Aug. 10, 2026
Killer Mom Trial: Hot Mic “Shut Her Up” Controversy, Psychiatrists Testify “No Signs Of Psychosis”
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed As week 3 of testimony continues in the Lindsay Clancy trial, fireworks erupted in the courtroom on Friday. The defense attorney for the mom who says she killed her three young children because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis, accused the prosecution of saying “shut her up” about Clancy’s sobbing as autopsy photos were shown to jurors. The judge ultimately put out a warning to the courtroom about any inappropriate comments, as two psychiatrists who treated Clancy dominated much of the testimony. Both doctors testified that Clancy showed no signs of psychosis.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Monday, August tenth, and we saw a hell of a day on Friday, Indy Lindsay Clancy trial. The prosecution is starting to build its case, but the defense also had a Perry Mason moment. Meanwhile, the attorneys and the judge all got into it a little bit. As we get ready to start week three of this trial with that, Welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. A lot went down on Friday, But Robes, I guess I'm starting to see the semblance of more of a case. I guess that the prosecution is putting on That's right.
00:00:39
Speaker 2: There were only four witnesses for testimony on Friday, but my goodness, they packed a punch. At least the last two psychiatrists certainly did. And those fireworks in the courtroom got a lot of folks' attention.
00:00:52
Speaker 1: So we'll get into.
00:00:52
Speaker 2: All of that, but we can begin with the first two witnesses were pretty quick, a childcare worker and a Clancy family friend, and basically they were there just to again re established And I say re established because we've heard this from witness after witness for the prosecution that everything appeared normal, that Lindsay Clancy seemed fine, that their children seemed fine. In fact, the Clancy family friend said she saw Lindsay at a bonfire two days before the murders, said she was quiet, normal, asked her about her and her kids. How are you doing, she said, Lindsay Clancy said she was doing just fine.
00:01:27
Speaker 1: And I don't think rose the defense has I mean, they've countered. I don't think it's been as effective. But this is one part I'll give the prosecution credit. There's kind of a consistent theme of nobody saw anything wrong with her exactly.
00:01:43
Speaker 2: At least family and friends said, yes, she seemed tired, and look, that's to be expected anyone who has been a new mom or has seen a mom of three young children, Yeah, you're really tired.
00:01:54
Speaker 1: Nothing to be alarmed about her, exactly.
00:01:56
Speaker 2: So it totally makes sense that people saw her struggling, which honestly a lot of young moms do, and so that was nothing out of the ordinary. But I think the real, the very interesting testimony took place with these two psychiatrists. The first one saw her here and there, but the second psychiatrist had been treating her for months, and it was really fascinating. We'll start with the first psychiatrist, doctor Aliah Goodheart, And this is where Perry Mason moment took place for the defense.
00:02:28
Speaker 1: This was rhobes. I kind of remember how long she was on the stand, but the prosecution had talk to her for a while, right, and I didn't I don't know if it went over two days. But again, she had been up there given all this testimony. And you know when this Perry Mason moment came, it wasn't at the beginning of the cross examination. So he had even built up a whole story with her. This our jaws dropped.
00:02:50
Speaker 2: Yes, there was a lot of strategy, Oh my goodness, and it was a kind of a wait for it moment.
00:02:55
Speaker 1: He was building to this poment.
00:02:57
Speaker 2: But we hear doctor Aliah Goodheart talk about how she treated Lynn at the hospital before the murders. Remember we've told you about Lindsay checking herself into a psychiatric facility on January first. She went to the emergency room and then agreed to go to this hospital for five days. And this is the psychiatrist who saw her during that time and described Lindsay as not being suicidal and not being homicidal. She said she was considering a bipolar diagnosis and said there were no signs of psychosis from Lindsay Clancy during this hospital stay. And she said I did not have any concerns about her safety or a risk for anyone else. So, okay, Wow, you've got another psychiatrist who treated Lindsay Clancy in the weeks leading after the murder saying she was not psychotic.
00:03:50
Speaker 1: Okay, expert.
00:03:51
Speaker 2: Yes, So the defense gets up to cross examine doctor Goodheart and asks her, did you know that she called a suicide hotline twice?
00:04:01
Speaker 1: No, she did not.
00:04:02
Speaker 2: Started like just kind of putting together all of these different bits of information because he was upset. The implication from this psychiatrist was that she wished she had more time with Lindsay Clancy, and there was some implication that somehow Lindsay Clancy left treatment early, and that certainly upset the defense. So he keeps asking her all these questions about her diagnosis and what she saw in Lindsay, and then he has his Perry Mason moment at the very end of his cross examination.
00:04:34
Speaker 1: He asks doctor.
00:04:35
Speaker 2: Goodheart, how many women have you treated who were suffering from postpartum psychosis? She's been a doctor for more than twenty years. Her answer, I don't recall. I don't think I probably have. I haven't seen any boom mic drop. After all this testimony about not seeing any signs of psychosis, he gets her to admit, after her decades long career as a psychiatrist, she had never once treated or seen a patient with postpartum psychosis.
00:05:10
Speaker 1: And this is their expert. This is their expert they bring in, and this was all that was available to I mean, it goes. Does it not bolster their case that she didn't get adequate treatment? We have a woman sitting here who's not familiar, she's never treated anybody that was a And again, at the end of the day, and some doctor might tell us it doesn't matter, she could have done just as good a job as treating her and whatnot. But robes for the sake of just a layperson and a juror, that moment landed. They will not forget that in a.
00:05:43
Speaker 2: Jerialm Absolutely, if you make an analogy to a physical condition, like if you had a rare form of cancer, would you want to be treated by a doctor who had never seen that type of cancer before? No, So it's the same rule applies and I think that landed. It landed with me, with you, and I would imagine with the jury.
00:06:04
Speaker 1: It was incredible.
00:06:06
Speaker 2: It was I couldn't watching and we looked at each other, we said, holy hell.
00:06:10
Speaker 1: It made it better that she kind of tried to wiggle her way a little bit at first, and then she realized I better tell the truth.
00:06:18
Speaker 2: She started with I don't recall and then ended with I haven't seen any which made her seem deceptive. It did? It did? Did?
00:06:28
Speaker 1: And was there a did he just stay quiet and let her do that? Or did he get in between when she said I don't recall, did he follow up and say.
00:06:37
Speaker 2: I believe he just let her twist in the wind? And any any good lawyer, and I would say, any good journalist who has done a hard hitting interview knows if you can just stay quiet and you let silence, that uncomfortable silence exist, people fill in the gaps when you know someone is not being fully truthful, Just be quiet and watch them sit and twist and finally come to the conclusion on their own that they weren't being fully forthcoming.
00:07:08
Speaker 1: He I wonder, I assume, I don't know. Did he get lucky? Did he know ahead of time that she actually has never seen I don't know how.
00:07:19
Speaker 2: I don't think I could have known that could have known, but he might have been suspicious.
00:07:22
Speaker 1: He waited to the last well if that was just, and didn't ask you another question? Man, it was good, all right?
00:07:30
Speaker 2: Then come then comes the next And this was the final witness of the day. This is the psychiatrist who actually did treat Lindsay since September of twenty twenty two until the day before the murders. So this is doctor Jennifer Tuff's and she was truly I would say it seems like from the witnesses we've seen take the stand, she was the most consistent physician in Lindsay's treatment, but also talked about just how she did have several other doctors and how that was difficult because you've got different doctors prescribing different drugs. And she was certainly of the belief that Lindsay needed to actually go into a treatment facility long term. She had suggested a treatment facility in Rhode Island. And by the way, doctor Jennifer Tuff's testimony was only the prosecution's questions. She has not been crossed, examined that is going to begin today this morning, and I think it's going to be fascinating because she was up there the longest and she gave a lot of detailed and frankly pretty damning evidence against Lindsay in terms of her medical opinion about what Lindsay Clancy was suffering from.
00:08:35
Speaker 1: But she started, though, to tell the story at the end there the last couple of months leading up true. I mean, even she was saying how she was deteriorating, how she it was weird how she put it about the suicidal ideation. It was she wasn't there but getting close to it kind of a thing, right, She's she is detailing a woman who was not well and she was watching or not doing yea and yes.
00:08:56
Speaker 2: And because of that, though, I do believe her testimony seemed very credible because she wasn't It didn't seem like she was trying to say something she was actually really it felt like she was giving her honest assessment month by month by month, and yes, by January. I guess you can say, like you in your notes, what the condition is of your patient, and it can be you know, several different things, but deteriorating is what she wrote and that was pretty significant. But she talked about how Lindsay filled out forms each time about suicide, said she wasn't contemplating, that she wasn't contemplating self harm, no harm to others. And the big thing is she said she did not hear voices, there were no signs of psychosis, no issues with judgment, insight, orientation, memory, attention, concentration, or mood. And her big thing was that she believed that Lindsay had an anxiety disorder, but she said she was very clearly not psychotic. That was in her.
00:09:55
Speaker 1: Notes from because She's that was October.
00:10:01
Speaker 2: In November she said that she seemed that she was still anxious. In December, she admits that I shouldn't say admits, but she wrote down on her notes that Lindsay said, I am having a really tough time. And that was when she first reported feeling suicidal and hopeless. So in December she did tell doctor Tuff's she was feeling suicidal and felt hopeless, and that is when she suggested her attending a program in Rhode Island. But she said when she saw her January after that hospital stay where we just heard the doctor who saw her there say she had never treated a woman with postpartum psychosis. She did say in her notes that Lindsay Clancy still appeared quite depressed and that is where her condition was deteriorating. However, she noted she did not see any indications that Lindsay Clancy was in imminent danger. But she did report that she felt that bonding was forced with her baby. So that was like maybe the first little insight that she was struggling with a connect with her child. And yeah, the day before the murder, she reported Lindsay Clancy is being depressed, anxious, and numb, but again said she showed no signs of psychosis.
00:11:13
Speaker 1: That's been consistent. I mean, this is their defense, and you have doctor after doctor after doctor coming up and saying they don't see this particular thing. They didn't see it. But still this last one here rohbes this last psychiatrist they have up, she is good. This is because she has given a lot of information and she has come off I would probably argue the most credible of their doctors and their experts, So I would agree with that.
00:11:38
Speaker 2: So it'll be interesting to see what the defense has for her with her. Because the cross examination begins when court begins at nine am Eastern Time on Monday today, week three of the trial.
00:11:49
Speaker 1: Well, the prosecutes are given us two experts to listen to, one that saw her for twenty minutes and another who's never treated anybody with her condition. I mean, that's I don't want to say them completely dismissive of those two.
00:12:02
Speaker 2: But the defense did a really good job at poking major, massive, gaping holes in their testimony. How about that when we come back, that we're going to talk about the fireworks in the courtroom. The judge issued this crazy warning to the entire courtroom. People were confused about what he was referencing. But yeah, there was this really heated exchange between the defense and the judge where the defense accused the prosecution of saying that Lindsey Clancy needed to shut up. We'll explain when we come back. Welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ. We are talking about what happened on Friday in the Lindsay Clancy trial. There was a heated exchange between the defense and the judge, Judge William Sullivan, attorney Kevin Reddington. So the judge calls the lawyers to a sidebar because of you know, just some back and forth that's going on, and it was so interesting. The defense attorney said, I don't want to go I don't want to go up like kind of like was refusing, I don't want to go to the sidebar. I really don't want to go to the sidebar. And the judge said, I need to know what you're going to talk about, so you're gonna have to and as he starts, literally the defense attorney cuts off the judge.
00:13:29
Speaker 1: Yeah, brutal interrupts.
00:13:31
Speaker 2: The judge and just says, I want to tell you that they got picked up on hot Mike saying shut her up during the playing of the autopsy cut to the prosecutors who turned to each other and mold the words what And they eventually claimed that what they said was shut it off. They say that they were saying that to each other to take the autopsy photo down. But the defense said, no, you didn't, you said shut her up, because yes, Lindsay Clancy was audibly sobbing during the entire autopsy photos. Which one do you believe was it shut her up or shut it off?
00:14:15
Speaker 1: Shut her up? What sense does that like? Who would they be saying that to?
00:14:21
Speaker 2: They were basically expressing frustration with one another that Lindsay Clancy wouldn't stop sobbing and it was affecting what they believed they were trying to get to the jury that instead of making them hate her and be angry at her because of the monster that she was for doing this to a child, she was garnering massive amounts of sympathy because she was sobbing.
00:14:41
Speaker 1: I hope it was shut it off, but shut her up would be on brand maybe for the prosecution.
00:14:48
Speaker 2: You could see how perhaps they could say that. So we're never going to know exactly what they said. But interestingly enough, when they came back, the judge made this big statement to the core and said, I just want to make it real clear that there is to be no inappropriate comments or disruptive comments made inside of this courtroom. If anybody's found to make those, they will be immediately escorted out and barred for the balance of this. I just want to make this real clear. No warnings, no yellow cards, You're out.
00:15:23
Speaker 1: Wonder what he's been doing the past two months watching the World Cup?
00:15:25
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, but so it sounds like, look, he's not going to know. No one knows what the prosecutors really did say, and it was caught on a hot mic, and it's no one has been able to say which version of it that they said, but they said something, and so the judge basically said, if I hear it again, if I hear anything again, can you imagine if he just threw a prosecutor out of the courtroom.
00:15:50
Speaker 1: You know what, he gave the warning to both sides. He did. I was thinking more so on her end, if her atturning got kicked out, what would she do? Because he is everything and there's nobody else assisting in this defense. By the way, I haven't seen a single day another attorney or a helper at the desk. Am I correct?
00:16:08
Speaker 2: I have not seen co consul. You're right, it's been Reddington or no one. And he had from the moment this trial started, you said, this guy is going to be a blast, because you could just tell he's that kind of attorney, and he's very effective, he's a very good at his job, but he is he isn't afraid to express his opinions. And there have been some folks who have noted folks who have watched this trial from the beginning and who actually know this judge, This is the same judge in the Karen Reid trial which made so many headlines. But they said they're actually kind of shocked at how much this judge has let the defense attorney get away with interrupting, making comments, saying things without even formally saying objection. But he just says what he thinks. And they've been they said that they believe the judge and this attorney go way back, and so the judge is kind of allowed because they just he knows that's his style.
00:17:02
Speaker 1: You know what that's Uh. I have been surprised, and I'm worried about him because don't want him to get in trouble because I want him to continue in his trial. He's been something to watch, but I he's done some things like oh, you're pushing it, and he has been at times, you could say unprofessional and rude in some of the things he's done. But it's the kind of rude like your your old uncle does kind of a thing. He's just rough and gruff.
00:17:23
Speaker 2: All that's just that like like that Boston kind of like me, Like he's got the Pac Pac. He's got that whole like just Boston authenticity where you know what's coming from a real place, but it's still rude, but it's authentic.
00:17:41
Speaker 1: He's been cutting people off a lot, and to cut off the judge, he's cut off testimony. He's every time he gets upset, he said, we've already agreed to this, while just he's cut off the prosecution while they're trying to do their.
00:17:53
Speaker 2: He doesn't polish any of his feelings. He's completely unvarnished. He's raw and real in a weird way. People probably like him because of that. He's working, but I thought it was I think it's interesting if you watch. I've even noted because we've seen so many trials where the prosecutors are just.
00:18:10
Speaker 1: Like objection, objection.
00:18:12
Speaker 2: They have not really pushed him too far either. The prosecutors have not been calling out his behavior in a way we're used to seeing from prosecutors. It's almost as if he has respect in the room. Heh yeah, I don't know, but that's what it feels like.
00:18:28
Speaker 1: What the prosecutors are in their late thirties, maybe forties. He could be seventy easy, right, it does.
00:18:37
Speaker 2: There seems to be some kind of respect or a hierarchy or something that I haven't seen before. It's very interesting, but it's speaking of interesting, it is going to be today for sure. Week three begins today of testimony and they do believe that the prosecution will either wrap today or tomorrow. But the judge did tell the jurors on Friday to expect a full day of testimony from the prosecution today, and again it begins with doctor Tuff's on the stand for cross examination, and depending on how long that goes, it's likely we will go into a full day tomorrow as well, but we shall see. We will be watching and we always appreciate you listening. I may be Robock alongside TJ.
00:19:16
Speaker 1: Holmes. We'll talk soon.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Monday, August tenth, and we saw a hell of a day on Friday, Indy Lindsay Clancy trial. The prosecution is starting to build its case, but the defense also had a Perry Mason moment. Meanwhile, the attorneys and the judge all got into it a little bit. As we get ready to start week three of this trial with that, Welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. A lot went down on Friday, But Robes, I guess I'm starting to see the semblance of more of a case. I guess that the prosecution is putting on That's right.
00:00:39
Speaker 2: There were only four witnesses for testimony on Friday, but my goodness, they packed a punch. At least the last two psychiatrists certainly did. And those fireworks in the courtroom got a lot of folks' attention.
00:00:52
Speaker 1: So we'll get into.
00:00:52
Speaker 2: All of that, but we can begin with the first two witnesses were pretty quick, a childcare worker and a Clancy family friend, and basically they were there just to again re established And I say re established because we've heard this from witness after witness for the prosecution that everything appeared normal, that Lindsay Clancy seemed fine, that their children seemed fine. In fact, the Clancy family friend said she saw Lindsay at a bonfire two days before the murders, said she was quiet, normal, asked her about her and her kids. How are you doing, she said, Lindsay Clancy said she was doing just fine.
00:01:27
Speaker 1: And I don't think rose the defense has I mean, they've countered. I don't think it's been as effective. But this is one part I'll give the prosecution credit. There's kind of a consistent theme of nobody saw anything wrong with her exactly.
00:01:43
Speaker 2: At least family and friends said, yes, she seemed tired, and look, that's to be expected anyone who has been a new mom or has seen a mom of three young children, Yeah, you're really tired.
00:01:54
Speaker 1: Nothing to be alarmed about her, exactly.
00:01:56
Speaker 2: So it totally makes sense that people saw her struggling, which honestly a lot of young moms do, and so that was nothing out of the ordinary. But I think the real, the very interesting testimony took place with these two psychiatrists. The first one saw her here and there, but the second psychiatrist had been treating her for months, and it was really fascinating. We'll start with the first psychiatrist, doctor Aliah Goodheart, And this is where Perry Mason moment took place for the defense.
00:02:28
Speaker 1: This was rhobes. I kind of remember how long she was on the stand, but the prosecution had talk to her for a while, right, and I didn't I don't know if it went over two days. But again, she had been up there given all this testimony. And you know when this Perry Mason moment came, it wasn't at the beginning of the cross examination. So he had even built up a whole story with her. This our jaws dropped.
00:02:50
Speaker 2: Yes, there was a lot of strategy, Oh my goodness, and it was a kind of a wait for it moment.
00:02:55
Speaker 1: He was building to this poment.
00:02:57
Speaker 2: But we hear doctor Aliah Goodheart talk about how she treated Lynn at the hospital before the murders. Remember we've told you about Lindsay checking herself into a psychiatric facility on January first. She went to the emergency room and then agreed to go to this hospital for five days. And this is the psychiatrist who saw her during that time and described Lindsay as not being suicidal and not being homicidal. She said she was considering a bipolar diagnosis and said there were no signs of psychosis from Lindsay Clancy during this hospital stay. And she said I did not have any concerns about her safety or a risk for anyone else. So, okay, Wow, you've got another psychiatrist who treated Lindsay Clancy in the weeks leading after the murder saying she was not psychotic.
00:03:50
Speaker 1: Okay, expert.
00:03:51
Speaker 2: Yes, So the defense gets up to cross examine doctor Goodheart and asks her, did you know that she called a suicide hotline twice?
00:04:01
Speaker 1: No, she did not.
00:04:02
Speaker 2: Started like just kind of putting together all of these different bits of information because he was upset. The implication from this psychiatrist was that she wished she had more time with Lindsay Clancy, and there was some implication that somehow Lindsay Clancy left treatment early, and that certainly upset the defense. So he keeps asking her all these questions about her diagnosis and what she saw in Lindsay, and then he has his Perry Mason moment at the very end of his cross examination.
00:04:34
Speaker 1: He asks doctor.
00:04:35
Speaker 2: Goodheart, how many women have you treated who were suffering from postpartum psychosis? She's been a doctor for more than twenty years. Her answer, I don't recall. I don't think I probably have. I haven't seen any boom mic drop. After all this testimony about not seeing any signs of psychosis, he gets her to admit, after her decades long career as a psychiatrist, she had never once treated or seen a patient with postpartum psychosis.
00:05:10
Speaker 1: And this is their expert. This is their expert they bring in, and this was all that was available to I mean, it goes. Does it not bolster their case that she didn't get adequate treatment? We have a woman sitting here who's not familiar, she's never treated anybody that was a And again, at the end of the day, and some doctor might tell us it doesn't matter, she could have done just as good a job as treating her and whatnot. But robes for the sake of just a layperson and a juror, that moment landed. They will not forget that in a.
00:05:43
Speaker 2: Jerialm Absolutely, if you make an analogy to a physical condition, like if you had a rare form of cancer, would you want to be treated by a doctor who had never seen that type of cancer before? No, So it's the same rule applies and I think that landed. It landed with me, with you, and I would imagine with the jury.
00:06:04
Speaker 1: It was incredible.
00:06:06
Speaker 2: It was I couldn't watching and we looked at each other, we said, holy hell.
00:06:10
Speaker 1: It made it better that she kind of tried to wiggle her way a little bit at first, and then she realized I better tell the truth.
00:06:18
Speaker 2: She started with I don't recall and then ended with I haven't seen any which made her seem deceptive. It did? It did? Did?
00:06:28
Speaker 1: And was there a did he just stay quiet and let her do that? Or did he get in between when she said I don't recall, did he follow up and say.
00:06:37
Speaker 2: I believe he just let her twist in the wind? And any any good lawyer, and I would say, any good journalist who has done a hard hitting interview knows if you can just stay quiet and you let silence, that uncomfortable silence exist, people fill in the gaps when you know someone is not being fully truthful, Just be quiet and watch them sit and twist and finally come to the conclusion on their own that they weren't being fully forthcoming.
00:07:08
Speaker 1: He I wonder, I assume, I don't know. Did he get lucky? Did he know ahead of time that she actually has never seen I don't know how.
00:07:19
Speaker 2: I don't think I could have known that could have known, but he might have been suspicious.
00:07:22
Speaker 1: He waited to the last well if that was just, and didn't ask you another question? Man, it was good, all right?
00:07:30
Speaker 2: Then come then comes the next And this was the final witness of the day. This is the psychiatrist who actually did treat Lindsay since September of twenty twenty two until the day before the murders. So this is doctor Jennifer Tuff's and she was truly I would say it seems like from the witnesses we've seen take the stand, she was the most consistent physician in Lindsay's treatment, but also talked about just how she did have several other doctors and how that was difficult because you've got different doctors prescribing different drugs. And she was certainly of the belief that Lindsay needed to actually go into a treatment facility long term. She had suggested a treatment facility in Rhode Island. And by the way, doctor Jennifer Tuff's testimony was only the prosecution's questions. She has not been crossed, examined that is going to begin today this morning, and I think it's going to be fascinating because she was up there the longest and she gave a lot of detailed and frankly pretty damning evidence against Lindsay in terms of her medical opinion about what Lindsay Clancy was suffering from.
00:08:35
Speaker 1: But she started, though, to tell the story at the end there the last couple of months leading up true. I mean, even she was saying how she was deteriorating, how she it was weird how she put it about the suicidal ideation. It was she wasn't there but getting close to it kind of a thing, right, She's she is detailing a woman who was not well and she was watching or not doing yea and yes.
00:08:56
Speaker 2: And because of that, though, I do believe her testimony seemed very credible because she wasn't It didn't seem like she was trying to say something she was actually really it felt like she was giving her honest assessment month by month by month, and yes, by January. I guess you can say, like you in your notes, what the condition is of your patient, and it can be you know, several different things, but deteriorating is what she wrote and that was pretty significant. But she talked about how Lindsay filled out forms each time about suicide, said she wasn't contemplating, that she wasn't contemplating self harm, no harm to others. And the big thing is she said she did not hear voices, there were no signs of psychosis, no issues with judgment, insight, orientation, memory, attention, concentration, or mood. And her big thing was that she believed that Lindsay had an anxiety disorder, but she said she was very clearly not psychotic. That was in her.
00:09:55
Speaker 1: Notes from because She's that was October.
00:10:01
Speaker 2: In November she said that she seemed that she was still anxious. In December, she admits that I shouldn't say admits, but she wrote down on her notes that Lindsay said, I am having a really tough time. And that was when she first reported feeling suicidal and hopeless. So in December she did tell doctor Tuff's she was feeling suicidal and felt hopeless, and that is when she suggested her attending a program in Rhode Island. But she said when she saw her January after that hospital stay where we just heard the doctor who saw her there say she had never treated a woman with postpartum psychosis. She did say in her notes that Lindsay Clancy still appeared quite depressed and that is where her condition was deteriorating. However, she noted she did not see any indications that Lindsay Clancy was in imminent danger. But she did report that she felt that bonding was forced with her baby. So that was like maybe the first little insight that she was struggling with a connect with her child. And yeah, the day before the murder, she reported Lindsay Clancy is being depressed, anxious, and numb, but again said she showed no signs of psychosis.
00:11:13
Speaker 1: That's been consistent. I mean, this is their defense, and you have doctor after doctor after doctor coming up and saying they don't see this particular thing. They didn't see it. But still this last one here rohbes this last psychiatrist they have up, she is good. This is because she has given a lot of information and she has come off I would probably argue the most credible of their doctors and their experts, So I would agree with that.
00:11:38
Speaker 2: So it'll be interesting to see what the defense has for her with her. Because the cross examination begins when court begins at nine am Eastern Time on Monday today, week three of the trial.
00:11:49
Speaker 1: Well, the prosecutes are given us two experts to listen to, one that saw her for twenty minutes and another who's never treated anybody with her condition. I mean, that's I don't want to say them completely dismissive of those two.
00:12:02
Speaker 2: But the defense did a really good job at poking major, massive, gaping holes in their testimony. How about that when we come back, that we're going to talk about the fireworks in the courtroom. The judge issued this crazy warning to the entire courtroom. People were confused about what he was referencing. But yeah, there was this really heated exchange between the defense and the judge where the defense accused the prosecution of saying that Lindsey Clancy needed to shut up. We'll explain when we come back. Welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ. We are talking about what happened on Friday in the Lindsay Clancy trial. There was a heated exchange between the defense and the judge, Judge William Sullivan, attorney Kevin Reddington. So the judge calls the lawyers to a sidebar because of you know, just some back and forth that's going on, and it was so interesting. The defense attorney said, I don't want to go I don't want to go up like kind of like was refusing, I don't want to go to the sidebar. I really don't want to go to the sidebar. And the judge said, I need to know what you're going to talk about, so you're gonna have to and as he starts, literally the defense attorney cuts off the judge.
00:13:29
Speaker 1: Yeah, brutal interrupts.
00:13:31
Speaker 2: The judge and just says, I want to tell you that they got picked up on hot Mike saying shut her up during the playing of the autopsy cut to the prosecutors who turned to each other and mold the words what And they eventually claimed that what they said was shut it off. They say that they were saying that to each other to take the autopsy photo down. But the defense said, no, you didn't, you said shut her up, because yes, Lindsay Clancy was audibly sobbing during the entire autopsy photos. Which one do you believe was it shut her up or shut it off?
00:14:15
Speaker 1: Shut her up? What sense does that like? Who would they be saying that to?
00:14:21
Speaker 2: They were basically expressing frustration with one another that Lindsay Clancy wouldn't stop sobbing and it was affecting what they believed they were trying to get to the jury that instead of making them hate her and be angry at her because of the monster that she was for doing this to a child, she was garnering massive amounts of sympathy because she was sobbing.
00:14:41
Speaker 1: I hope it was shut it off, but shut her up would be on brand maybe for the prosecution.
00:14:48
Speaker 2: You could see how perhaps they could say that. So we're never going to know exactly what they said. But interestingly enough, when they came back, the judge made this big statement to the core and said, I just want to make it real clear that there is to be no inappropriate comments or disruptive comments made inside of this courtroom. If anybody's found to make those, they will be immediately escorted out and barred for the balance of this. I just want to make this real clear. No warnings, no yellow cards, You're out.
00:15:23
Speaker 1: Wonder what he's been doing the past two months watching the World Cup?
00:15:25
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, but so it sounds like, look, he's not going to know. No one knows what the prosecutors really did say, and it was caught on a hot mic, and it's no one has been able to say which version of it that they said, but they said something, and so the judge basically said, if I hear it again, if I hear anything again, can you imagine if he just threw a prosecutor out of the courtroom.
00:15:50
Speaker 1: You know what, he gave the warning to both sides. He did. I was thinking more so on her end, if her atturning got kicked out, what would she do? Because he is everything and there's nobody else assisting in this defense. By the way, I haven't seen a single day another attorney or a helper at the desk. Am I correct?
00:16:08
Speaker 2: I have not seen co consul. You're right, it's been Reddington or no one. And he had from the moment this trial started, you said, this guy is going to be a blast, because you could just tell he's that kind of attorney, and he's very effective, he's a very good at his job, but he is he isn't afraid to express his opinions. And there have been some folks who have noted folks who have watched this trial from the beginning and who actually know this judge, This is the same judge in the Karen Reid trial which made so many headlines. But they said they're actually kind of shocked at how much this judge has let the defense attorney get away with interrupting, making comments, saying things without even formally saying objection. But he just says what he thinks. And they've been they said that they believe the judge and this attorney go way back, and so the judge is kind of allowed because they just he knows that's his style.
00:17:02
Speaker 1: You know what that's Uh. I have been surprised, and I'm worried about him because don't want him to get in trouble because I want him to continue in his trial. He's been something to watch, but I he's done some things like oh, you're pushing it, and he has been at times, you could say unprofessional and rude in some of the things he's done. But it's the kind of rude like your your old uncle does kind of a thing. He's just rough and gruff.
00:17:23
Speaker 2: All that's just that like like that Boston kind of like me, Like he's got the Pac Pac. He's got that whole like just Boston authenticity where you know what's coming from a real place, but it's still rude, but it's authentic.
00:17:41
Speaker 1: He's been cutting people off a lot, and to cut off the judge, he's cut off testimony. He's every time he gets upset, he said, we've already agreed to this, while just he's cut off the prosecution while they're trying to do their.
00:17:53
Speaker 2: He doesn't polish any of his feelings. He's completely unvarnished. He's raw and real in a weird way. People probably like him because of that. He's working, but I thought it was I think it's interesting if you watch. I've even noted because we've seen so many trials where the prosecutors are just.
00:18:10
Speaker 1: Like objection, objection.
00:18:12
Speaker 2: They have not really pushed him too far either. The prosecutors have not been calling out his behavior in a way we're used to seeing from prosecutors. It's almost as if he has respect in the room. Heh yeah, I don't know, but that's what it feels like.
00:18:28
Speaker 1: What the prosecutors are in their late thirties, maybe forties. He could be seventy easy, right, it does.
00:18:37
Speaker 2: There seems to be some kind of respect or a hierarchy or something that I haven't seen before. It's very interesting, but it's speaking of interesting, it is going to be today for sure. Week three begins today of testimony and they do believe that the prosecution will either wrap today or tomorrow. But the judge did tell the jurors on Friday to expect a full day of testimony from the prosecution today, and again it begins with doctor Tuff's on the stand for cross examination, and depending on how long that goes, it's likely we will go into a full day tomorrow as well, but we shall see. We will be watching and we always appreciate you listening. I may be Robock alongside TJ.
00:19:16
Speaker 1: Holmes. We'll talk soon.