Lindsay Clancy Defense Argues for Mistrial and Experts Offer Possible Motives, with Katherine Loftus

I'm good Ashley. Thank you. And let's go over what we have on the docket today. We've got the Trump murder trial. A postpartum mom, Lindsey Clancy. Have you heard of that case? It's not like everyone's talking about it. Maybe maybe he heard a little bit. Wow. It's seeing a lot of comments online and some some crazy stuff. But, you know, we're going to go into the final stages of this case with closing arguments expected this week. So we'll discuss the defense's final witness.

“For instance, psychiatrists, Dr. Phillip Resnick. And we actually also have a few updates in that crazy case out of Ohio. We called the House of Horrors.”

Ciders family case, too. We'll discuss the new allegations, crazy sex abuse allegations that just came out against Elizabeth and Gary Jr. Later, Massachusetts attorney and host of note-my objection, Katherine Loughdis will join us to discuss the rebuttal witnesses we've heard so far in the Lindsey Clancy trial.

So Dave, let's first talk about what just happened two day in the Lindsey Clancy trial today, Monday. We could watch stop 15.

Strangling each trial. She said, go to God, baby. Go to God. And that was part of her expectation that she and the children would be together in heaven with God. She was raised as a Catholic.

“And this, as I understand, Catholic considerations, that's not necessarily what happens, but, but when I ask her about that, when I said, isn't suicide of mortal sin.”

Oh, my God, Dave, this is just crazy. I can't believe that this happened again. So we saw last week, we had a question that the state presented to Lindsey's mother-in-law actually about, you know, being Catholic first and then whether or not murder was a mortal sin. The judge didn't even have to get an objection. He immediately called a sidebar. You know, it was just explosive. It was one of those things that is, like, of course, of course you can't do that. And said, you know, advantage the state move along, but this time, just moments ago, we saw this happen yet again. Judge had to do the same thing, call a sidebar.

And this time, though, we saw Kevin Rettington make a very passionate motion from his trial, which the judge unfortunately denied, but I thought it was really interesting watching the judge. You could tell he was extremely frustrated.

And he did as much as a cool-minded judge can do to acknowledge the state, you know, basically said, I'm going to tell the jury to disregard this. It's inappropriate. Please stop doing it.

And Kevin Rettington said, you know, this is this is ridiculous. It's happened yet again. The state can't seem to keep religion out of this case. So it'll be interesting to see how that affects the jury, especially when the judge is giving that admonishment. You know, seems like the jury has heard a lot of that. A lot of these admonishments from the judge with different evidence, you know, hey, disregard that disregard this. And Jerry's picked up on that stuff. But we just wanted to catch everyone up on the latest before we sort of rewind and go back to the other witnesses that we've been hearing from in this in this case, Dave.

Well, actually, I know you were outraged because I saw some text messages where you were so just angry about this.

But a couple things. First, did the defense floor really want to miss trial. It seems to be going pretty well for him. I mean, wouldn't it just be better to get the acquittal by reason of insanity?

Is the mistrial better? And also, this wasn't the prosecutor this time. This was a witness saying this. A doctor on the stand. So that should make a difference. Right. This is not like the prosecutor fed this to the doctor. The doctor brought this up on his own. Yeah. Now, and I think that's actually why the mistrial wasn't granted because the state didn't ask that question.

“And, you know, I think the judge kind of was annoyed because they probably could have prepped their witness a little better and said, hey, guess what?”

Let's not talk about mortals and Catholicism in this trial, not appropriate. And the other thing that sort of bothered me is this witness has testified many, many times in court. You know, mostly for the defense surprisingly, but they know better. They should know better. And so it was a little bit surprising that this witness would have made this, this error, this mistake. You know, and the state could have definitely told this witness ahead of time not to do this. You know, last week I was on in the well with Mark, our friend Mark Gargas and we were actually talking a lot about this and he thought that the state was sort of goating the mistrial because they thought they were losing.

And he thought the same thing you did Dave that Kevin, running to probably thought he was winning and so he probably didn't want the mistrial. But I think today he just got so frustrated that he had to move for it.

You know, that's a common tactic that can happen, but the frustration that I think everyone in that courtroom was feeling was pretty palpable.

Yeah, I guess you could bring this evidence in if she took the stand because if she's testifying or the evidence comes out that she's saying you're going to be with God, it's a better place. Then you could for impeachment purposes say, yeah, but you're very religious and you don't believe suicide. Do that kind of thing perhaps. I don't know. I'm trying to figure a way where it can get in I guess, but this is not Lindsey Clancy on the stand. This is a doctor testifying and before we had the prosecutor essentially, the testifying asking these this question that is totally in admissible and improper.

So yeah, I mean, I can see why that the prosecutor here, they have a tough case.

I was one for years and I usually take the prosecutor side, but here they've made some mistakes.

These are examples. Another one I did a video of this where she wears bows or wore bows after she discussed in her opening statement how one of the victims love to wear bows. And then the prosecutor then comes the court wearing these big bows noticeable in her hair and that could be an improper argument to the jury where you're introducing something that's not evidence.

“You're you're appealing to emotion, not evidence. And so that's why I think the prosecutors here have had a bunch of mistakes.”

Yeah, I thought the both thing was it was definitely missed step and you know, it was kind of surprised that Kevin Rettington didn't object to that didn't call her out on that, but just to catch everyone up on where we've been the last couple days with this trial on Friday we heard from the forensics psychiatrist for the defense. This name is Dr. Philip Resnick and he is a world famous forensics psychiatrist. He has worked on trials Jeffrey Dalmer, the Unibommer Casey Anthony and Andrea Yates. So, you know, for those that don't remember Andrea Yates, she was convicted of killing her children and then ultimately that was reversed and she, you know, he Dr. Resnick helped on that case and assisted her.

So he's, you know, he's a very world renowned doctor, but he was had some issue that caused him to have to testify via zoom. And I don't know about you Dave, but I hate having zoom witness during trial. I love zoom for emotions, but I hate him for trials. I just, you know, and I think we saw that. We saw a lot of problems. He didn't have headphones. There was an echo. He's just frustrating.

“But I guess that was the only way they could get him because he had this medical issue.”

But he still he testified and, you know, he testified well for the defense. He testified about a couple things that I think were really significant. One of them was that the nurses where Lindsey is being housed at the Tukesbury have talked about how she cries pretty much daily about the loss of her children. I thought that was important. I thought that might be, you know, something significant. But the biggest thing that I thought he testified about was these command hallucinations where he said that Lindsey was feeling sort of like she was a puppet and someone else was actually pulling the strings. Let's take a listen. It's not for.

If we take first of all, the hallucination is simply hearing a voice and the voice can be benign or it can be more malignant.

About one third our voices are called command hallucinations. That is an instruction to do something. In Ms. Plansy's case, she had not only a command hallucination on the day that she killed her children. She had was known as a delusion of influence. That is not only did she hear a command, but she felt that her body was taken over by an external force where she was immediately doing the state. And did not have control of her own body is almost like she was a puppet and someone else was pulling the strings.

Well, you saying it like it's fact. She how did he find that out because she told him that. Right. And there was an issue with that. You know, the judge actually there was an objection about it and they had a sidebar and the judge then instructed the jurors that the things the defendant told the mental health professionals should not be taken as fact.

“They gave the instructions such statements are admissible only as they relate to the basis for the doctor's opinion of the defendant's mental condition. So so the judge caught with that one as well. I think.”

Yeah, I'm glad. Judge is not a good job here. This has not been an easy case, but again, there's nothing that. I believe that this is ending in either a not guilty by reason of insanity, whatever you want to call it, a Massachusetts or a conviction on a lesser charge, I would be shocked. If 12 jurors unanimously, not her guilty of first degree murder, I'd be shocked. I could see the lesser charge and voluntary manslaughter, maybe they want to compromise if they're allowed a compromise verdict, right? I don't think we know that yet, whether it's going to be on the jury form. That's going to be a big debate.

Apply Lindsay Clancy's case. There's five about what he said was going on in her mind. Let's play sci-fi.

“She's a mere depression, it is distorted, and she may believe that the child will be, he was shocked if she remains alive.”

So for example, in Ms. Clancy's case, she believed that as the jury has already heard, she was obsessed with our caring for her children. She consulted with others at work to try and do exactly what was right for her children. I believe that if she took that Ms. Clancy took her own life, her children would be in terrible shape. And in her mind, she believed that she would be doing her children, they favor by having them so to have them with her rather than remain on her without her doing another.

Yeah, but the really helpful part of Dr. Resonic's testimony is what we call the ultimate issue, and you know, just for a listener's the ultimate issue is what the jury has to decide.

And the law says that most witnesses can't testify as to the ultimate issue, but experts get this wide latitude where they're allowed to actually open, you know, give an opinion on what the expert, you know, their opinion is on this ultimate issue.

“And so we actually have a perfect example of that at SOT 6 where Dr. Resonic is doing just that testifying on the ultimate issue if we could play SOT 6.”

My opinion is that Ms. Clancy was due to her mental disease unable to conform her conduct was to the requirements of the law on the day that she took the lives of her children. She was hearing a voice which was commanding her to engage in the killing behavior. She felt that she had to obey the instructions she was to you right. Yeah, there it is, and he used the words that will be on the jury form the jury instruction that she is unable to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law. That's a standard for insanity under Massachusetts law. So yeah, it's really interesting to see a witness say that because generally witnesses can say that witnesses aren't supposed to be jurors, but expert witnesses correct actually get more leeway.

Normally, you'd be jumping up and down, you know, we'd all be objecting also an issue to alternate issue, but experts do they get this extra leeway. And you know, I actually saw a question online from one of our viewers about what our jury charges because we talk about that a lot. So maybe now's a good time just to give a quick intro into what jury charges are. It's really where the judge instructs the jury on the law. So, you know, most states have these panels that do these extensive jury charges to try to make them as clean and simple as possible.

And like Dave, what you were saying about this, this ultimate issue, what the jury is actually going to be charged. That's the language that the judge is going to charge the jury. So charging the jury just really means reading the law to the jury. And some judges let the jury actually take the paper with the law on it back in the jury room with them. And some of them just listen and tell them to take notes. So we'll see which, which preference this judge has tomorrow. Our guest later on knows the preference in Massachusetts, but I just wanted to use that sort of an example before we move on to the siders case about what a jury charge actually is.

Yeah, we used to do that in the state of attorney's office. We look at the jury instructions. So sometimes the statute itself could be vague. And the jury instruction is not. And so if you can't get an answer from the jury instruction like if if you're a prosecutor and the jury instruction, which is more clear.

“It leads to a different answer than you're like, okay, we can't charge this case. So it's really important to read the jury instructions. It's a lesson to young lawyers out there.”

It is. It's actually funny. You say that because I whenever I train young lawyers, it's the first thing. It's the first thing I do in a file.

The first thing I do in my paralegal knows that first thing is we print the jury charges out. I want to see what the judge is actually going to read to. To the jurors so that I can sort of form my case around that form my entire investigation around that. So it is definitely super important. And it's funny because a lot of times people are like scrambling last minute for what are the jury charges? I'm like, no, that's so important. You need to know that from the beginning that you can file different competing jury instructions and leave it up to the judge to decide which one rules.

If they give the wrong jury instructions in the case. Oh, it's a big. It's a big one. It's a big error. And you know, we've talked a lot about how this case might end in a mistrow. So I just wanted to throw this out before we move on to the ciders case. A lot of people are saying, oh, maybe this will be a hungry. There's actually a jury charge on that. And sometimes in certain cases, maybe you want a hungry and sometimes you can argue that there is a jury charge that says you have to reach a verdict, but you don't have to.

“I'm sorry, you have to reach a unanimous verdict, but you don't actually have to reach a verdict. And that is black letter law in the United States that a jury does not have to render a verdict.”

So I always try to empower jurors to stick to their guns if they have strong convictions because the law doesn't say you got a render a verdict. It just says if you render one, it has to be unanimous.

So be interesting to see if Hungary comes into play with this, this case once they start deliberating. So what do you think actually about the fact that on cross examination and prosecution, I thought did a good job in highlighting that the most common motivation for fillet side is not mental illness, but actually child abuse, mistreatment of children. And it is interesting in our producers were bringing this up. They're so smart that that would be a very good question for cross examination and a good point.

If the prosecution had previously brought out evidence that Lizzie Clancy was engaged in child abuse, but there is no allegation of that. No, and it seems like most of the evidence we've heard is that she actually was an amazing mother, you know, she even to the point where she was worried about medications and her body affecting her breast milk. I mean, this is definitely a conscientious mom. So I definitely don't think there was evidence of this just prior abuse. Life insurance. We all know we need it, but many put it off because they think it's complicated or expensive or unpleasant.

Stop telling yourself you're going to handle it later and just consider taking care of it today with select quote. In 15 minutes, you could have coverage that fits your life and budget. Move on.

“If you have people who depend on you, life insurance is not something to keep pushing down the road. That's irresponsible.”

Select quote has licensed insurance agents working for you, not for one insurance company. They compare multiple carriers to help find the right coverage of the lowest price, and they've been doing it for nearly 40 years.

They've helped over 2 million people find coverage.

Whether you have high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, or your perfectly healthy, they can help you. It can help you find options that will fit your situation. In fact, some healthy applicants can even get same day coverage with no medical exam. Get the right life insurance for you for less at select quote.com/mk. Go to select quote.com/mk today to get started.

I'm going to catch a stop on what's going on now, Dave. That's crazy how Sephora's case out of Ohio.

“Well, just remember that this is a result of 16 children who I believe to spend the most of the last four years in a 12 by 12 room filled with urine, feces and trash.”

Sounds like freshman year of college for me.

I'm sorry. You know I have a freshman in college. I will tell you, you know, some years later dorms are not what they used to be. They are fancy. And the dorm decor, you know, giving a light topic to, you know, when we're about to go into this really awful sad horrific case,

but dorms are definitely different than they were, you know, in our day day. They are. They're much fancier and nicer, and yes, and congratulations on your daughter. You're an empty nest or sort of. I mean, I guess maybe half way, half way, half empty nest there. So, you have these four members of the Siders family have been arrested as a result of all this. You have Gary 71, Christina Siders. That's his wife, 60, 60 years old.

Then there's Gary Jr., keep it all the family, 30, six years old. And Elizabeth, who's 33, will get back to Elizabeth. But now what you have is all these charges of felony counts of endangered children. Then there's the misaminer counts are all chart. It's just, it's awful stuff.

All four are pleading not guilty, and they're now new charges pending. So originally, you know, they were held on a $300,000 bond. Elizabeth, who's the children's mother. And Christina Siders are both seeking to reduce their bond. I sort of think that Elizabeth has the best claim sheet.

She is claiming, by the way, that the fact that she lives in extreme poverty. So she can't pay the $300,000 bond. So that is a big thing. But Elizabeth seems to be someone who's just, like, has under the control of this family that she married into.

And she just, for some reason, to me, just seems a little more sympathetic in that she wasn't willing. She was, like, brought in on this and maybe not as couple as the others, or maybe she isn't. What's your take actually?

And at first, I was trying to keep an open eye.

And it's really because my background, you know, a lot of times, I'll see cases in the news and I'm like, "Oh, my God. How could that person do it?" And then they call my office and I hear the other side of it. I'm like, "Oh, my God. Why did I rush to judgment?"

So when I first heard this case, I just kept thinking, I wonder how much the extreme poverty really played into this.

“You know, was were they actually abusing these children?”

Or were they really neglectful? And was there neglect maybe from their own mental defects? You know, maybe they had some issues going on. Mentally, and their extreme poverty. But as this is going on, especially with these new charges,

my tune has sort of changed. And part of that is now Elizabeth and Gary Jr. have some sexual abuse allegations. So what it sounds like, just from the charges, just reading, you know, just using my criminal defense brain,

reading what the charges are. The charges to me indicate that they were doing something sexual with someone who was significantly younger than them, but perhaps not under age. And I think that based on the charges,

“you know, the charges are said that they were charged with sexual”

conduct with a minor, more than 10 years younger than their own age. Not a member of their immediate family, but the charges are sexual battery and unlawful sexual conduct. Now, it does say unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, but we're not seeing things like child molestations,

statutory rape, those types of things that we typically would see. So it indicates that something was going on sexually, but maybe not to the point of a statutory rape or something like that. But we'll just have to see. But you know, the fact that there's these child sex abuse allegations now

tells me that there's a whole, much deeper, darker, very disturbing side to this entire story that we'll have to be following and, unfortunately, will be updating everyone with. But I do think it's going to take quite a, quite a sinister turn at this point.

Yeah, and just when you thought you had some sympathy for one of them, that sympathy goes out the window when there's sexual abuse of a minor and that's something we're seeing way too more of these days, way too much. Yeah, yeah, including down in Palm Beach County where I am, the allegations there against a prominent county officials.

So there's just a lot going on and we'll keep following in here on our show. Yeah. But Ashley, it tells us what's happening next. So next up, I'm excited because we have got a local attorney from the Boston area. Note my objection, host Catherine Loftas.

She is going to join us to discuss the latest out of the Clancy trial, which is right outside of Austin in Blumenthe, Massachusetts, stay tuned.

Washington politicians are always getting in your wallet.

Now they're messing with your credit card. Your credit card in the security to offers our under attack. Senators Dick Durbin and Roger Marshall want to change the nation's payment system to benefit corporate mega stores like Walmart and Target at the expense of everyday Americans. Credit cards keep your payments secure and provide rewards that families use

to help make everyday purchases more affordable. The Durbin Marshall mandates would let corporate mega stores cut corners on credit card processing, routing transactions over cheaper, untested networks with weaker security and fewer protections. That means higher risk of fraud greater chance of stolen personal data and the loss of rewards programs. Just so corporate mega stores can pocket billions of dollars in higher profits.

Help Congress to guard your card. Visit gargiercard.com to take action and learn. Welcome back to the MK True Crime Show. Joining us now is Massachusetts attorney and note my objection, host Catherine Loftas. Welcome Catherine. This has been a juggernaut of a. Yeah, it's great to have you here and it's been a juggernaut of a week in this trial.

We've been excited to talk about this with an expert like you. You know, you're in your Massachusetts local as we could tell by your accent. No, at this point, I love it. By the way, at this point, the defenses rested and we're going through rebuttal witnesses.

“Let's start with Dr. Avram Mack. What's your take of him?”

You know, I think it's interesting. I think he's a good sort of example. We'll remind her to those who are watching criminal trials that expert opinions are.

Interesting because some of them always remind my audience is that, you know, there's an expert.

You can find one just like you can find a lawyer for every argument. You know, he comes across to me as qualified obviously he's experienced. But I'm not sure that he is the best person to have called for the Commonwealth. It seems to me when we're talking about a case that involves a very sort of specific niche area of mental health and sort of intersection with the law. That yes, he has an understanding of general psychiatry as we heard he has a specialty in childhood and adolescents.

So I thought he wasn't, listen, he was a good witness for the Commonwealth.

“Do I think that they could have found somebody who was a little bit stronger on the particulars of postpartum mental health?”

I certainly do. Yeah, I was surprised. I mean, I figured they could get someone who had done a little bit more with the postpartum work. You know, he only had a few one thing that just really, you know, chapped me and our viewers know I'm watching and my paralegal is watching in the other room. And then, you know, we work with my husband and he's, you know, kind of catching up as we as we argue, but both of us are very passionate about the postpartum issues. And when he said, oh, well, postpartum is really only for four weeks. I think both of our heads exploded simultaneously like at the exact same time.

And, of course, like there's no way that postpartum issues only last for four weeks.

I think he lost some credibility, especially with the moms on the jury about that, you know, I know that when we give birth, they tell us, oh, 18 months until you go back to normal.

“And I was like, how is this guy up there saying four weeks? Yeah, I'm like, what are you doing?”

And I thought Kevin Rettington did a really good job of asking him about all the times he had testified where, you know, maybe he hadn't been qualified. There were quite a few times that he had been excluded for not being qualified. I don't know. I thought that might resonate with the jury. But you, you know, Massachusetts jurors tell us about this from the perspective really of, you know, Plymouth jurors. I mean, what do you think how it will resonate with those local folks? Yeah, I do think, I mean, I think it's, it's interesting because Plymouth County is, you know, so on the South Shore of Massachusetts.

So it's going from Boston towards the Cape, and it generally gets a little bit more conservative, obviously, as you get further outward from Boston. But I do think, you know, as you said, the fact that this entire trial is about mental health, right? And specifically about women's health in the post-pilot and period.

“So I think the fact that the Commonwealth didn't have somebody who was a specialist in this area.”

I think my, lend itself to a juror thinking, well, maybe they couldn't find a post-pilot and expert who would give the opinion that they need them to. You know, maybe it is to sort of nuanced of a subject for them to be able to really side with the Commonwealth. And I think attorney writing said did a really good job of really getting into that. I mean, obviously, everybody has seen him throughout the past couple of weeks. He's locally very, very well-respected. He's been around for a very long time. He's known as a pitfall of, you know, a great cross examiner.

And it's almost as if, you know, in some ways, the Commonwealth really didn't maybe think ahead that, okay, if we put an expert witness on who's supposed to. You know, show why they know post-pilot and how, why they know, you know, this is actually day-to-valuated numerous women. And this is why Lindsay Clancy doesn't fit into the category. And in fact, she was mentally sound at the time. You know, they really set them up to be sort of beat up, I think by Kevin Rettington. Really, by calling somebody who wasn't prepared in this specific area.

I'm with you. Okay, so you know, Kevin, tell us all the Kevin gossip. No, not really. But give us a hint. Yeah, give us the high, see. Seriously though, like, you know, there's certain people that went there on a file. You're like, oh, I want to go watch that. You know, that's going to be a master class or, oh, they're a plea lawyer.

Or, oh, they're really prepared. I mean, he seems like he's extremely prepared. I mean, that cross examination today. He had done his homework, you know? Yes, he has that reputation. Give us, yeah, give us the T. Yes, he does. He does. He, and there's really it's a very, you know, as you guys know, it's difficult to sort of get to that level with a criminal practice. It's, you know, because it's a small area and, you know, there's not that many cases. A lot of criminal cases and Massachusetts, but not that many attorneys who really sort of rise to the top.

And Kevin Rettington has long been, you know, one of those people now. I was in prosecutor in Boston, you know, I've been in the system for a long time. And as you guys know, certain lawyers come into the courtroom and everybody goes, oh, we want to hear what they have to say, oh, they are on trial and court run three. Let's go watch that. Now he has been 75 years old. He tries cases regularly. So he's not, you know, this isn't his only trial this year. He's trying homicide cases, trying rate trials federal court, you know, state court.

And, you know, he was the first in Massachusetts in the 80s to bring a case of a defensive batted women syndrome. So he's not he's not afraid.

He is a pitbull. He's the kind of lawyer that you want if you're really, you know, on the ropes. And I think it's everybody else is seeing what we already know about Kevin Rettington. What do you think about the prosecutors? You know, I listen, I think they have a job and they are job always as the DAs are to, you know, get justice, whatever that that is. And in this case, it's difficult because, you know, there's no there is no justice here, right.

They have a job to do. And I respect that the way they, you know, that they felt like they needed to bring this case in the way that they did.

However, I don't know that they are really going to benefit from what I perceive as really a lack of sort of humanity empathy and the way they are presenting their case and questioning of the witnesses. And it's a long, what it says when they had Patrick Lansing on this stand, you know, didn't seem very kind to me overall. They, they could have been a little bit softer. And I think really might be a mistake on their behalf, because there is a real argument to be made that, you know, yes, this woman was mentally, yes, she was struggling, but she knew what she was doing in the moment.

“But I think it's, it needs to be sort of presented in a little bit of a softer way kind of balancing between the two, and I don't, I don't feel that quite frankly from either of the prosecutors.”

And so I don't know how that's going to read to the jury. I think it's reading probably similar to most of us who are watching it, but again, went out in the courtroom, you know, experience in it first stand. Yeah, I've noticed that too, and I wonder how much that's going to affect the outcome, because, you know, whenever we're trying cases, most cases, everyone's kind of get along. It's not, you know, super polarized, but then you have cases like this where

They're very polarized, and the jury almost becomes tribal with it, you know, there's like tribalism between on your side and their side.

And everything that they hear, they're going to hear from a certain lens, and if they very much dislike the prosecution, which a lot of us, you know, whether fair and not have felt that way. You don't like how the prosecution is presenting this very sensitive subject matter. They may just not listen openly to the things that are coming out of the prosecution. So it'll be interesting, interesting to see how that how that plays out. Actually, I ask about, about, bogate, if you, we mentioned this earlier.

“Oh, my God, yes, it was very close in her hair. Do you think that was something that was meant to be a message for the jury and would be improper, therefore?”

I have made some inquiries locally. In my industry, and I don't practice in and play with kind of a little bit too far of a drive for me.

But my understanding is that this is not new, what's specific to this case, so at least in defense of 80, I think it's barking him. I think that she, you know, whether, I don't know that it's super appropriate in general. I don't know that I love the style, but I don't think that it's specific to this case. So I would sort of defend her in that regard. I would think that maybe after you hear sort of the feedback that's, you know, you can't miss online about how people are taking it that you might reconsider, but I guess not.

You dug in, she dug in on the bug. Well, you know, sometimes the Commonwealth is prone to do that, you know, they've dug in a lot on this case. I think dug in there, one of their, their definite, definite ways of handling this case. So we heard a little bit more from Dr. Mack, we heard one of the big issues is whether or not Lindsay Clancy was hearing voices. You know, I, every day I listen, I'm like, okay, they're going out of again about these voices. Did she hear voices? Did she report hearing voices?

And we heard from Dr. Mack, if we could play side eight where Lindsay said she did hear, allowed male voice right before killing her children. Her experience that is called a voice occurred in the late afternoon. Do you recall what she reported about the voice? Her experience was that the voice was of a male and it was loud. And what did the voice say?

“The voice said to the effect of you should kill the kids. This is your last chance so that you can kill yourself.”

And what did she say happened after she heard this voice? She engaged in the activity of taking her children's lives. Dr. Mack then got into it a little bit with Kevin Rettington, I think in what you were talking about, typical Kevin Rettington fashion. If we could play side 11 where he is talking to Dr. Mack on cross and says, finally, you don't know what investigate means. Part of your evaluation would be an intent to investigate the person that you're being asked to evaluate the purposes of the voice.

For purposes of opinion regarding criminal responsibility or lack thereof for the district attorney's office, correct? What do you mean by investigate? You don't know what investigate means, you want me to explain that to you? The judge is hearing a lot of bickering with Kevin Rettington back and forth with the state, tell us about this judge. I mean, he seems to have a great demeanor.

He's very well-liked. He's been on the bench for quite some time now.

And as you know, practicing judges are so different, you know, and I think that's the most important thing for people who watch and try to know that, you know, some are really really serious, some are, you know, some like to be a little bit more casual on the bench. And I do think that, you know, he's a little bit more relaxed, I would say, than maybe some other superior court judges are. He seems to be getting, during the, the cross examination with Dr. Mack, he certainly was frustrated with the doctors.

What seemed to me to be an attempt to sort of skirt almost all the questions he wanted to, he didn't really want to answer many of them. He wanted to push back, he wanted to ask questions specified. And, you know, obviously that's sort of all of our natural inclination when we don't want to answer yes or no is to sort of, you know, give a little bit of input or

“clarify, but I think the judge was really starting to get frustrated towards the end of it and really have him to redirect more than once.”

Dr. Mack, to say, like, listen, we're in a court all off. The way it works here is the lawyer asked the question. Answer the question of candidates, the question, it's okay, but, you know, we don't, we don't need it almost in some ways started to feel like more of an argument back and forth than it did a question in an answer.

We actually have a clip of that at, um, thought 14, which was the judge's recommending Mack and reminding him of the roles, let's take a listen to that.

He's distorted reality is a symptom, yes or no, not waxing and waning with the answer, yes or no. Are you referring to an authority there? Dr. Greg, Dr. Holon, here's the way this works. All right, you don't really ask a lot of questions, you answer the questions. All right, if I told you before, if you can't answer a question away, it's framed.

Just let me know, and I'll tell councils to frame it in a different way. All right, that's, that's the rules. That's how it works here. So go ahead and string. I don't know about y'all, but I have had witnesses, expert witnesses do that to me. And it's like, what do you do? You can't yell at them, but why are you asking me the questions?

I mean, I always just try to say, okay, so this is how it works.

I asked the questions you answer the questions, but it's so frustrating.

“Well, and I think, too, it doesn't look good for whoever's witness it is, right?”

So it's the Commonwealth's witness. He obviously, you know, he's been called to, you know, present their position that she was of sound mind. And so when he, he's having difficulty even answering basic questions and pushing back, you know, how is it going to reach to a jury? Probably not well. Oh, yeah. And we actually saw Kevin running to kind of lose his temper a little when, you know, when Dr. Mack laughed or giggled. I've got that as set 12. What is your understanding of what the case scale is seeking to find out?

I answered this in the context of the purpose of the NMPI and what the NMPI. What are you smiling for? This is not funny, sir. The state. Well, you know, next question. NMPI case scale focus. What does it mean, sir? There was no indication whatsoever of any malingering exaggeration or anything along those lines in that test.

Would you agree with that? If you're talking about the NMPI correct.

“Well, that's what we've been talking about.”

I don't know. I'm looking at each other, right? I wasn't sure if he's getting it, but he was guessing. Yeah, okay. I'm not sure what you're referring to. I'm referring to you saying that an apiece you had to me is a tear.

And it's not. And you're on a reserve question with what the witness is. I already asked the question. I'm looking at him staring back at me. All right, we want you to just hold on.

I need you to rephrase that. Did anybody over the weekend tell you that in fact you were wrong and that it is a surgical procedure? And that a natural tear has nothing to do with that procedure other than repairing. Anybody talk to you about that at all over the weekend? No.

You know, you don't want to badge with a witness. And I know that Reddington has a very good rapport with a jury, at least it seems like that. And the jury has been with him the entire trial and not with this expert. But I got to say I thought that he was a little too aggressive with the witness in making fun of him for like not understanding the question and for smiling. I don't know.

I wouldn't have wanted to push it as far as he did.

What do you think about that, Catherine?

Yeah, I think you can see it both ways. It's, you know, those uncomfortable moments of silence where he sort of asked the question and then he gets a question back and then he just lets it hang. And the, you know, why you smile and this is a murder trial.

“I think it's, you know, it's, it's difficult because I always feel a little bit for a witness who's really trying to get in beat up on the stand.”

But it's, I saw this, I saw his sort of smirk in smiling is almost like a frustration. Sometimes we do that we sort of like chuckle out of like, okay, we're in a sort of a battle here. And I do agree with you that, you know, cross examination is a very fine line because you don't want to lose the jury. And I think as you said that overwhelmingly the jury is probably with Rodington, he just comes across as, you know, more likeable. And I would say that with most of the Commonwealth witnesses, even when he pushed on them.

He was still, he had other moments where he was softer and a little bit more, you know, kinder. And he does a really good job at that balance and he's been mostly aggressive with Dr. Mack. And so I could see losing a little bit of points with the jury to say like, okay, like less and up on them, you know, a little bit. But, but maybe other jurors think it's deserved. So it's, you know, it's a test. Yeah, the only reason I think he could get away with it in that instance is the questions that he had before that were things about that really discredited the doctor, you know, about him being excluded from testifying.

If he had come out with that, I would completely agree it was, it was, I mean, it was brutal, you know, it was a lot. But he had asked a series of questions leading up to that this morning about the doctor being disqualified in federal court and, you know, his opinion not being in his area of expertise and some things. So I'm, I'm wondering if the jury, you know, at that point didn't necessarily trust anything coming out of that doctor's mouth. Right. And one of the reports that we actually have is throughout the cross and we'll, we'll play the shot in a minute, shot 13, but throughout the cross.

Dr. Mack was repeatedly saying that he couldn't answer, writing to his questions as he asked them.

And according to some court and observers, the jurors were seeing shaking their heads and rolling their eyes, which is never a good thing when he declined to answer.

So if we could take a listen to shot 13. You recall saying that a person can be postpartum and it has to be within four weeks. Do we call saying that Friday? What I would have intended to say. No, no.

“What did you say to the, come on, what did you say to the jury last Friday?”

Dr. Please listen to the question and just answer the question as asked. Okay. You understand that world health organization is different, right? What is, what is that time frame sir? I'm not sure what it is, I think you said it was 12 weeks. How about the proposal to amend the DSM five?

Well, they're at the proposal specifically around the proposed diagnosis called postpartum psychosis. And for that, it's a six week period. So you've got four weeks, you got six weeks, you got 12 weeks. Would you agree sir that postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis can occur up to a year or even a year or longer? I don't know, but I am telling you what the DSM says in terms of how to diagnose it and how to code it.

“Oh, I'm with you. I think they need someone who knew the answers to the questions.”

I don't know from an experts, never a good thing.

Well, I also found interesting is the last witness that we heard from was a forensic psychologist. So we heard from Dr. Matthews, a forensic psychiatrist, and for viewers that someone with a medical degree. And then we heard from Dr. Kirk Heilbrun, I believe, is how you say his name who's a forensic psychologist. And that's someone who has a PhD. So they're both doctors, but one's a medical doctor and one's a doctor of philosophy. And they both did testing together for the common walls.

But they came to different diagnoses, which I thought was interesting. Dr. Mack, who we've been talking to, did not diagnose Lindsay Clancy with bipolar disorder. But Dr. Heilbrun, who testified for the commonwealth, did diagnosed her with bipolar two disorder. So I thought that was interesting, and I'll be curious to see how the jury sort of reconciles that. Before we lose you all, we have our local Massachusetts expert here.

Can you tell us a little, because a lot of people have been asking, what happens when there's an NGRI? I mean, we know how most of the two of us fall that out. Yeah, you're right. Thanks, Dave. Not guilty of a reason of insanity. There you go.

So for our listeners, the options the jury has here are, you know, guilty. And she goes to prison or not guilty by reason of insanity. You all don't really have, I mean, other than like a lesser included, you don't have like a guilty but mentally ill or some alternative like that, right?

And now we heard a, we haven't had the charging conference yet, but we did have a brief hearing at the, I think was Thursday, maybe a last week, which they discussed the potential instructions.

And so both the Commonwealth and the defense asked for first in second degree. And then attorney, ready to ask for the lesser included of involuntary manslaughter.

They talked a little bit about involuntary intoxication. So we'll see that's going to be fleshed out a little bit more, but really the options on the table.

“I think that it's very unlikely that involuntary manslaughter would have been given in this case.”

But so essentially we are looking at whether it's guilty and she goes to stay prison or it's a knock guilty due to lack of criminal responsibility.

At which point she's severely committed by the state and then is reevaluated every year as to whether she can be released.

So those are really the only two realistic options on the table for the trial. So if she was reevaluated every year as the standard, like it is in most states, if she is a danger to herself or others and as long as she is not, she would potentially be released, right?

“That's right. And I think really, you know, and that's a lot of the concern that I think many people watching the trial have is that, okay, we see that there is clearly, you know, mental health struggles.”

This is clearly a woman who was pretty much normal up until, you know, the six months preceding this. And so there's no, you know, from my perspective, it's really difficult to sort of take them apart. But also people want to make sure that, you know, there's three lives that have been lost here and I'm very gruesome way and, you know, what culpability is there and sort of is there a real consequence if you're sentenced in some ways to a mental health facility because there is the possibility that you could be out.

And it is every year you reevaluate, you're initially, you know, sentenced as part of this civil commitment by the judge and then it's, it's, it's own really like many hearing, whether she's a ham to herself or others and, you know, the question, I think really is not to others, it's, it's to herself and when it's, if at any point she would not be suicidal, but in theory, she could be released, you know, quickly, I think that's very unlikely, but it is on the table. Wow. Katherine, this has been great and we could go on for a lot longer, but we're out of time. So we want to say thank you for being here and please tell our audience where they can find you.

Thanks you. Thank you both for having me. It was great chatting with you. You can find me at note my objection to everywhere. It's the same a handle. I pose on TikTok, Instagram. I do long form on YouTube and I write a news letter on sub-stack. So I appreciate you guys have me on to a chat about this case. Great. Katherine, thank you and next, our closing arguments. Stay tuned. Some continues to be a problem and you may already own a firearm, but we need to start with less lethal weapons to avoid the financial and the mental repercussions of pulling the trigger.

This is where Burna comes from. That's B, Y, R, N, A. Burna's less lethal launchers are equipped with tear gas and kinetic ammunition and designed to incapacitate an attacker for up to 40 minutes. And Burna is excited to introduce the all new compact launcher. It's sleek slim and hits like a sledgehammer. The same size is a smartphone allowing women to conceal carry everywhere comfortably. With confidence, if fires at 400 feet per second with 41 jewels of force per square inch, that's a lot of power and a stop of aggressors in their tracks without having to deal with the complexities of a homicide.

Their pistols are American made and hand assembled in four way and Indiana with over 80% of the components in the compact launcher being sourced in the USA. It's legal in all 50 states requires no background checks and can be shipped directly to your door. In Burna's trusted by hundreds of police departments and government agencies worldwide, try before you buy. Visit burna.com to find a burner dealer partner near you. That's B, Y, R, N, A, dot com. Welcome back to the M. K. Tree Crime Show. Now it's time for our closing arguments. Dave, we'll start with you.

“You may remember when I ran to about a guy on a flight who yapped the entire time, or the woman who used her trademark hot girl walk to bully people into submission.”

Well, in the latest installment of why can't people be considerate of others, a popular skin care influencer with more than 2 million social media followers.

Is facing backlash after filming yourself performing an entire skin care routine during a crowded showing of the Odyssey.

By the third actually it converted rho g into a Sephora with stadium seating.

“Now she wasn't arrested or even thrown out of the theater, but just because there's no crime doesn't mean there's no offense.”

A movie ticket gives you a limited license to watch the film. It doesn't give you the right to light up the theater film everyone around you and force total strangers to become unpaid extras in your skin care commercial. Movie goers have a reasonable expectation of darkness. That wasn't self-care. This was involuntary audience participation. You're right to moisturize and wear someone else's retinas begin. See Odysseus had to survive the Cyclops, the Syrians, and Poseidon.

The audience had to survive a glowing cell phone in a woman exfoliating six inches away. And that is the larger problem with influencer culture. You see, apparently no experience counts anymore unless it's built vertically and shared with strangers. Sometimes you're not the main character in this world, okay? Sometimes the main character is mad Damon. And everyone else just wants to watch him without your collagen mass blocking the screen. That's my closing argument.

I love it. I still have to see the Odyssey. I'm going to see it though. It's great. I want to see it. I want to see it. I want to see it. I'm Max and keeps being sold out, but I'll get there. But I want to talk to everyone today about what everyone seems to be circling around in this trial in the Lindsey Clancy Trial. Whether or not Lindsey Clancy ever told her doctors that she was hallucinating or hearing voices or these command auditory, you know, visual hallucinations.

She never disclosed thoughts of harming her kids.

As if that settles it. As if that is proof of sanity. Well, I need everyone to just sort of sit with why that logic falls apart. Not disclosing it doesn't mean she's saying. Think about what it means to be broken from reality.

“Not confused, not lying, not scared, not scared to admit something, but really broken from reality. What does that mean?”

That means that thing happening in your head isn't flagged as abnormal. It is your reality. It is your truth. It is what you think is really happening in the world. So if a voice tells you that your children need to go to God, that voice doesn't arrive with a warning label or a disclaimer saying, this is a hallucination. Please report this to your nearest psychiatrist. It arrives with the exact same certainty as your own thoughts, the exact same weight as anything else that you believe to be true. It is your reality.

You can't report a delusion as a delusion because from inside your own brain, there's nothing delusional about it. It's just what's happening. It's your reality. So when we treat, she didn't disclose it to her doctors as evidence that she was in control. We're using the wrong yardstick entirely. We're applying a self report test. A test that only works on people who are well enough to know their sick. We're using that test on the exact population that it fails the hardest on those that are mentally ill, those that are actually sick.

This isn't just speculation. Dr. Resnick, the forensic psychiatrist who evaluated Lindsey Clancy, said she was frankly psychotic hearing command hallucinations. Feeling her body taken over by an outside force. His words, it was almost like she was a puppet and someone else was pulling the strings.

When prosecutors hammered him on why she never told his doctors, his answer wasn't she was baking it. It was that people in a psychosis conceal this out of fear.

They fear that their kids will be taken away from them. That's not evidence of a rational actor covering her tracks.

“That's a terrified sick brain protecting the only thing that it has left. And now, to be fair, the prosecutions expert Dr. Mack, he wasn't arguing that she was faking it either.”

He actually seemed to agree that she was severely mentally ill, but his argument was just a little bit narrower. He was saying that psychosis alone doesn't erase the ability to know right from wrong and that her behavior because it was organized purposeful saying go to God as she did it. To him, like someone who still had their awareness intact, but that's the real fight hiding underneath this entire case. And that's what the jury has to decide. It's the one that no one's naming clearly enough. Can a mind be completely coherent in its actions and completely detached from reality at the exact same time.

I want to thank everyone for joining us. And before we go, I want to give a quick reminder to please subscribe to the MK true crime show on YouTube. We'll get your podcasts. Thank you to my co-host, Dave Aremberg, and also to our guest today, Catherine Loughdes, and thank you for joining us. We hope you have a great week.