PLYMOUTH — On Thursday morning, as several dozen journalists waited to be let into the courtroom for more testimony in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial, our thoughts were still on what jurors — and all of us in the spectator section — had heard the day before.
The 911 recording of Clancy’s then-husband, Patrick, screaming in agony as he discovered the bodies of the couple’s three children in the basement of their Duxbury home on Jan. 24, 2023, was so raw that several jurors and spectators, including members of the media, fought tears.
All of us covering this high-profile case feel the weight of the daily presentation of graphic evidence about the slayings of 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan. Lindsay Clancy has admitted to strangling each of her children with exercise bands after sending her husband out to pick up some over-the-counter medicine and takeout for dinner.
But she has pleaded not guilty to the criminal charges, mounting an insanity defense case, asserting that she was suffering from severe postpartum mental illness and heard a voice telling her to kill the children and herself. Clancy’s defense raises important questions about the intersection of postnatal care, maternal mental health, and the justice system.
The nature of the crime and the detailed testimony present journalists with a delicate task: reporting on how an important and prominent case is unfolding without sensationalizing it. But it’s equally important that journalists not sanitize the facts, which would deprive readers of an understanding of the case and, ultimately, the verdict.
Part of the journalistic calculus is in deciding what not to publish.
Although two Globe reporters heard the 911 call played in court, the Globe chose not to describe its most harrowing moments because we concluded that publishing the details would add little to readers’ understanding of the case while amplifying the trauma surrounding it. Judge William F. Sullivan also barred the media and the public from publishing audio of the 911 call made by Patrick Clancy after he discovered his children, along with autopsy photographs.
Our reporting starts with the facts presented in court and dives deeper by asking questions that jurors, legal experts, doctors, and the public may be asking.
We’re asking what, if anything, appears to have contributed to Clancy’s psychiatric decline. What role, if any, did pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum care play? Who noticed what, when? If Clancy, a labor and delivery nurse at Massachusetts General Hospital, could not find appropriate care, as she and her ex-husband have claimed in separate civil suits, how might other mothers, especially those less savvy about the medical system, fare?
Our newsroom’s approach includes several reporters covering the testimony live from Plymouth Superior Court, while others are digging into the medical, legal, and policy questions that the trial has laid bare. Video recaps are being uploaded daily, along with our biggest takeaways.
Our goal is to provide readers with accurate, deeply reported context while allowing the evidence presented in court to speak for itself. We are diligently checking each fact, digging into discrepancies, and interviewing independent medical and legal experts for their perspectives.
We are answering readers’ questions online and through social media and are collecting submitted experiences from mothers around Massachusetts. Share your experiences and input on health care with Globe health and medical editor Anna Kuchment at anna.kuchment@globe.com, or thoughts about the broader case with Shelley Murphy at shelley.murphy@globe.com.
Sarah Rahal can be reached at sarah.rahal@globe.com. Follow her on X @SarahRahal_ or Instagram @sarah.rahal. Shelley Murphy can be reached at shelley.murphy@globe.com. Follow her @shelleymurph. Travis Andersen can be reached at travis.andersen@globe.com.
