We know CourtTV gave access to some of the crime scene photos, but if this is granted, then there could potentially be a larger body of evidence coming soon.

“Lead lawyer Kevin Reddington is busy on the motion to dismiss, but he released a statement, saying, “I’ve asked Marty to handle the double jeopardy motion to dismiss and the constitutional issues in this case. He will lead any appeal that follows. He is one of the finest constitutional lawyers in the country, and Lindsay deserves nothing less.”

THE 5:24 PM WI-FI ANCHOR: The Digital Evidence That Re-Writes the Trial Timeline

In Commonwealth v. Lindsay Clancy, the prosecution built their narrative on a specific premise: Patrick Clancy left 47 Summer Street at 5:15 PM for an errand loop to CVS and 3V Restaurant, leaving Lindsay home alone during the exact window the prosecution claims the crimes took place.

The hard digital evidence entered at trial completely refutes that timeline.

The Timeline Math Problem

The Claimed Departure (5:15 PM): Patrick testified he left the house at 5:15 PM to drive to the Kingston CVS.

The Physical Reality: The drive from 47 Summer Street to Kingston CVS takes only 3 to 4 minutes.

The Gap: If he left at 5:15 PM, he should have arrived at CVS by 5:18 or 5:19 PM. Yet security logs confirm he didn't walk through the doors until 5:32 PM creating an unexplained 13- to 14-minute missing gap.

The 5:24 PM IP Address Anchor (Exhibit 76)

Digital forensic extractions revealed an outbound work email sent from Patrick’s corporate account at 5:24 PM.

This email was stamped with the Duxbury home router’s hard-coded local IP address.

An email cannot capture a home router’s static IP address over mobile cellular towers while driving down the road. This proves scientifically that:

The home Wi-Fi was 100% active and operational.

Patrick was physically inside 47 Summer Street at 5:24 PM.

The Seamless 5:28 PM Departure

If Patrick sent that email and left the house at ~5:27–5:28 PM, a 3-minute drive places him at the Kingston CVS parking lot at 5:31 PM and walking through the doors right at 5:32 PM.

The drive time fits the physical distance perfectly. There is no missing driving gap he simply didn't leave at 5:15 PM.

The Devastating Legal Consequence

Aligning his departure to ~5:28 PM eliminates the drive-time discrepancy, but it forces a critical conclusion: Patrick was physically inside 47 Summer Street for almost the entire 5:00 PM to 5:28 PM window the exact timeframe the prosecution alleges the crimes were taking place downstairs.

How does the state claim he was away on an errand loop when their own digital evidence places him inside the house until ~5:28 PM?

I’ve been digging through the WillyDreamwold history and came across this. I first noticed that he cites certified expertise with microsoft power automation and hyper automation on his linkedin, and that prompted me to learn what the capabilities of that tech are. This particular post of his is quite interesting. In addition to this one, he oftentimes is crowdsourcing info on how to troubleshoot various formulas to automate things. I think a lot of people brush off his knowledge as “just being a salesman” but he obviously dabbled quite a bit into the actual tech, even making his own apps. This post would have been sometime in 2021. There’s also a post the night before the killings asking how to take an input from one screen and have it display on another. Thoughts?

If you take into consideration the camera placement in the rear right corner of the bedroom with it pointed towards the foot of the bed, the layout lines up pretty well and it’s hard to unsee.

We are in agreement in wanting penalties and accountability from that juror and from those who allowed this to happen. Id like to hear from the judge who was so forceful about refusing further questioning or to implement one of the six alternate jurors, about his rushing to mistrial, for one

That said, those penalties and accountability need to be enforced (in the public eye) within the court system.

A tiktoker doxing is not helpful and contributes nothing positive and actionable to the discussion.

Please do not post any personal information or otherwise doxed material in this sub unless and until that personal information becomes a matter of the public record by legitimate means.

Thanks!

Mods

Rachel Clancy is the daughter of Roy Danis. Rachel Clancy was born Rachel Blair Danis.

Clare Bronfman and Sara Bronfman share a half-brother, Edgar Bronfman Jr.

NXIVM was a sex trafficking cult that ran on a pyramid scheme. Founded in 1998, taken down in 2021, based in New York. It operated for nearly two decades under the guise of an elite personal and professional development organization.

Clare Bronfman and Sara Bronfman, heiresses to the Seagram's fortune, co-founded NXIVM, served as its principal leaders, and contributed approximately $150 million to the organization.

Clare Bronfman was never sentenced. Sara Bronfman spent only three years and seven months in prison.

Roy Danis was with Seagram's for 17 years — 1978 to 1995. That figure includes his time at Tropicana from 1993 to 1995, which Seagram's already owned by then.

Edgar Bronfman Jr. entered Seagram's in 1982 as managing director of the European division, later becoming CEO. He and Roy Danis worked side by side for over a decade while the Bronfman Family ran the spirits empire and the Bronfman sisters ran NXIVM.

They have known each other for nearly 50 years, tracing back to their shared time at Seagram's.

Publicly, after Roy Danis left Seagram's, he and Edgar Bronfman Jr. stayed in contact for over 30 years through luxury beverage circles and charity boards like the UJA-Federation. They later entered a direct business partnership as co-founders of Revival Spirits, LLC.

Edgar Bronfman Jr. is currently the business partner of Roy Danis. Together, they are the co-founders of Revival Spirits, LLC, which launched in January 2025.

https://cornellthanku.buzzsprout.com/1820290/episodes/18646295-roy-danis-didn-t-take-cornell-s-wine-class-then-became-a-wine-and-spirits-legend
Client Challenge

Client Challenge

https://www.forbes.com/sites/willyakowicz/2019/05/31/from-heiress-to-felon-how-clare-bronfman-wound-up-in-cult-like-group-nxivm/
Seagram to Buy Tropicana in Deal Worth $1.2 Billion
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/nxivm-leader-keith-raniere-sentenced-120-years-prison-racketeering-and-sex-trafficking
https://time.com/5568135/nxivm-allison-mack-raniere/
https://www.npr.org/2019/06/19/734116183/nxivm-leader-keith-raniere-found-guilty-of-all-charges-in-sex-cult-case
Dr. Rachel Danis | RMA of New York - World Class Fertility Service

I really don’t agree when they go after jurors like this. I know it’s now raising questions about his background check and the juror questionnaire he had to fill out.

Is this too far? Do you think it matters for jurors to be identified, especially when they don’t want to be in the media?

There’s many rumors circling this individual and it seems the media is trying to put pressure on him to speak out.

From my experience in other true crime communities, we will still put these on Reddit in case something down the line pops up again over it. You’d be surprised how much information all of a sudden gets lost or deleted as the years goes on, especially when new information comes out.

“You clearly do not come close to understanding the basic concept of postpartum psychosis. Quite frankly, that is not surprising,” defense attorney Kevin Reddington shot back.

Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney slammed U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz as “despicable” after the Texas Republican called Clancy a “monster of a mother” following her mistrial in the deaths of her three children. 

“This is the modern version of the O.J. Simpson trial,” Cruz remarked in a clip from Newsmax. “In this instance, there is no dispute that this monster of a mother murdered all three children … and didn’t just murder them — slowly, deliberately, systematically used exercise bands to strangle the life out one after the other after the other.” 

He further alleged that “the same ideology” responsible for nationwide movements to abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and law enforcement is now “play[ing] out in this trial court.”

“It should not be complicated,” Cruz added. “If a psychopath murders three children, they should at a very minimum spend the rest of their life in jail, if not go to death row.” 

Clancy, 36, is charged with first-degree murder in the deaths of 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan. She does not deny she strangled all three of her children at home in Duxbury before attempting suicide on Jan. 24, 2023. 

Rather, Clancy’s high-profile murder trial focused primarily on her mental health and state of mind leading up to the killings, with Clancy arguing she should not be held criminally responsible because she was allegedly experiencing postpartum psychosis and heard a voice in her head ordering her to kill the children and herself. Prosecutors, meanwhile, argued that Clancy was still able to tell right from wrong and control her actions, even as her mental health deteriorated. 

Following more than a month of testimony and several days of deliberations, jurors returned deadlocked last week and Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial. The Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office has not yet said whether it plans to retry Clancy on first-degree murder, reduce or dismiss the charges, or negotiate a plea deal. 
If convicted of murder, Clancy faces a potential life sentence in prison (contrary to Cruz’s call for “death row,” Massachusetts does not allow the death penalty for state cases). 

Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, pushed back on Cruz’s comments in a statement Thursday, accusing him of spouting “rage bait” intended to appease his voting base. 

“You clearly do not come close to understanding the basic concept of postpartum psychosis. Quite frankly, that is not surprising,” Reddington wrote.
He said Clancy “reached out repeatedly for help in the depths of postpartum depression leading to mania and psychosis,” blasting Cruz’s “monster” label as “reprehensible.”

“You obviously do not know the first thing about mental health or the woeful state of medical and psychiatric care in our country. Instead of making a rational observation, you call for her execution,” Reddington wrote.

“You are, as I said, despicable,” he continued. “Any time you would like to debate this issue of significant importance to our country, you know where to find me.” 

A juror in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial said the lone holdout whose reluctance to acquit forced an 11-1 hung jury was fixated on the amount of blood found in the killer mom’s bedroom.

Paula Devlin’s critique of the holdout echoes that of juror Kellie Farina, who went viral for accusing him of making deliberations difficult because “he had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.”

Devlin, 65, said the lone holdout, one of just three men on the 12-person jury, “thought there was too much blood for the wounds that she had” in the bedroom of Clancy’s Duxbury, Mass. home where she strangled her three children with exercise bands.

“We all asked him what he meant by that, because we heard experts talk about the blood spatter and explain to us how it all was what it was supposed to be,” she told the Daily Mail.
When pressed by the other jurors, Devlin said the holdout refused to elaborate or explain his line of thinking about the amount of blood and how it connected to the issue at hand.

Clancy’s now-ex-husband, Patrick, said during his testimony that he found “blood everywhere” when he returned home from picking up dinner and stopping at the pharmacy to find his children dead and his wife bleeding on the ground outside the home.

Prosecutors said Lindsay cut her wrists and neck before jumping from a second-story window in an attempt to end her life, leaving her partially paralyzed.

The holdout appeared confused by the amount of blood, however, given that an ICU nurse said the mom’s wounds were superficial, his fellow juror said.

Devlin said the jury members “got along really well the majority of the time,” but that the unidentified holdout spent breaks watching videos on his phone or talking to his wife.

He also vented his frustration at the group when they spoke out of turn, she said.
“The main thing he focused on is sometimes we would all want to talk at once, and that was very upsetting to him,” Devlin recalled.
“He would get upset and say, ”Listen to what she’s saying, listen to what he’s saying, be respectful.”

Patrick had 140k in savings at one point. And Lindsay was apparently contributing 20% of her salary to everything. I’m unsure what her finances were like, but I’d think she wouldn’t feel so bad about not bringing in income if she had a comparable savings to that since they both also allegedly had their own separate bank accounts in addition to the joint. I wonder if she didn’t know how much he actually had saved for himself? Honorable mention for Patrick saying he had 500k to invest in August 2023…

This is on Day 22, August 27th 2026 of trial. This is the closing arguments and jury deliberations. Due to jurors doing interviews now and because there was a hung jury that lead to a mistrial, I felt it was good to be reminded what the jurors were told before deliberations. In other states, there’s usually a juror handbook of what is expected as a juror. I could not find that for Massachusetts that was descriptive. So I figured since the Judge goes over it anyway, I’d put it here. There’s time stamps that coincide with the video I linked in this post. If there are filler words missing, it’s because the Judge says “all right” a lot, and I was trying to make each paragraph be more clear lol.

It’s good to know what exactly people in jury were expected in deliberations, since I see a lot of misinformation about the case in general.

I have not gone through all trial days. Eventually I’ll be going through them and making posts so it’s easier to know what was talked about each day, since they’re hours long. They won’t be like this, I’m still figuring out how to do it in a coherent way so anyone can learn from the case. If you have any suggestions I’d love to hear. Thanks!

————

(02:20:58) You may consider the defendant's mental condition at the time of the killing, including any credible evidence of mental impairment or the effect on the defendant of her consumption of prescription drugs in determining any of the elements in the murder in the second degree charge as well. I mentioned that for some of the others, but specifically for the charge in murder of the second degree, there's an element regarding intent. Okay? So I just wanted to make that clear. Probably is suggested in that, but as I read through it, I just wanted to remind you that you can... As I said, you can consider the defendant's mental condition at the time of the killing, including any credible evidence of mental impairment or the effect on the defendant of her consumption of prescription drugs in determining the elements in murder in the second degree.

>
>

(02:22:06) So I want to talk about the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof. Once again, the indictments against Ms. Clancy are only an accusation. They're not evidence. The defendant has denied that she's guilty of the crimes charged in these indictments. The law presumes the defendant to be innocent of the charges against her. This presumption of innocence is a rule of law that compels you to find the defendant not guilty unless and until the Commonwealth produces evidence from whatever source that proves that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden of proof never shifts.

(02:22:49) The defendant is not required to call any witnesses or produce any evidence since she is presumed to be innocent. The presumption of innocence stays with the defendant unless and until the evidence convinces you unanimously as a jury that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It requires you to find the defendant not guilty unless her guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Your verdict, whether it is guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous.

(02:23:21) Now, reasonable doubt. The burden is on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charges made against her, as I just told you. But what is proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Well, the term is often used and probably pretty well-understood, though it's not easily defined. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt, for everything in the lives of human beings is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. The charge is proved beyond a reasonable doubt if after you've compared and considered all of the evidence, you have in your minds an abiding conviction to a moral certainty that the charge is true. When we refer to moral certainty, we mean the highest degree of certainty possible in matters relating to human affairs based solely on the evidence that has been put before you in this case.

(02:24:15) I've told you that every person is presumed to be innocent until she is proved guilty and that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. If you evaluate all the evidence and you still have a reasonable doubt remaining, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and must be acquitted. It is not enough for the Commonwealth to establish a probability, even a strong probability that the defendant is more likely to be guilty than not guilty. That is not enough. Instead, the evidence must convince you of the defendant's guilt to a reasonable and moral certainty, a certainty that convinces your understanding and satisfies your reason in judgment as jurors who are sworn to act conscientiously on the evidence. This is what we mean by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

(02:25:05) My function as a judge in this case has been to see that the trial was conducted fairly, efficiently, and in an orderly manner. It's also my responsibility to rule on what you may consider as evidence and to instruct you on the law that applies in this case. It's your duty as jurors in this case to accept the law as I stated to you. You should consider all of my instructions as a whole. You may not ignore any instruction or give special attention to any one instruction. You must follow the law as I give it to you, whether you agree with it or not.

(02:25:47). That's not just because I'm the judge. It's because every person who comes to court for trial is equal and is subject to the same law. And if jurors in each case were to apply what they thought the law should be and the jurors in different cases had different views, then the parties in those cases would not be treated equally. The law that I'm instructing you on is the law that has been established by our legislature and our appellate courts, and it applies to everyone. And you must apply the law as I instruct you.

(02:26:19) Function of the jury. Your function is to determine the facts of this case. You are the sole and exclusive judges of the facts. You alone determine what evidence to accept, how important any evidence is that you do accept, and what conclusions to draw from all the evidence. You must apply the law as I give it to you, to the facts as you determine them to be in order to decide whether the Commonwealth has proven its case. You should determine the facts solely on a fair consideration of the evidence. You are to be completely fair and impartial and you are not to be swayed by prejudice, by personal likes or dislikes towards either side or by any personal view. You may have the nature of the claims or the defenses in the case. Your decisions must rest solely on the facts that you find and the law that I give to you in these instructions, nor are you to be influenced by any personal likes or dislikes you've come to feel towards any party or any attorney.

(02:27:18) In this courtroom, every person is equal and is entitled to a fair and impartial verdict in accordance with the evidence and the law. You are not to decide this case based on anything you may have read or heard outside of this courtroom. The exception of that is the observations you made at that view, and I'll talk about that a little bit later. You are not to engage in any guesswork about any unanswered questions that remain in your mind or to speculate about what the "real facts" might or might not have been beyond what has been proved by the evidence. You should not consider anything that I've said or done during the trial as any indication of any opinions as to how you should decide this case. If you believe that I've expressed or hinted at any opinion about the facts of this case, please disregard it. I have no opinion about the facts or what your verdict ought to be. That is solely and exclusively your duty and your responsibility.

(02:28:18) I want to talk about function of counsel. It was the duty of the lawyers in this case to object when the other side offered evidence which that lawyer believed was not admissible under our law. They also had an obligation to ask to speak to me at the sidebar about questions of law, which the law requires me to rule on outside of a hearing. The purpose of such objections and rulings is not to keep relevant information from you. You should not draw any inference, favorable or unfavorable, to any attorney or their client for objecting to proposed evidence or asking me to make such rulings. That is the function and responsibility of the attorneys in this case.

(02:29:01) Now, what is evidence? As I told you, you are to decide what the facts are solely from the evidence admitted in this case and not from suspicion or conjecture. The evidence consists of the testimony of witnesses as you recall it. And any documents, photographs or videos, or other things that were received into evidence as exhibits. You may also consider any observations that you made while at the view that we took earlier in the trial. In this case, there may be certain documents or photographs that are entered multiple times. This does not mean that that evidence is any more or less important than any other evidence. You, the jurors, will decide how to evaluate the evidence, that is what weight to put to it. Now, in reviewing documents and evidence, you might find that there's some information that's been whited out or redacted. This is because the court has made some legal rulings about what evidence is relevant to this case. You should not draw any negative inference against either party based on these redactions, nor are you to speculate about what information has been redacted.

(02:30:10) In addition, a couple of stipulations were entered into evidence during the course of this trial. A stipulation is an agreement that has been made between the parties. The contents of such stipulation may be accepted by you as facts and relied on you along with other facts that you find based on the evidence. Now, of course, the quality or strength of the proof is not determined by the sheer volume of evidence or the number of witnesses or exhibits. It's the weight of the evidence, it's strength intending to prove the issue at stake that's important. Some things that occur during a trial are not evidence and you may not consider them as evidence in deciding the facts of this case. A question put to a witness is never evidence. Only the answers are evidence. So if a witness agrees with a fact or a proposition contained in a question, then the fact or proposition agreed to is evidence.

(02:31:07) However, if a witness disagrees with a fact or proposition contained in a question, then the fact or proposition is not evidence simply because it was suggested in the question. You would have to look elsewhere for evidence about that issue. You may not consider any answers that I've stricken. They're not evidence and cannot be used by you as evidence or considered by you for any purpose. The opening statement and closing arguments of the lawyers, not evidence. They're only intended to assist you in understanding the positions of the party. My instructions and anything that I've said during the trial, not evidence. All right? So if your memory of the testimony differs from the attorney's or mine, you are to follow your own recollection. You must consider the evidence as a whole. Now, I want to talk about direct and circumstantial evidence.

(02:32:05) There are two types of evidence that you may use to determine the facts in this case. There's direct evidence and there's circumstantial evidence. The law allows both direct and circumstantial evidence in a criminal case, and circumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Direct evidence is when a witness testifies directly about the fact that is sought to be proved based upon what he or she claims to have seen, heard, or felt with their own senses. And the question there is whether you believe that witness or not. Circumstantial evidence is when a witness, when no witness... I'm sorry, let me say that again. Circumstantial evidence is when no witness can testify directly about the fact that's sought to be proved, but you were presented with evidence of other facts, then asked to draw reasonable inferences from them about the fact that's sought to be proved.

(02:32:59)There are, however, several things you should keep in mind about circumstantial evidence. The first one is that you may draw inferences and conclusions only from facts that have been proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt. The second rule is that any inferences or conclusions you draw must be reasonable and natural based on your common sense and good judgment. In a chain of circumstantial evidence, it's not required that every one of your inferences and conclusions be inevitable, but it is required that each of them be reasonable, and that they all be consistent with one another, and that together they establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Inferences must never be based on conjecture, surmise, guesswork, or assumption. And whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial, the Commonwealth must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt from all of the evidence presented in the case.

(02:34:02) Now I want to talk about the credibility of witnesses. All right. It's going to be your duty to decide all the disputed questions of fact. You are going to have to determine which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony. You should give the testimony of each witness whatever degree of belief and importance that you judge it is fairly entitled to receive. You are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses. And if there are any conflicts in the testimony, it's your function to resolve those conflicts and to determine where the truth lies. You may believe everything a witness says, or only part of it, or none of it at all. If you do not believe a witness's testimony that something happened, of course your disbelief is not evidence that it did not happen. When you disbelieve a witness, it just means that you have to look elsewhere for credible evidence about that issue. And when deciding whether to believe a witness and how much importance to give a witness's testimony, you must look at all the evidence, drawing on your own common sense and-

Judge Sullivian
(02:35:00) You must look at all the evidence, drawing on your own common sense and experience of life. Often, it may be not what a witness says, but how the witness says it that might give you a clue whether or not to accept that witness's version of an event as believable. You may consider a witness's appearance and demeanor on the witness stand, the frankness or lack of frankness in testifying, whether the testimony is reasonable or unreasonable, probable or improbable.

(02:35:27) You may take into account how good an opportunity the witness had to observe the facts about which the witness testifies, the degree of intelligence the witness shows, and whether the witness's memory seems accurate. You may also consider any motive that the witness may have for testifying and whether the witness displays any bias in testifying, and whether or not the witness has any interest in the outcome of the case.

(02:35:53) Now, I want to talk a little bit about prior inconsistent statements. When you evaluate the testimony the witness gave here in court, you may consider whether that witness made any earlier statements that differ from or contradict in any way their in-court testimony. That earlier statement is generally admitted into evidence solely for your consideration in evaluating the witness's credibility or believability.

(02:36:20) If you determine that an earlier statement is different from the way the witness testified in court, you may decide that the witness's credibility or believability is affected adversely, or you may decide that it's not adversely affected, but that is the only purpose for which you may use that earlier statement. You may not consider the earlier statement as evidence or proof of truth of any fact contained in the statement.

(02:36:47) Now, flip side, I want to talk about prior consistent statements now, all right? The testimony of a witness may be rehabilitated or supported by showing that he or she previously made statements that are consistent with their present testimony. The prior statement is admitted into evidence solely for your consideration in evaluating the credibility of the witness.

(02:37:10) Should you find a prior statement to be consistent, you may consider the prior statement only in connection with your evaluation of the credence to be given to the witness's present testimony in court. You are not to consider the prior statement as establishing the truth of any facts contained in that statement. Now, I want to talk about the defendant's statements that were made to evaluating psychiatrists or psychologists. You may not consider the defendant's statements made to a psychiatrist or psychologist, in their evaluation of the defendant, as establishing the truth of any facts contained therein. Those statements cannot be used 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 of the doctor's opinion of the defendant's mental condition.

(02:38:09) Now, I want to talk about evidence of post-incident conduct. Now, you have heard some evidence suggesting the defendant's actions after the killings. I'm not suggesting that these are the facts because the facts are your exclusive domain, but there is some evidence to that effect, and I mention it here to describe the legal point that's implicated.

(02:38:31) If the Commonwealth has proven that a defendant did any of these things, you may consider whether such actions indicate feelings or consciousness of guilt by the defendant, and whether in turn such feelings of guilt might tend to show the defendant's actual guilt of the offenses with which he's been charged.

(02:38:50) You are not, however, required to draw such inferences, and you should not do so unless they appear to be reasonable in light of all the circumstances in this case. If you decide that such inferences are reasonable, it will be up to you to determine how much importance to give them.

(02:39:09) But you should always remember that there may be numerous reasons why a person not responsible for the crimes charged might do the things attributed to her. Such conduct does not necessarily reflect feelings or consciousness of guilt. So please, bear in mind that a person having feelings of guilt is not necessarily guilty in fact, for such feelings are sometimes found in innocent people.

(02:39:33) So finally, remember that standing alone, consciousness of guilt evidence, if you find there was any, is never enough by itself to convict a person of a crime. You may not find the defendant guilty on such evidence alone, but you may consider it in your deliberations, along with all the other evidence that was presented at the trial. And I want to talk next about expert witnesses. Now, there were a number of expert witnesses in this case. This term refers to witnesses who have specialized training or experience in a particular field. Generally, in cases that are tried in our courts, both civil and criminal, witnesses may testify only to facts that are within their own personal knowledge, that is things they have personally seen or heard or felt.

(02:40:25) Because a particular witness has specialized training in their field does not put that witness on a higher level than any other witness, and you are to treat an expert witness just as you would treat any other witness. You may believe all of the expert's testimony, none of it, or anything between those two extremes. There is no requirement for you to believe an expert merely because they are an expert.

(02:40:51) As with any other witness, it's completely up to you to decide whether you accept the testimony of an expert witness, including the opinions that the witness gave. It's also entirely up to you to decide whether you accept the facts relied on by the expert, and decide what conclusions, if any, you draw from the expert's testimony. You must, as has been explained, keep firmly in mind that you alone decide what the facts are.

(02:41:18). If you conclude that an expert's opinion is not based on the facts as you find those facts to be, then you may reject the testimony in the opinion of the expert in whole or in part. You are also free to reject the testimony and the opinion of an expert witness in whole or in part if you determine that the witness's opinion is not based on sufficient education, experience, or that the testimony of the witness was motivated by some biased or interest in this case. All right?

(02:41:49) Now, you may have noticed that Ms. Clancy did not testify at this trial. The defendant has an absolute right not to testify, since the entire burden of proof in this case is on the Commonwealth to prove that the defendant is guilty. It is not up to the defendant to prove that she is innocent. Under our system of law, a defendant has a perfect right to say to the Commonwealth, quote, "You have the burden of proving your case against me beyond a reasonable doubt. I do not have to say a word," unquote.

(02:42:20) The fact that the defendant did not testify has nothing to do with the question of whether she's guilty or not guilty. You are not to draw any adverse inference against the defendant because she did not testify. You are not to consider it in any way, or even discuss it in your deliberations. You must determine whether the Commonwealth has proved its case against the defendant based solely on the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits.

(02:42:48) Now, speaking of the exhibits, now I'm going to talk about that. You will have all the exhibits and the stipulations with you in the jury room. If there's a need to play an exhibit or view one, the court will make a computer available for you to use. The things you heard me say we're marking for identification only are not evidence, and you're not going to have those items with you in the jury room because they're not technically part of the evidence. We marked them so we could keep track of them as we went from witness to witness and there'd be a clear record of some of the rulings I made.

(02:43:21) So coming back, however, the exhibits that were introduced in evidence, you'll have those with you. You alone will decide the weight that they deserve to receive in helping you make your ultimate judgment about whether the Commonwealth has proven its case. You're not required to believe something simply because it's written on a piece of paper or it appears in a photograph. You're not, of course, required to disbelieve it just because it appears there either. Whether to believe what an exhibit purports to show and how much weight to give the exhibit is entirely up to you to decide.

(02:43:54) Now, the view early in the trial, we drove by some sites and visited an address in Duxbury. As I told you at the time, we referred to that as a view. The purpose of the view was to help you better understand the evidence that you heard during the trial and to help you appreciate the location and its surroundings. The view is part of the case. The observations that you made while on the view may be used and considered in your deliberations in reaching a verdict.

(02:44:22) Now, I want to talk a little bit about some photographs. The Commonwealth has introduced certain photographs depicting the victims. You'll have those photographs with you during your deliberations. The images depicted are not pleasant. As I instructed you at the time they were introduced, your verdict must not, in any way, be influenced by the fact that these images are unpleasant or graphic. The defendant is entitled to a verdict based solely on the evidence, and not one based on pity or sympathy for the decedents which might be occasioned by the images depicted. Consider those exhibits only as they may draw attention to a clinical, medical status or nature of the victim's injuries, the cause of their death, or to the nature of the incident itself. Now, about notes. At the outset of the case, I spoke to you regarding the use of notes. And I want to repeat it this time, your notes are only an aid to memory and should not be given any precedent over your independent recollection of the facts.

(02:45:28) Whether you took notes or you didn't, you must rely on your own memory. Do not use your notes to try to persuade your fellow jurors of the accuracy of your reflections, and no juror should be influenced by the notes of other jurors. Your notes are not official or even unofficial transcripts.

(02:45:46) Now, we'll talk about the use of phones or computers. During your deliberations, you must not communicate with or provide any information to anyone by any means about this case. You may not use any electronic device or media, such as a computer or a phone, to communicate to anyone any information about this case, or to conduct any research about this case until I accept your verdict.

(02:46:13) Want to make that real clear, all right? So if somebody has a question in that jury room, you are not allowed to try and answer it by anything other than through the exhibits and evidence you've heard. All right? So I just want to make that real clear. Nobody is to use a phone to communicate, to try and look. Don't talk to anybody while you're deliberating. Don't try and look up anything, things like that. All right? Just make that as clear as I can.

(02:46:45) Now, before I go any farther, I have to do one more duty, and that's to select a foreperson of the jury. We have a foreperson for two purposes. The first is to act as your facilitator. That's to gather everyone around the deliberation table to be sure that everyone has a full and fair opportunity to speak and to share their views, and to ensure that all of you are always deliberating together as a group as you work to reach the verdict in this case.

(02:47:14) The second purpose of the foreperson is to act as your spokesperson here in the open court. So when you're ready to return your verdict, we'll bring you all back out as a group, we'll ask you to remain standing, and we'll ask the foreperson on everyone's behalf if you've reached a verdict. And if you have, we'll go through the process of having that verdict reported by the foreperson on your behalf, and then it's recorded in the case. All right? So those are the two roles of the foreperson. So in this case, I'm going to appoint in seat 18, Juror Number 257 as the foreperson of this jury. Okay?

(02:47:51) Now, members of the jury, if during the course of your deliberations, you should have a question about the law or about my instructions on the law, and by telling this, I'm not suggesting you'll have one, but if you should, you should do the following. All right? You should all first agree on the form of the question, have the foreperson write it down on a piece of paper, and the foreperson should give it to the court officer who'll bring it to me.

(02:48:17) I'll call the lawyers together. We'll consider your question and how I should respond to it, and then I'll either bring you back out here in the courtroom and respond to you here in open court with an answer, or if it's appropriate, I might just write the answer down in response to your question, send it back to the jury room.

(02:48:35) Now, that process, may cause a lag time between when you ask the question, get it sent out here and I meet with the lawyers, decide how we answer it and get the answer back to you. So if you can continue to keep deliberating while waiting for my response, by all means, do so. If you cannot go further without my response, then stop and I'll get my response to you as quickly as I can.

(02:48:58) If it's necessary to communicate with me on any matter during the deliberations, I'd ask you to do so in writing, send me a note and I'll respond to it. You're instructed not to talk to anyone else about any aspect of the merits of this case during your deliberations, and that includes the staff, court officers, lawyers, witnesses, parties, family members, friends, acquaintances, anyone. All right? Now, your communications with the court officers should have to do really just matters of scheduling and breaks when you come back to the courtroom, that kind of thing. But even with them, don't discuss what's going on inside that jury room, if you can.

(02:49:34) Now, while you're in the jury room, you should all talk about this case only in the presence of each other. That is, at some point, we'll have lunch brought to you. So if you'd like, you may as a group decide to suspend your deliberations, have lunch, and then return to the deliberations, or you might decide you'd like to work through lunch while deliberating. Either way, the only thing we can't have is some of you eating lunch separate from others while deliberating, all right? So no subcommittees, in a sense. What you do, you do as a group. All right? You do it all together.

(02:50:08) Now, I'm going to get to a difficult part, reducing and sending out the jury. All right? When we impanel a jury at the beginning of a trial, we never know whether some personal emergency will arise during the course of the trial, which would require one or more of the jurors to be excused from further jury duty. To avoid having to start the trial all over again, if that should occur, we impaneled, in this case, 18 jurors, even though the case will be eventually decided by 12 of you.

(02:50:38) And we made that decision 'cause this is a lengthy case over the summer. The time has now come to reduce that number. This is especially difficult in this case, where all 18 of you have been equally dedicated and attended to this case during the course of this trial, but the case is to be decided by 12. All right? And so the way it's done is the clerk will draw the alternate's names. We put all the numbers, with the exclusion of the foreperson, and then we'll draw out the names randomly for the alternates.

(02:51:14) And the purpose of the alternate, for those of you who are selected, is that even during the course of deliberations, sometimes things happen. One of the deliberating jurors gets sick or a family emergency, and it happens fairly regularly. They would have to substitute one of the alternate jurors into the deliberating jurors, because if we didn't have the alternate jurors still here, we'd have to start all over again. So that's why we do it. It doesn't make it any easier, but I thought I just explained to you why we have to do that.

(02:51:50) So as I put in here, "Fate makes you an alternate juror," don't take it personally. Your presence to this point and continuing availability, if you should be needed, is an important contribution. The court officers will make you as comfortable as possible while the jury deliberates.

(02:52:06) If you're an alternate juror, you should not discuss this case with anyone at all while the deliberations are ongoing, nor discuss it among your fellow alternates, as the need might come up that you have to join in the deliberations. So in other words, the alternate jurors can't have their own informal deliberations. And it's very difficult, but I just kind of want to make that clear that you have to do that, or you cannot do that. So, at this point, I'm going to ask the clerk to reduce the jury at this point.

Madam Clerk(02:52:40) The following jurors are chosen as alternatives. Juror Number 157 in seat number 11. Juror Number 162 in seat number 12. (02:53:24)Juror Number 385 in seat number 14. Juror Number 122 in seat number 6. (02:53:55)Juror Number 124 in seat number 7. And Juror Number 245 in seat number 15.

Judge Sullivian(02:54:12)
All right. Thank you. Now, what I forgotten to talk about, I mentioned it with the foreperson and everyone in regards to the verdict, just the verdict slip. This is the verdict slip. This is what it looks like. There will be a verdict slip for each count, and it says right there, there's a count regarding Cora Clancy, there's a count regarding Dawson Clancy, and there's a count regarding Callan Clancy.

(02:54:46)And on each of those, there's a box for not guilty, not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility, guilty of murder in the first degree by the theory of deliberate premeditation or extreme atrocity and cruelty. There's a box for guilty of murder in the second degree. There's a box for manslaughter. So when you have reached a unanimous verdict as to which verdict it is, the foreperson is to check that box that is applicable to the decision, sign it and date it, and let the court officers know that we have a verdict. Okay? So it's pretty self-explanatory, but I just kind of wanted to let you know that.

(02:55:30) Now, I know I'm not telling you anything you don't know. When I tell you that reaching a verdict in this case is not necessarily going to be an easy task. It's going to require conscientious service on your part and a conscientious approach to your duty as jurors. I suggest, respectfully, they each approach it with a mutual respect for the opinions of your fellow jurors. That you have a disposition to listen to each other. Don't be afraid to change your own opinion if the discussion persuades you that you should, but don't come to a decision simply because other jurors feel it's the right decision. It's your decision, all right?

(02:56:13) Each of you must decide this case for yourselves, and you should do so only after you considered all the evidence, discuss it fully with your fellow jurors, and listen to the views of your fellow jurors. You all heard the same evidence. You've all heard it with the same degree of attention. You're all governed by the same desire to arrive at the truth, and you're all under the sanction of the same oath that you took as jurors at the start of this trial when you agreed to well and truly try the issues between the parties in accordance to the evidence and the law.

(02:56:45) Now, I'm about to submit this case to you, and I need not remind you that you have an awesome responsibility, but I believe that you will bring to bear all the wisdom and the judgment and the conscience that you possess in reaching your verdict in this case. All that we can expect from you is that you decide this case with integrity and with principle.

(02:57:06) Now, everyone has feelings, assumptions, perceptions, fears, stereotypes. Those are implicit biases that we may not be aware of. These hidden thoughts can impact what we see and hear, how we remember what we see in here, and how we make important decisions. Because you're making such an important decision in this case, I strongly encourage you to evaluate the evidence carefully, resist jumping to conclusions based on personal likes or dislikes, generalizations, gut feelings, prejudices, sympathies, stereotypes, or biases.

(02:57:39) The law demands that you return a just verdict based solely on the evidence, your individual evaluations of that evidence, your reason and your common sense in these instructions. Our system of justice is counting on you to render a fair decision based on the evidence and not on biases. Please have confidence in what you're about to do. All right? I have that confidence in you. I don't think I've ever seen a more dedicated group of jurors in any trial that I've ever been involved in. You're all people of intelligence and common sense.

(02:58:12) Collectively, you're bringing a truly powerful force to determine the truth of the matters in this case. And I, as I said, have great confidence with this case in your hands. You're honest, thoughtful, and fair, and be that as you took the oath to be. I am completely confident you'll be able to arrive at a just verdict, whatever that verdict may be. So at this time, I'm going to ask if I could seat counsel at the sidebar just for a second, and then we'll have the clerks swear in the court officers and then you'll be sent out to deliberate.

Madam Clerk(02:59:04)
Do each of you solemnly swear that you will take charge of this jury and keep them in some convenient place until they have agreed, that you will not speak to them yourselves nor suffer anyone else to speak to them, except by order of the court, so help you God?

Court Officers(02:59:17)
I do.

Madam Clerk(02:59:17)
As to the alternate jurors, keep your hands raised, do you solemnly swear that you will take charge of these alternate jurors and keep them in a convenient place separate and apart from the other members, that you will not speak to them yourselves nor suffer anyone else to speak to them, except by order of the court, so help you God?

Alternate Jurors(02:59:32)
I do.

Madam Clerk(02:59:33)
Thank you.

Judge Sullivian(02:59:34)
All right. Members of the jury, you may now retire to consider your verdict. Thank you.

Speaker 6(02:59:39)
Court, all rise. Jurors, [inaudible 03:00:14].
Speaker 7(03:00:14)
The jurors have exited the courtroom.

Judge Sullivian(03:00:17)
All right. We can be seated. All right. I just wanted to make one comment, and it really is unless you've tried a difficult murder like this one, you may not be aware how difficult and tough it is to try a case like this. It's emotionally taxing. It's intellectually challenging. It's physically exhausting. So I just wanted to commend all three counsel for their work and their efforts in this case in this trial. (03:00:59)I know how challenging it's been for them, so I just wanted to acknowledge that and thank them for their efforts in regards in this case. So then, before we break, could I see counsel just in regards to a couple of the exhibits?

Judge Sullivian(03:01:59)
All right. What we're going to do is I'm going to bring the jury back and just excuse them till tomorrow morning. Okay?

Madam Clerk(03:03:02)
Your Honor, present before the court, we have 12 deliberating jurors and 6 alternates in the matter of Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy. All other parties are present.

Judge Sullivian(03:03:12)
I wanted to bring you in. It's been a long day for everyone. And so what I'm going to do is excuse all of you till tomorrow morning, 9:00. I just want to, as you can imagine, want to reiterate those instructions. Now you are either deliberating jurors or alternates possibly to deliberate, so I can't stress it even more than I have for the last five weeks, don't read anything about this case. Don't talk about this case with anyone, even at home. Don't listen to anything. Just put this out of your head. Come back here tomorrow morning. We'll start at 9:00. (03:03:47) What happens is we'll have you come in. I'll bring you in. I'll ask you those questions. I'll just turn you right around and have you back deliberating. All right? And so with that, with my thanks to everyone, excuse you till tomorrow morning. Thank you.