Dr. Avram Mack admitted under cross-examination that Lindsay Clancy “was in a serious psychiatric state and she was suffering” before she strangled her three children.
The prosecution psychiatrist, testifying for the state in Clancy’s Massachusetts trial, gave that concession on Thursday as defense attorney Kevin Reddington pressed him about her mental condition. Mack, 47, still maintained that Clancy knew her actions were wrong and should be held criminally responsible for the killings of her children, ages 5, 3, and 8 months.
Reddington is pushing for a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict, arguing Clancy was gripped by severe postpartum psychosis and hearing voices at the time. Mack pushed back directly on that diagnosis during his testimony. “I didn’t find any evidence of psychosis in her record,” he said. “She did not display psychotic features.”
The exchange grew tense as Reddington repeatedly grilled the psychiatrist on his conclusions. “I didn’t see any evidence of any psychotic features throughout the medical record,” Mack said, standing firm under questioning.
Clancy’s defense has centered on her documented spiral into mental illness following the birth of her third child. Medical records introduced earlier in the trial showed she had been hospitalized twice for psychiatric care and was on more than a dozen medications in the months leading up to the January 2023 killings. Her husband, Patrick Clancy, previously testified about her declining condition and his efforts to get her help.
Mack’s testimony presented a complicated picture for jurors: acknowledging Clancy’s genuine suffering while rejecting the legal threshold for insanity. His admission that she was in a “serious psychiatric state” gave the defense a notable soundbite even as he disputed the psychosis claim.
The trial has drawn national attention to postpartum mental health and the rare but devastating cases of maternal filicide. Prosecutors have emphasized Clancy’s planning and awareness, noting she researched methods of killing and called her husband to the house before the attacks. The defense has countered that her actions were driven by delusion and command hallucinations telling her to kill the children.
Closing arguments are expected to follow soon after the defense concludes its case.