LINDSAY CLANCY: PSYCHIATRIST SAYS SHE WAS “LIKE A PUPPET” WHEN HER CHILDREN WERE KILLED

A dramatic clash between psychiatric experts has emerged in the trial of Lindsay Clancy, as jurors heard two fundamentally different explanations for what happened on the night her three children were killed.

The defense’s final witness, renowned forensic psychiatrist Dr. Phillip Resnick, testified that Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis and was “frankly psychotic” when she killed her children in January 2023.

“LIKE A PUPPET”

Resnick told jurors that Clancy described experiencing a command hallucination — a voice that she believed was directing her actions.

He also described what psychiatrists call a “delusion of influence,” in which a person feels that an outside force has taken control of their body.

Resnick said Clancy felt as though she were in a dream state and had no control over herself, comparing the experience to being a puppet controlled by someone else.

According to Resnick, Clancy also believed she was protecting her children by bringing them to heaven rather than leaving them to live without her.

He characterized the alleged killings as a form of “altruistic filicide,” a term used to describe a parent who irrationally believes killing a child is an act of love or protection.

 THREE CHILDREN, ONE CENTRAL QUESTION

Clancy is accused of killing her children — Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months — at the family’s Duxbury, Massachusetts, home on January 24, 2023.

She has pleaded not guilty, with her defense arguing that severe postpartum mental illness left her not criminally responsible for her actions.

Her defense has presented testimony about depression, medication problems, hallucinations and alleged psychosis in an effort to explain her mental state at the time.

PROSECUTORS OFFER A VERY DIFFERENT EXPLANATION

The prosecution’s psychiatric expert, Dr. Avram Mack, reached a dramatically different conclusion.

Mack agreed that Clancy suffered from major depression and anxiety, but testified that he found no evidence of psychosis, mania or hypomania.

He told jurors that Clancy remained capable of understanding right from wrong and described the killings as an organized, methodical sequence rather than the actions of someone completely controlled by hallucinations.

Mack also pointed to Clancy’s words “Go to God” as evidence that she understood what she was doing and recognized that her children were innocent.

 THE ANDREA YATES CONNECTION

Resnick’s testimony has attracted additional attention because he previously testified in the case of Andrea Yates, the Texas mother who killed her five children and was ultimately found not guilty by reason of insanity.

Resnick said his assessment of Clancy led him to believe she was experiencing a similarly severe psychotic condition, although prosecutors have emphasized differences between the two cases.

 THE DEFENSE HAS NOW RESTED

Resnick’s testimony marked the end of the defense’s presentation.

Prosecutors have begun presenting rebuttal witnesses, including Mack, to challenge the defense’s interpretation of Clancy’s mental state.

Closing arguments are expected as the trial approaches its conclusion.

 TWO EXPERTS. TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STORIES.

Was Lindsay Clancy experiencing a severe psychotic episode in which she believed an outside force controlled her?

Or was she suffering from serious depression while remaining capable of understanding the consequences of her actions?

That question now sits at the heart of the case.

The jury must ultimately decide whether mental illness made Clancy legally not responsible — or whether she understood what she was doing and could control her actions.

Read the original PEOPLE report