Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Thursday, August 27th. The prosecution
Speaker 1: has now given its closing argument in the Lindsay Clancy
Speaker 1: triple murder trial. And they wrapped up by playing on morality.
Speaker 1: And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ.
Speaker 1: I want to start with the end, the last sentence.
Speaker 1: I couldn't even tell Robes that she was wrapping up.
Speaker 1: Why did she want to go with that line about,
Speaker 1: you know, to a moral certainty she is guilty? What
Speaker 1: did that mean?
Speaker 2: She's trying to play on the juror's individual sense of
Speaker 2: right and wrong and emphasizing that Lindsay Clancy knew right
Speaker 2: from wrong.
Speaker 3: Yes, it's strange.
Speaker 2: She didn't talk about legally responsible, but morally responsible.
Speaker 1: We almost had a mistrial because of this type of
Speaker 1: stuff coming up.
Speaker 2: She went for it again, though, in her closing arguments.
Speaker 2: And right before she said that, she told the jurors.
Speaker 3: And it's interesting.
Speaker 2: I don't know if she's trying to continually, because she
Speaker 2: made a direct reference to Andrea Yates, but if she's
Speaker 2: continually trying to make the comparison between Andrea Yates and
Speaker 2: And Lindsay Clancy by saying, because we know Andrea Yates lovingly,
Speaker 2: you could say, put her children's... bodies on the bed
Speaker 2: and had the baby or the little six month old
Speaker 2: in one of the children's arms and she lovingly kind
Speaker 2: of displayed their bodies and I think many people remember that.
Speaker 1: I didn't. Is she expecting the jurors to remember that?
Speaker 2: I think she is absolutely drawing a stark comparison because
Speaker 2: she described what Lindsay Clancy did as discarding her children
Speaker 2: on the basement floor like broken toys because she was
Speaker 2: done playing the game. That is a direct contrast to
Speaker 2: what we know of Andrea Yates and what she did
Speaker 2: after she drowned her children.
Speaker 1: That comparison is something I wouldn't have remembered that myself
Speaker 1: and her making this comparison, but Robes, that was the moment.
Speaker 1: And this is a major no, no, you don't interrupt
Speaker 1: closing argument of the opposing attorney judges. I have seen
Speaker 1: absolutely rip into other attorneys. Shut up. This is a
Speaker 1: closing argument. This ain't your time to object anything. However, Robes,
Speaker 1: that was a little disturbance.
Speaker 2: Kevin Reddington objected when she started talking about Andrea Yates.
Speaker 2: And she said Andrea Yates, after she was hearing voices
Speaker 2: and she continually heard voices before she ended up killing
Speaker 2: her kids, she.
Speaker 3: Committed herself five times.
Speaker 2: She tried to kill herself twice. So again, I think
Speaker 2: she is concerned that the jury is going to liken
Speaker 2: Lindsay Clancy.
Speaker 3: to Andrea.
Speaker 2: Yates and is trying to draw a contrast between the
Speaker 2: two women to make sure that jurors don't feel the
Speaker 2: same way about her that they may feel about Andrea Yates.
Speaker 1: Forgive me for this lack of, this is not an
Speaker 1: eloquent way to say it. Is she really telling this jury? No,
Speaker 1: this is what crazy looks like when you kill your kids.
Speaker 1: And that's not what Lindsay Clancy... Right?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 3: A crazy woman who loves her kids... Does this.
Speaker 2: She's just saying Lindsay Clancy is a selfish woman who
Speaker 2: only cared about herself.
Speaker 1: She's using Andrea Yates as the example to compare her to. Yes. Oh,
Speaker 1: that is striking. But as we record, folks, the jury
Speaker 1: has the case. We should tell you that now. We're
Speaker 1: keeping an eye on this, but we are on verdict
Speaker 1: watch as we speak. This... That was made up of
Speaker 1: 18 robes is now officially down to 12. And you
Speaker 1: told me before it was 12 women. And you can
Speaker 1: explain why they do this and why they need so
Speaker 1: many jurors. But we knew what the original breakdown was.
Speaker 1: But now we know the breakdown of the folks who
Speaker 1: are deciding her fate.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 2: So initially, 18 jurors, and they sat through all five
Speaker 2: weeks of this gutting testimony. There were 12 women and
Speaker 2: six men. And then after closing arguments, we literally saw
Speaker 2: it was almost like a lottery, like they're picking lottery balls.
Speaker 1: Out of a box.
Speaker 2: They're literally picking juror numbers out of a box to
Speaker 2: officially seat the 12 that will deliberate on and decide
Speaker 2: Lindsay Clancy's fate. And that breakdown is now nine women
Speaker 2: and three men.
Speaker 1: What do you think?
Speaker 2: I said earlier that I felt like she might be
Speaker 2: given a better, I shouldn't say better, but there might
Speaker 2: be more sympathy from a man because he wouldn't know
Speaker 2: what it's like to be a mom. He wouldn't know
Speaker 2: what it's like to have all those hormones raging through him.
Speaker 2: He might not He might give her the benefit of
Speaker 2: the doubt, whereas a woman, if she has had children,
Speaker 2: and especially if she had any sort of postpartum depression
Speaker 2: and thought, well, I managed it, I was fine, I
Speaker 2: just would think a potentially harsher judge or juror would
Speaker 2: be a woman who has kids.
Speaker 1: Babe, you've been talking about this for five weeks. You
Speaker 1: said nobody is judging another woman harsher than another woman.
Speaker 2: It's true, and if you look at the online back
Speaker 2: and forth debate that's going on, the people who are
Speaker 2: writing op-eds and making comments about how they think she
Speaker 2: should go to prison for the rest of her life,
Speaker 2: that she has to pay for her crime, I've only
Speaker 2: seen women.
Speaker 3: I haven't seen men making comments like that.
Speaker 1: Okay, but I also didn't see men out there in
Speaker 1: pink shirts. That's the other side of it. Are those
Speaker 1: nine women going to be more so in line with
Speaker 1: the ones out there in pink supporting her or the
Speaker 1: folks online saying, ain't no way?
Speaker 3: Because emotion was so much a part of this trial.
Speaker 2: I think it's going to be, I really do think
Speaker 2: it's going to depend on the lens that they view
Speaker 2: this evidence through. And I think it's so deeply personal.
Speaker 2: And I think it goes back to, do any of
Speaker 2: these women have friends, mothers, sisters, who if even they
Speaker 2: haven't gone through it, they've seen a woman suffer before?
Speaker 2: they've seen a woman pull through or whatever, it just,
Speaker 2: whatever their personal experience in their circle, in their bubble,
Speaker 2: I think will absolutely impact.
Speaker 3: Which expert they believe, which.
Speaker 2: Expert seemed like, seemed more credible to them because they'll
Speaker 2: see it through their experience. That's the problem with this case.
Speaker 2: It's not, did she do it or didn't she do it?
Speaker 2: what does the evidence prove? No, this is really which
Speaker 2: expert you believe more and for you not to bring
Speaker 2: in your personal experience would be impossible, I think.
Speaker 1: I don't, maybe you just, I don't know if the
Speaker 1: evidence proves she was one way or another criminally responsible.
Speaker 1: So I need to figure out which one of these
Speaker 1: guys I like better, which one of these guys I
Speaker 1: think is most credible. Robes, the evidence they keep pointing
Speaker 1: to is more of a collection of Well, yeah, that's possible. Well,
Speaker 1: she did that, so it could mean this. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: she made the phone call, so I guess it could
Speaker 1: mean she was a... Robes, everything is, it could, it could. Well, maybe.
Speaker 1: Or that makes sense. I could see that. Well, that's likely.
Speaker 1: But proof? Robes, you just said it. Is this really?
Speaker 1: Are they really going to sit in there and go,
Speaker 1: I like this guy better than that guy?
Speaker 2: And I, well, yes, I think, I don't know if
Speaker 2: they're going to say it like that, but that's probably
Speaker 2: what's going in there.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Going through their heads that.
Speaker 2: They believed someone more than the other, or they think
Speaker 2: someone has more credibility than the other. I think the
Speaker 2: one thing, look, the, the prosecutor definitely, I think chose
Speaker 2: a dangerous path. I mean, she really vilified Lindsay Clancy
Speaker 2: and as she's vilifying Lindsay Clancy, you actually can see
Speaker 2: her And she's not making some big scene about it.
Speaker 2: She's quietly wiping tears. She's turning her head. She's taking
Speaker 2: her hands to her face and literally clearing her face
Speaker 2: of tears when she starts being thrown under the bus
Speaker 2: by the prosecutor. That is hard not to be impacted by,
Speaker 2: to see this woman in a wheelchair crying softly and
Speaker 2: quietly as her character is being completely maligned by this prosecutor.
Speaker 1: Is she doing that because she knew what she's hearing
Speaker 1: is correct? Is she doing that because she knows right
Speaker 1: from wrong? Is she doing that because she knows she
Speaker 1: did wrong? I don't know how anybody reads this, Rose,
Speaker 1: but this was a theme of the closing argument. She
Speaker 1: went a little over 50 minutes. They went about the
Speaker 1: same amount of time.
Speaker 2: They did.
Speaker 1: In their closings. But Robe's theme for her was this
Speaker 1: is a woman who knew what she was doing, she
Speaker 1: was calculated in what she was doing, and Robe, so
Speaker 1: much of what she talked about goes to the timing.
Speaker 1: She spent so much time on the timing of the killings.
Speaker 1: How long she went down there, which kid she killed first,
Speaker 1: and how long the kids were strangled. She spent a
Speaker 1: lot of time, Robe, suggesting that at least the story
Speaker 1: she was putting together suggests that this was a woman
Speaker 1: who was in complete control.
Speaker 2: Yes, and who was cruel and vicious and callous and
Speaker 2: indifferent to her children's suffering. That's where I have a little, well,
Speaker 2: not a little, I have a lot of difficulty agreeing
Speaker 2: with her on that. The picture she painted of this
Speaker 2: woman who had every resource available to her, she really
Speaker 2: played on that for any jury. She had a nanny.
Speaker 2: She had a mom in her beck and call. She
Speaker 2: had a country.
Speaker 3: Club to go off to.
Speaker 2: She had doctors and nurses and a loving husband. And
Speaker 2: she was surrounded with people who supported her and loved
Speaker 2: her and wanted the best for her.
Speaker 3: And what did she do to them? She lied.
Speaker 2: She told them she was getting better. She told them
Speaker 2: she was sleeping. She defied her doctor's orders. And as
Speaker 2: a nurse, she should know better. She chose what medicines
Speaker 2: to take and how much to take. She didn't follow
Speaker 2: instructions because she wanted to do it her way. The
Speaker 2: picture they're painting of this woman is not the woman
Speaker 2: who was described by all the people.
Speaker 3: Who know her, including her ex-husband.
Speaker 2: So That's where it feels like it's a stretch, and
Speaker 2: it feels like she's telling me to believe something that
Speaker 2: I actually, after having seen and heard everything, don't believe
Speaker 2: to be true.
Speaker 1: But was she taking the risk, Robes, because you got
Speaker 1: nine women on this jury now? Is she taking the
Speaker 1: risk that when you tell women, presumably some mothers on
Speaker 1: this jury, that this woman had every resource... You didn't have.
Speaker 3: She's playing on that for sure.
Speaker 1: She had a nanny, great health care. Look at all
Speaker 1: these doctors. She had all this stuff you don't have.
Speaker 1: You managed your life just fine, didn't you? Is that?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: But you say that's a risk.
Speaker 3: I think it's.
Speaker 2: Risky because what the picture she is painting of Lindsay
Speaker 2: Clancy is not a is not the Lindsay Clancy I
Speaker 2: feel like was described by everyone who knows her. So
Speaker 2: it's like, was she putting on this great ruse for
Speaker 2: most of her life?
Speaker 3: For me, it was hard. I understand why she said
Speaker 3: what she said.
Speaker 2: The only thing to me that really landed that I
Speaker 2: would think would give jurors a pause, would give me pause,
Speaker 2: is the idea of just, yes, the timing and how
Speaker 2: deliberate she was, how much she planned it, how calculated
Speaker 2: that all was, the calling to CVS ahead of time
Speaker 2: to make sure it was in stock, to make sure
Speaker 2: her husband would stay there long enough. You could also
Speaker 2: just look at it as a desperate woman who.
Speaker 3: Had a plan.
Speaker 2: Now, if I'm curious, if you don't believe that she
Speaker 2: heard a voice commanding her to do it, could she
Speaker 2: still be so mentally unstable.
Speaker 3: That she still isn't criminally responsible?
Speaker 2: Like, how important is it that this voice told her
Speaker 2: to do it? That's where I'm a little bit confused
Speaker 2: and I don't know what to think about that. And
Speaker 2: then you've got the prosecution telling the jury that They
Speaker 2: don't believe this voice thing, that it was made up
Speaker 2: after the fact, that beforehand she had never heard a voice,
Speaker 2: afterwards she never heard a voice, and how.
Speaker 3: That's so unusual, and this is a convenient.
Speaker 2: After-the-murderers explanation of why she did it. Some of that
Speaker 2: could make a little sense to me, and I do
Speaker 2: question a little bit, but I... I don't know.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 1: But, babe, you just made, I would love, and where
Speaker 1: were we watching the... Well, the case out in Vegas
Speaker 1: right now with the.
Speaker 3: Tupac trial.
Speaker 1: They're allowed. That jury is allowed to ask questions. I
Speaker 1: would have loved to have been able for this jury
Speaker 1: to ask questions. Are you really telling me? Rose, remember
Speaker 1: the breakdown of if the voice was internal or external?
Speaker 1: Even that, I don't know. So you're telling me if
Speaker 1: it came from the outside, she's in psychosis. But inside,
Speaker 1: it's just her and vice versa. So, Robes, that's the thing.
Speaker 1: Maybe this jury has a better handle on it than
Speaker 1: we do, but the arguments that I'm hearing, Robes, and
Speaker 1: the ones they keep saying, it really does break down to,
Speaker 1: and maybe that's why Reddington spent so much time discrediting,
Speaker 1: even in his closing. Yeah, this guy, he's looking up
Speaker 1: at the sky. Yeah, that guy doesn't know what he's
Speaker 1: talking about. These guys are a mess. He was kind
Speaker 1: of just dismissive of them, like literally dismissed. They're not
Speaker 1: even relevant.
Speaker 2: Yes, and I do think that was incredibly effective because
Speaker 2: that is the crux of this case because just as
Speaker 2: I was asking this question about how important is this
Speaker 2: voice thing to her overall mental wellness and did she
Speaker 2: need to hear a voice for her to not be
Speaker 2: responsible criminally for the crimes? Could she just still not
Speaker 2: be responsible because she was so mentally ill? How important
Speaker 2: was this voice to the whole thing?
Speaker 3: And to hear.
Speaker 2: To hear the experts get up on the stand and
Speaker 2: all disagree with each other and say different things is
Speaker 2: super confusing.
Speaker 3: And I feel like that.
Speaker 2: Does help the defense because the point being, nobody knows.
Speaker 2: Like what psychiatrist can tell me or tell a juror
Speaker 2: what makes somebody psychotic or in a state of psychosis
Speaker 2: based on if the voice.
Speaker 3: Is from the inside or the outside, if it's often,
Speaker 3: if it's once, if it's all the time. Do they
Speaker 3: even really know? That's my question.
Speaker 1: Okay. You just hit it, baby. They just proved they
Speaker 1: don't know. So what am I supposed to do as
Speaker 1: a jury? They don't know.
Speaker 3: I believe that they don't know.
Speaker 1: So what are we supposed to do with Lindsay Clancy?
Speaker 2: I think you have to go with your gut. I
Speaker 2: think really this is an emotional trial. It's like none
Speaker 2: I've ever seen before. I guess Andrea Yates is the
Speaker 2: only other trial like this that you could point to
Speaker 2: because she's not denying that she did it.
Speaker 3: That's the problem.
Speaker 1: But that first jury put her in prison. A second
Speaker 1: jury came back and said she was not guilty by
Speaker 1: reason of insanity. I have no idea. What's about to
Speaker 1: happen in this case. But stay here, folks. We are
Speaker 1: going to share with you some quotes from the prosecutor
Speaker 1: during the closing argument and robes. We're going to start
Speaker 1: with after this break. The quote from the prosecutor that
Speaker 1: make it seems like she's watching a different case than
Speaker 1: the rest of America. We continue here on Amy and
Speaker 1: TJ as the jury continues to deliberate. We're recording this
Speaker 1: as the jury has been deliberating about an hour and
Speaker 1: a half at least. I suppose the Lindsay Clancy, I
Speaker 1: am so close to Andrea Yates, Andrea Yates every time,
Speaker 1: but you understand why.
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: Robes, so much of this has been about, every single
Speaker 1: time we've done anything having to do with Lindsay Clancy,
Speaker 1: we always say, you know what, no matter what, this
Speaker 1: has put a focus on the lack of care for
Speaker 1: women after they have babies, in particular their mental health. Robes,
Speaker 1: this case is not about our mental health system, so
Speaker 1: says the prosecutor in the closing statement. This case is
Speaker 1: not about our mental health system or how it treats women.
Speaker 1: That's a distraction to get you angry and passionate about
Speaker 1: an issue, but that's not the issue on trial here.
Speaker 1: I kind of get it, but that seemed so flippant
Speaker 1: and dismissive. We said at the beginning, Robes, when she started,
Speaker 1: all you had to say was, yeah, this has highlighted
Speaker 1: some real issues and flaws. And even we need to
Speaker 1: update some of the textbooks. But that's on the side
Speaker 1: and not what you have to decide here. Robes, she
Speaker 1: said it in such a way, it turned me off.
Speaker 2: She invalidated a lot of what many women have said
Speaker 2: they've experienced. And she could have still validated those real
Speaker 2: issues and the real lack of understanding and resources that
Speaker 2: have been given to women's mental health, especially postpartum. She
Speaker 2: could have acknowledged all of that. And if any of
Speaker 2: those women, see, they don't know. And I don't know
Speaker 2: the voir dire. I don't know the questions.
Speaker 3: They were asked. I don't know how these jurors were vetted.
Speaker 2: But the idea that nine women who are now going
Speaker 2: to make this decision among the 12th If any of
Speaker 2: them have had an experience or know or loved somebody
Speaker 2: who had an experience, she invalidated it.
Speaker 1: I mean, she can feel that. I just don't know
Speaker 1: how many... That's just... It doesn't seem like... Yes, our
Speaker 1: mental health system is on trial here. It is.
Speaker 2: And so here's the problem. Well, it might not be
Speaker 2: a problem, but here was the issue, and she tried
Speaker 2: to answer it. I'm curious about how you think she
Speaker 2: answered it. So if it wasn't the mental health industry...
Speaker 2: If it wasn't her doctors failing her, if it wasn't
Speaker 2: the system failing her, if it wasn't her family and
Speaker 2: friends failing her, then why didn't Lindsay Clancy kill her kids?
Speaker 3: So the prosecutor, Jennifer Sprague, answered it for the jury.
Speaker 3: And I don't know if it worked.
Speaker 2: She said Lindsay Clancy killed her kids because she was upset,
Speaker 2: because she was done, because she wanted to end her life.
Speaker 3: Her misery.
Speaker 2: She said the kids were keeping her from ending her misery,
Speaker 2: so she had to remove them. She said she had
Speaker 2: to remove the protective factor. I didn't really, the protective
Speaker 2: factor thing seems strange to me.
Speaker 1: She was, the only reason she was still alive is
Speaker 1: because she had to protect her kids. So if you
Speaker 1: no longer have to protect your kids.
Speaker 2: There you go.
Speaker 1: She's saying she needed permission to kill herself. And the
Speaker 1: only way she could get permission was to eliminate the
Speaker 1: only reason she was still on Earth. And that was
Speaker 1: the kids. I don't know, baby. That sounds like mental
Speaker 1: illness to me, but she's suggesting this woman who did
Speaker 1: have mental illness, that mental illness was not the cause
Speaker 1: of her doing this.
Speaker 2: She made it very clear, the prosecutor, that it was
Speaker 2: a choice and that Lindsay Clancy made a lucid, sane choice.
Speaker 2: But to your point, If you believe your only choice
Speaker 2: to ending your misery is to kill your kids, that
Speaker 2: doesn't sound like a sane person.
Speaker 1: Here you go. Defense wants you to believe. So this
Speaker 1: is I'm quoting her again. Defense wants you to believe
Speaker 1: this woman is begging for help. She was asking for help,
Speaker 1: but she wanted to get better on her own terms.
Speaker 1: It's kind of dismissive of she's put the onus completely
Speaker 1: on her. It almost sounds like, yeah, I agree she
Speaker 1: was mentally ill, but it's her fault she was.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because she refused to get better because she was
Speaker 2: a trained nurse and she knew better.
Speaker 3: I don't buy that. I don't buy that.
Speaker 2: Look, if anyone listening has been in a hospital and
Speaker 2: has been really sick, whether it was physical or mental,
Speaker 2: I have been hospitalized for almost three weeks. And I
Speaker 2: can tell you right now it's a shit show in hospitals.
Speaker 2: They're oftentimes understaffed. If you have a complicated, I had
Speaker 2: a complicated physical situation, they're throwing everything at you. They
Speaker 2: don't know what they're doing and you feel like a
Speaker 2: guinea pig and it's overwhelming and you don't even trust
Speaker 2: the care you're getting because it's so overwhelming and disjointed oftentimes,
Speaker 2: especially if they can't figure out how to fix you.
Speaker 2: So I don't believe this is a woman who wanted
Speaker 2: to do it on her terms. I think she was
Speaker 2: a woman who was left in a situation where no
Speaker 2: one knew how to help her. And she was let
Speaker 2: down by an industry that hasn't done enough research, that
Speaker 2: hasn't provided enough resources, and hasn't taken this particular issue
Speaker 2: seriously enough. And I do believe she wanted to get better,
Speaker 2: and I don't think she thought.
Speaker 3: She knew how. better than anyone else.
Speaker 2: I think she knew that when she took certain drugs,
Speaker 2: anyone who's been put on drugs, I had, I'm talking
Speaker 2: about headaches.
Speaker 3: I had lots of headaches.
Speaker 2: They start throwing beta blockers and antidepressants and antipsychotics and
Speaker 2: all this stuff at you. And then you get all
Speaker 2: these side effects and it's horrific. And you're like, I'm
Speaker 2: not taking these drugs anymore. And you just dump them.
Speaker 2: I know so many people and I've had a personal
Speaker 2: experience where you're just like, forget these drugs. They might
Speaker 2: fix one thing, but they cause 12 other problems. And
Speaker 2: so it's not worth it.
Speaker 1: Who on that jury has had that experience and can understand? Exactly.
Speaker 1: Because the last thing they heard from the prosecutor was
Speaker 1: everything you said was bullshit. Everything you just said was nope. Quote,
Speaker 1: it was a choice. She could have kept trying. She
Speaker 1: could have moved down to her mother's. She could have
Speaker 1: killed herself and left her kids alive. It's a choice.
Speaker 1: We don't want to think about a mother doing this
Speaker 1: because it doesn't make us feel safe or comfortable in
Speaker 1: this world. That's how she explained everything you just said.
Speaker 2: So my reaction to that was I felt incredible anger
Speaker 2: towards the prosecutor. I felt incredible anger towards the prosecutor
Speaker 2: in that moment. She lost me in that moment. I
Speaker 2: felt angry on behalf of Lindsay Clancy in that moment.
Speaker 2: I thought it was wildly insensitive. And my thought was,
Speaker 2: how do you.
Speaker 1: Know, lady?
Speaker 3: How do you know?
Speaker 1: I don't know, babe. I want to. That's the thing.
Speaker 1: I want to say this was all in good faith.
Speaker 1: But what has been pointed out plenty of times, Robes,
Speaker 1: is manipulation. There are times that the prosecutor, I have felt,
Speaker 1: was manipulating my emotion or manipulating facts in this case.
Speaker 1: And so credibility is an issue throughout, Robes. And so
Speaker 1: to hear this, I thought that might have been the
Speaker 1: most damning and dismissive thing. All she had to do
Speaker 1: was go to her mom's.
Speaker 2: She even got quiet when she was saying it, like
Speaker 2: sheepish a little, because I think she knew what she
Speaker 2: was saying was so awful.
Speaker 3: When she said she could have just killed herself. And look,
Speaker 3: I get that. I understand that.
Speaker 2: But sort of the jurors and just the way she
Speaker 2: said it, it was just so flippant.
Speaker 3: And it was so like, yeah, she had plenty of choices.
Speaker 1: What do you think about the quarters?
Speaker 3: Well, when she picked up.
Speaker 2: The quarters that he laid down, if I were her,
Speaker 2: I wouldn't have wanted to play into his game.
Speaker 3: That was his thing.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't have even wanted to act like, oh, challenge accepted.
Speaker 2: That made it seem more like a competition that she
Speaker 2: was going to win.
Speaker 3: And I didn't like it.
Speaker 2: I didn't.
Speaker 1: And you know what? It wasn't also authentic to her.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: It seems so staged. I don't know. She's doing the
Speaker 1: best she can. She's doing what she thinks is right,
Speaker 1: and I have to give her grace for that.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Because we don't know these women at all. Jennifer L. Sprague,
Speaker 1: I would guess. That's her last name.
Speaker 3: Attorney Sprague.
Speaker 1: Five weeks. That might be my favorite moment. But anyway,
Speaker 1: we can talk about that later, what he did. Well,
Speaker 1: that was two or three days ago. It was pretty incredible.
Speaker 1: The last thing I do want to mention, Robes, about...
Speaker 1: She still, do they think she tried to kill herself
Speaker 1: or not? This is another one, Rose, where they make
Speaker 1: this argument where we never said it wasn't a serious suicide.
Speaker 1: She says this in the beginning. Rose, she gets to
Speaker 1: the end and says she landed the wrong way. The
Speaker 1: idea of jumping out of a 12-foot window is going
Speaker 1: to kill you, but not necessarily. She was dismissive of
Speaker 1: it again. This is what I mean, babe.
Speaker 2: She couldn't even kill herself right, but she killed the
Speaker 2: kids correctly. And I think that was kind of her point,
Speaker 2: that she was able to kill these kids, and even
Speaker 2: though maybe she wanted to die, she still, like, human
Speaker 2: instinct kicked in and she couldn't quite do it right
Speaker 2: because she actually didn't really want to die. But she
Speaker 2: tried to, but not that hard. It was a little confusing.
Speaker 2: I'm not exactly sure what she was trying to get there.
Speaker 2: by saying that?
Speaker 1: Um, they have nothing else to say. It's done. There's
Speaker 1: no more testimony. There's nothing else they can say to
Speaker 1: a juror. They have said everything. They have done everything
Speaker 1: they can. You got 12 people in there, nine women
Speaker 1: and three men sitting there trying to figure out if
Speaker 1: this woman is criminally responsible for doing one of the
Speaker 1: most atrocious things. Well, we've seen women kill the kids before,
Speaker 1: drive them off into the Susan Smith kind of a thing.
Speaker 1: I think the Yates thing is the, I'm trying to,
Speaker 1: am I missing a case?
Speaker 2: Casey Anthony with her daughter, but she chloroformed her to death.
Speaker 1: Okay. Am I missing one? Robes, these are two of
Speaker 1: the most horrific crimes this country's ever seen.
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: We can talk about mass shootings and things. Robes, mother
Speaker 1: strangling kids, drowning kids methodically. This is some of the
Speaker 1: worst stuff we've ever seen. Somebody going out of a
Speaker 1: window in Las Vegas and shooting a crowd because he's disgruntled.
Speaker 1: That's different for us. We, this is atrocious, baby. We
Speaker 1: don't get this.
Speaker 3: This is against nature. This is against human nature.
Speaker 2: And that's why these few, thank God they're few, and
Speaker 2: far between.
Speaker 3: But that's.
Speaker 2: Why these cases, you know, those women's names, Andrea Yates,
Speaker 2: Susan Smith, Casey Anthony, and now Lindsay Clancy. And yes,
Speaker 2: we may be forgetting some, but those are names that
Speaker 2: if you lived through those trials and those crimes, you
Speaker 2: will never forget because it is not typical and it's
Speaker 2: really hard to understand.
Speaker 1: Jury has the case now, folks. The verdict clock, as
Speaker 1: they say, is a ticking, so we are keeping a
Speaker 1: close eye. He could come down. He's been letting them
Speaker 1: go at 4 o'clock every day, but he can have
Speaker 1: them stay longer if they want to stay. The judges
Speaker 1: usually ask. We have no idea how long this is
Speaker 1: going to go today, but tomorrow would be expected to
Speaker 1: be a full day of deliberation if we get to that.
Speaker 1: Either way, we're on it. Appreciate you, as always, for
Speaker 1: hanging with us. We will talk to you soon. I'm
Speaker 1: TJ on behalf of my dear Amy Robach.