Sept. 2, 2026
Killer Mom Trial VERDICT WATCH: Day 5 Of Deliberations Set To Begin As Arrest Made Outside Courthouse
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed Jurors are expected back in court at 9am this morning to begin their 5th day of deliberations after telling the judge on Tuesday they were deadlocked. The jury of 12 will begin their 23rd hour of deliberations, trying to determine whether or not Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible for the strangling deaths of her three young children. As jurors left the courthouse on Tuesday, a 56-year-old woman was arrested and charged after reportedly filming members of the jury. Meantime, Clancy’s defense attorney still has hope that jurors will be able to reach a consensus, telling reporters he is heartened they are working hard, and have not said yet, that they’re done.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Wednesday, September 2nd. This will be day five of deliberations in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial. After day four included a question from the jury, instructions from the judge, and an arrest outside the courthouse. With that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ Wednesday. We thought certainly we might be in full discussions of interpreting questions what the jury's verdict was by now, Roe, but we're still waiting on it.
00:00:34
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:00:35
Speaker 1: This is... It's getting... In an interesting case, this makes things even more interesting.
00:00:40
Speaker 2: Yes, and now we're debating whether or not we're going to get a verdict. That's the big headline now. A lot of legal experts saying this looks like it is headed to a mistrial. However... There are some recent high-profile murder cases in the state of Massachusetts where we have seen deliberations go even beyond day five and still result in a verdict. So there is still hope.
00:01:05
Speaker 1: Including among the attorneys and everybody involved here, Robes, to have to go through this again. You know, I know the country is one thing, but that should be noted, the debates we've been having. But, Robes, the Clancy family, Lindsay Clancy herself, her attorneys, the prosecutorsâ And you got 16 people going to have to do exactly what this group of 16 just did, looking at all those photos and hearing all... The first two weeks, you remember that? We were just.
00:01:32
Speaker 2: The 911 call.
00:01:34
Speaker 1: Oh, I forgot about that. That was week one, wasn't it? Yes.
00:01:37
Speaker 2: Patrick Clancy having to relive the absolute worst day of his life, the absolute worst day of any human being's life. The idea that he would have to go and... testify again to all of those horrific moments that he certainly never wants to live through again. The idea of that is just daunting.
00:02:01
Speaker 1: So that is why, as we update you all this morning and what's about to get going, it is why Robes, the judge, has sent them back. He might send them back again, which he can, but Robes, they need, they really, after five weeks, all this, 80 witnesses. The jury comes in yesterday. It was day four of deliberation's Robes, we didn't know what to make of what day four was going to be because the day before they had gone home early.
00:02:24
Speaker 2: Yes. Right?
00:02:25
Speaker 1: They had asked, come out 15 minutes or so, just say we're going to go home early. So we assume they're not close. Robes, they went into the court yesterday morning, and we have a theory about what might have happened, and it might happen again this morning. But they went in yesterday for deliberations, heard from them fairly soon after.
00:02:41
Speaker 2: Yeah, within an hour of them going back to the deliberation room, they sent a note to the judge saying, we're deadlocked. Our theory was they left early the day before saying, everybody sleep on it, everybody really think if you're willing to move to another side or to a different verdict, and we'll come back and do an assessment.
00:02:59
Speaker 1: That makes sense. Clear our heads in the morning. We all do that. You see things differently.
00:03:03
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
00:03:03
Speaker 1: And again, this is just us. Nobody else has said that's what they're doing, but that.
00:03:08
Speaker 2: I'm thinking of it as having a disagreement with your spouse or an argument with someone you sleep on the next morning. Clearer heads prevail. You might be willing to consider their point of view. So that might have been what was going on because, yes, just an hour into deliberations, they sent that note. And this is what Judge Sullivan told the jurors. And he has to be very careful in how he words this because he can'tâ it can't feel like he's applying too much pressure or coercion onto the jurors to changeâ their vote or change what they believe the verdict should be. But this is what he said to them. I know that this was a long trial. I know there were over 80 witnesses, over 300 exhibits. But because of that, I'm going to ask you to go back out, keeping in mind all the instructions that I gave to you to go out and to continue your deliberations at this time. And they did for another five hours.
00:03:59
Speaker 1: That surprised me. I thought we'd hear something back by lunch, certainly by the end of the day. Nothing, not a word. I applaud them. That means they took what he said seriously and they went back in there and they tried and they tried and they tried. Or did they just go sit and wait it out and say, hey, let's at least act like we're... Oh my goodness. Yeah.
00:04:17
Speaker 2: We will only know if someone talks after the fact. But yes, from most, I guess this is our math and I believe this is pretty much everyone's math, the jurors have now been deliberating for a total of 23 years. And so, yes, if the jury comes back again this morning in a deadlock under Massachusetts law, the judge can only ask them to continue deliberating one more time without their consent. And that's it. And look, there are more chances for the judge to send them back if jurors ask clarifying questions about the law. So if they don't say that they're in a deadlock, but they just are asking questions, he can keep asking them to go back.
00:05:00
Speaker 1: That can go on and on and on. I've seen some jurors ask a bunch of questions. So yeah, that's possible.
00:05:06
Speaker 2: But there haven't been any specific questions, which is so fascinating. And look, I mentioned at the top, there have been some recent high-profile murder cases in Massachusetts, just for some perspective, because this seems like It's going on forever. Day five, 23 hours. But if you'll remember, Karen Reed, look, her first trial was five days and 27 hours of deliberation. That did result in a hung jury. Her second trial, there was an acquittal. But there was another case, Emanuel Lopez in Massachusetts, charged with the murder of a police officer. Her first trial was a hung jury. Second trial in 2024. Listen to this. They reported to the judge three times. that it was deadlocked. But after six days and 32 hours of deliberations, the jury did finally reach a unanimous guilty verdict. So it can happen. That actually gave me a little hope that in recent Massachusetts criminal history, a jury went that long and finally figured a way to come to some sort of consensus.
00:06:12
Speaker 1: This guy's going to send them back again. I can't imagine. I mean, what note could they write that's so convincingly That they can't come to a decision. And the judge is well aware of those other cases. He's well aware of what's possible. I just can't see them writing something so strongly that the judge goes, okay, yeah, that's probably it. And then he has the option of also giving the charge the, what do they call it?
00:06:35
Speaker 2: The Tui Rodriguez.
00:06:36
Speaker 1: Yeah, that Allen charge-esque thing to try to get them to it. Today, how do you predict today? He's got to send them back again, babe.
00:06:46
Speaker 2: I think he's got to send them back at least one more time and we'll see what the jury can do. But the jury is now, well, they've always been, we would imagine, aware of the outside pressure, of the outside noise. When they come in and out of that courthouse every day, they see folks who have gathered, they see that packed courtroom. And it's hard to imagine that when they go home to their families, they aren't being told of just, the level of interest that is there. It has reached a fever pitch. But even if they weren't yesterday, they were made well aware because there was an arrest outside the courthouse. A 56-year-old local woman, she's from Sutton, Massachusetts, was arrested outside the courthouse as jurors were being dismissed. 3.40 p.m. Her name is Dawn Light. Can't make that up. But she has been charged because according to those who were around her, She was taking pictures, taking pictures of the jury.
00:07:46
Speaker 1: I'm sure she isn't the first one who has done that. And this could get uglier. I get it, and I get it's heated. Why she's doing this, what was her intent? You just can't do that.
00:08:00
Speaker 2: No, you cannot. You can't do that at all.
00:08:02
Speaker 1: You're not permitted. There's a reason if you watch anything streaming, even online, the camera never gets close to panning towards the jury box.
00:08:09
Speaker 2: No, their identities have to be protected for obvious reasons, especially when people are very passionate and opinionated about what the verdict should be. So yes, Dawn Light has been charged with one count of intimidation of a witness, jurors, or a person furnishing information in connection with criminal proceedings. She is actually being arraigned this morning, and I believe it would be at the same courthouse where the Lindsay Clancy... verdict watch is going on.
00:08:35
Speaker 1: So she'll get better access today.
00:08:37
Speaker 2: She'll be actually, yes, inside the courthouse today. Um, but yes, uh, and, and the police did not give any specifics. Um, but certainly everyone said that she was absolutely taking pictures of jurors walking out of the Lindsay Clancy trial.
00:08:54
Speaker 1: What is going to happen? Uh, what is going to happen? What is the reaction going to be? I mean, I don't even know if there is a, They gave them the option, the jury, the option of manslaughter. Is that also the option that the country could accept? That both sides of this debate could in some way see and give just a little that maybe the other side was right and maybe we're a little right? And nobody's absolutely sure. I don't know. But the judge wrote he has to send them back twice because won't that be a thing? If he doesn't send him back twice, well, he could have done this. He needs to do all that the law allows him to do. So we might be in for another long day, but they might be in.
00:09:34
Speaker 2: Yeah, I have to imagine that absolutely is going to happen. And look, we should. I would have thought this yesterday even, but we should have a clearer picture of of where this is headed by day's end. But when we come back, we'll tell you what Lindsey Clancy's defense attorney said as he was swarmed by members of the media when he left the courthouse yesterday. Welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ, 23 hours and counting all eyes on that Massachusetts courtroom today as jurors return to the deliberation table. Is that what they call it? Anyway, a deliberating room. They're going to be Locked in there, all 12 of them trying to figure out what verdict they can agree on, if any. And the big question is not guilt or innocence. It's whether or not Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible. Was she sane? Was she in a state of psychosis at the time she strangled her three young children?
00:10:40
Speaker 1: Nobody knows. Nobody knows. That's the problem. So are you as a juror supposed to, I'm taking this doctor's word, Or this doctor's word, and that should be the end of it. How do you find a little bit of truth in both of them? Because one is saying she was not responsible. Another one's saying she was. What do I do with that?
00:10:59
Speaker 2: And there you go. And that's why we're on day five of deliberations.
00:11:03
Speaker 1: Okay, if it's this simple as, I believe the prosecutor's experts more than this other guy with this psychosis mumbo jumbo. So I'm going with that. She's guilty.
00:11:12
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think that's probably what's happening right now. That's I mean, that seems like that's what's potentially happening. And look, Kevin Reddington, as I mentioned before the break, was, if you haven't seen the pictures or the video, I mean, he was swarmed like he was a member of the Beatles walking outside of that courthouse on Tuesday.
00:11:32
Speaker 1: He's got the same swagger. He does, actually. He does.
00:11:38
Speaker 2: He was directly asked about how Lindsay Clancy is doing, given the deadlocked jury. And he said, I thought it was interesting, he put it like this. She's got a flat... effect. She's sad. I mean, I think that just makes sense. She's just flat. She's probably feeling fairly dejected and sad in general. And this can't help with anxiety, just not knowing and waiting. The not knowing is always the hardest part.
00:12:04
Speaker 1: Robes, we're sitting here with a five-week trial. This is the sixth week. Robes, a week of it almost now. We get to tomorrow, we're talking about a week of this has been deliberations. Yep. I mean, as difficult as it was for all of them in there to sit through and prepare and go through the trial, now they're How difficult is this? He's just sitting. Oh, my God. Awful.
00:12:26
Speaker 2: I mean, that's just excruciating. But Kevin Reddington said that he was actually heartened. He said the fact that they've not said that they're done is very, very heartening. Obviously, they're working very hard. He said they kept at it, and it's obviously very encouraging. So he's still holding out hope that they will reach a verdict. But he also told reporters that if it's a hung jury, he will absolutelyâ Stick with Lindsey Clancy and he will absolutely be her attorney when and if she is retried.
00:12:55
Speaker 1: Man, do you even want to think about that? What if? Is the state really going to go at this again? How do you? That is going to be a plea deal.
00:13:04
Speaker 2: I would certainly hope so. But is the state, is the Commonwealth willing to have her plead guilty to manslaughter charges and maybe even have a suspended sentence? Yes. I would hope so.
00:13:17
Speaker 1: Yes, babe, that's what's coming. Maybe a set minimum time that she has to stay in a state hospital, no matter what doctors think about. There'll be, or as soon as she's declared okay or sane, she gets transferred to a prison, but as A plea deal probably even made sense before all this.
00:13:35
Speaker 2: I was going to say, I believe that some people might point out this is exactly how this case should have been litigated from the beginning.
00:13:41
Speaker 1: And then some will say, no, nope, that's not how it's done. Not some backroom deal. Well, plea deals get made all the time. What are we talking about?
00:13:47
Speaker 2: But this jury has just been put aside. through it and to the idea of putting another jury through it i don't think we'll do this and putting all those witnesses through it people who love those three kids more than anyone else who's watching this trial did from the grandmothers to the aunts to the father like these poor people have been through enough i just think of them and their mental health.
00:14:10
Speaker 1: Yeah i don't this that's uh the next step we're not there may never get there but yeah i can't imagine anybody going through this again I would love, if they, in week three of this trial, stopped it and said, we've reached a plea agreement.
00:14:25
Speaker 2: We would be applauding.
00:14:26
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:14:27
Speaker 2: I think everyone would take a big sigh of relief.
00:14:29
Speaker 1: Exactly that. And you know what? I don't think Reddington would ever let her take a plea deal that we didn't like. You know what? I'm saying he has been such a defender of her.
00:14:40
Speaker 2: An advocate.
00:14:41
Speaker 1: That I don't imagine it would be, oh, she's 40 years in prison type of thing. I just, yeah, that was the way to go.
00:14:48
Speaker 2: All right, well, we will be watching and waiting along with all of you, and we will please be checking our feed because we will be on top of it the moment we get any word from that courtroom. But in the meantime, we always appreciate you listening to us. I'm Amy Robach alongside DJ Holmes.
00:15:03
Speaker 1: We'll talk to you soon.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Wednesday, September 2nd. This will be day five of deliberations in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial. After day four included a question from the jury, instructions from the judge, and an arrest outside the courthouse. With that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ Wednesday. We thought certainly we might be in full discussions of interpreting questions what the jury's verdict was by now, Roe, but we're still waiting on it.
00:00:34
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:00:35
Speaker 1: This is... It's getting... In an interesting case, this makes things even more interesting.
00:00:40
Speaker 2: Yes, and now we're debating whether or not we're going to get a verdict. That's the big headline now. A lot of legal experts saying this looks like it is headed to a mistrial. However... There are some recent high-profile murder cases in the state of Massachusetts where we have seen deliberations go even beyond day five and still result in a verdict. So there is still hope.
00:01:05
Speaker 1: Including among the attorneys and everybody involved here, Robes, to have to go through this again. You know, I know the country is one thing, but that should be noted, the debates we've been having. But, Robes, the Clancy family, Lindsay Clancy herself, her attorneys, the prosecutorsâ And you got 16 people going to have to do exactly what this group of 16 just did, looking at all those photos and hearing all... The first two weeks, you remember that? We were just.
00:01:32
Speaker 2: The 911 call.
00:01:34
Speaker 1: Oh, I forgot about that. That was week one, wasn't it? Yes.
00:01:37
Speaker 2: Patrick Clancy having to relive the absolute worst day of his life, the absolute worst day of any human being's life. The idea that he would have to go and... testify again to all of those horrific moments that he certainly never wants to live through again. The idea of that is just daunting.
00:02:01
Speaker 1: So that is why, as we update you all this morning and what's about to get going, it is why Robes, the judge, has sent them back. He might send them back again, which he can, but Robes, they need, they really, after five weeks, all this, 80 witnesses. The jury comes in yesterday. It was day four of deliberation's Robes, we didn't know what to make of what day four was going to be because the day before they had gone home early.
00:02:24
Speaker 2: Yes. Right?
00:02:25
Speaker 1: They had asked, come out 15 minutes or so, just say we're going to go home early. So we assume they're not close. Robes, they went into the court yesterday morning, and we have a theory about what might have happened, and it might happen again this morning. But they went in yesterday for deliberations, heard from them fairly soon after.
00:02:41
Speaker 2: Yeah, within an hour of them going back to the deliberation room, they sent a note to the judge saying, we're deadlocked. Our theory was they left early the day before saying, everybody sleep on it, everybody really think if you're willing to move to another side or to a different verdict, and we'll come back and do an assessment.
00:02:59
Speaker 1: That makes sense. Clear our heads in the morning. We all do that. You see things differently.
00:03:03
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
00:03:03
Speaker 1: And again, this is just us. Nobody else has said that's what they're doing, but that.
00:03:08
Speaker 2: I'm thinking of it as having a disagreement with your spouse or an argument with someone you sleep on the next morning. Clearer heads prevail. You might be willing to consider their point of view. So that might have been what was going on because, yes, just an hour into deliberations, they sent that note. And this is what Judge Sullivan told the jurors. And he has to be very careful in how he words this because he can'tâ it can't feel like he's applying too much pressure or coercion onto the jurors to changeâ their vote or change what they believe the verdict should be. But this is what he said to them. I know that this was a long trial. I know there were over 80 witnesses, over 300 exhibits. But because of that, I'm going to ask you to go back out, keeping in mind all the instructions that I gave to you to go out and to continue your deliberations at this time. And they did for another five hours.
00:03:59
Speaker 1: That surprised me. I thought we'd hear something back by lunch, certainly by the end of the day. Nothing, not a word. I applaud them. That means they took what he said seriously and they went back in there and they tried and they tried and they tried. Or did they just go sit and wait it out and say, hey, let's at least act like we're... Oh my goodness. Yeah.
00:04:17
Speaker 2: We will only know if someone talks after the fact. But yes, from most, I guess this is our math and I believe this is pretty much everyone's math, the jurors have now been deliberating for a total of 23 years. And so, yes, if the jury comes back again this morning in a deadlock under Massachusetts law, the judge can only ask them to continue deliberating one more time without their consent. And that's it. And look, there are more chances for the judge to send them back if jurors ask clarifying questions about the law. So if they don't say that they're in a deadlock, but they just are asking questions, he can keep asking them to go back.
00:05:00
Speaker 1: That can go on and on and on. I've seen some jurors ask a bunch of questions. So yeah, that's possible.
00:05:06
Speaker 2: But there haven't been any specific questions, which is so fascinating. And look, I mentioned at the top, there have been some recent high-profile murder cases in Massachusetts, just for some perspective, because this seems like It's going on forever. Day five, 23 hours. But if you'll remember, Karen Reed, look, her first trial was five days and 27 hours of deliberation. That did result in a hung jury. Her second trial, there was an acquittal. But there was another case, Emanuel Lopez in Massachusetts, charged with the murder of a police officer. Her first trial was a hung jury. Second trial in 2024. Listen to this. They reported to the judge three times. that it was deadlocked. But after six days and 32 hours of deliberations, the jury did finally reach a unanimous guilty verdict. So it can happen. That actually gave me a little hope that in recent Massachusetts criminal history, a jury went that long and finally figured a way to come to some sort of consensus.
00:06:12
Speaker 1: This guy's going to send them back again. I can't imagine. I mean, what note could they write that's so convincingly That they can't come to a decision. And the judge is well aware of those other cases. He's well aware of what's possible. I just can't see them writing something so strongly that the judge goes, okay, yeah, that's probably it. And then he has the option of also giving the charge the, what do they call it?
00:06:35
Speaker 2: The Tui Rodriguez.
00:06:36
Speaker 1: Yeah, that Allen charge-esque thing to try to get them to it. Today, how do you predict today? He's got to send them back again, babe.
00:06:46
Speaker 2: I think he's got to send them back at least one more time and we'll see what the jury can do. But the jury is now, well, they've always been, we would imagine, aware of the outside pressure, of the outside noise. When they come in and out of that courthouse every day, they see folks who have gathered, they see that packed courtroom. And it's hard to imagine that when they go home to their families, they aren't being told of just, the level of interest that is there. It has reached a fever pitch. But even if they weren't yesterday, they were made well aware because there was an arrest outside the courthouse. A 56-year-old local woman, she's from Sutton, Massachusetts, was arrested outside the courthouse as jurors were being dismissed. 3.40 p.m. Her name is Dawn Light. Can't make that up. But she has been charged because according to those who were around her, She was taking pictures, taking pictures of the jury.
00:07:46
Speaker 1: I'm sure she isn't the first one who has done that. And this could get uglier. I get it, and I get it's heated. Why she's doing this, what was her intent? You just can't do that.
00:08:00
Speaker 2: No, you cannot. You can't do that at all.
00:08:02
Speaker 1: You're not permitted. There's a reason if you watch anything streaming, even online, the camera never gets close to panning towards the jury box.
00:08:09
Speaker 2: No, their identities have to be protected for obvious reasons, especially when people are very passionate and opinionated about what the verdict should be. So yes, Dawn Light has been charged with one count of intimidation of a witness, jurors, or a person furnishing information in connection with criminal proceedings. She is actually being arraigned this morning, and I believe it would be at the same courthouse where the Lindsay Clancy... verdict watch is going on.
00:08:35
Speaker 1: So she'll get better access today.
00:08:37
Speaker 2: She'll be actually, yes, inside the courthouse today. Um, but yes, uh, and, and the police did not give any specifics. Um, but certainly everyone said that she was absolutely taking pictures of jurors walking out of the Lindsay Clancy trial.
00:08:54
Speaker 1: What is going to happen? Uh, what is going to happen? What is the reaction going to be? I mean, I don't even know if there is a, They gave them the option, the jury, the option of manslaughter. Is that also the option that the country could accept? That both sides of this debate could in some way see and give just a little that maybe the other side was right and maybe we're a little right? And nobody's absolutely sure. I don't know. But the judge wrote he has to send them back twice because won't that be a thing? If he doesn't send him back twice, well, he could have done this. He needs to do all that the law allows him to do. So we might be in for another long day, but they might be in.
00:09:34
Speaker 2: Yeah, I have to imagine that absolutely is going to happen. And look, we should. I would have thought this yesterday even, but we should have a clearer picture of of where this is headed by day's end. But when we come back, we'll tell you what Lindsey Clancy's defense attorney said as he was swarmed by members of the media when he left the courthouse yesterday. Welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ, 23 hours and counting all eyes on that Massachusetts courtroom today as jurors return to the deliberation table. Is that what they call it? Anyway, a deliberating room. They're going to be Locked in there, all 12 of them trying to figure out what verdict they can agree on, if any. And the big question is not guilt or innocence. It's whether or not Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible. Was she sane? Was she in a state of psychosis at the time she strangled her three young children?
00:10:40
Speaker 1: Nobody knows. Nobody knows. That's the problem. So are you as a juror supposed to, I'm taking this doctor's word, Or this doctor's word, and that should be the end of it. How do you find a little bit of truth in both of them? Because one is saying she was not responsible. Another one's saying she was. What do I do with that?
00:10:59
Speaker 2: And there you go. And that's why we're on day five of deliberations.
00:11:03
Speaker 1: Okay, if it's this simple as, I believe the prosecutor's experts more than this other guy with this psychosis mumbo jumbo. So I'm going with that. She's guilty.
00:11:12
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think that's probably what's happening right now. That's I mean, that seems like that's what's potentially happening. And look, Kevin Reddington, as I mentioned before the break, was, if you haven't seen the pictures or the video, I mean, he was swarmed like he was a member of the Beatles walking outside of that courthouse on Tuesday.
00:11:32
Speaker 1: He's got the same swagger. He does, actually. He does.
00:11:38
Speaker 2: He was directly asked about how Lindsay Clancy is doing, given the deadlocked jury. And he said, I thought it was interesting, he put it like this. She's got a flat... effect. She's sad. I mean, I think that just makes sense. She's just flat. She's probably feeling fairly dejected and sad in general. And this can't help with anxiety, just not knowing and waiting. The not knowing is always the hardest part.
00:12:04
Speaker 1: Robes, we're sitting here with a five-week trial. This is the sixth week. Robes, a week of it almost now. We get to tomorrow, we're talking about a week of this has been deliberations. Yep. I mean, as difficult as it was for all of them in there to sit through and prepare and go through the trial, now they're How difficult is this? He's just sitting. Oh, my God. Awful.
00:12:26
Speaker 2: I mean, that's just excruciating. But Kevin Reddington said that he was actually heartened. He said the fact that they've not said that they're done is very, very heartening. Obviously, they're working very hard. He said they kept at it, and it's obviously very encouraging. So he's still holding out hope that they will reach a verdict. But he also told reporters that if it's a hung jury, he will absolutelyâ Stick with Lindsey Clancy and he will absolutely be her attorney when and if she is retried.
00:12:55
Speaker 1: Man, do you even want to think about that? What if? Is the state really going to go at this again? How do you? That is going to be a plea deal.
00:13:04
Speaker 2: I would certainly hope so. But is the state, is the Commonwealth willing to have her plead guilty to manslaughter charges and maybe even have a suspended sentence? Yes. I would hope so.
00:13:17
Speaker 1: Yes, babe, that's what's coming. Maybe a set minimum time that she has to stay in a state hospital, no matter what doctors think about. There'll be, or as soon as she's declared okay or sane, she gets transferred to a prison, but as A plea deal probably even made sense before all this.
00:13:35
Speaker 2: I was going to say, I believe that some people might point out this is exactly how this case should have been litigated from the beginning.
00:13:41
Speaker 1: And then some will say, no, nope, that's not how it's done. Not some backroom deal. Well, plea deals get made all the time. What are we talking about?
00:13:47
Speaker 2: But this jury has just been put aside. through it and to the idea of putting another jury through it i don't think we'll do this and putting all those witnesses through it people who love those three kids more than anyone else who's watching this trial did from the grandmothers to the aunts to the father like these poor people have been through enough i just think of them and their mental health.
00:14:10
Speaker 1: Yeah i don't this that's uh the next step we're not there may never get there but yeah i can't imagine anybody going through this again I would love, if they, in week three of this trial, stopped it and said, we've reached a plea agreement.
00:14:25
Speaker 2: We would be applauding.
00:14:26
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:14:27
Speaker 2: I think everyone would take a big sigh of relief.
00:14:29
Speaker 1: Exactly that. And you know what? I don't think Reddington would ever let her take a plea deal that we didn't like. You know what? I'm saying he has been such a defender of her.
00:14:40
Speaker 2: An advocate.
00:14:41
Speaker 1: That I don't imagine it would be, oh, she's 40 years in prison type of thing. I just, yeah, that was the way to go.
00:14:48
Speaker 2: All right, well, we will be watching and waiting along with all of you, and we will please be checking our feed because we will be on top of it the moment we get any word from that courtroom. But in the meantime, we always appreciate you listening to us. I'm Amy Robach alongside DJ Holmes.
00:15:03
Speaker 1: We'll talk to you soon.