A forensic psychologist testified that Lindsay Clancy was experiencing a serious mental illness when her three children died in January 2023 and that, in his professional opinion, she should not be held criminally responsible for what happened.

Dr. Paul Zeizel gave his testimony Wednesday during Clancy’s triple murder trial. He told the court that Clancy was suffering from a mental disease or disorder that severely affected her understanding of her actions. According to Zeizel, she did not fully recognize that what she was doing was wrong at the time.

Clancy has not disputed that she caused the deaths of her three children, Cora, Dawson and Callan, on Jan. 24, 2023. The children were five years old, three years old and eight months old, respectively. Afterward, Clancy attempted to end her own life and survived with severe injuries that left her paralyzed.

The central issue at trial is therefore not whether Clancy was responsible for the physical acts, but whether her mental condition prevented her from understanding the nature and wrongfulness of what she was doing.

Her defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, has argued that Clancy was experiencing postpartum psychosis at the time. Zeizel agreed with that assessment and also discussed a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.

Examination of Clancy’s Mental Health

Zeizel explained that his conclusion was based on a broad review of information about Clancy’s mental health. He examined her medical records, spoke with relatives and other people who knew her, and conducted numerous interviews with Clancy herself.

He reviewed her condition during the final months of 2022 and the weeks leading up to January 2023. During that period, Clancy reportedly experienced increasingly disturbing thoughts that became more persistent as time went on.

Zeizel distinguished these experiences from ordinary unwanted thoughts that people occasionally have. He described Clancy’s experiences as intrusive and increasingly difficult for her to control.

According to his testimony, the thoughts eventually became associated with what he characterized as auditory hallucinations. Clancy reportedly believed that the voices were not her own, although she was unable to identify where they came from.

Zeizel said these experiences became more severe during the final month before the children died. He testified that the voices were connected to thoughts about ending her own life and appeared to become increasingly intense.

Clancy’s Internet Searches

The psychologist also referred to searches Clancy had conducted online shortly before the deaths. Among them were questions about whether people described as sociopaths could be treated and searches concerning hallucinations and psychosis.

Zeizel said these searches were significant because they suggested that Clancy was trying to understand unusual experiences she was having.

At the same time, he noted that psychological testing did not indicate that Clancy had an antisocial disorder or sociopathic personality. In his assessment, her behavior was better explained by a severe mental disorder rather than a pattern of antisocial personality traits.

Ability to Perform Everyday Tasks

During cross-examination, Plymouth Assistant District Attorney Shanan Buckingham questioned Zeizel about Clancy’s ability to function on the day the children died.

Clancy had been able to drive, attend a medical appointment and communicate with her husband about obtaining medication for Cora. The prosecutor questioned whether those actions were consistent with someone experiencing severe psychosis.

Zeizel explained that psychosis does not necessarily prevent a person from completing familiar, routine activities. Someone experiencing psychosis may have considerable difficulty processing unfamiliar situations or making new decisions while still being capable of performing tasks that have become part of an established daily routine.

He therefore argued that Clancy’s ability to drive or attend appointments did not, by itself, demonstrate that she was mentally capable of understanding the consequences of her actions.

Buckingham also questioned whether concealing or controlling symptoms of psychosis would require a significant degree of conscious effort.

Zeizel responded that the answer could depend on the intensity of the hallucinations. If the voices were extremely strong, maintaining normal behavior could become more difficult, while less intense experiences might be easier for someone to conceal.

Questions About the Voices

One of the most significant parts of the prosecutor’s questioning involved whether there was direct medical documentation showing that Clancy had reported hearing voices before the deaths.

Buckingham asked Zeizel where, in Clancy’s medical records, she had specifically told a health-care provider that a voice had instructed her to harm herself.

Zeizel acknowledged that such a statement was not contained in the medical records.

He nevertheless maintained that his conclusion was based on the totality of the information he had gathered from interviews, records and his repeated conversations with Clancy.

Buckingham also asked whether Clancy had continued experiencing voices after the incident. Zeizel testified that she had not reported hearing voices since the deaths.

This point raised questions about how her mental state had changed after January 2023 and whether the symptoms that Zeizel described were limited to the period surrounding the incident.

Questions About Zeizel’s Role

The prosecutor also challenged Zeizel regarding his relationship with Clancy and whether his extensive contact with her could affect his objectivity.

Zeizel agreed that impartiality is a fundamental principle of forensic psychology. He explained that forensic evaluators must maintain a distinction between providing treatment and conducting an independent evaluation.

Buckingham referred to a court document in which Zeizel had described Clancy as his patient. Zeizel explained that because he had examined and evaluated her, he used that terminology in the filing.

He testified that he had met with Clancy approximately 60 times since their first meeting in February 2023. Around 20 of those meetings had occurred after the trial began.

According to Zeizel, these repeated meetings gave him a more detailed understanding of Clancy’s psychological condition and helped him form his opinion regarding her mental state and criminal responsibility.

Buckingham asked whether such a large number of meetings was normal for a forensic evaluation. Zeizel acknowledged that it can happen but said that the number of sessions he had with Clancy was not typical.

Observations at Tewksbury Hospital

The prosecutor also questioned Zeizel about Clancy’s behavior while she was receiving treatment at Tewksbury Hospital, where she had remained while awaiting trial.

Buckingham referred to hospital records describing Clancy’s behavior around the birthdays of her children and the anniversary of their deaths. The records indicated that on some of those difficult dates, Clancy accepted medication, interacted with selected patients, spoke with staff and spent time in common areas such as the television room.

Her parents also visited her and brought food.

The prosecution appeared to use these observations to question whether Clancy’s ability to participate in ordinary social activities was consistent with severe mental illness.

During questioning by the defense, however, Reddington asked Zeizel whether these activities necessarily reflected the seriousness of her psychological condition. Zeizel said they did not.

He explained that a person can participate in routine social activities while still experiencing significant psychiatric symptoms. Observable behavior alone, he suggested, does not necessarily provide a complete picture of someone’s internal mental state.

Ongoing Suicidal Thoughts

Zeizel also testified about Clancy’s condition while she has been hospitalized.

Although she has not made another attempt to end her life since the events of January 2023, Zeizel said she continues to experience suicidal thoughts. Because of this ongoing concern, hospital staff members remain with her to help ensure her safety.

He described her condition as fluctuating, saying that she experiences periods that can be particularly difficult.

During the trial, Zeizel has continued observing Clancy to assess her psychological stability and determine whether she remains competent to participate in the legal proceedings.

His testimony is central to the defense argument that Clancy’s actions occurred while she was experiencing a severe psychiatric disorder. The prosecution, meanwhile, has questioned the basis of his conclusions, his extensive contact with Clancy and the absence of direct medical records documenting some of the experiences he described.

Ultimately, the court will have to consider the competing evidence concerning Clancy’s mental state at the time of the children’s deaths. Zeizel’s testimony provides the defense with expert support for its position that Clancy’s illness significantly affected her ability to understand the wrongfulness of her actions, while the prosecution continues to examine whether the evidence supports that conclusion.