Lindsay Clancy’s defense rests at trial over whether postpartum psychosis drove her to kill her kids

BOSTON (AP) — The defense rested its case Friday in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial after eliciting several days of testimony about her mental state before and after she strangled her three young children.

Prosecutors then began calling rebuttal witnesses in the trial, which is likely entering its final days. Closing arguments are expected next week.

Clancy, 36, has pleaded not guilty to murder charges in the deaths of her children Callan, Dawson and Cora Clancy, who ranged from 8 months to 5 years old. They were found in the basement of the family’s home in coastal Duxbury, Massachusetts. Clancy jumped from a second-story window after strangling the children and remains paralyzed from the waist down.

Prosecutors argue that Clancy, a former labor and delivery nurse, planned the killings.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This story includes discussion of suicide. If you or someone you know needs help, the national suicide and crisis lifeline in the U.S. is available by calling or texting 988.

Clancy’s lawyer, Kevin Reddington, hasn’t disputed that she killed the children but says she should not be held criminally responsible because she had postpartum psychosis, a rare mental illness linked to the stress, sleep deprivation and hormonal changes that follow childbirth.

He sought to bolster that defense by having the jury hear from more of Clancy’s family members, who detailed her worsening mental health and attempts to fix it through psychiatric treatment and medications before the January 2023 killings. The jury also heard from a psychologist and hospital chaplain who met with Clancy after the killings.

For his final witness on Friday, Reddington called Dr. Phillip Resnick, a forensic psychiatrist and expert in filicide, or the killing of a child by a parent.

Resnick testified that Clancy was “clearly psychotic” on the day she killed her children and was not in control of her actions.

“It was almost like she was a puppet and someone else was pulling the strings,” said Resnick, who testified for the defense in the 2006 trial of Andrea Yates, the Texas mother who drowned her five children in 2001.

Resnick said he spent hours interviewing Clancy four months after the killings and believed she tended to minimize rather than exaggerate her symptoms. He said she suffered from severe depression, showed evidence consistent with bipolar disorder and reported hearing a voice commanding her to kill her children.

Resnick described several categories of filicide, including killings involving abuse. Others involve psychosis or what he calls “altruistic” filicide — a killing committed “out of love rather than hostility.” He said he found Clancy’s case involved both of the latter categories, but he didn’t find evidence of abuse.

Resnick said Clancy had a delusional belief that if social services took the children or if she killed herself, her children would suffer without her, and believed that they would be better off dying with her and going to heaven.

“She believed that she was doing what was right for her children,” he said.

On cross-examination, prosecutor Jennifer Sprague challenged that characterization.

“So it’s better to kill them than have them taken away?” Sprague asked.

The judge struck the question.

Prosecutors argue that Clancy contrived to get her husband out of the house the day of the killings. They have attempted to show that while she was getting treatment for anxiety, insomnia and depression, she wasn't suffering from psychosis.

The spelling of Clancy’s first name has been corrected in the headline to Lindsay instead of Lindsey.

Judge William Sullivan speaks to the prosecution as they discuss the preparation of jury instructions during Lindsay Clancy's murder trial, Thursday, Aug. 20, 2026, in Plymouth, Mass. (AP Photo/Josh Reynolds, Pool)

From left, prosecutor Shanan Buckingham, and Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague confer as lawyer Kevin Reddington speaks during proceedings in the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy, Thursday, Aug. 20, 2026, in Plymouth, Mass. (AP Photo/Josh Reynolds, Pool)

Lindsay Clancy, looks toward reporters in the courtroom during proceedings in her murder trial, Thursday, Aug. 20, 2026, in Plymouth, Mass. (AP Photo/Josh Reynolds, Pool)

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A Texas court on Friday slashed a $50 million judgment to $1.5 million against Infowars founder Alex Jones after he falsely claimed the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school mass shooting was a hoax.

The ruling does not affect a $1.25 billion judgment against Jones in Connecticut, but is a legal victory for him after he and his company, Free Speech Systems, were found liable for damages for claiming the mass shooting didn’t happen.

Despite the multiple financial judgments against him in Connecticut and Texas, Jones has yet to make any payments as he appeals the amounts and the attempt to liquidate his company.

The unanimous opinion by the Texas Third Court of Appeals found that Sandy Hook parents Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis did not show evidence that harassment inflamed by Jones’ hoax claims rose to a level that would allow them to exceed the state’s $750,000 cap on damages for each plaintiff.

Heslin and Lewis’s 6-year-old son Jesse Lewis was among 20 children and six educators killed in the attack in Newtown, Connecticut. The lawsuit and the 2022 verdict against Jones marked the first time he was held financially liable for peddling lies about the massacre, claiming it was faked by the government to tighten gun laws.

Jones, who portrayed the lawsuit as an attack on his First Amendment rights, conceded during the trial that the attack was “100% real” and that he was wrong to have lied about it.

However, on his streaming show Friday, he called the Texas ruling “a gigantic victory for the First Amendment,” and said he will continue to appeal the case to the state Supreme Court to get the remaining damages thrown out.

“I got lawyers who are good constitutional lawyers and they are not backing down,” Jones said.

Mark Bankston, an attorney for Heslin and Lewis in Texas, shrugged off the appeals court ruling as “irrelevant” given that Jones still faces massive financial judgments.

“The families care not at all about this irrelevant ruling which affects only two of the 19 claims they all share. Jones still faces over a billion dollars of liability, so this changes absolutely nothing. All it does it highlight the absurdity of Texas law," Bankston said.

Heslin and Lewis told jurors in the case that an apology wouldn’t suffice and called on them to make Jones pay for the years of suffering he has put them and other Sandy Hook families through.

Jones’ trial attorney Andino Reynal had said immediately after the verdict that Jones would appeal the damages amount, and predicted it would be reduced to $1.5 million.

Jones and his company have filed for bankruptcy, and those legal proceedings continue. The satirical website The Onion also moved to take over Jones' Infowars platforms and turn his bullhorn of conspiracy theories into parody sites.

Jones gave up the Infowars brand in April and moved to a new location, switching his shows to new websites and posting them on his personal X account. The Onion, meanwhile, has set up its own Infowars webpage on its website, running videos of shows parodying Jones.

FILE - Right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones speaks to the media after arriving at the federal courthouse for a hearing in front of a bankruptcy judge in Houston, June 14, 2024. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip, File)