Latest / Two Ts In A Pod with Teddi Mellencamp and Tamra Judge / Legally Brunette: The Lindsay Clancy Trial (Part 3)

Transcript

Legally Brunette: The Lindsay Clancy Trial (Part 3) · Two Ts In A Pod with Teddi Mellencamp and Tamra Judge

0:02
Speaker 1: Hi, guys.
0:02
Speaker 2: Welcome to Legally Brunette. I'll be your host today, Emily
0:04
Speaker 2: Simpson and... Shane. All right. Today, we're going to do
0:08
Speaker 2: part three of the Lindsay Clancy case and trial. I
0:12
Speaker 2: want to go over some of the most shocking moments
0:14
Speaker 2: and just the latter part. We already did a part
0:16
Speaker 2: one and part two. So if you haven't listened to those,
0:19
Speaker 2: I suggest going back and finding those in our Legally
0:21
Speaker 2: Brunette feed and listening to those. We still don't have
0:24
Speaker 2: a verdict. We're on verdict watch right now. But let's
0:26
Speaker 2: go through some of the things that have happened in
0:28
Speaker 2: the latter part of the case. So a jury consisting
0:31
Speaker 2: of nine women and three men is currently weighing the
0:33
Speaker 2: fate of Lindsay Clancy. What do you think about the
0:36
Speaker 2: jury being nine women and three men? Do you think
0:39
Speaker 2: that works in her favor?
0:41
Speaker 1: I don't know, because of those women mothers, have they
0:44
Speaker 1: had difficulties with pregnancies? Have they had similar experiences to
0:48
Speaker 1: be able to make that a part of their decision?
0:50
Speaker 1: I don't know.
0:50
Speaker 2: Are they educated? I don't know. Do you think women
0:53
Speaker 2: are more open to being empathetic about what she would
0:57
Speaker 2: have gone through as opposed to men? Because I will
0:59
Speaker 2: tell you, I see a lot of things online where
1:02
Speaker 2: so many women are rallying around her and supporting her,
1:06
Speaker 2: which is so different. We talked about this before. I mean,
1:08
Speaker 2: Andrea Yates, when she drowned her children, there wasn't that
1:11
Speaker 2: same support by any means. And now it's this women
1:15
Speaker 2: rallying around. But I see a lot of men posting things.
1:19
Speaker 2: I even saw... an article about a man who was
1:22
Speaker 2: engaged to a woman and she supported Lindsay Clancy and
1:26
Speaker 2: he broke off the engagement.
1:29
Speaker 1: He probably was just looking to get out.
1:31
Speaker 2: Oh, and that was a good excuse.
1:32
Speaker 1: He was like, he doesn't want to be with her.
1:35
Speaker 1: All right.
1:35
Speaker 2: So we have nine women and three men that are
1:37
Speaker 2: currently weighing the fate of Lindsay Clancy, a Massachusetts mother
1:41
Speaker 2: facing murder charges in connection with the deaths of her
1:44
Speaker 2: three young children in the family's home. Lindsay Clancy does
1:48
Speaker 2: not contest that she was responsible for the children's deaths,
1:52
Speaker 2: but her defense team contends she cannot be held criminally
1:55
Speaker 2: liable due to severe mental illness at the time. She
1:58
Speaker 2: faces three counts of first degree murder for the January
2:01
Speaker 2: 2023 killings and a conviction would carry a mandatory life
2:05
Speaker 2: sentence without the possibility of parole. The possible verdicts that
2:09
Speaker 2: the jury can come back with are, and this is
2:11
Speaker 2: where I was a little surprised because I had read
2:15
Speaker 2: some conflicting things. I had seen somewhere where one of
2:20
Speaker 2: the options was not guilty of full acquittal. And I
2:23
Speaker 2: thought that has to be incorrect. But then I saw
2:27
Speaker 2: a news article, it was ABC News that was talking
2:30
Speaker 2: about it and said that there were five options, five
2:33
Speaker 2: possible verdicts before the jury. They are first degree murder,
2:37
Speaker 2: which is life in prison without the possibility of parole,
2:40
Speaker 2: second-degree murder, life in prison but with the possibility of parole, manslaughter,
2:47
Speaker 2: which was requested by the defense. This carries a maximum
2:50
Speaker 2: sentence of up to 20 years in state prison, not guilty,
2:55
Speaker 2: full acquittal. Just you go home and go on with life.
2:59
Speaker 1: Okay, not guilty?
3:00
Speaker 2: Yes.
3:01
Speaker 1: But then you just said that she had stipulated to
3:04
Speaker 1: committing the crime. So is it not guilty... Because of
3:08
Speaker 1: her mental state?
3:09
Speaker 2: No, it is not guilty, full acquittal. And then the
3:12
Speaker 2: last choice, not guilty by reason of insanity.
3:16
Speaker 1: So I'm saying- So they can acquit her completely of
3:19
Speaker 1: the crime?
3:19
Speaker 2: That is what I was so confused about. And this
3:21
Speaker 2: is where I kept going back and forth and conflicting information.
3:25
Speaker 2: Because if she's found not guilty by reason of insanity,
3:27
Speaker 2: she'll be committed to a state psychiatric ward or facility
3:31
Speaker 2: where she'll remain indefinitely until there's further hearings down the
3:35
Speaker 2: line where the court hears from her caretakers, psychiatrists, et cetera,
3:40
Speaker 2: as to her mental state. To me, the only issue
3:43
Speaker 2: before the jury, their whole defense was it. she was
3:47
Speaker 2: guilty by reason of insanity. She was guilty because, but
3:50
Speaker 2: she wasn't criminally liable because she didn't have the intent
3:53
Speaker 2: because she was going through postpartum psychosis.
3:56
Speaker 1: All right.
3:56
Speaker 2: So the central argument in this trial is prosecutors say
3:59
Speaker 2: that on January 24th, 2023, Lindsay Clancy deliberately strangled her children,
4:04
Speaker 2: five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson, and eight-month-old Callan using exercise bands
4:09
Speaker 2: and then jumped from a second story window. The fall
4:11
Speaker 2: left her paralyzed. The defense has never denied her role
4:15
Speaker 2: in the deaths of instead arguing that she was gripped
4:18
Speaker 2: by postpartum psychosis. A lot of the main theme in
4:22
Speaker 2: this trial and what people have been testifying to and
4:25
Speaker 2: they've had experts on is postpartum depression versus postpartum psychosis.
4:30
Speaker 2: So postpartum depression is a depressive condition that develops following childbirth.
4:36
Speaker 2: It's relatively common and affects up to one in eight
4:38
Speaker 2: women who give birth according to the US Centers for
4:41
Speaker 2: Disease Control and Prevention. I assume even though you're a
4:45
Speaker 2: man over there sitting across from me, hello, male, that
4:50
Speaker 2: you've heard of postpartum depression.
4:52
Speaker 1: Yes.
4:53
Speaker 2: And I would say you probably have known someone who
4:56
Speaker 2: has had it or experienced it at some point.
4:59
Speaker 1: Maybe.
5:00
Speaker 2: You don't know.
5:01
Speaker 1: I don't know.
5:02
Speaker 2: I never had postpartum because I never gave birth to
5:04
Speaker 2: any of my children.
5:05
Speaker 1: Well, what do you call the state that you're in
5:07
Speaker 1: right now?
5:07
Speaker 2: Well, that's postpartum something else. I don't know. That's just psychosis.
5:12
Speaker 1: Postpartum birth living. No, it's just psychosis.
5:14
Speaker 2: Take out the postpartum part. It's just. All right. So
5:17
Speaker 2: postpartum psychosis is a far rarer condition. Research estimates it
5:22
Speaker 2: occurs in approximately one to two out of every 1,000
5:25
Speaker 2: births based on findings from a 2017 review published. So basically,
5:31
Speaker 2: it's saying that a lot of women go through postpartum
5:33
Speaker 2: depression after they have a child, but the postpartum psychosis
5:37
Speaker 2: is very rare. But in this case, we're distinguishing.
5:41
Speaker 1: But rare doesn't mean it doesn't happen. So she could
5:44
Speaker 1: very well be experiencing it.
5:46
Speaker 2: All right. So Patrick spent two days on the stand
5:48
Speaker 2: describing his ex-wife's sharp decline after childbirth, significant weight loss,
5:53
Speaker 2: deepening depression, and eventually... expressed thoughts of suicide. His final
5:58
Speaker 2: memory of their son Dawson was him sitting on the
6:00
Speaker 2: couch eating chicken nuggets before Patrick left on that fateful
6:03
Speaker 2: night to run errands. He returned to find all three
6:06
Speaker 2: children dead. A recording of Patrick's 911 call in which
6:10
Speaker 2: he can be heard screaming that his wife had killed
6:12
Speaker 2: their children was played in court and Lindsay Clancy wept
6:16
Speaker 2: as it aired. Okay, we were not, the public wasn't
6:20
Speaker 2: privy to the 911 call, but the people sitting in
6:22
Speaker 2: the courtroom were able to hear it. I did see
6:25
Speaker 2: an interview with a woman who was in the courtroom
6:27
Speaker 2: and heard it.
6:27
Speaker 1: And she recounted it? What did it say?
6:29
Speaker 2: She said that she felt that it was genuine anguish
6:34
Speaker 2: coming from a father who found his children dead. And
6:37
Speaker 2: she said, you know, she was there and heard it firsthand.
6:41
Speaker 2: And that was her takeaway. And she had been involved
6:43
Speaker 2: in crime. And I think she was a criminal reporter.
6:46
Speaker 2: So she had been.
6:47
Speaker 1: She had seen a lot. Right. And based on all
6:49
Speaker 1: her experience, this 911 call seemed to be genuine from
6:54
Speaker 1: a father, frantic that his children and wife were murdered
6:59
Speaker 1: or in danger.
7:01
Speaker 2: The trial generated significant social media attention with many observers
7:05
Speaker 2: streaming the proceedings live. Hundreds of women have gathered outside
7:08
Speaker 2: the courthouse to show support for Clancy, wearing pink shirts
7:12
Speaker 2: bearing messages such as she needed help. Online conspiracy theories
7:16
Speaker 2: circulated implicating Patrick Clancy though investigators never considered him a suspect.
7:23
Speaker 1: Are they saying that she did not do it and
7:24
Speaker 1: Patrick did it? Are some of them saying that she
7:27
Speaker 1: did it, but we understand because postpartum is traumatic?
7:31
Speaker 2: I would say it's probably a mixture of both. I
7:33
Speaker 2: would say there's a lot of women, especially online, who
7:35
Speaker 2: have rallied. Even when I put up a post in
7:38
Speaker 2: my Instagram story asking what you think the verdict should be,
7:43
Speaker 2: and it was basically guilty, manslaughter, or not guilty by
7:48
Speaker 2: reason of insanity. The majority of DMs that I got
7:52
Speaker 2: back were all women saying, you didn't put the choice
7:54
Speaker 2: that Patrick did it. Well, that wasn't a choice because
7:57
Speaker 2: that's not a choice before the jury.
7:59
Speaker 1: The jury comes out and says that. Like we the
8:02
Speaker 1: jury find Patrick guilty. Right.
8:05
Speaker 2: So I was like, OK, I understand. But that's not
8:08
Speaker 2: a that's not a choice before the jury. So that's
8:11
Speaker 2: why that wasn't in my poll.
8:13
Speaker 1: OK, but did your poll. Well, maybe your poll wasn't
8:16
Speaker 1: very clear as to these are the options provided to
8:19
Speaker 1: the jury. Which one do you think?
8:22
Speaker 2: Well, now considering all the women that kept saying Patrick
8:25
Speaker 2: did it, I now know that I would have to
8:26
Speaker 2: clarify and say, I'm not asking hypotheticals. I'm asking about
8:30
Speaker 2: the actual verdicts put before the jury. Which one do
8:34
Speaker 2: you think the jury is going to go with?
8:36
Speaker 1: What do you think?
8:38
Speaker 2: You know, here's what I really think. I think that
8:41
Speaker 2: it's going to be a hung jury. Because I think
8:46
Speaker 2: there is so much emotion involved. There is so many
8:51
Speaker 2: expert witnesses. There is so much information. There's so much
8:56
Speaker 2: contradictory information as to what happened that night. I don't
9:00
Speaker 2: know how you can sit on that jury for that
9:02
Speaker 2: long and to hear all the information, all the expert witnesses,
9:06
Speaker 2: and for all those 12 people to be able to
9:08
Speaker 2: come together and agree on a unanimous verdict. And the
9:12
Speaker 2: verdict has to be unanimous. My takeaway is that it
9:16
Speaker 2: will be a hung jury. What's yours?
9:18
Speaker 1: I don't know. I just know the end result is,
9:20
Speaker 1: I mean, should you lock her up? Is that really
9:22
Speaker 1: going to solve anything? Probably not. But, I mean, she's
9:25
Speaker 1: not likely to commit such a crime again. I don't know.
9:28
Speaker 1: I don't know. I get confused on these things where
9:30
Speaker 1: she doesn't live a criminal life. She had a, for
9:34
Speaker 1: lack of better words, a bad moment. Right? Right. She
9:39
Speaker 1: was all built up postpartum, whatever. If all these things
9:42
Speaker 1: are true, throwing her in jail, is that going to help? No,
9:45
Speaker 1: but you can't let her go off scot-free and she's
9:48
Speaker 1: paralyzed too, right? She's going to need lifelong care. Is
9:50
Speaker 1: it waist down or shoulders down?
9:52
Speaker 2: Waist down.
9:53
Speaker 1: So she's going to need a lot of care to recover.
9:55
Speaker 1: It's just a bad situation that never has a good answer.
10:00
Speaker 1: yeah there really is no no and that's what i
10:01
Speaker 1: hate about some of these cases where it's like okay
10:04
Speaker 1: like okay so like if they find a guy and
10:07
Speaker 1: he's 80 years old and they found out he killed
10:08
Speaker 1: someone 40 years ago great what are you gonna do
10:11
Speaker 1: throw him in jail now yeah i don't know yeah
10:14
Speaker 1: yeah you should the answer is yes correct uh-huh But
10:17
Speaker 1: is that really making life better for people in society?
10:21
Speaker 1: I don't know. And that just is frustrating.
10:23
Speaker 2: I don't know. You know, at the end of the day,
10:25
Speaker 2: you have three victims.
10:27
Speaker 1: Absolutely.
10:28
Speaker 2: And so I think that.
10:29
Speaker 1: Well, the father could be a victim too, arguably. He
10:31
Speaker 1: lost his children, right?
10:32
Speaker 2: That's true. So we'll say that you have four victims.
10:34
Speaker 1: Yeah.
10:35
Speaker 2: Well, there's a lot of victims.
10:35
Speaker 1: Her parents are victims. Yeah, that's what I was getting at.
10:37
Speaker 1: A lot of people are hurt from the three children. Right.
10:41
Speaker 2: And as a society, when there are victims, we want
10:44
Speaker 2: to see people... held responsible and to take accountability. And
10:49
Speaker 2: so you have three children that are now have, have,
10:54
Speaker 2: are gone and cannot live their life and, and cannot,
10:57
Speaker 2: you know, grow up and be adults and all the
11:00
Speaker 2: things that they should have been able to do. But
11:02
Speaker 2: how do you hold someone accountable when you're right? She's
11:07
Speaker 2: not a criminal.
11:08
Speaker 1: I mean, she's not, she doesn't live a criminal life, right? Okay.
11:12
Speaker 2: That's a good way to distinguish it. She doesn't live
11:13
Speaker 2: a criminal lifestyle. Right. We don't know exactly what was
11:18
Speaker 2: going through her mind, but my takeaway is that she
11:20
Speaker 2: was a very good mother at some point, and she
11:22
Speaker 2: loved her children very much. So my personal thoughts is
11:26
Speaker 2: it was an episode of psychosis. It wasn't a woman
11:29
Speaker 2: that was looking for a way out.
11:30
Speaker 1: It's not like the House of Horrors, where it's just
11:32
Speaker 1: ongoing abuse of children. Right.
11:35
Speaker 2: And it's not like she was the kind of mother
11:37
Speaker 2: that resented her children and wanted some different life because
11:40
Speaker 2: she was having an affair or she wanted to party
11:43
Speaker 2: with her friends and she wanted to be a different lifestyle.
11:47
Speaker 2: I really believe she was truly, genuinely, authentically struggling mentally.
11:54
Speaker 2: But the question is, then if she goes into a
11:57
Speaker 2: psychiatric ward, is that punishment?
11:59
Speaker 1: I don't know, because at the end of the day,
12:01
Speaker 1: if she did it, she's a killer. Yeah.
12:04
Speaker 2: Or if she's acquitted and she goes home scot-free, what
12:08
Speaker 2: about these children that are no longer with us? Does
12:11
Speaker 2: that mean that no one's taking accountability for their... And
12:14
Speaker 2: you know what else I was thinking about? I know
12:15
Speaker 2: she's in a wheelchair, but let's say for just intents
12:18
Speaker 2: and purposes of talking about this. Let's say the jury
12:21
Speaker 2: does acquit her, full acquittal. She goes home. And let's
12:25
Speaker 2: say she meets someone at some point. Is she able
12:28
Speaker 2: to have children? Probably.
12:30
Speaker 1: Wow, you really fast forward, didn't you?
12:32
Speaker 2: I did.
12:32
Speaker 1: We have a lot of layers to get through before
12:35
Speaker 1: you can talk about her starting a new family.
12:36
Speaker 2: Yes, but I'm just saying if she's able to have children,
12:39
Speaker 2: then at some point she would be able to. Okay.
12:42
Speaker 1: Oh, so you're saying that they're in danger? Well... She
12:45
Speaker 1: might have postpartum round two?
12:48
Speaker 2: What's to say that it wouldn't happen again?
12:53
Speaker 1: It's like that. When I was in high school, I
12:55
Speaker 1: remember there was a Canadian case where a man... woke
12:59
Speaker 1: up or got up in his sleep and like drove
13:02
Speaker 1: like miles and killed his in-laws and then came back
13:06
Speaker 1: and went to sleep and said he didn't sleep yeah
13:08
Speaker 1: and i remember i don't remember the details i didn't
13:10
Speaker 1: follow closely but i remember hearing that he was found
13:14
Speaker 1: like not guilty or something.
13:16
Speaker 2: To that effect by reason of sleepwalking.
13:17
Speaker 1: Or something And I remember talking to my dad said
13:20
Speaker 1: he should have been locked up. And I was like,
13:22
Speaker 1: but I was just kind of questioning him. But like, why?
13:25
Speaker 1: Because if he didn't do it, he didn't know he
13:27
Speaker 1: did it. Right. And he goes, because he could do
13:29
Speaker 1: it again. OK, so he did it in his sleep.
13:32
Speaker 1: He could wake up and kill you next. And you're like,
13:34
Speaker 1: you have to. There's different reasons to put someone in jail.
13:37
Speaker 1: And in that case, it would be preventing future crimes. Right. Right.
13:41
Speaker 1: Among maybe other things. So in this case, for her,
13:44
Speaker 1: it could be to prevent her from killing future victims.
13:48
Speaker 1: As you say, children. Right. That could be a reason
13:51
Speaker 1: to put her away.
13:59
Speaker 2: All right. Let's talk about some other important witness testimony.
14:02
Speaker 2: The trial featured testimony from 74 prosecution witnesses and only
14:07
Speaker 2: 10 defense witnesses.
14:08
Speaker 1: Could that just be more confusing hearing 75 people talk?
14:13
Speaker 2: Well, 74 and then 10 defense. So you've got 84. Yeah,
14:16
Speaker 2: that's what I was saying. That's why my takeaway is
14:18
Speaker 2: that you're going to end up with a hung jury.
14:19
Speaker 2: Because no matter how much they paid attention or how
14:23
Speaker 2: many notes they took, at the end of the day,
14:25
Speaker 2: you're going to have 12 people in a room trying
14:28
Speaker 2: to figure out and try to unanimously agree on something
14:31
Speaker 2: so complex.
14:32
Speaker 1: When you've had 85 witnesses of all different kinds that
14:34
Speaker 1: probably conflict and have different opinions and different experiences. I mean,
14:38
Speaker 1: it's just... You can probably find any conclusion you want almost. Almost, really,
14:43
Speaker 1: in some cases.
14:44
Speaker 2: Throughout her mental health treatment, Clancy was prescribed more than
14:47
Speaker 2: a dozen different medications and reached out for help through
14:49
Speaker 2: a suicide hotline and hospital emergency services on multiple occasions.
14:54
Speaker 2: The defense sought to establish that Lindsay had been suffering
14:57
Speaker 2: from postpartum psychosis and that she had experienced hallucinations and
15:01
Speaker 2: delusions as a result. One of the trial's sharpest moments
15:04
Speaker 2: came when psychiatrist Jennifer Tufts who had treated Clancy during
15:08
Speaker 2: more than a dozen sessions over five months, took the
15:11
Speaker 2: stand as a prosecution witness. Tufts testified that Lindsay had
15:17
Speaker 2: shown no signs of psychosis during their appointments and that
15:21
Speaker 2: nothing in her behavior had suggested that she posed a
15:25
Speaker 2: danger to herself or to others. The defense pushed back,
15:29
Speaker 2: pointing to Tufts' own clinical notes, which described Clancy's speech
15:33
Speaker 2: as not hyper, comma, pressured. A potentially significant phrase since
15:40
Speaker 2: pressured speech characterized by rapid and frantic talking can indicate mania.
15:45
Speaker 2: Tufts disputed that interpretation, insisting the word not modified both terms.
15:52
Speaker 2: When defense attorney Kevin Reddington pressed her on the discrepancy,
15:55
Speaker 2: she snapped. I don't care what it says. I know
15:57
Speaker 2: what I meant. Reddington had a similarly combative exchange with
16:01
Speaker 2: prosecution psychiatrist Avram Mack over whether postpartum psychosis constitutes a
16:07
Speaker 2: formally recognized diagnosis. Mack noted that the American Psychiatric Association
16:13
Speaker 2: currently classifies it only as a proposed condition rather than
16:18
Speaker 2: an established one. However, in recent news, so in kind
16:22
Speaker 2: of breaking news, Dr. Avram Mack stepped down from his
16:26
Speaker 2: role at a Delaware Children's Hospital just days after completing
16:29
Speaker 2: his testimony in the Clancy trial. Did you read about that?
16:32
Speaker 1: What does that mean, though? I mean, does that mean anything?
16:35
Speaker 2: Well, Kevin Reddington kind of made him look like a
16:38
Speaker 2: fool on the stand. And then within days of his testimony,
16:42
Speaker 2: I don't know if he was fired or if he
16:45
Speaker 2: stepped down willingly.
16:46
Speaker 1: But you're saying likely it was connected to his testimony?
16:48
Speaker 2: Likely, yes. Yes, it was very, I mean, it was
16:51
Speaker 2: very close in time. He testified and then days later
16:54
Speaker 2: he wasn't taking patients anymore and he's no longer a
16:56
Speaker 2: part of this hospital that he worked at.
16:58
Speaker 1: Okay. Dr.
17:00
Speaker 2: Avram Mack had told the court that Lindsay had been
17:03
Speaker 2: experiencing a major depressive episode at the time of the killings,
17:07
Speaker 2: but was not psychotic. He said, there's no reason why
17:11
Speaker 2: psychosis in and of itself inhibits a person's ability from
17:15
Speaker 2: knowing right from wrong. So he's the prosecution's witness, right?
17:18
Speaker 2: And he's saying, okay, she was really depressed. I'll give
17:21
Speaker 2: you that. But she wasn't experiencing psychosis and she was
17:25
Speaker 2: still able to distinguish right from wrong. First of all,
17:29
Speaker 2: I don't know how much weight I would put into
17:31
Speaker 2: someone sitting up there talking about what this woman was
17:34
Speaker 2: feeling or going through at the time. I understand he's
17:37
Speaker 2: a psychiatrist. I understand he has a, you know.
17:39
Speaker 1: And may I ask, he's not a psychiatrist that worked
17:41
Speaker 1: with her all along this, right? It was only after
17:43
Speaker 1: the fact that he's testifying? Yes. Yeah. So he's looking
17:46
Speaker 1: back at whatever's made available to him, because certainly not
17:51
Speaker 1: everything is not available. And then based on that, he's
17:54
Speaker 1: trying to say how she felt.
17:55
Speaker 2: Right. So basically what I'm saying is as someone sitting
17:57
Speaker 2: on the jury, I don't know how to wait. I
17:59
Speaker 2: would put in this expert witness who never actually treated her,
18:01
Speaker 2: but he's only like looking at probably notes and things.
18:05
Speaker 1: Well, nowadays, just because someone has a name, the title psychiatrist,
18:10
Speaker 1: used to have some weight to me. Now we've heard
18:12
Speaker 1: of like, was it Hildebrecht story and all these other
18:15
Speaker 1: psychiatrists that like.
18:16
Speaker 2: Well, I don't know if Hilde... You're talking about the
18:18
Speaker 2: woman in Utah. Yeah.
18:19
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, she was some type of therapist, though, right?
18:22
Speaker 2: Yeah, but I don't know if she was a psychiatrist.
18:24
Speaker 1: She might have just been like a family therapist. Okay, nonetheless, therapy, psychiatry, psychology,
18:28
Speaker 1: all those things. Now I'm like, well, let me look
18:30
Speaker 1: at your family life. Then let me see if your
18:33
Speaker 1: family life is in order before you can tell me
18:35
Speaker 1: how I'm supposed to feel or what I'm thinking or what,
18:38
Speaker 1: in this case, what she's thinking. That's how it is
18:40
Speaker 1: for me. It's like if someone wants to come build
18:43
Speaker 1: me a house because I have a house that I
18:45
Speaker 1: want built. It's like, well, let me look at your
18:47
Speaker 1: house and see if your house, because if your house
18:48
Speaker 1: is like falling apart. So my thinking is like, that's
18:52
Speaker 1: what I would want to know about these people. I
18:53
Speaker 1: would want to know about their qualifications, what school they
18:56
Speaker 1: went to. It's like, how do you live? How do
18:57
Speaker 1: you practice like your life before you can tell me how,
19:00
Speaker 1: what she's thinking?
19:01
Speaker 2: Okay. So when you and I go to therapy, Basically,
19:05
Speaker 2: we should drive over to our therapist's house first and
19:08
Speaker 2: do like a 24-hour review, just like be a bird,
19:11
Speaker 2: like a bird's eye view. We just ask her if
19:14
Speaker 2: we can sit in our house and see how our
19:15
Speaker 2: house functions. Yes. Okay. I'm going to text her and
19:18
Speaker 2: ask her if we can do that.
19:19
Speaker 1: All right.
19:20
Speaker 2: All right, other family members testified. So beyond the expert witnesses,
19:24
Speaker 2: several members of Clancy's family testified about the visible deterioration
19:28
Speaker 2: of her mental health following the birth of her youngest child.
19:31
Speaker 2: Her former mother-in-law, Susan Clancy, told jurors that Lindsay had
19:35
Speaker 2: been begging for help, describing symptoms including insomnia, loss of appetite, anxiety,
19:40
Speaker 2: and persistent sadness. Susan noted that Lindsay had previously been
19:44
Speaker 2: a devoted and nurturing mother before her condition worsened. The
19:49
Speaker 2: public noted that that Susan nodded to Lindsay after her
19:52
Speaker 2: testimony ended, potentially a sign of solidarity with her former daughter-in-law.
19:57
Speaker 2: I don't know. I saw that too. And I thought
19:59
Speaker 2: maybe that was just a nod to like, I don't know.
20:03
Speaker 2: I can't imagine what kind of communications they've had, if any,
20:06
Speaker 2: since all of this happened.
20:07
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know. I know I keep
20:11
Speaker 1: getting at this, but it's just like tragedy no matter
20:13
Speaker 1: what direction it takes. Yeah. It's just like there's no
20:16
Speaker 1: good resolution.
20:17
Speaker 2: There is no good resolution.
20:18
Speaker 1: Obviously, the three kids are dead regardless. But I mean,
20:20
Speaker 1: even besides that, it's just no good outcome. It's not
20:23
Speaker 1: like they locked up the bad guy. Now the streets
20:26
Speaker 1: are safe. It's just bad. It is. And a lot
20:31
Speaker 1: of people are going to be unhappy if they let
20:32
Speaker 1: her go, if they lock her up, if they– put
20:35
Speaker 1: her in a psych ward or whatever it's next. I
20:37
Speaker 1: don't know.
20:38
Speaker 2: Well, you know, also at the end of the day,
20:39
Speaker 2: I always think about Lindsay Clancy and I think she's
20:42
Speaker 2: already in her own purgatory. I mean, she's living in
20:46
Speaker 2: her own personal hell already. I mean, the woman's going
20:50
Speaker 2: to be punished the rest of her life, regardless of
20:52
Speaker 2: whether she's free or in jail or in a psychiatric ward.
20:56
Speaker 2: She's just, her children are gone and she's paralyzed and
21:00
Speaker 2: her husband's moved on.
21:01
Speaker 1: Mobility's gone. I mean, Her full family unit's destroyed.
21:06
Speaker 2: So Lindsay's mother, Paula Musgrove, also testified that roughly a
21:09
Speaker 2: month before the deaths, her daughter had confided that she
21:12
Speaker 2: was having thoughts of harming the children and that Lindsay
21:14
Speaker 2: believed her medications were destroying her mind. And she had
21:18
Speaker 2: become increasingly paranoid. Lindsay's sister, Allison Ozga... Told the court
21:23
Speaker 2: that in the same period, Lindsay had been experiencing suicidal
21:27
Speaker 2: thoughts on a daily basis. I don't know. It's so
21:29
Speaker 2: sad for me to hear this, that her mom and sister,
21:32
Speaker 2: and I don't blame them for anything. I'm not placing
21:35
Speaker 2: any blame anywhere. But for a mother and a sister
21:37
Speaker 2: to hear that she's having daily suicidal thoughts and she's
21:42
Speaker 2: saying that she's having thoughts about harming her children. Like,
21:45
Speaker 2: I don't know what they could do. I'm trying to
21:48
Speaker 2: think if my sister told me that. Like, I don't
21:50
Speaker 2: know what I would do.
21:51
Speaker 1: What I... You don't leave them alone, but I don't
21:53
Speaker 1: know if they're the means to not leave her alone.
21:55
Speaker 2: Yeah, because I don't know what that looks like. You
21:58
Speaker 2: know what I mean? Like, how do you facilitate that?
22:01
Speaker 1: I don't know.
22:02
Speaker 2: Just two days before closing arguments, the defense filed a
22:04
Speaker 2: motion for a mistrial, citing what they characterize as improper
22:09
Speaker 2: questioning by prosecutors about Clancy's Catholic faith. The controversy began
22:14
Speaker 2: the previous week when prosecutors asked former mother-in-law Susan Clancy
22:18
Speaker 2: whether she was Catholic. then followed up by asking whether
22:22
Speaker 2: she knew that murder was considered a mortal sin in
22:25
Speaker 2: that faith. The judge directed jurors to disregard that exchange.
22:31
Speaker 2: A second incident arose days later when forensic psychologist Kirk Hilbrun,
22:36
Speaker 2: who had evaluated Clancy following the killings, revealed during testimony
22:41
Speaker 2: that he had asked her whether suicide constituted a mortal
22:44
Speaker 2: sin as part of a discussion about her Catholic background.
22:49
Speaker 2: Judge William Sullivan declined to grant the mistrial but told
22:52
Speaker 2: jurors the questioning represented an absolute inappropriate area of testimony
22:57
Speaker 2: that was to be struck from the record entirely. It
23:00
Speaker 2: is to be stricken. It is not to be considered.
23:02
Speaker 2: I can't be more clear of that, he said. What
23:05
Speaker 2: do you think the prosecution was doing talking about religion
23:07
Speaker 2: and Catholic and mortal sin? They wanted them to, I assume,
23:10
Speaker 2: wanted them to admit that it was a sin, right,
23:13
Speaker 2: to make her look bad. To the jury that she
23:16
Speaker 2: had committed some type of sin.
23:17
Speaker 1: I guess so. But I mean, for the suicide part? No,
23:21
Speaker 1: for the killing part. Oh, for the killing part.
23:23
Speaker 2: Yeah, because she's Catholic. She has a strong Catholic faith.
23:26
Speaker 1: Yeah, but why do we have to convince people that
23:28
Speaker 1: killing is bad? I know. You know what I mean? Yeah.
23:32
Speaker 2: But I think testimony regarding religion and that she's Catholic...
23:38
Speaker 2: And getting people to admit that in Catholicism it was
23:41
Speaker 2: a mortal sin, I think then that puts that into
23:44
Speaker 2: the jury's head.
23:45
Speaker 1: But could you, because she was Catholic, right? She was practicing.
23:48
Speaker 1: Because then you could make the argument, well, therefore it
23:51
Speaker 1: must have been a psychosis state because she knows better.
23:53
Speaker 2: Right.
23:53
Speaker 1: She follows this belief.
23:54
Speaker 2: Because she follows Catholicism, right?
23:57
Speaker 1: I mean, you could argue it both ways. I don't
23:59
Speaker 1: think that's weak.
24:08
Speaker 2: So now we're to closing arguments. The lead prosecutor, Jennifer Sprague,
24:13
Speaker 2: told jurors that Clancy had deliberately misled and cycled through
24:16
Speaker 2: different medical providers because she wanted to manage her recovery
24:20
Speaker 2: on her own terms rather than following consistent professional guidance.
24:25
Speaker 2: The prosecutor also leaned on Clancy's professional background as a
24:29
Speaker 2: labor and delivery nurse, arguing that her medical training meant
24:32
Speaker 2: she was better equipped than most patients to accurately describe
24:36
Speaker 2: her postpartum symptoms to her doctors and that her failure
24:40
Speaker 2: to do so was a choice, not a symptom. Basically,
24:44
Speaker 2: they're saying you understand the medical field, you work in
24:46
Speaker 2: the medical field, so that... you have the ability to
24:50
Speaker 2: be able to describe what you're going through clearly and concisely.
24:53
Speaker 2: And you're choosing not to do that, which is, uh,
24:57
Speaker 2: you know, that means that she has the wherewithal, like
25:00
Speaker 2: she's being manipulative, you know, it's not psychosis, it's manipulated behavior.
25:06
Speaker 2: The prosecutor also pushed back on the defense's framing of
25:09
Speaker 2: the case as an indictment of a broken health care system,
25:13
Speaker 2: contending that Clancy actually had access to a higher than
25:16
Speaker 2: average level of medical care and that the problem was
25:19
Speaker 2: not the system's failure to reach her, but her own
25:22
Speaker 2: failure to engage with it honestly. All right, so that's
25:26
Speaker 2: the prosecution's case and their closing arguments. Basically, that she
25:31
Speaker 2: was methodical and that she thought through it. that she's
25:34
Speaker 2: a labor and delivery nurse. So she understands the healthcare
25:37
Speaker 2: system and that the lack of care she was getting
25:40
Speaker 2: was because she was making a choice not to get
25:42
Speaker 2: appropriate care, not because of the healthcare providers themselves. All right.
25:48
Speaker 2: In Massachusetts, the prosecution, this is just a reminder. I
25:52
Speaker 2: think we've talked about this before, but the prosecution has
25:54
Speaker 2: the burden of proving Lindsay Clancy was not insane. It's
25:58
Speaker 2: not the prosecutor. The burden is not on the defense
26:01
Speaker 2: to prove that she is insane because The burden is
26:04
Speaker 2: on the prosecution to prove that she is not insane. Yes.
26:07
Speaker 2: They have to prove that she's functioning. Her cognitive functioning
26:13
Speaker 2: is there and that she's meticulous and that she's making
26:16
Speaker 2: decisions and she knows what she's doing. Right.
26:19
Speaker 1: She does not have to prove that she is insane. Right.
26:21
Speaker 1: They have to prove that she is sane. Yes. But nonetheless,
26:24
Speaker 1: she can provide plenty of evidence to lean towards insanity. Right.
26:29
Speaker 2: All right, so let's talk about the defense's closing argument.
26:31
Speaker 2: Defense attorney Kevin Reddington opened his closing argument with a visual.
26:36
Speaker 2: It was two photographs placed side by side, one showing
26:39
Speaker 2: the Clancy family in happier times, the other showing Lindsay
26:42
Speaker 2: Clancy lying injured in a hospital bed after her suicide attempt.
26:47
Speaker 2: He claims to the jury, how does this turn into this?
26:52
Speaker 2: Then he went on to answer his own questions. because
26:55
Speaker 2: of the damn medicine and the lousy medical care that
26:58
Speaker 2: she got. I actually love this attorney because he speaks very,
27:01
Speaker 2: he just, he doesn't use like a lot of legal
27:04
Speaker 2: jargon and like a lot of complicated vocabulary.
27:08
Speaker 1: I mean, his- So it's easier for you to follow?
27:11
Speaker 2: Yeah, thank you. I mean, his closing argument is just
27:13
Speaker 2: because the damn system sucks and she didn't get the
27:16
Speaker 2: care she needed and it is lousy, you know? Yeah.
27:19
Speaker 2: Reddington argued that Clancy had repeatedly reached out for help
27:22
Speaker 2: throughout her deterioration- but that instead of receiving appropriate care,
27:26
Speaker 2: she had been overmedicated and misdiagnosed. He also asked jurors
27:31
Speaker 2: to weigh evidence and testimony depicting Clancy as a loving
27:34
Speaker 2: and attentive mother, contending there was simply no plausible motive
27:39
Speaker 2: for her to have intentionally harmed her children. You know,
27:43
Speaker 2: that's really... What the defense is focusing on is that
27:47
Speaker 2: he wants the jury to see her as a loving
27:50
Speaker 2: and caring mother who cared about her children.
27:52
Speaker 1: Thus, it could only be a psychosis state.
27:53
Speaker 2: Because then you're right. The only takeaway is that she
27:56
Speaker 2: was going through a period of psychosis to do what
27:59
Speaker 2: she did. Again, we talked about this earlier, but she's
28:02
Speaker 2: not a mother that wanted out. She's not a mother
28:04
Speaker 2: that just wanted to get rid of her kids. She's
28:06
Speaker 2: not a mother that struggled with being a mom and
28:09
Speaker 2: wanted some different lifestyle or was having an affair. She
28:12
Speaker 2: was an attentive, loving, caring mother to her three children. Therefore,
28:16
Speaker 2: the only reason that this could have turned into this,
28:19
Speaker 2: the two photographs that he shows side by side is
28:22
Speaker 2: because she went through a state of psychosis. And I
28:25
Speaker 2: guess my takeaway as a mother with three children is,
28:29
Speaker 2: I can't fathom a mother doing what she did unless
28:34
Speaker 2: she was in some altered state where she literally had
28:37
Speaker 2: no idea what she was doing and could not control
28:40
Speaker 2: what she was doing. That would be my takeaway when
28:43
Speaker 2: I look at her, when I take away a feeling
28:48
Speaker 2: from this case.
28:50
Speaker 1: It's a frustrating case. Yeah. I don't know. And we're
28:54
Speaker 1: not really talking about whether he did it or she
28:56
Speaker 1: didn't do it, right? Yeah. Yeah.
28:57
Speaker 2: Shane likes cases where there's evidence he can analyze. He
29:00
Speaker 2: doesn't want to talk about feelings.
29:02
Speaker 1: No, I don't want to talk about feelings. It's crappy
29:04
Speaker 1: that the kids are dead. I mean, it's horrible. He
29:07
Speaker 1: moved on, right?
29:08
Speaker 2: Yes.
29:09
Speaker 1: He's married, right?
29:10
Speaker 2: Yeah, to her lookalike. Remember, we talked about that.
29:12
Speaker 1: Is that a bad thing?
29:14
Speaker 2: Well, a lot of people think it's a bad thing.
29:16
Speaker 2: A lot of people don't understand how... Well.
29:19
Speaker 1: Could it be just a coping? Like he just quickly attached...
29:22
Speaker 1: to summit something else?
29:24
Speaker 2: Well, no, I think he was most likely my I
29:26
Speaker 2: think he was most likely having an affair. Didn't you
29:28
Speaker 2: see the people those online sleuths, man, I tell you,
29:31
Speaker 2: you can't if you're a public figure, you can't get
29:33
Speaker 2: away with anything. Or don't leave a digital print behind
29:36
Speaker 2: because he went to Costa Rica, I think just a
29:39
Speaker 2: couple months after this happened but then that woman Rachel
29:42
Speaker 2: Danis that he supposedly wasn't dating at the time but
29:45
Speaker 2: she was also on this same trip right there's evidence
29:48
Speaker 2: of her being there.
29:49
Speaker 1: Passport checked in everything so it's official there.
29:51
Speaker 2: Were like well there were other people that she was
29:53
Speaker 2: with that were posting photos.
29:54
Speaker 1: That I know some people question what when and where
29:56
Speaker 1: he went but it was official because passports were logged
29:59
Speaker 1: and stuff.
30:01
Speaker 2: Also, I saw within one week of this crime, so
30:04
Speaker 2: this is just one week later, Patrick Clancy wrote this
30:08
Speaker 2: on he so he had a GoFundMe. I don't know
30:10
Speaker 2: if he started if someone started it on his behalf,
30:12
Speaker 2: but he wrote on his GoFundMe. I want to ask
30:15
Speaker 2: all of you that you find it deep within yourselves
30:18
Speaker 2: to forgive Lindsay as I have. The real Lindsay was
30:20
Speaker 2: generously loving and caring towards everyone, me, our kids, family, friends,
30:24
Speaker 2: and her patients. The very fibers of her soul are
30:27
Speaker 2: loving all wish for her now is that She can
30:30
Speaker 2: somehow find peace.
30:32
Speaker 1: Was his position more of that she was insane?
30:37
Speaker 2: I believe so.
30:40
Speaker 1: And then he left her, huh?
30:43
Speaker 2: Yeah. And sold the house to a prosecutor. I don't know.
30:51
Speaker 1: It's kind of crappy. It's for better or for worse, right?
30:55
Speaker 1: And then if he truly believed that was an unfortunate...
31:00
Speaker 1: psychotic episode that she had.
31:02
Speaker 2: Yeah. But okay. Put yourself in his shoes just for
31:06
Speaker 2: a second. I understand that he, a week later publicly
31:11
Speaker 2: says on a GoFundMe that he forgives her completely and
31:13
Speaker 2: that she really is a loving person. And this was
31:15
Speaker 2: like a state of psychosis that she was in. Realistically,
31:19
Speaker 2: can you continue to be with someone that murdered your children?
31:22
Speaker 1: I don't know, but it was just noteworthy is all.
31:28
Speaker 2: I know, but I'm asking you. As a father, I'm saying.
31:32
Speaker 1: If you killed three of our children, would I stay
31:34
Speaker 1: with you?
31:35
Speaker 2: I'm saying that you.
31:37
Speaker 1: Let's not find out.
31:39
Speaker 2: No, I agree. But I'm saying, how do you realistically
31:43
Speaker 2: stay with someone, even if you forgive them and you
31:46
Speaker 2: believe that they were suffering? I couldn't stay with you
31:50
Speaker 2: if something like that happened. I would have to move
31:52
Speaker 2: on and have a completely different life to be able
31:54
Speaker 2: to heal from something like that. All right. Let's just
31:56
Speaker 2: talk about a couple last things. The jury has requested
31:59
Speaker 2: a few specific pieces of evidence so far. I know
32:02
Speaker 2: that they did ask for the knife that was used
32:04
Speaker 2: in Lindsay's suicide attempt. They wanted to look at it.
32:06
Speaker 2: Do you have any takeaway, like what that means?
32:09
Speaker 1: They probably want to look and see how realistic it
32:13
Speaker 1: is for her to slit her own throat with that
32:15
Speaker 1: type of knife, right? Holding it, maneuvering it, maybe. Maybe
32:19
Speaker 1: visualizing how possible that was. Do we know what kind
32:23
Speaker 1: of knife it was? Was it just like a kitchen knife,
32:25
Speaker 1: steak knife?
32:26
Speaker 2: Just like a regular kitchen knife.
32:28
Speaker 1: So it was just a regular knife?
32:29
Speaker 2: Yeah.
32:31
Speaker 1: I don't know.
32:31
Speaker 2: Also, the jury requested to see a bag of prescription
32:35
Speaker 2: pill bottles that were found in Patrick's car.
32:38
Speaker 1: Yeah, that I don't know. What would they see on that?
32:41
Speaker 1: I mean, what could they look at to determine one
32:45
Speaker 1: way or another?
32:46
Speaker 2: I don't know. But that's interesting.
32:47
Speaker 1: It would make more sense if, to me, it would
32:49
Speaker 1: make more sense if they said, oh, we want to
32:50
Speaker 1: see photographs of where it was found or maybe something
32:53
Speaker 1: like that. So they try to put a story together.
32:55
Speaker 1: But a prescription bottle is a prescription bottle, right?
32:58
Speaker 2: Well, I think he had multiple prescription bottles that were
33:00
Speaker 2: found in his car. And then, you know, a lot
33:03
Speaker 2: of people are like, oh, he's, you know, he has
33:04
Speaker 2: the prescription bottles because he's been drugging her, you know.
33:08
Speaker 1: Yeah. I don't know.
33:10
Speaker 2: I mean, that was, that's a. A lot of theories
33:13
Speaker 2: out there. I feel like it got to the point
33:15
Speaker 2: where a lot with his online theories about Patrick... It
33:18
Speaker 2: reminded me a lot when we talked about Scott Peterson
33:21
Speaker 2: and we talked about confirmation bias, where as soon as
33:24
Speaker 2: the detectives honed in to Scott and thought Scott was the.
33:28
Speaker 1: Yeah, all other options were off the table.
33:30
Speaker 2: Then it was like every bit of evidence, every single
33:32
Speaker 2: thing that came up... Leads towards him. They were just
33:34
Speaker 2: finding a way for it to lead back to him,
33:36
Speaker 2: back to him, back to him. Not that there isn't
33:38
Speaker 2: evidence out there that would lead back to him. But
33:41
Speaker 2: I'm saying at some point it got to... It got
33:43
Speaker 2: to the point where it was every road led back
33:46
Speaker 2: to him. And I feel like it also in this
33:48
Speaker 2: case with Patrick Clancy, there's not a lot of clear,
33:55
Speaker 2: precise looking at the evidence anymore. It's just anything that's presented,
33:59
Speaker 2: everybody jumps on it and goes. Well, Patrick did it.
34:02
Speaker 1: Right.
34:03
Speaker 2: All right. So we are still currently waiting for the
34:06
Speaker 2: jury to come back with a verdict. We will obviously
34:08
Speaker 2: talk about this again once the verdict comes out. However,
34:12
Speaker 2: I know we talked about this before, but manslaughter was
34:14
Speaker 2: not previously one of the options and it is now.
34:18
Speaker 2: So I don't know if maybe, what do you think?
34:20
Speaker 2: Maybe manslaughter is just kind of like, maybe the jury
34:22
Speaker 2: goes with manslaughter because it's like, it's not murder in
34:25
Speaker 2: the first degree. It's not an acquittal, but maybe it's
34:28
Speaker 2: like a middle way to say, okay, someone needs to
34:31
Speaker 2: be punished, but we don't want to punish her fully
34:33
Speaker 2: because she's already being punished.
34:35
Speaker 1: Right. And it wasn't to the sense of first degree,
34:38
Speaker 1: but it was murder nonetheless.
34:39
Speaker 2: And the three children are dead.
34:41
Speaker 1: Well, manslaughter always sounded worse.
34:43
Speaker 2: I always, I always wondered that too. I know the
34:45
Speaker 2: word slaughter is so just like you get such a
34:49
Speaker 2: horrific visual. I always wondered why murder was higher than manslaughter.
34:56
Speaker 2: Someone messed that up. Manslaughter should be first and then murder.
34:59
Speaker 1: The first time I heard of manslaughter was on episode chips.
35:03
Speaker 2: Oh yeah.
35:03
Speaker 1: It was, yeah, they were, they were, uh, undercover and
35:06
Speaker 1: they were racing some guys. And then there was, uh, uh, um,
35:10
Speaker 1: There was a death as a result, but they were undercover.
35:13
Speaker 1: And so they were looking at manslaughter charges against Jim Baker.
35:17
Speaker 1: And it was like, I remember as a kid, I'm thinking, manslaughter?
35:20
Speaker 1: What did he do?
35:21
Speaker 2: He slaughtered a man.
35:23
Speaker 1: Yes.
35:25
Speaker 2: That's all.
35:25
Speaker 1: That's my manslaughter story.
35:27
Speaker 2: That was your manslaughter story? All right. Thank you.
35:28
Speaker 1: Sometimes I remember where I first heard something, don't you?
35:31
Speaker 2: Not always, no.
35:33
Speaker 1: Maybe my memory serves me better.
35:34
Speaker 2: Probably does. All right. So that's a Lindsay Clancy case.
35:38
Speaker 2: That's our part three. We will continue to talk about
35:40
Speaker 2: it once that verdict comes out. So make sure you
35:42
Speaker 2: follow Legally Brunette wherever you listen to podcasts. Also, be
35:46
Speaker 2: sure to tell your friends and family and leave us
35:49
Speaker 2: a review. We have tons of reviews and I love
35:51
Speaker 2: to read them. Not the one-star ones. Those are the
35:56
Speaker 2: people that get mad at me on Housewives. And then
35:59
Speaker 2: they're like, they don't even listen. They just find me
36:03
Speaker 2: and say something nasty because they don't like something that
36:05
Speaker 2: happened on Housewives.
36:06
Speaker 1: But anyway. Well, they may not be wrong.
36:10
Speaker 2: Whatever.
36:10
Speaker 1: Gosh.
36:11
Speaker 2: Thank you guys for listening. We appreciate you.