Killer Mom Trial: More Fiery Testimony Expected Today, Forensic Psychiatrist Back On Stand

00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey, the folks sit is Monday, August twenty fourth, and Week five of the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial begins today. This could be the final week of the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Here we are rope. This could be wrapped up closing statements as early as tomorrow.

00:00:23
Speaker 2: Possibly that's possible.

00:00:24
Speaker 3: We know that today that we're going to have the prosecution's first rebuttal witness back on the stand. And that was certainly a contentious back and forth on Friday with doctor Avra Mack. Yes, yes, he was there on Friday after the defense rested its case and the prosecution put on its first rebuttal witness. But man, fireworks might be one way to describe the back and forth exchange between the defense and doctor Mack. And that should continue this morning and the trial resumes.

00:01:01
Speaker 1: All the fire seemed to be coming for one direction from Kevin Reddington, the defense attorney for Lindsay Klantzk, who has been putting on an extraordinary display and a curinary defense. But ros yes he dressed this guy down. Yeah, it was remarkable to watch it again. Do you think Avram Mack went home and watched it. Do you think he watched his testimony back.

00:01:23
Speaker 3: I don't know if he could relive that, and maybe he needed to to do.

00:01:26
Speaker 2: Better today on the stand. I'm not sure, but.

00:01:30
Speaker 3: Yes, the judge had to interrupt some contentious testimony.

00:01:34
Speaker 2: They were talking over each other.

00:01:36
Speaker 3: And once you have doctor Avernmack get on the stand and say point blank to the jurors that he does not believe Lindsay Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis. He said he does not believe Lindsey Clancy had bipolar disorder. So yeah, the defense needed to do what it did to try and.

00:01:55
Speaker 2: Discredit him and.

00:01:59
Speaker 3: Have the jury not believe what he had just testified to because it's the cruxt of their case.

00:02:04
Speaker 1: But they also made you not like him at certain parts. Kevin Reddington went out this guy and I thought he was going to be solid, rob I thought he was steady, and I thought he was going to make but slowly but surely, Kevin Reddington kept chipping away at this guy too. He finally got annoyed. He became a little bit of a jerk up there and rolling his eyes and how he was dealing with it, and it made him feel robes one sided. It made it feel like he wasn't there for his expertise or the science of it all. He was there to help the prosecution make their case. And when you have doctrine front your name to come off as being on one side even though you're there for the prosecution, we get it. But he came off like he was trying to score some points for the prosecution.

00:02:48
Speaker 3: Absolutely, And at the beginning, Kevin Reddington had him admit that he is paid for his expert witness testimony by the prosecution, and look, I think a lot of people understand that's how it works.

00:03:00
Speaker 2: Just to have to have him admit that obviously.

00:03:03
Speaker 3: Creates a certain lens through which the jury was going to view his testimony. But I thought that was a fair point. And look, he said the only thing he would give in terms of what Lindsay Clancy's mental state was. He said she had a major depressive episode as part of a major depressive disorder.

00:03:24
Speaker 2: But notably, he.

00:03:25
Speaker 3: Claimed, and he maintained the entire time, that she had the capacity to understand what was right and what was wrong, and a lot of it was He mentioned that She told him that she heard this male voice that said go to God, and in his opinion, that meant she knew exactly what she was doing, she knew it was wrong. She waited until her husband was gone because she knew he would intervene. These are all signs that someone knew exactly what they were doing was wrong.

00:03:52
Speaker 1: I didn't. I don't know how much. I don't know what do you think how much emphasis was put on that go to God sentence? I thought it was totally interesting and I was curious, but his interpretation of it was difficult for me to really grasp to. How do you make the jump from she said that phrase. Therefore, she was saying.

00:04:12
Speaker 3: Just because she knew she was killing them didn't mean she knew it was wrong to do it. Because the argument has been made by several defense witnesses that and the one actually right before. And I thought, this is really interesting. We haven't gone over this, he talked about on the day of the murders. He believes that miss Clancy was psychotic, and this was the defense's final witness, doctor Philip Resnick, who's also a forensic psychiatrist, But he claimed that there were two things Miss Lindsay Clancy was dealing with altruistic philicide and acutely psychotic philicide. The altruistic philicide is that she was killing her children out of love. She had a distorted, delusional belief that her children would be worse off if they were left alive. And you couple that with the time that with his but opinion that she was psychotic, that all shows she did not know. She is not responsible for the criminality of killing her children because she believed she was doing something good for them.

00:05:12
Speaker 2: So go to God.

00:05:13
Speaker 3: So to me, I don't know that this rebuttal witness did it for me with his go to God explanation.

00:05:21
Speaker 1: Yeah, I didn't make it. It was a leap. It didn't necessarily I heard him out. I just it didn't. It didn't read for me, and the I couldn't tell. The other forensic psychiatrist was saying the two philicides, the altruistic and was the other one acutely psychotic acutely psychotic? If she was he saying she had both of them, or as one of the others.

00:05:41
Speaker 3: He was saying she had both and so and that so she had this idea and this is part of her psychosis. That she was doing something good for her kids, So saying go to God was actually her saying, I'm doing something good for you. I'm sending you to a better place, because you'll be worse off I go to I'm going to be dead because she had her intention to die by suicide, to jump throw herself out of that window, so she felt like her children would be better off with her with God than alive.

00:06:12
Speaker 1: We've heard that before in other cases of people, So I that was the first time I'm hearing an explanation that goes in the face of what I thought was the case. Was just that they're killing their kids because they want them to be better off, because they won't be doing well if I'm gone. I bro So the go to God didn't work. Again. He seems to be a credible enough guy, but Reddington has a way of making everybody not look readibal.

00:06:40
Speaker 3: He started off by just questioning doctor Max's actual knowledge of Lindsay, her case, her background, and then went into his credentials.

00:06:50
Speaker 1: It was effective on the back just asking her simple stuff, asking simple stuff that you think she would know, like what was she taking, what did she watch? What was she eat? Like just bait.

00:06:58
Speaker 3: How much did she work out, When did she get married, how long has she been married?

00:07:02
Speaker 2: What are her coworkers think of her?

00:07:04
Speaker 3: How would you He basically exposed the fact that doctor Mack didn't do any sort of interview or research on Lindsey by talking to co workers, friend's family.

00:07:18
Speaker 2: And look, I'm not saying that he's.

00:07:20
Speaker 3: Supposed to or should have, but Reddington made it appear like he should have.

00:07:24
Speaker 1: But that's the thing. I don't know if he needs to know that stuff or not, but as I sit here, Wow, he doesn't know that stuff. It was so it was just effective and he was he's an investigative. He said, you didn't do any investigation into her background. You're just depending on what she tells you. That sounds to me ridiculous, but also at the same time, it's true in this industry that we've learned, right psychiatrists, they depend on what that person is reporting. Okay, I don't think that's the great way to go about it. But the point that's coming across robes is not the point that the psychiatrists did what they were supposed to do. I think Reddington's actually pointing out flaws not just in these psychiatrists, but in the industry in how we treat mental illness a lot of ways, and that's working.

00:08:10
Speaker 3: It absolutely is, and I believe that is where they are going to start today because if you recall, the judge basically interrupted this contentious back and forth during this cross examination just as they were talking about the DSM to what you're pointing about, that is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. What Reddington Clancy's defense attorney was pointing out with doctor Mack is that postpartum psychosis isn't even listed as its own distinct diagnosis. It's like a subcategory, barely mentioned. You've got thousands of pages. This is the bible for psychiatrists, for forensic psychiatry, and they don't even talk about in any length whatsoever postpartum psychosis. So if it's not being taught, if it's not being studied, if information on this rare disorder isn't readily known, how could doctor Mack or frankly, any psychiatrist really be able to treat, help and maybe even diagnose somebody with this There isn't language on it.

00:09:19
Speaker 1: That was pretty damning because that was a huge book. I mean, he had the book in front of him and was tossing around at times as he was looking through it, pointing at it and patent and hitting it and everything. But he ended up laying that thing robes on the witness stand standing right there next to him. So, yeah, show me in here where it says d da da da. And it was awkward because the guy said, well, and he's flipping through pages trying to find stuff, and oh, here it is right here where he says dada da and reading Hill Readington cuts him down. You're talking about that paragraph. That's all. This little section in a thousand page book is like six pair He the physical it added to the tension, and the judge it seems like, is giving Reddington a lot of rope, a.

00:10:03
Speaker 2: Long leash to do whatever he wants.

00:10:05
Speaker 3: And look, that was incredibly effective to recognize that this is the entire psychiatric industry just doesn't give weight to this disorder. And I think that was incredibly effective that we that she not only didn't get the help she needed, but is there even help out there for a woman like her or other women like her out there? It seems like it's massively inadequate, and just the studies have not been done. So he's going to be back on the stand, and I don't know if they're going to continue to talk about the DSM, but I have a feeling Reddington has a lot more to say to doctor Mac. I wonder if Reddington goes back and watches his performance and watches his cross examination, if he takes notes, and.

00:10:54
Speaker 1: Then you don't have to preparing.

00:10:58
Speaker 3: But once we have doctor Mac finishing up on the stand, there is expected to be several more that was how it was described, several more rebuttal witnesses. And look, this is the moment where Clancy's defense attorneys are Defense attorney Kevin readyten. He is the one and only singular defense attorney. No one else has been questioning or cross examining anyone. It's been all him, which has been remarkable. Watch.

00:11:22
Speaker 1: We haven't even seen him consult with anybody in the courtroom. He has been a one man show. Nobody has been at that table. He's got no help, well at least in the courtroom.

00:11:32
Speaker 2: No, not at all.

00:11:33
Speaker 3: And so yes, you would think this is going to be very important for him to make sure he properly cross examines anyone else. They bring up who again, this is really a battle of the experts. Was Lindsey Clancy in a state of psychosis or was she not? That is literally going to determine the outcome of this trial, and so exam questioning and then cross examining these expert witnesses is going to mean everything when it comes to verdict time and the jury.

00:12:01
Speaker 2: I don't know, it's going to come down to who they believe.

00:12:05
Speaker 1: I thought the they cid the the expert that the defense had up that was the last witness. When he flattered, he just plainly said it. She was not criminally responsible. You remember, they had so many zoom problems.

00:12:20
Speaker 2: They did. They did, and he.

00:12:22
Speaker 1: Was kind of a soft spoken, kind of a quieter guy. Yeah, And I don't know if it should or if it would, but his the impact of his testimony wasn't there because he couldn't deliver his lines in a strong and a loud voice. There was a delay and everything. So he was saying and the information got out there, but it wasn't an opportunity for them to see and face a guy who was saying the most important thing for the defense.

00:12:49
Speaker 3: I wonder if that's going to hurt them their final witness, as you pointed out was a zoom witness with technical difficulties. But what he said packed U punch and they'll get a transcript. I believe they usually let the jurors go back with a transcript. But some of the stuff he said did stand out. He said that he said Lindsay was crying daily about the loss of her three children. That certainly flies in the face from what we've heard from some of the prosecution witnesses who say she was playing dominoes and watching TV and not.

00:13:17
Speaker 2: Seeming upset at all.

00:13:19
Speaker 3: But he did give his final diagnosis of her bipolar two with severe depression, and he flat out set on the day of the murders, she was psychotic and she had postpartum psychosis.

00:13:30
Speaker 2: He made it very very clear.

00:13:32
Speaker 3: But when you have one doctor telling you one thing and another doctor telling you the exact opposite thing, what is the jury supposed to think about all of it or any of it? That's confusing as hell. And speaking to that confusion when we come back, this case is literally dividing the country. There are the group who say Lindsay Clancy was let down by the medical profession, she needed help, and then there's the other side. Saying, okay, whatever, her child deserve.

00:14:01
Speaker 2: Justice and.

00:14:10
Speaker 3: Welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ. As we continue to watch what we believe will be the final week in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial, it has reached a fever pitch in terms of attention from the American public.

00:14:24
Speaker 2: People are invested.

00:14:25
Speaker 3: We're seeing this story now at the top of almost every single major news network, and people are weighing in, articles are being written, and really and truly, there are just two sides that there's not a lot of middle ground here. Either people think that Lindsay Clancy should be shown empathy, should be given treatment, should spark more conversations about women and mental health. And then there's the other side that says, are you kidding me? If a man did this, even if he had a mental disorder, he would have zero support that this is sexism.

00:14:55
Speaker 2: On the other side, oh, I haven't heard the sexte.

00:14:57
Speaker 3: Oh absolutely, people are claiming that this is sexist because if a man had a mental disorder and it was claiming he was insane when he killed his kids, how many people would be rallying to his defense and talking about the need for more mental health studies For men.

00:15:12
Speaker 1: Who's screaming sexism? Like, what group of people are upset by that part of this?

00:15:18
Speaker 2: Do you know what's interesting?

00:15:19
Speaker 3: A lot of this division is along political lines, conservatives versus liberals.

00:15:26
Speaker 2: It's really really interesting.

00:15:28
Speaker 3: And a lot of conservative women I've seen are writing op eds in major news outlets saying that, yes, we understand that she might have been suffering a bit, but that does not erase or make it okay that they're upset that more people are concerned for Lindsay Clancy than outraged about her killing her children, and they're confused by that. People are saying, I'm a mom of four, I had certain issues, but I didn't kill my kids.

00:15:56
Speaker 2: Let's call this for what it is. So it is.

00:15:59
Speaker 3: Really it's getting ugly out there, it's getting nasty out there, and they're perplexed by why Lindsay Clancy has so much support. And some of the folks who are supporting her are saying that could have been me telling their stories about how dangerously close they came to harming their children or themselves, and they want more mental health support for moms. But it's so sad that even something like this, you got moms fighting each other now about whether or not we should have sympathy or empathy for Lindsey Clancy and why we aren't more upset or outraged about the deaths of these three kids.

00:16:34
Speaker 1: We are. We're saddened, exactly. We are saddened, and there is some outrage, But what percentage of it needs to go directly to the woman in the wheelchair? And that's okay to talk about that. I don't think it's okay to just see video of women in pink outside the courtroom supporting her and immediately respond when you haven't watched a single damn day of testify such a good point. You haven't read up on the case beyond a couple of headlines or a couple of other people who are posting on TikTok. That's all, Robes. We are just not in a society anymore that stops and looks for any context, any meaning, or any explanation. We just react. We just react, and that's I get it. My reaction to three babies being strangled is sadness and outrage. Where do I direct it? I'll ask what you always say, Robes, before you react to something emotionally, get curious first. Is my outrage? And anger. Is it all in the right place if I directed at her and from everything Robes I have seen and heard, No, there's more to this story.

00:17:48
Speaker 3: I agree, And we have watched the trial, I would argue more than pretty much everyone who's commenting. Some people might be riveted and watching every moment, but because this is.

00:17:58
Speaker 2: Our job, we actually get to do it can do it.

00:18:02
Speaker 3: And I doubt most people have enough hours in the day to watch what we've seen. And I just think that there needs to be a pause in pointing the finger until you actually have watched the whole process take place. And it'll be interesting to see what the jurors say. And I don't know, like we get it wrong all the time. If I'm a juror, I'm imagining what that would be like, and sometimes they come to different conclusions.

00:18:25
Speaker 1: We've never gotten it right. Sorry, every time we do that we know exactly what the jury's going to do. We eat our jaws on the floor.

00:18:30
Speaker 3: I mean, even the attorneys themselves have no idea what a jury is going to do. And that's actually fair. Now, NPR put out this was interesting. Postpartum depression affects ten percent of mothers postpartum psychosis. They say estimates estimated effects one to two out of every one thousand berths. But the big thing about this, and this is what part of what this trial is pointing out. We don't train our doctors. Clearly, we just saw this play out on Friday.

00:18:56
Speaker 2: It's massively missed.

00:18:58
Speaker 3: A mount sign I psychiatrist said numbers ten percent of moms with postpartum depression, one to two out of every thousand berths with postpartum psychosis. They said, we don't know, we have no idea how many women have actually suffered from either of these disorders because it's missed because we don't have training on it. And this is a psychiatrist who says, it's just describing how little, almost no training goes into this and these disorders.

00:19:26
Speaker 1: I was surprised. I was going to follow up and you've answered it there, But ten percent sounded loaded me.

00:19:32
Speaker 3: And that's exactly that's the only official number we have, and it's just not correct. But that's the only one to even point to because it's the only one that's ever been made. And I think, look, and some of these articles I was listening, I'm curious what you think. They're upset that the conversation has turned to this idea of not that anyone's happy that three children died, but that we're focused more on trying to point out the ineptness or the inadequacies in our healthcare system for women, rather than pushing for justice for these kids that we have our focus is in the wrong place. That we should be focused on justice and not focused on looking at an entire industry, And I just disagree. I think both can can happen and occur in the same place, and there it's important for both of them to be considered and talked about. It's so interesting have people get so upset, but.

00:20:27
Speaker 1: We ever consider for a second that justice for these kids is revamping the industry. Justice for these kids is actually examining why they're dead. They're dead at the hands of their mother. There's still another why what was the result? Something got her to this place? An I from everything I've seen, Robes am not just. I have seen no evidence that this woman was so overwhelmed by motherhood that she put a plan into place to get rid of the kids. I just I haven't seen that. I know they're trying to make it, but babe, that's it's just not there, So yes, justice for these kids roes wet ten percent. How many mothers out there have scared the but Jesus out of themselves by having some crazy, psychotical whatever thought and scared to share it with somebody because of what you're going to think about her as a mother, Babe.

00:21:22
Speaker 3: I think almost every mother, if she's honest with herself, in some of those weeks and months after giving birth, your kid won't stop screaming, your kid won't won't breastfeed, or won't take the bottle.

00:21:33
Speaker 2: There are dark thoughts that enter your mind. Period.

00:21:38
Speaker 3: I just think that no one wants to admit that. No one, no one wants to say that they too have felt that. It doesn't mean they were ever going to do it. It doesn't mean they were ever going to follow through with it. But by just pretending that this isn't an issue and acting as if we're getting distracted by this issue and not focused on justice, I love you just said, because justice for these kids would actually also be knowing more about this disorder in order to prevent it from happening again, period, point blank.

00:22:11
Speaker 1: And look I get it. I just sweek we want to direct it. We want to be simple right things we did this country, black and white, this or that. You're either on this side or that side. Okay, but this is but yeah, I would be your guest this morning. They're going to start on time.

00:22:29
Speaker 3: They never have. They're supposed to start at nine am every morning. Usually we don't even start to hear testimony until abound nine forty five.

00:22:35
Speaker 2: There's always a sidebar.

00:22:36
Speaker 3: There's going to be always something that has to be done or talked about ahead of time, and then plenty of sidebars in the middle of it. So look, we say we hope to get to closing arguments by as soon as tomorrow, but who We don't know how many more rebuttal witnesses are going to be put up by the prosecution, and certainly we know that Kevin Reddington is almost certainly ready for cross examination on all of them. So it should be a very eventful day once again in court today. As testimony continues, we will be following it for you.

00:23:06
Speaker 2: We always appreciate you listening to us. I may need Roebuck alongside TJ.

00:23:09
Speaker 3: Holmes.

00:23:10
Speaker 2: We'll talk soon.