Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Thursday, August 27th, and the
Speaker 1: jury in the Lindsay Clancy trial doesn't have the case
Speaker 1: just yet, but they will soon. But even so, Lindsay
Speaker 1: Clancy has already scored a pretty major victory. And with that,
Speaker 1: welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ Robes. This
Speaker 1: is huge. This is huge, what the jury is now
Speaker 1: going to be able to consider. when they go into
Speaker 1: that jury room. This was a major victory for her.
Speaker 2: Uh, that is true because there are actually going to
Speaker 2: be five total options for jurors. And the big addition
Speaker 2: was manslaughter. And to be able to consider that as
Speaker 2: one of the verdicts is significant because now it's not
Speaker 2: all or nothing because obviously first degree murder is on the, uh,
Speaker 2: on the table. That is premeditated or extreme atrocity or cruelty.
Speaker 2: And that is what prosecutors are trying and have been
Speaker 2: trying to present to the jury.
Speaker 1: But Robes, they had the option. Everything we've heard, we
Speaker 1: know this woman was ill and had problems. You're giving
Speaker 1: this jury that has been emotional for five weeks. That's
Speaker 1: been emotional testimony. Robes have been in tears. They had
Speaker 1: to take breaks because people were so emotional. So now
Speaker 1: you're telling that group, you know what? You don't have
Speaker 1: to send her to prison for the rest of her life.
Speaker 1: It's almost Robes. It's given them a way out if
Speaker 1: they're torn in some way. Robes, how could this not
Speaker 1: be the option?
Speaker 2: I mean, it's got to be considered. Look, and the
Speaker 2: defense is hoping that they're going to go with the
Speaker 2: other extreme, which is not guilty by reason of lack
Speaker 2: of criminal responsibility or insanity or postpartum psychosis. whatever you
Speaker 2: want to put on the end of it. That's what
Speaker 2: they want. But certainly having this manslaughter option where you
Speaker 2: are acknowledging basically that, yes, she is suffering from mental
Speaker 2: illness and that is a part of it. And that's
Speaker 2: why it absolves her of some of the responsibility, but
Speaker 2: it doesn't absolve her of all the criminal responsibility.
Speaker 1: And the prosecutors pushed back on this. They didn't want
Speaker 1: this included necessarily. I guess you can understand why, but it's...
Speaker 1: I didn't think about it ahead of time, or we
Speaker 1: didn't talk about it that much ahead of time. This
Speaker 1: is so tough on these jurors. They had the option
Speaker 1: of either putting this woman in prison for the rest
Speaker 1: of her life, or making the determination that she's ill.
Speaker 1: If you're not convinced one way or another, Robes, and
Speaker 1: it feels like that's fair, that you're not convinced that
Speaker 1: either one is the right thing to do.
Speaker 2: It is fair, because think about it. They listened to
Speaker 2: 85 witnesses over five weeks ago. That is a tremendous
Speaker 2: amount of testimony. And as you pointed out, a lot
Speaker 2: of it was very emotional. We heard from Patrick Clancy,
Speaker 2: her husband.
Speaker 1: That was five weeks ago.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: He was the first witness. Damn, girl. He was.
Speaker 2: And then you've got her mother, her sister, her mother-in-law,
Speaker 2: her coworkers, her friends, Patrick's friends. And then you have
Speaker 2: all the psychologists and psychiatrists. And even though that was technical, scientific...
Speaker 2: research-based it was still emotional because you're still talking about
Speaker 2: strangling three young children i don't think there was a
Speaker 2: boring witness in the sense that yes in law enforcement
Speaker 2: too we heard from them but everything that every witness
Speaker 2: had to add packed a punch and there was an
Speaker 2: emotional element to.
Speaker 1: All of it do i have right does this seem
Speaker 1: do i have right all the experts were at the
Speaker 1: end Do we have one early on? It seems like
Speaker 1: the last week has been just back to back.
Speaker 2: To back to back. I think it's hard to remember.
Speaker 2: I don't know what they, you know what they had?
Speaker 2: They had doctors. They had her doctors in there early on. Dr.
Speaker 2: Jennifer Tufts, we heard from the clinicians.
Speaker 1: She was early?
Speaker 2: Tufts was earlier? Yes, fairly early. on from the prosecution
Speaker 2: because they were, yes, establishing the doctors who directly treated
Speaker 2: her were at the beginning. And then the forensic psychiatrists
Speaker 2: and psychologists who study these cases who have decades of
Speaker 2: experience then analyzed her particular case in its totality.
Speaker 1: Yeah, their decades of experience really came through in this testimony.
Speaker 1: It is pretty striking that in a case this big,
Speaker 1: The best experts you can find to say she was
Speaker 1: sane or insane have virtually zero experience treating a woman
Speaker 1: with postpartum psychosis. It's remarkable. People who have been in
Speaker 1: the game for 40, 50 years say, yeah, I treated
Speaker 1: maybe two ladies 30 years ago.
Speaker 2: Right. It was all single digits. No one that I
Speaker 2: can remember or recall admitted to, testified to, could prove
Speaker 2: that they treated women with postpartum psychosis... More than they
Speaker 2: could count on one hand. I mean, that is just
Speaker 2: the truth. And that's striking. And as a juror, you
Speaker 2: have to take that into account because, yes, they could
Speaker 2: be extremely well-versed and experienced and have all the academic
Speaker 2: accolades you could want. But if they haven't individually treated
Speaker 2: a woman with this disorder, how could they possibly be
Speaker 2: an expert on it?
Speaker 1: That's crazy. You have to dig into the resumes because
Speaker 1: they look great. These resumes, all this stuff they've done,
Speaker 1: and the prosecution's asking the questions. This person seems like
Speaker 1: they are just the best in the field. And then
Speaker 1: Reddington gets up there and starts going through that same resume.
Speaker 1: And then you realize this person has no expertise. Some
Speaker 1: of them didn't even have expertise in treating women. They
Speaker 1: didn't even have a long history of treating women who
Speaker 1: had had babies.
Speaker 2: Certainly women who've been pregnant.
Speaker 1: That's kind of discrediting to a certain degree. That would
Speaker 1: make you stop as a juror. I don't know what
Speaker 1: to do with this field.
Speaker 2: It makes me stop as a woman, to be honest.
Speaker 2: And we've complained about this collectively as a group that
Speaker 2: our health concerns, I mean, even look at breast cancer,
Speaker 2: all sorts of medical issues that involve women have the
Speaker 2: least amount of of research, the least amount of funding.
Speaker 2: And it's just been historically that way. And we've had
Speaker 2: to push and argue and yell and scream to get attention.
Speaker 2: Now add mental health to that and women, and then
Speaker 2: add pregnancy to that with all the hormones that any
Speaker 2: woman out there who's listening, who's been pregnant, that is
Speaker 2: real and it can be overwhelming. And yes, we're seeing
Speaker 2: here in this trial, at least according to the defense,
Speaker 2: it can be deadly.
Speaker 1: That point you just made was made best for me,
Speaker 1: at least Robes, Was it Avram Mack when Reddington had
Speaker 1: one of the prosecution psychiatrists up there? And he had
Speaker 1: this 1,000-plus page Bible of mental disorders that psychiatrists use.
Speaker 1: And he asked the guy, pointed, show me where it
Speaker 1: has anything to do with postpartum depression or psychosis. It
Speaker 1: was like a paragraph or two. And it didn't even specifically. Robes,
Speaker 1: that was striking of how little has been paid attention
Speaker 1: to this.
Speaker 2: And I think that's why you saw those hundreds of
Speaker 2: women dressed in pink outside of the Lindsay Clancy murder
Speaker 2: trial saying, listen to us, believe us, hear us, study us,
Speaker 2: do something about this because we have been forgotten, ignored,
Speaker 2: and maybe even brushed aside. And this case is putting
Speaker 2: that issue on the map. And proves the fact that
Speaker 2: it has not been given the attention it deserves. And yes,
Speaker 2: I know we're specifically talking about postpartum psychosis, but this
Speaker 2: also involves, and I think a lot of women who
Speaker 2: have spoken up and reacted to this case have also
Speaker 2: talked about postpartum depression and just how serious that is
Speaker 2: and how deadly that can be.
Speaker 1: And Rose, we were talking about this 20 years ago
Speaker 1: with Andrew Yates, this exact same thing. And we're going
Speaker 1: to get into, and we'll have an episode up, uh,
Speaker 1: It is striking the similarities between the Clancy case and
Speaker 1: the Andrea Yates case out of Texas. But Robes, you've
Speaker 1: been talking about, we have been talking about emotion. How
Speaker 1: this jury, what was the emotion like? As I've been
Speaker 1: going back and looking at that case, the jurors came
Speaker 1: out and they talked to the press. Baby, it was
Speaker 1: about emotion. It was emotional for them. How could it
Speaker 1: not be? And one of the last things they said, Robes,
Speaker 1: y'all need to do something to make sure this doesn't
Speaker 1: happen again. Wow.
Speaker 2: And here we are now, 20 years later.
Speaker 1: Almost a direct quote. They flat out were hooting and hollering, industry, everybody,
Speaker 1: do something. Do not have another woman in this position.
Speaker 2: And my God, I just got chills to hear you
Speaker 2: say that. And look, we ended testimony yesterday on Wednesday
Speaker 2: with an FBI forensic psychiatrist. Again, a phenomenal, impressive resume.
Speaker 2: He is with the most prestigious unit within the FBI.
Speaker 2: He is a doctor. He's a forensic psychiatrist, Gregory Satoff.
Speaker 2: And yes, gray hair. He looked the part. He has
Speaker 2: decades of experience. He treats prisoners. And to your point,
Speaker 2: when Reddington asked him how many women he has treated
Speaker 2: with postpartum psychosis, he said two or three women. And
Speaker 2: then he went over the cases, one in the 1980s
Speaker 2: and one in the 1990s.
Speaker 1: One was both teens, were they?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Very, very young women.
Speaker 2: 18 and I believe early 20s. And he talked about
Speaker 2: how they were treated and then ultimately recovered. But this
Speaker 2: was striking after you heard him testify for the prosecution.
Speaker 1: Their expert hasn't treated a woman like this in 40
Speaker 1: plus years. And he's the expert. This is the best
Speaker 1: you got, huh?
Speaker 2: And he told jurors that he believed, and he was very,
Speaker 2: very descriptive, but also he kept things simple. And in
Speaker 2: layman's terms, he said it exactly the way jurors probably
Speaker 2: needed to hear it to fully understand it. He said,
Speaker 2: it is possible and common, common for people to engage
Speaker 2: in behaviors to avoid to do what a command hallucination
Speaker 2: is saying. So he's saying someone experiencing psychosis can still
Speaker 2: identify right and wrong. And he said, Lindsay Clancy had
Speaker 2: the capacity to appreciate right from wrong. He was saying
Speaker 2: even if she were, and he didn't believe she was,
Speaker 2: in a state of psychosis, that doesn't absolve her from
Speaker 2: knowing right from wrong. I don't remember anyone testifying to
Speaker 2: that up until him.
Speaker 1: Okay, so my next question, or I would have raised
Speaker 1: my hands, like when would you say someone is not
Speaker 1: criminally responsible? He just said she's messed up in every
Speaker 1: way that they're saying she's messed up. However, I'm concluding
Speaker 1: that that doesn't mean she's not criminally responsible. I need
Speaker 1: somebody to explain to me, what's the line?
Speaker 2: I don't know what the line is, but he did
Speaker 2: get specific about saying that this voice, this command hallucination
Speaker 2: that she says she heard, she was still able to personally,
Speaker 2: because he said the voice didn't give her instructions. right?
Speaker 2: The voice just said, you know, kill the children while
Speaker 2: you still can. Now is your chance. Now is your
Speaker 2: last chance. He said, she's the one who made the
Speaker 2: specific decisions on how to kill her children, what to
Speaker 2: use to kill her children, where to kill her children,
Speaker 2: and then how to kill herself. And then in the
Speaker 2: middle of all of this, return a phone call to
Speaker 2: her husband, Patrick. And this all happened within like 18 minutes.
Speaker 2: And he just felt like all of those things, when
Speaker 2: you lay it out like that, proves that she was
Speaker 2: able to make decisions, and she was making them on
Speaker 2: her own beyond this voice.
Speaker 1: So then my next question is, is she only or
Speaker 1: can she only not be criminally responsible if the voice
Speaker 1: was very specific in its instructions? Is that what that means?
Speaker 2: It sounds like that's what he's saying, that if the
Speaker 2: voice was saying, now grab the exercise band. I don't
Speaker 2: know how these things work, but that was what he
Speaker 2: seemed to imply, that because the voice was just giving
Speaker 2: her a general instruction instruction or command. And she made
Speaker 2: all of these very specific choices in a very small
Speaker 2: window of time that she planned out ahead of time.
Speaker 2: He felt like that proved that she was in command
Speaker 2: of her body and making choices, knowing full well that
Speaker 2: what she was doing was illegal.
Speaker 1: This is, it's striking because I've been diving into the
Speaker 1: Andrea case. She had an hour window. She waited for
Speaker 1: her husband to leave. And someone else was coming to
Speaker 1: the house in an hour. She had an hour to
Speaker 1: do everything she needed. She was putting things in place.
Speaker 1: She was ruled insane. The similarities are so striking, baby.
Speaker 1: But yes, that thing now, if these jurors go back
Speaker 1: and read up on the Andrea Yates case.
Speaker 2: I don't know if they'd be allowed to.
Speaker 1: I don't think they're allowed to.
Speaker 2: I don't think they would because this would have to be, yes.
Speaker 1: This would impact them. Seeing what that, those cases are
Speaker 1: so similar. And we see the result of what happened
Speaker 1: with Yates. Oh my goodness, yes.
Speaker 2: You know, and it's just so interesting because upon cross-examination,
Speaker 2: Kevin Reddington was... obviously pushing the you've only treated two
Speaker 2: or three patients. He also has done this with all
Speaker 2: of the witnesses for the prosecution, having them lay out
Speaker 2: how they're paid, how they're compensated by the government to
Speaker 2: testify for the prosecution, thereby whittling away at least their impartiality.
Speaker 2: And then really driving home this point, and I do
Speaker 2: think this for a juror from an emotional standpoint and
Speaker 2: just even a logical one. This is a woman who
Speaker 2: called a suicide hotline twice, who repeatedly begged and asked
Speaker 2: for help, and she wasn't given help because she didn't
Speaker 2: have a plan to commit suicide. There are these specific
Speaker 2: things that if you had said this, then we would
Speaker 2: have given you help. Or if you had come to
Speaker 2: us a little earlier, we would have been able to
Speaker 2: designate you postpartum.
Speaker 1: Have you heard this before? I've never in my life
Speaker 1: heard that you're limited in how much help You might
Speaker 1: get from a suicide hotline or a counselor. It's a
Speaker 1: big deal. You need to have a plan before they
Speaker 1: almost take you completely seriously.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you have to tell them how you think you're
Speaker 2: going to kill yourself and when. I didn't know that
Speaker 2: that was part of their, I guess, their mode of
Speaker 2: operation when they basically decide what the action needs to be.
Speaker 2: or not be in a certain case. But obviously the
Speaker 2: biggest moment for him at the end was that when
Speaker 2: Reddington read the prosecution's opening statement, he got the witness, Dr. Satov,
Speaker 2: to say, I think that statement you read really minimizes
Speaker 2: what she was going through. So it did show that
Speaker 2: the prosecution is overreaching, or at least it did. That
Speaker 2: is what I believe jurors would take away from that
Speaker 2: last moment of testimony.
Speaker 1: So that last moment, we might have said that thing
Speaker 1: after the prosecution opening statement. We kept saying, they don't
Speaker 1: seem to give any room for her being ill. Like,
Speaker 1: it's fine if you don't think she was responsible, but
Speaker 1: their entire time is setting up and building a narrative
Speaker 1: that flies in the face of the narrative of everybody
Speaker 1: knew this woman. They never just acknowledged that, you know what? Yeah,
Speaker 1: she was sick. Yeah, she had struggles. Yeah, we get it.
Speaker 1: The whole time, it was that cold, dismissive, yeah, she
Speaker 1: was calculated, she was this And their own guy, the
Speaker 1: last thing he says on the cross-examination is, yeah, prosecution's
Speaker 1: probably overreaching on that a little bit.
Speaker 2: And that was huge because this was a prosecution witness, yes,
Speaker 2: who was paid, who had said everything he had just
Speaker 2: said and then acknowledged, yeah, the prosecution. might be overreaching.
Speaker 2: So when we come back, we're going to talk about
Speaker 2: why this manslaughter option for the jury is such a
Speaker 2: big deal, what type of penalty she could be facing
Speaker 2: if they come back with any of five different verdicts,
Speaker 2: and what we're expecting this morning in Closing Arguments. Welcome back, everyone,
Speaker 2: to Amy and TJ. What a big day in the
Speaker 2: Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial because, yes, we're going to
Speaker 2: hear first from the attorneys. They will give their closing arguments.
Speaker 2: The judge is going to give them each an hour,
Speaker 2: but we already heard from Kevin Reddington, I can get
Speaker 2: this done quickly. I only need 30 minutes. The prosecution
Speaker 2: said they would need an hour, so let's assume 90 minutes.
Speaker 1: What do you make of that? It only needs 30.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was surprised by that.
Speaker 1: Eh, I can wrap this up. That means he's going
Speaker 1: to be effective. He's not going to wax poetic. He's
Speaker 1: not going to go on and on. He's going to
Speaker 1: be specific. Remember this. Think about this.
Speaker 2: And the jury might appreciate that. And actually, I think
Speaker 2: when you say less, when they've been, look, they have
Speaker 2: had to absorb, like I said, at the top of this,
Speaker 2: 85 witnesses, five weeks of testimony. That is a lot.
Speaker 2: So maybe even keeping it succinct and to the point
Speaker 2: with maximum effect, that will actually stay with the jurors
Speaker 2: than going on this long, meandering, hour-long.
Speaker 1: I get that.
Speaker 2: That's an effective strategy.
Speaker 1: Defense goes first, right?
Speaker 2: I was going to ask, but I do believe, yes,
Speaker 2: the defense goes first. The prosecution gets to have the
Speaker 2: last word. But the jurors are going to now have
Speaker 2: five options. First-degree murder. which is premeditated or extreme atrocity
Speaker 2: or cruelty. And that would mean a mandatory life in
Speaker 2: prison sentence without the possibility of parole. They could also
Speaker 2: find her guilty of second degree murder, which is extreme
Speaker 2: recklessness without premeditation. That in the state of Massachusetts is
Speaker 2: also a mandatory life in prison sentence, but you would
Speaker 2: be eligible for parole within 15 to 25 years. They
Speaker 2: now have this manslaughter verdict that they can come to,
Speaker 2: which is suffering from mental illness, but not enough to
Speaker 2: absolve her of responsibility, that could be up to 20
Speaker 2: years in state prison. Every state's different. That's Massachusetts. So
Speaker 2: it could be the minimum could be whatever the judge chooses,
Speaker 2: but up to 20 years.
Speaker 1: So she could go to prison. She would have to
Speaker 1: still get mental health treatment, correct? But if they just
Speaker 1: find her guilty... I mean, she's not going to a
Speaker 1: state institution.
Speaker 2: She's going to prison with manslaughter, I believe. That's what
Speaker 2: the state of Massachusetts, I looked it up.
Speaker 1: But then what, right? Doesn't she need continued mental health treatment?
Speaker 1: Is that correct?
Speaker 2: I would imagine so, yes. And then the fourth one,
Speaker 2: which is what the defense is asking for, not guilty
Speaker 2: by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, backslash insanity. And
Speaker 2: that would mean no prison time whatsoever for, but she
Speaker 2: could be committed to a psychiatric facility. So that's what
Speaker 2: that charge.
Speaker 1: And then it would be indefinite, right?
Speaker 2: It would be indefinite. And I think based on her
Speaker 2: doctor's recommendations and then they could, it doesn't seem likely
Speaker 2: or even possible. They could just flat out, give her
Speaker 2: a not guilty verdict, a complete acquittal. But even the,
Speaker 2: even the defense itself is acknowledging she killed her kids. So, yes,
Speaker 2: it's an option, but highly, almost impossible. It's not going
Speaker 2: to happen. But that would mean she could literally roll
Speaker 2: out of there. Yeah, without any sort of.
Speaker 1: We don't mean to be cute. She's literally in a wheelchair.
Speaker 1: So she would be. But no, we don't. Nobody is
Speaker 1: expecting that. And how long, babe? I mean, the jury
Speaker 1: is going to have this trial today, Thursday, got all
Speaker 1: day tomorrow. They'll have maybe half a day today. Is
Speaker 1: he going to tell them? You know what? Judges give
Speaker 1: them the option sometimes. Do you want to go home early?
Speaker 1: You want to stay a little late?
Speaker 2: Oh, they're going to stay and deliberate. There's no way
Speaker 2: they want to push this up on a Friday. I mean,
Speaker 2: if they can at least get started. Wouldn't you also,
Speaker 2: as a juror, just be desperate to know what your
Speaker 2: fellow jurors are thinking? You've been sitting there the whole time.
Speaker 2: You're not allowed to speak about the case. You're not
Speaker 2: allowed to indicate how you feel. And now for the
Speaker 2: first time, you get to see if... what you're thinking
Speaker 2: and what you're feeling aligns in any way with any
Speaker 2: of the other jurors.
Speaker 1: You know, sequester me, baby. We're going to sit here
Speaker 1: and we're going to work this out through the night.
Speaker 1: We ain't going home. Let's talk this through. Really, let's
Speaker 1: get our work done.
Speaker 2: I would not want to be on a jury with you.
Speaker 2: First of all, you'd be the foreman. And then, yeah,
Speaker 2: you would, what.
Speaker 1: Are you talking about? I'll probably be elected.
Speaker 2: You're a natural born leader, but then to someone to
Speaker 2: persuade you to think other than what you already think, I,
Speaker 2: that would be an impossible task.
Speaker 1: I listen, I, you know, I listen, I'm open to
Speaker 1: other people's ideas. I'm open to being convinced of things.
Speaker 1: I have no problem. I am. And I'm not, I
Speaker 1: feel a certain way. I am very open. I want
Speaker 1: to hear other people make arguments. that make me go, oh,
Speaker 1: I didn't consider that. Oh, that makes sense. Just like
Speaker 1: the psychiatrist, the last witness. Oh, I didn't think about
Speaker 1: it that way, the way he just put it. That's okay.
Speaker 1: That is okay. But man, what is this jury going
Speaker 1: to do?
Speaker 2: This will be fascinating.
Speaker 1: 9 a.m., they rarely start on time. But let's see,
Speaker 1: it goes exactly the way it's supposed to go. Closings
Speaker 1: should be done by 11. Yes. They've been taking morning
Speaker 1: breaks at 11 and coming back at 11.30-ish. When do
Speaker 1: they start with the jury instructions? He has to read
Speaker 1: every word, so he could be done 30 minutes or
Speaker 1: an hour. Yes, they will be deliberating immediately after the
Speaker 1: lunch recess, right?
Speaker 2: Yes, I think that is fair to say. And we
Speaker 2: will be watching. And again, please stay tuned. I know
Speaker 2: TJ just mentioned the Andrea Yates comparison. After this episode,
Speaker 2: we're going to post an unbelievable comparison between these two cases.
Speaker 2: You were going crazy putting it together this morning, just
Speaker 2: saying this is actually so much more than I ever realized.
Speaker 1: The similarities are there in the cases, but Robes, they're
Speaker 1: also some of the same experts, right? testifying in both
Speaker 1: of these cases. And one connection to this Clancy case
Speaker 1: is the reason why Andrea Yates ended up not guilty
Speaker 1: by reason of insanity. It is a wild, wild connection.
Speaker 1: And yes, Robes, I was falling out of the chair
Speaker 1: in awe. But Robes, I don't know if you noticed,
Speaker 1: I had a moment over here. I had to get
Speaker 1: up just reading back about this case, Jesus Christ, with
Speaker 1: those five kids. It's hard stuff to be reminded of
Speaker 1: and the terror that those kids experience just reading through
Speaker 1: some of that stuff. We'll spare you some of that.
Speaker 2: Yes, but it's important, and this is in the spotlight
Speaker 2: now for a lot of women. It's long overdue, and
Speaker 2: so we will continue to follow this case, as we
Speaker 2: know so many of you are as well. We always
Speaker 2: appreciate you listening to us. I'm Amy Robach alongside TJ Holmes.
Speaker 2: We'll talk soon.