Latest / Crime Stories with Nancy Grace / LINDSAY CLANCY DEADLOCK TRIGGERS DYNAMITE CHARGE!

Transcript

LINDSAY CLANCY DEADLOCK TRIGGERS DYNAMITE CHARGE! · Crime Stories with Nancy Grace

0:00
Speaker 1: Three little tots, one an infant, all found strangled dead
0:06
Speaker 1: by mommy with her own exercise bands. I've noticed that
0:12
Speaker 1: when a woman is on trial for murder, specifically murder
0:16
Speaker 1: of her children, people search, scour for a motive. It
0:21
Speaker 1: doesn't matter. They're dead. She's alive. So far, the jury
0:26
Speaker 1: has been out for hours and hours. What does it mean?
0:30
Speaker 1: This is not a popularity contest. Was she a good mom?
0:33
Speaker 1: Was she a bad mom? It's only about intent at
0:37
Speaker 1: the time of the act. Either she's in psychosis or
0:41
Speaker 1: she is a criminal mastermind. You can see how vested
0:46
Speaker 1: people are in the outcome of this case. We're talking
0:50
Speaker 1: about what is seeping into the minds of the jurors. Well,
0:53
Speaker 1: they're certainly trained on Lindsay Clancy. Take a look at
0:58
Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy grabbing her lawyer's hands in court. The sobbing
1:03
Speaker 1: and the crying and the hiding her face. I really
1:07
Speaker 1: don't know what to make of that because they're dead.
1:10
Speaker 1: I don't care how much she cries now. They're dead
1:14
Speaker 1: and she did it. Joining us tonight, Crime Stories investigative
1:25
Speaker 1: reporter Dave Mack. Dave, what's the latest?
1:29
Speaker 2: Nancy, this jury of 12 people are deliberating in their
1:33
Speaker 2: sixth day, well over 30 hours. Twice they've sent back
1:37
Speaker 2: notes to the judge saying, we're deadlocked, we cannot come
1:41
Speaker 2: up with a verdict for you.
1:42
Speaker 3: The judge sent them back with a note yesterday.
1:46
Speaker 2: It's referred to outside of Massachusetts as the dynamite charge.
1:51
Speaker 2: In Massachusetts, it's called Tui Rodriguez. And what this is,
1:55
Speaker 2: it is a demand of the jury that you reconsider
1:59
Speaker 2: everything you've heard, consider everything you.
2:02
Speaker 3: Think about this, and make a decision.
2:06
Speaker 2: The judge went so far as to point out, look,
2:09
Speaker 2: if we have to do this all over again, we're
2:11
Speaker 2: not going to find 12 jurors that are smarter than you,
2:15
Speaker 2: more fair than you, we've put our faith and our
2:19
Speaker 2: trust in you to come up with a verdict.
2:22
Speaker 3: Think about this.
2:23
Speaker 2: Give it really serious thought as to what you believe
2:28
Speaker 2: and why you believe it. And be open to listening
2:31
Speaker 2: to everyone else. It is a real charge of not
2:36
Speaker 2: just being fair, but challenging yourself as a juror.
2:41
Speaker 3: We need a verdict. Doing it over again It's not
2:45
Speaker 3: going to end up any different. There's no new evidence. Okay.
2:48
Speaker 3: There's no new defense. You've heard everything come up with
2:52
Speaker 3: a verdict.
2:53
Speaker 2: So now in that sixth day, over 30 hours of deliberations,
2:57
Speaker 2: will this jury finally come up with a verdict? The
3:02
Speaker 2: jury isn't merely considering between guilty and not guilty.
3:06
Speaker 3: Okay. They're actually the central dispute.
3:09
Speaker 2: Of the entire trial, whether or not Clancy is criminally responsible.
3:14
Speaker 2: because of the mental state that she allegedly experienced at
3:18
Speaker 2: the time of the deaths. This is a big consideration,
3:22
Speaker 2: and we've seen it being discussed on multiple platforms all
3:26
Speaker 2: around the world.
3:28
Speaker 3: A lot of support coming in for Lindsay Clancy.
3:32
Speaker 2: The jury has to come up with a decision on
3:35
Speaker 2: first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter. They could also go not
3:40
Speaker 2: guilty or not guilty by reason of lack of criminal
3:44
Speaker 2: responsibility because of the mental state that she was allegedly
3:48
Speaker 2: in at the time of the deaths. That's what this
3:51
Speaker 2: jury has to decide. And after six days, more than
3:54
Speaker 2: 30 hours of deliberation, they've been given.
3:57
Speaker 3: The charge, come up with a verdict.
4:00
Speaker 1: So what leads us to the point at which we
4:05
Speaker 1: are at tonight in the Lindsay Clancy case?
4:09
Speaker 4: This case is not about our mental health system or
4:12
Speaker 4: how it treats women or what's in the DSM-5 and
4:15
Speaker 4: what's not. That's a distraction to get you angry and
4:19
Speaker 4: passionate about an important issue, but an issue that's not
4:22
Speaker 4: on trial here. What's on trial here, what the issue
4:26
Speaker 4: is here, is what Lindsay Clancy did the night of
4:29
Speaker 4: January 24, 2023, and what her mental state was at
4:33
Speaker 4: the time.
4:36
Speaker 1: We are in a verdict watch here at Crime Stories
4:39
Speaker 1: as we wait for a verdict to be handed down
4:41
Speaker 1: in the case against so-called loving mom, Lindsay Clancy. That
4:45
Speaker 1: sound from our friends at East Idaho News. That is
4:47
Speaker 1: Prosecutor Sprague as she gave her closing arguments, which weighed
4:51
Speaker 1: heavily on the minds of the jurors. So far. The
4:56
Speaker 1: jury has been out for hours and hours. What does
4:59
Speaker 1: it mean? We know that this morning to you, Shannon Hill,
5:02
Speaker 1: joining us, star of Shannon Hill News, that they came
5:06
Speaker 1: in first thing bright and early this morning dressed to
5:10
Speaker 1: the nines.
5:11
Speaker 5: I was in the courtroom on Thursday during closing arguments.
5:15
Speaker 5: And the interesting thing is that the investigators who testified
5:21
Speaker 5: in the trial, in the very beginning parts of the trial,
5:23
Speaker 5: actually showed up and sat behind prosecution to show their support.
5:29
Speaker 5: And while attorney Kevin Reddington was giving his closing argument,
5:33
Speaker 5: he pointed at them and said, I don't care that
5:35
Speaker 5: they're sitting here right now. He looked straight at the
5:38
Speaker 5: jury and told them, I don't care that these investigators
5:40
Speaker 5: are sitting here right now. That means nothing to him
5:43
Speaker 5: because he feels that his client is innocent. He also
5:50
Speaker 5: did the three coin toss on the table in front
5:53
Speaker 5: of the prosecution. And the public seems to really be
5:56
Speaker 5: taking that on as some sort of biblical message, considering
6:01
Speaker 5: the topic of Catholicism has been brought up several times
6:05
Speaker 5: in the courtroom now.
6:05
Speaker 1: Did you say a coin toss? The defense attorney did
6:09
Speaker 1: a coin toss in front of the jury at the
6:11
Speaker 1: prosecution table?
6:12
Speaker 6: A coin slam to the table.
6:15
Speaker 5: He did a three-coin slam to the prosecution's table, and
6:18
Speaker 5: people are comparing this to the 30 pieces of silver
6:21
Speaker 5: in the Judas betrayal in the Bibles. But what I
6:24
Speaker 5: actually took it as.
6:25
Speaker 1: What did he say when he did the coin slam?
6:27
Speaker 1: What was the point in his mind?
6:30
Speaker 5: My interpretation was that it wasn't biblical at all and
6:33
Speaker 5: that he was actually pointing out each time he felt
6:36
Speaker 5: the prosecution manipulated the evidence against his client. So each
6:40
Speaker 5: coin stood for, you know, a different piece of evidence
6:43
Speaker 5: that prosecution brought up during the trial, which one was
6:47
Speaker 5: the drinking, the amount of drinking Lindsay Clancy did during
6:50
Speaker 5: the week. Another was the Facebook post about her son Dawson.
6:56
Speaker 5: And the coins were there to represent each one of
6:59
Speaker 5: these times he felt that prosecution was being misleading or manipulative.
7:04
Speaker 1: Tracy Brown is joining us out of Boulder, body language expert,
7:08
Speaker 1: behavior analyst, trained alongside law enforcement and special forces. She's
7:14
Speaker 1: author of multiple books, most notably, How to Detect Lies.
7:19
Speaker 1: Fraud and Identity Theft, and you can find her at BodyLanguageTrainer.com. Tracy,
7:26
Speaker 1: thank you for being with us. Hey, thanks for having me. Tracy,
7:31
Speaker 1: tonight I'd like you to look at certain moments in court,
7:37
Speaker 1: captured in court, because we're talking about what is seeping
7:41
Speaker 1: into the minds of the jurors. Well, they're certainly trained
7:46
Speaker 1: on Lindsay Clancy. Let's take a look. What do you
7:49
Speaker 1: see here, Tracy?
7:51
Speaker 7: Well, this is the first time she's seen him in court,
7:54
Speaker 7: presumably in a long time. And she is under deep stress. Now,
7:58
Speaker 7: she's really hard to read because she's paralyzed from the
8:02
Speaker 7: waist down. And that restricts, I mean, it eliminates a
8:07
Speaker 7: lot of movements that we would normally see. Now, here's
8:09
Speaker 7: what's interesting to me is that she licks her lips
8:13
Speaker 7: four times before he even says a word. Um, it
8:18
Speaker 7: could be a lip grooming. So she's trying to look better.
8:21
Speaker 7: It could be that she's really stressed or it could
8:24
Speaker 7: be that she's really angry.
8:26
Speaker 8: Okay.
8:26
Speaker 7: So you have all of those and it could be
8:28
Speaker 7: a combo of all of those right there. Now she
8:32
Speaker 7: does something else with her eyebrows. Now the forehead is the, uh, billboard.
8:39
Speaker 7: The eyebrows are the writing. And so we want to
8:42
Speaker 7: look for small, small little movements in that writing to
8:46
Speaker 7: understand What emotions are really going on? And we start
8:50
Speaker 7: to see the medial that's above your nose, the middle
8:54
Speaker 7: part of her eyebrows go up.
8:56
Speaker 4: Okay.
8:57
Speaker 7: So that says there's sadness there, but then they start
9:00
Speaker 7: to rise just a little bit.
9:02
Speaker 1: And so there can be some fear.
9:04
Speaker 7: And anxiety going.
9:05
Speaker 1: On there too.
9:05
Speaker 7: So she has a lot of emotions going on all
9:08
Speaker 7: at once, even though she's really still. And like I said,
9:13
Speaker 7: she's one of the hardest people to read that I've
9:15
Speaker 7: ever had to do just because of the paralyzation.
9:18
Speaker 1: I'm on the way. We're with the county.
9:20
Speaker 2: I'm at the two pediatrics arrest. We got a mutual
9:27
Speaker 2: aid on the way.
9:34
Speaker 5: Mutual aid at this time.
9:37
Speaker 1: You're hearing parts of the 911 dispatch call after three
9:41
Speaker 1: little tots, one an infant, all found strangled dead by
9:48
Speaker 1: mommy with her own exercise bands. Now, we all know
9:54
Speaker 1: the stretchy nature of exercise bands or bungee cords. Imagine
10:00
Speaker 1: the force and exertion required it's like strangling someone with
10:04
Speaker 1: a rubber band how hard she had to pull the
10:10
Speaker 1: exercise cords in order to murder her own children And tonight,
10:17
Speaker 1: we find out that one of the first things that
10:21
Speaker 1: comes out of her mouth when she's in the hospital,
10:26
Speaker 1: she's taken off the ventilator, she says, do I have
10:31
Speaker 1: a lawyer? Okay. Straight after Randy Kessler joining us, veteran
10:37
Speaker 1: trial lawyer, professor at the Emory Law School, former chair
10:41
Speaker 1: of the ABA Family Law Section for the entire American
10:45
Speaker 1: Bar Association, author of Divorce, Protect Yourself, Your Kids, and
10:49
Speaker 1: Your Future. Randy, the reason I am emphasizing the force
10:57
Speaker 1: and exertion necessary to strangle not one, two, but three children,
11:04
Speaker 1: one of whom we believe ran in fear to his
11:07
Speaker 1: father's basement office, the older boy, there you see, Callum there,
11:12
Speaker 1: he's just an infant, is akin to, the reason I'm
11:17
Speaker 1: bringing it up is because you and I have argued
11:21
Speaker 1: that on different sides of the fence, of course, in
11:24
Speaker 1: court when it comes to the force necessary to pull
11:28
Speaker 1: a trigger. Remember, we just had that come up in
11:33
Speaker 1: court with a veteran and well-known lawyer in your jurisdiction
11:38
Speaker 1: that shot his wife dead and he said it was
11:39
Speaker 1: an accident. said that he was sleeping and woke up
11:43
Speaker 1: and went, oh, bam, and killed his wife. Yeah, that
11:47
Speaker 1: did not work for me. The point is the force
11:51
Speaker 1: and exertion used to pull a trigger goes to intent.
11:57
Speaker 1: And here we have it, intent times three. The force
12:01
Speaker 1: necessary to use those elastic bands to pull them so
12:06
Speaker 1: tightly as they were stretchy and giving. That takes a
12:11
Speaker 1: lot of force, a lot of exertion, and a lot
12:13
Speaker 1: of time during which she could have formed intent. Kessler,
12:17
Speaker 1: do you agree with me, you know the law as
12:21
Speaker 1: well as I do, that intent to commit a crime,
12:25
Speaker 1: any crime, does not require a long period of planning.
12:29
Speaker 1: Intent can be formed, as our former judge would say,
12:33
Speaker 1: Luther Alverson, in the blink of an eye, the twinkling
12:36
Speaker 1: of a moment, in the time it takes you to
12:39
Speaker 1: Raise the gun and pull the trigger, much less the
12:41
Speaker 1: time it takes you to pull and pull and pull
12:45
Speaker 1: exercise bands to kill them. That's time to form intent.
12:49
Speaker 9: Yes, she had the time to form intent. She had
12:53
Speaker 9: that intent and she killed her children. But the question,
12:55
Speaker 9: my opening statement and my closing argument would be she
13:00
Speaker 9: did this because. That's the only question the defense can
13:04
Speaker 9: rely on, which is no motive is not a question
13:07
Speaker 9: in front of the jury. But she did this because,
13:10
Speaker 9: and the jury's going to fill that answer, that blank
13:12
Speaker 9: in with, she was crazy, she was psychotic, she was
13:15
Speaker 9: mentally insane, because there's no other answer to that question.
13:18
Speaker 9: She did this because, why? She wanted out of the marriage?
13:22
Speaker 9: There was no other answer that makes as much sense
13:24
Speaker 9: as she did this because she was not mentally capable
13:28
Speaker 9: of making the right decision. That's the only defense the
13:30
Speaker 9: defense has.
13:32
Speaker 1: Randy Kessler, could you hold up your sign again, please?
13:35
Speaker 1: I'd like to see that.
13:38
Speaker 10: Like my artwork.
13:41
Speaker 1: Okay, I'm very impressed. Okay, I'm impressed that you had
13:44
Speaker 1: your assistant print that out. Straight out to Penny Commit.
13:50
Speaker 1: Penny Commit joining us. Boston investigative reporter WBZ CBS Boston
13:56
Speaker 1: has covered multiple high-profile cases, including this one. Penny Commit,
14:01
Speaker 1: thank you for being with us. I'm going to get
14:03
Speaker 1: into all the facts, but Answer me this. Riddle me this, Penny.
14:09
Speaker 1: One of the first things that came out of her
14:11
Speaker 1: mouth when she came to and they removed the breathing
14:14
Speaker 1: device was about a lawyer. Isn't that true? What did
14:18
Speaker 1: she say?
14:20
Speaker 11: So one of her doctors testified that she was actually
14:23
Speaker 11: writing answers on a piece of paper because she had
14:25
Speaker 11: all these tubes in her mouth. She was hooked up
14:27
Speaker 11: to all these different pieces of equipment. And she wrote
14:31
Speaker 11: that she felt horrified. And then she She asked, where
14:35
Speaker 11: is her family? And then one of the first things
14:37
Speaker 11: she did ask is, do I.
14:38
Speaker 12: Need a lawyer?
14:43
Speaker 4: She denied suicidal ideation. She denied homicidal ideation. She said
14:48
Speaker 4: she wasn't hearing voices or seeing anything. They saw the
14:52
Speaker 4: entire time she was there, no signs of psychosis. In fact,
14:55
Speaker 4: every doctor she saw from Tufts in September all the
14:59
Speaker 4: way through Tufts at January 23rd, None of them saw
15:04
Speaker 4: any signs of psychosis ever.
15:08
Speaker 1: So they're all wrong?
15:10
Speaker 4: All these different doctors at all these different practices, they're
15:13
Speaker 4: all collectively together wrong?
15:16
Speaker 1: That doesn't make sense.
15:19
Speaker 4: At 4.13, you see her search for takeout from 3V.
15:24
Speaker 4: And then immediately after, she does the Apple Maps search
15:27
Speaker 4: to see how long it takes to get to 3V. Well,
15:31
Speaker 4: defense wants you to believe that You know, she was
15:34
Speaker 4: checking that because she didn't want him gone for too long.
15:37
Speaker 4: She wanted him home. She was in distress. If you're
15:40
Speaker 4: in distress, don't send him anywhere. Make food at home.
15:44
Speaker 4: Have him cook. Get delivery. Get DoorDash. Go to one
15:48
Speaker 4: of the other restaurants that Patrick mentioned that were two
15:51
Speaker 4: minutes down the road.
15:52
Speaker 1: That is Prosecutor Sprague in her closing statements to the jury,
15:56
Speaker 1: which weigh very heavily on the jurors as they go
15:59
Speaker 1: out for deliberations. That's from our friends at East Idaho News.
16:02
Speaker 1: Straight out to Dr. Cheryl Erick joining us, clinical forensic
16:06
Speaker 1: psychologist specializing in cases just like this.
16:10
Speaker 6: Dr.
16:11
Speaker 1: Cheryl, thank you for being with us. So you just
16:13
Speaker 1: heard Prosecutor Sprague describing clear planning. The law is intent
16:23
Speaker 1: can be formed just like that. And here we see
16:28
Speaker 1: clear planning, which clearly no one really wants to address
16:32
Speaker 1: because we all find it much more comfortable to believe, oh, okay,
16:36
Speaker 1: she was insane. That's better than her planning the deaths
16:39
Speaker 1: of her children. Can you be in postpartum psychosis and
16:44
Speaker 1: intend to kill?
16:48
Speaker 8: You're looking at intent and you're looking at planning. And Nancy,
16:53
Speaker 8: Lindsay Clancy could absolutely have done planning that was triggered
17:00
Speaker 8: by auditory hallucinations and planning that was shaped by psychotic delusions.
17:06
Speaker 8: For example, if she believed that she was protecting her
17:10
Speaker 8: children from something by killing them, she could very much
17:15
Speaker 8: in a psychotic state, plan that, carry it out. And
17:18
Speaker 8: then when she came out of the psychotic state being
17:20
Speaker 8: a completely different state of mind, people really confuse postpartum psychosis,
17:26
Speaker 8: which is incredibly rare. You see this one or two
17:29
Speaker 8: in a thousand Whereas postpartum depression is much, much more common.
17:34
Speaker 8: This is a loss of touch with reality. This is
17:37
Speaker 8: a person when they are in a psychotic state who
17:41
Speaker 8: cannot think about the law and reality and all of
17:44
Speaker 8: the state of mind things that her mother-in-law testified to
17:48
Speaker 8: about what a wonderful loving mother she was when she
17:51
Speaker 8: was in her right mind. But postpartum psychosis is different,
17:56
Speaker 8: and it doesn't look like regular psychosis. When I watched
17:58
Speaker 8: the prosecution talk about, are all of these doctors wrong
18:02
Speaker 8: because they didn't see it, they were on Zoom with
18:05
Speaker 8: her for 20 minutes here and there. Postpartum psychosis, rapid cycles,
18:10
Speaker 8: and people can look really, really insane one minute and
18:14
Speaker 8: look completely put together the next and hours later. This
18:18
Speaker 8: is something that is a psychiatric emergency. It's an obstetric emergency.
18:23
Speaker 8: And she absolutely could plan these things. And when we
18:26
Speaker 8: look at motive, we look at all of the testimony
18:32
Speaker 8: from the people in her life. If she wasn't in
18:34
Speaker 8: a psychotic state where she could not tell what was
18:38
Speaker 8: real and what wasn't, what is the motive? Why would
18:40
Speaker 8: this woman do this terrible, heinous thing to her children?
18:45
Speaker 8: That doesn't make sense.
18:47
Speaker 1: Dr. Cheryl, here's the deal. No one has to prove motive.
18:54
Speaker 1: In any child killing, you can say, what's the motive?
18:58
Speaker 1: Why would you kill a child? I don't know. All
19:02
Speaker 1: I want to know is if she could form intent
19:06
Speaker 1: to kill. And clearly, she did. Listen.
19:12
Speaker 4: What she told Dr. Satov, that when she gets the call,
19:15
Speaker 4: she's at the fridge getting... chicken nuggets out of the
19:18
Speaker 4: fridge to make dinner. You heard from Patrick. When he's leaving,
19:23
Speaker 4: Dawson is sitting on the couch eating chicken nuggets and
19:25
Speaker 4: green beans out of a bowl. So why would the
19:28
Speaker 4: defendant make that up? Why would she say she's doing
19:31
Speaker 4: that during the phone call? Because if she's already killed
19:35
Speaker 4: the kids because of a voice and being compelled and
19:40
Speaker 4: it being against her will and she's like a puppet,
19:44
Speaker 4: then she can't get a call and miss it and
19:47
Speaker 4: then call the person back and have a conversation. and
19:51
Speaker 4: then hang up. A puppet can't do those things. Those
19:54
Speaker 4: are decisions and choices and actions that she's controlling.
19:59
Speaker 1: Prosecutors pray giving closing statements. That's from East Idaho News.
20:02
Speaker 1: So how do you reconcile that, Dr. Cheryl Erick?
20:09
Speaker 8: It's cherry picking. We can look at intent. We can
20:13
Speaker 8: look at what is the state of mind when someone
20:15
Speaker 8: is formulating intent. And the question that they have to
20:18
Speaker 8: prove is that she was conscious of reality, of the law,
20:23
Speaker 8: of the meaning of this, that this was a permanent
20:27
Speaker 8: forever separation from her children, that she was committing a.
20:32
Speaker 1: Crime.
20:32
Speaker 8: This is something that they have to prove. And they
20:35
Speaker 8: have not....
20:39
Speaker 1: I hear what you're saying, but let me give you
20:41
Speaker 1: the legal parameters within which you should be working on
20:46
Speaker 1: this case. Intent is the intent to do the act.
20:52
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean that you're thinking about a, as you described,
20:56
Speaker 1: forever separation. It's whether I have intent to hold up
21:00
Speaker 1: a gun and shoot you in the head. That intent.
21:03
Speaker 13: Right.
21:03
Speaker 1: If you've And she clearly had intent to get her
21:07
Speaker 1: husband out of the house so she could kill the children.
21:12
Speaker 8: She had intent to kill the children. What we're looking at,
21:15
Speaker 8: was she criminally responsible? What was her state of mind
21:18
Speaker 8: when she formulated the intent? And that is a forensic
21:22
Speaker 8: psychiatric issue. Her state of mind when she formulated the
21:26
Speaker 8: intent matters in this case. If she is not guilty,
21:31
Speaker 8: if she's found not guilty by reason of insanity, she
21:34
Speaker 8: may have formulated a tent under a delusion. And it
21:37
Speaker 8: depends on whether it's egocentronic or egodistonic. Egodistonic is when
21:42
Speaker 8: someone is having thoughts of hurting their baby and they're
21:45
Speaker 8: absolutely horrified by it and it scares them. Egocentronic means
21:49
Speaker 8: they are having these thoughts and they think that's not
21:53
Speaker 8: an awful thing. That is not something that the evidence
21:57
Speaker 8: shows that was a normal state of mind for this woman.
22:00
Speaker 8: And there are lots and lots of attempts that this
22:03
Speaker 8: woman made from what I can see, to get help
22:06
Speaker 8: and a whole lot of people who did not understand
22:09
Speaker 8: postpartum psychosis. This woman should have been hospitalized immediately with
22:14
Speaker 8: her baby if possible, never left alone with her baby
22:17
Speaker 8: if possible. She should have been given lithium. There are
22:22
Speaker 8: all kinds of best practices about postpartum psychosis that were
22:27
Speaker 8: not followed even by the admission of the treating mental
22:30
Speaker 8: health professionals here. This is a tragedy. But this does
22:34
Speaker 8: not look to me like a Casey Anthony or somebody
22:38
Speaker 8: who is out partying and not. I mean, it's a
22:44
Speaker 8: completely different mentality than what we've seen in some of
22:48
Speaker 8: these other awful cases that you and I have covered.
22:51
Speaker 1: Let's see the video again. You know, to you, Dr.
22:53
Speaker 1: Gerilyn Utter. Utter is a clinical psychologist. Oh, by the way,
23:00
Speaker 1: this is from our friend. Nate Eaton over at East
23:03
Speaker 1: Idaho News in the courtroom every single day. To me,
23:06
Speaker 1: she looks upset. She looks hurt. Maybe she's thinking about
23:12
Speaker 1: what they had that she completely destroyed with the three murders.
23:17
Speaker 1: Maybe she still loves him. He testified for the state,
23:21
Speaker 1: as I recall. Maybe she sees it as some sort
23:24
Speaker 1: of a betrayal. She just looks very hurt and anxious
23:30
Speaker 1: like she doesn't know what's about to happen.
23:32
Speaker 4: To Dr.
23:33
Speaker 1: Gerilyn Utter, you know, when you see your ex possibly
23:38
Speaker 1: for the first time in a long time, there are
23:41
Speaker 1: floods of emotion, much less when you've killed his three children.
23:48
Speaker 14: I mean, I agree with you, Nancy. She definitely, and Tracy,
23:51
Speaker 14: she definitely looks like she is emotional, but when it
23:55
Speaker 14: comes to reading the small gesticulations in her face, I
23:58
Speaker 14: think one thing that we want to remember is that
24:01
Speaker 14: she is on a variety of different psychiatric medications that
24:04
Speaker 14: can cause something called tardive dyskinesia. And that is exactly
24:09
Speaker 14: kind of what she could be demonstrating, which is the
24:11
Speaker 14: lip movements. You have like involuntary lip movements, brow movements,
24:16
Speaker 14: So to Tracy's point, she's saying she's.
24:18
Speaker 10: Hard to read.
24:20
Speaker 14: And we want to measure that as a confounding factor
24:24
Speaker 14: that the facial movements, the lips moving, that could be
24:27
Speaker 14: a side effect or an adverse event of medication. But
24:31
Speaker 14: she does look very sad and upset. The thing that
24:34
Speaker 14: I noticed as well is she seems to be looking
24:36
Speaker 14: straight ahead. I don't know if she's looking exactly at him,
24:40
Speaker 14: but she can also be depersonalizing and kind of dissociating.
24:46
Speaker 14: checking out in that moment, maybe not staring directly at him,
24:49
Speaker 14: but around him to try to manage some of her emotions,
24:52
Speaker 14: even though she's clearly emoting a little bit on the
24:54
Speaker 14: screen there, as we can see.
24:56
Speaker 1: Based on her reaction to him in court, I would
25:01
Speaker 1: like to point out to Dr. Gerilyn Utter, when that happened,
25:05
Speaker 1: the online response was overwhelming that somehow he was involved. Again,
25:14
Speaker 1: She admits she killed her children. She has pled not guilty, N-G-B-R-I,
25:21
Speaker 1: not guilty by reason of insanity, which says, which means,
25:24
Speaker 1: I did it, but I was insane. So, let's be clear.
25:30
Speaker 1: She has pled not guilty by reason of insanity. She
25:34
Speaker 1: admits she did it. Nobody's claiming Patrick Clancy did this.
25:39
Speaker 1: But something about this video, something about her reaction in court,
25:44
Speaker 1: has engendered a lot of sympathy, a lot of empathy,
25:48
Speaker 1: and a lot of blaming Patrick Clancy.
25:51
Speaker 3: Why? You know what?
25:52
Speaker 1: Let me go to Shannon Hill on That Star, Shannon
25:54
Speaker 1: Hill News. What is this groundswell of hatred toward the
26:01
Speaker 1: husband and empathy toward her?
26:05
Speaker 5: I think it really started off with the surveillance footage
26:09
Speaker 5: found in CBS that night, as well as the 3B restaurant.
26:14
Speaker 5: The online sleuths are claiming that Patrick Clancy changed his
26:18
Speaker 5: clothes between the time he went to CVS and the
26:21
Speaker 5: time he went to 3V restaurant. And this is where
26:23
Speaker 5: all of the rumors began. But if you look very
26:26
Speaker 5: closely at the footage from 3V and CVS, the 3V
26:30
Speaker 5: footage is a little clearer and more concise, whereas the
26:34
Speaker 5: CVS footage is a little more grainier. So you're seeing
26:37
Speaker 5: something that might look a little different in the next
26:39
Speaker 5: surveillance footage because they're completely different qualities. different lighting, different
26:45
Speaker 5: side profile.
26:49
Speaker 1: To Randy Kessler, hearing the premeditation, the planning, and what
26:56
Speaker 1: the children endured, and I've seen this in court a
26:59
Speaker 1: million times, defense attorneys do their very best so the
27:03
Speaker 1: jury doesn't hear what the victims went through. There is
27:06
Speaker 1: no victim in the courtroom. All the jury sees is
27:10
Speaker 1: the defendant himself. This defendant is paralyzed from the waist down,
27:15
Speaker 1: from jumping out of her window. So they are seeing
27:19
Speaker 1: her looking sympathetic. And I think what happened to the
27:25
Speaker 1: children is getting lost in the sauce, Randy. But I
27:28
Speaker 1: want to hear your response to the effort it took
27:32
Speaker 1: to strangle the children and that some of her first
27:36
Speaker 1: communications were, do I have a lawyer? Not Did my
27:41
Speaker 1: children live? How are my children? What have I done
27:44
Speaker 1: to my children? Is this a horrible dream? Are they dead?
27:47
Speaker 1: Are they alive? But do I have a lawyer? I
27:51
Speaker 1: find that to be troublesome, to say the least.
27:56
Speaker 9: And combined with the horrific nature of the murder, no
27:59
Speaker 9: question about it. But all those facts, Nancy, are prejudicial,
28:03
Speaker 9: not probative. Those facts don't need to be said. They're
28:06
Speaker 9: being said to play on the sympathy of the jury.
28:09
Speaker 9: The question, the issue of whether she did this has
28:12
Speaker 9: been answered. She's acknowledged it. She's admitted it. Her lawyer
28:15
Speaker 9: said she did it. Whether she did it and it
28:18
Speaker 9: caused a lot of pain or little pain, it's horrible.
28:21
Speaker 9: But they're emphasizing how much pain it caused these children,
28:24
Speaker 9: how horrible it was to get the jury more sympathetic
28:27
Speaker 9: to the victims and more likely to want to punish
28:30
Speaker 9: the mother. But that's not the legal standard. The legal
28:32
Speaker 9: question here is not how bad was it? How much
28:35
Speaker 9: did they suffer? The question is, Did she do it
28:38
Speaker 9: because she had a mental break, because she was in
28:40
Speaker 9: a state of psychosis? And none of the questions you're raising,
28:43
Speaker 9: none of the issues you're bringing up mitigate or change
28:47
Speaker 9: the fact that if she did it, it was because
28:50
Speaker 9: she was under a state of psychosis. There's no other reason.
28:52
Speaker 9: She did not hate the husband.
28:54
Speaker 1: That is absolutely not correct, Kessler. Because if she could
28:58
Speaker 1: create a plan, intent, and then carry out the intent,
29:03
Speaker 1: that goes to presence of mind. It goes to frame
29:07
Speaker 1: of mind, course of conduct, so many more aspects that
29:12
Speaker 1: are probative at trial. I appreciate your attempt. Maybe the
29:16
Speaker 1: defense attorney can learn from what you just said. Joining
29:19
Speaker 1: us now, Dr. Leslie Dobson, clinical forensic psychologist, host of
29:23
Speaker 1: a brand new podcast on iHeart, Intentionally Disturbing. And you
29:29
Speaker 1: can find her at drlesliedobson.com, author of The Friend Cleanse.
29:36
Speaker 1: how to set boundaries with energy vampires. Dr. Leslie, weigh in.
29:43
Speaker 12: I think she was floridly psychotic, and you cannot convince
29:46
Speaker 12: me otherwise. We have a violence-free history, a happy mother,
29:51
Speaker 12: and she faked going to all these doctors, getting all
29:54
Speaker 12: these medications, faked everything. being completely insane, faked having all
29:59
Speaker 12: of this anxiety, fake suicidal thoughts and harm for her children,
30:03
Speaker 12: then all of a sudden premeditated, killed her three kids
30:06
Speaker 12: and jumped out a window and wanted to be paralyzed.
30:08
Speaker 12: It makes no sense. And there is no way the
30:11
Speaker 12: prosecution is going to be able to convince a jury
30:14
Speaker 12: to say without doubt that there was no question of insanity.
30:19
Speaker 1: Well, of course, that's not the legal standard, Dr. Leslie.
30:22
Speaker 1: The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, not no doubt.
30:26
Speaker 1: beyond a reasonable doubt.
30:29
Speaker 12: Well, it's two prongs in Massachusetts.
30:32
Speaker 1: And they are?
30:35
Speaker 12: The two prongs are that you have to, we need
30:37
Speaker 12: clear and convincing evidence. So do we have doubt? And
30:42
Speaker 12: do we actually believe that she was sane or insane
30:47
Speaker 12: at the time of the crime?
30:49
Speaker 1: Back to you, Jeff Gentry. Again, why would she search
30:54
Speaker 1: on the internet sending her husband on an errand, and
30:58
Speaker 1: then the moment the door is closed, she kills the children.
31:02
Speaker 1: And he calls to ask her a question in the
31:03
Speaker 1: middle of that, and she puts on an Oscar-winning performance,
31:07
Speaker 1: acting like nothing is wrong, speaks normally into the phone.
31:10
Speaker 6: Okay.
31:12
Speaker 1: Has a conversation.
31:13
Speaker 6: I think we both agree that we're not going to
31:16
Speaker 6: be on the same page with this one, because I
31:18
Speaker 6: think that that could mean anything. But I do want
31:20
Speaker 6: to talk about the evidence. I want to talk about
31:22
Speaker 6: The way she harmed these children, I mean, that's not
31:24
Speaker 6: a normal method of homicide. It's spur of the moment,
31:28
Speaker 6: you grab the closest thing nearby, and you harm your children.
31:31
Speaker 6: And then even the way that she harmed herself.
31:33
Speaker 1: People do that all the time. People grab a kitchen appliance.
31:37
Speaker 1: People stick a baby in the microwave.
31:41
Speaker 6: Let's look at what we saw upstairs. So we see
31:42
Speaker 6: blood evidence that indicates that multiple self-inflicted injuries, which that
31:47
Speaker 6: can happen in somebody that's wanting to harm themselves. But
31:51
Speaker 6: then you have pills involved. You have diving out of
31:54
Speaker 6: a window. Those are not normal. I mean, normally when
31:57
Speaker 6: somebody harms himself, they pick one method and they go
31:59
Speaker 6: with it. They don't use multiple methods to inflict injury
32:03
Speaker 6: on themselves. So this is essentially overkill.
32:05
Speaker 1: It's amazing that none of them worked, isn't it?
32:08
Speaker 6: It really is amazing.
32:09
Speaker 1: It worked on the children, but she did not actually
32:13
Speaker 1: commit suicide.
32:15
Speaker 6: But to me, all of this adds up and shows
32:18
Speaker 6: that this is kind of a spur of the moment thing.
32:20
Speaker 6: This isn't necessarily something that's planned out. Maybe she heard
32:23
Speaker 6: the voice and sent her husband away for a period
32:26
Speaker 6: of time, but nothing to me about this crime suggests
32:30
Speaker 6: that this is spur of the moment. Plus her entire
32:33
Speaker 6: history shows that she has mental health issues, that she's
32:36
Speaker 6: prone to postpartum depression, that this could be a psychosis
32:40
Speaker 6: related issue as opposed to something that was planned. I'm
32:43
Speaker 6: not saying that she didn't, kill her kids. I'm not
32:45
Speaker 6: saying that she didn't harm them, but we have to
32:46
Speaker 6: look at the entire set of circumstances. We also have
32:49
Speaker 6: to look at Patrick's involvement in this too. Where was
32:51
Speaker 6: he at when she was struggling? Where was he at?
32:54
Speaker 6: I was mentioning before, I'm a father of four. I
32:56
Speaker 6: have full custody of all four of my children. I
32:59
Speaker 6: have always been part of their life. And if my
33:01
Speaker 6: children's mother was struggling with mental health issues or possibly
33:05
Speaker 6: saying that she was going to harm the children, there
33:07
Speaker 6: is no way in hell I would ever leave that
33:08
Speaker 6: person alone with my kids. I would have them out
33:10
Speaker 6: at the store picking up groceries with me.
33:13
Speaker 1: Shannon Hill joining us tonight, host of Shannon Hill News. Shannon,
33:18
Speaker 1: to try and answer the question I was asking, were
33:24
Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy's fingerprints on the exercise bands or just her DNA?
33:33
Speaker 5: Nancy, from my understanding, there weren't exact fingerprints. However, there
33:37
Speaker 5: was mixed DNA. We have to remember that the children's
33:41
Speaker 5: DNA was on the exercise bands, and they both carry
33:45
Speaker 5: DNA pieces from both parents. So there wasn't really a
33:49
Speaker 5: standalone DNA that stood out to forensic scientists when they
33:53
Speaker 5: were looking over these pieces of evidence. It was mixed DNA.
33:57
Speaker 5: All family members.
33:58
Speaker 1: Have one thing or another. So mixed DNA between her
34:00
Speaker 1: and the husband, no fingerprints, correct?
34:02
Speaker 3: Correct.
34:03
Speaker 5: As far as I know, there were no fingerprints.
34:06
Speaker 1: Alice LaCour, is that your understanding as well, star of
34:09
Speaker 1: Legal Briefs podcast and the Prosecutors podcast?
34:13
Speaker 13: That's right. And also note that that's going to be
34:16
Speaker 13: a substance that's going to be very hard to get
34:18
Speaker 13: any fingerprints off of. So I'm not surprised there are
34:21
Speaker 13: no fingerprints. That doesn't mean she wasn't the one to
34:24
Speaker 13: have her hands around it.
34:26
Speaker 1: To Alice LaCour and Shannon Hill, what can you tell
34:30
Speaker 1: me about her internet searches leading up to this day?
34:33
Speaker 1: We hear gentry going on and on about how this
34:35
Speaker 1: wasn't planned, but I'm referring to January 20, 2023, and more.
34:42
Speaker 1: To you, Alice, what were the searches?
34:46
Speaker 13: I want to point out something that the defense actually
34:50
Speaker 13: brought out that I don't think I picked up on
34:52
Speaker 13: until Reddington said it in closing. She has been planning
34:55
Speaker 13: this for weeks. She was keeping detailed notes in her
34:59
Speaker 13: journal about her medications and the effects it had on
35:02
Speaker 13: her until January 18th, the week before the murders. At
35:07
Speaker 13: that point, she stops writing everything. And in fact, she
35:11
Speaker 13: goes back to a note in December, just the night before,
35:14
Speaker 13: and she edits that note, seeming to blame the medications
35:18
Speaker 13: and her doctors for the way she's feeling. And it's
35:22
Speaker 13: a clear suicide note. This note was not read out loud,
35:25
Speaker 13: but it was flashed on the screen. I think she
35:28
Speaker 13: stopped taking these meticulous notes on January 18th because she
35:31
Speaker 13: had decided what she was going to do. She just
35:34
Speaker 13: needed to look for the opportunity. So even all of
35:37
Speaker 13: her friends, her family, and Patrick themselves said she seemed
35:41
Speaker 13: much better. She had the best day she'd had on
35:44
Speaker 13: January 24th, the day of the murders. Did you know
35:47
Speaker 13: that her sister is a certified therapist? A certified therapist
35:52
Speaker 13: she talked to daily. Her sister never saw the need,
35:56
Speaker 13: saw the need to intervene, to come to her house,
35:59
Speaker 13: to give her involuntary commitment. She had all of the
36:03
Speaker 13: support around her. And it's because she knew exactly what
36:06
Speaker 13: to say to people so that she could get her way.
36:10
Speaker 1: Shannon Hill, what about it, including the internet searches?
36:15
Speaker 5: Nancy, one of the searches that Lindsay Clancy made was,
36:18
Speaker 5: can you cure a sociopath? which sort of breaks at
36:23
Speaker 5: the psychotic defense because she was clear-minded enough three days
36:28
Speaker 5: before the murders to Google, can you cure a sociopath
36:32
Speaker 5: on her phone? This is something that the prosecution has
36:36
Speaker 5: talked about throughout the trials is she was of clear mind.
36:41
Speaker 5: She was Googling how to cure a sociopath.
36:44
Speaker 3: To Dr.
36:45
Speaker 1: Janie Lacey, also joining us tonight, psychotherapist and CEO of
36:49
Speaker 1: Life Health, Counseling Solutions and author of How to Heal
36:54
Speaker 1: from a Toxic Relationship. Host, let's talk about it with
36:57
Speaker 1: Janie Lacey. Weigh in, Dr. Lacey.
37:01
Speaker 10: You know, Nancy, what I would say is it is hard,
37:05
Speaker 10: and I'm hearing the conversation, it is hard for people
37:07
Speaker 10: to hold to truths that someone could have moments of
37:11
Speaker 10: being a good mother and also not want to be
37:14
Speaker 10: a mother. And this is where I land. We're not
37:18
Speaker 10: arguing whether postpartum psychosis is real.
37:22
Speaker 1: It is real. However... This is what.
37:24
Speaker 10: We look at. And I've been a psychotherapist for 20 years.
37:27
Speaker 10: It is one of the most severe emergencies in psychiatry, right?
37:31
Speaker 10: Postpartum psychosis is not the baby blues and it is
37:35
Speaker 10: not even a standard postpartum depression. It is a full
37:39
Speaker 10: break from reality. Hallucinations, delusions, a mind that can no
37:43
Speaker 10: longer trust what it's seeing or hearing.
37:45
Speaker 1: It is rare.
37:47
Speaker 5: And when it happens, it happens fast.
37:49
Speaker 10: I kind of equate it to like a medical emergency,
37:51
Speaker 10: like a stroke or cardiac event, right?
37:54
Speaker 1: You're not planning.
37:55
Speaker 4: You're not Googling.
37:55
Speaker 10: You're not doing all those things when it happens. It
37:58
Speaker 10: happens and it happens quickly. It's real and it's treatable
38:00
Speaker 10: when it's caught in time. But when we're looking at
38:03
Speaker 10: this case as a whole, there is a contradiction.
38:05
Speaker 1: OK, what's the contradiction?
38:08
Speaker 10: The contradiction is that when we're looking at someone that
38:12
Speaker 10: has the evidence of Googling, planning, there's forethought, there is timing,
38:19
Speaker 10: there is all the things that we're talking about in
38:21
Speaker 10: today's show. That is not a break in reality. That
38:24
Speaker 10: is the contradiction. When we look at psychotic, psychiatric problems.
38:28
Speaker 10: treatment of postpartum psychosis. It is a break in reality.
38:32
Speaker 10: I like to equate it so that normal people can understand.
38:35
Speaker 10: It's like having a stroke or having a cardiac arrest.
38:38
Speaker 5: I'm not Googling a.
38:39
Speaker 10: Cardiac arrest or a stroke before I think I'm going
38:41
Speaker 10: to have a stroke, right?
38:42
Speaker 12: It just happens.
38:43
Speaker 10: And that is the difference between what we're talking about,
38:46
Speaker 10: all the treatment for postpartum depression, postpartum depression, the baby blues.
38:50
Speaker 10: That is something very different when we're looking at this
38:52
Speaker 10: very rare diagnosable condition. That is a contradiction, Nancy.
38:56
Speaker 1: If you know or think you know anyone considering suicide,
39:00
Speaker 1: please dial the suicide hotline. You can call or text
39:06
Speaker 1: very simply 988. Tonight, we remember American hero Deputy Sheriff
39:13
Speaker 1: Troy Bailey, Lancaster County Sheriff's Nebraska, passed away in the
39:18
Speaker 1: line of duty after 33 years on the force, leaving
39:22
Speaker 1: behind grieving fiancé Danielle and children. Rachel, Taylor, and Trevor.
39:29
Speaker 1: American hero, Deputy Sheriff Troy Bailey. Thank you to all
39:35
Speaker 1: of our guests being with us tonight, but especially to you.
39:39
Speaker 1: Nancy Grace, signing off for tonight, but I'll see you
39:41
Speaker 1: tomorrow night. And until then, good night, friend.