Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - "LOVING MOM" LINDSAY CLANCY ON EDGE: VERDICT WATCH

Episode Date: September 1, 2026

We are in verdict watch in the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy, a former labor and delivery nurse accused of strangling her three young children: Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and eight-month-old Callan. Clancy wrapped exercise bands around the children's necks in their home's basement before slitting her wrists and jumping from a second-story window.  Joining Nancy Grace: Alice LaCour  -  former federal prosecutor, Co-host, "The Prosecutors Podcast," and "Legal Briefs Podcast," www.prosecutorspodcast.com, partner at Hilgers PLLC, socials: @prosecutorpod Dr. Cheryl Arutt  -  Licensed Clinical and Forensic Psychologist specializing in Trauma Recovery, PTSD and EMDR,  website: askdrcheryl.com,  website: CreativeEMDR.com , IG: @askdrcheryl Jeff Gentry -  Certified Bloodstain Pattern Analyst, Senior Crime Scene Analyst and Death investigator, Former Toxicology Lab Analyst, Author: "Forensic Science: Applications to Death and Crime Scene Investigations" ; TikTok: @jeffreygentryBPA, FB: Jeff Gentry Bloodstain Pattern Analyst   Website: Evidenceoverassumption.com  Shannon Hill - Host, Shannon Hill News on Instagram, Tiktok and YouTube Dave Mack -  Investigative Reporter, 'Crime Stories' 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 bellairdirect.com. Crime stories with Nancy Grace. Loving mom, Lindsay Clancy, on edge as we go to air tonight, because we are in a verdict watch.

share at crime stories. Good evening. I'm Nancy Grace. This is crime stories. I want to thank you for being with us. A male voice allegedly ordering Lindsay Clancy to kill her children. I don't think Patrick Clancy had anything to do with the deaths of his three children. Who believes something like that when all of the evidence like you said Nancy shows that he was away from the scene of this gayness tragedy? 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 24th, 20203, 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 and the case against so-called loving mom Lindsay Clancy. That's now from our friends at East Idaho News. That is Prosecutor Sprague,

as she gave her closing arguments which weighed heavily on the minds of the jurors. So far, the jury has been out for hours and hours. What does it mean? We know 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? Defense attorney did a coin toss in front of the jury. and 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. Explain the evidence of Lindsay Clancy drinking in the days preceding the murders of her children. So Lindsay Clancy shared with her Dr. Tufts, a psychiatrist, her Dr. Tufts, that she had been drinking about four drinks a night, about five days a week, and that she felt embarrassed by that. And this was talked about in the courtroom. And Attorney Kent of Reddington felt that prosecution was using that in a very misleading way, that Lindsay Clancy had some type of drinking problem. But in reality, he felt that.

felt that his client was just a casual drinker, occasionally having a beer with friends, which he brought up in his closing arguments. Straight out to Alice Lecourne joining us, former federal prosecutor, now co-star of the prosecutor's podcast and Legal Briefs podcast. Alice, many people thought it was a foreshadowing this morning when several jurors came in dressed in pink. Nancy, you know, we've seen these droves of women dressed in pink outside saying that they support. Lindsay saying they stand with her, saying they are here for all postpartum struggling women. Now, what the jury may or may not be wearing, they're not sequestered. So they're aware

of these people standing outside in pink. Whether they're signaling to the people standing outside in pink is something that only they can tell us. But I will say this. This jury has sat through some of the most horrific evidence in any trial you can imagine. I know it is waiting for them. And, you know, we are, we're hoping that they've heard everything over the past five weeks that they look at the evidence for each of these three young children. They each have dignity, as the prosecution pointed out. They each had a future and all of that has been ended. This jury holds a lot in their hands. So whether what they're wearing signals, what they may or may not be doing, I just hope that they truly have held in all this information and consider it for the same.

of the victims. The closing arguments weighed heavily on the jury as they went out for day one of deliberations. 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 and no signs of psychosis. In fact, every doctor she saw from Tufts in September all the way through Tufts at 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 map 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 him gone for too long. She wanted him home. She was in 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 death 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 because 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 the, the, the, the, the, you know, the, the, you 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 motive? 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. Prosecutors pray 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 was a permanent forever, separate. from her children that she was committing a crime. This is something that they have to prove. And they have not demonstrated this. 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 it, as you described, forever separation.

It's rather, 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. her if she is not guilty, if she's found not guilty by reason of insanity, she may have formulated a tent under a delusion. And it depends on whether it's egosentonic or ego dystonic. 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.

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. Dr. Cheryl, with all respect to you on what you say, this is not a popularity contest. This is not about was she on a stripper pole like, Casey Anthony was, or was she a seemingly loving mom? Are those my only two choices? I don't think so. The only issue, it's not about her personality. Was she a good mom? Was she a bad mom? It's only

about intent at the time of the act. Wait in, Alice LeCore. I think that's exactly right here. So yes, it doesn't really matter if she was a good or bad mom. What we know is that she knew how to keep things from her mandatory reporters. The practitioners can only help her if she tells the truth. The purpose about the drinking wasn't that she was a heavy drinker. It was the point that she spoke to three practitioners and gave three different stories about drinking. One, she never drank. She hadn't drank since she got pregnant with Cora five years earlier. Another practitioner within the same month, she says she's drinking three to four drinks a night. The point isn't to look at her drinking. The point is to show how she knowingly knew what to tell people to get what she wanted.

She was prescribed medication. She did not follow what any doctor told her to do. She went to the hospital. She checked herself in and despite knowing she wasn't well, she told them, I'm great. I can go because she wanted to go to her daughter's birthday party. That's not a bad thing, But she knew the right things to say. And psychosis or not, mental health practitioners can only help her if she's truthful. What we do know is that she never reported a voice, never ever reported a voice until days after the murder. And she still says she heard it for the first time after the door closed and Patrick walked away. Those 18 minutes, she heard a voice.

The first time she hears a voice that says, kill your kids. she just says, all right, and jumps into action. Every single expert on the stand said, that is highly unusual. That is highly unusual. It sounds like post hoc justification to me. To Shannon Hill, I know that one doctor stated that she heard the evil male voice for 18 minutes. Was there other testimony that she heard the voice before? that? No, there was not other testimony until this day. Lindsay Clancy claims that she has only

heard that voice in the duration in which her husband had left the house and that when until she murdered her children. And after that, she has never heard the voice again. And several experts testified on the stand saying that is very rare to only hear the voice once and act on it. And to only hear it in that duration. And the fact that the claims are that she stopped hearing those voices after she murdered, Cora, Dawson, and baby Callan is very strange. And like your previous guests were saying, she was not fully honest with her medical professionals. She didn't follow proper medical protocol for long enough.

And the prosecution did a good job of going over the fact that she took one or two pills from each prescription bottle and then never really completed a full medical protocol. She wasn't being completely transparent with her doctors and saying that she was having suicidal thoughts, homicidal thoughts. When they all referred her to further health care and going into an inpatient treatment, she didn't really follow their recommendations. She would go for a day and then leave. Alice LeCore, could you tell me again, following up on what Shannon Hill has just reported, could you follow up? up again about the inconsistent statements regarding her drinking? So what we know is that Lindsay told different practitioners different things,

not just about the voices, but about seemingly insignificant things like drinking. So for one doctor, Dr. Tufts, I think that's probably the most honest statement. She said that she had a lot of anxiety and she would essentially self-medicate with drinking multiple times, multiple drinks a night. That's in and up, in and of itself okay. But what's disturbing is that she would tell another nurse practitioner that she hadn't touched alcohol since she got pregnant with Cora five years earlier. It doesn't really matter if she drinks or not. What matters is that this is a very knowing person who is part of the medical field. She's a labor and delivery nurse and she knows how her comments

will affect how people treat her and how they view her. And so she's a very knowing person. And so she's, is telling different practitioners, different things about her habits that will absolutely affect how these practitioners treat her because the medications she's prescribed can interact with alcohol. But the whole point here is she's knowingly disseminating information on her terms. And we know that at least one of those is a lie. Alice LeCourer joining us, former federal prosecutor co-starred the prosecutor's podcast and legal briefs podcast. I just want to to nail this down about the voice. The jury heard a lot of testimony about the voice, and I think that has landed us where we are tonight in part. Did she ever hear the evil male voice telling

her to kill her children before that night? Never ever. We know that there are thousands of pages of medical records by multiple practitioners and hospitals that treated and evaluated her. mentions of the voice never appear in any records. The first mention of a voice is by Lindsay in a phone call after the murders, about a week after the murders, when she calls Patrick. And in calling him, she said, I want to know where Patrick and I stand. During that call, she mentions for the first time to anybody that she heard a voice at the time of the murders.

She at that time and since then has never even stated she heard that voice before. It was a one-time thing. She heard the voice when the door closed after Patrick left and she has never heard that voice again. So the door closes, a voice says, go kill your children. And she's like, okay, am I right about that? That is the story the defense wants you to believe. She says, and by the way, she has told three practitioners and three experts, Three different things the voice says.

But we know from her civil complaint, she says she heard the voice say, this is your last chance. Kill your kids so that you can kill yourself. And she does not report resisting the voice, making any calls of help, or trying to even appease the voice to do something other than what the voice was demanding. She had to have jumped straight into action. as we can tell from her data, her health data on her phone, which shows that she immediately started taking the kids one by one down to the basement where they were ultimately strangled in different rooms so that they did not panic and fight her. Alice, again, what were the three versions she's told of what the voice said? So in one, we know because she put it in her civil complaint and she

told one of the experts that it said, this is your last. chance, kill the kids so you can kill yourself. In another, it just says, kill your kids so you can be free. All of these are slight variations, but they matter because the experts got on the stand and said, when you see these inconsistencies for a voice that was so powerful, she had to jump into action and do the unthinkable as a mother, that points to post hoc justification rather than actually hearing a voice at the time. Did you say post-hack justification? I did. Yes.

This voice came after. I mean to say that it's made up to cover for a murder. It's to explain away what happened. One voice says, kill your kids so you can then kill yourself. And the other voice says, well, the same voice says, kill yourself so you can be free. Yes. Kill the kids so you can be free. Yes.

And note that none of these voices say anything delusional about the kids. Unlike most delusions, they don't say something like your kids are going to be, you know, your kids are the demon, for example. We've seen that in psychosis cases where someone thinks that they have to end something evil. There's no delusion that she reports along with the voice, which is very suspect as the experts told us. She had health insurance that covered multiple doctors, multiple specialty programs, treatment at South Shore at Mass General, her stay at McLean. She had prescription coverage to cover the different trials she went through. She had support at home. She had 18 weeks of maternity leave

with the opportunity to extend that as much as she needed, which is excellent, which is what all women should have. But she had that. She had support from both sides of her family, hers and Patricks. The two older kids, Cora and Dawson, were in preschool three and a half days a week. And she had the nanny, Elaine, who helped with Callan three mornings a week. And she also helped her with housework and with food prep. This wasn't a woman suffering from a lack of care, a lack of resources. She had an abundance of help, an abundance of care.

She had all of that and more. That is from our friends at East Idaho News, that as prosecutor Sprague in her closing arguments, pointing out all the help that Lindsay Clancy had in the home. She was not alone. Dr. Cheryl Eric joining us, clinical and forensic psychologist, I want you to hear this part of the closing argument and get your opinion. Listen.

You know that she knew the difference between right and wrong during that time because she had those thoughts at the beginning of December of harming her kids and she told Patrick and her mother about them. But who she didn't tell is important in very telling. She didn't tell a single provider, not Tufts, not Jolada, not Jennifer McAllister, not Dukes, no one at McLean, no one at NGH, no one at South Shore, didn't tell any of them. And why?

because the police might take away your kids. That's a rational thought. That telling mandated reporters that you're having a thought of harming your kids that they might be taken away for their safety, that's a rational thought. That's from East Idaho News to Dr. Cheryl, Eric, what do you make of that claim? What I make of that claim is that shows a fundamental misunderstanding

of postpartum psychosis. And psychosis very frequently includes paranoia. We are as mental health professionals trained to look for when we are assessing these things, that when people are paranoid, they very often do not disclose some of the things that are going on with them. They don't trust their providers. They are afraid about these things. And it does not show her state of mind when she committed the killings.

This shows her state of mind when she was looking for help and when she was looking for, when she was having the suicidal thoughts in early December. And yes, she did try to do a lot of things. She wasn't suffering from a lack of resources, but she was suffering from a lack of people with expertise in postpartum psychosis. And what the prosecutor would have you believe is that this is someone with no prior evidence of being a murderous criminal mastermind, all of a sudden became this calculating person intent on murdering her children? Or is it more plausible with none of that evidence in this person's

history and completely consistent with postpartum psychosis that this can flip into a state of mind that is an emergency and a psychiatric emergency at that? So if we look at what is a more plausible explanation for how this horrific thing out of the blue could possibly have happened. The prosecution is asking you to presume that this was all a calculating murder, but where is the evidence in this person's history that she was even capable of something like that? Again, you've given you two very distinct and polar opposite choices, and the choices you've given me are either she's in psychosis or she is a criminal mastermind. I find very few killers to be a

quote criminal mastermind. That's why so many of them get caught. But those aren't the only choices at all by far. So I find that to be disingenuous. I'm looking for the truth. I don't have a dog in the fight, no skin in the game. And I want to ask you about the internet searches. But before I go to her internet searches to Jeff Gentry joining us, he is a renowned forensics expert. He is the author of Forensic Science, Applications to Death and Crime Scene Investigations, and you can find him at evidence over assumption.com. Someone stated earlier and they were correct that the internet is on fire with sleuths claiming Patrick Clancy is somehow involved in three murders of children. I'd like your response.

All right. I'm going to first, I've got a lot to say about this topic. First of all, you know that I'm all about the evidence. So normally when I'm looking at a case, especially from the outside, I look at what can the evidence tell me? And everybody is talking about intent. What was Lindsay Clancy's intent in this? in this crime. Why did she kill her kids? Did she plan it out? So let's look at the evidence and try to

figure that out. I've investigated hundreds of homicides, hundreds of self-inflicted injuries, and I'm not seeing necessarily intent to harm these kids. All I'm seeing is a history of her being a well-documented involved mother, but also a well-documented history of mental illness. I'm seeing that this was a sudden spur-the-moment act. First of all, using exercise-based, to kill someone. That is not normal. I have never seen that in hundreds of homicides that I've investigated. What I'm seeing, especially in self-inflicted injuries, is when people all of a sudden decide that they want to harm themselves, they grab whatever the closest object is nearby, and they do it. They grab something they're familiar with. So I'm seeing that when she had this opportunity

to harm her kids, or if the voices were telling her to harm her kids, she grabbed whatever the closest object was nearby and possibly strangled her kids with exercise bands. Now, we talk about what evidence is there of that? Is there DNA evidence? 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.

Mr. Gentry, are you familiar with her asking her husband to leave the home and looking online to see how long he would be gone and then adding a task that she had been researching since 4 p.m. that day and acting like it's an afterthought. Oh, by the way, while you're picking that up, could you stop and get this for the baby? And she had actually been searching it since 4 o'clock that afternoon and even looked on Apple Maps to determine

how long it would take him to do these chores. Then on the timeline, the moment he leaves and shuts the door, she says she hears a voice. Then she herds the children down into the basement, three children, you know how hard it is to herd tots, and kills them systematically one by one. And in seeing what she has done, tries to kill herself. Well, we don't know.

You don't think her Googling, the actual time her husband would be gone is an indication that she wanted him gone to kill the children? Not necessarily. I mean, that is speculation because although she did do these searches, everything indicates this was a normal night. What do you think it proves then, Jeff? This was a normal night for them. There was nothing really out of the ordinary. I personally. I ask you, what do you think her?

Googling the time her husband would be gone, what else could that possibly mean? It doesn't necessarily mean that she... What else could it mean? It doesn't necessarily mean that she planned these crimes out. I mean, we could go down a rabbit hole of a lot of different things. Like, for example... You go right ahead because I can't wait to hear this, Jeff. What else could it possibly have meant?

Nancy, we are normally... And then she Googles the time he'll be gone. We're normally on the same page of everything. but on this one I might disagree with you. Patrick, I've got to come down on him a little hard. I'm a father of four. I've dealt with... No, answer the question, please.

I've asked you now four times. It doesn't necessarily mean. She looked on the Apple map to look and see exactly how long he would be gone. He shut the door and she kills the children. Bam. So I said that indicates to me that she was seeing how long he would be gone to see how long she had to kill. the children. You said that's speculative. That could mean anything. Okay, tell me. What does it mean? It could mean she wanted dinner, that she wanted a break. She needed a little bit of time.

Again, I have to come down on Patrick a little hard because there's a father of four kids that have. For what? No, no. You cannot tell me that that speculation and there's a lot of other excuses for why she did that because I think it shows intent. I know nobody on the panel wants to hear that. It's not convenient. It's not comfy. It's not warm and fuzzy. But it shows intent. She wanted to know how long she had to kill the children.

And she did that before she heard the voice. You say that's speculation. There's a lot of reasons she could do that. What? What reason? She wanted dinner. She needed a break. I mean, this is a lady that's stressed.

She's got a lot of things going on. She does not have necessarily a supportive husband. She needed a break. So she sent him. on an errand because she needed a break, that doesn't make sense. If Patrick were really feeling like, I mean, this lady has said before she wanted to harm her kids, she has a history of threats. She has mental health.

When does she say that? Why in the world would this man leave his wife who's struggling alone with three kids? You're not answering because you don't have an answer. Alice LeCore or Shannon Hill went in the passage. She stated, I want to hold her. harm my children. First of you, Alice. She didn't say that. Starting in December when it was her darkest time. Shannon Hill, did she threaten to kill or hurt the children before? She didn't necessarily threaten to kill or hurt the children, but she did share with her mother and Patrick

that she was having thoughts of harming the children. 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 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 a 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 harm these children. I mean, that's not a normal method of homicide. It's spur the moment, you grab the

closest thing nearby, and you harm your children. And then even the way that she harmed her still. You'll do that all the time. People grab a 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. They 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. 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 of 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 to ever leave that person alone with my kids. I would have them out at the store picking up groceries with me. Okay. So I hear what you're saying, Mr. Gentry, I do. And we can find fault with Patrick Clancy all. day long, all night long. But that's not what the trial is about. As much as people want to blame Patrick Clancy, because nobody wants to confront that a mother could kill all three of her children and not

just be crazy. Everybody's scrounging and looking for an excuse. I know it can happen because I've investigated cases like this. So I do know that mothers. As I was saying, what is the evidence other than you attacking Clancy for being a, quote, bad dad, which is not the issue before us and was not before the jury. What evidence, if any, exists that Patrick Clancy had anything to do with the murders. That is the issue. The murders. I don't know that there's any direct evidence to indicate that he was involved in the murders other than being a negligent father and a poor husband. but what I'm saying is the scene evidence, the circumstances don't support that she planned this out, that this is days worth of planning, weeks worth of planning.

She didn't leave unmole. Jeff Gentry, let me redirect your thoughts to the question at hand. Number one, her fingerprints not on the exercise bands, but her DNA is. and online sleuth suggesting Patrick Clancy took part in the murders. I don't believe that. Nancy, I will put my personal feelings aside when answering this question because that's what this jury is going to have to do. They are expected to look at the evidence, look at what has been presented to them,

and render an opinion based on the evidence. What can that tell them? And was Patrick involved in this crime? I don't see anything to indicate in that scene or the evidence to suggest that he was directly involved in this crime. Although I have my personal feelings on his behavior and the way he treated his wife. But again, we're looking at the evidence. So is there fingerprints or DNA anything to suggest that anybody else was involved in this crime? No, there was not. Although it's difficult to get fingerprints or possibly DNA off of exercise bans.

And would that even tell you anything? You have husband and wife living in the home, so it's reasonable to expect that both of their fingerprints and their DNA is going to be on those exercise bands. But throughout this entire scene, the blood patterns, the evidence of the crime, the circumstances. 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 bans, 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 have one thing or another. 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 LeCore 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 note. This note was not read out loud, but it was flat. 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 Heel, 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. She was of clear mind. She was Googling how to cure a sociopath. And also, just before the murders, isn't it true that she searched kids, Miralax, CVS Pharmacy, an Apple, map read out of how long it would take her husband to go from home to get the food to the CVS and back,

all that happening right up until she heard the male voice telling her for the first time go kill your children to be free. And not to mention, she also called the CVS to make sure that they had a mural axe for her husband to pick up. So she was of sound mind enough to call ask questions and make decisions all throughout the day. And then those 18 minutes that Patrick left, she heard these voices. 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. 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. It is a break in reality. I like to equate it so 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, postpartum 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. As we continue, no, no, no, no. But especially to you. Nancy Grace, signing off for tonight, but I'll see you tomorrow night, and until then, good night, friend.

This is an I-heart podcast. Guaranteed human.