Lindsay Clancy’s lawyer slams psychiatrist for ‘smiling’ during tense court exchange

Warning: This article contains discussion of child abuse and murder which some readers may find distressing

The high-profile murder trial of a mother who strangled her three young children has reached boiling point.

Lindsay Clancy is currently standing trial in Massachusetts for the tragic killings of five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson, and eight-month-old Callan in January 2023, and while the courtroom is tense enough due to the abhorrent nature of the crimes, a fiery exchange between her defense attorney and a prosecution witness has gone viral online.

The defense does not dispute that the mother-of-three committed the devastating acts before attempting to take her own life by jumping out of a window - which left her paralyzed from the waist down. Instead, the central question for the jury as they prepare for closing arguments is whether Clancy can actually be held criminally responsible for the deaths of her children.

Her legal team has argued that she was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis and command hallucinations (auditory experiences where a person hears a voice telling them to do something) at the time, noting she had been prescribed 13 different psychiatric medications over just four months.

However, tensions inside Plymouth Superior Court completely boiled over today (August 24) as defense attorney Kevin Reddington cross-examined prosecution psychiatrist Dr Avram Mack.

Mack previously testified that he believed Clancy suffered from major depression rather than psychosis, concluding that she fully understood killing her children was wrong.

During the questioning, Reddington pressed the doctor on the specifics of postpartum psychosis and whether he recognized the symptoms of the disease, and Mack insisted he could not easily answer as he claimed the condition is not a true diagnosis and that the American Psychiatric Association only considers it a proposed illness at this point.

The back-and-forth became heated and took a turn when Mack appeared to smile while testifying over Zoom - which infuriated the 75-year-old veteran defense attorney.

Reddington whipped: “What are you smiling for, sir? This is not funny."

The clash drew audible reactions from those inside the courtroom as Reddington continued to scrutinize the psychiatrist's conclusions about Clancy’s deteriorating mental state.

When Mack repeatedly referred to her condition simply as 'postpartum', Reddington noted that mothers are technically postpartum their entire lives after having a child, before snapping: "Postpartum is not a disease, doctor."

As Mack grew hesitant to answer certain questions, frequently responding that he had already addressed them on his first day of testimony, Reddington refused to accept his evasive responses, before requesting: "Why don’t you say it again, sir?"

The clashes between the two became so severe that Judge William Sullivan was forced to interject to keep the entire trial on track. He said: “Doctor please. Listen to the question, and answer the question."

For his final question, Reddington asked if Clancy's thyroid should have been checked via bloodwork when doctors were prescribing her so many different psychiatric medications.

But when Mack again rejected the framing of the question and claimed he was not sure if that specifically answered it, Reddington fired back, 'I don’t care', before telling the judge he was done with the witness.