Lindsay Clancy Defense Stuns Court with Bombshell Move!

A shocking day in court for Lindsey Clancy. The fate of her case lies in the hands of a Massachusetts judge. So I ask the court to hearken back to the evidence that was presented and ask yourself, where's the evidence that she did this? So there is plenty of information to support the essential elements of the charges of murder. There's information that, or facts that support deliberate premeditation. Lindsey Clancy was back in a courtroom today and there were arguments that many people did not see coming. From page to screen, don't miss The Good Daughter, now streaming only on Peacock. I'm here, Charlie, and I'm not going away. And there's still many questions that we're diving into, like, will the court of public opinion get inside access to the seemingly controversial jury deliberations? There needs to be some weight that outweighs the public right to access. A jury's right to come to a verdict without any type of fanfare or unwarranted, unwanted attention or prosecution. It should be sacrosanct. We are breaking it all down with law and crime reporter Sierra Gillespie, who is in the courtroom for today's hearing. And we will be talking about the bombshell statements that Clancy's defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, made that it seems the prosecution was not expecting. We're on the case presented by Law and Crime. I'm Chris Stewart. Defendant Lindsey Clancy. Clancy was back in a Massachusetts courtroom today for the first time since her first trial ended in a mistrial. Now, will there be a second trial? That is the question that so many people are wondering. Now, remember, it was just earlier this month that Clancy's trial ended in deadlock because you had that one lone juror who did not side with the rest of the jury on finding Lindsey Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity in connection to the strangulation deaths of Clancy. Clancy's three young children, Cora, Dawson, and Callen. That was in January of 2023 in their Duxbury, Massachusetts home. Now, it was not a quick deliberation. The panel took seven days before the judge put an end to the six-week trial after that jury could not come to a unanimous decision despite multiple instructions by the court. But following the conclusion of that trial, the Plymouth County District Attorney has not indicated whether. They will try Clancy again on the same charges. Three counts of first-degree murder in a move that some could argue is a little bizarre. And the defense showed up to court today with one goal in mind, and that was to convince the judge, the same judge who oversaw the trial, to drop Clancy's criminal case due to insufficient evidence by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and asking the judge essentially for transparency by unsealing the jury notes and sidebars during deliberations. Specifically related to that holdout juror, who has been identified as Michael Dessernville. Again, this is a case that started all the way back in January of 2023. And when you think of the history of Lindsay Clancy, it goes back even further to that with so much attention on what her mental health care was like. We have so many documents, so many pieces of information that are critical to this case on lawandcrimeplus.com. Right now, you can use promo code OTCFALL, and that will get you three months of Law and Crime Plus for just $2.99 a month, which is 50% off the regular monthly price. Now, remember, Lindsay Clancy's trial was really about whether or not she was guilty of murder, or would she be not guilty by reason of insanity? It was never really a question of whether or not Lindsay Clancy was the one who killed her children. But today, Clancy's defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, made an argument in court that caught everyone's attention. The evidence must not just be some record evidence. It has to be reliable, and it has to be sufficient that would allow a rational juror to make a determination beyond a reasonable doubt. Not just that there's some record evidence that touches on each element of the offense. So I ask the court to hearken back to the evidence that was presented and ask yourself, where's the evidence? Who did this? Reddington also gets into alleged flaws with the investigation itself, and what he argues are crucial pieces of evidence missing in this case. When you consider the evidence that the government has, you have the exercise bands, you have the woefully deficient DNA, you have the woefully deficient fingerprinting, you have the horrific, ridiculous investigation, using the term loosely, by the police. You have the horrific, ridiculous investigation, using the term loosely, by the police. there was no investigation it was not even a horrendous investigation there was no investigation she propels herself out the window and sustains the injuries that your honor is well aware that she sustained she then is on the ground she has no shoes on why does she not have shoes on it's 30-something degrees outside there's snow it's the winter she has no shoes she's wearing black socks where's the blood on the black socks where's the blood on the shoes when did the shoes get taken off and why you were on a recalls looking at the blood spatter evidence and the drops on the floor where are the smears from a person who has just cut their wrists cut their throat is in a state of psychosis that throws himself out of window where are the smears from that person walking across the blood up to the window and then propelling himself out the window where is the evidence that the cup that was on the nightstand contained crushed up not just medication crushed up medication where's the evidence of that where does that come from did the police even seize that cup no did they examine the residue the white residue no patrick said that in fact it was medication patrick said that in fact it was crushed up medication where is the crusher where's the pill crusher where are the two spoons to use to crush where's the residue why is it not on the table why is it not on the floor why is it not on the bed why is there no blood on the bed with the copious bleeding they don't seize that they don't test the substance reddington then got into clancy's admission of the crimes or alleged lack thereof where is the admission where does she say that she did this and what's most chilling is the fact that when she comes out of this obvious coma that she is in that when she comes out of it you want to hear the testimony from the psychiatrist and from the doctors at brigham and women's hospital she was told what happened she had no memory of what happened why does she recall cutting the screen why does she recall killing the children where she's told what happened and had no memory there's no evidence that she admitted that she did this so you have no evidence from the defendant in massachusetts an uncorroborated statement of a defendant obviously is not evidence you have to have corroboration i submit to the court there is no evidence that she made any statements in massachusetts an uncorroborated statement of a defendant obviously is not evidence you have to have corroboration i submit to the court there is no evidence that she made any statements statements as far as the actual killing of the children, which forms the basis of the indictments. Guys, one quick thing before we get more into this. Megan Kelly has a new true crime series called MK Confidential. She is a true crime obsessive, so she made the show she always wanted to listen to. Megan practiced law for nine years and covered a lot of these trials while they were happening, so she's working the actual record, not the internet's version of it. One case a week, five episodes, and a new one every weeknight. In the lineup, it is exactly what you would want. JonBenet Ramsey, Chandra Levy, the DC Snipers, plus cases you have never heard of. Click the link below to watch on YouTube or find it in the Megan Kelly show feed wherever you listen to podcasts. It's right in that feed. Go start a case, then come back and tell me in the comments which ones you liked best. Reddington then moved onto the timeline of the murders and why, in his opinion, it just doesn't add up. That does not match. Even the government in their own closing indicated to the jury that she did not have enough time to do this. The timeline is ridiculous as far as him leaving the house, sending off the 524 email, whether it was from his laptop, whether it was from his cell phone, driving to CVS, driving down to the restaurant to pick up the food. You got videos from both of those places. He's coming back. He's got shoes. He's got a new pair of shoes. He takes his boots off, is what he says. You can see in the photographs as far as the sneakers are concerned. Whatever he takes off, he takes it off. The timeframe does not match. The core body temperature. If you talk to a perfusionist, a perfusionist would indicate that it would take at least two hours for a human being to get down at core body temperature of 82 degrees they would have to warm the blood which they did in the hospital to bring that person to the level where they're not ready to expire hey it's Kelly Rowland you may not know this but I have eczema so I get how it can steal your time but why let eczema take over when you can talk to your doctor about epilis epilis lubricism ABL BKZ a 250 milligram per 2 milliliter injection is a prescription medicine used to treat adults and children 12 years of age and older who weigh at least 88 pounds or 40 kilograms with moderate to severe eczema also called atopic dermatitis that is not well controlled with prescription therapies used on the skin or topicals or who cannot use topical therapies ebolas can be used with or without topical corticosteroids don't use if you are allergic to ebolas allergic reactions can occur that can be severe eye problems can occur tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems you should not receive a live vaccine when treated with ebolas before starting up gliss tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection paid partnership with Lily respect your time ask your doctor about ebolas and visit ebolas calm or call 1-800 Lily rx or 1-800 545 5 9 7 9 hi I'm Karen slaughter if you love untangling mysteries and uncovering the truth behind what really happened I think you'll love the good daughter now my best-selling novel is finally coming to life and I got to write every episode you should have died in them woods your father should have been a better shot starring Rose Byrne Megan Fahey and Brendan Gleeson from page to screen don't miss the good daughter now streaming only on peacock I'm here Charlie and I'm not going away in fact your honor knows that she did obviously expire she died in the hospital massive transfusions and it just goes on and on and on there is there was and there cannot be evidence under the Lattimore standard that this woman killed those children now for his last point Reddington touched on the element of Clancy's mental defect starting his argument by saying none of the Commonwealth's rebuttal experts were qualified to give an opinion on postpartum psychosis or depression related to Clancy's case he then moved on to his own evidence was she able to talk to her friends was she able to walk and breathe at the same time was she able to take care of the kids and build a snowman was she able to send a message on a text was she able to talk to her husband was she able to talk to her friends and her family yes argument being she was fine why why forget about the law forget about the motions forget about everything talk like human beings why would this woman who the evidence shows clearly and unequivocally was a nurse a mother a friend did nothing wrong in her life why would she kill those three children all five of the doctors six of the doctors indicate that she was suffering from a mental disease or defect not just a mental disease a defect she was suffering from a serious mental disease or defect maybe a little difference under the DSM as to what the the cookbook would say well she's suffering from this but she's suffering from that basically it's a severe mental disease and defect the evidence shows clearly and unequivocally that she was in a state of psychosis and as this woman sits in front of you today I suggest to the court they did not prove probable cause and they certainly did not prove she was not acting at the time of the psychosis and should be found not guilty now on the other hand despite the Commonwealth not announcing a retrial they did oppose dropping Clancy's criminal charges prosecutors then argued that they had presented enough evidence to come to a reasonable conclusion that the murders were carried out by Lindsey Clancy and they say they were planned and premeditated we're hearing now for the first time in this argument that counsel is challenging first the excuse me the sufficiency of the evidence as it applies to the three counts of murder what we heard throughout the course of trial over and over from counsel was that there was objections to the presentation of Commonwealth's evidence on the underlying murders because the defendant admits the defendant's evidence stipulates whether the Commonwealth agreed to the stipulation or not and now for the first time the defendant is arguing that there's no evidence that she did this I'd suggest to you that the entire record is voluminous as to the information supporting the fact that she did this we have she's the only one in the home with three young children should we have that her husband testified under oath that he left the house that she sent him out on those errands that he went to the exact places where she directed him to go not only did she direct him to go based on his testimony but we confirm that with her own cell phone data that says that she made the call to the restaurant that she made the call to CVS that he then went there he's on video surveillance at those locations during the time period in which these murders occurred he comes home and he finds the children in the manner that they were in and he finds the defendant where she was we have all that information we have there out was DNA on those exercise bands that was attributable to this defendant and it was on the ends of those bands the ends of those bands that she had to pull in order to strangle each and every one of those children we have that she woke up in the hospital and spoke to a chaplain within days of regaining consciousness where she talks about the fact that she had these hallucinations telling her what she had to do that she had to kill the kids and that she was glad that the kids were safer now so there is plenty of information to support the essential elements of the charges of murder another argument the Commonwealth brought up is that people who are mentally ill can still be criminally responsible I'd remind the court that mental disease or defect is in fact a legal term that there is no clear definition that is a complicated topic and there was sufficient evidence presented in the Commonwealth's case in chief or substantial evidence I should say the defendant was having signs and symptoms of mental illness in the months prior to the murder there was no dispute about that again confining your honor's rulings to what you heard as far as trial evidence in this courtroom not what was said in pretrial arguments not what was said in press conferences or what was said in arguments at other points of time what the jury heard what your honor heard as trial evidence in this case is that she was displaying signs and symptoms of mental illness she was seeing several medical providers she was getting treatment she was on medication she went to the hospitals she went to the inpatient at McLean that is all clear in evidence but the Commonwealth doesn't have to rely on that in order to say that she is in fact criminally responsible the fact that counsel wants to argue defense counsel wants to argue that she was psychotic is an argument and he can make it but that doesn't mean that the Commonwealth hasn't proved otherwise with evidence of the defendant's conduct with evidence of people's observations of her with evidence of how she interacted with medical professionals even on the day before this incident occurred that she was not displaying any signs of psychosis the court considered that a fact-finder can consider that and you should consider it in determining that the Commonwealth has minutes burden in this case in the last part of her argument the prosecutor touched on their alleged motive in Clancy's case the Commonwealth presented evidence not that the defendant was a bad mother or unhappy with being a mother and trying to start a new life it was the fact that she was in a point in her life where she felt that she was never going to be the same she was never going to be the person that she was before she was frustrated with the system that she had been dealing with she was frustrated with the results that she was getting and she had succumbed to the idea that she didn't want to be here anymore and that she was going to commit suicide and that she was going to take those kids with her because no one could care for them like she could she didn't want them to suffer those are all based on statements that she has made not in the context of a forensic interview but at various points to different people including people at the Bergam and Women Hospital after this incident occurred so the idea that this was altruistic filicide as the Commonwealth's expert talked about is in fact a motive and it is in fact rational based on everything that we know about the situation with a defendant during that time period so to say that we haven't shown why it's just a misrepresentation of the evidence I'd suggest so based on these arguments here and as well as resting on whatever arguments that I haven't addressed that are contained within my motion the Commonwealth would ask that you deny the motion now the judge decided to take his motion under advisement and it's unclear when the decision will come out but we do know it is going to be a big deciding factor in the direction that this case takes moving forward but this wasn't the only motion argued in court today the defense is seeking information to be unsealed in connection to jury deliberations more specifically jury notes and transcripts of sidebar discussions related to the loan holdout juror both central to the judge's decision to call a mistrial part of the right to a criminal trial to a public trial of a criminal trial is for judicial documents documents that would provide the predicate for the court's decision making to be public. It's not an absolute right, there are exceptions, but the exceptions need to be as narrow as possible so that we can rely on them publicly in support of the motion for double jeopardy. Meanwhile, the Commonwealth argued releasing the documents could have a "chilling effect" on the judicial system. If we get a jury, will that jury feel comfortable in sending a note to the court knowing it might become public? And then further, those conversations that the parties have about that note and the opinions that they have, it just all would pile on to have this repeated chilling effect that would harm, irreparably, our judicial system. And I think that if you look at it from a different perspective, where here we have a lone holdout juror allegedly looking for a guilty verdict versus those looking for a not guilty verdict. By lack of criminal responsibility. If you flip that, and to a defendant facing a jury where 11 people are voting guilty and one is the holdout looking for not guilty, and the chilling effect it would have on that person to know that the public will know their position, the public will be able to see notes about them, will hear discussions about them, will know that they were the one who didn't hold that person responsible, that would be a travesty. The judge decided to also take this motion under advisement, along with a similar motion that was argued by the Boston Globe newspaper, asking for access to sidebar discussions, which the Commonwealth added an additional opposing argument to. The Commonwealth believes that a juror's right to privacy, a jury's right to come to a verdict without any type of fanfare or unwanted attention or persecution, it should be sacrosanct. And so we would object to that. Thank you. To any type of public hearing where information. Hey, it's Kelly Rowland. You may not know this, but I have eczema. So I get how it can steal your time. But why let eczema take over when you can talk to your doctor about Eblis? Eblis, labrakizumab LBKZ, a 250 milligram per two milliliter injection, is a prescription medicine used to treat adults and children 12 years of age and older who weigh at least 88 pounds or 40 kilograms with moderate to severe eczema. Eblis, labrakizumab LBKZ, a 250 milligram per two milliliter injection, is a prescription Also called atopic dermatitis that is not well controlled with prescription therapies used on the skin or topicals or who cannot use topical therapies. Eblis can be used with or without topical corticosteroids. Don't use if you are allergic to Eblis. Allergic reactions can occur that can be severe. Eye problems can occur. Tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems. You should not receive a live vaccine when treated with Eblis. Before starting Eblis, tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. Paid partnership with Lilly. Respect your time. Ask your doctor about Eblis and visit Eblis.com. Or call 1-800-LILLY-RX or 1-800-545-5979. Hi, I'm Karen Slaughter. If you love untangling mysteries and uncovering the truth behind what really happened, I think you'll love The Good Daughter. Charlie, go! Sam! Now my best-selling novel is finally coming to life and I got to write every episode. You should have died in them woods. Your father should have been a better shot. Starring Rose Byrne, Megan Fahey, and Brendan Gleeson. Evident information about that juror would be discussed. And then it appears Reddington took the argument personally and took the stage to defend himself for his comments on the lone holdout juror. I am so tired of hearing persecution, attacking. I am doing all these terrible things to this juror. I filed one motion and said nothing. Every comment I have made has been in reaction to people from Donald Trump on down to Nancy Mace, down to Cruz, not the DA, but the politician calling for her execution. I have responded to these outlandish comments, including the guy from Houston. I just wanted to say that, Judge. We're talking about this motion for access to arguments we had at sidebar conferences. Anything else you want to add to that? On edge. On what? On the issue that we've just been talking about, the Gloves motion. No, I'm just tired of hearing about me persecuting people. All right. I never said anything. No, listen. Now, we have another big hearing on the docket, and that is November 2nd, where a number of major motions in this case are going to be argued, including the defense's motion to dismiss the case on double jeopardy grounds, with one of those arguments surrounding the holdout juror allegedly not following the court's instructions, and if that actually. if that actually constituted a mistrial. The parties will also discuss potential trial dates, though the judge made it clear that even if a trial date is set, that doesn't mean a retrial will actually move forward. That will be dependent upon the judge's ruling. But following the hearing, the attorneys also spoke to media outside the courthouse, including attorneys representing the holdout juror, and here's what they had to say. What does he want? Privacy. Anything else? Justice for the children. The way that the. the jury system works, and within our Sixth Amendment constitutional rights, jurors should be able to come in, take the evidence in front of them, and make a decision based on the judge's direction and that evidence. That's what he did. That's supposedly what everyone did. However, he's the only one being targeted here, because his decision and his vote was different than everyone else's. People should not have to worry just as the commonwealth said. Jurors should not have to worry about coming in and having them outed because they take a stance different than everyone else. Only my client is being targeted. This case was extremely decisive, uh, divisive. There's, there's people that believe heavily one way or another. And what that has done is created a situation where somebody that has that minority vote is being attacked. And that is not how the system works. I think that Kevin Ruddington attempting to take basically what everything, how, how the social media is playing out here and utilizing that. Now, what I would like to try to do is avoid name calling, avoid, you know, this isn't about the defense or the commonwealth. This is about the justice system and how that is supposed to work. So looking at anything else is not helpful to my client moving forward. His, it should not continue in a way where his privacy and his, his personal information continues to be taken, especially when no one else is, is being asked for. One of the points though, the, on the flip side of this, there's been this huge amount of support for him and that there's a fundraiser now that I guess has hit around $400,000. Is that money going to him? And if so, like what, what will he do with that? Money is, is out there. I'm aware of that. I know part of it was used to pay my fees. Um, I don't know what his plans are moving forward, but I know as of right now the, the way that the media and the public has come out, he needs the money for protection. Attorneys in Clancy's civil medical malpractice suit also spoke outside the courthouse. We're disappointed that, um, the quick, the case couldn't move forward, um, the way that we expected it to today. Um, but we're going to still keep working on the civil. Case to hold each and every one of her doctors and the hospitals, uh, responsible for the fear, the failures in, in this case that caused, um, this entire thing to happen. So we're still here. Um, and we're, we're going to make sure that the civil case moves forward, um, and, and goes through the system in terms of what it should. And we're hopeful that, uh, whatever happens here, um, we'll, we'll find a resolution for Lindsay. Um, we, we think that it should move quickly. Uh, we want it to move as quickly as possible. Uh, but it doesn't in any way. At this point affect the progress of the civil case. Uh, and we expect to hold each and every doctor and each, every hospital responsible for their failures to treat Lindsay, um, under the standard of care and, and, and, and without negligence joining us now from the courtroom in Plymouth County, Massachusetts, Sierra Gillespie hosts of scandal here on law and crime in the courtroom once again, um, for, for this hearing involving Lindsay Clancy, first off, just what was it like to be in the room again? You know, you're, you're serious. Yeah. You're seeing all the key players, including Lindsay Clancy. Um, what stood out? What stood out to you about her? Yeah. Chris, going back to the courtroom today, I'm not gonna lie. It was different than the last time I was here. I mean, I thought that the biggest day of trial was going to be closing arguments or even the day the mistrial was declared. But today was the most intense day I've seen in terms of the amount of media and press. It was the first time ever that any court officer had us hold up our press badges. They would match it with the list for the sign in. They had our IDs. They wanted to make sure that we were who we said we were. It was filled. It was shoulder to shoulder with press at least a hundred between the press and the spectators who were here. We get inside and you're right. It's all the same players. It's almost like deja vu with a couple of exceptions. First of all, uh, ADA, uh, Shannon Buckingham was not wearing a bow, which is interesting. I know that that unto itself doesn't sound crazy, but when you compare it with every single day of this six and a half week trial, when she was wearing her bow, I know that that chart was talked about about a lot on Tik TOK, say for example. She was not doing that. Then Lindsay Clancy herself in the front row, she was wearing kind of a maroon purse. purple, pinkish outfit. I don't know if that had anything to do with the pink supporters. A lot of people here wear pink in order to support Clancy. Was she doing that? I'm not sure. What I will say about her is that she looked somber. I saw her speaking with Kevin Reddington. Her parents were there. Reddington, ahead of all of this, he was kind of speaking to Lindsay, leaning on the lectern with his Starbucks, just kind of like joking around, chatting. He seemed very comfortable. She was more stoic. And I guess it was an intense courtroom moment for sure. Well, and you think even like the bow, which in a lot of ways means nothing in the grand scheme of this, but also at the same time, you just wonder, I mean, you take a moment as a prosecutor to step back after this trial and you take in so much criticism and feedback and what people are saying about just how this case went. I mean, clearly they wanted Lindsay Clancy to be found guilty of some very serious crime. And that didn't happen. You know, how do they approach it a second time around if it even gets to that point, which we'll talk about here in just a moment. But rule 25, that, you know, and what Kevin Reddington said today. And I know there's some context that I think we need to break down with it, because when I first like was just kind of reading and like our way that we message here at Law and Crime, like when when a hearing is going on and it's Kevin Reddington is saying that there was no proof that Lindsay Clancy actually took the lives of her kids. And you're like, wait a second, that is so different from what we heard in the trial and what seemed to be what this trial was even about. What, though, is the context to exactly what is going on with what Kevin Reddington was arguing? Okay, so let's talk about rule 25, first of all, because you're right. I did not see this coming that he was essentially saying, where's the evidence? When did Lindsay Clancy admit to this? So yesterday I did a whole episode on scandal where I kind of zeroed in on the emotions that the defense was. And one was about rule number 25. Kevin Reddington literally said moments after the mistrial was declared, okay, Judge Sullivan, I got to talk about rule number 25. So just taking a look at the statute here in Massachusetts, it basically says that a judge has to go through with a fine-tooth comb at the prosecution's case, take a look at the evidence, the witnesses, and determine could a reasonable juror have found Lindsay Clancy, the defendant here, not guilty, and in this case, not guilty by reason of insanity. That's really what rule 25 boils down to. And so I'm going to take a look at the evidence, the witnesses, and determine could a reasonable juror have found Lindsay Clancy, the defendant here, not guilty, and in this case, not guilty by reason of insanity. So I was kind of thinking he was going to, I guess, I don't know. I don't know what I was thinking, but I will say I did not expect him to come in and say, well, the Commonwealth didn't even prove that it was Lindsay Clancy herself. I mean, look at this botched investigation. He talked about this in closing arguments and a bit throughout the trial, but he really zeroed in on his arguments today, talking about how investigators did a terrible job. I think he said horrific at one point or ridiculous, talking about the pill crusher. Where does it make sense that Lindsay Clancy wasn't wearing shoes and there wasn't blood on her socks talking about logistical things that usually we talk about in a first degree murder case, but also in a first degree murder case, usually it's a whodunit. The nature of the plea here was that Lindsay Clancy did kill her kids, but she should be found not guilty by reason of insanity because she wasn't criminally responsible. She was in the throes of postpartum psychosis at the time. And that was the six and a half week trial that we all sat through. And we all watched the Commonwealth brought all of their information to the court. And we all sat through it. And we all watched the information about it. And then for Kevin Reddington to come forth here and say, Hey, you guys didn't even. So I get how it can steal your time, but why let eczema take over when you can talk to your doctor about Epglyphs. Epglyphs, Leberkizumab LBKZ, a 250 milligram per two milliliter injection is a prescription medicine used to treat adults and children, 12 years of age and older who weigh at a topical dermatitis that is not well controlled with prescription therapies used on the skin or topicals or who cannot use topical therapies. Epglyphs can be used with or without topical corticosteroids. Don't use if you are allergic to Epglyphs. Tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems, you should not receive a live vaccine when treated with Epglyphs. Before starting Epglyphs, tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. Respect your time. Ask your doctor about Epglyphs and visit epglyphs.com or call 1-800-4-4-4. 1-800-LILLY-RX or 1-800-545-5979. Charlie, go! Sam! And prove that she did it. That, to me, my jaw was on the floor. Well, yeah, and I think, too, like, it's one of those, you know, the context of it all is important because I know within, you know, minutes before that context was starting to be pushed out there by a lot of legal experts, you know, you had folks who have made, you know, all sorts of conspiracy theories, which I know, like, we've kind of dug into and disproved and have been disproved by investigators, that it's not really, opening the door to that. It's more about, you know, here are just some legal maneuvers that are going on in a potential appeal process and the process going forward and trying to figure out whether or not she's going to be tried again. How did the Commonwealth, though, counter that? You know, here he is saying, well, you guys didn't even prove and reach that burden of, you know, all the evidence proving that she actually took the lives of her three kids. How did prosecutors respond to that? The Commonwealth was aghast. They came up, it was ADA Shannon Buckingham, and she basically said, I didn't expect this. If we listen to the trial, the Commonwealth did prove that Lindsey Clancy did it, and here's how. So she went through just a couple of different elements that she said proved Lindsey Clancy did this, and that was presented at trial. First, she talked about the exercise bands that were used to strangle the children. Now, Lindsey Clancy's DNA was found on a portion of these bands, and it would have been consistent with where she would have been holding it, to strangle the children. So that was number one. Number two, they talked about her cell phone data that showed that she was at the house at the time. Additionally, they talked about her voices that she heard, which is kind of strange because usually we heard a lot about this from the defense, but the Commonwealth said, okay, after all of this, she talked about how voices encouraged her to kill her children. And after this, when she was in the hospital, she made comments that were, I'm paraphrasing here, but something very similar to, I'm glad my children are safe now. They're safe and they're okay. So those were just a couple of the points that the Commonwealth said, okay, hey, we already presented all of these. We proved that she did it. Here's how we proved it. It was kind of not something I expected to see today, Chris. No, and it seems like just with how things have gone in this trial, though we have covered, you know, sadly, the case of Lindsey Clancy, which, as you know, goes back, you know, several years, kind of as people have looked at this, you know, six-week period of when the trial was going on, and it becomes this media, spectacle, there's so much, you know, expect the unexpected whenever these attorneys are in the room. What focus was there on the holdout juror? Because now, you know, he has given an interview, you know, on Fox News or has, you know, released a video. He has attorneys now representing him. His name is out there. And that's so different. I mean, when you think of any of these jurors who end up on the case, I mean, you get called for jury duty and then here you are, you know, two of them, and you're like, oh, my God, this is so much more than that. They are. But Kevin Reddington, like he wants to know more about what happened in the deliberation room because, you know, 11 of 12, it appears they were on their way to the verdict that they were working for. And then you have this one holdout juror. And then there's allegations from the other jurors that he had reasonable doubt. Where are we in figuring out what role that could play in whether or not Lindsey Clancy goes on trial again? Well, unfortunately, not much was decided today. In the way of the motions, a couple were presented. Judge Sullivan took them under advisement. And a few more things will be discussed or argued in November. But as for what's going on with that holdout juror, Reddington does want info. You are so right. One of the motions he was asking for specifically references the note that the four person wrote down saying that this juror was not following the law as it pertains to reasonable doubt. He wants a closer eye on that. But also there was an entire motion about this holdout juror. And you're right. It's so interesting that he is labeled as juror Doe. Even his attorney spoke just a couple of minutes ago outside this courthouse here referring to him as juror Doe when his name is now officially out there. That's beside the point, though. The motion itself is asking for a lot of information, talking about his juror questionnaire, his information under voir dire. Reddington actually wants him to be questioned again by both sides with counsel present. That's one of his requests in this motion. Additionally, he wants information from this juror's cell phone records because there were allegations when some of the other jurors came forward that this holdout juror was on his phone scrolling during deliberations. So Reddington wants the metadata from the dates deliberation was in session from around 830 p.m. to 430 p.m. Take a look. What was he looking up? Who was he texting? What was he talking about? All of that. And then on top of this, a lot of the local stations here uncovered some information about this holdout juror after all of this went down. And they found that he had a charge against him relating to domestic violence, an incident, an alleged incident, I should say, that happened back in 2021. The charges were eventually dropped. But there was a background check. Reddington wants that and information on the prosecution. So he wants a lot of information at the very least, Chris. However, none of it was decided today. We heard from his attorney who basically went up there and said, hey, I'm not ready today. Can we push this down the line? They were going to talk about it on November 2nd. So we didn't really dig too much into the loan holdout juror. But I will say, if we're kind of looking at my crystal ball here, I think it's going to be a big part of Reddington's argument because he's trying as hard as he can not to go back to trial. No. And, you know, it's it's an interesting argument, to say the least, of like, on one hand, you want jurors to follow the rules and to reach whatever conclusion they have. And you see, you know, the 11 of the 12. Many of them have have gone public with media interviews themselves saying, you know, one interview I remember, I think it was one of the male jurors saying like, hey, if you reach a conclusion that is different than everybody else, that is fine. But what he believes he saw in the jury room was just not following the rules. At the same time, there's. Definitely questions to be raised of do you want to live in a world where you can get called to jury duty? You end up on a jury like these jurors did. And then if things don't go the way that the defense wants, that suddenly your cell phone can be looked through. And in this case, I mean, there's already more publicity than probably any of these people ever expected. You know, when you get that summons in the mail, the big question overall, Sierra, with this is, you know, will we see Lindsey Clancy on trial? Again, you know, when you think of, you know, I hate talking politics, but like there's political ramifications for district attorneys and, you know, how they handle controversial cases like this, you know, what the appetite is in Massachusetts to see this trial again. Certainly there is a lot of people nationally. Everybody's got a different opinion on Lindsey Clancy and where this case should go. But where are we in figuring out whether or not she'll stand trial one more time? Well, we'll know on November 2nd. At least that's, we'll have a closer idea on November 2nd, because right now we haven't heard from the district attorney's office, whether they're going to retry this first degree murder. They could bump it down to second degree murder, which would make Lindsey Clancy eligible for a bench trial, which in the past, I believe Kevin Rennington has indicated he would be interested in that. Could they bump it even down to manslaughter, reach a plea deal of some sort? I don't know. A lot of things are possible. But today, Judge Sullivan told the prosecution, you guys be ready by November 2nd. That's the next time we're in court. Next time we're going to meet, I want to set a trial date. So let's do it then. So basically at that point, they need to say, these are what our plans are. Now, will that actually happen? I don't know. It seems like Kevin Rennington is throwing everything out at the wall. Rule 25, we talked about that at length. The fact that he's saying, where's the evidence? Did she even admit to it? Then we talked about the double jeopardy too, that that's one of the arguments they're having. They're also pointing to this loan holdout juror. Perhaps was he following the laws that pertains to, you know, reasonable, doubt. So it seems to me that the defense is fighting tooth and nail not to go back to another trial, but will the prosecution bring all of that? I mean, you're right. The politics do play a role here in that DA Cruz is up for election this fall. We're in the fall. Originally, Judge Sullivan said he wants to try this again in the fall, which we're in the fall. When's it going to happen? Yeah. So I don't have a real answer as to what is going to happen, but we will have some sort of answer within about a month. Well, and Sierra, last question, just for, like the day-to-day life of Lindsay Clancy. You know, she has been, you know, in the custody, you know, I know she's in a, in a facility right now. I think it's in Tewksbury, right? What is, where is she as all of this is going on? So Lindsay, you're right, is in a hospital in Tewksbury here in Massachusetts, where she has been pretty much since she was released from the hospital. And I mean, just like the general hospital after she had surgeries from her jump from the window, she's been in Tewksbury, I believe it's since February of 2023. So three and a half years. So she's been in Tewksbury since February of 2023. So three and a half, almost four years at this point. And something I will note, Chris, that was really stark to me is that since she has been admitted to that hospital, she has been on suicide watch. Eblis, labrakizumab LBKZ, a 250 milligram per two milliliter injection is a prescription medicine used to treat adults and children 12 years of age and older who weigh at least 88 pounds or 40 kilograms with moderate to severe eczema. Also called atopic dermatitis that is not well controlled with prescription therapies used on the skin or topicals or who cannot use topical therapies. Respect your time. Ask your doctor about Eblis and visit Eblis.com or call 1-800-LILLY-RX or 1-800-545-5979. You should have died in them. It's almost four years worth of suicide watch and that's not normal. From the people that I've talked to and reached out to experts about that, that is absolutely not normal. So her day is surrounded by people monitoring her, trying to keep her safe in that way so she doesn't have any sort of self-harm. But we also have to remember that she is in a wheelchair. She's paralyzed from the waist down. So she has nurses there to help her if she's going to the bathroom, if she's taking a shower or probably a bath, something more likely. I mean, they're helping her get around mobility-wise, but also her mental health. It seems at least what was presented in court is still kind of questionable. So she is in the hospital, but I don't know what's ahead for her. Yeah, and we'll see what happens next. November 2nd, huge day on the calendar once again and a story that is continuing on. Sierra Gillespie, Law & Crime. Always great to have you on the case here, Sierra. Thanks for being with us. Yeah, thanks for having me, Chris. That will do it for On the Case, presented by Law & Crime. I'm Chris Stewart. We'll see you next time.