Nov. 2, 2026
NEW: Lindsay Clancy Back In Court; Will There Be A New Trial?
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed The Massachusetts mom who strangled her three young children to death is back in court today for a hearing that could determine whether she will be retried after a jury deadlocked 11 to 1 at her first trial. Judge William Sullivan will hear arguments from Lindsay Clancy’s attorneys to dismiss the murder charges and to discuss a timetable for a potential new trial if he allows the case to proceed. Meantime, an influencer who perpetuated the Patrick Clancy conspiracy theory has been criminally charged with wiretapping as speculation continues about whether Lindsay Clancy will testify in one of two civil cases involving health care providers.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Monday, November 2nd. Is today the day we find out whether or not Lindsay Clancy will be retried? For the murder of her three children. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ Rogue, November 2nd. We have had this date circled on the calendar for quite a while.
00:00:19
Speaker 2: We certainly have. This is a big hearing because, yes, we may learn the prosecution's next move. We may actually get a new trial date. And there are several defense motion rulings that we're waiting to hear what the judge says. has to say about, including a motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy, which I've had to reread the explanation as to how they could possibly come up with some double jeopardy exception when it was a hung jury. Yes.
00:00:49
Speaker 1: This was a little bit of kicking the can, Robes. There was a hearing several weeks ago. I don't have the date on that one. Late September. Okay. But that was the one we were going to find so much out. And we come in there and Robes, Attorney says, I ain't going to be ready until next year. The other one said, we're not quite sure what we're going to do. It's a little confusion. The judge wanted more. And he did have to move a lot of stuff until today. Yes.
00:01:12
Speaker 2: In fact, if you remember at the end of that hearing, the judge was pushing, pushing both sides to set a trial date. And they both just said, no, we're not ready. So he his quote was on November 2nd. Be prepared to talk about picking a trial date. He did not want this lingering. And look, we heard from Plymouth County DA Timothy Cruz is his name. He had said, yes, we're still evaluating. But they filed a motion last week that said, quote, they should be permitted to continue to pursue justice for Cora Dawson and Callan Clancy, which would indicate that in all likelihood they are going to pursue some justice. sort of charges. The question is, will it be first degree or will they consider lesser charges?
00:01:58
Speaker 1: Or what do they consider justice at this point? They left themselves a little wiggle room for what they think is justice for these kids. Robes, what is about to happen? Because you know Clancy's attorney has made clear he is not going to accept anything other than an acquittal or anything that involves her going to jail. He will not entertain, according to him.
00:02:21
Speaker 2: Exactly. And if you Google this, everyone's trying to read the tea leaves. Some outlets are predicting, legal analysts are predicting that today we'll hear that there was some sort of plea deal that's been agreed to. The New York Times is- He said no. He said absolutely not. I hear you, but there are still some people out there who think there's no way they're actually going to do another trial, put the nation, the country, the witnesses, the Clancy's Through this again, but the New York Times, actually, I thought this was interesting, just put something out saying that lesser charges, if the prosecution went with a, I don't know what that lesser charge would be, it could allow Lindsay Clancy to have a bench trial if they were to do a second trial, which would mean it would be a judge, not a jury, deciding her fate.
00:03:07
Speaker 1: That's a tough one. Put your fate in the hands of one person versus 12. One jurist, right?
00:03:13
Speaker 2: One judge.
00:03:15
Speaker 1: I mean, this guy, I mean, who do you put your faith in? This judge? I mean, the way he is viewed, who knows? But hey, people, we've seen people, I applaud them for being brave enough to roll the dice and let one person decide your fate. But that is wild to think about.
00:03:30
Speaker 2: Yes. And so that's... We still have to see a trial.
00:03:33
Speaker 1: It would still go through the process.
00:03:34
Speaker 2: Correct. Correct. But the judge would decide. It's very, it's fascinating, legally speaking. to see what the prosecution is going to decide, what the charges are going to be, how the defense is going to handle it all. So yes, that is the biggest headline everyone is waiting for coming out of today's hearing. But also the judge is listening to these defense motions. And one of them, yes, is to dismiss the case based on double jeopardy grounds. Now, does this make sense? The argument is from Kevin Reddington and Lindsey Clancy's legal team that the judge is failed to fully investigate the holdout juror who forced the mistrial. And the question is whether or not this holdout juror followed the court's instructions. So according to the defense, there wasn't a need to declare a mistrial. That shouldn't have happened. And so retrying this case after what they call an improper ending would amount to double jeopardy.
00:04:32
Speaker 1: But there's no guarantee that the ending would have gone their way had you put another... juror in there. That seems like a stretch, a legal stretch to me. I think the judge has even made some comments that that was a bit of a stretch to him, but we shall see. But the idea is that she would have been not guilty, judge, had you done your job, judge. So why should she have to be tried again?
00:04:57
Speaker 2: I think it's ironic then that that judge is the one who decides whether or not what he did was grounds for a dismissal. Why would you ever rule against yourself?
00:05:19
Speaker 1: Again, he has been, Robes, protecting the jury process as much as he can. The one ruling we did get before today, I wasn't expecting it actually until this hearing, but he went ahead and said, no, I'm not going to interrogate or investigate this juror.
00:05:37
Speaker 2: Yes, because that was the other motion that we thought we were going to hear decided today, but it was instead decided a short while ago. But yes, the holdout juror, Michael Desronville, Kevin Reddington wanted his cell phone records- wanted his juror application form reviewed. He wanted this dude interrogated. The legal precedent that would set would be so dangerous. No one, I mean, I'm going to say 95% of people don't want to serve on a jury anyway. let alone a lengthy criminal trial, let alone if you think if the defense attorney or the prosecution doesn't like how you voted, you might be criminally investigated and skewered in front of the entire world, which he already was, outed and questioned. People have their thoughts. Do you really, as a private citizen, want to be scrutinized? As a juror, because of what you decided, which is actually what you're supposed to do, make a judgment based on your beliefs, on what you felt the right call was, that is a crazy notion to think that a juror would be investigated.
00:06:52
Speaker 1: It dims the brakes in our justice system. The prosecution happened to have one person in there that was so committed to their argument.
00:07:02
Speaker 2: Okay.
00:07:03
Speaker 1: And that dims the brakes, baby. 11 to 1 is not good enough. Nope.
00:07:08
Speaker 2: And the other thing that the judge will be hearing today, the prosecution wants a gag order. They want all the attorneys, Kevin Reddington, to stop talking. They said it's harming the case. I'm laughing at this. The toothpaste is out of the out of the tube. You can't put it back in the tube. I don't understand what that would even get them at this point.
00:07:33
Speaker 1: It's just hilarious. They want a gag order on the case. We want Kevin Reddington to shut up, is what we like.
00:07:40
Speaker 2: Yeah. So most legal analysts believe that that is not going to happen. The bar would have to be very, very high for that. Also, there's an adjacent story going on right now. Did you hear about this? We've talked about the conspiracy theorists out there who have really been putting out harmful material to Patrick Clancy and his family. This whole notion that Patrick Clancy is the one who actually killed the kids and framed Lindsay in this whole, it is silly and it seems silly, but when you're Patrick Clancy and you actually have a lot of people out there who are consuming this, believing it, making money off of this kind of lies, it is interesting to think that now Shauna Graham Cow, she has actually been charged. She is one of the big digital creators who who has been perpetuating this conspiracy theory, but she's been charged with unlawful wiretapping. And it's all because she put out a recording of Christopher Clancy. That's Patrick Clancy's dad. And it's so weird to see how this happened. Did you read about this?
00:08:40
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was confusing how this all came about.
00:08:42
Speaker 2: Yeah, so apparently Kevin Reddington somehow said Christopher Clancy's phone number out in public court. Someone wrote it down. Someone called him. Christopher Clancy, older guy, I think anyone can appreciate this. Maybe he's driving, says he gets a call, thinks he hangs up, but accidentally keeps the caller on the line while he's talking to his other son, Brian. And meantime, this caller is recording the conversation. between Christopher Clancy and his other son, Brian. And the weird thing is, I can't even hear or understand what was said in this phone call. But just for the mere fact that she put it out in her post, like, look, we've got Christopher Clancy talking. Yeah.
00:09:25
Speaker 1: It didn't say anything. You can't make out anything, right?
00:09:28
Speaker 2: So it's actually like, it didn't even get her content anywhere. It was just the idea that she had access, that she had Christopher Clancy, a private conversation going on, And so, yes, she posts it, but that just shows you how bananas and full of baloney a lot of this stuff is. It's like clickbait. Ooh, I've got Christopher Clancy talking. You're going to click on it, right? Even if he didn't say anything, even if there was nothing interesting in the conversation. She just wants the click. And so she, Oh, she got a click, but now she's got, she's got some serious charges because in Massachusetts, she lives in Florida, right? In both states, they have a law on the books about recording conversations. All participants must agree to be recorded. Clearly, Christopher Clancy did not agree to be recorded. So she's being arraigned later this month. She could face up to five years in prison for doing this.
00:10:19
Speaker 1: This is a good story to pay attention to. And whatever happens to this person is a good headline to get out. You got to grain some of this stuff in on these big high profile cases. People are jumping in and doing and saying anything to build up their followings because so many people are watching these. And I hope it does make people act a little bananas and do things that they normally wouldn't just for the sake of, yes, a click. This is an important one I hope people pay attention to, whatever happens to this person. We got to slow some of this stuff down.
00:10:50
Speaker 2: Agreed, agreed. When we come back, we're going to tell you about the other part of the Lindsay Clancy case that people are paying attention to because, yes, both Lindsay and Patrick have civil cases against the mental health providers. And the big question, and this was a huge back and forth, will Lindsay Clancy testify in the civil cases? Welcome back, everyone, to Amy and TJ. As we await this next big hearing that is taking place in Massachusetts, we may learn the fate of Lindsay Clancy in terms of whether or not she is going to be prosecuted again, what those charges might be, when the trial date might be set. But meantime, there are some other cases that are going forward in the Lindsay Clancy case, and that's the civil cases that both she and Patrick have filed. They're separate lawsuits, but they're seeking damages against the mental health providers who they both claim let down Lindsay Clancy, and therefore resulted in the deaths of their three children.
00:11:56
Speaker 1: Man, I'm so curious how a jury is going to see that in a civil case. Who is responsible for these kids being dead? If you knew this woman was a threat. I don't know how legally that argument goes, baby. That's fascinating.
00:12:10
Speaker 2: But we saw those same health care providers testify in the criminal case, and they did not hold up well, at least under Kevin Reddington's cross-examination.
00:12:20
Speaker 1: Kind of crumbled. That was some of the hardest and uncomfortable cross-examination you'll see.
00:12:26
Speaker 2: Because her main provider literally was advertising that she was a postpartum specialist. And when you look at her resume, those two things don't jive.
00:12:40
Speaker 1: She graduated a month ago before she started.
00:12:42
Speaker 2: Really?
00:12:43
Speaker 1: She was literally on the job for one month.
00:12:45
Speaker 2: Had never once treated someone who had postpartum psychosis.
00:12:49
Speaker 1: I can see her face right now. That poor thing. Then she'd go a couple days. It might have been over a weekend.
00:12:53
Speaker 2: I was looking at her as a parent because Ava's not that much younger than her, and I felt for her, like parent to child, she was, yeah, it was tough.
00:13:06
Speaker 1: She was trying to start her career. She never thought she would get the one in a million case in front of her, babe. There's no way she could have seen.
00:13:17
Speaker 2: Oh, that is awful. It will be interesting to see what a civil jury will decide. But the big back and forth was between Patrick Clancy's lawyer and Lindsay Clancy's lawyer. Because Patrick Clancy's lawyer came out and said he expected that Lindsay Clancy would testify in the civil case. I'll give his exact quote. We believe that Lindsay Clancy, once her Fifth Amendment issues are resolved one way or the other, will testify that she told these defendants explicitly that that she had homicidal ideation and that she was worried about something awful happening to her kids. Wow, that made headlines. Kevin Reddington jumped in within hours. He was pissed. Kevin Reddington's quote in response to Patrick Clancy's lawyer, it has come to my attention that counsel for Patrick Clancy represented to the court in his civil case, that my client, Lindsay Clancy, will testify about statements she made to her health care providers. Lindsay Clancy never told any of her health care providers that she harbored homicidal ideation toward her children. She never indicated that she intended to testify in Mr. Clancy's lawsuit, and no one acting for her ever represented that she would. Mr. Clancy's counsel does not speak for Lindsay Clancy.
00:14:39
Speaker 1: Ouch! Why? Some of the back and forth, the bluster in public is disgusting, given what we're talking about. Roams, we are talking about the ones we're supposed to protect most in society. Women and children first. Women and children first. And to see a bunch of grown, white, older men Once again, telling everybody what should or shouldn't happen, what should or shouldn't be. Robes, besides those two prosecutors, there's not a lot of women's voices being heard in this story. Yes, the ladies in pink outside. Those things. But, Robes, there's so much about this story that loses focus. And let's focus on this man beating this man in public with his words, with his statement.
00:15:31
Speaker 2: You make a good point.
00:15:31
Speaker 1: That stuff is kind of getting a little much, baby.
00:15:35
Speaker 2: I know this sounds crass, but it's like a lot of dick swinging. I mean, that is what it feels like.
00:15:40
Speaker 1: Over a woman. Over a woman's health and future and kids. But let me put out a statement to cut you down. Let me, possibly, Robes. Make a decision to prosecute. Make a decision legally because my ego can't deal with the other guy possibly winning. All this stuff. Even the judge, remember he said to, wait a minute, you not ready for trial? You were outside telling everybody you were ready. Like calling them out.
00:16:07
Speaker 2: Yeah, because Kevin Reddington said I could be ready to retry this case in a week.
00:16:11
Speaker 1: But we just have so many men out there. Going at it. Men fighting over what's right for this woman. And again, he has fought for her, Robeson. We give him credit for that. But there is some. You know what? I give Michael Desronville some credit. He said a couple things like, yeah, I didn't want to talk. I wanted to keep the focus on the kids. Thank you.
00:16:31
Speaker 2: Yeah. At least someone does. Yes. Well, we know that this will be interesting. We're going to have it on at 9am as soon as we get any word about what happens in this hearing. We don't know how long it's going to last. That's anyone's guess with these lawyers that are involved. So Just please pay attention to the feed. We will be on it as soon as we have any word coming from that Massachusetts courtroom today. But in the meantime, we always appreciate you listening to us, everyone. I'm Amy Robach alongside TJ Holmes. We'll talk to you soon.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Monday, November 2nd. Is today the day we find out whether or not Lindsay Clancy will be retried? For the murder of her three children. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ Rogue, November 2nd. We have had this date circled on the calendar for quite a while.
00:00:19
Speaker 2: We certainly have. This is a big hearing because, yes, we may learn the prosecution's next move. We may actually get a new trial date. And there are several defense motion rulings that we're waiting to hear what the judge says. has to say about, including a motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy, which I've had to reread the explanation as to how they could possibly come up with some double jeopardy exception when it was a hung jury. Yes.
00:00:49
Speaker 1: This was a little bit of kicking the can, Robes. There was a hearing several weeks ago. I don't have the date on that one. Late September. Okay. But that was the one we were going to find so much out. And we come in there and Robes, Attorney says, I ain't going to be ready until next year. The other one said, we're not quite sure what we're going to do. It's a little confusion. The judge wanted more. And he did have to move a lot of stuff until today. Yes.
00:01:12
Speaker 2: In fact, if you remember at the end of that hearing, the judge was pushing, pushing both sides to set a trial date. And they both just said, no, we're not ready. So he his quote was on November 2nd. Be prepared to talk about picking a trial date. He did not want this lingering. And look, we heard from Plymouth County DA Timothy Cruz is his name. He had said, yes, we're still evaluating. But they filed a motion last week that said, quote, they should be permitted to continue to pursue justice for Cora Dawson and Callan Clancy, which would indicate that in all likelihood they are going to pursue some justice. sort of charges. The question is, will it be first degree or will they consider lesser charges?
00:01:58
Speaker 1: Or what do they consider justice at this point? They left themselves a little wiggle room for what they think is justice for these kids. Robes, what is about to happen? Because you know Clancy's attorney has made clear he is not going to accept anything other than an acquittal or anything that involves her going to jail. He will not entertain, according to him.
00:02:21
Speaker 2: Exactly. And if you Google this, everyone's trying to read the tea leaves. Some outlets are predicting, legal analysts are predicting that today we'll hear that there was some sort of plea deal that's been agreed to. The New York Times is- He said no. He said absolutely not. I hear you, but there are still some people out there who think there's no way they're actually going to do another trial, put the nation, the country, the witnesses, the Clancy's Through this again, but the New York Times, actually, I thought this was interesting, just put something out saying that lesser charges, if the prosecution went with a, I don't know what that lesser charge would be, it could allow Lindsay Clancy to have a bench trial if they were to do a second trial, which would mean it would be a judge, not a jury, deciding her fate.
00:03:07
Speaker 1: That's a tough one. Put your fate in the hands of one person versus 12. One jurist, right?
00:03:13
Speaker 2: One judge.
00:03:15
Speaker 1: I mean, this guy, I mean, who do you put your faith in? This judge? I mean, the way he is viewed, who knows? But hey, people, we've seen people, I applaud them for being brave enough to roll the dice and let one person decide your fate. But that is wild to think about.
00:03:30
Speaker 2: Yes. And so that's... We still have to see a trial.
00:03:33
Speaker 1: It would still go through the process.
00:03:34
Speaker 2: Correct. Correct. But the judge would decide. It's very, it's fascinating, legally speaking. to see what the prosecution is going to decide, what the charges are going to be, how the defense is going to handle it all. So yes, that is the biggest headline everyone is waiting for coming out of today's hearing. But also the judge is listening to these defense motions. And one of them, yes, is to dismiss the case based on double jeopardy grounds. Now, does this make sense? The argument is from Kevin Reddington and Lindsey Clancy's legal team that the judge is failed to fully investigate the holdout juror who forced the mistrial. And the question is whether or not this holdout juror followed the court's instructions. So according to the defense, there wasn't a need to declare a mistrial. That shouldn't have happened. And so retrying this case after what they call an improper ending would amount to double jeopardy.
00:04:32
Speaker 1: But there's no guarantee that the ending would have gone their way had you put another... juror in there. That seems like a stretch, a legal stretch to me. I think the judge has even made some comments that that was a bit of a stretch to him, but we shall see. But the idea is that she would have been not guilty, judge, had you done your job, judge. So why should she have to be tried again?
00:04:57
Speaker 2: I think it's ironic then that that judge is the one who decides whether or not what he did was grounds for a dismissal. Why would you ever rule against yourself?
00:05:19
Speaker 1: Again, he has been, Robes, protecting the jury process as much as he can. The one ruling we did get before today, I wasn't expecting it actually until this hearing, but he went ahead and said, no, I'm not going to interrogate or investigate this juror.
00:05:37
Speaker 2: Yes, because that was the other motion that we thought we were going to hear decided today, but it was instead decided a short while ago. But yes, the holdout juror, Michael Desronville, Kevin Reddington wanted his cell phone records- wanted his juror application form reviewed. He wanted this dude interrogated. The legal precedent that would set would be so dangerous. No one, I mean, I'm going to say 95% of people don't want to serve on a jury anyway. let alone a lengthy criminal trial, let alone if you think if the defense attorney or the prosecution doesn't like how you voted, you might be criminally investigated and skewered in front of the entire world, which he already was, outed and questioned. People have their thoughts. Do you really, as a private citizen, want to be scrutinized? As a juror, because of what you decided, which is actually what you're supposed to do, make a judgment based on your beliefs, on what you felt the right call was, that is a crazy notion to think that a juror would be investigated.
00:06:52
Speaker 1: It dims the brakes in our justice system. The prosecution happened to have one person in there that was so committed to their argument.
00:07:02
Speaker 2: Okay.
00:07:03
Speaker 1: And that dims the brakes, baby. 11 to 1 is not good enough. Nope.
00:07:08
Speaker 2: And the other thing that the judge will be hearing today, the prosecution wants a gag order. They want all the attorneys, Kevin Reddington, to stop talking. They said it's harming the case. I'm laughing at this. The toothpaste is out of the out of the tube. You can't put it back in the tube. I don't understand what that would even get them at this point.
00:07:33
Speaker 1: It's just hilarious. They want a gag order on the case. We want Kevin Reddington to shut up, is what we like.
00:07:40
Speaker 2: Yeah. So most legal analysts believe that that is not going to happen. The bar would have to be very, very high for that. Also, there's an adjacent story going on right now. Did you hear about this? We've talked about the conspiracy theorists out there who have really been putting out harmful material to Patrick Clancy and his family. This whole notion that Patrick Clancy is the one who actually killed the kids and framed Lindsay in this whole, it is silly and it seems silly, but when you're Patrick Clancy and you actually have a lot of people out there who are consuming this, believing it, making money off of this kind of lies, it is interesting to think that now Shauna Graham Cow, she has actually been charged. She is one of the big digital creators who who has been perpetuating this conspiracy theory, but she's been charged with unlawful wiretapping. And it's all because she put out a recording of Christopher Clancy. That's Patrick Clancy's dad. And it's so weird to see how this happened. Did you read about this?
00:08:40
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was confusing how this all came about.
00:08:42
Speaker 2: Yeah, so apparently Kevin Reddington somehow said Christopher Clancy's phone number out in public court. Someone wrote it down. Someone called him. Christopher Clancy, older guy, I think anyone can appreciate this. Maybe he's driving, says he gets a call, thinks he hangs up, but accidentally keeps the caller on the line while he's talking to his other son, Brian. And meantime, this caller is recording the conversation. between Christopher Clancy and his other son, Brian. And the weird thing is, I can't even hear or understand what was said in this phone call. But just for the mere fact that she put it out in her post, like, look, we've got Christopher Clancy talking. Yeah.
00:09:25
Speaker 1: It didn't say anything. You can't make out anything, right?
00:09:28
Speaker 2: So it's actually like, it didn't even get her content anywhere. It was just the idea that she had access, that she had Christopher Clancy, a private conversation going on, And so, yes, she posts it, but that just shows you how bananas and full of baloney a lot of this stuff is. It's like clickbait. Ooh, I've got Christopher Clancy talking. You're going to click on it, right? Even if he didn't say anything, even if there was nothing interesting in the conversation. She just wants the click. And so she, Oh, she got a click, but now she's got, she's got some serious charges because in Massachusetts, she lives in Florida, right? In both states, they have a law on the books about recording conversations. All participants must agree to be recorded. Clearly, Christopher Clancy did not agree to be recorded. So she's being arraigned later this month. She could face up to five years in prison for doing this.
00:10:19
Speaker 1: This is a good story to pay attention to. And whatever happens to this person is a good headline to get out. You got to grain some of this stuff in on these big high profile cases. People are jumping in and doing and saying anything to build up their followings because so many people are watching these. And I hope it does make people act a little bananas and do things that they normally wouldn't just for the sake of, yes, a click. This is an important one I hope people pay attention to, whatever happens to this person. We got to slow some of this stuff down.
00:10:50
Speaker 2: Agreed, agreed. When we come back, we're going to tell you about the other part of the Lindsay Clancy case that people are paying attention to because, yes, both Lindsay and Patrick have civil cases against the mental health providers. And the big question, and this was a huge back and forth, will Lindsay Clancy testify in the civil cases? Welcome back, everyone, to Amy and TJ. As we await this next big hearing that is taking place in Massachusetts, we may learn the fate of Lindsay Clancy in terms of whether or not she is going to be prosecuted again, what those charges might be, when the trial date might be set. But meantime, there are some other cases that are going forward in the Lindsay Clancy case, and that's the civil cases that both she and Patrick have filed. They're separate lawsuits, but they're seeking damages against the mental health providers who they both claim let down Lindsay Clancy, and therefore resulted in the deaths of their three children.
00:11:56
Speaker 1: Man, I'm so curious how a jury is going to see that in a civil case. Who is responsible for these kids being dead? If you knew this woman was a threat. I don't know how legally that argument goes, baby. That's fascinating.
00:12:10
Speaker 2: But we saw those same health care providers testify in the criminal case, and they did not hold up well, at least under Kevin Reddington's cross-examination.
00:12:20
Speaker 1: Kind of crumbled. That was some of the hardest and uncomfortable cross-examination you'll see.
00:12:26
Speaker 2: Because her main provider literally was advertising that she was a postpartum specialist. And when you look at her resume, those two things don't jive.
00:12:40
Speaker 1: She graduated a month ago before she started.
00:12:42
Speaker 2: Really?
00:12:43
Speaker 1: She was literally on the job for one month.
00:12:45
Speaker 2: Had never once treated someone who had postpartum psychosis.
00:12:49
Speaker 1: I can see her face right now. That poor thing. Then she'd go a couple days. It might have been over a weekend.
00:12:53
Speaker 2: I was looking at her as a parent because Ava's not that much younger than her, and I felt for her, like parent to child, she was, yeah, it was tough.
00:13:06
Speaker 1: She was trying to start her career. She never thought she would get the one in a million case in front of her, babe. There's no way she could have seen.
00:13:17
Speaker 2: Oh, that is awful. It will be interesting to see what a civil jury will decide. But the big back and forth was between Patrick Clancy's lawyer and Lindsay Clancy's lawyer. Because Patrick Clancy's lawyer came out and said he expected that Lindsay Clancy would testify in the civil case. I'll give his exact quote. We believe that Lindsay Clancy, once her Fifth Amendment issues are resolved one way or the other, will testify that she told these defendants explicitly that that she had homicidal ideation and that she was worried about something awful happening to her kids. Wow, that made headlines. Kevin Reddington jumped in within hours. He was pissed. Kevin Reddington's quote in response to Patrick Clancy's lawyer, it has come to my attention that counsel for Patrick Clancy represented to the court in his civil case, that my client, Lindsay Clancy, will testify about statements she made to her health care providers. Lindsay Clancy never told any of her health care providers that she harbored homicidal ideation toward her children. She never indicated that she intended to testify in Mr. Clancy's lawsuit, and no one acting for her ever represented that she would. Mr. Clancy's counsel does not speak for Lindsay Clancy.
00:14:39
Speaker 1: Ouch! Why? Some of the back and forth, the bluster in public is disgusting, given what we're talking about. Roams, we are talking about the ones we're supposed to protect most in society. Women and children first. Women and children first. And to see a bunch of grown, white, older men Once again, telling everybody what should or shouldn't happen, what should or shouldn't be. Robes, besides those two prosecutors, there's not a lot of women's voices being heard in this story. Yes, the ladies in pink outside. Those things. But, Robes, there's so much about this story that loses focus. And let's focus on this man beating this man in public with his words, with his statement.
00:15:31
Speaker 2: You make a good point.
00:15:31
Speaker 1: That stuff is kind of getting a little much, baby.
00:15:35
Speaker 2: I know this sounds crass, but it's like a lot of dick swinging. I mean, that is what it feels like.
00:15:40
Speaker 1: Over a woman. Over a woman's health and future and kids. But let me put out a statement to cut you down. Let me, possibly, Robes. Make a decision to prosecute. Make a decision legally because my ego can't deal with the other guy possibly winning. All this stuff. Even the judge, remember he said to, wait a minute, you not ready for trial? You were outside telling everybody you were ready. Like calling them out.
00:16:07
Speaker 2: Yeah, because Kevin Reddington said I could be ready to retry this case in a week.
00:16:11
Speaker 1: But we just have so many men out there. Going at it. Men fighting over what's right for this woman. And again, he has fought for her, Robeson. We give him credit for that. But there is some. You know what? I give Michael Desronville some credit. He said a couple things like, yeah, I didn't want to talk. I wanted to keep the focus on the kids. Thank you.
00:16:31
Speaker 2: Yeah. At least someone does. Yes. Well, we know that this will be interesting. We're going to have it on at 9am as soon as we get any word about what happens in this hearing. We don't know how long it's going to last. That's anyone's guess with these lawyers that are involved. So Just please pay attention to the feed. We will be on it as soon as we have any word coming from that Massachusetts courtroom today. But in the meantime, we always appreciate you listening to us, everyone. I'm Amy Robach alongside TJ Holmes. We'll talk to you soon.