Ex-Husband Just Turned Lindsay Clancy's Trial Upside Down (Day 2)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Patrick Clancy may be the most important and the most off the rails witness that we see in the entire Lindsey Clancy trial. Absolutely no one has him under control. He helps the prosecution and then he hurts the prosecution. He helps the defense and then he hurts the defense. Lindsey Clancy is on trial for the murder of their three children, so no one would be surprised if Patrick hated her. Instead, he has publicly defend defended his now ex-wife. He sued her medical providers alleging that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis. That a succession of medical providers just missed it. They gave her the completely wrong medicines for what she had and they over medicated her. He has said he did not marry a monster. He married someone who became probably sick. This could be a game changer for Lindsey, but today was Patrick's second day on the stand and the most damaging testimony against Lindsey came from Patrick himself. But then the defense stood up and Patrick proceeded to tear apart major pieces of the prosecution's theory. So it was an incredibly difficult and emotional day but legally it was a seesaw and by the end, neither side had Patrick Clancy where it wanted him. So let's get into it. Now, one of the most devastating things that Patrick has to say is that it's frankly something you wouldn't suspect. It's that everything was so very normal that day, the day that Lindsey killed their children. Like, she's doing really well. She sends him to the drugstore to pick up a medicine for their five-year-old and to pick up some takeout. He's gone for less than an hour and there's video of him that they showed today in the CVS at the restaurant. It's very, very normal and yet, while he's out, just 55 minutes, she's murdering their children and two witnesses showed up today who identified still thoughts from those videos at CBS and also from the restaurant. So it's impossible to wrap your mind around this. You've got the two people from CBS and the takeout restaurant saying, yeah, we spoke to Lindsey, she was really normal. You've got Patrick saying, yeah, she was really normal. And then you've got what happened at home in that brief period of time that Patrick was gone. It's hard to make those things fit. They just don't match. So let's go ahead and hear a clip where Patrick is talking about something very ordinary that happened while he was at the drugstore. It was around COVID time, so they were out of a ton of things on the shelves. They didn't have exactly what she had sent him for, so we called her to check in and make sure what he was about to buy was okay. So when he checks in, he calls and she doesn't answer. But she calls him right back. They talk briefly, like 15 seconds. And this is what he has to say about that call. [00:03:19] Speaker 2: It sounded to you like she was in the middle of something? [00:03:21] Speaker 1: Yeah. [00:03:22] Speaker 2: Were you able to understand her when she spoke to you? [00:03:26] Speaker 3: Yeah. [00:03:27] Speaker 2: And did she seem to understand what you were saying? [00:03:29] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:03:32] Speaker 2: And she didn't seem to have any trouble recalling why you were at CBS or what you were looking for? [00:03:38] Speaker 3: That's correct. [00:03:39] Speaker 2: And did you, in fact, purchase some PDLX at CBS? Yes. [00:03:45] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:03:46] Speaker 2: Did you purchase anything else while you were there? [00:03:49] Speaker 3: I bought a pack of Skittles. [00:03:51] Speaker 1: Putting these two things beside each other, buying Skittles, it's just going to the drugstore. They're talking on the phone like normal. But something is going on. He can tell that something is distracting her. And he is about to get home and find out what was distracting her was killing the children. In fact, he tells the story then about when he got home. And it's just too quiet. So he comes around, calls down to the basement, where, in fact, the kids are dead or dying. And he finds the door. So he searches all over the house, goes up to the bedroom, and finds that their bedroom door is locked. He says that's the moment he realizes he has now entered a nightmare that is as bad as any of us could even imagine. So he gets a key, opens the door, there's blood everywhere, and the window is open. Also, the bed is out of place. It's been moved over underneath the window. So, so far, all of this is helping the prosecution. But now, Patrick is going to fight the prosecution on the blood part. Now, how much blood was there is actually a pretty important point. Because the prosecution says that while Lindsay cut her wrists and her neck, those were just scratches. She wasn't seriously trying anything. Now, it does turn out she's paralyzed because she jumped from the second floor window and the frozen Massachusetts ground was so hard that she got hurt. But that wasn't really her intent. This was all a cover-up, and it was designed to make it look like she was having this mental problem when, in fact, all she'd done was do exactly what she wanted to do, which was kill little children. But the defense says, no, this was for real. She was actually in total psychosis. There was a lot of blood. This was a serious attempt on her life. And that is something that Patrick agrees with. So here's how the conversation between Patrick and the prosecutor went. [00:06:02] Speaker 2: And the blood that you saw, where was that located in the room? [00:06:08] Speaker 3: It was everywhere. It was, it looked like it was sprayed almost with like a hose. And there was a huge puddle in the middle of the room, and it was sprayed all over the, pretty much every surface. I remember it was on the doorknob. [00:06:27] Speaker 2: Showing you three photos. [00:06:30] Speaker 1: So she shows him three. Now, I'm not going to show those here. Honestly, it did seem like a lot less than you might think, given what the claims are here. And so here's what he says. Here's what the prosecutor says. [00:06:45] Speaker 2: There's no blood on the walls or on the bedding, correct? [00:06:51] Speaker 3: On those walls in the bedding, correct? [00:06:54] Speaker 2: And did you go to her? [00:06:56] Speaker 3: Yeah. [00:06:57] Speaker 2: And did you observe any injuries? [00:07:00] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:07:01] Speaker 2: And what did you see? [00:07:03] Speaker 3: She had deep cuts on her wrists. And she had a red line across her neck. I wasn't sure what it was at first, but she cut her neck. [00:07:18] Speaker 2: And do you recall that these wounds weren't actively bleeding at the time? [00:07:24] Speaker 3: I later learned that I said that on the 911 call. [00:07:27] Speaker 2: And when you observed these wounds, is it correct that the 911 operator asked you or instructed you to apply pressure if needed? [00:07:39] Speaker 3: I don't recall the whole call, but I believe that's probably true. [00:07:43] Speaker 2: Okay. And you didn't, at the time, feel the need to apply pressure to any of those wounds, correct? [00:07:48] Speaker 1: Correct. There's also more that he's going to say, counsel and prosecution, that's focused on how little concern Lindsay seemed to have for the children. [00:08:00] Speaker 2: Did you say anything to Lindsay when you found her in that state? [00:08:05] Speaker 3: Yeah, I said, what happened? [00:08:07] Speaker 2: And what was her response? [00:08:09] Speaker 3: She said, I tried to kill myself. [00:08:13] Speaker 2: Did you ask her anything else? [00:08:17] Speaker 3: I said, for the kids. [00:08:18] Speaker 2: And what was her response? She said, they're in the basement. And at that time, she didn't tell you that they needed help or they were in danger or they were injured, correct? Correct. [00:08:29] Speaker 1: Now, the most important evidence by far for the prosecution, at least so far, is the 911 call from Patrick. Now, I say that without having even heard it because the public was not allowed to hear this call. There were people who were in the courtroom who reported on what it was like. We also could see sort of the aftermath of it and its effect on everyone in the courtroom. So, essentially, what happens is that as soon as paramedics arrive, he goes to find his kids. She said they're in the basement. He goes down there and finds them with cords wrapped around them. And he realizes all three children are gone. Now, we did not hear it, but people who did hear it directly say that his screams are just insane. The judge told the judge told the jury in advance, you know, don't get too wrapped up in the emotion. That's not your job. Focus on what your job is. But it's hard to get past the emotion of something like this. He may be on Lindsay's side, but this testimony is beyond disturbing. And his story is beyond disturbing for the jury. So, there's only one way, really, that Patrick is supposed to be indistinguishably on Lindsay's side. But even that was a bit of a yo-yo today. So, here's what Lindsay's defense is. She is not criminally responsible for what happened. She is not denying that she did this. She's just saying she's not criminally responsible for it. She says she was so mentally ill, she did not understand her conduct was wrong. And she had no ability to conform her conduct to the law, in other words, to do the right thing. This is where Patrick was supposed to help Lindsay the most. We know he supports her. I mean, he has made that comment about he didn't marry a monster. He married someone who became sick. So, we know that's his side. He has spoken very openly about how he feels. She had postpartum psychosis, and he's filed a lawsuit that says exactly that. Now, after the killings, she said to various medical providers that a commanding male voice spoke to her, telling her she had to do this. She had to do this to herself, and she could not leave the children. She had to take them with her or some such. He has even sued the medical providers for not helping her when she went in over and over asking for help. But the prosecution says Lindsay made all this up, this voice commanding her, she didn't mention anything about her voice until after she did what she wanted to do, what she did to the children. Now, that's the prosecution. And some of her testimony, first, anyway, sounded pretty good for the prosecution. Here's how it came out. [00:11:34] Speaker 2: Did anyone ever tell you to leave your kids alone with Lindsay? [00:11:39] Speaker 3: No. [00:11:42] Speaker 2: In January of 2023, did Lindsay ever tell you that she wanted to harm your children? [00:11:50] Speaker ?: No. [00:11:53] Speaker 2: She was going to kill your children. There was an occasion. [00:11:56] Speaker 1: Okay, and he said no there, sorry if I cut that off. But wait, but wait, because that sounds really good for the prosecution. She didn't say she wanted to do this harm. The first time this concept that she might harm them came up after, that's what the implication is, or at least what it sounded like. But his testimony was also good for the defense. Now, let me show you what he said when the defense put him under cross-examination. And we're going to contrast this with what you just heard about what he said on direct with the prosecution. So the discussion is about, the defense is asking him about a conversation Lindsay had with Patrick and with her mother, and she said she was having horrible thoughts. [00:12:45] Speaker 4: Where she told you, in the presence of her mother, that she was having horrible thoughts, right? Right. And you told us about that yesterday. [00:12:56] Speaker 1: And let's stop it for just a second, because it turns out that the prosecution's question was framed just so. Because the prosecution asked whether Lindsay had mentioned these thoughts in January. And it turns out she had said that, it just wasn't in January. So the question was very focused. It was not, though, the first time she had mentioned a thought like that. So let's keep listening. [00:13:23] Speaker 4: And that took, it was quite an emotional thing for her to do that, right? Right. November of 2022 was a month before she was telling you and her mother that she was having thoughts about hurting children, right? [00:13:38] Speaker 3: Right. [00:13:39] Speaker 4: November of 2022, and you traveled. Where did you travel to? [00:13:44] Speaker 3: New York. [00:13:45] Speaker 4: And how long were you there, sir? [00:13:47] Speaker 3: Two nights. [00:13:49] Speaker 4: And who took care of the kids? [00:13:52] Speaker 3: Lindsay. [00:13:53] Speaker 1: So it's hard for the defense attorney when he turns and walks away from the microphone. But what he says is, November of 2022 is a month before she's telling you and her mother that she was having thoughts about hurting the children, right? And he says, right. And he says, right. So Lindsay was stable enough, they're suggesting, that he left the kids alone with her in November. And she was fine. And she was fine, even though she made these statements to Patrick and her mother. That's the prosecution argument. So you can see where this is kind of swinging back and forth. Prosecution says, well, she was fine in January, and that's the part we care about, because that's when she did this. And the defense says, look, she wasn't fine at any time from November on, in which case the question becomes, why then did you leave the children alone with her? But there was another critical point that the prosecution made through Patrick, which was that for someone who snapped, she didn't seem to snap out of it. Like she basically wasn't focused on the children at all after killing them. It was very damaging for her, I think, with the jury. Now, Patrick and Lindsay talked on the phone a week after the killing. This is still Lindsay in the hospital, and here's what they said. [00:15:11] Speaker 2: What did the defendant say at that time about what had happened with the children? [00:15:18] Speaker 3: She didn't talk about our kids. She talked about what we went through. [00:15:24] Speaker 2: And what did she say about what she went through? [00:15:27] Speaker 3: She said she heard a man's voice telling her that if she didn't do it now, she would lose her chance or something like that. [00:15:37] Speaker 2: And did she also tell you that she had had a moment of psychosis? [00:15:43] Speaker 3: I don't recall. [00:15:52] Speaker 2: Did she mention the children at all during that call? [00:15:57] Speaker 3: I don't think so. Not directly. [00:16:01] Speaker 2: Had she ever mentioned psychosis to you before? [00:16:07] Speaker 3: No, I didn't know what psychosis was until after this happened. [00:16:12] Speaker 2: Did she ever tell you she was hearing a man's voice before? [00:16:15] Speaker ?: No. [00:16:16] Speaker 1: And, you know, that's frankly really hard to fathom. It would seem if she snapped momentarily, she would be filled with remorse, just hysterical about what happened. And, in fact, that's the way she was today in the courtroom when the 911 call was played. And, apparently, so was pretty much everyone else in the courtroom. So, you would think she would have been just desperate. And, apparently, that wasn't the way she was communicating, anyway, with Patrick. So, the defense then moved into CROSS, which was very effective. It was aided by the fact that the prosecution had kind of overreached during some of the things they had said on CROSS or in opening statements. So, here's an example. The prosecution has suggested that Lindsay was not taking her medications. And, during the first day of testimony, the prosecutor had a bunch of pills and pulled them out and said, look, there are only seven of 30 that are missing, only three of 30 that are missing, zero of 30 are missing. So, obviously, she wasn't really taking her meds was the implication. But, it does look like they maybe pushed that too far, because what Patrick said is that she faithfully took her medications as prescribed. He had to admit he didn't watch her, but she had a diary where she recorded exactly what she was taking. [00:17:37] Speaker 4: Do you recall how, your observation, how dedicated to taking her medication as instructed by the numerous doctors that she ultimately saw? [00:17:48] Speaker 3: She always took them as instructed. [00:17:51] Speaker 4: Do you remember, did she, in fact, have a diary that she kept of the milligrams, the type of medication, the date that she took the medication, and what, if any, reactions that she had to it? Do you recall that? [00:18:09] Speaker 3: Yeah. [00:18:10] Speaker 1: The defense also pointed out that she had a pretty massive list of medications that she had gotten from the pharmacy. [00:18:16] Speaker 4: One of the things that you had identified yesterday was the document that you obtained from CVS, is that correct? [00:18:25] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:18:25] Speaker 4: It sets forth all of the medications that were purchased by Lindsay, by prescription from the physicians that she had seen during that period of time, correct? [00:18:36] Speaker 3: Correct. [00:18:36] Speaker 4: And you indicated yesterday that the police had seized a number of pill bottles, and then you also had a number of pill bottles, is that right? [00:18:52] Speaker 3: Right. [00:18:55] Speaker 4: And the pill bottles that you had, do you recall, what were the circumstances that you had them in a bag in your car? [00:19:05] Speaker 3: The reason I had them in a bag is because sometimes a provider would adjust medications. So, for example, I do remember Lindsay had a prescription of Ativan, and then a few days later they wanted to increase the dosage because it wasn't effective. So, what they would do is, they would say, give that old prescription to your husband, he'll discard it, and then continue taking from the new prescription. [00:19:34] Speaker 4: When the DA yesterday went through that there were scripts and there were pills on the 30 count, but then there's 27 and then three were gone, but that's because she wasn't taking her medication. That's not the case. It was what you were told to do, right? [00:19:49] Speaker 3: Correct, yeah. Without that context, it paints a different picture. [00:19:57] Speaker 1: The defense also talked about the police doing a poor job searching. They actually missed a lot of pill bottles. First of all, they missed the ones in Patrick's truck entirely. [00:20:09] Speaker 4: Right. And then you, to be cooperative, told the police that you also had pills in your car in his office and the state police, right? [00:20:17] Speaker 3: Right, but to be clear, those were discontinued prescriptions. [00:20:19] Speaker 4: These are the ones that she stopped. Correct. All right. And then you had new descriptions, so there were new prescriptions that were described to her, right? [00:20:24] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:20:25] Speaker 1: Now, when I remember- And the attorney apparently found even more while touring the house with Patrick, plus the police actually missed her Apple watch as well, which could have had useful information. [00:20:35] Speaker 4: You were in the house, long after the state police had gone and finished their search. Yeah. You recall that we went up to the bedroom and I removed this from the nightstand right next to the bed. [00:20:43] Speaker 3: Yeah. [00:20:43] Speaker 4: Can you tell us what that is? What is this? Is it a drawer? [00:20:45] Speaker 3: That's the drawer that goes into the nightstand. [00:20:47] Speaker 4: And inside the drawer, sir. Do you recall that there were a number of items that I see, Preston, Lindsay Clancy, prescribed January 5, 23. [00:20:59] Speaker 1: Now he pulls out some more. [00:21:02] Speaker 4: Those are on the drive. I'll skip that. [00:21:05] Speaker ?: Right. [00:21:05] Speaker 4: Do you observe that, right? There's something else that was in the drive. You recognize that? Yeah. What is it? [00:21:10] Speaker 3: It's her Apple watch. [00:21:10] Speaker 4: Her Apple watch. This is the Apple watch. [00:21:12] Speaker 1: And there's also this right here. She had this book in her things. [00:21:18] Speaker 4: You'll see. [00:21:19] Speaker 1: Let me make my picture really smaller so you can hopefully see it. I'll show the whole thing in just a minute. [00:21:24] Speaker 4: The book is. [00:21:28] Speaker 3: Yeah, it says good moms have scary thoughts. [00:21:30] Speaker 1: So she seemed to believe, in other words, that she had a real problem. Not only did she seek help from a whole lot of providers, but she had this book in her possession. Good moms have scary thoughts. And the defense point is, she thought she had a problem. She wasn't denying it. She was trying very hard to get help for it. And that's the gravamen of what the defense is suggesting. So that obviously is an important argument for the defense. Now, the prosecutor also overreached in another way by suggesting that Lindsay was doctor-hobbing, that she was, who knows, searching for a particular drug or maybe just wanting a doctor who would tell her what she wanted to hear. Patrick said that just wasn't true. [00:22:17] Speaker 4: Do you mean that that's like she was seeing nurse practitioner Paul for about a week? [00:22:21] Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, she may have only seen her once. It was very brief. And then she got reassigned somewhere, so. [00:22:26] Speaker 4: And the reason, if you know, that she got reassigned somewhere would be doctor-nurse practitioner Gelata, right? [00:22:32] Speaker 3: Right. [00:22:32] Speaker 4: Same practice, right? [00:22:34] Speaker 3: Right. [00:22:34] Speaker 4: And the reason was because Paul moved on to another job. [00:22:39] Speaker 3: Right. [00:22:40] Speaker 4: So Lindsay wasn't out doctor-hunting. She was referred by the nurse practitioner that was referred to you guys by your mom because Paul was leaving, right? [00:22:48] Speaker 3: Yeah, she just switched doctors in the same practice. [00:22:50] Speaker 1: So another way that the prosecution overreached some is they suggested the medication wasn't really affecting Lindsay, partly because they suggested she wasn't even really taking it. Now, Patrick said it definitely was. And in particular, the Seroquel that she was prescribed was really affecting her and badly. Yet, when he complained about it, when he went with her in person to an appointment, most appointments were by Zoom. But in this case, he went with her doctor, who had very short appointments anyway. But in addition to that, they doubled up on the medication that he said was bothering him. [00:23:31] Speaker 4: It was placed on Seroquel as well. Is that correct? [00:23:33] Speaker ?: Right. [00:23:34] Speaker 4: And to your observation, again, you're not a doctor, what you saw of your wife, was she affected positively or negatively by the Seroquel that she was on? [00:23:43] Speaker 3: It appeared that she was affected very negatively, and she's reporting that she was getting worse on the Seroquel. [00:23:50] Speaker 4: And do you know, did she report that to Dr. Gelata? [00:23:53] Speaker ?: Yeah. [00:23:55] Speaker 4: When she would consult with Dr. Gelata, prior to you actually going, do you know, are they all on video? [00:24:02] Speaker 3: Yeah, they're all on Zoom. [00:24:04] Speaker 4: Do you have any opinion for the jury as to approximately how long these meetings on Zoom would be with the nurse practitioner? Probably around 20 minutes. At some point, do you recall that you went with Lindsay to see Dr. Gelata? Is that right? Yes. And do you remember, if you remember, when that was? Early December. In early December of 2022, can you tell the jury from your observations, how did Lee appear? How was she acting? How was she faring? [00:24:33] Speaker 3: She was extremely sleep deprived and just highly anxious. [00:24:39] Speaker 4: Was there a number of occasions that you would actually see her on the sofa rocking back and forth with her head under a pillow? [00:24:45] Speaker 3: Yeah. [00:24:46] Speaker 4: Did you report that and other symptoms to Dr. Gelata? Lindsay did. So when was it, if you recall, that you went and saw Dr. Gelata with your wife person to person? [00:24:58] Speaker 3: When was it? Yep. [00:24:59] Speaker 4: Early December. I think it was December 6th. And do you remember, you've got a pretty good memory about this, do you remember what medication she was prescribed by Gelata? Out of that meeting. [00:25:08] Speaker ?: Yep. [00:25:09] Speaker 3: Um, yeah, she, uh, increased the Seroquel significantly. [00:25:14] Speaker 4: To your knowledge, did Lindsay go to doctors to seek out benzodiazepines or, uh, drugs just because she was a drug addict? [00:25:21] Speaker 3: No, no. Lindsay, I think, wanted to, um, she definitely didn't want to take any more benzodiazepines and definitely didn't want to take any more Seroquel. I think that it wasn't really a matter of trying to get off the medication. It was just trying to get on the right medication. [00:25:34] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:25:35] Speaker 1: So Patrick also said that Lindsay got much worse in December and that was an important point for the defense. Although the prosecution says, so what, in December, we care about January. Here's Patrick. [00:25:49] Speaker 4: Um, let's say mid-December. What observations, if any, heading up towards Christmas, did you guys, uh, endure? [00:25:56] Speaker 3: Um, she seemed to get worse. Um, the Seroquel was increased to 400 milligrams. [00:26:01] Speaker 4: 400? [00:26:02] Speaker 3: Yep. [00:26:02] Speaker 4: And, um, yeah. [00:26:04] Speaker 3: And, and the idea behind that was it would help with sleep. Um, but she didn't get better. Um, but she didn't get better. She, she got worse. [00:26:12] Speaker 1: At this point, it's pretty frustrating to listen to the list of things she tried to do to get help. For example, she went to the women's and infants program for postpartum depression and they said she wasn't the right fit. And she was only there half a day instead of being admitted to the program. And again, though, the problem with all of this is the prosecution says the timing doesn't match up. Maybe she was having trouble in December, but that's not when she did this crime. She committed this crime, says the prosecution, in January. That's the part we care about. The prosecution had argued, look at the fact that Lindsey sent her husband out to do these errands, went to CVS, went to pick up the food, and that gave her an opportunity, gave her time when she could attack the children. And that's why did that. Now, the defense said, well, she had a lot better opportunities to do that if that was what she wanted to do. Lindsey took care of the kids. He's talking about the trip he took. [00:27:24] Speaker 4: So for two days, two nights, a month, and a week or so, before she killed the children, she was home with the kids for two days. Is that right? Right. Fair to say that you also had your friends that you would do brunch with on occasions, days or nights or whenever, guys night type thing? [00:27:46] Speaker 1: Yep. [00:27:47] Speaker 4: And you'd be out with your friends. If she wanted to kill the kids, she certainly could have done at that time when you're out, right? In theory. As opposed to sending you on a three-minute trip to CVS and a nine-minute trip to a restaurant. [00:28:02] Speaker 1: Now, the last place, I think, where the prosecution did kind of overreach was a suggestion they made that Lindsey was really controlling. In opening statements, the prosecution argued that Lindsey just wanted control over her children to the point that if she was going to harm herself, then she was taking them with her. No one else would be good enough to take care of her children. Now, she was controlling. I think you'll see that in this next back and forth between the prosecutor and Patrick Clancy. But you tell me, was this really all that- [00:28:40] Speaker 3: He always had a notebook that she would leave for the babysitter or for me. [00:28:42] Speaker 2: And so, for example, on Tuesday, September 4th, she wrote, last bed at 6 a.m., give him a bottle. Whenever he wakes up, he likes it very warm. He's been resisting the bottle. He won't drink it. After 45 minutes of trying, please text me to let me know. Put down for the next nap one hour after he waits. Try to put down drowsy but awake. But if he cries, pick him up and rock balance or hold him until sleep, then put down. He usually sleeps 45 minutes but let him sleep as long as he wants. These are very detailed notes that Lindsey is sending to the nanny, correct? [00:29:05] Speaker 3: Yeah. [00:29:06] Speaker 2: And then she also wrote, if you have time, wash and cut up veggies, sweet potatoes, one-inch cubes, peels, probably small pieces, peppers, one-inch pieces, classic Ziploc bags to put them in. Next bottle, two and a half hours after the first bottle, correct? [00:29:17] Speaker 3: I believe what you're reading, yeah. [00:29:18] Speaker 2: So, very particular about what she wanted the nanny to do, how she wanted her to do it, and when to feed Callan, when to put him down for a nap, all of those things. Very particular, correct? [00:29:26] Speaker 3: Sounds like it, yeah. [00:29:27] Speaker 1: I just am not sure how effective that's going to be with the jury. I think a lot of moms and a lot of caregivers are going to say, that's what you do when you're taking care of someone who is unable to care for themselves. As you're really specific when you pass along things and you try and organize, is it a little over the top? Yeah, maybe so, maybe so. How big to cut some of the food, though? Maybe she's thinking about she doesn't want any choking. Right? So, I think there was some pretty effective cross from the defense on this. Here we go. [00:30:03] Speaker 4: It's fair to say that Lindsay, as a concerned mother, would give instructions to people that would be taking care of her infant? [00:30:10] Speaker 3: Yeah, I would have done the same. [00:30:12] Speaker 1: Patrick Clancy was very mixed bag for the two sides. I don't know that he's going to clarify the issues around how people feel about this particular case. This is a case that has divided people. Some people feel like Lindsay really sought help. She should have been given help. She wasn't. She was failed by the system. And this was Lindsay snapping in a moment. Other people feel like she was better. She'd received all this treatment. She'd received all this medication. She was doing better. And she made a choice that ended three young lives. These are two totally different views of the case. And I don't know if Patrick has resolved that. I think Patrick has things to say on both sides. So, thanks for watching. Tonight, we did a video because I'm having so much trouble with my internet. Friday, I have a new system being installed. We will see what happens. So, we're going to be trying again Friday night. Until then, I'm going to be doing videos. And I will be struggling with my inner perfectionist. Over edit these or I won't get it up tonight. So, I'm going to get it up as fast as I possibly can. And I will see everybody again tomorrow night by video and hopefully live on Friday. I'll talk to you then.