Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hey, I just Venmo'd you for rent. Nice. Now I can instantly spend it whether I'm checking out online with Venmo or using a Venmo debit card. Say more. More. Exactly. Because the more you do with Venmo, the more you get. Like earning up to 5% cash back with Venmo Stash on a bundle of brands. So order more pizza. The math demands it. Get the Venmo debit card Venmo Stash Bundle terms and exclusions apply. See terms at venmo me stashterms venmo checkout not available at all merchants. Venmo MasterCard is issued by the Bancorp bank na hi beautiful people. Okay, so I'm filming this podcast episode the same day that I'm filming my tick tock video on my breakdown of week one and week two of the Lindsay Clancy trial. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, I did do a full breakdown of this case right before the trial started, I believe. That was posted July 22, I think. And that's around 15 minutes long over on TikTok. If you've been out of the loop on this case and you need to understand what happened, I suggest you go listen to that before you listen to this. That being said, if you follow me on TikTok, the TikTok video is going to go live before this podcast episode does. But if you've watched and listened to that, then you already heard this. It is the exact same thing. You can probably skip this week's episode. Sorry about that. Probably. You guys are probably not going to be happy about that. I am working on a new case for a brand new podcast episode. If I get that filmed and edited in time, there's a chance that I posted this week. Realistically, with my crazy schedule this week, that's probably going to end up being pushed to next week. However, I did want this content to live on YouTube and live on my podcast. But if you have seen seen it on TikTok already, then you've already heard this. With all that being said, since we have more time for a bit of a longer intro here on the podcast, I do want to make some points clear. It feels like right now it is the United States, the women of the United States against Patrick Clancy. I feel like every single video that I've seen on this case is talking about why and how Patrick Clancy was the person responsible when Lindsay Clancy is the one on trial. So I'm not close minded when it comes to the possibility that Patrick could be more involved in this. I'm not saying that that's not an option at all. What I'm saying is that I would not feel comfortable making a video giving reasons as to why certain things that he has said or done look shady or things aren't matching up. I wouldn't feel comfortable talking about all of that and then putting that out to 2 million people, because I know that I don't know. You know what I mean? That last sentence was crazy. I know that I don't know, but I don't know. So I'm trying. I tried my best to stick to the facts, but I did want to make it clear that I'm not saying that you guys are wrong when you talk about Patrick Clancy and these theories. I'm just saying that I'm not going to believe it until I see evidence for it. And the reason why I feel like it's hard for me to hop on that train, at least at this point in time, is because knowing how amazing of a lawyer Kevin Reddington is, I really would find it hard to believe that if there was solid evidence against Patrick Clancy, he would have ignored that and put Lindsay through this trial. This trial is breaking Lindsay Clancy. This is unbearable for her to sit through. And it's very obvious that Kevin Reddington cares for her. He has said that he's very protective over her. So. So I would find it hard to believe that he would put her through this trial if he truly felt like there was a reason to go after Patrick Clancy instead. But if something does come out, and it turns out that Patrick Clancy was a lot more involved in this than anybody originally thought, I will be the first one to hold my hands up and say, you guys were right. I should have hopped on that train earlier. I just. At this moment in time, I'm gonna steer clear of that for right now. I hope that made sense. I feel like I just kind of rambled off a little bit there, but, yeah, I'm curious to hear your opinions, if you haven't listened to this already. And thank you so much for cooking on this episode and for spending time with me today. I really appreciate it, and I don't say it enough, but I love you guys, literally more than I could ever put into words. That said, I'm gonna put the Tick Tock video in. In now. And, yeah, I'll talk to you guys later. Love you. Lindsay Clancy is pleaded not guilty to the charges against her for which she is currently on trial for. There is a lot going on in this case, and what I've done is attempted to gather as much information as I can of how this has played out thus far, to compile into one video in hopes of understanding what is actually going on, for it to lead to having the right conversations. The point of this video is not at all to agree or disagree. The point is to understand. Okay. I'm also not a lawyer, not a doctor, nor a detective, just a girl. Okay. So Lindsay Clancy is currently involved in two separate lawsuits in the state of Massachusetts. One criminal, one civil. The criminal one was filed against her by the Commonwealth, alleging that she murdered all three of her children back in 2023 with, quote, deliberate, premeditated, and extreme atrocity and cruelty. In other words, alleging that she did this on purpose, with intent, and that she knew what she was doing. The civil one was filed by her and her attorney against the medical providers, alleging that there was a catastrophic failure of medical providers to properly diagnose, treat, and monitor Lindsay's severe postpartum psychiatric condition. Despite her repeated, desperate pleas for help and her family's persistent efforts to obtain adequate care, these two go hand in hand. The civil one relying on the criminal one. Because the civil lawsuit states that because Lindsay was failed, she now, quote, faces a lifetime of physical disability, psychological trauma, and the unbearable grief of waking up every day knowing she killed her children. So her and her attorney acknowledged that she did commit the crimes. Now, flipping back to the criminal lawsuit, there is a big question there of what exactly was her confession? This confession has a lot of people confused because there was nothing released to the public in which Lindsay says, I confess. I did do this. I am guilty. But what people are referring to when they say that she has confessed comes from what Patrick Clancy has said. Lindsay's original statements to the investigators in the immediate AfterMath back in 2023 were made while she was still hospitalized. Those have not been released publicly in full. We do not know if she did confess to law enforcement and what exactly she did or did not say. What has emerged through trial testimony, however, is what Patrick told authorities and what he testified to on the stand, which is that Lindsay, approximately a week or so after the killings, told Patrick that she heard a male voice telling her that if she didn't do it now, she would lose her chance. She told Patrick that she heard this voice and felt like she had no other choice. So Patrick said that Lindsay said that she heard a voice telling her what to do. And Lindsay and her attorney have agreed that she did tell Patrick this. This. Fast forward to now, 2026. Initially walking into day one of this trial, what the Commonwealth have the responsibility to prove was two things. One, they still did need to prove that Lindsay did in fact kill her children, and two, that she was mentally stable when she did so. Because their argument is that she was of sane mind, which means that they still technically had to prove that she did it or else their claim that she was mentally stable when she did so has nothing to attach to. Same goes for the defense. Their argument that she should not be held criminally responsible because she was not of sound mind. Their insanity plea is attached to the fact that she did do this. It needs to be attached to that action or else there's nothing to the argument. So going into this trial, the Commonwealth had to prove those two things because one does not exist without the other. The judge told the jury before the trial started, Lindsay Clancy is innocent until proven guilty, and you all are the ones making that decision. However, day six of the trial was very important because on that day, Lindsay and her attorney agreed to a series of certain facts. One of those facts was that Lindsay did kill her children. The judge asked her directly, do you understand that by agreeing to these stipulations, you agree that the Commonwealth no longer has to prove that you killed your children because you are agreeing that that is a fact. And Lindsay said yes to every single question from that point on. The judge, the Commonwealth, Lindsay and her defense all agreed that the question of did she do this or did she not? Was no longer on the table. The Commonwealth no longer had to prove it because they all agreed, and they all agreed to move to the sole remaining question of should she be held responsible or should she not be? Okay. Now the case is being presented as follows. First, the Commonwealth. So the prosecution states their case, meaning this is their turn to call up all of their witnesses and then they'll rest their case. During that, the defense has the option to cross examine any witnesses should they choose to. After that, the defense will present their case, call all of their witnesses. The prosecution will have a chance then to also cross examine, and then the defense will rest their case. Then it's closing arguments. Both sides will deliver their final summaries to the jury. Jury then deliberates, and finally the verdict is reached. Breach. If the jury finds her guilty, Lindsay Clancy will likely be handed a prison sentence. If the jury finds her not guilty, AKA not criminally responsible, she will likely face an indefinite stay in a secure mental health facility. Going to a hospital versus going to a prison not guilty for clarity, would not mean that she did not do it. It would Just mean that she should not be held criminally responsible. That leads us into the conversation surrounding Patrick clancy. Back in 2023, there were three murders. Three children lost their lives in a brutal way. Of course, A murder investigation was then opened up. And in any case involving the death of a child inside of a family home, law enforcement protocol requires that all adults with direct, daily access to the home be investigated. So Patrick Clancy was questioned by investigators in the immediate aftermath. The confusion there is that we have no way of knowing the exact details of that investigation or how long or how thorough it was. So it makes sense that people naturally have questions about what the investigation actually was. There was one, because you don't have a murder trial without a murder investigation. But the details are unclear because it was Patrick Clancy ruled out as a suspect very early on, or was his involvement in this investigation always just as a witness and never as a potential suspect? What I will say on that is that in every investigation similar to this one, both parents are looked into, because it's kind of just the way that murder investigations go. Also, I think that everyone agrees that Kevin Reddington is a phenomenal lawyer. There is no version of reality where. Where a lawyer of his caliber takes on a case like this without first knowing exactly what he is walking into. Every detail, every piece of evidence, everything that happened up until the point that he got involved. He is very clearly fighting for Lindsay. He very clearly has her best interest at heart. So if there was any real, solid evidence pointing at Patrick and no investigation into him, I am inclined to think that Reddington would have made that an issue long before this trial started. Let me rephrase that. In case that's confusing. If there was solid evidence that was making Reddington think that his client did not do this. This. That Patrick did this, instead, I just find it hard to believe that he would be like, okay, let's just forget about Patrick Clancy. Let's take my client to trial on murder charges. I don't know. So, again, we don't have the details of the investigation, but what we do know is that the investigation did find that his alibi was verifiable and airtight enough for him to be treated as a witness rather than a suspect. And I say that because he was the prosecution's first witness, the prosecution would not have called him up to be a witness if they had any reason to believe that he could have been somewhat involved. He is also on the defense's witness list, so. So he will testify again when it's the defense's turn to present their case, Meaning that the defense, AKA Kevin Reddington, finds him to be a beneficial witness to their argument. The defense wants him to testify about how Lindsay was a loving mother, about how her mental health was getting worse and worse and worse, and about how she was not at all in a sane state of mind. That said, people online, I'm sure you guys have seen this, have started to speculate that Lindsay's attorney, Kevin Reddington, is building a case against Patrick Clancy. And I'm not saying that is in the case, because I simply have no way of knowing. But a very important thing to keep in mind is that Kevin Reddington cannot lie to the court. If he has not denied that Lindsey Clancy is the person responsible for doing this, if he has agreed that Lindsay did do this, if he went through this entire trial agreeing with the prosecution that Lindsay is the person responsible, and then he turned around and was like, never mind. Patrick is the person who did this. That would mean that he agreed to things that he didn't actually agree with throughout the trial. He cannot do that. And he wouldn't do that for many reasons, but one of the biggest ones being that his crime credibility would then be questioned point blank, period. Kevin Reddington cannot say that Lindsay killed her children because she was struggling mentally. Provide an entire defense as to why she should not be held criminally responsible, and then say, oh, you know what? Scratch all of that. We actually now want to say that she didn't do this at all. That said, can things change in a trial? Can opinions change? 100. But prior to this trial beginning, both the prosecution and the defense had all of the evidence submitted. What is coming out is new to us. This is not new to them. And after seeing all the evidence, both Reddington and Lindsey agreed that Lindsay did this. What is new, however, are the testimonies and things that have made Patrick look inconsistent in a lot of people's opinions. That is new. And could things that he has said on the stand, his behavior, and looking at all this evidence in a different light from a new perspective, could that be changing the minds of the defense? Is it possible that they did once think that she did do this, but are now considering the possibility that she was framed? Maybe it's not impossible. But once again, in the courtroom, Kevin Reddington and Lindsey Clancy have agreed to the fact that Lindsay committed these murders. Reddington, in opening statement, said, quote, she knows she killed these children. Specifically, in the civil lawsuit again filed earlier this Year in 2026 by Kevin Reddington for Lindsey Clancy against the medical providers the wording in there is, quote, unquote, she killed her children. That, to me, states that, at least going into this trial, they really did believe that she did. Because Kevin Reddington cannot lie to the jury going off of that. For Patrick Clancy to be charged with anything, there would need to be independent evidence that he committed the crime. Put Lindsay aside. Strong evidence pointing to Patrick would need to be presented directly, tying him to the crime. As of now, and I'm not saying that this cannot change, but as of now, there is nothing in verified trial record that suggests that that exist. And we have seen some crazy, shocking turn of events in other cases. So I don't like to rule anything out, and I really don't like to believe anything unless it's been proven in a court of law. But what I do know is that at the end of this trial, there are two verdict options and two only. Guilty of murder or not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. Neither outcome of this trial leads to pointing the finger at Patrick Clancy. That would be a separate trial, and separate new charges would have to then be filed against him. By the way, I do think that Kevin Reddington is phenomenal, and I do have a lot of respect for him, and I think that he is the best lawyer that Lindsay Clancy could have asked for. And one last thing before we break down the trial day by day and look closer into the evidence. Another big point of conversation right now is the fact that the days after the murders, Lindsay was still hospitalized when she told a psychiatrist that she wanted to change her health care proxy from Patrick to her parents because she believed that they would act in her best interest. A healthcare proxy is the person appointed to make medical decisions for. For her if she was unable to do so for herself. It was once Patrick and Lindsay, in the days following the murders, requested to change it to both of her parents. They gave her a day or so to think about it to make sure that she was thinking about this rationally, and confirmed the following day that she still did want to go through with the change, which she did on the stand. The psychiatrist testified. Quote, she was saying that her parents are quite supportive to her and that she was thinking that she would have to change her healthcare proxy from her husband to somebody else, end quote. She also stated that they did not go into specific reasons as to why Lindsay wanted to make that change. But it does signal that Lindsay thought that her parents would make the best choices for her instead of her husband. And it's understandable as to why people then naturally start to question how much trust there really was there between Patrick and Lindsay and what the dynamic in their marriage really was like. And I will read some of her journal entries that give us a better understanding of her personal thoughts and feelings throughout this time. But, yeah, that has raised a lot of eyebrows for sure. Now let's do an overview of what has come out in trial so far. Breaking it down Monday, July 27, was day one of testimony. Patrick Clancy took the stand as the prosecution's first witness. He described Lindsay's mental health deterioration after Callan's birth in May of 2022. He testified about the more than a dozen medications that Lindsay was prescribed. He described each child individually, saying, cora loved princesses and was named after the very first baby that Lindsay ever delivered as a nurse. Nurse. He said that Dawson's favorite show was Paw Patrol and said that Callan was a very happy baby. He stated that Lindsay was, quote, a very dedicated mother who did everything for her kids. And that day, jurors also saw photos of the children and photos of their house. Continuing on to day two, Patrick Clancy remained on the stand and cross examination took place by the defense. He testified that about a week or so after the killings, Lindsay called him from the hospital and told him that she, quote, heard a man's voice telling her that if she didn't do it now, she would lose track her chance. He said that was the first time that Lindsay mentioned hearing a male voice. He talked about how Lindsay had been hospitalized for several times and how on one occasion, Lindsay visited an emergency room after not being able to sleep for 48 hours. Patrick also said he found his bedroom covered in blood when he returned home the day of the crimes. He described how and where he found his children in the basement, going into detail and describing what he saw when he found them and how he took the exercise bands off of their necks. And the jury then heard the 911 call that Patrick made upon discovering the crime scene. There were a lot of tears in the courtroom that day. And the defense also emphasized on cross that Lindsay always took her medications as instructed and she kept a journal tracking them, indicating that she was taking her health very seriously. On day three, first responders and paramedics testified. An officer testified that Patrick ran into the basement screaming, quote, she killed the effing kids. Police officers and firefighter paramedics recounted entering the home, described what they saw and talked about rendering emergency medical aid to the children, Cora, Dawson and Callan, and also spoke about treating Lindsay Clancy for her injuries after she jumped from that Second story window. Lindsay's injuries have been a very strong topic of conversation in this case. And a lot of people believe that the prosecution's own witnesses are making things worse for their own case every single day. Some of their witnesses, at best sound unprofessional and unprepared, and not worse, sound flat out vicious and extremely, extremely ignorant. Some of the things that have been said on the stand by their witnesses, rightfully so, have made people of the public question, what even is the point that the prosecution is trying to make? 1 and 2, if some of these medical professionals are even aware of what they're saying. Example, a Dr. Kelly McDonough, an emergency medicine physician who treated Lindsay when she arrived at the hospital on the night of the killings. She might have the worst memory in the world because for many questions, too many questions in a lot of people's opinions, she simply answered the I don't recall. She has no answers for a lot of the cross examination questions that Reddington is asking her, saying this happened three years ago and saying that she sees a lot of patients every single day. Reddington responds to that basically by saying, yes, we understand that you are busy, but this is a murder trial that you knew that you were testifying at, that you were given plenty of time to prepare for. And a lot of people share that same sentiment because it leads to the very valid question of why is it that you didn't see it as a priority to look back at your notes so that you would be able to answer the question questions that you are here to answer. And I'll give you a second example. Trooper Corey Mello, a Massachusetts State police detective who testified as one of the investigators who responded to and processed the Clancy crime scene. He wrote reports, a lot of them, including some that referenced Lindsay's personal journal entries. Okay. The family had a nanny, Elaine Rossi, but her common nickname is Lainey. Trooper Mello is on the stand. Lindsay's attorney, Reddington is reading out some notes that he had written in his report. One in which he mentioned mentions Lainey. Reddington asks Melo on the stand, and you know who Lainey is, right? Melo says, yes. Reddington says, okay, who is Lainey? And Trooper Mello responds with the other child. And this is what I mean when I say that some of their witnesses are extremely unprofessional and unprepared. Because the least that you can do at a murder trial is remember the names of the victims who were murdered. Another thing that left people of the public feeling uneasy is when a medical Professional testified by describing Lindsay's injuries as superficial. Keep in mind the prosecution is still presenting their case, so all of these witnesses are theirs thus far. Reddington pushed back on that during cross examination, noting that one wound was 3.5 cm deep and that that one in itself is anything but superficial. There have also been a lot of questions in regards to Lindsay's trachea injury, because Reddington described Lindsay's trachea to have been crushed. The trachea is the tube that runs down your throat to your lungs and carries air in and out when you breathe. It sits at the the front of your neck, just below your voice box. There's a lot of confusion specifically around the fact that Patrick Clancy stated that when he found Lindsay at the crime scene, immediately after she told him what she did, and she told him that the children were in the basement. However, when paramedics arrived, Lindsay was in and out of consciousness. She was described to be unresponsive and unable to really speak. It sounds like she was more so grunting, if anything. And once she arrived at the er, she never once regained clothes consciousness. She also needed to be intubated and put into a coma and was unable to speak for days. The question there is, how would she have been able to tell Patrick anything if her trachea had been crushed? That remains unclear, and unfortunately, it is his word against nothing. Reddington touched on it slightly, but the answer as to exactly how bad her injuries were seemed to be different, depending on who you ask with the whole trachea situation. There is also the body temperature. Lindsay Clancy's body temperature when she arrived at the Emergency room was 82 degrees Fahrenheit, severely hypothermic. Normal body temperature is 98.6 degrees. So she was more than 16 degrees below normal. There is an argument that her body temperature would not have been able to go down that low and that fast, based on the timeline that is being presented by the prosecution. The other side of that argument is that what she went through was so traumatic and she had so many other injuries on top of the plethora of medications that were in her system already that already made her body not function in the way that a, quote unquote, normal body would, in which some maybe could argue that it could have been possible that her body temp could have dropped that low, that fast for other reasons that are not that she could have been out there in the snow for longer than the period of time that has been stated. I don't know medicine. I think that's obvious. But if you want my opinion on that, yes, it feels off and unclear. And I think that that's eventually going to have to come down to a boundary battle of the experts. I would feel confident in saying that Reddington didn't spend too much time in those details because when the defense gets their turn to present their case, he's going to call up his experts to testify and then give more clarity on what the defense's stance is on that. Taking a very quick break to talk about today's sponsors. I'm talking to you guys again about what not today. I am still on it. Yep. I'm still on that train. And. And you know what? Something about this summer, I don't know if it's in my neighborhood in the area that I live in, garage sales seem to have been making a comeback. I don't know if they were ever gone, but I swear that I see a sign for it outside on, like, every other road these days. And I love that. I love finding something unique. I love finding it lower than you at a lower price than you would find it in the stores. However, realistically, I do work, so I cannot go to a garage sale in the middle of the day. But you know what I can do? I can hop on WhatNot. WhatNot is the number one live shopping app in the US shopping happens in real time, and so many things are so fun about it, I think, not only because of the amazing deals and things that I find on there. I love it because of that reason, but also because it's genuinely so fun. And the greatest part about it is that you can do it from home. So it's like you're shopping in person. You're communicating in real time with real people, but from the comfort of your own home. And not only do you hardly ever pay full price for the things that you find on Whatnot, but you also get the opportunities to discover new brands. I've actually found a lot of cool new brands that I had never heard of on Whatnot. And again, it's real people talking about these brands and talking about the products and genuinely telling you what is so great about them. I have so many positive things that I could say about Whatnot, but I want you guys to experience it for yourself. So if you have tried it out, let me know what your experience. It was like, let me know what you bought, let me know what brand, let me know who you spoke to. I just think it's so fun, and it really does kind of feel like a community going on there and talking to the buyers and sellers and then talking to people that have just gone on there to shop, like myself. So if you haven't already tried out, let me know what you think. Let me know what you find. Download whatnot today and get 20 off your first purchase. Search whatnot W h a t N o t in the app store. Sign up and start finding the best deals on the products that you love with $20 off your first purchase. Okay, talking to my glass wearers out there. You know when you've had a pair of glasses for a little while now and you put them on and you see the little scratches on the lenses, but they don't even bother you anymore because you're just so used to seeing them, that doesn't need to be the case, okay? I've been there. I've seen the little scratches on my eyes. I've seen the little film falling off of my lens. I personally do not wear prescription glasses, but I'm talking about sunglasses for myself. It does not need to be that way, okay? And I know a lot of you guys are probably pushing off the idea of buying new glasses, prescription or not, because it sounds like a hassle. Like I used to not think, oh, I need new sunglasses. I'm getting so excited. It was more so, oh, I lost them again. I need a new pair and I don't want to spend the money on it, so I don't want to buy new ones. And I hate to confess it, and I'm not even being funny, like I might put a screenshot on the screen of my recent purchases. I lost the same pair of eyeglasses for the third time. Third time, I just ordered a fourth. It's ridiculous. But the amazing thing about that is that I no longer want to cry when I have to purchase a new pair of glasses because now it is this exciting thing. And it's also exciting for my wallet because on Zenny you can find glasses starting at $30. $30? Yeah. I'm no longer suffering and dropping hundreds of dollars on new glasses because I do not need to. And going on Zenny, if you have not gone on the website, do me a favor, go on the website, just scroll. Even if you're not purchasing anything at this moment, just scroll and look at the many different styles. They have colors, patterns, all the things. The options seem endless. Again, there is a reason why they have over 150,000 5 star reviews and they make the process so easy. They have the little virtual try on so you can hop on there and look and see how the glasses would actually look on your face. If you are a person that wears prescription glasses, you can add your prescription. Zenny is the best online eyewear shop with stylish prescription glasses, sunglasses, customizable lens options at prices that make it easy to owe just more than one pair. It's great to have if you just are looking for new sunglasses. It's also amazing to have if you do have prescription because you don't have to go to a doctor's office or a physical store. You can literally do it from the comfort of your own home and they show up right at your doorstep. It could not be easier. That scratched up pair has done its job Upgrade today with Zenni go to zenni.com podcast and use code podcast podcast15 for 15 off your order plus free shipping on all US orders over $65. The style sell out so do not sit on it. That is Z-E-N-N-I.com podcast promo code podcast15 thank you so much Zenny for sponsoring today's episode. Moving on, wrapping up the first week of the trial Friday, July 31st was the final day for week one, and that is when jurors visited the former Clancy home on Saratoga Trail in Duxbury. They walked through the property while the attorneys pointed out significant features and returned to court afterward for additional prosecution witnesses. More medical professionals who responded to the scene testified, and that was the end for week one. Week two started back up on Monday, August 3rd. The jurors were introduced for the first time to testimony referencing postpartum psychosis, which is pretty much the central component for for the defense. More pages of Lindsay's personal medication notebook were entered into evidence and read out loud. Crime scene analysts testified and more medical experts took the stand for the prosecution. Now let's read through some of those journal entries, okay? Because those are very important. These are just some of the quotes that she wrote down. Quote, 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. Another quote I'm completely overwhelmed taking care of the three kids. I feel like I'm drowning. Another quote I now have horrible insomnia and anxiety, which is causing depression and I have no appetite. I don't know what's wrong with me. I want help. I want to be well. She also expressed concerns about going back to work, about not being able to breastfeed, and about feeling disconnected from herself and from her baby. She wrote that she had, quote, horrible PTSD from sleep training Callan and said that she felt terrible that she had to decide to either stop breastfeeding so that she she could take medications for her own mental health or to continue breastfeeding for Ken. She wrote that hearing Kellen cry for her when she was sleep training him broke her because she couldn't handle listening to him crying. And also wrote that she had started to feel guilty wondering if they had started sleep training him way too early. She wrote extensively about worries over Callen's eating and sleeping, constantly checking in on him, anxious about whether he was sick, tracking every feeding and knob in detail tale and about Patrick, amongst other things. She wrote, quote, I feel horribly guilty about my marriage. I want to connect with Patrick again. I know he needs it. I need it. These journal entries in the eyes of the defense paint a picture of a woman who was very aware that something was very wrong with her. One who was actively seeking help and who was documenting her deterioration in real time. Also showing a mom who cared about her children, because a mom who does not care about her children children does not write down every single little thing about their health and their sleep and their feeding schedules. It is clear the defense says that Lindsay wanted help. She said so over and over and over again and that she loved her children. Every single witness on that stand who knew Lindsay or the Clancy family, including her now ex husband and her ex father in law, have all been consistent in the fact that Lindsay Clancy was a mother who loved her children deeply. And a lot of people see this, myself included, as proof that that she was going through serious postpartum negative effects. However, the prosecution is attempting to use this to say, look at these entries. Lindsay was an extremely controlling mother and in their own words, manipulative. And when things began to become too much for her because she didn't think that she had control over her family or her children anymore, and because she didn't think that anyone could control her children in the way that she wanted to, she chose to exit and chose to take her kids along with her. And this is making me physically sick to even say this out loud. But the prosecution, when describing Lindsay to be this manipulative, controlling and meticulous person, they describe her making the calculated, selfish decision of manipulating her medical providers and ultimately killing her children as her seeking out the, quote, quick and easy fix. Describing what happened as the quick and easy fix is something that I truly will never be able to wrap my head around everything about this is the farthest thing from quick and easy. Also, the Commonwealth in opening statement said that this case isn't a public debate about women's mental health. It is about an evil, calculated mother. I have goosebumps, like even talking about this part because I know it's their job. But how you can read these journal entries, hear about the millions of times that Lindsay begged for help, checked herself into treatments, checked herself into hospitals, told every single person in her life that she was unwell and did everything in her power to get help. How the prosecution can have all of that information and then twist it and turn around and tell the jury that this isn't about mental health and that all she did was manipulate her doctors to get medicine is actual madness to me. And it leaves me feeling literally physically uncomfortable moving forward. We're now at day six of testimony. Day six was the day that Lindsay spoke out in court for the first time, agreeing to stipulate to certain facts to streamline the proceedings. This is what we talked about earlier about her and Reddington agreeing to the stipulations, not denying that Lindsay committed the murders. Reddington explained that they chose to agree to allow the trial to move on efficiently without requiring testimony on undisputed issues that everyone agreed on. Prosecutions called a physician's assistant who treated Lindsay after the murders who further testified about her injuries. The defense cross examined to get an answer, confirming that Lindsay was critically ill when she was treated. Prescription pills Lindsay was taking were also then entered into evidence in psychiatrists who treated Lindsay but before the murders were also expected to be called the following day. Day seven of testimony, the Clancy's nanny, Elaine Rossi, took the stand, testifying that she got the job after she responded to a Facebook posting from Lindsay in July of 2022. She described Lindsay as a wonderful mom who loved her kids, who was very concerned with their safety. She talked about detailed instructions that Lindsay would leave for her in regards to Callan's care, including sleep and food schedule, and testified that Lindsay had told her that she was struggling. Struggling with postpartum. Day eight of testimony, Patrick Clancy's father, Lindsay's ex father in law, testified that he knew that she was struggling before the murders. And he also described Lindsay to be a devoted, loving mother. The children's pediatrician testified, saying that the children appeared to be happy and healthy during her care. And she described Lindsay as an attentive parent. More officers and medical examiners then also continued to testify. I have two more things before I end this video. First, the testimony of the forensic and analyst who testified about the DNA. And the second is around the conversation surrounding the Apple Watch So there is a lot of talk online about whether or not Lindsay Clancy's DNA was found on the exercise bands which were the murder weapons. This part is really confusing to me and I'm no expert, please keep that in mind. But people online have stated that Lindsay's DNA was not found on the bands. So I tried looking into this as much as I could and what I could find, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that that it is possible that her DNA was on the bands. However, her fingerprints were not found on them. The exercise bands are really thin and they're stretchy. And according to a forensic expert that is not at all involved in this specific trial, his opinion was that no fingerprints were found on the bands because it was just impossible to get enough of a pattern to be able to match it to a specific person's fingerprint. Fingerprints aside, however, just DNA that was tested for on the third three bands. Okay, DNA was matched from the middle sections of the three exercise bands. The yellow band matched to Dawson, the black band matched to Cora, and the blue band matched to Catlin. However, the forensic analyst who testified about this on trial testified that there were a lot of relatedness complications when the tests were being done because of how much DNA is shared between the five individuals of the Clancy family. DNA of the children is made up of half of Patrick and half of of Lindsay. And for some reason it sounds like they were able to determine that for each one of those bands there was a match to a specific child. However, as far as what other person's DNA was on there, that remains unclear, at least to me. When I kept listening to her testimony, I feel like I wasn't getting a clear answer because it seems like there's just so much confusion on how similar all of their DNA is. And also they all lived in the same house. So it wouldn't be shocking if there was DNA of every single person in the family on the bands. So, like for example, the blue band from the ends of the blue band, there was a DNA profile that was made up of three contributors. So three different people, one confirmed to be Callin. But from the remaining DNA, the likelihood of it being Dawson's or Chorus or Patrick's or Lindsay's was not able to be determined because they didn't have enough of it. And all of their DNAs, again, are so similar. So much similar DNA is just shared between all of them. I don't really understand the DNA, to be honest. So I'm not going to claim to. You're going to have to rely on experts to correctly describe that. But what we do know is that Lindsay Clancy and her lawyer Reddington, did agree in court to not challenge certain DNA evidence, basically saying, we're not going to argue against it. So there's no need to keep bringing up witnesses to testify on the DNA. So let's move on. Lastly, the Apple Watch. Okay, so after the murders, there was a search for worn in the house. So many things were taken. But for whatever reason, Lindsay's Apple Watch was not. It was Kevin Reddington, her attorney, who later found it when he was walking through the house, and he was the one who turned it into investigators. This seems weird to a lot of people for two reasons. One, it makes people question how thorough this investigation was because it doesn't make sense to a lot of people how they would have just missed recovering that and taking it in as evidence. And two, that watch has the capability of recording activity, activity, heart rate, movement, and other potentially relevant data directly connected to Lindsay Clancy's movements that specific day. Again, making it weird for a lot of people as to why the prosecution would not have taken that in as evidence. So, in the courtroom, Kevin Reddington states this, states that he found it and that it wasn't even seized in the search warrant. Along with that, he mentions the entire uncollected drawer in which Reddington found the watch, as well as empty pill boxes, amongst other other things. He pointed this out, and it has raised some eyebrows. But I think that all I'm going to say in regards to that is that we are going to have to wait until the defense presents their case, because Reddington bringing that up, I think, means that it's safe to say that this is going to play into their argument in some way. But as far as what was either found on the Apple Watch itself or what finding it in the drawer could mean, I don't think we will know until the defense brings this back up. But him pointing it out feels like an introduction of like, here's this thing, remember it. We're gonna come back around to that. So I feel like it is going to play a part in the defenses argument. I just don't know exactly in what way. That is my best attempt at explaining what actually has happened thus far. Hopefully that helped and hopefully if you made it to the end of this video, thanks and congrats to you because I guarantee it's going to be a long one. But yeah, I guess let me know your thoughts in the comments and we will see what happens. Thank you for spending time with me today. Hope you guys are having the best day. If not, we'll do something to make it the best day. Make somebody happy. And I will see you in my next video. Massive kiss on the forehead to every single one of you.