September 1, 2026 • 25 mins
Fox News contributor, former NYPD inspector, opsdesk.org founder Paul Mauro joins Lisa Boothe for a deep dive into two of the nation’s most closely watched criminal cases.
Mauro breaks down the Lindsay Clancy trial as the jury deliberates her fate, examining the prosecution’s evidence, the insanity defense, the timeline surrounding the deaths of her three children, and why he believes the facts point toward planning and deliberate action. He also explains what the lengthy deliberations could mean — and why a hung jury remains a real possibility.
Lisa and Paul also discuss the growing role of emotion and mental health narratives in the courtroom, how social media could influence the way younger jurors view cases, and the broader cultural implications surrounding the Clancy trial.
Plus, Mauro analyzes the latest legal fight involving Luigi Mangione, including the double-jeopardy argument surrounding federal and New York charges, what Mangione could face at sentencing, and why separate charges in Pennsylvania could create even more legal jeopardy.
It’s a wide-ranging conversation about criminal justice, the insanity defense, jury psychology, and two cases that could have lasting legal consequences.
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
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 (00:07):
Issues that matter to you.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
The jury in the Lindsay Clancy trial has been deliberating
for days. They've asked to see her prescription bottles and
the knife that she used when she allegedly tried to
kill herself. She strangled her children. We know that she
murdered them. That's not in dispute. She did so with
exercise bands. What is in dispute is whether she was
legally insane or whether she knew it was wrong and
(00:30):
did it anyway. That's where this case lies. And that's
what we're going to talk about today. Personally, I think
she's an evil monster. But we're going to ask Paul Morrow,
my colleague from Fox News. He is also a former
NYPD inspector and founder of OpsDesk.org. So we're going to
ask him to put on both his legal hat as
an attorney, but also his law enforcement hat. So stay
(00:53):
tuned for Paul Morrow. Well, Paul Morrow, it's always great
to have you on. Always enjoy when we're on Outnumber together.
And I get to hear your insights. I appreciate you
making some time today.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
Of course. Thank you for having me and always enjoy
being on with you. Well, thank you, my friend.
Speaker 3 (01:10):
All right.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
So we're still waiting for a decision in the Lindsey
Clancy trial. The jury has been deliberating for days now.
I guess, what does this length of deliberations tell you
about where the jury stands right now?
Speaker 4 (01:27):
You know, we're always very cautious and very charried of
trying to read the minds of the jurors. And that's
always wise and safe. But it's not a whole lot of,
let's just say it's not very insightful. So let's, you know,
for the sake of argument, try to take some shots here. Otherwise,
we're going to have a very boring podcast. So I
(01:50):
would say first, we're not quite yet in the red
zone where you have to start to say to yourself,
maybe we're looking at a hung jury and this whole
thing could have to be done all over again. I'd
say that this is a case where a hung jury
is eminently possible because of the battle of the experts
and the difficulty of what the law is asking us
to do here, which is to read somebody's mind.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
But that said....
Speaker 4 (02:15):
I do think that if they were going to find
her not guilty by reason of insanity, I just have
the feeling that we would have been there already. I
think that if that metric that we've been told so often,
we've heard so much about, which is that it is
on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
(02:39):
she was sane. If they were really applying that, I
feel like they would have done it quickly and they
would have not really had a whole lot of argument
about it.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
Could I be wrong? Of course.
Speaker 4 (02:50):
But I just feel like if that case was made
to them, we would have heard it already.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
So that argues what?
Speaker 4 (02:56):
Either we're going to get a guilty verdict on one
of the three charges, manslaughter, murder two, or murder one,
or we're going to get a hung jury. And if
you're asking me to bet my pension right now, I'd
have to go with the latter, but I don't think
we're there yet.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
You know, what do you think? There's nine women on
the jury.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
And three men I wonder how that impacts the decision
making yeah.
Speaker 4 (03:22):
I mean I've been asked that a couple times and
this is the question you know this is the point
now where I say something that ensures that I have
like heel marks on my skull the next time I'm
on outnumbered it won't be for me so don't worry
You know, look, I actually, in all seriousness, really, really
hesitate to do that, and I'll tell you why. There's
(03:43):
so many things blowing through this that could go both ways.
When you're trying to do something that borders on metaphysical,
which is really what the law is, the way it's
constructed in Massachusetts, is asking us to do, we're being
asked to read the mind, that is the jurors are,
being asked to read the mind of somebody at a
particular date, on a particular time, to ascertain not even
(04:04):
what they were thinking, what they were capable of, of
thinking at a particular time, what they were capable of
understanding at a particular moment. It's such an esoteric undertaking
that any evidence can be massaged either way. And I
think that applies across the gender spectrum as well. I mean,
(04:26):
if some of the women on this jury are mothers,
they're going to, I think, feel this thing of, wow,
You slowly strangled your three kids here. But that could
cut the other way, which they could say, that means
you must have been crazy. You must have been insane. Also,
(04:46):
there's the age issue. Reportedly, the age span of all
of the jurors goes from the 20s into the 70s. Well,
if you have women that are, let's say, on the
older end of the spectrum, they may have more traditional
values and may look at this maybe in a little
bit more of a rigid light. So I hesitate to
(05:07):
put too much purchase on the gender aspect of this.
I know the easy answer is to say, oh, women
are going to be more sympathetic. But I got to
tell you, the women in my life.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
I mean, I think she's guilty as hell. Yeah, I
think she's a monster. There's one of the women in
my life that doesn't feel so.
Speaker 4 (05:23):
Yeah, I think she's a monster. And the ones that
I encounter feel as you do. They're not really having it.
And that includes mothers, which just feel like, you know, it's.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
An interesting thing, Lisa.
Speaker 4 (05:35):
A lot of them feel a little bit almost like
she took the easy way out. Because I've heard from
some mothers that they're saying, you know, I raised six kids.
And there were times when I wanted to, yeah, I
want to pull my hair out. It was really tough.
But I never went this far and took this kind
(05:56):
of a route. And they resent it. And that's why
I'm a little leery of ascribing too, too much to
the gender gap in the juror case here.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
Yeah, but you look at all these psychopaths outside of
the courthouse celebrating her. You know, I mean, the prostitutors
are saying, look, we know she was depressed, right? We
know she was dealing with some postpartum issues. But like
a lot of Americans get depressed. I'm depressed today. I'm
not going to go out and kill anyone. It's not
been a great day. You know, like we're human, right?
(06:26):
She was dealing with some postpartum issues. But the difference is,
was she experiencing depression? you know, psychosis to the point
where she was not aware of her actions during the
time of the killing. And you look at the prosecution
experts and they've argued that it is very rare to,
you know, to experience some sort of like hallucination voices
(06:47):
during that specific time period, that specific duration where she
systematically took each child and strangled them to death, including
at eight months old. And then miraculously it went away.
after the times, at the time of the killing. So,
I mean, you argue that you believe she's guilty. Kind
of break that down for us in how you sort
of draw the distinction between, all right, depressed, going through
(07:11):
a tough time in her life versus, you know, being
not mentally.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
Equipped to know what she was doing at the time
of the murders.
Speaker 4 (07:20):
I find her psychosis to be entirely too punctual for
my comfort. Again, let's look at the facts. There's an
old saying among lawyers, facts win cases. And a lot
of these cases felt to me as facts versus emotion.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
The defense has been very much on the side of emotion.
Speaker 4 (07:40):
And we think we saw that in the closing arguments
where defense attorney Reddington was raising his voice, gesticulating.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
He did that thing with the coins, a lot of adjectives.
This is repulsive, the damn meds.
Speaker 4 (07:54):
This is all stuff that is supposed to play upon
your feelings. Whereas the prosecution, which was a woman, got
up and in a much more lawyerly fashion, built the narration,
the narrative that demonstrated the actual acts that occurred that
day and how they speak to, as you say, some
(08:15):
planning and some really linear thinking. So let's recount those facts.
She sends the husband out to a restaurant from which
they'd never taken out takeout before. Number of restaurants that
they habitually took takeout from that were much closer.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
She had researched the CVS, right?
Speaker 4 (08:33):
She had gone on the website to see if they
had the medicine required, and she'd.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
Actually even called them.
Speaker 4 (08:38):
And then when she's sending him out to go for
the food, she throws in the CVS as if it's
an afterthought, which clearly wasn't an afterthought. She'd been planning
on it the entire time she was researching whether or
not the CVS had the meds. And the feeling from
the prosecution, clearly, is that it was just designed to
delay him further to give herself a little more time.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Now, what's the support of that? Because in the middle
of all this.
Speaker 4 (09:04):
From the CVS, the husband calls her. And at that point,
she's already into doing what she's doing. And her husband
testified that she sounded distracted, like she was in the
middle of something. Well, she surely was. The husband's away.
She had looked on an Apple app to see how
far away this restaurant was, and she got a time
(09:26):
from that. And right on that timeline, while he's out
getting the food, right on schedule, this mysterious voice that
she had never talked about before to anybody shows up
and tells her to do this thing. Coincidentally, while her
husband has been sent out of the house. Again, a
very punctual voice. The voice is so compelling. She strangles
(09:50):
her three kids, each of which reportedly took up to
20 seconds, maybe more, to lose consciousness, at which point
it takes them probably another four to five minutes to
die while they're kicking because the body is going to
still fight. Eighteen minutes from beginning to end is the
rough estimate of how long the entire act took. In
(10:10):
the middle of it, he calls her. She doesn't take
the call because presumably she's strangling one of the kids.
And then she calls him back. and has a conversation
during which he says she is cogent. The person in
the CVS who she spoke to on the phone, because
as I said, she called there, also describes her as
cogent just before she sent him out to go on
(10:34):
this errand. She took them into the basement where she
knew any cries would not be overheard. One of the
kids either fled to the office area, likely looking for
his dad to save him, Or she took him in there.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
Either way, one of the kids is separated.
Speaker 4 (10:54):
Not coincidentally, one of the older kids who could flee
while she was doing the first kid. She then comes
upstairs to do the suicide attempt. At some point in there,
her Apple Watch stops responding.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
Did it get damaged? Did she take it off? I
don't know.
Speaker 4 (11:10):
But that's a coincidental aspect of it right there. She
goes into the bedroom, closes and locks the door behind her.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
Again, thinking. She goes to the window. She reportedly cuts
her wrists.
Speaker 4 (11:24):
The neck abrasions are not cuts.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
This has been misreported.
Speaker 4 (11:27):
If you see the photos, they're abrasions, they're scrapes, which
she almost certainly got while she was dangling out the window.
And then she went out the window, according to the
prosecution's closing remarks, 12 feet. The cuts on her wrists,
three stitches. They were entirely superficial. And I brought this
(11:49):
up early in the case just because, you know, unfortunately,
I'm just going to say it.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
I've been to a lot of suicides. Women don't cut themselves.
Speaker 3 (11:56):
All right.
Speaker 4 (11:57):
They don't do it that way. They take pills. And
if they jump, it's rare, but they do. They jump
from a very high place.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
All right. Do you think she was trying to kill
herself or no? No, I don't.
Speaker 4 (12:08):
I think it was, I think it was on some level,
there was an instinct that kicked in. I'm not so
sure she was thinking it all the way through, but
I think there was some instinct where it was just a,
I don't like to say stunt because it.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
Belittles it, but then she's found on her back.
Speaker 4 (12:26):
Her husband comes overseas, so again, the house is quiet,
finds her, asks her what happened. She doesn't say, I
killed the kids. She doesn't say, look in the basement.
She says, I tried to kill myself. Again, it's about herself.
She Googled not long before the event, can a sociopath
be cured? Words to that effect. Now, we all know
(12:47):
what a sociopath is. This is her talking about herself now.
So putting all this together and then recognizing that let's
not forget something.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
She's a nurse.
Speaker 4 (12:58):
So when you hear so much about how the system
has to be put on trial here because it failed
her so badly, Well, you know, Lisa, you and I
go to doctors. We all know that a lot of
it comes down to us to keep track of what
meds I'm taking.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
What do I need? My knee hurts.
Speaker 4 (13:14):
You know, I go to the doctor about my knee.
He tells me, have you seen somebody about your hip?
All hockey players end up having bad hips. I'm telling him, well, actually,
I used to play hockey a lot. I got a
bad hip, you know. Oh, you know what, I'm going
to send you to the hip guy.
Speaker 1 (13:26):
You know, I got to keep track of all of that.
Speaker 4 (13:28):
These guys are seeing tons of patients. I don't expect
them to run all of this through some central database
when you're going to disparate medical systems. There are different
systems that she was going to. She was, to use
a term that was used to me, doctor shopping. And
so I don't want to make her the villain. I
don't want to do that because that was the mistake
the prosecution made from the outset. And that's why I
(13:49):
think they changed tactics in the closing arguments. But what
I do think is that there's a lot of planning.
The facts are on the side of the prosecution. I
do think that she deserves to be convicted and locked
up in a facility, likely a mental facility, not general population,
for the rest of her life.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
You know, and she also, my understanding is, didn't make
any mention of having heard a voice until she was
in the hospital later.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
I can tease that out. Yeah, that feels very bogus
as well.
Speaker 4 (14:20):
No mention of she wakes up in the hospital And
the first thing she says is that she's horrified by
what she did.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
So let's review that.
Speaker 4 (14:28):
She was reportedly utterly psychotic. Postpartum psychosis. By the way,
postpartum psychosis, eight months after the last kid was born.
All right, this is a very attenuated postpartum. But okay,
apparently it happens. She wakes up in a hospital after
having this psychotic episode. And apparently is not psychotic anymore
(14:49):
because she says she's horrified.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
And then she asks, do I have a lawyer? Right?
Those are the first two things she does in the hospital. Psychosis, gone.
No mention of the voices.
Speaker 4 (15:00):
A week later, she has a conversation with her, the chaplain,
and brings up the voices to that chaplain, but says,
first thing she says to the chaplain is the following.
I'm glad my kids are safe. As in safe in heaven.
So in other words, Now the psychosis returned. So the
(15:23):
psychosis was there for the event, went away from when
she woke up in the hospital. A week later, talking
to her chaplain, the psychosis has mysteriously, every time she's
got her back to the wall, it.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
Seems to be about, I was psychotic.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
And was the psychosis, did the first mention of the
psychosis that came after she met with an attorney, right?
Speaker 1 (15:47):
Is that correct? Yeah, yeah. So was that being coached
by a lawyer?
Speaker 3 (15:51):
I mean, you'd like to think not that a lawyer
would go that far as to put that sort of
a term or something like that in her head.
Speaker 4 (16:02):
But it's also after she spoke to Dr. Zeisel, who
was her most effective expert witness in the trial. And
what he testified to is that in his visit with
her after she woke up in the hospital, He gave
her his phone to call Patrick, her husband. And on
(16:22):
the phone with Patrick, he overheard her say, I heard
this compelling male voice. And then the only time it
comes out again is, as I said, a week later
when she talks to the chaplain. So all of these
things are just too linear and just too convenient to me, Lisa.
(16:43):
And I'm sorry, but that's where I go on this.
And by the way, I want to be clear. I
was the other way in the early parts of the case.
I didn't really comment on it because I wasn't really
in the weeds on it. But when I was hearing
about the case, I started to hear the storyline of
she had called a suicide hotline, 35 different meds, all
of which turned out to not be true relative to
(17:05):
the medications. She reportedly was only on two on the
day of, one of which was going to be to
help her sleep, Ambien.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
You know, I was in a different space.
Speaker 4 (17:17):
And then as I really started to examine the facts
very hard, I went the other way and it's like
a tennis match, but now I'm firmly on the other side.
Speaker 1 (17:24):
Quick break.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
If you like what you're hearing, please share on social
media or send it to your family and friends.
Speaker 1 (17:31):
You had mentioned something that stood out to me that
the defense... went with a.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
Very emotional approach. And I worry that as a society,
we are more emotional than fact based now.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
Yeah. Would you agree with that assessment?
Speaker 2 (17:47):
And then how would that then play out in a
court of law, both with judges and juries moving forward?
Because I just I worry that like, There's all these
conversations about like mental health and it's like people wear
it with a badge of honor. And like you look
at all these TikTok videos of people being like, me too,
me too, Lindsay, me too.
Speaker 1 (18:07):
You know, it's like.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
Got a lot of psychopaths out there and everyone's driven
by emotions versus facts now.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
So it's like, what does that mean moving forward with
all this stuff? Yeah, nothing good.
Speaker 4 (18:20):
I mean, you've already seen at least one case of
what appears to be a copycat. We don't know how
much that person knew about the case, but the timeline
seems to indicate that it could be a copycat killing
when they killed a kid. You know, you just hope that,
like you said, it doesn't become a badge of honor
(18:40):
or a trend.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
We seem to have so many people who.
Speaker 4 (18:44):
Are so desperate for an identity that beyond an adult
who works, has a job, raises a family, or has
some other productive aspect of their lives, that any nonsensical
trend that comes along just seems to provide that identity.
I think it's why, you know, we just had it
too damn good. You know, we don't have to worry about,
(19:06):
for the most part, making a living anymore. I know
that the left will tell you otherwise, but you and
I both know this. There are a few people in
this nation who are genuinely hungry You know, there were
so many social services that, you know, if you really
reach out for help, you're generally going to get it
in terms of just, you know, surviving. And I'm not
(19:27):
talking about the mental health aspect of it now. I'm
talking about survival. And it just seems like, especially for people.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
Who are among the more.
Speaker 4 (19:36):
Moneyed, more comfortable people, the coastal elites, or whatever you
want to phrase it, they're just so desperate for an
identity that sets them apart. that they have to come
up with the latest trend. You have to be, and
I used to be, okay, you were gay, fair enough.
Now you got to be trans. Now you got to
be a trans who cuts themselves. Now you got to
be a trans who's militant. Now you got to be
(19:58):
a woman who.
Speaker 1 (19:59):
Suffers from postpartum.
Speaker 4 (20:01):
Now you've got to be a woman who goes on
TikTok and cries over your postpartum and wants 1,500 emails
coming in that say, are you okay?
Speaker 1 (20:10):
I'm so sorry this is happening to you. And it's
just performative.
Speaker 4 (20:14):
And unfortunately, a lot of young people, and that's actually
the aspect of, I made this point earlier on the air,
that's actually the aspect of the jury that I think
is a little bit more salient rather than gender, but age.
Because I fear that Those raised in the social media
era who are trying to find an identity that very
(20:37):
often is driven by clicks, those are the types that
I think are more likely to buy into a theory
here that maybe in a previous era, people would have
slapped down and said, no, there's just too many holes
in this. Now, let's recognize we have an insanity defense
for a reason. It does exist. But I just, as
(20:59):
I said, I feel there are too many holes here.
And if you're going off of emotion, which the defense
seems to be tapping into very heavily, then, you know,
we could miss the mark here.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
And then real quick, I just wanted to ask you
one question about the Luigi Mangione case. You know, obviously
he pled guilty. His attorneys are now arguing that that
federal plea should prevent New York from prosecuting him for
the same conduct. What do you make of that double
jeopardy argument and where that might go?
Speaker 1 (21:32):
And then what do you think we'll eventually see with
his sentencing? So the sentencing, I know the judge a bit.
Speaker 4 (21:40):
You know, full disclosure, I did battle with her when
I was the commanding officer of the legal bureau of NYPD.
She was the inspector general for New York City. She
struck me as tough but fair. You know, I'm sure
to my left. But I think that she'll give a
reasonable sentence. And I think that she's cognizant of the
(22:01):
fact that the feeling is that that might be the
last thought that they have at him here if the
double jeopardy law holds up and they don't get to
charge him at the state level. And so what she
sentences him to could well be it.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
Let me just tease out two quick things.
Speaker 4 (22:22):
First of all, The idea, though, that the double jeopardy
law is definitely going to hold up here is no
slam dunk. I know everybody name checks the Manafort case,
but that was a much clearer one-to-one between the federal
charge and the state charge.
Speaker 1 (22:36):
There's a real distinction here.
Speaker 4 (22:37):
Going into legality of it, we've all heard about the
difference between the murder two at the state level and
the stalking charge, which is really what he was charged
with at the federal level.
Speaker 1 (22:47):
Those are pretty distinct.
Speaker 4 (22:48):
The state says they're going to continue to try this,
and they're going to give it a shot. I think
it's going to go first to the judge here at
the low level, and then very well could go up
the chain all the way to the New York Court
of Appeals in Albany to ascertain, does New York have
a shot here? This has never been done. This is
going to be new law that could be made in Mangione.
(23:10):
So this is far from over. But let me just
add one other thing that you're not hearing about, and
I don't know why, and I'm going to make a
call on this.
Speaker 1 (23:17):
Pennsylvania.
Speaker 4 (23:18):
He's got two felonies hanging over his head in Pennsylvania,
which nobody really seems to care about. But he's got
the weapons charge because he had a silencer in Pennsylvania
and he had false ID, which is also a felony. Now,
false ID is not much. I think the ID was
three to five years or something. But the silencer is
a real hit. And here's what's really interesting, Lisa. Pennsylvania
has the same double jeopardy law that New York has.
(23:41):
So if I'm seeing what Pennsylvania is, I'm the U.S.
attorney there, the federal prosecutor. I get with the local prosecutors,
and I say, let's avoid the mistake that New York made.
I'm not going to do anything as the federal prosecutor
in Pennsylvania. You go first, Pennsylvania jurisdiction, state jurisdiction. Let
them try him in Pennsylvania state court on the silencer
(24:04):
and on the false ID.
Speaker 1 (24:05):
You'll get those. It's de facto there. Give him another
10 years there.
Speaker 3 (24:10):
Then.
Speaker 4 (24:11):
Charge him federally for that silencer because that's chargeable federally.
And give him another hit in federal court, in federal prison, rather,
thanks to the silencer, which has not been part of
the New York case. My point is, if there really
is a will here, this guy will never see the
light of day. And there should be a will because
(24:31):
I don't mean to be too graphic, but this kid's story,
you know, his origin story is not so much different
from mine. And this country has been nothing but good
to this guy. He's a scumbag. This country is giving
his family everything. And this is how he repays us?
And his family has to go through this? Who are
apparently good people? Let them rot in jail.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
No, I agree.
Speaker 2 (24:51):
There's a lot of psychopaths out there. Unfortunately, I feel
like evil is just kind of taking over the world.
Paul Morrow, appreciate you joining the show. You're always so
interesting and so great at breaking all this stuff down
for us.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
So really appreciate your time. Anytime for you, Lisa. You
take care now. That was Paul Morrow.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
Appreciate him for coming on the show. Appreciate you guys
at home for listening every Tuesday and Thursday, but you
can listen throughout the week.
Speaker 1 (25:16):
Also want to thank John Cassio, my producer, for putting
this show together. Until next time.
Issues that matter to you.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
The jury in the Lindsay Clancy trial has been deliberating
for days. They've asked to see her prescription bottles and
the knife that she used when she allegedly tried to
kill herself. She strangled her children. We know that she
murdered them. That's not in dispute. She did so with
exercise bands. What is in dispute is whether she was
legally insane or whether she knew it was wrong and
(00:30):
did it anyway. That's where this case lies. And that's
what we're going to talk about today. Personally, I think
she's an evil monster. But we're going to ask Paul Morrow,
my colleague from Fox News. He is also a former
NYPD inspector and founder of OpsDesk.org. So we're going to
ask him to put on both his legal hat as
an attorney, but also his law enforcement hat. So stay
(00:53):
tuned for Paul Morrow. Well, Paul Morrow, it's always great
to have you on. Always enjoy when we're on Outnumber together.
And I get to hear your insights. I appreciate you
making some time today.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
Of course. Thank you for having me and always enjoy
being on with you. Well, thank you, my friend.
Speaker 3 (01:10):
All right.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
So we're still waiting for a decision in the Lindsey
Clancy trial. The jury has been deliberating for days now.
I guess, what does this length of deliberations tell you
about where the jury stands right now?
Speaker 4 (01:27):
You know, we're always very cautious and very charried of
trying to read the minds of the jurors. And that's
always wise and safe. But it's not a whole lot of,
let's just say it's not very insightful. So let's, you know,
for the sake of argument, try to take some shots here. Otherwise,
we're going to have a very boring podcast. So I
(01:50):
would say first, we're not quite yet in the red
zone where you have to start to say to yourself,
maybe we're looking at a hung jury and this whole
thing could have to be done all over again. I'd
say that this is a case where a hung jury
is eminently possible because of the battle of the experts
and the difficulty of what the law is asking us
to do here, which is to read somebody's mind.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
But that said....
Speaker 4 (02:15):
I do think that if they were going to find
her not guilty by reason of insanity, I just have
the feeling that we would have been there already. I
think that if that metric that we've been told so often,
we've heard so much about, which is that it is
on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
(02:39):
she was sane. If they were really applying that, I
feel like they would have done it quickly and they
would have not really had a whole lot of argument
about it.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
Could I be wrong? Of course.
Speaker 4 (02:50):
But I just feel like if that case was made
to them, we would have heard it already.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
So that argues what?
Speaker 4 (02:56):
Either we're going to get a guilty verdict on one
of the three charges, manslaughter, murder two, or murder one,
or we're going to get a hung jury. And if
you're asking me to bet my pension right now, I'd
have to go with the latter, but I don't think
we're there yet.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
You know, what do you think? There's nine women on
the jury.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
And three men I wonder how that impacts the decision
making yeah.
Speaker 4 (03:22):
I mean I've been asked that a couple times and
this is the question you know this is the point
now where I say something that ensures that I have
like heel marks on my skull the next time I'm
on outnumbered it won't be for me so don't worry
You know, look, I actually, in all seriousness, really, really
hesitate to do that, and I'll tell you why. There's
(03:43):
so many things blowing through this that could go both ways.
When you're trying to do something that borders on metaphysical,
which is really what the law is, the way it's
constructed in Massachusetts, is asking us to do, we're being
asked to read the mind, that is the jurors are,
being asked to read the mind of somebody at a
particular date, on a particular time, to ascertain not even
(04:04):
what they were thinking, what they were capable of, of
thinking at a particular time, what they were capable of
understanding at a particular moment. It's such an esoteric undertaking
that any evidence can be massaged either way. And I
think that applies across the gender spectrum as well. I mean,
(04:26):
if some of the women on this jury are mothers,
they're going to, I think, feel this thing of, wow,
You slowly strangled your three kids here. But that could
cut the other way, which they could say, that means
you must have been crazy. You must have been insane. Also,
(04:46):
there's the age issue. Reportedly, the age span of all
of the jurors goes from the 20s into the 70s. Well,
if you have women that are, let's say, on the
older end of the spectrum, they may have more traditional
values and may look at this maybe in a little
bit more of a rigid light. So I hesitate to
(05:07):
put too much purchase on the gender aspect of this.
I know the easy answer is to say, oh, women
are going to be more sympathetic. But I got to
tell you, the women in my life.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
I mean, I think she's guilty as hell. Yeah, I
think she's a monster. There's one of the women in
my life that doesn't feel so.
Speaker 4 (05:23):
Yeah, I think she's a monster. And the ones that
I encounter feel as you do. They're not really having it.
And that includes mothers, which just feel like, you know, it's.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
An interesting thing, Lisa.
Speaker 4 (05:35):
A lot of them feel a little bit almost like
she took the easy way out. Because I've heard from
some mothers that they're saying, you know, I raised six kids.
And there were times when I wanted to, yeah, I
want to pull my hair out. It was really tough.
But I never went this far and took this kind
(05:56):
of a route. And they resent it. And that's why
I'm a little leery of ascribing too, too much to
the gender gap in the juror case here.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
Yeah, but you look at all these psychopaths outside of
the courthouse celebrating her. You know, I mean, the prostitutors
are saying, look, we know she was depressed, right? We
know she was dealing with some postpartum issues. But like
a lot of Americans get depressed. I'm depressed today. I'm
not going to go out and kill anyone. It's not
been a great day. You know, like we're human, right?
(06:26):
She was dealing with some postpartum issues. But the difference is,
was she experiencing depression? you know, psychosis to the point
where she was not aware of her actions during the
time of the killing. And you look at the prosecution
experts and they've argued that it is very rare to,
you know, to experience some sort of like hallucination voices
(06:47):
during that specific time period, that specific duration where she
systematically took each child and strangled them to death, including
at eight months old. And then miraculously it went away.
after the times, at the time of the killing. So,
I mean, you argue that you believe she's guilty. Kind
of break that down for us in how you sort
of draw the distinction between, all right, depressed, going through
(07:11):
a tough time in her life versus, you know, being
not mentally.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
Equipped to know what she was doing at the time
of the murders.
Speaker 4 (07:20):
I find her psychosis to be entirely too punctual for
my comfort. Again, let's look at the facts. There's an
old saying among lawyers, facts win cases. And a lot
of these cases felt to me as facts versus emotion.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
The defense has been very much on the side of emotion.
Speaker 4 (07:40):
And we think we saw that in the closing arguments
where defense attorney Reddington was raising his voice, gesticulating.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
He did that thing with the coins, a lot of adjectives.
This is repulsive, the damn meds.
Speaker 4 (07:54):
This is all stuff that is supposed to play upon
your feelings. Whereas the prosecution, which was a woman, got
up and in a much more lawyerly fashion, built the narration,
the narrative that demonstrated the actual acts that occurred that
day and how they speak to, as you say, some
(08:15):
planning and some really linear thinking. So let's recount those facts.
She sends the husband out to a restaurant from which
they'd never taken out takeout before. Number of restaurants that
they habitually took takeout from that were much closer.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
She had researched the CVS, right?
Speaker 4 (08:33):
She had gone on the website to see if they
had the medicine required, and she'd.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
Actually even called them.
Speaker 4 (08:38):
And then when she's sending him out to go for
the food, she throws in the CVS as if it's
an afterthought, which clearly wasn't an afterthought. She'd been planning
on it the entire time she was researching whether or
not the CVS had the meds. And the feeling from
the prosecution, clearly, is that it was just designed to
delay him further to give herself a little more time.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Now, what's the support of that? Because in the middle
of all this.
Speaker 4 (09:04):
From the CVS, the husband calls her. And at that point,
she's already into doing what she's doing. And her husband
testified that she sounded distracted, like she was in the
middle of something. Well, she surely was. The husband's away.
She had looked on an Apple app to see how
far away this restaurant was, and she got a time
(09:26):
from that. And right on that timeline, while he's out
getting the food, right on schedule, this mysterious voice that
she had never talked about before to anybody shows up
and tells her to do this thing. Coincidentally, while her
husband has been sent out of the house. Again, a
very punctual voice. The voice is so compelling. She strangles
(09:50):
her three kids, each of which reportedly took up to
20 seconds, maybe more, to lose consciousness, at which point
it takes them probably another four to five minutes to
die while they're kicking because the body is going to
still fight. Eighteen minutes from beginning to end is the
rough estimate of how long the entire act took. In
(10:10):
the middle of it, he calls her. She doesn't take
the call because presumably she's strangling one of the kids.
And then she calls him back. and has a conversation
during which he says she is cogent. The person in
the CVS who she spoke to on the phone, because
as I said, she called there, also describes her as
cogent just before she sent him out to go on
(10:34):
this errand. She took them into the basement where she
knew any cries would not be overheard. One of the
kids either fled to the office area, likely looking for
his dad to save him, Or she took him in there.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
Either way, one of the kids is separated.
Speaker 4 (10:54):
Not coincidentally, one of the older kids who could flee
while she was doing the first kid. She then comes
upstairs to do the suicide attempt. At some point in there,
her Apple Watch stops responding.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
Did it get damaged? Did she take it off? I
don't know.
Speaker 4 (11:10):
But that's a coincidental aspect of it right there. She
goes into the bedroom, closes and locks the door behind her.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
Again, thinking. She goes to the window. She reportedly cuts
her wrists.
Speaker 4 (11:24):
The neck abrasions are not cuts.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
This has been misreported.
Speaker 4 (11:27):
If you see the photos, they're abrasions, they're scrapes, which
she almost certainly got while she was dangling out the window.
And then she went out the window, according to the
prosecution's closing remarks, 12 feet. The cuts on her wrists,
three stitches. They were entirely superficial. And I brought this
(11:49):
up early in the case just because, you know, unfortunately,
I'm just going to say it.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
I've been to a lot of suicides. Women don't cut themselves.
Speaker 3 (11:56):
All right.
Speaker 4 (11:57):
They don't do it that way. They take pills. And
if they jump, it's rare, but they do. They jump
from a very high place.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
All right. Do you think she was trying to kill
herself or no? No, I don't.
Speaker 4 (12:08):
I think it was, I think it was on some level,
there was an instinct that kicked in. I'm not so
sure she was thinking it all the way through, but
I think there was some instinct where it was just a,
I don't like to say stunt because it.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
Belittles it, but then she's found on her back.
Speaker 4 (12:26):
Her husband comes overseas, so again, the house is quiet,
finds her, asks her what happened. She doesn't say, I
killed the kids. She doesn't say, look in the basement.
She says, I tried to kill myself. Again, it's about herself.
She Googled not long before the event, can a sociopath
be cured? Words to that effect. Now, we all know
(12:47):
what a sociopath is. This is her talking about herself now.
So putting all this together and then recognizing that let's
not forget something.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
She's a nurse.
Speaker 4 (12:58):
So when you hear so much about how the system
has to be put on trial here because it failed
her so badly, Well, you know, Lisa, you and I
go to doctors. We all know that a lot of
it comes down to us to keep track of what
meds I'm taking.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
What do I need? My knee hurts.
Speaker 4 (13:14):
You know, I go to the doctor about my knee.
He tells me, have you seen somebody about your hip?
All hockey players end up having bad hips. I'm telling him, well, actually,
I used to play hockey a lot. I got a
bad hip, you know. Oh, you know what, I'm going
to send you to the hip guy.
Speaker 1 (13:26):
You know, I got to keep track of all of that.
Speaker 4 (13:28):
These guys are seeing tons of patients. I don't expect
them to run all of this through some central database
when you're going to disparate medical systems. There are different
systems that she was going to. She was, to use
a term that was used to me, doctor shopping. And
so I don't want to make her the villain. I
don't want to do that because that was the mistake
the prosecution made from the outset. And that's why I
(13:49):
think they changed tactics in the closing arguments. But what
I do think is that there's a lot of planning.
The facts are on the side of the prosecution. I
do think that she deserves to be convicted and locked
up in a facility, likely a mental facility, not general population,
for the rest of her life.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
You know, and she also, my understanding is, didn't make
any mention of having heard a voice until she was
in the hospital later.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
I can tease that out. Yeah, that feels very bogus
as well.
Speaker 4 (14:20):
No mention of she wakes up in the hospital And
the first thing she says is that she's horrified by
what she did.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
So let's review that.
Speaker 4 (14:28):
She was reportedly utterly psychotic. Postpartum psychosis. By the way,
postpartum psychosis, eight months after the last kid was born.
All right, this is a very attenuated postpartum. But okay,
apparently it happens. She wakes up in a hospital after
having this psychotic episode. And apparently is not psychotic anymore
(14:49):
because she says she's horrified.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
And then she asks, do I have a lawyer? Right?
Those are the first two things she does in the hospital. Psychosis, gone.
No mention of the voices.
Speaker 4 (15:00):
A week later, she has a conversation with her, the chaplain,
and brings up the voices to that chaplain, but says,
first thing she says to the chaplain is the following.
I'm glad my kids are safe. As in safe in heaven.
So in other words, Now the psychosis returned. So the
(15:23):
psychosis was there for the event, went away from when
she woke up in the hospital. A week later, talking
to her chaplain, the psychosis has mysteriously, every time she's
got her back to the wall, it.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
Seems to be about, I was psychotic.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
And was the psychosis, did the first mention of the
psychosis that came after she met with an attorney, right?
Speaker 1 (15:47):
Is that correct? Yeah, yeah. So was that being coached
by a lawyer?
Speaker 3 (15:51):
I mean, you'd like to think not that a lawyer
would go that far as to put that sort of
a term or something like that in her head.
Speaker 4 (16:02):
But it's also after she spoke to Dr. Zeisel, who
was her most effective expert witness in the trial. And
what he testified to is that in his visit with
her after she woke up in the hospital, He gave
her his phone to call Patrick, her husband. And on
(16:22):
the phone with Patrick, he overheard her say, I heard
this compelling male voice. And then the only time it
comes out again is, as I said, a week later
when she talks to the chaplain. So all of these
things are just too linear and just too convenient to me, Lisa.
(16:43):
And I'm sorry, but that's where I go on this.
And by the way, I want to be clear. I
was the other way in the early parts of the case.
I didn't really comment on it because I wasn't really
in the weeds on it. But when I was hearing
about the case, I started to hear the storyline of
she had called a suicide hotline, 35 different meds, all
of which turned out to not be true relative to
(17:05):
the medications. She reportedly was only on two on the
day of, one of which was going to be to
help her sleep, Ambien.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
You know, I was in a different space.
Speaker 4 (17:17):
And then as I really started to examine the facts
very hard, I went the other way and it's like
a tennis match, but now I'm firmly on the other side.
Speaker 1 (17:24):
Quick break.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
If you like what you're hearing, please share on social
media or send it to your family and friends.
Speaker 1 (17:31):
You had mentioned something that stood out to me that
the defense... went with a.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
Very emotional approach. And I worry that as a society,
we are more emotional than fact based now.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
Yeah. Would you agree with that assessment?
Speaker 2 (17:47):
And then how would that then play out in a
court of law, both with judges and juries moving forward?
Because I just I worry that like, There's all these
conversations about like mental health and it's like people wear
it with a badge of honor. And like you look
at all these TikTok videos of people being like, me too,
me too, Lindsay, me too.
Speaker 1 (18:07):
You know, it's like.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
Got a lot of psychopaths out there and everyone's driven
by emotions versus facts now.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
So it's like, what does that mean moving forward with
all this stuff? Yeah, nothing good.
Speaker 4 (18:20):
I mean, you've already seen at least one case of
what appears to be a copycat. We don't know how
much that person knew about the case, but the timeline
seems to indicate that it could be a copycat killing
when they killed a kid. You know, you just hope that,
like you said, it doesn't become a badge of honor
(18:40):
or a trend.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
We seem to have so many people who.
Speaker 4 (18:44):
Are so desperate for an identity that beyond an adult
who works, has a job, raises a family, or has
some other productive aspect of their lives, that any nonsensical
trend that comes along just seems to provide that identity.
I think it's why, you know, we just had it
too damn good. You know, we don't have to worry about,
(19:06):
for the most part, making a living anymore. I know
that the left will tell you otherwise, but you and
I both know this. There are a few people in
this nation who are genuinely hungry You know, there were
so many social services that, you know, if you really
reach out for help, you're generally going to get it
in terms of just, you know, surviving. And I'm not
(19:27):
talking about the mental health aspect of it now. I'm
talking about survival. And it just seems like, especially for people.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
Who are among the more.
Speaker 4 (19:36):
Moneyed, more comfortable people, the coastal elites, or whatever you
want to phrase it, they're just so desperate for an
identity that sets them apart. that they have to come
up with the latest trend. You have to be, and
I used to be, okay, you were gay, fair enough.
Now you got to be trans. Now you got to
be a trans who cuts themselves. Now you got to
be a trans who's militant. Now you got to be
(19:58):
a woman who.
Speaker 1 (19:59):
Suffers from postpartum.
Speaker 4 (20:01):
Now you've got to be a woman who goes on
TikTok and cries over your postpartum and wants 1,500 emails
coming in that say, are you okay?
Speaker 1 (20:10):
I'm so sorry this is happening to you. And it's
just performative.
Speaker 4 (20:14):
And unfortunately, a lot of young people, and that's actually
the aspect of, I made this point earlier on the air,
that's actually the aspect of the jury that I think
is a little bit more salient rather than gender, but age.
Because I fear that Those raised in the social media
era who are trying to find an identity that very
(20:37):
often is driven by clicks, those are the types that
I think are more likely to buy into a theory
here that maybe in a previous era, people would have
slapped down and said, no, there's just too many holes
in this. Now, let's recognize we have an insanity defense
for a reason. It does exist. But I just, as
(20:59):
I said, I feel there are too many holes here.
And if you're going off of emotion, which the defense
seems to be tapping into very heavily, then, you know,
we could miss the mark here.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
And then real quick, I just wanted to ask you
one question about the Luigi Mangione case. You know, obviously
he pled guilty. His attorneys are now arguing that that
federal plea should prevent New York from prosecuting him for
the same conduct. What do you make of that double
jeopardy argument and where that might go?
Speaker 1 (21:32):
And then what do you think we'll eventually see with
his sentencing? So the sentencing, I know the judge a bit.
Speaker 4 (21:40):
You know, full disclosure, I did battle with her when
I was the commanding officer of the legal bureau of NYPD.
She was the inspector general for New York City. She
struck me as tough but fair. You know, I'm sure
to my left. But I think that she'll give a
reasonable sentence. And I think that she's cognizant of the
(22:01):
fact that the feeling is that that might be the
last thought that they have at him here if the
double jeopardy law holds up and they don't get to
charge him at the state level. And so what she
sentences him to could well be it.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
Let me just tease out two quick things.
Speaker 4 (22:22):
First of all, The idea, though, that the double jeopardy
law is definitely going to hold up here is no
slam dunk. I know everybody name checks the Manafort case,
but that was a much clearer one-to-one between the federal
charge and the state charge.
Speaker 1 (22:36):
There's a real distinction here.
Speaker 4 (22:37):
Going into legality of it, we've all heard about the
difference between the murder two at the state level and
the stalking charge, which is really what he was charged
with at the federal level.
Speaker 1 (22:47):
Those are pretty distinct.
Speaker 4 (22:48):
The state says they're going to continue to try this,
and they're going to give it a shot. I think
it's going to go first to the judge here at
the low level, and then very well could go up
the chain all the way to the New York Court
of Appeals in Albany to ascertain, does New York have
a shot here? This has never been done. This is
going to be new law that could be made in Mangione.
(23:10):
So this is far from over. But let me just
add one other thing that you're not hearing about, and
I don't know why, and I'm going to make a
call on this.
Speaker 1 (23:17):
Pennsylvania.
Speaker 4 (23:18):
He's got two felonies hanging over his head in Pennsylvania,
which nobody really seems to care about. But he's got
the weapons charge because he had a silencer in Pennsylvania
and he had false ID, which is also a felony. Now,
false ID is not much. I think the ID was
three to five years or something. But the silencer is
a real hit. And here's what's really interesting, Lisa. Pennsylvania
has the same double jeopardy law that New York has.
(23:41):
So if I'm seeing what Pennsylvania is, I'm the U.S.
attorney there, the federal prosecutor. I get with the local prosecutors,
and I say, let's avoid the mistake that New York made.
I'm not going to do anything as the federal prosecutor
in Pennsylvania. You go first, Pennsylvania jurisdiction, state jurisdiction. Let
them try him in Pennsylvania state court on the silencer
(24:04):
and on the false ID.
Speaker 1 (24:05):
You'll get those. It's de facto there. Give him another
10 years there.
Speaker 3 (24:10):
Then.
Speaker 4 (24:11):
Charge him federally for that silencer because that's chargeable federally.
And give him another hit in federal court, in federal prison, rather,
thanks to the silencer, which has not been part of
the New York case. My point is, if there really
is a will here, this guy will never see the
light of day. And there should be a will because
(24:31):
I don't mean to be too graphic, but this kid's story,
you know, his origin story is not so much different
from mine. And this country has been nothing but good
to this guy. He's a scumbag. This country is giving
his family everything. And this is how he repays us?
And his family has to go through this? Who are
apparently good people? Let them rot in jail.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
No, I agree.
Speaker 2 (24:51):
There's a lot of psychopaths out there. Unfortunately, I feel
like evil is just kind of taking over the world.
Paul Morrow, appreciate you joining the show. You're always so
interesting and so great at breaking all this stuff down
for us.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
So really appreciate your time. Anytime for you, Lisa. You
take care now. That was Paul Morrow.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
Appreciate him for coming on the show. Appreciate you guys
at home for listening every Tuesday and Thursday, but you
can listen throughout the week.
Speaker 1 (25:16):
Also want to thank John Cassio, my producer, for putting
this show together. Until next time.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular 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