RedHanded - Lindsay Clancy - Part 2: The Trial | #467

Episode Date: September 10, 2026

Did Lindsay Clancy kill her children? Despite what was portrayed online, this was not the question at the heart of a trial which has gripped a nation. Both the defence and the prosecution agreed, that tragically, the 36-year-old was indeed the the person who took the lives of the Clancy Children. The question was why? Was Lindsay Clancy insane and did that lead to a momentary lapse of control in which her actions felt justified? Or were the murders the result of a cold and calculated decision?This was what the jury was tasked with deciding, and is the focus of part two in our deep drive into the tragic killings of Cora, Dawson, and Callan Clancy.--Patreon - Ad-free & Bonus EpisodesYouTube - Full-length Video EpisodesTikTok / Instagram

Hello and welcome to part two of our coverage of the Lindsay Clancy case. Obviously go listen to Part 1 before we do this. This is the final episode. Today we will be delving into the trial and we have a lot to cover. 21 days of intense testimony and often divisive questioning dulled out by a 75-year-old bulldog in the form of defense attorney Kevin Reddington. and a sad to say, lackluster assistant district attorney, Shannon Buckingham. Opening statements in the Lindsay Clancy trial kicked off on August 10th, 2026, and they were all really important.

Cases can be won or lost with opening statements. Your job as a prosecutor or a defence attorney is to lay out your case, how you're going to prove it, and what your experts and your witnesses are going to show throughout the trial. The Commonwealth, as you'd expect, stated that Lindsay Clancy had killed her three children, Cora, Dawson and Callan, deliberately and meticulously, saying that it was a calculated act, not an uncontrolled psychotic episode. They claim that Lindsay Clancy created a window of time to carry out the killings

by sending Patrick Clancy out of the house on the takeaway and medicine errand, so that she could kill the children without him being there to stop her. As for the motive, they accused Lindsay Clancy of being hyper-concernsey, of being hyper-controlling, saying that she wanted everything and everyone in her life to follow her schedules and plans. But motherhood was becoming increasingly overwhelming and hard for her to control. So she made the decision to escape it. According to the Commonwealth, Lindsay may have been suffering with her mental health, but even though she had a huge amount of access to care, she tried shortcut, she lied to her doctors, she manipulated the system, flip-flopped on medication

and disengaged from care when she didn't like the plan. They're saying that Lindsay just wanted a quick fix, and after four months, she just didn't want to try anymore. So she decided that she wanted to kill herself, but that she had to kill her kids as well because no one else could be trusted to care for them. The state questioned her claims of a break with reality by pointing out that the way in which the killings were carried out

required a succession of physical acts. It wasn't just one single. reflexive or instantaneous action. Lindsay Clancy had to strangle each child separately. Also, the voice that she claimed to hear on the day of the murders, for the first and only time, did not give Lindsay any detailed instructions on, for example, how to kill the kids, where to kill them, what ordered to kill them, or how to kill herself.

Yet, as we'll see, Lindsay Clancy claims that she felt like a puppet. But the Commonwealth says if she wasn't being, told what to do by this voice, well, then she was making those decisions herself, which according to them shows sequential decision-making, normal cognitive functioning, and problem-solving. And they round all this off by saying that she also absolutely appreciated the wrongfulness of her actions because she tried to kill herself to escape the consequences. And okay.

Fair enough, sure. And if they can back up all those things with evidence and experts, all right. What was weird in this trial is that throughout the process, the Commonwealth kept changing their theory. They would later suggest that Lindsay Clancy wasn't even really mentally ill and that she didn't really want to die. The suicide attempt had been fake. She had just decided that she didn't want to be a mother anymore

and she wanted shot of her kids. And that goes against their own opening statement, not to mention all of the evidence. And they would also simultaneously. simultaneously highlight contradictory evidence or put on their own experts who would also refute their new claims. Very, very strange. And perhaps we're jumping the gun here, but honestly, the Commonwealth did a pretty shocking job of prosecuting this case. They did not seem to have one concise theory as to what happened.

That's bad, bad news for the state. Suru has been a real soldier and watched every day of the trial and has still ended up confused as to what exactly. their theory was about why Lindsay Clancy killed her own children. Yeah, I feel like until maybe the last two Commonwealth witnesses and then their closing statement, I was really confused about what they were even saying had happened. It was very, very bizarre. And look, the defence can throw around as many theories as they want.

They can say whatever. Their job is to just poke holes in the state's case. That's what I was just going to say. Like, it's kind of upside. down the way they've got about it. It really, really is. The defense, like, you know, if they're going to point fingers another person, obviously they need to back it up with some evidence. But really, they can just be like, how do you know that? How do you know that? What about this? This could have happened. They can say anything. But the prosecution must have one clear theory, one clear

narrative that they then spend the entire trial hammering home to the jury. But that isn't what happened here. And it's very, very confusing. But we're just going to have to deal with it as we go through the trial. So the defense's opening statement was much more concise. Kevin Reddington stated that Lindsay loved her children deeply and that she killed them when she was in the grips of severe postpartum psychosis and an extreme mental breakdown. Reddington emphasized how this situation had been exacerbated by the cocktail of drugs that Lindsay had been prescribed in the months leading up to her killings, drugs which had negatively reacted with an underlying undiagnosed bipolar condition and induced extreme homicidal and suicidal ideation,

leaving her unable, very crucially, to conform her behaviour to the law. And then we got into the meat of the trial itself, with the Commonwealth calling Patrick Clancy of all people as their first witness. If Patrick had been a state's witness and there to throw Lindsay under the bus by telling everyone what an evil, horrible mother she was, then that would make sense. But Patrick Clancy is a defence witness He's on Lindsay's side And pretty hostile towards the Commonwealth

And that's because the Commonwealth Were also staggeringly unsympathetic To Patrick Clancy They're so horrible to him They're so horrible to him And I think it's because they're like You're on the defence side Fuck you

That's the attitude Has he not suffered enough? Fuck me They never once tell Patrick That they're sorry for his loss They don't say They know this has all been so hard for him, but we have to ask you, etc. They don't handle him at all, even though they knew

that they're going to have to play the 911 call and that the jury were going to be, no doubt, moved by it. And the Commonwealth do this to all of the victims that they call as witnesses, including the rest of Patrick and Lindsay's families. It's just not a particularly good look and I don't really know if I think it would have played with the jury particularly well. on the stand Patrick testified for five hours, but we are going to focus in this episode on the key issues that came up. First off, the Commonwealth questioned Patrick on disclosures that Lindsay made him about suicidal ideation and thoughts of harming the children.

Around December 6th, 2022, did Lindsay tell you she was starting a new medication? I don't remember specifically. Is it that you don't remember the date or you don't remember? her starting a new medication? I'm not sure. Do you remember Lindsay telling you at some point she was starting the medication Seraquil? Yes.

Do you remember around what timeframe that was? I thought it was before December 6th. Okay. And do you recall how she was physically after starting the Seraquil? Awful. How so? That was really where her big spiral started. She started to lose a lot of weight, and she became very depressed, and she was having a really hard time.

And did she describe to you some thoughts or feelings that she was having at that time? Yeah, she started to say she was suicidal. And was that in December of 2022? I think so, yeah. And when she told you she was suicidal, did you ask her if she had a plan on how to kill herself? Yes. And what was her response? She said no.

And did she ever mention a specific way or plan she had to kill herself to you? No. And at some point in time, did she tell you that this was the first time she had to kill herself the first time she had had suicidal thoughts? I don't know if she mentioned it was the first time or not. I just remember her saying she had them. Had you ever heard her say that to you before that she was having suicidal thoughts?

No. Did you own at that time a Surface Pro type of tablet that works as a laptop? Yeah. And who had access to that laptop? We both did. Okay. You and Lindsay?

Yeah. And going back to August 22nd, 2022, did you click on a link on that Surface Pro that was titled Methods of Suicide? Not that I recall. And August 22nd, 2022, that was before Lindsay had been on any medications, as far as you know, correct? Correct. Going back to December, she's told you that she's having these thoughts. What's your reaction when she tells you? that she's having these suicidal thoughts?

I just wanted to support her. I asked those questions back to her, and her mother was coming up pretty regularly anyways, so we let them know, and we just try to be supportive. Did she also tell you at that time at the beginning of December that she was having some other intrusive thoughts? Yeah. Is that how she described?

them or how you described them, intrusive thoughts? I would say both. Okay. And when she told you that she was having intrusive thoughts, did you ask her what they were? Yeah. And what was her response? She described thoughts of hurting the kids or having, or them having some sort of ailment. So, like, she was very worried that Cora had, whenever she had a stomach ache, she became I'm overly worried that she was, you know, like had like a liver problem or something much more dramatic than it was.

Okay. But going back to that first part, she said she had thoughts of harming the kids. Is that correct? Yeah. And did she tell you whether or not she had specific thoughts of how she would harm the kids? No. And she didn't describe that as hearing this external voice telling her to harm the kids, correct? Correct.

She told you she was having intrusive thoughts herself of harming the children, correct? Correct. And did you ask her how she was going to harm the kids? I didn't ask it in that way. It was the same thing. I said, do you have a plan? And is it disturbing to you? And she said no, and then she said yes.

Let me go back for a minute there. You said, do you have a plan? and she said, no. What was the second question? Second part of the question? Do you find it disturbing? And she said yes. And she described it as really the way she was describing it as something that might happen to the kids.

So as more something might happen than she might do something. Is that correct? Yeah. And did she tell you how long she had those thoughts for? She didn't give a duration. And how many times did she tell you this, that she had thoughts of harming the kids? A couple times. And was that a couple times over the course of a night or two in December?

Yeah. And as a result of her telling you this that she had thoughts of harming the kids, what did you do? Her parents came up, and I think I asked her at some point, you know, do you feel like you need to be kept away from them and she said no and then you know it was very confusing because a minute later she was making them lunch or playing with them or you know getting ready for bed or whatever it was so it was confusing in that she wasn't physically harming them at the time but was having had had these thoughts is that what you're saying right i never saw lindsay harm the kids early morning on a manhattan sidewalk a shooting caught on surveillance video

It was an assassination-style killing, and everybody saw it. Now, as Luigi Mangione prepares to stand trial for the murder of United Health Care CEO Brian Thompson, which he denies, a new podcast series from ABC Audio and 2020 goes inside this captivating case. I'm ABC News legal analyst Brian Buckmire. Listen to burden of proof Luigi Mangione, wherever you get your podcasts. In 2010, a family of four in California goes missing. Investigators spend years looking for answers. Is this a family on the run?

Or is the truth far more sinister? From ABC Audio in 2020, this is What Happened to the Mix Days. Follow what happened to the mixed days for weekly episodes wherever you get your podcasts. Or if you can't wait, the entire series is streaming now. Add free for subscribers to 2020 True Crime Plus. Find 2020 True Crime Plus on Apple Podcast. to start your free trial today. Lindsay had disclosed to Patrick and her mother in December 2022,

a month before the murders, that she had had fears of harming the children. We talked about this in last week's episode. And again, one of the questions is, why did he then leave the kids with her after this? But the point is, she was getting treatment. And yes, she was up and down, but as we'll see, in the period right before the murders,

everyone thought Lindsay was getting better. And the day itself, the day of the murders, Patrick described as Lindsay's best day in a long time. She'd taken Cora to the doctor, played with the kids, had a nice day, she seemed good. But according to Lindsay's statements from the civil suit, she had been having intrusive and non-stop thoughts of suicide that day. So is it conceivable that Lindsay Clancy had made up her mind about what she was going to do that evening? And that's why she seemed to Patrick to be having her. her best day in a long time. Maybe, but Lindsay Clancy refutes the idea that she googled the

distances from their house to the CVS and the 3V in order to have Patrick out of the house for as long as possible, as the Commonwealth claimed. Lindsay says that she googled the distances because she didn't want to be alone for too long. And yes, 3V wasn't that far away, just a 10-15-minute drive. but there were closer pharmacies and restaurants in Duxbury and she's fucking terrified. Yeah, I think it's so weird. I think the whole thing of like why she sends Patrick on that errand to those specific places. Again, comes back to what we said last week.

You can cut it either way. You can look at it either way. You can look at why did she send him there when there's closer pharmacies and restaurants in Duxbury if she's so scared of being alone. Be like, oh, well, she sent him there because she wanted to kill the kids and herself and she wanted that time alone. But I'm like, why wouldn't you send him somewhere further? Like, why only a 10 minute, 15 minutes? That's not very far. So it's kind of like, it doesn't really make sense in either scenario.

But yeah. Back on the stand, Patrick then relives coming home that night. He describes how, like we told you last week, he immediately knew something was wrong. It was too quiet. He tried phoning Lindsay to see where she was. And then he went upstairs and saw blood in the master bedroom. Bizarly, I thought, the Commonwealth challenged Patrick with crime scene photo. of the room saying, well, there isn't that much blood, is there?

And I'm like, what? Basically implying that the cuts to Lindsay's body were not actually that deep. And basically now starting their odd suggestion that it had been a fake suicide attempt to garner sympathy or to later argue insanity. And look, yes, the EMTs did testify that basically they didn't think Lindsay Clancy's wounds were life-threatening and also that the cuts to her wrists and neck were barely bleating. by the time that they arrived, you know, not long after they'd been called. And they also said that none of the wounds even needed stitches and the ones on her neck didn't

even need sutures. But also, like, I don't know. Does that really mean that she didn't do it? And yes, medical professionals at trial would also describe the wounds as being superficial, which I don't think helped. But superficial is a medical term. It's not like they're being flippant. It's a medical term.

And basically what they mean by that is that the cuts didn't go deeper than the subcutaneous tissue. They don't mean that they're like frivolous. So yeah, it doesn't necessarily mean any of this proves that it wasn't a real suicide attempt. I absolutely believe it was a real suicide attempt, as did basically all of the witnesses for the Commonwealth and the defence. But it was a weird move on the Commonwealth's part to even suggest this. Like, I don't get why they do this. Like in any scenario where a person is taking a knife to themselves, that person is unwell. The end. And Lindsay Clancy also sat in the courtroom in a wheelchair with two nurses to help her

because she is permanently paralysed. But again, the Commonwealth state that Lindsay did not jump out of the window head first, as had been alleged by the defence. But rather, she'd climbed out and dropped, arguing that there was some blood on the side of the house. Therefore, she must have sort of shimmied down. They explained that Lindsay had just miscalculated the situation and landed awkwardly on the frozen ground and ended up paralysed by accident.

And that is challenged later on by medical experts and refuted by the Commonwealth's own experts. But the Commonwealth still oddly went hard on Lindsay for parts of the trial, saying that she faked it all. And we'll have more to say on this when we get to the toxicology report. Yeah, again, weird thing to say, yeah, weird thing to ask the jury to believe when she's sat there in a wheelchair, paralyzed, like to say that she'd, She just fucked it up, basically. But let's go back to Patrick's testimony and the night of the killings.

How long approximately, and I know you weren't looking at your watch or anything like that, but can you estimate for us how long it took four first responders to arrive? Four or five minutes. Okay. And during that time, are you continuing to try to talk to Lindsay? Yeah. Is she responding? She's in and out of consciousness.

Was she breathing on her own? I believe so. Okay. And you're communicating information to the 911 operators and are they giving you, you know, advice on how to deal with the situation as it progresses? Yeah. Okay. Once emergency personnel arrive, what do you do? I immediately got up and ran to the basement.

Okay. And do you still have the phone on you? the phone on you, you're still on the 911 call? Yeah, I didn't realize it at the time, but I did. Okay. And have you look at this model here on the screen. Is this a fair and accurate depiction of the setup of your basement? Yeah. Okay. If you can just describe the rooms for us, what the purpose of each room was? So the room in the back left was my office. The room with the black rubber mat is the gym and then there's a living room to the right of that and then the back right is just an area of the living room and then there's a

bathroom next to that so when you come down those stairs that night which direction did you go immediately went left and when you went left what did you see I saw Cora and how did she look She had a band around her neck. And was that an exercise band? Yeah. And do you recall whether she was, what position she was in, whether face up or face down? She's face down.

And when you saw her in that condition, what did you do? I immediately ran over and tried to take the band off. Were you able to get the band off? Yeah. And do you recall how you got the band off? I think I untied it. And when you say untied it, was it in a knot that you had to, you know, put everything down and unknotted, or how was it tied? I'm not sure I fully remember.

Do you recall describing it previously as when you initially tie your shoes but then don't do the bow? Yeah, that sounds right. And was she responsive? No. And what did you see or do next? I saw Callan. And where was he? He was next to her.

And how did he appear? He had a band around his neck. Sorry? He had a band around his neck. And did you remove that as well? Yeah. And do you recall what position he was in? Same as Cora.

Here Patrick describes waiting with Lindsay until the EMTs arrived and then running to the basement. Then you just heard that in that clip, Patrick describes going into the basement. And there was a lot of questioning by the Commonwealth as to the positioning of the children's bodies and how the bands were tied around their necks, and that becomes very important later. Because Patrick was the first person to see the kids. He moved their bodies and he undid the bands because they're still alive. And the way they were positioned untied up speaks to Lindsay Clancy's method of kill. note that here, and this is very important, in the clip that you guys just heard, please remember this.

Patrick says that he can't really remember how the bands were tied around the children's necks. But he did initially say in like his first reports on this that they had been tied around the children's necks like a shoelace without the bow. So tied tightly and secure. And the Commonwealth here remind him. They said, you said this. You said this. Do you remember now? And he's like, oh yeah.

Yes, I did say that. What's odd is that later in the trial the Commonwealth will say something totally different, totally different. Later they will claim that the bands were just wrapped around the children's necks, not tied. Why the change of story? Well, it's to bolster the idea that if the bands were tied up, Lindsay wouldn't have had to stay with the kids. She wouldn't have had to stay there, choking them one by one. If they're just wrapped around their necks, then it's a better story for the Commonwealth because they can say she was there. She wasn't psychotic.

She was pulling the ban. She would have had to look each child in the eye for three to five minutes while she choked the life out of them. And I think that also extends the kill time it would have taken, making the jury feel like it was implausible that she didn't snap out of whatever psychotic state she was in or just generally stop and come to her senses. Whereas if it's tied, she could have just tied them and walked away.

It also adds to the brutality of the murders if you think that Lindsay Clancy stared into the eyes of each of her children and manually strangled them to death one by one. But here, the way Patrick describes the bands as being tied, as through said, it could be plausible that Lindsay Clancy tied the bands around each child's neck and then just walked away. After Patrick's testimony was done, he left. He clearly just wanted to get out of the courtroom before the 911 call was played,

and you can't really blame him, although millions of people are. And when the call was played in court, Kevin Reddington is seen holding Lindsay's hand, as she sobs uncontrollably. And a lot has been made online about whether Lindsay's fake crying or not. Again, maybe it doesn't look or sound fake. But even if it was real, it doesn't mean that she's guilty of murder. Is this the bit where she shouts, I can't do it? That comes later.

Okay. But I do think she's crying. I do think she's crying. I don't think she's not crying. But I'm also like, that doesn't prove anything one way or another. If she wasn't crying, it wouldn't mean that she was or wasn't guilty. and if she is crying, it doesn't prove she is or isn't guilty. Like, do you know what I'm?

It just proves that it's a horrible moment, like, in remembering what happened. And many of the jury also were bawling by the end of the 911 call. The judge actually gave them all an hour break to recover from it. After Patrick, the Commonwealth spent the next day calling up 10 first responders from the scene. And this was smart. You basically had like a series of big, grizzled police officers and EMTs sobbing in the stand, like some of them literally breaking down crying and describing how some of them were even sick on the scene because of what they found

in the basement. It was a bad, bad day for the defence because it really brought home to the jury the brutality of the murders. A rough day for Lindsay and for her attorney Kevin Reddington, who kept it light when cross-examining the first responders, sometimes simply just thanking them for their service. And that makes sense. The last thing Big Red wanted to do was dwell on these witnesses talking about how horrific the murders were. Back with the Commonwealth

and their theory that Lindsay Clancy's suicide attempt was not as genuine as it may have seemed. And this is when they called up a forensic toxicologist. And look, let's listen to a clip and then we'll talk about it. Dr. Brower, before we broke, We mentioned the term therapeutic concentration. You familiar with that term? Correct.

What does that mean? It's the typical concentration that one would achieve when they're taking the medication or drug as indicated by their prescriber. And are you familiar with toxic concentrations or suicidal concentrations? I am. And what does that mean? Those are concentrations that could lead to adverse events and potentially death. Now, in relation to the four substances that were tested at the NMS laboratory, you identified

the levels for each of the four substances. Were any of those levels, excuse me, concentration levels considered within therapeutic concentration? It would all be in, what I would say, therapeutic concentration, except maybe the Cateopine, which is slightly elevated. Okay. In your experience as a forensic toxicologist, have you had the occasion to review cases, post-mortem cases in which suicide was a mechanism of death where the person consumed medication?

Absolutely, yes. And so that level of the... Ketapine. Ketapine at the 800 nanograms per Miller leader, would that have been in that toxic or suicidal level? No, ma'am. Would you generally expect to see that a significantly greater in a suicide case? Typically, Cotia opinions and suicide cases might be in the, you know, close to 10,000 nanograms per mill liter. Usually people take handfuls of pills when they're trying to harm themselves and take their own life.

And this is not consistent with that. That's quite compelling. That is quite compelling because, according to those who interviewed Lindsay Clancy, She claimed that she took a large number of pills before she threw herself out the window. She says that I cut my wrists, I took the pills, and then I jumped out of the window. That's what she said. That's like, you know, we're taking the suicide attempt very seriously. She is vague on how many she actually took. It doesn't seem like she really remember.

She also is quite vague on how she took them. We'll talk about that later. But what's interesting that this forensic toxicologist is saying is that her blood that was drawn from her in the hospital as soon as she was taken there, the night that she did this, yes, showed seven different medications, but all of them had been prescribed, and all of them were in her system only at therapeutic levels, which means within the range of what you would expect somebody who was taking that medication as prescribed.

Only one of them was slightly elevated. Could certain drugs in certain people, even at low levels, still cause adverse side effects like suicidal ideation and mania? Yes, absolutely. So the toxicology report doesn't really undermine, the idea that the drugs were exacerbating Lindsay's condition. It literally says that on the back of the packet of some of them, especially when there was an underlying undiagnosed medical condition such as bipolar 2,

but it is strange that the levels of the drugs in a person's system wouldn't be elevated beyond therapeutic levels in a suicide attempt where they claim to have taken pills to end their life. Yes, I get it. taking an overdose of prescription things is quite a common method. It is not a quick one. I think that is something that it doesn't necessarily get mentioned. And I think it seems, yes, I accept it as strange. They're on elevated levels.

But her tolerance was probably really fucking high. Not that I think that necessarily can't stop. what she's very clearly trying things and they're not working so she throws herself out of the window. Like I think that's that to me seems obvious. And she's on a time limit

because she knows Patrick is coming back and he's not actually gone that far away. Yeah. So I don't know. The reason I bring up the Togosology report is I do think it's interesting but I also think it's where the Commonwealth get this idea that it wasn't a real suicide attempt

because looking at somebody who's paralyzed who's jumped out of a window and being like, well, looking at someone who's got cuts on their arms and neck, but being like, oh, they're not that deep. I think this is what led them down that weird path of saying it wasn't a real suicide attempt. And just to be clear, I do think it was a real suicide attempt.

I really, really do. This is just like an interesting bit of the story. So yeah, like I said, I don't think it was fake, but the prosecution were going to make that claim. And if they were going to make that claim, I think it would have made more sense for them to argue that she was very thorough in killing her children. She did that ruthlessly efficiently, very, very, very.

quickly with three children, but she was quite bad at killing herself. And seemingly didn't take enough pills that were in the toxicology report. And she ended up paralyzed from the fall, but would a reasonable person really think they would die if they jumped two stories? And some of the cuts to her wrists were deep, but apparently not that deep. And some medical professionals will testify to that, including the EMTs. They were also, and people have pointed this out the wrong way around. Would a nurse not know that she need to cut herself the other way if she was serious about killing herself? All the things that people have said. There were also hesitation marks, does that suggest that she wasn't psychotic at this point because she was scared to cut

herself? Again, not necessarily things that I think prove that it wasn't a real suicide, but they don't say a lot of this stuff. They just sort of like, pussyfoot around it and like not making a clear argument. You know, none of these things are coming from the mind of a rational person. And I think it's being analysed of like, okay, well, a sound, a person of a person of sound mind would do X, Y, Z. It doesn't matter because that's not what she is. Exactly. And not much of this was delved into in too much detail. And the Commonwealth don't really just come right out and say it. They're just pussyfoot around, dropping hints and making little suggestions, but nothing is clear cut, which again, it's much more normal for a defense

to be doing that, not the prosecution. Because they just need to plant the seed of doubt. That's not what they're supposed to be doing. Yes, that's what the Commonwealth is trying to do. That's exactly what they're trying to just be like, oh, maybe. And I'm like, that's not you're meant to have a really clear narrative. And they also backtrack altogether on their suicide fake angle anyway. But that's not yet. For now, they double down on it. They suggest that Lindsay Clancy was faking even having a mental health disorder in the first place.

Which very odd, again, of them just refusing to concede to any sort of mental illness at all. Even if Lindsay Clancy was suffering with a mental disease or defect, as the law states, that's only the first condition for not guilty by reason of insanity, or in Massachusetts, not criminally responsible. They're doing so much and none of it is, there's no point to any of it. No, they don't need to do this. I don't get why they're doing it. It makes it so much more confusing for the jury. They just don't need to show that Lindsay wasn't mentally ill. And given the history of her treatment and presentation to experts in the months before the murders, it really does feel like a very big, bizarre mountain to climb.

Yeah. But basically they build all this theory around the pill bottles that they found at the scene, and it was a huge mistake. The Commonwealth wanted to challenge the idea that Lindsay was over-medicated, and they showed that various pillboxes found at the house by the police were basically still full. So according to them, Lindsay Clancy wasn't following her clinician's advice. And she was doing that because she knew she wasn't really sick, and that's why she didn't take her medication.

They also claimed that she regularly changed doctors and nurses because she was trying to find one she could trick and manipulate. The problem is that Lindsay Clancy moving from expert to expert, yes, sometimes it was her choice. But sometimes she was referred to different people by some of the physicians, and sometimes the person treating her, for example, just moved on and left that institution, like moved away. So it's this weird thing like they're trying to say she was doctor shopping.

I'm like, for what? Doctor shopping to not be addicted to drugs. Like, I don't really, I don't get it. It's such a confusing narrative. And I honestly don't think any of this landed. Secondly, the other reason this was a big fail than bringing up the pill bottles, like the near full pill bottles that they found at the house. It turned out that the police had done an absolutely rubbish job of searching the property.

and had missed a load of empty pill bottles in Lindsay Clancy's bucking bedside table, pillboxes that Patrick found and then handed over to Kevin Redington, Lindsay's defence attorney, who obviously pulls them out at trial. And let's highlight even further how inconsistent the Commonwealth was. They also introduced a book into evidence that had been found amongst Lindsay's belongings. It was a self-help book called Good Mums Have Scary Thoughts and said that this proved that Lindsay was well aware. of all of her psychological issues, but then also said that she was faking all of it.

What? Oh, God. It's very bizarre. Honestly, I've never seen anything like it. It's very, very strange. And look, if you wholeheartedly believe that Lindsay Clancy was in such a psychotic state at the time of the killings, that she either couldn't appreciate what she was doing was wrong, or she couldn't stop herself, which is the standard in Massachusetts. then okay, that's fine. I'm not even disagreeing. We'll talk about what our theories are at the end.

But my point is, and why I'm so annoyed and spending so much time talking about how the Commonwealth did such a poor job I feel, in my opinion, of trying this case, is that even if you believe that, if there is any chance that Lindsay Clancy is lying, just in the same way that Lindsay Clancy deserves a good defence, her children, her victims, the ones who lost their lives, deserve good representation in court. And I just don't think they got that from the state. They did not get this in this trial. Like I really think they were, they were so let down by the Commonwealth. And again, like I said, you might not care that the Commonwealth did a poor job

because you want Lindsay Clancy to be found not guilty by reason of insanity. But if there is a chance she's lying, then didn't those children deserve the best representation, which they didn't get. Next up for the Commonwealth is Dr. Shah and Dr. Biswas, both of whom were psychologists who Lindsay had seen in the days after the murders. Dr. Shah said that she saw Lindsay five days after she was hospitalized and that Lindsay seemed okay. She wasn't presenting as suicidal and she was future-orientated saying that she didn't think about her kids all day, but was upset about the legal situation.

Dr. Biswas, who saw Lindsay straight away, said that Lindsay asked if her body was broken and if her legs were straight. She asked if she had a lawyer but didn't ask about her children. even though at that stage, Callan was still alive. Why doesn't Lindsay just say that she spent all of her time weeping over her kids? It does look bad. Was she in shock? Surely if she was faking it, she would just lie. And if she had been in the middle of a psychotic break during the killings,

why isn't she now horrified by what she has done? Both of the doctors said that within two days of the murders, Lindsay Clancy showed no signs of psychosis. But, you know, she's going to be on some sort of sedative, isn't she? They'd be mad not to. Yeah. Again, it's all just pointing out the things. I really don't know.

Because the medical experts can't agree. They can't agree, right? So I'm not going to sit here as a podcaster and be like, this is how she should have been feeling and this is what makes sense. Like, I'm not qualified to do that. All I'm saying is if she was psychotic at the time, and they're saying the psychosis is lifted, where's the, like, shock at what she's done? Yeah, and I'm not saying if it's not there, that means that she wasn't psychotic.

I'm just questioning it. And then also, if she was lying and malingering, why isn't she now like, oh my God, what did I do? What did I? Like, it doesn't really make sense. She just has, like, no, nothing going on, like, no reaction. And I guess people are turned off because the questions are about herself that she's asking. She's like, are my legs straight? Am I okay?

Will I walk again? and there's not any concern for the children. So I understand why people feel like that's fucked. Like, I understand why that rubs people the wrong way. Now, day seven revealed another odd move from the Commonwealth. They called the Clancy's former Nanny, a woman named Lainey Rossi. And I really don't know why they called her. I do not know why Lainey is there.

It's obvious that they're trying to paint Lindsay as this sort of crazy controlling mother who didn't trust anyone else to look after her children. But it backfires on them in a massive way. because Lainey was firmly team Lindsay. The nanny had worked with them, helping with Callan mainly, from September to November 2022. And the Clancy's basically only let her go when Patrick and Lindsay decided that Lindsay wasn't going to go back to work. Like, so she said, I don't need the nanny.

I'm going to stay home and I'll be fine. And basically, Lindsay and Lainey had this system where they had this journal. And Lindsay would write in the book to Lainey every day telling her, basically all the things that she needed to know about kind of like how he had slept the night before, when to put him down for his naps that day, when to feed him, what to give him, how to burp him. And the Commonwealth tried to paint this as Lindsay being crazy. And I'm like, of all the crazy things, this is not that crazy. No, I was literally just thinking.

I was like, that's a really good system. Yeah, because she's a nurse. And when she was trying to go back to work, she can't be on her phone if Lainey has a question. So she writes everything down. And that's like the system that they had. and Lainey would write back in there so that Lindsay could read it when she got home and things like that. And Lainey was like, to the Commonwealth, that didn't bother me at all. Lindsay was a great mum.

And I think most parents would agree that being prescriptive in your directions on how a nanny is going to look after your very young child. Callan is not a year old yet. He's eight months old when he dies. Like, he's perfectly normal. Lindsay Clancy clearly doesn't want her life to be made even harder by her schedule for Callan going out of the window while she's at work. they even mock Lindsay, the Commonwealth even mock Lindsay, and basically laugh at the fact that she used to tell Lainey in the journal, for example, if you could start dinner, that would be great and if you cut the vegetables to like, you know, a certain size, that would be like really

helpful and they're like, look how fucking controlling she is. And it's like, sorry, Callan would have just started eating solid foods. The size of vegetables is important to avoid choking. Like, it was really cringy to watch that like back and forth between the people. prosecution and Lainey Rossi, like it really was. And any parents in the jury would be like, do you have kibs? Like, that would be the question. That's, it was very good. Even within the quite small pool of parents that I know, that's not even middling on the like, this is how you take care of my child scale.

Yeah. And they tried to put this to Patrick as well when he was on the stand and he was just like, I would have written the same exact notes to Lainey. And they're just like, okay. It's so weird. And then the Commonwealth asked Lainey about Lindsay's relationship with Dawson, because Lindsay had posted online about Dawson saying, my son Dawson is one of the most difficult human beings I've ever known.

I mean that with all the love in my heart. And kids are difficult. Like, I don't understand why the, I mean, why are the Commonwealth pretending that being a parent is a walk in the park. I don't think either of them have children and I think that's why they're saying these things because this is just so like run of the mill.

She's not even talking about throwing her baby in a woodshar, but she's just like Dawson is the fucking difficult child. And that post was made two years before the murders. Lindsay wasn't just venting, she was asking for advice in a parenting group, so it seems really difficult to grasp what the Commonwealth are trying to prove apart from demonstrate they don't have children.

I think we've all got friends who have said exactly the same thing. In any case, Lainey stays calm and ends her testimony by saying that she thought Lindsay was a wonderful mum and that during the time she had spent with the Clancy family, she had seen no issues at all. And this theme would continue

into the next two days of the trial as the Commonwealth called Patrick Clancy's dad and the couple's friends to testify. Again, I really struggle to understand how any of these witnesses helped the prosecution. Why are they calling Patrick Clancy's dad? I do not get it. They call him up there, this poor man who has lost his grandchildren.

He looks absolutely like, just, again, broken. And he refuses to accept the prosecution's theory that Lindsay was his hyper-controlling mother who refused to leave the kids with anyone else. He's very supportive of Lindsay, which would no doubt have been very powerful to the jury. Her ex-father-in-law, a man who has lost his grandchildren were still defending the woman who killed them.

But the Commonwealth tried to get him to recount incidents where Lindsay had grown frustrated with the kids when they didn't listen to her, pointing out a time at Thanksgiving where she had physically moved Dawson into a chair because he refused to sit down. That's literally what they say. Didn't she grab him by the arm and move him into the chair? And I'm like, yes, because to a child, you tell them the instruction once. If they do not follow it, you physically move them to make them do it. Like, shut the fuck up. What are you talking about?

Oh my God. And Mr Clancy just said that Dawson could be willful. And that Lindsay was a very good mother. There was nothing to back up any form of abuse taking place in that home. And investigators were asked at trial. You would have turned over every single stone in a case like this to find any potential abuse, wouldn't you? But there just wasn't any to find? all of the investigators had the same reply.

Nope, nothing. Found nothing. Yeah, exactly. Do you not think they would have scoured, three children murdered, they would have scoured that family's life and history for any sort of abuse? There's fucking nothing.

Everyone who knew the Clancy said the same thing. Patrick and Lindsay were happy, and they were good parents. Lindsay was an amazing nurse who cared deeply about looking after women when they were pregnant and when they were in labour. She was nurturing and caring and loving and very concerned about her kids. She'd never got so much as a parking ticket in her life. They also said that Lindsay was not a complainer, that she never moaned about her life. Having three kids was hard, but they all said that

Lindsay always wanted to have lots of kids and she wanted them to be close in age. But many of Lindsay's friends were also nurses and therapists, and they all also did back up the fact that in the months leading up to the murders, Lindsay had been suffering with her mental health. And they all said that Lindsay had told them that her medication was making her have dark thoughts, but never told anyone about hearing voices. One of her friends visited her in hospital, and apparently Lindsay never spoke to her about her kids. She asked about her daughter, as in the friend's daughter, but she never spoke about her own. The friend did also say that Lindsay's sister had told her not to bring up the murders or the kids.

on the advice of professionals who were treating Lindsay. And again, this is all quite odd. The Commonwealth seemed to be trying to get this friend to say that Lindsay didn't want to be a mother anymore and that she wanted to get out of this life. But there was literally not a single person who backed that claim. And not one piece of evidence that corroborated it either. There was no wet t-shirt competition photos down at the local club la Casey Antony.

And I think on the Voices thing, again, I think this can be a bit of a misconception. So the symptom in itself is what we're actually talking about is an auditory hallucination, right? Those can be all sorts of things like hearing a door slam that didn't. And that is a low level and it's very difficult to spot it because they're everyday noises. And you can't as the person all the time differentiate whether they're there or not. And that's very often in sort of that umbrella. of mental disorder is how it starts and it gets to voices sometimes.

But because we're also used to like, oh, she was hearing voices being the like, the parameter for, therefore she was having a psychotic episode. Auditory hallucinations can happen at a very low level for a very long time. And it could just be that they were there and she didn't know it. There's so many possibilities with this. Also, like, you know, they refer to the ones that Lindsay says she has as, like, like command hallucinations because they were telling her to do things. But those can come from outside, like an external voice speaking to, they can come from inside. So when she refers to

intrusive thoughts, does she mean intrusive thoughts as in just like horrible thoughts she can't scrub or is it a voice? Like, it's really not very clear. I think the key thing is we have to say she never told anybody. She says intrusive thoughts. She never says voices. And she does speak about it later when she is interviewed by lots of medical experts. And the voices becomes a big part of the sort of end crescendo of this trial and the medical witnesses. So we will definitely come back to it. But yes, it's all very, very confusing and nobody is super clear on it. But yes, coming back to this, coming back to this angle of the prosecution trying to say that Lindsay Clancy didn't want to be a mum or the controlling thing as well. Because what's so odd is to go down the road

with some of the witnesses to say, oh, isn't Lindsay Clancy so obsessive and so controlling a mum? And she won't let anyone watch her kids and she's obsessed with the size of vegetables that they eat. of this. But then in the next series of witnesses, to then claim that she didn't want to be a mum at all because she hated being a mum. Like, I kind of get how you could say those two things like fit together because she has to be so obsessive and she's over it. And she doesn't know how to be a more chill mum, so she'd rather not be a mum at all. But that's not even really what the Commonwealth are saying. They're kind of like changing the narrative based on whichever witness they're speaking to, which is just never a really good way to go about things. Like, it just doesn't

really make sense. You're confusing people. And then we get to day 10, where it felt like we were finally getting somewhere. Because this is when the doctors who treated Lindsay Clancy, both Dr. Tufts and a woman named Dr. Goodhart, from McLean Hospital, took the stand. Now look, I have to say, however, Dr. Goodhart felt a bit non, if I'm honest. The Commonwealth tried to say that Lindsay checked herself out of McLean three weeks before the murders. But the doctor was like, no, she didn't check herself out. She asked if she could leave and I let her go.

I was fine. She didn't leave against medical advice. What makes even less sense than that is why Dr. Goodhart isn't a cardiologist. Come on. It's right there. Please, please. Exactly. And yes, Dr. Goodhart also says, yes, I let her go.

I let her go to Cora's birthday party because Lindsay Clancy did not, as far as I could see, have psychosis. And I don't think she was a danger to herself or anyone else. Obviously, like I said, three weeks later, she does end up murdering her three children. but that is what Dr. Goodhart says. And I think it is also clear that there was quite little investigation done. That's what came out of the testimony for me with Dr. Goodhart. Very little investigation seems to have happened when she was at McLean. It does seem like they just kind of take Lindsay's word for everything.

Again, they don't check her medical records. And like I said, I get in the US it's a different system with some flaws around that kind of thing. But it is a big issue throughout this case that the practitioners who deal with Lindsay just look to her to provide an accurate account, even though she's clearly suffering from an ongoing mental health condition and can't be necessarily relied upon to be a reliable narrator or reliable historian of her own health. Dr Jennifer Tufts was more interesting. She was, after all, the psychiatrist who had been treating Lindsay Clancy on and off

for the entire four months before the murders. She was the first doctor that Lindsay saw for her concerns and also the last one she spoke to before the killings. Tufts and Lindsay had an appointment on the 23rd of January the day before Lindsay murdered her three children. So naturally there is a lot of scrutiny on Dr. Tufts, especially as she was young, and Lindsay Clancy was a patient of hers in her very first year

of treating patients as a fully qualified doctor. And her testimony raised a lot of points about how mental health treatment is not a perfect science. It's clear that Lindsay Clancy wasn't totally honest with regards to certain things, to those treating her. For example, she discloses to Patrick and her mum about having thoughts of harming the children, but when asked by doctors, she says no.

So we don't know what else she was hiding, but where does the liability sit? How honest is a mental health patient always likely to be with their doctor? Dr. Tuff said she gave Lindsay a suicide checklist and she checked no to everything. But later she called a suicide hotline twice, never told Dr Tufts about it.

But then Lindsay Clancy also showed insight, telling Tufts, I think it's my problem, I keep reaching out to different people and not sticking with the plan. This was in response to Tufts saying to Lindsay that she needed to stick with her meds longer than just a few days before deciding if they were working or not. And she also implored Lindsay to stop seeing multiple clinicians to just pick one and stay with them.

But then, you know, I also get it. I get that if the drugs are making her worse and she knows that they're making her worse because she feels worse, should she keep taking them? I don't know. And also, can she not ask for a second opinion if she isn't happy with a practitioner? Yes, I absolutely appreciate that it seems like a very bad idea to simultaneously see multiple people and simultaneously take drugs prescribed to you by two different people who don't know about each other and you're not disclosing the treatment that you're receiving.

But I also think it's odd that the Tufts didn't. order Lindsay Clancy's medical records. Like, why didn't she do that? Like I said, people do this again and again and again. And when Tufts has asked this by Redington on the stand, she said that Lindsay was medically sophisticated and she didn't think it was necessary. And Dr. Jennifer Tufts saw Lindsay Clancy

for an appointment the day before the killings. Lindsay reported having increased anxiety, but said that she was sleeping okay. Tufts asked about hallucinations and Lindsay said no. and Dr. Tufts said that she saw no signs of psychosis that day. And it is worth noting that none of the medical professionals who saw Lindsay in the months before the murders ever noticed signs of psychosis. Which is why she doesn't have the diagnosis. Yeah. And people challenge that. They're like, really, really, did you not see that she had signs of psychosis?

Like basically Tufts and pretty much everyone else who says that they saw no psychosis. because again, it's women in infants, it's tufts, it's gelata, like everybody is saying, we didn't see any signs of that. They're saying it's because they saw the extreme lows, but they didn't see the, like, mania that can be associated with psychosis. But some people have questioned that. They were like, she was running a fucking marathon after she had a baby. Does that not count as mania?

Like, I don't know. Again, it feels very much more of an art to diagnose, like, in mental health spaces than just, like, a black and white, like scientific way. So I don't know. But I think it is worth mentioning that she never says about the voices to anybody. Apparently there aren't any because she doesn't hear them until the day. And nobody spots any other signs of psychosis in her before the murders. Like that isn't a point that we can ignore. Like she was seeing a lot of medical professionals.

And either you have to believe that all of them are incompetent and missed it, or they're not incompetent, but they all missed it. Or it genuinely wasn't there. That takes us to day 11, where the Commonwealth call Nurse Gillata to, testify. And it's a bit of a mixed bag. Jolata did acknowledge that Lindsay was getting worse in November and December of 2022. Lindsay was texting Nurse Jolata a lot, almost on a daily basis, telling her, I've tried so many things, nothing is working, I can't sleep. And when I do, I just wake up with intrusive thoughts. Lindsay said, I feel numb, no emotions, and I'm going

to die, and I don't care. Day 12 of the trial was pretty. gruelling. This is when the medical examiner who carried out the autopsies on the children took the stand. He explained in horrifying detail the injuries that each of the children had suffered, down to how the veins in eight-month-old Callan's head had been bulging and how his eyes had almost popped out of his head. The jury were also shown photos, but thankfully they have not been released publicly. Lindsay Clancy sobbed throughout, and this is where she actually exclaimed out loud, I can't do this. at which point the trial had to be halted, the jury had to be sent out, they needed to take a break. And it's a tough one because I understand why the Commonwealth did this, right?

There's a lot of talk in this trial about the fact that Lindsay Clancy pleaded guilty, right? And her and Kevin Reddington tried to stipulate to the fact they tried to say, look, you don't need to prove that I killed the kids. Please don't try to prove that I killed the kids. I admit that I killed the kids. Let's just focus on the like why and the psychological side of it. And they want to do that because they don't want the Commonwealth to fixate on how the children were killed because that is going to emotionally be gut-wrenching for the jury. And the more it is that way, the more likely they are to want to punish Lindsay Clancy, which is obviously what the Commonwealth want. And I do understand, therefore, why the Commonwealth did this. Like, it's shocking, it's grueling.

It's very, very brutal and violent. But I do also think it's a difficult one because I think if people in the jury already think, Lindsay Clancy deserved this and she did kill them, then it would play well with them. But I think anyone who was sympathetic to Lindsay Clancy, they could also be looking at the Commonwealth. Like, why are you torturing this poor woman? Why are you making her look at these pictures? Why are you making her listen to this medical examiner? And that's why Kevin Reddington doesn't get her to go out of the courtroom.

She could have not been there when this testimony was being read out. But I think it was a calculated decision to keep her there. And I'm not saying she's faking having the reaction. But I think Kevin Reddington knew there was a possibility she would react like that. and anyone sympathetic on the jury because they just need one, they just need one, would see her break down like that and it would speak to them.

But yet again, I have seen that clip be used by people who are saying that Patrick has framed her and even knowing, you know, the base level and obviously, you know, I am more likely to have my feet on the ground when it comes to stuff like this because this is what we've been doing for like a decade.

But I did, because it's the clip and they're saying, obviously she didn't kill these children because this is her reaction. And I'm like, but she didn't say I didn't do it. She's saying, I can't go through this again. And that is so normal. So to like hang on that and just like ram it into your square hole is like, I'm just seeing it everywhere. I really just don't understand because I'm like, her feeling. horrified and disgusted and even the Commonwealth's own witnesses as we'll go on to see say this was a very traumatic event for her. They think that she killed the children and they don't

think that she was in a psychotic state but they're still like this was a very traumatic event for her. Why would she not have a traumatic response to seeing it? It doesn't mean she's fucking innocent. Doesn't mean she didn't kill the children. It's such a bizarre like hop, skipping a jump to like another planet. Like I don't know. Totally man. Totally. And then, next up, in the spotlight were Lindsay Clancy's journals. And this is one of the most confusing things that the Commonwealth did. It's the Commonwealth that entered Lindsay's journal into evidence, which then allowed the defence to use them.

Yes, because Lindsay wrote them, the defence can't put them in. Like the Commonwealth brought this journal in. I'm like, what are you doing? What are you doing? It's so bizarre. And we've got a clip for you here from a Commonwealth witness reading from Lindsay's journal. But it just feels the wrong way around. It should be a defence witness. I'm sad and depressed because I am not able to parent my third child like my first. I want to treat any one of my babies like my first.

But I know that's not a feasible possibility. I'm sad that I stopped breastfeeding. I feel not as connected with Cal now. I think I sort of resent my other children because they prevent me from treating Cal like my first baby. And I know that's not fair to them. I know that. I was feeling so depressed last evening when Corrin Dawson came home from school. I know her runs off on them so we had a pretty rough evening.

I want to feel love and connection with all my kids. I'm also probably having a bit of an internal conflict because my whole life I've wanted to have a lot of kids. I still don't want Cal to be our last. that I have a lot of figuring out to do before I have another. I'm on the fence about starting a new medication for anxiety slash depression. I just want to feel happy. I want to be able to relax and take care of my kids. And when they go to bed at night, I want to deeply relax and hang out with Pat

and then fall into a deep sleep for eight hours, get up, and pour hard into myself for an hour and a half. Cal was so very planned and desired. I want to be able to give him all the love he deserves. I guess that's what it's like to be the third child, though. He's not the first third child to ever exist. I think I know he'll be okay, but it's really hard for me. I hate that he has to put himself to sleep.

I'm sad I'm not breastfeeding anymore, but I think deep down these are the right choices. As with the sleep training, I needed a baby that slept through the night because I simply do not have the opportunity in my life to catch up on sleep. I just don't. If there was a time for me to nap every day, then that may not have been the case, but there really isn't. When Cal naps, I have to take care of Corrin Dawson. That's just how it is. It feels cruel to me that we did not do that to Cal, but the reality is we did what we had

to do. I guess I also feel slightly traumatized by the sleep training, but that feeling was only really present when I was severely sleep-diffied and paranoid. I know what we did was the right thing and okay. As for the breastfeeding, it kind of goes hand in hand with the sleep training. Once he started sleeping most of the night, it was then a daily struggle to keep up my milk supply. I was having to take a ton of supplements and constantly think about eating and drinking enough to keep the supply up. And then I was having to think about pumping extra to keep it up, and that was really hard to do with Corrin Dawson around.

When I tried to leave Cal to go out with Corrin Dawson, I was stressed about the pumping, and not to mention the fact that Cal was at home and not taking a bottle. So it was a battle of if I should pump or not. I know I did the right thing because I need to be able to leave Cal with someone and get fed. As much as I don't want to leave him, I need to be able to. I need to be able to be present with my other kids. I still really, really want a fourth child, but I need a really good therapist before then. I'm on the fence about starting a new met or not.

I want to feel happy, but it would be nice to feel authentically happy and not fake. But I need to feel happier than I did last evening because then I was pretty depressed and not enjoying any of my children. It was really sad. I needed the breastfeeding off of my plate. I'm struggling so hard because I wanted to parent each of my kids like my first. This is definitely the root cause of all our problems. Now I feel like I'm not parenting any of my kids the way I want to,

and that makes me sad too. But I'm going to try my best today. It totally contradicts the Commonwealth theory that Lindsay Clancy hated being a mother. She literally says that she wants more children. And it sounds like she is desperately wanting to get better. and to be happy and take care of her kids and have more. She talks about feeling guilty for sleep training her son and for stopping breastfeeding

and that she's drowning in anxiety and that just doesn't speak to a woman who can't be fucked. No, they're trying to make her Casey Anthony when I'm like, how is she? She's not in any way, shape or form. So yes, before we move on from the journals, it comes back to what I said last week about literally every piece of evidence can just be used by both,

sides to like prove something else. The defense have now got this journal. The defense read it out. The defense read out even more entries. And I'm just like, why would you introduce this? This is so bad for you. Anyway, then there are Lindsay Clancy's Google searches. The Commonwealth claimed that way back in August 2022, long before Lindsay Clancy even saw a doctor about, you know, her symptoms, they said she was at home Googling methods of suicide on the home shared tablet.

But I thought, Commonwealth, that your theory, after your opening, was that the suicide was fake. So why would she be doing that? Is it to stage a better suicide? I don't really get it. In any case, this was such a load of nothing and such a total waste of time. Because Patrick admitted that he had been the one that had been Googling about a singer that he had recently started listening to, a singer named Tom Hall, who had killed himself. And basically Patrick says, yeah, I think I was on like Tom Hall's Wikipedia and there was a link through to like the fact that he had killed himself and I clicked on it and it took me to a website that talked about suicide methods. And like that was it. And I'm like, he admits it. And then at the trial when Patrick is like, yeah, that was me.

That was me. Like I'm the one that listens to Tom Hall was even funnier that Reddington shreds the fucking. cyber security guy or cyber guy who was like giving this evidence because he's like, did you also know at the time these searches was made that Lindsay Clancy was taking her son to the doctors? I'm just like, how did the Commonwealth not know that? How did they not know that? And why are they putting this person on stand to prove nothing? It's just so bizarre to me. And it's not like someone was sat there Googling methods to kill. What would this have proven anyway? Like, I really don't get it. It's just, it's just sad. It's honestly, sir.

And then there are more Google searches in December 2022. Medication searches for the drugs that Lindsay had been given asking, what to do when a psychiatrist overprescribes? Can bipolar be temporary? Can benzos reveal bipolar? What is DBT? And then January 2023. More searches.

Can you treat a sociopath? And then a search for schizophrenia, psychosis, seriquel. and then a hyphen can't have a conversation, self-harm, sleep, meds, insomnia, intrusive, hallucinations. And all of these searches for hallucinations came before the day of the murders. But when Lindsay was asked by medical providers if she was suffering from hallucinations,

even by Dr. Tufts the day before the killings, Lindsay Clancy said no. But I understand why. I do. She's a nurse. So I think it comes down too. So is she searching the word hallucinations because she's having hallucinations and she's just not telling her doctor that she is? Or is she, as the Commonwealth suggests, basically Googling hallucinations

so that she can come up with a viable story and come up for a defense when she kills her kids, which is what she's planning to do. The thing is, if it's the latter, if it's that she's researching hallucinations so that she can say that she's having hallucinations later, when Tufts asks her, are you having hallucinations? Why wouldn't she just say yes? She's going to kill them the next day. Yes.

Why wouldn't you just say yes? Because that is going to put that much more firmly on your record than a little Google search that you just hope that the police see later down the line? Like, I don't really get it. And I don't know. But also my question is if she was having hallucinations, why does she make no mention of it anywhere, like in her own private journals even? And I get what you're saying, like maybe she was and she didn't realize what they were. was starting to realize, possibly. And maybe it was also just paranoia. Maybe she thought if she even wrote it down anywhere that she'd be sectioned or have her kids taken away. I don't know.

But it is a fact. It is a point that it is never mentioned anywhere before, apart from this one Google search where she Google searches the word hallucinations. Day 15 saw yet another bizarre blunder for the Commonwealth. They called to the stand Patrick Clancy's mom, Susan. And they asked her, you're a Catholic, right? So you believe that. that murder is a mortal sin. It's not just Catholics that believe, come on. It Catholics that believe that suicide is a cardinal sin. Do your homework.

This whole exchange is so, so beyond inappropriate and unprofessional. Like, I, I don't know. It could have been a mistrial. It really could have been a mistrial. And the judge shut it down immediately, quite rightly. bringing up religion as a way to bolster a witness or manipulate a jury is just grounds for mistrial, is what it is. Yeah, yeah.

The point it seems they were trying to make was if God thinks that this is a sin, how can you say that it isn't? I really don't understand what other point they could be trying to make, which is manipulating and emotionally blackmailing the jury. And Susan, who is on the stand as a defence witness, like, what is. are you trying to do here? It's so inappropriate to bring up religion like that. You're basically saying, well, you know, even God says this is a sin. How can you, how can you not say it's a sin? It's really bizarre. It's very, very bizarre. And they also show a total lack of empathy towards Susan. And it's jarring. They're so cold with this woman who's gone through so much. and when she walked off the stand, Susan gave Lindsay a little head nod,

something that the jury would absolutely have seen. Again, let's remember. She's her ex-mother-in-law who lost her three grandchildren. And as she walks off the stand, she still gives Lindsay a little like head nod. Like, that's powerful for the jury. I don't doubt that at all. Moving on, we've got cyber evidence. And this is all actually quite interesting, but it didn't really have much.

time spent on it, the expert used Lindsay Clancy's Apple Watch and iPhone to show that someone was walking up and down the stairs at the Clancy House at 503, before Patrick claimed to have left at 515. And it does seem that Lindsay took her Apple Watch off at 523. And then, between 533 and 538, someone, Lindsay, was walking up or down two flights of stairs. At this point we know that Patrick was at CBS. He's on CCTV. And it was at this time that Lindsay phoned Patrick back. The Commonwealth suggested that the stair climbing was Lindsay Clancy walking from the basement, up a flight of stairs to the kitchen. And here she called Patrick back, got a knife and went up another flight of stairs to the master bedroom, which is where her phone was found on her bed.

There was no blood on the Apple Watch or on her iPhone. So it's a reasonable to assume that Lindsay Clancy killed the kids, called Patrick back so that, you know, he wouldn't panic and come home too soon because otherwise why call him back? Like he called you. It was a miscall. Like, why call him back? There must be a reason why she's doing that to maintain some level of normality. And then she cuts her wrist, neck, takes the pills and then jumps out the window. What's interesting here is that the last recorded heart rate, like beats per minute heart rate for Lindsay Clancy, taken by her Apple Watch, was at 5.23pm, so right before she takes it off, like, you know, shortly after Patrick leaves about eight minutes after Patrick has left,

and it was at 57 beats per minute. That's like lower than average for a normal healthy adult, but not like unreasonably, 60 to 80 is maybe where you're looking, so not unreasonable. And she is quite fit, she works out a lot. But it's been eight minutes since Patrick left, and there's only a 10-minute gap before she calls Patrick back while he's still at CVS. So, for it to all work in the time frame that he is gone, she would have had to start killing the kids by this point. Like, she would have had to. Like, it just doesn't make sense that she wouldn't.

Because she doesn't have long. So why did she take off the Apple Watch? And how come her heart rate was so low if she was already implementing this plan to kill the children? Or she'd had a psychotic break and she was killing the children. What does this tell us? I really know, because none of the experts del did to this quite bizarrely. is a low heart rate indicative of psychosis.

Lindsay Clancy did say that she felt totally disconnected from her body and like she was just watching herself do it. But then again, it doesn't necessarily mean psychosis. As another expert does explain sort of very vaguely, it could also have just been the brain and the body's way of dealing with a traumatic situation. So I don't know. But I think the flight climb data shows to me that she is alive after Patrick goes to CVS. She's walking from the basement, probably up to the kitchen where she gets the knife.

calls Patrick back and then she walks up the second flight of stairs after she finishes the call with him, which is where she tries to end her own life. And I think because she goes back upstairs and she never comes back down and the phone is that we know of, the children are probably already in the basement and they're probably already got the bans on them. That seems like the most likely scenario. Next, the defence called Dr. Lappasata, a forensic pathologist and medical examiner. She was there to explain the injuries that Lindsay had sustained. Dr. Labasata insisted that Lindsay's injuries were not consistent with someone who climbed and shimmied out of a window, but with someone who had jumped and landed headfirst on frozen ground. Lindsay's C1 vertebrae

had essentially exploded. Several other vertebrae were broken and so were every single one of her ribs. And again, just to point out, Lapasata doesn't say anything and nor does any expert who looks at this crime scene say that it looked like Lindsay was pushed out of the window. It looked very much like she jumped. Lappasato also explained something that had been confusing a lot of people. Lindsay's body temperature was incredibly low when she was taken to hospital. She was at 82 degrees Fahrenheit or 28 degrees Celsius. That is moderate to severe hypothermia.

How could Lindsay have got so cold so fast? This made the Patrick-Didic crowd very excited, because he must have pushed her earlier than he said before he left for CVS, even though Lindsay's phone and Apple Watch kept moving inside the house while Patrick was gone. I've even seen people say that he took the Apple Watch with him to CVS. Yeah, I've seen that because Lindsay, like I said,

Lindsay takes the Apple Watch off. Why she takes it off, I don't know. Some people say it's because it was nefarious. She didn't want the Apple Watch to track what she was about to do, which is kill the kids. Or people said that she took it off because she was cutting her wrist and the Apple Watch was in the way. So she just needed to get it off. And I don't know.

But I'm like, the Apple Watch was found in a drawer at home. And sure, you can be like Patrick came back and placed it there. And then he took it to CVS with him to call himself pretending to be Lindsay. But like, again, I just, I don't know. I don't know why. And the phone is what is showing the flight climb data, to be fair, because she's taken the watch off. but she's still got the phone on her. But that means that somebody was still alive walking up and down the fucking stairs.

So what does it matter if he took the Apple Watch with her? Lindsay is still alive at home. This is what I mean. You can be like, even if he took the Apple Watch with him, I don't know why, but even if he did, someone is alive at home with Lindsay Clancy's phone walking up and down the stairs. So what is it? This is what I mean. Sure.

I can't prove that he didn't, but I don't need to because the phone proves that she's alive moving around at home. Also, this is another thing that I wanted to add in. people are talking about this phone call and also other things in this case, as if Patrick is on trial for murdering Lindsay, saying things like what we just talked about, that he took the Apple Watch to the store to phone himself and set up an alibi to make it seem like she was still alive. When, you know, like we just discussed,

her iPhone was still moving around at the house while he's on CVSCC TV. So that doesn't make any sense anyway. But the point is that the people saying these kind of things online are implying that we only have his word for the fact that the phone call took place. Even if you don't believe that the police verified this in their investigation, i.e. they didn't check that there was an outgoing call from Lindsay Clancy's phone to Patrick. Lindsay Clancy is not dead. We also have her word for it. Because she has also said, yeah, I phoned Patrick back after he phoned me when he was in the store to ask about the medicine.

All of this, we're just taking his word for it. It doesn't make a sense because Lindsay is agreeing with Patrick Clancy's version of events. And I know some people will pivot and be like, well, he drugged her and manipulated her and she's just going along with it because he's some sort of mind-melting Sven Ghali. But also, what about the evidence? Because that also agrees with most of Patrick's version of events. So the thing I don't understand is why people are so willing to dismiss Lindsay Clancy. She's saying that happened. I'd at least understand and the skepticism if Lindsay Clancy was denying ever making that phone call, but she's not. Why are people so insistent on robbing Lindsay Clancy of her agency and her voice and her story?

And Dr. Lappasata explained that Lindsay's extreme temperature drop was because she had wet clothes on. The temperature outside that night was in the low 30s. That's minus 1 degrees Celsius. And it was dark, so there's no sunlight to warm her. And Lindsay was lying there unable to move on cold, hard, snowy ground. And having a severe spinal fracture would have disrupted the thermoregulation of the lower half of Lindsay's body. So there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for how she got so cold so quick. Day 16 brought defence witness Dr Zaisel.

He saw Lindsay Clancy 10 days after the killings. And up until then, no one else had really seen her. So her parents weren't allowed to see her, Patrick wasn't allowed to see her, no one else was allowed to see it. The only people were doctors, nurses and the hospital chaplain. Now, according to him, Lindsay was confused. And what she really wanted to do was speak to Patrick, to tell him that she loved him and asked how he was. So, Dr. Zaisel said that he let Lindsay use his phone to call Patrick,

but he said, you have to keep it on speaker and I have to stay in the room. So Lindsay called her husband and told him that she had killed the children because a voice had told her to. To be clear, the first time he calls, he obviously doesn't recognise a number, so he doesn't pick up, then they try again the next day and this is when they have this conversation. So this is the first time we're hearing about the voice, like, publicly. It's not the first person she's told. We're going to talk about Sheila Kavanaugh, the chaplain in a second.

But she tells Patrick that that is why she killed the children. Apparently she doesn't say anything else about the children. And while this doesn't prove anything, I do wonder how that would have made the jury feel, because the Commonwealth do say to Dr. Zaisal, did she say anything about the children? and he has to say no. Lindsay also told Zaisel that the evening of the murders was the first time she heard the voice

and she also said that after she murdered the children she never heard the voice again. And Dr Zaisel, as I said earlier, called this a command hallucination. And in his opinion, he believes that Lindsay Clancy was psychotic at the time of the murders and the voice that she heard

was so overbearing she just could not ignore it. He also said that the same thing psychotic state could have started earlier in the day, and that a person in psychosis can still make a plan, carry out ordinary tasks and interact as normal. So making phone calls, ordering food, remembering to tell Patrick to buy medicine, none of those things rule out psychosis. What's tricky is that Zizel basically says that psychosis doesn't affect a lot of things, including your intellectual abilities, your capacity to act normally, to plan, to speak, to function.

psychosis just removes your ability to know right from wrong. Yeah, I get it. I do get. Yeah. And obviously it doesn't always. It doesn't always because we also said that psychosis doesn't immediately mean that. But he's basically sitting there asking the jury to believe like, she could have done everything. She could have done everything she was doing that day at totally normally,

but it would have removed her ability to know right from wrong. And I think for a lay person, that could be quite a, you know, a tough hill to climb up. So you're saying nothing else was affected but that. I don't know. It's just worth pointing out. I'm not saying that's what I think. And I'm also not saying the psychosis immediately removes your ability to know right from wrong. But I think it's a fair question to ask, you know. And there are just so many therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists testifying at this trial and they don't all agree on what psychosis looks like. They don't even agree on what to diagnose Lindsay Clancy with. So really we can only come at this by asking the questions that a lay jury would, right? I'm not sitting here asking questions saying this needs to be medically interrogated. I'm just saying this is what an ordinary person might think. So yeah, I don't think we can just ignore the concerns and questions raised about the voice.

And I think people are also finding it hard to believe that it happened once and only once. And that that was only during the time that she was murdering the children. Even a defence witness, Dr. Resnick, who we will talk about more in a second, said that he would, and this is a quote on the stand at trial, he said that he would doubt the truthfulness of someone who claimed that they obeyed a one-off command hallucination. So not saying that you hear it one-off, but that you would obey a one-off command hallucination. So if Lindsay Clancy was faking, wouldn't it make more sense for her to say that she had heard the voice before and after? Does she just not know enough about hallucinations too accurately like? Because, you know, Dr. Resnick is an expert. That's why he's saying this. Maybe she just doesn't know that. I don't know. Maybe she also doesn't say that she heard it before or after because she doesn't want to explain why she never told anyone about it or wrote down that she was hearing voices.

Also, she never described having, and this is important, a medical expert brings us up at trial. Lindsay Clancy never described having any coping mechanisms to manage the voices. Most people who hear repeated voices in their head find ways to drown it out or to ignore it. Lindsay never mentions this. Again, is it just because she really didn't hear the voice before until the night of the murders? But if so, how plausible is it, as Dr. Resnick said, that she obeyed immediately? Also, another Commonwealth expert, who again we will talk about in detail, expert Gregory Sathoff, would later explain that he has never seen a case where a command hallucination has been a one-off, and then he has also never seen a case in which following

through on the actions of that voice was curative. So the voice is telling her to kill the kids, she kills the kids, and then the voice immediately stops. He's saying, I've never seen that. But again, we'll come back to this and also never say never, but also why have you got experts if you're not going to listen to them? It's complicated. Chaplain Sheila Kavanaugh was a big witness for the defence. She worked at the hospital and started visiting Lindsay from day one. Apparently, the first day that Lindsay spoke to her, she said,

I'm so glad my children are safe. To which Kavanaugh says that she replied, your children are safe. They're with God in heaven. But is that what Lindsay meant? Impossible to know. It is impossible to know. Also, I get it.

The chaplain's job is not to interrogate. She's not there for that. She's there to make her feel better. I get that. But like something about that just makes me feel so uncomfortable. Like Lindsay Clancy is saying, are my children safe now? And she's like, yes, they're safe. They're with God in heaven now. Is something a bit guttural to me? Because it makes me feel like she's validating that thinking that murdering your children is okay as a way to ensure their safety. Maybe it's just how it made me feel and nobody else feels that way. But I didn't like that. I think it could also. I know. what you're saying, I think it could also be used to like illustrate that Lindsay has no idea

what's fucking happened. Yeah. This exchange raises an obvious question. Did Lindsay think she was doing the right thing by killing her children like Andrea E.8? What doesn't quite work there is that a month before the murders, Lindsay told Patrick and her mum that she was worried about hurting her children. So then at that point she knew that that was a bad thing. When did the shift happen in her mind from a fear of hurting them? When did that turn into saving her children by sending them to God? Lindsay wasn't a particularly religious person. Nobody described her as such.

She went to mass at Christmas, which is, you know, my mum calls them supermarket Catholics. Christmas and Easter, so you do. Is it reasonable that Lindsay's delusions would be God-based? Again, I don't know. I don't know. And we are going to compare this to Andrew Yeats. I know some people are like, you shouldn't be comparing it to Andrew Yeats.

Each case is their own. And sure, of course. But people are comparing to the fucking Chris Watts, which makes it kind of less fucking sense. So I'm going to compare it to Andrew Yeats. So I will save it for that. But I think it is worth, you know, just remembering these things that we're peppering.

So Lindsay also told Chaplin Cavanagh about the voice. though, and this is interesting, the reason this comes up is basically the Commonwealth kind of accused Dr. Zaisel, who is a defence expert and a friend of Kevin Redington, of going into hospital, speaking to Lindsay Clancy and planting the idea of the voice in her head, right? Because that's the first time that it kind of gets officially recorded that she's talking about her voice. And Zizel is like, why would I do that? He's also respected doctor. I'm just like, why would he go in there and plant this idea in her head? So basically the reason the defense want the chaplain to testify is because she says that she told me before she even met Zaisal

that she had been hearing a voice. Now, one of the things that the Commonwealth calls up at trial is the fact that Kavanaugh didn't write that down though. She didn't make any notes regarding a voice or anything like that. And Kavanaugh's like, well, I'm not there to take notes. I'm not the police. I'm not there to, you know, figure out what's going on. But the Commonwealth are like, but you did write down a lot of other things, like how on the 13th of February, so just three weeks after the murder. She, Lindsay, and this is a quote from Chaplain Cabinor's journal, she feels she has gained strength and agility,

and she feels deserving of this, given recent events. Which again, it's not going to play well with the jury, I don't feel like. Then on the 16th of February, the chaplain wrote down in her journal, she feels uplifted at the thought of her upcoming release to Spalding, a centre with an excellent reputation. Lindsay was also apparently exercising in the hospital, using a yellow exercise band as part of her rehab. Again, I'm not sat here saying that any of these things point to guilt or innocence or anything like that.

I'm saying how is this playing with the jury? I agree, agree. I'm with you. Not well. And so, now we are getting to the last few days of testimony, and this is what we have all been waiting for. The experts on psychology and psychiatry talk about what was really going on. The night Lindsay Clancy killed her children. And as per our previous email, the expert system is enormously flawed. And this case is no different.

Both sides presented their own experts who come to totally different conclusions. And what that means is that it falls to the jury to decide which expert is more experty. In the line-up there was Dr Philip Resnick. This time he was a defence expert, but it's encouraging to see that previously he had worked for both the state and the defence. That's always a very, very good sign. You don't want someone who's just like a shell for one side or the other. Totally. And he does both.

And he'd worked on the Jeffrey Dahmer case and the Unabomber for the state. And he actually turned down the defence for Casey Anthony, but worked for the Andrew E.8's defence team. He sounds like a moral man. Yeah, he's exactly the kind of fucking witness that you want to be calling up, right? Dr. Redsnick testified that he believed that Lindsay Clancy was experiencing psychosis, including command hallucinations and delusional thinking. And he thinks that Lindsay did lack the appreciation of the wrongfulness of her actions

and she was unable to conform her behaviour to the law. Dr Resnick claims that Lindsay was having command hallucinations and experiencing a delusion of influence. She felt that her body was taken over by an external force where she didn't have control over her body, like she was a puppet and someone else was pulling the strings. So under the influence of this command hallucination and under the grip of this idea of influence,

Lindsay Clancy was, according to Resnick, unable to confirm her actions to the law. Lindsay Clancy was unable to do the right thing. Dr. Resnick also claimed that her motivations were tied to altruistic philicide, philicide, obviously being when parents kill their own children. In her delusional mind, Lindsay Clancy believed that something terrible would happen to her children if she killed herself and left them behind.

So she killed them out of love. And in her distorted delusional mind, she thinks that she's doing the right thing. But the question, I guess, worth asking, is what did Lindsay Clancy think would happen to her children without her? She never wrote that down. And all the doctors can really say from their interviews with her is that she thought they would suffer without her.

And look, this isn't really what the trial is about, but I think it's a valid question. Is that a justifiable reason to kill your children, even with delusional thinking? It doesn't really feel to me like it's strong enough. Like Andrew Yeats thought her children were going to go to hell and suffer eternal damnation in fire and brimstone. But then again, I get it. Like, we don't have to understand why Lindsay Clancy did this. That's really not the point because she does have a delusional mind.

It was just something I couldn't help but feel wasn't adequately explained to me. Like what was the strong enough motivator for her to feel like she had to kill her children? Like if you're going to say it's altruistic philicide, what is the altruism? What is she saving them from? And I didn't really understand that. And upon cross-examination, Resnick did have to concede that he had written articles about how people often ignore command hallucinations, especially if it's dangerous to follow the orders. And he had written that command hallucinations are very easy to fake. and that it is especially likely that command hallucinations are not real

when the individual claims to have obeyed upon the first time hearing them. Which, I get that that doesn't move anyone's case forward, right? But it makes me trust him more in his diagnosis of Lindsay because he isn't hiding anything. Like he's just saying, I am a balanced medical professional. and this is my opinion of this, of what has happened to this woman. Dr. Kirk Helibrun, a prosecution expert, and their best witness by far, rejected acute psychosis,

but agreed that Lindsay was mentally ill. He assessed Lindsay over three days, and he said that everyone thought that she was a great mum, a great wife, a wonderful person. So why did this happen? Not a lot of typical motivations fit. Lindsay wasn't abusive or angry at her children, she wasn't after money or fame or attention, she didn't hate them or want to get rid of them.

So Dr. Heelbrun said he was left with two remaining possibilities, a psychotic break featuring acute psychosis with command hallucinations, or that it was a suicide attempt, coupled with, as Dr. Resnick, the defense expert, also stated altruistic filicide. And it's not necessary to have a psychotic break to commit altruistic filicide. We can look at a whole list of family annihilators who kill rationalising to themselves that their family is just better off that way. And in those cases, you also have a narcissistic killer who doesn't want to be seen to have failed in front of their families in some sort of way. But it's not a million miles away either. There's the selfishness of deciding who lives and who dies and then also believing that you know best.

Yeah, and that's the thing. I'm not saying that family annihilators are altruistic filicide like perpetrators. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that in cases like that, that's the mentality that they use to rationalize what they do. So if like a man who's lost all his money and put his family into financial ruin, he's like, I'm just going to kill you all because I don't want you to suffer. But it's also because I don't want you to uncover my shame that I lost all of the family money

or whatever. And like Dr. Kirk Calibran uses the example of like altruistic philocyte. I think it's him. Maybe it was Resnick. One of them, I think it's Kirk. He basically says like, imagine there's a Holocaust. Imagine you know there's a Holocaust coming and you won't be able to protect your children so you kill them to avoid them going through that. And I'm like, okay, I get it.

But that's a very extreme example to use that isn't applicable here. And I get it. In Lindsay's mind, maybe the situation of leaving her children behind, Patrick remarried, some other woman is bringing up her children. They're not doing it the way she would have wanted. That is as bad as her children going into a Holocaust because she's got a delusional distorted way of thinking. But yeah, it still felt like it felt like a hard job. for me. But I'm not saying it's enough, but I think that's the struggle. And also by that reasoning, Gerbils committed altruistic filicide, you know? Yeah, I guess not his kids, but he'll be

like altruistic murder. And again, but then you'd have to say he didn't know right from wrong, he wasn't able to control. Yeah, it's very, very, very complicated. And I get that. So yes, Let's continue with Dr. Kirk Halebram. So he also raised concerns that Lindsay seemed to be quite selective when it came to remembering things. At first, he said that she claimed not to really be able to remember anything at all. But then later gave him within the three days, not later as in weeks later, within the three days, later gave him a very detailed account of what happened. And the other thing that's quite confusing with Lindsay is that she also tells different doctors,

different versions of what happened that night. Hellebron also pointed out that in his experience, it was unusual for someone to only hear the voice once, and that too, very specifically only during the commission of the crime. He said, if somebody told me that, I would be quite suspicious of them. Again, not saying it never happens, but he's pointing it out from his experience. Hellebron explains that he thinks that Lindsay Clancy wanted to die. All her life, she had accomplished anything that she wanted that she could,

through hard work and discipline. But now nothing was working. She was exercising, she was eating right, trying the meds, going to doctors, going to therapy, but she just kept getting worse. And so I think she was like, what else can I do? And I think it was wearing her down. That's what he says. And Hellebron also says that he does indeed believe that Lindsay Clancy has bipolar too. And that on top of the drugs that were exacerbating the situation as well as the lack of sleep, he agrees that she definitely had a mental defect, but he didn't agree that she did not know the wrongfulness or illegality of her actions or that she couldn't stop herself. And that takes us to the Commonwealth's last rebuttal witness. Gregory Sarthoff, the senior psychiatrist with the FBI's behavioral

analysis group. It's a big name, he's got a very impressive resume, he's treated thousands of people with psychosis, and he has worked with up to seven women who have killed their children. Lindsay Clancy told him that she first heard the command hallucination on the night of the murders when she was standing at the fridge, getting some chicken nuggets out for the kids after she got off the phone with Patrick. But Lindsay had told other people previously,

and included in her civil suit, a different story. That she heard the voice as soon as Patrick left the house at 5.15pm. And it's a strange discrepancy. Yeah, and like I said, there can be inconsistencies that mean nothing, there can be inconsistencies that do mean something, and we'll talk about this particular chicken nugget inconsistency. When Sathoff says this, Reddington goes off at him. And again, look, he's there to just poke holes in the things that the Commonwealth are saying. And he basically points out that there are other mistakes that Lindsay has made in her retelling of events. Like, for example, he says that she told Sathoff that she had taken the knife that she had cut her wrist with and slashed the screen across the bedroom window before opening the window and jumping out.

But it turns out there was no screen there at all. So he's like, if she could make up something like that and say something's that inaccurate, maybe she's just inaccurate about when exactly the voice started. Like it doesn't mean anything. And he also points out how Patrick got things wrong and how there are inconsistencies in Patrick's story. Again, this made people like on the fucking internet go bloody crazy. They were saying that, oh my God, look, even Kevin Redington, Lindsay's defense is now saying that Patrick is lying because he actually killed the kids. But Reddington never says that. I think what I got from that is that, and I wish he had been more clear.

He's very vague and I wish he'd been more clear. But I think all he's really saying is Patrick made mistakes. Lindsay made mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. Everybody's story is inconsistent. Yeah. So like, that doesn't. prove that Lindsay was lying to you on purpose. Do you know what I mean? I think that he frames it

in a way that threw some fuel on the fire on the internet for sure and I wish he hadn't done that. But yeah. And also outside the courtroom that same day, Kevin Reddington, obviously being asked about what he meant by this, openly dismissed the Patrick Clancy theory and was like, that's not what I'm talking about. But it wasn't clear in court, to be fair. This is another thing I had to add in. People are pointing out all these like little inconsistency in Patrick's story or challenging him on things that happen. But when he explains it, they're like, so what, we're supposed to take your word for it, are we?

No, of course not. Also, look at the evidence. One example of this is that Lindsay Clancy's pill-pottles were found in his truck. People immediately started claiming that this was proof that Patrick was drugging Lindsay because he was in possession of some of her medication. He said, I was told by prescribers when Lindsay's medication was changed, please do not flush the pills down the toilet or throw them in the bin because they're hardcore pharmaceuticals.

Please bring them back into the hospital and we will dispose of them properly. And he said, so that's why the pills were in my truck. A likely story, yells the mob online and we've all seen the comments. But what does the evidence say? Well, Lindsay Clancy's talks report shows that she only had the drugs that she had been prescribed in her body to therapeutic levels. Only one drug was even sluiting. slightly elevated, and that was after a suicide attempt involving a claimed drug overdose.

So where's the evidence of a secret drugging? Anyway, Lindsay told, Sathoff, that the voice was increasing in intensity, telling her, you have to kill yourself, it's your last chance, you have to kill the kids, or they will suffer. The voice didn't tell her what to do specifically, but she led Dawson downstairs to the basement, and then Cora, and finally, Callan. Sathoff stated that Lindsay had planned the whole thing by sending Patrick out of the house for as long as possible. But was it really as long as it could have been? If it was, why did Lindsay call the pharmacy to check that they had the medicine?

Why pre-order the food? Maybe you could argue that she ordered the food so that Patrick couldn't get out of going to Plymouth. And then she added on the medicine run, because it would add time and he just wouldn't refuse a request like that. I don't know, maybe. Yeah, again, I don't know. And like, because I think what I said with the timings for getting them out, it's kind of not really that long and it's also not really that short. Like, nothing really makes that much sense.

But I don't know. I buy the thing that she was like, I have to, because I'm like, why pre-order the food? Be like, order the food when you get there. That will add some time. He could have easily come up because she texts him like half an hour for 45 minutes before dinner. And then maybe he could have come up and been like, no, I can't really be bothered. let's just like order a pizza or something and she can't have him do that.

Like if she is in the mindset of I have to do this now, then she has to ensure that he is going to leave. Maybe. I don't know. But basically, Sathoff said that Lindsay Clancy story about the hallucinations in his opinion, in his expert opinion, didn't add up.

He thinks that Lindsay Clancy absolutely wanted to die. She was lonely, hopeless, and felt like a burden on her family. But he also said that she, she felt she had to kill the kids before she killed herself. And while he said it was a serious attempt to take her own life, he felt that there were elements of the suicide attempt that did not indicate psychosis, like the fact that there were hesitation marks on her arm.

Also, he thought that it was odd that Ativan was the only drug that had helped Lindsay, given that it's not an antipsychotic. And if she was suffering with psychosis, why is that the only one that helped is his point? But then, for me, it's also like maybe, but also. Also, her biggest complaint was always a lack of sleep. And if the Ativan was helping her sleep, it may have just made her feel better and take the edge off some of the psychosis and stop it getting worse and worse and worse.

I don't know. I don't know. But that's what he said. No, I think I'm with you. I think that it's pretty common knowledge that the fastest way to send someone around the absolute bend is to deprive them of sleep. It's also quite strange that when Reddington cross-examines Stathoff, he challenged him on the fact that Sathoff claimed that Lindsay had crushed up the pills that she took. Apparently, Lindsay had told him that she crushed the

pills and put them with some lemonade to swallow. And Stathoff said that Patrick reported seeing a wine tumbler in the bedroom with residue in it. But that residue frustratingly was never tested. But to Sathoff, Lindsay putting the pills in lemonade to take the bitter edge of was another sign that pointed away from psychosis. And when all this is being said, Reddington on cross-examination goes fucking mad again, asking Sathof, what evidence was there that she'd crushed up the pills? What evidence is there? Was there any residue found on the surfaces? No, there wasn't. Were there any instruments found that could have been used to crush pills? No, there weren't. Was there any mess at all? Indicating anything like that, indicating that she had crushed pills? No. And that is true.

But I was kind of listening to that me like, but what are you saying? Like, Lindsay told Sathoff that she crushed the pills. So you're saying she didn't crush the pills there and then, because there's no residue. You didn't find any residue other than allegedly in the lemonade cup, but that was never tested, so we can't really say that for sure. And so if you're saying there's no mess, Reddington, then you're basically pointing out that she must have tidied up, which doesn't sound like someone who's in psychosis to me. It actually makes me wonder if Lindsay Clancy knew that she wouldn't have long once Patrick left. So did she crush up the pills before, put them in the lemonade, get it all ready to go, and then tidy up so Patrick

didn't accidentally see it before he left the house. Like, I don't know. That's kind of, I didn't even think that before, but that's what Reddington made me think because of what he's saying, you know? Yeah. And then there was evidence from Sathoff that Lindsay absolutely knew right from wrong. She points to the phone call in particular and the fact that she called Patrick back. Lindsay had the presence of mind, therefore, to stop, ignore the command voice, call her husband, act normally, and not alert him to her distress. Is that why she changed her story from saying that she heard the voice as soon as Patrick left to later saying she heard it after this call? And this is the chicken nugget problem, right? So she's saying, at first to some doctors, before Sathoff says, well, that doesn't really make sense.

how could you stop and the call is very important, blah, blah, blah. She says, I heard it as soon as he left. A 515, as soon as he left, I heard the voice. And I immediately started acting upon it. When that is challenged and he said, well, it's very unusual to me that somebody in the middle of a psychotic break would stop, act normal, take a call and then go back into that state when, like, she's killing herself. Or say she didn't go back into that state and she killed herself because she realized what

she'd done, maybe. But that isn't the narrative. The narrative then shifts and she says, Patrick left. and then I was at the fridge getting chicken nuggets out and then I had the call with him and that's when I heard the voice because now she doesn't have to explain how she took a call in the middle of a psychotic break because now it started after the phone call. The question around the chicken nuggets, I'll just mention it because obviously people will. This is when people again are trying to point out inconsistency's his and Patrick's story

because he says when he left to go get their food because the food they were ordering was only for him and Lindsay that he saw when he left Dawson sitting on the sofa eating a bowl of chicken nuggets and green beans. So then people are like, well, he obviously left much later than because if Lindsay had the psychotic break when she was standing at the fridge door opening up to get the chicken nuggets, then how did he leave as Dawson was eating cooked chicken nuggets? And I'm like, I'm sorry, have you met children? You don't think she could have given him some chicken nuggets. And then he was like, I want some more bloody chicken nuggets. And she went back to get some more. Like, again, what does that inconsistency prove?

Yeah. It doesn't matter to me. But, you know, whatever. So, let's wrap this up, shall we? What do we think happened? It's a tough one. It's a tough one. I think Lindsay Clancy is clearly very, very unwell.

Does she have a mental disease or defect? Absolutely 100% yes. At the time, I 100% believe that. And I can also absolutely believe that she was suicidal. She told people repeatedly that she was. But I do, I'm not saying I struggle with the command hallucination. I think if I was going to have any doubt, not even saying beyond a reasonable doubt, but any doubt, it sits around the command hallucination, right?

Because listening to those medical experts, and they came like in the 11th hour, up until then I was all on board, like not guilty by reason of insanity, I was fully born. Sathoff and Hillebrun are the ones that made me question that, even slightly, right? And I think it's because this idea of the command hallucination, in their opinions, only appearing once and specifically during the commission of the crime, feeling very unusual, very atypical. Now, Andrea Yates, for example, because I am going to pull her into this, talked about hearing commanding voices for months, for months before what happened, happened.

And also, Andrea Yates tried very hard to resist. I'm not saying Lindsay Clancy didn't try hard to get better. We have established that she absolutely did. But Andrea Yates tried very hard to resist the voice, even trying to kill herself to stop herself from harming her children. And her distortions were very wrapped up in religious delusions because of the environment she was in, because of the preacher they were working with all of that stuff.

And it was very much focus around saving her children from hell. Here, Lindsay Clancy was shown by everybody to be a very loving, devoted mother, right up until this happened. So I guess my question is, how did she obey a voice telling her just once for the first time to kill her children that quickly. Like, the experts themselves said command hallucinations can be resisted,

especially when they are telling somebody to do something that goes so against their values. And I think this is important because people on the internet seem to think, oh, if Lindsay Clancy had PPP or she was psychotic, then she's legally insane, right? Because we think psychotic immediately means that you have no control. And that's just not necessarily true. So I think that's the thing I struggle with is there's no mention of it before. So I have to accept that it happened for the first and only time, as she's saying on the night she killed. But is it plausible that she listened that quickly and obeyed that quickly when it's something so unbelievable like murdering your three children?

I'm not saying she didn't. I'm just asking the question. That's the thing that I struggle with. Yeah, I'm with you there, I think. and I suppose like if for argument's sake say that you know she is faking a level of mental illness to get a legally lower bar for responsibility like that's what she's going after I think if she was faking it I think she would say that she'd been hearing it for longer yeah and that it was this slow I don't hear it. build and the fact she doesn't say that kind of makes me think she's telling the truth. And again, and I'm not saying I disagree with you. My only question about that, if, you know, play devil's advocate, is does she not say that

because she can't prove it because she never told anybody or wrote it down anywhere? There's no evidence that she did. So maybe she felt, and again, maybe it comes back to the fact that she just doesn't understand hallucinations at what. We had to wait for medical experts to explain why it's atypical that you would only hear at once. Maybe she just didn't know it. Maybe she's just like, I'll say that I heard it then.

And also there's all the stuff, again, this isn't a huge thing, but one of her colleagues said that they're obviously labor and delivery nurses. And apparently one time they had encountered a woman who had been wanting to kill herself or hurt herself when she was pregnant. And after that woman was being treated and whatnot, her colleague, a woman named Margaret Hamp, I think, said to Lindsay, gosh, it really makes me think of Andrea Yates. And Lindsay Clancy said she didn't know who Andrea Gates was. And her colleague Margaret told her. And apparently Lindsay cried and said, I can't imagine. I can't believe a mother would hurt her children like that.

And I guess some people have been like, that's where she got the idea. That's where she got the idea to later say that, you know, she was hearing voices, blah, blah, blah. And it didn't match up in the way Andrews did because it wasn't genuine. I'm not saying I think that. Yeah. But that's the question mark there is she can't maybe, maybe she realizes she couldn't say she heard it before because she'd never said it and maybe she didn't understand the importance of saying she'd heard it before, if you know what I mean. Yeah. She's faking, which I'm not saying she is.

I just really don't know. And honestly, I think that, look, if she is found not guilty by reason of insanity, we are recording this before the verdict is out. If she is found not guilty by reason of insanity or, you know, the equivalent of Massachusetts, she will be going to a psychiatric hospital. She will be going to a facility, probably for the rest of her life because she killed three children. Now, they can't put her in... I've seen people being like, if I found out she was going to go to a facility for 25 years and that's what they sentenced her to, I'd be fine.

They can't sentence her to 25 years in a facility because it's cruel and unusual punishment to put a not insane person in a psychiatric hospital. But I don't think they will ever let her out. Andrea Gates has never been allowed out. And there's no good solution. There's no good end to this story. It's a fucking horrible story.

Three kids are dead. And I don't think whatever happens, Lindsay Clancy will be allowed out. whether it's in prison or whether it's in a psychiatric facility. So I'm not necessarily massively like, this has to be the answer. They have to find her guilty. I don't really feel that way. I'm like, it's all just sad.

No, it's so, so sad. And whatever, whether it meets the legal requirements for diminished responsibility, like, for me, I hope she does go to a psychiatric hospital. rather than a prison. I think that's where she needs to be. So I do want that to happen for her for that reason alone. But it seems very obvious to me that even if the command hallucination wasn't there, she killed her kids because she was really fucking ill. And like that can also believe that. That's it. Like I don't I don't think I understand why the command to hallucination comes into all of it and like and maybe it is because she read up on Andrea Yates and she's like well that's

what Andrea Yates said and then she got diminished responsibility like maybe but like at the heart of it she killed those children because she was really unwell and I just I want her to go to hospital I don't want her to go to a prison yeah and I think that's it is like and then people will be like well there's some element of like mentalness and anybody who would kill children like that so then should they all just go not into a prison? And I'm like, again, that's why the rules there are about like, did she know right from wrong in the commissioning of the crime and was she able to control herself, which are very difficult questions that the jury are going to have to figure out. And I don't envy them. And I honestly don't know what would happen.

I do believe they've added in, it was very early this morning late last night, so I didn't get to look into this properly because we have to record this today. Is that I think the judge is going to add in an extra possibility that the jury can vote for. for manslaughter. But we were add an update into here once the verdict is read and I'll explain it then. So overall, I think I probably do agree that this could be termed an altruistic filicide and both the prosecution and the defence do end up agreeing on that. But again, what fate did she think she was saving her children from that was worth taking their lives over? I don't think anybody has satisfactorily answered that question. And maybe they can't.

And maybe even Lindsay can't. I don't know. But I think, yeah, both sides have agreed at the end that it's altruistic phylliside. It's just that the Commonwealth say it was altruistic filicide with no psychotic break and she was in control of that decision. And the defence say it was altruistic filicide with a psychotic break and she wasn't in control. That's it. That's the difference, essentially. On the balance of probabilities, I think it really is the most probable that Lindsay Clancy had a

psychotic break. But it is tricky when Lindsay changed her stories about when the voice started to try and fit in with the least pushback perhaps and explain how she managed to call Patrick back and act normally. I also have to say that there's no history of violence, no history of any issues, and everyone was on her side. Everyone was on her side. And that has to account for something too. I think that Lindsay Clancy was likely suffering immensely. And you can, you should, we all can and should have empathy for a person like Lindsay Clancy in this situation. But I also think it's dangerous to make excuses for murdering three children, which is where I feel like the pendulum is sort of swung with one spectrum of people who are talking about this on the internet. Because it's dangerous for children, but it's also dangerous for people with mental health conditions.

I think we can only hope that this case raises more of. awareness of the conditions that can affect women after they give birth. And hopefully we can have a more serious conversation about postpartum mental health and also mental health treatment in general, rather than just wait every 10 years for something horrible to happen. But I think with this case, it's kind of a weird combination of oversimplifying things like mental health and psychosis and people being like, well, if she had postpartum psychosis, she must therefore be innocent because it's not guilty by reason of insanity.

and simultaneously over-complicating things, like little inconsistencies or looking for workarounds to evidence that doesn't favour, like, a certain theory. So yes, the trial is over, but like I said, we're recording this before the verdict goes out because I'm going on holiday. But don't worry, I think it will probably be out today, you know? And I'm going to take my mic with me,

and when there's an update, I'll just record it, and then I'll send it to the team, and they can just add it in here. Yeah. Because we can just wrap this case. up that way. Well, I've got an update. So the Lindsay Clancy case, the trial is now officially over. We are recording this on the 7th of September. I can honestly say this was one of the most like complicated, convoluted, bizarre ends to a trial that I have ever seen in 10 years of doing this.

And normally I'll be like, people will be saying this on the internet. I'd be like, that's not quite normal actually. Like I wouldn't, I wouldn't get that worried about it. No, this was fucking weird. This was so weird. Now ultimately, for anybody who's been paying attention, who's been following along, it's not the outcome that probably anyone was really hoping for because it has ended in a mistrial. So I'm just going to run through a very quick, like, timeline of the jury deliberation situation. So on the 27th of August, the judge sent the jury out to start deliberations. On the 1st of September, they sent their first note back to the judge saying that they were deadlocked.

Now the judge, as you would expect, told them to keep going. Go back in, try again. But the very next day, on the 2nd of September, the jury came back out again and said, in a note, we're deadlocked. We've tried our best, but we're deadlocked. And the judge tells them to try again. And this is where it gets complicated, because essentially the foreperson of the jury sent a note to the judge

saying a member of the jury is not a member of the jury is not able to follow the instructions on reasonable doubt. And look, we can't know anything for sure. We can't know anything for sure. But a lot of this took place, like, in notes that were not read out to the public, and also in sidebars between the Commonwealth, the defence and the judge. So we don't have a lot of this information. But we can make certain inferences based on who's pushing what, right?

And I suspect, and what most people suspect, is that the jury deadlocked 11 to 1. So 11 people wanting, or at least being satisfied, in finding Lindsay Clancy, not guilty by reason of insanity, with one holdout juror refusing to agree. So basically saying that they were not convinced, that the Commonwealth had convinced them that she was not insane at the time. And they're not allowed to say in that which way around it is because it could be seen as undue influence, right? Or if they did, the judge isn't allowed to tell us which way around it is, though I think they're not allowed to know either. Now, basically, what Kevin Reddington said after this, which is why we can assume it probably was 11 to 1 in favor of Lindsay Clancy, is that he basically started calling on the judge to get involved, to do something about this. And what the judge did at first was he carried out individual voir direes with each of the jurors. So basically, all he's doing at this point is speaking to each of the individual jurors, re-instructing them on what reasonable doubt means.

and basically asking each juror to make a statement to him under oath that they understand what reasonable doubt is and that they are applying the law as they should be. Now, the note, as we understand it, goes on to say that the juror had made statements acknowledging doubt but refuses to, quote, apply it to the verdict as the law states. And so, this four person said, so we cannot come to a unanimous verdict. Now, after this happened and after the judge did his individual voir dire, Kevin Redington, the defence attorney, wanted the judge to take it a step further. It kind of kicked off in court with Kevin Redington, basically accusing the judge of glossing

over this issue, which I don't think is very fair. But, you know, Kevin Reddington is, as we have said, he's certainly aggressive when it comes to his tactics. He said that he wanted the judge to investigate the one holdout juror. And by investigate, he wanted him to drag this juror in front of the court under oath and berate him essentially on why he was a holdout, like what it was that his thinking was. Big Red. No. That's not cricket.

You can't do that. That is massively. That would be unbelievable for a judge to interfere, to intervene to that level with jury deliberations. That is unbelievable. Because people are saying like, one, hold out jurors. what Kevin Redington was implying was that he says like, oh, this four person is so brave to come forward, speak for these 11 jurors, call out this one holdout juror and essentially be demanding action and saying that this person acknowledges doubt, but they can have doubt because the judge

actually already said the decision you have to make isn't based on the elimination of any possible doubt because that's not possible in any scenario. All you can do is be working towards beyond a reasonable doubt. And that person can acknowledge doubt, but still say, that they're not convinced enough that she was insane at the time. And I get it. The burden of proof isn't on the defence. It's on the Commonwealth. But like, I just think we don't know that the four person who's saying this is correct, if you see what I mean. Just because they're saying that this juror is refusing to apply reasonable doubt to the verdict, we don't know that that person is right in their interpretation of that, if you see what I mean, because we can't delve further

into it. So Kevin Redington demanding that this holdout juror be questioned by the judge. If that was done, it would be incredibly coercive, incredibly coercive. If that person then changed their verdict and said, okay, fine, I side with you. We now have a unanimous verdict. That's just not how this game is played. Like, that is ridiculous. And imagine for a second it was the other way around, because we're making inferences based on Kevin Redington's persistence that this holdout juror is called out by the judge.

So we can assume that this holdout juror is the one not going along with not guilty by reason of insanity, right? Imagine if it was the other way around that all of these people were like, she is guilty. And there was one person who was saying, no, I think she's not guilty by reason of insanity. And the Commonwealth was like, you need to call that person, that drew her forward by the judge and have them berated until they change their opinion to say guilty. That would be an automatic appeal immediately in any world. The court system is already, you know, beyond a reasonable doubt from the Commonwealth, the burden of proof. like it is already very weighted in many senses towards the defendant.

Like you can't then just demand that this one juror is hauled in front of the judge and berated, which is what Kevin Redington essentially wanted. So the judge, very rightly, said, well, no, I'm not fucking doing that. That's not happening. And basically Kevin Redington accused this juror because of the individual Wadir that had happened, where he was questioned about whether he was, you know, understood reasonable doubt. All of this was willing to apply it to the law, etc. accused this juror of lying under oath, which is like a pretty big accusation to also.

Now, the thing is, right, there are alternate jurors who could be called in and they would have to start deliberations again. But to do that, this holdout juror would need to be removed. You can't just remove somebody because they're disagreeing with the majority. The reasons for which you would remove a juror in like a valid way is that there would have to be evidence of, let's say, an inability or a lack of like desire or willingness by this juror to deliberate. So say the jury had gone in to deliberations, it had been a few hours, and then 11 of them are like, yeah, not guilty by reason of insanity. This one person, regardless of what they're saying, they're refusing to participate, they're refusing to deliberate.

They're like, I know in my mind what the answer is. I'm not talking to any of you. Then, yes, you could say this person is refusing to take part in the process. They're refusing to deliberate. And that could be grounds to remove them. They were in there for four, five days. And there is no evidence and nothing in that letter that says that this person refusing. to deliberate. So that immediately goes away. This seems to be down to a difference of opinions between

the jurors. That is not grounds for misconduct to remove a juror. It's literally just not. The other reasons you could remove a juror is things like you had proof that they were watching TikTok or on social media reading about this case. They'd been talking to a journalist. They had been, I don't know, talking to their partner about it or their grandmother about it, getting their opinions. Like they were under like third party influence, like external influence, something like that. There's no evidence of that. And if there is, no one said it. Like the four person hasn't said it.

The only thing the four person is saying is that they're basically refusing to accept what we're saying to them, which is that Lindsay Clancy is not guilty by reason of insanity. So I think disagreeing itself is not an issue when it comes to this. You have to prove that this person is deliberately involved in some form of misconduct or deliberately refusing to participate in the deliberation process of which there is no evidence. So like I said, the judge refused it. And basically, the judge sent them in again to deliberate one last time after this note. And this is the final time the judge is allowed to do this under Massachusetts law. The jury went in. But a few hours later, they were like, no, we can't,

we can't do it. This can't be done. We're done. And I think the jury did try their best. They sent a note to the judge saying it's with a heavy heart that we are unable to reach a verdict. And so the judge was ready to declare a mistrial. But it still wasn't over because Kevin Redington was not having it. And he decided to basically make an emergency appeal. And he requested a stay from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. And the judge gave them one hour, one hour to make this happen to see if they could get the stay. And they got it.

And not only did they get the stay from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, they also got a hearing. And this hearing is basically where the Commonwealth and the defence would speak to one of the justices of the court, put forward their case, argue their case for why, you know, this jury needs to be removed and they need to proceed with this trial, not start all over again. And basically, Kevin Redington said all the things that we said, that basically that this person is refusing to apply the laws of like what they have been instructed around reasonable doubt to the verdict. They are refusing to do. do that and they've acknowledged doubt and yet they're still saying this. Now the Commonwealth said,

no, this is a dispute between the jurors. There's no evidence that this person lacks impartiality, has any sort of bias that wasn't already rooted out under any sort of external influence or has an inability or is refusing to deliberate. So essentially, at the end of that, the stay was lifted. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts was like, nah, you know what? We don't see a problem here and the stay was lifted. And with that, Judge Sullivan was efficient. allowed to or was able to declare an official mistrial. A very, very wild end to this story, but I think it's probably only just the start. So what will happen next? I don't think the Commonwealth are going to drop this. And so I think they will go after Lindvaclancy again. And chances are

there will be another trial where we will go through all this all over again, probably next year. Again, like I said, it's an outcome that nobody really wanted because now, It's going to cost millions to do another trial. That's a lot of extra court hours. All those witnesses are going to have to be called again. And if you think about this, this case was so confusing in certain parts, like in terms of the stories that were told, in terms of which version to believe of like things that had happened that day,

the timeline, etc. Now we're going to push another year down the line. I just think this is going to become very, very complicated next year. But it is what it is. Like, this is the system and that's how it works. I hope that the Commonwealth learned some lessons from the mistakes they made in this first trial and do a better job in the next trial. I think Kevin Redington, he's already said he's going to defend Lindsay Clancy again and let's see what happens. Now, I don't know, I think a lot of

people are either very on the side of this one's holdout juror or people are very anti this holdout juror accusing them of basically having caused this mistrial, et cetera, et cetera. I don't know. I think it doesn't mean much to me that people are like, this holdout juror expressed some doubt but still ultimately landed on the side that they didn't think that Lindsay Clancy was not guilty by reason of insanity. As I said, I think you can have doubt. It just can't be beyond a reasonable doubt. And in fact, them saying they have some doubt makes me feel like they did listen and that they did deliberate and they did think about it. And just because they disagree with the majority, I don't know. I just think like that's not a reason enough to be vilified. And it's just like what has run

through this whole thing of people, you know, being pro or anti this. You have no idea what was even said. You don't know if this person is an intelligent person. You don't know if they're a stupid person. You don't know if they're good, bad, ugly. Like, you don't know any of those things. The jury was also shown a lot of information and evidence that we didn't get to see. We also know that to be true. So we also know that this trial is incredibly polarizing online. So is it that much of a shock that amongst 12 people, the one person didn't agree? Like, is that that shocking? Like it's not that shocking to me. Okay, let's assume that the system that, you know, we have called multiple times not fit for

purpose, but let's just assume that no one on the jury saw any social media. That we sort of have to assume that because that's what the rules are supposed to be, right? I think like the way it's worded of like they are not applying beyond a reasonable doubt within an actual legal context makes it sound like the juries have been like, But what if it was Kapalamine? Do you know what I mean? Like, it's like it sounds like what is being echoed throughout all of the like social media commentary on this. Like, yeah, but what if? And so I think I assumed wrongly because I have no information, but my like initial reaction to that was like, oh, well, they're just going to be being like, oh, but the discrepancies.

You know what I mean? Like, well, I don't fucking know if that's true. No, we don't know. We don't know what convinced this person or has failed to convince this person that Lindsay Clancy was not. guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And I think personally, and again, I know this is a case where people have a lot of strong opinions, but personally for me, and I said this at the start of episode one that we did on this, I said that I had changed my mind multiple times throughout the course of the, like research that I did for it. And honestly, if I was that on the trial, I don't know.

And again, like I said, the jury had, were shown more evidence than we were. There were certain things that were not shown to the public and for which I am honestly quite grateful. But I mean, like, at the start, when I just read about this case, when I just read about it, I read about everything Lindsay Clancy went through in the lead up to it, all the help, she tried to get everything like that. I was like, oh my God, like, yes, I'm going into this with an open mind. Of course I am. It's going to be a trial. But in my mind, I was already thinking. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't already thinking. Yes, she probably was insane at the time. Like, that's what that makes sense. It feels like another Andrea Yates. And then as the trial went, I was like, okay, I'm convinced. I'm more and more convinced.

And then I was like, what the fuck is the Commonwealth doing? And then I was like, oh, the defense. And then I was like really it was in the last two days. It was in the last two days when what I had been waiting for, the medical experts to take the stand and speak as to what they believed had happened. That's what I was waiting for. And honestly, that's when for me, I ended up in a place where I didn't feel like I was confident one way or another. And the thing is, yes, I accept that if I was on the jury, the burden of proof is on the Commonwealth. And so therefore, if the Commonwealth hasn't proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that she was sane at the time, I, I would have to vote not guilty by reason of insanity. So that's what they're saying about this

person. They're saying they have expressed doubt. And if they have doubt, the Commonwealth has failed to prove it to them beyond a reasonable doubt. So therefore, they should agree with us and say, not guilty by reason of insanity. They've expressed doubt, but they're still refusing to apply reasonable doubt to the verdict. And therefore, they're still saying, no, they think she's guilty, which isn't correct. But again, we don't know. We don't know what actually was said in that, in that situation. We don't know how people are interpreting these things. It's not like a legal expert has sat in there, listened to all of the discussions and then said, yes, that person is not applying reasonable doubt to this. We're taking the word of lay people, again, who are all

emotionally invested in this because they've sat through a horrific trial that has gone on for weeks and weeks and weeks. And then they've sat through like 40 hours of deliberation. And people might use this as an example, like, look, this is why jury trials don't work. I'm like, nothing's perfect. But I still firmly believe in jury trials and I firmly believe that these people did try their best to do their duty. I think they wanted to get an answer at the end of this, I just think they couldn't get that. But what would I have done in that situation? Do I have doubt? What do I think of the whole Lindsay Clancy case? Because again, it's changed again and again and again. And I've really thought about this since we've finished recording.

If I really focus on the thing that makes me doubt that Lindsay Clancy was insane, I do not doubt she's mentally ill. Let's just make that very clear. I do not doubt that she is mentally ill. But mental illness and even postpartum psychosis or even just psychosis or bipolar, depression, whatever it might have been that was going on with Lindsay Clancy, they are medical terms. The legal term of insanity is not a medical term. It's a strictly legal term. And under that fits only very certain strict specifications for what that means, right?

It means that she either didn't know what she was doing or she didn't know that what she was doing was morally or legally wrong. Or in Massachusetts, the additional bit, the mental defect that she had was such that she couldn't stop herself from doing it, i.e. there was a compelling command to lose nation or a voice that made her. And again, as we heard from the experts, that's not always. the case, you can resist those voices. I think the thing for me that made me doubt, even in the slightest bit, and yes, the doubt is there for sure. I can't say one way or another what actually

happened. I don't feel that strongly. And I don't mean that to sound like I don't care. I mean, I don't know. Yeah. Because if you look at Lindsay Clancy's journals, right, comparison to someone like Andrew Yates. Andrew Yates, repeatedly, she told repeated people, she told her parents, she told her husband, she told her doctors, I am hearing voices. I'm hearing voices. They're telling me to kill the children. She tried very hard to resist those voices, even going so far as to trying to kill herself from doing it, to stop herself from doing it. If you read Lindsay Clancy's journals, and I did actually go away and look again at them after we recorded episode two, there's no mention in there ever of symptoms that sound like psychosis. There's symptoms that sound like paranoia, depression, suicidal ideation,

hopelessness, negative thoughts, all of those things are very present in there, like extreme depression it feels like. But in her private journal, she still doesn't talk about any symptoms that kind of seem like she's slipping into a break with reality. And then the fact that she doesn't tell anybody about that. And again, we talked about all the reasons why someone might keep that secret. I completely agree with you. I get all of that. She was in a very precarious situation. But then it comes to the point that after the murders, she is then like, I heard this voice. I heard this voice once and only once during the commission of the crime. And then I never heard it again. That to me again, based on what some of those doctors, especially,

Dr. Halberin said about the idea that it's very unusual, very atypical that a person hears that voice once and only once, and then acts on it immediately, especially when it's such a extreme act, like murdering your three children. And then also the thing that Dr. Sathoff said, which is that as soon as it happens, as soon as you follow through on what the voice says, that it's curative, that the voice disappears. That's also very atypical. I can't ignore those things. Those things are the things like the bits of grit that are sticking in my mind about questioning it. And then finally the part about, for me, Lindsay Clancy, at first saying that she heard the voice as soon as Patrick left the house. And then when she's questioned on how it was, again, atypical that somebody would be able to stop, ignore the voice, make a phone call, seem totally normal and then go back to that state. She then changes the story and says it happened after she put the phone down after that call with Patrick. That, I'm not going to lie. That does make me question it. What would I have done if I was jury? Would the Commonwealth have proven it to me beyond a reasonable doubt? I don't know. And if they didn't, I have to, if it's, if it's, It's not moral certainty.

I have to say not guilty. But those things rub in my mind, and I can't help but feel as somebody who's not, thank God, got the duty of that jury to probably now fall in line with the idea that I think Lindsay Clancy was incredibly sick. I think she was very, very depressed. I think she got herself into a position of I am going to kill myself today. It has to be today. I need to do this.

I need to get it over with. I need out. And I think she made the decision that she wanted to kill those children because she could not leave them behind to have to face life without her, to have to be raised without her, trust other people to do it, maybe even the feeling of somebody else doing it, it just didn't sit right with Lindsay, the guilt. And maybe she thought, they'll go to heaven and I won't have to worry about it and it will just be done. And I think she did it based on that. I don't personally think that she was insane. So that's maybe why I don't find, I don't feel like

I want to villainise this holdout juror even though I really don't want to fucking go through a trial again next year, but also who am I? Like, they're the ones I have to go through the trial again. It'll be a fresh jury, surely, no? Sorry, I mean they as in the country and Patrick and land like everybody else involved in this whole situation. Got it, got it, got it. But yeah, that's where I land. After starting in one place, going on a lot of journeys with this, I think that is where I now land based on the expert evident. And Lindsay Clancy's own words, her own journals and the things that she was saying, I don't think she was insane. I think she was very, very mentally ill. But it's not illegal in that state to kill yourself, but it is illegal to kill your children. You don't get to

make that decision. However, you can rationalise that or however you might have thought it was for the best because of your mental disease. And I can't move past that. So I don't blame this juror if I'm, if I'm perfectly honest. Some people are saying they don't think there'll be a trial. Maybe the Commonwealth will take a plea deal. I don't know. It's a very high profile case. I don't know if they will do that. And it's the other thing that was fucking crazy, two other things that are fucking crazy just to finish off this update, sorry, is did you see the woman who was trying to film the jury, trying to see the jury to intimidate them, basically being like, you know, I'm going to put your faces all over the internet. That woman has now been arrested. Yeah,

fucking good. And then very, very tragically, in the last couple of days, a woman who had been online talking a lot about the Lindsay Clancy case seemed highly, highly engaged in this case very much on the Lindsay Clancy is not guilty by reason of insanity. Poor Lindsay Clancy, maybe even Patrick Clancy. did it. I don't really know. In Illinois, she's now been arrested for killing her two-year-old son. Oh my God. Yeah, it's all pretty horrific, really. And I really think that like, so, so, so few of the people I have spoken to about it are aware that the trial isn't about whether she did it or not. It's about why. Like, it's insane to me. My sister was like, do you think she did it? I was like, yes. Like, what the fuck? It's the person. It's the person. It's insane to me. I mean, my sister was like, do you think she did it? I was like, like, yes. It's the

problem when it's like people are skim reading the headlines and don't know exactly what trial is about. And I think that this whole concept of what is mental illness in a medical sense. And the fact insanity is a legal definition that I have, I'm not going to define again because we've talked about it at fucking ad nauseum. But like they are separate concepts. You can be mentally ill and you can be not insane. You can even have psychosis and still not be declared to be legally insane. Like there is such a distinction between these two. things. And I also think one of the things that's so fucking frustrating is looking at the comment sections of some of these things. And people are like, she never even confessed to this. She never even confess. I'm like, there is a fucking trial going that's finally thankfully ended about whether she's not guilty by reason of insanity or not. Do you think we would have got to a trial two years after the murders? If Lindsay Clancy hadn't told multiple people that she killed them, including her own fucking defense counsel, there's people literally on the internet commenting saying she never confessed. Patrick told the police that she did it.

Yes, he did. And then the police would have interviewed her. And then the prosecution would have talked to her. And then the defence would have talked to her. And she would have had to stand in front of a judge and enter her fucking plea. What became so apparent to me over the weekend. What is so sad is like, yes, we are all Lindsay Clancy. That could have been any of us. But that has been completely missed by this like that what everyone should be talking about is postpartum psychosis care, not being good enough. And we should all be learning about how it can just happen to anyone and it doesn't mean you're a bad person. But X, Y, Z, like all of those things, nobody's talking about those things. And it is really, like, I've found it to be very upsetting. This whole case has been very, very upsetting.

And the discourse around it has been very, very low level. This is fundamentally the problem when you're trying to deal with a topic of this magnitude in excessively short form content, right? where people are just like snippet, snippet, snippet, snippet, snippet, snippet, snippet. And it just is like, that's not the truth. It's really scary. It's really scary the number of people that are falling for this kind of nonsense. And reading the comments and like, yes, I'm glad to also see the counter comments where people are just like arguing back. But I'm also like, oh, I can't, I can't deal with this.

But yeah, it feels like too much of this started to feel like did Lindsay Clancy do it or not. That's not what the trial was about. the trial was about was she insane at the time or not. And I didn't think I would land here, but I have landed, I think, finally, at a place where I don't think she was insane personally. And people don't have to agree with me and that's absolutely fine. And I think you can still have empathy for Lindsay Clancy. But in my thinking now that I think she chose to do that, she chose to take those three children's lives of which she had absolutely no right to do. If she wanted to kill herself, that is always an incredibly tragic thing to lose anybody.

by suicide, let alone a mother of three children who's leaving that, who are, those children would have suffered without her. She was right about that, but she had absolutely no right to take their lives. I think we can have empathy, but you also need accountability. We can have justice, but yes, we should have mercy. And like I said, in episode two, you know, I don't, I'm not going to go out and campaign against it if Lindsay Clancy is found not guilty by reason of insanity and put in a psychiatric hospital for the rest of her life. But that's just personally where, where I think I'm at with this case. I just, I want her to be in hospital, man, not in prison. That's the only thing I care about. I think the sort of semantics of what is legally insane is not, not top of my list.

Like, I just, I just want her to be in hospital. Again, yeah, I'm not going to campaign against it. Anyway, that's it, guys, whatever. Like, it's done. It's a mistrial. I understand why it happened. People might be angry. They might think this shows that the jury system is broken or the system is broken. I don't think it does. I think it shows that one person could hold onto their, you know, They claim their sincerely held beliefs and who am I to question whether they're sincerely held or not? I don't know how I would feel in that case. But I am very sad that we are going to have to do this again next year. But let's forget about it until then.

I actually really wanted to end this episode with what Patrick Clancy wrote about his children in that open letter. And he spoke about each of them separately. But I honestly couldn't. I couldn't even copy and paste it into here. It was making me so, like, I listened to, I listened to somebody reading it out while I was, like, cleaning the house. And I was like, I literally had to stop because I was crying so badly. It's horrific. Not horrific.

What he says. What he says is unbelievably beautiful. And I just think, obviously the people that think he's a psychopath and that he's just lying, nothing will change their minds. I will leave a link. I know it would be more powerful if we read it, but I don't have the strength. I'll leave a link to the open letter that he wrote. And maybe we can put it up, maybe we can put it up on our social media

so people can read it there. But yeah, it was really, really heartbreaking. Especially when he said that, Callan probably held on for three extra days to try save him. And I was just like, fuck it out. That's enough of that. Let's go on holiday. Oh, man.

Yeah. So sad. So. sad. It really is. It really is. So sad. Oh yeah. There you go. That's that, guys. That is a case of Lindsay Clancy and

Cora Dawson and Callum. Oh my God. I'm a mess. I need to go home. Let's leave. And we'll be back next week for something that hasn't got dead babies in it hopefully. But you never fucking know. I can't remember. Oh, it has got dead baby in it.

Oh, no. say it's Courtney Bartholomew oh no good luck with that guys we'll see you later goodbye goodbye