Sept. 9, 2026
Lindsay Clancy Jurors Speak Out, Describe Holdout As “Arrogant," Prosecution As “Harsh”
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed Three of the Lindsay Clancy jurors are talking about what it was like in the jury deliberation room and give their impressions on the case, providing some fascinating insight into the 5 week long trial, and the 30 plus hours of deliberations that ended in a mistrial. The three women, including the jury foreperson, describe the holdout juror as an arrogant man who acknowledged he had reasonable doubt, but refused to sign off on the not guilty verdict. They also discuss the point at which they were convinced Clancy was in a state of psychosis, and not criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children… and it didn’t come from a medical professional. And finally, all three women were impacted by the lack of compassion from the prosecution as they presented their case, calling their tone “cold” and “harsh.”
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. Welcome. I'm TJ. That's Robes. In an episode, I guess we should call Amy was right about everything. Isn't that what Trump likes to say? Trump was right about everything. He has some logos and whatnot. Some hats and some merchandise. This really is. Amy was right about everything. Now, I'm giving you overwhelming credit here. I was on board with a lot of this, but the jurors in the Lindsay Clancy case are speaking. I am shocked. That they were seeing things from day one exactly how we were seeing them.
00:00:36
Speaker 2: Yes. And I will say that it's not that I was right. It's just that I'm a woman. And I think that a lot of us, we're not groupthink. We don't all think alike. But there are certain things that just... we receive in a specific way, especially mothers, especially anyone who's been through it, and it was really, yes, validating to learn from the jurors, three female jurors, including the foreperson, what they were thinking throughout the trial was very much aligned with what we were thinking and what definitely I was saying out loud as we were watching the trial take place.
00:01:10
Speaker 1: Yeah, and somebody's going to make a meme out of that, what you just said. I'm not saying I was right. It's just that I'm a woman. It's the same thing. It's the same fucking thing is what we're saying. But, yes, folks, this was fascinating. We were all curious after, what, seven days of deliberations, ended up with a hung trial, 40-plus hours or whatever it was. We were curious what was going on in there, and we did know that there was one holdout juror. Now we're getting more and more insight. Robes, the prosecution should be embarrassed. They should really go back to the drawing board. And Robes, I was shocked. They lost the jury in opening statements. Yes. They lost them as soon as they started saying, hi, I'm the prosecutor.
00:01:57
Speaker 2: Babe, they lost us in the opening statement because, look, you can still, and there are plenty of women, plenty of mothers out there who think Lindsay Clancy should be behind bars. But to start off making her seem like a villain, a monster, when all of the evidence and all of the witnesses painted a completely different picture of this woman. And so it felt cold, unnecessarily cruel, because she's admitting she killed her children. So you don't need to pile on in that sense.
00:02:31
Speaker 1: Cold and cruel are words they use to describe the prosecution. If you're If you're a prosecutor, you're trying a case, the last thing you want is for the jury to actually look at you and think you're cold, cold-hearted, rude, unprofessional. These were all things jurors are describing the prosecution as. Rose, because as we watched, we posted about this case every single day because we watched pretty much every single thing. And every time we did an episode, we left this space. Well, maybe the jury is seeing it differently, but if we were sitting there, blank, blank, blank, blank, blank, Robes, they just filled in all the blanks. Yes. We were right.
00:03:12
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:03:12
Speaker 1: They were filling the same stuff.
00:03:13
Speaker 2: It was very validating to hear that they were experiencing the trial, the attorneys, the witnesses, and the testimony very much like we were. And it was shocking to me that the prosecution from the get-go didn't understand that. That it was not a good tactic to go all bulldog on this woman in a wheelchair who's sobbing throughout the trial.
00:03:38
Speaker 1: We said it was far-fetched. Those two things just didn't work. It's okay to still want to prosecute her. Yes. But you have got to show some level of... acceptance, acknowledgement that this woman was struggling. They never did. Yes, exactly.
00:03:50
Speaker 2: I think it was obvious she had mental health struggles. So to try and take that away or to take that off the table didn't compute. And it made me think, and certainly it seems like it made the jurors feel like we were looking at two different scenarios and two different people so that I couldn't accept their version because it was so out of touch with reality that I couldn't get on board with what they were saying.
00:04:15
Speaker 1: Uh... Robes, we questioned ourselves and saying, well, maybe they're seeing it differently. They weren't. So three jurors sat down with Boston 10, was it? One of the local reporters there who had been covering and has seen these women. And the women have seen her. You could tell, even though they didn't interact during the trial, there was a familiarity to some degree. They had seen each other every day. So three of them there, one of them being the foreperson. We're going to share with you the quotes. the very important ones from this interview, this sit-down, and then Robes is going to break them down. So start about the prosecution. This was the one, Robes, from the very beginning. and talking about the prosecution, lost us from opening statement.
00:04:59
Speaker 2: Yes, one of the jurors said they found the prosecution, found it to be harsh, very, very harsh. The fact that they had no character witnesses to Lindsay being a bad mother. You're presenting all these medical professionals. I found it to be biased right out of the gate, and I also found them to be kind of unprofessional and just without a heart. And for me, that was right away, I was like, okay... Where is this going from statement one that there was no compassion in the courtroom right now, which I guess is expected of a prosecution, but I thought it was very cold. Nailed it. That's exactly what our impression was as well, to the point where we were surprised to hear the DA say after the case that both of the prosecutors were mothers.
00:05:46
Speaker 1: We were shocked to hear that.
00:05:48
Speaker 2: I kept thinking, obviously, they're not mothers. Maybe that's unfair, but that's what it felt like.
00:05:53
Speaker 1: They didn't sound like it. And they're not supposed to in a prosecution. You're not supposed to. But the fact that they didn't acknowledge what every human being could made them seem harsh, robotic, not with it. They were disconnected from this jury in the wildest of ways. Robes. From statement one, there was no compassion in the room.
00:06:13
Speaker 2: There wasn't.
00:06:13
Speaker 1: They were begging for her almost to just say, look, I know mothers struggle. Many of you have. I have as well. And you know what? Nobody's proud sometimes when you have some very tough and difficult thoughts we don't like to admit. We get that. But that doesn't mean she's not responsible.
00:06:31
Speaker 2: Correct.
00:06:31
Speaker 1: That line was never used.
00:06:32
Speaker 2: They had taken that approach that we acknowledge she was struggling mentally. And we acknowledge that a lot of mothers... know what this feels like.
00:06:40
Speaker 1: That one.
00:06:41
Speaker 2: But this is different. This is, this was not, you know, they could have, there was zero acknowledgement. There was zero heart. There was zero compassion.
00:06:49
Speaker 1: And you know what? Other women felt that as mothers, like you were attacking them.
00:06:53
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:06:53
Speaker 1: That's what came across. It's not just you're going after this woman. You're going after all of us, but not even acknowledging that motherhood is difficult. That was all they needed.
00:07:02
Speaker 2: Or acknowledging that Lindsay Clancy was clearly struggling with her mental health.
00:07:06
Speaker 1: Yes. But yes, harsh as they were for the prosecution, it was a completely opposite love fest to hear them talk about Kevin Reddington. And on this point as well, Robes, I was like, okay, we weren't right about him. We weren't wrong about him either. We felt his compassion. We felt him feeling like a fatherly figure almost to her. They loved him.
00:07:29
Speaker 2: Yeah, because obviously, yes, he was rude and arrogant. And he interrupted. He did a lot of things that you would think would turn someone off or a juror off. But he was doing it on behalf of a woman he was fighting like hell for. And that was everything.
00:07:46
Speaker 1: You know, you just said something. Every time he might have done something that seemed arrogant or something that seemed rude. But I don't deem him a rude and arrogant person. He took his moments, and you just said it, Robes, every time he was rude or was arrogant, it wasn't because of his ego. It was because of Lindsay. I'm being rude to you right now because you just said some bullshit I don't like about my client, so I'm going to cut you off. That's the only time he did it. He wasn't trying to win a chess match against anybody.
00:08:16
Speaker 2: He wasn't defending his own honor or himself. He was defending his client, and that's what made him so likable even in his arrogance. And so, yes, this is what they had to say. Kevin really talked from his heart. He brought all these people in, people that loved her, her in-laws. Even Patrick was very compassionate. We appreciated the fact that he, Kevin, didn't delay and drag it on with more medical BS and got to the point of who Lindsay is and what her life was like. Obviously, something happened to this woman and should have not happened for many reasons. Appreciated that he cut through the bullshit and moved it along with so much compassion for her We didn't find any compassion in the prosecution. I know it's their job, but in a case like this, you expect a little bit.
00:09:07
Speaker 1: Rose, thank God.
00:09:08
Speaker 2: It mattered.
00:09:09
Speaker 1: We could have written all this stuff. This is exactly what we thought on day one, day two, day three, day four, day five. And we didn't know they were feeling it as well. Yes, they even acknowledge you're the prosecution and maybe you're not supposed to be touchy-feely and all this feels wrong. But robes do not even acknowledge that a mother might struggle in any way after having a baby. Right.
00:09:31
Speaker 2: And then you want me to believe your evidence and your narrative and your theory. But if I'm not buying what your premise, what your foundation is from the beginning, then how can I believe anything you say? Like literally your tone and acknowledgement of reality. If you refuse to do that, in an effort to prove your case, you are gonna lose everybody in the process.
00:10:00
Speaker 1: With some of the prosecution witnesses, the experts, where you won't, they wouldn't concede just simple facts just to be argumentative or to make sure they were being a homer for the prosecution. That comes off as a lack of credibility.
00:10:13
Speaker 2: Yes, they had an agenda, so therefore I cannot trust your credibility. That was the thing. If they just acknowledged If they weren't so combative with the defense, I would have believed what they testified to more for the prosecution.
00:10:26
Speaker 1: They wanted to so badly stay away from the idea of sympathizing with her that it had the opposite impact on their case. It did.
00:10:35
Speaker 2: It was absolutely blew up in their face.
00:10:38
Speaker 1: Several more here from this interview. Quote, we're trying to figure out if she knew right from wrong at the time with everybody saying she loved her children so much and everybody saying, And everything proved she loved her children from journals to her mother-in-law. So she had to have snapped in not knowing what she was doing. To me, it was proof that she didn't know what she was doing. I included this one because this is something you and I, I wasn't as on board with this. You said for you, seeing the in-laws, the family, everybody sitting on her side of the courtroom there for her was enough for you. To vote her not guilty by reason of insanity.
00:11:19
Speaker 2: I just got chills.
00:11:20
Speaker 1: And this was, they said the same thing, baby.
00:11:22
Speaker 2: Because every single person who knew her better than anyone else, and people who were in roles that traditionally, or at least after a murder, would be... adversarial mothers-in-law and ex-husbands. You've got those two people who tell me if it's just, you had a rough day or even a nasty divorce. You're talking about a woman who murdered her three grandchildren. You're talking about a woman who murdered his three children and they still stood up on that stand and said she was a wonderful mother. That to me, how do you combat that kind of evidence? And that should have been something the district attorney should have taken into account when they decided to pursue charges against this woman. When you don't have one person saying one negative thing about her, not even the people who would have every reason to hate her, that speaks volumes.
00:12:21
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is one where, for me, this is where we differed in that I needed more. I was looking not at emotion, but at evidence. Still, with evidence, I probably would have voted the same. But you said this was enough.
00:12:37
Speaker 2: It was.
00:12:37
Speaker 1: And to hear one of the jurors come out and say absolutely. Like overwhelmingly, all these people. There's nobody that's going to say a bad word. So that is the evidence that something was wrong with her. And she shouldn't be criminally responsible.
00:12:48
Speaker 2: If there was history of abuse or selfish behavior or neglectful behavior or deliberate self. Like, you know, drinking to oblivion. If there were things that she had done leading up to this.
00:13:02
Speaker 1: A second life she wanted. A gambler. A something.
00:13:06
Speaker 2: A boyfriend.
00:13:07
Speaker 1: Anything. Anything.
00:13:08
Speaker 2: I would have absolutely been fully on board with the conviction. There was nothing. Nothing that spoke to anything other than. than love for those children and frustration with herself that she couldn't be a better mother.
00:13:24
Speaker 1: Okay, and the frustration you talk about there, Robes, and it was amazing to hear them acknowledge this and how the prosecution's case blew up in their face because we always thought it was a stretch. They were trying to find something negative about Lindsay Clancy, and they kept saying she was controlling. And we kept going, okay.
00:13:41
Speaker 2: And every woman knows that she's controlling in her own home.
00:13:45
Speaker 1: That's almost an insult to a lot of women. It is.
00:13:47
Speaker 2: And it's not controlling. It's called being in charge and being like a mama bird. And you're nesting and this is your family and you're protecting it.
00:13:56
Speaker 1: It's called a controlling. And we always thought any time they tried to bring up something about her, it was... that was negative, it was such a far-fetched stretch that you keep losing credibility. Like, come on, y'all, are you kidding me? But one thing that the jurors in particular groups in the interview acknowledged was this Facebook post. I had to be reminded of it, but there was some point during the trial they brought up that she, what, in the Facebook post, was complaining about Dawson, complaining that he was a little difficult. he's a toddler, that he was difficult and she was frustrated. Okay, they pointed to that, Robes, as some indication that, ah, wasn't this, they're saying she killed him first, right?
00:14:34
Speaker 2: Yes, it was really awful.
00:14:35
Speaker 1: Okay, and they pointed to this. Look, she hated this kid.
00:14:39
Speaker 2: That's what they were trying to say. That's what the prosecution was trying to prove, that because she put this post on Facebook and chose to kill him first.
00:14:47
Speaker 1: She was conscious thought of some kind. She had beef against this kid. Well, the jurors... Robes, one of them, brought up that particular post, another thing that just blew up in the prosecution's face.
00:14:58
Speaker 2: It backfired, and it made me angry, and it was so interesting to see it made them angry, too. Because every mother, and I would say every parent, knows you've been like, I'm going to kill you. I'm going to murder you. You tell your friends, this kid is driving me crazy. That is what moms, and I would say even dads, probably say all the time.
00:15:17
Speaker 1: What was the famous line Bill Cosby gave to Theodore? I brought you into this world. I'll take you out.
00:15:22
Speaker 2: Yeah. Right?
00:15:22
Speaker 1: It was a way you, he's not serious, but everybody has said or thought, I'm going to fucking kill this. Everybody.
00:15:29
Speaker 2: My grandfather would come up to us, us grandkids, and we were acting up and saying, you're cruising for a bruising. Like, that is what parents and grandparents say and do and feel.
00:15:39
Speaker 1: But out of frustration, it's okay. But Robsy. This was devastating. The prosecution has, I'm sure, they've listened to this, right? They're not ignoring these.
00:15:49
Speaker 2: Of course they have.
00:15:50
Speaker 1: They have got to listen.
00:15:51
Speaker 2: Yes. So this is what one of the jurors said about that attempt to make it seem that Lindsay Clancy hated Dawson. They tried to say something about a Facebook post that asked a question about how she was thinking about parenting Dawson. But if anybody that's ever had a two-year-old toddler boy or girl, you question, they do crazy things. You look to your friends. You look to the people you work with. You try to get some help. Every child is different, and it's normal to ask those kinds of questions that proved to me she was a better mother, not a bad mother. She was just saying, basically, why is this kid going to be the death of me? Why is he so hard? I've never met a human being that brought me to the brink more. Yes, we've all had those feelings and said those things about our children.
00:16:48
Speaker 1: I'm blown away that this was what they pulled out to say, look, to make their case. Look at how bad a mother she is because she was frustrated and asking other mothers for help. Rob, that's an insult to parents. It is. Generally. And it's one of those things, you're going to look me in the face and tell me I'm stupid? You really think? It's almost like they were offended by the case the prosecution was putting on.
00:17:12
Speaker 2: That's a really good way to put it.
00:17:13
Speaker 1: That is offensive. To say a Facebook post is evidence that this woman killed her kids because she was fresh. Come on, y'all. And we said, you know, I feel better saying it. I left space when we were having the debates during the trial. Like, I don't know, Robes, maybe, da, da, da. The juror felt the exact same thing.
00:17:32
Speaker 2: Right, because you know it when something is disingenuous, and you know when someone is trying to manipulate you, you know it. And that's exactly what the prosecution seemed or felt like they were doing, manipulating the jurors into thinking something that they knew wasn't true.
00:17:48
Speaker 1: The other thing, Rose, and I said to you, I said, I think they all have a crush on Kevin Reddington.
00:17:53
Speaker 2: Yeah.
00:17:53
Speaker 1: I forgot to mention what you had as quote, you had the quote just a moment ago, but I I don't know. What do you make of it? Make nothing of it. They kept referring to him by his first name.
00:18:02
Speaker 2: Kevin, that, that does, they were all friendly. They felt like he was their friend, their uncle, their dad, their husband, you know, they all felt something.
00:18:12
Speaker 1: Yeah.
00:18:13
Speaker 2: And you know what? These are Boston women or Massachusetts women, right? There's just a way about they're very direct. So they appreciate that same directness that they got from Kevin Reddington. And I think conversely, they don't appreciate the manipulation. Like these, even the way you hear these jurors talking, these women, they are Massachusetts through and through. And they tell it like it is and they say what they think. And Kevin Reddington is the male personification of that.
00:18:39
Speaker 1: He, Robes, I didn't hear a, we're going to share this next quote. It's probably my favorite one. And it's better if you see it on video because I told you, Robes, even when one of them tried to, it wasn't even insulting him.
00:18:51
Speaker 2: Yeah.
00:18:52
Speaker 1: But say something kind of a little bit negative about him.
00:18:55
Speaker 2: That he was arrogant.
00:18:55
Speaker 1: Another one jumped in. Yeah, but arrogant in a good way. And it was like, nobody say nothing bad about my baby Kevin. It was one of those. It felt that way. Three women. And it was the fourth was the woman who was the interviewer. But you had four women sitting around. It was almost like girls in middle school talking about who the cute boy was.
00:19:11
Speaker 2: Yep.
00:19:12
Speaker 1: And I don't want to go too far with that. I'm not saying they were being flirty, but Rose, they clearly had an affection for him and a respect for the job.
00:19:18
Speaker 2: Admiration, I think, and they felt like protective of him. They said he was entertaining, and that's good because we needed some of that. And someone said, and arrogant at the same time. entertaining and arrogant, and he would go back and forth between, and then someone else jumped in and said, but compassionate, compassionate with his arrogance. Yes, and I think that's all true. Arrogant in a good way, compassionately arrogant, if that all makes sense, but it does when you watched Kevin Reddington do his thing in court.
00:19:49
Speaker 1: How rude was it? and arrogant? I don't remember which doctor it was. He was calling him on something. What, you're just making this stuff up? You remember that moment? That's rude. Yes. That's arrogant. But it was compassion for something he was saying. It was for his client.
00:20:01
Speaker 2: And what he was saying, we were thinking.
00:20:03
Speaker 1: Yeah. So you're just making this stuff up.
00:20:06
Speaker 2: He was taking advantage of moments we were all experiencing inside of us, and he just said it out loud. So it worked.
00:20:15
Speaker 1: We do need to acknowledge, I haven't yet, Robes, we haven't yet, that 11 to 1 was the count that we knew of in the courtroom, in the jury deliberation room. They did confirm that it was 11 to 1, yes, for not guilty by reason of insanity in particular. Now, we didn't know at the time. We pieced it together, but nobody was able to confirm the one holdout and what was going on. But we do know now that they've come out, it was 11 to 1. However, it wasn't always that way. I guess it was maybe 8 to 4 of some kind. Because they said they had to bring three others, like to convince three others to come over.
00:20:54
Speaker 2: They didn't talk at length, though, about how difficult of a task that was. It seems like they were close and then they came over. It wasn't some big thing. The holdout was the big thing. And so on that holdout, they said this. He had reasonable doubt. He admitted he had reasonable doubt. And I started filling out the forms. I was so excited. This is the jury foreperson saying this. There were three forms I had to fill out, and I wrote my signature on each one. And then he said, I'm still not voting not guilty by reason of insanity. He watched her get excited that he's admitting there was reasonable doubt. She's like, we got this. We got a verdict.
00:21:33
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:21:34
Speaker 2: She starts writing out. He lets her finish writing out all three and then says, oh, I'm still not changing my vote.
00:21:40
Speaker 1: Yeah, they don't like this guy. They called him arrogant.
00:21:43
Speaker 2: And not in a good way.
00:21:45
Speaker 1: Yes, they didn't. They didn't come back and correct. About Rome, they describe a guy who was just dug in, in where he was. They felt that because by him acknowledging, saying out loud that there was a reasonable doubt, they wanted him to then change a vote. If you're acknowledging something in here is reasonable doubt, change. And he wouldn't. That is his prerogative. Yes. There is no question here or anything about a juror misbehaving or refusing to deliberate. It's not that. Robes, this is what happens. They couldn't convince the last guy.
00:22:27
Speaker 2: It would be, and I wonder, do you think we'll ever know who this man is?
00:22:31
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:22:32
Speaker 2: Do you think he'll ever speak out in defense of himself?
00:22:34
Speaker 1: I think he'll have to. I think he'll be forced to. The way things go, right?
00:22:38
Speaker 2: Right.
00:22:39
Speaker 1: Somebody's going to track him down. Somebody's going to start harassing him. Somebody's going to dox him. Somebody's going to something, baby, to this guy.
00:22:45
Speaker 2: People feel passionately about this case.
00:22:46
Speaker 1: And it's going to be ugly. It's going to be unfortunate. I hope it doesn't, but we've seen this stuff play out. I think there are people, there are too many right now desperate to track him down. Not to track him down to talk to him, but to punish him in some way, form, or fashion. I think that's happening.
00:23:00
Speaker 2: There are people like that. Then there are journalists out there who I think genuinely do want to hear where his head was. Obviously, everyone else is speaking for him. We heard it in court, and now we're hearing it from these three jurors. What they say he did, how they describe him acting, he may have a very different perspective.
00:23:17
Speaker 1: I'm sure he does.
00:23:18
Speaker 2: Perspective of what he thinks went on in that jury room.
00:23:22
Speaker 1: I hate it being, you can be annoyed. Like, man, I was on this side and this could have happened for Lindsey Clancy if he just, you can be annoyed with him. But when we take it to the next point of misconduct of some kind, it's not just that you were dug in and have an opinion. You're allowed to. Now they're assigning to him that he was actually doing something unlawful, doing something wrong. Even saying arrogant is, is almost assigning something to him as if he wasn't a legit member and a participant in that deliberation. Roe, sometimes this happens. He's dug in. He's allowed to dig in and feel however he wants to feel.
00:23:57
Speaker 2: That is part of the process. And they described that there were some sharp words exchanged, that jurors and they even had to take breaks and walk around and take a look at the evidence table because they had to just get away from the process. But they described some incredibly tense hours there. I mean, think about that. You're stuck in a room with someone who is refusing to budge and you feel completely stuck. The frustration, the emotional investment you've already put into this case for weeks on end. I mean, when you hear the judge and certainly folks talk about Kevin Reddington, I believe, spoke about these people spent two months away from their families, their lives, their work. Everything, and to have it end in a mistrial is incredibly frustrating.
00:24:39
Speaker 1: And, you know, all that time they're away dealing with some of the most difficult stuff you will ever experience as a human being, and at least by the judge's rule, you're not supposed to have anybody to go home and talk to about it.
00:24:52
Speaker 2: Correct. Right?
00:24:53
Speaker 1: What is your release? What is your outlet? You're not supposed to be, you're with your jurors, but you can't deliberate until the end. So, right, they had five weeks, a month plus.
00:25:00
Speaker 2: Isolating.
00:25:01
Speaker 1: Dealing with that.
00:25:02
Speaker 2: And they talked about how, I guess, I know that the 911 call was played in court and they heard it. Thankfully, we did not hear it, but they had to listen to it again. They said some jurors actually put in AirPods and listened to music because they could not hear it again. That was how horrific it was.
00:25:19
Speaker 1: You know, I appreciate it. And in hearing that, the stuff they went back and listened to in interviews and difficult stuff, I gave them credit, man. They took it seriously. They didn't want to listen to that stuff again. No. But they felt they needed to and to deliberate. And for that, I give them credit. We'll wrap here with what I thought was the most stunning thing they said. And I think it's the most damning thing the prosecution can hear. If you are trying to win over 12 jurors, and when your case is over, jurors come out and not only reject your case... but come out as full-fledged and public supporters of the woman you had on trial. Robe, these prosecutors got to do some soul-searching. I was shocked to hear these women say, yeah, go ahead, try her again. You know where we'll be? In the front row every day of her retrial in support of Lindsay Clancy.
00:26:20
Speaker 2: That's remarkable. That is remarkable, and it speaks to even the support Lindsay Clancy has gotten, again, from her own members of the family that could absolutely be divided over what happened. They have united behind her, and now you have jurors saying the very same thing, that they will go to her trial, if it happens again, in support of her publicly. That speaks volumes. And we've wondered just how much this is going to impact the prosecution's decision as to whether or not they retry Lindsey Clancy. We heard Patrick, not Patrick Clancy, excuse me, we heard Kevin Reddington say he's ready to go and he's ready to retry this case as soon as the prosecution is ready. But he also said he's open to hearing what the prosecution may offer, if they can come to some sort of an agreement, some sort of a deal to not have to retry this case. The prosecution takes one listen to these jurors How could they possibly move forward with another trial after they hear just how vehemently and how strongly these jurors feel, not only about Lindsay Clancy, but about their case and how they chose to prosecute it?
00:27:34
Speaker 1: The decision has been made for them. They are not going to try this case. If they do, they have to completely revamp their case, start it over. Do you hand another prosecutor over? the case, you can't do that. They don't have just prosecutors floating around with free time to get caught up.
00:27:48
Speaker 2: No. How could you get caught up on this?
00:27:50
Speaker 1: You have to change. They had to change the hair bow she put in her hair every day, how she dressed, the shoes she wore. Do we want to do glasses? Do I need a new briefcase? They have to change everything because from the moment they walked in that courtroom, these jurors didn't like them.
00:28:07
Speaker 2: And yes, correct. But now you've got the problem that the whole world saw them already, watched them Listen to them. You totally changed tactic. You totally, that's so disingenuous. No one's going to buy it. And any potential juror that would be reseated or be seated in a new jury, I'm sure watched some of this case, already saw what the previous tactic was, and that'll just make a new tactic look even more manipulative.
00:28:35
Speaker 1: But remember, not everybody watched every day like we did. They saw clips on TV, shorter clips on TikTok. That's true. They don't know. But I am shocked at just how much this jury did not like this case at all. Reddington, yes, open to a deal. There's going to be something that gets worked out. There will be. Sentence her and suspend the sentence. Is that what's going to make prosecutors feel good that at least she got a 20-year sentence but is going to be suspended as long as she's in the hospital? That's what should have been done.
00:29:06
Speaker 2: Or some guaranteed amount of time she'll stay in a mental institution so she is beyond childbearing years, whatever it is they want to say. Or she can never be around kids again. There could be some stipulations that they could put in place.
00:29:18
Speaker 1: Isn't that exactly what should have happened in the first place? Yes. I've heard plenty of lawyers say she was overcharged. We shouldn't even have been doing this in the first place.
00:29:26
Speaker 2: And look, this could be a wake-up call for future potential prosecutions in terms of how we handle women in these types of situations. And unfortunately, we already have another woman, Corey Walsh, out there who has followed in Lindsay Clancy's footsteps. And she's being treated differently already. Every case is different. But look, the idea is, hopefully... eyes have been opened, minds have been opened in terms of what women deal with and go through postpartum. And that is the hope that there can be some sort of advancement made in how we treat women, how we acknowledge women, how we listen to women when they tell us they need help, and maybe even, yes, how we prosecute women.
00:30:04
Speaker 1: All right. Well, that is the update. They are talking. This is fascinating. It's been a fascinating case. We didn't mention the Trump connection here, not just his comments, but Reddington has floated the idea of Trump getting involved These are state cases, of course, state charges, so he can't pardon somebody for state charges, only federal charges. But Reddington did suggest even the word he used was clout. He can call up the prosecutor. He said, yeah, they're both Republicans. He actually put that out there. He said he can call them up and say don't go after this if he wants to.
00:30:34
Speaker 2: But Trump has not, the comments he has made about Lindsey Clancy have not been suggesting in any way, shape, or form that he believes Lindsey Clancy is. should be found not guilty by reason of insanity. In fact, he, I think, called her... Said the opposite, right? Yes. So he might not be the right tree.
00:30:50
Speaker 1: To bark up. All right. Interesting way to put that. So with that, we will wrap here, folks. We always appreciate you. I'm TJ. That's Robes. We'll see you soon.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. Welcome. I'm TJ. That's Robes. In an episode, I guess we should call Amy was right about everything. Isn't that what Trump likes to say? Trump was right about everything. He has some logos and whatnot. Some hats and some merchandise. This really is. Amy was right about everything. Now, I'm giving you overwhelming credit here. I was on board with a lot of this, but the jurors in the Lindsay Clancy case are speaking. I am shocked. That they were seeing things from day one exactly how we were seeing them.
00:00:36
Speaker 2: Yes. And I will say that it's not that I was right. It's just that I'm a woman. And I think that a lot of us, we're not groupthink. We don't all think alike. But there are certain things that just... we receive in a specific way, especially mothers, especially anyone who's been through it, and it was really, yes, validating to learn from the jurors, three female jurors, including the foreperson, what they were thinking throughout the trial was very much aligned with what we were thinking and what definitely I was saying out loud as we were watching the trial take place.
00:01:10
Speaker 1: Yeah, and somebody's going to make a meme out of that, what you just said. I'm not saying I was right. It's just that I'm a woman. It's the same thing. It's the same fucking thing is what we're saying. But, yes, folks, this was fascinating. We were all curious after, what, seven days of deliberations, ended up with a hung trial, 40-plus hours or whatever it was. We were curious what was going on in there, and we did know that there was one holdout juror. Now we're getting more and more insight. Robes, the prosecution should be embarrassed. They should really go back to the drawing board. And Robes, I was shocked. They lost the jury in opening statements. Yes. They lost them as soon as they started saying, hi, I'm the prosecutor.
00:01:57
Speaker 2: Babe, they lost us in the opening statement because, look, you can still, and there are plenty of women, plenty of mothers out there who think Lindsay Clancy should be behind bars. But to start off making her seem like a villain, a monster, when all of the evidence and all of the witnesses painted a completely different picture of this woman. And so it felt cold, unnecessarily cruel, because she's admitting she killed her children. So you don't need to pile on in that sense.
00:02:31
Speaker 1: Cold and cruel are words they use to describe the prosecution. If you're If you're a prosecutor, you're trying a case, the last thing you want is for the jury to actually look at you and think you're cold, cold-hearted, rude, unprofessional. These were all things jurors are describing the prosecution as. Rose, because as we watched, we posted about this case every single day because we watched pretty much every single thing. And every time we did an episode, we left this space. Well, maybe the jury is seeing it differently, but if we were sitting there, blank, blank, blank, blank, blank, Robes, they just filled in all the blanks. Yes. We were right.
00:03:12
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:03:12
Speaker 1: They were filling the same stuff.
00:03:13
Speaker 2: It was very validating to hear that they were experiencing the trial, the attorneys, the witnesses, and the testimony very much like we were. And it was shocking to me that the prosecution from the get-go didn't understand that. That it was not a good tactic to go all bulldog on this woman in a wheelchair who's sobbing throughout the trial.
00:03:38
Speaker 1: We said it was far-fetched. Those two things just didn't work. It's okay to still want to prosecute her. Yes. But you have got to show some level of... acceptance, acknowledgement that this woman was struggling. They never did. Yes, exactly.
00:03:50
Speaker 2: I think it was obvious she had mental health struggles. So to try and take that away or to take that off the table didn't compute. And it made me think, and certainly it seems like it made the jurors feel like we were looking at two different scenarios and two different people so that I couldn't accept their version because it was so out of touch with reality that I couldn't get on board with what they were saying.
00:04:15
Speaker 1: Uh... Robes, we questioned ourselves and saying, well, maybe they're seeing it differently. They weren't. So three jurors sat down with Boston 10, was it? One of the local reporters there who had been covering and has seen these women. And the women have seen her. You could tell, even though they didn't interact during the trial, there was a familiarity to some degree. They had seen each other every day. So three of them there, one of them being the foreperson. We're going to share with you the quotes. the very important ones from this interview, this sit-down, and then Robes is going to break them down. So start about the prosecution. This was the one, Robes, from the very beginning. and talking about the prosecution, lost us from opening statement.
00:04:59
Speaker 2: Yes, one of the jurors said they found the prosecution, found it to be harsh, very, very harsh. The fact that they had no character witnesses to Lindsay being a bad mother. You're presenting all these medical professionals. I found it to be biased right out of the gate, and I also found them to be kind of unprofessional and just without a heart. And for me, that was right away, I was like, okay... Where is this going from statement one that there was no compassion in the courtroom right now, which I guess is expected of a prosecution, but I thought it was very cold. Nailed it. That's exactly what our impression was as well, to the point where we were surprised to hear the DA say after the case that both of the prosecutors were mothers.
00:05:46
Speaker 1: We were shocked to hear that.
00:05:48
Speaker 2: I kept thinking, obviously, they're not mothers. Maybe that's unfair, but that's what it felt like.
00:05:53
Speaker 1: They didn't sound like it. And they're not supposed to in a prosecution. You're not supposed to. But the fact that they didn't acknowledge what every human being could made them seem harsh, robotic, not with it. They were disconnected from this jury in the wildest of ways. Robes. From statement one, there was no compassion in the room.
00:06:13
Speaker 2: There wasn't.
00:06:13
Speaker 1: They were begging for her almost to just say, look, I know mothers struggle. Many of you have. I have as well. And you know what? Nobody's proud sometimes when you have some very tough and difficult thoughts we don't like to admit. We get that. But that doesn't mean she's not responsible.
00:06:31
Speaker 2: Correct.
00:06:31
Speaker 1: That line was never used.
00:06:32
Speaker 2: They had taken that approach that we acknowledge she was struggling mentally. And we acknowledge that a lot of mothers... know what this feels like.
00:06:40
Speaker 1: That one.
00:06:41
Speaker 2: But this is different. This is, this was not, you know, they could have, there was zero acknowledgement. There was zero heart. There was zero compassion.
00:06:49
Speaker 1: And you know what? Other women felt that as mothers, like you were attacking them.
00:06:53
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:06:53
Speaker 1: That's what came across. It's not just you're going after this woman. You're going after all of us, but not even acknowledging that motherhood is difficult. That was all they needed.
00:07:02
Speaker 2: Or acknowledging that Lindsay Clancy was clearly struggling with her mental health.
00:07:06
Speaker 1: Yes. But yes, harsh as they were for the prosecution, it was a completely opposite love fest to hear them talk about Kevin Reddington. And on this point as well, Robes, I was like, okay, we weren't right about him. We weren't wrong about him either. We felt his compassion. We felt him feeling like a fatherly figure almost to her. They loved him.
00:07:29
Speaker 2: Yeah, because obviously, yes, he was rude and arrogant. And he interrupted. He did a lot of things that you would think would turn someone off or a juror off. But he was doing it on behalf of a woman he was fighting like hell for. And that was everything.
00:07:46
Speaker 1: You know, you just said something. Every time he might have done something that seemed arrogant or something that seemed rude. But I don't deem him a rude and arrogant person. He took his moments, and you just said it, Robes, every time he was rude or was arrogant, it wasn't because of his ego. It was because of Lindsay. I'm being rude to you right now because you just said some bullshit I don't like about my client, so I'm going to cut you off. That's the only time he did it. He wasn't trying to win a chess match against anybody.
00:08:16
Speaker 2: He wasn't defending his own honor or himself. He was defending his client, and that's what made him so likable even in his arrogance. And so, yes, this is what they had to say. Kevin really talked from his heart. He brought all these people in, people that loved her, her in-laws. Even Patrick was very compassionate. We appreciated the fact that he, Kevin, didn't delay and drag it on with more medical BS and got to the point of who Lindsay is and what her life was like. Obviously, something happened to this woman and should have not happened for many reasons. Appreciated that he cut through the bullshit and moved it along with so much compassion for her We didn't find any compassion in the prosecution. I know it's their job, but in a case like this, you expect a little bit.
00:09:07
Speaker 1: Rose, thank God.
00:09:08
Speaker 2: It mattered.
00:09:09
Speaker 1: We could have written all this stuff. This is exactly what we thought on day one, day two, day three, day four, day five. And we didn't know they were feeling it as well. Yes, they even acknowledge you're the prosecution and maybe you're not supposed to be touchy-feely and all this feels wrong. But robes do not even acknowledge that a mother might struggle in any way after having a baby. Right.
00:09:31
Speaker 2: And then you want me to believe your evidence and your narrative and your theory. But if I'm not buying what your premise, what your foundation is from the beginning, then how can I believe anything you say? Like literally your tone and acknowledgement of reality. If you refuse to do that, in an effort to prove your case, you are gonna lose everybody in the process.
00:10:00
Speaker 1: With some of the prosecution witnesses, the experts, where you won't, they wouldn't concede just simple facts just to be argumentative or to make sure they were being a homer for the prosecution. That comes off as a lack of credibility.
00:10:13
Speaker 2: Yes, they had an agenda, so therefore I cannot trust your credibility. That was the thing. If they just acknowledged If they weren't so combative with the defense, I would have believed what they testified to more for the prosecution.
00:10:26
Speaker 1: They wanted to so badly stay away from the idea of sympathizing with her that it had the opposite impact on their case. It did.
00:10:35
Speaker 2: It was absolutely blew up in their face.
00:10:38
Speaker 1: Several more here from this interview. Quote, we're trying to figure out if she knew right from wrong at the time with everybody saying she loved her children so much and everybody saying, And everything proved she loved her children from journals to her mother-in-law. So she had to have snapped in not knowing what she was doing. To me, it was proof that she didn't know what she was doing. I included this one because this is something you and I, I wasn't as on board with this. You said for you, seeing the in-laws, the family, everybody sitting on her side of the courtroom there for her was enough for you. To vote her not guilty by reason of insanity.
00:11:19
Speaker 2: I just got chills.
00:11:20
Speaker 1: And this was, they said the same thing, baby.
00:11:22
Speaker 2: Because every single person who knew her better than anyone else, and people who were in roles that traditionally, or at least after a murder, would be... adversarial mothers-in-law and ex-husbands. You've got those two people who tell me if it's just, you had a rough day or even a nasty divorce. You're talking about a woman who murdered her three grandchildren. You're talking about a woman who murdered his three children and they still stood up on that stand and said she was a wonderful mother. That to me, how do you combat that kind of evidence? And that should have been something the district attorney should have taken into account when they decided to pursue charges against this woman. When you don't have one person saying one negative thing about her, not even the people who would have every reason to hate her, that speaks volumes.
00:12:21
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is one where, for me, this is where we differed in that I needed more. I was looking not at emotion, but at evidence. Still, with evidence, I probably would have voted the same. But you said this was enough.
00:12:37
Speaker 2: It was.
00:12:37
Speaker 1: And to hear one of the jurors come out and say absolutely. Like overwhelmingly, all these people. There's nobody that's going to say a bad word. So that is the evidence that something was wrong with her. And she shouldn't be criminally responsible.
00:12:48
Speaker 2: If there was history of abuse or selfish behavior or neglectful behavior or deliberate self. Like, you know, drinking to oblivion. If there were things that she had done leading up to this.
00:13:02
Speaker 1: A second life she wanted. A gambler. A something.
00:13:06
Speaker 2: A boyfriend.
00:13:07
Speaker 1: Anything. Anything.
00:13:08
Speaker 2: I would have absolutely been fully on board with the conviction. There was nothing. Nothing that spoke to anything other than. than love for those children and frustration with herself that she couldn't be a better mother.
00:13:24
Speaker 1: Okay, and the frustration you talk about there, Robes, and it was amazing to hear them acknowledge this and how the prosecution's case blew up in their face because we always thought it was a stretch. They were trying to find something negative about Lindsay Clancy, and they kept saying she was controlling. And we kept going, okay.
00:13:41
Speaker 2: And every woman knows that she's controlling in her own home.
00:13:45
Speaker 1: That's almost an insult to a lot of women. It is.
00:13:47
Speaker 2: And it's not controlling. It's called being in charge and being like a mama bird. And you're nesting and this is your family and you're protecting it.
00:13:56
Speaker 1: It's called a controlling. And we always thought any time they tried to bring up something about her, it was... that was negative, it was such a far-fetched stretch that you keep losing credibility. Like, come on, y'all, are you kidding me? But one thing that the jurors in particular groups in the interview acknowledged was this Facebook post. I had to be reminded of it, but there was some point during the trial they brought up that she, what, in the Facebook post, was complaining about Dawson, complaining that he was a little difficult. he's a toddler, that he was difficult and she was frustrated. Okay, they pointed to that, Robes, as some indication that, ah, wasn't this, they're saying she killed him first, right?
00:14:34
Speaker 2: Yes, it was really awful.
00:14:35
Speaker 1: Okay, and they pointed to this. Look, she hated this kid.
00:14:39
Speaker 2: That's what they were trying to say. That's what the prosecution was trying to prove, that because she put this post on Facebook and chose to kill him first.
00:14:47
Speaker 1: She was conscious thought of some kind. She had beef against this kid. Well, the jurors... Robes, one of them, brought up that particular post, another thing that just blew up in the prosecution's face.
00:14:58
Speaker 2: It backfired, and it made me angry, and it was so interesting to see it made them angry, too. Because every mother, and I would say every parent, knows you've been like, I'm going to kill you. I'm going to murder you. You tell your friends, this kid is driving me crazy. That is what moms, and I would say even dads, probably say all the time.
00:15:17
Speaker 1: What was the famous line Bill Cosby gave to Theodore? I brought you into this world. I'll take you out.
00:15:22
Speaker 2: Yeah. Right?
00:15:22
Speaker 1: It was a way you, he's not serious, but everybody has said or thought, I'm going to fucking kill this. Everybody.
00:15:29
Speaker 2: My grandfather would come up to us, us grandkids, and we were acting up and saying, you're cruising for a bruising. Like, that is what parents and grandparents say and do and feel.
00:15:39
Speaker 1: But out of frustration, it's okay. But Robsy. This was devastating. The prosecution has, I'm sure, they've listened to this, right? They're not ignoring these.
00:15:49
Speaker 2: Of course they have.
00:15:50
Speaker 1: They have got to listen.
00:15:51
Speaker 2: Yes. So this is what one of the jurors said about that attempt to make it seem that Lindsay Clancy hated Dawson. They tried to say something about a Facebook post that asked a question about how she was thinking about parenting Dawson. But if anybody that's ever had a two-year-old toddler boy or girl, you question, they do crazy things. You look to your friends. You look to the people you work with. You try to get some help. Every child is different, and it's normal to ask those kinds of questions that proved to me she was a better mother, not a bad mother. She was just saying, basically, why is this kid going to be the death of me? Why is he so hard? I've never met a human being that brought me to the brink more. Yes, we've all had those feelings and said those things about our children.
00:16:48
Speaker 1: I'm blown away that this was what they pulled out to say, look, to make their case. Look at how bad a mother she is because she was frustrated and asking other mothers for help. Rob, that's an insult to parents. It is. Generally. And it's one of those things, you're going to look me in the face and tell me I'm stupid? You really think? It's almost like they were offended by the case the prosecution was putting on.
00:17:12
Speaker 2: That's a really good way to put it.
00:17:13
Speaker 1: That is offensive. To say a Facebook post is evidence that this woman killed her kids because she was fresh. Come on, y'all. And we said, you know, I feel better saying it. I left space when we were having the debates during the trial. Like, I don't know, Robes, maybe, da, da, da. The juror felt the exact same thing.
00:17:32
Speaker 2: Right, because you know it when something is disingenuous, and you know when someone is trying to manipulate you, you know it. And that's exactly what the prosecution seemed or felt like they were doing, manipulating the jurors into thinking something that they knew wasn't true.
00:17:48
Speaker 1: The other thing, Rose, and I said to you, I said, I think they all have a crush on Kevin Reddington.
00:17:53
Speaker 2: Yeah.
00:17:53
Speaker 1: I forgot to mention what you had as quote, you had the quote just a moment ago, but I I don't know. What do you make of it? Make nothing of it. They kept referring to him by his first name.
00:18:02
Speaker 2: Kevin, that, that does, they were all friendly. They felt like he was their friend, their uncle, their dad, their husband, you know, they all felt something.
00:18:12
Speaker 1: Yeah.
00:18:13
Speaker 2: And you know what? These are Boston women or Massachusetts women, right? There's just a way about they're very direct. So they appreciate that same directness that they got from Kevin Reddington. And I think conversely, they don't appreciate the manipulation. Like these, even the way you hear these jurors talking, these women, they are Massachusetts through and through. And they tell it like it is and they say what they think. And Kevin Reddington is the male personification of that.
00:18:39
Speaker 1: He, Robes, I didn't hear a, we're going to share this next quote. It's probably my favorite one. And it's better if you see it on video because I told you, Robes, even when one of them tried to, it wasn't even insulting him.
00:18:51
Speaker 2: Yeah.
00:18:52
Speaker 1: But say something kind of a little bit negative about him.
00:18:55
Speaker 2: That he was arrogant.
00:18:55
Speaker 1: Another one jumped in. Yeah, but arrogant in a good way. And it was like, nobody say nothing bad about my baby Kevin. It was one of those. It felt that way. Three women. And it was the fourth was the woman who was the interviewer. But you had four women sitting around. It was almost like girls in middle school talking about who the cute boy was.
00:19:11
Speaker 2: Yep.
00:19:12
Speaker 1: And I don't want to go too far with that. I'm not saying they were being flirty, but Rose, they clearly had an affection for him and a respect for the job.
00:19:18
Speaker 2: Admiration, I think, and they felt like protective of him. They said he was entertaining, and that's good because we needed some of that. And someone said, and arrogant at the same time. entertaining and arrogant, and he would go back and forth between, and then someone else jumped in and said, but compassionate, compassionate with his arrogance. Yes, and I think that's all true. Arrogant in a good way, compassionately arrogant, if that all makes sense, but it does when you watched Kevin Reddington do his thing in court.
00:19:49
Speaker 1: How rude was it? and arrogant? I don't remember which doctor it was. He was calling him on something. What, you're just making this stuff up? You remember that moment? That's rude. Yes. That's arrogant. But it was compassion for something he was saying. It was for his client.
00:20:01
Speaker 2: And what he was saying, we were thinking.
00:20:03
Speaker 1: Yeah. So you're just making this stuff up.
00:20:06
Speaker 2: He was taking advantage of moments we were all experiencing inside of us, and he just said it out loud. So it worked.
00:20:15
Speaker 1: We do need to acknowledge, I haven't yet, Robes, we haven't yet, that 11 to 1 was the count that we knew of in the courtroom, in the jury deliberation room. They did confirm that it was 11 to 1, yes, for not guilty by reason of insanity in particular. Now, we didn't know at the time. We pieced it together, but nobody was able to confirm the one holdout and what was going on. But we do know now that they've come out, it was 11 to 1. However, it wasn't always that way. I guess it was maybe 8 to 4 of some kind. Because they said they had to bring three others, like to convince three others to come over.
00:20:54
Speaker 2: They didn't talk at length, though, about how difficult of a task that was. It seems like they were close and then they came over. It wasn't some big thing. The holdout was the big thing. And so on that holdout, they said this. He had reasonable doubt. He admitted he had reasonable doubt. And I started filling out the forms. I was so excited. This is the jury foreperson saying this. There were three forms I had to fill out, and I wrote my signature on each one. And then he said, I'm still not voting not guilty by reason of insanity. He watched her get excited that he's admitting there was reasonable doubt. She's like, we got this. We got a verdict.
00:21:33
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:21:34
Speaker 2: She starts writing out. He lets her finish writing out all three and then says, oh, I'm still not changing my vote.
00:21:40
Speaker 1: Yeah, they don't like this guy. They called him arrogant.
00:21:43
Speaker 2: And not in a good way.
00:21:45
Speaker 1: Yes, they didn't. They didn't come back and correct. About Rome, they describe a guy who was just dug in, in where he was. They felt that because by him acknowledging, saying out loud that there was a reasonable doubt, they wanted him to then change a vote. If you're acknowledging something in here is reasonable doubt, change. And he wouldn't. That is his prerogative. Yes. There is no question here or anything about a juror misbehaving or refusing to deliberate. It's not that. Robes, this is what happens. They couldn't convince the last guy.
00:22:27
Speaker 2: It would be, and I wonder, do you think we'll ever know who this man is?
00:22:31
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:22:32
Speaker 2: Do you think he'll ever speak out in defense of himself?
00:22:34
Speaker 1: I think he'll have to. I think he'll be forced to. The way things go, right?
00:22:38
Speaker 2: Right.
00:22:39
Speaker 1: Somebody's going to track him down. Somebody's going to start harassing him. Somebody's going to dox him. Somebody's going to something, baby, to this guy.
00:22:45
Speaker 2: People feel passionately about this case.
00:22:46
Speaker 1: And it's going to be ugly. It's going to be unfortunate. I hope it doesn't, but we've seen this stuff play out. I think there are people, there are too many right now desperate to track him down. Not to track him down to talk to him, but to punish him in some way, form, or fashion. I think that's happening.
00:23:00
Speaker 2: There are people like that. Then there are journalists out there who I think genuinely do want to hear where his head was. Obviously, everyone else is speaking for him. We heard it in court, and now we're hearing it from these three jurors. What they say he did, how they describe him acting, he may have a very different perspective.
00:23:17
Speaker 1: I'm sure he does.
00:23:18
Speaker 2: Perspective of what he thinks went on in that jury room.
00:23:22
Speaker 1: I hate it being, you can be annoyed. Like, man, I was on this side and this could have happened for Lindsey Clancy if he just, you can be annoyed with him. But when we take it to the next point of misconduct of some kind, it's not just that you were dug in and have an opinion. You're allowed to. Now they're assigning to him that he was actually doing something unlawful, doing something wrong. Even saying arrogant is, is almost assigning something to him as if he wasn't a legit member and a participant in that deliberation. Roe, sometimes this happens. He's dug in. He's allowed to dig in and feel however he wants to feel.
00:23:57
Speaker 2: That is part of the process. And they described that there were some sharp words exchanged, that jurors and they even had to take breaks and walk around and take a look at the evidence table because they had to just get away from the process. But they described some incredibly tense hours there. I mean, think about that. You're stuck in a room with someone who is refusing to budge and you feel completely stuck. The frustration, the emotional investment you've already put into this case for weeks on end. I mean, when you hear the judge and certainly folks talk about Kevin Reddington, I believe, spoke about these people spent two months away from their families, their lives, their work. Everything, and to have it end in a mistrial is incredibly frustrating.
00:24:39
Speaker 1: And, you know, all that time they're away dealing with some of the most difficult stuff you will ever experience as a human being, and at least by the judge's rule, you're not supposed to have anybody to go home and talk to about it.
00:24:52
Speaker 2: Correct. Right?
00:24:53
Speaker 1: What is your release? What is your outlet? You're not supposed to be, you're with your jurors, but you can't deliberate until the end. So, right, they had five weeks, a month plus.
00:25:00
Speaker 2: Isolating.
00:25:01
Speaker 1: Dealing with that.
00:25:02
Speaker 2: And they talked about how, I guess, I know that the 911 call was played in court and they heard it. Thankfully, we did not hear it, but they had to listen to it again. They said some jurors actually put in AirPods and listened to music because they could not hear it again. That was how horrific it was.
00:25:19
Speaker 1: You know, I appreciate it. And in hearing that, the stuff they went back and listened to in interviews and difficult stuff, I gave them credit, man. They took it seriously. They didn't want to listen to that stuff again. No. But they felt they needed to and to deliberate. And for that, I give them credit. We'll wrap here with what I thought was the most stunning thing they said. And I think it's the most damning thing the prosecution can hear. If you are trying to win over 12 jurors, and when your case is over, jurors come out and not only reject your case... but come out as full-fledged and public supporters of the woman you had on trial. Robe, these prosecutors got to do some soul-searching. I was shocked to hear these women say, yeah, go ahead, try her again. You know where we'll be? In the front row every day of her retrial in support of Lindsay Clancy.
00:26:20
Speaker 2: That's remarkable. That is remarkable, and it speaks to even the support Lindsay Clancy has gotten, again, from her own members of the family that could absolutely be divided over what happened. They have united behind her, and now you have jurors saying the very same thing, that they will go to her trial, if it happens again, in support of her publicly. That speaks volumes. And we've wondered just how much this is going to impact the prosecution's decision as to whether or not they retry Lindsey Clancy. We heard Patrick, not Patrick Clancy, excuse me, we heard Kevin Reddington say he's ready to go and he's ready to retry this case as soon as the prosecution is ready. But he also said he's open to hearing what the prosecution may offer, if they can come to some sort of an agreement, some sort of a deal to not have to retry this case. The prosecution takes one listen to these jurors How could they possibly move forward with another trial after they hear just how vehemently and how strongly these jurors feel, not only about Lindsay Clancy, but about their case and how they chose to prosecute it?
00:27:34
Speaker 1: The decision has been made for them. They are not going to try this case. If they do, they have to completely revamp their case, start it over. Do you hand another prosecutor over? the case, you can't do that. They don't have just prosecutors floating around with free time to get caught up.
00:27:48
Speaker 2: No. How could you get caught up on this?
00:27:50
Speaker 1: You have to change. They had to change the hair bow she put in her hair every day, how she dressed, the shoes she wore. Do we want to do glasses? Do I need a new briefcase? They have to change everything because from the moment they walked in that courtroom, these jurors didn't like them.
00:28:07
Speaker 2: And yes, correct. But now you've got the problem that the whole world saw them already, watched them Listen to them. You totally changed tactic. You totally, that's so disingenuous. No one's going to buy it. And any potential juror that would be reseated or be seated in a new jury, I'm sure watched some of this case, already saw what the previous tactic was, and that'll just make a new tactic look even more manipulative.
00:28:35
Speaker 1: But remember, not everybody watched every day like we did. They saw clips on TV, shorter clips on TikTok. That's true. They don't know. But I am shocked at just how much this jury did not like this case at all. Reddington, yes, open to a deal. There's going to be something that gets worked out. There will be. Sentence her and suspend the sentence. Is that what's going to make prosecutors feel good that at least she got a 20-year sentence but is going to be suspended as long as she's in the hospital? That's what should have been done.
00:29:06
Speaker 2: Or some guaranteed amount of time she'll stay in a mental institution so she is beyond childbearing years, whatever it is they want to say. Or she can never be around kids again. There could be some stipulations that they could put in place.
00:29:18
Speaker 1: Isn't that exactly what should have happened in the first place? Yes. I've heard plenty of lawyers say she was overcharged. We shouldn't even have been doing this in the first place.
00:29:26
Speaker 2: And look, this could be a wake-up call for future potential prosecutions in terms of how we handle women in these types of situations. And unfortunately, we already have another woman, Corey Walsh, out there who has followed in Lindsay Clancy's footsteps. And she's being treated differently already. Every case is different. But look, the idea is, hopefully... eyes have been opened, minds have been opened in terms of what women deal with and go through postpartum. And that is the hope that there can be some sort of advancement made in how we treat women, how we acknowledge women, how we listen to women when they tell us they need help, and maybe even, yes, how we prosecute women.
00:30:04
Speaker 1: All right. Well, that is the update. They are talking. This is fascinating. It's been a fascinating case. We didn't mention the Trump connection here, not just his comments, but Reddington has floated the idea of Trump getting involved These are state cases, of course, state charges, so he can't pardon somebody for state charges, only federal charges. But Reddington did suggest even the word he used was clout. He can call up the prosecutor. He said, yeah, they're both Republicans. He actually put that out there. He said he can call them up and say don't go after this if he wants to.
00:30:34
Speaker 2: But Trump has not, the comments he has made about Lindsey Clancy have not been suggesting in any way, shape, or form that he believes Lindsey Clancy is. should be found not guilty by reason of insanity. In fact, he, I think, called her... Said the opposite, right? Yes. So he might not be the right tree.
00:30:50
Speaker 1: To bark up. All right. Interesting way to put that. So with that, we will wrap here, folks. We always appreciate you. I'm TJ. That's Robes. We'll see you soon.