Lindsay Clancys Ex Husband Recalls One ER Doctor Wanted Her Admitted and Two Wanted a Day Program [mQ7aYhCLjvw]
The Commonwealth asked the children's father what happened when the family took her for help in December. COURT IS IN SESSION RIGHT NOW. Day 1 of the Lindsay Clancy trial is streaming live on this channel: Lindsay Clancy is on trial in Plymouth County, Massachusetts, charged with three counts of first degree murder in the deaths of her three children. Cora was 5. Dawson was 3. Callan was 8 months old. The country knows this one as the Duxbury Mom case. Be clear about what is being fought over. The Commonwealth is not arguing she was well. It has conceded she was mentally ill. What it contests is her capacity. The defense concedes the acts and contests criminal responsibility under the McHoul standard. The trial turns on what was happening inside her in the weeks before. This clip is eight minutes of the man living in the house. The witness is Patrick Clancy, the children's father and Lindsay Clancy's ex husband, on direct examination by the Commonwealth. This is the December 2022 crisis from his side of it. Asked his reaction when she told him what she was thinking, he says he wanted to support her, that he asked the questions back to her, and that her parents were already coming up regularly so they let them know. The prosecutor moves to the intrusive thoughts and asks whose word that was, his or hers. He says both. He says she described thoughts of hurting the children, and in the same answer describes her becoming convinced a stomach ache was something far worse. Then the prosecutor draws the boundaries, and this is the part everyone else flattens. Did she describe specific thoughts of how. No. Did she describe an external voice telling her to do it. He confirms she did not. He gives his own two questions and her two answers: do you have a plan, and is it disturbing to you. No, and yes. Then the sentence that inverts if you shorten it, so here it is whole: "So it was more something might happen than she might do something." He answers, "Yeah." A few lines later he adds something nobody asked him for: "I never saw Lindsay harm the kids." Then the question the sequence was built for. Were you concerned for the kids' safety at that time. "No, I wasn't." And why not. "Because she wasn't showing any intention of harming the kids." The last three minutes are the ones that stay with you. On December 15, 2022 she went to the emergency department at Mass General, after telling her father she wanted to die. Asked whether admission to McLean Hospital was recommended, he answers: "I remember there was one doctor who was in favor of that, and there were two others who were more in favor of a day program." Three physicians, one emergency department, one afternoon, and no agreement. The day program was Women and Infants Hospital in Rhode Island. She went in as scheduled. She was there for a day. The providers there suggested she call him to be picked up, and what he was told was that the program was not right for her. Then they returned home. The honest read: this is a husband's impression from December 2022, given under examination in 2026. He is not a clinician, and planning and psychosis are not mutually exclusive in law or in medicine. Nothing a lay witness saw settles criminal responsibility. What the record holds is that clinicians who examined her weeks earlier disagreed about whether to admit her, and both sides will want that to mean opposite things. Kevin Reddington has not cross examined this witness yet. KEY MOMENTS 0:00 - What he says he did the night she told him 1:16 - The two boundary questions, and both answers 3:22 - The line he adds that nobody asked him for 5:22 - Asked if he was concerned for the children's safety 6:51 - The emergency department doctors do not agree COMPLETE CASE COVERAGE justiceisaprocess.com SUBSCRIBE for daily trial coverage. CASE BACKGROUND REPORT: Complete case overview: the charges, the timeline, the people at the center, the McHoul standard, and the legal analysis behind Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Lindsay Clancy. PLAYLISTS AND RESOURCES Website: Full Trial Live Broadcasts: No Breaks Edition: Trial Analysis Podcast: Key Moments and Testimony: Subscribe for Daily Coverage: FAIR USE AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE This content is produced under Fair Use (17 U.S.C. 107) for news reporting, criticism, and educational purposes. We provide transformative commentary on public court proceedings, advancing public understanding of the judicial process through timestamps, analysis, and educational context. #JusticeIsAProcess #DuxburyMomTrial #LindsayClancy