Speaker 1: You're listening to a MoMA Mia podcast.
Speaker 2: Hi there, it's Grace here, and you might be wondering
Speaker 2: why there's an extra episode in your feed. There's a
Speaker 2: story that seems to be everywhere right now that has
Speaker 2: broken hearts globally, and that is the trial of Lindsey Clancy,
Speaker 2: which is taking place right now in the US. Because
Speaker 2: of the magnitude of this story and the way it's
Speaker 2: reaching so many people and parents, Mamma and Me Are
Speaker 2: Out Loud decided to do a special episode to talk
Speaker 2: about this incredibly distressing case. But please take care when listening.
Speaker 1: Out loud as Welcome to a special episode of Mamma
Speaker 1: and Me Are Out Loud. And it's one that we
Speaker 1: really wish that we didn't have to make because it
Speaker 1: is about a murder trial that's currently happening in the
Speaker 1: US where a woman called Lindsay Clancy has admitted to
Speaker 1: killing her three young children in twenty twenty three before
Speaker 1: trying to take her own life. You may know a
Speaker 1: lot about this story, you may know a little bit
Speaker 1: about this story, or you may know nothing about this story.
Speaker 1: It is incredibly distressing and that's why we wanted to
Speaker 1: separate it from your regular episode of out Loud to
Speaker 1: give you the choice about whether to listen to us
Speaker 1: talk about it without having to miss out on your
Speaker 1: regular Wednesday episode that dropped yesterday as usual, so you
Speaker 1: can just scroll back in your feed and listen to that.
Speaker 1: But we wanted to give this story some room to
Speaker 1: breathe because out Loud is a daily show that covers
Speaker 1: what women are talking about, and this case has captured
Speaker 1: women's attention in the most extraordinary way, and we want
Speaker 1: to try and understand why. My name is Mia Friedman.
Speaker 1: I'm one of the hosts of Muma me Are out Loud,
Speaker 1: and I'm joined today by two members of our QUICKI team.
Speaker 1: The QUICKI is Muma MEA's daily news podcast twice daily
Speaker 1: in fact, and with me at the Muma Mea out
Speaker 1: Loud table today is tams and Rose, who is an
Speaker 1: accomplished journalist and one of the two new hosts of
Speaker 1: the Quickie, and also Georgie Page, who is a group
Speaker 1: executive producer at Muma Mea and is working across the
Speaker 1: Quickie as well. Welcome to both of you. I really
Speaker 1: wish that we weren't here, and the reason that I
Speaker 1: wanted you both to be sitting at the table. I
Speaker 1: am one of those people who doesn't know much about
Speaker 1: this case at all. I've deliberately tried not to focus
Speaker 1: on it, but I couldn't help but be made aware
Speaker 1: of it when just this week, interestingly, about three or
Speaker 1: four of my group chats with very different people all
Speaker 1: started popping off and talking about it. And then when
Speaker 1: someone mentioned it in the office, ten people jumped up
Speaker 1: and started talking about it as well, women of all
Speaker 1: different generations, and tams And you were saying to me
Speaker 1: earlier before we came into the studio that there are
Speaker 1: like two different conversations going. One is about the actual
Speaker 1: story of what's happening in the trial at the moment,
Speaker 1: which is being televised in the US. It's been going
Speaker 1: for about three weeks. And the other, Georgie, which you
Speaker 1: know a lot about, is the parallel story that's happening
Speaker 1: on the internet, which is about this case, but it's
Speaker 1: going in a very very different direction. So, Tamsen, let's
Speaker 1: start at the beginning. Who is Lindsay Clancy.
Speaker 3: So Lindsay Clancy is a thirty six year old woman
Speaker 3: who lives in Massachusetts in the States. She was married
Speaker 3: to her husband Patrick, and they had three kids. They
Speaker 3: had a five year old, a three year old, and
Speaker 3: an eight month old, and she was working as a
Speaker 3: labor and delivery nurse up until this killing occurred.
Speaker 1: So my understanding is that this crime happened in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three, after she I believe, strangled the children, she
Speaker 1: tried to take her own life. Is that correct?
Speaker 4: Yeah, So that's what's going through court at the moment.
Speaker 3: The reason that we're hearing about this so much now
Speaker 3: is because it's come to trial. So she's been charged
Speaker 3: with the murder of her three children after they were
Speaker 3: found dead in her home, and that was after she
Speaker 3: was also found with very significant injuries. And so the
Speaker 3: allegation is that she killed her three children, she murdered them,
Speaker 3: and then she tried to take her own life.
Speaker 1: Is she denying that.
Speaker 3: No, so she's not denying that she killed the children.
Speaker 3: What this case hinges on is whether she can be
Speaker 3: held legally responsible for that killing given the mental state
Speaker 3: she was in. And that's really the crux of the
Speaker 3: case in court.
Speaker 4: At the moment.
Speaker 1: Some of the footage of the trial that I've seen,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's obviously incredibly distressing to watch even apart
Speaker 1: from the horrific nature of the crime. From what I understand,
Speaker 1: she took some pills, self harmed and then threw herself
Speaker 1: out of the window of their house. She's paralyzed and
Speaker 1: is in a wheelchair in court sobbing hysterically. What's the
Speaker 1: court case about?
Speaker 5: Then?
Speaker 1: If she said I pled guilty, is she saying by
Speaker 1: reasons of insanity?
Speaker 3: So she has pled not guilty. And the thing here
Speaker 3: is so she's not denying that she killed them, that
Speaker 3: she's denying that she murdered them. So it's the intent here,
Speaker 3: and it's whether she can be held accountable for her
Speaker 3: actions given her mental state at the time. So the
Speaker 3: prosecution is arguing that it was premeditated. She had decided
Speaker 3: she would kill her children, She sent her husband Patrick
Speaker 3: to the shops to pick up food and prescriptions, and
Speaker 3: then in that time gave herself enough time to kill
Speaker 3: her children and then attempt to kill herself. What this
Speaker 3: case really hinges on is whether she can prove and
Speaker 3: whether her lawyers can prove that she was in such
Speaker 3: a severe state of.
Speaker 1: Due to postpartum depression.
Speaker 3: Postpridum psychosis is what they're actually saying in this and
Speaker 3: so that's different. It's more rare than postpartum depression. It's
Speaker 3: a very specific condition.
Speaker 1: I interviewed a woman once, an Australian woman who had
Speaker 1: postpartum psychosis, and she described it as she was pushing
Speaker 1: her baby down in a pram down the street and
Speaker 1: she looked at him and he looked like a dragon,
Speaker 1: and she couldn't believe that other people couldn't see that
Speaker 1: he was a dragon.
Speaker 4: So it's scary.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's not just postpartum depression can be incredibly debilitating
Speaker 1: for women, but this is a different thing, psychosis. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So did her husband or anyone around her see any
Speaker 1: evidence of this postpartum psychosis? Did she see a doctor
Speaker 1: or did she tell anyone?
Speaker 3: Yes, So, she was talking a lot to her husband,
Speaker 3: to her mother, to her friends, and to doctors about
Speaker 3: how she was feeling. She had expressed to them that
Speaker 3: she was feeling suicidal, that she was seeing things, that
Speaker 3: she was unwell, she was begging for help. She had
Speaker 3: seen psychologists, psychiatrists. She was on a cocktail of drugs
Speaker 3: at the time of this. And Patrick, her husband, has
Speaker 3: given evidence that he feels like she was misdiagnosed and
Speaker 3: that she was getting the incorrect treatment. That's playing a
Speaker 3: critical role in this How a woman who was begging
Speaker 3: for help alongside looking after three children. She was saying,
Speaker 3: I desperately need help, I'm not well. How does she
Speaker 3: still end up in the position where her three children
Speaker 3: are dead and she's on trial for their murder.
Speaker 1: So this sounds like just a completely tragic case. But
Speaker 1: why has this story started popping up in everybody's group chats? Georgie?
Speaker 1: This is why I wanted to ask you, because by
Speaker 1: all accounts, it's a tragedy. It's a trial that's ongoing,
Speaker 1: it's been televised, so I understand that that's captured the imagination.
Speaker 1: But horrific crimes like this happen all the time. Children
Speaker 1: are murdered tragically by their parents every day around the world.
Speaker 1: Why has this captured everyone's attention?
Speaker 6: It's really interesting because I am following this case in
Speaker 6: two ways. I'm following the news reports, which are telling
Speaker 6: me what's happening in the court case, But I'm also
Speaker 6: really interested in true crime, and I follow a lot
Speaker 6: of the cases. The internet discourse is about Patrick and Lindsay.
Speaker 6: There's not as much discussion about the kids and that's
Speaker 6: almost sort of taken out of it because it is
Speaker 6: such a trat and it is more like two things.
Speaker 6: Did Patrick do it or did Patrick not do enough?
Speaker 6: So it happened.
Speaker 1: So wait a second, I'm going to stop you right there.
Speaker 1: Did Patrick do it?
Speaker 5: Well?
Speaker 1: She said that she did it and he was at
Speaker 1: the shops. My understanding is that hasn't come up in court.
Speaker 1: The idea of him doing it has it.
Speaker 3: No, So that hasn't come up in court at all.
Speaker 3: And I think this is where it's really important to
Speaker 3: make the two distinctions. There are two cases running. One
Speaker 3: is the court of public opinion that's playing out all
Speaker 3: over social media, that's exactly what George's talking about. And
Speaker 3: then we have the case that's being run in court,
Speaker 3: and that is purely about her role.
Speaker 4: In these killings.
Speaker 3: So he's there in court, he's giving evidence, but none
Speaker 3: of it is questioning whether he had an involvement in
Speaker 3: the killings.
Speaker 1: Okay, so is he sort of supportive of her in court?
Speaker 1: Are they still married?
Speaker 6: They are not still married. He has remarried, or so
Speaker 6: he has married a woman that looks very like Lindsey,
Speaker 6: which is a online commentators on TikTok and Reddit and
Speaker 6: things to really go to town on what they think
Speaker 6: of him. He is absolutely the bad guy online. There
Speaker 6: are a lot of people on social media who are
Speaker 6: presenting themselves as true crime experts and presenting these as facts.
Speaker 1: So can you just take us through broadly the conspiracy
Speaker 1: theory that is captured attention? What do people say they
Speaker 1: think happened?
Speaker 5: I would actually say conspiracy theories.
Speaker 6: Let's just say though, that none of these are including
Speaker 6: the fact that we now know that she suffered from psychosis.
Speaker 6: So these are very often generated by Internet sleuths who
Speaker 6: may not have factored that in.
Speaker 1: So what is the internet's justification for the fact that
Speaker 1: she has given evidence, actual evidence to say I did
Speaker 1: it and is distraught about the fact that she did it?
Speaker 6: And you know what, that's such an interesting point because
Speaker 6: we really have to be crystal clear yet again here
Speaker 6: Patrick Clancy is not on trial.
Speaker 5: He is not accused of anything.
Speaker 6: The theories that we're referring to are all purely about
Speaker 6: what's being repeated on the internet, right, and these theories
Speaker 6: we can't go into too much detail about because of legalities.
Speaker 6: So one of the internet theories is that she believes
Speaker 6: she did it because her ex husband made her believe so.
Speaker 6: And a lot of the discussion that I've read about
Speaker 6: on mainly things like Reddit like this is going deep
Speaker 6: into this is that her lawyer is using this case
Speaker 6: to prove to her that she didn't do it.
Speaker 1: But what do you mean using this court case. She's
Speaker 1: been charged.
Speaker 6: She's been charged, but some of the crazy conspiracies on
Speaker 6: the internet believe that he is trying to show inconsistencies
Speaker 6: in the case that will make her say, maybe I
Speaker 6: didn't do it. But she fully believes that she did it,
Speaker 6: and everyone knows that. But there is so much sympathy
Speaker 6: for this woman in a way that you do not
Speaker 6: often see for women who allege.
Speaker 5: That they killed their children.
Speaker 4: I also think an important distinction to make.
Speaker 3: She has not said that she didn't kill them, and
Speaker 3: it's understood that she believes she killed them, but she's
Speaker 3: never given evidence in court, and we're not actually expecting
Speaker 3: her to give any evidence, as is her right as
Speaker 3: a defendant. She is sitting there, but she doesn't have
Speaker 3: to give evidence. Effectively, her legal argument is just that
Speaker 3: she was not in her right mind when this happened.
Speaker 3: But that is all being made on her behalf.
Speaker 1: So why is the Internet? And by the Internet we
Speaker 1: sort of mean reddit and TikTok and just also the
Speaker 1: general discourse. You know, when we say the Internet, we
Speaker 1: just meet people, right and in a lot of group chats,
Speaker 1: I've seen their influences and people I know personally who
Speaker 1: are making reels and tiktoks asserting very specific facts about
Speaker 1: the lawyer and the this and the hymn and the why,
Speaker 1: Like why is everyone so invested?
Speaker 6: There's something different about this case, And it's really hard
Speaker 6: to put my finger on what, because personally, I feel
Speaker 6: so much sympathy for this woman, and I watch her
Speaker 6: in court. I almost can't make it join in my
Speaker 6: mind that she's done these horrible things, even though I
Speaker 6: do believe that she has, because I feel she was
Speaker 6: so failed by the system either inconsistencies, all rumors that
Speaker 6: have now been sold as facts, and so the Internet
Speaker 6: is jumping on this. It's amazing clickbit. Obviously the Internet
Speaker 6: is jumping on this.
Speaker 1: And maybe this is why I haven't been captivated by
Speaker 1: this story so much, because I'm not someone who follows
Speaker 1: true crime, so it sounds like what's happening? Correct me
Speaker 1: if I'm wrong it's so difficult to look at this
Speaker 1: woman and think about that crime, and so confronting and
Speaker 1: distressing to think of a mother doing that to her children,
Speaker 1: and the details of that we won't go into, but
Speaker 1: my god, that we want to find ways to not
Speaker 1: blame her by either saying someone else did it or
Speaker 1: putting the blame on the system. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I also think one of the reasons that it's captured
Speaker 3: so many people's attention, whether they are a mother or
Speaker 3: they're not yet, is so many women have experienced being
Speaker 3: shut down by the medical system in some way or another.
Speaker 3: They've gone and they've asked for help for something, They've
Speaker 3: asked protests and the doctors told them you actually you
Speaker 3: don't need it, or you know what, come back, maybe
Speaker 3: it's a period. And this is the most extreme version
Speaker 3: of that. And I think it's quite scary if you
Speaker 3: think about, if I'm continuously ignored, if people don't take
Speaker 3: me seriously, I don't get the right treatment I need
Speaker 3: when I'm doing everything that I'm supposed to do to
Speaker 3: get help.
Speaker 4: That's what happens. It feels like it could be anyone.
Speaker 1: Okay, So the health system in America, we know is
Speaker 1: a binfire. She had expressed that she was struggling, So
Speaker 1: she was in that twelvemonth mark, which is the high
Speaker 1: risk time after the birth of her third child. Because
Speaker 1: my experience of the health system, it's been a while
Speaker 1: since I had a baby, they're very attentive to you.
Speaker 1: I was talking to some of the new mothers in
Speaker 1: the office, and you have compulsory health checks at certain points,
Speaker 1: like at the six week mark and one week mark,
Speaker 1: and they ask you a lot of very specific questions.
Speaker 1: And that's the case in Australia. In the US, it's
Speaker 1: possibly not like that. But we do know that she
Speaker 1: was seeing a psychiatrist and a psychologist and they've given evidence,
Speaker 1: I presume that she was diagnosed with postpartum psychosist.
Speaker 3: So she hadn't been diagnosed, and that's part of the
Speaker 3: crux of this is that she was asking for help.
Speaker 4: She was clearly going through something.
Speaker 3: Everything she was saying and doing was showing that, but
Speaker 3: she hadn't received that diagnosis.
Speaker 4: So that's what they're attempting to.
Speaker 3: Now prove, and really over the next two to three weeks,
Speaker 3: which is now when we're going to hear from the defense,
Speaker 3: that's when we're going to really see that come to
Speaker 3: the front, because that's going to be the key defense
Speaker 3: from her team. So we're going to be hearing from
Speaker 3: a lot of those as now.
Speaker 6: So, like you said, she is in that danger zone
Speaker 6: of one year, and I feel it's like when you
Speaker 6: first have a baby and everyone visits and everyone helps
Speaker 6: at the start, and you get asked those questions that
Speaker 6: you mentioned over and over.
Speaker 5: Again every few weeks.
Speaker 1: Also very much with your first baby. I think by
Speaker 1: the time we have your third. And this is what's interesting,
Speaker 1: I haven't had postpartum depression, but I assumed that it
Speaker 1: was something that happened the first time, or it didn't happen.
Speaker 1: But it's different with every child, right.
Speaker 6: It's different, absolutely, And so her youngest was at the
Speaker 6: eight month mark, and that's the time when people have
Speaker 6: sort of floated away, but you may not be getting
Speaker 6: all the support. So maybe she wasn't being asked those
Speaker 6: questions until she sought out help.
Speaker 5: Anyway, I know that.
Speaker 6: I probably wasn't asked as many questions when I had
Speaker 6: my kids around that time.
Speaker 5: But was I sleeping?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 5: Was I really struggling?
Speaker 1: Yes? Has her mother given evidence?
Speaker 3: Her mother's given evidence this week and ordered her mother.
Speaker 3: She gave evidence effectively saying that her daughter was asking
Speaker 3: for help. She showed text messages where her daughter told
Speaker 3: her that she was feeling suicidal. She was asking if
Speaker 3: her mum could come and sleep in her bed. She
Speaker 3: was clearly not in a good way, and her mother's
Speaker 3: given that evidence.
Speaker 1: Really, and there's no one, including her mother, her friends,
Speaker 1: who's actually made any accusations about the husband. It's literally
Speaker 1: just online speculation.
Speaker 4: There's been nothing in court.
Speaker 6: There's been nothing. But at the same time, there's a
Speaker 6: lot of people shouting from the rooftop saying, if your
Speaker 6: wife tells you that she is struggling, do not go
Speaker 6: out to the chemist and get take away by yourself.
Speaker 6: Take at least one child, or take all the children.
Speaker 6: Was he being negligent by leaving a woman who was
Speaker 6: struggling and has spoken about.
Speaker 5: That at length at home with three children. That's a question.
Speaker 1: When I interviewed that woman, she said she would try
Speaker 1: to hide it because she said she was scared that
Speaker 1: someone would take her baby away from her, not saying
Speaker 1: that that's what happened with Lindsay, but but I thought
Speaker 1: that was interesting, Like it's not always visible from the outside.
Speaker 1: That's what she That's what she said. You know you
Speaker 1: were talking to me Georgie about women with T shirts
Speaker 1: saying Lindsay's army.
Speaker 5: What's that about.
Speaker 6: So there is merch available unofficial obviously from this trial.
Speaker 6: You can get team Lindsay T shirts. You can get
Speaker 6: T shirts saying I'm the thirteenth Dura in the Lindsay
Speaker 6: Clancy case. People are making reels saying taking three weeks
Speaker 6: off work because I'm studying the Lindsay Clancy case.
Speaker 1: So it's turned it's been turned into a contented.
Speaker 6: Into an absolute circus. So I feel with cases like this,
Speaker 6: we need a baddie, and no one wants the baddie
Speaker 6: to be her.
Speaker 1: I also think it's often easier to be angry than gutted. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, I see that time and time again. When
Speaker 1: something devastating happens, it's easier to be angry. And it's
Speaker 1: too confronting for us to think of a mother killing
Speaker 1: her own children, so someone else must be responsible. So
Speaker 1: her ex husband actually appeared on the stands on day five.
Speaker 1: What did he say?
Speaker 3: He testified to the general state of well being of
Speaker 3: his wife at the time. He said on the day
Speaker 3: of the killing, she seemed well, That was his quote,
Speaker 3: but he also said it had been an incredibly turbulent
Speaker 3: period of time and that she had been struggling, that
Speaker 3: she had been expressing those struggles to him. He had
Speaker 3: also taken her to hospital a few days prior because
Speaker 3: of her insomnia and her anxiety, So she was clearly
Speaker 3: expressing enough to him that meant that he was doing
Speaker 3: things like taking her to hospital. He also said, which
Speaker 3: is to what Georgie said before he got on the stand,
Speaker 3: and said he's forgiven his ex wife for the deaths
Speaker 3: of their children.
Speaker 1: It makes me think I've been watching some of those
Speaker 1: having said I don't like true crime. I've been watching
Speaker 1: a few true crime documentaries on Netflix, etc. And it's
Speaker 1: always that thing of it's not what it looks like yep.
Speaker 1: And so it's almost like the plot's not good enough
Speaker 1: of this story. There needs what's the twist, And the
Speaker 1: twist is because it's never who you think it is,
Speaker 1: and it's always someone very close to the crime. So
Speaker 1: everyone is just treating this like a cross between the
Speaker 1: super Bowl and a true crime story.
Speaker 6: Right, there's absolutely a need to glorify and add a
Speaker 6: layer of excitement on the internet, which isn't there in
Speaker 6: the courtroom.
Speaker 1: It's funny you say the word excitement, because that's the
Speaker 1: impression that I've got, which has been so surprising. Given
Speaker 1: what a tragic story this is. People are excited about it.
Speaker 1: And the last time I remember this kind of vibe
Speaker 1: was around maybe Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni or the
Speaker 1: Amber heard Johnny Depp trial, But no one died in
Speaker 1: the those stories.
Speaker 4: You know, they're not children.
Speaker 3: I am finding it's quite uncomfortable at times engaging with
Speaker 3: this discourse where what we're discussing what was done, was.
Speaker 4: Brutally killing three children.
Speaker 3: It's so horrific the details of this case, and as
Speaker 3: we're going on this back and forth all the theories,
Speaker 3: obviously everyone wants to get to the heart of it,
Speaker 3: but some of the tone has been hard to engage with.
Speaker 1: Yeah, do you mean about that sort of excitement?
Speaker 4: Yeah, totally.
Speaker 1: Even just when you scrolling and you see you know,
Speaker 1: someone in full makeup doing a piece to camera and going,
Speaker 1: you know, and I'm just like, oh, what's this about,
Speaker 1: And I'm like, whoa.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, I mean it's three kids who've died.
Speaker 3: A woman who's become paralyzed and everyone's life has been
Speaker 3: destroyed in the process.
Speaker 5: It's really really horrible.
Speaker 1: It's not exciting entertainment.
Speaker 3: The other thing on that is, you would hope that
Speaker 3: something like this, regardless of where this case lands up,
Speaker 3: it's a clear case of someone having fallen through the
Speaker 3: cracks of a lot of systems that were supposed to
Speaker 3: support her, and so hopefully it can be something of
Speaker 3: a wake up call for anyone in this situation.
Speaker 4: But you never know.
Speaker 1: I mean, I hope you're right. Mental illness is very,
Speaker 1: very tricky, isn't it, because it is often invisible from
Speaker 1: the outside. And I wanted to ask you about that
Speaker 1: because people might be confused if she said she did it,
Speaker 1: how can she plead not guilty? But that is by
Speaker 1: reasons of insanity and basically that you're not culpable for
Speaker 1: your actions because you're not of sound mind. So then
Speaker 1: what happens. Does she go to jail? Like, if she's
Speaker 1: found guilty, does she go to jail?
Speaker 4: She does?
Speaker 1: And if she's found not guilty, does she just walk free?
Speaker 4: No, so she will go to jail.
Speaker 3: But I'm certain there would be some form of mental
Speaker 3: health treatment while she was in jail. If she's found
Speaker 3: guilty and that's going to be the decision for jurors
Speaker 3: at the end of this trial, or if she's not
Speaker 3: found guilty, she will be released into a state mental
Speaker 3: health facility where she'll get treatment.
Speaker 1: Georgie, are men interested in this case or is this
Speaker 1: purely something that women are interested in.
Speaker 6: I haven't seen any men speak about it, but I
Speaker 6: haven't seen interest from men. There is something about this
Speaker 6: case that has really got under the skin of women.
Speaker 1: I think it's just too confronting to be faced with
Speaker 1: this idea, and you know, it is easier to believe
Speaker 1: that it was someone else's fault.
Speaker 4: Out louder Is.
Speaker 1: We are going to leave numbers for support for you
Speaker 1: in the show notes. If anyone you know is affected
Speaker 1: by post natal depression by psychosis, the first thing you
Speaker 1: should do is call Lifeline, Please call Triple zero if
Speaker 1: there is an emergency situation. But we are sending our
Speaker 1: love and thoughts to anyone who is struggling. Please reach out.
Speaker 1: Please don't think that because some women reached out and
Speaker 1: didn't get the help they needed, that that will happen
Speaker 1: to you. And if you don't get the help you need,
Speaker 1: keep reaching out, Go and turn up at a hospital
Speaker 1: if you must. Nobody wants to see this happen again.
Speaker 1: Thank you Georgie, thank you Tamsin. This story isn't finished,
Speaker 1: It's still going. The trial is only about halfway through,
Speaker 1: so we will be covering it ongoing on the Quickie,
Speaker 1: on Tree, Chrome Conversations, and on site. We will leave
Speaker 1: links in the show notes if you want to keep
Speaker 1: following this story, and also of course for those support
Speaker 1: services