Sept. 3, 2026
Killer Mom Trial VERDICT WATCH: Day 6 Of Deliberations, Will TODAY Bring A Verdict, Or End In Mistrial?
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed The 12 jurors for the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial are headed back to deliberations this morning, after trying to reach a verdict for nearly 30 hours over the past five days. The jury began deliberating LAST Thursday, and now, a full week later they continue after the judge issued a “Tuey Rodriguez” charge Wednesday afternoon, urging the group to reconsider their positions to try and find consensus. Clancy’s defense attorney Kevin Reddington says he’s ready to retry the case as soon as next week if a mistrial is declared, but acknowledged that regardless of the outcome, this case is a tragedy, reminding reporters that jurors have been through a very traumatic event.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Thursday, September 3rd, and maybe the sixth time will be the charm for the jury in the Lindsay Clancy trial. With that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. They are going to get going, robes on what we can't believe, day six and hour what. They're going to start on here today in deliberations.
00:00:23
Speaker 2: Well, I think by most accounts, we're in hour 29. And look, the big headline for the day is, is this the day we're finally going to get some sort of resolution? We know the judge has already sent the jury back twice after they said they were deadlocked. We believe that is the legal limit under Massachusetts state law. So if the jury's willing to keep going, they can keep going. But if they come back again today and say, We can't make it work. The judge really doesn't have other options.
00:00:57
Speaker 1: So yes, folks, we are starting day six today. We are recording this just a little bit before they start their deliberation. It's supposed to start at 9 a.m., but this is, Robes, potentially a day that is different. The reason this one is different is because the jury started deliberating at the end of the day yesterday with different instructions than they had had before. So they only got a little time with that, and we'll explain why now, Robes. Today could be different?
00:01:23
Speaker 2: Yes, because he gave them that Tui Rodriguez charge. And that is basically, it's controversial, but it's under state law. The judge is allowed to basically nudge, encourage the jury. Yes. And they've only been deliberating, I say only, for an hour and a half under that charge.
00:01:45
Speaker 1: Will they give it longer, you think?
00:01:46
Speaker 2: I hope they would, because look, the seriousness of it, the way he officially described what he was asking them to do was at a higher level, a different level than perhaps the jury instructions beforehand. So one can only hope they'll take it a little more seriously and have gone into those deliberations differently with a more open mind.
00:02:10
Speaker 1: I'm thinking of it differently now. And we discussed it a little bit yesterday that maybe they went home, slept on it, going to come back in today ask each other again, hey, after the night, after sleeping on it, do you feel different? Let's take a vote and see where they are. And then I thought we might hear from them again quickly this morning. You make a different point here. This jury has been taking this quite seriously, it seems. So it seems like maybe they, okay, an hour, hour and a half isn't enough time to discuss and consider with these new instructions. Does that make sense?
00:02:41
Speaker 2: Yes. And so I think that is the hope by all sides that the jury is actually going to be deliberating through a different lens after having received those Tui Rodriguez charges. And like, I have a couple lines just because it was what? I mean, it took him a couple minutes to read these charges that are written in Massachusetts state law, but some of the bullet points or the big points for them was that they should consider that this is desirable that the case be decided. You should consider that you have been selected in the same manner and from the same source as any future jury would be. So really asking them to consider that if they were to have to do this all over again, the next jury would be no different than the jury they're currently sitting in.
00:03:29
Speaker 1: Not going to be any better people, any smarter people with any different evidence. They're going to be sitting there in the same spot. So you might as well get this done for us.
00:03:38
Speaker 2: Exactly. And the other point was to look at it from the position of giving each side. So if you're in the majority... Consider what the minority is thinking. If you're in the minority, consider what the majority is thinking. In conferring together, you ought to give proper respect to each other's opinions and listen with an open mind to each other's arguments. So that was the language that this jury heard. So yes, there's an acknowledgement that there must be frustration. There has to be frustration in To be sitting among 11 other people. We don't know what the split is. We have no idea if there's one holdout, if there are three holdouts, if there is a designated majority. Are they split down the middle six to six? It could be any number of different. scenarios. We don't know. We have no insight as to where they are. But clearly, hearing from reporters in the courtroom, the jury actually, they described as looking as though they are frustrated. And that's understandable. You know, remember we were watching when they came back at four o'clock and asked to leave for the day. And so we know they deliberated for another hour and a half under these two instructions. Do you remember I said, oh my God, who just sighed? There was a loud, audible sigh. I actually saw in some of the reporting, there are a lot of live updates coming from the courtroom. They said Lindsey Clancy let out a massive sigh right after the jury was relieved of their duties and they left for the day. And we just, she, the jury was gone and she just let out a huge sigh. And that kind of was how all of us are feeling at this point.
00:05:25
Speaker 1: I mean, Robes, this is tough work. I don't envy that jury at all and the work they have to do. But Robes, if, if, if it's any, I mean, why would we think it's not the exact same type of debate that's going on in the country right now? Those folks are bringing their own experiences and You've got mothers, grandmothers, maybe non-mothers. You've got three men on that jury from all walks of life, babe. So, yeah, they bring their own experiences. You cannot find ten people on the street right now who will agree.
00:05:56
Speaker 2: I agree with that. And that is notable. I'm sure many of you listening have had these conversations with your friends, with your family members, and I bet not everybody agrees. And so, yes, you bring to the table your experience with parenting, whether you're a mother or a father. You bring to the jury room your experience with mental health issues. Have you experienced them? Have you had postpartum issues? Do you know someone who you love and care about? Have they had experiences? All of that is going to be the lens in which they viewed that expert testimony through. And the experts couldn't agree, so why should the jury?
00:06:34
Speaker 1: Yes, that's where it is for me. But they can't even agree on manslaughter. They can't split it here. They won't even agree to that after six days. I can't imagine anything else.
00:06:46
Speaker 2: Yeah, if you have people who absolutely believe that she should and must be behind bars, the manslaughter charge is a little iffy because there is a huge discretion allowed to the judge at that point. So now you have to say, am I okay with handing this over to the judge in terms of how much time she should actually spend, if any, behind bars?
00:07:06
Speaker 1: I'm going to ask you this one more time. I think we got into it at some point about this, and I can't figure it out. Is it more likely... That someone refuses to budge from the first degree murder camp or from the not guilty by reason of insanity camp?
00:07:20
Speaker 2: After all that I have read and looked at and all the comments, I actually believe that it's just my opinion that it's more likely that people or someone... who thinks she absolutely has to go to prison, they're the ones who are the holdouts.
00:07:38
Speaker 1: But you can't give in manslaughter?
00:07:39
Speaker 2: Because manslaughter is now handing over the discretion to the judge.
00:07:44
Speaker 1: So second degree they can't agree on.
00:07:46
Speaker 2: Because... That.
00:07:48
Speaker 1: Would have to be it, right? You could compromise from first degree to second degree.
00:07:51
Speaker 2: You could. You could. But if you've got the other folks who might be willing to go to manslaughter who believe she's not guilty by reason of insanity, who don't want her to serve any time, they would only probably be willing to budge to manslaughter. And the first degree folks might only be willing to budge to second degree.
00:08:07
Speaker 1: Are they in there not negotiating or talking evidence? Are they negotiating their feelings at this point?
00:08:12
Speaker 2: Absolutely negotiating their feelings because the evidence doesn't actually, I don't think, give you any actual foundations. Because you can take the evidence and make it apply to your personal viewpoint. Because there is evidence that supports a viewpoint that she should never go to prison. And there's evidence that supports the viewpoint that she should go to prison for the rest of her life. So the evidence that was supplied in that courtroom, you can absolutely use, and I think fairly so, to prove that your viewpoint is the right one. And that is... And that is the problem. And that's why I would think if this thing does end up in a mistrial, that the prosecution has to acknowledge they're going to end up in this same place. If you look and you hear and you see, and I know the judge is telling that jury that's not the case, but how is it going to get, how are you going to get a different outcome? How are you going to put 12 people in a room who are going to all agree?
00:09:14
Speaker 1: Then I'm going to try this case again.
00:09:16
Speaker 2: I can't imagine that they would.
00:09:17
Speaker 1: They'll try to maybe get a plea deal, something that gets worked out to where there is a minimum amount of time she has to stay in a state hospital.
00:09:28
Speaker 2: Why?
00:09:28
Speaker 1: Who's going to do this again?
00:09:29
Speaker 2: And that's what the hope would be if they can't actually reach a verdict today.
00:09:34
Speaker 1: And then we're going to be pissed because, well, why didn't you all just do the plea deal in the first place? Like, why do we have to go through all this? You all insisted on putting her, right? You insist on putting her in jail for the rest of her life. That is their argument. First degree.
00:09:46
Speaker 2: Yes. Yes. They want, the prosecution wants first degree murder.
00:09:49
Speaker 1: So how could they ever come back and make a plea deal that doesn't include serious prison time? If you were willing to, you're now saying, ah, you know what? This first degree murderer.
00:09:59
Speaker 2: Yes. go to hospital. Well, maybe they can agree on a manslaughter conviction and then let the judge decide the sentencing.
00:10:07
Speaker 1: This is bad. We're just....
00:10:10
Speaker 2: Because even in a plea deal, the judge gets to determine the sentencing. So that would still end up in the hands of the judge.
00:10:17
Speaker 1: Oh, it's only recommendations.
00:10:18
Speaker 2: Each side can recommend, and then the judge decides. So that could be where we end up. But when we come back, look, we were watching as Kevin Reddington, Lindsey Clancy's defense attorney, who I'm sure you know his name by now. He is now a household name. When he left the courthouse yesterday, he filled in a lot of blanks that you're going to want to hear, including would a mistrial still be considered a win for the defense? Welcome back, everyone, to Amy and TJ. Look, we have seen the throngs of press surrounding Kevin Reddington grow each day that we are left waiting and wondering where the jury is. And yesterday, it was the most I have ever seen surround him. And he did take a slow walk to his vehicle. And I forgot the answer because... You told me right off the bat, because he's so quick on his feet, that one of the members of the press asked him, did the jury look frustrated? Because that was the reporting throughout the day. And he had a clever answer back.
00:11:32
Speaker 1: They looked amazing. That was it. He gave no judgment. That was just well played. They looked amazing.
00:11:38
Speaker 2: And then he went on to say this. He said, they are a tribute to the system, and nobody can say that they haven't given it their all.
00:11:46
Speaker 1: Give them a hand, man. Give them a hand. Yes, in their deliberations. But, Rove, your heart goes out to these people who are required. We could turn the TV off. We could fast forward through some stuff. We could skip if we wanted. They had to hear it all, baby, and pay attention and take notes and go home and remember those images of autopsy photos of a five, three-year-old and an eight-month-old. That's what they've been dealing with, babe. So my hats are off to these folks on that jury.
00:12:12
Speaker 2: Yes, because you know what I am grateful for? I am grateful that I never had to hear that 911 call because that's something you can't unhear. Every time you see a baby, every time you see those exercise bands, those jurors, I guarantee you, could be diagnosed with PTSD after everything they've had to see and hear.
00:12:34
Speaker 1: We haven't focused on this enough, maybe. We should, anybody attacking this jury, you've got to give these folks a break for what they've gone through. There were several times this judge stopped the trial because the jury was all shook up over what they had seen and were emotional. Well, these folks have been through it.
00:12:53
Speaker 2: They certainly have. And it was interesting what Reddington had to say about the TUI instruction that the judge gave the jury around 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday. He said it basically tells you common sense that, you know, if you're in the majority, listen to the minority. And vice versa. And I think they listened to that. So he seemed a little hopeful still. And you mentioned this, and I thought this was just his positive attitude that we've seen him employ throughout the trial. He was asked, if there is a hung jury, what are your plans? And he said, I want to try it next week. He said, I got a few motions to file, but I'm ready to go next week.
00:13:37
Speaker 1: He was quick when they asked him, how soon could you be ready?
00:13:41
Speaker 2: Next week, he said.
00:13:42
Speaker 1: He didn't pause. Nope.
00:13:44
Speaker 2: And I think, you know, look, for those who, whatever you think about Lindsay Clancy, everyone deserves a, not just a good representative, but certainly like a, you want to have somebody who knows what they're doing, defending whoever is in that defendant's seat. And she certainly, I don't think anyone could say Kevin Reddington has done anything but fully represent that woman. And I thought this was, to me, one of the more poignant. And I think what he had to say when he was asked, would a mistrial still be considered a win, was one of my favorite things he has ever said because he brought it home and he made the point that this trial, we all want to, some people look at it as entertainment. Some people are looking at it just to have skin in the game and to be on a side and to feel like they belong because they believe this, that, or the other. When a reporter asked him, would a mistrial, still be considered a win for the defense, listen to what Kevin Reddington had to say. I don't think this case is a victory, period. It's a tragedy. It's emotional destruction all around. These jurors alone have been through a very, very traumatic event.
00:14:56
Speaker 1: And as a hero, I think he's sincere when he said there's another 16 people out there we're going to have to put through this again. Like there is a concern for Citizens, for those folks who have to sit through this, yes, he has a client he's representing. But Rob, this is, nobody is going to, and nobody is going to raise a glass at the end of this, no matter what the outcome is. We're just not. There's hope that we can have a better conversation moving forward and actually action of some kind. Maybe the next time a woman goes in to see a doctor and is complaining about something, because of this case, that doctor elevates it, pays a little more attention to just one woman then that's worth it. That is the only solace, the only victory you can take out of this, maybe, Robes. But yeah, nobody's going to win, no matter what this jury says.
00:15:45
Speaker 2: And I think that is just an important thing to remember throughout all of this, as people's emotions are running high based on what they think the outcome should be. I just thought that was a really important reminder of what we're actually talking about and what we're actually dealing with right now. But we will continue to keep our eye... on that Massachusetts courtroom. So please continue to keep your eye on our feed because we will jump on if anything develops. So please just consider us your source in that courtroom. We always appreciate you listening to us, everyone. I'm Amy Robach alongside TJ Holmes. We will talk to you very soon.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Thursday, September 3rd, and maybe the sixth time will be the charm for the jury in the Lindsay Clancy trial. With that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. They are going to get going, robes on what we can't believe, day six and hour what. They're going to start on here today in deliberations.
00:00:23
Speaker 2: Well, I think by most accounts, we're in hour 29. And look, the big headline for the day is, is this the day we're finally going to get some sort of resolution? We know the judge has already sent the jury back twice after they said they were deadlocked. We believe that is the legal limit under Massachusetts state law. So if the jury's willing to keep going, they can keep going. But if they come back again today and say, We can't make it work. The judge really doesn't have other options.
00:00:57
Speaker 1: So yes, folks, we are starting day six today. We are recording this just a little bit before they start their deliberation. It's supposed to start at 9 a.m., but this is, Robes, potentially a day that is different. The reason this one is different is because the jury started deliberating at the end of the day yesterday with different instructions than they had had before. So they only got a little time with that, and we'll explain why now, Robes. Today could be different?
00:01:23
Speaker 2: Yes, because he gave them that Tui Rodriguez charge. And that is basically, it's controversial, but it's under state law. The judge is allowed to basically nudge, encourage the jury. Yes. And they've only been deliberating, I say only, for an hour and a half under that charge.
00:01:45
Speaker 1: Will they give it longer, you think?
00:01:46
Speaker 2: I hope they would, because look, the seriousness of it, the way he officially described what he was asking them to do was at a higher level, a different level than perhaps the jury instructions beforehand. So one can only hope they'll take it a little more seriously and have gone into those deliberations differently with a more open mind.
00:02:10
Speaker 1: I'm thinking of it differently now. And we discussed it a little bit yesterday that maybe they went home, slept on it, going to come back in today ask each other again, hey, after the night, after sleeping on it, do you feel different? Let's take a vote and see where they are. And then I thought we might hear from them again quickly this morning. You make a different point here. This jury has been taking this quite seriously, it seems. So it seems like maybe they, okay, an hour, hour and a half isn't enough time to discuss and consider with these new instructions. Does that make sense?
00:02:41
Speaker 2: Yes. And so I think that is the hope by all sides that the jury is actually going to be deliberating through a different lens after having received those Tui Rodriguez charges. And like, I have a couple lines just because it was what? I mean, it took him a couple minutes to read these charges that are written in Massachusetts state law, but some of the bullet points or the big points for them was that they should consider that this is desirable that the case be decided. You should consider that you have been selected in the same manner and from the same source as any future jury would be. So really asking them to consider that if they were to have to do this all over again, the next jury would be no different than the jury they're currently sitting in.
00:03:29
Speaker 1: Not going to be any better people, any smarter people with any different evidence. They're going to be sitting there in the same spot. So you might as well get this done for us.
00:03:38
Speaker 2: Exactly. And the other point was to look at it from the position of giving each side. So if you're in the majority... Consider what the minority is thinking. If you're in the minority, consider what the majority is thinking. In conferring together, you ought to give proper respect to each other's opinions and listen with an open mind to each other's arguments. So that was the language that this jury heard. So yes, there's an acknowledgement that there must be frustration. There has to be frustration in To be sitting among 11 other people. We don't know what the split is. We have no idea if there's one holdout, if there are three holdouts, if there is a designated majority. Are they split down the middle six to six? It could be any number of different. scenarios. We don't know. We have no insight as to where they are. But clearly, hearing from reporters in the courtroom, the jury actually, they described as looking as though they are frustrated. And that's understandable. You know, remember we were watching when they came back at four o'clock and asked to leave for the day. And so we know they deliberated for another hour and a half under these two instructions. Do you remember I said, oh my God, who just sighed? There was a loud, audible sigh. I actually saw in some of the reporting, there are a lot of live updates coming from the courtroom. They said Lindsey Clancy let out a massive sigh right after the jury was relieved of their duties and they left for the day. And we just, she, the jury was gone and she just let out a huge sigh. And that kind of was how all of us are feeling at this point.
00:05:25
Speaker 1: I mean, Robes, this is tough work. I don't envy that jury at all and the work they have to do. But Robes, if, if, if it's any, I mean, why would we think it's not the exact same type of debate that's going on in the country right now? Those folks are bringing their own experiences and You've got mothers, grandmothers, maybe non-mothers. You've got three men on that jury from all walks of life, babe. So, yeah, they bring their own experiences. You cannot find ten people on the street right now who will agree.
00:05:56
Speaker 2: I agree with that. And that is notable. I'm sure many of you listening have had these conversations with your friends, with your family members, and I bet not everybody agrees. And so, yes, you bring to the table your experience with parenting, whether you're a mother or a father. You bring to the jury room your experience with mental health issues. Have you experienced them? Have you had postpartum issues? Do you know someone who you love and care about? Have they had experiences? All of that is going to be the lens in which they viewed that expert testimony through. And the experts couldn't agree, so why should the jury?
00:06:34
Speaker 1: Yes, that's where it is for me. But they can't even agree on manslaughter. They can't split it here. They won't even agree to that after six days. I can't imagine anything else.
00:06:46
Speaker 2: Yeah, if you have people who absolutely believe that she should and must be behind bars, the manslaughter charge is a little iffy because there is a huge discretion allowed to the judge at that point. So now you have to say, am I okay with handing this over to the judge in terms of how much time she should actually spend, if any, behind bars?
00:07:06
Speaker 1: I'm going to ask you this one more time. I think we got into it at some point about this, and I can't figure it out. Is it more likely... That someone refuses to budge from the first degree murder camp or from the not guilty by reason of insanity camp?
00:07:20
Speaker 2: After all that I have read and looked at and all the comments, I actually believe that it's just my opinion that it's more likely that people or someone... who thinks she absolutely has to go to prison, they're the ones who are the holdouts.
00:07:38
Speaker 1: But you can't give in manslaughter?
00:07:39
Speaker 2: Because manslaughter is now handing over the discretion to the judge.
00:07:44
Speaker 1: So second degree they can't agree on.
00:07:46
Speaker 2: Because... That.
00:07:48
Speaker 1: Would have to be it, right? You could compromise from first degree to second degree.
00:07:51
Speaker 2: You could. You could. But if you've got the other folks who might be willing to go to manslaughter who believe she's not guilty by reason of insanity, who don't want her to serve any time, they would only probably be willing to budge to manslaughter. And the first degree folks might only be willing to budge to second degree.
00:08:07
Speaker 1: Are they in there not negotiating or talking evidence? Are they negotiating their feelings at this point?
00:08:12
Speaker 2: Absolutely negotiating their feelings because the evidence doesn't actually, I don't think, give you any actual foundations. Because you can take the evidence and make it apply to your personal viewpoint. Because there is evidence that supports a viewpoint that she should never go to prison. And there's evidence that supports the viewpoint that she should go to prison for the rest of her life. So the evidence that was supplied in that courtroom, you can absolutely use, and I think fairly so, to prove that your viewpoint is the right one. And that is... And that is the problem. And that's why I would think if this thing does end up in a mistrial, that the prosecution has to acknowledge they're going to end up in this same place. If you look and you hear and you see, and I know the judge is telling that jury that's not the case, but how is it going to get, how are you going to get a different outcome? How are you going to put 12 people in a room who are going to all agree?
00:09:14
Speaker 1: Then I'm going to try this case again.
00:09:16
Speaker 2: I can't imagine that they would.
00:09:17
Speaker 1: They'll try to maybe get a plea deal, something that gets worked out to where there is a minimum amount of time she has to stay in a state hospital.
00:09:28
Speaker 2: Why?
00:09:28
Speaker 1: Who's going to do this again?
00:09:29
Speaker 2: And that's what the hope would be if they can't actually reach a verdict today.
00:09:34
Speaker 1: And then we're going to be pissed because, well, why didn't you all just do the plea deal in the first place? Like, why do we have to go through all this? You all insisted on putting her, right? You insist on putting her in jail for the rest of her life. That is their argument. First degree.
00:09:46
Speaker 2: Yes. Yes. They want, the prosecution wants first degree murder.
00:09:49
Speaker 1: So how could they ever come back and make a plea deal that doesn't include serious prison time? If you were willing to, you're now saying, ah, you know what? This first degree murderer.
00:09:59
Speaker 2: Yes. go to hospital. Well, maybe they can agree on a manslaughter conviction and then let the judge decide the sentencing.
00:10:07
Speaker 1: This is bad. We're just....
00:10:10
Speaker 2: Because even in a plea deal, the judge gets to determine the sentencing. So that would still end up in the hands of the judge.
00:10:17
Speaker 1: Oh, it's only recommendations.
00:10:18
Speaker 2: Each side can recommend, and then the judge decides. So that could be where we end up. But when we come back, look, we were watching as Kevin Reddington, Lindsey Clancy's defense attorney, who I'm sure you know his name by now. He is now a household name. When he left the courthouse yesterday, he filled in a lot of blanks that you're going to want to hear, including would a mistrial still be considered a win for the defense? Welcome back, everyone, to Amy and TJ. Look, we have seen the throngs of press surrounding Kevin Reddington grow each day that we are left waiting and wondering where the jury is. And yesterday, it was the most I have ever seen surround him. And he did take a slow walk to his vehicle. And I forgot the answer because... You told me right off the bat, because he's so quick on his feet, that one of the members of the press asked him, did the jury look frustrated? Because that was the reporting throughout the day. And he had a clever answer back.
00:11:32
Speaker 1: They looked amazing. That was it. He gave no judgment. That was just well played. They looked amazing.
00:11:38
Speaker 2: And then he went on to say this. He said, they are a tribute to the system, and nobody can say that they haven't given it their all.
00:11:46
Speaker 1: Give them a hand, man. Give them a hand. Yes, in their deliberations. But, Rove, your heart goes out to these people who are required. We could turn the TV off. We could fast forward through some stuff. We could skip if we wanted. They had to hear it all, baby, and pay attention and take notes and go home and remember those images of autopsy photos of a five, three-year-old and an eight-month-old. That's what they've been dealing with, babe. So my hats are off to these folks on that jury.
00:12:12
Speaker 2: Yes, because you know what I am grateful for? I am grateful that I never had to hear that 911 call because that's something you can't unhear. Every time you see a baby, every time you see those exercise bands, those jurors, I guarantee you, could be diagnosed with PTSD after everything they've had to see and hear.
00:12:34
Speaker 1: We haven't focused on this enough, maybe. We should, anybody attacking this jury, you've got to give these folks a break for what they've gone through. There were several times this judge stopped the trial because the jury was all shook up over what they had seen and were emotional. Well, these folks have been through it.
00:12:53
Speaker 2: They certainly have. And it was interesting what Reddington had to say about the TUI instruction that the judge gave the jury around 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday. He said it basically tells you common sense that, you know, if you're in the majority, listen to the minority. And vice versa. And I think they listened to that. So he seemed a little hopeful still. And you mentioned this, and I thought this was just his positive attitude that we've seen him employ throughout the trial. He was asked, if there is a hung jury, what are your plans? And he said, I want to try it next week. He said, I got a few motions to file, but I'm ready to go next week.
00:13:37
Speaker 1: He was quick when they asked him, how soon could you be ready?
00:13:41
Speaker 2: Next week, he said.
00:13:42
Speaker 1: He didn't pause. Nope.
00:13:44
Speaker 2: And I think, you know, look, for those who, whatever you think about Lindsay Clancy, everyone deserves a, not just a good representative, but certainly like a, you want to have somebody who knows what they're doing, defending whoever is in that defendant's seat. And she certainly, I don't think anyone could say Kevin Reddington has done anything but fully represent that woman. And I thought this was, to me, one of the more poignant. And I think what he had to say when he was asked, would a mistrial still be considered a win, was one of my favorite things he has ever said because he brought it home and he made the point that this trial, we all want to, some people look at it as entertainment. Some people are looking at it just to have skin in the game and to be on a side and to feel like they belong because they believe this, that, or the other. When a reporter asked him, would a mistrial, still be considered a win for the defense, listen to what Kevin Reddington had to say. I don't think this case is a victory, period. It's a tragedy. It's emotional destruction all around. These jurors alone have been through a very, very traumatic event.
00:14:56
Speaker 1: And as a hero, I think he's sincere when he said there's another 16 people out there we're going to have to put through this again. Like there is a concern for Citizens, for those folks who have to sit through this, yes, he has a client he's representing. But Rob, this is, nobody is going to, and nobody is going to raise a glass at the end of this, no matter what the outcome is. We're just not. There's hope that we can have a better conversation moving forward and actually action of some kind. Maybe the next time a woman goes in to see a doctor and is complaining about something, because of this case, that doctor elevates it, pays a little more attention to just one woman then that's worth it. That is the only solace, the only victory you can take out of this, maybe, Robes. But yeah, nobody's going to win, no matter what this jury says.
00:15:45
Speaker 2: And I think that is just an important thing to remember throughout all of this, as people's emotions are running high based on what they think the outcome should be. I just thought that was a really important reminder of what we're actually talking about and what we're actually dealing with right now. But we will continue to keep our eye... on that Massachusetts courtroom. So please continue to keep your eye on our feed because we will jump on if anything develops. So please just consider us your source in that courtroom. We always appreciate you listening to us, everyone. I'm Amy Robach alongside TJ Holmes. We will talk to you very soon.