Lindsay Clancy's Reaction Revealed WHAT To The Jury

0:00This is the Big Breakdown. A long look back at some of the biggest stories we're covering for you at the Hidden Killers podcast and True Crime Today. This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Rusky and Robin Dree. Lindsay Clancy Verdict. We're getting hopefully closer to something, a conclusion of some sort. And we're going to be discussing this in depth today. What went on in that courtroom, not just what we saw on cameras, on the videos that we've seen, but what was it like mere feet away from Lindsay in that room, from the jurors, from the family who was supporting her, from the prosecution that was trying to take her down. Bob Moda is going to be joining us shortly to give us that insight. But the breaking moment or breaking news of the moment, I guess I should say, as we're

1:01coming on the air to you this morning live, is that the jury came back this morning saying, surprise, we're dead locked. And this happens in a lot of cases. This is not the first time that a jury comes back and says that and then gets sent back because it's exactly what the judge did. The judge sent them back and said, hmm, work a little harder. Let's see if you can figure something out. And that's where we are sitting as of right now. Joining me to begin this discussion, Rob and Drake, retired FBI Special Agent, chief of the counter intelligence, behavioral analysis program, and master class instructor extraordinaire. Well, the link in the description to go check that out that that is launched now. You can learn from Rob and on master class now. No shit, I know, it's pretty cool. Let's begin. I mean, are you surprised, Rob, and that we're sitting here? What are we? This is day three, four? What are we at?

2:02I had to count up, but I turned the TV off. I think we're at four. I could be right. Yeah, four. We got the hour of count. Four of deliberations and we do not have a verdict. Your thoughts? I think it's good, believe it or not. And I think Bob, when he comes on, I listen to Bob a lot of matter. And even one of the comments here by Brian Bravo Candy-Betch, we listened to each other a lot. And even with Jennifer Kauf and DeFeron, she's a good friend of all of ours and we text a lot and we talk a lot about each other's points of view and flesh and amount. And so even when Bob comes on, I remember we've covered a lot of cases with Bob and he hates it when there's a quick, oh there he is, Bob, I'm speaking for you for a second. He hates it. I'm going to finish my thoughts so then you pick up. Bob hates it when the jury comes out quick. Means they didn't do their job. And so Tony asked me the question, why I think about the jury still being in deliberation. I said, that's a good thing. It shows they're actually doing the hard work and this is a hard work case. No doubt. Bob, what do you think about that? Yeah. So here we are. Are you guys aware that they come out and dud locked right?

3:04Just talked about that. Yep. Just said that. So that's where the reactions we're making right now. Now in their job. Judge sent him back in. From your experience here, what is this mean? What are your thoughts? So the way that it works and massive sense is when the jury sends out a note saying that we're dead locked, we're so dead locked, they'll do what they call kind of like a soft jury charge. All right. So before they do what's been referred to as a dynamite charge and Allen charge and in Massachusetts called a two-erad regas charge. And it's a much more thorough charge to the jury to say, look, we understand it and it's written out. And the way that the legislature and the appellate courts have looked at the two each charge is that they recommend that the instruction is read exactly as it's written. So when that happens, and the judge has to have found that there's been thorough and deliberate

4:05deliberations or thorough deliberations by the jury before they'll give that heavy duty to each charge. Because the argument, and there's a lot of kind of esoteric arguments about these charges and you're forcing the jury to go back and to basically bend their will of the way that they feel deep, deep down. Even though the instruction says, we're not asking you to go against your conscience. Okay. We're not asking you if you have a strongly held belief to put that aside in order to compromise just to come to a verdict. But the thing kind of speaks for itself. It's like we're kind of asking you to do that, but not directly on paper. Exactly. Kind of like a passive aggressive of, hey, everybody get your shit together and come back with an answer that judge really like one. Exactly. But I guess how so it's essentially, you know, for the lay people, a little strongly,

5:06more strongly worded encouragement to come back with an answer essentially. Yeah. Okay. You know, but look, man, I've been saying this since before the trial, like this is a case. Where I just don't think I don't care how many try, they could try it a hundred times. They're never going to get a verdict on it because people just feel the way they feel about this. The folks that are of the mindset, if you do this to your children, you have to be punished. I don't care what the reason is behind it. I don't care if you were teaming with psychosis. That doesn't matter. The fact is, is whatever led you to this point where you did this to your own children, you have to be punished, those folks are never moving off that position. Ever. I don't care how much evidence is put before them. I don't care how many experts take the stand. I don't care if, you know, you have every expert from both sides saying, yeah, she wasn't psychosis. Those folks are never changing that position.

6:06That is how they feel. Yeah. And no one's changing their mind. And, you know, when they brought in the manslaughter charge, which I wasn't really a fan of, I understood why it was done legally. It doesn't fit with the facts and it doesn't jive at all with the fact that there is a not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility defense that has been put forth. It doesn't work because by operation of bringing forth that defense, you are saying, look, we're admitting that my client did the acts. Okay. So that's not an issue. What I'm saying to you is that she can't be held responsible because of the state of her brain. And so like because with manslaughter, those two things don't work. So it's like a legal fiction that it exists. The thought was that look, we're going to bring the manslaughter in. I think that M1, like the murder one people would move towards that based on the evidence

7:10in terms of the care that she received. I think that they could be as long as she's going in. I want to ask you about the manslaughter charge a little bit and what it could possibly mean if they settle on that. So let's say she gets manslaughter, it's a lesser sentence. So there is a time where she could very realistically be free. It's different than the not guilty by reaching the insanity where she goes into an institution and then has yearly reviews and may stay in forever. Manslaughter, there's an end date from that sentence at the prison that she'd be going to. From what I understand, I mean, so once the not guilty by a reason of insanity, doesn't that actually present an opportunity where she could be truly locked up forever, getting mental health care? The manslaughter, that kind of takes it off the table if I'm understanding that correctly,

8:11doesn't it? You're going to prison for manslaughter and when you're out, you're out. If you need mental health help, well, let's hope you got insurance. Yeah, I mean, potentially. So there's a range in Massachusetts for manslaughter and I believe that it's anywhere from five to 20 years. It's three counts. She would be sentenced to each individual child five to 20 years, whatever the judge decides in terms of a sentence. Also based on people that I've spoken to, the practice in mass, it is the judge's discretion as to whether or not he's going to have those sentences run concurrently, which mean at the same time, or consecutively, meaning she does the whatever he sentences or two say he senses her to 20 on a Korra and then the same on Dawson and then the same on Calon, which would be a 60 year sentence ultimately. And in truth and sentencing requires that they serve, I believe it's 85%, it might be

9:11a little hard. It's two thirds is what I looked up this morning, I think. Yeah, so two thirds of the sentence is before there's eligible for parole. Right. So, you know, that's a thing and then the difference between murder one is its mandatory life. No discretion in it. No parole. You're don, you're in, you're over with. So, you know, and my thing with this case has been, you know, when you talk about the concept of whether or not Reddington should have advised the clients, maybe this is the one where we go, a bench trial, as opposed to going to a jury on it. And I wasn't sure, I thought that somebody had emailed me something when I had made that first kind of suggestion or put that thought out there. This was a case where maybe you're going to the judge and saying, all right, look, you know, we think this is a bench trial. So, it's a very difficult issue to decide, you know, but with the judge, you're not getting a hung jury. Ever. Right. You know, you're, like, the judge is making a decision one way or another.

10:14But I thought that somebody had sent me an email saying that on M1 in Massachusetts that you couldn't waive jury, but I don't think that that's correct. Like, I've never heard of not being able to waive your right to a jury, but I'm not going to die on that hill because I haven't looked up the law on Massachusetts. So, but as to your other point, yeah, I mean, if, and it's not just a, if she is a danger to others, it's, is she a danger to herself? Yeah. And I, like, I don't know that there's ever going to be a day that Lindsey Clancy isn't going to be a danger to herself. Yeah. And I mean, you could have the same thing where she's healthy enough mentally in there to be able to put on the mask, like, oh, yeah, and, you know, I'm not, I have no desire to end my own life anymore. And that's all just a mask, you know, and then she's, because right now she's still one on one. She has somebody watching her 24 seven because she's still a risk of, of, of unaliving herself.

11:17So, you know, in theory, yeah, I mean, she could stay in there for the rest of her natural life. And I'm talking about the mental health facility, you know, but the problem is is that the concept, and it was the thing that ultimately, and I don't think that it would have mattered in Gacy, but when Bill Conkel, the lead prosecutor in Gacy, suggested that there exists a possibility in the world, right? But John Wayne Gacy could be cured, and he could be released back in the society. Like, you can imagine what the jury was thinking about that concept. They were like, the rod, their heads exploded, their eyes rolled back in their skulls. They were like, what? You know, like, and obviously that was objected to. I don't know that they've ever should have been brought out in front of the jury, because once those words were uttered, that there was even a remote chance that this dude's going to be out on the streets again. That was it. And it was like, that was a case, like he's the poster boy for the death penalty. I'm anti-death penalty as a general proposition, but, you know, there's exceptions to that.

12:20Yeah. So I looked it up, Massachusetts. First degree murder is the exception. You cannot request bench trial in Massachusetts on that. There you go. So that person was correct. Yeah, excellent. And the interesting, there's so many interesting things this Bob, it's been so mentally exhausting. To the point, if this was going on, because when I, you know, my legal side is not nearly as strong as anyone else's, because I spent my time on behavior stuff, but, you know, if this is being tried, and as I got right here, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Utah, and Alaska, you know, this wouldn't even be a discussion, because it is like a lot of people want. Just guilty, killed their kids, and then we're going to use these as mitigating factors for sensing, which is the incongruence just in the legal system on cases like this across our country is actually quite, quite mind boggling to me, because when you're doing these deep dives that try to understand where people are coming from and why they have a certain point of view, when you see where people live,

13:22you see their experiences, and then I'm not even bringing in their religious aspect of this, because people have that aspect as well. It's easy to see why people are so divided, because our country is extremely divided on one simple, not simple. This is the most complex thing I've ever faced and looked at in my life as well. I've probably done more, again, sorry about the me statements, in this case about them. I have learned more in this case, because I've covered this case as well as doing your gasey files. At the same time, my mind is legally exploding, trying to understand it all, because this is extremely complex. It really is, man. Yeah, I mean, there's so many elements to this thing, and I want to talk about what was going on in the courtroom. But I want to address one quick question here that I saw that someone had posted about the pharmacist, because I think it's a valid question to a certain extent, but I think the answer might surprise a lot of people. No one mentions the pharmacist who dispensed her medications. Why did they not flag all the meds that were being prescribed at their possible conflicting side effects?

14:25Because this shit happens all the time everywhere you look. Yep. Because this is normal. That's why. I mean, that's what it's become. Throw the drugs at them. They receive no actual therapy. And you had a situation here where none of the providers, not one of them, did a blood draw to see what was in her system. Because you have Lindsey reporting, and it's one thing to assume that your patient is being accurate and truthful about what they've been prescribed. But no one was doing the homework. Not one provider was looking and seeing what the other providers had prescribed to her, nor were they looking at her blood to see what she was actually taking and what was in her system. So, you know, I mean, that's part of the problem. We don't know, as we sit here now, we've gone through all the evidence in this case. We have no idea. If, in fact, we go all the way back to the zole off as being the trigger for where we ended up in

15:30January. So when we go from September to January and she gets this cocktail, this polypharmaceutical cocktail, and where we don't know as to the excellent comment that was just made, we don't know how they're interacting with one another. And more importantly, her healthcare providers did not know how they were interacting with one another. And then on top of it, they were continuing to prescribe other medications, not knowing how they were playing with one another. And I'm talking about the pharmaceuticals within her mind. And then you have to be able to consider the fact that number one, she had stopped breastfeeding in October, which adds a whole another element to this case, which really, Ruddington, kind of threw in there with respect to the cross of one of their, because there was a woman that was supposed to be testifying on behalf the defense, and her name was Margaret Spinoly. And she's kind of the authority in the world in terms

16:31of postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis. She would have been the one who would have been explaining to the jury, educating the jury on what happens within a woman's body, hormonally speaking, before, before, before during and after when they give birth. And that is kind of a gaping hole in this thing in terms of just fleshing out, trying to figure out how this thing ended up the way that it did, because it's not as simple as the people that are wanting an eye for an eye. And I understand it. I understand that those folks exist in the world, and it's very simple. We're a vanaged driven society. That's how this country has always been. The problem for me and my rebuttal to those folks is, is quit ignoring our brains. I mean, what is more important in terms of figuring out for the quality of life purpose than understanding

17:35what the hell is going on in our brains? Because if you think the DSM and psychologists and psychiatrists aren't doing anything other than practicing, which is exactly what they call it, we practice medicine, we know so little about the human mind that it requires us to move the needle in terms of mental illness in this country and really give it the attention that it requires. Because we've talked about this on the last three lives, man. You all you need to do is scroll through social media for 20 fucking minutes and you see what is going on in this country. It is constant chaos every single place I look. And it's normalized. And we're used to. And we feel better down almost. Yeah. Yeah. I looked up and just talking about the pharmaceutical side of things. I did look up responsibility, culpability, not necessarily in that way, but to try to understand

18:36what they could or couldn't have done and how it wasn't flagged. And so what it came back with was, these were common prescriptions for mental health. And so that didn't flag because of the types of prescriptions. They were done in series and not in parallel, basically. So they weren't on top of each other. So that went to flag to anything for for interactions. And do flag. And the other thing too is a lot of these. So a lot of flags that happen inside of pharmacies, it's program driven. In other words, the software doesn't flag it. And so if you have multiple providers that aren't talking, because that's the other thing too, it wasn't just one provider. So it went to flag to anything, multiple different providers, common prescriptions and in series and not in parallel. So they didn't have to look at interactions. That was actually part of the reason why it got. Well, and a lot of it's like we said yesterday, like it's like, okay, you're going to be on 10 milligrams of this. Oh, that's not working for you. We're going to up it to this. We're going to lower you to this. So you consistently have a bottle of pills that has about 25 in because they keep changing it. Now, why the doctors were changing it that frequently. That's what needs to be

19:37seriously examined and why they couldn't communicate with one or the other. I get why the pharmacy filled them. The pharmacy is following the directives of the doctors. These are not medications that are typically abused to a level like you would have for pain pills or things of that nature. These are not those types of drugs. People aren't popping these super recreationally or anything like that. So they're not the type that typically get that sort of scrutiny. And they're just typically up or done. We're talking, it was 30 different prescriptions, but 13 meds in total that were being adjusted up and down over the course of the time. So that's, I mean, it makes sense to understand how we got here, but why the system allowed us to be there is the bigger question. I got one more question in this segment before we move to the next one. You were in the courtroom for a good chunk of this thing. You were in their patrics there, lintes there, their families are there. We're seeing it on a screen. There's something very different about being in that actual gallery though, the emotional reality of what everybody was

20:43going through. How would you describe what it felt like in there? Heavy. Incredibly heavy. You know, it's like you're, and it's funny because, you know, they'll take breaks. You're sitting in the courtroom. You can hear a pin drop. You know, I mean, like you feel the weight of the courtroom. You feel, you know, just the overall power of being in that room because everybody feels it, you know, the jury's feeling it. The attorneys feel it. The gallery feels it. Obviously, the defendant feels it. The family. It's just, it's the equivalent to really kind of what I was really hoping that the Reddington and I'm never critical of them because I think he's an absolutely phenomenal. He's one of the best litigators in the country when it comes to criminal defense law. But the one thing that I would have loved for him to been able to kind of like

21:45highlight for the jury is the fact that you have Dr. Resnick who is the preeminent psychiatrist, psychologist, I can't remember which one he is. In the, on the planet, in terms of philosophies, in terms of his work on malingering with respect to hallucinations, you know, whether determining whether or not somebody's lying or overreporting with respect to hallucinations. But you had him on a screen, right? So you're sitting there. So because if you'll remember, when Tufts was on the stand, Dr. Jennifer Tufts, and you know, Red kept referring to it also, that was that was via television, right? It was, it was a funny little thing in terms of the way that he did it, but he was, he was doing it intentionally to drive home the point that there's a massive difference between looking at somebody on a screen and being in the same room as that person. And the stark contrast is when you think about the Commonwealth's two experts, forget about Mac,

22:51but you know, we'll talk about Halbrun and what is it? Sad off, sad off, sad off, they were in the room, you know, and they would turn and look at the jury when they were giving an answer. The juries could observe, the jurors could observe what they were doing with their hands. They could observe everything that they were doing when they were sitting on the stand. And I would have liked to have heard Ruddington in order to contrast the treatment that Lindsey got through these telehealth appointments. And again, I'm not shitting on telehealth. There is a difference between having somebody in your office for a personal one-on-one human connection consultation and looking at the amount of screen. You know, if you were in the room with Tony, Robin and I, and we were having a discussion, it would feel vastly different than you sitting at home watching us on your computer or your television. It's just a different experience. And I would have liked to have seen Red Point that out. I wanted them to say, I want you to think about the pre-eminent expert on these two

23:57areas that we discussed and how you felt about watching them on a screen and think about the difference that you felt when you were listening to the Commonwealth's expert who was sitting six feet away from you. You know, that feeling that you're feeling in terms of, yeah, that was a different experience. That's what I want you to understand about the care that Lindsey received. And I think it would have really driven that home because, you know, again, at the end of the day, and Robin, everything that you pulled up with respect to the pharmaceuticals is important. But what's also important is that she clearly, in my estimation, had a manic episode after Dawson was born. And Tufts was completely unaware of it. If she was in Mania, during and after Dawson was born, and she's not aware of it, and she prescribes her an SSRI,

24:57that's what I'm saying. That could have been the impetus of everything that happens there after. You know, it's like, and then she's having the reaction that you're not supposed to have in terms of helping her sleep. It made her worse. It made her more anxious. It increased her insomnia. So these red flags went up, and then Tufts never did anything to go back to try to figure it out. Her solution was to say, all right, we'll switch up the meds. And we'll give this one a shot. And we'll give this one a shot. And again, my view is if we could be a fly in the wall and gender for Tufts, having a drink with her friend after work one day, and she's just talking about some of her patients, she's like, oh, yeah, I got a real pain in the ass. She's a nurse. She knows it all. I keep trying to help her. I don't know if she's overreported. You know what I mean? It's like, yeah, it's that thing where, I can't remember. I've made the comparison so many times. We're five, represented an attorney in a case. Yeah. You know, like, that can be the biggest pain in the

26:00ass. Oh, my God. Well, I'm telling him you're we're not collaborating on this. It's like, it's Alec Murdo. You know, reprise. And I don't take the stand. Don't take the stand. And he takes the stand. Exactly. They're not, I mean, they're going to make decisions that that may not be the in their best interest because of ego to a certain extent. But again, that that's still, and that's I hear that argument too. Well, like, well, she made these choices. Yes, she didn't make the choice to fall into a state of psychosis though. Like, like, she, you can make dumb choices. You can make ignorant choices. You can make choices that are not going to be great for you. And of course, you're going to make a lot of them when you're not in a good mental state. But again, and not if it erases the fact of, here's what your brain ended up doing to you on top of the cocktail of medications that you've been going on and off of your thoughts in the comments section on Substack and YouTube as we continue to break down the Lindsay Clancy case as the jury is still out as of this recording. Want more on this case and others? Then press subscribe now

27:03and don't miss a moment of true crime coverage from Tony Brusky and the Hidden Killers podcast. This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Brusky and Robin Dree. Bob Mata is with us today as we continue to break down our conversation about Lindsay Clancy and where this is going to go with a jury depending on guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity or man slaughter. There's many places where this can land. You were in that courtroom for quite some time these last few weeks. We saw Lindsay Clancy on our screens. We saw many times where they shut down court because she was getting very emotional and upset and I think understandably so if we're looking at it from an empathetic window to be confronted with these horrific images of what you caused while you were in your state of alleged psychosis. What was she like in that courtroom?

28:05We talk about defendants in courtrooms all the time from Lori Valow to Cory Richards to Donna Adelson. All of them have their interesting effects and how the jury is receiving them. Bob, how would you say the jury was receiving Lindsay Clancy in that room? It's so hard to read them. I talked about the one-gerer that many of my friends in the media are of the mindset was dead, dead set on, on convicting Lindsay that she was very pro prosecution in the case and you know but she was oddly the one who when Lindsay had the two breakdowns the day that they were going through the second and third autopsies of the kids and they had to stop court a couple times and she was the only witness who was just without flinching looking at

29:05Lindsay the entire time like many of the jurors were kind of glance over and then break it off. She was watching her, she had a tissue and she dabbed her eyes a couple times and you just you don't know what she's feeling is she is she thinking about the kids? Is she feeling sympathy for Lindsay? You know there's many things that could be going through her mind and it's like you know everybody who wants to play like they can get a read on what somebody's thinking or full of shit you know I've been trying to do it for 20 years, 20 plus years at trial and I'd never got it right you know it's like the people that'll you know kill them with kindness the guy that was always smiling at me when I was you know arguing or making a point when across examination and I was like oh you know I go back to the table and like I think I think that one juror likes me he eats you in the aisles and then that would be the guy who was leading the charge for conviction sure at the end of the day so you just you can't really get a sense of it and you know I

30:06know I didn't have to be able to read the jurors faces to know how this thing was going to go I've been saying it since the first time we did a live on this I am of the mindset that there I don't care how many times they try this case because of the state of our country because of the massive divide on people and how they view murder and in particular a mother murdering her own children or killing her own children they are never going to be moved off the sentiment that she needs to be punished to the full extent of the law whether in a state that had the death penalty which Massachusetts does not that they think that she should be put the death in a state where it's life in prison that's where she should be and there's that you're never changing their mind on that yeah and the same goes for the folks that are like myself and you two where we believe that something went terribly wrong here that there's no other explanation but for the fact that she was in a psychotic state when this happened and for me I cannot hold somebody criminally responsible

31:17if they their body is basically a puppet to a diseased mind and it's just a place I'm not willing to go because I have a deep understanding of mental illness I have a deep understanding of the fact that if something is being done and it's not at your own volition meaning that you're not the one controlling it which is so hard for some people to buy into people are like I just I don't that makes no sense like a person that's lived 70 years of their life and never had anything even remotely like that there's never been one minute in my life where I like I didn't have control of my own senses in my own mind you know and and they like for them it's impossible for them to get to the point I can't imagine that being a real thing yeah it sounds like some movie bullshit they're also the same folks who are unable to see anything from anyone else's perspective ever I mean the right you're the folks that you can have a like intelligent conversation which is you know and so the on the hypothetical with the wonder that you said was so deadlocked on

32:22of guilt and whether it's her or someone else this is generally the way that you know I've seen us throughout as well when someone starts out with a locked in negative confirmation bias in other words they're not doing their job as a juror to take in all the data and remain open-minded according to the law and the instruction that are given when they're looking these are the ones that when you're trying to figure out what they're doing because they're just staring intently I'm not seeing this case but typically what they're doing is they're trying to have their own confirmation biases from what they're observing see look I saw this I knew their line because we all know people that are following this case that no matter what you say no matter what argument you put up no matter what observations and doctors saying they're she's not being deceptive without without a flinching they think everything coming out of her mouth is complete lie complete fabrication and they think the emotions that they're watching in witnessing is completely fraud and so they're having a very passive negative or just neutral affect to it because they don't

33:23believe what they're seeing and the last point I want to make is it's this is just so profoundly dumbfounded to me that like you said Bob you have those people that are on that side and the three of us are seeing the mental health issue here and in this context it's a discussion the jury's debating it it still blows my mind that if we're doing the same thing in Kansas this won't even be a discussion our point of view wouldn't even matter it wouldn't even come up on the jury she'd be guilty and then I mean just that's what is just so mind-boggling to me that our country is not even unified in the in the code of justice well I like it or facts is a man right well but it's worse than that because the reality is is that there's statutes in place yeah you have this law this statute that allows for a defendant to come into a court of law that has been written by the legislature in every state aside from Idaho which and they have they have like a carve out

34:26yeah like they have a carve out where you can attack the mens rea and the intent portion of of a statute saying like they could not form the requisite intent to accommodate the crime but you know and people just are incapable or unwilling to apply the law that the lawmakers have seen fit to draft and like we call it the defense of last resort for a reason because of exactly what we're talking about this isn't a new concept this is forever been the case and it always boils down to do people believe it to two things really do people to believe that mental illness exists in the sense that it truly does meaning that someone can and do lose control of their mind and the other part of it is the morality argument in terms of if you murder someone and murder just so you all

35:27understand these are homicides murder is a legal construct okay murder is a legal term that we use you can have homicides that are justified such as you know if it's self-defense defensive others you know if cops have to put somebody down it's a good shooting though those are justifiable homicide so finding murder is where you you know have malice of forethought you know what I'm saying so that that's where you're going in with the intent to kill somebody purposefully okay so that's a different thing man slaughterers a different charge but you know the kind of the way that I always try to like break through with people I'm like let's talk about war let's talk about the the men and women that protect us that enlist for various reasons many because they have no other option but they enlist in the military and they're sent off to a war which we may not even know why they're being sent off for that war but they have been trained to kill right they go and kill

36:31that will like you know that is their job your job is to go and kill the enemy and this is going in the morality side of it like I like I want people to try to think like what is the difference if if people are our soldiers or any soldiers anywhere are being sent off to be a part of an unjust war or think about Muslims who flew into the World Trade Center and and their people will like well this is righteous you know what you're doing is righteous in their estimation and they come over and they kill 3000 Americans because they they flew planes into a building we're looking at that as murder right they're looking at that is is justifiable in their estimation my point being is that when one human being kills another person the way that we're determining whether or not its criminal is strictly a human construct yeah it's

37:31based on our perspective and our our prison of where we are sitting and and and and and that's that's that's very much how that plays I want to ask you this because this has been brought up quite a bit in this case people are criticizing the the police investigation into into these these deaths I'm seeing it quite a bit on the conspiracy threads where people are still going down the road of Patrick and all that is this a case where they're where they're and I don't know the answer this should there have been more investigation police work wise to simply answer some of the questions that people have that they say well there are no answers to this because this ex wasn't investigated I've seen that attached to various elements of of this case but there are some cases where it is just so clean cut there's not much more to investigate but how do you know unless you do Bob what's your thoughts on people who are criticizing that look I think the criticism of the investigation

38:34is fair okay you know I like but we're talking about two separate things do I think that the people that are accusing Patrick Lansing of doing this are ridiculous yes yeah I do but that's a different thing it's it but this is where it's like you always just want to make sure that T's are crossed and the eyes are dotted to shut down the bullshit exactly and had there been a good investigation exactly yeah like had there been a thorough investigation the people that are saying well you know we're just taking Patrick's word on this because they didn't investigate shit they that gives them a fuel yeah by by way of them not doing what they should have done which was just with I I mean I think they would have said it anyway you know what it's the million dollar question yeah you know I mean in any case you kind of saw it with Ellen Greenberg right yeah I mean it's not unique to this case there's plenty of cases where it's like why didn't they investigate further and there really isn't always a great explanation other than incompetence I mean that's that's the bottom line it's indifference or incompetence laziness I don't know

39:36what it is it's a recombination I'm gonna get some grace I think it's a shock too I mean so when you roll up on a scene like this in a in a in a place where you least expect it and then it's it's obvious again obvious because again I'm just talking to human nature is I'm trying to place myself in that situation so you roll up on it you see the horror of it you can quickly assess visually what happened and then and wherever whenever she became literate you know with her words some are saying on I know that's the big debate although it's very clearly she wasn't speaking on scene but where she immediately pretty soon after says I did it um as an as an investigator you gonna focus your resource and attention on a different on a different aspect of the case rather than collecting evidence because she said she did it again I'm just talking from small town you collectors investigators you know it's it's it could have been better but when have we ever had a case where they shouldn't have done or could have done a better job investigating that's true

40:37yeah yeah I mean you're 100% and like you said Robin I mean the bottom line is that law enforcement are all human beings you know which brings a bigger a bigger question up to mine which is you know are these investigating officers or whether they're first responders first on the scene you know are they offered and do they accept the counseling that they probably know because if you think that you walk into a scene like that as a human being I don't give it shit yeah if you have a badge on your chest you are you are seeing shit that will scar you for the rest of your life and you know are these folks getting the the help that they need after the fact or while it's happening direct you know I mean like that's yeah and and again you're gonna have the macho guys are like I fuck it I'm fine man I'm gonna rub some dirt on it you know what I mean the those are the guys that that kind of think that the mental health world is bullshit you know that the spikes are all fucking you know and even strokes and bullshit you know all that being being right there for 9-11 watching eight people jump from the North Tower being five blocks away during that entire thing

41:41side by side with NIPD during this entire thing out of Fresh Kills landfill finding body parts to give back to families and months and months after some email coming around if you want to talk to someone here's a number and then watching suicide s is self elimination skyrocketing in NIPD and port authority and FDNY around me it was profound and then you know you know what the counseling we had was we had a a roving chaplain that was walking around Fresh Kills landfill saying hey does anyone want to talk and and and when and when that impacts your career because people start giving you the label of oh man it's like job you know do you take it up I don't know anyone now I say they didn't but I'm not aware of anyone that took up that resource and that's watching some severe horror that's what I'm saying and it's the same with our soldiers who I I love and respect there never goes a day when I don't see somebody that served in the military where I don't thank them for

42:44their service because I have a deep understanding if they were in the shit their psyche has been destroyed they are never going to be the person that they were prior to going into combat yeah you can't be you you can something fundamentally changes in you the things that we are grown up being told are are completely unacceptable and that's taking another person's life it doesn't matter what the context is whether it's like you're you're in a you're in a war this is what we have to do this is what you have to do the fact of the matter is the thing that we've been told is verboten that is immoral that is against everything that we believe in in terms of our laws our religion that it's okay in this sense but in your mind it's not and you know these like every soldier that I know that was in in the shit and and going back to you know I'm younger so obviously you know my grandfather was was WWE to age my father didn't serve in NAM because he was

43:49already in college but every friend that I had that has served in any of the Middle Eastern wars that we have and have come back are damaged yeah they're they're damaged and and they they know it and they accept it and they acknowledge it and they want help and they're feeling it every day of their life they feel like they don't fit into society anymore everything looks strange and different to and and you know the care that they get is not the care that they should be getting you know what I mean and it's like I just you know my thing with the mental health awareness thing that I'm so just adamantly advocating for is because it fucking matters it just it matters it's the most important thing in our bodies it controls everything we do and everything we communicate and we treat it like it's it's one of the least we treat it like it's you know your tonsils are so like not a big deal like it's out you know it's your brain it's it and and and we we we have so little

44:54understanding of it so little grace for it and and so little desire it seems as a society to try and understand it better because it's scary and I think fear is the ultimate motivator for us not to understand it more than we more than we do already your thoughts in the comments section on substack and youtubers we continue to break down the Lindsey Clancy trial want more on this case and others then press subscribe now and don't miss a moment of true crime coverage from Tony Bruski and the Hidden Killers podcast