What Lindsay Clancy’s Mistrial Opened for Her Case

0:00This is Hidden Tillers Live with Tony Brusky and Robin Dree. Well, we've all watched weeks of anganizing testimony and this last Friday is stunning 11 to 1 deadlock, leaving everyone without closure. It's a pure emotional whiplash for the families and the public who followed every minute of the trial and we're going to break it down. What happens next? We're going to break down the actual human mechanics of the hung jury and what dragging everyone through a second trial actually means with us to do that. Bob Mata hosted the podcast, defense diaries and of course Robin Drake retired FBI special agent chief of the counter intelligence behavior analysis program. Well, as predicted, we had a holdout. We just watched the jury grind for seven days only to hang on the one single hold out who

1:03said, yeah, no, I think she's guilty. No matter what, according to Reddington, someone who was not following the instructions of the judge to the jury, that I think is where a lot of us kind of get lost, Bob. I mean, take us into that, that jury room, they're given instructions. The instructions here, you have to determine if she is not guilty by reason of insanity. And it's a state job to prove it in, in this case, it's not the other way around. And the jurors basically telling the judge, we don't think this one juror is following your instructions in that specific realm. Every instructions also talk about following your convictions and what you think is right. I mean, it ends up being confusing to say the least after an hour of instructions to expect everyone to walk out of that space and go, oh, I get it. I'm going to be perfect on this.

2:04I think is a bit of a task with hour long instructions. How do you think this went down in that jury room now that we've had a weekend to kind of soak this all in? Well, I think that to try to kind of understand it, obviously we're speculating. Yeah. You know, but inside that room, I think that the first thing that we have to try to understand is that by day seven of the deliberations, in my estimation, nobody is arguing about evidence anymore, right? Yeah. They're arguing about each other, the 11 that have already walked the hold out through every exhibit, all of the experts, every instruction. And then when that fails, you know, the room stops being about a deliberation and becomes as kind of like a siege, you know, where it's 11 versus one. And you know, the majority is cycling through, you know, persuasion and they're frustrated and they're angry, they're exhausted.

3:05I mean, 40 hours of deliberation or damn near 40 hours is exhausting. Yeah. Coming in day after day and, you know, try to imagine being in it and forget about sides in terms of which side is which side right now, just imagine being 11 people on either side trying to convince one and it's like smashing your head against a brick wall day after day after day after day. So you can imagine that we get very frustrated, right? Yeah. It would be, it would be exhausting. So ultimately the four person in the case apparently sends the note telling the judge that the the the hold out in the word that the judge used the word, the kind of the phrase is that the hold out acknowledged it out, but was refusing to apply the law as to reasonable doubt. And at that point, you know, what is that right there? Right there.

4:06What, what refusing to apply the law to reach reasonable doubt? I think that's where a lot of confusion comes in and understanding because we're talking about individuals who have convictions, which is another very loose term. I mean, applying the law to determine if there's reason, what if someone just says, fuck it. I don't care. She killed the kids. Yeah. I mean, that's their conviction. They're following that is following the judge's instructions, but it's also not applying the law. Right. So it, so at the same point, again, this is where I get some money with the demonstrations and, and, and money with what are we expecting out of 12 human beings to really come up with here? We're wanting the human aspect of a person giving what their core beliefs are on something and applying it as a juror, but we're also saying you better follow this to to a T. Even if following it goes against your own conviction, I mean, we're asking them to basically

5:10become a, a computer to a certain extent, while still maintaining their human abilities, why don't we just have AI do it at this point? You might get a better, you might truly get what you're asking for then, because I don't think you're going to get it out of humans. I mean, let's talk about that for a second. Yeah. No, in look, we, we've been talking about, you know, the different types of jurors that could be on this case, right? Yeah. You know, we have the juror who I refer to as kind of the eye, eye for an eye, you know, the person who's like, look, a mother who kills her three kids does not walk out, period. That person goes to prison. Yeah. There could be the person that's kind of where you're at, where there's a misunderstanding of the burden, treating reasonable doubt as any doubt or in reverse treating the common wealth's obsession of mental illness, where remember that part, which makes it even more confusing. Right. At that point, everybody's like, okay, well, she definitely had a mental disease or defect.

6:12We're all in agreement to that, at that point. What we're not in agreement about is whether or not that mental disease or defect caused linseed clancy, not to know right from wrong or didn't allow her to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law, right? So, yeah. And that's a, that's a weird thing for people to try and understand. It is. It's like, okay, wait, you know, because basically they're, they're last two witnesses landed in the commonwealth. I'm talking about landed on the concept that they went with bipolar two, like that is what they said that she had. Yeah. And they both said like bipolar two, she still understood right from wrong and she was able to conform her conduct, right? So you've got that kind of floating through this jurors had it potentially and we don't know what this jurors thinking. We don't know if it's the eye for an eye juror. And the other part of it is we don't know exactly what the note says. Yeah.

7:13What we had was judge Sullivan kind of paraphrasing because it's Sullivan who says the, the jury's basically saying that the, the jury has acknowledged doubt, but they're refusing to apply the law. That that that was like the sentence that he said. Yeah. Doubt is slippery. Yeah. They didn't use the word reasonable doubt. He just said the word doubt. So that leaves us out in the outside world kind of speculating, right? So was it appropriate for Sullivan to paraphrase it that way? Because I keep doing all these different scenarios in my head because I've learned so much from you, Bob, you know, especially on the defense side. You know, I saw them deliberating long as like, wow, as Bob says, they're doing the hard work. This wasn't just a call it in thing and this is actually watching the justice system at work in the state of Massachusetts because any others or many other states, this wouldn't be going on like this. And then the interpretation of what the law is, if that person believes they were acting

8:15lawfully, then they're acting lawfully. I mean, because it's kind of a subjective thing, but at the same time, there's a few things that had they not been done or said, would we be here like if they tried another state? And also if Sullivan, Judge Sullivan had not said that and merely said the jury came back again and said they couldn't all agree. I mean, was he was in other words, what was compulsion to share? Because that's what that really flamed things up even more is like throwing a carousine on the fire that he said, well, we have one hold out. And everyone's jumped into conclusion, rightfully it looks like, including Reddington, that it's a hold out for the criminally insane. And so it just, it seems to exasperate a situation. What do you think about that? Yeah. It, first of all, it is rare. I don't know that I've ever seen a four person of a jury sent out a note like that. Yeah. Essentially, like if the four person is not the elected official of the, you know, a country, it's not an autocracy.

9:17It's, you know, there a person that is kind of in charge of going through the instructions and trying to keep some, you know, some modicum of control in there in terms of, all right, let's, like everybody calm down. Let's try to, let's try to ease it back a little bit. You know, they're trying to move the deliberations forward in a positive way if they can. You know, which is a tough gig back there. Yeah. For that, that juror that wrote the note, they didn't independently write it without talking with the other jurors, including the other juror, which was probably more like, look, I'm, I'm about to whistle blow on your ass. Like a, a loving of us are in agreement. I'm sending this note out. I'm telling the judge what's happening in here. And that's it. And the other juror was probably like, go for it. I don't care. You know what I mean? You know, the holdout was holding out because the other personality trade is that people

10:18harden under pressure. You know, if you're, you're going to bristle up, it's 11 versus one and you're feeling cornered. I mean, you're going to, you're going to protect yourself. I mean, it's human nature. And we all do that. And you're going to get defensive, you know, which is a natural instinct. So should you know what's the thing that, huh? Should you have filtered that out then, um, Sullivan? But I would like to have seen is just the actual note red verbatim. Well, like that, that's typically what you hear is one of the other red verbatim. And the difference between us and the lawyers is the lawyers heard the note verbatim. So whatever Ruddington saying, and he's really on the note, spoke, spoke on the note, because he, you have to understand in this situation, this was, this was an absolute Hail Mary touchdown catch for the Commonwealth because they were, they were on the verge of losing this trial. Right. Like they, they were thrilled. They were thrilled with the mistrial. This was, this is a weird opposite effect because in my estimation, it was a reverse

11:20jury nullification, wherein it was one particular, uh, juror that was refusing to, to aid from, again, from my estimation, follow the law because I, I believe that, that juror said, look, okay, you know, whatever. There's doubt, you know, maybe didn't even say, yeah, okay, I think there's reason. We have no idea what was going on was being sad over seven days, right? But at some point, there's some acknowledgement by that person that, that yeah, okay, there's some kind of doubt. I don't care. I don't care. You know, like she killed her kids. She's going to prison. That's, like, you're never getting me to change my vote. That's that. So we can talk about this for a hundred years. And I'm never changing my mind. The problem with that is, is that that person before they were selected as a juror was asked if they could put that aside, that you put your personal biases and your feelings and your convictions. And if your answer to that is no, that's totally fair. And then you're not on the journal.

12:21How old will you? Yeah. You have to be honest about it. Yeah. And you have to tell the judge, I'm sorry, judge. I feel so strongly about this that there is no circumstance under which I am going to ever change my opinion on that. I honestly don't care what the evidence. There is no shame in that. There could also have done it though, but they also could have done it. I mean, few of us, if any of us have seen and heard such horrendous things as they saw during that case. And so you could easily come in with thinking you have a very open mind until you witness the things that they had like the nine, you know, the nine one one call, which was horrific. Again, just from what we heard. And so it would make you, it would make you more, you know, convicted in there. But this isn't the first case that things like this has happened on either. So it just, again, it's imperfect solutions, an imperfect system, but it's still a system. So it's a tough situation. Yeah. And that's what I've said. You know, like that juror could have been asked that question at the point because every juror's asked that question.

13:22Every juror indicates that they're might be some kind of bias that they have an opinion on it coming in as asked that question. Well, okay, it's how you rehabilitate jurors. You know, I always hate it as a defense attorney. I'm like they're, they're not changing their mind. It's like I know, you know, and the judge is like, because then we were talking about this last week, that's the point where I have to get rid of a juror for, you know, using one of my challenges, my preemptory challenges. I have to say, okay, well, they should have been booted for Cog. Because you and I both know that's bullshit that that person's never changing their mind because they're human. You know, so that question's asked, but to your point, Rob, and it's very likely that that juror wasn't lying on the front end. Yeah. The juror probably said, well, yeah, I can apply the law despite what he feels. And then like you said, as the evidence starts coming in, he realizes midway through, like man, there's no way.

14:22Right. Like I cannot, I'm not going to be able to do this. Like I feel the way I feel my convictions are what they are. My morality is what it is. And I'm not going to be able to change my mind on that. And then what's that juror supposed to do at that point, you know what I'm saying? Like the train is left the station. Yeah. And the other part of this, so that's really problematic is that we get the two erotic charge, all right, or the dynamite charge or the Allen charge. They call it different things and different jurisdictions. But that essentially tells the language in that tells the jurors in the minority to reexamine their views. But it also tells them not to surrender an honest conviction just to reach a verdict. Right. So that language exists in the two erotic charges, which is the last charge that went back. So when that juror is hearing that, like that exact language, you know, not to surrender

15:23an honest conviction just to reach a verdict, Sullivan reads it. And then the general comfort, as your personal confirmation by you here, what you want to hear, it's a double down on what you're already thinking. Yeah. Yeah. It's like a dog and pony show that we present and we think, oh, this will all work out. Well, these people will follow these, these rules and this two erotic is charged. This will get at the end of the day. There really are no consequences to adjourn, not following the instructions. It's pretty much it's the honors system. But in their mind, they did, you know, they're mind that you're exactly right. And somebody early on here in this, you know, there's a lot of ways you can think about it. You can think about it. Well, they, they went in and they knew that they were going to do this. Maybe not. Like you were saying, maybe they went and thinking, I will be very unbiased. And maybe the evidence hit them in such a way they're like, shit, I know, bitches going down. If that's what that's how they're thinking. And that's their conviction. That's truly what they believe. And that's not them necessarily going in thinking, I'm going to convict you no matter what.

16:25That's them seeing the evidence and further being fortified into their own position at the end. I mean, and then everybody goes into the world of all what if, what if this juror had, you know, what if they came into what knowing they're going to hang in and they were, okay, there's that argument. And that certainly can happen. I'm not saying it happened here. I don't know if it happened here, but that can certainly happen. But Bob Arthur is does a consequence exist for someone who goes into a trial with the ill intent, not the, my opinion change or further fortified this way that way. One that went in, lied to the, the attorneys, lied to the judge going in that they could be unbiased knowing full damn well. I'm going to convict her. I don't care what the hell you present to me in the next handful of weeks. This is what I'm going to be. Is there any consequence for that if that could ever be proven like if it's like, yep, they said it going in here. They are in videos saying exactly that. I'm not saying they are not the normal wearer. No, it's just like, okay.

17:26Yeah. I mean, same on the attorneys for not catching that person that that basically got through the cracks basically, right? You know, because I mean, if you go all the way back to the, the OJ jury, you know, when it came out after the fact, long after the fact, you know, when we've seen some of the documentaries that were made and they got some of the jurors on there and like, this was a, this was an eye for an eye for us as black people because the Rodney King, they come down for the cops who had beaten the shit out of them on the side of the road and they were all acquitted. Like this, this was us literally saying, okay, how you like it? We're doing it. I mean, and I don't remember hearing anything happening to those jurors. You know, I don't know what you do in that situation. I mean, if I were the whole Dow juror, you know, I mean, your solution to that is to simply say, my understanding of reasonable doubt is that the Commonwealth of Maddett's burden.

18:34Like, you know, they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt to me. That she didn't have psychosis. I mean, that's the easiest thing for that person to say. But then again, like, we don't know what the note says verbatim. That's where the whole thing here is. You know, it's like, maybe it says exactly that. Maybe it just uses the word doubt, you know, and maybe the other 11 are misconstrued. It's a situation wherein we can't get into the providence of the, the providence of the deliberations has to be sacred, you know, which is ultimately why, why Sullivan's like, and I disagreed with them. I think that there was probably a, like a very generic answer or a question rather than that he could have asked that wouldn't have gotten into the providence of the jury deliberations because you can't have a judge inserting himself in there. You can't have a judge asking specifics about what they're deliberating about. Like, okay, well, let me, let me, what is your understanding of, of reasonable doubt?

19:37And like, let me tell you what it means. Like that can't happen. Right. That can never happen with the jury. You know, they're given the instructions. They've been agreed upon by both sides, both sides, send them back and the judge sends them back. And that's it. And there is no explaining the law. We say whatever the law that has been given to you that you are to apply is in your hands. You need to go back. You need to read it again. And you need to apply it as you see fit. But is this one of the reasons why also because, you know, I don't think I've ever followed a case this closely with so many what ifs going through my mind with deep analysis, not just on the loss of the three children and what caused it in Lindsey and whether I believe in the psychosis or not psychosis, but all these things. And to come back with the jury finding like this with one person holding out, is this one of the reasons why we haven't appeals process because it isn't in perfect system or is that a wholly different thing? It's a wholly different thing. I mean, this isn't really, I think there's going to be, there's going to be a filing

20:44in this case by the appellate council, probably the same one who did the up to 11, three petition to try to stay this in order to try to force the judge into having that individual voidire with that one particular juror. As you saw the SJC turned around pretty quickly and said, no, we don't, we don't see it here. And I'm assuming if the note would have been any more particular as to what was said, then they might have come back a different way. So because we read that petition on the air. Like when that whole thing when it was happening was insane. Like it was happening too fast. It was out of, it was completely out of left field, even though Ali and I were screaming on our live that they need to file that thing and then, and then read all of a sudden does it. And you know, and he had, he had been talking to like after, I think it was probably right

21:46after two, he was sent back. And then I think at that point, he probably reached out the appellate lawyers and look, you know, you need to prepare this, this petition because I have a feeling this thing is going to come back home like this jurors just not budget and, and I want the judge to question this juror in generically though. Again, it has to be generic. You know, it has to be like a question like that same question that was asked in the beginning, not getting into the, the details of the deliberations, but you're saying, you know, are you able to put aside your bias or your opinion and follow the law? Because the law is, if you find that the commonwealth is not met, they're burdened beyond a reasonable doubt. And they use that moral certainty language in mass. It's, it's lofty language. Yeah.

22:47And I mean, it's a way loftier language that we have an Illinois. You know, moral certainty is, is pretty intense. So, you know, and just ask that generically. And you know, if, if the juror at that point, if there are one of those folks that, in good faith said, yeah, I'll be able to put my, my bias or my opinion or my convictions aside and follow the law on the front end. Like you said, Robin, he hears the plaintiff whales of Patrick Clancy when he discovers his kids and he's like holy shit. Yeah, I'm not going to be able to do this. Right. You know, it's a human reaction. Yeah. Right. It's very reasonable. It's a human reaction. And it's, it's only going to bolster, bolster the way that that person's feeling coming in. Yeah. Very much so. So, I have some thoughts in the, the comment section on sub stack in YouTube as we continue our conversation about the Lindsey Clancy lack of verdict at the center of this tragedy

23:50is a mother who was desperately crying for help while being prescribed and ever shifting chaotic cocktail of medications. This trial pulled back the curtain on postpartum health care, the system that seems to be blind in many ways to acute psychosis and the catastrophes that can take place when things are not monitored appropriately. Joining me to discuss Bob Mottah, host of defense diaries in Rob and Drake, retired FBI Special Agency for the Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program. What is next? That is the big question everybody is asking. As of this morning, we're recording this on Tuesday morning after the long holiday weekend I know last, we heard on Friday, Red was going to be filing some things this week. Bob, where, where do we sit on the train track of Lindsey Clancy going forward, right? It's so hard to know. It's so hard to know, you know, I mean, it, it really depends on what the DA likes to do

24:55here. Right. Like, let's, because when they both walk out of the courtroom that day, emotions are high and I'm talking about, you know, both the DA and, and writing 10 and then when they gave their, they're, you know, heated comments. Both of them were kind of on fire. You know, Red was upset and, and so was the DA. You know, I mean, he, they were both adamant about what they were saying. When cooler heads start to prevail and you've got some time for this to kind of settle in, you know, because walking out of that courtroom that day. You know, you know, having done this for many years, there's a lot going on with you. No one made a definitive statement of, you know, we're going to be retrying this. The DA didn't, you know, Reddington, you know, alluded, we're ready, you know, we're ready to go and go. And on Good Morning America this morning too, he said that, you know, they're open to anything that they come back with.

25:57So I mean, he seems, he's, you know, he's up and ready to go. But there's a lot of potential paths here forward. Massachusetts, the rule basically from what we understand, first degree, it has to be a jury trial. So the idea of a bench trial coming in from what we understand would have to be a lesser charge second degree, manslaughter, things of that nature on the table for a bench trial to take place without a jury. Is that really where we sit? Either they lesser the charges and then we go to a bench trial possibly or what other options, what are the possible scenarios here in this hellish choose your own adventure book? Well, I mean, essentially they could go retry in the same indictments, all right, assuming that double jeopardy is not a barrier. And that's going to be something that potentially depending on what happens with the DA's office, the crews decides to do. I think if they come out relatively quickly and say that we're retrying or you're going

27:04to see this thing go up, up, you know, up the chain in terms of getting up to probably the SJC at some point, as we saw in the Karen Reed case, where, you know, they're basically saying because Reddington asked the judge towards the end to basically pull the jury. Yeah, it did not happen. Why? Why did they? I mean, this just seems like cross your tea, dot your eye. This happened in Karen Reed too. I mean, why not just do it? What do you got to lose? Right. And what didn't happen is the lawyers did not ask the judge to do it and read here he did. Yeah. And that was a sticking point and Reed when they appealed it up to the, I think it went up to the SJC. They appealed it to the SJC because there is that language that says the judge at the judge's discretion can act the jurors if they were hung on everything or say, all right,

28:05well, we were, we were, we were good on first degree. We decide that we weren't going to go first degree, but we were, and we were, we were good on, you know, the manslaughter where we were kind of hung on was, was the, you know, was going to be the, the sucked degree or the manslaughter, whatever the case may be. Yeah. Just the answer. But eliminate those things. If they could have said all of us agreed back there, all 12 of us agreed that we weren't going to convict on first degree. So that would then bar that double jeopardy would attach that dramatically. And they wouldn't be able to try because there was, it was, it was uttered in open court. That's the thing that needs to happen. That doesn't matter what they say back in the jury room. The thing that has to be said is it has to be said in the courtroom. It's got to be on the record. Yes, we were all in agreement that, that first degree was going to be not guilty on that. Though we were going to go, they were going to quit on the, on the first degree.

29:07And so that, and that changes everything because at that point, that brings, all right, well, then, then crews, you can say, all right, well, then we're going to go on second degree. And, and that's it. But second degree, you can do a bench and, and, and, and, writing ten is set it. And I, you know, he would think about it. If it's going to be Sullivan again, but Sullivan, I think he, I think he's like on the verge of forced retirement. Like I think that he's, he's run his course on the bench. So depending on how long this thing takes to get the trial. I know with the murmurs about, you know, the fall, you know, I mean, like, writing ten was like, I want to, I want a jury in panel next Monday. I mean, like, in the fall, we're kind of starting fall, like right now, we're starting fall, right? So what, I mean, this, I mean, that was shocked by that idea. Like, I don't, that would be amazing. If we could get it up, does it ever happen that quick? Bobby, you know, really?

30:07So you've seen a hungry happen and then boom, they're up and running because everybody's already prepared basically. They got their stuff ready to go. So let's just come back to the room and play. Yeah. Well, I mean, if you're the, the commonwealth, you're retrying the case differently. Right. Yeah. Like you're basically taking the approach that they took in the closing as opposed to what they did in the opening. Yeah. Because by the time we got to the closing, they had changes or tune. They had, they had decided, okay, we're abandoning this, a suicide attempt was a ruse. We're admitting that it was a serious attempt. And we're also acknowledging, acknowledging that she had a mental illness or defect. We're just saying it wasn't the type that wouldn't allow her to know right from wrong and to conform her conduct to the requirements of law. Like, like that's all we're saying. So they would try it differently, you know? So, which is always in my estimation, and advantage to the commonwealth. That doesn't mean that the writing tin wouldn't tweak some of his case as well. You know, but in theory, it's basically the same.

31:09They have the framework of how they should try the case and I'm talking about the commonwealth. And, and you know, red would make his tweaks. Like you, you have to worry if you're retting tin, you have to worry about reznic, you know? He's, he's pretty old. Yeah. And he wasn't, he was not feeling well. He was going through some medical issues where he couldn't fly. Right. You know, that's why he, he, and you need reznic. You need that guy. Reznic is really the key to the defense in terms of when you have the commonwealth experts all kind of bending, bending the knee to reznic is saying, yeah, he's the authority on, you know, philosophie and on also in terms of malingering as to hallucinations. And, you know, like that's the guy. You know, when you have their experts admitting that and that we've relied on things that he's set, you know, that, that, that gives a lot of weight to reznic and basically builds in my

32:09estimation, reasonable doubt into the case, because you could be saying, well, all right, their experts are saying that this guy is the shit. Okay. And this guy is the shit in terms of that particular area. So he's reasonable like that. That is, or it's a plausible thing that he's saying that she was psychotic. However, we also find what the, the commonwealth's witnesses were saying was reasonable and plausible as well. Well, I'm sorry, but that's reasonable doubt. And when you have two different situations, which are plausible, that is not beyond a reasonable doubt. Right. And literally the definition of it. So they'd have to tinker with it. I mean, they can also decide to retry on, you know, just the second degree of man slaughter, abandoning the first degree theories that have that premeditation and the, or extreme atrocity or cruelty. You know, because I, the explanation of the state gave of atrocities was not what atrocities are like under the statute.

33:09Like it was complete. Her, hers was just like, oh, this was a mother doing this. That the kids were sitting there in this nightmare watching the person who's supposed to love the most killed on that. That's an atrocity that, that's not how the law reads in terms of, you know, falling under the, the category of extreme atrocity, which we'd need in order yet to, you know, that first degree. And then the other thing they could do, obviously, is a negotiated resolution. And this is where it gets interesting. Yeah. Yesterday I was having a pretty, pretty lengthy conversation with another person that I was doing alive with yesterday. And we were getting into this, the possibilities with a negotiated resolution because you've got to look at this like this. All right. You see the split in society. There are people that are adamant that, you know, Lindsey Clancy is a fucking monster. And she needs to go down. I don't give a shit. Everybody that's supporting her is crazy. Like what is it?

34:09Like are we living in crazy world? And then you've got the people that are not mental illness deniers. Like, like myself and you, yes. It's essentially kind of what it is. It's mental illness denial. That is what it is. It really is. There's the other way about it. Like, you know, when I read comments from people like, oh, you know, the mental health, the mental illness aspect was a, it was just a, like a narrative that the defense was, I'm like, holy shit. I'm like, these people literally, like mental illness is not a narrative. Like, like, it's a disease. And that, but that shows what the problem is. It's just people in this country that actually think that it's, it's a narrative. It's opposed to realizing that this shit is as real as it gets and that there's people, millions of people all over the world that are suffering on a daily basis and suffering massively from whatever mental illness that they're going through.

35:10And it's real. And you know, it's just, it's such a difficult case, you know, because it's that it's the thing that I keep saying. I don't know that they'll ever be able to impanel 12 people that are, you know, beyond it ever. And this thing, I mean, 11 to one for NG, I mean, what kind of appetite does the state of man? I mean, I know this Massachusetts likes to retry their shit. Even when they're, they, they double down, they dig in like a petulant, you know, old uncle or something that's arguing their opinion despite the rest of the family saying, boba, you can sit here by the campfire by yourself. We're going inside. This is getting weird. That's Massachusetts. But are they going to do it again? Or do they have an appetite for that? Are they going to say, you know, this kind of makes us look stupid. Maybe we should do this off here in the, the quiet of a, a settled agreement in a judges chamber between the attorneys and, and send Lindsey off to be locked away in a mental institution, which he's been asking for the whole time.

36:12Well, they'll end up doing what she originally asked for and pretend it was our idea at the end of the day. Yeah. I mean, look, it's, I would pose this question. To, to DA crews, if I were writing to, and I would say, look, you know, the, the prosecution offices around this country are always championing the fact that they're, they're there representing the people, but really they're representing the victims. And, and, and crews was adamant about that. We're representing the victims here. We're representing the, you know, Corridor, Austin and Caled, that, that's who we're here for. And they need justice. The problem here is what does justice look like? Because for the folks that are eye for an eye, well, justice means if they have the death penalty available, which they do not en masse, that she should be fried in a situation where it's life without the possibility, then that's what she gets. And I don't care about anything else. For those folks, that's what justice looks like.

37:14For folks like myself and folks like the family of the victims, which people actually mattered. The people that were testifying on behalf of Lindsey Clancy, I don't think that they think justice looks the same thing the same way that crews thinks it might look. Yeah. And, and, and you know, how I win that argument, look who they testified for. Yeah. That tells you where the family is on this thing, the family who knew her best, who knows her best, who lived with her, who were there for the people that are ignoring those people that are screaming out there. That's how you lose every argument that you were going to have with me, because I will always have those folks to point to, and say, they're the ones that this matters most to, not you. You got no stake in this in terms of we have a stake in terms of a society, the people on the other side of this are stake is, you know what?

38:18Let's change the healthcare system. Let's start acknowledging that that women's mental health and postpartum is real. And let's do something about it. Let's make sure that this never happens again to another child and or mother that ends her own life because she's going through it just because we don't fucking get it. Because we don't get it is not the answer. If you're not willing to listen and understand what's real and move forward on that, no matter how hard it is, if that means that you have to kind of swallow this incredibly bitter pill, that the fact that this woman did this to these three kids who she loved more than anything on the planet. And you have to swallow that in order to move forward to make sure it never happens again. Well, then that's what we have to do. Period. Or they'll just keep sailing their ship off the flat earth. And so here's my question about if they work a plea deal or even if they go and try it again on a lesser charge, which makes it easier for a jury to be more unanimous on this.

39:27And so say and even in this case say that she was convicted on manslaughter. And but then she I mean, is there any way because I don't think so that the judge then can impose going back to Tukesbury because that's ultimately what the family wants and what the people that stand with Lindsey want and not looking for release, they're looking for mental health help where she's been staying for three years in Tukesbury. And so is there any way that they negotiate for the lesser charge and a plea deal, but then she goes also to Tukesbury or does she go back to general population? Because I think that's part of the issue that we're all having with it also is that where's a sentence going to be carried out? Well, I mean, it depends. If she's foreign guilty, she goes to theoretically, she goes to prison. Now the problem is going to be if they try her again. Right. I'm not so sure that's going to happen. I can make the plea deal for the Tukesbury there. Okay. They can. Yeah. Absolutely. So the obviously landing spot for a negotiated plea.

40:27And this is where it got interesting in the conversation I was having yesterday. I think there exists a world in which they could say, all right, we're willing to, we're willing to concede the point. We're willing to, to agree that she pleads not guilty lack of criminal responsibility. But we want to, we want to try to do a set time frame. Okay. Now, and we're saying we're going to say five years. All right. We're going to say that she's going to be committed in there for at least five years. If she continues not to be better, if she doesn't get better, if she's still, you know, a danger to herself or others, then she stays in. And if she never gets right, she's in there forever. I mean, which is a possibility? You know, however, in the event that that she does get made whole, it, because like there's, there's two parts of it. And, and I know this from, from speaking to a woman named Lisa Tremaine and New Jersey,

41:29who has this incredible, it's the only one in the country. And I keep screaming from the rooftops about this woman and this, the center that she has. And it's specifically for postpartum issues where mothers are having it, they can come in, they can fully disclose everything that's going on without fear of repercussion. And they treat them until they're better. And every single mother that comes in there walks out well and the kids are alive. It's like the place, it's a miracle. The place is a miracle. They need to have them in every, if this place existed or if Lindsey was aware of it, if she had Googled and found it and she's like, Pat, I need to go to this place in Jersey. These people are going to help me. I guarantee you the kids are still here. I guarantee it. This, and this woman has been fighting and fighting and fighting. They have helped thousands of women, thousands of women, and they allow the women to bring the babies with them. So they're not separated and they're treated.

42:31They have, they have trained doctors in there. They, they're allowed to, because the bigger problem here is the under reporting that's happening for women, because they're afraid of the repercussions if I report. Yeah, because you're dealing with government agencies, government agencies, take your kids away. They'll, they'll, you'll get committed. You'll lose your licensing. Like if she's a nurse, like everything she, she had, what had to have been going through her brain as this is going on for four months is like, I'm, like, I don't know how much I can tell that and that's not just Lindsey Clancy. That's every single woman that goes through this shit. Yeah. And it's because of the stigma. It's like, you know, if you're a woman that's suffering and you're going online, please get offline, because when you see the ignorance that exists, there are about people just denying that this shit is real. That keeps this exactly where it is hidden in the dark, allowing, not allowing women to come forward with how they're

43:34absolutely feeling and being completely honest with it. Could you imagine a world in which Lindsey could have said, this is everything I'm going through? And in great detail, I think we're being a very, very different place right now. If that had actually existed, unfortunately, that is not where we are. And there seems to be half of the population very much happy with the way our system works. Saying, we don't need that. What's that going to help a lot? It would help a lot. Your thoughts in the comments section on sub stack and YouTube. We'd love for you to weigh in. There is definitely a personal cost if there's going to be a second Lindsey Clancy trial to the survivors of this tragedy, not only Lindsey herself, Patrick, the family members, the grandparents, aunts, uncles, anyone who was close to that family that has lived through this. What's been very interesting about this trial is watching the victims gather around Lindsey, stand on her side, sit on her side of the courtroom day after day and be in her space.

44:40You didn't see an angry mob on one side that were in any way related to Lindsey Clancy. They understand what took place. Bob, Bob, the defense attorney is with us along with Robin Drake to discuss what's going to be going on next. Bob, how, how much of a consideration does a DA take into consideration when you have the whole family? Everybody, the victims, everybody all on one side saying we get what happened here with the person accused of this crime and we don't want to see them burn. Obviously, it didn't weigh a whole lot this time. The state of Massachusetts still said, we don't care what you feel. We know better. Let's burn her. Do they, do they take a second closer? Look at that at round two, since we didn't really end up with a true answer is in round one. I would hope so. I mean, I mean, is that part of the process? Do they, do they, do they ever sit down with the family? Do they sit down with Patrick? Do they sit down with Graham and Grandpa and go, hey, what do you think?

45:41Should we go after her again? Yeah, I mean, it depends. Every prosecutor's office is different. I like that there's no, you know, like handbook that says you have to sit down with his family. But I think that again, and I was saying this in our last segment, you know, we know where the family stands on this. Yeah, you know, we know where they stand on this. Do they think that Patrick Clancy wants to come in there and do that again? Do they think that Sue Clancy wants to come in there and do that again? Do they think that anybody wants to go in there and do that again? I mean, do you get everybody in there and do that again? I mean, what, let me ask you that too. I mean, because this is something to consider too. I mean, yes, I know you, you could force people to come in, but to a certain extent. But what if Patrick's like, I'm not doing this again. I'm not going, I'm not, I'm not subject to, he of every damn person in this case has every understandable right to say, no, no, I'm not subject to myself to the fucking mob of insane people

46:45who think the earth is flat and that I killed my kids. I'm not doing the million. He's got like, yeah, his lawyer had to put out another statement today. You know, and for those of you out there that are screaming that he did this and calling a murderer and doing all that shit. They're going to take a flying leap. I mean, but I'd consult an attorney because his attorney's made it clear that anybody who's making content out there that's coming after him like that with definitives, calling him a murderer, saying he did this, they're coming after you. I would go consult with an attorney. He was very clear in this statement. Yeah. You know, like, this isn't, this isn't a defense that was used in trial. Like, there's a difference when a defense comes out and say there's a third-party culprit and people are discussing it, that's a different thing. This is just people on their own accord digging around saying, okay, well, this is inconsistent.

47:45Why didn't they look at this? This doesn't make any sense to me. Okay, he did it. You know, that's a completely different thing. Does Patrick have a right to say I'm not showing, I'm not coming in. I'm not testifying a second time. I'm not. You use the tape. Use the tape. But he's not using me. If they subpoena, they're going to haul his ass into court. But Patrick has the ability to do which it only leads to more that drag me in. You're not going to like what I say. Even if he, because what would be worse is if he were to have to be subpoenaed to come in. Because he could easily, you know, that would just lead to more conspiracy. See, he doesn't want to testify. Like, no, he doesn't want to be burned alive by you. Hyenas is what he doesn't want. Yeah. It's it's it's it's crazy. Bob, so on this going after it again, angle of it, Reddington took a lot of heat afterwards from online about how he portrayed the diger that was a holdout. And some people are saying censure and things like that. So for looking at the retrial, does he in real terms, because this is your area,

48:46does he actually face anything for the statements he made? Like you were saying in the last segment in the heat of the moment afterwards both him and Cruz were kind of, you know, spewing about what was going off. I mean, what was going on in their motion the moment. So was he inappropriate and what he was saying about the juror and can he face any reciprocity for that legally? And in the words, can he be around for another trial just making sure? Oh, yeah. Like, I, you know, I mean, is it possible that the disciplinary board would look at it? But at the end of the day, you know, I mean, he's, he's got a position wherein I think any attorney, if they understand, if they're understanding the situation is that you have a juror that's refusing to apply the law, it's different. This isn't like there was a verdict and it went against him and he came out and was firing on the jury. That's not, that's not what this is. This is a mistrial wherein a note came out and the note was saying something to the effect of

49:47that this juror acknowledged out and as refusing to apply the law. So I think if, if he could go back in time, he'd probably take a, like a lighter path in terms and just say, you know, I'm really disappointed with the, the way that this went down. But in terms of like, he didn't dox anybody. Oh, yeah. I was, that's why I want to make sure we brought this up because I saw you guys. That's why he's doing it. The jurors, it's like, coffee navers out there trying to say I was dox and true. I know. So that I had to fire back on her. I'm like, what the fuck are you talking about, lady? Like there's three men and I don't know what damn thing about any of them other than what they look like. And I didn't say what they look like. I didn't need to give that. I know. I was, I had, I had to look it up too. I actually, because of that exchange, I actually had to look up the very technical term what doxing is and yes, not even close, writing to not even close. But I was just curious because I know a lot of people are saying, send you for him because those actions. But again, I just wanted to get away from the, the, the tiktokers in the world that were thrown

50:48shade on everything that goes on. If it doesn't agree with them, I was just curious about the, if there wasn't anything there to that. I don't anticipate there's going to be any issues. I would hope not. I get again, this is a difference out of circumstances because it was a mistrial. Right. You know, like, if you've got a lawyer coming out after a verdict doesn't go their way and that they're popping off like that and they're, you know, pointing it a particular juror, that's an issue. When you have a mistrial and again, that note came out, I mean, any lawyer, no matter what side you're going to be on, it's going to be upset by that situation. Because of the way the note reads, you know what I mean? Without knowing more because none of the lawyers have talked to these jurors either. You know what I mean? That's not how this thing works. You don't go have a round table with the jurors after a trial and say, well, you know, let's talk about it. That doesn't happen. So all they have to go by is the note and what the end result was. You know, and I don't know if it was true because I was not there when the mistrial happened.

51:50But I know WBC was reporting that, you know, there were jurors that were crying when the mistrial was being read and their heads were in their hands and shit. I don't know if that's true or not. I'm assuming that it is. Responsible thing to report if it wasn't happening in there. Sure. You know, these jurors went through hell for six weeks. And, you know, to end this way, where if I think if we were to talk to the 11, that's where the rubber is going to meet the road. Like if any of the 11 are willing to talk or even the holdout, and just hear what their perspective on what went back. But, you know, like the kind of the insane blood lost out here. Yeah. People just can't speak reasonably about it. And you know, like, like, would you want to talk? No, right now. Right now. Yeah. And you know, Patrick, you know, because he was in Patrick. He was, I made a, I made a misstatement at the very beginning of this case saying that

52:53Patrick was standing with Lindsay because it hadn't developed enough yet. And even that statement was, no, he wasn't. He was, he was stating facts. And he was saying the facts he was saying was before she got sick is the, is the quote that was, and so he saw her as getting sick. He reported exactly what happened when she got sick. This isn't her. And that's where the congruences on all this. And so, yeah, to go down the world of the conspiracy theorist there is just kind of nutters. If we do see around two here, Bob, and they go, you know, what do you think the prosecution is going to frame differently? Do you think we're going to use the same framing of it was an insincere, suist attempt? No. Are we going to really change up some of these terms that they use that just didn't land well, which made them seem kind of fake? Well, yeah, I mean, it made them seem completely disingenuous. Yeah. Like, and that was the thing like I was having a debate on my life with Yen, wrong call. Yeah. You know, like when we were kind of critiquing the closings, I think, you know,

53:55everybody was of the mindset that the Commonwealth's closing was more fluid. You know, it was more linear, just follow the straight line. Was easier to follow. Red was kind of like throwing darts a little bit. I like reds. I never, I like red. I thought red was good. But yeah, I did too. You know, and like, people kind of don't understand that when you're in a situation like they have in Massachusetts where you're the defense and you go first, it's a different set of circumstances than we're all accustomed to seeing. Because usually in most jurisdictions, the federal jurisdiction, most state jurisdictions, it goes prosecutor, defense, and they're in a rebuttal closing for the prosecutor. So what that means is that you can be reactive as the defense attorney based on what they're actually saying in terms of their initial closing. Here, you have it where you're trying to anticipate what they're going to say.

54:57And you're trying to kind of throw those things in there where you're guessing, okay, the Commonwealth's going to hit on these five or six different things. All right. And I'm going to try to get in front of them any way that I can. But you're guessing. Do you see what the difference is? Where when you normally have a Commonwealth that goes first or a state that goes first, you know what they're saying. And then what they're doing at the end is they're rebutting what you said during your closing. Here, you don't have that. You don't have the ability to be able to sit there and listen to the initial closing of the Commonwealth. Say, all right, I'm jotting these notes down. I'm going to come on to these things. Which is what you see the Commonwealth typically doing a rebuttal closing. Anything that that happens and you saw it here. You saw it when red put the quarters down. Like, no, you play pool like here. I want you to I want to see you answer this one. And then he left the quarters on there. And her reaction to that was she's like, all right, I answered that one.

55:58Grab the quarter, put it in her pocket. All right. I answered that one. That's the reactive type situation that I'm talking about. Whereas you're trying to be proactive, guessing what they're going to say. So from that perspective, I was like, eh, but the Commonwealth is absolutely going to change its entire way that they present this case. And they're going to mimic what they did in the closing where they're going to acknowledge that this was an actual serious attempt at suicide. You're going to say, yes, we are an agreement. Like that first thing that we all have to agree on before we move to the two prongs of knowing what's wrong and being able to conform here is did she have a mental disease or defect? We're all in agreement on that. Here's where the problem lays for, you know, and this is the Commonwealth closing. The problem is that while we agree that she had a mental disease or defect, that disease did not, right, not allow her to know wrong and it did not allow her to perform her behavior to the requirements along.

57:00It makes it easier. Just say we agree on everything defense said. We just think she's criminally couple before it. Exactly. Yeah, I mean, honestly, you make it a lot less confusing. You probably get to an answer a lot quicker, but I mean, at the end of the day, it is a confusing case. We will see if they dust it back off and try again in the coming days and weeks. Your thoughts in the comments section on Substack and YouTube. Love for you to weigh in. The links are in the description. Defense Diaries Bob Mata, go check it out wherever you get podcasts. Search Defense Diaries and press subscribe. Also, buried inside the John Wayne Gacy investigation, also available great binging material. Dive into that podcast as well. Robin Drake, Retired FBI Special Agent. Also, now the host of his very own master class, which you can check out. Robin. Yeah, so check out master class. It's all about behavioral assessment and becoming the person, everyone trusts and then doing a deep dive everything we talk about here.

58:00Check it out masterclass.com, backslash, Robin Drake. Thanks very much. Go and check it all out and be sure to press subscribe so you don't miss any of our coverage of this in the many cases we follow for you right here. Until next time for Bob and for Robin, I am Tony. We will talk again real soon.