Aug. 30, 2026
Killer Mom Trial: This is How We'd Vote If We Were on the Clancy Jury... and Why
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed Amy and T. J. hold their own 2-person jury deliberations and go over some of the same key questions the Lindsay Clancy jury will have to consider. By the end of these deliberations, one of them (Amy or T.J.) had changed their mind and changed their vote.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. So, how would you vote? As we record this, the jury and the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial are in the middle of deliberations. They've done it for about ten and a half hours as of this recording, so what better time to welcome you to the Amy and TJ jury deliberations. And yes, with that, welcome, everybody. I said that, Robes, I.
00:00:28
Speaker 1: As much as we talk about this case, you and I haven't sat down. I actually don't know where you are and how you would vote. So we're actually going to take you through a real, I guess, kind of pseudo jury deliberation and try to talk some of this stuff out. Is it fair, babe? I'm not sure. Have you gone back and forth and swayed from one side to the other?
00:00:46
Speaker 2: No.
00:00:46
Speaker 1: I didn't think so.
00:00:47
Speaker 2: No, but I do leave space right now if I'm entering jury deliberations with having seen... pretty much all of the testimony, I am oscillating. I would be okay with one of two verdicts.
00:01:03
Speaker 1: Okay, but you have not along some point in five weeks gone, man, I would vote her guilty as hell or been on the other side, not guilty for sure. You have not ever been in the guilty camp, I don't necessarily think. No.
00:01:16
Speaker 2: Okay.
00:01:17
Speaker 3: How about you?
00:01:18
Speaker 1: I don't think so. I mean, from the opening statement, statement i was a little confused that the case sometimes the prosecution was weighing but all right well we'll work this out again we'll remind of the options that they do have first second manslaughter not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity we can throw out the not guilty it's no way they're just going to say.
00:01:40
Speaker 2: Not guilty she's guilty she killed her kids we can all agree and that does take one of the biggest questions in almost every single murder trial completely off.
00:01:49
Speaker 1: The table Yes, there it is. That option is not there. They're not going to make some statement. That would be wild to think they would take some stand. That's not happening. We're fair.
00:02:01
Speaker 3: She killed her kids.
00:02:02
Speaker 1: Okay, there we go. First-degree murder, though, roves this idea of premeditation and extreme atrocity and cruelty have to be a part of that. That might be a high bar, even though, babe. It is extreme atrocity and cruelty if you strangle three kids.
00:02:15
Speaker 3: There's no question.
00:02:16
Speaker 1: So you have to think she is somewhat mentally ill to have that one, yes?
00:02:21
Speaker 2: Or you just think she deliberately planned this and she didn't mind the extreme atrocity or cruelty because it meant freedom for her as a woman. Okay.
00:02:32
Speaker 1: Committed with malice or extreme recklessness. That's second degree. Manslaughter, calls to death through extreme carelessness. Again, that kind of gives an option, right?
00:02:41
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think the second degree thing requires you to consider that she didn't plan it or she didn't premeditate it, which I think is tough. And then the manslaughter thing came with the juror instructions from the judge that that absolutely could be, that's where you can consider having a mental illness contribute to your decision to kill someone.
00:03:09
Speaker 1: You just said manslaughter on that one?
00:03:10
Speaker 3: Manslaughter.
00:03:11
Speaker 2: They're allowed to consider her mental condition, her mental health as a contributing factor. And that gives some leeway there, some wiggle room for folks who believe she's still intentionally killed her children, but mental illness or perhaps the prescription drug she was on contributed to that decision.
00:03:32
Speaker 1: One other thing having to do with first-degree rape. Do I have it right, though? Extreme atrocity, cruelty, deliberate premeditation. To vote her guilty of first-degree murder, we have to think completely that she's not mentally ill?
00:03:47
Speaker 2: Well, we have to believe with that one, my understanding is that mental illness did not Cause any of it.
00:03:55
Speaker 3: Cause that.
00:03:56
Speaker 2: That that wasn't the root cause for her decision. That yes, it could have been a part of where she was, but it's not, it doesn't excuse her.
00:04:04
Speaker 1: You can still say, we can decide she's mentally ill, sure. That had nothing to do with what.
00:04:09
Speaker 3: Plenty of people who.
00:04:10
Speaker 2: Are bipolar, who are even schizophrenic, who are, who have some sort of diagnosed, certainly depression, mental illness, have killed people and been found guilty of first degree murder. It doesn't absolve them automatically of the premeditation and the extreme atrocity or cruelty.
00:04:29
Speaker 1: Okay, so let's get to our deliberations now. We go into our jury room, and here it is, a jury of two. Who wants to be the foreperson? How should we do this?
00:04:36
Speaker 3: You are just, I think, a natural-born foreperson.
00:04:39
Speaker 1: But you like the attention more. You like to tell people what to do.
00:04:41
Speaker 3: I don't like the pressure, though.
00:04:42
Speaker 1: You like to be in charge.
00:04:43
Speaker 3: I don't think you mind the pressure.
00:04:44
Speaker 1: I'm kidding. You're the foreperson. Okay, so when they go in, from our understanding in a lot of deliberations, first thing they do is take an initial poll to see where everybody is. All right, so it's just the two of us. Either one of us initially voting for first-degree murder.
00:04:59
Speaker 2: No.
00:05:00
Speaker 1: Either of us going for second-degree murder.
00:05:01
Speaker 3: Absolutely not.
00:05:03
Speaker 1: Either of us going for not guilty. No. Either of us right now for not guilty by reason of insanity.
00:05:14
Speaker 3: Yes.
00:05:14
Speaker 1: Okay, your first vote is that.
00:05:16
Speaker 3: Well, that's what I was trying to figure out.
00:05:18
Speaker 1: Your initial poll.
00:05:19
Speaker 3: My first vote would be not guilty by reason of insanity.
00:05:21
Speaker 1: Okay, I didn't think we'd end up here. I'm manslaughter right now. I'm initially, I did not know we'd get here. We did not. We intentionally, she was about to say it to me earlier and we just, let's save it for the episode. Okay. So initially we're in a different place. So is there an option out of the five, let's ask ourselves, that is off the table? Like you're not even considering that. What?
00:05:46
Speaker 3: Second-degree murder is off the table for me completely.
00:05:48
Speaker 1: Okay, so not guilty and second-degree.
00:05:51
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:05:51
Speaker 1: I assume not guilty is off the table for both of us.
00:05:53
Speaker 3: Yes, that's off the table.
00:05:53
Speaker 1: She did it. Second-degree. Is anything else off the table?
00:06:00
Speaker 3: Hmm.
00:06:01
Speaker 2: I would listen to somebody's argument about first-degree murder.
00:06:05
Speaker 1: Okay, so everything's on the table.
00:06:06
Speaker 2: I think everything's on the table. I have my opinion, but I wouldn't be closed off to the possibility that someone could convince me a first-degree murder.
00:06:16
Speaker 3: I think it's low.
00:06:17
Speaker 1: Could convince you.
00:06:18
Speaker 3: It's low for me.
00:06:20
Speaker 2: I leave a little space for it because there were a few things that bothered me that I'd be open to listening to and curious to hear how other people.
00:06:31
Speaker 3: Felt about it.
00:06:32
Speaker 1: Pretty close to being off the table for me.
00:06:33
Speaker 3: Pretty close to being off the table for me, too.
00:06:35
Speaker 1: Completely off the table. Okay, so then you are on I'm Manslaughter, You Are Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity.
00:06:41
Speaker 2: Mm-hmm.
00:06:42
Speaker 1: What areas, and we'll get into, but where do you need some clarification to make you feel better about that vote?
00:06:49
Speaker 3: About the vote that I chose?
00:06:51
Speaker 1: That you've chosen now.
00:06:52
Speaker 3: Right?
00:06:52
Speaker 1: You're there. You were a little hesitant. So what is it you would like to need more clarification on?
00:06:57
Speaker 2: So I'm going between manslaughter and not guilty by reason of insanity.
00:07:03
Speaker 3: My point.
00:07:04
Speaker 2: questions are and my issues with not being a hundred percent not guilty by reason of insanity is the fact that I think it is a little suspicious that she never heard the voice before, never heard the voice again, and just how methodical she was at planning it out and how she pretended to be okay.
00:07:26
Speaker 3: Like the day.
00:07:27
Speaker 2: Before and the day of were described as the best day yet of in this saga of a months-long battle with depression and dark thoughts that she knew to pretend to have the best day yet so that she was sending photos of all the fun, wonderful things she was doing with her kids to her mother, to her husband, almost to lure them into believing that she was good. That makes me a little uncomfortable with the insanity.
00:07:59
Speaker 1: See, and I saw that as them And this is evidence we don't have access to, but I would ask for it. I thought that was a matter of them saying she was on the meds the way she was supposed to be on the meds leading up to. And that's why they had, and she was having such good days. That's from my memory. Obviously, we don't have the evidence in front of us the way they would.
00:08:16
Speaker 3: But it takes a while for meds to kick in.
00:08:18
Speaker 2: So yeah, if she had been consistently taking the dosage she was prescribed and Let's presume or assume that the doctors finally got it right. And it does take some months of experimentation. Anyone who has had, I had a very long bout of chronic headaches. So yes, you know that there's a little bit of a period of time where doctors are playing around to find what the right combination.
00:08:39
Speaker 3: Of drugs is to address your problem.
00:08:41
Speaker 2: So yes, say she was, then how would suddenly things take such a dark twist where she had the time to plan and all of these things to get them in place to have that be the day she followed through.
00:08:55
Speaker 1: You are making an argument that your own vote is not the right vote.
00:09:00
Speaker 3: Well, I'm questioning it.
00:09:02
Speaker 2: I also, the reason why my first vote was insanity was that I just can't imagine that she chose to kill her kids in a right state of mind. Because I believe she believed that she was actually doing right by them, that she was actually doing the best thing for them, that she was protecting them, that she was safeguarding them. And for her to believe that, to me, she would have to be insane.
00:09:34
Speaker 1: Okay, so let's get to what we need to work out then to figure out whether or not she was insane. We need to figure out which of these doctors we're going to believe. Do we not? Isn't this come down to? They are the ones who are explaining to me her behavior and whether or not she's sane or insane from a legal standpoint. So isn't that what we need to do? We need to figure out doctors.
00:09:54
Speaker 2: It's that, it's doctors, and then it's also just your reasonable expectation of what you think.
00:10:00
Speaker 3: Is likely.
00:10:01
Speaker 2: I mean, that has to come into it too. You do rely on your own beliefs, your own intuition, your own interpretation.
00:10:10
Speaker 1: But that is only based on whether or not these doctors, I believe, what they are telling me about mental illness. And then I can look at her behavior and say, okay, I can explain it this way based on what this doctor told me. All this stuff is wild to me, but I'm trying to see it through whatever illness she had. And I got different doctors telling me different things.
00:10:28
Speaker 2: Right. Well, let me ask you, why do you believe she's not insane, she didn't experience psychosis, and why you believe she is criminally responsible through the lens of, yes, knowing that she was dealing with a mental illness?
00:10:42
Speaker 1: Because It's not even a matter of, it makes sense to me, babe, that it contributed in some way to her killing these kids. It did contribute in some way. And I guess it's like manslaughter versus murder, right? When you get behind the wheel of a car and you're drinking and you're being irresponsible and God forbid you hit somebody, you kill somebody. Yeah, you are responsible for that because your actions caused you to be in this particular state of mind and not able to function with that car. I don't know. There's such a bizarre line of responsibility here. What the doctor should have been doing, what she should have been doing in contributing to her own care, ropes to where the science is just not definitive enough. And none of these doctors are convincing enough to let me know, oh, it clearly she was blank. So with all that messiness and muddiness happening, I mean, some of her doctors, maybe. If you told me you wanted to bring them up on manslaughter charges, I might listen. I'm saying there's a lot of responsibility. And manslaughter does allow me to give some to her, but not all to her, because there is uncertainty about this.
00:11:55
Speaker 2: What do you think she could have done differently that would have ended with a different outcome? What could she personally have done differently?
00:12:02
Speaker 1: See, I don't understand fully the drugs, what she was taking. When she was taking it, if she was doing exactly what she should have been doing. Robes, her husband was watching this woman deteriorate day in, day out. I know some people have gone after him and whatnot.
00:12:18
Speaker 2: Does he have culpability in having to, if he didn't see that intervention was needed, then how could her doctors?
00:12:26
Speaker 1: And also, how could she? All these things could be argued, Robes, to where there seems like there was such a failure that it's hard to go first degree and put it all on her. But it's also hard to do the insanity part to say there wasn't something along the way. And it is. When they added manslaughter, sweetheart, if manslaughter wasn't in there, we are 100. I don't know how we'd ever get, I don't know how I could get to first degree.
00:12:50
Speaker 2: I don't think I could ever get to first degree. Well, I don't say I think. I know that now that we've just talked it through, I know I left a little space open, but I do think at the end of the day, in my heart of hearts... I don't believe she should be charged in the same way, or convicted, excuse me, in the same way that some awful killer goes out and deliberately takes someone's life and viciously murders them. I don't think they're the same, and I don't think they should be held to the same standard because I don't think they are equatable.
00:13:28
Speaker 1: Okay, let me ask this then. The doctors, this is a key point. Do you believe all of them?
00:13:34
Speaker 2: No.
00:13:34
Speaker 1: What I mean by that is.
00:13:36
Speaker 2: No.
00:13:36
Speaker 1: Even though... You think there's a credibility issue in that some of them don't know what the hell they're talking about.
00:13:40
Speaker 3: Yes, and I think that some of them had an agenda.
00:13:43
Speaker 1: That's a credibility issue.
00:13:45
Speaker 3: Yes.
00:13:45
Speaker 2: I think some of them had an agenda, and I think... I don't think the science is there.
00:13:51
Speaker 3: Okay.
00:13:53
Speaker 2: In the way it should be for me or for any of these experts to actually be able to say, beyond a reasonable.
00:13:59
Speaker 3: Doubt, just how sick she was.
00:14:02
Speaker 1: Just.
00:14:03
Speaker 2: what the level of psychosis was, if she was in psychosis. I don't feel like either side proved to me beyond a reasonable doubt that she was or was not in a state of psychosis.
00:14:15
Speaker 1: What was proven to you then beyond a reasonable doubt based on doctor testimony?
00:14:18
Speaker 3: That this woman was mentally ill.
00:14:19
Speaker 1: Okay, but that doesn't mean she is not criminally responsible. Right.
00:14:22
Speaker 2: The question is, and this is where I am struggling and I'm imagining the jurors are struggling. There's the legal issue and then there's the moral issue and the point.
00:14:34
Speaker 3: Do I believe she knew morally what was right and wrong? Yes, I do.
00:14:40
Speaker 2: Because she wouldn't have hidden her actions. And she wouldn't have pretended that she was good if she wasn't, if she didn't know that people would.
00:14:51
Speaker 3: Try and stop her.
00:14:52
Speaker 1: Then why isn't that the end of your debate?
00:14:55
Speaker 2: Because you could attribute that to mental illness because... she convinced herself that no matter what, it was still the right thing to do. In her mind, even though she knew socially, legally, it was wrong, she might have felt like because of a mental illness and being in a cloud of psychosis, she might have justified it to herself genuinely in her state of psychosis, in her state of mental illness, that it was still the right thing to do, even if it went against what society deems right.
00:15:28
Speaker 1: Okay, but it sounds like you're talking yourself, you're excusing the right or wrong based on mental illness. Is that fair to say?
00:15:33
Speaker 3: Yes.
00:15:35
Speaker 2: Her basis of right and wrong was in her own world and outside of.
00:15:42
Speaker 3: Our norms.
00:15:42
Speaker 1: So she didn't actually know right from wrong.
00:15:46
Speaker 3: I think in her mind she was doing what was right for her kids.
00:15:48
Speaker 1: Okay, but that flies in the face of what is actually right or wrong.
00:15:51
Speaker 2: I know.
00:15:51
Speaker 1: Is that mental illness?
00:15:53
Speaker 3: I don't know.
00:15:53
Speaker 1: So here it sounds like to me.
00:15:57
Speaker 1: You almost cancel out all the doctors. Like, none of them is more credible than another. Nobody convinced you of anything.
00:16:04
Speaker 3: Yes, I think that's true. I think that's true. How about you? Where do you stand on the doctors?
00:16:08
Speaker 1: I would lean, but I'm not. It's not a hard lean. I'm with you. I think if I had to pick which doctors I trust more, I would probably be on the defense side.
00:16:19
Speaker 3: Resnick.
00:16:20
Speaker 1: Resnick, for sure. But a lot of it had to do with ropes. Mack and... Like, they were taken down in such a way that, to your point, you don't think that maybe they're not stupid people. But robes, they came off to having an agenda. And if that agenda was even to protect their own reputations, that doesn't come off well when I'm trying to decide a woman's fate. Babe, just them defending themselves and the way they did it took away.
00:16:48
Speaker 3: I go back to even her.
00:16:50
Speaker 2: her doctor, Jennifer Tufts, who was one month out of being board certified, who had never seen a postpartum psychosis patient.
00:17:01
Speaker 3: And that was the person who actually was.
00:17:03
Speaker 2: At the head of her care, who oversaw everything else and everyone else she was speaking to. And she relied on her and went to her and sought her advice and counsel and her medical advice because she said she was a postpartum expert.
00:17:21
Speaker 3: And she wasn't.
00:17:22
Speaker 2: And so I look to the failures of even that singular doctor, because the other doctors all were after the fact, right?
00:17:29
Speaker 3: They evaluated her. They looked at the medical records.
00:17:33
Speaker 2: They evaluated her years after the murders. So if I go back to the doctor who was overseeing her care at that time, I think she absolutely and almost criminally let her down. Because she said she was one thing, and she was not equipped to handle this level of mental illness.
00:17:52
Speaker 1: So we're talking about the same, I think we're talking about the same thing here. As we start to talk this out, babe, there are other responsible parties who contributed in some way. So that's why, okay, maybe we could say this now that we're into deliberations a little bit. First degree is off the table.
00:18:11
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think I'm there. First degree is off the table now.
00:18:13
Speaker 1: First degree is off the table.
00:18:14
Speaker 3: It is for me, yes.
00:18:15
Speaker 1: Another part of it, and this has been a key point during the trial, the suicide attempt. Do you believe, any part of you believes that was a half-hearted suicide attempt?
00:18:26
Speaker 3: No, I think she wanted to die, and I believe she still wants to die.
00:18:29
Speaker 1: Okay, so what did that argument from the state mean to you? Because it was almost ridiculous, and then they came back later in the closing and said, well, yeah, it was a serious, but they tried to convince us, I felt, am I wrong, throughout, that this was not a real attempt.
00:18:46
Speaker 2: They were absolutely trying to insinuate, and I actually find that to be kind of cheap. Like, either say you think she didn't, or she did, but I felt like they were trying to have it both ways, and they were trying to read the tea leaves and try to, like, Figure out which direction the wind was blowing and then adjust their sails.
00:19:04
Speaker 3: I didn't like that.
00:19:05
Speaker 2: So I don't think they knew or they were hoping that maybe it could look like she didn't actually try.
00:19:12
Speaker 3: But when she tried three different ways, drugs, knife and falling. She didn't do any of them correctly, unfortunately.
00:19:20
Speaker 2: So she wasn't, and look, I know she wasn't good at killing herself, but she was great at killing her kids because she had a limited period of time. And I know that's somehow supposed to imply that she didn't really want to die.
00:19:30
Speaker 3: I just don't believe that.
00:19:31
Speaker 2: I don't believe a woman who loved her children as much as I do believe Lindsay Clancy loved her kids.
00:19:36
Speaker 3: Maybe it was a selfish love. Maybe it was through a lens of control.
00:19:40
Speaker 1: Okay.
00:19:41
Speaker 2: But I do believe she loved her kids more than life itself. And so I do believe she did not want to be on this earth without them.
00:19:47
Speaker 1: Okay, so that part about a fake... suicide attempt or in some way that is evidence of her not being in psychosis or evidence of her not being mentally ill or evidence that she had a whole plan and premeditation. I never bought that.
00:20:02
Speaker 3: Yeah. You believe it was a true suicide attempt.
00:20:05
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I was offended to some degree, and it goes to the credibility of the state. When you're telling me something, like, really?
00:20:11
Speaker 2: That takes absolute credibility away from prosecutors.
00:20:15
Speaker 3: For me, yes.
00:20:17
Speaker 1: It does. There were several moments of that. The other robes, and it might be, it was one of the biggest obstacles in the courtroom, but I assure you, it was one of the biggest obstacles for me in trying to decide guilt or innocence of Lindsay Clancy.
00:20:35
Speaker 2: All right, our....
00:20:45
Speaker 1: Uh, jury deliberations continue here. We've gotten somewhere. This is funny. Once you start talking things out, things start to become clear.
00:20:52
Speaker 2: Yeah. Because I think initially, and I imagine all the jurors go into it this way. I wanted to keep first degree open just for a moment, like give me your best reason why you think this could possibly be the way to go. Now, neither one of us were advocating for that, but even if I heard someone's someone's reasoning behind that verdict, I think pretty quickly I would be shutting it down. I would leave a little space, but yeah, I, upon us actually having this conversation, I, I would not be comfortable at all voting for first degree murder.
00:21:24
Speaker 1: Okay. Here is my biggest struggle. Um, bro. And this is where I thought the prosecution started making some headway. This idea of her going in and out of psychosis. You mentioned this a short time ago about her hearing the voice in the, very specific time frame and never hearing it again, when they had their experts up ropes trying to make sense out of how she was able. If a voice is telling her to do something, the phone rings, she doesn't answer it, she continues this process of killing the kids, then she calls her husband back, then she gets off the phone, and then she continues her process. Like the in and out of reality and the dream state and the voices, that for me made me stop.
00:22:06
Speaker 3: You know what? And I'm with you.
00:22:09
Speaker 2: It's kind of crazy to think about it, but the phone call back to Patrick really is a problem for me.
00:22:15
Speaker 1: Can't make sense of that.
00:22:16
Speaker 3: It's a problem for me.
00:22:18
Speaker 2: And but then I also weigh it along with if she really were faking it. Right. She wanted it to look like I don't think there's any question she was mentally ill, but if she was trying.
00:22:27
Speaker 3: To really push this. I heard a voice. I was in psychosis theory.
00:22:32
Speaker 2: Wouldn't she haveâ because she Googled psychosis. She Googled a lot of this ahead of time. Probably I'm going to choose to believe to self-diagnose because we all do that. If we have problems, if I have issues, I'll Google what are the symptoms for. You could also argue that she was doing it to know what to say toâ who were likely to interview her, to police who were likely to interview, to her own husband who was going to have questions. But if she did the research and then she had a plan, wouldn't she talk about hearing voices still? She would know better than to just act as though it was a singular event. Like, if you were trying to play off that you were in a state of psychosis, wouldn't you do a better job of it?
00:23:18
Speaker 3: I guess is my point.
00:23:19
Speaker 1: So you're saying... that the scenario actually lends itself to it being credible for you.
00:23:25
Speaker 3: Correct, because if she were trying to put.
00:23:27
Speaker 1: To fake it.
00:23:28
Speaker 2: To fake it, she would say she was still hearing voices. She could pretend to be crazier than she is.
00:23:36
Speaker 3: She didn't seem to do that. She didn't seem to be putting on for anyone who was evaluating her.
00:23:43
Speaker 1: Do you pause at all for the suggestion? Again, they didn't say it directly, but insinuation, again, by the statement. that one of the defense attorneys, one of their doctors, planted in her head to say.
00:23:55
Speaker 2: Zizel, I believe, is who they claimed possibly did that. But watching Zizel on the stand didn't seem like he'd be somebody who would do that.
00:24:02
Speaker 1: It's a non-fact, okay.
00:24:03
Speaker 2: He absolutely testified under oath that that did not happen. And I just don't see why a medical professional would do that. Why would they give somebody a defense or an out? I don't think that is... Most people who get into the medical profession, obviously, you've got bad apples. But generally speaking, and someone who's accredited and somebody who's familiar with this, I can't imagine they would put their entire career and credibility on the line by trying to slip somebody a defense right after they've murdered their three children.
00:24:32
Speaker 3: That doesn't seem likely to me.
00:24:33
Speaker 1: Okay. Here is, as we get down to the nitty gritty, and we'll ask again and figure out what your final vote and what my final vote would be. Can you accept an outcome that does not include... prison time for her. You can.
00:24:49
Speaker 3: Yes.
00:24:50
Speaker 2: And see, this is where I am struggling between the two because I don't, I would like to hear your thoughts on this. I don't believe after everything I've seen and heard, I don't believe Lindsay Clancy belongs in prison.
00:25:10
Speaker 3: What do you think?
00:25:14
Speaker 1: Well, that means we don't think, or that suggests, we don't think she should be punished for what she did.
00:25:22
Speaker 2: I believe that every day she breathes air, she's being punished. I believe every day without her children, she is being punished. I believe that is... the worst possible prison sentence she could actually receive is to live another day knowing that her kids aren't on this earth and she's the reason why. Okay.
00:25:46
Speaker 1: But she did it. She's responsible for it. And that's not how we punish criminals in this country. We say, wow, that's going to be painful for you for years to come.
00:25:59
Speaker 3: May I add this?
00:26:00
Speaker 1: Please.
00:26:02
Speaker 3: This is a whole other.
00:26:05
Speaker 2: Concept that may not ever come up in a jury deliberation room. But if someone isn't a threat to the rest of society, and I don't, I believe the only threat Lindsay Clancy is, is to herself. I don't think Lindsay Clancy is going to, if she were a free woman, that she was going to be a homicidal maniac and put other people and members of her community in danger.
00:26:29
Speaker 3: I don't believe that.
00:26:30
Speaker 2: Okay.
00:26:31
Speaker 1: I don't know that. I actually don't. I don't know if she's a threat to fellow prisoners. I don't know if she's a threat to whatever new family she could have. I don't know. Now, I can tell you that.
00:26:41
Speaker 3: Well, a new family, that would be scary. You're right. That is scary. And I wouldn't, yes.
00:26:46
Speaker 2: But I do think, I don't think she should be walking freely. I don't think that she should be living in a house next door to us.
00:26:54
Speaker 1: I don't.
00:26:55
Speaker 2: But I do think that she's somebody who needs help. massive, round-the-clock mental health treatment. And I do think she should be committed to a mental facility, without a doubt.
00:27:11
Speaker 3: But I just don't know what.
00:27:14
Speaker 2: Purpose it serves to put her behind bars in a jail, in a prison community.
00:27:19
Speaker 1: Well, I think if we ask that question, what purpose it serves is different from what responsibility she has. That's totally different. I don't think it serves much of a purpose and punishment in what you're saying. Robes, I don't, in terms of her suffering or whatever it may be, but Robes, if we find that she is, does hold whatever level of responsibility, then why the hell should she not be in prison? Because we feel bad for her, because Tufts was a terrible doctor to her. No disrespect, I'm saying what came off in court. I'm not consulting this lady. I'm saying, Robes, if she holds responsibility, she's got to go to prison.
00:27:58
Speaker 3: Do you consider.
00:27:59
Speaker 1: Yes?
00:28:01
Speaker 2: That her ex-husband, her mother, her mother-in-law, family, friends, none of them want her behind bars.
00:28:10
Speaker 3: Do you consider that as a juror?
00:28:13
Speaker 1: As I sit here, no. I don't. I don't. There are some cases where we do and we think about the wishes of the family or the victim's family. This is a little different. This is a little different.
00:28:28
Speaker 2: And I.
00:28:29
Speaker 1: How do you make that balance? If you can accept an outcome that doesn't include prison time, the only one here that he has leeway on is manslaughter.
00:28:41
Speaker 3: Yes, and so that was the other thing I would be thinking as a juror.
00:28:45
Speaker 2: The judge, if say we did agree that manslaughter was the right call, the judge has remarkable discretion. He can give Lindsey Clancy zero to 20 years. And so do you then say, all right, I think she has some criminal responsibility, but mostly mental illness was behind this. And so that's why we're going to give manslaughter.
00:29:07
Speaker 3: And I trust this judge who has.
00:29:10
Speaker 2: Seen way more cases and crimes and has had much more experience than I do as a juror who is receiving this and witnessing this and processing this for the first time. I'm going to leave the actual punishment up to him. And he gets full credit. Full discretion, basically, to decide if she spends any or some amount of time in prison. I think I could sleep at night giving him that responsibility.
00:29:37
Speaker 1: Okay, but if he comes back and doesn't send her to jail, at all, or he sends her to prison for 20 years, are you comfortable?
00:29:43
Speaker 3: Well, then I feel less responsible.
00:29:46
Speaker 1: Okay, but are you comfortable? You put it in his hands. Are you in agreement? If he has a leeway, 20 years, he could. Are you comfortable with that? Because that's what you're signing off on. You're just rolling the dice that he's not going to do it. And even if he does, not me.
00:30:02
Speaker 3: I could be comfortable with that.
00:30:03
Speaker 2: Okay.
00:30:03
Speaker 1: 20 years in prison for him.
00:30:05
Speaker 3: I don't think that's correct.
00:30:06
Speaker 2: But again, either way, even if you're finding someone guilty for whatever reason, obviously you don't get to choose sentencing, right?
00:30:13
Speaker 3: How do you feel about that?
00:30:14
Speaker 1: Well, I was about to go to our final vote, and then you said something that triggered another thought, and I forgot it already.
00:30:22
Speaker 2: Oh.
00:30:23
Speaker 1: About what you'd be okay with. You just triggered another thought and I lost it.
00:30:26
Speaker 3: Well, what would you be okay with? I'm curious.
00:30:28
Speaker 2: Because your initial, your first vote was manslaughter. Are you okay with Lindsay Clancy serving no prison time and solely being committed to a mental health facility?
00:30:39
Speaker 1: Solely being committed to a mental health facility? Yeah.
00:30:44
Speaker 3: You'd be okay with that?
00:30:46
Speaker 1: I think I am. But that doesn't mean I want, it doesn't necessarily tell you how I'm going to vote.
00:30:54
Speaker 2: Could you be convinced to if everyone if you were the holdout, could you be convinced to switch your vote to not guilty by reason of insanity? Is there any space where you could be convinced?
00:31:10
Speaker 1: There is. I haven't heard the argument yet because I would have 10 other jurors in here. I just have you. So if there are 10 more strong arguments, there's probably one in there I'd sit up and listen to a little more because you're not representing everybody's argument. And it seems like everybody on the street has a different one.
00:31:23
Speaker 2: Yes, and I don't know how strongly I feel about my initial vote. I feel like I'm on the fence between manslaughter and not guilty by reason of insanity.
00:31:34
Speaker 1: Okay, so not guilty by reason. Are we willing to say that she is not criminally going to be held responsible for... for strangling these three kids.
00:31:45
Speaker 3: And when you put it like that, that's when I hesitate.
00:31:47
Speaker 1: That's just, it is what it is. Are we also going to say she should be put in prison for 20 years? Possibly. Because her first doctor was a month out of school. Because she had four other doctors prescribing her 17 other drugs that weren't in great coordination and that weren't great collaboration. Are we going to put her in jail for 20 years because she was living with this man who was watching her every day? She was talking to the mom this close every day. Are we going to put this woman in prison because of a diagnosis that the frickin' community actually has no clue about and is not studying and the best in the world at it? We had to use them for the only two trials. Yates, the same experts because there ain't many out there. So are we, those are the questions, babe, when you say it like that. Where do you fall? So this is where we have to come to our final vote because we're coming up on a weekend here as jurors and we've been deliberating for six days. Can't we go home? Let's just finish this. So what would your final vote be and why?
00:33:06
Speaker 2: My final vote would still be not guilty by reason of insanity, because I do believe that she had to be in a state of, I don't know if it was psychosis, but she was in a severe state of mental illness. And that is the reason why she killed her kids. But if I was the outlier, if everyone else was telling me manslaughter, I would switch my vote to manslaughter.
00:33:34
Speaker 1: Why aren't you holding... Why wouldn't you hold firm?
00:33:36
Speaker 3: Because that wouldn't be enough for me to hang a jury.
00:33:38
Speaker 1: But that's what you believe, though, right?
00:33:39
Speaker 2: I believe that, but I also leave space for the fact that because that's just my feeling, but I also leave space for and could get behind the idea that mental illness still contributed to it, but she still holds some level of personal responsibility in her actions.
00:33:55
Speaker 3: And so I would.
00:33:57
Speaker 2: I would absolutely join the rest of the group and say, I'm okay with manslaughter. It wouldn't be my first choice, but I'm not so against it that I wouldn't say, I would sign off on manslaughter. I would.
00:34:09
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm still a manslaughter vote. I'm still a manslaughter vote. The only other option. I don't think second degree, you have it in front of you? The second degree by chance?
00:34:18
Speaker 2: I do have second degree murder. And to me, it just doesn't make sense. Committed with malice or extreme recklessness, yes. But without prior planning.
00:34:26
Speaker 3: That's not true.
00:34:26
Speaker 2: She did plan it. I just don't think that that would even make sense. She did plan it. There's no question she planned it. It was testified to and not shown otherwise.
00:34:37
Speaker 1: She planned it. We hear this all the time. Premeditation can be seconds.
00:34:41
Speaker 3: Correct.
00:34:41
Speaker 1: It actually can be seconds.
00:34:42
Speaker 3: But she planned it throughout the day.
00:34:44
Speaker 1: So in that legal language.
00:34:47
Speaker 3: I would never get behind second degree murder.
00:34:48
Speaker 1: Second degree. No. You would never get behind first degree. So there are two options.
00:34:52
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:34:52
Speaker 1: Are they not?
00:34:53
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:34:54
Speaker 1: I'm a manslaughter vote. There's nothing we can... It's not like we put an asterisk by it and ask the judge, hey, could you please do this or that?
00:35:00
Speaker 3: I wonder if you could.
00:35:01
Speaker 1: I have to be comfortable with her getting no time in prison or 20. And that's why I can vote for manslaughter. If he gave her none and commit her... Or Rose, the other thing, suspended sentence. Yes, exactly. If he were to do that... I.
00:35:17
Speaker 3: Would be so behind that because I do like the idea of.
00:35:22
Speaker 2: saying that she is on paper, there is an acknowledgement that she bears responsibility, but there's also that acknowledgement that she was absolutely let down by the medical community and she was absolutely suffering.
00:35:36
Speaker 3: From an extreme mental illness.
00:35:38
Speaker 2: So that would be, to me, the perfect world would be, find a manslaughter verdict with a suspended sentence and a very harsh sentence mental health facility, like a long, long sentence. And I know doctors ultimately get to decide, but like even Andrea Gates, when she ended up being committed, she has absolutely like refused to even be considered to be released. She doesn't want to be released. I don't know where Lindsay Clancy is going to fall on this, but that makes a lot of sense. I just, I don't think this woman is itching to get out to meet a new man and have more kids or itching to get out to go live a great life and travel the world. I don't, I don't see that that is her motivation or ever was to have some child-free life. I do think she needs significant mental health care, and she belongs in a facility who can possibly learn from her. Maybe we can learn about her and learn about what led up to her actions and use it to make sure it doesn't happen again. But yes, so I think in our jury of two, I'm comfortable with manslaughter.
00:36:42
Speaker 3: And I always was.
00:36:43
Speaker 2: I just was slightly more in the not guilty camp, but I do, I'm going to go with manslaughter.
00:36:49
Speaker 1: All right. Two manslaughter votes here, I guess it is, folks. But again, as of this recording, the jury in the Lindsay Clancy trial is deliberated 10 and a half hours. And they're going to start back up tomorrow, again, as of this recording. But there you go. That's where we are in our jury deliberations. We always appreciate you spending a little time with us. That's Robes. I'm TJ. See y'all soon.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. So, how would you vote? As we record this, the jury and the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial are in the middle of deliberations. They've done it for about ten and a half hours as of this recording, so what better time to welcome you to the Amy and TJ jury deliberations. And yes, with that, welcome, everybody. I said that, Robes, I.
00:00:28
Speaker 1: As much as we talk about this case, you and I haven't sat down. I actually don't know where you are and how you would vote. So we're actually going to take you through a real, I guess, kind of pseudo jury deliberation and try to talk some of this stuff out. Is it fair, babe? I'm not sure. Have you gone back and forth and swayed from one side to the other?
00:00:46
Speaker 2: No.
00:00:46
Speaker 1: I didn't think so.
00:00:47
Speaker 2: No, but I do leave space right now if I'm entering jury deliberations with having seen... pretty much all of the testimony, I am oscillating. I would be okay with one of two verdicts.
00:01:03
Speaker 1: Okay, but you have not along some point in five weeks gone, man, I would vote her guilty as hell or been on the other side, not guilty for sure. You have not ever been in the guilty camp, I don't necessarily think. No.
00:01:16
Speaker 2: Okay.
00:01:17
Speaker 3: How about you?
00:01:18
Speaker 1: I don't think so. I mean, from the opening statement, statement i was a little confused that the case sometimes the prosecution was weighing but all right well we'll work this out again we'll remind of the options that they do have first second manslaughter not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity we can throw out the not guilty it's no way they're just going to say.
00:01:40
Speaker 2: Not guilty she's guilty she killed her kids we can all agree and that does take one of the biggest questions in almost every single murder trial completely off.
00:01:49
Speaker 1: The table Yes, there it is. That option is not there. They're not going to make some statement. That would be wild to think they would take some stand. That's not happening. We're fair.
00:02:01
Speaker 3: She killed her kids.
00:02:02
Speaker 1: Okay, there we go. First-degree murder, though, roves this idea of premeditation and extreme atrocity and cruelty have to be a part of that. That might be a high bar, even though, babe. It is extreme atrocity and cruelty if you strangle three kids.
00:02:15
Speaker 3: There's no question.
00:02:16
Speaker 1: So you have to think she is somewhat mentally ill to have that one, yes?
00:02:21
Speaker 2: Or you just think she deliberately planned this and she didn't mind the extreme atrocity or cruelty because it meant freedom for her as a woman. Okay.
00:02:32
Speaker 1: Committed with malice or extreme recklessness. That's second degree. Manslaughter, calls to death through extreme carelessness. Again, that kind of gives an option, right?
00:02:41
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think the second degree thing requires you to consider that she didn't plan it or she didn't premeditate it, which I think is tough. And then the manslaughter thing came with the juror instructions from the judge that that absolutely could be, that's where you can consider having a mental illness contribute to your decision to kill someone.
00:03:09
Speaker 1: You just said manslaughter on that one?
00:03:10
Speaker 3: Manslaughter.
00:03:11
Speaker 2: They're allowed to consider her mental condition, her mental health as a contributing factor. And that gives some leeway there, some wiggle room for folks who believe she's still intentionally killed her children, but mental illness or perhaps the prescription drug she was on contributed to that decision.
00:03:32
Speaker 1: One other thing having to do with first-degree rape. Do I have it right, though? Extreme atrocity, cruelty, deliberate premeditation. To vote her guilty of first-degree murder, we have to think completely that she's not mentally ill?
00:03:47
Speaker 2: Well, we have to believe with that one, my understanding is that mental illness did not Cause any of it.
00:03:55
Speaker 3: Cause that.
00:03:56
Speaker 2: That that wasn't the root cause for her decision. That yes, it could have been a part of where she was, but it's not, it doesn't excuse her.
00:04:04
Speaker 1: You can still say, we can decide she's mentally ill, sure. That had nothing to do with what.
00:04:09
Speaker 3: Plenty of people who.
00:04:10
Speaker 2: Are bipolar, who are even schizophrenic, who are, who have some sort of diagnosed, certainly depression, mental illness, have killed people and been found guilty of first degree murder. It doesn't absolve them automatically of the premeditation and the extreme atrocity or cruelty.
00:04:29
Speaker 1: Okay, so let's get to our deliberations now. We go into our jury room, and here it is, a jury of two. Who wants to be the foreperson? How should we do this?
00:04:36
Speaker 3: You are just, I think, a natural-born foreperson.
00:04:39
Speaker 1: But you like the attention more. You like to tell people what to do.
00:04:41
Speaker 3: I don't like the pressure, though.
00:04:42
Speaker 1: You like to be in charge.
00:04:43
Speaker 3: I don't think you mind the pressure.
00:04:44
Speaker 1: I'm kidding. You're the foreperson. Okay, so when they go in, from our understanding in a lot of deliberations, first thing they do is take an initial poll to see where everybody is. All right, so it's just the two of us. Either one of us initially voting for first-degree murder.
00:04:59
Speaker 2: No.
00:05:00
Speaker 1: Either of us going for second-degree murder.
00:05:01
Speaker 3: Absolutely not.
00:05:03
Speaker 1: Either of us going for not guilty. No. Either of us right now for not guilty by reason of insanity.
00:05:14
Speaker 3: Yes.
00:05:14
Speaker 1: Okay, your first vote is that.
00:05:16
Speaker 3: Well, that's what I was trying to figure out.
00:05:18
Speaker 1: Your initial poll.
00:05:19
Speaker 3: My first vote would be not guilty by reason of insanity.
00:05:21
Speaker 1: Okay, I didn't think we'd end up here. I'm manslaughter right now. I'm initially, I did not know we'd get here. We did not. We intentionally, she was about to say it to me earlier and we just, let's save it for the episode. Okay. So initially we're in a different place. So is there an option out of the five, let's ask ourselves, that is off the table? Like you're not even considering that. What?
00:05:46
Speaker 3: Second-degree murder is off the table for me completely.
00:05:48
Speaker 1: Okay, so not guilty and second-degree.
00:05:51
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:05:51
Speaker 1: I assume not guilty is off the table for both of us.
00:05:53
Speaker 3: Yes, that's off the table.
00:05:53
Speaker 1: She did it. Second-degree. Is anything else off the table?
00:06:00
Speaker 3: Hmm.
00:06:01
Speaker 2: I would listen to somebody's argument about first-degree murder.
00:06:05
Speaker 1: Okay, so everything's on the table.
00:06:06
Speaker 2: I think everything's on the table. I have my opinion, but I wouldn't be closed off to the possibility that someone could convince me a first-degree murder.
00:06:16
Speaker 3: I think it's low.
00:06:17
Speaker 1: Could convince you.
00:06:18
Speaker 3: It's low for me.
00:06:20
Speaker 2: I leave a little space for it because there were a few things that bothered me that I'd be open to listening to and curious to hear how other people.
00:06:31
Speaker 3: Felt about it.
00:06:32
Speaker 1: Pretty close to being off the table for me.
00:06:33
Speaker 3: Pretty close to being off the table for me, too.
00:06:35
Speaker 1: Completely off the table. Okay, so then you are on I'm Manslaughter, You Are Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity.
00:06:41
Speaker 2: Mm-hmm.
00:06:42
Speaker 1: What areas, and we'll get into, but where do you need some clarification to make you feel better about that vote?
00:06:49
Speaker 3: About the vote that I chose?
00:06:51
Speaker 1: That you've chosen now.
00:06:52
Speaker 3: Right?
00:06:52
Speaker 1: You're there. You were a little hesitant. So what is it you would like to need more clarification on?
00:06:57
Speaker 2: So I'm going between manslaughter and not guilty by reason of insanity.
00:07:03
Speaker 3: My point.
00:07:04
Speaker 2: questions are and my issues with not being a hundred percent not guilty by reason of insanity is the fact that I think it is a little suspicious that she never heard the voice before, never heard the voice again, and just how methodical she was at planning it out and how she pretended to be okay.
00:07:26
Speaker 3: Like the day.
00:07:27
Speaker 2: Before and the day of were described as the best day yet of in this saga of a months-long battle with depression and dark thoughts that she knew to pretend to have the best day yet so that she was sending photos of all the fun, wonderful things she was doing with her kids to her mother, to her husband, almost to lure them into believing that she was good. That makes me a little uncomfortable with the insanity.
00:07:59
Speaker 1: See, and I saw that as them And this is evidence we don't have access to, but I would ask for it. I thought that was a matter of them saying she was on the meds the way she was supposed to be on the meds leading up to. And that's why they had, and she was having such good days. That's from my memory. Obviously, we don't have the evidence in front of us the way they would.
00:08:16
Speaker 3: But it takes a while for meds to kick in.
00:08:18
Speaker 2: So yeah, if she had been consistently taking the dosage she was prescribed and Let's presume or assume that the doctors finally got it right. And it does take some months of experimentation. Anyone who has had, I had a very long bout of chronic headaches. So yes, you know that there's a little bit of a period of time where doctors are playing around to find what the right combination.
00:08:39
Speaker 3: Of drugs is to address your problem.
00:08:41
Speaker 2: So yes, say she was, then how would suddenly things take such a dark twist where she had the time to plan and all of these things to get them in place to have that be the day she followed through.
00:08:55
Speaker 1: You are making an argument that your own vote is not the right vote.
00:09:00
Speaker 3: Well, I'm questioning it.
00:09:02
Speaker 2: I also, the reason why my first vote was insanity was that I just can't imagine that she chose to kill her kids in a right state of mind. Because I believe she believed that she was actually doing right by them, that she was actually doing the best thing for them, that she was protecting them, that she was safeguarding them. And for her to believe that, to me, she would have to be insane.
00:09:34
Speaker 1: Okay, so let's get to what we need to work out then to figure out whether or not she was insane. We need to figure out which of these doctors we're going to believe. Do we not? Isn't this come down to? They are the ones who are explaining to me her behavior and whether or not she's sane or insane from a legal standpoint. So isn't that what we need to do? We need to figure out doctors.
00:09:54
Speaker 2: It's that, it's doctors, and then it's also just your reasonable expectation of what you think.
00:10:00
Speaker 3: Is likely.
00:10:01
Speaker 2: I mean, that has to come into it too. You do rely on your own beliefs, your own intuition, your own interpretation.
00:10:10
Speaker 1: But that is only based on whether or not these doctors, I believe, what they are telling me about mental illness. And then I can look at her behavior and say, okay, I can explain it this way based on what this doctor told me. All this stuff is wild to me, but I'm trying to see it through whatever illness she had. And I got different doctors telling me different things.
00:10:28
Speaker 2: Right. Well, let me ask you, why do you believe she's not insane, she didn't experience psychosis, and why you believe she is criminally responsible through the lens of, yes, knowing that she was dealing with a mental illness?
00:10:42
Speaker 1: Because It's not even a matter of, it makes sense to me, babe, that it contributed in some way to her killing these kids. It did contribute in some way. And I guess it's like manslaughter versus murder, right? When you get behind the wheel of a car and you're drinking and you're being irresponsible and God forbid you hit somebody, you kill somebody. Yeah, you are responsible for that because your actions caused you to be in this particular state of mind and not able to function with that car. I don't know. There's such a bizarre line of responsibility here. What the doctor should have been doing, what she should have been doing in contributing to her own care, ropes to where the science is just not definitive enough. And none of these doctors are convincing enough to let me know, oh, it clearly she was blank. So with all that messiness and muddiness happening, I mean, some of her doctors, maybe. If you told me you wanted to bring them up on manslaughter charges, I might listen. I'm saying there's a lot of responsibility. And manslaughter does allow me to give some to her, but not all to her, because there is uncertainty about this.
00:11:55
Speaker 2: What do you think she could have done differently that would have ended with a different outcome? What could she personally have done differently?
00:12:02
Speaker 1: See, I don't understand fully the drugs, what she was taking. When she was taking it, if she was doing exactly what she should have been doing. Robes, her husband was watching this woman deteriorate day in, day out. I know some people have gone after him and whatnot.
00:12:18
Speaker 2: Does he have culpability in having to, if he didn't see that intervention was needed, then how could her doctors?
00:12:26
Speaker 1: And also, how could she? All these things could be argued, Robes, to where there seems like there was such a failure that it's hard to go first degree and put it all on her. But it's also hard to do the insanity part to say there wasn't something along the way. And it is. When they added manslaughter, sweetheart, if manslaughter wasn't in there, we are 100. I don't know how we'd ever get, I don't know how I could get to first degree.
00:12:50
Speaker 2: I don't think I could ever get to first degree. Well, I don't say I think. I know that now that we've just talked it through, I know I left a little space open, but I do think at the end of the day, in my heart of hearts... I don't believe she should be charged in the same way, or convicted, excuse me, in the same way that some awful killer goes out and deliberately takes someone's life and viciously murders them. I don't think they're the same, and I don't think they should be held to the same standard because I don't think they are equatable.
00:13:28
Speaker 1: Okay, let me ask this then. The doctors, this is a key point. Do you believe all of them?
00:13:34
Speaker 2: No.
00:13:34
Speaker 1: What I mean by that is.
00:13:36
Speaker 2: No.
00:13:36
Speaker 1: Even though... You think there's a credibility issue in that some of them don't know what the hell they're talking about.
00:13:40
Speaker 3: Yes, and I think that some of them had an agenda.
00:13:43
Speaker 1: That's a credibility issue.
00:13:45
Speaker 3: Yes.
00:13:45
Speaker 2: I think some of them had an agenda, and I think... I don't think the science is there.
00:13:51
Speaker 3: Okay.
00:13:53
Speaker 2: In the way it should be for me or for any of these experts to actually be able to say, beyond a reasonable.
00:13:59
Speaker 3: Doubt, just how sick she was.
00:14:02
Speaker 1: Just.
00:14:03
Speaker 2: what the level of psychosis was, if she was in psychosis. I don't feel like either side proved to me beyond a reasonable doubt that she was or was not in a state of psychosis.
00:14:15
Speaker 1: What was proven to you then beyond a reasonable doubt based on doctor testimony?
00:14:18
Speaker 3: That this woman was mentally ill.
00:14:19
Speaker 1: Okay, but that doesn't mean she is not criminally responsible. Right.
00:14:22
Speaker 2: The question is, and this is where I am struggling and I'm imagining the jurors are struggling. There's the legal issue and then there's the moral issue and the point.
00:14:34
Speaker 3: Do I believe she knew morally what was right and wrong? Yes, I do.
00:14:40
Speaker 2: Because she wouldn't have hidden her actions. And she wouldn't have pretended that she was good if she wasn't, if she didn't know that people would.
00:14:51
Speaker 3: Try and stop her.
00:14:52
Speaker 1: Then why isn't that the end of your debate?
00:14:55
Speaker 2: Because you could attribute that to mental illness because... she convinced herself that no matter what, it was still the right thing to do. In her mind, even though she knew socially, legally, it was wrong, she might have felt like because of a mental illness and being in a cloud of psychosis, she might have justified it to herself genuinely in her state of psychosis, in her state of mental illness, that it was still the right thing to do, even if it went against what society deems right.
00:15:28
Speaker 1: Okay, but it sounds like you're talking yourself, you're excusing the right or wrong based on mental illness. Is that fair to say?
00:15:33
Speaker 3: Yes.
00:15:35
Speaker 2: Her basis of right and wrong was in her own world and outside of.
00:15:42
Speaker 3: Our norms.
00:15:42
Speaker 1: So she didn't actually know right from wrong.
00:15:46
Speaker 3: I think in her mind she was doing what was right for her kids.
00:15:48
Speaker 1: Okay, but that flies in the face of what is actually right or wrong.
00:15:51
Speaker 2: I know.
00:15:51
Speaker 1: Is that mental illness?
00:15:53
Speaker 3: I don't know.
00:15:53
Speaker 1: So here it sounds like to me.
00:15:57
Speaker 1: You almost cancel out all the doctors. Like, none of them is more credible than another. Nobody convinced you of anything.
00:16:04
Speaker 3: Yes, I think that's true. I think that's true. How about you? Where do you stand on the doctors?
00:16:08
Speaker 1: I would lean, but I'm not. It's not a hard lean. I'm with you. I think if I had to pick which doctors I trust more, I would probably be on the defense side.
00:16:19
Speaker 3: Resnick.
00:16:20
Speaker 1: Resnick, for sure. But a lot of it had to do with ropes. Mack and... Like, they were taken down in such a way that, to your point, you don't think that maybe they're not stupid people. But robes, they came off to having an agenda. And if that agenda was even to protect their own reputations, that doesn't come off well when I'm trying to decide a woman's fate. Babe, just them defending themselves and the way they did it took away.
00:16:48
Speaker 3: I go back to even her.
00:16:50
Speaker 2: her doctor, Jennifer Tufts, who was one month out of being board certified, who had never seen a postpartum psychosis patient.
00:17:01
Speaker 3: And that was the person who actually was.
00:17:03
Speaker 2: At the head of her care, who oversaw everything else and everyone else she was speaking to. And she relied on her and went to her and sought her advice and counsel and her medical advice because she said she was a postpartum expert.
00:17:21
Speaker 3: And she wasn't.
00:17:22
Speaker 2: And so I look to the failures of even that singular doctor, because the other doctors all were after the fact, right?
00:17:29
Speaker 3: They evaluated her. They looked at the medical records.
00:17:33
Speaker 2: They evaluated her years after the murders. So if I go back to the doctor who was overseeing her care at that time, I think she absolutely and almost criminally let her down. Because she said she was one thing, and she was not equipped to handle this level of mental illness.
00:17:52
Speaker 1: So we're talking about the same, I think we're talking about the same thing here. As we start to talk this out, babe, there are other responsible parties who contributed in some way. So that's why, okay, maybe we could say this now that we're into deliberations a little bit. First degree is off the table.
00:18:11
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think I'm there. First degree is off the table now.
00:18:13
Speaker 1: First degree is off the table.
00:18:14
Speaker 3: It is for me, yes.
00:18:15
Speaker 1: Another part of it, and this has been a key point during the trial, the suicide attempt. Do you believe, any part of you believes that was a half-hearted suicide attempt?
00:18:26
Speaker 3: No, I think she wanted to die, and I believe she still wants to die.
00:18:29
Speaker 1: Okay, so what did that argument from the state mean to you? Because it was almost ridiculous, and then they came back later in the closing and said, well, yeah, it was a serious, but they tried to convince us, I felt, am I wrong, throughout, that this was not a real attempt.
00:18:46
Speaker 2: They were absolutely trying to insinuate, and I actually find that to be kind of cheap. Like, either say you think she didn't, or she did, but I felt like they were trying to have it both ways, and they were trying to read the tea leaves and try to, like, Figure out which direction the wind was blowing and then adjust their sails.
00:19:04
Speaker 3: I didn't like that.
00:19:05
Speaker 2: So I don't think they knew or they were hoping that maybe it could look like she didn't actually try.
00:19:12
Speaker 3: But when she tried three different ways, drugs, knife and falling. She didn't do any of them correctly, unfortunately.
00:19:20
Speaker 2: So she wasn't, and look, I know she wasn't good at killing herself, but she was great at killing her kids because she had a limited period of time. And I know that's somehow supposed to imply that she didn't really want to die.
00:19:30
Speaker 3: I just don't believe that.
00:19:31
Speaker 2: I don't believe a woman who loved her children as much as I do believe Lindsay Clancy loved her kids.
00:19:36
Speaker 3: Maybe it was a selfish love. Maybe it was through a lens of control.
00:19:40
Speaker 1: Okay.
00:19:41
Speaker 2: But I do believe she loved her kids more than life itself. And so I do believe she did not want to be on this earth without them.
00:19:47
Speaker 1: Okay, so that part about a fake... suicide attempt or in some way that is evidence of her not being in psychosis or evidence of her not being mentally ill or evidence that she had a whole plan and premeditation. I never bought that.
00:20:02
Speaker 3: Yeah. You believe it was a true suicide attempt.
00:20:05
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I was offended to some degree, and it goes to the credibility of the state. When you're telling me something, like, really?
00:20:11
Speaker 2: That takes absolute credibility away from prosecutors.
00:20:15
Speaker 3: For me, yes.
00:20:17
Speaker 1: It does. There were several moments of that. The other robes, and it might be, it was one of the biggest obstacles in the courtroom, but I assure you, it was one of the biggest obstacles for me in trying to decide guilt or innocence of Lindsay Clancy.
00:20:35
Speaker 2: All right, our....
00:20:45
Speaker 1: Uh, jury deliberations continue here. We've gotten somewhere. This is funny. Once you start talking things out, things start to become clear.
00:20:52
Speaker 2: Yeah. Because I think initially, and I imagine all the jurors go into it this way. I wanted to keep first degree open just for a moment, like give me your best reason why you think this could possibly be the way to go. Now, neither one of us were advocating for that, but even if I heard someone's someone's reasoning behind that verdict, I think pretty quickly I would be shutting it down. I would leave a little space, but yeah, I, upon us actually having this conversation, I, I would not be comfortable at all voting for first degree murder.
00:21:24
Speaker 1: Okay. Here is my biggest struggle. Um, bro. And this is where I thought the prosecution started making some headway. This idea of her going in and out of psychosis. You mentioned this a short time ago about her hearing the voice in the, very specific time frame and never hearing it again, when they had their experts up ropes trying to make sense out of how she was able. If a voice is telling her to do something, the phone rings, she doesn't answer it, she continues this process of killing the kids, then she calls her husband back, then she gets off the phone, and then she continues her process. Like the in and out of reality and the dream state and the voices, that for me made me stop.
00:22:06
Speaker 3: You know what? And I'm with you.
00:22:09
Speaker 2: It's kind of crazy to think about it, but the phone call back to Patrick really is a problem for me.
00:22:15
Speaker 1: Can't make sense of that.
00:22:16
Speaker 3: It's a problem for me.
00:22:18
Speaker 2: And but then I also weigh it along with if she really were faking it. Right. She wanted it to look like I don't think there's any question she was mentally ill, but if she was trying.
00:22:27
Speaker 3: To really push this. I heard a voice. I was in psychosis theory.
00:22:32
Speaker 2: Wouldn't she haveâ because she Googled psychosis. She Googled a lot of this ahead of time. Probably I'm going to choose to believe to self-diagnose because we all do that. If we have problems, if I have issues, I'll Google what are the symptoms for. You could also argue that she was doing it to know what to say toâ who were likely to interview her, to police who were likely to interview, to her own husband who was going to have questions. But if she did the research and then she had a plan, wouldn't she talk about hearing voices still? She would know better than to just act as though it was a singular event. Like, if you were trying to play off that you were in a state of psychosis, wouldn't you do a better job of it?
00:23:18
Speaker 3: I guess is my point.
00:23:19
Speaker 1: So you're saying... that the scenario actually lends itself to it being credible for you.
00:23:25
Speaker 3: Correct, because if she were trying to put.
00:23:27
Speaker 1: To fake it.
00:23:28
Speaker 2: To fake it, she would say she was still hearing voices. She could pretend to be crazier than she is.
00:23:36
Speaker 3: She didn't seem to do that. She didn't seem to be putting on for anyone who was evaluating her.
00:23:43
Speaker 1: Do you pause at all for the suggestion? Again, they didn't say it directly, but insinuation, again, by the statement. that one of the defense attorneys, one of their doctors, planted in her head to say.
00:23:55
Speaker 2: Zizel, I believe, is who they claimed possibly did that. But watching Zizel on the stand didn't seem like he'd be somebody who would do that.
00:24:02
Speaker 1: It's a non-fact, okay.
00:24:03
Speaker 2: He absolutely testified under oath that that did not happen. And I just don't see why a medical professional would do that. Why would they give somebody a defense or an out? I don't think that is... Most people who get into the medical profession, obviously, you've got bad apples. But generally speaking, and someone who's accredited and somebody who's familiar with this, I can't imagine they would put their entire career and credibility on the line by trying to slip somebody a defense right after they've murdered their three children.
00:24:32
Speaker 3: That doesn't seem likely to me.
00:24:33
Speaker 1: Okay. Here is, as we get down to the nitty gritty, and we'll ask again and figure out what your final vote and what my final vote would be. Can you accept an outcome that does not include... prison time for her. You can.
00:24:49
Speaker 3: Yes.
00:24:50
Speaker 2: And see, this is where I am struggling between the two because I don't, I would like to hear your thoughts on this. I don't believe after everything I've seen and heard, I don't believe Lindsay Clancy belongs in prison.
00:25:10
Speaker 3: What do you think?
00:25:14
Speaker 1: Well, that means we don't think, or that suggests, we don't think she should be punished for what she did.
00:25:22
Speaker 2: I believe that every day she breathes air, she's being punished. I believe every day without her children, she is being punished. I believe that is... the worst possible prison sentence she could actually receive is to live another day knowing that her kids aren't on this earth and she's the reason why. Okay.
00:25:46
Speaker 1: But she did it. She's responsible for it. And that's not how we punish criminals in this country. We say, wow, that's going to be painful for you for years to come.
00:25:59
Speaker 3: May I add this?
00:26:00
Speaker 1: Please.
00:26:02
Speaker 3: This is a whole other.
00:26:05
Speaker 2: Concept that may not ever come up in a jury deliberation room. But if someone isn't a threat to the rest of society, and I don't, I believe the only threat Lindsay Clancy is, is to herself. I don't think Lindsay Clancy is going to, if she were a free woman, that she was going to be a homicidal maniac and put other people and members of her community in danger.
00:26:29
Speaker 3: I don't believe that.
00:26:30
Speaker 2: Okay.
00:26:31
Speaker 1: I don't know that. I actually don't. I don't know if she's a threat to fellow prisoners. I don't know if she's a threat to whatever new family she could have. I don't know. Now, I can tell you that.
00:26:41
Speaker 3: Well, a new family, that would be scary. You're right. That is scary. And I wouldn't, yes.
00:26:46
Speaker 2: But I do think, I don't think she should be walking freely. I don't think that she should be living in a house next door to us.
00:26:54
Speaker 1: I don't.
00:26:55
Speaker 2: But I do think that she's somebody who needs help. massive, round-the-clock mental health treatment. And I do think she should be committed to a mental facility, without a doubt.
00:27:11
Speaker 3: But I just don't know what.
00:27:14
Speaker 2: Purpose it serves to put her behind bars in a jail, in a prison community.
00:27:19
Speaker 1: Well, I think if we ask that question, what purpose it serves is different from what responsibility she has. That's totally different. I don't think it serves much of a purpose and punishment in what you're saying. Robes, I don't, in terms of her suffering or whatever it may be, but Robes, if we find that she is, does hold whatever level of responsibility, then why the hell should she not be in prison? Because we feel bad for her, because Tufts was a terrible doctor to her. No disrespect, I'm saying what came off in court. I'm not consulting this lady. I'm saying, Robes, if she holds responsibility, she's got to go to prison.
00:27:58
Speaker 3: Do you consider.
00:27:59
Speaker 1: Yes?
00:28:01
Speaker 2: That her ex-husband, her mother, her mother-in-law, family, friends, none of them want her behind bars.
00:28:10
Speaker 3: Do you consider that as a juror?
00:28:13
Speaker 1: As I sit here, no. I don't. I don't. There are some cases where we do and we think about the wishes of the family or the victim's family. This is a little different. This is a little different.
00:28:28
Speaker 2: And I.
00:28:29
Speaker 1: How do you make that balance? If you can accept an outcome that doesn't include prison time, the only one here that he has leeway on is manslaughter.
00:28:41
Speaker 3: Yes, and so that was the other thing I would be thinking as a juror.
00:28:45
Speaker 2: The judge, if say we did agree that manslaughter was the right call, the judge has remarkable discretion. He can give Lindsey Clancy zero to 20 years. And so do you then say, all right, I think she has some criminal responsibility, but mostly mental illness was behind this. And so that's why we're going to give manslaughter.
00:29:07
Speaker 3: And I trust this judge who has.
00:29:10
Speaker 2: Seen way more cases and crimes and has had much more experience than I do as a juror who is receiving this and witnessing this and processing this for the first time. I'm going to leave the actual punishment up to him. And he gets full credit. Full discretion, basically, to decide if she spends any or some amount of time in prison. I think I could sleep at night giving him that responsibility.
00:29:37
Speaker 1: Okay, but if he comes back and doesn't send her to jail, at all, or he sends her to prison for 20 years, are you comfortable?
00:29:43
Speaker 3: Well, then I feel less responsible.
00:29:46
Speaker 1: Okay, but are you comfortable? You put it in his hands. Are you in agreement? If he has a leeway, 20 years, he could. Are you comfortable with that? Because that's what you're signing off on. You're just rolling the dice that he's not going to do it. And even if he does, not me.
00:30:02
Speaker 3: I could be comfortable with that.
00:30:03
Speaker 2: Okay.
00:30:03
Speaker 1: 20 years in prison for him.
00:30:05
Speaker 3: I don't think that's correct.
00:30:06
Speaker 2: But again, either way, even if you're finding someone guilty for whatever reason, obviously you don't get to choose sentencing, right?
00:30:13
Speaker 3: How do you feel about that?
00:30:14
Speaker 1: Well, I was about to go to our final vote, and then you said something that triggered another thought, and I forgot it already.
00:30:22
Speaker 2: Oh.
00:30:23
Speaker 1: About what you'd be okay with. You just triggered another thought and I lost it.
00:30:26
Speaker 3: Well, what would you be okay with? I'm curious.
00:30:28
Speaker 2: Because your initial, your first vote was manslaughter. Are you okay with Lindsay Clancy serving no prison time and solely being committed to a mental health facility?
00:30:39
Speaker 1: Solely being committed to a mental health facility? Yeah.
00:30:44
Speaker 3: You'd be okay with that?
00:30:46
Speaker 1: I think I am. But that doesn't mean I want, it doesn't necessarily tell you how I'm going to vote.
00:30:54
Speaker 2: Could you be convinced to if everyone if you were the holdout, could you be convinced to switch your vote to not guilty by reason of insanity? Is there any space where you could be convinced?
00:31:10
Speaker 1: There is. I haven't heard the argument yet because I would have 10 other jurors in here. I just have you. So if there are 10 more strong arguments, there's probably one in there I'd sit up and listen to a little more because you're not representing everybody's argument. And it seems like everybody on the street has a different one.
00:31:23
Speaker 2: Yes, and I don't know how strongly I feel about my initial vote. I feel like I'm on the fence between manslaughter and not guilty by reason of insanity.
00:31:34
Speaker 1: Okay, so not guilty by reason. Are we willing to say that she is not criminally going to be held responsible for... for strangling these three kids.
00:31:45
Speaker 3: And when you put it like that, that's when I hesitate.
00:31:47
Speaker 1: That's just, it is what it is. Are we also going to say she should be put in prison for 20 years? Possibly. Because her first doctor was a month out of school. Because she had four other doctors prescribing her 17 other drugs that weren't in great coordination and that weren't great collaboration. Are we going to put her in jail for 20 years because she was living with this man who was watching her every day? She was talking to the mom this close every day. Are we going to put this woman in prison because of a diagnosis that the frickin' community actually has no clue about and is not studying and the best in the world at it? We had to use them for the only two trials. Yates, the same experts because there ain't many out there. So are we, those are the questions, babe, when you say it like that. Where do you fall? So this is where we have to come to our final vote because we're coming up on a weekend here as jurors and we've been deliberating for six days. Can't we go home? Let's just finish this. So what would your final vote be and why?
00:33:06
Speaker 2: My final vote would still be not guilty by reason of insanity, because I do believe that she had to be in a state of, I don't know if it was psychosis, but she was in a severe state of mental illness. And that is the reason why she killed her kids. But if I was the outlier, if everyone else was telling me manslaughter, I would switch my vote to manslaughter.
00:33:34
Speaker 1: Why aren't you holding... Why wouldn't you hold firm?
00:33:36
Speaker 3: Because that wouldn't be enough for me to hang a jury.
00:33:38
Speaker 1: But that's what you believe, though, right?
00:33:39
Speaker 2: I believe that, but I also leave space for the fact that because that's just my feeling, but I also leave space for and could get behind the idea that mental illness still contributed to it, but she still holds some level of personal responsibility in her actions.
00:33:55
Speaker 3: And so I would.
00:33:57
Speaker 2: I would absolutely join the rest of the group and say, I'm okay with manslaughter. It wouldn't be my first choice, but I'm not so against it that I wouldn't say, I would sign off on manslaughter. I would.
00:34:09
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm still a manslaughter vote. I'm still a manslaughter vote. The only other option. I don't think second degree, you have it in front of you? The second degree by chance?
00:34:18
Speaker 2: I do have second degree murder. And to me, it just doesn't make sense. Committed with malice or extreme recklessness, yes. But without prior planning.
00:34:26
Speaker 3: That's not true.
00:34:26
Speaker 2: She did plan it. I just don't think that that would even make sense. She did plan it. There's no question she planned it. It was testified to and not shown otherwise.
00:34:37
Speaker 1: She planned it. We hear this all the time. Premeditation can be seconds.
00:34:41
Speaker 3: Correct.
00:34:41
Speaker 1: It actually can be seconds.
00:34:42
Speaker 3: But she planned it throughout the day.
00:34:44
Speaker 1: So in that legal language.
00:34:47
Speaker 3: I would never get behind second degree murder.
00:34:48
Speaker 1: Second degree. No. You would never get behind first degree. So there are two options.
00:34:52
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:34:52
Speaker 1: Are they not?
00:34:53
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:34:54
Speaker 1: I'm a manslaughter vote. There's nothing we can... It's not like we put an asterisk by it and ask the judge, hey, could you please do this or that?
00:35:00
Speaker 3: I wonder if you could.
00:35:01
Speaker 1: I have to be comfortable with her getting no time in prison or 20. And that's why I can vote for manslaughter. If he gave her none and commit her... Or Rose, the other thing, suspended sentence. Yes, exactly. If he were to do that... I.
00:35:17
Speaker 3: Would be so behind that because I do like the idea of.
00:35:22
Speaker 2: saying that she is on paper, there is an acknowledgement that she bears responsibility, but there's also that acknowledgement that she was absolutely let down by the medical community and she was absolutely suffering.
00:35:36
Speaker 3: From an extreme mental illness.
00:35:38
Speaker 2: So that would be, to me, the perfect world would be, find a manslaughter verdict with a suspended sentence and a very harsh sentence mental health facility, like a long, long sentence. And I know doctors ultimately get to decide, but like even Andrea Gates, when she ended up being committed, she has absolutely like refused to even be considered to be released. She doesn't want to be released. I don't know where Lindsay Clancy is going to fall on this, but that makes a lot of sense. I just, I don't think this woman is itching to get out to meet a new man and have more kids or itching to get out to go live a great life and travel the world. I don't, I don't see that that is her motivation or ever was to have some child-free life. I do think she needs significant mental health care, and she belongs in a facility who can possibly learn from her. Maybe we can learn about her and learn about what led up to her actions and use it to make sure it doesn't happen again. But yes, so I think in our jury of two, I'm comfortable with manslaughter.
00:36:42
Speaker 3: And I always was.
00:36:43
Speaker 2: I just was slightly more in the not guilty camp, but I do, I'm going to go with manslaughter.
00:36:49
Speaker 1: All right. Two manslaughter votes here, I guess it is, folks. But again, as of this recording, the jury in the Lindsay Clancy trial is deliberated 10 and a half hours. And they're going to start back up tomorrow, again, as of this recording. But there you go. That's where we are in our jury deliberations. We always appreciate you spending a little time with us. That's Robes. I'm TJ. See y'all soon.