Did Dr. Avram Mack Damage Lindsay Clancy’s Insanity Defense?

The prosecution pushed back hard against Lindsay Clancy’s insanity defense when rebuttal expert Dr. Avram Mack took the stand this week.

Lindsay Clancy does not deny killing her three young children in January 2023. She pleaded not guilty to murder, maintaining she was not criminally responsible due to severe mental illness.

The Sick Aspect

Her husband, Patrick Clancy, testified earlier in the proceedings about her deteriorating health, making it clear he believed that his wife was “sick,” and not a cold-blooded murderer.

That left little room for an argument that nothing was wrong. The debate wasn’t whether Lindsay Clancy was sick or making it up; the question was whether her illness wiped out her legal accountability.

Dr. Avram Mack’s Testimony

Mack didn’t tell jurors she was healthy; instead, he agreed she suffered from a major depressive episode and anxiety, but he rejected the argument that her illness left her unable to understand right from wrong.

Both sides agree that Lindsay Clancy wasn’t mentally well, but Mack raised questions about whether she was criminally responsible despite her mental illness.

Prosecution’s Rebuttal Expert

Mack appeared as a rebuttal witness for the prosecution. We reported earlier this week that criminal defense attorney Brian Claypool told NewsNation that “unless the prosecution has a Hail Mary rebuttal expert … they better have some type of forensic clinical psychologist to refute what Zeizel will say.”

Well, Mack’s testimony went after the legal standard the defense has to win.

According to ABC7, Mack found no evidence of mania or hypomania to support a bipolar diagnosis. He also found no evidence of psychosis leading up to the killings.

Recalling the Killing

Mack testified that Lindsay Clancy recalled the killings to him during an evaluation. Per ABC7’s report, Mack said she reported hearing a “loud male voice” telling her to kill the children so she could kill herself. She recalled strangling the children.

Mack told jurors she remembered saying “go to God” as she did it.

Considerations For The Jury

Mack’s testimony offered jurors a middle path. They don’t have to decide she was either totally healthy or completely detached from reality.

According to The Guardian, Assistant District Attorney Shanan Buckingham asked Mack if Lindsay Clancy retained the capacity to conform her behavior with the law and appreciate the wrongfulness of her acts.

Mack testified that “[Clancy] had retained that capacity.” That statement directly challenged defense experts Dr. Phillip Resnick and Dr. Paul Zeizel, who previously argued her mental state prevented legal responsibility.

Not Necessarily Psychotic?

The outlet noted that Mack told the court, “I can appreciate that she felt side effects and a degree of change from the medications that she took. I don’t know that that feeling or belief is necessarily psychotic.”

Mack explained that having psychosis doesn’t automatically mean a person can’t tell right from wrong. From the prosecution’s standpoint, even if jurors believe she heard a voice, they don’t necessarily have to find that she lacked criminal responsibility.

The Postpartum Psychosis Defense

Mack interpreted Clancy’s statement “go to God” as evidence that she understood the finality of her actions.

Mack also noted that Clancy was still carrying out ordinary activities shortly before the killings. He disagreed with the defense diagnosis of bipolar disorder, saying he found no evidence that she had experienced mania or hypomania.

He also questioned whether the changes Clancy attributed to her medications were evidence that she had become psychotic.

Defense Pushes Back

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington cross-examined Mack and according to The Guardian, he “criticized Mack for educating himself about Clancy’s background only through Clancy herself, while she was medicated in a psychiatric hospital, and without interviewing other people from her life.”

According to live coverage from CT Insider, Reddington pressed Mack aggressively on his methods and impartiality, at one point asking him, “Are you making this up?”

The cross-examination leaves open how much weight the jury will give Mack’s conclusions.

Reaction to the Insanity Defense

The trial attracted a lot of attention online. When ABC7 shared their article on Instagram, there were some mixed responses.

One reader wrote, “This case doesn’t sit right with me.”

Another person commented, “Just plead guilty why do you wanna be free life ain’t worth living without my babies.”

Other observers focused on what an insanity defense actually means in practice. One comment noted, “The thing is that a psych ward is worse than a prison. An insanity plea isn’t the ‘get out of jail free card’ people think it is.”

The trial continues next week, with closing arguments expected Tuesday.

Your thoughts? Join the discussion and then come back for more true crime news and updates. We also have a crime channel on TikTok that you can follow.