Trial Day 16

This court is now in session. You may be seated.

Good morning, Your Honor. May I proceed?

Yes, please.

Your Honor, [inaudible 00:00:05] in the matter of Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy. Ms. Clancy is present. She is represented by Attorney Kevin Reddington. The Commonwealth is represented by Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprang and Assistant District Attorney Shannon Buckingham.

Well, good morning everyone. Good morning, counsel.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Morning, Ms. Clancy.

Good morning, Your Honor.

Before we get going, we may have a little bit of a delay actually starting at this point through no fault really of anyone. So I just kind of wanted to come out so maybe we go sidebar, talk about what the day, the schedule is and just so everybody's aware that we're trying to get this moving. So counsel? All right. So at this point, what we're going to do is we're going to be in recess and we'll come back as soon as we can in regards to this. We'll resume the trial at that time. Okay. Thank you.

Court, all rise. [inaudible 00:01:11] this court is back in session. You may be seated.

Your Honor, for purpose of the record [inaudible 00:01:23] Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy. All parties are present excluding the jury.

All right. Counsel, we ready for the jury?

Yes.

All right.

Bailiff.

Court, all rise, please. Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. All persons having anything to do before the Honorable William Sullivan, Justice of the Superior Court now sitting in Plymouth within Florida Commonwealth. Draw nigh and give your attendance and you shall be heard. God save the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This court is now in session. Please be seated.

Good morning, Your Honor. May I proceed?

Yes, please.

Your Honor, before the court today, we have a continuation of the jury trial in the matter of Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy. Ms. Clancy is present. She is represented by attorney Kevin Reddington. And the Commonwealth is represented by Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprang and Assistant District Attorney Shannon Buckingham.

All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk.

You're welcome.

Good morning, members of the jury.

Good Morning, Judge.

Nice to see all of you. I appreciate you being here. So what I'm going to do is we're going to go over the questions that you know are coming, and then what we'll do is we'll get right back into the case. So the first question, has any member of the jury read, seen, heard, or overheard anything from any source about any aspect of this case that would affect your ability to be fair and impartial? Next question. Is there any other serious matter or concern bearing on your service as a juror in this case that anybody needs to bring to my attention? Again, thank you so much for following those instructions. And so what we're going to do now is we broke yesterday. There was a witness on the stand who was testifying on behalf of the defense. We're going to return to that witness at this point. And so if the witness could retake the stand at this time. Yeah.

Good morning.

Please stand in court.

Good morning. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give to the court and the jury in the matter now pending between the Commonwealth and the defendant shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

I do.

You may have a seat.

Thank you.

Good morning, Doc.

Good morning, Your Honor.

All right. Are you ready?

Thank you, Judge. Sir, I'm going to try to just redirect towards the interview that you had of Lindsay regarding her journey. On November 29th of 2022, do you recall which healthcare provider she visited?

I believe that Ms. Clancy saw Ms. Gelata for treatment.

That'd be Nurse Practitioner Gelata?

Yes.

Do you know what she complained on November 29th that her symptoms were?

She was having issues with unstable mood, depression, and psychotic symptoms of disassociation.

Did she also, on that date, November 29th of '22, complain that she had what is referred to as a flattened effect?

Yes. And that was also paired with derealization.

And what does that mean?

That an individual experiencing derealization doesn't feel things are real when they look around. They don't think that what they're seeing is in the reality that they're in.

Now at this time, towards the end of November into early December of '22, she was living in Duxbury. Is that correct?

That's correct.

And she's living with her husband and her three children, three young children, correct?

Yes.

And was the husband working?

Yes.

Where was he working?

Pardon me, Attorney-

Where was he working?

He was working for Microsoft, but in a home office that was in the basement of the house.

And she's obviously taking care of Callan, the infant and Dawson and Cora, correct?

Yes.

And the kids were in school a couple of days a week in the preschool, the Little Sprouts or something like that, right?

Yes.

So did she improve at that point, sir, or did she end up going to South Shore Perinatal Clinic on December 2nd?

She did not improve. She was getting worse. She did go to the South Shore Perinatal Clinic.

And would that be on December 2nd?

December 2nd, yes.

And what was the reason? What were her complaints that brought her to South Shore Perinatal Clinic on December 2nd?

She felt that her brain was damaged. She felt that she should kill herself, and she's never going to get any better.

Did she also express fear that people could hear her thoughts and that anything adverse would happen in her life regarding being a mother and having children?

Yes. That's called thought broadcasting.

And what was her concern about the children?

Her concern was that when people could hear her thoughts, her children would be removed from her care.

Now, and keep your voice up, please.

Yes.

Did she indicate, and I quote, that she had "Bad and intrusive thoughts" and she "Didn't even feel that they were like mine, telling me I should kill myself? My brain is damaged. You're never going to get better."

Yes.

And did that type of intrusive thought or persecutory thought continue for a period of time?

Yes. It got worse.

Did it get so bad that she ended up doing something?

Yes, that's correct.

What did she do?

She called the suicide hotline.

And do you know when that was, sir?

That was December 4th, 2022.

Did she receive any help from the suicide hotline?

She did not.

Why is that?

They told her she did not meet the standard of care because she did not have a plan.

Did she call the suicide hotline again, if you're aware?

Yes, she did.

Do you know when that was? Was that in December?

Yes. I believe that was perhaps the following week around the 15th, but I'm not positive about that.

Did she receive help on the second call that she call the suicide hotline?

No, she did not.

Can you tell us at this point now, we're talking about in December, let's say towards December 15th or thereabouts, what were her symptoms at that time regarding any complaints or observations that she had about paranoia or things of that nature?

Yes. She was having paranoid symptoms of psychosis and she was getting more depressed.

Did she make any comments about DCF or the police at that point?

Yes.

Now, to your knowledge, did she ever have any involvement in her entire life with the police?

Never.

And did she express that she was in fear or concerned about DCF and/or the police in middle of December '22?

Very much so.

What did she say?

She was worried that her children would be removed from her and that she would never see them again.

Now at this point, what medication was she on? First paragraph, page nine.

She started to take, at that point, Seroquel, Remeron, and Klonopin.

Did she make any complaints at that point about the effect, if any, of medications?

Yes.

What did she say?

She said she felt like a zombie.

Did she present with any particular medical observation that you refer to?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Well, paragraph one on page nine, you indicate she presented with anhedonia.

Yeah.

What does that mean?

Anhedonia is a word that means without pleasure. When someone has anhedonia, they cannot enjoy life, they don't laugh, they have no pleasure.

Continuing on into December, what was her status of her condition of depression and symptoms of paranoia and intrusive thoughts, et cetera, that we've talked about?

It continued unabated.

On December 15th of '22, right before the holidays, did she go somewhere?

Yes, she did.

Where did she go?

She went to the clinic in Rhode Island, Parents and Women's Clinic, partial day hospitalization program.

And she didn't get any help there either, right?

That's correct.

Did she go at some point around that same timeframe to Mass General Hospital?

Yes, she did.

Well, you knew that she worked at Mass General Hospital for nine years, right?

That's correct, in labor and delivery.

She wasn't there visiting friends, right?

That's correct.

Why was she there?

She was there in the emergency room to seek help.

Did she get help on that day?

She did not.

So after going to the MGH ER, at some point in December 30th, what did she do?

She went back to the emergency room at Mass General.

Now, for example, on December 15th, did Pat Clancy, her husband, get involved with her medical treatment?

Yes.

And did the medical records indicate that he did something with her?

Yes, he brought her to the partial hospitalization program in Rhode Island.

Did he also bring her to the Mass General Hospital ER?

Yes, he did.

Did he also bring her to see the doctor or the nurse practitioner, Gelata, and complain about the medication?

Yes.

So December 30th or 31st of 2022, she was admitted voluntarily to McLean, right?

That's correct, yes.

How long was she there for?

She was there till the 5th. She was discharged January 5th, 2023.

Was that a voluntary discharge? They cleared her as well to be discharged?

Yes.

That was not what is referred to as AMA or against medical advice, right?

Yes.

Yes, what?

Yes, it's not AMA. It's not against medical advice. She was following hospital guidelines. She was discharged accordingly.

And she wanted to go to her daughter's, some function?

She wanted to go to her daughter, Cora's birthday party, which was held on the 7th of January.

Now, at this point, what was her status? Was she weaned off of medication or on her way to being weaned off of medication when she got out of McLean?

I believe so, yes. She was being tapered down on her medication.

And what was the medication that she was tapered down on?

I believe it was Seroquel and Klonopin.

Did her intrusive thoughts and the paranoia, did that abate? Did that stop?

It did not.

Now, when she was home in the month of January after Cora's birthday, which I think was on January 7th, did she continue to have these intensive, intrusive thoughts?

Yes.

Can you tell us, when we say intrusive thoughts, is she referring to intrusive thoughts like you might think of something coming up next week that's bothersome? Or is this a indication, in your opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to what she was experiencing at that point in January of 2023?

She wasn't just having everyday thoughts that we all have, reminding ourselves to do something which we make note of, and then we move on. Intrusive thoughts are unrelenting. They don't stop. They're what we call ego dystonic. You don't want them. They keep interfering with your ability to get through the day.

Did she have, at this point, intrusive thoughts continuing regarding voices in her head that she heard constantly?

Yes.

What were these voices saying to her?

They were getting worse and they were telling her to kill herself.

And as January continued, she was, to your knowledge, using her computer to look up drugs and interactions and side effects and things of that nature?

Yes.

If a person is in a psychosis or as I think you said premorbidly psychosis, are they able to do things like look up things on a computer?

Yes.

And are you aware that she actually at one point looked up, can you cure, I think a sociopath, a psychopath or something like that?

A sociopath. Yes. She was-

Was that indicative of her feeling that she is a homicidal maniac and has to have some help or is that in the same timeframe that she was Googling all of the effects of medications on a human being?

Objection.

Is it an objection?

Yes.

Yeah. Sustained.

So during the period that she was Googling... Well, let me ask you, what was she Googling?

Googling words about sociopath, sociopathy. Can you treat a sociopath? What are hallucinations?

What else?

Bear with me one moment. It's in her mind.

Well, you had a chance. Did you look at the Google searches that she had done that's in evidence and the jurors were able to look at it?

Yes.

Did she continue to Google the effects of medication, psychosis, numbness, heaviness, unable to... Things like that?

Yes. All things that are related to the ones she was healing-

And if a person is in a psychotic state, are they able to continue to Google and use a computer to look things up?

Yes.

They're able to use a phone?

Yes. People who are in that state can do things they've done before. New tasks may be difficult like changing a tire, but if you looked up things on the internet, you can look them up again. If you drove a car, you can drive her car.

Now the morning of January 24th, I believe she went somewhere. Is that right?

Yes.

Where did she go?

She'd taken her daughter to a pediatrician, a standing pediatrician appointment.

And is it your understanding to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that a person who's in a psychotic state is able to drive a car for a short distance, go to an appointment and interact and talk to people?

Yes. They can do everyday tasks of living.

So the fact that she's not talking about the unicorns in the corner and she's not slurring her speech and she's not unable to walk, to your opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, does that mean that she's not in a psychotic state?

It does not.

Would you tell us after she took Cora to the doctors and the jurors have had a chance to look at the exhibits, there's photographs between her and her husband, Pat, back and forth. In the afternoon, what did she do?

She built a snowman in the backyard with two of her kids.

Did she later in that day Google directions to a restaurant, 3V Restaurant, I believe?

Yes.

Is that something that a person can do when they're in that type of a state?

Easily. Yes.

Did the voices or the intrusive thoughts to your interview and your understanding abate a stop at that point on January 24th?

No.

Did they continue?

Yes.

And did she communicate by text with her husband about getting dinner and getting something from CVS?

Yes.

And what was it? Was it Pedia-Lax?

Pedia-Lax or Flexilax. It's a stool softener for her child.

And that's something that was prescribed by the doctor, right?

Yes.

Does that make sense that if somebody is in a state where they're having these symptoms, that they're able to remember that the doctor wanted the child to have Pedia-Lax and she tells her husband to get Pedia-Lax?

Yes. It does not interfere with that type of everyday living.

She indicated to you, sir, that that evening after the husband had... Oh, by the way, was it your understanding from talking to her that the husband had taken trips, gone away for weekends, gone on ski trips, had brunches with his friends and was out of the house on a regular basis?

Yes.

That night is when the children were killed. Is that correct?

Yes.

And we've heard repeatedly about the circumstances of the going out the window and the weather and the damages and the injuries and going to the hospital. Doctor, based on your review of all of the medical records, did you administer any testing, by the way, to her, like you were talking about psychological testing?

Yes.

And what were the psychological tests that you performed?

Initially, I did a mini mental status exam, MMSE. It's just a common test of orientation.

I'm sorry, I didn't understand. MMSE? What's that?

MMSE, Mini Mental Status Examination. Very common test.

Okay.

Demonstrating whether someone has a field of knowledge, who's the president, what direction should you travel, and basic things like, where are you? What day is today? Who are you? And then I did another test as well.

What other test was that, sir?

That's the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, H-A-R-E.

What does that do?

That's a measure of antisocial personality disorder.

And do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty based upon the scale that you used to assess whether or not Lindsey Clancy had anti-personality disorder?

Yes.

What was the result?

The result is that she does not have any type of antisocial personality disorder, also known as sociopathy.

In addition to reviewing the medical records and testing and meeting with her, did you also interview third parties?

Yes.

Is that referred to in the psychology as collateral contacts?

Yes.

And you reviewed and interviewed a number of people in her family or friends or people in her social circle. Is that correct?

Yes.

Can you tell the juror, sir, to a reasonable degree... Well, let me ask you this. Are you familiar with Mass General Hospital doing a major research program on postpartum psychosis?

Yes.

And did they publish an article, a significant article regarding the circumstances, symptomology, and things of that nature of postpartum psychosis?

Yes.

And would you agree, sir, that the symptoms of postpartum psychosis would be depression? Is that one?

Yes.

Did Lindsay, to your opinion, have depression?

Yes.

And were there indications from your review of the medical records that she felt low, flat, tearful, emotional, crying?

All of those things, yes.

Did she also express anxiety, feeling tense, nervousness?

All of those things, yes.

Did she also express feelings that she was withdrawn, not able to socialize with people, wanting to talk or be near others?

All of those things as well, yes.

She indicate that she felt tired, heavy, without energy?

Absolutely, yes.

Did she indicate that she was having a harder time taking care of her children?

Yes.

Did she indicate that she was having issues regarding personal hygiene, not bathing, things of that nature?

Yes.

Did she indicate that she had severe confusion and actually hearing or seeing things that aren't there? In her case, who would not be saying that would be visual hallucinations, but did she complain of hearing things that weren't there, hallucinations?

Yes.

Did she complain of thoughts and beliefs that were not within reality and that she was in a disassociated state out of reality?

Yes.

Did she indicate that. Did you observe that there were circumstances where she exhibited increased energy, activity, productivity, otherwise known as hypomania?

Yes.

Did she complain that she had racing thoughts, a quote, "busy brain," end quote, increased creativity?

Yes.

And when she said in your review of the medical records that she was having a busy brain, did she express the fact that she would get confused and that she though her brain was damaged?

Yes, that's correct.

Was she restless and agitated, unable to keep still?

Yes.

Unable to sleep?

Yes, extremely unable to sleep.

So can you tell this jury, sir, in your opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty based upon all of what you have reviewed, all of what we have talked about, all of what you have considered as to whether or not at the time of this incident resulting in the killing of these three little kids, that she was suffering from a mental disease or a defect such as that she lost substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her act or in the disjunctive was unable to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law?

Yes.

Tell the jury what your opinion is, please.

My opinion is that she did have indeed a mental disease or a defect. That's a legal construct, not a DSM-5 one, but she had bipolar disorder with postpartum psychosis. In addition, she was unable to conform her behaviors to the rule of law, and she had no appreciation for the wrongfulness of her act.

Thank you, sir.

You're welcome.

All right, come off.

Good morning, sir.

Good morning.

So yesterday, when you first took the stand, Attorney Reddington asked you a little bit about your background. Recall that?

Yes.

And you, in this field of being a psychologist and a forensic psychologist, you circulate a curriculum vitae where all that is outlined, right?

Yes.

And fair to say you testified yesterday, and on your curriculum vitae, you speak briefly about the fact that you have previously testified for the Commonwealth, you said, as well as for the defense, correct?

Yes.

You referred to defendants and respondents, right?

Yes.

And so one of the things that you've done in the past is to be what's called a qualified examiner, right?

Yes.

You are currently not actively doing those examinations, are you?

I actually have done one, but I don't actively do that anymore.

Okay. And so in those respects, when you say you testify for the Commonwealth, is that primarily the work that you would do where you say you testify for the Commonwealth?

Yes.

And in those evaluations that you do, is it fair to say that you're actually an independent contractor with a company that contracts with the Department of Correction on those cases?

Those are what qualified examiners are, that's correct. That's how you become a qualified examiner through the DOC.

Right. But an examiner, a qualified examiner, is retained or takes work in doing evaluations in order to perform independent assessments, are they not?

Yes.

So they're not hired by the Commonwealth?

They are because the company that retains the qualified examiners is hired by the Commonwealth, and these forensic psychologists are then appointed cases to do these types of examinations. So it's under the big umbrella of the Commonwealth.

So yeah, big umbrella, Commonwealth meaning Department of Correction, an agency that is under the seal of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. But as far as when we talk about Commonwealth, like Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy, that's the prosecution. In those proceedings, the Department of Corrections sometimes is the moving party, right?

Yes.

And sometimes it's the district attorney's office who's the moving party.

Yes.

But it's never the defendant who's the moving party.

Never.

And in those types of proceedings, sometimes if you opine a person is what they call sexually dangerous, you would testify for the Commonwealth, right?

Yes.

And if they're not, or if you find they're not sexually dangerous, you'd testify for the respondent?

Yes. We're neutral.

So you're not testifying for the Commonwealth as in the prosecution, you're testifying under the big umbrella of the Commonwealth.

I think it's a matter of semantics because if you do an evaluation and you rendered an opinion that this patient is sexually dangerous, when you testify, you are working with the district attorney's office and you review your case with the DA. And the way I see it is that you're testifying for the Commonwealth as an independent examiner, but on that day you're testifying for the Commonwealth or that DA's office.

And you haven't done that work in closely rough a decade, fair to say?

No, that's not true.

Well, pre-pandemic, correct?

That's not true.

So when was the last time you testified for the Commonwealth, meaning the prosecution, in an SDP proceeding?

So I was assigned a case through Suffolk County, the Sexual Dangerousness Unit by ADA Kelly Ryan, K-E-L-L-Y. And I did that evaluation on July 2nd, 2026.

And have you testified at a probable cause hearing for that?

No. I wrote a report which was in lieu of testifying.

Where you opines that somebody was sexually dangerous?

Yes.

Okay. Fair to say though, the majority of your work here in Massachusetts over the last few years is contracted with the Committee for Public Council Services, correct?

Yes.

And for the fiscal year of 2024, you were paid by CPCS in the open checkbook for approximately $340,000 worth of time and work?

That's about right. We get paid a fixed rate. It's a government rate that's assigned to all examiners.

And for the fiscal year of 2025, it was approximately 300,000 that you were paid through the Committee of Public Council Services?

That sounds about right.

You also indicated yesterday that you have known Attorney Reddington for a number of years, correct?

Yes.

Fair to say you've done quite a bit of work with him over the years?

That's an expansive term, but I work with him.

It just requires a yes or a no.

Yes.

Okay. And you've also testified that you have your doctorate in clinical psychology, right?

Yes.

And you testified yesterday, or you told us a lot about your military experience, but as you sit here today, you are not a prescriber of medications here in the Commonwealth, are you?

I am not.

You don't have any-

I was not yesterday either when I was asked about that.

Right. You told us all about your experience in the military and having that limited ability to prescribe years ago. But as far as you sit here today, and in your evaluations that you do today, you don't do forensic psychiatry evaluations, do you?

That's correct, but I just want to clarify for a point of accuracy. I was not in the military. I worked for the Department of State.

I believe I said your work with the military, but thank you. So here in Massachusetts, you conduct evaluations in forensic psychology, correct?

Yes, for the most part.

Okay. And you are aware that there are particular standards for forensic psychologists working within the criminal justice system, right?

Yes, but just to be a little more clear, forensic psychologists such as myself also work for police departments doing evaluations for fitness for duty. So though they're law enforcement, they're not engaged or accused of any criminal activity.

Well, I'm referring to your role when you come into the court and you testify as you are today as a forensic psychologist. That's what I'm referring to. You're aware that there are particular standards in place by the ABA Criminal Justice, Mental Health Standards is one of them, right? You're familiar with that?

Yes.

And you're familiar with the American Psychological Association Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology?

Yes.

And fair to say that with those standards, they're not required, but people are encouraged to follow them, right?

I think that's fair to say.

And the ABA Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards actually identify the different types of roles that forensic evaluators have in the criminal justice system, including evaluating, consulting, and treating, right?

Yes.

And so fair to say Standard 7-1.3 indicates that for evaluative experts, the obligation is to make a thorough and impartial assessment based on sound evaluative methods to reach an objective opinion. Would you agree with that?

Yes.

And so again, in the American Psychological Association Specialty Guidelines, Section 1.02 indicates that forensic practitioners strive to be unbiased and impartial and avoid partisan presentations of unrepresentative, incomplete, or inaccurate evidence. Would you agree with that?

Yes.

Is that a standard you strive to follow?

Yes.

Okay. In this case, you indicated that...

In this case, you indicated that you've been with the case since February 4th of the year 2023, correct?

Yes, 41 months.

And you've authored a report, you said, in June, I believe, of 2026, correct?

Yes.

But you've also offered other reports or updates of the defendant's condition over the years. Is that fair to say? Yes. And you provided a report, an update, I should say, in July of 2025?

Yes.

Do you recall that? And in that report, you identify that as of July 23, 2025, that the defendant was residing at Tewksbury Hospital. Do you recall that, putting that in?

Yes. Yes.

And that there was a planned transfer to Worcester Recovery Hospital or Worcester Recovery Center and Hospital. Do you recall writing that?

I don't know if it was a plan. It was a hope and a goal, but it was not a official plan.

Well, I can provide you with your report if you'd like to review, but it reads, "Currently, Ms. Clancy resides at Tewksbury Hospital with a planned transfer to Worcester Recovery Center and Hospital."

That sounds right.

Does that sound right?

Yes.

Okay. And that she is presently medication stabilized and is in the process of discontinuing most, if not all, psychotropic medications demonstrating an emerging capacity to stabilize without them. Do you recall writing that?

Yes.

So in July of 2025, it was your opinion that she was stable and she would be hopefully, as you say, transferred to a different facility, correct?

Yes.

And you're aware that currently she's still at Tewksbury Hospital?

Yes.

And currently she's still taking psychotropic medications?

That's true. Yes.

I think you also write in that report... Well, strike that. Going back to your most recent evaluation in June of 2026, you would agree with me that in an evaluation for criminal responsibility, being a forensic psychologist, it's really important to be as accurate as possible in your reports, correct?

Yes.

You want to make sure you get the facts right, right?

Yes.

Because your evaluation's not just based on what you learn from the individual you're evaluating, but also an independent review, an unbiased review of the records of the facts. Is that fair to say?

Yes.

Okay. So in your report, you indicate that the period of evaluation that you had with this individual is approximately 45 hours. Do you recall writing that and testifying about that yesterday?

I think I actually said I've met with her a total of 45 hours, but the evaluation was more than 35 hours and I think it was 37 hours.

Okay. And you also said yesterday that in addition to that, you've met with her several other times for a total of approximately 60 times at least?

Not 60 additional times, but in total, yes, since the court trial has started a few weeks back.

Okay. Is that typical for you to spend 35 hours with the person that you're evaluating?

It does happen, but it's not typical.

You also indicated yesterday that how you became involved in this case is Attorney Reddington called you and asked you to go check on the, I think you said mental wellbeing. Is that what your testimony is?

Mental health or mental wellbeing at the time of her admittance to Brigham Women's Hospital, which was roughly late January 2023.

And your first time there was February 4th, correct?

Yes.

Were you examining her as a potential patient at that point?

I was examining her as a colleague and friend of Attorney Reddington to see how she was faring. There was no predetermined notion whether I would be interested or willing or even offered the opportunity to take the case. I was just going to meet with her given the fact that she was in a bed, an ICU, locked to the bed frame, and no one was able to visit her.

So you went in to visit her?

Yes.

And when you went in to visit her, you indicated that she had recently been extubated in your testimony yesterday. You're aware from the review of the records that she was extubated on January 28th?

Yes. So the difference between January 28th and February 4th, I didn't know the date at that time, but I knew she was able to breathe on her own and express verbal language. Yes, expressive language.

You're aware that she had been communicating with staff at the hospital, including psychiatrists, right?

I don't know if I knew at that time, but I knew she had been speaking with the doctors and staff.

Well, a person who-

But not specifically who it was.

A person who goes through major trauma and is at a hospital and has made suicidal attempts, in your opinion, it would behoove the hospital to have that person talk to a psychiatrist, correct?

Objection.

Overruled.

Yes.

Now, in addition to meeting with the staff and the psychiatry team, prior to your arrival, were you aware that she had an attorney that had came to visit her a few times? Not Mr. Reddington, but a different attorney.

Yes. I don't know how many times, but I am aware that there was an attorney, Gelb, who was somehow involved in the case.

Okay. So there was somebody that came in to see her prior to you coming in to see her?

Yes.

Now you testified yesterday that you performed a mental status exam that day on February 4th. Do you recall that?

I do.

Where in your report or the previous report from July or your June report do you outline the results of your mental status exam?

There is none because if someone's not capable of just explaining who they are, where they are, and if they're clear of mentition and thinking, then I'll meet with them. But if they're not, I won't. So it's a sine qua non. You do that just to make sure you can keep meeting with them and that they are able to understand what you're talking about. Standard practice.

But you indicated yesterday that she did know who she was, right?

Yes.

She didn't know where she was.

Yes.

But I believe your testimony was that she did remember what happened, but she was foggy as to what happened.

Yes, that's correct.

‍ And she actually, according to your testimony yesterday, asked you for your phone or to access your phone to make a phone call. Is that correct?

Yes.

So she was able to communicate with you?

Yes.

She asked you for something and you clearly understood what she was asking for?

Yes.

And you indicated that she asked to call her husband, right?

Yes.

Had you spoken with her husband before that time?

I did not speak with him at that time. I didn't know him, and I had not spoken to him prior to that time.

So how'd you get the phone number to call him?

I did not have the phone number to call.

So she provided you with a phone number to dial so that she could call him on speakerphone, right?

Yes.

And she remembered the number?

Yes.

And so you indicated on that day, on February 4th, that she left a voicemail, right?

Yes.

So in that voicemail message, were you able to identify that it was Patrick Clancy's phone? Did it say, "Hey, this is Pat, leave a message," or something to that effect?

I don't remember the salutation from the voice recording, but there was no evidence that it was not Patrick Clancy.

And as far as her confidence in the number, she gave it to you with no issue, did she not?

That's correct.

She didn't have her own cell phone to refer to, did she?

That's correct.

Or a pad of paper where all the numbers were written down?

She didn't.

You indicated that she left a message. Do you recall what the message was?

She expressed a love for him, want to know how he was doing, and that was pretty much it.

And again, you said that you didn't write down what the mental status exam was, but the fact that she was able to relay that message, was it clear and coherent what she was saying?

Yes. Mental status exams are multiple levels. Different things are asked. If you don't know where you are, it doesn't mean you can't have a conversation with someone.

And she was able to have a conversation with you that day?

Yes.

Now, you said you went back on February 6th and met with her again, correct?

Yes.

And you guys made another attempt at calling Patrick?

Yes.

Again, did you remember the number?

No.

Did you have it stored in your phone?

No.

Did she provide you his phone number to call?

Well, it was in my phone. I could just look it up in my phone. I didn't write it down. I didn't enter his name. Either she gave it to me again or I just looked it up from two days prior.

But you don't recall, as you sit here today, which it was, do you?

No.

And you didn't write a report about that interaction, did you?

I did not.

So in the second phone call, you were able to actually hear that she was talking with Patrick on the other end, right?

Yes.

And at that time when you were now second time meeting with her and having this phone call, were you aware that she had already changed her healthcare proxy from Patrick to her parents?

I did not know that.

Did you talk to Patrick in between the 4th and the 6th to find out if he had tried to come in to visit her?

I didn't speak to him at all, so I knew nothing about what his plans or intentions were.

Your testimony yesterday was that she had called him to tell him that she loved him and to see where they were at, right?

Yes.

That was your testimony? Meaning what? Their relationship?

I made no interpretation of what that meant. She left the message and we left it at that.

But in that subsequent conversation that you were a witness to where they were speaking on the phone and she told them about these voices or explained about the voices, did she ask about the kids?

She did not, as I recall.

Now, in all of the times over the course of the last few years that you've met with Ms. Clancy, how many times has she told you since the incident that she's heard a voice currently?

She has not heard voices since the event took place in 2023.

And you've now testified that over the course of a period of time that she did hear voices, right?

Yes.

And is that based on one of these 35 hours worth of conversations you had with her? How do you know that?

Well, they were collateral contacts. I spoke to other people who I asked the nature of their interactions with Ms. Clancy, and it was not a fishing expedition. I asked them if they can tell me what happened.

I'm asking you-

But they disclosed. Pardon me.

You have to let them finish.

So they disclosed information to me that Ms. Clancy shared that information with them.

So who did she tell that she had a voice that told her to kill herself?

She spoke to a chaplain named Sheila Cavanaugh, who I spoke with. And Chaplain Cavanaugh told me that Ms. Clancy told her that she heard a male voice instructing her to first kill her children and then to kill herself.

So the same message that she delivered to Patrick that day on the phone, you heard from a chaplain at Brigham and Women's Hospital after the incident occurred in January of 2023?

Yes.

And so, from all of the records that you reviewed of her treatment and all of the interviews with her family, who did she tell that she heard voices telling her to kill herself?

I believe she told family members.

Which family members?

I believe she may have said that to her mother. She, I believe, told her husband that she felt like killing herself as well.

In the records with the providers, you're aware you've reviewed them all and you've sat through all of their testimony. You're aware that when she described intrusive thoughts, she never referred to them as a voice telling her to kill herself, did they? Did she?

No, she was referring to-

It's just a yes or no.

No.

So as far as her reports of these intrusive thoughts that appear over and over in the notes, you would agree that it was simply when asked about what they were, it was simply that she felt like she wanted to die, right?

Yes. And-

It's just a yes or no.

Yes.

Now, in your report, you go through what's called the sources of information. You're familiar with that part? It's pretty standard in a forensic report, right?

Yes.

Where you list all of the things that you've gone through and reviewed in compiling the information for your report.

So in my sources of information, I reviewed the following, but that list is not limited to the following. So there might be other pieces of information that I may have reviewed, but didn't put in the list.

Okay. So not on the list are the Tewksbury Hospital records that you said you reviewed recently, correct?

Yes. The 7,000 pages of those hospital notes. I didn't review all of them at the time of the report.

Did you review records from the Spaulding Rehab facility?

Yes.

That's not contained though in your list in your report, is it?

I don't think it is.

And you don't cite to any of the Spaulding Rehab records in your report coming to your ultimate conclusions, do you?

I do not.

And how about the women and infant records? Did you list that in your sources of information section?

I do not. She was there for one day.

Okay. But you've testified about that, right?

Yes.

Did you review them at all?

Yes.

And as far as the McLean records, you don't list the McLean records as a source of information in your report, do you?

I did not, but I did review them.

Now, you've described and you describe in your report that you believe that Ms. Clancy was hypomanic, right?

Yes.

And I believe you testified to some extent, and you've written in your report that you identify her as euphoric, excessively energetic for three months postpartum. Do you remember writing that in your report?

Yes.

That you note that she exercised early, right?

Yes.

But you're aware that she exercised pretty frequently before birth?

Yes.

And while pregnant with Callan?

And while post- pregnancy with her children as well, yes.

So it was part of her routine, fair to say, right?

It's part of everyday living. Things sometimes change when you have a baby and a few weeks later, if you're still doing the same exercise, it's sometimes a reflection of something other than committed to fitness.

And you identify what you refer to as a marketing scam being that Beachbody business, right?

Yes.

But you're aware that that's a series of workouts in a line of nutritional shakes and exercise plans that millions of people engage in across the country?

Yes.

So it's not a scam. It's just a way of a lifestyle choice.

If you do something for marketing and you lose all your money and there's no effort to get that back, it's a scam.

You've asked some, you figure out what its definition is.

Sorry. Did she tell you she lost money with a Beachbody?

Yes.

When was that?

It was summer of 2022 after her third child was born.

No. When did she tell you that she lost money?

I don't recall that.

And is it in your report?

It may be, but I'm not sure.

Well, I have it with me or do you have it up there? Can you look and point to me where she told you, at what point she told you she lost money in this endeavor?

I don't know where it is, if it's here. It didn't seem relevant whether she lost money in a scam after her child was born in terms of the big picture of what we're here for today.

You've described it as a scam because you said she lost money. So wouldn't it be important to know if she actually lost money?

I don't really think so.

Okay. You also identify the five-mile race that she completed. Was it a five-mile race or a 5K race?

Well, I wasn't sure which it was. I was told initially it was a five-mile race. After my report was submitted, it may have been with reflection, a 5K race.

And you've sat in the courtroom each and every day of this trial, so you've heard all the testimony about the evidence, right?

Actually, I've not been here every day, but I've been here most days. Yes.

You're also aware that prior to the kids being born, that she considered herself a runner?

Yes.

Right? She had a treadmill at her house. She went to the gym and used the treadmill. She ran other races.

Yes.

Now in your report, you indicate that part of the timeline of her medication and her decline is the September time period where she was prescribed the Zoloft, right?

Yes.

And you indicate that she had reported, and it's reflected in the records, that she increased the Zoloft and that's when she couldn't sleep for 48 hours straight, right?

Yes.

And you're aware of what the instructions were having reviewed everything in this case, what the pill bottle said as far as the plan for the Zoloft?

I'm not sure specifically the incremental plan to go from 25 milligrams to 50 milligrams of Zoloft.

Well, I have the bottle. Exhibit number two. Sertraline, that's Zoloft, right? Brand named Zoloft?

Yes.

It says, "Take one oral tablet once a day for one week, then increase to two tablets daily thereafter."

Right.

Right on the label.

Right. That's 25 milligrams to 50 milligrams.

And again, having been at the majority of this trial, are you aware that there were 30 in that prescription and 23 left in the bottle when they were inventoried?

Yes.

And those are pills that were in Patrick Clancy's possession at the time of these events in January, you're aware, right?

Yes. I believe they were in the middle console on the lower part of his truck. The lower part of the middle console in his truck.

So if there's only seven pills missing from a prescription that requires the person to take a particular dosage for one week or seven days, how did she double the dose?

Well, sometimes when you are given medication, you may have medication of the same exact dosage and the same exact medication another time. And you therefore may have pills that you didn't take the previous month or the month before that. And sometimes people just finish what they've had before and before they go on to the most current dose. So I am aware of what you're referring to, but I don't know if there are other bottles there that she may have had medication still in those pill bottles.

Well, I'm looking at exhibit number one, a record from CVS Pharmacy, which all of these bottles are from. And the only time a prescription for sertraline is spelled is on September 15th, 2022 for 30 pills. You aware of that?

Yes.

So there's no prior prescription for sertraline, is there?

I don't think so.

Now in your report, you also refer to 11/29. And your report on page eight, paragraph two says on 11/29 Paula Gelata. Is that supposed to be Rebecca Gelata?

Yes.

Okay. So it also says that she prescribed Seroquel to treat Ms. Clancy's anxiety, depressed and unstable mood and psychotic symptoms of disassociation and derealization. Where is that in Rebecca Gelata's record that that's why she prescribed Seroquel?

I'm not sure.

And in fact, you were present when Ms. Gelata testified and said that she prescribed it at 25 milligrams for insomnia, not for anxiety, depression, unstable mood, or psychotic symptoms. Did she not?

It's used off-label. It's sometimes medications are made from anything. Sometimes they're used off-label, not for what they're prescribed for. So that's a medication that is used for sleeping, although it's an antipsychotic.

But you're aware from reviewing the records and hearing testimony that that initial prescription was for a 25 milligram dose, correct?

Yes.

I know you're not a prescriber, but you're aware that a dose for treatment of bipolar is significantly higher than 25 milligrams?

Yes.

Now, you've described in your testimony in this court repeated auditory hallucinations about wanting to kill herself or that she should kill herself and that she is damaged or her brain is damaged, right?

That's correct.

Now, did you have a conversation with her in one of these 35 hours about that particular voice or thought or belief?

So when I meet with Ms. Clancy, it's not as if I have one conversation on one of the 35 hours. To have thoroughness and exactitude, one does what we call intra-rater reliability. In other words, over the period of time to confirm what someone says to you to help endorse the veracity or accuracy of that, you'll ask that question in a multitude of different ways. So I don't just ask once, "Did you hear a voice on that day?" I asked in different ways over time, and her answers pretty much remain the same.

So when you quote in your report, when questioned about the nature and content of these horrible thoughts, Ms. Clancy stated, "Like a really bad and intrusive thought that I didn't feel like it was mine telling me I should kill myself. Your brain is damaged. You're never going to get better." Where does the quote come from?

Where does the quote come from?

Right.

She had said that to me.

To you at some point?

Yes.

Okay. And this is well after the incident occurred, correct?

Yes.

And you reviewed all the records to know that she did not endorse that she was hearing a voice to any of her providers between September and January 23, 2023.

So when someone-

Yes or no, sir.

That's a difficult question to say yes or no from, because sometimes if someone says something that's inaccurate, it's not an affirmatory or a negative response, that's misleading.

My question to you though was where in the records from September to January 23, 2022 did she tell any of the providers she saw that she heard a voice telling her to kill herself?

It's not in the records.

Okay. And you're aware that she has spoken to several forensic psychiatrists and psychologists over the course of this case, right, not just yourself?

Yes. She spoke to three retained experts in April 10th and April 12, 2026. And then on June 12, 2026, 1, 172 days after I initially met with her, then 1,220 days after I met with her. That's the third examiner.

Well, you're aware that she. You're referring to Dr. Heilbrun, Dr. Mack, and Dr. Saathoff, correct?

Correct.

But you're aware that she also spoke with Dr. Resnick and Dr. Spinelli well before that?

On May 5, 2023, approximately 90 days more or less later. Yes.

And you're also aware, sir, that she never told Dr. Resnick in a recorded interview, nor Dr. Heilbrun, Dr. Mack, or Dr. Saathoff that she heard.

Objection.

Sustained.

Your testimony is that she told you that she heard this voice. Fair to say she identified to you that it was her own voice that she heard, correct?

That's not correct.

So she told you that she heard a male's voice?

That's correct.

When?

On the night of the incident, January 24, 2023.

No, I'm referring to the fact that you've now testified that she heard this, as you call it, a persistent... What's the word you used? Persecutorial voice over the course of time. Was that your testimony?

So you're referring to the ongoing negative voices or intrusive thoughts that she was hearing where she felt, in fact, other people could hear those voices, thought broadcasting. So there are multiple layers here of hearing intrusive thoughts.

But I'm asking-

Hearing voices so loud that she believed other people could hear her. Those are two separate phenomenon, if you will.

In those voices that you are saying she told you she heard about wanting to die or to kill herself or her brain was damaged prior to January 24, 2023, did she say it was her own voice she could hear? It was her own thoughts.

She did not identify whose voice it was.

Fair to say the only time she specifically said she heard a male voice was when she recounts the events on January 24, 2023.

Yes, that's accurate.

And you'd agree that there's a difference between the idea that somebody believes their thoughts would be or could be heard by others and the belief that they are being heard by others, right?

Yes. It's a matter of semantics and it's a level of degreeism. Believing and knowing, two totally separate things.

And believing, having a fixed belief like that would be a delusion, right?

That's correct. A delusion is a fixed false belief that is unshakeable and not something you get rid of either through your own efforts to tell the voice to go away or other people saying, just for example, try to stop thinking about it.

And the idea that she believed that something was wrong with her brain or that if people could know what was happening, that the police might get involved, that is something that could happen if somebody articulates those things, right?

Absolutely. It's common sense.

Now in your report, you also indicate that in your testimony, you indicated that on January 5, 2023, that that's when Ms. Clancy was discharged from McLean Hospital. And I think your testimony was that she went in there on Seroquel and I think you indicated Klonopin, correct?

Yes.

And your report says Seroquel and Klonopin. You recall that?

Yes.

You're aware that based on the medication journal that is in evidence, that she hadn't taken Klonopin since November 27, 2022?

She had a prescription for that and I think she may have taken some, but may not have been on a regular basis.

But you have seen the pages of her journal to know that she's pretty diligent about saying exactly what she took on each particular date?

Yes.

Leading up to her stay at McLean and even after.

Yes.

Now, sticking with these medications for a second, you have testified, I think this was yesterday, you testified that you were familiar that after Dawson's birth that she had sought some medication, correct?

Yes.

And I believe you testified yesterday that she was on trazodone, but in fact, she was prescribed Zoloft after Dawson and reported she didn't ever take it, right?

That's correct. So after my testimony, I reviewed that and I confabulated the trazodone with another medication, the Zoloft.

And again, you've talked a lot about that the medications that she was taking, the different medications didn't provide her with any sort of relief. So it's important to know the different medications she was taking and what the reactions were, right?

I don't know if I talked a lot about it. I was asked questions. I answered them honestly. They didn't provide relief. I would agree with that. And that was the whole point of her seeking help.

And her history, whether it be medication history, a social history, a family history, those are all important things overall for you to look at and examine when coming to ultimate conclusions, right?

For everyone, yes, of course.

So it's important to be accurate when you are recalling or reporting that information?

As much as possible as one can be. Yes, that's true.

And as far as the medication goes, I think you testified yesterday that she also took medication in nursing school, correct?

Yes, she did.

And having met with her as many times as you did in reviewing all these records, you're aware that those were in fact Prozac, Wellbutrin, and propranolol that she took in nursing school?

That's correct. That was for what's called glossophobia. G-O-L-L-O-S-P-H-O-B-I-A. It's fear of public speaking. Most common fear for Americans. 85% Americans have public speaking phobia. Pretty commonplace. But yes, those are the medications that she took while she was in nursing school to go through the program.

But that's not what she testified to yesterday.

I think I mentioned only one or two medications, she had taken three.

Okay. And you also mentioned-

... you also mentioned, today in your testimony, you were asked about the date of December 15th. And I believe your testimony was, "That's the day she went to Women and Infants." Is that correct?

I believe so, yes.

If I show you the record, is it fair to say she didn't go to Women and Infants on the 15th, but it was actually December 20th?

Right. I believe she went to the Mass General Hospital ER on the 15th.

And you said in your testimony today, that at the Mass General ER, she did not get any help. Do you recall that testimony?

She declined admission to the inpatient. She didn't want to do that.

She didn't not get help.

Can he answer? Can he answer?

Go ahead.

Thank you, Your Honor. We have something called the subjective baseline. The cognitive appraisal theme. Help is in the eye of the beholder. If she felt she didn't get help, that's how she felt.

Well, sir, that wasn't the question. And your testimony was, "She went to the ER and did not get help." That was your testimony, not hers.

Well, my testimony is based on my evaluation of her. This is what Ms. Clancy shared with me. Who am I to doubt what she believes, or doesn't believe, about the offer for treatment or help? It's her opinion.

She chose to decline the bed at McLean on December 15th, did she not?

Yes.

And she then indicated to the Mass General Hospital that she was going to opt for an outpatient program at the Women and Infants, correct?

Yes.

That's what's in the records?

Yes.

And did she tell you that as well?

Yes.

And, as it pertains to the Women and Infants, again, after your review of the records, you're aware that a referral had been made to her well before her visit to the ER on the 15th for that same program?

I believe so.

Now, you've indicated in your testimony that it's your opinion that her diagnosis is bipolar disorder with psychotic symptoms, correct?

Yes.

And fair to say, prior to your report, you had reviewed Dr. Resnick's report?

I'm not-

Objection.

Can I see counsel step up? Go ahead, counsel.

So the question I believe was, did you review a report of Dr. Resnick in all your sources of information and before you came to a conclusion about diagnosis?

No, I did not.

Well... One moment. Sorry. On page four of your report, were you-

Hold on one second. Okay. I'm sorry, counsel.

On page four of your report where you list the sources of information, you do identify as number 24, forensic psychiatric evaluation of Philip J. Resnick from 9/27/24, do you not?

I do.

And so that's something you reviewed?

I didn't draw my opinion.

That wasn't the question, sir.

[inaudible 01:15:08] Objection.

All right. Hold on. Ask the question again. Go ahead.

Did you review his report?

Can we have a sidebar? That's not the question.

So the question, sir, is did you review Dr. Resnick's report prior to authoring your report or coming to your conclusions about diagnosis?

I reviewed part of that report. And in my report, I perused through the reports. I did not review all of that report from Dr. Resnick or Dr. Spinelli for that matter.

Okay. Now in talking about your review of records, you indicated that there are several thousand pages of Tewksbury Hospital records, correct?

7,001 page.