Speaker 1: Hey, that folks. It is Friday, August twenty first, and
Speaker 1: it was another shortened day and the Lindsay Clancy triple
Speaker 1: murder trial. But we learned a lot about Lindsey Clancy yesterday.
Speaker 1: And one other note, the drama started before folks even
Speaker 1: got into the court room and with that, welcome to
Speaker 1: this episode of Amy and TJ.
Speaker 2: Robes.
Speaker 1: Drama outside did lead to some dramatic moments and delays inside.
Speaker 2: Yes, you mentioned a shortened day.
Speaker 3: It began late and it ended early, But what happened
Speaker 3: before and after the testimony are actually a huge part
Speaker 3: of why yesterday was such a fascinating and interesting day
Speaker 3: in court. And yes, we saw a jurors individually being
Speaker 3: brought up to a sidebar, sworn in and answering questions
Speaker 3: from the judge one by one. That delayed the start
Speaker 3: of testimony by at least thirty mon Why were they
Speaker 3: being brought up and questioned by the judge? Well, apparently
Speaker 3: this is all because there was a massive silent rally
Speaker 3: that was going on outside the courthouse and prosecutors were
Speaker 3: very concerned and we would argue rightfully so that this
Speaker 3: show of support, and we'll get into what was going
Speaker 3: on outside the courtroom for Lindsay Clancy could have an
Speaker 3: emotional reaction or could elicit some sort of emotional empathy
Speaker 3: sympathy for Lindsay Clancy.
Speaker 2: As those jurors walked into the Courtporo.
Speaker 1: I mean the jurors, they've been wiping tears as they've
Speaker 1: been listening to a lot of this, The same jurors
Speaker 1: who've seen her cry, what did you say, hyperventilating almost
Speaker 1: in the way she's been ventilating without a debt at times.
Speaker 1: So there has been a lot of emotion. It was
Speaker 1: and just here we go again, ropes. It's just some
Speaker 1: kind of way emotion is playing into this trial every
Speaker 1: single day in some manner. It was remarkable that it
Speaker 1: played into it on the way in to the court yesterday.
Speaker 3: Yes, yeah, about three hundred women all dressed in pink
Speaker 3: with support for Lindsay Clancy. And again we'll get into
Speaker 3: those details in a bit, what their intent was and
Speaker 3: what they said to reporters outside.
Speaker 2: But look, each of the jurors obviously.
Speaker 3: Told the judge they could put that into a compartment
Speaker 3: and not let it impact their ability to objectively listen
Speaker 3: to witness testimony and take in the evidence, all of that.
Speaker 3: But also then the jury was sent home before eleven
Speaker 3: am because the attorneys and the judge decided to hold
Speaker 3: their own conference to discuss possible jury instructions.
Speaker 2: And that got really interesting as well.
Speaker 1: Right, we say interesting jury instructions are some of the
Speaker 1: some of these trials. They're so long and tedious and
Speaker 1: confusing to the average listener. They're arguing over words and
Speaker 1: word placement and prepositions and this kind of stuff. This
Speaker 1: one is going to be a doozy ye to put
Speaker 1: these instructions together.
Speaker 3: It certainly is what the basically what the jury can consider,
Speaker 3: what the jury cannot consider.
Speaker 2: And we'll get into this too.
Speaker 3: But the defense, this was interesting to me, was pushing
Speaker 3: that the judge include in the jury instructions how to
Speaker 3: consider intoxication when it comes to a criminal act. But yeah,
Speaker 3: we only had one witness take the stand. And by
Speaker 3: the way, it was a packed courtroom. One of the
Speaker 3: reporters described it as the most packed they had seen it.
Speaker 3: More than sixty people, everyone trying to get into this courtroom.
Speaker 3: As I believe, it does seem like more and more
Speaker 3: people are becoming more and more interested in this case.
Speaker 3: What it means to have postpartum depression or in this case, psychosis,
Speaker 3: listening to women's health issues, whether or not a mother
Speaker 3: who murdered her three children should be helped. Responsible people
Speaker 3: are really as we're seeing this testimony start to come
Speaker 3: to a close, people are really getting interested in what
Speaker 3: the outcome is going to be.
Speaker 1: You know, we noticed this yesterday that some news outlets
Speaker 1: that normally wouldn't necessarily be covering a story like this.
Speaker 1: It's high up in their rundowns. Yes there is more.
Speaker 1: This is what full third or fourth full week?
Speaker 2: This is the I believe this is.
Speaker 3: We're in the fourth week, and so yes, people are
Speaker 3: taking notice. And that one witness that took the stand
Speaker 3: on What's Today Friday on Thursday, you even said, Wow,
Speaker 3: I am paying attention. This woman had an an energy
Speaker 3: about her, an authenticity about her. A you sat up
Speaker 3: to listen to her when she spoke.
Speaker 1: Yeah, she had a manner of speaking. I'm not sure
Speaker 1: how to describe it.
Speaker 2: It was.
Speaker 1: I don't know, it was soft, but it was pleasant.
Speaker 1: It was it was angelic. It was therapeutic to someone.
Speaker 1: It was almost like you were getting guidance from some
Speaker 1: fairy godmother.
Speaker 3: It was actually a really good way to put it.
Speaker 3: She looked like a fairy godmother. But we're talking about
Speaker 3: Sheila Kavanas. She is hospital chaplain, so that might actually
Speaker 3: explain what we're describing. She was at Brigham and Women's Hospital,
Speaker 3: she was the chaplain. She saw and spoke with Lindsay
Speaker 3: Clancy more than two hundred times, Babe. She I would say,
Speaker 3: based on all the witnesses we've seen take the stand
Speaker 3: for either the prosecution or the defense, is the one
Speaker 3: person who has seen and spoken with Lindsay Clancy more
Speaker 3: than anyone else.
Speaker 1: And you know she's not a doctor, Bros. I'm just
Speaker 1: putting that together, as you say, because I'm thinking about
Speaker 1: the other guy who met her sixty times, or the
Speaker 1: other defense guy who's been on the stay in last couple.
Speaker 2: Of days, forensic psychiatrists.
Speaker 1: But the one who has spent the most time talking
Speaker 1: to this lady happens to be a woman of faith
Speaker 1: and not necessarily the doctor. I don't know what we
Speaker 1: make of that. She can't diagnose her. She can say
Speaker 1: what she said and how she came off, but she
Speaker 1: can't do the medical part. So what does she How
Speaker 1: does she help the defense here?
Speaker 3: She I think she helped the defense significantly because she
Speaker 3: spoke to Lindsay's stany of mind. She spoke to where
Speaker 3: and that has been under assault by the prosecution in
Speaker 3: terms of this callous, cold, calculated, controlling mom who wanted
Speaker 3: to take her children with her no matter what, and
Speaker 3: wouldn't let anyone else protect them other than her, And
Speaker 3: that was what made her so evil and calculating in
Speaker 3: killing her children. When you hear from Sheila Kavanaugh describing
Speaker 3: a much different Lindsay Clancy, it goes a long way,
Speaker 3: I think for jurors in terms of intent, motive, and
Speaker 3: whether or not she was in her right mind.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and a lot of what this lady right, she's
Speaker 1: examining just a human being. She's looking at it through
Speaker 1: a different lens. Rose and she there's no medical degree
Speaker 1: that let her know a woman was in trouble. It
Speaker 1: was her training. It's theological training that helped her see
Speaker 1: a woman who was in need. And it was this
Speaker 1: is not a woman who sat up there. It felt
Speaker 1: like she was trying to help this side or that side,
Speaker 1: but ropes. She'd sound like somebody who was just trying
Speaker 1: to help Lindsay Clancy like authentically not get away with
Speaker 1: a crime. What covers just she's here. She seemed like
Speaker 1: a really impartial observer in the courtroom.
Speaker 3: I agree, and that's why what she said carried so
Speaker 3: much weight, And I thought what stood out to me
Speaker 3: She talked about going in to see Lindsay in those
Speaker 3: first few days and how Lindsay was intubated. She described
Speaker 3: physically how she looked, how she was unable to speak
Speaker 3: or communicate. That also went a long way just to
Speaker 3: show just how injured Lindsay Clancy was. That several days
Speaker 3: when she went to go see her, she couldn't speak
Speaker 3: because she had tubes down her throat. But she said
Speaker 3: the first time Lindsey Clancy could use her voice and spoke,
Speaker 3: she said this to her, I'm so glad my children
Speaker 3: are safe. That was incredibly impactful.
Speaker 1: Yeah, But which way right? What is that an admission of?
Speaker 1: What is that a confirmation of? What is that evidence of?
Speaker 1: I don't know that.
Speaker 2: She thought she was doing right by her kids.
Speaker 1: In that moment, and then the prosecution dismisses that as
Speaker 1: what right? That's what I mean, Robes, It's they're giving
Speaker 1: you enough in a bigger picture that you cannot help,
Speaker 1: but no robes that this lady was in trouble of
Speaker 1: some kind.
Speaker 3: To me, that speaks to her level of insanity, because
Speaker 3: no woman would think her children were safe when she
Speaker 3: killed them unless you have something really serious going on.
Speaker 3: That is not something a mother says when her child
Speaker 3: is dead. Now, we've heard mothers say after their child's
Speaker 3: been murdered or had some horrible debt that they're glad
Speaker 3: their child is in a better place or not suffering anymore.
Speaker 3: This was very, very different. The other big moment is
Speaker 3: when she described and testified to the fact that she
Speaker 3: said that Lindsey told her that she heard a voice.
Speaker 3: She said that voice told her if she did not
Speaker 3: follow the command, neither she nor her children would be safe.
Speaker 3: So that is a big moment.
Speaker 2: That is what the.
Speaker 3: Absolutely wants the jurors to believe that Lindsay did what
Speaker 3: she did because she was following a command and obviously
Speaker 3: that was a hallucination. That voice didn't actually exist, which
Speaker 3: means that Lindsey Clancy was in a state of psychosis
Speaker 3: all right.
Speaker 1: That part the prosecution was trying to jump on that
Speaker 1: because she only told her afterwards, and only told her once,
Speaker 1: and she hadn't heard it since is that she never
Speaker 1: I guess the prosecutor is trying to get at she
Speaker 1: wasn't going along this line of a voice in her
Speaker 1: head until after the murder. She wasn't discussing it at all. Ah,
Speaker 1: the chaplain didn't put in her notes.
Speaker 3: That was the big, big point that the prosecution says
Speaker 3: that okay, And then they went through all of her notes,
Speaker 3: and she had detailed notes, and she said, you never
Speaker 3: put once that Lindsay Clancy told you she heard a voice.
Speaker 3: And the response from the chaplain was, I'm not there
Speaker 3: to evaluate the patient. I'm there to bear witness to
Speaker 3: their suffering. Her prosecution did make a little bit of
Speaker 3: a It poked a hole in some of the chaplain's testimony,
Speaker 3: saying you put quotes from Lindsay Clancy. On several other occasions,
Speaker 3: you directly quoted her, You talked about positive observations you
Speaker 3: made of her.
Speaker 2: You never once put this in your notes. That that
Speaker 2: worked a little bit, But I still.
Speaker 3: Didn't believe that the chaplain was lying when she said
Speaker 3: Lindsay Clancy said what she said. I still think she
Speaker 3: was such a credible witness. She was that I didn't
Speaker 3: it didn't bother me too much that she didn't note
Speaker 3: it in her written notes about her meetings with Lindsay Clancy.
Speaker 1: As Margins might be small in a jury room, Where
Speaker 1: does that trick? I think about it? I do ask
Speaker 1: the question, why didn't she write that down? Why wasn't
Speaker 1: that important enough for her to write down? It is
Speaker 1: a detailed woman. I like this woman. I trust this woman,
Speaker 1: she's legit. Why wasn't she write that down?
Speaker 3: It might not at a juror like it's just a
Speaker 3: it's like hmm, that it does?
Speaker 2: It is?
Speaker 3: It was absolutely worth the question, and her answer wasn't
Speaker 3: really good enough.
Speaker 1: Yeah, But then you know what I would go to
Speaker 1: after that, Robes is in the jury room, I would
Speaker 1: say this to my eleven other fellow jurors, say, well, actually, guys,
Speaker 1: this lady is not a doctor. She doesn't know maybe
Speaker 1: that that's a really important note to write down.
Speaker 2: And say that. I'd be like, you know what, that's
Speaker 2: a good point.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think yes, And in the deliberation room that
Speaker 3: could absolutely be understood from that point of view. The
Speaker 3: other thing I thought she said that was important for
Speaker 3: the defense, She said. Lindsey talked and talks frequently about
Speaker 3: her children, she loves them deeply, she carries immense grief.
Speaker 3: And when she said that, the prosecution objected, the judge
Speaker 3: overruled because they were like hearsay. But look, she got
Speaker 3: her point across to jurors that this person that the
Speaker 3: prosecution is trying to depict of someone who was laughing
Speaker 3: and playing games and playing dominoes and feeling joyful and
Speaker 3: seemed positive and upbeat on the anniversaries of the death
Speaker 3: of her children, on the anniversaries of what would be
Speaker 3: the birthdays of her children.
Speaker 2: This flew in the face of that.
Speaker 3: Hearing a chaplain say she talks frequently, she loves them deeply,
Speaker 3: she carries a men's grief and roabes.
Speaker 1: This is the lady. If the prosecution wants to challenge,
Speaker 1: you can't tell me that you're experts that you put
Speaker 1: up there who spent twenty minutes with her, and this
Speaker 1: woman spent two hundred two hundred visits.
Speaker 2: Isn't she more.
Speaker 1: Expertly aware of where this woman's head is than anybody else,
Speaker 1: even though she's not a doctor. That is going to
Speaker 1: be tough to discredit this woman who has spent more
Speaker 1: time you want me to believe the person that's been
Speaker 1: out of college for a month, that only met her
Speaker 1: via FaceTime. Is that what you're telling me, prosecutors, that's
Speaker 1: a challenge.
Speaker 2: I agree, I agree.
Speaker 3: And so once Kavanaugh, she like Kavanaugh, left the stand,
Speaker 3: the jury was sent home. I mean they actually were
Speaker 3: there for about an hour yesterday and then they were
Speaker 3: sent home. But what happened next was this preliminary charge conference,
Speaker 3: that's what it's called. But they're discussing what the jury
Speaker 3: is going to be hearing in the judge's instructions to
Speaker 3: them when they begin deliberations. And the prosecutors are very
Speaker 3: much concerned about this notion that the juror could be
Speaker 3: instructed about what intoxication means to criminal responsibility, and so
Speaker 3: they said this to the judge. From our perspective, there
Speaker 3: has been no evidence of intoxication by drugs or alcohol
Speaker 3: during the killings. And that's interesting because we've seen them
Speaker 3: with each of these witnesses try to say, well, she
Speaker 3: didn't take all the pills. There were plenty of pills
Speaker 3: left in the pill bottles. There were more pills in
Speaker 3: the pill bottles than there should have been based on
Speaker 3: her prescription dose, so meaning not only was she not
Speaker 3: over medicated, she was actually potentially undermedicated. And now we
Speaker 3: understand why they don't want the defense to be able
Speaker 3: to say that the drugs were part of the reason
Speaker 3: why she ended up killing her children.
Speaker 1: I can't and this is what I've said. Off the
Speaker 1: top words that go in jury instructions explaining intoxication and
Speaker 1: the application of that when it comes to criminality. Wow,
Speaker 1: I mean just wow. And the judge, don't they always
Speaker 1: they have to read these instructions word for word. They're
Speaker 1: going to get the They still get them when they
Speaker 1: go back there, do they?
Speaker 3: Uh, Yes, they get them, and they can refer back
Speaker 3: to them. And that's why you'll see, like in these
Speaker 3: trials sometimes they'll send the jury home early. They need
Speaker 3: days and days and days of meeting out what the
Speaker 3: jury instructions will be.
Speaker 2: And in this case, the defense pushed back, he said.
Speaker 3: Kevin Reddington said, this is clearly an involuntary intoxication defense.
Speaker 3: So that was the first time we heard that. We've
Speaker 3: heard postpartum psychosis defense. But in this insanity defense, they
Speaker 3: also want to bring up this notion of involuntary intoxication,
Speaker 3: and that was pretty interesting. They said the over prescription
Speaker 3: of drugs directly impacted Lindsey Clancy's actions that day, so
Speaker 3: that will be fascinating the judges considering we'll decide later,
Speaker 3: but when we come back, we're going to tell you
Speaker 3: about that demonstration that was going on outside the courthouse
Speaker 3: and why it mattered so much to the prosecution, and
Speaker 3: welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ. It was a
Speaker 3: short but powerful day once again in court, but it
Speaker 3: began outside of the courthouse. Three hundred or so women
Speaker 3: gathered that it was a big showing. If you see
Speaker 3: the pictures there were, it was a mass of pink
Speaker 3: And normally I would say, oh wow, there's a breast
Speaker 3: cancer survivors reunion going on, just happens to be outside
Speaker 3: of the courthouse. But no, these women, they weren't protesting,
Speaker 3: they weren't wearing signs. It was notably what was called
Speaker 3: a silent rally, but many of the women had t
Speaker 3: shirts that had phrases like believe she needed help, peace
Speaker 3: for Lindsey. So they didn't speak, but they were speaking.
Speaker 1: That's going to be a big part of this conversation
Speaker 1: moving forward. Robes and a lot of people and I
Speaker 1: know you've seen it, are just spouting off online and
Speaker 1: calling anybody who would dare not even support her but
Speaker 1: be willing to listen to what might have been wrong
Speaker 1: with her. A lot of people think this woman strangle
Speaker 1: three kids, burn her and that's it. That is really
Speaker 1: all the debate seems to be online. That group is
Speaker 1: just saying she deserves to burn in hell, don't want
Speaker 1: to hear anything else that's hurting. I guess robes in
Speaker 1: our understanding. I don't know why somebody's just not willing
Speaker 1: to listen to what's happening in this debate versus just automatic.
Speaker 1: These folks aren't listening and who are just saying burn
Speaker 1: and hell?
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, they're like she looked her children in the
Speaker 3: eyes while she was strangling them. There was even this
Speaker 3: notion by prosecutors that she did. Oh, this was a
Speaker 3: gross part of yesterday. I didn't even want to hear this,
Speaker 3: but the prosecutor brought up this is when we had
Speaker 3: she like Kavanaugh, on the stand. Did you know that
Speaker 3: You know, they introduce evidence by asking someone if they
Speaker 3: knew something, even though they almost certainly didn't, but just
Speaker 3: to get the jury to hear and to enter this testimony,
Speaker 3: But the prosecutor said, did you know that Lindsay Clancy
Speaker 3: was working out using exercise bands after the killings? That
Speaker 3: was just a really ugh moment for me listening to okay.
Speaker 1: And unbiased, just real reason for why really, from a
Speaker 1: legal standpoint, why was that necessary? Why was that effect
Speaker 1: of what was she trying to get at?
Speaker 2: Emotional manipulation?
Speaker 3: But she was so callous that she could use a
Speaker 3: murder weapon to stay fit while she's in a mental hospital,
Speaker 3: after she used that same exact exercise band or a
Speaker 3: version of it to murder her children, that how could
Speaker 3: she ever even pick up an exercise band again?
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: That was tough.
Speaker 1: That adds to another a line of moments sometimes for
Speaker 1: the prosecutions to where I'm just as a juror, I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know how they're taking it, but as I
Speaker 1: sit there, well, come on, do we really have to?
Speaker 1: It just seemed petty. It seemed it seems like she
Speaker 1: was trying to. It was another one of those roles.
Speaker 1: We keep saying what she say, huhuh, right, she'll say
Speaker 1: something to say, so yours seriously, like for real, she's
Speaker 1: using these things that wait, you didn't know sarcasm.
Speaker 3: Sarcasm and you know what, So I take away from
Speaker 3: the fact that a woman who strangled and killed her
Speaker 3: children using exercise bands, how that same woman could pick.
Speaker 2: Up an exercise band and work out with it.
Speaker 3: To me, would only a mentally ill person would be
Speaker 3: able to do that, because actually, even if you were
Speaker 3: cruelly killing your kids, if you're telling me that that
Speaker 3: didn't impact her emotionally, then that tells me her she
Speaker 3: is out of her mind.
Speaker 2: Or she is literally Satan himself.
Speaker 3: Because those are your only two options, and that might
Speaker 3: be why we see such a polarizing reaction from folks,
Speaker 3: because yeah, either she is that is true. Either she
Speaker 3: is the most evil, monstrous human being that could ever exist,
Speaker 3: like Satan like, or she was mentally ill.
Speaker 2: I don't think it could be anywhere in between. So
Speaker 2: that's why you've got these two factions.
Speaker 1: The prosecutors are telling you there is an in between, Yes,
Speaker 1: because she's just a calculated killer. There can be something else,
Speaker 1: There is another option here, Robes. All is confusion you have.
Speaker 1: You can't understand why this woman would do it. We
Speaker 1: have an answer for you. She's just a bad person
Speaker 1: who was a controlling mother and it was too much
Speaker 1: for her, and she decided to end it all by
Speaker 1: killing her kids and then faking a suicide attempt by
Speaker 1: jumping onto rock hard ice from two stories up. That's
Speaker 1: how you can.
Speaker 2: Understand it wrote just not really working.
Speaker 3: Also, I don't know if prosecutors saw this, and maybe
Speaker 3: perhaps this prompted them having the judge pull the jurors
Speaker 3: one by one to see if the silent rally outside
Speaker 3: had impacted them in any way as they were walking
Speaker 3: into the courthouse. But as folks and players from the
Speaker 3: courthouse were walking in, guests who got a huge round
Speaker 3: of applause from these otherwise silent protesters. Defense attorney Kevin
Speaker 3: Reddington when he walked it, people were they were They
Speaker 3: all broke into applause for defending a woman who they
Speaker 3: believe needs to be defended, because the whole point of
Speaker 3: this rally was to raise awareness about how the mental
Speaker 3: health system and the legal system treats women who are
Speaker 3: suffering from postpartum depression.
Speaker 1: You know, even if this case, however it turns out,
Speaker 1: we still should take an examination of how the legal
Speaker 1: system and how we all society treats women with the postpartum.
Speaker 1: That's worthy no matter what the outcome of this trial is.
Speaker 2: Ah.
Speaker 3: Yes, but it is expected to be a full day.
Speaker 3: They're claiming a full day of testimony. And we also
Speaker 3: got word that this thing may be headed to the
Speaker 3: jury soon, that we may be seeing closing arguments as
Speaker 3: soon as early next week. But we'll probably have more
Speaker 3: information on the timing of it all after today's testimony.
Speaker 2: We will be watching.
Speaker 3: We will let you know what happened, but we always
Speaker 3: appreciate you listening to us I Ami Roebock alongside TJ.
Speaker 2: Holmes. We'll talk so