August 4, 2026 • 18 mins
A breaking development out of the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial this morning: we heard directly from Lindsay Clancy who confirmed to the judge she was agreeing to much of the physical evidence the prosecution would be presenting in the case. It’s a highly unusual move in a murder case, but because Clancy already admits to strangling her three young children, this avoids unnecessary days of testimony proving chain of custody from witnesses who handled the blood samples and other DNA evidence linking Clancy to the killings. Bottom line, it’s not in dispute whether she killed her children, the question is, was she criminally responsible for the murders if she was suffering from postpartum psychosis.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hey, folks, it is Tuesday, August fourth, and a bit
of a breaking story here is we just heard Lindsey
Clancy speak in her triple murder trial and what she
had to say will have a significant impact on this trial.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and
TJ Rolds. Seems like we can't get a good flow
to this trial, as crazy as that might sound, but
there's a lot of stopping and starting and this morning
once again supposed to start at nine am.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
There was a delay, yes, and the delay was revealed
when we got to hear Lindsey Clancy speak for the
very first time outside of the jury but literally it's
the first time we've heard her voice actually in that courtroom.
And what she was agreeing to, as you mentioned, is
(00:51):
going to change the timeline of this trial.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
And it does it make sense, Rhode so because as
it was happening, we were a little confused, like, wait,
what are they doing and what are they agreeing to?
And then after we heard it all, we go, Okay,
that makes sense. I guess why didn't we do this before?
Is it kind of where we land?
Speaker 3 (01:08):
Yes, because basically, this is a murder trial that is
incredibly and exceptionally rare, because the defense is not trying
to defend against a killing, against a murder, it's trying
to defend whether or not their client, or whether or
not Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible.
Speaker 4 (01:27):
She admits to killing her children.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
So all of this evidence that you would typically see
the prosecution introduced to establish through DNA, through blood evidence,
through physical evidence that the defendant killed the victims, all
of that kind of seems unnecessary in this case because
she's saying, yeah, it was me, all that DNA evidence,
(01:51):
all that blood, all of my DNA on those exercise bands, etc.
Yeah it's mine. I cop to it, I admit it.
Speaker 4 (02:00):
It was me.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
Hey, it seems strange in the trial of this magnitude
Roges talking about three murders of three very young children,
that someone is not fighting the prosecution on the key
elements and facts and evidence of the case. Yes, that
is bizarre, and it also is Rogues, like you said,
we're not used to this. But she did it, but
she might not be criminally responsible. So what we saw
(02:24):
in court this morning was them trying to get rid
of the extra stuff and let's all.
Speaker 5 (02:29):
Just focus on the part we disagree about. Is that right?
Speaker 4 (02:32):
Yes? Because think about it.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
When we first came into this trial, I believe there
were upwards of two hundred potential witnesses between the prosecution
and the defense, and look, they put every possible witness
on that list.
Speaker 4 (02:47):
It's not that all of.
Speaker 3 (02:48):
Those folks were necessarily going to be called to testify,
but they could have been. And this with this admission,
or at least this agreement that was made in court today,
it could massively shorten the list of witnesses prosecutors will
now have to call to the stand because they don't
have to prove something that she's already admitting to.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
You mentioned that list, Yeah, two hundred potential witnesses robes,
I've been shot. I don't know the total count. Yesterday,
what time they get out of court on Monday.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
Three forty five, and they called thirteen witnesses to the stand.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
That's pretty stunning. And the reason they're going through them
so quickly is because the prosecution only has a few
questions to ask a detective or a lab tech or
sometimes even a nurse. The defense is like cooleah, no,
how many times did you just said no questions?
Speaker 3 (03:39):
Johanna, No, cross examination whatsoever, because they're not disputing the
evidence that's being introduced.
Speaker 4 (03:46):
So yes, I'm just saying so when.
Speaker 3 (03:47):
The judge says we are our ears perked up and
we were very interested in what was happening. When you
hear a judge ask a defendant who's standing up there
before the trial even gets underwear for the day, and says,
do you agree that the Commonwealth does not have to
prove the facts that are in the stipulation?
Speaker 4 (04:07):
And she says, yes, you never hear that. You just
don't in a trial, you just don't.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
So there were several, as he said, Robes stipulations, and
that was one thing that they gave up. So yes,
they come into court, immediately go to a sidebar, so
we're standing by and where waiting. Court comes back into
session but still without the jury, and this is when
all this is going on. So she's addressing the court,
and of course she is still seated because she is paralyzed.
(04:35):
She is in that wheelchair. But Robes, given what we
have seen the past couple of days with her crying
and emotional testimonies, she robes, for lack of a better phrase,
she seemed as sane as anybody in answering those questions.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
She did that was notable to me too, Like I
understand that this postpartum psychosis was episodic and perhaps confined
to this p period of time in.
Speaker 4 (05:00):
Which these atrocities.
Speaker 3 (05:02):
Took place, but still it is strange to hear a
woman who is capable of doing what she did and was,
according to her attorney, in a mindset that was altered
where you are certifiably they're claiming clinically medically insane. It's
then strange to see that person seemingly lucid answering questions, Yes,
(05:25):
your honor, Yes, I understand your honor.
Speaker 4 (05:29):
Yeah, you don't expect that.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
Brott Robes this is and I would encourage people to
watch because there are folks out there writing who are
taking issue with how this case is being covered and
even with how the prosecution is handling this case.
Speaker 5 (05:42):
It is giving this if you listen to the prosecution.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
Kind of a warped idea of what psychosis is, what
postpartum psychosis can be, what mental illness.
Speaker 5 (05:51):
Can look like. And Robes she's showing.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
We've seen doctors sit up there and say, yeah, she
could be in psychosis, but have a perfectly normal conversation
with me and make plans so robes. They say, this
woman still wants to kill herself, is still in manick
states at times.
Speaker 5 (06:10):
And she sat there and she calmly, very lucidly.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
Answered his questions and seemed to fully understand it does
in the attorney, the defense attorney, he used the word
drooling like this is this idea that if somebody's quote
unquote crazy, they're supposed to.
Speaker 5 (06:28):
Look a certain way.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
It's supposed to be lashing out and they can't keep
it together in their crazy eyes.
Speaker 4 (06:32):
And erratic behavior ropes they are.
Speaker 5 (06:35):
This is an important one to keep an eye on.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
It is, and it is fascinating to watch this all
take place, and it is fascinating to hear her be
able to to answer the questions the way she did.
I'm curious, like my brain goes somewhere where.
Speaker 4 (06:51):
If you are putting.
Speaker 3 (06:52):
On a defense, an insanity defense, say postpartum psychosis defense,
if you are claiming that you aren't respond for your actions,
how then can you be responsible for even your words?
So if you're agreeing to this, how can you even
agree to this if your whole defense is that you
aren't responsible for your actions and reactions and maybe even
(07:16):
your thoughts.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
See and that is where and it is fascinating robes,
and we're getting an education in psychosis to where you
can go into it and come out of it. You
could be into it, for it can come in and out.
It can be an episode that lasts a little while
and you don't have another one the rest of your life.
In robes, it is when we have insanity defenses.
Speaker 5 (07:38):
We usually see.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Some some defendants robes that are sometimes acting up, seemingly
out of control. You can't reason with them. These are
folks who oftentimes they cannot help with their defense.
Speaker 4 (07:50):
Right she is, she's not that.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
We're learning something else robes about it insanity defense that
I haven't seen play out like this before.
Speaker 3 (07:58):
Yeah, she's crying at the appropriate times. And I say
that meaning she is crying when we want to cry.
She's reacting emotionally to things that should be reacted emotionally too.
And yet at the same time, she was capable of
doing something that I would say the let's hope the
vast majority ninety nine point nine percent of mothers would
(08:19):
be incapable of doing so. It's hard to actually get
your head around what we're witnessing, what we're seeing, and
trying to understand what her defense is explaining to all
of us. And so far, look, they haven't even necessarily
put on their defense, but through some of the cross
examination of some of these forensic psychologists or psychiatrists, we
(08:40):
are seeing where they're headed with their defense and how
they're trying to set up and establish a documented case
of Certainly, I don't I mean, I don't know how
anyone could dispute the fact that she was suffering mentally.
Now whether or not that crosses into a line of
psychosis or not being held responsible for your actions, but
(09:01):
clearly she was mentally troubled.
Speaker 4 (09:04):
I think everyone can agree with that.
Speaker 5 (09:05):
Agreed.
Speaker 3 (09:06):
Where's the line when you don't become when you aren't
criminally responsible.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
Well, I've heard too from two doctors from the prosecution
already who have confirmed to me that what she went
through and how is.
Speaker 5 (09:21):
Possible brooks the defense.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
I remember we were all shocked when during Diddy's trial,
after all those witnesses from the prosecution, they rested without
calling anybody because they were able to prove their case
by using the prosecution's witness And so far the defense
seems to be doing that. The stipulation what is in
the first place, legally speaking, it is an agreement between
the parties about the basic facts of the case. We
(09:45):
agree to this stuff. We don't need to bring in
fifteen witnesses to talk about it. So what did she
give up? No right anymore to cross examine certain witnesses.
The state no longer has the burden to prove all
the elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 5 (10:00):
That is Robes.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
That is something you would never see, never in a
case that burden is so high. But what they've charged
her with, Robes is first degree murder. You have to
prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Don't have to anymore
because they're admitting that first degree murder and everything you're
saying about it where we agree with Yeah, now we
(10:24):
need to go argue about whether or not I am
criminally irresponsible for that.
Speaker 3 (10:28):
She not only admits to doing it, she admits to
planning it the whole thing. She admits to acting on
those plans. She admits to actually going through with those plans.
I just it was one of those really fascinating moments
when the judge followed up because he kept asking her
different versions of the same question to make sure it
was on the record, and then she fully understood. But
he's like, you are basically relieving the Commonwealth of its
(10:52):
burden to prove certain facts. Is that what you want
to do? Lindsey Clancy answers, yes, your honor.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
That was stunning, calmly right the whole time, said I've
talked to my I'll worry about it. I've had time
to review it. Nobody's forcing me into it, and so
here we got rose. I don't know what the timing
could be, but this could cut off a lot of witnesses,
a lot of time in this case because so far
Rows we've actually seen a lot of witnesses they could
have done without.
Speaker 3 (11:20):
Absolutely so they were trying to establish stuff that doesn't
need to be established because it's not disputed. And so
now you can move forward either with fewer folks on
the stand or certainly it will go much quicker because
now the defense has completely given up its right to
cross examined. So regardless, this is absolutely going to speed
up a trial that was already on track, if not
(11:42):
ahead of schedule. So that is good news for the
jurors and look, I would imagine this would be good.
Speaker 4 (11:47):
News for Lindsay Clancy.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
In the sense that does she really want to sit
through all of this blood evidence and DNA evidence and
in doing so reliving those exact moments that she wants
to forget, you.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
Know, to that point, I had a question for you
that I'll ask right after the break, and we'll also
give you an update that we got from the judge
about the schedule now and what's going to happen moving
forward in this trial. We continue here on Amy and TJ.
(12:23):
Just getting a short time ago. Didn't plan on doing
this episode today, but got an update, a significant one
out of the courtroom for the Lindsay Clancy trial, and
that she agreed to certain stipulations which is going to
shorten the trial. Essentially, what they're saying, we've agreed to
the defense of the prosecution. We agreed to so many
of the facts of the case. No reason to keep
putting on witnesses. So she's given up a right to
cross examines of witnesses, giving up a right some rights,
(12:44):
but still the argument is over whether or not she
was insane or not. Now Robes, my thought was, yes,
this speeds things along, But who does this help if
the jury doesn't have to sit through all of that
evidence because robes, it is impactful to see those elastic
bands of the murder weapon. It's impactful to hear about
(13:08):
blood evidence. It's impactful to hear all this stuff. Does
it help them in some way the defense of the
prosecution if the jury isn't sitting.
Speaker 5 (13:18):
Through that, Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
I think you could look at it from both sides,
because I thought about that too. Does the prosecution lose
some of that emotional impact?
Speaker 4 (13:28):
Look, the first week was gutting.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
It was one of the more emotional, if not the
most emotional week I've ever witnessed in a trial, because
they did see those exercise bands, and they did hear
that nine to one one call, And they did hear
from first responders and the EMTs and the firefighters who
showed up and talked about the scene they walked into.
They heard from the emergency room doctors who tried to
(13:50):
save those children's lives who were brain dead, whose hearts
had stopped. So all of that emotional testimony is already
into evidence, perhaps even not having to dwell on the
minutia of the technical aspect of DNA and blood spatter
and fingerprint and all the other perhaps evidence, the chain
(14:14):
of command proving that.
Speaker 4 (14:17):
They followed proper procedure. All of that can.
Speaker 3 (14:20):
Really weigh down a trial, the momentum, maybe even a
jury's or a juror's attention span. So maybe everyone can
actually be focused. Maybe this helps both sides and that
the real issue, the actual issue as to whether or
not she was insane or sane, whether she was suffering
from postpartum psychosis or not. The focus, that is what
(14:43):
jurors are trying to figure out. So maybe by really
zeroing in on that, we'll actually get to a better
outcome without all of the exhausting technical evidence.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
See I wondered if if it helped the defense by
getting rid of the some technical testimony, what's.
Speaker 5 (15:03):
Left is a bunch of emotional stuff. Robes.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
If the emotional stuff, I was overwhelmed last week with
that testimony, and I was just watching it from New York. Robes,
They're sitting in there taking this stuff in, and the
judge even last week you had to acknowledge them crying
and emotional in the courtroom. So Robes, if you eliminate
(15:27):
the technical stuff, it's almost we watch horror movies a lot, Robes,
and we're relieved when it's daytime in a movie because
that means we have a break. We don't have to
be emotional and into it. He just can let your
shoulders down, Robes, they stay on emotional edge. If they
stay on emotional edge the whole time and you get
to the end, are they going to be mad at
(15:49):
her or sympathized with her more?
Speaker 4 (15:52):
I don't know, but I don't know either.
Speaker 5 (15:53):
That was my thought.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
The technical stuff just at least gives you a break,
and maybe they need to refocus on stuff besides emotion,
because emotion you are with the Clancy family.
Speaker 5 (16:04):
On emotion, I wouldn't unless.
Speaker 3 (16:07):
You're angry, unless you're angry at her.
Speaker 4 (16:09):
Look, it's so subjective.
Speaker 3 (16:11):
As you point out this emotional side of it, I
hadn't thought about the fact that the technical evidence, the
forensic evidence, the physical evidence, in a way is a
break from the emotional evidence and allows you to focus
on the science. Because I feel like, look, it's a
heavy burden to be a juror, especially in a trial
like this, because a woman's life is on the line,
(16:32):
and what you're saying about women's mental health, what you're
saying about what women may be going through, what you're acknowledging,
what you're all of. That is a heavy burden to
feel when you know that your vote, you have to
have a unanimous vote. So what you think, what you feel,
(16:53):
your impressions of her and the case could not only
just affect Lindsey Clancy and her family, but other women
to come potentially.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
Well, you're gonna get twelve people to agree that this
lady was not suffering.
Speaker 5 (17:09):
Again, it's early baby. This is just the second week.
Speaker 4 (17:13):
Yeah, and they keep.
Speaker 5 (17:13):
That in mind.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
They said this was going to go four to six weeks, perhaps,
so initially we don't know how much time this big
event this morning shaved off, but at least I would
imagine a couple days from where they thought they would
be anymore.
Speaker 5 (17:28):
We were four last week.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
They were supposed to start, well, they did start on Monday,
but they were off on Tuesday. Yeah, so only got
four days of testimony in the first week. And the
judge was already saying, we're ahead of schedule. So maybe
they were already ahead. Now this does what I mean?
Are we looking at a couple few week trial versus
a month and a half two month trial. We don't
know yet, but he already has acknowledged what time are
they getting out today, Baby.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
They're getting out today around the same time as they
did yesterday. But tomorrow is the truncated day. We're not
sure what they're going to be talking about in the afternoon,
but he already made it clear that he needs to
speak with the lawyers with both sides of the legal
teams in the afternoon, So they're only going to go
to one o'clock tomorrow, but they'll have a day until
three four o'clock this afternoon, and we will continue to
monitor what happens in the Lindsay Clancy killer mom trial
(18:12):
there in Massachusetts. For you in the meantime, thank you
for listening to us. As always, we appreciate you. I'm
Amy Roeboch alongside TJ.
Speaker 4 (18:18):
Holmes. We'll talk soon.
Hey, folks, it is Tuesday, August fourth, and a bit
of a breaking story here is we just heard Lindsey
Clancy speak in her triple murder trial and what she
had to say will have a significant impact on this trial.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and
TJ Rolds. Seems like we can't get a good flow
to this trial, as crazy as that might sound, but
there's a lot of stopping and starting and this morning
once again supposed to start at nine am.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
There was a delay, yes, and the delay was revealed
when we got to hear Lindsey Clancy speak for the
very first time outside of the jury but literally it's
the first time we've heard her voice actually in that courtroom.
And what she was agreeing to, as you mentioned, is
(00:51):
going to change the timeline of this trial.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
And it does it make sense, Rhode so because as
it was happening, we were a little confused, like, wait,
what are they doing and what are they agreeing to?
And then after we heard it all, we go, Okay,
that makes sense. I guess why didn't we do this before?
Is it kind of where we land?
Speaker 3 (01:08):
Yes, because basically, this is a murder trial that is
incredibly and exceptionally rare, because the defense is not trying
to defend against a killing, against a murder, it's trying
to defend whether or not their client, or whether or
not Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible.
Speaker 4 (01:27):
She admits to killing her children.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
So all of this evidence that you would typically see
the prosecution introduced to establish through DNA, through blood evidence,
through physical evidence that the defendant killed the victims, all
of that kind of seems unnecessary in this case because
she's saying, yeah, it was me, all that DNA evidence,
(01:51):
all that blood, all of my DNA on those exercise bands, etc.
Yeah it's mine. I cop to it, I admit it.
Speaker 4 (02:00):
It was me.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
Hey, it seems strange in the trial of this magnitude
Roges talking about three murders of three very young children,
that someone is not fighting the prosecution on the key
elements and facts and evidence of the case. Yes, that
is bizarre, and it also is Rogues, like you said,
we're not used to this. But she did it, but
she might not be criminally responsible. So what we saw
(02:24):
in court this morning was them trying to get rid
of the extra stuff and let's all.
Speaker 5 (02:29):
Just focus on the part we disagree about. Is that right?
Speaker 4 (02:32):
Yes? Because think about it.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
When we first came into this trial, I believe there
were upwards of two hundred potential witnesses between the prosecution
and the defense, and look, they put every possible witness
on that list.
Speaker 4 (02:47):
It's not that all of.
Speaker 3 (02:48):
Those folks were necessarily going to be called to testify,
but they could have been. And this with this admission,
or at least this agreement that was made in court today,
it could massively shorten the list of witnesses prosecutors will
now have to call to the stand because they don't
have to prove something that she's already admitting to.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
You mentioned that list, Yeah, two hundred potential witnesses robes,
I've been shot. I don't know the total count. Yesterday,
what time they get out of court on Monday.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
Three forty five, and they called thirteen witnesses to the stand.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
That's pretty stunning. And the reason they're going through them
so quickly is because the prosecution only has a few
questions to ask a detective or a lab tech or
sometimes even a nurse. The defense is like cooleah, no,
how many times did you just said no questions?
Speaker 3 (03:39):
Johanna, No, cross examination whatsoever, because they're not disputing the
evidence that's being introduced.
Speaker 4 (03:46):
So yes, I'm just saying so when.
Speaker 3 (03:47):
The judge says we are our ears perked up and
we were very interested in what was happening. When you
hear a judge ask a defendant who's standing up there
before the trial even gets underwear for the day, and says,
do you agree that the Commonwealth does not have to
prove the facts that are in the stipulation?
Speaker 4 (04:07):
And she says, yes, you never hear that. You just
don't in a trial, you just don't.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
So there were several, as he said, Robes stipulations, and
that was one thing that they gave up. So yes,
they come into court, immediately go to a sidebar, so
we're standing by and where waiting. Court comes back into
session but still without the jury, and this is when
all this is going on. So she's addressing the court,
and of course she is still seated because she is paralyzed.
(04:35):
She is in that wheelchair. But Robes, given what we
have seen the past couple of days with her crying
and emotional testimonies, she robes, for lack of a better phrase,
she seemed as sane as anybody in answering those questions.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
She did that was notable to me too, Like I
understand that this postpartum psychosis was episodic and perhaps confined
to this p period of time in.
Speaker 4 (05:00):
Which these atrocities.
Speaker 3 (05:02):
Took place, but still it is strange to hear a
woman who is capable of doing what she did and was,
according to her attorney, in a mindset that was altered
where you are certifiably they're claiming clinically medically insane. It's
then strange to see that person seemingly lucid answering questions, Yes,
(05:25):
your honor, Yes, I understand your honor.
Speaker 4 (05:29):
Yeah, you don't expect that.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
Brott Robes this is and I would encourage people to
watch because there are folks out there writing who are
taking issue with how this case is being covered and
even with how the prosecution is handling this case.
Speaker 5 (05:42):
It is giving this if you listen to the prosecution.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
Kind of a warped idea of what psychosis is, what
postpartum psychosis can be, what mental illness.
Speaker 5 (05:51):
Can look like. And Robes she's showing.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
We've seen doctors sit up there and say, yeah, she
could be in psychosis, but have a perfectly normal conversation
with me and make plans so robes. They say, this
woman still wants to kill herself, is still in manick
states at times.
Speaker 5 (06:10):
And she sat there and she calmly, very lucidly.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
Answered his questions and seemed to fully understand it does
in the attorney, the defense attorney, he used the word
drooling like this is this idea that if somebody's quote
unquote crazy, they're supposed to.
Speaker 5 (06:28):
Look a certain way.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
It's supposed to be lashing out and they can't keep
it together in their crazy eyes.
Speaker 4 (06:32):
And erratic behavior ropes they are.
Speaker 5 (06:35):
This is an important one to keep an eye on.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
It is, and it is fascinating to watch this all
take place, and it is fascinating to hear her be
able to to answer the questions the way she did.
I'm curious, like my brain goes somewhere where.
Speaker 4 (06:51):
If you are putting.
Speaker 3 (06:52):
On a defense, an insanity defense, say postpartum psychosis defense,
if you are claiming that you aren't respond for your actions,
how then can you be responsible for even your words?
So if you're agreeing to this, how can you even
agree to this if your whole defense is that you
aren't responsible for your actions and reactions and maybe even
(07:16):
your thoughts.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
See and that is where and it is fascinating robes,
and we're getting an education in psychosis to where you
can go into it and come out of it. You
could be into it, for it can come in and out.
It can be an episode that lasts a little while
and you don't have another one the rest of your life.
In robes, it is when we have insanity defenses.
Speaker 5 (07:38):
We usually see.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Some some defendants robes that are sometimes acting up, seemingly
out of control. You can't reason with them. These are
folks who oftentimes they cannot help with their defense.
Speaker 4 (07:50):
Right she is, she's not that.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
We're learning something else robes about it insanity defense that
I haven't seen play out like this before.
Speaker 3 (07:58):
Yeah, she's crying at the appropriate times. And I say
that meaning she is crying when we want to cry.
She's reacting emotionally to things that should be reacted emotionally too.
And yet at the same time, she was capable of
doing something that I would say the let's hope the
vast majority ninety nine point nine percent of mothers would
(08:19):
be incapable of doing so. It's hard to actually get
your head around what we're witnessing, what we're seeing, and
trying to understand what her defense is explaining to all
of us. And so far, look, they haven't even necessarily
put on their defense, but through some of the cross
examination of some of these forensic psychologists or psychiatrists, we
(08:40):
are seeing where they're headed with their defense and how
they're trying to set up and establish a documented case
of Certainly, I don't I mean, I don't know how
anyone could dispute the fact that she was suffering mentally.
Now whether or not that crosses into a line of
psychosis or not being held responsible for your actions, but
(09:01):
clearly she was mentally troubled.
Speaker 4 (09:04):
I think everyone can agree with that.
Speaker 5 (09:05):
Agreed.
Speaker 3 (09:06):
Where's the line when you don't become when you aren't
criminally responsible.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
Well, I've heard too from two doctors from the prosecution
already who have confirmed to me that what she went
through and how is.
Speaker 5 (09:21):
Possible brooks the defense.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
I remember we were all shocked when during Diddy's trial,
after all those witnesses from the prosecution, they rested without
calling anybody because they were able to prove their case
by using the prosecution's witness And so far the defense
seems to be doing that. The stipulation what is in
the first place, legally speaking, it is an agreement between
the parties about the basic facts of the case. We
(09:45):
agree to this stuff. We don't need to bring in
fifteen witnesses to talk about it. So what did she
give up? No right anymore to cross examine certain witnesses.
The state no longer has the burden to prove all
the elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 5 (10:00):
That is Robes.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
That is something you would never see, never in a
case that burden is so high. But what they've charged
her with, Robes is first degree murder. You have to
prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Don't have to anymore
because they're admitting that first degree murder and everything you're
saying about it where we agree with Yeah, now we
(10:24):
need to go argue about whether or not I am
criminally irresponsible for that.
Speaker 3 (10:28):
She not only admits to doing it, she admits to
planning it the whole thing. She admits to acting on
those plans. She admits to actually going through with those plans.
I just it was one of those really fascinating moments
when the judge followed up because he kept asking her
different versions of the same question to make sure it
was on the record, and then she fully understood. But
he's like, you are basically relieving the Commonwealth of its
(10:52):
burden to prove certain facts. Is that what you want
to do? Lindsey Clancy answers, yes, your honor.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
That was stunning, calmly right the whole time, said I've
talked to my I'll worry about it. I've had time
to review it. Nobody's forcing me into it, and so
here we got rose. I don't know what the timing
could be, but this could cut off a lot of witnesses,
a lot of time in this case because so far
Rows we've actually seen a lot of witnesses they could
have done without.
Speaker 3 (11:20):
Absolutely so they were trying to establish stuff that doesn't
need to be established because it's not disputed. And so
now you can move forward either with fewer folks on
the stand or certainly it will go much quicker because
now the defense has completely given up its right to
cross examined. So regardless, this is absolutely going to speed
up a trial that was already on track, if not
(11:42):
ahead of schedule. So that is good news for the
jurors and look, I would imagine this would be good.
Speaker 4 (11:47):
News for Lindsay Clancy.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
In the sense that does she really want to sit
through all of this blood evidence and DNA evidence and
in doing so reliving those exact moments that she wants
to forget, you.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
Know, to that point, I had a question for you
that I'll ask right after the break, and we'll also
give you an update that we got from the judge
about the schedule now and what's going to happen moving
forward in this trial. We continue here on Amy and TJ.
(12:23):
Just getting a short time ago. Didn't plan on doing
this episode today, but got an update, a significant one
out of the courtroom for the Lindsay Clancy trial, and
that she agreed to certain stipulations which is going to
shorten the trial. Essentially, what they're saying, we've agreed to
the defense of the prosecution. We agreed to so many
of the facts of the case. No reason to keep
putting on witnesses. So she's given up a right to
cross examines of witnesses, giving up a right some rights,
(12:44):
but still the argument is over whether or not she
was insane or not. Now Robes, my thought was, yes,
this speeds things along, But who does this help if
the jury doesn't have to sit through all of that
evidence because robes, it is impactful to see those elastic
bands of the murder weapon. It's impactful to hear about
(13:08):
blood evidence. It's impactful to hear all this stuff. Does
it help them in some way the defense of the
prosecution if the jury isn't sitting.
Speaker 5 (13:18):
Through that, Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
I think you could look at it from both sides,
because I thought about that too. Does the prosecution lose
some of that emotional impact?
Speaker 4 (13:28):
Look, the first week was gutting.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
It was one of the more emotional, if not the
most emotional week I've ever witnessed in a trial, because
they did see those exercise bands, and they did hear
that nine to one one call, And they did hear
from first responders and the EMTs and the firefighters who
showed up and talked about the scene they walked into.
They heard from the emergency room doctors who tried to
(13:50):
save those children's lives who were brain dead, whose hearts
had stopped. So all of that emotional testimony is already
into evidence, perhaps even not having to dwell on the
minutia of the technical aspect of DNA and blood spatter
and fingerprint and all the other perhaps evidence, the chain
(14:14):
of command proving that.
Speaker 4 (14:17):
They followed proper procedure. All of that can.
Speaker 3 (14:20):
Really weigh down a trial, the momentum, maybe even a
jury's or a juror's attention span. So maybe everyone can
actually be focused. Maybe this helps both sides and that
the real issue, the actual issue as to whether or
not she was insane or sane, whether she was suffering
from postpartum psychosis or not. The focus, that is what
(14:43):
jurors are trying to figure out. So maybe by really
zeroing in on that, we'll actually get to a better
outcome without all of the exhausting technical evidence.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
See I wondered if if it helped the defense by
getting rid of the some technical testimony, what's.
Speaker 5 (15:03):
Left is a bunch of emotional stuff. Robes.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
If the emotional stuff, I was overwhelmed last week with
that testimony, and I was just watching it from New York. Robes,
They're sitting in there taking this stuff in, and the
judge even last week you had to acknowledge them crying
and emotional in the courtroom. So Robes, if you eliminate
(15:27):
the technical stuff, it's almost we watch horror movies a lot, Robes,
and we're relieved when it's daytime in a movie because
that means we have a break. We don't have to
be emotional and into it. He just can let your
shoulders down, Robes, they stay on emotional edge. If they
stay on emotional edge the whole time and you get
to the end, are they going to be mad at
(15:49):
her or sympathized with her more?
Speaker 4 (15:52):
I don't know, but I don't know either.
Speaker 5 (15:53):
That was my thought.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
The technical stuff just at least gives you a break,
and maybe they need to refocus on stuff besides emotion,
because emotion you are with the Clancy family.
Speaker 5 (16:04):
On emotion, I wouldn't unless.
Speaker 3 (16:07):
You're angry, unless you're angry at her.
Speaker 4 (16:09):
Look, it's so subjective.
Speaker 3 (16:11):
As you point out this emotional side of it, I
hadn't thought about the fact that the technical evidence, the
forensic evidence, the physical evidence, in a way is a
break from the emotional evidence and allows you to focus
on the science. Because I feel like, look, it's a
heavy burden to be a juror, especially in a trial
like this, because a woman's life is on the line,
(16:32):
and what you're saying about women's mental health, what you're
saying about what women may be going through, what you're acknowledging,
what you're all of. That is a heavy burden to
feel when you know that your vote, you have to
have a unanimous vote. So what you think, what you feel,
(16:53):
your impressions of her and the case could not only
just affect Lindsey Clancy and her family, but other women
to come potentially.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
Well, you're gonna get twelve people to agree that this
lady was not suffering.
Speaker 5 (17:09):
Again, it's early baby. This is just the second week.
Speaker 4 (17:13):
Yeah, and they keep.
Speaker 5 (17:13):
That in mind.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
They said this was going to go four to six weeks, perhaps,
so initially we don't know how much time this big
event this morning shaved off, but at least I would
imagine a couple days from where they thought they would
be anymore.
Speaker 5 (17:28):
We were four last week.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
They were supposed to start, well, they did start on Monday,
but they were off on Tuesday. Yeah, so only got
four days of testimony in the first week. And the
judge was already saying, we're ahead of schedule. So maybe
they were already ahead. Now this does what I mean?
Are we looking at a couple few week trial versus
a month and a half two month trial. We don't
know yet, but he already has acknowledged what time are
they getting out today, Baby.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
They're getting out today around the same time as they
did yesterday. But tomorrow is the truncated day. We're not
sure what they're going to be talking about in the afternoon,
but he already made it clear that he needs to
speak with the lawyers with both sides of the legal
teams in the afternoon, So they're only going to go
to one o'clock tomorrow, but they'll have a day until
three four o'clock this afternoon, and we will continue to
monitor what happens in the Lindsay Clancy killer mom trial
(18:12):
there in Massachusetts. For you in the meantime, thank you
for listening to us. As always, we appreciate you. I'm
Amy Roeboch alongside TJ.
Speaker 4 (18:18):
Holmes. We'll talk soon.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com