Speaker 1: Hey, that folks. It is Wednesday, August fifth, and we
Speaker 1: are upset for another day of testimony in the triple
Speaker 1: murder trial of Lindsey Clancy, the mom who did strangle
Speaker 1: her three kids. And if it's anything like the past
Speaker 1: several days, you can expect more drama and maybe even yes,
Speaker 1: more points scored for the defense. And with that, welcome
Speaker 1: to this episode of Amy and TJ Roll. Just has
Speaker 1: been day after day. We're not exactly sure what to expect,
Speaker 1: but one thing that has been consistent as of late,
Speaker 1: the defense is making some points and making some examples
Speaker 1: of some of the prosecution witnesses.
Speaker 2: That's true. I feel like each day it feels like
Speaker 2: even though the defense hasn't technically put on its case yet,
Speaker 2: it still has done a fantastic job in doing exactly
Speaker 2: what they're supposed to do for their client, which is
Speaker 2: to take some of these prosecution withhisnesses and call into
Speaker 2: question what they're saying, why they're saying it, and planting
Speaker 2: that seed of doubt that are more than a seed
Speaker 2: of doubt that Lindsay Clancy was sane when she premeditated
Speaker 2: the murders of her children because she wanted to live
Speaker 2: a child free life and faked her suicide so that
Speaker 2: she could get away with triple murder. Look, it's a
Speaker 2: high bar, it seems like emotionally to reach when you're
Speaker 2: looking at a mom who seemingly loved her kids. But
Speaker 2: the defense is doing a fantastic job at really trying
Speaker 2: to or poking holes in what the prosecution is trying
Speaker 2: to present to the jury. That this woman methodically planned
Speaker 2: out her children's murders and wanted to ride off into
Speaker 2: the sunset by herself.
Speaker 1: Now, this was a high bar emotionally speaking to understand
Speaker 1: how this woman is capable of this and she not
Speaker 1: be insane or disturbed in some way. That was a
Speaker 1: high bar. But jury, and I think all of us,
Speaker 1: we're willing to listen to the prosecution make its case.
Speaker 1: What we have been listening to so far. However, Robes
Speaker 1: is prosecution witness after prosecution witness making the defense's case.
Speaker 1: They get up there saying one thing, and then the
Speaker 1: defense gets a hold in the cross examination and they
Speaker 1: have to then admitt that the defense theory is sound.
Speaker 1: How many go, Yes, I agree, Yes, that is possible. Yes,
Speaker 1: you are right, it's Truehart. They haven't challenged the defense
Speaker 1: argument once up there on the stand. Now one of
Speaker 1: them has gone up and said, yep, I think she
Speaker 1: was perfectly sane because blank blank blank.
Speaker 2: It's so interesting because time it's true, because so often
Speaker 2: the insanity defense, I mean, we know this historically, speaking
Speaker 2: is one of the most difficult defenses to put on.
Speaker 2: It's so hard in most murder cases to prove that
Speaker 2: a defendant was insane at the time of the murder
Speaker 2: or murderers in this case, But in the trial of
Speaker 2: Lindsay Clancy, I feel like it's the opposite.
Speaker 1: Complete opposite, is exactly what we're seeing. There is a
Speaker 1: treasure trove of evidence and robes. The trail goes for
Speaker 1: months and even years as a woman had mental issues
Speaker 1: severe and all this evidence from everybody talking about how
Speaker 1: much more severe they get. Okay, So now that the
Speaker 1: prosecution is supposed to be telling us, proving to us
Speaker 1: with its experts robes that no, it wasn't the case
Speaker 1: because look, she planned it out, she was acting perfectly normal.
Speaker 1: She sounded calm. That's what they told us in opening statements.
Speaker 1: And then their expert got up there and said, yeah,
Speaker 1: when people are insightchosis, they often can appear calm, they
Speaker 1: can make plans and be perfectly normal. Huh, Robs. The
Speaker 1: prosecution case is Roves, and I have seen I know
Speaker 1: you have as well, some legal experts in the analysis
Speaker 1: saying this is not going well for the prosecution to
Speaker 1: the point of embarrassment at some points.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and look it began. Day six began yesterday with
Speaker 2: the emergency room surgeon who examined Lindsay Clancy when she
Speaker 2: was first brought in. This was the first hospital she attended,
Speaker 2: and she was combative with the defense for sure, but
Speaker 2: she testified that the wounds on Lindsay Clancy were, in fact,
Speaker 2: the ones on her neck and wrists that were self
Speaker 2: inflicted were superficial. And even when the defense pushed back
Speaker 2: and said, so you're saying they weren't deep, and she said, yep,
Speaker 2: they weren't deep, and so she was really kind of
Speaker 2: doubling down that these were not intended to actually do harm.
Speaker 2: But eventually, and pretty quickly, I guess I should say,
Speaker 2: the defense attorney was able to get her to admit that, yes,
Speaker 2: in fact, Lindsay Clancy's injuries were at a level one,
Speaker 2: which is the highest level of injuries. So much so
Speaker 2: that she had to make and was a part of
Speaker 2: the decision to move her to metavac her to another
Speaker 2: hospital where she could be better treated for her egregious wounds.
Speaker 2: And then he got her to admit that, yeah, she
Speaker 2: even died that night at that next hospital, she went
Speaker 2: into cardiac arrest, had a code blue. So for all
Speaker 2: of this talk about superficial wounds, that kind of just
Speaker 2: went away when she was forced to describe the life
Speaker 2: threatening injuries that Lindsay Clancy in fact did.
Speaker 1: Kind where are they saying all the blood came from
Speaker 1: in the bedroom before she jumped, right, They talk about
Speaker 1: blood being all over the place, And I keep hearing
Speaker 1: about these wounds and she was describing them when the
Speaker 1: cups cuts this deep and I'm like, wow, that sounds
Speaker 1: pretty deep. She's called that one the superficial one, but
Speaker 1: because it didn't go down to the muscle intendon, she
Speaker 1: didn't consider it deep. Maybe that's a medical determination. But
Speaker 1: ropes they described, They showed them pictures. There's blood all
Speaker 1: over the place, yet superficial wound. It seems difficult to
Speaker 1: create that. But yes, he's breaking this way. She wanted
Speaker 1: to admit that she was a part of something and
Speaker 1: then were you a part of the de say, well,
Speaker 1: you know, it was a group of us kind of
Speaker 1: you know, we discussed it among gufs bro She I
Speaker 1: don't know why she was so combative. Well, if anybody
Speaker 1: questions your work, I guess you would be defensive.
Speaker 2: And that is where and but what the problem is,
Speaker 2: at least for the prosecution, I should say, when you're
Speaker 2: watching your witness testify to something that you're hoping lands
Speaker 2: with a jury, that these wounds are superficial, that she
Speaker 2: didn't really try to kill herself, she didn't really want
Speaker 2: to die. Yeah, when you see that same witness when
Speaker 2: cross examines start getting super defensive, it's not good. It's
Speaker 2: not good for their credibility at all. Obviously it's a
Speaker 2: smart woman. She's a smart woman, she's an emergency room surgeon.
Speaker 2: But getting defensive, getting combative, it's not a good look.
Speaker 1: It suggests you have something to hide, It suggests you
Speaker 1: did something wrong. Right, and again, when you see these
Speaker 1: are the people we supposed to respect up there, they're
Speaker 1: not on one side or another. They just give you
Speaker 1: their facts. Yes, several of the witnesses that he is
Speaker 1: he is getting them worked out rough.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And look, we won't go in chronological order because
Speaker 2: we're talking about the blood. So I think it's good
Speaker 2: to talk about now this blood staining in those photos
Speaker 2: that we saw. Yes, the blood on the nightstand, blood
Speaker 2: on the carpet, blood in the basement. Actually, but one
Speaker 2: of the big focuses was that you had a bloodstained pattern. Analyst.
Speaker 2: This was actually the final this was the final witness
Speaker 2: of the day. But she was describing the blood staining
Speaker 2: under the bedroom window and on the shingles. And this
Speaker 2: was a big point of contention because the prosecution is
Speaker 2: trying to suggest that Lindsey Clancy didn't jump, didn't throw
Speaker 2: herself out of the window to kill herself. No, she
Speaker 2: lowered herself and tried to do as little damage as
Speaker 2: possible to make it look like she jumped. But actually
Speaker 2: she kind of just hung out the window and lowered herself.
Speaker 2: And they claimed the blood stained patterns prove that. No.
Speaker 1: I like the blood stained lady. She was nice. She
Speaker 1: was nice under and the guy was coming after. Well
Speaker 1: it wasn't coming after. But I'm just saying she she
Speaker 1: held up on new questioning, and she was the type
Speaker 1: of witness it doesn't matter who the information looked good
Speaker 1: for or bad for. She just gave it to Upstraate,
Speaker 1: So I kind of I kind of appreciated that, but
Speaker 1: I didn't think as much about the the second part
Speaker 1: of me going down the wall, which was fantastic, the
Speaker 1: court room drama, but the idea of the suggestion with
Speaker 1: the hands, it was important that, yes, that's blood, and
Speaker 1: so it appeared that somebody was trying to jump out
Speaker 1: of the window and not climb out of the wind.
Speaker 1: It was important that point he was making. And red
Speaker 1: brown stains we hear a lot, and they were suggesting
Speaker 1: the reason they call it that is because you see
Speaker 1: and you assume it's something, But that could be blood,
Speaker 1: it could be other things. And he got her to
Speaker 1: admit that, yes, even though it's a bread brown stain
Speaker 1: and technic you don't have the analysis of blood, but
Speaker 1: doesn't it make sense that it's blood all over the
Speaker 1: room and it appears there was are handprint. That was
Speaker 1: another point he got her to admit that, and he
Speaker 1: demonstrated he was kind of holding onto the table in
Speaker 1: the courtroom. Yeah, he was.
Speaker 2: He's a showman, all right. He absolutely is someone to
Speaker 2: watch and you pay attention when he talks, and he
Speaker 2: the big deal was the prosecution was trying to focus
Speaker 2: on the fact that there was a droplet on these shingles,
Speaker 2: and that would imply that she stayed in one area
Speaker 2: long enough that she was trying to lower herself and
Speaker 2: so the blood dripped versus if you jumped, it would
Speaker 2: splatter in a different way. But yes, then we had
Speaker 2: that moment where the defense attorney said, look, so if
Speaker 2: they're trying to suggest she's Spider Man down the wall
Speaker 2: of the house, wouldn't there be blood smear all the
Speaker 2: way down and the blood the blood stained pattern. Analyst
Speaker 2: had to say, yeah, we would have seen that. Did
Speaker 2: you see that? No, we did not see that. So
Speaker 2: he scored a really big point with this notion that
Speaker 2: somehow she wasn't actually trying to jump out of the window.
Speaker 1: See, this is another one robes for the prosecution. If
Speaker 1: you're making do you not know that question is going
Speaker 1: to get asked robes. That was for a I understand
Speaker 1: that no matter what level of education you have, you're
Speaker 1: sitting in that jury box. Did she Spider Man down
Speaker 1: the wall? I know exactly what that means. And the
Speaker 1: blood expert, who so far is a really nice lady
Speaker 1: that I like up on the stand just told me
Speaker 1: there is no blood from this fully bleeding lady going
Speaker 1: down the wall. It means she didn't carefully come out.
Speaker 1: It suggests again Robes that this lady tried to kill herself.
Speaker 2: And by the way, this lady is sitting there at
Speaker 2: the defense table in a wheelchair. So look, I understand
Speaker 2: they're trying to say she didn't mean to die, or
Speaker 2: she wasn't trying to die, but she paralyzed herself from
Speaker 2: the waist down. That's a fact that is seen each
Speaker 2: minute of each day those jurors are in court. They're
Speaker 2: seeing a woman who, I would think it's fairly fair
Speaker 2: to draw the conclusion tried to kill herself. No one
Speaker 2: wants to live paralyzed for the rest of their life.
Speaker 2: And if you're carefully trying to come down a second
Speaker 2: story window, she didn't do a good job of that. Then,
Speaker 2: even because she fell at least far enough to paralyze herself, they're.
Speaker 1: Telling us that a woman who slashed her own neck
Speaker 1: and her wrists and then threw herself out of a window,
Speaker 1: that was a fake attempt to cover up that she
Speaker 1: wanted to kill her three kids because she just wanted
Speaker 1: to be free. That is their narrative. That's a tough one, baby,
Speaker 1: that's really tough.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm so shocked by that the prosecution felt
Speaker 2: like they didn't already have a sympathetic character. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's understandable that obviously the children are the victims, that
Speaker 2: is where the sympathy is obviously should go towards. But
Speaker 2: still you do have a mother who appears to me
Speaker 2: very sympathetic, and to to try to explain or try
Speaker 2: to convince a jury that she's not that she's a monster,
Speaker 2: that she tried to preserve her own life while killing
Speaker 2: her children. I think it's tough when you just see
Speaker 2: her in that courtroom, how she's responding the fact that
Speaker 2: she's in a wheelchair, and combined with what the defense
Speaker 2: is doing so far, it doesn't feel like the prosecution
Speaker 2: has made much headway at all.
Speaker 1: This trial has solidified what we already suspected is that
Speaker 1: this was a sick woman and the prosecution has chosen
Speaker 1: to do this trial. And maybe this does serve a
Speaker 1: good purpose for us robes because we hear somebody kill
Speaker 1: their three kids, we want to get mad at that.
Speaker 1: Person immediately the stories that came out, and now sitting
Speaker 1: through this trial, they have really confirmed just how sick
Speaker 1: this woman was.
Speaker 2: I would try to completely agree with that. When we
Speaker 2: come back, we're going to talk about the other witnesses
Speaker 2: that took the stand, including two troopers, and why the
Speaker 2: defense got so upset when three toxicologists took the stand.
Speaker 2: It all has everything to do with the fact that
Speaker 2: Lindsay Clancy spoke at the beginning of day six and
Speaker 2: what she had to say created a lot of drama
Speaker 2: later on in the trial. Welcome back everyone to Amy
Speaker 2: and TJ. We are talking about day six of the
Speaker 2: Lindsay Clancy trial. And look, we had an episode on
Speaker 2: this yesterday because it was fairly shocking. At the beginning
Speaker 2: of the trial, day day six, we had Lindsay Clancy's
Speaker 2: stand up answer a bunch of questions by the judge
Speaker 2: because she and her attorneys agreed along with the prosecution
Speaker 2: to concede certain facts including DNA, blood evidence, chain of custody,
Speaker 2: all of those things that typically a prosecution would have
Speaker 2: to prove to try and say this person murdered these children.
Speaker 2: She's conceded that, she's admitted that, so they wanted to
Speaker 2: basically say, hey, we don't have to go through all
Speaker 2: of this testimony, dozens of witnesses to try and prove
Speaker 2: some DNA, some chain of evidence, so we can skip
Speaker 2: all that she agreed to stipulate some of these facts.
Speaker 2: We can move on, right, So then why did the
Speaker 2: prosecution end up calling three toxicologists to talk about what's
Speaker 2: in and lindsay Clancy's blood and urine, what we were
Speaker 2: in the children's urine. At a certain point, the defense
Speaker 2: questioned why we have to have so many toxicologists after
Speaker 2: they had already agreed to many of these facts, which
Speaker 2: then created a sidebar. Yes, and then the judge coming
Speaker 2: back and actually telling the jurors about this agreement about
Speaker 2: the stipulation, But it begs the question, why was the
Speaker 2: prosecution pushing it regardless of what had been agreed to earlier.
Speaker 1: They didn't give that answer an open court, right because
Speaker 1: I was curious to know, because I was I didn't
Speaker 1: get it. After the whole stipulations, things supposed to go faster,
Speaker 1: and then we were going through the same stuff that
Speaker 1: two sides. Why are we giving testimony about something that
Speaker 1: both sides completely agree to? Is the point. That makes sense.
Speaker 2: So I was listening to some legal analysis, and the
Speaker 2: best guess is that the prosecution still understands that the
Speaker 2: more they can talk about blood evidence, the more they
Speaker 2: can talk about DNA and some of the gruesomeness and
Speaker 2: the crime scene and the photos, all of that you're creating,
Speaker 2: or you're continuing to push the jury to think about
Speaker 2: those kids, to think about what happened to those kids,
Speaker 2: to think about the pain and the injury caused to
Speaker 2: those kids, and then the anger would be directed at
Speaker 2: the mom. The anger would then be directed at the
Speaker 2: defense table. So the more you can keep talking about this,
Speaker 2: the better the chance is they have of convincing a
Speaker 2: jury that she is the monster in the room. That's
Speaker 2: the best guess. But look, then, why agree to move
Speaker 2: on and move from these types of witnesses testifying to
Speaker 2: the exact evidence that they've already agreed is factual.
Speaker 1: This is an emotional miscalculation right now. I mean, yes,
Speaker 1: I'm emotional about the kids, we all are. But your
Speaker 1: next thing, Robes is too like you want to blame somebody.
Speaker 1: I start going back to doctors, to her, her husband
Speaker 1: and loved ones and what was missed and all these things,
Speaker 1: not to blame other folks, but you want to learn
Speaker 1: from it. Robes. We all do to identify this, to
Speaker 1: start talking more about women and postpartum and what that
Speaker 1: really does. Robes. This is incredibly important, but it's also
Speaker 1: important how we talk about mental illness right now and
Speaker 1: what's happening in the courtroom and how the prosecution is
Speaker 1: handling Itbes. It doesn't It doesn't make you hate this lady.
Speaker 2: No, And it doesn't feel right. It doesn't feel right
Speaker 2: coming from the prosecution. That's all I can say.
Speaker 1: Some feels wrong about the prosecution.
Speaker 2: That's what it feels like, and that's just from an
Speaker 2: outside perspective. But also they had troopers, two different police
Speaker 2: officers who were there collecting evidence at the scene also
Speaker 2: testify yesterday to and they were focusing on the number
Speaker 2: of prescription drug bottles that they recovered and they lined
Speaker 2: them all up and they showed the photos of them.
Speaker 2: And we've seen the prosecution trying to be this drum
Speaker 2: before that. Even though there were a lot of pill bottles,
Speaker 2: there were a ton of pills in each of the bottles.
Speaker 2: In one of the pills there was still a full
Speaker 2: thirty count the suggestion being that the drugs weren't to blame,
Speaker 2: the suggestion being that the doctors weren't to blame for
Speaker 2: over medicating her, That she wasn't even taking many of
Speaker 2: these medications. And they're trying to imply that even though yes,
Speaker 2: she did have some in her system, the benzo diazepines
Speaker 2: benzodiazepines were in her blood and urine that's to treat
Speaker 2: insomnia and anxiety. As some of the other drugs that
Speaker 2: the defenses pointing to that exacerbated her situation weren't in
Speaker 2: We're still in the pill bottles. So I don't know
Speaker 2: what headway they made there, just trying to say, look,
Speaker 2: she wasn't taking all of these drugs.
Speaker 1: Okay, I wouldn't some suggest that weren't they supposed to
Speaker 1: help her? Well?
Speaker 2: Yes, so yeah, and why would you need to take
Speaker 2: drugs because you're suffering from mental illness, which is the
Speaker 2: whole point the defense is trying to bring home.
Speaker 1: I just we'll see how this. I am only a
Speaker 1: half day today, right, yes.
Speaker 2: So today is going to be today's day seven of testimony.
Speaker 2: It's going to be a shorter day. The judge already
Speaker 2: announced that to jurors they will be listening to testimony
Speaker 2: from nine am until one pm, and then the judge
Speaker 2: says that he wants to work some things out with
Speaker 2: lawyers in the afternoon. We don't know what that is
Speaker 2: and will we have been able to see unless it's
Speaker 2: a sidebar. We have been able to see a lot
Speaker 2: of what goes on outside of the jury. Unclear if
Speaker 2: we'll be able to see what's happening in the afternoon session.
Speaker 1: It's going to be on the record or not be interesting.
Speaker 1: But if you always starts at nine o'clock, if you
Speaker 1: all get a chance as being live stream. But just
Speaker 1: this is something that some hellodrama, and I think it's
Speaker 1: such an important story, bros. Moving forward in how we
Speaker 1: discuss women and postpartum issues.
Speaker 2: It's huge. This is actually the national spotlight that I
Speaker 2: think is super important for this very this little understood
Speaker 2: yet very serious mental health condition that affects so many
Speaker 2: women different varying degrees obviously from postpartum depression all the
Speaker 2: way to this extreme postpartum psychosis. But it's just a
Speaker 2: shame that it took a tragedy on this level for
Speaker 2: it to reach the forefront. But we'll continue to watch
Speaker 2: all of the events inside that Massachusetts courtroom today and
Speaker 2: bring you the very latest. We always appreciate you listening
Speaker 2: to us. I'm Amy Roboch alongside TJ. Holmes. We'll talk
Speaker 2: sore