388. The Lindsay Clancy Trial Part 16

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 presentation of evidence comes to an end in the Lindsey Clancy case. So, today on The Prosecutors, the presentation of evidence comes to an end in the Lindsey Clancy case. suicide attempt. means that she was capable in sort of a mental way. And one of the things that's really interesting about this case is how often we've seen the theories flip. So for most of this case, the defense has been arguing this was a serious suicide attempt, and the prosecution has been trying to push that off. Now, with these doctors, it is very much the position of the Commonwealth that this was a serious suicide attempt, and that that feeds into their theory. And you almost wonder if Reddington would have been better off at arguing that her failed suicide somehow played into her psychosis. I don't know, but this is where we are, and you need all three to get there, which is the theory. And her medical records reflected that she had all of these three working together. Then, one thing he pointed out, which I had not even thought of, but this was, once again, fascinating. The Ativan. And we talked about this before, that the Ativan helped with her intrusive thoughts. Now, the intrusive thoughts have been reinterpreted by the defense as voices, as signs of psychosis. They weren't really intrusive thoughts. They're actually additional auditory hallucinations that she was experiencing, and that's evidence that this day she had another one. What's significant that Ativan helped? Because Ativan is not a medication that addresses psychosis. It addresses anxiety. So if these symptoms were from psychosis, Ativan shouldn't work. It's kind of like taking Narcan when you're not on an opioid. It doesn't work. If you're overdosing on something else, it won't work. It's a similar thing here. The Ativan targets a completely different thing than psychosis. So the fact that it worked for her indicates that those earlier voices were not a symptom of psychosis. We know it worked because, obviously, she kept going back to it against medical advice. This was her fallback drug. It was supposed to be used only as needed. But she kept getting. She was getting so anxious that she needed to go to it. Why would she do that if it didn't help? So then Dr. Satov said, even if you're under a hallucination, though. So let's say. Don't think she was under hallucinations here, but even if she were under hallucinations and even command hallucinations, the person who's undergoing these hallucinations can still know the difference between right and wrong. And in that knowing right and wrong, you can still stop yourself and have control over yourself, especially when it's very serious, what the command to hallucination is demanding you do, or against values. Now, I know we're like, we're not going to go into the whole morality thing, but even more so here, I know we've used the fact that she's a labor and delivery nurse as saying she understood reporting requirements, mandatory reporter requirements, or medications or things like that. So she knew how to malinger or not malinger. I think this point actually is so interesting because she definitely knew, as a labor and delivery nurse who worked with. Small children, what was right and wrong, what you could do with babies. Everyone should know you do not murder babies, of course. But I think there's this even more heightened level that I had not thought about in this way because they're trying to ask these questions about, is she Catholic? Does she understand it's a mortal sin? Those types of things. I'm like, guys, we don't have to go down that road where you're going to really anger the judge. She's a labor and delivery nurse who's charged with the lives of small, vulnerable children, more so than just about anybody. You should know, again, that children are vulnerable. She would be held to that higher standard because of her profession. Now, he says someone who's undergoing these hallucinations can conform their behavior to the law. It is possible. So we go through the whole legal question thing. Was she suffering from a mental defect? He says, yes. So just like Dr. Kirk before, he says, yes, she was suffering from a mental defect. It was bipolar II. And he concluded this based on her reaction to the Zoloft. He does not believe. She was over-medicated, but she did have an adverse reaction to the drugs. And even in her state, she appreciated right and wrong. And she talks about planning. And she's able to control her behavior. And therefore, despite having a mental defect, he does not believe that she qualifies for this defense because she absolutely knew what she was doing and could have controlled herself, but she didn't. So his theory is very consistent with what Dr. Kirk said right before. Yeah, and he did a really good job of walking through all of those aspects that confirms in his mind this theory and that he and Dr. Kirk are pretty much aligned on. And it's interesting because you have three Commonwealth witnesses. They all basically reach the same conclusion, but the bipolar versus not bipolar is a big distinction. And once again, this is a gift in many ways to the defense because Reddington has been saying this is exactly what happened. From the beginning, bipolar, it was activated by the Zoloft, and then we see what happened. But much like with the last doctor, he is not going to take the position that he should attempt to use this doctor to get good things for him. Instead, he's going to take the same approach he's taken up to this point. He starts off that he saw her through Zoom. We know how much Reddington hates technology. And of course, it would have been better to be there with her, but he wasn't able to do that. And so that's the way it went. He was engaged earlier this year to do this and contracted in April. And this is another, you know, I just don't think the jury is as stupid as Reddington thinks they are. He's like, why are you waiting for the contract to be signed to see her? Does he think just anybody can just walk in and start chit-chatting with Lindsay Clancy or set up a Zoom? I mean, I will say this. We know attorney-client privilege is very similar. While we are recording this right now, I'm on my computer and I see my text popping up on my computer. I have a potential client who keeps texting me saying, has the entity that needs to sign our engagement letter so I can represent him signed it. He's texting me what, at 8.30 at night because he's like, oh, I can't talk to you. You can't represent me until we have a contract in place, which is true. So I am like telling him, nope, don't have the engagement letter, cannot help you right now. I'm just a lawyer. I'm not even a medical practitioner. So yeah, no, he can't just start evaluating her because then he'd just be any guy off the street. And I think most of the jurors know that. He then goes through the whole, how much money did you make doesn't really work because it all goes to UVA. And, you know, I don't think that the doctor is just so loyal to UVA that he really wants to make a lot of money for them by doing this evaluation on Lindsay Clancy. So he talked to her on May 29th and June 4th. And we do the thing again, where we go through his entire CV. It's really, really impressive. He's a really impressive guy. He was doing like anti-terrorism stuff. And he was working for the Department of State and DOJ. I mean, just really cool guy. Reddington tries to make him, he even says you're a government man, right? But in fact, at one point, he's working for both AUSAs and federal defenders. And he thinks federal defenders work for the Department of Justice. This is a common misconception. Reddington corrects him incorrectly because federal defenders do not work for the entity, the Reddington name. So that's the panel, which is different. It's the CJA, yeah. Yeah, panel attorneys work for that. The federal defenders have this whole special quasi-governmental private board thing. Which might sometimes fall under the judicial branch. Like, it's very bizarre. And they're not all the same. Like, they're not all, it's very strange. It's a very weird thing, the way the federal defenders are set up. But anyways, nobody really understands it. But either way, he's working for both of them. And I think that just, once again, sort of gives this whole, this whole feeling that he's neutral. Now look, Reddington is doing this again because he wants to point out that he is not an expert on postpartum women. But can we just, can we just say it at this point? Lindsay wasn't under postpartum depression either. She wasn't actually under postpartum psychosis. And the way I know that, the man who first introduced me to this thought was Reddington himself. At the beginning of this trial, Reddington doesn't describe Lindsay as being in the throes of postpartum depression. He describes her as being someone who had undiagnosed bipolar, who went to Dr. Tufts, who took Zoloft, and Zoloft is what activated her bipolar. And everything that happened from that point forward was the result of bipolar. And when he initially said that, I didn't really buy it. I was like, I don't know about that. And people wrote in and said, yeah, I mean, that can happen. You know, I was like, okay. And then, like, the doctors start coming in. His doctors are diagnosing her as bipolar. This Commonwealth's doctors are diagnosing her as bipolar. That's what she is. And for the last three years, which is no one is arguing that she's currently postpartum. She's bipolar. Exactly. And she still needs the medication. She still needs the treatment. She's bipolar. So, in reality, it never mattered, really, whether they were experts in postpartum issues or not, because, once again, as has been established, a thousand, they can recognize the major depressive disorder and whether or not it has the modifier of postpartum isn't the critical question. But in this case, I don't even think it's postpartum. I think it's possible her anxiety was postpartum anxiety that led her to go to Dr. Tufts in the first place. But I feel like it's been pretty well established now that what actually led to her downward trajectory in her mental health was not having a baby. It was taking Zoloft when she was bipolar, too. I mean, that's never been made that express. in this case. But as he was saying this, it just all kind of came together for me. This is completely irrelevant. And I understand why he keeps doing it, because it's been very valuable from a public relations standpoint. Because there are many people out there who have suffered with postpartum depression, who have suffered with postpartum psychosis, who have not been treated properly by the medical community, who feel like they were abandoned and let down. And they see themselves in Lindsay Clancy, and it makes them sympathetic to her, and it makes them more likely to support her. So it is valuable to continue to paint her as that. And when we started this case, that's exactly where I thought we were going to end up. But now that we've seen the evidence, I think if you look at the evidence just clearly and plainly, without any bias, without any preconceived notions, there's no real evidence that she was in postpartum psychosis. There's real evidence that she was bipolar that may have led to psychosis, but not postpartum psychosis. So that's sort of where I am on this and makes this even more pointless that he continues to go through this whole, you're not an expert on postpartum issues, the DSM-5 is terrible, all that stuff. It's even less relevant now that we're at the end of the trial than it would have been if that had been his theory from the very beginning. 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, hire, onboard, and support your team from anywhere. They make it so easy with automatic payroll tax filing, simple direct deposits, 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. So if you're interested in learning more about the Pendulum Metabolic Daily, you can find out more about the Pendulum Metabolic Daily at gusto.com slash prosecutors. 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 agromantia, a gut bacterium that helps signal your body to produce more of its natural 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. Talk about whether or not he's written any articles on hallucinations. He's obviously read many, but he hasn't written any on that. But rather than just leave it there as if he hasn't written anything, which I think would have been pretty smart, because then you're like, oh man, this guy hasn't written anything. Instead, we go through his like 10,000 articles and books and book chapters he's written. And they're all really awesomely titled. Like sometimes you just get like the boring, like the history of psychosis. The history of psychosis part two, right? Like that's the way articles. All of his were like the negotiator on the bridge and how to diagnose. I know. It was like really interesting stuff. And there are so many that at some point he's like, did you write this one? He's like, I don't know. I'd have to look at that to even remember. Maybe I was on a panel. I wrote a lot of stuff. But anyways, we have to go through it all for some reason. And we once again note that he's not an expert on postpartum psychosis, which no one says he is. We talk about how postpartum symptoms that occur during the postpartum period can be triggered by having a child. And Reddington talks about how many women kill themselves during the postpartum period, which is true and important, but not necessarily relevant for this case. So then he does the thing about blood tests that he's really been hammering on the entire trial. So he says, blood tests, she didn't get them. Can they be important? And Dr. Sadoff says, well, it depends on the presenting symptoms. On their history, it's not a one size fits all. And so Reddington asked him next to do something that I don't know. I think maybe he really wanted to have a spelling bee in the middle of trial, but he asked the doctor to spell some drugs. I can barely say the drugs. So there's certainly no way that I could spell them. So I think he was just trying to find ways to embarrass this very impressive doctor. And so he asked him to spell the drug names, which he actually could do just fine. So I guess jokes on Reddington on that. But truthfully, I think it was a tactic to try to make him seem like he didn't know something, but it backfired. Then he asks if there are any tests for postpartum depression. And Dr. Sadoff says, well, there's the Edinburgh scale. And Reddington asked him if he looked it up the night before, suggesting that he was cramming for this cross-examination. And of course, the doctor says, nope, didn't look it up last night. I just know this. And then Reddington is still attempting to make him look stupid. And so he asks him a bunch of gotcha questions, all of which Dr. Sadoff gets right, because he really knows his stuff. And I think this is partly because Dr. Sadoff has a very, very convincing testimony. But the thing is, he also came after another very convincing expert, Dr. Kirk. So with the two of them compounded right before the jury goes on verdict, I do think this is a little bit spaghetti at the wall in terms of strategy. And I think it's a little bit of a mistake. I think it's a little bit of a mistake. of what Reddington's doing. There's not much he can do to throw Dr. Sadoff off his saddle, because he's seen it all. He's truly seen it all and written about it all. And so these gotchas do fall flat. But I do think that's what he's trying to do. And some of these gotchas are like, well, do you know what the range of her scores were on a bunch of random tests? And he does. He remembers them. Look, there are like thousands of pages of records. He probably works on lots of cases. It would not be surprising if he didn't actually remember this, but he did. And then he just says, yeah, you can absolutely do a blood test. And there are things like enzyme tests, but it's really expensive. And it's not going to tell you very much here, just like we heard actually Dr. Tuff say earlier in the prosecution's case. So then we turn to this notion that Lindsay is avoiding taking medications. And at least now we're admitting that she did do that. You know, I think with the last witness, he kind of pushed back on that, like she wasn't actually doing that. But now we're asking, is it reasonable to not take drugs because of side effects? And in particular, it's reasonable to not take drugs because of side effects. And in particular, we talk about, I think lamotrigine is the focus here. Lamictal or Lamictal. I feel like it should be Lamictal, but I think it's Lamictal. That's what it is. Lamictal, which is, I don't know why you guys pronounce that that way. Doctors, physician, heal thyself. Anyways. And what's funny about this, we got two emails today in like the space of two minutes. And the first one was they describe, initially he describes, the doctor describes it as you can get a very serious rash. And then Reddington goes through this syndrome you can get, which is just awful. You have like sores and your immune system turns against you and it's horrific and horrible and terrible. It's like a really bad side effect. We got one email from somebody who had actually had this twice. This had happened to them twice. And they were like upset that they felt like the doctor was minimizing this side effect and the possibility that it could happen. And then I kid you not, like, 30 seconds later, we get another email from somebody who was upset at Reddington because he was acting like this side effect was super common. When in fact, this person said your chances are being struck by lightning are like a thousand times higher than it is to get this particular side effect. So while the side effect is really terrible, maybe it's not a reason not to take it. I mean, I kind of view this the same way the doctor viewed it, which is she thought it was reasonable not to take it. And then he said, well, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. So she decided not to take it. Given her worsening problems, maybe it was worth taking the chance on the side effect, but she decided not to. And so then we just kind of move on. Then the question is whether it was reasonable for her to stop Zoloft, which it was given her serious reaction to it. And then he asked, was it reasonable for her to stop Zoloft and change drugs? And he notes, given the low dosage and the effect, there's no issue with that. And that's been pretty common and consistent across most of these physicians. The sort of notion that the drug regimen was way out of kilter with what you'd expect. Now, we start off 13 drugs. She's taking all these drugs. She's taking taking them all at once. It seems really bad. I feel like that's another, I'm not going to say the myth has been busted, but it's been refined. It's not necessarily a good thing that she ended up on all those drugs. But the reason I think she did is because she was either having a bad reaction or just didn't want to take them. And so there was a lot of trial and error there. Then we go through December 20th, which is the famous Brigham and Women's incident where she, you know, they keep talking about her being turned away. This was the first time they talked about how long she was there. She was there for eight hours, which is actually a full day. And yeah, they did not accept her into the program once again, because it's a postpartum program, but they did. It seems like try and help her. Reddington tries to do this whole, she was turned away thing. But once again, this doctor, he's just on top of it. He knows exactly why it happened. And he explains it once again for the jury that it wasn't a matter of her being turned away. It was that she was not appropriate for, their program. Now at this point, I admit, I kind of stopped paying attention. We got to a point right around here where everything, he got so repetitive, you know, Reddington's doing the thing that he's done a thousand times where he goes through all the same mental health history that we've heard over and over and over again, which I got to imagine the jury's like, we, we get it. And he's badgering him about dark intrusive thoughts and about them. And he says, I mean, the answer to that question is basically no one sort of says she only told her mother and Patrick, which is absolutely true. And he's like, I don't even understand the point Reddington's trying to make with some of his anger. He's like, what do you mean? She only told Patrick and her mother, this is a murder case. It's like, but she only told Patrick and her mother. That's, that's the only people she told supposedly about thoughts of harming her children. So didn't really make any sense. But then we get into the, into this weird situation where he's asking about a spire and the emergency and the doctor says they ended up not taking any further steps with her because she didn't have a plan. And immediately Reddington, like acts like this is some sort of mistake or he doesn't know what he's talking about. He's like, how do you know she didn't have a plan? Why do you say that? Why do you say she didn't have a plan? But we all know like the doctor maybe has not watched all the testimony, but the jury has, we, we all know that that's why. And in fact, Reddington has hammered on this, that that's why she was turned away because she didn't have a plan. And it was these weird attempts at a gotcha that never really made any sense. And I didn't feel like landed at all. And it was just a continuation really of what we saw yesterday with he's almost flailing about with this stuff, trying to land sort of a random punch. And I didn't think it worked. I really think especially these last two, two experts have been really clarifying, if not to me, hopefully the jury of what actually happened in a way that honestly, the prosecution's case in chief didn't do for me. I was not clear about what happened at the end of their case in chief. And so my analogy yesterday about the hose being let go. So it's just like spinning all over the place. And you're just hoping that water's gonna land on something and do something is just causing a distraction so that when the last thing they when they go to deliberate are not these really, really compelling last couple of experts, but rather that there was just a lot of chaos. I think that's what the tactic is, because none of these really landed. And look, if you got to do what you got to do, it was tortuous to have to sit through. But I think that's what he's attempting to do here. So then I don't know why he's doing this. I don't know if how this is going to affect things after this trial. But Reddington indulges in his own way. He's going to have to do it. And he's going to have to do it. And he's going to have to He did not at the beginning of trial. But obviously, if you've been watching this trial and on TikTok, don't do it. First of all, there are all these conspiracies that Patrick is the one who actually killed the children and then convinced Lindsay that she's the one who killed the kids. Asinine theory, though. I'm not mocking it. I'm saying it is incredibly damaging. There is absolutely no dispute who killed the children. Lindsay said she killed the children. She's filed a civil complaint that says she killed the children. No one is disputing. In fact, Reddington wanted to the fact that she killed the children and the judge denied it. But despite this, he indulges this Patrick conspiracy that is found only online and nowhere in the evidentiary record of this trial so far. So he says now when the doctor interviewed Patrick and he's like reporting, he's like, yeah, I talked to him. And these are the things that were happening. So Reddington says didn't really say she tried to kill herself, though. Right. I mean, that's not what it was. And there weren't really drugs crushed up in the tumbler. That's just absurd. And he goes to all these things like he said, you didn't find any residue anywhere. Right. You didn't see any crushed up pills anywhere. You didn't see anything that could have been used as a tool to crush up the pills. Right. So you're telling me someone in psychosis can do all these things and then leave the room spick and span clean and not leave any trace of the drugs. And I'm thinking the whole time, if you're the jury, are you thinking, well, yeah, because she wasn't in psychosis. She clearly planned that she went and got lemonade that they normally don't have. She crushed up the pills ahead of time. All in place. And planning of doing this because she had under an hour to carry everything out. So when Patrick walked out the door, closed the door, she already had her maid to cocktail. She drank it. She killed the kids. She called him back as she's walking up the stairs with the knife from the knife block all planned out so that she could do everything in 18 minutes and not the hour she had planned for. That's what I'm thinking, Reddington. And he's putting those thoughts in my head. So I thought that was very ineffective. But that was the question he was kind of attacking the doctor with. And the basis of it, the reason I'm heated about this is the whole basis of kind of that line of questioning is that Patrick did this, right? That it's not actually Lindsay. And here's the thing. I realize that the tick tockers went crazy when he did this. I mean, they just thought this is confirmed all their theories. Reddington was waiting to the very end. Probably he's going to in closing unmask Patrick, all this other stuff. But if you're the jury, when I complain about this a lot, people like, well, he's just trying to be good. He's just trying to punch holes. He's just trying to cause doubt. He's been a good defense attorney. No, no, no, no, no, no. This is a bad strategy. It's not just that it's horribly unethical, insulting, disgusting and something he should be ashamed of. It's a bad strategy. We all know she did it. He said she did it on multiple occasions. Patrick has no reason to lie. Patrick's up there testifying for her. Patrick's defending her. The jury's heard him first. They heard him defend her, make excuses for her. Arguably, they heard his screams on that 911 call. No one on that jury thinks that Patrick is a liar. So when he starts trying to undermine the doctor by calling Patrick a lawyer, a liar, which a lawyer, liar, you know, same thing, synonyms that that doesn't undermine the doctor's credibility and it doesn't undermine Patrick's credibility. It undermines his credibility. It makes me think, man, you are so desperate. Now you're suggesting that Patrick lied about what she said. Is that really what you're up there saying? And I'm sorry, that might have played well for TikTok. And maybe if the jury's on TikTok, like they're not supposed to be, it plays well for them. But if they're just actually in there listening to the evidence and trying to make a decision, this is a terrible strategy. And yet he's now done it twice with two straight experts who were really solid anyway in an attempt to undermine them. And I think it is a really, really incompetent, frankly, not legally incompetent, but incompetent thing to do. And then, of course, he kind of hammers on something that the doctor had no control over. So he says, did you interview her mother? And he says, no, she wouldn't talk to me. He says, how do you know that? How do you know that? He says, well, I asked Lindsay who I should talk to. And she said, Patrick and her mother. So I interviewed Patrick. And he's like, well, how did you did you call her mother? And he said, no. I said, well, how did you get in contact with her? I asked the district attorney's office. And then who, who did you talk to at the district attorney's office? Like there's some conspiracy going on over there. And he says, the Commonwealth attorney, Ms. Jen Sprague. And it's like Reddington's like, they get into this whole thing of like, it's attorney Sprague. And he's like, all right, attorney Sprague. And he does this multiple times, but he like points out, which is by the way, there are just kind of codes of conduct of how you act. When I talk about opposing counsel in court on the record or in a filing, I don't call them out by name. Even if I'm calling them a liar in say a discovery dispute, and I'm saying they said this, but here's a, an email that shows you the timeline of events. I still don't call out attorneys by their names. I would never say attorney Brett told me this in a filing or any public record. It's just a code of conduct because we're all just doing our jobs. And you don't want to call them out. You don't want to call them out. I want your name on the record. And here's my question. Why didn't the judge step in at this point? Why is he letting this happen? Why is he letting this go? You know, he'll jump on a witness in a hot second if he doesn't like what the witness is doing. But Reddington's up there sparring with the Commonwealth attorney about whether or not it's Ms. Sprague or attorney Sprague, and then you're having to pronounce her name and then, and then correcting the witness. I mean, just the whole thing was just so unprofessional, childish. And this is, as he likes to say, this is a triple murder case. I mean, mean, maybe you could hold yourself up to a little bit better standard. But that's where we were at with the last witness. We're arguing about how we should address the Commonwealth attorney when we're trying to suggest some sort of weird conspiracy about interviewing her mother. Let's just explain it to you really quick, because there is no conspiracy. When you're the retained expert. Yeah, of course, you're going to go through the entity because lawyers are involved. So you don't want to just be reaching out to people left and right. I mean, would you like to be getting calls from random people? No, you work through kind of set people on either side. So you typically don't talk directly to the defendant. You go through their attorney. Same here. They're letting the attorneys do the work here so that you're not getting random phone numbers and phone calls from people who you may not even know. Like, how would the mother even know to answer that phone call of who it was? And guess what? The mom is allowed to not want to be interviewed. Absolutely. That is fine. And after Dr. Sadoff said that, you know, the district attorney's office said that she didn't want to be interviewed. He said, well, did you reach out to me? No, like we're not going to harass her from a different angle. So there was nothing that Dr. Sadoff did that was outside the realm of professional conduct. That's exactly how you would act. In fact, if he had gone around after she had denied an interview and gone to yet another avenue to try and get it, that could be harassing. So while he wanted to suggest something was untoward or deficient about his review of the case, there was nothing here. And then they go through malingering. And he agrees with the defense. He's like, she does not show evidence of malingering, which, by the way, Dr. Kirk also said. So this is good for you. You have two doctors who say, nope, I totally take at face value what she is telling me. She is suffering. It is hard. She is bipolar, too. She is not malingering. So then Reddington brings out that Resnick's research. So Resnick's research indicates that voices heard from the outside from outside of the head are atypical. I guess he's trying to argue that those. Earlier intrusive thoughts could have been actual hallucinations. But the problem is this indicates that yet another aspect of Lindsay's supposed psychosis is atypical. The voice she claims to have heard was outside of her head. So though he's trying to undermine the doctor, I think Reddington is actually sowing more doubt in my head that this was actually a voice or that there was psychosis. So then Reddington reads a line from the prosecution's opening statement to the doctor. I don't think he was there for the opening. statement, nor is it his statement. And it was something along the lines of like Lindsay had decided to end her own life and took her kids with her. And he's like, what do you think about that doctor? And he was like, I think that minimizes what she was going through, which is not a gotcha, but it's like a very honest opinion. And we said that about the opening statement, like don't minimize what she was going through. I think this woman was definitely going through something. And I think it really gave a lot of credibility to the doctor. That he said that, because I also think it's true. Now, I don't know why the prosecution gave that statement. Didn't object. Well, they did object. Oh, did they? I can't really hear. It was after a sidebar. So you'd had, you had to really be paying attention to know this is what was going to happen because they did the sidebar thing, because we can't just have objections in open court. But we don't need this many sidebars. You can have objections without a sidebar. Anyway, so yeah, the prosecution shouldn't have given that opening statement. Their opening statement should have aligned with what their explanation was. That's what the experts were going to say. So smart of him to read it. But I thought the doctor handled it well. 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 save 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. So then there's a redirect. I will say, for what it's worth, it was a shorter cross than I feared. I thought it was going to go all day, but it didn't. So the redirect is pretty straightforward. They go through his work at UVA, which is incredibly impressive in that he's not earning money, that he just gets a salary from UVA, and that he's treated several hundred women with psychosis. This is helpful here, too, because remember, Reddington was just trying to show he didn't know anything about postpartum. But we don't think this is postpartum, right? And even if it were postpartum era psychosis, still the same symptoms as psychosis. And he has a ton of experience here. And then we go through, once again, the symptoms of psychosis. We go through some of his patients who had harmed children. He's one of probably a few doctors who, really, have worked with women who have harmed their own children. And the prosecution finally reads the WHO guidelines on postpartum depression and psychosis. And it doesn't honestly seem as robust as Reddington likes to make it seem. Remember, he kept saying the DSM needs to adopt what the WHO standard was, but it's actually not all he wants it to be. Yeah, it didn't actually seem that different to me, at least the way they read it, that really you would expect these symptoms to occur much earlier around when the DSM says. I mean, I think they make an allowance for later, which I think everybody has. Everybody said, look, in rare circumstances, you might have this happen much later, but it would be unusual. That's the thing. Nobody's ever going to say it never happens, right? Because in medicine and particularly in mental health, anything's possible. But if you're thinking about what is likely and what is common and is what we typically see, that's not what you typically see. Right. And then I thought this was an effective cleanup on redirect. Remember all those questions about whether they tested her blood? Well, the Commonwealth comes back and says, well, her thyroid levels were checked, right? They were checked in November of 2022 and they were normal. And they also talk about how responsive Dr. Tufts was and how she was reasonable in her approach as a practitioner. And Dr. Satov, who has treated hundreds of women in psychosis, said, yeah, everything she did was completely reasonable in that approach. Then, of course, they go back to that suicide hotline call, the Aspire call, and they read the notes from Aspire because, of course, Reddington makes it seem like someone picked up the phone and basically was like, nope, don't have a plan and hung up. And that's not what happened. So basically, at that point, there's a few more questions, but the Commonwealth ends their redirect. Reddington has a couple more questions and then he's done and everyone rests. So the rebuttal case is over. Reddington is not going to attempt a sir rebuttal. He's not calling anybody else. So at this point, the case is done. The jury is excused and told to expect the arguments tomorrow morning and their deliberations will begin after that. At this point, we take lunch and then they come back to discuss jury instructions. I thought this was fun. I always like it when people get to see this stuff, arguments about jury instructions. Typically, when we would do it, and obviously our cases were never televised, we would discuss jury instructions back in the judge's chamber. You know, we'd go back with the judge. Everybody would have a copy and you would sort of go through the proposed jury instructions. Now, here's the thing. The vast majority of jury instructions are what we call pattern jury instructions. They're actually issued by the highest court. They have typical language. And the law is essentially if you use the pattern jury instruction, barring something really unusual, you won't be in any kind of trouble. You know, you're not going to get your case overturned because you use a pattern jury instruction. So you may have heard them talk about patterns and the pattern. Some, well, that's what they're talking about. That's why we were able to read you the jury instruction very early on in this case is because we just looked at the pattern. And sure enough, they're going to use the pattern, but they did go through a few things that they wanted. The Commonwealth objected to the voluntary intoxication instruction, which is attached to the pattern jury instruction on lack of culpability. And this is basically if you had some underlying psychosis, and you went out and you smoked the devil's lettuce, as Reddington likes to say. And that triggered your underlying psychosis. That is a tweak on this whole idea, because because of that, it can affect whether or not you can take advantage of that defense. That obviously didn't happen here. Nobody thinks that happened here. Commonwealth was like, let's get rid of it. Reddington was like, this is something we actually agree on. So there's not going to be any voluntary intoxication instruction for the jury. Now, the big thing, there were two big issues. One was a Bowden or a Bowden instruction. And this was another one that set the Twitters afire. So basically, and we've said this before, one of the arguments you can always make as a defense attorney is the police were terrible. If only they'd done a better investigation, we'd be fine. Right. So he wants him to make that instruction on the basis they didn't find those pills in the drawer, basically. And OK, I mean, he's doing a good job for his client. He's asking for what could be a valuable instruction. I don't think anybody on that jury is under the impression that she didn't do this. Look, legally, she hasn't admitted it. And the judge has given them an instruction that just because you're going to hear from all these doctors where she admitted doing it, you can't take that into account. Is there any human being on the planet Earth who could sit through multiple doctors, talk about her telling them exactly how she did it and not go ahead and say, of course, I'm going to do that. So, you know, a lot of this is kind of academic. And the judge eventually says, I'm not going to give that instruction. The manslaughter instruction, though, was really important. So just to go through this, what can the jury find her guilty of? Well, just as a matter of law, they can find her guilty of first degree murder. They can find her guilty of second degree murder, which I think got kind of missed in this whole discussion. There are some minor charges like assault charges that are connected to this as well, which I guess. They can also find her guilty of those early matter. But the question was, was there enough evidence presented that she could be found guilty of manslaughter? And Reddington made what I thought was a really great argument on why manslaughter was appropriate here. Now, I'll just tell you, if you really dig into Massachusetts law and you look at it, I don't actually think he's right. I don't actually think that just as a matter of law that manslaughter really fits. But he made a really good argument. And the judge. Is going to give it to him. Now, the judge is kind of doing something wonky, too. He's not going to give a voluntary or involuntary instruction. In fact, we're not even sure what instruction he's going to give. He's going to give some sort of hybrid generalized manslaughter instruction. And the general idea is going to be that Lindsay's mental issues could have reduced her culpability down to manslaughter. I think this is incredibly significant because there's a chance. Obviously, that this jury is going to go back there and the foreman is going to be like guilty of first degree murder, right? And everybody's going to be like, absolutely. You know, that's possible. And it's possible he's going to go back there and be like, not guilty. Reason of insanity. That's possible. I think much more likely you're going to have some people who think she's absolutely guilty, who think she's absolutely not guilty. And then you're going to have a few people in the middle and manslaughter of all the possibilities. Is such a nice compromise position, because the people who think she's guilty get a guilty. The people who think this was caused by her mental disease or defect get a reduction on what she gets. It's just such a perfect compromise verdict that the fact that he's going to allow it, I think, basically eliminates the possibility of a hung jury. Not impossible. There could be somebody on that jury that, you know, it could be 11 who thinks. She's not guilty and when he says she's absolutely guilty and I won't budge and they and they hang and it could be the opposite way, too. But I think the chance of a hung jury went from, frankly, probably pretty high in this case to more like maybe a 10. I say less than 20 percent now before I was. I truly thought it was closer to 50 percent. And the thing about murder, too, is we talked about murder, too, before. But one of the definitions of murder to Massachusetts is basically any murder. That's not. So as Reddington sort of hinted, you think about murder one, is this and some of you think this, that this is very premeditated. This is like a cold blooded killing. But, you know, this doesn't feel like your typical murder. Like this doesn't feel like Chris Watts, for instance, another person who killed his children. Very different circumstance there feels different from that. So it feels weird to convict both of them for the same crime. So that could be another. So you have the jury who says, like, I just don't think this is murder one, but maybe it's murder two. And that's that's also sort of the the compromise position. And look, that's just the way it is in the law. People have compromised verdicts all the time. They are tested repeatedly in the courts and they've never been found to be invalid. So if the jury wants to say she's guilty of manslaughter, it doesn't really matter at the end of the day that it doesn't really fit. That's going to stand up on any future appeal. Do you have any thoughts on the charging conference? I think because of the manslaughter, I think there's going to be, of course, hung jury is always an option, but I think it's going to come down to one of two results. I think it's going to either be manslaughter or not guilty. I don't think they'll go up to second degree murder or first degree murder with manslaughter on the table. And my recollection is in Massachusetts, murder one is life without parole. Murder two is up. Murder two life with parole. Manslaughter is up to 20 years. Is it 20? Yeah, I thought it was 20 years. Now you got three victims, but I don't I don't know that they're not going to be consecutive. It'll be concurrent. And manslaughter, by the way, is as low as probation. And she's been in custody now for at least four years. Right. Three, three years, three and a half, three and a half years. So, you know, even if she's convicted of manslaughter, that does not necessarily mean that she would spend any time in prison. She could immediately get out. Let me be a little more clear. I don't think it's because there aren't people on the jury who think murder. I think no one's thinking about murder, too. Honestly, I think if you're thinking murder, then you're thinking first degree murder. I think it's because I am quite sure there is at least one of the 12 who is a solid not guilty, no matter what the facts say, based on whatever, whether it's about just postpartum mental illness in general or they had their mind made up, no matter what the evidence was going to say, they were going to be not guilty. I think it is very highly likely that there is someone at least on there. And because of that, in order to get any sort of a conviction, the highest conviction you can get would be a manslaughter. And I think everyone else who was on the murder side of the charging would downgrade to manslaughter rather than get a hung jury or to let her off completely. That's why I think it's manslaughter or not guilty, not because they didn't prove something higher than manslaughter. I just am not convinced. That there isn't someone who is 100 percent will not listen to anything and would not move off of that not guilty, which is why I think hung jury is still a possibility as well. So we're going to end up doing a short episode after the closings, but I don't think we're going to wait to tell you what we think about this because we're at the close of evidence. We got all the evidence. Who cares what the lawyers say? We're lawyers. We can weigh this evidence. So my thoughts on this. So, look, we came to. I had a lot of preconceived notions about how this case was going to go. A lot of those preconceived notions have been unconceived. They are the evidence. You know, it's like everybody has a plan. My mind has changed more in this case than I think any case we have followed in real time. Right. It's all, you know, Mike Tyson said everybody has a plan till you punch them in the face. And I feel like I had preconceived notions till I got punched in the face by the evidence in this case. And where I'm at with this, and I've said a little bit of this. Throughout these last few episodes, I don't believe that Lindsey Clancy was psychotic. I don't believe she was psychotic at all. And you look at the story and these experts did a really good job of going through this. And the story here is that on January 24th, for the first time, she heard this command voice. And what did she do? She immediately obeyed it. She immediately killed her children and then went on to attempt her suicide. And first, this is inconsistent with what the doctors testified to. People tend to resist. Particularly a voice like this. And you don't have to take their word for it. Andrea Yates. Oh, y'all want to talk about Andrea Yates. Y'all want to compare this case to Andrea Yates. Well, Andrea Yates is someone who heard voices for a very long time. And she resisted them again and again and again before finally giving in to the voices. And Lindsey did not do that, even by her own statements. And it's not just that she didn't resist. It's what she did. We were told over and over how much she loved her kids. How good a mom she was. I mean, this was the whole Reddington theory of the defense. How much she cared about them. And I don't believe. I have been convinced by Reddington and his presentation. I do not believe that Lindsey Clancy, given how much she loved her kids and how good a mom she was, would have assented to this voice so quickly. I just don't believe it. I don't think she would have given in the very first time she heard it without any effort. for it to stop or prevent it. husband just so happened to be gone. And even when, according to her, she was interrupted by a telephone call, even that didn't stop her. I don't buy it. I don't buy that she's the kind of person, and given how she felt about those kids, that she would just instantaneously give in to the voice. And then there's the timeline in this case. So she claims, her newest claim, which is not what she told her own doctor, Dr. Spinelli, but her newest claim that Reddington has put forward, is that she didn't start this as soon as Patrick left. This didn't start until after that phone call. Patrick had been gone for a while. She was at the refrigerator. She was getting some chicken nuggets out, right? That's when it happened. And after that phone call is when the voice came. If you look at the timeline, that's not what happened. So 5.15, Patrick's leaving, and that's when she texts him about the Pedialyte. It could be a couple of minutes after that that he actually leaves, but we know that's generally speaking when he leaves. At 5.23, eight minutes later is when she takes off that Apple Watch. At 5.33, that's when Patrick calls her and she doesn't answer. And at the exact same time that that call is coming through, she climbs a flight of stairs. Now, my theory on this has always been, this is when she's killing Callan. I think it's even possible that the reason Callan, I'm not going to say almost survived, but was still a lot of times, was a lot of times, at the end of this, was because unlike the other two, who she finished without interruption, as she's killing Callan, she gets that phone call and she knows she has to answer it. And so she heads up the stairs to call him back, which she does in the next minute at 5.34. It's a 14-second call to Patrick. Then four minutes later, which is about the amount of time it might take you to gather your lemonade, grab a knife out of the knife, and then call him back. Get your crushed pills that you've already prepared or get something to crush pills with. She climbs another flight of stairs and where's her phone? It's on the bed and it's not bloody and the door is locked. We know how this went down. It's not the way she described it. How this went down is essentially Patrick leaves and very soon thereafter, she starts this. She puts this whole thing into action and she has killed, she has, strangled the last of her children 18 minutes later. Just like Dr. Kirk said, at 5.33, it's done. That's when she misses that phone call. That's when she gets what she needs to kill herself. She does that last flight of stairs at 5.38 and then Patrick is back 30 minutes later. He finds her in the snow. Timelines tell you so much. I think it tells you a lot in this case. And honestly, this case is not complicated. I think this case is actually really simple. We have way overcomplicated this case and we've piled so much baggage onto this case, but it's really straightforward in my mind. This is not a combination of incredibly rare occurrences. This is not postpartum psychosis, eight months after birth. It's not a once occurring command hallucination. It's not an auditory hallucination coming from outside her head, which we learned today from Reddington is actually a very rare phenomenon. It's not someone in psychosis. It's not a person in psychosis. Who didn't even try and resist, which is also very rare. It's not a voice that stops as soon as the murders are over. A voice, by the way, that never comes back, which also is basically unprecedented. It's not someone who had psychosis and then has never had it again. That is not what this is. Rather, this is a tragic but simple case. I think Lindsay Clancy was very depressed. I think she was anxious. And I agree with Reddington. I think she was suffering from a severe mental illness that was brought on by her latent and incredibly difficult to diagnose bipolar two. I think when she went to Dr. Tufts, she presented as just a typical person who has some anxiety. She'd even taken SSRIs before and had no issues. There was every reason for Dr. Tufts to think she's not going to have one of those reactions now. I do think she was activated by Zoloft. And I do think it's possible. And people have written in. I've asked you guys for help on this. And you have delivered the number of psychologists and psychiatrists and psychologists and psychiatrists who told me to keep calling them the other thing and get upset by that who've written in. Very helpful. And many of you who have talked about how it takes a very low level of Zoloft to do this, that the other symptoms, the other side effects, the low dosage can really help prevent those. But when it's something like this, even a low dosage, can set somebody off. And I think that's what happened. I think at that point she was activated. And I think that led to a depressive downward spiral. I think that her own anxiety and her own knowledge trapped her. I think there were a lot of efforts to help her, but it was her own mind was betraying her. I think either because of stigma or just an unwillingness to accept it, both she and Patrick were so resistant to the idea that she was bipolar. And she is resistant to that to this day. That made it much harder to treat. And I think she goes into this depressive downward spiral. I think she's not really getting any good treatment for the underlying illness, which is why she's not recovering. I think it gets worse all through December. And then I actually think it starts to get a little bit better in January. I think Dr. Kirk's absolutely right. And the problem is that is when it became the most dangerous. I think she decided to do it on January 24th. And people have said, why do it then? But not before or when he went on the trip or whatever. It's because she wasn't in the right mental state yet. She had not achieved that recovery that led to the ability to carry this out. And that's why the day seemed like such a good one. I think at that point, the weight was off. She was going to act. She was finally going to end this. I think she goes through the motions earlier in the day. That's why she takes Cora to the doctor because she doesn't want to set off any suspicion. She wants to act normal until it is the time when you do this. I think she planned the route for Patrick to get him away. I think she added on that CVS stop very wisely to get him to stop, made sure the stuff would be there in the hopes that he wouldn't call her. But Patrick being a man, despite the fact she tells him exactly what she wants, he calls her nonetheless to check. And that's what leads to having to call him back. And I think after that happened, one by one, she murdered her children so that she would not leave them behind her when she took her own life. I absolutely think this case is a tragic case. I think mental health absolutely plays a role in it, but that is not enough. Millions of people are right now struggling with mental illness. And they're good moms and dads, they're husbands and wives, friends, employees, neighbors, people you interact with all the time. And they would never do anything like this. Now, I agree that her illness was worse than most, but I do not believe her depression or her bipolar stripped her of the ability to know that killing her children was wrong. And in the end, that was a decision that she made. So I do believe she is guilty. But I will tell you this, I hesitate. And I rarely hesitate, because usually if somebody kills kids, I'm, you know, where's the death penalty when we need it, right? That is not how this case. I hesitate even now to say that she's guilty of first degree murder. And I don't know if I was on that jury that that's how I would vote. And I totally get it. I believe there was planning in this case. I believe in some ways, this was a premeditated murder. And I believe she was criminally competent. But I do believe that her mental illness is a factor that reduces her culpability in a way that I'm not sure the law really captures. Personally, I would feel much more comfortable with second degree murder. But I do believe that her mental illness is a factor murder, or a manslaughter conviction. But I do think at the end of the day, she is guilty of some form of murder in this case. 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 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 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 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, 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 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 dot 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 get $10 off your first purchase. 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 had to 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 in seconds after a workout. 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. So I think it's no surprise that I agree with you that she absolutely knew what she was doing and she planned meticulously how to kill her children. She could have chosen not to do it and she in fact did. So I think the timeline is right. Like you said, it's Occam's razor. It's really chilling because I think the act of taking off her Apple watch, was the beginning of it in order to not be traced, to minimize the stories telling after. I think she fully intended to kill herself and I think she fully intended to be dead along with the children by the time Patrick came home. So there would be no questions. And without her Apple watch, there'd be much less ability to track what had actually happened. And that's chilling to me because to have the wherewithal and the control of your awareness of what to do, to plan all the way up until that point, all the way to the point of taking off your watch to then begin to carry out the executions one at a time chills me to my core as a mother. So agree with you. She is not, not guilty by reason of insanity or mental defect. But I think the reason this has captured so many people, this will probably be studied as a social and a societal phenomenon for a very long time is the why. Now, one thing I'm going to go backwards with you, because while I agree with you that she was dealing with this, I'm going to go backwards with you because while I deeply, deeply suffering here, I do not think it was a fake suicide attempt. I do not think that she was malingering. I agree with the doctors that if anything, she was downplaying what she was suffering from. And it was incredibly serious because I do think she was someone who was very competent, was in a profession that helped others and to be in a position where she had to ask for help. And she did. She did ask for help. She asked for help from Patrick. That probably was really hard. She asked for help from Dr. Tufts, from her therapist by going to programs. She called suicide hotlines. I truly think she was seeking help, but she could not bring herself to then take that next step of being one of the people that maybe she had been trained to help because then that would put her in a different category. So though she was seeking help, and I do think that seeking help showed that she was truly suffering. It's so funny. We're all afraid to talk about postpartum health or we're afraid to talk about mental illness. I think we are where we are because Lindsay could not accept that she actually needed much bigger help than she could fix herself. And she did try to fix it herself. That's why she took the Benadryl. That's why she took the Ativan against medical advice. I think that's why she checked out of the hospital despite probably not being better. These things have led to where we are. And I say all this because I'm starting with where you ended. Does that downgrade it from first degree to manslaughter every single murder case we've looked at? And at this point, we've looked at hundreds, if not more. Mental illness is at play in the sense that we are life preservers. We heard Dr. Sadoff said that today. It's really hard to kill yourself. It's harder to kill yourself than your kids, actually. He doesn't say it directly like that. But what I got from him is it's harder to kill yourself than even your kids who you are biologically geared towards loving because we all have a natural tendency to self-preserve. If you try to drown yourself, you're going to your body fights. And if you're not restrained, you will push yourself up and take a breath, even if you want to drown yourself. That's why people try to drown themselves, tie blocks to themselves, because your own will to live, even if your mind doesn't want to live, will fight for life. So to some sense, anyone who commits a murder is in some ways fighting the natural urge. And whether you want to call that a mental defect or not, it's at play. And we don't take that into account. But we are taking that into account, of course, because we've made this discussion about postpartum, which I think the experts have quite clearly demonstrated what she was suffering from, though incredibly serious, is not a postpartum phenomenon. There are many people who suffer from bipolar disorder. There are many people who suffer from anxiety and depression. Does not minimize what that is. And so I struggle with making her different from other people in every jurisdiction that we hold accountable. And I struggle with making her different from other people in every jurisdiction that we hold accountable for their premeditated acts, because her attorneys have been very effective in making this about postpartum when I don't think this is a case about postpartum necessarily. Okay, let me back up now to the why. I'm not going to give you a good answer. I think there is no why. I think Dr. Kirk, what drove him in this case was the why. We will never know why. I don't think Lindsay knows why. But I do want to call out something because throughout this coverage, people who feel very strongly about this case and feel very strongly about this case and feel very strongly about mental health discussions, about postpartum mental health discussions, feel very personally invested in this. And in criticizing what is being put forth by the defense's narrative, which I do not think is what actually happened here. I do not think there was ever a voice. I do not think that psychosis controlled her to the point where she did not know what she was doing. I do not think she had psychosis. She did know what she was doing. In order to call these things out based on what the evidence says, it's not mockery. It's not even lack of empathy. But I think it's important to look at the facts and to call out the valorization of victimhood. I think that's really important here because though I see in the record how much Lindsay was suffering in December going into January leading up to the murders, what she has done since January 24th all the way until this very day is the very thing that we called out Adnan Syed out for. We said we wouldn't even be covering this case and it may not even be interesting if he just said, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. We just accepted the fact that he murdered his girlfriend and didn't get millions of people and hundreds, if not thousands of tens of thousands of dollars of money around an innocence movement that didn't exist. She is not a martyr for postpartum health. Rather to this day, she denies what she may be suffering from and what she has done. Instead, I think there's been incredible post hoc justification of what she knew at the time was wrong. We're not judging her today. I recognize that. But her actions today, just like both Dr. Kirk and Dr. Sadov have said, the fact that we can see the past three years she's been diagnosed with bipolar two, it's part of our evaluation of whether she has bipolar two. The way she has acted since then, I think gives incredible insight into just how knowing her actions were on January 24th. She wanted to kill herself. Many people in this world want to and they do it without taking others with them. You can choose to end your own life. And we do not allow you, if you want to drive off a cliff, you don't get to first drive through a crowded street, taking down as many people as you want as you drive off a cliff. You're not allowed to do that. And she did do this. She knew exactly what it was. And we know she knew it was wrong because the amount of planning and the amount of thought that went into each of it. She took her watch off at 5.23. So I actually think Patrick left a little bit after 5.15. I think it was an intentional, deliberate move to add on this CVS trip as he was leaving. So he didn't say, well, can I just get it later? Or, you know what? Why should we go to 3V? This is closer. She made the 3V call so that that order was already had. She made sure that this was on the way out. So there was no planning or changing of plans. So I think he actually left a little bit after 5.15. So at 5.23, she takes off the watch. She calls him back at 5.34. So we're not even talking about 18 minutes of committing these murders. we're talking a span of about 10 minutes. We know it took about two to three minutes to make sure that the child was dead. She worked with army precision to make sure these kids didn't know what was happening. And she took them one by one and ended their lives. Now, she was, I think, deeply in a very, very dark place, but she knew exactly what she was doing. That's why she took the measures to cover where she was. This is why she took the measures to do the kids one at a time in separate rooms so they couldn't see each other so that even though we know they fought, there was no chance that they could get away. This is why we know that when she went upstairs, she locked that door. And I think she really wanted to kill herself and she thought she was going to kill herself. And when she lived, gosh darn it, she had to explain it. That's why she was horrified. How do you explain this? You can't. That wasn't part of the plan. The plan was for everyone to be gone and she didn't have to explain a single thing. And it's like the lie that just kept getting away. And here we are three years later. Where she claims she wants to be the advocate for women's health, an incredibly worthy cause and an important conversation we need to have. But she is not the martyr for postpartum health that I think Reddington or honestly TikTok has held her up to be. And I just want people to be prepared that so if she is found guilty of anything, that doesn't mean we don't have conversations about the mental health system. And by the way, I do not think this particular case is a case where the mental health professionals have failed her. There are cases where medical professionals have failed people in gross ways. This case is not that. So if she is found guilty, that doesn't mean we don't continue very thoughtful and deep conversations about how we support women, about how we support anyone truly in spirals of deep depression and anxiety. And if she's found guilty, that doesn't mean we don't have conversations about how we support I think we need to also be very careful. That doesn't mean that we burn the whole medical system down because it's not an indictment on all of her practitioners, for example. I think the fact that these two things have been married so closely may actually do a disservice to the conversations and the improvements we need to make in the mental health system. Because unfortunately, I think as I've seen in the last five weeks, this is a straight murder case. This is not a case about. Postpartum struggles that were overlooked by mental professionals. That doesn't mean I don't have empathy for her, but I have the amount of empathy that is appropriate for a woman who I know knew right from wrong and still chose to do wrong three times over. And that can't be taken back. I truly don't know how the jury is going to come out. I don't think it's going to be murder one. I don't think it's going to be murder two. I truly think it's going to be. I hope it's not hung jury. I think it's going to be. Manslaughter. If the jury truly heard what's been happening for the last three experts, I am hopeful that there are enough people on there who have not bought into the complete not guilty. And those of you who've been following, I mean, I've taken a rollercoaster ride. I came into this case thinking this was just about how the medical system had filtered. This was just a woman who was in postpartum distress, who was failed repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly. And I thought this was going to be an easy case of not guilty. And then as I heard my lawyer say, I'm going to take a rollercoaster ride. I thought, oh, gosh. Okay. So it's a woman who's in a lot of distress, but it sounds like there was maybe there was just a lot of malingering. I thought that this was all a lie really in the middle of the trial. But now I've come around to the fact that what the last two experts have said was likely what it was. We just don't let you kill other people while you decide to kill yourself as well. And that's what she tried to do. That was great, Alice. You know, you're missed in the prosecution world. Look, this. This is a tough case. I know people are going to have a lot of thoughts on this case, and there's going to be a lot of division. I have appreciated how respectful everyone has been in places like the gallery and discussing this. There's a lot of very strong feelings about whether or not she is guilty or not guilty. And I hope we will continue to have that discussion. Look, I don't know what's going to happen in this case. And one of the reasons I don't know is because we haven't seen the closing arguments. We've been walking through this case with you for the last. I don't even know how many episodes. We've done. So it's easy for us to have it all sort of lined up and the evidence lined up. I think for that jury who's been sitting in there and listening to this and their lay people, how this case is put together for them is going to be really important. And as I've said, I think the Commonwealth has done really well in the second half of this trial. But tomorrow they got to nail it and they got to put it together under Massachusetts rules. If they do it like they did Karen Reed. The defense goes first, which I think is so strange, but that's the way it'll be. They each get an hour. Reddington said he only needed 30 minutes, but judge is going to take an hour and 10. I think he absolutely is. So we're just going to have to see because I think the prosecution has to put that story together in a much better way than they did in the opening. I think if they could just clone Alice real fast, that would be really good for them. But they've got it in them. I mean, we. We've seen them do really well. There were times where it seemed like this case was too big for them, but I think we'll see their best tomorrow. I hope we see their best tomorrow. I hope both sides put on their best argument. Honestly, do. I really hope that both sides present the best possible argument for their position to this jury so that this jury can weigh the evidence and reach a conclusion. And I will say this, whatever conclusion they reach, I'm not going to be upset with. You know, this this won't be. I was disappointed. In the Karen Reid decision, this one, I think they're really good arguments on both sides and really good reasons to feel either way. So we'll just see what happens. We've said this so many times, but I do think it's worth saying because there's going to be heated emotions tomorrow after the closing arguments. And then obviously, as people wait for the verdict, it's not a win, whatever the verdict is. It's truly a loss three times over across the board. So there is no winning side. And that's what I think. That's why I'm so exhausted from this. This case is there's kind of no justice at the end because Cora, Dawson and Callen will never come back. So keep that in mind. It's easy to fall into teams and be like, way to go and cheer for your side, whatever side that you're on. But just remember, like, this is a truly devastating case on every single level. And nobody wins whatever whatever the outcome is. Like when Murdoch was convicted, I felt good. That was a good day. Richard Allen was convicted. That was a good day. I felt like justice had been done. And even though it doesn't bring back the victims and even though that tragedy remains, justice is something to celebrate. There's not going to be any celebration here. There's no winner here. There's no happy ending here at all, no matter what happens. So that's the thing that's so heavy about this case. And I think it's one of the reasons that people feel so strongly about this case, because it's just a deeply emotional, personal case. And it is a horrific tragedy. I'm sure you guys have lots of thoughts. Let us know what they are. Shoot us an email. We're at prosecutorspod at gmail.com. At prosecutorspod for X, for Instagram, for TikTok. You can join us on the gallery on Facebook. It is our listener-created, listener-run, listener-moderated group. It's awesome. A lot of good time there. A lot of really good arguments. A lot of really smart people with a lot of expertise. So you can learn a lot there as well. I hope you'll join us there. Look, this case is coming to an end. There are a lot of you who are listening who've never listened to us before. And you listened to this. And I hope you enjoyed it. And I hope you won't leave us when it's over. I hope you'll check out some of our back catalog to see how we normally do things. Whether it's the Scott Peterson case, or the JonBenet Ramsey case, or the Adnan Saeed case. Or if you're into things, if you're more like me, and you're into Dyatlov Pass, or the mystery of the Mary Celeste, or something along those lines, or D.B. Cooper and the money he took, we do that as well. So I hope you'll check it out. And I hope you'll stick with us after this case is over. If you want to watch us record these live, $3. Patreon. If you want to get them early and ad-free, $3. Patreon and Apple subscriptions. If you want to just listen to them when they come out with ads, guess what? Everything we do comes out eventually. So you don't have to pay a dime. Times are hard. Don't worry about it. Not going to hurt our feelings if you want to do that. And I'm sure our sponsors would be very happy if you would listen to the ads. All right. Alice, before we sign off for today, do you have any other brilliant pearls of wisdom that you want to share with us? No pearls of wisdom, but y'all should watch Brett on Nancy Grace Timlar. Oh, night. That's true. Yeah. Yeah. Nancy Grace. Thank you, Nancy. Very nice lady. Yes. She actually, she's not, which is what we love about her. She was nice to me. So I was. Actually, I was a little worried for you. I'm not going to lie. I was like, I don't know how this is going to go down. I was too. Is she going to yell at me? Is she going to make me cry? And here's the good news. You can hear Brett talk about a different case. That's not Lindsey Clancy. It's amazing. Yeah. Oh, my goodness. No. Thank you. Guys, especially all of new people who are joining us. It has been so humbling to go through this trial with you because it has been really emotionally taxing. But like I said, I think these are really beautiful and important conversations that we're having. And I've been so heartened, truly so heartened by the compassion I'm seeing all of you display. So we are going to do a short episode. I'm calling it a short episode after tomorrow. Two hours though, it's still two hours of-- two hours so it could be a little bit longer i don't know now if the verdict comes back tomorrow afternoon oh then we're gonna have a long one then we'll have a much longer episode so i will just go and tell you my expectation i think they will make it through the weekend i do not think we'll get a verdict until next week at the beginning of this week i thought we'd get a verdict before the end of the week but that's when i thought we were gonna have closings yesterday so i think at this point monday afternoon is my guess i honestly think deliberations will go longer now than previously because of the manslaughter option on the table yeah i do not i do not think we'll get something before the weekend i really think this jury is going to be super motivated to reach a conclusion i just really do they don't want to hang any more than anybody else does they've been through this nightmare they don't want to leave and i honestly you know it was one thing like when the first karen reed jury hung i mean that case was just weird right this you got three kids you got this mother who killed her kids who now she's decapped and she's been through the ringer and you you saw the families come in and patrick and your motivation to reach some sort of verdict is really high so i know a lot of people are just assuming it's going to be hung because it's a hard case i am very hopeful they're gonna if you think you're tired listening to this they are so emotionally invested as well and it you know we've both gotten to clerk for judges and have seen juries and been able to talk to them unlike when you're an attorney and you can't talk to the jurors i remember speaking to all the jurors after the trials and they took their jobs so seriously i remember i was like i love this country like you sit there for less than minimum wage and you don't even get lunch taken in for you because that's not part of the court budget and you take your job so seriously for all of these cases so i actually if you're a praying person pray for these jurors someone asked you know posted in the gallery do they get like trauma counseling no like there's nothing and actually there are incredible books written about like polls they've done on you know trauma counseling so i think that's a really good point and i think that's one of the things that i would like to see in the future and i think that's one of the things that i want to see and i think that's one of the things that i want to see in the future and i think that's one of the things that i would like to see and it's usually things that they have to suffer alone because it's a very unique and lonely experience to have been part of a jury like this so think about them as well just for what they're about to have to go through and then i think unfortunately the onslaught of media attention that will follow them afterwards yeah absolutely and it is a just a real failure of our justice system and i think that's one of the things that i would like to see and i think that's one of the that we don't take care of our jurors because this was just imagine hearing that 9-1-1 call seeing those photographs no person walks off the street to do their jury duty and expects that's what they're going to have to see so yeah absolutely all right guys well we'll be back very soon look forward to it i hope you've enjoyed this episode we will see you guys tomorrow but until then i'm brett and i'm alice and we are the process no i do have a cough drop in my mouth so i'll get rid of that before we talk that's good um um i'm so tired because it's just it's like emotion really exhausting but also just having the trial in my ear all day all the time all the time is like talk about a voice in your head guys and the problem i have is when we get done i cannot go to sleep for like two hours hours i've been going to sleep at one and we finish at like 10 i know it's just like i'm gonna have to get up in the morning We'll be right back. We'll be right back. It was really funny. I can't remember who posted it, but I laughed out loud. When you were like, when we posted, we're tired. This case makes us tired. And someone was like, then stop listening. I was like. Hello and welcome to PlutoFox.com. 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.