# Legally Brunette: The Lindsay Clancy Trial (Part 3)

An episode of [Two Ts In A Pod with Teddi Mellencamp and Tamra Judge](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/1477524410), 1 Sep 2026, 36 min.

Audio: https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/pscrb.fm/rss/p/mgln.ai/e/28/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/b85867f1-c5ec-44e0-9f79-b34d0160000c/9d56c78a-9532-4383-b37f-b4b80057327b/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=59f37943-e628-4810-8c3b-ae2b00156477

The jury is deliberating and they hold the fate of Lindsay Clancy in their hands… The question that everyone is asking: can Lindsay be fully acquitted? What do Emily and Shane believe the final verdict will be? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:02] Speaker 1: Hi, guys.
[0:02] Speaker 2: Welcome to Legally Brunette. I'll be your host today, Emily
[0:04] Speaker 2: Simpson and... Shane. All right. Today, we're going to do
[0:08] Speaker 2: part three of the Lindsay Clancy case and trial. I
[0:12] Speaker 2: want to go over some of the most shocking moments
[0:14] Speaker 2: and just the latter part. We already did a part
[0:16] Speaker 2: one and part two. So if you haven't listened to those,
[0:19] Speaker 2: I suggest going back and finding those in our Legally
[0:21] Speaker 2: Brunette feed and listening to those. We still don't have
[0:24] Speaker 2: a verdict. We're on verdict watch right now. But let's
[0:26] Speaker 2: go through some of the things that have happened in
[0:28] Speaker 2: the latter part of the case. So a jury consisting
[0:31] Speaker 2: of nine women and three men is currently weighing the
[0:33] Speaker 2: fate of Lindsay Clancy. What do you think about the
[0:36] Speaker 2: jury being nine women and three men? Do you think
[0:39] Speaker 2: that works in her favor?
[0:41] Speaker 1: I don't know, because of those women mothers, have they
[0:44] Speaker 1: had difficulties with pregnancies? Have they had similar experiences to
[0:48] Speaker 1: be able to make that a part of their decision?
[0:50] Speaker 1: I don't know.
[0:50] Speaker 2: Are they educated? I don't know. Do you think women
[0:53] Speaker 2: are more open to being empathetic about what she would
[0:57] Speaker 2: have gone through as opposed to men? Because I will
[0:59] Speaker 2: tell you, I see a lot of things online where
[1:02] Speaker 2: so many women are rallying around her and supporting her,
[1:06] Speaker 2: which is so different. We talked about this before. I mean,
[1:08] Speaker 2: Andrea Yates, when she drowned her children, there wasn't that
[1:11] Speaker 2: same support by any means. And now it's this women
[1:15] Speaker 2: rallying around. But I see a lot of men posting things.
[1:19] Speaker 2: I even saw... an article about a man who was
[1:22] Speaker 2: engaged to a woman and she supported Lindsay Clancy and
[1:26] Speaker 2: he broke off the engagement.
[1:29] Speaker 1: He probably was just looking to get out.
[1:31] Speaker 2: Oh, and that was a good excuse.
[1:32] Speaker 1: He was like, he doesn't want to be with her.
[1:35] Speaker 1: All right.
[1:35] Speaker 2: So we have nine women and three men that are
[1:37] Speaker 2: currently weighing the fate of Lindsay Clancy, a Massachusetts mother
[1:41] Speaker 2: facing murder charges in connection with the deaths of her
[1:44] Speaker 2: three young children in the family's home. Lindsay Clancy does
[1:48] Speaker 2: not contest that she was responsible for the children's deaths,
[1:52] Speaker 2: but her defense team contends she cannot be held criminally
[1:55] Speaker 2: liable due to severe mental illness at the time. She
[1:58] Speaker 2: faces three counts of first degree murder for the January
[2:01] Speaker 2: 2023 killings and a conviction would carry a mandatory life
[2:05] Speaker 2: sentence without the possibility of parole. The possible verdicts that
[2:09] Speaker 2: the jury can come back with are, and this is
[2:11] Speaker 2: where I was a little surprised because I had read
[2:15] Speaker 2: some conflicting things. I had seen somewhere where one of
[2:20] Speaker 2: the options was not guilty of full acquittal. And I
[2:23] Speaker 2: thought that has to be incorrect. But then I saw
[2:27] Speaker 2: a news article, it was ABC News that was talking
[2:30] Speaker 2: about it and said that there were five options, five
[2:33] Speaker 2: possible verdicts before the jury. They are first degree murder,
[2:37] Speaker 2: which is life in prison without the possibility of parole,
[2:40] Speaker 2: second-degree murder, life in prison but with the possibility of parole, manslaughter,
[2:47] Speaker 2: which was requested by the defense. This carries a maximum
[2:50] Speaker 2: sentence of up to 20 years in state prison, not guilty,
[2:55] Speaker 2: full acquittal. Just you go home and go on with life.
[2:59] Speaker 1: Okay, not guilty?
[3:00] Speaker 2: Yes.
[3:01] Speaker 1: But then you just said that she had stipulated to
[3:04] Speaker 1: committing the crime. So is it not guilty... Because of
[3:08] Speaker 1: her mental state?
[3:09] Speaker 2: No, it is not guilty, full acquittal. And then the
[3:12] Speaker 2: last choice, not guilty by reason of insanity.
[3:16] Speaker 1: So I'm saying- So they can acquit her completely of
[3:19] Speaker 1: the crime?
[3:19] Speaker 2: That is what I was so confused about. And this
[3:21] Speaker 2: is where I kept going back and forth and conflicting information.
[3:25] Speaker 2: Because if she's found not guilty by reason of insanity,
[3:27] Speaker 2: she'll be committed to a state psychiatric ward or facility
[3:31] Speaker 2: where she'll remain indefinitely until there's further hearings down the
[3:35] Speaker 2: line where the court hears from her caretakers, psychiatrists, et cetera,
[3:40] Speaker 2: as to her mental state. To me, the only issue
[3:43] Speaker 2: before the jury, their whole defense was it. she was
[3:47] Speaker 2: guilty by reason of insanity. She was guilty because, but
[3:50] Speaker 2: she wasn't criminally liable because she didn't have the intent
[3:53] Speaker 2: because she was going through postpartum psychosis.
[3:56] Speaker 1: All right.
[3:56] Speaker 2: So the central argument in this trial is prosecutors say
[3:59] Speaker 2: that on January 24th, 2023, Lindsay Clancy deliberately strangled her children,
[4:04] Speaker 2: five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson, and eight-month-old Callan using exercise bands
[4:09] Speaker 2: and then jumped from a second story window. The fall
[4:11] Speaker 2: left her paralyzed. The defense has never denied her role
[4:15] Speaker 2: in the deaths of instead arguing that she was gripped
[4:18] Speaker 2: by postpartum psychosis. A lot of the main theme in
[4:22] Speaker 2: this trial and what people have been testifying to and
[4:25] Speaker 2: they've had experts on is postpartum depression versus postpartum psychosis.
[4:30] Speaker 2: So postpartum depression is a depressive condition that develops following childbirth.
[4:36] Speaker 2: It's relatively common and affects up to one in eight
[4:38] Speaker 2: women who give birth according to the US Centers for
[4:41] Speaker 2: Disease Control and Prevention. I assume even though you're a
[4:45] Speaker 2: man over there sitting across from me, hello, male, that
[4:50] Speaker 2: you've heard of postpartum depression.
[4:52] Speaker 1: Yes.
[4:53] Speaker 2: And I would say you probably have known someone who
[4:56] Speaker 2: has had it or experienced it at some point.
[4:59] Speaker 1: Maybe.
[5:00] Speaker 2: You don't know.
[5:01] Speaker 1: I don't know.
[5:02] Speaker 2: I never had postpartum because I never gave birth to
[5:04] Speaker 2: any of my children.
[5:05] Speaker 1: Well, what do you call the state that you're in
[5:07] Speaker 1: right now?
[5:07] Speaker 2: Well, that's postpartum something else. I don't know. That's just psychosis.
[5:12] Speaker 1: Postpartum birth living. No, it's just psychosis.
[5:14] Speaker 2: Take out the postpartum part. It's just. All right. So
[5:17] Speaker 2: postpartum psychosis is a far rarer condition. Research estimates it
[5:22] Speaker 2: occurs in approximately one to two out of every 1,000
[5:25] Speaker 2: births based on findings from a 2017 review published. So basically,
[5:31] Speaker 2: it's saying that a lot of women go through postpartum
[5:33] Speaker 2: depression after they have a child, but the postpartum psychosis
[5:37] Speaker 2: is very rare. But in this case, we're distinguishing.
[5:41] Speaker 1: But rare doesn't mean it doesn't happen. So she could
[5:44] Speaker 1: very well be experiencing it.
[5:46] Speaker 2: All right. So Patrick spent two days on the stand
[5:48] Speaker 2: describing his ex-wife's sharp decline after childbirth, significant weight loss,
[5:53] Speaker 2: deepening depression, and eventually... expressed thoughts of suicide. His final
[5:58] Speaker 2: memory of their son Dawson was him sitting on the
[6:00] Speaker 2: couch eating chicken nuggets before Patrick left on that fateful
[6:03] Speaker 2: night to run errands. He returned to find all three
[6:06] Speaker 2: children dead. A recording of Patrick's 911 call in which
[6:10] Speaker 2: he can be heard screaming that his wife had killed
[6:12] Speaker 2: their children was played in court and Lindsay Clancy wept
[6:16] Speaker 2: as it aired. Okay, we were not, the public wasn't
[6:20] Speaker 2: privy to the 911 call, but the people sitting in
[6:22] Speaker 2: the courtroom were able to hear it. I did see
[6:25] Speaker 2: an interview with a woman who was in the courtroom
[6:27] Speaker 2: and heard it.
[6:27] Speaker 1: And she recounted it? What did it say?
[6:29] Speaker 2: She said that she felt that it was genuine anguish
[6:34] Speaker 2: coming from a father who found his children dead. And
[6:37] Speaker 2: she said, you know, she was there and heard it firsthand.
[6:41] Speaker 2: And that was her takeaway. And she had been involved
[6:43] Speaker 2: in crime. And I think she was a criminal reporter.
[6:46] Speaker 2: So she had been.
[6:47] Speaker 1: She had seen a lot. Right. And based on all
[6:49] Speaker 1: her experience, this 911 call seemed to be genuine from
[6:54] Speaker 1: a father, frantic that his children and wife were murdered
[6:59] Speaker 1: or in danger.
[7:01] Speaker 2: The trial generated significant social media attention with many observers
[7:05] Speaker 2: streaming the proceedings live. Hundreds of women have gathered outside
[7:08] Speaker 2: the courthouse to show support for Clancy, wearing pink shirts
[7:12] Speaker 2: bearing messages such as she needed help. Online conspiracy theories
[7:16] Speaker 2: circulated implicating Patrick Clancy though investigators never considered him a suspect.
[7:23] Speaker 1: Are they saying that she did not do it and
[7:24] Speaker 1: Patrick did it? Are some of them saying that she
[7:27] Speaker 1: did it, but we understand because postpartum is traumatic?
[7:31] Speaker 2: I would say it's probably a mixture of both. I
[7:33] Speaker 2: would say there's a lot of women, especially online, who
[7:35] Speaker 2: have rallied. Even when I put up a post in
[7:38] Speaker 2: my Instagram story asking what you think the verdict should be,
[7:43] Speaker 2: and it was basically guilty, manslaughter, or not guilty by
[7:48] Speaker 2: reason of insanity. The majority of DMs that I got
[7:52] Speaker 2: back were all women saying, you didn't put the choice
[7:54] Speaker 2: that Patrick did it. Well, that wasn't a choice because
[7:57] Speaker 2: that's not a choice before the jury.
[7:59] Speaker 1: The jury comes out and says that. Like we the
[8:02] Speaker 1: jury find Patrick guilty. Right.
[8:05] Speaker 2: So I was like, OK, I understand. But that's not
[8:08] Speaker 2: a that's not a choice before the jury. So that's
[8:11] Speaker 2: why that wasn't in my poll.
[8:13] Speaker 1: OK, but did your poll. Well, maybe your poll wasn't
[8:16] Speaker 1: very clear as to these are the options provided to
[8:19] Speaker 1: the jury. Which one do you think?
[8:22] Speaker 2: Well, now considering all the women that kept saying Patrick
[8:25] Speaker 2: did it, I now know that I would have to
[8:26] Speaker 2: clarify and say, I'm not asking hypotheticals. I'm asking about
[8:30] Speaker 2: the actual verdicts put before the jury. Which one do
[8:34] Speaker 2: you think the jury is going to go with?
[8:36] Speaker 1: What do you think?
[8:38] Speaker 2: You know, here's what I really think. I think that
[8:41] Speaker 2: it's going to be a hung jury. Because I think
[8:46] Speaker 2: there is so much emotion involved. There is so many
[8:51] Speaker 2: expert witnesses. There is so much information. There's so much
[8:56] Speaker 2: contradictory information as to what happened that night. I don't
[9:00] Speaker 2: know how you can sit on that jury for that
[9:02] Speaker 2: long and to hear all the information, all the expert witnesses,
[9:06] Speaker 2: and for all those 12 people to be able to
[9:08] Speaker 2: come together and agree on a unanimous verdict. And the
[9:12] Speaker 2: verdict has to be unanimous. My takeaway is that it
[9:16] Speaker 2: will be a hung jury. What's yours?
[9:18] Speaker 1: I don't know. I just know the end result is,
[9:20] Speaker 1: I mean, should you lock her up? Is that really
[9:22] Speaker 1: going to solve anything? Probably not. But, I mean, she's
[9:25] Speaker 1: not likely to commit such a crime again. I don't know.
[9:28] Speaker 1: I don't know. I get confused on these things where
[9:30] Speaker 1: she doesn't live a criminal life. She had a, for
[9:34] Speaker 1: lack of better words, a bad moment. Right? Right. She
[9:39] Speaker 1: was all built up postpartum, whatever. If all these things
[9:42] Speaker 1: are true, throwing her in jail, is that going to help? No,
[9:45] Speaker 1: but you can't let her go off scot-free and she's
[9:48] Speaker 1: paralyzed too, right? She's going to need lifelong care. Is
[9:50] Speaker 1: it waist down or shoulders down?
[9:52] Speaker 2: Waist down.
[9:53] Speaker 1: So she's going to need a lot of care to recover.
[9:55] Speaker 1: It's just a bad situation that never has a good answer.
[10:00] Speaker 1: yeah there really is no no and that's what i
[10:01] Speaker 1: hate about some of these cases where it's like okay
[10:04] Speaker 1: like okay so like if they find a guy and
[10:07] Speaker 1: he's 80 years old and they found out he killed
[10:08] Speaker 1: someone 40 years ago great what are you gonna do
[10:11] Speaker 1: throw him in jail now yeah i don't know yeah
[10:14] Speaker 1: yeah you should the answer is yes correct uh-huh But
[10:17] Speaker 1: is that really making life better for people in society?
[10:21] Speaker 1: I don't know. And that just is frustrating.
[10:23] Speaker 2: I don't know. You know, at the end of the day,
[10:25] Speaker 2: you have three victims.
[10:27] Speaker 1: Absolutely.
[10:28] Speaker 2: And so I think that.
[10:29] Speaker 1: Well, the father could be a victim too, arguably. He
[10:31] Speaker 1: lost his children, right?
[10:32] Speaker 2: That's true. So we'll say that you have four victims.
[10:34] Speaker 1: Yeah.
[10:35] Speaker 2: Well, there's a lot of victims.
[10:35] Speaker 1: Her parents are victims. Yeah, that's what I was getting at.
[10:37] Speaker 1: A lot of people are hurt from the three children. Right.
[10:41] Speaker 2: And as a society, when there are victims, we want
[10:44] Speaker 2: to see people... held responsible and to take accountability. And
[10:49] Speaker 2: so you have three children that are now have, have,
[10:54] Speaker 2: are gone and cannot live their life and, and cannot,
[10:57] Speaker 2: you know, grow up and be adults and all the
[11:00] Speaker 2: things that they should have been able to do. But
[11:02] Speaker 2: how do you hold someone accountable when you're right? She's
[11:07] Speaker 2: not a criminal.
[11:08] Speaker 1: I mean, she's not, she doesn't live a criminal life, right? Okay.
[11:12] Speaker 2: That's a good way to distinguish it. She doesn't live
[11:13] Speaker 2: a criminal lifestyle. Right. We don't know exactly what was
[11:18] Speaker 2: going through her mind, but my takeaway is that she
[11:20] Speaker 2: was a very good mother at some point, and she
[11:22] Speaker 2: loved her children very much. So my personal thoughts is
[11:26] Speaker 2: it was an episode of psychosis. It wasn't a woman
[11:29] Speaker 2: that was looking for a way out.
[11:30] Speaker 1: It's not like the House of Horrors, where it's just
[11:32] Speaker 1: ongoing abuse of children. Right.
[11:35] Speaker 2: And it's not like she was the kind of mother
[11:37] Speaker 2: that resented her children and wanted some different life because
[11:40] Speaker 2: she was having an affair or she wanted to party
[11:43] Speaker 2: with her friends and she wanted to be a different lifestyle.
[11:47] Speaker 2: I really believe she was truly, genuinely, authentically struggling mentally.
[11:54] Speaker 2: But the question is, then if she goes into a
[11:57] Speaker 2: psychiatric ward, is that punishment?
[11:59] Speaker 1: I don't know, because at the end of the day,
[12:01] Speaker 1: if she did it, she's a killer. Yeah.
[12:04] Speaker 2: Or if she's acquitted and she goes home scot-free, what
[12:08] Speaker 2: about these children that are no longer with us? Does
[12:11] Speaker 2: that mean that no one's taking accountability for their... And
[12:14] Speaker 2: you know what else I was thinking about? I know
[12:15] Speaker 2: she's in a wheelchair, but let's say for just intents
[12:18] Speaker 2: and purposes of talking about this. Let's say the jury
[12:21] Speaker 2: does acquit her, full acquittal. She goes home. And let's
[12:25] Speaker 2: say she meets someone at some point. Is she able
[12:28] Speaker 2: to have children? Probably.
[12:30] Speaker 1: Wow, you really fast forward, didn't you?
[12:32] Speaker 2: I did.
[12:32] Speaker 1: We have a lot of layers to get through before
[12:35] Speaker 1: you can talk about her starting a new family.
[12:36] Speaker 2: Yes, but I'm just saying if she's able to have children,
[12:39] Speaker 2: then at some point she would be able to. Okay.
[12:42] Speaker 1: Oh, so you're saying that they're in danger? Well... She
[12:45] Speaker 1: might have postpartum round two?
[12:48] Speaker 2: What's to say that it wouldn't happen again?
[12:53] Speaker 1: It's like that. When I was in high school, I
[12:55] Speaker 1: remember there was a Canadian case where a man... woke
[12:59] Speaker 1: up or got up in his sleep and like drove
[13:02] Speaker 1: like miles and killed his in-laws and then came back
[13:06] Speaker 1: and went to sleep and said he didn't sleep yeah
[13:08] Speaker 1: and i remember i don't remember the details i didn't
[13:10] Speaker 1: follow closely but i remember hearing that he was found
[13:14] Speaker 1: like not guilty or something.
[13:16] Speaker 2: To that effect by reason of sleepwalking.
[13:17] Speaker 1: Or something And I remember talking to my dad said
[13:20] Speaker 1: he should have been locked up. And I was like,
[13:22] Speaker 1: but I was just kind of questioning him. But like, why?
[13:25] Speaker 1: Because if he didn't do it, he didn't know he
[13:27] Speaker 1: did it. Right. And he goes, because he could do
[13:29] Speaker 1: it again. OK, so he did it in his sleep.
[13:32] Speaker 1: He could wake up and kill you next. And you're like,
[13:34] Speaker 1: you have to. There's different reasons to put someone in jail.
[13:37] Speaker 1: And in that case, it would be preventing future crimes. Right. Right.
[13:41] Speaker 1: Among maybe other things. So in this case, for her,
[13:44] Speaker 1: it could be to prevent her from killing future victims.
[13:48] Speaker 1: As you say, children. Right. That could be a reason
[13:51] Speaker 1: to put her away.
[13:59] Speaker 2: All right. Let's talk about some other important witness testimony.
[14:02] Speaker 2: The trial featured testimony from 74 prosecution witnesses and only
[14:07] Speaker 2: 10 defense witnesses.
[14:08] Speaker 1: Could that just be more confusing hearing 75 people talk?
[14:13] Speaker 2: Well, 74 and then 10 defense. So you've got 84. Yeah,
[14:16] Speaker 2: that's what I was saying. That's why my takeaway is
[14:18] Speaker 2: that you're going to end up with a hung jury.
[14:19] Speaker 2: Because no matter how much they paid attention or how
[14:23] Speaker 2: many notes they took, at the end of the day,
[14:25] Speaker 2: you're going to have 12 people in a room trying
[14:28] Speaker 2: to figure out and try to unanimously agree on something
[14:31] Speaker 2: so complex.
[14:32] Speaker 1: When you've had 85 witnesses of all different kinds that
[14:34] Speaker 1: probably conflict and have different opinions and different experiences. I mean,
[14:38] Speaker 1: it's just... You can probably find any conclusion you want almost. Almost, really,
[14:43] Speaker 1: in some cases.
[14:44] Speaker 2: Throughout her mental health treatment, Clancy was prescribed more than
[14:47] Speaker 2: a dozen different medications and reached out for help through
[14:49] Speaker 2: a suicide hotline and hospital emergency services on multiple occasions.
[14:54] Speaker 2: The defense sought to establish that Lindsay had been suffering
[14:57] Speaker 2: from postpartum psychosis and that she had experienced hallucinations and
[15:01] Speaker 2: delusions as a result. One of the trial's sharpest moments
[15:04] Speaker 2: came when psychiatrist Jennifer Tufts who had treated Clancy during
[15:08] Speaker 2: more than a dozen sessions over five months, took the
[15:11] Speaker 2: stand as a prosecution witness. Tufts testified that Lindsay had
[15:17] Speaker 2: shown no signs of psychosis during their appointments and that
[15:21] Speaker 2: nothing in her behavior had suggested that she posed a
[15:25] Speaker 2: danger to herself or to others. The defense pushed back,
[15:29] Speaker 2: pointing to Tufts' own clinical notes, which described Clancy's speech
[15:33] Speaker 2: as not hyper, comma, pressured. A potentially significant phrase since
[15:40] Speaker 2: pressured speech characterized by rapid and frantic talking can indicate mania.
[15:45] Speaker 2: Tufts disputed that interpretation, insisting the word not modified both terms.
[15:52] Speaker 2: When defense attorney Kevin Reddington pressed her on the discrepancy,
[15:55] Speaker 2: she snapped. I don't care what it says. I know
[15:57] Speaker 2: what I meant. Reddington had a similarly combative exchange with
[16:01] Speaker 2: prosecution psychiatrist Avram Mack over whether postpartum psychosis constitutes a
[16:07] Speaker 2: formally recognized diagnosis. Mack noted that the American Psychiatric Association
[16:13] Speaker 2: currently classifies it only as a proposed condition rather than
[16:18] Speaker 2: an established one. However, in recent news, so in kind
[16:22] Speaker 2: of breaking news, Dr. Avram Mack stepped down from his
[16:26] Speaker 2: role at a Delaware Children's Hospital just days after completing
[16:29] Speaker 2: his testimony in the Clancy trial. Did you read about that?
[16:32] Speaker 1: What does that mean, though? I mean, does that mean anything?
[16:35] Speaker 2: Well, Kevin Reddington kind of made him look like a
[16:38] Speaker 2: fool on the stand. And then within days of his testimony,
[16:42] Speaker 2: I don't know if he was fired or if he
[16:45] Speaker 2: stepped down willingly.
[16:46] Speaker 1: But you're saying likely it was connected to his testimony?
[16:48] Speaker 2: Likely, yes. Yes, it was very, I mean, it was
[16:51] Speaker 2: very close in time. He testified and then days later
[16:54] Speaker 2: he wasn't taking patients anymore and he's no longer a
[16:56] Speaker 2: part of this hospital that he worked at.
[16:58] Speaker 1: Okay. Dr.
[17:00] Speaker 2: Avram Mack had told the court that Lindsay had been
[17:03] Speaker 2: experiencing a major depressive episode at the time of the killings,
[17:07] Speaker 2: but was not psychotic. He said, there's no reason why
[17:11] Speaker 2: psychosis in and of itself inhibits a person's ability from
[17:15] Speaker 2: knowing right from wrong. So he's the prosecution's witness, right?
[17:18] Speaker 2: And he's saying, okay, she was really depressed. I'll give
[17:21] Speaker 2: you that. But she wasn't experiencing psychosis and she was
[17:25] Speaker 2: still able to distinguish right from wrong. First of all,
[17:29] Speaker 2: I don't know how much weight I would put into
[17:31] Speaker 2: someone sitting up there talking about what this woman was
[17:34] Speaker 2: feeling or going through at the time. I understand he's
[17:37] Speaker 2: a psychiatrist. I understand he has a, you know.
[17:39] Speaker 1: And may I ask, he's not a psychiatrist that worked
[17:41] Speaker 1: with her all along this, right? It was only after
[17:43] Speaker 1: the fact that he's testifying? Yes. Yeah. So he's looking
[17:46] Speaker 1: back at whatever's made available to him, because certainly not
[17:51] Speaker 1: everything is not available. And then based on that, he's
[17:54] Speaker 1: trying to say how she felt.
[17:55] Speaker 2: Right. So basically what I'm saying is as someone sitting
[17:57] Speaker 2: on the jury, I don't know how to wait. I
[17:59] Speaker 2: would put in this expert witness who never actually treated her,
[18:01] Speaker 2: but he's only like looking at probably notes and things.
[18:05] Speaker 1: Well, nowadays, just because someone has a name, the title psychiatrist,
[18:10] Speaker 1: used to have some weight to me. Now we've heard
[18:12] Speaker 1: of like, was it Hildebrecht story and all these other
[18:15] Speaker 1: psychiatrists that like.
[18:16] Speaker 2: Well, I don't know if Hilde... You're talking about the
[18:18] Speaker 2: woman in Utah. Yeah.
[18:19] Speaker 1: Yeah, well, she was some type of therapist, though, right?
[18:22] Speaker 2: Yeah, but I don't know if she was a psychiatrist.
[18:24] Speaker 1: She might have just been like a family therapist. Okay, nonetheless, therapy, psychiatry, psychology,
[18:28] Speaker 1: all those things. Now I'm like, well, let me look
[18:30] Speaker 1: at your family life. Then let me see if your
[18:33] Speaker 1: family life is in order before you can tell me
[18:35] Speaker 1: how I'm supposed to feel or what I'm thinking or what,
[18:38] Speaker 1: in this case, what she's thinking. That's how it is
[18:40] Speaker 1: for me. It's like if someone wants to come build
[18:43] Speaker 1: me a house because I have a house that I
[18:45] Speaker 1: want built. It's like, well, let me look at your
[18:47] Speaker 1: house and see if your house, because if your house
[18:48] Speaker 1: is like falling apart. So my thinking is like, that's
[18:52] Speaker 1: what I would want to know about these people. I
[18:53] Speaker 1: would want to know about their qualifications, what school they
[18:56] Speaker 1: went to. It's like, how do you live? How do
[18:57] Speaker 1: you practice like your life before you can tell me how,
[19:00] Speaker 1: what she's thinking?
[19:01] Speaker 2: Okay. So when you and I go to therapy, Basically,
[19:05] Speaker 2: we should drive over to our therapist's house first and
[19:08] Speaker 2: do like a 24-hour review, just like be a bird,
[19:11] Speaker 2: like a bird's eye view. We just ask her if
[19:14] Speaker 2: we can sit in our house and see how our
[19:15] Speaker 2: house functions. Yes. Okay. I'm going to text her and
[19:18] Speaker 2: ask her if we can do that.
[19:19] Speaker 1: All right.
[19:20] Speaker 2: All right, other family members testified. So beyond the expert witnesses,
[19:24] Speaker 2: several members of Clancy's family testified about the visible deterioration
[19:28] Speaker 2: of her mental health following the birth of her youngest child.
[19:31] Speaker 2: Her former mother-in-law, Susan Clancy, told jurors that Lindsay had
[19:35] Speaker 2: been begging for help, describing symptoms including insomnia, loss of appetite, anxiety,
[19:40] Speaker 2: and persistent sadness. Susan noted that Lindsay had previously been
[19:44] Speaker 2: a devoted and nurturing mother before her condition worsened. The
[19:49] Speaker 2: public noted that that Susan nodded to Lindsay after her
[19:52] Speaker 2: testimony ended, potentially a sign of solidarity with her former daughter-in-law.
[19:57] Speaker 2: I don't know. I saw that too. And I thought
[19:59] Speaker 2: maybe that was just a nod to like, I don't know.
[20:03] Speaker 2: I can't imagine what kind of communications they've had, if any,
[20:06] Speaker 2: since all of this happened.
[20:07] Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know. I know I keep
[20:11] Speaker 1: getting at this, but it's just like tragedy no matter
[20:13] Speaker 1: what direction it takes. Yeah. It's just like there's no
[20:16] Speaker 1: good resolution.
[20:17] Speaker 2: There is no good resolution.
[20:18] Speaker 1: Obviously, the three kids are dead regardless. But I mean,
[20:20] Speaker 1: even besides that, it's just no good outcome. It's not
[20:23] Speaker 1: like they locked up the bad guy. Now the streets
[20:26] Speaker 1: are safe. It's just bad. It is. And a lot
[20:31] Speaker 1: of people are going to be unhappy if they let
[20:32] Speaker 1: her go, if they lock her up, if they– put
[20:35] Speaker 1: her in a psych ward or whatever it's next. I
[20:37] Speaker 1: don't know.
[20:38] Speaker 2: Well, you know, also at the end of the day,
[20:39] Speaker 2: I always think about Lindsay Clancy and I think she's
[20:42] Speaker 2: already in her own purgatory. I mean, she's living in
[20:46] Speaker 2: her own personal hell already. I mean, the woman's going
[20:50] Speaker 2: to be punished the rest of her life, regardless of
[20:52] Speaker 2: whether she's free or in jail or in a psychiatric ward.
[20:56] Speaker 2: She's just, her children are gone and she's paralyzed and
[21:00] Speaker 2: her husband's moved on.
[21:01] Speaker 1: Mobility's gone. I mean, Her full family unit's destroyed.
[21:06] Speaker 2: So Lindsay's mother, Paula Musgrove, also testified that roughly a
[21:09] Speaker 2: month before the deaths, her daughter had confided that she
[21:12] Speaker 2: was having thoughts of harming the children and that Lindsay
[21:14] Speaker 2: believed her medications were destroying her mind. And she had
[21:18] Speaker 2: become increasingly paranoid. Lindsay's sister, Allison Ozga... Told the court
[21:23] Speaker 2: that in the same period, Lindsay had been experiencing suicidal
[21:27] Speaker 2: thoughts on a daily basis. I don't know. It's so
[21:29] Speaker 2: sad for me to hear this, that her mom and sister,
[21:32] Speaker 2: and I don't blame them for anything. I'm not placing
[21:35] Speaker 2: any blame anywhere. But for a mother and a sister
[21:37] Speaker 2: to hear that she's having daily suicidal thoughts and she's
[21:42] Speaker 2: saying that she's having thoughts about harming her children. Like,
[21:45] Speaker 2: I don't know what they could do. I'm trying to
[21:48] Speaker 2: think if my sister told me that. Like, I don't
[21:50] Speaker 2: know what I would do.
[21:51] Speaker 1: What I... You don't leave them alone, but I don't
[21:53] Speaker 1: know if they're the means to not leave her alone.
[21:55] Speaker 2: Yeah, because I don't know what that looks like. You
[21:58] Speaker 2: know what I mean? Like, how do you facilitate that?
[22:01] Speaker 1: I don't know.
[22:02] Speaker 2: Just two days before closing arguments, the defense filed a
[22:04] Speaker 2: motion for a mistrial, citing what they characterize as improper
[22:09] Speaker 2: questioning by prosecutors about Clancy's Catholic faith. The controversy began
[22:14] Speaker 2: the previous week when prosecutors asked former mother-in-law Susan Clancy
[22:18] Speaker 2: whether she was Catholic. then followed up by asking whether
[22:22] Speaker 2: she knew that murder was considered a mortal sin in
[22:25] Speaker 2: that faith. The judge directed jurors to disregard that exchange.
[22:31] Speaker 2: A second incident arose days later when forensic psychologist Kirk Hilbrun,
[22:36] Speaker 2: who had evaluated Clancy following the killings, revealed during testimony
[22:41] Speaker 2: that he had asked her whether suicide constituted a mortal
[22:44] Speaker 2: sin as part of a discussion about her Catholic background.
[22:49] Speaker 2: Judge William Sullivan declined to grant the mistrial but told
[22:52] Speaker 2: jurors the questioning represented an absolute inappropriate area of testimony
[22:57] Speaker 2: that was to be struck from the record entirely. It
[23:00] Speaker 2: is to be stricken. It is not to be considered.
[23:02] Speaker 2: I can't be more clear of that, he said. What
[23:05] Speaker 2: do you think the prosecution was doing talking about religion
[23:07] Speaker 2: and Catholic and mortal sin? They wanted them to, I assume,
[23:10] Speaker 2: wanted them to admit that it was a sin, right,
[23:13] Speaker 2: to make her look bad. To the jury that she
[23:16] Speaker 2: had committed some type of sin.
[23:17] Speaker 1: I guess so. But I mean, for the suicide part? No,
[23:21] Speaker 1: for the killing part. Oh, for the killing part.
[23:23] Speaker 2: Yeah, because she's Catholic. She has a strong Catholic faith.
[23:26] Speaker 1: Yeah, but why do we have to convince people that
[23:28] Speaker 1: killing is bad? I know. You know what I mean? Yeah.
[23:32] Speaker 2: But I think testimony regarding religion and that she's Catholic...
[23:38] Speaker 2: And getting people to admit that in Catholicism it was
[23:41] Speaker 2: a mortal sin, I think then that puts that into
[23:44] Speaker 2: the jury's head.
[23:45] Speaker 1: But could you, because she was Catholic, right? She was practicing.
[23:48] Speaker 1: Because then you could make the argument, well, therefore it
[23:51] Speaker 1: must have been a psychosis state because she knows better.
[23:53] Speaker 2: Right.
[23:53] Speaker 1: She follows this belief.
[23:54] Speaker 2: Because she follows Catholicism, right?
[23:57] Speaker 1: I mean, you could argue it both ways. I don't
[23:59] Speaker 1: think that's weak.
[24:08] Speaker 2: So now we're to closing arguments. The lead prosecutor, Jennifer Sprague,
[24:13] Speaker 2: told jurors that Clancy had deliberately misled and cycled through
[24:16] Speaker 2: different medical providers because she wanted to manage her recovery
[24:20] Speaker 2: on her own terms rather than following consistent professional guidance.
[24:25] Speaker 2: The prosecutor also leaned on Clancy's professional background as a
[24:29] Speaker 2: labor and delivery nurse, arguing that her medical training meant
[24:32] Speaker 2: she was better equipped than most patients to accurately describe
[24:36] Speaker 2: her postpartum symptoms to her doctors and that her failure
[24:40] Speaker 2: to do so was a choice, not a symptom. Basically,
[24:44] Speaker 2: they're saying you understand the medical field, you work in
[24:46] Speaker 2: the medical field, so that... you have the ability to
[24:50] Speaker 2: be able to describe what you're going through clearly and concisely.
[24:53] Speaker 2: And you're choosing not to do that, which is, uh,
[24:57] Speaker 2: you know, that means that she has the wherewithal, like
[25:00] Speaker 2: she's being manipulative, you know, it's not psychosis, it's manipulated behavior.
[25:06] Speaker 2: The prosecutor also pushed back on the defense's framing of
[25:09] Speaker 2: the case as an indictment of a broken health care system,
[25:13] Speaker 2: contending that Clancy actually had access to a higher than
[25:16] Speaker 2: average level of medical care and that the problem was
[25:19] Speaker 2: not the system's failure to reach her, but her own
[25:22] Speaker 2: failure to engage with it honestly. All right, so that's
[25:26] Speaker 2: the prosecution's case and their closing arguments. Basically, that she
[25:31] Speaker 2: was methodical and that she thought through it. that she's
[25:34] Speaker 2: a labor and delivery nurse. So she understands the healthcare
[25:37] Speaker 2: system and that the lack of care she was getting
[25:40] Speaker 2: was because she was making a choice not to get
[25:42] Speaker 2: appropriate care, not because of the healthcare providers themselves. All right.
[25:48] Speaker 2: In Massachusetts, the prosecution, this is just a reminder. I
[25:52] Speaker 2: think we've talked about this before, but the prosecution has
[25:54] Speaker 2: the burden of proving Lindsay Clancy was not insane. It's
[25:58] Speaker 2: not the prosecutor. The burden is not on the defense
[26:01] Speaker 2: to prove that she is insane because The burden is
[26:04] Speaker 2: on the prosecution to prove that she is not insane. Yes.
[26:07] Speaker 2: They have to prove that she's functioning. Her cognitive functioning
[26:13] Speaker 2: is there and that she's meticulous and that she's making
[26:16] Speaker 2: decisions and she knows what she's doing. Right.
[26:19] Speaker 1: She does not have to prove that she is insane. Right.
[26:21] Speaker 1: They have to prove that she is sane. Yes. But nonetheless,
[26:24] Speaker 1: she can provide plenty of evidence to lean towards insanity. Right.
[26:29] Speaker 2: All right, so let's talk about the defense's closing argument.
[26:31] Speaker 2: Defense attorney Kevin Reddington opened his closing argument with a visual.
[26:36] Speaker 2: It was two photographs placed side by side, one showing
[26:39] Speaker 2: the Clancy family in happier times, the other showing Lindsay
[26:42] Speaker 2: Clancy lying injured in a hospital bed after her suicide attempt.
[26:47] Speaker 2: He claims to the jury, how does this turn into this?
[26:52] Speaker 2: Then he went on to answer his own questions. because
[26:55] Speaker 2: of the damn medicine and the lousy medical care that
[26:58] Speaker 2: she got. I actually love this attorney because he speaks very,
[27:01] Speaker 2: he just, he doesn't use like a lot of legal
[27:04] Speaker 2: jargon and like a lot of complicated vocabulary.
[27:08] Speaker 1: I mean, his- So it's easier for you to follow?
[27:11] Speaker 2: Yeah, thank you. I mean, his closing argument is just
[27:13] Speaker 2: because the damn system sucks and she didn't get the
[27:16] Speaker 2: care she needed and it is lousy, you know? Yeah.
[27:19] Speaker 2: Reddington argued that Clancy had repeatedly reached out for help
[27:22] Speaker 2: throughout her deterioration- but that instead of receiving appropriate care,
[27:26] Speaker 2: she had been overmedicated and misdiagnosed. He also asked jurors
[27:31] Speaker 2: to weigh evidence and testimony depicting Clancy as a loving
[27:34] Speaker 2: and attentive mother, contending there was simply no plausible motive
[27:39] Speaker 2: for her to have intentionally harmed her children. You know,
[27:43] Speaker 2: that's really... What the defense is focusing on is that
[27:47] Speaker 2: he wants the jury to see her as a loving
[27:50] Speaker 2: and caring mother who cared about her children.
[27:52] Speaker 1: Thus, it could only be a psychosis state.
[27:53] Speaker 2: Because then you're right. The only takeaway is that she
[27:56] Speaker 2: was going through a period of psychosis to do what
[27:59] Speaker 2: she did. Again, we talked about this earlier, but she's
[28:02] Speaker 2: not a mother that wanted out. She's not a mother
[28:04] Speaker 2: that just wanted to get rid of her kids. She's
[28:06] Speaker 2: not a mother that struggled with being a mom and
[28:09] Speaker 2: wanted some different lifestyle or was having an affair. She
[28:12] Speaker 2: was an attentive, loving, caring mother to her three children. Therefore,
[28:16] Speaker 2: the only reason that this could have turned into this,
[28:19] Speaker 2: the two photographs that he shows side by side is
[28:22] Speaker 2: because she went through a state of psychosis. And I
[28:25] Speaker 2: guess my takeaway as a mother with three children is,
[28:29] Speaker 2: I can't fathom a mother doing what she did unless
[28:34] Speaker 2: she was in some altered state where she literally had
[28:37] Speaker 2: no idea what she was doing and could not control
[28:40] Speaker 2: what she was doing. That would be my takeaway when
[28:43] Speaker 2: I look at her, when I take away a feeling
[28:48] Speaker 2: from this case.
[28:50] Speaker 1: It's a frustrating case. Yeah. I don't know. And we're
[28:54] Speaker 1: not really talking about whether he did it or she
[28:56] Speaker 1: didn't do it, right? Yeah. Yeah.
[28:57] Speaker 2: Shane likes cases where there's evidence he can analyze. He
[29:00] Speaker 2: doesn't want to talk about feelings.
[29:02] Speaker 1: No, I don't want to talk about feelings. It's crappy
[29:04] Speaker 1: that the kids are dead. I mean, it's horrible. He
[29:07] Speaker 1: moved on, right?
[29:08] Speaker 2: Yes.
[29:09] Speaker 1: He's married, right?
[29:10] Speaker 2: Yeah, to her lookalike. Remember, we talked about that.
[29:12] Speaker 1: Is that a bad thing?
[29:14] Speaker 2: Well, a lot of people think it's a bad thing.
[29:16] Speaker 2: A lot of people don't understand how... Well.
[29:19] Speaker 1: Could it be just a coping? Like he just quickly attached...
[29:22] Speaker 1: to summit something else?
[29:24] Speaker 2: Well, no, I think he was most likely my I
[29:26] Speaker 2: think he was most likely having an affair. Didn't you
[29:28] Speaker 2: see the people those online sleuths, man, I tell you,
[29:31] Speaker 2: you can't if you're a public figure, you can't get
[29:33] Speaker 2: away with anything. Or don't leave a digital print behind
[29:36] Speaker 2: because he went to Costa Rica, I think just a
[29:39] Speaker 2: couple months after this happened but then that woman Rachel
[29:42] Speaker 2: Danis that he supposedly wasn't dating at the time but
[29:45] Speaker 2: she was also on this same trip right there's evidence
[29:48] Speaker 2: of her being there.
[29:49] Speaker 1: Passport checked in everything so it's official there.
[29:51] Speaker 2: Were like well there were other people that she was
[29:53] Speaker 2: with that were posting photos.
[29:54] Speaker 1: That I know some people question what when and where
[29:56] Speaker 1: he went but it was official because passports were logged
[29:59] Speaker 1: and stuff.
[30:01] Speaker 2: Also, I saw within one week of this crime, so
[30:04] Speaker 2: this is just one week later, Patrick Clancy wrote this
[30:08] Speaker 2: on he so he had a GoFundMe. I don't know
[30:10] Speaker 2: if he started if someone started it on his behalf,
[30:12] Speaker 2: but he wrote on his GoFundMe. I want to ask
[30:15] Speaker 2: all of you that you find it deep within yourselves
[30:18] Speaker 2: to forgive Lindsay as I have. The real Lindsay was
[30:20] Speaker 2: generously loving and caring towards everyone, me, our kids, family, friends,
[30:24] Speaker 2: and her patients. The very fibers of her soul are
[30:27] Speaker 2: loving all wish for her now is that She can
[30:30] Speaker 2: somehow find peace.
[30:32] Speaker 1: Was his position more of that she was insane?
[30:37] Speaker 2: I believe so.
[30:40] Speaker 1: And then he left her, huh?
[30:43] Speaker 2: Yeah. And sold the house to a prosecutor. I don't know.
[30:51] Speaker 1: It's kind of crappy. It's for better or for worse, right?
[30:55] Speaker 1: And then if he truly believed that was an unfortunate...
[31:00] Speaker 1: psychotic episode that she had.
[31:02] Speaker 2: Yeah. But okay. Put yourself in his shoes just for
[31:06] Speaker 2: a second. I understand that he, a week later publicly
[31:11] Speaker 2: says on a GoFundMe that he forgives her completely and
[31:13] Speaker 2: that she really is a loving person. And this was
[31:15] Speaker 2: like a state of psychosis that she was in. Realistically,
[31:19] Speaker 2: can you continue to be with someone that murdered your children?
[31:22] Speaker 1: I don't know, but it was just noteworthy is all.
[31:28] Speaker 2: I know, but I'm asking you. As a father, I'm saying.
[31:32] Speaker 1: If you killed three of our children, would I stay
[31:34] Speaker 1: with you?
[31:35] Speaker 2: I'm saying that you.
[31:37] Speaker 1: Let's not find out.
[31:39] Speaker 2: No, I agree. But I'm saying, how do you realistically
[31:43] Speaker 2: stay with someone, even if you forgive them and you
[31:46] Speaker 2: believe that they were suffering? I couldn't stay with you
[31:50] Speaker 2: if something like that happened. I would have to move
[31:52] Speaker 2: on and have a completely different life to be able
[31:54] Speaker 2: to heal from something like that. All right. Let's just
[31:56] Speaker 2: talk about a couple last things. The jury has requested
[31:59] Speaker 2: a few specific pieces of evidence so far. I know
[32:02] Speaker 2: that they did ask for the knife that was used
[32:04] Speaker 2: in Lindsay's suicide attempt. They wanted to look at it.
[32:06] Speaker 2: Do you have any takeaway, like what that means?
[32:09] Speaker 1: They probably want to look and see how realistic it
[32:13] Speaker 1: is for her to slit her own throat with that
[32:15] Speaker 1: type of knife, right? Holding it, maneuvering it, maybe. Maybe
[32:19] Speaker 1: visualizing how possible that was. Do we know what kind
[32:23] Speaker 1: of knife it was? Was it just like a kitchen knife,
[32:25] Speaker 1: steak knife?
[32:26] Speaker 2: Just like a regular kitchen knife.
[32:28] Speaker 1: So it was just a regular knife?
[32:29] Speaker 2: Yeah.
[32:31] Speaker 1: I don't know.
[32:31] Speaker 2: Also, the jury requested to see a bag of prescription
[32:35] Speaker 2: pill bottles that were found in Patrick's car.
[32:38] Speaker 1: Yeah, that I don't know. What would they see on that?
[32:41] Speaker 1: I mean, what could they look at to determine one
[32:45] Speaker 1: way or another?
[32:46] Speaker 2: I don't know. But that's interesting.
[32:47] Speaker 1: It would make more sense if, to me, it would
[32:49] Speaker 1: make more sense if they said, oh, we want to
[32:50] Speaker 1: see photographs of where it was found or maybe something
[32:53] Speaker 1: like that. So they try to put a story together.
[32:55] Speaker 1: But a prescription bottle is a prescription bottle, right?
[32:58] Speaker 2: Well, I think he had multiple prescription bottles that were
[33:00] Speaker 2: found in his car. And then, you know, a lot
[33:03] Speaker 2: of people are like, oh, he's, you know, he has
[33:04] Speaker 2: the prescription bottles because he's been drugging her, you know.
[33:08] Speaker 1: Yeah. I don't know.
[33:10] Speaker 2: I mean, that was, that's a. A lot of theories
[33:13] Speaker 2: out there. I feel like it got to the point
[33:15] Speaker 2: where a lot with his online theories about Patrick... It
[33:18] Speaker 2: reminded me a lot when we talked about Scott Peterson
[33:21] Speaker 2: and we talked about confirmation bias, where as soon as
[33:24] Speaker 2: the detectives honed in to Scott and thought Scott was the.
[33:28] Speaker 1: Yeah, all other options were off the table.
[33:30] Speaker 2: Then it was like every bit of evidence, every single
[33:32] Speaker 2: thing that came up... Leads towards him. They were just
[33:34] Speaker 2: finding a way for it to lead back to him,
[33:36] Speaker 2: back to him, back to him. Not that there isn't
[33:38] Speaker 2: evidence out there that would lead back to him. But
[33:41] Speaker 2: I'm saying at some point it got to... It got
[33:43] Speaker 2: to the point where it was every road led back
[33:46] Speaker 2: to him. And I feel like it also in this
[33:48] Speaker 2: case with Patrick Clancy, there's not a lot of clear,
[33:55] Speaker 2: precise looking at the evidence anymore. It's just anything that's presented,
[33:59] Speaker 2: everybody jumps on it and goes. Well, Patrick did it.
[34:02] Speaker 1: Right.
[34:03] Speaker 2: All right. So we are still currently waiting for the
[34:06] Speaker 2: jury to come back with a verdict. We will obviously
[34:08] Speaker 2: talk about this again once the verdict comes out. However,
[34:12] Speaker 2: I know we talked about this before, but manslaughter was
[34:14] Speaker 2: not previously one of the options and it is now.
[34:18] Speaker 2: So I don't know if maybe, what do you think?
[34:20] Speaker 2: Maybe manslaughter is just kind of like, maybe the jury
[34:22] Speaker 2: goes with manslaughter because it's like, it's not murder in
[34:25] Speaker 2: the first degree. It's not an acquittal, but maybe it's
[34:28] Speaker 2: like a middle way to say, okay, someone needs to
[34:31] Speaker 2: be punished, but we don't want to punish her fully
[34:33] Speaker 2: because she's already being punished.
[34:35] Speaker 1: Right. And it wasn't to the sense of first degree,
[34:38] Speaker 1: but it was murder nonetheless.
[34:39] Speaker 2: And the three children are dead.
[34:41] Speaker 1: Well, manslaughter always sounded worse.
[34:43] Speaker 2: I always, I always wondered that too. I know the
[34:45] Speaker 2: word slaughter is so just like you get such a
[34:49] Speaker 2: horrific visual. I always wondered why murder was higher than manslaughter.
[34:56] Speaker 2: Someone messed that up. Manslaughter should be first and then murder.
[34:59] Speaker 1: The first time I heard of manslaughter was on episode chips.
[35:03] Speaker 2: Oh yeah.
[35:03] Speaker 1: It was, yeah, they were, they were, uh, undercover and
[35:06] Speaker 1: they were racing some guys. And then there was, uh, uh, um,
[35:10] Speaker 1: There was a death as a result, but they were undercover.
[35:13] Speaker 1: And so they were looking at manslaughter charges against Jim Baker.
[35:17] Speaker 1: And it was like, I remember as a kid, I'm thinking, manslaughter?
[35:20] Speaker 1: What did he do?
[35:21] Speaker 2: He slaughtered a man.
[35:23] Speaker 1: Yes.
[35:25] Speaker 2: That's all.
[35:25] Speaker 1: That's my manslaughter story.
[35:27] Speaker 2: That was your manslaughter story? All right. Thank you.
[35:28] Speaker 1: Sometimes I remember where I first heard something, don't you?
[35:31] Speaker 2: Not always, no.
[35:33] Speaker 1: Maybe my memory serves me better.
[35:34] Speaker 2: Probably does. All right. So that's a Lindsay Clancy case.
[35:38] Speaker 2: That's our part three. We will continue to talk about
[35:40] Speaker 2: it once that verdict comes out. So make sure you
[35:42] Speaker 2: follow Legally Brunette wherever you listen to podcasts. Also, be
[35:46] Speaker 2: sure to tell your friends and family and leave us
[35:49] Speaker 2: a review. We have tons of reviews and I love
[35:51] Speaker 2: to read them. Not the one-star ones. Those are the
[35:56] Speaker 2: people that get mad at me on Housewives. And then
[35:59] Speaker 2: they're like, they don't even listen. They just find me
[36:03] Speaker 2: and say something nasty because they don't like something that
[36:05] Speaker 2: happened on Housewives.
[36:06] Speaker 1: But anyway. Well, they may not be wrong.
[36:10] Speaker 2: Whatever.
[36:10] Speaker 1: Gosh.
[36:11] Speaker 2: Thank you guys for listening. We appreciate you.

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.