Return to Transcripts main page
Isa Soares Tonight
Two Workers Have Been Rescued From Flooded Tunnels After Being Trapped For Nine Days Following A Massive Landslide In Nepal; Judge Declares Mistrial In Lindsay Clancy Murder Trial Over Deadlocked Jury. Aired 2:15-3p ET
Aired September 04, 2026 - 14:15 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:15:00]
MAX FOSTER, HOST, ISA SOARES TONIGHT: Welcome to the show, everyone, I'm Max Foster in for Isa Soares. You've been listening to my colleagues over
there in the U.S. on the Lindsay Clancy murder trial. We will be keeping a close eye of course; we'll bring you any updates as soon as they happen.
In the meantime, we are following some other stories for you this hour. In Nepal, a bright spot amid all the tragedy there. Remarkably, two workers
have been rescued from flooded tunnels after being trapped for nine days following a massive landslide.
Both are being treated at hospital. One is in critical condition, the other said to be stable. And whilst this is certainly a triumph worth
celebrating, there's still an enormous amount of work to be done. An unknown number of other hydro-plant workers remain unaccounted for. CNN's
Hanako Montgomery is in Nepal and traveled to the site of this incredible rescue.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (SPEAKING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE)
HANAKO MONTGOMERY, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): After days of desperation, cries of joy, this is the incredible moment two
survivors were pulled from a tunnel in Nepal after being trapped for an agonizing nine days.
The relief and exhaustion is palpable on 30-year-old Sanjay Sah's face. He was hauled out of the water-filled tunnel, along with 45-year-old Kabir
Maharjan, on Friday morning. Both were rushed by helicopter to a hospital in Kathmandu. From his hospital bed, Sah, a mechanical foreman, described
how he got trapped.
SANJAY SAH, NEPAL ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY FOREMAN (through translator): My responsibility was to save everyone's life. After the accident happened, I
could not run by myself. I had to save everyone. In the process of saving everyone, I told them that there was an accident in the big dam.
I asked everyone to escape outside. Doing so, I wasted time and I could not get out. I got trapped.
MONTGOMERY: When news broke of the rescue, we flew to the site.
(On camera): Right now, we're flying over Nepal towards the Trishuli 3A tunnel where authorities believe that there might be still some survivors
inside who are alive. They were able to rescue two individuals and they are hoping that operations can continue and that they will have more luck
getting more survivors out.
(Voice-over): As we approached, a deafening sound of heavy machinery, drilling grew louder, and with it, a sense of hope. Nepali army rescuers
surrounded a hole where the two survivors were hauled out from earlier in the day. We watched as dozens of workers pulled out a piece of rope.
(On camera): They tell me that on the other end of this rope is someone who was stuck inside the tunnel. They don't know if this person is alive or
is dead, but clearly, there are dozens of workers right now trying to get this body out.
And these people have been stuck inside for nine days now since that flash flood first hit Nepal. We've spoken to the Major General, the head of
Military Operations in Nepal, and he told us that it was really difficult to find signs of life, especially inside this tunnel, which was one of the
worst hits.
(Voice-over): The Trishuli 3A hydropower station has a conduit. That's a staggering 26 meters deep. An Army General told me Thursday, the rescuers
here explained that it's filled with water rather than mud, allowing them to use whitewater rafts to travel down the tunnels.
As we left the scene, oxygen tanks and body bags were being passed towards the opening. Authorities later said a body was extracted from the tunnel.
Nepali authorities have previously warned there are more than 900 workers missing at multiple energy projects in the Himalayas, after catastrophic
flash floods swept through the area.
They don't know how many are dead or still alive, but the search goes on with the hope that hundreds more families will be reunited. Hanako
Montgomery, CNN, Nepal.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOSTER: We do have an update; it seems in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial. Let's cross over to our colleagues in the CNN U.S.
JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: For him of what to do if something like this would happen and they filed it truly minutes after he had said in
court that he was going to the highest court here.
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, as we heard from a member of his team, this was in the works, they've been planning for this after yesterday's --
CASAREZ: Yes --
SANCHEZ: Developments. Jean, please stand by. We still have Judge Diane Kiesel with us. Judge, I just wonder what is going through your mind as a
moment ago you were describing this as unlike anything you had seen before -- by the way, we're showing our viewers -- let's actually listen in to the
courtroom in Plymouth, Massachusetts right now.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: To the record, we return back to the matter, Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy. All parties are present excluding the
jury.
WILLIAM SULLIVAN, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE FOR THE MASSACHUSETTS SUPERIOR COURT: All right. Counsel, it's my understanding that the SJC issued their order
that the emergency request for relief was denied and that the temporary stay is lifted.
[14:05:00]
And so, it would be my intention at this time to call the jurors back in, and as I indicated to you before, to declare a mistrial.
KEVIN REDDINGTON, LINDSAY CLANCY'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I understand your Honor. And at the risk of incurring the wrath of the court, I'd like to
raise an additional issue just for purposes of the federal law because this, I believe, constitutes a violation of the United States Constitution
and federal issue in our circuit, which is the First Circuit.
When a jury reports through a foreperson that in mid-deliberation that a juror refuses to follow the law, the issue is handled under Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure 23B.
But the law itself that we're dealing with clearly indicates that a judge has the authority to excuse a deliberating juror for, quote, "good cause",
end quote, and allow the remaining 11 jurors to return a valid verdict and/or with the substitution of one of the jurors that have been waiting,
obviously, as alternates.
Well, the First Circuit acknowledges that a juror's refusal to follow the law or instructions constitutes good cause for dismissal. It does impose
procedural issues as to how the court would navigate, and which would require a hearing.
The court standard is United States versus Sepulveda, S-e-p-u-l-v-e-d-a, First Circuit, 1993. And in that case, Your Honor, which is significant
precedent. The First Circuit addressed the underlying concept of nullification, and where a juror refuses to follow the court's
instructions.
And in the Sepulveda case, the court held that while jurors possess a raw power to acquit for any reason, they have a significant duty and their duty
requires them to apply the law as given to them by the court. If a juror abdicates this duty, it triggers the court's authority to intervene and the
court would then have a procedure where you would inquire, just like a hearing like we were suggesting that the court should have a hearing.
So, I would suggest, Your Honor, that clearly, under the First Circuit law, federal law as well as argument to the court, Massachusetts law, that we
have a juror who has, according to the foreperson, is the only person who is basically holding out, so-to-speak.
And unfortunately, they're not holding out based on a good faith issue with the facts or with the law, but they're holding out as a result that even
though they have agreed and expressed doubt, they are refusing to apply the law as you've given it.
So, I would ask again that you conduct a hearing and understand that you're --
SULLIVAN: Right --
REDDINGTON: Probably going to deny that.
SULLIVAN: For reasons as I stated earlier this morning, that request will be denied. All right, so are you ready to bring the jury in?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Court, all rise! Let the jury come in(ph)! This court is now in session, you may be seated!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Your Honor, for the purpose of the record, we were present for the court 12 deliberating jurors and six alternates in the
matter of Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy, all other parties are present.
SULLIVAN: All right, thank you, Madam Clerk --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You're welcome --
SULLIVAN: All right, members of the jury, at this point, I'm going to declare that the jury is deadlocked and I'm going to declare a mistrial.
All right? I just wanted to make a comment. And it -- I'm kind of a history buff, and during World War II, Winston Churchill was the Prime Minister for
England when England pretty much stood against Nazi Germany alone.
And so, Churchill oftentimes had to talk to the citizens and say, let us brace for our duties. I always like that phrase. And I thought of that
phrase when all of you were agreeing to be on this jury, that you agreed to brace for that duty. And each one of you knew how long the case was going
to go. You knew how difficult the case was going to be to listen to facts- wise, but still you braced for that duty.
[14:25:00]
And I just kind of wanted to also let you know, I watched every day, day after day, week after week, all of you performing that duty that you braced
for. And I just kind of wanted to let you know I understood how hard everybody worked in this case. I understood that you all gave everything
you could, and probably more than you thought you could.
And so, on behalf of myself, I just want to thank you so much that you should be proud for what you did. You braced for that duty. You performed
that duty. And I just kind of wanted to thank you on behalf of myself and on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Thank you so much.
The only thing I am going to ask one more thing is that what I'd like to do is be able to come back and thank you personally. I'm going to have to talk
to the counsel for just a couple of minutes. So, if you could stay just for a couple of minutes not to go over the deliberations or anything like that,
but just to thank you personally again for just an incredible commitment and dedication that each and every one of you showed here. So, I just want
to thank you so much. And with that you're discharged. Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Court, all rise! Court dismiss you!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The jurors have exited the courtroom; the court is in session.
SULLIVAN: All right, and I think what I had said at the end of the evidence, I just kind of wanted to echo again, I wanted to compliment all
three counsels. A trial like this so hard, so difficult. And so, I just kind of wanted to thank the three of you for your efforts in regards to
this.
And so, with that, if you talked, I think we should probably pick a status date, anywhere we are trial assignment date, so we can talk about where we
are --
REDDINGTON: I would ask judge -- sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt --
SULLIVAN: Yes, go ahead --
REDDINGTON: I know, I would like to argue a 25-B2, and it has to be done within five days. So, I mean, I would like, if possible, to have this on
for a hearing on a motion for required finding reconsideration 25-B2 on Tuesday. And my request, assuming that you deny that motion would be that
we impanel the following Monday.
SULLIVAN: Oh, that would require -- I'm going to have to check my schedule. And also --
REDDINGTON: But, yes --
SULLIVAN: So, what I'm going to suggest, I understand that's the request. And my thinking is to try it sooner rather than later, but I'm not sure
that sooner. And it's a situation -- I also have to check the trial court schedule, counsel schedule, witnesses schedule, but my thought would be to
try this, you know, if we could do it maybe sometime later in the Fall.
But why don't we pick a date, maybe a couple of weeks down the road, so everybody could get their calendars together and kind of see where we go.
All right?
REDDINGTON: What about the 25-B2? The motion for required finding reconsideration within five days.
SULLIVAN: We can file it. Do we have to have a hearing within the five days?
REDDINGTON: I'd like to, but I mean --
SULLIVAN: I know you'd like to, but I -- you know, maybe we could do it later in the week, maybe not Tuesday.
REDDINGTON: OK --
SULLIVAN: Maybe Thursday or so.
REDDINGTON: Sure --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Your Honor, I'm going to be out of the state --
SULLIVAN: All right --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Until the 22nd.
SULLIVAN: All right, well, as long as it's filed, do you want to pick -- we could do is pick that status date, trial assignment date and actual then
do the argument for the 25, Rule 25.
REDDINGTON: OK --
SULLIVAN: Maybe that week of the 28th.
REDDINGTON: I'm supposed to -- I'm supposed to start a murder in Pittsfield. I'm hoping that that's going to be continued. So, I would ask
if it's agreeable with the court and counsel, if we could have Tuesday the 29th?
SULLIVAN: Commonwealth?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's fine.
REDDINGTON: Thank you --
SULLIVAN: So, why don't we -- why don't we do that, 29th?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Would that be at 2 O'clock or 9:00?
REDDINGTON: It doesn't matter to me.
SULLIVAN: Let's see, 9 O'clock. Why don't we see 9 O'clock we come in. And we'll have the defendant brought in.
[14:30:07]
REDDINGTON: Yes, please.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All set.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In the matter of Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy, the court declares a mistrial. All prior bail orders remain in full force
in effect. This matter is continued to September 29th, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. for status trial assignment in the rule motion in Plymouth.
SULLIVAN: All right, counsel, thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Court, all rise.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: A very stunning moment in court there. Judge William Sullivan explaining to the court and to the public that the Massachusetts State
Supreme Court has denied the defense's motion to have a stay to stop the proceedings -- to essentially stop the judge from declaring a mistrial in
the case.
The jurors were called back in. Judge Sullivan made clear that he was grateful for their service. He said that they braced for their duties,
citing Winston Churchill and World War II, saying that they should be proud of what they did and thanking them, but not before the defense attorney,
Kevin Reddington, effectively said that his decision to declare a mistrial violated Lindsay Clancy's constitutional rights.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. And that was part of the argument that he made in his emergency request for relief that it violated her
constitutional rights under the U.S. Constitution and also under the Massachusetts Constitution where he said that the juror's reasoning
reflects a bias against those who suffer from debilitating mental illness. But this request for relief clearly in the end appeared to be a Hail Mary
of sorts, right? And so we're going to see them back in court here in a few weeks.
Let's bring in Jean Casarez to talk a little bit about what we just saw despite the defense attorney's attempt to try to slow this down. Here we
are at this moment, a mistrial declared, Jean.
CASAREZ: That is right. It is official. A mistrial has been ordered by the judge. And the question is, what about the jurors? I can tell you from our
producer in the courtroom that when the judge said, "I want to tell you all how proud I am of you." There was one female juror that was nodding her
head no as he was saying all that. Another female juror clenching her hands into fists as she was sitting on that chair.
All of the jurors were extremely tense. One female juror would not even open her eyes. Her eyes were gazed down in her lap. Her eyes were closed as
the judge continued to talk to them about what this final decision was. Another juror just nodded her head the entire time he was talking, and
another female juror was pursing her lips.
We can now tell you the judge has left the bench. So, this proceeding, this trial has now concluded. There was no verdict, but it was a mistrial that
was ordered by Judge Sullivan.
SANCHEZ: Jean, please stand by. You're looking at live images outside the courthouse where we do anticipate that the attorneys in this case who the
judge also thanked are going to appear in just moments. No doubt they will be asked questions by those reporters. We'll see whether they choose to
make public comment or not.
We're with Areva Martin and Judge Diane Kiesel. Again, thank you both for your patience and sticking around through this. Judge, I wanted to go to
you on this idea that Kevin Reddington put out there as he was requesting a reconsideration by the judge. He effectively made the case that this juror,
this holdout refuses to follow the law. What would it take for Reddington to prove that?
DIANE KIESEL, RETIRED NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT JUDGE: Well, he's got a problem here because the judge called each juror out individually. And this
particular juror said under oath that the juror was capable of following the law. You open up a real Pandora's box if you then try and go behind
what a -- what a juror under oath says based on what other jurors are saying is happening in the jury room.
I mean what happens in the jury room is sacrosanct and our law presumes that when you're saying something under oath you're telling the truth. So,
I don't know how you would break this wall if you will.
KEILAR: Areva, what are the options here moving forward? I mean, aside from there being obviously this avenue that it appears, you might want to
explain to us this 25(b)(2)avenue that Kevin Reddington wants to pursue, but what are the possibilities? Are we looking at a plea deal? Are we
looking at a retrial? What are the chances that that might be more or less successful?
[14:35:05]
AREVA MARTIN, ATTORNEY: Well, that 25(b)(2) motion is a post-verdict motion. Just asking the judge to make some reconsideration to reconsider --
to reconsider some of the rulings that were made in the original trial. And ultimately, it's just a way to get a second trial, which the judge has
already indicated is going to happen, presuming that the parties want to move forward with a second trial, not expecting there to be any rulings
coming out of that motion that are different than what we've already heard from this judge.
The options at this point is another trial, which the defense attorney seemed really eager to move forward to, or a plea deal, which the defense
attorney has said repeatedly that he's open, but that the ball is in the court of the prosecutors. I cannot imagine that the prosecution is going to
enter into any plea deal that doesn't involve some kind of serious jail time. And I can't imagine that the defense would agree to a deal that did
include jail time, particularly now that he believes that he has convinced 11 people that Lindsay Clancy should not be held criminally responsible for
the death of her three children.
So, I think we see a new trial in the fall as the judge has suggested. That is the way that this matter gets concluded.
SANCHEZ: Areva, were you surprised at all that the state supreme court didn't side with the defense?
MARTIN: No. That was an extraordinary remedy. The judge had already done -- the trial judge had already done what a trial judge should do. And I hope
the judge on the panel will agree with me. The judge, Judge Sullivan, had already asked each individual juror under oath if they were capable of
following the law. And they said yes. So, I don't see what -- the appellate court couldn't really do anything else perhaps other than to order the
judge to have that kind of war idea process which had already taken place.
The reality in this case is despite what the majority wanted, that one juror had an absolute right to not agree with them. And as long as that
juror was following the law, following the instructions of the judge, he or she does not have to agree with the majority. This is not a process where
the majority rules. This is a process where each individual juror has an opportunity to weigh the evidence and to weigh the law and then to come to
a decision based on what they agree -- or come to a decision based on what they have reviewed, what they have heard throughout the trial. And it
doesn't always have to be what the majority agrees to.
KEILAR: Judge, in a retrial, who has the more difficult job, the prosecution or the defense?
KIESEL: I think it depends on what they learn from the jury that just got discharged. It would seem here that the prosecution has the tougher road to
go down at this point because from what we know the jury was not ready to convict this woman. So, they've got the harder trial. It really depends on
what you learn from speaking with the jurors, and I assume that both sides are going to extensively grill these jurors, which who by the way have no
obligation to speak to them, but if they choose to, they'll learn a lot from them.
SANCHEZ: Yes. Let's go back to Jean Casarez. Jean, Clancy herself has remained detained throughout these proceedings. Do we know what status
she's going to be in now? I assume she's going to continue being detained as this new trial moves forward.
CASAREZ: You know, that is such an interesting point because there was not even a discussion whether there was going to be a retrial. The defense
said, you know, let's try this again next week. I'm ready to go. And the prosecution didn't have to say a word. So, they knew what was going to
happen. And the prosecution did not have to stand up and say we asked the court for her to remain in custody with a no bail because that is a given
also. So, the focus was merely on a retrial and when it might happen.
I want to tell you what Lindsay Clancy was doing at the moment that the mistrial was declared. She was actually turning to her defense attorney
Kevin Reddington trying to say a few words to him right at the moment when the judge is announcing that mistrial. Kevin Reddington looking in his lap.
We don't believe he responded to her.
But following the order of the mistrial when court had ended, the family members of Lindsay Clancy, very solemn, extremely sad. You could obviously
tell in that courtroom, according to our producer, were leaning over the railing into the well of the courtroom to try to talk to Kevin Reddington
at that moment.
KEILAR: Yes. Jean, it's just -- all of this to come to this you have to wonder with the prosecution having such a difficult road ahead, assuming
this breakdown is as it indicates to be with the jury, this has become and evolved over the course of this trial to be something that has taken the
attention of so many people across the country. You've covered many trials. Can you imagine what a retrial will look like?
[14:40:25]
CASAREZ: You know, they'll learn -- the prosecution will probably streamline their case a bit more. There are pivotal witnesses in this case,
though. They may not have all the experts that they had. They will -- they will have the best of the best. They may want more males on the jury than
females if they can get it. So, it's sort of like a dress rehearsal, right?
And the defense may also make some decisions and changes that they want to make in their case as they are trying to shift that burden back to the
prosecution to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she lacked the criminality, the understanding of what she did was right or wrong, that she
had no appreciation for that.
So, it will take place, I believe, late fall. We'll see. Many times they want to do it as soon as possible. It doesn't work out that way because
you've got a jury pool here that is living and breathing this trial. I think all over the Commonwealth you would find it. People know the facts.
People know the evidence. They know details as I talk with them. Not just the fact that a trial is happening, but in depth knowledge. So, it may be
more difficult at this point (AUDIO GAP) so soon to actually get a fair impartial jury.
KEILAR: Yes. As you might expect it would be. Jean, if you could stand by for us. We are waiting to see now that a mistrial has been declared by
Judge William Sullivan in the Lindsay Clancy murder case if we are going to be hearing from an attorney here outside of the courthouse in Plymouth.
Stay with us. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:46:36]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SULLIVAN: At this point, I'm going to declare that the jury is deadlocked and I'm going to declare a mistrial. All right. I just wanted to make a
comment. And it - I'm kind of a history buff. During World War II, Winston Churchill was the prime minister for England when England pretty much stood
against Nazi Germany alone. And so, Churchill oftentimes had to talk to the citizens and say, "Let us brace for our duties." I always like that phrase.
And I thought of that phrase when all of you were agreeing to be on this jury. You agreed to brace for that duty. And each one of you knew how long
the case was going to go. You knew how difficult the case was going to be to listen to facts-wise, but still you braced for that duty. And I just
kind of wanted to also let you know I watched every day, day after day, week after week, all of you performing that duty that you're braced for.
And I just kind of wanted to let you know, I understood how hard everybody worked in this case. I understood that you all gave everything you could
and probably more than you thought you could.
And so, on behalf of myself, I just want to thank you so much that you should be proud for what you did. You braced for that duty. You performed
that duty. And I just kind of wanted to thank you on behalf myself in behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: That was a message from Judge William Sullivan moments ago declaring a mistrial in the case of Lindsay Clancy. Now we're set to hear
from her defense attorney Kevin Reddington who effectively argued -- actually, no, I believe this is the prosecution. So, there is the district
attorney and the assistant district attorney. Let's go ahead and listen into their message.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TIMOTHY CRUZ, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, PLYMOUTH COUNTY: Everybody ready?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Very loud for us. Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, very loud.
CRUZ: Good afternoon. My name is Tim Cruz. I'm the Plymouth County District Attorney. I'm here today with Assistant D.A. Shanan Buckingham and
Assistant D.A. Jen Sprague. I'm going to have a statement for you and then I will answer some questions after. I do know that one of the questions
that are out here right now are regarding retrials. I will let you know that there'll be no decisions made today regarding that. I'm going to be
meeting with our team, and we will address this case further at the appropriate time in the context of an official court proceeding. So, you'll
not get an answer on that question today.
Today, however, I want to just say I appreciate the hard work of the jury in this case. The jury obviously worked incredibly hard, stayed with that
case for six and a half days and that truly is people who understand the word of service as to what they did for our community and I am I am
grateful for that as we all should be. But in the end, I understand that this has been an emotional trial for everybody.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There you go.
[14:50:04]
CRUZ: It's emotional for the Duxbury community. It's even emotional for you members of the media. But in the end, I bring it all back to the child
victims in this case, Cora, Dawson, and Callan. This was and has always been about getting justice for those three little babies. We're here at
this courthouse today because those children are not.
One of our many roles as prosecutors is seeking justice and giving voice to those who are tragically taken from us. And one of our parts in this
proceeding is to speak for the victims who are no longer here. And that is one of our most important functions. Our priority has always been to fight
for Cora, for Dawson, and for Callan. The noise in this case may be louder than it is for other prosecutions in our county, but we have treated it the
same as any other case. Children were murdered, and it's our job to seek justice.
I appreciate the fact that there are strong feelings and opinions tied to this case. However, our job is to set aside our feelings and focus solely
on the facts. The facts are Lindsay Clancy killed her three children and the evidence suggested to us that she was in control of her actions when
she committed those homicides.
Our court system is built to weigh our views with those of defense council and bear out whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. We did our part
and I'm proud of the part of the work that we did in this prosecution because this case is not about a health care system or about how women are
treated in it or what diagnoses there are in the DSM or what there are not. Those are all important issues. They stir up emotion and sometimes they
stir up anger. This case, however, was about Lindsay Clancy and what she did on January 24th, 2023 and the cruel and calculated killing of three
innocents.
I understand that postpartum depression has impacted the lives of countless women and their families, and I sympathize with their struggles. The
investigation into these heinous killings, however, did not establish that they were caused by such suppression. And based upon that assessment, it
was determined that the charges of first-degree murder were warranted and appropriate in these circumstances. Notwithstanding the undeniably
important and delicate issues raised in this case, we proceed accordingly and consistent with the evidence and the law.
I have led the Plymouth DA's Office for a long time now and I have never been swayed to act a certain way or make certain decisions based upon
public sentiment. In this job, it is the facts ultimately decide how you act, not the opinions of observers several steps removed from our court
proceedings.
I would like to thank our prosecutors, Jen Sprague and Shanan Buckingham, who are both mothers themselves and went home to their families after each
long day in court. They embraced the most difficult trial assignment with utmost professionalism and always with the thoughts of Cora, Dawson, and
Little Callan on their minds.
I'm proud of the work of our victim witness advocates who worked long and hard, Karen and Kelsey, and they lived and breathed with this case from the
very beginning. Unfortunately, the way they were vilified and portrayed on social media is disgusting to me. Threats to them and their families, their
addresses being posted. It's unfortunate that in today's society potentially people placed at risk who are merely doing their jobs as
prosecutors, professional women for the Commonwealth. And once again, I am proud of their professionalism under these very stressful and difficult
times.
I commend the Massachusetts State Police and the Duxbury Police and Fire. From the moment of that 911 call, they performed a thorough and complete
investigation. And this was probably one of the most difficult crime scenes any of them has been to. And yet they did their jobs professionalism and
integrity.
This is a case about three children who died a violent and horrific death at the hands of the person who showed them the most. This isn't rumor or
speculation. This isn't guesswork. You know, speaking generally, we live in a great country and we have the best criminal justice system in the world,
if you ask me. And that's what you've started today.
You saw over the course of the last few weeks prosecutors in defense dealing in court and ultimately having individuals make their
determinations, jurors making their determinations. And the defendants that are charged with crimes in our country have an awful lot of rights. And you
know what? They should. They should have their rights set forth in our United States Constitution. And here in Massachusetts, our Mass Declaration
of Rights. They should have those. But also speaking in the world that we live today and all too often criminals are being treated as victims and the
real victims are invisible. It is our job to make sure that the victims are not invisible, to make sure that they're not forgotten, and to make sure
that we stand for them in our on the way that we seek justice. And that's what I think we've done in this case.
As I said, this day of this trial has been really emotional for everybody. I am a father and a grandfather and I cannot imagine the hell this entire
family has lived through. I remind myself that this is and has been and always will be about getting justice and making sure that we do not forget
Cora, Dawson, and Little Callan.
Having said that, I'll answer questions if I can. One at a time, please.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If can't convince 11 jurors in this case, do you think new jury would make a difference?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's your decision whether there'll be another trial. You get to make that decision. Why aren't you saying right now that you
will retrial?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You only cared when the kids were dead. Why don't you care about the mother?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Amen.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You only cared when they were dead.
(CROSSTALK)
CRUZ: Listen, I told you my decision on that already. I'll be making that decision shortly.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You had 11 --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Your prosecutors who have gone through this for weeks, been working on this case I assume for three and a half years. Do either of
you want to say anything about the experience of trying this case, especially with families at home?
CRUZ: I think that we're going to just stand as -- and I -- and I'll just speak for them at this point. Like you said, it has been a long and
difficult few weeks.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: D.A. Cruz --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: D.A. a question for you. So, if this goes to a potential retrial, what do you expect?
CRUZ: I can't hear you.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sorry. If this goes to a retrial potentially, what do you expect to do in terms of finding an impartial jury given the current
media coverage in social media?
CRUZ: You know, we'll do what we always do. You know, we will go through the court system, and we will do what we have. That's preemptory --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How do you get a jury -- an impartial jury out here?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Quiet.
CRUZ: You know, I'm not going to stand out here and listen to this.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: D.A. Cruz, you had 112 jurors that didn't necessarily believe your case. What do you say to those people who felt that the whole
prosecution was insensitive?
CRUZ: Was what?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Insensitive.
CRUZ: Insensitive.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Insensitive.
CRUZ: Insensitive is killing three children. Insensitive is ignoring those facts. We have an obligation to stand up for those people and seek justice
and make sure the defendant gets justice and make sure they get justice. So, if people don't -- can't understand that, I don't know how I can answer
that question.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you feel like we might have to move courthouses?
CRUZ: Move courthouses?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
CRUZ: I don't know I guess is a short answer. I think this is pretty far and renowned, so I'm not sure where we could go.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: D.A., if you couldn't prove the case to those 11 jurors, what would a new jury -- how could that make the difference?
CRUZ: I'm sorry.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you couldn't prove the case to these jurors who apparently did not --
CRUZ: Well, you --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- believe that you proved the case, how will you prove it to others?
CRUZ: We don't know what they believed and what they didn't believe. Our job is to assess the facts and apply them to the law and make sure that we
can come up with what we can do and go forward in a good faith fashion. And I think that we owe that to the people in our county and our community.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you. Thank you everyone. Thank you.
CRUZ: Thanks, everybody.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you take just one question from --
CRUZ: I can't hear you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just one question. Go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There's been a lot of online speculation about the thoroughness of the Massachusetts State Police investigation. Do you have
any comment on that on any of those rumors? Are you here to set anything straight?
CRUZ: I said they've done a good investigation and I don't go online and read those stories.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you believe in --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Tim, one more question. One more question.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Will you make a plea offer?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My question is just do you dispute the characterization by the defense that there was one pulled out for, you
know, that was not considered not guilty. (INAUDIBLE)
CRUZ: You know, I'm not here to dispute anything with the defense. I'm not here to talk about the defense. Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE)
CRUZ: I'm here to talk about -- I'm here to talk about what's important in this case and what should be important to all of us and that's those three
kids. Thanks very much. Appreciate it.
(CROSSTALK)
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KEILAR: All right. Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz there making his comments after a mistrial is declared in the Lindsay Clancy murder
trial. Let's go straight to Jean Casarez who is there and has been following this entire case.
He said something -- this is -- you know, this is a case that has garnered so much attention, Jean. And he addressed that.
END
