It was a shortened day of testimony, but it was a powerful day in court. The prosecution called five witnesses to the stand, including several more medical and scientific experts, one of whom evoked a fiery exchange between Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney and prosecutors. The star witness of the day was the Clancy family’s former nanny who was with Lindsay and her children in the months leading up to the murders. Elaine Rossi testified that she was aware Lindsay was struggling with postpartum, but was deeply involved in caring for her children and was a wonderful mom.
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, the folks, it's Thursday, August sixth, and it was
a shortened but intense day in court and the Lindsay
Clancy trial, and so much of the tension wasn't between
attorney and witness, but attorney and attorney. And with that,
welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ Rolls. We've
(00:22):
been seeing a few signs of this bubbling up a
little bit, and we see attorneys go back and forth
with a little tension. Sometimes it's uncomfortable these two. Here
it comes here, it comes.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Yeah, And funny enough, it was during the testimony of one.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Of the least interesting folks who were up on the
witness stand.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
To that witness well, and that was part of the
reason why the defense attorney was so annoyed, because yes,
they've already agreed to stipulations, they've already agreed that the
chain of command of evidence when it comes to DNA
and blood samples. They're already saying, Yep, what you're presenting
is true. Yeah, that evidence is correct. And so to
get into the minutia of DNA started just irritating the
(01:07):
heck out of Lindsay Clancy's defense attorney.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
And I'm not really sure, robes, what's happening? Right? They
make these stipulations. They essentially just say, there's so many
parts of this crime. We all agree about. She did it.
She strangled them, We get it.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Her DNA is on the exercise bands, her blood is
all over the house.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
Yep, we agree.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
Why then are we going through the exercise of now
how many people? Now you know what she asked the
question yesterday, what is DNA? Oh my god, you can
feel the whole courtroom gone.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Oh. Yes, So this was during this is one of
the towards the end. Yeah, this is the second to
last witness up on the stand. She's a former state
police forensic scientist. And yes, when she started to ask
those questions, the prosecutor, all of us, I think listening
and watching along with the defense attorney, started to get annoyed.
(02:05):
But what happened was they started going into the minutia
of DNA, explaining what a non million is, and that
is when it finally that was the straw that broke
the camel's back. The defense attorney just jumped up and said,
this is typical DNA gobbledygook. At this point, Judge, I object, yes,
(02:25):
and you you broke out laughing the.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
Big goaledy gook robes. What is the point of the
stipulation if it's if we're still going through the exact
same process. Anyway, this makes sense to me that we
want to be focused on the thing we disagree about,
whether or not she was sane, her mental state, so
that should be the focus. Robes they're going through and
building a case that the defense isn't arguing against. This
(02:50):
is confusing to me.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
Yes, so typical DNA gobbledygook. At this point, I object
What was even maybe funnier was the prosecutor's response to
the defense objection, I object to his objection. Okay, She
literally said, I object to his objection and then added
this is ridiculous. And that's when the judge said, the
(03:12):
two of you come up here.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
Sidebar.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
Quite a few sidebars, lots of sidebars. They get a
good flow, can't get a good rhythm, can't get a
lot going sometimes or open fields because they just they
keep stopping, and the judge is the one not even
the attorneys a lot are asking for the sidebar, which
we see a lot. The judge is saying, come to
the side, come come here.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
Y'all like he's trying to break up two kids fighting.
But by the way, the judge did overrule the defense
attorney and the testimony. The DNA testimony continued, but hilariously
and expectedly, when the defense was offered the opportunity to
cross examine the witness, he said, no questions, right, So,
but let's start from the top, because we had a
(03:53):
physician associates start the day off. His name was Eton Negri,
and he again, and we've just seen they have had
a lot of witnesses saying the same thing. But he
testified to the fact that he said Lindsay Clancy's self
inflicted cuts were superficial. He said none of them were
actively bleeding. The laceration on her right wrist only required
(04:16):
three stitches, and the one on her left only required
one stitch.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
And they show pictures of this as well. It looks
like an injury to me, but they're trying to make
the point that it wasn't severe and that this was
not a real suicide attempt. This was her trying to
cover up them. That's the charge.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
R Yes, And that's pretty much what we saw from
every witness. They're trying to establish or they're trying to
prove that Lindsay Clancy wasn't actually trying to kill herself.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
Despite cutting her neck and her wrists and jumping out
a second story window.
Speaker 2 (04:48):
Correct, the defense came back. I loved what he said
to this physician's assistant. You're not suggesting that for one minute,
Lindsay Clancy could have gotten up and walked out of
the hospital, No, sir. And then he said he got
him basically to admit that Lindsay was critically ill, needed
a blood transfusion, had a major spinal injury, none of
(05:10):
which he acknowledged when he was just focused on what
he was calling superficial wounds.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
And again, I thought he was a good, a solid
witness who was just basing it on the facts and
what he knew. But he asked, excuse me. He was
answering the questions from the prosecutor exactly as she asked.
He would say yes and a no, and he didn't
expound on anything, and so it took the defense. So
I didn't find him. He answered the questions based on
what he was asked. I thought he was a good witness.
Speaker 3 (05:35):
He didn't have an agenda.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
The former police crime lab tech, though Nicholas Roberts a
little different story, and this again was the same old,
same old. You have the prosecutors bringing up a witness
who testifies that there were no illegal drugs.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
There was no alcohol in her blooder urine.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
She tested positive for venzo diazepine and some other substances.
But basically the defense got him to admit that there
was a large quantity of drugs and clancy system. You
can go through all what was in there, but he
kind of was a little testy back at him.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
The witness said, I've seen more.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
See I like this guy too. But even when he
even when he gave that answer, the defense attorney followed
up and he said, but yeah, that is.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
A lot, yeah right, right, yeah, he said, but never
the defense attorney followed up, but nevertheless, that's still a
large number of drugs though, right, And he responded, yeah,
there's quite a few.
Speaker 3 (06:34):
So yes, that was it.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
But again the defense kind of negating anything that the
prosecution was trying to put up.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
Then came the forensic.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
Toxychologist and he talked got more specific about what was
in Lindsay Clancy's system, ani depressants and anti psychotics. His
big point was there was only one that was slightly elevated,
but it was still ten times below the level that
was considered toxic. The point the prosecution was making with
this witness is none of the drugs that Lindsay Clansy
(07:02):
took were a contributing factor to a suicide attempt, or
were in large enough quantities that it would have contributed
to her psychosis.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
See there, and is that effective? Because me as a
juror sitting there, So which is it? Lady? Are you
saying she should have been on more or she should
have been on less? Because the idea, if it's under
the therapeutic amount, it means Robes, she is not medicated
enough to keep the voices out of her head. Isn't
(07:32):
that supposed to be the idea?
Speaker 3 (07:34):
Possibly?
Speaker 2 (07:34):
But then would that be her own fault because they
know that there are these lawsuits where they are blaming
the doctors, they're blaming the drugs that she was prescribed,
that she was over medicated and that contributed to her psychosis.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
This ain't that case. This is criminal. We can deal
with that, lady.
Speaker 2 (07:48):
So yes, for whatever reason they want to establish that
she had a lower than anticipated level of drugs given
all the prescription drugs were seen.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
Which tells you what as a juror, okay, prosecutor, she
didn't have a lot of drugs or a high dosage
in our system. They're trying to say, it fails me.
Speaker 3 (08:04):
What so what was what was being what?
Speaker 2 (08:06):
Some of the questions, it seemed as though they were
trying to say, if someone were really trying to kill themselves,
they could overdose on all these drugs she had, and
she chose not to.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
So she chose to slit her wrist and jump out a.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
Window because she knew she could survive that.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
According to that, ah, there it is, gotcha. She knew
just how much to cut her neck to bleed only
so much, Yes, and she was careful in how she
spider Man down the wall right.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Yes, yes, And look, the defense came back with saying, look,
the level of drugs does not provide a complete picture
of her health. And so he said, what you're saying
is that the numbers alone do not tell the tale
of what happened on a particular night.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
Correct.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
So then again, kind of everything he said kind of
negated at that point.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
So everything you said really means nothing in the overall.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
Then we had the forensic scientists.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
That caused the big attorney disruption where everybody got all
upset about the objections and all of that. But the
big I think, the moment that a lot of folks
were waiting for, and I would say the big headlines
that came out of yesterday's testimony was from Lindsey Clancy's Nancy,
Elaine Rossi. She was the star witness, I would say
(09:15):
of the day, her nanny, Elaine Rossi and Nancy. I
did that's so funny. Clancy's Nancy Clancy's nanny. Wow, Yes,
it is Friday Eve, everybody. I might be in a
Friday mindset already. But she testified that she never had
any concerns that Lindsay Clancy would harm her children. You
(09:38):
would think that was a good thing. But what the
prosecutions trying to establish is she wasn't displaying signs of psychosis.
She was not displaying signs of a troubled mom or
someone who needed help. And here was another caregiver who
was working alongside this woman who never once saw a
mentally disturbed individual in the three months leading up to
(09:58):
the deaths.
Speaker 1 (09:59):
Of her children. Uh okay, But I also heard two
days of testimony from her husband who saw something else.
I would it doesn't this this nanny didn't cancel all
that out, but that's fine. And also this nanny's testimony
isn't it also confirmed by the prosecution's own psychiatrist, who said, yes,
(10:21):
they can present as normal as anything.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
Look And I would also take it a step further.
I think most moms who have had nanny's or babysitters
or caregivers in their life no that there.
Speaker 3 (10:32):
I think I had this conversation with you yesterday.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
First, your best.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
Behavior around another woman because you want to make sure
you look like a good mom. We care what the babysitter,
what the nanny thinks of us.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
That's a total woman thing, absolutely and you hit me
with that. I was like, oh, never crossed my mind.
So then I thought, how many women are going to
ultimately be on this jury who understand that thing that
a man on the jury will probably I'm not.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
Going to admit that I'm suffering or that I'm spiraling
to another woman who's taking care of my kids because
I don't want her judgment. And that is absolutely true.
And I think that's something that hit me when I
was listening to this. Now she acknowledged that she was
aware that Lindsay Clancy was struggling with postpartum depression, but
she went on to say that she didn't see any
(11:19):
change in her demeanor. She knew that she was starting,
she knew she was on some sort of medication because
she had to stop breastfeeding, she had to stop nursing,
So she was aware that she was and at one point,
I think she couldn't drive somewhere, She couldn't drive the
kids to that gymnastics place because potentially she was on
medication that prohibited her from driving. So look, I think
(11:39):
one of the big and emotional moments that caused the
defense to actually raise an objection and tried to stop
the prosecution during this testimony from showing a video of
baby Callen drinking from a bottle. And this was a
video that Rossy, the nanny, had sent to Lindsay in September.
And look, they didn't want This is again the prosecution
(12:02):
creating this sympathy, this emotional attachment to these children, seeing
them vibrant and alive, and showing loving videos that a
nanny has taken of this child, to then feel anger
towards the mom That's what most legal analysts say, is
happening here, because yeah, is there any real evidentiary reason
why we need to see a video of baby Callen
(12:23):
drinking a bottle of milk?
Speaker 3 (12:25):
Probably not.
Speaker 1 (12:26):
Again, that's I'm curious how that's going to work. Robes
to try to get people in feeling sympathy and devastation
for the kids, you turn that into anger against the mom.
I don't know if that's working. It could potentially robes,
but every time I see or I hear about the kids,
(12:47):
it's coupled with or my mind goes to how much
the mom cared for the kids. It just I don't
it's hard. Maybe it works, we're not sitting in the courtroom.
Maybe it feels and reads differently in there. But if
you're if that's the strategy, we need you to hate
this lady by loving these kids more.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
That is what some legal analysts say is going on.
But you mentioned your mind goes straight to Lindsay Clancy
when you think about the kids, Well so did juror's eyes.
When we come back, we will tell you what was
happening at the defense table. What was happening with Lindsay
Clancy as her nanny was on the stand and how
the defense handled cross examining her. Welcome back everyone to
(13:37):
Amy and TJ. It was a short but powerful day
in court on Wednesday. They're in Massachusetts, and we had
Lindsey Clancy's nanny, Elaine Rossy, on the stand, and once
they showed that video of baby Callen, they then the
prosecution had the nanny describe and talk about these children.
(14:01):
And she started talking about baby Callen as the happiest, sweetest,
easiest baby. He was just a love, she said. Cora
was very sweet, she loved her arts and crafts. She
was a girly girl. She described Dawson as full of energy, rambunctious, funny, silly,
just painting these adorable pictures of these children. And the
camera in the courtroom panned over to Lindsay Clancy. She
(14:25):
I have childs from head to toe, just imagining it.
She was sobbing. Her body was literally physically turned as
far away as it could from the nanny.
Speaker 3 (14:35):
She was covering her face.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
She didn't want to see, she didn't want to hear,
she didn't want to be in that room.
Speaker 3 (14:41):
It actually made me like I can start crying right
now imagining.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
What that must have been like for her, So why
sympathy went to her in that moment?
Speaker 1 (14:53):
To Lindsay Clancy, I didn't see her face much yesterday.
There were whole portions of the test in which she
was angled in such a way that you couldn't make
out even a piece of her face to the side
and the angle we have because she was covered. Look
how that works in the court room. I wonder, Robes,
(15:17):
what's working for me, at least as far as the
emotion is. I'm starting to take it out on the
prosecution for not showing like there's no moment I have
seen at least ropes where they seem to acknowledge that
there were problems, that there were struggles, that this is
(15:38):
awful for the home and for the family. She's making
a case that it's awful for the family independent of
Lindsey Clancy, and for some reason, Robes, it's starting to
feel to me like I am the cold person in
the room. Is the prosecutor for me right now and
(15:58):
not the defendant, as crazy as that sounds. And this
is not an indictment on the prosecutor. We don't know them,
I'm saying, is just sitting in and observing and how
you're reacting emotionally to things, the things that are pulling
at your heartstrings and your emotion and your anger and
where you're directing it. It's just I just don't very
few moments where I would go. Yes, I could see
(16:20):
where people would be angry right now at almost, said
Andrea Yates at Lindsay Clancy. Yeah, I don't if the
strategy works. I don't know Robes, but this right now,
I can't see it working. Just as a casual observer.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
I agree with you completely. I felt nothing but pain
for Lindsay Clancy yesterday. Pain and then to hear the
nanny very much so say and confirmed that Lindsay Clancy
was always concerned about her children's safety. She was concerned
with Callin's eating and sleeping, and then she said she
was a wonderful mother.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
That hit.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
And so the defense I thought was really effective when
they went back and made sure because she described that
they showed the prosecution showed the detailed lists that Lindsay
Clancy would make for the nanny about how to cut
up the baby's food into squares. And so he asked
the nanny, did you ever feel Lindsay was being controlling?
(17:16):
With these lists, and she said no, not at all,
not even a little bit. She was just being a
good mom. And he got her to admit that she
was aware that Lindsay was having trouble sleeping, that she
was aware that she was sleeping down in the basement
to try and find some peace. And look, I think
all of that was important for him to establish. And
I think, look, I understand where they're trying to the
(17:38):
prosecution is trying to say that she appeared as a
good mom, that that is account against Lindsay Clancy, that
she wasn't deranged, that she wasn't in a period of psychosis,
that she was fully operational and effective as a mom.
But I actually think that it speaks to a tremendous
level of compassion for the woman I see sitting there
(18:00):
in the courtroom listening to how beautiful and wonderful her
children were.
Speaker 1 (18:03):
It's weird. I don't know how it's weird robes in
a case to have sympathy for someone who strangled her
three kids. I don't know how it's happening and what's happening,
but it's a it's a monstrous crime, but it came
from a woman who was clearly sick. If the law
and the jury decides she's not criminally responsible or she is,
I don't know. But this woman, it's just undeniable that
(18:26):
she was sick, yeah, and had a problem. They say she's
still sick, but this woman was was not well until
you're the key rope still about how many women are
going to be on that jury we talked about the
prosecution is really trying to use against her that she
was taking care of, making sure her kids had exactly
what they liked, what they needed, what they wanted. I
(18:48):
think a mother would look at that and go, yeah,
I do make sure.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
Most moms are controlled, most moms are control freaks.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
But I would because I'm.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
Saying, even if you want to say that, it's understandable,
that's what we do.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
When they're using it against the mom for being a
good mom.
Speaker 3 (19:05):
Yeah, we're using it against it.
Speaker 2 (19:06):
It's crazy. I know, I don't understand. I wonder if
the prosecutor it's two women. I wonder if they're moms.
I don't know. I don't know, but I feel like
something is missing. They've lost a perspective if they have
one about how most women who are moms are viewing
Lindsey Clancy.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
Maybe again, I say, well, maybe they're supposed to take
that part of it, the emotion out, but they keep
injecting emotion into the case anyway.
Speaker 3 (19:34):
So absolutely injecting it for the kids.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
It seems it does well. It seems bizarre that there
is just no acknowledgement of pain and suffering, and maybe
she was a victim of something.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
I hear you.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
So yes, we've got a full day of testimony scheduled
for today on Thursday, beginning at nine am Eastern time.
We don't expect there to be a shortened day. It's
supposed to go for the full We have testimony, so
we will be there to listen to it all and
bring you the recap as soon as it's available. But
we always appreciate you listening to us.
Speaker 3 (20:08):
Everyone. I'm Amy Roeboch alongside TJ. Holmes. We'll talk soon.
Hey, the folks, it's Thursday, August sixth, and it was
a shortened but intense day in court and the Lindsay
Clancy trial, and so much of the tension wasn't between
attorney and witness, but attorney and attorney. And with that,
welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ Rolls. We've
(00:22):
been seeing a few signs of this bubbling up a
little bit, and we see attorneys go back and forth
with a little tension. Sometimes it's uncomfortable these two. Here
it comes here, it comes.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Yeah, And funny enough, it was during the testimony of one.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Of the least interesting folks who were up on the
witness stand.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
To that witness well, and that was part of the
reason why the defense attorney was so annoyed, because yes,
they've already agreed to stipulations, they've already agreed that the
chain of command of evidence when it comes to DNA
and blood samples. They're already saying, Yep, what you're presenting
is true. Yeah, that evidence is correct. And so to
get into the minutia of DNA started just irritating the
(01:07):
heck out of Lindsay Clancy's defense attorney.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
And I'm not really sure, robes, what's happening? Right? They
make these stipulations. They essentially just say, there's so many
parts of this crime. We all agree about. She did it.
She strangled them, We get it.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Her DNA is on the exercise bands, her blood is
all over the house.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
Yep, we agree.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
Why then are we going through the exercise of now
how many people? Now you know what she asked the
question yesterday, what is DNA? Oh my god, you can
feel the whole courtroom gone.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Oh. Yes, So this was during this is one of
the towards the end. Yeah, this is the second to
last witness up on the stand. She's a former state
police forensic scientist. And yes, when she started to ask
those questions, the prosecutor, all of us, I think listening
and watching along with the defense attorney, started to get annoyed.
(02:05):
But what happened was they started going into the minutia
of DNA, explaining what a non million is, and that
is when it finally that was the straw that broke
the camel's back. The defense attorney just jumped up and said,
this is typical DNA gobbledygook. At this point, Judge, I object, yes,
(02:25):
and you you broke out laughing the.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
Big goaledy gook robes. What is the point of the
stipulation if it's if we're still going through the exact
same process. Anyway, this makes sense to me that we
want to be focused on the thing we disagree about,
whether or not she was sane, her mental state, so
that should be the focus. Robes they're going through and
building a case that the defense isn't arguing against. This
(02:50):
is confusing to me.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
Yes, so typical DNA gobbledygook. At this point, I object
What was even maybe funnier was the prosecutor's response to
the defense objection, I object to his objection. Okay, She
literally said, I object to his objection and then added
this is ridiculous. And that's when the judge said, the
(03:12):
two of you come up here.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
Sidebar.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
Quite a few sidebars, lots of sidebars. They get a
good flow, can't get a good rhythm, can't get a
lot going sometimes or open fields because they just they
keep stopping, and the judge is the one not even
the attorneys a lot are asking for the sidebar, which
we see a lot. The judge is saying, come to
the side, come come here.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
Y'all like he's trying to break up two kids fighting.
But by the way, the judge did overrule the defense
attorney and the testimony. The DNA testimony continued, but hilariously
and expectedly, when the defense was offered the opportunity to
cross examine the witness, he said, no questions, right, So,
but let's start from the top, because we had a
(03:53):
physician associates start the day off. His name was Eton Negri,
and he again, and we've just seen they have had
a lot of witnesses saying the same thing. But he
testified to the fact that he said Lindsay Clancy's self
inflicted cuts were superficial. He said none of them were
actively bleeding. The laceration on her right wrist only required
(04:16):
three stitches, and the one on her left only required
one stitch.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
And they show pictures of this as well. It looks
like an injury to me, but they're trying to make
the point that it wasn't severe and that this was
not a real suicide attempt. This was her trying to
cover up them. That's the charge.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
R Yes, And that's pretty much what we saw from
every witness. They're trying to establish or they're trying to
prove that Lindsay Clancy wasn't actually trying to kill herself.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
Despite cutting her neck and her wrists and jumping out
a second story window.
Speaker 2 (04:48):
Correct, the defense came back. I loved what he said
to this physician's assistant. You're not suggesting that for one minute,
Lindsay Clancy could have gotten up and walked out of
the hospital, No, sir. And then he said he got
him basically to admit that Lindsay was critically ill, needed
a blood transfusion, had a major spinal injury, none of
(05:10):
which he acknowledged when he was just focused on what
he was calling superficial wounds.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
And again, I thought he was a good, a solid
witness who was just basing it on the facts and
what he knew. But he asked, excuse me. He was
answering the questions from the prosecutor exactly as she asked.
He would say yes and a no, and he didn't
expound on anything, and so it took the defense. So
I didn't find him. He answered the questions based on
what he was asked. I thought he was a good witness.
Speaker 3 (05:35):
He didn't have an agenda.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
The former police crime lab tech, though Nicholas Roberts a
little different story, and this again was the same old,
same old. You have the prosecutors bringing up a witness
who testifies that there were no illegal drugs.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
There was no alcohol in her blooder urine.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
She tested positive for venzo diazepine and some other substances.
But basically the defense got him to admit that there
was a large quantity of drugs and clancy system. You
can go through all what was in there, but he
kind of was a little testy back at him.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
The witness said, I've seen more.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
See I like this guy too. But even when he
even when he gave that answer, the defense attorney followed
up and he said, but yeah, that is.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
A lot, yeah right, right, yeah, he said, but never
the defense attorney followed up, but nevertheless, that's still a
large number of drugs though, right, And he responded, yeah,
there's quite a few.
Speaker 3 (06:34):
So yes, that was it.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
But again the defense kind of negating anything that the
prosecution was trying to put up.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
Then came the forensic.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
Toxychologist and he talked got more specific about what was
in Lindsay Clancy's system, ani depressants and anti psychotics. His
big point was there was only one that was slightly elevated,
but it was still ten times below the level that
was considered toxic. The point the prosecution was making with
this witness is none of the drugs that Lindsay Clansy
(07:02):
took were a contributing factor to a suicide attempt, or
were in large enough quantities that it would have contributed
to her psychosis.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
See there, and is that effective? Because me as a
juror sitting there, So which is it? Lady? Are you
saying she should have been on more or she should
have been on less? Because the idea, if it's under
the therapeutic amount, it means Robes, she is not medicated
enough to keep the voices out of her head. Isn't
(07:32):
that supposed to be the idea?
Speaker 3 (07:34):
Possibly?
Speaker 2 (07:34):
But then would that be her own fault because they
know that there are these lawsuits where they are blaming
the doctors, they're blaming the drugs that she was prescribed,
that she was over medicated and that contributed to her psychosis.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
This ain't that case. This is criminal. We can deal
with that, lady.
Speaker 2 (07:48):
So yes, for whatever reason they want to establish that
she had a lower than anticipated level of drugs given
all the prescription drugs were seen.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
Which tells you what as a juror, okay, prosecutor, she
didn't have a lot of drugs or a high dosage
in our system. They're trying to say, it fails me.
Speaker 3 (08:04):
What so what was what was being what?
Speaker 2 (08:06):
Some of the questions, it seemed as though they were
trying to say, if someone were really trying to kill themselves,
they could overdose on all these drugs she had, and
she chose not to.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
So she chose to slit her wrist and jump out a.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
Window because she knew she could survive that.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
According to that, ah, there it is, gotcha. She knew
just how much to cut her neck to bleed only
so much, Yes, and she was careful in how she
spider Man down the wall right.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Yes, yes, And look, the defense came back with saying, look,
the level of drugs does not provide a complete picture
of her health. And so he said, what you're saying
is that the numbers alone do not tell the tale
of what happened on a particular night.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
Correct.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
So then again, kind of everything he said kind of
negated at that point.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
So everything you said really means nothing in the overall.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
Then we had the forensic scientists.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
That caused the big attorney disruption where everybody got all
upset about the objections and all of that. But the
big I think, the moment that a lot of folks
were waiting for, and I would say the big headlines
that came out of yesterday's testimony was from Lindsey Clancy's Nancy,
Elaine Rossi. She was the star witness, I would say
(09:15):
of the day, her nanny, Elaine Rossi and Nancy. I
did that's so funny. Clancy's Nancy Clancy's nanny. Wow, Yes,
it is Friday Eve, everybody. I might be in a
Friday mindset already. But she testified that she never had
any concerns that Lindsay Clancy would harm her children. You
(09:38):
would think that was a good thing. But what the
prosecutions trying to establish is she wasn't displaying signs of psychosis.
She was not displaying signs of a troubled mom or
someone who needed help. And here was another caregiver who
was working alongside this woman who never once saw a
mentally disturbed individual in the three months leading up to
(09:58):
the deaths.
Speaker 1 (09:59):
Of her children. Uh okay, But I also heard two
days of testimony from her husband who saw something else.
I would it doesn't this this nanny didn't cancel all
that out, but that's fine. And also this nanny's testimony
isn't it also confirmed by the prosecution's own psychiatrist, who said, yes,
(10:21):
they can present as normal as anything.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
Look And I would also take it a step further.
I think most moms who have had nanny's or babysitters
or caregivers in their life no that there.
Speaker 3 (10:32):
I think I had this conversation with you yesterday.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
First, your best.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
Behavior around another woman because you want to make sure
you look like a good mom. We care what the babysitter,
what the nanny thinks of us.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
That's a total woman thing, absolutely and you hit me
with that. I was like, oh, never crossed my mind.
So then I thought, how many women are going to
ultimately be on this jury who understand that thing that
a man on the jury will probably I'm not.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
Going to admit that I'm suffering or that I'm spiraling
to another woman who's taking care of my kids because
I don't want her judgment. And that is absolutely true.
And I think that's something that hit me when I
was listening to this. Now she acknowledged that she was
aware that Lindsay Clancy was struggling with postpartum depression, but
she went on to say that she didn't see any
(11:19):
change in her demeanor. She knew that she was starting,
she knew she was on some sort of medication because
she had to stop breastfeeding, she had to stop nursing,
So she was aware that she was and at one point,
I think she couldn't drive somewhere, She couldn't drive the
kids to that gymnastics place because potentially she was on
medication that prohibited her from driving. So look, I think
(11:39):
one of the big and emotional moments that caused the
defense to actually raise an objection and tried to stop
the prosecution during this testimony from showing a video of
baby Callen drinking from a bottle. And this was a
video that Rossy, the nanny, had sent to Lindsay in September.
And look, they didn't want This is again the prosecution
(12:02):
creating this sympathy, this emotional attachment to these children, seeing
them vibrant and alive, and showing loving videos that a
nanny has taken of this child, to then feel anger
towards the mom That's what most legal analysts say, is
happening here, because yeah, is there any real evidentiary reason
why we need to see a video of baby Callen
(12:23):
drinking a bottle of milk?
Speaker 3 (12:25):
Probably not.
Speaker 1 (12:26):
Again, that's I'm curious how that's going to work. Robes
to try to get people in feeling sympathy and devastation
for the kids, you turn that into anger against the mom.
I don't know if that's working. It could potentially robes,
but every time I see or I hear about the kids,
(12:47):
it's coupled with or my mind goes to how much
the mom cared for the kids. It just I don't
it's hard. Maybe it works, we're not sitting in the courtroom.
Maybe it feels and reads differently in there. But if
you're if that's the strategy, we need you to hate
this lady by loving these kids more.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
That is what some legal analysts say is going on.
But you mentioned your mind goes straight to Lindsay Clancy
when you think about the kids, Well so did juror's eyes.
When we come back, we will tell you what was
happening at the defense table. What was happening with Lindsay
Clancy as her nanny was on the stand and how
the defense handled cross examining her. Welcome back everyone to
(13:37):
Amy and TJ. It was a short but powerful day
in court on Wednesday. They're in Massachusetts, and we had
Lindsey Clancy's nanny, Elaine Rossy, on the stand, and once
they showed that video of baby Callen, they then the
prosecution had the nanny describe and talk about these children.
(14:01):
And she started talking about baby Callen as the happiest, sweetest,
easiest baby. He was just a love, she said. Cora
was very sweet, she loved her arts and crafts. She
was a girly girl. She described Dawson as full of energy, rambunctious, funny, silly,
just painting these adorable pictures of these children. And the
camera in the courtroom panned over to Lindsay Clancy. She
(14:25):
I have childs from head to toe, just imagining it.
She was sobbing. Her body was literally physically turned as
far away as it could from the nanny.
Speaker 3 (14:35):
She was covering her face.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
She didn't want to see, she didn't want to hear,
she didn't want to be in that room.
Speaker 3 (14:41):
It actually made me like I can start crying right
now imagining.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
What that must have been like for her, So why
sympathy went to her in that moment?
Speaker 1 (14:53):
To Lindsay Clancy, I didn't see her face much yesterday.
There were whole portions of the test in which she
was angled in such a way that you couldn't make
out even a piece of her face to the side
and the angle we have because she was covered. Look
how that works in the court room. I wonder, Robes,
(15:17):
what's working for me, at least as far as the
emotion is. I'm starting to take it out on the
prosecution for not showing like there's no moment I have
seen at least ropes where they seem to acknowledge that
there were problems, that there were struggles, that this is
(15:38):
awful for the home and for the family. She's making
a case that it's awful for the family independent of
Lindsey Clancy, and for some reason, Robes, it's starting to
feel to me like I am the cold person in
the room. Is the prosecutor for me right now and
(15:58):
not the defendant, as crazy as that sounds. And this
is not an indictment on the prosecutor. We don't know them,
I'm saying, is just sitting in and observing and how
you're reacting emotionally to things, the things that are pulling
at your heartstrings and your emotion and your anger and
where you're directing it. It's just I just don't very
few moments where I would go. Yes, I could see
(16:20):
where people would be angry right now at almost, said
Andrea Yates at Lindsay Clancy. Yeah, I don't if the
strategy works. I don't know Robes, but this right now,
I can't see it working. Just as a casual observer.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
I agree with you completely. I felt nothing but pain
for Lindsay Clancy yesterday. Pain and then to hear the
nanny very much so say and confirmed that Lindsay Clancy
was always concerned about her children's safety. She was concerned
with Callin's eating and sleeping, and then she said she
was a wonderful mother.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
That hit.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
And so the defense I thought was really effective when
they went back and made sure because she described that
they showed the prosecution showed the detailed lists that Lindsay
Clancy would make for the nanny about how to cut
up the baby's food into squares. And so he asked
the nanny, did you ever feel Lindsay was being controlling?
(17:16):
With these lists, and she said no, not at all,
not even a little bit. She was just being a
good mom. And he got her to admit that she
was aware that Lindsay was having trouble sleeping, that she
was aware that she was sleeping down in the basement
to try and find some peace. And look, I think
all of that was important for him to establish. And
I think, look, I understand where they're trying to the
(17:38):
prosecution is trying to say that she appeared as a
good mom, that that is account against Lindsay Clancy, that
she wasn't deranged, that she wasn't in a period of psychosis,
that she was fully operational and effective as a mom.
But I actually think that it speaks to a tremendous
level of compassion for the woman I see sitting there
(18:00):
in the courtroom listening to how beautiful and wonderful her
children were.
Speaker 1 (18:03):
It's weird. I don't know how it's weird robes in
a case to have sympathy for someone who strangled her
three kids. I don't know how it's happening and what's happening,
but it's a it's a monstrous crime, but it came
from a woman who was clearly sick. If the law
and the jury decides she's not criminally responsible or she is,
I don't know. But this woman, it's just undeniable that
(18:26):
she was sick, yeah, and had a problem. They say she's
still sick, but this woman was was not well until
you're the key rope still about how many women are
going to be on that jury we talked about the
prosecution is really trying to use against her that she
was taking care of, making sure her kids had exactly
what they liked, what they needed, what they wanted. I
(18:48):
think a mother would look at that and go, yeah,
I do make sure.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
Most moms are controlled, most moms are control freaks.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
But I would because I'm.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
Saying, even if you want to say that, it's understandable,
that's what we do.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
When they're using it against the mom for being a
good mom.
Speaker 3 (19:05):
Yeah, we're using it against it.
Speaker 2 (19:06):
It's crazy. I know, I don't understand. I wonder if
the prosecutor it's two women. I wonder if they're moms.
I don't know. I don't know, but I feel like
something is missing. They've lost a perspective if they have
one about how most women who are moms are viewing
Lindsey Clancy.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
Maybe again, I say, well, maybe they're supposed to take
that part of it, the emotion out, but they keep
injecting emotion into the case anyway.
Speaker 3 (19:34):
So absolutely injecting it for the kids.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
It seems it does well. It seems bizarre that there
is just no acknowledgement of pain and suffering, and maybe
she was a victim of something.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
I hear you.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
So yes, we've got a full day of testimony scheduled
for today on Thursday, beginning at nine am Eastern time.
We don't expect there to be a shortened day. It's
supposed to go for the full We have testimony, so
we will be there to listen to it all and
bring you the recap as soon as it's available. But
we always appreciate you listening to us.
Speaker 3 (20:08):
Everyone. I'm Amy Roeboch alongside TJ. 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