1.Phillip Resnick — Direct/Cross
411 linesBAILIFF: This court is now in session. Please be seated.
COURT CLERK: Good morning, Your Honor. May I proceed?
THE COURT: Yes, please.
THE COURT: All right. Well, good morning, everyone. Good morning, counsel. Good morning, Ms. Clancy.
MS. CLANCY: Good morning.
THE COURT: All right. So can I see counsel sidebar, please?
MR. REDDINGTON: All set, Your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. SPRAGUE: Your Honor, could we, before the jurors come out?
THE COURT: Sure. Could you hold on?
THE COURT: All right.
BAILIFF: Court, all rise, please.
BAILIFF: Hey, hey, hey, hey. All persons having anything to do before the Honorable William Sullivan, Justice of the Superior Court now said to cometh within the floor of the Commonwealth. Draw nigh and give your attendance and you shall be heard. God save the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This court is now in session. Please be seated.
COURT CLERK: Good morning, Your Honor. May I proceed?
THE COURT: Please.
COURT CLERK: Your Honor, before we go any further, we have a continuance to the jury trial in the matter of Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy. Ms. Clancy is present. She is represented by Attorney Kevin Reddington. The Commonwealth is represented by Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague and Assistant District Attorney Shanan Buckingham.
THE COURT: Good morning, everyone.
JURORS: Good morning.
THE COURT: What I'm gonna do is, I was looking for my little cheat sheet about the questions, and I thought you could probably say them along with me at this point. But let me ask them, just to make sure everybody's able to follow those instructions. So has any member of the jury read, seen, heard, or overheard anything from any source that would affect your ability to be a fair and impartial juror?
JURORS: No.
THE COURT: Next question. Is there any other serious matter or concern bearing on your service as a juror in this case anybody needs to bring to my attention?
JURORS: No.
THE COURT: All right. Again, as always, thank you for following those instructions. Now, what the schedule for today is that I would expect a longer day. All right? Similar to some of the days we had earlier this week. So what we're gonna do is we're gonna return to the defendant, who's gonna call their next witness. And that witness is gonna be testifying by Zoom or over the monitors that you're gonna have here. Just there was an earlier witness, I think, who had also testified that way. And so the delay we had coming in here was just setting that up. Should be all set. They kept me away from all the technology, so I think it should be working pretty well. And so, and then at that point, we'll just...
THE COURT: We'll see; we'll deal with after this witness, and then we'll go on from there. Okay? All right. Thank you. Mr. Reddington?
MR. REDDINGTON: Thank you, Judge.
COURT CLERK: Would you please raise your right hand, sir?
COURT CLERK: Would you please raise your right hand, sir?
COURT CLERK: Do you solemnly swear that the testimony and the evidence you shall give to the court and the jury in the matter now pending between the Commonwealth and the defendant at the bar shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
MR. REDDINGTON: I don't think there's volume.
COURT CLERK: Would you turn on your volume?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Okay, I think I've got it. But it's a little hard for me to hear you on your end. If you could keep your voices up, please.
COURT CLERK: You want me to swear him in again?
THE COURT: Yes, please.
COURT CLERK: Please raise your right hand one more time. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony and the evidence you shall give to the court and the jury in the matter now pending between the Commonwealth and the defendant at the bar shall be the whole... the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
MR. REDDINGTON: I think he froze.
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes, I do.
COURT CLERK: Thank you.
PHILLIP RESNICK: Thank you. I am able to hear you now.
THE COURT: All right. Counsel?
MR. REDDINGTON: Good morning, Doctor. Will you tell us your name in a loud voice so that we can all hear you, and spell it for the record?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Phillip Resnick. P-H-I-L-L-I-P R-E-S-N-I-C-K.
MR. REDDINGTON: And where do you live, sir?
MR. REDDINGTON: Where do you live?
MR. REDDINGTON: Can you hear me?
PHILLIP RESNICK: I'm... You froze up. I can hear you now.
MR. REDDINGTON: Okay. Where do you live?
PHILLIP RESNICK: I live in the Cleveland, Ohio area.
MR. REDDINGTON: So this is a delay. Like, if I ask a question, there's, like, a two or three-second delay for your answer, so that's a little difficult, but we'll try to get through it. Can you tell us what you do for work, sir?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes. I'm a forensic psychiatrist.
MR. REDDINGTON: And first off, the reason that you are not appearing here today in court, is that because you have had recent unexpected major surgery regarding an illness, and as of last week, you've now been released from the hospital and you're at home?
THE COURT: Overruled.
PHILLIP RESNICK: I was just discharged from the hospital Tuesday night, and there was a recommendation that I not fly for the next few days.
MR. REDDINGTON: Okay. So you did intend and had tickets to come here and testify, but obviously the court has accommodated us with a Zoom.
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: Okay. Have you worked on this case with Lindsay Clancy at my request, sir?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes, I have.
MR. REDDINGTON: Okay. Can you tell the jurors your educational and professional background, please?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes, I have a bachelor's degree in psychology from Case Western Reserve University. Yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: Yeah, it's really low and it's static.
PHILLIP RESNICK: I graduated high school in nineteen-
MR. REDDINGTON: Hold, hold up for a second. We're having technical difficulties.
THE COURT: All right. Can I see counsel here at the side, please?
THE COURT: Well, members of the jury, just like in the old days when you're watching TV, the little sign used to come up and say, 'Technical difficulties.' That's where we are. So what we're gonna do is we're gonna take a short break and have people who know more about this than I do to kind of readdress this. All right? To see if we can have a smoother presentation, so you're able to follow and listen to the testimony without kind of being broken up and choppy. All right. So I'm gonna ask you... Well, I hope it's a short, a short break. But that's the goal, is to get this in a manner that is easier for you to hear and absorb this information. So we're gonna take a short break, I hope, and we'll see you in a couple of minutes. All right. Thank you.
BAILIFF: All rise, please. Jurors exiting.
THE COURT: All right. So we'll be in a short recess.
MR. REDDINGTON: Yep.
THE COURT: We'll kind of see if we can get this working again, and we'll be out as soon as that's done.
BAILIFF: Court, all rise.
BAILIFF: This court is back in session. You may be seated.
COURT CLERK: Your Honor, for the purpose of the record, we return back to the trial. The Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy. All parties are present excluding the jury.
THE COURT: Are we ready for the jury?
MR. REDDINGTON: Yes. Fingers crossed.
THE COURT: All right.
BAILIFF: All rise, please, jury's entering.
BAILIFF: Court is back in session. You may be seated.
COURT CLERK: Your Honor, for the purpose of the record, we return back to the trial. The Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy. All parties are present, including the defendant and including the eighteen jurors.
THE COURT: Thank you, madam clerk, members of the jury, we're gonna give it another go.
MR. REDDINGTON: All right.
PHILLIP RESNICK: All right.
MR. REDDINGTON: Go ahead.
PHILLIP RESNICK: Thank you.
MR. REDDINGTON: All right, doctor. Can you hear me?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes, yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: Excellent. Tell us again your name for the record, just so... And spell the last name.
PHILLIP RESNICK: So last name is P-H-I-L-L-I-P, R-E-S-N-I-C-K.
MR. REDDINGTON: All right. And you're gonna have to speak a little slower only because of, you know, the microphone. Okay?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Thank you.
MR. REDDINGTON: Tell us your background, sir. I know you're a physician. Tell us your educational background and your work history.
PHILLIP RESNICK: I am a forensic psychiatrist, and I received a bachelor's degree in psychology in 1959 and a medical degree in 1963, both from Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. I then had a one-month internship in a military hospital in Texas, and then I came back to University Hospitals of Cleveland, where I completed my residency in psychiatry.
MR. REDDINGTON: And do you have—
PHILLIP RESNICK: Would you like me to go further?
MR. REDDINGTON: I'm sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead.
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yeah. Would you like me to continue?
MR. REDDINGTON: Yeah, you can continue. I interrupted. I apologize.
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yeah. I have remained at Case Western Reserve University as a—now a full professor, and I also become interested in forensic psychiatry, that is, that aspect of psychiatry which relates to legal issues such as this case. And I initiated a fellowship in forensic psychiatry in 1979 and directed that for forty years. I also served as director of the Court Psychiatric Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, for over forty years.
MR. REDDINGTON: Doctor, do you have board certifications as well?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes, I'm board certified in psychiatry, 1971, and board certified in forensic psychiatry, 1979.
MR. REDDINGTON: Did you also have added qualifications in forensic psychiatry in 2014, 2024 in recertifications?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: And have you, without going through them, also had a number of visiting professorships?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes, I've had about fourteen visiting professorships.
MR. REDDINGTON: Now, doctor, this case involves what I guess is referred to as filicide, F-I-L-L-I-C-I-D-E, I believe. Did I spell that right?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Single L.
MR. REDDINGTON: Single L. Okay. Can you tell the jurors what that means?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yeah. Filicide is a parent killing a child, and it is a relatively infrequent phenomenon that occurs in the United States somewhere between four hundred and five hundred times a year.
MR. REDDINGTON: And, doctor, is it fair to say that you have, at least in the country, if not outside the country, the most experience in working on filicide cases?
PHILLIP RESNICK: I believe that's true. I have been personally involved in, I'd estimate, about eighty cases where I was asked to evaluate mothers and fathers who had killed their children.
MR. REDDINGTON: And the question that I have, doctor, is, have you had occasion to work on cases that found themselves in court where you gave testimony either for the government or for the defense?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes, I have. Let me just—
MR. REDDINGTON: Let me just go through if I can. Am I—
PHILLIP RESNICK: You can.
MR. REDDINGTON: So let me just go through so we can cut to the chase. Did you work as an expert on the case of Jeffrey Dahmer?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes, I consulted with the prosecution in that case.
MR. REDDINGTON: Did you also work on the case of what is referred to as the Unabomber, a fellow by the name of Kaczynski?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes, I was also a consultant to the government on that case.
MR. REDDINGTON: Did you also find yourself consulting on the matter of, in Florida, the Commonwealth versus, or the State versus Casey Anthony?
PHILLIP RESNICK: I was a consultant to the defense in that case, but I could not be helpful.
MR. REDDINGTON: Did you also work on the matter of Andrea Yates?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes, I testified for the defense in both of her trials.
MR. REDDINGTON: Did you also work on the case of what is known as the Aurora movie theater shooting?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes, I was a consultant to the prosecutor in that case.
MR. REDDINGTON: Did you also work on the case involving the Oklahoma City bombing courthouse?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes. Again, I was employed by the government in that case.
MR. REDDINGTON: And in addition to those cases, did you also, in your practice, consult with the defense as well as the prosecution on a number of homicide cases, many of which involve filicide?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes, I have.
MR. REDDINGTON: All right. In the course of this case, sir, did I reach out to you and ask if you would assist me in evaluating Lindsay Clancy?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes, you did.
MR. REDDINGTON: And can you tell the jurors when and for how long you would actually interview, whether it would be Lindsay, whether it would be third-party contacts, just to give us an idea as to how you evaluated her?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes. About four months after the crime, I did a personal evaluation of Lindsay and her parents to gain information. And I spent three hours interviewing her on that date.
MR. REDDINGTON: And how long did you spend interviewing third-party contacts of her parents?
PHILLIP RESNICK: An hour and fifty minutes.
MR. REDDINGTON: And this would be in May of two thousand and twenty-three?
PHILLIP RESNICK: That's right.
MR. REDDINGTON: Where did the interview take place?
PHILLIP RESNICK: The interview took place at Duxbury Hospital.
MR. REDDINGTON: Would that be... Is that a hospital facility that's a mental institution in the town or city of Tewksbury?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Tewksbury, yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: And Lindsay actually came and was living in Duxbury at the time of the incident, is that correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: That's correct.
MR. REDDINGTON: All right. So can you describe for us, without getting into any statements that she made to you, tell us about the circumstances. How did she appear to you physically, and how was she able to answer your questions? Just tell us what her appearance was, her mood.
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes. Well, first of all, at the time, of course, she had suffered a major injury and was paralyzed, so that was the setting. So during the examination, she did not have control of the lower part of her body. During the interview, she appeared somewhat matter of fact, but at the time, she was still grieving. The nurses told me that she was crying daily about the loss of her three children, and she was also medicated at that time. She was fully cooperative and gave me a detailed account of her recollections of the critical events.
MR. REDDINGTON: Did you make an observation of her affect? Did she appear to have what you refer to as a flat affect?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes. She did have, or I would call it a blunted affect. That is, her emotions were not as you would expect. Sh- her feeling tone was muted.
MR. REDDINGTON: Muted? Is that what you said, muted?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Muted.
MR. REDDINGTON: Okay.
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: Now, Doctor, in the course of evaluating this case, and again, in the interest of time, would you agree that you had a chance to review a number of items to assist you in your evaluation?
PHILLIP RESNICK: I reviewed extensive records in this case. Both records referring to Ms. Clancy's mental illness, how it developed, who her treaters were, and then also I was able to evaluate records after her conduct.
MR. REDDINGTON: And that would include police reports?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Extensive police reports, yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: Grand jury testimony?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: Photographs?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: Videos?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: Medical records from healthcare providers such as Dr. Tufts, Nurse Practitioner Jollotta, and McLean Hospital?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: Were you aware that she had also contacted suicide hotlines, and went to a facility in Rhode Island, Women and Infants?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes. I reviewed all those records.
MR. REDDINGTON: So with all of that information, Doctor, that you had access to, did you also have the opportunity to review any records from, let's say, the government's doctors, Dr. Heilbrun, Dr. Sa- Dr. Mack, Dr. Saathoff?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes. After I prepared my report, I was aware that there are three experts employed by the prosecution, and I was able to review their reports in detail also.
MR. REDDINGTON: Okay. And your report is actually dated... You saw her in two thousand and twenty-three, and you prepared your report ultimately after your evaluation in September. Do you know when the government's doctor's reports were available to you? Was that recently?
PHILLIP RESNICK: My recollection is that they did their evaluation about three years after the crime, and I had the opportunity to see her four months after the crime.
MR. REDDINGTON: Now, did you also have occasion, sir, to see, from Dr. Heilbrun, government's doctor, psychiatric testing?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes, I did.
MR. REDDINGTON: Can you tell us, for example, was one of the results on the psychiatric testing, a test that he administered for the government, called the MMPI, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Test?
PHILLIP RESNICK: That was a psychological scale study administered, yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: And do you recall from reviewing the records what the results were? Was she faking, was she lying, or was she telling the truth in-
MS. SPRAGUE: Objection.
THE COURT: All right.
PHILLIP RESNICK: The results showed no evidence of faking.
MR. REDDINGTON: Hold on.
MR. REDDINGTON: Okay, doctor, I had asked you if you were aware that government's Dr. Heilbrun had administered the MMPI test and came to a conclusion as to whether or not Lindsay was telling the truth, faking, or exaggerating symptoms, and you relied on that test as a portion of your opinion. Is that right?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes, I did.
MR. REDDINGTON: Can you tell the jurors what the results of that test were to your knowledge?
PHILLIP RESNICK: The summary, the results were that Lindsay Clancy had a tendency to minimize and did not have a tendency to exaggerate what she was saying in her own symptoms.
MR. REDDINGTON: Did it also indicate that she was not, I think the terminology is faking or lying in her answers, but in fact was being truthful as best she could be?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes, although the test is a little more specific about symptoms rather than lying or not lying, but it did not suggest any evidence of faking symptoms.
MR. REDDINGTON: Okay. And I'm sorry, that broke up. It did not suggest any evidence of what?
PHILLIP RESNICK: No evidence of faking psychiatric symptoms.
MR. REDDINGTON: And then finally, one of the scales in that test is referred to as the K... I think from the books, the K-scale or the lie scale. Is that correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes. That was not elevated.
MR. REDDINGTON: Not elevated, okay. Now, doctor, in your experience, do you have any particular subspecialty or interest in the concept of people that are malingering or faking in the forensic world? In other words, if it's a criminal case, if it's a workman's comp case where somebody's pretending their back hurts, things of that nature. Have you focused on that as a subspecialty or interest in your career?
PHILLIP RESNICK: That has been a major interest. I've actually written forty-six articles or book chapters in this area. The first was 1984, and over the course of that, of course, new research comes out. So, when I write a new edition of a book chapter, it would incorporate new material. So even though the chapter may go through five editions in a particular book, they're up to date, and the ones which were written earlier would no longer be the best basis for forming an opinion.
MR. REDDINGTON: Now, for example, when you reviewed Dr. Heilbrun's report for the government, did he refer to your articles?
PHILLIP RESNICK: He did refer to my research, yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: And was that updated research, or was it old research that he referenced?
PHILLIP RESNICK: He referenced older research.
MR. REDDINGTON: So can you tell us, doctor, when you consider the... You can... Let me start over again. When you reviewed Lindsay's medical records, you also reviewed the psychopharmacology, in other words, the medications that Dr. Tufts and Jollotta and all of these other doctors had prescribed to her during that period of time?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes, I did.
MR. REDDINGTON: And have in mind your interview, the time that you spent with her directly reviewing all of the documents, all of the medical records, everything that we've talked about, and you're also aware from her, not specifically what she said to you, but you're aware of the circumstances from her recollection as to the killings that she told you. Is that correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes, as well as the journal she kept and other evidence of her thinking and symptoms, as the time approached for the crime on January 24th, 2023.
MR. REDDINGTON: Okay. And you were also aware of her access to her cell phone, doing Google searches and looking up medications during that period of October, November, December and January. You're aware of that, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: Okay. And can you tell the jurors, in your opinion, sir, with your years of experience in the issue of filicide, working for just the government on a number of cases and the defense and your evaluation of Lindsay, can you tell this jury your opinion as to whether or not at the time of the killings that she was suffering from a disease or defect that impaired her ability to substantially appreciate and/or conform her conduct to the requirements of the law?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Well, sure. Let me begin with the issue of whether she had a mental disease or a defect. Ms. Clancy had a severe depression. There is a book called the DSM or Diagnostic Manual prepared by the American Psychiatric Association, which lists criteria for various diseases. So in the diagnostic manual, for example, there—one needs to have five out of nine symptoms to make a diagnosis of major depression. And Ms. Clancy, as she approached the date of the crime, actually had seven of the nine symptoms and was severely depressed, so that, in addition to that, she had some earlier evidence of what's called a mild mania, and that fits together in what's called bipolar II. So in other words, it's a type of bipolar illness where there is more frank depression, severe depression, but the manic aspects are not as severe. So my final diagnosis of her was called bipolar II with a severe depression on January twenty-four, two thousand twenty-three. And from reading the reports of all the experts that are—that will be testifying, no one failed to diagnose a major mental disease on the day of the crime.
MR. REDDINGTON: Now, doctor, in the course of that diagnosis, have you considered the concept of postpartum depression and/or postpartum psychosis?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: And can you tell the jurors how that—
PHILLIP RESNICK: First of all—
MR. REDDINGTON: I'm sorry. Can you tell the jurors how that factors into your diagnosis and opinion?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes. Ms. Clancy had a history of anxiety and difficulty with each of her children. It was minor with her first child, more significant with her second child, and on the occasion of Callan's birth, things went well for the first three months. But then Ms. Clancy became very anxious and depressed, and it took quite a toll on her. And I believe the jury has heard from various treaters, such as Dr. Tufts and Nurse Jollotta and others, and her own anguish about how depressed she was, where she actually felt she couldn't function, her brain was damaged, she would never be the same. So... She definitely met the definition of a major depression as well as this bipolar phenomena. Now, with respect to the postpartum aspect, since Ms. Clancy's symptoms began within three months of Callan's birth, that would be considered a postpartum onset. Then of course she had considerable difficulty over the next five months, and at the time of the crime itself on January twenty-four, two thousand twenty-three, Ms. Clancy was frankly psychotic. So in that sense, she had a postpartum psychosis. It's actually not frequent to have a postpartum psychosis eight months after a birth, but it does occasionally occur. And so what I can say is whether it is a classic postpartum psychosis or not, with a postpartum onset and frank psychosis on the day of the killing, I would label that a postpartum psychosis in the sense that it was a postpartum onset, and she was clearly psychotic on that day.
MR. REDDINGTON: And doctor, when a person is psychotic or involved in having a psychosis, in your opinion, are they able to appear normal, quote, unquote, communicate with people, drive a car, things of that nature?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Well, let me say there that Ms. Clancy herself did her best to not reveal the extent of her depression. She was frank with members of her own family. Her sister, her mother, her mother-in-law were aware of how anguished and depressed she was. But with more casual friends, she tended not to show the extent of her depression. I'm not suggesting that she was—although psychosis can indeed wax and wane. For example, on the day of her crime, I'm not suggesting that she was frankly psychotic every minute. She was functioning. In fact, she said she was having a better day than other days, and she actually went out and made a snowman with the kids, visited with—took Cora to a doctor for the fifth birthday checkup, and was functioning at a level that was not frankly psychotic until she had a command hallucination while her husband, Patrick, was out doing a couple of chores.
MR. REDDINGTON: And can you tell us, doctor, what, in your opinion, what a command hallucination is and how it fits, if you will, in a diagnosis of psychosis?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes. If we take, first of all, a hallucination is simply hearing a voice, and the voice can be benign, or it can be more malignant. So a voice may just simply say, "Open the window." About one-third of voices are called command hallucinations. That is an instruction to do something, and the majority of those commands are benign. So it might be, "Open a window. Get a glass of water." It might be something much more ominous, such as to kill oneself or harm someone else. Those are dangerous command hallucinations. Now, in Ms. Clancy's case, she had not only a command hallucination on the day that she killed her children. She had what is known as a delusion of influence. That is, not only did she hear a command, but she felt that her body was taken over by an external force, where she was in a dream state and did not have control of her own body. It was almost like she was a puppet and someone else was pulling the strings.
THE COURT: Yeah. Hold on a second. Counsel.
THE COURT: Members of the jury, I wanna give you an instruction at this point. I'm gonna go into this also a little bit later, when I give you the full instructions at the end of the case. But you are not to consider the defendant's statements to any psychiatrist or psychologist as establishing the truth of any facts that are contained in that sense, I mean, those statements. All right? The defendant's statements to any psychiatrist or psychologist for purposes of evaluation cannot be considered by you as evidence of premeditation, extreme atrocity or cruelty, or specific intent to kill. Such statements are admissible only as they relate to the basis for the doctor's opinion of the defendant's mental condition. All right? And I'll go into that a little bit later. Okay? Go ahead, Mr. Reddington.
MR. REDDINGTON: So, doctor, to conclude, would you relate your opinion as it relates to the standard of a person being lacking criminal responsibility at the time of the commission of a crime in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Well, there are two arms to the test for criminal responsibility. One has to do the defendant's ability to control their conduct, and the other has to do with their knowledge of the wrongfulness of their acts. I'd like to address each of those separately, if I may.
MR. REDDINGTON: Sure.
PHILLIP RESNICK: With respect to my opinion, my opinion is that Ms. Clancy was, due to her mental disease, unable to conform her conduct, both to the requirements of the law, on the day that she took the lives of her children, and let me give you the basis of that opinion. First of all, she was hearing a voice which was commanding her to engage in the killing behavior, and she did not feel any sense of control. She felt that she had to obey the instructions she was receiving. It was a matter where she was just following the command rather than being able to make any decision to do it or not. And, for example, I ask Ms. Clancy—
MR. REDDINGTON: No, you can't say what you— Doc— You cannot say what she told you. All right?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Okay. All right. I will not do that. Let me just make sure I'm covering other aspects of her... The second evidence that she was lacking control is the fact that she made a severe suicide attempt also based on the command hallucination that she heard that day, so that she not only cut her throat and jumped out of a window, she very much wanted to die. Now, in my research on women who kill their children, I've divided the motives into five categories, and I want to look at how Ms. Clancy fits into those motives.
MR. REDDINGTON: So tell us the five categories.
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yeah. The five categories are, first, altruistic filicide.
MR. REDDINGTON: What does that mean?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Secondly—
MR. REDDINGTON: What does that mean, altruistic filicide?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Altruistic filicide occurs when a murder is committed out of love rather than hostility. It is an effort on a mother's part to do what is best for the child. They may believe the child is—have a—they may have a delusional belief the child is about to be tortured in their delusional mind, and they take their life in doing what they believe is in the best interest of the children based on their delusional idea. Altruistic filicide also occurs when a mother may plan to take her own life and in her psychotic thinking and severe depression, it is distorted, and she may believe that the child will be worse off if she remains alive. So, for example, in Ms. Clancy's case, she believed that, as the jury has already heard, she was obsessional about caring for her children. She consulted with others at work to try and do exactly what was right for her children, and she believed that if she took—that if Ms. Clancy took her own life, her children would be in terrible shape. And in her mind, she believed that she would be doing her children a favor by having them go to heaven with her rather than remain on Earth without her doing the mothering. Her mind was very distorted like that.
MR. REDDINGTON: Okay. So if you could just tell us the other titles of the other four types that you were referred to. Just tell without getting into detail if they don't apply to Ms. Clancy.
PHILLIP RESNICK: All right. The second category does apply to Ms. Clancy, and that is, it's called acutely psychotic filicide.
MR. REDDINGTON: Okay.
PHILLIP RESNICK: And this occurs when someone is frankly psychotic. They may have delusions or hallucinations. They're out of touch with reality, and rather than having any rational motive, they're simply acting on their psychotic beliefs. So those two both apply to Ms. Clancy.
MR. REDDINGTON: And just—
PHILLIP RESNICK: The other three—
MR. REDDINGTON: Okay, go ahead.
PHILLIP RESNICK: I'm sorry.
MR. REDDINGTON: Go ahead. No, that's all right. Just give us the other three—
PHILLIP RESNICK: The other three—
MR. REDDINGTON: ... the captions of them.
PHILLIP RESNICK: The other three which do not apply, one is called child maltreatment, in which a parent may shake a child to death or throw a child against a wall in an abusive manner. The next category is unwanted child, where someone, just for their convenience, the child is a burden, and they kill the child for that motive. And the final motive is spouse revenge filicide. That is, someone hates their spouse so much that they're willing to sacrifice the child as a way to punish the spouse. And the three latter categories clearly do not apply to Ms. Clancy. She loved her husband, respected her husband, had a good marriage. She never spanked or ever abused her child, and all of her children were wanted. In fact, she planned to have a fourth child. So those three categories clearly do not apply. If I can explain how the two categories did apply, I've already mentioned that Ms. Clancy believed that a distorted belief that her children would just be miserable and she could not imagine them continuing to exist and have a decent life without her being there as a mother. And so in that sense, she did what she believed was morally right. Even though she understood that ordinarily killing a child is against the law, she believed that she was doing what was right for her children with her distorted psychotic thinking about the children's need for her. And then with respect to the second category of acutely psychotic, Ms. Clancy was under the influence of a command hallucination and idea of influence so that at that time, rather than the ability to make a rational decision, she was so in the grip of her psychotic command hallucination and idea of influence that she lacked the capacity to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law.
MR. REDDINGTON: Okay. And, doctor, pretty much finally, there's been some questions or allegations that Ms. Clancy did not provide information to her healthcare providers about her adverse effects of medication that she had been prescribed. Do you agree with that from your review of the medical records, or did she in fact tell her healthcare providers how she felt as a result of what she perceived to be the medications that were prescribed?
PHILLIP RESNICK: It's my opinion with reasonable medical certainty that Ms. Clancy was actually a more sophisticated patient than most, and she was forthcoming in conveying her symptoms. The one area in which she was not fully revealing was the area of when she had an impulse to harm her children, and that was because she had the irrational belief that her children may be taken away from her by a social service agency. She had an irrational belief that if she even entered a medical hospital that her children would be taken away. So that is the one area in which she was not fully forthcoming.
MR. REDDINGTON: Now, Doctor, in your experience, do you find that many women that are caretakers of children, postpartum after the child is born, that are having these intrusive thoughts and having these dark thoughts are in fact afraid of reporting them because of that very reason that you're talking about?
MS. SPRAGUE: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes, as a matter of fact—
MR. REDDINGTON: All right. No, you can't, you can't... Yeah, you can't answer that.
THE COURT: Rephrase that.
MR. REDDINGTON: Okay. It's also been mentioned here a couple of times that she hasn't killed herself yet even though she's in the Tewksbury Hospital. Can you tell the jurors briefly, while she's in the Tewksbury Hospital, what are the circumstances of her confinement and what type of care is being provided to her, as it relates to whether or not she—or why she hasn't killed herself yet?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Well, Your Honor, indeed, there is evidence of her showing suicidality to such an extent that she is never allowed to be out of the presence of a staff member. Even when I conduct an examination of her and requested privacy, a staff member had to be present. So her ability to take her life in view of her episodes and observation is 0, because, and she recognizes that, so that the reality is no matter she does not want to live at any point, she has no choice but for her to live at this time.
MR. REDDINGTON: Thank you very much, Doctor. You have to answer some questions from the DA. Your Honor, at this point, I would like to, because I'm looking at...
MR. REDDINGTON: Got a forty-page resume. So I'd just offer that if I could.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MS. SPRAGUE: No objection.
THE COURT: Okay. That may be marked.
COURT REPORTER: Exhibit 287.
MS. SPRAGUE: If I may?
THE COURT: Yes, please, Attorney Sprague.
MS. SPRAGUE: Good morning, Dr. Resnick.
PHILLIP RESNICK: Good morning.
MS. SPRAGUE: In addition to the evaluations that you do, is it true that you've also taught some courses to other forensic psychiatrists and psychologists about how to testify in cases like these?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes, I have.
MS. SPRAGUE: And you teach them how to answer questions and how to dress and how to appear believable and trustworthy, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: That's correct.
MS. SPRAGUE: And in one of your trainings, excuse me, Do's and Don'ts of Depositions by Dr. Phillip Resnick, in your course description, you state, "Information beyond the question should not be volunteered because it will open up new areas for questioning, provide ammunition for attacks, eliminate the opportunity for surprise, and information fails to get to the jury," correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: That's correct.
MS. SPRAGUE: So you teach other psychologists how to hold back information in the discovery process to surprise the other side.
PHILLIP RESNICK: No, that's not accurate, and I'm not a psychologist.
MS. SPRAGUE: Now,
MS. SPRAGUE: A woman who kills her child can have more than one motive, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes.
MS. SPRAGUE: And actually, the most common motive for women who kill their children is fatal maltreatment or child abuse, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: That's correct.
MS. SPRAGUE: And in fact, most women who kill their kids don't do it due to mental illness, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: That's correct.
MS. SPRAGUE: And in fact, there's a quote from you in an article, Child Murdered by Mothers: Patterns and Prevention, where you say, quote, "More filicides occur due to fatal maltreatment than because of maternal psychiatric illness," correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Correct.
MS. SPRAGUE: You also have written about parents having significant emotional devastation after killing their children, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes.
MS. SPRAGUE: And in fact, you've written in... It's chapter six of Family Murder: Child Murder by Parents. In the Aftermath section, you've written, quote, "These life events are likely to prolong the parent's depression. The anniversary of the children's deaths and exposure to things that remind the parent of it are likely to be upsetting," correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes.
MS. SPRAGUE: Things like birthdays and holidays and the anniversary of the killings would all be something that would be upsetting, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: They sometimes are, yes.
MS. SPRAGUE: Now, you've written a lot about malingered psychosis, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes.
MS. SPRAGUE: And malingering psychosis, you can have a mental illness, and your malingering could be exaggerating those symptoms or saying you have psychosis symptoms when you don't, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: That's correct.
MS. SPRAGUE: And one of the things that you have written, and there's an article that you wrote called Faking It. You've written in here, quote, "Command auditory hallucinations are easy to fabricate. Persons experiencing genuine command hallucinations do not always obey the voices, especially if doing so would be dangerous," correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: That's correct.
MS. SPRAGUE: You've also given some points to other practitioners, if you, quote, "If you suspect a person of malingered auditory hallucination, ask what he or she does to make the voices go away or diminish in intensity," correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes.
MS. SPRAGUE: Because typically, someone who hears a voice telling them to do something horrible like kill their child will try to resist that voice initially, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: There's variability. Some do, and some don't.
MS. SPRAGUE: And in fact, the case you mentioned earlier, Andrea Yates. Ms. Yates, in fact, committed herself to a hospital five times and tried to kill herself twice, all while trying to not kill her children, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes.
MS. SPRAGUE: She had heard voices for months and telling her to kill her children, and to resist those voices, she actually tried to kill herself, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Until she could no longer resist the voices, yes.
MS. SPRAGUE: Right. But she tried.
PHILLIP RESNICK: Right, as did Ms. Clancy.
MS. SPRAGUE: Well, according to the records and reports that we have that are in evidence, Ms. Clancy heard the voice and immediately acted, correct? According to those records.
PHILLIP RESNICK: Well, I-
MS. SPRAGUE: Is that correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Well, Ms. Clancy, Ms. Clancy had impulses to harm her children, which she did resist until the command hallucination, when she was overwhelmed, yes.
MS. SPRAGUE: But according to the records and the testimony that we've had, she had an impulse in December one time to harm her children, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: I believe it was on two occasions that she mentioned it to her husband.
MS. SPRAGUE: And then never again after that until her kids were killed, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: There were only two occasions she mentioned it, but she referred to having those horrible impulses, so that suggests to me she was dealing with it on an ongoing basis, although she mentioned it only twice to her husband.
MS. SPRAGUE: But she never said she had thoughts to kill her children. She said she had thoughts to harm her children, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes, but actually, I think it's clear that to harm her children was to kill her children.
MS. SPRAGUE: Well, in the records where you say that she was so clear in presenting her symptoms to her doctors, she repeatedly was asked if she had any homicidal ideation, and she repeatedly said no, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: That's right, and she didn't in the initial parts of her treatment. But by late December and January is when she did have those impulses.
MS. SPRAGUE: But what she told her-
PHILLIP RESNICK: And she did not acknowledge them.
MS. SPRAGUE: But what she told her doctors-
PHILLIP RESNICK: She did not acknowledge them to her doctors.
MS. SPRAGUE: ... what she told her doctors in December is that she had no homicidal ideation. She only reported suicidal ideation, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes, and as noted, that's very common because people fear their children will be taken away.
MS. SPRAGUE: So it's better to kill them than to have them taken away?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yeah.
THE COURT: Sustain.
PHILLIP RESNICK: You know, it's not better to kill them-
THE COURT: Hold on, doctor.
PHILLIP RESNICK: ... than have them taken away.
THE COURT: That question is stricken and answer is stricken. Okay.
MS. SPRAGUE: You say that she was very forthcoming in her symptoms to her medical providers, but she never told those medical providers that she had an impulse to harm her children, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: That's correct.
MS. SPRAGUE: You also, in teaching people about malingering, about faking hearing voices or being psychotic, you give pointers of what people should look for, such as patient uses no strategies to diminish hallucinations. Patient states he obeys all commands. Correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes.
MS. SPRAGUE: You also in a podcast, evidence entitled Identifying Malingering with Dr. Phillip Resnick, you were asked about malingering, and you said... And asked about hearing voices, and you said, quote, "So a common example I'll use in teaching is if you hear a voice out of the blue that says, 'Kill your mother,' your moral fiber would cause you to hesitate. But if you have concurrent delusion that your mother is an evil wizard, you're more likely to act on that command hallucination." Correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Correct.
MS. SPRAGUE: And there's no evidence in the records or in the testimony that we've had so f-thus far that Ms. Clancy believed that her children were evil or that they were possessed or that there was any danger posed by them or to them by such forces, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Instead, Ms. Clancy had a-
MS. SPRAGUE: Well, is it yes or no question, doctor?
THE COURT: No, go ahead. You can answer that.
PHILLIP RESNICK: Instead, Ms. Clancy had the psychotic distorted belief that her children would be better off in heaven rather than being motherless. So that was her psychotic distortion, coupled with the command hallucination. So she met the exact requirement you're referring to.
MS. SPRAGUE: And you believe that that was her psychotic delusion that they would be better off without her, better off in heaven without her because according to your report, you could figure out no rational non-psychotic motive for her to kill her children, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes.
MS. SPRAGUE: And so just because you can't figure out a motive or you don't know a motive or the person doesn't tell you a motive, doesn't mean that there actually isn't a motive. Correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: There was a motive.
MS. SPRAGUE: But that's not what I asked you.
PHILLIP RESNICK: I mentioned the motive already.
MS. SPRAGUE: I did not ask you about Ms. Clancy. I said, just because someone tells you that they don't have a motive or you can't figure out a motive, doesn't mean they didn't actually have a motive. Correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: That's possible, yes.
MS. SPRAGUE: You also state in another article, Identifying Malingering with Dr. Phillip Resnick, you point out that the rapid resolution of symptoms with medication can be a red flag, as genuine psychotic symptoms usually take longer to subside. Correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: That's correct.
MS. SPRAGUE: Were you aware from the Tewksbury records that on page eleven thirty-six it says, “Ms. Clancy has been clinically stable since her admission. There have been no events of affective, cognitive, or behavioral instability since her admission,” and that, “Ms. Clancy has not evidenced any challenges in accepting and conforming to the rules and standards”? Did you review that note?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes, I'm aware of that.
MS. SPRAGUE: Okay. Were you also aware—
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes.
MS. SPRAGUE: ... on page eleven sixty-eight that it says, “Ms. Clancy denies that she has ever experienced hallucinatory content prior to or since that event,” referring to when she killed her children. Correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes.
MS. SPRAGUE: And you're aware on page eleven seventy it states, “Ms. Clancy presents with intact reality testing and no observable symptoms of psychosis. She is actively engaged in treatment. She is able to identify possible hopes for her future, including serving as an activist for postpartum psychosis awareness and participating in a wheelchair marathon.” Were you aware of that?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes.
MS. SPRAGUE: I move to submit these three sections as the next three exhibits.
THE COURT: All right. Any objection?
THE COURT: All right. Are those part of the Tewksbury records that are already in?
MS. SPRAGUE: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Those may be admitted.
MS. SPRAGUE: Thank you.
COURT REPORTER: 288, 289, and 290, so marked.
MS. SPRAGUE: Doctor, you mentioned that when you interviewed Ms. Clancy, you spoke to some nurses who told you she had been crying every day, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes.
MS. SPRAGUE: Are you aware that in the Tewksbury records, in the one-to-one notes of people who watched her every minute of every day, there's no record of her crying every day?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Well, when I saw her at four months, I'm not sure if she... Was she already... How long had she been at Tewksbury? I... Well, I'm not aware of that note, but my recollection is that she was observed crying.
MS. SPRAGUE: But there's no, there's no record of her crying at Tewksbury every day, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: I have no knowledge of that.
MS. SPRAGUE: And you mentioned that during the interview, not getting into anything that she said, but her affect, her expressions, her emotions, you said that they were flat and blunted, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes.
MS. SPRAGUE: Do you remember the portions of the video where she smiled and laughed?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Are you talking about the video of my interview?
MS. SPRAGUE: What was that?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Are you talking about the videotape of my interview with her?
MS. SPRAGUE: Yes. Yes, at the end of the video. Do you recall her smiling and laughing?
MR. REDDINGTON: So does that open up the video?
MS. SPRAGUE: This is affect and behavior.
THE COURT: That's an issue we could talk more over here, and probably something best raised on cross.
MR. REDDINGTON: Okay.
THE COURT: I mean, on redirect. I'm sorry.
MS. SPRAGUE: And just getting into her affect and behavior, Doctor.
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes. Yeah, that's not inconsistent with her affect throughout the interview. Especially, for example, in talking about—
MS. SPRAGUE: We're not getting into what she talked about, Doctor.
PHILLIP RESNICK: ... how delayed she was with the—
MS. SPRAGUE: I'm not asking anything about what she talked about, just her expressions and her affect. Now, you mentioned that the Commonwealth experts saw Ms. Clancy three years after you examined her, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: I said it was three years after the crime.
MS. SPRAGUE: Okay. And you're aware that the Commonwealth was not permitted to interview Ms. Clancy until after defense had filed a notice of their defense, and we'd been given permission by the court to have our experts interview her, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes.
MS. SPRAGUE: And you're aware that did not occur until approximately two and a half years after the incident, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes.
MS. SPRAGUE: Now, you mentioned that postpartum psychosis doesn't typically happen eight months after a child is born, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes.
MS. SPRAGUE: In fact, typically, it's within four weeks of a child being born, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Most often, yes.
MS. SPRAGUE: And you mentioned that her postpartum, Ms. Clancy's postpartum symptoms, began within that three-month timeframe of postpartum. Do symptoms have to occur within that three-month period to be postpartum?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Well, there's a wide range of definitions of postpartum. Some scholars in the area make it the whole first year, others three months, others four weeks.
MS. SPRAGUE: And in fact, her seeking help from a psychiatrist happened in September, which would have been four months after she gave birth, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Correct.
MS. SPRAGUE: You mentioned that Ms. Clancy was able to hide her symptoms of depression from her friends, that she was open with some people, but she was able to hide those symptoms from friends and other people she interacted with, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes, hide her—the depth of her depression.
MS. SPRAGUE: And so she was able to control and conform her behavior to situations in which she did not want to show people how she was feeling, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Sure. Very common.
MS. SPRAGUE: Now, you wrote in your report on page twenty-four that Ms. Clancy had paranoid beliefs that her children would be taken away from her if anyone knew what she was going through, correct?
PHILLIP RESNICK: Yes.
MS. SPRAGUE: But that's actually a rational belief, is it not, that if someone knows you want to harm your children, they might be taken away?
PHILLIP RESNICK: It can be rational, but it was more—it approached irrational in her case rather than rational.
MS. SPRAGUE: I have nothing further.
THE COURT: You, redirect? Bless you.
MR. REDDINGTON: No. Thank you, Doctor.
THE COURT: All right.
THE COURT: All right, so if we could turn off that. Thank you, Doctor.
PHILLIP RESNICK: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. All right. Reddington.
MR. REDDINGTON: Your Honor, Lindsay Clancy rests her case.
THE COURT: All right. So, members of the jury, the defense has now rested its case. All right. So I'm gonna talk to counsel for a minute or so over here, and we're about to go into the, to the next phase of this case. It would be the Commonwealth is offered, given the opportunity to offer rebuttal witnesses on certain issues. And so I'm gonna talk to counsel first, and I'll inquire of the Commonwealth if they wish to offer these rebuttal witnesses. Okay? So counsel, can I see you at sidebar?
THE COURT: All Right. Attorney Sprague, does the Commonwealth wish to offer any rebuttal?
MS. SPRAGUE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. If you'd call your next witness, please.