September 11, 2026 • 51 mins
Attorney Katherine Loftus joins Bobby to break down the Lindsay Clancey case and the legal questions surrounding her mental state. Katherine explains what the defense has to prove, how reasonable doubt factors are in, and why medical records and medication could play such a major role. They also discuss what could happen with another jury and how emotion can influence a case like this. Plus, Katherine explains why the story playing online can look very different from what actually matters in court.
Check out Katherine's podcast Note My Objection HERE
Watch The BobbyCast on Netflix!
Follow on Instagram: @TheBobbyCast
Follow on TikTok: @TheBobbyCast
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 (00:06):
In that very moment, was she taking the lives of
her children because she knew she had to leave this
earth and she couldn't live without them? Or was she
commanded to do it and couldn't control herself and conform
herself to the law?
Speaker 2 (00:22):
So we're going to talk about the Lindsay Clancy case here,
and we're talking with attorney Catherine Loftus. former prosecutor, legal analyst,
and the host of a podcast, Note My Objection, where
she breaks down law, politics, and some of the biggest
stories in the news.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
And so we're going to go deep into this case.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
And from what I've seen, she has not actually given
an opinion on guilty or not guilty.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
She just goes in the facts.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
And so I'm going to have her be the defense
and what they could have done better. I'm going to
have to be the prosecution and what they could have
done better. And we'll talk about the mistrial, what happens next.
And so for me, this was super interesting. Here's my
conversation with Catherine Loftus. All right, we're talking with Catherine
Loftus now, who as the Clancy case has been moving along,
(01:09):
I've been watching her TikToks really to give me my opinion.
And so, Catherine, thank you so much for coming and
talking to me about this, because I have a lot
of questions because I've tried to be educated, but I
am not you.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
Would you talk about, first of all, you're an attorney, right?
Speaker 1 (01:24):
I am.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
So I know what an attorney is, but what do
you specialize in? What are you good at?
Speaker 1 (01:29):
So I mostly am good at criminal law. As they
like to say, lawyers are good at a lot of things.
But most of us specialize. I worked in the district
attorney's office while I was going to law school at night.
And then I practiced as a prosecutor for about three
and a half years after that. So I spent about
a total of eight years in the DA's office. And
then I went over to the criminal defense side where
(01:49):
I've been for about seven or eight years. So I've
been in the criminal justice system for... probably 15, 16
years total and have had experience on both sides, which
I think really enables me to give a unique perspective
to my audience that's coupled with sort of, you know,
throwing in my, you know, personal background growing up in
(02:11):
the city of Boston. So I have a little bit
of the street smart and book smart, if you will.
And so I try to give through, you know, my platform,
Note My Objection, really the most sort of fundamental kind
of breakdowns of what the law is, what's happening in
the trials that I cover, because it's complicated stuff.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
So before you came on, we were talking about your podcast.
And I definitely want to talk about other things other
than this case in just a bit.
Speaker 3 (02:36):
But I need some help with the case.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
And so I'm probably going to spray around a little
bit and just ask random questions because I really don't
even know how to talk about.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
This case as an educated person.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
Because what I have found is when I look something
up or I see something on TikTok– And maybe we'll
start here. Like there was the rumor, first of all,
that the husband could have done it. And I watched
one video, but then I started to get fed all
videos about him doing it. So all it was doing
was taking whatever bias that I had and feeding it
to me over and over again.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
So then I start to feel like that's the reality.
Speaker 4 (03:08):
Right.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
So so if we start with that, like because the
rumor has been. that possibly the husband would have had
something to do with this. That's not a part of
this case. Is there any chance it ever becomes part
of a case?
Speaker 1 (03:20):
From my perspective, no. And I'm glad that you brought
that up because I think, you know, the world that
we live in, which is sort of this constantly online
conversation that we invite all kinds of people in, right?
And what happens that I've noticed over the last couple
of years of covering cases, criminal cases particularly, is that
(03:42):
oftentimes what's happening in the courtroom is very different than
what's happening sort of in the online discourse. And as
you mentioned, you know, there were all kinds of conspiracy
theories and thoughts about, you know, could the husband have
done it? Patrick Clancy, you.
Speaker 4 (03:54):
Know, sort of.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
Going from A to B all the way to Z
very quickly. What's happening in the actual courtroom is that
this is really a case not about whether Lindsay Clancy
committed these crimes. She was charged with three counts of
first-degree murder for the deaths of her three children, Cora, Dawson,
and Callan Clancy. But really, the trial has always been
about what her mental status was at the time that
(04:17):
she committed the crimes. And so there's been quite a
bit of a divergence between what Not only what's actually
happening in the courtroom, but all the people who are
sort of on the ground, the defense attorneys, the prosecutors,
the judges, the police, the people covering the case, see
as what the case is versus what the online sort
of conversation has been.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
So 11 jurors, have they now said it was 11
saying not guilty and one guilty?
Speaker 3 (04:45):
Or did they just let us assume that's what it was?
Speaker 1 (04:48):
There was a few notes that came back from the jury.
The first one being essentially that there was one holdout
juror that they had some questions about doubt and they
were not following the law. I think from that, both
the prosecutor and Attorney Reddington assumed that it was 11
to 1. We now have seen multiple jury interviews. We've
(05:08):
had some local, Sue O'Connell on NBC10 here and Christina
Rex on WBZ have interviewed in total four of the
jurors who essentially have confirmed that it was 11 to 1,
that the 11 voted not guilty by reason of insanity.
And then there was one juror holding out. And, you know,
I think that really ultimately goes to what why this
(05:31):
case is so difficult, because it's not simply just has
the Commonwealth proven that Lindsay Clancy committed a crime. You know,
she's guilty or she's not guilty. It's really the next
step of it. But it seems to be, by all accounts,
that they were 11 to one and they were really
trying to convince that final juror, but were just unable to.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
Also, what I read was that even that juror may
have said, and you can correct me on this, that
by law that they should say not guilty, but that
he just couldn't go along with it.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
That's right. So we're hearing. So, you know, there's a
little bit of a difference. Obviously, we didn't get the
benefit of knowing what was happening in deliberations when we
get the notes from the jury to the judge. And
the only thing that the judge and any of us
in the public watching the case had at the time
that the jurors sent the notes to Judge Sullivan was
that the juror was expressing that there was some doubt,
(06:29):
but he was unwilling to follow the reasonable doubt instruction.
What we've learned subsequent to that from several jurors is
that maybe there was some more discussion about he had
found reasonable doubt, but didn't feel comfortable essentially voting not guilty. Now,
in Massachusetts, the way the reasonable doubt instruction is read
(06:50):
to the jury is that proof beyond a reasonable doubt
is not proof beyond all doubt. So you are entitled
as a juror to have some doubt. You just can't
you just can't find somebody guilty if you have reasonable doubt. So, again,
it's this really subjective standard. It's difficult. It's even difficult
(07:11):
for lawyers really to understand because ultimately it comes down
to each individual juror and how they evaluate the evidence
that was presented, the testimony from all the witnesses and
whether they think that doubt rises to the level or not.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
What's the defense's strongest case?
Speaker 2 (07:28):
And just a couple things that come to mind to
me is just from, again, reading things and watching people
talk about it. So, again, I'm absorbing information like the
normal American, which could be wrong a lot of times, right?
It could be just the thing that's got the most clicks,
which doesn't mean it's right. But what's the thing that
the defense has really hung its hat on? To me,
it seems like she asked for help a lot of
(07:50):
times and maybe didn't get it.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
Is that true?
Speaker 1 (07:53):
So I think the biggest benefit that Kevin Rendon has
to his defense is that this is a woman who
sought help repeatedly for months and months and months. And,
you know, this isn't somebody who, like I said, has
been involved in the system, has, you know, has had
problems before. By all accounts, Lindsay and Patrick Clancy and
(08:13):
their three children were, you know, a great family. She
was a nurse at Mass General Hospital here in Boston,
which is one of the best hospitals in In the country,
she was a labor and delivery nurse. They had a
great summer. And towards the end of August, early September
of 2022, she began having some significant anxiety and depression
and started to seek out help. So she first went
(08:35):
to a psychiatrist. And from there on out, it was
sort of a combination of both, you know... I would
say lack of substantive treatment. There was prescribing of medications.
So we have a lot of mixing of pharmaceuticals, you know,
on one medication, taking that off because that's not working,
prescribing a new medication. Most of the meetings with the
(08:58):
nurses and nurse practitioners and doctors were all over telehealth.
Most of them were not in person. And Lindsay reported,
we saw it in her journals. We saw it from
the testimony of the various mental health professionals. So that's
really what Kevin Reddington tried to hammer home was what
else was Lindsay Clancy supposed to do? She was essentially
(09:18):
screaming for help. She called suicide hotlines twice. They basically
told her, you don't have a plan, so we can't
help you. She was admitted to an inpatient program, which
really seems to be more of a spin drive than
anything else. It wasn't a lot of substantive treatment. And
so that's really what he hammered home. despite the fact
(09:39):
that the mental health system isn't really a typical defense
to say to a jury, hey, don't hold me responsible
because the system failed me. But I think because the
system seems to have failed her, it was an effective
argument to the jury. And I think we heard that
(10:00):
from the conversations that we've had with the jurors so far.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
So because there's documentation of her saying, I need help
over and over again, please help me. Is there any
sort of liability to the people that did not help her?
Speaker 1 (10:15):
So both Patrick Clancy and Lindsay Clancy have separate civil
lawsuits filed against all of the professionals who treated her
and their institutions. And so Patrick Clancy was filed first
and then Lindsay Clancy was filed earlier this year. I believe,
in January of 2026 against the providers and the health
(10:36):
care institutions. And, you know, the question really becomes, I think,
that what was she supposed to do? You know, we
have this sort of lack of continuity of care that
we see, you know, and I see it not just
in this case and the cases that I cover, but,
you know, you know, the everyday cases in court that
nobody pays attention to that, you know, you hear one
(10:57):
doctor talk about, well, I'm at this institution and she
had previously been seen at another and we're not the
same institution, so I don't have the records, but we
don't have anybody seeking them out. We don't really have anybody,
you know, taking the further steps. So it will be
interesting to see as a sort of a secondary effect
what happens in the civil cases. But I think, you know,
(11:18):
I think there's some.
Legitimate liability there.
Speaker 3 (11:22):
Would this have been a trial where character witnesses were
actually valuable?
Speaker 1 (11:26):
I think they were. I think they were because you
didn't hear a single person say a bad word about
Lindsay Clancy. You had people from those who only knew
her a little bit from drop off at daycare to
the individuals working at the health care club. Then you
had nurses who worked with her at Mass General. And
(11:48):
all the way up until, you know, you had Patrick,
her now ex-husband, her mother-in-law, Sue Clancy, who also was
a labor and delivery nurse and tried, you know, really
tried to help her. Not a single person had a
bad word to say about Lindsay. And I think that
really helped frame for the jury that this truly was
(12:11):
somebody who was like any of us, right? Up until
the six months preceding this crime. And so, you know,
that sort of leads you to this natural inference that, well,
something must have happened, right? But for her mental health struggles,
but for her depression, but for her, you know, medication, over-medication, under-medication,
(12:32):
sort of the combination of it all. And it's hard
to pinpoint, you know, we can't just say, oh, it
was this doctor who did it and that's why. It's
really the whole sort of cocktail of it all together.
It's hard to imagine that if those things had not happened,
that she wouldn't have committed these crimes. So I think
the fact that she was well-liked, well-respected, and well-loved by
(12:55):
her family and friends really helped the defense case.
Speaker 2 (12:59):
Her ex-husband testified. What was he saying during the trial?
Because if I remember correctly, he was very pro his ex-wife.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Yes. So, you know, and it's my understanding. So when
this happened in January of 2023, you know, the community
in the entire state, but really the local community in
Duxbury in the South Shore of Massachusetts really rallied around
all of them. Patrick came out at the time and said,
you know, I forgive her. Please forgive her. Like she
(13:27):
loved our children. She was a great mom. She was
a great wife. And I think there's sort of a
difficult balance because, I don't think that anybody in the
Clancy family or Patrick wants to see her in prison.
I think they want her to get help. So that's
sort of a little bit in a little bit of
(13:49):
a disagreement, likely with the district attorney's office, who is
pursuing the case and wants her to serve a prison sentence. But,
you know, he only spoke highly and still only speaks
highly of Lindsay to this day.
Speaker 3 (14:03):
The fact that after The murders happened. She jumped out
the window.
Speaker 2 (14:07):
I'm assuming she was trying to kill herself. Does that
lend itself to the she was going through whatever bout
of psychosis or insanity?
Speaker 1 (14:19):
You know, it's interesting. This is really what we had
sort of competing interests. I call it sort of the
battle of the experts, right? Because we had expert witnesses,
psychologists and psychiatrists that testified for the Commonwealth. And we
also had the same on the defense side. And essentially
all of them agreed that this was what they call
an altruistic filicide. Essentially that she was struggling so deeply
(14:44):
that she felt like she couldn't be on this earth anymore.
And you know, the way it's described as the psychiatrist
is almost out of love that you feel like, you know,
they have to come with me. The question was, is
really the debate between both of the sides was, did
she also have psychosis at the time, which would sort
(15:05):
of take it to the next level that in that
exact moment that this crime occurred, that she was in
some sort of altered state. There was testimony from both Dr.
and the chaplain who were at Brigham Women's Hospital when
Lindsay was first hospitalized, reported that she experienced what she
(15:28):
said were command hallucinations. So from the defense perspective, it
has been their position that she essentially heard a voice
that said, you know, now's the time. This is the
last chance you'll have to do it. You have to
kill yourself and you have to kill the children. And
that that happened when Patrick left that evening to go
pick up the takeout food. So You know, it's hard
(15:53):
to it's hard to know. And that's that's really the question, because, again,
it's getting into somebody's state of mind. And as all
of us are watching this as jurors or observers, we're
sort of taking the pieces of evidence and trying to
piece together, you know, did she know what she was doing?
Did she not know what she was doing? Very clearly
(16:15):
was sick. She was not well. But the question goes to,
in that very moment, was she taking the lives of
her children because she knew she had to leave this
earth and she couldn't live without them? Or was she
commanded to do it and couldn't control herself and conform
herself to the law?
Speaker 5 (16:34):
Let's take a quick pause for a message from our sponsor.
And we're back on the Bobby cast.
Speaker 2 (16:49):
This may be a weird legal question, but let's say
there's an insane asylum. It might not be a word anymore,
a mental health facility. And the door is supposed to
stay locked and the people can't get out because they've
had thoughts and visions and they've done bad things. But
the door was accidentally left unlocked and that person is
able to get out and they go out and they
kill somebody. And so they but they have been treated.
(17:09):
They've been diagnosed. They go out and kill somebody. Would
that person that did that be charged with murder or
would it be a definition of insanity type what we're
talking about here?
Speaker 1 (17:19):
Well, they would still be charged with murder. So just
like what we have in the Clancy case would be similar.
So she's still charged with the first degree murder of
all three children, which is the appropriate charges, you know,
from my perspective. And then you would have a defense.
I think what a lot of people have some difficulty
with it as well is that this idea of sort
of punishment and justice. And what do we do with
(17:40):
the in-between, right? Because... In Massachusetts, we don't have an
option to plead guilty and be sentenced to a mental
health facility. That's not a legal criminal sentence for a
judge to impose. So the only options we really have
are either you're guilty and you go to state prison
or you're not guilty by reason of insanity and go
to a mental health facility on a civil commitment, which
(18:01):
is reevaluated. And there is the potential that you could
be released. So I think. I think it's, you know,
it's sort of this moral question that some of us
wrestle with, right? We want to make sure that, you know,
if you take the lives of somebody else, that there
is some accountability to it. But how much do we
take into account the mitigation of somebody's mental health and
(18:24):
that if they were well, would they have committed this crime?
Speaker 2 (18:28):
So when the husband left, Did she ask him to
go or did she just do it while he was gone?
Like the circumstance presented itself.
Speaker 4 (18:37):
No.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
So she asked him to go, and this is one
of the pieces that the Commonwealth used to try to
argue and make their position, which was that she essentially
sent him out on purpose. Because what happened was the
day of January 24th of 2023, Lindsay was home with
their older daughter, Cora, who she had taken to the
pediatrician's office. It was essentially a normal day, carried on
(19:03):
as usual. Actually, Patrick said... um you know it seemed
to be one of our best days yet she was
playing in the backyard with the kids building a snowman
and at some point around 4 30 or so five
o'clock that afternoon she texted him and said you know
what i'm you know i'm kind of tired i don't
feel like making dinner can you go pick up some
(19:23):
takeout and so she had him go pick up takeout
it to a that they had been to before, they
had eaten in, but they hadn't ordered takeout before. And
it was a little bit longer of a drive than
most of the normal places that they usually got takeout from.
And she also asked him to stop at CVS to
get medication for Cora. He was supposed to pick up
(19:44):
some Pedialax for her. And so that's part of the
Commonwealth's argument was, that, listen, she sort of engaged in
what would be considered normal behavior throughout the day, right?
She went to the pediatrician's office. The doctor there testified, said,
you know, we didn't see any signs that there was
anything wrong or anything out of the norm. She was
able to communicate with people back and forth. She then
(20:07):
sent him out to, you know, not only get takeout,
but the medication, which created the amount of time that
she needed to do this. And so that was really
the argument from the Commonwealth, that this wasn't, you know,
a moment in which she had hallucinations and she was
hearing things. these auditory commands, but she in fact planned
(20:27):
it out based on the timeline that she sort of
set up from. That's the Commonwealth's perspective.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
And I'd ask the question about what was the defense
hanging their hat on? And you may have said it
just then, but what was the prosecution? What was their
strongest weapon to use?
Speaker 1 (20:46):
I think that I had a lot of critique of
the Commonwealth's case because they.
I think there was a legitimate argument for making to
a jury that, listen, this is somebody who was very unwell.
She clearly was struggling with depression and anxiety. She did
try to get help from a variety of providers, but
(21:08):
this isn't a referendum on the mental health system, right?
This is a question about what happened to Lindsay Clancy
and what happened to her three children. And again, Instead
of taking that tact of really kind of acknowledging her
mental health and the struggles she was going through, what
the Commonwealth did was they essentially tried to paint her
(21:29):
as this, you know, neurotic type A mom. In their
opening statements, they said, and I might be a little
bit off on the quote, but, you know, Lindsay Clancy
no longer wanted to live the life that she thought
she wanted. And I remember from that very moment hearing
(21:49):
that saying, well, that doesn't seem consistent with what we're
going to hear, right? This isn't just a mom who's,
you know, sick of her life. She doesn't want the
kids anymore. She's overwhelmed. And so, you know, she strangles
her three children. That doesn't seem like a reasonable argument
to make. And probably the most effective the Commonwealth was
(22:09):
was in their closing argument in which they sort of
presented a completely different tax argument. and really outlined the
specifics of the timeline. You know, they acknowledged her mental health,
but I think it was a little bit too late
for them. I think they had turned off the jurors
at some point because they were, you know, in some
(22:31):
ways unkind to some of the witnesses, including Patrick Clancy
talking about, you know, just very dry questioning when, you know,
asking about how he found his children, what they looked like, what,
you know, the manner in which he found them. And
so I think what will happen is they will take
If it does go to trial again, they will take
(22:55):
some of that and sort of retool what what they
presented in their closing argument and present that throughout the
case in chief for round two. And I think that
would be a more persuasive argument for round two if
we get there.
Speaker 3 (23:08):
Are you assuming they will retry this?
Speaker 1 (23:10):
In my opinion, there's zero chance that the case, you know,
it's not going to be dropped. It's not just going
to go away. The question is going to be, what
are they going to do with it? Now, in Massachusetts,
first degree murders can't be tried in front of a judge.
So normally on every other charge, you can go jury waived,
which basically means that the judge makes the decision. In
(23:31):
order for that to happen, the Commonwealth would have to
reduce the charges from first degree to second degree. Now,
the only difference is on a first degree conviction, you
get life without parole. On a second degree conviction, you
get life with the possibility of parole as decided by
the judge. It's either 15 years, anywhere between 15 years
and 25 years parole. The question is, you know, what
(23:54):
do both sides want, right? And as we were talking
about earlier, there is no middle ground where she could
say plead guilty and then go and stay at Tewksbury
Hospital where she is now, the mental health facility. There
really is the only option between a guilty state prison
sentence or not guilty by reason of insanity. So unless
(24:16):
the unless the Commonwealth is willing to reduce the charges,
I think they they have to try the case again.
So it either goes to a jury trial on a
first degree murder or they reduce it to a second
degree and maybe see if a judge can decide because it.
The benefit of a jury-waived going bench trial in this
(24:39):
case is there's some finality to it. I think the
concern is if they go in front of a jury again,
we end up with another hung jury just because it's,
you know, it's just so fraught with emotion. It's so
difficult to get to that place where, you know, what
is in someone's mind and people feel really strongly about it.
So I worry that if they go in front of
a jury again, we end up with another hung jury.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
I apologize for my limited knowledge on this, but will
they go same... teams, same defense, same prosecution? Will all
the attorneys be the same?
Speaker 1 (25:08):
I think most likely. So Kevin Reddington will definitely be
her attorney. Again, he has been with her since I
think maybe four or five days into this in 2023.
So he will stay with her. The two ADAs, Jennifer
Sprague and Shannon Buckingham, they are prosecutors in the Plymouth
County District Attorney's Office. It is a fairly small office
(25:32):
comparatively speaking to some of the you know once you
get closer to the city and Suffolk County in Boston
obviously there's a little bit more depth to how many
people can take on this kind of case but I
would be surprised at this point if they changed them
out I I Sometimes I think that one of the
(25:53):
downfalls for the government is that they can get sort
of stuck in, you know, there's been a lot of
critique of them. There's been a lot of critique of
the DA's office as a whole with this case of
these two particular prosecutors and the way that they present
the case. And I do think that they could benefit
from bringing somebody else on that maybe has a little
bit of a softer affect. But whether they will do that,
(26:17):
I don't know. I would imagine that at the very least,
these two will stay on. Possibly somebody else comes on
as well.
Speaker 3 (26:23):
So I'll have you play both.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
If you were the prosecution going into the next trial,
if there is one, what would you do differently?
Speaker 1 (26:28):
I would really lean into the difference between Lindsay Clinton's
mental status as a whole versus what happened that night. Because,
you know, the legal principles are you can be very sick.
You can be somebody who has struggled with all kinds
of mental illness. But do you know what you're doing
(26:51):
in the moment? And so I think that there is
a reasonable argument for that. And what you have to
really direct the jury to do is to take out
the emotion, right? Because obviously, this is a sympathetic figure.
This is a woman who you're going to hear that
everybody loved her. She was a great mom. She was
a great friend. She was a great wife, daughter-in-law. And
(27:14):
she was completely normal up until six months before this.
And so that can all be true. And she can
also have committed a really heinous crime. And we have
to be able to take out the emotion, you know,
use our logic, common sense. And when you apply the law...
You know, I think you get to the place where
you can acknowledge that, yes, she's really sick. And yes,
(27:37):
because she felt like she couldn't be in this world anymore.
She made that conscious decision to take her own life,
to try to take her own life and her children
with her. And I think that's really where the Commonwealth
needs to go if they want to try to convince
a jury. But again, getting 12 people there is difficult,
I think.
Speaker 3 (27:56):
If you were the defense, what did you learn that
you could do better?
Speaker 1 (28:00):
I think one of the things that we didn't hear
from quite as much as I expected to from Kevin Ruddington,
I think he did a really good job because, as
I said, it's difficult to present a defense of... you know,
the entire system failed my client and therefore you shouldn't
hold her responsible. But I think we can dig a
little bit deeper into what the specific effects and the combination,
(28:24):
you know, effects of the different pharmaceuticals she was prescribed.
She was prescribed, you know, say Zoloft and Seroquel and
Ativan and Trazodone and, you know, varying milligrams. And one was,
she's weaning off of one and then being put on
the other. But we didn't hear from anybody who testified
against as to what those interactions could be. You know,
(28:45):
what are the black box warnings? Like, what are the
side effects? What are the possibilities that, you know, sort
of taking that next step? Not only was she depressed
and anxious and having intrusive thoughts, was she suffering from
lack of sleep from the medication? But, you know, what
else could those medications and the combinations have caused? So
I would lean even more into the sort of pharmaceutical
(29:07):
aspect of it if I was writing to, you know,
adding on to what he already did.
Speaker 3 (29:11):
How in the world do you get another jury?
Speaker 1 (29:14):
It will be difficult. It will be difficult. We did
this once before in Massachusetts, not that long ago with
the Karen Reed case. And it was more difficult to
get a jury the second time around because not only
are these cases, they have national, international attention, but everyone's
talking about them locally as well, right? And Plymouth County is,
(29:37):
I will say demographic-wise, Plymouth County skews a little bit older,
I would say, and the jury, I think, was reflective
of it for this first time around. So the hope
that you have is that you can find a jury
pool that... reads maybe more, you know, print media and doesn't,
(29:57):
you know, isn't on social media, isn't on TikTok, isn't
on Instagram, that kind of stuff, and that they have
at least less access to it. I don't think it's impossible,
but it does make it more difficult. And it's also,
you know, it's something I talk about and think a
lot about sort of where we are in our society
now about How can we separate these two? How can
(30:20):
we get fair juries when there's so much information? You know,
you think about the idea that, you know, we used
to sequester juries or, you know, they all swear an
oath that they won't, you know, listen to anything. They
won't watch anything. But, you know, those rules are also
from a time when, okay, well, I won't get pick
up the paper at the corner store. You know, now
it's impossible to avoid because we're all, you know, we're
(30:43):
all on our phones. We're all on our iPads. We're
all on our computers. And so I think it's much
more difficult in this day and age to find juries
that have no knowledge of these cases.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
I've seen people try to boil it down to, well,
postpartum oppression shouldn't make you murder.
Speaker 3 (30:59):
Is it that simple?
Speaker 1 (31:01):
It's not that simple. And I think anyone who tries
to oversimplify these things is just not being honest. Because
one thing I've learned about being in the criminal justice
system for a long time is that nothing is black
and white. Nothing fits in a box. Nothing is easy. And,
you know... it's human nature, right? So we're talking about
(31:21):
what humans do in times of stress or in times
of frustration. And, you know, I think that if there's
anything good that can come from this is hopefully a
conversation about how we treat, you know, women in the
postpartum period. And I think that what we see sort
of in this case and why there's so much attention
(31:43):
sort of brought to it and why so many people
feel connected to it is that you know as women
I'm a mom myself I have a 10 year old
and a seven year old I think there is a
recognition in what happens to a woman in their body
after they have children and unless you experience that yourself,
it's difficult to understand, which makes sense. But the combination
(32:08):
of having, you know, depression and anxiety coupled with what's
going on in your body, which is that you're, you know,
your hormones are all over the place, you're, you know,
having a lack of sleep, there's all kinds of stuff
that sort of kind of creates this, you like I said,
cocktail where it's a different kind of analysis. And it
(32:30):
doesn't mean that if you're a postpartum woman and you
commit a crime that you can blame being a postpartum
woman on it, but it's certainly something we have to consider.
And I think to just dismiss it outright is disingenuous,
to be honest.
Speaker 3 (32:44):
Have you said that if you were on the jury,
what you would have said?
Speaker 1 (32:46):
I haven't, you know, I, I, to be honest, I
really struggle with it. I really struggle with it because
My legal mind feels like she was criminally responsible, but
I have a really difficult time sentencing someone who was
struggling so significantly to... term of life in prison. And
(33:08):
so there were probably a lot of jurors who felt,
I think, like I did, is sort of that balance.
I don't know. I don't know. It's really hard.
Speaker 2 (33:17):
So then can't the system be repaired a bit? Often
it takes a break to even need a repair. And
there's no nuance here, as you've been talking about. It's
either go to jail forever guilty or not. But shouldn't
there be a As you talked about that specific charge,
is there to be something that lands in the middle?
Speaker 1 (33:37):
I think so. And what I hope from this is
that we might see some sort of legislation. I mean,
that's where you have to lobby your local representatives, your
state reps, your state senators to essentially write legislation and
enact it in Massachusetts, which deals with this specific issue.
And as I mentioned, there are other states in the
United States that have this sort of middle ground. We've
(34:00):
also seen a lot of what happens in Europe, some
of the laws dating back to, I think, as early
as the 1930s, in a unique set of circumstances in
which they don't fit into. into a straight guilty or
not guilty by reason of insanity. So one thing that
I hope comes from this, at least specifically to Massachusetts,
(34:22):
is that we can start to have the conversation about,
you know, maybe we need to have some sort of
legislation around a third option for cases that, you know,
come like this.
Speaker 2 (34:33):
So you're up there where the Karen Reed case happened,
and we all followed that too.
Speaker 3 (34:38):
And it was wild and watched the documentaries.
Speaker 2 (34:40):
And I mean, I was in and it's weird to
be so compelled by something because that's someone's real life.
But to us far away, it just feels like something
on television or on social media. And so that had
to be pretty wild to live there during that, right?
Speaker 1 (34:57):
It was wild. I will tell you, it really took
control of Massachusetts, particularly, again, this was on the South Shore.
Karen Reed was in Norfolk County, Dedham, which is about
halfway to Plymouth County where Lindsay Clancy was. But the
Karen Reed case took over Massachusetts for really two years.
(35:17):
And then we just, you know, about a year out
from Karen Reed, that ended in June of 2025. And
then we've sort of had round two with Lindsay Clancy.
So it is interesting to have back-to-back trials. I don't
know what's happening in the waters in Massachusetts, but we
seem to be the epicenter of it all.
Speaker 2 (35:38):
Just watching whatever docuseries I watched or people talk about it.
And again, I'm far away. And I probably am not
getting all the information because I'm not in the courtroom.
That's the only place to get all the information. But
it felt like the police officers there were pretty corrupt
and that she probably didn't do it.
Speaker 3 (35:55):
Is that how you felt living there?
Speaker 1 (35:58):
Well, I have a I have an unpopular opinion on
Karen Reed. I so my perspective on the Reed case
was always that she was vastly overcharged. Originally, she was
charged with manslaughter and they upgraded it to second degree murder.
I think that was mistake number one. And then. Down
from there, we had, you know, it turned into a
(36:22):
life of its own. And we had the federal investigation
that came as a result of the underlying investigation in
Norfolk County. That's what we learned about, you know, Michael Proctor,
who was the lead investigator for the state police there.
It all kinds of text messages, not only about Karen Reed, but,
you know, racist, misogynistic type of stuff. It has always
(36:43):
been my position that based on the evidence, as I
saw presented at both of the trials and all the
pretrial litigation that I covered, that the evidence supported the
idea that Karen Reed was responsible for John O'Keefe's death.
But ultimately the jury found her not guilty. And, you know, that's,
That's why we have a jury system. So in many ways,
(37:06):
you know, there's a lot of through lines, I think,
between Karen Reed and sort of the what was happening
in the courtroom versus what was the online conversation is
similar to the Clancy case. But both certainly took over Massachusetts.
Speaker 3 (37:24):
On your podcast, note my objection.
Speaker 2 (37:26):
What do you do every day when there's not a
wild case happening that's heard all over the world every second?
Speaker 1 (37:31):
Yeah. Well, I do do some real legal work sometimes too, Bobby. But,
you know, what I try to do is, you know,
it's funny. I started talking on my objection really during
COVID because I had nobody else to talk to. So
I started to talk to people online. And I see
sort of this hole in the system where we can
(37:54):
just get sort of, easy breakdown clear concise you know
information and so what I try to do is just
talk to about things that I think are important sometimes
they're local issues whether they're you know local politics in
Massachusetts or you know criminal cases here I talk about
sort of bigger picture issues you know politics in society
(38:14):
on a larger scale but I think that you know
we're missing um we live in a world where it's
clicks and the algorithm and views. And it's really important
to me to bring an honest perspective to my audience.
And so I like to talk about things that, you know,
(38:35):
they often end up being sort of controversial issues or
sort of hot topics. And I want to make sure
that people know that It's important to dig through where
we're living in difficult times. Right. It's difficult to figure
out not only what's real because, you know, we have
the AI age and we can't sometimes we can't tell
(38:58):
what's real information, what's not. We've sort of lost our
ability to think critically, source things independently, you know, research things.
And I try to be someplace that people can at
least rely on. So when you're, you know, you're watching
a case in Massachusetts that I will tell you what's
actually going on, whether, you know, that's, you know, congruent
(39:19):
with the position you like or not. Because it's really
important to me to be a space where, you know,
people can trust. So I try to talk a little
bit of this and a little bit of that.
Speaker 2 (39:30):
Well, I hope everybody checks out note my objection and
especially your tick tock.
Speaker 3 (39:34):
I think you're awesome.
Speaker 2 (39:35):
I haven't watched you like do your makeup while you
talk about it. And I don't watch anybody do their makeup.
So yeah, thank you so much for coming on and
just presenting facts because I think we can easily be
swayed with things that are fact adjacent. And there's a
difference in fact, in fact, adjacent for sure. So thank
you for the time and everybody check out on Tik
TOK and Instagram at note, my objection. And then our
(39:57):
podcast is not my objection.
Speaker 3 (39:59):
Uh, Catherine, thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (40:00):
Thank you so much. I appreciate having me.
Speaker 3 (40:02):
I have a good day.
Speaker 4 (40:03):
The Bobby cast. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1 (40:09):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (40:15):
This is the Bobbycast.
Speaker 2 (40:17):
Wanted to share a segment with you from one of
the Bobby Bones podcast network shows. And so it's Movie
Mike's Movie Podcast. I think every week, especially if you
love movies or stories about movies, Mike does best and
worst and also fun stories from the history of movies.
So if you like this clip, which I hope you do,
go check out Movie Mike's Movie Podcast and hit subscribe.
Speaker 3 (40:38):
That would be awesome.
Speaker 6 (40:40):
For you, the best movie you saw in August.
Speaker 4 (40:43):
I'm going to go with One Night Only.
Speaker 6 (40:44):
Did you feel like that was going to be more
of a rom-com?
Speaker 4 (40:47):
It was a rom-com.
Speaker 6 (40:48):
Did you expect it to be as politically charged as
it was? Could you describe the movie?
Speaker 4 (40:53):
Well, one of my friends texted me before and said,
because he saw it early, and he was like, the
movie was more politically charged than I thought. So it
is essentially The Purge, but for sex.
Speaker 6 (41:06):
Single but single people single people can't do it you
can't do it unless you're married.
Speaker 4 (41:09):
Correct and there's one night of the year that you
can do it and like everyone has this like not
a chip in them but this thing.
Speaker 6 (41:16):
In there yeah and then it like disappears very hunger
games-esque as far as like the markers they have yes
and then for that one night only they basically go
to town for like what six hours.
Speaker 4 (41:27):
I think it was longer than that they were all
over the city that couldn't have been six hours If
I hadn't have had that heads up, no, I wouldn't
have expected it. But I thought it was really good.
I love Callum Turner.
Speaker 6 (41:39):
He was really good.
Speaker 4 (41:40):
I love him. Like he and Dua Lipa together. Beautiful couple.
Monica Barbaro. Phenomenal.
Speaker 6 (41:46):
I feel like some people are being robbed of like
still a traditional rom-com because I think that those don't
really work in theaters as much anymore. It primarily now
goes to Netflix and And I feel like people go
into a movie like this or maybe even like the
materialist thinking like, oh, this is being dubbed as a rom-com.
But I love how the rom-com has evolved.
Speaker 1 (42:07):
Yes.
Speaker 6 (42:08):
Where it's not exactly what you think of a rom-com
being like one of those 2000s movies with like Matthew
McConaughey anymore. It was a little bit more sophisticated.
Speaker 4 (42:15):
Yeah. have you seen that clip going around where he
talks about how, um, how to lose a guy in
10 days makes him the most money.
Speaker 6 (42:20):
Mailbox money still gets a mailbox on a residual because
of Valentine's day.
Speaker 1 (42:24):
Yes.
Speaker 6 (42:25):
He's like every time around March, boom, big check.
Speaker 4 (42:27):
And I feel like it was always on like TBS
and like E those sorts of things. I will say,
I wonder if the shift to rom-com on streaming is,
it's a great like girls night movie.
Speaker 1 (42:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (42:40):
And you know, you get in your, comfy clothes you
get a bottle of wine you have some takeout you
have all your friends over i feel like some environments
like some movies are meant to be enjoyed more at home.
Speaker 6 (42:53):
So yeah what would you rate that.
Speaker 4 (42:54):
One for pure entertainment i'm gonna give it i'm gonna
give it four trojans.
Speaker 6 (42:59):
There you go see i was close on that i
give it a 3.5 out of 5 i would say dating.
Speaker 4 (43:05):
Apps okay that's a little bit more appropriate than mine
mine's relevant there's a scene though like and then just.
Speaker 6 (43:11):
Yeah I know what you're talking about.
Speaker 4 (43:13):
I don't know where.
Speaker 6 (43:14):
For my best of August, would it be weird to
pick something I did not see in theaters for maybe
the first time ever?
Speaker 1 (43:21):
No.
Speaker 6 (43:23):
I think I'm going to go with the Travis Barker documentary.
Speaker 4 (43:26):
It was so good. I was hooked.
Speaker 6 (43:29):
It's called Louder Than Fear. It was on Hulu.
Speaker 4 (43:32):
Filmed over like nine years.
Speaker 6 (43:34):
I will say I am a huge Blink-182 fan. Like
they are my favorite band. And I knew a lot
about the history of the band. And it was cool
seeing it all compiled into one story. And it was
also fun that like, I got to experience something that
I'm such a huge fan of, but that you enjoyed
it too.
Speaker 4 (43:52):
Yeah. I'm a big Travis Barker fan. I think he's talented.
And of course I love like pop culture crossover, but
I remembered when he had his show with like Shanna
Moakler and now he's married to Kourtney Kardashian.
Speaker 6 (44:03):
Which is crazy.
Speaker 4 (44:04):
I mean, I remember when he got in that plane
crash and survived and so just those huge moments and
listening to him talk about it because i don't feel
like he's talked a ton about it publicly he's talked
about like never flying again but you get to hear
like what happened right before and like the weird kind
of like ominous warnings and just all of this surrounding
(44:27):
it and he's gone through so much and like how
extensive the The burns were and that he is back
at this level doing what he loves, like after something
as tragic as that.
Speaker 6 (44:39):
Yeah, I don't know how he got back to being
able to run and like hosting running events across the country.
I feel kind of bad for him now because the
documentary is out and everybody wants to ask him about
the plane crash, like having to relive that time and
time again in all these interviews. I'm surprised he's not
at a point of saying he probably will now of like.
Speaker 4 (44:59):
I don't want to talk about it again. It's out there.
Speaker 6 (45:02):
Don't ask me any questions about it. I don't want
to be somebody who's having these kind of rules on
my interviews. But I think at that point, people would understand.
Because the documentary is out there. If you want to
know about it, watch the documentary. I don't think there's
anything else you can possibly ask him that he hasn't
talked about already. So I feel like people need to
stop asking him about it. Because I just see this
(45:22):
glaze in his eyes when he has to tell the
story and talk about it again.
Speaker 4 (45:25):
That's literally the worst. Worst thing you could ever go through.
And then, yeah, to have to relive it and talk
about it and just, like, put yourself emotionally back there.
And I'm sure he's done tons of therapy. Like, he
talked about that. But even, I mean, we saw him
in concert. And so, like, to get to see him
at that level and then knowing what it took to
get back there. Because Spring Crash, it was the substance issues. Like,
(45:48):
he had to overcome a lot.
Speaker 6 (45:49):
But that's why I put that one as my best
of the month. I gave it 4.5 out of 5 drumsticks.
What do you give it?
Speaker 4 (45:56):
I honestly think I'd give it five.
Speaker 6 (45:57):
I think it's one of the best music documentaries I've
ever seen, but I'm also a huge Blink-182 fan.
Speaker 4 (46:01):
Just one of the best documentaries. I mean, nine years
of footage. Like we were like how they had Taylor
Hawkins interviews. So we were like, how long ago was
this filmed?
Speaker 6 (46:11):
For your worst of August, what.
Speaker 4 (46:12):
Do you have? I'm going to go. And again, I'm
going to say it's my least favorite. It's not the worst.
It wasn't a bad movie, but I liked other things.
I'm going to go The Rivals of Amaziah King.
Speaker 6 (46:24):
The Matthew McConaughey movie? That was up close to like
my top.
Speaker 1 (46:28):
I know.
Speaker 6 (46:29):
You got to see Matthew McConaughey.
Speaker 4 (46:31):
I know. But if you think about all the other
movies we saw, I really enjoyed them more. And like
even the Netflix Don't Say Good Luck with Melanie Alinsky
and Adam Sandler's daughter. It just was like so emotional.
That one just like got me. I will say there
were a couple graphic injury scenes in Rivals that took
(46:52):
it down for me that were at the beginning. And
I was a little like, whoa, what are we what
am I about to watch? So there was a little
graphic for my taste.
Speaker 6 (47:01):
Something I feel like we've experienced recently that is maybe
only unique to us is we've seen some of these
movies at the Bell Court, which is our local theater
here in Nashville, our nonprofit theater. I feel like the
crowd kind of influences a little bit as far as
how funny movies are made out to be.
Speaker 4 (47:17):
And I will say, I think especially because was it
the director? Yeah. The director was in the audience.
Speaker 1 (47:23):
And I feel like there were funny parts.
Speaker 6 (47:25):
But there were some people were rolling.
Speaker 4 (47:27):
People were laughing out loud. And I was a little like,
I don't know that that was meant to be funny.
Speaker 1 (47:32):
Yes.
Speaker 6 (47:32):
And it kind of had what I call like the
film festival effect. Whenever you see a movie debut, like
maybe overseas or, Or at, like, the Toronto Film Festival,
and the actors and directors are in attendance, and then
you hear he gets a 10-minute standing ovation. You're like,
this must be the best movie ever. It's oftentimes because
they are in the room that other people glaze it
(47:53):
a little bit. The rock and the smash.
Speaker 1 (47:55):
Exactly.
Speaker 6 (47:56):
That got a huge standing ovation that we all saw,
and we're like.
Speaker 1 (48:00):
What was that?
Speaker 4 (48:00):
It was just for the physical transformation. Yeah. So.
Speaker 6 (48:04):
I feel like we're starting to experience that a little
bit here, not even just at a screening with the
director and Matthew McConaughey there.
Speaker 4 (48:09):
The drama. Yes, but there's... People were rolling on the
floor for the drama and I was like, this isn't
like LOL funny.
Speaker 6 (48:15):
And I'll talk about another movie I saw there that
I kind of felt the exact same thing. So even
with all that, it did take me a little bit
to settle into the movie because I wasn't expecting it
to be funny and everybody else was rolling around us
that I found it more funny. I thought it was
going to be a little bit more of a thriller movie.
more focused on the crime, but I, but I ended
(48:36):
up really enjoying it because I thought Matthew McConaughey's character
was really good at it. And I just, I guess
I'm kind of reigniting my love for Matthew McConaughey.
Speaker 4 (48:48):
I saw him in person. I like brushed past him
one time at a football game, not like right next
to him, but he was with his kid, but people
were like, this is when his kids were so young.
I was in college and people like following him with
this kid and he was like hey i'm just trying
to get my kid a snow cone could you not
like follow me that was before he had an official
position now he's just kind of always on the field.
Speaker 6 (49:05):
We've seen him at games this was the closest we've
probably been to him recently yes and it was cool
to see him perform afterwards where i wouldn't say he's
a great singer i feel like he's developed a style
that kind of works yes he kind of like yell
sings and he's But it is kind of interesting to
(49:30):
see some more actors kind of dip their toes in music.
Like I saw The Rock put out a single. It's
like he's really trying to sing, though. I think he did.
Mally is like, I'm a singer now.
Speaker 4 (49:42):
Is this going to bring you back to making me
listen to the Vin Diesel song?
Speaker 6 (49:45):
But Vin Diesel knows his capabilities as a singer.
Speaker 4 (49:47):
That's a.
Speaker 6 (49:48):
Dance-driven song.
Speaker 4 (49:49):
But you make me listen to that song unironically.
Speaker 6 (49:52):
But I feel like I do. But The Rock wrote
a song about his kids, and it's kind of emotional,
but then all I hear is The Rock singing, and
he's like... I remember when he did like rap songs
back in like the WWF days before they were WWE.
He did like a song about pie. So he's maybe
just wants to be like this country singer now or something.
Speaker 4 (50:11):
World Wrestling Federation.
Speaker 5 (50:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (50:13):
And then we went to entertainment.
Speaker 6 (50:14):
Yeah. I think they got sued by the World Wildlife Foundation.
So they had to change it to WWE.
Speaker 4 (50:21):
It tracks.
Speaker 6 (50:21):
That panel was like, nah, you gotta drop the F.
Speaker 4 (50:23):
Speaking of The Rock, you made me a bet last week.
And you were like, I bet $ 20 that you can't
name five professional wrestlers. I named nine. And with that $ 20,
I bought a new lip gloss at Sephora. So thank
you so much.
Speaker 1 (50:34):
Very good.
Speaker 4 (50:35):
And then I asked you if you could name five
books that I'd read recently.
Speaker 1 (50:38):
And I couldn't.
Speaker 4 (50:38):
And you failed so spectacularly.
Speaker 6 (50:40):
You had like deep cuts too on the wrestlers. You're
like Stacey Keebler. I'm like, interesting.
Speaker 4 (50:45):
I did. Thank you. I might have spent more than that, but.
Speaker 6 (50:49):
$ 20 that you spent. So that was your worst. For
my worst of August, I think I'm going to have
to go with Super Troopers 3.
Speaker 4 (50:59):
They'd be so devastated to hear that.
Speaker 6 (51:01):
Which I gave a 2 out of 5.
Speaker 4 (51:03):
Oof.
Speaker 6 (51:04):
Yeah, I think that is the lowest of the month.
And I think I was excited because I love the
original one. I've interviewed the guys from Super Troopers. I
think they are brilliant guys. I think they know comedy.
but this movie was not it. I still think that
they made the movie they wanted to make, but it's
within the Super Troopers box that only has so much
(51:24):
space to expand on that it felt like maybe if
I was 20 years younger, I would have found funny.
I don't take pride in not liking that movie. I
was actually getting roasted a lot for not liking that
movie on TikTok and YouTube, but I just had a
little bit higher expectations and it was just not that good.
Not that funny.
Speaker 3 (51:44):
Thanks for listening to a Bobbycast production.
In that very moment, was she taking the lives of
her children because she knew she had to leave this
earth and she couldn't live without them? Or was she
commanded to do it and couldn't control herself and conform
herself to the law?
Speaker 2 (00:22):
So we're going to talk about the Lindsay Clancy case here,
and we're talking with attorney Catherine Loftus. former prosecutor, legal analyst,
and the host of a podcast, Note My Objection, where
she breaks down law, politics, and some of the biggest
stories in the news.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
And so we're going to go deep into this case.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
And from what I've seen, she has not actually given
an opinion on guilty or not guilty.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
She just goes in the facts.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
And so I'm going to have her be the defense
and what they could have done better. I'm going to
have to be the prosecution and what they could have
done better. And we'll talk about the mistrial, what happens next.
And so for me, this was super interesting. Here's my
conversation with Catherine Loftus. All right, we're talking with Catherine
Loftus now, who as the Clancy case has been moving along,
(01:09):
I've been watching her TikToks really to give me my opinion.
And so, Catherine, thank you so much for coming and
talking to me about this, because I have a lot
of questions because I've tried to be educated, but I
am not you.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
Would you talk about, first of all, you're an attorney, right?
Speaker 1 (01:24):
I am.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
So I know what an attorney is, but what do
you specialize in? What are you good at?
Speaker 1 (01:29):
So I mostly am good at criminal law. As they
like to say, lawyers are good at a lot of things.
But most of us specialize. I worked in the district
attorney's office while I was going to law school at night.
And then I practiced as a prosecutor for about three
and a half years after that. So I spent about
a total of eight years in the DA's office. And
then I went over to the criminal defense side where
(01:49):
I've been for about seven or eight years. So I've
been in the criminal justice system for... probably 15, 16
years total and have had experience on both sides, which
I think really enables me to give a unique perspective
to my audience that's coupled with sort of, you know,
throwing in my, you know, personal background growing up in
(02:11):
the city of Boston. So I have a little bit
of the street smart and book smart, if you will.
And so I try to give through, you know, my platform,
Note My Objection, really the most sort of fundamental kind
of breakdowns of what the law is, what's happening in
the trials that I cover, because it's complicated stuff.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
So before you came on, we were talking about your podcast.
And I definitely want to talk about other things other
than this case in just a bit.
Speaker 3 (02:36):
But I need some help with the case.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
And so I'm probably going to spray around a little
bit and just ask random questions because I really don't
even know how to talk about.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
This case as an educated person.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
Because what I have found is when I look something
up or I see something on TikTok– And maybe we'll
start here. Like there was the rumor, first of all,
that the husband could have done it. And I watched
one video, but then I started to get fed all
videos about him doing it. So all it was doing
was taking whatever bias that I had and feeding it
to me over and over again.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
So then I start to feel like that's the reality.
Speaker 4 (03:08):
Right.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
So so if we start with that, like because the
rumor has been. that possibly the husband would have had
something to do with this. That's not a part of
this case. Is there any chance it ever becomes part
of a case?
Speaker 1 (03:20):
From my perspective, no. And I'm glad that you brought
that up because I think, you know, the world that
we live in, which is sort of this constantly online
conversation that we invite all kinds of people in, right?
And what happens that I've noticed over the last couple
of years of covering cases, criminal cases particularly, is that
(03:42):
oftentimes what's happening in the courtroom is very different than
what's happening sort of in the online discourse. And as
you mentioned, you know, there were all kinds of conspiracy
theories and thoughts about, you know, could the husband have
done it? Patrick Clancy, you.
Speaker 4 (03:54):
Know, sort of.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
Going from A to B all the way to Z
very quickly. What's happening in the actual courtroom is that
this is really a case not about whether Lindsay Clancy
committed these crimes. She was charged with three counts of
first-degree murder for the deaths of her three children, Cora, Dawson,
and Callan Clancy. But really, the trial has always been
about what her mental status was at the time that
(04:17):
she committed the crimes. And so there's been quite a
bit of a divergence between what Not only what's actually
happening in the courtroom, but all the people who are
sort of on the ground, the defense attorneys, the prosecutors,
the judges, the police, the people covering the case, see
as what the case is versus what the online sort
of conversation has been.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
So 11 jurors, have they now said it was 11
saying not guilty and one guilty?
Speaker 3 (04:45):
Or did they just let us assume that's what it was?
Speaker 1 (04:48):
There was a few notes that came back from the jury.
The first one being essentially that there was one holdout
juror that they had some questions about doubt and they
were not following the law. I think from that, both
the prosecutor and Attorney Reddington assumed that it was 11
to 1. We now have seen multiple jury interviews. We've
(05:08):
had some local, Sue O'Connell on NBC10 here and Christina
Rex on WBZ have interviewed in total four of the
jurors who essentially have confirmed that it was 11 to 1,
that the 11 voted not guilty by reason of insanity.
And then there was one juror holding out. And, you know,
I think that really ultimately goes to what why this
(05:31):
case is so difficult, because it's not simply just has
the Commonwealth proven that Lindsay Clancy committed a crime. You know,
she's guilty or she's not guilty. It's really the next
step of it. But it seems to be, by all accounts,
that they were 11 to one and they were really
trying to convince that final juror, but were just unable to.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
Also, what I read was that even that juror may
have said, and you can correct me on this, that
by law that they should say not guilty, but that
he just couldn't go along with it.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
That's right. So we're hearing. So, you know, there's a
little bit of a difference. Obviously, we didn't get the
benefit of knowing what was happening in deliberations when we
get the notes from the jury to the judge. And
the only thing that the judge and any of us
in the public watching the case had at the time
that the jurors sent the notes to Judge Sullivan was
that the juror was expressing that there was some doubt,
(06:29):
but he was unwilling to follow the reasonable doubt instruction.
What we've learned subsequent to that from several jurors is
that maybe there was some more discussion about he had
found reasonable doubt, but didn't feel comfortable essentially voting not guilty. Now,
in Massachusetts, the way the reasonable doubt instruction is read
(06:50):
to the jury is that proof beyond a reasonable doubt
is not proof beyond all doubt. So you are entitled
as a juror to have some doubt. You just can't
you just can't find somebody guilty if you have reasonable doubt. So, again,
it's this really subjective standard. It's difficult. It's even difficult
(07:11):
for lawyers really to understand because ultimately it comes down
to each individual juror and how they evaluate the evidence
that was presented, the testimony from all the witnesses and
whether they think that doubt rises to the level or not.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
What's the defense's strongest case?
Speaker 2 (07:28):
And just a couple things that come to mind to
me is just from, again, reading things and watching people
talk about it. So, again, I'm absorbing information like the
normal American, which could be wrong a lot of times, right?
It could be just the thing that's got the most clicks,
which doesn't mean it's right. But what's the thing that
the defense has really hung its hat on? To me,
it seems like she asked for help a lot of
(07:50):
times and maybe didn't get it.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
Is that true?
Speaker 1 (07:53):
So I think the biggest benefit that Kevin Rendon has
to his defense is that this is a woman who
sought help repeatedly for months and months and months. And,
you know, this isn't somebody who, like I said, has
been involved in the system, has, you know, has had
problems before. By all accounts, Lindsay and Patrick Clancy and
(08:13):
their three children were, you know, a great family. She
was a nurse at Mass General Hospital here in Boston,
which is one of the best hospitals in In the country,
she was a labor and delivery nurse. They had a
great summer. And towards the end of August, early September
of 2022, she began having some significant anxiety and depression
and started to seek out help. So she first went
(08:35):
to a psychiatrist. And from there on out, it was
sort of a combination of both, you know... I would
say lack of substantive treatment. There was prescribing of medications.
So we have a lot of mixing of pharmaceuticals, you know,
on one medication, taking that off because that's not working,
prescribing a new medication. Most of the meetings with the
(08:58):
nurses and nurse practitioners and doctors were all over telehealth.
Most of them were not in person. And Lindsay reported,
we saw it in her journals. We saw it from
the testimony of the various mental health professionals. So that's
really what Kevin Reddington tried to hammer home was what
else was Lindsay Clancy supposed to do? She was essentially
(09:18):
screaming for help. She called suicide hotlines twice. They basically
told her, you don't have a plan, so we can't
help you. She was admitted to an inpatient program, which
really seems to be more of a spin drive than
anything else. It wasn't a lot of substantive treatment. And
so that's really what he hammered home. despite the fact
(09:39):
that the mental health system isn't really a typical defense
to say to a jury, hey, don't hold me responsible
because the system failed me. But I think because the
system seems to have failed her, it was an effective
argument to the jury. And I think we heard that
(10:00):
from the conversations that we've had with the jurors so far.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
So because there's documentation of her saying, I need help
over and over again, please help me. Is there any
sort of liability to the people that did not help her?
Speaker 1 (10:15):
So both Patrick Clancy and Lindsay Clancy have separate civil
lawsuits filed against all of the professionals who treated her
and their institutions. And so Patrick Clancy was filed first
and then Lindsay Clancy was filed earlier this year. I believe,
in January of 2026 against the providers and the health
(10:36):
care institutions. And, you know, the question really becomes, I think,
that what was she supposed to do? You know, we
have this sort of lack of continuity of care that
we see, you know, and I see it not just
in this case and the cases that I cover, but,
you know, you know, the everyday cases in court that
nobody pays attention to that, you know, you hear one
(10:57):
doctor talk about, well, I'm at this institution and she
had previously been seen at another and we're not the
same institution, so I don't have the records, but we
don't have anybody seeking them out. We don't really have anybody,
you know, taking the further steps. So it will be
interesting to see as a sort of a secondary effect
what happens in the civil cases. But I think, you know,
(11:18):
I think there's some.
Legitimate liability there.
Speaker 3 (11:22):
Would this have been a trial where character witnesses were
actually valuable?
Speaker 1 (11:26):
I think they were. I think they were because you
didn't hear a single person say a bad word about
Lindsay Clancy. You had people from those who only knew
her a little bit from drop off at daycare to
the individuals working at the health care club. Then you
had nurses who worked with her at Mass General. And
(11:48):
all the way up until, you know, you had Patrick,
her now ex-husband, her mother-in-law, Sue Clancy, who also was
a labor and delivery nurse and tried, you know, really
tried to help her. Not a single person had a
bad word to say about Lindsay. And I think that
really helped frame for the jury that this truly was
(12:11):
somebody who was like any of us, right? Up until
the six months preceding this crime. And so, you know,
that sort of leads you to this natural inference that, well,
something must have happened, right? But for her mental health struggles,
but for her depression, but for her, you know, medication, over-medication, under-medication,
(12:32):
sort of the combination of it all. And it's hard
to pinpoint, you know, we can't just say, oh, it
was this doctor who did it and that's why. It's
really the whole sort of cocktail of it all together.
It's hard to imagine that if those things had not happened,
that she wouldn't have committed these crimes. So I think
the fact that she was well-liked, well-respected, and well-loved by
(12:55):
her family and friends really helped the defense case.
Speaker 2 (12:59):
Her ex-husband testified. What was he saying during the trial?
Because if I remember correctly, he was very pro his ex-wife.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Yes. So, you know, and it's my understanding. So when
this happened in January of 2023, you know, the community
in the entire state, but really the local community in
Duxbury in the South Shore of Massachusetts really rallied around
all of them. Patrick came out at the time and said,
you know, I forgive her. Please forgive her. Like she
(13:27):
loved our children. She was a great mom. She was
a great wife. And I think there's sort of a
difficult balance because, I don't think that anybody in the
Clancy family or Patrick wants to see her in prison.
I think they want her to get help. So that's
sort of a little bit in a little bit of
(13:49):
a disagreement, likely with the district attorney's office, who is
pursuing the case and wants her to serve a prison sentence. But,
you know, he only spoke highly and still only speaks
highly of Lindsay to this day.
Speaker 3 (14:03):
The fact that after The murders happened. She jumped out
the window.
Speaker 2 (14:07):
I'm assuming she was trying to kill herself. Does that
lend itself to the she was going through whatever bout
of psychosis or insanity?
Speaker 1 (14:19):
You know, it's interesting. This is really what we had
sort of competing interests. I call it sort of the
battle of the experts, right? Because we had expert witnesses,
psychologists and psychiatrists that testified for the Commonwealth. And we
also had the same on the defense side. And essentially
all of them agreed that this was what they call
an altruistic filicide. Essentially that she was struggling so deeply
(14:44):
that she felt like she couldn't be on this earth anymore.
And you know, the way it's described as the psychiatrist
is almost out of love that you feel like, you know,
they have to come with me. The question was, is
really the debate between both of the sides was, did
she also have psychosis at the time, which would sort
(15:05):
of take it to the next level that in that
exact moment that this crime occurred, that she was in
some sort of altered state. There was testimony from both Dr.
and the chaplain who were at Brigham Women's Hospital when
Lindsay was first hospitalized, reported that she experienced what she
(15:28):
said were command hallucinations. So from the defense perspective, it
has been their position that she essentially heard a voice
that said, you know, now's the time. This is the
last chance you'll have to do it. You have to
kill yourself and you have to kill the children. And
that that happened when Patrick left that evening to go
pick up the takeout food. So You know, it's hard
(15:53):
to it's hard to know. And that's that's really the question, because, again,
it's getting into somebody's state of mind. And as all
of us are watching this as jurors or observers, we're
sort of taking the pieces of evidence and trying to
piece together, you know, did she know what she was doing?
Did she not know what she was doing? Very clearly
(16:15):
was sick. She was not well. But the question goes to,
in that very moment, was she taking the lives of
her children because she knew she had to leave this
earth and she couldn't live without them? Or was she
commanded to do it and couldn't control herself and conform
herself to the law?
Speaker 5 (16:34):
Let's take a quick pause for a message from our sponsor.
And we're back on the Bobby cast.
Speaker 2 (16:49):
This may be a weird legal question, but let's say
there's an insane asylum. It might not be a word anymore,
a mental health facility. And the door is supposed to
stay locked and the people can't get out because they've
had thoughts and visions and they've done bad things. But
the door was accidentally left unlocked and that person is
able to get out and they go out and they
kill somebody. And so they but they have been treated.
(17:09):
They've been diagnosed. They go out and kill somebody. Would
that person that did that be charged with murder or
would it be a definition of insanity type what we're
talking about here?
Speaker 1 (17:19):
Well, they would still be charged with murder. So just
like what we have in the Clancy case would be similar.
So she's still charged with the first degree murder of
all three children, which is the appropriate charges, you know,
from my perspective. And then you would have a defense.
I think what a lot of people have some difficulty
with it as well is that this idea of sort
of punishment and justice. And what do we do with
(17:40):
the in-between, right? Because... In Massachusetts, we don't have an
option to plead guilty and be sentenced to a mental
health facility. That's not a legal criminal sentence for a
judge to impose. So the only options we really have
are either you're guilty and you go to state prison
or you're not guilty by reason of insanity and go
to a mental health facility on a civil commitment, which
(18:01):
is reevaluated. And there is the potential that you could
be released. So I think. I think it's, you know,
it's sort of this moral question that some of us
wrestle with, right? We want to make sure that, you know,
if you take the lives of somebody else, that there
is some accountability to it. But how much do we
take into account the mitigation of somebody's mental health and
(18:24):
that if they were well, would they have committed this crime?
Speaker 2 (18:28):
So when the husband left, Did she ask him to
go or did she just do it while he was gone?
Like the circumstance presented itself.
Speaker 4 (18:37):
No.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
So she asked him to go, and this is one
of the pieces that the Commonwealth used to try to
argue and make their position, which was that she essentially
sent him out on purpose. Because what happened was the
day of January 24th of 2023, Lindsay was home with
their older daughter, Cora, who she had taken to the
pediatrician's office. It was essentially a normal day, carried on
(19:03):
as usual. Actually, Patrick said... um you know it seemed
to be one of our best days yet she was
playing in the backyard with the kids building a snowman
and at some point around 4 30 or so five
o'clock that afternoon she texted him and said you know
what i'm you know i'm kind of tired i don't
feel like making dinner can you go pick up some
(19:23):
takeout and so she had him go pick up takeout
it to a that they had been to before, they
had eaten in, but they hadn't ordered takeout before. And
it was a little bit longer of a drive than
most of the normal places that they usually got takeout from.
And she also asked him to stop at CVS to
get medication for Cora. He was supposed to pick up
(19:44):
some Pedialax for her. And so that's part of the
Commonwealth's argument was, that, listen, she sort of engaged in
what would be considered normal behavior throughout the day, right?
She went to the pediatrician's office. The doctor there testified, said,
you know, we didn't see any signs that there was
anything wrong or anything out of the norm. She was
able to communicate with people back and forth. She then
(20:07):
sent him out to, you know, not only get takeout,
but the medication, which created the amount of time that
she needed to do this. And so that was really
the argument from the Commonwealth, that this wasn't, you know,
a moment in which she had hallucinations and she was
hearing things. these auditory commands, but she in fact planned
(20:27):
it out based on the timeline that she sort of
set up from. That's the Commonwealth's perspective.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
And I'd ask the question about what was the defense
hanging their hat on? And you may have said it
just then, but what was the prosecution? What was their
strongest weapon to use?
Speaker 1 (20:46):
I think that I had a lot of critique of
the Commonwealth's case because they.
I think there was a legitimate argument for making to
a jury that, listen, this is somebody who was very unwell.
She clearly was struggling with depression and anxiety. She did
try to get help from a variety of providers, but
(21:08):
this isn't a referendum on the mental health system, right?
This is a question about what happened to Lindsay Clancy
and what happened to her three children. And again, Instead
of taking that tact of really kind of acknowledging her
mental health and the struggles she was going through, what
the Commonwealth did was they essentially tried to paint her
(21:29):
as this, you know, neurotic type A mom. In their
opening statements, they said, and I might be a little
bit off on the quote, but, you know, Lindsay Clancy
no longer wanted to live the life that she thought
she wanted. And I remember from that very moment hearing
(21:49):
that saying, well, that doesn't seem consistent with what we're
going to hear, right? This isn't just a mom who's,
you know, sick of her life. She doesn't want the
kids anymore. She's overwhelmed. And so, you know, she strangles
her three children. That doesn't seem like a reasonable argument
to make. And probably the most effective the Commonwealth was
(22:09):
was in their closing argument in which they sort of
presented a completely different tax argument. and really outlined the
specifics of the timeline. You know, they acknowledged her mental health,
but I think it was a little bit too late
for them. I think they had turned off the jurors
at some point because they were, you know, in some
(22:31):
ways unkind to some of the witnesses, including Patrick Clancy
talking about, you know, just very dry questioning when, you know,
asking about how he found his children, what they looked like, what,
you know, the manner in which he found them. And
so I think what will happen is they will take
If it does go to trial again, they will take
(22:55):
some of that and sort of retool what what they
presented in their closing argument and present that throughout the
case in chief for round two. And I think that
would be a more persuasive argument for round two if
we get there.
Speaker 3 (23:08):
Are you assuming they will retry this?
Speaker 1 (23:10):
In my opinion, there's zero chance that the case, you know,
it's not going to be dropped. It's not just going
to go away. The question is going to be, what
are they going to do with it? Now, in Massachusetts,
first degree murders can't be tried in front of a judge.
So normally on every other charge, you can go jury waived,
which basically means that the judge makes the decision. In
(23:31):
order for that to happen, the Commonwealth would have to
reduce the charges from first degree to second degree. Now,
the only difference is on a first degree conviction, you
get life without parole. On a second degree conviction, you
get life with the possibility of parole as decided by
the judge. It's either 15 years, anywhere between 15 years
and 25 years parole. The question is, you know, what
(23:54):
do both sides want, right? And as we were talking
about earlier, there is no middle ground where she could
say plead guilty and then go and stay at Tewksbury
Hospital where she is now, the mental health facility. There
really is the only option between a guilty state prison
sentence or not guilty by reason of insanity. So unless
(24:16):
the unless the Commonwealth is willing to reduce the charges,
I think they they have to try the case again.
So it either goes to a jury trial on a
first degree murder or they reduce it to a second
degree and maybe see if a judge can decide because it.
The benefit of a jury-waived going bench trial in this
(24:39):
case is there's some finality to it. I think the
concern is if they go in front of a jury again,
we end up with another hung jury just because it's,
you know, it's just so fraught with emotion. It's so
difficult to get to that place where, you know, what
is in someone's mind and people feel really strongly about it.
So I worry that if they go in front of
a jury again, we end up with another hung jury.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
I apologize for my limited knowledge on this, but will
they go same... teams, same defense, same prosecution? Will all
the attorneys be the same?
Speaker 1 (25:08):
I think most likely. So Kevin Reddington will definitely be
her attorney. Again, he has been with her since I
think maybe four or five days into this in 2023.
So he will stay with her. The two ADAs, Jennifer
Sprague and Shannon Buckingham, they are prosecutors in the Plymouth
County District Attorney's Office. It is a fairly small office
(25:32):
comparatively speaking to some of the you know once you
get closer to the city and Suffolk County in Boston
obviously there's a little bit more depth to how many
people can take on this kind of case but I
would be surprised at this point if they changed them
out I I Sometimes I think that one of the
(25:53):
downfalls for the government is that they can get sort
of stuck in, you know, there's been a lot of
critique of them. There's been a lot of critique of
the DA's office as a whole with this case of
these two particular prosecutors and the way that they present
the case. And I do think that they could benefit
from bringing somebody else on that maybe has a little
bit of a softer affect. But whether they will do that,
(26:17):
I don't know. I would imagine that at the very least,
these two will stay on. Possibly somebody else comes on
as well.
Speaker 3 (26:23):
So I'll have you play both.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
If you were the prosecution going into the next trial,
if there is one, what would you do differently?
Speaker 1 (26:28):
I would really lean into the difference between Lindsay Clinton's
mental status as a whole versus what happened that night. Because,
you know, the legal principles are you can be very sick.
You can be somebody who has struggled with all kinds
of mental illness. But do you know what you're doing
(26:51):
in the moment? And so I think that there is
a reasonable argument for that. And what you have to
really direct the jury to do is to take out
the emotion, right? Because obviously, this is a sympathetic figure.
This is a woman who you're going to hear that
everybody loved her. She was a great mom. She was
a great friend. She was a great wife, daughter-in-law. And
(27:14):
she was completely normal up until six months before this.
And so that can all be true. And she can
also have committed a really heinous crime. And we have
to be able to take out the emotion, you know,
use our logic, common sense. And when you apply the law...
You know, I think you get to the place where
you can acknowledge that, yes, she's really sick. And yes,
(27:37):
because she felt like she couldn't be in this world anymore.
She made that conscious decision to take her own life,
to try to take her own life and her children
with her. And I think that's really where the Commonwealth
needs to go if they want to try to convince
a jury. But again, getting 12 people there is difficult,
I think.
Speaker 3 (27:56):
If you were the defense, what did you learn that
you could do better?
Speaker 1 (28:00):
I think one of the things that we didn't hear
from quite as much as I expected to from Kevin Ruddington,
I think he did a really good job because, as
I said, it's difficult to present a defense of... you know,
the entire system failed my client and therefore you shouldn't
hold her responsible. But I think we can dig a
little bit deeper into what the specific effects and the combination,
(28:24):
you know, effects of the different pharmaceuticals she was prescribed.
She was prescribed, you know, say Zoloft and Seroquel and
Ativan and Trazodone and, you know, varying milligrams. And one was,
she's weaning off of one and then being put on
the other. But we didn't hear from anybody who testified
against as to what those interactions could be. You know,
(28:45):
what are the black box warnings? Like, what are the
side effects? What are the possibilities that, you know, sort
of taking that next step? Not only was she depressed
and anxious and having intrusive thoughts, was she suffering from
lack of sleep from the medication? But, you know, what
else could those medications and the combinations have caused? So
I would lean even more into the sort of pharmaceutical
(29:07):
aspect of it if I was writing to, you know,
adding on to what he already did.
Speaker 3 (29:11):
How in the world do you get another jury?
Speaker 1 (29:14):
It will be difficult. It will be difficult. We did
this once before in Massachusetts, not that long ago with
the Karen Reed case. And it was more difficult to
get a jury the second time around because not only
are these cases, they have national, international attention, but everyone's
talking about them locally as well, right? And Plymouth County is,
(29:37):
I will say demographic-wise, Plymouth County skews a little bit older,
I would say, and the jury, I think, was reflective
of it for this first time around. So the hope
that you have is that you can find a jury
pool that... reads maybe more, you know, print media and doesn't,
(29:57):
you know, isn't on social media, isn't on TikTok, isn't
on Instagram, that kind of stuff, and that they have
at least less access to it. I don't think it's impossible,
but it does make it more difficult. And it's also,
you know, it's something I talk about and think a
lot about sort of where we are in our society
now about How can we separate these two? How can
(30:20):
we get fair juries when there's so much information? You know,
you think about the idea that, you know, we used
to sequester juries or, you know, they all swear an
oath that they won't, you know, listen to anything. They
won't watch anything. But, you know, those rules are also
from a time when, okay, well, I won't get pick
up the paper at the corner store. You know, now
it's impossible to avoid because we're all, you know, we're
(30:43):
all on our phones. We're all on our iPads. We're
all on our computers. And so I think it's much
more difficult in this day and age to find juries
that have no knowledge of these cases.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
I've seen people try to boil it down to, well,
postpartum oppression shouldn't make you murder.
Speaker 3 (30:59):
Is it that simple?
Speaker 1 (31:01):
It's not that simple. And I think anyone who tries
to oversimplify these things is just not being honest. Because
one thing I've learned about being in the criminal justice
system for a long time is that nothing is black
and white. Nothing fits in a box. Nothing is easy. And,
you know... it's human nature, right? So we're talking about
(31:21):
what humans do in times of stress or in times
of frustration. And, you know, I think that if there's
anything good that can come from this is hopefully a
conversation about how we treat, you know, women in the
postpartum period. And I think that what we see sort
of in this case and why there's so much attention
(31:43):
sort of brought to it and why so many people
feel connected to it is that you know as women
I'm a mom myself I have a 10 year old
and a seven year old I think there is a
recognition in what happens to a woman in their body
after they have children and unless you experience that yourself,
it's difficult to understand, which makes sense. But the combination
(32:08):
of having, you know, depression and anxiety coupled with what's
going on in your body, which is that you're, you know,
your hormones are all over the place, you're, you know,
having a lack of sleep, there's all kinds of stuff
that sort of kind of creates this, you like I said,
cocktail where it's a different kind of analysis. And it
(32:30):
doesn't mean that if you're a postpartum woman and you
commit a crime that you can blame being a postpartum
woman on it, but it's certainly something we have to consider.
And I think to just dismiss it outright is disingenuous,
to be honest.
Speaker 3 (32:44):
Have you said that if you were on the jury,
what you would have said?
Speaker 1 (32:46):
I haven't, you know, I, I, to be honest, I
really struggle with it. I really struggle with it because
My legal mind feels like she was criminally responsible, but
I have a really difficult time sentencing someone who was
struggling so significantly to... term of life in prison. And
(33:08):
so there were probably a lot of jurors who felt,
I think, like I did, is sort of that balance.
I don't know. I don't know. It's really hard.
Speaker 2 (33:17):
So then can't the system be repaired a bit? Often
it takes a break to even need a repair. And
there's no nuance here, as you've been talking about. It's
either go to jail forever guilty or not. But shouldn't
there be a As you talked about that specific charge,
is there to be something that lands in the middle?
Speaker 1 (33:37):
I think so. And what I hope from this is
that we might see some sort of legislation. I mean,
that's where you have to lobby your local representatives, your
state reps, your state senators to essentially write legislation and
enact it in Massachusetts, which deals with this specific issue.
And as I mentioned, there are other states in the
United States that have this sort of middle ground. We've
(34:00):
also seen a lot of what happens in Europe, some
of the laws dating back to, I think, as early
as the 1930s, in a unique set of circumstances in
which they don't fit into. into a straight guilty or
not guilty by reason of insanity. So one thing that
I hope comes from this, at least specifically to Massachusetts,
(34:22):
is that we can start to have the conversation about,
you know, maybe we need to have some sort of
legislation around a third option for cases that, you know,
come like this.
Speaker 2 (34:33):
So you're up there where the Karen Reed case happened,
and we all followed that too.
Speaker 3 (34:38):
And it was wild and watched the documentaries.
Speaker 2 (34:40):
And I mean, I was in and it's weird to
be so compelled by something because that's someone's real life.
But to us far away, it just feels like something
on television or on social media. And so that had
to be pretty wild to live there during that, right?
Speaker 1 (34:57):
It was wild. I will tell you, it really took
control of Massachusetts, particularly, again, this was on the South Shore.
Karen Reed was in Norfolk County, Dedham, which is about
halfway to Plymouth County where Lindsay Clancy was. But the
Karen Reed case took over Massachusetts for really two years.
(35:17):
And then we just, you know, about a year out
from Karen Reed, that ended in June of 2025. And
then we've sort of had round two with Lindsay Clancy.
So it is interesting to have back-to-back trials. I don't
know what's happening in the waters in Massachusetts, but we
seem to be the epicenter of it all.
Speaker 2 (35:38):
Just watching whatever docuseries I watched or people talk about it.
And again, I'm far away. And I probably am not
getting all the information because I'm not in the courtroom.
That's the only place to get all the information. But
it felt like the police officers there were pretty corrupt
and that she probably didn't do it.
Speaker 3 (35:55):
Is that how you felt living there?
Speaker 1 (35:58):
Well, I have a I have an unpopular opinion on
Karen Reed. I so my perspective on the Reed case
was always that she was vastly overcharged. Originally, she was
charged with manslaughter and they upgraded it to second degree murder.
I think that was mistake number one. And then. Down
from there, we had, you know, it turned into a
(36:22):
life of its own. And we had the federal investigation
that came as a result of the underlying investigation in
Norfolk County. That's what we learned about, you know, Michael Proctor,
who was the lead investigator for the state police there.
It all kinds of text messages, not only about Karen Reed, but,
you know, racist, misogynistic type of stuff. It has always
(36:43):
been my position that based on the evidence, as I
saw presented at both of the trials and all the
pretrial litigation that I covered, that the evidence supported the
idea that Karen Reed was responsible for John O'Keefe's death.
But ultimately the jury found her not guilty. And, you know, that's,
That's why we have a jury system. So in many ways,
(37:06):
you know, there's a lot of through lines, I think,
between Karen Reed and sort of the what was happening
in the courtroom versus what was the online conversation is
similar to the Clancy case. But both certainly took over Massachusetts.
Speaker 3 (37:24):
On your podcast, note my objection.
Speaker 2 (37:26):
What do you do every day when there's not a
wild case happening that's heard all over the world every second?
Speaker 1 (37:31):
Yeah. Well, I do do some real legal work sometimes too, Bobby. But,
you know, what I try to do is, you know,
it's funny. I started talking on my objection really during
COVID because I had nobody else to talk to. So
I started to talk to people online. And I see
sort of this hole in the system where we can
(37:54):
just get sort of, easy breakdown clear concise you know
information and so what I try to do is just
talk to about things that I think are important sometimes
they're local issues whether they're you know local politics in
Massachusetts or you know criminal cases here I talk about
sort of bigger picture issues you know politics in society
(38:14):
on a larger scale but I think that you know
we're missing um we live in a world where it's
clicks and the algorithm and views. And it's really important
to me to bring an honest perspective to my audience.
And so I like to talk about things that, you know,
(38:35):
they often end up being sort of controversial issues or
sort of hot topics. And I want to make sure
that people know that It's important to dig through where
we're living in difficult times. Right. It's difficult to figure
out not only what's real because, you know, we have
the AI age and we can't sometimes we can't tell
(38:58):
what's real information, what's not. We've sort of lost our
ability to think critically, source things independently, you know, research things.
And I try to be someplace that people can at
least rely on. So when you're, you know, you're watching
a case in Massachusetts that I will tell you what's
actually going on, whether, you know, that's, you know, congruent
(39:19):
with the position you like or not. Because it's really
important to me to be a space where, you know,
people can trust. So I try to talk a little
bit of this and a little bit of that.
Speaker 2 (39:30):
Well, I hope everybody checks out note my objection and
especially your tick tock.
Speaker 3 (39:34):
I think you're awesome.
Speaker 2 (39:35):
I haven't watched you like do your makeup while you
talk about it. And I don't watch anybody do their makeup.
So yeah, thank you so much for coming on and
just presenting facts because I think we can easily be
swayed with things that are fact adjacent. And there's a
difference in fact, in fact, adjacent for sure. So thank
you for the time and everybody check out on Tik
TOK and Instagram at note, my objection. And then our
(39:57):
podcast is not my objection.
Speaker 3 (39:59):
Uh, Catherine, thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (40:00):
Thank you so much. I appreciate having me.
Speaker 3 (40:02):
I have a good day.
Speaker 4 (40:03):
The Bobby cast. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1 (40:09):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (40:15):
This is the Bobbycast.
Speaker 2 (40:17):
Wanted to share a segment with you from one of
the Bobby Bones podcast network shows. And so it's Movie
Mike's Movie Podcast. I think every week, especially if you
love movies or stories about movies, Mike does best and
worst and also fun stories from the history of movies.
So if you like this clip, which I hope you do,
go check out Movie Mike's Movie Podcast and hit subscribe.
Speaker 3 (40:38):
That would be awesome.
Speaker 6 (40:40):
For you, the best movie you saw in August.
Speaker 4 (40:43):
I'm going to go with One Night Only.
Speaker 6 (40:44):
Did you feel like that was going to be more
of a rom-com?
Speaker 4 (40:47):
It was a rom-com.
Speaker 6 (40:48):
Did you expect it to be as politically charged as
it was? Could you describe the movie?
Speaker 4 (40:53):
Well, one of my friends texted me before and said,
because he saw it early, and he was like, the
movie was more politically charged than I thought. So it
is essentially The Purge, but for sex.
Speaker 6 (41:06):
Single but single people single people can't do it you
can't do it unless you're married.
Speaker 4 (41:09):
Correct and there's one night of the year that you
can do it and like everyone has this like not
a chip in them but this thing.
Speaker 6 (41:16):
In there yeah and then it like disappears very hunger
games-esque as far as like the markers they have yes
and then for that one night only they basically go
to town for like what six hours.
Speaker 4 (41:27):
I think it was longer than that they were all
over the city that couldn't have been six hours If
I hadn't have had that heads up, no, I wouldn't
have expected it. But I thought it was really good.
I love Callum Turner.
Speaker 6 (41:39):
He was really good.
Speaker 4 (41:40):
I love him. Like he and Dua Lipa together. Beautiful couple.
Monica Barbaro. Phenomenal.
Speaker 6 (41:46):
I feel like some people are being robbed of like
still a traditional rom-com because I think that those don't
really work in theaters as much anymore. It primarily now
goes to Netflix and And I feel like people go
into a movie like this or maybe even like the
materialist thinking like, oh, this is being dubbed as a rom-com.
But I love how the rom-com has evolved.
Speaker 1 (42:07):
Yes.
Speaker 6 (42:08):
Where it's not exactly what you think of a rom-com
being like one of those 2000s movies with like Matthew
McConaughey anymore. It was a little bit more sophisticated.
Speaker 4 (42:15):
Yeah. have you seen that clip going around where he
talks about how, um, how to lose a guy in
10 days makes him the most money.
Speaker 6 (42:20):
Mailbox money still gets a mailbox on a residual because
of Valentine's day.
Speaker 1 (42:24):
Yes.
Speaker 6 (42:25):
He's like every time around March, boom, big check.
Speaker 4 (42:27):
And I feel like it was always on like TBS
and like E those sorts of things. I will say,
I wonder if the shift to rom-com on streaming is,
it's a great like girls night movie.
Speaker 1 (42:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (42:40):
And you know, you get in your, comfy clothes you
get a bottle of wine you have some takeout you
have all your friends over i feel like some environments
like some movies are meant to be enjoyed more at home.
Speaker 6 (42:53):
So yeah what would you rate that.
Speaker 4 (42:54):
One for pure entertainment i'm gonna give it i'm gonna
give it four trojans.
Speaker 6 (42:59):
There you go see i was close on that i
give it a 3.5 out of 5 i would say dating.
Speaker 4 (43:05):
Apps okay that's a little bit more appropriate than mine
mine's relevant there's a scene though like and then just.
Speaker 6 (43:11):
Yeah I know what you're talking about.
Speaker 4 (43:13):
I don't know where.
Speaker 6 (43:14):
For my best of August, would it be weird to
pick something I did not see in theaters for maybe
the first time ever?
Speaker 1 (43:21):
No.
Speaker 6 (43:23):
I think I'm going to go with the Travis Barker documentary.
Speaker 4 (43:26):
It was so good. I was hooked.
Speaker 6 (43:29):
It's called Louder Than Fear. It was on Hulu.
Speaker 4 (43:32):
Filmed over like nine years.
Speaker 6 (43:34):
I will say I am a huge Blink-182 fan. Like
they are my favorite band. And I knew a lot
about the history of the band. And it was cool
seeing it all compiled into one story. And it was
also fun that like, I got to experience something that
I'm such a huge fan of, but that you enjoyed
it too.
Speaker 4 (43:52):
Yeah. I'm a big Travis Barker fan. I think he's talented.
And of course I love like pop culture crossover, but
I remembered when he had his show with like Shanna
Moakler and now he's married to Kourtney Kardashian.
Speaker 6 (44:03):
Which is crazy.
Speaker 4 (44:04):
I mean, I remember when he got in that plane
crash and survived and so just those huge moments and
listening to him talk about it because i don't feel
like he's talked a ton about it publicly he's talked
about like never flying again but you get to hear
like what happened right before and like the weird kind
of like ominous warnings and just all of this surrounding
(44:27):
it and he's gone through so much and like how
extensive the The burns were and that he is back
at this level doing what he loves, like after something
as tragic as that.
Speaker 6 (44:39):
Yeah, I don't know how he got back to being
able to run and like hosting running events across the country.
I feel kind of bad for him now because the
documentary is out and everybody wants to ask him about
the plane crash, like having to relive that time and
time again in all these interviews. I'm surprised he's not
at a point of saying he probably will now of like.
Speaker 4 (44:59):
I don't want to talk about it again. It's out there.
Speaker 6 (45:02):
Don't ask me any questions about it. I don't want
to be somebody who's having these kind of rules on
my interviews. But I think at that point, people would understand.
Because the documentary is out there. If you want to
know about it, watch the documentary. I don't think there's
anything else you can possibly ask him that he hasn't
talked about already. So I feel like people need to
stop asking him about it. Because I just see this
(45:22):
glaze in his eyes when he has to tell the
story and talk about it again.
Speaker 4 (45:25):
That's literally the worst. Worst thing you could ever go through.
And then, yeah, to have to relive it and talk
about it and just, like, put yourself emotionally back there.
And I'm sure he's done tons of therapy. Like, he
talked about that. But even, I mean, we saw him
in concert. And so, like, to get to see him
at that level and then knowing what it took to
get back there. Because Spring Crash, it was the substance issues. Like,
(45:48):
he had to overcome a lot.
Speaker 6 (45:49):
But that's why I put that one as my best
of the month. I gave it 4.5 out of 5 drumsticks.
What do you give it?
Speaker 4 (45:56):
I honestly think I'd give it five.
Speaker 6 (45:57):
I think it's one of the best music documentaries I've
ever seen, but I'm also a huge Blink-182 fan.
Speaker 4 (46:01):
Just one of the best documentaries. I mean, nine years
of footage. Like we were like how they had Taylor
Hawkins interviews. So we were like, how long ago was
this filmed?
Speaker 6 (46:11):
For your worst of August, what.
Speaker 4 (46:12):
Do you have? I'm going to go. And again, I'm
going to say it's my least favorite. It's not the worst.
It wasn't a bad movie, but I liked other things.
I'm going to go The Rivals of Amaziah King.
Speaker 6 (46:24):
The Matthew McConaughey movie? That was up close to like
my top.
Speaker 1 (46:28):
I know.
Speaker 6 (46:29):
You got to see Matthew McConaughey.
Speaker 4 (46:31):
I know. But if you think about all the other
movies we saw, I really enjoyed them more. And like
even the Netflix Don't Say Good Luck with Melanie Alinsky
and Adam Sandler's daughter. It just was like so emotional.
That one just like got me. I will say there
were a couple graphic injury scenes in Rivals that took
(46:52):
it down for me that were at the beginning. And
I was a little like, whoa, what are we what
am I about to watch? So there was a little
graphic for my taste.
Speaker 6 (47:01):
Something I feel like we've experienced recently that is maybe
only unique to us is we've seen some of these
movies at the Bell Court, which is our local theater
here in Nashville, our nonprofit theater. I feel like the
crowd kind of influences a little bit as far as
how funny movies are made out to be.
Speaker 4 (47:17):
And I will say, I think especially because was it
the director? Yeah. The director was in the audience.
Speaker 1 (47:23):
And I feel like there were funny parts.
Speaker 6 (47:25):
But there were some people were rolling.
Speaker 4 (47:27):
People were laughing out loud. And I was a little like,
I don't know that that was meant to be funny.
Speaker 1 (47:32):
Yes.
Speaker 6 (47:32):
And it kind of had what I call like the
film festival effect. Whenever you see a movie debut, like
maybe overseas or, Or at, like, the Toronto Film Festival,
and the actors and directors are in attendance, and then
you hear he gets a 10-minute standing ovation. You're like,
this must be the best movie ever. It's oftentimes because
they are in the room that other people glaze it
(47:53):
a little bit. The rock and the smash.
Speaker 1 (47:55):
Exactly.
Speaker 6 (47:56):
That got a huge standing ovation that we all saw,
and we're like.
Speaker 1 (48:00):
What was that?
Speaker 4 (48:00):
It was just for the physical transformation. Yeah. So.
Speaker 6 (48:04):
I feel like we're starting to experience that a little
bit here, not even just at a screening with the
director and Matthew McConaughey there.
Speaker 4 (48:09):
The drama. Yes, but there's... People were rolling on the
floor for the drama and I was like, this isn't
like LOL funny.
Speaker 6 (48:15):
And I'll talk about another movie I saw there that
I kind of felt the exact same thing. So even
with all that, it did take me a little bit
to settle into the movie because I wasn't expecting it
to be funny and everybody else was rolling around us
that I found it more funny. I thought it was
going to be a little bit more of a thriller movie.
more focused on the crime, but I, but I ended
(48:36):
up really enjoying it because I thought Matthew McConaughey's character
was really good at it. And I just, I guess
I'm kind of reigniting my love for Matthew McConaughey.
Speaker 4 (48:48):
I saw him in person. I like brushed past him
one time at a football game, not like right next
to him, but he was with his kid, but people
were like, this is when his kids were so young.
I was in college and people like following him with
this kid and he was like hey i'm just trying
to get my kid a snow cone could you not
like follow me that was before he had an official
position now he's just kind of always on the field.
Speaker 6 (49:05):
We've seen him at games this was the closest we've
probably been to him recently yes and it was cool
to see him perform afterwards where i wouldn't say he's
a great singer i feel like he's developed a style
that kind of works yes he kind of like yell
sings and he's But it is kind of interesting to
(49:30):
see some more actors kind of dip their toes in music.
Like I saw The Rock put out a single. It's
like he's really trying to sing, though. I think he did.
Mally is like, I'm a singer now.
Speaker 4 (49:42):
Is this going to bring you back to making me
listen to the Vin Diesel song?
Speaker 6 (49:45):
But Vin Diesel knows his capabilities as a singer.
Speaker 4 (49:47):
That's a.
Speaker 6 (49:48):
Dance-driven song.
Speaker 4 (49:49):
But you make me listen to that song unironically.
Speaker 6 (49:52):
But I feel like I do. But The Rock wrote
a song about his kids, and it's kind of emotional,
but then all I hear is The Rock singing, and
he's like... I remember when he did like rap songs
back in like the WWF days before they were WWE.
He did like a song about pie. So he's maybe
just wants to be like this country singer now or something.
Speaker 4 (50:11):
World Wrestling Federation.
Speaker 5 (50:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (50:13):
And then we went to entertainment.
Speaker 6 (50:14):
Yeah. I think they got sued by the World Wildlife Foundation.
So they had to change it to WWE.
Speaker 4 (50:21):
It tracks.
Speaker 6 (50:21):
That panel was like, nah, you gotta drop the F.
Speaker 4 (50:23):
Speaking of The Rock, you made me a bet last week.
And you were like, I bet $ 20 that you can't
name five professional wrestlers. I named nine. And with that $ 20,
I bought a new lip gloss at Sephora. So thank
you so much.
Speaker 1 (50:34):
Very good.
Speaker 4 (50:35):
And then I asked you if you could name five
books that I'd read recently.
Speaker 1 (50:38):
And I couldn't.
Speaker 4 (50:38):
And you failed so spectacularly.
Speaker 6 (50:40):
You had like deep cuts too on the wrestlers. You're
like Stacey Keebler. I'm like, interesting.
Speaker 4 (50:45):
I did. Thank you. I might have spent more than that, but.
Speaker 6 (50:49):
$ 20 that you spent. So that was your worst. For
my worst of August, I think I'm going to have
to go with Super Troopers 3.
Speaker 4 (50:59):
They'd be so devastated to hear that.
Speaker 6 (51:01):
Which I gave a 2 out of 5.
Speaker 4 (51:03):
Oof.
Speaker 6 (51:04):
Yeah, I think that is the lowest of the month.
And I think I was excited because I love the
original one. I've interviewed the guys from Super Troopers. I
think they are brilliant guys. I think they know comedy.
but this movie was not it. I still think that
they made the movie they wanted to make, but it's
within the Super Troopers box that only has so much
(51:24):
space to expand on that it felt like maybe if
I was 20 years younger, I would have found funny.
I don't take pride in not liking that movie. I
was actually getting roasted a lot for not liking that
movie on TikTok and YouTube, but I just had a
little bit higher expectations and it was just not that good.
Not that funny.
Speaker 3 (51:44):
Thanks for listening to a Bobbycast production.
Host
Bobby Bones
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
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
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!