Aug. 24, 2026
BREAKING: Killer Mom Trial: FUMING Judge Nearly Declares Mistrial!
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed The judge in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial was fuming after a prosecution rebuttal witness brought up Clancy’s Catholic faith and her understanding of mortal sin. Before the defense could even object, the judge called a recess, and when Clancy’s attorney “reluctantly” asked for a mistrial, the judge denied the request, but strongly advised the jury that the witness’ understanding of Catholic faith and teaching is immaterial and should be disregarded, calling it inappropriate. This is the second time the prosecution has brought up the idea of mortal sin, implying that Lindsay Clancy knew killing her children and attempting suicide was wrong because of her faith.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey folks, it is Monday, August twenty fourth, and a breaking update on the triple murder trial of Lindsey Clancy. We just came oh so close to a mistrial and this judge is pissed with that. Welcome again to this breaking episode of Amy and TJ. We just got this news rope. We just watched this play out, I mean, hell, five minutes before we hopped on the mics. Here robes. This came close and a lot of people almost surprised this was not declared a mistrial.
00:00:33
Speaker 2: Yeah, as you mentioned, the judge was as angry as I have ever seen him, and the defense attorney, Kevin Reddington even said he was reluctantly asking for a mistrial but felt like he needed to because of the line of testimony and it was all about morality, about Catholic dogma. And look, this is not something to play around with when you are talking about a woman and they are trying, the prosecution trying to tell jurors that she knew right from wrong, that her Catholic upbringing even was a part of that conversation. And you have a forensic psychiatrist who is not trained in theology, who is not trained in Catholicism offering an opinion or beginning to offer an opinion about Catholic dogma. And that was a huge notice, Ruth.
00:01:23
Speaker 1: He offered an opinion, but it's one that the prosecution has already been scolded for. Last week, robes To used some of the same language about mortal sin. The same phrase came out, and it came out last week, and it was her mama's Lindsey was her mom or mother? It was her mother, her mother right. Prosecution asked her about being a Catholic and said, are you aware that murders a mortal sin?
00:01:51
Speaker 2: So is suicide?
00:01:53
Speaker 1: Immediate objection. Everybody calls to the side. The judge is pissed. Robes when that phrase came up again today, Reddington, you know how quick he is the defense attorney. He didn't even get a chance to object before the judge. His chair is turning around, he's slammed a table. Let me see.
00:02:11
Speaker 2: Everybody rooks it it look and this is something in the Boston area. I just I think most people I don't know, maybe you don't know. I mean I was raised Catholic. That area is a very Catholic area of this country, and a you don't mess with religion, but you don't bring it or invoke it when it comes to determining state of mind. And it seemed so wildly inappropriate last week, especially when you're addressing Lindsay Clancy's own mother about her Catholic upbringing, about her Catholic awareness. And yes, suicide is considered a mortal sin. All of us who went through Catholic school and CCD classes and went to Catholic church, we all know we're taught this from a very early age. Suicide is a mortal sin. Obviously, so is homicide or murder. But to bring that up in the context of knowing right from wrong is such a blurred line between. If we're talking about psychiatry about whether or not someone has a mental illness, how does their religion or how they were raised have anything to do with your mental capacity to know right from wrong.
00:03:14
Speaker 1: So it was unfair, it's mistrangworthy. It might have been after the first one. But what's happened now, Robes is twice the exact same phrase has come up. That has tainted now the jury potentially is what the argument is in some way that the right and wrong question is the wrong one to consider. If you're considering the religious side of it. Robes. This is not just something that's wrong or icky or morally wrong to do. It's actually against the law. There are rules in Massachusetts specifically, and pretty much everywhere, and in federal courts as well. You can not bring religion up. It doesn't happen, Robes. I didn't realize how big of a no no it was until the mortal sin came up last week.
00:04:00
Speaker 2: Yep. And the judge was pissed last week. Kevin Reddington was pissed. If they were pissed last week, they were outraged, And honestly, it was one of those jaw dropping moments when you see you mentioned the judge swiveling his chair. I mean, there was genuine anger in his voice, genuine I actually thought I thought he was going to declare a mistrial, you know.
00:04:22
Speaker 1: What, Robes, because he realized what he had and he probably might be forced to. This is week what five five Robes, All of this we've gone through with having elastic bands come out even I mean, it's just a drain on everybody who had to participate. You tell me, you got to put all these families, all these friends, all these doctors, all these people through this once again because of what the defense right now is calling Robes intentional misconduct. He said, they're doing this on purple because.
00:04:50
Speaker 2: They already got admonished about bringing up suicide and mortal sin as it relates to her Catholic upbringing. They were already told you cannot go there, you cannot go there. And here we are again with a witness going there and to hear the prosecutor say, I didn't ask a question. He just went there. But he didn't intentionally go there. He was just trying to explain something. Look, I don't know. I'm not sure, but I also think she's running a huge risk not only for having this being declared a mistrial grounds for appeal, but also pissing off the jury. Like I mentioned, this is a major Catholic area in the country, and I don't think people and anyone of the Catholic faith especially would particularly appreciate their faith or their religious beliefs being brought into a legal proceeding and have that same faith used against the defendant because of how she was raised.
00:05:49
Speaker 1: Bro this is so, and again she was trying to explain that her question, he took it upon himself. This phrase go to God is what's reportedly she said and reported to doctors that she said. That's not necessarily in dispute, it's in the file. He then took it a step further by saying that go to God. He actually used a phrase rogue, he said, and it is as well as my understanding with the Catholic faith.
00:06:14
Speaker 2: That is not that like what my understanding. Oh he's not even Catholic. Oh yeah, I mean that makes it even worse. And that was the judge even said that he isn't some theologian, He hasn't have any any standing or any expertise on Catholic dogma or Catholic Catholic doctrine. He was absolutely just kind of in a way kind of guessing or trying to tie those things together. And looked at to hear that. Lindsey Clancy told him when he evaluated her that she wasn't thinking about moral issues when she made the decision or when she killed her children. She was just she said, he was all action. So even by her own words, she wasn't a according to the defense, she was out of her mind. She was a state of psychosis, so to even act as if she was considering her Catholic faith, or that that was something she was weighing to speak to her state of mind or to speak to her state of sanity. I guess in this case, with this particular psychologist describing his evaluation of her, it's just it was a leap that should never be made or taken and certainly not testified.
00:07:23
Speaker 1: To Can you say, I mean, I don't know. Can you say that maybe they just that there was a suggestion I've seen made now robes that the prosecution yes, did this intentionally because they know they're losing, and they would rather just go ahead, cut our losses, get this one thrown out of here so we can run this back.
00:07:43
Speaker 2: That is wow. I'd love to maybe I'm naive and I'd love to think that that doesn't happen, but I know better, And look, we don't know. We could never prove what the intent was by the prosecution. Did they want a mistrial? To my god, we've gone through five were in the fifth week of this gutting, emotional, horrific testimony. To imagine that you would have to do it all over again. I think about Patrick Clancy, I think about Lindsay Clancy's parents, Lindsay Clancy herself barely able to get through days and days of just emotionally jarring. Isn't even the word eviscerating testimony to have to go through it all again.
00:08:24
Speaker 1: But then robes, what if they don't get the verdict they want the defense? What are they going to do, babe? What is going to be the first thing they list as grounds from for a new trial?
00:08:36
Speaker 2: Absolutely this exhibit A and B last week and this week.
00:08:40
Speaker 1: And the judge doesn't want to have to, but he doesn't want to have one of his cases now come back or get thrown out. What's a guy to do? So this happens. The judge immediately sends everybody out and angrily takes a recess and he says, I'll come back as soon as I can. Like he got off the bench in a way, he was hot.
00:08:59
Speaker 2: He was going for what twenty minutes? I mean it was a while. He didn't just come right back.
00:09:03
Speaker 1: He took his time. Clearly he was he probably needed to cool down and maybe need to do his research. But he does come back and he says he's going to allow them to make their arguments on this motion. Reddington gets up first and was pretty calm and pretty collected, and actually didn't he sound a little disappointed to you.
00:09:18
Speaker 2: That he was reluctantly asking for a mistrial? And I believe that because look again, we haven't gotten we're not some we don't know what the jury is going to decide, and it's very hard to know who's winning or losing. But from our point of view, and certainly watching Kevin Reddington, he is confident he has put on an incredible defense. I believe by most legal experts anything I've read in people evaluating how he's done in terms of defending his client, he has done a stellar job. So yeah, why would he want a mistrial called? Right now?
00:09:52
Speaker 1: If he's winning, right, you're up fifty to five in the fourth quarter and you want to forfeit.
00:09:58
Speaker 2: Well, once again, I believe him when he said he was reluctantly going to ask for a mistrial.
00:10:04
Speaker 1: But roads he gets up and he's he is accusing. I believe it was intentional misconduct on behalf of the Commonwealth. He says, here ropes he did make. Now, this was key, he said the first time this came up, mortal sin. Last week, the judge issued a warning to the judge to the jurors that you're supposed to strike it. He said that was sufficient today, he said, when you're major ruling, it was strong. I thought it was sufficient at the time, and I made a tactical decision to not ask for a mistrial and to move on. He said, But now this says, come up again and quote this is just over the top.
00:10:42
Speaker 2: It's true, and I actually have the original exchange between the prosecutor and Susan Clancy. So this sorry, it was the mother in law. It was the mother in law. It was the mother in law, Susan Clancy. So the prosecutors asked, are you an active member in the Catholic Church. Susan Clancy replies yes. The prosecutor asks, so you're aware that murder is considered a mortal sin. So that was on the issue of murder, But this was about suicide. So I don't know. Did they think they were cleverly addressing it from another mortal sin in the Catholic Church? Murder and suicide both.
00:11:18
Speaker 1: What was this going? Forensic psychology is a psychologist.
00:11:21
Speaker 2: A forensic psychologist. He was not in any way, shape or form equipped to answer that question, or to answer any or to even offer a suggestion or any sort of because what he thinks, from a psychological evaluation, has nothing to do with her Catholic upbringing. You can't be an expert on something you don't even know. It doesn't even sound like he's Catholic, was raised Catholic, has been a part of the Catholic Church, And even if he had been, it still would not be appropriate because he hasn't been ruled or deemed an expert in Catholicism or Catholic doctrine.
00:11:56
Speaker 1: But let me tell you about Buddhism. Here is right, What do any of us know but Robes, I don't know if that could not hate to think it was a strategy.
00:12:07
Speaker 2: I hate to think that too.
00:12:08
Speaker 1: But they've had a couple of moments where we thought that was desperation, like what are they doing? Like there were some moment I think bringing out the bands once unnecessarily for an extra time to make a There was just some moments that reeked of.
00:12:21
Speaker 2: Mind when they were describing Lindsay Clancy working out at the hospital using elastic bands much like the ones she used to kill her children's wet.
00:12:35
Speaker 1: So therefore she must not care.
00:12:37
Speaker 2: She's that callous she's that cold that it didn't even bother her to use those same type of exercise bands. But yeah, the judge, he he said, what was I'm going to strongly and perhaps the strongest language, talk to him and let him know he can't go into that. That is what he said to the prosecution. But what he said to the jury, you even said, he the anger in his voice. Those jurors knew that judge was pissed. I wonder what impact that we'll have on them.
00:13:11
Speaker 1: I mean, they didn't see as much as we did, but they saw enough. Stay here, we'll explain just how angry this guy got. And you know what, we're kind of compare it. We have seen him every day essentially for the past five weeks, and we have seen him like this.
00:13:36
Speaker 2: Welcome back everyone to Amy and DJ. This is a bit of a breaking news episode because we were not expecting to see what we just saw in that Massachusetts courtroom. The judge, Judge Sullivan in this case, I mean, I would say, came so close to calling a mistrial after the defense attorney Kevin Ruddington reluctantly asked for one because the prosecution went exactly in the same direction. They did last week that nearly nearly cost them a mistrial. The defense stopped short of asking for one, but they were admonished. The judge told the jury they could not consider this idea of what mortal sin is in the Catholic Church as it relates to murder, and now this time as it relates to suicide. But the prosecution getting in this idea that perhaps Lindsey Clancy knew what she was doing because of how she was raised.
00:14:31
Speaker 1: This is crazy. I'm looking at it more and I don't know if we've gave the whole verbatim here from this guy Helibrium, right, Kurt Helibrium, this forensic psychologist who who I guess examined her on behalf of the prosecution roa. This was it. This is wild. That was part of her expectation. He said that she and the children would be together in heaven with God. She was raised as a Catholic, and as I understand Catholic considerations, that's not necessarily what happens. He's saying, Catholics don't go to heaven when they do this.
00:15:05
Speaker 2: Correct Catholics. So here's like a as someone who was raised in the Catholic Church, a mortal sin means you cannot go to heaven. So if you I was always raised with the belief that if you committed suicide, you cannot go to heaven. So the idea would be she wouldn't think that she could go to heaven. If she killed herself, killed her children, killed herself, she could not be forgiven. It's a mortal sin in the Catholic faith. So yes, he was using his understanding of Catholic teachings as a legal foundation for her sanity.
00:15:48
Speaker 1: Oh ma, I cannot believe he uttered that phrase. Raster.
00:15:54
Speaker 2: What happened last week?
00:15:56
Speaker 1: That is?
00:15:57
Speaker 2: Is it possible the prosecution didn't know he was going to go there.
00:16:02
Speaker 1: I don't know that.
00:16:03
Speaker 2: They claim they didn't. They claim they didn't know that he made that call. He made that choice. It wasn't anything she was specifically asking him, and this was not something that was up for him to be like, they didn't expect him to go there, according to the prosecution.
00:16:18
Speaker 1: Okay, this judge has been pretty even keel. He's gotten annoyed with some uh, some witnesses when they won't answer directly. I won't just stop going on and on and on. But still he's been pretty cool. He hasn't had to admonish too much. He's had to step in and say, hey, guys, but that's.
00:16:35
Speaker 2: About speaking over each other.
00:16:37
Speaker 1: That's about as bad as it's gotten. Yes, right, I thought he's been firm, but he's never necessarily seemed angry. Ropes this. This dude was mad. He knew immediately when that came out that they were in trouble.
00:16:49
Speaker 2: That this was a possible mistrail. And at the very least, again, if the verdict didn't go the defense's way, this would be the obvious reason grounds for appeal. So when he gets the jury back into the courtroom, he tells them very passionately that the religion that the defendant was raised with is absolutely an inappropriate area of testimony. It is to be stricken, it is not to be considered. And he added that the witnesses understanding of Catholic faith and teaching is immaterial and is to be disregarded. And then he said, I'm going to dismiss them because I want that to be the last thing they hear, so they take that with them when they go home. And they felt his wrath.
00:17:40
Speaker 1: They knew he did. He was It was almost like he was on Love Island. He was talking like snapping his hands. Yeah, in delivery. Why is what we're gonna do? I don't know why to prosecute? To keep he was smacking his hands, baby he was. When we came back out from the recess, he had a stack, look like he came from teaching law class, a stack of stuff. Oh this dude, I cannot wait to see what happened in the morning. Will there be anything else said to the prosecution? Will there be anything else he needs to get onto that. He says he's going to talk to the witness. Is he going to do that on the record, off the record, I don't know.
00:18:17
Speaker 2: He wanted the prosecute first. He told you wanted the prosecutor to talk to the witness, like this cannot happen. He dismissed the jury for the day a little early, but then called another sidebar with the attorneys. So look, there is going to be more hashed out. I'm sure about what needs to be said to this witness, what he needs to say to the attorneys. But does the witness even know what he did wrong?
00:18:41
Speaker 1: He Betty does. By now, I mean, I was.
00:18:43
Speaker 2: Just thinking this is an older guy He's apparently had a lot of a lot of experience testifying. He had a lot of notes he was shuffling through. But this isn't his first rodeo. So that's a little shocking that he wouldn't know not to go there.
00:19:00
Speaker 1: Babe, you make a good point. This is as play. It might be new to us and not top of mind. This is understood. This is a major, major no no, bro, this is I've seen some legal analysis about this. This is way out of bounds the first time, two times. What are we doing? Can't wait to see what happens in the morning. I don't know. The judge has already said no mistrial. Can he go back on that? Can he have a different opinion in the morning.
00:19:30
Speaker 2: Uh, you know that the judge can do whatever he wants. Again, I'm sure he could take some time upon further reflection, But obviously I understand why he's hesitant to call a mis trial. We're at the very end this I believe might be the final rebuttal witness, and you're telling me the last few minutes of the last bit of testimony is going to upend four full weeks of testing.
00:19:57
Speaker 1: Man, he's oh my god, he is gonna this how short is at least going to be with the prosecution. Now, Robes, he has to be keeping an eye because it a look it I don't know they should have known, is one of the arguments. The other argument is they asked the question and they had no idea where he was going to go. Or the other thing is Robes, they flat out did exactly what they wanted to and this is some strategy they've decided to use.
00:20:24
Speaker 2: Do you think that that's the case. Do you think that's the more likely situation that the prosecution so badly wants to get this idea of mortal sin into the jurors minds, that because she was raised Catholic, because she fully understood as a Catholic what a mortal sin is, and that is suicide, and that is homicide, but suicide even more specifically because you don't we are taught as Catholics that you if you kill yourself, you cannot go to heaven. So obviously they wanted that in the jury's mind.
00:20:57
Speaker 1: But that what does that prove to me? That this woman who has been struggling and all this evidence I've seen of her postpartum depression and psychosis, forget that because she was raised Catholic. Therefore she always knows that this is wrong. Is that the connection?
00:21:11
Speaker 2: And yes, I mean I think that's what they're trying to say, that it was wrong because she was raised as a Catholic and her Catholic considerations would be with her because it's how she was raised. And right when the judge paused, he said that he asked Lindsey Clancy whether suicide was a mortal sin? And I cannot believe those words were uttered again. That phrase came out again because they were so admonished for having because the prosecutor used that term last week. Now you got a witness uttering it this week, and look, this will be It's all. It's been a fascinating case. Every day there's been something unique and interesting. This one was truly unexpected. And who I thought it was over. You came running in like I think we've got a mistrial.
00:22:01
Speaker 1: I was sure this was about to happen. And because his tone, he looked defeated when this came out of at that dude's mouth, he was pissed and defeated, like, oh my god, yeah, I mean his reaction really was the thing that for me I mean, I don't have any legal background fully of understood on my own. His reaction was one that you just had to go, what the actual hell?
00:22:23
Speaker 2: Yeah, it is to be stricken. It is not to be considered. I can't be any more clear of that. It cannot be considered. Hellebren's understanding of Catholic teaching is irrelevant and immaterial. Man, Wow, he's getting back up on the stand tomorrow. I'm here for it.
00:22:43
Speaker 1: Are we gonna be able to see it? We gotta where are we tomorrow?
00:22:47
Speaker 2: Yes? In the morning, ok, I am ok. We will be watching. Although when did they start today? It's usually a little bit later. But and after this, Yes, this will be interesting just to see how much more this particular psychologist will stay on the stand. And I don't know, it seems like you'd be pretty shaken to think, you literally, whether or not it was planned or not. The fact is he nearly cost the prosecution and the defense Lindsay Clancy and everyone involved in this week's long court case. It was almost over based on his testimony. So we'll keep our eye on this day and day up. We always appreciate you listening to us, every one. I'm Amy Roebuck alongside TJ. Holmes. We'll talk soon.
Speaker 1: Hey folks, it is Monday, August twenty fourth, and a breaking update on the triple murder trial of Lindsey Clancy. We just came oh so close to a mistrial and this judge is pissed with that. Welcome again to this breaking episode of Amy and TJ. We just got this news rope. We just watched this play out, I mean, hell, five minutes before we hopped on the mics. Here robes. This came close and a lot of people almost surprised this was not declared a mistrial.
00:00:33
Speaker 2: Yeah, as you mentioned, the judge was as angry as I have ever seen him, and the defense attorney, Kevin Reddington even said he was reluctantly asking for a mistrial but felt like he needed to because of the line of testimony and it was all about morality, about Catholic dogma. And look, this is not something to play around with when you are talking about a woman and they are trying, the prosecution trying to tell jurors that she knew right from wrong, that her Catholic upbringing even was a part of that conversation. And you have a forensic psychiatrist who is not trained in theology, who is not trained in Catholicism offering an opinion or beginning to offer an opinion about Catholic dogma. And that was a huge notice, Ruth.
00:01:23
Speaker 1: He offered an opinion, but it's one that the prosecution has already been scolded for. Last week, robes To used some of the same language about mortal sin. The same phrase came out, and it came out last week, and it was her mama's Lindsey was her mom or mother? It was her mother, her mother right. Prosecution asked her about being a Catholic and said, are you aware that murders a mortal sin?
00:01:51
Speaker 2: So is suicide?
00:01:53
Speaker 1: Immediate objection. Everybody calls to the side. The judge is pissed. Robes when that phrase came up again today, Reddington, you know how quick he is the defense attorney. He didn't even get a chance to object before the judge. His chair is turning around, he's slammed a table. Let me see.
00:02:11
Speaker 2: Everybody rooks it it look and this is something in the Boston area. I just I think most people I don't know, maybe you don't know. I mean I was raised Catholic. That area is a very Catholic area of this country, and a you don't mess with religion, but you don't bring it or invoke it when it comes to determining state of mind. And it seemed so wildly inappropriate last week, especially when you're addressing Lindsay Clancy's own mother about her Catholic upbringing, about her Catholic awareness. And yes, suicide is considered a mortal sin. All of us who went through Catholic school and CCD classes and went to Catholic church, we all know we're taught this from a very early age. Suicide is a mortal sin. Obviously, so is homicide or murder. But to bring that up in the context of knowing right from wrong is such a blurred line between. If we're talking about psychiatry about whether or not someone has a mental illness, how does their religion or how they were raised have anything to do with your mental capacity to know right from wrong.
00:03:14
Speaker 1: So it was unfair, it's mistrangworthy. It might have been after the first one. But what's happened now, Robes is twice the exact same phrase has come up. That has tainted now the jury potentially is what the argument is in some way that the right and wrong question is the wrong one to consider. If you're considering the religious side of it. Robes. This is not just something that's wrong or icky or morally wrong to do. It's actually against the law. There are rules in Massachusetts specifically, and pretty much everywhere, and in federal courts as well. You can not bring religion up. It doesn't happen, Robes. I didn't realize how big of a no no it was until the mortal sin came up last week.
00:04:00
Speaker 2: Yep. And the judge was pissed last week. Kevin Reddington was pissed. If they were pissed last week, they were outraged, And honestly, it was one of those jaw dropping moments when you see you mentioned the judge swiveling his chair. I mean, there was genuine anger in his voice, genuine I actually thought I thought he was going to declare a mistrial, you know.
00:04:22
Speaker 1: What, Robes, because he realized what he had and he probably might be forced to. This is week what five five Robes, All of this we've gone through with having elastic bands come out even I mean, it's just a drain on everybody who had to participate. You tell me, you got to put all these families, all these friends, all these doctors, all these people through this once again because of what the defense right now is calling Robes intentional misconduct. He said, they're doing this on purple because.
00:04:50
Speaker 2: They already got admonished about bringing up suicide and mortal sin as it relates to her Catholic upbringing. They were already told you cannot go there, you cannot go there. And here we are again with a witness going there and to hear the prosecutor say, I didn't ask a question. He just went there. But he didn't intentionally go there. He was just trying to explain something. Look, I don't know. I'm not sure, but I also think she's running a huge risk not only for having this being declared a mistrial grounds for appeal, but also pissing off the jury. Like I mentioned, this is a major Catholic area in the country, and I don't think people and anyone of the Catholic faith especially would particularly appreciate their faith or their religious beliefs being brought into a legal proceeding and have that same faith used against the defendant because of how she was raised.
00:05:49
Speaker 1: Bro this is so, and again she was trying to explain that her question, he took it upon himself. This phrase go to God is what's reportedly she said and reported to doctors that she said. That's not necessarily in dispute, it's in the file. He then took it a step further by saying that go to God. He actually used a phrase rogue, he said, and it is as well as my understanding with the Catholic faith.
00:06:14
Speaker 2: That is not that like what my understanding. Oh he's not even Catholic. Oh yeah, I mean that makes it even worse. And that was the judge even said that he isn't some theologian, He hasn't have any any standing or any expertise on Catholic dogma or Catholic Catholic doctrine. He was absolutely just kind of in a way kind of guessing or trying to tie those things together. And looked at to hear that. Lindsey Clancy told him when he evaluated her that she wasn't thinking about moral issues when she made the decision or when she killed her children. She was just she said, he was all action. So even by her own words, she wasn't a according to the defense, she was out of her mind. She was a state of psychosis, so to even act as if she was considering her Catholic faith, or that that was something she was weighing to speak to her state of mind or to speak to her state of sanity. I guess in this case, with this particular psychologist describing his evaluation of her, it's just it was a leap that should never be made or taken and certainly not testified.
00:07:23
Speaker 1: To Can you say, I mean, I don't know. Can you say that maybe they just that there was a suggestion I've seen made now robes that the prosecution yes, did this intentionally because they know they're losing, and they would rather just go ahead, cut our losses, get this one thrown out of here so we can run this back.
00:07:43
Speaker 2: That is wow. I'd love to maybe I'm naive and I'd love to think that that doesn't happen, but I know better, And look, we don't know. We could never prove what the intent was by the prosecution. Did they want a mistrial? To my god, we've gone through five were in the fifth week of this gutting, emotional, horrific testimony. To imagine that you would have to do it all over again. I think about Patrick Clancy, I think about Lindsay Clancy's parents, Lindsay Clancy herself barely able to get through days and days of just emotionally jarring. Isn't even the word eviscerating testimony to have to go through it all again.
00:08:24
Speaker 1: But then robes, what if they don't get the verdict they want the defense? What are they going to do, babe? What is going to be the first thing they list as grounds from for a new trial?
00:08:36
Speaker 2: Absolutely this exhibit A and B last week and this week.
00:08:40
Speaker 1: And the judge doesn't want to have to, but he doesn't want to have one of his cases now come back or get thrown out. What's a guy to do? So this happens. The judge immediately sends everybody out and angrily takes a recess and he says, I'll come back as soon as I can. Like he got off the bench in a way, he was hot.
00:08:59
Speaker 2: He was going for what twenty minutes? I mean it was a while. He didn't just come right back.
00:09:03
Speaker 1: He took his time. Clearly he was he probably needed to cool down and maybe need to do his research. But he does come back and he says he's going to allow them to make their arguments on this motion. Reddington gets up first and was pretty calm and pretty collected, and actually didn't he sound a little disappointed to you.
00:09:18
Speaker 2: That he was reluctantly asking for a mistrial? And I believe that because look again, we haven't gotten we're not some we don't know what the jury is going to decide, and it's very hard to know who's winning or losing. But from our point of view, and certainly watching Kevin Reddington, he is confident he has put on an incredible defense. I believe by most legal experts anything I've read in people evaluating how he's done in terms of defending his client, he has done a stellar job. So yeah, why would he want a mistrial called? Right now?
00:09:52
Speaker 1: If he's winning, right, you're up fifty to five in the fourth quarter and you want to forfeit.
00:09:58
Speaker 2: Well, once again, I believe him when he said he was reluctantly going to ask for a mistrial.
00:10:04
Speaker 1: But roads he gets up and he's he is accusing. I believe it was intentional misconduct on behalf of the Commonwealth. He says, here ropes he did make. Now, this was key, he said the first time this came up, mortal sin. Last week, the judge issued a warning to the judge to the jurors that you're supposed to strike it. He said that was sufficient today, he said, when you're major ruling, it was strong. I thought it was sufficient at the time, and I made a tactical decision to not ask for a mistrial and to move on. He said, But now this says, come up again and quote this is just over the top.
00:10:42
Speaker 2: It's true, and I actually have the original exchange between the prosecutor and Susan Clancy. So this sorry, it was the mother in law. It was the mother in law. It was the mother in law, Susan Clancy. So the prosecutors asked, are you an active member in the Catholic Church. Susan Clancy replies yes. The prosecutor asks, so you're aware that murder is considered a mortal sin. So that was on the issue of murder, But this was about suicide. So I don't know. Did they think they were cleverly addressing it from another mortal sin in the Catholic Church? Murder and suicide both.
00:11:18
Speaker 1: What was this going? Forensic psychology is a psychologist.
00:11:21
Speaker 2: A forensic psychologist. He was not in any way, shape or form equipped to answer that question, or to answer any or to even offer a suggestion or any sort of because what he thinks, from a psychological evaluation, has nothing to do with her Catholic upbringing. You can't be an expert on something you don't even know. It doesn't even sound like he's Catholic, was raised Catholic, has been a part of the Catholic Church, And even if he had been, it still would not be appropriate because he hasn't been ruled or deemed an expert in Catholicism or Catholic doctrine.
00:11:56
Speaker 1: But let me tell you about Buddhism. Here is right, What do any of us know but Robes, I don't know if that could not hate to think it was a strategy.
00:12:07
Speaker 2: I hate to think that too.
00:12:08
Speaker 1: But they've had a couple of moments where we thought that was desperation, like what are they doing? Like there were some moment I think bringing out the bands once unnecessarily for an extra time to make a There was just some moments that reeked of.
00:12:21
Speaker 2: Mind when they were describing Lindsay Clancy working out at the hospital using elastic bands much like the ones she used to kill her children's wet.
00:12:35
Speaker 1: So therefore she must not care.
00:12:37
Speaker 2: She's that callous she's that cold that it didn't even bother her to use those same type of exercise bands. But yeah, the judge, he he said, what was I'm going to strongly and perhaps the strongest language, talk to him and let him know he can't go into that. That is what he said to the prosecution. But what he said to the jury, you even said, he the anger in his voice. Those jurors knew that judge was pissed. I wonder what impact that we'll have on them.
00:13:11
Speaker 1: I mean, they didn't see as much as we did, but they saw enough. Stay here, we'll explain just how angry this guy got. And you know what, we're kind of compare it. We have seen him every day essentially for the past five weeks, and we have seen him like this.
00:13:36
Speaker 2: Welcome back everyone to Amy and DJ. This is a bit of a breaking news episode because we were not expecting to see what we just saw in that Massachusetts courtroom. The judge, Judge Sullivan in this case, I mean, I would say, came so close to calling a mistrial after the defense attorney Kevin Ruddington reluctantly asked for one because the prosecution went exactly in the same direction. They did last week that nearly nearly cost them a mistrial. The defense stopped short of asking for one, but they were admonished. The judge told the jury they could not consider this idea of what mortal sin is in the Catholic Church as it relates to murder, and now this time as it relates to suicide. But the prosecution getting in this idea that perhaps Lindsey Clancy knew what she was doing because of how she was raised.
00:14:31
Speaker 1: This is crazy. I'm looking at it more and I don't know if we've gave the whole verbatim here from this guy Helibrium, right, Kurt Helibrium, this forensic psychologist who who I guess examined her on behalf of the prosecution roa. This was it. This is wild. That was part of her expectation. He said that she and the children would be together in heaven with God. She was raised as a Catholic, and as I understand Catholic considerations, that's not necessarily what happens. He's saying, Catholics don't go to heaven when they do this.
00:15:05
Speaker 2: Correct Catholics. So here's like a as someone who was raised in the Catholic Church, a mortal sin means you cannot go to heaven. So if you I was always raised with the belief that if you committed suicide, you cannot go to heaven. So the idea would be she wouldn't think that she could go to heaven. If she killed herself, killed her children, killed herself, she could not be forgiven. It's a mortal sin in the Catholic faith. So yes, he was using his understanding of Catholic teachings as a legal foundation for her sanity.
00:15:48
Speaker 1: Oh ma, I cannot believe he uttered that phrase. Raster.
00:15:54
Speaker 2: What happened last week?
00:15:56
Speaker 1: That is?
00:15:57
Speaker 2: Is it possible the prosecution didn't know he was going to go there.
00:16:02
Speaker 1: I don't know that.
00:16:03
Speaker 2: They claim they didn't. They claim they didn't know that he made that call. He made that choice. It wasn't anything she was specifically asking him, and this was not something that was up for him to be like, they didn't expect him to go there, according to the prosecution.
00:16:18
Speaker 1: Okay, this judge has been pretty even keel. He's gotten annoyed with some uh, some witnesses when they won't answer directly. I won't just stop going on and on and on. But still he's been pretty cool. He hasn't had to admonish too much. He's had to step in and say, hey, guys, but that's.
00:16:35
Speaker 2: About speaking over each other.
00:16:37
Speaker 1: That's about as bad as it's gotten. Yes, right, I thought he's been firm, but he's never necessarily seemed angry. Ropes this. This dude was mad. He knew immediately when that came out that they were in trouble.
00:16:49
Speaker 2: That this was a possible mistrail. And at the very least, again, if the verdict didn't go the defense's way, this would be the obvious reason grounds for appeal. So when he gets the jury back into the courtroom, he tells them very passionately that the religion that the defendant was raised with is absolutely an inappropriate area of testimony. It is to be stricken, it is not to be considered. And he added that the witnesses understanding of Catholic faith and teaching is immaterial and is to be disregarded. And then he said, I'm going to dismiss them because I want that to be the last thing they hear, so they take that with them when they go home. And they felt his wrath.
00:17:40
Speaker 1: They knew he did. He was It was almost like he was on Love Island. He was talking like snapping his hands. Yeah, in delivery. Why is what we're gonna do? I don't know why to prosecute? To keep he was smacking his hands, baby he was. When we came back out from the recess, he had a stack, look like he came from teaching law class, a stack of stuff. Oh this dude, I cannot wait to see what happened in the morning. Will there be anything else said to the prosecution? Will there be anything else he needs to get onto that. He says he's going to talk to the witness. Is he going to do that on the record, off the record, I don't know.
00:18:17
Speaker 2: He wanted the prosecute first. He told you wanted the prosecutor to talk to the witness, like this cannot happen. He dismissed the jury for the day a little early, but then called another sidebar with the attorneys. So look, there is going to be more hashed out. I'm sure about what needs to be said to this witness, what he needs to say to the attorneys. But does the witness even know what he did wrong?
00:18:41
Speaker 1: He Betty does. By now, I mean, I was.
00:18:43
Speaker 2: Just thinking this is an older guy He's apparently had a lot of a lot of experience testifying. He had a lot of notes he was shuffling through. But this isn't his first rodeo. So that's a little shocking that he wouldn't know not to go there.
00:19:00
Speaker 1: Babe, you make a good point. This is as play. It might be new to us and not top of mind. This is understood. This is a major, major no no, bro, this is I've seen some legal analysis about this. This is way out of bounds the first time, two times. What are we doing? Can't wait to see what happens in the morning. I don't know. The judge has already said no mistrial. Can he go back on that? Can he have a different opinion in the morning.
00:19:30
Speaker 2: Uh, you know that the judge can do whatever he wants. Again, I'm sure he could take some time upon further reflection, But obviously I understand why he's hesitant to call a mis trial. We're at the very end this I believe might be the final rebuttal witness, and you're telling me the last few minutes of the last bit of testimony is going to upend four full weeks of testing.
00:19:57
Speaker 1: Man, he's oh my god, he is gonna this how short is at least going to be with the prosecution. Now, Robes, he has to be keeping an eye because it a look it I don't know they should have known, is one of the arguments. The other argument is they asked the question and they had no idea where he was going to go. Or the other thing is Robes, they flat out did exactly what they wanted to and this is some strategy they've decided to use.
00:20:24
Speaker 2: Do you think that that's the case. Do you think that's the more likely situation that the prosecution so badly wants to get this idea of mortal sin into the jurors minds, that because she was raised Catholic, because she fully understood as a Catholic what a mortal sin is, and that is suicide, and that is homicide, but suicide even more specifically because you don't we are taught as Catholics that you if you kill yourself, you cannot go to heaven. So obviously they wanted that in the jury's mind.
00:20:57
Speaker 1: But that what does that prove to me? That this woman who has been struggling and all this evidence I've seen of her postpartum depression and psychosis, forget that because she was raised Catholic. Therefore she always knows that this is wrong. Is that the connection?
00:21:11
Speaker 2: And yes, I mean I think that's what they're trying to say, that it was wrong because she was raised as a Catholic and her Catholic considerations would be with her because it's how she was raised. And right when the judge paused, he said that he asked Lindsey Clancy whether suicide was a mortal sin? And I cannot believe those words were uttered again. That phrase came out again because they were so admonished for having because the prosecutor used that term last week. Now you got a witness uttering it this week, and look, this will be It's all. It's been a fascinating case. Every day there's been something unique and interesting. This one was truly unexpected. And who I thought it was over. You came running in like I think we've got a mistrial.
00:22:01
Speaker 1: I was sure this was about to happen. And because his tone, he looked defeated when this came out of at that dude's mouth, he was pissed and defeated, like, oh my god, yeah, I mean his reaction really was the thing that for me I mean, I don't have any legal background fully of understood on my own. His reaction was one that you just had to go, what the actual hell?
00:22:23
Speaker 2: Yeah, it is to be stricken. It is not to be considered. I can't be any more clear of that. It cannot be considered. Hellebren's understanding of Catholic teaching is irrelevant and immaterial. Man, Wow, he's getting back up on the stand tomorrow. I'm here for it.
00:22:43
Speaker 1: Are we gonna be able to see it? We gotta where are we tomorrow?
00:22:47
Speaker 2: Yes? In the morning, ok, I am ok. We will be watching. Although when did they start today? It's usually a little bit later. But and after this, Yes, this will be interesting just to see how much more this particular psychologist will stay on the stand. And I don't know, it seems like you'd be pretty shaken to think, you literally, whether or not it was planned or not. The fact is he nearly cost the prosecution and the defense Lindsay Clancy and everyone involved in this week's long court case. It was almost over based on his testimony. So we'll keep our eye on this day and day up. We always appreciate you listening to us, every one. I'm Amy Roebuck alongside TJ. Holmes. We'll talk soon.