Aug. 31, 2026
Killer Mom Trial VERDICT WATCH: What Jurors Are Weighing, As Prosecution Star Witness Resigns From Job After Heated Testimony
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed The jurors in the Lindsay Clancy trial will begin day three of deliberations as they weigh competing medical diagnoses, along with any of their own personal experiences with parenting, motherhood and mental illness. Legal experts say it’s likely an emotional and overwhelming task for jurors, as they determine whether or not mental illness prevented the Massachusetts mom from knowing right from wrong as she strangled her three young children. Meantime, there was an interesting development outside of the courtroom: Dr. Avram Mack resigned from his position at a Delaware children’s hospital immediately after wrapping up his highly contentious testimony where he said Clancy was not suffering from postpartum psychosis.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Monday, August 31st, and today could be the day we get a verdict in the Lindsey Clancy triple murder trial. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. We kind of want to give you a reset, let you know where we are on a very significant day in this trial, in case you missed some things over the weekend. But yes, Robes, they are back at it today. They're going to get started with the negotiations as we are, I say negotiations, deliberations, as we record this. They haven't gotten back in there just yet, but want to get folks set for this, Robes, and We could hear from them in five minutes after they get back or in the next five days. We don't know, and nobody does.
00:00:38
Speaker 2: Nobody does, but over the weekend, as you might imagine, so many legal experts have weighed in on what they think may be going on inside those jury deliberations. But we know that they've deliberated for more than 10 hours, and we've only gotten one sneak peek intoâ what they're questioning or what they're looking at, but they have a lot to look at.
00:01:02
Speaker 3: We know that much.
00:01:03
Speaker 1: So let's start with that. Thursday, they got the case and called it a day. I guess they didn't stick around too long after getting the case on Thursday. So let us know they weren't anywhere close.
00:01:18
Speaker 2: Right. I think they deliberated for three and a half hours, which we've seen plenty of murder cases and murder trials. See, we've seen juries come to deliberations that quickly, but the fact that they went home at around 4.15 in the afternoon.
00:01:33
Speaker 1: Let's call it.
00:01:33
Speaker 2: They obviously were not close because had they been, who wouldn't have wanted to stick it out for a couple more hours and be done with it? So by them leaving at 4.15, that was a clear signal. they weren't anywhere near close to coming to a consensus.
00:01:47
Speaker 1: Okay, then they came back Friday, Robes, and had a full day. I'm not sure exactly what to call it. There was some confusion. There was some uncertainty that we heard from the jury on their first two days of deliberations. And, Robes, everybody was abuzz. It gets exciting. There's a jury note. And then we didn't know what the jury note was, and it wasn't read, and then we kind of heard, and then everybody tried to break it down. So let's start with what we finally, I guess, found out, Robes, the note did say.
00:02:12
Speaker 2: Yes, Kevin Reddington told reporters that the jury asked to see the bloody knife that was used by Lindsay Clancy in part of her attempt to take her own life. They also asked to see that bag that we saw her defense attorney hold up a couple of times with empty pill bottles. There looked to be about a dozen of them in there that he says he found empty. in her nightstand that police overlooked, that they didn't even think to take with them in their investigation, and they wanted to see that bag of empty pill bottles.
00:02:47
Speaker 1: Yes, and everybody within any distance of a camera and a microphone jumped on and started to break down and tell you their expert opinion. about what this means now, and nobody knows. Robes is not a consensus. There's not a leading theory. Nobody knows what this jury is up to. Nobody knows what's on their minds. But yes, there's a lot of speculation, at least, about it. But Robes, I don't know why the judge did not read this in front of the courtroom, which is what we're used to seeing openly. And then he has a discussion with the lawyers about how they want to respond. Maybe this was different because they just asked for evidence to be brought into the room and There's nothing to really discuss about that.
00:03:29
Speaker 2: Yes. Usually if a jury asks a question, which we've seen plenty of times, the judge, the wording has to be agreed upon by both the prosecution and the defense, and then the judge has to sign off on it because there wasn't a specific response needed, just they wanted to look at pieces of evidence. I guess they didn't need to call court into session officially and and have this be on the record officially because no specific wording was necessary in their response.
00:03:59
Speaker 3: But look, they have, I.
00:04:03
Speaker 2: Saw one, the only legal expert that I saw made a lot of sense in trying to figure out what's going on saying, guess what people, we're all trying to say that the jury's deadlocked, that they're not even close. But he said maybe they're not deadlocked at all. They just have a ton of information to go through. 85 witnesses total, think about that. more than 290 exhibits, just to get through and to go through all of that takes time, and maybe they're being really meticulous about it.
00:04:33
Speaker 1: Oh, they have to be, and a reminder here as well, that they have to decide two things that normally are split. They're having to do it at once. Yes, guilt or innocence is one thing the juries have to figure out, but they're having to determine ahead of time this woman's sanity. And there are some places that split this into two different types of hearings, two different mini trials, if you will. But here in Massachusetts, Robes, they have been given the responsibility. Yes, we will determine manslaughter or first degree or second degree. But first, we are the ones who are charged with figuring out if this woman was sane or not. They got to get past that. And yes, this room, there was some suggestion the room they're in can't hold all the exhibits. So this might have been just a matter of logistics. They just asked, hey, can you bring this in? And there was nothing more to it than that. And that's why they didn't read it in front of the courtroom. But Robes, their task is impossible. It's the debate that the entire country is having right now. Is this woman sane? And how responsible should she be held for killing these kids if she was mentally ill? That is it. The whole country. Go sit at any bar, any restaurant, at any airport. Sit anywhere. Just strike up a conversation about this and watch how fired up everybody around you gets. because everybody's got something to say.
00:05:54
Speaker 2: This seems like an impossible task, because even medical experts can't agree. So now you're asking 12 people who I'm going to presume don't have significant medical backgrounds. We don't know what these folks do for a living. We know there are six women and three men. We heard that the foreperson is around a 70-year-old woman. But other than that, we don't know anything about these jurors' backgrounds. And I think most people would agree, most legal experts would even agree, we've talked about it, that each juror's personal experience absolutely is going to play a role in this. What was their experience with parenting? What was their experience with motherhood? What was their experience with mental illness? Do they know someone? Have they had that experience? That is all going to factor into how they feel about or how they view these medical experts who are telling them conflicting diagnoses. Which diagnosis do you believe?
00:06:53
Speaker 1: And at the end, the conclusion is none of them know. Nobody knows. This hasn't been studied. We're dismissive. You hear the arguments, Robes, about women that a lot of women are saying. The argument that she shouldn't be treated any differently. What are we saying? That a woman is something about her... Her chemistry is off in some way, and that's supposed to give her a pass. There are so many who are pointing to the fact that she is a woman... and saying that should not give her a pass for whatever her chemical makeup is for killing her kids and hold her to the same standard as a man. That's the problem. With that mindset, Robes, it's why there's a 1,200-page medical Bible that doesn't talk about women's postpartum mental health. That is the problem. If we keep saying we shouldn't treat her any differently, isn't that the exact problem, babe?
00:07:46
Speaker 3: I have such an issue with this.
00:07:48
Speaker 2: And I don't know how much of where we are in the world. And no one wants to be gender specific. No one wants to, we can't even say a woman is pregnant, a person is pregnant. So if you can't actually, if we're at a place in society where we can't even distinguish that, yes, women do have different mental health and physiology and issues than men do. If we can't even agree on that, then we're in a big, heap of problems when it comes to this case specifically, because this is specifically not just about women's health, but about postpartum health and what we don't understand and why we haven't focused on understanding it. And that is part of the problem when we see a lot of, not a lot, but some women go online just throwing shade at other women for feeling empathy, for trying to understand, for not giving her a pass, but saying there.
00:08:40
Speaker 3: Might be a real medical explanation as to why she Mental health?
00:09:02
Speaker 1: Should that be different? I guess that's the question now, Rob.
00:09:04
Speaker 2: Yes, because we have different makeups and different hormones and different chemistry, and men can't have babies, and we don't know. Yes, there should be a different standard because we go through different things.
00:09:18
Speaker 3: It should at least be examined.
00:09:20
Speaker 1: But isn't a bigger part of the argument is why does she get a pass just because she's a woman? Why does she get a pass because her chemical makeup and her physiological issues are different from a man? That's the argument.
00:09:32
Speaker 2: Yes, and it's coming from women who maybe haven't experienced this or who haven't had children, and that is, like, actually mind-blowing to me.
00:09:40
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah, men need to shut up on this one. We've tapped out.
00:09:42
Speaker 3: Well, I haven't even heard a lot of men say, this is women against women.
00:09:45
Speaker 1: Okay, here's the next problem. Who are all the experts testifying about this woman's mental health?
00:09:52
Speaker 2: Men.
00:09:52
Speaker 1: What are we doing here, babe? I don't know. I don't know what in God's name we're doing, but that part of the debate is terrifying robes that we are discriminating that something might be different, that we should hold her to a different mental health standard. If we shouldn't. then that means why do extra study on women and their mental health? Why even do it? If we're going to say the standards are the same, there is no difference. Man, this whole thing is illustrating a problem that I'll be honest, I didn't realize just how deep it went.
00:10:22
Speaker 3: Yes, it goes in deep from where, and that's the medical issue.
00:10:27
Speaker 2: Now, talk about just the emotional side of this, where jurors are supposed to make sense of this image that's been portrayed by everyone of this perfect mother, this doting mother, this mother who would do anything for her children, juxtaposed with a woman who strangled her three babies. Emotionally, that's just difficult to figure out.
00:10:51
Speaker 1: And that's okay. Like, we should be upset. We should be pissed. We should, upon hearing it, should be mad at Lindsay Clancy. We absolutely should. Is it okay to read past that first headline or that first comment or that first post and to delve into it and become a little smarter before you become an uninformed idiot in a debate this important? Because that's what a lot of people sound like. You're reacting. Sure, everybody robs. Everybody's entitled to their reaction. We should react. But to leave no room for somebody to give you a second sentence after saying this woman strangled her kids and you're done, you don't need to hear anything else, that's not helpful.
00:11:34
Speaker 2: I think this might even be an example that we could look at every other polarizing story or headline through. If you only look at something through the lens of your own personal experience.
00:11:50
Speaker 2: You need to recognize that and recognize that there is room for other people's perspectives, that not everyone experiences things.
00:12:00
Speaker 3: The way you do.
00:12:01
Speaker 2: And therefore, this is exactly a case where we would encourage everyone to read up on and recognize that we don't know a lot. And when we don't know a lot, it's hard to form an opinion based on your own experience. Because It's just we often do that in every single story where people have differing opinions. Well, this is my experience and that must mean it's true. People and women specifically are doing that in this case.
00:12:31
Speaker 1: Yeah, women. This is not a guy thing. This is not a heated guy debate. We ain't in this one at all. Other than Patrick Clancy, I should probably say. Robes, I am blown away. And you said it. You talked about how people would react and As we were going through the trial, he was like, uh-uh. She doesn't need women on the jury. You even made that argument to some degree.
00:12:56
Speaker 2: For her, from a defense standpoint, she would do much better with men on the jury, I think. Now, I've seen other legal experts say that's a load of crap, that men are just as capable of looking at this through a lens of science and medicine and all of that.
00:13:11
Speaker 3: But when you have.
00:13:12
Speaker 2: Completely opposite diagnoses from esteemed judges medical professionals, you do end up, I would imagine, having to rely on your experience, your opinions, your beliefs to try and decide who you are aligning.
00:13:31
Speaker 3: Your thoughts with.
00:13:32
Speaker 1: But with that argument you're saying, some are saying, and I think you were, right? The argument is that if you do that and if women do that, they're going to judge Lindsay Clancy much more harshly.
00:13:42
Speaker 2: Yes. Because we feel like we have the experience of To stand on, especially mothers. And you're like, well, I know what that's like because my body went through that. And so there might be this false sense of understanding or knowing because, yeah, I know.
00:13:57
Speaker 3: I felt a little down. I had the baby blues. I didn't kill my kids.
00:14:01
Speaker 1: That's it. Yes. But the women in the jury and you said just then, Robes, they're relying on the expert testimony. Yes. These experts we heard from will stay here. One of those experts. He, quite frankly, might have been one of the most headline-grabbing witnesses of the entire trial, in part because of the cross-examination he got. But one of the doctors. We will give you an update about what happened to him just days after he testified.
00:14:39
Speaker 2: Welcome back, everyone, to Amy and TJ, as we are all on verdict. Watch the jury for the Lindsey Clancy trial. They are going to be heading back into court as we record this. They will be on day three of deliberations. They've already deliberated more than 10 hours. And look, this has been we knew it from the beginning and it certainly played out in court. A battle of the experts, and one of the main experts who testified for the prosecution, Dr.
00:15:09
Speaker 3: Avram Mack.
00:15:10
Speaker 2: And you'll remember him because this is the witness that the defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, got exceptionally testy with.
00:15:18
Speaker 1: Okay, that was a kind of way to put it. He ripped this guy apart.
00:15:22
Speaker 2: It was an evisceration, some might call it, of his testimony. And Kevin Reddington really put into question his credibility on this case in particular.
00:15:34
Speaker 1: And you know, some of the credibility had to do with resume and how many folks and women, in particular with postpartum psychosis, he had examined, that type of stuff. But Robes, you was yesterday, a couple of days ago, you made the point that credibility is also important. hurt when it felt like they, how would you put it, had something to protect or they were... They had an agenda. They had the agenda. That's what it was.
00:15:57
Speaker 2: It very much seemed as though Dr. Avram Mack had an agenda and his purpose was solely to bolster the prosecution's case. It didn't feel like he came on the stand and he went into... his evaluation of Lindsay Clancy with an open mind and was ready, willing, and able to potentially even tell prosecutors that he believed she was in.
00:16:18
Speaker 3: A state of psychosis. It seemed like he knew his role and he was playing it.
00:16:23
Speaker 1: It came across that way.
00:16:24
Speaker 3: It felt like that. We don't know that that's the case, but that's how it came off.
00:16:27
Speaker 1: Yes, but it's hard to think it didn't come off that way to the juror. We don't to the jury, but we do want to leave space for sure. Maybe not, and maybe that's what Reddington's point was to make him come off that way. It worked. Um, but this guy wrote how many days afterwards, after his testimony, did he, uh, have a change on his resume?
00:16:48
Speaker 2: So I, so I'm hearing within a few days, but I actually have seen one report where it says he actually resigned after he testified.
00:16:55
Speaker 3: So he testified what a Friday and then into a Monday.
00:16:58
Speaker 2: Um, we're hearing that he resigned within, um, a day of him taking the witness stand. And we don't know why he was working at Nemours child children's health in Delaware, uh, And as of Friday, basically, the hospital said Dr. Avram Mack is no longer employed by Nemours Children's Health.
00:17:20
Speaker 1: Didn't fire him, though.
00:17:21
Speaker 2: Right.
00:17:22
Speaker 1: He resigned, is the report.
00:17:24
Speaker 2: The word is that he resigned, but they wouldn't elaborate, saying employment decisions are confidential. We understand that's almost always the case when it comes to personal employment. They will never, the employer will never give details surrounding someone leaving a position. But the timing is certainly interesting.
00:17:44
Speaker 1: Oh, I didn't know what words you were going to put there. Interesting. Yeah, obviously these things are connected. That's a hell of a coincidence. This work he does at the hospital is not connected to the work he was doing for Lindsay Clancy. It's apparently he's like an outside consultant type of a thing. It wasn't connected necessarily, this hospital not connected to the Clancy case in any way. But still, Robes, that's pretty telling. Can you imagine the heat? that may be a place like this hospital. Places that any of these witnesses are affiliated with are getting just an onslaught of negative messages. And what's the thing they call when they go and give the negative reviews? Oh, yeah.
00:18:22
Speaker 2: I don't know what the word for it is. I learned what doxing was not that long ago. Didn't even know what that was.
00:18:27
Speaker 3: But people are cruel when it comes to online. And yes, they can.
00:18:31
Speaker 2: Absolutely sink your institution with ratings and saying it gets one star, zero stars, and that we do see people do that. But look, this was a moment when, remember, Dr. Avram Mack was on the stand and Reddington really came after him. Why are you smiling? This is not funny, sir. And look, I was thinking, if you're a woman, if you're bringing your child or bringing any issue that you're feeling postpartum, would you feel comfortable bringing those to Dr. Mack or to an institution that employs him if you feel like he was so unwilling to even consider her mental health? It felt like he was almost dismissive of it. And so I wonder if that, because it was televised, because... The defense made such a point to tear him apart, and really he came off as smug, with an agenda. He didn't seem like a caring, and I'm not saying he is any of these things, but that was the impression that he didn't seem like somebody who had any empathy or any sympathy or any acknowledgement of what she was going through, and I just wonder how much that might hurt a practice he was affiliated with.
00:19:40
Speaker 1: All those things you just described, that's the last thing you want to see if you're a patient at a children's hospital.
00:19:47
Speaker 2: No.
00:19:48
Speaker 1: Rose, you don't want to see that. So I thought, Rose, I said after Reddington took him down during the testimony, I said, man, this guy is going to have a hard time working again. But I was talking about his consulting work. Like what? Who wants to hire him as a consultant to be on your case when Reddington just gave a play-by-play of how to take this guy down and discredit him forever? Forever. In any trial, just ask the exact questions Reddington asked, and you're going to take this guy down. That was my thought. Robes, you make a very good point. He came off as uncaring to a woman.
00:20:21
Speaker 3: He really did. He really did.
00:20:23
Speaker 2: And I actually have the exact confirmation now from multiple places. So he finished his testimony on Monday because he testified on August 21st on Friday. Then he testified via Zoom, remember that, on Monday, August 24th. He resigned almost immediately after his testimony. The same day, Monday, August 24th, following his testimony in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial. Maybe he even knew at that point he could not return to that practice. He knew he got his ass.
00:20:53
Speaker 1: Handed to him. No, but it's possible, Robes.
00:20:56
Speaker 3: He was already planning to do that?
00:20:58
Speaker 1: No, I'm saying it's possible he was pushed. It's possible. Yes, every one of his bosses at that hospital... sat and watched that thing live, and they had to be squirming. That couldn't feel good. And I know he's probably friends of theirs and all this stuff. It's understood how that came across. Did they know, hey, man, we'll give you a chance here, but this is not going to work. You cannot continue here.
00:21:21
Speaker 2: Yeah, because, look, you had him on that stand and then via Zoom say he saw no evidence of psychosis.
00:21:28
Speaker 3: Okay, other doctors said that.
00:21:30
Speaker 2: He also said he wouldn't have diagnosed her as bipolar. He was just so against her having some diagnosable issue. And it flew in the face of what a lot of us were watching and certainly what the jurors were hearing.
00:21:46
Speaker 3: What?
00:21:47
Speaker 1: He can have a different opinion. Of course. That's okay. But the parts where everybody should have been in agreement... He and the other prosecution witnesses wouldn't even agree to some of the most basics with Reddington just to challenge him. I won't give you anything. I'm not going to say yes to anything because that might hurt the prosecution. That came off.
00:22:04
Speaker 2: Yes, he wouldn't even agree with Reddington about what the symptoms were or the definition of postpartum depression. He was being deliberately evasive. And that just shot and destroyed his credibility. And frankly, his likability was in the toilet.
00:22:23
Speaker 1: And I know this is a tough one to bring up, but you can remember this, Robes. You remember how ridiculous people viewed it in President Clinton's testimony. He said, when it depends on what the definition of the word is, is. You remember that?
00:22:35
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:22:36
Speaker 1: And everybody, okay, that's evasive. It just comes off.
00:22:39
Speaker 3: We know it when we see it.
00:22:41
Speaker 1: It comes off a certain way. That was the type of stuff this guy and the other prosecution witnesses were doing. So We, no, I didn't know if anybody's predicting or guessing. Robes 2, what was the, Andrea Yates, we just had this. That jury was two days over, what was it? We just had it. It was 12 hours. 12 hours over two days.
00:23:01
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:23:01
Speaker 1: Is that right? So that's the most comparable type of case we can think of.
00:23:04
Speaker 2: And when we looked at what the, and this was the second trial where she was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Yeah. When we were looking at the hours that the jury deliberated, we were saying, wow, that if everything else has continued to be as parallel to those cases, it would be possible because they went through a similar amount of testimony, similar amount of like competing diagnoses, and it took them around 12 hours. So we were thinking, hey, if those things remain the same, it's likely or possible we would get a verdict today.
00:23:36
Speaker 1: Yeah, by lunchtime, if those numbers do follow.
00:23:39
Speaker 2: Right.
00:23:40
Speaker 1: All right. Folks, we are on it. It is officially a verdict. Watch. The clock will start back up this morning. It's supposed to be 9 o'clock when they get back in that 9 o'clock Eastern time. And the clock starts again. Obviously, we're keeping an eye on it. Keep an eye on our feed. We got plenty on the Clancy case coming your way today. We always appreciate you spending time with us. On behalf of my dear Amy Robach, I'm TJ Holmes. We'll talk soon.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Monday, August 31st, and today could be the day we get a verdict in the Lindsey Clancy triple murder trial. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. We kind of want to give you a reset, let you know where we are on a very significant day in this trial, in case you missed some things over the weekend. But yes, Robes, they are back at it today. They're going to get started with the negotiations as we are, I say negotiations, deliberations, as we record this. They haven't gotten back in there just yet, but want to get folks set for this, Robes, and We could hear from them in five minutes after they get back or in the next five days. We don't know, and nobody does.
00:00:38
Speaker 2: Nobody does, but over the weekend, as you might imagine, so many legal experts have weighed in on what they think may be going on inside those jury deliberations. But we know that they've deliberated for more than 10 hours, and we've only gotten one sneak peek intoâ what they're questioning or what they're looking at, but they have a lot to look at.
00:01:02
Speaker 3: We know that much.
00:01:03
Speaker 1: So let's start with that. Thursday, they got the case and called it a day. I guess they didn't stick around too long after getting the case on Thursday. So let us know they weren't anywhere close.
00:01:18
Speaker 2: Right. I think they deliberated for three and a half hours, which we've seen plenty of murder cases and murder trials. See, we've seen juries come to deliberations that quickly, but the fact that they went home at around 4.15 in the afternoon.
00:01:33
Speaker 1: Let's call it.
00:01:33
Speaker 2: They obviously were not close because had they been, who wouldn't have wanted to stick it out for a couple more hours and be done with it? So by them leaving at 4.15, that was a clear signal. they weren't anywhere near close to coming to a consensus.
00:01:47
Speaker 1: Okay, then they came back Friday, Robes, and had a full day. I'm not sure exactly what to call it. There was some confusion. There was some uncertainty that we heard from the jury on their first two days of deliberations. And, Robes, everybody was abuzz. It gets exciting. There's a jury note. And then we didn't know what the jury note was, and it wasn't read, and then we kind of heard, and then everybody tried to break it down. So let's start with what we finally, I guess, found out, Robes, the note did say.
00:02:12
Speaker 2: Yes, Kevin Reddington told reporters that the jury asked to see the bloody knife that was used by Lindsay Clancy in part of her attempt to take her own life. They also asked to see that bag that we saw her defense attorney hold up a couple of times with empty pill bottles. There looked to be about a dozen of them in there that he says he found empty. in her nightstand that police overlooked, that they didn't even think to take with them in their investigation, and they wanted to see that bag of empty pill bottles.
00:02:47
Speaker 1: Yes, and everybody within any distance of a camera and a microphone jumped on and started to break down and tell you their expert opinion. about what this means now, and nobody knows. Robes is not a consensus. There's not a leading theory. Nobody knows what this jury is up to. Nobody knows what's on their minds. But yes, there's a lot of speculation, at least, about it. But Robes, I don't know why the judge did not read this in front of the courtroom, which is what we're used to seeing openly. And then he has a discussion with the lawyers about how they want to respond. Maybe this was different because they just asked for evidence to be brought into the room and There's nothing to really discuss about that.
00:03:29
Speaker 2: Yes. Usually if a jury asks a question, which we've seen plenty of times, the judge, the wording has to be agreed upon by both the prosecution and the defense, and then the judge has to sign off on it because there wasn't a specific response needed, just they wanted to look at pieces of evidence. I guess they didn't need to call court into session officially and and have this be on the record officially because no specific wording was necessary in their response.
00:03:59
Speaker 3: But look, they have, I.
00:04:03
Speaker 2: Saw one, the only legal expert that I saw made a lot of sense in trying to figure out what's going on saying, guess what people, we're all trying to say that the jury's deadlocked, that they're not even close. But he said maybe they're not deadlocked at all. They just have a ton of information to go through. 85 witnesses total, think about that. more than 290 exhibits, just to get through and to go through all of that takes time, and maybe they're being really meticulous about it.
00:04:33
Speaker 1: Oh, they have to be, and a reminder here as well, that they have to decide two things that normally are split. They're having to do it at once. Yes, guilt or innocence is one thing the juries have to figure out, but they're having to determine ahead of time this woman's sanity. And there are some places that split this into two different types of hearings, two different mini trials, if you will. But here in Massachusetts, Robes, they have been given the responsibility. Yes, we will determine manslaughter or first degree or second degree. But first, we are the ones who are charged with figuring out if this woman was sane or not. They got to get past that. And yes, this room, there was some suggestion the room they're in can't hold all the exhibits. So this might have been just a matter of logistics. They just asked, hey, can you bring this in? And there was nothing more to it than that. And that's why they didn't read it in front of the courtroom. But Robes, their task is impossible. It's the debate that the entire country is having right now. Is this woman sane? And how responsible should she be held for killing these kids if she was mentally ill? That is it. The whole country. Go sit at any bar, any restaurant, at any airport. Sit anywhere. Just strike up a conversation about this and watch how fired up everybody around you gets. because everybody's got something to say.
00:05:54
Speaker 2: This seems like an impossible task, because even medical experts can't agree. So now you're asking 12 people who I'm going to presume don't have significant medical backgrounds. We don't know what these folks do for a living. We know there are six women and three men. We heard that the foreperson is around a 70-year-old woman. But other than that, we don't know anything about these jurors' backgrounds. And I think most people would agree, most legal experts would even agree, we've talked about it, that each juror's personal experience absolutely is going to play a role in this. What was their experience with parenting? What was their experience with motherhood? What was their experience with mental illness? Do they know someone? Have they had that experience? That is all going to factor into how they feel about or how they view these medical experts who are telling them conflicting diagnoses. Which diagnosis do you believe?
00:06:53
Speaker 1: And at the end, the conclusion is none of them know. Nobody knows. This hasn't been studied. We're dismissive. You hear the arguments, Robes, about women that a lot of women are saying. The argument that she shouldn't be treated any differently. What are we saying? That a woman is something about her... Her chemistry is off in some way, and that's supposed to give her a pass. There are so many who are pointing to the fact that she is a woman... and saying that should not give her a pass for whatever her chemical makeup is for killing her kids and hold her to the same standard as a man. That's the problem. With that mindset, Robes, it's why there's a 1,200-page medical Bible that doesn't talk about women's postpartum mental health. That is the problem. If we keep saying we shouldn't treat her any differently, isn't that the exact problem, babe?
00:07:46
Speaker 3: I have such an issue with this.
00:07:48
Speaker 2: And I don't know how much of where we are in the world. And no one wants to be gender specific. No one wants to, we can't even say a woman is pregnant, a person is pregnant. So if you can't actually, if we're at a place in society where we can't even distinguish that, yes, women do have different mental health and physiology and issues than men do. If we can't even agree on that, then we're in a big, heap of problems when it comes to this case specifically, because this is specifically not just about women's health, but about postpartum health and what we don't understand and why we haven't focused on understanding it. And that is part of the problem when we see a lot of, not a lot, but some women go online just throwing shade at other women for feeling empathy, for trying to understand, for not giving her a pass, but saying there.
00:08:40
Speaker 3: Might be a real medical explanation as to why she Mental health?
00:09:02
Speaker 1: Should that be different? I guess that's the question now, Rob.
00:09:04
Speaker 2: Yes, because we have different makeups and different hormones and different chemistry, and men can't have babies, and we don't know. Yes, there should be a different standard because we go through different things.
00:09:18
Speaker 3: It should at least be examined.
00:09:20
Speaker 1: But isn't a bigger part of the argument is why does she get a pass just because she's a woman? Why does she get a pass because her chemical makeup and her physiological issues are different from a man? That's the argument.
00:09:32
Speaker 2: Yes, and it's coming from women who maybe haven't experienced this or who haven't had children, and that is, like, actually mind-blowing to me.
00:09:40
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah, men need to shut up on this one. We've tapped out.
00:09:42
Speaker 3: Well, I haven't even heard a lot of men say, this is women against women.
00:09:45
Speaker 1: Okay, here's the next problem. Who are all the experts testifying about this woman's mental health?
00:09:52
Speaker 2: Men.
00:09:52
Speaker 1: What are we doing here, babe? I don't know. I don't know what in God's name we're doing, but that part of the debate is terrifying robes that we are discriminating that something might be different, that we should hold her to a different mental health standard. If we shouldn't. then that means why do extra study on women and their mental health? Why even do it? If we're going to say the standards are the same, there is no difference. Man, this whole thing is illustrating a problem that I'll be honest, I didn't realize just how deep it went.
00:10:22
Speaker 3: Yes, it goes in deep from where, and that's the medical issue.
00:10:27
Speaker 2: Now, talk about just the emotional side of this, where jurors are supposed to make sense of this image that's been portrayed by everyone of this perfect mother, this doting mother, this mother who would do anything for her children, juxtaposed with a woman who strangled her three babies. Emotionally, that's just difficult to figure out.
00:10:51
Speaker 1: And that's okay. Like, we should be upset. We should be pissed. We should, upon hearing it, should be mad at Lindsay Clancy. We absolutely should. Is it okay to read past that first headline or that first comment or that first post and to delve into it and become a little smarter before you become an uninformed idiot in a debate this important? Because that's what a lot of people sound like. You're reacting. Sure, everybody robs. Everybody's entitled to their reaction. We should react. But to leave no room for somebody to give you a second sentence after saying this woman strangled her kids and you're done, you don't need to hear anything else, that's not helpful.
00:11:34
Speaker 2: I think this might even be an example that we could look at every other polarizing story or headline through. If you only look at something through the lens of your own personal experience.
00:11:50
Speaker 2: You need to recognize that and recognize that there is room for other people's perspectives, that not everyone experiences things.
00:12:00
Speaker 3: The way you do.
00:12:01
Speaker 2: And therefore, this is exactly a case where we would encourage everyone to read up on and recognize that we don't know a lot. And when we don't know a lot, it's hard to form an opinion based on your own experience. Because It's just we often do that in every single story where people have differing opinions. Well, this is my experience and that must mean it's true. People and women specifically are doing that in this case.
00:12:31
Speaker 1: Yeah, women. This is not a guy thing. This is not a heated guy debate. We ain't in this one at all. Other than Patrick Clancy, I should probably say. Robes, I am blown away. And you said it. You talked about how people would react and As we were going through the trial, he was like, uh-uh. She doesn't need women on the jury. You even made that argument to some degree.
00:12:56
Speaker 2: For her, from a defense standpoint, she would do much better with men on the jury, I think. Now, I've seen other legal experts say that's a load of crap, that men are just as capable of looking at this through a lens of science and medicine and all of that.
00:13:11
Speaker 3: But when you have.
00:13:12
Speaker 2: Completely opposite diagnoses from esteemed judges medical professionals, you do end up, I would imagine, having to rely on your experience, your opinions, your beliefs to try and decide who you are aligning.
00:13:31
Speaker 3: Your thoughts with.
00:13:32
Speaker 1: But with that argument you're saying, some are saying, and I think you were, right? The argument is that if you do that and if women do that, they're going to judge Lindsay Clancy much more harshly.
00:13:42
Speaker 2: Yes. Because we feel like we have the experience of To stand on, especially mothers. And you're like, well, I know what that's like because my body went through that. And so there might be this false sense of understanding or knowing because, yeah, I know.
00:13:57
Speaker 3: I felt a little down. I had the baby blues. I didn't kill my kids.
00:14:01
Speaker 1: That's it. Yes. But the women in the jury and you said just then, Robes, they're relying on the expert testimony. Yes. These experts we heard from will stay here. One of those experts. He, quite frankly, might have been one of the most headline-grabbing witnesses of the entire trial, in part because of the cross-examination he got. But one of the doctors. We will give you an update about what happened to him just days after he testified.
00:14:39
Speaker 2: Welcome back, everyone, to Amy and TJ, as we are all on verdict. Watch the jury for the Lindsey Clancy trial. They are going to be heading back into court as we record this. They will be on day three of deliberations. They've already deliberated more than 10 hours. And look, this has been we knew it from the beginning and it certainly played out in court. A battle of the experts, and one of the main experts who testified for the prosecution, Dr.
00:15:09
Speaker 3: Avram Mack.
00:15:10
Speaker 2: And you'll remember him because this is the witness that the defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, got exceptionally testy with.
00:15:18
Speaker 1: Okay, that was a kind of way to put it. He ripped this guy apart.
00:15:22
Speaker 2: It was an evisceration, some might call it, of his testimony. And Kevin Reddington really put into question his credibility on this case in particular.
00:15:34
Speaker 1: And you know, some of the credibility had to do with resume and how many folks and women, in particular with postpartum psychosis, he had examined, that type of stuff. But Robes, you was yesterday, a couple of days ago, you made the point that credibility is also important. hurt when it felt like they, how would you put it, had something to protect or they were... They had an agenda. They had the agenda. That's what it was.
00:15:57
Speaker 2: It very much seemed as though Dr. Avram Mack had an agenda and his purpose was solely to bolster the prosecution's case. It didn't feel like he came on the stand and he went into... his evaluation of Lindsay Clancy with an open mind and was ready, willing, and able to potentially even tell prosecutors that he believed she was in.
00:16:18
Speaker 3: A state of psychosis. It seemed like he knew his role and he was playing it.
00:16:23
Speaker 1: It came across that way.
00:16:24
Speaker 3: It felt like that. We don't know that that's the case, but that's how it came off.
00:16:27
Speaker 1: Yes, but it's hard to think it didn't come off that way to the juror. We don't to the jury, but we do want to leave space for sure. Maybe not, and maybe that's what Reddington's point was to make him come off that way. It worked. Um, but this guy wrote how many days afterwards, after his testimony, did he, uh, have a change on his resume?
00:16:48
Speaker 2: So I, so I'm hearing within a few days, but I actually have seen one report where it says he actually resigned after he testified.
00:16:55
Speaker 3: So he testified what a Friday and then into a Monday.
00:16:58
Speaker 2: Um, we're hearing that he resigned within, um, a day of him taking the witness stand. And we don't know why he was working at Nemours child children's health in Delaware, uh, And as of Friday, basically, the hospital said Dr. Avram Mack is no longer employed by Nemours Children's Health.
00:17:20
Speaker 1: Didn't fire him, though.
00:17:21
Speaker 2: Right.
00:17:22
Speaker 1: He resigned, is the report.
00:17:24
Speaker 2: The word is that he resigned, but they wouldn't elaborate, saying employment decisions are confidential. We understand that's almost always the case when it comes to personal employment. They will never, the employer will never give details surrounding someone leaving a position. But the timing is certainly interesting.
00:17:44
Speaker 1: Oh, I didn't know what words you were going to put there. Interesting. Yeah, obviously these things are connected. That's a hell of a coincidence. This work he does at the hospital is not connected to the work he was doing for Lindsay Clancy. It's apparently he's like an outside consultant type of a thing. It wasn't connected necessarily, this hospital not connected to the Clancy case in any way. But still, Robes, that's pretty telling. Can you imagine the heat? that may be a place like this hospital. Places that any of these witnesses are affiliated with are getting just an onslaught of negative messages. And what's the thing they call when they go and give the negative reviews? Oh, yeah.
00:18:22
Speaker 2: I don't know what the word for it is. I learned what doxing was not that long ago. Didn't even know what that was.
00:18:27
Speaker 3: But people are cruel when it comes to online. And yes, they can.
00:18:31
Speaker 2: Absolutely sink your institution with ratings and saying it gets one star, zero stars, and that we do see people do that. But look, this was a moment when, remember, Dr. Avram Mack was on the stand and Reddington really came after him. Why are you smiling? This is not funny, sir. And look, I was thinking, if you're a woman, if you're bringing your child or bringing any issue that you're feeling postpartum, would you feel comfortable bringing those to Dr. Mack or to an institution that employs him if you feel like he was so unwilling to even consider her mental health? It felt like he was almost dismissive of it. And so I wonder if that, because it was televised, because... The defense made such a point to tear him apart, and really he came off as smug, with an agenda. He didn't seem like a caring, and I'm not saying he is any of these things, but that was the impression that he didn't seem like somebody who had any empathy or any sympathy or any acknowledgement of what she was going through, and I just wonder how much that might hurt a practice he was affiliated with.
00:19:40
Speaker 1: All those things you just described, that's the last thing you want to see if you're a patient at a children's hospital.
00:19:47
Speaker 2: No.
00:19:48
Speaker 1: Rose, you don't want to see that. So I thought, Rose, I said after Reddington took him down during the testimony, I said, man, this guy is going to have a hard time working again. But I was talking about his consulting work. Like what? Who wants to hire him as a consultant to be on your case when Reddington just gave a play-by-play of how to take this guy down and discredit him forever? Forever. In any trial, just ask the exact questions Reddington asked, and you're going to take this guy down. That was my thought. Robes, you make a very good point. He came off as uncaring to a woman.
00:20:21
Speaker 3: He really did. He really did.
00:20:23
Speaker 2: And I actually have the exact confirmation now from multiple places. So he finished his testimony on Monday because he testified on August 21st on Friday. Then he testified via Zoom, remember that, on Monday, August 24th. He resigned almost immediately after his testimony. The same day, Monday, August 24th, following his testimony in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial. Maybe he even knew at that point he could not return to that practice. He knew he got his ass.
00:20:53
Speaker 1: Handed to him. No, but it's possible, Robes.
00:20:56
Speaker 3: He was already planning to do that?
00:20:58
Speaker 1: No, I'm saying it's possible he was pushed. It's possible. Yes, every one of his bosses at that hospital... sat and watched that thing live, and they had to be squirming. That couldn't feel good. And I know he's probably friends of theirs and all this stuff. It's understood how that came across. Did they know, hey, man, we'll give you a chance here, but this is not going to work. You cannot continue here.
00:21:21
Speaker 2: Yeah, because, look, you had him on that stand and then via Zoom say he saw no evidence of psychosis.
00:21:28
Speaker 3: Okay, other doctors said that.
00:21:30
Speaker 2: He also said he wouldn't have diagnosed her as bipolar. He was just so against her having some diagnosable issue. And it flew in the face of what a lot of us were watching and certainly what the jurors were hearing.
00:21:46
Speaker 3: What?
00:21:47
Speaker 1: He can have a different opinion. Of course. That's okay. But the parts where everybody should have been in agreement... He and the other prosecution witnesses wouldn't even agree to some of the most basics with Reddington just to challenge him. I won't give you anything. I'm not going to say yes to anything because that might hurt the prosecution. That came off.
00:22:04
Speaker 2: Yes, he wouldn't even agree with Reddington about what the symptoms were or the definition of postpartum depression. He was being deliberately evasive. And that just shot and destroyed his credibility. And frankly, his likability was in the toilet.
00:22:23
Speaker 1: And I know this is a tough one to bring up, but you can remember this, Robes. You remember how ridiculous people viewed it in President Clinton's testimony. He said, when it depends on what the definition of the word is, is. You remember that?
00:22:35
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:22:36
Speaker 1: And everybody, okay, that's evasive. It just comes off.
00:22:39
Speaker 3: We know it when we see it.
00:22:41
Speaker 1: It comes off a certain way. That was the type of stuff this guy and the other prosecution witnesses were doing. So We, no, I didn't know if anybody's predicting or guessing. Robes 2, what was the, Andrea Yates, we just had this. That jury was two days over, what was it? We just had it. It was 12 hours. 12 hours over two days.
00:23:01
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:23:01
Speaker 1: Is that right? So that's the most comparable type of case we can think of.
00:23:04
Speaker 2: And when we looked at what the, and this was the second trial where she was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Yeah. When we were looking at the hours that the jury deliberated, we were saying, wow, that if everything else has continued to be as parallel to those cases, it would be possible because they went through a similar amount of testimony, similar amount of like competing diagnoses, and it took them around 12 hours. So we were thinking, hey, if those things remain the same, it's likely or possible we would get a verdict today.
00:23:36
Speaker 1: Yeah, by lunchtime, if those numbers do follow.
00:23:39
Speaker 2: Right.
00:23:40
Speaker 1: All right. Folks, we are on it. It is officially a verdict. Watch. The clock will start back up this morning. It's supposed to be 9 o'clock when they get back in that 9 o'clock Eastern time. And the clock starts again. Obviously, we're keeping an eye on it. Keep an eye on our feed. We got plenty on the Clancy case coming your way today. We always appreciate you spending time with us. On behalf of my dear Amy Robach, I'm TJ Holmes. We'll talk soon.