https://www.facebook.com/717385334796087/

Legallyatlaw, 1000 postal Road, Bethlehem, PA (2026)

08/30/2026

THE LINDSAY CLANCY CASE: WHY CAN’T MULTIPLE THINGS BE TRUE AT THE SAME TIME?

I genuinely don’t understand why this case keeps getting reduced to two completely separate camps.

You can be devastated that three little children are dead. Who isn’t? Cora, Dawson, and Callan did not deserve to die. They were innocent children, and absolutely nothing about Lindsay Clancy’s mental state changes that. Nothing brings them back. Nothing makes what happened to them less horrific.

You can believe that AND believe Lindsay was mentally unwell.

You can believe she was overmedicated. You can believe the medical system failed her. You can believe there were warning signs, medication changes, providers, appointments, calls for help, and an entire mental-health history that mattered. You can believe she was severely mentally ill without somehow minimizing the lives of her children.

And there’s a third thing we can acknowledge: postpartum mental illness is REAL.

Talking about postpartum depression, postpartum anxiety, postpartum psychosis, or the enormous mental and physical changes that can happen after having a baby does not discount what happened to these children. It does not mean every postpartum mother is dangerous. It does not excuse killing children. And it certainly does not mean we shouldn’t talk about accountability.

Those concepts are not mutually exclusive.

And yes, the verdict matters tremendously because it determines what happens to Lindsay. Prison. A psychiatric hospital. Potential release someday if she is legally eligible and ultimately determined not to require continued commitment. Those are enormous consequences, which is exactly why the distinction between being mentally ill and being legally criminally responsible matters. But regardless of the verdict, there is no outcome where anyone “wins.” A guilty verdict doesn’t bring three children home. A verdict based on insanity doesn’t bring three children home. Prison doesn’t bring them home. A psychiatric hospital doesn’t bring them home. Three children are still gone.

We can mourn Cora, Dawson, and Callan. We can believe the medical system failed Lindsay. We can recognize the reality and seriousness of postpartum mental illness. And we can still have a completely separate legal conversation about whether Lindsay was criminally responsible under the law.

Three things can be true at the exact same time. Acknowledging one does not require us to erase the others.

08/30/2026

🚨 A JURY CONSULTANT WEIGHS IN ON THE CLANCY JURY — AND HER TAKE IS FASCINATING 🚨

Brian Entin interviewed Susan Constantine, a jury consultant and body-language expert, after the second full day of deliberations in the Lindsay Clancy trial. With no verdict going into the weekend, everyone wants to know the same thing: what, if anything, can we learn from this jury so far?

First, Constantine emphasized something incredibly important: we cannot predict a verdict simply because deliberations are taking a long time. This was a five-week trial with roughly 80 witnesses, hundreds of exhibits, conflicting experts and complicated jury instructions. A jury taking its time does not automatically mean it is deadlocked. It may simply mean these jurors are doing exactly what they were instructed to do — carefully work through the evidence.

But Constantine’s analysis of the jury’s request for Lindsay’s prescription medication and the knife used in her su***de attempt is where things get really interesting.

Her take on the medications was essentially that jurors may be trying to physically make sense of something that became incredibly confusing during this trial. Lindsay was prescribed numerous medications. Some she took, some she did not take, some she stopped quickly, and throughout testimony we heard both brand names and generic names. Looking at the actual bottles could help jurors organize that evidence and determine what she was prescribed versus what she actually consumed. That distinction matters because medication became part of the battle over Lindsay’s mental state.

Then there is the knife. The jury didn’t ask to see something used to kill the children. They asked to see the knife Lindsay used on herself. One theory discussed in Brian’s interview was that the jury could be examining the seriousness of the su***de attempt. How large was the knife? What kind of knife was it? Does physically seeing it help them evaluate what Lindsay intended to do to herself?

And Constantine’s broader point is important: sometimes a jury asks for an exhibit because ONE juror wants it. We don’t know whether all 12 jurors are focused on the knife and medications or whether one juror raised a question and the others agreed to examine the evidence. That is why reading a verdict into a jury request is dangerous.

She also explained that jurors are now trying to create an overall narrative from five weeks of evidence. They aren’t sitting in that room watching the trial again from beginning to end. They are discussing what stood out to them, comparing memories, challenging one another’s interpretations and returning to exhibits when they believe something needs clarification.

The medication and the knife can potentially fit into the same larger question: what was Lindsay Clancy’s mental state that night, and was she criminally responsible for what she did? The medications potentially speak to what was happening leading up to January 24. The knife potentially speaks to what happened immediately afterward.

But there is another possibility that Constantine and the interview make clear we cannot ignore: the jury may simply be methodically reviewing evidence. They could be going through the case piece by piece without this request signaling where they are leaning at all. That is why I wouldn’t call this a “defense question” or a “prosecution question.”

What we CAN say is that after weeks of testimony, the first evidence this jury specifically asked to physically examine involved Lindsay’s psychiatric medications and her su***de attempt.

And with nine women and three men in that deliberation room, Constantine also discussed how individual experiences and personalities can affect deliberations. Twelve people can hear the exact same testimony and walk away giving completely different weight to it. A piece of evidence one juror barely noticed may be the exact piece another juror cannot get past.

Monday is going to be very interesting.

08/30/2026

🚨 IF LINDSAY CLANCY IS FOUND NOT CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE, DOES SHE JUST WALK FREE? NO. AND LET’S TALK ABOUT WHERE SHE ACTUALLY IS RIGHT NOW. 🚨

This is probably one of the biggest misconceptions I’m seeing as we wait for the Lindsay Clancy verdict. If the jury finds Lindsay Not Guilty by Reason of Lack of Criminal Responsibility, that does NOT mean the courthouse doors open and she goes home.

Lindsay is currently being held without bail at Tewksbury Hospital, a Massachusetts state hospital where she has been receiving psychiatric and medical care since May 2023. She is paralyzed from the waist down, uses a wheelchair, requires assistance with some activities of daily living, and has been transported to and from court with nurses. And Tewksbury is not simply a place where she is casually “living” while this case plays out. Testimony established that Lindsay remains on constant one-to-one monitoring because she is considered a su***de risk. Dr. Paul Zeizel testified that she is essentially never left alone because of the continuing concern that she could attempt to take her own life.

We also learned quite a bit about her actual day-to-day life inside the hospital from thousands of pages of Tewksbury records discussed during testimony. Those records describe her self-propelling her wheelchair through the hallways, spending significant amounts of time in her room or in bed, using her phone, watching television, attending a coffee group, occasionally playing dominoes or interacting with select patients, taking medications, receiving assistance with daily activities and visiting with her parents. Dr. Avram Mack testified that Lindsay described mostly staying in bed or spending time alone and not interacting very much with other patients. He also testified that she described feeling miserable and not wanting to be alive. Showering apparently requires staff assistance because of her physical condition, something she reportedly described as embarrassing.

There was ALSO testimony about an attempt to move Lindsay somewhere else. Dr. Donald Condie had written in a 2025 report that Lindsay was residing at Tewksbury with a planned transfer to Worcester Recovery Center and Hospital. On the stand, he clarified that Worcester was more of a “hope and a goal” than an official plan. But Reddington then established that Lindsay was actually evaluated for admission to Worcester. She was not accepted. So she remained at Tewksbury.

Now let’s talk about what happens if the jury comes back NCR. Under Massachusetts law, an NCR verdict does NOT mean Lindsay is immediately released. The court can order her hospitalized for observation and examination for up to 40 days while the process of determining whether she should be civilly committed takes place. The Commonwealth can then seek her continued commitment. The issue becomes whether she meets the legal requirements for hospitalization, including whether her release would create a likelihood of serious harm because of mental illness.

And commitment isn’t necessarily a one-time decision. An initial commitment following an NCR finding can be for six months, and subsequent commitments can occur in one-year periods if the legal requirements continue to be established. That means someone found NCR can potentially remain hospitalized for years. But it is also important to understand that it isn’t automatically a lifetime sentence. Continued confinement is subject to review.

So an NCR verdict does NOT mean “Lindsay didn’t kill her children.” That isn’t the question this jury is deciding. It does NOT mean “she was found innocent.” And it certainly does NOT automatically mean “she walks out of the courthouse and goes home.” The question for this jury is whether the Commonwealth proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay was criminally responsible when she killed Cora, Dawson and Callan.

GUILTY means punishment through the criminal justice system. NCR means she is not criminally punished for the acts because of her mental condition at the time, but she can remain confined and treated through Massachusetts’ mental-health commitment system as long as the legal requirements for that confinement are met.

Considering Lindsay has already spent more than three years at Tewksbury, remains in a wheelchair, requires medical assistance and, according to trial testimony, is STILL under constant one-to-one su***de monitoring, I think it’s important people understand the reality before saying an NCR verdict means she simply “walks free.”

It doesn’t.

08/29/2026

🚨 ALAN JACKSON’S OPINION ON LINDSAY CLANCY — TWO BADASS DEFENSE LAWYERS, TWO MASSACHUSETTS COURTROOMS 🚨

If you followed the Karen Read trial, you already know exactly who Alan Jackson is. Jackson walked into a Massachusetts courtroom in one of the most watched murder trials in the country and relentlessly challenged the Commonwealth’s evidence, its witnesses, its investigation and ultimately whether the prosecution had actually met its burden.

Now he is watching Kevin Reddington do the same thing in the Lindsay Clancy trial. Different defendants. Completely different facts. Completely different defenses. But watching these two lawyers work has been a master class in criminal defense.

Jackson sat down with Billy Bush after closing arguments in Clancy and gave his assessment of the case. His conclusion was clear: he does not believe the Commonwealth met its burden beyond a reasonable doubt. And coming from the lawyer who just fought the Commonwealth through the Karen Read prosecution, that caught my attention.

Jackson’s opinion was not based on emotion or headlines. He focused on the legal standard, the evidence presented and the questions the jury must answer. In his view, the defense raised serious issues that the Commonwealth needed to overcome—and he did not believe the prosecution successfully did so.

In Karen Read, Jackson’s strategy was relentless: don’t accept the Commonwealth’s version of events simply because the Commonwealth presented it. Challenge the investigation. Challenge the experts. Challenge the assumptions. Find the inconsistencies. Cross-examine until the jury understands exactly where the reasonable doubt lives.

That is exactly what we have watched Kevin Reddington do in Lindsay Clancy. Reddington didn’t need every witness to agree with him. He took the Commonwealth’s own experts and tested their opinions piece by piece. What did you review? Who did you speak with? What didn’t you investigate? What assumptions did you make? How certain are you about that conclusion?

That is criminal defense.

Jackson also talked about something trial lawyers understand immediately: Reddington’s ability to connect with individual jurors. A great closing argument isn’t simply a speech to 12 people. You are watching faces. You know who is following you. You know who needs another piece of the puzzle. You are speaking to the jury as a whole while sometimes delivering a sentence directly to one person.

Jackson did it brilliantly in Karen Read. Reddington just did it in Lindsay Clancy. And both lawyers understand one of the most important concepts in criminal law: the defense does not have to solve the case for the Commonwealth.

Karen Read did not have to prove every detail of an alternative theory in order to be acquitted. The prosecution still carried its burden.

Lindsay Clancy does not have to present 12 jurors with one perfectly packaged explanation of everything that happened inside her mind. The legal question remains whether the Commonwealth has carried its burden on the issues the jury must decide.

That is why conflicting experts matter. That is why cross-examination matters. That is why weaknesses in an investigation matter. And that is why reasonable doubt matters.

Jackson and Reddington also share something else that I LOVE watching in a courtroom: neither one appears afraid to make the jury uncomfortable.
They ask the question again. They challenge the expert. They expose the inconsistency. They make the witness explain the answer. They don’t abandon a point simply because the testimony becomes uncomfortable. And when the stakes are literally someone’s freedom, that is exactly what a defense attorney is supposed to do.

The Karen Read case and the Lindsay Clancy case should never be treated as factually interchangeable. They aren’t. But from a trial-lawyer perspective, watching Alan Jackson in Read and Kevin Reddington in Clancy has been incredible.

Two completely different cases. Two very different defense theories. Two Massachusetts murder prosecutions. And two badass defense lawyers who understand that the Constitution does not require a defendant to prove her innocence. It requires the Commonwealth to prove its case.

Alan Jackson fought that battle for Karen Read.

Kevin Reddington is fighting it for Lindsay Clancy.

And Alan Jackson’s opinion on the Clancy case makes one thing clear: he recognizes the same kind of relentless defense work he brought to the Karen Read trial.

08/28/2026

🚨 DR. AVRAM CT MACK IS REPORTEDLY NO LONGER WITH NEMOURS — DAYS AFTER HIS TESTIMONY IN THE LINDSAY CLANCY TRIAL

Well… this is an interesting development.

Dr. Avram Mack, one of the Commonwealth’s expert witnesses in the Lindsay Clancy trial, is reportedly no longer employed by Nemours Children’s Health. According to reporting from CT Insider, Nemours confirmed that Mack is no longer employed by the hospital. His profile has reportedly been removed from the Nemours website, and patients have reportedly been notified that appointments are being reassigned.

And yes, the timing is going to get people talking.

Mack testified for the Commonwealth just days ago and offered the opinion that Lindsay Clancy was not psychotic at the time of the killings. His testimony became one of the more talked-about moments of the trial, particularly after a contentious cross-examination by defense attorney Kevin Reddington.

Reddington challenged Mack on his investigation, his experience with postpartum psychosis, the information he relied upon in forming his opinions, and his prior expert testimony. At one point, Judge William Sullivan even had to intervene and remind the witness that his job was to answer the questions being asked, not ask them.

Now, days later, Mack is reportedly no longer at Nemours.

But here is the lawyer disclaimer because it matters: we do NOT currently know why his employment ended, and the timing alone does not establish that it had anything whatsoever to do with his testimony in the Clancy case. Unless and until Nemours or Mack provides an explanation, anything connecting the two would be speculation.

Interestingly, Reddington reportedly appeared unaware of the development when asked about it by CT Insider.

So for now, we have a confirmed employment change, some very interesting timing, and a whole lot of unanswered questions.

And after the cross-examination we watched last week? I have a feeling people are going to have A LOT to say about this one.

08/28/2026

🚨 FIRST JURY REQUEST IN THE LINDSAY CLANCY CASE — AND THIS ONE IS INTERESTING 🚨

We officially have our first request from the Lindsay Clancy jury during deliberations, and I think what they asked to see is significant.

The jury asked to see two bags of prescription medication/pill bottles AND the knife connected to Lindsay’s su***de attempt. The request was discussed with the attorneys at sidebar.

So what does that mean?

First, we cannot assume this tells us which way the jury is leaning. Jury questions and requests can tell us what evidence they are discussing, but they do NOT tell us what conclusion they have reached. One juror could have asked to see these items because they believe the defense. Another could want them because they are questioning the defense. We simply don’t know.

But the combination of the medications AND the knife is what catches my attention.

Medication has been at the center of this trial. The defense argued that Lindsay’s deteriorating mental health, extensive medication history and alleged postpartum psychosis were critical to whether she was criminally responsible. The Commonwealth argued that although Lindsay suffered from mental illness, she remained criminally responsible and understood the wrongfulness of her actions.

Then there is the knife.

The knife is connected to Lindsay’s su***de attempt immediately after the children were killed. The seriousness and circumstances surrounding that attempt have also been disputed throughout this case. Asking to physically examine that evidence alongside the medications makes me wonder whether the jury is examining her mental state and conduct surrounding the su***de attempt itself.

Are they looking at the medications to determine what she actually had available to her? Are they examining the knife because they are debating whether the su***de attempt was genuine? Are they trying to reconcile this physical evidence with the competing expert opinions about her mental state?

We don’t know — and anyone claiming this means a particular verdict is coming is guessing.

But what we do know is that after approximately 3½ hours of deliberations yesterday, the jury returned this morning and one of its first requests focused on evidence directly connected to Lindsay’s medication history and su***de attempt.

That tells me they are digging into the evidence.

And with nine women and three men deliberating over five possible verdicts for each child, this could still take time.

I said I expected at least 48 hours of deliberation in a case this complicated, and I’m sticking with it.

What do YOU think the medications + knife request means?

08/28/2026

🚨 WHICH MEDICAL EXPERT DID YOU BELIEVE THE MOST — AND WHY? 🚨

Now that the testimony is over and the Lindsay Clancy case is in the hands of the jury, I want to know which medical expert YOU found the most credible.

We heard experts reach very different conclusions after reviewing Lindsay’s history, medical records, medications, statements and behavior. And remember, the jury does not have to accept an expert’s opinion simply because that person was qualified as an expert. They can believe all of the testimony, some of it, or reject it entirely.

So who did you believe the most?

⚖️ 1. Dr. Paul Zeizel — Defense

⚖️ 2. Dr. Elizabeth Lopatska — Defense

⚖️ 3. Dr. Katherine Tufts — Commonwealth

⚖️ 4. Dr. Alexander Mack — Commonwealth

⚖️ 5. Dr. Kirk Heilbrun — Commonwealth

⚖️ 6. NONE OF THEM — You weren’t convinced enough by any one expert to rely heavily on their opinion.

We heard the same case examined through completely different medical and psychiatric lenses. Now I want to know whose testimony actually stayed with you once everyone left the witness stand.

Who did you trust the most, and what was the moment in their testimony that convinced you? Was there a particular answer, finding, explanation or moment on cross-examination that made you think, this is the expert I believe?

And maybe more importantly: did that expert ultimately change how you would vote in this case?

Drop the name and tell me why. I want to see whether there is one expert this audience overwhelmingly trusted — or whether we’re just as divided as this case has been.

08/28/2026

🚨 FINAL LINDSAY CLANCY VOTE — AND THIS TIME, TELL ME WHY 🚨

This is it. The testimony is over. The lawyers have made their arguments. The jury has the case. Hopefully, Friday brings a verdict.

A reminder as we wait: this jury is made up of 9 women and 3 men, and so far, they have not sent any questions to the judge. Of course, that tells us absolutely nothing about where they are leaning, but it is something to keep in mind as deliberations continue.

We have voted throughout this entire trial, and I have watched opinions change as witness after witness took the stand. So before these 12 jurors tell us what THEY believe, I want one final vote from all of you.

But this time, don’t just give me a number. Tell me WHY.

⚖️ 1. FIRST-DEGREE MURDER — You believe the Commonwealth proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible AND proved the elements necessary for first-degree murder.

⚖️ 2. MANSLAUGHTER — You believe she was criminally responsible, but the evidence does not support first-degree murder and instead supports the lesser offense of manslaughter.

⚖️ 3. NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF LACK OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY — You believe the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, because of mental disease or defect, she had the substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law.

⚖️ 4. NOT GUILTY — You believe the Commonwealth failed to prove the required elements of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.

⚖️ 5. HUNG JURY — You don’t believe these 12 jurors will be able to unanimously agree.

What are you picking — and WHY?

08/27/2026

A big one for women all over the country. All that’s left is to wait and see….Drop your predictions below. ⚖️🙏🏻

08/27/2026

🚨 MOMS, WE RIDE AT DAWN. 🚨

The prosecution is every person who tells a mom, ‘She should have just ordered takeout… She didn’t take the medication right… She seemed happy.’

All the while, a woman is suffering—in a nurse’s office, in her home, and now in front of the nation.

We need compassion. We need understanding. We need women to be validated, heard, and helped.

NOT BURNED AT THE STAKE.

And to every mom who has ever been dismissed, judged, told she “looked fine,” told she should be grateful, questioned about why she didn’t ask for help differently, or criticized for how she survived one of the most vulnerable periods of her life…

WE RIDE AT DAWN.

Moms support moms. Women support women. And we stop pretending that suffering has to look a certain way before we take it seriously.

Legallyatlaw

08/30/2026

08/30/2026

08/30/2026

08/29/2026

08/28/2026

08/28/2026

08/28/2026

08/28/2026

08/27/2026

08/27/2026

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request