Lindsay Clancy Murder Trial: Another Andrea Yates?

Summary

Criminally Obsessed: Lindsay Clancy Murder Trial – Another Andrea Yates?

Host: Anne Emerson
Guest: Pat Lopez (courtroom sketch artist & behavioral health therapist)
Date: July 20, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode examines the impending Lindsay Clancy trial—one of America's most disturbing modern true crime cases—by drawing direct comparisons to the infamous Andrea Yates case of 2001. Both women were mothers accused of killing their children and both cases hinge on whether severe postpartum psychosis renders a person not criminally responsible. Host Anne Emerson is joined by Pat Lopez, a veteran courtroom sketch artist and licensed therapist who observed the Yates trials firsthand, to provide unique visual and psychological insight into what these high-profile proceedings reveal about the justice system, mental illness, gender, and societal understanding.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Lindsay Clancy Case: The Central Question

• Theme: The episode opens by framing the main legal and moral dilemma: Can a mother be so mentally ill she can't be held criminally responsible for killing her children? This was the crux of Andrea Yates's trial and is now central to the Clancy case.
• Case Summary:
  • Lindsay Clancy, a Massachusetts nurse, is accused of strangling her three children in 2023 and then attempting suicide, leaving her paralyzed ([01:08]).
  • The defense admits the act but contends postpartum psychosis drove her actions; prosecution claims premeditation.
  • "Can a mother who does the unthinkable be so mentally ill that she can't be held criminally responsible? That's the question a Massachusetts jury is about to be asked to answer." (A, [00:29])

2. Connecting to Andrea Yates

• Historical Parallel: Andrea Yates drowned her five children in 2001; initial conviction overturned due to expert misconduct, second trial found her not guilty by reason of insanity ([03:16]).
• Expert Testimony's Importance: Expert witnesses, and their credibility, profoundly shaped both the verdict and public perception ([03:42], [16:06]).

3. Pat Lopez’s Unique Perspective

• Witnessing the Trials:
  • Lopez shares personal, emotional observations from sitting feet away from Yates.
    • "Andrea, of course, was not in her body most of the time. She was medicated." (B, [04:18])
  • Contrast between first and second Yates trial: Heavy sedation in the first, more engaged presence in the second, thanks to legal and medical support ([07:55]).
    • "She almost looked like a plastic doll in the first trial because she was so heavily medicated." (B, [06:41])

4. The Impact of the Defendant’s Presentation in Court

• Visual Cues to Jurors:
  • Lindsay's wheelchair and physical state are expected to evoke instinctive sympathy and influence perceptions ([04:55], [09:56]).
  • "You’re going to have automatic empathy or sympathy from a lot of people just because she’s in a wheelchair and the fact that she tried to [take her own life]." (B, [11:04])

5. Role of Family Advocacy

• Public & Spousal Perspective: Both Yates's and Clancy’s husbands have spoken publicly about the mental struggles their wives faced and asked for understanding and forgiveness ([11:47]).
  • Can impact jury and public sentiment, depending on if and how such sentiments are presented in court ([12:19]).

6. The Exclusion of Personal Narratives

• Key Legal Development:
  • Judge’s decision not to allow testimony from women who survived postpartum psychosis; testimony limited to experts ([03:05], [13:32]).
  • "They wanted women who actually lived through postpartum psychosis to take the stand...The judge said no, the jury will hear from experts, but they won't hear these personal stories." (A, [02:42])
  • Lopez critiques this as "gender specific" and potentially limiting jurors’ understanding ([15:25]).

7. The Gendered Lens in Courtroom Decisions

• Commentary on the Judge’s Ruling: Both Emerson and Lopez speculate that male judges/jurors may lack lived understanding of postpartum experience, impacting the authenticity of the trial ([15:32]-[15:39]).

8. Expert Witness Reliability

• Concerns About Professional Witnesses:
  • Lopez provides insight into how professional experts can sometimes manipulate testimony to benefit one side, referencing the infamous Law & Order episode that never existed in the Yates trial ([16:46]).
  • "I've seen so many professional witnesses bend the truth in order to get their... attorney group the decision they think they want." (B, [17:13])

9. Why These Cases Grip the Nation

• Societal Fascination:
  • Cases where mothers kill their children are especially compelling and horrifying, cutting across empathy, rage, and confusion—it’s the “missing piece” that society and juries struggle with ([18:02]).
  • "Murder or killing their children is not fathomable to most of us...you can give any kind of diagnosis you want...but they're missing a piece. Something happened somewhere." (B, [18:41])

10. The Challenge of an Insanity Defense

• Legal Hurdles:
  • Insanity is rare and exceptionally difficult to prove (<1% succeed), even in cases with overwhelming mental illness ([19:58]).
  • "It's an incredibly high standard. It is incredibly difficult to prove insanity." (A, [19:44])

11. Has Societal Understanding Evolved?

• Change Over Time:
  • More awareness of mental health and women’s experiences today, but jury selection likely still eliminates people with specialized knowledge ([20:27]-[22:08]).
  • "The way we perceive women in our society is different than it was during Andrea Yates's experience." (A, [21:43])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "Andrea, of course, was not in her body most of the time. She was medicated." - Pat Lopez ([04:18])
• "She almost looked like a plastic doll in the first trial because she was so heavily medicated." - Pat Lopez ([06:41])
• "Can a mother who does the unthinkable be so mentally ill that she can't be held criminally responsible?" - Anne Emerson ([00:29])
• "You’re going to have automatic empathy or sympathy from a lot of people just because she’s in a wheelchair." - Pat Lopez ([05:09])
• "I've seen so many professional witnesses bend the truth…" - Pat Lopez ([17:13])
• "Something happened somewhere...the why is not there. And the why...we have to have a why in order to get justice." - Anne Emerson ([19:08])
• "It's an incredibly high standard. It is incredibly difficult to prove insanity." - Anne Emerson ([19:44])
• "The women on the jury understood it. So it depends on what the jury makeup is." - Pat Lopez ([19:58])
• "If you have a psychiatrist on the stand who knows about all of this...but he's a male. That's way different than putting someone on the stand...but she's a female and she's given birth." - Pat Lopez ([13:51])

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:29: Central legal and moral question in Clancy/Yates cases
• 01:08: Details of Lindsay Clancy's case
• 03:16: Recap of Andrea Yates's trials; impact of expert testimony
• 04:18: Pat Lopez on Yates’s medicated state
• 05:09 - 06:11: Impact of defendant’s appearance on jurors
• 07:55: Difference between the two Yates trials
• 09:56: Anticipating impact of Clancy’s physical and mental state on jury
• 13:51: Debate over exclusion of female/postpartum witnesses
• 15:25: Gender bias implications in legal decisions
• 16:46: Problem of misleading expert testimony (Law & Order myth)
• 18:02: Why these cases grip national attention
• 19:58: Legal rarity of successful insanity defense
• 21:43: Is present-day society better equipped to understand?

---

Summary

This episode takes listeners beyond headlines into the emotional, visual, and historical heart of two of America's most haunting criminal cases. Through Pat Lopez’s unprecedented courtroom and clinical experience, Anne Emerson reveals what gets lost in transcripts—the raw humanity and the silent narratives that swirl around such tragic events. Critical issues include whether true guilt and innocence can be determined in situations shaped by overwhelming mental illness, the role of gender in shaping justice, and whether society, or the legal system, has learned anything since Andrea Yates.

Perfect for true crime aficionados, mental health advocates, and those fascinated by the intersection of law, psychology, and society, this episode wrestles deeply with its central question: When the unthinkable happens, can justice ever be truly served?

Transcript

[A]

Hey, everybody, I'm Ann Emerson, and this is Criminally Obsessed. What if I told you that one of the biggest questions in the Lindsay Clancy trial is the exact same question a jury struggled with 25 years ago in one of the most infamous cases in America. Lindsey Clancy is a Massachusetts mom who's accused of strangling her three young children in 2023. She doesn't deny killing them. Her defense says she was suffering from postpartum psychosis, while prosecutors say she knew exactly what she was doing. Can a mother who does the unthinkable be so mentally ill that she can't be held criminally responsible? That's the question a Massachusetts jury is about to be asked to answer. And it's the same question that changed the course of the Andrea Yates case. In just a few minutes, you're going to meet someone who has a perspective on both of these cases that almost nobody else has. Her name is Pat Lopez. She's a legendary courtroom sketch artist and a licensed therapist who has spent decades sitting just feet away from some of the most infamous defendants in America.

[B]

Man, I've done everything from Oklahoma City bombing, Waco, Branch Davidian, Selena, Andrea Yates, Susan Smith.

[A]

That's right. She was there for the Andrea Yates trial. And as the Lindsey Clancy case gets ready to begin, I wanted to know what she sees and what she's going to be watching out for, because these are two different cases, two different women, two different families. But they're forcing us to ask the same question. So let's start with the story so far. Lindsay Clancy was a labor and delivery nurse, a wife, and the mother of three young children. In January of 2023, prosecutors say she sent her husband out to go pick up takeout, then use exercise bands to strangle her three children inside their home. Afterward, investigators say she jumped from a second story window. She survived, but she was left paralyzed. Her defense isn't arguing that somebody else did this. The entire trial is going to come down to why. The defense's argument hinges on Lindsay's diagnosis of postpartum psychosis, a rare but devastating mental illness made even more complicated by the many psychiatric medications she was prescribed. She was actively seeking help. The prosecution says she planned it. She knew what she was doing, and she should be held criminally responsible. The defendant is a danger to herself and others. She planned these murders, gave herself the time and privacy needed to commit the murders, and then she strangled each child in the place where they should have felt the safest, at home with their mom. And just days before this trial, the Defense lost what could have been a really powerful part of their case. They wanted women who actually lived through postpartum psychosis to take the stand and tell the jurors what it actually felt like to go through this. The judge said no, the jury will hear from experts, but they won't hear these personal stories. And when I read that ruling, I couldn't help but think of Andrea Yates. Because if you're old enough to remember that case, you remember how much of it came down to the experts. Back in 2001, Andrea Yates drowned her five children in the bathtub of their Texas home.

[B]

She got of the head and pulling

[A]

the leg out from underneath the hook, and she killed each one of them. The country was horrified. At her first trial, the prosecution star psychiatric expert testified about a law and order episode he claimed mirrored the case, where a mother drowned her children, was found insane, and got away with it. Except that episode never existed. It was false testimony. Her conviction was thrown out. In her second trial, Andrea Yates was found not guilty by reason of insanity. It completely changed the course of that case. Which brings us back to Lindsay Clancy. Once again, a jury is going to have to decide if they're looking at a calculated murder or a mom whose mind was so broken she couldn't tell right from wrong. Our guest, Pat Lopez is here to put these cases into perspective for us. She didn't read about the Andrea Yates case years later. She lived it day after day just a few feet away. And that's the kind of experience you can't teach and listen to. What stuck with her all these years,

[B]

it was very hard to watch for obvious reasons. They had all the forensic evidence there, pictures, photos of the kids. And then Andrea, of course, was not in her body most of the time. She was medicated.

[A]

Did you hear what Pat said? She was not in her body most of the time. That's not something you pick up from a court transcript. That's something you see when you're just sitting a few feet away. And now Pat is going to be watching another case unfold. She isn't sketching the Lindsey Clancy trial, but she's already thinking about what the jurors are going to notice. The moment Lindsay enters that courtroom, that

[B]

presents a whole new bit of information for them. How she's seated, her affect, what's happening to her. And of course, you're going to have automatic empathy or sympathy from a lot of people just because of the fact that she's in a wheelchair.

[A]

So before the trial even begins, what should we be watching for? Be sure to like and subscribe to Criminally Obsessed. I don't want you to miss any of these amazing conversations. Now, let's get into it. You have sketched for a lot of high profile trials, which means it is a front row seat that is always. You're. You're sitting right there in the very, very front, aren't you?

[B]

Yes, I am. And usually because it's the front row, whether, which side of the courtroom the judge puts me on, usually I'm sitting right next to the family of the victim or the defendant. So it's always a highly stressful situation. The first trial I ever sketched was the Girl Scout murders. And, man, I've done everything from Oklahoma City bombing, Waco, Branch Davidian, Selena, Andrea Yates, Susan Smith. I can go on and on. There's so many Enron. Anything that happened in the middle of the nation, which was my niche, that's what I sketched.

[A]

Were you at both trials for Andrea Yates?

[B]

Yes, I was.

[A]

I was first when she's convicted and sentenced to life, and then in the second trial, she's found not guilty by reason of insanity.

[B]

It was very hard to watch for obvious reasons. They had all the forensic evidence there, pictures, photos of the kids. And then Andrea, of course, was not in her body most of the time. She was medicated. So it was really difficult to see that whole process happen around her. I felt like, why are they trying? This woman, obviously she did something, it was a murder. But she was not all there. I'm probably one of the most realistic artists out there in our genre. And the reason why I chose to do realism and spent many years perfecting it was because I did want to get the affect on the face. I wanted to show the muscles in the jaw that, you know, how the person is slumped. Every detail counts when you're trying to describe through pencils, colored pencils, the emotion of the moment in that body. That person in front of me, she was very not in her body. She almost looked like a plastic doll in the first trial because she was so heavily medicated. Well, Andrea was mostly out of the room during her entire first trial. Totally different picture in the second trial. In the second trial, she had an attorney that knew what he was doing, he knew what he was doing, and he did not have her heavily medicated. They had a lot of help with the medicine, but it wasn't the kind of medicine that took her out of the room like the first trial. The second trial, she had a lot of psychotherapy and had support in order to be There.

[A]

Well, what stands out to you in the upcoming Lindsay Clancy trial with that experience, you know, Yates defense is the same as Clancy's from what we understand, a postpartum mental illness that developed into a postpartum psychosis.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

You're also a therapist?

[B]

Yes, I am. Oh, I am a behavioral health therapist, which is, you know, a counselor mental health therapist. I use art as a. As a major tool to help people to find healing or to diagnose or assess someone.

[A]

Can you explain to. To our viewers and to me about the postpartum psychosis, what that. What that actually entails?

[B]

Well, postpartum would mean after giving birth or after having given birth. Right. And psychosis is always a distortion in the psychology or the mentality of the person involved in this. So she has a distortion of some sort, and it's gonna be different for everyone. But postpartum would mean there's a depression or a type of mental vacancy that sets in because of the chemistry that happens when you give birth. And then after, because there's such a huge connection between you and the person inside of you, the mother can go into a very deep depression, which we often see. And sometime it lasts just a few weeks. Sometimes it can last a month. Sometimes it can last a year or maybe even two years. It's very difficult to say because everyone's chemistry is different.

[A]

And when you talked about that, that sort of flat face on. On Andrea Yates because of. She was heavily medicated and, you know, I'm seeing the same kind of draw, withdrawn face on Lindsay. How does that. How do these kind of women, withdrawn features play toward the jury?

[B]

Well, one of two ways, because the jury, obviously, until they get enough information to create a story in their head of what they're seeing in the courtroom, until they get that information, they're obviously out here trying to pull in everything that's important. And unfortunately, someone in a wheelchair with someone attending them is always going to take their attention, especially if she has a moment, a physical moment. You know, she coughs or has a hard time breathing, whatever it is that she's doing with her body, that will always capture their attention first. And if she's in a wheelchair, well, of course, that's another added piece. And maybe someone in their family is in a wheelchair. It's going to be an interesting case just from that aspect, the visual.

[A]

You know, one thing that will be different in this one is that she did try and take her own life by jumping out of a window. That's what caused the paralysis. Analysis from what we Understand? Do you think that will. How will that play for a jury? Does. Do you believe that invokes sympathy?

[B]

Yes, absolutely. If the jury is. Has knowledge of it, and surely they do, because it was widely reported, was it not? I mean, this is. This is a very. Yes, yeah. And so the case itself, the jury comes into this trial with knowledge that they've heard or seen on the news, and then they see the person. Yeah, that. That presents a whole new bit of information for them, how she's seated, her affect, what's happening to her. And of course, you're going to have automatic empathy or sympathy from a lot of people just because of the fact that she's in a wheelchair and the fact that she tried to yourself in

[A]

both cases, which is a stark. A stark situation, really. I mean, you have. In Andrea's case, you have her husband that, that said, we have to take into consideration the postpartum. You've got Patrick Clancy, who's come out and apologize and asked the world to forgive his wife for what had happened. They seem to understand what was going on in their. In their wise minds. Do you think that's gonna. Does that move the needle for Linda Clancy?

[B]

Does. Of course it would. Of course it would. However, would the jury hear that? I don't know. And will they be sequestered? I'm not sure, because there'll be all kinds of reporting going on while the trial is in progress.

[A]

Do you remember when Andrea Yates's husband testified in the Yates case?

[B]

I do.

[A]

What was that?

[B]

What do you want to ask me?

[A]

Yeah. What was that like?

[B]

I have to be careful. I have my own opinions about a lot of stuff, but I don't want to say. He didn't have much to say. That's all I'm going to say, except to the press. Not on stand, but to the press. He did. Now, I'm going to leave it at that. You can take what you will from that. I have my own opinions, but I do know that a lot of people were concerned about his. His peace in all of this because he was the father. They had five children pretty much right in a row. And he knew from the first birth that she had postpartum. So I can leave it at that.

[A]

Let you know that it didn't happen in a vacuum.

[B]

It did not. That's my opinion.

[A]

The judges decided not to allow defense witnesses to testify who have experienced their own postpartum psych. Who sees. You know how we want to label this.

[B]

Right.

[A]

But they. The judges denied that order and said that experts are good enough. What do you think about that?

[B]

I think that there is a sound reason for the defense to have, you know, objections to that. And of course, they can. They can suit it to have another trial or go somewhere else with that because it's. If you have a psychiatrist on the stand who knows about all of this, has written books about it or whatever, but he's a male. That's way different than putting someone on the stand who's not only a psychologist, a psychiatrist, but she's a female and she's given birth.

[A]

Yeah. And that's what that feels like.

[B]

The jury looks for those layers. The jury looks for every little detail. This is someone's life. And it's a very emotional piece that you can't take away. She is a woman, you know, you just can't take that away.

[A]

Well, and they talked about. The judge said it was because this would have created trials within trials.

[B]

And that's not. That could be argued too, but that does not negate the defense's ability to bring up objections and even sue to have another trial.

[A]

Yeah, it sounds like. It sounds like it's. It was a huge blow to the defense. And, you know, I think a lot of people have been coming forward saying, but, you know, but why. Why would he not accept it? It just. It just feels way too pragmatic, this decision. It's like, yes.

[B]

And it feels way too. I need to be really careful here.

[A]

Are you going to say male?

[B]

Yes, I was. It feels way too gender specific.

[A]

I totally agree with you. I have to say, like to me, if there was a female judge up there, would we be getting the same decision?

[B]

Way different. Different only because she has more expertise, if you will, natural ability to understand this defendant's case. Now, I'm not saying that this judge can't understand it because he can't, but drawing from his experience, he cannot say, I know what it feels like to have postpartum. I know what it feels like to have a depression that a woman has.

[A]

Right. A couple things with this that I find so interesting, because if we go back to the Andrea Yates case, we had expert testimony who said a very famous. It was why it was overturned. Right. It basically, the expert testimony was that she may have watched a Law and Order episode that. Do you remember this? That it showed that. That showed that this woman had drowned her. Her children in a bathtub and then pleaded in the insanity and. And got off. And maybe she saw that not only was there no Law and Order episode was there.

[B]

Right. There wasn't but the man who said that, and I won't say his name, I won't go there, but the witness who was on stand who said that makes his living being an expert witness for prosecutors, especially in death cases. So there you go. He had to be very convincing, and that's what he said. And then later, he wasn't even involved after that because he wasn't allowed to be. But when they realized that that was not a factual statement. So there you go. People are motivated to be witnesses in cases especially. And I've seen this so many times over my 40 years of being in cases. I've seen so many professional witnesses bend the truth in order to get their. Whoever they're working for, to get their attorney group the decision they think they want.

[A]

When you are going through the Yates trial, the media attention, the attention on that case, are we going to be looking at the same thing with the Clancy trial, in your opinion, do you think these kind of cases just naturally create a lot of attention?

[B]

They do. They naturally do. Because I think one of the. Of all the cases that I've done and I've hundreds and hundreds of cases that the most compelling, emotional, and probably depressing or cases that get people really excited or filled with rage are cases about women who have gone. I don't know what the word would be, who've done something that no one understands, like murder or killing their children, is not fathomable to most of us. Right. That these cases are the most compelling to, of course, to reporters, but for attorneys, too, because it's just. It's just, it's something that no one can explain. You can giving kind of diagnosis you want to. To these women, but something, they're missing a piece. Something happened somewhere.

[A]

And the why, the why is not there. And the why. And we have to have a why in order to get justice. Right. And then there's no justice, is there?

[B]

Right. Yeah. I've done several cases of women killing their children. And the other big case that I could think of is Susan Smith.

[A]

Well, Lindsey Clancy's attorneys are going to argue she's innocent by reason of insanity. And in 2000, a jury agreed that Yates was not guilty because of her mental illness. It's an incredibly high standard. It is incredibly difficult to prove insanity. To get that pass through. It is. It's. The statistics are overwhelming. It's like a quarter, like 1%. Less than 1% will ever get that through.

[B]

Right. She had to go through two trials to get that. And of course, the entire time, you know, she's Medicated and in a hospital. She's going to be in a psychiatric facility for the rest of her life. Sure. But the women on the jury understood it. So it depends on what the jury makeup is and what they argue about just being a woman in general with that diagnosis. It's critical.

[A]

Do you think, in general, like a jury in 2026 versus a jury in the early 2000s? You know, we know so much more about mental health issues and illnesses. How will, how will that play into this?

[B]

I. I would doubt that it would play much into it because I'm sure in their voir dire, and I wasn't. I'm not privy to that, haven't been there. But in the voir diary of the jury, some of the questions by the prosecution, especially, I would think they would have to allow people to understand that you're not therapists, you're not psychologists, you're not psychiatrists, you're not medical doctors. And they would make sure that no one on that jury poll has any extra knowledge concerning, I'm sure, psychiatry or psychology or that kind of thing, because they don't want that to influence. The prosecution is not in this for her greater good. You know, they're in it because they want to win the case. I doubt that you'll hear questions like that during the process of picking the jury from that side. Of course, the other side is going to go the opposite way completely. Yeah. So it'll be interesting to see it. See what happens.

[A]

Yeah. I mean, mental illness is just. I look at it now like anything else from, like, ADHD to, you know, any. Anything. Just the way medicine has progressed, to be able to look at what, how we understood women's rights. The way we perceive women in our society is different than it was during Andrea Yates's experience.

[B]

Oh, it's so different.

[A]

Drop a comment below. I want to hear what you think about this case. Have you ever heard about postpartum psychosis or had any experience with it? I'd love to hear your reaction to how the defense and the prosecution is handling this, especially in light with what we learned in the Andrea Yates case. I think it's a fascinating way for us to learn from history, so be sure to like and subscribe. Turn on your notifications. I don't want you to miss any of the updates to Lindsey Clancy's story or any of the other stories that we're working on.

[B]

It.