Crime Weekly - Lindsay Clancy Case Ends in a Mistrial | What Happens Now?

Episode Date: September 9, 2026

On September 4, 2026, a Plymouth Superior Court jury was deadlocked after days of deliberation in the trial of Lindsay Clancy, the Duxbury mother charged with killing her three children, Cora, Dawson, and Callan, in January 2023. Her defense argued she lacked criminal responsibility due to severe postpartum psychosis. Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial after the jury said it could not reach a unanimous decision.Try our coffee! - www.CriminalCoffeeCo.comBecome a Patreon member -- > https://www.patreon.com/CrimeWeeklyShop for your Crime Weekly gear here --> https://crimeweeklypodcast.com/shopYoutube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CrimeWeeklyPodcastWebsite: CrimeWeeklyPodcast.comInstagram: @CrimeWeeklyPodTwitter: @CrimeWeeklyPodFacebook: @CrimeWeeklyPod Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Hey, everyone. Welcome back to Crime Weekly News. I'm Derek Lavasser. And I'm Stephanie Harlow. And you can see from the title of the episode, we're going to be talking about Lindsay Clancy. This is something that has been widely requested by you guys, both in our comments, in our personal DMs, on our Crime Weekly page DMs, and you guys kind of want our opinion on it. And we did do a video a long time ago when this kind of like first broke before the trial. And Stephanie and I were talking about. before we hit record here. And we both acknowledged that during that initial video, we, we didn't have a lot of information. And I would even, I would even say that at that point, we were leaning in the direction of this was premeditated, right? But it was very uninformed.

It was, it was without any type of trial. And I have said publicly that I was really looking forward to this trial because me personally, I wanted to develop a better understanding of postpartum psychosis. and our flawed medical health care system, which doesn't treat this seriously enough. And what I've learned from hearing from a lot of you guys is how prominent this is, postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis. A lot of you have come forward and talked about your experiences. And I was really looking forward to that during the trial.

And I think even though there's been some other narratives that Stephanie is going to talk about that have kind of emerged, I still feel like I've gained a lot of knowledge and a better understanding of postpartum psychosis. And I will tell you right off the bat, as a man, it's not something that I, that I have ever had to deal with, but I empathize with every woman out there who has had to experience something like that because it sounds terrible, to be trapped in your own mind and to have these feelings about the children that you have just given birth to. I can't imagine being in that position. And all I can say is as a man, as a father, we have to do a better job of understanding what women are going through because

even though we may not have experienced it personally, there has to be sympathy and there has to be empathy to what you're going through. We have to be there for you. We have to make sure that we're taking on additional responsibilities, whatever you need in order to get through that. And I am kind of embarrassed that I didn't know more about it before this, honestly, doing the research on it and kind of figuring out what it really entails and how how dangerous it can really be. It's scary. It's really scary amongst a plethora of mental health disorders out there that people experience and have to try to get through on their own because when you go to seek help, the health care

system isn't there. They basically dispel what you're going through and try to push it off on medication. And that's not always the answer. So that's one thing that I took out of this trial. And there's a lot. There's a lot to talk about. Obviously, we're covering it now because there was a mistrial. And we wanted to wait until everything kind of finished before we commented on it.

I did do a TikTok. I did put a reel out there, but that was really it. But Stephanie and I decided that now that the mistrial has been declared, we wanted to give an update on our thoughts and our opinions, not only on the fact that it was a mistrial, but everything else that's been talked about with this trial throughout this whole process. Yeah, obviously a lot of you have been asking why we haven't covered the trial because we talked about Lindsay Clancy. I talked about Lindsay Clancy on my own channel. And we were both like, yeah, with the trial's starting and we can't wait to watch it and figure out more, especially because a case like this would normally be exactly the kind of case Derek and I would want to sit down and really dig into, right? That's where the evidence is presented during the trial. And the truth is we both have followed it. We have our opinions about it. We've talked about it privately. But we've also watched what has happened to the kind of. conversation surrounding this case, especially on social media. And it's become so incredibly polarized that there seems to be almost no room left for nuance. And this is a case that we both feel requires a lot of nuance. There's complicated questions here about mental illness, criminal

responsibility, intent, postpartum psychiatric disorders, the legal definition of insanity, all of the evidence presented at trial. And above everything else, what has gotten lost, I believe, is the fact that three children lost their lives. Three innocent children lost their lives. Those things can all exist in the same conversation and acknowledging one doesn't automatically mean you're dismissing another. But online, we think that the case hasn't really been discussed that way. It feels like people have largely separated themselves into two groups. And once you're perceived as belonging to one of those groups, everything you say gets filtered through that assumption. So if you question something, the prosecution argued, then people

decide that means you're defending, Lindsay Clancy, or minimizing what happened to her children. If you question something the defense argued, then the other group thinks you don't believe in postpartum mental illness or you have no compassion for what Lindsay may have been experiencing. And unfortunately, it goes even further than disagreement about this particular case. We've seen how these conversations work online. Once somebody decides that they think you're wrong about one highly emotional, highly publicized case, suddenly you're wrong about every case you've ever covered. Your motives get questioned. Your character gets questioned. People stop listening to what you're actually saying because they've already decided that you're not on their side. And that's really not the kind of thing that Derek and I wanted Crime Weekly to become because we're completely comfortable with people disagreeing with us. That has always been a part of the show. Derek and I disagree with each other all the time. But there is a difference between disagreement and a situation. where there's so little tolerance for uncertainty or nuance that simply discussing the evidence

becomes interpreted as some, you know, larger moral position that we're taking. And honestly, I think that is unfortunate because the Lindsay Clancy cases, it's actually one of those cases where the difficult questions are the most important part. You should be able to say, I understand why the prosecution feels this way, while also saying I understand why the jury struggled with this. You should be able to have compassion for severe mental illness without pretending that three children weren't killed. You should be able to talk about criminal responsibility without turning the conversation into whether somebody's a good person or a monster. So that is really why we've hesitated. I think Derek would agree there. That's why we hesitate. It's not because we don't have

thoughts. It's because we know that once a conversation becomes this polarized, sometimes people stop hearing what you're actually saying and they start listening for evidence that you belong to this side. They've already decided they hate. And that's sad because we have things to talk about. We have Lindsay what she was going through, what her family was going through. And most importantly, once again, three children are gone. And we have to figure out why. And if that's not the time when you stop to look at and try to dissect every little piece of everything in that trial and everything in that case, because you want to figure out why, because you want to prevent it from happening. If you can't do that, then that becomes where, you know, talking about a case isn't really, for the right reason anymore, it's because like, oh, this is a popular case right now. And if we talk about it, we'll get clicks. We could have talked about it every week during this trial and gotten a million views from talking about it. But we did not want to do that because I think that's what this case became. There's people talking about Lindsay Clancy online who have never talked about true crime before.

Yeah, dude, 100%. They're doing it because they know it's popular right now. And that makes me sick. I don't like it at all. If we were in a professional sense, setting, I would gladly call some of these people out. It's insane. Like I sit online and I watch these people who have no investigative background, have never covered true crime before, have no legal background, nothing, nothing, no forensic background, nothing. And they're sitting here talking about this case like they've been doing crime for 20 years. It's insane. It's insane. And they talk out their asses. Like they give their opinions as if they are coming from a place of authority like they know what they're talking about. You're entitled to your opinion. Everyone's

entitled to talk about it. But when they position themselves as if they know something that the rest of us don't, it's, it drives me insane if I'm being honest. You're entitled to your own opinion. And I understand that social media is all about trends and talking about what's popular and trending. I get it. But when what's popular and trending is the horrific murder of three little children, that's where I think you need to stop and say, am I entitled? to have an opinion about this. Am I just talking about it because I know people are going to see it? Am I trying to get famous off of this?

Am I trying to get seen off of this? Just like the one girl who was a nurse and randomly happened to be in the trial and she starts making like weird comments like, oh, I live in this area, but I vacationed at Cape Cod because I, what did she say? I'm fancied. I'm spoiled like that. It's like this is the social media brain rot that people are experiencing where they're actually going to a trial where the victims are three kids and thinking, what can I say that we'll make it onto TikTok? I don't like it. I had an experience a couple weeks ago and I would never say this person's name.

It's not someone who's in the true crime space. It's a, I guess, an acquaintance of a family member. And we're at this get together and they were spouting some stuff about how they knew Lindsay didn't do it. And I was asking them a couple questions, and I mentioned Cora's name. And this person looked at me and goes, wait, wait, wait, who's Cora again? I know exactly what you mean. What? They don't even know the children's names.

What? And I said, her daughter, you know, Cora, Dawson, Callan. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly, yeah. But I could tell. She had no clue what I was talking about. And I was like, okay, all right, well, I'm going to go grab a burger. Then you also have the men who all of a sudden are so incensed and so protected. of these three children's lives,

how could this woman, this is what women do? Now it's turning into like a red pill like manosphere thing. Where have those men been every single week when another man kills their entire family? Because I have Google alerts for this thing. This happens on the weekly. So where were you when Chris Watts killed his children and his pregnant wife?

Where was your outrage then? So it's once again, this has become something so ugly and he was already ugly. Yeah. I'm disgusted by it. Okay, so let's talk about what was the jury actually deciding? Because I think there's confusion about this as well.

So Lindsay Clancy was charged with murdering her three children. Their names were Cora, who was five, Dawson, who is three, and Callan, who was eight months old. And this happened on January 24, 2023. Now, the defense did not argue that Lindsay had not done this. The argument was that. that Lindsay killed the children, but she did it because of severe mental illness, which was described primarily as postpartum psychosis associated with bipolar illness, which would make her not criminally responsible under Massachusetts law.

And that makes this very different for most murder trials because once sufficient evidence of lack of criminal responsibility was introduced, Lindsay did not have to prove she was insane, right? The burden of proof, as always, falls on the prosecution, the Commonwealth. And real quickly, not always. That's a Massachusetts thing, which I agree with. But that is, that is something about mass. And mass has a lot of issues with their court systems, as we know. We know. One of the things in Massachusetts through their legislation is that the burden goes back to the prosecution. Which, which is significant because not that's state to state. I mean, in general, right, when you're, when you have a state prosecuting, the burden of proof is usually on the state to show that the person did what they're saying they did, right? Now, this means that the Commonwealth had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay was criminally responsible. So the defense team, Lindsay's team, led by Kevin Reddington, does not have to prove she's insane, right? But the Commonwealth has to prove that she's criminally responsible. That's right. And so Massachusetts defines a person as lacking criminal responsibility if, because of mental disease or defect, they let. substantial capacity either to, one, meaningfully appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of

what they were doing, or two, conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. All right. So that specifically emphasizes that merely having an awareness, an intellectual awareness, that something is illegal or wrong, isn't necessarily enough. The prosecution must prove the defendant retained a meaningful understanding of its legal or moral significance. This is an important. important distinction because you can believe that Lindsay knew she was killing her children and also simultaneously have reasonable doubt about was her mind functioning in a way that allowed her to meaningfully appreciate what she was doing or or resist doing it. Yeah, absolutely. And I think that's something that not that we're skating over it, but I think for some people and most online would

say that they're aware of this, but that is a very important distinction here with this trial because many occasions it's a whodont it. And part of what the defense will do, again, it's not, they don't have to prove who committed the murder. They just have to present reasonable doubt, that it could have been someone else, right, a third party theory or someone else who was at the house or in the area. That was not done at this trial. This trial was very different in the sense that right from the beginning, after three years of investigation by Reddington and his team, they stipulated at the opening of court, both the prosecution and the defense said, hey, listen, we've had a chance to look at all the evidence,

not what just is going to be presented I caught, the entire investigation, and we've concluded that Lindsay did in fact kill those children. He even said it in his opening statement. So then, like you just said, the burden then shifts back to the prosecution, right? Now they have to prove that she was of sound mind when she did it. So that right there is foundational.

And I think a lot of people miss that because they will come out and say, there just wasn't a lot presented here to show that Lindsay did it. And the reason for that is, and you can go look it up. It's not me saying it. It was stipulated that for the sake of expedience during court, Reddington did not want to go over all the reasons why Lindsay did it. He didn't want to discuss all the facts of how they proved that it was Lindsay and no one else for multiple reasons. One, because they don't want the trial to go on for a century.

But more importantly, and this is this part is my opinion, Reddington's an incredible attorney. He doesn't want to sit there and discuss the details. of how they figured out Lindsay categorically killed those three children because the juries are, they're human beings. They're not going to want to hear that. It's going to make them less empathetic to your client. So I think it was a strategic move. And by the way, as we get into the mistrial stuff, he was right. That is the right move. That was the right call here. Now, some people will say this was a legal, strategic move for other reasons. Okay. Hit me with it. I know. I'm not going to do that. But there are people out there who say, well, he did that so that they could start showing holes in the investigation and how the investigation wasn't done.

Whatever reason he did it for is not important because only he and Lindsay and the rest of the legal team know that. But he has said in documents like they wanted to expedite the trial. They wanted to skip past the other stuff. Either way, that's what he did. And in doing so, that was saying we are not denying that Lindsay did this. That was the overall thing. And I will say to those people, because I'm not saying you're saying it, but if that was the plan strategically to hit them with a gotcha moment during the trial, it never happened. He never at any point went down the road of, hey, I don't even think my client did this. He did make inferences to the investigation and all that, which he should. But that could be interpreted a lot of ways. Is that in regards to proving that she was sane at the time when she committed the crime? Or are we talking about a third party theory? He never says that. And that leaves the door open.

But again, I think that's based on a lot of confirmation bias by the people interpreting what he's saying. Maybe that was what he was doing. Maybe he was hoping to have an outcome in this trial, not a mistrial, by the way, but an outcome in his trial. Yeah, he didn't want a mistrial for sure. That left it open so that maybe a third party could be brought in as a son. Who knows? Yeah, maybe. I don't think that's what he thought.

But again, that's just my opinion. We don't know what he thought. Yeah. All we know is. The Commonwealth said, okay, yes, Lindsay's extremely mentally ill. We can't deny that she was. We don't have the argument that we can say Lindsay was perfectly healthy. There's just too much evidence to prove otherwise.

They're saying she was extremely mentally ill, but she wasn't legally insane. Okay? So they drew a line between mental illness and legal lack of criminal responsibility. Their argument was that Lindsay was depressed, anxious, overwhelmed, suicidal, suffering. But nevertheless, she remained capable of planning, making decisions, communicating normally, and understanding right from wrong. So in closing, the prosecutor, Jennifer Sprague, essentially told jurors that Lindsay's mental illness itself wasn't disputed. The question was what her mental state was during those minutes on January 24th. That's the evening that Lindsay asked Patrick to leave the house.

There were two errands. He had to run. He had to pick up medication at CVS. He had to pick up takeout. Listen, there's a lot of things people are saying about this. They're saying Patrick called Lindsay from CVS and said they don't have the brand you want. They only have the store brand. But then they showed the actual pediolite brand, I believe, in the house.

So they're saying, well, he did have the right. All of that stuff, we cannot get into this because at this point, we can't even look at these specific things without somebody losing their mind. Well, I mean, there's a lot to talk about there. So much to talk about. A lot of that information was revealed, not all of it, including the receipts that were there. I mean, listen, I've gone to the pharmacy multiple times for basically something that I was told to go get, even the grocery store. And as a detective, I don't mind admitting there's been times where I'm like, hey, those, that peanut butter you're looking for, it's not here, man. They don't sell it here.

And then they'll be like, yeah, look three counters down, look to the right shelf. And sure enough, it's right there. You know, I've done it. I've done it. I've definitely, I'm definitely guilty of that. Listen, there's a lot here I'm going to tell you. I'm going to tell you as a person that believes in nuance and believes in looking at every single thing. There's a lot of stuff here that doesn't make sense. And on Patrick's end, you're kind of like, well, what's going on? I acknowledge that. We can't get into that right now. I would push back on it, though. I would push back on it, though, because again, I'm going to keep referring to this the entire episode. Those questions and those, those. those things that you're wondering about, a lot of that was not addressed in this trial, not because it doesn't exist, but because it wasn't the point of the trial. Patrick was not on trial here.

Lindsay was. And it wasn't even about guilt or innocence. It was about the state of her mind at the time when she committed the crime. So I do want to push back on the argument that, hey, listen, there's a lot of things that there are a lot of questions that weren't answered here. I agree with the statement because the trial didn't present those, that information. That wasn't the point. All I'm saying is I don't believe it's wrong for anybody to look at those questions and say we have questions.

As long as they acknowledge that, we would like to see the whole investigation because if they would love that. Because if they are saying there was a lot that wasn't done based on what they heard at the trial. And by the way, I'm going to say it right now. If you're someone who watched every second of the trial didn't miss one moment and you took copious notes throughout the whole trial where you have bindings. full of information that you received during that trial, you still only have a fraction of the investigation. Unfortunately, yes. People are saying this investigation wasn't done in a way where anybody but Lindsay was considered a suspect, and they don't believe that's right because Patrick was there. A lot of the things, even during the testimony, Braddington was like, well,

how do you know that? Well, because Patrick said it. How do you know that? Because Patrick said, So that is a problem. Yeah, we're going to talk about that. I'm going to save it until the end of the episode, but I did go do my research. I did watch a lot of the trial. And there are documents that are presented at the specific trial that shows what was done to rule out Patrick.

And we will go over that by the end of the episode. So there are people that say a full investigation wasn't done. It was kind of just like they assumed it was Lindsay because Patrick said that. Now, there are things to support and also conflict with that. But once again, we don't need to discuss. that at this point. What we need to discuss is the fact that the prosecution is saying Lindsay had Patrick leave so she could have privacy because she knew what she was going to do to her children and she wanted him out of the house, which shows premeditation, right? Because

premeditation doesn't have to be a week or a month in advance. It could be 10 minutes in advance. So let's take a quick break. We'll be right back. Okay. So the Commonwealth, obviously, is showing the jurors that Lindsay appeared functional. She's communicating with Patrick. She used her phone. She's searched with directions. She's interacting with people making appointments, talking about medication, participating in her medical treatment, all of this. Now, then we have the defense who is saying, no, she was asking for help, right? She was telling people. Called the suicide hotline multiple times. She told Patrick and her mother, because her mother testified, that she wasn't in a good place and that she had, you know, texted her in October of 2022 saying, I'm really sick,

something's wrong. Her mother actually starts staying with the family to help because it was so concerning. And then, like I said, Lindsay told Patrick and her mother that she had thoughts of harming the children. Okay. Paula Musgrove, Lindsay's mother testified to that directly. Now, this is actually a fact that helps both the prosecution and the defense, right? The prosecution could say this is premeditation. Yep. And then the defense is saying, hey, she knew she was having

these intrusive thoughts. She was telling people because she was trying to get help. I agree. Even her former mother-in-law, Susan Clancy testified and said Lindsay was nothing but a loving, nurturing mother,

but her mental health had clearly deteriorated. And Susan Clancy said she was begging for help. Okay. So now we've got, you know, and I want to do, I want to acknowledge, as a husband,

if your wife tells you, I'm having thoughts of harming our children. This is when you need to step in. I don't care what you think about Patrick Clancy, whether he's completely innocent or he's a Machiavellian killer. Yeah. Whatever way you cut this pie, if your wife and Derek, I'm sure you could attest this. You've never dealt with this, you said.

Not as a man, but not even dealing with it with your wife who gave birth to two of your children, right? We were very lucky now. She didn't experience those things. Had your wife looked at you and said, I'm having thoughts of harming my children. You're not going to leave her alone with your children. That is correct. Ever. That is correct.

Even for a couple minutes, not going to do it. We have 10 days before Lindsay, before Lindsay killed her children, that Patrick, he went someplace for two hours and left her alone with the children. And this was not at her behest. She wasn't planning it and saying, go to CVS and go get takeout. This was just what he did. you would never do that. You'd always make sure somebody else was there. Especially when Lindsay's told you what the thought she's having.

Like, I mean, it's, it's hard for me to sit here and judge him based on what he, he went through because it's the, it's the worst possible nightmare I can imagine, right? And so on that hand, I just feel horrible about it. But I do agree with you that you have to almost like defensive driving at this point where if your wife is telling you these thoughts and feelings that she's having, you have to protect. her against the children as well, even though it sounds horrible. But until she gets the care she needs, you have to make sure that precautions are put in place and that she's not left alone with those children at that point. I don't think it sounds terrible. I think it sounds pretty logical.

If you're a wife, she would agree with that. Lindsay would be like, yeah, I get it. I'm telling you these things. I agree with you. If your wife was driving your kids home and she said, I'm drunk, I can't drive. You wouldn't be like, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, you'll be all right. It's not far.

It's only two hours. It's only a five-minute drive. I'm only leaving you alone for two hours. You would not do that. Okay? So then we have the command hallucination, and this was a big thing during the trial because Patrick said that Lindsay told him she heard a male voice telling her that if she didn't do it, she'd lose the opportunity.

That became a huge battleground for expert testimony. Huge battleground because the defense says she. There's no way she could made those comments. And there are people saying that her health was deteriorating in those moments and maybe was a couple of her final words. words. I'm not educated enough. Oh, you mean when when Patrick found her. Yeah. So that's, that's another thing. Some people say she's not even able to talk. How did she say all these things to him? Oh, you're talking about the actual like hearing another, hearing the man's voice who told her to

kill the kids. Gotcha. So, yeah, that's a whole other thing. When Patrick got there, he said, Lindsay told me that she killed them. She told me that they were in the basement. And then even the 911 operator was like, yeah, I didn't hear anything in the background. And then she got. Yeah. Yeah. A lot of, A lot of journalists who have heard the tape before, you know, that were in the courtroom have said the tape, the tape was horrific. And it didn't, they didn't hear anything suspicious. But they also acknowledged they didn't hear Lindsay tell him basement. No. They, they, they, they, they said that the 911 one operator said all he could hear was like grunts, you know, like she she couldn't speak, right?

Because of her injuries. And then obviously him screaming and all that. Yeah, crazy. So that is another weird thing where it's like, how did she tell you all this when she couldn't speak? But anyways, the whole command hallucination became a huge thing because the defense is saying. saying, hey, her hearing voices means she entered a psychotic state. She heard a man's voice commanding her to kill the children and herself. They said, this wasn't something that was concocted years later when they were like, oh, we're going to go to trial and try to go for

this defense. There was testimony indicating she discussed hearing a voice very soon after, you know, everything happened. Forensic psychologist Dr. Paul Zaisal, who saw her after the killings, testified that Lindsay told him she'd heard a male voice telling her she had no choice. etc., etc. Once again, the Kaplan, Sheila Kavanaugh, I believe her name was. She said that too. She testified that Lindsay's breathing tube was removed and then Lindsay told her she was glad the children were safe and that Lindsay told her she heard a voice warning that neither she nor the children would be safe unless she obeyed the voice. So we do have people saying that Lindsay heard voices. But we have a bunch of psychologists and psychiatrists that were brought in from the prosecution saying, No, Lindsay's making this up. She didn't have a command hallucination. This isn't how command hallucinations work, et cetera, et cetera. So once again, it's the battle of the experts.

Yeah. Did she hear it? Did she not? It always is. It's also the battle of the attorneys as well, right? Yes. Who's more believable? Who's more charismatic?

You know, who can relate to the jury more? So now I imagine being a juror in this case. And I could not. So you're not being asked, do you personally believe Lindsay had postpartum psychosis. You're being asked, has the Commonwealth eliminated every reasonable doubt that a mental illness substantially impaired Lindsay's ability to appreciate wrongfulness or obey the law? So meanwhile, you've got one respected forensic expert saying, yes, she was psychotic. And then you have another respected forensic expert saying, no, she wasn't. And then one clinician says, oh, I never observed

psychosis. While family members who see Lindsay every day are saying, yeah, she was deteriorating rapidly. it was really bad. We were watching her mind fall apart. You've got Lindsay's own journals that were very important during this that demonstrated severe deterioration. She's seeking treatment repeatedly. She called suicide resources. She went to emergency departments. She entered inpatient psychiatric care only weeks before this happened. And then she tried to take her own life immediately after what happened. So even if you're suspicious or you don't know what to think about the whole command hallucination, the man's voice, you still have to confidently say as a juror, I'm convinced beyond reasonable doubt that mental disease did not have a play in this. And 11 jurors apparently could not say that. So also,

let me talk. The prosecution's premeditation element, that was really inherently problematic, but we don't have time to talk about that right now. I don't think they should have gone for that. I think they went a little hard. And that's probably one of the, the reasons why we were seeing the jury struggle so much, but either way, the jury had five possible verdicts that they had to decide on each of the three Clancy children. So they weren't stuck choosing, did she murder them intentionally and knowingly, or was she insane? No, for each children, their options included not guilty. So just blanket, not guilty was an option on the table, okay? Not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility.

first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter. So the first-degree murder option included theories of deliberate premeditation and or extreme atrocity and cruelty. So this jury had multiple potential compromise verdicts available, meaning they had a lot of things that they could have agreed on. So if some of them were like, no, we think this. And some of them, they could have found a middle ground. And they could reach like a unanimous verdict, but they couldn't.

And that tells you how fundamental, I think, their disagreement was. So deliberations began on August 27th. They continued day after day. And by the fourth day, jurors indicated they were struggling to reach a consensus. Eventually, the judge, Judge Sullivan, gave what Massachusetts calls a Tewy Rodriguez instruction, sometimes informally called a dynamite charge. Essentially, you've all heard the same evidence. Another jury would not be in a better position than you. You have to reconsider your own views. You have to listen to each other, but don't surrender your honestly held judgment simply to reach a verdict. So the jury went back and then still nothing.

And he also gave a very good definition of reasonable doubt. Yeah, I thought so. I thought as well. When I was sitting there, I'm like, make sense to me. You know, like, you could see what he was saying. You got to read between the lines, but you could see what he was saying. What do you think he was saying? Well, I mean, when we talk about the fact that it was 11 to 1.

Well, we don't, we didn't know that yet. Allegedly. Allegedly it was 11 to 1. We didn't know that on the 4th or 5th day, but yeah. Right. But when we talk about that, there was notes coming back from the four person that there was one person or at least someone holding out. And he was addressing specifically the definition of reasonable doubt because. The four person's notes said one juror was refusing to properly apply the reasonable doubt standard. Yeah, exactly. So he gave that definition again because what he was trying to say and he basically said this was it doesn't matter if you agree with the law itself. You see. still have to apply it. And if there is any reasonable doubt that she may have actually been insane at that time,

then you have to find her not guilty. Simple. It's not that complicated. And yet this person, if allegedly, this is all legend, if this person was still holding out saying, yep, you know what, even though because the four person may have alluded to the fact that they did have reasonable doubt and yet they still were unwilling to find her not guilty. by reason of insanity because the belief is that it was NGRI, that they were going to find her not guilty by reason of insanity.

And this person still wanted guilty of first degree murder. That's what the belief is. Yeah, we don't know that for sure. And it's also the belief because of honestly what Reddington has said, right? Like, I mean, he's come out and said a lot. He's even referred to the juror by their gender and things like that. So he has not held back and pulled any punches. It's very fair for us to assume that it was 11 to 1.

N-G-R-I because he was, Reddington was trying to get that juror removed while the prosecution was like, nope, can't remove them. So that's just, you know, listen, we're just using common sense here. I think it was fair to say that the one holdout was not in favor of the majority and the majority was in favor of something that the defense wanted. Yeah, I think that's fair to say. So we have one juror and, and yes, the four person was basically saying they're not following. They have stated that they do have reasonable doubt, yet they are refusing to apply that reasonable doubt to the law.

Correct. So that's what we're having happened. And that leads us to September 4th, which after approximately 38 hours of deliberation across seven days, the jury again told the court it could not unanimously decide the case. The defense, Reddington, made a last minute attempt to prevent a mistrial, including seeking emergency intervention from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. that failed. Yeah, we knew that wasn't going to work because he had said right before the court, like, right before trial started to Brian Inton, you know, he wasn't even going to go for that because it was, it was a waste of time. And yet it got heated. It was definitely heat. And then Redington like brought Lindsay up to the judge. It was very much like what's going on here. So Judge Sullivan declared the jury hopelessly deadlocked, declared a mistrial. Now, what happens next? That is what we'll talk about. when we come back from this next break. Okay, we're back. So at this point, we have a status hearing that's scheduled for September 29th,

2026. Now, at this point, even though we've heard after the mistrial from both the defense and the Commonwealth, we don't really know what the Commonwealth plans to do, but on September 29th, their next move should become clearer. Now, this doesn't mean that Lindsay is acquitted. She's also not convicted. It kind of just brings her status back to before. the trial even started, the charges remain pending. The Commonwealth can potentially retry her.

They could do it differently, though. Yeah. It's like it never happened, right? The mistrial is kind of like the trial never happened. We're back to the beginning where the Commonwealth is now deciding should we press charges and if so, what charges should we press? And that's kind of where we don't really know what's going to happen. So a lot to kind of break down there. But, I want to start with what I said at the top of the show as far as my uninformed opinion of postpartum psychosis because that's exactly what it was uninformed when we made that initial video not understanding what postpartum psychosis was or what it entailed. My understanding now, even though it was kind of hard to see through those, you know, get through the weeds in the trial,

is that it is a state of mind where you can still function pretty normally and appear to be normal to the to the people around you. And yet there's something going on internally where it's, you're feeling some type of way or you're being instructed to do something that allows you to still function, but yet there's something really going on there. And now with my understanding of postpartum psychosis, it's not as hard to believe that she would search for things like how long it would take to get to CBS or 3B because those are things that she would be doing because of the postpartum psychosis and what she was being told to do. So with that being said, when we come to deciding whether or not she was insane at the time of the murders.

The only person who truly knows and who will ever know is Lindsay, but it's on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That's their burden, that she wasn't, that she was not insane at the time of committing the crimes. And based on the evidence that was presented at court, I believe that the correct verdict would have been not guilty reason of a reason insanity. There's no way to disprove that. It's a very tall hill to climb.

And candidly, I don't think the prosecution did a good job, but mainly because there's not enough evidence to support it. You can't present facts that don't exist. So how do you prove what she was thinking at the time when she committed the crime? That's a really difficult burden to prove. Yeah. And so I don't agree with the one juror holding out. I don't think they applied the law correctly. I think it should have been not guilty by reason of insanity.

And that should have been the end of it. And to get into what you were just saying as far as where we go from here, the trial did happen. And everyone in the world knows about it. So good luck finding a jury of 12 people who don't know about all this information. And more importantly, don't know that it was 11 to 1 in the first trial. Yeah. That's what I was just going to say, right? So after the, or I think it was when they were deciding, at some point, Kevin Reddington was asked, do you want to mistrial?

And he was like, no. No. Of course he doesn't because the way it was looking was that Lindsay was going to get not guilty by reason of insanity or whatever reason. Now, the prosecution was the one pushing for the mistrial, which I don't know if they should have because like you said, good luck now finding a pull of jurors who has not been biased or. under some impression about this case based on how massive it got. They've seen the circus. They've seen the circus. Biased as in on Lindsay's behalf.

I mean in general because when you're picking a jury. Yeah. When you're picking a jury, one of the whole foundations of that is I need a juror, a member of the jury who has not already formed an opinion about this. Yeah. And good luck finding a person who has not formed an opinion about this. Now, going back to what you said, you think that it should have been, you agree it should have been not guilty by reason of insanity. This is why I don't envy the juror members because I can't, I don't, I could not make a decision like that.

I couldn't make a decision like that. I think you could because you would have been instructed on the law and you would have said, okay, here's the template. What boxes does it check? And you as a reasonable person would have said, yeah, this is a tough one. It's horrible. but based on the law, I know what I have to, I know what I have to come back with. I think you're not giving yourself enough credit. It's kids and that's an emotional.

So I would tell them when they're, when they're picking me for, like, I probably can't be unbiased about this. Right. I think a lot of people did. I can't be unbiased about this. I will also state, though, that whatever happens to Lindsay from here on out, she's living in a prison of her own hell. Correct.

I agree with that. Yeah. For sure. You know, and you can tell, looking at her during this trial, she's not there. She's completely disassociated. She's not, she's no Casey Anthony laughing and giggling and tossing her hair. Couldn't agree more. She is, I mean, mental health.

Obviously, she needs to get help. And I think she has been. Yeah, three years now. She's been getting the right medication, the right doctors. Yeah. But it's almost like, is that even something? that you want because now you are mentally well or better than you were. And now you live with this. Yeah. I mean, she already tried to kill. This is called what it. She already tried to kill herself.

She doesn't want to be here anymore. You are physically in a, a terrible place. Yeah. Living nightmare. She's hand. She's she's she's forever. I believe she's completely disabled, right? Like from the waist down. Yeah. Yeah. Do I think she deserves to sit in a prison for the rest of her life? No. She's in a mental. prison. I think that a psychiatric hospital is a good place for her. But this is rough. Can we run down the judicial possibilities here because I'm not an expert in this area, but just doing the preliminary research on it. Tim Cruz has to decide where he wants to go from here, right? Does he want to retry this case in front of a jury? Does he want to go for murder one again? Because the issue with murder one, I don't think you should. It has to be a jury trial. You can't have a bench trial. And here's the issue with that.

I understand the rationale the first time you want to play on human emotion involving kids and hopefully you get the verdict you're looking for. But if he decides to go murder two or manslaughter, Redington can then put in a waiver for the jury. So it would be a bench trial. And if that's the case, I think it becomes much easier for the defense because a judge is going to be able to apply the law correctly. And they're going to come back with the same verdict as the 11 people already did. So Tim Cruz really has to think of the approach he wants to go here because I understand the hesitancy with murder two and manslaughter because, again, if I'm wrong on this guys, correct me in the comments on my years. But I believe it's either after 20 or 25 years if she was convicted of murder two or manslaughter, she would be eligible for parole. And so the optics.

Yeah, but what life waits for her? I agree. I'm not debating any of that. But I think that's the holdup here. but if I were working this case, as much as it's going to be difficult to do for Tim, he's got to step back and think about the, I know that there's statistics out there

that say the second time around after a mistrial, the percentages are higher of a guilty verdict. This is not one of those trials. This is not the same. You can't apply any historical data to this case. It's way different. So they got to try to come to a plea agreement. Something where Lindsay, because I agree with you, Stephanie,

Lindsay is in a mental health, facility for a very long time because clearly she needs help and she's finally getting that. She's not going to be walking around amongst us after a year or two. I know that people say that's a possibility. You got to use common sense. It's not going to happen. I understand what people are concerned about. Not they want so hard for her that that's not going to happen.

I don't think so either, but they run the risk. They run the risk of coming back with a similar verdict and putting everyone through it again. or worst case scenario for them, straight not guilty, right? And so, listen. I don't even think she wants that, to be honest. I don't think so either. That's the other argument I'll make for Lindsay. And listen, I don't mind saying this.

You guys know me. I'm not sitting here fawning over Lindsay Clancy. You know, I understand she went through some stuff. I'm not putting her on a pedestal. She killed three kids, in my opinion. That's just my opinion. But I think as long as she is away, getting the help she needs, I'm fine with that. I'm fine with that.

Do I think she should walk Scott free? Absolutely not. That's just my opinion. And Stephanie, you may not agree with me. I don't think she should be walking out there right now among society. It's such a bad precedent. But I do think there's something to be said for what she went through, what she has alleged as far as what she was experiencing, the clear evidence that the health care system

failed her on multiple levels. And we decide, hey, listen, this is a tragic incident. Nobody wins. this woman has already tried to kill herself. Why are we doing this again? Nobody benefits from this. No, I don't think she wants it. And even the people who are like, she didn't do this.

Patrick did it. Okay. It doesn't matter to her. Her three children are still dead. She's not even saying she didn't do it. The thing that she based her life around, which was her children and being their mother, is gone. Right.

She does not want to be out there walking among anyone. Yeah. I couldn't agree with you more. She is broken. And there are going to be people who say, well, how did Patrick get remarried and have another kid? Oh, yeah. That's a whole different conversation. I'm not even saying I agree with you.

Yeah. I agree with you. Does that mean he did this? No. It also, and Stephanie, as a woman, you can speak to this more. Like, you can say you don't, you think Patrick's a horrible husband. And like, I'm not going to contest that. That's not what I'm concerned with.

But there's a distinction between being a horrible person or a horrible husband and being a murderer. And I think people are conflating the two, which is tough. That's a tough one to do. But I agree. Like, yeah, your three children are dead. I would never want to have children again because there's that feeling of like anything could happen. Like, I already had to go through pieces of me being ripped out that I'll never get back.

Do I want to bring another child in the world that something like that could happen again? You know? So maybe it's different for men and women. I don't know. As a woman, if that happened to me, if I lost my child in any way for, any reason. I am not like, I can't wait to get back on the horse and get married again and have another baby. I don't understand that. Just did a whole marathon. I just saw that. You can say people grieve differently all you want. I do think that's odd. There's things about Patrick I find

odd. I'm not totally against you finding things about Patrick odd. I just don't think at this point without any legal action being taken against him to go on social media and say with your chest that he did this to his kids, if you don't know that for 100% sure, I don't think it's a good idea. I don't think that's a good thing because even if you believe that with everything in you, even you could say there's a chance that's not the case. And if so... Oh, some of them won't. Just go look at my comments.

If so, then you're putting this out there. You can believe privately whatever you want. You can talk to your friends and your family and have your boards and everything can I do that, but what if he didn't? And now he's lost his wife, his children. He started over very fast, yes, but he started over. And now there's this, which is always going to be there. It's always going to be there.

A lot of people hold Kevin Reddington and high standard. His word is gospel, right? And I said it online. I'll say it here. And I know there's going to be, there's gray areas here where people say it was put into her head. But Kevin Reddington is a prominent defense attorney in Massachusetts. He has an incredible team of people, not only attorneys, but also investigators.

And they spent three years investigating the investigators going through that case with a fine-toothed comb looking for holes to exploit at trial. And after three years of thoroughly analyzing the law enforcement practices and policies and investigations that were. conducted here, he concluded that the best approach at trial was not to contest that she did it, but to contest why she did it. That is from Kevin Redington. That's not you. That's not me. So he started the trial by saying, and I'm paraphrasing here, she know she killed her kids because he knew that if he went that way, that direction, it was probably not going to go the way he wanted because it would expose every element of this case as far as how they determined that she did it. So I would just say to those people, listen, and I agree with what you said.

Like everyone's entitled to an opinion. Asking difficult questions is part of what we do. But when the evidence, regardless of what you may have personally experienced in your own life, points you in a certain direction, we have to step back like this juror, this one juror didn't do. And look at the facts for what they are and come to a reasonable conclusion, understanding that there is a remote possibility you could be wrong. You have to always understand there's a remote possibility. It could be wrong and behave accordingly.

Yeah. And would you agree that that's tough for some people? Yes. They don't have nuance, but. That's tough for people. But I think, you know, listen, Stephanie and now we're talking before we recorded this episode. And we're always honest with you guys. We know that in the comments, this is going to go 17 different directions.

And I'm willing to go in those directions with you, by the way. If you're not taking this one case and saying now, Stephanie and Derek, because they don't agree with me exactly about this, I don't believe anything they say, I don't respect their opinions. Everything that they've done before and after is, you know, the fruit of the poisonous tree. Yeah. I'm willing to talk to you and use anything you want to convince us of what you believe because I love it. and I will look into every claim you've made, I promise. I would love to see the entire investigation released. I would love that.

That will be determined depending on what happens with the trial moving forward. I know that Patrick and the family really doesn't want the 911 call out there, and I can understand why. It's horrific. Some people think it's for a different reason than what you believe to understand. Yes. My pushback would be that is the worst moment of that man's life. He lost his wife and his children in a matter of seconds. But that's my belief.

Let me summarize my last words here with basically one sentence. So there's no misconstruing where Derek stands. And Stephanie and I are independent. We're crime weekly, but we may have differing opinions. And there may be a variance in that. But from where I stand, based on what I saw at trial, Lindsay Clancy should have been found not guilty by reason of insanity. I do not agree with the one jury holdout, regardless of his principles or morals.

That's not how the law works. So I absolutely. They should have replaced him with an alternate. Well, here's, there's an issue. I don't want to even go down. There's a, there's a problem with that because then it also can set a precedent of when you don't. Because if he truly believe that, then, and he didn't show any signs of reasonable doubt, of having reasonable doubt, then you can't just replace someone because they don't agree with the rest, even if it's 11 to one. But the second, it became evident that he wasn't applying that reasonable doubt to the law.

That's when I think it's problematic. And that's when an alternate who had heard the whole trial. Yeah. should have been brought in because now you don't have to do this all over again and put everybody through this again. It's a slippery slope. I can say on one hand, I disagree, but on the other hand, it's like there's a constitution. You need an unanimous decision. And when you don't get the unanimous decision, where do we draw the line? What if it was, what if it was 10 to 2? When you're not applying your reasonable doubt to the law. What if it was 10 to 2 or or 9 to 3?

But it wasn't. But it sets a legal precedent going forward that what's the, what's the threshold for replacing a juror? When you're not applying your reasonable doubt to the law. Who said he didn't apply the law? The foreman. The foreperson is not an expert on the law. That's their opinion. You get what I'm saying? I'm not disputing.

I've already acknowledged I think the juror was wrong. But the fact that the judge is like, okay, now I have to give you an instruction on what reasonable doubt means again. If that person expressed that holdout, if they express during deliberations, yes, I have reasonable doubt, but I don't care because I think she should go to prison because she's a monster. Yes, now you're not doing what you should. should be doing as a juror member who's heard the whole trial and you have certain specifications you have to follow when you're voting a certain way. I will agree that if that was the case, I agree with you. He should, he should have been removed. We believe it to he. I also want to add one thing that we forgot. I also think that the jurors should have been interviewed or pulled

afterwards and the judge, Judge Sullivan decided not to do that. I disagree with that. We could have had more understanding of what was going on inside the deliberations. And to finish off my sentence because we went off on a side track there. I do believe the correct verdict would have been not guilty by reason of insanity. I think that one lone juror should have applied the law as directed by Judge Sullivan. Clearly, he did not. So that's a travesty. That should have been the end of this trial. As far as the actual case itself, because I know everyone wants to put us in a corner, I've already said it publicly. I don't mind saying it here. I do believe that Lindsay killed those kids. I think that although this trial wasn't about whether she did it or not, I think enough was shown that not only did she do it, but there was exculpatory evidence that would rule out Patrick.

That's my personal and professional opinion as an investigator. I'm not going to get into all the specifics here of what was done, what wasn't done. I do believe we have videos to show where Patrick was. That was done to vet his alibi. That's why those videos exist. That's why we have access to him. But I do think the more important story here is postpartum psychosis. the lack of availability when it comes to health care for people experiencing postpartum depression

and psychosis. And I am a living example of someone who is misinformed about postpartum psychosis and what it entailed and what it involved and how women are affected by it. So although there's been a lot of different storylines with this case, for me personally, I did come away more educated on things that I felt were important for our society. But where it goes from here, I don't know. I think if it does go to trial again, and there's a jury, you're probably going to get a mistrial again. How do you get 12 people to agree? I don't see it. The only chance you have is a bench trial, and it's going to come down to whether or not

the Commonwealth wants to go that route. But that's my final thoughts. I'll leave it with you because I know we're different. We're different and we don't necessarily agree on everything. Well, yeah, that's true. We've talked about this case multiple times over the last several weeks, and there's things we agree on and there's things we don't agree on. But at the end of the day, what we need here is to remember what's important, which is those three kids.

And on top of that, the fact that the mental health system and the health care system in general in this country fails everybody all the time. It is terrible. It needs to be rehalled. And by the way, Stephanie, this is a family with money. It doesn't matter. Imagine the people who don't have the financial resources, the type of care they're getting. They just want to throw pills at you for every single. could not agree more.

It's horrendous. And those things usually make you sicker than anything else. You would think a case like this would be the trigger for an overhaul of the system. It will not. Good luck. It will not be. So while we keep seeing these things happen and this goes for a lot of different things as well, we keep seeing these things happen and we keep seeing people be outraged about them on social media, whether the outrage is real or pretend. for views, still nothing changes, and it's not going to change. So I guess what we should start

thinking about is how do we change it? How do we the people who have the majority decide that things are going to be different? Because if we wait around for the lawmakers to do it and we wait around for those in power to decide that the care we're getting for our mental and physical health isn't cutting it, you're going to find more things like this happening. Big Pharma doesn't want that to happen. They just want to, like you said, keep stuff and pills down your throat, which, by the way, we didn't talk a lot about this so much here. But that's also part of this, right? All the medications she was being given and the combination of those medications and how they could have actually made her thoughts and her feelings even worse.

It could have enhanced the psychosis. So we didn't even go down that road. At the end of the day, follow the money because Big Pharma, it's easier and more profitable for certain people for YouTube. be handed a pill or 10 pills. Billion dollar industry. Then for somebody to help you human to human and say, let's get to the bottom of this and let's figure it out. A more holistic approach, absolutely.

They don't care because people are making money off of you being sick and staying sick. So we need to think about that. And we'll see what happens with this case. We'll be following it. But until next week, thanks guys for coming. Tell us your opinion in the comments. I can't wait. Finally. Kor, Dawson, Callin, thinking about you.

Of course, you guys are the whole reason behind this. case and I hope that that doesn't get lost for sure. But yes, we will be back later this week. We have a new series. Do you want to say the name of the case? Do you not? I don't. Okay, you don't. Enough for tonight. Okay, guys, we appreciate the love, support. We will see you later this week with a new series from Crime Weekly. Until then, stay safe out there. Bye, Bye.