Disturbing New Details: Psychotic Break or Cold-Blooded Killer? | Lindsay Clancy Trial

Summary

---

Drop Dead Serious with Ashleigh Banfield

Episode: Disturbing New Details: Psychotic Break or Cold-Blooded Killer? | Lindsay Clancy Trial

Date: August 7, 2026

---

Episode Overview

In this deeply emotional and analytical episode, Ashleigh Banfield examines the trial of Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother who killed her three young children. The episode explores the psychological and legal complexities of the case, asking whether Lindsay was experiencing a psychotic break due to postpartum psychosis or was a cold, methodical murderer. Using details from the courtroom, personal reflections, and expert insights from criminologist Dr. Casey Jordan, Ashleigh unpacks the heart-wrenching evidence and larger questions about mental health, the insanity defense, and societal responsibility.

---

Key Topics & Insights

1. Introduction: America's Saddest Trial

Timestamp: 01:40 - 05:00

• Ashleigh frames the case as "America's saddest trial"—not for mystery over who did it (Lindsay Clancy admits to the killings), but for the agonizing legal implications.
• The core issue before the jury: Was Lindsay Clancy capable of understanding right from wrong at the time of the murders?
• The episode outlines the legal difference between being “crazy” versus “legally insane” and the necessity for juries to make sense of the mental state at the actual time of the crime.

---

2. Courtroom Testimony & Evidence

Timestamp: 05:00 - 20:00

Lindsay Clancy’s Emotional State

• Lindsay has repeatedly broken down in court, especially during harrowing moments such as the prosecutor’s description of her children's deaths and the playing of her husband’s frantic 911 call.
• Quote:
  “She just lost it. Uncontrollable sobbing during the testimony about Callan’s autopsy... it got so bad that the judge actually stopped and said, recess, and then they escorted her from the courtroom.” (07:34 - 08:25)
• Ashleigh clarifies that Lindsay's courtroom emotions are not legal evidence (“Being sad about something will not come into this.” [08:25])

Jury Instructions and Key Questions

• Jurors are instructed to focus only on evidence, not outside information or personal feelings.
• The crux: Did Lindsay Clancy fully appreciate the nature of her actions, or was she so affected by postpartum psychosis and medication that she lost legal responsibility?
• Notably, post-crime sanity (i.e., Lindsay’s later behavior) does not prove sanity at the time of the act.

Psychiatric & Medical Testimony

• Shortly after the murders, Lindsay was described as “horrified,” but also calm and organized during a post-surgery evaluation. She denied homicidal or suicidal thoughts at that moment.
• A psychiatrist testified, “A person can communicate, can make plans, and still be psychotic.” ([12:18])
• The battle of experts looms large: “...one expert will come on and say she’s fine. And then the next expert will come on and say no.” ([12:20])

---

3. The Husband’s Testimony & The Scene

Timestamp: 14:51 - 22:00

• Patrick Clancy, Lindsay’s husband, remains surprisingly supportive. He witnessed “a big spiral” in Lindsay’s mental health prior to the murders, noting she made suicidal statements and confided thoughts of harming the children.
• Patrick’s testimony:
  “It was very confusing because the next minute she was making them lunch or putting them to bed.” ([16:30])
• Jury was taken on a “go-see” to retrace Patrick’s errands the day of the killings and to the family’s home, including the basement scene and the spot where Lindsay attempted suicide.
• Upon Patrick’s return, he found Lindsay “bloodied and badly injured in the backyard” and the children's bodies in the basement.
• Memorable quote:
  Patrick, upon discovery: “She killed the fucking kids.” ([20:40])

---

4. Suicide Attempt: Real or Fabricated?

Timestamp: 22:00 - 28:00

• Medical testimony revealed Lindsay's cuts were superficial and not actively bleeding, fueling prosecution claims her suicide attempt was not genuine.
• Defense highlights: Her extreme hypothermia and a deep, stitched wound indicate real lethality, and later, severe injuries from jumping out a second-floor window left her permanently paralyzed.
• Toxicology: Drugs in Lindsay’s blood, especially Seroquel (Quetiapine), were far below toxic or suicidal overdose levels, sparking debate over her intent (failed suicide or something darker?).

---

5. The Role of Mental Illness: Lindsay’s Journals & Witness Testimony

Timestamp: 30:39 - 38:00

• Lindsay’s journals paint a picture of prolonged, desperate struggle with postpartum mental illness; she documents profound guilt, disconnection, insomnia, and pleas for help.
• Quote from Lindsay's journal:
  “I now have horrible insomnia and anxiety, which is causing depression. I don’t know what’s wrong with me. I want help. I want to be well.” ([32:00])
• Former nanny testifies Lindsay was a loving, attentive mother, showing “no indication at all that Lindsay was a danger to herself or to the children.”
• Ashleigh reflects: “Very hard to walk in someone’s shoes. Crime isn’t black and white. It feels black and white because we have law… But we also have individual cases.”

---

Main Interview: Dr. Casey Jordan, Criminologist

Timestamp: 38:02 - 64:42

Broad Reflections

• Dr. Jordan: “Just the idea that any mother could strangle her babies to death is unthinkable... If it is true that she was in the throes of postpartum psychosis and she had been crying out for help, the children are the people who paid.” ([38:24])
• Parallel drawn to the Andrea Yates case: shifting social acceptance about mental illness in mothers who commit filicide.

The Legal Insanity Standard in Massachusetts

• Explanation: Massachusetts uses the “substantial capacity test,” less strict than the “right/wrong” McNaughton Rule from the Yates case.
  • Substantial capacity means needing only to “appreciate” the wrongfulness, not absolutely “know” it.
• Jordan: “Could she appreciate that what she was doing was wrong at that moment? I don’t think she could appreciate how wrong it was and how permanent it was.” ([55:22])
• The “guilty but mentally ill” verdict, available in some states, is not an option in Massachusetts.

Gender & Jury Dynamics

• Jury composition includes women of childbearing age and older women; the panel's education level and personal experiences may influence the verdict.

Forensic Points: Aftermath Behavior & Planning

• Both experts discuss how post-crime lucidity does not negate psychosis at the time of the event.
• Defense: “She was not acting as a nurse when she jumped out that window or killed her children. Clearly she was not operating with a full jar of reason.” ([50:24])
• On apparent planning: Psychosis does not preclude methodical behavior, especially if delusions are organizing the person’s actions.

Memorable Quotes

• On the system’s failure:
  Jordan: “She was begging basically, to get inpatient psychiatric care. Her medical appointments were 17 minutes. They just kept loading her with antidepressants.” ([41:40])
• On societal progress:
  Ashleigh: “We're halfway to understanding it’s serious, it’s real, we can treat it… There’s less stigma. Right. Let’s be honest.” ([43:16])
• On what insanity really means:
  Jordan: “A mentally ill person doesn’t have a profession when they’re in the throes of psychosis.” ([50:24])
• On the tragedy’s weight:
  Jordan: “She has to live with the full weight of what she did with a clear mind. And that grief and anguish is probably worse than prison…” ([60:51])

---

Notable Moments and Timestamps

| Timestamp | Segment/Event | |:-------------:|:------------------------------------------------------| | 01:40-05:00 | Ashleigh’s framing: Legal vs. moral questions | | 07:34-08:25 | Lindsay’s courtroom breakdown during autopsy account | | 14:51-22:00 | Patrick Clancy’s testimony & the “go-see” | | 20:40 | Patrick’s quote upon discovering the children | | 30:39-32:00 | Insights from Lindsay’s pre-crime journals | | 38:02-64:42 | In-depth interview with Dr. Casey Jordan | | 41:40 | Dr. Jordan on healthcare system failures | | 44:23-56:36 | Explanation & impact of substantial capacity test | | 55:22-56:19 | Key distinction: appreciating vs. knowing wrongfulness| | 60:51 | The existential consequences for Andrea Yates |

---

Tone & Language

• Empathetic & reflective: Ashleigh often pauses to note the unimaginable pain experienced by all involved, reserving judgment and encouraging listener reflection.
• Candid & irreverent: True to her style, Ashleigh does not shy from raw details or the emotional messiness of the trial.
• Educational: The episode features clear explanations of complex legal and psychiatric concepts, using direct quotes and real-case parallels.

---

Conclusion

• The episode closes on the looming complexity of the case: “After four decades of being in courtrooms, very hard to walk in someone’s shoes. Crime isn’t black and white…it’s your own trial because everybody’s case is a little different. I really feel like this is one of those.” ([36:43])
• Dr. Casey Jordan predicts the defense’s psychiatric evidence will make a straightforward guilty verdict nearly impossible for the jury.

---

For Listeners

• Participate: Ashleigh encourages listeners to weigh in with their own views in the episode comments.
• Further Exploration: Listeners are steered toward Dr. Casey Jordan’s podcast, "Criminal Appeal," for deeper dives into true crime and legal insanity.
• Reminder: The episode’s core ethos is to highlight the complexity of tragic crimes—why the truth in these stories is always “drop dead serious.”

---

Transcript

[A]

All new drinks are now at McDonald's with refreshers like the Strawberry Watermelon Refresher and the Mango Pineapple Refresher with popping Boba to crafted sodas like the Sprite Berry Blast with berry flavors and cold foam. Who knew ice cold drinks could be so fire six? All new drinks are here now at McDonald's. Refreshers contain caffeine.

[B]

This is the story of the One. As a maintenance engineer at a beverage manufacturing plant, he starts his day knowing every line is ready to run because Grainger delivers the industrial grade products he needs to keep mixers, conveyors and packaging equipment moving. With Grainger's vast selection of bearings, belts and motors, he keeps operations running smoothly so nothing grinds to a halt. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click ranger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done. Hey everybody, I'm Ashley Banfield and this is Drop dead Serious. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you for subscribing. If you haven't, I would love it if you would. And by the way, if you join, we have a membership event coming up this Sunday. It's August 9th at 6:00pm Eastern. Ask me anything. It'll be fun. There'll be wine. I've got a lot to say in this coming episode and it is. Well, how do I say this? This has been called America's saddest trial. And I think there is a lot of ways to read into that, right? Because there's really no mystery in this trial about who killed three beautiful little kids, Cora Dawson and Callan Clancy. No mystery. No. It was their mother. Their mother did it. Lindsay Clancy did it. She admits it. She admits it. She says I strangled all three my kids. And she even gave the description how I used exercised resistance bands. It all happened inside the luxury Duxbury, Massachusetts home that she shared with her husband and kids. This happened back January 24, 2023. But now we're learning a whole lot more. It is not just as simple as that one sweeping line. Mom kills three kids, tries to kill herself. It's just not that simple.

[C]

Simple.

[B]

There are layers to this and people are weighing in on both sides of it. And I get it and I hear you and I would love to hear what you think about this in the comments. But we're now more than a week into the testimony in the trial of Lindsay Clancy, and the evidence is producing a very complex picture. In fact, some of the state's own witnesses have described Lindsay Clancy as a woman who was unraveling for months on end, and not just unraveling, but, like, recognizing it and asking for help. A woman who was terrified by what was going on in her mind, knowing there was something wrong and acknowledging it and telling people and asking people, help me, help me. Shit's going sideways. But the question for this jury that's facing her in this courtroom now is what was really going on inside your mind when you decided to kill your three children? The fact that you tried to kill yourself, you failed. Okay, this helps the equation. But what was really going on deep, deep down inside you? It's not a simple question, y'. All. It really is not. Whenever you talk about insanity, it doesn't just mean you're crazy, because I would venture to say 90% of people locked up are crazy for doing the crimes they do. But legal, legal insanity, oh, that's layered. I'm going to get into it. I'm going to explain it all, because it's important. A lot of people get it wrong. And then they think, how'd that guy get off? Or why didn't that guy. Why is that guy going to prison? There's a lot of questions. So the question here in this courtroom was this, as the prosecutors say, a deliberate and methodical act carried out by a woman who understood exactly what she was doing and knew that it was wrong. That's key. That is key. Knowing exactly what you're doing when you're killing your children is not the end of it. You have to know the difference between right and wrong. And believe me, if you're watching this right now, you're probably saying, we all know that. Right? We all know killing's bad. That's the key. Not always, as it turns out. Not always. And that's why we have actually written up criminal code to accommodate for that. You may not agree with it. You may agree with it, but there is hard set criminal code that accommodates for people who literally have lost it all. They don't know right from wrong anymore. So if you think about Lindsay Clancy, was she methodical? Did she know absolutely every single step, every. Everything she was doing was wrong? Did she know the difference between right and wrong? Or was she so profoundly mentally ill, suffering from a postpartum psychosis? Not the baby blues. Let's please just do away with that. From like the 40s. It's not the baby blues. It's truly science. You can develop a real sickness after having a baby. Was she buried under a rotating list of psychiatric medications and so out of it that she. Now, technically, according to criminal Code is no longer criminally responsible for what she did. It's a hell of a question. Not going to lie. Whichever verdict this jury reaches, it is not going to change one fact that nobody in that courtroom can escape. And it is a painful, harrowing fact. Cora Dawson and Callan are dead. And the person who killed them is also the person who, by virtually every account before that night, loved them to the end of the earth. Lindsay Clancy has repeatedly broken down throughout this trial. She first wiped away the tears during opening statements as the prosecutors described the way her three children died. Yeah, can you imagine that? Having to listen to someone else describe it to everybody around you, and, you know, it's at your hands. Lindsay then started to cry when photographs were shown of her kids, Cora Dawson and Callan. And then she sobbed as her husband, Patrick. His frantic 911 call was played. Everybody could then hear the horror that was unfolding in real time. She became emotional as the family's former nanny got up on the stand and then described little Callan as, quote, the happiest, sweetest, easiest baby. And then she just lost it, right? She just lost it. Uncontrollable sobbing during the testimony about Callan's autopsy. Yeah, I know. Could you imagine that? And in fact, it got so bad that the judge actually stopped and said, recess, and then they escorted her from the courtroom. And when I say escorted from the courtroom, everyone could hear her sobbing. I get it. Yeah, you're sad your kids are gone and are dead. But it doesn't change the fact that you did it. Right? You did it. You did it. You imagine. First of all, if you get triggered easily, I would say turn the volume down. Because I lived through the case in Texas where Andrea Yates, one by one, in ascending order from youngest to oldest, drowned her children face up in a bathtub so they could see her while she was doing this to them. And I have imagined that for the last quarter century since it happened. And now I'm thinking about Lindsay Clancy taking those exercise bands and. And strangling the children who trust her the most. You know, what those kids went through until everything went black. So, yes, I get the sobbing. It doesn't change the question before this jury. She responsible completely and legally for crime? Or was she so gone that she didn't even know what she was doing was wrong? So you should know this. When Lindsay breaks down and sobs in court, it's not evidence. Right. And oftentimes the judge will say something to the jury about what's happening with the defendant. It's not Evidence. Being sad about something will not come into this. Yeah, everything that happens now doesn't matter. Will it make them feel sorry for her? I don't know. Everybody's different. Will it make them more angry at her?

[D]

I don't know.

[B]

Everyone's different. So now let's get into what is actually evidence, what this jury will be compelled to consider. The judge will tell them, this is your case, not the other stuff that you might be thinking about or you're not supposed to be chatting. You're not supposed to be reading online. You're not supposed to be listening to the news. You just get the case we give you and the biggest developments in this trial so far. And the evidence at the heart of this case is what they will walk into that jury room with and they will consider that. Can I promise you that they don't do other stuff, too? Think about other stuff, talk about other stuff? No, I cannot promise you that. Because they're people just like you and me. They are told not to. And sometimes things go sideways when somebody says, well, I saw on the news. And other jurors tell on them, okay, so they're not supposed to. But do they. Do they bring their own common sense into that jury room? Hell to the yeah. But they're supposed to only discuss evidence. And two days after the killings, Lindsay was intubated, partially paralyzed, and she was communicating on paper with a forensic psychiatrist, hospital bedside. She was asked to describe her mood, and Lindsay chose one word to write down on that piece of paper, and that word was horrified. She also communicated and asked whether she had an attorney, whether her body was broken, whether her legs were straight, where her family was, and whether she could have visitors. Days later, after spinal surgery, a psychiatrist described Lindsay as calm and cooperative. Let's not forget, you get lots of drugs coming out of surgery, so that could be part of all that. But Lindsay denied suicidal or homicidal thoughts and denied hallucinations or delusions during this examination. Right. Just. Just during this examination, asked about all those things and said no. Her thinking appeared, according to the expert, as organized, as goal directed, and she later focused on her legal situation and her physical rehabilitation. I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, well, that just. There's the case right there. Slam dunk. This is where it gets weird. Criminal code does not consider your behavior afterwards necessarily as evidence of your behavior during the event. Right. You can snap out of it. You can be completely sane in a day, a week, a month, or a year, and it does not affect the moment where the thing happened that brought you into that courtroom. So it's interesting, you know, and it will definitely make people think, huh, What? And I'm sure the jurors will think

[D]

how?

[B]

But don't judge yet, because it's always a battle of the experts, right? Why? One expert will come on and say she fine. And then the next expert will come on and say, now. And they will explain in detail if these lawyers are worth their weight and salt. They will explain in detail how you can come in and out of it. So on cross examination, the psychiatrist agreed that a person can communicate, can make plans, and still be psychotic. She also described Lindsay as an honest patient. So little by little, when you watch this case, you can really see the building blocks that both sides are trying to teach these jurors. Because, honestly, it's not about what you and I are hearing. It's really not. It's all about the panel, how they're hearing it. The communication is directly to this panel of jurors. But the psychiatrists tell testimony offered only a snapshot of Lindsay after the killings and to understand what was going on beforehand, like how she got there, how she got to a point in that basement where she snuffed out the lives of the three little people who trusted her the most. In a hot minute, I have a guest that is going to help make so much sense of this case, because Dr. Casey Jordan is. I mean, she's just exquisite in the way she breaks things down. She doesn't just see it as, you know, black and white. She sees the layers. She understands the psychology. And I have a gazillion questions for her about the psychology of this case, because it all comes down to that. So that's coming up in just a minute. Sleep Number's new collections are designed to adapt to the changing nature of your life and your sleep needs. Whether it's the personalized comfort of the Comfort Mode mattress, the targeted pressure relief of the Comfort Next mattress, or the climate collection that actively cools or warms to help you fall asleep and stay asleep.

[A]

And now get early access to our biggest sale of the year. Save 25% on the new Comfort Next Lux for a limited time only at a Sleep number store or sleepnumber.com. hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. Now, I was looking for fun ways

[D]

to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited Premium Wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills, but it turns out that's very illegal. So there Goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a [e-mail] Switch upfront payment

[B]

of $45 for three months, $90 for six months or $180 for a 12 month plan. Required $15 per month equivalent taxes and fees. Extra initial plan term only greater than 50 gigabytes. Me slow when network is busy. See terms. The jury also heard from the man who watched her mental health unravel in real time in the months before the murders. And that's Lindsay's now ex husband, Patrick Clancy. If you know anything about this, and even if you don't, most people are gobsmacked that this husband is in her corner. She killed his three kids and he's in her corner. And if you are old enough to remember the Andrea Yates case, you will also remember that Rusty Yates, Andrea's husband, the father of the fourth five children Andrea killed, he was in her corner, too. Because these men are the only people who spend that much time that close to that brain and that mood and that mindset and that possible psychosis. They bear witness to everything prior to, sometimes during. So they're critical witnesses. In December of 2022, in the month before the murders, Patrick said that Lindsay's medication changed. And Patrick described what followed as a, quote, big spiral. Patrick said that Lindsay made suicidal statements. And most significantly, Patrick said that she told him she had thoughts of hurting the children. So she's being honest and saying something's wrong. These thoughts are coming into my head. But those thoughts appeared completely disconnected from the mom that he saw going through the motions every day, caring for the kids. He just sort of thought, it's incongruous. Right? He testified. And I will read, I will read his words. What he actually said about that. He said it was very confusing because the next minute she was making them lunch or putting them to bed. He said he never saw Lindsay harm the children, any of them. And then came January 24, 2023. Patrick said that despite everything Lindsay had been going through, the day seemed to be actually one of her best days. He said Lindsay searched for a restaurant in Plymouth and asked him to pick up some takeout for dinner. She also asked him to make a stop at CVS as well because Cora needed some medicine. The prosecutors say those were not ordinary errands. Oh, no, no. They were like part of the core of the case, according to the prosecutors. They say Lindsay deliberately sent Patrick on his way, that she deliberately created a big, gaping opportunity so that she could go about her business and kill their three kids. All While he was none the wiser and couldn't possibly walk in and stop it. So that jury has now seen the route that Patrick took. They actually saw it for themselves. They were. They were given one of those go sees a drive along. You know, they drove past the CVS and they drove past the restaurant, and then they were taken inside the family's former home. Yes, former. Could you imagine living there? I could not. Some people do. Not many, but the jury got to go there. They saw the basement where the children were found dead. They saw the yard beneath the second story bedroom window where Lindsay landed after she perceived she'd be jumping to her death after cutting herself. Jury go sees are not. They're not 100% of the cases. Right. They're not rare, but they are interesting. Like, whenever I hear about a jury go see, I always perk up because it's unique. They had one in Murdoch, and the big jury go see that I was so upset about was the one that didn't happen because A, the trial never happened. The defendant pled before trial, like, right before trial. And the actual site of the murders was torn down before that. Idaho. The Idaho quadruple murder site. 1122 King Road. Torn down before the jury would ever have a chance to do a go see. I was always upset about that, and I know that Kaylee Gonzalez's dad was very upset about that, too. One of the victims. One of the four victims. So. So back to Lindsay Clancy. Her husband Patrick testified that when he came back from those errands, you know, going to CVS to pick up the meds, going to the restaurant to pick up dinner, he found Lindsay bloodied and badly injured in the backyard, under the window from the second story up. And inside the house, in the basement, he found Cora, five years old, Dawson, three years old, and Callan, just eight months. They were in the basement with resistance bands around their necks. Could you just imagine that? Like, just for a minute, just imagine a father making these discoveries one after the other? I mean, I tell this to you in a podcast, but I actually can't believe it's real. I cannot believe what it would be like. A, of course, for these babies, B, for Lindsay doing it, and C, for Patrick discovering it. Do you recall what, if anything, Patrick was saying as you encountered him?

[A]

Upon his observation of us, myself and Officer hall, he proceeded to head in our direction, leaving that room. And at that point, he looked up and he screamed, she killed the fucking kids. Wow.

[B]

I can't believe that's all he said. And then there's the voice. Patrick testified that about a week after the killings, Lindsay called him from the hospital. He said she did not talk about the children. She talked about what she had experienced. She said she heard a man's voice telling her that if she did not do it, then, quote, she would lose her chance or words to that effect. Cora and Dawson died that night. Callan did not. That little baby remained on life support, day one, day two, day three. And then ultimately, the doctors said, there's no hope, and they declared little Callan brain dead. Pictures of those little babies, pictures of the scene, pictures of the exercise bands that were used to kill those children, all of that was displayed in that courtroom for the jury to see, and, of course, for the gallery to see, and, of course, for the lawyers to see, and, of course, for the judge to see. And guess who else? Lindsay Clancy. That was another moment of breakdown, as you can imagine, when those photographs went up. And that's real, right? Whatever her psychology is now, those photographs, those are real. And that is trauma that I would venture to say every person in that courtroom will never be able to unsee and probably will never quite get over. So some people more than others. But everybody in that courtroom has also been shown the physical evidence from Lindsay's own alleged suicide attempt. And I say alleged because that's also in question here. Right? She didn't die. I mean, she cut herself. She jumped from the window. She's paralyzed. But there's an argument to be made there as well. Right. The prosecutors say this all raises serious questions about whether she really, really intended to end her life or just get close to it. Cover up, whatever. There's a big question there. The investigators found blood across the floor of the upstairs bedroom and a bloodied kitchen knife beside a cup bearing the words, because kids can't write this stuff. Honestly, her defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, he told the jurors that there was white residue inside that cup because it came from pills that Lindsay had crushed before jumping from the window. So slashing and pills and jumping. And still there's a debate. Did she really intend to kill herself? And you. You could weigh in on either side of this. That is totally up to you. Please tell me in the comments. I do want to know, because there's some emotion here, like more than most trials. Enter an emergency room doctor. That doctor described for the court the injuries that Lindsay actually suffered when she took the knife to herself, her neck, and her wrists. And this is important. The doctor said that those cuts were superficial. Doctor testified that the cuts weren't actively bleeding, didn't even require immediate treatment. And I know what you're thinking. Well, that's obvious. That wasn't a real suicide attempt. No way. If you really meant it, you would have done it, and it would be bleeding, and they would need to stitch you up quickly. There is something interesting that also happened in this courtroom. Her lawyer said, was Lindsay's body temperature 82.6 degrees when she came into the hospital? Think about that. 82.6. She was outside in the cold. Right. And they had to acquiesce that, yes, her body temperature was that low. And the defense attorney asked, well, isn't it possible that maybe she wasn't actively bleeding because her body temperature was so low? And then came the other facts, of course. Remember, I always said there's two sides. That eventually when she warmed up, she did start to actively bleed. The gauze started to show it, and one of her cut marks was, I believe, three centimeters deep. That is deep. Like really deep. And actually required stitches.

[C]

Did you observe any injuries to. To an artery or a vein or anything in that area? I did not. Can you explain to us the difference between bleeding in maybe an artery or a vein and how that might present itself in an emergency situation? Venous bleed would be a little bit slower, darker. Blood and arterial bleed would be pulsatile and bright red. And is it fair to say that when you strike either an artery or a vein, that they're of different pressure systems and so the manner in which the blood comes out is different? Yes. In either a circumstance where an artery or a vein is struck or nicked or cut, would that be something that you'd have to stabilize for a patient in order to make sure that they don't bleed out? Yes. Was that done here? It wasn't necessary.

[A]

Her temperature, her core body temperature was 82 degrees, is that right?

[C]

If that's what the record states, then yes.

[A]

I'm sorry.

[C]

If that's what her medical record states, then yeah.

[A]

As you sit here, you don't know what her core body temperature was?

[C]

I saw her three years ago. I see about 200 patients.

[A]

A. I'm sure you're very busy, but this is a murder trial, Doctor. Did you review your records and your notes?

[C]

I'm happy to look at my record if you bring it down.

[A]

Did you review your records and notes before you came in here today to testify on this case?

[C]

Sir, I did, but I don't have a photographic memory.

[A]

Would you agree that on both wrists there was deep laceration?

[C]

I wouldn't characterize them as deep, you would not.

[B]

So a little bit of both there, right? You can see a prosecutor trying to frame it and a defense attorney coming in and taking a few bites out of what seemed pretty horrific and maybe real evidence that she didn't really mean to kill herself. Again, I'm not a hundred percent sure that Lindsay trying to kill herself is a big part of this equation. The biggest part is what was going on with the children and her mind with the children. It helps that she wanted to leave this earth herself, but I don't think it's the core. A forensic toxicologist also enters the picture and testified that the drugs that were detected in Lindsay's blood were within or near therapeutic ranges. So that means these aren't near overdose levels. It's not like she's, you know, crushing up every single pill to, you know, to take an easy out. There is one drug called Quetiapine. It's commonly known as Seroquel. That was found in the highest concentration, but even that was roughly 10 times below the level that's considered toxic. So it's hard to know what was going on. Crushing up these pills, or maybe the crushing wasn't going fast enough. And she thought, hell with that. I'll do the quick way to hell with this. This is terrifying. I'm going out the window. You just don't know. But I think you will learn. Dr. Justin Brower, he went up on the stand and he told the jurors that people attempting suicide by medication commonly consume handfuls. Right. Of pills, like just they load it up. And in his opinion, Lindsay's toxicology results were not consistent with an attempt to overdose as a suicide attempt. Again, I think you can look, look at that two different ways. Maybe she was taking more and more drugs to try to get rid of the thoughts and then eventually went and did this horrifying act. Or maybe it was part of a suicide attempt and crushing it up and all the rest, but not a good one. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe it was just, I need to cover this up. The defense, of course, came and took a few bites, right? Forced the jury to confront the other half of the medical evidence that Lindsay did, did not walk away from this with minor injuries. When she went out that second story window, that fall transected her spine. She is permanently paralyzed from her waist down. She's in a wheelchair in court. You can see it. And she has not been out of a wheelchair since this all happened, and she will not be for the rest of her life. A surgeon Testified that the damage was so complex that Lindsey had to be transferred to Brigham and Women's Hospital. And at that hospital, she required resuscitation and massive blood transfusions. So it was a significant injury. So anybody who thinks that she just tried to cover it up and make it look, you know, look like she had psychosis, this is how I'm gonna do it. I'm gonna kill the kids and then make it look like I tried to kill myself. It's a hard story to swallow because, honestly, she was really badly damaged. It was. There had to be some intent to bring on the kind of injuries that she sustained. But the jury is really being asked to separate out three different questions, right? Did she cut deep enough to make it believable that she was trying to take her life? Did she consume enough medication in lethal quantities to make it look like she was really trying to take her life? When she went out that second story window, was that fall genuine enough to make it, you know, clear she was really trying to take her life?

[C]

And.

[B]

And how about just all three together, right? Separate them out. See if it was one attempt, then two attempts, then three attempts, or whether it was all one big picture. She just wanted to make sure it happened. So she did three different things. All of them failed. And then there's Lindsay's journals. Long before those three little babies had their lives snuffed out in that basement, Lindsay was meticulously documenting a mental collapse in her own handwriting. This is what she wrote. Completely overwhelmed in the fact that she was caring for three children, and it felt as though she were drowning every day. She became consumed by Callan's sleep schedule. And after allowing him to cross cry during sleep training, she wrote this. Hearing him cry for one plus hours and not intervening just about killed me. She wrote that she had told Patrick, I want to die. There are a lot of moms who have tried these different techniques to get their kids to sleep, and it's really common. Let them cry. They'll cry themselves to sleep. They need to know every time they cry doesn't mean mean you come running. That's not what life is about. And for a lot of moms, listening to your baby cry just goes against all nature, right? It is horrible. I know. I did it twice. It's hard. Really hard. Lindsay also wrote this. It's like, I'm so desperate to get a mental break from taking care of everyone that my mind is trying to make something physically wrong with me again. These are things she wrote way before the killings, right? Not during to make it convenient. This was way before, she continued, I now have horrible insomnia and anxiety, which is causing depression. I don't know what's wrong with me. I want help. I want to be well. She continued, I feel completely disconnected from with my baby. I feel like I'm going through the motions every day. She also said that she felt, quote, horribly guilty about her marriage with her now ex husband, Patrick. And I know what you're thinking. Yeah, you're damn right. Ex husband. I'd leave her, too. Well, he did leave her. He did find someone else. He does have a new family, but he does support her. It is really important to know that if you support Lindsay Clancy, if you don't support Lindsay Clancy, you cannot deny how significant it is that her now ex husband, the father of those three babies who were killed in their basement, supports her in this trial. On the stand, in the evidence. He was there. He saw it all. He tried to help get her well. They did everything together to help get her well. It didn't work. And he saw that. So that's going to be super compelling evidence for that jury. No matter how we feel, doesn't matter how we feel. It matters how they will feel. And when they hear that guy come into that courtroom and say those things, it's going to land. Lindsay also said this. I want to connect with Pat again. I know he needs it. I need it. These writings are super critical. Again, not conveniently written after the fact or that day written before, during the entire, you know, downward spiral. But while Lindsay's private writings reveal how deeply she was struggling with this mental illness, the people who saw her with her children, they say something very different. She may have been writing these things, but they watched a very different mom. There's a woman named Elaine Rossi. She worked as the family's nanny from September until December of 2022. Short period, right? September, October, November, December. Very short. But she described Lindsay as a wonderful mother who loved her children and was deeply concerned about. About their safety. She said that Lindsay paid close attention to Callan's eating and his sleeping. And she saw no indication at all that Lindsay was a danger to herself or to the children. That's interesting. I will say this. I had nannies as well because I worked full time and boy, did I work weird hours. Like when I had my babies. I had to be up at 1 o' clock in the morning and I had to be at work at 2, 2:30 in the morning. I know crazy. So I couldn't be there for them to Wake up. So daycare doesn't work for me with those hours. And I had to have a nanny living in. At this point. I was a single mom, too. So those kids had to wake up with someone in the house, and the nanny would be there and I would be long at work, and I would not have shared my deepest secrets with my nanny. No, I would never have told my nanny the personal feelings. I was thinking it was a professional relationship. It's already weird enough they're in your home, right? And so you want to remain, you know, some. You want to have some separation there. You want a professional relationship as much as you can when someone's living in your home. So it's quite possible that Lindsay Clancy was writing all these things and feeling all these feels and not sharing it with the nanny. Maybe consider this not burdening the nanny with it, not bringing any more of that negativity into the relationship with the children, hoping to keep that negativity so far away from the children and to have, you know, unicorns and flowers flying out of your butt every time the nanny is around the kids. I don't know. But I can tell you how I would feel. I would not have wanted a nanny to know any of those thoughts if I had those thoughts. The father of my children, absolutely, I would have wanted to share that with the father of my children. I would have looked for help, too. And I think all of us, we probably feel that way, too. But I can say this. After four decades of being in courtrooms, very hard to walk in someone's shoes. Crime isn't black and white. It feels black and white because we have law. Guilty, not guilty. Right. And we have criminal code. You either did it or you didn't. You're 0.08 or you're not. You know, it's like you're pregnant or you're not. We do have law like that, but we also have individual cases. You don't get rubber stamped. You get your own trial because everybody's case is a little different. I really feel like this is one of those. Perhaps that's the reason we call it the saddest trial in America, because there are lots of layers and a lot of sadness and a lot of anger and a lot of vitriol and a lot of people who want retribution and others who do not. I don't know where you weigh in again, I want you to tell me in the, in the comments, but I did get somebody who gets this at the deepest, deepest level. Dr. Casey Jordan is a criminologist. She's a lawyer. She's also the host of the podcast Criminal Appeal. Highly recommend you check it out. She's covered as many trials or more than I have, but she sees them from the mindset more than I do. She knows the criminal code, but she also understands the psychology. So she was the perfect guest. And I had this conversation with her a short time ago. Casey, it's so good to have you. You're exactly the person I need to talk about.

[D]

This case, it is a heartbreaking case. I mean, everybody's watching.

[B]

So it's been described as the saddest murder case ever. And unless you really know what's going on, you would wonder, well, all murders are sad. Why is this the saddest ever? Give me sort of your sweeping, overarching thoughts about what this case represents.

[D]

I think that for everyone, just the idea that any mother could strangle her babies to death is unthinkable. And your immediate reaction is that she has to be insane. And yet at the same time, there's no winners here. This is a woman who jumped out the window, you know, slash prone wrists in her neck, has a long history of mental illness and postpartum depression since 2020, for three years prior to the incident. And I think that everybody's just kind of like, you know, it's sad because if it is true that she was in the throes of postpartum psychosis and she had been crying out for help for years, she didn't get the help that she needed, and the children are the people who paid. And it's also sad, I think, that for a lot of people, you want someone to be responsible for this entire debacle, these dead children, and yet there's really no one to point the finger at if she is indeed not criminally responsible because of her mental illness, basically not guilty by reason of insanity. But this prosecutor has the burden of proving she's not insane. So the they are going at her like a tiger and saying that, you know, she was tired of being a mom. And that, to me, is sad because frankly, I think based on what the defense is going to proffer, we're going to find out that she was failed by the system. And again, you're going to end up with a situation where we can't bring these babies back. You want someone to blame, and there's really not going to be anybody.

[B]

So, you know, it's so interesting how I believe times may have changed. And I say incrementally only because in the Andrea Yates case, that Went two rounds, right. Trial number one, and trial number two, because somebody did something in trial number one that was not fair and was a big old lie, and it threw the whole case out. And in trial number two, well, trial number one, they called. Called her guilty. Trial number two, they said, no, she's not guilty by reason of insanity. And I feel as though, you know, the early 2000s are very different than 2026. I feel as though more people have come around to understanding this is not the baby blues that's offensive. Baby blues is offensive. This is possibly the kind of psychosis that would reach the level of criminal insanity. And I, I would love you to weigh in on where you see people in this day and age, whether they're willing to accept that if a mother kills three kids, they can still give her the criminally insane pass, or whether they just cannot get past the act itself.

[D]

Well, I'm so glad. I mean, to be honest, this is almost a carbon copy of the Andrea Yates case. And as you said, she was found guilty the first time around. And, boy, I remember I was in law school when this happened. And the, the, the vitriol against Andrea Yates, they wanted not just to convict her, but to help hang her, to electrocute her. They really wanted. I mean, this is. The idea that a mother can harm her own children is just. I mean, it rankles with everybody. They want to consider her evil instead of mentally ill. So, as you say, in the past 25, 26 years, what have we learned from that? That's kind of why I think this case is so sad. I'm going to be honest and weigh in. It's sad, if you ask me, that Lindsay Clancy is on trial, because when I look at the evidence has been proffered in her civil suits against the health care practitioners that I truly believe failed her. I mean, with Andrea Yates, you had one or two inpatient psychiatric issues. This woman was calling the suicide hotline. She was begging basically, to get inpatient psychiatric care. Her medical appointments were 17 minutes. They just kept loading her with antidepressants. So what's sad to me, honestly, Ashley, is that we, 25, 26 years later from Andrea Yates, don't recognize that anybody who would do what she did and has this history, you got to have them both at once. Has this history of psychosis, dissociation, severe mental illness. Of course, she was suffering from postpartum psychosis. I think we're going to get the experts to not just put it out there like we think so, but to really medically prove that she did happens to only one in a thousand, as you pointed out, it's extremely rare. But her youngest was 8 months old. And postpartum psychosis can last easily for the first year after you've given birth. And really, she had the depression after her second child. I mean, the overlap with the Yates case is huge. And it's just amazing to me that, again, in this day and age, we're a civilized society that can look at this evidence and, okay, good, let's have the trouble trial. Let's get the evidence out there. But I do think that once we, the public, hear all of this, that we are going to realize she was not of this world when these. When these killings happened.

[B]

So it's funny, like, for anybody listening who thinks, like, what. What is this Mamby Pamby bullshit, Talk about crazy. She killed. It's. I liken it to someone who has similar severe pain in their stomach, and they go to the doctor in 1860 and the doctor prescribes them a lilac tincture, and that will cure you, and the person dies. We're sort of there with a lot of mental health. You know, we're halfway to understanding it's serious, it's real, we can treat it. There are hotlines. People are more willing to admit it. There's no stigma. Well, there's less stigma. Right. Let's be honest. I think there's still. People still suffer stigma, which is really unfortunate. But it's a case like this that I think will get us even further towards understanding that these are real illnesses that need treatment. I think it just comes back down to the gut of jurors because they can. They can even follow criminal code. Casey. I feel like they can even follow the criminal code, but still not feel comfortable because they think not guilty means you walk out the back door. It doesn't mean that.

[D]

Yeah, no. In fact, if she is not criminally responsible, as they call it in Massachusetts, the essentially the same thing is not guilty by reason of insanity. She will get the treatment she needs in an institution until such time as she is cured, and then she might be eligible to go home. But, I mean, we have seen cases of like this and, and by the way, we've seen. Let's. Let's go to the other side. Let's. Let's address the naysayers. We have seen malingering. We have seen women kill their children because, I don't know, their husband's cheating on them or Susan Smith. Susan Smith, right. Or to get. Because the new boyfriend she wanted didn't want to have a relationship with somebody who already had somebody. Somebody else's children. Right. So we have had that happen. But this, I don't think I've ever seen a more complete case of a psychiatric history that really supports her mental illness. I mean, she's not pulling this out of thin air. She's not faking it. The medical records are there, but we have 12 women and six men on this jury. Let me tell you, in that Andrea Yates case, the carbon copy from 25 years ago. Yeah. She was found not. She was found guilty. You were right. She had a psychiatrist, Dr. Park Dietz, who said that she got the. The idea from watching an episode of Law and Order about a woman who drowned her kids in the bathtub. And sure enough, there was an episode, but it was about Andrea Yates. It came out after she killed her.

[B]

It aired after it happened. She couldn't possibly have seen a show that hadn't yet aired, so.

[D]

Exactly. So they found that that was a huge material error, and they sent it back for a new trial. Now, this is just kind of quick trivia, if you will. In the meantime, in Texas, there was a case of a woman, Deanna Laney, who was found not guilty by reason of insanity for killing two of her children. And the third one lived, but was

[B]

lived, but terribly maimed with a rock. Yes.

[D]

And Deanna Laney won. Deanna Laney, who truly had psychosis, won that case. And it almost seemed like when the jury came back for a second bite at the apple with Andrea Yates in the retrial, they were like, all right, we learned so much from the Deanna Laney case. Let's really look at this. And that's when she was found not guilty by reason of insanity. And of course, she's still in a mental wing of a prison today, in a mental hospital. So just because we find her not criminally responsible does not mean that she's going to walk free and she's paralyzed. And by the way, I've seen women agree when they've been found not guilty by reason of insanity based on postpartum psychosis, to volunteer voluntarily, have their tubes tied, be sterilized, basically, so that they assure the public they cannot and will not ever have another child, so that it minimizes our doubt that she could ever do this again.

[B]

Wouldn't be enough for a lot of people. Oh, okay, so you can't have kids again, but you can go out, you know, to the state fair and, you know, go to Europe, and you have all sorts of fun in Your life. You know what's interesting in this particular, so much is interesting in this particular case is that we have the blueprints from cases before it. It's not that you're just allowed to load those cases in before the jury so that they can see, oh, okay, I guess it's happened before. Maybe I need to give these folks a pass. It's not like that they're going to hear. Many of them will hear it for the first time. Many of them may never know a thing about Andrea Yates. And many of them are just going to have to rely on the instructions of the judge and the law. Right. And you know what some people do? They, they nullify. They say, I don't care. I don't care what the law says. I don't care what the judge says. I either want that guy to go free or I want that guy to burn. What do you think the chances are of that kind of thing happening? Like a nullification where they just throw it all out and say, I don't care what your criminal code says. You don't know what's going on in my mind. I'm bringing my mind into that jury room and that's it.

[D]

Well, in the Andrea Yates case, they made sure on that second trial that they loaded that trial with men and older women, no longer of childbearing age or women who didn't have children. We don't know that much about this jury, but it apparently is a cross section from women, I think, in their 20s of childbearing age up to mature women perhaps in their 60s. And we don't know how many of those women will end up on the final count because you start with 18. And then by random choice, we will figure out who the 12 are who will deliberate. Could be six men and six women, we don't know. But I would argue that the chances of this being nullified really depend on whether or not there are any young mothers, but also their education level. So we can't just assume that young mothers will automatically want to convict Lynch. Lindsey Clancy, if they are educated, if they do understand the evidence, if they are very careful with this evidence, and we have a sneak preview of what it's going to be from these civil cases. That will be more important. Are they going to have a knee jerk reaction or are they actually going to look at the evidence and process it? That's going to be the key. But, you know, you can just get one who's a holdout, who insists that she's found guilty even if everyone else disagrees. And that could end up in a hung jury, and then we could end up at the drawing, you know, go back for a second trial if that happened.

[B]

Well, and it would be interesting to find out if they would ever even consider the second trial if they felt that they were going to get nowhere. But, you know, that's. We're way over our skis on that one. But I want to ask you about this, Casey. Lindsay Clancy, as a nurse, according to many, should have known exactly what to do if she really, really wanted to take her life. There's a lot of layers here. Some people have, you know, second thoughts immediately upon a knife strike, a bridge jump, whatever it is that someone does to take his or her life. There's immediate regret on almost 100% of them. But does it even matter what Lindsay Clancy's behavior was immediately after the killings in order to satisfy the elements that you have dissatisfied during the killings?

[D]

Okay, first of all, the logic is that as a nurse, she should have known she wasn't acting as a nurse when she jumped out that window or killed her children. Clearly she was not operating with a full jar of reason. And so this whole idea of a nurse would know, blah, blah, blah, that's assuming she is doing this with logic, deliberation, and full intent. I think that she was in a full blown psychotic episode. So any medical training, any knowledge of her postpartum psychosis? Remember people who are in the throes of mental illness. She had established bipolar, especially if they are in a pit of depression or mania, they are in the least possible position to help themselves. And the idea that she should have known how to kill herself and the wounds were superficial. To me, this is just like, blah, blah, blah, you know, it's much ado about nothing. The real question is what was happening in her life for the three years that led up to the moment. To me, the idea that she would jump out of the window to her own demise, I mean, she's paralyzed, just shows that she was, for lack of a better phrase, demon possessed at that time. And I think that when we get into the nitty gritty about all the medications that she was on and prescribed and the contraindicators between these, you know, these medications and how nobody was really monitoring what she was taking, what were the dosages, did they ever get the old medications back that she had been told not to take anymore? We don't know. But that's going to come out with the defense. And I mean, the idea that she was a nurse and should have known Better is just absurd. A mentally ill person doesn't have a profession when they're the in the throats of psychiatrists.

[B]

I could see, however, I could see the prosecutor saying that all makes sense but for the fact that she was perfectly capable of killing the children. She was perfectly capable of taking that effort through to death. But then when it came to hers, suddenly she was no longer capable of taking this killing through to death. So I could see them arguing that she did have enough knowledge to complete, complete the task on the kids. What happened to her knowledge when it came to the task on herself, I could see that being something that they would, that the prosecutors could exploit.

[D]

I mean, I can see them doing that just because they are going at her like a tiger. But at the same time, she could have landed on her head just so and killed herself jumping out of a second story window. People do it all the time. And I truly believe that was her intent, that she did not intend to live.

[B]

Yeah. So now I want to talk a little bit about her behavior. I mean, we've talked a lot about her behavior leading up to this horrible, horrible event. And it is really documented how much she tried to get help, how badly she was failed, how the medications were a hot mess, how her husband was trying hard to help her as well, and the system just wasn't there for her after the event. It's interesting to hear she's lucid. She's not talking about the kids. She's talking about, you know, police and the event and her own health, et cetera. Does it matter legally what she's saying and doing after the event? Or is it really just sort of window dressing that helps the prosecutors but doesn't get to the core of the issue, which is in the moment that you were killing those kids, did you know right from wrong? Did you understand the nature and consequences of your actions?

[D]

Correct. And you have her surfacing from this, going to a hospital and finally getting proper medical care. And God forbid she actually gets better and then starts making statements that are going to be used against her once she has clarity of thought. I mean, this prosecutor is doing this, I truly believe, to pass a the public and for, you know, political reasons that you want to look tough on crime. You don't want to be the prosecutor who gives this woman a pass because, you know, she's claiming postpartum psychosis. I honestly don't know if the prosecution, if they lose, will be that heartbroken. I think in their hearts they do know that this woman is extremely mentally ill. Now we do know that legal definition of insanity in medical defense, definition of insanity are two different things. But here's the thing. Massachusetts used the substantial capacity test, not the McNaughton rule, which is far tougher. That's the one that Andrea Yates was under, that right wrong test. Was she suffering from such a disease of the mind, a defective reason as to not understand? But with substantial capacity, you don't have to know it. You just have to appreciate, appreciate the wrongfulness of your acts. And I don't think she could appreciate the wrongfulness of her acts. Did she know it? That's a whole different test. But actually Massachusetts has substantial capacity test, and that works well for Lindsey Clancy.

[B]

What is the difference between can you appreciate the wrongfulness of your actions? And do you know right from wrong? What's the difference?

[D]

It's a dichotomy if you know right from wrong. It's a black, white test. Do you know it? But can you appreciate it? Allows gradations. She can appreciate that killing her children is wrong. This is more or less the same story with Andrea Yates and Lindsay Clancy. But in that moment, does she think that it's the right thing to do? Because the voices are telling her, this is your one chance. You have to do this. I mean, Andrea Yates believed that if she didn't deliver her children to God that morning, that Satan was going to have them and control them forever. I mean, I. I don't know what kind of demons were going on in Lindsay's head, but I don't believe she's faking any of this. Could she appreciate that what she was doing was wrong at that moment? I don't think she could appreciate how wrong it was and how permanent it was. And that's different than knowing it was wrong, which is supported by the fact that she tried to kill herself afterwards. So under the McNaughton rule, she might not prevail, but under substantial capacity, she probably will.

[B]

It's super interesting. Like, that little gradation could be the difference. Which makes me say, well, then do the statistics bear out that Massachusetts, you know, has a larger success rate with the insanity defense? Because it's just a little easier than the other states that employ the McNaughton rule.

[D]

Well, you can get online and look up every state and their rules for substantial capacity tests. The McNaughton Rule, sometimes the. They have different versions of this. Some states allow guilty but mentally ill, which most people are a fan of, which means that if Massachusetts had that, and I'm a fan of it, and she was Found guilty but mentally ill, then she would get all of the medical and mental help that she needed until such time as she was cured. And then instead of going home, she would go to prison and start serving her sentence for killing her children. So some people say, well, that's unfair if she wasn't in her right mind. Why should the new improved Lindsay pay for the crimes of somebody who was a different person when she committed those acts? So every state is different. I don't know the stats specifically on Massachusetts, but it is considered a more civilized and progressive insanity defense to have what we call the modern penal code or the substantial capacity test. Massachusetts has it and they put the, the burden on the prosecution, which almost no states do. The last time we really saw that in a high profile case was John Hinckley, you know, in Maryland. And that was the big. He was down on insanity. Yeah.

[B]

Honest to God, that's what had everybody losing their ever loving minds in America. And it led to so, so many, you know, reclassifications in criminal code across the country to, to accommodate for mental illness, but not too much accommodation. You know, like people got so crazy about him, you know, getting a pass, so to speak.

[D]

I truly think that if Massachusetts offered guilty but mentally ill, it would be a slam dunk, no brainer that she would be guilty but mentally ill and that she would spend a great deal of time, just like Andrea Yates, in a mental institution. And again, if she's ever cured, she would go to prison.

[B]

You know, here's the interesting thing. All the years I worked at Court tv, especially under the tutelage of Jack Ford, who's just one of the best law professors ever, he's also teaching law at Yale. He said to me, one of the hardest things for people to get past is not saying guilty, so guilty, but mentally ill gave them that opportunity to say, you're still guilty. And I recognize there's something else going on. You're just not a horrible person, you're a bad person. And, and it's interesting, I've always wondered if certain states, and I haven't looked this up, so forgive me if certain states have guilty but mentally ill, and it just means the same thing, meaning you're going to an institution until you're well and then you could be out in society again. Or like you said, some states say you're going to an institution to be made well, to serve out a life sentence. Do you know if there are, if different states have sort of treated that differently?

[D]

Well, because of this, this fear that people will get back out into society without paying for their crime. And think of the. Think of guilty but mentally ill as like an. Insert an insurance policy on malingering on people who might be faking mental illness. There's really no point in trying to use an insanity defense if you're eventually going to go to prison anyway.

[B]

Like Salvatore Gigante. Remember, Salvatore Gigante was the mobster who used to walk around New York City in his bathrobe trying to prove to everybody he was crazy.

[D]

Exactly. But, you know, I think a lot of people. I also think of Lorena Bobbitt, who pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, was successful. Went to a mental institution for two or three weeks. They said, she's better. I mean, it was temporary insanity. Don't rape her and she won't cut your penis off. And now she's totally fine. So after three weeks, she went home. And a lot of people don't like that. They're like, you know, we want somebody to pay for some form of the crime. Now, whether you.

[B]

You got to serve something. You can't do nothing.

[D]

In Massachusetts, she's either going to be found not criminally responsible or guilty. We don't have that third office.

[B]

You don't have the other. And when it comes to Andrea, it's so interesting. I've spoken with her attorneys, and they keep a relationship with her. Now, a quarter century later, and Andrea does not want to leave the institution. She's not hoping for the day that the doctors give her a clean bill of health and finally she gets to go back out into the society. She literally is the opposite. I never want to leave here, which I find equally fascinating.

[D]

Well, she's in a protected environment now that she's. I think she's probably just fine now. I do think she's cured. But being cured means that she has to live with the full weight of what she did with a clear mind. And that grief and anguish is probably worse than prison now that she feels that she doesn't want to be out in the open world where people in the grocery store might attack her and scream at her and call her a murderess. That would leave her unhinged. She's just barely getting through her days with the full weight of killing her five children. So I actually think it's fine if she stays in a mental institution. We all feel protected. She's not of childbearing age anyway anymore. So it's not like she's gonna have postpartum psychosis any longer. Longer. But the whole point is, if she is in kind of a protected, albeit artificial environment which protects her newfound mental health. I'm okay with that.

[B]

I, I don't fear Andrea Yates, that's for sure. But I do think that after 25 years of the life that she's now had to lead in an institution, I don't think she's capable of being out here. I don't think she could function. I think that she needs to fear herself. I don't think that she would herself be able to live without suicidal thoughts and just the stresses and pressures of everything. You know, Rusty's remarried and here's another question for you that I think a lot of people and I know you have to wrap up, so I'll be quick. A lot of people are wondering if Lindsay Clancy was so clear headed that she could strategize a perfect window, send Patrick off to get the prescription, and then go even further for a restaurant that he didn't need to go that far to. There was a closer one like she was strategizing clear headed enough to get her that window. How can you then accommodate for her being in this wild psychosis where she really didn't have a clue as to what was going on?

[D]

Okay, Andrea Yates did the exact same thing. She waited for her husband Rusty to leave and go to work. And she had one hour to kill her children before her mother in law showed up. And she knew what she was going to do. In fact, a few days before that, she'd been running the water in the bathtub like as a dry run. So just because somebody is in the throes of psychosis doesn't mean they're incapable of planning what the demons are doing, telling them to do. They are under the instructions of voices, hallucinations, delusions that what they're doing is the correct thing to do. Usually they think that killing the children will deliver them, keep them from the evil mother that they know that they are because they, they know that they're mentally ill. They're afraid they're going to harm their children. I know that everybody is operating with logic and going, but that doesn't make sense. No, because they're not thinking with a sensible mind when they do these horrible things. So yes, I think she definitely sent her husband from the house so that she could do these things. But I think she was under instructions from the dark figure in her head that she described. And it's just all part of the psychosis.

[B]

Casey, you're amazing. It's why I call you and it's why they call you Dr. Jordan, because you know this stuff like the back of your hand. Thank you so much for being here and, you know, really bringing some clarity to this.

[D]

Well, I have an open mind and I want to hear all both sides of the story. But again, I think once the defense presents her long history of mental illness, this jury is going to have a very hard time finding her guilty.

[B]

Yeah, the fires start going down a lot once you start hearing that other side. You know, it is always, you've always got to be patient. The prosecutors come out swinging and once they finish their case, it's feels like it's a slam dunk and then comes the other side. So we'll wait for that and hopefully you can come back and talk to me about it.

[D]

I'll be watching. Thank you.

[B]

Thanks, Casey. My great thanks to Casey Jordan. Boy, I wish I had her brain. I'll tell you, sometimes I get so wound up in the cases, I either get super angry or super sad. And then she just kind of brings a level of, you know, psychology and understanding to why, why we're here and, and what we're trying to do. So big thanks to Casey. Again, Criminal Appeal is her podcast. Also, big reminder, if you are a member, we're doing a big members ask me anything, Big wine fest, whatever you like to drink. Maybe it's tequila, absinthe, I don't know. It is Sunday, August 9th, this coming Sunday at 6pm Eastern, 5pm Central. And if you're not a member, hit the membership button and join. We'd love to have you in our little clutch. We do this every so often. And there's a whole bunch of other stuff that's coming soon as well for the membership. So keep it tuned. If you haven't subscribed yet, boink. Hit the subscribe button if you have. Thank you so much. And thank you so much for listening and watching. I appreciate you all so much. There'd be no other reason for me to be here if it weren't for you. And also, remember, the truth isn't just serious, it's drop dead serious.