Speaker 1: Hey, the folks, it's Thursday, August sixth, and it was
Speaker 1: a shortened but intense day in court and the Lindsay
Speaker 1: Clancy trial, and so much of the tension wasn't between
Speaker 1: attorney and witness, but attorney and attorney. And with that,
Speaker 1: welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ Rolls. We've
Speaker 1: been seeing a few signs of this bubbling up a
Speaker 1: little bit, and we see attorneys go back and forth
Speaker 1: with a little tension. Sometimes it's uncomfortable these two. Here
Speaker 1: it comes here, it comes.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And funny enough, it was during the testimony of one.
Speaker 3: Of the least interesting folks who were up on the
Speaker 3: witness stand.
Speaker 2: To that witness well, and that was part of the
Speaker 2: reason why the defense attorney was so annoyed, because yes,
Speaker 2: they've already agreed to stipulations, they've already agreed that the
Speaker 2: chain of command of evidence when it comes to DNA
Speaker 2: and blood samples. They're already saying, Yep, what you're presenting
Speaker 2: is true. Yeah, that evidence is correct. And so to
Speaker 2: get into the minutia of DNA started just irritating the
Speaker 2: heck out of Lindsay Clancy's defense attorney.
Speaker 1: And I'm not really sure, robes, what's happening? Right? They
Speaker 1: make these stipulations. They essentially just say, there's so many
Speaker 1: parts of this crime. We all agree about. She did it.
Speaker 1: She strangled them, We get it.
Speaker 2: Her DNA is on the exercise bands, her blood is
Speaker 2: all over the house.
Speaker 3: Yep, we agree.
Speaker 1: Why then are we going through the exercise of now
Speaker 1: how many people? Now you know what she asked the
Speaker 1: question yesterday, what is DNA? Oh my god, you can
Speaker 1: feel the whole courtroom gone.
Speaker 2: Oh. Yes, So this was during this is one of
Speaker 2: the towards the end. Yeah, this is the second to
Speaker 2: last witness up on the stand. She's a former state
Speaker 2: police forensic scientist. And yes, when she started to ask
Speaker 2: those questions, the prosecutor, all of us, I think listening
Speaker 2: and watching along with the defense attorney, started to get annoyed.
Speaker 2: But what happened was they started going into the minutia
Speaker 2: of DNA, explaining what a non million is, and that
Speaker 2: is when it finally that was the straw that broke
Speaker 2: the camel's back. The defense attorney just jumped up and said,
Speaker 2: this is typical DNA gobbledygook. At this point, Judge, I object, yes,
Speaker 2: and you you broke out laughing the.
Speaker 1: Big goaledy gook robes. What is the point of the
Speaker 1: stipulation if it's if we're still going through the exact
Speaker 1: same process. Anyway, this makes sense to me that we
Speaker 1: want to be focused on the thing we disagree about,
Speaker 1: whether or not she was sane, her mental state, so
Speaker 1: that should be the focus. Robes they're going through and
Speaker 1: building a case that the defense isn't arguing against. This
Speaker 1: is confusing to me.
Speaker 2: Yes, so typical DNA gobbledygook. At this point, I object
Speaker 2: What was even maybe funnier was the prosecutor's response to
Speaker 2: the defense objection, I object to his objection. Okay, She
Speaker 2: literally said, I object to his objection and then added
Speaker 2: this is ridiculous. And that's when the judge said, the
Speaker 2: two of you come up here.
Speaker 3: Sidebar.
Speaker 1: Quite a few sidebars, lots of sidebars. They get a
Speaker 1: good flow, can't get a good rhythm, can't get a
Speaker 1: lot going sometimes or open fields because they just they
Speaker 1: keep stopping, and the judge is the one not even
Speaker 1: the attorneys a lot are asking for the sidebar, which
Speaker 1: we see a lot. The judge is saying, come to
Speaker 1: the side, come come here.
Speaker 2: Y'all like he's trying to break up two kids fighting.
Speaker 2: But by the way, the judge did overrule the defense
Speaker 2: attorney and the testimony. The DNA testimony continued, but hilariously
Speaker 2: and expectedly, when the defense was offered the opportunity to
Speaker 2: cross examine the witness, he said, no questions, right, So,
Speaker 2: but let's start from the top, because we had a
Speaker 2: physician associates start the day off. His name was Eton Negri,
Speaker 2: and he again, and we've just seen they have had
Speaker 2: a lot of witnesses saying the same thing. But he
Speaker 2: testified to the fact that he said Lindsay Clancy's self
Speaker 2: inflicted cuts were superficial. He said none of them were
Speaker 2: actively bleeding. The laceration on her right wrist only required
Speaker 2: three stitches, and the one on her left only required
Speaker 2: one stitch.
Speaker 1: And they show pictures of this as well. It looks
Speaker 1: like an injury to me, but they're trying to make
Speaker 1: the point that it wasn't severe and that this was
Speaker 1: not a real suicide attempt. This was her trying to
Speaker 1: cover up them. That's the charge.
Speaker 2: R Yes, And that's pretty much what we saw from
Speaker 2: every witness. They're trying to establish or they're trying to
Speaker 2: prove that Lindsay Clancy wasn't actually trying to kill herself.
Speaker 1: Despite cutting her neck and her wrists and jumping out
Speaker 1: a second story window.
Speaker 2: Correct, the defense came back. I loved what he said
Speaker 2: to this physician's assistant. You're not suggesting that for one minute,
Speaker 2: Lindsay Clancy could have gotten up and walked out of
Speaker 2: the hospital, No, sir. And then he said he got
Speaker 2: him basically to admit that Lindsay was critically ill, needed
Speaker 2: a blood transfusion, had a major spinal injury, none of
Speaker 2: which he acknowledged when he was just focused on what
Speaker 2: he was calling superficial wounds.
Speaker 1: And again, I thought he was a good, a solid
Speaker 1: witness who was just basing it on the facts and
Speaker 1: what he knew. But he asked, excuse me. He was
Speaker 1: answering the questions from the prosecutor exactly as she asked.
Speaker 1: He would say yes and a no, and he didn't
Speaker 1: expound on anything, and so it took the defense. So
Speaker 1: I didn't find him. He answered the questions based on
Speaker 1: what he was asked. I thought he was a good witness.
Speaker 3: He didn't have an agenda.
Speaker 2: The former police crime lab tech, though Nicholas Roberts a
Speaker 2: little different story, and this again was the same old,
Speaker 2: same old. You have the prosecutors bringing up a witness
Speaker 2: who testifies that there were no illegal drugs.
Speaker 3: There was no alcohol in her blooder urine.
Speaker 2: She tested positive for venzo diazepine and some other substances.
Speaker 2: But basically the defense got him to admit that there
Speaker 2: was a large quantity of drugs and clancy system. You
Speaker 2: can go through all what was in there, but he
Speaker 2: kind of was a little testy back at him.
Speaker 3: The witness said, I've seen more.
Speaker 1: See I like this guy too. But even when he
Speaker 1: even when he gave that answer, the defense attorney followed
Speaker 1: up and he said, but yeah, that is.
Speaker 2: A lot, yeah right, right, yeah, he said, but never
Speaker 2: the defense attorney followed up, but nevertheless, that's still a
Speaker 2: large number of drugs though, right, And he responded, yeah,
Speaker 2: there's quite a few.
Speaker 3: So yes, that was it.
Speaker 2: But again the defense kind of negating anything that the
Speaker 2: prosecution was trying to put up.
Speaker 3: Then came the forensic.
Speaker 2: Toxychologist and he talked got more specific about what was
Speaker 2: in Lindsay Clancy's system, ani depressants and anti psychotics. His
Speaker 2: big point was there was only one that was slightly elevated,
Speaker 2: but it was still ten times below the level that
Speaker 2: was considered toxic. The point the prosecution was making with
Speaker 2: this witness is none of the drugs that Lindsay Clansy
Speaker 2: took were a contributing factor to a suicide attempt, or
Speaker 2: were in large enough quantities that it would have contributed
Speaker 2: to her psychosis.
Speaker 1: See there, and is that effective? Because me as a
Speaker 1: juror sitting there, So which is it? Lady? Are you
Speaker 1: saying she should have been on more or she should
Speaker 1: have been on less? Because the idea, if it's under
Speaker 1: the therapeutic amount, it means Robes, she is not medicated
Speaker 1: enough to keep the voices out of her head. Isn't
Speaker 1: that supposed to be the idea?
Speaker 3: Possibly?
Speaker 2: But then would that be her own fault because they
Speaker 2: know that there are these lawsuits where they are blaming
Speaker 2: the doctors, they're blaming the drugs that she was prescribed,
Speaker 2: that she was over medicated and that contributed to her psychosis.
Speaker 1: This ain't that case. This is criminal. We can deal
Speaker 1: with that, lady.
Speaker 2: So yes, for whatever reason they want to establish that
Speaker 2: she had a lower than anticipated level of drugs given
Speaker 2: all the prescription drugs were seen.
Speaker 1: Which tells you what as a juror, okay, prosecutor, she
Speaker 1: didn't have a lot of drugs or a high dosage
Speaker 1: in our system. They're trying to say, it fails me.
Speaker 3: What so what was what was being what?
Speaker 2: Some of the questions, it seemed as though they were
Speaker 2: trying to say, if someone were really trying to kill themselves,
Speaker 2: they could overdose on all these drugs she had, and
Speaker 2: she chose not to.
Speaker 1: So she chose to slit her wrist and jump out a.
Speaker 3: Window because she knew she could survive that.
Speaker 1: According to that, ah, there it is, gotcha. She knew
Speaker 1: just how much to cut her neck to bleed only
Speaker 1: so much, Yes, and she was careful in how she
Speaker 1: spider Man down the wall right.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, And look, the defense came back with saying, look,
Speaker 2: the level of drugs does not provide a complete picture
Speaker 2: of her health. And so he said, what you're saying
Speaker 2: is that the numbers alone do not tell the tale
Speaker 2: of what happened on a particular night.
Speaker 3: Correct.
Speaker 2: So then again, kind of everything he said kind of
Speaker 2: negated at that point.
Speaker 1: So everything you said really means nothing in the overall.
Speaker 3: Then we had the forensic scientists.
Speaker 2: That caused the big attorney disruption where everybody got all
Speaker 2: upset about the objections and all of that. But the
Speaker 2: big I think, the moment that a lot of folks
Speaker 2: were waiting for, and I would say the big headlines
Speaker 2: that came out of yesterday's testimony was from Lindsey Clancy's Nancy,
Speaker 2: Elaine Rossi. She was the star witness, I would say
Speaker 2: of the day, her nanny, Elaine Rossi and Nancy. I
Speaker 2: did that's so funny. Clancy's Nancy Clancy's nanny. Wow, Yes,
Speaker 2: it is Friday Eve, everybody. I might be in a
Speaker 2: Friday mindset already. But she testified that she never had
Speaker 2: any concerns that Lindsay Clancy would harm her children. You
Speaker 2: would think that was a good thing. But what the
Speaker 2: prosecutions trying to establish is she wasn't displaying signs of psychosis.
Speaker 2: She was not displaying signs of a troubled mom or
Speaker 2: someone who needed help. And here was another caregiver who
Speaker 2: was working alongside this woman who never once saw a
Speaker 2: mentally disturbed individual in the three months leading up to
Speaker 2: the deaths.
Speaker 1: Of her children. Uh okay, But I also heard two
Speaker 1: days of testimony from her husband who saw something else.
Speaker 1: I would it doesn't this this nanny didn't cancel all
Speaker 1: that out, but that's fine. And also this nanny's testimony
Speaker 1: isn't it also confirmed by the prosecution's own psychiatrist, who said, yes,
Speaker 1: they can present as normal as anything.
Speaker 2: Look And I would also take it a step further.
Speaker 2: I think most moms who have had nanny's or babysitters
Speaker 2: or caregivers in their life no that there.
Speaker 3: I think I had this conversation with you yesterday.
Speaker 1: First, your best.
Speaker 2: Behavior around another woman because you want to make sure
Speaker 2: you look like a good mom. We care what the babysitter,
Speaker 2: what the nanny thinks of us.
Speaker 1: That's a total woman thing, absolutely and you hit me
Speaker 1: with that. I was like, oh, never crossed my mind.
Speaker 1: So then I thought, how many women are going to
Speaker 1: ultimately be on this jury who understand that thing that
Speaker 1: a man on the jury will probably I'm not.
Speaker 2: Going to admit that I'm suffering or that I'm spiraling
Speaker 2: to another woman who's taking care of my kids because
Speaker 2: I don't want her judgment. And that is absolutely true.
Speaker 2: And I think that's something that hit me when I
Speaker 2: was listening to this. Now she acknowledged that she was
Speaker 2: aware that Lindsay Clancy was struggling with postpartum depression, but
Speaker 2: she went on to say that she didn't see any
Speaker 2: change in her demeanor. She knew that she was starting,
Speaker 2: she knew she was on some sort of medication because
Speaker 2: she had to stop breastfeeding, she had to stop nursing,
Speaker 2: So she was aware that she was and at one point,
Speaker 2: I think she couldn't drive somewhere, She couldn't drive the
Speaker 2: kids to that gymnastics place because potentially she was on
Speaker 2: medication that prohibited her from driving. So look, I think
Speaker 2: one of the big and emotional moments that caused the
Speaker 2: defense to actually raise an objection and tried to stop
Speaker 2: the prosecution during this testimony from showing a video of
Speaker 2: baby Callen drinking from a bottle. And this was a
Speaker 2: video that Rossy, the nanny, had sent to Lindsay in September.
Speaker 2: And look, they didn't want This is again the prosecution
Speaker 2: creating this sympathy, this emotional attachment to these children, seeing
Speaker 2: them vibrant and alive, and showing loving videos that a
Speaker 2: nanny has taken of this child, to then feel anger
Speaker 2: towards the mom That's what most legal analysts say, is
Speaker 2: happening here, because yeah, is there any real evidentiary reason
Speaker 2: why we need to see a video of baby Callen
Speaker 2: drinking a bottle of milk?
Speaker 3: Probably not.
Speaker 1: Again, that's I'm curious how that's going to work. Robes
Speaker 1: to try to get people in feeling sympathy and devastation
Speaker 1: for the kids, you turn that into anger against the mom.
Speaker 1: I don't know if that's working. It could potentially robes,
Speaker 1: but every time I see or I hear about the kids,
Speaker 1: it's coupled with or my mind goes to how much
Speaker 1: the mom cared for the kids. It just I don't
Speaker 1: it's hard. Maybe it works, we're not sitting in the courtroom.
Speaker 1: Maybe it feels and reads differently in there. But if
Speaker 1: you're if that's the strategy, we need you to hate
Speaker 1: this lady by loving these kids more.
Speaker 2: That is what some legal analysts say is going on.
Speaker 2: But you mentioned your mind goes straight to Lindsay Clancy
Speaker 2: when you think about the kids, Well so did juror's eyes.
Speaker 2: When we come back, we will tell you what was
Speaker 2: happening at the defense table. What was happening with Lindsay
Speaker 2: Clancy as her nanny was on the stand and how
Speaker 2: the defense handled cross examining her. Welcome back everyone to
Speaker 2: Amy and TJ. It was a short but powerful day
Speaker 2: in court on Wednesday. They're in Massachusetts, and we had
Speaker 2: Lindsey Clancy's nanny, Elaine Rossy, on the stand, and once
Speaker 2: they showed that video of baby Callen, they then the
Speaker 2: prosecution had the nanny describe and talk about these children.
Speaker 2: And she started talking about baby Callen as the happiest, sweetest,
Speaker 2: easiest baby. He was just a love, she said. Cora
Speaker 2: was very sweet, she loved her arts and crafts. She
Speaker 2: was a girly girl. She described Dawson as full of energy, rambunctious, funny, silly,
Speaker 2: just painting these adorable pictures of these children. And the
Speaker 2: camera in the courtroom panned over to Lindsay Clancy. She
Speaker 2: I have childs from head to toe, just imagining it.
Speaker 2: She was sobbing. Her body was literally physically turned as
Speaker 2: far away as it could from the nanny.
Speaker 3: She was covering her face.
Speaker 2: She didn't want to see, she didn't want to hear,
Speaker 2: she didn't want to be in that room.
Speaker 3: It actually made me like I can start crying right
Speaker 3: now imagining.
Speaker 2: What that must have been like for her, So why
Speaker 2: sympathy went to her in that moment?
Speaker 1: To Lindsay Clancy, I didn't see her face much yesterday.
Speaker 1: There were whole portions of the test in which she
Speaker 1: was angled in such a way that you couldn't make
Speaker 1: out even a piece of her face to the side
Speaker 1: and the angle we have because she was covered. Look
Speaker 1: how that works in the court room. I wonder, Robes,
Speaker 1: what's working for me, at least as far as the
Speaker 1: emotion is. I'm starting to take it out on the
Speaker 1: prosecution for not showing like there's no moment I have
Speaker 1: seen at least ropes where they seem to acknowledge that
Speaker 1: there were problems, that there were struggles, that this is
Speaker 1: awful for the home and for the family. She's making
Speaker 1: a case that it's awful for the family independent of
Speaker 1: Lindsey Clancy, and for some reason, Robes, it's starting to
Speaker 1: feel to me like I am the cold person in
Speaker 1: the room. Is the prosecutor for me right now and
Speaker 1: not the defendant, as crazy as that sounds. And this
Speaker 1: is not an indictment on the prosecutor. We don't know them,
Speaker 1: I'm saying, is just sitting in and observing and how
Speaker 1: you're reacting emotionally to things, the things that are pulling
Speaker 1: at your heartstrings and your emotion and your anger and
Speaker 1: where you're directing it. It's just I just don't very
Speaker 1: few moments where I would go. Yes, I could see
Speaker 1: where people would be angry right now at almost, said
Speaker 1: Andrea Yates at Lindsay Clancy. Yeah, I don't if the
Speaker 1: strategy works. I don't know Robes, but this right now,
Speaker 1: I can't see it working. Just as a casual observer.
Speaker 2: I agree with you completely. I felt nothing but pain
Speaker 2: for Lindsay Clancy yesterday. Pain and then to hear the
Speaker 2: nanny very much so say and confirmed that Lindsay Clancy
Speaker 2: was always concerned about her children's safety. She was concerned
Speaker 2: with Callin's eating and sleeping, and then she said she
Speaker 2: was a wonderful mother.
Speaker 3: That hit.
Speaker 2: And so the defense I thought was really effective when
Speaker 2: they went back and made sure because she described that
Speaker 2: they showed the prosecution showed the detailed lists that Lindsay
Speaker 2: Clancy would make for the nanny about how to cut
Speaker 2: up the baby's food into squares. And so he asked
Speaker 2: the nanny, did you ever feel Lindsay was being controlling?
Speaker 2: With these lists, and she said no, not at all,
Speaker 2: not even a little bit. She was just being a
Speaker 2: good mom. And he got her to admit that she
Speaker 2: was aware that Lindsay was having trouble sleeping, that she
Speaker 2: was aware that she was sleeping down in the basement
Speaker 2: to try and find some peace. And look, I think
Speaker 2: all of that was important for him to establish. And
Speaker 2: I think, look, I understand where they're trying to the
Speaker 2: prosecution is trying to say that she appeared as a
Speaker 2: good mom, that that is account against Lindsay Clancy, that
Speaker 2: she wasn't deranged, that she wasn't in a period of psychosis,
Speaker 2: that she was fully operational and effective as a mom.
Speaker 2: But I actually think that it speaks to a tremendous
Speaker 2: level of compassion for the woman I see sitting there
Speaker 2: in the courtroom listening to how beautiful and wonderful her
Speaker 2: children were.
Speaker 1: It's weird. I don't know how it's weird robes in
Speaker 1: a case to have sympathy for someone who strangled her
Speaker 1: three kids. I don't know how it's happening and what's happening,
Speaker 1: but it's a it's a monstrous crime, but it came
Speaker 1: from a woman who was clearly sick. If the law
Speaker 1: and the jury decides she's not criminally responsible or she is,
Speaker 1: I don't know. But this woman, it's just undeniable that
Speaker 1: she was sick, yeah, and had a problem. They say she's
Speaker 1: still sick, but this woman was was not well until
Speaker 1: you're the key rope still about how many women are
Speaker 1: going to be on that jury we talked about the
Speaker 1: prosecution is really trying to use against her that she
Speaker 1: was taking care of, making sure her kids had exactly
Speaker 1: what they liked, what they needed, what they wanted. I
Speaker 1: think a mother would look at that and go, yeah,
Speaker 1: I do make sure.
Speaker 3: Most moms are controlled, most moms are control freaks.
Speaker 1: But I would because I'm.
Speaker 2: Saying, even if you want to say that, it's understandable,
Speaker 2: that's what we do.
Speaker 1: When they're using it against the mom for being a
Speaker 1: good mom.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we're using it against it.
Speaker 2: It's crazy. I know, I don't understand. I wonder if
Speaker 2: the prosecutor it's two women. I wonder if they're moms.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I don't know, but I feel like
Speaker 2: something is missing. They've lost a perspective if they have
Speaker 2: one about how most women who are moms are viewing
Speaker 2: Lindsey Clancy.
Speaker 1: Maybe again, I say, well, maybe they're supposed to take
Speaker 1: that part of it, the emotion out, but they keep
Speaker 1: injecting emotion into the case anyway.
Speaker 3: So absolutely injecting it for the kids.
Speaker 1: It seems it does well. It seems bizarre that there
Speaker 1: is just no acknowledgement of pain and suffering, and maybe
Speaker 1: she was a victim of something.
Speaker 3: I hear you.
Speaker 2: So yes, we've got a full day of testimony scheduled
Speaker 2: for today on Thursday, beginning at nine am Eastern time.
Speaker 2: We don't expect there to be a shortened day. It's
Speaker 2: supposed to go for the full We have testimony, so
Speaker 2: we will be there to listen to it all and
Speaker 2: bring you the recap as soon as it's available. But
Speaker 2: we always appreciate you listening to us.
Speaker 3: Everyone. I'm Amy Roeboch alongside TJ. Holmes. We'll talk soon.