Did Lindsay Clancy's Psychiatrist Testimony Help or Hurt Case? Recap & STS #BestGuest Legal Analysis

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy called a suicide hotline not once but twice while under the care of psychiatrist Dr. Jennifer Tufts who was on the stand and she said she had absolutely no idea then defense attorney Kevin Reddington demanded what did you do he was harsh even implying that she was just a box checking robot. Welcome to the global phenomenon surviving the survivor here's your host Emmy award-winning journalist Joel Waldman what's up STS nation welcome to surviving survivor this is the global phenomenon bringing you the very best guests in all true crime you've got to go back to January of 2023 in the Lindsay Clancy case to understand what happened here what transpired we're talking about Duxbury Massachusetts a very nice neighborhood on the eastern shoreline and Massachusetts prosecutors say that Lindsay Clancy intentionally sent her then husband Patrick Clancy out intentionally to create the window of opportunity and that she took three separate exercise bands and strangled the life out of her children's uh Cora Dawson and callin and that is how we arrive uh at day 10 of testimony in the Lindsay Clancy trial she uh according to uh the Commonwealth um tried to unalive herself she is uh there's questions over that but she is paralyzed from the sternum down and has appeared in court all these days uh in a wheelchair that she will be confined to for the remainder of her life here to help us break this all down we've got an all-star panel he was here to help today while i was at courtney clenny r timothy jansen letter r and o u r the famed tallahassee criminal defense attorney and the former federal prosecutor come to us from the beautiful commonwealth that is massachusetts next up you've got prof joe explains she is a youtube host extraordinaire of prof joe explains she's also the professor emerita university of nebraska school of law and she knows all things italian uh quite well uh josh ritter uh josh ritter uh is a friend of mine and therefore a friend of the show tim jansen you filled in uh this was aggressive cross some felt too aggressive what did you think [00:02:48] Timothy Jansen: oh i don't think it was too aggressive uh i i think the state put this witness on you know the state always complains we don't pick our witnesses right because they'd all pick catholic priests uh they put a woman up there who treated this woman who had less than a month experience um and then she complained during cross examination technology didn't allow her to write more more thorough nerd notes and then when she was caught reading notes that were wrong she said oh disregard those notes because it didn't help her case i i thought he he made great points sometimes he got i think he was incredulous that the system and this doctor failed her so miserably and that this doctor held herself out as an expert and it was an advertising thing then she said i was just i was interested in uh postpartum i didn't say i was an expert even though her bio said she was an expert expert uh in that so i thought the cross-examine effectively made her worthless to the commonwealth and she gave parts that undercut the commonwealth case right she said that lindsay didn't want to take drugs she tried to get off the drugs which is contrary to them saying she was doctor shopping and then at one point she tried to do non-drugs fish oils because she wanted to try something non-drug that defeats the whole narrative of the commonwealth case that she was fishing for these drugs to set up this fake suicide ritter by the way do you know what [00:04:27] Speaker 1: these unc alerts are i thought it was like the university of north carolina then i found out from multiple sources that it's like a shout out slash sort of a super chat but for quote unquote boomers i'm curious do you get those because they're like making fun of older people are you [00:04:46] Speaker 3: aware of this i do not and i now i feel completely lost and and and and exposed so so thank you [00:04:56] Speaker 1: oh i'll get back to you josh ritter i just was curious and by the way i'll be on a courtroom confidential uh tonight and i'll try to keep it on the rails but uh professor joe patuto as uh the only female on the panel um i think you're probably the best one to answer this i mean here you have a grizzled 24 75 76 year old criminal defense attorney from brockton which is a a rough and tumble neighborhood and he's uh going up on a cross against um i think 36 37 year old you know relatively young female psychiatrist uh did he need to be careful on the stand with the way he talks to a woman talks to a [00:05:36] Speaker 4: physician uh and did he did he do that okay well yeah i think he needed to be uh excuse me careful on the stand um i guess i agree with tim i didn't think he went over although a couple of times he got really cranky and i thought the crankiness was more show than actual feeling uh he a couple of times made comments she said something about that's not you don't have the right interpretation he said some something like neither do you or do you i mean and the state didn't object um i deferred it to tim on you know lawyer tactics and how they go over but i will say my view of her on on the stand was not as harsh as his uh i understood her to say that the ad that they were talking about which was on the website did not say expert he kept claiming it did she wanted to see it he never showed it to her there was a tricky little comma and the grammarian in me said she had it correct not he but the problem was you should be more careful with your commas uh but i think her reading of it was more accurate um and um but he's clearly impact passionate about i think the fact that he doesn't think this prosecution should ever been brought and i think that really infuses uh how he deals with witnesses and when they get over on the side of sounding as though uh they are saying that it was his client maybe and not they're prescribing drugs i think he gets a little a little hyper [00:07:23] Speaker 1: uh thank you uh josh ritter to you um you know one thing i'm just wondering about because uh people in the chat are saying man she got beat up um and look she's she's relatively young uh she's you know very sort of innocent there's no looking there's no doubt that she's uh qualified and she went to medical school and did her residency when your witnesses when you were prosecutor of the year josh took sort of a beating or drubbing from a senior attorney that people knew of i mean do you say anything to this person after after the testimony it's got it's gotta be tough on her it's gonna be tough on her mental health to be honest but you counsel them after where you say anything like i i know that was rough [00:08:08] Speaker 3: but you handled yourself well etc etc you know i think if you have an opportunity to sometimes you don't though you're so in the in the midst of the the next witness and the battle is ongoing and it's like okay she didn't do as well as you may have hoped or or or maybe they look at it and they go okay well we survived that one could have been worse uh and they move on to the next uh battle and they might not be uh having the time to kind of babysit feelings along the way or you know if they get enough i mean if you ask me in my experience yeah i was if people were around and looking for feedback i would give it to them but mainly you're focused on just kind of the next the next battle i'll say um just to give my two cents on this whole thing i mean you know tim makes an excellent point that like you don't get to choose your um don't get to choose your witnesses is what the prosecution always says i think they had to put her on to some extent i don't think they wanted to uh i think if they had their choice of who to put on but to not put her on would have been avoiding a very obvious witness of a person who had treated her so close in time to to the events they they couldn't hide from that um tim uh you know says he was incredulous uh professor joe says he was impassioned i agree with both of those things i have always been of the mindset that the attorney's attitude will not dictate to the jury how they should feel about a witness in other words what what i mean is like if an attorney gets up there and they're beyond themselves and upset and angry at the witness rarely is that going to turn a jury against a witness unless they're already feeling that way anyways if they're already feeling like this prosecution is going sideways or if they're already feeling like this doctor failed lindsey clancy then have at it i the what about what about backfiring what about the opposite effect right you know that's why i'm saying is that you have to you have to get permission from the jury you have to be able to read the room and if the jury is on board lay into that person but if they're not it can look like you're beating up on someone and she is not she was not in my view handing it right back to him right she wasn't giving him a lot of attitude she wasn't being you know dismissive of his questions she was in my view being very earnest now she made some mistakes and she tried to correct that but i don't think she was trying to go tit for tat with him uh and really battle him and so it could have looked like he was beating up on her now that's all our view of it it really depends i mean it could have a dramatically different effect is i guess the point i'm trying to make depending on how the jury feels if they already feel like this woman has been done wrong and here's another example of it and here's a great example of it they're gonna cheer that that cross every step of the way but if they're also feeling like hey this lady maybe not all that experience but trying to do the best she could all based upon the knowledge that she had you're going after her a little bit too hard and by the way it could have the backfiring of going what do you want me to do blame this woman for the murders of three children like is that really where you're trying to make me the like next logical step you're trying to make me make here because i understand and i think reddington by the way is a very good attorney he's very talented and i think he's done an excellent job of providing to the jury another bad guy it's not lindsey clancy it's the system it's the mental health care system the mental health care system is to blame for all of this and they are the ones that put her on this track towards disaster and if they are if the jurors are on board with that then maybe this was effective to them but still you know it's one thing to say the system is to blame and it's another thing to try to take it out on one person and say she's responsible for the murders of three kids [00:12:28] Speaker 1: so tim jansen so so josh ritter just said kevin reddington is talented and i think you agree with that [00:12:34] Timothy Jansen: statement what makes him good inside that courtroom well you know what he does do is he listens to the witness a lot of lawyers get up there and they they get their questions and they just read their questions are they're worried about making the right objection knowing the evidentiary rule and they're not listening to the witness the witnesses usually give them super bowl areas to go into opens doors for the defense to ask questions that are good for them um i i agree with josh he's not putting this woman on trial he's putting the system on trial he's gonna put covet on trial she never met him in person the first time she saw this person in person in face to face was in the courtroom one of the key things he asked her about postpartum he asked her a test a standard test that's used uniformly all over the country she didn't know she heard of the test didn't know the 30 criteria for the test and did then he testified did you know she scored like a 25 any or 23 anything over 15 is really bad she didn't know that i mean and they're holding her up as an expert he has the right and and the fact she's being sued that's motive and bias so yes he's got a fine line but he's making his defense and it's going to be the system not this young inexperienced brand new psychiatrist yeah and along the way though he's [00:14:06] Speaker 1: pointing out things i think she was done with her residency for like two months when she started seeing a month so that's yeah that's interesting uh this super chat has been up thank you to janet moorcraft and uh professor joe after hearing cross of dr jennifer tufts by kevin reddington i'm infuriated at the mediocrity of care for postpartum psychosis heartbroken for lindsay's suffering and desperation lindsay was begging and clamoring for help unfortunately the blind deaf ears um there are 12 women and six men ultimately 12 will decide uh jennet moorcraft could be a juror um how do you take her anger uh after hearing this testimony i mean do you think that it's safe to say that the jurors are feeling that way [00:14:54] Speaker 4: it's certainly safe to say that they might be it shows that he's successful presenting excuse me his view of what happened i i'm not obviously not a medical expert and i take everything they say with some level of i'm not so sure it's accurate he talked about that alternative test when he was done i thought why in the world didn't you use it on redirect the prosecutor got back up talked about the the depression test or the psychosis test that they do use and she said it's the test they use in her practice it's not her choice it's their choice which leads me to wonder how universal that other test was but in many ways i mean this sounded to me in many ways more like what's going to be done to this witness and others in the malpractice suit because it certainly suggests the standard of care may not be what it should be and that's the system but whether that translates to whether she was actually operating in a psychotic whatever at the time of the killings is another jump now may be easy for the jury if they get angry enough at the system i'm telling you i listened to some of the things she said and believed her as to what the standard of practice was and i thought this is incredible she talked about you believe that you believe what your patient says and you go from there you don't double check unless you're patient it's patients exhibit something that tells you look i mean that's not the way we're taught to practice law i just believe anything that need to be says and yesterday she said what i thought was extraordinary that the last i think it was the last time she saw lindsay she said i'm going to give you a new drug now tell the other prescriber the other medical person that you're using that i've given you this drug and i'm thinking in the first place what is she doing if there's already a doctor in place treating you would never be able to do that in law somebody comes in and you say hey i'm going to do this tell your other lawyer that i've done it uh and then to trust the patient to give that information to the other doctor when the drugs might interact i thought if that's the way and i believed her actually that that is a description of the way doctors maybe routinely work but it is [00:17:28] Speaker 1: really frightening it really is uh and i'll tell you as the son of a psychiatrist it's sort of doubly frightening uh you know my my dad was very open about uh you know he was worried i mean people are very volatile volatile volatile volatile and he uh you know on his mind a lot of times is exactly what's happening to jennifer tufts is one of my patients going to completely lose it uh am i going to get sued i mean there's a lot of liability and there's a lot of not knowing it's not like you go in and get an mri in your knee and you know they know right away what it is it can be much more nebulous in psychiatry and i think that uh it impacts the whole field you see kelly mcclellan here saying sadly dr jennifer tuft career will be affected by this because she'll always be associated with this case i think she's going to be affected i mean i think this is going to bother her i think if this was me uh treating a patient and this happened and this is what i was just talking about with my my father it was something that he lived with all the time this fear and thank god he never had a patient uh self unalive themselves but it was something that was constantly on his mind it's a very um big burden to carry i mean prosecutors carry different types of burdens defense attorneys carried other burdens neurosurgeons carry other burdens but my father was constantly worried like am i not reading something in this patient and now unfortunately however you want to say it for dr jennifer tufts um she she's being outed by the defense here and it is going to undoubtedly uh affect and impact her so uh josh ritter um brett talley prosecutors podcast great podcast he tweeted out today and since you are prosecutor of the year and we often get people on the show here saying you're not being fair to the commonwealth side um brett tweeted out i'm sympathetic that this all was the result of lindsey's broken brain the longer this case goes the less sympathetic i am to the notion that this is jennifer tufts fault and frankly the more it feels like the defense is trying to shift responsibility to others to me this is a tragedy is a better argument than it's all tufts fault uh what do you make of that tweet uh he's a bright guy [00:19:52] Speaker 3: does he make a uh salient point there yeah i think it would be a a strategic mistake for the defense to try to blame it on one person and but i think that they are um i think that he's been very smart in trying to make it about many people failed her that she was i mean he's made her he's made her a victim um in the eyes of many you know um which is a really difficult thing to to do going into a case like this think about the headline of this case just the the headline of this case is woman strangles three children to death right that's that is where you're starting at and he's done i think a masterful job of like saying wait a minute we need to reset the narrative on this thing entirely and he's done an excellent job of pointing out you know how how much she was trying to get care how much she was struggling how much she was being tortured by it and how people were failing her along the way how they she was being misdiagnosed and over prescribed and under prescribed and and and despite all of her best efforts and i think you know a lot of this is the facts are in his favor when it comes to a lot of this she she kept uh you know she was very diligent and very earnest and trying to get care she was keeping a diary about trying to get care this wasn't somebody who's taking their mental health unseriously and i think she was a very loving mother and so i think what he's doing is saying look at this they they put her on this freight train that was unstoppable and she couldn't turn it around and it led toward this inevitable tragedy and if it wasn't for and that's the argument he's trying to make but for their missteps but for their negligence but for their malpractice none of this would have ever happened there's a bit of an ellipses in between there right there's a bit of a dot dot dot but but for all of that because she did commit a rather horrific crime i mean many people are failed i imagine in the in the mental health care system and and tragic things happen but there is this big event and thing that she did um and if he tries to go as far as blaming them for that it's going to be a little bit more difficult of a sell but i'll tell you what right now i imagine if you ask the jurors what is the question they're supposed to answer i don't think they know it i think they would say it's something like was lizzie clancy suffering from psychosis or did her mental health care cause her to commit a murder like they don't i don't know if the prosecution has done any kind of an adequate job of really explaining to them what the question before them is in my view well it's not my view it's the law's view it's in spite of all of this did she know right from wrong all of these things can be true at once and that's where i think the prosecution has failed is they've tried to make none of it true they've tried to deny any of it and call into question any of her mental health and whether or not she was even attempting to take her own life whereas they should be saying yeah it was true but you have not heard one piece of evidence that have led you to believe that she couldn't appreciate the difference between right and wrong she can be psychotic she can be suffering from auditory hallucinations she can be over prescribed under prescribed not misdiagnosed and everything else and still know that murder is wrong i don't see think that they've done that i don't i don't i don't know if the prosecution i i think unless they dramatically kind of shift course here they they might not already they might already be on a a a [00:23:39] Speaker 1: pathway towards a verdict they're not hoping for very very very interesting again i wish my dad was here to speak on this i would have brought him on uh as an expert but uh my dad was a big guy when it comes to personal choices um no matter uh the mental health issues uh that you you know might be belighted with and uh it's what josh was talking about just in that moment uh did did she know right from wrong and that is the 64 000 question now you can't win uh when you're podcasting stop babing the doc if you say anything positive about lindsey clancy to stop babing lindsey clancy she's a 35 year old woman who did this to her children um tim jansen uh to you uh you are no baby uh you are uh a now a massachusettsian i don't know what do you call someone from massachusetts a massa i don't know i don't know yeah i don't know i have to look that one up i have no idea i have something i can say um so i mean one of the things that uh kevin reddington did here tim is he he drills into the inexperience the fact that she finishes her psychiatry residency in july she joins the private practice in august she begins treating lindsey in september um tufts is it caught between a rock and a hard place you can't build experience but i mean she went to med school and she did her residency so how do you how do you negotiate that if you're a juror [00:25:14] Timothy Jansen: well you wait till you see the expert that the defense puts on he's going to be a well-renowned expert who is usually testifying for the state or for the commonwealth lots of experience probably published and he's going to really make her look like she didn't know what she was doing he's going to bring out that test that he said is used and published and so kevin knows what he's doing he made his points he's not going to attack this young lady he's going to attack the system i agree if he tries to attack there'll be sympathy for this inexperienced person uh did she go to symposiums or publish no she barely got out of residency she just got her first job so don't expect that but the defense's experts and i think there's two of them are both going to be very experienced published and well-spoken and are going to give you give this jury a basis to say yeah she was misdiagnosed mistreated and given [00:26:12] Speaker 1: the wrong prescriptions um i mean joe uh meow me are here uh this is a great question but i you know i i look at our chat as our you know potential jurors she's asking why did lindsey clancy not see consistent psychotherapy if she wanted help and therein lies one of the problems um again uh you you dealt a lot in nebraska sports when uh a running back you know blows out their acl you know what's going on you see them writhing in pain they get an mri it all comes back mental health is much different um she may have wanted help but didn't know how to ask for it so jurors are not particularly you know ed well educated on this i don't think the public is and we're seeing right now what sort of uh um you know the problems within the mental health system but how are jurors supposed to figure this out if they don't really understand uh the machinations of mental health and what goes into it and these decisions and how people you know self-diagnose or hide the way they're feeling all [00:27:17] Speaker 4: these things that go into it well let me say first that even if you're a running back at nebraska and you've got that acl the school doesn't allow you to go to a second and third and fourth doctor and get all you you get the doctor and you go forward and one of the issues here i wouldn't call her doctor shopping because that's got a pejorative tone to it but i do think she wanted to be better fast and she didn't give some of the meds a chance so they were constantly moving to a new medication trying to wean her off another one to get a fast fix and there was no fast fix here and she meanwhile is feeling worse and worse and therefore accelerates the speed at which she wants things done i think the jury you don't have to have been gone to a psychiatrist or a psychotherapist to uh to sympathize with someone who's trying to find a cure trying to find a doctor that will make her better and is not finding one that's helping and some of those drugs the testimony was it can take six to eight weeks for the drug to kick in and meanwhile it may make you feel worse while it's while it's kicking in uh and and she's worried about side effects i mean i think the jury won't have any trouble at all putting themselves in her position because she really did look and she went to different doctors she would start therapy and then stop and that gets to i mean i don't know what what the rest of us would do but if you want to be cured and you start something and it's not working right away i i think i mean i understand somebody who would do that even if it's counter indicated if you really want to have a doctor and a particular plan for you to get better if you really want it and you're jumping around it's probably not going to help but i think the jury's going to understand how she might be in that [00:29:18] Speaker 1: position yeah it's you know i'm just listening to you talk and i'm just thinking like there's a whole protocol like in psychiatry and it's it's a system that's in place that's kind of perpetuated by the other psychiatrists and they all rely on what the other is saying and i mean to this day i mean ssris have been around for a very long time but it's it's almost impossible i think to get an answer from a doctor as to how they actually you hear you hear about like serotonin i think it stands for reuptake inhibitors but how that actually works and how that actually helps it's very hard to ever get someone in the psychiatric field to explain it it's kind of like just go with it and uh see if it works and if it does great if it doesn't well bad things can happen and that's kind of where we're at right now so it's interesting stuff a court dog daniel he is a uh a warrior for uh josh and myself um i was unaware that he was doing stuff for uh josh to be honest when court dog reached out and i love it but uh he's out there uh in his rv says he got another interview with kevin reddington follow court dog daniel he's all over the place on social and he also spoke with dr jennifer tufts hope you went easy on her court dog uh i hope so uh nana of four here uh congrats to you if found not guilty by reason of insanity i got to stop you there because josh ritter that's not what it is here and in the commonwealth it is you're not criminally responsible can the judge sentence her to time in a hospital of course i mean i don't think a lot of some people josh don't realize that she is not walking out a free woman right that's impossible it's either she's going to go to a prison to a state prison or she's probably going to stay in this tokesbury mental hospital which is super eerie looking by the way and if she gets found not criminally responsible then a judge is going to decide her fate you know five ten fifteen twenty years down the road correct [00:31:16] Speaker 3: well if she is found guilty the criminal court maintains jurisdiction over her or actually they they they maintain jurisdiction but they hand it over to the state prisons she she's can she's confined to the custody of a state prison if she's found not guilty by reason of insanity or like you said lacking criminal responsibility in the state of massachusetts she is not guilty she is she the the criminal courts lose jurisdiction of her now the way it's set up though is that she would be under a civil commitment so she's not a felon she's not she doesn't have a conviction on her record uh but she is not completely uh released from custody by the state because a civil court will commit her to a hospital so if the question is well can she be found guilty but then be sentenced to a state hospital no if she's found guilty she's going to be sentenced to a state prison but if she's found not guilty by reason of insanity she's not technically sentenced but she'll be handed over to the custody of a state hospital and then it's on the state hospital and and and and working in in conjunction with the courts to decide when she's well enough um stabilized enough to be released if ever now most people statistically spend the rest of their lives in a state hospital because they're very very very sick people um some people are released though i think that's a you know something that definitely needs to be part of the conversation is that if she is found uh not criminally responsible goes off to a state hospital there's a very real possibility that they could say okay what you the issues you had were very much connected to your postpartum issues you don't have that anymore we've treated you we figured out stabilized you got you on the right meds or or whatever it is we needed to do and there could be a point where they could say okay you you are released from the custody of the state hospital and she would not be a convicted felon she would be a free person to to to behave as as she wanted which does happen in rare cases yeah and by the way uh correct me if [00:33:35] Speaker 1: i'm wrong sts but i'm almost certain and uh andrea yates had the opportunity to leave her hospital and said no i don't want to leave i want to stay here i'm i still don't consider myself well enough but there was an option for her after drowning her five children uh for that to be the case let me know if i'm incorrect about that uh tim jansen this is a study in two jurors here ally b from tennessee says uh that is not enough punish there uh or that is not enough i read it is there that is not enough punishment for killing three children and here god i really hope they say not guilty uh by insanity uh tim you've been saying hung jury do you still think we're gonna get a hung jury at the end of this because the chat is is very much split you think the jurors are i think so um i think the whole thing is going to come down [00:34:26] Timothy Jansen: to the defense is experts if they can outline all the conduct everything and undercut the entire commonwealth's theory uh about faking the injuries faking the trying to cut her neck and doctor shopping and if they can come in and say yeah her description of what she was feeling based on the drug she was given it's going to give her credit more credibility that she was seeking help maybe you'll sway some more jurors i just don't think with the horrific crimes that 12 jurors are gonna say not guilty i think some of them just say i can't do it i don't understand all this mental jumbo mumbo jumbo i can't let her go and then you're gonna have others say i can't convict her because i think she was seeking help she didn't get the help and it was documented that she had never hurt her kids loved her kids so you're gonna be you don't know you're gonna be locked in you can't decide [00:35:27] Speaker 1: a great question uh tim quick quick jim ten quick follow-up here someone said what if there is a hung jury [00:35:34] Timothy Jansen: what does the commonwealth do at that point i think the commonwealth has to decide really do they want to go through this again uh they're getting some credits for going forward because this is a horrific crime but the prosecutors aren't doing themselves any favors they're not coming across very well uh prosecutors are held to a much higher standard josh will tell you we are they are held to a higher standard because they're they're the ones taking the liberty away from someone a defense lawyer can try tactics be be tricky and all that but you don't expect that from a prosecutor you're expecting to go in there argue the state's case introduce the evidence be truthful and rely on the evidence and i think some of the prosecutors have been caught doing some things maybe we don't know if they did say tell her to shut up or shut the tape off but they haven't come across that great and i think them saying she faked her suicide and was shopping for drugs from different she might have been shopping but not to commit a crime i think it's like joe said she wanted to get better quicker the drugs were not going as fast [00:36:42] Speaker 1: that she wanted she felt worse so she tried other alternatives uh jody arrington she was so seeking help uh and then you've got another uh pro defense state looks foolish honestly we're going to see what the jurors think i mean joe petuto going back to what josh ritter is saying you know all these josh is basically saying and i don't want to put words in his mouth is that they can't deny it all she didn't attempt suicide you know she was uh not psychotic and all the the list goes on and on and on but um when they get in the jury room they've got to figure out um and the law is very specific you know in that moment uh did you know uh the difference basically between right or wrong what what is it what is that delineation that they have to figure out in the jury room and how are they [00:37:28] Speaker 4: going to do that let me say uh massachusetts doesn't use the mcnaughton test they use a test that was developed by the uniform law commissioners it's the model penal code test it says did she lack the substantial capacity to know right from wrong or was she did she lack the substantial capacity to conform her conduct and avoid doing what she knew was wrong so there's another piece to the test uh i you know i haven't maybe josh and and tim were better than than i at this i have never been able to figure out what the prosecution's theory is we don't know it is way too much i mean they they you got a b c d and what do i need to show a b c d and forget about the rest uh i actually think they can make a case i'm not so sure i would say it's a compelling case that she didn't try to kill herself when she jumped out of the window uh that she was hanging down she's a gymnast so gymnast and i think she was a pretty successful gymnast know how to land and that she miscalculated because she didn't know the ground was solid because it was so cold and that that's what happened i think they can make a case but i don't see at least what i've seen so far that that helps them make the case for she was insane uh legally insane at the time of the act they've they had so many witnesses who got on the stand and said the same thing that didn't matter uh and i you know i think it's i think the jury's going to get lost in the forest somewhere and anybody that now in a mix of metaphor hands them a lifeline so they can find their way out is good is going to prevail so i don't know as i said maybe josh or tim have a better idea i have never seen uh a prosecution where everything is in there and i keep saying why you know maybe they're going to tie it up tomorrow i mean you know but if they're going to take four weeks to explain how things connect i think by that time it's way too late even if they had a shot at [00:39:42] Speaker 3: it and it's a burden they don't need to add to themselves exactly what josh what is the commonwealth's theory do we know you know i know it's not that clear i i think where they're getting caught up one as professor joe at uh points out they're adding burdens to themselves they don't need to add they're adding elements to this case they don't need to prove like they don't need to prove she didn't intend to kill herself that's not the question that she could very well have intended to kill herself and still committed the crime so why do they she very well could have been earnestly honestly seeking psychiatric help and still committed the crime they're they're trying to act now part of me understands that because i think they're concerned that if the jurors believe she was at any level of psychosis then they're going to believe that that equals insanity which it which it doesn't but i think that's where they're getting caught up but they're adding burdens to themselves that they don't don't need to be to to prove and they might find a better strategy in embracing some of the more obvious evidence in this but where they're also getting caught up is in the idea of motive they don't have a motive they don't or at least a clear one and so like i think they were trying down that pathway when they were doing the whole thing initially about oh she was a boy was she a strict mom she had a sleep schedule and it was down to the minute and boy when things went awry with that would she get upset because she was very concerned with keeping a schedule and i'm like by the way join the club like i've got three little ones at home if you want to see a regiment for sleep schedules come come step by the ridder household okay like it's like this is just a part of raising kids and to try to say that that's somehow what she got so overwhelmed with being a mom of three that she decided to murder the three of them i don't think anybody buys that as well it but that's not to say that motive isn't somehow important here i mean jurors are going to want to know why in the world did this woman kill her three children she's got no real history of violence and there's no obvious other reason it's not like they were going through a contentious divorce and there was a custody dispute and you see these horrific things happening there's no real reason why this anomaly took place in those woman's life that she would kill her kids so they've tried these other different avenues of providing a motive but again i don't i i think they should have just been much more reasonable uh with jurors and much more kind of deferential to some of the arguments that the defense was making and saying listen ladies and gentlemen this is incredibly complicated you're going to be here about a very sick woman a woman who was by all accounts very loving by all accounts wanted to do the best by her kids was was struck with some real severe mental illness and tried to do the best that she good about all of that and we all of us may feel sympathetic to that but here's the question everybody here's what we need to decide did she know killing her kids was wrong in that moment and and just try to like i don't know be a little more soft touch about it but they i was shocked with the opening statement like the way that they came at this whole thing i feel like they miss what i feel like they did is they miscalculated how upset the jurors would be initially with this case like i think they had already convinced themselves which happens sometimes with attorneys they get they get so high on their own supply that they get they are so convinced by their own case that they hit the ground running and they haven't given the jurors time to catch up and i think that's where they they were in this case ritter and jansen both go into actual [00:43:42] Speaker 1: uh prosecutor and defense mode and i love when they do that it's like they're in the courtroom but they're in their head but they're on sts but i appreciate it uh nonetheless uh tim jansen here's an exchange um this is kevin reddington now i will not do his voice but what did you do you had a woman who was telling you she felt hopeless i told her that uh this was something we could address that there was hope that there are treatments that there are different types of programs so she knew that she still had options and a reason to hope did you ever suggest to her that maybe you should come in and see me rather than on the computer reddington asked talking to her over the video didn't seem like an issue it didn't seem like there was something i was missing but he was just destroying her for the fact that she was doing these telehealth appointments why not see somebody in person i mean we all know since i mean if i told you pre-covid that that you could do a live shot on cnn in your underwear uh or if jeffrey tobin told you that pre-covid um but i could do a live shot in my underwear from on cnn in 2026 you would laugh at me but the world changed uh you know after covet and people are still doing you know work from home and uh she was doing therapy remotely which is sort of a standard now but he was asking what's what's the issue with the system is that going to resonate do you think [00:45:04] Timothy Jansen: i think it is because he asked her a couple different things do you look could you see her hands could you see her legs and feet and then he gave a question demonstrating well if you saw a person doing this with their hands isn't that a symptom and she said yes or if they're moving their legs certain ways isn't that a symptom and she goes yes well you couldn't see that on a telepron he kept saying tv but on a computer and i think that is true i think he was exposing the limitations she was placing on herself knowing she had a troubled person why didn't she make an appointment to see him is it because she needed to bill other clients or because the insurance wouldn't pay for it we don't know he tried to bring up the insurance when they asked about another drug therapy would the insurance cover it uh and then he brought up some hipaa issues she really didn't know what drugs she was taking what what medical uh treatment she got because of hipaa you would think she would have her sign a hipaa waiver as a psychiatrist and i'm giving you dea drugs i want to know what everybody else is giving you i want you to give me a waiver so i can see what you're telling these other medical professionals before i start signing off on things and that may be from just inexperience [00:46:24] Speaker 1: yeah uh you know we talked about this last week but a case eerily similar out of brockton was just overturned because apparently not all this evidence uh that was necessary was turned over and that happens to be uh uh an african-american woman um and now the question i have is is some of this decided across socioeconomic lines i mean joe petuto feel free uh to weigh in on that but also um we learn in the testimony today that dr tufts jennifer tufts never sought records from some of lindsey clancy's other providers and she was actually unaware that lindsey clancy had not once but twice called a suicide hotline i mean from a dramatic perspective you're like whoa she didn't know but i mean this goes again to the point that a lot of patients mental health patients don't disclose things because they're embarrassed or afraid or scared uh but how does that resonate with the jury i think it's not going [00:47:26] Speaker 4: to resonate well at all i mean uh i think no one is going to say gee it's okay that somebody who's coming in saying she's got emotional psychological issues it's okay to take her at her word and not check and not double check and not be sure particularly when you're giving uh medication that can have pretty serious side effects to be sure what the other drugs are but you know i was thinking and i had never thought about it before when i go to a physician and you get a medical history and i say i had this i had this i had this i you know i'm taking these drugs they believe me nobody checks now on this on them on the psych side i think it's more serious but i was just thinking to myself what she's describing is my experience at the doctors and i don't it's just unbelievable to me that that's the way they operate now i will say that i believe there's a real shortage of psychiatrists and um medical experts in the in these fields and that insurance aside that they're they are taking these you know short steps because there aren't enough physicians out there to treat and that's a systemic issue but again and i agree with josh and it this is this is all to the side and they're just dancing with with the defense in the area that the defense's case is the strongest yeah rather than move to their areas of strength and making him dance to their music they're not doing it yeah i also i don't [00:49:10] Speaker 1: think that this is um also just relegated to mental health i mean you see this comment here doctors don't have the time to fact check their patients they have to be able to depend on their patients to be reliable reporters you guys know i was whining and complaining about neck pain a while back and i had to go to like a clinic for that and i mean these are doctors who are saying like i'm not kidding you probably a hundred patients a day and doing procedures and it's just a factory they don't know what's going on i mean with each individual they don't you know and it got you know god forbid someone ends up paralyzed which karm told me at the time she said if anything happens to you and you end up in a wheelchair i'm going to take you to a mountain and i'm going to roll you off of it because it's your fault so but i rolled the dice and i did it and i survived but uh look i'm saying it happened just obviously but there there's issues across a lot of fields but particularly not just in mental health the medical profession has just become because of insurance billing you know if you don't see a trillion patients a year you're not gonna be able to afford to send your three kids to uh you know dartmouth and two other d schools and nebraska and d school but uh josh ritter shannon buckingham in openings um prosecutor she urged jurors not to view the trial and this is a quote here as a public debate about women do not view it as a public debate about women's health and how the medical system treats women it's great to say that but i mean are they hammering that point home are they gonna have to bring that point back around again like they have not lassoed in uh this theory at all [00:50:57] Speaker 3: no they haven't um and no they've not they've not um remind they've not i mean the professor joe nailed it they they've they've instead been playing in the defensive sandbox the whole time and and and fighting the battles that he wants to fight i remember there was a there was a a really good um directing cross on an earlier expert not this uh dr tufts um where they were talking in terms of signs of psychosis and he kept on point they were pointing out the fact that uh she showed no signs of psychosis and he was pointing out the fact that uh just because someone has was planning making plans and doing things doesn't mean necessarily that they didn't have psychosis and i thought this is remarkable we're talking about psychosis like as if that's the ultimate question that's exactly what the defense wants to have happen here right they want this to be a discussion about her being unwell but it's not about her being unwell i think she was unwell if the trial was about her being unwell it's a flat out win for the defense but this is a trial probably the the uh where the criminal law has made a big mistake is by calling it criminal insanity to begin with because that's a medical term or we think of it as a medical term and this is really much more about forming intent you know the the they call it criminal responsibility in massachusetts and that's probably a better way of thinking about it it's we don't want to hold people responsible if they can't even form the mental capacity to understand what they're doing is wrong we don't we're not going to lock people up who don't even know what they're doing is wrong and they've though you know and and i'm not trying to say he's being a you know uh uh uh uh uh what's the word i'm looking for he's not he's not being uh underhanded about it he's doing his job but he's done a remarkable job of really kind of changing shifting the narrative here and shifting the question in front of the jurors no it's not about the the health care system they should probably embrace the idea that the health care system's bad they should probably embrace the idea that a lot of signs were missed and and that she probably was receiving medication she shouldn't have been receiving and get back down to the ultimate question of okay but does that mean i mean here's the thing you know professor joe you point out like uh how she she you know she's not doing follow-ups and and and how in the world is she not doing follow-ups i think she probably in her worst nightmares had no idea this woman would go out and murder her children right i mean that's like the nightmare no one is imagining is happening with this woman i don't think any one of these people saw clear signs of a woman who's about to go out and commit a horrific act like this and they just said well kind of not my job i checked off the boxes and there was no box for that like they i think they could have done a better job but they're also probably trying to treat this as well as they feel that they can and this just hit blindsided every single one of them now is that a failure in the system partially but also partially the prosecution's failing to point out that that means some of that responsibility falls at lindsey clancy's feet yeah um this is also just an [00:54:35] Speaker 1: interesting comment when you go back to thinking about what jury deliberations might be uh like psychosis is sudden onset and i do think when they bring on this heavy hitter the defense this guy philip resnick um who's an absolute uh legend in the field uh and and margaret spinelli i think it is as well uh that is going to influence the jurors in a big big way josh has to roll out in just a couple of minutes so i'm going to get some final thoughts from him in a second and then if you have some questions tim and joe can hang for a few more minutes i think and then we'll get final thoughts but uh josh ritter i'm going to see you on courtroom confidential uh in about two hours uh and four minutes and i'll try not to repeat everything i just said um i mean the commonwealth is supposed to wrap josh uh like as soon as tomorrow at least you know first part and they're going to come back apparently with a rebuttal but uh is everything going to ride on these criminal defense like power [00:55:38] Speaker 3: hitters coming in a lot of it is i i agree with tim i think it's this is headed straight towards a hung jury i don't i don't i don't i haven't seen anything that i feel is all that convincing from the prosecution i think the defense has done a good job of of caught you know raising some really pertinent questions with these jurors now i don't know if they're going to have um experts who are going to be able to you know say this woman was clearly uh so untethered from reality that she didn't know the difference between right and wrong um i don't know if anybody could actually say that based upon what we know about her ahead of time um i don't i i'd be shocked if it if it if if there was a verdict either way on this thing to be honest with you with the way that it's headed right now um i think um i think what what you you know these prosecutors i don't think they're inexperienced and i'm not i hope i'm not totally trashing them but i think that they just miscalculated this case i think they i think prosecutors for the most part tim can talk to this we're used to having a clear bad guy on the other side you know like we're used to like it's like there's no question about the bad guy in the room and they don't have a clear bad guy here and they they needed to approach this with a bit of a delicate more sympathetic and understanding touch um but they they kind of missed that opportunity don't you think they tried to make lindsay the bad person yeah yeah they did and i don't i think they miscalculated how this would all play out i think that i don't understand because i don't see [00:57:17] Speaker 4: how going in you could think that a woman in a wheelchair who's going to be talking about the effort she made to find treatment could ever be cast as the bad guy in this story i just don't see it [00:57:35] Speaker 1: yeah yeah yeah uh real quick josh ritter if i'm on your show and you don't get an uncle alert i'm going to take it personally and negatively but um if if this is a hung jury final question for josh ritter if this is a hung jury and they decide not to prosecute her again what is lindsay clancy's fate is she she's just free to go home at any point at that i mean that's an interesting thing too [00:58:00] Speaker 3: at that point i don't i don't even know if they can have her committed like i i don't believe they can i think if she is well wait a minute if okay if they get a hung jury and they decide not to prosecute that means that's like an acquittal outright not an ngi acquittal but an acquittal outright meaning no one has jurisdiction over her anymore and so then that's an interesting question too she won't get any kind of at least state-provided help um she'll be a free person you know i just i don't think they would do that it really depends on what the what the vote is on a hung jury um if it comes back dramatically in favor of ngi maybe they they consider that but i i i seem to think that with a tragedy like this they don't walk away from it after the first time they probably refile charges go back re rethink their strategy maybe get a new prosecution team in there i don't know it's just these these cases are so difficult because on one hand you're right professor joe you've got a very sympathetic defendant on the other hand you've got three dead children and you just you got to do something about that and they i just feel like they're going to feel like they have to give this [00:59:17] Speaker 1: another try yeah uh by the way look at this from diane may there's no option for unc on courtroom you [00:59:24] Speaker 3: better get tiff on i don't even know i don't even know how to set it up i'll look into it tiff will [00:59:28] Speaker 1: figure it out uh josh ritter uh you're a gentleman and a scholar as my mother would say i'll see you uh in two hours time yeah thank you sounds good thank you guys oh you got uh tim and joe for just a couple minutes uh tim let me go to you with another exchange uh here this is now kevin reddington saying with a month under your belt and your residency do you really want this jury over here to believe that you were an expert he asked tufts counter that she simply said she had an interest in the field again tim this is a fine line i mean uh curmudgeonly old man going up against a younger uh dare i say attractive psychiatrist who's new to her field um gotta be careful by the way i should have said this an hour and 19 seconds ago but please like and subscribe all you have to do is pick up that finger and drop it on the mouse it helps us tremendously it gets the algorithm chugging please do it uh tim uh look you're you're uh you look like you're 30 so you could get away with it but can kevin reddington get away with it uh at 75 76 actually some people that told they thought i was 45 [01:00:45] Timothy Jansen: at the baseball game which i said you guys are drunk um listen i i think it's clear to the jury she's not an expert in postpartum she wasn't an expert and on psychosis and she in that exchange she admitted she was not an expert in postpartum psychosis she said that so he got the response he wanted uh i i think this jury likes kevin i think so far they've they believe what he's that he said in opening that this was not a righteous prosecution he attacked the elected uh state attorney for bringing these charges he's attacked the lawyers prosecutors for making comments during the trial he's let the jury know his position now are some of them going to turn away from him maybe but it depends who the final jurors are others are going to say this is the experienced guy he cross-examined he brought in the most experienced doctors in america and he's got some evidence to back up what he says it's hard for a jury all jurors are trying to do the right thing no matter what they go in there they try to make the right decision i just don't think the prosecution's giving them enough information they should focus on what the 20 minutes what was she doing did she have the ability to prosecute or understand what she was doing was wrong those 20 minutes that's what they need to focus on they [01:02:23] Speaker 1: focused on everything but that's interesting um you've got nikki cuts here um i find him kevin reddington to be so effective i love him and then you've got violet blue reddington was a clown um it's also you know i think it's gonna you know it's gonna we get that joel we get that it's gonna be you know i think age is gonna have an influence here as well you know the younger you are the more of a curmudgeon you might think he is but uh joe petuto one final exchange here that i have and then we'll get some final thoughts if you have questions put in uh the triple q's uh and we'll get them to uh tim and joe host of prof joe explains so this is an appointment the day before these murders happen on january 23rd lindsey clancy reports feeling and i quote here no emotion for 17 days straight what did you do he says to the therapist and she answers i thought about how i could best help her the medicine she tried and what her current symptoms were and decided it made sense to slowly increase the amitriptyline uh so we could get her to a dose that reduced her depression and essentially getting out out of her that we just kept pushing a new more medicine a new medicine a different uh dosage and it seems like the medicines were having a counter effect of making her worse and worse joe petuto the impact here on the on the jury with this i mean it's gotta it's gotta impact the jurors um negatively in terms of their response to the commonwealth yeah i agree i i think what i see [01:04:09] Speaker 4: in tufts is what i think is illustrative of tufts being a new doctor a young doctor is it's as though she's got an outline this symptom presents itself you do abc this system then presents itself delete b and try d and there's no real focus on the person that you're treating it's a kind of a check off and i think that with a new doctors any somebody new in any field it's the way you start out because the other requires that you exercise more judgment in the moment and the checklist is you know a number of people who had experience who put it together for you and i felt really sorry for her because uh i think my view of her on the stand was as she was giving these answers and as he was pushing and as he was really you know uh making her smaller and smaller and smaller and her voice got softer and softer i think part of her brain was also processing you know maybe i'm not responsible for the kids being killed but maybe the way i'm practicing isn't quite the way to go i mean so she may come out of it i mean i think the most hopeful thing that i can think of in all of this is that she comes out of it with a better appreciation of what she needs to do as a practicing psychiatrist to really treat her patients she's got to get away from that you know that the cliffs notes or whatever it is you do this this and this and really focus on what's happening to the patient before her and whether whatever this guide is whether it's the right one [01:05:58] Speaker 1: for this patient right now a hundred percent agree i was thinking about that i think she was considering her career the way she handled things realizing i think that the system is broken and she's part of a broken system and someone said she's going to switch careers i don't know uh tim jansen you were a federal federal prosecutor is the prosecution deliberately trying to lose this case i mean it's an election year and some say this guy tim cruise had to try the case but prosecutors don't try to lose cases right tim [01:06:29] Timothy Jansen: no they don't try to lose cases he might have had pressure that he had to bring the case and he told them just do the best you can um maybe you're gonna have to try to muddy here you remember they probably i don't know i don't know if massachusetts has depositions and i think they do but i'm sure they already knew ahead of time what the defense's theory was going to be so i think they tried to offset that in their openings and tried to negate some of that but it just played in the kevin's hands because it moved the ball away from their strength um i think that was an excellent point by joe i think she was a new doctor she was following the safe protocols these are what you do this what you do and it's like a trial lawyer and any lawyer does too when they're new they go by what was given to them a little template you do this you do that and when you get experience and you do then you realize okay that's not going to i need to do this and she probably will do it different in the future i'd hate for her to ruin her career but um this was this was bad because of the publicity uh covet it's like the perfect storm and you feel bad for her but you also feel bad for those three children at the last point with that last visit when when when lindsay said that she should have institutionalized her she should have baker acted her because if she wanted to get her treatment she could have got her better and um especially if they say postpartum usually only lasts a year right so if she could have had her in inpatient somewhere for a couple months or so maybe that year time period would have [01:08:12] Speaker 1: last grammy for justice says i hope all physicians take this trial seriously i don't even know how many are going to watch or even know about it uh chiari safari this is an interesting comment that resonated with me part of why this case is so hard is i don't like the prosecution the defense or the defendants you heard josh say there's usually a bad guy um the kids being uh represented or getting justice is lost and there is an element of that uh for sure um in here um professor patuto one of the difficult things for the defense here that i'm surprised that the commonwealth is not latching on to more is no signs of psychosis never reported hearing voices never reported any actual manic episodes um tufts did not believe that uh lindsay appeared manic and lindsay repeatedly denied at least her uh suicidal and homicidal thoughts um shouldn't you be leaning into this more if you're the commonwealth that they're you know we're not at least to me i haven't heard it like that clearly that look all is fine and and well but where is the psychosis that's at the at the center of this yeah and i think every witness [01:09:28] Speaker 4: they brought on who had a medical background said essentially the same thing yeah they should have been leaning into it and cutting out some of the other things which gets me back to what we all said earlier i don't understand why they're trying the case the way they're trying the case and it just seems to me that they're playing defense rather than offense and they're they're trying to deflect everything that the defense lawyer says rather than let those balls fall and hit it back harder on something that's strong for them and so therefore even the things that are strong for them are getting lost in this forest of of stuff so you're right joe it's really hard to it's hard to find the line for them you know what they're what really the strength of their case and and pounding the strengths of their case and i don't know what whether even now uh so far in that they see it agreed uh and uh i echo this a [01:10:29] Speaker 1: little bit uh we are all confused prof joe uh she is professor joe patuto she hails from the greatest state in the union that is new jersey and uh jersey for once from jersey always from jersey kind of like the marines jersey for life um can't tell you how many people email me saying i'm from jersey and it puts a smile on my face uh joe patuto she is host of prop joe explains professor emerita university of nebraska school of law you know i went to the courtney clenny hearing and i used to work with a photographer and his name is tim and tim left the business to go to law school and lo and behold i go to the courtney clenny hearing and tim is the pool camera for the clenny hearing and i said i thought you're a lawyer said well technically i'm a lawyer because i went to law school and i passed the bar but i hated every second of it and after 10 years i decided i want to come back to news and i said to him wow law must be really really bad if you're back here doing this but that was his uh full circle moment back shout out to uh tim joe does this end in a on jury how does this all play out yeah it looks [01:11:41] Speaker 4: like that to me too uh because yes it looks up like that to me uh that's and you think the commonwealth [01:11:50] Speaker 1: are they going to rest as soon as tomorrow do you think and then that's if tim is right that really [01:11:55] Speaker 4: surprises me because i'm waiting for them to put on the the meat of their case and if they think they did already i just it's it's incredible to me i mean i i guess once in a while you decide you're going to win in on rebuttal and you don't try to do it in the case in chief but that doesn't seem to me [01:12:12] Speaker 1: to be a particularly uh good strategy yeah uh tim it's a complicated one uh they also called uh julie paul today a psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner she founded a perinatal mental health clinic at south shore hospital she was on the stand but um tim uh the commonwealth has called a lot of witnesses in the 10 days and a lot of it has been redundant are they better off just resting now letting these defense big wigs come up and then and then rebutting and then calling it a day after that tim what what say you your final thoughts i think they were stuck with the the doctor they had to [01:12:53] Timothy Jansen: put on i told you the trial we've done in two weeks i still think it'll be done this week it'll be done next week the defense will call their witnesses they'll have a couple rebuttal we should be done by next week and i i think the state's going to say hey we tried we put all the evidence we could it was a jury's decision no matter what happens they at least fought for the children which is fine and they did but i don't think they fought the right fight we'll see if they can gather regroup and focus on the 24 minutes whatever minutes he was gone did she what was she doing those 24 minutes that she knew what she was doing was wrong right that's what they focus on that's what [01:13:33] Speaker 1: the trial's about yeah yeah and and it's and it's been totally blurred and lost and i agree and that brings it right back into focus and if i'm taking advice from tim jansen and i'm the commonwealth i'm using that phrase the 24 minutes the 24 minutes the 24 minutes and my closings but i'm no lawyer i'm just a schmo that covers the news on that note love you america love you the commonwealth of massachusetts the greatest state of new jersey i've been yelled at recently for not calling out other countries and now i feel like i'm calling out you know what there was a very bad earthquake in uh colombia there was another country affected so uh shout out to colombia and i hope uh they recover like a 7.4 with a lot of deaths already uh so let's pray for them hope they're all right by the way that said that plea [01:14:23] Timothy Jansen: was horrendous today for clenny that's why she gets six years six years murder second degree murder and [01:14:32] Speaker 1: she got six years got four years in it four years in she's going to be out someone told me in 18 months for [01:14:38] Timothy Jansen: uh essentially murdering the victim's family signed off on that they were all there it was sad i mean [01:14:45] Speaker 1: i don't know how else to describe it other than very very sad and tragic do you think they were [01:14:49] Speaker 4: focused on the evidence it looked like she might have been abused yeah that's what they were that's [01:14:54] Speaker 1: one of that that was a big big worry it cut both ways but to be honest uh more of the abuse seemed to be coming from her than from him there have been uh police reports written up about both but it was very um they talked about it in the hearing today but it was uh it was a tinder box uh that they were living in but with each other there were multiple calls to police they were in the process of being evicted by the landlord it was um and and he he warned his family that i'm gonna die at her hands so sadly that's terrible yeah but she's she's gonna get out in about 18 months which is unreal so uh i'm gonna see you guys on courtroom confidential join us 8 p.m eastern time big thanks to tim for filling in love you america we'll be back 8 50 in the morning for more lindsey clancy trial coverage see you then everyone