376. The Lindsay Clancy Trial Part 4

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: The Prosecutors – Episode 376: The Lindsay Clancy Trial Part 4

Date: August 4, 2026
Hosts: Brett & Alice
Podcast: The Prosecutors (PodcastOne)

---

Overview

This episode continues the in-depth coverage of the Lindsay Clancy trial, now into courtroom days four and five. Brett and Alice, both prosecutors, walk listeners through the latest witnesses, medical testimony, trial strategy, and the intense emotional landscape surrounding the case, with sharp commentary on strategy, gender, and the legal complexities of mental health defenses. The episode covers notable moments from the prosecution's case, patterns in witness testimony, and the ongoing battle between narratives of premeditated action and postpartum mental illness.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Public Focus and Gender Bias in Courtroom Attire (02:17–05:38)

• Brief Debate: Outrage over the prosecutor’s bow in her hair caused significant distraction online. Both hosts decry the gendered scrutiny—“In 2026, maybe we can move past this kind of stuff, but I guess not.” (03:26, Brett)
• Jury Reality: Despite frustration, Alice notes that juries do pay large, often unfair, attention to the appearance of female lawyers, which can affect courtroom perceptions.

2. Trial Progression: Prosecution’s Case Continues (05:38–10:06)

• Procedural Context:
  • Day four and five devoted to first responder and medical testimony.
  • Prosecution presenting lengthy, sometimes repetitive, but procedurally necessary witness lists to cement elements of homicide—such as confirming the children's deaths and chain of events.
• Practice Tip: Brett explains why every procedural step (e.g., confirming time of death) must be formally entered into evidence to avoid grounds for a directed verdict.

Quote (Brett, 10:01):

“...they have to prove all the different points. So why are they calling every doctor that called the time of death for the kids...? Because this is a murder case. They gotta prove they died.”

3. Medical Testimony: The Children’s and Lindsay’s Conditions (12:28–28:55)

Key Witnesses and Testimony:

• Emergency Physicians:
  • Dr. Mark Tenarowitz: Describes desperate but unsuccessful efforts to revive Dawson, the three-year-old.
  • Dr. Benjamin Kaufman and Dr. Michael Schneider: Details on the failed attempts to save Callan and Cora, the Clancy children, and the lingering hope when Callan is airlifted to Boston Children's.
• Emotional Toll: Alice underscores the heartbreak: “every second matters... maybe there’s a world where Callan could be alive today.” (18:11)

Lindsay’s Injuries and Medical Care:

• Multiple doctors describe Lindsay as sedated, with superficial lacerations, a spinal injury, hypothermia, and, later, a “code blue” and blood transfusion. There’s confusion around if her blood loss was caused by the attempt or by internal injuries.
• Defense Strategy: Uses each medical witness to highlight the severity of Lindsay’s suicide attempt—suggesting genuine despair versus staged motive.

Debate on Suicide Attempt’s Relevance (44:17–46:05):

“You don’t get to kill yourself and take everyone else with you. Don’t care if you were successful or not.” —Alice (45:31)

4. Psychiatric & Behavioral Testimony (50:09–57:08)

Hospital Psychiatric Assessment:

• Dr. Sejal Shah (Beth Israel): Finds Lindsay competent, not in a major depressive episode, and “future oriented” days after the event. She was not suicidal or homicidal at time of assessment, contrary to expectations.
• Changing Medical Proxy: Indicates Lindsay’s mental clarity post-event.
• Do Not Resuscitate (DNR): Unresolved testimony about whether Lindsay wanted/obtained a DNR order after her suicide attempt.

Forensic Psychiatrist Bombshell (71:09):

• Dr. Jalam Biswas: Two days after the murder-suicide attempt, Lindsay, unable to speak due to intubation, communicates only practical, legal, and self-focused questions by writing—“Do I have a lawyer?”, “Is my body broken?”, “Are my legs straight?”—without asking about her children.

  • Quote (Alice, 71:09):

  “That was pretty striking testimony because she doesn’t ask about her kids... she asks, how’s my body? Are my legs straight?”

• Analysis: Both hosts interpret this as highly damaging to the psychosis defense; Lindsay was not displaying behaviors typical of acute psychosis during the initial hospital stay post-event.

Diagnosis Complexity:

• Dr. Biswas: Outlines the spectrum and difficulty of diagnosing psychosis, but notes Lindsay was “linear, goal oriented, thoughtful, and not responding to internal stimuli” two days after the crime.
• Cross-examination: Defense tries to create doubt about the adequacy of the psychiatric assessment due to time spent, without tangible gain.

5. Journal Evidence and Emotional Landscape (83:07–84:17)

• Police Readings of Lindsay’s Journals:
  • Document her anxiety, guilt at stopping breastfeeding to take psych meds, marital tension, sleep trouble, and feelings of being overwhelmed.
  • Hosts’ View: These entries humanize Lindsay and may benefit the defense more than prosecution, painting her as a struggling, loving, but exhausted mother.

6. Debate Over Mental Illness as Criminal Defense (88:59–94:19)

Listener Emails:

• First Email: Describes personal devastation caused by Zoloft, supports the possibility that medications could have pushed Lindsay to a state where “she was no longer even a shell of herself.”

  • Quote (Listener, 88:59):

  “My heart just breaks for what was done to her... but I wholeheartedly believe... these meds fundamentally altered her brain so that she was no longer even a shell of herself, but another person entirely.”

• Second Email: A listener with lived experience in mental health disagrees, holding that responsibility must still be assigned; mental illness should not always excuse criminal actions.

  • Quote (Listener, 91:45):

  “Mental illness can help explain behavior, but it should not automatically absolve someone of responsibility for it... There are enormous systemic failures that deserve attention, but that is not what is on trial. Lindsay is on trial.”

• Host’s Reflection: The diversity of listeners’ experiences deepens the discourse and demonstrates why this case is so contentious and emotionally impactful.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Gender Disparity in Courtroom Focus (03:26, Brett):

  “I just don’t think that men in court get obsessed over, like, that... women have to, you know, agonize over what they’re gonna wear to court.”

• On the Nature of Psychosis Defense (56:45, Brett):

  “At some point, she has to produce some actual evidence that she was psychotic at the time that she killed her kids... attempts to explain away the seeming evidence that she wasn’t psychotic, that’s not the same thing.”

• On Lindsay’s First Hospital Questions (71:09, Alice):

  “That was pretty striking testimony because she doesn’t ask about her kids... she asks, how’s my body? Are my legs straight?”

• On the Danger of Expanding Mental Illness Excuses (91:45, Listener):

  “I believe Lindsay is guilty and should spend the rest of her life in prison. What concerns me most is the growing tendency to excuse criminal behavior because of mental illness.”

---

Important Timestamps

| Timestamp | Segment/Topic | |:--------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------| | 02:17–05:38 | Gendered scrutiny of lawyers’ appearance | | 05:38–10:13 | Prosecution’s case structure, witness rationale, procedural legal points| | 12:28–20:23 | Medical testimony on children’s care, resuscitation efforts | | 23:42–28:55 | Discussion of Lindsay’s wounds, suicide attempt, and medical evidence | | 44:17–46:05 | Editorial on relevance of suicide attempt in legal strategy | | 50:09–54:36 | Psychiatric evaluations post-event, Lindsay’s mental state | | 56:45–58:01 | Discussion of legal standards for insanity/psychosis defenses | | 71:09–77:08 | Forensic psychiatrist’s bombshell testimony (Lindsay’s written questions)| | 83:07–84:17 | Police testimony/journal reading | | 88:59–94:19 | Listener emails: two opposing views on mental health and criminal responsibility|

---

Flow and Tone

• Language/Tone: Candid, sometimes darkly humorous, but always empathetic and self-reflective.
• Dynamic: Brett and Alice balance attorney-level analysis with a strong sense of the trial’s human tragedy, eschewing sensationalism in favor of compassionate and rigorous discussion.

---

Conclusion

The episode offers a forensic dissection of days four and five of the Lindsay Clancy trial, blending procedural law details, strategy critiques, medical analysis, and real listener stories. The hosts illuminate how each new witness shapes the evolving narrative, highlighting the tension between legal standards for insanity/psychosis and the poignant, messy reality of postpartum mental health crises. Drawing on both expert testimony and diverse listener experience, Brett and Alice leave listeners with an understanding that, regardless of verdict, the Clancy case is a crucible for broader societal debates about gender, motherhood, mental illness, and justice.

---

“There are so many people out there who’ve experienced similar things and they come at this completely different. And I'll just tell you, we've had a lot of people who've written in who believe Lindsay Clancy is innocent because... But I was able to get treatment. I didn't. We've heard from those people. I've heard a lot of people just like this who say I had these problems. And based on what I experienced and what I'm seeing, I don't think this is a case where mental illness is an excuse.” —Brett (92:40)

---

Transcript

[Brett]

This podcast is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy. Just drop in some details about yourself and see if you're eligible to save money when you bundle your home and auto policies. The process only takes minutes and it could mean hundreds more in your pocket. Visit progressive.com after this episode to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states. The moment a body is found, the clock starts ticking. 48 hours before the trail goes cold. From A E and crime House. This is the official podcast from the famous true crime series the first 48.

[Alice]

I'm Carter Roy.

[Brett]

Every Thursday I revisit a landmark homicide investigation in depth with long form storytelling built for your ears. Listen to and follow the First 48 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music or wherever you listen to podcasts. I'm brett. And I'm alice and we are the prosecut. Today on the Prosecutors we continue our look at the Lindsay Clancy trial. Hello everybody and welcome to this episode of the Prosecutors. I'm Brett and I'm joined as always by my well dressed co host Alice.

[Alice]

On the day I'm in a literal like rag shirt. But that's not what you're talking about, Brett, because we are covering of course the Lindsey Clancy trial and it tears my heart apart every single day. I'm just being very honest, listening to the testimony day in and day out. And I listen to it in my earbuds because I have four small children who honestly, I don't want them to hear testimony about a mother killing their children so they can't hear it. And so I'm not seeing a lot of the coverage. And all of a sudden, Brett, I see the Internet just blow up about a little girl's bow in the prosecutor's hair. And I'm like, what is happening? Apparently everyone's obsessed that the prosecutor wore a bow in her hair and they don't like it. And then I went to go Google the image of it and it's like I thought it was like a barrette that Bretney wears in her hair because she did. She has this like really purple and pink pom pom like bow. And I was like, I mean that's a bit much for trial, but what do I know about Massachusetts? All to say is her hair looks fine. I don't care because there's so much to talk about in this trial and if we're fixating on a bow and A hair. We might perhaps be fixating on the wrong thing.

[Brett]

Look, you know, prosecutor wants to wear a simple black bow in her hair, I think people should get over it. And the fact of the matter is, as we've said before, I just don't think that men in court get obsessed over, like, that. I just, I feel like if the defense attorney who was a man was wearing a similar object, I don't think people would focus on as much. Maybe they comment on it, maybe they'd mention it, maybe. But, you know, I just think it remains that women have to, you know, agonize over what they're gonna wear to court. And the defense attorney rolls out of bed, throws on a suit, goes in and. And he's done and he's fine. I don't know, you just, you feel like in 2026, maybe we can move past this kind of stuff, but I guess not.

[Alice]

But with that said, I also did start off with a story about how the jury definitely notices. So Brett and I tried a lot of cases together, and this is actually just a reality. And I say this because I don't, like, look for it, but if you are a female lawyer, it's helpful to know jurors fixate on what female lawyers wear. If this is from my experience, I can hear like the commentary I hear in the hallway of what I'm wearing for the day. Not always complimentary. And I'm not like a fashionista. Quite the opposite. Girlfriend shops at like Ann Taylor, and I just get like all the sale navy and black suits. I yet, because you gotta be in court all day, I was really surprised by how much they know every single thing. They're like, it's a three button suit today. Ooh, there's a collar today. No hoes. Okay. I'm like, whoa, I'm feeling very judged.

[Brett]

And you'd be surprised how often, sometimes after trial's over, you can get comments from the jury. It's actually really helpful to hear, like, what a jury thought about an attorney's presentation. And the number of times that the comments are focused on what people wore and how people looked is shocking. So, hey, yeah, I mean, you may not like it, but maybe it's something you need to think about anyway when you're going into court, if you're a lawyer of any sort. So that's a little practice point, I guess. At the beginning of this episode, the last humorous thing we'll discuss truly go

[Alice]

into truly the last humorous thing we're going to discuss. So we have spanned a weekend But I think it's kind of fair to say, and you do this within a narrative. We're still on the prosecution's case. Of course, the prosecution has the burden and they are the ones to go first. So day four is very in line with what we saw. Day three. A lot of first responders, these are the first ones on the scene. And then the treatment of the children, which obviously we know it doesn't end well. All three children pass away. Whereas day five, which was today, Monday, starts focusing on the immediate aftermath of the doctors and first responders who treat Lindsay. And a lot comes out. We've all we said this, there's a lot that's going to come out during trial that we may not understand yet. May not even understand exactly why the charges are shaped the way they are. But I mean, with that, let's dive in because there were a lot of witness. I will say this despite having the second day of trial, which was Tuesday, so it's day zero, I guess, of trial. They took off and then they took a half day on Wednesday. They did get through a lot of witnesses the last couple of days. So let's go. So the first witness on day four of trial was a Duxbury police officer named Mark Anthony Maffeo. Now he wasn't working. You'll notice that this was such a big crime, such a big event, that many off duty first responders were called out of being off duty. So he was called to work on the 24th. Now he was sent to the South Shore Hospital to meet Lindsay Clancy who'd been brought there. He noted that when he saw her, she was sedated and unconscious with lacerations to her arms and neck. And he didn't get to talk to her, obviously. Cause she was non responsive at the time. But they used this witness to admit photos of Lindsay from the hospital, which shows the cuts to her neck and arms. If you don't like seeing cuts on your necks and arm, don't look this up because it is, it's bloody. It makes me queasy. Now he did not speak to Lindsay Clancy. And of course he's cross examined. Defense uses him to actually introduce other pictures of Lindsay at the hospital. They use him to admit these pictures that show kind of the emphasis on the blood at the scene, that this wasn't some superficial cut, that it really was a bloody scene. The picture of the knife on the nightstand that's next to a coffee that said because kids and a pill bottle basically to show like the whole picture of the scene, it's bloody. She loves her kids. Even her coffee mug says because kids. And there's pills involved, that she didn't want to do this.

[Brett]

Yeah. Some people thought it was a bad thing for the defense, that the picture had the coffee mug in it. I didn't think that at all. I thought that was very humanizing. I mean, and I'll say this. This comes up a lot in this case. Look, I don't know what it is, but we're just a very morbid society. So, like, we have a lot of sort of ironic and testy stuff on our products that we buy. So you get a coffee cup that says because kids. And the whole idea is your kids driving you crazy, keeping you up. You need coffee, you need caffeine. Later on. And they've talked about this earlier as well. There's a book, it says something like, good moms have scary thoughts or something like that. And obviously, in the context of what we're talking about, that seems ominous. But in reality, that's just. That's how we market things. So it doesn't really tell you anything, but it is something that people have noticed.

[Alice]

And one thing I'll say that, I mean, I think for probably the average juror, it will resonate better for the defense argument than the prosecution argument, because what they have to fight against if they don't know anything about Lindsey Clancy, is this someone who didn't want to be a mom. Was she like Casey Anthony who just wanted to go party all the time and left her kid at home so that she could go meet new guys? No, this is a mom whose whole life revolved around her kids. Right. That's what the defense wants to tell you, that as soon as she got married, what she wanted was kids. She was happy when she got pregnant each time because she wanted a big family. And so that is a different picture of a mom than the mom who didn't want the kids that she had even from the start. It wasn't because of any sort of mental illness. It was just, this is not the lifestyle they wanted. And that's not. Not who the defense wants to paint as Lindsay Clancy. And that cup, I think, weighs more towards that narrative.

[Brett]

And some people say, if it's a wine tumbler, same difference. I drink my coffee, my wine out of the same cup, usually at the same time. So, you know, who knows exactly what it was?

[Alice]

I give my kids milk in white tumblers because they don't break.

[Brett]

There you go. There you go. All right, so we're just gonna run through These witnesses. And look, a lot of officers, and let me just say this, as we go through this, some people have questioned, why are they calling all these people? Look, as we said last episode, there was a defense objection to some repetitiveness. And that's true, there is some of that, though you note the court overruled that objection. The prosecution has to tell the whole story and they have to prove all the different points. So why are they calling every doctor that called the time of death for the kids as we're going to get to. Because this is a murder case. They gotta prove they died. And I get it, we're all just like, well, of course they died. Well, let me just go and tell you, if you're an attorney and you're like, well, of course I'm not gonna need a call witness on that. Of course everybody knows that that's the way to get a directed verdict. And I've seen it happen before. Like a case where, you know, a Walmart gets robbed and somebody gets charged with a Hobbs act robbery. That's federal. Well, one of the elements of a Hobbs act robbery is it has to affect a store that's operating in interstate commerce. We all know that Walmart operates in interstate commerce. You know what you have to do? Ask one question of one witness. Walmart, interstate commerce. Yes, Good. Guess what happens if you don't ask that question. The defense moves to a directed verdict. You didn't prove one of the elements, even though everybody knows it, it wasn't proved in court. You lose. Literally seen that happen, that exact scenario in a trial. So just understand that with a lot of these witnesses, they have to call them for very specific reasons. Now, not all of them, some of them are just telling the general story. But that is one reason you're seeing so many of these witnesses called. Okay, Richard Lepard, he is another officer, he did overwatch on the life flight helicopter. So it turns out Lindsay, she goes to the initial hospital, they treat her for a little while. She gets life flighted to Brigham, which is Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, Famous Medical Center. Knew about it when I lived in Cambridge. And that's where she's going. She's unconscious at this point. This someone who just basically testifies to that. The defense is able to get out that there was a code blue in the middle of the night, which he generally knew about. He didn't know why. But this is one of the things that the defense wants to focus on to highlight the seriousness of her injuries.

[Alice]

Okay, next is Dr. Mark Tenarowitz he's the emergency room doctor on staff when Dawson came in. Dawson is the three year old boy Now. Dawson came in with no pulse and no breathing. And Dr. Tanarewicz said that he had ruptured blood vessels. And they tried adrenaline, they injected calcium. Basically they did every life saving effort, just like you heard first responders did, I think in the ambulance before they even got to the hospital. Now despite all of These efforts over 40 minutes, nothing worked. And so he's the doctor who declared Dawson dead at 7:28pm so then you

[Brett]

have Dr. Benjamin Kaufman, he's an emergency room doctor. He treated Callan. Now he could find no blood activity in Callan, but at some point they were able to essentially restart Callan's heart. They were able to get the blood flowing. So even though they don't see any brain activity, there's a possibility, albeit slim here. And so he is flown by helicopter to Boston Children's Hospital. And you're gonna hear, if you watch today, there's just some, I don't know, these doctors, they're so matter of fact and yet you can tell how much they care. And it's really devastating to hear how much they tried to save these kids and it just didn't work. But at this point, they're flying him to the hospital hoping that maybe something will work.

[Alice]

That was so sad. I mean, especially I think when you read that, you know, two passed away or were declared dead at the hospital and then one, you know, is air flighted away with some sort of activity. I can only imagine everyone, you know, family members are just praying and hoping Callan's gonna be okay. Because once we hear about all the testimony of everything they tried with Cora and Dawson, they were dead before they even made it to the hospital. And there was really no hope despite everything they did. Now the next witness was someone who came on literally to admit records. So Melissa Arquetopane worked in the lab and she was the supervisor of the processing of samples from patients. She was used as a witness to admit all the certified records and the testing, all the things that came back about what these doctors are testifying about during all of day four testimony. It appears that Lindsay Clancy is crying throughout all of this.

[Brett]

And this was a short day because as you may recall, this was the day they went on the site visit. So they spent a good period of time going to the house, going to the cvs, going to the restaurant, sort of drove around and did that, came back and did some relatively short witnesses. So Friday, not a lot happened. That's the reason we didn't do an episode, because we'd be ending it now if we did. So I always forget. I always forget how little happens. I'm like, let's do this. Let's cover this live. And then we start covering the case. It's like, man, nothing happened today. This is a. Not much happened today. I guess we'll just do something tomorrow. And it's just so true. I mean, trials, they are not like they are in television. They can be very monotonous. They can be very repetitive. They can be very slow. You see in that at times in this case, because there's a lot of witnesses. You just have to call, and you just have to get certain things in. Okay. Lindsay Clancy crying. It's so interesting to watch this case from the outside because there are people online who are convinced she's not crying. There's this whole conspiracy theory that she is faking the crying, that, you know, she uses her long hair to block her eyes, and she's just, like, shaking her shoulders and acting like she's crying. She's not actually crying. I don't know. She looks like she's crying to me, but hard to say.

[Alice]

I don't think there's some conspiracy theory. I think she's crying. Why she's crying, I think is up for grabs. It could be that, damn, this is bad testimony. I am a terrible human being. Or I didn't know any of this. Like, how could I do this? I am a monster. I mean, there could be so many different reasons she's crying. So the fact that she's crying doesn't bother me at all. I don't even think she's pretending. This is incredibly emotional testimony for anyone with a heart, a beating heart, which none of these kids had to react to. So I actually find it totally human that she's crying now. Why she's crying, I think is a mystery to me because I can't even begin to get inside her brain because I can't begin to understand the actions of this woman, both then and now.

[Brett]

Yeah, I just. I don't know. I don't feel like. I don't feel like a lot of this speculation is that helpful. I mean, once again, the question is, what does the evidence show? You can try and read into whatever you want about her behavior during trial. I just don't think it's that helpful. So that was Friday. Friday ended. We go into the weekend now we're back, it's Monday, and we have a whole, whole lot of Witnesses today, there's a lot. I'm not going to say they went late by any standard definition of late, but they went late for them. So we got a good number of witnesses in. We'll start with Dr. Michael Schneider. He is a Beth Israel physician. He treated Cora. He notes she had petechial hemorrhage, which is to be expected given that she was strangled and blood coming from the nose. She had an obvious brain injury and cyanosis, which means, you know, her hands were blue, her face was blue. They still tried to save her. They tried to intubate her. Her heart was completely stopped. They tried to get the heart going again. As many of you know, we think of defibrillators as these miracle devices that can start a stopped heart. That's not actually what happens. Your heart has to have some rhythm for a defibrillator to even have a chance to work. Her heart never even had that rhythm. So they never used a defibrillator on her. And she was pronounced dead at 7:28pm that day.

[Alice]

So next we had Dr. Andrew Capraro. I thought he was an excellent witness. Not all doctors are great witnesses because sometimes it can be hard to explain complex medical procedures to the layperson, which the jury is supposed to be, jury of your peers. But I thought he did an excellent job. So he was the one who treated Callan Clancy. And he said that they were able to get a return of spontaneous circulation, which is phenomenal. Right? Because obviously that never happened with Cora or Dawson. And of course, the fact that they were able to start something on him leads you to wonder that if Lindsay immediately started shouting out as soon as Patrick found her on the ground, go to the babies. Go to the babies. I killed them. Could Callan have been saved? Because remember, Patrick stays outside with her for minutes. He doesn't find the kids until after the police show up. This is all precious time that their brain and their hearts are deprived of life giving blood and oxygen. And the fact that they're able to restart spontaneous circulation in Kalan, even though we're gonna find out he's clearly brain dead, the fact they could even get something started, every second matters. And if those minutes in which she never mentioned that something was wrong with the kids and that he should go to them and not treat her, maybe there's a world where Callan could be alive today.

[Brett]

And I think this is a really interesting point. I think it's a good point to think about. And it's a point. I wonder if the prosecution's ever gonna make remember, she kills the kids, she goes through with a suicide attempt, it obviously doesn't work. He finds her.

[Alice]

And really quick note on that. I'm sure we'll get into this in the testimony, but I think it's very likely that the baby.

[Brett]

I think Cora was the first.

[Alice]

Sorry, Cora was the first one. I don't know if there's been testimony about this, but I would think it's very likely the baby is the last to be killed because the baby has the least ability to resist, whereas a five and a three year old can fight the mom. And so in terms of order, I would think an 8 month old is the last one you kill, meaning he has the most time for saving. Right. Like if he's found, even those two, three, five, 15 minutes before Coral was killed could be the difference between life and death for him, which is why I think he's the only one they're able to restart.

[Brett]

And look, I think it's important for everyone to remember Lindsay Clancy's exact claim here because if you follow this online, if you've watched it in television, you know, people keep describing her as if she was this incredibly sick woman and she obviously was psychotic. And how can the state and the commonwealth in this case even proceed here when it's so obvious how sick she was? I'm not saying she wasn't sick. Put that aside. But the psychosis, Lindsay Clancy, to my knowledge, and the defense, to my knowledge, has never claimed that she was in a long standing, long lasting state of psychosis. I think Lindsay's own words are that after he left, and this is what the defense wants you to believe, after he left, she went into some sort of moment of psychosis. And in that moment of psychosis, for the first time ever, she heard a voice. And that voice told her, essentially, I'm gonna get this, the exact words wrong, so forgive me on that, but essentially, like, this is your last chance. Kill the kids so you can kill yourself. And that that statement is what drove her to do what she did. So she goes down, she kills the kids, and then she attempts to kill herself. Now the suicide attempt has failed. And the question, I think at that point, when she's on the ground and she's able to communicate with Patrick, she's able to tell him, for instance, that the kids are in the basement. She's able to communicate with him. She does not share the critical piece of information that they are injured. Now, I don't know if she was still supposedly in psychosis at that point, but it's not what she claims, at least, is not her initial claim. I think it's at least worth asking if the fact that she didn't say anything to him at that point is indicative of something else going on here. Certainly she's already done what the voice told her to do. She's attempted the suicide. It didn't work. So at that point, why wouldn't she say, go to the kids, help the kids? I don't know. And we're gonna see an even more stark example of that later on with conversations with doctors. Well, after this happened, a couple days after it happened, where Lindsay is talking to psychiatrists, and the things she's saying to them don't seem to fit with her having been in some sort of psychosis that overwhelmed her ability to decide what to do, that caused her to do this horrific thing that she would never do otherwise, that she then comes out of this psychosis and reacts as someone who's no longer in psychosis would react. When they learn you killed your children, you're going to see that this is obviously very close in time. I think it's hard to put a whole lot of weight on it. But I still think it's interesting, and it is tragically important because given that they were able to restore circulation, if Patrick takes those bands off that baby's throat five minutes earlier, starts cpr, you gotta survive, right?

[Alice]

Even though they're able to get the spontaneous circulation started in Callan, Dr. Capraro notes that Callan's pupils are fixed and dilated. That's not good. You know, we'll hear from other doctors what that means about brain activity. Now, he said that there was obvious strangulation due to the linear nature of the bruising on Callan neck.

[Brett]

And I just want to mention this because I think it's important for other cases. So we used to do these trainings when I was prosecutor, and they were about staging versus suicide. And one of the things you look for in a strangling death when someone is murdered is linear bruises or linear wounds around the neck. So going in a straight line, because that's the way you typically strangle someone. You take a rope, you wrap it around their throat, you pull it tight, and you strangle them. That is not what we tend to see in suicides. It's not what we tend to see in hangings. If you see that, the wound actually goes up around the back of the chin to the ears. And this is something people look for, and doctors are trained to look for, but not all doctors know this. It's one of the reasons we did the trainings, because we wanted doctors to know when you get someone in, look for this. So it struck me when he said this. I was like, this doctor really knows what he's talking about. He understands the difference between an accidental or a suicidal strangling and a homicidal strangling. And that's one of the things you look for, is that linear bruising. All right, so Dr. David Cassavant. I like this guy a lot. He was great. I mean, there was just something about this guy that it was like him and Capraro, they just. I was soothed by them when they were on the stand. I can only imagine if you're one of their patients. Just amazing bedside manner these two guys must have. He's an ICU physician at Boston's Children's Hospital. Most soothing doctor voice you've ever heard. If you haven't listened to him, just go listen to him for a few seconds. Just. I don't know. Makes you feel good. Even when he's talking about something terrible, it just makes you feel good. Makes you feel like the guy really cares. And I think. I think he really does. So he took over the care of Callan on January 26. He said there was an enormous amount of swelling of the brain, and he made an excellent explanation about why the eyes are so important. He said the eyes are a direct extension of the brain, and when the eyes don't respond to light, that's a very bad sign. It often shows that you have brain death. So Callan's heart was beating, but his brain was dead. And the doctors, they tested Callan, they did it multiple times. They had one test that was like 0.3 away from being brain dead, and they decided to keep going just in case that 0.3 indicated maybe there was a chance. The next time they tested, it was very obvious that he was gone. And so they removed his life support on January 27th.

[Alice]

Next was Dr. Kelly McDonough. This was the emergency room doctor at South Shore Hospital, and she was the one who treated Lindsay Clancy. Now, they knew that they were dealing with some sort of trauma situation with someone who had fallen out of a window. And at the time, when they're dealing with this patient who's rushed in, all they knew is that Lindsay had a spinal injury that seemed to be affecting her lower extremities. Now, the doctor noted superficial cuts to Lindsay's wrist and neck. And note that by superficial, we're not actually making a judgment on whether she meant to cut herself or not. Superficial is a medical term. It actually means the depth of the cut that only penetrates the epidermis or the top of the dermis, and it doesn't reach the muscle, the tendons, ligaments, nerves, or major blood vessels when you start having, like, surgical needs. Now, even though that's a medical term, because we know that the prosecution also wants to note that maybe these cuts were not meant to end her own life. It would have been helpful if the prosecution had the doctor define what superficial meant, but that doesn't happen here. So just note that when the doctor says superficial, it's actually noting that it's on the dermis, not cutting to anything underneath your skin level. The main concerns while treating Lindsay at this time were head injuries and spinal cord injuries. They did CT scans and they collected her blood and urine samples. They noted that she had a thoraxic spine injury and that her body temperature was very low at 82.1 degrees. And they treated Lindsay for hypothermia. And of course, this is going to come in later because so far, the defense has already brought in the fact that maybe the hypothermia slowed down the bleeding.

[Brett]

It's a really low blood temperature. I was wondering if she misspoke.

[Alice]

I know. I thought you died.

[Brett]

I thought I maybe won. I mean, that's like, really maybe it's like.

[Alice]

Because I think even when you get to 90, even when you get to 90, I don't think you can get to 92. I think now you can. I mean, I guess she would get there that fast.

[Brett]

Your body temperature can go down for reasons other than being in the cold.

[Alice]

Oh, but because blood loss or what. 82 does sound low, actually.

[Brett]

And, you know, here's one thing, just in general, about the medical testimony. We had a ton of it, and a lot of it was not illuminating at all. So at one point, as we're gonna see, she's gonna have a blood transfusion.

[Alice]

For what it's worth, AI tells me a person can survive and be alive at a core body temperature of 82 degrees, but it is severe and life threatening. So, yeah, it is possible.

[Brett]

This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Guys, it seems like every season has its stresses, and certainly when summer comes to an end, the stress piles on. The holidays are coming, kids are going back to school. Your schedule is so full, sometimes you can feel overwhelmed, and sometimes you just want someone to talk to. That's where BetterHelp comes in. Now, you've heard us talk about BetterHelp for a long time, but I don't know that we've ever actually talked about how much people love the service when they use it. You can check it out [e-mail] reviews to see amazing customer reviews in real time more than 6 million people have used BetterHelp globally. The consistent feedback from real users makes it easy to see why so many people continue to choose BetterHelp and therapists at BetterHelp have at least three years and a thousand hours of hands on experience. BetterHelp makes it easy to get started. All you have to do is answer a few questions, get matched with a therapist based on your needs, and switch therapists at any time. If the fit's not right, see the

[Alice]

reviews, see what stands out, and see if BetterHelp is right for you. Visit betterhelp.com prosecutors that's betterhelp.com prosecutors running a business means you're always reachable. Until you're not. And the moment you miss that call, that text, that follow up, a competitor is the one that picks it up. That's why today's episode is brought to you by Quo, spelled Q U O the business phone system built so you never miss an opportunity I work at a law firm. I know there are way too many calls coming in for me to be able to pick up every single one of them. But a missed call is a missed opportunity. Now with Quo, all your calls, texts and voicemails live in one place, so anyone on your team can pick up a conversation to see the full history and respond fast. Quo is the number one rated business phone system on G2, trusted by over 90,000 businesses who rely on it to stay reachable and look professional Every day,

[Brett]

set up in minutes on any device, keep your existing number and add teammates as you grow. No it no hassle. Quo integrates with the tools your team already uses, like HubSpot, Zapier, Claude, and more, helping you save time, stay organized, and spend less time chasing information between between systems. Money is on the line. Always say hello with Quo. Try quo for free plus get 20% off your first six months when you go to quo.com prosecutors that's quo.com prosecutors

[Alice]

I know we're all busy in the morning. I'm trying to get four kids out the door on time before the tardy bell while trying to look presentable for the rest of my day as a lawyer and here to talk to all of you. But I just don't have time in the morning to make myself look presentable. And so I tried all these different products. And now I can stop because I have found Jones Road Beauty. It is absolutely enhanced my skin because instead of masking it with layers of makeup and clogging up my pores, it gives me an effortless natural look. Exactly what I'm looking for and it takes just minutes to apply. The thing I love the most and is that I can use their miracle balm. And it's just that I can use it as a highlighter, a bronzer, a blush, a lip tint. It's the ultimate no fuss multitasker. It makes getting ready in the morning so easy. Seriously guys, I'm talking an effortless, glowy look in under 60 seconds. And in the summer, if I don't want to do my full routine, I can just reach for the miracle balm and still get that put together look way faster. Now for me, this means that it's perfect for travel, which I do a lot of. It's perfect for the busy morning drop offs and it's even fresh after a workout class. The best part of Jones Road beauty, all their products are actually good for your skin. Every formula is packed with skin loving ingredients and it nourishes my skin instead of clogging it.

[Brett]

And guys, if the miracle balm is just not quite enough for you, you want a little bit more coverage. Well, Jones Road just launched their foundation stick that fits perfectly into that. It's a foundation stick that even foundation stick skeptics will love. It's available in 30 shades to match a wide range of skin tones. Modern day makeup that's clean, strategic and multifunctional for effortless routines. For a limited time, our listeners are getting a free full sized mascara on their first purchase. When they use Code Prosecutors at checkout. Just head to Jonesroadbeauty.com and use code Prosecutors at checkout. After you purchase, they will ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you.

[Alice]

As a small business owner, sometimes it feels like no matter how much planning you do, there's always surprises like an urgent, expensive repair. But here's a surprise you will like with progressive. Small business owners save 30, 13% on their commercial auto insurance when they pay in full. So enjoy a surprise for once. Get a quote in as little as 8 [e-mail] progressive casualty insurance company and affiliates. Discounts not available in all states or situations.

[Brett]

At some point they're going to talk about her having a blood transfusion. They put in a chest tube. A whole lot of blood came out of the Chest tube. Does that mean she had internal bleeding? Was that from the fall? Because no one ever clarifies if we think that it was their blood loss. Because she cut her throat and cut her wrist, even though they were superficial, versus some other sort of bleed. I don't know. There was just questions that were never answered, which I thought was weird. Like, we're talking all these doctors, and there's just stuff that's never answered, which I think goes to. We joked about some of the criticism, the prosecution at the beginning, which I think is totally misdirected. The lady can wear a bow in her hair if she wants to. Right? But. But I do think you can legitimately criticize the prosecution's case and maybe the way they present some of it. And they just. So many questions that they don't ask. And I don't understand, like, the superficial thing. They never explain what that means, and it allows the defense attorney to keep beating up these witnesses with. You call this superficial? You'd call this superficial. And they're like, well, yeah, because they never explain what it's. It's not like you made a judgment. It looks superficial to me. I'm biased. I think it's superficial. It's not that there's actually a medical definition of what it means to have superficial wounds, and they never explained that. Alice explained to you what superficial means? Far better than we've heard in this trial, despite the fact they've continuously used the term. And I don't understand that. Just define it so people know what it means, but they don't do that. So this witness, she was very cold at the beginning, even to the prosecution, and she has been a huge focus of today's testimony because even though she's really not that important, I mean, she's literally just the emergency room doctor who happened to be there when Lindsey comes in. The defense got really irritated at her at the very beginning of cross examination. They asked her some questions about whether or not Lindsay Clancy was unconscious, whether or not she was responsible, dependent, was she nonverbal? Questions like that. And in some way, the doctor says, yeah, I don't recall. I'd have to review my notes. And the defense, like, loses it at this point. It's like, this is a murder trial. Are you saying you didn't review your notes? And she's like, well, I reviewed them, but I don't have a photographic memory,

[Alice]

and I see 200 patients a month or something. Something like that. And it was three years ago.

[Brett]

So from that point on, she was, like, done with the defense attorney. So she completely shuts off. I mean, at this point, he's asking questions like, I don't remember, I don't remember. And he never gives her her notes to review. And I can only imagine that this is just like a play. I don't know if he knows some bad testimonies coming later. And so he's trying to sort of focus the jury on something irrelevant because he really goes after her in a way that doesn't make a lot of sense. She's not an important witness. She's not critical for the prosecution. She doesn't really give much information that's highly relevant. Any of the questions he does ask, all he has to do is show her her records, and that's the way it works. And let me just go and tell you guys, it does not matter how much your witness prepares. They forget stuff all the time. I'll never forget, I had a trial and I had a witness, was cop, and I only needed him to say one thing for me, and that was a name. That was it. I just needed him to remember the name. And so in prep, I'm like, okay, what was the name again? He's like, nicole, you got it. That's it. What was the name again? Nicole, you got it. Great. Remember, this is all that matters. Just remember the name. This is the whole point of you being up there. He gets up on stand, we go through the sort of preliminary stuff. I ask him, and wouldn't you know it, he can't remember the name. So then I have to do the whole, like, if I showed you your thing, would it refresh your memory? Yes. I show it to him. He looks his thing and then he says, Nicole. But it loses so much effectiveness when you have to go through all that stuff, but they just forget stuff. It's crazy. And I'm sure this lady did look at her records, but didn't matter because when she got up there, she forgot stuff. And then the defense attorney was mean to her and she was done with him. And because I think the testimony wasn't that important, he just rolled with it. He didn't show her any of the stuff because he was like, I'm just going to keep this going. And she doesn't remember anything. And maybe it'll make people question the prosecution or think their witnesses are incompetent or something. So he goes with that. But he also uses it as an opportunity to highlight some of her injuries. He talks about her spinal cord injury, talks about how she had a complete transection at T5, talk about the lacerations, Talk about her cardiac arrest at the hospital. This doctor didn't know anything about that because it didn't happen at her hospital. But that gives him the opportunity to note that it happened to in Boston. Asks about the blood transfusion in Boston, which, once again, she doesn't know anything about. But it doesn't matter because the whole point, this is just the defense attorney getting this information out as many times as possible. Then on redirect, prosecution walks up, hands her her notes. The first thing they do, they're like, here are the records. You want to look at the records? She says, yes, and then they ask her question. She looks her notes, she quote, unquote, remembers, and we're done. It was sort of a nothing burger of a witness, but it became a moment in the trial because of how the defense attorney responded.

[Alice]

I thought she came off just fine because she's clearly. She was very, like, coherent and very. I thought she kept her cool. I probably would have been a little more hot headed, but like you said, it was kind of a sideshow. That wasn't important evidentiarily. So next was Rose Stouffers, who was a trooper who worked with the laboratory. And Stouffers went to Lindsay Clancy, who was covered with warming blankets at that point. Her job, of course, was to come and get various samples to take to the lab. But Lindsay fought back against her so much to the point that the nurses actually had to help Stouffers get the samples to take to the lab. That's interesting. Yeah. I mean, who knows what her state of mind was, but she was strong enough to fight them to the point where the nurses did have to help them get samples.

[Brett]

The best part, I don't remember if this witness or another one, but the. It's called, like a bear hug. The stuff they put on you to warm you up. When the defense attorney kept calling it a bear claw. I don't know. I thought that was funny, but maybe nobody else did.

[Alice]

Now that you say it, I do remember hearing bear claw. And I was like, what's a bear claw? Maybe just a term I don't get. So next was Rochelle Amity, who was a nurse at the Brigham and Women's Hospital. She was the trauma surgical ICU nurse, and she was on scene when Lindsay's blood pressure fell and she coded. So she was there for this coding event. Now they started cpr and they were able to get Lindsay Clancy stabilized. At this point, they followed protocol, which included chest tubes and a blood transfusion. After Lindsay came out of the sedation. Rochelle notes that she was flat, without emotion, but cooperative. And Lindsay told them that sleep was an ongoing issue. Now they gave her a medication to help her sleep. On February 2, Lindsay asked to speak to a lawyer. Note in the chart, as it was the first time she referred to anything going on in the case.

[Brett]

That's what Rochelle said.

[Alice]

At least that was the first time.

[Brett]

That wasn't the first time. And this is. We talk sometimes about how you have the rule of sequestration. You keep the witnesses out. And this is one of the reasons, because this is the first time she had heard her ask that, but it's actually not the first time she asked about it. But by keeping the witnesses separated, you get sort of their independent recollections of what happened. This was another point where it just felt like, I don't understand whether we did not learn. Like, I don't know why she coded. Nobody ever really told us why she coded. Was it because of blood loss? Was it a reaction to spinal injury? Do we just not know know? Like I said, when they put the chest tubes in and the blood comes out, is that a sign of internal bleeding? She says the blood transfusion was standard protocol. They call it a massive blood transfusion with the defense. Uses a lot. Unclear to me what that means. Whether she had to have the blood transfusion, why she had the blood transfusion, if she would have had the blood transfusion, if she didn't have all the blood coming out of the chest tubes, I don't know. There were. Just to have talked to so many doctors, there are just these massive gaps in sort of what we're discussing. And I'll say this, the prosecution's theory of this case is so all over the place. And we talked about this for. And I'm sorry to repeat it, but it just keeps coming up. And one thing they talked about a lot, and one thing they're focusing on a lot, and one thing the defense is focusing on a lot is the severity of her injuries. Are they indicative of a suicide? Is it a fake suicide? And I gotta think the defense loves having this fight because it enables the defense to fight over something that honestly doesn't really matter. If she's suicidal and if she attempted suicide, that's a check in their favor. It's indicative of mental illness. It could be something that shows she was psychotic. But frankly, depression and suicide are not defenses to murder. You know, just because you're driven to take your own life, if that fails, you can't go into Court and say, well, look, I was really depressed to the point that I want to take my life, so I took these other people's lives as well. That is not, I think, in most jurisdictions, including Massachusetts, not going to be sufficient to show that you're not responsible for the crime. So I don't really understand why the prosecution has spent so much time on it now. I understand their point. You know, their point is the things she had direct control over, the lacerations are superficial, they're not life threatening. She never would have died from those. The jumping from the window. Their argument is, if you look at the evidence, she didn't jump. She didn't throw herself out of the window head first. She climbed out of the window, she lowered herself down and hung from her hands. So she's as low as she could be and then dropped. And so to the extent she did that, you could argue that she would not have expected to have suffered any serious injuries. She would not have expected to break her back. She would not have expected to die. But this is part of faking the suicide. She knows that Patrick's on his way back. She knows that the winged. Her arms are not going to be fatal. She knows that by the time the pills that she takes would have taken effect, he's going to have found her and called the paramedics. And if she drops, she doesn't expect she'll suffer any serious damage. So she gets to have a suicide attempt that's not a real suicide attempt. And this is part of her plan. If you think she's some sort of psychopath who just wanted to murder her children and just so happens when she dropped, she fell the wrong way and she ends up breaking her back. And all of the things that happened after that are a result of that. So the code blue is a result of that, needing the blood transfusion as a result of that. Not necessarily her conscious decision to wound herself to that extent. Extent. But an accident that occurred because something went wrong for her. I get that. That's the prosecution's argument. I can make the argument. I, number one, don't find it very convincing. And number two, don't really feel like it's valuable to be fighting this battle on that ground. Even if it's true, I don't think it's that helpful to the prosecution's case to be fighting about it.

[Alice]

Like, give her the jury. You're allowed to kill yourself. You're not allowed to take everyone else with you. Exactly. We're just not allowed to do that, like. And that's what she did. So I don't give her the suicide attempt. You know, make it the worst one all make the point that she's super good at killing. She killed all those three kids. Couldn't even get cardiac activity started again on these kids. It was impossible. Sucked at killing herself. Draw from that what you will. But you know what? You don't get to kill yourself and take anyone with you. Don't care if you were successful or not. That's what you say. I mean, that's. That's the tact, I would say, because, like, you don't need these sideshows.

[Brett]

If you're going to talk about it, I think that's your best approach. My approach would just be to say she absolutely was depressed. She absolutely was suicidal. We know that. Look at what she did. But, ladies and gentlemen, you don't get to take your children with you just because you're suicidal. She has to have been psychotic. She has to have been unable to conform her actions to the law. We know that she wasn't that because of X, Y and Z. Look at the planning. Look at her reaction afterwards. Look at all these things, right? That's the way I would do it. But I just feel like by fighting about this, you're gonna have the jury in the jury room fighting over whether or not she tried to kill herself. And you might have a juror who says, well, I think she did, so I guess she's not guilty. And I don't think that's a very good place to be. I feel like if you have a juror who believes she did not try to kill herself, you had that person. You were never gonna lose that person, you know, So I don't know why they focus on it so much. All right, Sorry. Little rant there. All right. So the defense continuing down this path gets into the blood loss, the anemia, the need for the transfusion. As I said, I don't know why she needed so much blood. They discussed the blood coming out of her chest tube. So maybe that was what caused it. I don't know. And no one cleared it up. The defense goes through all the notes with the nurse who didn't take them and wasn't really sure what they mean to highlight her injuries. And here's one thing I thought was interesting. He goes through all this with the nurse and references the notes to the nurse who doesn't know what any of them mean. He did not do that with the doctor. Like, if he wanted answers to these questions, all he had to do was go through the notes with the doctor, but he refused to do that. So I think this was just all a game. I think this was just all ploy witnesses who weren't that important. And he kind of used them to make it seem like prosecution doesn't know what they're doing. He notes that one of the records says she was suffering from postpartum psychosis. This draws an objection. They have a sidebar, they have some follow up. He comes back out, he does some follow up, and he is able to bring out that there were discussions of postpartum psychosis, which is not surprising. And you see what he's doing here. He's trying to conflate someone, noting the possibility of her having postpartum psychosis for obvious reasons in the post admission sort of review with a diagnosis of postpartum psychosis, which has never happened. So it certainly didn't happen beforehand. But he's doing that to put in the jury's mind, oh, she was diagnosed with postpartum psychosis. That didn't actually happen. So. And on redirect, the prosecution notes that the transfusion happened after the chest tube, indicating that it might have been the result of the blood that came in the chest tube, but never clearing that up.

[Alice]

So next is Megan Collins, who's the trauma surgical ICU nurse that took over for nurse Rochelle. And they were told that Lindsay Clancy had coded on night shift. And they talked about the treatment for the cuts. It required dressing changes, but the spinal issues was really what they were more concerned about because they were more significant. At some point, she was changing her medical proxy. Xi Bing. Lindsay was changing her medical proxy from her husband. Husband to her parents. And that required a psych evaluation. On cross examination, the defense noted that Lindsay had a do not resuscitate, meaning that if she coded, I guess she didn't want to be resuscitated.

[Brett]

Can I just say, this was confusing to me. And it was also never cleared up because later on, there's going to be testimony that she wanted a do not resuscitate. And the doctors talked to her about it, and eventually she decided not to. So it was unclear to me, did she have one or not? And once again, little things that I feel like the prosecution should be clearing up that they're not because the. Oh, she. She had the do not resuscitate. Why? Oh, because, you know, she felt so horrible about the things that happened to her kids and she didn't even want to live. That's the story the defense wants to tell, but it's not clear that the evidence backs that up. And this DNR question was another place where it was unclear to me, and the prosecution never bothered to clarify it. And so I'm sure it's not clear to the jury either.

[Alice]

So next is Dr. Sejal Shah. This is a Brigham and Women's Hospital psychiatrist who treated Lindsay on January 29, 2023, for the first time. So Dr. Shah does a risk assessment and recommends medications. There's also this healthcare proxy change that's happening. I think that's why Dr. Shaw was actually brought in, to be able to do this proxy change from Patrick to her parents. Now, Dr. Shaw found that Lindsay was competent to make that proxy change and that her delirium had cleared, which had included hallucinations. And Dr. Shah concluded that it was probably caused either by her anesthesia or oxygen deprivation. Now, the delirium diagnosis was based on her symptoms on January 29th. 9th. By the next day, it had cleared. So obviously, she came to the hospital on January 24, the day in question. Dr. Shaw doesn't evaluate Lindsay until five days later, and the delirium goes away pretty quickly.

[Brett]

Yeah, and I think, you know, I think some people perked up when they heard the delirium, but seems pretty clear it was a result of various things that were going on with her. The anesthesia, lack of oxygen, maybe. So not delirium related to psychosis, but delirium related to her treatment in the hospital. She did an evaluation. Dr. Shaw did, and Lindsay Clancy denied any homicidal or suicidal intent or any confusion. Shaw described her as in an okay mood and future oriented. In a later report, Shah reported that Lindsay said that she did not think of what she'd done to the children constantly throughout the day. And then she had no obvious mental problems. She had a low mood related to her physical and legal situation, but she was not in a major depressive episode. She was hopeful to move on to another hospital at Spalding Rehab, where she would be rehabbed for her injuries. February 22nd was her last visit. She described Lindsay as hopeful, future oriented, not suicidal, not homicidal, and denying any hallucinations. And it was with Dr. Shaw that she ultimately decided not to change, to have a do not resuscitate on her records. And I thought we talked about the prosecution. Weird start with Patrick. Took him a while to get their feet. This was the first witness where it started to be like, this is different than what I expected. I did not expect the doctors that treated Lindsay after to describe her the way they did, because the way she's been described in the press is incredibly suicidal afterwards. That that never left, that she was devastated by what happened. There was constant suicide watch. She's trying. She's on suicide watch right now. They're worried about transporting her, that she might try and kill herself in the transport. Like this is what you're hearing in the press. And I just assumed that was all going to be true. And then you start hearing these doctors, and this is just the first one who don't describe her as being that way in the hospital after she's had this psychotic event that led to her killing her children. And then her reaction afterwards to that.

[Alice]

Because you can see, I could almost see how if the testimony was she was in fact suicidal and she was not future oriented and her life was over because her kids were dead, that could be conflated with how she was beforehand. I thought that's what the testimony is going to be, that we couldn't tell anything about the after. It wouldn't really illuminate us to her state of mind because like, anyone would probably be in mental crisis if all of their children died in one night. Right. But instead, this is a pretty surprising evaluation. And now, no, the reason this evaluation is taking place is because Lindsay has to be in a sound state of mind to be able to change her health proxy. Does that affect how she's doing? We've talked before about the ability to mask or to, you know, masks just means masking your real symptoms, I guess, to get a different diagnosis or the diagnosis you want. But this would be really interesting because she's aware, and we'll know from other testimony, she's aware of her legal problems. In fact, right here she says, I'm a little sad because of my legal problems, not that her kids are dead. And so she's aware of the legal problems. And you can't have your cake and eat it, too. So this evaluation is shining a very interesting light that I was not expecting to see about Lindsay at this stage. You know, a few days after the attempt.

[Brett]

And just note, she decides not to change her do not resuscitate. But at this point, the doctors have determined that she is loosed enough to make that decision. She can decide whether she wants to do it or not. She just decides not to. And here's the thing about this case. I think we're all trying to keep a very open mind with Lindsay. And I think there are a lot of people who are very sympathetic with her, not in small part because of what a lot of people have gone through Themselves with this kind of mental illness. At some point, though, it can't just be, well, maybe she's this or maybe she's that. It can't just be. Well, it could be. This is the case. At some point, she has to produce some actual evidence that she was psychotic at the time that she killed her kids. And so far, all I hear is attempts to explain away the seeming evidence that she wasn't psychotic. And that's not the same thing.

[Alice]

And, well, there's more testimony that will go to this. But what today's testimony left me with was, again, I didn't know any of this before. We all watched this testimony together today, right? Was. Okay, so so far, the best the defense can do is that she was psychotic in the moment that Patrick left to go to the cvs, heard the voices, killed the kids, still psychotic as she, I guess, took a break from the psychosis to call him back. You know, when he called her and she missed the call, jumped out the window and then was in, like, physical. There was a lot happening. Right. She coded there, she needed blood transfusion. All these things that you would honestly expect, maybe even physically because of the spinal injury. Then when she woke up, the psychosis, like, immediately went away. Now, I'm not a doctor. Hopefully we'll hear more about this, but that seems. So far, the testimony goes, go. That's kind of what it seems like. If she was psychotic on January 24, man, as soon as that anesthesia wore off and she got that blood transfusion, new woman not even thinking about the death of her kids, we're good. And that's gonna be an interesting, I guess, line of medical reasoning we're gonna have to develop and understand, like, is that possible or is it indicative of what she was on January 24th?

[Brett]

And I just want to note, once again, legal standard, it's not that heavy a burden on her, but she has to show that she has some sort of mental disease or defect. That would excuse this. She doesn't have to show it beyond a reasonable doubt, but she's got to show a prima facie case of it. She's got to show some evidence of it. So at some point, she has to show some evidence of psychosis. And I don't think I killed my kids is evidence of psychosis. I just. I don't think that can be the case. I don't think we really want that to be the case in the world that you killed someone. So therefore, obviously, you have a mental disease or defect, because we're going to get in all sorts of trouble with that. I don't think the fact that she was depressed is necessarily evidence that she had a psychosis. I don't think the fact that she might have been in postpartum depression is evidence that she had postpartum psychosis, because that's what she has to get to. And so far, what I hear from people is it's like, well, she planned this. She sent Patrick away, and she checked to see how far the restaurant was away away. And that seems like evidence to me that she's in her right mind. And people say, well, you know, I mean, you never know. People in psychosis complain, okay, well, she seemed pretty lucid when he called her on the phone. Well, you know, people in psychosis can appear lucid. I mean, okay, well, she seemed lucid when she woke up and she asked for a lawyer. Well, you know, people in psychosis can do that, and psychosis go away. Okay, fine. Psychosis appears to be a very difficult to diagnose thing. But it cannot just be the case that we explain away all of the things that are happening in this case and all of the evidence that we're seeing by saying, well, psychosis, you never know. Like, at some point, there needs to be something concrete we can point to. And so far, the only concrete things we can point to are evidence that she was in psychosis. So I would like to see evidence that she was in psychosis when this happened. And that is not what we're seeing. The defense obviously has their case. They're going to put on some experts, and those experts may show that we're in the prosecution case. And we always warn people, like, don't form your opinion when the prosecution's hammering away at something because we may see something else later on, but five days into it, there hadn't been a whole lot. And what we have seen seems to cut the other way. Now, the cross is interesting because the defense attorney tries to push back on this, and he says, didn't you find her to be honest? Doctor says, yes. Notes that the fact that she told the truth about all this stuff suggests she wasn't exaggerating for legal reasons. Now, this goes both ways because, number one, it's the defense acknowledging, yeah, stuff she said wasn't great for us. But you would think if she was trying to cover it up or she's trying to build a defense or she's trying to make a defense that she'd lie. She would say, like, oh, I've just been weeping over my children, and, oh, you know, I been hearing voices. And she never does that. And I think that's a good point by the defense. She never seems, other than saying later on, not at the time, but later on, that she heard the voice. She never claims that she heard voices after that. She doesn't claim that she was hearing voices before that she was having intrusive thoughts, then she heard the voice, then she did the thing. And this is a good point by the defense. And the defense also sort of attempts to round out what I was just talking about, which is how psychosis is difficult to identify. And he notes that it's not just people who are, like, drooling and obviously insane than people who have psychosis connect. Plans can act on plans. They can appear normal to their friends and family. You know, all these things in which she agrees. He then goes through bipolar disorder and all the things that were happening to her, her, that seemed like bipolar. So decreased need for sleep, out of control thoughts, unusual energy. Remember, we heard all this, like she had this weird energy that she was working through. And then came the crash, which seems pretty consistent with bipolar. And bipolar can lead to psychosis. And this is the hypomania that the defense has talked about several times. He also talks about SSRIs now. It kind of steps in it just a little bit here because he says SSRI should not be prescribed for bipolar. And the doctor's like, that's actually not true. You just have to prescribe them with a protective drug. So you can prescribe SSRIs for bipolar, but you prescribe them with another drug that takes care of the negative side effects. Now, I have no idea if that happened in Lindsay Clancy's case. I assume we'll have expert testimony on that at some point, but we're going to see. And they go through once again, again, the 13 drugs she was taking. This is a very good cross by the defense because he essentially gets to lay out his case, kind of like he did with Patrick, but once again, with a doctor. Themes that he's going to come back to in his own Case in Chief. And look, some of y' all don't like the defense attorney. You think he's disheveled and disorganized and he can be testy. But he is very good at these cross examinations in getting his case out. And he does that again here. You're listening to this podcast. I know you've got a curious mind. Here's a helpful fact you might not know yet. Drivers who switch and save with Progressive save over $900 on average, they make it super simple. Pop over to progressive.com, answer some questions and you'll get a quick quote with coverage options tailored to your choices. Plus, you'll see which discounts you may qualify for, like the online quote discount or savings for paying in full. In fact, 99% of Progressive Auto customers earn at least one discount.

[Alice]

See if you could save when you switch to Progressive, you'll feel good about making a savvy choice. Visit progressive.com and see if you can enjoy a little extra cash back. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings of $946 by new customer surveyed who saved with Progressive between June 2024 and May 2025. Potential savings will vary.

[Brett]

Guys, we are back with one of our favorite sponsors and frankly, one of your favorites Lola Blankets. I can't tell you how many of you have reached out to tell us that you love your Lola blankets and Lola came through for me recently. It was Sunday afternoon. I'd eaten lunch, I was tired, everybody else wanted to take a nap. I go into my room and my blessed wife, she was washing the sheets. There's no sheets on the bed. Nothing. How am I going to take a nap? Well, you know what was sitting next to the bed? My Lola blanket. And that's all I needed. So I grabbed my Lola blanket, wrapped up in it, laid down on the bed, went to sleep. It was amazing. And that's why Lola is the perfect gift for everyone in your life. Including you. They are amazing. You're going to love them. They're the world's number one blanket for a reason. Crafted with ultra soft luxury faux fur and a signature four way stretch that people instantly obsess over the second they touch it. It's machine washable, double hemmed and built to last for years, making it a truly meaningful long term gift.

[Alice]

It is easily the most fought over item in my entire house. With my four kids, my husband and myself and honestly, every guest who comes in, we love it. You'll find the Lola blanket travel from our couch to each child's bedroom because they're all fighting over it. And here's the thing, it lives up to everything they say about it. I have washed it multiple times with so many kids and it still looks and feels brand new. And Lola isn't just a blanket, it's a home upgrade gift because it instantly elevates any space making it feel warm and cozy and styled. It's one of those. You have to feel those items so you need to get it and Feel it for yourself. We're not the only one saying this. Lola has over 20,000 five star reviews. Thousands of people gifting it, loving it, and talking about it. There's a reason it's called the world's number one blanket. It's the gift people don't stop raving about. For a limited time, our listeners can get 40% off select Lola blanket products with code prosecutors at checkout. Just head to lolablankets.com and use code prosecutors. After you purchase, they'll ask where you heard about them. Please support our show and let them know we sent you. Wrap yourself in luxury with Lola blankets. Guys, we are in the throes of summer. For me, that means I am constantly outside. It's hot where I live, so I'm in shorts. I'm in a bathing suit. I am constantly by the lake, at the beach, or just sitting by the pool. And you know what that I'm always really self conscious about because I'm outside all the time. Shaving. Shaving nonstop. And that always puts a damper on summer prep because most women's razors just aren't actually made for women's bodies. You get these cheap, dull blades that tug at your skin rather than gliding over it. And this just leaves you with redness, ingrown hairs, and razor bumps. And who needs that in the summer when you just want to enjoy the summer? There's nothing worse than irritated skin. Which is why I'm so excited about changing my razor to Flamingo. Flamingo was born when the women who helped build Harry's noticed that the other company selling women's razors were just shrinking men's razors down and making them pink. Ugh. They rolled their eyes, rightfully so, and decided to shake things up. They created a shaving solution that actually is made with women's bodies in minds. This means no flimsy design, no irritation, no pink tax pricing. You ladies know what I'm talking about. And their starter set has been everything you need to get started.

[Brett]

Let's talk about what's inside that set. You get Flamingo's original razor. Five sharp blades, a 360 degree comfort system to help protect skin from irritation, and a flexible hinge to hug every curve. You also get a facial dermaplane razor that sweeps away peach fuzz and exfoliates skin. There's a foaming shave gel designed to add a pillowy cushion between your skin and razor and a shower holder to keep your razor within reach. Now you're probably thinking, man, how much does all that cost. The whole kit is just $7 and shipping free. Yes, you heard that right. For a limited time, our listeners can get the Flamingos Starter set for only $7 at shopflamingo.com Prosecutors the set includes the Flamingo Original Razor 1.5 blade cartridge, a 1 ounce foaming shave gel and a shower holder. Just head to shopflamingo.com prosecutors to claim this offer. After your purchase, they'll ask where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them

[Alice]

we sent you does anyone else feel like August is the Sunday of summer? It's the perfect time to hit reset before the autumn rush. And for me, that always starts with my wardrobe. Quince proves you don't need a crowded closet to look incredible. As I've gotten older, I just need the right pieces. I don't want a ton of pieces. I want good pieces that will last and elevate my style. Quince specializes in effortless, high quality essentials like ultra soft organic cotton and premium Mongolian cashmere sweaters. They're beautifully tailored, built to last and transition seamlessly from morning meetings to dinner. You guys have heard me talk about their premium stretch denim. I love them. Usually I don't wear denim in the summer, but their denim is so comfortable and so flattering that I can't help but reach for it even in the summer. And it starts at just $50. It's a perfect fit. It has great structure and weight you'd expect from a luxury designer brand, but at just $50. In fact, everything at Quince is priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. They work directly with ethical factories and cut out the middlemen. So you're paying for quality, not brand markup.

[Brett]

Guys, at this point, if you see me and I'm not wearing a T shirt, I'm probably wearing Quinn's. I got the sports coat, I've added several dress shirts. And yes, I do have a cashmere sweater that I can't wait to break out once it finally gets cold again. Upgrade your everyday Download the Quince app for app exclusive offers or go to quints.com prosecutors get free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK too. That's quince.com Q-U-I-N c e.com prosecutors every

[Alice]

day as a small business owner feels like solving a puzzle. One moment you're cruising along and the next there's a shipping snag that has you scrambling. But here's a surprise you will like with progressive small business owners save 13% on their commercial auto insurance when they pay in full. So go ahead, surprise yourself. Get a quote in as little as 8 minutes@progressive commercial.com progressive casualty insurance company and affiliates. Discounts not available in all states or situations. And this is a really good reminder. I've seen a lot of people say like, I'm not going to form any opinions on this case until the defense gets a chance to put on their case. So the way a trial works is that once the prosecution rests, they will put on their case in chief. But the defense is putting on their case from the opening statement and all of the cross examinations. So I agree you should listen and the jury should listen to all of the evidence before they ultimately make their decision. But you don't need to be a blank slate as you're listening to every witness because the prosecution and the defense are putting on their cases in real time. That's why cross examination doesn't happen all at the end. It happens in real time. So the defense's case is the cross examination right now. Now they will switch and they'll get to put on their case in chief. And then the prosecution is getting to rebut within the cross examination of the defense's witnesses. So just note that I've seen that kind of written out there a lot. That's not true. The defense isn't just like sitting there quietly taking all of this. They have a role, a very active role. And if done well, you are winning the case during the prosecution's case in chief.

[Brett]

So the defense did a good job on cross, prosecution did a good job on redirect. They noted that she wasn't all, all 13 drugs same time, which the defense had sort of made it seem like that she only took some of the medication, which has been the prosecution's argument from the beginning. And that in fact all the doctor really could know was what she was prescribed and what Lindsay told her. She didn't really know what she was taking and when she was taking it. So there was some good lawyering on this witness on both sides.

[Alice]

So the next one I thought was like my bombshell witness of the day. So it was Dr. Jalam Bisp. Dr. Biswas was the forensic psychiatrist at Brigham and two days after the murder suicide attempt on January 26 is when she first treated Lindsay Clancy. At the time, Lindsay couldn't speak, so they communicated in writing. Now, Dr. Biswas asked Lindsay her mood and Lindsay wrote down horrified. And then pretty soon after that wrote, do I have an attorney? This is interesting because remember previously, it was noted in her chart on January 29th or February, maybe it was February that she first asked for a lawyer. But here we have Dr. Biswas saying two days afterwards, before she could even speak, because I think she had a tube in her throat, she was writing, do I have a lawyer? And Dr. Biswas says, I don't know, because I'm here to treat you. And then Lindsay wrote and asked if her body was broken and if her legs were straight. That was pretty striking testimony because she doesn't ask about her kids. Because at this point, January 26, Callan is still alive, right? Technically, by machines. She asks, how's my body? Are my legs straight?

[Brett]

And I would just note once again, this is not someone who is irrational, who's just saying random things, who doesn't seem to be oriented to time, place, who is all over the place. The question she asks two days after this are very specific and are directly related to the death of her children and her suicide attempt. She's asking, does she need a lawyer? She's asking if her body is broken. She's asking if her legs are straight. This is an indication that whatever her mental state was two days before that, right then she's not in some sort of psychosis. And despite asking those things that are directly related to what happened, she doesn't ask about her children. She doesn't break down sobbing. There's no reaction that would indicate, and this is important, she's not guilty because of what she did on January 26th. That is not the point. It is not a question of whether or not she was psychotic on the 26th. The question is, was she psychotic on the 24th? And remember, once again, the defense that they are putting forth, which this is an affirmative defense, even if Massachusetts has a very low bar for affirmativeness, it's still one you have to put on. Their argument is that in a moment of psychosis, she was compelled to do this thing that she would not have otherwise done, that would have absolutely destroyed her in any other circumstance. But because of the psychosis, she was compelled to do it, and she did it. I think that most jurors would expect if that happened to someone, if they, in a moment of just horrific lack of mental stability and control, they did a terrible thing that when they came to and knew what they did, their reaction would be an absolute emotional breakdown or at least some questions, at least some sort of reaction to, oh, my God, what did I do? How could I have done something like that? And people like, well, but she knew she couldn't say anything because, you know, she needed Lark. Yeah. That's the kind of rational thought that makes you really question why she would not react like that. And it makes you wonder if she ever actually was in a psychotic state. Because if she was in a psychotic state, you would expect her to react like that. And she doesn't. Now, there's all sorts of possible explanations for that, but the defense, if the defense is listening, you have to explain it. You have to put on a doctor who says she was in shock, she was in post psychosis, whatever. And when you're in post psychosis, whatever, you don't.

[Alice]

She was fixated. She's fixated because all. Because she. She could see were her legs in front of her because she was intubated and she could literally only see what was in front of her. Whatever. You need to say something.

[Brett]

You got to have a doctor to address this. You cannot hand wave it away. And there may be a really good explanation. Hear what I'm saying before you send the one star review about how I'm an idiot. Because obviously there's all these medical conditions that would lead you to do that. Great. The defense needs to put that on. They have to address this. This is critical.

[Alice]

I mean, this was so big. I mean, obviously the camera was trained on just the attorneys and Dr. Biswas, but when she said that, I mean, my eyes, and we've been watching testimony, hours upon testimony, my eyes went wide open. Now, Lindsay does ask where her family was, but does not ask about the children. So during the direct, Dr. Biswas is asked about psychosis. What are the symptoms? And Dr. Biswas responds, it really depends. There's a spectrum. It's different for everyone. Some it's isolating. They're not responding, they're not reacting. There could be paranoia, darting eyes, responding to voices or visions, living within a delusion. Now, that is her description of what psychosis typically is. At the time that Dr. Biswas saw Lindsay, she testified that she saw no signs of psychosis two days after the murders. She said that Lindsay was linear, goal oriented, thoughtful, and not responding to internal stimuli like voices or other kind of psychotic episodes. And she does note that this is just a snapshot moment in time. But I will note it's a very important snapshot. It's just two days after the murders, and while she is still, still in some sort of sedation, in the sense that she can't speak because there's a tube in her throat, she's still very close in time to the murders.

[Brett]

I thought this was really interesting discussion of psychosis where you're just scratching the surface of what we're going to see later. But I thought it was interesting for two reasons. One, it helped the defense because it describes this very amorphous, hard to define, difficult to diagnose mental illness. That's good for the defense. But the way it was bad and not necessarily helpful is she did not describe psychosis the way some people have described it, which is. It's like an aneurysm. It's impossible to know. You may have it, and boom, it snaps. You snap. You have psychosis. You're in psychosis. And there was no sign. She doesn't say exactly that. What she says is different people have different symptoms. And there you have to look at all these different things to determine whether someone was actually in psychosis. And I think that's important because I think at some point we're gonna have to hear more. Did she have any of those symptoms? The only one we have is the hearing voices. But we only have that post. Hoc. Remember, she never told anyone she heard voices. I think this is important because people have described it as she's hearing voices. All this stuff's happening to her. Her. That is not what we have in the record. We have no record of her hearing voices until literally the day of the murders. And then she never heard him again. That's what she's told us. So that's kind of weak because once again, she obviously has a reason to say she heard voices if she's done this horrible thing and she's trying to explain it away or rationalize it or get out from underneath the consequences, whatever. So we're going to see a lot more of this as we go on. Now, cross examination. The defense attorney was an absolute jerk to this doctor, and many of you wondered why, because unlike the previous doctor, she was perfectly responsive. She was pleasant. She was answering the questions. She was helpful to the fence at times. The reason he was a jerk to her is because her direct was so damning. He has to do that because he needs to undermine her somehow with the jury. He cannot have the jury walking out thinking, wow, that was a great witness. And, man, that was some damning testimony. He can't have that. So he goes after her, just goes after as hard as he can. And that's the whole reason he did that. That's the strategy for that. Now he talks about how she only spent 20 to 30 minutes with Lindsay. This is important as to one thing, but not the other. It is important as to her Diagnosis of no psychosis. She was only with her for 30 minutes. Didn't appear that Lindsay had psychosis at the time. That's not a whole lot of time to spend with her. I'll tell you how it's not important, though. Has no bearing on what Lindsay wrote. However much time she spent with her in that time. Lindsay was able to write several questions, none of which pertained to her children, other than, do I need a lawyer because I killed him? That was the only question she asked related to her children. The only other question she asked was related to her and her concerns about her being paralyzed, being disfigured, having broken legs, et cetera, having a broken body. Those are the questions she asked in the 20 to 30 minutes they were meeting. He hammers on this, though, once again to try and undermine her. He talks about postpartum anxiety, and he uses this as an opportunity to go through various issues that Lindsay had. He describes hypermania and hypomania, which I think she had both. I think she was hypermanic at the beginning of the summer and hypomanic by the end. I think that's part of bipolar, as you're sort of swinging back and forth between the two. He was a jerk to her. Absolutely. And it led to a pretty fiery redirect. So the prosecution gets up and really, for the first time, shows a lot of emotion and once again, is reacting to the defense and hammers on the fact that despite everything that happened, despite the fact her children were dead, despite the fact she's waking up in a hospital after a suicide attempt, her first question was, do I have a lawyer? Defense objects to this. It gets struck. Prosecution has to back up, still gets it in, has to do it a little bit more. Whatever. Low key, doesn't matter. Can't unring the bell. Jury gets it. The jury gets it. And once again, the defense has to address this in their case.

[Alice]

Yeah, that was. I thought Dr. Biswas did. Was the best witness so far in really kind of showing the narrative of the prosecution. Okay, next was Sergeant Robert Flynn, who was a Duxbury police officer called in on January 24th as the detective. Now, once Sergeant Flynn was called, he notified the state police, and he did a security sweep of the house. First he went to the kitchen, and he noted that he saw, like, kids paintings on the walls, and there was a snack on the couch, like, it looked like kids lived there. And he went into the bedroom, where he noted that the window was open and that a cell phone was on the bed because it was Freezing in January. Eventually, he closed the window. Next was a relatively minor witness. It was Leah o', Connell, who was a trooper at the crime lab. She was a tech. She got no questions from the defense, really just coming on to say that they sent all these things to the crime lab. Next was state police John Santos. He was a detective at the time, and he was the one who executed the search warrant on the Clancy home. In doing so, he searched the cabinet over the stove and seized several books and notepads that belonged to Lindsay. He also had the discharge paperwork from when she was hospitalized, and it included a list of the medications for Lindsay to take and instructions for taking them. He also seized a book called Good Moms have Scary Thoughts. And then he seized medications he found in the kitchen. So on cross examination, he is asked about the bedroom search. He doesn't know who searched the drawer or why the pill bottles were not seized. Remember all those pill bottles that at the very beginning with Patrick's testimony that he said he found and pointed the defense to? So it doesn't look great. It's making him look like not a thorough warrant executor, but there it is. So that is John Santos.

[Brett]

Okay, let's see. So then we have Corey Mello. He is a state police officer. He sees the workout bands that were used to strangle the children. He's used to sort of go through her journal and the things she wrote about her kids. In her journal, she details her anxiety. She details how overwhelming it is to be taking care of all her Kids on November 18. She talks about how she's so desperate to get a mental break that her mind is causing her physical problems. This is opening a door by the prosecution because the defense gets up and they start to ask the same questions to read more favorable things in the journal about the feelings that she was having, her struggles with sleep training and how difficult it was, and how she was having ptsd and how the thought of her child crying for an hour was so horrific that she could barely stand it. She talks about being overwhelmed. She talks about some marital problems she'd been having with Patrick after having a third child. Sexual stuff. She talks about how she's anxious to go back to work. And this was a question somebody asked whether or not she was breastfeeding. She talks about how she stopped breastfeeding so that she could take her own psych meds. And she talks about how guilty she feels about this because breastfeeding is so beneficial to the baby and so helpful for his immune system. And she feels Awful that she's having to make the sacrifice for him in order to make herself better. But she talks about how she just can't shut off her brain. So altogether, once again, thought that was a pretty good witness for the defense. Don't know. I feel like the prosecution is scoring goals, but then scoring own goals. And they've been scoring on goals the whole time. And this focus on the things she writes in these journals, to me, is just repeatedly an own goal, because the things she's writing are not that weird. They don't make you think of somebody who's crazy and is going to kill their kids. They make you think of somebody who's normal. And there's a lot in there that makes her seem very sympathetic to a lot of people. So I don't know why they keep doing this, but they keep doing it. And they did it with Corey Mello, and that was the last witness for today. They'll be back tomorrow. They're gonna have a similarly long day. We will not have an episode tomorrow because we have other things going on. They're not taking Tuesday off this week. It's gonna be a full day this week, so that's great. We'll see what they do on Wednesday. So that's all we have for the trial today. We gave you a lot of our feelings on that. I do. We've been getting some great emails from folks about their experience with various things, and I thought we'd just read them to you, read a couple to you tonight before we sign off. Really appreciate you guys sending this in. I think it's helpful. I think it's helpful to hear different people's experiences with postpartum depression, with the various drugs that Lindsay took, and this one is particularly about Zoloft. Alice, do you want to read this one or do you want me.

[Alice]

Sure, I can read this one. So this person wrote. I've been following the Lindsay Clancy case closely. Along with your podcast reporting on the case, I wanted to share with you my personal experience with Zoloft. Four years ago, I was experiencing back pain that was severely affecting me physically and therefore weighing on me significantly mentally. My doctor at the time prescribed me Zoloft. I've always trusted doctors, so I didn't think twice about it and welcomed anything that might help take the edge off the physical pain. What happened next was the most horrible experience of my life. I don't say this lightly. I have had cancer twice, lost an immediate family member in a tragic circumstance, and have had other major medical complications and health issues. 1:25 milligram of Zoloft uprooted my life, my identity, my entire core of who I am as a person. Within a couple of hours of taking it, I experienced severe internal akathisia so horrible that I was suicidal within hours. The best way I can describe this is the feeling of adrenaline when you catch yourself from falling down the stairs. But it takes your body a few seconds to catch up to the fact that you didn't fall. That feeling 247 multiplied by a thousand. I didn't eat, didn't sleep, did not recognize myself, hated myself, wanted to die, had severe depression and insomnia, severe unrelenting hopelessness that my life was destroyed. I lived in this acute State for 21 days. I was lucky in the sense that I did not have any ongoing mental health issues that this could be attributed to. So it was easy to isolate that this was a reaction to the Zoloft. I immediately stopped taking the medication and contacted my doctor, where I was met with heartbreaking medical gaslighting and the stance that the only way to help me was more psychiatric medications, which I declined. The acute issue lasted three weeks, but I experienced lingering effects of the meds and don't feel I was truly 100% back to my myself for about two years. I'm grateful to be living a normal life today. I see the commentary on this case where Lindsay wasn't taking her meds as prescribed, only took seven pills, etc, as if this is indicative of literally anything other than her having a horrendous reaction to these pills and intelligently ceasing taking them. I say this as a fully mentally healthy, genuinely happy person, that if I had taken seven Zoloft pills or if I ever took a single additional Zoloft pillow, I would be dead. I cannot even fathom the hell that Lindsay lived through after seven pills and then 15 different psych meds on top of that. My heart just breaks for what was done to her. As a mom, I'm horrified by what happened to these precious babies, but I wholeheartedly believe with every fiber of my being that these meds fundamentally altered her brain so that she was no longer even a shell of herself, but another person entirely. Maybe that new person. She was capable of forming to decision at the time of the crime, but it was not her. I am sure of this. Legally, where does that fall in terms of Lindsay's ability to make decisions at the time of the crime?

[Brett]

So thank you number one, for sharing that with us. Number two, I think that's going to be part of The. The defense's case, I think they've made that clear. I think their main focus is postpartum psychosis, but they're going to lean into the drugs. And look, if you're taking prescription medication prescribed by a doctor as prescribed, so you're not abusing it, and it sends you into psychosis, that is a defense. That would be the same defense as postpartum psychosis. So I think that will be part of what she says. And look, I mean, you're not the only person who has shared with us some really horrific effects of some of these drugs that Lindsay has taken. All right, we're going to read you one more, and then we'll go ahead and sign off. This person says, I've been listening to your coverage of the Lindsay case, and I wanted to share a perspective that comes from both my personal and professional experience. I have a professional, educational, and personal background in mental health. I was raised by a mother with untreated bipolar disorder, and after the birth of my daughter in 2022, I experienced severe postpartum depression. I'm incredibly grateful that when I reached out for help, I received it. I entered an intensive outpatient program, attended zoom therapy from 8am to 3pm and met with a psychiatrist weekly. I never wanted to hurt my daughter, but I became convinced she deserved someone better than me. I believed she would be better off if I died and was raised by her father. Looking back now, I couldn't have been more wrong. My daughter was absolutely meant to be my child, and being her mom is one of the greatest joys of my life. Because of these experiences, I assumed I would be more inclined to view Lindsay as mentally incompetent or not fully responsible when I started listening. Ironically, my experiences have led me to the opposite conclusion. I believe Lindsay is guilty and should spend the rest of her life in prison. What concerns me most is the growing tendency to excuse criminal behavior because of mental illness. I believe that it is dangerous and, frankly, an insult to the millions of people living with mental illness who have never harmed another person. Outside the criminal justice system, we often excuse harmful behavior because someone is mentally ill. My own mother struggled with severe mental illness. She also neglected and abused me. While I have compassion for illness, I also recognize that there were countless moments when different choices could have been made. Mental illness can help explain behavior, but it should not automatically absolve someone of responsibility for it. The reality is that many people in prison have mental illness, but the reverse is not true. Most people living with mental illness are not violent and do not commit crimes. We don't choose our genetics or the illnesses we inherit. But we do have choices about whether we seek treatment, accept help and fight against the thoughts our illness may produce. I don't want this to distract from another important truth. The American healthcare system is failing people with mental illness. It is failing mothers especially. Accessing quality psychiatric care can be incredibly difficult. And women's health is too often deprioritized. If our country truly valued mothers, we wouldn't be one of the few developed nations without paid parental leave. There are enormous systemic failures that deserve attention, but that is not what is on trial. Lindsay is on trial. So two different views, informed by personal experiences, coming to some very different places and reaching very different conclusions. That's what makes this trial, in this case, so compelling. There are so many people out there who've experienced similar things and they come at this completely different. And I'll just tell you, we've had a lot of people who've written in who believe Lindsay Clancy is innocent because of they had similar experiences and they say things like, had I not gotten the treatment when I did, it would have been me. You know, I had thoughts of harming my children, it would have been me. But I was able to get treatment. I didn't. We've heard from those people. I've heard a lot of people just like this who say I had these problems. And based on what I experienced and what I'm seeing, I don't think this is a case where mental illness is. Is an excuse. And I think that's a fight that people are going to continue to have and it's not going to be resolved. So sorry, is that gonna be resolved by this verdict? Whatever the jury reaches, and that's the unfortunate side of this case. As we've said before, there's no good outcome here. There's no outcome that I think anybody's gonna be standing up and cheering. Whatever happens here, it will just complete the tragedy that this case is. Alright guys, I'm sure you have thoughts you may have experiences, stories you want to tell. Shoot us an email prosecutors podmail.com if you would like us or allow us to read these things, please let us know. Obviously, we'll keep it anonymous. If you don't want us to read them, we don't have to, but it's always helpful to hear from you. It informs our thinking, it educates us on so many of these issues that we maybe don't have as much experience with as we would like. So, and also love hearing from you doctors out there. The thing about doctors that I love is if we hear from from two doctors, we get two completely different opinions. It's always amazing. Even on, like, the most narrow thing. Doctors, man.

[Alice]

I guess that's why you always ask for second opinions.

[Brett]

That's right.

[Alice]

I love it. No, thank you guys for being vulnerable and sharing. Can I just say, like, we didn't write those emails. Those came from our listeners. I always say, and you guys don't believe me when I say we have the most thoughtful and intelligent listeners. We really do. Those are incredibly heartfelt, vulnerable, but insightful emails from completely different points of view. You took the time to share it with us, so thank you. Because it makes me a better lawyer. It makes me better at doing this job right here, knowing these different perspectives that I personally don't have. So thank you, guys.

[Brett]

If you want to watch us record these, join Patreon. If you'd like to see them after they're edited and the worst parts removed, join Substack. If you really don't want to see our faces, but you'd like to hear the episodes early and ad free, you can join Patreon or Apple Subscriptions for that. Thank you to everyone who supports us. There's so many of you, and you're amazing, and it allows us to do things like record multiple episodes on this case. So, Alice, you've already said so many amazing things. Do you have anything else you want to add before we sign off?

[Alice]

No. Come back and join us for more days of this trial, as hard as it is, because this is just a tragic case.

[Brett]

All right, well, guys, we will be back sometime in the near future. Today is Daphne's birthday, so happy birthday to Daphne. Until we talk to you again. I'm Brett.

[Alice]

And I'm Alice.

[Brett]

And we are the prosecutors. See, I'll say that. But you notice the quote, unquote, bad style because it's a woman. I'm convinced of that. I'm sorry you've been sold it if you want to be, but I just. I think people might comment on something a man wore that they didn't like. But I don't think we'd have multiple posts on the gallery talking about how, like, offended they are by it and focusing on it so much. I just don't think that would happen. I'm sorry. I don't believe it. That's my position. I'm not. I'm not drifting from this position, but.

[Alice]

So when I first.

[Brett]

It's just so much easier. You just. You're crazy if you think people comment on men's appearance?

[Alice]

They don't.

[Brett]

And what they wear and their hairstyle and everything else.

[Alice]

Like the dead women.

[Brett]

Come on. You don't believe that.

[Alice]

I will say, when I saw all the comments, I was like, did I miss something? I thought people meant, like, a barrette bow. And I was like, what are people talking about?

[Brett]

You could barely even see it.

[Alice]

Exactly.

[Brett]

Notice it.

[Alice]

Okay, stop talking for one second. Ram.

[Brett]

Hello, and welcome to Pluto Foe. If you know the name of the movie you'd like to see, just stream it for free on Pluto tv, where all your blockbuster favorites are landing all summer long. Catch. Anchorman. The Legend of Ron Burgundy. Fantastic. The Matrix Trilogy. Welcome to the real world. Mean Girls. Shut up. Titanic. I'm the king of the world. And so much more. For showtimes, press nothing. They're free 24. 7.

[Alice]

That is so effective on Pluto TV.

[Brett]

Stream now.

[Alice]

Pay never.