Rotten Mango - The Lindsay Clancy Case: Everything That Led to the 11-1 Mistrial & Everyone's Reaction

Episode Date: September 15, 2026

A jury room is supposed to be where a case finally comes together. Instead, it can become a pressure cooker: strangers locked in a cramped space, arguing over evidence, sending desperate notes to the judge, and trying to reach a decision that could change someone’s life forever. That pressure is at the center of the Lindsay Clancy trial. After hearing the evidence, the jury reportedly remained deadlocked 11–1, leading to a mistrial and leaving the public with more questions than answers. What evidence divided the room so completely? What made one juror refuse to budge? And what happens if the case goes to trial again? But the conversation did not stay inside the courthouse. Online, the case has sparked an entirely separate investigation: arguments over guilt vs. insanity, scrutiny of the people involved, theories about Patrick, discussion of the viral Bratz doll video, and crowdsourced searches through records, family ties, and perceived inconsistencies. In Part 1 of this multipart series, we unpack the courtroom tension, the deadlocked jury, and the internet theories shaping the public narrative around the Lindsay Clancy case.   Full show notes available at RottenMangoPodcast.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Bada being bad a boo. I would bet at least one full dollar that I will not make it into a jury deliberation room for the foreseeable future. But I imagine that it's akin to being a hostage in a bank heist. You have strangers cramped into a stale room day after day. The tension keeps building. And once in a while, you can send a note out. One note to a judge on a drug case reads, tension is high, nerves are afraid, all minds are not sound.

Then five minutes later, another juror from the judge. that same deliberation room sends another note that they think jury duty is worse than a prison sentence because at least someone in prison gets three meals a day and a free education. Jury rage and distress is very real and it's kind of scary to think about it. Justice will be dictated by people who are getting exhausted and are quickly heading towards distress. One New York court officer says they had to break up a fist fight before and once they heard jurors screaming so loudly at each other that other floors of the courthouse could hear that jury. It has gotten a lot better.

There's a lot more thought going into how to make the process smoother for jurors. Some courts give out booklets on how to debate while being courteous. Other courts are focused on how to make jurors feel more physically comfortable to help with any distress they may feel. So bigger deliberation rooms, better food, better snacks. But jury attention is, oh, apparently some courthouses even put the nicest clerks to deal with the jurors. Because they don't want jurors. Yeah, the most patient one, the most accommodating, the kindest ones. So, like, when they're deliberating, there's nobody else in the room, right?

Except 12 of them, I see. You have the court officers outside. Outside, but not inside. Do they get paid? No. Well, some trials you do. Oh. But it's like $40 a day, I think.

It's for travel and food. But no, you don't get paid. It's not like paid time off, right? Right, right. And it's not time off, but, yeah. Jury attention is unavoidable during deliberations. especially when it's not a unanimous front from the beginning. That's why notes keep getting sent.

One note to a judge, unrelated to this case, reads, The atmosphere in the jury room has turned poisonous. Deliberations are irreparably compromised. Another note reads, One juror is not participating at all in the deliberation process and sleeps most of the time. Can something be done with this situation? For one trial, there was one holdout juror,

meaning everybody else agreed except this one individual. The rest of the jurors insulted the holdout, threatened them, and then eventually resorted to the completely legal and logical route of checking a chair at the holdout. They missed, and I don't know if this is the fact that they missed, but the chair thrower immediately apologized to the holdout juror. But another juror unhappy still threatened to punch the holdout. Yeah, okay, side note, the holdout wanted to hold a pharmaceutical company liable for knowing about the effects of one of their drugs and not putting the warnings on the labels. Yeah. Yeah, but the other 11 did not want to hold them liable.

was like a whole thing. She had to write a letter to the judge inside the courthouse, inside the jury deliberation room, like some sort of bank heist hostage, and she wrote, I am being intimidated, threatened, screamed at, I need a police escort out of here, I'm afraid to come back, I cannot in good conscience vote for a case because of threats, which is arguably more admirable than another group of jurors that decided that they were just going to flip a coin to see if they could convict a man for killing his girlfriend. Now, to be fair, that coin flip was not between guilty and not guilty. That coin flip was between murder and manslaughter, but it landed on murder. It did not stick, though. The judge had to declare a mistrial after finding out about the coin toss. The jurors were

confused why that verdict was thrown out. They said, well, we were going to be a hung jury anyway, so we thought, what do we have to lose? This is, if someone is deciding my fate with a coin, it better at least be a fucking quarter. For one of the Bill Cosby trials, tensions were so high that a male juror punched a concrete wall. Another juror said, I think he broke his pinky knuckle. If we kept going, there definitely was going to be a fight. They had five sheriff's deputies at the door, and they could hear us, and they kept coming in because they thought we were already fighting. Also, the room was so small for those deliberations, the jurors said, we were losing our goddamn minds. One juror says, people couldn't even pace. They were literally just walking in circles where they were standing

because we were losing our minds. People would just start crying out of nowhere. We wouldn't even be talking about the case, and people would just start crying. when juror says the best way to describe being trapped in a jury deliberation room where people are not agreeing is you're locked in a room with a banana and a nut and you've got to get out of there it's not very comforting news and recently the topic of jury deliberations and the tension inside those rooms has become a national topic all because of lindsay's highly publicized trial many of the jurors have come out since to publicly give almost tell-alls if you will of everything that has transpired inside that jury deliberation room. Jurors are describing the sharpness of the knife that they wanted to re-examine during deliberations. Jurors from that trial are describing how one of the jurors took the murder weapon, if you will, an exercise band, and wrapped it around a water bottle.

What knife? There was a knife used to make the wounds on, yes. Now, the internet, more or less, has been doxing certain jurors as well as digging up criminal history, criminal backgrounds, wondering if they lied to get on this jury, every one of the juror's personal lives has become an important factor for the internet. The jurors for Lindsay Clancy's trial were deadlocked, 11 to 1, resulting in a mistrial. Jurors have come out publicly talking about that one holdout juror, and the internet has docks that holdout with very strong opinions on whether this holdout is a villain or a hero. And with that, there's so many questions that still remain.

is there going to be a second trial? What will the new jurors decide then? Exactly what during the trial led the jurors to be so dead set in their positions that they refuse to budge. And that's just the trial side of things. There's also the internet side of things where it's not just a debate about whether or not Lindsay Clancy should be found guilty, not guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity, but everyone digging into the judge's family tree theories about other parties that were potentially involved, people looking into property deeds and titles to find something suspicious. This is part one of a multi-part series digging into the case of Lindsay Clancy.

We watched every single second of trial. We tried to sift through all the social media discourse to give you an easy-to-understand compiled version of events and online conversations. We're covering the trial, the online theories, the infamous Bratstall video, the recently dubbed Patrick Did It theories, and all of the social media investigations occurring within this case. So with that being said, we would like to thank today's sponsors who have made it possible for Rotten Mingo to support postpartum support international. Their mission is dedicated to promoting awareness, prevention, and treatment of mental health issues related to childbearing in every country worldwide.

This episode's partnerships have also made it possible to support Rotten Mingo's team of dedicated researchers, and we'd also like to thank you guys for your continued support. As always, full show notes are available at Rotten Mingo Podcast.com. This case has really heavy themes of mental health conditions like postpartum depression, psychosis. However, the details of the case are not representative of these particular diagnoses and no generalizations should be made from this case about these conditions. There are mentions of self-exit and taking the lives of others, particularly children and infants. We may mention various opinions, speculations, comments, all from the public about this case. These are not representative of our own and nor are they legally confirmed.

Everything we used in research for this case is publicly available information. so please keep in mind that statements quotes maybe summarize condensed or shortened for brevity. This will be a multi-part series and there might be individual additional disclaimers, but there's a lot to disclaim in this case. And one thing that I will say is certain people who have been reacting to this case have lost all nuance. I don't know what has happened. But it's almost become if you even point out something about one party or the other party, that must mean by default that you believe the opposite thing to be true.

In this, we're just pointing out everything that we noticed and that the internet has noticed throughout the trial and throughout this case unfolding online. But for now, please watch with discretion, take care, and let's get into it. South Shore Hospital in Massachusetts is a level two trauma center, which means they do 24-7 trauma surgery. So you have access to neurosurgery, orthopedics, anesthesia, radiology, emergency medicine, intensive care. They can care for very serious life-threatening injuries.

they treat most major trauma. The only higher ranking for a trauma center would be a level one trauma center, which is comprehensive care for every aspect of injury with the greatest specialist depth. Side note, this isn't really like a safety rating or anything. It's just a matter of resources.

So just to simplify, if you need band-aids for your wound, a level one trauma center may have a lot more band-aid stocked, but you're still going to get the same band-aid. They're not going to give you more or a better band-aid than the one you need. They just have it if you need it. So again, not a safety rating, if you will. But Lindsay Clancy is wheeled into South Shore Hospital January 24, 23.

She's wearing taintop, jeans, socks, no shoes. She's got multiple lacerations, so cuts on her wrists and her neck. They're not deep enough to require surgical intervention. The cuts themselves would not be categorized as fatal, obviously. However, that's not why she's even in the ER. She has severe spinal injuries. A C1 burst fracture, otherwise known as a Jefferson fracture. The C1 is the top part of the spine where the skull, the base of the skull sits at.

And it's almost kind of like a rounded part. And a burst fracture means that it's not just like cracked in half. It's basically exploded. It's burst. And it typically happens when a heavy load comes straight down through the top of the head. So the skull's base is connected to the C1. and because of that pressure, the load on the top of the head, it fractures the C1. A Jefferson fracture most commonly, I mean, some ways to describe it is if you dive into shallow water and the top of your head hits the bottom of the pool,

if you fall landing on your head or in a car accident, if the car rolls and your head bumps the roof of the car while you're upside down, I guess. Those are, you know, the more common ways to get a Jefferson fracture. I actually have no clue. Now, that's actually not the most severe injury, Lindsay comes in with. She has her T5 and T6 of her spine is shattered. It's a three-column fracture, meaning the front, middle, and the back of the bone are all broken. It's akin to having a chair, and you saw through the four legs. Like, nothing is holding the spine up anymore.

This requires surgery to make the spine stable, but it does not repair the spinal cord. Nothing can really repair a spinal cord for injuries like that where it's a three-column fracture. The cord damage is done at the time of injury, which means there will most likely be no movement and no feeling below the level of the damage. So at T5, that typically means arms and hands will be fine. Trunk and stomach muscles will most likely be paralyzed. Legs will probably be paralyzed. Typically, you will lose bladder and bowel control, no sexual function. And this is typical.

So this is not the end-all-be-all. but 92 out of 100 people who have these fractures at that part of the spine never walk independently again but it's not 100 out of 100 right so we're saying like 90% chance Lindsay's even like bowel Trump movement are not well that is harder to say but she probably will not walk independently right right but even like her bodily now those are the biggest injuries and that's not the full extent, there's a whole slew of spinal injuries, all of which seemed to have contributed to Lindsay ending up paralyzed in a wheelchair. She also had 30 ccs of fluid coming out of her nose, which is about two tablespoons. The emergency personnel believed that could be CSF fluid, spinal fluid.

She also had an alarming body temperature at 82.1 degrees Fahrenheit, which is dangerously low, and it has become a very crucial part of this case, at least in terms of internet discourse. this 82.1 degrees Fahrenheit, just wait for the upcoming episodes because the amount of times I'm going to say 82.1 degrees Fahrenheit is astronomical. Hypothermia starts up below 95 degrees. Once you start hitting below 89 degrees, you usually have increased impaired consciousness, slow breathing, pulse, reduced, you know, shivering. And below 86 degrees, hypothermia-induced cardiac arrest becomes a major concern. And usually once you start dipping below that 82 degrees, mark, most patients are unconscious, no longer shivering, and could be heading into severe,

profound hypothermia territory, which would be survivable, but you really can't predict any long-term effects of being at that low body temperature. So it's tricky. The extent of the injuries and the different types of injuries is puzzling when Lindsay is brought into South Shore. She has cuts on her wrist and neck. She has major spinal issues, injuries. She wasn't in a car crash, And even if she was, it wouldn't explain the cuts or the fact that she's at such a low, dangerously low core body temperature. She's not in a profession that would explain it either, not that I think that there would be one, but she used to be a nurse.

She was a labor and delivery nurse at Mass General Hospital where she would even keep these detailed notes of the very first deliveries that she ever assisted with. The first entry reads, May 11, 2015. Spontaneous labor, admitted, admission epidural, no augmentation, pushed five minutes. Cora. So Cora is the first baby that she helped deliver, which she named the oldest of her three kids, Cora, after the first baby she helped deliver. So what the hell happened? She's a mom of three.

She's got three kids. Former labor and delivery nurse. The whole family lives in Duxbury, Massachusetts, which some locals have nicknamed Deluxe Berry. It's a very high-end community. So to be in this physical condition that Lindsay has brought in, clearly something very bad happened. She has to be med-flighted. South Shore is a level two trauma center. She has to be med-flighted to Boston's Brigham and Women's,

a level one trauma center. Where outside her hospital room, while she's connected to tubes and monitors, there will be two police officers stationed. Because Lindsay Clancy stands accused of killing her three children, five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson, an eight-month-old callum, and then attempting to self-exit herself.

October 24th, 2020. The New Yorker releases a narrative profile. October 24. This is the year of? The next year. So she's wheeled into the hospital. The date of the incident is January 24th, 20203. Now, almost two years later, October 24th, 2024, the New Yorker releases a narrative

profile on Patrick Clancy, Lindsay Clancy's husband and the father of the three children that were killed on January 24th, almost two years before. They were found dead in the basement of the Clancy home. And Lindsay Clancy was found outside in the backyard with cuts on her wrist and her neck as well as severe spinal fractures. The article title is A Husband in the aftermath of his wife's unfathomable act. It reads in part, Pat loves to talk about his children, but dreads having to explain what happened. On January 24, 23, he stepped out of the house in Duxbury, Massachusetts. to pick up his children's medicine and a takeout dinner order.

When he returned less than an hour later, Lindsay lay semi-conscious in the backyard, having cut her neck and wrist and thrown herself from their bedroom window, second floor window. She left the children strangled in the basement. Cora and Dawson were pronounced dead that night, and Callum was airlifted to a hospital where he died a few days later. That was from January 24th, 2023.

And so from there to October 24th, 2024, a lot has transpired. This case progresses really quick. The next day, January 25th, 20203, while Lindsay is still intubated in the hospital, the Commonwealth Plymouth District, releases a statement. Murder complaint issued for women in deaths of children in Duxbury. At approximately 6.11 p.m. last evening, Duxbury Police received a 911 call for a report of a suspected attempted self-exit of a female resident who had jumped from a window at a home. First responders subsequently located three children in the basement under the ages of five,

unconscious and with obvious signs of severe trauma. As a result of information gathered during the ongoing investigation, detectives developed probable cause and today sought and obtained an arrest warrant out of Plymouth District Court charging 32-year-old Lindsay Clancy, the mother of her children, with their homicides. Lindsay Clancy is being treated at a Boston hospital. As soon as Abel, she will be arraigned. On two, later three, charges of murder in the deaths of her children.

This is an act of an ongoing investigation by MSP and Duxbury Police. This is the day after she's brought into the hospital, which is kind of a contentious point for a lot of people online, because if Lindsay is in the hospital barely conscious, how did the Duxbury police investigate thoroughly enough to charge her for murder? However, others argue that the investigation doesn't just stop because there's an arrest warrant issued. However, the pushback to that sentiment is,

well, likely the investigation is headed down a particular path without straying much off of that particular path once there is an arrest warrant. And then two days after that, so two days after the arrest warrant is publicized, Patrick Clancy comes out with a GoFundMe page to help pay for medical bills and funeral expenses for his three children. But more than that, he publicly forgives his wife for allegedly killing their children. The statement in the GoFundMe reads in part, and we're going to go through the full statement later in a different episode. I want to share some thoughts about Lindsay. She's recently been portrayed largely by people who have never met her,

ever knew who the real Lindsay was. Our marriage was wonderful and diametrically grew stronger as her condition rapidly worsened. I took as much pride in being her husband as I did in being a father and felt persistently lucky to have her in my life. We habitually started every morning with a passionate hug, yielding a sigh of relief like we had each received the perfect medicine. If too much time had passed without a hug, she'd look at me and ask, did you forget? We mutually understood the reality that people can have bad days, but we stuck to the rule that when one of us got lost, the other was always there to bring them home, always. She loved being a nurse, but nothing matched her intense love for our kids and dedication to being a mother. It was all she ever wanted.

Her passion taught me how to be a better father. I want to ask all of you that you find it deep within yourselves to forgive Lindsay as I have. The real Lindsay was generously loving and caring towards everyone, me, our kids, family, friends, and her patients, the very fibers of her soul are loving. All I wish for her now is that she can somehow find peace. He says in the New York a piece, I wasn't married to a monster. I was married to someone who got sick. Patrick is obviously a very big part of this case, but he's also become a very big part of the conversation online, a very controversial piece of the puzzle that the internet is trying to piece

together, but this first episode is not really about Patrick. we're going to get into the depths of Patrick in like part two, part three, because there's just so much ground to cover in terms of what everybody has been saying online and then public statements that have been made and people pointing out discrepancies and all of those things. But this episode is more so getting the lay of the land before we start digging deeper. And usually, with most cases, no matter how complicated, the only way to dig is just straight down.

And sometimes, yeah, it does keep getting deeper and sometimes it just stops. But this one, I feel like you could dig sideways and find like. or you could get up and walk 50 feet and start digging at a random new site and find something else. Everything has become discourse in this case. Like the kind of potentially slightly atrocious bows that one of the prosecutors has been wearing in her hair has become discourse. Really? They are pretty big bows, I will say. They're not hair ribbons used to tie your hair.

They're like big bows. Some people have described and likened them to Disney bows. Others say they're like Jojo Siwa bows. Just like big, bold fashion statements. It does not appear that the prosecutor is a bow person. Maybe she is. I haven't been to her other trials, but like maybe she is. But she does not wear the bow naturally.

It does not appear to be like second skin for her. However, she makes it a point that the oldest clancy child, Cora, was a big fan of bows. Always wore bows in her hair. But that's also become a point of contention where people are kind of duking it out online. So you have people who absolutely hate Lindsay Clancy and want to see her rot in prison for the rest of her life. And they think that if one of the prosecutors can bring justice, that's all they want. And Lindsay deserves to see this bow in the prosecutor's hair for the rest of time. Now, the people who think that Lindsay either was suffering from postpartum

psychosis or perhaps they think that she's not guilty at all, they think that it's... Right, this is a lot. And the argument has been on TikTok that five-year-old don't put bows in their hair. You know who puts bows in their hair? Their mothers. Their mothers do their hair. They comb their hair. They put a big bow in their hair for them. So it's become, like, you can go down every argument and find that it's 10 layers deep. And then in the comments, everybody loses all depth and nuance and it just becomes a big fight. But the bow conversation has become a thing. She doesn't wear it every day, the prosecutor, but she does wear it frequently enough to the point that the internet has taken notice and has started photoshopping all sorts of different

bows in her hair. They'll Photoshop a bow the size of her head. There's some AI slop with her giving her opening statement with a bow that's bigger than her face. People are poking fun at how ridiculous it is. And I will say, some people think that it's ridiculous that the prosecutors are being ripped apart for their appearance, their hair grooming, their hair and makeup, even their clothing, with some arguing that with the trial, it seems like nobody is talking about the kids. And if one of the prosecutors wants to wear bows in her hair to keep the focus on the kids, then is that really a bad thing? One person says,

people only dislike it because they don't find her conventionally attractive. Others say, how is there something wrong with the bows if she's just trying to support the babies? One person says she wears them

in honor of Cora who loved bows. Maybe as adults, we can cut her some slack. However, I will say a good majority or a good chunk of people, they don't like the bows. They want the bows to burn or at least put them at the very bottom

of a drawer in the dresser to be forgotten. Don't bring the bows to court. One person comments, I'm a prosecutor. I would not be wearing a hair bow for trial. As a tribute to a young deceased victim, I have worn their favorite color, but I don't say anything about it.

I don't point it out to the jurors, and no one would have known but her family, the victim's family. You also have the extreme anti-bow groups, which think that not only is it distasteful, it feels like it just comes across cheap to the jurors, speculating, I think this backfired. It made her seem unprofessional.

I understand what she's trying to do, but it just came off gross. Others say it feels performance, and emotionally manipulated. If I was on that jury, that boat would have pissed me the fuck off. One person comments, the prosecutor in the Lindsay Clancy case is wearing this huge white Jojo-Ciwa-esque bow in her hair hair hair. To which someone comments, a mother murdered her three babies and you're bothered by a hair bow. Now, side note, I will say, I'm trying to do my best to keep my language as objective and neutral as possible when describing everything. But obviously, I'm human and sometimes

my opinion and sentiments sleep through. But I do want to clarify, in most cases, it's, easy to fall into the prosecution equals justice for the victims in that thought process because that is what it feels like in most cases. The prosecutors are defending the victims and the defense are defending, well, the defendant. And I don't know if this is one of those clean cut examples for this case. But I have seen people online who think that if anyone says anything remotely critical about the prosecution or the way they lawyer, that must mean that they think the defense is better. not better in the sense of lawyering, but the defense's argument is better,

and vice versa. People who critique the defense, that must mean that they agree with the prosecution and she should get life in prison. So you can critique both sides. Yeah, I just don't think that's necessarily true. I mean, both parties, the prosecutors, and the defense are doing some intense lawyering in this case,

and just because there is criticism towards one side does not mean you're aligned with the other side. So with that being said, I think the bow should have stayed home. I think perhaps they could have made a small appearance during closing arguments where there's like a clearly dedicated portion for the prosecutors to explain the bow in her hair for this final day of trial and how that relates to Cora. I have no way of knowing what jurors thought about the bows, but I can see the argument

that it could come off performative, but also maybe the argument that is it really that important in the grand scheme of things? I say maybe because there is research out there that jurors do subconsciously take into consideration the general appearance and grooming of counsel to form opinions. to form impressions, but how much of that impacts deliberations and verdicts limited and mixed research, right? All I can say is, it's not just like an empty conversation about a female prosecutor's attire for no reason at all. However, I do need to mention it, since it is a big topic of discussion. Now, aside from, obviously, the defendant Lindsay Clancy and witnesses, there are about four other

people in the courtroom that we really need to get familiar with. You have Judge Sullivan, which we're going to go in depth on Judge Sullivan later and all the online rumors that he's connected to Patrick in some sort of relational way. More on that later. But also one thing to know about Judge Sullivan is he did preside over another similar case that was overturned. Yeah, more on that later. But every individual in this case seems to add more complications to the online conversation. So you have Judge Sullivan. Then on the Commonwealth side, you have Jennifer Sprague. She is not the beau prosecutor. She's actually the more senior of the two. She's been at the Plymouth County's DA's office for over 20 years.

She supervises all homicide firearms and narcotic prosecutions out of the Brockton office. And according to the Patriot Ledge, she has tried 28 homicide cases and more than 40 superior court cases as well as hundreds of district court cases. She seems to be considered the better communicator of the two DAs, which again, I do want to preface. I think prosecutors have an incredibly difficult job. And without them, they're long hours. probably grossly underpaid long hours, our justice system would crumble. However, I think it's okay to point out certain luring styles and prosecutors that are just weird. And I would say, I would say the two prosecutors on this case are not the best.

Yeah, they're not incredibly likable. They always seem a bit on edge and underprepared. And sometimes their line of questioning just confused me in a bad way. It's also the way that their case in chief is presented. So the prosecutors, they go first. So the way, I mean, jurors aren't supposed to be online reading deep dives in this case, meaning the Commonwealth has to introduce witnesses in a way that essentially flows, that jurors get a surface level understanding than a deeper understanding.

And it goes deeper and deeper. And the way that the witnesses are called to the stand, obviously they're scheduling issues, but it just works in a way where the whole story, the through line is easier to understand. But they just kind of randomly bring in the medical examiner. And then, oh, here's this woman who like, worked at the gym that Lindsay used to go to. And then now back to an officer from the initial crime scene, it just felt a little bit disjointed. That has nothing to do with the case itself.

But again, you are talking about this is the presentation to the jurors who ultimately will be deciding the verdict. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I know, like, we're saying Karen Reid's case also is from Massachusetts. Are there any connection with this DA's office? Not the DA's office per se, but there is a strong connection with the Massachusetts state police. the MSP and the state troopers. Yeah. And there was one individual, I think, that worked on the case,

that also worked on Karen Reed's case, but he was not, he's not particularly, like, the most enlightening. Like, I don't think that he did big, I don't think he led the case. But there were multiple times where I had to double check names where I was like, wait, that sounds like a familiar name. There was this one guy who said that he was trained at the MSP under Sergeant Keefe, not John O'Keefe,

but there was another Keefe that testified at Keefe. Karen's trial. Connor Keith. So I was like, is this Sergeant Keith? But turns out it's Edward Keith. It was like a whole thing. So every single one I was like cross-checking, especially if they worked at MSP. But.

So not strong connection. Not strong, but strong in the sense of I think everyone in Massachusetts and probably nationwide has a very strong feeling of these trials that are coming out of Massachusetts and the investigation work. I think the strong connection is people are not happy with the low-level. In our opinion, my opinion, personally, low-level investigation work for the Karen-Reed trial and the Karen-Reed case as well as this case. Yeah. Okay.

Now, just last year, December of 2025, Jennifer Sprague, co-presented with a state trooper MSP at the National District Attorney's Association's prosecuting Homicide Training course seminar, basically helping train other prosecutors, which I'm sure a lot of people took a lot of issue with, considering, again, people really hate this investigation. into this case, they think it was handled incredibly poorly. However, Jennifer Sprague is probably the better of the two when it comes to communication and asking witnesses' questions. She is first chair. She does have a lot more experience in the DA's office. And then you have Buckingham, the prosecutor. She's the one that wears the bows in her hair.

She's also the chief of the family protection unit at the DA's office. And she is known on TikTok in part for saying, um, a lot. this is again part of the online discourse and that's why we're covering it not because we think she's saying a lot of um yeah just um so okay yeah and i i mean i would never bring it up if i'm also you know just to give another preface it is part of the online discourse that's why i bring it up i don't think it's as important as the actual facts of the case but both the prosecutors have been nicknamed by a lot on ticot as um and ummer because of the persistent use of filler words during pretty simple lines of questioning of their own witnesses i think everybody uses filler words and there could be neurological reasons that one cannot help but use filler words.

So I don't think it's nice to judge based off of that. But I do think when effective communication is part of the career, maybe it's fair game to be called out. I really don't know. And again, there are many out there that argue that Sprag and Buckingham are the ones in court trying to get justice for the three children. And they're pushing back saying, are we really going to call them um and ummer when they're the only ones trying to get justice?

And then of course people push back saying, what is justice to you? you know, is justice putting a woman who was suffering from postpartum psychosis and putting targets on other mom's backs? You know, it's a, we can go down for days. We can do this until the cows come home, right? Now, since we're on the topic of the DA's office, district attorney for Plymouth County is Tim Cruz. He's a Republican prosecutor who's held office for nearly 25 years. He's obviously not in the courtroom lawyering.

He is in the courtroom frequently, especially during like opening statements. But he does play a big role in this whole case because it's really his call. That's why DAs are very important because it's their call, whether they try the case, and what for. He could have tried this case for first degree murder, which is exactly what he did. He could have also tried it for second degree murder, or he could have negotiated a plea for a lesser charge. Now, side note, it's interesting because neither Patrick nor any of the grandparents on either side have publicly asked the DA not to charge Lindsay. And yes, everyone has their opinions on Patrick. But for Patrick's parents, Lindsay's parents, and for Patrick to not ask her to be charged,

not that it would be up to the family members, it's up to the DA. You're saying they didn't ask them not to charge? Yes, but all of the statements that they have publicly made lean towards they did not want Lindsay to be charged. Oh, okay, okay. I see what you're saying. So they don't say, hey, we don't want her charged. Yeah. But every statement that they have leans towards they don't want a trial, they don't want to retrial, they don't want to go through this again.

And again, you can have your sentiments about all of the individuals, right? But I'm just saying, like, this is the conversation with Tim Cruz. This is not a conversation about Patrick right now. Like, hold off. We're getting to Patrick. But this is a conversation about Tim Cruz. So he's the one that's like putting fist down. Yeah.

And I think netizens, you know, with the argument existing of postpartum psychosis, I guess a lot of netizens were shocked that this actually even did go into trial instead of a plea deal or even a second-degree murder charge. So what happens in the state of Massachusetts, if Lindsay had been charged with second degree murder, she can opt for a bench trial, right? So she can ask the judge who might, you know, and not, it's just a lot of people in Massachusetts

who are charged with postpartum crimes, if you will. Not that there's a lot, but they will opt for second degree murder. The DA will charge them with second degree murder and then they'll opt for a bench trial. Because it's a lot of medical testimony. It's a lot. And then to have the families go through it, it's a little, maybe it's a little more private with a bench trial.

But I guess a lot of people were just shocked that there wasn't even a plea deal. Which side note, Tim Cruz is running for re-election in November of this year, but he is running unopposed. So there is that. And while the internet has a lot of feelings about Patrick, a lot of legal experts have chimed in about Tim Cruz and the charges. Some are saying it's kind of weird because, so Patrick Clancy is not a hostile witness. So he did not interfere with the trial. He came, he testified, he wasn't being hostile when he was on the. stand and he hasn't said anything outright that he doesn't want Lindsay to be tried. But again,

all of his statements point to the fact that he probably doesn't. One former prosecutor voices out, I mean, at that point, when the victim's family isn't on board with the prosecution, you turn back and you say, well, who are you doing this for then? Now, I know I'm quite annoying. I just really hate misunderstandings, but once again, that's not me telling you that Lindsay should or should not be charged. That is me kind of showcasing the sentiment online, factoring in trials are expensive. Taxpayers are the ones footing the bill. People are opinionated. And a lot of legal experts think that she was overcharged. And that's a legal standpoint, not a personal standpoint of like, well, she was a mother who, you know, not a medical standpoint. It was just like legally they think

it was overcharging. Then on the defense, you have Kevin Reddington. Supporters call him Big Red. People who can't stand him call him mean and theatrical. So it's just kind of, he's definitely charismatic. I will give him that. And it's, he does seem to know how to hold the courtroom. He also has the advantage of being an old man, which means that when he gets annoyed, it comes off more cranky grandpa in the courtroom, whereas someone younger and especially a female attorney, regardless of age, would not be able to pull that off. So I do see discourse of the internet disparity between the prosecutors and Kevin Reddington. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. He's in his 70s, and apparently he has a shoulder tattoo that reads in Latin,

never represent an informant, which is a very professional, fancy way of saying snitches get stitches. I would argue that his reputation for having some dramatic courtroom displays is understated. He's quite the dramatic man. He loves a good blow-up staples printed out exhibit. You want a copy of it? Here's a billboard size of it. Let me put it on the stand.

He is objectively, I think, a great trial attorney. One of his biggest cases was he represented a woman who was, accused of killing her boyfriend by stabbing his eyes out with steak knives, which seems like a shut and done case. However, Reddington argued that the defendant and her daughter had been abused by this boyfriend for years and that she had suffered from delusional psychosis and PTSD that results all from battered woman syndrome because of the abuse. This was actually one of the first cases to successfully use this defense. And she was acquitted. Wow. So he's undeniably, I would say, pretty good at his job, but he is still a criminal defense attorney. So take that as you will.

I think Reddington is kind of getting the Allen Jackson, Brian, Steele treatment on social media where just because they represented one or two clients that people think should be found not guilty, they've kind of made these people out to be puppy saviors. And then netizens are shocked to realize that they actually have a whole list of other clients that you probably do want to be thrown in prison forever. So it's kind of this weird thing online that's happening. But alas, this is their job. I imagine they get paid a pretty penny doing it. And weird unrelated crossover. But in the very early stages of the Karen Reed trials,

Kevin Reddington represented Jen McCabe during the pretrial stages. So when she was, I believe, subpoenaed by the grand jury, yeah. What happened? Why is it? Well, he's a criminal defense attorney, so everything has gone civil now. Oh, oh. So he does not represent her right now, but a lot of Karen Reed crossovers that are, like, loose. Yeah.

So those are the main ones. Judge Sullivan, Prosecutor Sprague, Prosecutor Buckingham, D.A. Tim Cruz, and defense attorney Kevin Reddington. So, Reddington is doing everything himself. Yeah, and apparently he's a sole practitioner, so he... No way. Yeah, I don't think there's other big attorneys in his firm. He said that he really only has his son, also named Patrick, who just fetches his coffees here and there. That's so interesting.

And his wife is a nurse. Yeah, a nurse. So there's a lot of, yeah. Wow. But he's in his 70s and he's kind of doing the whole thing. And he's very, another thing when you watch the trial, he's very good with his facial expressions. He kind of reminds me of Mark Agnifalo in that like older teddy bear man aesthetic, which I think does play to the jurors really well.

He seems a bit more aggressive than Mark Agnifalo just in his cadence, but I'm sure they're both sharks, right? Now, July 27th, 2026, prosecutor Buckingham, the one with the bows, walks up to the podium in front of the jurors. She's wearing black and she has matching black bow in her hair. The Commonwealth opens up their opening statements almost abruptly. And this is like a huge, you know what, this is like a side tangent that I have, right? I think opening statements, I don't know why prosecutors do not focus on opening statements as much as the defense does. and maybe it has to do with their caseload. Maybe they really are just so overworked and underpaid.

So there's so much grace that you have to give there. However, opening statements are the jurors' first reactions to the case in chief of both parties. This is the first impression of all first impressions. The judge does remind the jurors that nothing in the opening statement should be taken as fact, but it's just to lay the groundwork of the case that each opposing counsel is going to present to the jurors. and it just, the prosecutor's open so abruptly. She gets up there, she doesn't even say hi to the jurors, she doesn't do anything, she just goes, Cora had just turned five.

Yeah, it's like, it kind of took me by surprise I didn't know she was starting. She was sweet, silly, smart. She loved sparkly dresses and wearing bows in her hair. She loved princesses and baby dolls. She even tried to convince her preschool teachers at the beginning that her name was Sophia because she loved the Disney character Sophia so very much. Dawson, he was three, a boy's boy. He was a bit rambunctious, bit funny, full of energy.

He loved trucks, construction trucks, fire trucks, and he spoke with a raspy little voice. Callum was just eight months old, always smiling with chunky cheeks, a sweet little baby. We are here, ladies and gentlemen, because they are not. They were strangled, deliberately, and meticulously killed by this defendant on January 24th of 23. One by one, she wrapped exercise bands around each one of the kids' necks and pulled until their little bodies were limp and lifeless. First, Dawson, then Cora, and finally, Callan. The Commonwealth asked that while the jurors hear testimony coming from a lot of people, that they quote, we ask that you keep an open mind when you're hearing this evidence, and during the course of the

trial, don't forget to use your common sense and your life experience. So the Commonwealth, they start laying out their case and they argue that Lindsay Clancy was not suffering from postpartum psychosis and that she had planned all of this. They argue that Patrick Clancy, the husband, works from home. But that specific date, January 24th, 2023, Lindsay had asked Patrick to go get takeout for them from a restaurant called 3V, which they have eaten at 3V before, but this will be the first time that they do takeout from 3V, which they also mention is a few minutes further than their normal to go spots, takeout spots. So it's, almost like insinuating, she sent him further to grab dinner.

Patrick needs to also stop by CVS on the way home to pick up meds for Cora. And prosecutor Buckingham says, that's when the clock starts, ladies and gentlemen. The defendant knows Patrick has to stop at CVS, go to 3V. She knows it's approximately how much time she has for him to go there and come back. She then takes the children down into the basement. She separates Dawson from Cora and Callan. Then she proceeds to wrap exercise bands around each child. and pull until they're dead.

She leaves the bands wrapped around each child's neck and goes back upstairs in the kitchen, she gets a knife and then proceeds to the second floor of the home. In the middle of all of this, she misses a call from Patrick. He's at CVS. He misses the call. She calls him right back and they talk for 13 seconds. Nothing that she does or says in that phone call is of concern to Patrick. Saying like Patrick doesn't notice anything is off.

The Commonwealth continues to argue. She goes to the second floor master bedroom, locks the door, crushes up some pills, and attempts to take her own life. She uses the knife that she got in the kitchen to slash her wrists and her neck. She moves the bed away from the wall, away from the window. She opens the window and goes out. She lands on the cold, hard ground. Shortly thereafter, around 6 p.m., Patrick comes home. He's got the takeout bag, the CVS bag with the medicine.

He enters into the house through the mudroom door into the kitchen area, places the bags down. early quiet. He calls to the kids. No answer. He calls to the defendant. No answer. He takes his phone and dials the number for Lindsay's phone. The defendant's phone. No answer. He then goes upstairs and finds the master bedroom door locked. He opens it and enters the room. Sees blood and the window open. He then goes to the backyard and that's where he finds the defendant. She's on the ground outside the window, moaning and mumbling. At 6.11 p.m. he calls for 911 for help. I think the opening statements were just very weird. The Commonwealth says that once first responders arrived to the house, Patrick says he needs to go find the kids, that Lindsay had told him where the kids were and that they were in the basement. So just indicating that the kids were, I guess the insinuation being like they're alive in the basement,

the Commonwealth says, so then he went in the house. That's the first place he went down in the basement. He's still on the phone with 911 when he finds each child with an exercise band still wrapped around their neck. He screams for help and he says, she killed the kids. The Commonwealth says, we expect during the course of this trial that you'll

hear that the defendant made claims that either right after Patrick left the house or after he called her from the CVS, depending on which version of the events she's telling, she heard a voice. A male voice, a voice that she had never heard before, a voice that she never heard again, and that voice told her that it was her last chance that she had to kill the kids so that she could self-exit. She immediately took action when she heard the voice with no direction or details from the so-called voice and killed the children. Once she killed the children, the voice stopped. This was not a woman in the throes of psychosis on January 24, 2023. This was a woman who acted intentionally, rationally, and swiftly to accomplish a very specific goal to kill.

The evidence will show you she was not psychotic that day. Throughout the evidence in this trial, you'll learn about the defendant being the classic overachiever in school in her personal. life in her nursing career. She was someone who liked to control every little detail of her life, of her family's life. In contrast to pictures, you'll see of the doting mother, the dedicated nurse, you'll see a side of Lindsay Clancy that's different. Somebody extremely controlling, meticulous, and manipulative. Oh, so they're premeditated, evil. That's what they're going for? Yeah. A lot of people think that they, like just in a legal sense of lawyering sense, people think this was bad.

Just bad. I think a lot of netizens, a lot of lawyers, prosecutors have been commenting on this case online, so take it as you will. But from what I've seen, a lot of them think,

hey, it's one thing to want to get her for first degree. It's another thing to call her manipulative, controlling, meticulous.

And when you present these types of words during the opening statements, the jurors are waiting for you to back it up. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And they don't back it up. I do think that the prosecutor's opening statements, and later their case in chief,

I think they really missed the point. They over did it. They exaggerated at some points. She says, the days were laid out with specificity. Strict schedules were expected to be maintained. Food was planned carefully. Sleep was scheduled to the minute. I, again, was expecting a military mom, someone who is authoritarian.

is like maybe even spanking kids when they don't go to sleep at 9 p.m. Like something so intense where I would feel suffocated. But all of the evidence that they laid out was Lindsay being like, oh, well, he hasn't been taking the bottle. And I'm trying to do the sleep training so that he's getting enough hours in. And like when he's not sleeping, he's tired. And she's like planning and revolving her own life around the kids. It actually seemed like an overachieving mom and not a dick. which is kind of how they present her.

So it was, I think, not a great move, not a great opening statement. But they continue that Lindsay was doing well after giving birth to Callan. It was when Patrick went back to work after paternity leave that she no longer had the nanny to help. So she also makes it seem like Lindsay is obsessed with the nanny doing laundry. Like that was a whole thing actually. The nanny comes to the stand. And the prosecutors are later like, didn't she make you do not? Callen chores, like you had to do laundry.

And she's like, yeah, but we agreed on it. It was like, we'll get there. We'll get there. I'm getting ahead of myself. I'm jumping the gun. But she says she no longer had a nanny to watch the baby, do laundry. I think they're trying to appeal to the fact that Lindsay Clancy had some sort of help. By saying that solely.

And when you maybe have, you know, just looking at the juror makeup, when you have a little bit of older women as well, you know, when you have older generations, sometimes the sentiment is there of like these young kids have it so easy when I was raising you. So I think maybe she's trying to appeal to that. But it clearly didn't work necessarily in their favor. She says, tidy up the house. Follow her schedule. When she was responsible for it all, it was hard. It was hard for her to maintain that control.

It was hard for her to bond with her kids. And in efforts to maintain control, she withheld information from her husband, from her doctors. she reported serious symptoms that were inconsistent with her daily activities, you'll hear, and ultimately, January 24th, 2023, the defendant made a calculated decision. And again, this is just me pointing out the opening statement and not so much the case itself. But again, I do think opening statements are incredibly valuable to the jurors. When they say calculated a decision, it's hard to not notice the incongruity with the fact that the self-exit attempt was less than calculated.

was if it's more frantic anything. The pills, the knife, the window. Nothing about that seems calculated. Yeah, like pre-planned. Yeah, to the tea of like, oh, this is the perfect plan. I'm going to get away with it or I'm going to execute the plan. It just, the word choices are a little unfortunate, I think. She continues, this was a woman who no longer liked the life she thought she wanted.

It was getting harder and harder to control. And she saw the opportunity to escape. She made the selfish choice to take it and to take Cora, Dawson, and Callan first before attempting to self-exit. They end it with a statement, if you will. This is not a public debate about women's mental health and how the medical system treats women. There is no dispute that she was dealing with mental health issues during this time prior to the murders. The evidence will show that this defendant had a means and access to mental health that most people don't. And she chose to deal with her mental health issues in the worst way.

She chose to manipulate her providers, seek out the quick and easy fix when she was feeling depressed and anxious, and when she didn't get what she expected, she chose an alternate route. She sought a different doctor. She changed medications after days. She disengaged from treatment when she didn't like the plan. Ladies and gentlemen, people with mental illness commit crimes every day and are responsible for them. The fact that someone may suffer or have a mental illness or a mental disease or defect is not the end of the inquiry when it comes to guilt or innocence. Within the first few minutes of the opening statements from the Commonwealth, Lindsay appears to be crying. Her shoulders are shaking and she is wiping her eyes.

And so far from what I have witnessed, it does appear that Lindsay Clancy is one of the more emotional defendants. Take that as you will. Some people think that is genuine emotion coming through. Other people think it's a show and an act. So even that's to be debated. From what we have witnessed so far, aside from maybe David Burke's no longer attorney, Blair Burke. Aside from them, a lot of these like well-known, bigger, more seasoned trial attorneys, the defense attorneys typically are better orators. I'm not saying better lawyers. I'm just saying,

from what I've experienced, better orators than the prosecutors from what I've seen. And that's probably why they get paid a lot. And Reddington plays kind of right into that. He's a bit more charismatic. He starts his opening statements spending at least, I want to say, like four minutes, directly addressing the jurors, thanking them for taking on such a big responsibility for their oath, for leaving their families and work behind to come to court every single day. And then he just starts swinging left and right. Whether it lands, I guess is up for you to decide. He states strongly.

Government says that this was not a referendum on women having babies and having postpartum psychosis, postpartum depression, but it sure as hell is. He points to the DA. So he's not sitting at the council table because he's just the DA. He's not, yeah, he's in the front row. First row. He points at Tim Cruz. Tim Cruz, the DA, right in the front row,

brought this charge. He knew, as did his office, the facts of this case. And he knew when he brought this charge that it was going to kill the soul of this young woman. Now, people have opinions about this opening statement because it's centering Lindsay Clancy and her soul being killed. So that's, you know, up for debate as well. He says, she loved her children.

All those things that the DA said to you about those little kids and their lives and what they liked, she knows a thousand times more than what they know. He says that the jurors will see videos of the house. You'll see in every room. There are things hanging on the walls, alphabets, colors, numbers, pictures of different cartoon characters. There was no dining room. So they didn't have a dining room. It was more of like a playroom, so they converted the dining room into a giant playroom.

It was a large thing for the baby to be in and then surrounded by toys. Every single room had toys in it. These children were loved and nurtured and cared. for by her. She didn't want to get rid of her kids because of her selfish life, as the government indicates. She loved those children right up to the time of their death. Redington goes on to explain to the jurors that they're going to see evidence that Lindsay was dealing with severe mental health breaks and that she was trying desperately to get help. Quote, she was looking into it. You're going to see her Google searches. You're going to see her Google searches go on and

on and on about how to take care of postpartum. What type of drugs can you get addicted to? benzodiazepines. Is it possible to have a treatment, a ketamine treatment? What do I do as far as insomnia? What do I do about my thoughts of self-exit? Ways to kill? How do you kill? What do you do to kill? Government latches on to that. Oh my God, she's looking for ways to kill. Let's make that the basis of our prosecution on this case. This is not a righteous prosecution. They're looking for every single piece of evidence that they can to show some ridiculous concept that she wanted to kill her beautiful kids because she didn't want to be a mother anymore. This is a woman that was a nurse. She worked for one of the best hospitals in the country. She was in labor and delivery.

Cora was named after the very, very first baby that she delivered as a nurse in the hospital. That's where the name Cora comes from. This is a woman who did nothing in her life but dedicate her life to helping people and being a good person and a good nurse and a great mom. And as time went on, looking like anyone else would, please help me. That's what all this is about. Give me help. And consider the government.

They will say, God, she was able to talk to people. She wasn't drooling. She wasn't putting tin foil inside of a hat when she was going to the schools. No, she was able to talk to people. I guess she was fine. She put on a pretty good face. He is quite theatrical, so I'm trying to match his energy. Renington starts detailing some of the medications Lindsay was on and prescribed since September and October,

which I'm going to do like a whole deep dive into the medications and postpartum and everything that she reported to the doctors in this episode, before we get into the next episode, which is more dedicated to Patrick and the internet discourse. So at this point, this is what Reddington says, at this point, at the end of November, she's reporting disassociation and confusion. Things were so bad at this point that her mother and father came up from Connecticut and lived with them to take care of the kids to help

because she was walking around absolutely a zombie. She would rock on the sofa, crying hysterically, banging her head into the pillow on the sofa. Patrick will tell you what he observed with her. Redington argues, apparently, according to the opening statement by the government, she was manipulating the doctors, not telling the doctors, she told them she was suicidal. And in December, to his and her ever dying regret,

told Patrick in the presence of her mother that she was having psychosis thoughts of hurting the children. This is a woman that did not get the medication, did not get the medical treatment that she so deserved. This is a woman that was suffering from psychosis at the time that she went down to that basement. She had no motive. She loves her children.

She intended to self-exit. and probably the biggest statement made by the defense, a lot of experts argue, Kevin Redington does play into it a lot, is that every day the jurors will walk in and see Lindsay Clancy sitting in the wheelchair. And he makes that like kind of the basis of even the opening statement is like she wanted to be gone from life. You know, and again, some people will call it manipulative. Some people will call it very, I think a lot of people depending on maybe their own life experiences, have vastly different opinions of criminal defense attorneys.

Some people think most criminal defense attorneys are scum of the earth. Some people think only the ones getting paid top dollar to represent scum of the earth or scum of the earth. Others think it's a job. Everyone needs a defense attorney when you need it. It's kind of how you will think of it. But he does what the defense attorneys do. You know, the defense attorneys love to come and give the defendant a hug, especially if the defendant is a man.

They love having a female lawyer, give him a hug to show he's not dangerous. Kevin Reddington does love. love to pivot his chair anytime Lindsay is crying so that the jurors can see her crying. He does love to move out of his seat at times or move his roly chair back so that they can see her in that wheelchair at very crucial moments. So I think that is something to note. But with that, now you kind of have a good idea of what the Commonwealth is alleging happened and what the defense is arguing happened. And that is where I leave you with the part one of the Lindsay Clancy trial. The next audio episode will be.

be up in a few days as quickly as I can edit. Let me know your thoughts. Stay safe and I will see you in the next one.