What to Expect at the Lindsay Clancy Trial

[00:00:00]Hi y'all and welcome to tonight's live stream. We almost have a jury in the Lindsey Clansancy trial. One more juror and then opening statements are expected to be on Friday. This has become one of the most controversial criminal cases in America because Lindseay Clancy admits that she caused three deaths, but she says she still should be found not guilty. Now, how on earth is that even possible? Tonight, I'm going to bring you up to speed on what's been happening during jury selection and explain a couple of important rulings or motions.

[00:00:41]And then we're going to spend the rest of the evening just answering your questions about the trial, talking about the insanity defense Lindsey Clansancy is mounting, and talking about what we're going to be watching for as we move into the trial and cover it.

[00:00:55][snorts] So, we are on day three of jury selection. So, the judge wants 18 jurors. We're on number 18. Apparently, number 18 has been selected. But something happened to juror number two who was then excused. And so, now that that juror is gone, there's got to be somebody to back into that spot. So lawyers, the lawyers for both sides have been doing what's called voadier, which is where they ask the jury questions and try to decide could they be fair, would they be appropriate jurors. That's still going on. It is not being broadcast. The broadcast of the actual trial will start once the jury has been selected, when that's over and when we move on into the actual opening statements and then of course witnesses and evidence. So, the defense has made a couple of pretty big asks so far. They wanted to name four new experts with a week to go till trial. And the judge said, "No, it's too late for that." The prosecution objected.

[00:02:02]Unless, the judge said, "Unless something new, something unexpected pops up and then I'm going to let you do that, but you'll have to bring it up to me. You'll have to convince me that this is something new. you had no way of knowing this in advance and therefore you need this new witness. So that leaves a lot of uncertainty. There may be some new unexpected witnesses the prosecution didn't count on. Now the defense also said we would like you judge to limit the prosecution to just one witness who came to the scene. It's it's not fair to bring in anybody and everybody who showed up. So you could in theory the prosecution could bring in every single EMT, every single person from the police department who came, everyone who showed up could come in separately and talk about it. And the defense said, "Look, that's just a parade of people saying how incredibly horrible this was and how de how much it affected them to see these three children lying there and how horrible it was. That's just prejuditial. Give them one judge, one person who says this is what the scene looked like and then that's all that really matters. Then we move on to what really matters. So the judge may limit this a little bit, but I would be really really surprised if he said anything remotely close to the prosecution needs to limit it to one witness. That's just I would be stunned.

[00:03:33]We also have a motion that's going to be heard tomorrow from Patrick Clancy. He was Lindsay's husband at the time. We'll talk about that in just a minute. Um, he wants the judge to restrict public access to several things in trial. For example, his initial 911 call and photographs of the children, including photographs of them before the incident and at the crime scene, their autopsy images, clothing belonging to the children. So my let's talk about why he would want that. First of all, he is obviously the person best able to express what kind of protection should be over them as the parent not accused here of the murder of the children. So at this point he his argument would be this is really intrusive and this is problematic and it shouldn't be allowed.

[00:04:35]They have a right even in death to privacy. The judge will probably be very willing to accept that when it comes to autopsy photos, less so maybe when it comes to photographs of the children before anything happened, although probably he'll agree with that as well.

[00:04:55]I don't think there's much chance that he will agree that the 911 call should be kept out in its entirety. That is a very it's not let me correct that. It's not kept out as in no one would hear it.

[00:05:09]It's just that the public wouldn't have access to that. In other words, it the cameras might have to be turned off.

[00:05:16]Maybe people in the courtroom could hear it. At a minimum, the jury could hear it, but not the public as a whole and maybe not even the people in the courtroom who are watching. The problem with that is it's very central to what the prosecution says. The prosecution says there's a lot inside what he says in that 911 call that makes a difference in terms of what Lindsay said to him, what he was saying Lindsay said to him, in terms of his shock as he finds the children. The prosecution's going to want that end. So, I don't know what the judge will do with that. I think that'll be a bit of a harder argument. As far as um anything related to the crime scene, I think that's going to be a mixed bag.

[00:06:01]Judges often say anything that's pretty incendiary, anything that maybe has some things that would be grotesque, may not be permitted as far as the public. We may not be able to see that. But most of the crime scene photos, I imagine a number of them anyway, will be shown to us. So what we know about the jury uh we have been got getting some information in. Uh right now we have let me count one two three four five six seven eight nine women of the 18 there would have been 10 except we had juror number two who was apparently female is now gone. So at this point it's it is eight men and nine women as by my count there are a large number of them who are oddly in their 40s. 1 2 3 4 5 six. Some of them I didn't find a an estimate of what the age of the person would be. So there do seem to be some clusters around maybe both sides or at least one side heavily favored females and wanted women slightly older than Lindsay Clansancy would be wanted women who maybe had children. It it's a super hard case for picking jurors.

[00:07:24]So at this point as I've read the Commonwealth is out of parental challenges. That means they don't have any more ability to say that there was um they don't have the ability to say that any particular juror can be struck without cause. They can argue all they want that this juror or that juror needs to be struck for cause for a reason, but they can't just use up one of their periphery challenges. whereas the defense has four or five left, meaning it could take several jurors. If the next juror who pops up, a defense thinks would not be good for them, they can use one of their challenges for that. So, let's move into some questions and talk about what some of the things are. I thought I might kick us off by talking a little bit about the jury. And I've grouped these into five categories. So, I was going to start with jury and then move to insanity and mental illness, which is critical in this case, then trial strategy and evidence, and finally talk about the verdict and how all of that may go. So, if you would, if you would please hit the like button, that helps YouTube know we're here, we're live. I would really appreciate that.

[00:08:40]And if you are not subscribed, please subscribe. This is going to be an incredible trial. I think it's going to be so important. It is difficult and it hits right in an at a juncture where it's really hard to know what to do, where our justice system does not have it all figured out. We're going to go through this together. We're going to be slogging through this figuring out what are the right things. What are the things that matter in this case? Where does it fall? So, let's get started talking about the jury a little bit. And you may be wondering, why can't we watch jury selection? Why is that not allowed?

[00:09:20]Well, one answer is that the jury, the judge believes, is entitled to privacy.

[00:09:26]They are not people who are in any way charged. Obviously, they are supposedly neutral. And if we want jurors to show up and to show up for jury duty and to serve on jury duty, it's an inconvenience. Takes them out of their lives, out of their work, out of their homes. If we want them to do that, we need to be able to protect at a minimum their privacy. That is the traditional thinking of how how lawyers and judges view jury selection is we know jurors don't love being selected. They don't love coming down for jury duty. So, the last thing we want to do is make it so unpleasant that they have very good reason to avoid it and it would be a real problem for them to serve.

[00:10:16]All right, so let's take a look over here. Um, why does a jury need 18 people? If only 12 are going to deliberate, why are they going for 18?

[00:10:27]Well, there is a really good reason for this. Because after you have this is a long trial. They're talking six to eight weeks, very very long trial and over the course of that all kinds of things happen. Jurors get sick and they have to be out for a period of time. Well, unless you want to slow down the trial and just pause it for a time, what you do is move in an alternate juror. Or jurors have family members with crises.

[00:10:58]you have a kid who ends up in the hospital or a a parent who becomes very ill, someone who passes away and they need to go to the funeral. There are just a zillion things that can happen to the jurors during the course of a long trial like this. So, you want backups because what you don't want to happen is that you have to decide there is a mistrial solely because you don't have enough jurors to decide the case. What an incredible waste that is because so many people have so many issues and you don't want to have to deal with all of the expense, all of the work that's gone into the trial and then you just have to start over again. That's just a brutal thing. So, let me and I'm looking, by the way, for your questions through here. So, if you have questions, if you would please put your question marks at the beginning, I'll be looking at your questions as well. So, can a juror be removed after opening statements? And the answer is yes, but there has to be a good reason for it. And I was giving some examples we've seen in other trials where maybe somebody is out in the lobby talking to somebody about the case and they're not supposed to be doing that.

[00:12:19]or maybe they post something on social media in the middle of the trial and they're not supposed to do that. Now, we've also had circumstances where people posted something in the middle of the trial and it ended up being okay.

[00:12:31]They weren't removed, but it can create a problem. So, both sides will be on the alert to see whether there's any reason during trial that one of these jurors needs to be removed. It can happen. So, how much can lawyers u learn from a written juror questionnaire? answer is a lot because but it depends on how good the questionnaire is. A really vague questionnaire which is the kind that normally a court does on its own those sorts of things don't mean that there is any you may not learn a lot about the person. On the other hand the ones typically written by the lawyers a lot of times with input from a jury consultant those can be sometimes even intrusive. They may ask a juror about religious beliefs that about religious affiliation about what they think. In this case, there will be questions around postpartum psychosis, postpartum depression, knowledge about that. All of those things will be really important in terms of selecting the jury.

[00:13:38]So, uh, somebody asked why did it take so long to pick this jury? And the answer is I would call this not that long given how hard a case this is. In under four days they're going to get a jury. That's pretty impressive really.

[00:13:54]They've had to go through a large number of jurors brought in in large pools. And the reason they have to do that is because so many of them either know something about the case or have some kind of opinion about the case. and it's too risky to put them in and to say this will be our juror because then there may be an appeal from one side or the other usually from the defense side.

[00:14:20]Let me uh let me um let me skip over here to the super chats and see. Uh Goliath, thank you so much for your super chats. Those are much appreciated.

[00:14:33]and uh Goliath's uh beloved late dog Freckles would like everybody to hit the like button. I would too. Freckles and I would both appreciate that.

[00:14:43]Irish Luna Fairy has been a member for 12 months. That is great. A year. Thank you so much. And says, "Thank you for a year of amazing streams." I really appreciate that. Thank you for doing that. I saw a question in the chat and we had a ton on our last live stream about are Patrick and Lindsay still married? So I did some research on that and I found some contradictions. Let me tell you what I found and then you can draw your own conclusions. So there are reports and um journalists well known to I think most of us Nate Eaton said that Patrick Clansancy is remarried and that he is living in New York with his new wife. But in an article in the New Yorker, Patrick refused to comment on his marital status. Wouldn't say one way or the other. Fox News said he is still her husband or at least described him as Lindsay's husband. And that was in a story on the trial on July 19th. So all of this is a little bit unclear. Let me tell you why that really matters is because there is a special privilege between a husband and a wife. And there are two different privileges. One is a marital communications privilege and that means that a husband and a wife don't have to talk about what they said to each other during the course of the marriage. There are several places where Patrick says Lindsay said this to me. In this particular case, most of those help Lindsay. He's going to say, for example, Lindsay told me she was having psychosis. Lindsay told me she was hearing voices. She told me these voices were commanding her to do things and Lindsay wants that in. So, both Lindsay and Patrick, I would think, are going to agree that it can be disclosed and talked about. There's also a spousal testimonial privilege where you can't make one spouse testify against the other. That applies if they are married, if they're spouses. So in this particular case, we have been told that Patrick Clansancy will be witness number one. In other words, straight out of the gate, prosecution starts its case with Patrick Clancy. That frankly makes a lot of sense since he was, of course, the person who discovered the bodies. He has a lot of information about how it all started, as well as about Lindsay. So those privileges do depend somewhat on whether or not they're married. Here would be my guess is that he's not commenting on it because he didn't want to raise any issues around that, but that they are not married and that he is married to someone else. But there, like I say, there was some question around that. So, I would probably go with what Nate Eaton concluded that he is not and I would he is remarried just as Nate said. That's my best guess. [snorts] All right. So, uh, Frisvold, 85, asked me, "Do you think hearing from Lindsay could possibly help her in this case, possibly get a little sympathy for her mental health struggles, or do you see it being a complete disaster?" That is I have really been struggling with that, trying to think what would I do if I mean, obviously, any attorney is going to say, "Don't get on the stand." How many times have we heard that? All lawyers think you should not get on the stand because what could possibly go right and how very much could go wrong. But I have thought the same thing. I wonder the it depends on two things. How strong is Patrick's testimony for her and how strong are the doctors for her? If those come in super strong, then my thinking would be that she should not testify because she got in what she needed and everything else could be nothing but a problem. And you can see where the prosecution would have a field day cross-examining her. Like, did you not know that this was wrong? Were you thinking as you were doing, and they could describe it in lurid detail, as you were doing this horrible thing, were you thinking this? What were you thinking? Tell us about that. what was it like? And she will have to answer those questions on the stand. The cross-examination would be blistering.

[00:19:11]So, I think they want her not to testify, but [snorts] I can see where if it comes to it and she needs to talk about it, then they may need her to say some things like what she was how she was hearing these voices. I think they'll get that in through Patrick. So, I don't think they'll have to do that and I don't think they will go all the way to putting her on. But if some of this stuff doesn't come in, she may be the back stop, the only person who has that information. I am really curious about that. Like I say, I've been debating it. So, thank you very much for your question and your super chat. Much appreciated.

[00:19:53]So, Pasteline wants to know, does the defense have an advantage with four strikes left or is it a is it a strategy? Yes, it definitely can be.

[00:20:03]There are this certainly gives them some sway over. Now, it turns out it's probably going to be juror number two.

[00:20:10]Normally, you might not. The way it seems they're seating them is in order.

[00:20:16]So, they've had them sit in seat number one, seat number two. That would mean that the people least likely to actually serve on the jury are 13 through 18. So if you save all your strikes for number 18, that's your least likely juror who actually sits on the jury by the end of it. Still could happen. That's why they want a bid jury, but you're thinking probably not. So, at this point, um, the defense has, as far as the chance, whatever happens on this last juror, I think they have an advantage. If it turns out it's juror number two, that means it's a juror who will be seated on the jury. We haven't had a lot of that explained, whether or not the judge will literally one through 12, that's your jury, and everybody else gets added in.

[00:21:07]But the fact that he kept the numbers all the same suggests to me that is how he has it planned is they will actually go in order. So does it does the defense have an advantage? I think yes in terms of this final juror. I am shocked that they have that many left. You normally want to use those up as you go. I'm assuming that the judge was just agreeing with them and striking jurors for cause whenever they were truly pro problematic for the defense, but I am really surprised they haven't used those up. That is a real surprise to me and thank you for your super chat. Goliath says Freckles is with his mother, not not his late daughter. My apologies.

[00:21:53]Freckles is with his mother. My my apologies Goliath and Freckles both.

[00:21:59]Okay. So, let's go back over here and I'm going to be looking for your question marks at the beginning to see if you had any questions. And if not, we're going to go on to our next set.

[00:22:10]So, Rita Young also read that there was a private divorce. So, that's my best guess. That is my best guess, but I I do think it matters as I explain. All right, let's see. It's back. Oops.

[00:22:24]Again. Yeah, it temporarily went out, but I think we're back as far as the sound goes. Is Nightbot giving y'all a hard time? Nightbot [laughter] is such a lot of trouble. It is really hardcore on some things that seem really not a big deal to us. One huge one is the use of the word lie because sometimes that's an appropriate description about what you think about what someone has said. And it it's even legally sometimes important. But boy, Nightbot can't handle that. And trust me, we've tried to exclude that word and to keep it from doing that. And I haven't been able to do it. I haven't been able to figure it out.

[00:23:04]Okay. Tammy U Blazen Simon asked me, "Do they check the jury social media?" They can, and a smart lawyer does. Now, they may not bring it up throughout the trial. It may not be important, but yes, they'll check that and they will consider whether or not it either reaches the point when they need to do something or whether or not it is something they want to bring up because they feel like the trial is going poorly. Remember, they also would like to see the trial just be done and over with, right? Anyone would want that.

[00:23:41]It's a lot of work and it's expensive and it takes time from all of them, from the attorneys. It's even hard on Lindsey Clancy. She doesn't want a verdict against her, but on the other hand, she sure would like to have this over with and not hanging over her head. So, for that reason, everybody wants it done.

[00:24:03]All right. Looking for does that um Tammy is asking me does that not fall into hearsay testimony?

[00:24:14]So, um, Tammy, there are a bunch of exceptions to the hearsay rule. He hearsay is a statement made by a declarant basically that you're not is not there for you to cross-examine. And so, I'm not exactly sure what you were talking about, Tammy. So, I'm sorry. I I should have answered that back when and I missed that. My apologies.

[00:24:38]Bonnie wants to know if all that happens is she goes to a hospital for a few years and gets released, that will accomplish what. Bonnie, you are hitting exactly the problem that so many people are worried and talking about. And that's why I think this case is so controversial. On the one hand, we clearly want and I I'll throw up the little graphic I did for y'all to take a look at. Lindsay is mounting what most of us would call the insanity defense, saying she is not criminally responsible for what happened. So, and the law in Massachusetts is actually more favorable than I think maybe any other state for her claim, but it's still super hard.

[00:25:28]There was a study done a few years back that said one in every 100 defendants claims an insanity defense, which frankly seems even high to me, and that 25% of those succeeded. So, in other words, even if you claim it, then 75% of the time you're going to lose. Here is what Massachusetts is going to look at.

[00:25:53]Now, some states, it's much harder. It's not four states don't even allow um some of well pretty much everybody allows something in this category but let me just tell you what Massachusetts is rather than going too broad. So Lindsay Clancy would not be criminally responsible if she lacked the substantial capacity to either one of two things appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness or conform her conduct to the requirements of the law. So let's talk through like what does that even mean?

[00:26:27]So it's Lindsay. Would Lindsay have the capacity, the ability within her to appreciate that what she was doing was wrong? And that's exactly the kinds of questions she would get asked if she took the stand. And that's what the prosecution case is going to be aimed at. Did was she even able to understand that what she was doing was wrong? Was she even able to make herself do the thing that was right to conform match her conduct to what was right? But it's not just capacity. It's substantial capacity. So it's not like, well, you know, if she had done this, she might could have done it. No, it has to be substantial capacity. and that once she submits some evidence, which I think will be pretty easy, that there is at least evidence of serious mental illness, then the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that she's criminally responsible.

[00:27:30]So, that's what we're going to be looking at here. We're going to be looking at a case that's shaped around this right here, these issues right here. So now I have of course forgotten my uh what what the question was that I was I was answering. Well, I don't know.

[00:27:47]Anyway, hopefully that's helpful to you as far as what we're going to be facing in the trial, what the issues are going to be. And Cruz Virginia asked me, "Is the projected trial time because of more people testifying for the defense or the prosecution?" I don't know. I don't know. Typically, the prosecution is much longer than the defense. For one thing, they bear the burden of proof. Secondly, they also have to introduce the whole case to everybody. So, they're going to have to explain what happened. By the time we get to the defense case, the jury knows. The jury knows where the children were, what was found, what happened to them, what the autopsy report said. Now, the defense focuses in on what are the factors that would make, as Lindsey Clansancy claims, what would make her not guilty. And so, that's what they'll focus on over there. As far as though, as everything else, that takes a lot longer. So, very I I don't think I've ever seen a defense case take longer than a prosecution case. It's usually way longer on the prosecution and briefer on the defense. So, that would be what I would guess is the case.

[00:28:56]again this time. And that is a really long trial. That is very long. There are a number of experts who will testify about the very difficult medically issues. It's not just a difficult case legally. It's also difficult medically.

[00:29:12]That there's a lot that has to be explained to all of us as far as what her claim is so we can even understand it and so we can know whether or not it makes sense.

[00:29:24]for question marks at the beginning. So then I'll know that's what you're looking for. Will there be cameras in the courtroom? Asked Jane. Yes, there will be. However, they're not there yet.

[00:29:34]Um they're not there yet because the judge said, "I'm not going to allow you to have the um I'm Let me Sorry, let me put that up." So the judge said, "I'm not going to allow you to have them on while we're picking a jury. These people are answering very personal questions.

[00:29:50]We want them to tell the truth and we won't don't want them to find jury service even more difficult than most people already figure it is. So, we're going to give them full privacy. That's their right. They did not ask for this and they're serving us. So, that's how we're going to treat them. We're not going to broadcast what they say to the world. So, so far, no. The hearings, the arguments have been public, but the next thing that will be public, there are some arguments tomorrow, some motions tomorrow afternoon, then we'll have the actual opening statements on Friday.

[00:30:30]All right, I'm looking for question marks at the beginning and then I'm going to go back to some of my other questions if people don't have them. Um, is it an insanity defense? Yes, it is an what classically is called that in Massachusetts. Criminal responsibility is what she is is arguing.

[00:30:52]All right. Uh Jerry's profile picture is guilty of cuteness, says Marlin. Marlin and Mama Pinks are two of our are our two mods, and I'm so grateful to them.

[00:31:04]And Marlin's dog, Jerry, is now on his profile. That is a great picture. That is really cute. I have to say that is really cute. [laughter] Mar apparently Jerry has been accused of something because it looks like a mug shot, but I [snorts] think he was found guilty of cuteness. Marlin is telling us. So me wants to know, I thought all marriages and divorces were public record. In t typically they are public record. I don't know whether or not anyone has gone to look for them or even what state it occurred in. Maybe Massachusetts since that's where Lindsay is. That's what I would guess. I apparently it's harder than it sounds so I can't answer that. Typically those are public records. You're absolutely correct.

[00:31:52]Emma is asking me such a hard question.

[00:31:54]Do you think it would be better if all jurors don't have little children?

[00:31:59]And uh yesterday I saw a doctor in psychology suggesting yes that um in the second trial of Andrea Yates it was the case and declared not guilty. You don't want people with little children. I did notice that the majority of the jurors skew older not not normal childbearing age and not little kids age. They're 40s and up. That's what it looked like. So my guess is that is what the defense would be looking for is older jurors because I think it would be so difficult. I think it'd be difficult for anybody to handle this case. It would just be very very difficult to be a juror in this case. But I have to believe that's also the case even more the case for any kind of juror young child. And when we get to the autopsy photos, it would just be virtually unbearable. So, yes, I I agree. I think that that you would probably not want people with young children on the jury.

[00:33:04]But on the other hand, there are this is a hard case. We had a jury consultant on one time on the show and her sort of thesis was you don't want to do big generalizations because if you do that, you mess up. And so if you say, well, I don't want any women on the jury or I don't want anyone who is pick some factor, then you miss the nuance because people aren't just monolithic. You don't see people and they're all feel one way.

[00:33:34]They all fit into one category. They're really nuanced and people have a lot of sides to them. And so you might think that a woman who has young children would be a bad juror. But it could be that she went through a very bad bout of postpartum depression herself and maybe she can kind of understand and remember how that felt and maybe that would put her in a good position from the defense point of view. I think these are very hard questions to answer. It's not easy to pick a jury. It's almost an art form really.

[00:34:12]So, uh, Tammy wants to know, is it hearsay if Patrick said she told me or is it waved? So, I I believe in this particular case, there's enough that's going to come in around this that she told me is going to be in. And the reason I think that is because Lindsay wants it in. Lindsay wants to get in her statements to him and the prosecution wants to get them in. So, I don't believe we're going to have objections around that. I believe we're going to have that all of that is going to be in possibly it could be considered an admission anyway. It could fit several potential exceptions, but I don't think there's even going to be an objection. I think it's going to come in.

[00:34:56]Go Duke Basketball asks a good question.

[00:34:58]If she's found guilty, can she still stay in a mental health facility for a while? Yes, that is exactly what will happen. She will stay in a mental health facility. It's not like she gets off and under Massachusetts law, the juryy's going to know that. The jury is going to know that there will be a proceeding in which the Commonwealth is allowed to argue that she should not be released, but rather should be sent to a mental illness facility, which in fact she's already in one, and that there will then be a period of time when she's there, and there will have to be proceedings for her to be released. It's not like the doctors will suddenly one morning say, you know, I think she's good enough. She's out of here. There has to be a process for that. It's not all that easy and it's not going to happen automatically.

[00:35:50]Okay, let's see. Emily asking me what happens if she's found not guilty. Well, there and I think that's the answer.

[00:35:56]She'll she there will be a proceeding and she will be returned probably to the mental illness facility where she's already receiving treatment right now.

[00:36:06]Pascalene, do you think that Lindsay being treated with heavy medication, she isn't able to fully understand her trial? I saw some interesting comments from people who are in the courtroom saying that the first days she looked very flat and not involved and that today she seemed much more alert and involved. I have no idea why. Maybe she's getting more comfortable or maybe it has something to do with medication.

[00:36:30]Clearly there this is a fine line because doctors want to medicate her in a way so that she's able to handle the trial and to attend the trial. But on the other hand, they want her to be able to appreciate and understand what's happening so that she can participate in her own defense. That is actually a right she has.

[00:36:51]Marlon wants to know, can you get prison time combined with mental health care in closed in a closed institution? In the Netherlands, you do first prison time, often shorter, and then a mental facility, a lockdown mental facility.

[00:37:06]He's calling it closed mental facility.

[00:37:09]So, typically that's not the way it works here. Exactly. So if someone is given prison, a prison sentence, then they would typically serve that prison sentence and in theory receive mental health treatment while in the prison. In practice, that's pretty underwhelming.

[00:37:33]There's not as much mental health treatment as there probably should be.

[00:37:37]This is complicated in Lindsay's case by her physical needs because she is also a paraplegic. So it is possible that let's say she was sentenced there was some different crime five years and when she reached the end of her prison time they said wow she is not able to be released she needs more treatment than maybe she would be committed to a a treatment facility. But in general that's not the way it works here. you are just sent to prison and you don't get a lot of mental health treatment even though you're supposed to.

[00:38:13]Uh Tammy is asking uh whether I'm going to do gabble to gabble or just updates.

[00:38:18]Here's my plan is to do nightly updates on what happens during the trial. We'll start Friday because I believe that's going to be opening statements. So, at 7 PM Eastern or as close to that as I can get everything ready, we'll go live and we'll cover the recap, the highlights of the day and talk about what it all meant. So, that's the plan.

[00:38:41]Is she a danger to others will paras?

[00:38:43]And that's a question. One of the reasons I believe that the Massachusetts provision is the jury gets told about this future mental health issue and how that's going to be decided. So, in other words, if you say not guilty, jury, it's not like she just walks out into the world. And I think there's a reason for that because I think the jury otherwise might think to themselves, you know, I don't know if I fully believe she's guilty, like maybe I do believe this insanity issue, but gosh, she would be way too dangerous to be loosed on the world, so I'm not going to vote for that. And what Massachusetts does is remove that from the jury's worry. You don't have to think about that jury because we're going to take care of that for you. We're going to let you know.

[00:39:33]We're going to handle that on the back end. You just focus on legally what you think is the right decision here.

[00:39:41]Pascalene, don't you think that Lindsay being treated with heavy medication can't really handle her own trial? She it there's just a balancing act.

[00:39:50]Pascaline, it definitely can create a problem. But if she actually if if the court and her mental health professionals believed she was unable to understand the proceedings against her, they would have ma they would have called a halt to the trial. So a decision has been made that she's able to do this as presently she stands, medication, whatever she has presently being given to her.

[00:40:18]Okay. Do you think teachers of young kids on the jury would be a risk to the defense? Peachy King asked. I sure do. I can't imagine a worse juror for the than a a teacher of young kids. That would be a terrible juror for the defense. That would be a great jury for juror or for the prosecution. My opinion and bless your heart is saying I wouldn't be able to sit on that jury. I it would be so difficult and numbers of people said just that apparently it's I can't handle that. I don't want to handle that. I want out. So that's you are not alone in your belief. That's really a real feeling.

[00:41:03]Ah thank you. Rosie McCrank asks how I'm doing and feels I'm too upbeat for true crime gloom all the time. Well that's that's that is a kind comment. is is wondering about a separate question time. I'll have to give that some thought. Thank you, Rosie. I appreciate that. We're about to We're not far from hitting 250,000. Maybe I'll do a special broadcast when we do that. Thank you for the suggestion. And if you're not subscribed, you could help put us over the top. We would really appreciate it.

[00:41:33]And don't forget to hit the like button.

[00:41:35]While I'm thinking of that, okay, let's um from go do basketball. How was your dad? I was gone for a bit and I remember hearing he was sick. Yes. Um he has had a lot of trouble recently. So that's that's all I can say is he's had a lot of trouble. So at the moment he's home and happy. So we will leave it at that and hope that it stays that way.

[00:42:03]Okay, good. I think we're about finished. So I'm going to do a couple more questions from my list over here.

[00:42:08]And if you have any more, put question marks at the beginning and I'll know to look at that. So, I want to talk a little bit about um the who the experts I think are really going to matter and why I think they're really going to matter. What the prosecution is going to have to show is that Lindsay had the actual capacity, the ability, I'll put it that way, to appreciate that what she was doing was wrong. And one of the things that she has claimed is that she heard this voice telling her that the kids would be better off, that she couldn't leave them behind. She had to do something to herself and she had to take them with her. So that means the witnesses who talk about those statements and the experts who talk about what that means, whether it was believable. Why didn't Lindsay tell doctors that beforehand? Why did she not say that to anyone except family until afterwards? Those are going to beical points I think that will ultimately make the decision. How do those come in?

[00:43:18]Oh, thank you, Peachy King. Caffeine fund for trial days. much appreciated.

[00:43:23]I'm definitely an overuser of caffeine, so I'm I'm grateful for that. As is the CocaCola company. Thank you very much.

[00:43:32]All right, so let's take a um a couple more questions I wanted to talk about.

[00:43:37]Can the defense admit she killed the children and still win? That is exactly what they're saying. They're saying that she did it and she's not guilty, which seems so contradictory. How can you both have done it and be not guilty? And the answer is if she was too mentally incapacitated to even understand that what she was doing was wrong or to make herself do the right thing, then she will be deemed not criminally responsible under Massachusetts law. Now, I've rephrased a little bit, but you've seen earlier what the actual phrasing of the law is.

[00:44:20]All right, couple more over here. Let's see what um could the jury compromise?

[00:44:26]They sure could. And one thing that might happen is that could happen in a case like this one is that the jury can look at what's happening in the trial and say, you know, I I don't I think she understood what she was doing. I think she knew it was wrong. I think she sent her husband off so that he wouldn't know and so he wouldn't stop her. In fact, she even answered the phone while she sounded like she was in the middle of something, he said. And that would be presumably in the middle of harming her own children.

[00:45:04]And so he she said that she talked to him for about 14 seconds about what they were getting or exactly what he should purchase. But she did that just to throw him off and what really was going on.

[00:45:20]She didn't tell him about it. She didn't say, "Just FYI, I'm busy harming people." She didn't do any of that.

[00:45:27]Instead, she just let it wait until he found her on the ground after he returned from the errand she had sent him on. So, the prosecution said, "This is all planned. This shows somebody who knows exactly what she's doing and doesn't want anyone to interfere." And the defense says this shows somebody who is just out of her mind. She is insane and this is a mental illness she that shows she lacked capacity. This this is going to be we will have to see exactly how the evidence comes in and every detail of it is going to matter.

[00:46:04]So, uh, you might wonder, uh, will medical records come in?

[00:46:10]Very much, uh, so I believe because I think Lindsay Clancy would wave any privilege she would possibly have in them because of the fact she needs them to come in. She saw probably the very best evidence for her is that she tried so hard to get help here. She went to doctor after doctor, hospitalized herself, did a partial hospitalization, went to the ER, went to doctors, psychiatrists, tried desperately to get help. And she's going to say, and her husband apparently is going to say everybody failed her and she didn't get the help she needed. And that's why this happened. She couldn't stop it. She was powerless over it and she tried to get people to help her. So, those are the two highly contradictory arguments that are going to be made. Well, all right.

[00:47:00]Let us uh let's see. Yeah, I think I've got everybody. All right. Fantastic. I am looking forward to Friday 700 p.m.

[00:47:10]roughly. Hopefully, right at 7, we will meet again and we will hopefully be able to talk about the opening statements, what both sides are arguing, what their claims are, and we will dive into the case. If you would on your way out, be sure to hit that like button. I want to say a special shout out to first five in tonight's chat, the Patty, Betsy, Sue, Tracy Wymer, Goliath, and Bootsy Arido.

[00:47:35]And I will see everybody on Friday 7.

[00:47:40][music] >> [music] [music] >> Are you [music] >> [music] [music] [music]