377. The Lindsay Clancy Trial Part 5

Summary

Podcast Summary:
The Prosecutors, PodcastOne
Episode 377: The Lindsay Clancy Trial Part 5
Release Date: August 6, 2026
Hosts: Alice and Brett

---

Overview: Main Theme & Purpose

In the fifth installment covering the Lindsay Clancy trial, hosts Alice and Brett scrutinize two relatively “boring” days (trial days six and seven) focused on technical, forensic, and stipulation-heavy testimony. Amid the procedural slog, they also address the rise of wild internet conspiracy theories surrounding the case, particularly the baseless claim that Patrick Clancy (Lindsay’s husband) actually killed the children. The episode aims to offer legal analysis, trial insight, and broader commentary—sometimes with palpable frustration—about courtroom processes and public discourse surrounding true crime cases.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Trial Atmosphere & The Internet Conspiracy Outbreak

(05:11–14:26)

• Hosts' Frustration: Both Alice and Brett express exasperation over internet conspiracies, particularly the trending TikTok theory that Patrick Clancy killed the children and framed Lindsay.
  • Quote – Alice (06:37): "Who killed these three children?"
    Brett: "Lindsay Clancy."
• Defense Strategy: The defense attempted to stipulate (formally agree) that Lindsay killed the children to focus trial on mental state and psychosis, but the judge did not allow this.
• Internet Conspiracies Debunked:
  • Patrick Clancy Theory: TikTok alleges Patrick killed the children, framed Lindsay, and somehow manipulated her into believing she did it.
  • Both hosts walk through the absurdity and factual impossibilities of this narrative.
  • Quote – Brett (08:15): "He is some Svengali, like, magician, a hypnotist of the highest order. He convinced her she did it, so she would believe it..."
• Lindsay’s Own Words:
  • They read from Lindsay's civil suit filing, where she openly admits to the acts while describing the psychotic state, thus destroying the internet conspiracy.
  • Quote – Brett (11:36): “[Lindsay said]…a demanding, powerful male voice explicitly ordered her. She felt an overwhelming, irresistible compulsion to comply…‘My body was just acting without any control on my part. I was just following commands.’”
• Actionable Advice: The hosts urge listeners not to engage with sensationalist or conspiratorial social media content, as even negative engagement fuels algorithmic amplification.
  • Quote – Brett (14:29): "If you were arguing that she did this for insurance fraud, that would make more sense than arguing that Patrick did it..."

2. Why the Conspiracies Now?

(15:25–17:09)

• Trial Boredom Breeds Drama:
  • Social and traditional media ramp up wild theories during uneventful phases of high-profile trials.
  • Quote – Alice (15:25): "This is actually the boring part of the trial…People who are looking for clicks who are reporting on the case are going to come up with some wild conspiracy theory that hurts real people and hurts the memory of these children…this is why it’s coming out in week two."

---

3. Procedural and Forensic Testimony: Days 6 & 7

3.1. Stipulations & Witnesses

(17:13–77:32, interspersed)

• Trial Mechanics:

  • Many witnesses appeared solely for technical confirmation (crime scene process, chain of custody, forensic analysis), resulting in slow, procedural testimony.
  • Prosecution and defense agreed to some stipulations (formal agreements about evidence), but the prosecution often redundantly called witnesses to testify on matters already stipulated.
  • Quote – Brett (18:44): "There were times where they stipulated to things, and then it seemed like the prosecution just went ahead and called the witness anyway."

• Testimony Summaries & Critique:

  • Medical Testimony (20:12–23:06): Trauma surgeons described Clancy's wounds as not life-threatening, often failing to clarify basic meanings (e.g., "superficial wound"), leaving jurors potentially confused. Defense used each witness to highlight the seriousness of Lindsay’s injuries for their argument.
  • Crime Scene & Forensic Testimony:
    • State Troopers and Crime Lab Techs (28:29 onward): Outlined evidence gathering, medication pill counts, blood pattern analyses, DNA, and toxicology findings.
    • Key Point: DNA evidence on the exercise bands was unsurprisingly a mixture of all family members, with Cora’s blood on one band—devastating emotionally, but not legally illuminating (since identity of the killer is undisputed).
    • Blood Pattern Analysis (41:37–45:53): Tied to the prosecution's theory that Lindsay hung from the window before dropping (not diving), suggesting lack of genuine suicide intent.
  • Toxicology Reports (52:00–54:07):
    • Levels of drugs in Lindsay’s system were all within the therapeutic or even subtherapeutic ranges—far from lethal, countering any theory she intended to die by overdose.
    • Quote – Brett (54:00): “...Only Seroquel was a little elevated...If Patrick was using this to drug her, he didn’t give her too much. The rest were in therapeutic levels. None were at the toxic or suicidal level.”

• Hosts’ Critique:

  • Prosecution is spinning wheels, reiterating uncontested points, and sometimes undermining their case by over-elaborating, missing opportunities to clarify confusion, and introducing defense-friendly notebook evidence.
  • Defense attorney described as competent at highlighting prosecution inefficiencies and appearing “folksy” but savvy, effectively conveying jury-friendly points even when witnesses are unfavorable.

3.2. The Nanny Testifies (66:43–75:44)

• Prosecution Witness Becomes Defense Asset:
  • Lindsay’s former nanny, called by the prosecution, gave highly favorable testimony about Lindsay’s loving parenting, detailed notes, and apparent normalcy in the months before the crime.
  • The prosecution’s implied argument (that Lindsay was too in-control or competent for psychosis) is strongly undermined as the witness repeatedly described Lindsay as “a wonderful mom.”
  • Quote – Alice (73:15): “She said she was a wonderful mom. Unprompted...She’s absolutely a defense witness. Why the prosecution called her, I don’t know.”
• Forest vs. Trees:
  • Both hosts point out the danger of the prosecution "missing the forest for the trees" by focusing on granular detail rather than the only real contested issue: Lindsay’s intent and mental state.
  • Quote – Alice (76:38): "This case is all about the forest..."

---

4. Memorable Quotes & Notable Moments

• On Conspiracies:
  • Alice, sarcastically: "The better conspiracy theory...is that she's trying to do some insurance fraud. That's it. Not that she was incepted by Patrick. Leave the man alone." (13:10)
• Trial Rote vs. Bombshells:
  • Brett: "Boring is not derogatory. I would love to be a boring witness at a trial!" (35:20)
• On Prosecution’s Redundancy:
  • Brett: "Some of the things they're doing seem like real mistakes, serious mistakes that undermine the case..." (30:21)
• On the Internet’s Attention Span:
  • Alice: "Don’t be incepted by these conspiracy theorists. You’re just walking right into their trap..." (15:25)
• On Emotional Realities:
  • Brett: "Patrick Clancy held his baby, his eight month old baby, as he took his last breath after his wife killed his three children. Like you should be ashamed of yourself." (14:29)
• On Cross-Examining Technicians:
  • Brett: "He asks her to look at him not the jury. He’s like, 'I want you to look at me after answering questions.' ...How this is relevant testimony, I’m not sure." (35:13)

---

5. Listener Emails: Diverse Perspectives

(78:59–82:50)

• Real Life Motives & Mental Illness:
  • A listener writes to counter the claim that only psychosis could explain the crime, sharing that sometimes "people really do sometimes do cruel, inexplicable things for reasons that no one else could understand."
• First-Hand Accounts:
  • Another listener (survivor of trauma, child of mentally ill mother) relates firsthand how deeply mental illness can distort reality but still affirms personal responsibility is necessary.

---

Important Segments & Timestamps

• Conspiracies Debunked: 05:11–14:29
• Why Conspiracies Arise in "Boring" Trial Phases: 15:25–17:09
• Chain of Custody & Procedures Explained: 17:13–23:06
• Pill Bottle/Pill Counts: 28:29–30:21
• Blood Pattern Analysis: 41:37–45:53
• Toxicology Results: 52:00–54:07
• DNA on Exercise Bands: 63:54–66:38
• Nanny Testimony: 66:43–75:44
• Listener Emails: 78:59–82:50

---

Conclusions, Reflections & Takeaways

• Trial at a Crossroads: The legal question in the Clancy trial is not ‘whodunnit’, but ‘why’—was Lindsay sane/culpable or driven to commit the crime by postpartum psychosis? Yet, the prosecution’s approach and witness list risk confusing jurors or shifting sympathy by focusing on procedural details or introducing defense-advantaging evidence.
• Internet Discourse: Alice and Brett are vehement that conspiracy theorists should be ignored rather than engaged, as attention—even negative—drives more sensational false narratives.
• Emotional Realities: Listener feedback underscores that both mental illness and acts of violence can have complex, non-intuitive causes. The hosts stress the importance of listening to a diversity of lived experiences while also highlighting the limits of psychiatric testimony.
• Structure & Pacing: The episode ultimately paints a picture of mid-trial tedium, legal thrust-and-parry, with real stakes lying ahead as the case shifts toward psychiatric/expert evidence.

---

End of Summary

Transcript

[A]

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. I'm Carter Roy. 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 appropriately accessorized co host, Alice.

[B]

One tasteful earring that. Okay. Oh, so. Oh, okay. We said we weren't gonna comment, but yes, yes, we know. The prosecutor had yet another bow today. I take it back a little. What I said last time about just the little tie bow was fine. This was a, this, this went further on the spectrum of perhaps I wouldn't do it. I'm not going to comment more on that.

[A]

I mean, here's the thing. There's nothing going on in trial right now. So what else?

[B]

So we got to fixate on the white bow and dark hair. That's literally the same bow that Britney wears. I put her in that bow today because I saw it and I was like, I'm just gonna see what it looks like on her and it took up her whole head. But it was definitely appropriate on a 3 year old. Maybe not for trial. I will say this much. I'm not, obviously you guys know I'm not like pushing the envelope on edgy looks in general, but even less so when I'm in court. Like nothing out of the ordinary. I don't have like, I like bejeweled things. I don't have sparkly things in my hair like a hair clip when I go to trial. I don't wear flashy shoes. I don't wear stilettos. I wear super boring black pumps. I know the exact pair that I buy. And they come like clockwork. They come the month before trial for me so that I have a new pair because heels get scuffed up. So like the most boring outfit you can think of. That's what I wear to trial. Because I want people to focus on the substance of the trial and not my earrings or my hair or you know, whatnot. So that's the thing, that's how I dress.

[A]

People watching this trial, I mean, they have no understanding of how hard these people are working. I mean this is day in and day out. You gotta prep for all these witnesses. They're working late into the night, they're getting up super early. You know, just remember that when you're thinking about what they're wearing or oh, her hair doesn't look right today. Or that's the same suit jacket right?

[B]

Now let me just like, let me literally put this in perspective. When we were in months long trial, there would be entire days of the week, Monday through Friday, where I could barely fit in a shower because we'd be prepping witnesses, like actual prepping of the witness, meaning you're still on and you're still the one in charge until past midnight. I haven't eaten all day. Try to stuff an energy bar into my mouth. And I'm thinking I could take a shower or I could draft my direct outlines for all my witnesses tomorrow. And I'm usually gonna draft the direct outlines and I put some baby powder in my hair to soak up the oil. And I show up to court probably smelling bad. But that's just kind of the reality of really intense trials. This is why I do try not to comment on how they look. Because for me there's that Taylor Swift lyric, you never look in the mirror. I never look in the mirror during trial. Like quite literally never look in the trial because I'm not gonna like what I see.

[A]

Now they're fortunate because it's Massachusetts, so a full day of trial goes to like 2:30. So let's not, let's not go too crazy on.

[B]

Can we. Can we talk about maybe something that is worth our attention in ire besides a bow? Because like whatever. I honestly, I comment on it because like it stood out to me today. Don't really care, to be totally honest. You know what I do care about, Brett? Absolute malarkey that undermines evidence based anything rational thinking. I don't know, being a good human, using any neuron that God has blessed you with at all. And yeah, I am talking about the wild Conspiracy theories that are going all over the Internet. Okay, With Karen Reed, y' all were able to come up with like a 45 person Massachusetts statewide law enforcement conspiracy. What more could you do? Because that one's been used. No one's going to listen to that one again. We've already done the Odinist. We can't use that one again. It's not going to be called murderers because, you know, these kids were just used with exercise bands. Because what it is it like the cult of bar class? No. So we had to go even crazier. And if you've stayed off the Internet and you have no idea what I'm talking about, because you're thinking, we're talking about whether a woman killed her children in psychosis or not. Isn't that what we're talking about? So what are you talking about, Alice? Why are you so heated? Why are we so heated, Brett? Why? Why am I so heated that the world has collectively lost its mind again on a point that is undisputed?

[A]

Yeah. So, you know, the one thing that we know for certain in this case is that Lindsay Clancy killed her children.

[B]

Wait, say that one more time. Who did? Who killed these three children?

[A]

Lindsay Clancy.

[B]

She's not on trial for whether she killed them, right?

[A]

I mean, kind of she is, but only because the criminal.

[B]

The criminal intent behind it. Right, but at issue of whose hands strangled those babies, not in dispute. In fact, the defense tried to stipulate and say, look, we want to go ahead and stipulate that she killed him. Let's move on to, like, her state of mind and psychosis and all that stuff. They wanted to do that, and the judge wouldn't allow that. And in fact. Oh, it's not just a strategy, Brett. If only we had some real evidence to point to, to know who killed these babies.

[A]

Yeah, and what Alice is talking about is the latest TikTok craze, that in fact, it wasn't Lindsay Clancy that killed her children. It was Patrick Clancy, the father of the children, the first witness in this trial. And you may be asking yourself, why in the world would anyone believe that? I don't really know.

[B]

I mean, let's go even further than that. The TikTok, and I haven't watched any of these. Is not only that Patrick Clancy, who has lost his entire family and life in an instant, was the one in the 911 call that decimated the entire courtroom for an hour because his guttural scream was heard forever. Everyone to hear on recording when he found his three dead children after Finding his wife paralyzed on the ground outside. Not only did he kill these children, he framed Lindsay. And Lindsay is sitting there being framed.

[A]

And not only, not only did he frame her, but he is some Svengali, like, magician, a hypnotist of the highest order. He didn't just frame her. He convinced her that she did it so that she would believe it, because that's the only way you can explain this. And just. I think it's worth thinking about what all this means. So you have Lindsay. She wakes up that morning. Apparently, Patrick, he's decided he wants to kill the kids. He wants to get out of this marriage, he wants to marry somebody else, whatever. And so on the day he, you know, she wakes up in the morning, she's building the snowman, she's sending pictures to the kids. This is the day that Patrick decides she's in a particularly susceptible mood. Somehow he's able to read her mind and realize she's going to have a psychotic break later in the day. Because that's the thing. She still has to be in psychosis for this theory to even work, because Patrick has to incept into her mind that she's the one who did it. And somehow he's able to read her mind and realize now's the time. And, you know, he gives her drugs. Not enough that they're even at a therapeutic level, as we're going to see. Certainly not enough to kill her or doing all that. But these drugs somehow put her in this state of mind where he can magically make her believe that he's the voice telling her to kill the kids. He then cuts her wrist, but not enough to kill her. You know, he's just killed his own children. He's wrapped exercise bands around their throats until they died, and then he's framing his wife. But for some reason, he doesn't want to have a murder suicide. He wants to have a murder almost suicide. So he cuts her wrist, but not enough to kill her. He didn't want to do that. And he cuts her throat, but not enough to kill her. And he.

[B]

But enough to convince her that she did it.

[A]

Exactly enough to convince her that she did it. He somehow makes her take drugs in this state. He throws her out the window, but she doesn't die. He. Then he does all this without leaving any trace, by the way, not step in the blood or anything, while he's

[B]

caught on security camera going to 3V. And he then goes, and all that stuff.

[A]

And somehow he, while on camera, he calls her Apple Watch, which he has with him. He somehow does this on camera. He calls it. Then he calls himself back. We're using the Apple watch on camera, but not caught doing this in order to form this, this conspiracy. He doesn't leave any digital trace of this, of course. Then he comes back and as Alice says, not only is he a Svengali like magician who can get into her brain and convince her that she did this, he also is a world class actor because he manages to leave on that 911 call one of the most devastating things anybody has ever heard. He does that brings grown men to tears, convinces them so fully that they are absolutely sure this is what happened. And if you think that stupid, it is stupid. But it's even dumber when you read what Lindsay Clancy has herself, herself, Lindsay herself has written herself said about what happened. So we're going to read to you from her filing. This is from her filing in her civil case, not Patrick's from her own civil case. This is how she described what happened that day. We were going to save this until it eventually comes out in trial, but it's like, let's just go ahead, let's

[B]

go for it now. And after you read this, I'm going to, I'm going to go second level conspiracy.

[A]

Okay, so here's what she says. Lindsay experienced command auditory hallucinations, a quote. So the quotes are things she actually said. A demanding, powerful male voice explicitly ordered her. She felt an overwhelming, irresistible compulsion to comply, entering a dissociative, quote, dreamlike state, end quote, where her physical actions felt utterly disconnected from her conscious volition. She perceived her, quote, body was just acting, unquote, and she was merely, quote, watching herself do it, end quote. She reported she had, quote, no choice, end quote, but to follow these compelling directives Lindsay described. Quote, I lost all control. My body started acting without any control on my part. I was just following commands. All action. This voice demanded action. And then in one of the most chilling lines you're going to read, Lindsay proceeded to strangle each of her children, uttering quote, go to God, baby.

[B]

So those are Lindsay's own words filed on January of this year where she is explaining her psychosis and all this. Now, those of you who are like, well, Bretton Alice, you've really put too much cold water on this Patrick conspiracy theory. Clearly he was so good at this, he convinced her. And that voice that she kept hearing, that was Patrick the whole time. The thing is, this is completely undisputed by Lindsay herself that her hands were the ones strangly her child. So I don't know why we're doing this. The better conspiracy theory behind all of this is that she's trying to do some insurance fraud. That's it. Not that she was incepted by Patrick. Leave the man alone. Patrick Clancy did not kill his children. I don't care what you think about him in terms of how he was as a husband. Look, by all accounts, great husband. Okay, you can disagree with me. All the people, people have commented on videos that we've been posting about this, saying, why are you saying, you know, you're not Lindsay Clancy, or you know, just because you may suffer from postpartum depression, this isn't you. This doesn't have to be you. Why are you not saying the obvious? Damn you, Patrick. Because her actions, she undisputedly says her actions were what ended her baby's lives. What's at issue here is what was going on in her mind at that very time. But there is absolutely no allegation that Patrick was the one who killed his three children and then somehow is framing her for it and has convinced her of what has been going on this whole time. Leave the man alone. He has gone through enough. He doesn't need this Karen Reed level of conspiracy.

[A]

And since some of you are incapable of understanding sarcasm. The point is, if you were arguing that she did this for insurance fraud, that would make more sense than arguing that Patrick did it. And that is in itself an absurd conspiracy.

[B]

That is an absurd conspiracy. I'm not saying that's what it is.

[A]

And yeah, I mean, look, Patrick Clancy held his baby, his eight month old baby, as he took his last breath after his wife killed his three children. Like you should be ashamed of yourself. But let me say this because I don't think anybody out there listening to us believes this conspiracy. But I think you have a very important role to play here and we need to start doing this more often. When you see somebody who says that, block them, don't argue with them, don't watch the video, don't give them a click, nothing. Don't talk about it with your friends, don't share it with somebody and say, isn't this the stupidest thing you've ever heard? Don't do that because that's what they want. They want a million people saying, wow, what a dumb video. You should see how dumb this is. Look at this stupid thing this stupid person is saying. And when you do that, that is exactly what they want. And unfortunately, that's what the algorithm rewards. And. And it's up to us to change the algorithm. Because if we don't watch it, if we block those people, if we shut them off, that is the only thing that will change this.

[B]

And I'll tell you this much, I'll incept the conspiracy theorists. Do you know why this is coming out right now? Totally predictable. So predictable, guys, because this is a six week trial. We're in week two. This is actually the boring part of the trial. This is where you get the. I was the fourth tech who took this fingerprint. I ran it. Fingerprints are really hard to get off of an exercise band. Nothing came back of value. Next, I was another tech who swabbed the second exercise band. So this is the typical middle part of a trial where it's very important evidentiarily to get all this information in. And because of the nature of this crime scene, three different deaths, three different strangulation tools, all these different medications, a long time Spanish. It's going to be very long and windy and you're going to need lots of different witnesses to get in all of the evidence absolutely necessary for you to prove your case. With that said, incredibly boring. You're not going to have someone who comes in like Dr. Biswas from earlier who says, yeah, two days after she wrote do I need a lawyer? That's stunning. You're not going to get that in the middle of trial. So what are all these people who are looking for clicks who are reporting on the case going to do? Come up with some wild conspiracy theory that hurts real people and hurts the memory of these children. Certainly isn't going to help Lindsay Clancy, like whatever justice you want. This is not justice. So I'm not surprised at all that this conspiracy theory is coming out now. I think this is the perfect time. This is what we call kind of the drone of a long trial period. So don't be incepted by these conspiracy theorists. You're just walking right into their trap of making you click on things when really the testimonies right now are a wee bit boring. We're still going to go through all of it, but know that this is why it's coming out in week two.

[A]

Yeah. That's all we're going to talk. What's how we're going to say about it? We're not going to talk about it anymore. Not going to bring it up again. Just wanted to address it because it needs to be addressed. But Alice is 100% right, as you're going to see. Might as well just turn off this episode now because it's pretty boring. These two days have been pretty boring. And it's been funny to watch the defense attorney because he wants to stipulate to all this. He doesn't understand why we're doing all this. And he's just constantly, like, making these snippy little comments about the various witnesses. And we'll talk about those as well as we discuss this. Yeah. So let's start with stipulations. So stipulations, for the first time in the case, we had some stipulations. Look, all a stipulation is, is when both sides agree, hey, we don't need to have evidence on this. Let's do stipulations. It's usually for things that are really not that important but can be legally significant. So for instance, you might stipulate to chain of custody. You might say, hey, you know, we're not going to make you call not only the guy who collected the evidence, but the person he gave it to who can testify to the person he gave it to. And then we'll talk to that person who gave it to this person who put it in the envelope, and then that person will testify to mailing it to the lab. And then we'll talk to the person who tested it. We're going to stipulate to all the chain of evidence stuff. Don't have to worry about that. Very standard. Sometimes you can get some pretty significant stipulations. Like you might have a defendant who says, look, like we, as we always, we like to use the felon in possession because it's such a simple crime. So say you have a. Someone who will say, I will stipulate to the fact I'm a felon. I'll stipulate to the fact the gun traveled to interstate commerce. I just want to have this trial on the fact I didn't possess that weapon, wasn't my gun, etc. Etc. And so that way you skip over witnesses that are boring. It's in the interest of both sides to move the case along as quickly as possible. The jury gets angry when it takes too long, and you never know who they're going to blame. I always tell this story about the trial I was in, in a very small courtroom where my back was right against the jury and a defense attorney was going way too long on cross examination. And the judge asked, how much longer do you have? And they said something like, I'm not even started yet, your honor. And the juror directly behind me was like, jesus Christ, that's bad. You know, you don't want the Juror thinking about you like that. Jurors try and put stuff like that out of their minds when they make decisions, but we're all human, so it is advantageous to move things forward. We had some stipulations today. I will say this. We should have had more. And one thing that was funny is there were times where they stipulated to things, and then it seemed like the prosecution just went ahead and called the witness anyway. So that was a little weird. But you're gonna see that in every trial. It's no big deal. It's not significant. And frankly, the things they're stipulating to are really that important when we're talking about her guilt or innocence. Okay, so let's talk about the witnesses. We're going back to day six of this trial. We're doing six and seven. It started with Christina Carpo, who was a trauma surgeon. She received Lindsey Clancy at South Shore Hospital. She talked about the wounds, says that they're superficial. Once again, the prosecution just refuses to ask the simple question, what does it mean to have a superficial wound?

[B]

To be totally fair, so does the defense.

[A]

Well, the defense is fine with it.

[B]

They.

[A]

They don't want you to know what they are. He wants to be able to play this game, and he plays it with every witness. She orders some CT scans. She identifies serious spinal injuries to cervical and thoracic areas. They attempt to raise Lindsay's body temperature. The. They're a class two. I think it's class two is the way they describe trauma center. And she needed class one or level one. It's levels. So they sent her to a level one facility, which is what Brigham and Women's is. Brigham, by the way, is the name of a person some of you have asked. There used to be a Boston Women's Hospital. There used to be a Brigham Hospital. The two hospitals merged, and now you have Brigham and Women's Hospital. So if you're wondering where that comes from, it's that one other point. She said when they raised her body temperature, her bleeding did not increase. And the point of this was. Remember, the defense suggested that possibly the fact that she was so cold could be one of the reasons she did not bleed. The defense uses this, once again, to focus on the seriousness of injuries of Lindsay's injuries, which he does, basically with every witness. He asked a bunch of questions about what happened after this doctor stopped treating Lindsay. Stuff that happened at Brigham. This is totally inappropriate, by the way. At one point, the prosecution objects, and the judge just lets it go. I used to tell my Evidence students this, and they always got irritated by it, but it's just true. Like, at the end of the day, you can make the best arguments, but the judge makes decisions when it comes to evidentiary and stuff. And he's letting this defense attorney do this. And, okay, but I mean, once she says, I have no idea what happened after I transferred her, that should be the end of that line of questioning. The next question he asks should draw the very objection it drew, which is, she has already said she does not have any knowledge. Instead, he let him do the whole thing. One thing he did that was irritating to me, and I just don't like that he's doing this. And this is the second witness he did this with. He asks her some questions, and she says, I don't recall, but if you let me review my reports, I'll be able to tell you. And he says, so I'd have to dig through this box of records for you to remember. And it's like, dude, you knew she was going to be called. You knew you were going to be asking these questions. Why are you Mr. Unprepared and didn't have the records that she would need to refresh her recollection? So.

[B]

Because it's all for show, right?

[A]

I know it's all for show, but it's annoying.

[B]

And you're right. Like my outline binder for every witness, I have a tab for every single witness, and every tab behind it are all the exhibits that I may possibly use. I may not show them all of it, but it's everything I could possibly use so that I don't have to dig through a box of records. So just so you know, it really is all for show. Because when you prep, this is precisely the thing you would pull if you actually cared about them reviewing the records. But clearly he doesn't. It's for show to show that, like, either they don't know what they're talking about, or they can't really speak to how serious she was.

[A]

This episode is sponsored by Better Help 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 and 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. And if the fit's not right, see

[B]

the reviews, see what stands out and see if BetterHelp is right for you. Visit betterhelp.com prosecutors that's Better H E L P.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 Quo, 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.

[A]

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 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 power prosecutors that's quo.com

[B]

prosecutors 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 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 and 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 off 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.

[A]

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. Best thing that's ever happened to you financially. Go easy. Sold my car on Carvana. Amazing offer, really. I hit 200 on a scratcher. Did the scratcher come to your house and hand you a check? No. How many scratchers did you hit to get that? I hit a button on Carvana.com once. Okay, that's fair. It's like the lottery, except you always win. Not like the lottery at all, actually. Exactly. Inexplicably good offers. Worth bragging about. Sell your car today on Carvana.

[B]

Pick up.

[A]

Fees may apply.

[B]

Next is Joseph Rabbit, who's a Massachusetts State Police cybercrime officer. At the time, he's a trooper detective now. He was one of the people who helped execute the search warrant on the Clancy home. He recovered the Pill bottles from the kitchen. And Patrick Clancy then brought in a bag of medication. And then they proceeded to run through each of the medication bottles, the drugs and how many pills were in each bottle from the pills that Patrick Clancy provided. And he provided nine medication bottles. Here's how many were left in each bottle. Lorazepam. It was from October 26, 2022. 14 out of 30 pills left. So about half. Zoloft, prescribed on September 15, 2022. 23 of 30 pills left. Buspiron prescribed on October 26, 2022. 28 of 30 pills left. Hydrazine prescribed on October 26, 2022, 27 of 30 left. Clonazepam. November 25, 2022 was when it was prescribed. 11 and a half of 14 pills were left. Fluoxetine prescribed on November 21, 2022. 43 of 56 pills left. Lorazepam. This time, a second bottle of Lorazepam. November 2, 2022. 18 and a half of 40 pills left. Another Buspiron, this one prescribed November 9, 2022. All 30 of 30 pills were left. Trazodone. November 16, 2022, 22 and a half of 30 pills were left. So in other words, of these nine bottles, only Lorazepam had the most taken, which was right, about half of the pills, whereas all of the rest of them, the majority of the pills were still in the bottles.

[A]

Now, the problem with this, and we've talked about this before, the prosecution loves to walk into the punch. The defense has already told you exactly their view on this. Patrick has already testified to it. These pills are the pills that she was taking when her prescriptions were changed. So she stopped taking the pills, and that's why Patrick had them. So she had other pills. And if you notice the dates of prescriptions, there's one from September. The Last one is November 25th. She kills the kids January 24th. There were a lot of prescriptions in between then. And of course, on cross examination, what's the defense attorney gonna do? He's gonna ask about all those pill bottles in the drawer, which he does. And, you know, the fact that they were seized. Now, this witness had never seen them, but he doesn't care. The defense attorney is just using this as another opportunity to just to remind the jury this doesn't matter. Like they're telling you evidence that doesn't matter. And at some point, juries start thinking you're trying to confuse them and you're trying to mislead them when you do stuff like this. And I Mean, I can understand, I guess, bringing it out that Patrick provided some pills, but this extended going through each bottle when they were prescribed, how many were left. When you've got, you know, you made the decision to call Patrick first, and when you did that, you've got his testimony explaining this fully. And now you got the jury who's sitting there thinking, at best, why are you wasting my time? I already know about these and I know these don't matter. And at worst, why are you trying to confuse me? Why are you trying to mislead me? So I just think this prosecution team and people can talk about hair bows and everything else all they want. The problem for the prosecution is some of the things they're doing seem like real mistakes, serious mistakes that undermine the case and undermine the case they're trying to present. And I felt like this was another one of those moments. So maybe that's just me. And the defense attorney makes all the points I just made about the pills. They were prescribed over a short period of time. He says weeks is actually a couple months. But nevertheless, same point. You know, these are early stages of her treatment, frankly. And it changed a lot after that. We then have Maureen Hartnet, which if you guys follow true crime, this was a blast in the past. One of the witnesses from the Karen Retro, you would think as presumably a member of the conspiracy, that she'd be in prison somewhere. Now, she's certainly not working for the state, but of course we know that was all fake. And so she's, she's back testifying like normal. You know, shockingly, the defense attorney did not cross examine her on her involvement in the Karen Reed case and how she clearly was, you know, corrupt public agent or something. But anyways, she's a forensic scientist at the crime lab and she examines items for fluid or other biological material. And she examined Lindsay's hands, she received some clothing, she went to the house, she collected carpet with blood from the house. A lot of technical testimony about collecting all these various items. Months later, she was sent back by the police to see if she could recover more blood from the window sill. So I think at this point the police are starting to develop the theory that we now understand to be their position, which is Lindsay did not jump out of that window, she did not throw herself out of the window. She lowered herself down, sort of hung by her hands, which are already cut. The blood from her hands is dripping down onto the shingles between the second floor window, in the first floor window until she lets go. And when she lets go, she then falls, and I think, in the prosecution's theory, falls in a way that almost. I'm not going to call it miraculous, but she should have been fine given the distance she fell from. But she fell in such a way that she had a catastrophic injury, but not when she intended. That's the prosecution's theory of what happened, by the way. Not necessarily what happened, but that's why they sent her back to collect more of these red brown stains from the shingles to determine whether or not it was Lindsay's blood. It's amazing they can even do that. But it had been months. It had been in the weather, that particular spot of blood. She wasn't able to get anything else out of it. And she did other things like take samples of the exercise bands. So on cross, the defense attorney keeps asking her to say something is blood, and she won't do it because she didn't test it. This is. It'll be like, there's a big pool of blood. And she'll say, well, I know that spot's blood because we tested that. Now we didn't test the spot next to it. So I can't say it's blood. I presume it's blood, but I can't say it's blood. And this irritated the defense attorney, and he was also irritated. And this. These lawyers, man, he also gets mad at her because she's looking at the jury while she's answering questions. I would have objected to this, by the way. Prosecution doesn't object much, but he starts asking her about being trained and is she trained to look at the jury? How this is relevant testimony, irrelevant questions, I'm not sure. But she's like, yeah. And he's like, well, I want you to look at me after answering questions. He's like, okay.

[B]

And once again, there's no nothing wrong with looking at the jury.

[A]

And there's nothing about this witness that's like, I need.

[B]

She's not the big one, right? Like, this is a boring one. I just feel like at this point, kind of like the conspiracy theory about Patrick Clancy. He's trying to keep it exciting. I don't know. So that if you only tune in 110 minutes for every eight hours of testimony, that you're like, man, he's on fire. Must be because he believes in his client. I don't know. I have no idea. But it's a bit much, shall we say? Okay, well, the theatrics continue despite the witnesses being relatively boring. So the next one. And by the way, boring is Not. That's not derogatory. I would love to. To be a boring witness at a trial. I don't wanna be the Perry Mason moment. So these are all important witnesses, but no bombshells here. So Joseph Olujan, who's a trooper at the crime scene team, testifies next. He responds to the scene to photograph and document the crime scene. And when he responded, he took a bunch of pictures. He collected items to be processed, including the knife. And there's limited detail on the knife. He says it's ridge impressions, but not. No fingerprints could be recovered. Which just from Brett and my experience, totally normal knives and guns are really hard to get fingerprints off of.

[A]

And I just want to say the Patrick Clancy conspiracy theory lies several times. The first lie is that he sat there without emotion while they played the 911 call that didn't happen. He booked it out of there after his testimony because he knew the 911 call was coming. The second thing, it is not true that there were no fingerprints on the knife. That is not true. There were fingerprints on the knife. They just could not recover them. There's a big difference between the knife was wiped down and they could not recover the fingerprints they could tell were on the knife.

[B]

Yes, exactly. And he also talked about the exercise bands, that there was not enough fingerprints on them to recover either. You've seen the ridges, all of it. That as well. And again, he's not saying that they've been wiped down, but rather those are very hard surfaces to recover fingerprints from. So on cross, basically, the defense just continues on their merry band of circusry, shall we say. He just complains like, why are you being called? Why are you here? It's like, I don't know, I got subpoenaed. You think, I want to be here. But basically, that's the cross examination is just complaining about the fact that this trooper is called at all. He would, of course be called. He was on the crime scene. He, like, documented all these things and collected these things that are germane to the crime. So totally normal that he would be called. But that is the cross examination, probably, honestly, because there's not much to cross him on. Now then they complain completely predictably about, you guessed it, the drugs in the nightstand. You collected all these other things. The knife, the exercise bands. Why didn't you find the drug bottles in the nightstand? So like Brett said, we already know. This is going to be kind of a recurring theme in all of these things.

[A]

I'll say this, it was pretty funny. The defense attorney's like, we spent all this time on your qualifications just for you to tell us you didn't find anything. And it's like. He's like, oh, but it's true.

[B]

And it happens, by the way.

[A]

It does happen. But it was important because the jury always wonders about this stuff. This trial, in many ways, is the opposite of so many trials we see where people are constantly asking why they didn't test this, why didn't they test that, why didn't they ask about this, why didn't they ask about about that. We're not going to have that problem here because they ask about everything. Now, ironically, they don't ask the questions that I would like them to ask. It would actually clarify some things. But they do call everybody and their mother. So. All right, then we have Hillary Griffiths. She works at the crime lab. She processes samples from the law enforcement, the medical examiner. She tests for drugs and blood and urine. She did the test for benzos in the urine and blood. The blood contained lorazepam and its metabolites on cross. It's funny because the prosecution, they're, like, doing what you're supposed to do. Like, the only thing she tested is for lorazepam. The defense turn gets open. He's like, all right, let's just talk about the tox report. Can we just talk about the thing. Can we just talk about all the drugs in the tox report? Let's skip ahead. And he goes through all the drugs in her system. The lorazepam, the lamotrigine, the quetiapine, the trazodone. And kind of funny, because he doesn't worry about the narrow thing she worked on. And I think, honestly, if you watch today, I think even the judge is getting a little irritated the way the prosecution's doing this. Like, it's like, he's not objecting. Let's just move this forward in a way that gets all the information in front of the jury.

[B]

So next is Lisa Yell, who worked for the crime lab in toxicology. She tested for drugs. The. If the previous witness just worked on the narrow. What is it? Lorazepam. She tested for lamotrigine, quetiapine, trazodone. And at this point, the parties do stipulations for the toxicology for Cora Dawson and Cowan. And so the court reads those toxicology reports into the record, and you'd think that would be it, that you think. This is where I got confused. I was like, okay, we got toxicology of the three kids done. Nope. Now, this is what is A little tiresome. So the prosecution then calls Alicia Zimmerman, who's a forensic scientist at the crime lab, and she's the one who tested Callan Clancy's for substances. And she reported that there were no substances. And she reported that for Cora Clancy, there were no substances, and for Dawson, no substances. So I was a little confused by this because I thought we already had all this in the record.

[A]

And that's the thing. Like, I can imagine that being important. Did she drug the kids first? The answer is no. We can stipulate to that, read into the record. That means you don't have to call the witness to say the thing you just stipulated to. And the defense attorney. And I know that this probably irritates some of you or it comes off wrong, but he's always like, your honor, we just stipulated to this. Why are we doing this? And then they have to have a sidebar because he can't say that in front of the jury. He's doing a good job of getting enough in front of the jury that the jury knows prosecution is dragging this on. Defense would like to just move forward. He is a savvy, good lawyer. He doesn't always come across as a good lawyer. Like, he has this sort of. You remember how if you ever watch Matlock, Matlock was always disheveled and his suit was kind of frumpy. You know, his tie wasn't always straight. But then he'd come in and crush everybody in court. It's kind of something like that. He's got this folksy. Is he drunk? Is he even there? Did he take a shower this morning? I don't know. But then he comes in, and he does a really good job of making his point. So I've been pretty impressed by him in a lot of ways. Even though he does things that irritates me, he's still pretty impressive. Okay, then there's Sherry Cook. She is a supervisor at Crime Scene Response at the lab. She does blood pattern analysis, and she gives definitions for all the different words people use to describe blood. If you don't watch anything else in this case, I may go back and watch this again. Go. Just watch this woman. This woman knows what she's talking about, and she defines. We can't get a definition for superficial wounds, but she defines, like, all the different words you've ever heard about blood. Spatter, pooling, swipes, wipes, drips, drops, pools. I mean, all of it cast off. It's really, really interesting testimony where she goes through it and explains how blood flows and everything. Really cool. So check her out if you're interested in that kind of thing. She talks about various things. There's a saturation stain in the basement, in the bedroom. There are drip stains from an injury in the bedroom window. Seal has blood transfer on it. There are drip stains on the nightstand near the knife. There's a stain in the snow below. Below the window. They, you know, they couldn't recover that snow. And all I could think was, if only you had some solo cups, you could have recovered that blood in the snow. So they couldn't say for certain whether or not it was blood or not because, you know, they couldn't recover it because in snow, there were stains near the bed, there were drip stains, and then there was blood on the exterior of the house. And this goes to that whole hanging theory which our friend, the defense attorney, see, he wants to describe it, and I've now figured this out when he talks about Spider man, he wants to describe it is like she, like shimmied down the house, right? So she was hanging there and she, like shimmied down the house to the bottom. That is not the theory of the prosecution. The theory is that she hung there and the blood got on the shingles not because she shimmied across them with her cut hands, but because her, the blood is dripping. And this lady talks about that how you can tell that on these shingles are drip stains, which means that a wound was hanging above them somehow. Now, maybe she leaned out with her hands out for a little while and let it drip before she jumped or something. But somehow blood dripped from her arms, from the wound down onto these shingles in between the second floor window and the first floor window. And the prosecution's theory is it's dripping when she's hanging. She's hanging there with their cut hands and the drips going down, it's hitting the shingles and then she drops. I mean, look this, as I've said before, I don't know how important all this is really, but this is a really important part for the prosecution. They clearly are trying to prove this, that she did not dive head first out that window. She dropped, and then when she fell, something went wrong. Either she dropped and she twisted wrong in the air or she hit and she fell back and hit her head or something. They're trying to go for that. And I think it's to show that she wasn't that serious about killing herself. Once again, I don't fully understand the prosecution's theory of this case, but that seems to be what they are going for. And they show the pictures and you can see the blood. And it's a significant amount of blood on these shingles. And the defense, of course, starts to cross by being a jerk. So he asks her a question, and she gives a really good, detailed answer because she's really impressive. And he's like, can you just answer yes or no and then maybe a sentence? And she's like, okay. And so then once again, he does the same thing with her. Why didn't you test every single blood? This is a murder case. Why didn't you test every single drop of blood? And you know, she's like, we tested blood groupings. We did not test every single drop of blood to show that it was blood. And they didn't do confirmatory test beyond the one they have. So now, we talked about this in Leo Schofield case, and this attorney actually explains this how back in the day when you did blood test, it could be anything. It could be animal feces, it could be plant material. It could be basically anything. Could come back with a positive response for blood. Now, that doesn't happen. They can't tell you it's human blood, but they can tell you it's either human or primate. I don't think this is like the Murder on the Rue Morgue. I think if there's blood that's either primate or human, it's human blood. And then they only test further if they want to show DNA whose it is. So they talked about that a little bit, a very interesting bit of testimony. And you should check it out if you're interested in this sort of thing.

[B]

And that was day six. So that was Tuesday of trial. And this is what we mean. Important testimony, but relatively rote. Right. We are in the drone and the hum of trial. So day seven continues. First up is Eaton Negri. He's a physician's assistant at Brigham at the time. Now, he came in to treat her wrists, Lindsay's wrists, And he did not work on her neck because he said that they were superficial cuts there. Now, she was less acute. So they fell down the chain to him like he was a physician's assistant, not the attending. And the whole point was that he could treat her. It was. It was not, you know, they weren't sewing her neck back on, for example. And he first treated the right wrist. He said that there was one laceration deep enough to need repair. It was three, he said, centimeters long. I think it was millimeters.

[A]

Right, okay. He said 3cm deep, which is impossible.

[B]

Impossible because you're it would basically, she

[A]

would have cut her arm off if it was 3cm deep.

[B]

I think he meant long, right?

[A]

I think he meant long. I think he meant long. Never gets clarified. I think he meant long, but I think he meant long, right?

[B]

So. So he says 3cm deep. I think he meant long. And he sutured the right wrist with three stitches. Take for that what you will. I don't know. I. You guys may not see this, but always wear your seatbelts. When I was a child, I did not wear my seatbelt, and my mom had to slam on the brakes when we were in the driveway, and I flew forward. We're in a Buick with those, like, million metal little. What do you call, buttons for the radio? Like, literally 25 buttons. And my face just slammed into the. The radio buttons. And I, like, cut up my entire face and, like, sliced open. It was almost face off, but not quite sliced open my face. It was like, kind of hanging out. Three stitches. Kind of impressive that it was like, you know, like, in other words, it was actually not huge. So the scar is less than a fingertip. Okay. She has three stitches. He also stere stripped the rest, so it wasn't so deep that they. Those required stitches. And then on the left wrist, he said that there were lacerations. They were 1 cm long, and one stitch was required. And the rest of it he kind of sutured with steri strips. So the cuts went no deeper than the subcutaneous tissue, which we've heard before as well. That's really what superficial means, right? Like, I think you could see the fat, but it doesn't go to the muscle of the tendons. Now the defense goes through how bad she was, you know, like, how horrible she tried to end her life on all these things. And he just continues with, like, this is what I did. Three stitches on the right hand, one stitch on the left hand. Couple stickers to put hold it together, redirect. The prosecutor comes in and says, look, deep doesn't mean deep, right? But then he says, no, no, it does mean deep. This is why trial's real fun. You never know exactly what your witness is going to say. So the prosecution manages to say the opposite, which confuses everyone. Like, I had no idea what was going on, frankly. So, like, they were like, it really wasn't that deep, right? And it was like, oh, no, it was deep. So. But what Brett just said, if the cut was actually 3cm deep, it would basically cut off your arm, I think, like, yeah, pretty much. There's my wrist. Take my hand thing.

[A]

Probably about that far. I mean.

[B]

Yeah, I wish I had a. Wait.

[A]

I measured it. I measured it today because I was curious. I do.

[B]

I. I measured it today, too, but now I've lost all my things. I'm going to find a ruler.

[A]

While you talk, while you're looking for a ruler. I mean, look for a ruler. This is just another example, like you would expect. This is not even what we're fighting about.

[B]

And also, his testimony is great. I would have left it with no to redirect. Three stitches and one stitch. That's it.

[A]

That's all that matters.

[B]

Babies are dead, and all you have is three stitches and one stitches and some stickers to hold your, like, paper cut together. Leave it. Leave it. That's what I would say to the prosecution.

[A]

And. And someone in the chat's mentioning they don't measure depth, usually numerically, for simple lacerations. And that makes sense. I mean, what do you do? Jabbing like a ruler down into the wound to try and figure out how deep it is? It clearly. I think he clearly meant long.

[B]

And maybe, by the way, you get very nervous when you're on the stand.

[A]

Yes. And maybe even deep. He's thinking, like, deep. Like it's towards the body deep. You know, it's like, I don't know. I don't know. It was silly and stupid and confusing and nobody understood it, and.

[B]

And it didn't advance the ball.

[A]

It didn't advance the ball. And it's one of those simple things, because it's likely not. Maybe not likely, but it's certainly possible that there were jurors who came away from that so confused about that that they missed the fact that she needed three stitches on one arm and one on the other. And the whole point the prosecution is trying to make is these weren't very serious injuries. And they're like, is it deep? Is it long? Is it centimeters? Is it millimeters? I don't know. You know, just silly stuff. Just mistakes that you just don't need to make. And we're gonna see more of them as we go. And I will say this. I have gotten emails from some of y' all that have done a better job of explaining basic medicine than this prosecution team. I'll just give you an example real fast. The massive blood transfusion thing, which the defense keeps hammering on because it says massive, and that seems like, oh, massive. It must have been really serious. Apparently, that's a standard procedure that whenever you have a patient who may need a blood transfusion a serious blood transfusion. You go ahead and call for a massive blood transfusion. They get a bunch of different blood ready, a bunch of different material ready. You may only need like one thing from that. You may call it off altogether. It may not be a big deal at all. But the prosecution never explained what that was or what it meant or how it applied in her case or how much blood she had, or they just never did it. And the defense attorney just keeps saying massive blood transfer. It was massive, right? And it's just silly stuff like this. I don't understand why it keeps happening. Anyways, so Nicholas Roberts, he works at the Mass crime lab in the toxicology unit. He did the screening test for alcohol. Now call was detected benzodiapines were. At this point, the judge is starting to get testy as well with this and the way the case is being presented. Because the prosecutor keeps referring to the number of the report and not just saying who we talking about. So the judge is like, just say you're talking about. You don't have to refer to it by the evidence number, the exhibit number. And she's like, you want me just to read it? And he's like, no, just say who it is. And then they have a sidebar.

[B]

Just say Smith's report.

[A]

Exactly. Or it's just Lindsey Clancy. This is not one of the kids. This is Lindsey Clancy's blood we're talking about. So anyways. But we do the same thing we've been doing. We have the same testimony as before about which substances were there. The only thing that stood out was that they were reportable. And he doesn't know if they are therapeutic amounts or not. So, so basically he just repeats testimony we've already heard and then we move on to the next person. He was Dr. Justin Brower. He works at the lab and does forensic drug work and he's a forensic toxicologist. Why we called the last guy, I don't know. Because this guy provided us all the information we might want to know. He says the drugs you had were lamotrigine, which is lamictal. I think it's lamictal. Actually, it's an anti seizure.

[B]

I don't know. But all I've learned is that I should not copy whatever the attorneys are are saying.

[A]

Oh, or half the witnesses. They all pronounce things differently.

[B]

I'm like, wait a sec, I'll stop and be like, oh, is that how you say it? And then it. It's mispronounced another five times. I'm like, Never mind. I can't depend on you guys.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, it's just wild. So this lamotrigine is an anti seizure and bipolar medication. It was 6.1 milligrams per milliliter of blood and we'll learn what that means in a bit. There's Trazodone, which is an antidepressant, 0.44 milligrams per milliliter. Quetiapine, which is Seroquel, an antipsychotic and sleep agent. Sleep aid, 1800 nanograms per milliliter. Mirtazapine, which is remeron, and antidepressant at 200 nanograms per milliliter. Of all these, only Seroquel was a little elevated. So if Patrick was using this to drug her so that he could take over her mind, he didn't give her too much. The rest were in therapeutic levels. None were at the toxic or suicidal level. In fact, you would expect to see a thousand nanograms per milliliter for Seroquel. Remember, she had her Seroquel was point ten thousand.

[B]

Ten thousand.

[A]

Ten thousand.

[B]

Is that what she only had, eighteen hundred?

[A]

Yeah, ten thousand nanograms. She had eighteen hundred. So just to give you a comparison for like she didn't have.

[B]

Yeah, so it's out of level. Right.

[A]

She also had Diazepam, which is Valium, at a sub therapeutic level, certainly not at a toxic level. And he did say that a combination of a large amount of these drugs could stop breathing, but not anywhere near these levels. You need a lot more to do this. And once again, this fits into the story the prosecution is trying to tell. I think. I mean, I'm giving you the best I can. We'll see what they say in closing argument. But it seems like the story is Lindsay Clancy, very effective, very thorough in murdering her children, made sure they were dead. There was no hesitation in choking the life out of her five year old daughter, who probably fought for minutes trying to save her life from her mother. But when it came to cutting her wrist, lots of hesitation there. If she even was doing it on purpose. Lots of hesitation. Not very serious wounds when she crushed up pills and took them. Didn't take a lot, didn't take enough to kill her. You think she'd know? She's a nurse. And also, by the way, she knew Patrick would be home soon. And then when she, quote, unquote, jumps out the window. She doesn't jump, she hangs from the window and drops. Did she end up having a serious injury? Yes, but that doesn't mean she intended it like if I have a gun in my hand and I'm spinning around in my hand and it goes off and shoots me in the head, that's a very serious injury. I did not intend it. I wasn't trying to shoot myself in the head. I did something that led to a serious injury, but the intent isn't there. Similar argument here. People keep focusing on how bad her wounds were and the defense keeps hammering on how bad her wounds were. But the only really serious injury she had once again was from the drop, which she could not control beyond what she did. She controlled it as much as she could. She hung from the window and dropped. What happened after that turned out was very bad for her, but she couldn't control how she landed her anything after the drop. So that, I think is what the prosecution is trying to say. And this is yet another part of that. Now in Cross, the defense attorney points out numbers don't tell the whole story. You can't speak to her motives and goes through information he didn't have. He didn't necessarily know that this woman had just killed her kids. He didn't know that she had cut her wrist. He didn't know that she had had this drop. So his interpretation is really just limited to telling you what the numbers are. He can't tell you the intent behind it. 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.

[B]

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 customers surveyed who saved with Progressive between June 2024 and May 2025. Potential savings will vary.

[A]

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.

[B]

It is easily the most fought over item in my entire house. With my four kids, I, 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 Lola Blankets 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 no irritation, no pink tax pricing. You ladies know what I'm talking about. And their starter set has everything you need to get started.

[A]

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, one five 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 we sent you.

[B]

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 Quin 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.

[A]

Guys, at this point, if you see me and I'm not wearing a T shirt, I'm probably wearing Quinn. 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 quince.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.

[B]

So next, there's another stipulation and that's about the DNA and red brown stain that are found on the blue exercise band. So the parties stipulate that the DNA from the whole family is found on the blue exercise band. Not that surprising. I think both Lindsay and Patrick worked out down there. My kids touch all of my equipment all the time. So not surprising, everyone who lives in the home, their DNA is found on the exercise band. The blood that was found on the exercise band was Cora Clancy's. That hit me in a way like in JonBenet Ramsey's case when her garrote had her hair stuck within it, there was just something so like visceral about it. So clearly she was fighting and there's blood coming out of her mouth here. So next they call Katerina Sachin. She's a forensic scientist at the State Police DNA unit. Now, because everyone is related, the whole thing is pretty worthless at this point because we know they're all a family member, right? So the yellow band ends. There's mixture with male DNA. There's Dawson Clancy. The defense objects to DNA gobbledygook, which is a scientific term, don't you know. But the prosecution objects to his objection, which I don't think is correct. I don't Think you object to an objection. You just resist. You just resist the objection.

[A]

When she jumped up and said, I object to his objection, the jump up. Sorry, stand up. But I was like, this is hilarious. So of course they had a sidebar. I mean, look, this was a waste of time.

[B]

This was a waste, total waste of time.

[A]

They're all their DNA.

[B]

They're all their DNA is going to be on this. It doesn't tell anyone. And also, like we said, it's really not a question of who killed kids. Right? I would expect all five of their DNA to be on these bands.

[A]

In opening statement, the defense attorney says that she knows she killed the kids. Like, he has admitted it. Now, granted, I agree completely with the state. He can't stipulate it all away and keep them from producing this evidence. But no one outside of TikTok thinks that she didn't do it. And none of these jurors are supposed to be on TikTok. So this all.

[B]

There's been no question. I don't. I didn't understand.

[A]

And it doesn't prove it like DNA does.

[B]

It doesn't say. Basically, what we draw from all of this is there's a bunch of DNA on all of these bands. Lindsay's DNA is on the black band, as you would expect it, but it's also like on other bands. And Cora's DNA is also in the middle of the band, which you would expect because it's not the ends that she's struggling with, it's the middle. So it's devastating in that you can envision what it would be like to be strangled to death with these bands. But the actual, I guess, helpfulness of knowing whose DNA was on what, not particularly helpful here. But Sachin also tested the blood on the outside of the house, confirmed that it is Lindsay's blood.

[A]

And now we come to the last witness of the day.

[B]

Pretty interesting.

[A]

Absolute cell phone by the prosecution, in my opinion. Cell phone, self goal A, they blocked their own shot, they dunked on the wrong hoop, whatever you want to call it.

[B]

I haven't heard that term before, but I was just gonna be like, why did they call her?

[A]

I have no idea.

[B]

Like, I mean, we will talk about the line that she says that, like, even the prosecutor didn't know how to respond to. And I was like, what did we learn from this? Nothing.

[A]

I mean, look, there is a theory that wins this case. It's not that Lindsay Clancy was super controlling and that's why she.

[B]

Or that she was a bad mom or anything like that.

[A]

Like, I mean, and let me just say this. We're going to talk about the nanny. And the nanny is the one that she wrote the books for with all the detailed instructions. People have said things like, well, maybe they're trying to show that Lindsay was in total control. And so this notion that she was out of control and she was psychotic just doesn't even make sense. The notes she wrote for the nanny are like, in September, October, November, the nanny's gone by December. She's not there in Christmas. She leaves early December. The fact that Lindsay Clancy was super in control in November tells you nothing about where she was in January. We know that her mental health declined. She becomes admitted to the hospital January 1st, well after the nannies left. Whatever value there was in showing that she had it all together, even though the nanny's testifying to things falling apart, by the way, it just doesn't make sense. And the whole controlling mom thing is absurd. But anyways, let's talk about her testimony. Money. So this is the nanny for the children, mostly for Callan. And she started the week of Labor Day. The kids called her Lanny. And they go through the notebooks that Lindsay wrote for her describing sort of like Callan's day. So far, what he's done. You know, he had a bottle at this time, so put him down here and do this and that. Once again, I don't know why they did this. It doesn't make any sense to me. Let me say something else about these notebooks, including the notebook she wrote. So you may recall last episode, the prosecution read some parts of her notebook and then the defense attorney turns around and reads parts that are helpful. I've seen a lot of people comment on them about how she seems like such a good mom and the things she wrote were so relatable and all this other stuff. Why did the prosecution introduce that notebook into evidence? Recall, hearsay rules say you cannot introduce the statements of the accused in their support. You can't put in out of court statements by the accused if it's the accused who wants to admit them. Lindsay Clancy couldn't have put those books into evidence. The prosecution can because they can put the opposing party statements into evidence. And when they do that, guess what the defense can do?

[B]

They get to use them without putting on the stand.

[A]

And that's exactly what they did. And it's like, why did you do that? Why introduce those notebooks? And now the defense is getting to read all this stuff. It's similar stuff here. Anyways, so she plays a short Video of Callan taking a bottle which she had sent to Lindsay, which is a touching moment. But once again, I mean, she took Cora and Dawson to Tumble Fun. And this is another thing. Remember, if the theory is she was so in control, why isn't she in control anymore? Well, she took them to Tumble Fun because Lindsay was at a point where she couldn't drive anymore. Well, why is she at a point where she couldn't drive? Because of all these different things that are happening. And in November, she tells her that she's suffering from postpartum depression. Now, she keeps calling it postpartum. You know, there's two different things. There's postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis. Postpartum psychosis is the question of this case. Was Lindsay in postpartum psychosis or drug induced psychosis because of her bipolar? I mean, that's really what we're looking at. But I think postpartum depression is sort of the first step down the road. And I think when she says postpartum, she's talking about postpartum depression. Now, of course, no one clarifies, no one says, when you say postpartum, do you mean postpartum depression? Because that. Why would you do that? Really key issue here, she sort of alternates between. She didn't really notice anything unusual about Lindsay, but she did notice things like the not being able to drive, that she's losing weight. She talks about how Lindsay was upset that she had to stop nursing Callan because she was going on medication. And she described Lindsay as a wonderful mom. Talks about how she had trouble sleeping. She was struggling with some things. But she's very complimentary to Lindsay as a mother.

[B]

She was very complimentary. And by the way, Lindsay's sitting across from her. She was her employer and she was only there for like a couple of months. So I wouldn't expect honestly her testimony to be any different. So then she goes on to testify that in early December, Patrick and Lindsay went out for a walk and when they returned, they told her that Lindsay wasn't going to go back to work and therefore they needed to let her as a nanny go. And she said nothing unusual happened. She was given two weeks notice. It wasn't like she wasn't fired. It was just because Lindsay wasn't going to go back to work. And she talks about the children. I think the prosecution was trying to draw out like the heart wrenching testimony of this. It didn't really, you know, she was their nanny, but she was only their nanny for a couple months. And she even said she's like, I didn't interact with Cora and Dawson that much because they were at school. And so though the prosecution was trying to kind of elicit the heartfelt testimony, it fell a little bit flat, to be honest. I mean, she had very complimentary things to say about them. You know, she said that Cora was a girly girl and that Dawson was all energy. And I didn't understand the prosecution's questions here. She was like, did you think that Dawson was particularly difficult? I was like, is that another theory that, like, she got frustrated with Dawson?

[A]

Well, Lindsay had said on one of those online forums that Dawson was the most difficult human she'd ever known. So I think they were hammering that

[B]

he's a three year old boy. That's the thing.

[A]

There's nothing unusual about that.

[B]

I have said that about all of my kids at some point. So I don't know. None of those questions quite landed. They were kind of fun floating out there as if you expected one to land to make a point for the prosecution. And it didn't. And she did describe, because she spent the most time with Callan, that he was the happiest, easiest, sweetest baby, which is really sad because obviously he's no longer here. So then on cross examination, honestly, the defense didn't have to do much here because she was not a devastating witness for Lindsay Clancy at all. Now, she said she was a wonderful mom. Unprompted. That wasn't part of a question. She just kind of slipped that in there.

[A]

She was the defense witness. Why the prosecution called her, I don't know.

[B]

I know she's absolutely a defense witness. So on cross, she says that she left the Clancy's home on good terms and that she was interviewed by the police on March 1, and she told the troopers that Lindsay was loving and doting, that there was no indication that there were any issues at home between Lindsay and the kids. And then they go through that notebook again that the prosecution had entered in. They go through how Lindsay left notes about how to take care of Callan. And she says that she loved Lindsay like there was nothing wrong. And she comes off like she has. There's no reason for her to lie. This nanny, she's older than Lindsay. She's been a nanny for what, 12, 13 years, something like that. So she's not some like young college girl babysitter. This is her job and she's seasoned at it. And she seemed relatively unflappable, like she did not tear up like many of these other witnesses have about this. Not to say she's not affected by it, but she didn't seem like she had any bone to pick or any side to kind of join here.

[A]

Yeah. I mean, I don't know if she's part of the conspiracy theory because she didn't react the way people think she should have reacted on the stand. She very clearly cared about these kids and was devastated by their loss. She was a great witness for the defense. I don't know why the prosecution called her. She didn't do much at all, if anything, for the prosecution.

[B]

If anything, I would get confused when I'm the jury, because it ends with she's a wonderful mom.

[A]

I mean, which leads me to believe,

[B]

well, then it must be psychosis if she's a wonderful problem.

[A]

This is the problem. You just put your fingers on it. We are dissecting this case now. We're really getting into this case, the nitty gritty of this case and how she might have been hanging and what millimeter she cut her hands and all sort of stuff. But there's going to be people who just look at this case and they say, look, her husband said that she loved those kids. The nanny said she loved those kids. There's no way she did this. And it wasn't psychosis. And I don't really need to know any more evidence. There's no way there's going to be people who say that. And I don't know that the prosecution should be the ones putting on the witnesses who are going to convince people of that. And I don't. To the extent this was a. We're going to take the sting out of it by calling them ourselves. I don't think it worked. And the fact that they're doing it in the middle of their case, it just undermines, you know, we talked about the last day was a bad day for Lindsay Clancy. When the prosecution's presenting their case, the defense should have lots of bad days. The defendant should have a lot of bad days because the prosecution's putting on its case there should be lots of bad days. That's the way it goes. That's the whole point.

[B]

The fact that there aren't haven't been any bad days. That's the problem. I'm like, ooh.

[A]

Like, there have been moments.

[B]

We didn't start off. We didn't start off with a bad day. Like. Like Patrick, defense witness. Honestly, the most shocking thing was what she wrote when she could not speak.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

And it wasn't even. It was not good, but it was not like, well, gosh darn, the case is over. Especially when you have all these other witnesses. And I'm like, is this a defense witness? Literally today I started listening to the nanny and I was like, have we reached the defenses case already?

[A]

I just think a more streamlined case, cutting out a lot of this fat that doesn't matter, really focusing on the things that do. Because, you know, the jury's just like us. They're sitting over there thinking, when are we going to get to the real question? I get it. She killed him. I'm convinced that she killed him. I'm not a TikTok idiot. I know she killed him.

[B]

I think what's going on here is your classic problem where you lose the forest among the trees.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Like this case is all about the forest. Because at the end of the day, people are going to have a guttural reaction. Did she kill them like, you know, cold blooded criminal or was. There's no way that this mom could have killed her kids. So therefore the only explanation. You don't have to show me that she was in psychosis. The only explanation is she was out of her mind. Because I cannot believe that this woman that you are putting in front of me, who, you know, writes these detailed notes to the nanny and is a loving mom, quits her job so she could spend more time with her kids, who celebrated, despite having postpartum struggles every single time, wanted more kids because that's all she wanted in life. You can't tell me this woman killed this kid. It's a forest case. And I feel like what we're seeing is getting real lost in the trees. But at the end of the day, when the jury goes into that room, there's one question. Did she kill them with murderous intent or was she out of her mind?

[A]

And I also say this, they also could just be shorter. With some of these witnesses, like the fingerprint guy, it didn't need to be 30 minutes. It could have been five. They could have put him up. The defense attorney wasn't gonna say. He wasn't qualified. How long you been a fingerprint person? This long? Done it a bunch of times. Yes. Did you test this? Yes. You test that? Yeah. What'd you get? Well, we can see some ridges, but we weren't able to test them enough to get fingerprints. So at the end of day, you couldn't get any usable fingerprints from the fingerprints you could see. Couldn't get any. Thank you. No further questions. That's it. Now you covered the fingerprints? You know, I just. I don't get it. I don't understand it. And I don't want to be overly critical to these folks because they're living it night and day right now. They're getting ready for tomorrow. And it's hard when you're in it. It is so hard. Cutting witnesses is so hard because you're like, what if this is the witness? What if the fingerprint guy turns the whole thing and we get rid of him, you know? And it's just like, that's probably not what it's gonna turn on. So anyways, well, that's it. That's it for today, as we said.

[B]

Kind of amazing that we. Despite us talking so much, that really was like two full days of witnesses. So you can tell not a lot happening in trial right now.

[A]

I keep thinking we're gonna have a couple days and we're gonna have so much. It's like, oh, my goodness.

[B]

Which is why it's actually so amazing when people do cover these trials and they talk for like eight hours a day. I'm like, how? There's nothing. Which is why, you know, you're probably getting fed a lot of fat and bs.

[A]

But even though that's the end of the trial, we do have some more excellent emails from listeners that we wanted to share. Just want to repeat. So thankful for you guys. I'm sorry we can't share them all. We've gotten so many, and they've influenced my thinking, and I hope you're hearing it as we talk about this. As we mentioned, various things like, I know what a massive blood transfusion is now. Thanks for that. So here's a listener email. I'm going to read this, and this is interesting because I saw this very argument on Facebook recently, and that's why this grabbed me. I wanted to share something about the question of motive. I've seen a lot of comments along the lines of, she had to be psychotic. There's no other reason why she would have murdered her children. I disagree. Some people have experience with mental health aspects of this. My perspective is a little different. I had a close childhood friend who murdered her child. My friend and I walked home from school together every day, watched cartoons together, had sleepovers, took cheesy glamour shots at the mall. My family had her over for family dinners on Sundays and on and on. If you'd ever have asked me if she was capable of murdering someone, much less an innocent child, I'd have laughed at you. But that's what happened. She murdered her son. She struggled with some mental illness, but she was not psychotic. I mean, no one claimed she was at least. And neither the state nor her defense made a peep about her being not guilty due to her mental state at trial. It was not raised as the defense. She was convicted and she's in prison. We don't communicate to this day. I couldn't tell you what her motive was. I have some guesses, maybe, but I wouldn't swear any of them are right. I do know it wasn't because of an affair or money or revenge. This was a horrible, horrific tragedy and to me it felt like a random lightning bolt out of the sky. Anyway, going through that experience taught me a couple things. One is that really knowing someone who is capable of something like murdering a child will mess you up for a long while, which I can imagine. Because you want to believe that you can identify evil and maybe even stop it. And you can't. At least not always. Or I couldn't. And that's a horrible reality to confront. And another one is that people really do sometimes do cruel, inexplicable things for reasons that no one else could understand. I know that you all know that. But it's the thought I keep having when people assume Lindsay Clancy's mental state at the time of the murders because they can't fathom a motive. I don't know if Clancy should be found guilty or not, but I do know that a lack of motive is an evidence of severe mental illness.

[B]

Thank you for that very hard won wisdom. Okay, here is another email, also incredibly insightful from one of you guys. I want to share some insight as a child who grew up with a mentally ill mom. My mom has borderline personality disorder. When unmedicated, she would often go into a state where she had a difficult time telling what was real. Because of this, being her kid was very scary. My earliest memory of this was a day when she watched a crime drama on tv. She became convinced that the only way she could make me behave was to light matches and put them out on my skin. She said she had read it in a magazine on parenting. But Even at age 6, I knew that wasn't true. Over the years, I've seen my mom have many manic episodes. Some of these could last a few hours or even as long as a week. I won't relive what those were like, but I do feel like Lindsay Clancy could both be lying in the snow dying while having somewhat normal conversation with her husband, while her children lay dying in her basement, and also be having a psychotic episode. In my experience, the reality in their head is completely different from what is actually happening. Now for another take. My daughter died in my arms. She was nine days old and suffered a brain bleed while in the nicu. The postpartum depression, ptsd, and postpartum anxiety I faced after that loss was unlike anything I've experienced before or since. The only thing that kept me here was knowing that my other two kids needed their mom. I cannot say enough how traumatic that experience was. But at no point did I in any way physically hurt my kids. Never. All this to say mental health matters. It's such a real problem. Finding a therapist can be hard. Finding meds that work for you can be hard. But at the end of the day, you should be responsible for your actions. According to the law, she may be not guilty. We'll see.

[A]

Yeah. And once again, thank you, guys. So many of you have shared your own experiences on the gallery. Every day, people are sharing their own experiences. And I think it's really helpful. And look, it's anecdotal. It's not scientific. It's not like just because one person experienced something, that's the God's honest truth, and that's how it works. But let me just tell you, we don't know a whole lot about mental illness. We don't know a whole lot about mental health of the brain. So the fact of the matter is, there's not a whole lot of hard science about all this stuff and how it works. So hearing these people's experiences is probably just as helpful as whatever experts we're gonna hear, because guess what? You're gonna hear experts saying exactly the opposite things about Lindsey Clancy. And it's gonna be confusing and irritating, and we'll try and work through it with you. But just know there's no solid answers on this. This is not like we tested the DNA and she did it one in one septillion or whatever. That's not gonna happen. So I really appreciate you guys sharing these stories. Now, for something completely unrelated, I want to give a shout out to Jenny Lee. I don't know if you remember this, Alice, but back when we were in Crimecon In Nashville in 2024, Jenny Lee had. She gave us a save the date for her wedding and invited us to come to her wedding. And she was gonna follow it up with a formal invitation. Do you remember that?

[B]

100%. Remember this because she was so sweet.

[A]

She was sweet. Now, we didn't get a formal invitation, and that's because life is intervened for her in the meantime. A short time after that she was diagnosed with breast cancer and she's been fighting it ever since. She's had many rounds of chemo, she's had radiation, she's had a double mastectomy. But now she is on the road to recovery with our new husband standing beside her all the way. So I just wanted to give her a shout out. So thankful that she is doing better, praying for her. I hope you guys will pray for and keep her in your thoughts as well. And we are wishing her the absolute best. So thank you to Jenny Lee. All right, guys, well, look, we'll probably be back later this week and depending if there's anything to talk about. I mean, every day when the trial starts, I'm like, maybe today will be the day that we really get really learn a lot of new stuff. You know, they ended at noon today. Hopefully tomorrow we have more of a full day. We're going to see at some point we're going to get to the stuff we all care about and we're going to talk about her mental state. And I'm looking forward to that.

[B]

I will say when we started covering this trial, we both, like, took a deep breath. We're like, oh, it's going to be intense. Cuz Murdol was real intense. Like we recorded all the time. All the time.

[A]

And we didn't know how good we had it.

[B]

We didn't know how good we had it. That's right.

[A]

That was quite the case.

[B]

Oh, my goodness.

[A]

And this was tragic and terrible.

[B]

You know, there's so much fluff substance. There's not a ton of substance in it so far. So.

[A]

And it'll come and look, I, I

[B]

think they should have front loaded it.

[A]

But that's just the problem is they are trying this case like a standard case and they got a defense attorney who's willing to stipulate to anything they want to stipulate to get him to have the judge read a stipulation that she killed her kids, agree to a limited number of first responders and that sort of thing. This is what they should have done for Ann. Agreed. A limited number of first responders. The doctors who declare the kids dead. Because, you know, we want to prove that. We'll do some of the blood stuff because it's important to our theory about her dropping. But we'll cut out everybody else. We'll cut out all the rest. We'll cut out some of the additional first responders that you didn't want us to do anyway. But we need you to read a stipulation that she did it. You got to do that. Because we've got to establish that for other TikTok folks. We don't want a juror thinking, well, did we really get enough evidence that she's the one who did it? I mean, I know she did, but don't they have to put on evidence that she did? You know what I mean? Like, they have to be willing to say that. That she did it if you're gonna do those stipulations. But they are. We're willing to do that. So anyways, and we don't know what discussions there were behind the scenes. Maybe the defense was really obstinate about exactly how they wanted to do that, and they just couldn't make a deal. I still think some of these witnesses don't make any sense. But look, we want to hear from you. We want to hear about your experiences. Please shoot us an email prosecutors pod gmail.com@projectspot for all your social media. Join us on the gallery if you want to discuss this. There's like 15 billion threads on this case going on the gallery, so if you're interested in that. That's our fan run fan begun Facebook page. If you want to see us record these early and ad free, join Patreon for as little as $3 a month. If you want to get these episodes without ads and early but not have to watch us record them, you can get those through Patreon or you can also get them through Apple subscriptions. And if you want to watch these videos after they've been edited, you can join our substack, the True Crime Times. Just Google the prosecutor substack and you will find it. And you can watch us record these, but with all the fluff cut out. All right, Alice, before we sign off for today, is there anything else you want to say?

[B]

This remains a tragic case. Patrick didn't do it. That's all I have. Stay four. Hopefully, what you're getting here is a rundown of what's happening in court. We're giving you our thoughts on it, but there's. There's still a lot to be decided in this case. I don't know how the jury's going to come out still. We're early in the trial and come back and let's dissect this case together.

[A]

Brilliant as always, Alice. All right, guys, we'll be back next time with more on the Lindsay Clancy trial. But until then, I'm Brett.

[B]

And I'm Alice.

[A]

And we are the prosecutors. Okay, fine. The bow is too much today.

[B]

It was a bit much. I. I know. I. I see. I know I said I wasn't going to comment on it, like, a few days ago. It was a legit tie. This was a little girl's clip on bow. I will say, I've heard all these people say. I hear it's to honor Cora, maybe, but it's never been explicit. And that's something that. Unless she says it, I don't believe it. I feel like people are trying to give her the. I don't know, make. Make excuses for. Okay.

[A]

I still think people wouldn't notice as much if she was a man. I mean, maybe she was wearing a bow in her hair and she was a man. They would.

[B]

But this, this. This does border on.

[A]

What would a man want to wear like.

[B]

Like a Bozo the Clown tie? I do think people would. Sam.

[A]

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.

[B]

That is so effective on Pluto TV.

[A]

Stream now.

[B]

Pay never.