Exclusive: Andrea Yates Attorney Calls Lindsay Clancy Murder Case ‘Nearly Identical’

Summary

---

Drop Dead Serious with Ashleigh Banfield

Episode: Exclusive – Andrea Yates Attorney Calls Lindsay Clancy Murder Case ‘Nearly Identical’

July 21, 2026

---

Episode Overview

In this emotionally charged episode, veteran journalist Ashleigh Banfield examines the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy, a Massachusetts mother accused of killing her three children. Banfield draws striking parallels between Clancy's case and the infamous 2001 Andrea Yates case, in which Yates was found not guilty by reason of insanity after drowning her five children. Banfield breaks down the complex interplay of mental health, legal standards, and public perception, then interviews Wendell Odom Jr., Andrea Yates’s former attorney, for unparalleled insight into how these "nearly identical" cases are argued and understood in court.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Crime & Its Aftermath

[00:52–15:17]

• Facts of the Clancy Case:

  • Lindsay Clancy strangled her children—Cora (5), Dawson (3), and Callan (8 months)—using resistance bands in their Duxbury, MA home.
  • Sent husband Patrick on errands to provide a window of time for the killings.
  • Attempted suicide by self-inflicted wounds and jumping from a window, resulting in permanent paralysis.
  • There is no question about "whodunit"—the focus is on the why and Lindsay’s mental state.

• Notable Quote:

  • "There's no question Lindsay killed those kids. And her attorneys are prepared to acknowledge that in court. The jury is going to have to decide: Was this a calculated triple murder or the desperate act of someone in the throes of catastrophic postpartum illness?" [03:30]

• Aftermath:

  • Patrick’s unimaginable return home and discovery of the crime.
  • His immediate and unwavering public forgiveness of Lindsay, to the astonishment of many.

2. Lindsay Clancy's Mental Health Decline

[15:17–29:28]

• Personal and Medical History:

  • Lindsay, a labor and delivery nurse, showed escalating symptoms (anxiety, panic, suicidal and intrusive thoughts) post-birth of her third child.
  • Sought and received treatment from multiple professionals; prescribed 13 different psychiatric medications in a few months.
  • Multiple red flags and pleas for help were documented, including direct statements about thoughts of self-harm and fleeting thoughts about the children.
  • Entered a postpartum treatment program and later McLean Hospital; disagreements exist between prosecution and defense over the adequacy and correctness of her diagnoses.

• Notable Quote:

  • "This woman is doing everything to warn everybody around her, seek the appropriate help, and then ask to be committed..." [17:47]

• Legal Focus:

  • The central battle: Did Lindsay have a catastrophic psychiatric break, or was she calculating and aware of her actions?

3. Prosecution vs. Defense Strategy

[29:28–40:51]

• Prosecution:

  • Asserts deliberate, premeditated action, citing Lindsay’s planning, errand assignments, and the methodical nature of the crime.
  • Points to "coherence" and the timing of Lindsay reporting auditory hallucinations as evidence against insanity.

• Defense:

  • Argues for a "lack of criminal responsibility" due to severe postpartum mental illness.
  • Cites medical mismanagement, system failures, and Lindsay's repeated efforts to seek help.
  • Will spotlight her suicide attempt and permanent paralysis as evidence of overwhelming mental illness.

• Notable Quote:

  • "Even great hospitals can fuck things up royally. Why would insurance rates be so high for malpractice if that wasn’t the case?" [21:25]

• Jury's Challenge:

  • Must assess if Lindsay knew right from wrong at the time, per Massachusetts law; the insanity defense requires proof she lacked substantial capacity to appreciate criminality or conform behavior to legal standards.
  • Jurors will likely visit the crime scene and confront harrowing evidence.

4. The Andrea Yates Parallel

[40:51–69:03]

• Case Comparison:

  • Andrea Yates drowned her five children in 2001 after years of documented severe postpartum psychosis.
  • First jury sentenced her to death; second trial after a prosecutorial error ended in a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. She remains institutionalized.
  • Both cases hinge not on what happened but on the mothers’ mental state (mens rea).

• Notable Quote:

  • "Her motives, her actions ... the way the state is accusing her of having premeditation—it’s all very, very similar, if not identical to what happened 26 years ago with Andrea Yates.” —Wendell Odom Jr. [40:51]

• Key Distinctions:

  • Clancy’s case has a more documented treatment-seeking process but less conclusive diagnosis of psychosis prior to the murders.
  • Different state laws and no death penalty in MA.

5. Expert Interview: Wendell Odom Jr. (Andrea Yates’s Attorney)

Major Segments & Insights

a. Insanity, Planning, and Reality

• Premeditation Doesn’t Preclude Insanity:

  • Planning can occur in a psychotic state:

    "A person can be totally lost in reality and psychosis but yet do certain things to accomplish a purpose." —Odom [43:12]

• Jury Education Challenge:

  • The hardest part is making jurors understand postpartum mental crisis is as real as a physical heart attack:

    "It only occurs to a woman who has given birth ... there’s a biological change that occurs that causes them to lose their grasp of reality." [44:20]

b. Progress in Mental Health Understanding

• Banfield and Odom reflect on the growing acceptance of postpartum illness as real and medically significant since the Yates trial:

  "Since we did Andrea Yates, there’s been some amazing studies ... physiological, biological changes ... it can be devastating to someone who is predisposed." —Odom [45:22]

c. Jury Selection & Nullification

• Jury’s Preconceptions are Critical:
  • More sympathetic juries could understand, but structure and local culture vary.
  • Jurors aren’t told exact sentences, but knowing a not guilty by insanity verdict means institutionalization—not release—may ease their reluctance.

    "If they have that realization...it certainly eases the verdict for people." —Odom [47:50]

d. Victim Photos and Emotional Evidence

• Emotional power of child victim photos is the state's most damaging evidence, almost impossible to neutralize.

  "Keep showing the photographs and they'll lose their effect...they don't." —Odom [61:13]

e. Suicide Attempt as Evidence

• Clancy’s suicide attempt and paralysis show profound mental disturbance—may be pivotal for the defense.

  "That is a huge factor they can take..." —Odom [62:30]

f. Role of the Husband

• Patrick Clancy’s ongoing support for Lindsay is likely to be powerfully persuasive for the jury.

  "If the husband goes in there and is still with the wife, that says a whole lot.” —Odom [59:21]

g. Andrea Yates Today

• Yates remains institutionalized by choice, mentally stable yet forever burdened by her actions.

  "She is tormented and will be for the rest of her life with what she's done." —Odom [67:49]

---

Memorable Quotes

• Ashleigh Banfield:

  • "This is not a whodunit. It’s a why." [13:47]
  • "I am dying to know how you feel...you have to have some personal experiences in your life that will inform how you weigh in on this particular case." [22:20]

• Wendell Odom Jr.:

  • "Planning doesn't mean you're less insane or less removed from reality." [43:12]
  • "Postpartum psychosis is an emergency in psychiatry where a life is in danger—and that’s what I learned about all this." [59:47]
  • “She is tormented, and will be for the rest of her life with what she’s done.” (re: Andrea Yates) [67:49]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [00:52–05:00] – Summary of the Clancy case, prosecution/defense overview
• [09:00–15:17] – Emotional crime scene breakdown & Lindsay’s immediate aftermath
• [15:17–22:00] – Mental health history, red flags, and Lindsay's increasing distress
• [29:28–40:51] – Legal definitions: insanity, criminal responsibility, pre-trial decisions
• [40:51–69:03] – Interview with Wendell Odom Jr.: comparing Clancy and Yates; insanity defense, jury psychology, aftermath

---

Engaging Takeaways & Context

• Clancy’s trial will test the limits of public understanding and legal definitions of postpartum illness.
• Comparing past and present: Odom believes the progress in psychiatric understanding since the Yates trial may help Clancy, but the odds and emotional intensity are still daunting.
• Personal stories and public policy: The human tragedy beneath the legal battles is front and center—a mother’s agony, a father’s forgiveness, and a legal system wrestling with medicine and morality.
• Resources for Postpartum Depression: Banfield closes with a reminder that help is available (Postpartum Support International: 1-800-944-4773).

---

This episode is essential listening for anyone seeking to understand the complexities of criminal law, mental health, and tragedy within American families. Banfield’s irreverent but empathetic tone and Odom’s hard-won wisdom make this a gripping, sobering, and important exploration of two cases that forever change the legal and cultural landscape around motherhood and mental health.

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.

[B]

Refreshers contain caffeine.

[A]

Hi, Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile.

[B]

Are you looking for a beach read this summer?

[A]

May I suggest your big wireless bill?

[B]

It's got suspense, mystery, a slightly flat emotional arc and a shocking twist where you realize you've been overpaying the entire time.

[A]

Fortunately though, Mint's story is better.

[B]

Every plan $15 a month, even unlimited.

[A]

That's it.

[B]

Happy ending, zero tears.

[A]

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 50gb.me slow. When network is busy, see terms foreign. Hey everyone, I'm Ashley Banfield and this is drop dead serious. The murder trial of 35 year old Lindsay Clancy is now underway. And it has been more than three years now since she allegedly strangled her three young children with exercise bands. Police say it happened in the basement of their Massachusetts home. The prosecutors, they say that Lindsay sent her husband Patrick out to pick up some medication and some takeout. That she carefully calculated just how long it would take him to do those errands. And that she used that window of time to kill her five year old named Cora, her three year old named Dawson, and her eight month old Callan. They say she then cut her wrists and her neck before jumping from a second story window, presumably to take her own life after allegedly murdering her own three children. So there is no question this is not a whodunit. Okay? And we have a lot of these. We have a. Wow, what a mystery. I wonder if he. She really did it. This is not one of those. No, this is not a whodunit. There's no question Lindsay killed those kids. And her attorneys are prepared to acknowledge that in court. Okay, you got me. It's me. What the jury is going to have to decide though is whether this was a calculated triple murder, right? Committed by a mom who knew exactly what she was doing. Or if that mom, Lindsay, was suffering from some sort of catastrophic postpartum partham psychiatric episode, illness, whatever you want to call it. After months and months of asking for help and Also warning her doctors that she was getting worse. This sounds like something I have done before. Andrea Yates. It's like deja vu all over again. And I'm getting to that. So from the outside, the Clancy's, they looked as though they had built such a life, right? A beautiful home and life and world and kids and family in. In Duxbury, an affluent coastal community. It's about 30 miles south of Boston. They took their children boating and skiing, and they spent time at Duxbury beach, and they filled their mornings with books and cuddling on the couch and playing with toys. I mean, what honestly, could anyone have ever imagined would or could go wrong with a family that looked like that? That, as you know and as I know, as everybody now knows, looks can be deceiving. So can social media images, stories, all of that. Because behind that picture of the happy, loving, young family, Lindsay's mental health was really going downhill. Her defense attorney says that she became psychotic and that she was not criminally responsible when she killed her own three kids. I know what you're saying. You're probably saying, shut the fuck up. But criminal code is very specific when it comes to this stuff. And there are all sorts of reasons that are pretty arcane, right? Really deep and confusing and layered. And when it comes to mental health and mens rea. Right. Your guilty intent and postpartum was something that nobody ever gave a about and struggled mightily with with Andrea Yates, and then suddenly started to not struggle so much with it. And maybe for Lindsay, Andrea Yates might have lent or laid some pretty good groundwork, a pathway for her. So back to her case. The prosecutors say that the evidence is going to show planning. It's going to show deliberation. It's going to show a woman who understood exactly what she was doing, not somebody who couldn't form any kind of criminal or guilty intent. The jury's decision could mean the difference between life in prison, no parole, or walk out the side door, not back door, not free. When you say not guilty by reason of insanity, it doesn't mean you get a free pass, okay, over to Burger King. No, it means you get committed to a psychiatric hospital or facility and you're under lock and key, and you could be there forever. It's been three decades since Andrea Yates has been locked away, but effectively, it's supposed to be till you're, well, you know, leaving this courtroom. You're not going to go to prison. You're going to go somewhere where you think you can get treatment, fix what's going on, and then maybe you can return to society and not be a danger to anybody or yourself. Three decades plus. Andrea Yates is still in that facility. And her lawyers have told me before that she didn't want to leave. Feels like she'll never want to leave, which is amazing. Blows my mind. But anyway, in this episode, I'm going to go through everything that happened inside the Clancy's home. We're going to go over all the warnings, the red flags, you know, everything that was happening, even the treatment that Lindsay was getting as her condition just slowly got worse and worse and worse. And then I'm going to be joined by one of the attorneys who represented. Say it with me, Andrea Yates. If you're not old enough or if you haven't seen the Andrea Yates case, run, don't walk and do a quick dive and then do a deep dive. She's a mom in Texas. She was a mom, Texas. She drowned all five of her kids, six sequentially, one after the other, in the family bathtub. But ultimately, it was a long road. She had a jury that said, hang her. You know, it was a death penalty case. They, they were giving her no pass at all. But then something weird happened. I'll tell you about it in a minute. But she got a second trial. And in the second trial, the jury said, oh, yeah, this lady not responsible, not guilty by reason of insanity. Right. I'm going to examine the unbelievably striking similarities between these two cases and then also the critical differences because there are many. And those differences could really change things up for Lindsay Clancy and her fate. But the Andrea Yates pathway is palpable and it looms huge over this case. So. So I can't wait to talk to her lawyer because I think, you know, he's been through some things because, you know, he's been through some things. First, though, let me walk you through this. January 24, 2023 day was like kind of normal, actually. The prosecutors say that it was actually really ordinary. Lindsay took her five year old little one, Cora, to, to a pediatric appointment. She communicated with her relatives. She sent family members some photographs of the kids building a snowman. Right. Normal day. Prosecutors say no one, nobody described Lindsay as confused or detached or psychotic on that day. She wasn't stumbling through any of her conversations. Her communications were clear, concise, normal. She was not behaving, in their words, like a zombie. As far as the people around her could see. There was no immediate indication that she was preparing to, or even capable of hurting, let alone killing her own. Three Kids. So fast forward a little to the evening. Lindsay asked her husband Patrick to leave, leave the house and go and pick up some medicine for one of the kids at cvs. And then that wasn't it. She said, by the way, while you're out there, can you collect a takeout order from 3V, a restaurant in Plymouth? Prosecutors say that the assignment that Patrick got, the errands he was sent to run, they were all part of a plan of a premeditated, murderous tragedy. But a plan. And they alleged that Lindsay actually researched how long all that would take. Right. How long was the trip to the restaurant gonna take? How long was the trip, you know, to get the medicine gonna take? Put that all together. Give yourself a window. Right. The prosecutors even say she picked a location for the 3V, the restaurant for the. The takeout in a location that was so far away that it would actually buy her more time alone with the kids, away from Patrick. Right? Yeah. Go to that restaurant. It's further. I don't know if he questioned it, but he went. And while Patrick was gone, the prosecutors say that Lindsay took little Cora and Dawson and Callan down to the basement. They say there she used exercise resistance bands to strangle each of those three children. And after the attack, the prosecutors say Lindsay cut her own wrists, cut her own neck, and then went to the second story, opened a bedroom window and leapt from it, bleeding. And then Patrick got home. So just imagine that for a moment. Medicine, takeout. What the fuck? I don't think that man will ever, ever be the same. Obviously. I hope he's had counseling. He got home just after six o' clock at night. House was very quiet. He reportedly noticed some blood, saw the open window, and then saw Lindsay seriously injured outside, but not dead. So he gets home, and it's not the friend. He doesn't see this in the front. It's not the first thing he sees when he, you know, drives into the driveway. Parks. He has to discover this with little clues along the way inside, like, what's going on? Where is everybody? Where are the kids? Why no noise? You know what? It's like a house full of three kids at six o' clock at night who haven't had dinner yet. Chaos. Not for Patrick. Silence and a very cold, open window. And Lindsay down below, not dead. According to the prosecutors, Patrick asked Lindsay, where are the children? While he was on the phone with 91 1, where are the kids? And she reportedly directed him to the basement. And that's where Patrick went. And that's what Patrick saw. All three kids unconscious. Exercise bands still around or near their necks. He attempted cpr, obviously, while begging the the kids to breathe. Just imagine this. Three kids. Who do you help first? What do you do first? Cora and Dawson were transported to a hospital. They were pronounced dead that very evening. Callan was flown to Boston Children's Hospital, and he remained alive for three days. Callan was a little fighter, but he didn't make it. And on January 27, he was pronounced dead once again. Imagine those minutes, those hours, those days, those nights for Patrick. Medical examiner determined that Cora and Dawson died from asphyxia, obviously, and that Callan died from complications from asphyxia. Again, it's not a whodunit, is it a why?

[A]

Done it.

[B]

I mean, yeah, you kind of know why. But I guess the jury's gonna have to determine the level of the why. And then there's Lindsay, right? Surviving the cuts to her wrists, the cuts to her neck, the fall from the second story window. But she didn't come out completely unscathed. Her spirit spinal cord was severely damaged. Her attorney said that she is now paralyzed from approximately the sternum down. She now uses a wheelchair and has remained hospitalized and under constant supervision. I mean, yeah, at the least, right? But. But how did Lindsay Clancy get to that point? I mean, one minute you're building a snowman and sending out sweet messages and photos to your family and friends and telling your husband to go get dinner. And then this horror show.

[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]

So Lindsay built a career, believe it or not, caring for women and babies. I know you don't. You can't write this. You can't. So this was her job. She cared for women and babies at Massachusetts General Hospital. She was a labor and delivery nurse. And she did that for about nine years. I'll take you. Take all the time you need to process it. I know. When I first found that out, I thought typo. Many typos. Labor and delivery nurse. And In December of 2016, she married Patrick. Patrick Clancy. Their daughter Cora was born a year later, in December of 2017. Their son Dawson followed in September of 2019. And then the baby, the little one, Callan, the youngest, he was born in May of 2022. But after Callan was born, something began to change. Patrick says that Lindsay had experienced some anxiety following the births of Cora and Dawson, the 20th older ones, and that after Dawson was born, she reportedly managed those symptoms right. She used exercise, she used medication, she got therapy. But when Callan was born, something was different. It was not the same as when the two older kids were born. And by the end of September 2022, that's about four months after little Callan was born, Lindsay was preparing to go back to work. And at the same time, she was going through a lot of anxiety, like, significant anxiety. So she sought out help from two psychiatrists, not just one. Two. She was initially diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder. Lots of people have that super commonplace, easily manageable, right? Medication therapies. Lots of people. But over the next several months, Lindsay was prescribed a slew of psychiatric medications. Her attorney said that she was prescribed 13 different drugs just between October 22 and January 23. That's just a couple months, right? Including medications to treat anxiety, depression, insomnia, and then a couple of other psychiatric symptoms. In November of 2022, Lindsay reportedly went to an emergency room and said that she was afraid that something terrible might happen. How's that for announcing, help me. Something's terribly wrong. I have three small children. Help. Like, really help? December 5th, Lindsay contacted Aspire crisis support after experiencing intrusive thoughts about wanting to die. She reportedly told the providers that she believed her worsening symptoms were connected to medications that she'd been prescribed. Four days after that, December 9, Patrick now calls one of Lindsay's providers, asks for help, describes the situation as urgent, and reported that his wife was experiencing. Experiencing panic and suicidal thoughts. So this is kind of an avalanche of, like, red flags and warning signs. Then came December 20th. Lindsay entered a postpartum day treatment program at Women and Infants Hospital. That's in Rhode Island. And according to Patrick, program believed that Lindsay might have been misdiagnosed and over medicated. And they determined that the day program actually wasn't good enough. It wasn't appropriate for the level of need that this woman had. They said, I think you're in the wrong place, and I think you got the wrong stuff. The wrong meds, the wrong prescriptions, the wrong treatment, the wrong diagnoses. Bigger issue, okay? So by the end of December, then, Lindsay reportedly insisted that she had to go to the hospital. Hospital, like, needed to be hospitalized. This woman is doing everything to warn everybody around her, seek the appropriate help, and then, like, ask to be committed. She Told Patrick. And here's a quote. I have thoughts of wanting to die, and I feel numb to them. Police records indicate that she also disclosed unwanted thoughts about, say it with me, harming the children. And those thoughts were reportedly described as fleeting. And Lindsay denied having a plan or an intention to act on any of those thoughts. Skip ahead to January 1, 2023. Now, Lindsay voluntarily admitted herself to McLean Hospital because of suicidal ideation. She remained there for about five days. Hospitalization is likely to become one of the most important parts of the trial because prosecution and defense see it very, very differently. And you might. You might. Here's why. The defense says that Lindsay was desperately trying to get help while her psychiatric condition continued to just atrophy, deteriorate, fall off a cliff. They argue that the people responsible for treating her failed her miserably. They failed to recognize the severity of what was happening to Lindsay, how serious this was, what the implications could be. But prosecutors say that Lindsay was evaluated at one of the country's most respected psychiatric hospitals and was not diagnosed with postpartum psychosis. They say she appeared to improve after her discharge. And I know what you're thinking. Even great people can do really dumb things, and even great hospitals can fuck things up royally. And they have. I mean, why would insurance rates be so high for malpractice if great doctors and hospitals didn't have the occasional, or maybe not even the occasional lapse in judgment, practice, treatment, and the like? So that's going to be an interesting debate for the jury, Right? Because, you know, what are their experiences? Right? What's reasonable to them in their worlds? And one guy may not be like the other guy, but it only takes one. Look, I am not gonna lie. I see both sides of this case because I've been through them. I absolutely see both sides of this case. But I am dying to know how you feel. Comment? Tell me. Yeah, no jail, hospital. Like, you have to have some personal experiences in your life that will inform how you weigh in on this particular case. So in the weeks that followed, Lindsay continued to track her medications, her moods, her sleep, her symptoms. And the prosecutors say those notes indicate that she was actually on the mend. She was doing better. And in one particular phone entry that was written the day before the killings, she reportedly referred to experiencing a touch of postpartum anxiety. A touch of postpartum anxiety. And the defense is expected to argue that that one phrase cannot be separated from the months of insomnia, the panic, the suicidal thoughts, the medication changes, the repeated attempts to obtain treatment Those intrusive thoughts about harming herself, even the kids. Defense says it's all part of one big package. Reared its ugly head. Patrick reportedly asked Lindsay whether she was still experiencing suicidal thoughts and whether she was having thoughts about harming their three kids. And he told investigators that Lindsay said, no, that's important. But again, mental health isn't perfect. It can be cyclical. It can just ram itself through your mind at the most inopportune times. Often does. You can't gauge it or schedule it right. You can be great one day, one hour, and be absolutely, you know, off the rails, another. So I kind of think there's going to be a lot of experts in this trial. So. January 23rd, Lindsay attended what would become her final psychiatric appointment, although I don't know if at the time they thought it was the final one. Who knows if anyone, including Lindsay, would know what the next few days would entail? Because the following day, Cora and Dawson were dead, and Callan was fighting for his life at Boston Children's before eventually succumbing to his injuries and dying. And four days after the attack, Patrick did something many people struggle to understand. He publicly forgave his wife. I'm. I'm with you. I have a really tough time understanding that kind of charity, that kind of grace. I don't think I have it. Honestly. I can't imagine what this man went through in those minutes and hours, days of the worst horror movie coming alive in front of him. But he did. Just a couple of days after all of it. His statement said that the real Lindsay was generously loving and caring towards him and their three kids, their families, her friends, her patients. He said their marriage was wonderful and had grown stronger as her condition rapidly worsened. He asked the public to find it within themselves to forgive her as he had. And Patrick's position, believe it or not, has not wavered. Nothing has changed. He is still right there. Day four, after the horror that was visited upon him and his family. And now, several years later, like a rock. And he's expected to testify for Lindsay. He's expected to be a defense witness. That's gonna be pretty powerful, because if there is anybody you could think of who is a victim in this case, other than those three beautiful kids, it is the dad. You know, the way the jurors would. Would look at it, that this guy lost everything, so traumatized, and then he comes out and supports her, that is going to weigh heavily for them. They are going to look at that and think, what am I missing? Maybe I need to rejig how I feel about this if they feel the other way. So about the. The case itself. On February 7, 2023, Lindsay appeared via video from her hospital bed. And that is when she put in her plea. Not guilty. And at that time, she was facing. And pour a drink. These are serious. Three counts of murder, three counts of strangulation or suffocation, and three counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. I know, I know. How can exercise bands be considered a dangerous weapon? Anything can. This pen can be a dangerous weapon if I use it to stab you instead of write this, you know, episode. So a dangerous weapon can be anything. You can turn anything into a dangerous weapon. The assistant da, her name is Jennifer Sprague. She portrayed Lindsay as coherent, deliberate, calculating. Prosecutors pointed to Lindsay's decision to send Patrick to the pharmacy and then to that way off restaurant. Right. The one that was further than it had to be. The time that she would have known he'd be away. The fact that there were three kids, that they were all attacked separately. These were all the case that, you know, the prosecutors were making. But the defense portrayed Lindsay differently. Obviously, they said she was gravely ill. She was a woman whose postpartum condition had been missed, then misdiagnosed, mistreated, potentially worsened by a complicated series of meds that she may not have ever needed and would have been dangerous to take. And then came another critical and fiercely disputed piece of evidence. Just before Lindsay's arraignment, she reportedly spoke with Patrick. You using a cell phone of a psychologist that was retained by the defense. So defense hires a psychologist, sends that psychologist into the institution where Lindsay is, you know, to do some pre trial work. And she gives Lindsay a phone in. Lindsay calls Patrick. Prosecutors say that Lindsay told Patrick that she had experienced a moment of psychosis and that she heard a male voice directing her to kill the children and herself because it was her last chance. Last chance.

[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.

[B]

Refreshers contain caffeine. So the defense views that reported voice as evidence that Lindsay had lost touch with reality. The prosecution, they see it differently, Natch. They say the timing is the issue here. Right. They say Lindsay reportedly didn't describe hearing any voices ever until after she'd begun meeting with her defense team. So, aha. You know, you start saying that to the jury, and they'll think, well, strategy. Not real strategy, maybe. In September 2023, a Plymouth county grand jury formally indicted Lindsay on three counts of murder and three counts of strangulation, one for each of those beautiful little kids. The prosecutors alleged that she killed Cora and Dawson and Callan with deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty. That gets you up there to life, no parole, Right. When you get the aggravated aspects of the crime. And By December of 2024, Lindsay's attorney, Kevin Reddington, formally announced that Lindsay would pursue a lack of cross criminal responsibility defense. A lot of times we refer to that colloquially as an insanity defense. And sometimes not just colloquially. Sometimes it's actually in the code. But you know it. Most people know it. Some people get it confused with competency. That's different. Competency is, are you even capable of getting in the courtroom and dealing with all of this? Do you even know what the heck is going on? If you are competent, you can get into that courtroom and say, I am not guilty by reason of insanity. I didn't know right from wrong, and I didn't understand the nature and consequences of my actions. That's usually the two prongs you've got to prove. Not easy. Under Massachusetts law, the prosecutors have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay was criminally responsible for this. And the jury's going to have to consider whether because of a mental disease or defect, she lacked the substantial capacity. Capacity to appreciate the criminality or the wrongfulness of her conduct, or lacked the substantial capacity to conform her behavior to the requirements of the law. And again, that's all really fancy, but if you break it down and stare at it, it kind of means, did you understand right from wrong? Did you understand the nature and consequences of what you were doing right? And just before trial, the prosecutors decided to do something a little surprising. They dropped the three separate strangulation charges because they were considered duplicative of the murder charges. It the same thing. So Lindsay is now standing trial on three counts of murder, and the judge has ruled that the jurors may be taken to the Duxbury house where the children had died. That's like the jury go see. We've seen that in a lot of trials. Like Murdoch. I thought we'd see a jury go see in the Idaho case until they tore the house down. He ended up pleading anyway, but I thought, well, there goes the jury go see. Not gonna do that. But they could do it in this one. Usually you get on a bus. They did it in OJ, they went to OJ's house. Jurors all went to OJ's house. And OJ's dream team redecorated was totally different. Very race sensitive decorations in OJ's house when the jury went to his house. But these jury go sees are very important. They give context. Sometimes there's a little detail you would never imagine that jurors get in a jury go see and then they hang on it like they can't get it out of their crawl. But this jury is going to be allowed to also hear Patrick's 911 call and they're going to be able to see certain photographs, including the autopsy images. That is going to be brutal because when you have a five year old and a three year old and an eight month old and they are dead bodies, jurors struggle with that. That's, that is tough. That's the defense's worst nightmare. Yeah. Jury selection started today. It's July 20th as I'm recording this 2026 in Plymouth Superior Court. Judge plans to seat 18 jurors, that's 12 with six alternates. Because the trial is expected to last several weeks and involve some very complicated medical, psychiatric testimony. And you just never know. Sometimes you go through all of them. So that brings us to a case that is impossible to ignore when discussing the defense that Lindsay Clancy is preparing to present. And that case is Andrea's. Andrea Yates. There I was in 2001 sitting on the anchor set that Brian Williams used to sit on in the middle of the newsroom and MSNBC when I was an anchor there. And I think during commercial break I saw a wire cross about a woman who had drowned all five of her children. And I lost my shit. And I said to the control room, oh my God, oh my God, breaking news. We are doing this. And for whatever reason everybody was so busy and they did, they didn't think it was going to resonate that story. I remember just kind of shaking my head. What? What? Anyway, we did do the story. I was pretty insistent, very bitchy and said we're doing this story. What are you talking about? There's no political story, there's no any story that isn't more jaw dropping, astounding, just an offense to every sense than this one. And thus we have the case of Andrea Yates. She drowned all five of her little babies in the bathtub of her home in Texas, one by one. Littlest to biggest, there's so many details of this case I'll never be able to forget. For instance, the water got dirtier and dirtier as the last children were going in. And the seven year old, I think his name was Noah, was running for his life, life around the house, and she grabbed him and. And he was found with fistfuls of Andrea's hair in his hands because he had seen what was happening and he was 7. So he had some context of what was coming. Oh, God. It was just one of those cases I'll just never get over. Like Lindsay Clancy, Andrea had no dispute of the physical facts of what happened. It was just all there. Right. It was not a whodunit. The central issue was her mental state and whether she was legally responsible or criminally insane. Right. It's very different. Listen, you can be batshit crazy and not criminally insane. Criminally insane is specific. And again, it's arcane. And. And you've got to hit those prongs and you gotta hammer those prongs and make the jury understand those prongs and have backup evidence and backup experts and backup history, backup medications, backup therapies, all of that. And still you almost never succeed with an insanity defense. And for Andrea, that was the case. Guilty. Round one. She was convicted of capital murder and it was a death penalty case. Yeah. But it got overturned again. Got overturned. And you want to know why that case got overturned? And this is really just luck on her part, I've got to be honest, that the appellate attorneys saw that the prosecutors had used an episode, I think. I think of Law and Order and said, you see this episode of Law and Order? She followed it by the script, she saw it on TV and she carried it out. This isn't crazy. This is somebody who saw it and did it. It's right there on the script. Black and white here. Look at it, read it, Whatever jury believed it, and the appellate attorneys discovered that that episode hadn't yet aired. Can you believe it? Can you believe it? What a difference a detail can make. Like a date. Yeah, the episode might have, except that Andrea could never have seen it because it hadn't yet gone on the tv. So out went her trial result because that evidence was horseshit. And a whole new trial was mounted with a whole new jury. Round two. It happened in 2006, so 20 years ago this year. And this time that jury of her peers found her not guilty by reason of insanity. And Andrea was committed to a state psychiatric hospital, where, my friends, she has been ever since. The parallels between Andrea's case And Lindsay's case are very obvious. But the legal and the factual differences are important and they really matter. They do. Andrea had extensive documented history of severe postpartum psychiatric illness, hospitalization, suicide attempts, hallucinations, psychosis, all before the deaths of her kids. Lindsay Clancy was seeking treatment, had documented anxiety, insomnia, suicidal ideation. But the prosecutors say, well, she was never diagnosed with postpartum psychosis before January 24th. So, again, dates Andrea's case also unfolded under Texas law. Lindsay, though, she's in Massachusetts, no death penalty. And it's different standard, you know, for the criminal responsibility. Different jurors, different rational, reasonable people can disagree, and they can be. One man's reasonable is not the other man's reasonable. Massachusetts, Texas, both cases, though, are going to ask jurors to confront the very same, nearly impossible question. How do you determine whether a mother who committed an unthinkable act thrice. I mean, Andrea did it five times, Lindsay did it three times. Was she making a criminal choice right in her head, or was she obeying the commands of a profoundly diseased mind? Well, I am so happy that this guy said yes to me. He is one of the attorneys who represented Andrea Yates. His name is Wendell Odom Jr. Huge resume. Google him, trust me, and then get seated for a long read. He's somebody who understands not only how an insanity defense works in a courtroom, but also what it takes to explain severe postpartum mental illness to jurors who may have never heard of it before or may think it's, you know, hullabaloo. It's not easy. It's like, you know, the O.J. jurors had to learn about DNA, and they didn't do such a good job of learning it. And honestly, Marcia Clark did a shitty job of teaching it. But these jurors are going to have to look at evidence that is almost too painful to even comprehend. Here's my conversation with Wendell Odom Jr. Wendell, it is so good to have you on drop dead serious. Thank you for being here. You are the perfect guest. You have lived this life and walked this walk before. Slight variations, but give me your general impressions as you look towards the Lindsay Clancy case.

[A]

Well, it's deja vu. Her. Her motives, her actions and her. The publicity surrounding it. The way the state is accusing her of. Of having premeditation. It's. It's all very, very similar, if not identical to what we have had happened 26 years ago with Andrea Yates.

[B]

The only thing about Andrea, though, is there. There wasn't anything to indicate no ideas where she could find herself in a. A moment away from Rusty and. And do it really. Just kind of. It just happens so quickly.

[A]

Well, she actually, it was. She did it during the only time period she could because Rusty had gone to work and his mother was supposed to come in and babysitter because of her sickness. And that's when she did it. The only opportunity she had. So in that regards, it is similar that now she didn't have to plan it like Lindsey did, but she did have to take advantage of the only time that she could have done it. And that was a big argument that the state made as to how, because she reasoned that therefore she knew that what she was doing would prevent her from being insane. 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]

Makes sense. Just like somebody who shoots someone and runs and hides, it shows that they know something's wrong. Otherwise why would you be hiding? And, you know, criminal code suggests you have to not know the difference between right and wrong. But with the case of Lindsay Clancy, there seemed to be so much more planning, really strategic planning. It didn't look like somebody was in the middle of an episode. Andrea was without question, in the middle of a lot of episodes. And on that particular day, you know, it was acute. But. But Lindsay was sending out photographs of snowmen and having communications with everyone and then picked a restaurant a far distance away.

[A]

Is as the psychiatrist explained it to me and as I understand it, if. If I believe that someone is. Aliens are talking to me and I build a tinfoil teepee with great precision and a lot of reasoning to it. That doesn't make me any less insane or any lack of reality on that particular aspect. A person can be totally lost in reality and in psychosis, but yet do certain things in order to accomplish a purpose. That. And that purpose is what you need to look at. Did she do it for altruistic reasons to save the children, or did she use it do it to traditional murderers. Murder, to revenge, to kill, to take a life. That's the real key to it. A person in a psychosis can do. Can reason, and they can plan certain things. That's really not the issue.

[B]

Hard to tell. A jury of average folk That, I mean, I get it because I've been at this game for, you know, more decades than I care to admit, but. But a little harder to get that through to the mechanic and the hairdresser and people who just never walked through criminal procedure before.

[A]

Yes. No question about it. The hardest thing for us to have done, and we finally did it in the second trial, is to convince them this is a sickness and it's just like a heart attack. Someone has a heart attack while driving and they run off the road and kill someone that's not murdered. This is a heart attack. It only occurs to a woman who has given birth, who has a predispos. Predisposition for a mental illness. And during that time period, there's a biological change that occurs that causes these stressors, that causes them to. To lose their grasp of reality, have a psychosis, as we say.

[B]

Well, I got to say, since I covered the Andrea Yates case, the day it broke literally was on the air on MSNBC when it broke. 2001. Wow. Have we ever come a long way, baby, in understanding mental health? Do you think that's going to really change the metric for Lindsay Clancy in a way that, you know, I hope so for. For Andrea.

[A]

I really hope so. I mean, it changed in the five years from our first trial to our second trial to a large extent, because of the depressed. Started educating people. But even since then, since we did Andrew Yates, I mean, there's been some amazing studies that have gone up. There's a Dr. Cyrano at Baylor College of Medicine who's showing the physiological, the biological changes that occur to a woman after birth that really have, especially certain people, certain women have a profound effect on them. It's not just hormonal changes, it's whole body changes that occur and how that can be devastating to someone who has clinical depression, who's. Who's bipolar, who's schizophrenic. It can really change the baby blues, which is what I learned when I had my child bajillion years ago to. To what we call postpartum depression. It only happens after birth. It only occurs then. That's the stimulus for what's going on.

[B]

So you know that there are always naysayers. And it feels to me like this trial could be won or lost, many of them, but this one in particular could be won or lost in jury selection. How critical do you think it is to have the most care and consideration taken to jurors who will understand this sort of new medical knowledge that we've acquired in the last couple decades, it

[A]

may be the most important thing. Our first trial, they asked for the death penalty. So we had a jury that was composed only of people who believed in the death or who could give the death penalty. Because she got life in the first trial, they couldn't have that jury. The second time around, we had a much bigger jury pool and we had much more sympathetic jurors to our position, which was the postpartum depression and insanity defense. It couldn't be any more significant.

[B]

You know, I think Lindsay is facing life, no parole, right? Life in prison without parole. But the jurors aren't allowed to know that. I mean, they're typically not told what the sentence, you know, is that could result from their decision, but they know it can be bad in Massachusetts, it can't be death, but they know it can be bad. And I always wondered about what goes on with jury nullification, you know, in those, in those jury rooms. Do you think this might be one of those that could actually result in a jury nullified result?

[A]

It's very seldom that you have 100% jury nullification. But what can happen is, is that someone in that jury panel can know that, like, for example, Andrea Yates is still in a mental hospital. And you don't just walk away. There's a whole procedure of taking care of someone who does something like this, putting them in a mental hospital and keeping them for perhaps the rest of her life. I mean, I don't know that Andrea Yates will ever come out of that institution. I don't know, quite frankly, whether she really wants to on that matter either. But, but that's the point. If they, if they have that realization that this isn't a free walkway, that she doesn't get to go home, go to a bar and start having more children, then there can be that, quote, nullification, if you want to call it that. But it certainly eases the verdict for people.

[B]

That's a big thing for a lot of people. If they don't understand what not guilty by reason of insanity means, it doesn't mean you walk free. It does mean a commitment. Now, for some, those commitments have been short For Andrea, I believe your co counsel, George Param, told me the last couple years that he visited and probably still visits if he's capable. Andrea in her facility and that she did not want to be released. Do you know if that's still the

[A]

case, that that is correct? I mean, George, George and I, I just talked to him today. His wife still goes and visits Andrea and, and I kind of Maintain contact through her present lawyer that's handling that. And. And at this point, she's a very shy person and introverted and scared to death to go out in the real world, quite frankly. And it's not like, you know, she's not. Doesn't have her illnesses as well. So, yes, I think that's still the case. I mean, I haven't talked to her recently, but I certainly know that that's the case not too long ago.

[B]

Here's a question I never thought I'd ask because I really don't know the answer and I've never contemplated it in a case, but does Andrea have the right to stay? I mean, what if the doctors determine she is well enough and she's not a danger to herself or others and they determine it's time for her to go? Does she have the right to say, I want to stay?

[A]

No, no. If in fact it were a no question conclusion, I mean, if all the doctors said, you got to get out of here, you're completely well, then she could leave. It's very unlikely that someone that has a schizophrenia, for example, which the older you get, you never really lose it, would say, well, you're scot free of any mental illness. So that's a difficult question to answer. But there would still have to be a judge that would. In Texas now, different. Different jurisdictions have different rules. There would still have to be a judge that would okay that procedure as well. So I don't know.

[B]

In Lindsey Clancy's case, look, I haven't seen, you know, the, the case that the prosecution is going to present, nor the defense. I've just seen whatever legal filings there I can't wait to hear. But generally speaking, we know what the narrative is going to be, right? And I see both sides, I see this as being a pitched discussion in that jury room, but what I can't figure out is what, what she should be doing, you know, in that courtroom. I've covered cases where there were one particular guy, Navid Haq was drooling in the courtroom and the jury said, nope, not buying it. What should her affect be? Like, how should she present in court in order to help her defense? Help her?

[A]

That's hard to say. In Andrea's case, they gave her so much Haldol at the time that she was just sort of numb. So there wasn't really much of a reaction at all. There was one point when we were arguing about photos and we had these photos inadvertently laid all out in front of us, and all of a sudden I Just hear this gasp from her. And she's actually sees the photos of her children, of her dead children, and there's a reaction. That's the only reaction in the whole trial. So I don't know if Ms. Clancy is still on the. The degree of antipsychotics that Andrea was during her trials, even her second trial, her first trial, for sure, we would have been asleep with the amount of drugs she was getting in the first trial. The second trial, she had reached a flat level. She'd gone back to base level, but she still was. Was drugged up during the trial. It. There's a thin line. I mean, we lawyers play that game all the time. We know the jury is looking at us, so we can communicate to the jury, but we better not let them know that we know they're looking at us.

[B]

Yeah. And also looks. It looks are deceiving. Right. So I would imagine you've got to counsel, you know, your dependent how to behave if she's capable of taking that counsel. I don't know quite what you say. You can't. You can't suggest. I think you should take drugs right now.

[A]

Well, no, not really. You shouldn't anyway. No, I mean, it's the old saying in trial lawyers. Beware of the smiling juror. You know, if they make contact with you, beware. Beware that. That may be the very person that's going to drive a stake through your heart. So now you have to try to try to play the game. Right. We know how to play the game. Our clients, not so much. And certainly one who has some mental issues.

[B]

Yeah. What do you think is going to be the biggest piece of evidence or testimony that will. That will be the sticking point for her defense? Like, what's going to be the hurdle for them, the biggest hurdle?

[A]

I think you've touched on it. And that. That is that knowledge, her knowledge. She knew that what she was doing was illegal, but she believed it was the only thing she could do to save her children. That's a hard sell. And. And we were able to do it through some religious information that was being fed to Andrea by a kind of a street preacher that, you know, better you. You die than let your children go to hell. And, you know, and they were going to hell because she was so depressed she couldn't discipline them. So those readings and that. That type of outside influence helped us a great deal with Ms. Clancy. I don't know. I know she's going through the same sort of altruistic thoughts, I need to save my children, but I Don't know what type of cooperation there is out there to show what that influence is that's coming into her head. We were able to do that, and that's a difficult thing to do.

[B]

Is there a difference between the argument that my client did this because God told her to, or my client did this because the devil was coming for the kids? Is there a difference between those two arguments?

[A]

That was an incredible argument. We had the. She, the devil told Andrea that she was going to get them and that she, she was the devil and so she had to kill them because the devil was telling her that she was going to get her. Whereas if God would have told her that, then she wouldn't have known her actions were wrong, she would have known they were right. Well, that was the argument that the psychiatrist for the state was making. And we spent a lot of times talking about the absolute ludicrous issue you have of one psychosis tells you to do something, it's legal, and another psychosis tells you not to do something, it's. It's illegal. That made no sense at all. I think that point we finally drove home in the second trial that that was really sort of a silly argument on the part of the, the state. But yes, that's what a lot of them down to.

[B]

Both are completely absurd to the mind, and yet they have different intent and a different knowledge of what's right and wrong. So I was always curious about whether you could get past that with Lindsay. I wonder if this is a problem and I'd love to get your, your thoughts on this. At one point, there was a mental health professional who visited Lindsay in her facility and gave her a phone. And I believe she made some kind of communication with her husband Patric and said, and I'm going to paraphrase and probably do it terribly, but that she heard a male voice telling her to do these things. And the prosecutors say, well, that never came up ever before. Not in any of your writings or your concerns or your red flag warnings. Is that going to be problematic for her, for her lawyers?

[A]

I don't know at what point she said that, but I will tell you this, that it's explained to me. These psychosises are like a comet that's burning in their heads. And as time goes by, you're seeing the tails of the comet, not the head of the comet anymore. And a person will try to rationalize certain things they did towards the end when they try to try to make sense of it. And an example that I was given was a guy was wiping Satan's writing off of. Off of the wall of a cell, wiping his wall to sell, then later on, when asked about it. So why are you. Why were you. Were you wiping Satan's right? And says, oh, no, no, no, it was dirty. So sometimes when later on in time is the mind tries to make sense of what doesn't make sense, there can be rationalization put in there. Now, I don't know if that's the timing here or if that's related to that or anything about that, but that could be one explanation.

[B]

And in. In Lindsay's case, there were so many warnings. I mean, Lindsay and her husband both did pretty much everything they could have done to seek help, to warn people about the thought she was having to get the medications, take the medications, get the therapy, practice the therapy. And I just wonder, like, how does that actually play into the criminal code? And how does it play into the juror's, you know, gut?

[A]

These, these always, it seems to me, aren't situations that. But for a complete failure in about 12 different ways that these events happen, and that's part of the educational process that that needs to be done generally with the public and certainly with the jury in a case like this, they're going to want to say, well, you had that heart attack, but you knew better. You know, you should have got on a diet and you shouldn't have taken too much cholesterol. That's why you had that heart attack when you were driving and ran over someone. Well, you know, that's not true. People don't think out ahead of time that they're going to have a heart attack and run over someone the same way with. With this. This sort of thing. Yes, it. If it weren't for the psychiatry breaking down, that the professionals breaking down her support system, be it her. Her husband, be it her family, be it the drugs that she was given, the following part of it, none of this would happen. Has difficult. From the law's perspective, it doesn't make any difference. But for a jury's perspective, it makes a big difference.

[B]

And does it make a huge difference that her husband is going to be a witness for the defense?

[A]

Yes. Yes. It is very interesting in these cases, if the husband goes in there and is still with the wife, that says a whole lot, even if it's partially his fault, which, you know, I'm not gonna jump on, say anything about that, but yes.

[B]

I mean, Rusty came out, I think that that day or even the next day, and fully backed Andrea, and none of us could understand it.

[A]

Yeah. No, no, that. That shows you that he recognized what the jury in the first trial didn't. This is an illness. This is a recognized illness. And it's one of the few emergencies that you can have in psychiatry that we're in. A life is in danger. And that's what I learned about all this. I had no idea there was this thing called postpartum depression. I had no idea that a woman could go through such physical changes and what it could do to someone that was susceptible to this type of change in her life. Yeah, I mean, the husband will be the first person to know that.

[B]

Boy, did you have a baptism by fire.

[A]

Well, I learned a lot. That was a question.

[B]

Yeah. So you mentioned a little bit ago, a moment that I never knew about, when Andrea saw photos of her dead children and had an audible gasp. There will be photos of these three children as well, and Andrea's reaction will be replicated with every one of those jurors. I'm sure if in some way how damning damaging difficult to surmount are the photographs of those victims, those little tiny kids.

[A]

Well, that. That is the state's best evidence. And it's. You know, there's a saying in our business. You know, keep showing the photographs and they'll lose their effect. Their gory effect.

[B]

Full.

[A]

They don't. Yeah, I've been there. I know. You know, they do not lose their effect. And it's just as a.

[B]

It.

[A]

The more you can talk about it from the perspective of it being a clinical delve into the psychiatry of. Of. Of a distorted mind, the. The better off you are. But that. That is their case. Their case is that these are little children that are innocence. That she killed them. And their focus will be on that. And then trying to try to say, well, she did. She knew this, she knew that she did this, she knew that. And. And to back away from the. What I think is the obvious and that is the psychosis, that's.

[B]

The postpartum depression in Lindsay's case was not the same as Andrea's case. She tried to take her own life in multiple ways. She cut her wrists, she cut her neck. She leapt from the second story wind. She's plegic. That has to have a huge impact as well. Like, how would you treat that aspect of this entire set of facts to. To get into the. Under the skin, you know, of the jurors and make them understand just how incredibly sick she was?

[A]

It's huge. Andrea also had. Had suicidal thoughts that were documented and did some things to. That would indicate she was going to take her life, but not like. Like we have in this case. And in this case, that is a huge factor that they can take.

[B]

I mean, Lindsay's sitting in a wheelchair, literally in the courtroom. I mean, you can't. You can't avoid it.

[A]

Right. Well, the whole idea is that I'm gonna go, and unless I take my children. I mean, I'm evil. I've done something. It's often religiously related, but I've done something so I deserve to die. That's part of the psychosis. So it's not strange at all. Andrea wanted to be executed by the. By the then governor of Texas she thought was George Bush, even though he was president at the time. She wanted to die. She just wanted to do it by execution because of what the Bible says. But Lindsay had the same thought process. Well, I'm. I'm gonna die. I need to save my children, or otherwise they're doomed. It. That's the. What's so cruel about postpartum depression? It takes a mother's instinct of preservation and turns it upside down.

[B]

Yeah, I'll say. The. I mean, it's. It's unfathomable to most mothers because they haven't experienced it. They just can't get. Wrap their heads around, you know, how this could possibly happen. And yet it happens over and over again. And it is not new.

[A]

No. No.

[B]

So one of the things that Lindsay did in her hospital bed was very, very quickly asked for a lawyer. That always makes people spidey senses tingle. And I understand why. Personally, I think it was the smartest thing anybody can ever do. But you can't really make that known to a jury, can you?

[A]

No, no, no. It may. They may try to work it in some sort of way that she wasn't really ill, but no, you're not supposed to let that come in to the jury's deliberation.

[B]

And. And is there a sneaky way that you can accidentally ring that bell? And then, of course, the curative as well. You must, you know, disregard that. What he ever can.

[A]

Well, right. Exactly. Now you can't disregard it. And. And there are sneaky ways you could try to ring that bell, but I assume Mr. Reddington seems to be doing the right things and would prevent that from happening.

[B]

Is there anything that, you know, is there anything in your mind that gives you a.

[A]

A.

[B]

Anything other than a coin toss on. On this trial? Like, are you feeling a certain way based on the facts, based on the. The road that was plowed by Andrea's case and others. How. How do you think this case is going to turn out?

[A]

Well, I think that even if they find her guilty, the mitigation will be extremely strong so that her punishment would be nothing comparable that it would be otherwise. So I guess I can take some solace in that regards. But I can't ignore the fact that of the number of cases that where the insanity defense is used, a very, very, very small percentage of them actually work.

[B]

And, and that doesn't seem to be changing, does it? Even as we understand more about mental health. I don't feel the stuff statistics answer it with that.

[A]

That's because most criminals are a lot of good percentage of criminals have mental illnesses.

[B]

Yeah. I'd say in some respect, maybe all of them.

[A]

Yes. Well, some people. Degrees.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Last question. And I, I understand if you can't really talk about it, but how is Andrea?

[A]

She's fine. She's, I mean she's, and her world and she's like I said, introverted. And she's very excited about the fact that there is an organization out there, the Andrea Yates association, that helps educate, puts little pamphlets in the doctor's offices, the pediatrician's office, warning them about postpartum depression and the fact that there's an organization out there, psi Postpartum Support, that actually is driving these issues and making them unknown. She, she knows that she's, she's pleased about that.

[B]

Doesn't she do some kind of crafts charity? What did it remind me? I remember learning this from George a while ago and I just have this image in my mind.

[A]

She does Christmas cards at this, at this thing at this convention I went to out in la. She had made aprons and she crafted these aprons and they were auctioned and they went for unbelievable prices. And of course the money goes to the, the organization. And she was ecstatic over that. She made this little, very Midwestern, calico type, homey, cute little aprons that she would make and these, these people bid on them and bid a lot of money to get these aprons that Andrew Yates made that, that she has her moments.

[B]

Is she, is she healthy? Is she mentally healthy? Is she coming towards a time in her life where in fact she might have to be released.

[A]

One of the psychiatrists said, I hope to see her in her old age in some little cottage somewhere else other than in a mental institution, living out her life. But you have to remember she, she is tormented and will be for the rest of her life with what she's done. And that's another big argument we made to the jury that she will, she will never forgive herself for what happened.

[B]

How does she actually process it? And I don't know. I truly don't understand what, what her therapists would have told her. Does she have to avoid thinking about it or does she have to face it and then just cope?

[A]

She, she has episodes where she slips back.

[B]

What do those look like?

[A]

I haven't been there. I don't know. But I, I can't imagine that they would be very dark.

[B]

Well, listen, I am so thankful to have a chance to talk to you because again, you're the guy. You, you should be right there in second chair helping to pick the jury, you know, if not first chair, for heaven's sake.

[A]

Well, I'm glad at my age that I'm not. And I wish them the best, believe me.

[B]

Wendell Odom, thank you so much for this.

[A]

You bet. Thank you.

[B]

My great thanks and undying appreciation to Wendell Odom Jr. For his body of work and what he did on the Andrea Yates case. Says plural and then his insight into what, you know, Lindsay Clancy is likely to face in the coming weeks as we follow this trial. I'll keep you updated into all of them. I just want to let you know this as well. If you or someone you know may be experiencing some of the symptoms of postpartum depression. For instance, they have a recent baby that was born, could be within a year, too, honestly. And they are really struggling or you're really struggling. There is help out there. I'm going to give you a phone number and an organization to call postpartum. So Support International, psi Postpartum Support International. The helpline is 1-800-944-4773. We'll put it in the, the link in the description here, 1-800-944-4773 and then choose option one. Or you can also text the word help h e l p to 1-800-9444. Thank you, everybody, for listening. Thank you so much for watching. Thank you for subscribing if you have. Thank you for subscribing if you're about to also join our membership. We're going to have another one of our member Q&As in the coming weeks. So jump on the membership if you want to be a part of that. And again, thank you very much for your support. Thank you for listening. Thank you for watching. And remember, the truth isn't just serious, it's drop dead serious.