August 5, 2026 • 20 mins
The prosecution had more doctors, forensic experts and state troopers take the stand on Day 6 of testimony in the triple murder trial of 35-year-old Massachusetts mom, Lindsay Clancy. After agreeing to stipulate to certain facts in the hopes of speeding up the trial and avoiding dozens of witnesses, the defense got testy at one point, questioning why three toxicologists needed to testify about blood evidence after the agreement. The prosecution continued to try and prove Clancy faked her suicide attempt, while the defense was very effective in poking holes in that theory.
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, that folks. It is Wednesday, August fifth, and we
are upset for another day of testimony in the triple
murder trial of Lindsey Clancy, the mom who did strangle
her three kids. And if it's anything like the past
several days, you can expect more drama and maybe even yes,
more points scored for the defense. And with that, welcome
(00:23):
to this episode of Amy and TJ Roll. Just has
been day after day. We're not exactly sure what to expect,
but one thing that has been consistent as of late,
the defense is making some points and making some examples
of some of the prosecution witnesses.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
That's true. I feel like each day it feels like
even though the defense hasn't technically put on its case yet,
it still has done a fantastic job in doing exactly
what they're supposed to do for their client, which is
to take some of these prosecution withhisnesses and call into
(01:01):
question what they're saying, why they're saying it, and planting
that seed of doubt that are more than a seed
of doubt that Lindsay Clancy was sane when she premeditated
the murders of her children because she wanted to live
a child free life and faked her suicide so that
(01:23):
she could get away with triple murder. Look, it's a
high bar, it seems like emotionally to reach when you're
looking at a mom who seemingly loved her kids. But
the defense is doing a fantastic job at really trying
to or poking holes in what the prosecution is trying
to present to the jury. That this woman methodically planned
(01:45):
out her children's murders and wanted to ride off into
the sunset by herself.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
Now, this was a high bar emotionally speaking to understand
how this woman is capable of this and she not
be insane or disturbed in some way. That was a
high bar. But jury, and I think all of us,
we're willing to listen to the prosecution make its case.
What we have been listening to so far. However, Robes
is prosecution witness after prosecution witness making the defense's case.
(02:16):
They get up there saying one thing, and then the
defense gets a hold in the cross examination and they
have to then admitt that the defense theory is sound.
How many go, Yes, I agree, Yes, that is possible. Yes,
you are right, it's Truehart. They haven't challenged the defense
(02:38):
argument once up there on the stand. Now one of
them has gone up and said, yep, I think she
was perfectly sane because blank blank blank.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
It's so interesting because time it's true, because so often
the insanity defense, I mean, we know this historically, speaking
is one of the most difficult defenses to put on.
It's so hard in most murder cases to prove that
a defendant was insane at the time of the murder
(03:09):
or murderers in this case, But in the trial of
Lindsay Clancy, I feel like it's the opposite.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
Complete opposite, is exactly what we're seeing. There is a
treasure trove of evidence and robes. The trail goes for
months and even years as a woman had mental issues
severe and all this evidence from everybody talking about how
much more severe they get. Okay, So now that the
prosecution is supposed to be telling us, proving to us
(03:35):
with its experts robes that no, it wasn't the case
because look, she planned it out, she was acting perfectly normal.
She sounded calm. That's what they told us in opening statements.
And then their expert got up there and said, yeah,
when people are insightchosis, they often can appear calm, they
(03:56):
can make plans and be perfectly normal. Huh, Robs. The
prosecution case is Roves, and I have seen I know
you have as well, some legal experts in the analysis
saying this is not going well for the prosecution to
the point of embarrassment at some points.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
Yeah, and look it began. Day six began yesterday with
the emergency room surgeon who examined Lindsay Clancy when she
was first brought in. This was the first hospital she attended,
and she was combative with the defense for sure, but
she testified that the wounds on Lindsay Clancy were, in fact,
(04:33):
the ones on her neck and wrists that were self
inflicted were superficial. And even when the defense pushed back
and said, so you're saying they weren't deep, and she said, yep,
they weren't deep, and so she was really kind of
doubling down that these were not intended to actually do harm.
But eventually, and pretty quickly, I guess I should say,
(04:53):
the defense attorney was able to get her to admit that, yes,
in fact, Lindsay Clancy's injuries were at a level one,
which is the highest level of injuries. So much so
that she had to make and was a part of
the decision to move her to metavac her to another
hospital where she could be better treated for her egregious wounds.
(05:15):
And then he got her to admit that, yeah, she
even died that night at that next hospital, she went
into cardiac arrest, had a code blue. So for all
of this talk about superficial wounds, that kind of just
went away when she was forced to describe the life
threatening injuries that Lindsay Clancy in fact did.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
Kind where are they saying all the blood came from
in the bedroom before she jumped, right, They talk about
blood being all over the place, And I keep hearing
about these wounds and she was describing them when the
cups cuts this deep and I'm like, wow, that sounds
pretty deep. She's called that one the superficial one, but
because it didn't go down to the muscle intendon, she
didn't consider it deep. Maybe that's a medical determination. But
(05:58):
ropes they described, They showed them pictures. There's blood all
over the place, yet superficial wound. It seems difficult to
create that. But yes, he's breaking this way. She wanted
to admit that she was a part of something and
then were you a part of the de say, well,
you know, it was a group of us kind of
you know, we discussed it among gufs bro She I
don't know why she was so combative. Well, if anybody
(06:19):
questions your work, I guess you would be defensive.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
And that is where and but what the problem is,
at least for the prosecution, I should say, when you're
watching your witness testify to something that you're hoping lands
with a jury, that these wounds are superficial, that she
didn't really try to kill herself, she didn't really want
to die. Yeah, when you see that same witness when
(06:43):
cross examines start getting super defensive, it's not good. It's
not good for their credibility at all. Obviously it's a
smart woman. She's a smart woman, she's an emergency room surgeon.
But getting defensive, getting combative, it's not a good look.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
It suggests you have something to hide, It suggests you
did something wrong. Right, and again, when you see these
are the people we supposed to respect up there, they're
not on one side or another. They just give you
their facts. Yes, several of the witnesses that he is
he is getting them worked out rough.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
Yeah, And look, we won't go in chronological order because
we're talking about the blood. So I think it's good
to talk about now this blood staining in those photos
that we saw. Yes, the blood on the nightstand, blood
on the carpet, blood in the basement. Actually, but one
of the big focuses was that you had a bloodstained pattern. Analyst.
This was actually the final this was the final witness
(07:38):
of the day. But she was describing the blood staining
under the bedroom window and on the shingles. And this
was a big point of contention because the prosecution is
trying to suggest that Lindsey Clancy didn't jump, didn't throw
herself out of the window to kill herself. No, she
(07:58):
lowered herself and tried to do as little damage as
possible to make it look like she jumped. But actually
she kind of just hung out the window and lowered herself.
And they claimed the blood stained patterns prove that. No.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
I like the blood stained lady. She was nice. She
was nice under and the guy was coming after. Well
it wasn't coming after. But I'm just saying she she
held up on new questioning, and she was the type
of witness it doesn't matter who the information looked good
for or bad for. She just gave it to Upstraate,
So I kind of I kind of appreciated that, but
I didn't think as much about the the second part
(08:33):
of me going down the wall, which was fantastic, the
court room drama, but the idea of the suggestion with
the hands, it was important that, yes, that's blood, and
so it appeared that somebody was trying to jump out
of the window and not climb out of the wind.
It was important that point he was making. And red
(08:54):
brown stains we hear a lot, and they were suggesting
the reason they call it that is because you see
and you assume it's something, But that could be blood,
it could be other things. And he got her to
admit that, yes, even though it's a bread brown stain
and technic you don't have the analysis of blood, but
doesn't it make sense that it's blood all over the
room and it appears there was are handprint. That was
(09:16):
another point he got her to admit that, and he
demonstrated he was kind of holding onto the table in
the courtroom. Yeah, he was.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
He's a showman, all right. He absolutely is someone to
watch and you pay attention when he talks, and he
the big deal was the prosecution was trying to focus
on the fact that there was a droplet on these shingles,
and that would imply that she stayed in one area
long enough that she was trying to lower herself and
so the blood dripped versus if you jumped, it would
(09:46):
splatter in a different way. But yes, then we had
that moment where the defense attorney said, look, so if
they're trying to suggest she's Spider Man down the wall
of the house, wouldn't there be blood smear all the
way down and the blood the blood stained pattern. Analyst
had to say, yeah, we would have seen that. Did
(10:09):
you see that? No, we did not see that. So
he scored a really big point with this notion that
somehow she wasn't actually trying to jump out of the window.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
See, this is another one robes for the prosecution. If
you're making do you not know that question is going
to get asked robes. That was for a I understand
that no matter what level of education you have, you're
sitting in that jury box. Did she Spider Man down
the wall? I know exactly what that means. And the
blood expert, who so far is a really nice lady
(10:40):
that I like up on the stand just told me
there is no blood from this fully bleeding lady going
down the wall. It means she didn't carefully come out.
It suggests again Robes that this lady tried to kill herself.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
And by the way, this lady is sitting there at
the defense table in a wheelchair. So look, I understand
they're trying to say she didn't mean to die, or
she wasn't trying to die, but she paralyzed herself from
the waist down. That's a fact that is seen each
(11:17):
minute of each day those jurors are in court. They're
seeing a woman who, I would think it's fairly fair
to draw the conclusion tried to kill herself. No one
wants to live paralyzed for the rest of their life.
And if you're carefully trying to come down a second
story window, she didn't do a good job of that. Then,
(11:39):
even because she fell at least far enough to paralyze herself, they're.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
Telling us that a woman who slashed her own neck
and her wrists and then threw herself out of a window,
that was a fake attempt to cover up that she
wanted to kill her three kids because she just wanted
to be free. That is their narrative. That's a tough one, baby,
that's really tough.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
That's what I'm so shocked by that the prosecution felt
like they didn't already have a sympathetic character. I mean,
it's understandable that obviously the children are the victims, that
is where the sympathy is obviously should go towards. But
still you do have a mother who appears to me
(12:29):
very sympathetic, and to to try to explain or try
to convince a jury that she's not that she's a monster,
that she tried to preserve her own life while killing
her children. I think it's tough when you just see
her in that courtroom, how she's responding the fact that
she's in a wheelchair, and combined with what the defense
(12:51):
is doing so far, it doesn't feel like the prosecution
has made much headway at all.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
This trial has solidified what we already suspected is that
this was a sick woman and the prosecution has chosen
to do this trial. And maybe this does serve a
good purpose for us robes because we hear somebody kill
their three kids, we want to get mad at that.
Person immediately the stories that came out, and now sitting
through this trial, they have really confirmed just how sick
(13:21):
this woman was.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
I would try to completely agree with that. When we
come back, we're going to talk about the other witnesses
that took the stand, including two troopers, and why the
defense got so upset when three toxicologists took the stand.
It all has everything to do with the fact that
Lindsay Clancy spoke at the beginning of day six and
(13:43):
what she had to say created a lot of drama
later on in the trial. Welcome back everyone to Amy
and TJ. We are talking about day six of the
Lindsay Clancy trial. And look, we had an episode on
(14:04):
this yesterday because it was fairly shocking. At the beginning
of the trial, day day six, we had Lindsay Clancy's
stand up answer a bunch of questions by the judge
because she and her attorneys agreed along with the prosecution
to concede certain facts including DNA, blood evidence, chain of custody,
(14:27):
all of those things that typically a prosecution would have
to prove to try and say this person murdered these children.
She's conceded that, she's admitted that, so they wanted to
basically say, hey, we don't have to go through all
of this testimony, dozens of witnesses to try and prove
some DNA, some chain of evidence, so we can skip
(14:47):
all that she agreed to stipulate some of these facts.
We can move on, right, So then why did the
prosecution end up calling three toxicologists to talk about what's
in and lindsay Clancy's blood and urine, what we were
in the children's urine. At a certain point, the defense
questioned why we have to have so many toxicologists after
(15:10):
they had already agreed to many of these facts, which
then created a sidebar. Yes, and then the judge coming
back and actually telling the jurors about this agreement about
the stipulation, But it begs the question, why was the
prosecution pushing it regardless of what had been agreed to earlier.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
They didn't give that answer an open court, right because
I was curious to know, because I was I didn't
get it. After the whole stipulations, things supposed to go faster,
and then we were going through the same stuff that
two sides. Why are we giving testimony about something that
both sides completely agree to? Is the point. That makes sense.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
So I was listening to some legal analysis, and the
best guess is that the prosecution still understands that the
more they can talk about blood evidence, the more they
can talk about DNA and some of the gruesomeness and
the crime scene and the photos, all of that you're creating,
or you're continuing to push the jury to think about
those kids, to think about what happened to those kids,
(16:08):
to think about the pain and the injury caused to
those kids, and then the anger would be directed at
the mom. The anger would then be directed at the
defense table. So the more you can keep talking about this,
the better the chance is they have of convincing a
jury that she is the monster in the room. That's
the best guess. But look, then, why agree to move
(16:32):
on and move from these types of witnesses testifying to
the exact evidence that they've already agreed is factual.
Speaker 1 (16:42):
This is an emotional miscalculation right now. I mean, yes,
I'm emotional about the kids, we all are. But your
next thing, Robes is too like you want to blame somebody.
I start going back to doctors, to her, her husband
and loved ones and what was missed and all these things,
(17:05):
not to blame other folks, but you want to learn
from it. Robes. We all do to identify this, to
start talking more about women and postpartum and what that
really does. Robes. This is incredibly important, but it's also
important how we talk about mental illness right now and
what's happening in the courtroom and how the prosecution is
handling Itbes. It doesn't It doesn't make you hate this lady.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
No, And it doesn't feel right. It doesn't feel right
coming from the prosecution. That's all I can say.
Speaker 1 (17:36):
Some feels wrong about the prosecution.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
That's what it feels like, and that's just from an
outside perspective. But also they had troopers, two different police
officers who were there collecting evidence at the scene also
testify yesterday to and they were focusing on the number
of prescription drug bottles that they recovered and they lined
them all up and they showed the photos of them.
And we've seen the prosecution trying to be this drum
(18:00):
before that. Even though there were a lot of pill bottles,
there were a ton of pills in each of the bottles.
In one of the pills there was still a full
thirty count the suggestion being that the drugs weren't to blame,
the suggestion being that the doctors weren't to blame for
over medicating her, That she wasn't even taking many of
these medications. And they're trying to imply that even though yes,
(18:22):
she did have some in her system, the benzo diazepines
benzodiazepines were in her blood and urine that's to treat
insomnia and anxiety. As some of the other drugs that
the defenses pointing to that exacerbated her situation weren't in
We're still in the pill bottles. So I don't know
(18:45):
what headway they made there, just trying to say, look,
she wasn't taking all of these drugs.
Speaker 1 (18:50):
Okay, I wouldn't some suggest that weren't they supposed to
help her? Well?
Speaker 2 (18:55):
Yes, so yeah, and why would you need to take
drugs because you're suffering from mental illness, which is the
whole point the defense is trying to bring home.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
I just we'll see how this. I am only a
half day today, right, yes.
Speaker 2 (19:09):
So today is going to be today's day seven of testimony.
It's going to be a shorter day. The judge already
announced that to jurors they will be listening to testimony
from nine am until one pm, and then the judge
says that he wants to work some things out with
lawyers in the afternoon. We don't know what that is
and will we have been able to see unless it's
a sidebar. We have been able to see a lot
(19:31):
of what goes on outside of the jury. Unclear if
we'll be able to see what's happening in the afternoon session.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
It's going to be on the record or not be interesting.
But if you always starts at nine o'clock, if you
all get a chance as being live stream. But just
this is something that some hellodrama, and I think it's
such an important story, bros. Moving forward in how we
discuss women and postpartum issues.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
It's huge. This is actually the national spotlight that I
think is super important for this very this little understood
yet very serious mental health condition that affects so many
women different varying degrees obviously from postpartum depression all the
way to this extreme postpartum psychosis. But it's just a
(20:17):
shame that it took a tragedy on this level for
it to reach the forefront. But we'll continue to watch
all of the events inside that Massachusetts courtroom today and
bring you the very latest. We always appreciate you listening
to us. I'm Amy Roboch alongside TJ. Holmes. We'll talk
sore
Hey, that folks. It is Wednesday, August fifth, and we
are upset for another day of testimony in the triple
murder trial of Lindsey Clancy, the mom who did strangle
her three kids. And if it's anything like the past
several days, you can expect more drama and maybe even yes,
more points scored for the defense. And with that, welcome
(00:23):
to this episode of Amy and TJ Roll. Just has
been day after day. We're not exactly sure what to expect,
but one thing that has been consistent as of late,
the defense is making some points and making some examples
of some of the prosecution witnesses.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
That's true. I feel like each day it feels like
even though the defense hasn't technically put on its case yet,
it still has done a fantastic job in doing exactly
what they're supposed to do for their client, which is
to take some of these prosecution withhisnesses and call into
(01:01):
question what they're saying, why they're saying it, and planting
that seed of doubt that are more than a seed
of doubt that Lindsay Clancy was sane when she premeditated
the murders of her children because she wanted to live
a child free life and faked her suicide so that
(01:23):
she could get away with triple murder. Look, it's a
high bar, it seems like emotionally to reach when you're
looking at a mom who seemingly loved her kids. But
the defense is doing a fantastic job at really trying
to or poking holes in what the prosecution is trying
to present to the jury. That this woman methodically planned
(01:45):
out her children's murders and wanted to ride off into
the sunset by herself.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
Now, this was a high bar emotionally speaking to understand
how this woman is capable of this and she not
be insane or disturbed in some way. That was a
high bar. But jury, and I think all of us,
we're willing to listen to the prosecution make its case.
What we have been listening to so far. However, Robes
is prosecution witness after prosecution witness making the defense's case.
(02:16):
They get up there saying one thing, and then the
defense gets a hold in the cross examination and they
have to then admitt that the defense theory is sound.
How many go, Yes, I agree, Yes, that is possible. Yes,
you are right, it's Truehart. They haven't challenged the defense
(02:38):
argument once up there on the stand. Now one of
them has gone up and said, yep, I think she
was perfectly sane because blank blank blank.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
It's so interesting because time it's true, because so often
the insanity defense, I mean, we know this historically, speaking
is one of the most difficult defenses to put on.
It's so hard in most murder cases to prove that
a defendant was insane at the time of the murder
(03:09):
or murderers in this case, But in the trial of
Lindsay Clancy, I feel like it's the opposite.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
Complete opposite, is exactly what we're seeing. There is a
treasure trove of evidence and robes. The trail goes for
months and even years as a woman had mental issues
severe and all this evidence from everybody talking about how
much more severe they get. Okay, So now that the
prosecution is supposed to be telling us, proving to us
(03:35):
with its experts robes that no, it wasn't the case
because look, she planned it out, she was acting perfectly normal.
She sounded calm. That's what they told us in opening statements.
And then their expert got up there and said, yeah,
when people are insightchosis, they often can appear calm, they
(03:56):
can make plans and be perfectly normal. Huh, Robs. The
prosecution case is Roves, and I have seen I know
you have as well, some legal experts in the analysis
saying this is not going well for the prosecution to
the point of embarrassment at some points.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
Yeah, and look it began. Day six began yesterday with
the emergency room surgeon who examined Lindsay Clancy when she
was first brought in. This was the first hospital she attended,
and she was combative with the defense for sure, but
she testified that the wounds on Lindsay Clancy were, in fact,
(04:33):
the ones on her neck and wrists that were self
inflicted were superficial. And even when the defense pushed back
and said, so you're saying they weren't deep, and she said, yep,
they weren't deep, and so she was really kind of
doubling down that these were not intended to actually do harm.
But eventually, and pretty quickly, I guess I should say,
(04:53):
the defense attorney was able to get her to admit that, yes,
in fact, Lindsay Clancy's injuries were at a level one,
which is the highest level of injuries. So much so
that she had to make and was a part of
the decision to move her to metavac her to another
hospital where she could be better treated for her egregious wounds.
(05:15):
And then he got her to admit that, yeah, she
even died that night at that next hospital, she went
into cardiac arrest, had a code blue. So for all
of this talk about superficial wounds, that kind of just
went away when she was forced to describe the life
threatening injuries that Lindsay Clancy in fact did.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
Kind where are they saying all the blood came from
in the bedroom before she jumped, right, They talk about
blood being all over the place, And I keep hearing
about these wounds and she was describing them when the
cups cuts this deep and I'm like, wow, that sounds
pretty deep. She's called that one the superficial one, but
because it didn't go down to the muscle intendon, she
didn't consider it deep. Maybe that's a medical determination. But
(05:58):
ropes they described, They showed them pictures. There's blood all
over the place, yet superficial wound. It seems difficult to
create that. But yes, he's breaking this way. She wanted
to admit that she was a part of something and
then were you a part of the de say, well,
you know, it was a group of us kind of
you know, we discussed it among gufs bro She I
don't know why she was so combative. Well, if anybody
(06:19):
questions your work, I guess you would be defensive.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
And that is where and but what the problem is,
at least for the prosecution, I should say, when you're
watching your witness testify to something that you're hoping lands
with a jury, that these wounds are superficial, that she
didn't really try to kill herself, she didn't really want
to die. Yeah, when you see that same witness when
(06:43):
cross examines start getting super defensive, it's not good. It's
not good for their credibility at all. Obviously it's a
smart woman. She's a smart woman, she's an emergency room surgeon.
But getting defensive, getting combative, it's not a good look.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
It suggests you have something to hide, It suggests you
did something wrong. Right, and again, when you see these
are the people we supposed to respect up there, they're
not on one side or another. They just give you
their facts. Yes, several of the witnesses that he is
he is getting them worked out rough.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
Yeah, And look, we won't go in chronological order because
we're talking about the blood. So I think it's good
to talk about now this blood staining in those photos
that we saw. Yes, the blood on the nightstand, blood
on the carpet, blood in the basement. Actually, but one
of the big focuses was that you had a bloodstained pattern. Analyst.
This was actually the final this was the final witness
(07:38):
of the day. But she was describing the blood staining
under the bedroom window and on the shingles. And this
was a big point of contention because the prosecution is
trying to suggest that Lindsey Clancy didn't jump, didn't throw
herself out of the window to kill herself. No, she
(07:58):
lowered herself and tried to do as little damage as
possible to make it look like she jumped. But actually
she kind of just hung out the window and lowered herself.
And they claimed the blood stained patterns prove that. No.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
I like the blood stained lady. She was nice. She
was nice under and the guy was coming after. Well
it wasn't coming after. But I'm just saying she she
held up on new questioning, and she was the type
of witness it doesn't matter who the information looked good
for or bad for. She just gave it to Upstraate,
So I kind of I kind of appreciated that, but
I didn't think as much about the the second part
(08:33):
of me going down the wall, which was fantastic, the
court room drama, but the idea of the suggestion with
the hands, it was important that, yes, that's blood, and
so it appeared that somebody was trying to jump out
of the window and not climb out of the wind.
It was important that point he was making. And red
(08:54):
brown stains we hear a lot, and they were suggesting
the reason they call it that is because you see
and you assume it's something, But that could be blood,
it could be other things. And he got her to
admit that, yes, even though it's a bread brown stain
and technic you don't have the analysis of blood, but
doesn't it make sense that it's blood all over the
room and it appears there was are handprint. That was
(09:16):
another point he got her to admit that, and he
demonstrated he was kind of holding onto the table in
the courtroom. Yeah, he was.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
He's a showman, all right. He absolutely is someone to
watch and you pay attention when he talks, and he
the big deal was the prosecution was trying to focus
on the fact that there was a droplet on these shingles,
and that would imply that she stayed in one area
long enough that she was trying to lower herself and
so the blood dripped versus if you jumped, it would
(09:46):
splatter in a different way. But yes, then we had
that moment where the defense attorney said, look, so if
they're trying to suggest she's Spider Man down the wall
of the house, wouldn't there be blood smear all the
way down and the blood the blood stained pattern. Analyst
had to say, yeah, we would have seen that. Did
(10:09):
you see that? No, we did not see that. So
he scored a really big point with this notion that
somehow she wasn't actually trying to jump out of the window.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
See, this is another one robes for the prosecution. If
you're making do you not know that question is going
to get asked robes. That was for a I understand
that no matter what level of education you have, you're
sitting in that jury box. Did she Spider Man down
the wall? I know exactly what that means. And the
blood expert, who so far is a really nice lady
(10:40):
that I like up on the stand just told me
there is no blood from this fully bleeding lady going
down the wall. It means she didn't carefully come out.
It suggests again Robes that this lady tried to kill herself.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
And by the way, this lady is sitting there at
the defense table in a wheelchair. So look, I understand
they're trying to say she didn't mean to die, or
she wasn't trying to die, but she paralyzed herself from
the waist down. That's a fact that is seen each
(11:17):
minute of each day those jurors are in court. They're
seeing a woman who, I would think it's fairly fair
to draw the conclusion tried to kill herself. No one
wants to live paralyzed for the rest of their life.
And if you're carefully trying to come down a second
story window, she didn't do a good job of that. Then,
(11:39):
even because she fell at least far enough to paralyze herself, they're.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
Telling us that a woman who slashed her own neck
and her wrists and then threw herself out of a window,
that was a fake attempt to cover up that she
wanted to kill her three kids because she just wanted
to be free. That is their narrative. That's a tough one, baby,
that's really tough.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
That's what I'm so shocked by that the prosecution felt
like they didn't already have a sympathetic character. I mean,
it's understandable that obviously the children are the victims, that
is where the sympathy is obviously should go towards. But
still you do have a mother who appears to me
(12:29):
very sympathetic, and to to try to explain or try
to convince a jury that she's not that she's a monster,
that she tried to preserve her own life while killing
her children. I think it's tough when you just see
her in that courtroom, how she's responding the fact that
she's in a wheelchair, and combined with what the defense
(12:51):
is doing so far, it doesn't feel like the prosecution
has made much headway at all.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
This trial has solidified what we already suspected is that
this was a sick woman and the prosecution has chosen
to do this trial. And maybe this does serve a
good purpose for us robes because we hear somebody kill
their three kids, we want to get mad at that.
Person immediately the stories that came out, and now sitting
through this trial, they have really confirmed just how sick
(13:21):
this woman was.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
I would try to completely agree with that. When we
come back, we're going to talk about the other witnesses
that took the stand, including two troopers, and why the
defense got so upset when three toxicologists took the stand.
It all has everything to do with the fact that
Lindsay Clancy spoke at the beginning of day six and
(13:43):
what she had to say created a lot of drama
later on in the trial. Welcome back everyone to Amy
and TJ. We are talking about day six of the
Lindsay Clancy trial. And look, we had an episode on
(14:04):
this yesterday because it was fairly shocking. At the beginning
of the trial, day day six, we had Lindsay Clancy's
stand up answer a bunch of questions by the judge
because she and her attorneys agreed along with the prosecution
to concede certain facts including DNA, blood evidence, chain of custody,
(14:27):
all of those things that typically a prosecution would have
to prove to try and say this person murdered these children.
She's conceded that, she's admitted that, so they wanted to
basically say, hey, we don't have to go through all
of this testimony, dozens of witnesses to try and prove
some DNA, some chain of evidence, so we can skip
(14:47):
all that she agreed to stipulate some of these facts.
We can move on, right, So then why did the
prosecution end up calling three toxicologists to talk about what's
in and lindsay Clancy's blood and urine, what we were
in the children's urine. At a certain point, the defense
questioned why we have to have so many toxicologists after
(15:10):
they had already agreed to many of these facts, which
then created a sidebar. Yes, and then the judge coming
back and actually telling the jurors about this agreement about
the stipulation, But it begs the question, why was the
prosecution pushing it regardless of what had been agreed to earlier.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
They didn't give that answer an open court, right because
I was curious to know, because I was I didn't
get it. After the whole stipulations, things supposed to go faster,
and then we were going through the same stuff that
two sides. Why are we giving testimony about something that
both sides completely agree to? Is the point. That makes sense.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
So I was listening to some legal analysis, and the
best guess is that the prosecution still understands that the
more they can talk about blood evidence, the more they
can talk about DNA and some of the gruesomeness and
the crime scene and the photos, all of that you're creating,
or you're continuing to push the jury to think about
those kids, to think about what happened to those kids,
(16:08):
to think about the pain and the injury caused to
those kids, and then the anger would be directed at
the mom. The anger would then be directed at the
defense table. So the more you can keep talking about this,
the better the chance is they have of convincing a
jury that she is the monster in the room. That's
the best guess. But look, then, why agree to move
(16:32):
on and move from these types of witnesses testifying to
the exact evidence that they've already agreed is factual.
Speaker 1 (16:42):
This is an emotional miscalculation right now. I mean, yes,
I'm emotional about the kids, we all are. But your
next thing, Robes is too like you want to blame somebody.
I start going back to doctors, to her, her husband
and loved ones and what was missed and all these things,
(17:05):
not to blame other folks, but you want to learn
from it. Robes. We all do to identify this, to
start talking more about women and postpartum and what that
really does. Robes. This is incredibly important, but it's also
important how we talk about mental illness right now and
what's happening in the courtroom and how the prosecution is
handling Itbes. It doesn't It doesn't make you hate this lady.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
No, And it doesn't feel right. It doesn't feel right
coming from the prosecution. That's all I can say.
Speaker 1 (17:36):
Some feels wrong about the prosecution.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
That's what it feels like, and that's just from an
outside perspective. But also they had troopers, two different police
officers who were there collecting evidence at the scene also
testify yesterday to and they were focusing on the number
of prescription drug bottles that they recovered and they lined
them all up and they showed the photos of them.
And we've seen the prosecution trying to be this drum
(18:00):
before that. Even though there were a lot of pill bottles,
there were a ton of pills in each of the bottles.
In one of the pills there was still a full
thirty count the suggestion being that the drugs weren't to blame,
the suggestion being that the doctors weren't to blame for
over medicating her, That she wasn't even taking many of
these medications. And they're trying to imply that even though yes,
(18:22):
she did have some in her system, the benzo diazepines
benzodiazepines were in her blood and urine that's to treat
insomnia and anxiety. As some of the other drugs that
the defenses pointing to that exacerbated her situation weren't in
We're still in the pill bottles. So I don't know
(18:45):
what headway they made there, just trying to say, look,
she wasn't taking all of these drugs.
Speaker 1 (18:50):
Okay, I wouldn't some suggest that weren't they supposed to
help her? Well?
Speaker 2 (18:55):
Yes, so yeah, and why would you need to take
drugs because you're suffering from mental illness, which is the
whole point the defense is trying to bring home.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
I just we'll see how this. I am only a
half day today, right, yes.
Speaker 2 (19:09):
So today is going to be today's day seven of testimony.
It's going to be a shorter day. The judge already
announced that to jurors they will be listening to testimony
from nine am until one pm, and then the judge
says that he wants to work some things out with
lawyers in the afternoon. We don't know what that is
and will we have been able to see unless it's
a sidebar. We have been able to see a lot
(19:31):
of what goes on outside of the jury. Unclear if
we'll be able to see what's happening in the afternoon session.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
It's going to be on the record or not be interesting.
But if you always starts at nine o'clock, if you
all get a chance as being live stream. But just
this is something that some hellodrama, and I think it's
such an important story, bros. Moving forward in how we
discuss women and postpartum issues.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
It's huge. This is actually the national spotlight that I
think is super important for this very this little understood
yet very serious mental health condition that affects so many
women different varying degrees obviously from postpartum depression all the
way to this extreme postpartum psychosis. But it's just a
(20:17):
shame that it took a tragedy on this level for
it to reach the forefront. But we'll continue to watch
all of the events inside that Massachusetts courtroom today and
bring you the very latest. We always appreciate you listening
to us. I'm Amy Roboch alongside TJ. Holmes. We'll talk
sore
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.