Lindsay Clancy had the "capacity to appreciate right from wrong" when she strangled her three children, according to the testimony of Gregory Saathoff, the longtime forensic psychiatrist testifying as a prosecution expert.

"My opinion is that she did have the capacity to appreciate right from wrong," Saathoff testified. "It is my opinion, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that Ms. Clancy was criminally responsible."

Saathoff noted that, in his opinion, the killings required "significant" planning and that her actions earlier that day suggested she was able "to conform right to the type of behavior that a concerned mother would engage in."

While Clancy says she heard a voice in her head commanding her to kill her children, Saathoff testified that the voice did not tell Clancy the specifics about how to kill the children and what to use, suggesting she "had control of the sequence of what she was doing throughout," based on the 11 hours he spent interviewing her.

Saathoff also testified that, in his opinion, even if Clancy was experiencing postpartum psychosis, she could have differentiated between right and wrong or pushed back on the voice she reported.

"Command hallucinations, when they occur, do not propel an individual to automatically obey them. And in fact, many people will engage in behaviors to stop them," he told the court.

Testimony in the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy is set to conclude Wednesday, as jurors prepare to hear closing arguments and begin their deliberations on Thursday.

Prosecutors are ending their case with testimony from a senior psychiatrist with the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit, who testified that, based on the 11 hour he spent interviewing her, Clancy’s account of killing her three children was full of inconsistencies and does not align with how most patients experience hallucinations stemming from postpartum psychosis.

Judge William Sullivan told jurors that prosecutors would rest their case on Wednesday, with closing arguments likely to take place Thursday.

Gregory Saathoff, a senior psychiatrist for the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit, took the stand on Tuesday afternoon as prosecution's final rebuttal witness.

Saathoff picked apart Clancy's account of events during his testimony, comparing her description during two interviews with accounts from her ex-husband Patrick Clancy, as well as what she told others previously, noting several inconsistencies.

In his testimony, Saathoff raised concern that Patrick and Linsday Clancy had very different accounts of that afternoon, including Patrick Clancy saying that the kids were already eating chicken nuggets when he left the house the day of the killings, while Lindsay Clancy said she was preparing the chicken nuggets when she heard a voice telling her to kill her children.

Saathoff testified that he spent about 11 hours interviewing Clancy. He told jurors he has treated "thousands" of patients with psychosis throughout his career and testified that Clancy's description of the voice in her head commanding her to kill her children was "very unusual" compared to most descriptions of psychosis, in his opinion.

Saathoff testified that in his experience, it was unusual that Clancy claimed to have heard the voice only once in her head, compared to most patients with psychosis, who he said regularly experience auditory hallucinations.

Saathoff also testified that, in his opinion, it was unusual Clancy claimed to have heard a constant voice -- rather than an intermittent one -- and that it abruptly ended once she killed her children.

Saathoff testified that he has never seen a scenario when a patient reported a hallucination ending once the act demanded was complete.

"Committing the act is not curative of the voice. I've not ever seen that," he told jurors.

Saathoff also noted in his testimony that Clancy had told another psychiatrist the voice began as soon as Patrick Clancy left the house to run errands but told Saathoff that the voice began right after her phone call with Patrick – about a 20-minute gap.

Jurors have been sent home for the day. The charge conference is now scheduled for Wednesday, after the conclusion of evidence.

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington questioned forensic psychologist Kirk Heilbrun, one of the prosecution's expert witnesses, about his lack of experience treating postpartum psychosis, attempting to cast doubt on Heilbrun's assessment that Lindsay Clancy was aware of her actions when she strangled her three children and attempted to take her own life.

Heilbrun testified that he has limited experience with postpartum psychosis -- having last treated a patient with the condition in 1982 -- before acknowledging he was paid more than $50,000 by prosecutors to appear as an expert witness in the case.

"How much money did you make on the case, doctor?" Reddington asked during cross examination.

"Well, it's not that simple, but I'm being paid at $300 an hour," Heilbrun told jurors, testifying that he had been paid approximately $54,000 "up to this point."

Reddington then accused Heilbrun of not reading the records in the case fully, suggesting that one of his answers was a "word salad," prompting prosecutors to object and the judge to instruct Reddington to move on with his questioning.

Reddington also pressed Heilbrun about his claim that Clancy was not serious about getting help.

"Did this woman not want to go to anybody that would help her, sir? Are you trying to tell the jury that she was avoiding help?" he asked.

"It was short-term and supportive, as opposed to something where in the field you might pick a cognitive behavioral therapist, which is empirically supported for things like anxiety and depression, and patience and things like that," Heilbrun said.

"Who makes that decision? Does a person like this make that decision, sir?" Reddington said as he stood behind Clancy's wheelchair.