Hidden True Crime - EXCLUSIVE Interview: Andrea Yates' Attorney Has Closely Followed the Lindsay Clancy Trial - His Take

Episode Date: August 2, 2026

George Parnham, the attorney who defended Andrea Yates, joins Lauren Matthias at Hidden True Crime for an exclusive interview to discuss the Lindsay Clancy trial after following the case closely. Parnham shares his perspective on postpartum psychosis, criminal responsibility, the similarities and differences between the Yates and Clancy cases, and what he believes the evidence reveals. Whether you've followed every day of the Lindsay Clancy trial or are just catching up, this in-depth conversation offers rare insight from one of the most respected attorneys to ever handle a landmark postpartum psychosis case. Sponsor: Goodr-Head to https://goodr.com/HIDDEN to claim $10 off your first order of functional, fashionable, and fun sunglasses. About Hidden True Crime What started as a simple conversation at their dinner table became a captivating podcast. Join the dynamic duo of Dr. John Matthias, a criminal psychologist, and Lauren Matthias, an investigative journalist, as they delve into the psychological facets of unthinkable crimes every week. Their unique perspectives and in-depth analysis offer a fresh take on true crime storytelling. Thank you for your support through sponsorships, subscribing, listening, and becoming a Patreon member at⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/HiddenTrueCrime⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

If your supplement routine feels like a handful of pills every morning, it might be time for an upgrade. Quick Silver Scientific's patented ultra-vitamin packs, a comprehensive blend of essential vitamins and nutrients into one powerful formula, like vitamins A, C, D3, K1, K2, and the full suite of B vitamins. Using liposomal delivery to support better absorption, simplify your routine, and still give your body what it needs. Fewer pills. Smarter delivery. Ultravitamin from QuickSilver Scientific. Get 10% off and free shipping at tryqs.com slash podcast. That's tryqs.com slash podcast for 10% off and free shipping.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Do you see yourself as her friend? As your friend? As her friend or simply her attorney. Are you a friend? I see yourself as a friend. her father. She's like a daughter to me and always will be. And sure, a friend, but well beyond that.

Andrea Yates is like a daughter to you. That's touching. Right. She knows about what we're doing now. She knows about this interview. Correct. And she's happy that we're getting the information out about this whole issue of postpartum. We are joined by. one of the most respected criminal defense attorneys in America, George Parnum, a man whose name is forever intertwined with one of the most heartbreaking and consequential criminal cases in modern history. In 2001, Andrea Yates drowned her five young children in the bathtub of her Texas home. The case horrified the nation. But it also forced America to confront something that many people barely understood at the time. postpartum psychosis. Andrea Yates was initially convicted of capital murder, but after her conviction

was overturned. George, pardon you, you successfully defended her at a second trial where she was found not guilty by reason of insanity. That case changed the national conversation about severe maternal mental illness and the criminal justice system. Really, fast forward to today. And many people, many are drawing comparisons to another case that has captured the nation's attention, and it's the trial of Lindsay Clancy going on right now. George, you've publicly said that the two cases are strikingly similar, and you have been following the Clancy trial closely. While also recognizing that every case ultimately turns on its own facts, evidence, and the law, of course.

But, George, thank you so much for joining us. After everything you've experienced over the last 25 years, I'm sincerely eager to hear your perspective. So thank you for being here. Sure. Yeah. And you have been following the Lindsay Clancy case closely, right? Of course.

Yes. Do you still find it very similar to your, to Andrea Yates case that you tried years ago? Yes, I do. And I think the basic issue, we start right to the beginning, the very nature of the very nature of what occurred is unlike any other type of criminal homicide. A mother who is accused of taking the life of a child to whom she gave life too. Absolutely blows the mind of every juror

and the people, the public. So the very nature of the accusation is what ratchezes up the interest of the public. of the public and prospective jurors. I really find it very interesting that for instance, in Andrea's case, to watch a prospective jurors look at Andrea and tried to figure out how in the world can this possibly have occurred, unlike any other type of homicide.

This is not a drug deal gone bad, not a bar. room brawl gone bad this is the very nature of our own existence that we all have our mothers and and and uh to be able to uh emphasize to a jury uh how important it is for them to see through the eyes of the person on trial the events that occurred um is is i mean that's that's the whole issue uh to be able to get the jury to take a look at the mother, to view the mother and her actions through her eyes. And that's so important. It's experts can get on the witness hand and can testify about what they heard or what they read, what they saw on TV.

Hopefully they will have talked to the individual recorded and to be able to get that information. out basically helps to keep the individual that you're representing the mother off the witness stand. That's something you do not want to do. That's something I would never do as a defense lawyer representing these cases. It's put the mother charged with this particular time of offense on the witness stand. The reason for that is that there's so many issues out there that the prosecutor can cause the gamuton and bring out what appears to be logic and to develop the whole issue about the mother knew what she was doing and took the life for a child and you take a look at ulterior motives what is there out there that would

that would cause a mother to do something that she did other than mental illness ulterior motives spous of revenge uh getting back at the husband for infidelity. I mean, you eliminate all of those ulterior motives and you come down to the very essence of the mental health of the mother. Yeah.

You, when did you meet Andrea Yates? I'm sorry? Andrea Yates. I wanted to ask you about Andrea. Did you met her shortly after the tragedy? That's correct. When was that? Like the very next day. Very next day.

I got hired by the family and went down to see her and was struck by the physical issues that she presented when I first saw her. Had no pupils. had a ball spot on her head. I was informed that by the doctor that she was trying to, the ball spot was the result of trying to scratch the 666, imaginary 666 off the top of her head. Wow.

There was a lot of religion involved in her case too. Is that right? Sort of. Looking at. Andrew Yates' life, I see a lot of similarities with Lindsay Clancy's life. They were both very bright students, top of their class, good grades, intelligent, both became nurses, both seemed like very hard workers, perfectionists. You know, of course, you know, Lindsay Clancy's trial is still being tried. We're still looking at the evidence. There's some differences, too.

You mentioned the bald spot and the 666 and the religious delusions. What are your thoughts between Lindsay Clancy and Andrew Yates right now? What are your thoughts about the Lindsay Clancy trial and the evidence you've seen so far? I love sunglasses. I need sunglasses. I'm constantly wearing mine on morning runs at my kids' soccer games and outside the courthouse while I'm going over my notes before or lunch live streams. And while I was out and about in Boston wearing my gooder sunglasses, someone actually came up to me and asked me, those are gooders. Why does everyone love gooders? I thought it was so funny. Little did this person know I would be

sharing on our podcast exactly why I love them. They had no idea. But I told them exactly why I love them most. They are so lightweight. I have become such a fan of gooder sunglasses. They don't slip when I'm running. They don't bounce around when I'm on the move. I hardly feel them on my face. And the polarized lenses with UV-400 protection make long days outside so much easier. But I also love that they're actually fun. They have so many different styles, so many different colors, that there's truly a pair for every vibe. Whether I'm dressed casually or headed into court, the variety of styles literally makes whatever I'm in the mood for happen. Ready to upgrade your eyewear to something functional, fashionable, fun, and affordable. head to gooder.com. That's G-O-O-O-D-R, no E-there. G-O-O-D-R.com slash hidden to claim $10 off your first order. That's G-O-O-D-R dot com slash hidden for $10 off your first order. Well, you know, I go back to the mindset of the defense lawyer. These are so difficult cases, unlike any other type of homicide, to be able to get jury to go in and to basically put their mindset and the mindset of the person on trial.

That's what that's the challenge of the defense lawyer to get the jury to basically understand the nature of what occurred through the eyes of the mother on trial. Unlike any other type of homicide, that's that's the difficult part. Jurors will subjectively say, well, you know, I was raised by a mother. I can't really believe that this occurred. And that helps to a degree to the defense lawyer and that the juror can't even imagine having been raised by a mother to do what she did. She must have been mentally disturbed or insane.

and that's why it's so important to eliminate all these possibility of ulterior motives, as we've discussed, and get rid of them all. Write them down, knock off each one, and you get to the very basic of what occurred. That is, the mental health of the mother that took the life of the child. You did that successfully for Andrea Yates. It was a ground-breaking case and verdict. what do you think it was that the jurors saw in her case? You know, the very nature of what occurred, I was able to develop with a jury,

and we had an individual board hire. I would bring each juror up and from the judge outside of the hearing of the the other jurors to question that you are about any opinion that juror may have any preconceived notion all the media out there what they've listened to what they've heard what they saw on tv get them to try to eliminate that to be able to hear from the witness hand the testimony about the experts from the experts about what happened i mean that's absolutely crucial in this particular case it was crucial in the injury's case. So, you know, to be able to take that challenge on

and to isolate those jurors, and remember you always have the opportunity to not only individual board are, but you can request a jury shuffle. That is, if you don't like jurors because of the questionnaire, the first 12 or 13 jurors, you can request a shuffle. see if you can get those jurors in the back, right?

And that happened in Andrew's case, and we were successful in getting some of the jurors that were objectionable based on the questionnaire to get them removed from consideration to be on the jury. What was the evidence that was presented in trial that you feel like the jurors understood when they essentially decided that she was not guilty of this horrific. Yeah, I think of the nature of what occurred, and you go right back to the whole issue of a mother and child.

Every juror has a mother, and to be able to reflect on that, to be able to take that particular experience as Ed Girard experienced in growing up with a mother, and to be able to take that issue, leave it in their mind, and have them subconsciously, perhaps consciously relate to the mother on trial. It's just very difficult, as I said, unlike any of the homicide. Gerard will be basically stunned by the very nature of what occurred. You meet Andrea Yates. I want to go back to this meeting. She has a bald spot from trying to scratch off 6666 in the imaginary 666. She's just killed five children, her five children.

What did you think at first? What were you thinking of this case when you first? met her. Did you understand something was wrong right away? Or did you question her motives? No, I often say that I have never talked to Andrea and never did about what happened. Not necessary. I had the experts. I had the testimony of the doctors that saw her. I had the transcript of information that they developed during the course of the case. So I had what I needed to be able to course to get me the witnesses. First of all, secondly, did not want to have to put Andrea through that with me.

And to a large degree, I look back now and subconsciously, I really didn't want to hear it. That makes sense. all the information I needed from, you know, the testimony, the experts, and that's what I needed. So that's what it was all about. But I'll never forget, I wanted to, I wanted to have Andrew sign a permission. And I remember sitting there and she had a pencil or a pen. her hand and I remember imploring the guard to take that away from her because I was afraid that might do something to harm herself with that instrument and they did they took that away.

But I remember getting up and I may have said this, but telling her that, now I'll be back tomorrow, and we'll talk about this and get this in writing. And so I'll see you later, Andrea, and she mumbled something, and I leaned down against a plexiglass. sorry. It's okay. And she said, please don't leave me alone. And I knew for an instance,

based on that testimony, the very nature of what she must have experienced at that moment. And I'm sure the same thing is true of the situation that we're talking about now, this current case. It's just

how the mother can live with herself. And in this particular situation, apparently she decided to, I guess, and a lot of people think that that's a result of an acknowledgment that she knew what she was doing was wrong. Perhaps that's a degree, but also to realize that my children

are gone in her psychotic process and I want to be with my kids in heaven. That is also something to be able to, as a potential way, can explore. You mentioned the religious aspect with Andrew Yates and people don't always necessarily talk about Lindsay Clancy, but it has been said that she was saying go to God baby as she killed her children. And I think you might be right. I think there might have been a religious aspect there as well that hasn't been explored yet. And that's all part of the whole delusion.

You know, this whole psychosis. Connected into psychosis is the ultimate belief that your children are going to go to heaven and you have to prevent them from dying in hell so you take their lives and to make sure that they go to heaven and not grow up in a simple world. And then what you realized, what have occurred, then, you know, something else takes place. Like she tried to take her own life.

And that's possibly the realization later on, not during the event that occurred, not during the killing of her kids, but later on what she realized this occurred, and that's why she did what she thought was the thing to do. That's, again, one explanation. The other explanation, of course, is trying to do everything she could to join her kids in heaven. Right. So Andrea Yates, I'm actually quite surprised to learn. You never asked her what happened, but you realize now maybe you didn't want to know either.

You represent her for years. I knew what happened, but I didn't want to take her down that path. So no reason to even ask her. You know, I just didn't want to do that. So after she is a no guilty verdict, was that it? Yes. Her trial, the state sought the death penalty. And she was given life. I appeal that based on the perjured testimony.

I had 16 points of appeal. The first was the further testimony of Dr. Park Deats who testified for the state about a fictitious law and order episode. That got the case reversed. And so we went back to trial, picked that jury, and the jury

came back with an NGRI, not given by reason but insanity. But the benefit of that second trial is that we had the transcript of the first trial and we were able to cause the general witnesses, based on their previous testimony. We knew what they were going to say.

And if they deviated from that testimony from the transcript, then we were able to cross-examine on the deviation because we had that under oath. That's so important in that second trial that had their first transcript. Yeah. So after that second trial, after that verdict, did you stay in touch with Andrea?

I'm sorry? After that second verdict, not guilty. Did you stay in touch with Andrea? Yes, I established the with the help of the Mental Health Association of Houston the Yates Solis Memorial Fund called YCMF and I've had an occasion

to go around to various law groups around the country and discuss discuss this whole issue of YCMF to be able to explain how important it is for the public to understand the very nature of what occurred and for lawyers to understand the very nature of what occurred so that they can do whether they can to properly represent their client. She's so happy that somebody's doing that for her kids. She is. She's grateful.

You know, how I'll, you know, I just, I mean, that just goes to the whole mindset of the mother, right? She's grateful for the foundation and her children's. She's grateful. She's so happy that that's taking place. And that just, again, goes to the whole issue of the psychosis to cause her to do what she did. She literally was not in her right mind. And, you know, as I've said before, people think insanity is spur of the moment. Not the case.

You plan this. You don't automatically jump to the conclusion. You wait until all these other issues that would stop you from doing what you were going to do with their children's lives. let those issues be gone. Let Rusty be gone. Let other influences that could stop you from doing what you know is best for the lives of your children.

Let them go. Let them be gone. Let them not do what you believe they would do to try to stop you from doing what you know is best for your kids. And that's what Andrew did. And that's the explanation

for this particular situation. in my mind. Yeah. Where is Andrea now? The state hospital in West Texas. Does she have to be there or does she choose to be there? She initially was ordered to be present at the hospital. She comes up for review every October to.

to be released from the hospital and I go to court and I waived that. Oh. That's where she wants to be. She has no place to go, but that's where she wants to be. And she has taken on a position of interacting with patients, interacting with the staff, And when the doctors, the medical facility will have a situation where they think with a particular patient is having a hard time coping, sometimes they will let Andrea interact with that person to make sure that that person can comply and can understand why that person needs to be there. So she's doing she's doing something very beneficial for her and for her fellow patients.

Do you see yourself as her friend? As her friend? As her friend or simply her attorney, waving that. I see herself as her father. She's like a daughter to me and always will be. Sure, a friend, but well beyond that. It's, pardon me. Andrea Yates is like a daughter to you.

That's touching. Correct. It's something that, she's such a part, her whole issue is such a part of our life. Having done this for over half a century and her, this whole issue of women's mental health, looking back and now presently and looking at forward so important to my practice in my life and you know dealing with lawyers and the public and jurors and every time I pick a jury everybody will ask raise their hand they'll ask that question aren't you the person that defended Andrew Yates and you know that's you know that's

So important. Yeah. So it sort of defined you. Yeah. Yeah, looking back, yeah, you're probably right. Yeah. And so you feel passionately about women's mental health, postpartum mental health? Oh, absolutely.

You bet. As I said, I go around and I speak to groups about women's mental health and try to get lawyers to understand that this is so much unlike any other type of mental health issue. A mother who takes the life of a child in whom she gave life too, as I've said before, is absolutely incredible. and so I explore that as much as I possibly can to benefit the public and to benefit individuals on the jury and you know the judge, for instance,

to be able to try to understand wounds of mental health and to see through her eyes what occurred. Unlike any other type of homicide, this is something that is indelibly to leave a mind's eye of the woman on trial. Was Andrea hearing voices when she did when she did this?

Is that what part of your defense was in her psychosis? Was she hearing voices? No, I don't think she was hearing voices. I think she had delusions about sending her kids to heaven wanting to be executed, thinking that Satan lived within her and that the ruler could slay the evil one by executing Andrea getting the death penalty and her psychotic thought,

the ruler could slay Satan who and her psychotic thought lived within the very body of who she was. And that's the whole nature of that whole situation. So she wanted the death. penalty. And as I've said before, I told her we'll get there, Andrea, but we have to take it one step at a time, knowing full well that I would never not fight against the death penalty in this case. And the state sought it. And that goodness, the jury eliminated that and ultimately NGRI at her.

But the whole, I think I told you, the whole reversal occurred as a result of the perjured testimony of Dr. Deeds from Newport Beach and who made this whole issue up about a fictitious show of law and order and that was played to a jury and we had that transcript and we were successful and be able to confront him on cost of examination. Yeah, that's what got the first trial, first verdict completely overturned, was this sort of fake law and order episode that he claimed that Andrea had seen, right, about postpartum psychosis. And so he said, we should use that.

It wasn't real. And so you got a whole new trial. And then she was sound not guilty. I had the transcript and I was able to cause examin in the second trial. I was invited to speak to the American Psychiatric Association in Newport Beach. There was Dr. Rosnick and Dr. Dietz and was on the panel and one other individual in front of the 200-plus psychiatrists. I stayed away from not wanting to embarrass Dr. Dietz in front of his fellow psychiatrist, so I didn't talk about law and order and his perjured testimony.

Well, wouldn't you know what he brought it up? And started blasting me, and I turned to Resnick and asked him to give me three minutes, and I did, and Dietz stormed off the stage and walked out in front of all of these other, all of his fellow psychiatrist and I got a standing patient no that is a great story

thank you for sharing that wow yeah well the law and order episode yeah she didn't have happened

she wanted the death penalty correct she wanted the death penalty correct but is she okay with where she is now she liked to where she is yes

yes she does well I see her frequently, talk to her a lot, and she knows about what we're doing now. I told her that. Right now? She knows about this interview? Pardon? She knows about what you're doing right now? Correct.

This interview? Yes. Okay. And she's happy that we're getting the information out about this whole issue of postpartum. What does Andrea, yeah, what does Andrea want you to share in this interview since you've talked to her? Oh, I just, just to talk about the very nature of what occurred, not talking about anything she may or may not have said. And as I told you, I never talked to about the case itself. And is she following the Lindsay Clancy case at all? No, no. She probably,

I'm sure she's aware of it. But, you know, we, you know, it's something I don't even, we don't even talk about. It's so interesting. I go up to Currville and I stop off a cracker barrel

and I'll get lunch. And we go out in the back and we eat lunch together. And she just, I remember so well when the case was reversed, it was a high point of my legal career when I heard about the reversal. Did you know then that you were going to get her a not guilty verdict in a second trial once it was reversed? When I heard about the NGRI, when I heard about the reversal, I was eager to go back to trial. and picked a good jury. My good friend, Wendell Ludum, helped me during the course of the case,

and we successfully represented her. And, you know, it's having that blueprint, having that testimony transcribed, helps me personally and professionally, but it also gives me something, as I mentioned, to be able to reflect on to educate law professors or lawyers and bar associations across the country about the reality of mental health, women's mental health. I know that the Lindsay Clancy case is being played out right now.

The trial's happening right now. But what are your initial gut thoughts? what's your impression? Do you think this is another, is this another Andrea Yates? I mean, because everybody's talking about your case, Andrea's case, when it comes to this trial. Yeah, you know, possibly so.

This is a, I mean, how in the world, you go back to the very basics. How does a mother do this? How does a mother take the life? of a child in whom she gave life to. And as I mentioned, totally unlike any other homicide. In this particular case that we're talking about now, the Clancy case, just absolutely unfathomable.

I mean, you're just... Yeah. Unlike any other type of, as I mentioned, homicide. It's just how in the world does that happen, huh? Right. It's got to be mental illness. Yeah. Boom.

And you eliminate these ulterior motives. As I mentioned, spouse of revenge, ulterior motives, inheritance. You eliminate all those episodes. What do you love with? The third basic is right. Yeah. What motive is left once you eliminate those? Correct.

Knowing that you're still in touch with Andrea and she knows about this. interview today. Ultimately, it sounds like she wants us to all be aware of postpartum mental health. Please let her know that we hear you and we hear her and that we will learn and that we will educate ourselves. Thank you for sharing what she cares about being said in this interview. And thank you for sharing what your work as well. And we'll share that information. So thank you much. Thank you.

Really appreciate your time. You bet. We'll be in touch. Any time. Thank you. All right. We'll see you.