August 7, 2026 • 19 mins
The prosecution called a total of 10 witnesses to the stand on Thursday, but the day began with an emotional gut punch as the state medical examiner went over the autopsy of 8 month old Callan. Jurors had to view the autopsy photo which prompted tears and tissues among the jury and audible sobbing from Lindsay Clancy. The prosecution then had a series of witnesses take the stand from the family pediatrician, daycare workers, and friends of the couple testify that Lindsay was tired, but a good and loving mom. Lindsay’s ex father-in-law and grandfather to the children testified that the Clancy’s were an “all American family” and he never was concerned that Lindsay could harm herself or the kids.
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 there, folks. It is Friday, August seventh, and the
latest in the Lindsey Clancy triple murder trial. The prosecution
spent all day Thursday trying to prove that the woman
who strangled her three young children was actually an excellent mom.
(00:22):
And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ.
It feels a little counterintuitive. They seem like they would
want to prove that she's a monster, but they put
up witness after witness after witness yesterday showing that she
was doing well, loved her kids, and was a fantastic mom.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Yeah, we had this conversation. This is so a typical.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
Usually the defense is trying to prove that their client
is a good person, a good mother, a good caregiver.
But instead we're seeing the prosecution lay the foundation for
this and the strategy is, as far as we can tell,
that she was perfectly normal, that she was loving that
how could she be crazy or psychotic if she was
(01:04):
functioning normally, functioning as a loving mother. And that is, yes, counterintuitive.
You usually would expect the prosecution to paint a criminal defendant,
a triple murderer, as a horrible person, and.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
It's been established that she is a triple murderer. This woman.
We can certainly you can make a debate and argument
about if she's criminally responsible. But this person did physically
do this to these three kids. We know that. How
can that person then also be an excellent mother? The
point here robes they're shot trying to show that all
(01:42):
these people around her for even years, actually saw no
signs that she was in trouble, didn't hear from her
that she was in trouble, and also never had any
point where they thought they had a concern about leaving
her along with her children. That is the point the
(02:02):
prosecution is trying to get at.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
Isn't that interesting too to think that from her friends,
to her co workers, to daycare workers, medical professionals who
were caring for her children over the years, her own husband,
and yes, her father in law, not one person has
testified that they believed that she would harm herself or
(02:25):
her children.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
That's tunning.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
So if that's the case, if you're a juror, or
you then to believe, well, she was perfectly normal, so
she must have been fine. She can't blame psychosis. If
none of these people saw her depressed or anything, then
maybe that's wasn't the case. Rose. This is the best
argument I've seen the prosecution make. This is as close
(02:47):
as they've gotten to trying to prove some case if
you're giving some reasonable doubt situation of well maybe that's
his I mean, that's the best proof they've offered that
she was not unwell. It's just how many people around
her that saw on those signs that she was unwell.
(03:07):
But then they put up their own witnesses as doctors
and say, yes, people in psychosists can present normally.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
I think the other part that they were getting out
of these witnesses was that she acknowledged she was tired.
So is the idea or the notion that she was
just so tired she snapped and so she is responsible
because she wasn't sleeping and she was exhausted. And we
all know when we're exhausted, we're angry, we're quicker to anger,
(03:34):
we're quicker to react. And they started to establish this
a little bit. Look, they put up ten witnesses. They
are going through witnesses like crazy during this trial. But
they put up ten witnesses on Thursday, and it began
with high emotion. The first witness on the stand on
Thursday was the state medical examiner who went over the
(03:57):
autopsy of eight month old calend addition to setting up
the stage or continuing to prove, I guess to the
jury that this mother was a normal, loving mother, they're
also trying to appeal to the emotions of the jurors
to just actually witness and recognize the atrocity of this crime.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
And then what am I supposed to do? Just get mad?
It seems I don't know, or was it putting on
the case. Your victims are just happen to be the
ages there are, And I guess robes. You have to
do this in any criminal case where there's a victim
and somebody's been murdered, we see autopsy folk, we see
this stuff robes, But I don't they're putting on their case.
I don't know what's say. Just it seems you and
(04:38):
I watch a lot of horror movies and it gets
to a point sometimes where I think, Okay, this is
gratuitous and we don't need this as the audience. It
just I don't know what how you're being helped to
prove your case by showing an autopsy photo of an
eight month old that we already know was strangled to death.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
Yes, because in that photo you see and yes, Podo
was passed around to jurors and there were visible abrasions
to his neck. He died by mechanicalist Phixia. And look,
Lindsay was visibly and audibly sobbing. But of note, the
reporters in the room described the jurors and they said
(05:17):
both the men and the women in the jury pool
were wiping tears away with tissues. But they also noted
that they were paying very close attention, taking notes as
they were listening to the autopsy, listen and watching the photos.
And I thought this was interesting. They said there was
a noticeable look of relief on the jurors faces when
(05:39):
the medical examiner left the stand and the judge actually
called a recess, and they said, as Lindsay Clancy was
being rolled out of the courtroom, the sobbing just got
even louder.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
Who I don't know, Yes, you have to pone in
your case. Is is just a horrific one. I don't know
if anybody's ever been to the funeral child before, but
it's just it's too much. It's too much to see
a child in that state, and to think of an
eight month old I can imagine what that picture looked like,
(06:12):
but they were required, they had to look at it
and almost study it. It's just what a horrible Again,
every day at this trial you think, Wow, can't get
any more emotional than that, and then.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
Somehow it does yesterday. And then so.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
After that they took the break and then the family
pediatrician gets up. She actually saw Lindsay and Clara hours
before the murders because remember Clara was having issues. Sorry, Cora,
did I say, Clara? Yes? Sorry, Cora saw Lindsay and
Cora hours before the murders because Cora was having some
issues with the restroom and so yeah, the doctor said
(06:49):
that Cora was perfectly well behaved and mom seemed appropriate
as well. And then they had the preschool teachers who
said they didn't notice any changes in Lindsay. There was
two of them that took the stand, said the kids
were wonderful. Cora was described as a sweet little girl
who loved her brothers. They put up a former co
worker of Lindsay's who worked with her for seven years,
(07:11):
and look, she said they had lunch in November of
twenty twenty two, and that Lindsay told her she had
troubles with sleep at anxiety, but she again had no
concerns about harming herself for her kids. That's what we
heard from two friends of Lindsay as well. So this
was just the one witness after another talking about how
Lindsay was tired but normal, mentioned feeling anxious, but that's it.
(07:36):
And the defense did get one of the friends to
acknowledge that she did get a text about Lindsay telling
her she had dark thoughts, but that was the closest
they came to acknowledging that there was any sort of
discussion about a mental health crisis of any kind.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
Can I put the juror in a position now, well,
maybe she was okay? And ANSWER's what they're trying to
go about again, there is I mean, how does that
stack up against medical evidence and not see medical evidence
at medical records that show all the help she tried
to get in and get over years and certainly in
the months that ramped up. I don't maybe this does
(08:16):
mute it some. I don't know how much it goes
towards cancelling out all the evidence that's been presented that
this woman was in trouble.
Speaker 3 (08:23):
Yeah, And I do think just as a human being,
anyone who's suffered mentally at any stage in their life,
it's not something you usually broadcast to folks. You usually
put on a brave face. Isn't that fair to say that?
I think as a human as an experience, anyone who's
lived enough life has gone through periods. And I'm not
(08:44):
even comparing that to what she may have been going
through with postpartum depression or postpartum psychosis. But I think
everyone knows you don't necessarily air when someone asks how
you're doing, you say I'm fine, and you might confide
a little more to people you trust, but sometimes, yeah, yes,
you withhold how you're actually feeling. I don't think that's unreasonable.
Speaker 1 (09:04):
As you pointed out the other day, especially from other women.
And everybody that's been up on the stand has been
a woman, the pediatrician, the friends, the everybody that they're
talking to about how she was doing. And again it's
not something I would have thought about. But would women
on the jury in the jury box think the way
you're thinking to where I hear this stuff and I'm
(09:25):
sitting up paying attention, and women like you might think Yeah,
that's exactly what a woman would do. She would keep
it to.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
Herself exactly, and I think that that is something that
is reasonable for juris And it'll be interesting to see
if the defense tries to bring this home at least
when they put on their case. But the ex father
in law, the kid's grandfather, Christopher Clancy, was a big
star witness on Thursday. He described Lindsay as very mothering,
and I think this hit a chord. He described his
(09:52):
son and his former daughter in law and their children
as the all American family that landed because you see
the pictures and it seems like they were this perfect family,
and it just it hit it. It describes something that
I think people understand visually and what we think of
(10:13):
when we see other families that look perfect or that
look like they've got it all together. I just thought
that was he was describing, not just from the outside
looking in, but what his experience was with them.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
Hey, everybody had the same experience. Great family, great mom,
And I mean it's actually pretty impressive to hear how
people thought of her as a mother.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
It really was.
Speaker 3 (10:35):
But this was the one interesting part of not one,
but this was one of several interesting parts of Christopher
Clancy's testimony.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
He actually described.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
An incident at Thanksgiving with Dawson, the middle child, and
Dawson plays a role in all of yesterday's testimony because
it was basically noted that he might have been the
difficult child or the rambunctious child.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
Correct.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
I have a child like that, yes, and we all
have to deal with those children a little bit differently.
But he described an incident at Thanksgiving where he saw
Lindsay get frustrated with him and grabbed his arm. And
so the defense quickly on cross examination, had him acknowledge
he didn't think she was being abusive, and he acknowledged
that he knew Lindsay wasn't sleeping, and he attributed it
(11:21):
to that. But I don't know how damaging that would
be at all, that she grabbed her son's arm at
Thanksgiving in front of the family.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
But the assertion was supposed to be from the prosecution
that see, she had a problem with this kid. See
she started to act out. See he was the problem child.
See she had beef with it. They're trying to add
there's very little evidence of excuse me, there's none. Yes,
the number of times a mom has snatched their kids.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
I've pinched my kids before. I mean, I'll admit that,
I'm not proud of it. But when, yes, when they're misbehaving,
I have done a little pinch, like hey stop it
right now in public.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
But we all grew up getting whoopings. Oh I did too,
So I mean, I know it's a different time now,
but just I don't know what they were trying to
get at.
Speaker 3 (12:08):
I don't know a parent. Look, obviously you don't want
to do that, but I don't know a parent who
probably hasn't had that moment.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
Was I supposed to prove? What were they trying to do?
Speaker 3 (12:15):
We lost her cool and look they coupled up. Look,
Patrick had a friend up there, Kyle Karney. He just
said the same thing. Noticed no changes in her demeanor.
But when the police sergeant this was the last, uh,
this was the last witness of the day. He did
add something to this, notion that she was frustrated by Dawson,
So he confirmed that they investigated a Facebook message they
(12:36):
found that Lindsey put up on a parent site in
May of twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1 (12:41):
Say, and I'm to be clear here this message was
was something they looked into afterwards. This wasn't something that
somebody saw on Facebook and reported her.
Speaker 3 (12:52):
No, they're now investigating after the fact to see if
there were any signs of abuse, any signs that she
was not being.
Speaker 1 (12:59):
A good and this is what they came up.
Speaker 2 (13:01):
This is what they came up with.
Speaker 3 (13:02):
There was a Facebook message to a parenting blog in
May of twenty twenty one. So that's what a year
before these murders or is it more than a year? Yeah,
to almost two years before the murders. So she put
on this Facebook parenting site that her then nineteen month old,
who is Dawson, was quote the most difficult person she's
ever met. She said he constantly fought with her, but
(13:24):
that she loved him. Her quote was every single thing
with him is a battle and it has.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
Been this way for a while.
Speaker 3 (13:31):
She's reaching out to other parents in a community expressing
her frustration with her kids. My god, I've said some
similar things about my own children in moments this morning.
Speaker 1 (13:42):
No but ro I okay, okay, I don't. I just
when things like that get presented, it makes me feel
like y'all really don't have that's all you got. It
makes that that's how it reads to me and this
to any parent, any mom, the how much worse a
(14:04):
thing have you said about some kid? Exactly?
Speaker 3 (14:07):
And look, the defense followed up quickly and asked, hey, okay,
so obviously were you looking into whether Lindsay was ever
abusive with Dawson? And the sergeant said, yes, we did,
and then he had to say they found nothing. So
the defense landed their cross examination very well with that
acknowledgment by that sergeant after the damning text message or
(14:32):
the damaging post about yeah, how she was frustrated with
her kid.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
Okay, Yeah, all of our.
Speaker 3 (14:38):
Kids have been the most difficult person we've ever met
at some point in their childhood.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
How many isn't that crazy? How many times every parent
who's listening right now has had some statement about your
child where they're the blank you've ever met in your life,
like this is something I've ever met in.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
Life exactly exactly.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
So you know what, And again that still goes to
me showing how much of an engaged and alert mother
she was.
Speaker 3 (15:05):
Yeah, what I've learned so far from this trial is
that Lindsay Clancy was an amazing mother until she completely snapped,
which to me falls right in line with an insanity defense.
But when we come back, we'll tell you why the
jury was excused early once again yesterday for a pretty
significant hearing, and it all has to do about who
(15:27):
the defense can call when it's their turn. Welcome back
everyone to Amy and TJ. And we are talking about
the hearing that was called after the jury was excused
in Lindsay Clancy's trial. And there was a big back
(15:49):
and forth on potential defense witnesses and the evidence they
can actually introduce, and the prosecution actually asked they would
like to have some time to cross examine defense witnesses
before they actually are up on the stand.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
I mean, what isn't that you aren't you supposed to
do that way before trial?
Speaker 3 (16:12):
That was the defense says, I'm sorry, but these medical
experts are going to be giving opinions based on evidence
both sides have had for years, So what's the point
behind this? But they are trying to say that, look,
this is going to be an issue for them. They
don't know who these people are, they don't know where
their credentials are, and they were really pushing back and
(16:34):
trying to limit who the defense can bring or call
to the stand. I thought one of the more interesting
parts was the judge was trying to figure out and
he said this to the prosecution, I want to get
your take on this. The Commonwealth has at least inferred
in their case that this was not a serious suicide attempt, right,
because the point is the defense is going to try
to prove that this was a serious suicide attempt. The
(16:56):
prosecutor said, no, that's not what they're trying to prove.
Didn't it seem like that's what they've been trying to
prove this whole time.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
That's what they've been saying the whole time. They say
she's Spider Man down the wall. For God's sake. They
said all of her wounds were superficial. So yes, that's yes. Yes.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
So they denied it flat out to the judge and
went on to say, the position of the Commonwealth isn't
that it wasn't a serious suicide attempt. It's that the
methods that were chosen were insufficient to achieve the goal.
I think the reasons for that will become clearer when
the doctors testify.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
Huh, okay, well, wait, they promising us a case and
maybe this will be it. Fine, that's perfectly fine. Okay,
but they've been telling us for two weeks that it
wasn't a serious attempt they witnessed after witness Yes, we
try to prove that point. So now that seems a
little weird. Did she say that on the fly, Yes,
but it was very confusing when she was put on
(17:52):
the spot to suggest that no, it was serious. It
just wasn't sufficient, which is supposed to suggest what she
wanted to prove it was a real suicide attempt, but
she didn't really want to kill herself. Okay, I'm waiting.
She said. The things will become more evident, she said, yep.
Speaker 3 (18:12):
She said that it will become clearer when the doctors testify.
So look, the judge is still thinking things over in
terms of who the defense can call, what they can
specifically ask them. They want to bring in some three
D mock up of the crime scene that the prosecutors
are already objecting to.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
So I have a feeling there's going to be.
Speaker 3 (18:31):
A lot of sidebars, a lot of issues that are
going to be coming up in the next couple of days.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
But this was another big headline.
Speaker 3 (18:38):
The prosecution says it could rest its case as early
as Monday or Tuesday.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
So that would have been two weeks for them. Yes,
essentially a witness is putting on the case in two weeks. Huh.
I don't know how. I didn't hear yet how long
the defense is anticipating going. But it does sound like
there's going to be a lot of back and forth.
It does a lot of stopping and starting.
Speaker 2 (18:59):
It does.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
But we have seen plenty of trials where there hasn't
been a defense. There's been very little defense this one.
I believe we are going to see quite a few
witnesses come up and refute what we've heard from the prosecution.
But a lot of what we've heard from the prosecution
you and I have been discussing seemingly has bolstered the
defense's case, or at least the defense has done a
good job at basically taking the wind out of their sales.
Speaker 1 (19:22):
Ain't over yet, right, It ain't over yet.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
All right.
Speaker 3 (19:26):
A full day of testimony is expected today. We will
be on it. We will be listening, and we'll bring
everything to you in the meantime, though we always appreciate
you listening to us. I'm Amy Roeboch alongside TJ.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
Holmes. We'll talk soon
Hey there, folks. It is Friday, August seventh, and the
latest in the Lindsey Clancy triple murder trial. The prosecution
spent all day Thursday trying to prove that the woman
who strangled her three young children was actually an excellent mom.
(00:22):
And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ.
It feels a little counterintuitive. They seem like they would
want to prove that she's a monster, but they put
up witness after witness after witness yesterday showing that she
was doing well, loved her kids, and was a fantastic mom.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Yeah, we had this conversation. This is so a typical.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
Usually the defense is trying to prove that their client
is a good person, a good mother, a good caregiver.
But instead we're seeing the prosecution lay the foundation for
this and the strategy is, as far as we can tell,
that she was perfectly normal, that she was loving that
how could she be crazy or psychotic if she was
(01:04):
functioning normally, functioning as a loving mother. And that is, yes, counterintuitive.
You usually would expect the prosecution to paint a criminal defendant,
a triple murderer, as a horrible person, and.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
It's been established that she is a triple murderer. This woman.
We can certainly you can make a debate and argument
about if she's criminally responsible. But this person did physically
do this to these three kids. We know that. How
can that person then also be an excellent mother? The
point here robes they're shot trying to show that all
(01:42):
these people around her for even years, actually saw no
signs that she was in trouble, didn't hear from her
that she was in trouble, and also never had any
point where they thought they had a concern about leaving
her along with her children. That is the point the
(02:02):
prosecution is trying to get at.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
Isn't that interesting too to think that from her friends,
to her co workers, to daycare workers, medical professionals who
were caring for her children over the years, her own husband,
and yes, her father in law, not one person has
testified that they believed that she would harm herself or
(02:25):
her children.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
That's tunning.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
So if that's the case, if you're a juror, or
you then to believe, well, she was perfectly normal, so
she must have been fine. She can't blame psychosis. If
none of these people saw her depressed or anything, then
maybe that's wasn't the case. Rose. This is the best
argument I've seen the prosecution make. This is as close
(02:47):
as they've gotten to trying to prove some case if
you're giving some reasonable doubt situation of well maybe that's
his I mean, that's the best proof they've offered that
she was not unwell. It's just how many people around
her that saw on those signs that she was unwell.
(03:07):
But then they put up their own witnesses as doctors
and say, yes, people in psychosists can present normally.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
I think the other part that they were getting out
of these witnesses was that she acknowledged she was tired.
So is the idea or the notion that she was
just so tired she snapped and so she is responsible
because she wasn't sleeping and she was exhausted. And we
all know when we're exhausted, we're angry, we're quicker to anger,
(03:34):
we're quicker to react. And they started to establish this
a little bit. Look, they put up ten witnesses. They
are going through witnesses like crazy during this trial. But
they put up ten witnesses on Thursday, and it began
with high emotion. The first witness on the stand on
Thursday was the state medical examiner who went over the
(03:57):
autopsy of eight month old calend addition to setting up
the stage or continuing to prove, I guess to the
jury that this mother was a normal, loving mother, they're
also trying to appeal to the emotions of the jurors
to just actually witness and recognize the atrocity of this crime.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
And then what am I supposed to do? Just get mad?
It seems I don't know, or was it putting on
the case. Your victims are just happen to be the
ages there are, And I guess robes. You have to
do this in any criminal case where there's a victim
and somebody's been murdered, we see autopsy folk, we see
this stuff robes, But I don't they're putting on their case.
I don't know what's say. Just it seems you and
(04:38):
I watch a lot of horror movies and it gets
to a point sometimes where I think, Okay, this is
gratuitous and we don't need this as the audience. It
just I don't know what how you're being helped to
prove your case by showing an autopsy photo of an
eight month old that we already know was strangled to death.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
Yes, because in that photo you see and yes, Podo
was passed around to jurors and there were visible abrasions
to his neck. He died by mechanicalist Phixia. And look,
Lindsay was visibly and audibly sobbing. But of note, the
reporters in the room described the jurors and they said
(05:17):
both the men and the women in the jury pool
were wiping tears away with tissues. But they also noted
that they were paying very close attention, taking notes as
they were listening to the autopsy, listen and watching the photos.
And I thought this was interesting. They said there was
a noticeable look of relief on the jurors faces when
(05:39):
the medical examiner left the stand and the judge actually
called a recess, and they said, as Lindsay Clancy was
being rolled out of the courtroom, the sobbing just got
even louder.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
Who I don't know, Yes, you have to pone in
your case. Is is just a horrific one. I don't know
if anybody's ever been to the funeral child before, but
it's just it's too much. It's too much to see
a child in that state, and to think of an
eight month old I can imagine what that picture looked like,
(06:12):
but they were required, they had to look at it
and almost study it. It's just what a horrible Again,
every day at this trial you think, Wow, can't get
any more emotional than that, and then.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
Somehow it does yesterday. And then so.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
After that they took the break and then the family
pediatrician gets up. She actually saw Lindsay and Clara hours
before the murders because remember Clara was having issues. Sorry, Cora,
did I say, Clara? Yes? Sorry, Cora saw Lindsay and
Cora hours before the murders because Cora was having some
issues with the restroom and so yeah, the doctor said
(06:49):
that Cora was perfectly well behaved and mom seemed appropriate
as well. And then they had the preschool teachers who
said they didn't notice any changes in Lindsay. There was
two of them that took the stand, said the kids
were wonderful. Cora was described as a sweet little girl
who loved her brothers. They put up a former co
worker of Lindsay's who worked with her for seven years,
(07:11):
and look, she said they had lunch in November of
twenty twenty two, and that Lindsay told her she had
troubles with sleep at anxiety, but she again had no
concerns about harming herself for her kids. That's what we
heard from two friends of Lindsay as well. So this
was just the one witness after another talking about how
Lindsay was tired but normal, mentioned feeling anxious, but that's it.
(07:36):
And the defense did get one of the friends to
acknowledge that she did get a text about Lindsay telling
her she had dark thoughts, but that was the closest
they came to acknowledging that there was any sort of
discussion about a mental health crisis of any kind.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
Can I put the juror in a position now, well,
maybe she was okay? And ANSWER's what they're trying to
go about again, there is I mean, how does that
stack up against medical evidence and not see medical evidence
at medical records that show all the help she tried
to get in and get over years and certainly in
the months that ramped up. I don't maybe this does
(08:16):
mute it some. I don't know how much it goes
towards cancelling out all the evidence that's been presented that
this woman was in trouble.
Speaker 3 (08:23):
Yeah, And I do think just as a human being,
anyone who's suffered mentally at any stage in their life,
it's not something you usually broadcast to folks. You usually
put on a brave face. Isn't that fair to say that?
I think as a human as an experience, anyone who's
lived enough life has gone through periods. And I'm not
(08:44):
even comparing that to what she may have been going
through with postpartum depression or postpartum psychosis. But I think
everyone knows you don't necessarily air when someone asks how
you're doing, you say I'm fine, and you might confide
a little more to people you trust, but sometimes, yeah, yes,
you withhold how you're actually feeling. I don't think that's unreasonable.
Speaker 1 (09:04):
As you pointed out the other day, especially from other women.
And everybody that's been up on the stand has been
a woman, the pediatrician, the friends, the everybody that they're
talking to about how she was doing. And again it's
not something I would have thought about. But would women
on the jury in the jury box think the way
you're thinking to where I hear this stuff and I'm
(09:25):
sitting up paying attention, and women like you might think Yeah,
that's exactly what a woman would do. She would keep
it to.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
Herself exactly, and I think that that is something that
is reasonable for juris And it'll be interesting to see
if the defense tries to bring this home at least
when they put on their case. But the ex father
in law, the kid's grandfather, Christopher Clancy, was a big
star witness on Thursday. He described Lindsay as very mothering,
and I think this hit a chord. He described his
(09:52):
son and his former daughter in law and their children
as the all American family that landed because you see
the pictures and it seems like they were this perfect family,
and it just it hit it. It describes something that
I think people understand visually and what we think of
(10:13):
when we see other families that look perfect or that
look like they've got it all together. I just thought
that was he was describing, not just from the outside
looking in, but what his experience was with them.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
Hey, everybody had the same experience. Great family, great mom,
And I mean it's actually pretty impressive to hear how
people thought of her as a mother.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
It really was.
Speaker 3 (10:35):
But this was the one interesting part of not one,
but this was one of several interesting parts of Christopher
Clancy's testimony.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
He actually described.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
An incident at Thanksgiving with Dawson, the middle child, and
Dawson plays a role in all of yesterday's testimony because
it was basically noted that he might have been the
difficult child or the rambunctious child.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
Correct.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
I have a child like that, yes, and we all
have to deal with those children a little bit differently.
But he described an incident at Thanksgiving where he saw
Lindsay get frustrated with him and grabbed his arm. And
so the defense quickly on cross examination, had him acknowledge
he didn't think she was being abusive, and he acknowledged
that he knew Lindsay wasn't sleeping, and he attributed it
(11:21):
to that. But I don't know how damaging that would
be at all, that she grabbed her son's arm at
Thanksgiving in front of the family.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
But the assertion was supposed to be from the prosecution
that see, she had a problem with this kid. See
she started to act out. See he was the problem child.
See she had beef with it. They're trying to add
there's very little evidence of excuse me, there's none. Yes,
the number of times a mom has snatched their kids.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
I've pinched my kids before. I mean, I'll admit that,
I'm not proud of it. But when, yes, when they're misbehaving,
I have done a little pinch, like hey stop it
right now in public.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
But we all grew up getting whoopings. Oh I did too,
So I mean, I know it's a different time now,
but just I don't know what they were trying to
get at.
Speaker 3 (12:08):
I don't know a parent. Look, obviously you don't want
to do that, but I don't know a parent who
probably hasn't had that moment.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
Was I supposed to prove? What were they trying to do?
Speaker 3 (12:15):
We lost her cool and look they coupled up. Look,
Patrick had a friend up there, Kyle Karney. He just
said the same thing. Noticed no changes in her demeanor.
But when the police sergeant this was the last, uh,
this was the last witness of the day. He did
add something to this, notion that she was frustrated by Dawson,
So he confirmed that they investigated a Facebook message they
(12:36):
found that Lindsey put up on a parent site in
May of twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1 (12:41):
Say, and I'm to be clear here this message was
was something they looked into afterwards. This wasn't something that
somebody saw on Facebook and reported her.
Speaker 3 (12:52):
No, they're now investigating after the fact to see if
there were any signs of abuse, any signs that she
was not being.
Speaker 1 (12:59):
A good and this is what they came up.
Speaker 2 (13:01):
This is what they came up with.
Speaker 3 (13:02):
There was a Facebook message to a parenting blog in
May of twenty twenty one. So that's what a year
before these murders or is it more than a year? Yeah,
to almost two years before the murders. So she put
on this Facebook parenting site that her then nineteen month old,
who is Dawson, was quote the most difficult person she's
ever met. She said he constantly fought with her, but
(13:24):
that she loved him. Her quote was every single thing
with him is a battle and it has.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
Been this way for a while.
Speaker 3 (13:31):
She's reaching out to other parents in a community expressing
her frustration with her kids. My god, I've said some
similar things about my own children in moments this morning.
Speaker 1 (13:42):
No but ro I okay, okay, I don't. I just
when things like that get presented, it makes me feel
like y'all really don't have that's all you got. It
makes that that's how it reads to me and this
to any parent, any mom, the how much worse a
(14:04):
thing have you said about some kid? Exactly?
Speaker 3 (14:07):
And look, the defense followed up quickly and asked, hey, okay,
so obviously were you looking into whether Lindsay was ever
abusive with Dawson? And the sergeant said, yes, we did,
and then he had to say they found nothing. So
the defense landed their cross examination very well with that
acknowledgment by that sergeant after the damning text message or
(14:32):
the damaging post about yeah, how she was frustrated with
her kid.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
Okay, Yeah, all of our.
Speaker 3 (14:38):
Kids have been the most difficult person we've ever met
at some point in their childhood.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
How many isn't that crazy? How many times every parent
who's listening right now has had some statement about your
child where they're the blank you've ever met in your life,
like this is something I've ever met in.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
Life exactly exactly.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
So you know what, And again that still goes to
me showing how much of an engaged and alert mother
she was.
Speaker 3 (15:05):
Yeah, what I've learned so far from this trial is
that Lindsay Clancy was an amazing mother until she completely snapped,
which to me falls right in line with an insanity defense.
But when we come back, we'll tell you why the
jury was excused early once again yesterday for a pretty
significant hearing, and it all has to do about who
(15:27):
the defense can call when it's their turn. Welcome back
everyone to Amy and TJ. And we are talking about
the hearing that was called after the jury was excused
in Lindsay Clancy's trial. And there was a big back
(15:49):
and forth on potential defense witnesses and the evidence they
can actually introduce, and the prosecution actually asked they would
like to have some time to cross examine defense witnesses
before they actually are up on the stand.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
I mean, what isn't that you aren't you supposed to
do that way before trial?
Speaker 3 (16:12):
That was the defense says, I'm sorry, but these medical
experts are going to be giving opinions based on evidence
both sides have had for years, So what's the point
behind this? But they are trying to say that, look,
this is going to be an issue for them. They
don't know who these people are, they don't know where
their credentials are, and they were really pushing back and
(16:34):
trying to limit who the defense can bring or call
to the stand. I thought one of the more interesting
parts was the judge was trying to figure out and
he said this to the prosecution, I want to get
your take on this. The Commonwealth has at least inferred
in their case that this was not a serious suicide attempt, right,
because the point is the defense is going to try
to prove that this was a serious suicide attempt. The
(16:56):
prosecutor said, no, that's not what they're trying to prove.
Didn't it seem like that's what they've been trying to
prove this whole time.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
That's what they've been saying the whole time. They say
she's Spider Man down the wall. For God's sake. They
said all of her wounds were superficial. So yes, that's yes. Yes.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
So they denied it flat out to the judge and
went on to say, the position of the Commonwealth isn't
that it wasn't a serious suicide attempt. It's that the
methods that were chosen were insufficient to achieve the goal.
I think the reasons for that will become clearer when
the doctors testify.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
Huh, okay, well, wait, they promising us a case and
maybe this will be it. Fine, that's perfectly fine. Okay,
but they've been telling us for two weeks that it
wasn't a serious attempt they witnessed after witness Yes, we
try to prove that point. So now that seems a
little weird. Did she say that on the fly, Yes,
but it was very confusing when she was put on
(17:52):
the spot to suggest that no, it was serious. It
just wasn't sufficient, which is supposed to suggest what she
wanted to prove it was a real suicide attempt, but
she didn't really want to kill herself. Okay, I'm waiting.
She said. The things will become more evident, she said, yep.
Speaker 3 (18:12):
She said that it will become clearer when the doctors testify.
So look, the judge is still thinking things over in
terms of who the defense can call, what they can
specifically ask them. They want to bring in some three
D mock up of the crime scene that the prosecutors
are already objecting to.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
So I have a feeling there's going to be.
Speaker 3 (18:31):
A lot of sidebars, a lot of issues that are
going to be coming up in the next couple of days.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
But this was another big headline.
Speaker 3 (18:38):
The prosecution says it could rest its case as early
as Monday or Tuesday.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
So that would have been two weeks for them. Yes,
essentially a witness is putting on the case in two weeks. Huh.
I don't know how. I didn't hear yet how long
the defense is anticipating going. But it does sound like
there's going to be a lot of back and forth.
It does a lot of stopping and starting.
Speaker 2 (18:59):
It does.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
But we have seen plenty of trials where there hasn't
been a defense. There's been very little defense this one.
I believe we are going to see quite a few
witnesses come up and refute what we've heard from the prosecution.
But a lot of what we've heard from the prosecution
you and I have been discussing seemingly has bolstered the
defense's case, or at least the defense has done a
good job at basically taking the wind out of their sales.
Speaker 1 (19:22):
Ain't over yet, right, It ain't over yet.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
All right.
Speaker 3 (19:26):
A full day of testimony is expected today. We will
be on it. We will be listening, and we'll bring
everything to you in the meantime, though we always appreciate
you listening to us. I'm Amy Roeboch alongside TJ.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
Holmes. We'll talk soon
Popular Podcasts
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
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
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.