Why Tim Cruz Hasn't Dropped the Lindsay Clancy Case Yet

0:00This is Hidden Tillers Live with Tony Brusky and Robin Green. Obviously, the Lindsey Clancy cases reached a massive legal crossroads following the stunning mistrial where the jury reportedly hung 11 to one in favor of not guilty. The ball is now entirely in the court of Flimuth County District Attorney Tim Cruz. The defense is putting on a media masterclass to pressure the state into dropping the case, leaving the prosecution with an impossible choice. Drag the shattered family through another highly publicized second trial or concede defeat on first degree murder charges for a mother who killed her three children. Joining us to discuss where this goes next in the prosecution standpoint, Eric Fattis defense attorney and Robin Drake retired FBI special agency for the counterintelligence behavioral analysis program Eric put your former prosecutor hat on for a second here 11

1:00to one one hung jury leaning towards not guilty. It's a catastrophic mystery to the room by the state when a prosecution team gets back to the office after after a blow like that after this long weekend. I mean, how how do they autopsy their case? What was the fatal flaw and how they tried to sell this and the jury was that far in the other direction. They can't be looking at this going, I think we did a good job, guys. Let's do that again. Exactly. The conversation is not oh, gun, ho, let's set the new trial for two weeks from now. I can't wait to get to get back after this and do this again. No, instead they're going to be talking about wow, we have some real concern. We have an extremely serious loss of three children. And we're the prosecutors, we're supposed to protect the community, seek accountability for crimes. That's on one side. And then on the other side, how are we going to get there? What do we have to change? I think the prosecutor's tone in the beginning sort of vilifying Lindsey Clancy came to bite

2:01them in the butt later when the evidence just didn't really match up with that that she was manipulative and all of these things. A lot of folks are saying that's not what the evidence showed to them. Then you can't also just drop it and take the black eye. I think you begin some negotiations and you say, hey, we can bring this again and you're client could go to prison for the rest of our life or maybe there's some sort of alternative that everyone can live with. I'm going to have a talk. No, it's just saying I guess that's why a cruise doesn't come out yet with what they're going to do next because they're probably talking behind those doors saying, you know, coming up to a conclusion. And so now let's just do the plan for saying they can't come up with a resolution to not go back to trial with a plea, you know, sign a plea deal. Do you think the prosecution then uses the same two trial attorneys that they used in that one or do they move on to different people? Bigger bows next time. Bigger bows. Yeah, couple or the benched in. I don't know.

3:02They get everybody gets a $50 certificate to Claire's before every day of trial. I wonder if they're, you know, it'd be kind of crummy to be the new guy in that office and they'd be like, hey, we got a new file for you. This trial is going to be reset. We want you to handle it. You know, it'd be pretty difficult. But one thing too, Robin, is it's just speculation, but I can't ever wonder if the prosecutors began those discussions with Reddington saying, hey, is there some kind of alternative resolution? And that prompted a statement like the one Reddington made where he said, publicly, we're not taking one day of jail. Maybe that is a message during those negotiations to try to gain some leverage in there. Wouldn't be surprised those kinds of the actress happen all the time. Yeah. I guess I want to ask you about that. How the sausage is made here a little bit. Behind the scenes, there's negotiation going on, correct? I would say, I would say that. I would say that. I would say that. I would say that.

4:03Dialogue to continue this forward, whether it's happening now or might be happening at some point. And that dialogue will go back and forth. How different is that dialogue behind the scenes of both parties, the defense and the prosecution trying to come to some sort of a conclusion here versus what's being presented to the public on Good Morning America or wherever Reddington's giving an interview or anybody's talking for that matter where they're going to be grandstanding. And really pushing their side of the case and the other side is crazy for wanting what they want. We're, okay, both sides are coming up pretty strong for their case to the public, but behind the scenes, are they are they likely a lot more in line with trying to figure out a resolution here than we're feeling out here or is it really very much dependent on the case? It reminds me a little bit of politics back in the day. There was kind of a very open dispute between Democrat Ted Kennedy and I forget the Republican

5:07dude, but he was a leader at the time as well. And publicly they were at each other's throats, they're hurling insults, they're saying all this stuff. And then behind closed doors, their bodies do, they're hanging out. They're trying to reach resolutions and progress for the American people. That kind of thing can happen on the legal side too. You can have this bluster and you can be making these theatrics publicly, but behind closed doors, down that the prosecutor made an offer that involved incarceration, reddington's response would be, we're not doing one day of jail and don't you dare make that offer to me or something. I think it'd be more like, okay, I hear where you're at with it. We have some exposure on our side. You guys have massive exposure on your side. Let me talk with my client. I'll get back to you. And so, yeah, so those conversations can be a lot more congenial, but sometimes not. So what kind of charge? So let's do our conjecture hat again and play it forward. So a win for reddington would be no jail time in general population for Lindsay.

6:08So for those that are enraged by letner go, no, this is not about letner go. This is about he's looking to put her in toaks berry where she's been in a state run mental facility that is jail for people with mental illness. That's a win for him and a win for the prosecution. I'm guessing would be a charge that they want to have heard met to, which is whether it's first degree, second degree, third degree, man, so something like that. So what actually do you think could actually land legally that the both sides win where the prosecutions gets to incarcerate her where she doesn't have freedom? He wins because he gets her at toaks berry instead of in general population. And what charge then is aligned with legally what can what can serve both? You know, what comes to mind Robin is involuntary manslaughter in some states it's called criminally negligent homicide. It's where the person was negligent and caused the death. They should have been more careful. They should have done something more they did.

7:10You know, that certainly doesn't fit neatly. But is it consistent with a narrative that Lindsey Clancy should have exercised more care with respect to the issues she was experiencing? How they were affecting her? How they were influencing her behavior? She should have done something else she didn't that resulted in the loss of these three children. Could that be, you know, a legal fiction that everyone could live with? It could, I think. And in terms of that, the potential incarceration is so much lower for that charge depends on the state oftentimes like three to eight years or something. And Lindsey Clancy has been confined for the dependency of this case. She would probably qualify for credit for that. So that could give her credit for time serve. The prosecution gets a conviction that is roughly consistent with the facts and the defense gets freedom. Maybe everyone can live with them. They leave a fiction. Everyone can live with. That's an interesting statement. I wonder what the TikTok world would think about that. It's more like who can walk away with the least amount of egg on their face at the end

8:12of the day while the whole carton blew up. I saw someone in the comments and said, it's a bad idea. They didn't sequester the jurors. We've talked about this before. It's not that common of a practice of sequester jurors these days. Especially at length of time. Let me ask you this. For a case like this, the way it ended up, do you see that sequestering would have made a damn bit of difference in where this landed at the end of the day? No. I just don't see, obviously there's the prospect and risk of outside influence of these jurors were getting information from social media, regularly all of that. But we don't have any significant evidence of that. It sounds like these deliberations were rather spirited as it is. Confining these people to the same hotel and further depriving them of outside contact is that more likely to lead to an agreement among the jurors and the unanimous verdict or less likely? I think it could be even more problem there.

9:14Do you, if we were, let's say that we do go to another trial here, which we don't know the answer to that yet. But let's say we do. Does the prosecution bring on their same experts? They did in round one. I can think of one who's not going to be there. But the others, I mean, they were good experts. They agreed they did more help for the defense than the actual prosecution. So do you bring them back in? I mean, I, I could see an argument for yes and for no from the prosecution side of see we really do understand that this woman had problems, but we still think she should burn for it, you know, or, or not. I don't know. I mean, I wonder how much they were surprised by the reactions they got from some of their experts on the stand that weren't exactly, you know, touchdowns for the prosecution. Totally, you know, when you're considering a retrial, sometimes it makes sense to switch up the game plan. And sometimes that includes different witnesses. You know, you sort of try to gauge how does witness do where they actually helpful or

10:15not. But you run a bit of a risk because if, let's say the prosecution gets all new experts. And at the second trial, Reddington's asking him, hey, didn't you, you reviewed reports from the guy who was in your shoes before, right? There was another expert who would find on the exact same thing you did, didn't they? And you're aware that they've said, you know, X, Y and Z that's helpful for the defense. And now you're just kind of like the new guy who's, who's opinions appear to align more with the side that's paying you, aren't you? And like, so I think that those folks could be very vulnerable if there are new experts at the second trial. But sometimes you got to do it because you're. So if it's retried, is the testimony that they made in the first trial is I know that when we were talking about the Murdo trial, things that you can't use in a second one because of all the financial stuff. And so it gets a little complicated for my non legal brain. But in this case, on the retrial, can all the testimony that was used by the experts in the first trial, like you say, and can that be referenced when Reddington does his devastating

11:15cross-examination of these guys where they're basically going to be impeaching them, not impeaching them since a line, but they're contradicting themselves all over the place. Good question. Usually you need live testimony at a second trial in order to reference and comment on it. But the exception, Robin, is with experts, with experts, you can present hearsay information. You can present hypotheticals. And you could say like, hey, look, you know, if there was a prior expert who was also hired by the state, who was exactly in your shoes, who analyzed everything you analyzed, and came to a totally different conclusion. Would it matter to you to be aware of that? Would you review that? And what that influence, you know, how your opinions in this case, there are ways to do it, for sure. So basically they're making it as clear as mud mixed with gravel and horse excrement for the jury. It's a tough retrial. You really point out to tough retrial. You're taking all of the expert testimony from the first trial, which for the most part did kind of line into one direction of she was mentally ill, except for a little bit.

12:21And if you were to get new experts that maybe don't quite agree there, you just, you just have double the experts, double the fun and double the confusion for the jury of, well, all these experts. Now it's not just, I don't remember where we had, but it's not just seven. Now it's 14 that are contradicting each other. And the experts were bringing in because we want you the jury to have a much better understanding of this case. Meanwhile, all the experts are contradicting the other expert. Good luck. Exactly. And if I'm redding tin, I am mucking that up so bad. I am backwards in every single expert I can. And then at the end, in closing, I'm going to say, hey, you've heard about statements from 25 different experts. They all disagree. They all can't come to a conclusion as to this issue. Doesn't that mean there's doubt? Doesn't that mean reasonable lines can differ about it? And isn't that doubt reasonable? And so if I'm redding tin, I'm exploiting the hell out of them. There is a political calculation here.

13:21Cruise is an elected official. I should have this. I don't know enough time I had it. I don't know when he's up for election again. Maybe you could find that Robin while we ask this. And he's facing immense pressure from Kevin Reddington's media blitz. And unfortunately, the reality is a lot of times, DAs and people will make decisions on who they're going to prosecute or not based on if they will be reelected for that decision or not. At what point does the DA look at this political reality and say, this might be a little tough. This could weigh. I don't know that this is one anyone wants to hang their hat on in either direction because it's so vile and so so diverse in each direction in a fairly split way. I don't see this as a clear, oh yes, we're on the side of righteousness here. I don't know if you'd really, how do you think politics will play into the decision Eric of whether or not to prosecute? And before you answer, Eric, he's up for re-election November 3rd, 2026.

14:25He cleared the September 1st publicans front. No, he cleared the September 1st Republican primary with no opponent. So we're pro, oh, there's no opponent. He's not opposed. Well, that he's going to win no matter what. It's interesting that he's Republican in Massachusetts too. So, okay, so he's on a post. Does it matter then? If he's running on a post, if there's no, if there's no, also a Democrat opponent, then you know, he's going to win, man. So he doesn't need to. And in fact, he might be well served to try to somehow distance himself from this. Yeah, he could even say like, hey, look, I think we need to have a special prosecutor take a look at this. It's such a high profile case, um, try to punt it in some fashion to avoid any political ramifications, which are not good on either side. Yeah, he's been the DA there since 2001. One more for you. One more for you, Eric. From the perspective of Patrick Clancy, um, I know his attorney's released his statement

15:27saying the prospect of reliving this tragedy through another trial is extraordinarily painful, especially through the bullshit that he's had to deal with throughout this entire damn thing. It's not like he necessarily has a huge choice in testifying again, unless he were to just completely leave the country, maybe Adelson it, go to a place with nonex tradition and go, I'm not coming back for this. I mean, what options does Patrick have going forward if there's another trial? Does he really have a choice in not having to go on the stand again and relive this shit show? Um, he probably doesn't. If he is lawfully subpoenaed, he's got either. But that's also a potential out for the DA. Let's say the DA really didn't want to try this case, but it's a big case. We have three deceased children. Um, you know, perhaps they use the ground that in the interests of justice, the primary living victim now is Patrick Clancy. He has been, um, devastated his life has completely changed. We think it's justice for the victim's family

16:30at this juncture to not proceed because we want to protect Patrick, you know, could that be an outpiligly and otherwise to skirt around this really prickly, uh, potential retrial? It could. I could see that being an acceptable answer for some and others. I don't think there's ever going to be an acceptable answer to this case. Eric Fattis, defense attorney, former prosecutor, as always, thank you so much for coming on and giving us an insight into Thursday. Huh, a lot of questions answered today. Also Robin Drake, uh, he is on master class now. Robin, tell him about master class. Yeah, all about behavioral analysis, understanding what makes people trust you. So check it out if you want masterclass.com backslash, Robin Drake. Link is in the description. Press subscribe wherever you're watching or listening. See nothing is on your coverage. We'll continue our conversation in the comments on substack and YouTube until next time for Robin for Eric for Todd for Lisa. I'm Tony. We'll talk again real soon.