ” You saw it? So, it was left there and it fell apart. Correct. Yeah. What you just did? Sure. ” Yeah. ” All told, it was brutal for the defense. Whatever the defense gained from this witness, they paid an extraordinary price for it. 20 minutes in the middle of the defense case got spent on the worst possible issue for the defense.

The effort and time it took to kill three children. The defense also put up two other medical experts. The first, Dr. Donald Condi is a pharmarmacology expert. I’m going to head straight to the symptoms he talked about that might have indicated psychosis, which would obviously influence what drugs she should be given.

” On November 27th of 2022, do nurse practitioner Julie Paul reported that Lindsay stated that she was was disassociated, that she was not in touch with reality. Do you remember that? ” Yes. ” And what is that a symptomology? Is that a symptom of of psychosis to be disassociated and not in touch with reality? ” It it certainly can be.

 Dissociation um can mean that people feel like things around them are not real, ” right? And that’s pretty serious feeling to have, right? ” It is. ” And that’s pretty common unfortunately with with women that have postpartum psychosis, right? ” It certainly can be. Yes. And what are the other symptomologies of of postpartum psychosis, sir? ” Well, psychosis in general just means a lack of understanding of what’s real as opposed to what is not.

 So, a person with psychosis can have delusions which are uh fixed false beliefs. uh they could believe that um for example um they have been told by God to do something. Okay. ” Um they can also have hallucinations at times. ” What kind of hallucinations? ” Uh most people have auditory hallucinations not visual hallucinations.

” Is that correct? Auditory is hearing, right? ” Yes. ” Dr. Condi also said that maybe Lindsay was afraid to tell the doctors about how bad her symptoms really were. ” As Clancy reported, she was worried that her children would be taken away from her uh perhaps by the Department of Children and Families if she reported very severe symptoms.

 Uh the other thing is as a health care professional uh boards of registration sometimes take a dim view of people who have uh been in treatment for certain psychiatric illnesses and so uh she might have been concerned about her nursing license but that’s speculation. So there are other reasons why uh a person may be concerned about telling health care providers mandated reporters that they’re hearing voices. Correct.

” Yes. ” One of the issues in the case has been the prosecution suggestion that Lindsay was doing better throughout January so that other people around her were not expecting what happened. They didn’t think she was in that bad a state. The Dr. Condi explained that psychosis can come on suddenly, ” can be quite episodic.

 What does that mean? ” It means that an episode can start and stop and then an interval of time goes by. It could be days, weeks or months, and then another episode occurs. ” On cross-examination, the prosecution pointed out that Lindsay did not mention hearing voices to any of her medical providers until after the children died.

But you’re aware that she never reported to Jennifer Tus that she heard a voice. ” She did not. ” She never reported to Rebecca Gelato that she heard a voice. Did she? ” She did not. ” She never reported to Leticia Dukes that she heard a voice. ” She did not. ” And the only time she’s ever said that she heard this voice was on January 24th of 2023.

 Is that fair to say? ” Correct. ” The final witness, and in fact, he’s still on the stand, is Dr. Zazelle, who saw Lindsay in the hospital about 10 days after the children were killed. Dr. Zizelle said that attorney Readington, her present defense attorney, got a court order for him to meet with Lindsay. ” At that point, had you and I met and talked about this case at all? ” No.

” What was the reason I asked you to go to the hospital? You are worried about her mental health given the significant event that had just taken place a few days earlier. You were concerned that she had absolutely no ability to have visitors. Visitors were not permitted to meet with her from family members to friends to priest.

 No one was able to see her. This witness also said that Lindsay was handcuffed to the bed with metal handcuffs. Armed police officers were stationed outside the hospital room. She remembered what had happened, but Dr. Ziselle said it was fuzzy and foggy. She didn’t know where she was and he let her use his cell phone to call her husband Patrick out of what he said was just human compassion.

 The prosecutionist suggested that maybe when she called Patrick on his cell phone and said she had heard voices, maybe that was all part of the beginning of a defense plan for how to defend Lindsay in this case. The witness denied that. ” Did you tell Lindsay Clancy to lie or make that up and pretend that she was hearing voices? ” No.

Did you have any conversation or any suggestions to her at all that she should say she heard voices or anything like that? ” Absolutely not. ” The witness believed Lindsay was in psychosis and agreed she might have been afraid to tell anyone about what she was hearing because she thought she might lose her children.

 So after day 15, I think both sides have something to regret. The prosecution took a real risk going after Patrick’s mother, Susan Clancy. But the defense may have suffered the bigger blow because its own expert spent nearly 20 minutes giving the prosecution testimony on one of the most damaging issues in the case, how long it took for these children to die, and what it took for these children to die.

 Will that change how the jury sees the insanity defense? We are only a matter of days away from finding out. If you found this breakdown helpful, please hit the like button and subscribe for more. I’ll be back tomorrow with everything that happens in the Lindsey Clansancy trial. I’ll see you then.