385. The Lindsay Clancy Trial Part 13

The moment a body is found, the clock starts ticking, 48 hours before the trail goes cold. From A&E and Crime House, this is the official podcast from the famous true crime series, The First 48. I'm Carter Roy. Every Thursday, I revisit a landmark homicide investigation in depth with long form storytelling built for your ears. Listen to and follow The First 48 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you listen to podcasts. I'm Brett. And I'm Alice. And we are The Prosecutors. Today on The Prosecutors, the defense wraps up in Lindsey Clancy case, and the prosecution begins its rebuttal. The Prosecutors' Rebuttal The Prosecutors' Rebuttal The Prosecutors' Rebuttal Hello, everybody, and welcome to this episode of The Prosecutors. I'm Brett. I'm joined, as always, by my rebutting co-host, Alice. Hey, Brett. Hi, Alice. We are back. Sorry, I turned to the side because I think a bird just flew into the window, which is going to be really interesting. Is this like a meta of what's going to happen in the rebuttal? I don't know. I don't know. I like how you're trying to tie it in. That's beautiful. Thanks. I do what I can. But we always told you, unlike other trials, this is going to be really interesting. It's a three-part trial, really, because of the insanity defense. The rebuttal is not some sort of afterthought. It is very much part of the case. Yeah, and it absolutely is. And it was always going to be this way because of the way this all works. You've got the prosecution's putting on its case. And really, the presumption in any case is a presumption of sanity. The prosecution puts on its case. The defense does its rebuttal thing. It's never going to be enough to meet the standard for them. If you're going to put on this affirmative defense, you're going to need to call some experts. They did. Now the prosecution is going to call their experts. That was the way this was always going to go. So that's where we're at. The defense is still calling their witnesses. And we are to the point, though, where the defense is starting to wrap up. This was a shock, I'm sure, to some people who expected that the Patrick Clancy unmasking was going to happen at any time. Where it was finally revealed that he is, in fact, the person who's responsible for this. But guess what? That didn't happen. And you shouldn't be surprised by that. All right. So let's talk about the final witness for the defense, who I thought was in some ways their best witness, but also highlighted some issues for this defense that the prosecution is definitely going to seize upon in their defense. And that is Dr. Philip Resnick. Now, Dr. Philip Resnick has been sick, so he is not going to appear in person. This is the second defense witness who appears on television, as Reddington would like to say, which I just think is ironic. Doesn't mean anything, but it's ironic to me, as much as he attacked doing things through Zoom. But you know what? Reddington had a point, because this day starts off with technical difficulties. So we end up getting delayed. We have to sit around. We have to sit around and wait while the court staff tries to figure out how to get Resnick on a decent Wi-Fi connection so that we can actually hear what he has to say. Which was so ironic, because they started court like an hour late. And you would think, because this has happened before with the other Zoom testifier, that they would have figured this out ahead of time. But, you know, Massachusetts trial day is what we call it. So, as I said, this is Philip Resnick. He is a forensic psychiatrist. He is an incredibly famous forensic psychiatrist. He's working a lot. He's been in a lot of really important cases. But he is really old. And that can cut either way for a jury. Sometimes a jury sees that and they think, wow, this guy really knows what he's talking about. It can appear as though maybe they seem like, you know, they're not as like connected to the modern world. You can have that problem. Maybe they feel like they're off their game. People had different takes on this. I thought he seemed like he was pretty sharp, even though he is 88 years old, I believe, and had just gotten out of the hospital. He got his degrees back in 59 and 63. He's been doing this for a while. He talks about felicide, which is the killing of a child by the parent. He says it's a relatively infrequent occurrence, but he also says it happens 400 to 500 times a year, which sounds like way too much to me. I realize in the grand scheme, I guess, of 400 million people in this country, that's not that many, but it's a lot to me, I thought. But I appreciated that it was a rare thing. He is the leading expert on this, but this is not the only thing he does. I mean, he has done evaluations on about 80 cases with mothers or fathers who killed children. He also did an evaluation of Jeffrey Dahmer. He testified for the prosecution in that, and he testified for the prosecution on the Unabomber case. He testified for the defense, or he consulted with the defense on the Casey Anthony case. I think he said they ended up not using him, which makes sense given what her defense was, and on Andrea Yates for the defense. He also was for the prosecution in the Aurora shooting and the government on the Oklahoma City bombing case. If I had been right, I would have found one case with a woman that he testified for the prosecution. Just a minor little point, but it was interesting to me that Andrea Yates and Casey Anthony, he's with the defense. We mentioned a bunch of other prosecution cases, but they're all men, and they're not filicide cases. It would have been nice. Do you have a defense case or a case with a filicide where he testified for the prosecution? That would have been one I would have pointed out. Maybe there's not one. Not a huge deal, but it's just something I noticed. He met with Lindsay four months after the crime for an hour and 15 minutes. Appropriate. Appropriate. Appropriate. Yes. That's the amount of time, about the amount of time one would expect. Reddington draws out at some point that the prosecution didn't meet with her until three years later, which he knows the reason for that, and I don't know, I mean, I guess it was effective because I saw people talking about this. The prosecution's people cannot meet with the defendant, typically, unless the defense has opened the door for that by doing something like filing a notice that their defense is going to be mental capacity. Once the defense does that, then the prosecution can start moving forward with having its people meet with Lindsay. So, obviously, the defense has a little bit of an advantage. I mean, look, four months later is also four months later. It's not like he met with her on the 25th or anything. And nevertheless, he talks to her, he talks to her parents, he talks about how she had a blunted affect and her tone was muted. He reviewed police reports, grand jury testimony, photographs, medical records relating to Lindsay's mental health issues and history, and he also reviewed the records from the government experts who will eventually testify. It's noted that the MMPI that was given to Lindsay by a government expert noted that she had a tendency to minimize her symptoms, not to overstate them. So, she's not faking it. You know, she's not claiming, as it seems like the prosecution almost tried to claim, that she is literally paralyzed. You know, she's not faking it. She's not like faking it, right? She's not faking the fact she's depressed. If anything, she understates her symptoms. She's generally not misleading, and there's no evidence suggesting that she is faking psychiatric symptoms. And the government experts actually cited his research in some of their reports. So, we're going to go through the legal standard. That's just how we do it in this case. And he starts off with whether or not she has a disease or defect that would prevent her from coming to the hospital. So, we're conforming her ability. And we start with that disease or defect. According to this doctor, she had severe depression, bipolar 2, with mild mania, and severe depression. The bipolar 2 is necessary because he has to say mild mania because Lindsay's mania symptoms are so difficult to even pinpoint. So, if she has bipolar, it seems like it's probably bipolar 2. As to postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis, she had a history of anxiety and difficulty with her children. She was in a very serious depression and it would be considered postpartum onset. At the time of the crime itself, he says that Lindsay was, quote, frankly, psychotic. He says it's not common to have this sort of episode eight months after birth, but it can occur. He says that Lindsay did her best to not reveal the extent of her depression. And one thing he says I thought was interesting, and I feel like I know why he said this, he says that she was more open with her children and their family members, but not so much with others. And I have seen people say things like, talking about psychosis, that typically people who are psychotic, if they are able to mask it, do a good job masking it with the general public, maybe in everyday encounters, they can hold themselves together for work or going to church or whatever. But oftentimes the people who are closest with them are the ones who have a little bit more insight into what's going on with them. So I felt like he kind of said that for that reason. The problem is they're doesn't seem to actually be that much evidence of that the only thing we have is you know her mom who was a labor and delivery nurse was there with patrick when she said something about having thoughts of either harming the children or something bad happening to them and we have her sister who is a therapist who at some point asked her if she was safe if the things that were happening to her the suicidal ideations if she was safe and okay and she said she was but there was no indication from either of those people that lindsey was much more open with them about the things that were going on with her than she was her doctors or her friends or anything else so i didn't really understand this point but that's what he says he says that he's not saying she was psychotic every minute or even every minute of the 24th she was actually having a better day than other days on that day she made the snowman she took cora to the checkup he says that she only became psychotic when she received the news that she was sick and that she was sick and that she received the command hallucination while patrick was out doing chores i think this is interesting because one of the criticisms and this is actually i thought this was a point in his favor because it seems more candid one of the criticisms of the defense case has been awfully convenient that her psychosis just happens to come upon her right after patrick leaves and the doctor seems to confirm yes that's what happened and that can happen so it may seem whatever but that is what happened in this case and it can't happen in this case and as i said he mcnerney acknowledging that and not trying to push the psychosis back and say she had been psychotic all month kind of like zazel you know the things he was doing i actually thought that bolstered him for me i was like okay i see what you're saying i'm listening to you you were making sense to me now he says that not all voices are like necessarily dangerous about a third of voices are command hallucinations most are benign now dangerous command hallucinations are rare and she not only had this dangerous command hallucination but she also had a delusion of influence in other words lindsey felt that her body was taken over by an external force and she did not have control over her own body she was a puppet and someone else was pulling the strings this is really the first time we've heard this from any expert and it is slightly different from what the defense's other experts have really said about her but this is obviously a very visceral image of her this is going to that second prong not that she didn't know it was wrong but she was pulling the strings and she was pulling the strings wrong but that she could not control her own body at all he gives his opinion on the criminal standard in massachusetts i still don't understand why he is able to opine about this because this is what the jury is supposed to decide but have at it massachusetts of course he says that lindsey was unable to conform her conduct to the law because she's this puppet being moved by some other force first she was hearing a voice commanding her to do this and she did not feel any sense of control she was just following the command and she could not make any decision to do it or not it was this puppet now she made a severe suicide attempt which is also based on that command hallucination so can we talk about this for a second because this i found this to be confusing and he's going to try he's going to talk about this later and we'll talk about what he says but we have as i've said these different takes on what's happening here you know lindsey clancy hears a voice and he's going to try and he's going to try and he's going to try and he's going to kill your children so you can kill yourself or she hears a voice saying if you don't kill yourself and your children you won't be safe i mean okay and then she does what the voice says because she wants her children to be safe you know or she wants to take her own life and the only way to do that according to the voice is to kill her children but this is not consistent with either of those two this is like a third aspect right i see this as not being in the other two i see this as a completely third version of events that is not consistent or even overlapping with the other two but he's gonna say they are he says they are but that's where i got confused because i was like what is the theory because in my mind this is a third one which is that i don't even know what she's thinking whether she wants to kill herself or she thinks her children are not safe what i got from this puppet example was this is an out-of-body experience where she's almost watching someone control her body do these things and she described it as exactly that in the civil complaint in the later on right exactly but that she doesn't herself even at that time have any thoughts of whether it's criminal or relief that it means they're safe or relief that she can kill herself so i saw this as completely separate from the those two versions of events that the defense has put forward but then when he starts talking about the categories of women who kill children the puppet example did not make any sense to me yeah and he's gonna try and explain it later and we'll talk about it more then but just as soon as he started talking about this i was like it feels almost like a spaghetti at the wall type thing but i feel like this is what lindsey is telling him like she's telling him once again i don't know that any other doctor has said this i could be wrong feel free to point it out i don't remember zizel saying that she was a puppet and she had no control of herself i don't remember her telling that to the chaplain i don't remember saying that to either one of them but now she's talking to this different doctor world's expert on all this stuff and she's giving him the i was like a puppet i had no control over myself i just think it's interesting that she seems to tell different doctors different things telling different doctors different things but also when it comes to the mccool standard in massachusetts because we have nothing in the record supporting the fact that there's a voice commanding her to do things that this is almost like they it's an easy story i had no control over anything you don't have to go into the criminality of what voice or not i am being controlled outside of my body seems like a very clean story to tell if everything has led up to this but this to me is almost like a we have nothing else in the evidence that she actually heard voices or that she was suffering from psychosis so we have to like create this entire puppet scenario to be able to meet the mccool standard and let me just say this i've said before that i no longer think shared voices this made me think that even more it made me think that at best she's in this puppet string thing and that's why she did it and then later on she sort of conceptualizes that as a voice telling her to do it if she was not in her right mind when this happened to me the voice is her way of explaining what happened there wasn't actually a voice i just don't think there was a voice at this point i am basically convinced there's no voice telling her to do this in the literal sense of a voice so from his entire resume dr resnick is clearly very experienced probably he's worked on like some of the most famous cases ever and so i can imagine a juror who's hearing all this and it's not quite matching up being like well but he's the expert on this so i don't know so if you're confused come along with me because i continue to be confused because then he goes into the five categories of women who kill children there's the altruistic filicide so this is murder committed out of love it's altruistic you do what's best for your child it's a delusional belief that your child is about to be tortured or unsafe for some reason and it also occurs when the mother plans to take her own life and she's not going to be able to do it because she's not going to be and in this psychotic thinking she believes that the child will be worse off than if she remains alive now this obviously sounds like one version of events that the defense has put forward of her saying her kids are not safe either without her or otherwise he says that lindsey believed that if she took her own life her children would be in terrible shape and she would be doing her children a favor by having them go to heaven with her rather than remain on earth without her so is she a puppet or not i don't know but this is why it's not so confusing how can you be altruistic if you are also the puppet because you're the puppet or you're altruistic i don't think you're both but he says that she's the altruistic filicide which goes along with her civil complaint where she says go with god right when she's killing her children i just want to put all my cards on the table with this altruistic filicide thing if you show me altruistic filicide where the mother thinks that the everyone around her are zombies and they're going to come eat her children and she has to kill them to save them from the death of her children and she has to from the zombie outbreak okay i can buy that as a not guilty i will never ever ever buy as a defense to a murder charge under any standard the i killed my children because i thought they'd be worse off without me i'm sorry that is one of those things where maybe it's a and the law allows for this where maybe it's legitimate diagnosis a legitimate medical mental diagnosis but that's not enough it's a different thing when we're talking about the mental disease or defect that takes responsibility away from you that's never going to be good enough for me for me just if i was a juror and that was your argument you're guilty and that's the way i'd look at it talk about if we allowed that if that were the standard what a permission structure for filicide across the board like no matter what if you want to end your children's life just say it was altruistic filicide and also like try to pretend to kill yourself as well so i agree with you there because the even if that is a diagnosis the permission structure that it would allow for filicide is too horrific to even begin to think about okay so then he goes on to say there's acutely psychotic filicide so that's someone who has delusions or hallucinations and they're just out of touch with reality and this usually has to do i guess i guess that's her i mean he does say that this would apply to her as well because there's the first two apply to her but then she he says the other three absolutely don't apply to her because he's trying to show like what a good mother she is So of course, there are the other ones like child maltreatment, an unwanted child or spousal revenge homicide you want to get back at the father so you kill the children and he says none of these three are her so he says this is a case where it's both the command hallucination and altruistic he says it's both of those things once again i think there's just a logical problem with that they're going to talk about it more on cross to the extent she didn't tell her doctors everything it's because she had an irrational belief her children would be taken away i still don't think that's irrational and so she was not forthcoming he says that she's still suicidal to this day and she's never left alone and so her ability to take her own life is limited and that's to rebut what the prosecution had said earlier about when she's never tried and he says look she's watched very closely and so her ability to do so is limited the one thing i'll say about that there are lots of examples of people who try to take their own life even when they're being watched very closely you can't watch someone 24 7 you just can't and we see that and there's ways of killing yourself like hunger strike not drinking water we actually have this on death row all the time right when they're protesting something and they refuse to eat you can't force someone to eat for example so there are ways to actually kill yourself even when you're being watched but he says that and that's a point for them so on cross so we talk about how he teaches others how to testify how to answer questions how to withhold information that might make it more difficult for the other side suggests that he denies that says that's not what he's trying to do but of course that's what he's trying to do and i mean that's just i don't know to me i was like that's just that's just good training but i mean we train officers on how to answer questions all the time but anyways they present that as maybe he's doing the same thing here so the commonwealth talks about how women who kill their children can have multiple motives talk about do you typically see if someone is in the states that you describe emotional devastation for parents who kill their children and they're not doing the same thing and he agrees and they say and don't you often see that on times like the anniversary of the murders or the children's birthday aren't these triggering events and he agrees and once again this relates back to the fact that these days did not seem to be triggering events for lindsey and talk about how you can have malingered psychosis which is you do have a mental illness and the mental illness is real but the psychotic aspect of the illness is attempting to make it seem worse than it is and in fact he has written a ton on this he has i guess a book called faking it which is all about this and he talks about quote in that book command auditory hallucinations are easy to fabricate and he goes on to say that people who hear these voices and basically he's talking about how they're easy to fabricate and how people will say when they do something i heard a voice well he notes that that's not typically what you see where you hear the voice and then you do it in fact people who hear these voices often don't follow them especially initially and they often don't follow them if doing so would be against their views it would be dangerous it would be something like harming their children these would be times where you would resist the voice and that typically people attempt to resist the voice for some period of time before they eventually do succumb and he suggests various ways of determining whether or not to use the voice for instance asking people how they have attempted to make the voices go away obviously in lindsey's case she's only heard the voice once so this sort of seems to fit into the category of maybe this didn't actually happen as he described it in his books and then the prosecution did something i'm glad they finally did it because i am so sick of hearing about andrea yates people keep bringing up andrea is not andrea yates let's just say whatever happened in this case she's not andrea yates in fact andrea yates is the prototypical case of what you would expect to see in a psychosis which we did not see here she had committed herself five times she had tried to kill herself twice all and she was doing this because she was hearing these voices i mean talk about somebody who was failed andrea yates was failed she attempted to resist these voices for a very long time to not do this to her children until finally she broke and he says this is true but then he says that lindsey also attempted to resist these there's no evidence for that whatsoever no evidence that she ever heard a command before she's not saying she heard this voice before she's never heard the voice after even if she heard voices even if you take the intrusive thoughts to be voices they're not these command voices that's not how she describes them they were voices telling her to kill herself that's how she described those intrusive thoughts as thoughts of not wanting to be here thoughts of wanting to end her own life in this case she hears the voice and she immediately acts and he tries to say well yeah there was that one period where in december where she might have had some sort of impulse to harm the children i still don't actually understand what happened then he says it was on two occasions there's only one that we've ever heard about so if there was another occasion it's something that she's told him and not something that we independently know and he suggests that her other intrusive thoughts were also about killing her children or harming them even though once again there's no record of that with her the people she talked to the doctor she talked to there's nothing in her own journals about that she didn't google anything about that no indication of it until it happens on the 24th and she denied homicidal ideations on the 23rd itself the prosecution says so it's better to kill them than to have them taken away that's obviously objected to and sustained but you know i'm okay with that kind of question that that question was okay to be objected to that's the kind of question you are okay with objecting to not the is it a moral moral sin question yes that was bad question like that's a bad question to mic drop this because we're all thinking it right and also so resnick is clearly he's written books on this he's testified in huge cases but he did lose credibility to me and maybe people don't know the andrea yates case who are sitting on the jury but he has clearly seen records in the andrea yates case because he said he consulted in that case where he worked on that case and he clearly is the expert in lindsey clancy's case and when he said that they are the same i was like no sir i'm not going to no sir there's no way you can look at both of their records and say that they are the same he has to say that though of course he has to say that but he up until that point i was like okay i'm hearing what you're saying you're the expert you're finally an expert who seems to be an independent evaluator as opposed to like in the bag on the defense team but then when he made that corollary andrea yates he lost me a little bit okay so the cross continues though they talk about the signs of someone faking it so the patient uses no strategies patients states that he obeys all commands so in a podcast dr resnick was asked about malingering and hearing voices and he said a common example i use in teaching is if you hear a voice out of the blue saying kill your mother your moral fiber would cause you to hesitate but if you have a concurrent delusion that your mother was an evil wizard you are more likely to act the thing is lindsey had no delusions about her children he says instead that she had the belief that they would be better off in heaven than left behind which is wild that these delusions are not true and the command voice all appear to just right after patrick leaves so her version of delusion does not fit what he says these delusions typically are and i also think it's worth noting that these do not overlap the way he wants them to so the command kill your mother combined with the delusion that your mother is an evil wizard that is sort of a standard what you and the delusion here don't match up because the command is kill your children so you can kill yourself the delusion is that the kids will be better off now i don't i don't understand how those match because you don't have to kill yourself you have to kill your children first to get to the killing yourself part so you would think if the delusion is about how if you're going to kill yourself your children would be better off without you those don't fit why you have to kill your children in the first place because the only way you're going to kill yourself is if you only reason you're killing your children according to the command is so you can kill yourself if she had said the voice told me you and in fact this is why her differing stories matter the story to the counselor is more like i need to keep my children safe and the only way to keep my children safe was to take their lives that fits then the delusion and the command makes sense the command is you need to kill your children to keep them safe the delusion is my kids aren't safe and the only way to keep them safe is to kill them those match it doesn't match if the command voice is kill your children so you can kill yourself those two don't go together in the same way and i don't see sort of the that fancy word where two things come together and they make it better than it was before synergy i don't see the synergy between her supposed voice and her supposed delusion in the way that he says you know that feeling when you finally clean out a junk drawer that's been bothering you for months that's what switching to gusto felt like for my business payroll hr benefits all the admin chaos that has been piling up finally organized into one place gusto is online payroll and benefit software built for small businesses it's all-in-one remote friendly and incredibly easy to use so you can pay higher on board and support your team from anywhere they make it so easy with automatic payroll tax filing simple direct deposit its health benefits, commuter benefits, Workers' Comp 401k, you name it. Gusto makes it simple and has options for nearly every budget. They also have unlimited payroll runs for one monthly price. No hidden fees, no surprises. Try Gusto today at gusto.com slash prosecutors and get three months free when you run your first payroll. That's three months of free payroll at gusto.com slash prosecutors. One more time, gusto.com slash prosecutors. Do you ever finish lunch and find yourself reaching for a snack an hour later or notice cravings take over even when you're trying to eat healthy? That's exactly the problem Pendulum Metabolic Daily was designed to help solve. Pendulum Metabolic Daily is a science-backed probiotic designed to support your body's natural GLP-1 response, help you feel fuller longer, experience fewer cravings, and make it easier to stay on track with your health goals. Just one capsule a day with food. Some customers report noticing fewer cravings and more energy in as little as a week, though individual results can vary. Metabolic Daily is a five-strain probiotic, not just one ingredient doing the work, but a system that supports your metabolism, helps keep your energy steady, and helps cut down on sugar cravings. The key ingredient is acromantia, a gut bacterium that helps signal your body to produce more of its GLP-1 after eating. That's a hormone that helps regulate appetite and feeling full. Right now, podcast listeners can save up to 48% off their first order at PendulumLife.com slash prosecutors. That's PendulumLife.com slash prosecutors to save up to 48% off your first order. Again, that's PendulumLife.com slash prosecutors and get almost half off today. And even more questionable, and I thought this was a very good thing to point out, is the rapid resolution of the symptoms of medication can be a red flag. So they confront him with Lindsay's records. She's been stable since her admission. There's no events of any kind. All of a sudden, she's all better. Things were really bad before all of this, but now she's all good. The record says that she denies having experienced any hallucinations prior to or after the event where she killed her children, which could be a good thing. But the record says that what Dr. Ziesel previously said. In other words, this was rapid onset and offset of the voices or the delusion. And it presents with no observable symptoms of psychosis, which is very interesting. We are just going on prayer and a hope here that she has psychosis because there is nothing at all that's even observable to say she has these symptoms. In fact, she has hopes and dreams and is future oriented right now. She hopes to be an activist for post-COVID. She hopes to be an activist for postpartum psychosis for other women. And she's going to be participating in a wheelchair marathon. So absolutely no observable symptoms of the psychosis or the hopelessness that she felt before January 24th. Now, Resnick claims that he spoke to a nurse who said that she'd been crying every single day. Nothing in the record supports this because she was laughing and smiling by the end of their interview together. And he didn't see that hopelessness. Now, there's a lot of people out there who are saying, well, I don't know. I don't know. They're going to note that the Commonwealth's experts saw her three years after the crime. Of course, that's because they're not allowed to interview her until the defense provides notice of their insanity defense. Then it opens up the ability for the Commonwealth to interview her for their own expert to evaluate her. So it's not that they put it off and just, you know, left this investigative avenue undone. They couldn't do this until they filed this insanity defense. And then, of course, they point out with Dr. Resnick, postpartum psychosis is incredibly rare. Dr. Dr. It's a possible aspect. So it's possible for you to have postpartum psychosis come on eight months after birth, but it's very rare. It's possible to have psychosis and show no outward symptoms and no one know, but it's not exactly common. You have to think that these things are coming together in Lindsay Clancy, despite having no evidence before or after that that's what's happening. We basically have her word for it. And one thing Dr. Resnick did not do, and we talked about in the last episode, when you're trying to decide between experts, the one thing that I was hopeful for is that the defense experts would be able to point out things that had not been pointed out before that no one noticed or that no one really recognized that they'd be able to say, look, yeah, you keep saying there's no symptoms of psychosis. But on January 23rd, Lindsay did this. That was very subtle, but it's an example. It is the kind of thing you look for, you know, point to a few things other than her own words, point to a few things as potential evidence of your diagnosis. Resnick diagnoses her as being psychotic. He says that she couldn't control her actions, conform her actions in law. What evidence did he give you for that? You know, this is the ultimate sort of appeal to the expert is literally the appeal to the expert here. How do we know it? The doctor said it's true. What did the doctor point to, to back up the case? What did the doctor point to to back up the case? What did the doctor point to to back that up? I mean, basically, and at one point he almost even says this and the Commonwealth kind of brings it out. Well, she killed her kids. And we've said this. I mean, that's basically the best evidence we've had up to this point is Lindsay Clancy killed her kids. And before she killed her kids, she seemed like she really loved her kids. So therefore she must have been psychotic. It's this circular argument. You know, how do we know she killed her kids? How do we know she's psychotic? Well, how do we know she's psychotic? I mean, there's nothing underlying it other than that. And honestly, that may be enough for some people, but you would hope that the doctor, the expert testifying would have been able to give you something more than that to back up his views. He did not. And so at this point, we move on to the rebuttal. Okay. So the prosecution calls Dr. Avram Mack. He is a psychiatrist. He's been a psychiatrist for 22 years. He's been in forensic psychiatry, providing testimony in pretty much every area. He's testified around the country. And in more than half the states. Prosecution, I thought this was interesting. They kind of go through the standard. They mentioned McNaughton. Now it's different than McNaughton. And that in Massachusetts, what the standard is. He talks about the DSM, sort of the Bible of psychology. It sets the criteria for a diagnosis. It's not a guidebook. Obviously you have to do the work, but it's giving you the criteria for what diagnosis you're going to look at. This is much more difficult when you're dealing with mental stuff. He talks about all the things he looked at. He reviewed the criminal records, meaning the records that were gathered during the criminal investigation, the records from various hospitals, including Lindsay's treatment before the event. And he conducted an exam on Lindsay on April 10th and April 12th, 2026, said she was friendly and cooperative, maintained eye contact. And there were not many abnormalities. She had regular speech. Her thought process was normal. At some point she seemed distressed and she was tearful. At one point, once again, you know, I thought this indicates his honesty. He's saying she was tearful when she was talking to me about this. You know, this is a prosecution witness saying, here's some example, example of her having emotions when she's talking about her kids. He talked about her general day. She kind of says to herself, mostly might stay in bed or just on her own. She sees a therapist. She also does physical therapy. She's not that interested in the food at the facility. She doesn't like it very much, but she has regular visitors who bring her food from the outside. And the records indicate that she interacts with staff and with other patients. And I believe Zazel talked about how popular she was at the hospital. She is not, he says she wasn't interested in her hygiene or her grooming because showering, someone had to help her and it was embarrassing and it required staff. But either way, she did appear well-groomed and clean when he met with her. And that's grooming is one of the things that psychiatrists look at when they're trying to determine if you have various mental issues. She described feeling depressed and she felt miserable and she didn't want to be alive. She's currently on a lazapine, which is Zyprexa for mental health. It was prescribed to her for bipolar, but she's only on 2.5 milligrams, which is a small dose. She's also taking trazodone and wellbutrin and clonidine and propranol and lower side of dosage for all of these. And she says that she describes herself as having situational depression. She is still to this day, not convinced that she is bipolar. And he said the depression is related to her remorse for the events, her separation from Patrick, her separation from the world and her physical condition. He uses the word remorse. That's not the word she uses, but that's how he describes it. Once again, you're sort of trying to look for signs. I think describing her as remorseful is a positive for the defense. Yes. No, I agree with that. Then they say that she was briefly on lithium, she denied that she'd had a head injury on the 24th. So they went through her past psychiatric history. There's not much before 2022, other than the short periods before then she typically was able to overcome kind of any struggles through exercise and meditation, like she'd previously noted. And they went through her medication history. They note that her actual medication intake was relatively low and inconsistent. It could have been temporary effects from Seroquel that she was going through, but nothing was long-term based on what she was taking. And the last reported medications were melatonin, lorazepam, trazodone, and amitriptyline, which was the day before the murders when the dosage was 20 milligrams up from 10 milligrams, which he says is not a significant dosage. The usual starting dosage was actually 150 milligrams. And I would be interested because we started this whole thing off with the medications she went through. I'm not going to go through all of them. We bought into, because that makes it sound like we're hoodwinked, but we certainly gave credence to the argument that the medication she was on, the number of medications she was on, the way they were changed could have had a serious effect on her. One thing that no one has testified to, and I don't know if we're ever going to get anyone to testify to, given the low amounts, it now seems like all of her dosages really throughout this period were very low. In that level, could it still have the outsized effects you see? So amitriptyline, for instance, you know, amitriptyline can cause suicidal ideation. It's like every other depression medicine, but I would think it's more likely to happen at 150 milligrams than at 20. But I don't know if that's true. It may be that like a drop of amitriptyline on someone who has certain physiology is enough to completely set them off or a combination. I'm interested in that. No one's really testified to that. We've heard accusations on medicine and how it can affect you and how it can interact, but nothing as specific as I would like to hear. I don't know if we'll ever get that. And I'll say the defense started out much more maybe leaving their avenues open. Remember, we had maybe been told that this was medication induced psychosis. There, at least for the defense's case, there really wasn't any testimony by their experts about this. And in fact, what we seem to be hearing is that, yes, there is a long list of medications. She was really only ever on like three at one time. She took them inconsistently. She barely took them. And the dosages we're hearing are pretty insignificant compared to what their starting dosages are. Now, he noted that her main complaints were anxiety, depression, and insomnia, and that he reviewed her past diagnoses, but he also comes to his own conclusions in this evaluation. And in this evaluation, he did not speak with the family, but he did review Patrick's prior statements. So then he says that she suffered from major depressive episode during this time. He is the prosecution's expert. And remember, the prosecution this whole time has basically been saying that she's minimizing or maybe saying that she's not really suffering from any sort of depression or any sort of mental health struggles, and that the suicide attempt is not real, right? That she just wanted to murder her kids. This is interesting because this is their expert. And his theory makes a lot of sense. He actually seems to have a lot of understanding and recognition that she was suffering from depression during this time. He's going to come to the outcome that she was suffering from depression during this time. And he's going to say that it did not control her in a way that a puppet is controlled to cause her to kill her children. But he's saying, yeah, she was majorly depressed during this time, which I would say all the testimony and all the records and all of the evidence so far goes to that. I think she was depressed during this time. And so the question is, why is the prosecution pursuing this case the way they are? If you have an expert, your main expert, who's going to lay out the theory of the case, which is your theory, that's why you're putting them up there. I mean, presumably, you're not going to, in closing, say, no, no, we called Mac. And sure, he said she was depressed. But really, do we really think she was depressed? They're not going to do that. So why isn't this been the theory the whole time? And when you listen to him talk, he does not come across as hostile to Lindsay. He comes across as thoughtful and considerate of her issues, considerate of her her mental disease that she does have. And the prosecution could have done that. They could have not had mental issues. I'm not saying that at all. And we are sympathetic to it. But at the end of the day, the question before you is, could she conform her her actions to the law and her depression is not an excuse for killing her children? That's essentially what Mac's going to say. That should have been the prosecution's position from the beginning. And which is a lot more palatable, I would think, for a jury to be able to accept, recognize that this was a woman who was suffering, but her suffering doesn't mean she gets to take actions that are contrary to the law when she knew that they were contrary to the law. I think that's a lot more palatable. To be like, yeah, we all have struggles. We don't just get to go out there and like start shooting people. It's like the fake suicide stuff. Right. And by the way, which he's going to testify at some point that definitely wasn't a fake suicide. Yeah. So I don't know. And they know they're going to put him on the stand. I don't think he's a late breaking expert because you can't have late breaking experts. We had this whole argument with the defense who wanted to put undisclosed experts on the stand. And the judge was like, no, you don't get these gotcha moments. So they knew that this was going to be the theory the whole time. I think just like we criticized Zyzel and Kavanaugh for being just too like high and mighty on this train of we're fighting for all women in postpartum. I think that they just honestly, I think the prosecution just really hates Lindsay Clancy and is a little too blind to even be able to give her an inch where it's like to even admit that she was depressed or she really wanted to kill themselves. And this is again, where I think emotions, your own thoughts, your own preconceived notions about a case can really hurt the way you litigate it. So I was harsh on Zyzel and Kavanaugh on how they're like, totally on this, you know, bandwagon of we're going to help all women with postpartum depression, very noble cause, focus on the case. It's blinding you from the case here. I would say maybe that's what's going on with the prosecution as well. So this goes to although the conspiracy theories, the prosecution is trying to throw the case. I don't think so. I think actually, they're so invested in like taking her down that they're not seeing the forest through the trees. You're listening to this podcast. So I know you've got a curious mind. Here's a helpful fact you might not know yet. Drivers who switch and save with Progressive save over $900 on average. They make it super simple. Pop over to Progressive.com, answer some questions, and you'll get a quick quote with coverage options tailored to your choices. Plus, you'll see which discounts you may qualify for, like the online quote discount or savings for paying in full. In fact, 99% of Progressive Auto customers earn at least one discount. See if you could do that. when you switch to Progressive. You'll feel good about making a savvy choice. Visit Progressive.com and see if you can enjoy a little extra cash back. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates, national average 12-month savings of $946 by new customers surveyed who saved with Progressive between June 2024 and May 2025. Potential savings will vary. Running a business means you're always reachable, until you're not. And the moment you miss that call, that text, that follow-up, a competitor is the one that picks it up. That's why today's episode is brought to you by Quo, spelled Q-U-O, the business phone system built so you never miss an opportunity. All your calls, texts, and voicemails live in one place, so anyone on your team can pick up a conversation, see the full history, and respond fast. That's why Quo is the number one rated business phone system on G2, trusted by over 90,000 businesses who rely on it to stay reachable and look professional every day. And you can set it up in minutes on any device. Keep your existing number and add teammates as you grow. No IT, no hassle. Money is on the line. Always say hello with Quo. Try Quo for free. Plus get 20% off your first six months when you go to Quo.com slash prosecutors. That's Q-U-O.com slash prosecutors. Then they talk through the DSM. Five, the definition of depression, which fits Lindsay's symptoms. She also had anxiety, obsessive thinking, and it's possible that she had a secondary diagnosis of just generalized anxiety disorder. But in terms of the DSM, she fits classically really what her main complaints are, depression and anxiety. In January 2023, there was never an indication of mania or hypomania, and you need at least four symptoms for mania. So the only one she's seen is the one that's called the DSM. The only one she seems to think she had was this lack of need for sleep, even though that's also not totally clear that she didn't need the sleep. But she certainly didn't have four symptoms to be able to qualify under the DSM for mania or hypomania. And let me just say this. I mean, once again, you know, you're trying to decide what's wrong with Lindsay Clancy. There's all sorts of evidence that she has depression. There's all sorts of evidence that she has anxiety. Yet to see much evidence that she has psychosis. And I think that's important. He is telling us that she has anxiety. He is telling us that she has psychosis. He is telling us that she has his diagnoses to observable symptoms, which he goes through. Once again, the defense experts gave a diagnosis and gave you none of that. They did not point to the symptoms that would lead to this finding. The best you had was Zizel talking about how she must have bipolar and she ran a 5K. And Reddington's like, and her and her husband cleaned out their garage. That's not the kind of thing you're looking for. When you're looking for mania. Honestly, what you're looking for is I know I use this example of time because i'm a 90s child it's jesse spano when she has too many caffeine pills in so excited by the bell right like she can't sleep and all she does is study like obviously she's it's because she's on caffeine pills but that's what you're seeing where something is so obviously wrong with someone it's not just your typical like cleaning out the garage she's not sleeping but running an ultra marathon for example so the other thing he points out is there's no evidence of mania after the incident either her thoughts appeared to be coherent at brigham and she was able to go through the health care proxy and she was found confident to do so by the psychiatrist at brigham there was nothing from january 23rd or any other point that indicated psychosis and he goes through the same symptoms we've heard before what you might see with psychosis he says that a person with delusions can mostly go through their lives and other areas that don't involve the false belief hallucinations can be lost lived with and managed it all depends once again on how severe the psychosis is and this is another thing we keep saying what's possible to do this psychosis is not you either have psychosis or you don't and if you have psychosis you have full psychosis and everything psychosis like every other mental issue probably varies with every single person who's ever had it there's probably no two psychoses that are the same and this severity is going to affect your ability to control your symptoms and it would have had to have been pretty severe for her to do what she did and i think it has to be pretty severe for it to absolve her of guilt right like in order for the psychosis that she had to mean that she was not substantially able to conform her actions to the law and tell the difference between right and wrong and what's legal and illegal it would have to be a pretty severe psychosis i would expect so you would expect if it's a really severe psychosis maybe you wouldn't be able to do something like return a phone call and have a conversation with your husband in the middle of murdering your children you know people say well you can make phone calls when you're on psychosis okay yeah sure what level of psychosis can you do it when you're so psychotic that you're a puppet on a string and you're being commanded to kill your children is that something you can do with psychosis i don't know but i think it's an interesting thing he points out and it flows from that his conclusion that there's no reason why psychosis is so important to her and she's in of itself prevents someone from knowing the difference between right and wrong makes sense and honestly if people with psychosis can go through lives and live normal lives it also makes sense that they would be able to tell the difference between right and wrong and i think this this goes to this notion of even if she has psychosis you still have that question could she resisted did she still know it was wrong could she have said no the kind of thing frankly that resnick was talking about in his testimony and of course this has to be true right because the standard isn't if you are psychotic then you're not psychotic you're not psychotic you're not psychotic you are absolved of guilt because if every single person who is psychotic could not control their actions there would be no difference between you wouldn't need a two-step standard and so of course it happened we know this because there are people who are diagnosed with psychosis and there are people diagnosed with anxiety and depression who do not do what lindsey clancy has done here but up until this point i mean the defense certainly hasn't brought this out but i think this is a very important nuance that is also important for mental health like in general right we said this all along that like just because you have postpartum psychosis or postpartum mental struggles does not mean you are lindsey clancy so he's asked why he does not diagnose her with bipolar he says he couldn't get there because there's no information and no evidence of hypomania or mania they talk about the postpartum aspect so is it postpartum depression what does postpartum mean and he notes that the diagnosis is going to be based on these symptoms so when you discern the prominent symptom that is the disorder so the disorder is a major depressive disorder you can designate that it occurs during the period of time when you're in a state of depression during the postpartum period and obviously that could be important could tell you how to treat it various other things but there's not necessarily going to be a huge difference between the symptoms of major depressive disorder and postpartum depression as the major depressive disorder up to this point postpartum disorders are not included in the dsm there is a push by some to do that and sounds like that's relatively controversial in the medical community so in this case the initial distress happened in the postpartum period and the postpartum depression in september and then this was about four months after callen was born and then we're not going to have the murders until eight months after he was born so the dsm generally classifies this as four weeks after birth reddington's going to point out that other people disagree with that and push it as far as a year so i don't know how much that really matters in the grand scheme of things but nevertheless this is a debate that will continue throughout his testimony so they discuss beliefs and then we'll get back to you guys in a minute so thank you for joining us today we'll be right back. i'm pretty convinced it's entirely a post-murder statement by her i just haven't heard the testimony and i could be wrong and i'm fine if i am i haven't heard the testimony by someone who says she said this before january 24th but either way there's this whole question about could someone hear her thoughts is that enough and basically this one sort of one-off incident is not enough and she's engaging if it's true that she asked her mother and she's engaging whether or not she could hear her thoughts the fact that she asked doesn't show thought broadcasting it actually shows reality testing where you recognize that maybe your initial thought is wrong you test it and then you accept that that's an example of rational thinking not psychotic thinking so the fact that she was suicidal says that she was suffering and it was part of this major depressive episode and 10 to 15 percent of women suffer from major depression after birth which is a really high percentage by the way so you're not alone if you are within this category suicidality occurs but it doesn't always make sense especially to outsiders lindsey presented with a number of protective factors though we've talked about this she had a strong family she had a mother she had children and she wanted to live for them and she said that to these mental health professionals that she was not acting on these suicidal ideations because of her children and her family then they talk about this supposed voice it told her she needed to kill her kids so that she could kill herself now earlier in the day of the murders was a good day she called it a fun and productive day and patrick said it was the best day that she'd had in a while dr max said that's not inconsistent with suicide or depression as someone begins to recover from the worst of their depression suicides can actually increase because people's energy and ability to carry out the suicide. increases that was different than what i thought he was going to say i thought he was going to say that you would mask or that you like had relief once you decided to kill yourself but his point was like you actually maybe are too depressed to carry it out so it's when you're getting better that the suicides increase because you're actually able to carry out your suicidal ideations he says command auditory hallucinations are when you're hearing a voice telling you what to do they can be persistent or they can be sporadic now lindsey describes the difference between suicide and death she says it's the same story forwards and backwards and it is so she could recall some parts of the day but not others and she says of this voice that it was a male voice and it was very loud the voice said she said you should kill the kids this is your last chance kill your kids so you can kill yourself she said she then took dawson down to the basement she grabbed the exercise band around his neck and strangled him while saying go to god and she told dr max she repeated this with each child afterwards she made an effort to take her own life she went to the bedroom she took all the drugs she had she cut her wrists and her neck and then she caused herself to fall out of the window and she described cutting the screen in a strange moment the prosecution describes her as diving out the window reddington objects and says that's not what the witness said the witness says she fell from the window so maybe that got carried away i don't know this is just a perfect example of something that happens to lawyers reddington's entire theory of this case is that she dove out the window he's been fighting the prosecution on this the whole time and yet the prosecution just described it as exactly the way you want to describe it and instead of letting it go or maybe even pointing it out later on as the prosecution said she dove out the window right instead of doing that he objects and gets the record corrected just to object exactly it's just like what are you doing why why did you do that too caught up in the heat of the moment to see the strategy of what you're doing so then she describes the call with patrick she claims that it was around the 18 to 20 minute mark of when this was all happening and she said that this auditory command this voice came as soon as patrick left the house which is what we hypothesized the timeline to be but this is lindsey saying that and she immediately jumped into action basically as soon as he went out the door and she was basically finished with killing them by the time patrick called i think this is so interesting because we've heard so many versions of what she said this is what she said happened that day three years later Now, there are some inconsistencies with what she said with the crime scene. She said she did not lock the door to the bedroom, despite it being locked when Patrick arrived. Now, why would she say that? I think locking the door is another point against her, because it seems to show thoughtfulness. She's doing something to prevent being interrupted. A recognition that if Patrick arrives, he'll try and stop her. Minor thing, but nevertheless, something that she's saying she didn't do that we know she did. She said she cut the screen. Apparently, it might not have been cut. I actually have no idea whether it was cut or not. I feel like probably someone should have made that point. And maybe they did. I dismissed it because I didn't think it was important. But she said she cut the screen. I don't know if she cut the screen or not. She said she took all the pills in the bedroom, which is. We now know. Not true. So, you've got her telling him. That the voice came on right after Patrick left. You've got her telling him that the phone call happened 18 to 20 minutes later. But then, she tells part of the story that's inconsistent. She said that the phone call came while she had the baby in her hand and was getting food out of the fridge for the kids. So, this is inconsistent in a few ways. Number one, we know that Dawson was already eating when Patrick left the house. Patrick describes him as he's sitting on the couch, eating. His snack. That snack is found on the couch, uneaten. Which is another indication this happened immediately. So, you know, it's just very. I don't know. Her description of some parts of it don't really make sense. I think the best timeline we have is probably Patrick leaves for her. Let's just, you know, Patrick leaves. She goes back in. She's getting some more food for the kids. Maybe they want more food. And then the voice comes on. And she does what she has to do. And then Patrick calls later on. I don't know. It's just there are some inconsistencies since she tells the story. And that doesn't necessarily mean she's lying, by the way. I mean, it's been three years. She may not remember everything exactly how it happened. And the chronological order of everything. That's certainly possible. I think the most important thing is her general statements about this essentially happened right after he left. And that fits with our sort of known timeline of how long it would have taken to do this to the kids. The fact that Patrick calls as she's going upstairs. Or she goes upstairs, makes the phone call back to him. Then there's the other flight of stairs. The phone is sitting on the bed, which makes sense. She's doing all the things she's doing in the bedroom. And she goes out the window. I think that all makes sense. And it fits. Okay. So here we get to his diagnosis. And his diagnosis is not the perfect diagnosis for the Commonwealth. He doesn't say she was not suffering from a disease or defect. In fact, he says she was suffering from a disease or defect. Major depressive disorder. But in his opinion, it did not prevent her from having the capacity to tell right from wrong or to conform her behavior to the law. So he says this is a continuation of a mental state that she's had for months. One in which she could tell right from wrong and how to conform to society. And had done that up until January 24th. And that nothing significantly changed on January 24th. Talks about how her behaviors. And once again, as I said before, when Dr. Resnick gives you. His diagnosis, he gives you the diagnosis and that's it. This man's giving you his diagnosis and he's going to back it up with evidence. You may not buy the evidence. You may think you can explain it away, but he gives you the evidence to consider. Says her behaviors and her thoughts on the day indicate she was not psychotic or out of control. She had interactions with teachers the day before. She had interaction with the doctor that day. She called the CVS. She called 3V. She built a snowman. She instructed Patrick on what to do as far as getting the drugs. These are all things. That showed she's normal thinking she had abided by law and the standards of the community throughout the time of her disorder. And in fact, did it that very day. She was able to travel, get her kids to the doctor. You know, she wasn't like driving on the wrong side of the road or whatever. I mean, she's acting normally throughout the day. The fact that she recognized her kids might be taken away indicates she recognizes lawfulness and how the law works and what the consequences are for violating the law. Her interactions with Dr. Tufts on the 23rd displayed normal thinking, the ability to think ahead and to navigate the world. The go to God statement also informs what her thinking was. This is a sentiment that shows that she believes the kids are innocent, that she knows what she's doing is wrong, and she wants her kids to be with God, even if maybe she's not going to be. He says what the voice said was also significant. This is your last chance demonstrates an awareness. That this was something that would be disallowed, that if she didn't do it, then if she waited till Patrick came back, then she would have lost her chance. Her being horrified immediately after was similar to what it had been before. So basically, her state of mind right before the 24th and after the 24th are the same. The feeling of shame that she had indicated that she was aware it was wrong. She was methodical in her activity, which indicated. She was able to conform her behavior. She went through this murder step by step. I think it's also interesting. He doesn't bring this up, but I think it's also interesting. The voice is very vague. Kill your children so you can kill yourself. She chose the method. She chose how to kill them. She chose what order to kill them in. She chose how to keep one child in the office. So the other child, when they came down to the basement, wouldn't see that child. These are all indications that she knows what she's doing. The deaths were one by one in a way that it was organized and intended to. Achieve her goal, her attempt at suicide, despite what the prosecution has been trying to convince you of for the last 19 days or whatever, was also organized and thoughtful and included multiple methods intended to accomplish the end and the voice did not tell her what to do or how to do it. As I said, she chose all of that on her own. And the call with Patrick shows she was in control and able in the midst of this supposed psychosis to have a normal conversation with her. Ultimately, based on all of that, which, as I said, you didn't get. I just went through a lot of things he pointed to to reach his conclusion. Based on that, he concludes that even though she did have some sort of mental disease and defect, that she retained the capacity to have criminal responsibility for her actions. So that's his conclusion. I found this a very compelling explanation of why he reached the conclusion that he did. And in particular, something I had not thought about before was that go to God statement. Which is from whether she said that or not. That's Lindsay's own comments, right? Because she put that in the civil complaint and she said that she said go to God. So this isn't someone else reporting it. This is like in the best light ever. When he said that the go to God statement shows how she knew that the children were innocent and what she was doing was wrong was incredibly enlightening to me. That was just one of the like 40 different receipts he brought to why he concluded what he did. Let me just say one other thing. I don't know if the civil case will come in or not. I think it should because it has her statements in it. They're statements of a party opponent. I can imagine maybe not wanting to put it in because maybe it opens some doors that you don't want open. Maybe Reddington could argue that for completeness sake, the whole complaint needs to come in and then the jury would see all the stuff. I don't know. But those of you listening, we all know what's in the civil complaint. And I would just say the way he describes what she said is exactly what the civil complaint says. So he's not making it up. And he is not coloring it in some way to help her or hurt her. He is describing exactly what the civil complaint says. So what he told her seems to be her story of what happened. And it's interesting to me that the civil complaint and what she told him is so different from what the clergy said. And, you know, some of the kids so different from what they said. That's interesting to me. So, you know. I know that this was a good witness or expert for the prosecution based on how hot Reddington comes in. We always say this. Attorneys are like this. But Reddington certainly does this. He comes in incredibly hot. He is angry and he pounds the table and he attacks when the witness is bad for him, as he should. He needs to do everything he can because this was a devastating direct for his version of events. He's obviously very concerned about Dr. Mack. Now. He gets into the fact that Dr. Mack gets paid for his time to work for the prosecution. By the way, so does every single expert who works on this case. And he notes that Lindsay was on medication and suicidal and he gets into the history from her. Now, this is true of all the experts, as we've already said this. So this is nothing new about Dr. Mack. He does exactly what everyone else does. All of them are paid for their times. At this point, the judge is once again acting improperly. I don't know why he not only lets Reddington kind of attack Dr. Mack. But he actually jumps in and like bullies Dr. Mack alongside Reddington and he attacks Dr. Mack for not understanding the question that Reddington is badgering him with. Usually what you do as a judge, if the witness is not being obstinate and doesn't understand the confusing question, is to say, can you rephrase that question? But he jumps in to kind of join Reddington. And I just want to say, I don't care what your view is on this case. This judge is not good. And normally I find myself defending judges and prosecutors from. Unfair attacks by people. I've been very critical of the prosecutors in this case, and I will continue to be critical of this judge. You never, never. Never show the jury that you're irritated with a witness because you're putting your thumb on the scale. Even if you are, even if you're legitimately irritated with a witness, you need to figure out some other way to do that. And it's like Reddington bullies the judge into bullying the witness. Usually Reddington is ignoring, you know, there's an objection and Reddington's ignoring it or he's talking over the judge and the judge gets irritated. And so then he attacks the witness. He's done this with some defense witnesses as well, but not as harshly as he tends to do with Reddington. It is entirely inappropriate and he should not be doing it. He does not control that courtroom very well. I don't know if he's actually, people think he's biased. I have no idea if he's biased or not. I just don't think he has control over his courtroom. I don't know that he knows what he's doing with the voir dire of this TikToker with not making very simple rulings for allowing a lot of objections that should be sustained to continue. I wonder if he's just in over his head to be completely. Because this is a high stakes trial and he is not bathing himself in glory. I will say that much. And that is difficult because, look, a judge's job is incredibly hard. I get that. But this was absolutely inappropriate to act this way. So then Reddington says that Dr. Mack doesn't know her reputation with others in the hospital. He points to Dr. Resnick's report with information on this point. And Reddington asks a bunch of questions about Lindsay's life that I guess he thought Mack wouldn't know. But he is able to answer them for the most part. So he's done his unlike Dr. Zizel. Unlike Zizel. He actually did review the records and do his job. So he's actually able to answer these questions. So his attempt to make Dr. Mack look unaware or not informed about Lindsay Clancy kind of fell flat. And then Reddington gets upset about him answering too fully. He's like, I want it in what it was like 18 words or less, 25 words or less. He's like, give it to me straight. This is a you know, this is a Twitter feed or whatever. He gets too mad at him for answering fully because he's like, well, darn it. I was supposed to show that you didn't know anything in the record. But unfortunately, you know it too well. Then he asks if Lindsay's exercising is hypomania. And he says no. And then it cuts against him. And he should have known that he would say that. But then they go into the fact that he was retained by the prosecution in early 2025. Duh, because that's the first time that they're able to actually pursue this interview or evaluation because that's the first time they're allowed by the court to do so. So. So. They go through the fact that a notice has to be given before an expert can be engaged on this point and that he was contacted through Park, Dietz and Associates. Reddington tries to go off on Dietz, but there's objections and they get sustained, apparently. So Dietz is controversial. They don't let him get into this. It's irrelevant. It's a complete tangent here. Reddington, because you're supposed to attack the expert, not whoever they may be affiliated with. Reddington goes through his CV, which means he gets to talk about being a professor at Penn and Georgetown, which is pretty impressive and reiterates that he went to Cornell as well as several honors that he's received. So I don't know what he was trying to do except to show how qualified Dr. Mack was. This, of course, tries to get to the point that Dr. Mack is not specifically an expert on postpartum psychosis. The juice is not worth the squeeze because really, he just comes off as really experienced and qualified. Reddington notes that he only met with Lindsay with another doctor who also works for Park, Dietz. Now it's unclear what could be wrong with that. There's no like attorney-client privilege, but Reddington tries to say that it's inappropriate that he met with another medical professional with Lindsay. Now we get another devil's lettuce shout out. Thanks to this case, I now know what that means. And we go through his extensive expertise on adolescence. Reddington keeps hammering on all of his accomplishments, groups, things he's led, awards he's been given. At some point, I think he forgets whose expert this is and articles he's written. It's true that it's mostly focused on adolescence and not postpartum. But I will say, based on his direct and his explanation of how he reaches his conclusion, it seems pretty credible to me. And it's not like he brought a bunch of experts on postpartum psychosis. You know, there was a way to do this. I don't know why he did it. Just ask about, you've done a lot of stuff. How many women have you worked with? How many postpartum women have you did? But the way he did it instead was he literally just kept reading off. You led the National Council on this. You were the. Author of this book. You wrote this article for Harvard Law School, you know, or Harvard Medical. I mean, it was just like, I mean, I get it. It's mostly adolescent stuff. But good Lord, you're painting the guy to be this genius. And half the time, he would be like, he was like, well, yes, I did write that article. I was asked by the National Council of whatever is to lead the working group on that. It's just, man, you just need to like get away from this guy's expertise. Just focus on the fact that he does not work with women very often. So I have these running list of pieces that I've always been hunting forever because they're just at such high prices. I can't quite bring myself to buy them, whether it's just the perfect dress from Tucker Nook or honestly, these football jerseys that my kids want, but they're so expensive. I think and I think and then all of a sudden they're gone from online. I can't find them anywhere until I found them on Poshmark for way, way, way, way, way, way, way less than what I could get them for anywhere else. I have to tell you guys about Poshmark because I love it. Poshmark is the leading fashion resale marketplace shaped by real people and real style. Millions of new and pre-loved items from daily wardrobe staples to vintage and luxury fashion, archive worthy pieces you thought you missed forever to current essentials and one of a kind vintage finds. It's all there. And when you're ready for a closet refresh, you can even buy them at Poshmark. You can even earn money by selling the pieces you're ready to part with reaching more than 80 million users on the platform. Recently, I had this beautiful leather bag that I've been looking for for so long, but I could not stomach the full price and I kept looking and I finally got online and I saw it. Oh my goodness. It was the most beautiful bag and I'm so glad I found it on Poshmark for a fraction of the price. It was still being sold in stores. You can find it on Poshmark.com. You can find out what I'm talking about at Poshmark. New deals and styles are listed every day, so don't wait. Download the Poshmark app and use code PROSECUTORS when you sign up to get $10 off your first purchase or shop now at Poshmark.com slash PROSECUTORS and get $10 off your first purchase. That's P-O-S-H-M-A-R-K.com slash PROSECUTORS. All right, ladies, can we normalize the fact that your period deserves better than dry toilet paper? If you've ever wished you could take a shower in the three minutes you've got between Zoom calls, get a TUSHY bidet. Quick, gentle, refreshing, and exactly what you want when you're not feeling your best. And let's just say it. It's also awesome for new moms because you can really take care of yourself while you have a newborn with the TUSHY bidet. I got the TUSHY bidet and I thought, what am I going to do with a bidet? And now I cannot live without it. It was so easy to install it. It looks just like it's part of my bathroom. You can't even tell there's something extra. But when you sit down, it is like being at a spa because the cleaning experience is way better compared to traditional toilet paper. I can't believe I ever didn't have the TUSHY bidet. TUSHY bidet transforms your bathroom wellness for life. Gut to butt to bowl. A game changer for periods, postpartum recover, IBS, constipation, or just feeling fresh and sexy. TUSHY brings the comfort of clean, instantly warm water to your everyday routine. Give your body the care it deserves. For a limited time, our listeners get 10% off their first bidet order when you use code PROSECUTORS at checkout. That's 10% off your first bidet order at hellotushy.com with promo code PROSECUTORS. He's asked if he's. He's worked with pregnant women. He says starting in 2001 and through about 2015, he was in general psychology with a few areas of focus. He says after 2015, he did work primarily in pediatric hospitals, but those hospitals go up to about age 25. At Georgetown, he worked in an all-adult facility in the labor and delivery unit. Then he also worked at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia to develop the psychiatric services at the high-risk delivery unit. And, I mean, once again, this was probably not the best approach to take with this guy because it turns out he's not the world's leading expert on postpartum psychosis. He is not someone who primarily works with women suffering from postpartum issues. But he has all this experience in these areas. Now, he's treated about 10 women with postpartum issues of some sort, depression, anxiety, since 2001. He notes that postpartum psychosis is a form of bipolar disorder, so that's generally how it's addressed. He says that Lindsay was actually never diagnosed with a postpartum disorder. So, Reddington, you know, he's trying to stump this guy. So, he's asking him all these questions. He won't let him have his records or anything. It's so funny because half the time, Reddington's like, you can have your whole file. Just test the file off of it. And then when he wants to do this, he's like, no, you must remember every single thing just from memory. for him. This guy does remember most of it. He doesn't remember everything. He scores some points on it, but He remembers so much that the things he doesn't remember don't seem that significant. He wants to know, does he remember the Edinburgh results? He will not show it to him. He keeps trying to trip him up with these mundane questions, like the exact time that Lindsay first saw Tufts and what the very first drug was prescribed, etc. He knows the answers to these questions. They're not actually that important, but he generally gets them right. Then a very strange thing happens. He says at some point that Lindsay Clancy has avoided medication, and Reddington loses his mind about this. Even though we all know it's true, and it's actually part of Reddington's defense. The reason she didn't take these drugs was not because she was shopping for the exact pill she wanted or something, or because she was a difficult patient. It's because she had this reticence to take drugs that have side effects that she knew about. These doctors, instead of addressing them, kept pushing them on her. That is what he has been saying the whole time. This seems perfectly consistent with that, but we get into this lengthy battle with him about whether or not she is actually reticent to take drugs. Was she reticent in grade school or only later? Do you have records about grade school or not? Do you know if she was resistant to taking medication when she was an adolescent? At one point, he's like, there's nothing in the report about that. He's like, well, on page eight. I talk about how she was reticent to take drugs because she was breastfeeding. So then Reddington's like, see, it's breastfeeding. That's totally different. That was the only time. But we all know that's not true. That's the thing. This is what's weird about this. Anyone who's paid any attention to this trial, including the jury, knows after she had Dawson, she was prescribed medication and she never took it because she didn't want to take medication. She's consistently reticent about taking medication and concerned that she's going to. Come addicted to it, even when there's no real reason to think that. So I don't really know why we're going through all this. It seems entirely consistent with her not drug shopping, that she's afraid of side effects and somewhat reticent to take medication. But for some reason, much like when the prosecution said that Lindsey dove out the window for some reason, Reddington, it's like he has to fight on something. And then maybe if he makes this guy look like he doesn't know what he's talking about with her being reticent about medication, the jury will just ignore everything else. So he's going to fight this. Even though it doesn't make sense for him to fight it. But then we get into what is easily the most irrelevant and bizarre back and forth that we've had that takes up the rest of the state. And here's my theory. I think we spend so much time talking about the DSM, which we're going to talk about because Reddington was running out the clock. I think he really wanted to get to the weekend. I think he really wanted an opportunity to sit down with his. I wanted to regroup for the cross. Exactly. Talk about what all was. Said and come up with the best way to fight it. So we had to extend this to four o'clock because he knew if he got to four o'clock, the witching hour in Massachusetts, they would have to stop. And they did. They stopped at four o'clock. So we spend an inordinate amount of time talking about the DSM. So we go on to the DSM and Reddington is attempting to tear down the DSM and note that the European standard is so much better. This eventually will draw an objection. Unfortunately for him, it turns out that Mac. Wrote his thesis on the history of the DSM, and he rattles off when various versions were published and when things were added. And he basically gives a lecture on the DSM. He really makes him look like an expert. Yes, he really does. Reddington lets him go for a long time and finally cuts him off. And I think this is when he starts getting into the whole. Can you answer the question in 25 words or less? So Reddington says in the thousand pages, the DSM, that postpartum is basically just a paragraph. And he asked him to answer this question in 25 words or less. It turns out the four week period was added in 1992. He knows that we ask about Europe again, gets the objection. He talks about how women suffer from depression more than men. The witness goes through the proposal for adding postpartum psychosis and notes that the proposal states that postpartum psychosis. One of the defining characteristics of it, if it's added to the DSM, will be that it is close in time to birth and the closer in time to birth. You see the symptoms emerge, the more likely it is postpartum psychosis. So even the addition that Reddington wants to the DSM, this doctor, Dr. Mack, knows enough about it and knows enough about the debate that he's able to point out it wouldn't actually be consistent with your theory. It would actually cut against your theory. So then Reddington, he gets the book out. He wants him to show him where he talks about postpartum depression. So we spend a lot of time flipping through this book. Page 169. I mean, it's funny because he just flips to page 169. He's like, go to the specifics about how it relates to bipolar. Then we go to 173 and Reddington wants him to read it. He's like on page 173. There's more discussion. And Reddington's like, why don't you read it? And he goes, well, it's 10 paragraphs long. Do you really want me to read the whole thing? And so Reddington's like, just summarize it. And so he summarizes it. And basically that's when we run into the four o'clock hour and we're done. And I just got to say, I assume that, on Monday, when we get back, we're done with this DSM stuff because it, number one, isn't really relevant. It seems like a complete aside. This guy knows the DSM really well. So attacking him on that point seems like a mistake. And here, here's why it's not. So you can't like pause a witness. He's already on the stand. He has to get up and cross him when it's time to cross him, but he should have been prepared for this cross with his experts ahead of time. It's not like what this expert has to say is a surprise to him. He should, he should have known because he has an expert report. He's been able to like, he knows exactly what's going on. This is why the prosecution was ready to cross Zyzele and Dr. Resnick because you have to be prepared ahead of time. I absolutely agree with you. I think he was filibustering to get to the weekend cause he was panicking because this was a very good witness for the prosecution, despite it not actually matching the prosecution's theory from the beginning of the case, but it's a good understandable, believable, honestly, the most rational reason for what's happening so far of any expert I've heard. So, if he needed to filibuster in order to get to the weekend to talk to his experts is not necessarily good for him. He should have done this in the, in the first place, but maybe he was like, you know, in a rape trial or something. Like he said, he's been busy. And like we said, you know, we said this from the very beginning that the prosecution really needed to pick a theory and live with it. And if you're going to lose on that theory, you lose on that theory, but that's fine. It's a theory you believed in. Dr. Mack believes in a theory. His theory is this woman was very sick. She had a very serious mental issue, but it wasn't one severe, enough to prevent her from being guilty under the law. And that's the theory that we kind of thought the prosecution should have gone with from the beginning. And we recognize the danger in that because you're acknowledging that step one, they get to the you're saying she absolutely has a mental disease and defect. It's just not just when you get to step two, that's when you fail. And it's like the prosecution didn't want to do that, but it makes no sense because this day was always going to come. There was always going to be, the day where they called this expert witness and he was going to lay this out. So why this wasn't their theory from the very beginning? I don't know. I'll never understand why they've structured the case the way they have. It doesn't make any sense. This was a very powerful witness, but this is day what 18 and you may have jurors who've already made up their mind by the time you get to day 18 and just aren't really even listening or, or not convincable anymore. I mean, that happens. So waiting this long to me, it seems a little strange. And honestly, I think if you had acknowledged that at the beginning and admitted that in the beginning, that would have kept jurors minds open longer because they would have been thinking, well, I know the defense is putting on all this great information about her being mentally ill, but the prosecution's already said that they've acknowledged that she's mentally ill. So where's the rest? You know, when are you going to get to the rest? I just feel like the prosecution fighting on issues that they essentially are conceding at this point. So bizarre. And I don't, I don't get it and I can't even come up with a rational reason to do it. So if you guys out there have a rational reason with why the prosecution is whipsawed us all like this, I would love to hear it. That's the end of this day. We are going to probably wrap up with the trial on Monday. I think we'll probably get through all the witnesses on Monday. That will be the end of the prosecution's case. There is something called a sir rebuttal. So theoretically Reddington could try and call another witness. Maybe he could call a witness on postpartum psychosis. Seems like, like that is not his intention. His public statements have all indicated that it's not his attention and maybe he's sandbagging a little bit because he still does have that one doctor that we talked about in the last episode who he did not call that he had noticed. So maybe he's holding her for a sir rebuttal. I guess we'll see, but presumably this case will wrap tomorrow, Monday as we record and then Tuesday will be our closing arguments and then it will be in the hands of the jury. And there is a, an almost full lunar eclipse where we are recording from on Thursday. So I'm just for no other reason than literally the universe aligning. I wonder if Thursday we're going to be up. That's when the verdict's coming. We're going to have a verdict. We're going to record and talk about the verdict. It's going to go late and then we'll step outside, literally touch grass and watch a lunar eclipse. There you go. There you go. Well, you know, I mean, that's why they're called lunatics, right? Lunatics, lunatic asylums is because the, in the old days, Mental health was tied to the moon and many of you who work in hospitals and schools will tell us that they were absolutely right about that that on full moons all sort of wild things happen but all right guys well continue to send your thoughts about this case shoot us an email prosecutors pod at prosecutors pod for all your social media join the gallery on facebook to discuss this case you can follow us on twitter on x whatever it is instagram tiktok all those things welcome to the many of you who've joined us joined our little family we're so glad to have you here watching this case i hope you'll stick around when it's over we have covered a lot of trials either live or looking back on the historical record i think you'd enjoy those whether it's scott peterson or mcdonald out in north carolina i forget his first name who killed his family supposedly depending on who you ask the ramsey case whatever interests you you'll be able to find it so check that out and let us know what you think jeffrey mcdonald jeffrey mcdonald that's his name ronald mcdonald i was like that's not right if you want to watch us record these episodes you can join patreon for as little as three dollars a month or you can join apple subscriptions if you want to get them early and ad free you can also get them early and ad free through patreon as well alice is there anything you want to mention talk about before we sign off for today the prosecution did have a very good witness for rebuttal i fear that it is too late little too late even if they come in very strong and they've done some really good crosses on the defense's experts and dr mack was a very credible in my opinion expert laying out a clear theory that makes sense based on the evidence that's actually written down not just spaghetti at the wall but this prosecution has been meandering and this theory is just now being articulated probably on the eve of the jury getting closing arguments so we'll see how this goes but i think it has been so much fun and i hope you enjoyed this video and i'll see you in the next one strong the last couple of days in terms of how the experts have gone for the prosecution i don't know if that's going to matter based on their unclear path and narrative thus far you could never do this but i think if the defense had just said we're not calling any witnesses and the case had just ended there and they had argued mental disease or defect just based on their cross examination of the psychiatrist and everybody else who was involved in the case and i think everybody else she would have had a really strong chance of winning at that point she may win nevertheless i think the odds are in her favor but i do think the defense witnesses and the rebuttal have been so much more damaging to the defense than anything that came in the prosecution's case in chief i agree with that and i'll say one more thing as well we didn't talk about this but the defense obviously rested without having lindsey clancy testify i don't think the plan ever was to have her testify there were many short days when they could have put her on i think that she was going to be you're really rolling the dice with lindsey on the stand right because it's not clear exactly what theory it is was she in psychosis then is she suicidal now is she hopeful if she's too hopeful is that going to come off wrong with the jury there are way too many factors that could go wrong because you don't know how the jury's going to take it like great that she's wants to be a postpartum advocate or how can you be an advocate when you're supposed to be in post-psychosis all these sorts of things so i think it was the right and safe call for the defense not to put her on the stand i do not think she would have helped her case whatsoever and i actually don't think it was ever really on the table for reddington to put her on the stand yeah i agree all right guys well it's good to be back i missed all of you but we probably will be back tomorrow because we're gonna have to cover the rest of this witness and the prosecution has two other experts who are going to testify we will see you then but until then i'm brett and i'm alice you and we are the prosecutors yeah so after this whenever i get whenever we get done with these i'm gonna sleep well tonight so yeah so after this whenever i get whenever we get done with these i'm gonna sleep well tonight let's see okay you got this okay let's see it's maybe the most efficient we've ever been so efficient okay yeah shoot if we were doing if this was like a normal we'd spend like eight episodes on this i know okay i'm ready to start recording whenever you are okay ready three two one record so so , this cross applesauce okay oh no it's still uploading it's like halfway 60 percent of the way there just remind me like wave or something We'll be right back. Hello, and welcome to PlutoFo. If you know the name of the movie you'd like to see, just stream it for free on Pluto TV, where all your blockbuster favorites are landing all summer long. Catch Anchorman, The Legend of Ron Burgundy. Fantastic. The Matrix Trilogy. Welcome to the real world. Mean Girls. Shut up. Titanic. I'm the king of the world. And so much more. For showtimes, press nothing. They're free, 24-7. That is so fetch. On Pluto TV. Stream now, pay never. Thank you.