\n<\/p>\n
It was a critical twist in the high-profile murder case of Lindsay Clancy, as a key prosecution expert argued that the Massachusetts mom was criminally responsible for the death of her three children.<\/strong><\/p>\n As a rebuttal witness, forensic psychologist Dr. Kirk Heilbrun testified before a Massachusetts court that he had compiled an extensive psychological report, which was based on three days of in-person clinical interviews.<\/p>\n His testimony directly undermined the main defense argument, which was that what had happened to Clancy was an inexplicable, near-fatal postpartum psychosis, or hearing voices she couldn\u2019t help but ignore.<\/p>\n Heilbrun\u2019s rigorous assessment offered the prosecution ample clinical proof to rebut post-partum insanity claims made by her defense attorneys.<\/p>\n Expert Dr. Heilbrun told the jury that Clancy was morally aware, knew what she was doing and had sufficient cognitive clarity and executive functioning to understand her actions during the killing at her family\u2019s home in Duxbury.<\/p>\n The defense counsel claimed that mental state was quite fractured due to changes in her psychiatric medication and so many mental health issues, while the state\u2019s expert said her responses represented intentional behaviors, not a psychotic break from reality.<\/p>\n The prosecution\u2019s case largely depended on the timeline of the five-year-old\u2019s, three-year-old\u2019s and eight-month-old\u2019s strangulation deaths.<\/p>\n Dr. Heilbrun pointed out that carrying it out must have been thought out carefully, through a series of steps, within 18 to 20 minutes while her husband was out briefly running an errand.<\/p>\n She said Clancy had a premeditated desire to end her life, but her intention to take her children with her was motivated by her own belief system, rather than a psychotic compulsion, in favor of her action, which was part of the state\u2019s case that she was legally responsible.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n