Surveillance footage became an important part of the investigation into the January 2023 deaths of Lindsay Clancy’s three children in Duxbury, Mᴀssachusetts. While recordings from nearby businesses helped investigators reconstruct Patrick Clancy’s movements that evening, search-warrant records also referenced cameras and electronic devices recovered from the family home.

The distinction is important: evidence that investigators seized cameras does not establish that those cameras recorded the events inside the house.

What the Business Surveillance Footage Showed

According to search-warrant affidavits, investigators obtained surveillance recordings from a CVS pharmacy in Kingston and the ThreeV restaurant in Plymouth.

The CVS footage showed Patrick entering the store at approximately 5:32 p.m. on January 24, 2023, and leaving at 5:37 p.m. The restaurant footage showed him arriving at approximately 5:54 p.m. and paying for a takeout order shortly afterward.

Investigators used these recordings alongside receipts, phone records, witness statements, and estimated travel times to reconstruct his movements while he was away from home.

What About the Cameras Inside the House?

Search-warrant records listed Google Nest cameras, Ring equipment, and a baby monitor among the electronic devices investigators sought to examine or seized from the residence. The records also authorized searches of computers, phones, and other devices that might contain relevant digital evidence.

Their presence raises a natural question: did any of these devices capture footage relevant to what happened inside the home?

However, the existence of cameras does not prove that they were recording, that recordings covered the relevant rooms or period, or that usable footage was recovered.

Based on the sources reviewed, I could not verify any publicly confirmed recording from an indoor camera showing what happened to Cora, Dawson, and Callan that evening.

What Remains Unclear?

The important distinction is between evidence investigators collected and footage that has actually been confirmed as recording the events in question.

The search-warrant documents establish that cameras and other electronic devices formed part of the investigation. They do not, by themselves, establish what those cameras captured or whether any missing recording exists.

The case has also involved phone activity, digital searches, medical evidence, and competing arguments about Lindsay Clancy’s mєntal state. Those separate strands of evidence must be ᴀssessed on their own merits rather than treated as proof of what a camera may or may not have recorded.

For now, the key question is not simply whether cameras were present, but whether investigators recovered relevant recordings and what, if anything, those recordings established.

Sources and related reporting:

• CBS Boston — Search warrants reveal investigators’ discoveries in the Clancy family home