Speaker 1: You're listening to a Mother and mea podcast out Loud
Speaker 1: as welcome to a special episode of Mum and Me
Speaker 1: Are out Loud, and it's one that we really wish
Speaker 1: that we didn't have to make because it is about
Speaker 1: a murder trial that's currently happening in the US where
Speaker 1: a woman called Lindsey Clancy has admitted to killing her
Speaker 1: three young children in twenty twenty three before trying to
Speaker 1: take her own life. You may know a lot about
Speaker 1: this story, you may know a little bit about this story,
Speaker 1: or you may know nothing about this story. It is
Speaker 1: incredibly distressing, and that's why we wanted to separate it
Speaker 1: from your regular episode of out Loud to give you
Speaker 1: the choice about whether to listen to us talk about
Speaker 1: it without having to miss out on your regular Wednesday
Speaker 1: episode that dropped yesterday as usual, so you can just
Speaker 1: scroll back in your feed and listen to that. But
Speaker 1: we wanted to give this story some room to breathe
Speaker 1: because out Loud is a daily show that covers what
Speaker 1: women are talking about, and this case has captured women's
Speaker 1: attention in the most extraordinary way, and we want to
Speaker 1: try and understand why. My name is Mia Friedman, I'm
Speaker 1: one of the hosts of Muma Mea out Loud, and
Speaker 1: I'm joined today by two members of our Quickie team.
Speaker 1: The Quickie is Muma Maya'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 Mumma 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 Tams and
Speaker 1: let's start at the beginning. Who is Lindsay Clancy.
Speaker 2: So Lindsay Clancy is a thirty six year old woman
Speaker 2: who lives in Massachusetts in the States. She was married
Speaker 2: to her husband Patrick, and they had three kids. They
Speaker 2: had a five year old, a three year old, and
Speaker 2: an eight month old, and she was working as a
Speaker 2: 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 3: Yep.
Speaker 2: So that's what's going through court at the moment. The
Speaker 2: reason that we're hearing about this so much now is
Speaker 2: because it's come to trial. So she's been charged with
Speaker 2: the murder of her three children after they were found
Speaker 2: dead in her home, and that was after she was
Speaker 2: also found with very significant injuries. And so the allegation
Speaker 2: is that she killed her three children, she murdered them,
Speaker 2: and then she tried to take her own life.
Speaker 1: Is she denying that.
Speaker 2: No, So she's not denying that she killed the children.
Speaker 2: What this case hinges on is whether she can be
Speaker 2: held legally responsible for that killing given the mental state
Speaker 2: she was in.
Speaker 3: And that's really the crux of the case in court
Speaker 3: 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? Then? If she said I pled guilty,
Speaker 1: is she saying by reasons of insanity?
Speaker 2: So she has pled not guilty. And the thing here is,
Speaker 2: so she's not denying that she killed them, that she's
Speaker 2: denying that she murdered them. So it's the intent here,
Speaker 2: and it's whether she can be held accountable for her
Speaker 2: actions given her mental state at the time. So the
Speaker 2: prosecution is arguing that it was premeditated. She had decided
Speaker 2: she would kill her children, She sent her husband Patrick
Speaker 2: to the shops to pick up food and prescriptions, and
Speaker 2: then in that time gave herself enough time to kill
Speaker 2: her children and then attempt to kill herself. What this
Speaker 2: case really hinges on is whether she can prove and
Speaker 2: whether her lawyers can prove that she was in such
Speaker 2: a severe.
Speaker 1: State of due to postpartum depression.
Speaker 2: Postpartum psychosis is what they're actually saying in this and
Speaker 2: so that's different. It's more rare than postpartum depression. It's
Speaker 2: 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 3: 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?
Speaker 2: So she was talking a lot to her husband, to
Speaker 2: her mother, to her friends, and to doctors about how
Speaker 2: she was feeling. She had expressed to them that she
Speaker 2: was feeling suicidal, that she was seeing things, that she
Speaker 2: was unwell, she was begging for help. She had seen psychologists, psychiatrists,
Speaker 2: she was on a cocktail of drugs at the time
Speaker 2: of this. And Patrick, her husband, has given evidence that
Speaker 2: he feels like she was misdiagnosed and that she was.
Speaker 3: Getting the incorrect treatment. That's playing a critical role in this.
Speaker 2: How a woman who was begging for help alongside looking
Speaker 2: after three children. She was saying, I desperately need help,
Speaker 2: I'm not well.
Speaker 3: How does she.
Speaker 2: Still end up in the position where her three children
Speaker 2: 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 4: It's really interesting because I am following this case in
Speaker 4: two ways. I'm following the news reports, which are telling
Speaker 4: me what's happening in the court case, but I'm also
Speaker 4: really interested in true crime, and I follow a lot
Speaker 4: of the cases. The internet discourse is about Patrick and Lindsey.
Speaker 4: There's not as much discussion about the kids, and that's
Speaker 4: almost sort of taken out of it because it is
Speaker 4: such a tragic part and it is more like two things.
Speaker 4: Did Patrick do it? Or did Patrick not do enough?
Speaker 4: So it happened?
Speaker 1: So wait a second, I'm going to stop you right there.
Speaker 1: Did Patrick do it? Well? She said that she did
Speaker 1: it and he was at the shops. My understanding is
Speaker 1: that hasn't come up in court. The idea of him
Speaker 1: doing it has.
Speaker 2: It no, So that hasn't come up in court at all.
Speaker 2: And I think this is where it's really important to
Speaker 2: make the two distinctions. There are two cases running. One
Speaker 2: is the court of public opinion that's playing out all
Speaker 2: over social media. That's exactly what George's talking about. And
Speaker 2: then we have the case that's being run in court,
Speaker 2: and that is purely about her role in these killings.
Speaker 2: So he's there in court, he's giving evidence, but none
Speaker 2: of it is questioning whether he had an involvement in
Speaker 2: the killings.
Speaker 1: Okay, so is he sort of supportive of her in court?
Speaker 1: Are they still married?
Speaker 4: They are not still married. He has remarried, or so
Speaker 4: he has married a woman that looks very like Lindsay,
Speaker 4: which is allowing online commentators on TikTok and Reddit and
Speaker 4: things to really go to town on what they think
Speaker 4: of him. He is absolutely the bad guy online. There
Speaker 4: are a lot of people on social media who are
Speaker 4: 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 4: I would actually say conspiracy theoryes. Let's just say though,
Speaker 4: that none of these are including the fact that we
Speaker 4: now know that she suffered from psychosis. So these are
Speaker 4: very often generated by Internet sleuths who may not have
Speaker 4: 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 4: And you know what, that's such an interesting point because
Speaker 4: we really have to be crystal clear yet again here
Speaker 4: Patrick Clancy is not on trial. He is not accused
Speaker 4: of anything. The theories that we're referring to are all
Speaker 4: purely about what's being repeated on the internet, right, and
Speaker 4: these theories we can't go into too much detail about
Speaker 4: because of legalities. So one of the internet theories is
Speaker 4: that she believes she did it because her ex husband
Speaker 4: made her believe so. And a lot of the discussion
Speaker 4: that I've read about on mainly things like Reddit like
Speaker 4: this is going deep into this, is that her lawyer
Speaker 4: is using this case to prove to her that she
Speaker 4: didn't do it.
Speaker 1: But what do you mean using this court case. She's
Speaker 1: been charged.
Speaker 4: She's been charged, But some of the crazy conspiracies on
Speaker 4: the Internet believe that he is trying to show inconsistencies
Speaker 4: in the case that will make her say, maybe I
Speaker 4: didn't do it, but she fully believes that she did it,
Speaker 4: and everyone knows that. But there is so much sympathy
Speaker 4: for this woman in a way that you do not
Speaker 4: often see for women who allege that they killed their children.
Speaker 2: I also think an important distinction to make. She has
Speaker 2: not said that she didn't kill them, and it's understood
Speaker 2: that she believes she killed them, But she's never given
Speaker 2: evidence in court, and we're not actually expecting her to
Speaker 2: give any evidence, as is her right as a defendant.
Speaker 2: She is sitting there, but she doesn't have to give evidence. Effectively,
Speaker 2: her legal argument is just that she was not in
Speaker 2: her right mind when this happened. But that is all
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 1: chats I've seen there are influences and people I know
Speaker 1: personally who are making reels and tiktoks asserting very specific
Speaker 1: facts about the lawyer and the this and the hymn
Speaker 1: and the why, like why is everyone so invested?
Speaker 4: There's something different about this case and It's really actually
Speaker 4: hard to put my finger on what because personally, I
Speaker 4: feel so much sympathy for this woman, and I watch
Speaker 4: her in court. I almost can't make it join in
Speaker 4: my mind that she's done these horrible things, even though
Speaker 4: I do believe that she has, because I feel she
Speaker 4: was so failed by the system, either inconsistencies, all rumors
Speaker 4: that have now been sold as facts, and so the
Speaker 4: Internet is jumping on this. It's amazing lickbait. Obviously the
Speaker 4: internet 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.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I also think one of the reasons that it's captured
Speaker 2: so many people's attention, whether they are a mother or
Speaker 2: they're not yet is so many women have experienced being
Speaker 2: shut down by the medical system in some way or another.
Speaker 2: They've gone and they've asked for help for something, They've
Speaker 2: asked for a test and the doctor's told them you, actually,
Speaker 2: you don't need it, or you.
Speaker 3: Know what, come back, maybe it's a period.
Speaker 2: And this is the most extreme version of that. And
Speaker 2: I think it's quite scary if you think about if
Speaker 2: I'm continuously ignored, if people don't take me seriously, I
Speaker 2: don't get the right treatment I need when I'm doing
Speaker 2: everything that I'm supposed to do to get help. That's
Speaker 2: 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 psychosis.
Speaker 2: So she hadn't been diagnosed, and that's part of the
Speaker 2: crux of this is that she was asking for help.
Speaker 2: She was clearly going through something. Everything she was saying
Speaker 2: and doing was showing that, but she hadn't received that diagnosis.
Speaker 3: So that's what they're attempting.
Speaker 2: To now prove, and really over the next two to
Speaker 2: three weeks, which is now when we're going to hear
Speaker 2: from the defense. That's when we're going to really see
Speaker 2: that come to the front, because that's going to be
Speaker 2: the key defense from her team. So we're going to
Speaker 2: be hearing from a lot of those aspects now.
Speaker 4: So, like you said, she is in that danger zone
Speaker 4: of one year, and I feel it's like when you
Speaker 4: first have a baby and everyone visits and everyone helps
Speaker 4: at the start, and you get asked those questions that
Speaker 4: you mentioned over and over again every few.
Speaker 1: Weeks, also very much with your first baby. I think
Speaker 1: by the time we have your third. And this is
Speaker 1: what's interesting. I haven't had postpartum depression, but I assumed
Speaker 1: that it was something that happened the first time, or
Speaker 1: it didn't happen. But it's different with every child.
Speaker 4: It's different, absolutely, And so her youngest was at the
Speaker 4: eight month mark, and that's the time when people have
Speaker 4: sort of floated away. But you may not be getting
Speaker 4: all the support. So maybe she wasn't being asked those
Speaker 4: questions until she sought out help. Anyway, I know that
Speaker 4: I probably wasn't asked as many questions when I had
Speaker 4: my kids around that time. But was I sleeping?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 4: Was I really struggling?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 1: Has her mother given evidence?
Speaker 3: Her mother's given evidence this week.
Speaker 1: And what did her mother say.
Speaker 2: She gave evidence effectively saying that her daughter was asking
Speaker 2: for help. She showed text messages where her daughter told
Speaker 2: her that she was feeling suicidal. She was asking if
Speaker 2: her mum could come and sleep in her bed. She
Speaker 2: was clearly not in a good way, and her mother's
Speaker 2: given that evidence.
Speaker 1: And there's no one, including her mother, her friends, who's
Speaker 1: actually made any accusations about the husband. It's literally just
Speaker 1: online speculation.
Speaker 3: There's been nothing in court there's been nothing.
Speaker 4: But at the same time, there's a lot of people
Speaker 4: shouting from the rooftop saying, if your wife tells you
Speaker 4: that she is struggling, do not go out to the
Speaker 4: chemist and get take away by yourself. Take at least
Speaker 4: one child, or take all the children. Was he being
Speaker 4: negligent by leaving a woman who was struggling and has
Speaker 4: spoken about that at length at home with three children.
Speaker 4: 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 I thought that
Speaker 1: 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 3: What's that about?
Speaker 4: So there is m available unofficial obviously from this trial.
Speaker 4: You can get Team Lindsey T shirts. You can get
Speaker 4: T shirts saying I'm the thirteenth dura in the Lindsay
Speaker 4: Clancy case. People are making reels saying taking three weeks
Speaker 4: off work because I'm studying the Lindsay Clancy case.
Speaker 1: So it's turned it's been turned into a content for.
Speaker 4: Us, into an absolute circus. So I feel with cases
Speaker 4: like this, we need a baddie, and no one wants
Speaker 4: the baddie to be her.
Speaker 1: I also think it's often easier to be angry than gutted,
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 2: He testified to the general state of well being of
Speaker 2: his wife at the time. He said, on the day
Speaker 2: of the killing, she's seemed well. That was his quote.
Speaker 2: But he also said it had been an incredibly turbulent
Speaker 2: period of time and that she had been struggling, that
Speaker 2: she had been expressing those struggles to him. He had
Speaker 2: also taken her to hospital a few days prior because
Speaker 2: of her insomnia and her anxiety, so she was clearly
Speaker 2: expressing enough to him that meant that he was doing
Speaker 2: things like taking her to hospital. He also said, which
Speaker 2: is to what Georgie said before he got on the
Speaker 2: stand and said he's forgiven his ex wife for the
Speaker 2: deaths of their children.
Speaker 1: You know, it makes me think I've been watching some
Speaker 1: of those having said I don't like true crime. I've
Speaker 1: been watching a few true crime documentaries on Netflix, etc.
Speaker 1: And it's always that thing of it's not what it
Speaker 1: looks like yep. And so it's almost like the plot's
Speaker 1: not good enough of this story. Their needs what's the twist.
Speaker 1: And the twist is because it's never who you think
Speaker 1: it is, and it's always someone very close to the crime.
Speaker 1: So everyone is just treating this like a cross between
Speaker 1: the Super Bowl and a true crime story.
Speaker 4: Right, there's absolutely a need to glorify and add a
Speaker 4: layer of excitement on the internet, which isn't there in
Speaker 4: 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 Black Lively and Justin Baldoni or the
Speaker 1: Amber heard Johnny Depp trial, But no one died in
Speaker 1: those stories.
Speaker 3: You know, they're not children.
Speaker 2: I am finding it quite uncomfortable at times engaging with
Speaker 2: this discourse where what we're discussing what was done was brutally.
Speaker 3: Killing three children.
Speaker 2: It's so horrific the details of this case, and as
Speaker 2: we're going on this back and forth all the theories,
Speaker 2: obviously everyone wants to get to the heart of it,
Speaker 2: but some of the tone has been hard to engage with.
Speaker 1: Yeah, do you mean about that sort of excitement?
Speaker 3: Yeah, totally, Even just.
Speaker 1: When you use scrolling and you see, you know, someone
Speaker 1: 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 2: Yeah, Yeah, I mean it's three kids who've died, a
Speaker 2: woman who's become paralyzed, and everyone's life has been destroyed
Speaker 2: in the process.
Speaker 3: It's really, really horrible.
Speaker 1: It's not exciting entertainment.
Speaker 2: The other thing on that is you would hope that
Speaker 2: something like this, regardless of where this case lands up,
Speaker 2: it's a clear case of someone having fallen through the
Speaker 2: cracks of a lot of systems that were supposed to
Speaker 2: support her, and so hopefully it can be something of
Speaker 2: a wake up call for anyone in this situation, but.
Speaker 3: 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 3: She does?
Speaker 1: And if she's found not guilty, does she just walk free?
Speaker 2: No, so she will go to jail, but I'm certain
Speaker 2: there would be some form of mental health treatment while
Speaker 2: she was in jail if she's found guilty, and that's
Speaker 2: going to be the decision for jurors at the end
Speaker 2: of this trial, or if she's not found guilty, she
Speaker 2: will be released into a state mental health facility where
Speaker 2: 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 4: I haven't seen any men speak about it, but I
Speaker 4: haven't seen interest from men. There is something about this
Speaker 4: 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 3: Out louders.
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 tams In. 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 on Going, on the Quickie,
Speaker 1: on True Crome 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 services,