Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - LINDSAY CLANCY DEADLOCK TRIGGERS DYNAMITE CHARGE!

Episode Date: September 3, 2026

After six days of deliberating, the Lindsay Clancy jury remains deadlocked.   After lunch on Thursday, the jury submitted a question,  but the judge did not read it aloud. He did reiterate the legal definition of reasonable doubt, sending jurors back to deliberate. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington told the court one juror “refuses to listen to the law” and moved to remove that juror. Judge  William  Sullivan declined.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed human. There's no shortcut for saving time, but saving money is simple. Just combine your car and home insurance with Bel Air Direct and save. Get a quote at bellair direct.com. Crime stories with Nancy Grace. Little Tots, one an infant, all found strangled dead by Mommy with her own exercise. bans. I've noticed that when a woman is on trial for murder, specifically murder of her children,

people search, scour for a motive. It doesn't matter. They're dead. She's alive. So far, the jury has been out for hours and hours. What does it mean? This is not a popularity contest. Was she a good mom? Was she a bad mom? It's only about intent at the time of the act. Either she's in psychosis. or she is a criminal mastermind. You can see how vested people are in the outcome of this case. We're talking about what is seeping into the minds of the jurors. Well, they're certainly trained on Lindsay Clancy.

Take a look at Lindsay Clancy, grabbing her lawyer's hands in court. The sobbing and the crying and the hiding her face, I really don't know what to make of that because they're dead. I don't care how much she cries now. They're dead and she did it. With me here in the studio, Jackie Howard, Jackie, what's the latest? After six days of deliberations, the Lindsay Clancy jury remains deadlocked and the defense tries to remove a juror, they say, will not follow the judge's reasonable doubt instructions. The 12-person jury again today told

judge William Sullivan that they could not reach a unanimous verdict on whether Clancy is criminally responsible for the death of her three children. This was the second deadlocked notice that came to the judge. After lunch on Thursday, the jury submitted a question to the judge. He did not read it aloud, but reiterated the legal definition of reasonable doubt and sent the jurors back to deliberate. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington told the court that one juror, refuses to listen to law and ask the judge to remove that juror. Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague said there was no way to know the deliberations content and supported the judge's actions, which were to decline to remove the juror,

saying it would be improper to side with one side. Joining us tonight, crime stories investigative reporter Dave Matt. Nancy, this jury of 12 people are deliberating in their sixth day, well over 30 hours. Twice they've sent back notes to the judge saying, we're deadlocked. We cannot come up with a verdict for you. The judge sent them back with a note yesterday. It's referred to outside of Massachusetts as the dynamite charge. In Massachusetts, it's called Tuwey Rodriguez. And what this is, it is a demand of the jury that you reconsider everything you've heard, consider everything you think about this and make a decision. The judge went so far as to point out, look, if we have to do this all

over again, we're not going to find 12 jurors that are smarter than you, more fair than you. We've put our faith and our trust in you to come up with a verdict. Think about this. Give it really serious thought as to what you believe and why you believe it. And be open to listening to everyone else. It is a real charge of not just being fair, but challenging yourself as a juror. We need a verdict. Doing it over again, it's not going to end up any different. There's no new evidence. Okay, there's no new defense. You've heard everything come up with a verdict. So now, in that sixth day, over 30 hours of deliberations, will this jury finally come up with a verdict? The jury isn't merely considering between guilty and not guilty, okay?

They're actually the central dispute of the entire trial, whether or not Clancy is criminally responsible because of the mental state that she allegedly experienced at the time of the deaths. This is a big consideration, and we've seen it being discussed on multiple platforms all around the world. A lot of support coming in for Lindsay Clancy. The jury has to come up with a decision on first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter. They could also go, not guilty, or not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility

because of the mental state that she was allegedly in at the time of the deaths. That's what this jury has to decide. And after six days, more than 30 hours of deliberation, they've been given the charge, come up with a verdict. So what leads us to the point at which we are at tonight in the Lindsay Clancy case? This case is not about our mental health system or how it treats women or what's in the DSM-5 and what's not. That's a distraction to get you angry and passionate about an important issue, but an issue that's not on trial here. What's on trial here, what the issue is here, is what Lindsay Clancy did the night of January 20th, 24th, 2023, and what her mental state was at the time.

We are in a verdict watch here at crime stories as we wait for a verdict to be handed down in the case against so-called loving mom, Lindsay Clancy. That's sound from our friends at East Idaho News. That is prosecutor Sprague, and she gave her closing arguments. We'd trade heavily on the minds of the jurors. So far, the jury has been out for hours and hours. What does it mean? that this morning to you, Shannon Hill, joining us, Star of Shannon Hill News, that they came in first thing bright and early this morning, dressed to the nines. I was in the courtroom on Thursday during closing arguments. And the interesting thing is that the investigators who testified in the trial, in the very beginning parts of the trial, actually showed up and sat behind prosecution to show their support. And while Attorney Kevin Reddington was giving his closing argument, he pointed at them

and said, I don't care that they're sitting here right now. He looked straight at the jury and told them, I don't care that these investigators are sitting here right now. That means nothing to him. Because he feels that his client is innocent. He also did the three coin toss on the table in front of the prosecution. And the public seems to really be taking that on as some sort of biblical message, considering the topic of Catholicism has been brought up several times in the courtroom now. Did you say a coin toss? The defense attorney did a coin toss in front of the jury at the prosecution table. He did a three coin slam to the prosecution's table. And people are comparing this to the 30 pieces of silver in the Judas betrayal in the Bible.

But what I actually took it as... What did he say when he did the coin slam? What was the point in his mind? My interpretation was that it wasn't biblical at all and that he was actually pointing out each time he felt the prosecution manipulated the evidence against his client. So each coin stood for, you know,

a different piece of evidence that prosecution brought up during the trial, which one was the drinking, the amount of drinking Lindsay Clancy did during the week. Another was the Facebook post, about her son Dawson. And he, the coins were there to represent each one of these times he felt that prosecution was being misleading or manipulative.

Tracy Brown is joining us out of Boulder, body language expert behavior analyst, trained alongside law enforcement and special forces. She's author of multiple books, most notably, how to detect lies, fraud, and identity, theft and you can find her at body language trainer.com. Tracy, thank you for being with us. Hey, thanks for having me. Tracy, tonight I'd like you to look at certain moments in court, captured in court, because we're talking about what is seeping into the minds of the jurors. Well, they're certainly trained on Lindsay Clancy. Let's take a look. What do you see here, Tracy? Well, this is the first time she's seen him in court, presumably in a long time.

And hers, she is under deep stress. Now, she's really hard to read because she's paralyzed from the waist down. And, um, in, and that restricts, I mean, it eliminates a lot of movements that we would normally see. Now here's what's interesting to me is that she licks her lips four times before he even says a word. Um, it could be a lip grooming. So she's trying to look better. It could be that she's really stressed or it could be that she's really angry. Okay.

So you have all of those and it could be a combo of all of those right there. Now, she does something else with her eyebrows. Now, the forehead is the billboard. The eyebrows are the writing. And so we want to look for small, small little movements in that writing to understand what emotions are really going on. And we start to see the medial that's above your nose, the middle part of her eyebrows go up. Okay.

So that says there's sadness there. But then they start to rise just a little bit. And so there can be some fear and anxiety going on there too. So she has a lot of emotions going on all at once, even though she's really still. And like I said, she's one of the hardest people to read that I've ever had to do just because of the paralyization. Not a mutual aid ambulance. On the way, we're with the county. Two pediatrics arrest.

We got a mutual aid on the way. Mutual aid at this time. You're hearing parts of the 911 dispatch call after three little tots, one an infant, all found strangled dead by mommy with her own exercise bans. There's no shortcut for saving time, but saving money. Money is simple. Just combine your car and home insurance with Bel Air Direct and save. Get a quote at bellairdirect.com. Crime stories with Nancy Grace.

We all know the stretchy nature of exercise bands or bungee cords. Imagine the force and exertion required. It's like strangling someone with a rubber band. How hard she had to pull the exercise cord. in order to murder her own children. And tonight we find out that one of the first things that comes out of her mouth, when she's in the hospital, she's taken off the ventilator, she says, do I have a lawyer?

Okay. Straight out to Randy Kessler joining us, a veteran trial lawyer, professor at the Emory Law School, former chair of the ABA Family Law Section for the entire American Bar Association, author of Divorce, Protect Yourself, Your Kids, and Your Future. Randy. The reason I am emphasizing the force and exertion necessary to strangle, not one, two, but three children, one of whom we believe ran in fear to his father's basement office, the older boy.

there you see, Callum there, he's just an infant, is akin to, the reason I'm bringing it up is because you and I have argued that on different sides of the fence, of course, in court when it comes to the force necessary to pull a trigger. Remember, we just had that come up in court with a veteran and well-known lawyer in your jurisdiction that shot his wife dead, and he said it was an accident, said that he was sleeping and woke up and went, oh, bam, and killed his wife. Yeah, that did not work for me. The point is the force and exertion used to pull a trigger goes to intent.

And here we have it intent times three. The force necessary to use those elastic bands to pull them so tightly as they were stretchy and giving. That takes a lot of force, a lot of exertion, and a lot of time during which she could have formed intent. Kessor, do you agree with me? You know the law, as well as I do, that intent to commit a crime, any crime does not require a long period of planning. Intent can be formed, as our former judge would say, Luther Alverson, in the blink of an eye, the twinkling of a moment, and the time it takes you to raise a gun and pull the trigger, much less the time it takes you to pull and pull and pull exercise bands to kill them.

That's time to form intent. Yes, she had the time to form intent. She had that intent, and she killed her children. But the question, my only statement and my closing argument would be, she did this because that's the only question the defense can rely on, which is no motive is not a question. in front of this jury, but she did this because, and the jury is going to fill that answer, that blanking with, she was crazy, she was psychotic, she was mentally insane, because there's no

other answer to that question. She did this because, why, she wanted out of the marriage, she wanted, there was no other answer that makes as much sense as she did this because she was not mentally capable of making the right decision. That's the only defense that the defense has. Randy, Kessler, could you hold up your sign again, please? I'd like to see that. like my artwork. Okay, I'm very impressed. Okay, I'm impressed that you had your assistant. Print that out.

Straight out to Penny Commit. Penny Commit joining us, Boston investigative reporter, WBZ, CBS Boston, has covered multiple high-profile cases, including this one. Penny Commit, thank you for being with us. I'm going to get into all the facts, but answer me this. Riddle me this, Penny. one of the first things that came out of her mouth when she came to and they removed the breathing device was about a lawyer. Isn't that true? What did she say?

So one of her doctors testified that she was actually writing answers on a piece of paper because she had all these tubes in her mouth. She was hooked up to all these different pieces of equipment. And she wrote that she felt horrified. And then she asked, where is her family? And then one of the first things she did ask is, do I need a lawyer? She denied suicidal ideation. She denied homicidal ideation. She said she wasn't hearing voices or seeing anything.

They saw the entire time she was there, no signs of psychosis. In fact, every doctor she saw from Tufts in September all the way through Tufts January 23rd, none of them saw any signs of psychosis ever. So they're all wrong. All these different doctors and all these different practices, they're all collectively together wrong. That doesn't make sense. You're at 413.

You see her search for takeout from 3V. And then immediately after she does the Apple Math search to see how long it takes to get to 3V. Well, defense wants you to believe that, you know, she was checking that because she didn't want them gone for too long. She wanted him home. She was at distress. If you're in distress, don't send him anywhere. Make food at home, have him cook.

Get delivery. Get DoorDash. Go to one of the other restaurants that Patrick mentioned that were two minutes down the road. That is Prosecutor Sprague in her closing statements to the jury, which weigh very heavily on the jurors as they go out for deliberations. That's from our friends at East Idaho News. Straight out to Dr. Cheryl Erick, joining us. clinical forensic psychologist specializing in cases just like this. Dr. Cheryl, thank you for being

with us. So you just heard Prosecutor Sprague describing clear planning. The law is intent can be formed just like that. And here we see clear planning, which no one really wants to address because we all find it much more comfortable to believe, oh, okay, she was insane. That's better than her planning the deaths of her children. Can you be in postpartum psychosis and intend to kill? You're looking at intent and you're looking at planning. And Nancy, Lindsay Clancy could absolutely have done planning that was triggered by auditory, hallucinations and planning that was shaped by psychotic delusions.

For example, if she believed that she was protecting her children from something by killing them, she could very much in a psychotic state, plan that, carry it out, and then when she came out of the psychotic state being a completely different state of mind, people really confuse postpartum psychosis, which is incredibly rare. You see this one or two in a thousand, whereas postpartum, depression is much, much more common. This is a loss of touch with reality. This is a person when they are in a psychotic state who cannot think about the law and reality and all of the state of mind things that her mother-in-law testified to about what a wonderful loving mother she

was when she was in her right mind. But postpartum psychosis is different and it doesn't look like regular psychosis. When I watched the prosecution talk about are all of these doctors, wrong because they didn't see it. They were on Zoom with her for 20 minutes here and there. Postpartum psychosis rapid cycles and people can look really, really insane one minute and look completely put together the next and hours later. This is something that is a psychiatric emergency. It's an obstetric emergency and she absolutely could plan these things. And when we look at motive, we look at all of the testimony from the people in her life. If she wasn't in a psychotic state where she could not tell what was real and what wasn't,

what is the motive? Why would this woman do this terrible, heinous thing to her children? That doesn't make sense. Dr. Cheryl, Dr. Cheryl, here's the deal. No one has to prove motive. In any child killing, you can say, what's the moment? Why would you kill a child? I don't know.

All I want to know is if she could form intent to kill. And clearly she did. Listen. What she told Dr. Statoff that when she gets the call, she's at the fridge, getting chicken nuggets out of the fridge

to make dinner. You heard from Patrick. When he's leaving, Dawson is sitting on the couch eating chicken nuggets and green beans out of a bowl. So why? would the defendant make that up? Why would she say she's doing that during the phone call?

Because if she's already killed the kids because of a voice and being compelled and it being against her will and she's like a puppet, then she can't get a call and miss it and then call the person back and have a conversation and then hang up, a puppet can't do those things. Those are decisions and choices and actions that she's controlling. Prosecutor's prey giving closing statements. That's from East Idaho News. So how do you reconcile that, Dr. Cheryl, Eric? He's cherry picking. We can look at intent. We can look at what is the state of mind when someone is formulating intent. And the question that they have to prove is that she was conscious of reality, of the law, of the meaning of this, that this, that this

was a permanent forever separation from her children that she was committing a crime. This is something that they have to prove. And they have not demonstrated it. I hear what you're saying, but let me give you the legal parameters within which you should be working on this case. Intent is the intent to do the act. It doesn't mean that you're thinking about. as you described forever separation. It's whether I have intent to hold up a gun and shoot you in the head. That intent. Right.

If you. If you think I'm the devil in that moment? To get her husband out of the house so she could kill the children. She had intent to kill the children. What we're looking at was she criminally responsible. What was her state of mind when she formulated the intent? And that is a forensic psychiatric issue. Her state of mind when she formulated the intent, matters in this case. If she is not guilty, if she's found not guilty by reason of insanity,

she may have formulated intent under a delusion. And it depends on whether it's egosentonic or egodontic. Ego-distonic is when someone is having thoughts of hurting their baby and they're absolutely horrified by it and it scares them. Ecosentonic means they are having these thoughts and they think that's not an awful thing. That is not something that, the evidence shows that was a normal state of mind for this woman. And there are lots and lots of attempts that this woman made from what I can see to get help. And a whole lot of people who did not understand postpartum psychosis, this woman should have been hospitalized immediately with her baby if possible, never left alone with her baby if possible. She should have been

given lithium. She should have been, there are all kinds of best practices about postpartum psychosis that were not followed, even by the admission of the treating mental health professionals here. This is a tragedy, but this does not look to me like a Casey Anthony or somebody who is out partying and not, I mean, it's a completely different mentality than what we've seen in some of these other awful cases that you and I have covered. Let's see the video again. You know, to you, Dr. Gerlin utter as a clinical psychologist. Oh, by the way, this is from our friend, Nate Eaton, over at East Idaho News in the courtroom every single day. To me, she looks upset, she looks hurt. Maybe she's thinking about what they had that she completely destroyed with the three murders. Maybe she

still loves him. He testified for the state, as I recall. Maybe she sees it as a some sort of betrayal. She just looks very hurt and anxious like she doesn't know what's about to happen. To Gerald and Utter, Dr. Geraldine Utter, you know, when you see your ex

possibly for the first time in a long time, there are floods of emotion, much less when you've killed his three children. I mean, I agree with you, Nancy, she definitely, and Tracy, she definitely looks like she is emotional, but when it comes to reading

the small gesticulations in her face, I think one thing that we want to remember is that she is on a variety of different psychiatric medications that can cause something called tardive dyskinesia. And that is exactly kind of what she could be demonstrating, which is the lip movements, you have like involuntary lip movements, brow movements.

So to Tracy's point, she's saying she's hard to read. And we want to measure that as a confounding factor that the facial movements, you know, the lips moving, that could be a side effect or an adverse event of medication. But she does look very sad and upset. The thing that I noticed as well is she seems to be looking straight ahead. I don't know if she's looking exactly at him, but she can also be depersonalizing and, you know, kind of dissociating, checking out in that moment, maybe not staring directly at him, but around him to try to manage some of her emotions,

even though she's clearly emoting a little bit on the screen there. we can see. Based on her reaction to him in court, I would like to point out to Dr. Gerald and utter, when that happened, the online response was overwhelming that somehow he was involved. Again, she admits she killed her children. She has pled not guilty, N-G-B-R-I, not guilty by reason of insanity, which says, which means I did it, but I was insane. So let's be clear. She has pled not guilty by reason of insanity. She admits she did it. Nobody's claiming Patrick Clancy did this. But something about this video, something about her reaction in court, has engendered a lot of sympathy, a lot of empathy, and a lot of blaming Patrick Clancy. Why? You know,

know what, let me go to Shannon Hill on that star, Shannon Hill News. What is this just groundswell of hatred toward the husband and empathy toward her? I think it really started off with the surveillance footage found in CBS that night, as well as the 3B restaurant. The online slews are claiming that Patrick Clancy changed his clothes between the time he went to CBS and the time he went to 3V restaurant. And this is where all of the rumors began. But if you look very closely at the footage from 3V and CBS, the 3V footage is a little clearer and more concise. Whereas the CBS footage is a little more grainyer. So you're seeing something that might look a little different in the next surveillance footage

because they're completely different qualities. Different lighting. Different side profile. There's no shortcut for saving time. But saving money is simply. Just combine your car and home insurance with Bel Air Direct and save. Get a quote at bellair direct.com. Crime stories with Nancy Grace.

To Randy Kessler, hearing the premeditation, the planning, and what the children endured. And I've seen this in court a million times defense attorneys do their very best. So the jury doesn't hear what the victims went through. there is no victim in the courtroom. All the jury sees is the defendant. This defendant is paralyzed from the waist down from jumping out of her window. So they are seeing her looking sympathetic. And I think what happened to the children is getting lost in the sauce, Randy, but I want to hear your response to the effort it took to strangle the children and that some of her first communications were, do I have a lawyer?

Not, did my children live? How are my children? What have I done to my children? It's just a horrible dream. Are they dead? Are they alive? But do I have a lawyer? I find that to be troublesome, to say the least.

And combined with the horrific nature of the murder, no question about it. But all of those facts, Nancy, are prejudicial, not probative. Those facts don't need to be said. They're being said to play on the sympathy of the jury. The question, the issue of whether she did this has been answered. She's acknowledged it. She's admitted it. Her lawyer said she did it, whether she did it and it caused a lot of pain or a little pain,

it's horrible. But they're emphasizing how much pain to cause these children, how horrible it was to get the jury more sympathetic to the victims and more likely to want to punish the mother. But that's not the legal standard. The legal question here is not how bad was it? How much did they suffer? The question is, did she do it because she had a mental break because she was in a state of psychosis?

And none of the questions you're raising, none of the issues you're bringing up mitigate or change the fact that if she did it, it was because she was under a state of psychosis. There's no other reason. She did not hate the husband. That is absolutely not correct, Kessler. Because if she could create a plan intent and then carry out the. intent, that goes to presence of mind. It goes to frame of mind, course of conduct, so many more aspects that are probative at trial. I appreciate your attempt. Maybe the defense attorney can learn from what you just said. Joining us now, Dr. Leslie Dobson, clinical forensic psychologist,

hosts of a brand new podcast on IHeart intentionally disturbing. And you can find her at Dr. Leslie Dobson.com. Author of The Friend Cleanse, How to Set Boundaries with Energy Vampires. Dr. Leslie, weigh in. I think she was floridly psychotic, and you cannot convince me otherwise. We have a violence-free history, a happy mother, and she faked going to all these doctors, getting all these medications, faked, being completely insane, faked having all of this anxiety, fake suicidal thoughts and harm for her children, then all of a sudden premeditated,

killed her three kids and jumped out a window and wanted to be paralyzed? It makes no sense. And there is no way the prosecution is going to be able to convince a jury to say without doubt that there was no question of insanity. Well, of course, that's not the legal standard,

Dr. Leslie. The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, not no doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt. Well, it's two prongs in that. Massachusetts. And they are? The two prongs are that you have to, we need clear and convincing evidence. So do we have doubt?

And do we actually believe that she was sane or insane at the time of the crime? Back to you, Jeff Gentry. Again, why would she search on the internet, sending her husband on an errand, and then the moment the door is closed, she'd. she kills the children. And he calls to ask her a question in the middle of that. And she puts on an Oscar-winning performance acting like nothing is wrong, speaks normally into the phone. Okay.

Has the conversation. I think we both agree that we're not going to be on the same page with this one because I think that that could mean anything. But I do want to talk about the evidence. I want to talk about the way she harmed these children. I mean, that's not a normal method of homicide. It spur the moment. You grab the closest thing nearby. And you harm your children.

And then even the way that she harmed her stuff. People grab the kitchen appliance. People stick a baby in the microwave. Let's look at what we saw upstairs. So we see blood evidence that indicates that multiple self-inflicted injuries, which that can happen in somebody that's wanting to harm themselves. But then you have pills involved. You have diving out of a window.

Those are not normal. I mean, normally when somebody harms himself, they pick one method and they go with it. don't use multiple methods to inflict injury on themselves. So this is essentially over- It's amazing that none of them worked, isn't it? It really is amazing. It worked on the children, but it didn't, she did not actually commit suicide. But to me, all of this adds up and shows that this is kind of a spur-of-the-moment thing.

This isn't necessarily something that's planned out. Maybe she heard the voice and sent her husband away for a period of time, but nothing to me about this crime suggests that this is spur the moment. Plus, her entire history shows that she has mental health issues, that she's prone to postpartum depression, that this could be a psychosis-related issue as opposed to something that was planned. I'm not saying that she didn't kill her kids. I'm not saying that she didn't harm them, but we have to look at the entire set of circumstances. We also have to look at Patrick's involvement in this, too. Where was he at when she was struggling? Where was he at? I was mentioning before, I'm a father of four. I have full custody of all four of my

children. I have always been part of their life. And if my children's mother was struggling with mental health issues or possibly saying that she was going to harm the children, there is no way in hell I would ever leave that person alone with my kids. I would have them out at the store, picking up groceries with me. Shannon Hill joining us tonight, a host of Shannon Hill News. Shannon, to try and answer the question I was asking were Lindsay Clancy's fingerprints on the exercise bands or just her DNA. Nancy, from my understanding, there weren't exact fingerprints. However, there was mixed DNA.

We have to remember that the children's DNA was on the exercise bands and they both carry DNA pieces from both parents. So there wasn't really a standalone DNA that stood out to forensic scientists when they were looking over these pieces of evidence. It was mixed DNA. all family members. So mixed DNA between her and the husband, no fingerprints, correct? As far as I know, there were no fingerprints.

Alice LeCore, is that your understanding as well? Star of Legal Briefs podcast and the Prosecutor's Podcast. That's right. I also note that that's going to be a substance. That's going to be very hard to get any fingerprints off of. So I'm not surprised there are no fingerprints. That doesn't mean she wasn't the one to have her hands around it. To Alice Lecor and Shannon Hill, what can you tell me about her internet searches leading up to this day?

We hear Gentry going on and on about how this wasn't planned, but I'm referring to January 20, 2023, and more. To you, Alice, what were the searches? I want to point out something that the defense actually brought out that I don't think I picked up on until Reddington said it in closing. She has been planning this for weeks. She was keeping detailed notes in her journal about her medications and the effects it had on her until January 18th, the week before the murders. At that point, she stops writing everything. And in fact, she goes back to a note in December just the night before, and she edits that note, seeming to blame the medications and her doctors for the way she's feeling.

And it's a clear suicide note. This note was not read out loud, but it was flashed on the screen. I think she stopped taking these meticulous notes on January 18th because she had decided what she was going to do. She just needed to look for the opportunity. So even all of her friends, her family and Patrick themselves said she seemed much better. She had the best day she'd had on January 24th, the day of the murders. Did you know that her sister is a certified therapist? A certified therapist she talked to daily.

Her sister never saw the need, saw the need to intervene, to come to her house, to give her, you know, involuntary commitment. She had all of the support around her. And it's because she knew exactly what to say to people so that she could get her way. Shannon Heal, what about it, including the internet searches. Nancy, one of the searches that Lindsay Clancy made was, can you cure a sociopath? which sort of breaks at the psychotic defense because she was clear-minded enough three days before the murders to Google, can you cure a sociopath on her phone?

This is something that the prosecution has talked about throughout the trials is she was of clear mind. She was Googling how to cure a sociopath. To Dr. Janie Lacey also joining us tonight, psychotherapist and CEO of Life, counseling solutions and author of How to Heal from a Toxic Relationship. Host, let's talk about it with Janie Lacey.

Way in, Dr. Lacey. You know, Nancy, what I would say is it is hard, and I'm hearing the conversation, it is hard for people to hold to truths that someone could have moments of being a good mother and also not want to be a mother. And this is where I land. We're not arguing whether postpartum,

psychosis is real. It is real. However, this is what we look at. And I've been a psychotherapist for 20 years. It is one of the most severe emergencies in psychiatry, right? Postpartum psychosis is not the baby blues. And it is not even a standard postpartum depression. It is a full break from reality. Hallucinations, delusions, a mind that can no longer trust what it's seeing or hearing. It is rare. And when it happens, it happens fast. I kind of equated to like a medical emergency, like a stroke or cardiac event, right? You're not planning. You're not Googling. You're not doing all those things when it happens.

It happens and it happens quickly. It's real and it's treatable when it's caught in time. But when we're looking at this case as a whole, there is a contradiction. Okay. What's the contradiction? The contradiction is that when we're looking at someone that has the evidence of Googling, planning, there's forethought, there is timing, There is all the things that we're talking about in today's show.

That is not a break in reality. That is the contradiction. When we look at psychotic, psychiatric treatment of postpartum psychosis, it is a break in reality. I like to equate it sort of that normal people can understand. It's like having a stroke or having a cardiac arrest. I'm not Googling a cardiac arrest or a stroke before I think I'm going to have a stroke, right? It just happens. And that is the difference between what we're talking about, all the treatment for postpartum depression,

post-partum depression, the baby blues. That is something very different when we're looking at this very rare diagnosable condition. That is a contradiction, Nancy. If you know or think you know anyone considering suicide, please dial the suicide hotline. You can call or text very simply 9-8-8-8. Tonight, we remember American hero, Deputy Sheriff Troy Bailey, Lancaster County, Sheriff's, Nebraska. passed away in the line of duty after 33 years on the force, leaving behind grieving fiancé Danielle and children,

Rachel Taylor and Trevor, American hero, Deputy Sheriff, Troy Bailey. Thank you to all of our guests being with us tonight, but especially to you. Nancy Gray, signing off for tonight, but I'll see you tomorrow night, and until then, good night. This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed human.