The Bobby Bones Show - BOBBYCAST #672 - The Truth About the Lindsay Clancey Trial with Attorney Katherine Loftus

Episode Date: September 11, 2026

Attorney Katherine Loftus joins Bobby to break down the Lindsay Clancey case and the legal questions surrounding her mental state. Katherine explains what the defense has to prove, how reasonable doubt factors are in, and why medical records and medication could play such a major role. They also discuss what could happen with another jury and how emotion can influence a case like this. Plus, Katherine explains why the story playing online can look very different from what actually matters in court. Check out Katherine's podcast Note My Objection HERE Watch The BobbyCast on Netflix! Follow on Instagram: @TheBobbyCast Follow on TikTok: @TheBobbyCastSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed Human. Get Bell Pure Fiber Internet with Crave, Netflix, and Disney Plus from $94 a month. Price guaranteed for two years on Internet with a two-year term and auto pay credit. Visit bell.ca for details and to check availability. Bell, connection is everything. Hi, this is Kylie Brakeman. Angela Geratana.

Jeremy Colhain. Patrick McDonald. And we're the hosts of the Artists on Artists on Artists on Artists Podcast. The Improvised Character Comedy Podcasts where each. week a new panel of artists discuss their craft. Join us for a panel of Eurovision participants. And we do a little Halloween sometimes. Does the Pope dress up? He winks on Halloween.

He gets right up next to the microphone. I hear you can almost hear the eyelashes hit each other. You never seen Italy so quiet as when the Pope gets up to wink on Halloween. Listen to Artists on Artists on Artists every Thursday on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Self-care September is your reminder to slow down, check in with yourself, get off your phone, and maybe ask, why am I like this? I'm Jemisbeg, host of the Psychology of Your 20s podcast, and this month we're helping you make sense of the person that you are becoming,

from setting boundaries and navigating friendships to understanding anxiety, confidence, relationships, and attachment. Sometimes our biggest decisions, without us even realizing it, aren't driven by what we truly want, but by what will prevent us from feeling lonely or being alone. Listen to the psychology of your 20s on the IHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. On the new podcast Solita, we share the messy reality of traveling alone as a woman. I can wait four hours for the next bus or this random dude is offering me a ride on his motorcycle. I chose option B. I'm Julie Pinheiro and I travel by myself because it's a rare space where I can say yes without asking anyone else first.

I'm on a mission to reclaim the word Solita, trading the pity for possibility. Listen to Solita on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. If your bookshelf and your For You page are equally important to your personality, welcome home. Pro Society is a weekly podcast that's part book club, part group chat for anyone who thinks Pride and Prejudice and Love Island deserve the same level of discourse. Each week, we're connecting the dots between books, the internet, and pop culture

with your favorite writers, book talk creators, and plenty of overthought opinions. Yeah, I'm obsessed. I'm obsessed. Listen to pro-society on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. In that very moment, was she taking the lives of her children because she knew she had to leave this earth and she couldn't live without them?

Or was she commanded to do it? and couldn't control herself and conform herself to the law. So we're going to talk about the Lindsay Clancy case here, and we're talking with attorney Catherine Loftus. Former prosecutor, legal analyst, and the host of a podcast, Note My Objection, where she breaks down law politics and some of the biggest stories in the news. And so we're going to go deep into this case. And from what I've seen, she has not actually given an opinion on guilty or not guilty.

She just goes in the facts. and so I'm going to have her be the defense and what they could have done better. I'm going to have her be the prosecution and what they could have done better. And we'll talk about the mistrial. What happens next? And so for me, this was super interesting. Here's my conversation with Catherine Loftus. All right, we're talking with Catherine Loftus now, who as the Clancy case has been moving along,

I've been watching her TikToks, really to give me my opinion. And so, Catherine, thank you so much for coming and talking to me. me about this because I have a lot of questions because I've tried to be educated, but I am not you. Would you talk about, first of all, you're an attorney, right? I am. So I know what an attorney is, but what are you specialized in? Like, what are you good at? So I mostly am good at criminal law. I'm, you know, as they like to say, lawyers are good at a lot of things. But most of us specialized. I worked in the district attorney's office while I was going to law school at night, and then I practiced as a prosecutor for about three and a half years after that. So I spent about a total

of eight years in the DA's office and then I went over to the criminal defense side where I've been for about seven or eight years. So I've been in the criminal justice system for probably 15, 16 years total and have had experience on both sides, which I think really enables me to give a unique perspective to my audience that's coupled with sort of, you know, throwing in my personal background growing up in the city of Boston. So I have a little bit of the streets, smut and book smart, if you, if you will. And so I try to give, uh, through, you know, my platform, note, my objection, really the most sort of fundamental kind of breakdowns of what the law is, what's happening in the trials that I cover because it's, it's complicated stuff.

So before you came on, we were talking about your podcast. And I definitely want to talk about other things other than this case in just a bit. But I need some help with the case. And so I'm probably going to spray around a little bit and just ask random questions because I really don't even know how to talk about this case as an educated person because what I've found is when I look something up or I see something on TikTok and maybe we'll start here. Like there was the rumor first of all that the husband could have done it and I watched one video but then I started to get fed all videos about him doing it. So all it was doing was taking whatever bias that I had and feeding it to me over and over again. So then I start to feel like that's the reality. Right. So if we start

with that? Because the rumor has been that possibly the husband would have had something to do with this. That's not a part of this case. Is there any chance it ever becomes part of a case? From my perspective, no, and I'm glad that you brought that up, because I think, you know, the world that we live in, which is sort of this constantly online conversation that we invite all kinds of people in, right? And what happens that I've noticed over the last couple of years of covering cases, criminal cases particularly, is that oftentimes what's happening in the courtroom is very different than what's happening sort of in the online discourse. And as you mentioned, you know, there were all kinds of conspiracy theories and thoughts about, you know, could the

husband have done it? Patrick Clancy, you know, sort of going from A to B all the way to Z very quickly. What's happening in the actual courtroom is that this is really a case not about whether Lindsay Clancy committed these crimes. She's charged with three counts of first degree murder for the deaths of her three children, Cora Dawson and Callan Clancy. But really the trial has always been about what her mental status was at the time that she committed the crimes.

And so there's been quite a bit of a divergence between not only what's actually happening in the courtroom, but all the people who, you know, are sort of on the ground, the defense attorneys, the prosecutors, the judges, the police, the people covering the case, see as what the case is versus what the online sort of conversation

has been. So 11 jurors, have they now said it was 11 saying not guilty and one guilty? Or did they just let us assume that's what it was? There was a few notes that came back from the jury. The first one being essentially that there was a one holdout juror that they had some questions about doubt and they were not following the law. I think from that, both the prosecutor and attorney Redenton assumed that it was 11 to 1. We now have seen multiple jury interviews. We've had some local Sue O'Connell on NBC10 here and Christina Rex on WBZ have interviewed in total four of the jurors who essentially have confirmed that it was 11 to 1, that the 11 voted not guilty by reason of insanity, and then there was one juror holding out. And, you know, I think that really ultimately goes to why this case is so

difficult because it's not simply just has the Commonwealth proven that Lindsay Clancy committed a crime, you know, she's guilty or she's not guilty. It's really the next step of it. But it seems to be by all accounts that they were 11 to 1 and they were really trying to convince that final juror, but we're just unable to. Also what I read was that even that juror may have said, and you can correct me on this, that by law, that they should say not guilty, but that he just couldn't go along with it. That's right. So we're hearing. So, you know, there's a little bit of a difference. Obviously, we didn't get the benefit of knowing what was happening in deliberations when we get the notes from the jury to the judge. And the only thing that the judge and any of us in the public watching the

case had at the time that the jurors sent the notes to Judge Sullivan was that the juror was expressing that there was some doubt, but he was unwilling to follow the reasonable doubt instruction. What we've learned subsequent to that from several jurors is that maybe there was some more discussion about he had found reasonable doubt, but didn't feel comfortable, essentially voting, not guilty. Now, in Massachusetts, the way the reasonable doubt instruction is read to the jury is that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not proof beyond all doubt. So you are entitled as a juror to have some doubt. You just can't, you just can't find somebody guilty if you have a reasonable doubt. So again, it's this really subjective standard. It's difficult. It's, it's even

difficult to lawyers really to understand because ultimately it comes down to each individual juror and how they evaluate the evidence that was presented, the testimony from all the witnesses, and whether they think their doubt rises to the level or not. What's the defense's strongest case? And just a couple things that come to mind to me is just from, again, reading things and watching people talk about it. So, again, I'm absorbing information like the normal American, which could be wrong a lot of times, right?

It could be just the thing that's got the most clicks, which doesn't mean it's right. But what's the thing that the defense has really hung its hat on? To me, it seems like she asked for help a lot of times and maybe didn't get it. Is that true? So I think the biggest benefit that Kevin Rendezon has to his. defense is that this is a woman who sought help repeatedly for months and months and months. And, you know, this isn't somebody who, like I said, has been involved in the system, has, you know, has had problems before. By all accounts, Lindsay and Patrick Clancy and their three children were,

you know, a great family. She was a nurse at Mass General Hospital here in Boston, which is one of the, you know, best hospitals in the country. She was a labor and delivery nurse. They had a great summer and towards the end of august early september of 2022 she began having some significant anxiety and depression and started to seek out help so she first went to a psychiatrist and from there on out it was sort of a combination of both um you know i would say lack of substantive treatment there was prescribing of medications so we have a lot of mixing of pharmaceuticals you know on one medication taking that off because that's not working, prescribing a new medication. Most of the meetings with the nurses

and nurse practitioners and doctors were all over telehealth. Most of them were not in person. And Lindsay reported we start in her journals. We start from the testimony of the various mental health professionals. So that's really what Kevin Reddington tried to hammer home was what else was Lindsay Clancy supposed to do. She was essentially screaming for help. She called suicide hotlines twice. They basically told her, you don't have a plan so we can't help you. She was admitted to an inpatient program, which really seems to be more of a spin drive than anything else.

It wasn't a lot of substantive treatment. And so, you know, that's really what he hammered home. Despite the fact that, you know, the mental health system isn't really a typical defense to say to a jury, hey, you know, don't hold me responsible. because the system failed me. But I think because the system seems to have failed her, it was an effective argument to the jury. And I think we heard that from the conversations

that we've had with the jurors so far. So because there's documentation of her saying, I need help over and over again, please help me. Is there any sort of liability to the people that did not help her? So both Patrick Clancy and Lindsay Clancy have separate civil lawsuits filed again. against all of the professionals who treated her and their institutions. And so, you know, Patrick Clancy was filed first,

and then Lindsay Clancy was filed earlier this year, I believe in January of 2006, against the providers and the healthcare institutions. And, you know, the question really becomes, I think, that what was she supposed to do? You know, we have this sort of lack of continuity of care that we see, you know, and I see it not just in this case, in the cases that I cover, but, you know, the everyday cases in court that nobody pays attention

to that, you know, you hear one doctor talk about, well, I'm at this institution and she had previously been seen at another and we're not the same institution, so I don't have the records, but we don't have anybody seeking them out. We don't really have anybody, you know, taking the further step. So it will be interesting to see as a sort of a secondary effect what happens in the civil cases, but I think, you know, I think there's, I think there's some legitimate liability there. Would this have been a trial where character witnesses were actually valuable? I think they were. I think they were because you didn't hear a single person say a bad word about Lindsay Clancy. You had, you know, people from those who only knew her a little bit,

from drop off at daycare to the individuals working at the healthcare club. Then you had nurses who worked with her at Mass General. And all the way up until, you know, you had Patrick, her now ex-husband, her mother-in-law, Sue Clancy, who also was a labor and delivery nurse and tried, you know, really tried to help her. Not a single person had a bad word to say about Lindsay. And I think that really helped frame for the jury that this truly was somebody who was like any of us, right? up until the six months preceding this crime. And so, you know, that sort of leads you to this natural inference that, well, something must

have happened, right, but for her mental health struggles, but for her depression, but for her, you know, medication, over medication, under medication, sort of the combination of it all. And it's hard to pinpoint, you know, we can't just say, oh, it was this doctor who did it, and that's why it's really the whole sort of cocktail of it all together. it's hard to imagine that if those things had not happened, that she wouldn't have committed these crimes. So I think the fact that she was well liked, well respected, and well loved by her family and friends really helped the defense case.

Her ex-husband testified, what was he saying during the trial? Because if I remember correctly, he was very pro his ex-wife. Yes. So, you know, and it's my understanding. So when this happened in January of 2023, You know, the community in the entire state, but really the local community in Dexburg in the South Shore and Massachusetts really rallied around all of them. Patrick came out at the time and said, you know, I forgive her, please forgive her.

Like she loved dark children. She was a great mom. She was a great wife. And I think there's sort of a difficult balance because I don't think that anybody in the Clancy family or Patrick wants to see her in prison. I think they want her to get help. So that's sort of a little bit in a little bit of a disagreement, likely with the district attorney's office who is pursuing the case and wants her to serve

a prison sentence. But, you know, he only spoke highly and still only speaks highly of Lindsay to this day. The fact that after the murders happened, she jumped out the window. I'm assuming she was trying to kill herself. does that lend itself to the she was going through whatever bout of psychosis or insanity? You know, it's interesting. This is really what we had sort of competing interests. I call it sort of the battle of the experts, right?

Because we had expert witnesses, psychologists and psychiatrists that testified for the Commonwealth. And we also had the same on the defense side. And essentially all of them agreed that this was what they call an altruistic philicide, essentially that she was struggling so deeply that she felt like she couldn't be on this earth anymore. And, you know, the way it's described as a psychiatrist is almost out of love that you feel like, you know, they have to come with me. The question was, and is really the debate between both of the sides was, did she also have psychosis at the time, which would sort of take it to the next level, that in that exact moment,

that this crime occurred, that she was in some sort of altered state. There was testimony from both Dr. Zaisal and the chaplain, who were at Brigham Women's Hospital when Lindsay was first hospitalized, reported that she experienced what she said were command hallucinations. So from the defense perspective, it has been their position that she essentially heard a voice that said, you know, now's the time, this is the last chance you'll have to do it. You have to kill yourself and you have to kill the children. And that that happened when Patrick left that evening to go pick up the takeout food.

So, you know, it's hard to, it's hard to know. And that's really the question because, again, it's getting into somebody's state of mind. And as all of us are watching this, as jurors or observers, we're, you know, sort of taking the pieces of evidence and trying to piece together, you know, did she know what she was doing? Did she not know what she was doing? Very clearly was sick. She was not well. The question goes to in that very moment was she taking the lives of her children because she knew she had to leave this earth and she couldn't live without them or was she commanded to do it and couldn't control herself and conform herself to the law? Let's take a quick pause for

a message from our sponsor. Get Bell Pure Fiber Internet with Crave, Netflix, and Disney Plus from $94 a month. Price guaranteed for two years on internet with a two-year term and auto pay credit. Visit bell.ca for details and to check availability. Bell, connection is everything. Hey, everyone. It's the Jonas Brothers with the Hey Jonas Podcast. We've been catching up with some great friends, Paul Rudd, Michael Boubley, Seth Myers, Nile Horan, Jake Shane,

and making some new friends while getting into what's really like to have sisters, like Alex and Asgen-N-Earl. She likes to control everyone and tell everyone what to do. Okay, well, control is a harsh word. I would say that's a harsh word. I am more outspoken. Growing up a lot of the times because she was so quiet. I would speak for like the both of us. Now I'm working on like thinking a moment, reeling it in,

thinking before I speak. And Joey King. You know if your like mom is yelling at your sibling and even if you're annoyed with your sibling, you just like won't let that slide. It's like only you can yell at your sibling. I'm like, you can't do that here. That is, you not talk about her like that. I talk about her like that.

Plus, we've been taking your calls, listening to your voicemails and giving you advice. Or at least trying to. So if you've got catching up to do, now's the perfect time. Listen to Hey Jonas on the Iheart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, this is Kylie Breakman.

Angel Geratana. Jeremy Colhane, Patrick McDonald. And we're the hosts of the Artists on Artists on Artists Podcast. The Improvised Character Comedy Podcasts where each week a new panel of artists discuss their craft. Join us for a panel of wellness influencers. What I try to do is faux journal. I don't know.

Have you guys heard of faux journaling? Yeah, it's reading. It's called reading. So we don't like to use that word anymore. Okay. A panel of New Yorker cartoonists. Have you guys done Terry Gross's Peloton class? No!

I've been dying too. I'm so sorry. I'm seeing a reading of Sadako and the Thousand-Pan Paper Cranes by Audra McDonald's at the Wonderland Bookstore on 14. That's crazy. I went to the Wonderland Bookstore yesterday, and I heard Nora Jones do a reading of Zero Dark 30. No way.

You have to come to the last bookstore, though. Kim Cottrell is reading the guitar tabs of yesterday. A panel of Eurovision participants. And we do a little Halloween sometimes. Does the Pope dress up? He winks on Halloween. It's right up next to the microphone. I hear you can almost hear the eyelashes hit each other.

You never seen Italy so quiet. it as when the Pope gets up to wink on Halloween. Listen to Artists on Artists on Artists on Artists on Artists on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. On the new podcast Solita, we share the messy reality of traveling alone as a woman. I can wait four hours for the next bus or this random dude is offering me a ride on his motorcycle. I chose option B. I'm Julie Pinero, and I travel by myself because it's a rare space where I can say yes without asking anyone else. first. I'm on a mission to reclaim the word solita, trading the pity for possibility.

Every time I tried to be alone, I kept meeting people, and they were like, you smiled at us. Not a lot of people smile around here. It's when you're alone that you're most receptive to the world as it is, and not the lies you're sold about it. It can be a time where you push your limits, change your mind, or wake up to a new version of yourself. So whether you're a solo travel veteran or you're too nervous to book your first trip. I hope you listen to Solita on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. If your bookshelf and your for-you page are equally important to your personality, welcome home. This is Prose Society, the weekly podcast that's part book club, part group chat for thought daughters, pop culture obsessives, and anyone who

thinks Pride and Prejudice and Love Island deserve the same level of discourse. I'm Eli Rallo, and every week we're connecting the dots between books, the internet, and the conversations everyone can't stop having. I'm going to have to look up this story. I'm obsessed. I'm obsessed. From best-selling authors and your favorite book talk creators to the latest pop culture moments, nothing is off the table. It's like if you can hide some real messages inside compelling characters, then that is a Trojan horse. Whether you're looking for literary deep dives, smart pop culture conversations, or a community of readers, who love to think a little too much,

you're in the right place. Listen to pro society on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. See you between the pages. And we're back on the Bobbycast. This may be a weird legal question, but let's say there's an insane asylum, it might not be a word anymore,

a mental health facility, and the door's supposed to stay locked and the people can't get out because they've had thoughts and visions and they've done bad things, but the door was accidentally left unlocked. and that person is able to get out and they go out and they kill somebody. And so they, but they have, they've been treated, they've been diagnosed, they go out and

kill somebody. Would that person that did that be charged with murder or would it be a definition of insanity type, what we're talking about here? Well, they would still be charged with murder. So just like what we have in the Clancy case, it would be similar. So she's still charged with the first degree murder of all three children, which is the appropriate charges, you know, from my perspective. and then you would have a defense. I think what a lot of people have some difficulty with it as well is that this idea

of sort of punishment and justice and what do we do with the in between, right? Because in Massachusetts, we don't have an option to plead guilty and be sentenced to a mental health facility that's not a legal criminal sentence for a judge to impose. So the only options we really have are either you're guilty and you go to state prison or you're not guilty by a reason of insanity and go to a mental health facility on a, civil commitment, which is re-evaluated, and there is the potential that you could be released. So I think it's, you know, it's sort of this moral question that some of us wrestle with, right? We want to make sure that, you know, if you take the lives of somebody else, that there is some

accountability to it, but how much do we take into account the mitigation of somebody's mental health and that if they were well, would they have committed this crime? So when the husband left, did she ask him to go or did she just do it while he was gone? Like the circumstance presented itself? No. So she asked him to go and this is one of the pieces that the Commonwealth used to try to argue and make their position, you know, which was that she essentially sent him out on purpose because what happened was the day of January of 24th of 2023, Lindsay was home with

their older daughter, Cora, who she had taken to the. the pediatrician's office. It was essentially a normal day carried on as usual. Actually, Patrick said, you know, it seemed to be one of our best days yet. She was playing in the backyard with the kids, building a snowman. And at some point around 4.30 or so 5 o'clock that afternoon, she texted him and said, you know what, I'm kind of tired. I don't feel like making dinner. Can you go pick up some takeout? And so she had him go pick up takeout to a location. that was they had been to before. They had eaten in, but they had an order to takeout before.

And it was a little bit longer of a drive than most of the normal places that they usually got takeout from. And she also asked him to stop at CVS to get medication for core. She was, he was supposed to pick up some pedialax for her. And so that's part of the Commonwealth's argument was that, listen, she sort of engaged in what would be considered normal behavior throughout the day, right? She went to the pediatrician's office, the doctor. that they testified said, you know, we didn't see any signs that there was anything wrong or anything

out of the norm. She was able to communicate with people back and forth. She then sent him out to, you know, not only get takeout, but the medication, which created the amount of time that she needed to do this. And so that was really the argument from the Commonwealth, that this wasn't, you know, a moment in which she had hallucinations and she was hearing these auditory commands, but she, in fact, landed out based on the timeline that, you know, she sort of set up from that's the Commonwealth's perspective. And I'd ask the question about what was the defense hanging their hat on? And you may have said it just then, but what was the prosecution? Like, what was their, their strongest weapon to use? I think that, you know, I had a lot of critique of the Commonwealth's case because they,

I think there was a legitimate argument for making to a jury. that, listen, this is somebody who was very unwell. She clearly was struggling with depression and anxiety. She did try to get help from a variety of providers. But this isn't a referendum on the mental health system, right? This is a question about what happened to Lindsay Clancy and what happened to her three children. And instead of taking that tact of really kind of acknowledging her mental health and the struggles she was going through, what the Commonwealth did was they essentially tried to paint her as this, you know, neurotic type A mom.

And their opening statements, they said, and I might be a little bit off on the quote, but, you know, Lindsay Clancy no longer wanted to live the life that she thought she wanted. And I remember from that very moment hearing that saying, well, that doesn't seem consistent with what we're going to hear, right? this isn't just a mom who's, you know, sick of her life. She doesn't want the kids anymore. She's overwhelmed. And so, you know, she strangles her three children. That doesn't seem like a reasonable argument to make. And probably the most effective the Commonwealth was was in the closing argument in which they sort of presented a completely different tax and really outlined the specifics of the timeline.

You know, they acknowledged her mental health. but I think it was a little bit too late for them. I think they had turned off the jurors at some point because they were, you know, in some ways, unkind to some of the witnesses, including Patrick Clancy talking about, you know, just very dry questioning when, you know, asking about how he found his children, what they looked like, what, you know, the manner in which he found them. And so I think what will happen is they will take, if it does go to trial again, they will take some of that and sort of retool what they presented in their closing argument and present that throughout their case in chief for round two. And I think that would be a more persuasive argument for a round two if we get there.

Are you assuming they will retry this? In my opinion, there's zero chance that the case, you know, it's not going to be dropped. It's not just going to go away. The question is going to be, what are they going to do with it? Now, in Massachusetts, first degree murders can't be tried in front of a judge. So normally on every other charge, you can go jury waived, which basically means that the judge makes the decision. In order for that to happen, the Commonwealth would have to reduce the charges from first degree to second degree. Now, the only difference is on a first degree conviction, you get life without parole.

On a second degree conviction, you get life with the possibility of parole as decided by the judge. It's either 15 years, anywhere between 15. years and 25 years. The question is, you know, what do both sides want, right? And as we were talking about earlier, there is no middle ground where she could say plead guilty and then go and stay at Tewksbury Hospital where she is now, the mental health facility. There really is the only option between a guilty state prison sentence or not guilty by reason of insanity. So unless the, unless the Commonwealth is willing to reduce the charges, I think they have to try the case again.

So it either goes to a jury trial on a first degree murder or they reduce it to a second degree and maybe see if a judge can decide. Because the benefit of a jury waived going bench trial in this case is there's some finality to it. I think the concern is if they go in front of a jury again, we end up with another hung jury just because it's, you know, it's just so fraught with emotion.

It's so difficult to get to that place where, you know, what is in someone's mind, and people feel really strongly about it. So I worry that if they go in front of a jury again, we end up with another hung jury. I apologize for my limited knowledge on this, but will they go same teams, same defense, same prosecution? Will all the attorneys be the same? I think most likely. So Kevin Redington will definitely be her attorney.

Again, he has been with her since I think maybe four or five days into this. in 2023. So he will stay with her. The two of ADA's, Jennifer Sprague and Shannon Buckingham, they are prosecutors in the Plymouth County District Attorney's Office. It is a fairly small office comparatively speaking to some of the, you know, when she gets closer to the city and Suffolk County in Boston, obviously there's a little bit more depth to how many people can take on this kind of case.

But I would be surprised at this point. if they changed them out. I sometimes I think that one of the downfalls for the government is that they can get sort of stuck in, you know, there's been a lot of critique of them. There's been a lot of critique of the DA's office as a whole with this case of these two particular prosecutors in the way that they present the case.

And I do think that they could benefit from bringing somebody else on that maybe has a little bit of a softer affect. But whether they will do that, I don't know. I would imagine that at the very least, these two will stay on, possibly somebody else comes on as well. So I'll have you play both. If you were the prosecution going into the next trial, if there is one, what would you do differently? I would really lean into the difference between Lindsay Clinton's mental status as a whole versus what happened that night. Because, you know, the legal principles are you can be very sick. You can be somebody who has struggled with all kinds of.

you know, mental illness. But do you know what you're doing in the moment? And so I think that there, I think that there is a reasonable argument for that. And what you have to really direct the jury to do is to take out this emotion, right? Because obviously, this is a sympathetic figure. This is a woman who you're going to hear that everybody loved her. She was a great mom. She was a great friend. She was a great wife, daughter-in-law, and she was completely normal up until six months before this. And so that can all be true. And she can also have committed a really heinous crime. And we have to be able to take out the emotion, you know, use our logic, common sense. And when you apply the law, you know, I think you get to the place where you can acknowledge that, yes, she's really sick.

And yes, because she felt like she couldn't be in this world anymore. She made. She may, made that conscious decision to take her own life, to try to take her own life and her children with her. And I think that's really where the Commonwealth needs to go if they wanted to try to convince the jury. But again, getting 12 people there is difficult, I think. If you were the defense, what did you learn that you could do better? You know, I think one of the things that we didn't hear from quite as much as I expected to from Kevin Reddington. I think he did a really good job because, as I said, it's difficult to present a defense of, you know, the entire system failed my client and therefore you shouldn't hold her responsible. But I think we could dig a little bit deeper into

what the specific effects and the combination, you know, effects of the different pharmaceuticals. She was prescribed, you know, Sezoloft and Syracul and Aadone and, you know, varying milligrams. And one was, she's weaning off of one. and then being put on the other. But we didn't hear from anybody who testified as to what those interactions could be. You know, what are the black box warnings? Like, what are the side effects?

What are the possibilities that, you know, sort of taking that next step? Not only was she depressed and anxious and having intrusive thoughts, was she suffering from lack of sleep from the medication, but, you know, what else could those medications and the combinations have caused? So I would lean even more into the sort of pharmaceutical aspect.

of it if I was writing to, you know, adding on to what he already did. How in the world do you get another jury? It will be difficult. It will be difficult. We did this once before Massachusetts. It's not that long ago with the Karen Reed case. And it was more difficult to get a jury the second time around because, you know, not only of these cases, they have national, international attention, but everyone's talking about them

locally as well, right? And Plymouth County is, I will say demographic-wise, Plymouth County skews a little bit older, I would say, and the jury I think was reflective of it for this first time around. So the hope that you have is that you can find a jury pool that reads maybe more, you know, print media and doesn't, you know, is it on social media, isn't on TikTok, is it on Instagram, that kind of stuff, and that they have at least less access to it. I don't think it's impossible, but it does make it more difficult.

And it's also, you know, it's something I talk about and think a lot about sort of where we are in a society now about how can we separate these two? How can we get fair juries when there's so much information? You know, you think about the idea that, you know, we used to sequester juries or, you know, they all swear an oath that they won't, you know, listen to anything. they won't watch anything. But, you know, those rules are also from a time when, okay, well, I won't get, pick up the paper at the corner store, you know, now it's impossible to avoid because we're all, you know, we're all on our phones, we're all on our iPads, we're all on our computers. And so I think it's much more difficult than in this day and age to find juries that have no knowledge of these cases. I've seen people try to boil it down to, well, postpartum oppression shouldn't make you murder. Is it that simple?

It's not that simple. And I think anyone who tries to oversimplify these things is just not being honest because one thing I've learned about being in the criminal justice system for a long time is that nothing is black and white. Nothing fits in a box. Nothing is easy. And, you know, it's human nature, right? So we're talking about what humans do in times of stress or in times of frustration. And, you know, I think that if there's anything, good that can come from this is hopefully a conversation about how we treat, you know, women in the postpartum period. And I think that what we see sort of in this case and why there's so much attention sort of brought to it and why so many people feel connected to it is that, you know, as women, I'm a mom myself, I have a 10 year old and a 7 year old. I think there is a recognition in what happens to a woman in their body after they have children. And unless you experience that yourself, it's difficult to understand, which makes sense.

But the combination of having, you know, depression and anxiety coupled with what's going on in your body, which is that your, you know, your hormones are all over the place. You're, you know, having a lack of sleep. There's all kinds of stuff that sort of kind of creates this, like I said, cocktail where it's a different kind of analysis. And it doesn't mean that if you're a postpartum woman and you commit a crime, that you can blame being a postpartum woman on it. But it's certainly something we have to consider.

And I think to just dismiss it outright is disingenuous, to be honest. Have you said that if you were on the jury what you would have said? I haven't. You know, I, to be honest, I really struggle with it. I really struggle with it because my legal mind feels like she was criminally responsible. but I have a really difficult time sentencing someone who was struggling so significantly to a term of life in prison. And so there were probably a lot of jurors who felt, I think, like I did is sort of that balance. I don't know.

I don't know. It's really hard. So then can't the system be repaired a bit? Often it takes a break to even need a repair. And there's no nuance here, as you've been talking about. It's either go to jail forever guilty or not. But shouldn't there be allowed with, as you talked about, that specific charge, there to be something that lands in the middle?

I think so. And what I hope from this is that we might see some sort of legislation. I mean, that's where you have to, you know, lobby your local representatives, your state reps, your state senators to essentially write legislation and enact it in Massachusetts, which deals with this specific issue. And as I mentioned, there are other. the states and the United States that have this sort of middle ground. We've also, you know, seen a lot of what happens in Europe era.

Some of the laws dating back to, I think, as early as the 1930s in a unique set of circumstances in which they don't fit into a box, right? They don't fit into a straight guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity. So one thing that I hope comes from this, at least specifically to Massachusetts, is that we can start to have the conversation about, you know, maybe we, need to have some sort of legislation around a third option for cases that, you know, come like this. So you're up there where the Karen Reed case happened and we all followed that too and it was wild and watched the documentaries and I mean, I was in and it's weird to be so compelled by something because

that's someone's real life, but to us far away, it just feels like something on television or on social media. And so that had to be pretty wild to live there during that, right? It was wild. I will tell you it really took control of Massachusetts, particularly, again, this was on the South Shore. Karen Reed was in Norfolk County, Dedham, which is about halfway to Plymouth County where Lindsay Clancy was. But the Karen Reed case took over Massachusetts for really two years. And then we just, you know, about a year out from Karen Reed, there was a that ended in June of 2025. and then we've sort of had round two with Lindsay Clancy.

So it is interesting to have back-to-back trials. I don't know what's happening in the Wattas in Massachusetts, but we seem to be the epicenter of it all. Just watching whatever docu-series I watched or people talk about it. And again, I'm far away and I probably am not getting all the information because I'm not in the courtroom. That's the only place to get all the information. But it felt like the police officers there were pretty corrupt and that she probably didn't do it. Is that how you felt living there?

Well, I have an unpopular opinion on Karen Reed. So my perspective on the Reed case was always that she was vastly overcharged. Originally, she was charged with manslaughter, and they upgraded it to second-degree murder. I think that was mistake number one. And then down from there, we had, you know, it turned into, it turned into

a life of its own. And we had, the federal investigation that came as a result of the underlying investigation in Norfolk County. That's what we learned about, you know, Michael Proctor, who was the lead investigator for the state police, at all kinds of text messages, not only about Karen Reed, but, you know, racist, misogynistic type of stuff. It has always been my position that, based on the evidence, as I saw presented at both of the trials and all the pretrial litigation that I covered, that the evidence supported. the idea that Karen Reid was responsible for John O'Keefe's death. But ultimately, the jury found her not guilty. And, you know, that's why we have a jury system.

So in many ways, you know, there's a lot of through lines, I think, between Karen Reed and sort of the, what was happening in the courtroom versus what was the online conversation is similar to the Clancy case. But both certainly took over Massachusetts. on your podcast, note my objection. What do you do every day when there's not a wild case happening that's heard all over the world every second? Well, I do do some real legal work sometimes too, Bobby. But, you know, what I try to do is, you know, it's funny.

I started talking on, I know my objection really during COVID because I had nobody else to talk to. So I started to talk to people online. And I see sort of this hole in the system where, we can just get sort of easy, breakdown, clear, concise, you know, information. And so what I try to do is just talk to about things that I think are important. Sometimes they're local issues, whether they're, you know, local politics in Massachusetts or, you know, criminal cases here. I talk about sort of bigger picture issues, you know, politics and society on a larger scale.

But I think that, you know, we're missing, we live in a world where it's, clicks in the algorithm and views. And it's really important to me to bring an honest perspective to my audience. And so I like to talk about things that, you know, they often end up being sort of controversial issues or sort of hot topics. And I want to make sure that people know that it's important to dig through where we're living in difficult times, right? It's difficult to figure out not only what's real because,

You know, we have the AI age and we can't, sometimes we can't tell what's real information, what's not. We've sort of lost our ability to think critically, source things independently, you know, researched. And I try to be someplace that people can at least rely on. So when you're, you know, you're watching a case in Massachusetts that I will tell you what's actually going on, whether, you know, that's, you know, congruent with the position you like or not. because it's really important to me to be a space where, you know, people can trust. So I try to talk a little bit of this and a little bit of that. Well, I hope everybody checks out, note my objection, and especially your TikTok.

I think you're awesome. I even watch you, like, do your makeup while you talk about it. And I don't watch anybody do their makeup. So, yeah, thank you so much for coming on and just presenting facts because I think we can easily be swayed with things that are fact adjacent. And there's a difference in fact and fact adjacent for sure. So thank you for the time. And everybody check out on TikTok and Instagram at Note My Objection.

And then our podcast is Note My Objection. Catherine, thank you so much. Thank you so much. I appreciate having me. All right. Have a good day. The Bobbycast. We'll be right back.

Get Bell, Pure Fiber Internet with Crave, Netflix, and Disney Plus from $94 a month. Price guaranteed for two years on Internet with a two-year term and auto pay credit. Visit bell.com for details and to check availability. Bell, connection is everything. Hey everyone, it's the Jonas Brothers with the Hey Jonas podcast. We've been catching up with some great friends, Paul Rudd, Michael Bublay, Seth Myers, Nile Horan, Jake Shane, and making some new friends while getting into what's really like to have sisters, like Alex and Ashton Earl. She likes to control everyone and tell everyone what to do.

Okay, well, control is a harsh word. I would say that's a harsh word. I am more outspoken. Growing up a lot of the times because she was so quiet. I would speak for like the both of us. Now I'm working on like thinking a moment, reeling it in. Not complaining before I speak. And Joey King.

You know if your like mom is yelling at your sibling and even if you're annoyed with your sibling, you just like won't let that slide. It's like only you can yell at your sibling. I'm like, you can't do that here. That is, you want to talk about her like that. Plus, we've been taking your calls, listening to your voicemails and giving advice.

Or at least trying to. So if you've got catching up to do, now is the perfect time. Listen to Hey Jonas on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. I guess. Hi, this is Kylie Breakman. Angel Geratana. Jeremy Colhain.

Patrick McDonald. And we're the hosts of the Artists on Artists on Artists on Artists Podcast. The Improvised Character Comedy Podcast where each week a new panel of artists discuss their craft. Join us for a panel of wellness influencers.

What I try to do is faux journal. I don't know. Have you guys heard of faux journaling? Yeah, it's reading. It's called reading. So we don't like to use that word anymore. Okay.

A panel of New Yorker cartoonists. Have you guys? You've you guys done Terry Gross's Peloton class? No! I've been dying, too. I'm so sorry. I'm seeing a reading of Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes

by Audra McDonald's at the Wonderland Bookstore on 14th. That's crazy. I went to the Wonderland Bookstore yesterday, and I heard Nora Jones do a reading of Zero Dark 30. No way. You have to come to the last bookstore, though. Kim Cottrell is reading the guitar tabs

of yesterday. A panel of Eurovision participants. And we do a little Halloween sometime. Does the Pope dress up? He winks on Halloween. He gets right up next to the microphone. I hear you can almost hear the eyelashes hit each other. You never seen Italy so quiet as when the Pope gets up to wink on Halloween.

Listen to artists on artists on artists on artists on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. On the new podcast Solita, we share the messy reality of traveling alone as a woman. I can wait four hours for the next bus or this random dude. is offering me a ride on his motorcycle. I chose option B. I'm Julie Pinero, and I travel by myself because it's a rare space where I can say yes

without asking anyone else first. I'm on a mission to reclaim the word solita, trading the pity for possibility. Every time I tried to be alone, I kept meeting people, and they were like, you smiled at us. Not a lot of people smile around here. It's when you're alone that you're most receptive to the world as it is,

and not the lies you're sold about it. It can be a time where you push your limits, change your mind, or wake up to a new version of yourself. So whether you're a solo travel veteran or you're too nervous to book your first trip, I hope you listen to Solita on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

When I was 14 years old, I was kidnapped and held captive for nine months. I survived, and I've spent my life exploring how other people survive what should have destroyed them. I'm Elizabeth Smart, and these are the Survivor Files. I just remember this low, taunting voice next to my ear saying, shut up, don't say anything. Every week, I'm with survivors who live through the unthinkable. I knew if he woke up, without a doubt, he was going to hurt me.

I started feeling that there was someone at the end of my bed, and I just, started screaming. They are abducted, stalked, controlled, and nearly silenced. But these aren't stories about what's taken from them. There's stories about what it takes to make it out alive. Listen to the Survivor Files with Elizabeth Smart on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is the Bobbycast.

I wanted to share a segment with you from one of the Bobby Bones podcast network shows. and so it's Movie Mike's movie podcast. I think every week, especially if you love movies or stories about movies, Mike does best and worst and also fun stories from the history of movies. So if you like this clip, which I hope you do, go check out Movie Mike's Movie Podcast and hit subscribe. That would be awesome. For you, the best movie you saw in August.

I'm going to go with One Night Only. Did you feel like that was going to be more of a rom-com? It was a rom-com. Did you expect it to be as politically charged as it was? Could you describe the? movie. Well, one of my friends texted me before and said, because he saw it early. And he was like, the movie was more politically charged than I thought. So it is essentially the purge, but for sex. But single people, single people can't do it. You can't do it unless you're married. Correct. And there's

one night of the year that you can do it. And like everyone has this like, not a chip in them, but this thing in there. Yeah. And then it like disappears. Very hunger games as as far as like the markers they have. And then for that one night only, they basically go to town for like, what, six hours? I mean, it was longer than that. They were all over the city. That couldn't have been six hours. If I hadn't, I've had that heads up, no, I wouldn't have expected it. But I thought it was really good.

I love Callum Turner. He was really good at it. I love him. Like, he and do a leapa together. Beautiful couple. Monica Barbaro. Phenomenal. I feel like some people are being robbed of like still a traditional rom-com.

because I think that those don't really work in theaters as much anymore. It primarily now goes to Netflix. And I feel like people go into a movie like this or maybe even like the materialist thinking like, oh, this is being dubbed as a rom-com. But I love how the rom-com has evolved. Yes. Where it's not exactly what you think of a rom-com being like one of those 2000s movies with like Matthew McConaughey anymore. It's a little bit more sophisticated. Have you seen that clip going around where he talks about how to lose a guy in 10 days makes him the most money?

mailbox money still gets a mailbox on residuals because of valentine's day yes he's like every time around march boom big chick and i feel like it was always on like tbs and like e those sorts of things i will say i wonder if the shift to rom-com on streaming is it's a great like girls night movie yeah and you know you get in your comfy clothes you get a bottle of wine you have some takeout you have all your friends over. I feel like some environments, like some movies are meant to be enjoyed more at home. So yeah, what would you rate that one? For pure entertainment, I'm going to give it, I'm going to give it four Trojans.

There you go. See, I was called something. I give it a 3.5 out of five. I would say dating apps. Okay. That's a little bit more appropriate than mine. Mine's relevant. There's a scene, though.

Yeah. I know what you're talking about. I don't know where. For my best of August, would it be a lot of August? be weird to pick something I did not see in theaters for maybe the first time ever. No. I think I'm going to go with the Travis Barker documentary. It was so good.

I was hooked. It's called Louder Than Fear. It was on Hulu. Filmed over like nine years. I will say I am a huge Blinklin 82 fan. Like they are my favorite band. And I knew a lot about the history of the band. And it was cool seeing it all compiled into one story.

And it was also fun that, like, I got to experience something that I'm such a huge fan of, but that you enjoyed it too. Yeah, I'm a big Travis Barker fan. I think he's talented. And of course, I love, like, pop culture crossover. But I remembered when he had his show with, like, Shannon Mokler and now he's married to Courtney Kardashian. Which is crazy. I mean, I remember when he got in that plane crash and survived. And so just those huge moments and listening to him talk about it.

Because I don't feel like he's talked a ton about it publicly. he's talked about like never flying again but you get to hear like what happened right before and like the weird kind of like ominous warnings and just all of this surrounding it and he's gone through so much and like how extensive the burns were and that he is back at this level doing what he loves like after something as tragic as that yeah i don't know how he got back to being able to run and like hosting running events across the country i feel kind of bad for him now because the documentary is out and everybody wants to ask him about the plane crash. Like having to relive that time and time again in all these interviews, I'm surprised

he's not at a point of saying, he probably will now of like, I don't want to talk about it again. It's out there. Like, don't ask me any questions about it. Like, I don't want to be like somebody who's having these kind of like rules on my interviews. But I think at that point, people would understand because the documentary is out there. If you want to know about it, watch the documentary. I don't think there's anything else you can possibly ask him that he hasn't talked about already. So I feel like people need to stop asking him about it. Because I just see like this glaze in his eyes when he has to, he has to tell the story and talk about it again.

That's literally like the worst, worst thing you could ever go through. And then yeah, to have to relive it and talk about it and just like put yourself emotionally back there. And I'm sure he's done tons of therapy. Like he talked about that. But even, I mean, we saw him in concert. And so like to get to see him at that level and then knowing,

it took to get back there because Spring Crash, it was the substance issues. Like, he had to overcome a lot. But that's why I put that one as my best of the month. I gave it 4.5 out of five drumsticks. What do you give it? I honestly think I'd give it five. I think it's one of the best music documentaries

I've ever seen, but I'm also a huge Blink 1182 fan. Just one of the best documentaries. I mean, nine years of footage. Like, we were like how, they had Taylor Hawkins interviews. So we were like, how long ago was this filmed? For your worst of August, what do you have? I'm going to go, and again, I'm going to say it's my least favorite. It's not the worst.

It wasn't a bad movie, but I liked other things. I'm going to go the rivals of Amazia King. The Matthew McConaughey movie? That was up close to like my top. I know. You got to see Matthew McConaughey. I know, but if you think about all the other movies we saw, I really enjoyed them more. And like even the Netflix don't say good luck with Melanie Olenski and, I don't

Sam Sandler's daughter. It just was like so emotional. That one just like got me. I will say there were a couple graphic injury scenes and rivals that took it down for me that were at the beginning. And I was a little like, whoa, what are we? What am I about to watch? So there was a little little graphic for my taste. Something I feel like we've experienced recently that is maybe only unique to us is we've seen some of these movies at the Bell Court, which is our local theater here in Nashville, our nonprofit theater. I feel like the crowd kind of influences a little bit as far as how funny movies are made out to be.

And I will say, I think especially because was it the director? Yeah. The director was in the audience. And I feel like there were funny parts, but there were some parts of people. People were laughing out loud. And I was a little like, I don't know that that was meant to be funny. Yes. And it kind of had what I call like the film festival effect.

Whenever you see a movie debut, like maybe overseas or at like the, the time, Toronto Film Festival and the actors and directors are in attendance. And then you hear it gets a 10 minute standing ovation. You're like, this must be the best movie ever. It's oftentimes because they are in the room that other people glaze it a little bit. The rock and the smash. Exactly. That got a huge standing ovation that we all saw and we're like, what was that?

It was just for the physical transformation. Yeah. So I feel like we're starting to experience that a little bit here, not even just at a screening with the director and Matthew McConaughey there. The drama. Yes, but there's... People were rolling on the floor for the drama and I was like, this isn't like, LOL funny.

And I'll talk about another movie I saw there that I kind of felt the exact same thing. So even with all that, it did take me a little bit to settle into the movie because I wasn't expecting it to be funny and everybody else was rolling around us that I found it more funny. I thought it was going to be a little bit more of a thriller, more focused on the crime. It's not. Yeah, it wasn't. But I ended up really enjoying it because I thought Matthew McConae's character was really. really good at it. And I just, I guess I'm kind of re-igniting my love for Matthew McConaughey. I saw him in person. I like brushed past him one time at a football game. Not like right next to him,

but he was with his kid, but people were like, this is when his kids were so young. I was in college and people were like following him with this kid. And he was like, hey, I'm just trying to get my kid a snow cone. Could you not like follow me? That was before he had an official position. Now he's just kind of always on the field. We've seen him at games. This was the closest. We've probably been to him recently. Yes. And it was cool to see him perform afterwards where I wouldn't say he's a great singer. I feel like he's developed a style that kind of works.

Yes. He kind of like yell sings. And he's very passionate. I think because he is so charismatic, he can kind of get away with it. Now I'm going to buy, am I going to buy a Matthew McDonaghey album? Nah, I'm good. But it is kind of interesting to see some more actors kind of dip their toes in music. Like I saw The Rock put out a single.

And it's like, he is really trying to sing, though. I think he did Maui and he's like, I'm a singer now. Oh, no. Is this going to bring you back to making me listen to the Vin Diesel song? But Ben Diesel knows his capabilities as a singer. That's a dance driven song. But you make me listen to that song, unironically. But I feel like I do.

But the rock wrote a song like about his kids and it's like kind of emotional. Oh. All I hear is the rock singing. And he's like, I remember what he did like rap songs back in like the WWF days. Before they were WWE, he did like a song about Pi. So he's maybe. just wants to be like this country singer now or something. World Wrestling Federation.

Yeah. And then we went to entertainment. Yeah. I think they got sued by the World Wildlife Foundation. So they had to change it to W. W.W.E. That pain and it was like, nah,

you got to drop the F. Speaking of the Rock, you made me a bet last week and you were like, I bet $20 that you can't name five professional wrestlers. I named nine. And with that $20, I bought a new lip gloss as a Sephora. So thank you so much.

Very good. And then I asked you if you could name five books that had read recently. And I couldn't. And you failed so spectacularly. You had like deep cuts too on the rest of it. You're like Stacey Keebler. I'm like, interesting. I did.

Thank you. I might have spent more than that. $20 that you spent. So that was your worst. For my worst of August, I think I'm going to have to go with Super Troopers 3. They'd be so devastated to hear that. Which I gave a two out of five. Yeah, I think that is the lowest of the month.

And I think I was excited because I love. the original one. I've interviewed the guys from Super Troopers. I think they are brilliant guys. I think they know comedy. But this movie was not it. I still think that they made the movie they wanted to make, but it's within the Super Troopers

box that only has so much space to expand on that it felt like maybe if I was 20 years younger, I would have found funny. I don't take pride in not liking that movie. I was actually getting roasting a lot for not liking that movie on TikTok and YouTube, but I

I just had a little bit higher expectations, and it was just not that good, not that funny. Thanks for listening to a Bobbycast production. Hi, this is Kylie Breakman. Angel Geratana. Jeremy Colhain. Patrick McDonald. And we're the hosts of the Artists on Artists on Artists on Artists Podcast.

The Improvised Character Comedy Podcast where each week a new panel of artists discuss their craft. Join us for a panel of Eurovision participants. And we do a little Halloween sometimes. Does the Pope dress up? He, he wing. on Halloween. It's right up next to the microphone.

I hear you can almost hear the eyelashes hit each other. You never seen Italy so quiet as when the Pope gets up to wink on Halloween. Listen to Artists on Artists on Artists every Thursday on the IHeart Radio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Self-care September is your reminder to slow down, check in with yourself, get off your phone, and maybe ask, why am I like this? I'm Jemisbeg, host of the Psychology of Your 20s podcast, and this month we're helping you make sense of the person that you are becoming, from setting boundaries and navigating friendships to understanding anxiety, confidence, relationships, and attachment. Sometimes our biggest decisions, without us even realizing it, aren't driven by what we truly want, but by what will prevent us from feeling lonely or being alone.

Listen to the psychology of your 20s on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. If your bookshelf and your For You page are equally important to your personality, welcome home. Pro Society is a weekly podcast that's part book club, part group chat for anyone who thinks pride and prejudice and love island to serve the same level of discourse. Each week, we're connecting the dots between books, the internet, and pop culture with your favorite writers, book talk creators, and plenty of overthought opinions. Yeah, I'm obsessed. I'm obsessed. Listen to Pro Society on the Iheart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. On the new podcast, Solita, we share the messy reality of traveling alone as a woman.

I can wait four hours for the next bus or this random dude is offering me a ride on his motorcycle. I chose option B. I'm Julie Pinero, and I travel by myself because it's a rare space where I can say yes without asking anyone else first. I'm on a mission to reclaim the word Solita, trading the pity for possibility. Listen to Solita on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I survived nine months in captivity, and I've spent my life exploring how other people survive what should have destroyed them. I'm Elizabeth Smart, and these are the Survivor Files. Every week, I'm with survivors who live through the unthinkable, abducted, stalked, controlled,

and nearly silenced. These are stories about what it takes to make it out alive. Listen to the Survivor Files with Elizabeth Smart on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an IHeart podcast. Guaranteed human.