Aug. 19, 2026
Killer Mom Trial: “She Was Begging For Help” Mother-In-Law Testifies In Lindsay Clancy’s Defense
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed It was another emotional, and at times contentious day as the defense continues to call witnesses to the stand to prove Lindsay Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis when she killed her three young children. Clancy’s former mother-in-law took the stand and described what she witnessed from Lindsay in the months leading up to the murders, testifying she was begging for help and desperately wanted to get better. The prosecution pushed back, and at one point after asking Susan Clancy about her Catholic faith, asked if she realized that murder is considered a mortal sin. The judge told jurors to disregard the question, but the prosecution continued its argumentative questioning of several defense medical experts throughout the day.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey, that folks. It is Wednesday, August nineteenth, and we gotta say this was one of the more fascinating days and the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. With that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ Rope. That had a little bit of everything. That was tension. There were contentious back and forth, there were objections, there were shocking statements that were made, and we learned a little more. There were a bunch of experts up there rope. There was a lot going on that it's almost hard to keep up with. This was a big.
00:00:34
Speaker 2: Day, It certainly was, and you mentioned contentious moments. There was, in particular, a very contentious question that was asked by the prosecutors that actually forced the judge to then tell the jurors to disregard the question, forget the answer. So we'll get into it, and it began with Lindsay Clancy's former mother in law. Look, normally, daughters in law and mothers in law historically notoriously don't get along. Right now? Is about that all the time? Are you joking right now? Yes, it's a thing. So it is remarkable to see Lindsay Clancy's former mother in law get up on the stand and testify in her daughter in law's defense. And this is the woman who killed her three grandchildren. This is the woman her son divorced. And she was up there talking about how Lindsay Clancy was a the way she put it, she was a very nurturing, very loving. She was a wonderful mother, just wonderful. I mean to hear that.
00:01:46
Speaker 1: It's consistent. I mean, everybody's spoken about, right, it's it's consistent. And if this, if anybody had a reason, no, get me wrong, this woman is not doesn't hasn't come all for any suggestion that anybody is after Lindsey Clancy. If you will, well, if there was anybody up there that would take issue, the juror would understand if the mother in law exactly might say something negative, yes, or her to give such a ringing endorsement has to speak to that jury.
00:02:14
Speaker 3: Yes, that lands.
00:02:16
Speaker 2: Any woman who has married a man and he has a mother who's still alive knows that that is oftentimes a difficult relationship. And especially given these circumstances, the most horrific thing you could think possible, she would have every reason to hold some resentment against Lindsey Clancy to see that she had none, and to see that she herself was a labor and delivery nurse. She knows more than anyone perhaps in Lindsy Clancy's circle, what postpartum depression looks like, what those types of moments might be like for a new mom or for a tired mom. And it was I thought very telling and compelling to have Susan Clancy defend her former daughter in law.
00:03:03
Speaker 1: Yeah, that was effective by the defense to but yeah, to have her up there, absolutely, I don't know how this, I don't know you, and I actually I'm glad we haven't. We actually haven't discussed the moment from her testimony.
00:03:18
Speaker 2: Yes, So, after she is questioned by the defense saying that Lindsay Clancy was begging for help and wanted to get better. I thought, by the way, that was an effective way to put it. She was begging for help and she wanted to get better. She talked about having no appetite, insomnia, anxious, sad. So she reiterated everything we've heard from so many witnesses, even prosecution witness says, who have all testified to the same. So the prosecution gets up to cross examine her starts bringing up this weed gummy thing again. They keep bringing the weed gummy up.
00:03:51
Speaker 1: Why, I don't know, just.
00:03:53
Speaker 2: To kind of act as though she was self medicating on top of prescription drugs, maybe acting reckless or recklessly and maybe taking drugs that people weren't aware of. They're just trying to paint a bad picture of her. But I don't know why they keep bringing up this weed gummy thing.
00:04:09
Speaker 1: Don't both folks these days know what weed gummies do.
00:04:13
Speaker 3: They chill you out, and.
00:04:15
Speaker 1: Folks aren't running around and getting arrested for crimes they committed. What I were high on weed.
00:04:19
Speaker 3: Gummies doesn't make you homicidal.
00:04:21
Speaker 1: I'm missing. There might be something they're piecing together that we're missing, and maybe the jury is getting it. But yeah, it.
00:04:26
Speaker 2: Keeps seeing and it's never landed once, and it especially did in this time because she asked, did you know that Lindsay Clancy had taken a weed gummy? And Susan Clancy says nope, didn't know and didn't seem to care. But the big moment was when the prosecutor asked Susan Clancy if she was still a member of the Catholic Church. Yes, she's Catholic, that's her faith.
00:04:49
Speaker 1: Okay, but your eyebrow before you get to the next part ropes, But starting right there, is there a point to that question before you even get to is there anything relevant to that? So when you hear it the first time, did you did you think, well, where is it going? Or did you think like, what the hell?
00:05:06
Speaker 3: I thought, where is this going?
00:05:08
Speaker 2: Look, as someone who was raised Catholic, I understand when I heard the question what the prosecutor was trying to do, and it was absolutely theater. So she said to then Susan Clancy, and you're aware that murder is considered a mortal sin?
00:05:25
Speaker 3: What to me?
00:05:27
Speaker 2: That makes if I were a member of the jury, that would make me absolutely feel anger towards the prosecutor because it's so obvious what she was trying to do in that moment, try to play on Susan Clancy's Catholic faith and her upbringing that yes, a murder is considered a mortal sin, that you're going to hell, and she wanted her to say something I don't even know negative about Lindsey Clancy. In that moment, they were trying to get her to say something bad about her but all it did was make the prosecution look bad.
00:06:01
Speaker 3: In my opinion, we.
00:06:02
Speaker 1: Don't know the prosecutors and just have to hold on to hope and give them grace that these are decent folks who have a very difficult job and they're doing what they actually believe in good faith. Robes, that was a bad moment. We've talked about how they have tried to paint a picture and trying to get the jury to emotionally respond to Lindsey Clancy and stuff she's done get them to feel a certain way about her by putting up the autopsy photos, keep showing the murder weapons. I want you to be angry at this woman. Robes, they produced a moment that I genuinely was angry at the prosecutor.
00:06:36
Speaker 3: I agree, I felt the same way.
00:06:38
Speaker 1: They genuinely produced one that made you feel personally some way about them, like how what are you doing? These people lost a major something. That loss is still being felt and they're having to relive it all. You're gonna take her to task because she's not giving enough negative answers. So I'm gonna play on your Catholic faith and try to call you out for not what adhering to your religion the way you should rose. That was awful and it reaked a desperation.
00:07:09
Speaker 3: It did. That's a good way to put it.
00:07:10
Speaker 2: And I think any juror, especially anyone who is of any faith, frankly, and look, in the Massachusetts area, you're gonna have a lot of Catholics. That's just an area of the world and of the country that you have a high concentration of Catholics. That would offend I would imagine any Catholic juror who was listening to that, Because to use religion as a pawn in a courtroom for non specified reasons other than just to get a reaction not cool.
00:07:41
Speaker 1: And for a woman to what, like you said, there's not yesterday in that courtroom. You could argue, there's nobody that love those three kids more than that woman on the stand. Can you do this to her?
00:07:55
Speaker 3: Not cool at all.
00:07:57
Speaker 2: And then, of course, as you might imagine, our our good friend Kevin, the defense attorney, he immediately objects called there's a sidebar. And then this if the if the jury already didn't know how to feel about that question, when the judge tells the jurors to disregard the question. It looked like an admonishment of the prosecutor for that moment, and it sealed. I think the jury's feeling, I would imagine about what the prosecutor tried to pull.
00:08:28
Speaker 1: You know, when when attorneys robe, We've seen it in this case with the defense attorney, when they try to get something in, get something shocking, right, it's to benefit themselves. Even if the judge sustains the objection, you can feels already heard it now and now in this one, yeah, the juror has already heard it and they're holding it against you exactly.
00:08:51
Speaker 3: It did not help your case. It hurt your case.
00:08:54
Speaker 2: The defense then put up several medical professionals, a psychiatristor Donald Condy. He never met or treated Lindsey, and he just talked about how he believed she was dealing with postpartum The prosecution was questioning his experience with that particular disorder, so they tried to discredit him. It was fine that a forensic pathologist, doctor Elizabeth La Posada came up. Now she testified this was interesting via zoom, and there were some delays in getting her up because they were having some technical issues, but eventually she did testify via zoom. She reviewed medical records, and this was an interesting back and forth because she is the one who says that Clancy fell head first from that window, meaning she was trying to kill herself. You don't jump head first from a window if you're just trying to fake a suicide attempt. So that's why her testimony was important. She said she had what was called a Jefferson fracture, which spreads from the base of the skull out like doughnut. She described all of her injuries, and she also addressed this lowered body temperature that we keep seeing so many conspiracy theorists point to as to why Lindsay Clancy couldn't have actually tried to kill herself because she had been on the ground for so long and her body temperature was so low that it means that anyway, It is all this craziness that's online.
00:10:22
Speaker 1: I think this will end the debate for them now, I would hope.
00:10:25
Speaker 2: So you've got a clinical or a forensic pathologist saying that, yes, Lindsay Clancy was lying on the hard, frozen ground which was thirty two degrees, Her clothing was wet, she had indoor clothing.
00:10:36
Speaker 3: There was no sun.
00:10:38
Speaker 2: The air temperature was thirty degrees. She's an extremely thin person, and that all explains the eighty two degrees that her body was at when she was brought into the hospital. Hopefully that will put conspiracy theorists, at least that part of it to rest.
00:10:51
Speaker 1: That theory was what, there's no way she could have gotten her body temperature that low. That means she was out there longer. So that means Patrick Clancy is lying.
00:10:59
Speaker 2: That's the theory is that he pushed her out and then ran the errands and then came and pretended to find her. But it wasn't just twenty minutes on the ground where he was doing that. She had been there for much longer, and that explained her lower body temperature. That's the conspiracy theorist's way of looking at it. But this doctor hopefully put that to rest. But look, the prosecution when they had cross examination time pushed, pushed, push on this falling head first thing and said she fell to the frozen ground and then had no apparent injury to the exterior of her head.
00:11:30
Speaker 3: Correct, she said, correct.
00:11:34
Speaker 2: Yes, And she explained all the other injuries and said that absolutely can happen. And then there was this back and forth about how long it would have taken, and this was another theatrical moment by the prosecutors pulling out once again those murder weapons, the exercise bands, to say how long the kid suffered, how long it would have taken them to blackout, because La Posada said they would have blacked out within five to ten seconds because of just the way the ligature works and how quickly Lindsay Clancy was able to tighten that ligature anyway. Awful to think about, but they were disputing. They wanted to make it known, make or have the jury believe that the kids suffered.
00:12:16
Speaker 1: For much longer, which is supposed to what.
00:12:20
Speaker 3: Make you angry at Lindsay Clancy.
00:12:22
Speaker 1: I'm angry that you keep bringing this up exactly. I'm angry that you keep bringing out bands that I know. I am sitting feet from a band that was around an eight month old's neck that killed him. I don't want to be exposed to that unnecessarily constantly.
00:12:39
Speaker 3: Yet she actually tightened it then dropped it to the ground.
00:12:41
Speaker 2: Yes she did, Okay, yes, And so look, your prosecutors are doing what they think is going to evoke a certain emotion from jurors to convict Lindsay Clancy. The problem is when you evoke emotion, it can work for you or against you. And I personally wouldn't appreciate as a juror being having my emotions played with like that. And it's very obvious what the prosecutor is.
00:13:05
Speaker 3: Trying to do.
00:13:06
Speaker 1: Again, I've read some right attorneys doing their analysis of it. I don't see a whole lot endorsing the way the prosecution's going about this. Robes it is look a tough case, sure, maybe whatever, but there are just it felt gratuitous some things like you're just like the jurors are being beat up unnecessarily in some moments, robes just in some but hey, they're doing their job and just assume they're doing it in good faith. So I'll leave it at that.
00:13:35
Speaker 2: Yes, they are trying to get justice for those three young children. Now, when we come back, this was a big deal. The forensic psychologist took the stand, who prosecutors have theorized is the one who told Lindsey Clancy after she killed her kids to say she heard a male voice telling her to do it, and welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ. Forensic psychologist, doctor Paul Zeisel, was the final witness to take the stand on Tuesday, and he was significant because this is the doctor who prosecutors didn't even want to testify. They were actually complaining that he was in an area behind the scenes in court shouldn't be allowed on the stand. The judge allowed it anyway. But this is a man who basically his job and has been over the years to evaluate how people present themselves.
00:14:36
Speaker 3: Literally, he figures out whether.
00:14:38
Speaker 2: Or not someone's pretending to have a disease, pretending to have a disorder. That is his specialty. And he testified Lindsay Clancy was not faking. She presented as an honest citizen. He saw her forty five times after the killings, and he first saw her in February, and this is where prosecutors have their theory. He let her use his cell phone to call Patrick. He said he made her put it on speakerphone because she wasn't supposed to be having visitors or contacting anyone. But she said that she wanted to figure out where she stood with him in their marriage. Thought that was really interesting after all of this, she's worried about her marriage, And he said she told him that she loved him very, very, very much. She was trying to tell him how much she loved him, but that is when he said he heard her tell Patrick that she heard a male voice ordering her, telling her that she didn't have any choice, but that she had to kill her self and had to kill her children. And he denied that he ever told her to make up this story to Patrick.
00:15:48
Speaker 1: Again, she had not told the doctor. The first time anybody was told this was Patrick Clancy. Do I have that right? Correct?
00:15:55
Speaker 3: Correct?
00:15:56
Speaker 2: And he was the one who witnessed her telling Patrick Clancy that. And look, I thought this was interesting because he said he really, he really went into specifics about what psychosis is, and I thought this was fascinating. He said that Lindsay Clancy felt like other people could hear her thoughts as well, that her thoughts were so loud that strangers could hear them, and she was getting paranoid that people could hear what she was thinking. And he said, psychosis can have intermittent symptoms. They come like waves at the beach. They come and they go. They're not always present. And you love the defense attorney. I love how we put this. He's like so basically you're saying, to be in a state of psychosis, you don't have to be talking to the.
00:16:38
Speaker 3: Unicorn in the corner.
00:16:40
Speaker 2: And that is exactly what the psychiatrist testify Tod.
00:16:46
Speaker 1: That's correct, colloquial. He speaks in a way you can understand. That's plane spoken down home. I get with that. Oh okay, yeah, I get he talks that way, man, and he that's the matter. What we say that the prosecution hasn't been as a depth robes he lands his plane. He does every time a doctor explained something. It's kind of like this, okay, so you're.
00:17:06
Speaker 2: Saying, yeah, you're saying, they don't have to be talking to unicorns in the corner. Landed it right, and you get that. So he was really explaining that psychosis is not a constant state. It is an intermittent state. And that is exactly what we have seen described and testified to for these several weeks. When we talk about who Lindsay Clancy was, how do you basically put together a woman who's been described by everyone as basically the best mom in the world, and then at the same time a woman who strangled her three young children to death one by one. I mean it's just hard to reconcile those two versions of the same woman. And he is saying how you do it is by learning and understanding what psychosis is.
00:17:52
Speaker 1: This guy was impressive and that will excuse me. He demanded a certain amount robes of respect and you get his experts tise fine with his resume, but robes when when they say, oh, he saw her forty plus.
00:18:06
Speaker 3: Time, forty five times, I mean and the.
00:18:08
Speaker 1: Prosecutors had some folks up. Yeah, I saw her once twenty minute, twenty minutes.
00:18:13
Speaker 3: I never saw her in person.
00:18:14
Speaker 1: Yeah, these sound like people who have a better handle on what was going on with her because they treated her more, they saw her more.
00:18:21
Speaker 2: Yes, now doctor Seisel only saw her after the killings. So today it is going to be a hell of a day we predict in court today because doctor Seizel is going to be cross examined by the prosecutors and they have probably been shopping at the bit for this one because this is their guy. This is the guy that they are going to try to take down in court. I think it's going to be a pretty explosive day in court today.
00:18:50
Speaker 1: Again, the key is what I mean, they're flat out the suggestion. Are they going to question him and say he is lying when he says he didn't tell this woman.
00:18:59
Speaker 2: I imagine they're going to heavily suggest it and put it in jurors minds, and we'll see how this doctor reacts to the cross examination, which almost certainly is going to be very contentious.
00:19:11
Speaker 1: The last thing here, do you recogniur c as well, the back and forth Like the defense attorney, he's a little more aggressive and how he goes about things, but I never have found him necessarily rude. There seemed to be a lot of like combative cross examination with the prosecution and talking over each other. It's a different kind of a level. I don't know why reading my guy, the defense guy seems like even aggressively and taking people down. He didn't seem to have this same tact that the pro am I crazy.
00:19:45
Speaker 2: You know, And you're right because I actually didn't even mention that. There was Several people who have been describing what they witness in the courtroom described talking over each other, shouting each other down. It feels like there is you mentioned the word desperation. It feels like the prosecution is getting frustrated and you can feel it even in their because you can cross examine someone and you can call their either their expertise or their testimony into question expertly the way we've seen the defense attorney do it, or you can see them do it in a almost defensive, contentious, desperate, sarcastic way, it doesn't.
00:20:25
Speaker 3: It doesn't work.
00:20:27
Speaker 1: Some condescending moments and stuff that's going on, like so so you didn't need da dada, so you're telling me got it? That kind of stuff where the defense attorney's had moments. We've said he's had Perry Mason moments and all he has is reiterate, so you didn't even see her in person, like it's a different way he's going about it. And you're right, Ropes, is this what we are seeing now is a desperate prosecution. It feels different.
00:20:53
Speaker 2: It certainly does. And today will be certainly a day to watch. You know, we will be and we'll report back to you with everything that happens in court on this Wednesday. But we always appreciate you listening to us. I may be Robot alongside T. J.
00:21:06
Speaker 3: Holmes. We'll talk soon
Speaker 1: Hey, that folks. It is Wednesday, August nineteenth, and we gotta say this was one of the more fascinating days and the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. With that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ Rope. That had a little bit of everything. That was tension. There were contentious back and forth, there were objections, there were shocking statements that were made, and we learned a little more. There were a bunch of experts up there rope. There was a lot going on that it's almost hard to keep up with. This was a big.
00:00:34
Speaker 2: Day, It certainly was, and you mentioned contentious moments. There was, in particular, a very contentious question that was asked by the prosecutors that actually forced the judge to then tell the jurors to disregard the question, forget the answer. So we'll get into it, and it began with Lindsay Clancy's former mother in law. Look, normally, daughters in law and mothers in law historically notoriously don't get along. Right now? Is about that all the time? Are you joking right now? Yes, it's a thing. So it is remarkable to see Lindsay Clancy's former mother in law get up on the stand and testify in her daughter in law's defense. And this is the woman who killed her three grandchildren. This is the woman her son divorced. And she was up there talking about how Lindsay Clancy was a the way she put it, she was a very nurturing, very loving. She was a wonderful mother, just wonderful. I mean to hear that.
00:01:46
Speaker 1: It's consistent. I mean, everybody's spoken about, right, it's it's consistent. And if this, if anybody had a reason, no, get me wrong, this woman is not doesn't hasn't come all for any suggestion that anybody is after Lindsey Clancy. If you will, well, if there was anybody up there that would take issue, the juror would understand if the mother in law exactly might say something negative, yes, or her to give such a ringing endorsement has to speak to that jury.
00:02:14
Speaker 3: Yes, that lands.
00:02:16
Speaker 2: Any woman who has married a man and he has a mother who's still alive knows that that is oftentimes a difficult relationship. And especially given these circumstances, the most horrific thing you could think possible, she would have every reason to hold some resentment against Lindsey Clancy to see that she had none, and to see that she herself was a labor and delivery nurse. She knows more than anyone perhaps in Lindsy Clancy's circle, what postpartum depression looks like, what those types of moments might be like for a new mom or for a tired mom. And it was I thought very telling and compelling to have Susan Clancy defend her former daughter in law.
00:03:03
Speaker 1: Yeah, that was effective by the defense to but yeah, to have her up there, absolutely, I don't know how this, I don't know you, and I actually I'm glad we haven't. We actually haven't discussed the moment from her testimony.
00:03:18
Speaker 2: Yes, So, after she is questioned by the defense saying that Lindsay Clancy was begging for help and wanted to get better. I thought, by the way, that was an effective way to put it. She was begging for help and she wanted to get better. She talked about having no appetite, insomnia, anxious, sad. So she reiterated everything we've heard from so many witnesses, even prosecution witness says, who have all testified to the same. So the prosecution gets up to cross examine her starts bringing up this weed gummy thing again. They keep bringing the weed gummy up.
00:03:51
Speaker 1: Why, I don't know, just.
00:03:53
Speaker 2: To kind of act as though she was self medicating on top of prescription drugs, maybe acting reckless or recklessly and maybe taking drugs that people weren't aware of. They're just trying to paint a bad picture of her. But I don't know why they keep bringing up this weed gummy thing.
00:04:09
Speaker 1: Don't both folks these days know what weed gummies do.
00:04:13
Speaker 3: They chill you out, and.
00:04:15
Speaker 1: Folks aren't running around and getting arrested for crimes they committed. What I were high on weed.
00:04:19
Speaker 3: Gummies doesn't make you homicidal.
00:04:21
Speaker 1: I'm missing. There might be something they're piecing together that we're missing, and maybe the jury is getting it. But yeah, it.
00:04:26
Speaker 2: Keeps seeing and it's never landed once, and it especially did in this time because she asked, did you know that Lindsay Clancy had taken a weed gummy? And Susan Clancy says nope, didn't know and didn't seem to care. But the big moment was when the prosecutor asked Susan Clancy if she was still a member of the Catholic Church. Yes, she's Catholic, that's her faith.
00:04:49
Speaker 1: Okay, but your eyebrow before you get to the next part ropes, But starting right there, is there a point to that question before you even get to is there anything relevant to that? So when you hear it the first time, did you did you think, well, where is it going? Or did you think like, what the hell?
00:05:06
Speaker 3: I thought, where is this going?
00:05:08
Speaker 2: Look, as someone who was raised Catholic, I understand when I heard the question what the prosecutor was trying to do, and it was absolutely theater. So she said to then Susan Clancy, and you're aware that murder is considered a mortal sin?
00:05:25
Speaker 3: What to me?
00:05:27
Speaker 2: That makes if I were a member of the jury, that would make me absolutely feel anger towards the prosecutor because it's so obvious what she was trying to do in that moment, try to play on Susan Clancy's Catholic faith and her upbringing that yes, a murder is considered a mortal sin, that you're going to hell, and she wanted her to say something I don't even know negative about Lindsey Clancy. In that moment, they were trying to get her to say something bad about her but all it did was make the prosecution look bad.
00:06:01
Speaker 3: In my opinion, we.
00:06:02
Speaker 1: Don't know the prosecutors and just have to hold on to hope and give them grace that these are decent folks who have a very difficult job and they're doing what they actually believe in good faith. Robes, that was a bad moment. We've talked about how they have tried to paint a picture and trying to get the jury to emotionally respond to Lindsey Clancy and stuff she's done get them to feel a certain way about her by putting up the autopsy photos, keep showing the murder weapons. I want you to be angry at this woman. Robes, they produced a moment that I genuinely was angry at the prosecutor.
00:06:36
Speaker 3: I agree, I felt the same way.
00:06:38
Speaker 1: They genuinely produced one that made you feel personally some way about them, like how what are you doing? These people lost a major something. That loss is still being felt and they're having to relive it all. You're gonna take her to task because she's not giving enough negative answers. So I'm gonna play on your Catholic faith and try to call you out for not what adhering to your religion the way you should rose. That was awful and it reaked a desperation.
00:07:09
Speaker 3: It did. That's a good way to put it.
00:07:10
Speaker 2: And I think any juror, especially anyone who is of any faith, frankly, and look, in the Massachusetts area, you're gonna have a lot of Catholics. That's just an area of the world and of the country that you have a high concentration of Catholics. That would offend I would imagine any Catholic juror who was listening to that, Because to use religion as a pawn in a courtroom for non specified reasons other than just to get a reaction not cool.
00:07:41
Speaker 1: And for a woman to what, like you said, there's not yesterday in that courtroom. You could argue, there's nobody that love those three kids more than that woman on the stand. Can you do this to her?
00:07:55
Speaker 3: Not cool at all.
00:07:57
Speaker 2: And then, of course, as you might imagine, our our good friend Kevin, the defense attorney, he immediately objects called there's a sidebar. And then this if the if the jury already didn't know how to feel about that question, when the judge tells the jurors to disregard the question. It looked like an admonishment of the prosecutor for that moment, and it sealed. I think the jury's feeling, I would imagine about what the prosecutor tried to pull.
00:08:28
Speaker 1: You know, when when attorneys robe, We've seen it in this case with the defense attorney, when they try to get something in, get something shocking, right, it's to benefit themselves. Even if the judge sustains the objection, you can feels already heard it now and now in this one, yeah, the juror has already heard it and they're holding it against you exactly.
00:08:51
Speaker 3: It did not help your case. It hurt your case.
00:08:54
Speaker 2: The defense then put up several medical professionals, a psychiatristor Donald Condy. He never met or treated Lindsey, and he just talked about how he believed she was dealing with postpartum The prosecution was questioning his experience with that particular disorder, so they tried to discredit him. It was fine that a forensic pathologist, doctor Elizabeth La Posada came up. Now she testified this was interesting via zoom, and there were some delays in getting her up because they were having some technical issues, but eventually she did testify via zoom. She reviewed medical records, and this was an interesting back and forth because she is the one who says that Clancy fell head first from that window, meaning she was trying to kill herself. You don't jump head first from a window if you're just trying to fake a suicide attempt. So that's why her testimony was important. She said she had what was called a Jefferson fracture, which spreads from the base of the skull out like doughnut. She described all of her injuries, and she also addressed this lowered body temperature that we keep seeing so many conspiracy theorists point to as to why Lindsay Clancy couldn't have actually tried to kill herself because she had been on the ground for so long and her body temperature was so low that it means that anyway, It is all this craziness that's online.
00:10:22
Speaker 1: I think this will end the debate for them now, I would hope.
00:10:25
Speaker 2: So you've got a clinical or a forensic pathologist saying that, yes, Lindsay Clancy was lying on the hard, frozen ground which was thirty two degrees, Her clothing was wet, she had indoor clothing.
00:10:36
Speaker 3: There was no sun.
00:10:38
Speaker 2: The air temperature was thirty degrees. She's an extremely thin person, and that all explains the eighty two degrees that her body was at when she was brought into the hospital. Hopefully that will put conspiracy theorists, at least that part of it to rest.
00:10:51
Speaker 1: That theory was what, there's no way she could have gotten her body temperature that low. That means she was out there longer. So that means Patrick Clancy is lying.
00:10:59
Speaker 2: That's the theory is that he pushed her out and then ran the errands and then came and pretended to find her. But it wasn't just twenty minutes on the ground where he was doing that. She had been there for much longer, and that explained her lower body temperature. That's the conspiracy theorist's way of looking at it. But this doctor hopefully put that to rest. But look, the prosecution when they had cross examination time pushed, pushed, push on this falling head first thing and said she fell to the frozen ground and then had no apparent injury to the exterior of her head.
00:11:30
Speaker 3: Correct, she said, correct.
00:11:34
Speaker 2: Yes, And she explained all the other injuries and said that absolutely can happen. And then there was this back and forth about how long it would have taken, and this was another theatrical moment by the prosecutors pulling out once again those murder weapons, the exercise bands, to say how long the kid suffered, how long it would have taken them to blackout, because La Posada said they would have blacked out within five to ten seconds because of just the way the ligature works and how quickly Lindsay Clancy was able to tighten that ligature anyway. Awful to think about, but they were disputing. They wanted to make it known, make or have the jury believe that the kids suffered.
00:12:16
Speaker 1: For much longer, which is supposed to what.
00:12:20
Speaker 3: Make you angry at Lindsay Clancy.
00:12:22
Speaker 1: I'm angry that you keep bringing this up exactly. I'm angry that you keep bringing out bands that I know. I am sitting feet from a band that was around an eight month old's neck that killed him. I don't want to be exposed to that unnecessarily constantly.
00:12:39
Speaker 3: Yet she actually tightened it then dropped it to the ground.
00:12:41
Speaker 2: Yes she did, Okay, yes, And so look, your prosecutors are doing what they think is going to evoke a certain emotion from jurors to convict Lindsay Clancy. The problem is when you evoke emotion, it can work for you or against you. And I personally wouldn't appreciate as a juror being having my emotions played with like that. And it's very obvious what the prosecutor is.
00:13:05
Speaker 3: Trying to do.
00:13:06
Speaker 1: Again, I've read some right attorneys doing their analysis of it. I don't see a whole lot endorsing the way the prosecution's going about this. Robes it is look a tough case, sure, maybe whatever, but there are just it felt gratuitous some things like you're just like the jurors are being beat up unnecessarily in some moments, robes just in some but hey, they're doing their job and just assume they're doing it in good faith. So I'll leave it at that.
00:13:35
Speaker 2: Yes, they are trying to get justice for those three young children. Now, when we come back, this was a big deal. The forensic psychologist took the stand, who prosecutors have theorized is the one who told Lindsey Clancy after she killed her kids to say she heard a male voice telling her to do it, and welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ. Forensic psychologist, doctor Paul Zeisel, was the final witness to take the stand on Tuesday, and he was significant because this is the doctor who prosecutors didn't even want to testify. They were actually complaining that he was in an area behind the scenes in court shouldn't be allowed on the stand. The judge allowed it anyway. But this is a man who basically his job and has been over the years to evaluate how people present themselves.
00:14:36
Speaker 3: Literally, he figures out whether.
00:14:38
Speaker 2: Or not someone's pretending to have a disease, pretending to have a disorder. That is his specialty. And he testified Lindsay Clancy was not faking. She presented as an honest citizen. He saw her forty five times after the killings, and he first saw her in February, and this is where prosecutors have their theory. He let her use his cell phone to call Patrick. He said he made her put it on speakerphone because she wasn't supposed to be having visitors or contacting anyone. But she said that she wanted to figure out where she stood with him in their marriage. Thought that was really interesting after all of this, she's worried about her marriage, And he said she told him that she loved him very, very, very much. She was trying to tell him how much she loved him, but that is when he said he heard her tell Patrick that she heard a male voice ordering her, telling her that she didn't have any choice, but that she had to kill her self and had to kill her children. And he denied that he ever told her to make up this story to Patrick.
00:15:48
Speaker 1: Again, she had not told the doctor. The first time anybody was told this was Patrick Clancy. Do I have that right? Correct?
00:15:55
Speaker 3: Correct?
00:15:56
Speaker 2: And he was the one who witnessed her telling Patrick Clancy that. And look, I thought this was interesting because he said he really, he really went into specifics about what psychosis is, and I thought this was fascinating. He said that Lindsay Clancy felt like other people could hear her thoughts as well, that her thoughts were so loud that strangers could hear them, and she was getting paranoid that people could hear what she was thinking. And he said, psychosis can have intermittent symptoms. They come like waves at the beach. They come and they go. They're not always present. And you love the defense attorney. I love how we put this. He's like so basically you're saying, to be in a state of psychosis, you don't have to be talking to the.
00:16:38
Speaker 3: Unicorn in the corner.
00:16:40
Speaker 2: And that is exactly what the psychiatrist testify Tod.
00:16:46
Speaker 1: That's correct, colloquial. He speaks in a way you can understand. That's plane spoken down home. I get with that. Oh okay, yeah, I get he talks that way, man, and he that's the matter. What we say that the prosecution hasn't been as a depth robes he lands his plane. He does every time a doctor explained something. It's kind of like this, okay, so you're.
00:17:06
Speaker 2: Saying, yeah, you're saying, they don't have to be talking to unicorns in the corner. Landed it right, and you get that. So he was really explaining that psychosis is not a constant state. It is an intermittent state. And that is exactly what we have seen described and testified to for these several weeks. When we talk about who Lindsay Clancy was, how do you basically put together a woman who's been described by everyone as basically the best mom in the world, and then at the same time a woman who strangled her three young children to death one by one. I mean it's just hard to reconcile those two versions of the same woman. And he is saying how you do it is by learning and understanding what psychosis is.
00:17:52
Speaker 1: This guy was impressive and that will excuse me. He demanded a certain amount robes of respect and you get his experts tise fine with his resume, but robes when when they say, oh, he saw her forty plus.
00:18:06
Speaker 3: Time, forty five times, I mean and the.
00:18:08
Speaker 1: Prosecutors had some folks up. Yeah, I saw her once twenty minute, twenty minutes.
00:18:13
Speaker 3: I never saw her in person.
00:18:14
Speaker 1: Yeah, these sound like people who have a better handle on what was going on with her because they treated her more, they saw her more.
00:18:21
Speaker 2: Yes, now doctor Seisel only saw her after the killings. So today it is going to be a hell of a day we predict in court today because doctor Seizel is going to be cross examined by the prosecutors and they have probably been shopping at the bit for this one because this is their guy. This is the guy that they are going to try to take down in court. I think it's going to be a pretty explosive day in court today.
00:18:50
Speaker 1: Again, the key is what I mean, they're flat out the suggestion. Are they going to question him and say he is lying when he says he didn't tell this woman.
00:18:59
Speaker 2: I imagine they're going to heavily suggest it and put it in jurors minds, and we'll see how this doctor reacts to the cross examination, which almost certainly is going to be very contentious.
00:19:11
Speaker 1: The last thing here, do you recogniur c as well, the back and forth Like the defense attorney, he's a little more aggressive and how he goes about things, but I never have found him necessarily rude. There seemed to be a lot of like combative cross examination with the prosecution and talking over each other. It's a different kind of a level. I don't know why reading my guy, the defense guy seems like even aggressively and taking people down. He didn't seem to have this same tact that the pro am I crazy.
00:19:45
Speaker 2: You know, And you're right because I actually didn't even mention that. There was Several people who have been describing what they witness in the courtroom described talking over each other, shouting each other down. It feels like there is you mentioned the word desperation. It feels like the prosecution is getting frustrated and you can feel it even in their because you can cross examine someone and you can call their either their expertise or their testimony into question expertly the way we've seen the defense attorney do it, or you can see them do it in a almost defensive, contentious, desperate, sarcastic way, it doesn't.
00:20:25
Speaker 3: It doesn't work.
00:20:27
Speaker 1: Some condescending moments and stuff that's going on, like so so you didn't need da dada, so you're telling me got it? That kind of stuff where the defense attorney's had moments. We've said he's had Perry Mason moments and all he has is reiterate, so you didn't even see her in person, like it's a different way he's going about it. And you're right, Ropes, is this what we are seeing now is a desperate prosecution. It feels different.
00:20:53
Speaker 2: It certainly does. And today will be certainly a day to watch. You know, we will be and we'll report back to you with everything that happens in court on this Wednesday. But we always appreciate you listening to us. I may be Robot alongside T. J.
00:21:06
Speaker 3: Holmes. We'll talk soon