Aug. 4, 2026
*BREAKING* Killer Mom Trial: BREAKING Killer Mom Trial: Lindsay Clancy Speaks For 1st Time, And It Was Significant
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed A breaking development out of the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial this morning: we heard directly from Lindsay Clancy who confirmed to the judge she was agreeing to much of the physical evidence the prosecution would be presenting in the case. It’s a highly unusual move in a murder case, but because Clancy already admits to strangling her three young children, this avoids unnecessary days of testimony proving chain of custody from witnesses who handled the blood samples and other DNA evidence linking Clancy to the killings. Bottom line, it’s not in dispute whether she killed her children, the question is, was she criminally responsible for the murders if she was suffering from postpartum psychosis.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:12
Speaker 1: Hey, that folks.
00:00:13
Speaker 2: It is Tuesday, August fourth, and a bit of a breaking story here is we just heard Lindsey Clancy speak in her triple murder trial and what she had to say will have a significant impact on this trial. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Rodsey. Seems like we can't get a good flow to this trial, as crazy as that might sound, but there's a lot of stopping and starting and this morning once again supposed to start at nine am.
00:00:41
Speaker 3: There was a delay, yes, and the delay was revealed when we got to hear Lindsey Clancy speak for the very first time outside of the jury but literally it's the first time we've heard her voice actually in that courtroom. And what she was agreeing to, as you mention, is going to change the timeline of this trial.
00:01:05
Speaker 2: And it does it make sense rood so because as it was happening, we were a little confused, like, wait, what are they doing and what are they agreeing to? And then after we heard it all, we go, Okay, that makes sense. I guess why didn't we do this before? Is it kind of where we land?
00:01:18
Speaker 3: Yes, because basically, this is a murder trial that is incredibly and exceptionally rare, because the defense is not trying to defend against a killing, against a murder, it's trying to defend whether or not their client, or whether or not Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible. She admits to killing her children. So all of this evidence that you would typically see the prosecution introduced to establish through DNA, through blood evidence, through physical evidence that the defendant killed the victims, all of that kind of seems unnecessary in this case because she's saying, yeah, it was me, all that DNA evidence, all that blood, all of my DNA on those exercise bands, etc.
00:02:07
Speaker 1: Yeah it's mine. I copped to it. I admit it. It was me.
00:02:11
Speaker 2: Hey, it seems strange in a trial of this magnitude Roges talking about three murders of three very young children, that someone is not fighting the prosecution on the key elements and facts and evidence of the case. Yes, that is bizarre, and it also is Robes, like you said, we're not used to this. But she did it, but she might not be criminally responsible. So what we saw in court this morning was them trying to get rid of the extra stuff and let's all just focus on the part we disagree about. Is that right?
00:02:42
Speaker 1: Yes? Because think about it.
00:02:43
Speaker 3: When we first came into this trial, I believe there were upwards of two hundred potential witnesses between the prosecution and the defense. And look, they put every possible witness on that list. It's not that all of those folks were necessary. Theyarely going to be called to testify, but they could have been. And this with this admission, or at least this agreement that was made in court today, it could massively shorten the list of witnesses prosecutors will now have to call to the stand because they don't have to prove something that she's already admitting to.
00:03:20
Speaker 2: You mentioned that list. Yeah, two hundred potential witnesses robes, I've been shot. I don't know the total count. Yesterday, what time they get out of court on Monday.
00:03:29
Speaker 3: Three forty five, and they called thirteen witnesses to the stand.
00:03:32
Speaker 2: That's pretty stunning. And the reason they're going through them so quickly is because the prosecution only has a few questions to ask a detective or a lab tech or sometimes even a nurse. The defense is like cooleah, no, how many times did you just said no questions?
00:03:49
Speaker 3: Joanna, no cross examination whatsoever because they're not disputing the evidence that's being introduced.
00:03:56
Speaker 1: So yes, I'm just thinking.
00:03:57
Speaker 3: So when the judge says we are, our ears perked up and we were very interested in what was happening. When you hear a judge ask a defendant who's standing up there before the trial even gets underway for the day, and says, do you agree that the Commonwealth does not have to prove the facts that are in the stipulation?
00:04:18
Speaker 1: And she says, yes, you never hear that. You don't in a trial, You just don't.
00:04:24
Speaker 2: So there were several, as he said, Robes, stipulations, and that was one thing that they gave up. So yes, they come into court, immediately go to a sidebar. So we're standing by and we're waiting. Court comes back into session, but still without the jury, and this is when all this is going on. So she's addressing the court and of course she is still seated because she is paralyzed. She is in that wheelchair. But Robes, given what we have seen the past couple of days with her crying and emotional testimonies, she robes, for lack of a better phrase, she seemed as sane as anybody in answering those questions.
00:04:59
Speaker 3: She did that was notable to me too, Like I understand that this postpartum psychosis was episodic and perhaps confined to this period of time in which these atrocities took place, but still it is strange to hear a woman who is capable of doing what she did and was, according to her attorney, in a mindset that was altered, where you are certifiably their claiming clinically medically insane. It's then strange to see that person seemingly lucid answering questions, Yes, your honor, Yes, I understand your honor.
00:05:39
Speaker 1: Yeah, you don't expect that.
00:05:41
Speaker 2: Brett Rose, this is and I would encourage people to watch because there are folks out there writing who are taking issue with how this case is being covered and even with how the prosecution is handling this case. It is giving this if you listen to the prosecution kind of a warped idea of what psychosis is, what postpartum psychosis can be, what mental illness can look like, and robes she's showing. We've seen doctors sit up there and say, yeah, she could be in psychosis, but have a perfectly normal conversation with me and make plans. So robes they say, this woman still wants to kill herself, is still in manick states at times. And she sat there and she calmly, very lucidly answered his questions and seemed to fully understand robes. It does in the attorney, the defense attorney, he used the word drooling like this is this idea that if somebody's quote unquote crazy, they're supposed to look a certain way. It's supposed to be lashing out and they can't keep it together in their crazy eyes.
00:06:42
Speaker 1: And erratic behavior.
00:06:44
Speaker 2: Ropes they are. This is an important one to keep an eye on.
00:06:48
Speaker 3: It is, and it is fascinating to watch this all take place, and it is fascinating to hear her be able to to answer the.
00:06:57
Speaker 1: Questions the way she did.
00:06:58
Speaker 3: I'm curious, like my my brain goes somewhere where if you are putting on a defense, an insanity defense, say postpartum psychosis defense, if you are claiming that you aren't responsible for your actions, how then can you be responsible for even your words? So if you're agreeing to this, how can you even agree to this if your whole defense is that you aren't responsible for your actions and reactions and maybe even your thoughts.
00:07:27
Speaker 2: See and that is where and it is fascinating robes, and we're getting an education in psychosis to where you can go into it and come out of it. You could be into it, for it can come in and out. It can be an episode that lasts a little while and you don't have another one the rest of your life. In robes, it is when we have insanity defenses. We usually see some some defendants robes that are sometimes acting up, seemingly out of control. You can't reason with them. These are folks who oftentimes they cannot help with their defense. Right she is, she's not that we're learning something else brobes about it insanity to defense that I haven't seen play out like this before.
00:08:08
Speaker 3: Yet she's crying at the appropriate times, And I say that meaning she is crying when we want to cry. She's reacting emotionally to things that should be reacted emotionally too. And yet at the same time, she was capable of doing something that I would say the let's hope the vast majority ninety nine point nine percent of mothers would be incapable of doing so. It's hard to actually get your head around what we're witnessing, what we're seeing, and trying to understand what her defense.
00:08:39
Speaker 1: Is explaining to all of us.
00:08:42
Speaker 3: And so far, look, they haven't even necessarily put on their defense, but through some of the cross examination of some of these forensic psychologists or psychiatrists, we are seeing where they're headed with their defense and how they're trying to set up and establish a documented case of certainly don't I mean, I don't know how anyone could dispute the fact that she was suffering mentally. Now whether or not that crosses into a line of the psychosis or not being held responsible for your actions, but clearly she was mentally troubled.
00:09:14
Speaker 1: I think everyone can agree with that. Agreed.
00:09:16
Speaker 3: Where's the line when you don't become when you aren't criminally responsible.
00:09:21
Speaker 2: Well, I've heard too from two doctors from the prosecution already who have confirmed to me that what she went through and how is possible rooks the defense. I remember we were all shocked when during Diddy's trial, after all those witnesses from the prosecution, they rested without calling anybody because they were able to prove their case by using the prosecution's witness and so far the defense seems to be doing that. The stipulation what is in the first place, legally speaking, it is an agreement between the parties about the basic facts of the case. We agree to this stuff. We don't need to bring in fifteen witnesses to talk about it. So what did she give up? No right anymore to cross examine certain witnesses. The state no longer has the burden to prove all the elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. That is Robes. That is something you would never see, never in a case that burden is so high. But what they've charged her with, Robes is first degree murder. You have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Don't have to anymore because they're admitting that first degree murder and everything you're saying about it where we agree with yeah, now we need to go argue about whether or not I am criminally irresponsible for that.
00:10:38
Speaker 3: She not only admits to doing it, she admits to planning it the whole thing. She admits to acting on those plans. She admits to actually going through with those plans. I just it was one of those really fascinating moments when the judge followed up because he kept asking her different versions of the same question to make sure it was on the record, and then she fully understood. But he's like, you are basically relieve the Commonwealth of its burden to prove certain facts. Is that what you want to do? Lindsay Clancy answers, yes, your honor.
00:11:11
Speaker 1: That was stunning, calmly.
00:11:14
Speaker 2: Right the whole time, said I've talked to my I'll worry about it. I've had time to review it. Nobody's forcing me into it, and so here we at Rose. I don't know what the timing could be, but this could cut off a lot of witnesses, a lot of time in this case because so far Rows we've actually seen a lot of witnesses they could have done without.
00:11:30
Speaker 3: Absolutely so they were trying to establish stuff that doesn't need to be established because.
00:11:34
Speaker 1: It's not disputed. And so now you can move.
00:11:38
Speaker 3: Forward either with fewer folks on the stand or certainly it will go much quicker because now the defense has completely given up its right to cross examined. So regardless, this is absolutely going to speed up a trial that was already on track, if not ahead of schedule. So that is good news for the jurors, and look, I would imagine this would be good news for Lindsay Clancy in the sense that does she really want to sit through all of this blood evidence and DNA evidence and in doing so reliving those exact moments that she wants to forget?
00:12:11
Speaker 2: You know, to that point. I had a question for you that I'll ask right after the break, and we'll also give you an update that we got from the judge about the schedule now and what's going to happen moving forward in this trial. I can't remember the question.
00:12:26
Speaker 1: Well, I said something about her wanting to not have to relive.
00:12:29
Speaker 2: Okay, we continue here on Amy and TJ. Just getting a short time ago. Didn't plan on doing this episode today, but got an update, a significant one out of the courtroom for the Lindsay Clancy trial, and that she agreed to certain stipulations which is going to shorten the trial. Essentially, what they're saying, we've agreed the defense of the prosecution. We agreed to so many of the facts of the case. No reason to keep putting on witnesses. So she's given up her rights to cross examines of witnesses, giving up her right some rights, but still the argument is over whether or not she was insane or not. Now, Robes, My thought was, Yes, this speeds things along, But who does this help if the jury doesn't have to sit through all of that evidence? Because Robes, it is impactful to see those elastic bands of the murder weapon. It's impactful to hear about blood evidence, It's impactful to hear all this stuff. Does it help them in some way the defense of the prosecution if the jury isn't sitting.
00:13:29
Speaker 1: Through that, Yeah, I don't know.
00:13:31
Speaker 3: I think you could look at it from both sides, because I thought about that too. Does the prosecution lose some of that emotional impact?
00:13:39
Speaker 1: Look, the first week was gutting.
00:13:41
Speaker 3: It was one of the more emotional, if not the most emotional week I've ever witnessed in a trial.
00:13:46
Speaker 1: Because they did see those.
00:13:49
Speaker 3: Exercise bands, and they did hear that nine to one one call, and they did hear from first responders and the EMTs and the firefighters who showed up and talked about the scene they walked into. They heard from the emergence sup Room doctors who tried to save those children's lives who were brain dead, whose hearts had stopped. So all of that emotional testimony is already into evidence.
00:14:10
Speaker 1: So maybe perhaps even not having.
00:14:13
Speaker 3: To dwell on the minutia of the technical aspect of DNA and blood spatter and fingerprint and all the other perhaps evidence the chain of command proving that they followed proper procedure, all of that can really weigh down a trial, the momentum, maybe even a jury's or a juror's attention span. So maybe everyone can actually be focused. Maybe this helps both sides and that the real issue, the actual issue as to whether or not she was insane or sane, whether she was suffering from postpartum psychosis or not, the focus, that is what jurors are trying to figure out. So maybe by really zeroing in on that, well actually get to a better outcome without all of the exhausting technical.
00:15:07
Speaker 1: Evidence.
00:15:08
Speaker 2: See I wondered if if it helped the defense by getting rid of the some technical testimony, what's left is a bunch of emotional stuff. Robes, if the emotional stuff, I was overwhelmed last week with that testimony, and I was just watching it from New York. Robes They're sitting in there taking this stuff in, and the judge even last week you had to acknowledge them crying and emotional in the courtroom. So Robes, if you eliminate the technical stuff, it's almost we watch horror movies a lot, Robes, and we're relieved when it's daytime in a movie because that means we have a break. We don't have to be emotional and into it. He just he can let your shoulders down, Robes, they stay on emotional edge. If they stay on emotional edge the whole time and you get to the end, are they going to be mad at her or sympathized with her more?
00:16:03
Speaker 1: I don't know, but I don't know either.
00:16:05
Speaker 2: That was my thought.
00:16:06
Speaker 3: Bro.
00:16:06
Speaker 2: The technical stuff just at least gives you a break, and maybe they need to refocus on stuff besides emotion, because emotion you are with the Clancy family. On emotion, I wouldn't unless.
00:16:18
Speaker 1: You're angry, unless you're angry at her. Look, it's so subjective.
00:16:22
Speaker 3: As you point out this emotional side of it, I hadn't thought about the fact that the technical evidence, the forensic evidence, the physical evidence, in a way is a break from the emotional evidence and allows you to focus on the science. Because I feel like, look, it's a heavy burden to be a juror, especially in a trial like this, because a woman's life is on the line, and what you're saying about women's mental health, what you're saying about what women may be going through, what you're acknowledging, what you're all of.
00:16:52
Speaker 1: That is a heavy.
00:16:53
Speaker 3: Burden to feel when you know that your vote, you have to have a unanimous vote. So what you think, what you feel, your impressions of her and the case could not only just affect Lindsey Clancy and her family, but other women to come potentially, Well.
00:17:13
Speaker 2: You're gonna get twelve people to agree that this lady was not suffering. Again, it's early, baby. This is just the second week.
00:17:24
Speaker 1: Yeah, and they keep that in mind.
00:17:25
Speaker 3: They said this was going to go four to six weeks, perhaps so initially we don't know how much time this big event this morning shaved off, but at least I would imagine a couple days from where they thought they would be anymore.
00:17:39
Speaker 2: We were four last week. They were supposed to start, well, they did start on Monday, but they were off on Tuesday. So on they got four days of testimony in the first week, and the judge was already saying we're ahead of schedule, so maybe they were already ahead. Now this does what I mean. Are we looking at a couple few week trial versus a month and a half two month trial. We don't know yet, but he already has acknowledged what time are they getting out today, bab.
00:18:00
Speaker 3: They're getting out today around the same time as they did yesterday. But tomorrow is the truncated day. We're not sure what they're going to be talking about in the afternoon, but he already made it clear that he needs to speak with the lawyers with both sides of the legal teams in the afternoon, So they're only going to go to one o'clock tomorrow, but they'll have a day until three four o'clock this afternoon, and we will continue to monitor what happens in the Lindsay Clancy killer mom trial there in Massachusetts. For you in the meantime, thank you for listening to us. As always, we appreciate you. I'm Amy Roebuck alongside TJ.
00:18:30
Speaker 1: Holmes. We'll talk soon.
Speaker 1: Hey, that folks.
00:00:13
Speaker 2: It is Tuesday, August fourth, and a bit of a breaking story here is we just heard Lindsey Clancy speak in her triple murder trial and what she had to say will have a significant impact on this trial. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Rodsey. Seems like we can't get a good flow to this trial, as crazy as that might sound, but there's a lot of stopping and starting and this morning once again supposed to start at nine am.
00:00:41
Speaker 3: There was a delay, yes, and the delay was revealed when we got to hear Lindsey Clancy speak for the very first time outside of the jury but literally it's the first time we've heard her voice actually in that courtroom. And what she was agreeing to, as you mention, is going to change the timeline of this trial.
00:01:05
Speaker 2: And it does it make sense rood so because as it was happening, we were a little confused, like, wait, what are they doing and what are they agreeing to? And then after we heard it all, we go, Okay, that makes sense. I guess why didn't we do this before? Is it kind of where we land?
00:01:18
Speaker 3: Yes, because basically, this is a murder trial that is incredibly and exceptionally rare, because the defense is not trying to defend against a killing, against a murder, it's trying to defend whether or not their client, or whether or not Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible. She admits to killing her children. So all of this evidence that you would typically see the prosecution introduced to establish through DNA, through blood evidence, through physical evidence that the defendant killed the victims, all of that kind of seems unnecessary in this case because she's saying, yeah, it was me, all that DNA evidence, all that blood, all of my DNA on those exercise bands, etc.
00:02:07
Speaker 1: Yeah it's mine. I copped to it. I admit it. It was me.
00:02:11
Speaker 2: Hey, it seems strange in a trial of this magnitude Roges talking about three murders of three very young children, that someone is not fighting the prosecution on the key elements and facts and evidence of the case. Yes, that is bizarre, and it also is Robes, like you said, we're not used to this. But she did it, but she might not be criminally responsible. So what we saw in court this morning was them trying to get rid of the extra stuff and let's all just focus on the part we disagree about. Is that right?
00:02:42
Speaker 1: Yes? Because think about it.
00:02:43
Speaker 3: When we first came into this trial, I believe there were upwards of two hundred potential witnesses between the prosecution and the defense. And look, they put every possible witness on that list. It's not that all of those folks were necessary. Theyarely going to be called to testify, but they could have been. And this with this admission, or at least this agreement that was made in court today, it could massively shorten the list of witnesses prosecutors will now have to call to the stand because they don't have to prove something that she's already admitting to.
00:03:20
Speaker 2: You mentioned that list. Yeah, two hundred potential witnesses robes, I've been shot. I don't know the total count. Yesterday, what time they get out of court on Monday.
00:03:29
Speaker 3: Three forty five, and they called thirteen witnesses to the stand.
00:03:32
Speaker 2: That's pretty stunning. And the reason they're going through them so quickly is because the prosecution only has a few questions to ask a detective or a lab tech or sometimes even a nurse. The defense is like cooleah, no, how many times did you just said no questions?
00:03:49
Speaker 3: Joanna, no cross examination whatsoever because they're not disputing the evidence that's being introduced.
00:03:56
Speaker 1: So yes, I'm just thinking.
00:03:57
Speaker 3: So when the judge says we are, our ears perked up and we were very interested in what was happening. When you hear a judge ask a defendant who's standing up there before the trial even gets underway for the day, and says, do you agree that the Commonwealth does not have to prove the facts that are in the stipulation?
00:04:18
Speaker 1: And she says, yes, you never hear that. You don't in a trial, You just don't.
00:04:24
Speaker 2: So there were several, as he said, Robes, stipulations, and that was one thing that they gave up. So yes, they come into court, immediately go to a sidebar. So we're standing by and we're waiting. Court comes back into session, but still without the jury, and this is when all this is going on. So she's addressing the court and of course she is still seated because she is paralyzed. She is in that wheelchair. But Robes, given what we have seen the past couple of days with her crying and emotional testimonies, she robes, for lack of a better phrase, she seemed as sane as anybody in answering those questions.
00:04:59
Speaker 3: She did that was notable to me too, Like I understand that this postpartum psychosis was episodic and perhaps confined to this period of time in which these atrocities took place, but still it is strange to hear a woman who is capable of doing what she did and was, according to her attorney, in a mindset that was altered, where you are certifiably their claiming clinically medically insane. It's then strange to see that person seemingly lucid answering questions, Yes, your honor, Yes, I understand your honor.
00:05:39
Speaker 1: Yeah, you don't expect that.
00:05:41
Speaker 2: Brett Rose, this is and I would encourage people to watch because there are folks out there writing who are taking issue with how this case is being covered and even with how the prosecution is handling this case. It is giving this if you listen to the prosecution kind of a warped idea of what psychosis is, what postpartum psychosis can be, what mental illness can look like, and robes she's showing. We've seen doctors sit up there and say, yeah, she could be in psychosis, but have a perfectly normal conversation with me and make plans. So robes they say, this woman still wants to kill herself, is still in manick states at times. And she sat there and she calmly, very lucidly answered his questions and seemed to fully understand robes. It does in the attorney, the defense attorney, he used the word drooling like this is this idea that if somebody's quote unquote crazy, they're supposed to look a certain way. It's supposed to be lashing out and they can't keep it together in their crazy eyes.
00:06:42
Speaker 1: And erratic behavior.
00:06:44
Speaker 2: Ropes they are. This is an important one to keep an eye on.
00:06:48
Speaker 3: It is, and it is fascinating to watch this all take place, and it is fascinating to hear her be able to to answer the.
00:06:57
Speaker 1: Questions the way she did.
00:06:58
Speaker 3: I'm curious, like my my brain goes somewhere where if you are putting on a defense, an insanity defense, say postpartum psychosis defense, if you are claiming that you aren't responsible for your actions, how then can you be responsible for even your words? So if you're agreeing to this, how can you even agree to this if your whole defense is that you aren't responsible for your actions and reactions and maybe even your thoughts.
00:07:27
Speaker 2: See and that is where and it is fascinating robes, and we're getting an education in psychosis to where you can go into it and come out of it. You could be into it, for it can come in and out. It can be an episode that lasts a little while and you don't have another one the rest of your life. In robes, it is when we have insanity defenses. We usually see some some defendants robes that are sometimes acting up, seemingly out of control. You can't reason with them. These are folks who oftentimes they cannot help with their defense. Right she is, she's not that we're learning something else brobes about it insanity to defense that I haven't seen play out like this before.
00:08:08
Speaker 3: Yet she's crying at the appropriate times, And I say that meaning she is crying when we want to cry. She's reacting emotionally to things that should be reacted emotionally too. And yet at the same time, she was capable of doing something that I would say the let's hope the vast majority ninety nine point nine percent of mothers would be incapable of doing so. It's hard to actually get your head around what we're witnessing, what we're seeing, and trying to understand what her defense.
00:08:39
Speaker 1: Is explaining to all of us.
00:08:42
Speaker 3: And so far, look, they haven't even necessarily put on their defense, but through some of the cross examination of some of these forensic psychologists or psychiatrists, we are seeing where they're headed with their defense and how they're trying to set up and establish a documented case of certainly don't I mean, I don't know how anyone could dispute the fact that she was suffering mentally. Now whether or not that crosses into a line of the psychosis or not being held responsible for your actions, but clearly she was mentally troubled.
00:09:14
Speaker 1: I think everyone can agree with that. Agreed.
00:09:16
Speaker 3: Where's the line when you don't become when you aren't criminally responsible.
00:09:21
Speaker 2: Well, I've heard too from two doctors from the prosecution already who have confirmed to me that what she went through and how is possible rooks the defense. I remember we were all shocked when during Diddy's trial, after all those witnesses from the prosecution, they rested without calling anybody because they were able to prove their case by using the prosecution's witness and so far the defense seems to be doing that. The stipulation what is in the first place, legally speaking, it is an agreement between the parties about the basic facts of the case. We agree to this stuff. We don't need to bring in fifteen witnesses to talk about it. So what did she give up? No right anymore to cross examine certain witnesses. The state no longer has the burden to prove all the elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. That is Robes. That is something you would never see, never in a case that burden is so high. But what they've charged her with, Robes is first degree murder. You have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Don't have to anymore because they're admitting that first degree murder and everything you're saying about it where we agree with yeah, now we need to go argue about whether or not I am criminally irresponsible for that.
00:10:38
Speaker 3: She not only admits to doing it, she admits to planning it the whole thing. She admits to acting on those plans. She admits to actually going through with those plans. I just it was one of those really fascinating moments when the judge followed up because he kept asking her different versions of the same question to make sure it was on the record, and then she fully understood. But he's like, you are basically relieve the Commonwealth of its burden to prove certain facts. Is that what you want to do? Lindsay Clancy answers, yes, your honor.
00:11:11
Speaker 1: That was stunning, calmly.
00:11:14
Speaker 2: Right the whole time, said I've talked to my I'll worry about it. I've had time to review it. Nobody's forcing me into it, and so here we at Rose. I don't know what the timing could be, but this could cut off a lot of witnesses, a lot of time in this case because so far Rows we've actually seen a lot of witnesses they could have done without.
00:11:30
Speaker 3: Absolutely so they were trying to establish stuff that doesn't need to be established because.
00:11:34
Speaker 1: It's not disputed. And so now you can move.
00:11:38
Speaker 3: Forward either with fewer folks on the stand or certainly it will go much quicker because now the defense has completely given up its right to cross examined. So regardless, this is absolutely going to speed up a trial that was already on track, if not ahead of schedule. So that is good news for the jurors, and look, I would imagine this would be good news for Lindsay Clancy in the sense that does she really want to sit through all of this blood evidence and DNA evidence and in doing so reliving those exact moments that she wants to forget?
00:12:11
Speaker 2: You know, to that point. I had a question for you that I'll ask right after the break, and we'll also give you an update that we got from the judge about the schedule now and what's going to happen moving forward in this trial. I can't remember the question.
00:12:26
Speaker 1: Well, I said something about her wanting to not have to relive.
00:12:29
Speaker 2: Okay, we continue here on Amy and TJ. Just getting a short time ago. Didn't plan on doing this episode today, but got an update, a significant one out of the courtroom for the Lindsay Clancy trial, and that she agreed to certain stipulations which is going to shorten the trial. Essentially, what they're saying, we've agreed the defense of the prosecution. We agreed to so many of the facts of the case. No reason to keep putting on witnesses. So she's given up her rights to cross examines of witnesses, giving up her right some rights, but still the argument is over whether or not she was insane or not. Now, Robes, My thought was, Yes, this speeds things along, But who does this help if the jury doesn't have to sit through all of that evidence? Because Robes, it is impactful to see those elastic bands of the murder weapon. It's impactful to hear about blood evidence, It's impactful to hear all this stuff. Does it help them in some way the defense of the prosecution if the jury isn't sitting.
00:13:29
Speaker 1: Through that, Yeah, I don't know.
00:13:31
Speaker 3: I think you could look at it from both sides, because I thought about that too. Does the prosecution lose some of that emotional impact?
00:13:39
Speaker 1: Look, the first week was gutting.
00:13:41
Speaker 3: It was one of the more emotional, if not the most emotional week I've ever witnessed in a trial.
00:13:46
Speaker 1: Because they did see those.
00:13:49
Speaker 3: Exercise bands, and they did hear that nine to one one call, and they did hear from first responders and the EMTs and the firefighters who showed up and talked about the scene they walked into. They heard from the emergence sup Room doctors who tried to save those children's lives who were brain dead, whose hearts had stopped. So all of that emotional testimony is already into evidence.
00:14:10
Speaker 1: So maybe perhaps even not having.
00:14:13
Speaker 3: To dwell on the minutia of the technical aspect of DNA and blood spatter and fingerprint and all the other perhaps evidence the chain of command proving that they followed proper procedure, all of that can really weigh down a trial, the momentum, maybe even a jury's or a juror's attention span. So maybe everyone can actually be focused. Maybe this helps both sides and that the real issue, the actual issue as to whether or not she was insane or sane, whether she was suffering from postpartum psychosis or not, the focus, that is what jurors are trying to figure out. So maybe by really zeroing in on that, well actually get to a better outcome without all of the exhausting technical.
00:15:07
Speaker 1: Evidence.
00:15:08
Speaker 2: See I wondered if if it helped the defense by getting rid of the some technical testimony, what's left is a bunch of emotional stuff. Robes, if the emotional stuff, I was overwhelmed last week with that testimony, and I was just watching it from New York. Robes They're sitting in there taking this stuff in, and the judge even last week you had to acknowledge them crying and emotional in the courtroom. So Robes, if you eliminate the technical stuff, it's almost we watch horror movies a lot, Robes, and we're relieved when it's daytime in a movie because that means we have a break. We don't have to be emotional and into it. He just he can let your shoulders down, Robes, they stay on emotional edge. If they stay on emotional edge the whole time and you get to the end, are they going to be mad at her or sympathized with her more?
00:16:03
Speaker 1: I don't know, but I don't know either.
00:16:05
Speaker 2: That was my thought.
00:16:06
Speaker 3: Bro.
00:16:06
Speaker 2: The technical stuff just at least gives you a break, and maybe they need to refocus on stuff besides emotion, because emotion you are with the Clancy family. On emotion, I wouldn't unless.
00:16:18
Speaker 1: You're angry, unless you're angry at her. Look, it's so subjective.
00:16:22
Speaker 3: As you point out this emotional side of it, I hadn't thought about the fact that the technical evidence, the forensic evidence, the physical evidence, in a way is a break from the emotional evidence and allows you to focus on the science. Because I feel like, look, it's a heavy burden to be a juror, especially in a trial like this, because a woman's life is on the line, and what you're saying about women's mental health, what you're saying about what women may be going through, what you're acknowledging, what you're all of.
00:16:52
Speaker 1: That is a heavy.
00:16:53
Speaker 3: Burden to feel when you know that your vote, you have to have a unanimous vote. So what you think, what you feel, your impressions of her and the case could not only just affect Lindsey Clancy and her family, but other women to come potentially, Well.
00:17:13
Speaker 2: You're gonna get twelve people to agree that this lady was not suffering. Again, it's early, baby. This is just the second week.
00:17:24
Speaker 1: Yeah, and they keep that in mind.
00:17:25
Speaker 3: They said this was going to go four to six weeks, perhaps so initially we don't know how much time this big event this morning shaved off, but at least I would imagine a couple days from where they thought they would be anymore.
00:17:39
Speaker 2: We were four last week. They were supposed to start, well, they did start on Monday, but they were off on Tuesday. So on they got four days of testimony in the first week, and the judge was already saying we're ahead of schedule, so maybe they were already ahead. Now this does what I mean. Are we looking at a couple few week trial versus a month and a half two month trial. We don't know yet, but he already has acknowledged what time are they getting out today, bab.
00:18:00
Speaker 3: They're getting out today around the same time as they did yesterday. But tomorrow is the truncated day. We're not sure what they're going to be talking about in the afternoon, but he already made it clear that he needs to speak with the lawyers with both sides of the legal teams in the afternoon, So they're only going to go to one o'clock tomorrow, but they'll have a day until three four o'clock this afternoon, and we will continue to monitor what happens in the Lindsay Clancy killer mom trial there in Massachusetts. For you in the meantime, thank you for listening to us. As always, we appreciate you. I'm Amy Roebuck alongside TJ.
00:18:30
Speaker 1: Holmes. We'll talk soon.