The Board
The questions
The big question: could she have stopped herself?
Massachusetts law (the McHoul rule): she is not guilty if mental illness took away her ability to know the act was wrong OR her ability to stop herself — either one is enough. And the burden runs the other way from what most people expect: prosecutors must prove her mind was working, beyond a reasonable doubt.
— Commonwealth v. McHoul, 352 Mass. 544 (1967)
← Her psychologist: she couldn't tell right from wrong supports this (her psychologist says so)
← The voice she says commanded her supports this (if the voice was real — contested on cross)
← 13 medications in four months supports this (the over-medication theory)
← Prosecution's answer: depression, not psychosis disputes this (prosecution's expert says no)
← Her own psychiatrist saw no psychosis — the day before disputes this (no psychosis observed — but telehealth-only, says the defense)
← Her phone tells two stories is contested on this (planning, says the state · illness, says the defense)
← The case for planning disputes this (prosecutors: planning means a working mind)
← The clinicians who never saw danger to the kids is contested on this (nobody charted danger to the kids — missed, says the defense)
← Both sides agree: she did it gives context to this (why state of mind is the whole case)
Will the jury get a middle option?
The defense wants involuntary manslaughter on the verdict form — a landing spot between murder and full acquittal. Prosecutors say no: the evidence shows intent to kill. The judge hasn't ruled yet.
— Boston 25 News · Boston Globe
← 13 medications in four months supports this (defense: 'You can't try this case in a vacuum')
The evidence and testimony
Both sides agree: she did it
Her own lawyer, in openings: she 'is aware that she killed her children and is not trying to deny that.' Identity was never the fight. Her state of mind is the whole case.
— Court TV
Defense's famous expert: a psychotic break
Dr. Phillip Resnick — the forensic psychiatrist from the Andrea Yates case — concluded she had postpartum psychosis with command hallucinations: 'a puppet and someone else was pulling the strings.' He calls it 'altruistic filicide — a murder committed out of love, rather than hostility.' Prosecutors fired back with his own writing: command hallucinations 'are easy to fabricate.'
— Boston Globe · Court TV
Her psychologist: she couldn't tell right from wrong
Dr. Paul Zeizel has seen her ~60 times since that night. 'Intrusive thoughts are unrelenting. They don't stop.' His conclusion: on Jan 24 she could not tell right from wrong and 'was unable to conform her behavior to the rule of law.'
— PBS NewsHour · ABC7
The voice she says commanded her
Zeizel: she reported 'a male voice ordering her' that she 'had no choice but to kill her children. And kill herself.' A hospital chaplain says Clancy described the same persistent voice. The catch, drawn out on cross: the chaplain's own notes never once mention it.
— Boston 25 News · Boston Globe
Prosecution's answer: depression, not psychosis
Dr. Avram Mack interviewed her twice this April. His conclusion: major depressive disorder — not psychosis — and she 'methodically killed her children one by one' while knowing it was wrong and able to stop. 'I don't know that that feeling or that belief is necessarily psychotic.'
— Boston Globe · Court TV
Her own psychiatrist saw no psychosis — the day before
Dr. Jennifer Tufts treated her right up to Jan 23 and saw 'no signs of psychosis or mania' at that final appointment; Clancy denied any thoughts of harming herself or the kids. But the defense pulled the thread: 14 visits, every one by telehealth, barely any postpartum patients before her, and no records ever requested from her other providers.
— CBS Boston · CBS News
Her phone tells two stories
The forensics: 'ketamine for suicide ideation' (Jan 18), 'symptoms of postpartum psychosis' (Jan 19), 'Can you treat a sociopath' (Jan 20), a suicide-methods page (Aug 2022), and an Oct 2022 note: 'I'm sad and depressed. I can't parent my 3rd child like my first.' Prosecutors read planning and awareness. The defense reads a sick mind searching for help. Same phone.
— Boston 25 News · Boston 25 News
The case for planning
Prosecutors' throughline: she arranged the evening — the takeout order, the CVS run for the kids' medicine, the route — then took the children to the basement. The Apple Health data puts stair climbs at 5:33 and 5:38 p.m. Their theory: she wanted to 'take them with her.'
disputes → Will the jury get a middle option? (prosecutors: intent rules out the middle option)
The clinicians who never saw danger to the kids
Nurse Jollotta documented persistent suicidal thoughts — but 'never had thoughts on harming her children,' noted repeatedly. The intake screening: no hallucinations, no delusions, sleep the big worry. The pediatrician saw Cora the morning of the deaths: routine. Whatever was coming, the system charted none of it.
— Boston 25 News · Boston 25 News
13 medications in four months
The defense counts 13 psychiatric medications prescribed across her treatment — and argues 'involuntary intoxication through over-prescription.' The lab found 4–5 benzodiazepines in her blood that night, mostly at normal doses, one 'a little elevated.' Her mother, from the stand: 'The medication was pretty much just destroying her mind.'
— WBUR · Boston Globe · CBS News · Fox News
supports → Will the jury get a middle option? (defense: 'You can't try this case in a vacuum')
SETTLED: the TikTok challenge that reached the courtroom
A former McLean social worker watched the livestream, posted a TikTok disputing the prosecution's 'premier medical institution' framing — and the defense actually tried to call her. The judge found her credible but kept her out: 'limited materiality.' A viral claim got a hearing, and a ruling. That's how it's supposed to work.
📺 Put this board on your own site — free
Paste this anywhere that accepts HTML. The board stays live: reader theories, new evidence and every update appear in your embed automatically, and each card keeps its sources.
Prefer the raw data? board.json is public and free to reuse with credit.
· 25 posts a day, more once you have a track record · posts naming people get a look first · how it works
How to work the Board
Read it: purple cards are the open questions that have to be decided. Blue cards are from the record — testimony, exhibits, rulings, each linked to its source. Amber cards are reader theories — this is your zone. Post one and it goes up labeled until real sourcing settles it. Strings show the pull: green supports, red disputes, amber is contested — both sides claim it. Disproven theories stay up, greyed, so you can see what was tested and settled.
Build it: tap a card to light up everything connected to it. Drag cards to arrange your own reading. Open a card and hit Connect, then tap the card it relates to — your proposed string joins the Board after review. 👍 on a theory's thread corroborates it; 👎 disputes; sources settle.
Share it: every board is public — send the link, or put it on your own site. The best-argued boards are how new readers learn a case fast.