Speaker 1: Hey, the folks sit is Monday, August twenty fourth, and
Speaker 1: Week five of the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial begins today.
Speaker 1: This could be the final week of the Lindsay Clancy
Speaker 1: triple murder trial. And with that, welcome to this episode
Speaker 1: of Amy and TJ. Here we are rope. This could
Speaker 1: be wrapped up closing statements as early as tomorrow.
Speaker 2: Possibly that's possible.
Speaker 3: We know that today that we're going to have the
Speaker 3: prosecution's first rebuttal witness back on the stand. And that
Speaker 3: was certainly a contentious back and forth on Friday with
Speaker 3: doctor Avra Mack. Yes, yes, he was there on Friday
Speaker 3: after the defense rested its case and the prosecution put
Speaker 3: on its first rebuttal witness. But man, fireworks might be
Speaker 3: one way to describe the back and forth exchange between
Speaker 3: the defense and doctor Mack. And that should continue this
Speaker 3: morning and the trial resumes.
Speaker 1: All the fire seemed to be coming for one direction
Speaker 1: from Kevin Reddington, the defense attorney for Lindsay Klantzk, who
Speaker 1: has been putting on an extraordinary display and a curinary defense.
Speaker 1: But ros yes he dressed this guy down. Yeah, it
Speaker 1: was remarkable to watch it again. Do you think Avram
Speaker 1: Mack went home and watched it. Do you think he
Speaker 1: watched his testimony back.
Speaker 3: I don't know if he could relive that, and maybe
Speaker 3: he needed to to do.
Speaker 2: Better today on the stand. I'm not sure, but.
Speaker 3: Yes, the judge had to interrupt some contentious testimony.
Speaker 2: They were talking over each other.
Speaker 3: And once you have doctor Avernmack get on the stand
Speaker 3: and say point blank to the jurors that he does
Speaker 3: not believe Lindsay Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis. He
Speaker 3: said he does not believe Lindsey Clancy had bipolar disorder.
Speaker 3: So yeah, the defense needed to do what it did
Speaker 3: to try and.
Speaker 2: Discredit him and.
Speaker 3: Have the jury not believe what he had just testified
Speaker 3: to because it's the cruxt of their case.
Speaker 1: But they also made you not like him at certain parts.
Speaker 1: Kevin Reddington went out this guy and I thought he
Speaker 1: was going to be solid, rob I thought he was steady,
Speaker 1: and I thought he was going to make but slowly
Speaker 1: but surely, Kevin Reddington kept chipping away at this guy too.
Speaker 1: He finally got annoyed. He became a little bit of
Speaker 1: a jerk up there and rolling his eyes and how
Speaker 1: he was dealing with it, and it made him feel
Speaker 1: robes one sided. It made it feel like he wasn't
Speaker 1: there for his expertise or the science of it all.
Speaker 1: He was there to help the prosecution make their case.
Speaker 1: And when you have doctrine front your name to come
Speaker 1: off as being on one side even though you're there
Speaker 1: for the prosecution, we get it. But he came off
Speaker 1: like he was trying to score some points for the prosecution.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, And at the beginning, Kevin Reddington had him admit
Speaker 3: that he is paid for his expert witness testimony by
Speaker 3: the prosecution, and look, I think a lot of people
Speaker 3: understand that's how it works.
Speaker 2: Just to have to have him admit that obviously.
Speaker 3: Creates a certain lens through which the jury was going
Speaker 3: to view his testimony. But I thought that was a
Speaker 3: fair point. And look, he said the only thing he
Speaker 3: would give in terms of what Lindsay Clancy's mental state was.
Speaker 3: He said she had a major depressive episode as part
Speaker 3: of a major depressive disorder.
Speaker 2: But notably, he.
Speaker 3: Claimed, and he maintained the entire time, that she had
Speaker 3: the capacity to understand what was right and what was wrong,
Speaker 3: and a lot of it was He mentioned that She
Speaker 3: told him that she heard this male voice that said
Speaker 3: go to God, and in his opinion, that meant she
Speaker 3: knew exactly what she was doing, she knew it was wrong.
Speaker 3: She waited until her husband was gone because she knew
Speaker 3: he would intervene. These are all signs that someone knew
Speaker 3: exactly what they were doing was wrong.
Speaker 1: I didn't. I don't know how much. I don't know
Speaker 1: what do you think how much emphasis was put on
Speaker 1: that go to God sentence? I thought it was totally
Speaker 1: interesting and I was curious, but his interpretation of it
Speaker 1: was difficult for me to really grasp to. How do
Speaker 1: you make the jump from she said that phrase. Therefore,
Speaker 1: she was saying.
Speaker 3: Just because she knew she was killing them didn't mean
Speaker 3: she knew it was wrong to do it. Because the
Speaker 3: argument has been made by several defense witnesses that and
Speaker 3: the one actually right before. And I thought, this is
Speaker 3: really interesting. We haven't gone over this, he talked about
Speaker 3: on the day of the murders. He believes that miss
Speaker 3: Clancy was psychotic, and this was the defense's final witness,
Speaker 3: doctor Philip Resnick, who's also a forensic psychiatrist, But he
Speaker 3: claimed that there were two things Miss Lindsay Clancy was
Speaker 3: dealing with altruistic philicide and acutely psychotic philicide. The altruistic
Speaker 3: philicide is that she was killing her children out of love.
Speaker 3: She had a distorted, delusional belief that her children would
Speaker 3: be worse off if they were left alive. And you
Speaker 3: couple that with the time that with his but opinion
Speaker 3: that she was psychotic, that all shows she did not know.
Speaker 3: She is not responsible for the criminality of killing her
Speaker 3: children because she believed she was doing something good for them.
Speaker 2: So go to God.
Speaker 3: So to me, I don't know that this rebuttal witness
Speaker 3: did it for me with his go to God explanation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I didn't make it. It was a leap. It
Speaker 1: didn't necessarily I heard him out. I just it didn't.
Speaker 1: It didn't read for me, and the I couldn't tell.
Speaker 1: The other forensic psychiatrist was saying the two philicides, the
Speaker 1: altruistic and was the other one acutely psychotic acutely psychotic?
Speaker 1: If she was he saying she had both of them,
Speaker 1: or as one of the others.
Speaker 3: He was saying she had both and so and that
Speaker 3: so she had this idea and this is part of
Speaker 3: her psychosis. That she was doing something good for her kids,
Speaker 3: So saying go to God was actually her saying, I'm
Speaker 3: doing something good for you. I'm sending you to a
Speaker 3: better place, because you'll be worse off I go to
Speaker 3: I'm going to be dead because she had her intention
Speaker 3: to die by suicide, to jump throw herself out of
Speaker 3: that window, so she felt like her children would be
Speaker 3: better off with her with God than alive.
Speaker 1: We've heard that before in other cases of people, So
Speaker 1: I that was the first time I'm hearing an explanation
Speaker 1: that goes in the face of what I thought was
Speaker 1: the case. Was just that they're killing their kids because
Speaker 1: they want them to be better off, because they won't
Speaker 1: be doing well if I'm gone. I bro So the
Speaker 1: go to God didn't work. Again. He seems to be
Speaker 1: a credible enough guy, but Reddington has a way of
Speaker 1: making everybody not look readibal.
Speaker 3: He started off by just questioning doctor Max's actual knowledge
Speaker 3: of Lindsay, her case, her background, and then went into
Speaker 3: his credentials.
Speaker 1: It was effective on the back just asking her simple stuff,
Speaker 1: asking simple stuff that you think she would know, like
Speaker 1: what was she taking, what did she watch? What was
Speaker 1: she eat? Like just bait.
Speaker 3: How much did she work out, When did she get married,
Speaker 3: how long has she been married?
Speaker 2: What are her coworkers think of her?
Speaker 3: How would you He basically exposed the fact that doctor
Speaker 3: Mack didn't do any sort of interview or research on
Speaker 3: Lindsey by talking to co workers, friend's family.
Speaker 2: And look, I'm not saying that he's.
Speaker 3: Supposed to or should have, but Reddington made it appear
Speaker 3: like he should have.
Speaker 1: But that's the thing. I don't know if he needs
Speaker 1: to know that stuff or not, but as I sit here, Wow,
Speaker 1: he doesn't know that stuff. It was so it was
Speaker 1: just effective and he was he's an investigative. He said,
Speaker 1: you didn't do any investigation into her background. You're just
Speaker 1: depending on what she tells you. That sounds to me ridiculous,
Speaker 1: but also at the same time, it's true in this
Speaker 1: industry that we've learned, right psychiatrists, they depend on what
Speaker 1: that person is reporting. Okay, I don't think that's the
Speaker 1: great way to go about it. But the point that's
Speaker 1: coming across robes is not the point that the psychiatrists
Speaker 1: did what they were supposed to do. I think Reddington's
Speaker 1: actually pointing out flaws not just in these psychiatrists, but
Speaker 1: in the industry in how we treat mental illness a
Speaker 1: lot of ways, and that's working.
Speaker 3: It absolutely is, and I believe that is where they
Speaker 3: are going to start today because if you recall, the
Speaker 3: judge basically interrupted this contentious back and forth during this
Speaker 3: cross examination just as they were talking about the DSM
Speaker 3: to what you're pointing about, that is the Diagnostic and
Speaker 3: Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. What Reddington Clancy's defense attorney
Speaker 3: was pointing out with doctor Mack is that postpartum psychosis
Speaker 3: isn't even listed as its own distinct diagnosis. It's like
Speaker 3: a subcategory, barely mentioned. You've got thousands of pages. This
Speaker 3: is the bible for psychiatrists, for forensic psychiatry, and they
Speaker 3: don't even talk about in any length whatsoever postpartum psychosis.
Speaker 3: So if it's not being taught, if it's not being studied,
Speaker 3: if information on this rare disorder isn't readily known, how
Speaker 3: could doctor Mack or frankly, any psychiatrist really be able
Speaker 3: to treat, help and maybe even diagnose somebody with this
Speaker 3: There isn't language on it.
Speaker 1: That was pretty damning because that was a huge book.
Speaker 1: I mean, he had the book in front of him
Speaker 1: and was tossing around at times as he was looking
Speaker 1: through it, pointing at it and patent and hitting it
Speaker 1: and everything. But he ended up laying that thing robes
Speaker 1: on the witness stand standing right there next to him. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: show me in here where it says d da da da.
Speaker 1: And it was awkward because the guy said, well, and
Speaker 1: he's flipping through pages trying to find stuff, and oh,
Speaker 1: here it is right here where he says dada da
Speaker 1: and reading Hill Readington cuts him down. You're talking about
Speaker 1: that paragraph. That's all. This little section in a thousand
Speaker 1: page book is like six pair He the physical it
Speaker 1: added to the tension, and the judge it seems like,
Speaker 1: is giving Reddington a lot of rope, a.
Speaker 2: Long leash to do whatever he wants.
Speaker 3: And look, that was incredibly effective to recognize that this
Speaker 3: is the entire psychiatric industry just doesn't give weight to
Speaker 3: this disorder. And I think that was incredibly effective that
Speaker 3: we that she not only didn't get the help she needed,
Speaker 3: but is there even help out there for a woman
Speaker 3: like her or other women like her out there? It
Speaker 3: seems like it's massively inadequate, and just the studies have
Speaker 3: not been done. So he's going to be back on
Speaker 3: the stand, and I don't know if they're going to
Speaker 3: continue to talk about the DSM, but I have a
Speaker 3: feeling Reddington has a lot more to say to doctor Mac.
Speaker 3: I wonder if Reddington goes back and watches his performance
Speaker 3: and watches his cross examination, if he takes notes, and.
Speaker 1: Then you don't have to preparing.
Speaker 3: But once we have doctor Mac finishing up on the stand,
Speaker 3: there is expected to be several more that was how
Speaker 3: it was described, several more rebuttal witnesses. And look, this
Speaker 3: is the moment where Clancy's defense attorneys are Defense attorney
Speaker 3: Kevin readyten. He is the one and only singular defense attorney.
Speaker 3: No one else has been questioning or cross examining anyone.
Speaker 3: It's been all him, which has been remarkable. Watch.
Speaker 1: We haven't even seen him consult with anybody in the courtroom.
Speaker 1: He has been a one man show. Nobody has been
Speaker 1: at that table. He's got no help, well at least
Speaker 1: in the courtroom.
Speaker 2: No, not at all.
Speaker 3: And so yes, you would think this is going to
Speaker 3: be very important for him to make sure he properly
Speaker 3: cross examines anyone else. They bring up who again, this
Speaker 3: is really a battle of the experts. Was Lindsey Clancy
Speaker 3: in a state of psychosis or was she not? That
Speaker 3: is literally going to determine the outcome of this trial,
Speaker 3: and so exam questioning and then cross examining these expert
Speaker 3: witnesses is going to mean everything when it comes to
Speaker 3: verdict time and the jury.
Speaker 2: I don't know, it's going to come down to who
Speaker 2: they believe.
Speaker 1: I thought the they cid the the expert that the
Speaker 1: defense had up that was the last witness. When he flattered,
Speaker 1: he just plainly said it. She was not criminally responsible.
Speaker 1: You remember, they had so many zoom problems.
Speaker 2: They did. They did, and he.
Speaker 1: Was kind of a soft spoken, kind of a quieter guy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And I don't know if it should or if it would,
Speaker 1: but his the impact of his testimony wasn't there because
Speaker 1: he couldn't deliver his lines in a strong and a
Speaker 1: loud voice. There was a delay and everything. So he
Speaker 1: was saying and the information got out there, but it
Speaker 1: wasn't an opportunity for them to see and face a
Speaker 1: guy who was saying the most important thing for the defense.
Speaker 3: I wonder if that's going to hurt them their final witness,
Speaker 3: as you pointed out was a zoom witness with technical difficulties.
Speaker 3: But what he said packed U punch and they'll get
Speaker 3: a transcript. I believe they usually let the jurors go
Speaker 3: back with a transcript. But some of the stuff he
Speaker 3: said did stand out. He said that he said Lindsay
Speaker 3: was crying daily about the loss of her three children.
Speaker 3: That certainly flies in the face from what we've heard
Speaker 3: from some of the prosecution witnesses who say she was
Speaker 3: playing dominoes and watching TV and not.
Speaker 2: Seeming upset at all.
Speaker 3: But he did give his final diagnosis of her bipolar
Speaker 3: two with severe depression, and he flat out set on
Speaker 3: the day of the murders, she was psychotic and she
Speaker 3: had postpartum psychosis.
Speaker 2: He made it very very clear.
Speaker 3: But when you have one doctor telling you one thing
Speaker 3: and another doctor telling you the exact opposite thing, what
Speaker 3: is the jury supposed to think about all of it
Speaker 3: or any of it? That's confusing as hell. And speaking
Speaker 3: to that confusion when we come back, this case is
Speaker 3: literally dividing the country. There are the group who say
Speaker 3: Lindsay Clancy was let down by the medical profession, she
Speaker 3: needed help, and then there's the other side. Saying, okay, whatever,
Speaker 3: her child deserve.
Speaker 2: Justice and.
Speaker 3: Welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ. As we continue
Speaker 3: to watch what we believe will be the final week
Speaker 3: in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial, it has reached
Speaker 3: a fever pitch in terms of attention from the American public.
Speaker 2: People are invested.
Speaker 3: We're seeing this story now at the top of almost
Speaker 3: every single major news network, and people are weighing in,
Speaker 3: articles are being written, and really and truly, there are
Speaker 3: just two sides that there's not a lot of middle
Speaker 3: ground here. Either people think that Lindsay Clancy should be
Speaker 3: shown empathy, should be given treatment, should spark more conversations
Speaker 3: about women and mental health. And then there's the other
Speaker 3: side that says, are you kidding me? If a man
Speaker 3: did this, even if he had a mental disorder, he
Speaker 3: would have zero support that this is sexism.
Speaker 2: On the other side, oh, I haven't heard the sexte.
Speaker 3: Oh absolutely, people are claiming that this is sexist because
Speaker 3: if a man had a mental disorder and it was
Speaker 3: claiming he was insane when he killed his kids, how
Speaker 3: many people would be rallying to his defense and talking
Speaker 3: about the need for more mental health studies For men.
Speaker 1: Who's screaming sexism? Like, what group of people are upset
Speaker 1: by that part of this?
Speaker 2: Do you know what's interesting?
Speaker 3: A lot of this division is along political lines, conservatives
Speaker 3: versus liberals.
Speaker 2: It's really really interesting.
Speaker 3: And a lot of conservative women I've seen are writing
Speaker 3: op eds in major news outlets saying that, yes, we
Speaker 3: understand that she might have been suffering a bit, but
Speaker 3: that does not erase or make it okay that they're
Speaker 3: upset that more people are concerned for Lindsay Clancy than
Speaker 3: outraged about her killing her children, and they're confused by that.
Speaker 3: People are saying, I'm a mom of four, I had
Speaker 3: certain issues, but I didn't kill my kids.
Speaker 2: Let's call this for what it is. So it is.
Speaker 3: Really it's getting ugly out there, it's getting nasty out there,
Speaker 3: and they're perplexed by why Lindsay Clancy has so much support.
Speaker 3: And some of the folks who are supporting her are
Speaker 3: saying that could have been me telling their stories about
Speaker 3: how dangerously close they came to harming their children or themselves,
Speaker 3: and they want more mental health support for moms. But
Speaker 3: it's so sad that even something like this, you got
Speaker 3: moms fighting each other now about whether or not we
Speaker 3: should have sympathy or empathy for Lindsey Clancy and why
Speaker 3: we aren't more upset or outraged about the deaths of
Speaker 3: these three kids.
Speaker 1: We are. We're saddened, exactly. We are saddened, and there
Speaker 1: is some outrage, But what percentage of it needs to
Speaker 1: go directly to the woman in the wheelchair? And that's
Speaker 1: okay to talk about that. I don't think it's okay
Speaker 1: to just see video of women in pink outside the
Speaker 1: courtroom supporting her and immediately respond when you haven't watched
Speaker 1: a single damn day of testify such a good point.
Speaker 1: You haven't read up on the case beyond a couple
Speaker 1: of headlines or a couple of other people who are
Speaker 1: posting on TikTok. That's all, Robes. We are just not
Speaker 1: in a society anymore that stops and looks for any context,
Speaker 1: any meaning, or any explanation. We just react. We just react,
Speaker 1: and that's I get it. My reaction to three babies
Speaker 1: being strangled is sadness and outrage. Where do I direct it?
Speaker 1: I'll ask what you always say, Robes, before you react
Speaker 1: to something emotionally, get curious first. Is my outrage? And anger.
Speaker 1: Is it all in the right place if I directed
Speaker 1: at her and from everything Robes I have seen and heard, No,
Speaker 1: there's more to this story.
Speaker 3: I agree, And we have watched the trial, I would
Speaker 3: argue more than pretty much everyone who's commenting. Some people
Speaker 3: might be riveted and watching every moment, but because this is.
Speaker 2: Our job, we actually get to do it can do it.
Speaker 3: And I doubt most people have enough hours in the
Speaker 3: day to watch what we've seen. And I just think
Speaker 3: that there needs to be a pause in pointing the
Speaker 3: finger until you actually have watched the whole process take place.
Speaker 3: And it'll be interesting to see what the jurors say.
Speaker 3: And I don't know, like we get it wrong all
Speaker 3: the time. If I'm a juror, I'm imagining what that
Speaker 3: would be like, and sometimes they come to different conclusions.
Speaker 1: We've never gotten it right. Sorry, every time we do
Speaker 1: that we know exactly what the jury's going to do.
Speaker 1: We eat our jaws on the floor.
Speaker 3: I mean, even the attorneys themselves have no idea what
Speaker 3: a jury is going to do. And that's actually fair. Now,
Speaker 3: NPR put out this was interesting. Postpartum depression affects ten
Speaker 3: percent of mothers postpartum psychosis. They say estimates estimated effects
Speaker 3: one to two out of every one thousand berths. But
Speaker 3: the big thing about this, and this is what part
Speaker 3: of what this trial is pointing out. We don't train
Speaker 3: our doctors. Clearly, we just saw this play out on Friday.
Speaker 2: It's massively missed.
Speaker 3: A mount sign I psychiatrist said numbers ten percent of
Speaker 3: moms with postpartum depression, one to two out of every
Speaker 3: thousand berths with postpartum psychosis. They said, we don't know,
Speaker 3: we have no idea how many women have actually suffered
Speaker 3: from either of these disorders because it's missed because we
Speaker 3: don't have training on it. And this is a psychiatrist
Speaker 3: who says, it's just describing how little, almost no training
Speaker 3: goes into this and these disorders.
Speaker 1: I was surprised. I was going to follow up and
Speaker 1: you've answered it there, But ten percent sounded loaded me.
Speaker 3: And that's exactly that's the only official number we have,
Speaker 3: and it's just not correct. But that's the only one
Speaker 3: to even point to because it's the only one that's
Speaker 3: ever been made. And I think, look, and some of
Speaker 3: these articles I was listening, I'm curious what you think.
Speaker 3: They're upset that the conversation has turned to this idea
Speaker 3: of not that anyone's happy that three children died, but
Speaker 3: that we're focused more on trying to point out the
Speaker 3: ineptness or the inadequacies in our healthcare system for women,
Speaker 3: rather than pushing for justice for these kids that we
Speaker 3: have our focus is in the wrong place. That we
Speaker 3: should be focused on justice and not focused on looking
Speaker 3: at an entire industry, And I just disagree. I think
Speaker 3: both can can happen and occur in the same place,
Speaker 3: and there it's important for both of them to be
Speaker 3: considered and talked about. It's so interesting have people get
Speaker 3: so upset, but.
Speaker 1: We ever consider for a second that justice for these
Speaker 1: kids is revamping the industry. Justice for these kids is
Speaker 1: actually examining why they're dead. They're dead at the hands
Speaker 1: of their mother. There's still another why what was the result?
Speaker 1: Something got her to this place? An I from everything
Speaker 1: I've seen, Robes am not just. I have seen no
Speaker 1: evidence that this woman was so overwhelmed by motherhood that
Speaker 1: she put a plan into place to get rid of
Speaker 1: the kids. I just I haven't seen that. I know
Speaker 1: they're trying to make it, but babe, that's it's just
Speaker 1: not there, So yes, justice for these kids roes wet
Speaker 1: ten percent. How many mothers out there have scared the
Speaker 1: but Jesus out of themselves by having some crazy, psychotical
Speaker 1: whatever thought and scared to share it with somebody because
Speaker 1: of what you're going to think about her as a mother, Babe.
Speaker 3: I think almost every mother, if she's honest with herself,
Speaker 3: in some of those weeks and months after giving birth,
Speaker 3: your kid won't stop screaming, your kid won't won't breastfeed,
Speaker 3: or won't take the bottle.
Speaker 2: There are dark thoughts that enter your mind. Period.
Speaker 3: I just think that no one wants to admit that.
Speaker 3: No one, no one wants to say that they too
Speaker 3: have felt that. It doesn't mean they were ever going
Speaker 3: to do it. It doesn't mean they were ever going
Speaker 3: to follow through with it. But by just pretending that
Speaker 3: this isn't an issue and acting as if we're getting
Speaker 3: distracted by this issue and not focused on justice, I
Speaker 3: love you just said, because justice for these kids would
Speaker 3: actually also be knowing more about this disorder in order
Speaker 3: to prevent it from happening again, period, point blank.
Speaker 1: And look I get it. I just sweek we want
Speaker 1: to direct it. We want to be simple right things
Speaker 1: we did this country, black and white, this or that.
Speaker 1: You're either on this side or that side. Okay, but
Speaker 1: this is but yeah, I would be your guest this morning.
Speaker 1: They're going to start on time.
Speaker 3: They never have. They're supposed to start at nine am
Speaker 3: every morning. Usually we don't even start to hear testimony
Speaker 3: until abound nine forty five.
Speaker 2: There's always a sidebar.
Speaker 3: There's going to be always something that has to be
Speaker 3: done or talked about ahead of time, and then plenty
Speaker 3: of sidebars in the middle of it. So look, we
Speaker 3: say we hope to get to closing arguments by as
Speaker 3: soon as tomorrow, but who We don't know how many
Speaker 3: more rebuttal witnesses are going to be put up by
Speaker 3: the prosecution, and certainly we know that Kevin Reddington is
Speaker 3: almost certainly ready for cross examination on all of them.
Speaker 3: So it should be a very eventful day once again
Speaker 3: in court today. As testimony continues, we will be following
Speaker 3: it for you.
Speaker 2: We always appreciate you listening to us. I may need
Speaker 2: Roebuck alongside TJ.
Speaker 3: Holmes.
Speaker 2: We'll talk soon.