Aug. 28, 2026
Killer Mom Trial: VERDICT WATCH! 9 Women, 3 Men Will Determine Lindsay Clancy’s Fate
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed The jury in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial continues deliberating today, after spending 3 and a half hours on Thursday. After 21 days of testimony and 85 witnesses, the 12 jurors will have five potential verdicts to consider, including manslaughter, that could leave the Massachusetts mom who admitted to killing her three young children in prison for the rest of her life, committed to a mental institution, or free from punishment entirely. Her defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, acknowledged his polarizing personality answering a series of questions from reporters as he left the courthouse, saying he has no idea what the jury is going to decide.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks.
00:00:02
Speaker 2: It is Friday, August 28th. 21 days of the trial. 85 witnesses. Now comes down to 12 jurors who are returning this morning to decide the fate of Lindsay Clancy. With that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. This is a standby episode, right? The clock is ticking. Nothing like a verdict watch.
00:00:23
Speaker 3: Yeah, we are on verdict watch. And yes, we are on the edges of our seats because truly, after watching pretty much everything every single bit of testimony, we're not sure. Even the attorneys, no one ever claims to know what a jury's gonna do, and very rarely do we get it right.
00:00:42
Speaker 1: So this is- Nobody gets it right. This is tough.
00:00:44
Speaker 3: It's so hard to know what 12 individual people are thinking and then how they collectively have to come together. We do know the final makeup of the jurors. We have three men and nine women. And a reporter in the courtroom described the foreperson, a woman who appears to be in her 70s who has been taking consistent notes, is an active listener, has been watching and listening to all the witnesses intently. So they say she stood out, so it makes sense that perhaps she was chosen as the foreperson.
00:01:19
Speaker 2: But they will be back at it today. They deliberated for about three and a half hours yesterday after getting the case, after hearing closing arguments and getting their instructions. So They didn't want to stick around any longer. Oftentimes, judges give them the option. Yesterday, they wanted to get out of there, which may be an indication that they knew they were not close. So they'll come back and they'll start today. A lot of stuff yesterday. Robes did stand out. It was an interesting day in the courtroom. Why is it I thought it was just us? I leaned over and pointed to this TV at one point while we were watching the court proceedings. There were pills. There are pill to be pills. on the defense table right in front of Lindsay Clancy. Now, given all that's been talked about in this case, Robes, that stood out to apparently more than just me.
00:02:07
Speaker 3: Yeah, because you were like, what is that in front of her? And the camera kept expertly panning to her when closing arguments were being given, and her reactions were certainly interesting.
00:02:19
Speaker 1: But then, yes, your eyes were drawn. It looked like there were.
00:02:25
Speaker 3: There were a lot of what seemed to be pills just scattered in front of her.
00:02:30
Speaker 2: They looked like pretty big pills. They reminded me of Mucinex pills, those thicker pills sitting on the table.
00:02:35
Speaker 3: And so the explanation, because her attorney was asked as he left the courtroom, what was that in front of Lindsay Clancy?
00:02:43
Speaker 1: Were those pills? He said they were Altoids or mints?
00:02:47
Speaker 2: Yeah, that was it, just Altoids. Cinnamon, to be particular, and he moved on. But that's just one of those things. Everybody's paying such close attention to every move in that courtroom, every all the body language and whatnot. But but she yesterday, I thought Lindsay Clancy was.
00:03:01
Speaker 3: Hmm.
00:03:04
Speaker 2: I saw for the first time it felt like I was seeing it, for lack of a better word, a a normal woman. She seemed to be reacting to things not just emotionally, but she seemed to be paying attention, sitting up, making eye contact. She seemed more attentive in a way yesterday at times than I'm used to seeing her.
00:03:22
Speaker 1: She did.
00:03:23
Speaker 3: Well, for most of this trial, I would say, with testimony as brutal as it's been, her head has been down, turned away from any of the witnesses, certainly turned away from the jury. She's often done that when she's crying, wiping tears. And just trying to control her emotions. But you're right, today, or excuse me, yesterday, when closing arguments were going on, her face was turned towards the camera, which meant it was turned towards the jury, turned towards the prosecutor as she.
00:03:54
Speaker 1: Was giving her closing arguments.
00:03:55
Speaker 3: And I can't recall seeing that before now.
00:03:59
Speaker 2: Yeah, you might be right. Just the angle. She was required to look more so that direction yesterday because of where the attorneys were standing. during their closings, but that stood out to me yesterday. It was interesting. It was about 10 minutes, but I'm going to tell you now what we did here from Kevin Reddington. And Kevin Reddington, the attorney who is, he's the firebrand, Robes, and you love him or you hate him, and he's getting a lot of heat out there, but he's also getting a lot of love out there. But the cameras are, I mean, what was the count, Robes? The number of people surrounding him, at least 20, maybe 30 plus, following him literally from the door of the courthouse to to the door of his vehicle, which we became bigger fans of his when we saw what he drives.
00:04:44
Speaker 3: He drives the same car we do, a different color, but yeah, he has a Ford Bronco. You were like, because you've obviously been a fan, and I have as well during this trial, just seeing how he's conducted himself. And yes, he is a bit gruff, a bit aggressive, but just so authentically and genuinely himself. For us, we can't help but like him and appreciate his passion and his incredible skills as a lawyer.
00:05:10
Speaker 2: You know, and I didn't realize how I mean, it's gotten ugly out there. Don't even remember if people have their opinions about guilt and innocence and whether or not she was insane. But I saw something this morning just randomly where I wasn't looking for it. And someone called him a killer lover, like nasty comments about him just being willing to represent Lindsay Clancy. It's nasty. And so he's getting a lot of this heat that I don't know. I didn't realize how bad it was, but.
00:05:39
Speaker 3: Yeah. And so look, and we have all been among, I say all, TJ and I have been in that throng of reporters that follow people outside the courtroom. You get a limited amount of time to ask a couple of questions and hopefully they'll answer you. You always cringe though, because there's always that reporter that you don't want to be judged by who just asks a stupid question. And it was an insulting question. Yes, there's a way to ask about how he's handling the negative press, but having... just some of these questions hurled at him, he handled himself very well.
00:06:13
Speaker 2: Yeah, he always has. I mean, he's just who he is. He's not putting on for anybody. So he walks out of the courthouse yesterday and all these reporters, some of them, yes, that you can tell, obviously, they're from TV stations and networks and whatnot. But a lot of people just have handhelds, they have their little their phones out. So you can tell a lot of these are online and influencers, just from a variety of places. They're trying to get him. We see this often, Rose. There's a reason a podium is set up outside. They set it up so reporters don't have to chase. You just put the person you want to hear from in one spot. Everybody puts their mics and let's talk. They were trying to get him to stop.
00:06:46
Speaker 1: Well, most lawyers like to do that. Let's be honest.
00:06:49
Speaker 3: Most defense attorneys, when they get a high profile case like this, where you're now being televised, this means more business.
00:06:56
Speaker 1: This means more money.
00:06:58
Speaker 3: So, yes, they usually don't mind milking the moment and speaking to reporters.
00:07:02
Speaker 1: But you got to love Reddington. He was like, I don't do podiums.
00:07:06
Speaker 2: It wasn't arrogant. It was just honest. Yeah, I don't do podiums and kept walking. So this was a slow walk. I think this walk took about 10 minutes, and it wasn't that far, but it was a very slow walk across the parking lot.
00:07:18
Speaker 1: They were still asking him questions when he was getting into his car.
00:07:21
Speaker 3: Like, it was quite funny. But yes, he said he's never confident, and that makes a lot of sense, because we're all... The few trials we've covered, we've never been right, so we certainly are not confident that we know what the jury's going to do. But he said the jury was great and amazing, because look, by all accounts, they've been very active, and active listeners paying attention.
00:07:41
Speaker 1: You can tell.
00:07:42
Speaker 3: these jurors have truly committed to listening to all of the evidence.
00:07:48
Speaker 1: But yeah, and then they asked him how Lindsay Clancy was doing.
00:07:51
Speaker 2: She's doing all right. She's nervous. She's scared. All that makes sense, but it didn't give us a whole lot. I don't know what it's like to have a conversation with her. Can you have a conversation? I don't know in all of this. She seems aware. Is she I don't know. I have no idea really, babe, what it's like to interact with this woman.
00:08:11
Speaker 3: Yeah, we know that psychiatrists, as recently as three weeks before the trial started, from the state sat down with her for hours upon hours asking her questions. So obviously she's perfectly capable. But yeah, I feel like I don't know what she sounds like. I don't know what her voice is like. I don't feel like I know her because she has not shown... The only emotion we've truly seen is just stoicism or... But I don't, like, what does she look like just when she's being herself? It's hard to imagine her beyond being a defendant sitting in that courtroom.
00:08:44
Speaker 2: And the stupid question you thought, and again, let me back that off. That just sounds awful to say. But Reddington himself called it bogus after this question was asked, and he did answer it. But it was, he'd just come out from the courtroom robes, and he was asked, well, what do you think about the critics out there who say you could have done better in your closing?
00:09:05
Speaker 1: It's fine.
00:09:05
Speaker 2: I'm sorry. I realize I should never characterize something like that. It's my bad. It just at the time seemed like an out of place question that somebody was fishing and trying to get him to say, you know what it was? It was clickbait kind of a question.
00:09:17
Speaker 3: Yes.
00:09:18
Speaker 1: And look, I think we all have seen this tactic.
00:09:20
Speaker 3: You don't have to be a journalist to recognize that you've seen plenty of reporters do this. And I just, I say the reason why maybe we take it a little personally is just because it ends up making all of us look bad that we're constantly only asking questions to get an emotional reaction from somebody. Oh, You're basically kind of poking them to see if they'll give you something. And when you see certain reporters employ those tactics, it makes you feel icky.
00:09:46
Speaker 1: It just does.
00:09:47
Speaker 2: They wanted to say something and then they could write an article that says Kevin Reddington claps back at haters.
00:09:53
Speaker 3: Right.
00:09:53
Speaker 2: And then you go, ooh, click on that. It's just it felt like that. And the other reporters around felt that as well. and they reacted to this question. But the question was, yes, all about his critics, right? Well, you say to the critics out there who said you could have done a better job in your closing. And again, he had just given the closing a couple hours.
00:10:11
Speaker 3: And the closing was great. So I don't even know what that was. Like, where was he getting that from, that reporter?
00:10:16
Speaker 1: Like, what?
00:10:17
Speaker 3: And it's such a thing to say, can you respond to your critics?
00:10:20
Speaker 1: Like, what critics? Who said what?
00:10:22
Speaker 3: It was very generic. But I loved his response. I have my fair amount of haters. I'm sure there's people that like to comment on the fact that I'm arrogant and aggressive and a bully and all the rest of it.
00:10:33
Speaker 1: But I did the best I could.
00:10:35
Speaker 2: He did wrap it up like that. And other folks standing around said, you did a good job. And after they were kind of giving him compliments, he turned back to that reporter. It's kind of a bogus question. And said that.
00:10:46
Speaker 1: Good for him.
00:10:47
Speaker 2: He got it and everybody else got it. And again, no, no. It's a decent guy who asked the question. Decent reporter. Maybe he thought he was maybe he's gotten stuff before by asking a question like that.
00:10:57
Speaker 1: I'm sure he has. I'm sure people have reacted very differently to that sort of question.
00:11:02
Speaker 3: But he also talked about what the possible verdicts could be, and he spoke of the one that most attorneys, and I would imagine everyone involved in the process, dreads, and that's a hung jury.
00:11:16
Speaker 2: He made a very good point here, Rob. You don't want to put more people through this. Quote, a hung jury would not be great because it means we have to go through it again, and there are 16 people who have to go through it again, it'd be horrible. He's right. There's a potential jury pool out there. 16 people have to sit through and listen and do all this again. You don't want that.
00:11:35
Speaker 3: It's just so emotionally taxing, even for us to be watching it the way we did through a television screen.
00:11:43
Speaker 1: And look, we're used to this.
00:11:44
Speaker 3: This is part of what our jobs have always been, to deal with kind of the worst case scenarios and the most awful things you can think of.
00:11:50
Speaker 1: But when you're in the courtroom.
00:11:52
Speaker 3: And there were things we didn't hear and things we didn't see that those jurors did, including the 911 call and the autopsy photos, which frankly, I would never want to see. Those are things you can't get out of your head. The pictures, the audio, that will live with those 16 people for the rest of their lives.
00:12:09
Speaker 1: There's no question.
00:12:10
Speaker 2: It might have even been in his closing, but he spoke on that. There was one point, this is the last thing we'll give you about Kevin Reddington, but again, this walk was 10 plus minutes and All the video was online, and I was listening to it this morning, and at one point, Robes, I had earplugs in, and I didn't know you were paying attention to me at all. We're sitting two feet from each other right now, and I was just laughing out loud.
00:12:34
Speaker 1: Yeah.
00:12:35
Speaker 2: I was laughing and laughing and laughing, and I didn't even realize you were trying to get my attention or that I was annoying you. You're like, what the hell are you laughing at?
00:12:42
Speaker 1: Well, no.
00:12:43
Speaker 2: Oh, my gosh.
00:12:43
Speaker 3: When you're laughing, you never annoy me. I just want to join in. I'm like, what's so funny?
00:12:47
Speaker 1: Can I see?
00:12:48
Speaker 3: Yeah.
00:12:49
Speaker 1: And you showed me. It was Kevin Reddington.
00:12:52
Speaker 2: He had been asked a question. He was at his, this might have been the last thing he was asked, but he was at the door of his green Bronco putting something in the backseat and was about to get in the front. And somebody asked, is there anything you do different at this point? And then he paused, Robes.
00:13:08
Speaker 1: And he said, be a doctor.
00:13:10
Speaker 2: That's pretty good. That's pretty good. That is Kevin Reddington. He's been a character throughout I mean, what do you say? Robes, I don't know how anybody could have done a better job than he did with, he is, he's become a star. He's become, I guess, what do you say? He's become kind of one of those polarizing figures because it's a polarizing case. But stay here, folks. We're going to break down, though, what the jury has as options. They have at least five options with varying degrees of penalties for Lindsey Clancy. Stay here.
00:13:55
Speaker 1: Welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ.
00:13:57
Speaker 3: We are officially on Verdict Watch. As of this recording, the jury has been deliberating about three and a half hours and they'll have a full day of deliberation, but they have to go over 85 witnesses that were called over these.
00:14:11
Speaker 1: 21 days of testimony.
00:14:14
Speaker 3: That is a significant amount of evidence and so much of this evidence is refutes each other because you're talking to expert witnesses who.
00:14:22
Speaker 1: Are coming to different conclusions.
00:14:25
Speaker 3: And this is a difficult task to try and decide which expert you believe more. I mean, that's really what this comes down to. This isn't an issue of guilt or innocence. This is an issue of whether or not this woman was criminally responsible based on her mental condition, which everyone agrees she was suffering from from a form of mental illness, these jurors have to decide if that mental illness erases her criminal responsibility.
00:14:55
Speaker 2: So these are the options they have to consider on that verdict form. Let's start with the one that is not even unlikely. This is not going to happen, but it is an option. They could say she's just flat out not guilty.
00:15:07
Speaker 3: Yes.
00:15:08
Speaker 2: Obviously, we know and everybody knows and everybody agrees she killed the kid, so that is not going to be on the table, we would assume. But It is technically an option. First-degree murder, second-degree manslaughter, and not guilty by reason of insanity. There are different levels that the prosecution or, you know what, they have to go through a checklist, essentially, Robes. Okay, does this meet this condition, this condition? And there are some pretty high bars to meet, Robes, if it's going to be first-degree murder.
00:15:34
Speaker 1: That's right.
00:15:34
Speaker 3: First-degree murder, you have to show deliberate premeditation or extreme atrocity and cruelty immediately. And that explains why, especially in the closing arguments, you heard prosecutor Jennifer Sprague get into those grisly details about how cruel and how long it would have taken for these kids to die. And she really talked about the exercise bans and how tightly, like it was, it seemed gratuitous. It seemed manipulative playing on the jurors emotions, but it was also strategic because she's trying to show extreme cruelty.
00:16:07
Speaker 2: It fits. deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity and cruelty, take out the mental health part of this.
00:16:15
Speaker 1: Check and check and check.
00:16:16
Speaker 3: It fits. Yes.
00:16:17
Speaker 2: If they don't believe that a voice told her to do this, and she, probes, that has to be it, doesn't it?
00:16:24
Speaker 3: I agree, because second-degree murder is the other option, and this doesn't really make sense, because committed with malice or extreme recklessness, but without prior planning. I think it's pretty clear that the prosecution proved, and I don't even think the defense denied, that she took many, many, many steps throughout the day through her searches, through her planning of keeping her husband out longer, even calling the drugstore and then calling Patrick back to keep him out so she could finish the job.
00:16:54
Speaker 1: Clearly there was planning involved.
00:16:57
Speaker 2: An extreme recklessness. I don't know how likely second degree would be, but the manslaughter one run, that's a win for the defense to get this included. By the judge. I don't know, Rose. We keep saying this is the one that perhaps they would feel best about.
00:17:14
Speaker 3: Because it allows for the mental illness part of it. So the technical definition of manslaughter, causing a death through extreme carelessness or recklessness.
00:17:23
Speaker 1: Without malice and included in that.
00:17:26
Speaker 3: And the judge made it clear to the jurors that they could consider mental illness as being the reason why she wasn't doing it with malice. She was mentally ill. She didn't know what she was doing in that sense. And that mental illness contributed to this extreme carelessness or recklessness that amounted or created the deaths of her three children.
00:17:48
Speaker 2: No, the first two, first degree and second degree, she would get life in prison for But first degree, that comes without parole. Second degree, parole is possible. Manslaughter is up to 20 years. Up to. Does the judge have total discretion?
00:18:05
Speaker 3: I believe so. I don't know if there's a minimum to the manslaughter charge. I can find that out because up to 20 years, and you know how things work.
00:18:14
Speaker 2: But would they have the option then as a part of those 20 years that she's serving it in a state institution? Does this take the mental health part off the table and she's just a ward of the state who needs some pills while she's in prison?
00:18:25
Speaker 1: Yes, she has to be in state prison.
00:18:27
Speaker 3: I know that for a fact because that is part of Massachusetts law. So if you are convicted of manslaughter in Massachusetts, you have to be.
00:18:40
Speaker 1: Delivered to a state prison.
00:18:42
Speaker 2: Okay, but then how would they feel about her getting proper care moving forward? I mean, I guess they have a way to treat people. I mean, plenty of folks in prisons have mental health problems, I suppose.
00:18:51
Speaker 1: Correct. In the state of Massachusetts, this is interesting.
00:18:54
Speaker 3: So we said the maximum penalty is up to 20 years in a state prison. The minimum is zero years. A judge has the discretion to impose probation, a suspended sentence, a shorter sentence, term rather than a state prison time, depending on the circumstances. So the judge has a tremendous amount of leeway, according to Massachusetts law, when it comes to a manslaughter conviction.
00:19:19
Speaker 2: Does he have the right to have her committed? I wonder, is that a part? If they say manslaughter, that means that's not a mental health thing. It means you're criminally responsible. You are criminal for what you did. So where does the mental health aspect come into that? As far as the treatment she can get. Are we really going to put this woman in prison? Roll her into prison?
00:19:41
Speaker 3: Here are your pills. You could see him giving her a suspended sentence and having her committed to a hospital.
00:19:49
Speaker 2: I wonder if he can do that. Suspended sentence but with conditions that she goes to.
00:19:52
Speaker 1: I think he can.
00:19:53
Speaker 3: From the way I'm reading this, and I'm no legal scholar here, but it does appear that the judge has a tremendous amount of discretion with manslaughter and he could sentence her to 20 years and suspend it and have her in a state institution.
00:20:06
Speaker 1: I do believe that that is.
00:20:07
Speaker 2: That's a tricky one, ain't it?
00:20:08
Speaker 3: Yep.
00:20:09
Speaker 2: You get the 20 years, but I'm not going to send you there. I'm going to send you here.
00:20:13
Speaker 1: Yep.
00:20:13
Speaker 2: Wow. And the other one is, of course, not guilty by reason of insanity. I mean, she's not responsible criminally, and this would be the one where she would likely end up in a mental institution of some kind. Rose, we could get a hung jury, 12 people. You're going to get these 12 folks to agree. Can you find 12 folks anywhere that agree on this? I don't know.
00:20:33
Speaker 1: This is fascinating.
00:20:36
Speaker 3: And look, you pointed this out at the beginning of this episode, the fact that they were deliberating for three and a half hours and then at 4.20 decided to go home, that means they weren't even close. What they usually do, obviously it's secret and we don't know until they come out and if anyone chooses to talk about the process, but they usually start off with a, hey, let's do a one round and see where everybody stands. What would be your verdict right now? And if they're close, we've seen jurors and juries stay till 7, 8, 9, 10 o'clock at night.
00:21:06
Speaker 1: Let's get this done. We're close. Let's figure this out. We can do this, guys.
00:21:10
Speaker 3: But at 4.20, they left, and they didn't even walk into the courtroom until, what, 9.30? So they had a lunch break. They obviously, I would think... aren't close if they were willing to go home that early.
00:21:24
Speaker 2: Are you allowed, if you go back there, to say, hey, let's just do a first vote. Where's everybody's head on this thing? If everybody raises their hand and ends an agreement on the first vote, they're guilty. Are you required to sit and keep talking?
00:21:36
Speaker 1: Nah, you got it. But I don't.
00:21:38
Speaker 2: See a lot of verdicts that were 35 minutes of deliberation.
00:21:42
Speaker 1: No, no.
00:21:43
Speaker 3: The soonest is usually two hours or something like that. Maybe they just have to make sure they check all the boxes. There's probably a lot of paperwork to fill out.
00:21:49
Speaker 2: OJ's was four. That wasn't only four hours.
00:21:52
Speaker 1: That was quick.
00:21:54
Speaker 2: I'm just curious to see what happens there. But yes, they can't agree. Hung jury. Got a mistrial and would have to do this all over again if the prosecution so chooses. They could do some kind of a plea deal with it. They could work something else out to not put everybody through this again. But 9 o'clock this morning, they will be back in there and back at it. And we are on Verdict Watch. So, folks, we always appreciate you spending a little time with us. As always, we're keeping an eye on it. Keep an eye on our feed. We'll update you as soon as we know something.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks.
00:00:02
Speaker 2: It is Friday, August 28th. 21 days of the trial. 85 witnesses. Now comes down to 12 jurors who are returning this morning to decide the fate of Lindsay Clancy. With that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. This is a standby episode, right? The clock is ticking. Nothing like a verdict watch.
00:00:23
Speaker 3: Yeah, we are on verdict watch. And yes, we are on the edges of our seats because truly, after watching pretty much everything every single bit of testimony, we're not sure. Even the attorneys, no one ever claims to know what a jury's gonna do, and very rarely do we get it right.
00:00:42
Speaker 1: So this is- Nobody gets it right. This is tough.
00:00:44
Speaker 3: It's so hard to know what 12 individual people are thinking and then how they collectively have to come together. We do know the final makeup of the jurors. We have three men and nine women. And a reporter in the courtroom described the foreperson, a woman who appears to be in her 70s who has been taking consistent notes, is an active listener, has been watching and listening to all the witnesses intently. So they say she stood out, so it makes sense that perhaps she was chosen as the foreperson.
00:01:19
Speaker 2: But they will be back at it today. They deliberated for about three and a half hours yesterday after getting the case, after hearing closing arguments and getting their instructions. So They didn't want to stick around any longer. Oftentimes, judges give them the option. Yesterday, they wanted to get out of there, which may be an indication that they knew they were not close. So they'll come back and they'll start today. A lot of stuff yesterday. Robes did stand out. It was an interesting day in the courtroom. Why is it I thought it was just us? I leaned over and pointed to this TV at one point while we were watching the court proceedings. There were pills. There are pill to be pills. on the defense table right in front of Lindsay Clancy. Now, given all that's been talked about in this case, Robes, that stood out to apparently more than just me.
00:02:07
Speaker 3: Yeah, because you were like, what is that in front of her? And the camera kept expertly panning to her when closing arguments were being given, and her reactions were certainly interesting.
00:02:19
Speaker 1: But then, yes, your eyes were drawn. It looked like there were.
00:02:25
Speaker 3: There were a lot of what seemed to be pills just scattered in front of her.
00:02:30
Speaker 2: They looked like pretty big pills. They reminded me of Mucinex pills, those thicker pills sitting on the table.
00:02:35
Speaker 3: And so the explanation, because her attorney was asked as he left the courtroom, what was that in front of Lindsay Clancy?
00:02:43
Speaker 1: Were those pills? He said they were Altoids or mints?
00:02:47
Speaker 2: Yeah, that was it, just Altoids. Cinnamon, to be particular, and he moved on. But that's just one of those things. Everybody's paying such close attention to every move in that courtroom, every all the body language and whatnot. But but she yesterday, I thought Lindsay Clancy was.
00:03:01
Speaker 3: Hmm.
00:03:04
Speaker 2: I saw for the first time it felt like I was seeing it, for lack of a better word, a a normal woman. She seemed to be reacting to things not just emotionally, but she seemed to be paying attention, sitting up, making eye contact. She seemed more attentive in a way yesterday at times than I'm used to seeing her.
00:03:22
Speaker 1: She did.
00:03:23
Speaker 3: Well, for most of this trial, I would say, with testimony as brutal as it's been, her head has been down, turned away from any of the witnesses, certainly turned away from the jury. She's often done that when she's crying, wiping tears. And just trying to control her emotions. But you're right, today, or excuse me, yesterday, when closing arguments were going on, her face was turned towards the camera, which meant it was turned towards the jury, turned towards the prosecutor as she.
00:03:54
Speaker 1: Was giving her closing arguments.
00:03:55
Speaker 3: And I can't recall seeing that before now.
00:03:59
Speaker 2: Yeah, you might be right. Just the angle. She was required to look more so that direction yesterday because of where the attorneys were standing. during their closings, but that stood out to me yesterday. It was interesting. It was about 10 minutes, but I'm going to tell you now what we did here from Kevin Reddington. And Kevin Reddington, the attorney who is, he's the firebrand, Robes, and you love him or you hate him, and he's getting a lot of heat out there, but he's also getting a lot of love out there. But the cameras are, I mean, what was the count, Robes? The number of people surrounding him, at least 20, maybe 30 plus, following him literally from the door of the courthouse to to the door of his vehicle, which we became bigger fans of his when we saw what he drives.
00:04:44
Speaker 3: He drives the same car we do, a different color, but yeah, he has a Ford Bronco. You were like, because you've obviously been a fan, and I have as well during this trial, just seeing how he's conducted himself. And yes, he is a bit gruff, a bit aggressive, but just so authentically and genuinely himself. For us, we can't help but like him and appreciate his passion and his incredible skills as a lawyer.
00:05:10
Speaker 2: You know, and I didn't realize how I mean, it's gotten ugly out there. Don't even remember if people have their opinions about guilt and innocence and whether or not she was insane. But I saw something this morning just randomly where I wasn't looking for it. And someone called him a killer lover, like nasty comments about him just being willing to represent Lindsay Clancy. It's nasty. And so he's getting a lot of this heat that I don't know. I didn't realize how bad it was, but.
00:05:39
Speaker 3: Yeah. And so look, and we have all been among, I say all, TJ and I have been in that throng of reporters that follow people outside the courtroom. You get a limited amount of time to ask a couple of questions and hopefully they'll answer you. You always cringe though, because there's always that reporter that you don't want to be judged by who just asks a stupid question. And it was an insulting question. Yes, there's a way to ask about how he's handling the negative press, but having... just some of these questions hurled at him, he handled himself very well.
00:06:13
Speaker 2: Yeah, he always has. I mean, he's just who he is. He's not putting on for anybody. So he walks out of the courthouse yesterday and all these reporters, some of them, yes, that you can tell, obviously, they're from TV stations and networks and whatnot. But a lot of people just have handhelds, they have their little their phones out. So you can tell a lot of these are online and influencers, just from a variety of places. They're trying to get him. We see this often, Rose. There's a reason a podium is set up outside. They set it up so reporters don't have to chase. You just put the person you want to hear from in one spot. Everybody puts their mics and let's talk. They were trying to get him to stop.
00:06:46
Speaker 1: Well, most lawyers like to do that. Let's be honest.
00:06:49
Speaker 3: Most defense attorneys, when they get a high profile case like this, where you're now being televised, this means more business.
00:06:56
Speaker 1: This means more money.
00:06:58
Speaker 3: So, yes, they usually don't mind milking the moment and speaking to reporters.
00:07:02
Speaker 1: But you got to love Reddington. He was like, I don't do podiums.
00:07:06
Speaker 2: It wasn't arrogant. It was just honest. Yeah, I don't do podiums and kept walking. So this was a slow walk. I think this walk took about 10 minutes, and it wasn't that far, but it was a very slow walk across the parking lot.
00:07:18
Speaker 1: They were still asking him questions when he was getting into his car.
00:07:21
Speaker 3: Like, it was quite funny. But yes, he said he's never confident, and that makes a lot of sense, because we're all... The few trials we've covered, we've never been right, so we certainly are not confident that we know what the jury's going to do. But he said the jury was great and amazing, because look, by all accounts, they've been very active, and active listeners paying attention.
00:07:41
Speaker 1: You can tell.
00:07:42
Speaker 3: these jurors have truly committed to listening to all of the evidence.
00:07:48
Speaker 1: But yeah, and then they asked him how Lindsay Clancy was doing.
00:07:51
Speaker 2: She's doing all right. She's nervous. She's scared. All that makes sense, but it didn't give us a whole lot. I don't know what it's like to have a conversation with her. Can you have a conversation? I don't know in all of this. She seems aware. Is she I don't know. I have no idea really, babe, what it's like to interact with this woman.
00:08:11
Speaker 3: Yeah, we know that psychiatrists, as recently as three weeks before the trial started, from the state sat down with her for hours upon hours asking her questions. So obviously she's perfectly capable. But yeah, I feel like I don't know what she sounds like. I don't know what her voice is like. I don't feel like I know her because she has not shown... The only emotion we've truly seen is just stoicism or... But I don't, like, what does she look like just when she's being herself? It's hard to imagine her beyond being a defendant sitting in that courtroom.
00:08:44
Speaker 2: And the stupid question you thought, and again, let me back that off. That just sounds awful to say. But Reddington himself called it bogus after this question was asked, and he did answer it. But it was, he'd just come out from the courtroom robes, and he was asked, well, what do you think about the critics out there who say you could have done better in your closing?
00:09:05
Speaker 1: It's fine.
00:09:05
Speaker 2: I'm sorry. I realize I should never characterize something like that. It's my bad. It just at the time seemed like an out of place question that somebody was fishing and trying to get him to say, you know what it was? It was clickbait kind of a question.
00:09:17
Speaker 3: Yes.
00:09:18
Speaker 1: And look, I think we all have seen this tactic.
00:09:20
Speaker 3: You don't have to be a journalist to recognize that you've seen plenty of reporters do this. And I just, I say the reason why maybe we take it a little personally is just because it ends up making all of us look bad that we're constantly only asking questions to get an emotional reaction from somebody. Oh, You're basically kind of poking them to see if they'll give you something. And when you see certain reporters employ those tactics, it makes you feel icky.
00:09:46
Speaker 1: It just does.
00:09:47
Speaker 2: They wanted to say something and then they could write an article that says Kevin Reddington claps back at haters.
00:09:53
Speaker 3: Right.
00:09:53
Speaker 2: And then you go, ooh, click on that. It's just it felt like that. And the other reporters around felt that as well. and they reacted to this question. But the question was, yes, all about his critics, right? Well, you say to the critics out there who said you could have done a better job in your closing. And again, he had just given the closing a couple hours.
00:10:11
Speaker 3: And the closing was great. So I don't even know what that was. Like, where was he getting that from, that reporter?
00:10:16
Speaker 1: Like, what?
00:10:17
Speaker 3: And it's such a thing to say, can you respond to your critics?
00:10:20
Speaker 1: Like, what critics? Who said what?
00:10:22
Speaker 3: It was very generic. But I loved his response. I have my fair amount of haters. I'm sure there's people that like to comment on the fact that I'm arrogant and aggressive and a bully and all the rest of it.
00:10:33
Speaker 1: But I did the best I could.
00:10:35
Speaker 2: He did wrap it up like that. And other folks standing around said, you did a good job. And after they were kind of giving him compliments, he turned back to that reporter. It's kind of a bogus question. And said that.
00:10:46
Speaker 1: Good for him.
00:10:47
Speaker 2: He got it and everybody else got it. And again, no, no. It's a decent guy who asked the question. Decent reporter. Maybe he thought he was maybe he's gotten stuff before by asking a question like that.
00:10:57
Speaker 1: I'm sure he has. I'm sure people have reacted very differently to that sort of question.
00:11:02
Speaker 3: But he also talked about what the possible verdicts could be, and he spoke of the one that most attorneys, and I would imagine everyone involved in the process, dreads, and that's a hung jury.
00:11:16
Speaker 2: He made a very good point here, Rob. You don't want to put more people through this. Quote, a hung jury would not be great because it means we have to go through it again, and there are 16 people who have to go through it again, it'd be horrible. He's right. There's a potential jury pool out there. 16 people have to sit through and listen and do all this again. You don't want that.
00:11:35
Speaker 3: It's just so emotionally taxing, even for us to be watching it the way we did through a television screen.
00:11:43
Speaker 1: And look, we're used to this.
00:11:44
Speaker 3: This is part of what our jobs have always been, to deal with kind of the worst case scenarios and the most awful things you can think of.
00:11:50
Speaker 1: But when you're in the courtroom.
00:11:52
Speaker 3: And there were things we didn't hear and things we didn't see that those jurors did, including the 911 call and the autopsy photos, which frankly, I would never want to see. Those are things you can't get out of your head. The pictures, the audio, that will live with those 16 people for the rest of their lives.
00:12:09
Speaker 1: There's no question.
00:12:10
Speaker 2: It might have even been in his closing, but he spoke on that. There was one point, this is the last thing we'll give you about Kevin Reddington, but again, this walk was 10 plus minutes and All the video was online, and I was listening to it this morning, and at one point, Robes, I had earplugs in, and I didn't know you were paying attention to me at all. We're sitting two feet from each other right now, and I was just laughing out loud.
00:12:34
Speaker 1: Yeah.
00:12:35
Speaker 2: I was laughing and laughing and laughing, and I didn't even realize you were trying to get my attention or that I was annoying you. You're like, what the hell are you laughing at?
00:12:42
Speaker 1: Well, no.
00:12:43
Speaker 2: Oh, my gosh.
00:12:43
Speaker 3: When you're laughing, you never annoy me. I just want to join in. I'm like, what's so funny?
00:12:47
Speaker 1: Can I see?
00:12:48
Speaker 3: Yeah.
00:12:49
Speaker 1: And you showed me. It was Kevin Reddington.
00:12:52
Speaker 2: He had been asked a question. He was at his, this might have been the last thing he was asked, but he was at the door of his green Bronco putting something in the backseat and was about to get in the front. And somebody asked, is there anything you do different at this point? And then he paused, Robes.
00:13:08
Speaker 1: And he said, be a doctor.
00:13:10
Speaker 2: That's pretty good. That's pretty good. That is Kevin Reddington. He's been a character throughout I mean, what do you say? Robes, I don't know how anybody could have done a better job than he did with, he is, he's become a star. He's become, I guess, what do you say? He's become kind of one of those polarizing figures because it's a polarizing case. But stay here, folks. We're going to break down, though, what the jury has as options. They have at least five options with varying degrees of penalties for Lindsey Clancy. Stay here.
00:13:55
Speaker 1: Welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ.
00:13:57
Speaker 3: We are officially on Verdict Watch. As of this recording, the jury has been deliberating about three and a half hours and they'll have a full day of deliberation, but they have to go over 85 witnesses that were called over these.
00:14:11
Speaker 1: 21 days of testimony.
00:14:14
Speaker 3: That is a significant amount of evidence and so much of this evidence is refutes each other because you're talking to expert witnesses who.
00:14:22
Speaker 1: Are coming to different conclusions.
00:14:25
Speaker 3: And this is a difficult task to try and decide which expert you believe more. I mean, that's really what this comes down to. This isn't an issue of guilt or innocence. This is an issue of whether or not this woman was criminally responsible based on her mental condition, which everyone agrees she was suffering from from a form of mental illness, these jurors have to decide if that mental illness erases her criminal responsibility.
00:14:55
Speaker 2: So these are the options they have to consider on that verdict form. Let's start with the one that is not even unlikely. This is not going to happen, but it is an option. They could say she's just flat out not guilty.
00:15:07
Speaker 3: Yes.
00:15:08
Speaker 2: Obviously, we know and everybody knows and everybody agrees she killed the kid, so that is not going to be on the table, we would assume. But It is technically an option. First-degree murder, second-degree manslaughter, and not guilty by reason of insanity. There are different levels that the prosecution or, you know what, they have to go through a checklist, essentially, Robes. Okay, does this meet this condition, this condition? And there are some pretty high bars to meet, Robes, if it's going to be first-degree murder.
00:15:34
Speaker 1: That's right.
00:15:34
Speaker 3: First-degree murder, you have to show deliberate premeditation or extreme atrocity and cruelty immediately. And that explains why, especially in the closing arguments, you heard prosecutor Jennifer Sprague get into those grisly details about how cruel and how long it would have taken for these kids to die. And she really talked about the exercise bans and how tightly, like it was, it seemed gratuitous. It seemed manipulative playing on the jurors emotions, but it was also strategic because she's trying to show extreme cruelty.
00:16:07
Speaker 2: It fits. deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity and cruelty, take out the mental health part of this.
00:16:15
Speaker 1: Check and check and check.
00:16:16
Speaker 3: It fits. Yes.
00:16:17
Speaker 2: If they don't believe that a voice told her to do this, and she, probes, that has to be it, doesn't it?
00:16:24
Speaker 3: I agree, because second-degree murder is the other option, and this doesn't really make sense, because committed with malice or extreme recklessness, but without prior planning. I think it's pretty clear that the prosecution proved, and I don't even think the defense denied, that she took many, many, many steps throughout the day through her searches, through her planning of keeping her husband out longer, even calling the drugstore and then calling Patrick back to keep him out so she could finish the job.
00:16:54
Speaker 1: Clearly there was planning involved.
00:16:57
Speaker 2: An extreme recklessness. I don't know how likely second degree would be, but the manslaughter one run, that's a win for the defense to get this included. By the judge. I don't know, Rose. We keep saying this is the one that perhaps they would feel best about.
00:17:14
Speaker 3: Because it allows for the mental illness part of it. So the technical definition of manslaughter, causing a death through extreme carelessness or recklessness.
00:17:23
Speaker 1: Without malice and included in that.
00:17:26
Speaker 3: And the judge made it clear to the jurors that they could consider mental illness as being the reason why she wasn't doing it with malice. She was mentally ill. She didn't know what she was doing in that sense. And that mental illness contributed to this extreme carelessness or recklessness that amounted or created the deaths of her three children.
00:17:48
Speaker 2: No, the first two, first degree and second degree, she would get life in prison for But first degree, that comes without parole. Second degree, parole is possible. Manslaughter is up to 20 years. Up to. Does the judge have total discretion?
00:18:05
Speaker 3: I believe so. I don't know if there's a minimum to the manslaughter charge. I can find that out because up to 20 years, and you know how things work.
00:18:14
Speaker 2: But would they have the option then as a part of those 20 years that she's serving it in a state institution? Does this take the mental health part off the table and she's just a ward of the state who needs some pills while she's in prison?
00:18:25
Speaker 1: Yes, she has to be in state prison.
00:18:27
Speaker 3: I know that for a fact because that is part of Massachusetts law. So if you are convicted of manslaughter in Massachusetts, you have to be.
00:18:40
Speaker 1: Delivered to a state prison.
00:18:42
Speaker 2: Okay, but then how would they feel about her getting proper care moving forward? I mean, I guess they have a way to treat people. I mean, plenty of folks in prisons have mental health problems, I suppose.
00:18:51
Speaker 1: Correct. In the state of Massachusetts, this is interesting.
00:18:54
Speaker 3: So we said the maximum penalty is up to 20 years in a state prison. The minimum is zero years. A judge has the discretion to impose probation, a suspended sentence, a shorter sentence, term rather than a state prison time, depending on the circumstances. So the judge has a tremendous amount of leeway, according to Massachusetts law, when it comes to a manslaughter conviction.
00:19:19
Speaker 2: Does he have the right to have her committed? I wonder, is that a part? If they say manslaughter, that means that's not a mental health thing. It means you're criminally responsible. You are criminal for what you did. So where does the mental health aspect come into that? As far as the treatment she can get. Are we really going to put this woman in prison? Roll her into prison?
00:19:41
Speaker 3: Here are your pills. You could see him giving her a suspended sentence and having her committed to a hospital.
00:19:49
Speaker 2: I wonder if he can do that. Suspended sentence but with conditions that she goes to.
00:19:52
Speaker 1: I think he can.
00:19:53
Speaker 3: From the way I'm reading this, and I'm no legal scholar here, but it does appear that the judge has a tremendous amount of discretion with manslaughter and he could sentence her to 20 years and suspend it and have her in a state institution.
00:20:06
Speaker 1: I do believe that that is.
00:20:07
Speaker 2: That's a tricky one, ain't it?
00:20:08
Speaker 3: Yep.
00:20:09
Speaker 2: You get the 20 years, but I'm not going to send you there. I'm going to send you here.
00:20:13
Speaker 1: Yep.
00:20:13
Speaker 2: Wow. And the other one is, of course, not guilty by reason of insanity. I mean, she's not responsible criminally, and this would be the one where she would likely end up in a mental institution of some kind. Rose, we could get a hung jury, 12 people. You're going to get these 12 folks to agree. Can you find 12 folks anywhere that agree on this? I don't know.
00:20:33
Speaker 1: This is fascinating.
00:20:36
Speaker 3: And look, you pointed this out at the beginning of this episode, the fact that they were deliberating for three and a half hours and then at 4.20 decided to go home, that means they weren't even close. What they usually do, obviously it's secret and we don't know until they come out and if anyone chooses to talk about the process, but they usually start off with a, hey, let's do a one round and see where everybody stands. What would be your verdict right now? And if they're close, we've seen jurors and juries stay till 7, 8, 9, 10 o'clock at night.
00:21:06
Speaker 1: Let's get this done. We're close. Let's figure this out. We can do this, guys.
00:21:10
Speaker 3: But at 4.20, they left, and they didn't even walk into the courtroom until, what, 9.30? So they had a lunch break. They obviously, I would think... aren't close if they were willing to go home that early.
00:21:24
Speaker 2: Are you allowed, if you go back there, to say, hey, let's just do a first vote. Where's everybody's head on this thing? If everybody raises their hand and ends an agreement on the first vote, they're guilty. Are you required to sit and keep talking?
00:21:36
Speaker 1: Nah, you got it. But I don't.
00:21:38
Speaker 2: See a lot of verdicts that were 35 minutes of deliberation.
00:21:42
Speaker 1: No, no.
00:21:43
Speaker 3: The soonest is usually two hours or something like that. Maybe they just have to make sure they check all the boxes. There's probably a lot of paperwork to fill out.
00:21:49
Speaker 2: OJ's was four. That wasn't only four hours.
00:21:52
Speaker 1: That was quick.
00:21:54
Speaker 2: I'm just curious to see what happens there. But yes, they can't agree. Hung jury. Got a mistrial and would have to do this all over again if the prosecution so chooses. They could do some kind of a plea deal with it. They could work something else out to not put everybody through this again. But 9 o'clock this morning, they will be back in there and back at it. And we are on Verdict Watch. So, folks, we always appreciate you spending a little time with us. As always, we're keeping an eye on it. Keep an eye on our feed. We'll update you as soon as we know something.