Speaker 1: Hey, folks, it is Tuesday, August fourth, and a bit
Speaker 1: of a breaking story here is we just heard Lindsey
Speaker 1: Clancy speak in her triple murder trial and what she
Speaker 1: had to say will have a significant impact on this trial.
Speaker 2: And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and
Speaker 2: TJ Rolds. Seems like we can't get a good flow
Speaker 2: to this trial, as crazy as that might sound, but
Speaker 2: there's a lot of stopping and starting and this morning
Speaker 2: once again supposed to start at nine am.
Speaker 3: There was a delay, yes, and the delay was revealed
Speaker 3: when we got to hear Lindsey Clancy speak for the
Speaker 3: very first time outside of the jury but literally it's
Speaker 3: the first time we've heard her voice actually in that courtroom.
Speaker 3: And what she was agreeing to, as you mentioned, is
Speaker 3: going to change the timeline of this trial.
Speaker 2: And it does it make sense, Rhode so because as
Speaker 2: it was happening, we were a little confused, like, wait,
Speaker 2: what are they doing and what are they agreeing to?
Speaker 2: And then after we heard it all, we go, Okay,
Speaker 2: that makes sense. I guess why didn't we do this before?
Speaker 2: Is it kind of where we land?
Speaker 3: Yes, because basically, this is a murder trial that is
Speaker 3: incredibly and exceptionally rare, because the defense is not trying
Speaker 3: to defend against a killing, against a murder, it's trying
Speaker 3: to defend whether or not their client, or whether or
Speaker 3: not Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible.
Speaker 4: She admits to killing her children.
Speaker 3: So all of this evidence that you would typically see
Speaker 3: the prosecution introduced to establish through DNA, through blood evidence,
Speaker 3: through physical evidence that the defendant killed the victims, all
Speaker 3: of that kind of seems unnecessary in this case because
Speaker 3: she's saying, yeah, it was me, all that DNA evidence,
Speaker 3: all that blood, all of my DNA on those exercise bands, etc.
Speaker 3: Yeah it's mine. I cop to it, I admit it.
Speaker 4: It was me.
Speaker 2: Hey, it seems strange in the trial of this magnitude
Speaker 2: Roges talking about three murders of three very young children,
Speaker 2: that someone is not fighting the prosecution on the key
Speaker 2: elements and facts and evidence of the case. Yes, that
Speaker 2: is bizarre, and it also is Rogues, like you said,
Speaker 2: we're not used to this. But she did it, but
Speaker 2: she might not be criminally responsible. So what we saw
Speaker 2: in court this morning was them trying to get rid
Speaker 2: of the extra stuff and let's all.
Speaker 5: Just focus on the part we disagree about. Is that right?
Speaker 4: Yes? Because think about it.
Speaker 3: When we first came into this trial, I believe there
Speaker 3: were upwards of two hundred potential witnesses between the prosecution
Speaker 3: and the defense, and look, they put every possible witness
Speaker 3: on that list.
Speaker 4: It's not that all of.
Speaker 3: Those folks were necessarily going to be called to testify,
Speaker 3: but they could have been. And this with this admission,
Speaker 3: or at least this agreement that was made in court today,
Speaker 3: it could massively shorten the list of witnesses prosecutors will
Speaker 3: now have to call to the stand because they don't
Speaker 3: have to prove something that she's already admitting to.
Speaker 2: You mentioned that list, Yeah, two hundred potential witnesses robes,
Speaker 2: I've been shot. I don't know the total count. Yesterday,
Speaker 2: what time they get out of court on Monday.
Speaker 3: Three forty five, and they called thirteen witnesses to the stand.
Speaker 2: That's pretty stunning. And the reason they're going through them
Speaker 2: so quickly is because the prosecution only has a few
Speaker 2: questions to ask a detective or a lab tech or
Speaker 2: sometimes even a nurse. The defense is like cooleah, no,
Speaker 2: how many times did you just said no questions?
Speaker 3: Johanna, No, cross examination whatsoever, because they're not disputing the
Speaker 3: evidence that's being introduced.
Speaker 4: So yes, I'm just saying so when.
Speaker 3: The judge says we are our ears perked up and
Speaker 3: we were very interested in what was happening. When you
Speaker 3: hear a judge ask a defendant who's standing up there
Speaker 3: before the trial even gets underwear for the day, and says,
Speaker 3: do you agree that the Commonwealth does not have to
Speaker 3: prove the facts that are in the stipulation?
Speaker 4: And she says, yes, you never hear that. You just
Speaker 4: don't in a trial, you just don't.
Speaker 2: So there were several, as he said, Robes stipulations, and
Speaker 2: that was one thing that they gave up. So yes,
Speaker 2: they come into court, immediately go to a sidebar, so
Speaker 2: we're standing by and where waiting. Court comes back into
Speaker 2: session but still without the jury, and this is when
Speaker 2: all this is going on. So she's addressing the court,
Speaker 2: and of course she is still seated because she is paralyzed.
Speaker 2: She is in that wheelchair. But Robes, given what we
Speaker 2: have seen the past couple of days with her crying
Speaker 2: and emotional testimonies, she robes, for lack of a better phrase,
Speaker 2: she seemed as sane as anybody in answering those questions.
Speaker 3: She did that was notable to me too, Like I
Speaker 3: understand that this postpartum psychosis was episodic and perhaps confined
Speaker 3: to this p period of time in.
Speaker 4: Which these atrocities.
Speaker 3: Took place, but still it is strange to hear a
Speaker 3: woman who is capable of doing what she did and was,
Speaker 3: according to her attorney, in a mindset that was altered
Speaker 3: where you are certifiably they're claiming clinically medically insane. It's
Speaker 3: then strange to see that person seemingly lucid answering questions, Yes,
Speaker 3: your honor, Yes, I understand your honor.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you don't expect that.
Speaker 2: Brott Robes this is and I would encourage people to
Speaker 2: watch because there are folks out there writing who are
Speaker 2: taking issue with how this case is being covered and
Speaker 2: even with how the prosecution is handling this case.
Speaker 5: It is giving this if you listen to the prosecution.
Speaker 2: Kind of a warped idea of what psychosis is, what
Speaker 2: postpartum psychosis can be, what mental illness.
Speaker 5: Can look like. And Robes she's showing.
Speaker 2: We've seen doctors sit up there and say, yeah, she
Speaker 2: could be in psychosis, but have a perfectly normal conversation
Speaker 2: with me and make plans so robes. They say, this
Speaker 2: woman still wants to kill herself, is still in manick
Speaker 2: states at times.
Speaker 5: And she sat there and she calmly, very lucidly.
Speaker 2: Answered his questions and seemed to fully understand it does
Speaker 2: in the attorney, the defense attorney, he used the word
Speaker 2: drooling like this is this idea that if somebody's quote
Speaker 2: unquote crazy, they're supposed to.
Speaker 5: Look a certain way.
Speaker 2: It's supposed to be lashing out and they can't keep
Speaker 2: it together in their crazy eyes.
Speaker 4: And erratic behavior ropes they are.
Speaker 5: This is an important one to keep an eye on.
Speaker 3: It is, and it is fascinating to watch this all
Speaker 3: take place, and it is fascinating to hear her be
Speaker 3: able to to answer the questions the way she did.
Speaker 3: I'm curious, like my brain goes somewhere where.
Speaker 4: If you are putting.
Speaker 3: On a defense, an insanity defense, say postpartum psychosis defense,
Speaker 3: if you are claiming that you aren't respond for your actions,
Speaker 3: how then can you be responsible for even your words?
Speaker 3: So if you're agreeing to this, how can you even
Speaker 3: agree to this if your whole defense is that you
Speaker 3: aren't responsible for your actions and reactions and maybe even
Speaker 3: your thoughts.
Speaker 2: See and that is where and it is fascinating robes,
Speaker 2: and we're getting an education in psychosis to where you
Speaker 2: can go into it and come out of it. You
Speaker 2: could be into it, for it can come in and out.
Speaker 2: It can be an episode that lasts a little while
Speaker 2: and you don't have another one the rest of your life.
Speaker 2: In robes, it is when we have insanity defenses.
Speaker 5: We usually see.
Speaker 2: Some some defendants robes that are sometimes acting up, seemingly
Speaker 2: out of control. You can't reason with them. These are
Speaker 2: folks who oftentimes they cannot help with their defense.
Speaker 4: Right she is, she's not that.
Speaker 2: We're learning something else robes about it insanity defense that
Speaker 2: I haven't seen play out like this before.
Speaker 3: Yeah, she's crying at the appropriate times. And I say
Speaker 3: that meaning she is crying when we want to cry.
Speaker 3: She's reacting emotionally to things that should be reacted emotionally too.
Speaker 3: And yet at the same time, she was capable of
Speaker 3: doing something that I would say the let's hope the
Speaker 3: vast majority ninety nine point nine percent of mothers would
Speaker 3: be incapable of doing so. It's hard to actually get
Speaker 3: your head around what we're witnessing, what we're seeing, and
Speaker 3: trying to understand what her defense is explaining to all
Speaker 3: of us. And so far, look, they haven't even necessarily
Speaker 3: put on their defense, but through some of the cross
Speaker 3: examination of some of these forensic psychologists or psychiatrists, we
Speaker 3: are seeing where they're headed with their defense and how
Speaker 3: they're trying to set up and establish a documented case
Speaker 3: of Certainly, I don't I mean, I don't know how
Speaker 3: anyone could dispute the fact that she was suffering mentally.
Speaker 3: Now whether or not that crosses into a line of
Speaker 3: psychosis or not being held responsible for your actions, but
Speaker 3: clearly she was mentally troubled.
Speaker 4: I think everyone can agree with that.
Speaker 5: Agreed.
Speaker 3: Where's the line when you don't become when you aren't
Speaker 3: criminally responsible.
Speaker 2: Well, I've heard too from two doctors from the prosecution
Speaker 2: already who have confirmed to me that what she went
Speaker 2: through and how is.
Speaker 5: Possible brooks the defense.
Speaker 2: I remember we were all shocked when during Diddy's trial,
Speaker 2: after all those witnesses from the prosecution, they rested without
Speaker 2: calling anybody because they were able to prove their case
Speaker 2: by using the prosecution's witness And so far the defense
Speaker 2: seems to be doing that. The stipulation what is in
Speaker 2: the first place, legally speaking, it is an agreement between
Speaker 2: the parties about the basic facts of the case. We
Speaker 2: agree to this stuff. We don't need to bring in
Speaker 2: fifteen witnesses to talk about it. So what did she
Speaker 2: give up? No right anymore to cross examine certain witnesses.
Speaker 2: The state no longer has the burden to prove all
Speaker 2: the elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 5: That is Robes.
Speaker 2: That is something you would never see, never in a
Speaker 2: case that burden is so high. But what they've charged
Speaker 2: her with, Robes is first degree murder. You have to
Speaker 2: prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Don't have to anymore
Speaker 2: because they're admitting that first degree murder and everything you're
Speaker 2: saying about it where we agree with Yeah, now we
Speaker 2: need to go argue about whether or not I am
Speaker 2: criminally irresponsible for that.
Speaker 3: She not only admits to doing it, she admits to
Speaker 3: planning it the whole thing. She admits to acting on
Speaker 3: those plans. She admits to actually going through with those plans.
Speaker 3: I just it was one of those really fascinating moments
Speaker 3: when the judge followed up because he kept asking her
Speaker 3: different versions of the same question to make sure it
Speaker 3: was on the record, and then she fully understood. But
Speaker 3: he's like, you are basically relieving the Commonwealth of its
Speaker 3: burden to prove certain facts. Is that what you want
Speaker 3: to do? Lindsey Clancy answers, yes, your honor.
Speaker 2: That was stunning, calmly right the whole time, said I've
Speaker 2: talked to my I'll worry about it. I've had time
Speaker 2: to review it. Nobody's forcing me into it, and so
Speaker 2: here we got rose. I don't know what the timing
Speaker 2: could be, but this could cut off a lot of witnesses,
Speaker 2: a lot of time in this case because so far
Speaker 2: Rows we've actually seen a lot of witnesses they could
Speaker 2: have done without.
Speaker 3: Absolutely so they were trying to establish stuff that doesn't
Speaker 3: need to be established because it's not disputed. And so
Speaker 3: now you can move forward either with fewer folks on
Speaker 3: the stand or certainly it will go much quicker because
Speaker 3: now the defense has completely given up its right to
Speaker 3: cross examined. So regardless, this is absolutely going to speed
Speaker 3: up a trial that was already on track, if not
Speaker 3: ahead of schedule. So that is good news for the
Speaker 3: jurors and look, I would imagine this would be good.
Speaker 4: News for Lindsay Clancy.
Speaker 3: In the sense that does she really want to sit
Speaker 3: through all of this blood evidence and DNA evidence and
Speaker 3: in doing so reliving those exact moments that she wants
Speaker 3: to forget, you.
Speaker 2: Know, to that point, I had a question for you
Speaker 2: that I'll ask right after the break, and we'll also
Speaker 2: give you an update that we got from the judge
Speaker 2: about the schedule now and what's going to happen moving
Speaker 2: forward in this trial. We continue here on Amy and TJ.
Speaker 2: Just getting a short time ago. Didn't plan on doing
Speaker 2: this episode today, but got an update, a significant one
Speaker 2: out of the courtroom for the Lindsay Clancy trial, and
Speaker 2: that she agreed to certain stipulations which is going to
Speaker 2: shorten the trial. Essentially, what they're saying, we've agreed to
Speaker 2: the defense of the prosecution. We agreed to so many
Speaker 2: of the facts of the case. No reason to keep
Speaker 2: putting on witnesses. So she's given up a right to
Speaker 2: cross examines of witnesses, giving up a right some rights,
Speaker 2: but still the argument is over whether or not she
Speaker 2: was insane or not. Now Robes, my thought was, yes,
Speaker 2: this speeds things along, But who does this help if
Speaker 2: the jury doesn't have to sit through all of that
Speaker 2: evidence because robes, it is impactful to see those elastic
Speaker 2: bands of the murder weapon. It's impactful to hear about
Speaker 2: blood evidence. It's impactful to hear all this stuff. Does
Speaker 2: it help them in some way the defense of the
Speaker 2: prosecution if the jury isn't sitting.
Speaker 5: Through that, Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 3: I think you could look at it from both sides,
Speaker 3: because I thought about that too. Does the prosecution lose
Speaker 3: some of that emotional impact?
Speaker 4: Look, the first week was gutting.
Speaker 3: It was one of the more emotional, if not the
Speaker 3: most emotional week I've ever witnessed in a trial, because
Speaker 3: they did see those exercise bands, and they did hear
Speaker 3: that nine to one one call, And they did hear
Speaker 3: from first responders and the EMTs and the firefighters who
Speaker 3: showed up and talked about the scene they walked into.
Speaker 3: They heard from the emergency room doctors who tried to
Speaker 3: save those children's lives who were brain dead, whose hearts
Speaker 3: had stopped. So all of that emotional testimony is already
Speaker 3: into evidence, perhaps even not having to dwell on the
Speaker 3: minutia of the technical aspect of DNA and blood spatter
Speaker 3: and fingerprint and all the other perhaps evidence, the chain
Speaker 3: of command proving that.
Speaker 4: They followed proper procedure. All of that can.
Speaker 3: Really weigh down a trial, the momentum, maybe even a
Speaker 3: jury's or a juror's attention span. So maybe everyone can
Speaker 3: actually be focused. Maybe this helps both sides and that
Speaker 3: the real issue, the actual issue as to whether or
Speaker 3: not she was insane or sane, whether she was suffering
Speaker 3: from postpartum psychosis or not. The focus, that is what
Speaker 3: jurors are trying to figure out. So maybe by really
Speaker 3: zeroing in on that, we'll actually get to a better
Speaker 3: outcome without all of the exhausting technical evidence.
Speaker 2: See I wondered if if it helped the defense by
Speaker 2: getting rid of the some technical testimony, what's.
Speaker 5: Left is a bunch of emotional stuff. Robes.
Speaker 2: If the emotional stuff, I was overwhelmed last week with
Speaker 2: that testimony, and I was just watching it from New York. Robes,
Speaker 2: They're sitting in there taking this stuff in, and the
Speaker 2: judge even last week you had to acknowledge them crying
Speaker 2: and emotional in the courtroom. So Robes, if you eliminate
Speaker 2: the technical stuff, it's almost we watch horror movies a lot, Robes,
Speaker 2: and we're relieved when it's daytime in a movie because
Speaker 2: that means we have a break. We don't have to
Speaker 2: be emotional and into it. He just can let your
Speaker 2: shoulders down, Robes, they stay on emotional edge. If they
Speaker 2: stay on emotional edge the whole time and you get
Speaker 2: to the end, are they going to be mad at
Speaker 2: her or sympathized with her more?
Speaker 4: I don't know, but I don't know either.
Speaker 5: That was my thought.
Speaker 2: The technical stuff just at least gives you a break,
Speaker 2: and maybe they need to refocus on stuff besides emotion,
Speaker 2: because emotion you are with the Clancy family.
Speaker 5: On emotion, I wouldn't unless.
Speaker 3: You're angry, unless you're angry at her.
Speaker 4: Look, it's so subjective.
Speaker 3: As you point out this emotional side of it, I
Speaker 3: hadn't thought about the fact that the technical evidence, the
Speaker 3: forensic evidence, the physical evidence, in a way is a
Speaker 3: break from the emotional evidence and allows you to focus
Speaker 3: on the science. Because I feel like, look, it's a
Speaker 3: heavy burden to be a juror, especially in a trial
Speaker 3: like this, because a woman's life is on the line,
Speaker 3: and what you're saying about women's mental health, what you're
Speaker 3: saying about what women may be going through, what you're acknowledging,
Speaker 3: what you're all of. That is a heavy burden to
Speaker 3: feel when you know that your vote, you have to
Speaker 3: have a unanimous vote. So what you think, what you feel,
Speaker 3: your impressions of her and the case could not only
Speaker 3: just affect Lindsey Clancy and her family, but other women
Speaker 3: to come potentially.
Speaker 2: Well, you're gonna get twelve people to agree that this
Speaker 2: lady was not suffering.
Speaker 5: Again, it's early baby. This is just the second week.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and they keep.
Speaker 5: That in mind.
Speaker 3: They said this was going to go four to six weeks, perhaps,
Speaker 3: so initially we don't know how much time this big
Speaker 3: event this morning shaved off, but at least I would
Speaker 3: imagine a couple days from where they thought they would
Speaker 3: be anymore.
Speaker 5: We were four last week.
Speaker 2: They were supposed to start, well, they did start on Monday,
Speaker 2: but they were off on Tuesday. Yeah, so only got
Speaker 2: four days of testimony in the first week. And the
Speaker 2: judge was already saying, we're ahead of schedule. So maybe
Speaker 2: they were already ahead. Now this does what I mean?
Speaker 2: Are we looking at a couple few week trial versus
Speaker 2: a month and a half two month trial. We don't
Speaker 2: know yet, but he already has acknowledged what time are
Speaker 2: they getting out today, Baby.
Speaker 3: They're getting out today around the same time as they
Speaker 3: did yesterday. But tomorrow is the truncated day. We're not
Speaker 3: sure what they're going to be talking about in the afternoon,
Speaker 3: but he already made it clear that he needs to
Speaker 3: speak with the lawyers with both sides of the legal
Speaker 3: teams in the afternoon, So they're only going to go
Speaker 3: to one o'clock tomorrow, but they'll have a day until
Speaker 3: three four o'clock this afternoon, and we will continue to
Speaker 3: monitor what happens in the Lindsay Clancy killer mom trial
Speaker 3: there in Massachusetts. For you in the meantime, thank you
Speaker 3: for listening to us. As always, we appreciate you. I'm
Speaker 3: Amy Roeboch alongside TJ.
Speaker 4: Holmes. We'll talk soon.