Speaker 1: Hey folks, it is Monday, August twenty fourth, and a
Speaker 1: breaking update on the triple murder trial of Lindsey Clancy.
Speaker 1: We just came oh so close to a mistrial and
Speaker 1: this judge is pissed with that. Welcome again to this
Speaker 1: breaking episode of Amy and TJ. We just got this
Speaker 1: news rope. We just watched this play out, I mean, hell,
Speaker 1: five minutes before we hopped on the mics. Here robes.
Speaker 1: This came close and a lot of people almost surprised
Speaker 1: this was not declared a mistrial.
Speaker 2: Yeah, as you mentioned, the judge was as angry as
Speaker 2: I have ever seen him, and the defense attorney, Kevin
Speaker 2: Reddington even said he was reluctantly asking for a mistrial
Speaker 2: but felt like he needed to because of the line
Speaker 2: of testimony and it was all about morality, about Catholic dogma.
Speaker 2: And look, this is not something to play around with
Speaker 2: when you are talking about a woman and they are trying,
Speaker 2: the prosecution trying to tell jurors that she knew right
Speaker 2: from wrong, that her Catholic upbringing even was a part
Speaker 2: of that conversation. And you have a forensic psychiatrist who
Speaker 2: is not trained in theology, who is not trained in
Speaker 2: Catholicism offering an opinion or beginning to offer an opinion
Speaker 2: about Catholic dogma. And that was a huge notice, Ruth.
Speaker 1: He offered an opinion, but it's one that the prosecution
Speaker 1: has already been scolded for. Last week, robes To used
Speaker 1: some of the same language about mortal sin. The same
Speaker 1: phrase came out, and it came out last week, and
Speaker 1: it was her mama's Lindsey was her mom or mother?
Speaker 1: It was her mother, her mother right. Prosecution asked her
Speaker 1: about being a Catholic and said, are you aware that
Speaker 1: murders a mortal sin?
Speaker 2: So is suicide?
Speaker 1: Immediate objection. Everybody calls to the side. The judge is pissed.
Speaker 1: Robes when that phrase came up again today, Reddington, you
Speaker 1: know how quick he is the defense attorney. He didn't
Speaker 1: even get a chance to object before the judge. His
Speaker 1: chair is turning around, he's slammed a table. Let me see.
Speaker 2: Everybody rooks it it look and this is something in
Speaker 2: the Boston area. I just I think most people I
Speaker 2: don't know, maybe you don't know. I mean I was
Speaker 2: raised Catholic. That area is a very Catholic area of
Speaker 2: this country, and a you don't mess with religion, but
Speaker 2: you don't bring it or invoke it when it comes
Speaker 2: to determining state of mind. And it seemed so wildly
Speaker 2: inappropriate last week, especially when you're addressing Lindsay Clancy's own
Speaker 2: mother about her Catholic upbringing, about her Catholic awareness. And yes,
Speaker 2: suicide is considered a mortal sin. All of us who
Speaker 2: went through Catholic school and CCD classes and went to
Speaker 2: Catholic church, we all know we're taught this from a
Speaker 2: very early age. Suicide is a mortal sin. Obviously, so
Speaker 2: is homicide or murder. But to bring that up in
Speaker 2: the context of knowing right from wrong is such a
Speaker 2: blurred line between. If we're talking about psychiatry about whether
Speaker 2: or not someone has a mental illness, how does their
Speaker 2: religion or how they were raised have anything to do
Speaker 2: with your mental capacity to know right from wrong.
Speaker 1: So it was unfair, it's mistrangworthy. It might have been
Speaker 1: after the first one. But what's happened now, Robes is
Speaker 1: twice the exact same phrase has come up. That has
Speaker 1: tainted now the jury potentially is what the argument is
Speaker 1: in some way that the right and wrong question is
Speaker 1: the wrong one to consider. If you're considering the religious
Speaker 1: side of it. Robes. This is not just something that's
Speaker 1: wrong or icky or morally wrong to do. It's actually
Speaker 1: against the law. There are rules in Massachusetts specifically, and
Speaker 1: pretty much everywhere, and in federal courts as well. You
Speaker 1: can not bring religion up. It doesn't happen, Robes. I
Speaker 1: didn't realize how big of a no no it was
Speaker 1: until the mortal sin came up last week.
Speaker 2: Yep. And the judge was pissed last week. Kevin Reddington
Speaker 2: was pissed. If they were pissed last week, they were outraged,
Speaker 2: And honestly, it was one of those jaw dropping moments
Speaker 2: when you see you mentioned the judge swiveling his chair.
Speaker 2: I mean, there was genuine anger in his voice, genuine
Speaker 2: I actually thought I thought he was going to declare
Speaker 2: a mistrial, you know.
Speaker 1: What, Robes, because he realized what he had and he
Speaker 1: probably might be forced to. This is week what five
Speaker 1: five Robes, All of this we've gone through with having
Speaker 1: elastic bands come out even I mean, it's just a
Speaker 1: drain on everybody who had to participate. You tell me,
Speaker 1: you got to put all these families, all these friends,
Speaker 1: all these doctors, all these people through this once again
Speaker 1: because of what the defense right now is calling Robes
Speaker 1: intentional misconduct. He said, they're doing this on purple because.
Speaker 2: They already got admonished about bringing up suicide and mortal
Speaker 2: sin as it relates to her Catholic upbringing. They were
Speaker 2: already told you cannot go there, you cannot go there.
Speaker 2: And here we are again with a witness going there
Speaker 2: and to hear the prosecutor say, I didn't ask a question.
Speaker 2: He just went there. But he didn't intentionally go there.
Speaker 2: He was just trying to explain something. Look, I don't know.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure, but I also think she's running a
Speaker 2: huge risk not only for having this being declared a
Speaker 2: mistrial grounds for appeal, but also pissing off the jury.
Speaker 2: Like I mentioned, this is a major Catholic area in
Speaker 2: the country, and I don't think people and anyone of
Speaker 2: the Catholic faith especially would particularly appreciate their faith or
Speaker 2: their religious beliefs being brought into a legal proceeding and
Speaker 2: have that same faith used against the defendant because of
Speaker 2: how she was raised.
Speaker 1: Bro this is so, and again she was trying to
Speaker 1: explain that her question, he took it upon himself. This
Speaker 1: phrase go to God is what's reportedly she said and
Speaker 1: reported to doctors that she said. That's not necessarily in dispute,
Speaker 1: it's in the file. He then took it a step
Speaker 1: further by saying that go to God. He actually used
Speaker 1: a phrase rogue, he said, and it is as well
Speaker 1: as my understanding with the Catholic faith.
Speaker 2: That is not that like what my understanding. Oh he's
Speaker 2: not even Catholic. Oh yeah, I mean that makes it
Speaker 2: even worse. And that was the judge even said that
Speaker 2: he isn't some theologian, He hasn't have any any standing
Speaker 2: or any expertise on Catholic dogma or Catholic Catholic doctrine.
Speaker 2: He was absolutely just kind of in a way kind
Speaker 2: of guessing or trying to tie those things together. And
Speaker 2: looked at to hear that. Lindsey Clancy told him when
Speaker 2: he evaluated her that she wasn't thinking about moral issues
Speaker 2: when she made the decision or when she killed her children.
Speaker 2: She was just she said, he was all action. So
Speaker 2: even by her own words, she wasn't a according to
Speaker 2: the defense, she was out of her mind. She was
Speaker 2: a state of psychosis, so to even act as if
Speaker 2: she was considering her Catholic faith, or that that was
Speaker 2: something she was weighing to speak to her state of
Speaker 2: mind or to speak to her state of sanity. I
Speaker 2: guess in this case, with this particular psychologist describing his
Speaker 2: evaluation of her, it's just it was a leap that
Speaker 2: should never be made or taken and certainly not testified.
Speaker 1: To Can you say, I mean, I don't know. Can
Speaker 1: you say that maybe they just that there was a
Speaker 1: suggestion I've seen made now robes that the prosecution yes,
Speaker 1: did this intentionally because they know they're losing, and they
Speaker 1: would rather just go ahead, cut our losses, get this
Speaker 1: one thrown out of here so we can run this back.
Speaker 2: That is wow. I'd love to maybe I'm naive and
Speaker 2: I'd love to think that that doesn't happen, but I
Speaker 2: know better, And look, we don't know. We could never
Speaker 2: prove what the intent was by the prosecution. Did they
Speaker 2: want a mistrial? To my god, we've gone through five
Speaker 2: were in the fifth week of this gutting, emotional, horrific testimony.
Speaker 2: To imagine that you would have to do it all
Speaker 2: over again. I think about Patrick Clancy, I think about
Speaker 2: Lindsay Clancy's parents, Lindsay Clancy herself barely able to get
Speaker 2: through days and days of just emotionally jarring. Isn't even
Speaker 2: the word eviscerating testimony to have to go through it
Speaker 2: all again.
Speaker 1: But then robes, what if they don't get the verdict
Speaker 1: they want the defense? What are they going to do, babe?
Speaker 1: What is going to be the first thing they list
Speaker 1: as grounds from for a new trial?
Speaker 2: Absolutely this exhibit A and B last week and this week.
Speaker 1: And the judge doesn't want to have to, but he
Speaker 1: doesn't want to have one of his cases now come
Speaker 1: back or get thrown out. What's a guy to do?
Speaker 1: So this happens. The judge immediately sends everybody out and
Speaker 1: angrily takes a recess and he says, I'll come back
Speaker 1: as soon as I can. Like he got off the
Speaker 1: bench in a way, he was hot.
Speaker 2: He was going for what twenty minutes? I mean it
Speaker 2: was a while. He didn't just come right back.
Speaker 1: He took his time. Clearly he was he probably needed
Speaker 1: to cool down and maybe need to do his research.
Speaker 1: But he does come back and he says he's going
Speaker 1: to allow them to make their arguments on this motion.
Speaker 1: Reddington gets up first and was pretty calm and pretty collected,
Speaker 1: and actually didn't he sound a little disappointed to you.
Speaker 2: That he was reluctantly asking for a mistrial? And I
Speaker 2: believe that because look again, we haven't gotten we're not
Speaker 2: some we don't know what the jury is going to decide,
Speaker 2: and it's very hard to know who's winning or losing.
Speaker 2: But from our point of view, and certainly watching Kevin Reddington,
Speaker 2: he is confident he has put on an incredible defense.
Speaker 2: I believe by most legal experts anything I've read in
Speaker 2: people evaluating how he's done in terms of defending his client,
Speaker 2: he has done a stellar job. So yeah, why would
Speaker 2: he want a mistrial called? Right now?
Speaker 1: If he's winning, right, you're up fifty to five in
Speaker 1: the fourth quarter and you want to forfeit.
Speaker 2: Well, once again, I believe him when he said he
Speaker 2: was reluctantly going to ask for a mistrial.
Speaker 1: But roads he gets up and he's he is accusing.
Speaker 1: I believe it was intentional misconduct on behalf of the Commonwealth.
Speaker 1: He says, here ropes he did make. Now, this was key,
Speaker 1: he said the first time this came up, mortal sin.
Speaker 1: Last week, the judge issued a warning to the judge
Speaker 1: to the jurors that you're supposed to strike it. He
Speaker 1: said that was sufficient today, he said, when you're major ruling,
Speaker 1: it was strong. I thought it was sufficient at the time,
Speaker 1: and I made a tactical decision to not ask for
Speaker 1: a mistrial and to move on. He said, But now
Speaker 1: this says, come up again and quote this is just
Speaker 1: over the top.
Speaker 2: It's true, and I actually have the original exchange between
Speaker 2: the prosecutor and Susan Clancy. So this sorry, it was
Speaker 2: the mother in law. It was the mother in law.
Speaker 2: It was the mother in law, Susan Clancy. So the
Speaker 2: prosecutors asked, are you an active member in the Catholic Church.
Speaker 2: Susan Clancy replies yes. The prosecutor asks, so you're aware
Speaker 2: that murder is considered a mortal sin. So that was
Speaker 2: on the issue of murder, But this was about suicide.
Speaker 2: So I don't know. Did they think they were cleverly
Speaker 2: addressing it from another mortal sin in the Catholic Church?
Speaker 2: Murder and suicide both.
Speaker 1: What was this going? Forensic psychology is a psychologist.
Speaker 2: A forensic psychologist. He was not in any way, shape
Speaker 2: or form equipped to answer that question, or to answer
Speaker 2: any or to even offer a suggestion or any sort
Speaker 2: of because what he thinks, from a psychological evaluation, has
Speaker 2: nothing to do with her Catholic upbringing. You can't be
Speaker 2: an expert on something you don't even know. It doesn't
Speaker 2: even sound like he's Catholic, was raised Catholic, has been
Speaker 2: a part of the Catholic Church, And even if he
Speaker 2: had been, it still would not be appropriate because he
Speaker 2: hasn't been ruled or deemed an expert in Catholicism or
Speaker 2: Catholic doctrine.
Speaker 1: But let me tell you about Buddhism. Here is right,
Speaker 1: What do any of us know but Robes, I don't
Speaker 1: know if that could not hate to think it was
Speaker 1: a strategy.
Speaker 2: I hate to think that too.
Speaker 1: But they've had a couple of moments where we thought
Speaker 1: that was desperation, like what are they doing? Like there
Speaker 1: were some moment I think bringing out the bands once
Speaker 1: unnecessarily for an extra time to make a There was
Speaker 1: just some moments that reeked of.
Speaker 2: Mind when they were describing Lindsay Clancy working out at
Speaker 2: the hospital using elastic bands much like the ones she
Speaker 2: used to kill her children's wet.
Speaker 1: So therefore she must not care.
Speaker 2: She's that callous she's that cold that it didn't even
Speaker 2: bother her to use those same type of exercise bands.
Speaker 2: But yeah, the judge, he he said, what was I'm
Speaker 2: going to strongly and perhaps the strongest language, talk to
Speaker 2: him and let him know he can't go into that.
Speaker 2: That is what he said to the prosecution. But what
Speaker 2: he said to the jury, you even said, he the
Speaker 2: anger in his voice. Those jurors knew that judge was pissed.
Speaker 2: I wonder what impact that we'll have on them.
Speaker 1: I mean, they didn't see as much as we did,
Speaker 1: but they saw enough. Stay here, we'll explain just how
Speaker 1: angry this guy got. And you know what, we're kind
Speaker 1: of compare it. We have seen him every day essentially
Speaker 1: for the past five weeks, and we have seen him
Speaker 1: like this.
Speaker 2: Welcome back everyone to Amy and DJ. This is a
Speaker 2: bit of a breaking news episode because we were not
Speaker 2: expecting to see what we just saw in that Massachusetts courtroom.
Speaker 2: The judge, Judge Sullivan in this case, I mean, I
Speaker 2: would say, came so close to calling a mistrial after
Speaker 2: the defense attorney Kevin Ruddington reluctantly asked for one because
Speaker 2: the prosecution went exactly in the same direction. They did
Speaker 2: last week that nearly nearly cost them a mistrial. The
Speaker 2: defense stopped short of asking for one, but they were admonished.
Speaker 2: The judge told the jury they could not consider this
Speaker 2: idea of what mortal sin is in the Catholic Church
Speaker 2: as it relates to murder, and now this time as
Speaker 2: it relates to suicide. But the prosecution getting in this
Speaker 2: idea that perhaps Lindsey Clancy knew what she was doing
Speaker 2: because of how she was raised.
Speaker 1: This is crazy. I'm looking at it more and I
Speaker 1: don't know if we've gave the whole verbatim here from
Speaker 1: this guy Helibrium, right, Kurt Helibrium, this forensic psychologist who
Speaker 1: who I guess examined her on behalf of the prosecution roa.
Speaker 1: This was it. This is wild. That was part of
Speaker 1: her expectation. He said that she and the children would
Speaker 1: be together in heaven with God. She was raised as
Speaker 1: a Catholic, and as I understand Catholic considerations, that's not
Speaker 1: necessarily what happens. He's saying, Catholics don't go to heaven
Speaker 1: when they do this.
Speaker 2: Correct Catholics. So here's like a as someone who was
Speaker 2: raised in the Catholic Church, a mortal sin means you
Speaker 2: cannot go to heaven. So if you I was always
Speaker 2: raised with the belief that if you committed suicide, you
Speaker 2: cannot go to heaven. So the idea would be she
Speaker 2: wouldn't think that she could go to heaven. If she
Speaker 2: killed herself, killed her children, killed herself, she could not
Speaker 2: be forgiven. It's a mortal sin in the Catholic faith.
Speaker 2: So yes, he was using his understanding of Catholic teachings
Speaker 2: as a legal foundation for her sanity.
Speaker 1: Oh ma, I cannot believe he uttered that phrase. Raster.
Speaker 2: What happened last week?
Speaker 1: That is?
Speaker 2: Is it possible the prosecution didn't know he was going
Speaker 2: to go there.
Speaker 1: I don't know that.
Speaker 2: They claim they didn't. They claim they didn't know that
Speaker 2: he made that call. He made that choice. It wasn't
Speaker 2: anything she was specifically asking him, and this was not
Speaker 2: something that was up for him to be like, they
Speaker 2: didn't expect him to go there, according to the prosecution.
Speaker 1: Okay, this judge has been pretty even keel. He's gotten
Speaker 1: annoyed with some uh, some witnesses when they won't answer directly.
Speaker 1: I won't just stop going on and on and on.
Speaker 1: But still he's been pretty cool. He hasn't had to
Speaker 1: admonish too much. He's had to step in and say, hey, guys,
Speaker 1: but that's.
Speaker 2: About speaking over each other.
Speaker 1: That's about as bad as it's gotten. Yes, right, I
Speaker 1: thought he's been firm, but he's never necessarily seemed angry.
Speaker 1: Ropes this. This dude was mad. He knew immediately when
Speaker 1: that came out that they were in trouble.
Speaker 2: That this was a possible mistrail. And at the very least, again,
Speaker 2: if the verdict didn't go the defense's way, this would
Speaker 2: be the obvious reason grounds for appeal. So when he
Speaker 2: gets the jury back into the courtroom, he tells them
Speaker 2: very passionately that the religion that the defendant was raised
Speaker 2: with is absolutely an inappropriate area of testimony. It is
Speaker 2: to be stricken, it is not to be considered. And
Speaker 2: he added that the witnesses understanding of Catholic faith and
Speaker 2: teaching is immaterial and is to be disregarded. And then
Speaker 2: he said, I'm going to dismiss them because I want
Speaker 2: that to be the last thing they hear, so they
Speaker 2: take that with them when they go home. And they
Speaker 2: felt his wrath.
Speaker 1: They knew he did. He was It was almost like
Speaker 1: he was on Love Island. He was talking like snapping
Speaker 1: his hands. Yeah, in delivery. Why is what we're gonna do?
Speaker 1: I don't know why to prosecute? To keep he was
Speaker 1: smacking his hands, baby he was. When we came back
Speaker 1: out from the recess, he had a stack, look like
Speaker 1: he came from teaching law class, a stack of stuff.
Speaker 1: Oh this dude, I cannot wait to see what happened
Speaker 1: in the morning. Will there be anything else said to
Speaker 1: the prosecution? Will there be anything else he needs to
Speaker 1: get onto that. He says he's going to talk to
Speaker 1: the witness. Is he going to do that on the record,
Speaker 1: off the record, I don't know.
Speaker 2: He wanted the prosecute first. He told you wanted the
Speaker 2: prosecutor to talk to the witness, like this cannot happen.
Speaker 2: He dismissed the jury for the day a little early,
Speaker 2: but then called another sidebar with the attorneys. So look,
Speaker 2: there is going to be more hashed out. I'm sure
Speaker 2: about what needs to be said to this witness, what
Speaker 2: he needs to say to the attorneys. But does the
Speaker 2: witness even know what he did wrong?
Speaker 1: He Betty does. By now, I mean, I was.
Speaker 2: Just thinking this is an older guy He's apparently had
Speaker 2: a lot of a lot of experience testifying. He had
Speaker 2: a lot of notes he was shuffling through. But this
Speaker 2: isn't his first rodeo. So that's a little shocking that
Speaker 2: he wouldn't know not to go there.
Speaker 1: Babe, you make a good point. This is as play.
Speaker 1: It might be new to us and not top of mind.
Speaker 1: This is understood. This is a major, major no no, bro,
Speaker 1: this is I've seen some legal analysis about this. This
Speaker 1: is way out of bounds the first time, two times.
Speaker 1: What are we doing? Can't wait to see what happens
Speaker 1: in the morning. I don't know. The judge has already
Speaker 1: said no mistrial. Can he go back on that? Can
Speaker 1: he have a different opinion in the morning.
Speaker 2: Uh, you know that the judge can do whatever he wants. Again,
Speaker 2: I'm sure he could take some time upon further reflection,
Speaker 2: But obviously I understand why he's hesitant to call a
Speaker 2: mis trial. We're at the very end this I believe
Speaker 2: might be the final rebuttal witness, and you're telling me
Speaker 2: the last few minutes of the last bit of testimony
Speaker 2: is going to upend four full weeks of testing.
Speaker 1: Man, he's oh my god, he is gonna this how
Speaker 1: short is at least going to be with the prosecution. Now, Robes,
Speaker 1: he has to be keeping an eye because it a
Speaker 1: look it I don't know they should have known, is
Speaker 1: one of the arguments. The other argument is they asked
Speaker 1: the question and they had no idea where he was
Speaker 1: going to go. Or the other thing is Robes, they
Speaker 1: flat out did exactly what they wanted to and this
Speaker 1: is some strategy they've decided to use.
Speaker 2: Do you think that that's the case. Do you think
Speaker 2: that's the more likely situation that the prosecution so badly
Speaker 2: wants to get this idea of mortal sin into the
Speaker 2: jurors minds, that because she was raised Catholic, because she
Speaker 2: fully understood as a Catholic what a mortal sin is,
Speaker 2: and that is suicide, and that is homicide, but suicide
Speaker 2: even more specifically because you don't we are taught as
Speaker 2: Catholics that you if you kill yourself, you cannot go
Speaker 2: to heaven. So obviously they wanted that in the jury's mind.
Speaker 1: But that what does that prove to me? That this
Speaker 1: woman who has been struggling and all this evidence I've
Speaker 1: seen of her postpartum depression and psychosis, forget that because
Speaker 1: she was raised Catholic. Therefore she always knows that this
Speaker 1: is wrong. Is that the connection?
Speaker 2: And yes, I mean I think that's what they're trying
Speaker 2: to say, that it was wrong because she was raised
Speaker 2: as a Catholic and her Catholic considerations would be with
Speaker 2: her because it's how she was raised. And right when
Speaker 2: the judge paused, he said that he asked Lindsey Clancy
Speaker 2: whether suicide was a mortal sin? And I cannot believe
Speaker 2: those words were uttered again. That phrase came out again
Speaker 2: because they were so admonished for having because the prosecutor
Speaker 2: used that term last week. Now you got a witness
Speaker 2: uttering it this week, and look, this will be It's all.
Speaker 2: It's been a fascinating case. Every day there's been something
Speaker 2: unique and interesting. This one was truly unexpected. And who
Speaker 2: I thought it was over. You came running in like
Speaker 2: I think we've got a mistrial.
Speaker 1: I was sure this was about to happen. And because
Speaker 1: his tone, he looked defeated when this came out of
Speaker 1: at that dude's mouth, he was pissed and defeated, like,
Speaker 1: oh my god, yeah, I mean his reaction really was
Speaker 1: the thing that for me I mean, I don't have
Speaker 1: any legal background fully of understood on my own. His
Speaker 1: reaction was one that you just had to go, what
Speaker 1: the actual hell?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it is to be stricken. It is not to
Speaker 2: be considered. I can't be any more clear of that.
Speaker 2: It cannot be considered. Hellebren's understanding of Catholic teaching is
Speaker 2: irrelevant and immaterial. Man, Wow, he's getting back up on
Speaker 2: the stand tomorrow. I'm here for it.
Speaker 1: Are we gonna be able to see it? We gotta
Speaker 1: where are we tomorrow?
Speaker 2: Yes? In the morning, ok, I am ok. We will
Speaker 2: be watching. Although when did they start today? It's usually
Speaker 2: a little bit later. But and after this, Yes, this
Speaker 2: will be interesting just to see how much more this
Speaker 2: particular psychologist will stay on the stand. And I don't know,
Speaker 2: it seems like you'd be pretty shaken to think, you literally,
Speaker 2: whether or not it was planned or not. The fact
Speaker 2: is he nearly cost the prosecution and the defense Lindsay
Speaker 2: Clancy and everyone involved in this week's long court case.
Speaker 2: It was almost over based on his testimony. So we'll
Speaker 2: keep our eye on this day and day up. We
Speaker 2: always appreciate you listening to us, every one. I'm Amy
Speaker 2: Roebuck alongside TJ. Holmes. We'll talk soon.