Speaker 1: Hey, that folks. It is Tuesday, August fourth, and week
Speaker 1: two of the triple murder trial of Lindsey Clancy is
Speaker 1: under way. The prosecution called several expert witnesses. By the
Speaker 1: time they got done, they felt like defense witnesses and
Speaker 1: with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ.
Speaker 1: This was a drama filled, combative, tense day on the
Speaker 1: stand and had everything to do with the defense attorney
Speaker 1: taken a cup of prosecution witnesses the task. This was
Speaker 1: something to watch.
Speaker 2: That's right. The defense scored some major points.
Speaker 3: I think by most accounts watching the testimony yesterday, there
Speaker 3: were a series of doctors that the prosecution put up
Speaker 3: on the stand.
Speaker 2: There were thirteen witnesses total yesterday.
Speaker 3: They got through a lot, yes, doctors, nurses, and law enforcement,
Speaker 3: but it was the forensic psychiatrists that were pretty much
Speaker 3: the big stars of the show, if you want to
Speaker 3: put it like that, of the trial yesterday.
Speaker 2: And look, they were there.
Speaker 3: From the nurses, to the er doctors to the psychiatrists
Speaker 3: to establish basically what Lindsay Clancy's physical and mental state
Speaker 3: was in the hours, days and weeks after the murders.
Speaker 1: Hey, but the prosecution calls these folks up, hoping to
Speaker 1: bolster its case that the injuries weren't that bad and
Speaker 1: she wasn't that upset and she didn't seem like a
Speaker 1: psychotic person. That is what they were supposed to bolster ropes.
Speaker 1: It seemed to do the exact opposite, the exact opposite.
Speaker 3: Yes, the prosecution did get some of these doctors, these
Speaker 3: forensic psychiatrists, to say, first of all, one of them
Speaker 3: who said that her mood when she asked, because initially
Speaker 3: Lindsay Clancy was indicated her injuries were that severe that
Speaker 3: she actually had a tube down her throat. She could
Speaker 3: not speak, so she could only communicate through a whiteboard,
Speaker 3: and she said, she asked her, what's your mood like?
Speaker 2: And she wrote horrified.
Speaker 3: And then this doctor testified that Lindsay Clancy's first questions
Speaker 3: were whether or not she had an attorney, is my
Speaker 3: body broken?
Speaker 2: Are my legs straight? Could she have visitors?
Speaker 3: And then she said, I did not see any active
Speaker 3: signs of psychosis or hallucinations.
Speaker 2: But then the defense got their chance to cross exams.
Speaker 1: So in saying all of that, robes before the defense
Speaker 1: even got up the point they were attempting to make
Speaker 1: is that her first concern was about her own physical
Speaker 1: wellbeing or about her legal troubles. Correct the suggestion there
Speaker 1: is that. No, no, no, no, this wasn't a lady
Speaker 1: that was psychotic. She was calculated and now she's trying
Speaker 1: to think of how to get out of it. That's
Speaker 1: the assertion. I thought Robes just as a possible juror
Speaker 1: me sitting there, I thought it was a bit of
Speaker 1: a stretch to be almost dismissive of a woman who
Speaker 1: just jumped out a window and slashed her own neck.
Speaker 1: I thought it was kind of just dismissive. But then
Speaker 1: the defense brought it home.
Speaker 3: Yes, well, and there were two different psychiatrists that they
Speaker 3: were able to make some very valid, valuable points for
Speaker 3: the defense, And the big one for the first forensic
Speaker 3: psychiatrist was I'm sorry, how much time did you spend
Speaker 3: with Lindsay Clancy.
Speaker 1: Okay, wait, this is the There was one.
Speaker 3: This was doctor Jillan Biswass. The that was the first one.
Speaker 3: The second one is where he really took her to task.
Speaker 1: The second one was the lady who was she was lost, She.
Speaker 2: Started stuttering and she didn't know what to say.
Speaker 3: But the defense, Yes, the big, yes, exactly. That was
Speaker 3: the second one, but the first one, Jillan Biswass she
Speaker 3: had to admit she only spent twenty minutes with her
Speaker 3: while she couldn't speak. So then you start to think
Speaker 3: as a juror wait a minute, you were able to
Speaker 3: assess that she had no signs of psychosis or hallucinations,
Speaker 3: that she was solely focused on her own well being
Speaker 3: in the twenty minutes you spent with her while she
Speaker 3: had a tube down.
Speaker 1: Her throat and see or this was I don't know
Speaker 1: when that detail came out in the examination. It didn't
Speaker 1: come out, I'm saying the questioning. It didn't come out
Speaker 1: when the prosecution was talking to her. So we are
Speaker 1: listening to this woman who we think has all this
Speaker 1: insight and information about Lindsay Clancy. Right. The lady's name
Speaker 1: is doctor whatever. She's a psychiatrist. Okay, tell me about
Speaker 1: this lady. And were hearing all this, she's this, she's
Speaker 1: a she's this, he's that, and then you hear, wait,
Speaker 1: twenty minutes. You only met her once in life. By
Speaker 1: the way, it wasn't the follow up after that. She
Speaker 1: ain't ever seen this woman again. Twenty minutes and you're
Speaker 1: the expert on her condition. As soon as she said that,
Speaker 1: I dismissed everything that she said as a juror none
Speaker 1: to talk.
Speaker 3: You you kind of I think you laughed out loud
Speaker 3: when that was revealed. So then the next psychiatrist, who yes,
Speaker 3: was eventually eviscerated by the defense. But she met with
Speaker 3: Clancy Lindsay Clancy five days after the murders, and then
Speaker 3: met with her periodically for the next month, so she
Speaker 3: actually did spend some time. She testified when the prosecution
Speaker 3: had her up there that Lindsay Clancy wanted to change
Speaker 3: her health care proxy from her husband to her parents.
Speaker 2: That was the first thing she wanted to do.
Speaker 3: She did acknowledge that she was initially delirious, but she
Speaker 3: attributed that to anesthesia lack of oxygen. She said that
Speaker 3: Clancy did not have any suicidal thoughts. She expressed no harm,
Speaker 3: no intent to harm anyone else, And she said, I
Speaker 3: thought this was interesting. She said her thoughts about what
Speaker 3: she had done that day or the murders was not
Speaker 3: constant correct correct, so meaning she wasn't thinking about killing
Speaker 3: her kids. And so that was all seemingly pretty damning evidence, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so what we were thinking, wait, so she went
Speaker 1: into that state and then came out of it, shouldn't she?
Speaker 1: So that was the suggestion at time, and as people
Speaker 1: common folks ropes who don't completely understand psychosis, we're listening
Speaker 1: to the expert and going, oh, okay.
Speaker 3: Wow, she seems pretty lucid. She seems like she's pretty strategic.
Speaker 3: She's saying she doesn't think about killing her kids.
Speaker 2: The defense capitalized on that.
Speaker 3: So you're saying she wasn't exaggerating her conditions for legal reasons,
Speaker 3: and she said, He said correct, and she had to
Speaker 3: say correct, She wasn't exaggerating. If this was some big
Speaker 3: plot or plan to put on some insanity defense, wouldn't
Speaker 3: she then be talking about all sorts of things pretending
Speaker 3: to be a certain way. No, she was just being herself.
Speaker 3: And that resonated. And then he then asked this question
Speaker 3: or yes, people can communicate and plan and act on
Speaker 3: plans even if they are in the middle of psychosis, right,
Speaker 3: She had to answer yes, He's like, basically, so she
Speaker 3: doesn't have to be drooling and incoherent, Like you can
Speaker 3: still be strategic and still communicate and still be you know,
Speaker 3: have a conversation with someone even if you're experiencing psychosis.
Speaker 2: She had to say.
Speaker 1: Yes, the two prosecution expert witnesses just eliminated the prosecution theory.
Speaker 1: They did from direct questioning from this guy who was
Speaker 1: rapid fire, direct, not using a lot of notes. Robes,
Speaker 1: even when he had to call people out. He didn't
Speaker 1: do it in such a nasty way, but he did
Speaker 1: it directly. He did it firmly. Robes. He put on
Speaker 1: a bit of a show. And I say show, not
Speaker 1: in like he was being showy, but Robes. That is
Speaker 1: some cross examination for your ass yesterday man, Absolutely he
Speaker 1: got them. The prosecution's own witnesses refuted the prosecution case.
Speaker 3: Yes, and there was one in which he really took
Speaker 3: a took a doctor to task. He basically asked this
Speaker 3: er doctor who was testifying for the prosecution. So we
Speaker 3: heard about the mental they had the psychiatrist. They actually
Speaker 3: had the er doctor there when she first arrived and
Speaker 3: said she described the lacerations on Lindsey Clancy's risks and
Speaker 3: neck as superficial. She said, I would not characterize them
Speaker 3: as deep. And obviously the suggestion is by the prosecution
Speaker 3: that this was a faked suicide attempt.
Speaker 2: To make it look like they said.
Speaker 3: That she actually lowered herself out of the window and
Speaker 3: just didn't account for the fact that the ground was
Speaker 3: hard with the ice and the snow and that's what
Speaker 3: caused the spinal injuries. But the lacerations have been a
Speaker 3: big point of topic, saying, hey, they weren't that deep.
Speaker 2: These are just superficial the defense.
Speaker 3: The defense started asking all of these questions about her
Speaker 3: spinal injury, about her body temperature which was eighty two
Speaker 3: degrees you know the fact that she went into cardiac
Speaker 3: arrest that night, and the doctor just kept kind of saying,
Speaker 3: I'm not sure, wouldn't really answer, and so he got
Speaker 3: frustrated with this er doctor and said, I'm sure you're
Speaker 3: very busy, but this is a murder trial doctor, And
Speaker 3: he asked the doctor, did you review your notes before
Speaker 3: coming to trial? I mean, really made this doctor look
Speaker 3: like an idiot.
Speaker 1: Because there were this doctor, and then there was one
Speaker 1: of the psychiatrists, the one who was he just she
Speaker 1: was the embarrassing why I can't remember now.
Speaker 2: I don't recall. I don't recall that one was doctor.
Speaker 1: Okay Rose, the back and forth, the point he was
Speaker 1: making here robes it's so effective that they came off
Speaker 1: at times like they were going out of their way
Speaker 1: to be on the prosecution side, and that's not what
Speaker 1: they're supposed to do. These are doctors, these are finders
Speaker 1: of fact themselves, and we give you the information when
Speaker 1: they try to start dancing around and trying to say
Speaker 1: stuff that maybe wouldn't look good for the prosecution. He
Speaker 1: nailed them and they deserved it. I just give the
Speaker 1: info that it was some fumbling robes. This was some
Speaker 1: bad work. I don't know if the prosecution didn't prepare
Speaker 1: these witnesses the right way, or we do see this
Speaker 1: sometimes robes. They think they're doing the duty by trying
Speaker 1: to put somebody in jail, but you're supposed to be
Speaker 1: there as a doctor telling fact and what you know
Speaker 1: and what's on paper, what's under a microscope, and yes,
Speaker 1: so real. He let them have it, yes, yesterday, this
Speaker 1: was I told you. I said, he Perry Mason the
Speaker 1: hell out of somebody.
Speaker 3: He did. And he also did it to an ICU
Speaker 3: nurse who talked about ICU delirium. So she was trying
Speaker 3: to explain Lindsay Clancy.
Speaker 2: When she first got there.
Speaker 3: I guess was agitated, trying to pick up her lines
Speaker 3: and her drains, pulling all the stuff out, and that
Speaker 3: was a part of this.
Speaker 2: According to the defense, part of this psychosis.
Speaker 3: Right, she is in the middle of just this absolute
Speaker 3: horrific experience that she's been going through, and the ICU
Speaker 3: nurse called it ICU delirium. She said, it's very common
Speaker 3: that you see this in folks who have been admitted
Speaker 3: to the ICU. But the defense got the nurse to
Speaker 3: fully acknowledge that she was in her history and being
Speaker 3: treated as a patient with documented postpartum depression history, and
Speaker 3: he said to her, you knew there had been discussion
Speaker 3: about postpartum psychosis.
Speaker 2: Isn't that right? The ic unurse had to say, yes, he.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is something to watch. And again, you
Speaker 1: know what it felt. We've said several times here Ropes
Speaker 1: that it seems odd to us that the prosecution leaves
Speaker 1: zero room for the possibility that this woman was mentally ill. Yes,
Speaker 1: all mentally ill folks don't kill people, but Rose there
Speaker 1: is an extensive documented history of this woman not just
Speaker 1: having problems, but severe problems, and some of the witnesses
Speaker 1: didn't seem to want to confirm that that this lady
Speaker 1: was troubled, and yes that I was surprised the ICU
Speaker 1: nurse like, what are you talking about? You didn't know?
Speaker 1: And what he got them to admit and admit, but
Speaker 1: it took him like ten questions, so it came on.
Speaker 1: I don't know how the jury is reading that, but
Speaker 1: it's reading in some of these witnesses like you all
Speaker 1: are out to get this lady instead of doing what
Speaker 1: is your role and your responsibility here? I forgot about
Speaker 1: the ICU rs.
Speaker 3: Yes, that one stood out to me and so to
Speaker 3: all of what you were just speaking of when we
Speaker 3: come back. I think perhaps one of the biggest wins
Speaker 3: for the defense was a prosecution entry of Lindsey Clancy's
Speaker 3: own diary, her written words. The prosecution tried to use
Speaker 3: Lindsay Clancy's words against her. The defense used them very
Speaker 3: effectively to support.
Speaker 2: Her insanity defense. And welcome back to Amy and TJ.
Speaker 3: We are now going to talk about the other big
Speaker 3: piece of evidence that was introduced yesterday by prosecutors, the
Speaker 3: diary of Lindsey Clancy.
Speaker 2: And the prosecution put this forward.
Speaker 3: Saying, look, it clearly shows a woman who was obsessed
Speaker 3: with her eight months old sleep schedule. They had an
Speaker 3: entry in there about how she was hearing him cry
Speaker 3: her want to die. It made her feel completely overwhelmed.
Speaker 3: The big thing was, I feel like I'm drowning every day.
Speaker 3: It's like I'm so desperate to get a mental break
Speaker 3: from trying to take care of everyone that my mind
Speaker 3: is trying to make something physically wrong with me. So
Speaker 3: this was them saying that she was deliberate. She was
Speaker 3: acknowledging that she was going, like, you know, getting so
Speaker 3: upset and so obsessive about her children's.
Speaker 1: Bit of a stretch, I thought, So I'm trying to
Speaker 1: leave space where I wanted to hear their case. But
Speaker 1: they're pointing to things that it's always tough when a
Speaker 1: prosecution presents evidence. And then afterwards you can almost hear
Speaker 1: them say, aha, see that you have no case, Like
Speaker 1: you're trying to convince us of something that you really
Speaker 1: telling me that an overwhelmed mother is the is the
Speaker 1: evidence that she plotted to kill three kids? Come on,
Speaker 1: we're parents. Don't don't talk to me like I'm stupid.
Speaker 3: Yes, And so I agree, And then you hear the
Speaker 3: prosecutor read these jurors these entries to the jurors, and
Speaker 3: I'm thinking, I'm receiving this as an outsider, as a bystander, thinking, wow,
Speaker 3: that's a woman who is in severe mental health anguish,
Speaker 3: and so yeah. The defense took that same diary and
Speaker 3: found entries that absolutely bolstered their claim that she was
Speaker 3: mentally declining. They showed an excerpt where she said, I
Speaker 3: have no appetite. I don't know what's wrong with me.
Speaker 3: I want help, I want to be well. To me,
Speaker 3: that was the most powerful entry and one of the
Speaker 3: most powerful things I personally heard in court yesterday.
Speaker 1: How long do you have the dates or how long
Speaker 1: ago or how close to the murder of the killings?
Speaker 3: When she said I want help, I want to be well,
Speaker 3: that was the end of November. The killings were January
Speaker 3: twenty fourth, so two months before she killed her kids.
Speaker 3: She writes in her diary, I want help, I want
Speaker 3: to be well. She writes about not being able to
Speaker 3: sleep right, about incredible anxiety she talked, She writes about
Speaker 3: crazy brain fog.
Speaker 1: So are they suggesting that all this was done because
Speaker 1: she was plotting? This was supposed to be her Well,
Speaker 1: this is a diary she's writing personal notes that she
Speaker 1: doesn't expect anybody to ever read And you're telling me
Speaker 1: this is a part of the plan and the plot.
Speaker 1: That was a tough day for the prosecution.
Speaker 3: Baby, it's wild to me. I agree that the prosecution
Speaker 3: has all of this evidence. They see all this documentation,
Speaker 3: they see all these fifteen prescription drugs she was given.
Speaker 2: They read her diary.
Speaker 3: How is that not a woman who is mentally completely deteriorating?
Speaker 1: And we were open and we all are I'm opening
Speaker 1: to listening to the prosecution explain they haven't gotten there.
Speaker 1: This is just the second week. Maybe there is more,
Speaker 1: but this was supposed to be key. Who are the
Speaker 1: people who can prove robes that she was not in
Speaker 1: psychosis or had a mental illness? The doctors. Those doctors
Speaker 1: were on the stand yesterday and one of them only
Speaker 1: saw her for twenty minutes in the past three years.
Speaker 2: That's tough.
Speaker 3: Why are we and why the prosecution didn't see that
Speaker 3: as a potential pitfall in the evidence they were presenting,
Speaker 3: knowing this attorney was going to point that out, and
Speaker 3: knowing that psychosis isn't something that makes you so insane
Speaker 3: that everyone can physically see that you're off your rock
Speaker 3: or no, you can still you can still communicate, you
Speaker 3: can still act in this world. You can still participate
Speaker 3: and be suffering from a postpartum psychosis.
Speaker 1: The doctor made that. The prosecution's witness, who was being
Speaker 1: cross examined by the defense, made that point. Rope so
Speaker 1: crystal clear and explain something to me that I didn't
Speaker 1: really get, And she explained clearly that it is. It
Speaker 1: doesn't mean she's faking, just because she can have a
Speaker 1: normal conversation, so she can go in and out of psychosis,
Speaker 1: if it can end, if it can start, than Rose,
Speaker 1: that means she could send her husband to CBS and
Speaker 1: to pick up food, she could order the food, and
Speaker 1: she could behave perfectly normally. The doctor made that clear,
Speaker 1: the prosecution's doctor, which I would believe more than the
Speaker 1: defense doctor, because she's supposed to be there bolstering the
Speaker 1: prosecution case and she's still saying this, Uh, Rose, I'm
Speaker 1: waiting it also, was it, say Robes to the jury,
Speaker 1: what't it say to you and me that the big
Speaker 1: day and the big doctors they put on to push
Speaker 1: back on the psychosis. One of them saw her for
Speaker 1: twenty minutes. You're telling me that not a good look.
Speaker 2: Best you got not a good look at all.
Speaker 3: And you know there are we are expecting more doctors
Speaker 3: to take the stand today. Court ended kind of abruptly
Speaker 3: yesterday at three forty pm, but the judge said there's
Speaker 3: going to be a similar schedule today. So I don't
Speaker 3: know why, but they do tend to be going from
Speaker 3: nine am Eastern time to ride around four pm Eastern time,
Speaker 3: so with some breaks in between. But yes, we do
Speaker 3: expect the prosecution to continue to focus on this state
Speaker 3: of Lindsey Clancy's mental health. They are trying to prove
Speaker 3: that she was perfectly sane when she committed those murders,
Speaker 3: that she was not suffering from postpartum psychosis. The defense
Speaker 3: says exactly the opposite, and so far it seems like
Speaker 3: they've done a pretty dang good job of documenting or
Speaker 3: showing that Lindsay Clancy herself had been documenting her struggles
Speaker 3: and was actively and consistently seeking help for her problem.
Speaker 1: And she did not get it. And here we all are,
Speaker 1: but robes is what is it? Net Look, it's never
Speaker 1: going to be used. I don't think we're going to
Speaker 1: have an overwhelming number of women all of a sudden
Speaker 1: killing their kids and walking in and said, I got
Speaker 1: a psychosists. I don't think so. But this is something
Speaker 1: about how the state, and in this case we're talking
Speaker 1: about Massachusetts, but the government is viewing women in their
Speaker 1: severe troubles that are possible after birth ropes. And I
Speaker 1: think Robes is all female prosecutors again, just it still
Speaker 1: plays that reads in the room a little bit here. Robes, Absolutely,
Speaker 1: you have these women dismissing a woman this ill. It's
Speaker 1: we're not debating about how ill she was, it's documented,
Speaker 1: and they're saying, nope, bro, just pay attention, folks to
Speaker 1: how we are thinking about and viewing women and the
Speaker 1: troubles they have down the road. They're being dismissive the
Speaker 1: way a lot of women get dismissed when they have problems.
Speaker 3: And I wonder with twelve women on that jury, and
Speaker 3: we don't know how it's going to end up with
Speaker 3: the alternates, but twelve women and six men, as a woman,
Speaker 3: I don't I feel like, especially any woman who's given birth,
Speaker 3: any woman who knows how hard it is to be
Speaker 3: a mom, but also knows how much moms love their kids,
Speaker 3: what it would take for a mom to do this
Speaker 3: that reads. I think for a lot of women there's
Speaker 3: real sympathy and even empathy in some moments for women
Speaker 3: towards it's.
Speaker 1: Just amazing to not see any of that shown towards
Speaker 1: Lindsey Clancy in this courtroom. Again, they brought the case
Speaker 1: you want to give them and say they're doing it
Speaker 1: in a good faith. Robe you want to, but this
Speaker 1: is striking to see. I've never heard of a woman
Speaker 1: this ill having to do with giving birth rope she is,
Speaker 1: it is, she's sick. That woman. What was at the
Speaker 1: Yates right?
Speaker 2: Andrew Yates the same thing.
Speaker 1: These are ill ill people that the state is dismissing robe.
Speaker 1: This is extreme illness by this woman, and still the
Speaker 1: States saying nope, she faked it.
Speaker 2: Woo.
Speaker 3: Well, we will see what the state has to say today,
Speaker 3: day six of testimony in the Lindsay Clancy trial. We
Speaker 3: know we will be watching and we will pass along
Speaker 3: everything we witness to you all. We always appreciate you listening.
Speaker 3: I'm Amy Robach alongside TJ.
Speaker 2: Holmes. We'll talk soon.