Aug. 27, 2026
Killer Mom Trial: A Chilling Comparison, Lindsay Clancy and Andrea Yates Have More In Common Than We Realized
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed Yes, their crimes are horrifically linked: Andrea Yates and Lindsay Clancy both claim they were “commanded” to kill their children one by one, both were former nurses, both were raised Catholic and both pleaded guilty by reason of insanity, citing postpartum psychosis. But 25 years later, turns out one of the state’s star witnesses, Dr. Avram Mack, who testified Clancy knew right from wrong and is criminally responsible for killing her kids, works for the very psychiatrist who was later proven to have falsely testified against Andrea Yates. Dr. Park Dietz said Andrea Yates replicated a “Law and Order” episode to get away with murder, but the episode never happened, and his testimony ultimately led to Yates getting a new trial where she was found not guilty by reason of insanity.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. There is no question there are so many similarities between the Lindsay Clancy case and the case of Andrea Yates. It's striking, really, the comparisons, the similarities. But why is it that people seem to be running to Lindsay Clancy's defense, giving her a sympathy and an empathy that Andrea Yates ain't ever get? And with that, everybody, welcome. I'm TJ. That's Robes. That's fair to say. I know Andrea Yates was 20 what?
00:00:33
Speaker 2: 2006 or it was 25 years ago when she was initially convicted.
00:00:37
Speaker 1: So there we go. This was 25 years ago. But Robes, it feels like we can still remember, even if you don't remember specifically. Robes, she didn't enjoy, she didn't have ladies in pink outside supporting her during any trial.
00:00:50
Speaker 2: No, she was labeled a monster. She was labeled evil. And I think there was a general acknowledgement and consensus that she was mentally unstable, mentally unwell. And yet still, even with all of that overwhelming evidence that this was not a healthy woman mentally, there was not a lot of compassion and there was not a lot of sympathy and there was not a lot of empathy. Why?
00:01:13
Speaker 1: Why then? I guess, have we learned so much about women and health? from this trial or in the past 25 years? Maybe both.
00:01:20
Speaker 2: I think a little bit of both because I think it's become something we've talked about since Andrea Gates and then you have other women who have come forward. Hayden Panettiere is the one who comes to my mind. But not a lot of women have been willing to come forward and say, I've had dark thoughts. I've had dark thoughts of harming myself or my children in the months after I gave birth. That is such a hard thing to admit. And because it's so hard to admit, people don't talk about it. Research hasn't been done. But because we've seen this before, I feel like maybe we're all aware and willing to say, wait a minute. Maybe there's actually something else going on here.
00:01:59
Speaker 1: You know, what is it... women with postpartum, what is it? They call it the baby blues maybe?
00:02:05
Speaker 2: That was a way to completely minimize it. But yes, it was just kind of described as baby blues. Like you'll get over it. Yes. Baby blues has been around since, because I gave birth in 2002 and 2006. So literally right after Andrea Yates, I think I might've even, was I pregnant? It was right after that. So it was on my mind. Like that is so scary. Baby blues though. It didn't, That's kind of how it was referred to.
00:02:33
Speaker 1: But isn't it still today? Robe's just kind of dismissed as if a woman is having a little struggle. She's down a little bit. I mean, she's tired after birth. She's struggling with new motherhood, maybe some things on her mind, and she's got baby blues.
00:02:45
Speaker 2: Who hasn't felt that?
00:02:46
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:02:46
Speaker 2: It kind of just seems like, yeah, it comes with the territory, not a big deal. You'll be fine in a couple months.
00:02:52
Speaker 1: And the first reactions, and I think some of it came with Clancy, and you know what? Some of it's come in the Lindsay Clancy trial from prosecutors, in particular Robes, are almost dismissing it as a mama who just can't handle it, and she decided to take an easy way out.
00:03:05
Speaker 2: And I think that is what has rallied so many women who have actually experienced, not psychosis, because that is extremely, exceptionally rare, but depression is real and it can lead to death. It can lead to suicide. It can lead to a lot of awful, horrible, harmful things. And so, yes, people have talked about, women have stood up and said, if I hadn't gotten the medical help or the intervention that I needed, I too could have become Lindsay Clancy. That's a bold statement to make, and maybe it's a dramatic one to make, but I do think at the very least there's an acknowledgement that she isn't just some evil monster. And at least that's what the women who are coming to her defense are saying and feeling based on personal experiences, and maybe, yes, remembering and re-evaluating and revisiting the Andrea Yates situation.
00:03:53
Speaker 1: The similarities between the Clancy case and the Yates case are, I was, you saw me, in preparing. Striking. Before this this morning, you were watching me and I couldn't stop saying, babe, you're not going to believe this. Babe, you can't. Babe, do you remember this? I can't. Robes, they are so similar. And robes, they even had some of the same experts testifying.
00:04:16
Speaker 2: That is one of the wildest parts of this story because it plays heavily into... what the jurors heard, and I don't know, like what we don't know is how many of these jurors are familiar with the Andrea Yates case. How many of these jurors go home at night and do Google things and see what people are saying. I mean, there are some striking similarities, and as you pointed out, similar or the exact same. There are psychiatrists who are the same, and then there are psychiatrists who have connections.
00:04:51
Speaker 1: This is stunning. If any of these Lindsay Clancy people jurors went home and started doing research on the Yates case. I don't know how it couldn't impact them in that jury room. It would have to, it would absolutely have to. I didn't remember. Maybe you all did. I forgot that she was convicted the first time.
00:05:10
Speaker 2: She was convicted and sent to prison for the rest of her life without the possibility of parole. And she sat in that prison, correct? Uh, she was sentenced to prison for, she was convicted. So the murders happened in 2001. She was convicted in 2002. And found guilty. And then she was found not guilty by reason of insanity in 2006.
00:05:29
Speaker 1: But they didn't give her the death penalty after that first, they could have, this woman, capital murder of five kids.
00:05:36
Speaker 2: Prosecutors were seeking it.
00:05:38
Speaker 1: And the jurors, even then, Robes, that suggested some level of sympathy, perhaps, or some level of understanding that that woman was sick. But yes, she ends up getting a new trial. why she got a new trial.
00:05:50
Speaker 2: Wait for it.
00:05:51
Speaker 1: Plays into the Lindsay Clancy trial. Babe, I missed something that Kevin Reddington did.
00:05:58
Speaker 2: So did I.
00:05:59
Speaker 1: And we're going to get into it. I completely glanced over and missed something he did in making a reference to the Yates trial.
00:06:06
Speaker 2: He's even more brilliant than we thought.
00:06:08
Speaker 1: And that objection was sustained, but the point was made. So Andrew Yates, if we go back, Robes, in remembering this crime, and I I said to you that it's hard to go back, and we'll spare some of the details. But yes, that was in 2001. She was left at home by herself. Husband had gone to work. 9 a.m., she fills the bathtub and methodically drowns her kids, one after one after one, in no particular order. And it's not just that she drowned them. It's like there was a, I don't want to call it a ceremony, but robes. What she did afterwards, right? She placed them on the bed. She took their bodies one by one, placed them on the bed, and then the baby, which was six months old, Mary, she put in the arms.
00:06:53
Speaker 2: Of the oldest child.
00:06:54
Speaker 1: Of one of the boys who she said was a good big brother. Ooh. That's the crime.
00:07:00
Speaker 2: And she only had one hour. So there are some similarities because her mom was coming at 10. Her husband left at nine. She had a very limited window of time where she was alone with her babies.
00:07:11
Speaker 1: So this is one, Robes, where she was the one that called 911. Police got there. She said, I killed my kids. Robes, they reported she didn't show an ounce of emotion. She wasn't frantic. She wasn't worked up. She was nothing but calm, cool, nothing on her face. What does that suppose to say about somebody?
00:07:32
Speaker 2: That's not humanly possible if you are mentally sane. You just could not have no emotion unless you have something medically, mentally wrong with you, period. And also to in terms of the similar, she was also a nurse that, that was striking as well because we know Lindsay Clancy was a labor and delivery nurse. Andrea Yates was also a former nurse. She spent her life caring for others.
00:08:02
Speaker 1: So let's stick to the similarities between the two cases for a second.
00:08:05
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:08:05
Speaker 1: Both nurses, both raised Catholic. Don't know how that necessarily plays. Uh, both cases, the facts were never in dispute. Everybody agreed who killed the kids and how they killed the kids, both trials as well. Um, Experts, all the experts agreed she was mentally ill. But the break came when they didn't agree on whether or not she was responsible. If that mental illness made her not criminally responsible for the crimes, that was the same. Also, Robes, Dr. Resnick, who testified on behalf of Andrea Yates, was also the psychiatrist who testified on behalf of Lindsay Clancy. He was the one who did it via Zoom.
00:08:46
Speaker 2: And Dr. Resnick, I thought this was really interesting. I'm sure you saw the same thing. Casey Anthony, another famous murder trial where a mother was accused of killing her child. He actually consulted with the defense. They chose not to use him because he determined that Casey Anthony actually did know what she was doing and did murder her child because She wanted to be relieved of the burden of her child. So he's not somebody who just says, oh, here's the explanation as to why this mother isn't responsible for killing her kids. I think that's important to note that he actually took a different stand with Casey Anthony.
00:09:20
Speaker 1: Now, all of the experts that we hear from, Rose, psychiatrists, will tell you that, no, it doesn't matter who hires me. I do an independent analysis. But Rhodes, Reddington was able to point out, I mean, what do you call the guy? You're kind of a government guy, aren't you? Yeah. Because his whole resume, he's testifying for the prosecution, prosecution for the state, for the state, for the state.
00:09:41
Speaker 2: At some point, you have to question that or at least be critical of that.
00:09:46
Speaker 1: And the other similarity I have here listed, Rhodes, in both of these cases, that both prosecution experts didn't know shit about women in postpartum depression. In the Yates case and in this one, wrote, it's striking that the main people up there, given their expert advice have to eventually admit, yeah, I don't really do this.
00:10:04
Speaker 2: Haven't really seen or treated or even diagnosed really any, or maybe just one or two, maybe three women in my 40 plus year career. have I ever seen, treated, or recognized psychosis, postpartum psychosis, in a woman? All right.
00:10:22
Speaker 1: So, Robes, let's get to now these connections. And first, if we haven't mentioned, Robes, the kids in the Yates case. We've been talking about Dawson, Cora, and Callan, Lindsay Clancy's kids. We know this now and know their ages, seven, five, and Eight months, was it, on the kids here?
00:10:41
Speaker 2: It was five, three, and eight months.
00:10:43
Speaker 1: Five, three, and eight months, but the kids for Andrew Yates were seven, five, three, two, and six months. Noah, John, Paul, Luke, and Mary. Sound like they're straight out of the Bible, don't they?
00:10:51
Speaker 2: Yes, very Catholic names there.
00:10:53
Speaker 1: All of them. Now, this is an area that's not similar. Andrew Yates had a much longer and really a much more difficult and scary career. really roped history of mental illness than Lindsay Clancy had.
00:11:10
Speaker 2: That's right. She attempted suicide twice, like documented attempts to take her own life.
00:11:16
Speaker 1: One was she tried to take pills, and another she had a knife to her neck.
00:11:21
Speaker 2: And recurring postpartum depression to the point where I believe a doctor told her to stop having children because they were concerned about her mental health. But she had a documented history of schizophrenia. And she really believed that Satan had taken over her body.
00:11:38
Speaker 1: Right, we hear something different. Lindsay Clancy says she hears a voice that tells her to do something. Andrew Yates was a different situation, Ro. She thought Satan had possessed her, taken over her soul. And before the kids could get got by Satan, I need to kill them.
00:11:57
Speaker 2: While they're still innocent.
00:11:59
Speaker 1: And when that's done... I am going to be hauled off to the death chamber. And once the state executes me, also Satan will be taken out. That was her story.
00:12:12
Speaker 2: Yeah. And she stuck with it.
00:12:14
Speaker 1: She believed.
00:12:15
Speaker 2: Actually, that's why she called 911. That's why she coldly and calmly said, I killed my kids, because she believed she was possessed by Satan and that she needed to die for Satan to die. She even wanted them to shave her head so that it could reveal the 666.
00:12:32
Speaker 1: And we need to point out here, this is not, the reports about her robes and her background, it's the best reference we probably have because we don't, most people don't go into like psych wards and mental hospitals to see this. But robes, what you see in a movie and on TV sometimes when they think it's crazy people they're trying to, Like, she was mute. She would sit and rock. No emotion on her face. She literally, they say, pulled out her own hair. This was other-level stuff. It was. And illness with this woman that was documented. Roche even said she, what, for two years had thought about and even were planning to kill the kids. This was other-level.
00:13:11
Speaker 2: And to think you had that much evidence that this woman... was absolutely, and I always feel like, is it wrong to even call someone insane? I feel like that's almost derogatory, but mentally ill, clearly beyond. I mean, there was no one who couldn't acknowledge that, and still she was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison with all of that evidence.
00:13:34
Speaker 1: Yeah, we forget, folks. Lindsay, or Andrea Yates, was supposed to be in prison. A jury heard all this stuff we just said and said, nope. She should go to prison for the rest.
00:13:46
Speaker 2: Of her life. And they came to that conclusion pretty quickly, right? The first jury, it was within four hours or something like that. It was a quick deliberation and an immediate verdict of guilty. That was remarkable.
00:13:57
Speaker 1: Rose, it sounds so definitive, but she, lo and behold, gets a new trial. Now, why does she get a new trial? She got a new trial because of a guy named Park Dietz is his name. And Robes, this is a well-known, renowned psychiatrist, forensic psychiatrist, and his name came up. He's not working in the Lindsay Clancy trial, but Robes, you remember, his name came up when Reddington was questioning, cross-examining some of the expert witnesses for the prosecution. And he said, you work for Park, Dietz, and Associates. Park, Dietz, and Associates. Park, Dietz, and Associates. We remember hearing that. plenty of times. And the point he was trying to make about Park Deets is that, yeah, you guys just, and Rose, I went to the website.
00:14:47
Speaker 2: Make stuff up.
00:14:48
Speaker 1: I went to the website. You can just go and click and pick which psychiatrist you want, send an email, pay them, and they will come to whatever conclusion, not that you want, but it's supposed to be independent. But Rose, the suggestion, it seems odd that this is how this works.
00:15:07
Speaker 2: So when he was referencing that, I thought he was solely trying to tell the jurors or get into the jurors that, yes, the prosecution just looked up this agency and said, I'll take this one and pay him, and then he'll say what I'd like him to say. And the reason why he brought up Park Dietz is because Avram Mack, that psychiatrist that we saw Reddington eviscerate on the stand, works... For Park Dietz and Associates.
00:15:39
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:15:39
Speaker 2: Now, it's beyond just the fact that this is like a dial-up forensic psychiatrist website or organization. No, no, no, no, no. Park Dietz has a very significant history with the Andrea Yates trial.
00:15:58
Speaker 1: Park Dietz wrote, Dr. Park Dietz, is he not the most consequential player In Andrea Yates' fate.
00:16:07
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
00:16:08
Speaker 1: How is he not? So let's explain. And it does, Robes. You go to their website. They list all the people they've worked for. It's like FBI, this government agency, this government agency. If you were a government agency looking for somebody who might back up whatever your claim might be, you would click. It looks that way. It appears that way. And that's what Reddington was getting at. So Dr. Park Dietz was called in specifically to testify, Robes, at the Andrea Yates trial, the first one in 2002. He got up and he said she was sane, that she knew right from wrong when she killed her five kids. That's a hell of a thought, but that's what he said. And Roeb's injustifying in a part of his reason was that she was a big law and order fan. And this is where he got in trouble.
00:16:54
Speaker 2: Ooh. So he claimed, he testified that he believed Andrea Yates must have watched a particular law and Law and Order episode where a woman kills her or drowns, excuse me, her children. Yes. And then pleads insanity and gets away with it, so to speak.
00:17:18
Speaker 1: Andrew Yates was a big Law and Order fan. So, Robes, if you're sitting on that jury and one of the preeminent forensic psychiatrists, you know, he's giving you all the science and what finds. But then that's something that makes sense. Wait a minute, you're telling me there was an episode she watched about this exact thing? Robes, if you hear that as a, won't you stop and think?
00:17:43
Speaker 2: You would think, wow, this woman is faking this whole thing. She was, and the idea, what the prosecution was saying about Andrea Yates was, yes, okay, she had some mental problems, but she was overwhelmed. She had five kids. She was homeschooling them all, and she wanted out. She was an overwhelmed mom who was fed up with her kids and couldn't take it anymore. And she watches this Law & Order episode where a woman drowns her children, claims Satan made her do it, or claims she was insane, and she gets away with it. And that is when Andrea Yates got the idea to do what she did.
00:18:19
Speaker 1: Now, Robes, in hearing that, it's hard. Robes, it would be hard for a juror to go, That was just a coincidence. Robes, that's hard to believe that this woman saw an episode recently and then decided to do the exact same thing she did. That's not a coincidence, is it?
00:18:37
Speaker 2: Yes, and now you've just given me something I can't unhear and something I'm always going to think about when I'm thinking about her guilt or innocence.
00:18:44
Speaker 1: All right, so tell me what the problem is, though, Robes, with this psychiatrist's testimony.
00:18:51
Speaker 2: Turns out there was no such episode. The episode never existed. Law & Order never did an episode on a woman drowning her children, pleading insanity, and getting away with it.
00:19:06
Speaker 1: Under oath. He sat on that stand. Oh yeah, he was a consultant for that show. So that even added more to his credibility. Ropes. He got on that stand and said, she watched this episode probably, and this is where she got the idea. She was convicted, sent to prison for the rest of her life. And then... Not long after he gave that testimony, Rose, a producer from the show reached out to everybody and said, I've been with that show from the beginning. We've never had an episode like that. He recognized his mistake pretty quickly and tried to rectify it, but it was too late. They didn't want to put him back on the stand. He offered to fly himself back to Texas. I'll come. back on my own dime. And make this right.
00:19:52
Speaker 2: He tried to say he conflated two different episodes or got plots mixed up or something.
00:19:58
Speaker 1: There was one where a woman actually did drown her kid, like in the Susan Smith story. Right, right. And then there was another one where it did have to do with psychosis. The two, they didn't exist.
00:20:08
Speaker 2: So he put the two together.
00:20:09
Speaker 1: In his mind.
00:20:10
Speaker 2: Yes. And he believed, according to him, that he was testifying... Correctly. Hilariously, though, so much of what psychiatrists testify to on the stand is about the ability to remember, right? The ability to recount things. And the fact that he, as a renowned forensic psychiatrist, conflated two episodes on a show that he was a consultant for and actually was probably, almost certainly, maybe the straw that broke the camel's back, but certainly in part the reason why she was convicted.
00:20:45
Speaker 1: Right. Ropes. Okay, stay with me here. The appeals court for this one, this is their quote. There is a reasonable likelihood that Dr. Dietz's false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury.
00:21:05
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
00:21:06
Speaker 1: Yes! You just told me she got the idea from a TV show. She watched an episode a couple weeks ago and then she kills her kids the exact same way. There's no way that's a coincidence. Guilty. And so she gets a new trial. And it's in that new trial that they come to a different conclusion, Robes. Not guilty by reason of insanity. Robes, this is one of those, and I said this to you plenty throughout the Clancy trial, that some of the forensic psychiatrists and psychologists for the prosecution seem too much like homers.
00:21:44
Speaker 2: Yeah.
00:21:44
Speaker 1: Like, tell it to me straight. They came off like they were trying to make sure they helped the prosecution as much as possible. when their job is supposed to be to help that patient. And it came off like they had a score to settle too often.
00:21:58
Speaker 2: It certainly did on cross-examination. Now, I get that's contentious in nature. And when someone comes at you about your credibility or your resume or your right to testify to something, I understand how even maybe a renowned psychiatrist could get his feathers.
00:22:15
Speaker 1: Ruffled a bit.
00:22:16
Speaker 2: But... But I also think you're a psychiatrist. Don't you understand what's happening here? Can you not like process that and react appropriately.
00:22:26
Speaker 1: Through your own ability?
00:22:28
Speaker 2: To see what's happening and what's going on. But anyway, beyond that, when the defense attorney is asking basic questions that have simple answers and you're evasive because you know it will help the defense, that is when you lose my.
00:22:44
Speaker 1: Lost me.
00:22:45
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's when I'm like, I don't agree that you are impartial and I don't believe that you don't have an agenda. And that's when you lose me, when you refuse to acknowledge simple truths that that yes, might help the defense, but are still truths nonetheless. And then when they refuse to answer simple yes or no questions about is this a symptom of postpartum depression or postpartum psychosis, and they say, I don't know, I can't answer that question. That is baloney. And now I don't believe anything they've said.
00:23:16
Speaker 1: It fully came through. That is the exact one. When you were talking, when there are 10 symptoms... Of postpartum depression. Okay, would you agree that this is one? Well, it depends on what you mean by symptom. All this stuff. No, Robes, you look like you're trying to... Robes, it's okay to concede a point from the defense.
00:23:36
Speaker 2: Just say yes.
00:23:37
Speaker 1: That's true.
00:23:37
Speaker 2: That is.
00:23:38
Speaker 1: And let's move on.
00:23:39
Speaker 2: And now I'll believe everything you said for the prosecution.
00:23:41
Speaker 1: Yes, that's credibility, baby.
00:23:42
Speaker 2: But when you refuse to answer obvious questions that have simple truths, now, how am I supposed to believe anything you just testified to earlier? That's a problem.
00:23:52
Speaker 1: So I don't, so the moment we talked about that we missed from Reddington when it happened, he went, he, which one was it? Was it Avram?
00:24:01
Speaker 2: It was Matt. It was Avram. It was Avram Mack. It was that man who is, yes, an employee of this.
00:24:10
Speaker 1: Dietz & Associates. Yes, Dietz & Associates.
00:24:12
Speaker 2: This company, Dietz & Associates. So he works there. essentially for Dr. Park Dietz.
00:24:19
Speaker 1: So even that, when Kevin Reddington was asking him, you work at Park Dietz, right? Work at Park Dietz. No, I don't work. No, I don't do that. It's more so that, you know, they'll contact me and blah, blah, blah. He put the dude's damn letterhead on the screen. He said, it says right there, it says right there, your name, Park Dietz and Associates. Even that, Robes, he won't admit to that. So this guy, Robes, And looking at the website, I was a little stunned. You can go shopping for a psychiatrist right now. You click a link or their name. I can click on Avramac right now and send him an email and say, hey, what do you cost? This is what I'm looking at. What do you think? If I don't like his answer, I'll try somebody else. I don't like what he's saying. Rose, that's how the website's set up.
00:25:07
Speaker 2: That's wild.
00:25:08
Speaker 1: And so the jurors are learning that.
00:25:09
Speaker 2: Yes, and the fact that he is connected to the man who falsely testified in Andrea Yates' trial that ultimately led the jury to find her guilty. Now you've got one of his associates on the stand saying the exact same thing about Lindsay Clancy, that she, because of her deliberate acts, and this is exactly what was testified to in Andrea Yates, that because she was methodical, because she planned it, because she had a small window of time that she knew she had to get these murders done before mom came and right after husband left, that it's eerily similar. A limited period of time, a deliberate plan of action. She might have heard a voice, yes, where the devil made her do it, but she knew what she was doing because she was so deliberate and methodical in planning how she was going to do it. And that is why she wasn't out of her mind in the sense she was in command of her actions. They used the exact same theory to say Andrea Yates was guilty that they're using to say Lindsay Clancy is guilty.
00:26:18
Speaker 1: And the jurors are not supposed to know this. If they remember it from memory, fine.
00:26:23
Speaker 2: We didn't know necessarily. We didn't necessarily. I don't.
00:26:26
Speaker 1: Dr.
00:26:26
Speaker 2: Park Dietz, that didn't ring a bell for me.
00:26:29
Speaker 1: So they don't know this information or not supposed to know what we are explaining here.
00:26:33
Speaker 2: He did say it in court.
00:26:34
Speaker 1: But how he said it, Robes, was in such a way that it would force them to go Google it. They wouldn't remember necessarily.
00:26:40
Speaker 2: So I'm just wondering. These jurors are not sequestered. I know they are given the instructions by the judge not to look anything up, not to Google anything. But if you see something, they get super contentious. and you see the judge sustain it, and you hear a name, Park Dietz, why does that matter? How many of those jurors might go home and just go, let me see what that was?
00:27:01
Speaker 1: They're not supposed to. They're not supposed to.
00:27:03
Speaker 2: Yes, it is in violation, but who's going to know it?
00:27:07
Speaker 1: Could that lead to some kind of a misdrive?
00:27:08
Speaker 2: Would you do it? Ask yourself. You're a juror.
00:27:10
Speaker 1: Well, I wouldn't want to risk. Actually, I wouldn't want to risk. I've been here for five weeks.
00:27:13
Speaker 2: I wouldn't want to risk it either, but I do think there are plenty of people who might.
00:27:17
Speaker 1: Or they might have a loved one that say, yo. You want me to tell you what I.
00:27:21
Speaker 2: You're not supposed to talk to your spouse about it when you get home?
00:27:24
Speaker 1: It's the first thing they do every time they get home.
00:27:26
Speaker 2: Of course. So that, I'm sorry. You're going to go home and you're going to talk about it with your spouse. And your spouse might share something they've seen or heard.
00:27:36
Speaker 1: So yes, the way he did it, Robes, in questioning Avram Mack, Kevin Reddington for Clancy, in questioning the guy, you work for Park Deets, work for Park Deets. He said, yeah, Park Deets is a pretty famous guy, right? And he just kind of slid a line in there and said, yeah, you remember, he played pretty prominently in that Andrew Yates thing. And the judge didn't even need to really wait to hear objections. Sustained. And Reddington asked the next question so quickly. He knew what he was doing.
00:28:06
Speaker 2: But he got it in.
00:28:07
Speaker 1: He got that thing in there.
00:28:08
Speaker 2: Just in case someone remembered that name, just in case someone on that juror was familiar with the Andrew Yates case, and if someone was familiar, why she ended up getting a new trial.
00:28:17
Speaker 1: Roams, they did. What difference will it make to the juror if he was able to say, yeah, the same expert they have here works for the same expert who got Andrea Yates a new trial because he lied on the stand. He absolutely, that is a truth right there. Sure, it was inadvertent, but Robes, you raise your hand. Truth, whole truth, nothing but the truth. You can make a mistake, fine.
00:28:44
Speaker 2: Okay. Okay.
00:28:44
Speaker 1: This guy works under the guy who made the mistake in the other most famous psychosis case you'll ever hear.
00:28:50
Speaker 2: Right. And how crazy is it that Dr. Philip Resnick, who testified on behalf of Andrea Yates, is testifying on behalf of Lindsay Clancy. And now, in a sense, it's kind of like Dietz versus Resnick once again. A Dietz associate, a.k.a. Avram Mack. But those two were side by side. I mean, it's remarkable how history is repeating itself.
00:29:12
Speaker 1: You're making a point here. We've been talking about this. 25 years separate these trials. We don't have any new experts. We have to go to the same well, because this is how little we know and how few experts there are out there in dealing with women who have mental issues after having babies.
00:29:28
Speaker 2: And in those 25 years, it doesn't seem like they know anymore. And certainly they haven't created any new minds on this, new research on this. It seems like we're rehashing the exact same information that we had back then that we still only have now.
00:29:47
Speaker 1: You know, this is getting covered a lot more. It's covered in a different way. It is streaming. People are, they have access to it in a different way and maybe ropes and things are getting out that people are But, Rob, there is such a different feeling around this trial, and we have got to listen. You were pointing out to me a short time ago some stats you saw about just how few people are working in this area of postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis, and just dealing with women health generally when it comes to having babies.
00:30:17
Speaker 2: Someone wrote an article today, and they talked to an esteemed psychiatrist who said there are only, this is shocking, 500 women. psychiatrists in this country who are devoted to women, pregnant women's postpartum mental health. 500 in the entire country. That is stunning.
00:30:49
Speaker 1: How many deal with postnatal, right? That deal with the babies, right? The focus is supposed to be making sure the baby's healthy. What about the mom? Obviously. Yes, but I'm saying the focus is always not that the woman might be in some kind of desperate situation. Rose, we gotta, this is, for men and women, we can't let a woman get to this point.
00:31:12
Speaker 2: No, and this is exceptionally rare. And I think that is something that has to obviously, because you wouldn't want anyone who's dealing with postpartum depression to freak out and have more anxiety because she's so afraid she might end up in psychosis. But depression is a serious and oftentimes, not oftentimes, but sometimes fatal disease.
00:31:30
Speaker 1: But Rose, but what I am hearing from people doctors about postpartum depression and psychosis is actually you can, yeah, but you've got to recognize it and get help. Aren't arguments being made, certainly for Lindsay Clancy, if she had gotten the right help, the right dosage, the right, that she never would have ended up in this place. Is that right? Yes.
00:31:51
Speaker 2: If she had gotten the right diagnosis, if I believe most people now believe she was bipolar and if she had been diagnosed with that properly and she wouldn't have been given some of the medication she was given, which leads to insomnia, and insomnia leads to psychosis.
00:32:06
Speaker 1: So there you go, Robes. Does this happen, what did it say, one or two out of every thousand women? But does it have to happen to the one or two? Are they anomalies in some way, Robes, because of the way they are quote-unquote wired? Or are we missing one to two women out of a thousand?
00:32:24
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, it could be both. both actually, but the reality is until we know more and are able to properly diagnose women and give women the correct medication. And I thought it was just really interesting. I know that sleeplessness is a form of torture, right? We've always known that like sleep deprivation, right? But to think she didn't sleep for 48 hours at one point. And they said that kind of sleep deprivation absolutely ends in psychosis. You have trouble sleeping. You probably are thinking, yeah, that reads. Not that I've ever seen you psychotic, but it drastically affects mood.
00:33:00
Speaker 1: That sounds, and I'm not being dramatic here. Yeah, your thoughts change, Robes. When you're that terribly tired, there are times I have to stop and I say, okay, wait a minute. I'm in trouble. I need to, Robes, exhaustion, insomnia is a real thing. I'm not suggesting it anywhere close to that, but you're surprised sometimes at what your mind will do. When you're exhausted.
00:33:23
Speaker 2: You recognize that brain chemistry changes when you haven't slept.
00:33:27
Speaker 1: It does, man.
00:33:28
Speaker 2: It does.
00:33:28
Speaker 1: The last thing I want to hit on here with you, Robes, because we talked so much about it. Like, how is the jury feeling in that courtroom? We can see and feel enough in what we've been watching on TV and our TV screens, Robes.
00:33:40
Speaker 2: But....
00:33:42
Speaker 1: In the room, what does the emotion feel like when we see Andrea Yates crying and shaking uncontrollably and hyperventilating?
00:33:48
Speaker 2: You mean Lindsay Clancy. Who said Andrea Yates? I knew you meant Lindsay Clancy.
00:33:52
Speaker 1: I am shocked that we are 35 minutes in. That's the first time I made that mistake. I just knew I was going to do it earlier. But yes, Lindsay Clancy. Are the jurors looking at that and do they have sympathy for her? Yes. Or are they looking at a lot of what the prosecution is saying and directing anger towards her?
00:34:11
Speaker 2: I don't know. Look, it's interesting to me. All I can do is gauge some of the reaction online, and I know you get extremes when you go online, but I am surprised. There was an op-ed this morning in a major newspaper of a female writer who has four children, and she expressed incredible anger towards not only Lindsay Clancy, but towards any woman, and specifically any mother who was showing her empathy because she's claiming we are not... We are giving her a pass, so to speak, and not actually thinking about the kids. And I was actually appalled reading her op-ed. So I, as a mom, am surprised that people are upset that there is empathy being shown. And it's only women I'm seeing who are speaking out against other women who are giving Lindsay Clancy empathy or sympathy, depending on whether or not they've experienced postpartum issues or not. But that's bizarre to me because to me, how do you see a woman in there in a wheelchair, sobbing uncontrollably, hyperventilating, had wanted to die, obviously. How do you just go, monster, shamed? You're an abomination. You're evil. Like that blows my mind.
00:35:27
Speaker 1: Can I ask how do folks, how do they even address the, the idea of mental illness? They just dismiss it as well? Yes.
00:35:34
Speaker 2: No, they say absolutely. She could be mentally ill, but that doesn't give her a pass. She still chose what she did.
00:35:40
Speaker 1: Are they using the word pass? Are they essentially they're saying, yes. Okay.
00:35:44
Speaker 2: That it's an excuse.
00:35:45
Speaker 1: Is there ever, ever, ever a case or can there be a case that where a woman is not criminally responsible for something like this? Can it ever happen? Because based on this op-ed you're talking about, then no, it's never a reason. It's never a contributing factor. You are never going to be able to convince some people.
00:36:07
Speaker 2: Well, they're acknowledging that it was a contributing factor, but they don't believe it absolves her of the criminal responsibility of it, and they believe she belongs in prison for the rest of her life. And I just wholeheartedly disagree. So that's why it's going to be so fascinating. I have no idea what these jurors are thinking. I can only see that there is a raging debate online.
00:36:29
Speaker 1: This is the last thing I wanted to leave you with because we've been talking about emotion and how we feel about it. Is the jury feeling that way about it? Where is their emotion? Where is their anger being directed? And what I have is the jury from the Andrea Yates trial, her second one. Robes, they came out and there are plenty of quotes and conversations and they did interviews afterwards. The emotion played hugely for them.
00:36:54
Speaker 2: How could it not?
00:36:55
Speaker 1: In that jury room, Robes, the foreman, gave this quote. The first time I gave my son a bath after seeing those pictures, autopsy photos, it was very hard. That's the jury foreman. So Robes, we talk about all the the, the elastic bands, the autopsy photos that are in there, you know, there are parents and grandparents on that jury. How does that stuff read? I'm pissed at Lindsay Clancy or I am, I have sympathy for her and what she did.
00:37:27
Speaker 2: I don't know. I think it could go both ways and they might have a little bit of all of it. You know, it's interesting. You mentioned the juror who said he had a hard time giving his son a bath because it just was, it just, obviously it stayed with him. I wonder how much of a blow it dealt to the defense when the prosecution pointed out that Lindsay Clancy was exercising with exercise bands in that hospital. To think, how could she do that? I don't know. That just popped in my head when you mentioned that because there was a reason why the prosecutor made sure she got that into evidence.
00:38:02
Speaker 1: And that was one of the things, too. Which way does that play?
00:38:06
Speaker 2: She's mentally ill. How could you do that if you weren't?
00:38:09
Speaker 1: Or you're just callous and cold and don't give a damn. What do you do? The last quote here from the, this sucks. Their minds were on this very thing that we were talking about back then, 25 years ago, and it seems like we're in the same spot. Don't let this happen again. Do what you've got to do with legislation, with insurance companies. Don't let this happen again. That from the jury foreperson, Robes.
00:38:36
Speaker 2: The good news is I think we are mostly talking now not just about whether or not Lindsay Clancy is evil, but a lot of people are asking hard questions about why we don't have better health care for these women, why we don't have better research, why we don't have a better understanding. And I do think a lot of the anger is leveled at the industry, at our lack of care or concern for postpartum women. And if the anger and outrage can be put in that direction, then maybe that actually can evolve to where it needs to be. Wouldn't we all get behind better understanding, better research, better medications, better treatment? Yes.
00:39:15
Speaker 1: How will this change what the industry does next based on this verdict? Based on the Lindsay Clancy verdict, if she goes to prison, do we go, all good? Do we just move on and not think about it anymore because psychosis is the issue here. This is just a monster that killed her kids. We can go back to our lives.
00:39:32
Speaker 2: I don't think that that's ever going to be the general consensus. I don't. And obviously there would be appeals. This would stay in the spotlight. And I do believe enough conversations are being had now as we're all watching this trial. I think this is one of the reasons why it's good that it's been televised and it's been live streamed and it's been available for people because they really do get some insight into a very little known, little researched, little funded issue serious issue that affects a lot.
00:40:00
Speaker 1: Of women this has been uh you're right babe if we get nothing out of this maybe we won't have to say that thing again do something so we don't let this happen again that he said that don't like he was predicting we better do something and here we are uh folks just wanted to hop on we've been talking about this we should just leave the camera and the mics on because we talk about this.
00:40:23
Speaker 2: All day long all day long.
00:40:26
Speaker 1: But folks, we appreciate you as always. I'm TJ. That's Robes. See y'all soon.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. There is no question there are so many similarities between the Lindsay Clancy case and the case of Andrea Yates. It's striking, really, the comparisons, the similarities. But why is it that people seem to be running to Lindsay Clancy's defense, giving her a sympathy and an empathy that Andrea Yates ain't ever get? And with that, everybody, welcome. I'm TJ. That's Robes. That's fair to say. I know Andrea Yates was 20 what?
00:00:33
Speaker 2: 2006 or it was 25 years ago when she was initially convicted.
00:00:37
Speaker 1: So there we go. This was 25 years ago. But Robes, it feels like we can still remember, even if you don't remember specifically. Robes, she didn't enjoy, she didn't have ladies in pink outside supporting her during any trial.
00:00:50
Speaker 2: No, she was labeled a monster. She was labeled evil. And I think there was a general acknowledgement and consensus that she was mentally unstable, mentally unwell. And yet still, even with all of that overwhelming evidence that this was not a healthy woman mentally, there was not a lot of compassion and there was not a lot of sympathy and there was not a lot of empathy. Why?
00:01:13
Speaker 1: Why then? I guess, have we learned so much about women and health? from this trial or in the past 25 years? Maybe both.
00:01:20
Speaker 2: I think a little bit of both because I think it's become something we've talked about since Andrea Gates and then you have other women who have come forward. Hayden Panettiere is the one who comes to my mind. But not a lot of women have been willing to come forward and say, I've had dark thoughts. I've had dark thoughts of harming myself or my children in the months after I gave birth. That is such a hard thing to admit. And because it's so hard to admit, people don't talk about it. Research hasn't been done. But because we've seen this before, I feel like maybe we're all aware and willing to say, wait a minute. Maybe there's actually something else going on here.
00:01:59
Speaker 1: You know, what is it... women with postpartum, what is it? They call it the baby blues maybe?
00:02:05
Speaker 2: That was a way to completely minimize it. But yes, it was just kind of described as baby blues. Like you'll get over it. Yes. Baby blues has been around since, because I gave birth in 2002 and 2006. So literally right after Andrea Yates, I think I might've even, was I pregnant? It was right after that. So it was on my mind. Like that is so scary. Baby blues though. It didn't, That's kind of how it was referred to.
00:02:33
Speaker 1: But isn't it still today? Robe's just kind of dismissed as if a woman is having a little struggle. She's down a little bit. I mean, she's tired after birth. She's struggling with new motherhood, maybe some things on her mind, and she's got baby blues.
00:02:45
Speaker 2: Who hasn't felt that?
00:02:46
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:02:46
Speaker 2: It kind of just seems like, yeah, it comes with the territory, not a big deal. You'll be fine in a couple months.
00:02:52
Speaker 1: And the first reactions, and I think some of it came with Clancy, and you know what? Some of it's come in the Lindsay Clancy trial from prosecutors, in particular Robes, are almost dismissing it as a mama who just can't handle it, and she decided to take an easy way out.
00:03:05
Speaker 2: And I think that is what has rallied so many women who have actually experienced, not psychosis, because that is extremely, exceptionally rare, but depression is real and it can lead to death. It can lead to suicide. It can lead to a lot of awful, horrible, harmful things. And so, yes, people have talked about, women have stood up and said, if I hadn't gotten the medical help or the intervention that I needed, I too could have become Lindsay Clancy. That's a bold statement to make, and maybe it's a dramatic one to make, but I do think at the very least there's an acknowledgement that she isn't just some evil monster. And at least that's what the women who are coming to her defense are saying and feeling based on personal experiences, and maybe, yes, remembering and re-evaluating and revisiting the Andrea Yates situation.
00:03:53
Speaker 1: The similarities between the Clancy case and the Yates case are, I was, you saw me, in preparing. Striking. Before this this morning, you were watching me and I couldn't stop saying, babe, you're not going to believe this. Babe, you can't. Babe, do you remember this? I can't. Robes, they are so similar. And robes, they even had some of the same experts testifying.
00:04:16
Speaker 2: That is one of the wildest parts of this story because it plays heavily into... what the jurors heard, and I don't know, like what we don't know is how many of these jurors are familiar with the Andrea Yates case. How many of these jurors go home at night and do Google things and see what people are saying. I mean, there are some striking similarities, and as you pointed out, similar or the exact same. There are psychiatrists who are the same, and then there are psychiatrists who have connections.
00:04:51
Speaker 1: This is stunning. If any of these Lindsay Clancy people jurors went home and started doing research on the Yates case. I don't know how it couldn't impact them in that jury room. It would have to, it would absolutely have to. I didn't remember. Maybe you all did. I forgot that she was convicted the first time.
00:05:10
Speaker 2: She was convicted and sent to prison for the rest of her life without the possibility of parole. And she sat in that prison, correct? Uh, she was sentenced to prison for, she was convicted. So the murders happened in 2001. She was convicted in 2002. And found guilty. And then she was found not guilty by reason of insanity in 2006.
00:05:29
Speaker 1: But they didn't give her the death penalty after that first, they could have, this woman, capital murder of five kids.
00:05:36
Speaker 2: Prosecutors were seeking it.
00:05:38
Speaker 1: And the jurors, even then, Robes, that suggested some level of sympathy, perhaps, or some level of understanding that that woman was sick. But yes, she ends up getting a new trial. why she got a new trial.
00:05:50
Speaker 2: Wait for it.
00:05:51
Speaker 1: Plays into the Lindsay Clancy trial. Babe, I missed something that Kevin Reddington did.
00:05:58
Speaker 2: So did I.
00:05:59
Speaker 1: And we're going to get into it. I completely glanced over and missed something he did in making a reference to the Yates trial.
00:06:06
Speaker 2: He's even more brilliant than we thought.
00:06:08
Speaker 1: And that objection was sustained, but the point was made. So Andrew Yates, if we go back, Robes, in remembering this crime, and I I said to you that it's hard to go back, and we'll spare some of the details. But yes, that was in 2001. She was left at home by herself. Husband had gone to work. 9 a.m., she fills the bathtub and methodically drowns her kids, one after one after one, in no particular order. And it's not just that she drowned them. It's like there was a, I don't want to call it a ceremony, but robes. What she did afterwards, right? She placed them on the bed. She took their bodies one by one, placed them on the bed, and then the baby, which was six months old, Mary, she put in the arms.
00:06:53
Speaker 2: Of the oldest child.
00:06:54
Speaker 1: Of one of the boys who she said was a good big brother. Ooh. That's the crime.
00:07:00
Speaker 2: And she only had one hour. So there are some similarities because her mom was coming at 10. Her husband left at nine. She had a very limited window of time where she was alone with her babies.
00:07:11
Speaker 1: So this is one, Robes, where she was the one that called 911. Police got there. She said, I killed my kids. Robes, they reported she didn't show an ounce of emotion. She wasn't frantic. She wasn't worked up. She was nothing but calm, cool, nothing on her face. What does that suppose to say about somebody?
00:07:32
Speaker 2: That's not humanly possible if you are mentally sane. You just could not have no emotion unless you have something medically, mentally wrong with you, period. And also to in terms of the similar, she was also a nurse that, that was striking as well because we know Lindsay Clancy was a labor and delivery nurse. Andrea Yates was also a former nurse. She spent her life caring for others.
00:08:02
Speaker 1: So let's stick to the similarities between the two cases for a second.
00:08:05
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:08:05
Speaker 1: Both nurses, both raised Catholic. Don't know how that necessarily plays. Uh, both cases, the facts were never in dispute. Everybody agreed who killed the kids and how they killed the kids, both trials as well. Um, Experts, all the experts agreed she was mentally ill. But the break came when they didn't agree on whether or not she was responsible. If that mental illness made her not criminally responsible for the crimes, that was the same. Also, Robes, Dr. Resnick, who testified on behalf of Andrea Yates, was also the psychiatrist who testified on behalf of Lindsay Clancy. He was the one who did it via Zoom.
00:08:46
Speaker 2: And Dr. Resnick, I thought this was really interesting. I'm sure you saw the same thing. Casey Anthony, another famous murder trial where a mother was accused of killing her child. He actually consulted with the defense. They chose not to use him because he determined that Casey Anthony actually did know what she was doing and did murder her child because She wanted to be relieved of the burden of her child. So he's not somebody who just says, oh, here's the explanation as to why this mother isn't responsible for killing her kids. I think that's important to note that he actually took a different stand with Casey Anthony.
00:09:20
Speaker 1: Now, all of the experts that we hear from, Rose, psychiatrists, will tell you that, no, it doesn't matter who hires me. I do an independent analysis. But Rhodes, Reddington was able to point out, I mean, what do you call the guy? You're kind of a government guy, aren't you? Yeah. Because his whole resume, he's testifying for the prosecution, prosecution for the state, for the state, for the state.
00:09:41
Speaker 2: At some point, you have to question that or at least be critical of that.
00:09:46
Speaker 1: And the other similarity I have here listed, Rhodes, in both of these cases, that both prosecution experts didn't know shit about women in postpartum depression. In the Yates case and in this one, wrote, it's striking that the main people up there, given their expert advice have to eventually admit, yeah, I don't really do this.
00:10:04
Speaker 2: Haven't really seen or treated or even diagnosed really any, or maybe just one or two, maybe three women in my 40 plus year career. have I ever seen, treated, or recognized psychosis, postpartum psychosis, in a woman? All right.
00:10:22
Speaker 1: So, Robes, let's get to now these connections. And first, if we haven't mentioned, Robes, the kids in the Yates case. We've been talking about Dawson, Cora, and Callan, Lindsay Clancy's kids. We know this now and know their ages, seven, five, and Eight months, was it, on the kids here?
00:10:41
Speaker 2: It was five, three, and eight months.
00:10:43
Speaker 1: Five, three, and eight months, but the kids for Andrew Yates were seven, five, three, two, and six months. Noah, John, Paul, Luke, and Mary. Sound like they're straight out of the Bible, don't they?
00:10:51
Speaker 2: Yes, very Catholic names there.
00:10:53
Speaker 1: All of them. Now, this is an area that's not similar. Andrew Yates had a much longer and really a much more difficult and scary career. really roped history of mental illness than Lindsay Clancy had.
00:11:10
Speaker 2: That's right. She attempted suicide twice, like documented attempts to take her own life.
00:11:16
Speaker 1: One was she tried to take pills, and another she had a knife to her neck.
00:11:21
Speaker 2: And recurring postpartum depression to the point where I believe a doctor told her to stop having children because they were concerned about her mental health. But she had a documented history of schizophrenia. And she really believed that Satan had taken over her body.
00:11:38
Speaker 1: Right, we hear something different. Lindsay Clancy says she hears a voice that tells her to do something. Andrew Yates was a different situation, Ro. She thought Satan had possessed her, taken over her soul. And before the kids could get got by Satan, I need to kill them.
00:11:57
Speaker 2: While they're still innocent.
00:11:59
Speaker 1: And when that's done... I am going to be hauled off to the death chamber. And once the state executes me, also Satan will be taken out. That was her story.
00:12:12
Speaker 2: Yeah. And she stuck with it.
00:12:14
Speaker 1: She believed.
00:12:15
Speaker 2: Actually, that's why she called 911. That's why she coldly and calmly said, I killed my kids, because she believed she was possessed by Satan and that she needed to die for Satan to die. She even wanted them to shave her head so that it could reveal the 666.
00:12:32
Speaker 1: And we need to point out here, this is not, the reports about her robes and her background, it's the best reference we probably have because we don't, most people don't go into like psych wards and mental hospitals to see this. But robes, what you see in a movie and on TV sometimes when they think it's crazy people they're trying to, Like, she was mute. She would sit and rock. No emotion on her face. She literally, they say, pulled out her own hair. This was other-level stuff. It was. And illness with this woman that was documented. Roche even said she, what, for two years had thought about and even were planning to kill the kids. This was other-level.
00:13:11
Speaker 2: And to think you had that much evidence that this woman... was absolutely, and I always feel like, is it wrong to even call someone insane? I feel like that's almost derogatory, but mentally ill, clearly beyond. I mean, there was no one who couldn't acknowledge that, and still she was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison with all of that evidence.
00:13:34
Speaker 1: Yeah, we forget, folks. Lindsay, or Andrea Yates, was supposed to be in prison. A jury heard all this stuff we just said and said, nope. She should go to prison for the rest.
00:13:46
Speaker 2: Of her life. And they came to that conclusion pretty quickly, right? The first jury, it was within four hours or something like that. It was a quick deliberation and an immediate verdict of guilty. That was remarkable.
00:13:57
Speaker 1: Rose, it sounds so definitive, but she, lo and behold, gets a new trial. Now, why does she get a new trial? She got a new trial because of a guy named Park Dietz is his name. And Robes, this is a well-known, renowned psychiatrist, forensic psychiatrist, and his name came up. He's not working in the Lindsay Clancy trial, but Robes, you remember, his name came up when Reddington was questioning, cross-examining some of the expert witnesses for the prosecution. And he said, you work for Park, Dietz, and Associates. Park, Dietz, and Associates. Park, Dietz, and Associates. We remember hearing that. plenty of times. And the point he was trying to make about Park Deets is that, yeah, you guys just, and Rose, I went to the website.
00:14:47
Speaker 2: Make stuff up.
00:14:48
Speaker 1: I went to the website. You can just go and click and pick which psychiatrist you want, send an email, pay them, and they will come to whatever conclusion, not that you want, but it's supposed to be independent. But Rose, the suggestion, it seems odd that this is how this works.
00:15:07
Speaker 2: So when he was referencing that, I thought he was solely trying to tell the jurors or get into the jurors that, yes, the prosecution just looked up this agency and said, I'll take this one and pay him, and then he'll say what I'd like him to say. And the reason why he brought up Park Dietz is because Avram Mack, that psychiatrist that we saw Reddington eviscerate on the stand, works... For Park Dietz and Associates.
00:15:39
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:15:39
Speaker 2: Now, it's beyond just the fact that this is like a dial-up forensic psychiatrist website or organization. No, no, no, no, no. Park Dietz has a very significant history with the Andrea Yates trial.
00:15:58
Speaker 1: Park Dietz wrote, Dr. Park Dietz, is he not the most consequential player In Andrea Yates' fate.
00:16:07
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
00:16:08
Speaker 1: How is he not? So let's explain. And it does, Robes. You go to their website. They list all the people they've worked for. It's like FBI, this government agency, this government agency. If you were a government agency looking for somebody who might back up whatever your claim might be, you would click. It looks that way. It appears that way. And that's what Reddington was getting at. So Dr. Park Dietz was called in specifically to testify, Robes, at the Andrea Yates trial, the first one in 2002. He got up and he said she was sane, that she knew right from wrong when she killed her five kids. That's a hell of a thought, but that's what he said. And Roeb's injustifying in a part of his reason was that she was a big law and order fan. And this is where he got in trouble.
00:16:54
Speaker 2: Ooh. So he claimed, he testified that he believed Andrea Yates must have watched a particular law and Law and Order episode where a woman kills her or drowns, excuse me, her children. Yes. And then pleads insanity and gets away with it, so to speak.
00:17:18
Speaker 1: Andrew Yates was a big Law and Order fan. So, Robes, if you're sitting on that jury and one of the preeminent forensic psychiatrists, you know, he's giving you all the science and what finds. But then that's something that makes sense. Wait a minute, you're telling me there was an episode she watched about this exact thing? Robes, if you hear that as a, won't you stop and think?
00:17:43
Speaker 2: You would think, wow, this woman is faking this whole thing. She was, and the idea, what the prosecution was saying about Andrea Yates was, yes, okay, she had some mental problems, but she was overwhelmed. She had five kids. She was homeschooling them all, and she wanted out. She was an overwhelmed mom who was fed up with her kids and couldn't take it anymore. And she watches this Law & Order episode where a woman drowns her children, claims Satan made her do it, or claims she was insane, and she gets away with it. And that is when Andrea Yates got the idea to do what she did.
00:18:19
Speaker 1: Now, Robes, in hearing that, it's hard. Robes, it would be hard for a juror to go, That was just a coincidence. Robes, that's hard to believe that this woman saw an episode recently and then decided to do the exact same thing she did. That's not a coincidence, is it?
00:18:37
Speaker 2: Yes, and now you've just given me something I can't unhear and something I'm always going to think about when I'm thinking about her guilt or innocence.
00:18:44
Speaker 1: All right, so tell me what the problem is, though, Robes, with this psychiatrist's testimony.
00:18:51
Speaker 2: Turns out there was no such episode. The episode never existed. Law & Order never did an episode on a woman drowning her children, pleading insanity, and getting away with it.
00:19:06
Speaker 1: Under oath. He sat on that stand. Oh yeah, he was a consultant for that show. So that even added more to his credibility. Ropes. He got on that stand and said, she watched this episode probably, and this is where she got the idea. She was convicted, sent to prison for the rest of her life. And then... Not long after he gave that testimony, Rose, a producer from the show reached out to everybody and said, I've been with that show from the beginning. We've never had an episode like that. He recognized his mistake pretty quickly and tried to rectify it, but it was too late. They didn't want to put him back on the stand. He offered to fly himself back to Texas. I'll come. back on my own dime. And make this right.
00:19:52
Speaker 2: He tried to say he conflated two different episodes or got plots mixed up or something.
00:19:58
Speaker 1: There was one where a woman actually did drown her kid, like in the Susan Smith story. Right, right. And then there was another one where it did have to do with psychosis. The two, they didn't exist.
00:20:08
Speaker 2: So he put the two together.
00:20:09
Speaker 1: In his mind.
00:20:10
Speaker 2: Yes. And he believed, according to him, that he was testifying... Correctly. Hilariously, though, so much of what psychiatrists testify to on the stand is about the ability to remember, right? The ability to recount things. And the fact that he, as a renowned forensic psychiatrist, conflated two episodes on a show that he was a consultant for and actually was probably, almost certainly, maybe the straw that broke the camel's back, but certainly in part the reason why she was convicted.
00:20:45
Speaker 1: Right. Ropes. Okay, stay with me here. The appeals court for this one, this is their quote. There is a reasonable likelihood that Dr. Dietz's false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury.
00:21:05
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
00:21:06
Speaker 1: Yes! You just told me she got the idea from a TV show. She watched an episode a couple weeks ago and then she kills her kids the exact same way. There's no way that's a coincidence. Guilty. And so she gets a new trial. And it's in that new trial that they come to a different conclusion, Robes. Not guilty by reason of insanity. Robes, this is one of those, and I said this to you plenty throughout the Clancy trial, that some of the forensic psychiatrists and psychologists for the prosecution seem too much like homers.
00:21:44
Speaker 2: Yeah.
00:21:44
Speaker 1: Like, tell it to me straight. They came off like they were trying to make sure they helped the prosecution as much as possible. when their job is supposed to be to help that patient. And it came off like they had a score to settle too often.
00:21:58
Speaker 2: It certainly did on cross-examination. Now, I get that's contentious in nature. And when someone comes at you about your credibility or your resume or your right to testify to something, I understand how even maybe a renowned psychiatrist could get his feathers.
00:22:15
Speaker 1: Ruffled a bit.
00:22:16
Speaker 2: But... But I also think you're a psychiatrist. Don't you understand what's happening here? Can you not like process that and react appropriately.
00:22:26
Speaker 1: Through your own ability?
00:22:28
Speaker 2: To see what's happening and what's going on. But anyway, beyond that, when the defense attorney is asking basic questions that have simple answers and you're evasive because you know it will help the defense, that is when you lose my.
00:22:44
Speaker 1: Lost me.
00:22:45
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's when I'm like, I don't agree that you are impartial and I don't believe that you don't have an agenda. And that's when you lose me, when you refuse to acknowledge simple truths that that yes, might help the defense, but are still truths nonetheless. And then when they refuse to answer simple yes or no questions about is this a symptom of postpartum depression or postpartum psychosis, and they say, I don't know, I can't answer that question. That is baloney. And now I don't believe anything they've said.
00:23:16
Speaker 1: It fully came through. That is the exact one. When you were talking, when there are 10 symptoms... Of postpartum depression. Okay, would you agree that this is one? Well, it depends on what you mean by symptom. All this stuff. No, Robes, you look like you're trying to... Robes, it's okay to concede a point from the defense.
00:23:36
Speaker 2: Just say yes.
00:23:37
Speaker 1: That's true.
00:23:37
Speaker 2: That is.
00:23:38
Speaker 1: And let's move on.
00:23:39
Speaker 2: And now I'll believe everything you said for the prosecution.
00:23:41
Speaker 1: Yes, that's credibility, baby.
00:23:42
Speaker 2: But when you refuse to answer obvious questions that have simple truths, now, how am I supposed to believe anything you just testified to earlier? That's a problem.
00:23:52
Speaker 1: So I don't, so the moment we talked about that we missed from Reddington when it happened, he went, he, which one was it? Was it Avram?
00:24:01
Speaker 2: It was Matt. It was Avram. It was Avram Mack. It was that man who is, yes, an employee of this.
00:24:10
Speaker 1: Dietz & Associates. Yes, Dietz & Associates.
00:24:12
Speaker 2: This company, Dietz & Associates. So he works there. essentially for Dr. Park Dietz.
00:24:19
Speaker 1: So even that, when Kevin Reddington was asking him, you work at Park Dietz, right? Work at Park Dietz. No, I don't work. No, I don't do that. It's more so that, you know, they'll contact me and blah, blah, blah. He put the dude's damn letterhead on the screen. He said, it says right there, it says right there, your name, Park Dietz and Associates. Even that, Robes, he won't admit to that. So this guy, Robes, And looking at the website, I was a little stunned. You can go shopping for a psychiatrist right now. You click a link or their name. I can click on Avramac right now and send him an email and say, hey, what do you cost? This is what I'm looking at. What do you think? If I don't like his answer, I'll try somebody else. I don't like what he's saying. Rose, that's how the website's set up.
00:25:07
Speaker 2: That's wild.
00:25:08
Speaker 1: And so the jurors are learning that.
00:25:09
Speaker 2: Yes, and the fact that he is connected to the man who falsely testified in Andrea Yates' trial that ultimately led the jury to find her guilty. Now you've got one of his associates on the stand saying the exact same thing about Lindsay Clancy, that she, because of her deliberate acts, and this is exactly what was testified to in Andrea Yates, that because she was methodical, because she planned it, because she had a small window of time that she knew she had to get these murders done before mom came and right after husband left, that it's eerily similar. A limited period of time, a deliberate plan of action. She might have heard a voice, yes, where the devil made her do it, but she knew what she was doing because she was so deliberate and methodical in planning how she was going to do it. And that is why she wasn't out of her mind in the sense she was in command of her actions. They used the exact same theory to say Andrea Yates was guilty that they're using to say Lindsay Clancy is guilty.
00:26:18
Speaker 1: And the jurors are not supposed to know this. If they remember it from memory, fine.
00:26:23
Speaker 2: We didn't know necessarily. We didn't necessarily. I don't.
00:26:26
Speaker 1: Dr.
00:26:26
Speaker 2: Park Dietz, that didn't ring a bell for me.
00:26:29
Speaker 1: So they don't know this information or not supposed to know what we are explaining here.
00:26:33
Speaker 2: He did say it in court.
00:26:34
Speaker 1: But how he said it, Robes, was in such a way that it would force them to go Google it. They wouldn't remember necessarily.
00:26:40
Speaker 2: So I'm just wondering. These jurors are not sequestered. I know they are given the instructions by the judge not to look anything up, not to Google anything. But if you see something, they get super contentious. and you see the judge sustain it, and you hear a name, Park Dietz, why does that matter? How many of those jurors might go home and just go, let me see what that was?
00:27:01
Speaker 1: They're not supposed to. They're not supposed to.
00:27:03
Speaker 2: Yes, it is in violation, but who's going to know it?
00:27:07
Speaker 1: Could that lead to some kind of a misdrive?
00:27:08
Speaker 2: Would you do it? Ask yourself. You're a juror.
00:27:10
Speaker 1: Well, I wouldn't want to risk. Actually, I wouldn't want to risk. I've been here for five weeks.
00:27:13
Speaker 2: I wouldn't want to risk it either, but I do think there are plenty of people who might.
00:27:17
Speaker 1: Or they might have a loved one that say, yo. You want me to tell you what I.
00:27:21
Speaker 2: You're not supposed to talk to your spouse about it when you get home?
00:27:24
Speaker 1: It's the first thing they do every time they get home.
00:27:26
Speaker 2: Of course. So that, I'm sorry. You're going to go home and you're going to talk about it with your spouse. And your spouse might share something they've seen or heard.
00:27:36
Speaker 1: So yes, the way he did it, Robes, in questioning Avram Mack, Kevin Reddington for Clancy, in questioning the guy, you work for Park Deets, work for Park Deets. He said, yeah, Park Deets is a pretty famous guy, right? And he just kind of slid a line in there and said, yeah, you remember, he played pretty prominently in that Andrew Yates thing. And the judge didn't even need to really wait to hear objections. Sustained. And Reddington asked the next question so quickly. He knew what he was doing.
00:28:06
Speaker 2: But he got it in.
00:28:07
Speaker 1: He got that thing in there.
00:28:08
Speaker 2: Just in case someone remembered that name, just in case someone on that juror was familiar with the Andrew Yates case, and if someone was familiar, why she ended up getting a new trial.
00:28:17
Speaker 1: Roams, they did. What difference will it make to the juror if he was able to say, yeah, the same expert they have here works for the same expert who got Andrea Yates a new trial because he lied on the stand. He absolutely, that is a truth right there. Sure, it was inadvertent, but Robes, you raise your hand. Truth, whole truth, nothing but the truth. You can make a mistake, fine.
00:28:44
Speaker 2: Okay. Okay.
00:28:44
Speaker 1: This guy works under the guy who made the mistake in the other most famous psychosis case you'll ever hear.
00:28:50
Speaker 2: Right. And how crazy is it that Dr. Philip Resnick, who testified on behalf of Andrea Yates, is testifying on behalf of Lindsay Clancy. And now, in a sense, it's kind of like Dietz versus Resnick once again. A Dietz associate, a.k.a. Avram Mack. But those two were side by side. I mean, it's remarkable how history is repeating itself.
00:29:12
Speaker 1: You're making a point here. We've been talking about this. 25 years separate these trials. We don't have any new experts. We have to go to the same well, because this is how little we know and how few experts there are out there in dealing with women who have mental issues after having babies.
00:29:28
Speaker 2: And in those 25 years, it doesn't seem like they know anymore. And certainly they haven't created any new minds on this, new research on this. It seems like we're rehashing the exact same information that we had back then that we still only have now.
00:29:47
Speaker 1: You know, this is getting covered a lot more. It's covered in a different way. It is streaming. People are, they have access to it in a different way and maybe ropes and things are getting out that people are But, Rob, there is such a different feeling around this trial, and we have got to listen. You were pointing out to me a short time ago some stats you saw about just how few people are working in this area of postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis, and just dealing with women health generally when it comes to having babies.
00:30:17
Speaker 2: Someone wrote an article today, and they talked to an esteemed psychiatrist who said there are only, this is shocking, 500 women. psychiatrists in this country who are devoted to women, pregnant women's postpartum mental health. 500 in the entire country. That is stunning.
00:30:49
Speaker 1: How many deal with postnatal, right? That deal with the babies, right? The focus is supposed to be making sure the baby's healthy. What about the mom? Obviously. Yes, but I'm saying the focus is always not that the woman might be in some kind of desperate situation. Rose, we gotta, this is, for men and women, we can't let a woman get to this point.
00:31:12
Speaker 2: No, and this is exceptionally rare. And I think that is something that has to obviously, because you wouldn't want anyone who's dealing with postpartum depression to freak out and have more anxiety because she's so afraid she might end up in psychosis. But depression is a serious and oftentimes, not oftentimes, but sometimes fatal disease.
00:31:30
Speaker 1: But Rose, but what I am hearing from people doctors about postpartum depression and psychosis is actually you can, yeah, but you've got to recognize it and get help. Aren't arguments being made, certainly for Lindsay Clancy, if she had gotten the right help, the right dosage, the right, that she never would have ended up in this place. Is that right? Yes.
00:31:51
Speaker 2: If she had gotten the right diagnosis, if I believe most people now believe she was bipolar and if she had been diagnosed with that properly and she wouldn't have been given some of the medication she was given, which leads to insomnia, and insomnia leads to psychosis.
00:32:06
Speaker 1: So there you go, Robes. Does this happen, what did it say, one or two out of every thousand women? But does it have to happen to the one or two? Are they anomalies in some way, Robes, because of the way they are quote-unquote wired? Or are we missing one to two women out of a thousand?
00:32:24
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, it could be both. both actually, but the reality is until we know more and are able to properly diagnose women and give women the correct medication. And I thought it was just really interesting. I know that sleeplessness is a form of torture, right? We've always known that like sleep deprivation, right? But to think she didn't sleep for 48 hours at one point. And they said that kind of sleep deprivation absolutely ends in psychosis. You have trouble sleeping. You probably are thinking, yeah, that reads. Not that I've ever seen you psychotic, but it drastically affects mood.
00:33:00
Speaker 1: That sounds, and I'm not being dramatic here. Yeah, your thoughts change, Robes. When you're that terribly tired, there are times I have to stop and I say, okay, wait a minute. I'm in trouble. I need to, Robes, exhaustion, insomnia is a real thing. I'm not suggesting it anywhere close to that, but you're surprised sometimes at what your mind will do. When you're exhausted.
00:33:23
Speaker 2: You recognize that brain chemistry changes when you haven't slept.
00:33:27
Speaker 1: It does, man.
00:33:28
Speaker 2: It does.
00:33:28
Speaker 1: The last thing I want to hit on here with you, Robes, because we talked so much about it. Like, how is the jury feeling in that courtroom? We can see and feel enough in what we've been watching on TV and our TV screens, Robes.
00:33:40
Speaker 2: But....
00:33:42
Speaker 1: In the room, what does the emotion feel like when we see Andrea Yates crying and shaking uncontrollably and hyperventilating?
00:33:48
Speaker 2: You mean Lindsay Clancy. Who said Andrea Yates? I knew you meant Lindsay Clancy.
00:33:52
Speaker 1: I am shocked that we are 35 minutes in. That's the first time I made that mistake. I just knew I was going to do it earlier. But yes, Lindsay Clancy. Are the jurors looking at that and do they have sympathy for her? Yes. Or are they looking at a lot of what the prosecution is saying and directing anger towards her?
00:34:11
Speaker 2: I don't know. Look, it's interesting to me. All I can do is gauge some of the reaction online, and I know you get extremes when you go online, but I am surprised. There was an op-ed this morning in a major newspaper of a female writer who has four children, and she expressed incredible anger towards not only Lindsay Clancy, but towards any woman, and specifically any mother who was showing her empathy because she's claiming we are not... We are giving her a pass, so to speak, and not actually thinking about the kids. And I was actually appalled reading her op-ed. So I, as a mom, am surprised that people are upset that there is empathy being shown. And it's only women I'm seeing who are speaking out against other women who are giving Lindsay Clancy empathy or sympathy, depending on whether or not they've experienced postpartum issues or not. But that's bizarre to me because to me, how do you see a woman in there in a wheelchair, sobbing uncontrollably, hyperventilating, had wanted to die, obviously. How do you just go, monster, shamed? You're an abomination. You're evil. Like that blows my mind.
00:35:27
Speaker 1: Can I ask how do folks, how do they even address the, the idea of mental illness? They just dismiss it as well? Yes.
00:35:34
Speaker 2: No, they say absolutely. She could be mentally ill, but that doesn't give her a pass. She still chose what she did.
00:35:40
Speaker 1: Are they using the word pass? Are they essentially they're saying, yes. Okay.
00:35:44
Speaker 2: That it's an excuse.
00:35:45
Speaker 1: Is there ever, ever, ever a case or can there be a case that where a woman is not criminally responsible for something like this? Can it ever happen? Because based on this op-ed you're talking about, then no, it's never a reason. It's never a contributing factor. You are never going to be able to convince some people.
00:36:07
Speaker 2: Well, they're acknowledging that it was a contributing factor, but they don't believe it absolves her of the criminal responsibility of it, and they believe she belongs in prison for the rest of her life. And I just wholeheartedly disagree. So that's why it's going to be so fascinating. I have no idea what these jurors are thinking. I can only see that there is a raging debate online.
00:36:29
Speaker 1: This is the last thing I wanted to leave you with because we've been talking about emotion and how we feel about it. Is the jury feeling that way about it? Where is their emotion? Where is their anger being directed? And what I have is the jury from the Andrea Yates trial, her second one. Robes, they came out and there are plenty of quotes and conversations and they did interviews afterwards. The emotion played hugely for them.
00:36:54
Speaker 2: How could it not?
00:36:55
Speaker 1: In that jury room, Robes, the foreman, gave this quote. The first time I gave my son a bath after seeing those pictures, autopsy photos, it was very hard. That's the jury foreman. So Robes, we talk about all the the, the elastic bands, the autopsy photos that are in there, you know, there are parents and grandparents on that jury. How does that stuff read? I'm pissed at Lindsay Clancy or I am, I have sympathy for her and what she did.
00:37:27
Speaker 2: I don't know. I think it could go both ways and they might have a little bit of all of it. You know, it's interesting. You mentioned the juror who said he had a hard time giving his son a bath because it just was, it just, obviously it stayed with him. I wonder how much of a blow it dealt to the defense when the prosecution pointed out that Lindsay Clancy was exercising with exercise bands in that hospital. To think, how could she do that? I don't know. That just popped in my head when you mentioned that because there was a reason why the prosecutor made sure she got that into evidence.
00:38:02
Speaker 1: And that was one of the things, too. Which way does that play?
00:38:06
Speaker 2: She's mentally ill. How could you do that if you weren't?
00:38:09
Speaker 1: Or you're just callous and cold and don't give a damn. What do you do? The last quote here from the, this sucks. Their minds were on this very thing that we were talking about back then, 25 years ago, and it seems like we're in the same spot. Don't let this happen again. Do what you've got to do with legislation, with insurance companies. Don't let this happen again. That from the jury foreperson, Robes.
00:38:36
Speaker 2: The good news is I think we are mostly talking now not just about whether or not Lindsay Clancy is evil, but a lot of people are asking hard questions about why we don't have better health care for these women, why we don't have better research, why we don't have a better understanding. And I do think a lot of the anger is leveled at the industry, at our lack of care or concern for postpartum women. And if the anger and outrage can be put in that direction, then maybe that actually can evolve to where it needs to be. Wouldn't we all get behind better understanding, better research, better medications, better treatment? Yes.
00:39:15
Speaker 1: How will this change what the industry does next based on this verdict? Based on the Lindsay Clancy verdict, if she goes to prison, do we go, all good? Do we just move on and not think about it anymore because psychosis is the issue here. This is just a monster that killed her kids. We can go back to our lives.
00:39:32
Speaker 2: I don't think that that's ever going to be the general consensus. I don't. And obviously there would be appeals. This would stay in the spotlight. And I do believe enough conversations are being had now as we're all watching this trial. I think this is one of the reasons why it's good that it's been televised and it's been live streamed and it's been available for people because they really do get some insight into a very little known, little researched, little funded issue serious issue that affects a lot.
00:40:00
Speaker 1: Of women this has been uh you're right babe if we get nothing out of this maybe we won't have to say that thing again do something so we don't let this happen again that he said that don't like he was predicting we better do something and here we are uh folks just wanted to hop on we've been talking about this we should just leave the camera and the mics on because we talk about this.
00:40:23
Speaker 2: All day long all day long.
00:40:26
Speaker 1: But folks, we appreciate you as always. I'm TJ. That's Robes. See y'all soon.