Matthew Cox | Inside True Crime Podcast - BREAKING! Hidden Evidence Will Change the Lindsay Clancy Verdict

Episode Date: September 3, 2026

Lindsay Clancy verdict: Peter Tragos breaks down the hidden evidence that could change the outcome of the Lindsay Clancy trial. With the jury deliberating her fate, we look at evidence the public never heard, Lindsay’s interviews with mental health experts, the battle between expert witnesses, and the key details that could impact the final verdict.⁣ What does the evidence really show—and how will the jury decide?⁣ ⁣ Peter's channel https://www.youtube.com/@LawyerYouKnow/videos⁣ ⁣ Get 10% sitewide for a limited time. Just visit https://GhostBed.com/cox and use code COX at checkout. ⁣ ⁣ Do you want to be a guest? Fill out the form https://www.insidetruecrimepodcast.com/apply-to-be-a-guest⁣ ⁣ Shop my merch: https://www.etsy.com/shop/MatthewCoxCollection⁣ ⁣ Send me an email here: [e-mail]⁣ ⁣ Do you extra clips and behind the scenes content?⁣ Subscribe to my Patreon: https://patreon.com/InsideTrueCrime ⁣ ⁣ Check out my Dark Docs YouTube channel here -⁣ https://www.youtube.com/@DarkDocsMatthewCox⁣ ⁣ Follow me on all socials!⁣ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/insidetruecrime/⁣ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@matthewcoxtruecrime⁣ ⁣ ⁣ Do you want a custom painting done by me? Check out my Etsy Store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/coxpopart⁣ ⁣ Listen to my True Crime Podcasts anywhere: https://anchor.fm/mattcox ⁣ ⁣ Check out my true crime books! ⁣ Shark in the Housing Pool: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0851KBYCF⁣ Bent: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BV4GC7TM⁣ It's Insanity: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08KFYXKK8⁣ Devil Exposed: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08TH1WT5G⁣ Devil Exposed (The Abridgment): https://www.amazon.com/dp/1070682438⁣ The Program: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0858W4G3K⁣ Bailout: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/bailout-matthew-cox/1142275402⁣ Dude, Where's My Hand-Grenade?: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BXNFHBDF/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1678623676&sr=1-1⁣ ⁣ Checkout my disturbingly twisted satiric novel!⁣ Stranger Danger: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BSWQP3WX⁣ ⁣ If you would like to support me directly, I accept donations here:⁣ Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/MattCox69⁣ Cashapp: $coxcon69 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

One thing that was incredibly interesting in this case that got entered into evidence but they didn't play at trial was not guilty does not always mean innocent. It means innocent or not proven, meaning the government did not prove these charges beyond a reasonable doubt. So the Lindsay Clancy case has taken the world by storm, I think, because it is a mother who is dealing with something that so many mothers have dealt with and feel like they're not heard. People don't take it seriously. and she commits horrific evil acts against her children, and yet so many people in the world are still standing behind her, supporting her, wanting her to get the verdict to be not guilty by reason of insanity

or the equivalent in Massachusetts, which is not criminally responsible. But to take you back to the beginning of the story, she is a labor and delivery nurse, and she has three children, Cora, Dawson, and Callan. Callan is eight months old. So she is right out of having a baby. And Patrick Lancy is her husband.

he worked in tech. He starts working from home. They're on maternity and paternity leave. And she has had some postpartum issues after her first two children, but they basically subsided. And they got worse when she was going to have to go back to work, some separation anxiety, things like that that I think so many mothers have felt and have dealt with in America and around the world. But with Callan, it was worse. And it continued to get worse as Patrick was going to go back to work and potentially have to be out of the office more and Lindsay was going to have to go back to work. Their nanny was going to stop working there because they were getting all of this help. And her symptoms were getting worse and worse around the middle. What are the symptoms? What do you mean symptoms? So it's really lack of sleep. She was having

horrible insomnia, anxiety, some depression, not able to get up and do the things that she would before. She loved working out. She was very active and she just didn't have that type of energy. She was Googling things all the time, spiraling like a lot of us do. And you start to have issues and symptoms. You're describing me. I mean, and that's what the world thinks. Right. The world is thinking every one of us. Yeah, I'd say my wife got her MD from Google.com, you know, webmd is which I'm hardly

sleep. I stopped working out months ago. I can't seem to push myself to go back in. I'm constantly feel depressed, you know. There's like every symptom you just said, I have. Yeah. And I think this entire story I think is a really good wake up call for a lot of people, too, to deal with it the right way.

Right. and to try to seek the help that can help you. And then what to do with that help? All of those things kind of come into the story. Because when her symptoms start getting worse, and she tells her husband, I actually want to go treat with a psychiatrist, psychologist, maybe get some medication.

They're pretty much against that. Or he seems against the medication. She seems to not want to take the medication. She's still breastfeeding. But eventually it gets so bad that she does end up going to see a Dr. Tufts, who is a psychiatrist, literally two months into her actual practice at post-residency very early on in her career,

but says she is a postpartum specialist because with everything you're going through, Lindsay Clancy was going through at postpartum with three young children, one eight months old, worrying about going back to work, her husband having some weekends away for work and other things. He's working from home for the most part. And so all of it is really piling on her

and she's feeling like she needs help. She ends up saying, everything's getting bad enough. I need to get some medication to help me potentially and see a specialist. she goes to a psychiatrist who's literally just a couple months out, very brand new and green post-residency, and she starts getting prescribed some of the medications, some SSRIs that can have some very serious side effects. And from that point forward, in the months coming between basically August of 2022 and January of 2023, she's prescribed so many different types

of medications, she's started, she's stopped, she's ramped up, she's weaned off, all while reporting horrible side effects, continually, continuing to not be able to sleep, reporting things to Patrick's suicidal ideation, still trying to take care of her children. It just gets worse and worse and worse. One day, she does tell her mom and Patrick only that she's having homicidal ideations about hurting the children. She doesn't tell any of her providers about that. She doesn't tell anybody else about that. And mom and Patrick do not tell any of the providers about it either. So she's also taken things like Benadryl in addition to some of the, the other medications she's taking, which can create side effects and issues.

So she does all this. Everything continues to get worse. People in her life say she seemed fine one day, bad one day. She seemed like she was doing better. Can I ask a question? Yes. Did the mother or the husband do anything when she brought that to their attention? So that's one of the big things in the trial is why didn't the mom and Patrick go to the medical

providers and tell them or push back on Lindsay Clancy Moore and say, what do you mean? Do we need to commit you somewhere? Do we need to take the children away? They didn't. It seemed like she was the type of person. She was also a go-getter, very achievement-oriented, very smart, and a really successful labor and delivery nurse. So it seemed like they were kind of trusting her to know her own limits and boundaries. And it seemed like they were doing everything they could to help her. Patrick would go to some of these appointments with her. He would say, this medication is making my wife a zombie. He would try to be involved in that and be a supportive husband. He worked from home. And her mom also, she would text her mom, mom, I need you now.

Her mom would drive there, sleep in the bed with her, help her as much as she could with the kids. So they were supportive. She had a lot of friends that reached out when they knew she was having these issues. She had a good support system. She had the resources to get this mental health treatment. There were certain things that she would follow doctor's orders, others where she would say, the side effects are too bad. I can't keep taking this medication.

And we'll get to how all this comes into the trial. But eventually, in January of 2023, Patrick goes to pick up dinner. and medication for one of their children at CVS. And when he comes home, the house is silent. And so he's calling out for everybody because that's not normal. And so he calls out to the basement, looks in some of the bedrooms,

ends up going to the master bedroom, and he says the door is locked. And that lets him know that something's wrong. Right. So he goes and gets the key, opens up the master bedroom door, sees blood everywhere. He looks, he doesn't see any of the kids,

doesn't see Lindsay Clancy, notices the window of the second story, master bedroom is open, goes out to the window, looks down and sees his wife laying in the snow in the backyard, runs downstairs, lays there, gets down next to her, she's in the snow. He says that she's going in and out of consciousness, but he's able to say, what did you do or what happened? And she said, I tried to commit suicide. I tried to myself something to that effect. And then he says, where are the kids?

Because he realizes no kids. I don't hear the kids. By the way, she has slashes on her wrists and around her neck while she's laying in the snow. And she says in the basement, he calls 911. he tells them to come. The timeline will get to some of the issues with the timeline, issues with Patrick potentially in his timeline, but tells 911 to come. They come within five minutes. He's running downstairs to the basement to check on the kids.

He finds the children in two different locations with exercise bands, you know, the rubber exercise bands wrapped around their necks. Two of them are clearly deceased at the scene. Callin, the eight-month-old, was actually able to be revived and died later at the hospital. And Patrick is heard screaming on the 911 call, telling law enforcement she killed the kids.

And, you know, that's basically where the Lindsay Clancy fact pattern brings us to the trial that's happening right now. So she gets picked up by the ambulance and it turns out that she's paralyzed now, right? So she broke her name. So she jumped out of the window. After she cut herself, she jumped out of the window. So according to her statements, she killed the kids, went upstairs, crushed up pills, took pills to try herself that way, cut her wrists. cut her throat and jumped out of the second story window and ends up paralyzed on the ground. Right. So this wasn't a cry for help. This is, she's trying to get herself. Absolutely.

So, and again, seems obvious. Yeah. But when we get to the trial, the prosecutors, one of their big theories is this was actually a fake side attempt. That Lindsay Clancy wanted to kill her children and wanted to get away with it and was doing this for sympathy, I guess. And the cuts in her wrist were the wrong way. She's a nurse. She would know. They weren't deep enough. They were just superficial wounds. The cut across her throat. just superficial wounds. Nobody really had to stop active bleeding when they saw it. And this was all just, and even the defense lawyer highlighted it more than the prosecutor. But the way the blood pattern on the side of the house, they tried to make it seem like she spider manned down the side and kind of slid down. And it was only 12 feet. And the defense had an expert to say, no, no, no, she jumped head

first, fractured her spine and was paralyzed immediately. Nobody fakes that. But she is paralyzed. Absolutely paralyzed, I think from the chest down. Yeah, come on, man. She, she didn't, that's not. And that's something they basically abandoned throughout the trial because it was such a joke. What, that it was a fake. But yeah, come on, stop. That's like, maybe you're ineffective as far as trying to commit. You should have known better. But the jump out of the, the jump out of the window says that that's, that's not the case at all. She's not in a prayer. So there's so many facts in the case, and that's one of them, is for lay people that are sitting on the jury to try and figure out, is this. logical, did she do what you would expect somebody to do in this situation that wanted this outcome?

Or does none of this make sense and it does lead you to think maybe she did snap? Maybe this was a psychotic break. And the attempt, why would you do all three? Why wouldn't you just make sure you took your life with a knife? You know, what does that actually tell you? Is it a fake attempt? Is it somebody that was just trying everything and wanted to get it over with before her husband got home? Like what does it actually tell you?

Because the jury's going to have to try and parse through all of this. Was this methodical and premeditated and intentional? or was this a psychotic break? Was there a gun in the house? I don't know. It's a good question. No. I mean, women tend to not use a weapon.

They tend to poison themselves, right? Like take medication or cut themselves, but. I don't know that research. Yeah. Okay, so she gets arrested. Does she ever get out on Bond? No. So she's in the entire time.

And she has psychiatric issues, obviously, from the first second she goes in there. We're in trial three years later. she is still on one-to-one care because she's on side watch and just will continue to be so. And her lawyer says she doesn't want to be here. She wants her life to be over. No surprise there. All of us can understand kind of where she's coming from there. And so she has been in an institution the entire time.

Now, one of the things the prosecutors have tried to use against her in trial is on the anniversaries of her children's death, on their birthdays and, you know, holidays, she's not curled up in a ball, you know, laying in bed, just depressed. instead she's eating dinner or playing checkers with her mom or reading a book and they try to make it seem like this proves she doesn't actually care. She didn't care about what she did. She wanted to kill her kids. So they're using things that are happening post-trial against her. But the big part of this case that makes it really interesting is the not guilty of a reason of insanity defense is different in a lot of different states. There's a lot of different ways that they handle it.

In Florida where we are, the defense has the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that you are insane. Meaning you have a mental disease or defect and you basically can't understand right from wrong. You didn't understand the wrongfulness of your actions. And there's a bunch of different ways that you can get there. And that makes sense, right? Because if you're going to prove somebody's insane, you should have to actually prove it. It's very difficult to prove the negative there for the prosecutor. But in Massachusetts, that's exactly what it is. The Commonwealth has the burden the entire time. Once the defense inserts the insanity portion into a case, the Commonwealth now not only has to prove that Lindsay Clancy did this, but that she's also criminally.

responsible, meaning she either didn't have a mental disease or defect, which in this case can be postpartum psychosis, postpartum depression, bipolar, severe depression, whatever it may be. And then that she either could not conform her actions to the law or didn't understand the wrongfulness of her actions. So basically, you're compelled to do this and you can't stop it. Somebody's forcing you to do this. And they have to disprove that. It's a pretty difficult task to do, although the vast majority of time prosecutors are successful against insanity police. Right. What is the difference in sentencing or outcome between, okay, she did this and playing this out and she's insane?

Sure. So if she gets convicted of first degree murder, she'll go to prison for the rest of her life. And if she is found to be not criminally responsible, which is what they call it in Massachusetts, but not guilty by reason of insanity, the judge actually reads in the instructions to the jury, because you'd be worried about that if you were on a jury, right? If you're going to say not currently responsible and you think she just goes home? Yeah. Well, the judge actually reads that what happens is she is put in a mental health facility and there's

a period of time that she'll be there and the prosecutors have to continuously petition the court to keep her there. But eventually mental health providers could say she's no longer a danger to herself or others. She's been rehabilitated and then they go to a judge and a judge can make the decision to let her out. So there is a possibility she gets out one day. There's also a possibility that she's there for the rest of her life. and plenty of people are there for a very, very long time, sometimes longer than what their prison sentences would have been, not in her scenario since it's life. But it's not like people like to say, you know, you're excusing her actions because of the mental health disorder.

People are, you know, making Lindsay Clancy a hero or saying what she did is amazing. That's a very different analysis than somebody that's found not guilty by reason of insanity. The fact that she formulated a plan bothers me. Yeah. You know what I think that's a great, I think what bothers you and what you see in the case from what you've heard is the best dialogue. we can have, right? Because that's, I always tell like the people in my chat or that watch, you could be sitting on a jury tomorrow. I mean, maybe unlikely with your background, right? Depends. Maybe. I've had jury duty. I've gotten a summons. I called up and I was like, listen,

I want to serve. I'm ready to come down. I do need to mention that I have a felony conviction. And they said, yeah, you don't have to come. I said, no, no, but I will come. I wanted this. He said, no, no, don't come. Yeah, yeah, exactly. I was like, oh, that'd be great. I think so, too. So in this scenario, there are kind of a couple different turning points in the case. And the way the prosecutors and the way the defense attorneys see the same facts differently is where a jury really makes their money for lack of a better term. So one of them that you brought up is the plan.

Lindsay Clancy Googled or Google mapped how far away her house was from 3V, the restaurant she was going to get takeout from. They usually, the most common place that they get takeout from is a couple minutes from their house. This, I think, was 13 minutes away. She chooses this restaurant. She Googles that first, the maps. Then she asks her husband, hey, what do you think about takeout tonight, basically? I don't feel up to cooking.

He's like, sure. She's like, what do you think about 3V? He's like, sure, tell me what you want. They make the order. Then she also earlier in the day takes her daughter to the doctor. She's having tummy issues. She has to get me relax for kids, whatever it is. So she calls in, make sure CVS has it.

That's near their house. So she sends, quote unquote, Patrick out. and he gets the CVS, the medication, and goes to the restaurant to get the takeout and then comes home. Immediately when he leaves, the prosecution's theory is, that is when,

for the first and only time, Lindsay Clancy hears command voice hallucinations, meaning somebody telling her, you must do something and it's an irresistible impulse, basically at that point. That's what she says. That's what she says.

Because another aspect of this case is because it's an insanity case, she has spoken to multiple experts on both sides. and in order for them to have an opinion, she has to tell them what happened. So some of what she says is admitting to committing these acts, obviously of what she did to her children. So the command hallucinations tell her,

now is your last chance, you have to kill the kids and you have to kill yourself. And some of the prosecution's arguments through their experts that are red flags there is, most of the time when you have these command hallucinations, they don't just happen once. Yeah, I was going to say, has she ever had these before?

Her testimony, she's never had them before, and she's never had them after. Now, some of the arguments are the medication, got worse, worse, worse, worse, and it just came to a peak here. And now she's properly medicated after. And that's why she's not having them. That's what the defense would argue. But the prosecutor expert says, that's a big red flag. Other big red flags are it didn't specifically, the voice did not specifically tell her how to kill them, where to kill them, when to kill them, anything like that. And when you have research, because they do research with a lot of these defendants

that commit these horrible acts. Right. And they say that's more common where they say, take the knife and go kill your kids right now downstairs. Hide them in the basement so nobody finds them, whatever. They give more specific instruction. And the prosecutor say, in order for her to commit all of these acts, in the time period it was going to take, she would have had to have a plan. Because you don't just walk downstairs with all three of your kids, because I think they were like six and four. I think it's either six, four and eight months or five, three and eight months. So they're little, but a six-year-old is not going to watch you strangle their brother or sister and be like, oh, I want to be next. Yeah. So, and the way she says it is she did it one at a time.

And so in order to do it one at a time with exercise bands in the basement and the older two kids were in two different locations. So she didn't take one down and they saw their brother or sister laying their dead. Yeah. She was a presence of mind to know I need to separate them from one another to keep them from realizing what's happening and resisting in some way. That's the Commonwealth's theory. Yes. And the Commonwealth said that they went into excruciating detail of how long it actually takes to. strangle somebody with an exercise band while they're not already limp or, you know, dead.

Like they struggle. They don't want to. What happens to the blood vessels in their eyes? I mean, it was brutal testimony when you're thinking about these children, these like innocent babies and what they had to go through. And that was a big part of their plan as well. And their strategy and trial was just the emotional side of it is unbearable to think you're really going to let this person go who admits to you that they're responsible for the death of these three innocent kids that they, you know, carried in their womb. Yeah, it's not easy to kill or to strangle someone. And after they pass out and you think they're dead, they're not dead.

Like if you let go, they can come back. So you have to strangle them for a longer period of time than people typically believe is necessary for them to make sure that they're dead. So she didn't as soon as they passed out. Oh, they're done. I'm done. No, she had to continue to strangle them. I'm assuming because that's how it is with a person. And, you know, as soon as you pass out, people think, oh, it's done.

No, it's not done. He's, trust me, if you let go, there's a good chance he might come back. You have to really strangle this person. Or you have to break something enough so that they're done, right? Like, it's not that easy. So, yeah, that detail was not necessarily given as much as experts saying based on the injuries and the way they died and the way they were found with the exercise bans around their neck, which there's an interesting detail there that the prosecutor just completely fumbled away.

but the prosecutor say it would have had taken multiple minutes. The defense expert says if you tie something like that, that's stretchy like that. You don't necessarily have to hold it as long as if it was a rope or a shirt or something else because they get tighter potentially if there is a struggle, if they're tied in a knot or something like that. I don't know if she tied it. Yeah. Well, so that's the interesting part. And we can talk about it now.

So the prosecutors, when they're questioning Patrick Clancy, because he finds the children. And he says the bands were around their neck. I was taking the bands off their neck when law enforcement came in. And she says, the bands were tied around their neck, right? And he's like, I think so. And she says, do you remember you said in a prior statement something like it was tied without the bow part of the shoelaces? And he's like, yes, I remember saying that.

So it came out of the prosecutor's mouth. Later, with a defense expert, the prosecutor did a demonstration and she was very dramatic about it. She tried to make it like the OJ, the glove won't fit moment. And she holds up the exercise band. It says, look, if you just lay them there and you like, oh, they fall apart. isn't that true. It's, they weren't just laid there.

They were tied up just without the bow. So she says something completely anti to what she said before has already facts and evidence to try and trip up this defense expert who said, yeah, but I don't believe that's what the testimony says, how the bans were set up. So losing credibility is going to be a big part of this because in our justice system, especially on the criminal side, as you know, beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest burden in all of the court system in the entire

country. And in Massachusetts, they have language that says, to a moral certainty. So you have to be morally certain before you convict somebody. And that's something that even earlier you said, you know, I found myself being like, ah, I'm here.

And then I kind of thought, oh, no, but she probably planned it. But oh, that was a lot of medication or, oh, I know what it's like to be depressed and, you know, be down in a funk. That to me sounds like reasonable doubt. Right. I mean, if you're not morally certain,

and maybe you are, we'll get there. But if you're not morally certain, she did it, premeditated, planned it, intended it. You have to vote not guilty. even if you think she probably did, she maybe did, not enough for a guilty verdict and to be morally certain of something. So it's just a very interesting way to try to understand how the jurors are trying to break all this down and follow the law at the same time, something that they're not

professional jurors, right? They've probably never done it before a lot of them. So the prosecutors continue with their theory that in order to make all of this happen, including smashing the pills, cutting herself and jumping out the window, strangling all three of her children. She had start immediately when Patrick left. If she would have waited, he would have come home in the middle of it. Right. And that's something she didn't want because she knew it was wrong. Right.

And if she knows it's wrong, she's not in this psychotic way. Yeah, she's trying to get away with it. She's controlling her actions, right? So everything that pushes in the face of this, not criminally responsible. While she was committing these acts, Patrick called her from CVS because he couldn't find the medication. And she didn't pick up, but then called him back a minute later and was able to tell him what the medication was, answer the phone, not tell him, hey, I don't know what's going on.

I'm hearing these voices or I'm killing the kids. That did not happen. They have a 15 second conversation, hang up the phone, and then she goes and finishes doing what she's doing. And both sides kind of use that to try and argue different things. Yeah, I think that can be argued either way. It's extreme planning or... She didn't know what was going on.

She was completely, yeah, she was completely out of her mind. Yeah, because the testimony was, you can be psychotic can have a psychotic break and still order food. You can have a psychotic break and still talk to your mom or whatever. One of the other good arguments for the prosecutor was that all these trained experts talked to her, saw her all the way leading up to that day and never saw signs of psychosis. Does that go to their negligence or were there no signs because she wasn't psychotic? These are all the things that jury has to determine.

But if it's like either one is a plausible answer, that's reasonable doubt. And that's the point is that the commonwealth has to say, yeah, no way did she have a psychotic break. I'm morally certain she didn't have a psychotic break and I just don't think they got close to that burden. But it is hard. Like I realized coming from a lawyer's brain and mouth and people are like, I can't believe you could ever think that. You know, you think she killed her kids, which I do. But then you still can hold the commonwealth of this burden. It's like that's how our justice system is set up. But I don't fault people for not wanting to believe that or understand that or get to that point. I don't fault. It's a difficult position. Do they give a definition of what a psychotic break is?

Like, so basically just you don't, it's the, it's the definition that's the criminally responsible. A mental disease or defect where you don't understand the wrongfulness or illegality of your actions. And you cannot conform your actions to the law, meaning you can't stop it. It's like, I know if I reached over the table and strangled you right now that that's wrong. I can't stop it. I have to, like something is compelling me to do it, right? And now the flip side of that is every person that commits horrible acts like this, like something snaps or goes wrong, right? But do they understand it's wrong?

and the way the judge read the instruction of, do they appreciate the wrongfulness, which is different than knowing that it's wrong? What does that even mean? It's like some of these legal definitions make it more complicated than simplify it. And you have these lay people back there that are jurors trying to parse through,

which is why I think they simplify it. And they say, did she have a psychotic breaker, did she not? And what does the evidence show us? And it's an attorney's job to make sure they're thinking about it the right way with reasonable doubt and not let them get it.

in that mindset. Another problem with their theory that, you know, they, they just had so many problems with how they presented the evidence and how they presented the timelines. But another problem with their theory is that she didn't like her life anymore. And so she didn't want the life that, that she thought she wanted. And that's why she wanted to kill the kids. Every single witness they called basically just dispelled that narrative. Yeah. And they multiple times, their theories and narratives, their own witnesses, nuked them, which is not a good thing when you're the prosecutor, obviously. eventually one of their experts got to she wanted to herself that was her main goal in all of this but a protective factor was her mom and her kids so one of the reasons she didn't kill herself is because

she didn't want to leave her kids on earth without her and so she did intend to kill them because she wanted herself and she couldn't without killing her kids that's what i would have gone with as my motive and theme and theory the entire case the prosecutors didn't it was like 20 days in when we started hearing stuff like that and the defendant was nuking theory and motive after theory and motive. And basically everybody said Lindsay was a great mom, loved her kid, wanted to have more kids, great wife. Another wrinkle on this?

Patrick Clancy didn't want to meet with the prosecutors. He met with the defense. He walked the defense through the house. He was basically with the defense and he believes that Lindsay Clancy should be not criminally responsible for killing his own kids. That's fucked up. Not just Patrick. Patrick's parents both testified in the trial, both sympathetic and seemingly on

Lindsey Clancy's side. Obviously, Lindsay Clancy's family as well. So everybody involved that would be considered a victim here all believes Lindsay Clancy had a psychotic break. And I think that does have an effect on a jury that, I mean, these should be the people that want to crucify her the most for what she did to them, taking their kids and their grandkids away. But they don't. They believe she had a psychotic break. And then the next step, there's layers to all of this, right? The next step there is, prosecutors brought out, there's a lawsuit. A medical malpractice lawsuit against these medical providers for millions of dollars that they actually caused the children's death with how they treated or the lack thereof of Lindsay Clancy. So is that a motive now

for Patrick Clancy to be on Lindsay Clancy side? Now from my perspective, I have two little kids, not so little anymore, I guess now 13 and 10. No amount of money would let me say, oh, no, that's okay. You know, I'll forgive my wife for doing that and say that she should be not guilty. But it is another layer to this that there is this a looming civil lawsuit that I think does have legs because of, what the medical providers did do and didn't do. Okay. Yeah, I, I, it's funny because, you know, was she given probably she, I mean, I don't know. I don't know how long that, how long are these medications going like you're trying one

medication, maybe this will help. Okay, let's try this for a couple months. Okay, it's not working. You feel this way. Okay, well, we've got this other medication. Let's whine you off this one and put you on this one. Like, you know, unless it's like, hey, no, she's on five different. medications at the same time, like then maybe you probably need to know a lot about the medications.

And I'm not sure how much these, you know, doctors know about the medications and the adverse reactions they have to one another. But, you know, so of course, then you probably shouldn't be, you know, overlapping medications, right? Then you, if you were doing it anyway, just to see. But then they weren't told that she's having these, you know, for lack of better word, you, these murderous thoughts about our children. So that's, that's kind of like, I don't know. Here's the thing. It's like, I feel bad for her.

I'm sorry. But you killed your kids. Like, and I get it, you know, and hey, you know what? They'll give you some, some, they'll give you medication and mental help in prison. Not, not quite the help that she needs, but. Probably not. Yeah. But, you know, listen, is you can't as what, it's like a, it's like, uh,

a lion you know a you know a you know a lion can't help change his trace yeah yeah he can't he can't he can't help but want to you know you know eat goats and so i'm sorry for him and i feel bad for him but you can't roam the countryside with normal people at this point you know and i so it's like i kind of feel bad i feel bad for you because it's your nature i feel bad for you because you have these these mental problems and you didn't get the proper help but you kill three children you can't go about your business. So the way we would deal with somebody that has this kind of position that you're kind of explaining to me right now is in jury selection. One of the things we lawyers talk about with the jury is following the law. And there are laws I don't agree with, right? And I think

some insanity situations in the way certain jurisdictions do them, I don't necessarily agree with exactly how they do them. I have some of the same concerns you do is like, is there a better system? Like some states, if you murder somebody but you're found to have had a psychotic break, you go down a manslaughter because we say, well, you couldn't have formed the right criminal intent, but you still have manslaughter go to prison for 25 years to life, right? Or some guilty but insane states, right? So some states, maybe we think do it better than others or even Florida. I get that. There's extenuating circumstances. We're not going to have you do life in prison. You're going to do 25 years. Right. But if I tell you, and I ask you this question and you're, it's in jury selection,

and I'm the lawyer and you're sitting there as a potential juror. And I say, if you find that Lindsay Clancy had a psychotic break, had a mental disease or defect, whatever it is that we end up proving, And even though the defense has no burden, if you find she has that mental disease or defect, and you find that you truly believe that she could not control her own actions that night, would you be able to say not guilty? Or do you still think she's a lion? She wants to eat a goat. She's always going to want to eat a goat.

She needs to go to prison. Right. I don't. There's no wrong answer. It's just whatever you, it's whatever you honestly would believe. What is the question again? So if I told you that the law is, if you find she has a mental disease or defector, actually the more appropriate way to say it is, if the state does not disprove beyond a reasonable doubt

that she has a mental disease or defect and could understand the wrongfulness of her actions and conform her actions to the law. Okay. So if you find that you think the state did not disprove to you that she had a mental disease or defect, could not conform her actions to the law and understand the wrongfulness of her actions, okay? Would you be able to vote not guilty? By reason of insanity? Colby? I feel like I would say no Like I probably wouldn't be on this case Because I just feel like she should be going to prison either way

And that's that's a fair response It's an honest response I'm sure it's a response Tons of people had They're not on this jury That's your answer You're a four cause strike Meaning the judge strikes you off this jury

So theoretically if everybody was honest Which it doesn't always happen in jury selection as well All 12 people deliberating right now Would not have said that They would at least consider that insanity defense legitimate and would follow the law if that's how they saw the facts and the evidence. Yeah, I don't think I would have been on the jury. I just don't. You know, it's, you know why? It's like, it's something like 80% of childsters, um, were just children, right?

It's a horrible statistic. Let's face it, the other 20% are probably lying. Yeah. Or 10% or whatever. It is sad. It's a, it's horrible. And I feel bad for those people. And they didn't ask to be turned into monsters. But now you're a monster. And you could say, well, yeah, but there's medication and there's monitoring. I understand. But you can't throw everybody that was as a kid in prison. No, no. And I wouldn't.

But if they get. But that's where if you take that. No, but I'm saying it once they get a hold of a kid, now you've child. And you said, yeah, but wait a minute. I was nine. It was not my fault. And I didn't realize it. And now if you just give me the medication, I'll be okay.

I'm sorry. I can't, you know, I can't trust you to. take this medication and you did. And by the way, there's tons of people that, that were in the same situation as you, and they've never harmed a child. You know, there's tons of people who are molasses that they didn't. You know, well, yeah, it's a small percentage that do.

I understand. And that small percentage goes to prison. And I'm sorry and I feel bad for you. But I'm more concerned about society than I'm concerned about your mental health or what your excuse was. I think those are all fair responses. And I think there's a lot of people that will agree with that and say, I don't think I should be on this jury

and that's the honest opinion that somebody should have but at the same time we as society and I say this all the time like we as society should have an effect on our judicial system on our laws. If we think a law is wrong we should do what we can to change it by voting by creating awareness and making sure people understand it and that's I think something that's really good about this case

is we are creating a lot of awareness around the insanity defense around you know postpartum psychosis postpartum anxiety postpartum depression but what you said is also what a lot of other people have said A lot of women go through a lot of things postpartum and don't kill their kids. And so how do they view a case like this? And jurors bring their own experiences into the jury room when they are deliberating.

And so what each juror is feeling and thinking at this point, we may never know. Does it need to be all, I don't know how many jurors. Unanimous is at 10, 12, they all need to have the same answer. Yes. In criminal cases in Massachusetts, all 12 jurors must agree on a verdict in order for there to be a verdict rendered. What about in Florida? Yep, Florida as well. Really? So do they determine what the sentence is? Does the jury? No. So the judge will determine the sentence. Okay. Some states, it's the jury. Yeah, some states, not one I've ever tried a case in. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And does the lawyer get to choose, like, when they're picking the jury, they have an unlimited amount of questions they can ask, qualifying questions? How does that really work? So no, jury selection. Well, it depends because it depends on the case. Certain cases like this, you're given way more time and leniency than you are in a normal case. I've had judges try to tell me 90 minutes to pick a jury, which is just not long enough. During COVID, it was dropped down to like 30 minutes, which is impossible, literally, and something I had to fight with judges about and say, I'm going to ask my questions. I'm not going to waste time. If you cut me off, you're creating an appellate issue. So it's always a big issue on how long you have to pick a jury, but you do

have a limited number of preemptory strikes, which is strikes for any reason. That can kind of change, depending on what their agreements are the parties. I don't know how many they had in this case for cause challenge. So people like that answered like you answered, there's as many of those as possible, right? So if the entire jury pool all answered exactly like you didn't say, I don't really care, she killed her kids, she needs to go to prison forever, I don't care what the law says, which is understandable. And we as lawyers don't condemn people for that. We totally understand. Some lawyers might be in the same exact bucket as you are. All of those people get struck. No matter how long it takes, you have to get a fair and impartial jury that will follow the law. We've had cases where I was

picking a jury and strike, strike, strike, all these people were struck. We busted the whole panel. We had to come back six months later and try it again because we didn't have enough jurors to actually pick a jury. How big is the pool? Like on an average? Average case we get between 35 and 40 jurors. Yeah. Okay. And we're trying to pick six to eight jurors usually. Does a jury know what she's facing? They know the charge. Do they know what the sentence is or the potential sentence? So no. And they're not supposed to concern themselves with the sentence. Now, I will say most people in today's day and age know what the sentence for first degree murder is, right? Either your state has the death penalty or they don't. And if there's a penalty

phase, usually jury knows about that. So they probably know it's a life sentence if they convict her of that. There are also lesser included second degree murder that they're considering and manslaughter. But generally speaking, I think they know that she's going to prison for life. And this is the unique circumstance where if they do find her not criminally responsible, they do know what happens to her as well there that she's not going home. Are they sequestered? No. Okay. Oh my God, bro. Like, are they, so, I mean, I'm sure, and I know they're told, don't get on social media. Right.

Don't. There's no way. There's no way. So I'm assuming sequestered means they can't, like, make them look on their phone and stuff like that. No, no. Sequestion means that they take them, they put them in a shitty motel somewhere with a, you know, with two books and her TV. Right. And a sheriff at the front.

But they're not. So they have access to social media. So they're going home. They're checking their phone. Is that? They're looking. And they're seeing these people. Yeah.

sides of the road when they show up. Yeah, is that an argument? Like, hey, like, these people are, for lack of a better word, like contaminated or influenced it, influenced by social media and just the public outroar. So the interesting thing about how these trials work is there's a lot of trust in the jury system for better or for worse. And they're asked every morning when they get there, they're told every night when they leave not to do this stuff.

So in order to do it, it would have to be intentional. And there have been trials where somebody has said, hey, I was walking to love. lunch and I saw something on the TV about the, it was during the Karen Reid case. I don't know if you remember that. Also in Boston, they're like, I saw something in the news channel about Karen Reed and they hashed out whether it made a difference affected them at all. So jurors are more honest than you would think, okay? And I know a lot of people are cynical about it. And maybe some jurors do look on their phones and I'm not going to say it's an impossibility. I hope that they don't. These are what makes lawyers sweat and keep us up at night is we're wondering, what is the

jury going to do? Are they going and Googling things at home? But for the most part, I don't think that happens, I think for the majority. And if it does, sometimes it can become obvious to the other jurors. And other jurors will rat you out if they find out, you know, Matt's been over there, you know, Googling everything. And he's bringing us TikTok storylines. And, you know, we want him out judge because he's trying to poison the way we think by what everybody else thinks in the world. So juries will rat jurors. I would do it. I'd be like, you know. Yeah. I love to tell us a good TikTok story. Yeah. So what came out listening to this. Oh, yeah. I'm sure we'll get there. There's plenty of TikTok theories in this case.

But yeah, so that's something they're not supposed to do. But it's also, we've had cases here in Florida. I don't know if you remember the Take Care of Maya trial, which was the Netflix documentary about the Munchausen's by proxy at Johns Hopkins Hospital. I know the guy that produced and directed the documentary. Okay, very cool. Henry Roosevelt. Okay, very cool.

So there was a juror in that case whose wife was going on a bunch of YouTube channels and Facebook groups and commenting and watching and watching. the whole trial. And the defense after said he was talking to his wife. He was influenced by his wife. He's like, no, I wasn't. I followed the rules. Yes, I live with my wife. I went home, didn't talk to her about the case. They ended up having a jury interview, which is rare, where he had to come to court after the case and swear under oath and say, no, we didn't talk about the case. We lived together. We didn't discuss it. She did whatever she did. She was making comments while I was sitting in this chair in the trial. And so I mean, there's an element of trust, right?

And you also understand, imagine if I was trying to pick a jury, you're like, oh, I think it'd be so cool. What if I told you had to stay in a crappy motel for three months? I don't think you'd be so excited about it then. Yeah. How long is this jury sitting around and what are they compensated? Like, I don't know what their specific compensation is in Florida. It's like 15 bucks or something a day. It's nothing. It's horrible. But there are some states that do better. They give you more money, but I don't know what specifically they're getting. Not anything that makes it worth it, I'll say. Number one, number two, I think the trial lasted 22 days and were four or five days in deliberation, but there was a crossover there. So it's like 25 plus days at this point.

These people just give up 25 days to do that I guess their duty, right? My mother sat on two juries. I think might have been three, but I know for sure at least two. But she was a stay at home. She was way past the stay. There was nobody even at home anymore. But yeah, she was, she didn't have a job. She was a housewife.

And so you end up with these types of people that they can do it. Right. So it's funny because that means you're not really a jury. of my peers. Exactly. And that's the problem. And that's why when you're saying these people are giving up, you know, 20 days of their life and why you're thinking in your head, what I ever want to do that, the answer should be yes. Because if you don't do it, then your peers won't either. Yeah. I would do it. I would want to do it. I agree. I would too. I would too. I would make the sacrifice of. Exactly. And it's funny, if I was an employee, if I was an employer, I would probably,

if I could afford to, I would pay my, I would pay their wages. Like, hey, you're going to be out and it's going to be what, two, three weeks. I'm going to pay you to encourage them to do their duty, to do their civic duty. Yeah, I think that's a big deal. And I've spoken to high school classes before, you know, 18-year-olds. They're about to, they're adults now, legally what changes. And that's always like a story I tell them is like, you know, would you guys show up for jury duty? They're like, oh, we're not idiots.

I know how to get out of jury duty. I would never want to sit on a jury. Is it okay? And I say, let's say one of you gets accused of a crime at school. And six people are going to determine whether or not you go to prison. I can either pick six people from this room or six people from the teacher's lounge. Which would you rather me pick? They're all like, obviously six, 18-year-olds from this room.

We understand each other. but none of you guys showed up for jury duty. Yeah, but you don't want to know. So your six teachers are going to decide whether you go to prison. What do you think your chances are? And that's real. That's real. I can't tell you how many times I've had, I've picked juries,

and it's far from a jury of my client's peers. Right. Now, it doesn't mean exactly people that look and speak and talk like you and have jobs like you. It's not that, but it's people in your world, right? People around you, not, like you said, a bunch of stay at home moms or retirees when you're a 25-year-old guy working in tech with, you know, a baby and a wife. You know, it's just, it's different. That sounds like a solid argument for the prosecutor, but what about the defense?

Like, why do people think that it's possible that she could even be found not guilty? Yeah, I mean, I think the defense has combated a lot of the prosecution's theories. They've gone out on the offensive and gotten in front of some of the just totally wild theories like the fake side, the spider manning down the side of the house and turning basically every prosecution witness into a defense witness about how amazing Lindsay Clancy is, great mom, great nurse, loving person. So the way the defense has combated their theories as a whole is this is totally out of character for Lindsay Clancy. There is not a single motivation that Lindsay Clancy would ever want to do this for her children. Nobody saw it coming. Nobody could have ever known she was going to do it, except for a psychotic break. Lindsay Clancy never does this. That's basically the defense's theory. And there is evidence of that because why would Lindsay Clancy choose to do this when Patrick Clancy's

gone for, I don't know, 20 minutes, 25 minutes. He's gone for longer, but she's thinking this is going to be a 15 to 20 minute round trip. It ends up being longer, but it's 13 minutes to the restaurant, three minutes to CVS. Why would she choose now to kill her kids when multiple times Patrick had left for the entire weekend? So if she wanted to kill her kids and herself, she had plenty of opportunity where it would have, A, been easier and B, maybe been successful. Like, did she really want to do this with the chance that Patrick comes home in the middle of it? Because that didn't make sense either. And when you got to a battle of the experts here, which was a big part of this trial, the defenses experts, in my opinion, were overwhelmingly more

strong than the prosecution's experts. They had literally the guy on Philicide, which is killing your kids, basically out of love, you know, whatever the different motivations are. But he testified in so many cases that you would have heard of, the Unabomber case, the Casey Anthony case. I can't even remember. We listed all of them, and he listed all of them, to show the jury, this is the guy. He's an older gentleman testifying by Zoom, which was not maybe as impactful as if he would have been in person, but prosecution witness after prosecution witness cited to his work, knew who he was, said he was the authority in the area. And he said, based on all the medical records, all the treatment, all of the police records, interviews, talking to Lindsay Clancy,

which he did just months after the incident, he said she was not criminally responsible. She had a psychotic break, a mental disease or defect that caused her. to not be able to know right from wrong and control her actions. She had command hallucinations. She could not control. That's what the number one expert in the field said. If we compare that with the Commonwealth experts, none of them were postpartum experts, women's health experts.

They were terrorism experts, pediatric experts. Some of them very smart and still good experts and good witnesses, but just nowhere near the strength and the specialty of the defense's experts. and they all said some of the Commonwealth experts even said there's two possibilities here. Either she intended to do this and it was premeditated or it was a psychotic break. We think more of the evidence points towards she intended to do this. But to me, all of that sounds like reasonable doubt. When you're comparing a battle of the experts and you as a juror have to decide,

did the Commonwealth prove this beyond a reasonable doubt and you have the number one expert saying she had a psychotic break, did they overcome that? And one of the experts on the Commonwealth side is just kind of a wild world of true crime. The reports are the day after he testified and he got shredded on cross, the day after he testified, he resigned from his job, literally. Why? Just because he got shredded on the stand? I don't know the reason.

The prosecutor? The prosecution expert, Dr. Mack. He was like a pediatric expert, seemed like a very intelligent guy, but got shredded on cross because he didn't know the timing of the postpartum. he wouldn't really like admit that postpartum psychosis was a thing he had been trashed and some other opinions for trying to testify more broadly than maybe he was qualified to do and then he testified in florida about something where he gave percentages to support his side that were nationwide and they should have only been florida and so they struck part of his opinion because it wasn't just

a florida base that he was getting his research from it was nationwide so he had had some really big warts in his testimony and the defense attorney in this case is gruff and tough tough and like controls witnesses and can even be called a bully by some that don't like him. But he's got that really commanding personality and he did not pull punches on that expert or any of the experts. So like when you say the commonwealth, like there's no one to represent these dead kids. Like how is the, there these lawyers selected and does that put the prosecution at an advantage or disadvantage or you know what I mean? Because like the prosecution's at an advantage in every criminal case.

They choose whether or not to prosecute you. They're the white knights riding in to, they don't represent the victims or not the victim's lawyer, but they represent the people of the state of Florida or the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And most people walk in and sit down and they look at the person sitting in the defendant chair like he's guilty. Yeah. Why is he over there? Why did the cops arrest him? Why does he have this lawyer? Why didn't he talk to the police?

He must be guilty. The vast majority of people walk in thinking that. So prosecutors always start out ahead, even though they shouldn't. I had a buddy during voir dire is one of the one of the potential jurors they actually asked him they said you know if they're hearing all the evidence

blah blah then he goes he was well he obviously did something exactly said he was indicted by on 47 counts he was did something like that was it it's the truth that's an honest answer right obviously she struck but it was like thank God you said that because he goes that's what I remember the guy he said that's what everybody else was thinking right he just said it and you know what a good lawyer does

okay uh Mr. Cox said that, anybody agree with him? Oh, Ms. Jones, you do. Okay, you're struck. Miss Smith, you do. Good. Because once a couple people admit it, then everybody's not so tight-lipped. Like, oh, I don't want to say, I'm thinking the same thing, but I don't want to say that. That's what most people think when they're sitting in a jury selection for the first time. So you want to bring that out as a lawyer, so you can figure out what everybody's thinking. But as far as how the prosecutors are selected in this case, because people have almost universally not enjoyed the prosecutors in this case. Their lack of empathy for the victim, Patrick Clancy, his parents. No, I'm so sorry for your loss, no softness in

their voice. I mean, it's, it's been pretty brutal how they've handled the entire case. The way they're chosen. Patrick Clancy also, like you said, isn't, he's not really, he's so what, huh? So what? So do you mean, say, so. So what? I'm still going to say, I'm sorry for your loss. Your three beautiful children were killed. You think your wife is mentally ill and had a psychotic break. Okay. I still am sorry for your loss. Okay. I mean, that's how you have to be as a lawyer. Right. You have to.

And anybody who's not, most jury, if a single juror picks up on it, that's like, I hate them, you're cooked. So if they realize he's not a friendly witness to you, okay, so be it. He stands behind his wife. Okay, so be it. You call him up there. You get the facts that you need and you move on. But you still have some sympathy and empathy and feel what he's going through because

the only way this wins and you get the jury on your side is if they care about these kids, their lives that were lost, the time that they're, lost with their father, their grandparents, even their mother, right? It's sad all the way around. And we need to punish the person who chose to do this for her own selfish reasons. That's how you're saying, the defense isn't pulling it off. And the, yeah, but you're saying the defense isn't pulling it off. The Commonwealth, the prosecutors are not pulling it off. Yeah. No, the defense has been much more sympathetic. No, no, you're fine. I meant, I meant, that's what I meant the government. Correct. I want to say the government. Yeah. And that's fine. People get mad about

that the whole, oh, the government. It's the state or it's the Commonwealth. It's all the government, whether it's state government or federal government, who cares? We get what we're talking about, right? The prosecutors. The ones putting the bad guys in jail, hopefully. Right. Right. That's what we should all hope for is that they get the bad guys.

And so the defense attorney says that the DA, the elected DA in that jurisdiction basically is all in on this case, wants to put Lindsay Clancy through hell, won't talk about anything less than murder one. He is the one who chooses who tries this case. So he chose these prosecutors to try this case. They're obviously experienced, even though they're not my cup of tea. The way that they've handled this case to me has been disjointed and sensitive, illogical. So many illogical theories that make absolutely no sense that have been nuked by their own witnesses.

It's much more of a, to me, the reason we get to not guilty by reason of insanity is almost more because of the prosecutors than anything else. They just have not held their burden, in my opinion. And to have somebody just talk about how the evidence came out and me kind of explain it in a timeline in the way that I would explain it is very different than they did. every witness, if you watched the beginning of this case, their initial case in chief, almost every witness felt like a defense witness. It was wild. Now, I think their experts did a little bit better, and I think their closing, their closing argument was probably the best they did in the entire case. So why is it that their expert witnesses, I mean, are, you know, that they weren't able to come up with what you feel is, you know, as competent of expert witnesses as the defense.

Is it because they just don't exist? or do they just, do they have, are they just shitty at picking them? Like, what's the, what, do they not have a budget? It's not like they don't have a budget, right? Unlimited resources compared to any defense. Right. So why, why are they not? Or is it just because they're just wrong?

So most experts would just say they're wrong. Yeah, I think that mental health treatment to me after watching the trial feels more like an art than a science, if you know what I mean. So I think they can see the same thing, two different ways, which I understand. But some of the concessions they made are why I felt like they were not as strong. that coupled with none of them even set out to be any type of postpartum expert, you know, treating women before, during, or after pregnancy. They all had different specialties.

Now, not to say they don't know anything about mental health and the diagnosis, things like that, they did, but that was a big difference between the Commonwealth experts and the defense experts. Secondarily, they concede that one of the Commonwealth experts actually said in diagnosed her with bipolar two. Actually, two of them did. They had three experts total. one psychiatrist, one psychologist

diagnosed her with bipolar 2. And one of them even said, I would have made sure this was in the records to make sure none of her providers prescribe her in SSRI. And guess what?

Her providers provided her or prescribed her an SSRI. None of them diagnosed her with bipolar 2. And if you prescribe somebody on bipolar 2 with an SSRI, it is shown,

research has shown, it can lead to a psychotic break. Okay. And that's what the defense say happened here. She was overmedicated. She was put on too many meds at once taken off of them.

She was adding in Benadryl, and the doctors just didn't care. It was all the defense attorney is an older guy. And he says, over the TV, you were looking at her on the TV because it was all telehealth. You know, you couldn't give her a hug and he made a big deal about that. And so basically he was saying they didn't really care. They didn't look up any of the other records, right? She would go into a new provider. They wouldn't order her past medical records.

They wouldn't order a blood test. They didn't know what she was on. They just relied on her to tell them. So if she didn't tell them the right combination and they add another medication, and now this combo could be creating an issue, all they had to do is order the other records. All they had to do is do a little investigation. Half of them didn't talk to Patrick Clancy

or her parents or any collateral sources to try and confirm or deny what Lindsay Clancy was reporting to them. They're like, she's the labor and delivery nurse. She gets it. She understands how this medication works. Meanwhile, we pull up her Google searches all night. What's she doing?

What is this medication? What are the side effects? Why do I feel like a zombie? Why can I not sleep? What will help me sleep? Should I take this? What's a side effect of Seraquil? why am I having these thoughts?

Because she didn't know. And she felt like they weren't listening to her. And that's, I think, what has connected with a lot of people in America where it's like, we're screaming out for help and she was. And some other theories for the prosecutors that she was, you know, doctor hopping to get pills because she was a drug addict. Every single doctor that she is suing said that's not true. She wasn't.

She was legitimately begging for help and trying to figure out what she could do to help herself. The prosecutors would say, she just wanted a magic pill. She wanted a quick fix. Nobody said that. Nobody said that. And, you know, it's just, it was a really sad showing for mental health treatment and the mental health system in Massachusetts, in our country, whatever you want to say. A lot of what the defense did, too, was compare it or try to compare it with what other countries do that he thinks is better than what America does.

Is it, is it not, you know, I don't really know. But he was trying to shine a light on how the system failed her. And that's how she ended up where she did. the defense or the district attorney. So they've never come to her with an offer that you know of. They wanted murder. What is it? Murder one.

That's it. They're not going to take anything else. Because it seems like if they had gone to her and said, hey, we're going to give you manslaughter, whatever. I don't know if they have, you know, parole in 15 years or, you know, something just to not have to go through this whole thing. And it's a guarantee because this certainly doesn't sound like a guarantee. So her defense attorney says, we never know about plea negotiations.

right the public but her defense attorney has been asked all sorts of things i mean he's become like a everybody wants to talk to him the crowds rush around him as he walks in and out of the courtroom every day and he's a 75 year old guy trying this case by himself solo practitioner it's really interesting um to watch and he's been really good but he says the d a d a drives that bus and he charged her with murder one he wouldn't charge her with murder two which would have given them the ability to waive a jury and potentially have a bench trial just in front of the judge and it seems like maybe the the judge is a little defense friendly. Most judges are prosecution friendly.

So he said, yeah, it seems like no offers have been made because people are like, would you plead to murder or to manslaughter, just like you said. And he said, talk to Mr. Cruz about that, I think is the DA there. He's like, the DA is driving this bus. The DA is driving this bus. So he leaves the door open. He doesn't necessarily say he would plead to that, but it sure sounds like maybe there would be some conversations that the DA just has not been open to at all, which leads us to

if this jury continues to stay deadlocked, which they are right now. They have been deliberating for multiple days. They told the judge they can't come to unanimous decision. The judge sends them back. They come again a day later and said, judge, we still can't come to unanimous decision. They read in what's called a Tu'i Rodriguez instruction, which is basically like, no jury is going to be in a better position than you.

Please go back there. And hey, guess what? If you think something's a reasonable doubt and nobody else does, consider that maybe you could be wrong. Or if everybody else sees reasonable doubts and you don't, are you being reasonable, consider you could be wrong, go back there and try to get a verdict. So it's kind of like a push to go get a verdict. That just happened today when we're recording this.

How long can you keep them? As long as it takes. Well, so if the jury doesn't ask out, they can take as long as it takes. They can take days and days and days and days until they figure if they're still working towards a verdict. I know they can keep them. But if they keep coming back at some point, doesn't the judge, like how long can he keep them? So Massachusetts says only two times can you force them back, which is the second time happened today. Right.

But it kind of has language in there without the jury's consent. So if you say like, hey, do you guys want to keep deliberating and try to get them to tell you, yes, we do? Usually on the third time, they're not going to say it. So they can only force them back there twice, which is why the next time could be it. And this could end in a mistrial. And we have to do this all over again, potentially. What do they do for five hours, like these 12 jurors? Like, are they just going over?

I mean, if it's been slick and slit, six, there's going over evidence. And they read testimony. And they read testimony. Not read the testimony, but they can go over the evidence, the physical evidence, the medical records. One thing that was incredibly interesting in this case that got entered into evidence, but they didn't play at trial, was hours and hours, I think 10 plus hours of Lindsay Clancy's interviews with the mental health experts. And that's where she told them exactly what she did and how she did it.

That didn't come in at trial. And usually it came into evidence, but they didn't play it for the public. So usually, what do jurors want to hear? Who do they want to hear from most? The defendant. Right. She didn't testify. But if they could go back there and watch hours and hours of her talking to a mental health expert,

she was almost like that. I'll tell you right now, we have had cases where I've had board certified radiologists explain, here is a spine MRI. Let me show you where the injuries are. This is where they had surgery. And what do the jurors want while they're deliberating? They want the actual film from the MRI to look at themselves to see if they can see the injuries.

That's what they do. So it's like, we have mental health experts, but guess what? we want to watch and listen to Lindsay Clancy and see if we think that she had a psychotic break. It's possible. We don't know what they're doing. But there's hours and hours of that that they could be sifting through, which is fine with me. I want them. Of footage of her.

Yeah, recordings. I don't know if it's video or audio, but recordings of those interviews. They're probably better better watching that than to get her on the stand because now you don't have the defense. I'm sorry, the prosecution trying to cross examine. Yeah, cross a gammon and poke holes in her story. This is just, this is what happened. I'm like, okay, all right.

Yeah. So you believe, what do you think about the voice? It's tough, right? And I said that if this was a civil case, and that's something you have to be careful over the defendant. And I, if he tries this case again, I think he might lean heavier into reasonable doubt versus basically taking on a burden where it almost felt like the defense had to prove something in this case.

It almost felt like exactly what you asked me, that they had to prove those voices are real. What are you talking about the voices in the head? Yeah, versus in our head. Right. The command hallucinations were calling them. right? So they had to prove that that really happened. That's, I think, what a lot of people think? And it's like, what's more likely than not? She had a psychotic break or she didn't. That's not the

burden. The burden is she didn't have a psychotic break to a moral certainty. And if you don't get there, if you're right here where she probably didn't have a psychotic break, it's not guilty. Because that's a reasonable doubt. So from my perspective, I don't think the defense proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she had a psychotic break. It's not their burden. But if it was, and that's what you're asking me, I think it's, there's too much inconsistency. It only happened once.

That feels like a red flag. I'm not sure what happened, right? I'm not sure what happened, but I think it's plausible. I think it is absolutely plausible that she had a psychotic break, had the command hallucinations because it makes no sense

what she did, how she did it, when she did it. It doesn't make any sense to me. It really doesn't. And why, so some things that happened earlier in the day. Cora's stomach hurt. She took her to the doctor. She called in a prescription.

she made sure Patrick went and picked up the prescription at CVS. Why are you doing that if you're going to kill your kids? Why are you calling in a prescription? Why do you care? Why take her to the doctor? Why order takeout for yourself? I don't like is she a mastermind con woman? Right?

Why do people schedule appointments with their friends and dinner with their girlfriend and then take a gun and blow their head off that night? Why are they called their mother and talk about brunch this weekend? And then everybody around them, like, I'd never fucking had any idea this guy was suicidal. And they just get like literally 20 minutes beforehand, you called and scheduled brunch with your mom. And one of the interesting parts about that is we don't have criminal cases when they're sued. Right. So we don't really know what else was happening and what was going on.

Maybe there are reasons. Maybe there are signs. We just don't know. I think that's a totally fair point, right? People do things you don't understand why, which is why you don't have to prove motive. You don't have to prove motive. We don't know why people do what they do. We have to prove what they did.

And so that's the interesting part of here is the prosecutor wanted to go with this motive that I thought was illogical. I would have gone with no motive. I would have said exactly what you said. We don't know. Yeah. We don't know why she did this. Why she decided to do this this day. Yeah.

But we do know what she did. Exactly. That's what I would have gone with. They didn't. And I thought, and maybe, you know, as I'm talking to you, I think it's harder to describe the prosecutor's loss of credibility as the trial went on. It's hard. Because when you're just talking about evidence and facts, it's hard for me to even explain.

and how many times I said something that just turned out to be not true. And something that's like, were you lying to us? Were you trying to pull the wool over our eyes? Why are you saying that? Why are you accusing her of these things when it's clearly not true? And so once you start to lose credibility as a prosecutor, it's really hard to win. It's really hard to get 12 people to vote guilty to a moral certainty when you start to lose credibility throughout the trial. 80% of my news I get from watching Instagram reels.

It's dangerous. I know it's horrible. It's, you know. And I, and I can. can't tell you how many times. I'm like, and 50% of the time, I'm like, that can't be true. But one of the things was, you know, it's, you know, it's a, you know, it's a, uh, Lindsay Clancy, you know, says she did it. The, uh, her lawyer says she did the prosecutor said she does it, you know, and then it says the internet, she's, you know, the internet says she didn't do it.

You know what I'm saying? That's sort of thing. Or the internet says her husband did it, you know, so what are some, where are these people that are coming up with this, like, They're just coming up with this, like there's nothing to indicate any of this. But you said there's some time, like they're twisting the timelines or something. So there are timeline issues, right? They don't have to twist it to get the timeline issues, right? Like from 515-ish to just after 6 o'clock, is that enough time to get all this done? Or did Patrick do it before he left?

Because Lindsay Clancy's body temperature was like 82 degrees, hypothermic. And a lot of people online are saying that's impossible. Yet we had a defense expert who said, it is possible when you're laying in the snow and you fracture your spine or sever your spine the way that she did the lower half of your body loses the ability to thermal regulate something like that and so that's how your energy can just drop she had blood loss from cutting her wrists in her throat so all of those things contributed to that is enough time actually for her to measure 82 degrees i can't remember if it was at the hospital or in the ambulance but those are timeline issues i don't know

how they prove patrick clancy did it because there's video of patrick clancy at the CVS at 530 and at the 3V restaurant at 550 something. So it's like 532 or 33 and then 550 something. So how is he committing these crimes and also in those locations at those times? But there's an email he sent from like 523. And it was like kind of vague. Did he send it from his surface pro or did he send it from his cell phone? He could have sent it from the parking lot.

But none of it really matters because it doesn't prove that Patrick Clancy did any of this. the timeline is even worse for Patrick Clancy to have done this than it is for Lindsay Clancy to have done this. So that's the problem is their own inconsistency is worse for their theory than it is for Lindsay Clancy did it theory. Another part of the theory is the DNA. The way it's explained, I don't know if you ever heard DNA testified two at a trial, but it's like there's one quintillionth of a chance that this is more likely to be Matt's DNA than it is some unidentified male's DNA. It's like, or you could just say Matt's DNA, but they can't because they can't definitively. So the way they explain it, the exercise bans. Household item, you would expect

everybody's DNA to be on it. It's in their basement. They use it to work out. But everybody made a big deal that Patrick Clancy's was on certain locations and the kids were on certain locations. But there were other locations where up to five related individuals DNA was on it. But they never said smack dab, this is where Lindsay Clancy's DNA was. When you get up to five different samples, it becomes their technology can't figure out it's more likely this person than another person. So how many people are in the family? Five. Are they there? related. Yes. So that's the DNA. The way the DNA was explained is there's multiple parts where five different people's DNA was on it. But this is just TikTok people saying that that are taking these

things and twisting them like because they're just nuts. And where it really gets to the point of, I don't know that they're nuts. I think what we said in the beginning. She's saying she did it. Right. What we said in the beginning of people feel for her. And I think they want to believe she didn't do it because they they've I think internally people some people feel bad about like she's our hero and we know she strangled her three kids right right um so I think there is some pull from that which I try to understand I try to have grace for people's you know differing opinions I get what you're saying and where you're coming from and I've really pushed back hard against this and all of my I made a whole video Patrick didn't do it um which you can imagine how some people on TikTok didn't like it

but um then we get to the part where they say okay explain to me how Patrick didn't do it but don't use any of Lindsay Clancy's own words I'm like well isn't that convenient because try to convict somebody when somebody else admits to doing the crime. It's very difficult to convince somebody when you have a confession over here. But Lindsay Clancy's own words to multiple people that she did this, the specificity in which she describes it to the mental health providers, one by one in order with the exercise bands around their neck, saying, go to God, baby, to them as she killed them. Okay?

That's the specificity that's in her civil lawsuit and that I assume is in some of these expert reports. She did this. Additionally, her bulldog lawyer has said he loves her. He cares for her so much. She's a beautiful human being. He feels so horrible about beaten down. She's basically like she's like his daughter. That's what the feeling is. His wife, also a nurse. There's so many medical professionals that are so invested in this case. And this guy who has shredded multiple witnesses couldn't have been kinder to Patrick, talked about what a loss this is, how horrible he sounded on the 911 tape. He could have shredded Patrick. He could have shredded Patrick. on the sand. He could have pointed the finger at Patrick that could have saved Lindsay if there was

legitimate evidence that Patrick did this. But instead, what does he say? He said, Lindsay owned up to this when she talked to the experts. When Lindsay was doing this to her children, she was having a psychotid break, command hallucinations, but admitting it. And a lot of people have tried to bring in that he tried to bifurcate this trial. And first try to argue, you guys can't prove bifurcate me, separate this trial. Now, this is a legal term. So, you know, sometimes in civil cases, we bifurcated to say, who's at fault for this. Roger, to see if we win that.

I was educated. I was educated in Florida. You can't use sports like that. Florida State, man. Florida State, man. So you have the first portion

in like a civil case, who's at fault and then how much money. So you have two different trials. Right. Because if the plaintiff loses who's at fault, we don't have to waste our time

with all of this. So that's what he tried to do in a criminal sense, bifurcated into two different trials. Can they even prove Lindsay Clancy killed her kids? That's what he wanted to do first because the police investigation

was crap. They didn't take the Apple Watch. They didn't take a bunch of pill bottles that were in her drawer, they didn't test the blood, they didn't test the residue in her cup, that they just took her word for it, that that was crushed up pills. They didn't do all sorts of things.

It was a horrible police investigation. So he wanted to attack that first. And then if he lost, then go to the criminal responsibility. Judge said, no, we're doing this once. So now, in order to argue the insanity defense, you have to admit to the act that, yes, I killed my kids, and then we can get to whether or not I'm criminally responsible.

Same thing in a self-defense case, right? You come up to me with a gun, I shoot you. I have to admit, I'm the one who shot you in order to explain I was in fear for my life and could use deadly force. But I have to admit, I shot you. I can't say, you know, this guy shot you over here. Yeah. I have to say I shot you.

It was the one-armed man. Right. Exactly. So it's a great reference and people didn't get it when I made it the other day. I love that movie. So in order to get to this lack of criminal responsibility, he has to admit she did it. And people are like, oh, he only did that because the judge wouldn't bifurcate the case. Lawyers are not allowed to lie.

They're not allowed to admit facts. they know are not true and stipulate the facts they know we can't advise our clients to do that right now do some lawyers do that if you can get a better deal if you say yeah i did it and they'll give me a better deal because you accept responsibility i don't know i don't do it and i don't think this guy did it i don't think he said lindsay clancy killed her kids knowing full well she didn't kill her kids i think he fully believes she did kill her kids but that she was not criminally responsible and that's the defense he's putting forward you can believe that this is hard for people with criminal defense lawyers you can believe that to be true and still argue they can't prove it

because not guilty does not always mean innocent. It means innocent or not proven, meaning the government did not prove these charges beyond a reasonable doubt, which is why you can have a guilty client and still go to trial. Now you can't say, you're not supposed to say, they didn't do it, that's a lie if you know it's alive.

What you can say is what evidence do you have? That's the system we live in America, and a lot of people are uncomfortable with it. A lot of people don't like it, and I understand that. That's the system that we live in because we would rather a guilty man go free than an innocent man be put in prison. 99 go free, right, is the real thing. So that's the system of justice we have.

What do you think is going to happen after they deliberate or, you know? So they've already come back twice saying they're deadlocked. I would say the odds on betting favorite would be they're going to be a hung jury and it's going to be a mistrial. They're not going to come to a verdict. And then we're going to have to see if the prosecutor wants to prosecute this case again. At this point, he's got to realize the holes and how at this point he's got to go to them and say, you know, manslaughter. He's got to be offering manslaughter or something, right?

You would think, but people in the know, like the defense attorney, say that's absolutely not going to happen. He says he thinks he's going to absolutely try it again and he's going to have to try it again and it's going to be murder one again. That's what people on the inside think. I mean, you think logically, you know, the way you're thinking about it, just a logical outsider's view. It's like, let's see if we can get something. Right. Yeah, yeah. Something's better than nothing.

Right. Not just that also. I mean, don't you have to justify your budget at some point? I mean, I know that's a horrible thing to say. No, but it's absolutely a consideration because there was another case in Boston, the Karen Reed case, that they had to try. twice and they spent millions and millions of dollars on it and the taxpayers were very angry at the end when they saw the evidence and it was not enough and she ends up getting acquitted. That's a brutal ask and now that DA's out and there's a new elected DA.

Okay. What if it comes back guilty? How would they come to the conclusion that she is guilty? Let me put it that way. I think it comes to what we started off with and kind of what your thoughts were. She killed her three kids. You know, she said she did it. Her lawyer said she did it.

The cops say she did it. The prosecutor say she did it. and I think it's difficult to get over that fact that she killed her three kids, admittedly so. And then I think if you couple that in with some of the red flags of the prosecutors, experts explain how the command hallucinations, they don't usually just pop up once.

The defense did have a good percentage after that. That does actually happen in 38% of people or something that have command hallucinations. It only happens once. That was kind of at the end of the trial. But I think in order for somebody, for this entire jury to get to a guilty verdict, which I would be surprised.

I will say that would be the most surprising verdict to me if it's guilty on. murder one because I think to get 12 people to agree the state held their burden and was able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt would be surprising to me. But I think it would come down to they just felt like this was the only way to get justice for those three kids. Well, so if it's, if they do come back and say not guilty, it's you're saying not guilty based because of a, for reasons of insanity. Fucking, how do you say it? Either not criminally responsible or not guilty by reason of insanity. Well, does one of them set her free?

I mean, okay, eat both of them. So it's not called Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity in Massachusetts, but most people watching and probably across the world understand what not guilty by reason of insanity means. Right. So that's why I kind of use them interchangeably, but technically in Massachusetts it would be not criminally responsible. And so at that point, you kind of already went. She's going to be sent to like a mental institution where she gets help and then they

have to try and keep her in there. Right. But at some point. There have been other cases like the Andrea Yates case. I don't have you ever heard of that. She killed her kids, went to trial lost. It got overturned on appeal, went to trial again, not guilty by reason of insanity. She has waived her opportunities to get out.

She said, no, don't even petition. I want to stay in. So she's kind of waived those opportunities. So that does happen sometimes as well. Right. But yeah, theoretically, she could get out one day. She does not strike me as somebody that's going to be getting out anytime soon. Yeah.

Because the societal ideations can be enough to keep her in there as well. It's a harm to others or yourself. But yeah, I think if they come to not criminally responsible, a.k.k.a. not guilty by reason of insanity. I think it comes down to Dr. Resnick, who was the king expert here, basically, that the defense called and that they believe that she had the psychotic break. I don't think a lot of people are back there thinking, well, did they really prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? Maybe they are.

And I hope that they are because that's what they should be doing. I think a lot of the discussion is probably like, did she have a psychotic break or did she not? And I understand that because that's logically where your mind can go sometimes is, which is more likely, even though that's not legally how the burdens are, I could see them having that discussion back there. So I wrote a story. And we had the guy on the podcast. His name is Derek Nolan. And Derek, when he was, I don't know how old.

I'm going to say he was six, five or six years old, whatever. His mother had cheated on his father. She had a boyfriend. And then she came back. And then she was there for whatever, a day or two. And then one night, she didn't come home. And so the father wakes up Derek. If you sleep hot at night, you know how disruptive that can be.

When you're not resting well, everything else feels harder. Your focus, your mood, even your recovery. Ghostbed is here to help you fix that. They've spent decades perfecting how to build a bed that's comfortable, durable, and designed to actually help you rest. Every ghost bed mattress features premier materials, proven cooling technology, and their exclusive pro-core layer, a targeted support system that reinforces the center of the mattress where the body is heaviest.

It helps keep your spine aligned and your back supported. So you can wake up ready for anything 2026 throws at you. Each mattress comes with a 101 night sleep trial and a 20 to 25 year warranty. So you can try it risk-free, knowing it's built to last. Shipping is fast and free. Most orders arrive in two to five days. Ghostbed has great prices to begin with up to 50% off comparable brands. And inside true crime listeners can get an extra 10% off sitewide for a limited time.

Just go to ghostbed.com slash Cox and use promo code Cox at checkout. That's ghostbed.com slash Cox, promo code Cox. Upgrade your sleep with Ghostbed, the makers of the coolest bed in the world. Some exclusions apply. See sight for details. He only's like five or six. Picks him up in his, you know, his underruise or whatever. Puts him in the truck, drives to where the mother's boyfriend lives, pulls up in the truck, takes Derek out.

They walk in and he looks in, it's got one of those front windows, the big front window, you know, the 1950s houses, and walks over and looks in there with Derek, looks in there. And he said, and I remember seeing my mother and the boyfriend, and they're on the, the couch naked sleeping father kicks in the door he um gets into a fight you know beats the guy around smacks him around his dad was obviously a fighter uh and ends up grabbing a butcher knife or something a knife from the kitchen and the guy runs he chases him down uh in the front driveway and stabs him a lot. Yeah. Kills him. Then chases the wife down and kills her.

Puts Derek back in the car, drives to his uncle's house, drops off Derek, tells his uncle what he did, and the next morning turns himself into the police. And goes to trial and says, and this was in upstate New York, I think. I could be wrong. But I'm pretty sure it's upstate New York. And so he goes there and he says, he goes to trial and says, you know, it was, it was a not guilty by reason of insanity. And that's what, you know, that's what they say. And he ends up being found, you know, not guilty. And they put him in, he spends like, Garrick said he's been like four, five, six years in like a mental asylum, right?

You know, whatever. I don't know. I'm sure they don't call it mental asylum. I'm sure they call it something else. some hospital. And he gets out and, you know, he's on probation. He has to take medication, whatever. So after a few years, he meets another woman and they get married. I think I know where this is going. And there's actually a more similar one to Lindsay Clancy in that, but go ahead. So they get married. They have two kids. A great relationship. His dad's a contractor.

Derek is very much a guy's guy. And so I'm sure I can only imagine his father was even, more so and so great relationship uh derrick ends up being like 20 years old 22 years old he lives in florida father's still up there and one day the father flies that flies down they go and i think they did they go fishing together they spent the day together he's only flew in for the weekend hung out together i don't know if he talked about this on the podcast but i mean i know the story hung out and try to kind of like make amends for you know he's like he's like you know he killed my mother You know, he's like, I mean, he's up, and he's still my father. I love him.

And he's like, you know, as we hung out, he said, it was, it was, it was kind of an odd weekend. He's like, you know, because he wanted to just trying to make some kind of a connection or something. You know, he's like, you know, and he left, told me loved him the whole thing. Sure, I feel like there was an awkward bear hug there. Anyway, he goes, he flies back and the marriage was not doing well. Goes up there. The wife comes home one day and serves the husband, serves him. divorce papers says, I want out. He says, okay, I understand. And he goes in and he gets his

shotgun and he goes into the, when she's in the walking closet and he blows her head off. And she said, so knowing that the cops were being called, who called the cops, neighbors? I don't know, but he knew they were coming. And so he walks in the backyard and when, and sits by the pool. And he, once he hears kind of them pulling up, the cops pulling up the, whatever, the sirens. He takes a like a 38 or something and he shoots himself. Unfortunately, he shoots himself exactly where I say. And it goes through his eye sockets and it knocks him out, but doesn't kill him, obviously. This happens a lot.

And then he wakes up as the cops are actually now coming entering the house. He can say he starts feeling for the case. A feel for the gun, finds the gun again, and then sticks it in his ear and shoots himself dead. Wow. Yeah. Committed. And, yeah, it was like. I just, you know.

And there's a story of a woman. Killed her kids, gets off, gets out, has more kids, kills her kids again from like 100 years ago. But what I say about that is, and I'm open to talking about bail reform and things like that, because we've covered some cases where somebody was out on a violent crime, on some low or no bail, and then commits another crime, and that's horrible. But that doesn't mean you lock everyone up forever, right? So we can't let one case determine how we do everything, but we can consider it. And it can, it can inform our decisions and laws in the way that we do things.

So I think it's fair for us to consider that, but we can't make the outlier or the exception, the rule. And I do feel like sometimes people want to do that, because there are all their other stories of people who did get out and rehabilitated their life and become contributing members of society. Now, that could be an exception as well. Yeah, listen, I'll tell you right now. I mean, I agree with you.

Listen, you know, it has almost one of the highest recidivism rates is fraud. Oh, really? Yeah. Not murder. Yeah. By the way, not murder. I roll my paper on the Jimmy Rice Act, which is recidivism on like child predators, which is very high.

Oh, okay. Yeah. But you know what's funny about the, so it, well, anyway, so most fraudsters get out and commit fraud. Right. You know, obviously you need the money and everything. But it comes from a deep, a deep place of insecurity, right? And so you feel really good about yourself, getting over. on the bank. Why? I don't know. It's sick. It probably helps you a lot to talk about it.

I would think. It keeps you out of it. I feel great. Right. Yeah. I love talking about it. Yeah. And I have multiple buddies that have gotten out and gone right back to prison. I got one buddy. He's gone back many, many times since we both got out the same time and back several times. He's in prison right now. Yeah. But murder almost no murder gets out and commits murder again. Almost never. I understand that that one, the guy. But the lowest recidivist. Yeah, it does. But so I agree with you.

Like the lowest recidivary is murder. And it's not because, you have said this before and people like, yeah, because they never get out. No, no, recidivate, it takes place when they get out. So I'm talking about the people that get out. So I get that. You know what I'm saying? Yeah, and we're not talking, you know, serial killers aren't the norm. But a husband killing their wife or a mom killing their kid in a situation like this is different than a serial killer.

But there's just so many different things at play that, you know, I don't know all the research. of for all the recidivism rates for each of these. But from my perspective, I think when you're at the trial phase, we should want the prosecutors with all the resources and the decision making and the power to have to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt. I mean, I think we have to feel that to make sure the bad guys are the ones that are actually getting put away and not either the good guys or people that did nothing wrong or got steamrolled. We have to protect against that. And that's one of the protections. So where can people find you? Like, if they want to, if they want to follow you and follow your, what, your coverage of the case? Yeah, it's lawyer you know. That's, that's the YouTube channel.

And it's really built on, I'm a big sports guy, love sports. And, you know, when you listen to some of these sports commentators or podcasts, it's like you're sitting on the couch watching the game with them. That's kind of like what it is. For people that are interested in these trials, these true crime cases, it's like you have a lawyer buddy that you're watching them with. That's commenting on it. I answer a lot of questions on the lives that I do. I try to do multiple live streams a week, you know, basically almost a video every single day, breaking down these cases, watching the trial, gavel to gavel, really trying to understand what's being arguing in the courtroom, why our justice system is the way it is, why lawyers

and judges are doing what they do. And having people watch with me that are not lawyers is like having a jury. And the fingers on the pulse of the jury, when we watch videos in our chat votes on things, it is almost always exactly how the jury ends up voting. So it's almost a little scary how much they have their finger on the polls because they could be jurors in the jurisdiction in which they live. And that's pretty much how the channel works. Hey, you guys, I appreciate you watching. Do me a favorite hit the subscribe button.

Hit the bell so get notified of videos just like this. Also, we're going to put all of Peters, all of his links in the description box. You can go in the description box. You can click on the link, shoot over there. You can follow him and subscribe. Check out the videos. Really do appreciate you guys watching. Thank you very much.

See you.