Lindsay Clancy's Prosecutor Said A Puppet Can't Do WHAT?!

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 Killers Live with Tony Brusky and Robin Brink. Oh, here we are. We are coming to you in between those moments of closing arguments and then a jury coming back with their decision. That's where we sit as we do this episode today. We're going to be discussing where everything has landed in the Lindsey Clancy trial from the prosecution to the defense. Bob Mata supposedly going to be joining us here very shortly. We're we're we're patiently awaiting Mr. Mata Bob. Bob. Bob. We're just going to keep shouting Bob until he shows up. Robin Drake is of course with me retired FBI special like in chief of the counter intelligence

1:01behavioral analysis program. I'm playing the role of defense attorney today. And yes, I said get out your Sharpie and as I got my Bob Mata. There we go. Bob do a Bob stash. Have a Bob stash on when when Bob's late. But we here we are. We can certainly discuss where where we think this has has landed. The prosecution laid out their case Lindsey Clancy's jury started deliberating now today after five weeks of testimony and over 80 witnesses. Where does it go from here? We're going to start with the prosecution. Although I know the order in which the closing arguments were made happened in the opposite direction. Let's start there. There was fire with Reddington and we're going to get to Reddington. I feel that when we had the the prosecution giving theirs, I wasn't quite feeling fire.

2:06I wasn't even quite really feeling like Bunsen burner. I was like kind of like those hand warmers. You put in your pocket like that's the amount of heat I was feeling in terms of passion for what they were delivering. What's your take Robin? Yeah. And it's it's fun Tony because we were texting back and forth as we were both watching, both closing by Reddington as well as in the prosecution. And for the audience that as follows us from the beginning of this and always you know the majority of us on the show we're leaning towards Lindsey's not being guilty by reason of Sandy or criminally responsible because of the preponderance of what we saw from our optican lens but same time being very open to everything we've seen critically thinking through it. And we'll get to Reddington next. But I'm with you. It was a very lackluster on the emotional side as I saw from the prosecution standpoint. I thought it was lack it lacked conviction comparatively.

3:07And I think that's the key point on this one because if you looked at the substance of what they were saying and I was really trying hard to look at it the best I could and that's why Bob when he gets here will be great because he was in the courtroom for all of this. It says he's on his way. Good. You know, so sitting there and listening to the content they I thought they delivered accurately from their context and point of view highlighting their people about why they think she's guilty. And from there I said a Bob. There's the Bob. Bob I was channeling my inner Bob man. We're talking about the prosecution. How it landed. We're going to get to Reddington next. But I want to we're going to start with the prosecution and the things. I had said, you know, Reddington came in, you know, with fire. I felt like the heat from the prosecution felt kind of like those hand warmers you get when you go to a game. It's like they keep you a bit warm, but they certainly as hell learn fire like Reddington. Bob, what was your to just general take there being in that courtroom with the closings

4:10from the prosecution first? We have no we don't have Bob. Turn on your son Bob. Sorry, I'm not an optimal set up boy. That looks great. Look at you. I'm going. I'm sitting in the back of a Denali and it is what it is. There you go. I've been there for five weeks. Bob it's all right. Yeah. From the van down by the river. Thank you Bob your rock star man. I appreciate it. I'm ready to get home. Yeah, I here's my honest take and it was interesting because I spoke to a lot of people, a lot of the media that I'm sitting with and I'm not obviously traditional media. So I was asking, what was your take of the closings? And I was surprised a lot of them felt that the Commonwealth's closing was good that they may have moved the needle in some respects. I mean, my biggest issues were that they still didn't pick a theory.

5:12Like they start off. Yeah. I agree. Beginning the closing and sprays like, well, you know, okay, I know that we were telling you that we didn't think it was a real suicide, but we now I think it was a little excited. You know, and I'm like, but then it's the end. She flips it back. You know, she's like, well, you know, she, she's a nurse. She would know, you know, how to cut that. I'm like, what like they just can't pick a theory. I don't know how that's affecting the jury. I don't know if the jury's been picking up on all these inconsistencies. You know, like, and she gets into the, you know, whether or not Pat said he had to untie the, the ligatures, you know, the exercise bands. And like, when that happened, like a million people clipped that scene from his testimony and he definitely said, I had to untie them. And I had a problem with some of them. I'm like, why is she lying? You know, and it's like, and for, and again, I'm biased.

6:15Like I make no bones about it. I am 100% believing that Lindsey was psychotic. I believe that she was disassociated from her body. I believe that she heard this voice and she was not in her right mind. You know, so I'm like, and that's where I'm at. And I respect if people are like, no, I think she's, she's full of it. It's everything in the commonwealth side, but that's not where I'm at. I think it was a very real thing for her. I think that she's in her own worst prison. So for me, I mean, it, it, it didn't move the needle at all in time. And you know, even though going into it, I've basically 100% made up my mind of where I would vote if I were on the jury. You know, I still keep an open mind going into closings. Like maybe they're going to, maybe they're going to point out something. They're going to argue something that I didn't think of or in such a way where I'm like, huh, all right, well, that's interesting. And for me, that didn't happen, you know, with the prosecution. Is that common, is that common, have a moving target like that, Bob?

7:16Because you're right. I was trying to figure out because they were making points. And so there's two things in there. Are they, is there any way you can actually object to when they actually lie in closing like that? And the second point is, is it typical for the prosecution or anyone on closing to, it's like she's, she didn't have one scripted until she's actually watching a testimony. And I know you're building it throughout, but it's like from the start to the end, it became a move in target based on testimony that her own people provided. Yeah, I mean, robbing that blew my mind. It blew my mind when the first expert, Hyalbrunz said this was a very serious, suicide attempt that I'm like, holy shit. Like these women, like, it's not as if they didn't have their expert reports and know that their experts were going to get on the stand because they need it for their mode of theory. These both of those experts need it, their theory being that Lindsey was going to kill herself

8:18and her mindset, what her mindset was is she did not want her children to suffer by the fact that she was gone. So she was bringing him with her. That's their theory. And that theory, you have to have a legitimate attempted suicide. Otherwise, their theory doesn't exist in reality. So, I mean, no, it's not common for a moving target. It's it's not how you want to go in that the closing. I'm not just trying to pile on. I mean, I felt it was, it was weak, but it felt, it felt kind of like, a malingering conversation semi-drunk as you're sobering up late night at the Perkins. When you're 21 after you get out of a movie and somebody's trying to pitch you their version of the movie, but you're also kind of interjecting stuff so that their opinion kind of keeps moving with it too. And the conversation of what they're originally pitching you, their concept of what happened in the movie is kind of different by the end of the conversation

9:19than what it started. It was just like, what are we watching? And with not a lot of conviction either. It's just like, I'm kind of going through the motions. I'm going to ask again, we've talked about this a few times already, but you know, it does happen. This is pure conjecture, but do you suspect that the prosecutors weren't really all in this to win this? Mentally. I can't discount it. You know, when you kind of look at the, just the rock, oh, that they've taken in terms of getting all the way through this trial and just with the inconsistencies and their theories and not really having anything lined up in terms of, this is what we believe happened and this is why we believe it happened. It's been, like you said, it's been a moving target. They've been moving the goalposts like the entire time. And for me, you know, I, I understand, I say it all the time on our show. I'm like, they weren't there.

10:21The cops weren't there. Reddington wasn't there. None of us were there. So everybody just needs to understand that when they're hearing attorneys in a trial, speak in a matter of fact, type sense, not a matter of fact. They've taken the evidence and they've crafted a theory and it's nothing more than that. And that goes for both sides. Sure. That's not just the prosecutor. It's the defense too. That's what I'm always saying. I mean, prosecutors by their, the nature of their job have to be myopic. They have to be tunnel visioned. They can't be doing what they're doing. They're trying this case like it's a defense case. We're the ones who have to be objective and try to think of every other possibility of what might have happened here. That's what we do. You know what I'm saying? Because you're trying to get to reasonable doubt. And you know, I mean, Diaz, the boss who's the elected DA out here, he's the one who said, we're going with it. And he's like, I'm assuming said I want two women on it. And these two gals are the ones who got pulled out of the box and said, you go with it?

11:25And they're both experienced. Yeah. So it's not their first rodeo, you know what I mean? You can't help but think, maybe they're hearts and not all the way in it. Yeah, I may seem to understand at the weight. I'm sorry, go ahead, Tony. What happens in that scenario, Bob? I mean, when you get the, I mean, is it literally a name being pulled out of the box? I mean, and I mean, what you're assigned the case, can you, what if you are like morally opposed to what you're being said? This is what you're going to go argue. I mean, can you, what do you do in that scenario? To be honest with you, I can't give you a knowing answer to that because I've never been a prosecutor. You know what I mean? I often wonder that same thing and I've asked prosecutor friends and I'm like, well, what happens if they slide like a pile of shit on your desk? Like, what is your ability to be able to tell your boss, nah, the saint me? Yeah, the ability to be able to do that. And the most recent conversation I had and it was a relation to this case,

12:27they were like, not really, you know, it's like my option is to leave to quit the job. Yeah. I've had no. So inside the bureau, I've actually had a friend of mine that was actually placed on, I won't call on the politics of it, but he was actually called because of my Russian background into an investigation. You can imagine what was taking place, you know, at the higher levels of government in the last bunch of years. And we were both talking and said, dude, this is, this is a mine field that you can't even avoid the mines and this is no good for you. You got to get out and he says, I can't get out of this because of, you know, because of all the politics involved and it's a career under if you say no, you can't say no to bosses, but he what he was able to do is he's actually to show the bias he had because of another area of his life and investigation. That was enough to actually get himself recused from it. That was only thing he was able to do. He actually got the bureau one side with him. He actually had the department of justice side with him that they can include him in that. So it's a very tricky thing to be able to be recused from it because. Well, I mean, it's like the very force that is behind like wanting to prosecute something.

13:29You know, you're not going to put people on it that you know are going to be the worst for the job that aren't that don't want to do this. I mean, that's not going to win it. You got to run the right but I know the lepers work on that. Yeah, that's a really serious question, but they're prosecuting. Yeah, sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean, here's how I look at it. You know, if you were a prosecuting attorney, in this case with this fact pattern with the loss of three beautiful children at the hands of their mother, you know, you've got it. You've got the DA saying, all right, well, look, this thing is we've got to charge her with it, you know, like no matter what she says going on. And so they move forward with it. But if you or say you're a prosecutor and your brother has gone through psychosis and you're like, well, I actually have personal experience. I know this is real. You know what I mean? And like, I am in a position where you're asking me to essentially go in there

14:31and lie about what I know to be true in terms of that particular mental illness. And I mean, how do you do that? It's like you start tea. Like, what do you, I mean, you got to go to your boss and be like, look, like my heart's not in it. You know, and that's going to be evident when I'm out in front of that jury. They're going to sense it at some point, you know, it's like, I don't know that this is a fake until you make it type situation of the length of the trial, you know, it's, it's not like it's a two-day trial. You can go in there, you know, the jury's going to barely get to know you. You're in there for five weeks. They know you, you know, you get to know that the the attorneys during that lengthy type of trial. And you know, it's like, I don't know that you'll be able to kind of sell that if you're really not all the way in with what you're trying to sell them, you know. Reddington, you could see he's all in, right? He's, you could tell he believes what he's saying. When he also did the deep dive to figure out what it all meant, too, you know, he, for someone he

15:32said it to so many times, both outside of court and in court, you know, he didn't really know much about all this stuff until he did this. And you could see the depth of field he had, the expertise he had as, as he's doing his discussions, ad hoc off the cuff sometimes. I know everything gets rehearsed and everything. But when you compare the appearance of depth of field of what they're talking about to the prosecution side, it was, it really looked like apples and oranges, especially because I posted it on in the comment section and see if I'm right on this from your take, Bob. You know, because people keep saying she's a monster just to me, it's the locked away, that monster comment. And if you think deeply about it, I don't want to negate the of what happened was monster Russ. I think the argument here, which is all right. So either Lindsey's a monster or something inside her became a monster because of the psychotic break or not, you know, not criminally response, because there's a monster somewhere there. And I think that's where their argument is is the defense is saying it's a psychotic break or something else because it

16:32doesn't have to be psychotic break for for a quit, not a quit old, but for not guilty by being mentally right that one. But, but I think that's the argument and it seemed like the two prosecutors didn't quite understand what everyone else was saying on the other side. It's like totally dismissive of it. It's a damn thing. I mean, it doesn't exist. Was there no lane for them to go and to understand it because it just if you if they start understanding it, then their whole case goes up before we go to the the defense, Bob, what do you think? What was the most impactful message or or moment that the prosecution had in this case if they had any? What what stood to you? Bob, your mic's out again. No, I think I can't hear Bob. Let's let's there we go. Damn it. All right. Sorry. Okay. We're doing sign language. That was a insightful thing right there, Bob. Mr. And real quick, T. I missed it. I was reading comments that Todd was throwing up or one of you two guys throwing it out of the set of them. So the the

17:38prosecution, if you were to look back at this best moment that they had what landed the the strongest for them at the end of the day. Question. Yeah. I mean, I think that ultimately probably the strongest moment for them is not necessarily based in evidence. I think their strongest moment has been that they have continually hammered the jury over the head with emotion about these children. I mean, you see it like I like you were asking that question and I was reading the chat that you put up and it's like I'm not going to try to tell people how to feel. You know what I mean? Like people are feeling deeply that you know, the children are getting forgotten in this and and they're not not by anybody. It's fine. It's not by anybody that's covering this case. Not by anybody that knows anything about this case. No one's forgetting about the kids. But when you move into the legal process, the focus then shifts from what happened to the beautiful

18:42babies to why and can the mother be held criminally responsible. That's the entire focus. And I just don't think that they did prove that that the psychosis, which is their burden entirely, wasn't happening because I and I saw it in that comment. The first one that Todd put up. This misconception that the prosecutors keep putting out there that you cannot plan how you're in a state of psychosis is just patently wrong. Well, their own experts were contradicting their own line of thinking. I mean, did they do more harm than good by putting the amount of experts that they put up there because it like one they the one doesn't agree with the other and then one has the I mean, it's like they didn't check their notes before they said, yes, please come to the stand. Forget about Matt. Yeah, I hear what you're saying. Like Mac just move

19:46him aside. Oh my god, what a disaster. Oh, that was a bad. Yeah, more than embarrassment. Oh, man. Well, some people end their careers during this is actually pretty interesting to me. Yeah, it's pretty interesting. It's not the first time we've seen it in my god. He got pulled down off of the websites for both numerous and and, uh, uh, for the children's. Yeah. Like he's not if you Google them, the total lack of self-awareness that some of these people had while they're testifying. Not it's like they thought they they thought they weren't being watched or really regarded by anyone that could just call it in. You know, because I'm I'm so I mean, he had the the impression of, look, I'm so important. You're just going to listen to me because I say it. Look at me and you're like, dude, you're a way off. I've written me I like and like you said, he did they call too many because yeah, frankly, you know, you've got high old brun saying, yeah, you know, Resnick's kind of the man, you know, with the defenses expert in terms of the criminal responsibility side of it. And he is the man. I mean, the guys

20:48worked on every major case that you can think of, um, from all types, you know, it was Ted Kazinsky, the unibomor case Anthony, everything and everything in between school shooting. Yeah. So I mean, the guy and he's done more fill aside cases than anybody on the planet. Yeah. No, so you've got to give him weight in terms of of what his opinion is. And then, you know, the problem for the Commonwealth witnesses that they had zero experience aside from 25 years ago, 30 years ago during his residency when he he dealt with a pregnant woman. Yeah. I know. I know. I was so like again, like, why are they, I mean, why call half of these people at all? Uh, is what I was wondering. It's like because again, can't get anybody. Yeah. So just answered quite that's exactly. Yeah. I mean, you have to believe the Commonwealth was searching high and low. Number one for a female expert who actually has some knowledge about postpartum, postpartum depression. But I mean, maybe their thing is their deniers

21:53that that's a real thing. As we all know at this point, it's not a standalone disorder in the DSM. You know, postpartum depression, it does not exist in there. Not in their Bible. And, you know, they may be of the mindset, look, we're not going to give that that argument in the oxygen. We're going to pretend like it doesn't exist, which is basically what they did. Yeah. And it's another layer that you have to get the jury to understand that, yes, here's how the DSM handles it. But in Europe, you know, it's basically the, you know, the metric system versus standard. You know, it's like, it is far more recognized over here, just because we're on a different continent doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But I mean, what we live in a country where state by state, certain things are recognized as existing or not in the mental health world. I want to dress really quick, the incredibly stupid, heartless comment that this person made on our feed about, the three of us having, you know, losing our kids and standing by and watching it happen for 20 minutes.

23:01Yeah, that's the one. What a great, great comment you just made there. Because, you know, if you would actually listened to the testimony of everyone in the her family, his family that did lose the kids. Who are they standing with? And you have no idea each of us having kids what we go through with our own kids. So why don't you take your mouth, close it, open your ears and learn at least two more things today. That is the most insensitive bullshit thing I've actually seen on this show. Get a robin. Boom. Drop the mic. I'm a, I'm in completely, I stand with the family who did lose the kids. How about that one? Yep. Okay. She's going to go back and she's gotta go feed a cat. Sorry. I'm done. No, you're, who was the most compelling witness to you in terms of what that person had to have been thinking and what that person lost walking into that courtroom?

24:01Who, who do you guys think was the most compelling witness for the defense? And I know we haven't gotten to that yet, but like, we're going to it now. Yeah. I got a lot of equals. Emotionally or pragmatically. I've been, yeah, I got, I got emotionally pragmatically. I have two on that one. Let's get your thoughts in the comments section on sub-second YouTube for the prosecution on how all of that landed. This is Hidden Tillers Live with Tony Brusky and Robin Dree. Reddington held up family photos. Honeymoon, wish jar and a poster of 13 medications and told the jury the system broke this woman. He called it lousy medical care and a prosecution that ripped the soul out of this girl. And we're going to break this down. The, the defense of Lindsay Clancy,

25:02as we continue to wait for the jury's decision. With me, Robin Dreeck, retired FBI special agent, chief of the counterintelligence behavioral analysis program. And also Jennifer Kaufendaffer with us to help us break it down as well, retired FBI special agent. So yeah, 13 psychiatric medications across providers who never talked to each other, Patrick went to Clancy's doctor the week before and said, you're turning her into a zombie. Nobody changed anything. I mean, other than going to your doctor and maybe you have to, I mean, I feel like you do sometimes these days and tell them they're wrong. I don't know what else could have been done here. I mean, this is, I mean, this is not doctor shopping. This is not prescription shopping. I can show you a thousand cases of that where people are addicts out there doing that sort of shit. Clearly, this is not that. I don't know where we get down that road, but it just doesn't seem like we're dealing in reality at that point. We're dealing with someone who was searching for a way to get better. It's it's it's revealed by all of her private writings or thoughts, things

26:05that have been revealed to other people. None of this is where can I get my latest fix? It's, it's how can I get better because I so desperately want to be there as a mother for these kids that she loves so desperately and somehow it has turned into this. So when you have something like that, when you have these providers not communicating across all these lines, yeah, that leads to some problems here. How effective? I mean, how do you think it landed with the jury in terms of the providers that were put on the stand? Because to me on the outside looking and I feel like a lot of the prosecutions witness has actually helped the defense more than helped the prosecution, at least in terms of arguing the failures in the system here. You know, you're at over 10 hours, right? 12 hours, whatever, 14 hours that the jury is on. And I always found it very interesting that what they wanted to see was the medication and that big old butcher knife. Yeah, so far.

27:09Yeah, so far. I mean, they haven't asked at least that we know about, well, we would know about them. We don't know. There's no other jury notes. So why are they focused on that? Why did they want to see that? To me, they wanted to see that to see how sharp that knife was. I think that that was important. I would want to know. Was this really a sharp knife or was this one of those dull ones like most of mine in my drawer? And then the bottles, I think it was very important for them to count for themselves, to see for themselves, and also just how used in, in, you know, those bottles were. I think that they are really trying to focus on that physical, what I talked about, not about what people said, but basically what is the real evidence? The real evidence, not just witnesses, because to me, everybody has an agenda. What does the evidence tell you without context? Of course, they're going to be taking context

28:12into another night. You just have 30 bottles. I agree. I agree context is important, but my point is, this was important for them to see both of these. And it tells me that they're more focused on that. Then, you know, I keep wondering, or at least one person in there is, or at least one person. And I keep wondering how much these doctors thought. I think a lot of people are from my view, saying she's an RN, and she needed to take more control of her outcome, and more control of her medical system. I'm going to, so now I'm going to push back on that a little bit, only because people, and I only say it's because the context of my daughter being an RN in exactly the same field, as I've said multiple times, and I know I get blasted by some, sometimes nurses on here say, oh, you don't know this. You're right. I don't know anything about it because I'm not one myself. But my daughter is very, very specific with what her field is, because we just visited

29:13my dad, and who has medical issues as well. And my daughter, who's an amazing nurse in her field, will be very, very specific on, hey, that's not my field. I don't do this, and I can talk about this, this, and this. But, you know, so to make the jump in Lindsay's case, where, well, she's in RN, so she should know better, she doesn't have a freaking clue on mental health issues, or medication, mental health issues. In fact, they even asked my daughter about testing for thyroid issues before taking certain medications, dealing with postpartum. My daughter was very what? No, that's not what we do. And what I do is we do with this, this, this. I mean, it's very, very specific. They're very specialized. And so, so putting it on Lindsay, that she should have known better because X, Y and Z, that's not her field, man. It's like, to me, it's kind of like saying you're going to a restaurant and you're going to get a steak that's under cooked. Well, you should have gone back there and cooked it better yourself. That's not why I'm here. That's a good one. But also people say that she should have done more, but then she did try to do more.

30:15She tried to find different providers. She tried to try different drugs. So in a way, she was trying to be her own best advocate. Yeah. And the same people that say she didn't do enough, say she did too much. True. She went back to the kitchen and cooked the steak. Right. She literally did. And it's still not enough. See, I don't like that analogy personally. Why? Because it's too real. No, you're right. I tell me because if I get a steak that's under cooked, I say, I'm not eating it. Go back and cook dinner or I order something else. There was nobody forcing her to eat the steak. But you just said it or I'll go or I'll go somewhere else. I'll find someone else. And that's exactly what she's doing. She did. She did. She did. She got. And so she said, I don't want it. Get me another one or I'm going to another restaurant. It was exactly what she did. So she did what you said that you just said, oh, I totally agree. She was shopping. I weird. That's not shopping. That's trying to get the right treatment. That's trying to get the right. That's shopping. That's shopping. She's I'm not saying

31:16that she wasn't trying to feel better. Look, look at all the people trying to feel better. I think we have different definitions of shopping or something. I think maybe so. It's so interesting to me. And with the respect, of course, I have for all of you all, Todd, Tony, Robin, that we can see the same set of facts. And we can interpret them so different. It really is interesting. Yeah. Quick question. Do you all have you all offset the experts or are you still or do the experts weigh in huge and if so, who? Which one? Which one now did the other one? I have two. Actually, I actually just in case you ask that Jen, actually, I have my two. I like that I actually listen, everyone else offset it for me. I have two that I actually thought were the most credible in my mind that that they're on opposed. So I had Dr. Resnick on the on the defense side. He's the

32:18one that was the, you know, the last case, he's the expert on postpartum psychosis. Yeah. And then it was also the first rebuttal guy. I can't where's the house my sheet on this. The first rebuttal, oh, here it is. How brown. How brown said that he found her to be criminally responsible, but I liked how he presented that there's two possibilities because he, so here's what he agreed with this. Here's I liked his rationale on this because it goes according to what I say, I'm saying as well, because of what the family's reported, because of her life, because of this life arc, as he said it, this is so incongruent with who she was as human being must have been something that caused it. He said in his mind, there's two things. One, the postpartum psychosis. And he gave, and he said, from the data I collected, I don't think that one's as much as the second one. And the second one was the was the altruistic philocyte,

33:22serious s-ideasation with attempt and severe depression. And he goes, which is also criteria, which the jury could find her not criminal responsible for if that is the case. Both of those are that, but he said in his viewpoint she was criminally responsible. But those are the two that I had a lot of credibility because both those explanations to me explained a massive shift from who she was as a human being. To me, now it's up to the jury decide where does it fall for you. So those are the two I liked. Everyone else I thought canceled each other out. What are your thoughts on the googling before can you treat a sociopath days before symptoms of postpartum psychosis, hallucinations, those sort of searches? Is that, Jenna, I'm just trying to get a read on your take on it, is that her having these feelings or, or, you know, inklings that she's either there or, or, you know, you're feeling kind of off. And you know, there's something intruding here. And Google, that to try to understand what the house

34:26happening to her, or is she planning a defense of this murder she's about to take out in a couple days? I mean, or is it something else? I mean, what's your take on on the googling of, you know, pretty much what was going on in her brain allegedly? I am so glad you asked that question. And I actually meant to bring that up in an earlier question. Look, I think she absolutely recognized her evil thoughts and what she wanted to do to those kids. And that's why she basically is saying, I'm a sociopath, can I be fixed? That's how I took that. So again, it's this realization of a very serious issue and how she remained around those children when she saw herself a sociopath. That is a huge issue for me. And like I said, and I've said throughout this, I hold Patrick, the mom, and people in her circle, also responsible. Once you say, this is where the line was crossed. Once you say, you're not to print blah, blah, blah, you say, I want to harm

35:32my kids. That's the line. That's all right. We got money. We've got all these things. We're getting them out of there until you're better. Now one medical professional testified out of all and claims she was a sociopath. Where did you get that? She Googled it. She Googled it, but that's never been the diagnosis. I mean, look at all these diagnosis. She was never diagnosed with anything. And now people are trying to go backwards and diagnose when they didn't even interview her. I guess that I mean, isn't that part of the indictment on the system itself? I mean, yeah, you're exactly right. She was never correctly diagnosed. That's what makes the case. That makes the case even, even I think, stronger on her part is the fact that yeah, she was there begging for help 50 different ways to Tuesday turns out she's bipolar. She was getting medication for anxiety and depression, which works against you when you're there. Which one of the side effects happens to be psychosis? Surprise. Nobody said bipolar except for people who are treating her at the time. And she's a liar.

36:35She kept back that she wanted to harm the she never told any medical professional that. And that is one of the biggest notes to me. That is the fact. Yeah, which is unfortunately, and unfortunately, she's a one she didn't want CPS out there. Yeah, she is calculating. She's manipulative. I don't know how you can't see it because no one else knows. No. No. So she was she minimized all the doctors agree she minimized, but no one claimed she was a liar. Well, minimized. Okay, come on, Robin potato potato. If you're interviewing somebody and they minimize their criminal act, their criminal intentions and everything, I call that line. Just the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Don't give me don't give me no voices, never heard any voices. So she's so she's minimizing because she's she's fearful of sharing everything because she's afraid of losing her children that they testified to because they'll take her away

37:37for that there, but manipulation for for what gain. I mean, so if you're going to claim that someone's lying or not. So to me, people don't feel safe in sharing a truth sometimes because it'll be not in the best interest to do so. And I get that. But when you say that she's lying because she's manipulative, what was she trying to manipulate and what was her goal with the manipulation? Great question. She's trying to manipulate her control over the children. Her. It's all about her. Me, me, me, me, narcissistic tendencies. It's all about me. But I think she's been the only way to the people the truth. Who cares? Because I win. Point out the point out the narcissistic behavior. That was me, me, me, because if you look at her journals, if you look at everything on the walls in the home, everything was for the kids. Everything that we saw that was presented was all about the kids. The me stuff was how to fix me so I could be a better mom for the kids. Everything she journaled, all the testimony by all their friends, family and everything else. Everything was for the kids in her own journals that that spanned times

38:40through for this even happen was kids. I want to be a mom. I want to have more kids. This the claim that she was narcissistic and self centered. I don't. I don't see that. I don't see data points. I don't see the narcissism. I mean, I want to be the great mom for her. This was all for the kids. Not for the kids. Not for the kids because remember when she talks about resentment of Korra and Dawson because they aren't basically letting her be the A plus mom for this kid. This is a woman who always did well, always overachieved and now she's not living up to this expectation. She can't let everybody know. She keeps it all inside and that's what I see. Is there a solution as murder the kids? I see your point. If this was inside of IBLP or any of the cults you saw that are religious cults where your entire identity centered around, you can only be a risen person or a enlightened person if you're a mother. That's not what she was

39:46following. This was actually purely out again as stated in testimony because you're going on facts. I only pay attention to what was actually in the trial and from the data points represented was all about just for the sake of being a mother. There was no expectation that anyone put on her. This is all put on herself. There's no religious religiosity that was put on here. I'm doing it because of my religion or my cult says I need to do this. This was an internal drive for her because yeah, she's driven to be to be excellent at the things she did and how she approached everything in life. But to say that she's doing it because she's self centered, I don't see that data coming at all in this. Let me give you the two data points. I want to harm my kids. That is not... No, but she had said that earlier. I want to harm my kids and then also the data points that we are forgetting about is I don't like Dawson basically. He's too hyper. I have to do what she even called him like not a good person. I'm like he's two or three.

40:51You know, they're two and three. And also there's very interesting testimony and I don't know if you've caught this like I caught this, but when the father-in-law testified about that Thanksgiving and about how she got angry at Dawson and grabbed Dawson and then he kind of pulls himself back and he says, well, well, you know, he's hard to handle. He's a handful. But she didn't really grab him that hard. I'm paraphrasing, but that's what happens. He recognized that that was a situation where she was over the top. That's how I took him back. Because she's on the spiral down towards the psychosis. Doesn't that all point to the leading towards psychosis, Jen? I mean, I guess you're like, are you making that actually lead us there? It points to that's because and I know why it's going to. If everybody in this audience who is and you guys who are predisposed and

41:53have made the decision that this is a psychotic break, there's nothing I'm going to be able to say. And on the flip side, there's no doctor that analyzed her years or months later, months, that doesn't know her at the time, that is going to be able to convince me because at the time she told no healthcare provider she wanted to harm her kids, but she told her mom and she told her dad or her husband and that is the manipulation. That is the me. And then if you look further back even her own posting about not liking Johnson, I think that was a precursor or a data point. Red flags. Red flags is something was starting to go terribly wrong, no doubt. Your thoughts on the comment section, substack YouTube will continue that conversation there. Links are in the description. Want more on this case and others? Then press subscribe now and don't miss a moment of true

42:54crime coverage from Tony Briewski and the Hidden Killers podcast.