Aug. 27, 2026
Killer Mom Trial, Defense Closing Arguments: Prosecution “Ripped The Soul” Out of Lindsay Clancy
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed As expected, the jury heard a dramatic and powerful closing argument from Lindsay Clancy defense attorney Kevin Reddington. Reporters inside the courtroom described both Clancy and several jurors wiping tears from their eyes as Reddington showed pictures of the once happy family that he said was ripped apart because of “of the damn medicine and the lousy medical care that she got." Reddington took nearly the full hour to make his final case to jurors, saying the prosecution has manipulated the evidence, and reiterating that Clancy was a “darn good mother” who had no motive to kill her kids.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:10
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Thursday, August 27th, and the defense's closing argument is in the books in the Lindsey Clancy triple murder trial. And he went squarely after the prosecution's case to the point that he had to be admonished by the judge. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. No surprise here. Some fireworks from Kevin Reddington. We shouldn't be surprised.
00:00:36
Speaker 2: No. In fact, he was on brand and very effective. You could feel his passion. The jurors certainly did. And there were some theatrics involved. And yes, the judge did have to step in.
00:00:48
Speaker 1: At one moment. I was going to.
00:00:51
Speaker 2: Say, he knew what he was doing. He knew the judge was going to have to get involved, but it was to make a point. You know what?
00:00:55
Speaker 1: All the theatrics, we've seen a lot of closings. Robes, all of his stuff seems authentic to him. We've seen some attorneys that seem like they're trying to put on a little bit. Well, this all is in line with what we've seen the past five weeks. You know what?
00:01:08
Speaker 2: You say that, and it's true, watching him. And yes, incredibly performative in the sense that it was theatrical and dramatic, but it was authentic and coming from his heart. He wasn't looking at notes. I thought that was really interesting.
00:01:20
Speaker 1: I always respect that.
00:01:21
Speaker 2: He was just speaking extemporaneously. Obviously, he had gone over this in practices. This was well thought out and organized. It was planned, but he... ad-libbed in the sense that he was not referring to notes he did not read from his podium he was speaking from his heart and that's why it was okay like it landed it worked it had the desired.
00:01:46
Speaker 1: Effect and robes yeah okay yes no big deal he speaks 30 minutes without notes yes we thought he was gonna do 30 uh i'll have to be honest uh i was glad he went longer.
00:01:56
Speaker 2: I was, too. I was hoping that he would take the full time. He almost did. The judge gave each side an hour, and he almost filled up that entire hour.
00:02:05
Speaker 1: Well, we went into today, and we were doing the math, like, oh, when are they going to get the case? They're going to be done. Because he said yesterday it was only 30. He went 52, 53 minutes or something like that today. And like you said, Robes, it was effective. Tell me, you saw the pictures from outside.
00:02:20
Speaker 2: It was.
00:02:21
Speaker 1: I didn't see that, but the scene today was, as you can imagine, pretty wild.
00:02:24
Speaker 2: Yes. There is intense interest in this case, and so the reporters who have been going there every day said today was like none other. They said the line was all the way into the parking lot to try and get into the courtroom. They said some families, women had their kids with them. They had set up lawn chairs waiting to get their place in line. because they wanted to be inside that courtroom. Some of those women who had shown up in all pink last week were there donning pink, but they said it was about 60, 40 journalists to people who were just in the community interested or had some reason to be there. But yes, it was a packed full house.
00:03:08
Speaker 1: In the courtroom there. And, um, Robes, we started, I guess. We should say this. As of this recording, we decided we listened to Reddington's closing, and so we're just hopping on to do this recording. We'll go back, and we'll give you another update after this one when we get through what is supposed to be about an hour, at least they say, of the prosecution's closing. So we just wanted to update you about this so far. So we started, Robes, and the judge, when he came in, and court did not start on time today. Again, everybody's on brand today. the court did start on time, but the judge, who we do like, Sullivan, wasn't it?
00:03:43
Speaker 2: Yes, Sullivan, Judge Sullivan.
00:03:44
Speaker 1: Came and had a mini podium. Up there, he had to explain. It was adorable, but it was something we hadn't seen the whole time, and he wanted to make that clear what was going on to the jurors.
00:03:52
Speaker 2: Yes, but he gave the jury their instructions about, and I could never remember if he did this after or before closing arguments, but he did this before closing arguments, which I thought was interesting.
00:04:04
Speaker 1: I haven't seen this. No, I have never in my memory seen this set up. What he said, he's going to do. I'm going to give you part of the instructions now. We're going to have closing arguments. And then I'm going to come back and finish up giving you the jury instructions. I've never I've never seen that either.
00:04:21
Speaker 2: But he went through the charges and what they should be considering as they were listening to opening arguments. And look, I thought it was.
00:04:32
Speaker 1: It was interesting. We're all over the place here. What did I say? Oh, I meant to say, sorry, closing arguments. We're all over the place.
00:04:51
Speaker 2: Man, the manslaughter verdict seems like the most obvious option other than not guilty by reason of insanity. But that's just me, layperson reaction upon hearing the judge really lay out what you had to consider for each verdict to be chosen.
00:05:09
Speaker 1: I don't know what to... After hearing it, I'm like, this is impossible for this jury. They're going to be in there deliberating until October. Like, how do you ever work this out? The rules and the things they have to follow.
00:05:19
Speaker 2: So.
00:05:20
Speaker 1: Reddington finally gets up. It was around 10.02 when he finally did get up and start speaking robes. His theme today, I thought, worked.
00:05:28
Speaker 2: It did.
00:05:29
Speaker 1: The idea that these prosecutors are actually manipulating you, and they have been for five weeks.
00:05:35
Speaker 2: Yes, and he started out with the victims, which I thought was so important. This isn't about Lindsay Clancy. This isn't about anything other than these three beautiful lives. And he said, how does this, and showed a picture, a blown-up picture of of the Clancy family happy on their stoop turn into this and then shows the aftermath, right, of her and the hospital and what had happened. And he said because of the damn medicine and the lousy medical care that she got.
00:06:02
Speaker 1: That was kind of how he opened. That was very early.
00:06:04
Speaker 2: It was effective. But yes, then he quickly turned the tables on the prosecution.
00:06:09
Speaker 1: And Roe turned it on them in such, and if you haven't been watching... The way this is set up, the defense table is farthest away from the jury box. So you got the jury box on one side, then you got the prosecutor's table, and then you got Lindsey Clancy's table. So he has to go from his table, walk past, or he's essentially, is he not doing all of this right in front of the prosecution table? He is. Okay, so he's feet from them. Speaking in his very Aggressive, his boisterous way.
00:06:43
Speaker 2: Boston accent.
00:06:44
Speaker 1: Robes, and he several times, they, them, prosecute. And he's pointing and looking, and sometimes he turns his full body and walks in their direction. Robes their feet from each other. And at times, no, it wasn't quite inches, but they're so close to each other in doing this. It was almost uncomfortable. Yeah, and then he.
00:07:04
Speaker 2: Starts slapping down quarters on their table, and I had to kind of look it up. I'm not a pool player, but apparently it's some pool bet or some challenge, old school, I guess that might have landed with a lot of people. I was trying to Google it to figure out, but it was effective, got my attention, and that was just a part of the theatrics, but there was an exceptionally dramatic moment.
00:07:31
Speaker 1: Which one?
00:07:32
Speaker 2: When he said.
00:07:33
Speaker 1: When the judge got on him?
00:07:35
Speaker 2: Well, yes, but he said, this is a prosecution that has ripped the soul out of this girl. I mean, he blamed them for going after her, for charging her. It's their fault.
00:07:48
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it's not legit. He discredited them to a certain degree, Robes, and not just their case. This was strong stuff. Like, they are wasting our time. They have us all in here going through it. And they have been manipulating you because of this. And then he started giving examples, Robes, like the whole time we've been saying, plain speak. He said things that made sense, Robes. He goes through. This is as simple as anything. The book, Good Moms Have Scary Thoughts. Why is that book, and he had it physically there thrown in their faces, why would that be relevant? Because what did the prosecution tell this jury during the trial? That that book was relevant in some way. Why would she be reading this book? This is in some way, they pointed to this in some way, Robes having to do with her guilt. This suggests she's sane for some reason because she got this book.
00:08:44
Speaker 2: Yeah, that somehow she knew she had scary thoughts. Yeah, she was telling everybody she did who would listen to her and she couldn't get the help. I always thought that was odd, too, because to me, the fact that she had that book and she did, Kevin Reddington explained, receive that from a health care provider.
00:09:01
Speaker 1: That's the point. Hello. They never told explain that to the jury. This prosecution acted like she just went and got this book and kept it in her file because it was this or that.
00:09:12
Speaker 2: Is it because she was going to pretend to have a voice tell her something or that there were scary thoughts, like that she was covering up her crime afterwards or planning her crime based on this book? No, a health care provider gave it to her because she was begging for help because she was having dark thoughts.
00:09:29
Speaker 1: Bro, that was effective. You go, wait a minute. that's what it was, and they're trying to tell me da-da-da-da. He had point after point after point like that to say, this is what they told you. This is what it really is. Factual things, not opinion. What does that tell you? These folks are trying to fool you into convicting this woman.
00:09:49
Speaker 2: Exactly. And he even brought up the Kingsbury Club saying it.
00:09:53
Speaker 1: Wasn't some fancy country club.
00:09:55
Speaker 2: Some rich, fancy country club. And that is playing on people's emotions.
00:10:01
Speaker 1: Oh, look at her.
00:10:02
Speaker 2: She had every resource available to her. Wealthy, living in a wealthy neighborhood with a husband and three beautiful kids. And none of it was good enough for her.
00:10:11
Speaker 1: She's hanging out at the Kingsbury Club. Tell me now, what is the Kingsbury Club, baby?
00:10:15
Speaker 2: He said it's basically just like a community pool.
00:10:18
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a swimming pool and a place you can work out. They actually are telling you this stuff to fool you. He pointed out Arias Robes, that if they buy it and they're listening, it was a theme here. Why would they say that if it's not really the case? You know what, Robes? He made them seem a little dishonest.
00:10:38
Speaker 2: Yes, absolutely. And then he got really upset at another, he claims, manipulation by the prosecution by making the jurors think or believe that That Lindsay Clancy's suicide attempt wasn't serious. And he this is where the judge had to step in because he's like, they wasted your time for a week. And we do have the actual quote of what he was saying about just the small little cuts. He was just saying, like, give me a break. He's like, why did we spend almost a week showing you the extent? And the severity of that suicide attempt, the reason we had to do that, because they were arguing that it was a fake suicide. Dinky little cuts, no bleeding. She didn't mean to kill herself. Remember that one, hanging down the window? You know that's not what happened.
00:11:28
Speaker 1: Well, that's kind of effective. Wasn't the prosecution, I'm not crazy here, right? You tell me if I'm wrong, but they have, as a theme of the prosecution, wanted us to believe this was not. She didn't mean to kill herself. That was the Spider-Man thing. They were arguing that, were they not?
00:11:42
Speaker 2: Absolutely. They kept having people testify that they were superficial wounds on her wrist, that she only needed one stitch here and two stitches there, that these were not deep cuts, these weren't life-threatening injuries. So absolutely they were trying to at least suggest to the jury throughout the trial that she didn't really want to kill herself.
00:12:04
Speaker 1: He brings that point up. It does. It seems... And I'll say this, at least, about we heard the very beginning of the prosecution's closing statement. Again, we're going to give you a whole episode on that as soon as they're done. But Robes, she opened with, it was a serious suicide attempt. She opened with saying something I'd never heard her say before. And maybe she did, but she very, Robes, within minutes, she answered that point. No, it was a serious suicide attempt. That's not what we're saying. We're not saying she's not ill. That's how they started. We'll get into the rest of it later.
00:12:36
Speaker 2: Yeah, and we'll get into that in the next episode because that is also disingenuous because that's not what they have just been saying for the past several weeks. They got to a place where I guess they couldn't continue with that motive because obviously I think it's been pretty well established. She's in a wheelchair, for God's sakes.
00:12:56
Speaker 1: The robes they have for a while. Fake is one word, but robes, not serious robes. didn't try that hard to kill herself. And you heard the part when he was saying, she's Googling this. She's Googling suicide. She's Googling this drug. She's Googling.
00:13:12
Speaker 2: Calling a suicide hotline.
00:13:14
Speaker 1: This is a woman who was trying to kill herself is the argument he was making. A couple of quotes here I will include. Robes, he used a couple of words about the prosecution. They're repulsive and disgusting a couple of times in some of their behavior. It was strong.
00:13:30
Speaker 2: He did. He said, they'll have you believe... She killed the boy first, that's baby Callan, because she didn't like him. That is repulsive. And there were several moments in the prosecution's case where they did describe or they had people testify to Lindsey Clancy being frustrated that he was a challenge. That he was a tough one. And so, yeah, that did kind of land when he said that.
00:13:57
Speaker 1: But throughout, you know what? I got a little lost during some of that that the prosecution was trying to prove. I didn't know why the order mattered. Because you know why? They never land their planes, right?
00:14:08
Speaker 2: They don't.
00:14:09
Speaker 1: They just present it and then you figure it out. But that's what he's saying they were trying to say.
00:14:14
Speaker 2: Yes, because when they put up the testimony about the Thanksgiving dinner that he that she kind of grabbed his arm and that she had said that, you know, she had written in this mommy blog that, you know, basically he's, you know, he's a challenge to me constantly. Like they were trying to establish that. she had it out for him or something, or that she was singling him out as her trouble. Look, any mom who has multiple children will say, there's usually an easy one and a tough one.
00:14:40
Speaker 1: Which one were you for your mom?
00:14:42
Speaker 2: No, seriously. I think I was the tough one, actually. Maybe not as a baby, but certainly growing up, my brother was, yes, ma'am, no, sir. They had to take the door off of my room because I slammed it so much. So, yes, I was the troublemaker.
00:14:56
Speaker 1: You know, I knew that answer. I don't even know why I asked.
00:15:00
Speaker 2: Um.
00:15:01
Speaker 1: But stay with us here, folks. Kevin Reddington saved some of his best quotes during his closing for, yeah, you guessed it, the experts who testified on behalf of the prosecution. Stay here.
00:15:23
Speaker 2: Welcome back, everyone, to Amy and DJ. We are going over... Defense attorney Kevin Reddington's closing arguments. Honestly, they were so powerful and so impactful. They deserve an episode of their own. So we hopped on to just basically give you the lowdown of what just happened in court. Right now, as we record this, the prosecution is giving their closing arguments. We'll have that in our next episode. We wanted to get on the record, though, and let you all know what just happened with the defense. And it really was remarkable. The reporters in the courtroom said while he was speaking, especially in the beginning when he was showing the kids pictures in the happy family, that jurors were wiping away tears. that Lindsay Clancy, we saw that certainly in the camera that has been directed towards her. She's been crying throughout this. But to know that jurors were crying as well, we talked about in an earlier episode just how emotion absolutely is going to play into these jury deliberations. It would have to. But to just know that when they were showing the before and after, basically, of what happened to the Clancy family, that jurors were visibly crying.
00:16:36
Speaker 1: I was about to ask, how old is Reddington? Do we know?
00:16:40
Speaker 2: I don't know his exact age, but I can find out.
00:16:42
Speaker 1: We give him 70. Easy, right? It would be fair to say he's 70.
00:16:45
Speaker 2: He's a grandpa, I would say, for sure. He's 75. Okay.
00:16:49
Speaker 1: I don't know if this was meant to be intentionally put in there to be effective in some way, but how he referred to her and Patrick today on at least one occasion stood out to me.
00:17:05
Speaker 2: Kids. Called them kids. And it was colloquial, it was grandfatherly, and it worked and it landed. I mean, look, she's 36 years old now. She turned 36 during this trial. But at the time of these murders, I believe that would have made her 32, 33. That is young.
00:17:24
Speaker 1: Is that just in his... It might have been... He might not even cross his mind, but that might just be how he talks. He's known her for a couple years now, and this kid, he's been around her. This kid, this kid, this kid. Robes, something about that worked.
00:17:36
Speaker 2: It did. You looked at her in a different way, not as this monstrous mom who murdered her children, but as a scared kid who didn't know what the hell she was doing and was overwhelmed by the hormones and the drugs that were in her body.
00:17:49
Speaker 1: Robes, this is so tough. I'm trying to listen to those folks who say she's nothing short of a monster. How dare you even try to understand? And Robes, even if someone is insane, if you will, Right. Does that still mean they shouldn't be in prison for the rest of their lives? You still did the act. It sounds like that's what some people are. Many are arguing. It doesn't matter. She still did it. It doesn't matter what the defect was, what mental illness. She still did this, which means in our society, she's got to go to prison.
00:18:23
Speaker 2: I would say that there is a reason why in our legal system we have a verdict available to jurors that say not guilty by reason of insanity.
00:18:34
Speaker 1: And if it's not for her, who's it for?
00:18:36
Speaker 2: Exactly.
00:18:37
Speaker 1: I asked. I'm trying to think. I didn't mention this earlier, Rose, but the doctor who testified, the Park Dietz guy, right? We heard a lot about Park Dietz. He didn't testify in this, but some people who work under him and Park Dietz and associates did testify for the prosecution. Dietz, Robes famously ruled Susan Smith, Jeffrey Dahmer, and the Unabomber all sane.
00:19:04
Speaker 2: My goodness.
00:19:05
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Dahmer kept heads in his refrigerator, did he not?
00:19:08
Speaker 2: He did.
00:19:09
Speaker 1: Okay.
00:19:09
Speaker 2: And he ate people.
00:19:11
Speaker 1: Now, I don't know. Robes, I don't.
00:19:15
Speaker 2: Fit to stand trial is different than sane.
00:19:19
Speaker 1: Than insane when you committed the crime. Oh, yes. Those are different things.
00:19:23
Speaker 2: That's wild to me. I would understand why maybe they would say or he would say each of those people were fit to stand trial. But in naming.
00:19:32
Speaker 1: Them sane, he's a yes. And moving forward. Yes, he he was famously involved in those. That also goes to show, does it not, Robes? We don't have enough forensic psychologists, psychiatrists out there.
00:19:43
Speaker 2: We don't.
00:19:43
Speaker 1: We got the same two guys involved in every case in this country damn near.
00:19:48
Speaker 2: That's actually shocking and should be pointed out. And yes, maybe we could encourage more people to get into the field of forensic psychiatry because we need some new blood, it seems.
00:19:59
Speaker 1: So the ones who are part of this, Robes, he saved some of his, you know, he was going to go after some of these guys. He loved some I even know Mack Abram. Is that his name? Abram Mack. Abram Mack is his name.
00:20:09
Speaker 2: Dr. Abram Mack.
00:20:10
Speaker 1: And then Kirk Heilbrun.
00:20:13
Speaker 2: It's Heilbrun.
00:20:14
Speaker 1: It's E-I-L.
00:20:16
Speaker 2: So it's like a German name.
00:20:17
Speaker 1: Heilbrun. Heilbrun. Okay. And then the last one we had yesterday, Shas. I can't get his name right.
00:20:22
Speaker 2: Oh, Satov.
00:20:24
Speaker 1: Dr. Satov. He went after these guys. He didn't spend a lot of time, but he just left a couple of lines, almost just little insults. And it was almost like he was validating how some of the jurors might feel.
00:20:37
Speaker 2: Yes, and he was pointing out, and we can tell you what some of his choice words were, but they were basically implying that these guys... esteemed experts were grasping at straws and befuddled. And that's kind of the image he was painting or reminding the jurors that.
00:20:54
Speaker 1: They too witnessed.
00:20:55
Speaker 2: Because he said, the guy yesterday looks up to the heavens as he's trying to answer. What kind of expert testimony is this? It's a mess. You got that guy from yesterday. He doesn't know what he's talking about. Wouldn't you like to sit there and with Dr. Mack? Wouldn't that be something? He was talking about what it must have been like for Lindsay Clancy to have these three guys in the last one, I believe three weeks before the trial actually even started, questioning her, having her know that these are men who are evaluating her, and I put that in air quotes, to testify against her. And yet still she was cooperative, and still she was kind, and still she sat with each of them for hours and hours and hours.
00:21:34
Speaker 1: That's a solid point, babe. That's a solid point. These guys are in here after you and she's still, nobody says she was lying. Nobody says she was meandering. We keep hearing about ropes. I thought that was effective. Look, he, we knew there would be some of those lines in there. I don't know, baby. I, what is this jury going to do?
00:21:52
Speaker 2: What did you think about the time? We didn't even actually, I mentioned that the judge had to step in because he was talking about and frustrated by and expressing this to the jurors that we all had our time wasted by the prosecution trying to imply that this wasn't a serious suicide attempt. And when he got harsh and sarcastic and spoke directly to the prosecutors saying, you tell them, you tell them, you.
00:22:17
Speaker 1: Know, why, you had us in here right suggesting.
00:22:21
Speaker 2: That her suicide wasn't serious scrutinizing her medical records having experts question her state of mind and he just started yelling at them like he was so angry at them like how dare you the judge had to say please talk to the jurors and not to the prosecutors but that i mean look that it felt real yes it was theatrical yes it was dramatic but It seemed like he was genuinely really pissed off. You know, people on TikTok, he's become a TikTok star now because of this. And you know he's not doing it for that. You would be able to smell that a mile away. But people have called him girl dad. He's like a girl dad. He's got that energy, that girl dad energy where he's there protecting his kid, this young woman who no one protected, who doctors didn't protect, who... Anyone who she asked for help didn't protect. Her own husband didn't protect her. That might be some of the outrage you're even seeing online in these wild conspiracy theories because no one had her back, it seemed, except for Kevin Reddington in court. And that's why people are rooting for him.
00:23:26
Speaker 1: There's nobody else. I'm thinking back to this whole trial. I mean, maybe some of her early nurses, that really was in her corner. This is the guy. I don't know. I'm thinking about it as you were talking.
00:23:39
Speaker 2: No man was in her corner, for sure.
00:23:42
Speaker 1: The only possibility, Robes, I would think who would be a better attorney for her? Maybe a woman. Other than that, you need an older guy who sees her as a daughter.
00:23:56
Speaker 2: I kind of liked that dynamic.
00:23:59
Speaker 1: Right? I didn't think about it until now. But maybe if she had a woman up there saying, you know, defending this woman.
00:24:05
Speaker 2: Maybe.
00:24:05
Speaker 1: Maybe. But, Rose, it's something to have a man of that age up there saying something is wrong with this young woman.
00:24:12
Speaker 2: This kid.
00:24:13
Speaker 1: This kid.
00:24:14
Speaker 2: This kid who was a darn good mom.
00:24:17
Speaker 1: By everybody's account. So it's done. This is all they are going to get from Kevin Reddington. And he has done all he can in this case.
00:24:26
Speaker 2: He has.
00:24:27
Speaker 1: So his job is now done. We're going to finish listening to the prosecution's closing statement, and we will hop back on. You can look for that episode after this one in just a little bit. But, folks, we appreciate you going along the way with us on this hell of a trial, which, yes, Robes, should absolutely have an impact on how we move forward in this country when it's dealing with women after having babies. So stay with us, folks. We appreciate it. We will talk to you very, very soon.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Thursday, August 27th, and the defense's closing argument is in the books in the Lindsey Clancy triple murder trial. And he went squarely after the prosecution's case to the point that he had to be admonished by the judge. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. No surprise here. Some fireworks from Kevin Reddington. We shouldn't be surprised.
00:00:36
Speaker 2: No. In fact, he was on brand and very effective. You could feel his passion. The jurors certainly did. And there were some theatrics involved. And yes, the judge did have to step in.
00:00:48
Speaker 1: At one moment. I was going to.
00:00:51
Speaker 2: Say, he knew what he was doing. He knew the judge was going to have to get involved, but it was to make a point. You know what?
00:00:55
Speaker 1: All the theatrics, we've seen a lot of closings. Robes, all of his stuff seems authentic to him. We've seen some attorneys that seem like they're trying to put on a little bit. Well, this all is in line with what we've seen the past five weeks. You know what?
00:01:08
Speaker 2: You say that, and it's true, watching him. And yes, incredibly performative in the sense that it was theatrical and dramatic, but it was authentic and coming from his heart. He wasn't looking at notes. I thought that was really interesting.
00:01:20
Speaker 1: I always respect that.
00:01:21
Speaker 2: He was just speaking extemporaneously. Obviously, he had gone over this in practices. This was well thought out and organized. It was planned, but he... ad-libbed in the sense that he was not referring to notes he did not read from his podium he was speaking from his heart and that's why it was okay like it landed it worked it had the desired.
00:01:46
Speaker 1: Effect and robes yeah okay yes no big deal he speaks 30 minutes without notes yes we thought he was gonna do 30 uh i'll have to be honest uh i was glad he went longer.
00:01:56
Speaker 2: I was, too. I was hoping that he would take the full time. He almost did. The judge gave each side an hour, and he almost filled up that entire hour.
00:02:05
Speaker 1: Well, we went into today, and we were doing the math, like, oh, when are they going to get the case? They're going to be done. Because he said yesterday it was only 30. He went 52, 53 minutes or something like that today. And like you said, Robes, it was effective. Tell me, you saw the pictures from outside.
00:02:20
Speaker 2: It was.
00:02:21
Speaker 1: I didn't see that, but the scene today was, as you can imagine, pretty wild.
00:02:24
Speaker 2: Yes. There is intense interest in this case, and so the reporters who have been going there every day said today was like none other. They said the line was all the way into the parking lot to try and get into the courtroom. They said some families, women had their kids with them. They had set up lawn chairs waiting to get their place in line. because they wanted to be inside that courtroom. Some of those women who had shown up in all pink last week were there donning pink, but they said it was about 60, 40 journalists to people who were just in the community interested or had some reason to be there. But yes, it was a packed full house.
00:03:08
Speaker 1: In the courtroom there. And, um, Robes, we started, I guess. We should say this. As of this recording, we decided we listened to Reddington's closing, and so we're just hopping on to do this recording. We'll go back, and we'll give you another update after this one when we get through what is supposed to be about an hour, at least they say, of the prosecution's closing. So we just wanted to update you about this so far. So we started, Robes, and the judge, when he came in, and court did not start on time today. Again, everybody's on brand today. the court did start on time, but the judge, who we do like, Sullivan, wasn't it?
00:03:43
Speaker 2: Yes, Sullivan, Judge Sullivan.
00:03:44
Speaker 1: Came and had a mini podium. Up there, he had to explain. It was adorable, but it was something we hadn't seen the whole time, and he wanted to make that clear what was going on to the jurors.
00:03:52
Speaker 2: Yes, but he gave the jury their instructions about, and I could never remember if he did this after or before closing arguments, but he did this before closing arguments, which I thought was interesting.
00:04:04
Speaker 1: I haven't seen this. No, I have never in my memory seen this set up. What he said, he's going to do. I'm going to give you part of the instructions now. We're going to have closing arguments. And then I'm going to come back and finish up giving you the jury instructions. I've never I've never seen that either.
00:04:21
Speaker 2: But he went through the charges and what they should be considering as they were listening to opening arguments. And look, I thought it was.
00:04:32
Speaker 1: It was interesting. We're all over the place here. What did I say? Oh, I meant to say, sorry, closing arguments. We're all over the place.
00:04:51
Speaker 2: Man, the manslaughter verdict seems like the most obvious option other than not guilty by reason of insanity. But that's just me, layperson reaction upon hearing the judge really lay out what you had to consider for each verdict to be chosen.
00:05:09
Speaker 1: I don't know what to... After hearing it, I'm like, this is impossible for this jury. They're going to be in there deliberating until October. Like, how do you ever work this out? The rules and the things they have to follow.
00:05:19
Speaker 2: So.
00:05:20
Speaker 1: Reddington finally gets up. It was around 10.02 when he finally did get up and start speaking robes. His theme today, I thought, worked.
00:05:28
Speaker 2: It did.
00:05:29
Speaker 1: The idea that these prosecutors are actually manipulating you, and they have been for five weeks.
00:05:35
Speaker 2: Yes, and he started out with the victims, which I thought was so important. This isn't about Lindsay Clancy. This isn't about anything other than these three beautiful lives. And he said, how does this, and showed a picture, a blown-up picture of of the Clancy family happy on their stoop turn into this and then shows the aftermath, right, of her and the hospital and what had happened. And he said because of the damn medicine and the lousy medical care that she got.
00:06:02
Speaker 1: That was kind of how he opened. That was very early.
00:06:04
Speaker 2: It was effective. But yes, then he quickly turned the tables on the prosecution.
00:06:09
Speaker 1: And Roe turned it on them in such, and if you haven't been watching... The way this is set up, the defense table is farthest away from the jury box. So you got the jury box on one side, then you got the prosecutor's table, and then you got Lindsey Clancy's table. So he has to go from his table, walk past, or he's essentially, is he not doing all of this right in front of the prosecution table? He is. Okay, so he's feet from them. Speaking in his very Aggressive, his boisterous way.
00:06:43
Speaker 2: Boston accent.
00:06:44
Speaker 1: Robes, and he several times, they, them, prosecute. And he's pointing and looking, and sometimes he turns his full body and walks in their direction. Robes their feet from each other. And at times, no, it wasn't quite inches, but they're so close to each other in doing this. It was almost uncomfortable. Yeah, and then he.
00:07:04
Speaker 2: Starts slapping down quarters on their table, and I had to kind of look it up. I'm not a pool player, but apparently it's some pool bet or some challenge, old school, I guess that might have landed with a lot of people. I was trying to Google it to figure out, but it was effective, got my attention, and that was just a part of the theatrics, but there was an exceptionally dramatic moment.
00:07:31
Speaker 1: Which one?
00:07:32
Speaker 2: When he said.
00:07:33
Speaker 1: When the judge got on him?
00:07:35
Speaker 2: Well, yes, but he said, this is a prosecution that has ripped the soul out of this girl. I mean, he blamed them for going after her, for charging her. It's their fault.
00:07:48
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it's not legit. He discredited them to a certain degree, Robes, and not just their case. This was strong stuff. Like, they are wasting our time. They have us all in here going through it. And they have been manipulating you because of this. And then he started giving examples, Robes, like the whole time we've been saying, plain speak. He said things that made sense, Robes. He goes through. This is as simple as anything. The book, Good Moms Have Scary Thoughts. Why is that book, and he had it physically there thrown in their faces, why would that be relevant? Because what did the prosecution tell this jury during the trial? That that book was relevant in some way. Why would she be reading this book? This is in some way, they pointed to this in some way, Robes having to do with her guilt. This suggests she's sane for some reason because she got this book.
00:08:44
Speaker 2: Yeah, that somehow she knew she had scary thoughts. Yeah, she was telling everybody she did who would listen to her and she couldn't get the help. I always thought that was odd, too, because to me, the fact that she had that book and she did, Kevin Reddington explained, receive that from a health care provider.
00:09:01
Speaker 1: That's the point. Hello. They never told explain that to the jury. This prosecution acted like she just went and got this book and kept it in her file because it was this or that.
00:09:12
Speaker 2: Is it because she was going to pretend to have a voice tell her something or that there were scary thoughts, like that she was covering up her crime afterwards or planning her crime based on this book? No, a health care provider gave it to her because she was begging for help because she was having dark thoughts.
00:09:29
Speaker 1: Bro, that was effective. You go, wait a minute. that's what it was, and they're trying to tell me da-da-da-da. He had point after point after point like that to say, this is what they told you. This is what it really is. Factual things, not opinion. What does that tell you? These folks are trying to fool you into convicting this woman.
00:09:49
Speaker 2: Exactly. And he even brought up the Kingsbury Club saying it.
00:09:53
Speaker 1: Wasn't some fancy country club.
00:09:55
Speaker 2: Some rich, fancy country club. And that is playing on people's emotions.
00:10:01
Speaker 1: Oh, look at her.
00:10:02
Speaker 2: She had every resource available to her. Wealthy, living in a wealthy neighborhood with a husband and three beautiful kids. And none of it was good enough for her.
00:10:11
Speaker 1: She's hanging out at the Kingsbury Club. Tell me now, what is the Kingsbury Club, baby?
00:10:15
Speaker 2: He said it's basically just like a community pool.
00:10:18
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a swimming pool and a place you can work out. They actually are telling you this stuff to fool you. He pointed out Arias Robes, that if they buy it and they're listening, it was a theme here. Why would they say that if it's not really the case? You know what, Robes? He made them seem a little dishonest.
00:10:38
Speaker 2: Yes, absolutely. And then he got really upset at another, he claims, manipulation by the prosecution by making the jurors think or believe that That Lindsay Clancy's suicide attempt wasn't serious. And he this is where the judge had to step in because he's like, they wasted your time for a week. And we do have the actual quote of what he was saying about just the small little cuts. He was just saying, like, give me a break. He's like, why did we spend almost a week showing you the extent? And the severity of that suicide attempt, the reason we had to do that, because they were arguing that it was a fake suicide. Dinky little cuts, no bleeding. She didn't mean to kill herself. Remember that one, hanging down the window? You know that's not what happened.
00:11:28
Speaker 1: Well, that's kind of effective. Wasn't the prosecution, I'm not crazy here, right? You tell me if I'm wrong, but they have, as a theme of the prosecution, wanted us to believe this was not. She didn't mean to kill herself. That was the Spider-Man thing. They were arguing that, were they not?
00:11:42
Speaker 2: Absolutely. They kept having people testify that they were superficial wounds on her wrist, that she only needed one stitch here and two stitches there, that these were not deep cuts, these weren't life-threatening injuries. So absolutely they were trying to at least suggest to the jury throughout the trial that she didn't really want to kill herself.
00:12:04
Speaker 1: He brings that point up. It does. It seems... And I'll say this, at least, about we heard the very beginning of the prosecution's closing statement. Again, we're going to give you a whole episode on that as soon as they're done. But Robes, she opened with, it was a serious suicide attempt. She opened with saying something I'd never heard her say before. And maybe she did, but she very, Robes, within minutes, she answered that point. No, it was a serious suicide attempt. That's not what we're saying. We're not saying she's not ill. That's how they started. We'll get into the rest of it later.
00:12:36
Speaker 2: Yeah, and we'll get into that in the next episode because that is also disingenuous because that's not what they have just been saying for the past several weeks. They got to a place where I guess they couldn't continue with that motive because obviously I think it's been pretty well established. She's in a wheelchair, for God's sakes.
00:12:56
Speaker 1: The robes they have for a while. Fake is one word, but robes, not serious robes. didn't try that hard to kill herself. And you heard the part when he was saying, she's Googling this. She's Googling suicide. She's Googling this drug. She's Googling.
00:13:12
Speaker 2: Calling a suicide hotline.
00:13:14
Speaker 1: This is a woman who was trying to kill herself is the argument he was making. A couple of quotes here I will include. Robes, he used a couple of words about the prosecution. They're repulsive and disgusting a couple of times in some of their behavior. It was strong.
00:13:30
Speaker 2: He did. He said, they'll have you believe... She killed the boy first, that's baby Callan, because she didn't like him. That is repulsive. And there were several moments in the prosecution's case where they did describe or they had people testify to Lindsey Clancy being frustrated that he was a challenge. That he was a tough one. And so, yeah, that did kind of land when he said that.
00:13:57
Speaker 1: But throughout, you know what? I got a little lost during some of that that the prosecution was trying to prove. I didn't know why the order mattered. Because you know why? They never land their planes, right?
00:14:08
Speaker 2: They don't.
00:14:09
Speaker 1: They just present it and then you figure it out. But that's what he's saying they were trying to say.
00:14:14
Speaker 2: Yes, because when they put up the testimony about the Thanksgiving dinner that he that she kind of grabbed his arm and that she had said that, you know, she had written in this mommy blog that, you know, basically he's, you know, he's a challenge to me constantly. Like they were trying to establish that. she had it out for him or something, or that she was singling him out as her trouble. Look, any mom who has multiple children will say, there's usually an easy one and a tough one.
00:14:40
Speaker 1: Which one were you for your mom?
00:14:42
Speaker 2: No, seriously. I think I was the tough one, actually. Maybe not as a baby, but certainly growing up, my brother was, yes, ma'am, no, sir. They had to take the door off of my room because I slammed it so much. So, yes, I was the troublemaker.
00:14:56
Speaker 1: You know, I knew that answer. I don't even know why I asked.
00:15:00
Speaker 2: Um.
00:15:01
Speaker 1: But stay with us here, folks. Kevin Reddington saved some of his best quotes during his closing for, yeah, you guessed it, the experts who testified on behalf of the prosecution. Stay here.
00:15:23
Speaker 2: Welcome back, everyone, to Amy and DJ. We are going over... Defense attorney Kevin Reddington's closing arguments. Honestly, they were so powerful and so impactful. They deserve an episode of their own. So we hopped on to just basically give you the lowdown of what just happened in court. Right now, as we record this, the prosecution is giving their closing arguments. We'll have that in our next episode. We wanted to get on the record, though, and let you all know what just happened with the defense. And it really was remarkable. The reporters in the courtroom said while he was speaking, especially in the beginning when he was showing the kids pictures in the happy family, that jurors were wiping away tears. that Lindsay Clancy, we saw that certainly in the camera that has been directed towards her. She's been crying throughout this. But to know that jurors were crying as well, we talked about in an earlier episode just how emotion absolutely is going to play into these jury deliberations. It would have to. But to just know that when they were showing the before and after, basically, of what happened to the Clancy family, that jurors were visibly crying.
00:16:36
Speaker 1: I was about to ask, how old is Reddington? Do we know?
00:16:40
Speaker 2: I don't know his exact age, but I can find out.
00:16:42
Speaker 1: We give him 70. Easy, right? It would be fair to say he's 70.
00:16:45
Speaker 2: He's a grandpa, I would say, for sure. He's 75. Okay.
00:16:49
Speaker 1: I don't know if this was meant to be intentionally put in there to be effective in some way, but how he referred to her and Patrick today on at least one occasion stood out to me.
00:17:05
Speaker 2: Kids. Called them kids. And it was colloquial, it was grandfatherly, and it worked and it landed. I mean, look, she's 36 years old now. She turned 36 during this trial. But at the time of these murders, I believe that would have made her 32, 33. That is young.
00:17:24
Speaker 1: Is that just in his... It might have been... He might not even cross his mind, but that might just be how he talks. He's known her for a couple years now, and this kid, he's been around her. This kid, this kid, this kid. Robes, something about that worked.
00:17:36
Speaker 2: It did. You looked at her in a different way, not as this monstrous mom who murdered her children, but as a scared kid who didn't know what the hell she was doing and was overwhelmed by the hormones and the drugs that were in her body.
00:17:49
Speaker 1: Robes, this is so tough. I'm trying to listen to those folks who say she's nothing short of a monster. How dare you even try to understand? And Robes, even if someone is insane, if you will, Right. Does that still mean they shouldn't be in prison for the rest of their lives? You still did the act. It sounds like that's what some people are. Many are arguing. It doesn't matter. She still did it. It doesn't matter what the defect was, what mental illness. She still did this, which means in our society, she's got to go to prison.
00:18:23
Speaker 2: I would say that there is a reason why in our legal system we have a verdict available to jurors that say not guilty by reason of insanity.
00:18:34
Speaker 1: And if it's not for her, who's it for?
00:18:36
Speaker 2: Exactly.
00:18:37
Speaker 1: I asked. I'm trying to think. I didn't mention this earlier, Rose, but the doctor who testified, the Park Dietz guy, right? We heard a lot about Park Dietz. He didn't testify in this, but some people who work under him and Park Dietz and associates did testify for the prosecution. Dietz, Robes famously ruled Susan Smith, Jeffrey Dahmer, and the Unabomber all sane.
00:19:04
Speaker 2: My goodness.
00:19:05
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Dahmer kept heads in his refrigerator, did he not?
00:19:08
Speaker 2: He did.
00:19:09
Speaker 1: Okay.
00:19:09
Speaker 2: And he ate people.
00:19:11
Speaker 1: Now, I don't know. Robes, I don't.
00:19:15
Speaker 2: Fit to stand trial is different than sane.
00:19:19
Speaker 1: Than insane when you committed the crime. Oh, yes. Those are different things.
00:19:23
Speaker 2: That's wild to me. I would understand why maybe they would say or he would say each of those people were fit to stand trial. But in naming.
00:19:32
Speaker 1: Them sane, he's a yes. And moving forward. Yes, he he was famously involved in those. That also goes to show, does it not, Robes? We don't have enough forensic psychologists, psychiatrists out there.
00:19:43
Speaker 2: We don't.
00:19:43
Speaker 1: We got the same two guys involved in every case in this country damn near.
00:19:48
Speaker 2: That's actually shocking and should be pointed out. And yes, maybe we could encourage more people to get into the field of forensic psychiatry because we need some new blood, it seems.
00:19:59
Speaker 1: So the ones who are part of this, Robes, he saved some of his, you know, he was going to go after some of these guys. He loved some I even know Mack Abram. Is that his name? Abram Mack. Abram Mack is his name.
00:20:09
Speaker 2: Dr. Abram Mack.
00:20:10
Speaker 1: And then Kirk Heilbrun.
00:20:13
Speaker 2: It's Heilbrun.
00:20:14
Speaker 1: It's E-I-L.
00:20:16
Speaker 2: So it's like a German name.
00:20:17
Speaker 1: Heilbrun. Heilbrun. Okay. And then the last one we had yesterday, Shas. I can't get his name right.
00:20:22
Speaker 2: Oh, Satov.
00:20:24
Speaker 1: Dr. Satov. He went after these guys. He didn't spend a lot of time, but he just left a couple of lines, almost just little insults. And it was almost like he was validating how some of the jurors might feel.
00:20:37
Speaker 2: Yes, and he was pointing out, and we can tell you what some of his choice words were, but they were basically implying that these guys... esteemed experts were grasping at straws and befuddled. And that's kind of the image he was painting or reminding the jurors that.
00:20:54
Speaker 1: They too witnessed.
00:20:55
Speaker 2: Because he said, the guy yesterday looks up to the heavens as he's trying to answer. What kind of expert testimony is this? It's a mess. You got that guy from yesterday. He doesn't know what he's talking about. Wouldn't you like to sit there and with Dr. Mack? Wouldn't that be something? He was talking about what it must have been like for Lindsay Clancy to have these three guys in the last one, I believe three weeks before the trial actually even started, questioning her, having her know that these are men who are evaluating her, and I put that in air quotes, to testify against her. And yet still she was cooperative, and still she was kind, and still she sat with each of them for hours and hours and hours.
00:21:34
Speaker 1: That's a solid point, babe. That's a solid point. These guys are in here after you and she's still, nobody says she was lying. Nobody says she was meandering. We keep hearing about ropes. I thought that was effective. Look, he, we knew there would be some of those lines in there. I don't know, baby. I, what is this jury going to do?
00:21:52
Speaker 2: What did you think about the time? We didn't even actually, I mentioned that the judge had to step in because he was talking about and frustrated by and expressing this to the jurors that we all had our time wasted by the prosecution trying to imply that this wasn't a serious suicide attempt. And when he got harsh and sarcastic and spoke directly to the prosecutors saying, you tell them, you tell them, you.
00:22:17
Speaker 1: Know, why, you had us in here right suggesting.
00:22:21
Speaker 2: That her suicide wasn't serious scrutinizing her medical records having experts question her state of mind and he just started yelling at them like he was so angry at them like how dare you the judge had to say please talk to the jurors and not to the prosecutors but that i mean look that it felt real yes it was theatrical yes it was dramatic but It seemed like he was genuinely really pissed off. You know, people on TikTok, he's become a TikTok star now because of this. And you know he's not doing it for that. You would be able to smell that a mile away. But people have called him girl dad. He's like a girl dad. He's got that energy, that girl dad energy where he's there protecting his kid, this young woman who no one protected, who doctors didn't protect, who... Anyone who she asked for help didn't protect. Her own husband didn't protect her. That might be some of the outrage you're even seeing online in these wild conspiracy theories because no one had her back, it seemed, except for Kevin Reddington in court. And that's why people are rooting for him.
00:23:26
Speaker 1: There's nobody else. I'm thinking back to this whole trial. I mean, maybe some of her early nurses, that really was in her corner. This is the guy. I don't know. I'm thinking about it as you were talking.
00:23:39
Speaker 2: No man was in her corner, for sure.
00:23:42
Speaker 1: The only possibility, Robes, I would think who would be a better attorney for her? Maybe a woman. Other than that, you need an older guy who sees her as a daughter.
00:23:56
Speaker 2: I kind of liked that dynamic.
00:23:59
Speaker 1: Right? I didn't think about it until now. But maybe if she had a woman up there saying, you know, defending this woman.
00:24:05
Speaker 2: Maybe.
00:24:05
Speaker 1: Maybe. But, Rose, it's something to have a man of that age up there saying something is wrong with this young woman.
00:24:12
Speaker 2: This kid.
00:24:13
Speaker 1: This kid.
00:24:14
Speaker 2: This kid who was a darn good mom.
00:24:17
Speaker 1: By everybody's account. So it's done. This is all they are going to get from Kevin Reddington. And he has done all he can in this case.
00:24:26
Speaker 2: He has.
00:24:27
Speaker 1: So his job is now done. We're going to finish listening to the prosecution's closing statement, and we will hop back on. You can look for that episode after this one in just a little bit. But, folks, we appreciate you going along the way with us on this hell of a trial, which, yes, Robes, should absolutely have an impact on how we move forward in this country when it's dealing with women after having babies. So stay with us, folks. We appreciate it. We will talk to you very, very soon.