Aug. 4, 2026
Killer Mom Trial: “I Want Help, I Want To Be Well” Lindsay Clancy Defense Chips Away At Prosecution
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed Week 2 of the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial began with a series of doctors who treated Clancy in the immediate aftermath of the murders who testified to her physical and mental state in the days and weeks that followed. The defense made some serious inroads, calling into question the amount of time one doctor actually spent with Lindsay and getting another to acknowledge that people can communicate and plan in the middle postpartum psychosis.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey, that folks. It is Tuesday, August fourth, and week two of the triple murder trial of Lindsey Clancy is under way. The prosecution called several expert witnesses. By the time they got done, they felt like defense witnesses and with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. This was a drama filled, combative, tense day on the stand and had everything to do with the defense attorney taken a cup of prosecution witnesses the task. This was something to watch.
00:00:37
Speaker 2: That's right. The defense scored some major points.
00:00:39
Speaker 3: I think by most accounts watching the testimony yesterday, there were a series of doctors that the prosecution put up on the stand.
00:00:47
Speaker 2: There were thirteen witnesses total yesterday.
00:00:49
Speaker 3: They got through a lot, yes, doctors, nurses, and law enforcement, but it was the forensic psychiatrists that were pretty much the big stars of the show, if you want to put it like that, of the trial yesterday.
00:01:02
Speaker 2: And look, they were there.
00:01:04
Speaker 3: From the nurses, to the er doctors to the psychiatrists to establish basically what Lindsay Clancy's physical and mental state was in the hours, days and weeks after the murders.
00:01:19
Speaker 1: Hey, but the prosecution calls these folks up, hoping to bolster its case that the injuries weren't that bad and she wasn't that upset and she didn't seem like a psychotic person. That is what they were supposed to bolster ropes. It seemed to do the exact opposite, the exact opposite.
00:01:40
Speaker 3: Yes, the prosecution did get some of these doctors, these forensic psychiatrists, to say, first of all, one of them who said that her mood when she asked, because initially Lindsay Clancy was indicated her injuries were that severe that she actually had a tube down her throat. She could not speak, so she could only communicate through a whiteboard, and she said, she asked her, what's your mood like?
00:02:04
Speaker 2: And she wrote horrified.
00:02:05
Speaker 3: And then this doctor testified that Lindsay Clancy's first questions were whether or not she had an attorney, is my body broken?
00:02:14
Speaker 2: Are my legs straight? Could she have visitors?
00:02:17
Speaker 3: And then she said, I did not see any active signs of psychosis or hallucinations.
00:02:22
Speaker 2: But then the defense got their chance to cross exams.
00:02:27
Speaker 1: So in saying all of that, robes before the defense even got up the point they were attempting to make is that her first concern was about her own physical wellbeing or about her legal troubles. Correct the suggestion there is that. No, no, no, no, this wasn't a lady that was psychotic. She was calculated and now she's trying to think of how to get out of it. That's the assertion. I thought Robes just as a possible juror me sitting there, I thought it was a bit of a stretch to be almost dismissive of a woman who just jumped out a window and slashed her own neck. I thought it was kind of just dismissive. But then the defense brought it home.
00:03:01
Speaker 3: Yes, well, and there were two different psychiatrists that they were able to make some very valid, valuable points for the defense, And the big one for the first forensic psychiatrist was I'm sorry, how much time did you spend with Lindsay Clancy.
00:03:16
Speaker 1: Okay, wait, this is the There was one.
00:03:19
Speaker 3: This was doctor Jillan Biswass. The that was the first one. The second one is where he really took her to task.
00:03:26
Speaker 1: The second one was the lady who was she was lost, She.
00:03:29
Speaker 2: Started stuttering and she didn't know what to say.
00:03:31
Speaker 3: But the defense, Yes, the big, yes, exactly. That was the second one, but the first one, Jillan Biswass she had to admit she only spent twenty minutes with her while she couldn't speak. So then you start to think as a juror wait a minute, you were able to assess that she had no signs of psychosis or hallucinations, that she was solely focused on her own well being in the twenty minutes you spent with her while she had a tube down.
00:03:57
Speaker 1: Her throat and see or this was I don't know when that detail came out in the examination. It didn't come out, I'm saying the questioning. It didn't come out when the prosecution was talking to her. So we are listening to this woman who we think has all this insight and information about Lindsay Clancy. Right. The lady's name is doctor whatever. She's a psychiatrist. Okay, tell me about this lady. And were hearing all this, she's this, she's a she's this, he's that, and then you hear, wait, twenty minutes. You only met her once in life. By the way, it wasn't the follow up after that. She ain't ever seen this woman again. Twenty minutes and you're the expert on her condition. As soon as she said that, I dismissed everything that she said as a juror none to talk.
00:04:42
Speaker 3: You you kind of I think you laughed out loud when that was revealed. So then the next psychiatrist, who yes, was eventually eviscerated by the defense. But she met with Clancy Lindsay Clancy five days after the murders, and then met with her periodically for the next month, so she actually did spend some time. She testified when the prosecution had her up there that Lindsay Clancy wanted to change her health care proxy from her husband to her parents.
00:05:07
Speaker 2: That was the first thing she wanted to do.
00:05:10
Speaker 3: She did acknowledge that she was initially delirious, but she attributed that to anesthesia lack of oxygen. She said that Clancy did not have any suicidal thoughts. She expressed no harm, no intent to harm anyone else, And she said, I thought this was interesting. She said her thoughts about what she had done that day or the murders was not constant correct correct, so meaning she wasn't thinking about killing her kids. And so that was all seemingly pretty damning evidence, right.
00:05:39
Speaker 1: Yeah, so what we were thinking, wait, so she went into that state and then came out of it, shouldn't she? So that was the suggestion at time, and as people common folks ropes who don't completely understand psychosis, we're listening to the expert and going, oh, okay.
00:05:53
Speaker 3: Wow, she seems pretty lucid. She seems like she's pretty strategic. She's saying she doesn't think about killing her kids.
00:06:00
Speaker 2: The defense capitalized on that.
00:06:02
Speaker 3: So you're saying she wasn't exaggerating her conditions for legal reasons, and she said, He said correct, and she had to say correct, She wasn't exaggerating. If this was some big plot or plan to put on some insanity defense, wouldn't she then be talking about all sorts of things pretending to be a certain way. No, she was just being herself. And that resonated. And then he then asked this question or yes, people can communicate and plan and act on plans even if they are in the middle of psychosis, right, She had to answer yes, He's like, basically, so she doesn't have to be drooling and incoherent, Like you can still be strategic and still communicate and still be you know, have a conversation with someone even if you're experiencing psychosis.
00:06:53
Speaker 2: She had to say.
00:06:54
Speaker 1: Yes, the two prosecution expert witnesses just eliminated the prosecution theory. They did from direct questioning from this guy who was rapid fire, direct, not using a lot of notes. Robes, even when he had to call people out. He didn't do it in such a nasty way, but he did it directly. He did it firmly. Robes. He put on a bit of a show. And I say show, not in like he was being showy, but Robes. That is some cross examination for your ass yesterday man, Absolutely he got them. The prosecution's own witnesses refuted the prosecution case.
00:07:36
Speaker 3: Yes, and there was one in which he really took a took a doctor to task. He basically asked this er doctor who was testifying for the prosecution. So we heard about the mental they had the psychiatrist. They actually had the er doctor there when she first arrived and said she described the lacerations on Lindsey Clancy's risks and neck as superficial. She said, I would not characterize them as deep. And obviously the suggestion is by the prosecution that this was a faked suicide attempt.
00:08:09
Speaker 2: To make it look like they said.
00:08:10
Speaker 3: That she actually lowered herself out of the window and just didn't account for the fact that the ground was hard with the ice and the snow and that's what caused the spinal injuries. But the lacerations have been a big point of topic, saying, hey, they weren't that deep.
00:08:24
Speaker 2: These are just superficial the defense.
00:08:27
Speaker 3: The defense started asking all of these questions about her spinal injury, about her body temperature which was eighty two degrees you know the fact that she went into cardiac arrest that night, and the doctor just kept kind of saying, I'm not sure, wouldn't really answer, and so he got frustrated with this er doctor and said, I'm sure you're very busy, but this is a murder trial doctor, And he asked the doctor, did you review your notes before coming to trial? I mean, really made this doctor look like an idiot.
00:08:55
Speaker 1: Because there were this doctor, and then there was one of the psychiatrists, the one who was he just she was the embarrassing why I can't remember now.
00:09:04
Speaker 2: I don't recall. I don't recall that one was doctor.
00:09:08
Speaker 1: Okay Rose, the back and forth, the point he was making here robes it's so effective that they came off at times like they were going out of their way to be on the prosecution side, and that's not what they're supposed to do. These are doctors, these are finders of fact themselves, and we give you the information when they try to start dancing around and trying to say stuff that maybe wouldn't look good for the prosecution. He nailed them and they deserved it. I just give the info that it was some fumbling robes. This was some bad work. I don't know if the prosecution didn't prepare these witnesses the right way, or we do see this sometimes robes. They think they're doing the duty by trying to put somebody in jail, but you're supposed to be there as a doctor telling fact and what you know and what's on paper, what's under a microscope, and yes, so real. He let them have it, yes, yesterday, this was I told you. I said, he Perry Mason the hell out of somebody.
00:10:09
Speaker 3: He did. And he also did it to an ICU nurse who talked about ICU delirium. So she was trying to explain Lindsay Clancy.
00:10:18
Speaker 2: When she first got there.
00:10:19
Speaker 3: I guess was agitated, trying to pick up her lines and her drains, pulling all the stuff out, and that was a part of this.
00:10:27
Speaker 2: According to the defense, part of this psychosis.
00:10:30
Speaker 3: Right, she is in the middle of just this absolute horrific experience that she's been going through, and the ICU nurse called it ICU delirium. She said, it's very common that you see this in folks who have been admitted to the ICU. But the defense got the nurse to fully acknowledge that she was in her history and being treated as a patient with documented postpartum depression history, and he said to her, you knew there had been discussion about postpartum psychosis.
00:10:58
Speaker 2: Isn't that right? The ic unurse had to say, yes, he.
00:11:04
Speaker 1: I mean, this is something to watch. And again, you know what it felt. We've said several times here Ropes that it seems odd to us that the prosecution leaves zero room for the possibility that this woman was mentally ill. Yes, all mentally ill folks don't kill people, but Rose there is an extensive documented history of this woman not just having problems, but severe problems, and some of the witnesses didn't seem to want to confirm that that this lady was troubled, and yes that I was surprised the ICU nurse like, what are you talking about? You didn't know? And what he got them to admit and admit, but it took him like ten questions, so it came on. I don't know how the jury is reading that, but it's reading in some of these witnesses like you all are out to get this lady instead of doing what is your role and your responsibility here? I forgot about the ICU rs.
00:12:00
Speaker 3: Yes, that one stood out to me and so to all of what you were just speaking of when we come back. I think perhaps one of the biggest wins for the defense was a prosecution entry of Lindsey Clancy's own diary, her written words. The prosecution tried to use Lindsay Clancy's words against her. The defense used them very effectively to support.
00:12:24
Speaker 2: Her insanity defense. And welcome back to Amy and TJ.
00:12:36
Speaker 3: We are now going to talk about the other big piece of evidence that was introduced yesterday by prosecutors, the diary of Lindsey Clancy.
00:12:46
Speaker 2: And the prosecution put this forward.
00:12:49
Speaker 3: Saying, look, it clearly shows a woman who was obsessed with her eight months old sleep schedule. They had an entry in there about how she was hearing him cry her want to die. It made her feel completely overwhelmed. The big thing was, I feel like I'm drowning every day. It's like I'm so desperate to get a mental break from trying to take care of everyone that my mind is trying to make something physically wrong with me. So this was them saying that she was deliberate. She was acknowledging that she was going, like, you know, getting so upset and so obsessive about her children's.
00:13:25
Speaker 1: Bit of a stretch, I thought, So I'm trying to leave space where I wanted to hear their case. But they're pointing to things that it's always tough when a prosecution presents evidence. And then afterwards you can almost hear them say, aha, see that you have no case, Like you're trying to convince us of something that you really telling me that an overwhelmed mother is the is the evidence that she plotted to kill three kids? Come on, we're parents. Don't don't talk to me like I'm stupid.
00:13:52
Speaker 3: Yes, And so I agree, And then you hear the prosecutor read these jurors these entries to the jurors, and I'm thinking, I'm receiving this as an outsider, as a bystander, thinking, wow, that's a woman who is in severe mental health anguish, and so yeah. The defense took that same diary and found entries that absolutely bolstered their claim that she was mentally declining. They showed an excerpt where she said, I have no appetite. I don't know what's wrong with me. I want help, I want to be well. To me, that was the most powerful entry and one of the most powerful things I personally heard in court yesterday.
00:14:37
Speaker 1: How long do you have the dates or how long ago or how close to the murder of the killings?
00:14:46
Speaker 3: When she said I want help, I want to be well, that was the end of November. The killings were January twenty fourth, so two months before she killed her kids. She writes in her diary, I want help, I want to be well. She writes about not being able to sleep right, about incredible anxiety she talked, She writes about crazy brain fog.
00:15:05
Speaker 1: So are they suggesting that all this was done because she was plotting? This was supposed to be her Well, this is a diary she's writing personal notes that she doesn't expect anybody to ever read And you're telling me this is a part of the plan and the plot. That was a tough day for the prosecution.
00:15:20
Speaker 3: Baby, it's wild to me. I agree that the prosecution has all of this evidence. They see all this documentation, they see all these fifteen prescription drugs she was given.
00:15:30
Speaker 2: They read her diary.
00:15:32
Speaker 3: How is that not a woman who is mentally completely deteriorating?
00:15:37
Speaker 1: And we were open and we all are I'm opening to listening to the prosecution explain they haven't gotten there. This is just the second week. Maybe there is more, but this was supposed to be key. Who are the people who can prove robes that she was not in psychosis or had a mental illness? The doctors. Those doctors were on the stand yesterday and one of them only saw her for twenty minutes in the past three years.
00:16:04
Speaker 2: That's tough.
00:16:05
Speaker 3: Why are we and why the prosecution didn't see that as a potential pitfall in the evidence they were presenting, knowing this attorney was going to point that out, and knowing that psychosis isn't something that makes you so insane that everyone can physically see that you're off your rock or no, you can still you can still communicate, you can still act in this world. You can still participate and be suffering from a postpartum psychosis.
00:16:36
Speaker 1: The doctor made that. The prosecution's witness, who was being cross examined by the defense, made that point. Rope so crystal clear and explain something to me that I didn't really get, And she explained clearly that it is. It doesn't mean she's faking, just because she can have a normal conversation, so she can go in and out of psychosis, if it can end, if it can start, than Rose, that means she could send her husband to CBS and to pick up food, she could order the food, and she could behave perfectly normally. The doctor made that clear, the prosecution's doctor, which I would believe more than the defense doctor, because she's supposed to be there bolstering the prosecution case and she's still saying this, Uh, Rose, I'm waiting it also, was it, say Robes to the jury, what't it say to you and me that the big day and the big doctors they put on to push back on the psychosis. One of them saw her for twenty minutes. You're telling me that not a good look.
00:17:35
Speaker 2: Best you got not a good look at all.
00:17:39
Speaker 3: And you know there are we are expecting more doctors to take the stand today. Court ended kind of abruptly yesterday at three forty pm, but the judge said there's going to be a similar schedule today. So I don't know why, but they do tend to be going from nine am Eastern time to ride around four pm Eastern time, so with some breaks in between. But yes, we do expect the prosecution to continue to focus on this state of Lindsey Clancy's mental health. They are trying to prove that she was perfectly sane when she committed those murders, that she was not suffering from postpartum psychosis. The defense says exactly the opposite, and so far it seems like they've done a pretty dang good job of documenting or showing that Lindsay Clancy herself had been documenting her struggles and was actively and consistently seeking help for her problem.
00:18:36
Speaker 1: And she did not get it. And here we all are, but robes is what is it? Net Look, it's never going to be used. I don't think we're going to have an overwhelming number of women all of a sudden killing their kids and walking in and said, I got a psychosists. I don't think so. But this is something about how the state, and in this case we're talking about Massachusetts, but the government is viewing women in their severe troubles that are possible after birth ropes. And I think Robes is all female prosecutors again, just it still plays that reads in the room a little bit here. Robes, Absolutely, you have these women dismissing a woman this ill. It's we're not debating about how ill she was, it's documented, and they're saying, nope, bro, just pay attention, folks to how we are thinking about and viewing women and the troubles they have down the road. They're being dismissive the way a lot of women get dismissed when they have problems.
00:19:34
Speaker 3: And I wonder with twelve women on that jury, and we don't know how it's going to end up with the alternates, but twelve women and six men, as a woman, I don't I feel like, especially any woman who's given birth, any woman who knows how hard it is to be a mom, but also knows how much moms love their kids, what it would take for a mom to do this that reads. I think for a lot of women there's real sympathy and even empathy in some moments for women towards it's.
00:20:00
Speaker 1: Just amazing to not see any of that shown towards Lindsey Clancy in this courtroom. Again, they brought the case you want to give them and say they're doing it in a good faith. Robe you want to, but this is striking to see. I've never heard of a woman this ill having to do with giving birth rope she is, it is, she's sick. That woman. What was at the Yates right?
00:20:23
Speaker 2: Andrew Yates the same thing.
00:20:25
Speaker 1: These are ill ill people that the state is dismissing robe. This is extreme illness by this woman, and still the States saying nope, she faked it.
00:20:35
Speaker 2: Woo.
00:20:35
Speaker 3: Well, we will see what the state has to say today, day six of testimony in the Lindsay Clancy trial. We know we will be watching and we will pass along everything we witness to you all. We always appreciate you listening. I'm Amy Robach alongside TJ.
00:20:49
Speaker 2: Holmes. We'll talk soon.
Speaker 1: Hey, that folks. It is Tuesday, August fourth, and week two of the triple murder trial of Lindsey Clancy is under way. The prosecution called several expert witnesses. By the time they got done, they felt like defense witnesses and with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. This was a drama filled, combative, tense day on the stand and had everything to do with the defense attorney taken a cup of prosecution witnesses the task. This was something to watch.
00:00:37
Speaker 2: That's right. The defense scored some major points.
00:00:39
Speaker 3: I think by most accounts watching the testimony yesterday, there were a series of doctors that the prosecution put up on the stand.
00:00:47
Speaker 2: There were thirteen witnesses total yesterday.
00:00:49
Speaker 3: They got through a lot, yes, doctors, nurses, and law enforcement, but it was the forensic psychiatrists that were pretty much the big stars of the show, if you want to put it like that, of the trial yesterday.
00:01:02
Speaker 2: And look, they were there.
00:01:04
Speaker 3: From the nurses, to the er doctors to the psychiatrists to establish basically what Lindsay Clancy's physical and mental state was in the hours, days and weeks after the murders.
00:01:19
Speaker 1: Hey, but the prosecution calls these folks up, hoping to bolster its case that the injuries weren't that bad and she wasn't that upset and she didn't seem like a psychotic person. That is what they were supposed to bolster ropes. It seemed to do the exact opposite, the exact opposite.
00:01:40
Speaker 3: Yes, the prosecution did get some of these doctors, these forensic psychiatrists, to say, first of all, one of them who said that her mood when she asked, because initially Lindsay Clancy was indicated her injuries were that severe that she actually had a tube down her throat. She could not speak, so she could only communicate through a whiteboard, and she said, she asked her, what's your mood like?
00:02:04
Speaker 2: And she wrote horrified.
00:02:05
Speaker 3: And then this doctor testified that Lindsay Clancy's first questions were whether or not she had an attorney, is my body broken?
00:02:14
Speaker 2: Are my legs straight? Could she have visitors?
00:02:17
Speaker 3: And then she said, I did not see any active signs of psychosis or hallucinations.
00:02:22
Speaker 2: But then the defense got their chance to cross exams.
00:02:27
Speaker 1: So in saying all of that, robes before the defense even got up the point they were attempting to make is that her first concern was about her own physical wellbeing or about her legal troubles. Correct the suggestion there is that. No, no, no, no, this wasn't a lady that was psychotic. She was calculated and now she's trying to think of how to get out of it. That's the assertion. I thought Robes just as a possible juror me sitting there, I thought it was a bit of a stretch to be almost dismissive of a woman who just jumped out a window and slashed her own neck. I thought it was kind of just dismissive. But then the defense brought it home.
00:03:01
Speaker 3: Yes, well, and there were two different psychiatrists that they were able to make some very valid, valuable points for the defense, And the big one for the first forensic psychiatrist was I'm sorry, how much time did you spend with Lindsay Clancy.
00:03:16
Speaker 1: Okay, wait, this is the There was one.
00:03:19
Speaker 3: This was doctor Jillan Biswass. The that was the first one. The second one is where he really took her to task.
00:03:26
Speaker 1: The second one was the lady who was she was lost, She.
00:03:29
Speaker 2: Started stuttering and she didn't know what to say.
00:03:31
Speaker 3: But the defense, Yes, the big, yes, exactly. That was the second one, but the first one, Jillan Biswass she had to admit she only spent twenty minutes with her while she couldn't speak. So then you start to think as a juror wait a minute, you were able to assess that she had no signs of psychosis or hallucinations, that she was solely focused on her own well being in the twenty minutes you spent with her while she had a tube down.
00:03:57
Speaker 1: Her throat and see or this was I don't know when that detail came out in the examination. It didn't come out, I'm saying the questioning. It didn't come out when the prosecution was talking to her. So we are listening to this woman who we think has all this insight and information about Lindsay Clancy. Right. The lady's name is doctor whatever. She's a psychiatrist. Okay, tell me about this lady. And were hearing all this, she's this, she's a she's this, he's that, and then you hear, wait, twenty minutes. You only met her once in life. By the way, it wasn't the follow up after that. She ain't ever seen this woman again. Twenty minutes and you're the expert on her condition. As soon as she said that, I dismissed everything that she said as a juror none to talk.
00:04:42
Speaker 3: You you kind of I think you laughed out loud when that was revealed. So then the next psychiatrist, who yes, was eventually eviscerated by the defense. But she met with Clancy Lindsay Clancy five days after the murders, and then met with her periodically for the next month, so she actually did spend some time. She testified when the prosecution had her up there that Lindsay Clancy wanted to change her health care proxy from her husband to her parents.
00:05:07
Speaker 2: That was the first thing she wanted to do.
00:05:10
Speaker 3: She did acknowledge that she was initially delirious, but she attributed that to anesthesia lack of oxygen. She said that Clancy did not have any suicidal thoughts. She expressed no harm, no intent to harm anyone else, And she said, I thought this was interesting. She said her thoughts about what she had done that day or the murders was not constant correct correct, so meaning she wasn't thinking about killing her kids. And so that was all seemingly pretty damning evidence, right.
00:05:39
Speaker 1: Yeah, so what we were thinking, wait, so she went into that state and then came out of it, shouldn't she? So that was the suggestion at time, and as people common folks ropes who don't completely understand psychosis, we're listening to the expert and going, oh, okay.
00:05:53
Speaker 3: Wow, she seems pretty lucid. She seems like she's pretty strategic. She's saying she doesn't think about killing her kids.
00:06:00
Speaker 2: The defense capitalized on that.
00:06:02
Speaker 3: So you're saying she wasn't exaggerating her conditions for legal reasons, and she said, He said correct, and she had to say correct, She wasn't exaggerating. If this was some big plot or plan to put on some insanity defense, wouldn't she then be talking about all sorts of things pretending to be a certain way. No, she was just being herself. And that resonated. And then he then asked this question or yes, people can communicate and plan and act on plans even if they are in the middle of psychosis, right, She had to answer yes, He's like, basically, so she doesn't have to be drooling and incoherent, Like you can still be strategic and still communicate and still be you know, have a conversation with someone even if you're experiencing psychosis.
00:06:53
Speaker 2: She had to say.
00:06:54
Speaker 1: Yes, the two prosecution expert witnesses just eliminated the prosecution theory. They did from direct questioning from this guy who was rapid fire, direct, not using a lot of notes. Robes, even when he had to call people out. He didn't do it in such a nasty way, but he did it directly. He did it firmly. Robes. He put on a bit of a show. And I say show, not in like he was being showy, but Robes. That is some cross examination for your ass yesterday man, Absolutely he got them. The prosecution's own witnesses refuted the prosecution case.
00:07:36
Speaker 3: Yes, and there was one in which he really took a took a doctor to task. He basically asked this er doctor who was testifying for the prosecution. So we heard about the mental they had the psychiatrist. They actually had the er doctor there when she first arrived and said she described the lacerations on Lindsey Clancy's risks and neck as superficial. She said, I would not characterize them as deep. And obviously the suggestion is by the prosecution that this was a faked suicide attempt.
00:08:09
Speaker 2: To make it look like they said.
00:08:10
Speaker 3: That she actually lowered herself out of the window and just didn't account for the fact that the ground was hard with the ice and the snow and that's what caused the spinal injuries. But the lacerations have been a big point of topic, saying, hey, they weren't that deep.
00:08:24
Speaker 2: These are just superficial the defense.
00:08:27
Speaker 3: The defense started asking all of these questions about her spinal injury, about her body temperature which was eighty two degrees you know the fact that she went into cardiac arrest that night, and the doctor just kept kind of saying, I'm not sure, wouldn't really answer, and so he got frustrated with this er doctor and said, I'm sure you're very busy, but this is a murder trial doctor, And he asked the doctor, did you review your notes before coming to trial? I mean, really made this doctor look like an idiot.
00:08:55
Speaker 1: Because there were this doctor, and then there was one of the psychiatrists, the one who was he just she was the embarrassing why I can't remember now.
00:09:04
Speaker 2: I don't recall. I don't recall that one was doctor.
00:09:08
Speaker 1: Okay Rose, the back and forth, the point he was making here robes it's so effective that they came off at times like they were going out of their way to be on the prosecution side, and that's not what they're supposed to do. These are doctors, these are finders of fact themselves, and we give you the information when they try to start dancing around and trying to say stuff that maybe wouldn't look good for the prosecution. He nailed them and they deserved it. I just give the info that it was some fumbling robes. This was some bad work. I don't know if the prosecution didn't prepare these witnesses the right way, or we do see this sometimes robes. They think they're doing the duty by trying to put somebody in jail, but you're supposed to be there as a doctor telling fact and what you know and what's on paper, what's under a microscope, and yes, so real. He let them have it, yes, yesterday, this was I told you. I said, he Perry Mason the hell out of somebody.
00:10:09
Speaker 3: He did. And he also did it to an ICU nurse who talked about ICU delirium. So she was trying to explain Lindsay Clancy.
00:10:18
Speaker 2: When she first got there.
00:10:19
Speaker 3: I guess was agitated, trying to pick up her lines and her drains, pulling all the stuff out, and that was a part of this.
00:10:27
Speaker 2: According to the defense, part of this psychosis.
00:10:30
Speaker 3: Right, she is in the middle of just this absolute horrific experience that she's been going through, and the ICU nurse called it ICU delirium. She said, it's very common that you see this in folks who have been admitted to the ICU. But the defense got the nurse to fully acknowledge that she was in her history and being treated as a patient with documented postpartum depression history, and he said to her, you knew there had been discussion about postpartum psychosis.
00:10:58
Speaker 2: Isn't that right? The ic unurse had to say, yes, he.
00:11:04
Speaker 1: I mean, this is something to watch. And again, you know what it felt. We've said several times here Ropes that it seems odd to us that the prosecution leaves zero room for the possibility that this woman was mentally ill. Yes, all mentally ill folks don't kill people, but Rose there is an extensive documented history of this woman not just having problems, but severe problems, and some of the witnesses didn't seem to want to confirm that that this lady was troubled, and yes that I was surprised the ICU nurse like, what are you talking about? You didn't know? And what he got them to admit and admit, but it took him like ten questions, so it came on. I don't know how the jury is reading that, but it's reading in some of these witnesses like you all are out to get this lady instead of doing what is your role and your responsibility here? I forgot about the ICU rs.
00:12:00
Speaker 3: Yes, that one stood out to me and so to all of what you were just speaking of when we come back. I think perhaps one of the biggest wins for the defense was a prosecution entry of Lindsey Clancy's own diary, her written words. The prosecution tried to use Lindsay Clancy's words against her. The defense used them very effectively to support.
00:12:24
Speaker 2: Her insanity defense. And welcome back to Amy and TJ.
00:12:36
Speaker 3: We are now going to talk about the other big piece of evidence that was introduced yesterday by prosecutors, the diary of Lindsey Clancy.
00:12:46
Speaker 2: And the prosecution put this forward.
00:12:49
Speaker 3: Saying, look, it clearly shows a woman who was obsessed with her eight months old sleep schedule. They had an entry in there about how she was hearing him cry her want to die. It made her feel completely overwhelmed. The big thing was, I feel like I'm drowning every day. It's like I'm so desperate to get a mental break from trying to take care of everyone that my mind is trying to make something physically wrong with me. So this was them saying that she was deliberate. She was acknowledging that she was going, like, you know, getting so upset and so obsessive about her children's.
00:13:25
Speaker 1: Bit of a stretch, I thought, So I'm trying to leave space where I wanted to hear their case. But they're pointing to things that it's always tough when a prosecution presents evidence. And then afterwards you can almost hear them say, aha, see that you have no case, Like you're trying to convince us of something that you really telling me that an overwhelmed mother is the is the evidence that she plotted to kill three kids? Come on, we're parents. Don't don't talk to me like I'm stupid.
00:13:52
Speaker 3: Yes, And so I agree, And then you hear the prosecutor read these jurors these entries to the jurors, and I'm thinking, I'm receiving this as an outsider, as a bystander, thinking, wow, that's a woman who is in severe mental health anguish, and so yeah. The defense took that same diary and found entries that absolutely bolstered their claim that she was mentally declining. They showed an excerpt where she said, I have no appetite. I don't know what's wrong with me. I want help, I want to be well. To me, that was the most powerful entry and one of the most powerful things I personally heard in court yesterday.
00:14:37
Speaker 1: How long do you have the dates or how long ago or how close to the murder of the killings?
00:14:46
Speaker 3: When she said I want help, I want to be well, that was the end of November. The killings were January twenty fourth, so two months before she killed her kids. She writes in her diary, I want help, I want to be well. She writes about not being able to sleep right, about incredible anxiety she talked, She writes about crazy brain fog.
00:15:05
Speaker 1: So are they suggesting that all this was done because she was plotting? This was supposed to be her Well, this is a diary she's writing personal notes that she doesn't expect anybody to ever read And you're telling me this is a part of the plan and the plot. That was a tough day for the prosecution.
00:15:20
Speaker 3: Baby, it's wild to me. I agree that the prosecution has all of this evidence. They see all this documentation, they see all these fifteen prescription drugs she was given.
00:15:30
Speaker 2: They read her diary.
00:15:32
Speaker 3: How is that not a woman who is mentally completely deteriorating?
00:15:37
Speaker 1: And we were open and we all are I'm opening to listening to the prosecution explain they haven't gotten there. This is just the second week. Maybe there is more, but this was supposed to be key. Who are the people who can prove robes that she was not in psychosis or had a mental illness? The doctors. Those doctors were on the stand yesterday and one of them only saw her for twenty minutes in the past three years.
00:16:04
Speaker 2: That's tough.
00:16:05
Speaker 3: Why are we and why the prosecution didn't see that as a potential pitfall in the evidence they were presenting, knowing this attorney was going to point that out, and knowing that psychosis isn't something that makes you so insane that everyone can physically see that you're off your rock or no, you can still you can still communicate, you can still act in this world. You can still participate and be suffering from a postpartum psychosis.
00:16:36
Speaker 1: The doctor made that. The prosecution's witness, who was being cross examined by the defense, made that point. Rope so crystal clear and explain something to me that I didn't really get, And she explained clearly that it is. It doesn't mean she's faking, just because she can have a normal conversation, so she can go in and out of psychosis, if it can end, if it can start, than Rose, that means she could send her husband to CBS and to pick up food, she could order the food, and she could behave perfectly normally. The doctor made that clear, the prosecution's doctor, which I would believe more than the defense doctor, because she's supposed to be there bolstering the prosecution case and she's still saying this, Uh, Rose, I'm waiting it also, was it, say Robes to the jury, what't it say to you and me that the big day and the big doctors they put on to push back on the psychosis. One of them saw her for twenty minutes. You're telling me that not a good look.
00:17:35
Speaker 2: Best you got not a good look at all.
00:17:39
Speaker 3: And you know there are we are expecting more doctors to take the stand today. Court ended kind of abruptly yesterday at three forty pm, but the judge said there's going to be a similar schedule today. So I don't know why, but they do tend to be going from nine am Eastern time to ride around four pm Eastern time, so with some breaks in between. But yes, we do expect the prosecution to continue to focus on this state of Lindsey Clancy's mental health. They are trying to prove that she was perfectly sane when she committed those murders, that she was not suffering from postpartum psychosis. The defense says exactly the opposite, and so far it seems like they've done a pretty dang good job of documenting or showing that Lindsay Clancy herself had been documenting her struggles and was actively and consistently seeking help for her problem.
00:18:36
Speaker 1: And she did not get it. And here we all are, but robes is what is it? Net Look, it's never going to be used. I don't think we're going to have an overwhelming number of women all of a sudden killing their kids and walking in and said, I got a psychosists. I don't think so. But this is something about how the state, and in this case we're talking about Massachusetts, but the government is viewing women in their severe troubles that are possible after birth ropes. And I think Robes is all female prosecutors again, just it still plays that reads in the room a little bit here. Robes, Absolutely, you have these women dismissing a woman this ill. It's we're not debating about how ill she was, it's documented, and they're saying, nope, bro, just pay attention, folks to how we are thinking about and viewing women and the troubles they have down the road. They're being dismissive the way a lot of women get dismissed when they have problems.
00:19:34
Speaker 3: And I wonder with twelve women on that jury, and we don't know how it's going to end up with the alternates, but twelve women and six men, as a woman, I don't I feel like, especially any woman who's given birth, any woman who knows how hard it is to be a mom, but also knows how much moms love their kids, what it would take for a mom to do this that reads. I think for a lot of women there's real sympathy and even empathy in some moments for women towards it's.
00:20:00
Speaker 1: Just amazing to not see any of that shown towards Lindsey Clancy in this courtroom. Again, they brought the case you want to give them and say they're doing it in a good faith. Robe you want to, but this is striking to see. I've never heard of a woman this ill having to do with giving birth rope she is, it is, she's sick. That woman. What was at the Yates right?
00:20:23
Speaker 2: Andrew Yates the same thing.
00:20:25
Speaker 1: These are ill ill people that the state is dismissing robe. This is extreme illness by this woman, and still the States saying nope, she faked it.
00:20:35
Speaker 2: Woo.
00:20:35
Speaker 3: Well, we will see what the state has to say today, day six of testimony in the Lindsay Clancy trial. We know we will be watching and we will pass along everything we witness to you all. We always appreciate you listening. I'm Amy Robach alongside TJ.
00:20:49
Speaker 2: Holmes. We'll talk soon.