Lindsay Clancy’s Fate Rests in Jury’s Hands After Closing Arguments, with Lauren Conlin

Welcome to In the Well and Guess What? Guess who's back?

“My good buddy, former prosecutor extraordinaire.”

Now, come over to the light side. Matt Murphy, Matt, welcome back. And actually, for those who aren't in the know, this is one week premature, isn't it? It's one week premature mark, and I got a story for you.

So I was super lucky to get invited to go and speak to the federal probation and pretrial officers association of America. So super nice people, and I had to swing through Salt Lake. And, you know, you know, those airport chairs, we were sitting back to back against people like you know,

and I go in, and my book is due basically this week,

and I'm there, and I'm doing a bunch of work, and I got my headphones on, and I keep hearing this weird sound. Behind me, and when I went over there, it was like empty part of the airport, and I realized, and I have not been paying attention, that the sound is some dude who's ponyed up right behind me,

like that, you know, six inches away, and he's blowing his nose. And I just, I'm in a freaking airport, and I had a dive trip. I'm supposed to be in the seocortez right now. And as soon as I looked this guy, he was patient zero, typhoid Mary, who of all the gen joints.

It's like that guy that, that when you're on the stair master in the gym, that there's 20 machines, and the person who comes and ponies up right next to you, and there's 20 empty ones, it was that. And I looked, I took one look at him, and I'm like, that mother effort has COVID, and I'm going to get it.

And sure enough, I got COVID.

I got COVID, and I did cancel my dive trip, Mark, and I felt okay. Like I could have done it just ethically, I can't get on a dive boat. Last trip I took, there was like an 82 year old guy on there, and like, I can't, I can't be the Salt Lake Airport guy that

gives everybody else COVID. So, I can't imagine you watched our show, but if he does, thanks, buddy. Oh, I'm going to tell him not to feel bad, though.

“I remember vividly in Salt Lake City speaking of COVID.”

I was in the middle of a federal trial, also there. And I'm waiting for the jury, and in the morning, I get thrown out of bed by an earthquake. And I was so disoriented that I thought I had somehow made it back to L.A., like I was hung over or something,

and had no memory of going back to L.A., who had a earthquake in Salt Lake City, and go downstairs, and mind you, they had already declared the emergency for COVID, and the place the hotel was vacant.

I mean, there was no occupancy, but we go downstairs and the airport, the pipes are all broken because of the earthquake, and all of the pilots, flight attendants, and everybody else had come to congregate, and this was like March 22nd right after the emergency declaration.

I always say that probably was the most interconnected COVID transmission

you could ever hope, every pilot in Salt Lake City, every flight attendant, all milling around in the lobby there of the Great American hotel, or the Grand American, whatever it was, and passing along COVID. But stay there many times.

Yeah, but no, so the good news is, I'm letting you mark, good for better or worse, you're stuck with me this week. I love it, I love it. Although Ashley is quite a, she's got games, so you know, anytime I fall at Trip and hit my head,

I've actually come in and replace me. Listen, I saw that and it may be jealous. It may be me, it may be jealous. She's so damn good at this. I'm like, "Ooh, I, I, it's quite a good thing I got COVID,

and she can't come in twice." So in our chat, I wonder if this is, we have an MK2 crime chat, and is that confidential? Because there was a lot of commentary today

about the closings, did you notice that? Yeah, yeah, everybody weighed in on that. Very, very interesting. I don't know if you saw my comments, so for the viewer, it's, this thing's been really cool.

Mark and I have been friends for 25 years, but they brought in all these other lawyers that are great, like Dave Airdberg and Mark Arglars and Ashley Merchant. It's a bunch of these awesome people,

so Mark, I kind of feel like we got a new group of friends. You know what I mean? I agree, we got fill in there, fill in John's. Yeah, fill hallways, awesome. Everybody's great, and Ashley is,

man, she's, she's spot on on almost everything I've ever heard her say, and she's just a lot of fun, too. She's great. So what did you think? I won't betray what was in the chat.

What's your feedback? As we take this, the jury is out,

“and I think the jury's recess for the day”

because we're taping this in the afternoon

If they go past tomorrow, Friday,

when this drops 330 in the afternoon and they recess, then I'll make my prediction,

“but I think they come back before four o'clock”

Eastern on Friday. Yeah, so for the thread, and we're probably violating every confidentiality thing I'm actually here at Mark, but on the thread,

the comment that I saw this morning and Mark and I are on the west coast. The comment that I saw was that was, you know, I won't say who did it, but they weren't impressed. One of our co-workers in a case

through time to say the least was not at all impressed. And I thought, Mark, they were talking about the prosecutor, they were actually talking about Readington, I think. They weren't.

They thought it was disjoin it. I think, and they didn't say that, but I weighed in immediately and I hadn't watched the prosecution. I've watched it now,

but I figured modern era, I'll be able to skip through the parts that I thought they were talking about the prosecutor. But listen, this is a, the judgemark in Massachusetts

limited each side to, I think, the quote was, "About an hour in closing." Mark, I cannot imagine. Like, you're talking about the liberty interests of somebody who murdered,

or is accused of murdering three kids, and with these vastly complex issues, regarding mental health, and the intersection of criminal liability, and all these medications,

can you imagine Mark arguing this case and being limited to an hour? I can't wrap my head around. And that's not a criticism of the judge. That's not at all, the way they do.

Massachusetts.

“I think this judge has handled this case remarkably.”

I agree. The only part I would disagree with him in reasonable bites and differ, I would have granted the mistrial

motion the second time that Readington made it,

and I would have, I would have blown my top. He was already, you could tell he was out of his head at the prosecution at that point.

And the idea, I don't even think Readington caught it the second time the mortal sin comet, but for those who aren't in the weeds, the witness,

after the judge had already excoriated the prosecution for setting up this question about mortal sin, I believe it was the mother-in-law, because he had the grandmother of these babies.

Then comes back. And when Readington is cross-examining this guy, this expert put on the prosecution, he just wades right into it. And he knew exactly what he was doing.

And anybody who says differently, obviously doesn't know that experts are allowed unlike other witnesses. And almost it's for verboten if they don't. To read the testimony of what is happened in the trial,

so that they're conversing with it, because otherwise, how do you ask hypothetical questions if it's not tethered to the evidence? So he knew exactly what he was doing.

It was intentional. It was outrageous, and it was Oregon v. Kennedy, which is the skotes case for when you're goating somebody into a mistrial

that once in jeopardy attaches. Yeah, this was a really interesting trial for me to watch. And this is one that as you and I have been talking about for weeks now. This is one where I really can understand and see both sides on it. A lot of times I've got very strong opinions

on where I think a trial should land. You know, postpartum is real. And then the question, of course, is this postpartum depression? Is this postpartum psychosis?

But the law in Massachusetts, Mark, is like it's almost like it was written for this case. And unlike any state that has the McNaughton rule, which is essentially for the viewer, just means somebody doesn't understand

the nature and quality of their actions, which is a very high bar.

Massachusetts has a third prong,

and it's called the Mcool rule. In California, we use McNaughton. Most states use McNaughton in Massachusetts. It's the Mcool rule where it is, lacks substantial ability to appreciate what they're doing,

essentially, which is a mouthful that I still can't wrap my head around Mark.

“Then there's the, I think I told you before.”

Their definition for this is almost the Rubik's cube. I mean, it really, it really is. And it's the language is so broad. And then they have prong too. So you're suffering from a mental disease or defect.

Number one, I think that's been established. Number two, you either don't know the, essentially the wrongfulness of what you're doing, not the language that they use, but that's the, the gist of it,

just like McNaughton, but in Massachusetts, they have a third prong mark. And that is even if you know that it's wrong,

to the requirements of the law, you can be found criminally,

“not responsible under a mental illness defense,”

what we would call insanity. And, and they say not criminally responsible. I think it's language that you said. You know, somebody pointed out today. I didn't hear it.

But, and I hope I'm not repeating something that is internet generated, but that part of the jury instructions as well. And by the way, on our chat, people were amazed that jury instructions came before the argument.

But that's kind of the same directory for procedure for us in California, but other jurisdictions like that. But also, apparently there was a jury instruction that says, if you find her not guilty, you know, by reason of the mental infirmity,

that she goes to a psychiatric institution. So they knew that. And if that's true, that's like, you know, combine that with,

basically everything that else has happened in this case,

and Lauren Conland, who I think will join us today, posted something on L.A. Mag about the betting on Pauli markets. I would have bet some big money if I had known that that instruction was coming as well, because that's a hall pass for jurors. Big time.

Are there actually, is there actually a betting market on this? Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Lauren posted it this morning. There's a betting market that dramatically went down in terms of the odds for murder within the last couple of days. And I may be pinned to the giving of the man slaughter,

because for those who aren't in the weeds, he had the retington had asked for a man slaughter instruction. He got it, which is a lesser included. I didn't think that was much of a surprise. I was a little, some of the reporting he had wanted,

one of the instructions on investigation. And people were like, oh, he's saying it's a bad investigation. He wants to point the finger at Patrick.

“I don't think that's what he was doing at all.”

I think what he wanted to argue with that investigation instruction, because for those who don't know,

you're almost always, you're in a fight from the defense standpoint,

when you want to get an instruction that says, or you want to do cross examination, that challenges the quality of the investigation. Like your case, Matt, the one you, that people are still talking about with your police officer.

But I don't think he was going to use it to point the finger at some other guy, did it or these crazy conspiracy theories about Patrick. I think he wanted to use the instruction to talk about the mental health system, and the lack of investigation, and the lack of kind of follow-up and everything.

And use that. And also to the point where people were criticizing his closing. Here's my theory on that. And I've been there done that. I've had high profile cases where people have said,

yeah, Mark, you killed it on the cross. Your closing was disjointed. And they don't understand this, because some cases, it's almost ironic. My best closings, I haven't had the best result.

My worst kind of laymen view of my closings are when I get spectacular results. And the reason is, the cases are one or the lost injury selection. And what closing does for you, it to some degree tie things up,

but it really is more this. It's giving the one or two people that you think is going to drive your verdict for you. The arguments that they need, that you hope after it's a hungry or an acquittal,

you're going to hear those people come out.

I always call them my general or my lieutenant.

And they're going to mimic what you gave them in order to kind of persuade the others in closing.

“And I think that's exactly what he was doing.”

And it's exactly why he didn't even use the whole hour. Well, it's, you know, this was, this was fascinating to watch. I think I think that Kevin Rettington ran circles around the prosecution from the, from the minute they stood up, right? And the openings, it was such a vast

chasm of difference between, between his skill, his experience. And look, the guy is the best trial lawyers mark. I think they're always the ones that they have the skill and the experience of trotter milling cases.

But they also have that talent that you can't teach, right? They're sort of born to do it. Rettington always struck me as, you know, and I don't know, I've never met him, but in watching this trial, he's got all of that.

But, you know, and the prosecutor got up in much, we talked about this before. She's reading her notes and opening, which is, if that's the death note, okay, you can't do that. You lose the jury.

Today was a little different. And Rettington was, I expected today to be a slam dunk. Now, his tone was excellent. His presentation was excellent.

His, like, there were so many, like his, the way he used his voice,

all of it was so good. But, I thought, and this just me, I thought he got, he did get a little bit

“disjointed, and he, I think that what he could have done”

maybe a little bit better. And look, this is 2020. I'm, I'm on the sidelines watching this. So it's very easy to criticize. Like, I'd be the world's greatest quarterback in the world,

if, you know, if it was, a player's performance was based on my criticism, right? And by the way, I can't even throw a football. So it's easy for me to criticize. But I was expecting, was expecting something,

a little, I was expecting another level from him. It was still very good. But the prosecutor kind of came back. And I wasn't, it wasn't the, wasn't the collapse on the prosecutor by the prosecutor

that I expected. So each side kind of returned to earth a little bit. The prosecutor stood up there. And although I hate that flipping of the freaking yellow legal pad, markets like if you can't remember the facts,

what the hell are you doing? But it's 30 minutes, 40 minutes. What are you doing? But also to his point.

“Let me tell you what I think he was doing,”

because I've done this as well. He's, by the way, he's looking at the jury. Nobody on TV is looking at the jury. And part of what I think he was doing and why it looks disjointed as we're looking at it as a fourth wall.

He's looking at individual jurors. He knows which jurors he picked. He knows who he thinks with him. He knows who he thinks is going to drive the verdict form. And he's throwing arguments and he's getting,

he's waiting for, there's an interaction. You, if you're not, and this is to your point Matt, you're so spot on. If you're reading or flipping the notes, you're not looking at the jurors.

And if you're not looking at the jurors, what the hell are you doing? I mean, you've got an audience of 12, it's not, you know, the millions of people who are watching it on TV, right?

She wasn't, she wasn't as bad as I thought she was going to be. But damn it, like that just drives me crazy. And look, there are so many, and we've got three little kids here, and we've got some really, really important issues to address.

And I just, I don't know, man. I just wish that this thing sorted itself out with, with better lawyers. And I'm not talking, I'm not talking about writing 10. You know, the, the prosecutors on this,

I think made a series of mistakes,

and I don't want to be unfairly critical.

I really don't. Imagine, imagine this case lens on your desk as a prosecutor. And everybody in America hates you because you're prosecuted as a woman. Well, they, they deserve the hate they're getting. So that's where you were.

I know you deserve it. Yeah, I just think, this has been the most hateable prosecutor. I think he was talking to specific jurors. I think that's why it was disjointed. I think he was, he could see and read in real time

who was with him, who was not, he was addressing what he thought. You know, part of what you do as a trial lawyer, who understand who those jurors are. I am locked in on who my jurors are. I'm locked in on what I think is happening.

It's one of the beautiful things about doing a jury trial where it's an art and not a science is you have to know where your jurors are. And you have to be able to guide them and give them what they need. Remember, if you can't do that, then, you know,

you're basically preaching to a different choir sort of speak, you know,

and nobody's trying to, at least when you are trying one of these cases that they're televised, you're not talking to the audience. And you, in fact, you forget if you're doing it right that they're even is a television audience, you're talking to the jurors. That's a great, sorry.

I didn't mean to interrupt you. No, no, go. That's a great observation. It really is. You know, when I were talking about this and opening and it's hard because we can't see the jury, right?

And we're not supposed to see the jury and that's all good. During opening, he was doing that.

“Remember that he was going, he was very calmly going from juror to juror.”

And you see his eyes moving for the viewer. He is connecting with each juror individually, which is why when a prosecutor goes to their notes, they are losing the jury. Yeah, and look, I just, I can't wrap my head mark around this one hour time limit on a case this complex with this many issues and this many witnesses.

I mean, I wouldn't even be at a first year yet doing a explaining a lot of a jury inside of an hour.

Like you take your time with this and you go through every line of that instruction, right? As a prosecutor, you have to teach him the law and you have to make them understand your theory and relationship to law, then you get into the facts. If, I mean, mark, if this was a case of you and I were doing it against each other. This would be a, this would be two days, right?

I mean, I mean, easy. You easily do that. You would pull that stunt that you love to do, which is you do the North Carolina stall

and you know, I've been there, I've had that happen to me. I have no idea what you're talking about. Yeah, right. No, I have no idea what you're referencing, Mark.

But, you know, and for the viewer, what he's talking about is basically one of the tactics for lawyers

where you aren't limited time-wise is you see this on both sides, prosecutors and defense lawyers. It's like you're trying to get to the buzzer. I'm almost getting saved by the bell in a boxing match where you're, you've just been, you've just been beat up in the corner and you're all you're trying to do is hear that ding ding because you know, you get to go and rest for a minute and collect and that's, we'd be doing this in California.

This, this, the closing arguments would take two, maybe three days if you had a really good prosecutor against a really good defense lawyer because these issues are super, super complex. I just can't imagine being limited to an hour and it's just the way they do it Massachusetts. Not a criticism.

“I think this judge has done an outstanding job.”

But one thing that is interesting, Mark, I think that this, that that bonds through manslaughter instruction, I don't know, man, I could picture you, Mark, in a case like this, where the evidence has gone as well as it did.

And I want to talk about his final cross examination in just a second.

But I could imagine you or other lawyers going for the all-in-nothing thing, right? Saying, I absolutely, because I'm telling you, I'm telling you that that be careful what you wish for. He's got to ask for it. He almost has to ask for it. Otherwise, if God forbid there's a conviction here, there's IAC. But it's like I talked about with the permission slip on the mental disease or defect.

The idea of giving him a voluntary is that's, it's like a recipe for compromise. No, it's, it absolutely is so for the viewer. So you understand, when you have the opportunity for an all-in-nothing verdict, it basically means that when you've got a case with murders like this, and you feel the jury isn't going to come back on murders,

if their only option is essentially lack of criminal responsibility, which would have been the only option. It's a real strategic risk to ask for what are known as lesser included. It's a lesser included to a murder can be a second degree murder or can be a voluntary manslaughter. Mark, that, that request might just save the prosecution in this case and what I could see happening here

is I could see them equating on the murder and hanging maybe on the voluntary manslaughter, right?

“On the vault, which means that's the only thing they can retry her for,”

that, that it's going to be interesting to see, right? Let's play that out, Matt. In California, if they equate it on the murder, hung on the vault, you would then make a motion under whatever they're equivalent to 1385 is to prevent them from retrying the case, right? And these argument, depending on the split, but I don't care what the split is.

I would not make the argument that if it's on the vault, and there's a split in the jurors heard it, and with the misconduct by the prosecution, that they should be barred in the interests of justice from retrying it. We know that's common if they hang, and, and, but that's one of the things, so the viewer understands, double jeopardy applies to any count you're equated for, so if they equate on the murder, so that they can deliberate on the voluntary manslaughter, and depending on the instructions in California,

the way it works, is you can't even talk about the voluntary manslaughter until you've equated on the murder. You got to go down the list, so if they want to talk about it, they're going to equate on the murder, but look, if they convicted on a vault on this mark in California, for somebody who stands, the vault is a loss for the prosecution, and I think it's a huge loss.

“It would have pled to evolve, and that's what she's doing about this case.”

This case should have been resolved as a vault. And that'd be a huge win for the prosecution at this point in my view, but we got our guests. We got our guests, she's back with us. Lauren, sorry. I thought you were heading to him.

Listen, I almost, uh, I literally must have killed. I, you can attest to this. I was getting such great soundbites from him at the beginning of the week, and then everybody realized that he'll talk, and he does give good soundbites. So now I would say there's a giant size gaggle anytime he walks out,

and that was even for me.

I tried to scream, but I'm not that short, or I never thought of myself as that short,

but yeah, that was tough. Chuck, tell him a famous mark. Gary goes, nice questions for him. It's kind of hard not to sometimes, and it does, it does get me places. So I pick him shoes, but he, like, he'll talk to me just not when there's 70 press

It's difficult.

“So you know what I think he did yesterday.”

I've done this.

And so, in true, in true fashion, I loved the fact that he did it.

He took the prosecutors opening statement, a portion of it, and he read it to their witness. And he got the witness to disagree with the prosecutors opening statement. It's brilliant. That isn't the definition of reasonable dollars.

I have no idea what is. That was, that was, I agree. It was so effective. And I think another thing that was very effective that this witness said, Dr. Saddough, yesterday, that people seem to be overlooking,

but I hide, and not overlooking, he was yet another Commonwealth expert that diagnosed

Lindsey Clancy with bipolar 2.

And he said the phrase, I would caution providers strongly against prescribing someone with bipolar 2 and SSRI. This goes back to the defense's whole defense in general in saying that she was undiagnosed with bipolar 2. None of these providers diagnosed that, and it's very possible that these anti-depressants

caused her to pollucinate. Now, in his closing today, you know, he didn't tie that really together. And I have been a huge fan of the way he has tried this case. I mean, it's so difficult. His line of questioning has been spot on.

I felt like his clothes could have hit differently for me. It felt a little just not very organized at times. And, you know, he focused heavily on police. All right, then say heavily on police. But he brought up the police at the 11th hour here.

And a couple things about, you know, the exercise bands, not having knots in them. Well, you know, Patrick said that they have enough. And I, I am nuanced enough to know that he is not pointing fingers at Patrick, but what he's doing is he's pointing out the lack of investigation that the police did. They took Patrick's word for everything.

And they didn't go beyond that. I understood that. I, I guess I was just a little confused as to why he thought that would resonate with the jury. After all of this testimony about mental health, you know, five weeks of that. And then all of a sudden, it's like, let me drop the, you know, the police did a horrible investigation.

And, you know, a local reporter said to me, and I don't live in Massachusetts, of course. She made a good point. She said, people in Massachusetts are weary of the police. They have a distrust of the police. So that was for that. Okay. Okay, that. And then really quick, sprawled.

And you don't have to go absolutely far.

“Don't you think on the heels of Karen Reed that that does resonate?”

Yes, it, it does, but I just, I wasn't thinking about that. I try not to think about the Karen Reed case. Literally, I try not to think of any case in Massachusetts to be perfectly honest with you. So when, when this reporter said that to me, I was like, oh, yeah, no, that makes sense. And, and I, I also was going back to, like, people saying, oh, well Kevin Rettington, he's too much for, for people.

People aren't going to like his style. And then I'm like, we're in Massachusetts. These women are fine with his style. They, you know, they, they get it. They, they don't mind it.

Guys, I feel like hold on. My air pods are not connecting. Let me just fix this for a second so I can hear you better.

So, we're going to take a break and come right back. Will you wait for us and fix your AirPods? Yes, absolutely. If you're talking to me. Okay. We're going to take a break. We're going to keep Lauren here. Matt, I've still got other stuff I want to ask you about. I mean, I'm going to, I'm going to tell you for the, for the people who are watching or listening. I may go off script because anything I can get Murphy to criticize a prosecutor.

I know. I'm there for it. So, just stay tuned. Okay. We're back with Lauren and her hote-couture and G and Matt are now.

“I hope they do a little prosecutorial criticism, but let's hear. Lauren, what do you got to say?”

And then I'm going to fire up Matt. Well, it's, it's not totally criticism, Mark, but I do want to point out that today, I felt like I was watching a new prosecutor. So, just with the writing, the guy has been consistent the whole time. What you see is what you get. He has not changed at all. They are used to that.

I felt like today, when Sprob got up there, I was just like, did somebody give you a talking to last night and really kind of tell you to completely do this 180. Because all of a sudden, she's like, no one's saying that Lindsey Clancy didn't have a serious suicide attempt. I'm like, actually, you are totally saying that this entire case. Am I listening to something else?

But with that being said, it worked.

But I just didn't think it was consistent. I don't know if it came across this genuine. That's another thing.

“And, you know, the post, I think, just put out a headline.”

Something like, juror burst into tears during the prosecutor's closing argument.

That never happened. That never happened.

There was no bursting of tears. What there was, there were a few female jurors in the bath, I saw, when she discussed Dawson. And she went into detail about little Dawson. They put their head down like this and they closed their eyes for a moment. She, she reached them. She knew exactly what to do and what to say and where to leave things.

And it was, it was tough. It was, it was really stomach turning. It was pretty awful. So. So let me throw that out to you because we can't see and Mark and I have been. It's kind of, it's hard because we're trying to, trying to re-televes without,

without being able to read the most important part. And that's the jury. Did you feel that the jury was, were they paying attention to her? Were they, were they with her? Were they listening? Yes.

They were engaged with both Redington and Sprog.

Very, very engaged.

“I will say that I believe one of the younger female jurors that I felt like, you know, it's hard to tell sometimes with these jurors.”

Lately in the past couple of cases that I've covered, they've been very good, very stoic. But this one female juror I felt like really was sympathizing with Lindsay. I think she's an alternate. I'm almost certain she's an alternate. So, and just to reiterate, if you haven't heard this, there are nine women deliberating and three men.

Well, that's, Mark, that's a wild, that's a wild consideration, isn't it? Because women look, this is, this may go counterintuitive to the viewer. I know you know this, but women in court tend to be very tough on each other. Yet we're talking about, I'm talking from. Oh, yeah, you're not breaking news, breaking news, Lauren Conland is tough on women in court.

So I don't believe that for a second. But listen, that is, that, I don't know how that breaks because on the other hand, you have these, these issues that are, that are so personal to so many people regarding postpartum. And I don't know whether that landsmark on this one. And since you've been there in the courtroom, any feeling one way or another on that?

Can you give us any idea? Yeah, I mean, I have said Mark, Mark knows me very well.

And he knows I always have an opinion, always.

And I am always willing to change that based on evidence. Every time, this case, I don't know. I don't know. I truly, you know, as a mother, I was saying this to my own mom the other day. I remember when my daughter was born.

I had postpartum probably, or I was probably a year. I would hear weird cries in the shower. We call them phantom cries. And then I would turn out in the shower and they wouldn't be there. And my mom was like, what is it?

Psychosis or anything like that. But it was odd. And it was something that I experienced. And in addition to that, you've got these old men on the stand. Who admittedly have treated like one pregnant woman 40 years ago with postpartum psychosis.

And they're sitting there telling us and pointing the DSM. Or there's, you know, one paragraph about postpartum. I think these women are going to be like, shut up. I mean, me personally without having formed a opinion or going back and forth on this. I'm listening to them talk about postpartum being four weeks.

Talk to my husband, guys. He would beg to differ. It's so what I. So no, really, like, it is like, so I can imagine some of these women are like, No, no, no, no.

And we'll see how that fairs. So to go back to your question mark on the prosecutors. Look, there are one of the fundamental rules.

“And for the viewer, you, you have to be, you don't have to never commit to something”

that you don't have to commit to as a prosecutor, right? Like, you should, what you do on murder cases where insanity is an issue. And when you have genuine mental health is you embrace it. Just like we heard today in closings, right? Like, you embrace the fact this person was suffering from mental health.

Absolutely 100%. Why fight any of that? It's, it's clear here. But you dig in on the central issue. And that is she knew what she was doing when she did it.

As diluted as she may have been, that's the argument. I'm not saying that's right or wrong. But it is so funny for me to listen to your observations. Because before you got on, Mark and I just said the exact same thing. Like, like, I don't know where this one lands.

I don't know how I feel about where this one lands. Like, and, and he had been, he has been smoking them every day from a pure mercenary, like, trial tactic perspective. This guy's been running circles. Yet today, I thought his close argument was a little disjointed.

Mark, I'm going to say this, and I'll pause spoke.

“Mark here goes, what a done a better job guys.”

I'm telling you right now. He would have done a better job in the time he had honing in the issues. Mark doesn't want to criticize him. And this is not a criticism. It's just, it's, it's an observation.

And the prosecutor for the first time in this whole trial in my view also came to life.

Right? Like a different thing. And it was cogent. And there are arguments made sense for the very first time. And they finally said the things that I've been pulling my hair out for this whole thing. They admit it. She suffered from this.

Nobody's saying this wasn't a legitimate suicide attempt. Like, but she did before. So there was a mark there was so many unforesterers by the prosecution during the course of this case. You know, and, and look, Mark here goes, would have been jumping on this. Just like Kevin Rettington was.

And, and look, and I also want to say unfairness. One of the things that drove me crazy is Kevin Rettington. He wasn't, he was no saint in this either. He was very tactically effective. But that, that expert, Rethnic, I wanted to crawl through my computer screen at that guy.

I wanted a shot across the gambling in that guy, Mark. I really did. And there were more. Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?

This is what he did. This is what he did. This is what he did. This is what he did. And the reason why nobody knows it is because the prosecution didn't jump on this.

And my note, I know Mark picked up on this. He tailored his opinion to the letter of Massachusetts law, which basically is, is testifying to an ultimate fact for the jury. It is vastly improper to do that. And better prosecutors would have been down his friggin throat.

I still would have that friggin gun that stand for doing that. The judge would have been admonishing the jury. That was a mistake, but not a mistake. That was a mistake. It was like, my father used to say, the mark of a good trial lawyer.

Commit, commit air and know you're doing it. 100%. You're right. Not a mistake. It was a Kevin Rensen committed his own. Evidentory murder when he did that.

Got away with it because these prosecutors were not on the friggin ball. Drove me crazy watching that. Totally improper to do that. And in my view, Mark, the religious comments were outrageous

and never should have been set.

That's a third rail. Never should have been done. I agree. 100%. But that kind of nonsense from a defense expert from my view is even worse

and the prosecution. I've been worded. One word, man. Waver. Yeah.

No, totally. And the prosecution is no appeal anyway. He got away with it. So it is awesome to have your thoughts on this because you are there. And I haven't seen the whole courtroom because I've been able to see the jury.

I'm not completely out of my mind. You've seen some of the same things Mark and I. Well, let me just bring this up because obviously, you know, we've got church in state and the religion stuff was highly inappropriate, shocking to say the least. However, Lizzie's family, Lindsey Plancy's family up until three days ago.

“They were sitting with, I think his name was Father Bob.”

And he had he was in, you know, he was dressed as a priest would be dressed. So I guess I was thinking about that. Why wouldn't the prosecution when Kevin moved for a mystery? I'll be like, hello. They got a priest right there.

So like, they don't, I don't know. Again, I am not an attorney. But I'm sitting there like, why wouldn't they just say that? Wouldn't that be a great argument or no? Oh, no.

They look, you can't do it as a prosecutor even if it's happening in the gallery. But look, he marks a lot of jurors mark. Sometimes like that kind of stuff on both sides can really backfire. Like, I come from a Catholic family. I'm not religious personally, guys.

But if, if I had some prosecutor or defense team that was trying to try to carry favor to my religious sensibilities thinking that I couldn't separate those two, I'd be kind of pissed, honestly. So I don't know where I need that lands. But this is, this is one of the fascinating things guys for the viewer, right?

This is, this is the kind of stuff that happens in high profile. Murder cases like this. Do you complex issues?

“So what else can you, can you share with us about what you saw in the courtroom?”

Yes. I mean, I, I just, I felt like the jury, again, they, they have done an incredible job.

This jury has never really been late.

I mean, they've never been sick. And the judge gave them just the proper send off, I guess. And, you know, I actually did kind of a mock-up jury slip before this. So I could understand. And the manslaughter charge and, and Matt, maybe you can speak to this.

But manslaughter in Massachusetts, as it reflects the, the reckless and, or wanton and reckless, I don't know. Can you finish that sentence? But, but it, it actually is more of involuntary manslaughter.

and the judge said no manslaughter. But with wantson and reckless and dangerous women or something like that. And I was looking it up. And it appears to be almost the same thing. Am I right on that, or?

Well, you, it's interesting you say that, Lauren, because I've made the argument for years that in California, at least, the difference between implied malice second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter is almost indistinguishable. You need, like, a divine jackal tracks. It's a very, all of these mental states are kind of reminds me of what

the scotus used to say about pornography or obscenity. You know it when you see it.

“And at a certain point, that's, I think, kind of how jurors do jurors look for”

just like anybody else. You want some way to take what you've heard and how you feel. And you want to follow the law as best you understand it and apply it to the facts. Because they're the jurors of the facts. I just can't imagine.

And, you know, we've got me on tape saying it. But I cannot imagine that there are 12 jurors who are going to agree that this woman who's sitting there paralyzed in a wheelchair who either slither throat through herself out of a window or crushed up pills and took them and is guilty of first degree murder when her husband who is the victim

is up there giving her forgiveness and she's got the priest who's giving her her absolution and the, the, the, the, the mother and law too. Her mother and law tested my husband event. Give her a hand on it. As a, as a grandparent as a grandparent as you know, Lauren, kids are over here.

The grandkids are front and center. So it's really the ultimate act of forgiveness. And if you're a juror, how do you sit there and say, no, I'm going to go in the face of this, this poor Patrick or the, the grandmother and I'm going to, I'm going to meet out justice.

What I always told Matt and I always have this discussion, Lauren.

Who's interest is the prosecutor vindicating here? Is it the kids? Well, I, I get it. I mean, you, this is unimaginable. I get, I mean, however, if the father and the grandmother have said,

“we get it, we, you know, is the worst thing ever.”

Then I know how you get it yesterday. You had something with Kevin Reddington. I think it was you who was excoreating a reporter because it first He thought the reporter had not heard the 911. I don't ever want to hear that 911 take, frankly.

And the jurors heard it. Yeah. Well, and just sorry to add to that for a minute because obviously that is an evidence. There was also an instruction about the autopsy photos. And the judge had said obviously these are very distressing.

But you can't base your, your verdict on these pictures.

And I have never heard that before as, as part of the instruction.

I'm sure it's very normal, but clearly I'm not important enough, you know, as far as frequently as you guys are. But I thought that was also kind of important to say that the jury as well, as I even find myself as, you know, sitting there as an observer and a reporter. Whenever the children are brought up and whenever the prosecutors describe what happened to them,

I forget all about mental health. I forget all about everything that I intellectually know about Lindsey Clancy. And I'm like those kids.

“So I thought that was an important instruction.”

Yeah, it's very important. But it's, again, Mark, it can backfire, right? When I, whenever I'd have glory, glory murder scenes, I always made it a point, not to show that to the jury. I'm going to introduce it.

I put it in a vanilla envelope, like it was radioactive because I never wanted them to feel like

I was trying to compensate for lack of evidence or lack of a, of a legal theory by trying to shock them with Gore, if that makes sense. And it really is the double edged sword. And it's a fundamental promise of law. And it's a specific decision on any sort of simply or prejudice for the victims or.

And by the way, that was vintage Matt Murphy 101. Why I hated trying cases against him. He knows that stuff and he gets it. Wow. Yeah, you know, it doesn't do it.

I don't know. That silverman doesn't know that. She opens with glory pictures. That is the most horrific, I mean, you should talk to him.

I was, I was thinking a year ago when the Menendez hearing when they blasted the. The photos crime scene photos up on the screen and portary had never seen them before.

They apologize, but I, you're just, they,

To Matt, Matt, what did you call it radioactive? It is radioactive.

“I mean, you have to be kind of detached to not understand it.”

Well, you wanted to have it. It's greatest impact if it's going to in the deliberation room. That's right. We saw that with like the prosecution, the officers in Rodney King to pull from. Asian history where they, they just showed that friggin video.

He's got him Terry White. He blew the prosecution. I didn't ever thought it was much of a lawyer. There's me criticizing a prosecutor for. Wow, you're, this is like a, this is like a triple play today.

That guy was over his head from day one.

I hope he's watching. He, he separate relations back 20 years. Sorry, but what he did is he to play the tape over and over again. And then everybody was so immune to it by the time that the jury had to deliberate. That it lost all its impact.

And we had freaking riots through our city, right? Markets. It's with people do not understand a lot of people don't understand. We had to be here in Southern California. That was the template for the O.J. trial.

That was became the baseline. And the O.J. trial has reverberated ever since. Right. And that is all prosecutorial failure in my view. Just my opinion here.

But yeah, not a fan of Terry White at all.

So Lauren, I'm going to, I'm going to stop beating up on prosecutors for a second.

“What about the journalists who got defrapped from was it vanity fair?”

What can you talk about this? Yeah, I feel bad. I just, I, I feel sorry. I'm going to stutter because she, she's not. I've run into her many times.

And she actually had followed my reporting. I guess from Luigi Manjoni. And she's a nice girl. I, I would have maybe advised not to smile or wink at the camera. Of course.

I know that she was a child or is a child, friend of Lindsey Clancy or maybe she was a neighbor or something like that. I don't think she's really spoken to the family in, in a number of years, possibly even decades. But I do know that when I have an embarrassing moment like that or, you know, I dissociate. I act like it didn't happen. I don't respond to anything. I just keep going.

“And I think that the fact that she's kind of responding a lot, it's, it's adding more negative attention.”

But I think, you know, it is. So do you think, do you think she's getting a raw deal? Do you think she's getting, I mean, I'm interested. I have been taking a position. I just thought I read it with some interest just because it's kind of in the, the ether.

But is she getting a raw deal? I think that if maybe she just stopped, like, again, if she didn't respond and it kept going and going and going. Then yeah, I would say raw deal, but yet it's, you got to say, girl, stop making videos about it. Stop bashing other people, stop changing your story about it. And it'll be, you know what I mean, it'll be okay.

It'll go away. The internet works fast. I mean, just the other day, you know, Kevin's telling John to Petro a little weasel and everyone's talking about that. One thing I learned in journalism is you don't want to be the story. Do not become the story.

And so that is literally, I'd say, yeah, I shouldn't say journalism 101. But that's, that's not why we're here, right? Thank you, Lauren. I appreciate it. We're down to our last 10 seconds.

And we may bring you back onto the YouTube channel. Thank you so much. We've got to bring you back. This is great. [ Music ]

I live in Manhattan Beach as many of you know. And I grew up in LA and look, not far from where the beach boys are from. And one of my favorite songs from the beach boys is a song called Heroes and Villains. And I was listening to that this morning and it really made me think of the Clancy case. We have this really dynamic, very interesting case that has captured the attention of the nation, right?

And we've got these very pressing interesting issues about things like postpartum and the difference between postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis. And SSRIs and these medications and so many pressing interesting issues regarding modern life in America. And I think that we've gone down a little bit of a rabbit hole here on the Lindsey Clancy case where people are being lionized. I've heaped praise myself on Kevin Reddington and the job that he's done from a tactical standpoint.

But it seems like there's so much emotion around this case that a lot of people are villainizing others.

And one of them is this reporter who got in trouble for winking at the camera. Now I totally agree with Lauren. She needs to get out of the story and she needs to stop trying to blame other people.

I felt really bad for her initially because all she went to the camera and it's an awkward moment.

And apparently there's some history between her and the camera guy and something about a heel getting stuck someplace. She's gotten death threats. Okay, Kevin Reddington is not a saint and he's an incredibly talented.

“I think professional who's doing a really good job defending is quiet.”

The prosecutors aren't villains here either. I think they've made a series of mistakes but we got three little kids. When it comes to who also lives here right and and let's not forget that like that's that is the central issue the entire case. When we're talking about mental health, it's not like a test we can't take a blood test. You're doing a scan and figure out whether somebody is bipolar or whether they're suffering from depression versus psychosis or which drugs are working and which drugs aren't.

It's self reporting.

“So a lot of the decisions that were made in this case of all the people that I believe let down these little kids.”

These people, the young psychiatrist who originally she went to who looked like she was 12. These people are relying on the words of Lindsey Clancy in their diagnosis and I don't I this is going to upset some people here. I know based on that the tender and the emotion in this case, but a lot of people there's a lot of blame and a lot of fingers and a lot of directions that we can point fingers.

And there's a lot of second guessing we can do regarding who did what but at the end of the day the person in my view who failed these kids the most was Lindsey Clancy.

She knew what the thoughts that were in her head and despite her struggles which I think are very real. At the end of the day, you know the question here is whether or not she was criminally responsible under the law on the state of Massachusetts. And I think that we all on these cases in the modern era need to take a step back take a deep breath and sometimes let the process play out. I think that this case is going to wind up especially with this judge it's going to wind up in the place that it should.

“And and I don't think she's going to be convicted of murder I think maybe I could be wrong on that maybe after what we saw today, but I think we all just have to remember that.”

You know in our in our in our emotions it's important not to villainize people who in the end haven't done anything wrong and then includes a lot of the people here in this case mistakes have been made. The prosecution by the psychiatrist who are involved by the nurse practitioners we can argue that all day long, but at the end of the day the person who is on trial here is Lindsey Clancy and my heart just breaks for these little kids that's it. I hope everybody has an awesome weekend and yeah look forward to seeing you all next week.