388. The Lindsay Clancy Trial Part 16

0:00The moment a body is found, the clock starts ticking. 48 hours before the trail goes cold. From A&E and Crime House, this is the official podcast from the famous True Crime series, The First 48. I'm Carter Roy. Every Thursday, I revisit a landmark homicide investigation in depth, with long-form storytelling built for your ears. Listen to and follow The First 48 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music or Wherever You Listen to Podcasts. I'm Brett. And I'm Alice. And we are The Prosecutors. Today on The Prosecutors, the presentation of evidence comes to an end in the Lindsey Clancy case.

1:27Hello everybody and welcome to this episode of The Prosecutors. I'm Brett. And I'm joined as always by my end of the line, co-host, Alice. We've made it 85 witnesses later. We are here. We're here. Look, I'm not going to, I'm limping to the end over here. I was ready for the presentation. I'm going to be here. I'm going to be here. I'm limping to the end over here. I was ready for this and go the jury. And you know what? For once, this was shorter than predicted. Because they said six weeks at first, we're technically week five. You never know how long trials will go. But I was afraid when they estimated six weeks, it'd be more like seven weeks. And I'm really glad it's on the other end. I was really glad, defense did not call any rebuttal. It ends with the prosecution's case, the prosecution's experts. You can cut this out later, but I keep forgetting. And I need to say it because Megan Hicks is in the chat.

2:28I'm so sorry, Brett. It's all me. Don't cut this out. Don't cut this out. I need to apologize to Brett for a second because I have completely wronged him. But hopefully you now understand how we cover cases when we're wrong, we will admit it. Okay. Megan, you're amazing. Megan, needle pointed. The most hilarious I'd left it in the other room. I'll bring it tomorrow for closing arguments. The most amazing needle point cheese pun I've ever had in my life. Even my kids laughed out loud when I explained to them what it meant. It says, I'm mature for my age. Hilarious. Brett did give it to me. He did give it to me because remember I moved. And so he went to our PO box and he got it. And it was beautifully wrapped, but he didn't tell me he gave it to me. Instead, he put it in a bag. I'm not sure that's true, but that's okay. We're in a bag. So our kids are very close in age and we like send clothes back and forth to each other because our kids are like just right after another. So one kid wears clothes, we send it back to the other person, they wear clothes. So I got it back in a bag of little boys shoes.

3:31But Alice Sun was too small to wear those shoes for a very long time. And so we moved. The shoes were in a bag. And Megan's present was in the bag. And I never opened the bag because I didn't need those shoes yet. I went up to the attic yesterday to get shoes for Alice Sun because he's a giant. He's bigger than Brettney. True story. There are two years apart and he's larger. And I go, oh, did Brett give me a Christmas present? This is so nice of him even wrapped it. Oh my gosh, I'm so mean to him. I said, really be nice to him. And I opened it and I was like, oh, I totally blamed Brett and said that he never gave me the cheese cross stitch. Truth is out. I'm so sorry. So Megan, nine months late, thank you for the best Christmas present ever. I'm so excited for my pun- pun- pun- horrific cross stitch. And I'm sorry Brett. I'm sorry. You're right. You're awesome. I stink.

4:31All those things. While we're doing this, we have so many new listeners. They have no idea what we're talking about. She didn't actually name her kids Brettney and Alice Sun. I just want to make that clear. I didn't actually have it. Some people get confused about a little code. Why did you have to kill the joy? You know, I've been thinking about it. You mentioned Alice Sun and Brettney several times. And every time you mentioned Alice, I need to note this for the new people. But I told you now, I told you how Brettney's preschool teacher was like, when I looked at the roster, I really thought it was going to say Brettney. That's hilarious. Anyways, all of you who hate chitchat, I'm really sorry, but I kept forgetting to apologize to Brett, but really thank Megan for such a thoughtful gift. It's beautiful. I would love to learn how to cross stitch. So maybe at the next time, Khan, someone can teach me because I feel like I would love it before I don't know my eyesight goes because I feel like I'm getting up in age. Okay, that's all. All right, so that was a nice moment in the Lindsay Clancy coverage.

5:31Now we're going to get back into the next one. Now we're going to get back into the murder of three children, which is what we're talking about. We're back with Dr. Sathoff. Someone said on the gallery, I think it was on the gallery, and this was such a perfect description. If any of you have ever seen Zootopia, the scene with the slots, that is Dr. Sathoff. He is. And we're not making fun of him. That's true. I didn't fully appreciate it yesterday. I think maybe because it had been a long day, I was listening while running errands, talking to people pretending I wasn't listening to a trial about murder in my ears. But today, multiple times, I was listening on 1.75. I know you listened even faster. I kept looking at my phone because I thought it froze, but he was just thinking. He was a thoughtful man. He did not answer off the cuff. He thought it through. And I mean, I thought he was a great witness.

6:31I thought he was stood across his ammunition very well, but he definitely was deliberate in the way he answered. And I listened to it today, which I don't normally do, too. But you can listen on to, and there were still noticeable pauses at times. So very interesting guy. Anyways, let's get back into his testimony. So we start off back. Remember, he was interrupted in the middle of a question yesterday where he was basically asked, you know, how does the method of how the children were killed influence your thoughts about whether or not Lindsey Clancy was psychotic or whether or not she was in control over all thoughts. And so the prosecutor runs through some things. The voices did not tell her the voice did not tell her where to kill the children, how to kill the children, what to use to kill the children and what order to kill the children, where to kill herself or what way to kill herself. And he was asked that this was significant. And he says, it was because this was a very short period of time that she had to carry out

7:32all of this. She had to add quickly and methodically. And it indicated that she had control of the sequence of what she was doing throughout. And look, I just think this is all we're trying to reconstruct her state of mind and not just her state of mind in the way we might with any case, but really trying to get into her psyche about how much control she had was she really a puppet on a string, which is what she describes it as or was she in command of her own behavior, at least to some extent, sufficient to be responsible for her crop. And he's going through and I thought the Commonwealth really came to its own on the defense case and on Rebuttal. There was a lot to criticize about them and their case in chief. There was stuff to criticize about them at times in the defense case, but I think they've really come into their own and they've really started. It's strange that it took them this long to get to what the story is they're going to

8:33tell. That is unusual. You think they'd have that from the very beginning, but they didn't. But now they're sort of they're getting into their own thing. He's then asked about this theory about how suicide works. Now this is obviously a theory. Some of you who struggled with suicide probably, I don't know, maybe you'll find this deeply insightful. Maybe you'll think it's completely wrong. Obviously, always interested to hear your thoughts, but he said really they're three components to suicide. Isolation, burdensomeness and capability. So isolation is feeling like you're all alone. I think that was pretty obvious. Burdenomeness is you are a burden on the world. The world would be better off without you. And so you taking this extreme step is something that you should do and capability, having the ability to do it. And this sort of goes into what we talked about with the sort of oxymoronic fact that as people start to feel better, suicide is actually increased. And this goes to the capability.

9:34When you're really in the throws of depression, it's like you're so depressed, you can't even act on the depression. But as you start to get better and your energy increases, sometimes we see an increase in suicide and this is this capability thing. And I also think in this case, in particular, it goes somewhat to her mental state and her mental ability. The fact that she was able to put together this, what he described as a serious suicide attempt means that she was capable in sort of a mental way. And one other thing that's really interesting about this case is how often we've seen this theory's flip. So for most of this case, the defense has been arguing this was a serious suicide attempt and the prosecution has been trying to push that off. Now with these doctors, it is very much the position of the Commonwealth that this was a serious suicide attempt and that that feeds into their theory. And you almost wonder if Reddington would have been better off at arguing that her failed suicide somehow played into her psychosis. I don't know, but this is where we are and you need all three to get there, which is

10:39the theory. And her medical records reflected that she had all of these three working together. Then one thing you pointed out, which I had not even thought of, but this was once again fascinating, the adivan. We talked about this before that the adivan helped with her intrusive thoughts. Now the intrusive thoughts have been reinterpreted by the defense as voices, as signs of psychosis. They weren't really intrusive thoughts. They're actually additional auditory hallucinations and she was experiencing and that's evidence that this day she had another one. What's significant that adivan helped? Because adivan is not a medication that addresses psychosis. It addresses anxiety. So if these symptoms were from psychosis, adivan shouldn't work. It's kind of like taking Narcan when you're not on an opioid. It doesn't work. If you're overdosing on something else, it won't work. It's a similar thing here. The adivan targets a completely different thing than psychosis.

11:43So the fact that it worked for her indicates that those earlier voices were not a symptom of psychosis. We know it worked because obviously she kept going back to it against medical advice. This was her fallback drug. It was supposed to be used only as needed, but she kept getting so anxious that she needed to go to it. Why would she do that if it didn't help? So then Dr. Satoff said, even if you're under hallucination though. So let's say, don't think she was under hallucinations here, but even if she were under hallucinations and even command hallucinations, the person who's undergoing these hallucinations can still know the difference between right and wrong. And in that knowing right and wrong, you can still stop yourself and have control over yourself, especially when it's very serious what the command hallucination is demanding you do or against values. Now, I know we're not going to go into the whole morality thing, but even more so here, I know we've used the fact that she's a labor and delivery nurse as saying she understood

12:43reporting requirements, mandatory reporter requirements or medications or things like that. So she knew how to malinger or not malinger. I think this point actually is so interesting because she definitely knew as a labor and delivery nurse who worked with small children, what was right and wrong, what you could do with babies. Everyone should know you do not murder babies, of course. But I think there's this even more heightened level that I had not thought about in this way because they're trying to ask these questions about is she Catholic? Does she understand it's a mortal sin? Those types of things are like, guys, we're going to have to go down that road where you're going to really anger the judge. She's a labor and delivery nurse who's charged with the lives of small vulnerable children. Or so than just about anybody, everyone should know again that children are vulnerable. She would be held to that higher standard because of her profession. Now he says someone who's undergoing these hallucinations can conform their behavior to the law. It is possible. So we go through the whole legal question thing.

13:44What she's suffering from a mental defect. He says yes. So just like Dr. Kirk before, he says yes, she was suffering from a mental defect. He was bipolar too. And he concluded this based on her reaction to the zooloft. He does not believe she was overmedicated, but she did have an adverse reaction to the drugs. And even in her state, she appreciated right and wrong. And she talks about planning and she's able to control her behavior. And therefore, despite having a mental defect, he does not believe that she qualifies for this defense. Because she absolutely knew what she was doing and could have controlled herself, but she didn't. So his theory is very consistent with what Dr. Kirk said right before him. Yeah. And he did a really good job of walking through all of those aspects that confirms in his mind this theory that he and Dr. Kirk are pretty much aligned on. And it's interesting because you have three Commonwealth witnesses. They all basically reach the same conclusion, but the bipolar versus not bipolar.

14:50He's a big distinction. And once again, this is a gift in many ways to the defense because Reddington has been saying, this is exactly what happened from the beginning. Biopolar. It was activated by the zooloft. And then we see what happened. But much like with the last doctor, he is not going to take the position that he should attempt to use this doctor to get good things for him. Instead, he's going to take the same approach. He's taken up to this point. He starts off that he saw through zoom. We know how much Reddington hates technology. And of course, it would have been better to be there with her, but he wasn't able to do that. And so that's the way it went. He was engaged earlier this year to do this and contracted in April. And this is another, you know, I just don't think the jury is as stupid as Reddington thinks they are. He's like, why are you waiting for the contract to be signed to see her? Does he think just anybody can just walk in and start chit chat with Lindsey Clancy

15:50or set up a zoom? I mean, I will say this. We know attorney client privilege is very similar. While we are recording this right now, I'm a my computer and I see my text popping up on my computer. I have a potential client who keeps texting me, saying, has the entity that he's assigned our engagement letter. So I can represent him, signed that he's texting me at 8.30 at night because he's like, Oh, I can't talk to you. You can't represent me until we have a contract in place, which is true. So I am like telling him, nope, don't have the engagement letter. Cannot help you right now. I'm just a lawyer. I'm not even a medical practitioner. So yeah, no, he can't just start evaluating her because then he just be any guy off the street. And I think most of the jurors know that. He didn't go through the whole, how much money did you make? Doesn't really work because it all goes to UVA. And I don't think that the doctor is just so loyal to UVA that he really wants to make a lot of money for them by doing this evaluation on Lindsey Clancy. So he taught her on May 29th and June 4th.

16:51And we do the thing again. We wherever we go through his entire CV. It's really, really impressive. This dude was so impressive guy. He was doing like anti-terrorism stuff and he was working for the Department of State and DOJ. I mean, just really cool guy. Reddington tries to make him even says you're a government man, right? But in fact, at one point, he's working for both AOSAs and federal defenders. And he thinks federal defenders work for the Department of Justice. This is a common misconception. Reddington corrects him incorrectly because federal defenders do not work for the entity that Reddington names. That's the panel, which is different. It's the CJA, yeah. Panel attorneys work for that. The federal defenders have this whole special quasi-governmental private order. Which might sometimes fall into judicial branch. Like, it's very bizarre. And they're not all the same. Like, they're not all. It's very strange. It's a very weird thing the way the federal defenders just set up. But anyways, nobody really understands it.

17:51But either way, he's working for both of them. And I think that just once again sort of gives this whole feeling that he's neutral. Now look, Reddington is doing this again. Because he wants to point out that he is not an expert on postpartum women. But can we just say it at this point? Lindsay wasn't under postpartum depression either. She wasn't actually under postpartum psychosis. And the way I know that, the man who first introduced me to this thought was Reddington himself. At the beginning of this trial, Reddington doesn't describe Lindsay as being in the throws of postpartum depression. He describes her as being someone who had undiagnosed bipolar, who went to Dr. Tuffs, who took Zoloft and Zoloft is what activated her bipolar. And everything that happened from that point forward was the result of bipolar. And when he initially said that, I didn't really buy it. I was like, I don't know about that.

18:53And people wrote it and said, yeah, I mean, that can happen. You know, I was like, okay. And then like the doctor start coming in, his doctors are diagnosing her as bipolar. This commonwealth's doctor is diagnosing her as bipolar. That's what she is. And for the last three years, which is no one is arguing that she's currently postpartum. She's bipolar. Exactly. And she still needs the medication. She still needs the treatment. She's bipolar. So in reality, it never mattered really, whether they were experts in postpartum issues or not, because once again, as has been established a thousand times, they can recognize the major depressive disorder. And whether or not it has the modifier postpartum isn't the critical question. But in this case, I don't even think it's postpartum. I think it's possible her anxiety was postpartum anxiety that led her to go to Dr. Tuffs in the first place. But I feel like it's been pretty well established now that what actually led to her downward trajectory in her mental health was not having a baby. It was taking Zoloft when she was bipolar too.

19:56I mean, that's never been made that express in this case. But as he was saying this, it just all kind of came together for me like, this is completely relevant. And I understand why he keeps doing it because it's been very valuable from a public relations standpoint because there are many people out there who have suffered with postpartum depression, who have suffered with postpartum psychosis, who have not been treated properly by the medical community, who feel that they were abandoned and let down. And they see themselves and Lindsey Clancy and it makes them sympathetic to her and it makes them more likely to support her. So it is valuable to continue to paint her as that. And when we started this case, that's exactly where I thought we were going to end up. But now that we've seen the evidence, I think if you look at the evidence just clearly and plainly, without any bias, without any preconceived notions, there's no real evidence that she was in postpartum psychosis. There's real evidence that she was bipolar that may have led to psychosis, but not postpartum psychosis. So that's sort of where I am on this and makes us even more pointless that he continues

20:59to go through this whole, you're not an expert on postpartum issues. The DSM-5 is terrible, all that stuff. It's even less relevant now that we're at the end of the trial than it would have been if that had been his theory from the very beginning. You know that feeling when you finally clean out a junk drawer that's been bothering you for months? That's what switching to gusto felt like for my business. Payroll, HR benefits, all the admin chaos that has been piling up, finally organized into one place. Gusto is online payroll and benefit software built for small businesses. It's all in one, remote friendly and incredibly easy to use so you can pay higher on board and support your team from anywhere. They make it so easy with automatic payroll tax filing, simple direct deposits, health benefits, commuter benefits, workers comp 401k, you name it. Gusto makes it simple and has options for nearly every budget. They also have unlimited payroll runs for one monthly price, no hidden fees, no surprises.

22:04Try gusto today at gusto.com slash prosecutors and get three months free when you run your first payroll. That's three months of free payroll at gusto.com slash prosecutors. One more time, gusto.com slash prosecutors. Do you ever finish lunch and find yourself reaching for a snack an hour later or notice cravings take over even when you're trying to eat healthy? That's exactly the problem. Pendulum metabolic daily was designed to help solve. Pendulum metabolic daily is a science backed probiotic design to support your body's natural GLP one response. Help you feel fuller longer, experience fewer cravings and make it easier to stay on track with your health goals. Just one capsule a day with food. Some customers report noticing fewer cravings and more energy in as little as a week, though individual results can vary. Metabolic daily is a five-strain probiotic, not just one ingredient doing the work, but

23:06a system that supports your metabolism. Helps keep your energy steady and helps cut down on sugar cradings. The key ingredient is agramancia, a gut bacterium that helps signal your body to produce more of its natural GLP one after eating. That's a hormone that helps regulate appetite and feeling full. Right now, podcast listeners can save up to 48% off their first order at pendulumlife.com slash prosecutors. We then talk about whether or not he's written any articles on hallucinations. He's obviously read many, but he hasn't written any on that. But rather than just leave it there as if he hasn't written anything, which I think

24:06would have been pretty smart. Because then you're like, oh man, this guy hasn't written anything. Instead, we go through his like 10,000 articles and books and book chapters. They're all really awesomely titled. Like sometimes you just get like the boring, like the history of psychosis. The history of psychosis part two, right? Like that's the way articles, all of his were like the negotiator on the bridge and how to diagnose. I know. It's like really interesting stuff. And there are so many that at some point he's like, did you write this one? He's like, I don't know. I had to look at that. To even remember. Like maybe I was on a panel. I wrote a lot of stuff. But anyway, it's we have to go through it all for some reason. And we once again note that he's not an expert on postpartum psychosis, which no one says he is. We talk about how postpartum depression is major depressive symptoms that occur during the postpartum period can be triggered by having a child. And Reddington talks about how many women kill themselves during the postpartum period, which is true and important, but not necessarily relevant for this case.

25:11So then he does the thing about blood tests that he's really been hammering on the entire trial. So he says, blood tests, she didn't get them. Can they be important? And Dr. Saddoff says it will depends on the presenting symptoms, on their history, it's not a one size fits all. And so Reddington asks him next to do something that I don't know. I think maybe he really wanted to have a spelling bee in the middle of trial. But he asked the doctor to spell some drugs. I can barely say the drugs. So there's certainly no way that I could spell them. So I think he was just trying to find ways to embarrass this very impressive doctor. And so he asked him to spell the drug names, which he actually could do just fine. So I guess jokes on Reddington on that. But truthfully, I think it was attacked to try to make him seem like he didn't know something, but it backfired. Then he asked if there are any tests for postpartum depression. And Dr. Saddoff says, well, there's the Edinburgh scale. And Reddington asked him if he looked it up the night before, suggesting that he was

26:12cramming for this, you know, cross examination. And of course the doctor says, nope, didn't look it up last night. I just know this. And then Reddington is still attempting to make him look stupid. And so he asks him a bunch of gotcha questions, all of which Dr. Saddoff gets right because he really knows his stuff. And I think this is partly because Dr. Saddoff has a very, very convincing testimony. But the thing is he also came after another very convincing expert, Dr. Kirk. So with the two of them compounded right before the jury goes unverdiicked, I do think this is a little bit spaghetti at the wall in terms of strategy of what Reddington's doing. There's not much he can do to throw Dr. Saddoff off his saddle because he's seen it all. He's truly seen it all and written about it all. And so these gotchas do fall flat, but I do think that's what he's trying to do. And some of these gotchas are like, well, do you know what the range of our scores were on a bunch of random tests?

27:12And he does. He remembers them. Look, they're like thousands of pages of records. He probably works on lots of cases. It would not be surprising if he didn't actually remember this, but he did. And then he just says, yeah, you can absolutely do a blood test. And there are things like enzyme tests, but it's really expensive. And it's not going to tell you very much here, just like we heard actually Dr. Tufsay earlier in the prosecution's case. So then we turn to this whole notion that Lindsay is avoiding taking medications. And at least now we're admitting that she did do that. You know, I think with the last witness, he kind of pushed back on that. Like she wasn't actually doing that. But now we're asking, is it reasonable to not take drugs because of side effects? And in particular, we talk about, I think Lermotrachine is the focus here, Lemictol or Lemictol. I feel like it should be Lemictol, but I think it's Lemictol. That's what it is. Lemictol, which is, I don't know why you guys pronounce that that way. Doctors physician healed herself. Anyways. And what's funny about this, we got two emails today in like the space of two minutes.

28:17The first one was they described, initially he describes the doctor describes it as you can get a very serious rash. And then Reddington goes through this syndrome you can get, which is apparently just awful. You have like sores and your immune system turns against you and it's horrific and horrible and terrible. It's like a really bad side effect. We got one email from somebody who actually had this twice. This had happened to them twice. And they were like upset that they felt like the doctor was minimizing this side effect and the possibility that could happen. And then I kid you not like 30 seconds later, we got another email from somebody who was upset at Reddington because he was acting like this side effect was super common. When in fact this person said your chances of being struck by lightning are like a thousand times higher than it is to get this particular side effect. So while the side effect is really terrible, maybe it's not a reason not to take it. I mean, I kind of view this the same way the doctor viewed it, which is she thought

29:20it was reasonable not to take it. So she decided not to take it. Given her worsening problems, maybe it was worth taking the chance on the side effect, but she decided not to and so then we just kind of move on. Then the question is whether it was reasonable for her to stop so often, which it was given her serious reaction to it. And then he asked was it reasonable for her to stop so often and change drugs and he knows given the low dosage and the effect, there's no issue with that. And that's been pretty common and consistent across most of these positions. The sort of notion that the drug regimen was way out of kilter with what you would expect. Now we started off 13 drugs. She's taking all these drugs. She's taking them all at once. It seems really bad. I feel like that's another. I'm not going to say the myth has been busted, but it's been refined. It's not necessarily a good thing that she ended up on all those drugs, but the reason I think she did is because she was either having a bad reaction or just didn't want to take them. And so there was a lot of trial and error there.

30:21Then we go through December 20th, which is the famous Brigham and Women's Incident, where she, you know, they keep talking about her being turned away. This was the first time they talked about how long she was there. She was there for eight hours, which is actually a full day. And yeah, they did not accept her into the program once again, because it's a postpartum program, but they did. It seems like try and help her. Reddington tries to do this all she was turned away thing, but once again, this doctor, he's just on top of it. He knows exactly what happened and he explains it once again for the jury that it wasn't a matter of her being turned away. He was that she was not appropriate for their program. Not this point. I admit. I kind of stopped paying attention. We got to a point right around here where everything, he got so repetitive, you know, Reddington's doing the thing that he's done a thousand times where he goes through all the same mental health history that we've heard over and over and over again, which I got to imagine that Jerry's like, we, we get it.

31:24And he's badgering him about dark and trusive thoughts and who she told about them. And he says, I mean, the answer to that question is basically no one. He thought off says she only told her mother and Patrick, which is absolutely true. And he's like, I don't even understand the point Reddington's trying to make with some of his anger. He's like, what do you mean she only told Patrick and her mother? This is a murder case. It's like, but she only told Patrick and her mother. That's that's the only people she told, supposedly about thoughts of harming her children. So didn't really make any sense. Then we get into this weird situation where he's asking about a spire and the emergency and the doctor says they ended up not taking any further steps with her because she didn't have a plan. And immediately Reddington likes acts like this is some sort of mistake or he doesn't know what he's talking about. He's like, how do you know she didn't have a plan? Why do you say that? Why do you say she didn't have a plan? But we all know, like the doctor maybe has not washed all the testimony, but the jury

32:28has. We all know that that's why. And in fact, Reddington has hammered on this that that's why she was turned away because she didn't have a plan. And it was these weird attempts at a gotcha that never really made any sense. And I didn't feel like landed at all. And it was just a continuation really of what we saw yesterday with he's almost flailing about with this stuff, trying to land sort of a random punch. And I didn't think it worked. I really think especially these last two experts have been really clarifying if not to me, hopefully the jury of what actually happened in a way that honestly the prosecution's case in chief didn't do for me. I was not clear about what happened at the end of their case in chief. And so my analogy yesterday about the hose being let go. So it's just like spinning all over the place and you're just hoping that water's going to land on something and do something is just causing a distraction so that when the last thing they think of when they go to deliberate are not these really, really compelling last

33:33couple of experts, but rather that there was just a lot of chaos. I think that's what the tactic is because none of these really landed. And look, if you got to do what you got to do, it was tortuous to have to sit through. But I think that's what he's attempting to do here. So then I don't know why he's doing this. I don't know if how this is going to affect things after this trial, but Reddington indulges the Patrick conspiracy again. This is probably from TikTok. He did not at the beginning of trial. But obviously if you've been watching this trial and on TikTok, don't do it. First of all, there are all these conspiracies that Patrick is the one who actually killed the children and then convinced Lindsay that she's the one who killed kids. As an I'm theory, all I'm not mocking it. I'm saying it is incredibly damaging. There is absolutely no dispute who killed the children. Lindsay said she killed the children. She filed a civil complaint that says she killed the children. No one is disputing. In fact, Reddington wanted to stipulate to the fact that she killed the children and the judge denied it. But despite this, he indulges this Patrick conspiracy that is found only online and nowhere

34:39in the evidentiary record of this trial so far. So he says now when the doctor interviewed Patrick and he's like reporting, he's like, I talked to him and these are the things that were happening. So Reddington says, didn't really say she tried to kill herself though. I mean, that's not what it was. And there weren't really drugs crushed up in the tumbler. That's just absurd. And he goes to all these things like he said, you didn't find any residue anywhere. You didn't see any crushed up pills anywhere. You didn't see anything that could have been used as a tool to crush up the pills. So you're telling me someone in psychosis can do all these things and then leave the room spik and spanned clean and not leave any trace of the drugs. And I'm thinking the whole time, if you're the jury, are you thinking, well, yeah, because she wasn't in psychosis, she clearly planned that she wouldn't got lemonade, that they normally don't have. She crushed up the pills ahead of time, all in planning of doing this because she had under an hour to carry everything out. So when Patrick walked out the door, closed the door, she already had her made to cocktail. She drank it. She killed the kids. She called him back as she's walking up the stairs with the knife from the knife block,

35:41all planned out so that she could do everything in 18 minutes and not the hour she had planned for. That's what I'm thinking, Reddington. And he's putting those thoughts in my head. So I thought that was very ineffective, but that was the questioning he was kind of attacking the doctor with and the whole basis of it. The reason I'm heated about this is the whole basis of kind of that line of questioning is that Patrick did this, right? That it's not actually Lindsay. And here's the thing, I realized that the TikTokers went crazy when he did this. I mean, they just thought this is confirmed all their theories. Reddington was waiting to the variant. Probably he's going to enclosing unmass Patrick, all this other stuff. But if you're the jury, when I complain about this a lot of people, he's just trying to be good. He's just trying to punch holes, he's just trying to cause doubt. He's been a good defense attorney. No, no, no, no, no. This is a bad strategy. It's not just that it's horribly unethical, insulting, disgusting and something he should be ashamed of. It's a bad strategy. We all know she did it.

36:42He said she did it on multiple occasions. Patrick has no reason to lie. Patrick's up there testifying for her. Patrick's defending her, the juries heard him first. They heard him defend her, make excuses for her arguably. They heard his screams on that 911 call. No one on that jury thinks that Patrick is a liar. So when he starts trying to undermine the doctor by calling Patrick a liar, a liar, which a liar, liar, you know, same thing, synonyms, that doesn't undermine the doctor's credibility and it doesn't undermine Patrick's credibility. It undermines his credibility. It makes me think, man, you are so desperate. Now you're suggesting that Patrick lied about what he said. Is that really what you're up there saying? And I'm sorry. That might have played well for TikTok and maybe if the jury's on TikTok, like they're not supposed to be, it plays well for them.

37:43But if they're just actually in there listening to evidence and trying to make a decision, this is a terrible strategy. And yet he's now done it twice with two straight experts who were really solid anyway in intent to undermine them. And I think it is a really, really incompetent, frankly, not legally incompetent, but incompetent thing to do. And then of course he kind of hammers on something that the doctor had no control over. So he says, did you interview her mother? And he says, no, she wouldn't talk to me. He says, how do you know that? How do you know that? He says, well, I asked Lindsay who I should talk to and she said Patrick and her mother. So I interview Patrick. And he's like, well, how did you, did you call her mother? And he said, no, this is all, how did you get in contact with her? I asked the district attorney's office. And then who, who did you talk to at the district attorney's office? Like there's some conspiracy going on over there. And he says the Commonwealth attorney, Miss Jen Sprog, and it's like, redding tends like,

38:47they get into this whole thing of like, it's attorney Sprog. And he's like, all right, attorney Sprog. And he does this multiple times. But he like points out which is, by the way, there are just kind of codes of conduct with how you act. When I talk about opposing counsel in court on the record or in a filing, I don't call them out by name. Even if I'm calling them a liar, he'd say a discovery dispute. And I'm saying they said this, but here is an email that shows you the timeline of events. I still don't call out attorneys by their names. I would never say attorney Brett told me this in a filing or any public record. It's just a code of conduct because we're all just doing our jobs. And you don't want your name on the record. And here's my question. Why didn't the judge step in at this point? Should have said, like, why is he letting this happen? Why is he letting this go? You know, he'll jump on a witness in a hot second if he doesn't like what the witness is doing. But Reddington's up there sparring with the Commonwealth attorney about whether or not it's Miss Sprog or attorney Sprog and then you're having a announcer name and then

39:49correcting the witness. I mean, just the whole thing was just so unprofessional, childish. And this is as he likes to say, this is a triple murder case. I mean, maybe you could hold yourself up to a little bit better standard. But that's where we were at with the last witness. We're arguing about how we should address the Commonwealth attorney when we're trying to suggest some sort of weird conspiracy about interviewing her mother. Let's just explain it to you really quick, because there is no conspiracy. When you're the retained expert, yeah, of course, you're going to go through the entity because lawyers are involved. So you don't want to just be reaching out to people left and right. I mean, would you like to be getting calls from random people? No, you work through kind of set people on either side. So you typically don't talk directly to the defendant. You go through their attorney saying here, they're letting the attorneys do the work here. So that you're not getting random phone numbers and phone calls from people who you may not even know, like how would the mother even know to answer that phone call of who it was? And guess what? The mom is allowed to not want to be interviewed. Absolutely. That is fine.

40:50And after Dr. Saddoff said that, you know, the district attorney's office said that she didn't want to be interviewed. He said, well, did you reach out to me? No, like we're not going to harass her from a different angle. So there was nothing that Dr. Saddoff did that was outside the realm of professional conduct. That's exactly how you would act. In fact, if he had gone around, after she had denied an interview and gone to yet another avenue to try and get it, that could be harassing. So while he wanted to suggest something was untoward or deficient about his review of the case, there was nothing here. And then they go through Malingering. And he agrees with the defense. He's like, she does not show evidence of Malingering, which by the way, Dr. Kirk also said, so this is good for you. You have two doctors who say, nope, I totally take at face value what she is telling me. She is suffering. It is hard. Or two, she is not Malingering. So then Reddington brings out that Resnix research. So Resnix research indicates that voices heard from the outside, from outside of the head

41:52are atypical. I guess he's trying to argue that those earlier intrusive thoughts could have been actual hallucinations. But the problem is this indicates that yet another aspect of Lindsay's supposed psychosis is atypical. The voice she claims to have heard was outside of her head. So though he's trying to undermine the doctor, I think Reddington is actually sowing more doubt in my head that this was actually a voice or that there was psychosis. So then Reddington reads a line from the prosecution's opening statement to the doctor. I don't think he was there for the opening statement nor is it his statement. And it was something along the lines of like Lindsay had decided to end her own life and took her kids with her. And he's like, what do you think about that doctor? And he was like, I think that minimizes what she was going through, which is not a gotcha, but it's like a very honest opinion. And we said that about the opening statement. Like don't minimize what she was going through. I think this woman was definitely going through something. And I think it really gave a lot of credibility to the doctor that he said that because I

42:56also think it's true. Now I don't know why the prosecution gave that statement. Didn't object. Well, they did object. Oh, did they? I can't really see her. It was after a sidebar. So he'd had to really be paying attention to know this is what was going to happen because they did the sidebar thing because we can't just have objections and open court. But we don't need this many sidebars. You can have objections without a sidebar. Anyway, so yeah, the prosecution shouldn't have given that opening statement. Their opening statement should have aligned with what their experts were going to say. So smart of him to read it. But I thought the doctor handled it well. We're listening to this podcast. So I know you've got a curious mind. Here's a helpful fact you might not know yet. Drivers who switch and save with progressive save over $900 on average. They make it super simple. Pop over to progressive.com, answer some questions, and you'll get a quick quote with coverage options tailored to your choices. Plus, you'll see which discounts you may qualify for, like the online quote discount or

43:59savings for paying in full. In fact, 99% of progressive auto customers earn at least one discount. See if you could save when you switch to progressive. You'll feel good about making a savvy choice. Visit progressive.com and see if you can enjoy a little extra cashback. Progressive casualty insurance company and affiliates, national average 12 month savings of $946 by new customer surveyed who saved with progressive between June 2024 and May 2025. Potential savings will vary. Learning a business means you're always reachable. Until you're not. And the moment you miss that call, that text that follow up, a competitor is the one that picks it up. That's why today's episode is brought to you by Quo, spelled Q-U-O. The business phone system built so you never miss an opportunity. All your calls, text, and voicemails live in one place, so anyone on your team can pick up a conversation, see the full history, and respond fast. That's why Quo is the number one rated business phone system on G2, trusted by over 90,000

45:03businesses who rely on it to stay reachable and look professional every day. And you can set it up in minutes on any device. Keep your existing number and add teammates as you grow. No IT, no hassle. Money is on the line. Always say hello with Quo. Try Quo for free. Let's get 20% off your first six months when you go to Quo.com slash prosecutors. That's Q-U-O.com slash prosecutors. So then there's a redirect. I will say for what it's worth. It was a shorter cross than I feared. I thought it was going to go all day, but it didn't. So the redirect is pretty straightforward. They go through his work at UVA, which is incredibly impressive, and that he's not earning separate money. He just gets a salary from UVA, and that he's treated several hundred women with psychosis. This is out full here too, because remember, Ridington was just trying to show he didn't

46:04know anything about postpartum. But we don't think this is postpartum, right? And even if it were postpartum era, psychosis, still the same symptoms as psychosis, and he has a ton of experience here. And then we go through once again the symptoms of psychosis. We go through some of his patients who had harmed children. He's one of probably a few doctors who really have worked with women who have harmed their own children. And the prosecution finally reads the WHO guidelines on postpartum depression and psychosis. And it doesn't honestly seem as robust as Ridington's life to make it seem. Remember, he kept saying that DSM needs to adopt with the WHO standard was, but it's actually not all he wants it to be. Yeah, I didn't actually see that difference in me. At least the way they read it, that really you would expect these symptoms to occur much earlier around when the DSM says, I mean, I think they make an allowance for later, which I think everybody has. Everybody said, look, in rare circumstances, you might have this happen much later, but it would be unusual.

47:04That's the thing. Nobody's ever going to say it never happens, right? Because in medicine and particularly in mental health, anything's possible. But if you're thinking about what is likely and what is common and what we typically see, that's not what you typically see. Right. And then I thought this was an effective cleanup on redirect. Remember all those questions about whether they tested her blood and thyroid. Well, the commonwealth comes back and says, well, her thyroid levels were checked, right? They were checked in November of 2022. And they were normal. And they also talk about how responsive Dr. Tufts was and how she was reasonable in her approach as a practitioner. And Dr. Satoff who has treated hundreds of women in psychosis said, yeah, everything she did was completely reasonable in that approach. Then of course they go back to that suicide hotline call, the aspire call. And they read the notes from aspire because of course, Reddington makes it seem like someone picked up the phone and basically was like, nope, don't have a plan and hung up. And that's not what happened. So basically at that point, there's a few more questions, but the commonwealth ends their

48:08redirect. Reddington has a couple more questions. And then he's done and everyone rests. So the rebuttal cases over, Reddington is not going to attempt to serve rebuttal. He's not calling anybody else. So at this point, the case is done. The jury is excused and told to expect the arguments tomorrow morning and their deliberations will begin after that. At this point, we take lunch and then they come back to discuss jury instructions. I thought this was fun. You know, I always like it when people get to see this stuff, the arguments about jury instructions. Typically when we would do it, and obviously our cases were never tell us, we would discuss jury instructions back in the judge's chambers. We'd go back with the judge, everybody would have a copy and you would sort of go through the proposed jury instructions. Now here's the thing. The vast majority of jury instructions are what we call pattern jury instructions. They're actually issued by the highest court.

49:09They have typical language and the law is essentially if you use the pattern jury instruction barring something really unusual, you won't be in any kind of trouble. You know, you're not going to get your case overturned because you use a pattern jury instruction. So you may have heard them talk about patterns and the pattern. Some, well, that's what they're talking about. That's why we were able to read you the jury instruction very early on in this case, is because we just looked at the pattern. Sure enough, they're going to use the pattern, but they did go through a few things that they wanted. The Commonwealth objected to the voluntary intoxication instruction, which is attached to the pattern jury instruction on lack of culpability. And this is basically if you had some underlying psychosis and you went out and you smoked the devil's lettuce as Reddington likes to say, and that triggered your underlying psychosis. That is a tweak on this whole idea because because of that, it can affect whether or not

50:11you can take advantage of that defense. That obviously didn't happen here. Nobody thinks that happened here. Commonwealth of the slightest get rid of it. Reddington was like, this is not actually a green on. So there's not going to be any voluntary intoxication instruction for the jury. Now the big thing, there were two big issues. One was a bowden or a bowden instruction. And this was another one that set the Twitter's of fire. So basically, and we've said this before, one of the arguments you can always make is defense turning is the police were terrible. If only they'd done a better investigation. We'd be fine, right? So he wants him to make that instruction on the basis. They didn't find those pills in the drawer, basically. And okay, I mean, he's doing a good job for his client. He's asking for what could be a valuable instruction. I don't think anybody on that jury is under the impression that she didn't do this. Look, legally, she hasn't admitted it. And the judge has given them an instruction that just because you're going to hear from

51:12all these doctors where she admitted doing it, you can't take that into account. Is there any human being on the planet earth who could sit through multiple doctors, talk about her telling them exactly how she did it and not go ahead and say, of course, they're going to do that. So a lot of this is kind of academic. And the judge eventually says, I'm not going to give that instruction. The manslaughter instruction, though, was really important. So just to go through this, what can the jury find her guilty of? Well, just as a matter of law, they can find her guilty of first degree murder. They can find her guilty of second degree murder, which I think got kind of missed in this old discussion. There are some minor charges, like assault charges that are connected to this as well, which I guess they can also find her guilty of. That's not really a matter. But the question was, was there enough evidence presented that she could be found guilty of manslaughter? And Reddington made what I thought was a really great argument on why manslaughter was

52:16appropriate here. Now, I'll just tell you, if you really dig into Massachusetts law and you look at it, I don't actually think he's right. I don't actually think that just as a matter of law that manslaughter really fits. But you made a really good argument and the judge is going to give it to him. Now the judge is kind of doing something walkie-to. He's not going to give a voluntary or involuntary instruction. In fact, we're not even sure what instruction he's going to give. He's going to give some sort of hybrid generalized manslaughter instruction. And the general idea is going to be that Lindsay's mental issues could have reduced her culpability down to manslaughter. I think this is incredibly significant. But there's a chance obviously that this jury is going to go back there and the foreman is going to be like, guilty for a degree murder, right? And everybody's going to be like, absolutely. You know, that's possible. And it's possible he's going to go back there and be like, not guilty, reason to say any, everybody's going to be like, absolutely. That's possible. I think much more likely you're going to have some people who think she's absolutely guilty,

53:20who think she's absolutely not guilty. And then you're going to have a few people in the middle. And manslaughter of all the possibilities is such a nice compromise position because the people who think she's guilty, get a guilty, the people who think this was caused by her mental disease or defect, get a reduction on what she gets. It's just such a perfect compromise verdict that the fact that he's going to allow it, I think basically eliminates the possibility of a hung jury, not impossible. There could be somebody on that jury that, you know, it could be 11 who thinks she's not guilty and one who says she's absolutely guilty and I won't budge and they hang. And it could be the opposite way too. But I think the chance of a hung jury went from, frankly, probably pretty high in this case to more like maybe a 10% or 20% now before I was truly thought it was closer to 50%. And the thing about murder too is, we talked about murder too before.

54:23And one of the definitions of murder to a Massachusetts is basically any murder that's not murder one. So as Reddington sort of hinted, you think about murder one, is this, and some of you think this, that this is very premeditated, this is like a cold-blooded killing, but, you know, this doesn't feel like your typical murder. Like this doesn't feel like Chris Watts, for instance, another person who killed his children, very different circumstance there, feels different from that. So it feels weird to convict both of them for the same crime. So that could be another place where you have the jury who says like, I just don't think this is a murder one, but maybe it's murder two. And that's also sort of the compromise position. And look, that's just the way it is in the law. People have compromised for the time. They are tested repeatedly in the courts and they've never been found to be invalid. So if the jury wants to say she's guilty and manslaughter, it doesn't really matter at the end of the day that it doesn't really fit, that's going to stand up on any future

55:27appeal or anything like that. Do you have any thoughts on the charging conference? I think because of the manslaughter, I think there's going to be, of course, hung jury is always an option, but I think it's going to come down to one of two results. I think it's going to either be manslaughter or not guilty. I don't think they'll go up to second degree murder or first degree murder with manslaughter on the table. And my recollection is in Massachusetts, murder one is life without parole. Murder two is up to life with parole. Manslaughter is up to 20 years. Is it 20? Yeah, I thought it was 20 years. Now you got three victims, but I don't know that that kind of thing. They're not going to be consecutive. It'll be concurrent. And manslaughter, by the way, is as low as probation. And she's been in custody now for at least four years for three, three years. And half, three and a half years. So even if she's convicted of manslaughter, that does not necessarily mean that she would spend any time in prison.

56:28She could immediately get out. Let me be a little more clear. I don't think it's because there aren't people on the jury who think murder. I think no one's thinking about murder too, honestly. I think if you're thinking murder, then you're thinking first degree murder. I think it's because I am quite sure there is at least one of the twelve who is a solid not guilty, no matter what the facts say based on whatever, whether it's about just post part of mental illness in general or they had their mind made up, no matter what the evidence was going to say they were going to be not guilty. I think it is very highly likely that there is someone at least on there. And because of that, in order to get any sort of a conviction, the highest conviction you can get would be a manslaughter. And I think everyone else who was on the murder side of the charging would downgrade to manslaughter rather than get a hung jury or to let her off completely. That's why I think it's manslaughter or not guilty, not because they didn't prove something higher than manslaughter. I just am not convinced that there isn't someone who is 100% will not listen to anything

57:33and would not move off of that not guilty, which is why I think hung jury is still a possibility as well. So we're going to end up doing a short episode after the closings, but I don't think we're going to wait to tell you what we think about this because we're at the close evidence. We got all the evidence. It cares what the lawyers say. We're lawyers. We can wait this evidence. So my thoughts on this. So look, we came to this case. I had a lot of preconceived notions behind this case was going to go. A lot of those preconceived notions have been unconceived. They are the evidence. It's like everybody has a plan. My mind has changed more in this case than I think any case we have followed in real time. Right. It's all, you know, Mike Tyson said everybody has a plan to punch them in the face. And I feel like I had preconceived notions until I got punched in the face by the evidence in this case. And where I'm at with this, and I've said a little bit of this throughout these last few episodes, I don't believe that Lindsey Clancy was psychotic. And I don't believe she was psychotic at all.

58:35And you look at the story and these experts did a really good job of going through this. And the story here is that on January 24th, for the first time, she heard this command voice. And what did she do? She immediately obeyed it. She immediately killed her children and then went on to attempt her suicide. And first, this is inconsistent with what the doctors testified to. People tend to resist, particularly a voice like this. And you don't have to take their word for it. Andrew Yates. All y'all want to talk about Andrew Yates. You all want to compare this case to Andrew Yates. Well, Andrew Yates is someone who heard voices for a very long time. And she resisted them again and again and again before finally giving in to the voices. And Lindsey did not do that even by her own statements. And it's not just that she didn't resist. It's what she did. We were told over and over how much she loved her kids. How good a mom she was. I mean, this was the whole Reddington theory of the defense. How much she cared about them. And I don't believe.

59:37I have been convinced by Reddington and his presentation. I do not believe that Lindsey Clancy, given how much she loved her kids and how good a mom she was, would have a Senate to this voice so quickly. I just don't believe it. I don't think she would have given in the very first time she heard it without any effort to stop or prevent it when her husband just so happened to be gone. And even when according to her, she was interrupted by a telephone call, even that didn't stop her. I just don't believe it. I don't buy it. I don't buy that she's the kind of person and given how she felt about those kids, that she would just instantaneously give in to the voice. And then there's the timeline in this case. So she claims her newest claim, which is not what she told her own doctor, Dr. Spinelli, but her newest claim that Reddington has put forward is that she didn't start this as seen as Patrick left. This didn't start until after that phone call.

1:00:38Patrick had been gone for a while. She was at the refrigerator. She was getting some chicken nuggets out, right? That's when it happened. And after that phone call is when the voice came. If you look at the timeline, that's not what happened. So 515 Patrick's leaving. And that's when she texted him about the pedilax. It could be a couple minutes after that that he actually leaves. But we know that's generally speaking when he leaves. At 523, eight minutes later is when she takes off that Apple watch. At 533, that's when Patrick calls her and she doesn't answer. And at the exact same time that that call is coming through, she climbs the flottest hairs. Now my theory on this has always been this is when she's killing Callin. I think it's even possible that the reason Callin, I'm not going to say almost survived, but was still alive at the end of this was because unlike the other two who she finished without interruption. As she's killing Callin, she gets that phone call and she knows she has to answer it.

1:01:41And so she heads up the stairs to call him back, which she does in the next minute at 534 is a 14 second call to Patrick. In four minutes later, which is about the amount of time it might take you to gather your lemonade, grab a knife out of the knife block, get your crushed pills that you've already prepared or get something to crush pills with. She climbs another flottest hairs. And where's her phone? It's on the bed. And it's not bloody. And the door's locked. We know how this went down. It's not the way she described it. How this went down is essentially Patrick leaves and very soon thereafter she starts this. She puts this whole thing into action. And she has killed, she has strangled the last of her children 18 minutes later, just like Dr. Kirk said, it's 533, it's done. That's when she misses that phone call. That's when she gets what she needs to kill herself.

1:02:42She does that last flott of stairs at 538 and then Patrick is back 30 minutes later. He finds her in the snow. Timeline's telling you so much. I think it tells you a lot in this case. And honestly, this case is not complicated. I think this case is actually really simple. I think we have way over complicated this case. And we've piled so much baggage onto this case, but it's really straightforward in my mind. This is not a combination of incredibly rare occurrences. This is not postpartum psychosis eight months after birth. It's not a once occurring command hallucination. It's not an auditory hallucination coming from outside her head, which we learned today from Reddington is actually a very rare phenomenon. It's not someone in psychosis who didn't even try and resist, which is also very rare. It's not a voice that stops as soon as the murders are over, a voice by the way that never comes back, which also is basically unprecedented.

1:03:42It's not someone who had psychosis and then has never had it again. That is not what this is. Rather, this is a tragic but simple case. I think Lindsey Clancy was very depressed. I think she was anxious and I agree with Reddington. I think she was suffering from a severe mental illness that was brought on by her latent and incredibly difficult to diagnose bipolar two. I think when she went to Dr. Tufts, she presented as just a typical person who has some anxiety. She'd even taken SSRIs before and had no issues. There was every reason for Dr. Tufts to think she's not going to have one of those reactions now. I do think she was activated by Zoloft. And I do think it's possible. And people have written in. I've asked you guys for help on this and you have delivered the number of psychologists and psychologists and psychologists and psychologists who told me to keep calling them the other thing and get upset by that who've written in. Very helpful. And many of you who have talked about how it takes a very low level of Zoloft to do this.

1:04:47That the other symptoms, the other side effects, the low dosage can really help prevent those. But when it's something like this, even a low dosage can set somebody off. And I think that's what happened. I think at that point she was activated. And I think that led to a depressive downward spiral. I think that her own anxiety and her own knowledge trapped her. I think there were a lot of efforts to help her, but it was her own mind was betraying her. I think either because of stigma or just an unwillingness to accept it, both she and Patrick were so resistant to the idea that she was bipolar and she was resistant to that to this day that made it much harder to treat. And I think she goes into this depressive downward spiral. I think she's not really getting any good treatment for the underlying illness, which is why she's not recovering. I think it gets worse all through December. And then I actually think it starts to get a little bit better in January. I think Dr. Kirk's absolutely right.

1:05:50And the problem is that is when it became the most dangerous. I think she decided to do it on January 24th and people said why do it then but not before or when he went on the trip or whatever. It's because she wasn't in the right mental state yet. She had not achieved that recovery that led to the ability to carry this out. I think she decided to do it on January 24th and that's why the day seemed like such a good one. I think at that point the weight was off. She was going to act. She was finally going to end this. I think she goes through the motions earlier in the day. That's why she takes courage to the doctor because she doesn't want to set off any suspicion. She wants to act normal until it is the time when you do this. I think she planned the route for Patrick to get him away. I think she added on that CVS stop very wisely to get him to stop. Make sure the stuff would be there in the hopes that he wouldn't call her but Patrick being a man.

1:06:50Despite the fact she tells him exactly what she wants. He calls her nonetheless to check and that's what leads to you having to call him back. Then I think after that happened, one by one, she murdered her children so that she would not leave them behind her when she took her own life. I absolutely think this case is a tragic case. I think mental health absolutely plays a role in it but that is not enough. Millions of people are right now struggling with mental illness and they're good moms and dads, their husbands and wives, friends, employees, neighbors, people you interact with all the time. They would never do anything like this. Now I agree that her illness was worse than most but I do not believe her depression or her bipolar stripped her of the ability to know that killing her children was wrong. In the end, that was a decision that she made. I do believe she is guilty but I will tell you this. I hesitate and I rarely hesitate because usually if somebody kills kids, where's the death

1:07:55building when we need it? That is not how I feel about this case. I hesitate even now to say that she's guilty of first degree murder. I don't know if I was on that jury that that's how I would vote and I totally get it. I believe there was planning in this case. I believe in some ways this was a premeditated murder and I believe she was criminally competent but I do believe that her mental illness is a factor that reduces her culpability in a way that I'm not sure the law really captures. Personally, I would feel much more comfortable with second degree murder or a manslaughter conviction but I do think at the end of the day she is guilty of some form of murder in this case. So I have these running list of pieces that I've always been hunting forever because they're just at such high prices. I can't quite bring myself to buy them whether it's just the perfect dress from Tucker Knuck or honestly, these football jerseys that my kids want but they're so expensive.

1:09:01I think and I think and then all of a sudden they're gone from online. I can't find them anywhere until I've found them on Poshmark for way less than what I could get them for anywhere else. I have to tell you guys about Poshmark because I love it. Poshmark is the leading fashion resell marketplace shaped by real people in real style. Millions of new and pre loved items from daily wardrobe staples to vintage and luxury fashion, archive worthy pieces you thought you missed forever to current essentials and one of a kind vintage finds it's all there. And when you're ready for a closet refresh, you can even earn money by selling the pieces you're ready to part with reaching more than 80 million users on the platform. Recently I had this beautiful leather bag that I've been looking for for so long but I could not stomach the full price and I kept looking and I finally got online and I saw it. Oh my goodness, it was the most beautiful bag and I'm so glad I found it on Poshmark for

1:10:04a fraction of the price. It was still being sold in stores. You can find out what I'm talking about at Poshmark. New deals and styles are listed every day so don't wait. Download the Poshmark app and use code prosecutors when you sign up to get $10 off your first purchase or shop now at Poshmark.com slash prosecutors and get $10 off your first purchase. That's POSHMARK.com slash prosecutors. Alright ladies, can we normalize the fact that your period deserves better than dry toilet paper? If you've ever wished you could take a shower in the three minutes you've got between Zoom calls, get a Tushy Bade. Quick, gentle refreshing and exactly what you want when you're not feeling your best. And let's just say it's also awesome for new moms because you can really take care of yourself. While you have a newborn with the Tushy Bade. I got the Tushy Bade and I thought what am I going to do with it today and now I cannot

1:11:07live without it. It was so easy to install it. It looks just like it's part of my bathroom. You can't even tell there's something extra but when you sit down it is like being at a spa because the cleaning experience is way better compared to traditional toilet paper. I can't believe I ever didn't have the Tushy Bade. Tushy Bade transforms your bathroom wellness for life, gut to butt to bowl. A game changer for periods postpartum recover, IBS constipation or just feeling fresh in seconds after a workout. Tushy brings the comfort of clean instantly warm water to your everyday routine. Give your body the care it deserves. For a limited time our listeners get 10% off their first Bade order when you use code prosecutors at checkout. That's 10% off your first Bade order at hellotushy.com with promo code prosecutors. So I think it's no surprise that I agree with you that she absolutely knew what she was

1:12:11doing and she planned meticulously how to kill her children. She could have chosen not to do it and she in fact did. So I think the timeline is right. Like you said, it's Occamus Razor. It's really chilling because I think the act of taking off her Apple Watch was the beginning of it in order to not be traced to minimize the story telling after. I think she fully intended to kill herself and I think she fully intended to be dead along with the children by the time Patrick came home so there would be no questions. And without her Apple Watch there would be much less ability to track what had actually happened. And that's chilling to me because to have the wherewithal and the control of your awareness of what to do to plan all the way up until that point all the way to the point of taking off your watch to them to begin to carry out the executions one at a time. Chills me to my core as a mother. So agree with you. She is not guilty by reason of insanity or mental defect. But I think the reason this has captured so many people.

1:13:11This will probably be studied as a social and a societal phenomenon for a very long time is the why. Now one thing I'm going to go backwards with you because while I agree with you that she was deeply, deeply suffering here, I do not think it was a fake suicide attempt. I do not think that she was malingering. I agree with the doctors that if anything she was downplaying what she was suffering from and it was incredibly serious because I do think she was someone who was very competent was in a profession that helped others and to be in a position where she had to ask for help. And she did. She asked for help from Patrick. That probably was really hard. She asked for help from Dr. Tufts from her therapist by going to inpatient programs. She called suicide hotlines. I truly think she was seeking help, but she could not bring herself to then take that next step of being one of the people that maybe she had been trained to help because then that would put her in a different category.

1:14:13So though she was seeking help and I do think that seeking help showed that she was truly suffering. It's so funny. We're all talking about how we're afraid to talk about postpartum health. We're afraid to talk about mental illness. I think we are where we are because Lindsay could not accept that she actually needed much bigger help than she could fix herself and she did try to fix it herself. That's why she took the beddler. That's why she took the ad event against medical advice. I think that's why she checked out of the hospital despite probably not being better. These things have led to where we are. And I say all this because I'm starting with where you ended. Does that downgrade it from first degree to manslaughter? When every single murder case we've looked at and at this point we've looked at hundreds if not more. Mental illness is at play in the sense that we are life preservers. We heard Dr. Saddoff said that today. It's really hard to kill yourself. It's harder to kill yourself than your kids actually. He doesn't say it directly like that.

1:15:14But what I got from him is it's harder to kill yourself. That even your kids who you are biologically geared towards loving because we all have a natural tendency to self preserve. If you try to drown yourself, your body fights and if you're not restrained, you will push yourself up and take a breath. Even if you want to drown yourself. That's why people try to drown themselves, tie blocks to themselves because your own will to live even if your mind doesn't want to live will fight for life. So to some sense anyone who commits a murder is in some ways fighting the natural urge and whether you want to call that a mental defect or not, it's at play and we don't take that into account. But we are taking that into account of course because we've made this discussion about postpartum, which I think the experts have quite clearly demonstrated what she was suffering from, though incredibly serious, is not a postpartum phenomenon. There are many people who suffer from bipolar disorder.

1:16:15There are many people suffer from anxiety and depression, does not minimize what that is. So I struggle with making her different from other people in every jurisdiction that we hold accountable for their premeditated acts because her attorneys have been very effective in making this about postpartum when I don't think this is a case about postpartum necessarily. Okay, let me back up now to the why. I'm not going to give you a good answer. I think there is no why. I think Dr. Kirk, what drove him in this case was the why. We will never know why. I don't think Lindsay knows why, but I do want to call out something because throughout this coverage, people who feel very strongly about this case and feel very strongly about mental health discussions, about postpartum mental health discussions feel very personally invested in this and in criticizing what is being put forth by the defense's narrative, which I do not think is what actually happened here. Do not think there was ever a voice. I do not think that psychosis controlled her to the point where she did not know what

1:17:18she was doing. I do not think she had psychosis. She did know what she was doing. In order to call these things out based on what the evidence says, it's not mockery. It's not even lack of empathy. But I think it's important to look at the facts and to call out the valorization of victimhood. I think that's really important here because though I see in the record how much Lindsay was suffering in December going into January leading up to the murders, what she has done since January 24th all the way until this very day is the very thing that we call that ad non-Scied out for. We said we wouldn't even be covering this case and it may not even be interesting if you just accepted the fact that he murdered his girlfriend and didn't get millions of people and hundreds of not thousands of tens of thousands of dollars of money around an innocent movement that didn't exist. She is not a martyr for postpartum health. Rather to this day, she denies what she may be suffering from and what she has done.

1:18:20Instead, I think there's been incredible post-hot justification of what she knew at the time was wrong. We're not judging her today. I recognize that. But her actions today just like both Dr. Kirk and Dr. Saddoff have said, the fact that we can see the past three years she's been diagnosed with bipolar 2, it's part of our evaluation of whether she has bipolar 2. The way she has acted since then, I think gives incredible insight into just how knowing her actions were on January 24th. She wanted to kill herself. Many people in this world want to and they do it without taking others with them. You can choose to end your own life and we do not allow you. If you want to drive off a cliff, you don't get to first drive through a crowded street taking down as many people as you want as you drive off a cliff. You're not allowed to do that. And she did do this. She knew exactly what it was and we know she knew it was wrong because the amount of planning and the amount of thought that went into each of it. She took her watch off at 5.23.

1:19:21I actually think Patrick left a little bit after 5.15. I think it was an intentional deliberate move to add on this CVS trip as he was leaving. So he didn't say, well, can I just get it later? Why should we go to 3V? This is closer. She made the 3V call so that that order was already had. She made sure that this was on the way out so there was no planning or changing of plans. So I think he actually left a little bit after 5.15. So at 5.23, she takes off the watch. She calls him back at 5.34. So we're not even talking about 18 minutes of committing these murders. We're talking a span of about 10 minutes. We know it took about 2 to 3 minutes to make sure that the child was dead. She worked with army precision to make sure these kids didn't know what was happening. And she took them one by one and ended their lives. Now she was, I think, deeply in a very, very dark place. But she knew exactly what she was doing.

1:20:22That's why she took the measures to cover where she was. This is why she took the measures to do the kids one at a time in separate rooms so they couldn't see each other. So that even though we know they fought, there was no chance that they could get away. This is why we know that when she went upstairs, she locked that door. And I think she really wanted to kill herself. And she thought she was going to kill herself. And when she lived, gosh darn it, she had to explain it. That's why she was horrified. How do you explain this? You can't. That wasn't part of the plan. The plan was for everyone to be gone and she didn't have to explain a single thing. And it's like the lie that just kept getting away. And here we are three years later, where she claims she wants to be the advocate for women's health. And incredibly worthy cause and an important conversation we need to have. But she is not the martyr for postpartum health that I think Reddington or honestly Tik Tok has held her up to be. And I just want people to be prepared that so if she has found guilty of anything, that

1:21:25doesn't mean we don't have conversations about the mental health system. And by the way, I do not think this particular case is a case where the mental health professionals have failed her. There are cases where medical professionals have failed people in gross ways. This case is not that. So if she has found guilty, that doesn't mean we don't continue very thoughtful and deep conversations about how we support women, about how we support anyone truly in spirals of deep depression and anxiety. And if she's found not guilty by reason of mental defect, I think we need to also be very careful. That doesn't mean that we burn the whole medical system down because it's not an indictment on all of her practitioners, for example. I think the fact that these two things have been married so closely may actually do a disservice to the conversations and the improvements we need to make in the mental health system. Because unfortunately, I think as I've seen in the last five weeks, this is a straight murder case.

1:22:26This is not a case about postpartum struggles that were overlooked by mental professionals. That doesn't mean I don't have empathy for her, but I have the amount of empathy that is appropriate for a woman who I know knew right from wrong and still chose to do wrong three times over. And that can't be taken back. I truly don't know how the jury is going to come out. I don't think it's going to be murder one. I don't think it's going to be murder two. I truly think it's going to be, I hope it's not hung jury. I think it's going to be manslaughter. If the jury truly heard what's been happening for the last three experts, I am hopeful that there are enough people on there who have not bought into the complete not guilty. And those of you who've been following, I mean, I've taken a roller coaster ride. I came into this case thinking this was just about how the medical system had failed her. This was just a woman who was in postpartum distress, who was failed repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly. And I thought this was going to be an easy case of not guilty.

1:23:27And then as I heard more, I thought, oh gosh, okay, so it's a woman who's in a lot of distress, but it sounds like there was maybe there was just a lot of malingering. I thought that this was all a lie really in the middle of the trial. But now I've come around to the fact that what the last two experts have said was likely what it was. She wanted to kill herself. We just don't let you kill other people while you decide to kill yourself as well. And that's what she tried to do. That was great, Alice. You know, you're missed in the prosecution world. Look, this is a tough case. I know people are going to have a lot of thoughts on this case. And there's going to be a lot of vision. I have appreciated how respectful everyone has been in places like the gallery and discussing this. There's a lot of very strong feelings about whether or not she is guilty or not guilty. And I hope we will continue to have that discussion. Look, I don't know what's going to happen in this case. And one of the reasons I don't know is because we haven't seen the closing arguments. We've been walking through this case for the youth for the last.

1:24:27I don't even know how many episodes we've done. So it's easy for us to have it all sort of lined up and the evidence lined up. I think for that jury who's been sitting in there and listening to this and their laypeople, how this case is put together for them is going to be really important. And as I've said, I think the Commonwealth has done really well in the second half of this trial, but tomorrow they got a nail at and they got to put it together. Their Massachusetts rules, if they do it like they did, Karen Reed, the defense goes first, which I think is so strange, but that's the way it'll be. They each get an hour writing since that he only needed 30 minutes, but judge gave him an hour. He's going to take an hour and 10, I think. He absolutely is. So we're just going to have to see because I think the prosecution has to put that story together in a much better way than they did in the opening. They could just clone Alice real fast. That would be really good for them, but they've got it in them.

1:25:28I mean, we've seen them do really well. There were times where it seemed like this case was too big for them, but I think we'll see their best tomorrow. I hope we see their best tomorrow. I hope both sides put on their best argument. Honestly, I really hope that both sides present the best possible argument for their position to this jury so that this jury can weigh the evidence and reach a conclusion. I will say this, whatever conclusion they've reached, I'm not going to be upset with. This won't be, I was disappointed in the Karen Reed decision. This one, I think, they're really good arguments on both sides and really good reasons to feel either way. So what does it say? We've said this so many times, but I do think it's worth saying because there's going to be heated emotions tomorrow after the closing arguments and then obviously as people wait for the verdict, it's not a win. Whatever the verdict is. It's truly a loss three times over across the board. So there is no winning side and that's what I think that's why I'm so exhausted from this

1:26:28case is there's kind of no justice at the end because Korra, Dawson and Callen will never come back. So keep that in mind. It's easy to fall into teams and be like, way to go and cheer for your side, whatever side that you're on, but just remember like this is a truly devastating case on every single level and nobody wins whatever whatever that outcome is. Like when Murdoch was convicted, I felt good. That was a good day. We're sure that I was convicted. That was a good day. I felt like justice had been done and even though it doesn't bring back the victims and even though that tragedy remains, justice is something to celebrate. There's not going to be any celebration here. There's no winner here. There's no happy ending here at all, no matter what happens. So that's the thing that's so heavy about this case. I think it's one of the reasons that people feel so strongly about this case because it's just a deeply emotional personal case and it is a horrific tragedy. I'm sure you guys have lots of thoughts. Let us know what they are. She is an email prosecutor's pod at gmail.com.

1:27:30At prosecutor's pod for X for Instagram for tiktok. You can join us on the gallery on Facebook. It is our listener created, listener run, listener moderated group. It's awesome. A lot of good time there, a lot of really good arguments, a lot of really small people with a lot of expertise. So you can learn a lot there as well. I hope you'll join us there. Look, this case is coming to an end. There are a lot of you who are listening. You've never listened to us before and you listened to this and I hope you enjoyed it and I hope you won't leave us when it's over. I hope you'll check out some of our bad catalog to see how we normally do things where that's the Scott Peterson case or the John Boney Ramsey case or the ad non-side case. Or if you're into things, if you're more like me and you're into de-at-law of pass or the mystery of the Mary Celeste or something along those lines or DB Cooper and the money he took, we do that as well. So I hope you'll check it out and I hope you'll stick with us after this case is over. If you want to watch this record these love, $3. Patreon. If you want to get a Merlin ad free, $3.

1:28:30Patreon and Apple subscriptions. If you want to just listen to them when they come out with ads, guess what? Everything we do comes out eventually. You don't have to pay it down. Tom's hard. Don't worry about it. I'm not going to hurt our feelings if you want to do that and I'm sure our sponsors should be very happy if you would listen to the ads. All right, Alice, before we sign off for today, do you have any other brilliant pearls of wisdom that you want to share with us? No pearls of wisdom, but y'all should watch Bret on Nancy Grace tomorrow night. That's true. Yeah. Yeah, Nancy Grace. Thank you, Nancy. Very nice lady. Yes, she actually. She's not, which is what do we love about her? She was nice to me. So I was. Actually, I was a little worried for you. I'm not going to lie. I was like, I don't know how this is going to go down. I was too. She could yell. She's going to make me cry. And here's the good news. You can hear Bret talk about a different case. It's a different time to live in a liquid way. It's amazing. Yeah. Oh my goodness. No, thank you guys, especially all of new people who are joining us.

1:29:30It has been so humbling to go through this trial with you because it has been really emotionally taxing. But like I said, I think these are really beautiful and important conversations that we're having. And I've been so heartened, truly so heartened by the compassion I'm seeing all of you display. So we are going to do a short episode. I'm calling it a short episode after two hours, though. It's still two hours. It's still two hours. It could be a little bit longer. I don't know. Now, if the verdict comes back tomorrow afternoon, oh, then we're going to have a long one. Then we'll have a much longer episode. So I would just go and tell you my expectation. I think they will make it through the weekend. I do not think we'll get a verdict until next week. At the beginning of this week, I thought we'd get a verdict before the end of the week, but that's when I thought we were going to have closings yesterday. So I think at this point, Monday afternoon is my guess. I honestly think deliberations will go longer now than previously because of the manslaughter. Option on the table.

1:30:31Yeah. I do not think we'll get something before the weekend. I really think this jury is going to be super motivated to reach a conclusion. I just really do. They don't want to hang any more than anybody else does. They've been through this nightmare. They don't want to leave. And honestly, it was one thing, like when the first Karen read, Jerry Hong, that case was just weird, right? This she got three kids. You got this mother who killed her kids. She's now she's handicapped and she's been through the ringer and you saw the families come in and patrick and your motivation to reach some sort of verdict is really high. So I know a lot of people are just assuming it's going to be hung because it's a hard case. I am very hopeful. They're going to listen to it. Like if you think you're tired listening to this, they are so emotionally invested as well. And we've both gotten declared for judges and have seen juries and been able to talk to them unlike when you're an attorney and you can't talk to the jurors. I remember speaking to all the jurors after the trials and they took their job so seriously. I remember I was like, I love this country.

1:31:33Like you sit there for less than minimum wage and you don't even get lunch taken in for you because that's not part of the court budget. And you take your job so seriously for all of these cases. So I actually, if you're a praying person, pray for these jurors. Someone asked, you know, post it in the gallery, do they get like trauma counseling? No. There's nothing. And actually, there are incredible books written about like polls they've done on jurors who've sat through really horrendous, usually murder cases and the effect it has on their lives. And it's usually things that they have to suffer alone because it's a very unique and lonely experience that have been part of a jury like this. So think about them as well. Just for what they're about to have to go through. And then I think unfortunately, the onslaught of media attention that will follow them afterwards. Yeah, absolutely. And it is a just a real failure of our justice system that we don't take care of our jurors because this was just imagine hearing that 911 call seeing those photographs.

1:32:34No person walks off the street to do their jury duty and expects that's what they're going to have to see. So yeah, absolutely. All right, guys, well, we'll be back very soon. Look forward to it. I hope you've enjoyed this episode. We will see you guys tomorrow. But until then, I'm Brett and I'm Alice and we are the prosecutors. No, I do have a cost drop of my mouse. I'll get right out of the phone top. I'm so tired because it's just emotionally exhausting, but also just having the trial in my ear all day all the time. All the time is like, whoo, talk about a voice in your head, guys.

1:33:38And the problem I have is when we get done, I cannot go to sleep for like two hours hours. I've been going to sleep at one and we finish it like 10. I know. It's just like, and I have to get up and wake up.

1:34:50People, I did. You loved it. You guys have loved it. What I really appreciate it was really funny. I can't remember who posted it, but I laughed out loud when you were like, when we post it, we're tired. This case makes us tired and someone was like, then stop listening. I was like, I was like, I was like, I was like, I was like, I was like, I was like, I just want to know if I can get on top of this thing.

1:35:54Hello, and welcome to Pluto Fo. If you know the name of the movie you'd like to see just stream it for free on Pluto TV. We're all your blockbuster favourites are landing all summer long catch anchor man, the legend of Ron Burgundy. Fantastic. The Matrix trilogy. Welcome to the real world. Mean girls. Start up! I'm the key in the world! And so much more for showtime. Express nothing. They're free 24-7. That is so fast. On Pluto TV, stream now. Pay never.