Lindsay Clancy strikes evidence deal as fingerprint gap opens trial debate, expert says

Lindsay Clancy spoke directly in court Tuesday, repeatedly answering, “Yes, Your Honor,” as she agreed to let prosecutors treat certain forensic facts as established hours before a state police trooper testified that investigators recovered no usable fingerprints from a knife or three exercise bands.

The developments narrowed the Massachusetts mother’s murder trial toward its central dispute: whether Clancy was criminally responsible when her three children were killed inside the family’s Duxbury home.

Before jurors entered the courtroom, Judge William Sullivan questioned Clancy about a stipulation covering certain evidence.

“The bottom line is that you didn’t get any fingerprints,” Reddington said.

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.”