The Doctors Who Failed Lindsay Clancy, Symbolism Behind Prosecutor’s Bow, and Parental Vigilante Justice

Hello and welcome to Positively Legal.

I'm Mark Eiglarge, and my bio says that I'm a former prosecutor, veteran criminal defense attorney, adjunct law professor, author of the very popular book, "Be Happy By Choice." Happiness guaranteed for your misery back. And speaking of misery, here's my co-host, John Haskell Board. Oh, that was not, yeah, I'm coming out fighting today, girl.

I guess so, well, I'm John Haskell Board. I don't have a resume as long as my leg like Mark, but I'm a criminal defense attorney, and founder of my own law firm. I don't play pickable. I don't even know what a pickle ball looks like.

Get with the program. But you know what I do know? I know that there seems to be a growing trend of parents taking justice into their own hands to protect their children from predators. I'm not so sure I'm mad at that.

We're going to bring you a few of the latest stories. That's right. And we're also going to be talking about Lindsey Clancy. I've been following this trial.

“I think closer than any trial that I have ever followed.”

There's so many angles that just intrigued the hell out of me. And we're going to bring you the very latest and John, I can't wait to get your thoughts on it. Yeah, it's something, very back and forth. But I don't know. Is it happy hour time?

Can we finally? Yeah, I wait a week for this. Can we now drink some?

And again, mine's always effort hills.

What have you gotten your cup today? Well, you know, I still-- this is happy hour, but I do need to complain a little bit. All right, that's not so happy. Yeah. All right, well, positively legal, positively positive.

I am having a little argument-- not argument. I am having a thing with a client. Who is upset by the way I dress? What? Yes.

Why is that a discussion? Exactly. Why is that a discussion? So I'll give you some information. So we had a conference-- not even in front of the judge.

Sometimes we have conferences here in front of the judge's right hand, usually a court attorney, right? We had a conference. Did you wear that? Who farted T-shirt again, a court?

I told you it's inappropriate. You know, that is a word that I cannot stand. Everyone likes flamingos lifting their leg up, but you still shouldn't wear that to court. It's all I'm saying. No, no.

So I was wearing a dress. I wear a dress. Yeah.

I'm always wearing a suit.

In fact, I'm going to be honest with you. I don't even like to wear suits, right? So I wear a dress. See? Once in a while I'll wear pants, but we're not-- I mean, you know, work pants.

Once in a while. But anyway, I was wearing a dress. And I happened to bring-- so I have-- she's an old, old, good friend of mine who is now working here at the firm because she's no longer with the Duchess County DA's office. And so I am bringing her to a lot of these court appearance, so she only knows one county.

So she's learning the ropes, so she's tagging along with me and she was wearing a suit. And in her words, old lady shoes. And I agree. They were old lady shoes. I'm getting bored.

Like, are you already? Yeah, already.

“Like, get-- like, why does this guy have a problem with what you're wearing?”

That's what I want to know. So good question. So he sends me an email a day or two ago and he says, you know, you look pretty. Yeah, you look really pretty in that dress. You don't think you're sure where dress is anymore.

I think it pisses off, you know, my wife. And I would appreciate it if you-- What? Yeah. And I would appreciate it if you would not carry two designer handbags.

Maybe you could just carry one. I carry a person of briefcase. Maybe you could just carry one and a couple of other things that were really inappropriate. I can't believe he put that down and writing. The father says, wife, how-- when did she see you?

And what are you doing to this client? Well, she's the other party. She's the opposing party. Oh, you're lucky. And so he said he really appreciated that my associate was wearing a suit.

He didn't mention anything about our old lady shoes. I should have asked him. And I am honestly pissed off. Had you respond?

“Of course you-- well, first of all, how do you-- why are you pissed off?”

I don't want to assume that. I think the whole conversation-- the whole email was inappropriate. I also had now concerned that he's not thinking clearly what do you know what I mean? So I'm concerned by that. And--

So what? Would he ever sent that to a male lawyer, you think, ever?

So I did respond.

“And I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt and diffuse it enough to say, first”

of all, you shouldn't comment on an attorney's-- a woman's clothing, because some people don't have his thick skin as I, maybe you're trying to-- maybe you were making a joke. It's not funny. Please don't do that. And then in the middle of the night, apparently he wrote back and said, I wasn't joking.

Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Have you ever had a situation with a client? So it's not legal. It's not like, you know, I called him in a law.

It's not like-- you know what I mean, it doesn't have anything to do with his actual case.

The answer is no to your question if you're going to ask me, it has anyone ever commented

on my clothing other than to say how impeccably dressed I was. No great, I look. That's not an ego thing. No, I can't imagine somebody would say something negative. I've had judges call me sidebar and say those shoes are fabulous.

And I'm like, did he paint? Really? Really? Come on. Stop it.

Nice. It tells me more about my shoes. Exactly. Well, I look, that's inappropriate. I think we all agree.

I love to get viewers comments on that and how John should handle it and all that stuff. So he's still applying and moving forward. Isn't that interesting? It's handled. All right.

Let's talk about pedophilia, let's talk about dads who don't like when their kids are harmed. Let's talk about what they do as revenge.

“Did you want to set up the story or do you want me to?”

Well, we actually have a few stories.

So I guess we'll talk about the first one is very interesting.

So there is a guy who had evidence. I would say pretty clear evidence that a Mr. Diego Montoya Gonzalez agency had sexually assaulted his 11 year old daughter. I believe the evidence was actually on the video if I'm not mistaken. So he goes on the daughter's there is a picture of him right there.

He goes on the TikTok to lure the father. The father goes on the daughter's TikTok because we don't want comments that we didn't make it clear. Okay. To lure him to the home because he was going to, I guess, have a little talking to or

maybe a little fist-to-cup. He was pissed off. And I don't blame him that this 20 year old man abuse has sexually abused his 11 year old daughter. One thing leads to another.

He gets this 20 year old Diego Montoya Gonzalez to his house and ends up shooting him. Now, here's the kicker. He's not dead. He's not dead.

Here's the kicker.

Because there was clear evidence that Gonzalez had abused this 11 year old girl.

He himself was arrested and charged with sexual assault. And the father who shot him was charged with felony assault. So these guys are like probably in the same cell block awaiting their respective cases, which I find incredibly interesting. So what do you upset about so far with what you just said?

You have a problem with the father being arrested. You have a problem with, I don't know, what upset you at this point. No, I actually, well, I think if I were going to have a problem with anybody being arrested, it would be the father. Although I will say, lowering the person to your, but there was a case we should look

this up Mark.

“Do you remember there was a case a long, long time ago where I think is the same”

steve it. And I think they made a big documentary about it. And he was sexually assaulted by a man. And this is way before like being killed before we were even lawyers, sexually assaulted by a man that that man was prosecuted, the father of the child who was sexually assaulted

was in the courthouse hallway. I went, yes. I memory. Keep going. Y'all am dead.

Yeah. Y'all am dead. And the one thing I can't remember is what is the disposition of that case? Did they, they had to have charged? I don't remember, but I'll tell you this.

I don't lose any sleep over it if I absolutely believe to my core that somebody is guilty. I don't know that you ever are cured of your lust for children when you've molested them. I haven't seen any evidence of it. I think you just learned to control your urge if you seek help. And that's, you know, not on this guy's radar right now.

So the father shooting him personally doesn't bother me legally it does, though. I don't know. Well, what if someone else did it? What else, if the evidence doesn't really prove it and what if someone else gets shot when this guy is emotionally shooting at this guy and I don't think it's good for policy

at all to have people doing that? Do you think, though, there is a forgiveness factor because you're a dad, imagine, imagine what would be going on inside you? Dude, rage, rage, absolute rage.

Even if it was my intent to kill this guy, which is my gut telling me, I probably was,

to the best defenses to say, no, I lured him using my daughter's TikTok account. So we have some words with him, I can't even get this out because it sounds foolish. The father was going to have words with this 20-year-old accused molester. But then, you know, the guy made a gesture, the bad guy made a gesture and it looked like he was going to shoot me and now it becomes self-defense.

“I mean, I think it's probably malarkey, but he's, it's got a chance to work.”

Yeah. All that can come out. That is, that is going to be his defense and you know what have been better? How about, I'm all about you want to lure on to your house using the, the daughter's TikTok, have the police waiting there, have the police waiting there and have this guy arrested.

But apparently, he, you know, the dad isn't really, you know, asking for any sort of forgiveness because I think there was a bit of a comic relief at his arrangement. Can we play "Sat One"? An incident that occurred on Monday where the defendant followed the victim's family, out of the victim's arrangement in, in, in, in custody arrangements on Monday and threatened

to shoot the victim's younger brother like he did the victim in this case. What? What? What did you just say? What are you talking about?

Well, it's, you know, it's funny. Could you, can't?

It's like, who's on first?

Because when I hear the word victim, I'm thinking the daughter, right? That's the victim. Right. No. You got a, you need a chart for this one.

But apparently, he's still not, um, cool with the players on that side of the fence. Um, according to the prosecutor anyway, and he still wants to do some harm to extended members of the family who knows whether that's real or not. I don't know. Yeah.

I don't know. And that would, just imagine being a prosecutor here though, your, you've got somebody who you have charged with sexually assaulting 11 year and 11 year old and you're calling that person a victim. Right.

And so here's the question.

Put on your prosecutor hat.

The guy comes to you and says, "All right, I want a plea. I want a plea." You know, um, look, you don't know what's going to happen at trial. Wait, which guy? The molester comes to you and says, "No, please screw the molester."

And the molester, hopefully they got the goods on him, he goes by by long time. I'm talking about the father, the only one that I have a little bit of sympathy for, right? I mean, is 11 year old daughter was molested by this guy. And the system is going to coddle that defendant and it's going to take years and he's enraged and he did something that I don't know if he's proud of or he regrets.

But regardless, let's say he comes to you and he says, "Man, I'm prosecutor. I want to deal." What number are you laying down? What's your, what's your plea offer to this? What?

No jail time whatsoever. No jail time. No. How bad was the guy injured?

“Do we know you should as dick off what, what, what happened?”

I don't think you did that. I don't think he's got to suffer any permanent injury or anything of that nature. But come on, he molested on 11 year old kid. So I think there's some forgiveness there. Imagine taking that to a jury, right?

And you've got somebody, even, look at how that would go. No jail time. That's extraordinary for us, like a tempted murder. But now this is something where you would have to do some sort of interim thing where it's the dad successfully completed an anger management blah, blah, blah, then you missed a

meaner. Mine. Madam prosecutor. Can I do that course online? But I'm serious.

How are you gonna, you can't, as you're, if you're a prosecutor, you're going to put up the guy who molested the 11 year old daughter who's going to be testifying, come from prison. Right? And then you're going to tell a jury, you're going to like, look, you've got to put

this guy who shot him behind bars. It's a tough sell. But you'd have to have all jurors excusing the guy's conduct. It's clearly not self defense, although again, you know, if he goes with that story that

“he saw the guy reaching for something, I think they're going to bend over backwards form.”

Okay. Okay. Interesting. There's another case that's similar, although I will say, I have a lot of simply for the dad who shot Mr. Chandler, who was the dad, who shot Gonzales.

There's another case very, very similar, because we said there was more than one. For a mom caught a man underneath her daughter's bed. I want to say the daughter is also 11, don't quote me on that. Yeah. Yeah.

Caught him under the daughter's bed chased him out, shot him, and he's dead. He's very dead. Very dead. Yeah. And the defense lawyer for this woman in slot two alleges that, hey, anyone would have

We expect anybody to be able to act in a cool calm manner, pre-meditate any sort of action. It's just unrealistic.

“I think even the best of us, the worst of us, any of us would be acting irrationally”

given this sort of circumstances. I don't know enough about what led to the actual shooting. I don't know if there was a scuffle. I don't know if it was an accidental discharge. I just don't know.

He wishes. Yeah.

I don't know yet what I'm going to tell anybody, but she's been charged with first degree

murder. I better come up with something more than him just being in the house. Although maybe that's enough. Is that enough for you, a grown-ass man at 120, 130 in the morning, according to the affidavit.

Somewhere around that time is in the house. This woman doesn't know who he is and he's there. We're going to get to the kicker, which I haven't given to the audience yet, but there's something special about this guy who is inside the house. Well, the defendant's name is Kendra Scott, and that was the worst statement at defense

it. Like he should have said nothing.

“Say no comment on what you had to, he's, yeah, when you don't have your defense”

formulated yet, shut up, like who's actually acting irrationally, maybe she was perfectly rational. I've seen so much worse.

She's so many defense lawyers do so much worse these days that I'm like, yeah, he was

pretty articulate, he's at least saying there's more to this, you know, who wouldn't act that way? This is bad, but I just, just one thing, I had an under the bed case, not that long go. Actually, it's still have it.

Is that a thing? An under the bed case. Not the bed case. Oh. College kid, two college kids, they're in a dorm, they're going sleep, all of a sudden, you

know, like I would know, like they sensed something odd in the room and got up, turned on the lights, there's a guy under the bed. He runs out of the dorm, it's college, runs out of the dorm. So he was, and this is interesting, he was prosecuted and got a slap on the wrist. My client actually jumped on his back, she got hurt in the scuffle.

Nobody had a gun, nobody didn't anything like that. But the school protected him, the local prosecutors weren't that interested in prosecuting him, and granted, thank God, he didn't try to kill anybody, he didn't try to rape anybody, but he's a dude under a bed in a... Well, what was he doing there?

Well, what was he doing there? Apparently, that's his thing. Okay. And next time it wasn't charged, your client wasn't charged, or that's his thing. It wasn't charged.

Okay. But I got you. So she wanted me to do some jail time. The guy who got shot, who got killed, Roderus Morton, 20 years old, he got shot in the back of the head.

My question to you, Jonah. Yeah. Mark?

“Is it enough, Jonah, for a person to be in your house at about 130 in the morning?”

Do you get free reign on them? I'm just asking him. I'm not judging. Can you put bullet holes in the back of their head if they're in your house at 12130 in the morning?

All right. Problem. So Castle Doctor in New York, somebody's in your house, you usually have free reign to shoot them. All right.

The thing that's going to maybe trip this woman up to date other than her statement. I did what I had to do. Two things. Okay. Granted, the shots are in the back of the head, so this person is moving away.

Two. I think there is a question as to whether that person was invited into the house. She didn't know it. She didn't know it at the time. No.

All right. Let's get to what I was saying earlier. This guy is special. He's got number three and will hear why the guy who got shot, who was under the bed, why he was special.

He was special needs and I was his special needs teacher. I do not condone his actions as going and minkling with a 13-year-old, however, when you're cognitively not 20, what do you expect? And then I found out last night that from his sister, no one knew that he was gone away from the house.

I just wish he wouldn't have never shot him.

That's it. There were so many opportunities for her to stop and think. So many different ways that this could have had a different outcome. I mean, the minute I heard you a special needs, now again, I'm filling in the gap. I don't know how off he was.

But let's just say he's really off, right? And then some kid says, you want to come to my house and he just goes to the house, not

Let's just say, I don't know if those are the facts.

I don't. But let's say those are the facts and he gets blown away. I'm not saying he's any less scary to this woman, but it just, my heart feels a little bit different for his execution. That's all.

I don't know if I agree with that.

“Only because I don't think you should get a pass if you're a 20-year-old, special needs.”

Slowly, I mean, you're still 20 years old. And if you're not special needs enough to not have somebody handling you, I suppose. Like you know, he must be good enough to be mingling in society or what have you, but maybe I don't know. Does he work part-time?

I mean, how did he meet this young girl, either?

He had to do something in order to socialize and meet the person who's bad. He was hiding under. So I'm not so sure that that gives him car blanche. You can be a 20-year-old with special needs and sexually assault somebody. I want to follow this.

That's not bad. John, I need to follow this.

“I need to know more the teachers seem to suggest that there were additional facts that”

we're not privy to would said that this woman might have been able to avoid the shooting of him and something tells me there's more to it. All right, we'll put a pin in it for right now because we got Lindsey Clancy coming up. There's been some extraordinary cross-examination of psychiatrists and I want to talk with Johnna, who's winning at this point, so it's like judging a every one way show it in remission

because we haven't really gotten to the experts, but we're going to talk about what we've heard today and over the last few days and just a moment, stick around. We'll be right back. Welcome back to positively legal, the Lindsey Clancy murder trial is seriously gripping the nation.

Mark? Where are we? Well, I would like to say mid-trial, but we don't know how much longer the prosecution is going to be, this is a 35-year-old woman who was married to this great guy Patrick and they had three kids, either five, three, and eight months, seven, eight months, or a Dawson

and Cowlan. By all accounts, picture the perfect mother. I mean, no one had a bad thing to say about how she was as a mother, but she experienced postpartum depression, what she's now arguing then turned into psychosis at some point, and she was hearing voices and hallucinating.

What's not in dispute is that she took these exercise bands and wrapped it around each of her three children's neck, one by one, and killed them. What's not in dispute is that just prior to doing that, she sent her husband to go to the CVS to get a stool softener for one of the kids and then actually spoke to him and he said she sounded calm and normal, and then he went to get takeout, which she had ordered for

the family and came back within about 50 minutes or so, 50 to 55 minutes. His life was turned upside down and the kids' lives were snuffed out, and the question

“is, did she suffer from a mental disease or defect at the time of the killing?”

And then number two, more importantly, more significantly, did she know right from wrong?

Janna, first of all, why are we so into this case?

I am so into it, I want to know why this one? Now, I mean, Casey Anthony, yeah, I follow Jody Areas, I followed, you know, there's so many that I followed and I talked about and I was interested in this one, I'm on the edge of my C. Why?

Help me, Janna, couple of reasons. We haven't seen anything like this, really, since Andrea Yates, and Andrea Yates was not guilty by reason I'm in sanity, she is a similar situation where she killed her five children, and she drowned them in a tub, found NGI. Now here we are, I don't know, 20, 25 years later, with a very similar situation.

Now, there isn't, this is not a who done it, like you said, she, this defendant has admitted I did it, I killed my kids, but there is a reason why I killed my kids, and I wasn't in my right mind. And the question for this jury is going to be, was she so much not in her right mind that she should not be held criminally responsible for strangling one by one, her three innocent

children with her exercise bands, go on get, why you were talking, I, one of the points

me, but I got it, sometimes I say all answers lie within, I got, I got, I got an answer

as you were talking about it, I will tell you, when we originally started talking about this case, I was instantly pro prosecution, and the reason why is because I have a problem with the time, I have a problem with the time to reflect between killing each child. And if you're in a psychotic break, here's the other thing. For me, a psychotic break is spontaneous.

For Lindsey Clancy, she seems to have scheduled her psychotic break. She scheduled it, she sent her husband out, so she could have a psychotic break, and then no low and behold, she had a psychotic break, that's the part that I call bullshit on, however, this case has made me flip flop a few times. Be had testimony this week from her psychiatrist, and the defense is doing a good job

about blaming them for not being better about her medication and dialing it in. And when you look at the list of medications, this woman was on her brain had to be jealous.

“On aisle and iced tea of psychiatric cocktails, everything was mixed in there, right?”

I don't know how she could function, but that's the other thing, Mark. The day of these murders, her husband testified, it was a good day. She was making snowmen.

She was, they finally, I think he felt that they had turned a corner because she had been

suffering mentally. I'll give her that, but this day, so how do you have, make a snowman at 1 o'clock in the afternoon, and then kill all three children after you send your husband out of the house, so you can do so. And then she threw herself out the window.

Right. Right. Right. So you raised so many issues. The first, I wanted to tell you, why are we so into this?

First, it's weird to be staring at someone who did something so horrible. Every time I see her in court, I'm like, you did it. Oh my God, it's not a question. You're admitting that you did it. You did it.

And you otherwise were a great mom and what caused you to do that, my goodness.

And the second thing is, this wasn't something manufactured after the fact.

This, there's overwhelming evidence that she sought help. She was in a lockdown psychiatric facility. She talked about hearing voices. She talked about wanting to kill herself. She talked about harming her children.

She told her husband that she was looking to harm her kids at different times. It's all documented.

“So the question is, you know, what will the jury do?”

And I'm on the edge of my scene. But you mentioned Yates, what you may or may not know is that the defense's star witness who evaluated her this, I think his last name was Resnick, Dr. Resnick, I forget his first name. He testified in the second trial of Andrea Yates. And he's going to be the star witness in this case.

So that is extraordinary. You also have, there's a question about the psychiatrist who is treating her right up until the day that she did this harbour act. I want everybody who hasn't seen this trial, picture what that psychiatrist might look like. I know you have no idea, but just picture what that psychiatrist look like.

I guarantee you, sought for, will reveal to you that you probably didn't picture this is what you look like. Take a look. You're a defendant in a very large lawsuit, are you not? The doctor.

Oh, yes.

“You would have happened to be represented by an attorney, would you?”

I am. And the fact that you have an attorney is you're right under the crime situation doesn't mean you're guilty of anything, right? Right. And you know that the outcome of this case is very, very, major to the outcome of your

lawsuit. Yes. You're shaking your head, gentlemen. I don't understand that yet, in fact, it's determined that you advertise as an expert in post, sorry, and in post, in psychiatry, and you have on the life experience plus

or reasons. Would you consider that to be an angel's head for a misorganization? Can you do not believe that I've been to this position? Do you want to say a misorganization? Yes.

Well, a month, I think it all caused your residency, you won't want the surgery of me to do it. That's correct. And we have to tell you that. I don't think that's exactly the wording that it is, and when she said that it was a misorganization,

it was a misorganization. You will watch. Yes, sir. Oh, thank you. Good.

I just think the wording was that it's an interest of my life. I don't believe I call myself a misorganization.

I don't believe I call myself a misorganization. I don't believe I call myself a misorganization. I don't believe I call myself a misorganization. I don't believe I call myself a misorganization. I don't believe I call myself a misorganization.

I don't believe I call myself a misorganization. I don't believe I call myself a misorganization. I don't believe I call myself a misorganization. Thirty days is how long she was practicing. I wasn't just your appearance.

Hold on, I'm just saying it's like a first-year lawyer.

Here, go handle a deck penalty case. I think that no matter how great this gal is and she seems absolutely to be true to the cause. She came across to me to be sincere with the best of intentions. She's still only been practicing 30 days, John, I go ahead. What are your thoughts?

This is a very seasoned defense attorney. And what he did there was very effectively kick a puppy. Now, that's all going to be relevant. You know, that's going to be relevant in the civil suit that is going to get settled because I'm sure there's going to be, somebody's going to write a check.

And I don't know. The civil suit is on behalf of the three deceased children, right, that the negligent hiring of this wet behind the ears embryo of a shrink who didn't really know how to handle this particular client. But you have to remember, in cases like that, I'm sure that she was supervised.

That's how it works in the medical profession, unlike really in our profession.

“I mean, you must remember, Mark, at some point, you had 30 days experience, right?”

As an attorney, at some point, and one's experience and one year experience, right? Probably got over your squeeze a little bit too. But maybe somebody was watching to make such a problem. I'm not blaming her. And it's a horrible set of circumstances, worse, worse to have this pit bull, this veteran

defense attorney who's extremely seasoned. I mean, top of his game was 10 years ago, but he's really good at what he does. And I started to feel a little bit bad for her almost. Did you get that sense? Did you feel, in fact, let's look at side five and let's do a little bit more of the interaction

between the two. Is it in a state that, as it was, 14 when he said to the jury, 14, quite a state you had, but when did you do that, period from September to June period, 14 of a sudden? Yes. Every single one of them were by a television birthday.

Yes. And so you came in this horrible Friday, you left the side of the story in the dressing room. Correct.

Were you never concerned about your medical health as a person?

Absolutely. She was crying.

“She told you symptoms that she couldn't get out of bed, isn't that right?”

That montage said it was difficult to get out of that. All different, all different. Why was it difficult for lunching for lunching to get out of bed? And then did you dig her a hug? Oh, no, you're on telling this.

So you couldn't get a hug, would you? Didn't you have a chance to even look at her in person, do you? I could look at her. It was always a big real point, man. I couldn't give her a hug, but that's not actually something that's like I addressed

typically to with patients. Okay. Not a job. It's not sustainable. He's allowed to ask it because he made the point that because she's doing telehealth.

She can't see the woman's hands. So sometimes you get clues from how they're moving their hands and their feet. Right. So there is some disadvantage of doing telehealth, but she didn't come up with that. She took quite a beating for a lot of things that really weren't her decision.

But some things were, she didn't know that this woman, her client, had called the suicide hotline. How would she know?

“I mean, how would she ask, ask, ask, if you've called the suicide hotline?”

Ask. She said that she's got everything from the client's mouth and admitted that she didn't pull records because, well, I'm going to just trust what the client's saying. You mean you're really mentally ill client, you're just going to rely upon what she's saying?

Well, yes, because she seemed to know her medication and she seemed to really be knowledgeable. I get it. I understand why she did it, but that's a rookie move. Because she's a rookie. And why she was assigned to this particular patient?

I don't know. I don't know if she was chosen by the patient. I don't know if it was part that she was covered by the health insurance. I don't know. We don't have that information.

That'll be part of the civil suit, too. But this woman took a beating. Her career might be over. Like, I don't know. Her career might be over.

I hope it's not. Let me just say this, she definitely has learned from this and could do a bit of a better job. I know, but I watched the cross. I'm still not convinced that she could have prevented this.

But I don't know. I don't know.

There was not one time where I went, oh my God, she did that.

It was more like, well, you probably should have done that. She should have gotten the records.

“You should have spoken to Patrick the husband to find out something she also didn't”

know. And that was that her own client had voiced that she was going to harm the children. She had thoughts of harming the children. She didn't know about that. Now those are just things like those are failures.

She should know that learning opportunities. Yes. But not that, well, what would she have done differently? I'm still not convinced that I saw any knockout punches that caused me to believe that she was worthy of firing.

I don't want to see. Here's where the, oh, she's getting fired. Here's where the experts are going to help, though, because don't look at this as the shiny object.

In other words, she's getting beat up pretty good by the defense attorney.

You didn't do this. You didn't give her a hug. Give me a fucking break. You didn't do this. And you didn't know this.

And you didn't do that. And here's her medication. But this shrink did not strangle those children. So you still need to form the nexus. You need an expert to say, well, maybe all these failures are why this happened.

If you're going to find the defendant not legally responsible, right? So there's still that very big bridge that needs to be gapped before you can get there. This to me is a red herring. And the jury might buy it if the prosecutor doesn't come in and say, well, well, well, all these failures save it for the civil suit, because that is not the reason that these three

children died, strangling them with her with her rubber bands, or why these children died.

“Well, that's that's what the prosecutors could say defense is going to say.”

She reached her hand out metaphorically, literally, and said, I'm sick. I need help. And she did that for months. And it wasn't just this one psychiatrist. It's the entire profession.

They all failed her. They gave her so many drugs. Maybe they didn't give her the right drug that gave her so off when they shouldn't. Or they told her to go off the so off than they would ever. We're going to hear it from the defenses experts are going to come in there.

I'm going to say, no, that rookie doesn't know what the hell she's doing.

Here's what she did wrong.

And how it could have might have prevented all this. Let's listen to shot six, another moment that the defense had on cross-examination with the psychologist Tufts in a way. Did she went to the ER? Because of Tufts.

So was she treated at the ER? Did they make any to your knowledge as her doctor, make any recommendations? I'm not sure, but they told her, but they ultimately, they ultimately discharged her. They didn't admit her. When you looked at the records themselves, she went perinatal clinic.

What did they indicate about suicidal ideation? What are you worrying about suicide? Close to suicide, anything. I didn't have access to those records. You're going to kick the boy's stuff, so everybody can hear you.

You what? I can't. Come on, dude. Get the camera out. Seriously?

She's visiting with you as a patient and you can't access her medical records. Is what you're telling this, Jerry? I did not have access to them now. Could she have signed a release? I hit the phone?

Yes, she could have. And you could have the records? Yes. But you didn't? I did not feel like it was necessary, because she provided all the relevant information

about our treatment there. Hmm. John, that's a good scoring blow right there. Right? You're treating someone.

Someone who's not there because they're feeling a little off with their husband,

“and they wish their sex life would kick up a bit, right?”

We're talking about someone who talked about harming themselves, and potentially others if she had asked the damn husband to find out, and would have known that. She's treating someone, and this is a volatile situation. You get the damn records from the hospital.

You get her entire history, and you don't rely upon the patient's words. If you're guaranteed you, she will do that differently in the future. If there's a future, but also keep in mind, Mark, listen. Work with me here. Let's say I go start graving mad during this show, right?

I've seen it. All right. It's not hard for me to envision. I go to a shrink. I go to a shrink, and I say, "Dad, I have a hard time envisioning.

You would handle it. You'd wipe knuckle it yourself. Go on." And I say, "I'm feeling start graving mad." Okay?

Now, she would be well with it, and she should. Okay? I want to get your entire psychiatric history. Sign these hip reforms, but when you look at a hip-a-form mark, you've seen them. I have to tell you where I've been treated.

I got to tell you. So if I say, "Yeah, no, I only went to, you know, the humbly bumbley, do we cheat him and how?" Okay. And that's the only record you're going to have.

Now what? Now what does this shrink do? Right? You can all, the patient. She didn't even do that.

It's a problem. But the patient is the one who's reporting this.

How do we know the patient didn't say, "I never, I never had treatment for this before."

And one thing about this defense attorney. He knew darn well like he's doing a great cross examination. He knew that she didn't have access to the records. Don't pull the crap that we see on TV. What?

Could you say that again? He said, "Yeah." He said, "Yeah." He's all that worked. You don't know if he didn't hear it or not.

It was good stuff. But I don't think that there's any excuse. This woman had sessions with her all by all by all. All telehealth the day before.

“But backing up like 14 sessions I think it was.”

You don't think after sessions six, seven, eight, nine. You say, "Hey, listen, I really need to get your records. I need to get a complete picture of what you've been through." So I don't have to rely upon what's flowing from your mouth. And assume that everything you say is accurate.

Someone could look believable, but not be accurate. She can believe certain things, but get it wrong. Why not look at the records?

See what's being prescribed in the past before you start

Doping her up on serious psychotic education. Absolutely. Before you write a script, you better know whether there's scripts. This person is dead. Thank you.

Thank you. Finally. Good. We have something to agree on. We can end this segment on piece and love and positively legal.

We can do that. This case is fascinating. And I don't like the fact that the prosecutor is not objecting so much. And there's one thing we didn't talk about in the segment. She's really not.

She's just letting this roll. You're right. I noticed that. He's going off. He's going.

I can't believe nobody shut me down. And she's not interrupting the flow. We didn't get to talk about the bow.

But here's a little teaser.

We will. You and I are both going to talk about it later on in the show. The bow. They don't know what that means. We'll talk.

It's the bow and the prosecutors hair. And it's more than just a trivial thing. It's so significant that John and I independently came up with our rants.

“That's what we're going to be ranting about.”

We're going to be talking about that soon. Stick around. She's worn a bow weight. She's worn a bow every day of this trial. But too.

Right. We'll talk back on this. All right. When we come back. Welcome back to positively legal.

We're going to go off the record in just a moment. John and I are going to rant. Coincidentally about the same subject matter. I kept it that happened. That was not planned.

But we're going to talk about John's favorite subject. Apparently the lawyer who is canoe to link with another lawyer in central park. Why do we care about this, John? Here's why we can't. Well, first of all.

Yes. Two lawyers. Yes. Sitting in a park. We're not talking canoe to link.

No. Mark. No. We're sobering all over. What's the difference between canoe to link?

And maybe our viewers can let us know. Noodle link to me can be kind of cute. Like, you know, canoe snuggling up. Yeah. Sucking face.

Here we go. There was a video. Yeah. Ooh. Right.

Snuck's fake. That looks that actually looks fake. It looks fake. It looks like, you know, those fake videos you see on tiktok. And oh, but that's real.

They were really sucking face. Sucking face. And that is conduct, unbecoming of any lawyer in public. No. Yeah.

Hold on. Lawyers can't suck face in public. I can't kill my wife of 26 years with tongue in public. I was just saying, John. Even if it were your own spouse or significant other.

It is not a good look. Imagine. Okay. So look. Okay.

Here. Case in point. You don't like to look turn away. Go on. Oh, please.

Please. So I can't wear a dress to a court appearance as opposed to a suit.

“Can you imagine if the clients of these two lawyers who incidentally for the record?”

They are not. He apparently is married to somebody else or maybe a strangely married to somebody else. Now you're getting into it. Go. hunger, co-worker, be the client. And actually no, first, be the boss, knowing full well that your client's sick. I don't have any. The guy who took this picture has like six million. You know, he's an influencer who doesn't do anything, but, you know, makes millions of dollars. He's four and five years old and he married. Let's get to the juice of it, right? This is why it's wrong. Not because he's stick it. It's even if it were to make it. It would be wrong. I don't that we disagree. But now let's move on.

That's a story as old as dirt. Yes. Well, that gets me going a little bit. She's the nine years old Kelsey Boren's wife. You know, this exploded on social media last week.

Yeah, it's so embarrassing. It's such a terrible look. So clients could, could you like guilty face clients? It's just horrible. Right. So he and I don't, you know, whatever's going on with him in his wife. Okay, that's his business. So have to handle that stuff at home. But you should never do anything when you're a lawyer. You know, Mark, you're even when you're playing pickleball. You're a lawyer, right? When we went out to Vegas to crime con, we were lawyers. You are a lawyer 24/7. You can act like an asshole. You shouldn't act like an asshole even when you're off the clock.

“I don't disagree. I don't think that you should be making out what someone is not your wife in public. But I agree that you can.”

And I think it's beautiful if people like me in my wife of 26 years who are going away on Thursday for a nice little getaway that we make Kissy Kiss in public. There's nothing wrong with that.

I'm a little bit. It's fine. You know, nice little hug, a little peck. Okay. I say we let the viewers decide. Let them decide. John has a problem with people with PDF and public. That's her issue. I don't like it. Again, again, if I'm wrong, you let me know comment below. Like and subscribe. No comment below and let us know who's right on this. This is such a lot here. Again, hold on. Hold on. I don't know if I am. I'm just saying nearly wrong if it's within associated law firm and clearly wrong if you're not married.

But two married people or a guy in a gal who are dating and they have strong emotions for each other and they just can't control it and they let it go in public in central Park let's say or in my case at the hard rock Thursday night when I'm celebrating my 20s is winning anniversary with my wife.

And let's just say the spirit moves us and we kiss each other, John, how dare you say it's wrong.

Congratulations on 26 years. That's what I'm going to thank you. The boss of these two, at least the boss of the dude who was married in sucking face he lost out on a big opportunity.

“I think he was going to jump ship for some more lucrative position that's not happening. Why? Why? Because maybe those people agree with me that you should not be sucking face.”

Yeah, well, maybe again. Again, next week we will let you know. I want everyone to vote. Put your thoughts down below in the in the comment section. We'll deal with that. All right. You ready to rant, Johnna. You ready to rant? Let. Yes, but let's tell. Let's tell everybody the deal here. Okay. Mark and I discovered some so we rant every week. It's my favorite part of the show. I get teased because my rants are a little long-winded social. You think. But today today we we happen to be a so this will air on Wednesday on Tuesday. We were together on making kelly's show.

Yeah, we were we were talking and when we ended that show. I said, Oh, Mark, you can love my rant today and Mark said, Oh, how many hours is it? And I'm like, I only like 30 minutes.

“So it turns out that you're talking to rant on the same subject. So here's what I think our listeners or viewers should do. You know they remember the episode of I love Lucy.”

We're Lucy and Ethel were on a stage at the same time wearing the same dress and they didn't know that that was going to happen. So they're seeing this song. Lucy starts pulling pieces off of Ethel's dress. So they don't look exactly the same. That's kind of like us today, only in a written version. But we'll see we'll see if we come out of different angles. All right. I'm going to start because I want to start and because I like to you know go first when we're talking on the same subject matter fine. Good.

All right. We ready. Here we go. So a lot is being made about the bow in the prosecutors hair during the Lindsey Clancy murder trial. Some people are saying, Well, it's just a bow. It's a piece of clothing. No big deal that she has worn every single day of trial, except for just two. So there's like myself see it not just as a piece of clothing. In fact, a stronger argument is that she's wearing that bow to show solidarity with the eldest of the three child victims. Cora loved bows. She's the five year old and the prosecutor explained that that she wore those bows in her hair the same way the prosecutors doing in court. So it's become a silent courtroom argument.

The argument essentially is one that generates more emotion in an already extremely emotional case. A courtroom, especially this trial, is not a stage for silent symbolism, but that's what it's become.

How about tomorrow? She wears a bracelet with a photograph of each of the three kids who were killed by the defendant and those photos are visible to the jury. How about that?

“Or let's flip to the defense. Let's say the defense lawyer wears a black armband every day with the words mental illness is real.”

How about that? Or a pin showing a broken brain to symbolize psychosis or my favorite. How about a big button that says not guilty by a reason of insanity. I mean, where does it end? It's a court of law where jurors are told by the judge number one that sympathy plays no role here and number two that their decisions shall, meaning must, be made exclusively based on the evidence presented and the law provided sympathy plays no role. The most profound way that we honor the victims in this case isn't by wearing a bow.

It's by trying this case fairly. And her wearing a bow in her hair. That's not fair. Mark. Johnna. First, I love the ending once again.

You're a poet. Thank you. And you know it. Second, mine is quite different and the reason is this devil wears Prada and I have a different take on the bow. Let's go. Okay. The Lindsey Clancy trial involves horrifying allegations complex psychiatric evidence postpartum mental health criminal responsibility and questions that will determine whether a woman is legally excused from ending the lives of her three precious beautiful innocent children.

And yet somehow sitting at the prosecution table, we have a bow.

Not a subtle little clip, not a functional. I need to keep my hair out of my face while I prosecute a triple murder case situation. No. We have a big ass agent appropriate undeniably distracting bow.

“If you want to accuse me of accessory discrimination, hold up. It's not so much the accessory that is the problem. It is the setting in which the accessory is being displayed.”

If you want to wear a scrunchie to the gym, have at it. A tiara to the grocery store, you do you. But courtrooms are different. I have been a lawyer for more than half my life and one thing I've learned over the years is that everything communicates something to a jury, whether you want it to or not. Your suit, your shoes, your well-timed yarn, an extra long pause between questions, fiddling with your pen, even the frequency with which you shuffle through your notes, can and will be enough of a shiny object to take attention away from one thing and put it on that thing.

“If you want to throw an opponent off-kilter during his or her line of questioning in a courtroom without saying a word, open your briefcase and start pulling shit out and placing it on the table in front of you.”

As if you're about to do a side-by-side comparison of yellow pads, and then pretend to be unimpressed as your opposing counsel's train of thought develops a slow but definite leak. Back to my point. When you're prosecuting one of the darkest cases imaginable and you walk into court looking like you took beauty advice from Daisy Duck, I have a problem. But this isn't about fashion. It's about focus. Defense attorneys put a lot of thought into how defendants appear to juries, street clothes or jumpsuit, makeup or no makeup, turtle neck or t-shirt. Meanwhile, apparently nobody at this DA's office had second thoughts about what a jury would be thinking while staring at the back of the lead prosecutors ed.

And maybe I'm old school, but when you stand up and say ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the evidence will show, they should be thinking about the evidence and not whether the person presenting it has intentionally fastened some kind of message to her skull. And that's the problem. Court room credibility is theater, whether lawyers like admitting it or not. You want jurors focused on your wisdom, not your accessories, especially when those accessories appear plucked fresh from a two for one sale at Claire's.

I can't get away with that. Obviously, I couldn't criticize how she looks. You can't. I can.

“Wow, I am grateful for you, John. This is grateful now. I am grateful for you. You make me laugh. I like your thoughts. I have fun with you each week.”

It really is. It's really nice. I'm grateful also for my wife 26 years of marriage coming up this Thursday.

I'm grateful for my kids grateful for the life that I have and the last breath that I took you.

“First, again, congratulations on 26 years. I am genuinely happy for you and that makes my heart sing. It really does nice. Thank you.”

Did I ever tell you that my parents are have been married for I'm not going to tell you how long cause then that will people with S my age. It's rare. It's rare these days.

“And I'm grateful for my parents and I'm grateful that we got to be on Megan Kelly show together. I'm grateful for our producers and I'm grateful that I wear dresses and not suits to court and other girl.”

Yes. Out of girl. All right. Well, I look forward. The week is going to fly by. I'll see you back here again in one week and we are extremely grateful for all of you. I mean, thank you. We read every comment. I promise you. I read every single comment. The good, the bad and the ugly. I share some with Jonathan when she doesn't see them.

I'm encouraging her always to keep looking and we want to get better if you have any suggestions you like us know.

And we look forward to seeing you next week. I hope you choose to have a wonderful week. - Thank you.