Sept. 3, 2026
Killer Mom Trial VERDICT WATCH: Guilty Vs Not Guilty, A Jury Role Play Experiment (It Didn’t End In A Verdict)
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed As the jury just headed back into Day 6 of deliberations, it’s hard to imagine there aren’t some heated, emotional back and forth discussions going on as one side tries to convince the other to come to their way of thinking. We took the two extreme options for the jury: Guilty of first degree murder versus Not Guilty by reason of insanity and had our own debate. The problem we so quickly realized, both verdicts have justifiable and verifiable evidence to reasonably back up each outcome.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Thursday, September 3rd. The jury is back in. They are back at it this morning. What is this, day six now of deliberation in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. Welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ, and we're going to try to put each other through what maybe they're going through and try to bring up the arguments for how would you convince somebody in that jury room, Robes, right? If they are dead set on first degree, how would you convince somebody if they're dead set on not guilty? So we're going to put some of those arguments to test, but we want to give you a few updates about what happened this morning, Robes. And like you said, it was a rare morning where they seem to be on time. Yes.
00:00:44
Speaker 2: Normally we haven't seen the jury go back into deliberations until around 9.30 or so because there usually is something the judge has to clear up or there's a delay that we don't even know why. But today it was straight to business. They were back deliberating before 9.10, I believe so. As of this recording, yes, they are now rounding into even maybe the 30th hour of deliberations, but certainly the second hour of deliberations following that Tui Rodriguez charge, which the judge issued yesterday afternoon. And look, it's so fascinating because we're learning as we go here. We've covered plenty of trials. And yes, we've all heard of hung juries, but I didn't even realize how exceptionally rare they are. If that's where we end up, only five to six percent of criminal cases end in a hung jury. And so what we're witnessing, what we're experiencing, if that is what indeed happens, is not something we're used to seeing.
00:01:47
Speaker 1: Um, I also wonder if all of them are well aware that they have an exit. They have a way out. Um, he does not have the opportunity now by Massachusetts law to send them back in if they come out and say, we are still deadlocked. I wonder if they know that.
00:02:04
Speaker 2: Yes. Uh, we don't know the answer to that. And we also don't know what the split is. So the, there's, there have been a few studies on jury behavior, but not a lot actually, uh, because we don't know a lot, because oftentimes jurors don't talk when.
00:02:18
Speaker 3: They get out. It's a secret.
00:02:21
Speaker 2: Process as it should be and needs to be for the integrity of the case. But what we have learned is when you only have one holdout, oftentimes, especially if an Allen charge or a Tui Rodriguez charge is issued by the judge, that one person is likely to be convinced.
00:02:38
Speaker 3: But if you've got three, maybe four in the minority to the eight, that's.
00:02:43
Speaker 2: A much taller order. You don't just have to convince one person or maybe even two people. If you've got to convince three people, four people who are sticking together as a unit, that is significantly more.
00:02:54
Speaker 3: Difficult to do.
00:02:58
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it sounds like it'd be hard to believe at this point that there is single holdouts in one way or another, that there aren't factions, that there aren't groups, that you don't have a collection of people in there with different opinions. And that's a lot to overcome. We don't know. Of course, the split, we only know there are nine women and three men. What does that mean for this jury? We don't know. We just don't know. And we are now getting into territory of trials and whatnot that we don't see. So this is what's kind of fascinating to watch this play out. And it's playing out up against a holiday weekend.
00:03:36
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:03:36
Speaker 3: And look, time is running out.
00:03:39
Speaker 2: Just, I don't know how much longer this jury can endure this type of standoff, so to speak, with so many emotions running high outside the courtroom. You can only imagine the same thing is going on inside that jury deliberation room. And there's just a certain point where I just don't think human beings can take it anymore. So look, either they reach a consensus and then they get to go home. Or they go back and tell the judge, we absolutely cannot find common ground.
00:04:07
Speaker 3: And they get to go home.
00:04:10
Speaker 1: How soon will they come back out? We don't know. Again, as of this recording, they just went in. So it's possible. One morning, they did it one morning. They were in there an hour and came back. So it seemed like they went in, had a quick conversation. Anybody change their mind? Let's get on out of here. Yes.
00:04:26
Speaker 2: And folks have looked at past cases where a Tui Rodriguez or an Allen charge has been issued. And they say if the jury comes back with a verdict after those charges, they usually come back pretty quickly because the.
00:04:37
Speaker 3: Judge's words carried weight.
00:04:39
Speaker 2: Whoever was the holdout or whatever group was the holdout in the minority, if they're going to change their minds, they tend to do it. pretty quickly, within an hour or two after a judge issues that order. So a lot of people are saying, hey, if they come back early, it may be because they have been able to reach a verdict.
00:04:56
Speaker 3: If they take a little bit longer, the likelihood of a mistrial goes up significantly.
00:05:00
Speaker 1: Yeah, because it means they're trying to work it out. They're trying, they're still trying because there's a chance. If they come back quickly, what's the point of any of this? What would it be? We've been, everybody's been speculating, discussing where would someone be entrenched in there? Like which... one of those five options, we should say there are really just four, first degree, second degree, manslaughter, not guilty by reason of insanity. Which one of those is somebody really sticking to their guns on?
00:05:26
Speaker 2: It seems like the people who absolutely believe that Lindsay Clancy must serve time behind bars. And for that, you're looking at first or second degree, because manslaughter doesn't guarantee she spends time behind bars because it's left up to the judge. And of course, there is going to be the faction that most certainly believes that Lindsay Clancy does not belong behind bars, that she absolutely belongs in a mental facility.
00:05:52
Speaker 1: All right, so I'll be the first degree guy. You convince me why I need to go from first degree to not guilty by reason of insanity. This is the conversation they have to be having in their roles, but if someone is a dead set, and I'm going to play my role here, I am dead set for first degree for this lady. Convince me why I should go all the way down.
00:06:13
Speaker 3: I would speak, and I would probably use Dr.
00:06:16
Speaker 2: Philip Resnick as my main source of why, because this is a esteemed, credible witness who we have seen go either way. He's been somebody who has been a witness for the prosecution, and certainly in this case, he's been used as a witness for the defense. But for me, he seems to be the most credible because he has interviewed people and spent his life on filicide, where he has actually studied why parents kill their children. And I would point to when he really stood out for me, when he looked at the Casey Anthony case, and by the way, she was found not guilty, but he actually determined that he believed she killed her child out of hostility rather than love. And so he didn't necessarily, he isn't somebody who you can pick, pick a doc to defend the parent who killed the child.
00:07:10
Speaker 3: No, he has gone on both sides of that argument.
00:07:13
Speaker 2: And so for him to sit up there and testify to the fact, after spending many, many, many hours with Lindsay Clancy, that he believes she was in a state of psychosis and that she was also a part of what he calls altruistic filicide, that.
00:07:28
Speaker 3: She killed her children out of love.
00:07:30
Speaker 2: Rather than abuse, love rather than hostility, that she actually believed by killing them, she was doing something loving for them. She was doing what was right for them. And for a woman to believe that, she has to be in a state of psychosis.
00:07:45
Speaker 1: So you're telling me I need to believe one doctor to come all the way down. That's what you're telling me. Of all this medical evidence and everything I saw about the lack of study, the lack of attention on women's postpartum health, And you're telling me there's one guy. Yes, I understand his credentials. And he might be the guy out there compared to a lot of guys. But still, he is limited. So you're telling me all you got to tell me to come all the way down and say not guilty and never send this woman to prison for strangling these three babies is because a guy named Dr. Resnick tells me so.
00:08:24
Speaker 2: No, I would actually say use that as a backbone for the larger picture. And I would say in addition to him being the one doctor, I just think I found him to be the most credible of all the doctors. But also listen to her mother. Listen to her mother-in-law. Listen to her ex-husband. Those three people, I think it's fair to say, loved those three kids more than anybody on this jury, more than anybody out there in the American public, more than any of those physicians or doctors who interviewed Lindsay Clancy.
00:09:02
Speaker 3: And all three of those people, including her sister too.
00:09:06
Speaker 2: And typically, we know what a mother-in-law, daughter-in-law relationship usually is. We know what an ex-husband and an ex-wife relationship usually is. They're oftentimes adversarial. To have all of those people sitting on the side of Lindsay Clancy, In court, up on the stand, they're the ones who watched her decline. They're the ones who saw her unravel. They're the ones who saw her begging for help and going back and forth and up and down and going into states where she seemed normal, then going and sliding into states where she wasn't. I trust their opinion, and I put actually their opinion perhaps even higher than a doctor's opinion.
00:09:44
Speaker 1: Okay. That's all it is, though. Opinions. Those aren't facts and evidence. You just talked to me about a lot of emotion. Sure. And family members. Fine. None of that proves to me this woman was in some state that makes her no longer criminally responsible. for doing the worst thing i've ever heard.
00:10:01
Speaker 2: The people who knew her best and that isn't just opinion they are basing that on facts facts of what they saw anecdotal evidence visual evidence experience those are all true forms of evidence that are facts that you might base opinions.
00:10:17
Speaker 3: Off of but they're based off the facts No, they absolutely discussed.
00:10:20
Speaker 1: Evidence that she was doing better because they all said she was doing better.
00:10:23
Speaker 2: That speaks to the cyclical nature of this, that you can go in and out of psychosis, which we heard many, many doctors testify to.
00:10:30
Speaker 1: But nobody said she did go in and out. She only went in it long enough to strangle her three babies.
00:10:34
Speaker 2: She went in and out several times talking about these dark thoughts. She wrote it in her diary, in her journal. She talked about having scary thoughts.
00:10:43
Speaker 1: There's no doctor. Even your resnick didn't tell us she was in psychosis any previous time.
00:10:48
Speaker 2: Oh, he said that she was in a severe emotional distress and that it could lead to a moment of psychosis.
00:10:53
Speaker 1: So are most of us in this room right now.
00:10:55
Speaker 3: I don't believe that. Most of us have been in a state of psychosis?
00:11:00
Speaker 1: Folks, I'm just playing devil's advocate in the jury room again. I'm just a reminder here. Just a reminder.
00:11:04
Speaker 2: Well, we're just trying to imagine what could be happening back and forth and what it would take for someone to feel convinced. Those would be my arguments for not guilty by reason of insanity.
00:11:15
Speaker 1: All right, well, stay here. I will try to convince Robes why she should vote for guilty, first degree, for Lindsay Clancy. Stay here. All right, we are back with my fellow juror, Robes, here, making the arguments for why maybe Lindsay Clancy should get not guilty by reason of insanity. First agree, Robes. So you're the person sitting in that corner who is saying not guilty by reason of insanity.
00:11:54
Speaker 2: Yes, and by the way, I do recognize we're role-playing. I just took my role very seriously.
00:11:58
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. Need to lighten this, start to get hostile in the studio. No, no.
00:12:03
Speaker 3: Actually, I thought it was just that you imagine that it must be getting. I mean, maybe it isn't, but I would imagine it could be getting a little hostile.
00:12:11
Speaker 1: It's got to be tested.
00:12:12
Speaker 3: It's got to be.
00:12:12
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't want to assign anything that we don't know actually is going on, but just and we were role playing and you don't even personally necessarily think that she should be.
00:12:24
Speaker 3: Convicted of first-degree murder.
00:12:26
Speaker 2: But there are likely people in there who do, based on what we're seeing online, based on what we're hearing from folks on podcasts and comments. There are obviously plenty of people who believe she absolutely should spend the rest of her life behind bars.
00:12:39
Speaker 1: And here are the arguments. First of all, things that don't make sense. She planned out that window. Does that not read to you at all? Are you as well dismissive? It seems as if... She really put a plan in place to have Patrick out of the house to know how long he was going to be gone to make sure she had time to do what she did. I would put that in the bucket of she seemed to be well aware of a plan and what she was going to do well before some voice she claims spoke to her.
00:13:11
Speaker 2: Yes. And I would say that I leave space for, and was okay with the explanation by Resnick and others, that you can be delusional and be mentally unstable and still be able to have normal functions, even if that means planning for your delusion. Because if you have it in your head, that this is the loving thing to do, this is the right thing to do, that you have spiraled so downward in your mental health and psychosis that you actually are justifying your actions, that you can still operate and function but be in a state of abnormal mental health.
00:13:51
Speaker 1: Well, that's a delusional woman. We're talking about a woman in psychosis, though, are we not? She could be delusional all day. That doesn't mean she's not criminally responsible until we get to the point of psychosis. So with all this delusion and all this planning, that's a woman who's not in psychosis planning to kill her kids, is she not?
00:14:11
Speaker 2: I believe you can be in psychosis and still be able to function and operate normally.
00:14:17
Speaker 1: She was not in psychosis all day. A voice didn't tell her to kill her kids all day.
00:14:23
Speaker 3: But a voice isn't the only symptom of psychosis.
00:14:27
Speaker 1: It's the only indicator in this case that put her over the edge, we're told. It's what we're told by your experts. The voice is the thing that triggered the action to kill the kids. Then why was there a plan in place ahead of time? I would put that in the bucket. Also, that day, she didn't show distress, according to her family members. Perfectly normal day. Now, you might have different reasons for that, but it sounds like she was trying to avoid any suspicion about what she was going to be doing later. She didn't want to raise any alarm before she sent her husband out on the errand. Make sense?
00:15:04
Speaker 2: It does, but I also will refer back to what Resnick said that.
00:15:09
Speaker 1: You and this Resnick guy.
00:15:11
Speaker 2: Because I really did appreciate the fact that he seemed to be the most learned, the most experienced when it comes to this filicide, where you actually have a forensic.
00:15:26
Speaker 3: Psychiatrist who has studied... parents who kill their children.
00:15:31
Speaker 2: And if he can separate Lindsay Clancy and put her into the category of parents who kill because they're in a state of psychosis, not because they are abusive, or not because they want to get rid of their children to live a different life, and not because they're just inherently evil, but because they're actually suffering from a mental disorder, I appreciated the fact that he described her as almost as if she were like a puppet. That she was acting and appearing.
00:16:02
Speaker 3: Normal, but someone.
00:16:04
Speaker 1: Else was pulling the strings. You're putting all yours in the Resnick version. You're putting all yours. You keep going back to Resnick.
00:16:09
Speaker 3: But not all Resnick.
00:16:10
Speaker 1: Everything you're saying is Resnick.
00:16:12
Speaker 3: But I also look at her... Family and the people who saw her.
00:16:17
Speaker 1: Day in and day out. Okay, you're making the same two arguments. I trust Resnick and the family. I got evidence on my side. I got timing on my side. I also have experts on my side. I'm not just going with the emotion of the moment. Who were paid for by the prosecution. Yeah, everybody in this case got paid, as we know, except for the jury. That's fine. But this, you're putting everything, and I am not going to let this woman off because I like Resnick so much or because her family is feeling what her family is.
00:16:41
Speaker 3: Who knew her better than her family, though?
00:16:43
Speaker 1: Who saw her more than her family? Her family is not making a determination that she is insane.
00:16:50
Speaker 3: Do you believe that she tried to get help?
00:16:52
Speaker 1: Family doesn't count.
00:16:53
Speaker 2: Do you believe that she was begging for help and was failed by the system? And if she had gotten the correct medication and had doctors who actually treated her as a woman who had postpartum psychosis, do you think her children would be dead today?
00:17:05
Speaker 1: See, what I'm saying is she got the same level, from my experience... that a lot of people get they don't get the best but she had access to the best so just because things were i'm not saying this woman wasn't ill but i am saying nobody has convinced me but i'm trying to convince you do you realize how long it took her to kill these kids Do you realize how long it takes to strangle a kid, someone? That is not a quick episode.
00:17:32
Speaker 2: Right, so how could a sane mother do that?
00:17:34
Speaker 1: No, it's a woman who had a plan to kill those kids. That's just another way to look at that. There was bruising on those kids. This goes to brutality, and how could we let this lady off? There were defensive wounds on those kids. Kids were bruised because they were fighting back from their mother taking up to a minute and a half to strangle them alive. This lady.
00:17:55
Speaker 3: I don't take away from the horrific.
00:17:57
Speaker 1: Strangle them. Yes, it was horrific. So to do that, why is she still, is this voice saying, keep at it, keep at it, keep at it? She's in and out throughout that whole time. The phone rings. She's smart enough to know not to answer it, but she's smart enough to know she also needs to call back and to make sure her husband is doing what he needs to be doing. That's a woman who is, a voice is guiding her throughout that entire experience. Absolutely not.
00:18:22
Speaker 3: You sound passionate.
00:18:24
Speaker 1: Well, that's what you have to do. You said you took your role seriously. No, I know, I know.
00:18:27
Speaker 3: I'm laughing because you're doing the same thing. But no, the other point I would make is that she believed.
00:18:31
Speaker 1: There's no more to make. You got your turn. We're done.
00:18:34
Speaker 2: Oh, well, I was going to just say, when you say going in and out, when she was describing it to these other physicians who testified against her, who you're clearly relying on more than Resnick, she tended to minimize... rather than exaggerate her symptoms. She was, what she wrote in her journal actually was more severe than what she told even health officials.
00:18:58
Speaker 3: Or her doctors.
00:18:59
Speaker 1: Doesn't diagnose her with psychosis.
00:19:01
Speaker 2: And even when she was being interviewed by the state, when she knew that these were men who were going to be testifying against her, she didn't try to create some larger voice or something. She didn't pretend that it was anything other than it was. So that also, to me, lends to her credibility of where she was and this voice she said she heard.
00:19:18
Speaker 1: I don't know how they're going to figure it out. You're not going to get somebody from one camp all the way to the other. That's why they gave them options of manslaughter. Putting that on the table allows them to hold her responsible, but not fully responsible. It gives them the option. And it looks like Robes are hung up on Robes.
00:19:35
Speaker 2: And to that point, if they can't, it seems like if they can't agree on manslaughter, they won't be able to agree on anything.
00:19:42
Speaker 3: That's where it feels this is headed.
00:19:44
Speaker 2: But we will find out, certainly, hopefully, in a matter of hours, we will keep our eye on it. on that courtroom for you. But thank you, as always, for listening to us. Please check out our feed. We will be on top of it. I'm Amy Robach alongside TJ Holmes.
00:19:57
Speaker 3: We'll talk soon.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Thursday, September 3rd. The jury is back in. They are back at it this morning. What is this, day six now of deliberation in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. Welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ, and we're going to try to put each other through what maybe they're going through and try to bring up the arguments for how would you convince somebody in that jury room, Robes, right? If they are dead set on first degree, how would you convince somebody if they're dead set on not guilty? So we're going to put some of those arguments to test, but we want to give you a few updates about what happened this morning, Robes. And like you said, it was a rare morning where they seem to be on time. Yes.
00:00:44
Speaker 2: Normally we haven't seen the jury go back into deliberations until around 9.30 or so because there usually is something the judge has to clear up or there's a delay that we don't even know why. But today it was straight to business. They were back deliberating before 9.10, I believe so. As of this recording, yes, they are now rounding into even maybe the 30th hour of deliberations, but certainly the second hour of deliberations following that Tui Rodriguez charge, which the judge issued yesterday afternoon. And look, it's so fascinating because we're learning as we go here. We've covered plenty of trials. And yes, we've all heard of hung juries, but I didn't even realize how exceptionally rare they are. If that's where we end up, only five to six percent of criminal cases end in a hung jury. And so what we're witnessing, what we're experiencing, if that is what indeed happens, is not something we're used to seeing.
00:01:47
Speaker 1: Um, I also wonder if all of them are well aware that they have an exit. They have a way out. Um, he does not have the opportunity now by Massachusetts law to send them back in if they come out and say, we are still deadlocked. I wonder if they know that.
00:02:04
Speaker 2: Yes. Uh, we don't know the answer to that. And we also don't know what the split is. So the, there's, there have been a few studies on jury behavior, but not a lot actually, uh, because we don't know a lot, because oftentimes jurors don't talk when.
00:02:18
Speaker 3: They get out. It's a secret.
00:02:21
Speaker 2: Process as it should be and needs to be for the integrity of the case. But what we have learned is when you only have one holdout, oftentimes, especially if an Allen charge or a Tui Rodriguez charge is issued by the judge, that one person is likely to be convinced.
00:02:38
Speaker 3: But if you've got three, maybe four in the minority to the eight, that's.
00:02:43
Speaker 2: A much taller order. You don't just have to convince one person or maybe even two people. If you've got to convince three people, four people who are sticking together as a unit, that is significantly more.
00:02:54
Speaker 3: Difficult to do.
00:02:58
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it sounds like it'd be hard to believe at this point that there is single holdouts in one way or another, that there aren't factions, that there aren't groups, that you don't have a collection of people in there with different opinions. And that's a lot to overcome. We don't know. Of course, the split, we only know there are nine women and three men. What does that mean for this jury? We don't know. We just don't know. And we are now getting into territory of trials and whatnot that we don't see. So this is what's kind of fascinating to watch this play out. And it's playing out up against a holiday weekend.
00:03:36
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:03:36
Speaker 3: And look, time is running out.
00:03:39
Speaker 2: Just, I don't know how much longer this jury can endure this type of standoff, so to speak, with so many emotions running high outside the courtroom. You can only imagine the same thing is going on inside that jury deliberation room. And there's just a certain point where I just don't think human beings can take it anymore. So look, either they reach a consensus and then they get to go home. Or they go back and tell the judge, we absolutely cannot find common ground.
00:04:07
Speaker 3: And they get to go home.
00:04:10
Speaker 1: How soon will they come back out? We don't know. Again, as of this recording, they just went in. So it's possible. One morning, they did it one morning. They were in there an hour and came back. So it seemed like they went in, had a quick conversation. Anybody change their mind? Let's get on out of here. Yes.
00:04:26
Speaker 2: And folks have looked at past cases where a Tui Rodriguez or an Allen charge has been issued. And they say if the jury comes back with a verdict after those charges, they usually come back pretty quickly because the.
00:04:37
Speaker 3: Judge's words carried weight.
00:04:39
Speaker 2: Whoever was the holdout or whatever group was the holdout in the minority, if they're going to change their minds, they tend to do it. pretty quickly, within an hour or two after a judge issues that order. So a lot of people are saying, hey, if they come back early, it may be because they have been able to reach a verdict.
00:04:56
Speaker 3: If they take a little bit longer, the likelihood of a mistrial goes up significantly.
00:05:00
Speaker 1: Yeah, because it means they're trying to work it out. They're trying, they're still trying because there's a chance. If they come back quickly, what's the point of any of this? What would it be? We've been, everybody's been speculating, discussing where would someone be entrenched in there? Like which... one of those five options, we should say there are really just four, first degree, second degree, manslaughter, not guilty by reason of insanity. Which one of those is somebody really sticking to their guns on?
00:05:26
Speaker 2: It seems like the people who absolutely believe that Lindsay Clancy must serve time behind bars. And for that, you're looking at first or second degree, because manslaughter doesn't guarantee she spends time behind bars because it's left up to the judge. And of course, there is going to be the faction that most certainly believes that Lindsay Clancy does not belong behind bars, that she absolutely belongs in a mental facility.
00:05:52
Speaker 1: All right, so I'll be the first degree guy. You convince me why I need to go from first degree to not guilty by reason of insanity. This is the conversation they have to be having in their roles, but if someone is a dead set, and I'm going to play my role here, I am dead set for first degree for this lady. Convince me why I should go all the way down.
00:06:13
Speaker 3: I would speak, and I would probably use Dr.
00:06:16
Speaker 2: Philip Resnick as my main source of why, because this is a esteemed, credible witness who we have seen go either way. He's been somebody who has been a witness for the prosecution, and certainly in this case, he's been used as a witness for the defense. But for me, he seems to be the most credible because he has interviewed people and spent his life on filicide, where he has actually studied why parents kill their children. And I would point to when he really stood out for me, when he looked at the Casey Anthony case, and by the way, she was found not guilty, but he actually determined that he believed she killed her child out of hostility rather than love. And so he didn't necessarily, he isn't somebody who you can pick, pick a doc to defend the parent who killed the child.
00:07:10
Speaker 3: No, he has gone on both sides of that argument.
00:07:13
Speaker 2: And so for him to sit up there and testify to the fact, after spending many, many, many hours with Lindsay Clancy, that he believes she was in a state of psychosis and that she was also a part of what he calls altruistic filicide, that.
00:07:28
Speaker 3: She killed her children out of love.
00:07:30
Speaker 2: Rather than abuse, love rather than hostility, that she actually believed by killing them, she was doing something loving for them. She was doing what was right for them. And for a woman to believe that, she has to be in a state of psychosis.
00:07:45
Speaker 1: So you're telling me I need to believe one doctor to come all the way down. That's what you're telling me. Of all this medical evidence and everything I saw about the lack of study, the lack of attention on women's postpartum health, And you're telling me there's one guy. Yes, I understand his credentials. And he might be the guy out there compared to a lot of guys. But still, he is limited. So you're telling me all you got to tell me to come all the way down and say not guilty and never send this woman to prison for strangling these three babies is because a guy named Dr. Resnick tells me so.
00:08:24
Speaker 2: No, I would actually say use that as a backbone for the larger picture. And I would say in addition to him being the one doctor, I just think I found him to be the most credible of all the doctors. But also listen to her mother. Listen to her mother-in-law. Listen to her ex-husband. Those three people, I think it's fair to say, loved those three kids more than anybody on this jury, more than anybody out there in the American public, more than any of those physicians or doctors who interviewed Lindsay Clancy.
00:09:02
Speaker 3: And all three of those people, including her sister too.
00:09:06
Speaker 2: And typically, we know what a mother-in-law, daughter-in-law relationship usually is. We know what an ex-husband and an ex-wife relationship usually is. They're oftentimes adversarial. To have all of those people sitting on the side of Lindsay Clancy, In court, up on the stand, they're the ones who watched her decline. They're the ones who saw her unravel. They're the ones who saw her begging for help and going back and forth and up and down and going into states where she seemed normal, then going and sliding into states where she wasn't. I trust their opinion, and I put actually their opinion perhaps even higher than a doctor's opinion.
00:09:44
Speaker 1: Okay. That's all it is, though. Opinions. Those aren't facts and evidence. You just talked to me about a lot of emotion. Sure. And family members. Fine. None of that proves to me this woman was in some state that makes her no longer criminally responsible. for doing the worst thing i've ever heard.
00:10:01
Speaker 2: The people who knew her best and that isn't just opinion they are basing that on facts facts of what they saw anecdotal evidence visual evidence experience those are all true forms of evidence that are facts that you might base opinions.
00:10:17
Speaker 3: Off of but they're based off the facts No, they absolutely discussed.
00:10:20
Speaker 1: Evidence that she was doing better because they all said she was doing better.
00:10:23
Speaker 2: That speaks to the cyclical nature of this, that you can go in and out of psychosis, which we heard many, many doctors testify to.
00:10:30
Speaker 1: But nobody said she did go in and out. She only went in it long enough to strangle her three babies.
00:10:34
Speaker 2: She went in and out several times talking about these dark thoughts. She wrote it in her diary, in her journal. She talked about having scary thoughts.
00:10:43
Speaker 1: There's no doctor. Even your resnick didn't tell us she was in psychosis any previous time.
00:10:48
Speaker 2: Oh, he said that she was in a severe emotional distress and that it could lead to a moment of psychosis.
00:10:53
Speaker 1: So are most of us in this room right now.
00:10:55
Speaker 3: I don't believe that. Most of us have been in a state of psychosis?
00:11:00
Speaker 1: Folks, I'm just playing devil's advocate in the jury room again. I'm just a reminder here. Just a reminder.
00:11:04
Speaker 2: Well, we're just trying to imagine what could be happening back and forth and what it would take for someone to feel convinced. Those would be my arguments for not guilty by reason of insanity.
00:11:15
Speaker 1: All right, well, stay here. I will try to convince Robes why she should vote for guilty, first degree, for Lindsay Clancy. Stay here. All right, we are back with my fellow juror, Robes, here, making the arguments for why maybe Lindsay Clancy should get not guilty by reason of insanity. First agree, Robes. So you're the person sitting in that corner who is saying not guilty by reason of insanity.
00:11:54
Speaker 2: Yes, and by the way, I do recognize we're role-playing. I just took my role very seriously.
00:11:58
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. Need to lighten this, start to get hostile in the studio. No, no.
00:12:03
Speaker 3: Actually, I thought it was just that you imagine that it must be getting. I mean, maybe it isn't, but I would imagine it could be getting a little hostile.
00:12:11
Speaker 1: It's got to be tested.
00:12:12
Speaker 3: It's got to be.
00:12:12
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't want to assign anything that we don't know actually is going on, but just and we were role playing and you don't even personally necessarily think that she should be.
00:12:24
Speaker 3: Convicted of first-degree murder.
00:12:26
Speaker 2: But there are likely people in there who do, based on what we're seeing online, based on what we're hearing from folks on podcasts and comments. There are obviously plenty of people who believe she absolutely should spend the rest of her life behind bars.
00:12:39
Speaker 1: And here are the arguments. First of all, things that don't make sense. She planned out that window. Does that not read to you at all? Are you as well dismissive? It seems as if... She really put a plan in place to have Patrick out of the house to know how long he was going to be gone to make sure she had time to do what she did. I would put that in the bucket of she seemed to be well aware of a plan and what she was going to do well before some voice she claims spoke to her.
00:13:11
Speaker 2: Yes. And I would say that I leave space for, and was okay with the explanation by Resnick and others, that you can be delusional and be mentally unstable and still be able to have normal functions, even if that means planning for your delusion. Because if you have it in your head, that this is the loving thing to do, this is the right thing to do, that you have spiraled so downward in your mental health and psychosis that you actually are justifying your actions, that you can still operate and function but be in a state of abnormal mental health.
00:13:51
Speaker 1: Well, that's a delusional woman. We're talking about a woman in psychosis, though, are we not? She could be delusional all day. That doesn't mean she's not criminally responsible until we get to the point of psychosis. So with all this delusion and all this planning, that's a woman who's not in psychosis planning to kill her kids, is she not?
00:14:11
Speaker 2: I believe you can be in psychosis and still be able to function and operate normally.
00:14:17
Speaker 1: She was not in psychosis all day. A voice didn't tell her to kill her kids all day.
00:14:23
Speaker 3: But a voice isn't the only symptom of psychosis.
00:14:27
Speaker 1: It's the only indicator in this case that put her over the edge, we're told. It's what we're told by your experts. The voice is the thing that triggered the action to kill the kids. Then why was there a plan in place ahead of time? I would put that in the bucket. Also, that day, she didn't show distress, according to her family members. Perfectly normal day. Now, you might have different reasons for that, but it sounds like she was trying to avoid any suspicion about what she was going to be doing later. She didn't want to raise any alarm before she sent her husband out on the errand. Make sense?
00:15:04
Speaker 2: It does, but I also will refer back to what Resnick said that.
00:15:09
Speaker 1: You and this Resnick guy.
00:15:11
Speaker 2: Because I really did appreciate the fact that he seemed to be the most learned, the most experienced when it comes to this filicide, where you actually have a forensic.
00:15:26
Speaker 3: Psychiatrist who has studied... parents who kill their children.
00:15:31
Speaker 2: And if he can separate Lindsay Clancy and put her into the category of parents who kill because they're in a state of psychosis, not because they are abusive, or not because they want to get rid of their children to live a different life, and not because they're just inherently evil, but because they're actually suffering from a mental disorder, I appreciated the fact that he described her as almost as if she were like a puppet. That she was acting and appearing.
00:16:02
Speaker 3: Normal, but someone.
00:16:04
Speaker 1: Else was pulling the strings. You're putting all yours in the Resnick version. You're putting all yours. You keep going back to Resnick.
00:16:09
Speaker 3: But not all Resnick.
00:16:10
Speaker 1: Everything you're saying is Resnick.
00:16:12
Speaker 3: But I also look at her... Family and the people who saw her.
00:16:17
Speaker 1: Day in and day out. Okay, you're making the same two arguments. I trust Resnick and the family. I got evidence on my side. I got timing on my side. I also have experts on my side. I'm not just going with the emotion of the moment. Who were paid for by the prosecution. Yeah, everybody in this case got paid, as we know, except for the jury. That's fine. But this, you're putting everything, and I am not going to let this woman off because I like Resnick so much or because her family is feeling what her family is.
00:16:41
Speaker 3: Who knew her better than her family, though?
00:16:43
Speaker 1: Who saw her more than her family? Her family is not making a determination that she is insane.
00:16:50
Speaker 3: Do you believe that she tried to get help?
00:16:52
Speaker 1: Family doesn't count.
00:16:53
Speaker 2: Do you believe that she was begging for help and was failed by the system? And if she had gotten the correct medication and had doctors who actually treated her as a woman who had postpartum psychosis, do you think her children would be dead today?
00:17:05
Speaker 1: See, what I'm saying is she got the same level, from my experience... that a lot of people get they don't get the best but she had access to the best so just because things were i'm not saying this woman wasn't ill but i am saying nobody has convinced me but i'm trying to convince you do you realize how long it took her to kill these kids Do you realize how long it takes to strangle a kid, someone? That is not a quick episode.
00:17:32
Speaker 2: Right, so how could a sane mother do that?
00:17:34
Speaker 1: No, it's a woman who had a plan to kill those kids. That's just another way to look at that. There was bruising on those kids. This goes to brutality, and how could we let this lady off? There were defensive wounds on those kids. Kids were bruised because they were fighting back from their mother taking up to a minute and a half to strangle them alive. This lady.
00:17:55
Speaker 3: I don't take away from the horrific.
00:17:57
Speaker 1: Strangle them. Yes, it was horrific. So to do that, why is she still, is this voice saying, keep at it, keep at it, keep at it? She's in and out throughout that whole time. The phone rings. She's smart enough to know not to answer it, but she's smart enough to know she also needs to call back and to make sure her husband is doing what he needs to be doing. That's a woman who is, a voice is guiding her throughout that entire experience. Absolutely not.
00:18:22
Speaker 3: You sound passionate.
00:18:24
Speaker 1: Well, that's what you have to do. You said you took your role seriously. No, I know, I know.
00:18:27
Speaker 3: I'm laughing because you're doing the same thing. But no, the other point I would make is that she believed.
00:18:31
Speaker 1: There's no more to make. You got your turn. We're done.
00:18:34
Speaker 2: Oh, well, I was going to just say, when you say going in and out, when she was describing it to these other physicians who testified against her, who you're clearly relying on more than Resnick, she tended to minimize... rather than exaggerate her symptoms. She was, what she wrote in her journal actually was more severe than what she told even health officials.
00:18:58
Speaker 3: Or her doctors.
00:18:59
Speaker 1: Doesn't diagnose her with psychosis.
00:19:01
Speaker 2: And even when she was being interviewed by the state, when she knew that these were men who were going to be testifying against her, she didn't try to create some larger voice or something. She didn't pretend that it was anything other than it was. So that also, to me, lends to her credibility of where she was and this voice she said she heard.
00:19:18
Speaker 1: I don't know how they're going to figure it out. You're not going to get somebody from one camp all the way to the other. That's why they gave them options of manslaughter. Putting that on the table allows them to hold her responsible, but not fully responsible. It gives them the option. And it looks like Robes are hung up on Robes.
00:19:35
Speaker 2: And to that point, if they can't, it seems like if they can't agree on manslaughter, they won't be able to agree on anything.
00:19:42
Speaker 3: That's where it feels this is headed.
00:19:44
Speaker 2: But we will find out, certainly, hopefully, in a matter of hours, we will keep our eye on it. on that courtroom for you. But thank you, as always, for listening to us. Please check out our feed. We will be on top of it. I'm Amy Robach alongside TJ Holmes.
00:19:57
Speaker 3: We'll talk soon.