Killer Mom Trial VERDICT WATCH: Guilty Vs Not Guilty,  A Jury Role Play Experiment  (It Didn’t End In A Verdict)

0:00This is an I Heart Podcast. Guaranteed Human. This message is sponsored by Regeneron and Santa Fe. Janikramer does not have direct experience with the product advertised. As the mother of a child who has eczema, I know how hard it is to watch your child struggle. It's frustrating trying everything from home remedies to topical prescription creams. But when you're a mom, you never stop trying. If you feel like your child's moderate to severe eczema is an under control with topical prescription therapies, it could be time to ask their doctor about DuPixant DuPillumab. DuPixant works inside the body helping to block a key source of inflammation that can cause eczema flare-ups on the outside. DuPixant helps your child stay ahead of their eczema symptoms with clear skin and less itch, and it's not a steroid or immunosuppressant. DuPixant can be used for children as young as six months. Severe allergic reactions, including skin reactions can occur. Get help right away for face, mouth, tongue, or throat swelling, weezing or trouble breathing.

1:00Tell your doctor right away of new or worsening eye problems like eye pain or vision changes, skin symptoms, joint aches, and pain, or a parasitic infection. Don't change or stop other treatments without talking to your doctor. Visit DuPixant.com to learn more. We manage work, kids, appointments, bills, basically we keep everything moving. So if someone steals our identity, the last thing we need is another full-time job, filling out forms and chasing down accounts. I mean, it can take months to restore ID theft on your own. So what can you do? You get life lock. Life lock's restoration specialists will do the hard work for you, because life lock truly protects your time, your name, and your identity. Get life lock at lifelock.com and use promo code Amy for up to 30% off your first year. That's lifelock.com, code Amy. These days, there are more people than ever telling you how to manage your health. Your social media feed is packed with wellness trends,

2:01telling you to cold plunge, protein max, and so much more. But what's actually real? What's exaggerated? What's just wrong? Health versus hype from the American Medical Association breaks it all down. Emmy nominated host Trace Dominguez talks to health influencers, real people, and most importantly, doctors, to separate fact from fiction. Because when it comes to your health, who you listen to matters? Listen to health versus hype wherever you get your podcasts. Feeling run down, restless, or like your body just won't switch off? Magnesium breakthrough by bioptimizers features seven forms of bio-available magnesium to support sleep, recovery, and your body stress response. And now there's magnesium breakthrough advanced 10, their most complete formula yet, featuring 10 bio-available forms of magnesium, plus active vitamin B6 in ionic trace materials to support uptake. Head to bioptimizers.com and use code MFM for 15% off your order. This bioptimizers.com code MFM.

3:15Get a big something extra. With a big Mac or 10-piece McNuggets, fries, and a medium Coke all for just $9. Limited time only, promotion pricing may be lower than meal pricing. Ba-da-ba-ba-ba! Hey there folks, it is Thursday, September 3rd. The jury is back in. They are back at it this morning. What is this day? Six now of deliberation in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. Welcome to this episode of Aimee and TJ. We're going to try to put each other through what maybe they're going through and try to bring up the arguments for how would you convince somebody in that jury room, Roads, right? If they are dead set on first degree, how would you convince somebody if they're dead set on not guilty? So we're going to put some of those arguments to test, but we want to give you a few updates about what happened this morning, Roads. And like you said, this is a rare morning, where they seem to be on time. Yes, normally we haven't seen the jury go back into deliberations until around 930 or so,

4:17because there usually is something the judge has to clear up, or there's a delay that we don't even know why, but today it was straight to business. They were back deliberating before 910, I believe. So as of this recording, yes, they are now rounding into even maybe the 30th hour of deliberations, but certainly the second hour of deliberations following that to E. Rodriguez charge, which the judge issued yesterday afternoon. And look, it's so fascinating because we're learning as we go here, we've covered plenty of trials. And yes, we've all heard of hung juries, but I didn't even realize how exceptionally rare they are. If that's where we end up, only 5 to 6% of criminal cases end in a hung jury. And so what we're witnessing, what we're experiencing, if that is what indeed happens, is not something we're used to seeing. I also wonder if all of them are well aware that they have a way out.

5:24He does not have the opportunity now by Massachusetts law to send them back in, if they come out and say we are still deadlocked. I wonder if they know that. Yes, we don't know the answer to that, and we also don't know what the split is. So there's, there have been a few studies on jury behavior, but not a lot actually, because we don't know a lot, because oftentimes jurors don't talk when they get out. It's a secret process as it should be and needs to be for the integrity of the case. But what we have learned is when you only have one hold out oftentimes, especially if an Allen charge or a two-year-old Rodriguez charge is issued by the judge, that one person is likely to be convinced. But if you've got three, maybe four in the minority, to the eight, that's a much taller order. You don't just have to convince one person, or maybe even two people. If you've got two convinced, three people, four people who are sticking together as a unit, that is significantly more difficult to do.

6:26Yeah, and it sounds like it'd be hard to believe at this point that there are single holdouts in one way or another, that there aren't factions, that there aren't groups that you don't have a collection of people in there with different opinions. That's a lot to overcome. We don't know. Of course, the split, we only know there are nine women and three men. What does that mean for this jury? We don't know. We just don't know. And we are now getting into territory of trials and whatnot that we don't see. So this is Robes kind of fascinating to watch this play out and it's playing out up against day holiday weekend. Yes. And look, time is running out just. I don't know how much longer this jury can endure this type of standoff, so to speak, with so many emotions running high outside the courtroom. You can only imagine the same thing is going on inside that jury deliberation room. And there's just a certain point where I just don't think human beings can take it anymore. So look, either they reach a consensus and then they get to go home or they go back and tell the

7:31judge, we absolutely cannot find common ground and they get to go home. How soon will they come back out? We don't know. Again, as of this recording, they just went into it's possible. One morning, they did it one morning. They were in there an hour and came back. So it seemed like they went in, had a quick conversation, anybody changed their mind? Let's get on out of here. Yes. And folks have looked at past cases where a two e Rodriguez or an Alan charge has been issued and they say, if the jury comes back with a verdict after those charges, they usually come back pretty quickly because the judge's words carried weight. Whoever was the holdout or whatever group was the holdout in the minority, if they're going to change their minds, they tend to do it pretty quickly within an hour or two after a judge issues that order. So a lot of people are saying, hey, if they come back early, it may be because they have been able to reach a verdict. If they take a little bit longer, the likelihood of a mistrial goes up significantly. Because it means they're trying to work it out. They're trying. They're still trying because there's a chance if they come back quickly. What's

8:35the point of any of this? What would it be? We've been, everybody's been speculating discussing where would someone be entrenched in there? Like which one of those five options, we should say they're really just for first degree, second degree, manslaughter, not guilty by reason of insanity. Which one of those is somebody really sticking to their guns on? It seems like the people who absolutely believe that Lindsey Clancy must serve time behind bars. And for that, you're looking at first or second degree because manslaughter doesn't guarantee she spends time behind bars because it's left up to the judge. And of course, there is going to be the fact that most certainly believes that Lindsey Clancy does not belong behind bars that she absolutely belongs in a mental facility. All right. So I'll be the first degree guy. You convince me why I need to go from first degree to not guilty by reason of insanity. This is the conversation they have to be having in their roles. But if someone is a dead set and I'm going to play my role here, I am dead set for first

9:37degree for this lady. Convince me why I should go all the way down. I would speak and I would probably use Dr. Philip Resnick as my main source of why because this is a esteemed credible witness who we have seen go either way. He's been somebody who has been a witness for the prosecution. And certainly in this case, he's been used as a witness for the defense. But for me, he seems to be the most credible because he has interviewed and spent his life on philicide where he has actually studied why parents kill their children. And I would point to when he really stood out for me when he looked at the case, the Anthony case. And by the way, she was found not guilty. But he actually determined that he believed she killed her child out of hostility rather than love. And so he didn't necessarily isn't somebody who you can pick. Pick a doc to defend the parent who killed

10:37the child. No, he has gone on both sides of that argument. And so for him to sit up there and testify to the fact after spending many, many, many hours with Lindsey Clancy that he believes she was in a state of psychosis and that she was also a part of what he calls altruistic philicide, that he that she killed her children out of love rather than abuse. Love rather than hostility that she actually believed by killing them. She was doing something loving for them. She was doing what was right for them. And for a woman to believe that she has to be in a state of psychosis. So you're telling me I need to believe one doctor to come all the way down. That's what you're telling me of all this medical evidence and everything I saw about the lack of study, the lack of attention on women's post-pornum health. And you're telling me there's one guy. Yes, I understand his credentials and he might be the guy out there compared to a lot of guys, but still he is limited.

11:39So you're telling me all you got to tell me to come all the way down and say not guilty and never send this woman to prison for strangling these three babies is because a guy named Dr. Resnick tells me so. No, I would actually say use that as a backbone for the larger picture. And I would say in addition to him being the one doctor, I just think I found him to be the most credible of all the doctors, but also listen to her mother, listen to her mother in law, listen to her ex-husband. Those three people I think it's fair to say loved those three kids more than anybody on this jury, more than anybody out there in the American public, more than any of those physicians or doctors who interviewed Lindsey Clancy and all three of those people, including her sister too. And typically we know what a mother in law daughter in law relationship usually is. We know what an ex-husband

12:40and an ex-wife relationship usually is. They're oftentimes adversarial to have all of those people sitting on this side of Lindsey Clancy. In court, up on the stand, they're the ones who watched her decline. They're the ones who saw her unravel. They're the ones who saw her begging for help. And going back and forth and up and down and going into states where she seemed normal, then going and sliding into states where she wasn't, I trust their opinion. And I put actually their opinion perhaps even higher than a doctor's opinion. That's all it is though. Opinions, those aren't facts and evidence. You just talked to me about a lot of emotion, sure, and family members fine. None of that proves to me, this woman was in some state that makes her no longer criminally responsible for doing the worst thing I've ever heard. The people who knew her best. And that isn't just opinion, they are basing that on facts, facts of what they saw. Anacdotal evidence, visual evidence, experience, those are all true forms of evidence that are facts that you might base opinions off of,

13:46everything that she was normal. No, they absolutely, she was doing better. They all said she was doing better. That speaks to the cyclical nature of this that you can go in and out of psychosis, which we heard many, many doctors test a bunch of things. But nobody said she did go in and out. She only went in it long enough to strangle her three babies. She went in and out several times talking about these dark thoughts. She wrote it in her diary in her journal. She talked about having scary thoughts. There's no doctor even your resident didn't tell us she was in psychosis any previous time. Oh, he said that she was in a severe emotional distress. Yes. That it could lead to a moment of psychosis. So most of us in this room right now. I don't believe that. Again, folks, folks in the state of psychosis. Folks, I'm just playing devil's advocate in the jury room again. I'm just reminding her here. All right. Well, that's, I mean, we're just trying to imagine what could be happening back and forth and what it would take for someone to feel convinced. Those would be my arguments for not guilty by reason of insanity. I will stay here. I will try to convince robes why she should vote for guilty first degree for Lindsey Clancy. Stay here.

14:57This message is sponsored by Regina Ron and Santa Fe. Jana Kramer does not have direct experience with the product advertised. As the mother of a child who has eczema, I know how hard it is to watch your child's struggle. It's frustrating trying everything from home remedies to topical prescription creams. But when you're a mom, you never stop trying. If you feel like your child's moderate to severe eczema isn't under control with topical prescription therapies, it could be time to ask their doctor about do Pixant do pill you ma'am? Do Pixant works inside the body helping to block a key source of inflammation that can cause eczema flare ups on the outside? Do Pixant helps your child stay ahead of their eczema symptoms with clear skin and less itch and it's not a steroid or immunosuppressant. Do Pixant can be used for children as young as six months. Severe allergic reactions including skin reactions can occur. Get help right away for face, mouth, tongue, or throat swelling, weasening or trouble breathing. Tell your doctor right away of new or worsening eye problems like eye pain or vision changes, skin symptoms, joint aches,

16:00and pain or a parasitic infection. Don't change or stop other treatments without talking to your doctor. Visit dopixant.com to learn more. We manage work, kids, appointments, bills, basically we keep everything moving. So if someone steals our identity, the last thing we need is another full-time job filling out forms and chasing down accounts. I mean, it can take months to restore ID theft on your own. So what can you do? You get life lock. Life lock's restoration specialists will do the hard work for you because life lock truly protects your time, your name, and your identity. Get life lock at lifelock.com and use promo code Amy for up to 30% off your first year. That's life lock.com code Amy. These days, there are more people than ever telling you how to manage your health. And we've all gone down an internet rabbit hole exploring the latest health trends. Your social media feed is packed with wellness advice telling you to cold plunge protein max

17:04detox, track your sleep. But what's actually real? What's exaggerated? What's just wrong? That's exactly what health versus hype from the American Medical Association and I Heart Media's Ruby Studio is here to find out. Each episode, Emmy nominated science communicator Trace Dominguez, who's racked up billions of views across PBS, Discovery Channel, and YouTube, talks to health influencers, real people, and most importantly, doctors to separate fact from fiction. Because when it comes to your health, who you listen to matters? Listen to health versus hype on the iHeart Radio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

18:14Shop Vons and Albertsons for fresh savings every time you shop. This week at Vons and Albertsons, get fresh, boneless, skinless chicken breasts for $199 per pound limit 10 pounds. And locally grown grape-ary cotton candy grapes are $299 per pound with digital coupon. Plus 24 packs of Canada dry or 7-up 12-ounce cans are $499 limit 1 with digital coupon. Enjoy fresh and delicious savings for every meal. Hurry in, these deals won't last. Visit vons or Albertsons.com for more deals and ways to save. All right, we are back with my fellow juror rogue here, making the arguments for why maybe Lindsey Clancy should get not guilty by reason of insanity. First degree rogue, so you're the person sitting in that corner who is saying not guilty by reason of insanity.

19:15Yes, and by the way, I do recognize we're role-playing. I just took my role very serious. No, yeah. I need to like this, start to get hostile in the studio. No, no, actually, I thought it was just that you imagine that it must be getting. I mean, maybe it isn't, but I would imagine it could be getting a little hostile. It's gotta be tested. It's gotta be. I mean, I don't want to assign anything that we don't know actually is going on, but just and we were role-playing and you don't even personally necessarily think that she should be convicted of first degree murder, but there are likely people in there who do based on what we're seeing online based on what we're hearing from folks on podcasting comments. There are obviously plenty of people who believe she absolutely should spend the rest of her life behind bars. Here are the arguments. First of all, things that don't make sense. She planned Alped window. Does that not read to you at all? Do you, are you as well dismissive? It seems as if she really put a plan in place to have Patrick out of the house to know how long he was going to be gone, to make sure

20:20she had time to do what she did. I would put that in the bucket of she seemed to be well aware of a plan and what she was going to do well before some voice. She claims spoke to her. Yes, and I would say that I leave space for and and was okay with the explanation by Resnick and others that you can be delusional and be mentally unstable and still be able to have normal functions. Even if that means planning for your delusion because if you have it in your head that this is the loving thing to do, this is the right thing to do that you have spiraled so downward in your mental health and psychosis that you actually are justifying your action that you can still operate and function but be in a state of abnormal mental health. Well, that's a delusional woman. We're talking about a woman in psychosis though, are we not? She could be delusional all day.

21:20That doesn't mean she's not criminally responsible until we get to the point of psychosis. So with all this delusion and all this planning, that's a woman who's not in psychosis, planning to kill her kids is she not? I believe you can be in psychosis and still be able to function and operate normal. She was not in psychosis all day. A voice didn't tell her to kill her kids all day. A voice isn't the only symptom of psychosis. It's the only indicator in this case that put her over the edge. We're told, it's what we're told by your experts, the voice is the thing that triggered the action to kill the kids. Then why was there a plan in place ahead of time? I would put that in the bucket. Also that day she didn't show distress according to her family members perfectly normal day. Now, you might have different reasons for that but it sounds like she was trying to avoid any suspicion about what she was going to be doing later. She didn't want to

22:20raise any alarm before she's sent her husband out on the air and make sense. It does but I also will refer back to what Resnick said that you and this resident guy because I really did appreciate the fact that he seemed to be the most learned, the most experienced when it comes to this philicide where you actually have a forensic psychiatrist who has studied parents who kill their children. If he can separate Lindsey Clancy and put her into the category of parents who kill because they're in a state of psychosis, not because they are abusive or not because they want to get rid of their children to live a different life and not because they're just inherently evil but because they're actually suffering from a mental disorder, I appreciated the fact that he described her as almost as if she were like a puppet that she was acting and appearing normal.

23:24Again, you're putting someone else who's pulling this thing. You're putting all yours in the Resnick basket. You're putting all your key going back to Resnick but not all Resnick because everything you're saying is Resnick. But I also look at her family and the people who saw her day in and day. I trust Resnick and the family. I got evidence on my side. I got timing on my side. I also have experts on my side. I'm not just going with the emotion of the moment. Yeah, everybody in this case got paid as we know except for the jury. That's fine. But this you're putting everything and I am not going to let this woman off because I like Resnick so much or because her family is feeling what her family is feeling. You knew her better than her family though. Who saw her should have been her dog. But I'm saying you can't just her family is not making a determination that she is insane. Do you believe that she tried to help? Family doesn't count. Do you believe that she was begging for help and was failed by the symptom system? And if she had gotten the correct medication and had doctors who actually treated her as a woman who had postpartum psychosis, do you think her children would be dead today? What I'm saying is she got the same level for my

24:28experience that a lot of people get. They don't get the best but she had access to the best. So just because things were I'm not saying this woman wasn't ill but I am saying nobody has convinced me but I'm trying to convince you. Do you realize how long it took her to kill these kids? Do you realize how long it takes to strangle a kid or someone that is not a quick episode? How could a sane mother do that? No, it's a woman who had a plan to kill those kids. That's just another way to look at that. They were bruising on those kids. This goes to brutality and how could we let this lady off? There were defensive wounds on those kids. Kids were bruised because they were fighting back from their mother taking up to a minute and a half to strangle them. This will take away from the horrific. Strangle them. Yes, it was the right thing. Why is she still? Is this voice saying keep at it, keep at it, keep at it. She's in and out throughout that whole time. The phone rings. She's smart enough to know not to answer it but she's smart enough to know she

25:32also needs to call back and to make sure her husband is doing what he needs to be doing. That's a woman who is a voice is guiding her throughout that entire experience. Absolutely not. You sound passionate. You said you took your role seriously. No, I know. I know. I'm laughing because you're doing the same thing. But no, the other at the other point I would make. There's no more to make. You got your turn. We're done. Oh, well, I was going to just say when you say going in and out, when she was describing it to these other physicians who testified against her who you're clearly relying on more than Resnick, she minimized, she tended to minimize rather than exaggerate her symptoms. She was what she wrote in her journal actually was more severe than what she told even health officials or her her doctors doesn't diagnose her with psychosis. And even when she was being interviewed by the state, which she knew that these were men who were going to be testifying against her, she didn't try to create some larger voice or something. She didn't pretend that it was anything other than

26:33it was. So that also to me lends to her credibility of where she was and this voice she said she heard. I don't know how they're going to figure it out. You're not going to get somebody from one camp all the way to the other. That's why they gave them options of manslaughter. Putting that on the table allows them to hold her responsible but not fully responsible. Yeah. It gives them the option. And it looks like robs are hung up on. Don't know what. And to that point, if they can't, it seems like if they can't agree on manslaughter, they won't be able to agree on anything. That's where it feels this is headed. But we will find out certainly hopefully in a matter of hours, we will keep our eye on that courtroom for you. But thank you as always for listening to us. Please check out our feed. We will be on top of it. I made me robot alongside TJ Holmes. We'll talk soon. This is an iHeart podcast guaranteed human.