Latest / Crime Stories with Nancy Grace / "LOVING MOM" LINDSAY CLANCY ON EDGE: VERDICT WATCH

Transcript

"LOVING MOM" LINDSAY CLANCY ON EDGE: VERDICT WATCH · Crime Stories with Nancy Grace

0:00
Speaker 1: Loving mom, Lindsay Clancy, on edge as we go to
0:04
Speaker 1: air tonight because we are in a verdict watch here
0:08
Speaker 1: at Crime Stories. Good evening. I'm Nancy Grace. This is
0:11
Speaker 1: Crime Stories. I want to thank you for being with us.
0:21
Speaker 1: A male voice allegedly ordering Lindsay Clancy to kill her children.
0:27
Speaker 1: I don't think Patrick Clancy had anything to do with
0:29
Speaker 1: the deaths of his three children.
0:30
Speaker 2: Who believes something like that when all of the evidence,
0:33
Speaker 2: like you said, Nancy, shows that he was away from
0:37
Speaker 2: the scene of this heinous tragedy?
0:41
Speaker 3: This case is not about our mental health system or
0:45
Speaker 3: how it treats women or what's in the DSM-5 and
0:48
Speaker 3: what's not. That's a distraction to get you angry and
0:52
Speaker 3: passionate about an important issue, but an issue that's not
0:55
Speaker 3: on trial here. What's on trial here, what the issue
0:59
Speaker 3: is here, is what Lindsay Clancy did the night of
1:02
Speaker 3: January 24th, 2023, and what her mental state was at
1:07
Speaker 3: the time.
1:08
Speaker 1: We are in a verdict watch here at Crime Stories
1:12
Speaker 1: as we wait for a verdict to be handed down
1:14
Speaker 1: in the case against so-called loving mom Lindsay Clancy. That
1:18
Speaker 1: sound from our friends at East Idaho News. That is
1:20
Speaker 1: Prosecutor Sprague as she gave her closing arguments with Dwayne
1:24
Speaker 1: heavily on the minds of the jurors. So far, the
1:29
Speaker 1: jury has been out for hours and hours. What does
1:32
Speaker 1: it mean? We know that this morning to you, Shannon Hill,
1:35
Speaker 1: joining us, star of Shannon Hill News, that they came
1:39
Speaker 1: in first thing bright and early this morning dressed to
1:43
Speaker 1: the nines.
1:44
Speaker 4: I was in the courtroom on Thursday during closing arguments.
1:48
Speaker 4: And the interesting thing is that the investigators who testified
1:53
Speaker 4: in the trial, in the very beginning parts of the trial,
1:56
Speaker 4: actually showed up and sat behind prosecution to show their support.
2:01
Speaker 4: And while attorney Kevin Reddington was giving his closing argument,
2:06
Speaker 4: he pointed at them and said, I don't care that
2:08
Speaker 4: they're sitting here right now. He looked straight at the
2:10
Speaker 4: jury and told them, I don't care that these investigators
2:13
Speaker 4: are sitting here right now. That means nothing to him
2:16
Speaker 4: because he feels that his client is innocent. He also
2:22
Speaker 4: did the three-coin toss on the table in front of
2:26
Speaker 4: the prosecution, and the public seems to really be taking
2:29
Speaker 4: that on as some sort of biblical message, considering the
2:34
Speaker 4: topic of Catholicism has been brought up several times in
2:37
Speaker 4: the courtroom now.
2:38
Speaker 1: Did you say a coin toss? The defense attorney did
2:42
Speaker 1: a coin toss in front of the jury at the
2:44
Speaker 1: prosecution table?
2:45
Speaker 3: A coin slam to the table, yes.
2:48
Speaker 4: He did a three-coin slam to the prosecution's table, and
2:51
Speaker 4: people are comparing this to the 30 pieces of silver
2:53
Speaker 4: in the Judas betrayal in the Bible. But what I
2:57
Speaker 4: actually took it as.
2:57
Speaker 1: Okay, question. What did he say when he did the
2:59
Speaker 1: coin slam? What was the point in his mind?
3:03
Speaker 4: My interpretation was that it wasn't biblical at all and
3:06
Speaker 4: that he was actually pointing out each time he felt
3:08
Speaker 4: the prosecution manipulated the evidence against his client. So each
3:13
Speaker 4: coin stood for... you know, a different piece of evidence
3:16
Speaker 4: that prosecution brought up during the trial, which one was
3:19
Speaker 4: the drinking, the amount of drinking Lindsay Clancy did during
3:23
Speaker 4: the week. Another was the Facebook post about her son Dawson.
3:28
Speaker 4: And he, the coins were there to represent each one
3:32
Speaker 4: of these times he felt that prosecution was being misleading
3:36
Speaker 4: or manipulative.
3:37
Speaker 1: Explain the evidence of Lindsay Clancy drinking in the days
3:42
Speaker 1: preceding the murders of her children.
3:45
Speaker 4: So Lindsay Clancy shared with her Dr. Tufts, a psychiatrist, Dr. Tufts,
3:51
Speaker 4: that she had been drinking about four drinks a night,
3:55
Speaker 4: about five days a week, and that she felt embarrassed
3:59
Speaker 4: by that. And this was talked about in the courtroom.
4:04
Speaker 4: And Attorney Ken Reddington felt that prosecution was using that
4:08
Speaker 4: in a very misleading way, that Lindsay Clancy had some
4:11
Speaker 4: type of drinking problem. But in reality, he felt that
4:14
Speaker 4: his client was just a casual drinker, occasionally having a
4:17
Speaker 4: beer with friends, which he brought up in his closing arguments.
4:22
Speaker 1: Straight out to Alice LaCour joining us, former federal prosecutor,
4:25
Speaker 1: now co-star of the Prosecutor's Podcast and Legal Briefs podcast. Alice,
4:31
Speaker 1: many people thought it was a foreshadowing this morning when
4:35
Speaker 1: several jurors came in dressed in pink.
4:38
Speaker 5: Nancy, we've seen these droves of women dressed in pink
4:42
Speaker 5: outside saying that they support Lindsay, saying they stand with her,
4:45
Speaker 5: saying they are here for all postpartum struggling women. Now,
4:50
Speaker 5: what the jury may or may not be wearing, they're
4:52
Speaker 5: not sequestered. So they're aware of these people standing outside
4:57
Speaker 5: in pink, whether they're signaling to the people standing outside
5:00
Speaker 5: in pink that is something that only they can tell us.
5:04
Speaker 5: But I will say this, this jury has sat through
5:07
Speaker 5: some of the most horrific evidence in any trial you
5:11
Speaker 5: can imagine. I know it is waiting for them. And
5:15
Speaker 5: we're hoping that they've heard everything over the past five weeks.
5:20
Speaker 5: that they look at the evidence for each of these
5:23
Speaker 5: three young children. They each have dignity, as the prosecution
5:27
Speaker 5: pointed out. They each had a future, and all of
5:30
Speaker 5: that has been ended. This jury holds a lot in
5:33
Speaker 5: their hands. So whether what they're wearing signals what they
5:37
Speaker 5: may or may not be doing, I just hope that
5:39
Speaker 5: they truly have held in all this information and consider
5:43
Speaker 5: it for the sake of the victims.
5:46
Speaker 1: The closing arguments weighed heavily on the jury as they
5:50
Speaker 1: went out for day one of deliberations.
5:55
Speaker 3: She denied suicidal ideation. She denied homicidal ideation. She said
5:59
Speaker 3: she wasn't hearing voices or seeing anything. They saw the
6:03
Speaker 3: entire time she was there, no signs of psychosis. In fact,
6:06
Speaker 3: every doctor she saw, from Tufts in September all the
6:11
Speaker 3: way through Tufts January 23rd, None of them saw any
6:16
Speaker 3: signs of psychosis ever.
6:19
Speaker 1: So they're all wrong?
6:21
Speaker 3: All these different doctors at all these different practices, they're
6:25
Speaker 3: all collectively together wrong? That doesn't make sense. You're at 413,
6:31
Speaker 3: you see her search for takeout from 3V. And then
6:35
Speaker 3: immediately after, she does the Apple Maps search to see
6:39
Speaker 3: how long it takes to get to 3V. Well, defense
6:43
Speaker 3: wants you to believe that You know, she was checking
6:46
Speaker 3: that because she didn't want him gone for too long.
6:49
Speaker 6: She wanted him home.
6:50
Speaker 1: She was in distress.
6:52
Speaker 3: If you're in distress, don't send him anywhere. Make food
6:56
Speaker 3: at home. Have him cook.
6:57
Speaker 1: Get delivery.
6:58
Speaker 5: Get DoorDash.
6:59
Speaker 3: Go to one of the other restaurants that Patrick mentioned
7:02
Speaker 3: that were two minutes down the road.
7:05
Speaker 1: That is Prosecutor Sprague in her defense. closing statements to
7:08
Speaker 1: the jury, which weigh very heavily on the jurors as
7:11
Speaker 1: they go out for deliberations. That's from our friends at
7:14
Speaker 1: East Idaho News. Straight out to Dr. Cheryl Erick joining us,
7:18
Speaker 1: clinical forensic psychologist specializing in cases just like this. Dr. Cheryl,
7:24
Speaker 1: thank you for being with us. So you just heard
7:27
Speaker 1: Prosecutor Sprague describing clear planning. The law is intent can
7:36
Speaker 1: be formed Just like that. And here we see clear planning,
7:42
Speaker 1: which no one really wants to address because we all
7:46
Speaker 1: find it much more comfortable to believe, oh, okay, she
7:49
Speaker 1: was insane. That's better than her planning the deaths of
7:52
Speaker 1: her children. Can you be in postpartum psychosis and intend
7:58
Speaker 1: to kill?
8:01
Speaker 7: You're looking at intent and you're looking at planning.
8:05
Speaker 4: And Nancy.
8:07
Speaker 7: Lindsay Clancy could absolutely have done planning that was triggered
8:13
Speaker 7: by auditory hallucinations and planning that was shaped by psychotic delusions.
8:19
Speaker 7: For example, if she believed that she was protecting her
8:24
Speaker 7: children from something by killing them, she could very much
8:28
Speaker 7: in a psychotic state, plan that, carry it out. And
8:31
Speaker 7: then when she came out of the psychotic state being
8:33
Speaker 7: a completely different state of mind, people really confuse postpartum psychosis,
8:39
Speaker 7: which is incredibly rare. You see this one or two
8:42
Speaker 7: in a thousand, whereas postpartum depression is much, much more common.
8:47
Speaker 7: This is a loss of touch with reality. This is
8:51
Speaker 7: a person when they are in a psychotic state who
8:54
Speaker 7: cannot think about the law and reality and all of
8:57
Speaker 7: the state of mind things that her mother-in-law testified to
9:01
Speaker 7: about what a wonderful loving mother she was when she
9:04
Speaker 7: was in her right mind. but postpartum psychosis is different
9:09
Speaker 7: and it doesn't look like regular psychosis. When I watched
9:11
Speaker 7: the prosecution talk about are all of these doctors wrong
9:15
Speaker 7: because they didn't see it, they were on Zoom with
9:18
Speaker 7: her for 20 minutes here and there. Postpartum psychosis, rapid cycles,
9:23
Speaker 7: and people can look really, really insane one minute and
9:27
Speaker 7: look completely put together the next and hours later. This
9:31
Speaker 7: is something that is a psychiatric emergency. It's an obstetric emergency.
9:36
Speaker 7: And she absolutely could plan these things. And when we
9:40
Speaker 7: look at motive, we look at all of the testimony
9:45
Speaker 7: from the people in her life. If she wasn't in
9:47
Speaker 7: a psychotic state where she could not tell what was
9:51
Speaker 7: real and what wasn't, what is the motive? Why would
9:54
Speaker 7: this woman do this terrible, heinous thing to her children?
9:58
Speaker 7: That doesn't make sense.
10:00
Speaker 1: Sense. Dr. Cheryl, here's the deal. No one has to
10:07
Speaker 1: prove motive. In any child killing, you can say, what's
10:10
Speaker 1: the motive? Why would you kill a child? I don't know.
10:15
Speaker 1: All I want to know is if she could form
10:19
Speaker 1: intent to kill, and clearly she did.
10:24
Speaker 2: Listen.
10:25
Speaker 1: What she told Dr.
10:26
Speaker 3: Satov, that when she gets the call, she's at the
10:28
Speaker 3: fridge getting chicken nuggets out of the fridge to make dinner.
10:33
Speaker 1: You heard from Patrick.
10:34
Speaker 3: When he's leaving, Dawson is sitting on the couch eating
10:38
Speaker 3: chicken nuggets and green beans out of a bowl. So
10:40
Speaker 3: why would the defendant make that up? Why would she
10:43
Speaker 3: say she's doing that during the phone call? Because if
10:48
Speaker 3: she's already killed the kids... because of a voice and
10:51
Speaker 3: being compelled and it being against her will and she's
10:55
Speaker 3: like a puppet, then she can't get a call and
11:00
Speaker 3: miss it and then call the person back and have
11:02
Speaker 3: a conversation and then hang up. A puppet can't do
11:06
Speaker 3: those things. Those are decisions and choices and actions that
11:10
Speaker 3: she's controlling.
11:12
Speaker 1: Prosecutors pray giving closing statements. That's from East Idaho News.
11:15
Speaker 1: So how do you reconcile that? Dr. Cheryl Arrett?
11:22
Speaker 7: It's cherry picking. We can look at intent. We can
11:26
Speaker 7: look at what is the state of mind when someone
11:28
Speaker 7: is formulating intent. And the question that they have to
11:31
Speaker 7: prove is that she was conscious of reality, of the law,
11:36
Speaker 7: of the meaning of this, that this was a permanent
11:40
Speaker 7: forever separation from her children, that she was committing a crime.
11:46
Speaker 7: This is something that they have to prove. And they
11:49
Speaker 7: have not demonstrated that.
11:52
Speaker 1: I hear what you're saying, but let me give you
11:54
Speaker 1: the legal parameters within which you should be working on
11:59
Speaker 1: this case. Intent is the intent to do the act.
12:05
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean that you're thinking about, as you described,
12:09
Speaker 1: forever separation. It's whether I have intent to hold up
12:13
Speaker 1: a gun and shoot you in the head. That intent. Right.
12:16
Speaker 5: If you.
12:17
Speaker 1: And she clearly had intent to get her husband out
12:20
Speaker 1: of the house so she could kill the children.
12:23
Speaker 7: If you think I'm the devil in that moment? she
12:47
Speaker 7: may have formulated intent under a delusion. And it depends
12:51
Speaker 7: on whether it's egocentronic or egodistonic. Egodistonic is when someone
12:56
Speaker 7: is having thoughts of hurting their baby and they're absolutely
12:59
Speaker 7: horrified by it and it scares them. Egocentronic means they
13:03
Speaker 7: are having these thoughts and they think that's not an
13:07
Speaker 7: awful thing. That is not something that the evidence shows
13:10
Speaker 7: that was a normal state of mind for this woman.
13:13
Speaker 7: And there are lots and lots of attempts that this
13:16
Speaker 7: woman made from what I can see, to get help
13:19
Speaker 7: and a whole lot of people who did not understand
13:22
Speaker 7: postpartum psychosis. This woman should have been hospitalized immediately with
13:27
Speaker 7: her baby if possible, never left alone with her baby
13:31
Speaker 7: if possible. She should have been given lithium. There are
13:35
Speaker 7: all kinds of best practices about postpartum psychosis that were
13:40
Speaker 7: not followed even by the admission of the treating mental
13:43
Speaker 7: health professionals here. This is a tragedy. But this does
13:48
Speaker 7: not look to me like a Casey Anthony or somebody
13:52
Speaker 7: who is out partying and not, I mean, it's a
13:57
Speaker 7: completely different mentality than what we've seen in some of
14:01
Speaker 7: these other awful cases that you and I have covered.
14:05
Speaker 1: Dr. Sherrill, with all respect to you and what you say,
14:10
Speaker 1: this is not a popularity contest. This is not about
14:14
Speaker 1: was she on a stripper poll like Casey Anthony was.
14:17
Speaker 1: Or was she a seemingly loving mom? Are those my
14:21
Speaker 1: only two choices? I don't think so. The only issue,
14:26
Speaker 1: it's not about her personality. Was she a good mom?
14:29
Speaker 1: Was she a bad mom? It's only about intent at
14:34
Speaker 1: the time of the act. Wait in, Alice LaCourte.
14:38
Speaker 5: I think that's exactly right here. Yes, it doesn't really
14:41
Speaker 5: matter if she was a good or bad mom. What
14:43
Speaker 5: we know is that she knew how to keep things
14:47
Speaker 5: from her mandatory reporters. The practitioners can only help her
14:51
Speaker 5: if she tells the truth. The purpose about the drinking
14:55
Speaker 5: wasn't that she was a heavy drinker. It was the
14:57
Speaker 5: point that she spoke to three practitioners and gave three
15:01
Speaker 5: different stories about drinking.
15:03
Speaker 7: One, she never drank.
15:04
Speaker 5: She hadn't drank since she got pregnant with Cora five
15:07
Speaker 5: years earlier. Another practitioner within the same month, she says
15:11
Speaker 5: she's drinking three to four drinks a night. The point
15:14
Speaker 5: isn't to look at her drinking. The point is to
15:16
Speaker 5: show how she knowingly knew what to tell people to
15:20
Speaker 5: get what she wanted. She was prescribed medication. She did
15:24
Speaker 5: not follow what any doctor told her to do. She
15:28
Speaker 5: went to the hospital. She checked herself in. And despite
15:31
Speaker 5: knowing she wasn't well, she told them, I'm great. I
15:35
Speaker 5: can go because she wanted to go to her daughter's
15:38
Speaker 5: birthday party. That's not a bad thing, but she knew
15:41
Speaker 5: the right things to say and psychosis or not. Mental
15:45
Speaker 5: health practitioners can only help her if she's truthful. What
15:49
Speaker 5: we do know is that she never reported a voice, never,
15:53
Speaker 5: ever reported a voice until days after the murder. And
15:57
Speaker 5: she still says she heard it for the first time
16:00
Speaker 5: after the door closed and Patrick walked away. Those 18
16:04
Speaker 5: minutes she heard a voice. The first time she hears
16:06
Speaker 5: a voice that says, kill your kids, she just says,
16:09
Speaker 5: all right, and jumps into action. Every single expert on
16:13
Speaker 5: the stand said, That is highly unusual. That is highly unusual.
16:19
Speaker 5: It sounds like post hoc justification to me.
16:21
Speaker 1: To Shannon Hill, I know that one doctor stated that
16:28
Speaker 1: she heard the evil male voice for 18 minutes. Was
16:34
Speaker 1: there other testimony that she heard the voice before that?
16:40
Speaker 4: No, there was not other testimony until this day. Lindsay
16:43
Speaker 4: Clancy claims that she has only heard that voice in
16:46
Speaker 4: the duration in which her husband had left the house
16:49
Speaker 4: and that went until she murdered her children. And after that,
16:53
Speaker 4: she has never heard the voice again. And several experts
16:57
Speaker 4: testified on the stand saying that is very rare to
17:00
Speaker 4: only hear the voice once and act on it and
17:03
Speaker 4: to only hear it in that duration. And the fact
17:06
Speaker 4: that the claims are that she stopped hearing those voices
17:09
Speaker 4: in after she murdered Cora Dawson and baby Callan is
17:15
Speaker 4: very strange. And like your previous guests were saying, she
17:20
Speaker 4: was not fully honest with her medical professionals. She didn't
17:24
Speaker 4: follow proper medical protocol for long enough. And the prosecution
17:28
Speaker 4: did a good job of going over the fact that
17:31
Speaker 4: she took one or two pills from each prescription bottle
17:34
Speaker 4: and then never really completed a full medical protocol. she
17:39
Speaker 4: wasn't being completely transparent with her doctors and saying that
17:45
Speaker 4: she was having suicidal thoughts, homicidal thoughts. When they all
17:50
Speaker 4: referred her to further health care and going into an
17:54
Speaker 4: inpatient treatment, she didn't really follow their recommendations. She would
17:59
Speaker 4: go for a day and then leave.
18:02
Speaker 1: Alice LaCour, could you tell me again, following up on
18:06
Speaker 1: what Shannon Hill has just reported, Could you follow up
18:09
Speaker 1: again about the inconsistent statements regarding her drinking?
18:14
Speaker 5: So what we know is that Lindsay told different practitioners
18:18
Speaker 5: different things, not just about the voices, but about seemingly
18:22
Speaker 5: insignificant things like drinking. So for one doctor, Dr. Tufts,
18:27
Speaker 5: I think that's probably the most honest statement. She said
18:30
Speaker 5: that she had a lot of anxiety and she would
18:32
Speaker 5: essentially self-medicate with drinking multiple times, multiple drinks a night.
18:38
Speaker 5: That's in and of itself okay. But what's disturbing is
18:42
Speaker 5: that she would tell another nurse practitioner that she hadn't
18:45
Speaker 5: touched alcohol since she got pregnant with Cora five years earlier.
18:51
Speaker 5: It doesn't really matter if she drinks or not. What
18:54
Speaker 5: matters is that this is a very knowing person who
18:58
Speaker 5: is part of the medical field. She's a labor and
19:01
Speaker 5: delivery nurse, and she knows how her comments will affect
19:05
Speaker 5: how people treat her and how they view her. And
19:08
Speaker 5: so she is telling different practitioners different things about her
19:12
Speaker 5: habits that will absolutely affect how these practitioners treat her
19:16
Speaker 5: because the medications she's prescribed can interact with alcohol. But
19:22
Speaker 5: the whole point here is she's knowingly disseminating information on
19:27
Speaker 5: her terms. And we know that at least one of
19:30
Speaker 5: those is a lie.
19:31
Speaker 1: Alice LaCour joining us, former federal prosecutor, co-starred the Prosecutors
19:35
Speaker 1: Podcast and Legal Briefs Podcast. I just want to nail
19:39
Speaker 1: this down about the voice. The jury heard a lot
19:42
Speaker 1: of testimony about the voice. And I think that has
19:44
Speaker 1: landed us where we are tonight in part. Did she
19:48
Speaker 1: ever hear anything? the evil male voice telling her to
19:52
Speaker 1: kill her children before that night?
19:58
Speaker 5: Never, ever. We know that there are thousands of pages
20:02
Speaker 5: of medical records by multiple practitioners and hospitals that treated
20:07
Speaker 5: and evaluated her. Mentions of the voice never appear in
20:11
Speaker 5: any records. The first mention of a voice is by
20:16
Speaker 5: Lindsay In a phone call after the murders, about a
20:21
Speaker 5: week after the murders, when she calls Patrick and in
20:25
Speaker 5: calling him, she said, I want to know where Patrick
20:28
Speaker 5: and I stand. During that call, she mentions for the
20:32
Speaker 5: first time to anybody. that she heard a voice at
20:37
Speaker 5: the time of the murders. She, at that time and
20:40
Speaker 5: since then, has never even stated she heard that voice before.
20:44
Speaker 5: It was a one-time thing. She heard the voice when
20:47
Speaker 5: the door closed after Patrick left, and she has never
20:51
Speaker 5: heard that voice again.
20:52
Speaker 1: So the door closes, a voice says, go kill your children.
20:56
Speaker 1: And she's like, okay, am I right about that?
21:01
Speaker 5: That is the story the defense wants you to believe.
21:05
Speaker 5: She says, and by the way, she has told three
21:08
Speaker 5: practitioners and three experts three different things the voice says.
21:12
Speaker 5: But we know from her civil complaint, she says she
21:16
Speaker 5: heard the voice say, this is your last chance. Kill
21:20
Speaker 5: your kids so that you can kill yourself. And she
21:25
Speaker 5: does not report resisting the voice, making any calls of help.
21:30
Speaker 5: or trying to even appease the voice to do something
21:33
Speaker 5: other than what the voice was demanding. She had to
21:36
Speaker 5: have jumped straight into action. As we can tell from
21:39
Speaker 5: her data, her health data on her phone, which shows
21:43
Speaker 5: that she immediately started taking the kids one by one
21:47
Speaker 5: down to the basement where they were ultimately strangled in
21:50
Speaker 5: different rooms so that they did not panic and fight her.
21:54
Speaker 1: Alice, again, what were the three versions she's told of
21:58
Speaker 1: what the voice said?
22:01
Speaker 5: So in one, we know because she put it in
22:04
Speaker 5: her civil complaint and she told one of the experts
22:08
Speaker 5: that it said, this is your last chance. Kill the
22:11
Speaker 5: kids so you can kill yourself. In another, it just says,
22:16
Speaker 5: kill your kids so you can be free. All of
22:21
Speaker 5: these are slight variations, but they matter because the experts
22:24
Speaker 5: got on the stand and said, when you see these
22:27
Speaker 5: inconsistencies for a voice that was so powerful, she had
22:31
Speaker 5: to jump into action and do the unthinkable as a mother.
22:35
Speaker 5: That points to post hoc justification rather than actually hearing
22:40
Speaker 5: a voice at the time.
22:43
Speaker 1: Did you say post hoc justification? I did.
22:48
Speaker 2: Yes.
22:49
Speaker 5: This voice came after.
22:50
Speaker 1: And what do you mean by that?
22:52
Speaker 5: I mean to say that it's made up to cover
22:55
Speaker 5: for a murder. It's to explain away what happened.
22:58
Speaker 1: So one voice says, kill your kids so you can
23:01
Speaker 1: then kill yourself. And the other voice says, well, the
23:04
Speaker 1: same voice says, kill yourself so you can be free.
23:10
Speaker 7: Yes.
23:10
Speaker 1: Kill the kids so you can be free. Yes. Yes.
23:16
Speaker 5: And note that none of these voices say anything delusional
23:20
Speaker 5: about the kids, unlike most delusions. They don't say something like,
23:24
Speaker 5: your kids are going to be, you know, your kids
23:29
Speaker 5: are the demon, for example. We've seen that in psychosis
23:31
Speaker 5: cases where someone thinks that they have to end something evil.
23:35
Speaker 5: There's no delusion that she reports along with the voice,
23:38
Speaker 5: which is very suspect, as the experts told us.
23:44
Speaker 3: She had health insurance that covered multiple doctors, multiple specialty programs,
23:50
Speaker 3: treatment at South Shore, at Mass General, her stay at McLean.
23:55
Speaker 3: She had prescription coverage to cover the different trials she
23:58
Speaker 3: went through. She had support at home. She had 18
24:03
Speaker 3: weeks of maternity leave with the opportunity to extend that
24:07
Speaker 3: as much as she needed, which is excellent, which is
24:09
Speaker 3: what all women should have. But she had that. She
24:14
Speaker 3: had support from both sides of her family, hers and Patrick's.
24:18
Speaker 3: The two older kids, Cora and Dawson, were in preschool
24:22
Speaker 3: three and a half days a week. And she had
24:24
Speaker 3: the nanny, Elaine, who helped with Callan three mornings a week.
24:29
Speaker 3: And she also helped her with housework and with food prep.
24:33
Speaker 3: This wasn't a woman suffering from a lack of care,
24:37
Speaker 3: a lack of resources. She had an abundance of help,
24:41
Speaker 3: an abundance of care. She had all of that and more.
24:46
Speaker 1: That is from our friends at East Idaho News. That
24:48
Speaker 1: is Prosecutor Sprague in her closing arguments, pointing out all
24:52
Speaker 1: the help that Lindsay Clancy had in the home. She
24:55
Speaker 1: was not alone. Dr. Cheryl Erick joining us, clinical and
24:59
Speaker 1: forensic psychologist. I want you to hear this part of
25:03
Speaker 1: the closing argument and get your opinion. Listen.
25:06
Speaker 3: You know that she knew the difference between right and
25:08
Speaker 3: wrong during that time because she had those thoughts at
25:12
Speaker 3: the beginning of December and of harming her kids. And
25:16
Speaker 3: she told Patrick and her mother about them. But who
25:20
Speaker 3: she didn't tell is important and very telling. She didn't
25:24
Speaker 3: tell a single provider. Not Tufts, not Gelada, not Jennifer McAllister,
25:30
Speaker 3: not Dukes, no one at McLean, no one at MGH,
25:33
Speaker 3: no one at South Shore. Didn't tell any of them.
25:37
Speaker 1: And why?
25:39
Speaker 3: Because the police might take away her kids. That's a
25:43
Speaker 3: rational thought But telling mandated reporters that you're having a
25:49
Speaker 3: thought of harming your kids, that they might be taken
25:53
Speaker 3: away for their safety, that's a rational thought.
25:58
Speaker 1: That's from East Idaho News 2. Dr. Cheryl, Eric, what
26:01
Speaker 1: do you make of that claim?
26:04
Speaker 7: What I make of that claim is that shows a
26:06
Speaker 7: fundamental misunderstanding of postpartum psychosis. And psychosis very frequently includes paranoia.
26:15
Speaker 7: We are as mental health professionals trained to look for
26:19
Speaker 7: when we are assessing these things that when people are paranoid,
26:23
Speaker 7: they very often do not disclose some of the things
26:26
Speaker 7: that are going on with them. They don't trust their providers.
26:29
Speaker 7: They are afraid about these things. And it does not
26:32
Speaker 7: show her state of mind when she committed the killings.
26:36
Speaker 7: This shows her state of mind when she was looking
26:40
Speaker 7: for help and when she was having the suicidal thoughts
26:44
Speaker 7: in early December. And yes, she did try to do
26:47
Speaker 7: a lot of things. She wasn't suffering from a lack
26:49
Speaker 7: of resources, but she was suffering from a lack of
26:51
Speaker 7: people with expertise in postpartum psychosis. And what the prosecutor
26:55
Speaker 7: would have you believe is that this is someone with
26:59
Speaker 7: no prior evidence of being a murderous criminal mastermind, all
27:04
Speaker 7: of a sudden became this calculating person intent on murdering
27:07
Speaker 7: her children. or is it more plausible with none of
27:12
Speaker 7: that evidence in this person's history and completely consistent with
27:16
Speaker 7: postpartum psychosis that this can flip into a state of
27:24
Speaker 7: mind that is an emergency and a psychiatric emergency at that.
27:29
Speaker 7: So if we look at what is a more plausible
27:33
Speaker 7: explanation for how this horrific thing out of the blue
27:38
Speaker 7: could possibly have happened. The prosecution is asking you to
27:44
Speaker 7: presume that this was all a calculating murder, but where
27:47
Speaker 7: is the evidence in this person's history that she was
27:53
Speaker 7: even capable of something like that?
27:56
Speaker 1: Again, you've given me two very distinct and polar opposite choices,
28:00
Speaker 1: and the choices you've given me are either she's in
28:03
Speaker 1: psychosis or she is a criminal mastermind. I find very
28:09
Speaker 1: few killers to be a, quote, criminal mastermind. That's why
28:13
Speaker 1: so many of them get caught. But those aren't the
28:16
Speaker 1: only choices. I agree. At all, by far. So I
28:21
Speaker 1: find that to be disingenuous. I'm looking for the truth.
28:24
Speaker 1: I don't have a dog in the fight, no skin
28:26
Speaker 1: in the game. And I want to ask you about
28:30
Speaker 1: the Internet searches. But before I go to her Internet searches,
28:34
Speaker 1: to Jeff Gentry joining us, He is a renowned forensics expert.
28:40
Speaker 1: He is the author of Forensic Science, Applications to Death
28:43
Speaker 1: in Crime Scene Investigations, and you can find him at evidenceoverassumption.com.
28:51
Speaker 1: Someone stated earlier, and they were correct, that the internet
28:55
Speaker 1: is on fire with sleuths claiming Patrick Clancy is somehow
29:01
Speaker 1: involved in three murders of children. I'd like your response.
29:07
Speaker 3: All right.
29:07
Speaker 6: I'm going to first, I've got a lot to say
29:09
Speaker 6: about this topic. First of all, you know that I'm
29:13
Speaker 6: all about the evidence. So normally when I'm looking at
29:15
Speaker 6: a case, especially from the outside, I look at what
29:18
Speaker 6: can the evidence tell me? And everybody is talking about intent.
29:22
Speaker 6: What was Lindsay Clancy's intent in this crime? Why did
29:26
Speaker 6: she kill her kids? Did she plan it out? So
29:28
Speaker 6: let's look at the evidence and try to figure that out.
29:30
Speaker 6: I've investigated the hundreds of homicides, hundreds of self-inflicted injuries.
29:34
Speaker 6: And I'm not seeing necessarily intent to harm these kids.
29:38
Speaker 6: All I'm seeing is a history of her being a
29:41
Speaker 6: well-documented involved mother, but also a well-documented history of mental illness.
29:48
Speaker 6: I'm seeing that this was a sudden spur of the
29:51
Speaker 6: moment act. First of all, using exercise bands to kill someone,
29:56
Speaker 6: that is not normal. I have never seen that in
29:59
Speaker 6: hundreds of homicides that I've investigated. What I'm seeing, especially
30:03
Speaker 6: in self-inflicted injuries, is when people all of a sudden
30:06
Speaker 6: decide that they want to harm themselves, they grab whatever
30:08
Speaker 6: the closest object is nearby and they do it. They
30:11
Speaker 6: grab something they're familiar with. So I'm seeing that when
30:14
Speaker 6: she had this opportunity to harm her kids or if
30:16
Speaker 6: the voices were telling her to harm her kids, she
30:18
Speaker 6: grabbed whatever the closest object was nearby and possibly strangled
30:22
Speaker 6: her kids with exercise bands. Now we talk about what
30:26
Speaker 6: evidence is there of that. Is there DNA?
30:27
Speaker 1: If you don't mind.
30:30
Speaker 3: Mr.
30:31
Speaker 1: Gentry, are you familiar with her asking her husband to
30:36
Speaker 1: leave the home and looking online to see how long
30:42
Speaker 1: he would be gone and then adding a task that
30:45
Speaker 1: she had been researching since 4 p.m. that day and
30:48
Speaker 1: acting like it's an afterthought? Oh, by the way, while
30:52
Speaker 1: you're picking that up, could you stop and get this
30:56
Speaker 1: for the baby? And she had actually been searching it
31:02
Speaker 1: since 4 o'clock that afternoon and even looked on Apple
31:06
Speaker 1: Maps to determine how long it would take him to
31:10
Speaker 1: do these chores. Then on the timeline, the moment he
31:13
Speaker 1: leaves and shuts the door, she says she hears a voice.
31:20
Speaker 1: Then she herds the children down into the basement, three children,
31:27
Speaker 1: You know how hard it is to herd tots. And
31:29
Speaker 1: kills them systematically one by one. And in seeing what
31:33
Speaker 1: she has done, tries to kill herself. So you don't
31:37
Speaker 1: think her Googling the actual time her husband would be
31:42
Speaker 1: gone is an indication that she wanted him gone to
31:47
Speaker 1: kill the children?
31:48
Speaker 6: Not necessarily. I mean, that is speculation because although she
31:53
Speaker 6: did do these searches, it's everything indicates.
31:55
Speaker 1: This was a normal night for them.
31:59
Speaker 6: This was a normal night for them. There was nothing
32:01
Speaker 6: really out of the ordinary.
32:02
Speaker 1: I personally, what do you think her Googling the time
32:07
Speaker 1: her husband would be gone? What else could that possibly mean?
32:14
Speaker 1: It doesn't necessarily mean that she planned these crimes out.
32:20
Speaker 6: I mean, we could go down a rabbit hole of
32:21
Speaker 6: a lot of different things.
32:22
Speaker 1: Like for example, You go right ahead because I can't
32:25
Speaker 1: wait to hear this, Jeff. What else could it possibly
32:28
Speaker 1: have meant?
32:28
Speaker 6: Nancy, we are normally.
32:30
Speaker 1: And if she Googles the time, he'll be gone.
32:33
Speaker 6: We're normally on the same page with everything. But on
32:35
Speaker 6: this one, I might disagree with you. Patrick, I've got
32:38
Speaker 6: to come down on him a little hard. I'm a
32:40
Speaker 6: father of four. I've dealt with.
32:42
Speaker 1: No, answer the question, please. I've asked you now four times.
32:47
Speaker 1: It doesn't necessarily mean. I told you she looked on
32:50
Speaker 1: the Apple map to look. and see exactly how long
32:53
Speaker 1: he would be gone. He shut the door and she
32:56
Speaker 1: kills the children. Bam. So I said that indicates to
33:01
Speaker 1: me that she was seeing how long he would be
33:03
Speaker 1: gone to see how long she had to kill the children.
33:05
Speaker 1: You said that's speculative. That could mean anything.
33:09
Speaker 3: Okay.
33:09
Speaker 1: Tell me, what does it mean?
33:11
Speaker 6: It could mean she wanted dinner, that she wanted a break.
33:14
Speaker 6: She needed a little bit of time. Again, I have
33:17
Speaker 6: to come down on Patrick a little hard because as
33:18
Speaker 6: a father of four kids.
33:20
Speaker 1: Time for what? No, no. You cannot tell me that
33:25
Speaker 1: that speculation, and there's a lot of other excuses for
33:29
Speaker 1: why she did that because I think it shows intent.
33:32
Speaker 1: I know nobody on the panel wants to hear that.
33:34
Speaker 1: It's not convenient. It's not comfy. It's not warm and fuzzy,
33:37
Speaker 1: but it shows intent. She wanted to know how long
33:41
Speaker 1: she had to kill the children. And she did that
33:43
Speaker 1: before she heard the voice. You say that's speculation. There's
33:48
Speaker 1: a lot of reasons she could do that. What? What reason?
33:53
Speaker 6: She wanted dinner. She needed a break. I mean, this
33:55
Speaker 6: is a lady that's stressed. She's got a lot of
33:57
Speaker 6: things going on. She does not have necessarily.
33:59
Speaker 1: A supportive husband. She needed a break. So she sent
34:02
Speaker 1: him on an errand because she needed a break? That
34:05
Speaker 1: doesn't make sense.
34:07
Speaker 6: If Patrick were really feeling like, I mean, this lady
34:10
Speaker 6: has said before she wanted to harm her kids. She
34:12
Speaker 6: has a history of suicide threats.
34:14
Speaker 1: When did she say that? When did she say she
34:17
Speaker 1: wanted to harm her kids?
34:19
Speaker 6: Why in the world would this man leave his wife
34:21
Speaker 6: who's struggling alone with three kids?
34:23
Speaker 1: You're not answering because you don't have an answer. Alice
34:27
Speaker 1: LaCour or Shannon Hill went in the past and she stated,
34:31
Speaker 1: I want to harm my children. First to you, Alice.
34:35
Speaker 3: Okay.
34:36
Speaker 5: She didn't say that. Starting in December when it was
34:39
Speaker 5: her darkest time.
34:41
Speaker 1: Shannon Hill, did she threaten to kill or hurt the
34:46
Speaker 1: children before?
34:50
Speaker 4: She didn't necessarily threaten to kill or hurt the children,
34:53
Speaker 4: but she did share with her mother and Patrick that
34:56
Speaker 4: she was having thoughts of harming the children.
35:02
Speaker 1: Back to you, Jeff Gentry. Again, why would she... search
35:07
Speaker 1: on the internet, sending her husband on an errand, and
35:10
Speaker 1: then the moment the door is closed, she kills the children.
35:14
Speaker 1: And he calls to ask her a question in the
35:16
Speaker 1: middle of that, and she puts on an Oscar-winning performance,
35:19
Speaker 1: acting like nothing is wrong, speaks normally into the phone. Okay.
35:25
Speaker 1: Has a conversation.
35:26
Speaker 6: I think we both agree that we're not going to
35:29
Speaker 6: be on the same page with this one, because I
35:31
Speaker 6: think that that could mean anything. But I do want
35:32
Speaker 6: to talk about the evidence. I want to talk about
35:35
Speaker 6: The way she harmed these children, I mean, that's not
35:37
Speaker 6: a normal method of homicide. It's spur of the moment,
35:41
Speaker 6: you grab the closest thing nearby, and you harm your children.
35:44
Speaker 6: And then even the way that she harmed herself.
35:45
Speaker 1: People do that all the time. People grab a kitchen appliance.
35:50
Speaker 1: People stick a baby in the microwave.
35:53
Speaker 6: Let's look at what we saw upstairs. So we see
35:55
Speaker 6: blood evidence that indicates that multiple self-inflicted injuries, which that
36:00
Speaker 6: can happen in somebody that's wanting to harm themselves. But
36:04
Speaker 6: then you have pills involved. You have diving out of
36:06
Speaker 6: a window. Those are not normal. I mean, normally when
36:10
Speaker 6: somebody harms himself, they pick one method and they go
36:12
Speaker 6: with it. They don't use multiple methods to inflict injury
36:16
Speaker 6: on themselves. So this is essentially overkill.
36:18
Speaker 1: It's amazing that none of them worked, isn't it?
36:21
Speaker 6: It really is amazing.
36:22
Speaker 1: It worked on the children, but she did not actually
36:26
Speaker 1: commit suicide.
36:28
Speaker 6: But to me, all of this adds up and shows
36:30
Speaker 6: that this is kind of a spur of the moment thing.
36:32
Speaker 6: This isn't necessarily something that's planned out. Maybe she heard
36:36
Speaker 6: the voice and sent her husband away for a period
36:38
Speaker 6: of time, but nothing to me about this crime suggests
36:43
Speaker 6: that this is spur of the moment. Plus, her entire
36:46
Speaker 6: history shows that she has mental health issues, that she's
36:49
Speaker 6: prone to postpartum depression, that this could be a psychosis-related
36:53
Speaker 6: issue as opposed to something that was planned. I'm not
36:56
Speaker 6: saying that she didn't kill her kids. I'm not saying
36:57
Speaker 6: that she didn't harm them, but we have to look
36:59
Speaker 6: at the entire set of circumstances. We also have to
37:01
Speaker 6: look at Patrick's involvement in this too. Where was he
37:04
Speaker 6: at when she was struggling? Where was he at? I
37:06
Speaker 6: was mentioning before, I'm a father of four. I have
37:09
Speaker 6: full custody of all four of my children. I have
37:12
Speaker 6: always been part of their life. And if my children's
37:14
Speaker 6: mother was struggling with mental health issues or possibly saying
37:18
Speaker 6: that she was going to harm the children, there is
37:19
Speaker 6: no way in hell I would ever leave that person
37:22
Speaker 6: alone with my kids. I would have them out at
37:23
Speaker 6: the store picking up groceries with me.
37:25
Speaker 1: Okay, so I hear what you're saying, Mr. Gentry.
37:29
Speaker 4: I do.
37:30
Speaker 1: And we can find fault with Patrick Clancy all day long,
37:34
Speaker 1: all night long. But that's not what the trial is about.
37:38
Speaker 1: As much as people want to blame Patrick Clancy, because
37:41
Speaker 1: nobody wants to confront that a mother could kill all
37:45
Speaker 1: three of her children and not just be crazy. Everybody's
37:48
Speaker 1: scrounging and looking for.
37:49
Speaker 6: An excuse to I know it can happen because I've
37:52
Speaker 6: investigated cases like this. So I do know that mothers.
37:56
Speaker 1: As I was saying, what is the evidence other than
37:59
Speaker 1: you attacking Clancy for being a, quote, bad dad, which
38:04
Speaker 1: is not the issue before us and was not before
38:07
Speaker 1: the jury? What evidence, if any, exists that Patrick Clancy
38:13
Speaker 1: had anything to do with the murders? That is the issue.
38:18
Speaker 1: The murders.
38:20
Speaker 6: I don't know that there's any direct evidence to indicate
38:23
Speaker 6: that he was involved in the murders other than being
38:25
Speaker 6: a negligent father and a poor husband. But what I'm
38:30
Speaker 6: saying is the scene evidence, the circumstances don't support that
38:35
Speaker 6: she planned this out, that this is days worth of planning,
38:38
Speaker 6: weeks worth of planning. She didn't leave unknown.
38:40
Speaker 1: Jeff Gentry, let me redirect your thoughts to the question
38:47
Speaker 1: at hand. Number one, Her fingerprints not on the exercise bands,
38:53
Speaker 1: but her DNA is. And online sleuths suggesting Patrick Clancy
38:58
Speaker 1: took part in the murders. I don't believe that.
39:03
Speaker 6: Nancy, I will put my personal feelings aside when answering
39:06
Speaker 6: this question, because that's what this jury is going to
39:09
Speaker 6: have to do. They are expected to look at the evidence,
39:12
Speaker 6: look at what has been presented to them and render
39:15
Speaker 6: an opinion that Based on the evidence, what can that
39:18
Speaker 6: tell them? And was Patrick involved in this crime? I
39:22
Speaker 6: don't see anything to indicate in that scene or the
39:26
Speaker 6: evidence to suggest that he was directly involved in this crime.
39:30
Speaker 6: Although I have my personal feelings on his behavior and
39:33
Speaker 6: the way he treated his wife. But again, we're looking
39:35
Speaker 6: at the evidence. So is there fingerprints or DNA, anything
39:40
Speaker 6: to suggest that anybody else was involved in this crime? No,
39:43
Speaker 6: there was not. Although it's difficult to get fingerprints or
39:46
Speaker 6: possibly DNA, off of exercise bands. And would that even
39:50
Speaker 6: tell you anything? You have husband and wife living in
39:52
Speaker 6: the home, so it's reasonable to expect that both of
39:55
Speaker 6: their fingerprints and their DNA is going to be on
39:57
Speaker 6: those exercise bands. But throughout this entire scene, the blood patterns,
40:02
Speaker 6: the evidence of the crime, the circumstances.
40:05
Speaker 1: Shannon Hill joining us tonight, host of Shannon Hill News. Shannon,
40:11
Speaker 1: to try and answer the question I was asking, were
40:17
Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy's fingerprints on the exercise bands or just her DNA?
40:25
Speaker 4: Nancy, from my understanding, there weren't exact fingerprints. However, there
40:30
Speaker 4: was mixed DNA. We have to remember that the children's
40:33
Speaker 4: DNA was on the exercise bands and they both carry
40:38
Speaker 4: DNA pieces from both parents. So there wasn't really a
40:42
Speaker 4: standalone DNA that stood out to forensic scientists when they
40:45
Speaker 4: were looking over these pieces of evidence. It was mixed DNA.
40:50
Speaker 4: All family members.
40:51
Speaker 1: Have one thing or another. So mixed DNA between her
40:52
Speaker 1: and the husband, no fingerprints, correct?
40:56
Speaker 4: As far as I know, there were no fingerprints.
40:58
Speaker 1: Alice LaCour, is that your understanding as well, star of
41:01
Speaker 1: Legal Briefs podcast and the Prosecutors podcast?
41:06
Speaker 5: That's right. And also note that that's going to be
41:08
Speaker 5: a substance that's going to be very hard to get
41:11
Speaker 5: any fingerprints off of. So I'm not surprised there are
41:13
Speaker 5: no fingerprints. That doesn't mean she wasn't the one to
41:16
Speaker 5: have her hands around it.
41:18
Speaker 1: To Alice LaCour and Shannon Hill, what can you tell
41:22
Speaker 1: me about her internet searches leading up to this day?
41:25
Speaker 1: We hear gentry going on and on about how this
41:28
Speaker 1: wasn't planned, but I'm referring to January 20, 2023, and more.
41:31
Speaker 1: To you, Alice, what were the searches?
41:39
Speaker 5: I want to point out something that the defense actually
41:42
Speaker 5: brought out that I don't think I picked up on
41:44
Speaker 5: until Reddington said it in closing. She has been planning
41:48
Speaker 5: this for weeks. She was keeping detailed notes in her
41:51
Speaker 5: journal about her medications and the effects it had on
41:54
Speaker 5: her until January 18th, the week before the murders. At
41:59
Speaker 5: that point, she stops writing Everything. And in fact, she
42:03
Speaker 5: goes back to a note in December just the night
42:06
Speaker 5: before and she edits that note seeming to blame the
42:09
Speaker 5: medications and her doctors for the way she's feeling. And
42:14
Speaker 5: it's a clear suicide note. This note was not read
42:17
Speaker 5: out loud, but it was flashed on the screen. I
42:20
Speaker 5: think she stopped taking these meticulous notes on January 18th
42:23
Speaker 5: because she had decided what she was going to do.
42:26
Speaker 5: She just needed to look for the opportunity. So even
42:29
Speaker 5: all of her friends, her family, and Patrick themselves said
42:32
Speaker 5: she seemed much better. She had the best day she'd
42:36
Speaker 5: had on January 24th, the day of the murders. Did
42:39
Speaker 5: you know that her sister is a certified therapist? A
42:43
Speaker 5: certified therapist she talked to daily. Her sister never saw
42:47
Speaker 5: the need, saw the need to intervene, to come to
42:50
Speaker 5: her house, to give her involuntary commitment. She had all
42:55
Speaker 5: of the support around her. And it's because she knew
42:57
Speaker 5: exactly what to say to people so that she could
43:00
Speaker 5: get her way.
43:02
Speaker 1: Shannon Hill, what about it, including the internet searches?
43:07
Speaker 4: Nancy, one of the searches that Lindsay Clancy made was,
43:10
Speaker 4: can you cure a sociopath? which sort of breaks at
43:15
Speaker 4: the psychotic defense because she was clear-minded enough three days
43:20
Speaker 4: before the murders to Google, can you cure a sociopath
43:24
Speaker 4: on her phone? This is something that the prosecution has
43:29
Speaker 4: talked about throughout the trials is she was of clear mind.
43:33
Speaker 4: She was Googling how to cure a sociopath.
43:36
Speaker 1: And also just before the murders, isn't it true that
43:40
Speaker 1: she searched the Kids, Miralax, CVS Pharmacy, an Apple map
43:49
Speaker 1: readout of how long it would take her husband to
43:51
Speaker 1: go from home to get the food to the CVS
43:56
Speaker 1: and back. All that happening right up until she heard
44:00
Speaker 1: the male voice telling her for the first time, go
44:03
Speaker 1: kill your children to be free.
44:05
Speaker 4: And not to mention, she also called the CVS to
44:09
Speaker 4: make sure that they had a Miralax. for her husband
44:12
Speaker 4: to pick up. So she was of sound mind enough
44:16
Speaker 4: to call, ask questions, and make decisions all throughout the day.
44:21
Speaker 4: And then those 18 minutes that Patrick left, she heard
44:25
Speaker 4: these voices.
44:26
Speaker 1: To Dr. Janie Lacey, also joining us tonight, psychotherapist and
44:30
Speaker 1: CEO of Life Counseling Solutions and author of How to
44:35
Speaker 1: Heal from a Toxic Relationship, host Let's Talk About It
44:39
Speaker 1: with Janie Lacey. Weigh in, Dr. Lacey.
44:43
Speaker 2: You know, Nancy, what I would say is it is hard,
44:47
Speaker 2: and I'm hearing the conversation, it is hard for people
44:50
Speaker 2: to hold to truths that someone could have moments of
44:53
Speaker 2: being a good mother and also not want to be
44:56
Speaker 2: a mother. And this is where I land. We're not
45:00
Speaker 2: arguing whether postpartum psychosis is real.
45:04
Speaker 1: It is real. However.
45:06
Speaker 2: This is what we look at. And I've been a
45:07
Speaker 2: psychotherapist for 20 years. It is one of the most
45:10
Speaker 2: severe emergencies in psychiatry, right? Postpartum psychosis is not the
45:16
Speaker 2: baby blues and it is not even a standard postpartum depression.
45:20
Speaker 2: It is a full break from reality. Hallucinations, delusions, a
45:25
Speaker 2: mind that can no longer trust what it's seeing or hearing.
45:27
Speaker 1: It is rare.
45:29
Speaker 2: And when it happens, it happens fast. I kind of
45:31
Speaker 2: equate it to like a medical emergency, like a stroke
45:34
Speaker 2: or cardiac event, right? You're not planning, you're not Googling,
45:38
Speaker 2: you're not doing all those things. When it happens, it
45:40
Speaker 2: happens and it happens quickly. It's real and it's treatable
45:43
Speaker 2: when it's caught in time. But when we're looking at
45:45
Speaker 2: this case as a whole, there is a contradiction.
45:47
Speaker 1: Okay, what's the contradiction?
45:50
Speaker 2: The contradiction is that when we're looking at someone that
45:54
Speaker 2: has the evidence of Googling, planning, there's forethought, there is timing,
46:01
Speaker 2: there is all the things that we're talking about in
46:03
Speaker 2: today's show. That is not a break in reality. That
46:06
Speaker 2: is the contradiction. When we look at psychotic, psychiatric problems.
46:10
Speaker 2: treatment of postpartum psychosis, it is a break in reality.
46:14
Speaker 2: I like to equate it so that normal people can understand.
46:17
Speaker 2: It's like having a stroke or having a cardiac arrest.
46:20
Speaker 2: I'm not Googling a cardiac arrest or a stroke before
46:23
Speaker 2: I think I'm going to have a stroke, right?
46:24
Speaker 7: It just happens.
46:25
Speaker 2: And that is the difference between what we're talking about,
46:28
Speaker 2: all the treatment for postpartum depression, postpartum depression, the baby blues,
46:32
Speaker 2: that is something very different when we're looking at this
46:34
Speaker 2: very rare diagnosable condition. That is a contradiction, Nancy.
46:38
Speaker 1: If you know or think you know anyone considering suicide,
46:42
Speaker 1: please dial the suicide hotline. You can call or text
46:48
Speaker 1: very simply 988. Tonight, we remember American hero Deputy Sheriff
46:55
Speaker 1: Troy Bailey, Lancaster County Sheriff's, Nebraska, passed away in the
47:00
Speaker 1: line of duty after 33 years on the force, leaving
47:04
Speaker 1: behind grieving fiancée Danielle, and children, Rachel Taylor and Trevor.
47:12
Speaker 1: American hero, Deputy Sheriff Troy Bailey. Thank you to all
47:17
Speaker 1: of our guests being with us tonight, but especially to you.
47:21
Speaker 1: As we continue, no, no, no, but especially to you.
47:27
Speaker 1: Nancy Grace signing off for tonight, but I'll see you
47:30
Speaker 1: tomorrow night. And until then, good night, friend.