Latest / Legally Brunette / Lindsay Clancy: The Mistrial

Transcript

Lindsay Clancy: The Mistrial · Legally Brunette

• 0:01
  Speaker 1: Hi, guys. Welcome to Legally Brunette. I'll be your host today,
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: Emily Simpson with.
• 0:06
  Speaker 2: Shane.
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: Shane. Okay, we are going to get into the Lindsay
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: Clancy mistrial. We're going to talk about it, talk about
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: our opinions, etc. However, before we get into that, we
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: just have some Breaking news that I just saw this morning,
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: so I just wanted to talk about that. It is
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: the Menendez brothers. Did you see that? I saw it
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: on my news source this morning.
• 0:26
  Speaker 2: Instagram, yes. Right.
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: And it said that they had been granted early parole
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: suitability hearing, which is going to come up in March
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: of 2027. So Eric and Lyle Menendez received approval today
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: for an early parole suitability hearing. It is tentatively set
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: for March of 2027. A parole suitability hearing is a
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: formal proceeding conducted by a state parole board to decide
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: whether an incarcerated person is safe to release back into
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: the community. Here's my thoughts on that. Yeah. They were
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: denied parole before. But first of all, it was interesting
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: that they ended up.
• 1:03
  Speaker 3: How long ago, too, right?
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I think maybe, I don't know, maybe not even
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: a year ago. Yeah. But they were denied parole, I remember,
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: based upon some things like, you know, they found Eric
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: to be a little deceptive, remember, because he had a
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: cell phone.
• 1:18
  Speaker 3: Didn't have a cell phone, yeah.
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: Right. I felt as if it was all things they
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: could kind of take away and remedy, right?
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: Remedy how?
• 1:26
  Speaker 3: Oh, you mean like they could have corrected themselves?
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: Right, right. So, to me.
• 1:30
  Speaker 3: Got rid of the cell phone?
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: Get rid of the cell phone or hide it better,
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: whatever you got to do. But I felt like they
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: were just very, like a small kind of things that
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: they could remedy for their next parole hearing.
• 1:42
  Speaker 3: It wasn't like a lifestyle they were living.
• 1:44
  Speaker 2: Right. Was preventing them from being able to be safe
• 1:46
  Speaker 2: in society. Right.
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: We know they've been model prisoners over the past 30
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: something years and have done a lot of things to
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: better themselves and have gotten college degrees and have helped
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: support groups and things like that. So anyway, it'll be
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: interesting to see what happens because I think that at
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: this point they have a real chance of actually getting
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: out on parole.
• 2:05
  Speaker 2: Why any differently than, oh, because you're saying maybe between
• 2:08
  Speaker 2: the last Hearing and today.
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 2:11
  Speaker 3: Maybe they've since corrected themselves.
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 2:14
  Speaker 3: And got rid of the cell phone.
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 2:16
  Speaker 2: Yeah. Right.
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: And some of the other things. I don't remember what
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: they were. I just remember the cell phone. But if
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: you remember.
• 2:22
  Speaker 3: When is the hearing?
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: March of 2027. There isn't a date, but it's tentatively
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: set for March of 2027. Q1.
• 2:27
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 2:27
  Speaker 2: 27.
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 2:28
  Speaker 2: Anyway. That's weird.
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: Why did they not, like.
• 2:38
  Speaker 2: Is that how the parole board operates? They're like, let's
• 2:40
  Speaker 2: just tentatively put it here in March, and then we'll
• 2:43
  Speaker 2: look at our calendars later and see what.
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: Day it works. I don't know. Normally, I feel like
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: there would be a solid date, but for some reason,
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: there isn't in this one. I don't know. Maybe because
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: it's a lot of hype around it, so they wanted
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: to get it out there that, hey, guys, March.
• 2:59
  Speaker 2: We're going to give you some light at the end
• 3:01
  Speaker 2: of the tunnel. March.
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: March. So in a statement to Los Angeles ABC affiliate KABC,
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: the Menendez family said the brothers have spent nearly four
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: decades working to acknowledge responsibility for their actions, heal from
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: the abuse and trauma that they have suffered and contribute
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: to the lives of those around them. Among the programs
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: they reportedly helped establish during their more than 30 years
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: of incarceration are a hospice initiative and a prison beautification project. Anyway,
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: I don't find them to be like if they were
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: your neighbors, would you be worried?
• 3:30
  Speaker 2: I wouldn't. Yeah, because you'd be over there all the time.
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: I would be. I'd be like, hey, guys, what's going on?
• 3:35
  Speaker 2: What are we doing today?
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: Want to have dinner? Want to come over? I would
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: not be concerned. I think they deserve a chance of retribution.
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: They deserve a chance to get out. That's my thoughts
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: on that. So we will follow that and see what
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: happens with the Menendez brothers. All right. Let's talk about
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: the Lindsay Clancy mistrial. So the trial has officially concluded
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: for now, right?
• 4:00
  Speaker 2: Mm-hmm.
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: After five weeks of testimony and nearly 40 hours of deliberations,
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: the jury in the Lindsay Clancy trial sent the judge
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: one final note on September 4th, 2026. It read, it
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: is with a heavy heart that we report we are
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: unable to come to a unanimous decision and will not
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: be able to. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington fought until the
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: very end when the judge gave him one hour before
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: declaring a mistrial. Reddington rushed an emergency appeal to a
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: higher court. I actually, I pulled up the appeal on Reddit.
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: It was very short. I think it was only like
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: four or something pages, but he only had an hour
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: to draft it.
• 4:35
  Speaker 2: So what'd he draft? What'd he say?
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: Well, it was basically, so it's an emergency appeal filed
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: by Lindsey Clancy's defense team and the Massachusetts Supreme judicial court.
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: It was during the jury deliberations asking the high court
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: to step in and override the trial judge's decision. The
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: core issue was the jury for persons, four person who
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: was a woman sent a note to the judge revealing
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: that one juror acknowledged having doubt about Clancy's guilt, but
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: was refusing to apply that doubt to the verdict as
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: required by the law. In other words, the juror appeared
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: to personally disregard the legal standard for reasonable doubt.
• 5:18
  Speaker 3: Here's, well, that's his take, right?
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: Here's the thing. That's the jury foreperson. And again, we
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: have to, when we're talking about reasonable doubt, we're not
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: talking about reasonable doubt whether she committed the act of
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: murder or not, because that was stipulated to. When the
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: trial began, it was stipulated that she committed. took the
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: lives of her three children. The reasonable doubt that they're
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: referring to is whether or not she committed the murders
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: in a, because the prosecution has the burden to prove
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: that she did it in a sane, methodical, calculated.
• 5:53
  Speaker 2: Sane?
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: Well, because the defense is saying she was insane. They're
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: saying she was going through postpartum psychosis. So therefore she's
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: not criminally liable capacity.
• 6:03
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: So the prosecution has the burden of proving that she
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: was not in a state of psychosis, that she was acting, that.
• 6:10
  Speaker 2: She was, that she was able to deliberate and plan
• 6:13
  Speaker 2: and plan and have forethought in committing the murders.
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: Right. So then the reasonable doubt that the jury is
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: referring to is whether there's reasonable doubt regarding her intent,
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: her mind. Yeah. So we do know that the jury
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: came back with 11 to 1. That's what they told
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: the judge, that they had one juror that was holding out.
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: And they are claiming, I mean, according to their notes
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: or whatever they're communicating, is that he wasn't applying the
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: reasonable standard law. Basically, the way I understood it was
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: that he had said during their deliberations that that he
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: probably had some form of doubt, maybe as to her
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: mind at that time. However, he refused to agree with...
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: I'm assuming they never.
• 6:58
  Speaker 2: He didn't finish his sentence. He refused to agree... To their.
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: Everyone else had... It's 11 to 1. So everyone else
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: had decided on.
• 7:05
  Speaker 2: We know he's in disagreement, but what's the challenge that
• 7:08
  Speaker 2: he's having?
• 7:10
  Speaker 3: What part is he doubting?
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: I don't think it's ever officially come out, but I
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: am assuming that they all agreed to.
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: Not guilty by reason of insanity, which there in that
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: jurisdiction is called not criminally liable. They don't say by
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: reason of insanity, but the one juror is claiming, I
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: think during deliberations, he probably had said that he had
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: some doubt, but he refused to agree to that verdict. Yeah.
• 7:35
  Speaker 2: Okay.
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: So he held out on that. So they could not
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: come to a unanimous decision. Um, so the defense, this
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: is in the appeal, um, They wanted the higher court
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: to order the trial judge to either remove that juror
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: entirely or at a minimum question the juror individually to
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: find out whether they were actually willing and able to
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: follow the court's instructions on a reasonable doubt. The trial
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: judge refused both requests, citing deliberative privilege, the principle that
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: what happens in the jury room stays private. So basically
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: he was saying, I can't do that. I can't pull
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: him and ask him what's been said. We have to
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: keep those proceedings and those conversations privileged.
• 8:11
  Speaker 2: I agree.
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: The defense argued the trial judge wasn't just making a
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: bad call, that he was failing to make any call
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: at all, essentially abandoning his duty to ensure a fair
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: and lawful trial. They cited case law establishing that a
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: juror who refuses to follow the law loses the protection
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: of deliberative privilege and can be removed.
• 8:32
  Speaker 2: Why is he arguing that he refuses to follow the law?
• 8:34
  Speaker 2: That's what I was saying. Where's that coming from? If
• 8:36
  Speaker 2: someone says, I can't come to that conclusion, as you
• 8:40
  Speaker 2: just said, Or I cannot find it that she was
• 8:44
  Speaker 2: sane or insane or whatever the scenario may be. How
• 8:48
  Speaker 2: is that refusing to apply the law? If anything, he
• 8:51
  Speaker 2: might be applying the law.
• 8:53
  Speaker 3: So what am I missing?
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: You're only... Well, we don't have a full idea of
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: what took place. This is just a little bit we're inferring, right?
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: But I'm saying the jury foreperson said that the one
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: juror that was holding out has... had discussions with the
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: other jurors about acknowledging that they had some type of doubt. However,
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: they refused to apply the standard of reasonable doubt to
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: this situation and therefore would not follow in the same,
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: not guilty by, you know, not being criminally liable. That's
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: all we know at this point. A lot of this
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: is just inference, right? From one person holding out.
• 9:30
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: Actually, I give credit to the one person holding out.
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: I mean, Just think about it. We've had so many
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: conversations about people that have been wrongfully convicted, and those
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: juries have convicted them unanimously or whatever. If there was
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: one person that had the kahunas that this guy did
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: that said, look, I don't... This doesn't... Like, I'm.
• 9:55
  Speaker 3: Not gonna be so quick to say guilty.
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: I'm not gonna be so quick, right, to jump on
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: and say... You know, I know a lot of people...
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: Because it was a man, I think a lot of
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: people are, you know, acting like he.
• 10:05
  Speaker 2: Oh, making assumptions?
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: Or saying that, like, he didn't do something right or whatever.
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: I don't know. I have... I have... admiration for someone
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: who it's you know who sticks by what they think
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: yeah and.
• 10:17
  Speaker 2: But you know he didn't cave right he didn't go
• 10:20
  Speaker 2: off of pressure.
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: Right yeah i mean that's that and you've got 11
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: people that you've.
• 10:24
  Speaker 2: Spent all these hours and hours and hours and you
• 10:27
  Speaker 2: got the media he knows the media is out there Right, but.
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: He's stuck by what he thought. And, you know, I
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: do think you can have conversations about reasonable doubt and
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: maybe say that you do have some doubt, and then
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: maybe you could clear that doubt up later and say, now,
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: going through this discussion process, I've come to the conclusion
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: that I don't agree with this verdict. But I don't know.
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: We don't know what the discussions are because, obviously, they
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: are privileged.
• 10:51
  Speaker 2: We don't know.
• 10:53
  Speaker 3: We won't know until he writes a book.
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: Until that juror writes a book. Exactly, right. The appeal
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: bought the defense a few hours, but ultimately it did
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: not change anything. Obviously, the higher court did not intervene.
• 11:04
  Speaker 2: It's really an uphill battle because then what are you
• 11:09
  Speaker 2: going to do? Every defense attorney, anytime there's a juror
• 11:13
  Speaker 2: holding out or two holding out, you're going to say,
• 11:15
  Speaker 2: put on an alternate juror, get rid of this person.
• 11:17
  Speaker 2: They're not applying the law.
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 11:19
  Speaker 2: I mean, I don't know all the facts. As you said,
• 11:21
  Speaker 2: we don't know everything, but that sure seems like a stretch.
• 11:24
  Speaker 2: Good for him for trying every avenue possible.
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: Right, he's a good defense attorney.
• 11:28
  Speaker 2: Yeah, he didn't do anything wrong because he's going through
• 11:30
  Speaker 2: the proper channels and letting the judge make the decision.
• 11:33
  Speaker 2: But that's a tough one.
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: Right. So anyway, after that, he tries his Hail Mary
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: at the end, right? And then it doesn't work. So anyway,
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: the judge declared a mistrial. So a mistrial means that basically...
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: They spent weeks and weeks trying this case. The jurors
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: were sequestered, didn't have the ability to see their families, spent,
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: what was it, two months almost being jurors on this trial.
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: You've got families that were affected, people that testified, and
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: basically the outcome was there's no outcome.
• 12:10
  Speaker 3: Do over. Do over.
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: Maybe. Do over or maybe.
• 12:13
  Speaker 2: Fail.
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: Fail. All right, so the Plymouth County District Attorney, Timothy Cruz,
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: so this is the prosecutor's office, said Friday that he
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: hadn't yet decided whether to retry the case or not,
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: but the prospect of starting over weighs heavily on everyone involved.
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: An attorney for Lindsay's ex-husband, Patrick Clancy, said the idea
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: of reliving this tragedy through another trial is, quote, extraordinarily
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: painful for Patrick, for his family, and for all of us.
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: You know, that's the question here is, so the prosecution,
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: the prosecutor's office, the DA, whatever, has to decide whether
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: they're going to retry this case. Now, on one hand,
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: this is just my opinion. On one hand, they probably
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: feel very obligated to retry the case. Because of a
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: moral obligation. You have three children that are.
• 13:03
  Speaker 3: Dead.
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: Dead.
• 13:05
  Speaker 3: The whole world knows about them.
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: That's a horrific tragedy that as a society, we feel
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: that someone needs to be accountable. There needs to be
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: some form of justice for these children. And I'm sure
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: that's how the prosecution feels.
• 13:21
  Speaker 2: And for future criminals, that you can't just kill your
• 13:25
  Speaker 2: three kids.
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: And walk away from it.
• 13:28
  Speaker 2: And get away with it.
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 13:29
  Speaker 2: And just play like, oops, I had a bad moment. Or,
• 13:32
  Speaker 2: you know, however it's being characterized.
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: However... The prosecutors also know that they came very, very,
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: very close to losing this case. There was one holdout
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: juror on this case. And, you know, the chances of
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: that happening again are probably slim to none. So the
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: 11 jurors that were on the not guilty by reason
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: of insanity, that is really a cross section of society, right?
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: Because the jury represents... In theory. In theory, society and,
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: you know, what... the picture as a whole is. So
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: I'm saying he has to weigh this moral obligation versus
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: what the possible outcome could be again, which could possibly
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: be the same thing, not guilty by reason of insanity.
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: You also have to think about the weight on taxpayers
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: because they have to pay for this entire trial again.
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: You have to call all the experts again. Plus, the
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: prosecution would have to think of a kind of a
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: different strategy.
• 14:32
  Speaker 3: Like, obviously, you have an opportunity to correct yourself.
• 14:34
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: Exactly. Yeah.
• 14:36
  Speaker 2: You have an opportunity to figure out what you could
• 14:38
  Speaker 2: do better next time.
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: But you also have to think about the weight of
• 14:40
  Speaker 1: like putting all these people through this again. The families and,
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: you know, her parents testify or her mother testified or
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: sister testified.
• 14:48
  Speaker 2: Not the husband. He's doing fine.
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: Well, he testified. Oh, he did? Yeah. You know, again,
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: I know there's a lot of theories about Patrick Clancy.
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: I will say the people that I have listened to
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: that heard the 911 call that was played in court,
• 15:04
  Speaker 1: everyone has the same takeaway. Which is? That that man,
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: that it was complete and utter gut-wrenching anguish that he
• 15:13
  Speaker 1: saw when he came upon his children in the basement. Now,
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: we out here, the people outside the trial, didn't get
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: to hear the 911 call. It was never released. It's
• 15:23
  Speaker 1: only the people that were in the courtroom that were
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: able to hear it. And their takeaway has been, it's just.
• 15:28
  Speaker 2: Unanimously, everyone says it's.
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: The people that I've heard talk about it said that
• 15:33
  Speaker 1: it's gut-wrenching and that... It was not a killer. That
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: your only takeaway is that he was blindsided by it and.
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: Just got totally.
• 15:44
  Speaker 2: Stumbled upon it without any notice. If that's the case,
• 15:48
  Speaker 2: if it truly is, you know, Patrick has nothing to
• 15:51
  Speaker 2: do with the tragedy, then, you know, I don't know.
• 15:58
  Speaker 2: That's an even tougher one to discuss. I mean, whether
• 16:00
  Speaker 2: she's insane, I want to be disrespectful to people that postpartum,
• 16:03
  Speaker 2: but this can't be a hall pass to kill your
• 16:06
  Speaker 2: kids and then just plead insanity and then get away
• 16:09
  Speaker 2: with it. I mean, three kids are dead. Like, I
• 16:14
  Speaker 2: don't know. That's a big deal.
• 16:15
  Speaker 1: I know.
• 16:15
  Speaker 2: That's not, I mean, postpartum, I don't know, depression. I mean,
• 16:20
  Speaker 2: but now they're three are dead and we're supposed to
• 16:22
  Speaker 2: just be like, oops, wasn't feeling good. Psychosis. What if,
• 16:26
  Speaker 2: what happens if she has psychosis again and kills three neighbors?
• 16:30
  Speaker 2: I know she's incapacitated a lot by being in a
• 16:33
  Speaker 2: wheelchair because she's paralyzed, but that doesn't excuse the fact that.
• 16:36
  Speaker 2: what took place. It's not like, well, you know, she's
• 16:39
  Speaker 2: physically unable to harm anyone. So therefore she won't harm anyone.
• 16:43
  Speaker 2: We don't have to put her in jail, but this
• 16:45
  Speaker 2: is pretty bad.
• 16:45
  Speaker 1: Yeah. All right. A mistrial due to a hung jury
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: does not mean Lindsay Clancy goes free, which is what.
• 16:53
  Speaker 3: You were, you were just referring to.
• 16:56
  Speaker 1: She wouldn't go. No. Well, if it went the way
• 16:58
  Speaker 1: we think that the jurors were heading, because they were
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: discussing reasonable doubt, that means to me that they were
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: going to I believe that their verdict was not guilty,
• 17:09
  Speaker 1: not criminally liable, which means she would be in a
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: psychiatric ward. How long? I don't know, because that would
• 17:14
  Speaker 1: be dependent upon her doctors and recovery. And then she
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: would have to have another hearing date where her doctors
• 17:21
  Speaker 1: would have to give testimony as to whether.
• 17:24
  Speaker 2: She's going to be in the system forever, whether she's
• 17:27
  Speaker 2: in jail or in a psych ward.
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: All right, so this morning, Kevin Reddington went on Good
• 17:40
  Speaker 1: Morning America. So defense attorney Kevin Reddington expressed optimism Tuesday,
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: that was today, Tuesday, on Good Morning America that a
• 17:47
  Speaker 1: plea agreement may be reached between his client, Lindsey Clancy,
• 17:50
  Speaker 1: and prosecutors following last week's mistrial. That's what I was
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: going to say. This is what I think is going
• 17:55
  Speaker 1: to happen. I think they're going to come up with
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: a plea deal because I don't think the prosecutors want
• 18:00
  Speaker 1: to go through a full-blown trial again. Neither does the defense, obviously.
• 18:05
  Speaker 3: That's why I say nor defense.
• 18:06
  Speaker 2: And defense is going to say, look, we had 11
• 18:08
  Speaker 2: out of 12. You want to go through this again?
• 18:11
  Speaker 2: I'm going to get all 12 next time.
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: Exactly. So I think there'll be some type of plea deal.
• 18:17
  Speaker 2: Which might be best, really, if they can kind of
• 18:19
  Speaker 2: find some happy medium to secure her, restrain her, but
• 18:24
  Speaker 2: also not go through the whole trial again. Right.
• 18:28
  Speaker 1: Reddington also publicly called on President Donald Trump to consider
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: granting Clancy a pardon for Speaking on Good Morning America,
• 18:35
  Speaker 1: he addressed the president directly.
• 18:37
  Speaker 2: Mr.
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: President, I would hope that you would consider this young
• 18:39
  Speaker 1: lady and the person she is, what she's been through,
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: and consider a pardon. President Trump, for his part, acknowledged
• 18:46
  Speaker 1: he had been keeping tabs on the case. When reporters
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: asked him about it the day the mistrial was declared,
• 18:51
  Speaker 1: he said the coverage had been difficult to avoid. He
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: described Clancy's actions as deeply troubling, but acknowledged the legal
• 18:58
  Speaker 1: process still had more to play out, noting another trial
• 19:01
  Speaker 1: appeared likely. Legal experts and the Justice Department's own guidance
• 19:06
  Speaker 1: make clear, however, that presidential pardons apply exclusively to federal crimes.
• 19:11
  Speaker 1: Clancy was charged with three counts of first-degree murder under
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: Massachusetts state law and was not convicted, meaning she falls
• 19:18
  Speaker 1: entirely outside the scope of federal clemency authority. I mean,
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: she hasn't been convicted of anything, so I don't know
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: what he would pardon her from.
• 19:25
  Speaker 2: I don't know.
• 19:26
  Speaker 1: It would only be if she was actually convicted.
• 19:30
  Speaker 2: I don't know. Well, Biden did it to, I think.
• 19:35
  Speaker 3: Oh, preemptively?
• 19:36
  Speaker 2: Yeah, so maybe... I don't know. I don't know.
• 19:39
  Speaker 3: I think the pardons are a little too... Lucy Goosey.
• 19:42
  Speaker 2: I mean, it's like, oh, I watched a little bit
• 19:44
  Speaker 2: on TV and she looks innocent or whatever. So I'm
• 19:46
  Speaker 2: going to pardon them. I mean, you've got to look
• 19:48
  Speaker 2: into it a lot more. You had jurors for two months, right?
• 19:52
  Speaker 2: And then 40 hours deliberating. And then you're going to
• 19:54
  Speaker 2: have someone come in and be like, yeah, I heard
• 19:56
  Speaker 2: about this case. I think she should be let go.
• 19:59
  Speaker 2: It's too willy-nilly.
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: Well, I don't think anyone would pardon her based upon
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: just what they heard from the media.
• 20:05
  Speaker 2: I know, but I don't think anyone can pardon her
• 20:07
  Speaker 2: because a president... A presidential pardon, right?
• 20:11
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 20:11
  Speaker 2: I mean, I'm not comfortable with that unless the president's
• 20:15
  Speaker 2: been sitting in on the trial the whole time and
• 20:16
  Speaker 2: really had something to weigh in on. Not just, I've
• 20:20
  Speaker 2: been briefed on it and I'm going to let him go. Right.
• 20:22
  Speaker 1: All right. Patrick Clancy's lawyer released a threatening statement towards
• 20:27
  Speaker 1: conspiracy theorists. I was waiting for this because I wondered
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: when he was going to have legal... Because, I mean,
• 20:32
  Speaker 1: everyone's pitted him as a murderer at this point. So
• 20:35
  Speaker 1: I wondered when he was going to have some legal
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: intervention as to all these people out there.
• 20:38
  Speaker 2: So what is it?
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: Patrick Clancy is firing back at online conspiracy theorists who
• 20:43
  Speaker 1: have falsely alleged he played a role in the deaths
• 20:45
  Speaker 1: of his three children, warning through his attorney that legal
• 20:48
  Speaker 1: consequences are coming. enough is enough this spread of blatant
• 20:53
  Speaker 1: and baseless falsehoods must stop.
• 20:55
  Speaker 2: Like defamation cases is that what he's going after i.
• 20:58
  Speaker 1: Mean maybe his lawyer howard cooper said in a statement
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: that was released today as lindsey clancy's trial drew heightened
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: public attention over the summer unfounded theories began circulating on
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: social media suggesting that patrick clancy bore some responsibility for
• 21:13
  Speaker 1: the crime allegations that were never raised or substantiated in
• 21:17
  Speaker 1: court proceedings His publicists describe the situation as an escalating
• 21:22
  Speaker 1: campaign of misinformation and defamatory statements. Look, I said this before,
• 21:26
  Speaker 1: because we talked before about all these theories online about
• 21:29
  Speaker 1: how people now have thought that it was Patrick Clancy.
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: And also, just any time there was any testimony or
• 21:35
  Speaker 1: any evidence, it was like they would just glom onto it.
• 21:38
  Speaker 1: And it's like, Patrick did it. But we said from
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: the beginning... His attorney or her attorney, Kevin Reddington, who
• 21:46
  Speaker 1: everyone loves and thinks is like the best defense attorney
• 21:48
  Speaker 1: in the world right now. I mean, he's put up
• 21:50
  Speaker 1: on a pedestal. So you're not, you're talking about someone
• 21:53
  Speaker 1: who's highly capable.
• 21:54
  Speaker 2: Who should be well trusted.
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 21:56
  Speaker 2: With this case.
• 21:57
  Speaker 1: He had access.
• 21:59
  Speaker 3: To everything.
• 21:59
  Speaker 1: To everything. Right. To all the discovery prior to the trial.
• 22:04
  Speaker 2: And to his client. Right. To the defendant to ask
• 22:07
  Speaker 2: her questions in private.
• 22:09
  Speaker 3: So.
• 22:10
  Speaker 2: So.
• 22:11
  Speaker 1: Could there have been maybe more of a thorough investigation? Probably.
• 22:15
  Speaker 1: But my takeaway is I have a lot of trust
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: in Kevin Reddington as a defense attorney.
• 22:20
  Speaker 2: The defendant probably told him. She's like, yeah, I did it.
• 22:24
  Speaker 1: Probably.
• 22:25
  Speaker 2: So it's probably like he's not challenging it. Right.
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: So there was no challenge. That was never an issue
• 22:30
  Speaker 1: in court. It was always her state of mind.
• 22:33
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 22:34
  Speaker 1: Which, by the way, and we've talked about this before,
• 22:36
  Speaker 1: it is very difficult to To determine someone's state of mind.
• 22:41
  Speaker 2: Well, yeah, it's not like you can go in there
• 22:43
  Speaker 2: and look at it. I know.
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: So at the end of the day, it is a
• 22:46
  Speaker 1: trial that costs millions of dollars and media.
• 22:49
  Speaker 2: To know if on this day, what was she thinking?
• 22:54
  Speaker 1: To just try and get 12 people to come to
• 22:57
  Speaker 1: a unanimous decision about what was actually going through her
• 23:00
  Speaker 1: mind at that time.
• 23:02
  Speaker 2: If you could just ask her. And if she could
• 23:07
  Speaker 2: just be honest and say, yes, I knew what I
• 23:10
  Speaker 2: was doing. Or no, I had no clue. And then
• 23:12
  Speaker 2: we go with that. Why can't it be like that?
• 23:15
  Speaker 1: Okay, do you remember last time we were talking about
• 23:17
  Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy, I had said something to the effect of,
• 23:19
  Speaker 1: I know that she's in a wheelchair. However, if she's
• 23:23
  Speaker 1: found not guilty, just not guilty, or not guilty by
• 23:25
  Speaker 1: reason of insanity, and that she spends time in a
• 23:27
  Speaker 1: psychiatric ward, and then at some point she's actually released,
• 23:30
  Speaker 1: and then she ends up living... I mean, she's young.
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: I believe she's only 36. So there is the opportunity
• 23:35
  Speaker 1: for her at some point to go back into society
• 23:38
  Speaker 1: and have somewhat of a normal life at some point.
• 23:41
  Speaker 1: So I was saying... What happens if at some point
• 23:45
  Speaker 1: she goes back into society, maybe after she's been in
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: a psychiatric ward? There is the opportunity, because she's very
• 23:52
  Speaker 1: young and based upon that she could end up back
• 23:55
  Speaker 1: in society, married again, and maybe have more children. Right.
• 23:58
  Speaker 1: Or maybe marry someone that has children.
• 23:59
  Speaker 2: Right. And then maybe I interrupted you. Go ahead.
• 24:01
  Speaker 1: So what's your point? And I asked, now this woman
• 24:05
  Speaker 1: who had this episode before where she killed three children,
• 24:08
  Speaker 1: how do we know this episode isn't going to happen again?
• 24:11
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 24:11
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 24:12
  Speaker 1: And so I asked that I had someone send me
• 24:15
  Speaker 1: this case. It's called where she Constance Fisher. So as
• 24:22
  Speaker 1: this trial was unfolding, someone Sorry, I'm like all confused
• 24:28
  Speaker 1: right now. Sorry, Constance Fisher, someone sent me this case.
• 24:31
  Speaker 1: because I was posing this question before. Constance Fisher, this
• 24:35
  Speaker 1: is a 1954 case that was largely forgotten about.
• 24:38
  Speaker 2: Oh, I remember that case.
• 24:39
  Speaker 1: No, you don't. But it resurfaced on social media, and
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: it's one that many felt raised uncomfortable questions about mental illness,
• 24:46
  Speaker 1: criminal responsibility, and what could happen if Lindsay was acquitted.
• 24:50
  Speaker 1: So Constance Fisher was 25 years old when her husband
• 24:53
  Speaker 1: Carl returned home to their Waterville, Maine residence on March
• 24:56
  Speaker 1: 8th of 1954 to find that their three children, Richard
• 25:01
  Speaker 1: was six, Daniel was four, and Deborah was 11 months,
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: and they were drowned in the bathtub. Constance was found
• 25:07
  Speaker 1: unconscious nearby having ingested a toxic medicinal shampoo and a
• 25:13
  Speaker 1: suicide attempt. She left a note saying she believed God
• 25:16
  Speaker 1: had instructed her to send the children to heaven. Psychiatrists
• 25:20
  Speaker 1: diagnosed her with paranoid schizophrenia and postpartum psychosis.
• 25:25
  Speaker 2: Medicinal.
• 25:26
  Speaker 1: Medicinal. Medicinal shampoo.
• 25:28
  Speaker 2: Yeah. Was there such a thing?
• 25:30
  Speaker 1: This is 1954. I don't know what kind of medicines
• 25:33
  Speaker 1: they were putting in shampoo in 1954. All right. So
• 25:37
  Speaker 1: she goes to trial. A grand jury declined to indict her,
• 25:40
  Speaker 1: finding she had not understood the wrongfulness of her actions,
• 25:43
  Speaker 1: and she was committed to Augusta State Hospital. And after
• 25:46
  Speaker 1: five years of treatment, doctors declared her cured. She's better. Yay.
• 25:51
  Speaker 3: Yay.
• 25:52
  Speaker 1: And she was released.
• 25:54
  Speaker 2: And then what?
• 25:56
  Speaker 1: In 1959. Then Constance and Carl. This is the same husband.
• 25:59
  Speaker 1: He stayed with her. after she unalived their three children.
• 26:05
  Speaker 1: They built a new life in Fairfield, Maine, and between
• 26:08
  Speaker 1: 1960 and 65, they had three more children, Kathleen, Michael,
• 26:12
  Speaker 1: and Natalie. Then on June 30th of 1966, Carl came
• 26:16
  Speaker 1: home from work to find history had repeated itself, and
• 26:20
  Speaker 1: all three children were drowned in the bathtub.
• 26:24
  Speaker 2: How were they killed the first time?
• 26:25
  Speaker 1: They were drowned in the bathtub.
• 26:27
  Speaker 2: And the second time?
• 26:28
  Speaker 1: They were drowned in the bathtub. Their ages, six, four,
• 26:31
  Speaker 1: and nine months, mirrored the first victim's almost exactly. Constance, again,
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: attempted suicide and left the same explanation, and she survived again.
• 26:41
  Speaker 2: Okay. You're saying, I know she's in a wheelchair and
• 26:44
  Speaker 2: it's not. What I'm saying is, whether she's in a wheelchair,
• 26:47
  Speaker 2: whether she has the ability to bear children again, shouldn't
• 26:50
  Speaker 2: be considered with her sentencing. It shouldn't be like you're
• 26:55
  Speaker 2: making the argument, hey, she could have more children and
• 26:57
  Speaker 2: she could do it again. She could have an episode
• 26:58
  Speaker 2: and kill more children. but then she's in a wheelchair
• 27:01
  Speaker 2: and she may not be able to have more children,
• 27:02
  Speaker 2: this and that, which I don't know if that's the case.
• 27:05
  Speaker 2: But what I'm saying is that shouldn't be something to
• 27:08
  Speaker 2: be considered when sentencing her. It shouldn't be like, therefore
• 27:11
  Speaker 2: she can't have children. Therefore she might not kill him again.
• 27:14
  Speaker 2: Therefore it doesn't matter.
• 27:15
  Speaker 1: No, that was not, that wasn't my point. I was,
• 27:18
  Speaker 1: I was saying that was just a question that popped
• 27:20
  Speaker 1: into my head because she is in a wheelchair. My
• 27:22
  Speaker 1: point was, if we find someone, take that out of it.
• 27:25
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 27:26
  Speaker 1: If we find a woman, a mother.
• 27:28
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: Not guilty by reason of insanity because they were going
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: through a period of psychosis and then they get committed
• 27:35
  Speaker 1: to a hospital and then they go through this treatment
• 27:37
  Speaker 1: like this woman did in 1954, Constance Fisher. And then
• 27:41
  Speaker 1: they do all the treatment and they do all the things.
• 27:43
  Speaker 1: And then a doctor says they're cured. They're fine. They
• 27:46
  Speaker 1: can go back into society. Everything's fine. I'm saying that
• 27:50
  Speaker 1: is a risk for society.
• 27:53
  Speaker 3: I would agree with that.
• 27:53
  Speaker 1: Because what happened here is this woman did the exact
• 27:56
  Speaker 1: same thing again. She had three more children. And then
• 28:00
  Speaker 1: killed those three children. And then tried to kill herself.
• 28:03
  Speaker 1: And then was found not guilty by reason of insanity.
• 28:06
  Speaker 1: And now you have six children that are dead.
• 28:08
  Speaker 2: Wait, the second time, did she go to trial the
• 28:10
  Speaker 2: second time?
• 28:11
  Speaker 3: She did.
• 28:11
  Speaker 1: And the court found her.
• 28:13
  Speaker 2: Did she have the same attorney?
• 28:14
  Speaker 3: Same husband?
• 28:15
  Speaker 2: Same attorney?
• 28:15
  Speaker 1: Same husband. Same judge. I don't know about the same,
• 28:17
  Speaker 1: but the court found her.
• 28:18
  Speaker 2: She's like, can we get the same jury members?
• 28:20
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 28:20
  Speaker 1: The court found her not guilty by reason of insanity
• 28:23
  Speaker 1: once again.
• 28:23
  Speaker 2: Oh.
• 28:25
  Speaker 1: But this time, the commitment came with a permanent condition.
• 28:28
  Speaker 1: She would never be released. So I believe she went
• 28:29
  Speaker 1: to a psychiatric hospital and was never. Oh, but in
• 28:32
  Speaker 1: October of 1973, she escaped from the facility. Days later,
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: her body was found along the banks of the Kennebec River.
• 28:39
  Speaker 1: The cause of death was drowning. Her husband, Carl Fisher,
• 28:42
  Speaker 1: died in 1990 and was buried alongside Constance and all
• 28:45
  Speaker 1: six of their children in the same plot at Waterville Cemetery.
• 28:50
  Speaker 1: That is a tragic story. But again, this is my point.
• 28:55
  Speaker 1: Even if Lindsay Clancy ends up being declared not guilty
• 29:00
  Speaker 1: by reason of insanity, and then she's put into a
• 29:02
  Speaker 1: psychiatric hospital, how do we know that she's cured? How
• 29:06
  Speaker 1: do we know that she receives the correct treatment? How
• 29:08
  Speaker 1: do we know that it would never happen again? How
• 29:09
  Speaker 1: do we know she wouldn't suffer from some type of
• 29:11
  Speaker 1: psychosis again? I'm just saying that when someone has that
• 29:15
  Speaker 1: type of psychosis, that they can unalive three children and
• 29:20
  Speaker 1: I don't know if they're ever able to be back
• 29:23
  Speaker 1: into regular society.
• 29:24
  Speaker 2: And never have the psychosis episode again.
• 29:26
  Speaker 1: That's just my question that is posed. That's it. I
• 29:29
  Speaker 1: was just posing a question. How do we know? And
• 29:32
  Speaker 1: we don't.
• 29:32
  Speaker 2: We don't. And probably these doctors didn't know either.
• 29:34
  Speaker 1: All right. So I want to get to this case.
• 29:44
  Speaker 1: This just recently happened. This is the Corey Walsh case.
• 29:46
  Speaker 1: And this is also a ramification of finding a woman
• 29:51
  Speaker 1: who unalived her three children, if she's found not guilty
• 29:54
  Speaker 1: by reason of insanity, the question is, or the possibility is,
• 29:58
  Speaker 1: do you have now women who are copycat type of situations?
• 30:03
  Speaker 1: So this is Corey Walsh. She's an Illinois mother charged
• 30:06
  Speaker 1: with murdering her two-year-old son, she had reportedly been closely
• 30:10
  Speaker 1: following the Lindsay Clancy trial in the days leading up
• 30:14
  Speaker 1: to the killing. This is according to court documents. Corey
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: Walsh is 40 of Frankfurt, Illinois, and she was charged
• 30:21
  Speaker 1: with first degree murder after prosecutors alleged she strangled and
• 30:25
  Speaker 1: hanged her toddler son Barrett last Tuesday. This was on
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: September 1st. Witnesses told prosecutors that Walsh had been actively
• 30:34
  Speaker 1: discussing the Clancy case in a group text with friends
• 30:37
  Speaker 1: as recently as As 12.30 p.m. that same day, just
• 30:41
  Speaker 1: hours before, Frankfurt police responded to a report of an
• 30:44
  Speaker 1: unresponsive child around 4 p.m. The child was pronounced dead
• 30:48
  Speaker 1: at a nearby hospital shortly after 5 p.m. What age
• 30:52
  Speaker 1: again is this child? Two.
• 30:53
  Speaker 2: Two-year-old.
• 30:54
  Speaker 1: This is an evolution of finding a woman... Of all
• 30:58
  Speaker 1: the media attention that she's getting and all the love
• 31:01
  Speaker 1: that she's getting.
• 31:02
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 31:02
  Speaker 1: And now you have this woman named Corey Walsh in
• 31:04
  Speaker 1: Illinois who unalived her two-year-old son who was very actively
• 31:09
  Speaker 1: involved in watching the Clancy trial and talking to friends
• 31:14
  Speaker 1: about it and being in group texts about it. And
• 31:16
  Speaker 1: now she's killed her two-year-old son.
• 31:18
  Speaker 2: Okay. Is she making a defense of any kind?
• 31:21
  Speaker 1: I'm getting there.
• 31:21
  Speaker 2: Okay. Okay.
• 31:22
  Speaker 1: A neighbor who arrived at the home found the child
• 31:25
  Speaker 1: Barrett unresponsive in the basement and Walsh in an upstairs
• 31:28
  Speaker 1: bathroom injured and in the process of harming herself. The
• 31:32
  Speaker 1: neighbor removed a knife from Walsh's hand and administered CPR
• 31:35
  Speaker 1: to the child and also called 911. Walsh's other children,
• 31:40
  Speaker 1: who was a baby and then two school age kids,
• 31:43
  Speaker 1: were unharmed. Her husband, who had been out of state,
• 31:45
  Speaker 1: flew home that evening. Walsh allegedly told officers that she
• 31:49
  Speaker 1: harmed her son because he was the devil and the antichrist.
• 31:53
  Speaker 1: Her attorney, Andrea Lyon, said Walsh was experiencing a psychotic
• 31:58
  Speaker 1: episode at the time and that this is a tragedy
• 32:02
  Speaker 1: for the Walsh family, all of whom are mourning the
• 32:04
  Speaker 1: loss of this child. The attorney also added that she
• 32:07
  Speaker 1: hopes a full investigation will allow people to understand the
• 32:11
  Speaker 1: this heartbreak for what it is. I don't know what that,
• 32:14
  Speaker 1: that's the attorney, this heartbreak for what it is. Walsh,
• 32:17
  Speaker 1: this is the mom, was hospitalized with non-life-threatening injuries. A
• 32:21
  Speaker 1: forensic analysis of her phone is underway and the Illinois
• 32:24
  Speaker 1: Department of Child and Family Services said it had no
• 32:26
  Speaker 1: prior record of contact with the family. My point is,
• 32:30
  Speaker 1: you have a woman who was invested in this trial.
• 32:33
  Speaker 1: She was watching it every single day. Yeah. She unalived
• 32:36
  Speaker 1: her two-year-old son and then tried to kill herself with
• 32:38
  Speaker 1: a knife, which was the same thing that Lindsay Clancy did.
• 32:41
  Speaker 1: But her attorney has now come forward and said she
• 32:44
  Speaker 1: was experiencing psychosis. And that's why she did it. So
• 32:48
  Speaker 1: I just... Now we have... Yeah.
• 32:51
  Speaker 2: This is becoming a norm. Right.
• 32:53
  Speaker 1: Is now you can... Are we to the point where
• 32:56
  Speaker 1: when women unalive children and then their attorneys come forward
• 33:01
  Speaker 1: and say, well, they were experiencing postpartum psychosis. So that's
• 33:05
  Speaker 1: the precedent this case is setting, and that is what
• 33:10
  Speaker 1: is worrisome.
• 33:10
  Speaker 2: Well, he had that one juror that held out.
• 33:14
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 33:14
  Speaker 2: Because he wasn't he or she. Was it a he?
• 33:16
  Speaker 1: It was a man. The one juror holding out was
• 33:18
  Speaker 1: a man.
• 33:19
  Speaker 2: Actually, because the defense attorney said it was a male, right?
• 33:21
  Speaker 2: So it kind of leaked that way.
• 33:24
  Speaker 1: Someone did.
• 33:24
  Speaker 2: There's only three men on the juries.
• 33:25
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it was a man. I don't know. There wasn't
• 33:28
  Speaker 1: any official statement that it was a man, but it
• 33:31
  Speaker 1: did leak in some way.
• 33:32
  Speaker 2: I think there were references that it was the male.
• 33:35
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 33:35
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 33:36
  Speaker 1: I don't know. All right. Do you have any final thoughts?
• 33:40
  Speaker 2: Yeah. So what are we looking forward to next? Is
• 33:43
  Speaker 2: there a date or anything?
• 33:45
  Speaker 1: No. Well, what we have to wait for now is
• 33:47
  Speaker 1: to see whether they come to some type of plea deal,
• 33:49
  Speaker 1: which is what I think will happen.
• 33:50
  Speaker 2: Yeah, but is there anything on the calendar, anything up
• 33:52
  Speaker 2: and coming?
• 33:53
  Speaker 1: No, I don't know. I don't think so.
• 33:55
  Speaker 2: So the parties are just trying to figure out what
• 33:57
  Speaker 2: to do now?
• 33:57
  Speaker 1: Well, not the parties. It really depends on the... the
• 34:01
  Speaker 1: district attorney, right? It depends on the prosecutor's office, whether
• 34:03
  Speaker 1: they're going to retry or not, or whether they're going
• 34:05
  Speaker 1: to offer a plea deal. It's one of the parties.
• 34:07
  Speaker 2: It's one of the parties.
• 34:08
  Speaker 1: It's one of the parties.
• 34:08
  Speaker 3: One of the two parties, yeah.
• 34:09
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 34:10
  Speaker 2: And the defense has to decide if they're willing to
• 34:12
  Speaker 2: take the plea deal or not. Or they might pitch something, right?
• 34:16
  Speaker 2: So it's up to the parties.
• 34:18
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 34:18
  Speaker 2: To try to see where to take this case. Right.
• 34:21
  Speaker 1: All right. So we'll continue to follow and see what
• 34:22
  Speaker 1: happens with Lindsay Clancy and also follow the Menendez brothers
• 34:25
  Speaker 1: to see when their actual parole hearing back in March
• 34:29
  Speaker 1: of March of March of 2027. But we don't have
• 34:32
  Speaker 1: a date yet. But that will be interesting to follow
• 34:34
  Speaker 1: as well. All right. Thank you guys for listening to
• 34:36
  Speaker 1: Legally Brunette. We appreciate it. As always, please follow Legally
• 34:39
  Speaker 1: Brunette wherever you listen to podcasts. Also, be sure to
• 34:43
  Speaker 1: leave us a review. Like a legitimate review. A review
• 34:47
  Speaker 1: about the podcast.
• 34:48
  Speaker 3: Not a review about the TV show.
• 34:50
  Speaker 1: Not a review of Real Housewives of Orange County, please.
• 34:53
  Speaker 1: So also be sure to tell your friends and family.
• 34:57
  Speaker 1: Why are you laughing?
• 34:58
  Speaker 3: It's funny that people do that to you.
• 35:00
  Speaker 1: It is. It'll be like five star, five star, five star,
• 35:03
  Speaker 1: one star because you were mean to Heather. It's like
• 35:05
  Speaker 1: that has nothing to do with the podcast.
• 35:07
  Speaker 2: Yeah, leave that review on somewhere else.
• 35:09
  Speaker 1: Go leave that review somewhere else, please. All right. Also,
• 35:12
  Speaker 1: be sure to tell your friends and family to listen.
• 35:14
  Speaker 1: And as always, if you have any cases that you
• 35:16
  Speaker 1: would like us to discuss, please DM me on Instagram.
• 35:19
  Speaker 1: We'd love to get your feedback about the episodes and
• 35:23
  Speaker 1: any recommendations of cases you would like for us to
• 35:25
  Speaker 1: talk about. So thank you so much for listening. We
• 35:28
  Speaker 1: appreciate you.