The Lindsay Clancy Trial, Part 2: The Commonwealth's Own Experts Push Back

In Part 2 of our coverage of the Lindsay Clancy trial, we hear from Lindsay's family, the hospital chaplain who spent hundreds of hours with her after the deaths of her children, and Dr. Phillip Resnick—a nationally recognized forensic psychiatrist and expert on filicide who evaluated Lindsay and concluded she was not criminally responsible.

Then the Commonwealth calls three psychiatric experts of its own in rebuttal.

They ultimately agree with prosecutors on the question that matters most: Lindsay was criminally responsible. But getting there produces some of the most surprising testimony of the entire five-week trial—and at times, the Commonwealth's own experts seem to complicate the case prosecutors spent weeks building.

One exchange in particular forces a Commonwealth expert to confront the prosecution's own opening theory head-on. His answer is one of the biggest moments of the trial.

Finally, both sides make their closing arguments and give the jury two dramatically different explanations for the same evidence.

Lindsay Clancy killed her children. That has never been disputed.

After five weeks of testimony, the question the jury must finally answer is the one this entire trial has been building toward:

Was she criminally responsible when she did it?

🧵 New to This Feels Criminal? Start with The TFC Essentials—our curated collection of the episodes that best capture what this show is all about. Join our email community and get instant access: https://thisfeelscriminal.link/essentials

Hang with us:

Follow Us on Instagram

Like Us on Facebook