Latest / Crime Stories with Nancy Grace / KILLER-MOM LINDSAY CLANCY RARE SMILE: CLAIMS NO PROOF SHE KILLED 3 TOTS

Transcript

KILLER-MOM LINDSAY CLANCY RARE SMILE: CLAIMS NO PROOF SHE KILLED 3 TOTS · Crime Stories with Nancy Grace

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Tonight, killer mom Lindsay Clancy shows a rare smile in
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: court as her attorney, Kevin Reddington, now claims there is
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: no proof she killed her three children in an explosive
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: courtroom standoff.
• 0:19
  Speaker 2: Good evening. I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. I
• 0:22
  Speaker 2: want to thank you for being with us.
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: And all he has is Callan dying in his arms.
• 0:38
  Speaker 3: They're never happy with any answer they get from Patrick Clancy.
• 0:41
  Speaker 4: These children suffered, and they suffered at the hand of
• 0:45
  Speaker 4: their mother.
• 0:45
  Speaker 5: This is a woman that was suffering from psychosis at
• 0:51
  Speaker 5: the time that she went down to that basement. She
• 0:56
  Speaker 5: had no motive. She loves her children. She intended to
• 1:01
  Speaker 5: kill herself. She didn't fake that. Threw herself out the window.
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: There you see defense attorney Kevin Reddington in court stating
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: that his client was suffering postpartum psychosis when she went
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: down to the basement, the murder scene where her three
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: children were murdered, and then tried to kill herself. But
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: now we're hearing an entirely different story. That's from our
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: friends at East Idaho News. And this is what he
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: says in court now.
• 1:33
  Speaker 6: Where is the evidence that she did this? You have
• 1:37
  Speaker 6: a situation where Patrick comes home. Your Honor recalls the
• 1:42
  Speaker 6: evidence that he indicates that when he came home, that
• 1:46
  Speaker 6: he enters the house, he puts the food down on
• 1:49
  Speaker 6: the table, comes back from the restaurant. It's quiet, eerily quiet,
• 1:54
  Speaker 6: as the government indicates in their motions. that he then
• 1:57
  Speaker 6: indicates that he goes upstairs into the bedroom. After yelling
• 2:02
  Speaker 6: downstairs to the basement, there's no response.
• 2:04
  Speaker 5: He goes upstairs.
• 2:06
  Speaker 6: And when he goes upstairs, he goes into the bedroom.
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: Okay. Amazingly, Reddington, with a straight face, is saying, yeah,
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: that never happened. That's where our friends at East Idaho News,
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: the entire defense for Lindsey Clancy was that She murdered
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: her children, but she was insane. That's what N-G-B-R-I means,
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: not guilty by reason of insanity. You must admit you
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: did the act, but were insane at the time to
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: utilize that defense. Now, a stunning about-face. Some would claim
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: a lie. Joining us, an all-star panel, straight out to
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: Penny Commit, investigative reporter with Boston's WBZ-CBS News. who covered
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: the case from the very beginning. What is happening?
• 2:59
  Speaker 7: Well, what's happening here, Nancy, is something that happens at
• 3:01
  Speaker 7: a lot of criminal trials. It's called Rule 25. It's
• 3:05
  Speaker 7: something in Massachusetts that a lot of attorneys will argue
• 3:09
  Speaker 7: for after a trial. Basically, he's asking the judge here
• 3:13
  Speaker 7: for a required finding of not guilty.
• 3:17
  Speaker 2: And it's kind of nuanced.
• 3:18
  Speaker 7: What he's arguing here is is that there is insufficient
• 3:23
  Speaker 7: evidence from the Commonwealth. The prosecution did not prove that
• 3:27
  Speaker 7: Lindsay Clancy committed these crimes. What was so shocking, and
• 3:31
  Speaker 7: as someone who was sitting in the courtroom, heads were
• 3:33
  Speaker 7: certainly turning, people were looking around. He didn't only argue
• 3:37
  Speaker 7: that there was insufficient evidence that she was criminally responsible.
• 3:41
  Speaker 7: He argued there was insufficient evidence that she committed these
• 3:44
  Speaker 7: crimes at all, which is a totally different tune than
• 3:47
  Speaker 7: what we've heard from him prior, but it shows that
• 3:49
  Speaker 7: he's really going to bat for his client and trying
• 3:52
  Speaker 7: anything he can to prevent a second trial.
• 3:56
  Speaker 2: To Dr.
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: Bethany Marshall joining us, renowned psychoanalyst in the LA jurisdiction.
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: You can see her on Peacock, on Bravo, on Hulu.
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: She's a star of a new hit podcast, On the
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: Couch with Dr. Bethany Marshall. Dr.
• 4:10
  Speaker 2: Bethany, thank you for being with us.
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: You have consulted and studied on many, many not guilty
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: by reason of insanities. And the- foundation of NGBRI is
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: you're claiming insanity at the time you committed the offense.
• 4:28
  Speaker 2: Please explain.
• 4:30
  Speaker 8: Well, what that means is that, first of all, you
• 4:34
  Speaker 8: did not know right from wrong. So you were basically
• 4:37
  Speaker 8: psychotic or out of your mind, which is what Reddington
• 4:41
  Speaker 8: was saying. Also that you couldn't control or stop yourself.
• 4:46
  Speaker 8: Remember when Zyzelle the doctor who goes to the hospital
• 4:50
  Speaker 8: to visit Clancy, hands Clancy his phone. She says to
• 4:54
  Speaker 8: Patrick Clancy, a man told me to do it, but
• 4:58
  Speaker 8: I couldn't stop myself. So there she's already building the defense,
• 5:03
  Speaker 8: or Zizel is building the defense, but basically it's the
• 5:07
  Speaker 8: idea that the defendant does not know right from wrong.
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: Okay, let's follow up on that with Dave Mack, Crime
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: Stories investigative reporter. Dave Mack, Dr. Bethany just brought up
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: a really great point. It's being claimed now that Lindsay
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: Clancy didn't kill her three children. Forget the weeks and
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: weeks of trial we endured where the defense was she
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: did it, but she was insane under postpartum psychosis at
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: the time she did it.
• 5:37
  Speaker 2: Forget that never happened. Erase, erase, Jurassic erase. That didn't happen.
• 5:43
  Speaker 2: Now we're going to say, well, she didn't do it
• 5:45
  Speaker 2: at all.
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: But following up, Dave Mack, you and I have discussed
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: this several times. Wasn't it in the ER? I know
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: it was in the hospital. She was handed the phone,
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: and it's the first time she has spoken to her husband,
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: Patrick Clancy, which I guess now everybody's trying to frame
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: him for murder. And she wanted to know, do I
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: need a lawyer? That's one of the first things she said.
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: Do my legs work? And I got to call my
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: husband to see where we stand. She get, they hand
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: her the phone and she says to the husband, a man,
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: a male voice told me to do it.
• 6:26
  Speaker 9: Yeah.
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: Where did that happen? And I've got a reason for
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: asking this.
• 6:33
  Speaker 2: In the hospital, Nancy.
• 6:34
  Speaker 10: And it was overheard a male voice saying, told me
• 6:40
  Speaker 10: I had to kill the children.
• 6:42
  Speaker 2: Okay, remember that.
• 6:43
  Speaker 10: I had to kill the children and myself. What happened
• 6:48
  Speaker 10: yesterday in court after you pointed this out, how do
• 6:52
  Speaker 10: you admit doing something for seven weeks of trial and
• 6:56
  Speaker 10: then turn around and say, there's no proof and we
• 6:59
  Speaker 10: have this, I was told to do it by this
• 7:02
  Speaker 10: disembodied male voice, told me I had to kill the
• 7:05
  Speaker 10: children and myself.
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: So there you have it.
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: Back to Penny Commit joining us, investigative reporter WBZ CBS
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: in Boston. Penny, when was it that she made that
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: statement to her husband on the phone?
• 7:20
  Speaker 7: Well, it was a few days after the killings, after
• 7:24
  Speaker 7: she was in the hospital. Remember, it was her doctor
• 7:28
  Speaker 7: that allowed her to borrow his phone and call her husband.
• 7:32
  Speaker 7: So she made the statement to him. She also made
• 7:35
  Speaker 7: statements to the chaplain at the hospital. You'll remember that,
• 7:40
  Speaker 7: and this was the defense's witness, the chaplain testified that
• 7:43
  Speaker 7: Lindsay told her that she had to follow these commands
• 7:47
  Speaker 7: or he nor her children would be safe. And the
• 7:50
  Speaker 7: chaplain testified that Lindsay told her, I'm so glad my
• 7:53
  Speaker 7: children are safe. So there are a few people now
• 7:56
  Speaker 7: that have testified to Lindsay sharing this information.
• 7:59
  Speaker 2: From what I am learning, Dr. Bethany, you're absolutely correct.
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: The children were murdered on January 24, 2023.
• 8:09
  Speaker 2: My point, Dr.
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: Bethany, is that she stated the male voice told her
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: to kill her children on that day within 24 hours of.
• 8:18
  Speaker 2: Killing the children.
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: And that is before anyone could implant in her mind
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: that she had done it.
• 8:26
  Speaker 8: And Nancy, how can you not have killed your children,
• 8:29
  Speaker 8: but then you ask about your children being dead? It
• 8:33
  Speaker 8: just completely doesn't make sense. And I wonder how the
• 8:36
  Speaker 8: jury is going to respond to this. They love Reddington.
• 8:39
  Speaker 8: They love his arrogance and his charm and all of that.
• 8:42
  Speaker 8: What are they going to think when Reddington comes in
• 8:45
  Speaker 8: with a lie, something that is basically untrue? Here's the
• 8:49
  Speaker 8: other thing, Nancy, very quickly. Reddington finds out Lindsay Clancy
• 8:53
  Speaker 8: is in the hospital. He calls his pal, Dr.
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: Seizel.
• 8:56
  Speaker 8: Who goes through legal hoops to see Lindsay Clancy in
• 9:00
  Speaker 8: the hospital. And that's where I think the story about
• 9:05
  Speaker 8: the command hallucinations and all of that starts to be
• 9:08
  Speaker 8: concocted because she had never had command hallucinations before, but
• 9:13
  Speaker 8: she did have knowledge that her children were dead.
• 9:17
  Speaker 11: And he also talked about the most chilling fact that
• 9:21
  Speaker 11: when she woke up, she couldn't remember anything. And she
• 9:26
  Speaker 11: was told what she had done. One of his closing
• 9:30
  Speaker 11: arguments was that this entire case was built on speculation.
• 9:37
  Speaker 11: that there was no evidence that she had actually committed
• 9:40
  Speaker 11: the crime and that it was all, he didn't use
• 9:43
  Speaker 11: these words, but essentially based on what Patrick said.
• 9:48
  Speaker 2: And here goes the lynch mob.
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: To Josh Colesrood, he is a veteran trial lawyer, criminal
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: defense attorney, former U.S. attorney, founder of Colesrud Law Offices,
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: joining us out of Phoenix tonight. Josh, thank you for
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: being with us. I'm going to guess, based on what
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: we just saw from Styled by Survival on TikTok, that
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: the witch hunt is on for the real killer in
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: this case.
• 10:14
  Speaker 2: Oh, that's reminding me of O.J. Simpson.
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: And now I'm telling you, everyone, Social media warriors are
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: going to blame Patrick Clancy.
• 10:29
  Speaker 12: Well, you know, first of all, Nancy, the TikToker is
• 10:34
  Speaker 12: correct that the entire case hinges on Patrick Clancy's timeline.
• 10:41
  Speaker 12: If you don't accept his timeline, however, that does leave
• 10:45
  Speaker 12: room for for speculation and other arguments. Also, I know
• 10:50
  Speaker 12: you're not going to want to hear this, but you're
• 10:52
  Speaker 12: wrong about the law. Massachusetts is one of only three
• 10:56
  Speaker 12: states where the defense does not need to admit to
• 11:00
  Speaker 12: the crime.
• 11:01
  Speaker 4: And the defense did not do that. They didn't fight it.
• 11:04
  Speaker 12: But that's why the prosecution yesterday didn't argue that, look,
• 11:09
  Speaker 12: for this affirmative defense, you have to admit to it.
• 11:11
  Speaker 12: That's true in 47 states. That's not true Massachusetts, where
• 11:16
  Speaker 12: the burden still is on the prosecution. Now, let's talk
• 11:20
  Speaker 12: about what the TikTokers said, that you have to believe
• 11:24
  Speaker 12: Patrick Clancy to believe that Lindsay did this.
• 11:27
  Speaker 4: And that's true because of the timeline.
• 11:30
  Speaker 12: The prosecution had a theory about how this took place.
• 11:34
  Speaker 12: And that all begins with Patrick Clancy's testimony about when
• 11:37
  Speaker 12: he left and when he got back. The only issue
• 11:40
  Speaker 12: is that the forensic evidence does not support that tight timeline.
• 11:45
  Speaker 12: Look at the body core temperature of Lindsay Clancy. You know,
• 11:48
  Speaker 12: this is forensic science. It says that it would take
• 11:52
  Speaker 12: hours for her body temperature to reach a 82 degrees,
• 11:57
  Speaker 12: which is what she was when she entered the hospital.
• 12:00
  Speaker 12: That couldn't have happened during the timeline the prosecution submitted. Also,
• 12:06
  Speaker 12: the forensic evidence, the so-called forensic evidence of the fingerprints
• 12:09
  Speaker 12: and the blood is nearly non-existent and unusable.
• 12:13
  Speaker 4: You know, in a.
• 12:14
  Speaker 12: Home where both Patrick and the kids live, you're going
• 12:17
  Speaker 12: to find their DNA anyway, right? Everywhere through touch DNA.
• 12:21
  Speaker 12: We talk about it a lot. So what I'm trying
• 12:23
  Speaker 12: to say is there's holes in the government's timeline and
• 12:27
  Speaker 12: there is room for reasonable doubt.
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: Okay, Josh, I did not say that in Boston you
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: have to say that. I said that when NGBRI is used...
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: It's typically because the person says, I did it, but
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: I was insane. And my question would be to you,
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: Josh Colesrood, why put up postpartum psychosis defense.
• 12:52
  Speaker 2: If you didn't do it? What's the point?
• 12:56
  Speaker 12: It's a good defense in a case like this where
• 12:58
  Speaker 12: you have competing experts.
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: I mean, if you're not saying, she's not saying, I
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: did it, but I was insane. Why bother proving for
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: weeks and weeks and weeks that she was insane.
• 13:10
  Speaker 2: Which the jury ended up mistrying on.
• 13:13
  Speaker 4: What's the point?
• 13:15
  Speaker 12: She's saying that I was insane at the time that
• 13:19
  Speaker 12: the murder took place.
• 13:21
  Speaker 2: Was that a Freudian slip?
• 13:22
  Speaker 5: Oopsie.
• 13:25
  Speaker 2: You just said she was saying I did it.
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: Oh, no.
• 13:27
  Speaker 5: Erase.
• 13:28
  Speaker 2: Let's erase that too. That didn't happen.
• 13:32
  Speaker 12: She was saying in Massachusetts, this is how it works.
• 13:35
  Speaker 12: This is how the argument works. She's saying that I
• 13:40
  Speaker 12: was insane at the time of the homicide. What she's
• 13:44
  Speaker 12: not saying is that I was insane at the time
• 13:47
  Speaker 12: that I committed the homicide.
• 13:49
  Speaker 4: There's a nuance there.
• 13:50
  Speaker 2: What is the point?
• 13:53
  Speaker 4: It leaves open third party culpability.
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: I was insane at the time I, excuse me, the
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: children were killed.
• 14:01
  Speaker 12: It's because it leaves open third party culpability. And that's
• 14:05
  Speaker 12: the issue here that The Massachusetts law enforcement involved in
• 14:09
  Speaker 12: this case, they didn't look into whether or not somebody
• 14:13
  Speaker 12: else could have been involved in the homicide.
• 14:15
  Speaker 4: They had a conclusion.
• 14:17
  Speaker 12: They kept the conclusion into their investigation and they didn't
• 14:21
  Speaker 12: they refused to investigate anything else. And the defense is
• 14:24
  Speaker 12: just pointing that out. You know, how can you, you know,
• 14:27
  Speaker 12: cut corners and just say this is.
• 14:30
  Speaker 2: Didn't you?
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: Come on this program and state that Reddington was doing
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: everything he possibly could with all of his antics and
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: his buffoonery. All of that was to save his client.
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: Didn't you say he was doing everything he could to
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: save his client?
• 14:48
  Speaker 13: What?
• 14:48
  Speaker 4: Absolutely. Absolutely. He did a great job defending his client.
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: My question was, didn't you say that? And the answer
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: is yes, you did. You defended him and said what
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: a great lawyer he was and how he was doing
• 15:01
  Speaker 1: everything to defend Lindsay Clancy, except for saying she didn't
• 15:06
  Speaker 1: do it. I mean, seriously, can you look in the
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: camera and actually say he did everything he could. He
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: tried every defense possible, except to say she didn't do
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: it because he knew she did it.
• 15:23
  Speaker 12: No, he is successful at what he did. That's why
• 15:26
  Speaker 12: he got 11-1.
• 15:29
  Speaker 13: Yeah.
• 15:29
  Speaker 2: No, I'm asking you to explain yourself.
• 15:34
  Speaker 4: Why Kevin Reddington was successful? Well- He was able to.
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: No, no. Why you came on this program and said
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: he's amazing. He did every single thing under the sun
• 15:46
  Speaker 1: to save his client. Don't judge him because he's trying
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: every trick in the book, every known legal defense out there.
• 15:55
  Speaker 2: They're bringing on experts. That's right.
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: And now you're saying he did everything except what is
• 16:01
  Speaker 1: the truth, according to him, that she didn't do it.
• 16:03
  Speaker 2: He forgot to say she didn't do it. There's no
• 16:07
  Speaker 2: evidence she did it.
• 16:08
  Speaker 4: That's incorrect.
• 16:10
  Speaker 6: What about it?
• 16:11
  Speaker 4: That's incorrect.
• 16:12
  Speaker 12: Because the evidence doesn't show that the evidence is only circumstantial.
• 16:17
  Speaker 12: I think you would agree with that, that she did this.
• 16:19
  Speaker 12: That's what the prosecution is saying. He was correct yesterday
• 16:22
  Speaker 12: when he said that there's no evidence. What he should
• 16:25
  Speaker 12: have said, there's no direct evidence. There's no confession. There
• 16:28
  Speaker 12: is nothing that directly.
• 16:31
  Speaker 2: Ties her to homicides.
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: Josh, you came on our program on Crime Stories and
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: repeatedly said, Reddington is awesome. Don't judge him because he's
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: doing everything in the world to save Lindsay Clancy, except
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: apparently she did not do it. Those five little words.
• 16:52
  Speaker 1: She did not do it. He forgot to say that
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: at trial. What?
• 16:57
  Speaker 4: Hold on.
• 16:58
  Speaker 12: So because the reason why is you don't want to
• 17:01
  Speaker 12: distract the jury. The argument that she didn't do it
• 17:05
  Speaker 12: is not as strong as not guilty except for insanity.
• 17:09
  Speaker 12: It's a much stronger argument and you have to look
• 17:12
  Speaker 12: and play towards your strengths. You don't want to have
• 17:14
  Speaker 12: competing theories, right?
• 17:16
  Speaker 2: So this is not- So you don't want to tell
• 17:18
  Speaker 2: the jury the truth? She didn't do it. That seems
• 17:21
  Speaker 2: a lot stronger to me than she's crazy.
• 17:24
  Speaker 12: This is a legal argument. It's not in front of
• 17:26
  Speaker 12: a jury, Nancy. So you're looking at a legal doctrine
• 17:30
  Speaker 12: in front of a judge. It's much different when you're
• 17:32
  Speaker 12: arguing before a jury. This is a legal proceeding. It
• 17:35
  Speaker 12: is not a jury argument. Your arguments completely change before
• 17:39
  Speaker 12: a jury.
• 17:40
  Speaker 4: And you know that. It's what he is.
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: Arguing to be the truth. First, he said NGBRI, not guilty.
• 17:48
  Speaker 4: By reason of insanity.
• 17:51
  Speaker 1: And now he's claiming, hey, she didn't do it.
• 17:55
  Speaker 12: He's not arguing truth. He's arguing legal theories. He's arguing
• 18:00
  Speaker 12: burden of proof. And he's saying that the prosecution simply
• 18:04
  Speaker 12: did not meet their burden.
• 18:05
  Speaker 2: Did I just hear you state?
• 18:07
  Speaker 1: Dave Mack, did he just say Kevin Reddington is not
• 18:11
  Speaker 1: arguing truth?
• 18:12
  Speaker 2: He's arguing theory. Did I just hear that?
• 18:16
  Speaker 4: You did.
• 18:16
  Speaker 10: You absolutely heard him say that, Nancy. What's being argued
• 18:21
  Speaker 10: in court, Nancy, is Reddington is saying She didn't do it.
• 18:25
  Speaker 10: She doesn't remember doing it. She has no memory of that.
• 18:28
  Speaker 10: There's no proof, no evidence she did it. That's what
• 18:31
  Speaker 10: they're arguing now. After everything else that was said before
• 18:35
  Speaker 10: during seven weeks of trial, Reddington said there is no
• 18:41
  Speaker 10: evidence that she did it. She has never admitted she
• 18:45
  Speaker 10: did it.
• 18:46
  Speaker 2: She doesn't have a memory of that.
• 18:47
  Speaker 10: She was told that she did it. That's what Reddington
• 18:50
  Speaker 10: is saying, is that it's not her memory. It is
• 18:54
  Speaker 10: something she was told happened.
• 18:58
  Speaker 14: She retained an awareness of the illegality of killing others,
• 19:02
  Speaker 14: including killing her children. Her moral awareness of the wrongfulness
• 19:06
  Speaker 14: of this killing was influenced by her strong desire to
• 19:10
  Speaker 14: die and, if she were dead, not to leave her
• 19:14
  Speaker 14: children behind.
• 19:15
  Speaker 2: Hold everything. Let me hear that again.
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: You have got on the stand a psychiatrist talking about
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: what Lindsay Clancy told him.
• 19:26
  Speaker 14: She retained an awareness of the illegality of killing others,
• 19:30
  Speaker 14: including killing her children. Her moral awareness of the wrongfulness
• 19:34
  Speaker 14: of this killing was influenced by her strong desire to
• 19:38
  Speaker 14: die and, if she were dead, not to leave her
• 19:42
  Speaker 14: children behind.
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: She retained an awareness of the illegality of killing her children.
• 19:52
  Speaker 1: She knew she killed her children. What, I mean, what's
• 19:56
  Speaker 1: the argument? That someone framed her to tell the psychiatrist that?
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: That's from East Idaho News. Let's have a little refresher
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: about what this case is all about. It's about Cora, Dawson,
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: and Callan. Straight out to special guest, Dr. Jessica Dwyer, Director,
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: Chief Medical Examiner, Southwestern Institute of Forensic Scientists, joining us
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: tonight out of Texas.
• 20:27
  Speaker 14: Dr.
• 20:27
  Speaker 1: Dwyer, thank you for being with us. What exactly happened
• 20:31
  Speaker 1: to the three children?
• 20:33
  Speaker 13: What occurs in a situation with ligature strangulation is you
• 20:37
  Speaker 13: have an object. In this instance, you have these elastic
• 20:40
  Speaker 13: exercise bands that are applied around the neck. It requires
• 20:44
  Speaker 13: a significant amount of pressure to hold that to actually
• 20:47
  Speaker 13: occlude the vascular supply airway in the neck. And it
• 20:52
  Speaker 13: requires a significant degree of force to actually subdue the victim.
• 20:56
  Speaker 2: Take a listen to Kevin Reddington.
• 21:00
  Speaker 3: At the charging conference, you were talking about the investigation,
• 21:03
  Speaker 3: the police. Do you think that's something that you're going
• 21:04
  Speaker 3: to bring up in the closings?
• 21:07
  Speaker 6: It's a difficult, if you remember back to when I
• 21:09
  Speaker 6: filed the motion for the bifurcation, I was arguing to
• 21:12
  Speaker 6: the judge, it's difficult because a defendant on the lack
• 21:16
  Speaker 6: of criminal responsibility defense has to basically admit that he
• 21:21
  Speaker 6: or she is guilty before you're able to do that.
• 21:24
  Speaker 2: From our friends at Law and Crime, Josh Colesreid, what
• 21:27
  Speaker 2: did he just say?
• 21:28
  Speaker 12: He said he has to basically admit, but he did
• 21:30
  Speaker 12: not basically admit. You know, he didn't admit to anything.
• 21:34
  Speaker 12: He didn't stipulate to anything. And he's correct about the law.
• 21:37
  Speaker 12: The prosecution still bears the burden of proof that Lindsay
• 21:42
  Speaker 12: Clancy committed on a reasonable doubt. And he didn't argue
• 21:47
  Speaker 12: against it.
• 21:48
  Speaker 4: Okay.
• 21:49
  Speaker 12: He did not argue against it, but he did not say, yes,
• 21:52
  Speaker 12: she did it. He just didn't address it. He didn't say, yes,
• 21:56
  Speaker 12: my client murdered her children.
• 21:59
  Speaker 4: Old blood.
• 21:59
  Speaker 1: Let's hear it one more time, just to make, maybe
• 22:03
  Speaker 1: you didn't hear it correctly. Let's play it one more time.
• 22:07
  Speaker 3: At the charging conference, you were talking about the investigation,
• 22:10
  Speaker 3: the police. Do you think that's something that you're going
• 22:11
  Speaker 3: to bring up in the closings?
• 22:14
  Speaker 6: It's a difficult, if you remember back to when I
• 22:16
  Speaker 6: filed the motion for the bifurcation, I was arguing to
• 22:19
  Speaker 6: the judge, it's difficult because a defendant on the lack
• 22:23
  Speaker 6: of criminal responsibility defense has to basically admit that he
• 22:28
  Speaker 6: or she is guilty before you're able to do that.
• 22:31
  Speaker 1: So he just said it's difficult on Clancy because she
• 22:38
  Speaker 1: has to basically admit she's guilty before you can argue insanity.
• 22:45
  Speaker 2: Okay, and there's more. There's more, Colesrud.
• 22:49
  Speaker 6: Many, many lay people have difficulty understanding the concept of
• 22:53
  Speaker 6: the bifurcation and say, well, you know, she admitted that
• 22:58
  Speaker 6: she did it. So she's guilty. And therefore, she's just guilty.
• 23:03
  Speaker 6: And then they go off on a tangent about all
• 23:05
  Speaker 6: of these horrific allegations, you know, that she's a demon
• 23:10
  Speaker 6: and she's possessed and she should be executed. And this
• 23:12
  Speaker 6: is coming from politicians, you know, from President Trump all
• 23:16
  Speaker 6: the way down.
• 23:17
  Speaker 1: From East Idaho News, Colesrood, you and I have both
• 23:21
  Speaker 1: tried cases where the trial was bifurcated. That's a fancy
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: legal term for split in half. Here's an easy one
• 23:30
  Speaker 1: to compare. In a death penalty case, you do the
• 23:34
  Speaker 1: guilt innocence phase. And if found guilty, the defendant is
• 23:40
  Speaker 1: then tried for sentencing because a lot of the evidence
• 23:44
  Speaker 1: that comes in at sentencing by the state is so
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: inflammatory about why the death penalty should be imposed. that
• 23:55
  Speaker 1: it would prejudice the jury if they heard all of that,
• 23:58
  Speaker 1: although it be true in the guilt innocence phase. So
• 24:01
  Speaker 1: you have to bifurcate or split the trial in half. Now,
• 24:07
  Speaker 1: Kevin Reddington wanted a bifurcated trial because in the first
• 24:15
  Speaker 1: part of the trial, he would have to admit she
• 24:18
  Speaker 1: was claiming insanity because she killed the children. Okay, so
• 24:24
  Speaker 1: In your own words, Colesrood, why did Reddington fight for
• 24:30
  Speaker 1: a bifurcated trial?
• 24:33
  Speaker 12: So, you know, one thing that you're doing that's a
• 24:35
  Speaker 12: little unfair, Nancy, is that you're juxtaposing statements that he
• 24:39
  Speaker 12: gave about what he was going to say during his
• 24:42
  Speaker 12: closing argument to the jury compared to his legal argument
• 24:46
  Speaker 12: to a judge after a non-verdict.
• 24:50
  Speaker 2: Well, shouldn't it all be true?
• 24:53
  Speaker 4: No, it's different.
• 24:54
  Speaker 1: What he says in openings, closings to the press and
• 24:57
  Speaker 1: to the judge, shouldn't it all be the truth?
• 24:59
  Speaker 4: No, it's not. It's not. One is a question of fact.
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: I'm so glad you said that. You cleared up a
• 25:04
  Speaker 1: lot for me. So Reddington can just lie.
• 25:09
  Speaker 12: A question of fact to the jury. And then it's
• 25:11
  Speaker 12: an argument of question of law to a judge. It's
• 25:14
  Speaker 12: a different type of argument. You're not going to be
• 25:16
  Speaker 12: arguing legal theories before a jury. You're only going to
• 25:19
  Speaker 12: be arguing fact, whether or not the prosecution had enough
• 25:25
  Speaker 12: evidence to prove their case before a jury. It's a
• 25:28
  Speaker 12: different type of argument and analysis after a jury to
• 25:34
  Speaker 12: a judge.
• 25:35
  Speaker 14: When she regained consciousness that night in the hospital, one
• 25:40
  Speaker 14: of the things she said is that she she wasn't
• 25:44
  Speaker 14: able to remember what had happened. And she was informed
• 25:53
  Speaker 14: of it, but if this had been a genuine memory loss,
• 25:56
  Speaker 14: then human memory is funny. And one of the things
• 26:01
  Speaker 14: that happens is that when you're trying to remember something
• 26:04
  Speaker 14: that actually happened, things can interfere with that. Things that
• 26:08
  Speaker 14: you read, things that you're told, other sorts of things
• 26:11
  Speaker 14: like that. So it would have been hard to understand
• 26:15
  Speaker 14: how she would recover that memory accurately, including the particular
• 26:20
  Speaker 14: memory of the command auditory hallucination when it's set.
• 26:27
  Speaker 1: Okay, that is Blair Wilson on Insta giving, you're about
• 26:33
  Speaker 1: to hear her commentary. Dr.
• 26:36
  Speaker 2: Bethany Marshall, what was the doctor talking about?
• 26:40
  Speaker 8: It's sort of hard to decipher, Nancy, but I think
• 26:42
  Speaker 8: what he's saying is when you're in some kind of
• 26:45
  Speaker 8: a psychotic episode, you have no memory. That's what he's saying.
• 26:49
  Speaker 8: But there's a big debate about that in the mental
• 26:52
  Speaker 8: health community because often people do remember what they did.
• 26:56
  Speaker 8: So he's also furthermore saying that Zyzelle, the providers, everybody
• 27:01
  Speaker 8: around her planted the idea in her head that she.
• 27:07
  Speaker 4: Had done it.
• 27:08
  Speaker 8: So the story came from other people It did not
• 27:11
  Speaker 8: come from her.
• 27:12
  Speaker 9: The defendant used Dr. Zizel's cell phone to call her husband.
• 27:17
  Speaker 9: She left a voicemail stating that she loved him. Yesterday,
• 27:20
  Speaker 9: on February 6, 2023, at 10.09 a.m., she again used Dr.
• 27:23
  Speaker 9: Zizel's cell phone to call her husband. This time he answered,
• 27:27
  Speaker 9: and during this call, the defendant stated that after he
• 27:30
  Speaker 9: left the house that night, she killed the kids because
• 27:33
  Speaker 9: she heard a voice and had, quote, a moment of psychosis,
• 27:38
  Speaker 9: end quote. He asked her what voices she heard, and
• 27:41
  Speaker 9: she said she heard a man's voice telling her to
• 27:43
  Speaker 9: kill the kids and kill herself because it was her
• 27:46
  Speaker 9: last chance. Patrick Clancy told the police the defendant had
• 27:50
  Speaker 9: never heard voices before. He also told the police the
• 27:53
  Speaker 9: defendant had never used the word psychosis to him before.
• 27:57
  Speaker 9: The first time she used that word psychosis was when
• 27:59
  Speaker 9: she was with the doctor hired by defense counsel and
• 28:02
  Speaker 9: using his cell phone.
• 28:03
  Speaker 2: That's when our friends at court chopped. So immediately, Dr.
• 28:08
  Speaker 6: Bethany.
• 28:09
  Speaker 2: She is in the hospital. No one has told her anything.
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: She hasn't been fed any information yet, according to conspiracy theorists.
• 28:19
  Speaker 1: Yet she is telling her husband there, lying in the
• 28:22
  Speaker 1: hospital bed, that she heard a voice that told her
• 28:25
  Speaker 1: to kill the children. How does that jive with claims
• 28:28
  Speaker 1: now by Reddington that she didn't do it?
• 28:31
  Speaker 8: What she's doing there is what's called malingering a defense.
• 28:34
  Speaker 8: Malingering is when you make up some fictitious lie syndrome
• 28:38
  Speaker 8: or illness to get out of some dreaded punishment. And
• 28:41
  Speaker 8: we see it is very common with defendants and people
• 28:44
  Speaker 8: who commit atrocious acts to say, I didn't remember it.
• 28:48
  Speaker 8: I was sleepwalking. This is so classic. But what's also interesting,
• 28:53
  Speaker 8: and I think this points to guilt too, is that
• 28:56
  Speaker 8: she doesn't say, well, who's taking care of the kids?
• 28:58
  Speaker 8: Where are the kids? She's not talking about them, Nancy,
• 29:02
  Speaker 8: because she knows they're not alive. And so in terms
• 29:07
  Speaker 8: of this planting this idea in her head, why would
• 29:12
  Speaker 8: Seisel plant the idea in her head if Reddington is
• 29:17
  Speaker 8: always already going towards a postpartum psychosis defense? Reddington sent
• 29:23
  Speaker 8: Seisel to the hospital. That makes no sense in terms
• 29:27
  Speaker 8: of the strategy that was forming for Seisel and Reddington
• 29:30
  Speaker 8: from the very beginning.
• 29:35
  Speaker 15: I'm a postpartum psychosis survivor and I have said this
• 29:37
  Speaker 15: multiple times that I don't remember anything about my episodes.
• 29:41
  Speaker 15: I woke up in the hospital repeating what my nurses
• 29:44
  Speaker 15: and my husband were talking about around me, and I
• 29:47
  Speaker 15: had no fucking clue what I was saying. It was
• 29:51
  Speaker 15: one of the most scariest times in my life, waking
• 29:55
  Speaker 15: up and becoming lucid from psychosis. Because I had to
• 30:00
  Speaker 15: rely basically on everybody else and what they were saying
• 30:04
  Speaker 15: and their recollection of what I went through. Lindsay has
• 30:08
  Speaker 15: only ever been told what happened that night. She doesn't remember.
• 30:13
  Speaker 1: That is Blair Wilson on Insta transposing her psychosis onto
• 30:18
  Speaker 1: what happened with Lindsay Clancy. But to penny commit joining us,
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: investigative reporter WBZ CBS Boston. It's my understanding from the
• 30:30
  Speaker 1: testimony that she stated she was in a dream state.
• 30:37
  Speaker 1: It was like a dream. When she recalled killing her children,
• 30:41
  Speaker 1: it was as if she saw it happening in a dream.
• 30:45
  Speaker 7: That is what her psychologist has testified to. That's what
• 30:49
  Speaker 7: the chaplain at the hospital had testified to. And Patrick
• 30:53
  Speaker 7: Clancy himself said that Lindsay called him and told him
• 30:56
  Speaker 7: that She was experiencing some type of mental episode. But
• 31:01
  Speaker 7: the difficulty here, and I think with the defense, Kevin
• 31:04
  Speaker 7: Reddington was really trying to get at when he argued
• 31:07
  Speaker 7: for this required finding of not guilty, is that there's
• 31:10
  Speaker 7: no physical evidence of these things. All this evidence comes
• 31:13
  Speaker 7: from testimony, comes from other people, and there's not any
• 31:18
  Speaker 7: concrete evidence that she said this. So that is what
• 31:22
  Speaker 7: the defense is really using as a basis of their
• 31:24
  Speaker 7: argument during Tuesday's hearing.
• 31:25
  Speaker 13: And.
• 31:27
  Speaker 2: It's really, really rare.
• 31:29
  Speaker 1: You mean other than all the people that she told
• 31:32
  Speaker 1: she did it?
• 31:33
  Speaker 2: So they're all lying?
• 31:36
  Speaker 7: Well, that's why the defense is trying to argue that
• 31:40
  Speaker 7: the Commonwealth did not prove their case and does not
• 31:42
  Speaker 7: have sufficient evidence. I mean, again, it's really rare that
• 31:47
  Speaker 7: this is granted by a judge in between trials, this
• 31:51
  Speaker 7: not guilty required finding. It's very, very rare this happens.
• 31:54
  Speaker 7: I've covered so many trials in Massachusetts, I've actually never
• 31:57
  Speaker 7: seen it be successful. But again, Kevin Reddington is trying
• 32:00
  Speaker 7: everything he can to prevent a second trial of his client.
• 32:04
  Speaker 1: Penny Kmet, what did the chaplain testify to regarding Clancy's
• 32:08
  Speaker 1: statements to him?
• 32:11
  Speaker 2: So the chaplain is in the hospital.
• 32:13
  Speaker 7: So a hospital chaplain who spoke with Lindsay Clancy shortly
• 32:17
  Speaker 7: after these events. She testified to several different things that
• 32:21
  Speaker 7: Lindsay told her about trying to save the children, that
• 32:25
  Speaker 7: she was told by a voice that she would not
• 32:28
  Speaker 7: only be in danger, but her children would be in danger.
• 32:32
  Speaker 2: Her children would.
• 32:33
  Speaker 7: Not be safe if she did not commit these killings.
• 32:35
  Speaker 7: And I think a really powerful quote from the chaplain
• 32:38
  Speaker 7: is she claims that Clancy told her, I'm so glad
• 32:42
  Speaker 7: my children are safe. And remember, this chaplain was one
• 32:45
  Speaker 7: of the defensives witnesses to try and prove that she was,
• 32:50
  Speaker 7: in their opinion, experiencing a postpartum psychosis.
• 32:53
  Speaker 1: And let's finish that sentence, experiencing postpartum psychosis at the
• 32:57
  Speaker 1: time she killed her children.
• 33:01
  Speaker 14: Correct.
• 33:01
  Speaker 2: That's what they were arguing.
• 33:04
  Speaker 4: Right.
• 33:06
  Speaker 2: So, to Dr.
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: Jessica Dwyer, joining us, Director, Chief Medical Examiner, Southwestern Institute
• 33:13
  Speaker 1: of Forensic Sciences, how long would it take How many
• 33:18
  Speaker 1: minutes or seconds to ligature strangle a child?
• 33:24
  Speaker 13: Well, it's documented that the time it would take for
• 33:27
  Speaker 13: occlusion of the airway vasculature for somebody to pass out
• 33:32
  Speaker 13: would be on a spectrum of seconds. For you to
• 33:35
  Speaker 13: continue that pressure to where it would be death, it
• 33:37
  Speaker 13: could be on a spectrum of anywhere from seconds to minutes.
• 33:40
  Speaker 13: It's going to be variable by individual.
• 33:43
  Speaker 4: Did you ask Lindsay why she did it? I asked
• 33:49
  Speaker 4: her if she remembered it.
• 33:52
  Speaker 7: And what did she say?
• 33:53
  Speaker 3: She said it was like a dream.
• 33:55
  Speaker 14: And she remembered it much in the way you would
• 34:00
  Speaker 14: remember a dream after waking up.
• 34:02
  Speaker 2: That's from our friends at 60 Minutes. So Dr.
• 34:04
  Speaker 1: Bethany Marshall, she tells the chaplain why she killed the children.
• 34:12
  Speaker 1: She told others, including psychiatrists, that she heard at an
• 34:17
  Speaker 1: auditory hallucination, male voice telling her to kill the children.
• 34:21
  Speaker 1: She then reportedly tried to kill herself after killing the children.
• 34:29
  Speaker 1: And she echoes the same story to her husband as
• 34:33
  Speaker 1: overheard by a treating physician. Does that make sense to you?
• 34:40
  Speaker 1: The dreamlike state, the auditory hallucination?
• 34:44
  Speaker 8: This is what I call the sleepwalking defense. There was
• 34:47
  Speaker 8: a man in the late 1900s who stabbed his wife
• 34:52
  Speaker 8: 44 times, drowned her in a pool, and later said
• 34:56
  Speaker 8: that he was sleepwalking. And Nancy, this is so common
• 35:01
  Speaker 8: for defendants. People have committed a crime to say that
• 35:03
  Speaker 8: they were not in their right mind. They didn't do it.
• 35:06
  Speaker 8: They were sleepwalking. You know, Nancy, another confession that she made,
• 35:11
  Speaker 8: these words came right out of her mouth. multiple times
• 35:15
  Speaker 8: she says she's glad the children are in a safe place. Well,
• 35:19
  Speaker 8: if she has no knowledge of having done this, why
• 35:23
  Speaker 8: is she already saying that she's glad they are in
• 35:26
  Speaker 8: a safe place? So her story just really contradicts itself.
• 35:31
  Speaker 1: All of the guns are now pointed at husband Patrick Clancy,
• 35:36
  Speaker 1: who we see on video at two different businesses at
• 35:41
  Speaker 1: the time the children were killed. But that is not
• 35:46
  Speaker 1: stopping conspiracy theorists. We see what is shaping up to
• 35:52
  Speaker 1: be State v. Clancy round two. It will be argued,
• 35:59
  Speaker 1: many illegal eagles believe, that Clancy did not kill the children.
• 36:03
  Speaker 1: Forget about the weeks and weeks of trial where it
• 36:07
  Speaker 1: was claimed she killed them because she was insane.
• 36:10
  Speaker 2: Now it's she didn't kill them.
• 36:13
  Speaker 1: Clancy's probably hiding under the bed right now out of fear,
• 36:17
  Speaker 1: but oh, there's not room under there.
• 36:19
  Speaker 2: You know why?
• 36:20
  Speaker 1: Because a holdout juror is already under there, hiding from vigilantes.
• 36:28
  Speaker 1: We wait as justice unfolds, and we remember an American hero,
• 36:31
  Speaker 1: Sergeant Derek Johnson, Draper PD, Utah, shot and killed in
• 36:36
  Speaker 1: the line of duty at just 32. after serving in
• 36:40
  Speaker 1: law enforcement eight years, leaving behind his wife, now widow, Shante,
• 36:45
  Speaker 1: and son, Benson. American hero, Sergeant Derek Johnson. Thank you
• 36:50
  Speaker 1: to our guests, but especially to you for being with
• 36:52
  Speaker 1: us tonight. Nancy Gray signing off for tonight, but I'll
• 36:55
  Speaker 1: see you tomorrow night. And until then, good night, friend.