Loading summary

Transcript35 lines

[00:00]
A
Hey, everyone. I'm Ann Emerson, and this is criminally obsessed. The more I watch the Lindsey Clancy trial, the more I think this case was a perfect storm. Not one failure, a series of forces colliding at exactly the wrong time. And to help us pull those forces apart, I've got criminologist Dr. Nikki Jackson. She's a criminal justice professor at Purdue University Northwest. She's going to walk us through how the doctors, the medications, and the system itself may have failed. Lindsay Clancy.
[00:33]
B
For me, as a criminologist, I think what's so upsetting is I do believe this was preventable. When we talk about theories of crime, it's not to excuse somebody's behavior, but to understand it.
[00:45]
A
Lindsay Clancy was struggling after the birth of her third child. She sought help. She saw doctors. That's plural. We're talking psychiatrists, nurse practitioners, emergency room doctors, doctors, the staff at an inpatient program. She checked herself into a psychiatric hospital and checked herself out. And in the four months before January 24, 2023, she was prescribed, let's count them, 13 different psychiatric medications, including Zoloft, Prozac, Seroquel, Amitriptyline, stacked in some cases by providers who had no idea what the others were prescribing. Somewhere in that fog, Lindsay Clancy says she started hear voices that weren't there. What happened next left three small children dead and Lindsay Clancy in a wheelchair with nothing left. But guess what makes this so much worse. We've infamously been here before. More than two decades ago, Texas mom Andrea Yates was found responsible in the deaths of her five children. She was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis. After one mistrial, she was found not guilty by reason of insanity. And her case was supposed to change the way that we looked at this illness. And yet, here we are again. Lindsay Clancy is now asking a Massachusetts jury for the same verdict based on the same diagnosis. So Dr. Jackson and I are gonna pull apart the pieces of this storm
[02:19]
B
just listening to the testimony of these psychiatrists. There's been a lot of discussion about one of them being very young and unsophisticated because of her lack of experience.
[02:32]
A
The doctors, the medic, the support system, Lindsay's state of mind, and the insanity defense itself. And maybe the most important question of all, after Andrea Yates, did we learn enough to prevent this from happening again? And if we didn't, will Lindsay Clancy finally move the needle? Be sure to, like, subscribe and turn on your notifications because we're going to be updating this story. Now, let's get into it, I've got Dr. Nikki Jackson joining me. Dr. Jackson, thank you so much. A renowned criminologist, victimologist. Your information is so helpful. Right now as we're going through the Lindsey Clancy trial, there is a lot we're trying to understand about the defense right now and how people are looking at this case.
[03:22]
B
Thank you for having me.
[03:23]
A
Tell me about your background a little bit, Dr. Jackson.
[03:26]
B
I'm a criminal justice professor at Purdue University Northwest, and I also am the executive director for the center for justice and Exoneration Network. I'm working in the wrongful conviction space and making sure that people get fair trials. I take a, teach a victimology course and we talk about all sorts of different types of victims and, and what makes people vulnerable to victimization. And recently I've added people who are innocent, who've been wrongly convicted and into the, into the course because they are also victims of, of, of. Of a system that failed.
[04:05]
A
Well, how does this apply to this story, do you think? The Lindsay Clancy story?
[04:09]
B
Oh, I think just really understanding her, you know, what led to that, what may have led to this, you know, the mental health breakdown over period of time. At the end of the day, the kids, the children are the true victims. They are the direct victims. They are the ones who have suffered and they, they, they should still be here. They should still be here. And I understand the, the angst. So if we were talking about this case in terms of my victimology course, we would be talking about the children, the direct victims whose voices have somehow been lost in all of this and really talked about what led to this tragic nightmare. I know the doctors have been using the, the word event. And to me, it just, it's, it's more than an event. This was an absolute horrific ordeal that these children had to endure. And I hope, and I don't think people are forgetting the children on either side. I don't think, you know, whether you support Lindsay or you don't, I think the children are, are the most important part of this entire, this nightmare.
[05:29]
A
Yeah. It raises the question of whether or not Patrick Clancy is also a victim in this.
[05:36]
B
And I have to tell you, in my class, I would talk about him as an indirect or secondary victim. I know there's going to be a lot of people who are not happy with that because they believe he is ultimately responsible. And it's easy for us to sit here and say this is what he should have done and what he shouldn't have done. But if you don't have the tools, tools to do the right things, you know, whatever those right things are, you may not know what to do. And it's a very stressful time for caregivers when somebody is suffering from a mental health breakdown. And I'm hoping if anything comes out of this horrific nightmare and the loss of these three children, that we can prevent this from happening to other children by, you know, really educating those who are not just the husband, but everybody else around the mother.
[06:38]
A
Her defense is basically a lack of criminal responsibility due to her postpartum psychosis. Talk to me about what you're seeing in her defense. How is this working?
[06:51]
B
So in Massachusetts, their. Their insanity defense is different than in most states in the. In the country. Most states follow what's called the McNaughton rule, where if. If the court determines that a person didn't understand right from wrong, then that person, you know, cannot be be held accountable for. For their. Their actions. In Massachusetts, they have. They follow what's called a McCool rule or standard. In other states, the defense has to prove that this person is insane. In Massachusetts, the burden of proof falls on the prosecutor, the state, to show that this person understood and should be held criminally responsible. So Massachusetts, it's unique from other states.
[07:42]
A
Why do you think people are. Are literally obsessing over this case at this point? And that's the only word I can use because it is everywhere.
[07:50]
B
I mean, I think there's so many people who've been impacted. We've all been impacted by this. This. This tragedy. And I think people are obsessed because we put ourselves in the shoes of any of those folks. Maybe it's Lindsay, maybe it's Patrick, you know, maybe it's the doctors, whomever. And I think when we see these people, we start to relate to them. And I think that's what's happening.
[08:16]
A
Well, I think it also makes us realize how. How fragile the human situation is. Right.
[08:23]
B
I wish I could bring those children back, and I know we all wish that. I don't think there's a person here listening today who doesn't wish we could bring those children back. We can't. But let's stop this from happening again.
[08:37]
A
It felt like a perfect storm. You had a labor and delivery nurse, Lindsey Clancy, who felt like she had a handle on her own medical condition to some degree. A lovely husband that was trying to get three kids up and was trying to work and trying to deal with a mom that was not doing well, a wife that wasn't doing well. And then you have a medical community during a post Covid issue. I mean, there are so many things, I look along the ways of this case and say this is, there are so many reasons that this failed, but it won't make it less heartbreaking. But it's just, to me, it was a perfect storm of disaster.
[09:16]
B
Yeah. And I think what makes for me as a criminologist, I think what's so upsetting is I do believe this was preventable. I do believe that, you know, that, that she was begging for help. That doesn't, you know, I'm not here to excuse somebody's behaviors. Right. But, and I will say this in class, we're not here when we talk about theories of crime. It's not to excuse somebody's behavior, but to understand it. And the jury's going to have to decide if she really understood what she was doing and couldn't stop herself. And I think at the end of the day it'll be interesting to see what they, what they determin. There's so many victims born out of this, this tragedy. And I hope we all like, take a moment and think about what we're typing on our keyboards, on our cell phones. Because a lot of things I've read have been very irresponsible and have, you know, really re victimized people who've been victimized. I mean, think about friends of Lindsay Clancy. You know, they're wondering how did I miss this? How, how, how did I not stop this from happening? But they didn't intervene because they probably didn't know how to intervene.
[10:35]
A
As we look at this, compared to what we've already experienced with the Andrea Yates situation, Andrea Yates went through two trials. The first one, she was found guilty back at the, you know, back in the early 2000s and then of, of killing her five children by, you know, she drowned them in a bathtub. She was already diagnosed with psychosis. I understand when that happened. Now they went back in because of a screw up with one of their experts who was quoting a Law and Order episode on television that never happened. They, they end up getting a new trial and she's found not guilty by reason of insanity. So there is a precedent for this with a postpartum psychosis.
[11:23]
B
There is. And she also had a lot of support from her now ex husband, Rusty. And because he had, he had supported her because he, he knew he lived with her and he knew she was suffering from the, this mental illness after the children were born.
[11:41]
A
Well, and so here's the thing that keeps on haunting me on this case is you look at postpartum Psychosis. We're using it as the defense, yet we don't have a previous diagnosis. From what I understand of postpartum psychosis, we've been looking at generalized anxiety disorder. That's not even postpartum. Like, does that hurt the defense or does that just build the case for negligence on the part of a perceived negligence or an alleged negligence on the part of the medical community?
[12:15]
B
From what I'm seeing, I do believe that I'm concerned about the, the experts and how they handled her condition. I, you know, there's a lot of blame going on because three innocent children are dead, and we're all angry and upset about it. I think that there was a whole village out there who, who were, you know, who were responsible for, for this explosion. I think she was obviously the person who committed the killings, but I think there were in advance.
[12:54]
A
Being mentally ill is not, Is not going to get you out of being criminally responsible. But, but, but a psychosis where you're not in control or you feel like you're not in control of your, your actions. I would be.
[13:10]
B
Yeah, because you can't be held criminally responsible. Then if you, you, you know, if you're not like Rusty Yates said that it wasn't Andrea who killed their five kids, it was somebody else, you know, who did it. It wasn't the loving wife and mother who he knew, and that's why he supported her. And I think that's why, you know, Patrick Clancy supported his wife. What he knew was a loving and supporting wife and mother who was obviously suffering from. From some mental health issues.
[13:49]
A
Well, and that, you know, that raises another question as far as we look at, like how the prosecution jumping on certain things. Another thing is about how, and we've heard it in, in the trial already, when Lindsay was researching how long it would take Patrick, her husband, to get to a couple of errands that she sent him out on for the takeout and for the trip to the cvs for, for the kids.
[14:14]
B
There's really two ways to look at that. You know, why she researched it. One way is she wanted him out of the. Commit these horrific crimes. The other side, you know, is she didn't want to be gone that long. She wanted to know how long she was going to be home with those kids. Right. And she was scared and she didn't. If that was the case, why send him to the furthest restaurant?
[14:40]
A
We hear about the suicidal hallucinations. She says that the voice, a male voice, told her after, as soon as Patrick left to pick up the food, there was a loud, demanding, repetitious voice that said, this is your last chance to kill the children so you can kill yourself. This is your last chance, you have to kill the kids so you can kill yourself. And Lindsay felt a force come over her. Now, the reason I'm just pointing that out right now is because we did not hear this in previous conversations with psychiatrists when she talked to them. How, how damaging is that? That, that, that as far as talking about hearing voices, even if she was scared to tell people that, that maybe they would take her kids away, but she was scared to tell people or, or doctors about this, how this, how this may affect her ability to, to use this insanity defense.
[15:36]
B
So when I, when I'm teaching my, my murder course or my victimology course, one of the things I talk about, when we talk about the, you know, the insanity defense, one of the things the, the state will look at was did she remove somebody from the house in order to commit the crime? And I think that's, in my opinion, going to be the state strongest, you know, strongest piece of evidence that she sent him out. And I know the Internet has gone wild about why did he leave? What, what, you know, what was he thinking? But, but we have to understand that on that particular day, she had taken their daughter to the doctor. They built a snowman. So she seemed pretty normal that day. And, you know, he, and I've said this several times, he's not a trained expert, he's a layperson, he's a husband, he's a father. And at no point in time have we ever given any instruction to these husbands on what they should be looking for. And I think that's somewhere we should be heading. I think that's something we should be doing in the future. These psychiatrists should be also talking to the partners of these women who are suffering from postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis, on what the warning signs are. And I think that that's just not something that's been done properly. And I think we need to be, we need to be better at that. For me, it's all about, maybe because I'm a professor, but it's all about education. We have to educate society, you know, not just doctors, too. I'm married to a physician. We, you know, he's. My husband's an ER doctor. You know, he's not trained. I don't think in postpartum psychosis, he's there to treat something immediate right at that very moment. But I don't think ER doctors Maybe I'm wrong, but are taught to handle the mental crisis. So that's when they bring in the psychiatrist or whomever they bring in. But I think even just listening to the testimony of these psychiatrists, and I know there's been a lot of discussion about one of them being very young and unsophisticated because of her, her lack of experience.
[18:05]
A
She was a couple months out of her res. Residency. Dr.
[18:08]
B
Right. And I think that's a problem. I think, you know, I was a very young professor. I was 26. And I remember people saying, you're too young to be a professor. Well, I've earned my training. I earned it. I've earned my degrees. But I will tell you, at 26 with a PhD or 27, however old, is very different than at 62. I've learned a lot over the years. So I would hope that again, call to action, that we have longer mentorships, supervision for these doctors who come out of their fellowships and their training and have more oversight because I don't think that these doctors, I just don't think they were equipped to handle this type of a case.
[18:58]
A
But do you think this could move the needle as far as how we talk about postpartum sickness, depression, OCD psychosis. Will it move the needle?
[19:11]
B
I, I think it will move the, it has moved the needle. I don't even think it's a question of will it. It has. I mean, you know, you turn on the Internet today and, you know, articles keep popping up about postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis. So I think the needle has been moved. I, I'm all about a call to action. And I hope if there's anything that, that, that that comes out of my conversation with you today is that people understand that we have to do better at training, not, not just helping the individual, the mother, but all those folks around her. I think that's where we should be heading.
[19:51]
A
Drop a comment below. I'm eager to see your comments on this. I want to know if you think, does the defense attorney and the team have enough to be able to show that Lindsey Clancy is not criminally respons. Do you think that the prosecution is winning right now? Look forward to your thoughts and be sure to like, subscribe and turn on your notifications. I'll be updating this story.

Summary5 min read

Criminally Obsessed – Episode Summary

Episode Title: The Doctors, the Village, the Medicine: Criminologist Explains What Went Wrong
Host: Anne Emerson
Guest: Dr. Nikki Jackson, Criminologist and Professor at Purdue University Northwest
Date: August 11, 2026

Episode Overview

This episode of Criminally Obsessed explores the tragic case of Lindsay Clancy, a mother who killed her three children while suffering from severe mental illness. Host Anne Emerson and renowned criminologist Dr. Nikki Jackson deeply dissect the failures by doctors, the medical system, and support networks, unpacking the perfect storm that led to an unthinkable outcome. Drawing comparisons to the infamous Andrea Yates case, they examine post-partum psychosis, the insanity defense, and what — if anything — society has learned since similar tragedies. The empathetic analysis emphasizes victimology and systemic change while wrestling with the complexities of attribution and responsibility.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

The "Perfect Storm" of Failures

Case Recap: Lindsay Clancy sought help after her third child, consulting multiple doctors (psychiatrists, ER staff, nurse practitioners) and attending inpatient psychiatric care. In four months, she was prescribed 13 different psychiatric medications, often without proper communication among prescribers. (00:45–01:13)
- “She was prescribed, let’s count them, 13 different psychiatric medications, including Zoloft, Prozac, Seroquel, Amitriptyline, stacked in some cases by providers who had no idea what the others were prescribing.” — Anne Emerson (00:55)
Consequence: Amid confusion and a fog of medications, Clancy began experiencing auditory hallucinations. The outcome: the deaths of her three children and her own catastrophic loss, both physical and emotional.

Victimology and Ripple Effects

Direct and Indirect Victims: Dr. Jackson emphasizes that the murdered children are the “true victims” whose voices are often lost in legal and media discourse. Patrick Clancy, Lindsay’s husband, is recognized as an indirect (secondary) victim, though some may resist seeing him this way. (04:09–05:35)
- “I would talk about [Patrick Clancy] as an indirect or secondary victim...it’s easy for us to sit here and say this is what he should have done...if you don’t have the tools...you may not know what to do.” — Dr. Jackson (05:35)

The Insanity Defense and the Law

Massachusetts’ Unique Standard: Unlike most states that use the McNaughton Rule, Massachusetts puts the burden on the prosecution to prove sanity (“McCool rule”). (06:51–07:41)
- “[In] Massachusetts, the burden of proof falls on the prosecutor...to show that this person understood and should be held criminally responsible.” — Dr. Jackson (07:30)

Echoes of the Andrea Yates Case

Lessons Not Learned? The Andrea Yates infanticide case was expected to produce reforms in the handling of postpartum psychosis, but similar patterns have emerged in the Clancy case.
- “Her case was supposed to change the way that we looked at this illness. And yet, here we are again.” — Anne Emerson (01:30)

Medical System Shortcomings

Coordination Gaps: Providers worked in silos, resulting in dangerous polypharmacy and missed warning signs. One psychiatrist assigned to Lindsay was newly out of residency, raising questions about experience and oversight. (02:18, 18:05)
- "There's been a lot of discussion about one of them being very young and unsophisticated because of her lack of experience." — Dr. Jackson (02:18)
- "At 26 with a PhD...is very different than at 62. I would hope...we have longer mentorships, supervision for these doctors..." — Dr. Jackson (18:07)
Need for Better Training: Dr. Jackson strongly advocates for educating not just mothers but also their partners, family, and medical providers regarding the signs of postpartum crisis. (15:36–17:00)
- "We have to educate society, you know, not just doctors... These psychiatrists should also be talking to the partners...on what the warning signs are." — Dr. Jackson (17:05)

The Insanity Plea: Challenges and Questions

Postpartum Psychosis as Defense: Clancy is invoking a defense rarely accepted in the U.S., especially notable since she lacked a prior diagnosis of postpartum psychosis (instead, generalized anxiety disorder was recorded).
- "[Is] not having a previous diagnosis...build the case for negligence on the part of...the medical community?" — Anne Emerson (11:41)
Prosecution’s Angle: The prosecution focuses on calculated actions — including research on her husband's whereabouts — which could suggest premeditation, undermining the insanity defense. (13:48–14:40)
- "One of the things the state will look at was did she remove somebody from the house in order to commit the crime? And I think that's...going to be the state's strongest...piece of evidence." — Dr. Jackson (15:36)

Society, Media, and the Weight of Judgment

Why Are We Obsessed? The panel agrees that collective obsession stems from empathy — anyone could, in theory, inhabit any role in this tragedy, from victim to caregiver to provider. (07:41–08:23)
Call for Compassion: Dr. Jackson highlights the dangerous impact of armchair judgments online, stressing the need for compassion and responsible discussion. (09:16–10:34)
- "A lot of things I've read have been very irresponsible and have...re-victimized people who've been victimized." — Dr. Jackson (09:44)

Memorable Quotes & Moments

“We all wish that. I don’t think there’s a person here listening today who doesn’t wish we could bring those children back. We can’t. But let’s stop this from happening again.” — Dr. Jackson (08:23)
“It was a perfect storm of disaster.” — Anne Emerson (09:06)
“Being mentally ill is not going to get you out of being criminally responsible. But a psychosis...where you feel like you’re not in control...you, you know, if you’re not [in control], then you can’t be held criminally responsible.” — Dr. Jackson (12:53–13:09)
“I’m not here to excuse somebody’s behavior...but to understand it.” — Dr. Jackson (09:24; also repeated elsewhere)
“For me, it’s all about education. We have to educate society, you know, not just doctors, too.” — Dr. Jackson (16:39)

Timestamps for Important Segments

00:45-01:30 — Recap of Lindsay Clancy’s medical history and system failures
04:09-05:35 — Victimology: children as direct victims; Patrick as secondary/indirect
06:51-07:41 — Insanity defense in Massachusetts: burden on the prosecution
09:06-09:16 — “Perfect storm of disaster”
11:22-11:41 — Andrea Yates precedent; discussion of diagnosis lack
13:48-14:40 — Husband sent on errands; premeditation vs. desperation
15:36-17:00 — Education for partners/family about post-partum warning signs
18:05-18:57 — Concerns over young doctor; need for longer mentorship
19:11-19:51 — Has public awareness and the legal conversation changed? (“the needle has been moved”)

Takeaways & Reflection

This episode delivers a sobering look at systemic shortfalls across healthcare and social support, highlighting how complex cases can slip through the cracks even after past tragedies supposedly changed the script.
The discussion is marked by empathy for all affected — recognizing overt (the children) and less visible (Patrick, Lindsay’s friends, medical staff) victims.
Dr. Jackson’s perspective urges a collective call to action for better training, more oversight, and broad-based education about perinatal mental health.
The episode underscores the limits of legal and medical frameworks in the face of intersecting failures and pleads for nuance, kindness, and systemic improvement.

Loading summary

Transcript35 lines

[00:00]
A
Hey, everyone. I'm Ann Emerson, and this is criminally obsessed. The more I watch the Lindsey Clancy trial, the more I think this case was a perfect storm. Not one failure, a series of forces colliding at exactly the wrong time. And to help us pull those forces apart, I've got criminologist Dr. Nikki Jackson. She's a criminal justice professor at Purdue University Northwest. She's going to walk us through how the doctors, the medications, and the system itself may have failed. Lindsay Clancy.
[00:33]
B
For me, as a criminologist, I think what's so upsetting is I do believe this was preventable. When we talk about theories of crime, it's not to excuse somebody's behavior, but to understand it.
[00:45]
A
Lindsay Clancy was struggling after the birth of her third child. She sought help. She saw doctors. That's plural. We're talking psychiatrists, nurse practitioners, emergency room doctors, doctors, the staff at an inpatient program. She checked herself into a psychiatric hospital and checked herself out. And in the four months before January 24, 2023, she was prescribed, let's count them, 13 different psychiatric medications, including Zoloft, Prozac, Seroquel, Amitriptyline, stacked in some cases by providers who had no idea what the others were prescribing. Somewhere in that fog, Lindsay Clancy says she started hear voices that weren't there. What happened next left three small children dead and Lindsay Clancy in a wheelchair with nothing left. But guess what makes this so much worse. We've infamously been here before. More than two decades ago, Texas mom Andrea Yates was found responsible in the deaths of her five children. She was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis. After one mistrial, she was found not guilty by reason of insanity. And her case was supposed to change the way that we looked at this illness. And yet, here we are again. Lindsay Clancy is now asking a Massachusetts jury for the same verdict based on the same diagnosis. So Dr. Jackson and I are gonna pull apart the pieces of this storm
[02:19]
B
just listening to the testimony of these psychiatrists. There's been a lot of discussion about one of them being very young and unsophisticated because of her lack of experience.
[02:32]
A
The doctors, the medic, the support system, Lindsay's state of mind, and the insanity defense itself. And maybe the most important question of all, after Andrea Yates, did we learn enough to prevent this from happening again? And if we didn't, will Lindsay Clancy finally move the needle? Be sure to, like, subscribe and turn on your notifications because we're going to be updating this story. Now, let's get into it, I've got Dr. Nikki Jackson joining me. Dr. Jackson, thank you so much. A renowned criminologist, victimologist. Your information is so helpful. Right now as we're going through the Lindsey Clancy trial, there is a lot we're trying to understand about the defense right now and how people are looking at this case.
[03:22]
B
Thank you for having me.
[03:23]
A
Tell me about your background a little bit, Dr. Jackson.
[03:26]
B
I'm a criminal justice professor at Purdue University Northwest, and I also am the executive director for the center for justice and Exoneration Network. I'm working in the wrongful conviction space and making sure that people get fair trials. I take a, teach a victimology course and we talk about all sorts of different types of victims and, and what makes people vulnerable to victimization. And recently I've added people who are innocent, who've been wrongly convicted and into the, into the course because they are also victims of, of, of. Of a system that failed.
[04:05]
A
Well, how does this apply to this story, do you think? The Lindsay Clancy story?
[04:09]
B
Oh, I think just really understanding her, you know, what led to that, what may have led to this, you know, the mental health breakdown over period of time. At the end of the day, the kids, the children are the true victims. They are the direct victims. They are the ones who have suffered and they, they, they should still be here. They should still be here. And I understand the, the angst. So if we were talking about this case in terms of my victimology course, we would be talking about the children, the direct victims whose voices have somehow been lost in all of this and really talked about what led to this tragic nightmare. I know the doctors have been using the, the word event. And to me, it just, it's, it's more than an event. This was an absolute horrific ordeal that these children had to endure. And I hope, and I don't think people are forgetting the children on either side. I don't think, you know, whether you support Lindsay or you don't, I think the children are, are the most important part of this entire, this nightmare.
[05:29]
A
Yeah. It raises the question of whether or not Patrick Clancy is also a victim in this.
[05:36]
B
And I have to tell you, in my class, I would talk about him as an indirect or secondary victim. I know there's going to be a lot of people who are not happy with that because they believe he is ultimately responsible. And it's easy for us to sit here and say this is what he should have done and what he shouldn't have done. But if you don't have the tools, tools to do the right things, you know, whatever those right things are, you may not know what to do. And it's a very stressful time for caregivers when somebody is suffering from a mental health breakdown. And I'm hoping if anything comes out of this horrific nightmare and the loss of these three children, that we can prevent this from happening to other children by, you know, really educating those who are not just the husband, but everybody else around the mother.
[06:38]
A
Her defense is basically a lack of criminal responsibility due to her postpartum psychosis. Talk to me about what you're seeing in her defense. How is this working?
[06:51]
B
So in Massachusetts, their. Their insanity defense is different than in most states in the. In the country. Most states follow what's called the McNaughton rule, where if. If the court determines that a person didn't understand right from wrong, then that person, you know, cannot be be held accountable for. For their. Their actions. In Massachusetts, they have. They follow what's called a McCool rule or standard. In other states, the defense has to prove that this person is insane. In Massachusetts, the burden of proof falls on the prosecutor, the state, to show that this person understood and should be held criminally responsible. So Massachusetts, it's unique from other states.
[07:42]
A
Why do you think people are. Are literally obsessing over this case at this point? And that's the only word I can use because it is everywhere.
[07:50]
B
I mean, I think there's so many people who've been impacted. We've all been impacted by this. This. This tragedy. And I think people are obsessed because we put ourselves in the shoes of any of those folks. Maybe it's Lindsay, maybe it's Patrick, you know, maybe it's the doctors, whomever. And I think when we see these people, we start to relate to them. And I think that's what's happening.
[08:16]
A
Well, I think it also makes us realize how. How fragile the human situation is. Right.
[08:23]
B
I wish I could bring those children back, and I know we all wish that. I don't think there's a person here listening today who doesn't wish we could bring those children back. We can't. But let's stop this from happening again.
[08:37]
A
It felt like a perfect storm. You had a labor and delivery nurse, Lindsey Clancy, who felt like she had a handle on her own medical condition to some degree. A lovely husband that was trying to get three kids up and was trying to work and trying to deal with a mom that was not doing well, a wife that wasn't doing well. And then you have a medical community during a post Covid issue. I mean, there are so many things, I look along the ways of this case and say this is, there are so many reasons that this failed, but it won't make it less heartbreaking. But it's just, to me, it was a perfect storm of disaster.
[09:16]
B
Yeah. And I think what makes for me as a criminologist, I think what's so upsetting is I do believe this was preventable. I do believe that, you know, that, that she was begging for help. That doesn't, you know, I'm not here to excuse somebody's behaviors. Right. But, and I will say this in class, we're not here when we talk about theories of crime. It's not to excuse somebody's behavior, but to understand it. And the jury's going to have to decide if she really understood what she was doing and couldn't stop herself. And I think at the end of the day it'll be interesting to see what they, what they determin. There's so many victims born out of this, this tragedy. And I hope we all like, take a moment and think about what we're typing on our keyboards, on our cell phones. Because a lot of things I've read have been very irresponsible and have, you know, really re victimized people who've been victimized. I mean, think about friends of Lindsay Clancy. You know, they're wondering how did I miss this? How, how, how did I not stop this from happening? But they didn't intervene because they probably didn't know how to intervene.
[10:35]
A
As we look at this, compared to what we've already experienced with the Andrea Yates situation, Andrea Yates went through two trials. The first one, she was found guilty back at the, you know, back in the early 2000s and then of, of killing her five children by, you know, she drowned them in a bathtub. She was already diagnosed with psychosis. I understand when that happened. Now they went back in because of a screw up with one of their experts who was quoting a Law and Order episode on television that never happened. They, they end up getting a new trial and she's found not guilty by reason of insanity. So there is a precedent for this with a postpartum psychosis.
[11:23]
B
There is. And she also had a lot of support from her now ex husband, Rusty. And because he had, he had supported her because he, he knew he lived with her and he knew she was suffering from the, this mental illness after the children were born.
[11:41]
A
Well, and so here's the thing that keeps on haunting me on this case is you look at postpartum Psychosis. We're using it as the defense, yet we don't have a previous diagnosis. From what I understand of postpartum psychosis, we've been looking at generalized anxiety disorder. That's not even postpartum. Like, does that hurt the defense or does that just build the case for negligence on the part of a perceived negligence or an alleged negligence on the part of the medical community?
[12:15]
B
From what I'm seeing, I do believe that I'm concerned about the, the experts and how they handled her condition. I, you know, there's a lot of blame going on because three innocent children are dead, and we're all angry and upset about it. I think that there was a whole village out there who, who were, you know, who were responsible for, for this explosion. I think she was obviously the person who committed the killings, but I think there were in advance.
[12:54]
A
Being mentally ill is not, Is not going to get you out of being criminally responsible. But, but, but a psychosis where you're not in control or you feel like you're not in control of your, your actions. I would be.
[13:10]
B
Yeah, because you can't be held criminally responsible. Then if you, you, you know, if you're not like Rusty Yates said that it wasn't Andrea who killed their five kids, it was somebody else, you know, who did it. It wasn't the loving wife and mother who he knew, and that's why he supported her. And I think that's why, you know, Patrick Clancy supported his wife. What he knew was a loving and supporting wife and mother who was obviously suffering from. From some mental health issues.
[13:49]
A
Well, and that, you know, that raises another question as far as we look at, like how the prosecution jumping on certain things. Another thing is about how, and we've heard it in, in the trial already, when Lindsay was researching how long it would take Patrick, her husband, to get to a couple of errands that she sent him out on for the takeout and for the trip to the cvs for, for the kids.
[14:14]
B
There's really two ways to look at that. You know, why she researched it. One way is she wanted him out of the. Commit these horrific crimes. The other side, you know, is she didn't want to be gone that long. She wanted to know how long she was going to be home with those kids. Right. And she was scared and she didn't. If that was the case, why send him to the furthest restaurant?
[14:40]
A
We hear about the suicidal hallucinations. She says that the voice, a male voice, told her after, as soon as Patrick left to pick up the food, there was a loud, demanding, repetitious voice that said, this is your last chance to kill the children so you can kill yourself. This is your last chance, you have to kill the kids so you can kill yourself. And Lindsay felt a force come over her. Now, the reason I'm just pointing that out right now is because we did not hear this in previous conversations with psychiatrists when she talked to them. How, how damaging is that? That, that, that as far as talking about hearing voices, even if she was scared to tell people that, that maybe they would take her kids away, but she was scared to tell people or, or doctors about this, how this, how this may affect her ability to, to use this insanity defense.
[15:36]
B
So when I, when I'm teaching my, my murder course or my victimology course, one of the things I talk about, when we talk about the, you know, the insanity defense, one of the things the, the state will look at was did she remove somebody from the house in order to commit the crime? And I think that's, in my opinion, going to be the state strongest, you know, strongest piece of evidence that she sent him out. And I know the Internet has gone wild about why did he leave? What, what, you know, what was he thinking? But, but we have to understand that on that particular day, she had taken their daughter to the doctor. They built a snowman. So she seemed pretty normal that day. And, you know, he, and I've said this several times, he's not a trained expert, he's a layperson, he's a husband, he's a father. And at no point in time have we ever given any instruction to these husbands on what they should be looking for. And I think that's somewhere we should be heading. I think that's something we should be doing in the future. These psychiatrists should be also talking to the partners of these women who are suffering from postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis, on what the warning signs are. And I think that that's just not something that's been done properly. And I think we need to be, we need to be better at that. For me, it's all about, maybe because I'm a professor, but it's all about education. We have to educate society, you know, not just doctors, too. I'm married to a physician. We, you know, he's. My husband's an ER doctor. You know, he's not trained. I don't think in postpartum psychosis, he's there to treat something immediate right at that very moment. But I don't think ER doctors Maybe I'm wrong, but are taught to handle the mental crisis. So that's when they bring in the psychiatrist or whomever they bring in. But I think even just listening to the testimony of these psychiatrists, and I know there's been a lot of discussion about one of them being very young and unsophisticated because of her, her lack of experience.
[18:05]
A
She was a couple months out of her res. Residency. Dr.
[18:08]
B
Right. And I think that's a problem. I think, you know, I was a very young professor. I was 26. And I remember people saying, you're too young to be a professor. Well, I've earned my training. I earned it. I've earned my degrees. But I will tell you, at 26 with a PhD or 27, however old, is very different than at 62. I've learned a lot over the years. So I would hope that again, call to action, that we have longer mentorships, supervision for these doctors who come out of their fellowships and their training and have more oversight because I don't think that these doctors, I just don't think they were equipped to handle this type of a case.
[18:58]
A
But do you think this could move the needle as far as how we talk about postpartum sickness, depression, OCD psychosis. Will it move the needle?
[19:11]
B
I, I think it will move the, it has moved the needle. I don't even think it's a question of will it. It has. I mean, you know, you turn on the Internet today and, you know, articles keep popping up about postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis. So I think the needle has been moved. I, I'm all about a call to action. And I hope if there's anything that, that, that that comes out of my conversation with you today is that people understand that we have to do better at training, not, not just helping the individual, the mother, but all those folks around her. I think that's where we should be heading.
[19:51]
A
Drop a comment below. I'm eager to see your comments on this. I want to know if you think, does the defense attorney and the team have enough to be able to show that Lindsey Clancy is not criminally respons. Do you think that the prosecution is winning right now? Look forward to your thoughts and be sure to like, subscribe and turn on your notifications. I'll be updating this story.