A forensic psychologist has questioned whether Lindsay Clancy should have faced a traditional murder trial at all, calling the prosecution a “witch hunt” and arguing that psychiatric commitment could have offered another path. Dr. Leslie Dobson, who is not a witness in the trial, believes prosecutors should have considered a negotiated plea followed by civil commitment rather than pursuing murder convictions. Her criticism comes as a separate psychologist who evaluated Clancy testified that she was experiencing postpartum psychosis when she killed her three children.
Dobson discussed the case with investigative reporter Anne Emerson during an episode of “Criminally Obsessed.” The forensic psychologist argued that treating Clancy like a conventional murder defendant failed to account for the severity of the mental illness alleged by her defense.
Clancy’s attorneys do not dispute that her actions caused the deaths of Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, inside the family’s Duxbury, Massachusetts, home on January 24, 2023. Instead, the defense maintains that Clancy was experiencing postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder, leaving her unable to understand the wrongfulness of her actions or control her behavior.
Dobson believes prosecutors could have offered Clancy a plea agreement that included long-term psychiatric confinement rather than taking the case before a jury. Her “witch hunt” description reflects her opinion about the decision to prosecute. It does not represent a finding made by the court, and Dobson did not personally evaluate Clancy for the trial.
Civil Commitment Would Not Necessarily Mean Freedom
Dobson’s argument does not mean Clancy would have been permitted to return home without supervision. Civil commitment can involve involuntary confinement in a secure psychiatric facility when a court finds that a person meets the legal requirements for hospitalization.
Massachusetts law also provides a commitment process after a defendant is found not guilty because of mental illness or another mental defect. Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 123, Section 16, prosecutors or hospital officials may petition a court for commitment following such a verdict.
Initial commitments are subject to judicial review, and additional periods of confinement may be ordered when the applicable legal standards continue to be met. However, prosecutors were not legally required to accept the alternative proposed by Dobson. They maintain that Clancy planned the killings and was criminally responsible for her conduct.
Defense Psychologist Says Clancy Was Not Criminally Responsible
Inside Plymouth Superior Court, clinical and forensic psychologist Paul Zeizel offered testimony supporting the defense’s argument. Zeizel evaluated Clancy after the killings and has continued meeting with her in the years since.
In his professional opinion, Clancy was experiencing a mental disease when she killed the children. “She had bipolar disorder with postpartum psychoses. In addition, she was unable to conform her behaviors to the rule of law, and she had no appreciation for the wrongfulness of her act,” Zeizel testified.
The psychologist said Clancy’s symptoms had persisted for weeks before January 24, 2023. “Did she complain of hearing things that weren’t there, hallucinations?” defense attorney Kevin Reddington asked. “Yes,” Zeizel responded.
Zeizel also testified that Clancy believed other people could hear her thoughts. “Her concern was that when people could hear her thoughts, her children would be removed from her care,” he explained.
Prosecutors Challenge Claims About Alleged Voice
The prosecution questioned whether Clancy reported hearing a specific voice before the killings or only described it afterward. “Fair to say the only time she specifically said she heard a male voice was when she recounts the events on Jan. 24 of 2023?” prosecutor Shanan Buckingham asked. “Yes, that’s accurate,” Zeizel answered.
That distinction could be important because the defense has argued that an alleged male voice instructed Clancy to kill the children and herself. According to ABC News, Clancy’s medical records from before the killings did not document her hearing voices, although they did include reports of intrusive thoughts.
Zeizel testified that psychotic symptoms can fluctuate, allowing someone to appear functional at certain times while experiencing hallucinations or delusions at others. The prosecution maintains that the lack of a documented command hallucination before the killings weakens the defense’s version of events.
Commonwealth Questions Psychologist’s Objectivity
Buckingham also challenged Zeizel over the length of time he spent evaluating Clancy and suggested that his extensive involvement may have affected his objectivity. “Are you familiar with the concept of confirmation bias?” the prosecutor asked.
Buckingham then questioned errors involving dates and medications in his testimony. “If I show you the record, is it fair to say she didn’t go to Women and Infants on the 15th but it was actually Dec. 20 And I believe you testified yesterday that she was on trazadone, but in fact she was prescribed Zoloft.”
The prosecutor also emphasized that Zeizel spent approximately 35 hours evaluating Clancy before forming his opinion. “How many defendants that you’ve evaluated for criminal responsibility have you spent 35 hours evaluating?” Buckingham asked. “One,” Zeizel replied.
The prosecution’s questions appeared designed to suggest that Zeizel became unusually invested in Clancy’s case. His lengthy evaluation could also be interpreted by the defense as evidence that his conclusion was based on an extensive review rather than a brief meeting.
Psychologist Describes Clancy’s Grief Over Her Children
Reddington pushed back after the prosecution appeared to question whether Clancy had asked about her children. “Did she ever mention her children?” the defense attorney asked. “She really loved them and misses them and thinks of them every single day almost every moment of the day,” Zeizel responded.
Clancy’s grief after the killings does not, by itself, establish whether she was criminally responsible at the time. However, the testimony supports the defense’s portrayal of her as a mother who loved her children while experiencing a severe psychiatric crisis.
The prosecution has presented a sharply different interpretation, arguing that Clancy deliberately sent her then-husband, Patrick Clancy, to collect medication and dinner so she could be alone with the children.
Jurors must determine whether Clancy’s alleged mental disease prevented her from understanding the wrongfulness of killing Cora, Dawson and Callan or conforming her conduct to the law. Their verdict will decide whether she faces criminal punishment or enters Massachusetts’ psychiatric commitment system.