Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Wednesday, August 26th, and this
Speaker 1: is expected to be the final day of testimony in
Speaker 1: the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. And then, yes, a
Speaker 1: jury is going to decide if she was criminally responsible
Speaker 1: for killing her three young children. With that, welcome to
Speaker 1: this episode of Amy and TJ Can't Believe We're Here.
Speaker 1: Five weeks of this. Seemed like the end kind of
Speaker 1: snuck up on us to a certain degree, but, Ro,
Speaker 1: this is it. The jury's going to get... We could
Speaker 1: have potentially a verdict by the end of this week.
Speaker 2: That seems hard to imagine, but you're right.
Speaker 1: It is possible.
Speaker 2: The judge did predict that closing arguments will take place tomorrow,
Speaker 2: which is Thursday. And we believe that today will start
Speaker 2: off with the last prosecution rebuttal witness. Obviously, they could
Speaker 2: always call someone else, but we believe this is the
Speaker 2: final witness, and the prosecution is still in the middle
Speaker 2: of questioning that witness. And then we have what's been
Speaker 2: extremely entertaining and contentious, the cross-examination.
Speaker 1: And impressive.
Speaker 2: Yes, and impressive. That's a good way to put it because, look,
Speaker 2: this is what the defense needs to do. This has been,
Speaker 2: as we've talked about, a battle of the experts. And
Speaker 2: so with these rebuttal witnesses... who are one by one
Speaker 2: saying that Lindsay Clancy did not or was not suffering
Speaker 2: from postpartum psychosis. Yes, this is when the defense has
Speaker 2: to discredit these witnesses, has to question these witnesses, and
Speaker 2: at least leave an impression among jurors that they're wrong
Speaker 2: or they're confused or they don't have the expertise to
Speaker 2: actually be able to weigh in on whether or not
Speaker 2: Lindsay Clancy had postpartum psychosis. Uh.
Speaker 1: I have reasonable doubt about all of their credentials and
Speaker 1: all of their ability to accurately diagnose because of his cross-examination.
Speaker 1: He had some of these folks fumbling over what they're saying. And, Robes,
Speaker 1: what I've gotten out of this, really, and I wonder
Speaker 1: what's going to happen with the jury, it's hard to
Speaker 1: just blame these experts I've seen on the stand. Robes,
Speaker 1: it sounds like the entire field of study in this needs...
Speaker 1: To get up to speed.
Speaker 2: Is limited at best. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And so how is a juror going to take it?
Speaker 1: Is it, okay, this psychosis thing is some crazy mumbo
Speaker 1: jumbo that they don't even have a lot of study on.
Speaker 1: Am I supposed to believe that? Or do I go
Speaker 1: with what is already in that Bible of options for
Speaker 1: what was bothering her? Rose, which way? Maybe they're hearing
Speaker 1: this stuff differently than we are.
Speaker 2: It could work in either direction because to your point, yes,
Speaker 2: if it's so... little studied and unknown if it's so
Speaker 2: exceptional and rare that there is no real research or
Speaker 2: literature on it to the point where the experts are saying, yeah,
Speaker 2: we just don't see it. And when we do, it
Speaker 2: doesn't present like this. That could be effective for the prosecution.
Speaker 2: That could be landing with jurors.
Speaker 1: What did you say? What did you just say there
Speaker 1: at the end? Say it again.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't know if I can repeat what I
Speaker 2: just said.
Speaker 1: But the... You put me in the place, well, this
Speaker 1: is a field of study that what I'm saying is,
Speaker 1: does it discredit possibly the experts? Because it seems like
Speaker 1: the entire industry doesn't know what to do. I can't
Speaker 1: trust you on psychosis. None of y'all know what to
Speaker 1: do with psychosis.
Speaker 2: Could it also make it seem like the defense is
Speaker 2: making this up, so to speak, that this isn't really
Speaker 2: something that they've ever seen before. And now they're just
Speaker 2: trying to say it's something that actually isn't even really
Speaker 2: well documented.
Speaker 1: See, and there's where I go to the next part.
Speaker 1: It's not well documented, sure. So that means you don't
Speaker 1: have a lot of experts in it. This guy's seen
Speaker 1: five people over a 40-year career who've had psychosis. So
Speaker 1: he's the expert. That's the best we got.
Speaker 2: It could work in either direction.
Speaker 1: I wonder how it's reading for that jury.
Speaker 2: So, yeah, we began Tuesday with Dr. Kirk Heilbrunn, who
Speaker 2: is a forensic psychologist. This is the one who almost
Speaker 2: caused the mistrial the day before by bringing in mortal
Speaker 2: sin and Catholicism. But the prosecution had him back up
Speaker 2: on the stand under redirect. And I thought this was interesting.
Speaker 2: He gave a new term that I hadn't heard before,
Speaker 2: that none of us had heard before. that he believes
Speaker 2: Lindsay Clancy was not suffering from psychosis. Instead, he said
Speaker 2: she had a paratraumatic disassociation. So now we're getting all
Speaker 2: of these scientific words that are confusing, and I don't
Speaker 2: really understand at what point is this something that you
Speaker 2: suffer from that would allow you to no longer be
Speaker 2: criminally responsible. That is where the confusion is. But I
Speaker 2: did think it was effective when Dr. Heilbrunn said... that
Speaker 2: there were just so many decisions that Lindsay Clancy had
Speaker 2: to make to accomplish killing three kids and then trying
Speaker 2: to kill herself within just 18 minutes. He said she
Speaker 2: had to decide who goes first, how to do it,
Speaker 2: why take them down to the basement. His quote was,
Speaker 2: she demonstrated such self-control throughout the day on January 24th.
Speaker 2: She retained control as to whether, when, and how she
Speaker 2: carried it out and including her children. I thought that
Speaker 2: was effective.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but then Reddington gets up and he completely shoots
Speaker 1: all that stuff down. Robes, we keep hearing about one
Speaker 1: expert saying if she was in psychosis, she would be
Speaker 1: able to do this or wouldn't be able to do that.
Speaker 1: And then you hear another expert come up and say, well,
Speaker 1: she can still do both. Robes, I really do not know.
Speaker 1: Who are you supposed to believe? Who do you find
Speaker 1: most credible? And I don't find... Robes, I'll be honest.
Speaker 1: I'm getting to the point I don't find anybody credible.
Speaker 1: This is a very confusing line of... of study in
Speaker 1: the medical field that is just not, we don't know
Speaker 1: what's wrong with this lady. Robes, that's my conclusion, because
Speaker 1: none of them seem to have given her great quality
Speaker 1: of care. Nobody seemed to have, to be able to
Speaker 1: sit up there definitively and say, like passionately, she was hurting,
Speaker 1: she was this, she was that. All these prosecution witnesses, Robes,
Speaker 1: you know what turned me off about Halliburton? He's looking
Speaker 1: up for the answers. He sits there oftentimes, Robes, his
Speaker 1: eyes are going up towards the ceiling. He's finding an answer.
Speaker 1: If you're sitting in there with your cancer doctor and
Speaker 1: oncologist asking about what you should do next and how
Speaker 1: do I look, how are things, and they start looking
Speaker 1: up at the ceiling going, well, you know, Robes, well,
Speaker 1: they probably wouldn't call you Robes, but you get my point.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And you know what? It's interesting you say that
Speaker 2: because I have seen that with a friend who has
Speaker 2: stage four where they're trying to figure out how to
Speaker 2: battle something they don't know how to fix. And that
Speaker 2: does seem like what has been going on or what
Speaker 2: was going on with Lindsay Clancy. I think the one
Speaker 2: thing you can say, and the defense has been trying
Speaker 2: to hammer this home, is that every single person who
Speaker 2: has testified about Lindsay Clancy has testified to her being
Speaker 2: a great mother. So then what happened? And I thought
Speaker 2: this was effective when Kevin Reddington got back up and
Speaker 2: went after Heilbrunn. I want to know what you think,
Speaker 2: if this was deliberate or if this was an honest
Speaker 2: thing that he figured out. So he gets up initially
Speaker 2: to cross-examine, and he had Heilbrunn confirm that he hasn't
Speaker 2: written anything on postpartum psychosis other than something he wrote
Speaker 2: with his father five decades ago. So he sets this up.
Speaker 2: Hours go by. He keeps... cross-examining him. They take a break.
Speaker 2: He comes back and says, I need to make a correction.
Speaker 2: I went back and I looked at that paper you
Speaker 2: wrote with your father 49 years ago, and actually, it
Speaker 2: wasn't about postpartum psychosis. It was about schizophrenia. Mm-hmm. Did
Speaker 2: he know that all along or did he discover that
Speaker 2: because he wanted to point out? And it was very effective.
Speaker 1: Wow.
Speaker 2: You actually haven't written anything about postpartum psychosis.
Speaker 1: I lean to it seemed in the moment because we
Speaker 1: watch Reddington a lot. It seemed like he wanted to
Speaker 1: come back and make the point. It seemed like he did.
Speaker 1: He missed it in the moment and he doesn't miss much.
Speaker 1: And here it is. He didn't miss it because he
Speaker 1: missed the first time. Make sure he came back and
Speaker 1: got it the second time. But Robes, he had spent
Speaker 1: so much time going over this guy's resume.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Showing.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 1: You wrote this. You wrote this paper. You've been to
Speaker 1: this many trials. You've studied this much. You've taught this
Speaker 1: many seminars. Like, he made the guy sound so impressive.
Speaker 1: And in all your impressive and studied and published resume
Speaker 1: and career, you got nothing having to do with the
Speaker 1: thing you're sitting here as an expert on. You have
Speaker 1: written nothing. And he pointed one thing out that was
Speaker 1: 45 years ago, and he was an assistant to his
Speaker 1: dad even on that one. And to have to come
Speaker 1: back and the guy flat out said, so yeah, no,
Speaker 1: I haven't written anything. Who am I supposed to listen
Speaker 1: to if the expert, the prosecution, the only one you
Speaker 1: can find has no experience in this thing?
Speaker 2: It's kind of crazy. And the other point that Reddington
Speaker 2: made very, very well, of course, so much of their
Speaker 2: defense has been on these just massive amounts of differing
Speaker 2: medications that doctors were just trying out and throwing at
Speaker 2: her And it led to, according to the defense, this
Speaker 2: moment where she became so psychotic, or at least these
Speaker 2: moments that led up to the killings, that the drugs
Speaker 2: and all of these drugs she was taking led to, obviously,
Speaker 2: that awful moment on January 24th. And so he was
Speaker 2: talking about all of the adverse reactions that to these drugs,
Speaker 2: including insomnia, which he did admit can lead to psychosis.
Speaker 2: If you have insomnia, it can lead to psychosis. So
Speaker 2: that was a big deal that he got him to
Speaker 2: admit that. And then he made this dramatic moment where
Speaker 2: he said, look at her, sir. Here you have Lindsay
Speaker 2: Clancy sitting there in a wheelchair. Do you believe she
Speaker 2: had adverse reactions? Of course, the prosecution objected. It was sustained.
Speaker 2: But ultimately, he was forced to answer the question. He
Speaker 2: just had to rephrase it. And he said, yes, forced.
Speaker 1: That goes to credibility. You're a doctor. All he's asking sometimes, Robes,
Speaker 1: and Avram Mack as well, he was a psychiatrist.
Speaker 2: This guy was a psychologist, but Avram Mack was a psychiatrist.
Speaker 1: Robes, he's asking them questions. This is basic stuff. Okay,
Speaker 1: there are 10 things that are considered symptoms of postpartum depression, da-da-da-da. Okay,
Speaker 1: you agree that, boom, this is one of the symptoms.
Speaker 2: That necessarily depends on the context.
Speaker 1: He wouldn't say yes or no. Roe, that goes to credibility.
Speaker 1: That looks like you're trying to be a homer. You're
Speaker 1: trying to help the prosecution by not even conceding a
Speaker 1: single point. That's basic. Like, if he would have said, sir,
Speaker 1: did you notice that it's Tuesday when you came in today? Well,
Speaker 1: what do you mean? Because in some... Some time zones,
Speaker 1: and in some places of the world, it has already
Speaker 1: changed over to Wednesday, where that is his answer. You idiot.
Speaker 1: I'm not calling this man an idiot, but I'm seeing
Speaker 1: you react to people this way, Roe. And I'm sitting
Speaker 1: there reacting, what is the jury? Like, bro, come on.
Speaker 1: He did so much of that. Avril Mack did so
Speaker 1: much of that. that I think that goes to credibility
Speaker 1: as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it'll be so interesting to see how that has
Speaker 2: affected or impacted the jury. And then this final witness,
Speaker 2: who we're going to see again today because he was
Speaker 2: just getting.
Speaker 1: Started, and it ended abruptly.
Speaker 2: This is a forensic psychologist, Gregory Sathoff. He is the
Speaker 2: senior psychologist for the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit, which is
Speaker 2: obviously a very famous unit. Very prestigious. He said he
Speaker 2: has treated thousands of cases of psychosis. He says he
Speaker 2: has studied postpartum psychosis. His issue, at least in terms
Speaker 2: of the defense, he saw Lindsay for 11 hours via Zoom.
Speaker 2: So look, that is difficult to be able to assess
Speaker 2: somebody when you actually aren't even in the room with him.
Speaker 2: He was talking and testified to his belief that once again,
Speaker 2: he does not believe that she was suffering from psychosis.
Speaker 2: He was questioning the fact that she had never spoken
Speaker 2: about hearing a voice before or after. He said that's
Speaker 2: highly unusual. We've heard plenty of other prosecution witnesses testify
Speaker 2: to that very thing. But there was a bizarre ending.
Speaker 2: So the prosecution is asking him questions. He starts talking about... Dude.
Speaker 2: So the prosecutor asks the significance of this voice. that
Speaker 2: she claimed she heard telling her to kill her kids,
Speaker 2: but not how to kill her kids. And he said
Speaker 2: he thought that was unusual, right? So he starts to say, children,
Speaker 2: you know, inherently have a strong will to survive. Objection
Speaker 2: from Reddington. Sidebar. We don't know what happened. And the
Speaker 2: judge just comes back, tells the witness, get off the stand,
Speaker 2: step down, sends the jury home. Boom. Boom.
Speaker 1: Robes, I'm going to go back and watch that. I
Speaker 1: actually listened to it a couple times yesterday. He didn't
Speaker 1: seem to be answering the question, first of all, and
Speaker 1: going off in some other direction. Robes, there was an awkward,
Speaker 1: extended pause. Like he was looking for words to say. No, no, no.
Speaker 1: If you were having a normal conversation with somebody and
Speaker 1: they just stopped talking for this long, you would think
Speaker 1: they were having a stroke. Like, what's going on with you?
Speaker 1: What's up?
Speaker 2: It seemed to me, I could be wrong. I don't
Speaker 2: know what you're... your reaction to it was, it seemed
Speaker 2: like he was about to say something so awful and
Speaker 2: so terrible. And he was going to describe something that
Speaker 2: nobody was prepared for in terms of these children's will
Speaker 2: to survive while their mom's trying to strangle them. I
Speaker 2: think he was so uncomfortable where he was about to
Speaker 2: go that he was pausing to try and figure out
Speaker 2: how to say it.
Speaker 1: See, and it came right off to me like he
Speaker 1: did know what to say. He almost got lost and
Speaker 1: forgot the question and he was piecing stuff together. He
Speaker 1: just sounded like, to me, again, to me, like he
Speaker 1: didn't know what he was talking about. The camera person,
Speaker 1: whoever's working the camera in that courtroom, good job. This
Speaker 1: is a trained journalist, Robes, not just a photographer. This
Speaker 1: is a photojournalist who knows where moments are happening and
Speaker 1: knows where emotion is and they keep moving around because
Speaker 1: we only got one camera. At this point, this guy's
Speaker 1: giving this answer at the end, The camera pans over
Speaker 1: to Reddington sitting in right next to Lindsay Clancy.
Speaker 2: He's about to explode.
Speaker 1: But he's sitting, Robes, this is the thing. We've seen
Speaker 1: him explode. He's sitting back like just chilling. Like he's
Speaker 1: at Thanksgiving and he's full. And he's waiting on this
Speaker 1: guy to answer. And Robes, he finally just kind of
Speaker 1: rolls his eyes and just, I'm going to object. I mean,
Speaker 1: he didn't even... It was almost he was giving the
Speaker 1: guy a chance to finish, and he objected while it
Speaker 1: was quiet because the guy wasn't talking. What was happening?
Speaker 1: And the judge, did he sound pissed to you? He
Speaker 1: wasn't polite in telling the guy, you're excused for the day.
Speaker 2: Yes, he sounded pissed. That's why it seemed abrupt. Something
Speaker 2: happened in that sidebar. Don't know if we'll have any
Speaker 2: indication of what that was. And perhaps when we see
Speaker 2: where he picks up on his testimony today, we'll know
Speaker 2: if he is going to continue down that line. There
Speaker 2: was another point I said to you because speaking to
Speaker 2: the cameraman who's there, who has done, or I say cameraman,
Speaker 2: it could be a camera woman, but whoever's behind the
Speaker 2: camera is doing such a good job. There was a
Speaker 2: point in which Reddington was forcing some of these witnesses
Speaker 2: to talk about what a good mom Lindsay Clancy was
Speaker 2: and that every single person, they panned to Lindsay and
Speaker 2: she started to breathe so heavily. Her whole body was
Speaker 2: heaving and you could see just how important it was
Speaker 2: to her or just it affected her emotionally to hear
Speaker 2: the confirmation that she was a good mom. That, that was,
Speaker 2: that landed on me. And I wonder how often the
Speaker 2: jury heard, The jurors are watching Lindsay Clancy's reaction to
Speaker 2: what's being said because it is fascinating to see and
Speaker 2: it does go into her state of mind. And I just,
Speaker 2: it's just, it's palpable. Her emotions are right there. Even
Speaker 2: though she's not speaking, you can feel it coming off
Speaker 2: her body.
Speaker 1: They see her the whole time after every answer is given.
Speaker 1: We only see it when the photographer decides it. So
Speaker 1: who knows, Robes, how they've been reacting to her. It
Speaker 1: could be a much different reaction in that courtroom. They
Speaker 1: could be feeling the emotion that the prosecution wants them
Speaker 1: to have, which is anger towards her for whatever. Maybe
Speaker 1: she's over there doing little drawings that we don't see.
Speaker 1: Maybe she's been smiling at times the jury didn't appreciate.
Speaker 1: Who knows?
Speaker 2: I haven't seen that yet, but in terms of the
Speaker 2: camera and catching moments and catching expressions, when we come back.
Speaker 2: The camera caught a person who was there on behalf
Speaker 2: of Vanity Fair right there in the front row alongside
Speaker 2: many other journalists, and her facial expression got her kicked out.
Speaker 2: Welcome back, everyone, to Amy and TJ. Yes, there was
Speaker 2: a bit of a sideshow in the courtroom this week.
Speaker 2: A woman who was there on behalf of Vanity Fair,
Speaker 2: the camera pans over to her and what the camera
Speaker 2: captured suddenly became viral. So it was a court TV camera.
Speaker 2: And all of a sudden you see this row of journalists.
Speaker 2: And everyone has what you would expect, a somber look
Speaker 2: on their face. This is some of the most horrific testimony,
Speaker 2: one of the most horrific crimes that you could imagine covering.
Speaker 2: And here you see a young woman, her name is
Speaker 2: Brittany Romano, literally hamming it up with a smile. She
Speaker 2: even winks at the camera. It goes past her, comes back.
Speaker 2: She's still smiling, and she's literally looking directly at the camera,
Speaker 2: mugging for it. It was bizarre, and frankly, it was creepy.
Speaker 2: And you can only imagine the comments. You can even
Speaker 2: see the comments on the side of Court TV. There
Speaker 2: was immense online backlash, people calling her disgusting. People quickly
Speaker 2: found out it was a Vanity Fair person and started
Speaker 2: saying cancel Vanity Fair. It got heated and it was
Speaker 2: overwhelming because people were so appalled that she could be
Speaker 2: smiling and winking at a camera in the middle of
Speaker 2: this trial.
Speaker 1: Okay, but isn't this girl, I say this girl, this
Speaker 1: grown woman, she's a friend, right? A childhood friend?
Speaker 2: So we find out, yes, that Vanity Fair had basically
Speaker 2: given her credentials, credentialed her as a journalist because they
Speaker 2: wanted her to write a personal essay about growing up
Speaker 2: with Lindsay Clancy. I've even seen a picture, the two
Speaker 2: of them childhood friends. And so they put her in
Speaker 2: the front row. to basically bear witness to the trial
Speaker 2: and then be able to write a personal essay for
Speaker 2: them afterwards about what it was like growing up with
Speaker 2: lindsey clancy.
Speaker 1: Does she have to be in there for that that's
Speaker 1: a i mean really because i've seen the whole trial
Speaker 1: too um obviously they are getting to be able to
Speaker 1: give some context to it that we don't have by
Speaker 1: from sitting in there but I mean, you could have
Speaker 1: had a– that's a seat for– A journalist, right? I mean, fine.
Speaker 1: They wanted to go about this. I guess that's fine.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so a couple of things came out of it.
Speaker 2: First of all, she lost her credentials because Vanity Fair
Speaker 2: announced on Tuesday it planned to stop working with her
Speaker 2: given all the backlash. She was asked directly about why
Speaker 2: were you smiling? Why did you do that? She said
Speaker 2: her dad had seen her in court because she'd been
Speaker 2: in court for all of these days and she would
Speaker 2: inadvertently get caught with the court TV camera. And her
Speaker 2: dad told her, stop looking so sad. You look so sad.
Speaker 2: So she said she was doing that for her dad.
Speaker 2: Like she, I, How she didn't recognize that that was
Speaker 2: going to come off the way it did.
Speaker 1: She looked awkward and uncomfortable. And somebody who's not used
Speaker 1: to being on camera is what I saw, right? How
Speaker 1: many times we've had live audiences and get ready when
Speaker 1: the camera comes, just make sure you smile. And then
Speaker 1: they come and they look, that's what it, she looked
Speaker 1: like a deer in the headlights with a camera coming
Speaker 1: by and didn't know how to look.
Speaker 2: In her defense, she's not a journalist. She has never
Speaker 2: covered a trial like this. And I think by that,
Speaker 2: perhaps alone, she wasn't prepared for the attention, for the
Speaker 2: importance of tone, that she was representing not just herself
Speaker 2: and looking at her dad, but she was representing Vanity
Speaker 2: Fair in that moment. And that just wasn't tenable for
Speaker 2: the magazine.
Speaker 1: Probably didn't make, I don't want to be, I don't
Speaker 1: know what's going on with her. And for an awkward,
Speaker 1: uncomfortable moment, I don't want to. be too hard on her,
Speaker 1: Vanity Fair, why not? I mean, maybe they talk to her,
Speaker 1: maybe they're getting too much heat. You said, I don't
Speaker 1: know why.
Speaker 2: Well, they put out a statement.
Speaker 1: I can read it for you.
Speaker 2: They said, we were interested in the prospect of a
Speaker 2: personal essay by Brittany Romano and her experience growing up
Speaker 2: with Lindsay Clancy. Yesterday, after clear conflicts with our editorial
Speaker 2: standards and processes, we informed Romano that we were not
Speaker 2: moving forward with her essay and informed the court that
Speaker 2: she is no longer credentialed by Vanity Fair. Okay. So
Speaker 2: they have ended their relationship with her.
Speaker 1: Their standards, they said.
Speaker 2: Standards and processes.
Speaker 1: I mean, what else was there? I don't know. I
Speaker 1: don't know about that, babe. You lose the gig because
Speaker 1: you smiled. I don't know. That's what happened. The wink
Speaker 1: thing is even a little awkward. It didn't look like
Speaker 1: she was being seductive or something to me. It was
Speaker 1: very awkward. She looked awkward. And they're standing, right? Because
Speaker 1: they had to stand. I guess somebody's coming in to
Speaker 1: judge at the jury. And the camera is panning. And Rob,
Speaker 1: she's just... You're required to stand. A camera's in front
Speaker 1: of you. What do you do?
Speaker 2: She just got.
Speaker 1: She looked like she froze.
Speaker 2: She got nervous. Yes. And she remembered her dad told
Speaker 2: her she looked too sad, and she just did something
Speaker 2: stupid and awkward. And look, it probably was just a strange, bizarre,
Speaker 2: knee-jerk reaction. She's not used to being in front of
Speaker 2: a camera. She's not used to having the spotlight on her.
Speaker 2: I actually feel bad for her. She's probably a good person,
Speaker 2: a decent person, who just got caught in an awkward moment,
Speaker 2: and now her name's everywhere. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay, wait a minute. I'm looking at it as we're
Speaker 1: talking ropes. There is somebody clearly a row behind who
Speaker 1: whispers something to her, who is smiling and says something
Speaker 1: and says some joke. I'm sure it has to do
Speaker 1: with the camera. Look at this nut here. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: I don't mean to call folks.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: She is about to speak to your girl.
Speaker 2: Right. Okay. And I hadn't even noticed that.
Speaker 1: So she leans back and she grins there. And I
Speaker 1: know there's another pan that goes, but even the wink
Speaker 1: seemed like an awkward moment.
Speaker 2: Twitch or something. It's so awkward. It actually looked like
Speaker 2: kind of a bizarre scene out of a movie. It
Speaker 2: didn't even seem real.
Speaker 1: Yeah, smile and smile too.
Speaker 2: It did kind of look like that. Or the girl
Speaker 2: from Obsession was also popped into my head. Just this
Speaker 2: weird kind of awkward, creepy smile with a wink.
Speaker 1: It was strange. You know what? I say smile. It's
Speaker 1: a misplaced facial expression.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Right?
Speaker 1: When there's terror or horror around. If you haven't seen
Speaker 1: those movies, that's the part of it. It's so creepy
Speaker 1: because it is not supposed to be in this environment.
Speaker 2: You know what I was just thinking? For anyone who
Speaker 2: has awkwardly laughed when you shouldn't have, laughed at a funeral,
Speaker 2: laughed when maybe you should have been crying because you
Speaker 2: get those two things, they're actually very closely related. I
Speaker 2: feel bad for her. I hope this blows over quickly.
Speaker 2: This is tough, and you never want to make yourself
Speaker 2: suddenly the story when clearly we need to be focused
Speaker 2: on what's going on in that courtroom and not her face.
Speaker 1: I wish we'd have gotten a chance. I mean, I
Speaker 1: just hate when people don't get a chance to actually
Speaker 1: explain themselves or say something. It's just knee-jerk. It's quick.
Speaker 1: I don't know. Vanity Fair could have talked to her
Speaker 1: and she didn't like her answer. I don't know. But
Speaker 1: if it's just because we're getting heat, we are going
Speaker 1: to abandon somebody who's already getting that heat because we
Speaker 1: don't want that heat either. I guess that's good business, Robes, but...
Speaker 1: It's tough.
Speaker 2: It does seem to be the way of the world,
Speaker 2: certainly the business world. The moment things are a distraction,
Speaker 2: quote unquote, they cut ties out of fear of backlash.
Speaker 2: And that is what it looks like happened in the
Speaker 2: courtroom this week. But anyway, we will continue to watch
Speaker 2: to see what will most likely be the final day
Speaker 2: of testimony in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. And
Speaker 2: with that, everyone, thank you for listening to us. I'm
Speaker 2: Amy Robach alongside TJ Holmes. We'll talk soon.