What Lindsay Clancy's Own Psychiatrist Admitted In Court

**SPEAKER_1** (0:00)
This is The Big Breakdown, a long look back at some of the biggest stories we're covering for you at the Hidden Killers Podcast and True Crime Today. This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Brueski and Robin Drake.

**Tony Brueski** (0:17)
The Lindsay Clancy trial are more than a week now into testimony at Plymouth Superior Court, and the prosecution has spent every one of those days building basically the same argument. If you're sitting there going, didn't we argue this yesterday? You're not alone.
She was deliberate, she was meticulous, she planned it. But after a week of their own witnesses on the stand, some of what the jury is hearing sounds a lot more like the defense's case than the prosecution's. Eric Faddis is a defense attorney, former prosecutor, and he is with us to help us break down where this case is at, where this case is going now that we're thus far into it. Robin is away today, but he'll be back on Monday.
Eric, let's start here. The prosecution obviously has built their entire first week around the one image of January 24th, 2023 Lindsay Clancy built a snowman with her kids. She texted photos to Patrick. He told the jury she was having one of her best days. She placed a takeout order, picked up medicine at CVS. He did. And then a couple of hours later, all three of the kids were dead. Prosecution wants you to believe it was the best day ever. They keep going, it was the best day. Because she was, and then she planned to kill her kids. That she was planning to kill her kids. And that was what part of made it the best day, that while she was building the snowman, she sat there thinking, gee, I can't wait for those exercise bands. Despite begging for help from anyone who would actually listen.
Isn't that the hardest part to sell to the jury? That she was suffering from psychosis?
Because it really kind of sounds like the actions of a person in the midst of a psychotic episode, if you're building a snowman with your kids and then you're killing them in the next breath. That sounds like psychosis to me. That doesn't sound like the best day ever. It doesn't feel like they're making their argument very strong to the jury. I don't know. That's my take. What's yours so far?

**Eric Faddis** (2:13)
Yeah, Tony, the prosecution has done a great job so far at supporting the defense's case. They started with Patrick Clancy, the husband. He was like the most sympathetic guy there is. The children, he's the biggest victim there is in all of this. He was almost every chance he could get, making points that were helpful for the defense.
Now that the prosecution has this theory where they're like, hey, she was running these errands, she knew what she was doing, this was all on purpose and was going to crescendo into this gleeful delight in the strangulation of her three children. It's just such a non sequitur. It goes so left that the jury is like what? That story doesn't even logically follow.

**Tony Brueski** (2:53)
I hope that's where they land with it. We obviously won't know till they go back there and start deliberating.
Kevin Reddington stood up in front of the judge and told him his client does not contest the government's case in chief. She killed her kids. We know that. That has been established. Obviously the prosecution wanted to get as much mileage out of that as they could because it's heartbreaking. It's horrible. But it's not up for debate. She killed the kids. The blood is hers. The exercise bands are the murder weapons. The DNA matches. He volunteered to save the prosecution from calling dozens of witnesses to prove chain of custody, which was going to be the next rabbit that they pulled out of their hat. The prosecution, if they wanted to win the case, which seemingly want this emotional, devastating testimony in front of the jury, but it's out now. It's not going to be there.
Are they happy about that? I mean, what is, who does this advantage more when you pull all of those pieces of devastating testimony out? And I guess my other question is, the prosecution didn't seem all that, like, you know, ready to fight to keep it in either.

**Eric Faddis** (4:05)
You know, under these circumstances, sometimes the defense attorney seems like, oh, hey, we want to save the jury a bunch of time. I'm looking out for y'all, like, this is, I want to make this easier on you guys. We're conceding this thing, and it looks like a really noble act, and perhaps it is, in a sense. But also, it is gaining them a tremendous benefit. But by not having to repeat some of the more potentially grisly and problematic details of the prosecution's case that would have been drilled into the jury's head over and over again, we're avoiding all of that. And so it not only doesn't look good to the jury, but tactically, from defense standpoint, I think it's a super smart move.