Prosecutors in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial began their closing arguments Thursday not by disputing the Connecticut native's mental illness, but by conceding it.
"There's no dispute that Lindsay Clancy was suffering from mental illness and that she tried to kill herself," Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague told the jurors. "The issue is whether at the time she killed Cora, Dawson and Callan, she knew the difference between right and wrong and whether she could conform her behavior to the requirements of the law."
To prove Clancy was criminally responsible for the killings, prosecutors tried to show that her mental illness did not stop her from thinking rationally or controlling her behavior. The Wallingford native faces life in prison if convicted of murder.
READ MORE: 3 arguments at the heart of Lindsay Clancy's defense
Her attorney, Kevin Reddington has maintained that Clancy was experiencing postpartum psychosis when she strangled her three children - 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan - in the basement of her family's Duxbury, Mass., home in January 2023.
With deliberations in the Clancy trial set to resume Monday, here are three arguments that stood out in the prosecution's case:
In calling more than 70 witnesses to the stand, prosecutors pursued a range of arguments over the nearly five-week trial. One of the most consistent was that the former labor and delivery nurse deliberately planned to kill her children.
Prosecutors said Clancy plotted to get her husband out of the house by sending him to pick up food and medicine for one of their children.
They highlighted phone records showing that on the afternoon of Jan. 24, 2023, Clancy searched for children's MiraLAX, a constipation medication, and for takeout at ThreeV Restaurant in Plymouth. She then looked up directions from her home to the restaurant.
In her closing arguments, Sprague said Clancy already knew where ThreeV was and roughly how long the drive would take because the family had been there at least three times. What she needed to know that night, Sprague said, was "how long specifically" her husband Patrick Clancy would be gone because "she knew she would have a limited amount of time to do what she wanted to do. And what she had decided to do was kill the children and then kill herself."
Sprague also emphasized that Clancy had already called CVS to confirm the medication was in stock before casually asking Patrick Clancy to stop there as he was getting ready to leave the house. That detail, Sprague said, showed that the errand was not a last-minute request, but something Clancy had been arranging for more than an hour.
"She didn't take advantage of this situation," Sprague told jurors. "She created this situation, this opportunity to do what she wanted."
Sprague said Clancy was depressed and no longer wanted to live, and that she needed to kill her children first because no one would be able to care for them the way she had. She called it the "protective factor."
All three rebuttal experts called by prosecutors testified that Clancy was suffering from mental illness, including bipolar disorder and depression. But they stopped short of concluding that she was psychotic at the time of the killings.
Despite her mental health struggles, the prosecution's experts said, Clancy could still understand that her actions were wrong and control her behavior, making her criminally responsible.
Under Massachusetts law, a person is not criminally responsible if a "mental disease or defect" left them unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct or to follow the law.
In closing arguments, Sprague pointed to several examples she said showed Clancy was still thinking rationally. She noted that Clancy disclosed thoughts of harming her children to her husband and mother, but not to her healthcare providers because she feared the children could be taken away.
Sprague also argued that the order of the killings showed careful thought. She said Clancy killed Dawson first because he was a "handful" and more likely to give her trouble.
"She knew that he was less likely to be compliant, to just go along," Sprague told jurors. "She knew that he might struggle. And so it made sense rationally to remove him and separate him first and kill him first."
Clancy told her husband and others that, prior to her children's deaths, she heard a male voice ordering her to kill her children so she could kill herself.
But prosecutors cast doubt on Clancy's claim, arguing that she never reported hearing what is called a "command hallucination" to her healthcare providers.
Dr. Gregory Saathoff, a University of Virginia professor, testified for the prosecution that several aspects of the voice Clancy described were not typical, including that she heard it only once and said it repeated the same command.
Kirk Heilbrun, a forensic psychologist and another prosecution expert, told jurors he also did not believe that Clancy experienced a command hallucination. Instead, he concluded she took her children's lives so they wouldn't "suffer" after she killed herself.
During closing arguments, Sprague described several "red flags" in Clancy's account: She heard the voice only once and gave differing versions of what it told her.
The attorney also argued that the alleged command was vague, leaving Clancy to make a series of choices about where and how to kill the children.
"She had to choose where - the basement," Sprague said. "She had to choose how - strangulation. She had to choose with what - exercise band."
Sign up for the Connecticut Briefing from CT Insider. Get the biggest headlines of the day from our network of journalists around the state.
This article originally published at Prosecutors agree Lindsay Clancy was mentally ill. 3 reasons they say the jury should still convict.