Lindsay Clancy Prosecution Witness ‘No Longer Employed’ By Children’s Hospital

Dr. Avram Mack, a rebuttal witness for the prosecution in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial, is reportedly “no longer employed” at Nemours Children’s Health in Delaware.

CT Insider reported that as of Friday, the psychiatrist — who got into several heated exchanges with defense attorney Kevin Reddington during his testimony — was no longer associated with Nemours Children’s Health. Nemours later clarified that Mack resigned from the position on Monday — the same day his cross-examination concluded.

Mack, who trained at Columbia and has largely practiced child and adolescent psychiatry, was pressed by Reddington during cross-examination on his limited experience evaluating adult patients.

“Dr. Avram Mack is no longer employed by Nemours Children’s Health,” a spokesperson told the outlet, but did not go into detail, adding, “employment decisions are confidential.”

The Daily Wire independently confirmed that a directory search for Mack’s name on the Nemours website came up empty.

Mack’s resume, which he submitted when he testified in the Clancy trial, stated that he had been employed at Nemours Children’s Health in the Delaware Valley since 2023.

Mack, during the trial, argued for the prosecution that Clancy should be held criminally responsible for the strangulation of her three young children despite conceding that she was, at the time, “in a serious psychiatric state and she was suffering.”

Mack testified that he did not consider postpartum-specific conditions in his evaluation of Clancy, citing guidelines that limit the postpartum period to four weeks after birth — a definition Reddington and other experts in the case have disputed, with some testimony putting the window at a year or more.

He also stated that he had not observed any evidence of “manic” episodes, leading him to believe that Clancy was not suffering from bipolar disorder — and said that some of the fears she’d expressed were well within the range of what would be considered normal. Fears that something might happen to one of her children, for example, or that someone might take her children away, were fears that many mothers have especially early in their children’s lives.

Mack and Reddington argued over the typical timeframe for postpartum depression and psychosis — as well as the definition of “postpartum” — during the trial. At one point, after Mack appeared to smile, Reddington scolded him: “What are you smiling for? This is not funny, sir.”

Psychiatrist Dr. Phillip Resnick, a witness for the defense, testified to almost the complete opposite scenario. Saying that he believed Clancy to be “frankly psychotic,” Resnick said he believed that Clancy had experienced “command hallucinations” in which she heard a male voice instructing her to harm her children.

Other testimony questioned the fact that she’d only heard the voice for a brief period of time — an atypical presentation — and that it had stopped as soon as she’d finished strangling the children.

Dr. Gregory Saathoff, who interviewed Clancy in May and June of 2026, also commented on the fact that Clancy had piled on extra errands to ensure that her husband, Patrick Clancy, would be away from the house longer.

The prosecution closed its case by arguing that Clancy had “acted intentionally, rationally and swiftly” when she took her children’s lives.

“I’m not saying she was happy about it. I’m saying, it was what she had to do to end her misery,” prosecutor Jennifer Sprague said. “But it was a choice. It was a choice.”

Reddington attempted to hang Clancy’s condition on the psychiatric medication she’d been prescribed — some of which she reportedly either did not take at all or did not take reliably — saying that she’d been failed by the system “because of the damn medicine and the lousy medical care that she got.”

The jury deliberated for about three-and-a-half hours on Thursday and roughly seven hours on Friday. They are expected to resume deliberations on Monday. If they find Clancy criminally responsible for the murders, she will likely face life in prison without the possibility of parole. If the jury finds her not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, prosecutors can petition the court to have her remanded to a psychiatric facility.