Aug. 31, 2026
Killer Mom Trial VERDICT WATCH: Jury Asks a Question: Can We Go Home Early?
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed The Lindsay Clancy jury has now officially deliberated for 17 hours, and by asking to head home early for the day, it appears they are nowhere near a verdict. In fact, we didn’t hear a peep from the jury of 9 women and 3 men all day: no questions, no requests for evidence, nothing. Day four of deliberations will begin promptly at 9am tomorrow, making this verdict watch already longer than some of the most recent and high profile murder cases in the country.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Monday, August 31st, day three of the deliberations in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. There will be a day four of deliberations. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Rose, they didn't just go home. They asked to go home early.
00:00:21
Speaker 2: Yes, this is, it's hard not to make assumptions at this point to think they have sat through this trial for years. well, this is now the sixth week, I guess, that they have been showing up to court each and every day. This starts the sixth week. Yes, you would be incentivized as a juror to return to your normal life, to return to your professional life, to return to your personal life. And so for them to ask to go home early, I think anyone who has had a long period of time where you're working on something, you want to get it done. And so you don't want to have a lot of short days. No, let's stick here and stay with it until we figure this out. And if you think you're getting somewhere or you think you're getting close, let's hang on in there and let's get through this. The fact that they asked to go home early, like before 4 p.m., that to me, how do you not read into that?
00:01:18
Speaker 1: You know, it's fair with about at least a quarter to four. They've been I mean, the entire trial, the judge has been holding court from 9 to 4. That has been their schedule. Robes, this caused a little bit of a panic. We will let you know. They just, of this recording, we are telling you, they are minutes from adjourning for the day, which surprised the hell out of us. We said, holy hell, we're going to have another day of this. But Robes, people were buzzing. The doors opened. The family started coming in. Reporters were coming back in. Oh, my goodness. And there wasn't a verdict. Robes, a quarter to four.
00:01:52
Speaker 2: Can we go home?
00:01:54
Speaker 1: Yeah. That means we're getting nowhere. What else could that mean?
00:01:58
Speaker 2: Exactly. Like you hate to try and assume what's going on, but I think it's fairly obvious if you're asking to go home early on day three of deliberations, that would suggest that there is, well, they don't feel like they're close enough to keep going. Okay.
00:02:16
Speaker 1: Maybe they got to. Robes, maybe they're taking this step by step by step. Maybe they just got past the hump. You know, right? All right, we just got that one settled. Let's come back tomorrow and start to tackle this other thing. Maybe that's it. Maybe that's it. It's nothing but maybes. But, Rose, you don't go home early if you're making progress.
00:02:34
Speaker 2: No.
00:02:34
Speaker 1: You would assume. But, Rose, what if they made progress and completed one task and said, all right, we're good. Let's not even get started on some other shit.
00:02:41
Speaker 2: Yes, maybe they got something agreed upon and they know that to go into the next phase of whatever it is they're trying to agree to, they know that'll be opening up a whole new can of worms. And so they might want to save it for a fresh start, a new day. But look, it's got to be exhausting. They are now, according to most estimates, they have now been deliberating for 17 hours. You are in a room with 11 strangers who probably don't think like you do or react to things the way you do. And now all of you have to 17 hours in a room with 11 other people trying to come to an agreed upon verdict. It's exhausting.
00:03:25
Speaker 1: Maybe they knew. Maybe they knew, you know, guys, we need a rest. Guys, let's come back fresh. Maybe it was a very difficult day at Robes. Yes, we watched the trial. They're having to go through some of these notes again, some of these pictures again, seeing the knife again. I mean, this could be possibly not just physically, but emotionally taxing. And they called it like, guys, let's call it for today.
00:03:48
Speaker 2: Yep. And I think that's a fair point. This isn't just any murder trial. This is an emotionally weighted trial where you have three people. dead children who were killed by their own mother. And so it's just unusual and that they're not trying to determine guilt or innocence the way you typically would be. This is so personal. This is so emotional. This is so like, it really is about your individual lens that you're looking at the evidence through. And that is the only way you can actually come to a decision that about whether or not you think she's criminally responsible. It really does. It is personal. It is subjective. It isn't black or white. It isn't facts versus fiction. It is murky. Yes, we're talking about science, but when you have multiple scientists disagreeing on what the evidence shows, what are you left to base your decision on? I have to think feelings, personal experiences. That all comes into it, and that's so individual. How do 12 people agree on something that is that murky?
00:05:02
Speaker 1: You and I can't agree on this case. You and I sat and talked this through. Yes, we were fine in the episode we did, but Robes, we struggled. Even us getting along, we saw things differently. You, as a woman, brought things to the table I never would have seen. I've heard about it before, but you jumped to conclusions about things that I never, would have thought about. I bring my experiences to the ropes. Twelve people from what varying backgrounds? I don't know the ages. I haven't seen a breakdown of race or anything like that with the twelve. We just know it was nine women. The ropes. We didn't hear, what, twice today. Court was in session. They walked in in the morning. The judge called the jury in. Go continue your work. We didn't hear from the jury the rest of the day until they said we want to go home. There was not a question. There was not a beep. There was not anything.
00:06:00
Speaker 2: There has been nothing from the jury to give any indication as to where they are collectively, how close they may be, how far apart they may be, what questions they may have. They have not asked a single question.
00:06:15
Speaker 1: Yes, the only question.
00:06:17
Speaker 2: The only interaction was them asking on Friday, early on, to take a look at the knife that Lindsay Clancy used before she jumped out of her window and that bag of empty pill bottles.
00:06:30
Speaker 1: I have to say, I'm surprised we haven't gotten a substantive question. We see jurors do this all the time. They'll send out a question. Can we get clarity on this? Can we ask about this doctor? When he said this, did he mean this? Robes. In this complicated of a case, they haven't asked a substantive evidence-based or trial-based question. They just say, can you bring that stuff in here? I am kind of surprised by that, that they wouldn't ask forâ I need clarity on a bunch of stuff.
00:06:57
Speaker 2: I think that is, to me, honestly, one of the more shocking parts of this. I'm not surprised, and I imagine you aren't either, that it's taking them this long to find some sort of consensus about I'm not surprised that we're going to have day four of deliberations. A little surprised, but I'm not terribly surprised. This is a complicated case with more witnesses than we've seen in recent years. And there is just so much to go through and so much room for subjectivity that I'm not shocked. But I am surprised that there aren't questions. I am surprised that there isn't some sort of interaction with them or even Hearing from them like we did in the Diddy trial pretty early on, I believe it was day two, where they were like, yeah, we can't come to an agreement.
00:07:46
Speaker 1: They were saying, get us out of here. We want to go home. We're not going to come to a conclusion. Judge says, no, you keep going. They had a conclusion pretty quickly.
00:07:53
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. And the long, yes, well, I'm not going to let you out that easily. The longer this goes on, the more we don't hear from them. That is shocking. Like, I am waiting now, tomorrow, a couple hours in, the foreman coming up and saying, yeah, we're really far apart. We can't figure this out. I'm waiting for that almost more than a question because it's just been silent.
00:08:17
Speaker 1: You know, at this point, I know Kalshi and all these, if I was a betting man, of those three scenarios, right? What are we going to hear from them first? We have a verdict, we have a question, or we're deadlocked. I think you're right, babe.
00:08:32
Speaker 2: Deadlocked.
00:08:32
Speaker 1: I think the first time we hear from them, I say, we're in trouble here. We can't come to an agreement. What should we do? I wouldn't be surprised by that at this point.
00:08:40
Speaker 2: I wouldn't either at all. In fact, I actually was kind of maybe even expecting that this afternoon, that we might get word that they are at an impasse, that they can't find... common ground. And nope, not a peep. Just we'd like to go home early, which come on, I just, how could you read it any other way than we are so not even close to coming to an agreement? See, I do.
00:09:04
Speaker 1: I see this as a, there are so many stages. You know what? What if they're taking it piece at a time? Not guilty? Okay. Nobody's going to vote for that, right? What if they're getting past things one at a time? What if they're getting over humps? Let's take this topic And talk it through and get to a consensus. And then we take this one. I could see a world in which they finished up with one big thing and said, guys, let's not even start. It's 345. Let's not even start on something new.
00:09:32
Speaker 2: I get that. And that does make sense. And we can all hope that that's where the jury is. But my other issue is like the Diddy trial. Other cases we've seen, there are multiple charges and it's confusing. Like he had racketeering and conspiracy to this and all of these.
00:09:49
Speaker 1: Other confusing charges that.
00:09:51
Speaker 2: I don't even know. And that could take time in and of itself, just trying to figure out the, what the different charges mean here.
00:10:00
Speaker 1: It's simple.
00:10:01
Speaker 2: She is facing three counts of first degree murder and she doesn't dispute killing them. So it's as simple as it gets. There aren't all of these other charges that are complicated that you have to look up the, the legal, this, that, or the other three charges that, With first degree murder for the three deaths of her children.
00:10:23
Speaker 1: In a normal case. That is not at all what they're deciding. It was decided when they walked in there. Everybody knows who killed them kids. They're deciding, Robes, something much more complex. We were looking at laws that were put on the books when King James was the king of England in the 1600s. Laws having to do with women killing their kids. And Robes Hundreds of years later, some of the same debates are playing out. And now this jury has to make one of the most consequential and watched decisions having to do with women's postpartum mental health that the world has ever known. Yeah, take your time. Take your time.
00:11:08
Speaker 2: They are taking their time.
00:11:09
Speaker 1: Take your time on this one, gang. Take your time. Robes, that is, they are trying to decide. They already know she was mentally ill.
00:11:17
Speaker 2: They do. Okay.
00:11:18
Speaker 1: Now we have to decide how much that mental illness had anything to do with her killing those kids.
00:11:23
Speaker 2: Okay. And now you've got how many different psychiatrists telling you different versions of what you're supposed to believe?
00:11:32
Speaker 1: Robes, I do not envy. But I appreciate, Robes, that they are taking their time. I appreciate that it's taking this long. I appreciate it. It sounds like they're doing their work, Robes. It really, really does to me. Sound like they are doing what they're supposed to do. And I don't know how... Some people are not going to like whatever they come out with. But to take anything away from this juror in terms of what the work they've done and how they've done and how they've performed by all accounts, you've got to give them credit.
00:11:59
Speaker 2: You do. And if they have any idea about where public opinion stands on this, it seems like it's almost certainly what's going on in the jury deliberation room. They're split. Just like it seems like the American public is split.
00:12:17
Speaker 1: And rogues in the American public, we know there are some that will never be convinced otherwise. Is that the case in that jury room as well? But they do have manslaughter as an option. But, folks, we are now into how many hours? 16, 17?
00:12:29
Speaker 2: 17 hours by the most recent count. Okay.
00:12:33
Speaker 1: Well, stay here, folks. We will explain now. This jury has taken longer to decide than juries in some of the most infamous cases in this country's history. Stay here. All right, we continue here on Amy and TJ. Just a short time ago, a short time ago, the jury in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial went home, asked to go home for the day about 15 minutes early. So they will be back for day four of jury deliberations. Day four, day four of deliberations. Casey Anthony's jury only took two days and 10 hours. This jury has now taken longer than that. How much farther does it go? We do not know. You have the list there in front of you. This jury is now taking longer than the Scott Peterson jury did.
00:13:23
Speaker 2: My goodness.
00:13:24
Speaker 1: They took eight hours.
00:13:25
Speaker 2: And it's taking longer now than the Andrea Yates not guilty by reason of insanity deliberation. That was a 12-hour deliberation. So, yes, they are well beyond that. By the way, when she was found guilty in her first trial, they only took three and a half hours. That was quick. When she was retried and, yes, was found not guilty by reason of insanity, a.k.a. postpartum psychosis, Yeah, they came to that conclusion in 12 hours. So, yeah, we're five hours beyond that.
00:13:57
Speaker 1: It's weird to look at some of these now in comparison because we didn't think we'd get to some of these numbers, right, when the deliberations first started. But to think now, Rose, you even said if they come back with a verdict today, this would be in line almost exactly with the Andrew Yates trial. They're blowing past that.
00:14:16
Speaker 2: I was kind of hoping for that. Maybe I was willing that to come to fruition, but we are well beyond that. And yes, day four, not a lot. I think the average, I believe, there is no, this is exactly what jurors usually take in a criminal trial, but they say the average is anywhere from four hours to 12 hours. So yes, we are now in an above average situation for a criminal trial, for a jury to deliberate.
00:14:44
Speaker 1: This jury has now also taken longer than the George Zimmerman trial. Two days only in that one. Sixteen hours over those two days. Susan Smith, 95, that was two and a half hours. It's crazy that this jury has taken them longer to decide her guilt or innocence versus Jeffrey Dahmer's, which was 10 hours in the Jeffrey Dahmer case in 92. It's amazing to look at the comparisons. Because now it's getting into different territory that we don't often see when we have high profile trials. Even Diddy with how many day two, it was over, I just kept saying it's over a weekend. That was, they didn't hit. This number at all, did they?
00:15:22
Speaker 2: Oh, no, no.
00:15:23
Speaker 1: You told me the other day.
00:15:23
Speaker 2: I actually, I can look it up really quickly, but I was actually, I was curious because I wonder how many people, I'm sure almost everybody has talked about this case with someone they know, someone they love. Certainly women have been talking amongst themselves about what they think, especially women who've given birth. And we were just on the phone with some of our iHeart producers and one who just gave birth not that long ago. And it's interesting because all of a sudden you start thinking, well, should every murderer, aren't they temporarily insane when they commit a crime? You start getting in your head about comparing this case to other cases. And should we be giving her this option of insanity? Wouldn't you be able to apply that to just about anybody who gets into such a state of whatever, call it psychosis, call it rage, call it irrational thinking. Shouldn't we be able to apply that? No, to me, this is so different. This is talking about something very specific, a phenomenon that has not been studied enough that we can't reach a consensus on. And that's why this case is so important. And that's why I think it's pretty obvious jurors are having such a hard time trying to figure out whether or not Lindsay Clancy should be held criminally responsible.
00:16:42
Speaker 1: Rose, this is I cannot believe this is happening. I am fascinated by it. The country at this point is on the edge, collective edge of our seats.
00:16:52
Speaker 2: And the Didi deliberation time, they say, was between 13 to 14 hours across three days. So basically, if this were the Didi trial, we would have been getting a verdict this afternoon. And so, yes, this has gone beyond many of our most recent high-profile cases. And look, I don't know at what point the judge intervenes and starts asking questions. We hear that happen sometimes where... They literally do a check-in. How are you doing? How are things progressing? We may get that tomorrow. Not sure, but no information certainly leads to a lot of speculation. And that is what we've been seeing online. We'll continue to monitor everything coming out of that Massachusetts courtroom. But in the meantime, thank you all for listening to us. I'm Amy Robach alongside TJ Holmes. We'll talk soon.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Monday, August 31st, day three of the deliberations in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. There will be a day four of deliberations. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Rose, they didn't just go home. They asked to go home early.
00:00:21
Speaker 2: Yes, this is, it's hard not to make assumptions at this point to think they have sat through this trial for years. well, this is now the sixth week, I guess, that they have been showing up to court each and every day. This starts the sixth week. Yes, you would be incentivized as a juror to return to your normal life, to return to your professional life, to return to your personal life. And so for them to ask to go home early, I think anyone who has had a long period of time where you're working on something, you want to get it done. And so you don't want to have a lot of short days. No, let's stick here and stay with it until we figure this out. And if you think you're getting somewhere or you think you're getting close, let's hang on in there and let's get through this. The fact that they asked to go home early, like before 4 p.m., that to me, how do you not read into that?
00:01:18
Speaker 1: You know, it's fair with about at least a quarter to four. They've been I mean, the entire trial, the judge has been holding court from 9 to 4. That has been their schedule. Robes, this caused a little bit of a panic. We will let you know. They just, of this recording, we are telling you, they are minutes from adjourning for the day, which surprised the hell out of us. We said, holy hell, we're going to have another day of this. But Robes, people were buzzing. The doors opened. The family started coming in. Reporters were coming back in. Oh, my goodness. And there wasn't a verdict. Robes, a quarter to four.
00:01:52
Speaker 2: Can we go home?
00:01:54
Speaker 1: Yeah. That means we're getting nowhere. What else could that mean?
00:01:58
Speaker 2: Exactly. Like you hate to try and assume what's going on, but I think it's fairly obvious if you're asking to go home early on day three of deliberations, that would suggest that there is, well, they don't feel like they're close enough to keep going. Okay.
00:02:16
Speaker 1: Maybe they got to. Robes, maybe they're taking this step by step by step. Maybe they just got past the hump. You know, right? All right, we just got that one settled. Let's come back tomorrow and start to tackle this other thing. Maybe that's it. Maybe that's it. It's nothing but maybes. But, Rose, you don't go home early if you're making progress.
00:02:34
Speaker 2: No.
00:02:34
Speaker 1: You would assume. But, Rose, what if they made progress and completed one task and said, all right, we're good. Let's not even get started on some other shit.
00:02:41
Speaker 2: Yes, maybe they got something agreed upon and they know that to go into the next phase of whatever it is they're trying to agree to, they know that'll be opening up a whole new can of worms. And so they might want to save it for a fresh start, a new day. But look, it's got to be exhausting. They are now, according to most estimates, they have now been deliberating for 17 hours. You are in a room with 11 strangers who probably don't think like you do or react to things the way you do. And now all of you have to 17 hours in a room with 11 other people trying to come to an agreed upon verdict. It's exhausting.
00:03:25
Speaker 1: Maybe they knew. Maybe they knew, you know, guys, we need a rest. Guys, let's come back fresh. Maybe it was a very difficult day at Robes. Yes, we watched the trial. They're having to go through some of these notes again, some of these pictures again, seeing the knife again. I mean, this could be possibly not just physically, but emotionally taxing. And they called it like, guys, let's call it for today.
00:03:48
Speaker 2: Yep. And I think that's a fair point. This isn't just any murder trial. This is an emotionally weighted trial where you have three people. dead children who were killed by their own mother. And so it's just unusual and that they're not trying to determine guilt or innocence the way you typically would be. This is so personal. This is so emotional. This is so like, it really is about your individual lens that you're looking at the evidence through. And that is the only way you can actually come to a decision that about whether or not you think she's criminally responsible. It really does. It is personal. It is subjective. It isn't black or white. It isn't facts versus fiction. It is murky. Yes, we're talking about science, but when you have multiple scientists disagreeing on what the evidence shows, what are you left to base your decision on? I have to think feelings, personal experiences. That all comes into it, and that's so individual. How do 12 people agree on something that is that murky?
00:05:02
Speaker 1: You and I can't agree on this case. You and I sat and talked this through. Yes, we were fine in the episode we did, but Robes, we struggled. Even us getting along, we saw things differently. You, as a woman, brought things to the table I never would have seen. I've heard about it before, but you jumped to conclusions about things that I never, would have thought about. I bring my experiences to the ropes. Twelve people from what varying backgrounds? I don't know the ages. I haven't seen a breakdown of race or anything like that with the twelve. We just know it was nine women. The ropes. We didn't hear, what, twice today. Court was in session. They walked in in the morning. The judge called the jury in. Go continue your work. We didn't hear from the jury the rest of the day until they said we want to go home. There was not a question. There was not a beep. There was not anything.
00:06:00
Speaker 2: There has been nothing from the jury to give any indication as to where they are collectively, how close they may be, how far apart they may be, what questions they may have. They have not asked a single question.
00:06:15
Speaker 1: Yes, the only question.
00:06:17
Speaker 2: The only interaction was them asking on Friday, early on, to take a look at the knife that Lindsay Clancy used before she jumped out of her window and that bag of empty pill bottles.
00:06:30
Speaker 1: I have to say, I'm surprised we haven't gotten a substantive question. We see jurors do this all the time. They'll send out a question. Can we get clarity on this? Can we ask about this doctor? When he said this, did he mean this? Robes. In this complicated of a case, they haven't asked a substantive evidence-based or trial-based question. They just say, can you bring that stuff in here? I am kind of surprised by that, that they wouldn't ask forâ I need clarity on a bunch of stuff.
00:06:57
Speaker 2: I think that is, to me, honestly, one of the more shocking parts of this. I'm not surprised, and I imagine you aren't either, that it's taking them this long to find some sort of consensus about I'm not surprised that we're going to have day four of deliberations. A little surprised, but I'm not terribly surprised. This is a complicated case with more witnesses than we've seen in recent years. And there is just so much to go through and so much room for subjectivity that I'm not shocked. But I am surprised that there aren't questions. I am surprised that there isn't some sort of interaction with them or even Hearing from them like we did in the Diddy trial pretty early on, I believe it was day two, where they were like, yeah, we can't come to an agreement.
00:07:46
Speaker 1: They were saying, get us out of here. We want to go home. We're not going to come to a conclusion. Judge says, no, you keep going. They had a conclusion pretty quickly.
00:07:53
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. And the long, yes, well, I'm not going to let you out that easily. The longer this goes on, the more we don't hear from them. That is shocking. Like, I am waiting now, tomorrow, a couple hours in, the foreman coming up and saying, yeah, we're really far apart. We can't figure this out. I'm waiting for that almost more than a question because it's just been silent.
00:08:17
Speaker 1: You know, at this point, I know Kalshi and all these, if I was a betting man, of those three scenarios, right? What are we going to hear from them first? We have a verdict, we have a question, or we're deadlocked. I think you're right, babe.
00:08:32
Speaker 2: Deadlocked.
00:08:32
Speaker 1: I think the first time we hear from them, I say, we're in trouble here. We can't come to an agreement. What should we do? I wouldn't be surprised by that at this point.
00:08:40
Speaker 2: I wouldn't either at all. In fact, I actually was kind of maybe even expecting that this afternoon, that we might get word that they are at an impasse, that they can't find... common ground. And nope, not a peep. Just we'd like to go home early, which come on, I just, how could you read it any other way than we are so not even close to coming to an agreement? See, I do.
00:09:04
Speaker 1: I see this as a, there are so many stages. You know what? What if they're taking it piece at a time? Not guilty? Okay. Nobody's going to vote for that, right? What if they're getting past things one at a time? What if they're getting over humps? Let's take this topic And talk it through and get to a consensus. And then we take this one. I could see a world in which they finished up with one big thing and said, guys, let's not even start. It's 345. Let's not even start on something new.
00:09:32
Speaker 2: I get that. And that does make sense. And we can all hope that that's where the jury is. But my other issue is like the Diddy trial. Other cases we've seen, there are multiple charges and it's confusing. Like he had racketeering and conspiracy to this and all of these.
00:09:49
Speaker 1: Other confusing charges that.
00:09:51
Speaker 2: I don't even know. And that could take time in and of itself, just trying to figure out the, what the different charges mean here.
00:10:00
Speaker 1: It's simple.
00:10:01
Speaker 2: She is facing three counts of first degree murder and she doesn't dispute killing them. So it's as simple as it gets. There aren't all of these other charges that are complicated that you have to look up the, the legal, this, that, or the other three charges that, With first degree murder for the three deaths of her children.
00:10:23
Speaker 1: In a normal case. That is not at all what they're deciding. It was decided when they walked in there. Everybody knows who killed them kids. They're deciding, Robes, something much more complex. We were looking at laws that were put on the books when King James was the king of England in the 1600s. Laws having to do with women killing their kids. And Robes Hundreds of years later, some of the same debates are playing out. And now this jury has to make one of the most consequential and watched decisions having to do with women's postpartum mental health that the world has ever known. Yeah, take your time. Take your time.
00:11:08
Speaker 2: They are taking their time.
00:11:09
Speaker 1: Take your time on this one, gang. Take your time. Robes, that is, they are trying to decide. They already know she was mentally ill.
00:11:17
Speaker 2: They do. Okay.
00:11:18
Speaker 1: Now we have to decide how much that mental illness had anything to do with her killing those kids.
00:11:23
Speaker 2: Okay. And now you've got how many different psychiatrists telling you different versions of what you're supposed to believe?
00:11:32
Speaker 1: Robes, I do not envy. But I appreciate, Robes, that they are taking their time. I appreciate that it's taking this long. I appreciate it. It sounds like they're doing their work, Robes. It really, really does to me. Sound like they are doing what they're supposed to do. And I don't know how... Some people are not going to like whatever they come out with. But to take anything away from this juror in terms of what the work they've done and how they've done and how they've performed by all accounts, you've got to give them credit.
00:11:59
Speaker 2: You do. And if they have any idea about where public opinion stands on this, it seems like it's almost certainly what's going on in the jury deliberation room. They're split. Just like it seems like the American public is split.
00:12:17
Speaker 1: And rogues in the American public, we know there are some that will never be convinced otherwise. Is that the case in that jury room as well? But they do have manslaughter as an option. But, folks, we are now into how many hours? 16, 17?
00:12:29
Speaker 2: 17 hours by the most recent count. Okay.
00:12:33
Speaker 1: Well, stay here, folks. We will explain now. This jury has taken longer to decide than juries in some of the most infamous cases in this country's history. Stay here. All right, we continue here on Amy and TJ. Just a short time ago, a short time ago, the jury in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial went home, asked to go home for the day about 15 minutes early. So they will be back for day four of jury deliberations. Day four, day four of deliberations. Casey Anthony's jury only took two days and 10 hours. This jury has now taken longer than that. How much farther does it go? We do not know. You have the list there in front of you. This jury is now taking longer than the Scott Peterson jury did.
00:13:23
Speaker 2: My goodness.
00:13:24
Speaker 1: They took eight hours.
00:13:25
Speaker 2: And it's taking longer now than the Andrea Yates not guilty by reason of insanity deliberation. That was a 12-hour deliberation. So, yes, they are well beyond that. By the way, when she was found guilty in her first trial, they only took three and a half hours. That was quick. When she was retried and, yes, was found not guilty by reason of insanity, a.k.a. postpartum psychosis, Yeah, they came to that conclusion in 12 hours. So, yeah, we're five hours beyond that.
00:13:57
Speaker 1: It's weird to look at some of these now in comparison because we didn't think we'd get to some of these numbers, right, when the deliberations first started. But to think now, Rose, you even said if they come back with a verdict today, this would be in line almost exactly with the Andrew Yates trial. They're blowing past that.
00:14:16
Speaker 2: I was kind of hoping for that. Maybe I was willing that to come to fruition, but we are well beyond that. And yes, day four, not a lot. I think the average, I believe, there is no, this is exactly what jurors usually take in a criminal trial, but they say the average is anywhere from four hours to 12 hours. So yes, we are now in an above average situation for a criminal trial, for a jury to deliberate.
00:14:44
Speaker 1: This jury has now also taken longer than the George Zimmerman trial. Two days only in that one. Sixteen hours over those two days. Susan Smith, 95, that was two and a half hours. It's crazy that this jury has taken them longer to decide her guilt or innocence versus Jeffrey Dahmer's, which was 10 hours in the Jeffrey Dahmer case in 92. It's amazing to look at the comparisons. Because now it's getting into different territory that we don't often see when we have high profile trials. Even Diddy with how many day two, it was over, I just kept saying it's over a weekend. That was, they didn't hit. This number at all, did they?
00:15:22
Speaker 2: Oh, no, no.
00:15:23
Speaker 1: You told me the other day.
00:15:23
Speaker 2: I actually, I can look it up really quickly, but I was actually, I was curious because I wonder how many people, I'm sure almost everybody has talked about this case with someone they know, someone they love. Certainly women have been talking amongst themselves about what they think, especially women who've given birth. And we were just on the phone with some of our iHeart producers and one who just gave birth not that long ago. And it's interesting because all of a sudden you start thinking, well, should every murderer, aren't they temporarily insane when they commit a crime? You start getting in your head about comparing this case to other cases. And should we be giving her this option of insanity? Wouldn't you be able to apply that to just about anybody who gets into such a state of whatever, call it psychosis, call it rage, call it irrational thinking. Shouldn't we be able to apply that? No, to me, this is so different. This is talking about something very specific, a phenomenon that has not been studied enough that we can't reach a consensus on. And that's why this case is so important. And that's why I think it's pretty obvious jurors are having such a hard time trying to figure out whether or not Lindsay Clancy should be held criminally responsible.
00:16:42
Speaker 1: Rose, this is I cannot believe this is happening. I am fascinated by it. The country at this point is on the edge, collective edge of our seats.
00:16:52
Speaker 2: And the Didi deliberation time, they say, was between 13 to 14 hours across three days. So basically, if this were the Didi trial, we would have been getting a verdict this afternoon. And so, yes, this has gone beyond many of our most recent high-profile cases. And look, I don't know at what point the judge intervenes and starts asking questions. We hear that happen sometimes where... They literally do a check-in. How are you doing? How are things progressing? We may get that tomorrow. Not sure, but no information certainly leads to a lot of speculation. And that is what we've been seeing online. We'll continue to monitor everything coming out of that Massachusetts courtroom. But in the meantime, thank you all for listening to us. I'm Amy Robach alongside TJ Holmes. We'll talk soon.