Lindsay Clancy's Medication Chart Revealed WHAT To Jurors?

0:00This is the big breakdown. A long look back at some of the biggest stories we're covering for you at the Hidden Killers podcast and True Crime Today. This is Hidden Tillers Live with Tony Brusky and Robin Dray. Let's go to the defense. Reddington's defense never argued Lindsey didn't kill her children and argued she couldn't have stopped herself. The medications and the system that prescribed them broker-brain before she ever walked into that basement. The case played out inside the courtroom and obviously has touched millions of people judging by everyone's reactions. But how did the defense do with the jury at the end of the day that's that we're breaking down? Defensive turning, extraordinary. And host of defense diaries, Bob Mata is with us from Massachusetts where he's been in the courtroom every day and Robin Drake retired FBI special agency for the counter intelligence behavioral analysis program.

1:01The defense, yeah, if you've been following Bob, you have seen the fanfare because my god, it's all called for with Reddington, holy crap. You said early on to me, I'd like an attack, so it's like watching Matt Locke in real life or something of that nature. And yeah, I mean my god. This guy, this is how you do it. You are in the courtroom giving your thoughts on how he did with the jury. Obviously, we know how it read out here to a lot of people of a certain mindset on this, but how did it land in there? That's what really matters. As always with him, in particular, I mean, they're paying wrapped attention. You know, the guy can command a room. Yeah. Why is a fabulous storyteller, you know, he's like, he's just got that, that gift of being

2:08able to have jurors want to hear what he has to say. Yeah. Now, whether or not he's convincing all of them as to what he's saying is a different question altogether, but it's never a matter of like this guy makes it when a fucking go to sleep. You know what I mean? It's like you're watching him. He's entertaining. He's passionate. He's knowledgeable. He's knowledgeable about the facts of the case. Like all those things exist when you're watching him. And you know, I thought his closing was powerful. You know, it was a little, if I were to give a critique, it was a little scatter shot. You know, he kind of bound around. That's what Todd was saying too. Yeah. You know, I mean, but look, I, I too am a guy. Who does not read from the script when I'm doing a closing? You know, and what happens when you're giving a lengthy closing, it shit pops into your head as you're speaking, right? So, you know, it's not winging it because he's been thinking about this closing forever.

3:11But you know, the first rule that my father gave me was a defense attorney trial attorney. It's like never read from a piece of paper at trial, ever. You know, so I've taken that and lived by that my entire life in terms of practicing law and running tennis and old school guy who lives and dies by that. And so, you know, he had his concepts, his overarching concepts. He had, he had the five or six things that he wanted to hit specifically in terms of contradictions that were made by Commonwealth during their case, obviously the bands, the exercise bands, not being nodded. You know, all the different things that he felt that they were disingenuous about, that they were trying to manipulate the jury about he, he really kind of focused on that, focused less on the experts and the criminal responsibility in terms of kind of arguing that to the jury.

4:12You know, and it's look, and it's easy to sit here and armchair quarterback, you know, what if I had been able to have an ear piece in his ear and a little microphone sitting in a back room, I would have been like, hey man, this is the time you got to, you got to drive home the concept of psychosis and don't be married to just postpartum psychosis. How for the jury to think about psychosis that was brought on maybe by the medications, there was a combination of the fact that she had stopped breastfeeding in October that she's on this, you know, polypharmaceutical cocktail for four months, you know, was her brain fried early on from the Zoloft. Leave yourself the ability to be able to give the jury multiple things to hang their head on in terms of the mental illness because one thing that was taken off the table by the prosecutors in their opening and will not by their opening, but in their closing was

5:13the fact that there's no dispute that she had a mental disease or defect. Right. We all are in agreement with that. Yeah. But we're suggesting is she was bipolar too, that she was well within her faculties, that the evidence that we have in terms of the Google searching and, you know, the planning that that just shows us that she knew right from wrong that the planning in and of itself was to have V8 getting caught not by the law enforcement initially, but by her husband. So they're dying on that hill. I thought red addressed it somewhat because that can play both ways, but it was almost a little bit like an afterthought wherein kind of mid, mid closing argument, Ruddington says, you know, in the Google searches, you know, she's not trying to find out how long he's going to be gone because she wants him away. She's trying to Google how long he's going to be gone for how quickly he's going to get

6:14back. I thought that was really good. I thought that was really good. Which is the counter argument, right? Yeah. So my question on that, Bob, I just finished up your amazing series on Barried on the Gacy trial. And I'd listen to your dad's opening statement, which highlights this, this so, particularly and that's where my question comes from where what you're both doing in the opening, but even more so in the closing is you're reminding the jury that this is not an emotional case. You have to weigh the facts, that is in details. And when, just as you presented there, you saw a bit of a dichotomy between the prosecution and then the defense because Reddington clearly, whether by intention or not, he's an emotional guy about this. And so he was a vokin emotion. I mean, I got teary. I listened to him pulling up the photos of the kids, but you're in the courtroom watching the jury. Did you think that would land better than a more pragmatic approach to it? Or do you think that was effective for him?

7:14Oh, we lost Bob. That's a good question. That was a good question. I couldn't repeat it. Tony asked you the same thing. You just watched it too. And that's the way Bob's dad laid it out is when you're doing the closing and Bob just laid it out. When you're doing the closing and the opening, you want to remind the jury that these decisions don't have made a motion. They're based on the facts, that in details and the evidence as presented by the court, during the court, by the prosecution and the defense, and to not put your emotion into it, yet clearly, Reddington was very emotional all throughout this because he's so, he's so vested, so totally in Lindsay and what she went through. And it came through in the defense, you know, and his final closing, I thought it was compelling, but is that compelling for us, the audience? Good. But when the jury gets their instructions and told not to listen or pay attention to that, my question is, what do you think the jury saw? And how do you think it'll resonate? I mean, yeah, the jury gets instructions, but everybody's human, you know, nobody's

8:14going to dehumanize anyone through instruction. And the more human and he's back, anyone, anyone can be, I think in that sort of a setting and making a true emotional connection with a juror, you know, the more impactful they're going to be, even if, you know, that those elements, you know, are supposed to be kind of stripped out of it. Okay. Bob, did you hear what I said, Bob? No. Sorry. I can turn off. When it turns off, it turns off the skyline. Oh, no, I know why. Yes, yes, no, it will. So, so I could summarize the question really quick. So your dad taught us very well in the Gacy files. I listened to his opening statement because, you know, the, you didn't do his closing, did the closing of the prosecution. Great, great, instructive, serious to watch on his podcast, buried. So, I know and you just went through it. The jury's instructed to not bring emotions into it. Watch, you know, pay attention to data, details.

9:16The evidence has presented and make your assessment based on that. And Reddington was very clearly much more passionate about what he was doing. And the prosecution's delivery and closing, even though it was like a, a, a myriad of fishing expeditions that look like, then they followed, if they followed their own, their own testimony from their own people without actually coming up with their supporting their original theory, I should say. So how do you think, because you were in the courtroom watching, how do you think it landed with this jury? Because every jury's got a different, different vibe to them, I'll say. It's really hard to tell. So let me give you the breakdown. So they, they selected it. It's ultimately they landed, which I'm sure you guys have run into this info, but it's nine women, three men were picked out of the 18 as the deliberating jurors. The two youngest female jurors who I was guessing were late, 20s to mid 30s were not included.

10:16So they didn't make it out of the jury. Which I don't, that's a tough one for me because I like, again, you know, you have to look at social media as much as we may disagree with some folks in chat. They have, they have a right to their opinion, you know, and, and there's going to be people on that jury that share the opinion. There is not a chance in hell that they got 18 people who none of which are of the mindset. I don't really care if she was psychotic. Yeah. I don't really care if she had a mental defector disease. She killed her kids in this country when you kill your children, you go to prison. And if we could a lot of it, if it was available, we'd execute her. You know what I mean? Like those people are going to exist on the jury. So in terms of whether or not Red's able to swing them, I'm going to guess.

11:17No. You know, it's like if you have you, yeah, it's a re-indipter. You can't experience anybody's mind online ever, ever. No. When you dug in, you know, it's interesting. You know, I, I'm pulling this up because I was texting yesterday with Coffin Daffer. And because I, I, I, I said, can I move you to Monday? So we can get you in here, Bob, today from, from Massachusetts. So she's been missing you guys, man. Yeah. Oh, yeah. And we've been following you. You've been seeing, watching your court every day. Yeah. And she said, you know, I think everybody's mad at me anyway. And I said, you know, I think it's, it's, you know, because we have differing opinions on this, very different opinions. But and I said, you know, but I think it's, you know, I said, where do you think it is divided right now, like 50, 50? And she said, hmm, I'll do a poll. So here's the poll that where it sits right now, over 2000 votes. And this is on, on Coffs Facebook. Was there followers? Yes, with her followers.

12:17There's plenty of people on Coffs Facebook that don't like her. We like to call them hate watchers. Yeah. So I want to say, I mean, so I mean, honestly, I think her, it's a kind of a fairly balanced group, honestly, of, of, of like and dislike of her opinion, on her, on her Twitter. So do you believe Lindsey had a psychotic break? 37% yes. 52% no. Okay. 52% I don't follow, but here's where you're talking about Bob. I don't think it matters. 9% right. And that's where I think this lives is right. How are we going to do that? I don't think it matters because we can debate all of it, you know, and there's plenty of people who can understand the psychology of it and still be like, I don't care. I don't care. It's simple as that too. Yeah. I mean, it's like, it's like, it's like the scene from, you know, good, well hunting, you know, certain courties like, and the judges like, yeah, hit a cop, you're going in.

13:21You know, here, people are going to be saying, look, I don't give a shit what was going on with her own children, you know, and like in a, in a, in a, in the most personal way possible. And I understand that from the strangling and I get it. I understand it. I can see that people that feel so adamantly about that, that are of the mindset that there's, it doesn't matter if, because it's really a fundamental way, like a fundamental way, a fundamental way of thinking about it in terms of, all right, as a society, are we going to get to the point where we acknowledge that there are situations with mental illness wherein people literally do not have control over their mind and or their faculties. And if we can get the majority of the country, because that's a fact, that's a real thing.

14:23That is, that is not up for debate. The debate then switches to, what are we going to do with it? Can we as a society give people a pass, even though that's not what's happening here? Right. Winthee Clancy, if she's found not guilty by way of lack of criminal responsibility, isn't getting a pass. She's going to be institutionalized. Do I think that there could be a day, 20 years down the road where she does not want to end her own life? Maybe. But she's not there now. We know. And it's three and a half years after the fact they have her on one by, you know, one on one. There is somebody watching her 24 hours a day, seven days a week because she is a threat to kill herself. So, you know, I mean, and that's part of it. If she's found not guilty, she's not rolling out of the courtroom.

15:25You know what I mean? She's just not. She's going to be in a hospital. And you know, like, and Sue, I hear you, I hear you, throw her in Gen Poppet. And I hear everybody that's saying that, but like, that's just, you're electing to ignore a problem that is running rampant in this country, which is mental illness. If you can't be online, and I'm talking about on your socials, scrolling through your wheels or your TikToks or whatever, you know, your choice of social media platform is, and you just watch insane shit after insane shit after from all corners of the country. And there's no shortage of it. Our country is beaming with mental illness, beaming with it. And if we don't get in front of it and acknowledge that this is a real fucking problem, and we

16:26need to figure out how to handle it in a way that's going to allow us to continue as a functioning society, then we're doomed. These things, I don't know what's causing it. I can't imagine the amount of invisible shit raised, whether it's sound waves, well, all the shit I once saw a photograph of where, and I don't know what they were able to use to actually capture the invisible shit that we walk through in an urban area. And it looks like those laser traps or laser things that they have to guard fucking priceless art. You know what I'm talking about? Yeah, it's like the spectrum. You can see the spectrum of all of these. Yeah. I don't know what's causing it. I really don't know what's causing it, but it's right there for all of us to see with our own eyes. Yeah. And it's not getting better. And you know, and that's without even bringing the conversation to what this is really

17:28germane about in this trial, which is the concept that there are, there's a document or a book rather that is considered to be a Bible for psychiatrists and psychologists in terms of trying to diagnose what type of disorder somebody has and they're ignoring. Completely ignoring is a standalone, the concept of both pardoned depression, which is different than regular depression because you're talking about massive hormonal swings. Yeah. You know, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's only been four weeks Bob. It's got to be four weeks. If it's outside four weeks, it's not in DSM. It's not counted. Yeah. Yeah. Because people can't hold two truths at the same time. That's why I think a lot of people have an entire hard time with two because you can't hold one truth of her killing her kids, which is a hardcore truth. No one's denying that. Yeah. And the truth that she had something seriously mental wrong with her that caused her to do that because I know the part of some of the people in here, the fear is if we let

18:30this one go, right? The floodgates are open, man. Right. It's chaos and mayhem. I tell you what, they're already open kids. They're already open. Yeah. It's, it's, it's time that we, we get in front of it and stop pretending that we're shocked every time horrible things go down. It's like, yeah, and here's how we got here. Let's, let's get in front of that. Your thoughts in the comments section on substack in YouTube as we continue our conversation. And the Hidden Killers podcast. This is Hidden Killers live with Tony Brusky and Robin Dree. All right. We're going to get into it again today as we await the jury's decision in the Lindsay Clancy case as we are sitting here on Monday morning. Lindsay Clancy jury started deliberating nine women, three men, five verdict options,

19:33both sides. A gray she killed Cory Dawson in Kellen. That is not up for debate despite what you may be understanding if you're just watching TikTok. Patrick's not an option. The fight is whether she understood what she was doing. That's what we're going to be getting into. We're going to talk about the, the prosecution's case and how that landed, how the defense case is landed from various perspectives and what is going on as we move ahead. Jennifer Coffin-Daffer is with us, retired FBI Special Agent. Along with Robin Drake, retired FBI Special Agent, C for the counter, intelligence, behavioral analysis program and master class extraordinaire instructor links, by the way, in the description. Let's start with this. Sprog's theory is that Clancy couldn't end her own life while her children were alive, that they were the basically the protective factor. And so she removed them. This is part of the psychotic thinking, if you will, where true North is truly pointing South West and she's not aware that this sort of thinking is crazy.

20:36Not rage, not psychosis, a decision. Let's talk about that because the bar is not necessarily a specific diagnosis of psychosis. It's not having essentially your wits about you to understand right from wrong, whatever that is that's going on in your mind is what it is, but arriving to that decision, a decision itself. Do you buy that and doesn't that prove psychosis or something very much like it even if it's not that exact word, Jen? I don't buy it. I don't want a free sample of it. I don't believe it. This is the problem. I can't ignore the facts. I cannot ignore the facts of what she did to set up her opportunity to take her children's lives. I can't ignore the fact she got her husband out of the house. She sent him to a specific place.

21:37She sent him to another place. She mapped it all out. She knew the time frames. There is no chance I can get over the premeditation in this case to say the voice is that by the way I'm the last to 18 minutes, somehow made her do this. I can't get it. I can't go there. It's interesting, Jen, because when I was listening to and for everyone that's watching and everyone knows that Jen and us, 180s on the thoughtfulness of her before this. We're engaging in a really thoughtful way, which I enjoy on this, even though it's surrounding a horrendous loss of three lives. That isn't lost on any of us. It's all about the three lives that were lost. It's just talking about the culpability of her being criminally responsible for it or not. On that, Jen, it was interesting listening to Redington's closing statement where he actually had a different optic in context, which I hadn't really locked on to before, about what you just said. You say, and granted, I'm on the side of arguing that you can do all that planning in

22:41a psychotic break. And for that amount of time, now granted, I saw your post on it. Yes, it's a slim amount of time. And I am not a medical expert on this by any stretch of imagination. I would just watch all the testimony. And only the people that testified because, again, that is when we're talking about justice, that's where justice is. Justice is in the process and the system. And for my optic, I think it's been served well so far because it's been, it's the process, right? But what happened was Redington gave this optic saying that she wasn't checking all these things and planning it out to get them out of the house. She did it to check how fast he's going to be back to the house because she didn't want to be without them, which is a completely different optic, which was, so for me, I now have two things that I'm holding in my mind. I'm holding the fact that I thought originally and agreed from, again, my understanding of what was presented that this was a psychotic break for that period of time because of all these mental health issues that have come up.

23:42And now every single clinician that testified both sides agreed that she was in a severe mental crisis. Some said it was, she had criminal responsibility for it and some on the defense side didn't, but again, a lot of overlap there. But again, adding that new dimension to it as his take for the closing was very interesting, saying that actually wasn't her trying to get them out, it was actually her planning, how fast can I get them back? Okay. This is the problem. I mean, you don't believe, so I want to add more one thing. So I'm so sorry. From what you've said and what you've said the entire time, you don't believe and correct me if I'm restate, if I'm saying this wrong, you don't believe her and you don't believe anyone that testified that she is truthful. She's been tested by the MMI, the test saying that she is got a lot of veracity that she's never lied in the past. The family members that agree with it and all the psychologists also said that she was forthright if it's nothing else, she minimized.

24:42And so you don't believe any of that. No, that's way too blanketed for sure. I mean, I would have to go, you know, very much point by point, but no, that definitely is not my blanket statement, but back to what you said about Reddington. This is why that's belonging in my opinion. It's because if you give me the proof where she's done that before, if I'm the defense attorney and that's anywhere near truthfulness, I would have put up as, uh, I would have shown other instances I would have said, see, we have her, her cellular footprint here. Look, she did this all the time when he left on this and this and he tracked and took down. We didn't see any of that because it didn't exist because this is the time she did it and she did it when she decided to murder her kids. Fair point. So I'll go back to my original then. I guess is it? I mean, I do wonder like did they look, did they look to see if this is a pattern for

25:43her on that? They would be looking at an area that wasn't part of a crime. I mean, could that be overlooked? Could that be something they never went back and thought, hey, does she do this every time he leaves the house? I don't know how frequently he left the house. That was a guy like Reddington in my opinion. I mean, for all of his, you know, what I might not like about him, I think he is a very savvy. Sure. I think it's very well spoken all of that. I think he knows how to defend. And if he had that nugget, oh my gosh. And with all the people helping and the millions of dollars that have been raised in this thing, he would be all over it. Yeah, good counterpoint to it. I agree. So you're, you're very much of the opinion that she, because I'm trying to understand the premeditation here, the premeditation from what I'm, I'm understanding all this is her looking up the distance to the store, the restaurant. Is that the extent of it?

26:44I mean, is there more premeditation here than I'm missing of her planning this, this big thing? I mean, I'm literally asking, am I missing something here that you're seeing, Jen, where she's been planning this for a long period of time more so than just like right before she says, you know, go pick this up. Here's, you know, the info on the phone. Like days or weeks or, yeah, I mean, like how, how, how, I guess how far in front of the, the quotation that I, what people are talking about that I seem to be missing, other than that. I know that that technically qualifies as premeditation. It's just doesn't have a lot of, you know, anchoring to it if you will beyond just, she looked it up right there or we've seen more. It's a good way to put it to see. I know, it's kind of a lot when you really track and I have this really great rundown, point by point, minute by minute rundown of every, every text message, the calls, adding in the pdflacks, the communication about exactly I want to bowl. What are you going to get?

27:45All of that that elongated the amount of time and showed the preparation. So you asked though, which I think is such a great question. How long do I think she premeditated? Yeah. The weeks was this month was, oh, I think it and I wrote this and some people hated it. I should have put my disclaimer obviously at the top, although I've done this on every case and now all the sudden people notice it. But the disclaimer about what I think was going through her head, I think it was that day. I think that was when, you know, straw that broke the camel's back and the relief set in and the premeditation started and that's when I think it went off. That's a good, you know, that's a fascinating statement just made Jen. So you think that the premeditation started that day and you just said the straw that broke the camel's back. So, so the straw for me that broke the camel's back and on the side of that not criminal responsibility is the fact that the that everything led up to the psychotic break where she

28:51had the command to lose the nation. For you for the fact that she was totally waiting and conscious of what she's doing is making a choice to this, what do you think was a straw that broke her back? Because I think it was, you know, psychologically medically induced, you know, from chemical band balances and all the other psychosis going on. What for you was a straw that broke her back that caused that switch to go off this, said I'm going to kill my kids now. I'm very waiting of it. Well, so when you look at everything leading up to it, have you guys read things like her posts on Facebook, her issues with Dawson, that was good. Do you guys remember? And I'm sure you do. I'm not saying that you don't. We all watch the trial. But looking closely back at what Patrick said about her struggling and things seemingly getting worse as the approach of returning to work was happening about how she wanted to harm the children. And I think they downplayed it, but at least they admitted the mother and Patrick that she

29:55said she wanted to harm the children. As I said, I really think this is a downplay. And I think that that built up, this is not unlike other cases where people want to kill their children. It really just isn't. I know people say it is because they are putting this ppp on it. You know, one of the cases that, and I don't think we discussed it, did we talk about the lady from Maine yet? The lady from Maine, which we got it. 1950s, late 1950s. I'm sorry, her name does. Yeah, I saw something about you posted something about it the other day. And I looked at it. Yeah, I don't recall a lot of details, but briefly. It's a very interesting case because it's the case about a woman with children approximately these same ages. And she drowned her three children. And ultimately she was declared insane, not criminally liable, and goes to a mental institution.

31:00She's in the mental institution for five years. Her husband stays by her side on all of this, asked for her to be released. Does the legal proper paperwork that they said, listen, she's all better. They let her out. She has three more children, and she kills all three of them. And that is precisely my point on this is women do this. They repeat it. They don't get over it. That's why I think Andrea Yates has said, listen, keep me here. There is no chance I can handle having kids. And I guess she thinks she might. She's unsafe. And it's because they know. They absolutely know what they're doing. This isn't some sort of blackout. This isn't something they can't help. Remember she was texting and communicating in the middle of the murder. And that's described from the mental health experts there. Psychosis isn't a blackout though. It's like it's a cat. Psychosis isn't anything you're describing.

32:03Well, you say it's nothing I've describing. I know. And listen, I thought the experts were all very interesting in their own rights. I learned a lot in different ways in a general aspect. But what I can never overcome and I'm seeing it now more online is that they just, as I said at the beginning to me, they are just a check mark off. They don't help the case. They don't hurt the case. And this happens a lot with experts, by the way. Right. They can't show each other out. Jeers come back and say they're totally canceled. And that's what in social media people are saying. And I canceled them out early because I cannot take somebody's point of view that wasn't treating her, interviewing her, understanding her at the time. And I certainly can't take this whole medication thing, especially now, that they all named off these same medications that they named off before. Plus, well, well, you try. I mean, it's covered in blood. And so to me, with a, and I agree. And, you know, and Bob Mott even covered it years ago when, again, I'll keep, you know,

33:08touting his great gasey case in Bury because the same thing there is going, his dad was going for not guilty by reason sanity with horrendous serial killer and talking about the difficulty of bringing experts on there because all in essence, they cancel each other out. But to me, that also opened your mind to the possibility of it could be this. But they cancel each other out. That's why from the very get go for me on this case has been the family, friends, colleagues, workers, her life arc and their life arc, the healthy relationship because then I was talking to Todd and Tony before this as well and to everyone else. If it hadn't been for them, I mean, so here's my thought experiment. They're the ones that keep me in the camp of this was such a massive deviation. And someone I use this analogy other day. Someone said she's a monster. And I said, well, there was a monster in there. But that wasn't the Lindsay monster because it's something else entered there because a monster did those things and that's where this psychosis or the mental illness comes in because without those people saying all those things standing by, I mean, this isn't

34:11just your average people staying this. I look into not just the relationship they have with Lindsay, but the relationship they have with each other, the types of lives they leave. I mean, these are good, strong, healthy people with no deviations, no wobbles. I've never seen so I can't even, I can't even come close comparing the other case we've covered to this because there's not that that circle of people around or that are the same. If any of them, if there had been a few people in that circle that had had leakage on issues, strife, challenges, bad relationships, any wobbles in there like this, my outlook on this might be very, very different because because again, if you're going to go down the road that experts cancel each other out, what are you left with? What's a jury left with? I've learned left with a testimony of all these people, all the people, the prosecution brought up were the ones that sided with her and how healthy she was and how this was so out of the, no, and that's why the statute, this is why this was brought in in the first and if well back in London, the UK many, many years ago in the 1800s, we're first got codified,

35:13it got brought into United States and our criminal justice system Massachusetts in the 50s into the 60s got updated. I've done so much research, understand the statute, but again, this is a system working, but that's how I've seen this and when you cancel out the experts and you go down the road of what are you left with, that's why I see it. And I just think there's so much left that doesn't have an agenda that doesn't have anything other than the facts. And that is what we can see in the digital footprint and that's what people are seemingly for some reason not discussing right here. We need to discuss the facts. The opinions are interesting, but they have a lot of agenda, Patrick's agenda, they are in bed together by the way. They have that huge lawsuit that nobody wants to talk about against the healthcare providers.

36:14That puts them as needing to have the same agenda, the same voice put force, they have a lot of money to do. Or they have a very legitimate case against failed healthcare providers. I'm just saying. Not necessarily an agenda, but more so, a shared mission of exposing bullshit of regeneration against a terrible care. And kill the kids, right? I mean, it's not everything is like, let's go make us a fucking payday. It's more like, we're going to expose the shit out of this and if financially we, that's, I mean, that's how a civil case works. It's not like and a big fuck you at the end of the day on a big postcard. It's money. That's not it. It all is about money though. It all is. When you set up a go fund being right away, his friends, he didn't set that up himself. That was nobody, nobody directly with the family did that. They know they are the receiver of the money. I know that I mean, you, they have to check in with you. Is this the family that they set it up though? Is this thing factually that's important? And I mean, speaking of facts too, Constance Fisher had paranoid schizophrenia, a chronic

37:19lifelong condition, Lindsey Clancy's defense is postpartum psychosis. That's an acute condition tied to postpartum, the period that resolves with treatment, two different diagnosis is, Fisher was released in 59 and under 1950s, psychiatric standards, before modern anti-psychotics, before structured monitoring, before anything resembling this system that exists today. So using the eyes and how era, era psychiatry to predict the 2026 outcome or really putting them in the same basket is not honest because they're not. It's not the same diagnosis. I think. It's like saying, well, you died of the flu. Well, let's compare rabies. Like, that's not the same thing. Oh, but Tony, we have been comparing Andrea Yates this whole time. And Andrea Yates was also diagnosed with schizophrenia. Sure. And actually, yeah. You brought her up. So, I mean, that's why I'm bringing it up. You brought her up. Yeah. Everybody's upset about the drug she's been given in this modern era, right?

38:20But modern medicine, everybody's upset about that. So what does it matter whether it's not, it's, there's, there's not upset at the drug she's been giving, there upset at the irresponsible way at which they were doled out to her. That's the problem. The drugs aren't the problem. It's one provider not knowing what the other one is giving the other and the dosages and getting on and off. That's the issue. It's not the drugs themselves. She was physician shopping and she was farm as shopping. She filled 13 medications. She's a nurse. And by the way, a re-enerate, she's still, they still recited off the same drugs. I'm sitting there listening, going, oh my gosh, she's on all of that. It was 30 prescriptions. It was so close. There were 13 different medications at the course of the time. It was up and down, up and down. So I mean, the way that works essentially, I've said it a thousand times. Okay, so you get prescribed 10 milligrams of X drug. Okay, the next time you go, I don't like this or maybe we should go up, maybe we should go down. Okay, well you already got that script for 30 pills.

39:21Okay, well you want to go to the next one to 15 milligrams. I'm just throwing random numbers out here because this is how it works. 15, okay, great. You took seven of the ones in that jar that were 30. Okay, so you got 23 left. And that's in now a jar that's not being touched. See, she's not taking those meds. No, she was prescribed the next dose up or down. And then she started taking those. And then she was prescribed the next dose up or down there. And so then you have those empty bottle after empty bottle because the next dosage gets prescribed at 30 or 90 day intervals. So yes, you're going to have a lot of empty bottles. It's just how the math works. It's not. Tell me, do you think she followed what she was told or just took a couple here, a couple there. She was wanting to change it all the time. I mean, that's a fault of the, and that's a fault of, she was changing it as the effects weren't working. That's her fault. Is anything Lindsay, the medical providers that need to say, we're not just going to fill this shit like tick tax for you. I'm asking you guys, I have a question for you all right now.

40:22Yeah. Lindsay, Clancy, do anything wrong? Anything in this whole thing or everything's the provider. Everything is somebody else's fault. It's all her husband, her mom. You know what? Everybody's responsive. Did Lindsay, Clancy, this my question, do anything wrong when it came to her own medical care? Yeah, she went with Dr. Tufts at the very beginning. That was a, that was a dumbest frigging mistake she made. She listened to Tufts. She didn't demand better care. I mean, she listened to the 12 year old that got up there with, with one month experience outside of being inside of outside of her, her clinicals and said, yeah. And she, in my estimation, yeah. But is any of human being flawless in the system? Yeah. So I think she chose the wrong healthcare providers and, and she was trying to work the system. She was working the system. Yeah. She was trying to find some of the fixer. She kept screaming, fix me, fix me, fix me. Everyone kept saying you're broken, broken, broken, but no one could come up with a way

41:22to fix her. So, and when I listened to the testimony, all of it, absolutely every minute of it. What they were doing was she wasn't shopping for drugs. And the way they prescribed it, according to Tufts, was that she was allowed, she'd make a prescription for a period of time. She would take a couple and then she was told it's going to take four to six weeks for this to take effect. But what was happening is she'd take the medication, it made her, more, she had less sleep taking medication. So she had to stop it because of the effect it was having on her before it even had a chance to take effect. And so then Tufts would say, all right, I'll prescribe something else. Let's try this. And so they kept switching up her medication based on reports that she's given on the effect it was having on her body. And also the fact that she's battling because she didn't want to be on medication, because she's afraid of being addicted to medication. And she also was breastfeeding her child on the youngest that she wanted to do, but then she couldn't do. I mean, so all these little data points, she wasn't shopping for new drugs. I mean, she's shopping to find something is actually going to work to get her to sleep.

42:23And she's going to, she kept going with Tufts throughout this thing. But Tufts wasn't de-conflicted and coordinated with everyone because she then took her to this person and tell this other person I'm going to Dr. Tufts. This person I'm going to Dr. Tufts, but none of these people were talking back and forth each other so they're prescribing this Tufts person. So you see the mess that was happening? So was she making a mistake? I don't know. I don't think so. I think the medical system made a tragic mistake because they were, she's already like not in a competent state. And then, but that's the test. I'm stating the testimony. But that's what that's. I just can't agree that this nurse, well, no, you're stating part of the testimony, but you're not stating the testimony from the medical provider's view. My whole thing is, what, what am I? Tell me, fill me in. I did. On Tufts? What was her testimony? What is she? What is she? What is she? What is she said that she said that she met with her for 13 minutes and actually had the counseling session for 13 minutes.

43:24The total session was 30 minutes long, drop down menus. So what was that? And that is this telamed that was chosen by the way by Lindsey Clancy. Get your ass in to somebody. Well, she had an Annie. Get your ass in. That was Lindsey's choice. That was on Lindsey's choice. That was on Lindsey's choice. That's what I'm saying. It's Lindsey's choice. I'm just saying. That was on Lindsey's choice. That we were in COVID era shit, where we're going to do everything via telamed still, if you remember that era. That's what it started. So she started seeing Tufts during the lockdown. So she wasn't able to go in person and then when actually the lockdowns lifted, Tufts kept seeing her virtually the entire time. Tufts never once met her in person for all the sessions right up until the day before. And that was not a choice that was highlighted by Lindsey. She did see others in person. She didn't do telamed for everybody. I mean, there were so many different providers here. Oh, there were a lot of different providers.

44:26Your thoughts? I think of this as to be on her shoulders. Your thoughts in the comment section on substack in YouTube as we continue this conversation. Links are in the description. The Hidden Killers podcast.