Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - LINDSAY CLANCY JUROR: "MAYBE I STILL BELIEVE SHE'S GUILTY"

Episode Date: September 10, 2026

Following Lindsay Clancy's mistrial due to a 'hopelessly deadlocked' jury, the jurors who spent 6 weeks listening to complicated testimony, and 6 days trying to reach a decision are speaking out about their experience and deliberation room frustrations. Nancy Grace and her expert panel react to shocking interviews from jurors who admit they still believe Clancy may be guilty, yet voted Clancy was not criminally responsible simply to ensure she received mental health treatment. Nancy and her team unpack this apparent jury nullification, defense attorney Kevin Reddington's public targeting of the lone holdout juror, and whether the prosecution will entertain a potential plea deal. Nancy and her panel also dive into an emerging tragedy in Frankfort, Illinois, where 40-year-old Corie Walsh allegedly strangled her two-year-old son, Barrett, with a cord before inflicting superficial cuts on herself. Despite Walsh's defense attorney insisting any link to Clancy is baseless speculation, the panel exposes chilling parallels: Walsh spent extensive time in online Clancy chatrooms prior to the killing, labeled her toddler the "Antichrist," and executed the attack while her husband was out of town. Joining Nancy Grace today:  Franz Borghardt - (Baton Rouge, LA) Criminal Defense Attorney, Founder of Borghardt Law Firm, Former Prosecutor, Instagram and Facebook: @BorghardtLawFirm Dr. Bethany Marshall - (Beverly Hills, CA) Psychoanalyst. See her in hit shows "Paris in Love" on Peacock and "The Valley, Persian Style" on Bravo.  You can also catch her on Netflix and Hulu as well. Host of new podcast, "On The Couch with Dr. Bethany Marshall," Instagram, Facebook, & TikTok: @DrBethanyMarshall, Twitter: @DrBethanyLive Joseph Scott Morgan - (AL) Professor of Forensics: Jacksonville State University, Author, "Blood Beneath My Feet", Host: "Body Bags with Joseph Scott Morgan", Social Media: @JoScottForensic Dave Mack - (AL) Investigative Reporter, 'Crime Stories' See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-heart podcast. Guaranteed human. Get Bell Pure Fiber Internet with Crave, Netflix, and Disney Plus from $94 a month. Price guaranteed for two years on internet with a two-year term and auto pay credit. Visit bell.ca for details and to check availability. Bell, connection is everything. Crime stories with Nancy Grace. Bombshell tonight.

A Lindsay Clancy juror actually says, says, maybe I still believe she's guilty. What? Then she goes on to say, we had to find her not guilty by reason of insanity so she could get the treatment she needs. And she would never get that behind bars. What about intent to murder three children? This as Clancy's defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, puts a bullseye on the holdout juror, basically saying, here he is. Go and get him. Also, the Lindsay Clancy copycat killer says, I'm no copycat. Good evening. I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. I want to thank you for being with us. This woman was not just heavily invested in the trial of Lindsay Clancy. She was online constantly on message boards.

What were all those messages she was putting on out online? Was she pro? Lindsay Clancy? Was she against Lindsay Clancy? Originally, I felt as though she was guilty and she was currently responsible for it. And maybe I still believe that. Maybe I still believe she's guilty? That from our friends at CBS and that is a fourth juror now speaking out. Okay, let me hear that again. Does she just actually say maybe I still believe she's guilty?

What? Listen. Originally, I felt as though she was guilty and she was criminally responsible for it. And maybe I still believe that. Again from CBS and another thing that she said, Joe Scott Morgan and I are just spinning like tops. Joe Scott, it really got to you when she said that other thing. You tell it. Yeah, the idea here is that she did. used these elastic bands around their little necks, and she choked the life out of them, Nancy,

and then, you know, discarded herself out the window and whatever manner it is that she did this. But before she did that, she unleashed hell in this house and killed these kids, Nancy. That's what's in question here. Did she do it or did she not do it? I was just, I was amazed. I was dumbfounded. Franz Borghardt joining us, veteran trial lawyer out of Baton Rouge, founder of the Borghardt's law firm. Did you hear that? Hey, maybe I still think she's guilty.

And it gets worse, Borghardt. I don't trust anything jurors say, Nancy, after they're done deliberating. There's no incentive for them at that point, to be honest. What she said was so silly that it doesn't make sense. Now, do I believe that they were confused? Absolutely. Do I believe that they nullified? Absolutely.

But that one juror, what she said? Uh-uh. So you can't pick and choose. I believe the jurors when they wanted NGBRI, not guilty by reason of insanity. But now I don't believe them anymore because I don't like what they're saying. You don't like it.

Because what this is is jury nullification. This juror is saying, I still make. Maybe I still think she did it, and that's not all. You are going to have to agree with me, even though we're on two sides of the fence, that what she's about to say is contradictory to every criminal code and the Constitution. Listen to this, Franz. I just felt like the only way to get justice support for Cora, Dawson, and Callan, and Patrick and her parents, and anyone else that was closest was to get her to help that she, desperately needed. And there's a little way she's getting a health

for them. I am stunned because what she just said violates every trial ethic. That's from our friends at CBS. Because Franz, what she's saying is, if we had done, if we had followed the facts, we would have found her guilty, but she would never have gotten mental treatment so we couldn't do that. Quote, There's no way she's getting that help in a prison. Jurors are not to consider sentencing in their deliberations at guilt-innocence phase. That is very, very important. Explain, Franz.

They take a note during jury selection, after jury selection, at all times, they're supposed to follow the law. The insane part about all this is, they also can nullify and there's nothing any of us can do about it. And they can choose not to follow the law during deliberations. And it makes our heads want to explode. But it, it's, it's nonsensical because they get asked by everyone. Are you going to follow the law? Are you going to follow the law? And they always say what, Nancy? Yeah, I'm going to follow the law. And then you hear soundbouts like this. And it's like, no, you didn't follow the law. To Dr. Bethany Marshall joining us renowned psychoanalyst.

You can see her on Peacock. You can see her on Bravo. You can see her on Hulu. And her new podcast on the couch with Dr. Bethany Marshall. Dr. Bethany, why did they do this? It's clearly jury nullification as we predicted at the get-go. You know, Nancy, I'm even more disturbed that they are coming out and saying that

they wanted her to get the help that she needed. so they preferred her to be in a psychiatric facility. You know, she could petition to get out of that psychiatric facility or hospital within a year. So then she's roaming about in society, potentially having more children, causing harm to others, harassing her husband. You know, the jurors are thinking of Lindsay Clancy. They're thinking that a mother could not possibly in a hostile and malicious way kill her children. but what they're not talking about is her danger to the community. The fact that if she was in prison, she's behind bars for the rest of her life,

but a psychiatric hospital is basically a conduit for her getting out and then potentially going off of her medications, becoming even more psychotic and disturbed, wreaking more harm. So I'm disturbed that they're just looking at it in this one narrow way, which was not their responsibility to. do. They're not mental health clinicians. They're not attorneys. They are jurors. They should have stuck to their job. Long story short, bombshell tonight. A juror actually states, maybe I believe she's guilty still. Then why the NGBRI vote? Why the mistrial if you believe she's guilty? And now we know the

truth of it. Listen, one more time. She could not get the help she so desperately needs. This is the juror's words behind bars. I just felt like the only way to get justice support for Cora, Dawson, and Callan, and Patrick and her parents and anyone else that was closest was to get her to help that she desperately needed. And there's a little way she's getting a help in a person. So there you go. The entire justice system right down the crapper. There's no other way to put it. That Gerard has revealed all this as Lindsay Clancy's lawyer has put a big bullseye target on the holdout Gerr's bat. But across the country, a copycat killer emerges. A mom, Corey Walsh, 40 years old, Frankfurt, Illinois, strangles her two-year-old baby boy Barrett,

then using the dullest knife in the drawer, slices at her arms and legs and goes and sits in the bathtub. She had been living in Lindsay Clancy chat rooms up until at the most three hours before she hangs baby boy Barrett, obsessed with Lindsay Clancy and the NGBRI. Also, interesting, I can't wait to hear Dr. Bethany's take on this. While Lindsay Clancy looks up, can you treat a sociopath? Is she talking about one of her children that she killed? Rationalizing the murder?

Now, Corey Walsh calls her two-year-old son the Antichrist. But her defense attorney insists this is no copycat. They are not correlated at all. It's just accidental. We have to be conscious of what the judge has told us. We can talk about and not talk about. But that's speculation that has anything to do. That it's a copycat or anything like that is.

baseless and cruel. From the Herald News, baseless and cruel, my rear end. And isn't it true, Dave Mack, that mom doesn't make it to the funeral. What's happening, Dave Mac? Nancy, you're absolutely right. Corey Walsh did not make it to the funeral

for two-year-old Barrett because, well, she's being held in jail right now. Allegedly. She was in. court. I don't want your regrets. I want the facts. But hold on. You just brought me to another point. Franz Borgharts. Isn't it true? People get to go to funerals all the time. What, does she not petition to go to her son's funeral? So I've seen it both ways, Nancy. I've seen incarcerated inmates not be allowed to go. And I've seen defense motions to go with escorts.

So I don't think it's out. If she's the alleged killer, I don't think it's outlandish that she's not allowed to go, but if she's in court, that's a good reason for her not to be there. Put him up, please. You completely evaded my question. Did you think I wouldn't catch that? I asked you, did she not even petition to go? Which, your answer tells me, no, she did not petition. So I'm going to talk about something else. Did not even ask to go. They could have done that hearing, that 20-minute hearing, any time. It didn't have to be during the funeral. That tells me she very likely did not petition to go to her son's funeral. Assuming she knew what was happening. Oh dear Lord in heaven. Okay, you know what? If she's

incarcerated, she doesn't know. She's got a lawyer about three inches up her tailpipe. Of course she knows. I know and I'm on the other side of the country. We all know that the funeral was then and it sounds like she did not petition to go. Get Bell Pure Fiber Internet with Crave Netflix and Disney Plus from $94 a month. Price guaranteed for two years on Internet with a two-year term and auto pay credit. Visit bell.ca for details and to check availability. Bell, connection is everything. Crime stories with Nancy Grace.

Let me just throw in. She's innocent until proven guilty, although the facts are. She's claiming a psychotic break, which means, does it not, Dave Mack, that she says, I did it, but I was insane at the time. So she's admitting she did it. Give me the facts, Dave Mac. What happened? Bottom line is, as you mentioned earlier, this woman was in the Clancy, Lindsay Clancy chat rooms forever.

She was commenting on this all the time. Neighbors were concerned because this woman, Corey Walsh, that you're looking at right there, She was all about the Lindsay Clancy trial and what was happening. So she knew what was taking place. She knew that Lindsay Clancy's attorneys were filing for not guilty by reason of insanity. And that's a battleground. And there you go. Now, what really came out in court, Nancy, was that we've discovered that it was Corey Walsh's two older children that were in school.

They came home from school, and that's when everything began to happen. Remember, it was a 17-year-old neighbor that discovered Barrett. A lot of us said, how is that even possible? Well, it's because the two older children got home from school, and they saw what was taking place. They saw a mom upstairs in the bathtub with blood, and we assume, don't know, they saw Barrett, because they ran next door, and it was a 17-year-old neighbor who came. and took Barrett down from the rafters, Nancy. So we've got two schoolchildren that came home to this just horrific,

life-staining moment of evil. You know, I'm very curious as to why her defense attorney is so adamant and making the point over and over and over that this is not a Lindsay Clancy copycat. To you, Dr. Bethany Marshall, just in a few moments. These are the similarities I came up with. First of all, both of them made sure their husband was away at the time of the murders. Corey Walsh's husband was out of town.

Lindsay Clancy's husband was sent on a long errand by her. Both mothers, both of them ligature asphyxiation. Lindsay Clancy used exercise bands, her own exercise bands. Corey Walsh used a cord. Both scenarios occurred in the home, in the basement. In both of them, there was an unsuccessful, unsuccessful suicide attempt with a knife. And in this case, isn't it true Dave Mack that Corey Walsh made a haphazard attempt on her arms and her legs and then sat down on the bathtub. That's exactly what happens. Superficial cuts. That's all it was, just enough to get blood

in the water. And you know how blood looks once it gets in water? One drop of blood looks like jaws attacks. They are both claiming they had a psychotic break. Both of them questioned the character of their child. Lindsay Clancy writing a search, can you treat a sociopath. I wonder which of her children she thought was a sociopath. And Corey Walsh stating her son is the devil, the Antichrist. So put all that together, Dr. Bethany Marshall. You've got two white females in beautiful homes, in suburbia. They are absolutely similar and they absolutely qualify as copycat. Of course. And you know, Nancy, what else is similar is the defense? If you are psychotic, you couldn't possibly be homicidal. You know, Nancy, it's like saying somebody

can't have diabetes and leukemia. You can have both at the same time. In terms of forming intent, you can have a compulsion to kill that waxes and wanes over many months, either at a conscious or unconscious level. And then if you get destabilized psychiatrically, something happens and you get the courage to do it. So this whole psychotic thing, I think, has thrown a lot of chaos into confusion into this whole proceeding. The jurors in Lindsay Clancy are becoming armchair psychiatrists. It takes a lot of training to ferret out the nuances of being homicidal and having a

psychiatric illness and how both can reverberate together and intensify each separate syndrome. So when I look at these women, the biggest similarity I see is the vilification of the children, because that is a classic sign of abuse. Also, when Lindsay Clancy searched, can you treat a sociopath? My first thought is she's talking about herself, not her children, because, the defense brought forward all of her friends, her family members, her in-laws, who said she seemed like such a great mother. How could a great mother kill? Well, we know a lot about sociopathy, and I have never diagnosed Lindsay Clancy. I don't never met her in person. But we could speculate that a feature of psychopathy is acting glib and normal and affable and charming while hiding a cold and calculated interior. Look, the beat. BTK killer was a church deacon. So trying to say, you know, because she acted like a good mother, she wasn't also homicidal, I think it's just a very false distinction. Franz Borghar, I know you're sitting down, you may need to lay down when you hear what else

this juror of the Clancy case just said. We weren't trying to figure out if she murdered the children. She did. And she's admitting that. We're trying to figure out, did she know right from wrong? at that time. And with everybody saying she loved her children so much and everything proved she loved her children from her journals to her mother-in-law. Everything proved that she loved her children. So she had to have snapped and not known what she was doing. To me, it was proof that she didn't know what she was doing. That's from WBT.S. So what she's saying is, first of all, there's no such thing is snap. That's the name of a show on oxygen.

That is not a legal defense. I snap all day, but that's not an excuse to take out my oozy and shoot down everybody in the studio. Snap is not a defense number one, but more disturbing is she said, I know she murdered the children. She did. but everybody said she loved the children so she had to have snapped. Franz Borkhart, the issue was not did she snap or did she love her children. You could say that about husbands that love their wives and then kill them.

He would never have. He loved her. Well, maybe he did love her, but he also murdered her. The same thing here. They're saying she loved her children so much. So she had to be crazy, which is what you and I both thought could happen. It's hard to get a conviction on a mom. Unless you prove that she was just cruel and awful leading up to the murder. So they did not accept the law from the judge.

Yet they're blasting the whole doubt juror claiming he did not accept the reasonable outcharge. I got to tell you, there was so much expert testimony that they could have hung their hats on that I don't know why this particular juror is leaning on the, well, I mean, everybody seemed to think that she loved her. Well, I mean, huh? This, again, Nancy, this is nullification. This is not following the law. This is going off reservation in the deliberations. And I don't know if this was good lawyering or just bad jurors. Or fake. of the court to articulate, but I certainly, and I know we'll get to talk about it, but blasting a juror by either side is reprehensible, is absolutely reprehensible. You know, it really is, Franz,

and I want to say that while I am disagreeing with these two female jurors that we are playing, I'm disagreeing with what they say, it's their right to vote how they wish in the jury deliberation room. Do you know how I could not understand the O.J. Simpson? not guilty, or the Totman Casey Anthony, not guilty. But there was never a time. I wanted to blast or out one of the jurors. That is their prerogative. It's their duty to do their thing in the jury room. I don't have to agree with it. And I don't have to pretend that I do agree with it. But here, they're speaking out and they are revealing how bass a quarts their deliberations were, how constitutionally wrong their deliberations were, hey, we had to do NGBRI because we wanted her to get treatment.

And then the other one says, we know she murdered her children. Quote, she did. But we wanted her to walk anyway. It is insane. Get Bell Pure Fiber Internet with Crave Netflix and Disney Plus from $94 a month. Price guaranteed for two years on Internet with a two-year term and auto. pay credit. Visit bell.ca for details and to check availability. Bell, connection is everything. Crime stories with Nancy Grace. Now, you're leading me to another point tonight, Franz, Borgarts,

and that is the big, fat, red bullseye that defense attorney Kevin Reddington has placed on the holdout jurors back, basically saying, there he is. There he is. come and get him. They know that they were robbed by one man for whatever his agenda was who stole seven weeks of the life of these other jurors that was so attentive, so beautiful, so it wonderful, and listen to this evidence. And you could see how defeated they were sitting there. And I got a funny feeling that they would have gone on for another week if they had to.

Well, was it a mistake to actually reveal the gender of the juror? I know during the course of the SJC argument, I believe that the gender of the individual was revealed, and then it just followed through after that. Mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm. From our friends at East Idaho News, WBZ and GMA, so now this guy, for standing by his principles, has a big bullseye on his back,

and you've got a juror piling on as well. He was very arrogant. He really did not take anything that anybody said. The nurses, he tried to ask a question about the medications, and we went back to the report from South Shore Hospital. We had the toxicology report. We could see exactly the amounts. The nurses in the room spoke to that, and he just completely disregarded the information that. Gagher. WBTS, well, bottom line, she's saying that he was arrogant. He wouldn't listen. He would not take anything we said to him. He disagreed. Could you explain in your understanding Joe Scott Morgan, who I haven't even introduced yet, Professor Forensics Jacksonville State University, he is a star of a hit new program on YouTube body bags with Joe Scott Morgan.

And he is the author of Blood Beneath My Feet on Amazon, but more important, he is a death investigator with over 10,000 death scene investigations under his belt. Let me quote her exactly. We weren't trying to figure out if she murdered the children. She did. Yeah, the fact that she did state that she had. And, you know, to me, not being a psychologist, I'm sitting here thinking, okay, so she flew into a rage and she just kind of went off of the deep end and decided to kill them.

You know, there were, there are these moments in time, Nancy, where you have these mass killings like this. And she had, she had the ability, I would think, at some point Tom, to stop and say, you know what, what I'm doing is wrong, but she chose not to. She went out and she weaponized these elastic straps. She wrapped them around her children's necks. This was not a quick death. This is something where they languished for a period of time.

And as a matter of fact, Nancy, you want to talk about languishing. Here's what happened. The pressure in their neck rose to such a point that you had this deep furrow that existed around their neck caused by the ligature and the little vessels in their eyes began to burst. They would have been struggling. They would have changed colors. And all of this stuff is happening before. her eyes. And while she is actually robbing them of their little lives, and for what reason,

no one can actually answer this. This is not like she went through, you know, where we've seen individuals that will walk into a location with a weapon and they just start randomly shooting people. She's locked up in the house with these kids. She takes care of these kids. She reached for whatever she had there available and thought, wow, this would be a great idea to use these elastic exercise straps to wrap them around my kids next and continue. And again, this is not like a rope. It's not like a wire. She had to continue to readjust tension on these things in order to make them work. And boy, did she ever make them work. She killed three kids in that house, Nancy. You know, I'm curious about your choice of words, Joe Scott Morgan.

She had to quote your words, readjust tension. In other words, squeeze tighter and tighter and tighter in order to strangle them dead. Yeah, so if she'd just used like a nylon cord, if she'd used a pair of shoe strings, which I've seen done, wire, anything like that, the surface tension of this thing is such that you don't have to necessarily readjust it. With these straps in and of themselves, the nature of these things is that they've got a lot of give in them. So she would have to continue to manipulate these things over and over again as these children are literally fighting for their lives. She could have paused at one moment in time, but she chose not to. That's a free will decision that she made at that moment, Tom.

And again, this is robbery of a life here. She took these children's lives allegedly. And they are no more at this point. I don't know why you're saying allegedly regarding Lindsay Clancy because she never said I didn't do it. That's not the defense. The defense is I did it, but I was insane at the time. And you know what I've noticed? I'm going to throw this to Dr. Bethany.

Bethany, and none of these jurors outpouring of their feelings and emotions, do they say she did not have intent at the time? None of them addressed the fact that she researched on Apple Map how long her husband would be gone. She sent him on an errand. She started researching it at 4 o'clock. Then around 5 o'clock, pretended like it was an afterthought. and said, oh, by the way, can you stop? And yet Children's Mirlax, there he is, following her bidding. She even called the manager to make sure that they had it in stock so he would not pester her,

which he did call her. And he stated she sounded totally sane, as did the CVS manager, then herds the children, all three of them, gets all three of them in the basement, then seeing what she did effectuates a half-hearted attempt. It's suicide, and if you look at the outside of the home, it looks as if instead of just jumping out the window, that the blood off of her wrist indicates that she was holding on

to make it a shorter jump down. when her husband got there, she mentioned nothing about the children instead said, I tried to kill myself. None of the jurors address her clear intent. You know what else they didn't address, Nancy, is the value of the children's lives. And we know children's rights are vastly underrepresented in court. They thought about the mother. They thought about Lindsay Clancy's family, but they didn't think or talk much about the children.

In terms of all this planning, Nancy, I think what's unfortunate is that Dr. Resnick, expert witness for the defense, is renowned in the field in terms of determining lying, malingering, philicide. And he did say that it was possible that she had a command hallucination. And I hate to go up against an intellectual giant here. Yes, somebody can't. have command hallucinations, but command hallucinations do not cause methodical planning over hours or days. It just simply doesn't. And as you said earlier, nobody simply snaps. So it shows to me that there's an intertwining or a feedback loop between possibly a pharmaceutically induced

psychosis, which was on a lot of medications, but something that was already in her mind. anyway. Usually when somebody acts out when they're psychotic or they have a pharmaceutically induced delirium or something like that, they act out on something that was already in their mind. Okay. They don't they don't go to something new. In the midst of psychosis, we incorporate who we are as people. That's that's like rule 101 of treating people who are schizophrenic or psychotic is that there's always a meaning in what they do, even if they sound crazy. It represents some of who they are as a human being. And all this planning, I think, points out who she is as a mother and how she felt about

her children. We learned tonight that at this hour, the defense is planning to approach the prosecution to, quote, work a deal. But will the prosecutor even entertain it? after this? You said you crushed the prosecution in court, but the final decision was a mistrial, least this decision? That's, that's provido. You know, that's after the fact. And, you know, the emotions run high and we just finished a six, seven-week trial.

But, um. You regret saying it? No, I don't regret saying it at all. I think that, I think the defense was, was very strong and I think it went in very well. You had 11 jurors that didn't necessarily believe your case. What do you say to those people who felt that the whole prosecution was insensitive? Was what? Insensitive. Insensitive. Insensitive is killing three children. Insensitive is ignoring those facts.

We have an obligation to stand up for those people and seek justice and make sure the defendant gets justice and make sure they get justice. So if people can't understand that, I don't know how I can answer that question. That from East Idaho News and WBZ. So what does that mean, Franz Borghardt? What kind of a deal could they possibly work except maybe voluntary? Well, if I'm defending her, I want not guilty by reason of insanity with some safeguards and a whole bunch of institutionalization. However, if I'm the Commonwealth, she's going to have to plead to something that has intent. And I think you're right. I think it would be involuntary. I'd want her to go to jail for a minute, or if not a minute, she definitely needs treatment before she's free. So I don't know that they're ever going to be able to meet in the middle, Nancy.

In both jurisdictions, the state is building or rebuilding its case if you know or think you know anything. Regarding the hanging death of 2-year-old Barrett, please dial Frankfurt PD at 815-469-94535. Or regarding Clancy, 781, 9345656. If you or someone you know is considering suicide, please, please intervene. Simply call or text 988. Nancy Grace signing off. Goodbye, friend. This is an I-Heart podcast.

Guaranteed human.