In court today, we heard closing arguments from both the prosecution and the defence in the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy.

Clancy's lawyer does not dispute that she killed her three children, but has argued that she should not be held criminally responsible because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time.

The prosecution has argued that Clancy took deliberate and premeditated action to kill her children, and that she was fully aware at the time that it was wrong.

The jury is now deliberating. They must decide whether to convict Clancy on first-degree murder or on a lesser charge like second-degree murder or involuntary manslaughter. They may also choose to find her not guilty by reason of insanity.

We don't know how many hours or days the jury will take to decide, but as soon as they reach a verdict, we'll be back to update you.

We are now pausing our live coverage. You can read more about today's proceedings in court here: Jury now deliberating in trial of Lindsay Clancy, US woman accused of killing her children

Regan Morris
Reporting from outside court

Lindsay Clancy’s story has struck a chord with women who have suffered mental health problems after giving birth.

Outside the court before closing arguments began, Clancy supporters wearing pink gathered to call attention to women’s mental health issues.

"I hope that the mental health community takes some action to put policies and procedures in place to help women with this issue," said Lyn Feeney, who was waiting to enter the courtroom.

There were hundreds of women gathered in support of Clancy and in protest against the US healthcare system.

"What really struck me," said Danielle Buckley, another supporter of Clancy, "was the medications, her trying to reach out to healthcare professionals over and over, not really getting what she needed and, ultimately deciding that that ending her life might be the right answer."

Image source, Reuters

After hearing closing arguments from both sides, and further instructions from the judge, the jury has retired to deliberate Lindsay Clancy's role in the deaths of her three children.

As a reminder, Clancy does not deny killing her children but pleaded not guilty to murder. The jury are choosing between the following outcomes:

Guilty of first-degree murder, the intentional and premeditated killing of another person.

A lesser charge including second-degree murder or involuntary manslaughter.

Or the jury could acquit her, finding her not guilty by reason of insanity.

We don't know how long it will take for the jury to decide.

Read more about the possible outcomes

Shaimaa Khalil
North America correspondent

Image source, Getty Images

The huge debate surrounding this case is playing out just as intensely online.

A sweep through TikTok, YouTube and X shows that it is not only major news organisations following every moment of the trial.

Content creators and self-styled legal and medical experts are dissecting testimony, analysing Lindsay Clancy’s every reaction and producing their own timelines and theories.

Hundreds of thousands of TikTok videos have reportedly appeared under #Clancy, while hashtags including #LindsayClancy and #PostpartumPsychosis have drawn supporters, critics and individuals sharing their own experiences of maternal mental illness.

Some of the coverage has been informative. Some has blurred fact, opinion and speculation, including entirely unsupported theories about Clancy’s former husband, who is not a suspect and has never been under suspicion by investigators.

There are also comments treating the proceedings as entertainment: people writing that they are “grabbing the popcorn” or planning “watch parties” for particular witnesses.

The influence of social media even reached the actual courtroom. The defence sought to call a former McLean Hospital employee after she posted a viral TikTok criticising the prosecution’s portrayal of the hospital.

She was questioned outside the jury’s presence, but the judge ruled that her evidence was inadmissible.

In the age of social media, jurors in a case like this must isolate themselves from an enormous parallel conversation - and decide Lindsay Clancy’s fate solely on the evidence they have heard inside the courtroom

A jury consisting of nine women and three men selected from an 18-person jury pool to deliver a verdict in the Massachusetts murder trial.

There were originally 12 women and six men sitting in on the five-week trial, but six alternates were selected at random to sit out deliberations.

The group of 12 selected for deliberation includes a range of ages and apparent ethnicities, according to the BBC's US media partner CBS News.

The majority of the women appear to be in their 40s and older, with a few younger in the group.

Two of the men appear to be in their 40s and one appears to be in his 60s.

The foreperson is an older woman in her 60s who wears dark-framed eyeglasses and has a "friendly face", CBS says.

Grace Eliza Goodwin
US reporter

Image source, The Boston Globe via Getty Images

Over the course of the last five weeks, the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy has gripped the US.

It has sparked intense public debate around postpartum mental illness and women's healthcare, spurred online conspiracy theories, and dominated social media feeds and the national news.

Online, influencers have taken to social media to share their opinions on the case, and at times, to push misinformation.

Outside the courthouse, hundreds of people - mostly women clad in pink - have rallied to express their support for Clancy. Some have held up signs reading "she asked for help" and "compassion before judgement".

The livestreamed trial has shown the public graphic images and descriptions of children's deaths, emotional testimonies, heated attorney arguments, conflicting medical opinions, and challenging moral questions.

In short, this case has become a controversial and polarising spectacle. And you may be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't have an opinion on it.

Image source, AFP via Getty Images

The prosecution and defence have now both completed their closing arguments and the case is in the jury's hands. Here's a recap of each sides' closing remarks:

• Throughout the case the defence has stressed that psychosis was the reason Lindsay Clancy killed her children, Kevin Reddington, Clancy's attorney honed in on that during his remarks
• Much of the testimony during the trial focused on her treatment, Reddington firmly defended that in his remarks, "she took the drugs as she was told to take them"
• One of the more tense moments of the day came when Reddington directly addressed the prosecutors' table and implored them to explain why they spent a week trying to prove Clancy's suicide attempt was not serious. The judge interrupted him and ordered him to address only the jury
• Reddington stressed to the jury that Clancy is not guilty of killing her children because she was suffering from a disease and said that the prosecution is not able to prove otherwise
• Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague did not dispute that Clancy was mentally ill, but told the jury that she could tell the difference between right and wrong at the time of the killings. "It's not the system or the DSM that caused her to strangle her kids," Sprague told the jury referncing the fact that postpartum psychosis is not classified in the US encyclopedia of medicine
• Sprague pushed back on the allegation that Clancy's doctors failed her, saying they "were doing to the best they could with the information she provided them" and accused the mother of three of not being truthful about her medication dosages
• The prosecutor also took jurors through the day's events back in 2023 and said that for the timeline to make sense Clancy would've had to start killing her children immediately after her then-husband left, and Sprague said that meant she planned the killings. "She lied, she stayed calm, she presented herself as normal. She had complete control over he behaviours and emotions," Sprague argued

Ana Faguy
US reporter

Image source, AP

The fate of Lindsay Clancy, a mum of three who killed her children in 2023, is now the hands of a Massachusetts jury.

After five weeks, the jury will now decide if lawyers representing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts proved Clancy's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Clancy faces three charges of first-degree murder - the intentional and premeditated killing of another person.

Both the prosecution and defence offered their closing remarks today.

The prosecution argued that she made a calculated decision to intentionally kill her children - Cora, five, Dawson, three, and Callan, who was eight months.

The defence is not disputing Clancy killed her three children, they argue that Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis when she took her children's lives.

Judge Sullivan has just told the jury that graphic photographs of victims will be provided to jurors during their deliberations, discouraging from letting the unpleasantness impact their decision.

He notes that the "the images depicted are not pleasant", which he noted when they were introduced earlier in the trial.

"Your verdict must not, in any way, be influenced by the fact that these images are unpleasant or graphic," he says.

He adds that Clancy is "entitled to a verdict based solely on the evidence, and not one based on pity or sympathy for the decedents", which he says "might be occasioned by the images depicted".

Sullivan advises the jurors to consider the images "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".

Image source, AP

Before the jury retires to deliberate on a verdict, Judge William Sullivan gives them further instructions.

He reminds them the that burden of proof is on the government, and that the jury has to presume Clancy's innocence unless there is evidence that unanimously convinces them that she is guilty.

In order to convict or acquit Clancy, all members of the jury have to make the same call. We're not sure how long the deliberations could take - it could be a while.

If you are suffering distress or despair and need support, you could speak to a health professional, or an organisation that offers support.

Details of help available in many countries can be found at Befrienders Worldwide. www.befrienders.org, external, external.

In the UK a list of organisations that can help is available at bbc.co.uk/actionline.

In the US you can contact the national 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, external, external for support.

As Lindsay Clancy strangled her three children, each likely felt extreme pain and confusion at why their mother would do this to them, Sprague says.

"The indifference that she showed to their pain, to their struggle, to their suffering - leaving them there on the floor with the bands around their necks," Sprague says.

Clancy did that, Sprague argues, because she had a plan and she was following it through.

"She didn't see them in that moment as individual human beings with rights, with dreams, with futures, individually belonging to them. You heard about the three kids. Cora wanted to be a doctor and a mom. Dawson wanted to be a firefighter. Callan never got the chance to dream."

Sprague concludes by telling they jury, "you know to a moral certainty, she is guilty".

And with that, Sprague ends her closing arguments.

Sprague is disputing the idea that Clancy heard a voice, telling her to kill her children.

"She's making up the voice," she tells the jurors.

Sprague says a red flag is that she "immediately obeyed" the voice, and claims that after the murders Clancy told different people three different versions of what the voice said.

The prosecution also says the voice was "vague in its demand" and left Clancy with choice on what to do next.

Image source, AP

Sprague now moves on to Clancy's alleged motives for killing the children.

Referring to the testimony of a doctor who spoke earlier on in the trial, Sprague says most women don't kill their children because of mental illness, they "do it through child abuse".

Sprague says Clancy was "depressed" and wanted to die, but felt she had to stay alive for her children.

Ultimately, Clancy decided to kill her children, Sprague says, as they were "keeping her from her from ending her misery".

"I'm not saying she was happy about it," the prosecutor tells the jury, but says Clancy had other options.

Sprague accuses Clancy of knowing she was doing something wrong. "She didn’t take advantage of this situation, she created this situation," Sprague says.

When Clancy woke up in the hospital "still with a tube in her throat" she asked for a lawyer because she knew what she did was wrong, Sprague tells the jury.

Sprague walks the jury through the timeline of the children's strangulation - including how much time it would take to kill each child while Clancy's husband was out running errands.

Each alleged murder would take several minutes, the prosecutor alleges.

"She killed those kids as soon as he left" and when he called her, they were already dead, Sprague argues.

"She lied, she stayed calm, she presented herself as normal. She had complete control over he behaviours and emotions," Sprague argues.

That's because, Sprague argues, Clancy "needed to finish her plan" and attempt to kill herself next.

Sprague says when Patrick Clancy gets home the house is quiet in a way that a house with three young children shouldn't be.

She says he called out but got no answer, goes to the basement door but no answer, then goes upstairs, unlocks the door, sees blood and the window open, and goes down to Lindsay, where he asks her, "what did you do?"

Sprague says she replies that she tried to kill herself, and asked where the children are, she says they're "in the basement".

For everything to happen in such a short amount of time, Sprague says Clancy would've had to start killing her children immediately after Patrick left.

Sprague says Clancy was clear-minded about what she wanted to do - "kill the children and then kill herself".

When Clancy sent her husband to get food and medication, she called the pharmacy ahead of time to check if the drugs were in stock because "she's adding to this errand that she's sending Patrick out on," Sprague says.

"She has to make sure she's not interrupted, she doesn't want that call at 17:33," Sprague says, arguing Clancy wanted the pharmacy to have the medication waiting so her husband could then leave to collect the take-away.

"So she has time to do what she needs to do," the prosecutor says.

Sprague says this incident demonstrated a level of "planning" and "decision-making".

If you are suffering distress or despair and need support, you could speak to a health professional, or an organisation that offers support.

Details of help available in many countries can be found at Befrienders Worldwide. www.befrienders.org., external

In the UK a list of organisations that can help is available at bbc.co.uk/actionline.

In the US you can contact the national 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, external for support.

Prosecutors are now taking the jury through the day of the murders.

Everything she did that day shows she could conform her behaviour to the law.

The paediatrician who saw her that morning did not have any concerns. She plays with the kids, takes them outside, and sends photos to her mother and husband Patrick.

"You start to see the planning at about four in the afternoon," the prosecution alleges, laying out her google searches.

The defence wanted the jury to believe Clancy was distressed, Sprague says.

"If you're in distress, don't send him anywhere... Get DoorDash," she says, referencing Clancy sending her husband out for takeout for dinner that evening.

Ana Faguy
US reporter

People who have just given birth can experience a range of psychiatric conditions, the most serious and life-threatening of which is postpartum psychosis.

The UK's National Health Service (NHS) defines postpartum psychosis as a rare, serious mental health illness that should be treated as a medical emergency.

Patients can experience mania and depression as well as psychotic symptoms like delusions and a disconnection from reality. In rare, severe cases, they may harm or kill themselves or other people.

In the US, a major barrier to awareness and treatment of postpartum psychosis is that it remains unclassified in American medicine's encyclopaedia of psychiatry.

Postpartum psychosis is very different from the “baby blues”, or postpartum blues, which affects around 85% of people who give birth and typically involves difficulty controlling emotions like anxiety, sadness and anger, according to the Cleveland Clinic.

Postpartum depression is more serious than the baby blues, with patients feeling many of the same symptoms but more intensely and for a longer period of time.

Some of the medications the defence says were making Clancy unbalanced were not even in her system when she left the mental hospital the first time, prosecutor Jennifer Sprague says.

She left the hospital because she wanted to go to her daughter Cora's birthday party, Sprague says.

"She knew she needed help", yet she still chose to leave the hospital, she adds.

None of the doctors she saw ever noticed any signs of psychosis, Sprague says, asking, "So they were all wrong?"

Then, Sprague says, Clancy was acting normal throughout January, in the lead-up to her children's deaths.

If you saw a video of Clancy at the science museum with her kids, you wouldn't be able to pick out the woman who is about to kill her kids, Sprague argues.

That's because she was able to act normal and conform her behavior to the law, Sprague argues.