Latest / Murder Files Unsealed / Woman Charged with Murdering Her Three Children Goes on Trial in Massachusetts

Transcript

Woman Charged with Murdering Her Three Children Goes on Trial in Massachusetts · Murder Files Unsealed

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: How does a jury look at a woman who is
• 0:03
  paralyzed in a wheelchair, acknowledge that she physically caused the
• 0:07
  deaths of her three children, and then somehow determine if
• 0:11
  her mind was even in the room when it happened.
• 0:13
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it's just an impossible, devastating question.
• 0:15
  Speaker 3: It really is.
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: And that's exactly what is currently unfolding right now in
• 0:18
  a Massachusetts court room. Today is July twenty seven, twenty
• 0:22
  twenty six, and opening statements have just concluded in a
• 0:25
  trial that is honestly testing the absolute limits of.
• 0:28
  Speaker 2: Our justice system and our psychiatric institutions too. I mean,
• 0:31
  our fundamental understanding of human reality is on trial here.
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: Absolutely, So I want to welcome you, our listener, to
• 0:38
  a deep dive that is incredibly heavy, but we feel
• 0:41
  profoundly necessary. We are looking at the murder trial of
• 0:45
  Lindsay Clancy.
• 0:46
  Speaker 2: Right, and it's a case that is commanded national and
• 0:48
  international attention. Well, it forces us to look at the
• 0:52
  darkest intersections of biology and law. Based on the expanse
• 0:55
  of source material we're examining today. Lindsay Clancy is a
• 0:59
  thirty five year old former labor and delivery nurse. She
• 1:01
  stands charged with three counts of first degree murder for
• 1:04
  the January twenty four to twenty twenty three deaths of
• 1:07
  her three young children. So that's five year old Korra,
• 1:10
  three year old Dawson, an eight month old Kalent.
• 1:13
  Speaker 3: Such a tragedy, and she.
• 1:14
  Speaker 2: Has pleaded not guilty to all charges. So our mission
• 1:18
  today is to forensically examine how the legal system attempts
• 1:22
  to untangle this level of profound personal tragedy.
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: Right alongside an incredibly complex psychiatric medical history, to arrive
• 1:29
  at a legal definition of criminal responsibility exactly. But before
• 1:33
  we go a single step further, I need to place
• 1:35
  a massive explicit disclaimer right here at the very beginning
• 1:39
  of our deep dive.
• 1:40
  Speaker 2: Yes, very important.
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: The source material we are unpacking today touches on highly
• 1:43
  sensitive legal, medical, and honestly incredibly polarizing societal themes.
• 1:49
  Speaker 2: Yeah, we are discussing the deaths of young children, severe
• 1:52
  maternal mental illness, suicide, and the mechanics of the criminal
• 1:56
  justice system.
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: Right and because of the intense and nature of these topics,
• 2:01
  we are absolutely not taking a side, No, not at all.
• 2:04
  That is not our role, and frankly, it just wouldn't
• 2:06
  be helpful to you. Our role is to impartially report
• 2:09
  on the contents of the provided source material. We are
• 2:11
  not endorsing any viewpoints. We are not playing judge or jury,
• 2:15
  and we're definitely not taking political or social stances.
• 2:18
  Speaker 2: We are simply trying to convey the ideas, the factual baseline,
• 2:23
  and the legal arguments exactly as they are laid out
• 2:26
  in the text we've gathered. Right, the legal system itself relies,
• 2:30
  or well at least attempts to rely on the objective
• 2:33
  evaluation of facts, and that is the standard we are
• 2:36
  holding ourselves to today.
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: Yeah, we are looking at the structural mechanics of the
• 2:40
  arguments presented by both the prosecution and the defense, not
• 2:44
  delivering a verdict exactly. Okay, let's unpack this. We have
• 2:47
  to start with the physical reality of the courtroom today
• 2:50
  because it provides just the starkest possible contrast to the
• 2:54
  events of twenty twenty three.
• 2:55
  Speaker 2: It really does. The trial is taking place in Plymouth,
• 2:58
  Massachusetts before Superior Judge William F. Sullivan, and the setting
• 3:02
  itself is a major factor.
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: Yeah. So the tragedy occurred on January twenty fourth, twenty
• 3:07
  twenty three, and according to the sources, on that evening,
• 3:10
  Patrick Clancy, Lindsay's husband, left their family home in Duxbury
• 3:14
  to run a specific errand.
• 3:16
  Speaker 2: Right. He went to pick up takeout food from a
• 3:17
  local restaurant and a medication prescription from a pharmacy.
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: And the duration of that errand, which was roughly a
• 3:24
  twenty to forty minute window, is going to become a
• 3:27
  microscopic battleground for the lawyers, which we will analyze shortly.
• 3:31
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it's crucial. But when he returned, the sources detail
• 3:34
  that he discovered an absolutely catastrophic scene. Lindsay Clancy had
• 3:39
  suffered severe traumatic injuries from a suicide attempt. She survived
• 3:44
  that attempt, but the physical trauma left her permanently paralyzed
• 3:47
  from the waist down, and tragically, the three children were
• 3:50
  found deceased in the home.
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: Following this, she was charged with first degree murder and
• 3:54
  the text mentions a procedural detail that really.
• 3:57
  Speaker 3: Caught my eye.
• 3:57
  Speaker 2: Oh about tho strangulation charges.
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: Yeah, initial charges of strangulation were actually dropped by the prosecution.
• 4:03
  They were deemed redundant.
• 4:04
  Speaker 2: Right, which feels like a very deliberate choice by the
• 4:07
  district attorney to sort of streamline the.
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: Narrative exactly, focusing the legal weight entirely and exclusively on
• 4:13
  those three counts of first degree murder.
• 4:16
  Speaker 2: Since then, she has been held at Tewksbury State Hospital
• 4:19
  under court ordered conditions, receiving ongoing medical and psychiatric.
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: Care, and because of that permanent paralysis, she now attends
• 4:27
  this trial in a wheelchair. When I read that detail
• 4:31
  in the source material, it just struck me how jarring
• 4:34
  the visual reality of this courtroom must be for the
• 4:37
  eighteen people sitting in the jury.
• 4:39
  Speaker 2: Box, completely jarring.
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: It's like the courtroom is a bizarre time machine. You
• 4:44
  have the jury forced to look at the permanent physical
• 4:47
  aftermath of that day. You know, a mother sitting silently
• 4:51
  in a wheelchair while they are simultaneously being asked by
• 4:54
  the lawyers to reconstruct an invisible, completely shattered mental state
• 4:57
  from three years ago, judging the psychological reality of the
• 5:02
  past based on the physical devastation of the.
• 5:04
  Speaker 2: Present, and that visual dissonance is a powerful psychological factor.
• 5:09
  The defense is actively leaning into that physical reality to
• 5:13
  underscore the severity of the tragedy and what makes this
• 5:17
  specific trial structure so unusual and what completely alters. The
• 5:21
  traditional anatomy of a murder trial is what the defense
• 5:24
  is actually not arguing. Yeah, as the sources point out,
• 5:27
  the actual physical facts of what happened in that house
• 5:30
  on January twenty fourth aren't really being contested.
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: Wait really, in a first degree murder trial, the defense
• 5:36
  is just conceding the act.
• 5:38
  Speaker 2: Yes, right. The defense council Kevin Reddington, has indicated a
• 5:42
  willingness to concede that Lindsey actually caused the children's deaths.
• 5:46
  Speaker 3: Wow.
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: That feels like a massive, almost counterintuitive legal maneuver. I mean,
• 5:50
  if you concede the act, what is left to defend.
• 5:53
  Speaker 2: Well, it's a massive maneuver, but it is highly strategic
• 5:56
  and honestly necessary given the evidence. In the legal world,
• 5:59
  a time is generally made up of two components. You
• 6:02
  have the actus reus, which is the guilty act, and
• 6:04
  the mensrael, which is the guilty mind. By conceding the
• 6:07
  actus reus, the physical act of causing the deaths, the
• 6:12
  defense entirely shifts the legal battleground. The trial is no
• 6:16
  longer a whodunit.
• 6:18
  Speaker 3: Oh I see.
• 6:19
  Speaker 2: It moves the entire focus of the court away from
• 6:21
  the mechanics of the tragedy. The jury doesn't have to
• 6:24
  debate whether she was the one in the house. That
• 6:26
  concession forces the trial entirely into the realm of men'sria.
• 6:31
  Speaker 3: So it makes the entire case about why it.
• 6:33
  Speaker 2: Happens exactly, moving us directly into the incredibly complex, often
• 6:38
  contradictory legal definitions of insanity and criminal responsibility, which.
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: Brings us to the battle lines drawn in the opening
• 6:45
  statements we saw. Today we have two completely incompatible narratives
• 6:49
  being presented to this jury about the exact same sequence
• 6:52
  of events. On one side, we have Assistant District Attorney
• 6:55
  she Nan Buckingham representing the state. Her argument, according to
• 6:59
  the source, is that Lindsay c. Lancy acted intentionally, rationally,
• 7:02
  and swiftly.
• 7:03
  Speaker 2: Yes. The prosecution is heavily pointing to the fact that
• 7:05
  she utilized her phone for online searches.
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: Right specifically looking up how long it would take to
• 7:10
  get takeout from a specific restaurant exactly.
• 7:13
  Speaker 2: And that she actively arranged for her husband to leave
• 7:15
  the house for.
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: That errand the prosecution's burden here is to demonstrate what
• 7:20
  psychiatry and the law called gold directed behavior. Yes, by
• 7:24
  highlighting the use of a Maps application, the checking of
• 7:27
  the time and the orchestration of the husband's absence. The
• 7:30
  state is attempting to paint a picture of a mind
• 7:33
  that was highly capable of planning, calculating time, and executing
• 7:37
  a sequential plan.
• 7:39
  Speaker 2: Right. They're arguing that, regardless of her documented history of
• 7:42
  mental health struggles, on that specific Tuesday evening, she was
• 7:47
  not in the throes of a sudden chaotic psychosis that
• 7:49
  robbed her of her agency.
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: They are arguing, the timeline proves clarity exactly.
• 7:54
  Speaker 2: But then you have the defense's opening statement. Defense attorney
• 7:57
  Kevin Reddington counters this by describing Lindsay is a fundamentally
• 8:01
  loving mother and a dedicated neonatal nurse who would never
• 8:04
  harm her children in her right mind.
• 8:06
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 8:07
  Speaker 2: His entire argument rests on the premise that her mind
• 8:09
  was systematically destroyed over months by severe postpartum psychosis.
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: Right, which was then drastically compounded by a massive, complex
• 8:18
  cocktail of psychiatric drugs prescribed by her doctors.
• 8:22
  Speaker 2: And this direct conflict in narratives forces us to look
• 8:25
  at the specific legal standard that will govern every piece
• 8:29
  of evidence in this trial. The source explicitly notes that
• 8:33
  Massachusetts operates under a legal standard for criminal responsibility derived
• 8:37
  from a landmark case called Commonwealth be McCool.
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: I really want to dig into that, because whenever we
• 8:42
  talk about legal standards for insanity on this show, the
• 8:45
  law always seems so rigid and binary compared to the
• 8:49
  absolute fluidity of human psychology.
• 8:51
  Speaker 2: Oh completely, How.
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: Does the McCool standard actually function in a courtroom?
• 8:55
  Speaker 3: What are the rules of the game here.
• 8:57
  Speaker 2: Well, it's a fascinating legal framework and it's the end
• 9:00
  in driving this entire trial. First, we have to look
• 9:03
  at the burden of proof. Okay, under the McCool standard,
• 9:06
  once the defense formally raises the issue of insanity or
• 9:09
  lack of criminal responsibility, the burden of proof does not sit.
• 9:12
  Speaker 3: With the defense way really right.
• 9:14
  Speaker 2: It shifts entirely to the prosecution. The state must prove
• 9:18
  beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was criminally responsible.
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: Hold on, let me make sure I understand the mechanics
• 9:24
  of that. The defense doesn't have to prove she was insane. Nope,
• 9:27
  they just suggest it, and the prosecution has to scientifically
• 9:30
  prove she was sane. That sounds incredibly difficult for the state.
• 9:34
  Speaker 2: It is notoriously difficult, which is why successful insanity defenses,
• 9:39
  while rare, are so heavily litigated. The prosecution has to
• 9:43
  prove criminal responsibility, and under McCool they have two distinct
• 9:47
  paths to do that.
• 9:48
  Speaker 3: Okay, what's the first path.
• 9:50
  Speaker 2: First, they can attempt to prove that the defendant did
• 9:52
  not suffer from any mental disease or defect at all.
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: Well, given her extensive medical history, which the source material
• 9:59
  goes into deep detail, on that first route seems virtually impossible.
• 10:04
  I mean, the records show she was hospitalized, attending specialized clinics,
• 10:08
  and actively seeking psychiatric health Repeatedly. A prosecutor can't stand
• 10:12
  in front of a jury and argue she had a
• 10:14
  perfectly clean bill of mental health.
• 10:17
  Speaker 2: Precisely, the documentary evidence of her illness forces the prosecution
• 10:22
  to abandon that first path. They must concede she had
• 10:25
  a mental.
• 10:25
  Speaker 3: Illness, so they have to take the second path, right.
• 10:27
  Speaker 2: So that forces the state down the second, much more
• 10:31
  complicated path of the McCole standard. The prosecution has to
• 10:34
  prove to the jury that even if she did have
• 10:37
  a severe mental disease, she still retains substantial capacity to
• 10:41
  do one of two things at the exact moment of
• 10:44
  the crime.
• 10:45
  Speaker 3: Okay, what are those two things?
• 10:47
  Speaker 2: Either she had the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness
• 10:50
  of her conduct, or she had the substantial capacity to
• 10:54
  conform her conduct to the requirements of the law.
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: Right. But here's where it gets really interesting and struggling
• 11:00
  with the prosecution's logic here, and I want to push
• 11:02
  back on it based on what we're reading in these sources.
• 11:04
  Speaker 2: Okay, go ahead.
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: The prosecution says she made a plan, she checked her phone,
• 11:08
  she sent her husband away, she understood the concept of time. Therefore,
• 11:12
  they argue, she's rational and had substantial capacity.
• 11:15
  Speaker 2: Right, that's their angle.
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: But if someone is experiencing a total break from reality,
• 11:20
  a severe psychosis, couldn't they still make a plan within
• 11:24
  the context of that delusion? Yes, How does the law
• 11:28
  distinguish between a rational plan and a psychotic plan? I mean,
• 11:32
  I can organize my desk perfectly while having a panic attack.
• 11:35
  Doesn't psychiatry completely separate organizational skills from reality testing.
• 11:40
  Speaker 2: What's fascinating here is that you have just articulated the
• 11:43
  exact devastating paradox that juris struggle with the most in
• 11:47
  these cases. Really, Yes, the law historically is a very
• 11:52
  blunt instrument. When dealing with this specific psychiatric nuance, the
• 11:56
  legal system looks for sequential gold directed behavior, ranging an
• 12:00
  errand or looking at a map, and often falsely equates
• 12:03
  that organizational ability with moral comprehension.
• 12:06
  Speaker 3: Wow.
• 12:07
  Speaker 2: The law assumes that if the brain's executive function can
• 12:09
  sequence an event, the brain's moral center must also be.
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: Intact, because the assumption is, well, if you can plan
• 12:15
  to order takeout, you must know what you're doing is
• 12:17
  real and therefore wrong.
• 12:19
  Speaker 2: That is the exact assumption the prosecution relies upon. But
• 12:22
  psychiatric science tells us something entirely different. A person suffering
• 12:26
  from severe psychosis experiencing intense delusions or hallucinations can actually
• 12:32
  be highly organized within the internal, terrifying logic of their
• 12:36
  own delusion.
• 12:37
  Speaker 3: Wow okay.
• 12:38
  Speaker 2: They might systematically plan an action because, in their break
• 12:42
  from reality, they believe it is absolutely necessary or even
• 12:45
  morally imperative.
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: So if a delusion tells a mother that the world
• 12:50
  is ending in fire and the only way to save
• 12:52
  her children's souls is to end their lives peacefully before
• 12:55
  the fire arrives, she might methodically.
• 12:58
  Speaker 2: Plan that out exactly.
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: She might send her house been away so he doesn't
• 13:01
  interfere with the saving of the children. She is planning,
• 13:04
  she is organizing, but she has absolutely zero capacity to
• 13:07
  appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct, because in her mind
• 13:10
  she's committing a righteous act of salvation exactly.
• 13:14
  Speaker 2: That is the terrifying reality of psychosis, and that is
• 13:17
  why the McCool standard uses the word appreciate. It is
• 13:21
  not just about knowing that an act is illegal. It
• 13:24
  is about having the cognitive and emotional capacity to appreciate
• 13:27
  its moral wrongfulness in reality. So this jury of eighteen
• 13:31
  regular people is tasked with untangling whether her organization of
• 13:35
  that Tuesday evening was the act of a rational, calculating
• 13:38
  mind trying to hide a crime, or the desperate act
• 13:42
  of a severely ill mind operating under a tragic, inescapable delusion.
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: It sounds like an impossible task, you know. You can't
• 13:49
  just look at the events of January twenty fourth in
• 13:51
  a vacuum to figure that out. If you only look
• 13:54
  at the forty minute window of the Erran, you just
• 13:56
  see the actions. You don't see the mind driving them.
• 13:59
  Speaker 2: You absolutely cannot look at it in a vacuum. And
• 14:02
  that is why this trial cannot and will not be
• 14:05
  limited to the day of the tragedy. To answer the
• 14:08
  profound question of criminal responsibility. To figure out if she
• 14:11
  possessed that substantial capacity, the jury has to become forensic psychologists.
• 14:16
  They have to examine the weeks, the months, and the
• 14:18
  medical charts leading up to that day.
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: Which brings us to the massive medical crisis at the
• 14:22
  absolute center of the defense's argument. Let's dive into Lindsay's
• 14:26
  medical background, because the source material paints a picture of
• 14:29
  just a slow motion collapse.
• 14:30
  Speaker 2: It really does.
• 14:31
  Speaker 3: She wasn't an outsider to the medical field.
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: She actually worked as a labor and delivery nurse at
• 14:36
  Massachusetts General Hospital, a major, highly respected Boston facility.
• 14:41
  Speaker 2: Right, so she had a deep professional understanding of maternal health, childbirth,
• 14:46
  and postpartum care.
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and she and Patrick had three children in relatively
• 14:50
  quick succession. And it was after the birth of their
• 14:53
  third child, Callen, in May of twenty twenty two that
• 14:56
  the source notes she began experiencing these significant, escalating mental
• 15:01
  health struggles.
• 15:02
  Speaker 2: The timeline here is critical for the jury to understand.
• 15:05
  These struggles didn't just appear on January twenty fourth, They
• 15:08
  escalated rapidly throughout the final months of twenty twenty two
• 15:11
  and into early twenty twenty three, right, and the medical
• 15:14
  records indicate she wasn't hiding this deterioration. She was actively,
• 15:18
  almost desperately seeking help. She went to a specialized perinatal
• 15:22
  psychiatric center, and she even underwent evaluations in McLean Hospital,
• 15:25
  which is one of the most highly regarded psychiatric facilities
• 15:28
  in the country. She was in the system.
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: The defense is explicitly pointing toward postpartum psychosis. The source
• 15:35
  gives us some vital context on this condition because the
• 15:37
  public often conflates it with postpartum depression.
• 15:40
  Speaker 2: Right, and they're vastly different exactly.
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: Postpartum psychosis is statistically rare, estimated to affect only one
• 15:47
  to two women per thousand births. But it is not
• 15:50
  just severe depression. It's considered an absolute life threatening psychiatric emergency. Yes,
• 15:56
  the literature in our sources describes it as a condition
• 15:59
  triggered by the massive sudden drop in hormones like estrogen
• 16:02
  and progesterone immediately after childbirth, which in rare cases triggers
• 16:07
  severe mood disturbances, mania, paranoia, hallucinations, and a complete loss
• 16:12
  of impaired reality.
• 16:13
  Speaker 2: Testing and that phrase, impaired reality testing is exactly what
• 16:17
  the defense is going to map onto the mcool standard. Right,
• 16:20
  if your biological reality testing is destroyed by a hormone
• 16:23
  induced psychosis, do you have the substantial capacity to appreciate wrongfulness?
• 16:28
  The defense argues vehemently that you do not. The brain
• 16:32
  is quite literally not processing the same universe as everyone else.
• 16:35
  Speaker 3: Wow.
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: But the underlying illness itself is only half of the
• 16:40
  defense's medical argument. The other half is what the text
• 16:43
  refers to as polypharmacy. Yes, and honestly, this part of
• 16:47
  the source material is just staggering to read. According to
• 16:51
  the medical reports cited in the text, Lindsay Clancy was
• 16:54
  prescribed more than a dozen different psychiatric medications over a
• 16:58
  period of roughly four to five months.
• 17:01
  Speaker 2: We are talking about a rapidly changing, highly complex pharmacological
• 17:05
  regimen over a dozen Yeah. The sources indicate this included
• 17:09
  multiple antidepressants, various axiolytics for anxiety, sleep aids, and at
• 17:14
  least one antipsychotic medication.
• 17:17
  Speaker 3: That's intense.
• 17:18
  Speaker 2: From a clinical perspective, this is a nightmare scenario to
• 17:20
  untangle retroactively. The challenge for the defense's medical experts testifying
• 17:24
  in this trial will be distinguishing between the side effects
• 17:27
  of this massive combination of medications and the symptoms of
• 17:30
  the underlying illness she was initially trying to treat.
• 17:33
  Speaker 1: I really want to understand the mechanism of this, because
• 17:36
  just saying you know, she took a lot of pills
• 17:38
  doesn't capture the severity. Imagine the brain's neurotransmitter system, specifically serotonin, dopamine,
• 17:45
  and GABBA, as a delicate, interconnected highway system.
• 17:48
  Speaker 2: Okay, good analogy.
• 17:50
  Speaker 1: An antidepressant, like an SSRI, adds more cars to speed
• 17:54
  up traffic on the serotonin highway, but an antipsychotic might
• 17:57
  act like a roadblock on the dopamine highway to slow
• 17:59
  things down. If a doctor is rapidly prescribing both constantly
• 18:04
  changing the doses and switching classes of drugs before the
• 18:07
  previous ones are even out of her system, you aren't
• 18:10
  just getting heavy mental traffic. You are causing high speed
• 18:13
  biochemical pile ups.
• 18:15
  Speaker 3: In the brain.
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: Yes, exactly, and the symptoms of this biochemical pile up
• 18:19
  agitation ekethesia mania can mimic the exact psychosis that doctors
• 18:24
  are frantically trying to cure.
• 18:25
  Speaker 2: There's a highly accurate way to visualize the mechanism of polypharmacy.
• 18:29
  The defense experts are going to argue exactly that point
• 18:32
  to the jury. They will state that the rapid addition, tapering,
• 18:35
  and switching of these powerful psychotropic medications, with all their complex,
• 18:40
  overlapping half lives and chemical interactions, essentially created a toxic
• 18:44
  neurological environment. They'll argue that the medical system's frantic attempts
• 18:49
  to fix the chemical glitch in her brain actually cause
• 18:52
  the entire system to crash fatally. They are arguing hitrogenic harm,
• 18:57
  meaning the treatment itself caused the severe pathology.
• 19:01
  Speaker 1: But the prosecution has their own medical experts, and they
• 19:04
  aren't just going to ignore the medical records. I'm curious
• 19:07
  how the state counters this. If a patient is exhibiting
• 19:10
  severe paranoia or is deeply disconnected from reality due to
• 19:14
  either psychosis or a medication pile up, wouldn't a.
• 19:18
  Speaker 3: Doctor's chart reflect that, you would think so.
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: Is the prosecution relying on the fact that she was
• 19:23
  evaluated and deemed safe.
• 19:25
  Speaker 2: Yes, The prosecution's counter argument relies heavily on the clinical documentation.
• 19:31
  Their experts are expected to point out that in the
• 19:33
  numerous psychiatric evaluations conducted closer to the time of the deaths,
• 19:36
  including her time at McLean clinicians, did not formally diagnose
• 19:40
  psychosis at the profound, reality breaking level the defense is
• 19:43
  now claiming.
• 19:44
  Speaker 3: Oh.
• 19:44
  Speaker 2: The prosecution will argue that these are trained professionals. Yea.
• 19:48
  If she was truly in a stase of full blown
• 19:50
  florid psychosis, the doctors evaluating her in those final weeks
• 19:55
  would have documented it. They would have held her involuntarily,
• 19:58
  and they would have intervened.
• 19:59
  Speaker 3: Wait couldn't she have been masking it?
• 20:01
  Speaker 2: Ah?
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: Our sources mentioned that maternal mental health often involves a
• 20:05
  smiling depression where a mother, especially a medically trained nurse
• 20:09
  like Lindsay, might know exactly what to say to a
• 20:12
  doctor to avoid having her children taken away or being committed.
• 20:16
  She knows the clinical buzzwords. Couldn't she have hidden the
• 20:19
  psychosis from the doctors.
• 20:21
  Speaker 2: That is exactly the CounterPunch the defense will throw. They
• 20:24
  will argue that her background as a nurse gave her
• 20:27
  the clinical vocabulary to mask her deepest symptoms. Right, But
• 20:31
  this creates a profound evidentiary mess. It's a battle of
• 20:35
  the experts where one side is arguing the medication caused
• 20:38
  an invisible break, and the other side is arguing that
• 20:40
  if the doctors didn't write it down, it didn't happen.
• 20:43
  But this medical deterioration, this biochemical pile up, wasn't just
• 20:47
  happening in sterile clinical notes or hospital waiting rooms. It
• 20:50
  was happening in a living room, in a kitchen every single.
• 20:54
  Speaker 3: Day, which is just heartbreaking to think about it.
• 20:57
  Speaker 2: Right, And the person who had a front row seat
• 20:59
  to this escalating, terrifying crisis is now the most complicated
• 21:04
  and emotionally devastating witness in the entire trial.
• 21:07
  Speaker 1: You are talking about Patrick Clancy, the husband and father,
• 21:10
  and his role in this proceeding is uniquely.
• 21:12
  Speaker 3: Heartbreaking, but legally it is just a labyrinth.
• 21:16
  Speaker 2: He really is.
• 21:16
  Speaker 1: According to the source, he was actually called as the
• 21:18
  first witness in the trial by the prosecution. This is
• 21:21
  a man who discovered the unimaginable. The text notes he
• 21:24
  has since sold the family home in Duxbury and moved.
• 21:27
  But what is so striking and what makes his testimony
• 21:29
  so incredibly complex, are his public statements leading up to
• 21:33
  this trial. In a detailed interview published in twenty twenty, four.
• 21:37
  He explicitly stated that his wife got sick. He said
• 21:40
  on the record that she wasn't a monster. He has
• 21:42
  even joined or filed civil actions against the medical providers,
• 21:46
  alleging they failed in their diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of her.
• 21:50
  Speaker 2: The legal and emotional weight of his presence on the
• 21:53
  stand cannot be overstated, and it presents a strategic nightmare
• 21:57
  for the prosecution. I can imagine consider his structural position
• 22:02
  in this trial. He is technically a witness for the state.
• 22:06
  The prosecution needs.
• 22:07
  Speaker 3: Him right to set the timeline exactly.
• 22:09
  Speaker 2: They need him to establish the factual timeline of January
• 22:13
  twenty fourth, the fact that she called him, the fact
• 22:15
  that he went for takeout, the prescription run, the exact
• 22:18
  time stamps of his absence, and the horrific discovery upon
• 22:21
  his return. They need his testimony to build their chronological
• 22:25
  case for premeditation.
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: But that timeline you just laid out creates an unbelievable
• 22:30
  legal paradox because at the exact same time he is
• 22:33
  providing the States timeline. This is a man who fundamentally
• 22:37
  believes his wife was failed by the medical system, which
• 22:40
  is the absolute core of the defense's argument. He is
• 22:43
  the prosecution's star witness, but he is the defense's greatest asset.
• 22:47
  Speaker 2: Exactly when the defense attorney cross examines him, they aren't
• 22:51
  going to ask him about the takeout order. No, they
• 22:53
  are going to use his first hand accounts of the months, weeks,
• 22:55
  and days leading up to the tragedy. They will ask
• 22:58
  him about her escalating anxiety, the severe behavioral changes he
• 23:01
  witnessed when she woke up, the physical toll of the
• 23:04
  rapidly changing medications, the zoning out, the panic. His testimony
• 23:09
  about her day to day psychiatric deterioration is going to fundamentally,
• 23:13
  perhaps unbreakably, aid the defense's narrative that she was deeply,
• 23:17
  severely ill. He is the ultimate chronicler of her decline.
• 23:22
  Speaker 1: So what does this all mean for the jury? How
• 23:24
  is a jury composed of ordinary citizens supposed to weigh
• 23:27
  the testimony of the victim's father, the person who suffered
• 23:30
  the most profound, unfathomable loss imaginable in this scenario, when
• 23:33
  he is essentially validating the core narrative.
• 23:36
  Speaker 3: Of the defense.
• 23:36
  Speaker 2: It's so tough.
• 23:37
  Speaker 1: How does a prosecutor even handle cross examining their own
• 23:41
  star witness when that witness is expressing profound empathy.
• 23:44
  Speaker 2: For the defendant, it is a prosecutor's tightrope walk over
• 23:47
  a canyon. The state has to treat him with the
• 23:50
  utmost respect and deference because of his unimaginable trauma. If
• 23:55
  the prosecution attacks him or seems aggressive, they will instantly
• 23:59
  alienate the jury. But they also have to subtly carefully
• 24:02
  compartmentalize his testimony. They will likely try to frame his
• 24:06
  empathy as the natural psychological reaction of a grieving, loving
• 24:10
  husband who is desperately looking for a medical explanation for
• 24:13
  the inexplicable Oh wow.
• 24:16
  Speaker 1: So they have to gently suggest to the jury that
• 24:18
  his perspective, while entirely understandable and deeply human, is actually
• 24:22
  a coping mechanism.
• 24:23
  Speaker 2: Yes, the prosecution might subtly suggest that his belief that
• 24:26
  it was the medication or there was the doctor's fault,
• 24:29
  is a psychological defense mechanism, a way for him to
• 24:31
  avoid the unbearable, soul crushing thought that the woman he
• 24:35
  loved and built a life with committed this act intentionally.
• 24:38
  Speaker 1: Wow.
• 24:38
  Speaker 2: They have to argue that his reality is clouded by grief,
• 24:41
  and therefore his assessment of her mental state is legally unreliable.
• 24:45
  Speaker 1: That is incredibly dark, and the defense conversely will stand
• 24:49
  up and argue that no one on earth knew her
• 24:51
  better than he did. They will argue that he saw
• 24:54
  her without the clinical mask, and if he says she
• 24:56
  was lost to an illness, the jury should believe him
• 24:59
  over an any expert looking at a chart three years later.
• 25:02
  Exactly the immense emotional weight of his perspective and the raw,
• 25:07
  visceral tragedy of the details he has to recount is
• 25:10
  exactly why curating the evidence for this jury was such
• 25:13
  an incredibly intense pre trial battle. Absolutely before a single
• 25:16
  opening statement was made, the judge had to figure out
• 25:19
  how to keep this trial from collapsing under its own
• 25:21
  emotional weight, And.
• 25:23
  Speaker 2: That brings us to the architecture of the trial itself.
• 25:26
  Selecting the jury and deciding what they are legally allowed
• 25:29
  to hear and see is a massive part of our
• 25:31
  source material because that dictates the entire flow of information. Yeah,
• 25:35
  jury selection began in mid July of twenty twenty six,
• 25:38
  and the text describes the process as intensive. They identified
• 25:41
  a pool of more than two hundred potential witnesses for
• 25:44
  this trial, which gives you an idea of the scope.
• 25:46
  Speaker 1: To whittle down a jury pool for a case with
• 25:49
  this much national media attention involving the violent deaths of
• 25:52
  three young children is a monumental task.
• 25:55
  Speaker 2: It really is.
• 25:56
  Speaker 1: You aren't just looking for people who are available. You
• 25:58
  are looking for people who have already convicted her or
• 26:02
  exonerated her in their own minds based on a headline.
• 26:04
  Speaker 2: Right, the final panel they landed on is eighteen people.
• 26:08
  That's twelve deliberating jurors who will actually decide the verdict
• 26:11
  and six alternates who will sit through the entire trial
• 26:14
  in case someone falls ill or is dismissed.
• 26:16
  Speaker 1: And the source notes the majority of the final jury
• 26:19
  are women.
• 26:19
  Speaker 2: Yes, and the vetting process involved highly detailed, invasive questionnaires.
• 26:25
  They had to ask these prospective jurors deeply personal questions
• 26:29
  about their attitudes on mental health, their personal or familial
• 26:32
  experiences with postpartum depression of sotosis, their exposure to the
• 26:35
  relentless media coverage, and most intensely, their psychological ability to
• 26:41
  impartially consider an insanity defense in a case involving the
• 26:44
  deaths of young children.
• 26:45
  Speaker 1: You can imagine how difficult it is to find jurors
• 26:48
  who haven't already formed an emotional opinion. But beyond selecting
• 26:52
  the people, Judge Sullivan had to make highly critical pre
• 26:55
  trial rulings about the evidence itself, and these rulings shape
• 26:59
  the reality the jury. We'll see The source outlines several
• 27:03
  specific major rulings he made. First, he strictly limited the
• 27:07
  public dissemination and the courtroom display of the autosy photographs
• 27:11
  and the audio recording of Patrick Clancy's initial nine one
• 27:14
  one call.
• 27:15
  Speaker 2: This raises an important question, and this limitation raises a
• 27:18
  vital concept in criminal law regarding the fundamental purpose of evidence.
• 27:22
  The judge's role here is to balance two fiercely competing
• 27:26
  interests under a rule often known as.
• 27:28
  Speaker 3: Rule four to oh three okay rule four O three.
• 27:30
  Speaker 2: On one hand, you have the absolute need for probative
• 27:33
  relevant evidence. The jury must understand the facts and severity
• 27:36
  of the crime. On the other hand, the judge must
• 27:39
  prevent what the law calls unfair prejudice.
• 27:41
  Speaker 1: Meaning you don't want the jury to be so traumatized,
• 27:44
  so viscerally horrified by the evidence that they stop thinking
• 27:46
  legally and only react emotional Exactly.
• 27:49
  Speaker 2: The fear is the spillover effect. If the sheer unbearable
• 27:54
  emotional horror of hearing the father's nine one one call
• 27:58
  or seeing the autopsy photos of chilldren and completely overwhelms
• 28:02
  the juror's nervous systems. They might become psychologically incapable of
• 28:06
  objectively applying the complex, highly intellectual mkill standard regarding psychiatric capacity.
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: Right, They will just want to punish someone for the horror.
• 28:15
  Speaker 2: Yes, the judge also heavily cited the privacy and dignity
• 28:19
  interests of the family in limiting that dissemination.
• 28:22
  Speaker 1: But the defense also made some major requests regarding evidence
• 28:25
  that were denied by the judge. The source notes the
• 28:27
  defense unsuccessfully tried to call witnesses who had personal, lived
• 28:31
  experience with postpartum psychosis. Right, Judge Sullivan limited that kind
• 28:35
  of anecdotal testimony. Why would he block that? Wouldn't that
• 28:38
  help the jury understand the illness.
• 28:40
  Speaker 2: The defense's strategy was likely to bring in outside individuals
• 28:43
  to say to the jury, you know, I suffered from
• 28:45
  postpartum psychosis, and this is exactly how completely and terrifyingly
• 28:49
  it detached me from reality.
• 28:51
  Speaker 3: Yeah, that makes sense.
• 28:52
  Speaker 2: They wanted to use human stories to educate the jury
• 28:55
  on the condition, making it relatable and real rather than
• 28:59
  just clinical jar However, the judge likely limited this because
• 29:03
  it violates the rules of specific relevance.
• 29:06
  Speaker 3: Oh because they aren't Lindsay exactly.
• 29:08
  Speaker 2: Those outside witnesses couldn't speak to Lindsay Clancy's specific state
• 29:11
  of mind on January twenty fourth. Their testimony might confuse
• 29:16
  the jury into judging the severity of the illness in
• 29:18
  general rather than evaluating the specific legal capacity of the
• 29:22
  defendant in particular.
• 29:24
  Speaker 1: That makes sense legally, even if it hurts the defense's
• 29:26
  ability to tell a story. But the biggest, most consequential
• 29:30
  ruling mentioned in the text is that Judge Sullivan completely
• 29:33
  denied a defense request for a bifurcated trial. Can you
• 29:37
  explain what a bifurcated trial actually is, because based on
• 29:40
  the source, it seems like the defense viewed this as
• 29:42
  crucial to their strategy.
• 29:44
  Speaker 2: A bifurcated trial means literally splitting the trial into two
• 29:47
  completely separate sequential phases, often with two separate verdicts. If
• 29:52
  this had been granted in phase one, the jury would
• 29:55
  only hear evidence about the physical acts. The only question
• 29:59
  would be did she physically cause the deaths? If they
• 30:02
  find yes, then an entirely separate phase two begins. Phase
• 30:06
  two would focus exclusively on her medical history, criminal responsibility,
• 30:11
  and her mental state.
• 30:12
  Speaker 1: Why would the defense want that so badly? What is
• 30:15
  the psychological advantage?
• 30:16
  Speaker 2: Because they desperately want to separate the emotional horror of
• 30:20
  the physical act from the cold clinical analysis of her mind.
• 30:24
  Speaker 3: Ah.
• 30:25
  Speaker 2: If the trial is unified into one proceeding as it
• 30:27
  is right now, the jury is hearing about the tragic
• 30:30
  deaths of the children and the complex medical history of
• 30:33
  psychiatric drug interactions, all mixed together in the same afternoon.
• 30:37
  Right the defense intensely fears that the sheer, unimaginable atrocity
• 30:41
  of the acts will permanently bias the jury against finding
• 30:44
  her not criminally responsible. A bifurcated trial attempts to quarantine
• 30:48
  the emotion in phase one so phase two can be
• 30:51
  a purely scientific evaluation of the McCool standard. By denying it,
• 30:55
  the judge ensures the jury must grapple with the totality
• 30:57
  of the circumstances, the horror and the medicine all at once.
• 31:01
  Speaker 1: That brings up a really deep philosophical question for me
• 31:04
  about how the justice system operates. By sanitizing the evidence,
• 31:08
  by limiting the photos, restricting the nine to one on audio,
• 31:11
  and limiting personal accounts of the illness. Does the court
• 31:14
  risk hiding the true chaotic severity of.
• 31:18
  Speaker 3: Her mental break fair question?
• 31:20
  Speaker 1: Or does it rightfully protect the jury from pure emotional
• 31:23
  trauma that could cloud their legal judgment. It feels like
• 31:26
  the court is trying to create a sterile, perfectly controlled
• 31:29
  laboratory environment to analyze an event that is inherently messy, tragic,
• 31:33
  and utterly chaotic.
• 31:35
  Speaker 2: It is a profound observation the trial system is an
• 31:38
  inherently imperfect mechanism. It is an attempt to impose rigid
• 31:42
  rational order and binary outcomes onto an entirely irrational, catastrophic
• 31:46
  human event. And how this specific jury of eighteen Massachusetts
• 31:50
  residents navigates these carefully curated facts won't just decide Lindsay
• 31:55
  Clancy's individual fate. As our expansive source material points out,
• 31:59
  the implications of this trial will echo far beyond the
• 32:03
  walls of the Plymouth Superior Court.
• 32:05
  Speaker 1: It really is a focal point for a much larger
• 32:08
  systemic issue. The text notes that this case has sparked
• 32:11
  a massive, ongoing national conversation about maternal mental health in
• 32:16
  this country as it has it is shining a blinding,
• 32:20
  harsh light on critical gaps in early screening, the severe
• 32:23
  lack of specialized in patient care capacity for mothers, the
• 32:27
  battles over insurance coverage for perinatal psychiatric services, and the
• 32:31
  education of clinicians who prescribe these heavy medications.
• 32:34
  Speaker 2: It's important to connect this back to why anyone listening
• 32:36
  to this deep dive should care, even if they have
• 32:39
  absolutely no personal connection to the Clancy family, the Duxbury community,
• 32:42
  or the Massachusetts legal system.
• 32:44
  Speaker 3: Right Why does this matter to you, the listener?
• 32:46
  Speaker 1: It matters because this case violently exposes systemic vulnerabilities that
• 32:50
  exist in our healthcare system right now across the country.
• 32:53
  It raises massive urgent questions about how we handle polypharmacy,
• 32:58
  the rapid prescribing of multiple powerful psychiatric medications, especially in
• 33:03
  reproductive aged women or women in the highly volatile postpartum period.
• 33:08
  It highlights the urgent life or death need for clearer
• 33:11
  clinical guidelines on how to handle postpartum psychiatric emergencies before
• 33:16
  they escalate to this level of tragedy. If a medically
• 33:19
  trained nurse with resources couldn't navigate the system safely?
• 33:22
  Speaker 3: Who can?
• 33:23
  Speaker 2: The source actually draws a direct historical comparison to the
• 33:27
  Andrea Yates case in Texas to illustrate this broader societal struggle.
• 33:32
  Speaker 1: That was the infamous case in the early two thousands
• 33:34
  where a mother drowned her five children. She was initially
• 33:37
  convicted of murder, but was eventually found not guilty by
• 33:40
  reason of insanity after a massive appeal and retrial.
• 33:43
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 33:43
  Speaker 2: Yes, and cases like Kates and Texas and now Clancy
• 33:46
  and Massachusetts fundamentally tests the public and legal understandings of
• 33:50
  severe maternal mental illness. What we see when we synthesize
• 33:53
  the legal context across these decades is that the justice
• 33:57
  system deeply, fundamentally struggles to handle these specific types of tragedies.
• 34:03
  The tools are wrong.
• 34:05
  Speaker 1: The source mentions that while some jurisdictions, like certain countries
• 34:09
  in Europe, have developed specific statutory considerations for postpartum conditions,
• 34:13
  recognizing them as unique medical events, most places in the US,
• 34:17
  including Massachusetts, do not.
• 34:19
  Speaker 2: No, they don't.
• 34:20
  Speaker 1: They just force fully applied general standards of criminal responsibility.
• 34:24
  Speaker 2: If we connect this to the bigger picture, using a
• 34:27
  general insanity standard like the mocoal test for postpartum psychosis
• 34:31
  is like using a thermometer to measure wind speed.
• 34:34
  Speaker 1: Wow.
• 34:34
  Speaker 2: Yeah, the tool was never built for the metric them
• 34:37
  cool test was developed over decades of case law to
• 34:40
  handle a wide variety of long term psychiatric conditions, often
• 34:43
  in very different criminal contexts like schizophrenia and adult men.
• 34:46
  It was not explicitly designed to capture the unique, rapid onset,
• 34:51
  violently hormone driven complexities of postpartum psychosis. Juries are asked
• 34:55
  to use a broad, outdated legal tool to dissect a
• 34:58
  highly specific, rapidly changing, and poorly understood medical emergency. Yeah.
• 35:03
  And as legal observers in the text note, jury's historically
• 35:06
  struggle immensely with insanity defenses. When child victims are involved,
• 35:10
  the protective instinct for the child often overrides the psychiatric
• 35:14
  evidence of the mother's illness.
• 35:16
  Speaker 1: So what does this all mean for Lindsay Clancy? What
• 35:19
  are the actual concrete stakes on the table as this
• 35:23
  trial proceeds over the next six to eight weeks of testimony?
• 35:26
  Speaker 2: The stakes are absolute, binary, and permanent. If the jury
• 35:30
  finds her guilty of first degree murder, completely rejecting the
• 35:33
  insanity defense. Massachusetts law is unbending. It mandates a sentence
• 35:37
  of life in prison without the possibility of parole. She
• 35:39
  will die in a correctional facility.
• 35:41
  Speaker 3: Wow.
• 35:42
  Speaker 1: And if they find her not guilty by reason of
• 35:44
  lack of criminal responsibility, if they accept the defense's medical narrative, she.
• 35:48
  Speaker 2: Would not simply be released back into the community, as
• 35:51
  some public misconceptions suggest. She would face immediate and definite
• 35:56
  commitment to a secure psychiatric facility like Dukesbury or Bridgewater Scape.
• 36:00
  Her medical condition and her potential dangerousness to herself or
• 36:04
  others would be subject to strict periodic court reviews, potentially
• 36:08
  for the rest of her natural life. She trades a
• 36:11
  prison cell for a locked hospital ward.
• 36:14
  Speaker 1: It is a devastating, inescapable reality. No matter which way
• 36:18
  the verdict falls, there is no victory here, only different
• 36:20
  shades of tragedy. As we wrap up this deep dive,
• 36:23
  let' synthesize exactly where we stand today. YEA, three young children, Cora,
• 36:27
  Dawson and Callan are gone. A father, Patrick Clancy is
• 36:31
  navigating a profound and unimaginable loss while being forced to
• 36:35
  participate in the very legal process dissecting his family's ruin
• 36:39
  on a public stage. A mother sits permanently paralyzed in
• 36:42
  a courtroom wheelchair, facing the ultimate judgment of her peers,
• 36:46
  and eighteen regular citizens burdened with this horrific information must
• 36:51
  untangle a narrative of deliberate, premeditated cruelty versus a catastrophic
• 36:56
  medically induced psychiatric workdown.
• 36:58
  Speaker 2: It is a profound, almost unbearable burden for a jury.
• 37:03
  And before we close, I want to leave our listener
• 37:05
  with a final lingering thought based on a very specific,
• 37:09
  easily overlooked detail mentioned in the source material regarding those
• 37:13
  civil lawsuits.
• 37:14
  Speaker 1: Right, the texts mentioned that both Patrick and Lindsay Clancy
• 37:17
  have pursued civil claims against the various medical providers and
• 37:20
  hospitals alleging severe medical negligence, catastrophic misdiagnosis, and negligent over medication.
• 37:26
  Speaker 2: Consider the incredible systemic legal paradox this creates. A civil
• 37:31
  court operates on a completely different burden of proof than
• 37:33
  a criminal court. In civil court, it is about the
• 37:36
  preponderance of the evidence. Is it more likely than not?
• 37:40
  What happens if down the line, a civil court meticulously
• 37:44
  examines these same medical records, looks at the pharmacology of
• 37:47
  the polypharmacy and rules that the healthcare system was objectively negligent.
• 37:52
  Speaker 3: Right?
• 37:52
  Speaker 2: What if a civil court determines that the rapid cascade
• 37:55
  of medications directly caused or severely exacerbated her mental bath?
• 38:00
  Speaker 3: Wow?
• 38:01
  Speaker 1: If a judge rules the doctors broke her mind? Well,
• 38:04
  I mean if they rule that exactly.
• 38:06
  Speaker 2: How does society reconcile as civil ruling that blames the
• 38:09
  medical system with a potential criminal court ruling that finds
• 38:13
  her fully individually responsible for first Dree murder. That's yeah,
• 38:17
  We're watching a slow motion, high stakes collision between medical
• 38:20
  liability and criminal culpability. If the medical system is found
• 38:24
  partially or wholly responsible for breaking her mind, can the
• 38:27
  criminal justice systems simultaneously hold her entirely responsible for the
• 38:31
  actions of that broken mind? Wow? Whichever way the verdict
• 38:34
  falls in Plymouth, the legal system's fundamental definition of responsibility
• 38:38
  may never look the same.
• 38:39
  Speaker 1: That is a staggering contradiction to think about. It really
• 38:42
  highlights how we are operating in those deeply murky diagnostic.
• 38:45
  Speaker 3: And legal waters.
• 38:47
  Speaker 2: We really are.
• 38:47
  Speaker 1: We are trying to find a clean binary answer guilty
• 38:51
  or not guilty? Sane or insane, responsible or not responsible
• 38:55
  in a situation built entirely on complex, tragic, interacting shades
• 38:59
  of gray. I want to thank you, our listener, for
• 39:02
  joining us on this incredibly complex, demanding and heavy deep
• 39:06
  dive today.
• 39:07
  Speaker 2: Yes, thank you for listening.
• 39:08
  Speaker 1: These are not easy topics, but they are the kinds
• 39:10
  of conversations that force us to examine the very foundations
• 39:13
  of how our society handles severe illness, profound tragedy, and
• 39:18
  ultimate justice. Until next time, stay curious and keep thinking
• 39:21
  critically about the systems operating around you.