Lindsay Clancy addressed the court directly on Tuesday, answering “Yes, Your Honor” several times as she agreed to allow prosecutors to treat select forensic facts as already proven. The exchange came hours before a Massachusetts state police trooper told jurors that investigators found no usable fingerprints on a knife or on three exercise bands.
The testimony and courtroom agreement further sharpened the focus of the Massachusetts mother’s murder trial, which now centers on the key question of whether Clancy was criminally responsible when her three children were killed in the family’s Duxbury home.
Before the jury was brought into the courtroom, Judge William Sullivan questioned Clancy about a stipulation involving specific pieces of evidence.
“You understand that by signing the stipulation, you’re agreeing that the Commonwealth does not have to prove these certain facts that are contained in the stipulation,” Sullivan said. “Do you understand that?”
“Yes, Your Honor,” Clancy responded.
Defendant Lindsay Clancy listens during her murder trial at Plymouth Superior Court in Plymouth, Mass., on Thursday, July 30, 2026. (CJ Gunther/The Boston Herald via AP, Pool)
When Sullivan asked whether anyone had pressured, threatened or forced her to accept the agreement, Clancy answered, “No, Your Honor.”
Sullivan then ruled that Clancy was competent and had entered into the stipulation “knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily and willingly.”
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington said the agreement would prevent prosecutors from calling dozens of witnesses solely to establish the chain of custody for blood, bodily fluids, exercise bands and DNA evidence.
“We have not been contesting the government’s case in chief, if you will,” Reddington said.
The stipulation is not a guilty plea or an admission that Clancy was criminally responsible for the deaths of Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months.
Margaret McLean, a former criminal prosecutor and trial attorney who teaches law at Boston College’s Carroll School of Management, said the agreement allows the defense to steer jurors away from repetitive forensic testimony and toward Clancy’s mental state.
“The legal strategy behind the move by the defense is to steer the jury’s focus away from the horrific nature of the acts and to that central issue of criminal intent, or what we would call mens rea,” McLean told News Outlet.
McLean said Clancy’s measured responses Tuesday should not be taken as evidence of her mental condition on Jan. 24, 2023.
“She sounded rational. She understands what she’s doing,” McLean said. “But remember, the Commonwealth’s burden of proof is to prove that she was sane beyond a reasonable doubt at the time the crimes were committed — not today, not two weeks ago.”
Later, Massachusetts State Police Trooper Jonathan O’Loughlin testified about examining a knife and three exercise bands collected from the home.
MORE STORY: Las Vegas Woman Allysandra Blea Sentenced in Friend’s Fatal Shooting During Late-Night Photo Shoot
O’Loughlin said the knife contained an area of friction-ridge impression, but investigators could not use it to identify anyone.
“There was not enough characteristics or minutia to do any comparison,” O’Loughlin said, adding that the impression had “no value.”
Defendant Lindsay Clancy on Monday, Aug. 3, 2026, the fifth day of testimony at Plymouth Superior Court for her murder trial. Clancy is charged with three counts of murder in connection with the death of her three young children in 2023 at their Duxbury home. Clancy says she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and is not criminally responsible. (Greg Derr/Pool/The Patriot Ledger)
The yellow, black and blue exercise bands similarly produced no impressions suitable for comparison.
“The bottom line is that you didn’t get any fingerprints,” Reddington said.
“Correct,” O’Loughlin replied.
Lindsay Clancy’s three children, 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan. (Lindsay Marie Clancy facebook)
O’Loughlin said fingerprints are “very, very, very fragile” and can be affected by an object’s texture, environmental conditions, movement, grip strength or whether a surface was wiped.
McLean said the absence of identifiable prints could make jurors wonder whether gloves were used or the items were wiped, potentially viewing the missing prints as evidence of planning.
The defense, she said, can counter that jurors must not “speculate on something that’s not in evidence.”
“They can use their common sense when they go to the table and they deliberate,” McLean said, “but they can’t speculate [about] things that are not in the evidence.”
