Aug. 22, 2026
Killer Mom Trial: Defense Rests, Then Eviscerates State’s Rebuttal Witness
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed The final day for the defense on Friday could serve as a master class for attorneys everywhere! After Lindsay Clancy’s attorney Kevin Reddington finished questioning his final witness, a forensic psychiatrist who stated Clancy was in a psychotic state, he was far from done. Once the prosecution called its rebuttal witness, another forensic psychiatrist, the defense destroyed his credibility on cross and questioned his diagnosis… and that’s when things got combative, and it was effective as hell for the defense.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:10
Speaker 1: Hey, the folks, it is Saturday, August twenty second, and the defense rests in the Lindsey Clancy triple murder trial. And then things really got interesting and welcome to this episode.
00:00:25
Speaker 2: Of Amy and TJ.
00:00:27
Speaker 1: Was that the hardest questioning we have seen in this trial by far?
00:00:33
Speaker 3: Yes, okay, saved the best for last.
00:00:36
Speaker 2: Okay, this was extraordinary.
00:00:39
Speaker 1: I haven't even seen a drama on TV that depicted a better cross examination.
00:00:43
Speaker 2: Than the one we saw yesterday on Friday.
00:00:46
Speaker 3: It's so interesting you say it like that, because there were times where I actually felt like I was watching a TV docu drama like Law and Order. I mean, that's how dramatic. It almost was as if he was reading lines intended for maximum effect, and he did it brilliantly. But it was all happening in an actual trial that was just being televised.
00:01:11
Speaker 1: This is Kevin Reddington that we've been talking about throughout. He is the defense attorney for Lindsay Clancy. Of course, she is on trial for murdering her five year old or three year old and her eight month old by strangling them then trying to kill herself. She survives. He's now in a wheelchair again. Their defense robes. Not guilty by reason of insanity, or at least not guilty is what they're hoping for.
00:01:32
Speaker 2: So here we go Robes.
00:01:35
Speaker 1: So it's been a battle of the experts. Can you remind me what week of the trial was this?
00:01:39
Speaker 2: This is week four, fourth full week that we just completed.
00:01:44
Speaker 1: We've been building up to this and we finally got to it the last couple of days. Well, you did have a lot of psychiatrists and doctors on the stand, and so Robes. I guess it's a big deal that the defense rested. How many people did they call ten?
00:01:56
Speaker 3: They called ten witnesses to the stand.
00:01:59
Speaker 1: So they put on there robust case, if you will. And their last one that we'll talk about here in a second, actually is I guess the main guy who is the one who flat out said she was in psychosis and not responsible for her actions, Bud Robes. After they rested their case, of course, the prosecution has an opportunity to put up a rebuttal case, so they started putting up I guess, robes, rebuttal witnesses. And the one they put up is a doctor who says absolutely she was sane.
00:02:33
Speaker 2: Fine.
00:02:34
Speaker 1: The cross examination of this guy robes eye before we get into the details of it, your impression of it. Is there any way that the jury is turned off by what they saw?
00:02:45
Speaker 3: I think turned off by doctor Avramac.
00:02:48
Speaker 2: Damn. That's where I am too.
00:02:50
Speaker 3: Because he was making facial expressions. He was kind of rolling his eyes, sighing, leaning his head on his hand, even looking at the prosecute and communicating with them with his eyes. I saw him doing that. That makes me feel like they're in cahoots.
00:03:07
Speaker 1: So you didn't like him? Do you think this back and forth, okay? Is that because of.
00:03:12
Speaker 2: Brilliant lawyering and questioning by Kevin Reddington?
00:03:16
Speaker 3: I think in part, But I also think there was a part of him and his manner and his demeanor that.
00:03:24
Speaker 2: I didn't like.
00:03:26
Speaker 1: I cannot believe we haven't discussed this ahead of time, actually, folks, that's where I actually have in our rundown here. We put together a little note before we do these and just how we're going to follow along. And Rose, there's something I wrote down in my note in the notes that I had, and it said, this is where he looks like an asshole. He becomes arrogant for what you are talking about. There was a time and a moment in this questioning where I finally turned on this guy like, oh my god, and isn't name is doctor avram Mack. He was up there. He is the rebuttal witness for the prosecution. They essentially put him up robes to refute the defense claim. So you essentially have back to back doctors who've been up there. One says she was insane and not criminally responsible, and the other is saying the opposite. And that's what doctor avram Mack is supposed to be up there to do. He was undressed by Kevin Reddington.
00:04:27
Speaker 2: And he didn't like it very much, and I thought he.
00:04:30
Speaker 1: Was gonna hold it together and he finally cracked at the end and got annoyed.
00:04:35
Speaker 2: This was, uh, what was it forty five minutes? Maybe? So yes, I think about that.
00:04:39
Speaker 1: Of back and forth that the judge had to get involved several times. This what he treated this guy like an idiot at some points, but every point he made robes, I was like, oh, yeah, I thought the same thing. This was an extraordinary and I have not seen certainly in this trial, but a recollection of something I have seen in terms of lawyering.
00:05:08
Speaker 2: Maybe others would say it's.
00:05:09
Speaker 1: Just historyonics and just right, he's just putting on but Robes he this is one of the most effective lawyers and cross examinations I've ever seen.
00:05:17
Speaker 3: If I ever do anything wrong or I need to be defended against something I didn't do, he's my guy, Like I'm gonna go whatever, Like this is the man I would want defending me.
00:05:28
Speaker 1: It's it's it's I cannot believe that the show he's putting on and what he's doing with these folks. So let's go with this. Let's start with Robes. Doctor Avra Mack in the first place was called up as a rebuttal witness. Now he flat out said he examined Linday Clancy and quote there were not abnormalities, quote, nothing remarkable about her mental state. And then here's the big one, robes in quote my opinion is that she retained the capacity required for having criminal responsibility for those actions. Look at that point, that is, there's a guy with doctor in front of his name, who sounds very credible, who makes that statement that's impactful it and not.
00:06:13
Speaker 3: Very very much.
00:06:14
Speaker 2: So.
00:06:15
Speaker 3: He also says that there's no evidence of mania because the defense was absolutely suggesting through their experts, and not just suggesting, but having experts testify that she was bipolar, and he directly refutes that they put this.
00:06:33
Speaker 1: I didn't realize how big of a deal and why that was so important. But he was making a connection. If you don't have mania, you can't be bipolar. If you're not by a polar you can't have psychosis.
00:06:44
Speaker 2: Correct.
00:06:44
Speaker 1: So he was eliminating, like we she never got to mania, so it it didn't matter. He did say, though she did tell him about the voice as well, said she said go to God.
00:06:55
Speaker 2: I hadn't. I did not.
00:06:56
Speaker 3: So I watched this part where the prosecutor was leading him in direct questioning, and when he said that, yes, she Lindsay Clancy told her children.
00:07:07
Speaker 2: To go to God, I was curious what you thought about this.
00:07:11
Speaker 3: He made the jump then to say because she said those words, that meant she knew what she was doing was wrong.
00:07:20
Speaker 1: This is another one of those where I didn't get the prosecution to land. It's plain for to make the connection.
00:07:25
Speaker 2: For me.
00:07:26
Speaker 1: I'm trying, and I'm making some assumptions, but I don't know how that leads to sanity.
00:07:31
Speaker 3: Yeah, that she was aware that her actions were going to send the kids to heaven, and she had to do it outside of the view of their father because their father wouldn't want them to and that basically she was being selfish because she wanted the kids to go with her, and he was saying because she was recognizing that the kids were innocent, She was recognizing that the kids had never done anything wrong that would send them anywhere but heaven, and so because she was able to discern all.
00:08:05
Speaker 2: Of that and she was sane, I didn't make the connection.
00:08:08
Speaker 3: That was confusing to me too.
00:08:10
Speaker 2: Maybe it's just.
00:08:11
Speaker 1: Us, maybe the jurors scattered perfectly, but that it is another one of those things where it's a leap for me. I think, Okay, maybe, but I didn't really I feel like, didn't land.
00:08:21
Speaker 3: You could still be insane and tell your children to go to God, like I don't think by saying that that is the oh aha, she did know what she was doing.
00:08:31
Speaker 2: She was in her right mind. Huh.
00:08:34
Speaker 1: And doesn't that go in line with a lot of things where the evidence they present is never a smoking gun of any kind and it's never an aha where I go, oh yeah, that would It's one of those things as well to ask me to make the connection versus making it for me.
00:08:52
Speaker 3: I just yeah, and it still leaves reasonable doubt for me, Like, it wasn't a.
00:08:58
Speaker 2: Big moment.
00:08:59
Speaker 3: I think maybe the prosecution thought that was going to be a moment, a big moment, and maybe it was for some of the jurors, but it wasn't for And again, you and I watched this separately, so we have not had this conversation, but that was my takeaway. I was like, that's wait, how does that equal sanity?
00:09:18
Speaker 2: I don't. I didn't follow they.
00:09:22
Speaker 1: I mean, he was up there essentially just to say this woman knew what she was doing, she knew right from wrong in the moment, and she is criminally responsible. And they they got that, they landed that plane. That's with this guy with doctor in front of his name said okay, fine, Holy hell. Kevin Reddington, the defense attorney, got up and robes I don't. I was so looking forward to it, and it exceeded my expectations by one hundred.
00:09:54
Speaker 3: You were for everyone listening, We were running around. So we watched this a little bit later after it happened live because they have it up.
00:10:00
Speaker 2: If you all want to watch it, please do so.
00:10:03
Speaker 3: Because it is a masterclass in a defense attorney, like the most brilliant defense attorney you've ever seen.
00:10:11
Speaker 2: It really is a masterclass.
00:10:13
Speaker 3: But you were already saying, he's gonna be great, He's gonna be so good. I can't wait for this. And so yes, we watched it separately because we were running around and you were like, it was even better than I thought.
00:10:25
Speaker 2: I can I cannot believe what I saw you.
00:10:28
Speaker 1: Okay, we haven't discussed bro am I overstating, right, It's it's not even a matter of who you think is guilty innocent.
00:10:36
Speaker 2: Forget that.
00:10:37
Speaker 1: Just watch how he worked this man over a guy who I thought robes at the top.
00:10:43
Speaker 2: This doctor.
00:10:44
Speaker 1: I'm like, oh wow, he's going to be able to handle himself. He's gonna be fine.
00:10:49
Speaker 2: Hmm.
00:10:50
Speaker 1: Hell. I encourage you all to go watch and you need to go watch doctor Abram Mack and watch the cross examination that happened on Friday if you get a chance.
00:11:05
Speaker 2: Look it up.
00:11:05
Speaker 1: But ropes, he was I didn't know where he was going actually, but didn't you notice he had the CV right the resume? Essentially he's he started with that.
00:11:13
Speaker 2: He started just going over his credentials.
00:11:16
Speaker 1: I didn't know where he was going, and I didn't see any problems early on.
00:11:20
Speaker 3: I didn't initially, but then he started asking him how long was Lindy Clancy married?
00:11:27
Speaker 2: What was her reputation at work that was effective? Wasn't it?
00:11:31
Speaker 3: It was because he had to admit that he only interviewed Lindsay Clancy. He didn't interview anyone who knew her, anyone who worked with her, anyone who knew her history other than her. And if you're actually talking to a woman who, by the defense's account, is suffering from a mental disorder, how can you possibly verify or even have any kind of perspective from what she's saying? And other people are saying he didn't do his due dilic and he pointed it out very clear.
00:12:02
Speaker 1: See you and I, or at least the medical field that he's explained robes that's standard stuff like that's not a big deal, he said, We rely on their information. That's standard, that's practice throughout the field. And I can admit that, and I hear you, and that's fine, But you and I aren't in the field. The jurors aren't, and to us it sounds idiotic that you're you're gonna listen to the person who's pop possibly psychotic, and just take her word for everything without doing any investigation. For me as a late person, sounds like you're doing You're not doing a good job, doctor.
00:12:34
Speaker 3: That's what it sounded like to me.
00:12:35
Speaker 1: He landed that with this guy. So he goes over the resume and he kept well, where did you work? What did you do? And actually, before I get to that rope, what you're saying, I thought was effective because he was asking those questions and he was proving the point that this doctor doesn't know her very well.
00:12:48
Speaker 3: Yep, And that's exactly what he was trying to get to the jurney, and it worked. It landed for me. I was like, wow, he made Any time a lawyer on cross examination gets an expert to say, I don't know, it's a ding ding ding ning ning, And he forced him to say I don't know a bunch many many times, and he was trying to avoid saying I don't know, which made him look like he wasn't being honest at first, and then was forced to ultimately admit he didn't know, which then weakens his credibility.
00:13:20
Speaker 1: So he walked this guy up to the plank, right, he really did. He finally getting through all of his resume, getting through who he's talked to, or what type of people he is, he is treated and whatnot. He finally gets to the moment, and then the party got started. Ropes and I know you saw this. He's holding this guy's resume, this thick thing in his hand, several pages. And they have this lectern in the front where you're supposed to stand if you're the attorney and ask questions. They move around, but still this is the main podium, if you will, and Rods he takes this thing. He literally throws the guy's resume onto the lectern Andes he delivers the line that then had me sitting on the edge of my seat, going, this is about.
00:14:09
Speaker 2: To be good.
00:14:11
Speaker 3: He said, where in here does it say that you ever came within breathing distance of a pregnant woman in your practice, in your interest, in your writings.
00:14:21
Speaker 1: Oh boy, and we're off, and we're off. He's essentially saying, you have not treated folks like this.
00:14:27
Speaker 2: You don't.
00:14:27
Speaker 1: You haven't treated women, not even about psychosis r. You haven't treated enough pregnant women to know what the hell you're talking. He immediately with that discredits the guy had an answer or whatnot, but robes. This set off a nearly hour long back and forth that the judge had to get involved with several times that Reddington robes.
00:14:48
Speaker 2: I believe.
00:14:51
Speaker 1: He bulldozes his way even through an objection. He didn't if somebody objects to him, he moves on on before the judge can damn there sustain or or not or overrule.
00:15:05
Speaker 3: Yes, but it's interesting because I do feel like from what I witnessed, the judge seemed to be and yes he sustained some things, but sighting with the defense and actually yelled at the doctor at one point like just answer the question. Let him finish, finish asking his question, and then you need to answer. But then he he started going on and on.
00:15:28
Speaker 2: That's still out I thought.
00:15:29
Speaker 1: On it seemed like almost the judge and Reddington were on the same side and teaming up against this poor doctor. Correct and I say poor doctor. He handled himself just fine, But it was it was I was surprised how much leeway I would say that Reddington is getting. So here's a couple of funny moments, at least just to let you know what was ended up.
00:15:49
Speaker 2: Happening.
00:15:49
Speaker 1: The judge actually says to Reddington at one point, right, he keeps interrupting the right. The doctor at some point was going.
00:16:00
Speaker 3: On, droning on, and I was like, oh my god, how much longer is this student? And I was I was like even forgetting what he was talking about, because it was just like like very like detailed stuff he's reading and talking about these uh it's stuff that I don't understand about mental health and documents, and I was like.
00:16:19
Speaker 2: What is he saying?
00:16:20
Speaker 1: And he spent some time trying to defend his own record as well going by it. So again, the guy had he was waxing poetic several times. So one point Reddington is trying to cut the guy off while he's talking and talking and talking. The judge says, quote, let him finish. Reddington responds, He's just gonna go on for a half hour.
00:16:45
Speaker 3: Which probably made every joy inside because that's what.
00:16:48
Speaker 2: They were thinking. They have the same feeling. The doctor.
00:16:51
Speaker 1: At one point, while Reddington was cutting him off during the same process, Damination says to Reddington, quote, can I finish? Reddington response, No, you're not going to finish, and cut him off. Didn't want to hear, that's just I'm just trying to give an idea. But Robes the centerpiece of this with this idea that really set him off. The doctor was saying that Lindsay Clancy had a lifelong resistance to taking medication. They're trying to in some way, right, Robes say that she is the one mostly responsible for where she is because she got good health care, she got good advice, she got good doctor, she got good medicine, and she was the one who didn't want to take this medicine. Life long resistance to medication. And I know you watched this this morning, Rose.
00:17:34
Speaker 2: He was pissed.
00:17:35
Speaker 3: He was so angry because, yes, he's placing the blame on Lindsay Clancy, as is the prosecution, because if she had just taken her medication as prescribed, she wouldn't have been in the stage she was in. So they're blaming her. And when he said that she had a lifelong resistance, Reddington said, are you making this up? There was an objection, but.
00:17:56
Speaker 2: It was sustained.
00:17:56
Speaker 3: It was sustained. But Reddington then goes on and follows up, she didn't tell you that, And the doc says, I understand that generally she did tell me she didn't like taking medications. You really have that written down somewhere. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I believe I understand that to be you don't know whether you have it written down somewhere. And it goes back and forth. But he kept saying, did you notice, I'm happy to be proven wrong?
00:18:22
Speaker 2: But he said that like four times, which was embarrassing. It was I was embarrassed for him. Stopped saying that you're.
00:18:27
Speaker 1: Under oath homi, so you're saying something that you're saying might not be true. That was a bad look.
00:18:33
Speaker 3: It made him look awful, and he said, can I refer to my notes? And this was an amazing moment. Redingden said, you can read the whole report. I don't care because it's not in there.
00:18:43
Speaker 2: That was maybe my favorite moment.
00:18:45
Speaker 3: That was awesome, and he knew exactly what he was doing, leading him to that point where he was.
00:18:50
Speaker 2: Like blah, bah bah bah.
00:18:52
Speaker 3: And ultimately he landed his plane. Because it's not like he just made the doctor look foolish or that he didn't know what he was talking about. He then got specific and made him and forced him to read that the whole reason why she didn't like taking the medications was because she was concerned about those medications entering her breast milk.
00:19:16
Speaker 2: That was a moment.
00:19:18
Speaker 1: It was an awful moment for this doctor, because he challenged him, tell me what you're talking about. The doctor picks up his notes and starts looking through because he's gonna find this thing to prove Reddington wrong. And he says, it's on page eight, Homie. It's on page eight. She had concern for medications entering her breast milk. Those are the notes he's reading. Reddington was genuinely just like I was flabbergasted. His reaction was mine, Wait, what he actually ropes testify to lifelong? So Reddington said, so in primary school, in high school, and in college she resisted medications. How do you know that the doctor actually tried to get around and tried to explain himself and fumbled around.
00:20:04
Speaker 3: Yeah, I believe I think that that that was my understanding. He could not actually and credibly say that what he testified to minutes earlier was actually trying.
00:20:19
Speaker 1: I think that was the moment that if I'm going to wipe out this doctor's credibility fully, that was why I do it, whereas when he did, because it seemed like he wouldn't admit to a mistake. I op's okay, maybe not. He's trying to still dig himself out of this hole. So that means you're full of shit. Your name is doctor what and you're you have credibility and I'm giving it to you because of your background. You're now telling me I don't I can't believe anything.
00:20:46
Speaker 3: You're saying right right, because it wasn't lifelong. And that's when that's when Reddington laughed at him and said she's pregnant coming.
00:20:52
Speaker 2: He laughed, He laughed.
00:20:54
Speaker 3: That's the only time that she indicates that she didn't want to take medication because she was breastfeeding. And I will tell you, babe, that will land with every single woman who's had a child, because many of us have had situations where I knew I was going to have to take med so I knew I couldn't breastfeed, like you literally have to choose one or the other. You can't do both. And any woman who's had a child knows this to be true.
00:21:18
Speaker 1: So he's trying to blame her. The doctor is essentially the prosecution for not taking her medications and she doesn't take her medication because she has had a lifelong resistance to this. It's just her tendencies. This is what she does. Show me that in your report, doctor.
00:21:34
Speaker 2: A. Yeah, she didn't want to take medicine because she was breastfeeding.
00:21:37
Speaker 1: That's Robes. That kills credibility. Like I'm looking at this guy like come on, man, come on.
00:21:43
Speaker 3: And I feel like every juror was thinking the same thing, especially the women on that journey.
00:21:48
Speaker 1: Well, he lost credibility. But everything we've described always sounds tense. It got worse because things got very up close and personal. A right, continuing here on Amy and TJ. On this Saturday, after what was a hell of a friday in the courtroom in Massachusetts for Lindsay Clancy. Robes, this doctor that was up on the stand, losing so much credibility. I know this was this is extraordinary what we've described here so far. We talked about how intense it was and the questioning and the back and forth Robes. This continued. These two how many inches away from each other were they standing?
00:22:35
Speaker 2: Oh?
00:22:36
Speaker 3: When he had him read yes from the DSM, Yes, the DSM, they were within inches of his inches and he did that on purpose.
00:22:45
Speaker 2: Oh my god, this was so nuts. So we heard DSM a lot. And what this is?
00:22:50
Speaker 1: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It's essentially the guide book. What would it be for journalists? Robes the I don't know standard, some standards practice, the AP guide Book or something like that. It's just kind of there. He used the reference Bible, but it is essentially, if you're dealing with mental disorders, this is the book that everybody has to have. It's called the DSM. So Reddington is asking him about this DSM where Robes and frankly this landed for me too. How many pages is the book? Eleven hundred or something? Eleven hundred pages? And he's asking, well, how much is in here about postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis? Robes, everybody in this field need to be taken to task. I was shocked that you have to.
00:23:38
Speaker 2: Struggle to find a mention of postpartum in this book.
00:23:42
Speaker 3: Yes, and that just goes to show how little And he was so effective in making this known to the jury. This doctor who is testifying that Lindsay Clancy did not have postpartum psychosis now is being forced to read from the Bible of Forends psychiatrists, where there is literally almost zero mention of postpartum depression, postpartum, let alone postpartum psychosis, and you're we're expected to believe that you can testify someone doesn't have a disorder that's barely even mentioned or acknowledged in the book that you all refer to in your diagnostic practice.
00:24:27
Speaker 2: That was effective.
00:24:30
Speaker 1: It was stunning and I am so shocked by this book. But here is the problem, right, it makes sense now though it makes so much sense, and the only I don't have any in front of me, but the references maybe you can remember rogues. But the references that did make to postpartum was almost offensive. Like women's menstrual psychists.
00:24:49
Speaker 3: It was like, basically, they get they get a little they get a little psychotic before their period, and when they're in perimenopause they get a little psychotic. It was actually offensive a woman hearing it that, like we're just kind of like relegated to Yeah, y'all are crazy around that time of the month. It was yeah, and guess what, it's all real and true. Any woman knows that's real. Any woman who's had a baby knows you are. I was quick to anger when I was pregnant, and guess what, you have to take responsibility at some point. But yeah, these hormones that are surging through you are real and powerful and in some cases, in some women, absolutely when that baby is born, your hormones go even more haywire. And the fact that they just kind of like chalked it up to women's cycles in the Bible, it was there was not a deep understanding or even an attempt to understand the chemistry that elicits some of these feelings behaviors that could lead to depression or psychosis. It just showed the utter lack of care or concern about the why or how it comes to women's mental health and pregnancy.
00:26:03
Speaker 1: But it goes along with the defense narrative, does it not that she didn't receive adequate care? Correct, and the entire industry is not equipped to care based on their Bible.
00:26:16
Speaker 2: My takeaway, that was very remarkable to see him do this.
00:26:20
Speaker 1: So Robes they finished up with him, Oh my goodness, remind me he is going to be back on the stand still. They're going to continue with him on Monday. I do believe I have that right but after that, they believe closing arguments could come fairly soon, early next week and the jury could have this trial. Ro this is wrapping up. I wonder, though, is this witness going to go longer?
00:26:40
Speaker 3: Well, I don't was what I was unclear about Kevin Reddington, the defense attorney. Is he going to continue to cross examine? Obviously the prosecution is going to want to do some rebuttal questions. Yeah, We've seen this often times between these two attorneys. They will go direct question, then they'll do rebuttal, then the defense wants back, then the prosecution wants back. I've seen them go back and forth like five times with one witness because they're trying to get their point across. Because this case, more so than any other, is truly we've heard this before. But it is a battle of the experts. And the only way the defense is going to score points against a psychiatrist who's sitting on testifying on that stand under oath to jurors that she was not psychotic is to completely destroy his credibility and vice versa. That if the prosecution has to do that to the defense witness who says she was in fact suffering from postpartum psychosis.
00:27:36
Speaker 2: So this is contentious.
00:27:38
Speaker 3: Because it has to be, because they have to do their best to tear apart these experts because that is the evidence.
00:27:46
Speaker 1: That's the He made me think about, who's your girl's name, the young one, Doc Tough Jennifer Tuff Jennifer TUF's. He took this witness down differently and the credibility was lost differently.
00:27:59
Speaker 2: Correct.
00:28:00
Speaker 1: This guy has a resume, he has a background and whatnot. But he got him to crack under pressure to where you were turned off by the doctor. He got him to try to wiggle out of something he said, which makes me question the doctor. He got him to start rolling his eyes, he got him to start getting agitated, and that lost credibility. Jennifer Tuss he pointed out her resume. He did it in two different ways with these two folks who I really roam, don't really trust that.
00:28:33
Speaker 3: I don't either. And what's so interesting is I, in terms of the expertise of Kevin Ruddington, how he was able to do that without me feeling anger towards him, that he was beating up these witnesses unfairlier, that he was being rude because he was rude several times, but it felt warranted. He made it feel like he was justified and getting upset. He was justified in getting irritated and annoyed, and it actually made me feel like, yeah, I'm irritated and annoyed too, Like you're on his side when you hear him get frustrated.
00:29:07
Speaker 2: Is that just who he is? Or is this good lawyering?
00:29:10
Speaker 1: Because it seems like it's coming robes from an authentic place, like if you were Thanksgiving with this guy, this is how he would handle the family.
00:29:17
Speaker 2: It is being himself.
00:29:19
Speaker 1: It comes off that way. So how effective it is for that jury, I don't know. I know a lot of debates and what not going on around this trial robes, But if it's just as a matter of the fascination of a trial and lawyering and legal combatants, this has been something to watch.
00:29:41
Speaker 3: It certainly has. But I also think it and we've talked about this has far reaching effects potentially, like this could and I think has shined a very bright spotlight on the inequities of mental health when it comes to postpartum and in the inability it seems for our mental health system to care for women. And yes, It's rare to have it be this extreme, but certainly there are millions of women who have and are suffering and will suffer from postpartum depression. And I feel like the medical community, the mental health community, needs to do better, and this trial and that lawyering points that out effectively.
00:30:28
Speaker 1: You know, right, he is doing to that degree at leisure Robe, some kind of a service, a larger service.
00:30:34
Speaker 2: He is right.
00:30:36
Speaker 1: I hadn'tought about that, But folks, we will be even an eye on this one on Monday that courtroom as well. You can certainly look for our updates per usual, but we appreciate you spending a little time with us. Sim tj On behalf of my dearie Roboch who will talk to us
Speaker 1: Hey, the folks, it is Saturday, August twenty second, and the defense rests in the Lindsey Clancy triple murder trial. And then things really got interesting and welcome to this episode.
00:00:25
Speaker 2: Of Amy and TJ.
00:00:27
Speaker 1: Was that the hardest questioning we have seen in this trial by far?
00:00:33
Speaker 3: Yes, okay, saved the best for last.
00:00:36
Speaker 2: Okay, this was extraordinary.
00:00:39
Speaker 1: I haven't even seen a drama on TV that depicted a better cross examination.
00:00:43
Speaker 2: Than the one we saw yesterday on Friday.
00:00:46
Speaker 3: It's so interesting you say it like that, because there were times where I actually felt like I was watching a TV docu drama like Law and Order. I mean, that's how dramatic. It almost was as if he was reading lines intended for maximum effect, and he did it brilliantly. But it was all happening in an actual trial that was just being televised.
00:01:11
Speaker 1: This is Kevin Reddington that we've been talking about throughout. He is the defense attorney for Lindsay Clancy. Of course, she is on trial for murdering her five year old or three year old and her eight month old by strangling them then trying to kill herself. She survives. He's now in a wheelchair again. Their defense robes. Not guilty by reason of insanity, or at least not guilty is what they're hoping for.
00:01:32
Speaker 2: So here we go Robes.
00:01:35
Speaker 1: So it's been a battle of the experts. Can you remind me what week of the trial was this?
00:01:39
Speaker 2: This is week four, fourth full week that we just completed.
00:01:44
Speaker 1: We've been building up to this and we finally got to it the last couple of days. Well, you did have a lot of psychiatrists and doctors on the stand, and so Robes. I guess it's a big deal that the defense rested. How many people did they call ten?
00:01:56
Speaker 3: They called ten witnesses to the stand.
00:01:59
Speaker 1: So they put on there robust case, if you will. And their last one that we'll talk about here in a second, actually is I guess the main guy who is the one who flat out said she was in psychosis and not responsible for her actions, Bud Robes. After they rested their case, of course, the prosecution has an opportunity to put up a rebuttal case, so they started putting up I guess, robes, rebuttal witnesses. And the one they put up is a doctor who says absolutely she was sane.
00:02:33
Speaker 2: Fine.
00:02:34
Speaker 1: The cross examination of this guy robes eye before we get into the details of it, your impression of it. Is there any way that the jury is turned off by what they saw?
00:02:45
Speaker 3: I think turned off by doctor Avramac.
00:02:48
Speaker 2: Damn. That's where I am too.
00:02:50
Speaker 3: Because he was making facial expressions. He was kind of rolling his eyes, sighing, leaning his head on his hand, even looking at the prosecute and communicating with them with his eyes. I saw him doing that. That makes me feel like they're in cahoots.
00:03:07
Speaker 1: So you didn't like him? Do you think this back and forth, okay? Is that because of.
00:03:12
Speaker 2: Brilliant lawyering and questioning by Kevin Reddington?
00:03:16
Speaker 3: I think in part, But I also think there was a part of him and his manner and his demeanor that.
00:03:24
Speaker 2: I didn't like.
00:03:26
Speaker 1: I cannot believe we haven't discussed this ahead of time, actually, folks, that's where I actually have in our rundown here. We put together a little note before we do these and just how we're going to follow along. And Rose, there's something I wrote down in my note in the notes that I had, and it said, this is where he looks like an asshole. He becomes arrogant for what you are talking about. There was a time and a moment in this questioning where I finally turned on this guy like, oh my god, and isn't name is doctor avram Mack. He was up there. He is the rebuttal witness for the prosecution. They essentially put him up robes to refute the defense claim. So you essentially have back to back doctors who've been up there. One says she was insane and not criminally responsible, and the other is saying the opposite. And that's what doctor avram Mack is supposed to be up there to do. He was undressed by Kevin Reddington.
00:04:27
Speaker 2: And he didn't like it very much, and I thought he.
00:04:30
Speaker 1: Was gonna hold it together and he finally cracked at the end and got annoyed.
00:04:35
Speaker 2: This was, uh, what was it forty five minutes? Maybe? So yes, I think about that.
00:04:39
Speaker 1: Of back and forth that the judge had to get involved several times. This what he treated this guy like an idiot at some points, but every point he made robes, I was like, oh, yeah, I thought the same thing. This was an extraordinary and I have not seen certainly in this trial, but a recollection of something I have seen in terms of lawyering.
00:05:08
Speaker 2: Maybe others would say it's.
00:05:09
Speaker 1: Just historyonics and just right, he's just putting on but Robes he this is one of the most effective lawyers and cross examinations I've ever seen.
00:05:17
Speaker 3: If I ever do anything wrong or I need to be defended against something I didn't do, he's my guy, Like I'm gonna go whatever, Like this is the man I would want defending me.
00:05:28
Speaker 1: It's it's it's I cannot believe that the show he's putting on and what he's doing with these folks. So let's go with this. Let's start with Robes. Doctor Avra Mack in the first place was called up as a rebuttal witness. Now he flat out said he examined Linday Clancy and quote there were not abnormalities, quote, nothing remarkable about her mental state. And then here's the big one, robes in quote my opinion is that she retained the capacity required for having criminal responsibility for those actions. Look at that point, that is, there's a guy with doctor in front of his name, who sounds very credible, who makes that statement that's impactful it and not.
00:06:13
Speaker 3: Very very much.
00:06:14
Speaker 2: So.
00:06:15
Speaker 3: He also says that there's no evidence of mania because the defense was absolutely suggesting through their experts, and not just suggesting, but having experts testify that she was bipolar, and he directly refutes that they put this.
00:06:33
Speaker 1: I didn't realize how big of a deal and why that was so important. But he was making a connection. If you don't have mania, you can't be bipolar. If you're not by a polar you can't have psychosis.
00:06:44
Speaker 2: Correct.
00:06:44
Speaker 1: So he was eliminating, like we she never got to mania, so it it didn't matter. He did say, though she did tell him about the voice as well, said she said go to God.
00:06:55
Speaker 2: I hadn't. I did not.
00:06:56
Speaker 3: So I watched this part where the prosecutor was leading him in direct questioning, and when he said that, yes, she Lindsay Clancy told her children.
00:07:07
Speaker 2: To go to God, I was curious what you thought about this.
00:07:11
Speaker 3: He made the jump then to say because she said those words, that meant she knew what she was doing was wrong.
00:07:20
Speaker 1: This is another one of those where I didn't get the prosecution to land. It's plain for to make the connection.
00:07:25
Speaker 2: For me.
00:07:26
Speaker 1: I'm trying, and I'm making some assumptions, but I don't know how that leads to sanity.
00:07:31
Speaker 3: Yeah, that she was aware that her actions were going to send the kids to heaven, and she had to do it outside of the view of their father because their father wouldn't want them to and that basically she was being selfish because she wanted the kids to go with her, and he was saying because she was recognizing that the kids were innocent, She was recognizing that the kids had never done anything wrong that would send them anywhere but heaven, and so because she was able to discern all.
00:08:05
Speaker 2: Of that and she was sane, I didn't make the connection.
00:08:08
Speaker 3: That was confusing to me too.
00:08:10
Speaker 2: Maybe it's just.
00:08:11
Speaker 1: Us, maybe the jurors scattered perfectly, but that it is another one of those things where it's a leap for me. I think, Okay, maybe, but I didn't really I feel like, didn't land.
00:08:21
Speaker 3: You could still be insane and tell your children to go to God, like I don't think by saying that that is the oh aha, she did know what she was doing.
00:08:31
Speaker 2: She was in her right mind. Huh.
00:08:34
Speaker 1: And doesn't that go in line with a lot of things where the evidence they present is never a smoking gun of any kind and it's never an aha where I go, oh yeah, that would It's one of those things as well to ask me to make the connection versus making it for me.
00:08:52
Speaker 3: I just yeah, and it still leaves reasonable doubt for me, Like, it wasn't a.
00:08:58
Speaker 2: Big moment.
00:08:59
Speaker 3: I think maybe the prosecution thought that was going to be a moment, a big moment, and maybe it was for some of the jurors, but it wasn't for And again, you and I watched this separately, so we have not had this conversation, but that was my takeaway. I was like, that's wait, how does that equal sanity?
00:09:18
Speaker 2: I don't. I didn't follow they.
00:09:22
Speaker 1: I mean, he was up there essentially just to say this woman knew what she was doing, she knew right from wrong in the moment, and she is criminally responsible. And they they got that, they landed that plane. That's with this guy with doctor in front of his name said okay, fine, Holy hell. Kevin Reddington, the defense attorney, got up and robes I don't. I was so looking forward to it, and it exceeded my expectations by one hundred.
00:09:54
Speaker 3: You were for everyone listening, We were running around. So we watched this a little bit later after it happened live because they have it up.
00:10:00
Speaker 2: If you all want to watch it, please do so.
00:10:03
Speaker 3: Because it is a masterclass in a defense attorney, like the most brilliant defense attorney you've ever seen.
00:10:11
Speaker 2: It really is a masterclass.
00:10:13
Speaker 3: But you were already saying, he's gonna be great, He's gonna be so good. I can't wait for this. And so yes, we watched it separately because we were running around and you were like, it was even better than I thought.
00:10:25
Speaker 2: I can I cannot believe what I saw you.
00:10:28
Speaker 1: Okay, we haven't discussed bro am I overstating, right, It's it's not even a matter of who you think is guilty innocent.
00:10:36
Speaker 2: Forget that.
00:10:37
Speaker 1: Just watch how he worked this man over a guy who I thought robes at the top.
00:10:43
Speaker 2: This doctor.
00:10:44
Speaker 1: I'm like, oh wow, he's going to be able to handle himself. He's gonna be fine.
00:10:49
Speaker 2: Hmm.
00:10:50
Speaker 1: Hell. I encourage you all to go watch and you need to go watch doctor Abram Mack and watch the cross examination that happened on Friday if you get a chance.
00:11:05
Speaker 2: Look it up.
00:11:05
Speaker 1: But ropes, he was I didn't know where he was going actually, but didn't you notice he had the CV right the resume? Essentially he's he started with that.
00:11:13
Speaker 2: He started just going over his credentials.
00:11:16
Speaker 1: I didn't know where he was going, and I didn't see any problems early on.
00:11:20
Speaker 3: I didn't initially, but then he started asking him how long was Lindy Clancy married?
00:11:27
Speaker 2: What was her reputation at work that was effective? Wasn't it?
00:11:31
Speaker 3: It was because he had to admit that he only interviewed Lindsay Clancy. He didn't interview anyone who knew her, anyone who worked with her, anyone who knew her history other than her. And if you're actually talking to a woman who, by the defense's account, is suffering from a mental disorder, how can you possibly verify or even have any kind of perspective from what she's saying? And other people are saying he didn't do his due dilic and he pointed it out very clear.
00:12:02
Speaker 1: See you and I, or at least the medical field that he's explained robes that's standard stuff like that's not a big deal, he said, We rely on their information. That's standard, that's practice throughout the field. And I can admit that, and I hear you, and that's fine, But you and I aren't in the field. The jurors aren't, and to us it sounds idiotic that you're you're gonna listen to the person who's pop possibly psychotic, and just take her word for everything without doing any investigation. For me as a late person, sounds like you're doing You're not doing a good job, doctor.
00:12:34
Speaker 3: That's what it sounded like to me.
00:12:35
Speaker 1: He landed that with this guy. So he goes over the resume and he kept well, where did you work? What did you do? And actually, before I get to that rope, what you're saying, I thought was effective because he was asking those questions and he was proving the point that this doctor doesn't know her very well.
00:12:48
Speaker 3: Yep, And that's exactly what he was trying to get to the jurney, and it worked. It landed for me. I was like, wow, he made Any time a lawyer on cross examination gets an expert to say, I don't know, it's a ding ding ding ning ning, And he forced him to say I don't know a bunch many many times, and he was trying to avoid saying I don't know, which made him look like he wasn't being honest at first, and then was forced to ultimately admit he didn't know, which then weakens his credibility.
00:13:20
Speaker 1: So he walked this guy up to the plank, right, he really did. He finally getting through all of his resume, getting through who he's talked to, or what type of people he is, he is treated and whatnot. He finally gets to the moment, and then the party got started. Ropes and I know you saw this. He's holding this guy's resume, this thick thing in his hand, several pages. And they have this lectern in the front where you're supposed to stand if you're the attorney and ask questions. They move around, but still this is the main podium, if you will, and Rods he takes this thing. He literally throws the guy's resume onto the lectern Andes he delivers the line that then had me sitting on the edge of my seat, going, this is about.
00:14:09
Speaker 2: To be good.
00:14:11
Speaker 3: He said, where in here does it say that you ever came within breathing distance of a pregnant woman in your practice, in your interest, in your writings.
00:14:21
Speaker 1: Oh boy, and we're off, and we're off. He's essentially saying, you have not treated folks like this.
00:14:27
Speaker 2: You don't.
00:14:27
Speaker 1: You haven't treated women, not even about psychosis r. You haven't treated enough pregnant women to know what the hell you're talking. He immediately with that discredits the guy had an answer or whatnot, but robes. This set off a nearly hour long back and forth that the judge had to get involved with several times that Reddington robes.
00:14:48
Speaker 2: I believe.
00:14:51
Speaker 1: He bulldozes his way even through an objection. He didn't if somebody objects to him, he moves on on before the judge can damn there sustain or or not or overrule.
00:15:05
Speaker 3: Yes, but it's interesting because I do feel like from what I witnessed, the judge seemed to be and yes he sustained some things, but sighting with the defense and actually yelled at the doctor at one point like just answer the question. Let him finish, finish asking his question, and then you need to answer. But then he he started going on and on.
00:15:28
Speaker 2: That's still out I thought.
00:15:29
Speaker 1: On it seemed like almost the judge and Reddington were on the same side and teaming up against this poor doctor. Correct and I say poor doctor. He handled himself just fine, But it was it was I was surprised how much leeway I would say that Reddington is getting. So here's a couple of funny moments, at least just to let you know what was ended up.
00:15:49
Speaker 2: Happening.
00:15:49
Speaker 1: The judge actually says to Reddington at one point, right, he keeps interrupting the right. The doctor at some point was going.
00:16:00
Speaker 3: On, droning on, and I was like, oh my god, how much longer is this student? And I was I was like even forgetting what he was talking about, because it was just like like very like detailed stuff he's reading and talking about these uh it's stuff that I don't understand about mental health and documents, and I was like.
00:16:19
Speaker 2: What is he saying?
00:16:20
Speaker 1: And he spent some time trying to defend his own record as well going by it. So again, the guy had he was waxing poetic several times. So one point Reddington is trying to cut the guy off while he's talking and talking and talking. The judge says, quote, let him finish. Reddington responds, He's just gonna go on for a half hour.
00:16:45
Speaker 3: Which probably made every joy inside because that's what.
00:16:48
Speaker 2: They were thinking. They have the same feeling. The doctor.
00:16:51
Speaker 1: At one point, while Reddington was cutting him off during the same process, Damination says to Reddington, quote, can I finish? Reddington response, No, you're not going to finish, and cut him off. Didn't want to hear, that's just I'm just trying to give an idea. But Robes the centerpiece of this with this idea that really set him off. The doctor was saying that Lindsay Clancy had a lifelong resistance to taking medication. They're trying to in some way, right, Robes say that she is the one mostly responsible for where she is because she got good health care, she got good advice, she got good doctor, she got good medicine, and she was the one who didn't want to take this medicine. Life long resistance to medication. And I know you watched this this morning, Rose.
00:17:34
Speaker 2: He was pissed.
00:17:35
Speaker 3: He was so angry because, yes, he's placing the blame on Lindsay Clancy, as is the prosecution, because if she had just taken her medication as prescribed, she wouldn't have been in the stage she was in. So they're blaming her. And when he said that she had a lifelong resistance, Reddington said, are you making this up? There was an objection, but.
00:17:56
Speaker 2: It was sustained.
00:17:56
Speaker 3: It was sustained. But Reddington then goes on and follows up, she didn't tell you that, And the doc says, I understand that generally she did tell me she didn't like taking medications. You really have that written down somewhere. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I believe I understand that to be you don't know whether you have it written down somewhere. And it goes back and forth. But he kept saying, did you notice, I'm happy to be proven wrong?
00:18:22
Speaker 2: But he said that like four times, which was embarrassing. It was I was embarrassed for him. Stopped saying that you're.
00:18:27
Speaker 1: Under oath homi, so you're saying something that you're saying might not be true. That was a bad look.
00:18:33
Speaker 3: It made him look awful, and he said, can I refer to my notes? And this was an amazing moment. Redingden said, you can read the whole report. I don't care because it's not in there.
00:18:43
Speaker 2: That was maybe my favorite moment.
00:18:45
Speaker 3: That was awesome, and he knew exactly what he was doing, leading him to that point where he was.
00:18:50
Speaker 2: Like blah, bah bah bah.
00:18:52
Speaker 3: And ultimately he landed his plane. Because it's not like he just made the doctor look foolish or that he didn't know what he was talking about. He then got specific and made him and forced him to read that the whole reason why she didn't like taking the medications was because she was concerned about those medications entering her breast milk.
00:19:16
Speaker 2: That was a moment.
00:19:18
Speaker 1: It was an awful moment for this doctor, because he challenged him, tell me what you're talking about. The doctor picks up his notes and starts looking through because he's gonna find this thing to prove Reddington wrong. And he says, it's on page eight, Homie. It's on page eight. She had concern for medications entering her breast milk. Those are the notes he's reading. Reddington was genuinely just like I was flabbergasted. His reaction was mine, Wait, what he actually ropes testify to lifelong? So Reddington said, so in primary school, in high school, and in college she resisted medications. How do you know that the doctor actually tried to get around and tried to explain himself and fumbled around.
00:20:04
Speaker 3: Yeah, I believe I think that that that was my understanding. He could not actually and credibly say that what he testified to minutes earlier was actually trying.
00:20:19
Speaker 1: I think that was the moment that if I'm going to wipe out this doctor's credibility fully, that was why I do it, whereas when he did, because it seemed like he wouldn't admit to a mistake. I op's okay, maybe not. He's trying to still dig himself out of this hole. So that means you're full of shit. Your name is doctor what and you're you have credibility and I'm giving it to you because of your background. You're now telling me I don't I can't believe anything.
00:20:46
Speaker 3: You're saying right right, because it wasn't lifelong. And that's when that's when Reddington laughed at him and said she's pregnant coming.
00:20:52
Speaker 2: He laughed, He laughed.
00:20:54
Speaker 3: That's the only time that she indicates that she didn't want to take medication because she was breastfeeding. And I will tell you, babe, that will land with every single woman who's had a child, because many of us have had situations where I knew I was going to have to take med so I knew I couldn't breastfeed, like you literally have to choose one or the other. You can't do both. And any woman who's had a child knows this to be true.
00:21:18
Speaker 1: So he's trying to blame her. The doctor is essentially the prosecution for not taking her medications and she doesn't take her medication because she has had a lifelong resistance to this. It's just her tendencies. This is what she does. Show me that in your report, doctor.
00:21:34
Speaker 2: A. Yeah, she didn't want to take medicine because she was breastfeeding.
00:21:37
Speaker 1: That's Robes. That kills credibility. Like I'm looking at this guy like come on, man, come on.
00:21:43
Speaker 3: And I feel like every juror was thinking the same thing, especially the women on that journey.
00:21:48
Speaker 1: Well, he lost credibility. But everything we've described always sounds tense. It got worse because things got very up close and personal. A right, continuing here on Amy and TJ. On this Saturday, after what was a hell of a friday in the courtroom in Massachusetts for Lindsay Clancy. Robes, this doctor that was up on the stand, losing so much credibility. I know this was this is extraordinary what we've described here so far. We talked about how intense it was and the questioning and the back and forth Robes. This continued. These two how many inches away from each other were they standing?
00:22:35
Speaker 2: Oh?
00:22:36
Speaker 3: When he had him read yes from the DSM, Yes, the DSM, they were within inches of his inches and he did that on purpose.
00:22:45
Speaker 2: Oh my god, this was so nuts. So we heard DSM a lot. And what this is?
00:22:50
Speaker 1: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It's essentially the guide book. What would it be for journalists? Robes the I don't know standard, some standards practice, the AP guide Book or something like that. It's just kind of there. He used the reference Bible, but it is essentially, if you're dealing with mental disorders, this is the book that everybody has to have. It's called the DSM. So Reddington is asking him about this DSM where Robes and frankly this landed for me too. How many pages is the book? Eleven hundred or something? Eleven hundred pages? And he's asking, well, how much is in here about postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis? Robes, everybody in this field need to be taken to task. I was shocked that you have to.
00:23:38
Speaker 2: Struggle to find a mention of postpartum in this book.
00:23:42
Speaker 3: Yes, and that just goes to show how little And he was so effective in making this known to the jury. This doctor who is testifying that Lindsay Clancy did not have postpartum psychosis now is being forced to read from the Bible of Forends psychiatrists, where there is literally almost zero mention of postpartum depression, postpartum, let alone postpartum psychosis, and you're we're expected to believe that you can testify someone doesn't have a disorder that's barely even mentioned or acknowledged in the book that you all refer to in your diagnostic practice.
00:24:27
Speaker 2: That was effective.
00:24:30
Speaker 1: It was stunning and I am so shocked by this book. But here is the problem, right, it makes sense now though it makes so much sense, and the only I don't have any in front of me, but the references maybe you can remember rogues. But the references that did make to postpartum was almost offensive. Like women's menstrual psychists.
00:24:49
Speaker 3: It was like, basically, they get they get a little they get a little psychotic before their period, and when they're in perimenopause they get a little psychotic. It was actually offensive a woman hearing it that, like we're just kind of like relegated to Yeah, y'all are crazy around that time of the month. It was yeah, and guess what, it's all real and true. Any woman knows that's real. Any woman who's had a baby knows you are. I was quick to anger when I was pregnant, and guess what, you have to take responsibility at some point. But yeah, these hormones that are surging through you are real and powerful and in some cases, in some women, absolutely when that baby is born, your hormones go even more haywire. And the fact that they just kind of like chalked it up to women's cycles in the Bible, it was there was not a deep understanding or even an attempt to understand the chemistry that elicits some of these feelings behaviors that could lead to depression or psychosis. It just showed the utter lack of care or concern about the why or how it comes to women's mental health and pregnancy.
00:26:03
Speaker 1: But it goes along with the defense narrative, does it not that she didn't receive adequate care? Correct, and the entire industry is not equipped to care based on their Bible.
00:26:16
Speaker 2: My takeaway, that was very remarkable to see him do this.
00:26:20
Speaker 1: So Robes they finished up with him, Oh my goodness, remind me he is going to be back on the stand still. They're going to continue with him on Monday. I do believe I have that right but after that, they believe closing arguments could come fairly soon, early next week and the jury could have this trial. Ro this is wrapping up. I wonder, though, is this witness going to go longer?
00:26:40
Speaker 3: Well, I don't was what I was unclear about Kevin Reddington, the defense attorney. Is he going to continue to cross examine? Obviously the prosecution is going to want to do some rebuttal questions. Yeah, We've seen this often times between these two attorneys. They will go direct question, then they'll do rebuttal, then the defense wants back, then the prosecution wants back. I've seen them go back and forth like five times with one witness because they're trying to get their point across. Because this case, more so than any other, is truly we've heard this before. But it is a battle of the experts. And the only way the defense is going to score points against a psychiatrist who's sitting on testifying on that stand under oath to jurors that she was not psychotic is to completely destroy his credibility and vice versa. That if the prosecution has to do that to the defense witness who says she was in fact suffering from postpartum psychosis.
00:27:36
Speaker 2: So this is contentious.
00:27:38
Speaker 3: Because it has to be, because they have to do their best to tear apart these experts because that is the evidence.
00:27:46
Speaker 1: That's the He made me think about, who's your girl's name, the young one, Doc Tough Jennifer Tuff Jennifer TUF's. He took this witness down differently and the credibility was lost differently.
00:27:59
Speaker 2: Correct.
00:28:00
Speaker 1: This guy has a resume, he has a background and whatnot. But he got him to crack under pressure to where you were turned off by the doctor. He got him to try to wiggle out of something he said, which makes me question the doctor. He got him to start rolling his eyes, he got him to start getting agitated, and that lost credibility. Jennifer Tuss he pointed out her resume. He did it in two different ways with these two folks who I really roam, don't really trust that.
00:28:33
Speaker 3: I don't either. And what's so interesting is I, in terms of the expertise of Kevin Ruddington, how he was able to do that without me feeling anger towards him, that he was beating up these witnesses unfairlier, that he was being rude because he was rude several times, but it felt warranted. He made it feel like he was justified and getting upset. He was justified in getting irritated and annoyed, and it actually made me feel like, yeah, I'm irritated and annoyed too, Like you're on his side when you hear him get frustrated.
00:29:07
Speaker 2: Is that just who he is? Or is this good lawyering?
00:29:10
Speaker 1: Because it seems like it's coming robes from an authentic place, like if you were Thanksgiving with this guy, this is how he would handle the family.
00:29:17
Speaker 2: It is being himself.
00:29:19
Speaker 1: It comes off that way. So how effective it is for that jury, I don't know. I know a lot of debates and what not going on around this trial robes, But if it's just as a matter of the fascination of a trial and lawyering and legal combatants, this has been something to watch.
00:29:41
Speaker 3: It certainly has. But I also think it and we've talked about this has far reaching effects potentially, like this could and I think has shined a very bright spotlight on the inequities of mental health when it comes to postpartum and in the inability it seems for our mental health system to care for women. And yes, It's rare to have it be this extreme, but certainly there are millions of women who have and are suffering and will suffer from postpartum depression. And I feel like the medical community, the mental health community, needs to do better, and this trial and that lawyering points that out effectively.
00:30:28
Speaker 1: You know, right, he is doing to that degree at leisure Robe, some kind of a service, a larger service.
00:30:34
Speaker 2: He is right.
00:30:36
Speaker 1: I hadn'tought about that, But folks, we will be even an eye on this one on Monday that courtroom as well. You can certainly look for our updates per usual, but we appreciate you spending a little time with us. Sim tj On behalf of my dearie Roboch who will talk to us