Verdict Looms in Lindsay Clancy Case as Jury Deliberations Continue, with Lauren Matthias

Welcome to the MK True Crime Show. I'm Dave Aaronberg, aka the Florida Lawman, former state attorney for Palm Beach County and current managing partner of Dave Aaronberg Law. And I'm joined by my co-host Phil Holloway, criminal defense lawyer, former prosecutor and former police officer in Atlanta, GA. Hello, Philip.

How are you, Diamond Dave? Always happy to be here with you, my friend.

“I love these shows that we do together, especially when we get to talk about things that are not happening in Florida sometimes, right?”

So, when does that ever happen? It's always a Florida connection. Yeah, so it seems like this is the unusual show where we don't have anything Florida today, but let's talk about what we do have on our docket. Of course, we got Lindsey Clancy. Her trial is all but over the jury is deliberating her fate. At the time of this recording, the deliberations have been ongoing now for approximately 16 hours.

And here on Tuesday afternoon around 4 o'clock, they were released for the day to return, which is today as you're watching the show on Wednesday morning. We will review the trials closing arguments and the jury charges as we await a verdict. And singer David Pled, not guilty to all charges that is a raven hearing on Monday will bring you the list. And later in the program, we have hidden true crime co-host Lauren Matthias will join us to

discuss her coverage so far of the Clancy trial and the research that she has done on similar cases, including her conversation with Andrea Yates attorney. The first Dave, as of this recording on Monday, as we just discussed, the jury has not reached any kind of verdict. Didn't have any questions either, but they did want to go home at 4 o'clock.

“What do you have to say about that, buddy?”

I think they're in for the long haul here, because I've always thought this case was overcharged

that they would not get a first-degree murder conviction. I could be wrong, we'll see soon enough. But I think that the lesser charges have always been in play, and prosecutors got a victory when the judge allowed the lesser charges, including involuntary manslaughter, well, that's the one into the verdict form, because that is the one I think that jurors are going to struggle with. Because it could be a compromise on the other hand, it's not a perfect fit. I mean,

either she's mentally incapacitated or she's not, and that would sort of void either first-degree murder, or any criminal responsibility if she couldn't control her actions and didn't know the difference between right and wrong. So the reason why I think that this lesser include a fence of involuntary manslaughter is in play is because jurors are human like everyone else,

“and they want to compromise. They don't like what she did at the same time. I think they struggle”

putting her in prison for the rest of her life if she's convicted of first- or second-degree murder.

She is a sympathetic figure in a wheelchair crying in front of them, and she does have legitimate mental health issues. And so I think that's a compromise, especially the longer the case deliberations go on, perhaps that's where they end up, or they could end up with a knock-outy by reason of insanity, which means she goes to a mental institution, not home. So either way, she's not walking free. Yeah, I agree, and there's a lot of weird things that are going on here

now at the end of this trial, and I want to start with, because I do want to get into the closings, because I've got quite a lot, I think I want to say about the closing arguments for both sides, but the judge, before we heard any of the closing arguments, the judge did a part of his charge to the jury, and in that preliminary part of his charge, he basically told them, he said, "Look, if you find her not guilty by a reason of insanity, you know, she's not going home,

she's going to be sent to involuntarily to a state mental lock-up, and there she could, you know, she could stay there, conceivably for the rest of her life, look at John Hinkley. He didn't stay there for his whole life, but he stayed there for a very, very, very long time, and I think it's fair to say that even though she might be no longer suffering from the same exact mental problems that she had back when the children died, then you know, she still would probably not

be released, even if they thought maybe she could be released. They have a tendency to sort of think like prosecutors, on these high-profile cases, I just don't think that even if she's competent or otherwise well, I don't think that she would be released anytime soon, but they have did you hear that the judge has instructed these jurors what the maximum penalty would be

this is not normal. Normally, the jury is not supposed to consider punishment, so they're not even told what the result would be of their verdict, except obviously if it were a death penalty case, and they were deciding death, but normally speaking, you want a jury to decide guilt or innocence based on the facts of the case, and what they're hearing the courtroom without considering what kind of punishment they might get, but here, here he did that and he told them so they know,

and so the question I got, Dave, is could this lead to something in the jury room where the jurors

are basically negotiating amongst themselves for what kind of sentence she could get if they can't

“reach them outright verdict? That's why generally you don't tell them because then that in gender”

sympathy, you've got a woman in the wheelchair crying in front of them, and now you're telling the jury that if you find her guilty of either of the two murders, she's spending her life in prison, not a mental ward in prison, although you do get eligibility for parole if you can make the second room murder, but not first room murder in Massachusetts. So it is unusual for the judge to do it, you know, under Massachusetts law, the judge is permitted to do so, and the defense has to

request that apparently, which of course you know they did, that's only in terms of the benefit of the defense that the defense wants the jurors to hear that this poor little lady of

sympathy for who's sitting right near them, who will never walk in her life, will end up behind bars

“in a strict facility, a prison for the rest of her life, so that's that helps the defense definitely.”

Yeah, and you know, I don't understand this whole manslaughter charge. I just to me, I mean, you, I'm just smarter than me, so maybe you can help me understand how it makes sense to even have manslaughter, you know, if you're the prosecutor, I don't think you want manslaughter in there because you want the big sentence, right, on the murder charge. If you're the defense lawyer, presumably you want the mental institution. You won't what's behind door number two,

which is a mental institution for some period of time, but if the jury compromises or whatever and settles on this manslaughter, that's jail, that's prison. Up to 20 years per count, three days up to the right, so it can be effectively a life sentence. Yeah, well, it's up to the judge to decide whether it's consecutive or concurrent, do they run at the same time or is it one after the next after the next? You know, I, I believe that it's in play for the purpose of being a compromise,

and they want to go home, and that's a possibility plus, at least when it comes to manslaughter, you don't have the deliberate premeditated, just the evil state of mind that you would have to have

“for the murder convictions manslaughter, you have to act recklessly, but you have to know what you”

did was reckless, and if you don't have the capacity to know what you're doing as wrong and don't and can't control your actions, it's really not even manslaughter, you don't have criminal mobility, but I understand it. Well, I say this because I'm a pragmatist, and I just think it's the compromise choice and something jurors could settle on. Yes, it's stuffing a round peg in a square hole or vice versa, and that is an issue, but maybe that's an issue on appeal, but I do think it

gives the jurors a chance to go home. Dave, I can't wait to talk with you. I know we've talked some offline about it, but I can't wait to discuss with you on this program sort of the, we want to critique the closing arguments because that's the last we saw of anything in the courtroom other than the jury note. So I want to start with, we have sought one, which is part of the defense

closing, where Remington basically tells the jury that the prosecutors ripped the sole out of this

girl, meaning his client, Lindsay, Plancy, let's check it out. I don't care how many coaching out in here, how many VA's are sitting here, how many people are sitting in the front row, and they're all going to sit there and be proud of this prosecution. I told you in the opening statement that this is a prosecution that has ripped the sole out of this girl. This is what they had, this is their family. How does this turn into this? How? Because the damn medicine

and the lousy medical care that she got. For those of you who are listening on podcast, thank

You can go to mktrukram.com and find all the links and you can subscribe to our YouTube channel

“because you'll see on that site what Remington was holding up was pictures of the family in”

happier times. I wanted to clarify what we were just looking at, and I know I've got some thoughts, but I'll let you go. No, I'm glad you said what he was holding, I couldn't quite see the

image, the second image. I know the first image he was showing a picture of a beautiful family,

the second image, what was that that he was holding up? It was another picture of the family, but also he had his right hand and he really couldn't see it because it was not all that clear, but that was like a crime scene photo. So is that how can he go from this to the crime scene? What did you think of him going after the prosecution? Now, I'm sure he would explain to the judge. No, I'm not bashing the prosecutors individually for tearing the family apart. I'm saying the

fact that she's been prosecuted all, but I, as a former prosecutor, I didn't like the fact that he is pretty much saying, you know, look, look what they've done. These prosecutors have ripped the soul out of this girl. I know he's going to say, I'm not talking about these prosecutors, but I think the implication is there, shame on these individuals for doing their jobs, so I didn't really like that too much. Well, I didn't like it either because you know what,

what, I would be thinking, you know, what about the children whose souls were actually literally stolen and ripped away from them, good point by his client, whether she was mentally ill

“or not. That's what she did to them. So I found it to be a little, um, putting off, or off-putting,”

I guess, is where I should say it was off-putting for me to hear him, and there were showing the pictures of the families on the screen for those of you watching on YouTube. That's what he was showing in the courtroom. But it was off-putting for me to hear him say that because I keep thinking about, you know, this is about this kid. Did you know that a bag of cat food labeled natural has zero legal definition behind it? In fact, natural is largely unregulated

in the pet food industry. Isn't that outrageous? But I want to tell you about one of our sponsors, smalls. They make fresh human-grade food for cats. It's made from the same stuff you were I would eat, but formulated specifically to help cats thrive. Cats need lots of real meat to stay healthy. Most cat foods out there use meat by products, and they cut their food with cheap grains,

“fillers, and artificial ingredients. But smalls is different. Their fresh recipes are made with”

over 80% animal protein, giving cats the nutrition they need to thrive. Cat parents report noticing better digestion, softer shine in your coats, and more energy for play after switching to smalls. So stop serving your little carnivore, a bowl of processed shortcuts for a limited time,

get 60, I say, 60% off your first order, plus free shipping, and free treats for life

when you head to smalls.com/truecrime. That's 60% off your first order, plus free shipping, and free treats for life when you head to smalls.com/truecrime. I said I want to talk to you about some critique of the closing. So I want to critique prosecutor on that note because the prosecutor started out by talking about this is basically admitting that she has a mental health problem, that she has a serious mental

health issue, and she validates everything that the defense was saying. Instead, like if it was my case, I would have come out swinging and talking about the children, and I would have talked about the horrific act that she carried out because I want the jury focusing on that, more so than focusing

on her, but they right out of the gate basically validated a big chunk of the defense's closing day.

Yeah, that was interesting. We'll play that, and then I also want to play the quarters that the defense letter ranked and put out. I thought that was unusual, and I want to get your thoughts on that, but let's play that prosecutions closing out. They started in a pretty unusual way, soft for her. All of the evidence that you've heard, even the experts that the Commonwealth put before you say that she was suffering with a mental illness, and she tried to kill herself.

That's not the issue in this trial. The issue is whether at the time she killed Kora Dawson County, she knew the difference between right and wrong, and whether she could conform her behavior to the requirements of the law. This case is not about our mental health system, or how it treats women, or what's in the DSM5 and what's not. That's a distraction to get you

trial here, what the issue is here, is what Lindsey Clancy did, the night of January 24, 2023,

“and what her mental state was at the time. I think that's an important part. By the way,”

I would say that on balance, I think the prosecutor, if you had to say the one closing, I'd say the prosecutor won the closing. Yes, and that was an important thing, but you're right, I just would not bring it out right out of the gate like that. Exactly. Give her an aid for the closing. You was, I thought, not only their best moment, but the biggest difference is at least their advantage over the defense. The defense has done very well this trial, and I thought the

prosecution has had some missteps, but the closings, they were for the prosecution, and if this

case somehow won by the state, or actually the Commonwealth, then I think it may be the raren, since we're closing, help some win, because normally closing the cake is baked,

“it's already over by then. Here is one time when the close may have shifted some votes,”

but I want to get your thoughts about the quarters. Part of the problem with writing since closing, it seemed like it was all over the place, and he had some demonstrative little techniques here. I mean, he threw quarters on the table. Let's play that and let's go and talk about it.

Sob 3. Watch the evidence, watch the manipulation, the argument with the bands. She took the bands out

of the bag, but gloves are tucked to doctor, like I said, on the zone, slams the bands down, out of the paper bag, does the movement of the bands and yells it like I said, and says, right, do we just round? It weren't knotted because you got to get Lindsey tightening the band, right? You got to hold it. That's why she needed the bands, not knotted, and then she said,

“it's like this, and they spraying open. Remember that? Dr. Lappa said,”

yeah, I saw what you did, and she walked away like if the gloves were on fit moment, quite on number 2. What did Patrick Plancy testify to? You heard his testimony, he indicated clearly, unequivocally, they were nodded around the next, those children. Dave, let me just say this. I would have expected a prosecutor to kind of give the jury a visual image, maybe, or sort of a recreation of what the murder or the killing would have been like,

but I would not have expected the defense lawyer to stand in front of the jury, and essentially hand the jury that that visualization of his client taking the lives of her children. So that's just one of the things I would say was a misstep on part of Reddington. He just generally, to me, didn't seem that focused. His closing was meandering. It was kind of wandering around. It didn't seem to have a coherent theme to it, and most of all, Dave, he did not spend a lot of

time, at least in an organized way, saying, look, ladies and gentlemen, here's the instruction as the judge is going to give you about, you know, not guilty about reason of insanity. And here's the instruction, the judge is going to give you about proof beyond the reasonable doubt. Now, he did touch on it, I give him that, but he didn't say, look, you put this together, you apply it to the facts of the case, you apply it to the evidence that we've brought you, what our witnesses have said,

and then you have no option, but to find her not guilty about reason of insanity, because as the judge will tell you, it would be your duty to acquit. And then once you go back to that jury room, fill in the verdict form accordingly, he didn't really strongly make that point to the jury. So he was just seem to be wandering around. The prosecution did better. They wanted a little bit less, but even there seemed a little bit less organized than I would have expected.

Yeah, after one thing about the court, if he was a courter on the table every time, he referenced what he thought was a manipulation of the evidence by the prosecution. So over a weird thing, looks like a drinking game. So let's, let's go to David, because we have to go to Brakeson, but you know, in the David case, the rapper D4 VD, done spell like I do. He has a new lawyer now, apparently he fired his lawyer. Now he's going to

use a public defender. What's going on there? In LGA, right? Well, at least for now, that's the case.

charges goes for an arrangement. They plead not guilty. And then later on, if they cut a plea

“deal, then they cut a plea deal. And you can switch that back from a not guilty. You can switch”

your plea to guilty. But by pleading not guilty, it preserves all of his constitutional rights, including his trial right. But for whatever reason, he's decided he did not want to keep his

current lawyer. And so basically, he shows up in court and he says, look, you know, judge,

I don't want Blair Burke anymore. He's, for now, all being represented by the public defenders office. Now, we don't know what the reason is for that. But, you know, we see a lot of this in these high profile cases, Dave, where these, you know, wealthy celebrities will hire expensive lawyers and then for whatever reason that we can have two weeks later or whatever, the expensive lawyers out of the case and they're back with the public defender until they make up their mind.

And they find somebody else that they want to retain. So public defender for now,

“I don't think it's going to stay that way. I'm sure he'll hire someone.”

All right. Well, this case being out in Los Angeles, the DA, there is Nathan Hockman,

who is tough on crime and people are wondering, well, are you going to seek the death penalty what's going on? A sought aid he discusses when the decision will be made. At that agreement, David Anthony Burke entered, not guilty, please, on all three charges. In addition, David Anthony Burke has substituted his counsel of record out before it was Blair Burke. Now, we'll be someone in the public defender's office. The last thing that we'll have to be decided and that's a decision

by myself as the district attorney is whether or not we'll be seeking the death penalty in this case. We had invited David Anthony Burke's prior counsel to submit what's called a mitigation

package to the district attorney's office for consideration. A mitigation packet are factors

that we are to consider why we should not bring the death penalty in this case. We had not received that mitigation practice packet as of today. Maybe Dave, just maybe just follow me here. Maybe it's maybe the fact that his lawyer did not submit the mitigation package to the DA. Maybe that's the reason he decided to go in another direction or maybe maybe they had some difference of opinion on what might need to go in such a mitigation packet because look,

if you can get the DA to take the death penalty off the table, then you've won a big chunk of the battle in this case. That is a win and especially when you have a very tough on crime DA. Remember he was voted in after the last guy. Garth Son was voted out and then immediately came in and said, we're not going to give up on them and end his brothers. We're not keeping behind bars. And now he's got another big celebrity because he's in Southern California and that's David and we're going to

keep following it here on the MK True Crime Show. And next, the coast of Hidden True Crime, Lauren Matthias will join us to discuss the final stretch of Lindsey Clancy's murder trial. Stay tuned. Everybody's talking about weight loss injections because the results are so dramatic. They work by lowering blood sugar and reducing appetite. So what if you're looking to lose weight but not interested in painful weekly injections, especially when you hear about some of those intense

“side effects? That's why doctors create a weight loss supplement called lean and the results are”

remarkable. The studied ingredients in lean have been shown to lower your blood sugar, burn fat by converting it into energy and curb your appetite and craving. So you're not as hungry. But listen, lean is not for the casual diet or with only a few pounds of loose. The doctor's at Burick House Nutrition created lean for frustrated dieters with 10 or more pounds to lose. So let's get you started with 20% off and free rush shipping so you can add lean to your

healthy diet and exercise plan. Visit takeline.com and enter MK for your discount. That's promo code MK at takeline.com. Welcome back to the MK True Crime Show. Joining us now is the host of Hidden True Crime. Lauren Matthias. Welcome Lauren. We appreciate you coming to join us. You've been a great resource. You've been doing some great coverage of this Lindsay Clancy trial on Hidden True Crime. So to kick it off, let's just go ahead and open up the floor to you and tell us

what are your thoughts on the trial so far? Thanks for asking me the trial so far. I do have a lot more opinions than I report on on Hidden True Crime because we try to keep things as neutral as we

what do I think about the trial so far? It's been fascinating. I think one reason it's so that it's grabbed the nation's attention is like many cases. It's fill aside. It's just hard to imagine a mother who seems to have it all to do this to three beautiful children. And it also is similar to Andrea Yates case. So this is a discussion about women's health, postpartum psychosis,

“whether we know about enough or whether we don't. And it's about punishment too. What what punishment?”

What does justice look like for these three beautiful children? We, I think as a nation, everybody wants justice for these children. But what that justice looks like for Cora, for Dawson and Kalin is very divided. And then you have a big red, a well-known high-profile defense attorney fighting so hard for his client while you have the prosecution that I actually

call the Puritan prosecution of Plymouth, you know, fighting for first-degree murder, cruelty,

malice, you can't get two things, you know, so far apart. Yes, there are two other options for in-between. You've got manslaughter, you have second-degree murder. So this jury is also forced with four choices, the prosecution going all, you know, all the way to malice, cruelty, first-degree murder, and the defense saying innocent, essentially, because of insanity or postpartum

“psychosis. This is fascinating. And now it's taking the jury so long to deliberate that I think”

it's what all of us suspected if the country's divided, the jury is going to be divided too. And that's clear now. Is the country that divided it sounds like, at least when I go online,

that mostly the country seems to support her, at least on the first-degree murder charge. I do

think that manslaughter could be a compromise verdict. So my question is, you learn it's first, do you think the country is that divided or is it seem like a strong slant for her? And secondly, do you think the involuntary manslaughter would be the compromise verdict that allowed them to go home? So they don't spend the rest of the week in a jury room? You know, I think the country is that divided. Interestingly enough,

the majority on hidden to crime, chatting and the live streams, they are supporting Lindsay Clancy and believe she's innocent, but you go to another channel and it depends on the viewers,

they are saying, you know, this is first-degree murder, this was planned to get Patrick Clancy out of

the house. And that's, I do, I do believe the country is that divided. And I do suspect, and I sat in the courtroom for the first two weeks too, talking to everyone there and the media. It is very interesting. The courtroom, those in the courtroom are also divided. And then to see the jury allegedly, you know, we can't see the jury, but allegedly, I've heard that one jur came in pink shorts and another jur came in a pink top. So that would signal,

you know, the other jury is not allowed to discuss this case, right? But how do you, how do you avoid hearing women and pink cheering outside of the courthouse, right? Like, that's good. I mean, I don't know. Do you think that they were these jurors, because that is true, that did happen. But do you think it's because they are, I've already made up their mind, and they are, they're, you know, advocate for Lindsay Clancy in the jury room,

or do you think maybe they just happened to have something in their wardrobe that had the color

“pink in it, and maybe it's just a coincidence, because I really don't know, but I think it's”

certainly an interesting question because the judge has been criticized, you know, for not sequestering these jurors, and by the way, I want to get your answer to that, but to echo something that Dave said, when you go out in public, people will say, hey, Phil, I know y'all are talking about this Clancy trial, you know, and they'll say that she's obviously has, you know, serious mental health problems, and they, they feel some particularly mothers and women and women who have had postpartum,

specifically, they feel some kind of connection to her. They feel like they can identify with her,

I mean, I could see a jury saying not guilty, or I could see a Hungary, even, which may actually

“be more likely. I think a Hungary is very likely in this case, because if you have a few jurors”

saying, this is first degree, and you have a few jurors saying, she's completely innocent, and none of them want a bud, what do you do? I do appreciate that manslaughter has been put as an option. I think that could be a middle ground, but I, and you're right, I want to say,

absolutely, we will never know if these jurors, it was just coincidence, and they happened to have

this and their, their wardrobe, and it was the only clean thing they had. I've certainly dressed like that before I'm like, I haven't done my laundry in two weeks, and this is, this is what I got. But when it comes to women's health, absolutely, I think the women's setting outside, it's not necessarily, they are supporting Lindsay, but it's not necessarily about Lindsay, it's about the recognition of women's postpartum health and the fact that you have had multiple psychologists

and psychiatrists on stand, and they're all differing in their opinion, yet all of them say

that postpartum psychosis isn't even a diagnosis and the DSM, that is, is telling these women,

this hasn't been studied enough, and I did interview a woman, a friend of mine, who did have postpartum psychosis 21 years ago, and she explained it in depth, and she said, I didn't tell anyone, or any of my doctors because I was so ashamed and I thought my children or my child,

“it's using me, my child wouldn't be taken away. And I think that that's resonating with a lot of”

women who have experienced postpartum psychosis, at least from the comments on that particular interview, the comments are, are women after women saying, thank you, nobody understood me,

I felt so ashamed for decades, I thought I was alone, oh my goodness, I now feel like I

I've lost some shame when it comes to this. And so I think one good thing that will could come out of this trial, which I hope does, no matter what the jury comes to, is maybe a larger conversation about women's postpartum health, because a lot of women are coming forward, and you know, Andrea Yates Case was similar, right? But that was 2000, I think she killed her children in the bathtub horrific, horrific. In 2001, the trial, two trials happened, you know,

later, that was before social media was really everywhere, and or or or even was available, and to now have women being able to share, I am Lindsay Glancy, or I've experienced this, is kind of a new interesting part of this trial decades later. Lauren, it's really helpful because the motivation still bothers people why she would kill her kids and not just herself before she killed her kids, because if she was having those thoughts,

why did she kill them burst and before trying to kill herself? And one of the experts who is really been very insightful, this is a guy you know, well, Dr. John Matthias, that's the co-host of Hidden True Crime, your husband. Now, very interesting, as a psychiatrist, he offered that explanation about the motivations that I'd like you to go into a little bit, it's like narcissism perhaps acting

“out of a, can you go into that a little bit? Yeah, I think he was throwing in this discussion about”

narcissism that people have like your either, you know, there's there's not, is she the narcissistic mother that is committing an altruistic fielicide, meaning, which is essentially what the prosecution's last witness in rebuttals kind of also suggested that this was an altruistic fielicide, meaning the killing of children, not for, not to hurt them or for a really strong motive, but mostly, you know, she's not doing well and she thinks that she should take her

children with her, that's one piece of, could that be the motive, right? Then though. And if I can't, if I can't, if I can't come into that in real quick, because we have, along with we have a sod on that, if I can cut in, then get your thoughts, not 10 or Dr. John is talking about it. Yeah, yeah. Why does she take the children with her? Right. That's a big

And I think that my answer to that is essentially that I think the children become

the external manifestations of her own internal conflicts as a mother. That doesn't necessarily, that doesn't necessarily negate the defense's argument, by the way, because you could argue that part of that has to do with the fact that she lacks self-awareness because she's transferred that self-awareness to this voice, to these voices, and to this command. If she's doing that, then criminal responsibility comes into play.

If she has this internal turmoil about her kids and about her motherhood and being a good,

and she has that awareness, and she knows that she doesn't have to murder the kids to feel

“better about herself, essentially, then that's a problem. Then you have to say she is responsible.”

She's criminally responsible. She could have, right, she could have curtailed her behavior and made the requirements of the law, and that this becomes extremely narcissistic. Right. So, there's a fine line there. There is. Yeah, there is. I mean, it's, you know, it's, this whole thing is fascinating to me because we, you've got this emotional piece of it where everybody's really, like, just very, very angry

at Lindsey Clancy because she, you know, obviously murdered her, her children and she's got to be locked away

forever, and that's a natural human instinct. I get that. But then you have folks who look at it sort of academically, the way that your husband was there and the way lawyers are where we're saying, okay, if you take the emotion out of it on an academic level, you know, there's an interesting aspect of criminal law, especially in this state of Massachusetts that forces the prosecutor to disapprove that she was mentally ill, you know, beyond reasonable doubt. And so the burden is on

“the prosecutor to disapprove these things. So, I think that the jury is, you know, they could have”

benefited from John's take on that because that's one of the more interesting and plausible motives that I've heard discussed. So anyway, I didn't mean to cut you off, but if you have any extra thoughts on John's theory, that would be interesting to hear. Yeah, no, thank you. I think I think he was at that moment sort of saying this, this could be a problem, but he admits he doesn't know, right? He's not sure he's lay now, as you said academically, the potential there. He also

starts, it's actually quite a long show. And he starts actually with the fact that he believes the lack of sleep is being underplayed, the insomnia. I mean, a lack of sleep is used in torture,

“you know, people literally go insane from a lack of sleep. He also brought up, what was interesting”

about command hallucinations and just simply intrusive thoughts. And John said something really interesting to me and helped me understand because I'm having a hard time listening to this trial everyday, going, what is the difference between intrusive thoughts and command hallucinations, psychosis, right? It's like, we don't know if you haven't experienced it. And so he explained that Lindsey is a perfectionist. Lindsey did, he believed, want to be the perfect and best mother

that she did love her children. And so when she started experiencing mental health, post-partum anxiety, then and intrusive thoughts, which are, you know, things that you know you're saying to yourself that are negative, that a perfectionist can then start to feel shame, deep, deep shame about what they're thinking or maybe even maybe even hurting her children or harming her children. But she's not being completely honest with the doctors because of that deep shame. And then a command hallucination

could be essentially her internal thoughts, but there's so much shame involved that you put that intrusive thought outside of yourself, thus it becomes a command hallucination because you want that voice to be from somebody else. In other words, and that's oftentimes how command hallucinations or hearing another voice does happen. Yeah. Well, before we conclude, that's so interesting.

out there. He was called by the prosecution. And then he resigned his role from the children's health hospital in Delaware on August 24. So that timing is so interesting. He was the common walls first or bustle witness. So he testified on Friday the 21st and Monday the 24th. So he resigned the same day. Complete his cross-examination testimony. Well, what's going on here? Have you ever seen this

kind of thing before? Never. A lot of people calling him Mack the Quack honestly on my side of

things. But it was interesting that the judge had to jump in when he was on cross-exam and Readington was asking all of these questions to him that he couldn't simply say yes or no to. And he got so defensive. And I've never seen a judge have to jump in and say, like, literally,

“you need to start saying yes or no. I mean, the judge was, you know, all the objections,”

he was like, yeah, yeah, like you got to answer yes or no, you know, Readington is saying this. But when he still will not answer yes or no to a yes or no question, the judge jumps in as like, look, bro, you got to start saying yes or no. And I think, I mean, I think that the public was a little disturbed by that too, whether or not you agreed with his assessment. He was, he was, I mean, he was up, you know, he was kind of a hostile witness. I don't know. You guys, you guys have

the legal. He didn't talk. He didn't come across very, he didn't come across as a neutral sort of a professional there to offer an opinion. But in the few minutes that we've got left with even before we let you go, I want to talk to you about there's been some interesting pop culture developments that seem to have taken over since this case became very popular at least on social media. For example, we have the situation where people are saying, look, I'm going to break up with

you over your beliefs or your thoughts on the Lindsey Clancy case. We're seeing reports of people ending these romantic relationships. One ex-user claimed his brother called off his upcoming wedding just two weeks away, by the way, because his fiance expressed support for Lindsey Clancy. Are you seeing any of this on the film on your channel? Can we play the soft 12? Because there's a woman

“on TikTok who was talking about this. I love to get Lauren's take on that. Can we play soft 12?”

My new vetting process for if I want to date a man. First date question, I'm always going to be

asking him, do you think that Lindsey Clancy should go to jail for what she did? And if that man says, yes, I'm getting up and walking out right then and there, I cannot spend the rest of my life with so many things that that woman is guilty and deserves jail. What's your take on on all this? It just seems to be a bit, well, much. It does seem a bit much, but I'll tell you this. You know, I've been covering trials for quite a while now. And we have a live chat on our YouTube

channel while we do these daily recaps. And I've never seen the chat so divided, but it's anger.

So our moderators are always saying, everyone's opinion is welcome here, which it is. I will,

I will pin and post the numerous differing opinions to try to, everyone know, our differing opinions are wonderful. Let's agree to disagree because that's a beautiful part of this world, but it's not working. Those, that belief she is guilty of first-degree murder are so angry at those that are questioning whether or not she's even guilty of these crimes in the first place. And those, the belief that it is postpartum psychosis are so upset that people

aren't seeing this for what it is. And the divide is fascinating. I can see both sides. I want justice for these children. At the center of this all are three beautiful children who should be

“living their lives right now. But what that, what justice looks like is the question, right?”

Yeah, it's, and it's not really a black and white issue. There's so many aspects to this. When you look at the medical science on the one hand and the fact that doctors can't even agree on what part of the DSM, five applies if any, I can't agree on what medicines appropriate or what the diagnosis is. And then on the other hand, you got the legal complexities. If you listen to the judges' instructions, you have to be just so, so confused. So if you're

why I think this is going to be relatively long deliberation. But we'll have to leave it there with

“you, Lauren, but before you go, tell our audience, where do they can find you?”

Thank you so much. We are hidden true crime. So on podcasts, anywhere you listen to podcasts, you can find us a hidden true crime. We, we delve into the hidden motives, hence hidden true crime. And then you can find us on YouTube at Hidden Two Crime, and across all social media at Hidden Two Crime. All right. Thank you so much for being there. And where you can find us, by the way, if you go to mktrcram.com, you can find links to where you can subscribe anywhere you get your podcast,

but also subscribe on YouTube because we have video elements and we have audio elements

that make the program complete. So we urge you to check out both and watch and listen on both. But for now, stay tuned because when David and I come back, we'll be bringing you our closing

“argument. In the US, a break-in happens every 26 seconds. Most security systems only alerts you”

after an insider is inside your home. By then, the damage is done. But then, there's simply safe. With their new outdoor camera series, too, and advanced AI, simply safe doesn't just watch, it acts. If a threat is detected, US-based live agents can intervene to deter intruders before they cross the threshold. Going on vacation, you can check your feed and know that professionals are monitoring your home. Plus, the setup is a breeze. Get your system running in under 30 minutes.

No long-term contracts. Simply save earns your business every day, rather than locking you into a trap. It's elite protection that fits your life, not the other way around. Simply safe has an exclusive discount for you. Right now, get your 50% off your new system by visiting simplysafe.com/megaen.

“That's half off at simplysafe.com/megaen. There's no safe like simplysafe.”

Welcome back to the MK True Crime Show. Now it's time for our closing arguments fill. Get us started. Alright, thanks Dave. So here in Georgia, Georgia has set a September 16th, 2026 as the new execution date for a convicted murderer named Stacey Humphries. Humphries was sentenced to death in 2007 for the 2003 murders of real estate agents, Cindy Williams, and Lori Brown in Cobb County, Georgia. Cobb County being a suburb, if Atlanta just to the north and west of Atlanta.

And back in 2003, when these murders occurred, I was actually a prosecutor at the Cobb County District Attorney's Office. In this case, this double murder was the talk of the office for many, many years. And so back in 2007, Humphries was sentenced to death for these murders. A December 2025 date was halted after last-minute fights, including a claim that a COVID error agreement between the state and defense lawyers should still block his execution.

Courts have said the deal does not cover him because his federal appeal was denied years after the pandemic ended. That is the system in action. A 2003 crime, a 2007 death sentence, and another date more than two decades later. Death penalty appeals do not take years by accident. They take decades by design. After a jury returns a death sentence, the case itself, of course, does not end. Most states require an automatic direct appeal

to the state's highest court. And then comes state post-conviction review. We call that habeas review, where lawyers can raise new evidence. Things like bad lawyering, hidden files,

sometimes, and facts that may have never reached the jury. Only after the state habeas is completed,

can the state, can the case enter a federal habeas corpus appeal system? There you have a district court, and then a circuit appeals court. And sometimes the U.S. Supreme Court will review all the minutiae of the case, and can render opinions at every part of the case in every stage. And so each stage can take literally years and years and years. The trial record is huge. The appellate record can be even more massive. Death penalty qualified lawyers can be very

difficult to find. And on top of that, courts just generally move slowly. And because

That delay is good for due process, but may not be so great for families, which I'll talk

“about more in a minute. More than 200 people, however, have walked off of death row after being”

proven, wrongfully convicted. That's called an exoneration. Think about that. 200 people have literally walked off of death row after they have been proven to be not guilty. Science changes, witnesses recant, suppressed evidence, resurfaces. Time is the last check against killing an innocent person, but this timeline is brutal for surviving families. They wait years, sometimes 20, sometimes 30, 40, or more.

Every new hearing reopens the murder and reopens the wounds for the surviving family members.

Every stay, every headline, every date that comes and goes, keeps them stuck.

“Closer, never arrives. Brief gets frozen. They're forced to relive the worst day of their lives”

over and over and over again, while the system tries not to make a final tragic mistake. The appeals process protects the condemned from an irreversible error, but they also force the families of the victims to live inside the case for perhaps a generation. And this is a problem. This is a problem that we need to address in the justice system. It's a problem that we need to do better with. We need to make sure that there is a robust and workable appeals process,

but we need to make sure that we don't unduly put families through the suffering all over and over again. And that's it, Dave. That's my closing. Back to you, my friend. Thank you. You know, when I was in law school, I had a very good friend named Stacey Humphreys, not the same person, though, fortunately not he. And they spell the last same differently. And my friend is not a murderer. Okay. So after 12 years as a prosecutor,

I've seen some bold cons. But this one takes a lumbarty trophy for pure absurdity. You may have seen this on the internet. A guy managed to flee multiple women out of roughly one and a half million dollars using a completely fabricated persona. He targeted victims on dating apps and social media spending a glamorous web of lies that he was an elite pro athlete during up for the NFL spotlight. He learned them into fake high-yield investments and lavish lifestyle loans and

sob story emergencies all back by the promise of massive contract payouts that

we're never going to happen. Now legally speaking to prove grand theft and wire fraud, the state

has to prove a material representation intended to deceive and unlawfully deprived victims of property. But from a pure common sense standpoint, the red flags weren't just waving, they were setting off stadiums, sirens. I mean, check this out. First of all, the man was literally out there running conditioning drills on a public beach wearing a full football helmet. Who does that? You don't need an NFL scout to tell you that that's not an

offseason workout. That's just a dude doing adult cosplay in the sand. And second, let's talk math and roster reality. He claimed to be an undrafted free agent. He had he was pulling up and a rented McLaren. Come on. If an undrafted rookie is driving an exotic, supercar. He's not on an NFL payroll. He's on the fast track to a federal indictment. Roman scammers prey on trust,

“but at some point you have to look past the fantasy. When my guy's story is more holes than a”

pre-vent defense, don't write the check. Blow the whistle. That's my closing statement. I want to thank my friend Phil Holloway. Thank you for a great show today. And before we let you go, a quicker minor to subscribe to the MK True Crime Show on YouTube and wherever I get your podcast. Thank you to Phil. Thank you to our guest Lauren Matthias. And thank you for joining us. Have a great week.