Latest / Two Ts In A Pod with Teddi Mellencamp and Tamra Judge / Legally Brunette: The Lindsay Clancy Trial (Part 2)

Transcript

Legally Brunette: The Lindsay Clancy Trial (Part 2) · Two Ts In A Pod with Teddi Mellencamp and Tamra Judge

0:01
Speaker 1: Hi, guys, Welcome to an episode of Legally Brunette. I'll
0:04
Speaker 1: be your host today Emily Simpson with Shane With Shane,
0:09
Speaker 1: and today we are covering our second part of the
0:13
Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy trial.
0:15
Speaker 2: If you are.
0:17
Speaker 1: New to listening to Legally Brunette and you have not
0:19
Speaker 1: listened to the first one, I suggest going back and
0:22
Speaker 1: listening to our first episode on Lindsay Clancy. So let's
0:26
Speaker 1: just go back and just do a brief synopsis so
0:28
Speaker 1: we're all on the same page. Lindsay Clancy is a
0:31
Speaker 1: Massachusetts mother and labor and delivery nurse, and she is
0:34
Speaker 1: currently on trial for strangling her three young children, ages
0:37
Speaker 1: five three in eight months. This happened on January twenty
0:41
Speaker 1: fourth of twenty twenty three. She then jumped from a
0:44
Speaker 1: second story bedroom window in survived, but was left permanently paralyzed.
0:50
Speaker 1: She has charged with three counts of first degree murder.
0:53
Speaker 1: Clancy pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, with her
0:57
Speaker 1: defense arguing that she was in the grip of severe
1:00
Speaker 1: postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder worsened by being over prescribed medications.
1:08
Speaker 1: The trial began in twenty twenty six and has just
1:10
Speaker 1: entered the defense phase after the prosecution rested its case.
1:15
Speaker 1: So today is Monday, and the prosecution rested their case,
1:19
Speaker 1: so the defense is now. They're now presenting their witnesses
1:23
Speaker 1: and their case.
1:24
Speaker 2: I just want to read, was a prosecution do we know?
1:27
Speaker 1: It was three weeks? They had three weeks, three weeks
1:29
Speaker 1: of testimony and I believe they called seventy witnesses.
1:32
Speaker 2: Always on mental capacity state, it's on. It's not on
1:38
Speaker 2: whether she's a murder or not.
1:42
Speaker 1: No, she just to back up. And I'm sure you
1:45
Speaker 1: know there's a lot of things on social media and
1:47
Speaker 1: everything's like a big tizzy about Patrick Clancy, and you know,
1:50
Speaker 1: he's the one that should be on trial and this
1:51
Speaker 1: wasn't investigated. We do have to remember, at the core
1:54
Speaker 1: of everything, she is on trial because the prosecution is
1:59
Speaker 1: trying to prove. The prosecution is the burden of proof
2:02
Speaker 1: to prove that she was not in a state of
2:05
Speaker 1: psychosis and that she was not suffering from postpartum psychosis,
2:11
Speaker 1: that she was in a lucid, that she had.
2:14
Speaker 2: A functioning, sound mind, she was.
2:16
Speaker 1: Of sound mind, and that she planned meticulously to kill
2:21
Speaker 1: her children while her husband was away. And so they've
2:24
Speaker 1: been presenting witnesses as to her planning and stating that
2:29
Speaker 1: she wasn't you know, in a state of psychosis, that
2:32
Speaker 1: she was able, that she knew right from wrong, she
2:34
Speaker 1: knew what she was doing, and she planned it out.
2:37
Speaker 1: All right, I just want to talk a little bit
2:39
Speaker 1: before we get into the trial. Everyone is in a buzz.
2:42
Speaker 1: I don't know if you see this on when you
2:44
Speaker 1: look at Instagram, but it's all over mind. But Kevin
2:46
Speaker 1: Reddington is her attorney.
2:48
Speaker 2: The one that said everyone likes.
2:50
Speaker 1: Yeah, everyone's a big fan of Kevin Reddington. So I
2:53
Speaker 1: just I looked up a little information about him, and
2:55
Speaker 1: I thought it was really interesting. He's seventy five years
2:58
Speaker 1: old and he's a criminal defense attorney. He's based in Brockton, Massachusetts,
3:02
Speaker 1: and he has over fifty years of experience and more
3:05
Speaker 1: than one hundred murder cases under his belt. He has
3:09
Speaker 1: built a reputation as one of the state's most formidable
3:11
Speaker 1: defenders in cases involving mental illness and insanity. Please, and
3:17
Speaker 1: I thought this information was really interesting.
3:19
Speaker 2: So basically he knows what he's talking about. Is that
3:21
Speaker 2: basically what is says, he's definitely.
3:24
Speaker 1: The best attorney for this for this situation, for Lindsay Clancy.
3:29
Speaker 1: Someone with that type of experience qualified that's dealing with
3:32
Speaker 1: specifically insanity, please knows what he's doing. Right, Can you.
3:38
Speaker 2: Imagine that that's your job? Like, what can I lawdy practice?
3:41
Speaker 2: I deal with my clients are insane? Yeah, and I
3:43
Speaker 2: have to establish that they're not, they're sane or actually
3:46
Speaker 2: you might want them to be insane.
3:48
Speaker 1: Oh no, he's establishing that.
3:49
Speaker 2: Yeah, he wants you to be insane.
3:50
Speaker 1: Yeah.
3:51
Speaker 2: Right, how many spouses of clients you think? Go see,
3:55
Speaker 2: I knew she was.
3:55
Speaker 1: Crazy, well that you would love to be able to
3:58
Speaker 1: say that, right. Are you been telling me I'm crazy
4:01
Speaker 1: for seventeen years? Is that sure?
4:03
Speaker 2: Very lovely?
4:03
Speaker 1: Yeah? All right? His landmark case, and this is really
4:06
Speaker 1: I thought this was really interesting. I don't know if
4:08
Speaker 1: you've ever heard of the case of Teresse Rogers, but
4:11
Speaker 1: this was his landmark case. It was in nineteen eighty nine.
4:14
Speaker 1: So Kevin Reddington represented Terse Rogers. She was a woman
4:18
Speaker 1: who had fatally stabbed her abusive boyfriend. I believe she
4:21
Speaker 1: stabbed him in the eyes while he was sleeping. Ruddington,
4:25
Speaker 1: her attorney at the time, successfully argued that years of
4:29
Speaker 1: abuse had caused Teresse Rogers to develop battered woman syndrome,
4:34
Speaker 1: which led to a state of temporary insanity at the
4:36
Speaker 1: time of the killing. The case is widely recognized as
4:39
Speaker 1: the first successful use of battered woman syndrome as a
4:43
Speaker 1: defense in Massachusetts. So he was the first attorney that
4:47
Speaker 1: successfully argued battered.
4:48
Speaker 2: Woman syndrome in Massachusetts.
4:50
Speaker 1: In Massachusetts. Yeah, all right, let's move on and pick
4:57
Speaker 1: up where we left off last week as we continue
4:59
Speaker 1: with this trial. So we get to day twelve, which
5:03
Speaker 1: was on Wednesday, August twelfth. This is the medical examiner testimony,
5:07
Speaker 1: which was the autopsy. The Saint medical examiner took the
5:10
Speaker 1: stand and presented autopsy evidence, including photographs from the deaths
5:14
Speaker 1: of Clancy's children. This was among the most emotional days
5:17
Speaker 1: of the trial. I don't know if you saw this.
5:20
Speaker 1: There were a lot of video and images of this
5:22
Speaker 1: because when the medical examiner was testifying, she actually broke
5:27
Speaker 1: down in court and was sobbing. Oh really uncontrollably. She
5:31
Speaker 1: actually sobbed out and cried out, I can't do it.
5:35
Speaker 1: There were many images of her. I don't know if
5:37
Speaker 1: you saw any of them, but she was sobbing, and
5:39
Speaker 1: she put her head down at the table. Her attorney was,
5:42
Speaker 1: you know, comforting her, and then it forced the judge
5:47
Speaker 1: to call multiple recesses to remove the jury.
5:50
Speaker 2: Why though, Well, because I think.
5:51
Speaker 1: It could muster up a lot of sympathy.
5:54
Speaker 2: Wow. Well but yeah, but shouldn't they see her reaction?
6:00
Speaker 2: If her reaction was cold and stoic and she did nothing,
6:04
Speaker 2: would the judge then remove the jury so they wouldn't
6:07
Speaker 2: see that.
6:08
Speaker 1: I don't know, I'm just saying. He called multiple recesses
6:11
Speaker 1: to remove the jury, and legal analysts noted that while
6:14
Speaker 1: Clancy has a right to be present, the judge warned
6:17
Speaker 1: that she could be removed if outbursts continued. I mean,
6:20
Speaker 1: you do know that a judge away says there's no outbursts.
6:22
Speaker 1: You can't yell out things, you can't, you know. I
6:25
Speaker 1: think it was more about the outbursts and the loud crying.
6:28
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously she's going to show. I mean, people
6:30
Speaker 1: in court show emotions or don't show emotions. But I
6:33
Speaker 1: think hers was so.
6:34
Speaker 2: Disturbing, disturbing and disturb testimonies right.
6:38
Speaker 1: The prosecution theory surfaced via the state to police, So
6:41
Speaker 1: a Massachusetts state police trooper testified about a key element
6:45
Speaker 1: of the prosecution's theory that a doctor allegedly told Clancy
6:49
Speaker 1: to tell her husband she had heard voices, implying that
6:52
Speaker 1: she was coached in order to manufacture psychiatric symptoms rather
6:57
Speaker 1: than genuinely experiencing them.
7:00
Speaker 2: Whether he heard it firsthand or second hand, he's testifying
7:04
Speaker 2: that she that there was coaching.
7:07
Speaker 1: He's testifying that a doctor when Lindsay Clancy was taken
7:12
Speaker 1: to the hospital, that allegedly she was coached by a
7:15
Speaker 1: doctor to tell her to say that she had heard voices,
7:19
Speaker 1: which is this is this is obviously testimony for the prosecution,
7:23
Speaker 1: which is to show the jury that she wasn't actually
7:26
Speaker 1: suffering from something that she raised, that she was right.
7:30
Speaker 2: Well, then I wonder would they bring the doctor in
7:32
Speaker 2: then to testify.
7:34
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that, I think the doctor. There's been
7:37
Speaker 1: seventy witnesses, so I'm.
7:39
Speaker 2: Any of them doctors, yeah, seventy.
7:44
Speaker 1: Yeah.
7:44
Speaker 2: These are all our friends and family or something, all
7:46
Speaker 2: the neighbors. It's a whole lot of people, I know,
7:49
Speaker 2: medical examiner and other professionals, forensics and whatnot.
7:53
Speaker 1: Well, investigators, police, the first one on the scene, I
7:56
Speaker 1: mean just anyone involved in any way. Our other witnesses
8:02
Speaker 1: that have testified so far there was a therapist, a
8:04
Speaker 1: Duxbury police officer, a sheriff's office manager, and a psychiatric
8:08
Speaker 1: nurse practitioner also testified. The judge noted the trial remained
8:13
Speaker 1: on schedule with no Friday court session. Day thirteen was
8:17
Speaker 1: on Thursday of August thirteenth. This is the day was
8:20
Speaker 1: dominated by digital forensic evidence from three Massachusetts State Police officers.
8:25
Speaker 1: There was cell phone evidence. There was a lot online
8:29
Speaker 1: as far as people trying to break down all the
8:32
Speaker 1: cell phone evidence and searches. So Sergeant Timothy Chiappini is
8:37
Speaker 1: a cell phone extraction expert and he walked a jurors
8:41
Speaker 1: through searches and notes pulled from Clancy's phone. A search
8:45
Speaker 1: for Merrillax for kids was at four forty six pm.
8:48
Speaker 1: This was on January twenty fourth, at twenty twenty three,
8:50
Speaker 1: this is the night of the killings. Text messages to
8:53
Speaker 1: her husband Patrick about dinner plans started around four point
8:57
Speaker 1: fifty three pm, which prosecutors say was how she lured
9:00
Speaker 1: him out of the house. So they're presenting this detailed
9:03
Speaker 1: timeline of text messages so that they can show that
9:06
Speaker 1: she's of sound mind and that she's making meticulous plans.
9:10
Speaker 1: To ask him to leave, to pick up dinner, to
9:13
Speaker 1: be out of the house, to.
9:14
Speaker 2: Be able to make those decisions, and to be able
9:16
Speaker 2: to direct him and plan accordingly, she must have been
9:20
Speaker 2: of mental capacity to do so.
9:30
Speaker 1: A note from October twenty fifth of twenty twenty two
9:33
Speaker 1: on her phone said, I'm sad and depressed. I can't
9:37
Speaker 1: parent my third child like my first. I wanted to
9:39
Speaker 1: treat every one of my babies like my first, but
9:42
Speaker 1: I know that's not a feasible possibility. I'm sad that
9:45
Speaker 1: I stopped breastfeeding. I feel not as connected to Cal now.
9:48
Speaker 1: I think I sort of resent my other children because
9:51
Speaker 1: they prevent me from treating Cal like my first baby,
9:53
Speaker 1: and I know that's not fair to them. A search
9:56
Speaker 1: on January twentieth of twenty twenty three, this is four
9:59
Speaker 1: days before the killings, was can you treat a sociopath? Now?
10:04
Speaker 1: I don't know what she's referring to. If this is
10:07
Speaker 1: a search on her phone, is she referring to herself?
10:10
Speaker 1: Is she referring to her husband? I don't know. If
10:13
Speaker 1: someone if you had that.
10:14
Speaker 2: Search on your phone, now do you have that search
10:15
Speaker 2: on it? Oh?
10:16
Speaker 1: Okay, of course you do. Are you talking about yourself?
10:19
Speaker 1: Are you talking about me?
10:21
Speaker 2: You?
10:21
Speaker 1: Of course you are. Additional searches in the days prior
10:26
Speaker 1: were relating to psychosis, symptoms, hallucinations, and also suicide. There
10:32
Speaker 1: was also testimony that had to do with laptop evidence.
10:34
Speaker 1: This was Sergeant Kyle Paveo, computer forensics expert. Paveo examined
10:39
Speaker 1: the family laptop and found a visit to a suicide
10:42
Speaker 1: method's website on August twenty third, twenty twenty two. However,
10:47
Speaker 1: on cross examination, the defense got him to confirm that
10:51
Speaker 1: Clancy was not home when that search occurred, leaving many
10:54
Speaker 1: to suspect that Patrick Clancy is the one who made
10:57
Speaker 1: the search.
10:58
Speaker 2: Okay, so I was going to say that all these
11:00
Speaker 2: searches and family laptop, how do we know it's her?
11:04
Speaker 1: Well, the phone, Well, what we were talking about before
11:06
Speaker 1: about like the marrillas for kids and the notes on
11:09
Speaker 1: her phone, that was her phone.
11:11
Speaker 2: So I think we're just more likely than not.
11:14
Speaker 1: Right, However, there was a family laptop which I believe
11:18
Speaker 1: both of them use, and when the prosecution was talking
11:23
Speaker 1: about what was on the laptop, the shared laptop, they
11:26
Speaker 1: presented evidence of suicide, of searching suicide. I think there
11:29
Speaker 1: was also a search for Tom t Hall, this musician,
11:33
Speaker 1: but it had to do with suicide methods or something
11:36
Speaker 1: like that, and they established the time that the search was.
11:40
Speaker 1: The prosecution was obviously trying to make it as if
11:43
Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy was the one using the family laptop to
11:46
Speaker 1: make these searches, meaning that she was planning out days
11:49
Speaker 1: before what she was going to do. However, when the
11:52
Speaker 1: defense got up and Ruddington cross examined, he established that
11:56
Speaker 1: I believe she was at a doctor visit at that time.
12:00
Speaker 2: So well, and this is for research, this is for
12:05
Speaker 2: suicidal suicide methods. Wow. Yeah, well that's sure is telling
12:10
Speaker 2: that sure raises some doubt. That alone raises some doubt.
12:14
Speaker 2: I'm not saying concluding anything but right.
12:16
Speaker 1: But then also that testimony sent the whole social media
12:21
Speaker 1: into a frenzy.
12:22
Speaker 2: So that's when social media picked up on on it
12:25
Speaker 2: and starting doing their own homework investigating, we're challenging it.
12:29
Speaker 1: Right. Well, there's been a lot of social media buzz
12:31
Speaker 1: on this whole case from the beginning, and a lot
12:32
Speaker 1: of people, you know, thinking that Patrick Clancy should have
12:35
Speaker 1: been investigated. More so when this testimony came forward, a
12:40
Speaker 1: lot of people were saying that it must have been
12:42
Speaker 1: if it's not her, if she has an alibi, if
12:46
Speaker 1: this is a family laptop, if he's the one searching
12:49
Speaker 1: suicide methods, why is.
12:51
Speaker 2: He's why they're telling me they're both searching suicide methods,
12:55
Speaker 2: But he's not interested in pursuing anything. It's just her.
12:58
Speaker 1: There was also crime scene test Simoni. This was Sergeant
13:01
Speaker 1: Joshua mckelligan, the case officer who arrived at the scene
13:04
Speaker 1: around three to four am on January twenty fifth, twenty
13:07
Speaker 1: twenty three, testified about what he found. There were red
13:10
Speaker 1: brown stains on the window, ledge and shingles, and crime
13:14
Speaker 1: scene video showing the bed, an open window, a knife,
13:17
Speaker 1: and blood on the floor. Jurors also saw a photograph
13:20
Speaker 1: of two of the children posing with a backyard snowman,
13:23
Speaker 1: taken just hours before they were killed. The courtroom fell
13:27
Speaker 1: notably silent during the video presentation. I do know I
13:32
Speaker 1: believe that there was no DNA that was found on
13:34
Speaker 1: the knife, any type of conclusive DNA as to whether
13:37
Speaker 1: like Patrick's DNA was on the knife or her own
13:39
Speaker 1: DNA was on the knife. You know again, I have
13:41
Speaker 1: another point, and I know we talked about this previously,
13:43
Speaker 1: and this has also been all over social media as
13:46
Speaker 1: far as people saying, you know, because everyone's wants to
13:51
Speaker 1: point the finger at Patrick. A lot of people are
13:53
Speaker 1: rallying around Lindsay saying that she didn't do it, and
13:56
Speaker 1: a lot of people on social media are saying that
13:57
Speaker 1: they believe that Patrick did. So they're saying, why would she,
14:01
Speaker 1: you know, if she's a nurse, why would she cut
14:03
Speaker 1: her arteries the wrong way? Why would we talked about
14:06
Speaker 1: this earlier about if she was, you know, right handed,
14:09
Speaker 1: why did she cut her throat the way that she
14:11
Speaker 1: did a lot of people are also speculating and saying,
14:13
Speaker 1: why would the bedroom door be locked if she had
14:17
Speaker 1: already killed the children?
14:20
Speaker 2: Is He testifies that she says where the children are?
14:25
Speaker 2: But then later we learned that she has no ability
14:27
Speaker 2: to speak.
14:28
Speaker 1: That's what they say, really.
14:29
Speaker 3: Says to how he claims it, well, he claims that
14:31
Speaker 3: she said that she told him the kids were in
14:33
Speaker 3: the basement, and then later we learned that the medical
14:36
Speaker 3: right and that people said that when they found her,
14:38
Speaker 3: she was moaning, but she wasn't able to articulate anything.
14:41
Speaker 2: Is that again, sorry to interrupt. Slitting your throat? Is
14:44
Speaker 2: that a common practice among suiciders?
14:48
Speaker 1: I wouldn't think so. I talked about this before. I
14:50
Speaker 1: feel like this method was so violent. But anyway, my
14:52
Speaker 1: point is a lot of people questioning why the door
14:55
Speaker 1: would be locked, why she would crush up the pills
14:58
Speaker 1: when she's a nurse? Why would she cut her wrists
15:01
Speaker 1: this way? Again, and this is going to be an
15:03
Speaker 1: unpopular opinion because I believe everybody's all over Patrick Clancy.
15:07
Speaker 1: But again, if we're talking about a woman who's suffering,
15:10
Speaker 1: who legitimately, let's just so for a moment that she's
15:13
Speaker 1: legitimately suffering from postpartum psychosis as what her defense is
15:18
Speaker 1: claiming kids, then why are we expecting her to act
15:23
Speaker 1: like a reasonable labor and delivery nurse?
15:26
Speaker 2: The things that I say when you're always questioning, like
15:29
Speaker 2: why would someone kill their wife instead of getting into vorce,
15:32
Speaker 2: it's like, well, they're crazy. I mean, you're right, that's
15:35
Speaker 2: why we're talking about them because they're not reasonable people, right.
15:38
Speaker 1: And again I'm just saying a lot of the buzz
15:40
Speaker 1: has to do with why would she do that? She's
15:42
Speaker 1: a nurse. Why would the door be locked if she
15:43
Speaker 1: already killed the kid, she knows that they can't come
15:45
Speaker 1: into the room. The expectation that she acts reasonably like
15:52
Speaker 1: a normal functioning labor and delivery nurse. However, the defense
15:56
Speaker 1: is claiming that she's in a state of psychosis. So
15:58
Speaker 1: if she legitimately is in a state of psychosis and
16:01
Speaker 1: she did commit the murders of her three children, maybe
16:05
Speaker 1: the expectation would be that she would do this crazy things.
16:09
Speaker 1: She would lock the doors.
16:10
Speaker 2: People in psychosis crush up their pills, regardless of their profession.
16:14
Speaker 1: Anyway, that was just my thought on that.
16:16
Speaker 2: I follow your thoughts.
16:17
Speaker 1: Okay, all right. Also, let's get to week three. So
16:20
Speaker 1: doctor Jennifer Tufts, who was Clancy's treating psychiatrists, this is
16:25
Speaker 1: on cross examination. She Doctor Jennifer Tufts and Kevin Ruddington
16:31
Speaker 1: had a moment. I mean, they kind of went at it.
16:34
Speaker 1: Defense attorney Kevin Ruddington landed significant blows against the prosecution witness.
16:39
Speaker 1: He established that Jennifer Tufts had only recently received her
16:43
Speaker 1: board certification when she began treating Clancy and had no
16:47
Speaker 1: specialized training and postpartum psychosis when confronted with discrepancies and
16:52
Speaker 1: medical records, tough snapped I know what I meant, drawing
16:56
Speaker 1: a reprimand from the judge for interrupting questions. This was
16:59
Speaker 1: called one of the most explosive moments of the week.
17:03
Speaker 1: This We did talk about this previously, but this had
17:05
Speaker 1: to do with her making and her notes that Lindsay
17:08
Speaker 1: had pressured speech. I believe that's what it's called pressured speech.
17:11
Speaker 1: We talked about this before. This is when someone has
17:14
Speaker 1: quick kind of like hyperactive speech, like when your heart
17:18
Speaker 1: rates elevated and you speak really quickly, and a lot
17:21
Speaker 1: of this.
17:21
Speaker 2: Is like a little episode maybe just kind of well.
17:23
Speaker 1: I think it's an indication that someone's I think it's
17:28
Speaker 1: just one of the many indicators that someone is in
17:31
Speaker 1: a state of okay, you know, heightened, you know, psychosis.
17:34
Speaker 1: I don't know, because you were making fun of me
17:36
Speaker 1: last time we did this, and you were talking about
17:38
Speaker 1: how I talk like that all the time, like I
17:40
Speaker 1: always suffer from pressure e specce.
17:42
Speaker 4: You remember every insult? Yeah, well I do every comment right,
17:46
Speaker 4: But basically her notes. It depends on it's again, but
17:49
Speaker 4: it's another factor. It's just something to consider. It's not
17:52
Speaker 4: a smoking gun.
17:53
Speaker 1: Right. But the point was she had a moment of
17:56
Speaker 1: tension with the defense attorney because her notes claimed that
17:59
Speaker 1: the or was pressured speech, which would mean that that
18:02
Speaker 1: was an indicator of some type of psychostsch crisis. But
18:07
Speaker 1: she was claiming on the stand that that's not what
18:09
Speaker 1: she meant. That she meant that there was no pressured speech,
18:12
Speaker 1: and so they got into it.
18:14
Speaker 2: I was like, oh, did I say yes, I'm sorry,
18:16
Speaker 2: I meant no.
18:17
Speaker 1: I read I saw the actual line that she had
18:19
Speaker 1: written in her notes, and it could be interpreted either way,
18:22
Speaker 1: and it was where the comma was. It was one
18:24
Speaker 1: of those like you could kind of carry the note
18:27
Speaker 1: over into both things or it's.
18:29
Speaker 2: Like that's like the tone sometimes can change it. Yeah, right, right,
18:34
Speaker 2: like is Emily coming, is Emily coming? All right?
18:38
Speaker 1: Exactly? Thank you coming? I love that you used me. Yeah,
18:41
Speaker 1: thank you all right. Damaging journal entries. Forensic examiners presented
18:45
Speaker 1: two especially significant phone entries, and these were from Lindsay's phone.
18:50
Speaker 1: I'm sad and depressed because I am not able to
18:52
Speaker 1: parent my third child like my first. This is written
18:56
Speaker 1: just one day before the killings. And also medications stole
18:59
Speaker 1: my mother hood and my life. Legal analysts noted that
19:03
Speaker 1: these entries cut both ways. They could support the prosecution's
19:06
Speaker 1: argument that Clancy was an overwhelmed but rational mother, or
19:09
Speaker 1: the defenses claim that she was suffering a psychiatric breakdown.
19:13
Speaker 1: You know, I just want to talk about that point
19:14
Speaker 1: for a minute, because whenever I watch or read or
19:18
Speaker 1: see testimony that has to do with this case, basically,
19:22
Speaker 1: to me, everything that's presented could go both ways. It's
19:27
Speaker 1: really not a smoking gun, as you would say for
19:30
Speaker 1: either side.
19:31
Speaker 2: It is not always away with circumstantial evidence.
19:33
Speaker 1: It's always going to be right, and it's like, okay,
19:36
Speaker 1: so she writes, you know, medication stole my motherhood and
19:39
Speaker 1: my life. That's sad. You can look on one side.
19:42
Speaker 1: On one hand, you can think this is a woman
19:44
Speaker 1: who's suffering, who's been suffering.
19:46
Speaker 2: Well, how many women have said that, but not not
19:48
Speaker 2: gone on to you know, have a state of psychosis
19:51
Speaker 2: and kill themselves or try to kill themselves and their kids.
19:53
Speaker 2: So it's, if anything, you could argue that maybe she
19:56
Speaker 2: is of a clear mental state, that she's identifying some
20:01
Speaker 2: of her issues exactly and some of her concerns right.
20:04
Speaker 1: So I'm saying that's exactly right. My point is, all
20:07
Speaker 1: of this testimony and all of this evidence being presented,
20:11
Speaker 1: you can utilize for either side. Like you just said,
20:14
Speaker 1: on one hand, it's she's documenting it and she's articulating it,
20:17
Speaker 1: which would mean that she's she's.
20:20
Speaker 2: Not documenting the voices in her head issue.
20:22
Speaker 1: No, not exactly, not yet, but I'm I don't think
20:24
Speaker 1: she does. But but my point is that for the prosecution,
20:29
Speaker 1: that's a good argument that she's you know, lucid and
20:33
Speaker 1: she's documenting and she's aware. But then on the other hand,
20:36
Speaker 1: for the defense, it's it's sad and she's you know,
20:39
Speaker 1: she's struggling and she's depressed, and she's keeping track of
20:43
Speaker 1: all these things because she's Yeah, but.
20:44
Speaker 2: You can't criminalize someone for opening up in a diary
20:47
Speaker 2: and saying, you know, their.
20:48
Speaker 1: Struggles, right. But the question is how does the jury
20:52
Speaker 1: interpret it?
20:52
Speaker 2: I know, I know, I was just you know what
20:53
Speaker 2: I mean.
20:54
Speaker 1: Like, how does the jury interpret it? Does the jury
20:56
Speaker 1: look at it and think, oh, well, she's documenting all
20:58
Speaker 1: these things in the way she feels is because the.
21:00
Speaker 2: Words of a killer or these are words of a
21:03
Speaker 2: mother struggling.
21:04
Speaker 1: Right day fourteen, Monday, August seventeenth, the prosecution called its
21:09
Speaker 1: last witness to the stand. This is Ian Whiffin now.
21:12
Speaker 1: Ian Wiffin also testified in the Karen Reed trial. Ian
21:16
Speaker 1: Wiffin Wiffin, Wiffin.
21:18
Speaker 2: Can you spell that? Because I don't think you're pronouncing
21:20
Speaker 2: it correctly?
21:21
Speaker 1: Okay, I'm going to spell for you though there's no
21:22
Speaker 1: other way you can pronounce it. It's a WHIFFI n
21:28
Speaker 1: exactly all right. He also testified fun Fact and the
21:32
Speaker 1: Karen retrial for the prosecution.
21:34
Speaker 2: His name's a fun Fact, yes.
21:36
Speaker 1: According to testimony from digital forensics expert Ian Whiffin. He
21:41
Speaker 1: analyzed the Apple health data recovered from Lindsay Clancy's iPhone thirteen.
21:47
Speaker 1: The data presented to the jury captured her biometric activity
21:51
Speaker 1: on January twenty fourth, twenty twenty three, which is the
21:53
Speaker 1: day her three children were killed. Wiffin testified that Clancy's
21:59
Speaker 1: heart rate range between fifty and one twenty two beats
22:02
Speaker 1: per minute throughout the day. He also walked jurors through
22:06
Speaker 1: her stair climbing activity, noting that the last two recorded
22:09
Speaker 1: instances occurred at five thirty three pm and five thirty
22:13
Speaker 1: eight pm, meaning she climbed two flights of stairs within
22:16
Speaker 1: a five minute window. Around the same time, at just
22:20
Speaker 1: after five thirty three pm, she received a call from
22:23
Speaker 1: her then husband Patrick Clancy that she did not answer.
22:26
Speaker 1: She called him back at five thirty four pm, and
22:29
Speaker 1: the call lasted only fourteen seconds. Patrick returned home shortly
22:34
Speaker 1: after six pm, where he discovered that Clancy had jumped
22:37
Speaker 1: from their second story bedroom window. Prosecutors alleged she had
22:41
Speaker 1: strangled the three children with workout bands in the basement
22:44
Speaker 1: before then climbing up to the bedroom and attempting to
22:48
Speaker 1: commit suicide and then jumping out of the window. All right,
22:52
Speaker 1: So I don't know if you remember. Ian Wiffin also
22:53
Speaker 1: testified in the Karen Reid trial, and he testified as
22:56
Speaker 1: to the cell phone data on John O'Keefe's phone, and
23:00
Speaker 1: he testified that I guess his phone had stayed was
23:03
Speaker 1: near the flagpole, and he testified to the temperature of
23:06
Speaker 1: the phone and things like that. But then I believe
23:09
Speaker 1: that Alan Jackson then disputed that forensic data. I think
23:13
Speaker 1: he had alternative data that showed that John O'Keefe had
23:15
Speaker 1: gone up and down stairs and had his heart rate
23:19
Speaker 1: go up and down, which then Ian Wiffen ended up
23:22
Speaker 1: being more of a valuable even though he testified for
23:25
Speaker 1: the prosecution in Karen Reid's case, he ended up being
23:28
Speaker 1: valuable for the defense.
23:29
Speaker 2: Right.
23:33
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to this episode illegally, Brunette. Please make
23:36
Speaker 1: sure to subscribe to our podcast feed so you have
23:38
Speaker 1: access to every single episode as soon as they come out. Now,
23:47
Speaker 1: the prosecution arrests so after calling more than seventy witnesses
23:50
Speaker 1: over several weeks, including Clancy's ex husband Patrick, medical providers,
23:54
Speaker 1: and people who interacted with her around the time of
23:56
Speaker 1: the crimes, the prosecution formally rested its case today. And
24:00
Speaker 1: today is Monday, So I just want to reiterate that
24:03
Speaker 1: if you're listening to this, because this episode will come
24:05
Speaker 1: out tomorrow, which is Tuesday, we can only talk about
24:08
Speaker 1: it up until this point. Yeah, and it's I mean,
24:12
Speaker 1: it's going on right now, so we have to cut
24:14
Speaker 1: it off right here. Where the prosecution has rested its case.
24:17
Speaker 1: We'll get through the rest of this episode and then
24:19
Speaker 1: just to let you listeners know that if it feels
24:21
Speaker 1: like it's a little bit behind, it's because we have
24:23
Speaker 1: to stop talking at some point and we will do
24:26
Speaker 1: another episode after this to catch up the core dispute.
24:30
Speaker 1: Heading into the defense's case. So the prosecution, as we
24:34
Speaker 1: talked about, has the burden of proving that Lindsey Clancy
24:37
Speaker 1: acted intentionally, rationally, and swiftly when she strangled Cora, Dawson
24:42
Speaker 1: and Callen on January twenty fourth of twenty twenty three,
24:45
Speaker 1: then jumped from a second story window in what they
24:48
Speaker 1: allege was a stage suicide attempt. She has been paralyzed
24:52
Speaker 1: from the waist down. Since the defense is now going
24:56
Speaker 1: to put on their defense that she was so differing
25:00
Speaker 1: from severe postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder, was over medicated
25:05
Speaker 1: by her providers and should not be held criminally responsible.
25:09
Speaker 1: So now we're going to get into the defense's case.
25:13
Speaker 1: Do you have any thoughts before we get into the defense?
25:17
Speaker 2: A lot of it's circumstantial, if not all of it, Right,
25:18
Speaker 2: we don't have any smoking gun on anything. We have
25:20
Speaker 2: a lot of questionable evidence, right, that could go either way.
25:23
Speaker 2: So then my thinking is simply, well, then there's doubt. Yeah,
25:27
Speaker 2: then there's doubt. You might think she did it or
25:29
Speaker 2: he did it. Well, but there's doubt, no doubt.
25:33
Speaker 1: But that's doubt to what because she already conceded.
25:37
Speaker 2: I keep going back to the it's not a trial
25:40
Speaker 2: for the crime, right, she concede it to that, I know,
25:42
Speaker 2: but let's be fair. Everyone's really talking about whether he
25:46
Speaker 2: did it or she did it. Yeah, so we're kind
25:48
Speaker 2: of talking about that too.
25:49
Speaker 1: But that's not Steven, That's that's not at issue. And
25:53
Speaker 1: also a lot of people I have seen comments had said,
25:56
Speaker 1: you know, why isn't Kevin Reddington the attorney, Like why
25:59
Speaker 1: isn't he now, why isn't he switching it up a
26:01
Speaker 1: trial and going after Patrick? And it's like, because that's
26:05
Speaker 1: not That's not what this trial is a convicted killer.
26:07
Speaker 1: This is she already conceded. And also, I just want
26:10
Speaker 1: to make one other point. Kevin, Kevin Ruddington, as her attorney,
26:15
Speaker 1: had access to all the.
26:16
Speaker 2: Discovery prior to her prior to her stipulating having committed
26:21
Speaker 2: the crimes killing her kids. He reviewed everything. We imagine
26:27
Speaker 2: he's an established attorney that knows what he's doing and
26:30
Speaker 2: reviewed everything before he made the decision.
26:32
Speaker 1: I mean, she she.
26:34
Speaker 2: Stipulated, she stipulated to the murder. They accused crime, so
26:37
Speaker 2: he would have he would have he would have dealt
26:39
Speaker 2: with it.
26:40
Speaker 1: Then, Well, that's what I'm saying, And I think a
26:41
Speaker 1: lot of people are out there saying, why didn't you know,
26:44
Speaker 1: why isn't he putting Patrick? Why isn't he switching it
26:47
Speaker 1: up and now accusing Patrick? And it's because that's not
26:51
Speaker 1: what it's what the trial is about. That's not what
26:53
Speaker 1: is that issue he has.
26:55
Speaker 2: But everyone publicly is that issue with him, right, whether
26:58
Speaker 2: it's the husband.
26:59
Speaker 1: But we have to focus on the trial and what
27:01
Speaker 1: is actually being decided.
27:04
Speaker 2: Well that's not as interesting as But again.
27:07
Speaker 1: I just want to reiterate the point that he has
27:09
Speaker 1: had access to all of the discovery. He has seen
27:12
Speaker 1: all of the medical exams. He knows what they're going
27:15
Speaker 1: to say. I mean, I'm sure there's some surprises that
27:16
Speaker 1: come up when he's questioning, and maybe there's some things
27:18
Speaker 1: that come up that he wasn't aware of, But I
27:20
Speaker 1: would say that he is aware, he has had all
27:23
Speaker 1: the discovery, he has looked at all of it. If
27:26
Speaker 1: he felt as if the better route to go was
27:29
Speaker 1: for her to plead not guilty, not by reason of insanity,
27:32
Speaker 1: just not guilty, saying I didn't do it. I don't
27:35
Speaker 1: know what happened that night. It could have been my husband.
27:37
Speaker 1: That would have been the route that he went based
27:40
Speaker 1: upon all the discovery that he's reviewed. But that's not
27:42
Speaker 1: the route. So anyway, the trial doesn't get it. He
27:44
Speaker 1: doesn't get to switch it up halfway through a trial.
27:46
Speaker 2: So and you said, this guy's like moved on and
27:49
Speaker 2: he's married and everything, Well he is.
27:52
Speaker 1: Everyone says that he got married four months later. I
27:54
Speaker 1: don't think that's true. I believe that within four months
27:57
Speaker 1: after the children died, he was visiting New York City
28:01
Speaker 1: and seeing the woman that he's now married to. And
28:03
Speaker 1: I told you the woman that he's now married to
28:06
Speaker 1: her it looks exactly like her. So then there's a
28:09
Speaker 1: lot of speculation online which she said it felt like
28:13
Speaker 1: an out of body experience, like I was watching myself.
28:16
Speaker 1: So now everybody's like she said that, Lindsay Clancy. She
28:20
Speaker 1: said that when that happened, when the murders happened, that
28:23
Speaker 1: it felt like an out of body experience and that
28:25
Speaker 1: she felt like she's watching herself. So now social media
28:29
Speaker 1: grabs onto the fact that his new wife looks like her.
28:32
Speaker 1: So now you know a lot of you know, people
28:34
Speaker 1: want to be like, well, you know, it wasn't her,
28:37
Speaker 1: it was the new wife. That's a crazy theory.
28:39
Speaker 2: Out there. He just has a type.
28:41
Speaker 1: He has a type. He definitely has a type.
28:42
Speaker 2: All right.
28:43
Speaker 1: So the defense's first few witnesses are called versus Margaret hamp.
28:47
Speaker 1: Margaret Hamp is a labor and delivery nurse at Massachusetts
28:50
Speaker 1: General Hospital, and she worked alongside Lindsay Clancy for years
28:53
Speaker 1: in the delivery room. She was positioned to speak to
28:56
Speaker 1: Clancy's character as a nurse and caregiver. Margaret recounted that
29:01
Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy cried when she first learned about Andrea Yates,
29:04
Speaker 1: the Texas mother who drowned her five children in a bathtub.
29:08
Speaker 1: She testified that I explained that to her, and she
29:11
Speaker 1: cried and she said, how could a mother hurt her children? Oh?
29:14
Speaker 2: Well, that doesn't mean any one way or another to me.
29:18
Speaker 1: Well, so you're sitting on the jury and someone testifies
29:20
Speaker 1: to that and you discard that. That doesn't help you
29:23
Speaker 1: in any way with her mental state.
29:25
Speaker 2: No, because a lot of people make comments like, oh wow,
29:29
Speaker 2: that's terrible. I mean it's not you know, it's just
29:33
Speaker 2: not convincing to me one way or another. Yeah, it
29:36
Speaker 2: doesn't mean anything.
29:37
Speaker 1: I have a question, and I saw this small I've
29:39
Speaker 1: thought about this a lot. Andrea Yates was the Texas
29:42
Speaker 1: mother who drowned her five children in the bathtub. We
29:44
Speaker 1: actually did an episode on it. If you haven't listened
29:46
Speaker 1: to it, I you listen to it. Yeah. However, but
29:52
Speaker 1: this was also early on, so we didn't have social
29:54
Speaker 1: media when this happened. It makes me wonder if people
29:57
Speaker 1: would have rallied around Andrea Yates the way they're rallying
30:00
Speaker 1: around Lindsay Clancy.
30:02
Speaker 2: Now, the world cannot speak about a case the way
30:05
Speaker 2: they do today. Today, anyone can grab their phone and
30:10
Speaker 2: talk to anyone in the world or hear what anyone
30:12
Speaker 2: in the world has to say about this case. But
30:14
Speaker 2: back then, you're right, you couldn't. You just turned on
30:17
Speaker 2: the news at night and watch it and then you
30:18
Speaker 2: get the water cool The next day you all talked
30:20
Speaker 2: about it and then you moved on. You couldn't really
30:22
Speaker 2: weigh in on it as people do today.
30:25
Speaker 1: Well, it just makes me wonder if the female community
30:29
Speaker 1: like they are with Lindsay Clancy, would rally around Andrea Yeates.
30:32
Speaker 1: Maybe it's hard to know because, like you said, there
30:35
Speaker 1: wasn't any social media at that time, so there wasn't
30:37
Speaker 1: the instantaneous community that people have that they can all came.
30:40
Speaker 2: There also wasn't the same digital and forensic evidence as
30:43
Speaker 2: there is today, you know, like this whole cell phone thing,
30:47
Speaker 2: you know, I mean it's questionable who called who? Right,
30:50
Speaker 2: because its supposedly the Apple Watch was used and the
30:53
Speaker 2: phone was used.
30:55
Speaker 1: Was evaculating that because the Apple Watch wasn't forensically tested
30:59
Speaker 1: or looked at, it could have been.
31:01
Speaker 2: We're challenging today, right, or just has nothing to do
31:03
Speaker 2: with her mental capacity, which is frustrating because I want
31:06
Speaker 2: to know, you know, I would want to know the
31:09
Speaker 2: answers to who called who and where was the placement
31:12
Speaker 2: of the watch at the time of the phone call,
31:13
Speaker 2: whatever it is. And these searches, you know, these Internet searches,
31:18
Speaker 2: it's wild.
31:19
Speaker 1: Well, you know they did have Internet. They showed earlier
31:23
Speaker 1: the Internet searches that were done on her phone, I
31:25
Speaker 1: think to establish what her mind was. And there were
31:29
Speaker 1: so many searches that was just like Paul Patrol, Plato, normal.
31:35
Speaker 2: Stuff.
31:36
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, And so I mean I think it shows
31:40
Speaker 1: such a a differentiation between her phone with these searches
31:45
Speaker 1: that are like pedia Ax and Mirra Relaxe and Paul
31:48
Speaker 1: Patrol and Plato and things that have to do.
31:50
Speaker 2: With what your search history show. My gosh, what crimes
31:54
Speaker 2: would it lean towards?
31:56
Speaker 1: No, let's see my search history. What it would be
32:02
Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy trial. What are people saying on Reddit? Patrick
32:08
Speaker 1: Clancy's new wife image? It would be all true crime stuff.
32:12
Speaker 1: Because I'm always preparing for our episodes.
32:15
Speaker 2: That's a good cover up. No, the runner, I have
32:18
Speaker 2: a true crime podcast, so naturally I was researching methods
32:23
Speaker 2: of killing your husband.
32:24
Speaker 1: Okay, I have never researched methods of killing my husband.
32:29
Speaker 2: Okay, I'll have to get a forensic account and to
32:31
Speaker 2: look at your phone.
32:32
Speaker 1: The real question is what is your search history?
32:35
Speaker 2: My search history? I don't know how to how to
32:38
Speaker 2: make her happier? Yeah, how to survive with Emily Simpson?
32:44
Speaker 1: Okay, all right. Lindsay Clancy's Lindsay Clancy's sister, Alison Osga,
32:52
Speaker 1: also testified. She described the two sisters as very close
32:55
Speaker 1: and testified about personally witnessing Lindsay's mental health deterioration, what
33:00
Speaker 1: she called observing her decline. Notably, she spoke about seeing
33:05
Speaker 1: Lindsay around the holidays and at Cora's birthday. After Lindsay
33:08
Speaker 1: Clancy was released, from McLean Hospital, which helps establish a
33:12
Speaker 1: documented timeline of Clancy's psychiatric struggles and the period leading
33:16
Speaker 1: up to the killings. Paula Musgrove also testified. This is
33:20
Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy's mother. So perhaps the most striking testimony of
33:24
Speaker 1: the day came from Clancy's mother, who told the jury
33:26
Speaker 1: that back in December of twenty twenty two, just weeks
33:30
Speaker 1: before the killings, Lindsay confided to her and her husband
33:32
Speaker 1: that she was having thoughts of harming her children. Musgrove
33:36
Speaker 1: read a text message that she had gotten from Clancy
33:39
Speaker 1: in October of twenty twenty two, asking for help. This
33:42
Speaker 1: is what her text message said to her mother, Will
33:45
Speaker 1: you please come up and stay with me for a bit.
33:47
Speaker 1: I'm really sick. Something is wrong. I had horrible insomnia
33:51
Speaker 1: all night and I just don't know how I'm going
33:53
Speaker 1: to get through the day. I started taking the medicine
33:56
Speaker 1: my doctor prescribed for anxiety, and I think it's made
33:59
Speaker 1: things worse.
34:00
Speaker 2: Okay, again, this goes towards she's reaching for help with
34:05
Speaker 2: her condition and her struggles rather than just lashing out
34:12
Speaker 2: and reacting. Right, I mean, she's this looks like a
34:16
Speaker 2: lady who knows she's in trouble and is looking for help.
34:19
Speaker 1: Right. So then again this piece of evidence, if you're
34:23
Speaker 1: on the jury, does that way more towards helping the
34:25
Speaker 1: prosecution or does this way more towards helping the defense.
34:28
Speaker 2: Well, if I'm going to tip the scale one way
34:30
Speaker 2: or another, it's going to be more towards the defense.
34:32
Speaker 1: Because it's showing that she's an established pattern of her struggling.
34:36
Speaker 2: Right, And she's aware of medication. She's worried what the
34:38
Speaker 2: medication is supposed to do, what it is doing, what
34:41
Speaker 2: she wants it to do, what it's not doing, and
34:44
Speaker 2: she's asking like can you come over and be with me?
34:47
Speaker 1: Right?
34:48
Speaker 2: Like she needs support?
34:51
Speaker 1: Right? According to Lindsay's mom, Lindsay said by January that
34:56
Speaker 1: she couldn't remember anything and attributed her declining mental health
35:00
Speaker 1: to the medication that she was taking at the time.
35:03
Speaker 1: As she started to tear up on the stand, Musgrove
35:06
Speaker 1: This is her mother also described how much she loved
35:08
Speaker 1: her three grandchildren. I love my grandchildren with all my heart.
35:12
Speaker 1: You never know what it's like to love a grandchild
35:14
Speaker 1: until you become a grandmother, and it was the most
35:16
Speaker 1: beautiful thing. I love them with all my heart, she
35:18
Speaker 1: said outside of court. Lindsay's mother also described her daughter
35:23
Speaker 1: simply as a loving mother. So that was the last
35:28
Speaker 1: that as far as testifying for the defense.
35:31
Speaker 2: I know it goes back a little bit, but now
35:34
Speaker 2: I'm thinking about it. He's dating four months later, Like,
35:37
Speaker 2: how do you lose? Like, I don't know, I don't
35:40
Speaker 2: know what, I don't know. I'm not in that position
35:41
Speaker 2: because my family's still alive.
35:44
Speaker 1: Is that me?
35:44
Speaker 2: And yes, you owned my kids, but if you and
35:46
Speaker 2: the kids disappear, regardless of what it was, a car
35:51
Speaker 2: accident or a crime or suicide.
35:55
Speaker 1: Like, how do you just move on that quickly?
35:57
Speaker 2: You like, yeah, what are you doing next Friday? You
35:59
Speaker 2: want to go to dinner? Like maybe certainly you would
36:02
Speaker 2: want people around you and maybe some companionship in the
36:05
Speaker 2: terms of another adult to speak to and to have company,
36:09
Speaker 2: but to like romantically.
36:11
Speaker 1: Well that's why a lot of people are speculating that
36:14
Speaker 1: he had something to do with it, because I think
36:15
Speaker 1: a lot of people are questioning his motives and how
36:18
Speaker 1: you can move on that quickly. And I don't know
36:20
Speaker 1: if you saw this, but this was also all over
36:22
Speaker 1: social media. A lot of people, I tell you, those
36:24
Speaker 1: social media detectives. I mean they're they're crazy. I mean
36:28
Speaker 1: they can really find stuff. So they had found a
36:30
Speaker 1: review that he had written of a trip to Costa Rica,
36:32
Speaker 1: which was only shortly after his children had died, and
36:35
Speaker 1: he had posted some review of a hike in Costa
36:37
Speaker 1: Rica talking about what a great hike it was, and
36:39
Speaker 1: people were thinking, you're children after the kids, This is after, Yes,
36:44
Speaker 1: it was shortly after, and so people were saying, like,
36:47
Speaker 1: what kind of father.
36:49
Speaker 2: I don't know if I'd even go on a review
36:51
Speaker 2: site and leave a review, if I went on a trip. Well,
36:53
Speaker 2: I'm sure that now.
36:54
Speaker 1: I'm sure he's regretting that now, because again it's just
36:58
Speaker 1: more you know, things that people are finding a back
37:01
Speaker 1: quick to move on. Right. Also, people speculate that he
37:05
Speaker 1: had made business trips to New York City and that's
37:07
Speaker 1: where the woman that he's now married to lives. So
37:10
Speaker 1: there was also a lot of speculations live in the
37:12
Speaker 1: same place, you know, they sold the house, or he
37:15
Speaker 1: sold the house and has moved. I believe he's now
37:18
Speaker 1: in New York City where the new wife. The new
37:21
Speaker 1: wife is also social media was enough buzz. This was
37:25
Speaker 1: another thing, not just the Costa Rica review. But also
37:29
Speaker 1: he ran in a marathon and his new wife, her
37:32
Speaker 1: name is Rachel Danis, I believe, also ran in that
37:34
Speaker 1: same marathon. So people were finding her name and his
37:37
Speaker 1: name and showing that like they were in the same
37:40
Speaker 1: marathon together, and just a lot of info out there.
37:46
Speaker 1: She's also a doctor, and I guess she has some
37:49
Speaker 1: connections to maybe some of the some of the medical
37:51
Speaker 1: examiners in this case. It's just all very convoluted and there's.
37:55
Speaker 2: A lot going on exercise bands in their house.
37:58
Speaker 1: Well, there's a photo of her in this marathon with
38:02
Speaker 1: an exercise band wrapped around her waist. I thought that
38:05
Speaker 1: was really.
38:06
Speaker 2: What people.
38:08
Speaker 1: With exercise band It's not that I have ever seen.
38:11
Speaker 1: But there's a photo of her all over circulating all
38:15
Speaker 1: over social media that shows her running in a marathon,
38:17
Speaker 1: but she has an exercise band wrapped around her waist.
38:19
Speaker 1: It's strange. I don't I don't know. I mean, take
38:22
Speaker 1: from it what you will. Maybe it's just some benign
38:25
Speaker 1: thing that she does that has nothing to do with anything,
38:29
Speaker 1: but I mean, it's it's odd. It is it is odd.
38:33
Speaker 2: How many other people in that it was the Boston
38:35
Speaker 2: Marathon or what marathon was it? Probably the Boston How
38:38
Speaker 2: many people in the Boston Marathon wearing waistbands or exercise.
38:41
Speaker 1: No exercise, waste around their waist? Yeah, very very strange. Yes, yes,
38:49
Speaker 1: all right, thank you guys so much for listening to
38:51
Speaker 1: our episode. It's our part two of the Lindsay Clancy trial.
38:54
Speaker 1: As we stated earlier, how many I don't know how
38:57
Speaker 1: many parts. We'll do as many as we can to
38:59
Speaker 1: make sure we cover the whole trial and also the verdict,
39:03
Speaker 1: which will be very interesting. The verdict is going to
39:05
Speaker 1: be very interesting because I have no idea what these
39:07
Speaker 1: jurors are thinking.
39:09
Speaker 2: Or feeling interview them.
39:11
Speaker 1: I am, but I'm just saying, and as we talked
39:13
Speaker 1: about earlier, I mean, you can interpret all of the
39:17
Speaker 1: testimony and evidence that's been presented. You can look at
39:22
Speaker 1: it and you can use it really for either side.
39:25
Speaker 1: I mean, it's really interesting and it's really interesting to
39:28
Speaker 1: know what's going on in the jury's mind right now,
39:30
Speaker 1: which we don't know. But it'll be interesting to see
39:32
Speaker 1: what the verdict is in this case. So we will
39:34
Speaker 1: continue to follow the Lindsey Clancy trial. We will do
39:38
Speaker 1: more episodes as we go along, so make sure you
39:40
Speaker 1: follow Legally Brunette wherever you listen to podcasts, and be
39:44
Speaker 1: sure to tell your friends and family. And as always,
39:46
Speaker 1: if you have any recommendations of cases you would like
39:48
Speaker 1: us to go over, please let me know on social media.
39:51
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening, guys, we appreciate you