A prosecution psychologist told the court he doesn't believe Lindsay Clancy was hallucinating when she killed her three children — but the same mental health industry that medicated her into a "serious psychiatric state" faces zero scrutiny for the role its prescriptions may have played in the tragedy.

Clancy, 36, is on trial for the murders of Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and 8-month-old Callan, strangled in their Duxbury, Massachusetts home in January 2023. Her defense attorney Kevin Reddington argues she was in the grip of postpartum psychosis and should not be held criminally responsible. The prosecution says she planned the killings, sending her husband out on errands before carrying them out.

On Monday, the prosecution's rebuttal witnesses took aim at the insanity defense — but their testimony revealed more about the psychiatric establishment's habit of dodging its own complicity than about Clancy's state of mind.

Forensic psychologist Kirk Heilbrun, who examined Clancy in April, told the jury he found it unlikely she heard a male voice commanding her to kill. "The way she described this as happening is that she heard a voice that she'd never heard before, experienced a hallucination and she's never experienced it since," Heilbrun testified. "To put it mildly, that would be a very, very unusual pattern or manifestation of how this kind of thing comes about." He called the claim "a convenient way of lessening your culpability" and pointed to "inconsistencies" in her accounts.

Heilbrun said he believed Clancy killed her children because she wanted to kill herself and didn't want to leave them behind — recounting that she told each child, "Go to God, baby. Go to God," during the stranglings. The judge instructed jurors to disregard Heilbrun's reference to Clancy's Catholic faith after Reddington moved for a mistrial.

Earlier, psychiatrist Dr. Avram Mack — hired by prosecutors — admitted under cross-examination that Clancy "was in a serious psychiatric state, and she was suffering." But he insisted she knew what she was doing was wrong and showed no psychotic features in her medical record, diagnosing her instead with a major depressive episode.

Reddington's grilling of Mack was tense. At one point the defense attorney snapped, "What are you smiling for? This is not funny, sir," after Mack appeared to smirk. Mack repeatedly claimed he couldn't answer questions about postpartum psychosis, exasperating jurors — one put his hand to his head and closed his eyes, the New York Post reported.

Defense experts told a different story. Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Phillip Resnick, an expert in filicide, testified Friday that Clancy was "clearly psychotic" and not in control: "It was almost like she was a puppet and someone else was pulling the strings." Psychologist Paul Zeizel concluded she "had no appreciation for the wrongfulness of her act."

Here's what neither side wants to interrogate: Reddington has also claimed Clancy was overmedicated — pumped full of psychotropic drugs by the very professionals now serving as expert witnesses in her trial. The Guardian noted this claim in passing. The Post didn't mention it at all. A Columbia-trained psychiatrist who didn't evaluate Clancy until more than three years after the killings is telling a jury she wasn't psychotic, while the prescription cocktail that put her in a "serious psychiatric state" goes unexamined.

The burden is on the prosecution to prove Clancy either lacked a qualifying mental disease or understood the wrongfulness of her conduct. The jury is expected to deliberate this week.

Three children are dead. Their mother was under psychiatric care. The experts are arguing over labels — psychosis versus depression, hallucination versus calculation — while the pills they prescribed and the system they built face no accountability at all.