The Prosecution's Hidden Strategy (Lindsay Clancy Trial Day 1)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Hi, y'all, and welcome to tonight's live stream. Well, today was day one of the Lindsay Clancy trial. We had opening statements, and then you would typically expect the prosecution to begin by proving its case, but that is not exactly the way it happened today. It actually was a little bit different. It was an unusual strategy, I think, for the prosecution opening up its case for the Commonwealth. So prosecutors did something kind of more subtle than you would normally have. I mean, you might normally expect a witness like the EMTs who arrived on the scene, first of all, or maybe the police, if they got there first, and maybe even a medical examiner, maybe, but instead, they put on a witness who is basically hostile to the Commonwealth. This is Lindsay Clancy's now ex-husband, Patrick. Patrick, he is the person who knew Lindsay Clancy better than anyone else. He is the person who lost all three of his children when she killed them, and he is the most difficult witness for the Commonwealth because he has come in on Lindsay Clancy's side. So this is the most important witness. It's the most difficult witness for the prosecution, and yet they started right off the bat with this witness. Courageous move, and was it one that worked? We're going to talk about that. But I do want to say one caveat. If Lindsay Clancy testifies, the defendant automatically becomes the most important witness in the case. So for now, as far as we know, assuming Lindsay doesn't testify, I think Patrick is all-important and all-critical. So Patrick has actually sued the medical providers who helped Lindsay or who treated Lindsay, I should put it that way, for failing to help her, saying that she had this postpartum psychosis. They failed to diagnose it, failed to treat her appropriately, wouldn't admit her to the hospital, and that's the reason for what happened. That was the reason she went over the edge and killed. So normally, I think that the prosecution wasn't just laying out a theory that just because they were starting with Patrick, I really believe what they were trying to do is look at one particular question. Was Lindsay Clancy truly overcome by severe mental illness, or was she hiding what was really happening? And they used repeatedly evidence from Patrick to suggest she was hiding things from him, maybe even from medical providers, and perhaps even from the jury. We'll get to that. But that theme showed up over and over again. Now, I wanted to go through, point those out to you, because I think it's so critical to what the prosecution's going to argue in this case. Some of the prosecution's points were very, very effective. I thought others were pretty risky. We're going to talk about those as well. One argument in particular, I think, could work great with some jurors and may actually backfire with others. I'm going to ask you your opinion on those. So let's get into day one. Now, Patrick and Lindsay met through Lindsay's college roommate, we learned. Lindsay's roommate, college roommate, was Patrick's cousin. And they were together for years. They married, had three children, and had been married roughly six or seven years when this happened. Now, the prosecution, as I said, unveiled a pretty dangerous theory. And it started out very just kind of mundane. And I was even wondering, why are we starting out with such kind of dull questions? I mean, you only get one chance to make your first impression with the jury. Why would you spend it on the small stuff? But I think there was a reason for this. So let's hear it. [00:04:03] Speaker 2: Did you recall saying previously that you were going to start off with one shift and hopefully move to two? [00:04:09] Speaker 3: I could imagine. [00:04:11] Speaker 1: She's asking him about Lindsay going back to work after she had her third child. Now, she went back to work after the first child, went back to work after the second, and now she has her eight-month-old child. And he's talking about what the plan was when she went back to work. So that's what we're going to, that's what you're hearing right here. By the way, would you please hit the like button? That helps YouTube know we're here, we're awake, we're out there. I would appreciate it. [00:04:44] Speaker 3: Yeah. [00:04:44] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:04:45] Speaker 2: And you said there was some options, correct? What were those options if that didn't work out? [00:04:53] Speaker 3: Well, I always put money aside in basically our own maternity account just so that if she needed more flexibility, we planned for that. [00:05:03] Speaker 2: So if she needed more time off, more than what her work would provide for her, you were financially secure enough to afford that at that time? [00:05:13] Speaker 1: So he's just talking about the fact that if Lindsay was so upset about going back to work, it would be okay. The family was financially secure. She could take more time if she needed. And they're going to go on to talk about the fact that the two older kids were in preschool three and a half days out of the week. So the five-year-old and the three-year-old had a place to go, a place to be. And her husband took them there half the time. Why was that important? We'll talk about that. [00:05:41] Speaker 2: During this time in the fall of 2022, were Cora and Dawson attending preschool? [00:05:50] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:05:50] Speaker 2: And where was that? [00:05:52] Speaker 3: Learning Sprouts. [00:05:53] Speaker 2: And where is Learning Sprouts located? [00:05:55] Speaker 3: Duxbury. [00:05:58] Speaker 2: How often were they attending Learning Sprouts? [00:06:03] Speaker 3: Full days, Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and a half day on Thursday. [00:06:07] Speaker 2: And what was a full day? What hours? [00:06:10] Speaker 3: I think it was 9 to 4. [00:06:12] Speaker 2: 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.? [00:06:13] Speaker 3: I think so, yeah. [00:06:14] Speaker 2: And what was a half day? [00:06:16] Speaker 3: Like 9 to 12.30. I think they might have had some days where they started early. I can't remember. [00:06:23] Speaker 2: But basically all day, you know, working hours all day, Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and then the mornings on Thursday. Is that right? Right. And who would do drop-offs for school? We both would. And what about pick-ups? Both of us. Together or take turns? [00:06:46] Speaker 3: Usually we would take turns. [00:06:48] Speaker 1: So about now, I'm thinking, why do we need to know that? Surely it's important to lay a foundation. Obviously you want to do that. But do we really need to know who drove the kids to school? Is that important? Which is when it occurred to me that the prosecution is really asking the question, if Lindsay Clancy is so incredibly depressed, why? I started thinking of it as the, what was she so upset about anyway, theory. Just what was so overwhelming about her life? I mean, she was only going to be going back to two shifts a week. And if she needed more time, she could take that. I do think that this is a risky strategy for the prosecution. You have to know your jury to do this. Now, it could be that there are jurors on there who say, you know, you're right. She must have been pretty intentional about this. And because why would anyone be depressed or upset with such a great life and so many supports around her? But this is an older jury. And you may have people who say, you know, that is really, impression works. I mean, maybe some of the jurors will think something like, well, I had postpartition and I remember how. Well, that was exciting. I think I'm back. Am I back? Can you hear me? I don't know what happened. I think it was a StreamYard thing. But we will see. So let me know if you can hear me. I need some thumbs up or something. I'm back. I'm back. OK, good. Well, I'm going to have to add to the stream our video again because it takes it out when it pulls the video, when it drops the stream. So let's find that again and get started where we were, which I'm not exactly sure where we were, but hopefully I can find it pretty quick. OK, there we go. And we will go a little bit into it. Let's see how far into it we were. I was talking about I was talking about Patrick being the most difficult witness. That's a fact. Everything reset, by the way. And about how the prosecution had unveiled what I think is a pretty risky theory. Or, yeah, I'm going to call it a theory that, frankly, Lindsay Clancy had such a good life that it seems unlikely that she would be depressed. And I think that's going to be very dependent on what people's personal experience with depression is. And I think there may be people on the jury who say, that is not how it works. Depression isn't about your circumstances. It's about this feeling inside you. And sometimes it's not even rationally related to your circumstances. So it's going to be up to the defense to make that argument and up to the jurors to decide what they think about it. So let's see about where we were. I think we were talking about, I was going through some of the things they say about it. We were about to, it was about to be where the, I was going to talk about the fact they had a nanny. Let's see. [00:10:18] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:10:19] Speaker 1: And when was that? [00:10:25] Speaker 3: I think it was in August or September. [00:10:28] Speaker 2: Of 2022? [00:10:30] Speaker 3: Yeah. [00:10:31] Speaker 2: And who was that nanny? There we go. [00:10:34] Speaker 3: Lockie. Laney? I don't remember her last name. [00:10:38] Speaker 2: Does Elaine Rossi sound familiar? [00:10:40] Speaker 3: Yeah. [00:10:40] Speaker 2: And do you recall how many days per week Elaine was going to work when you hired her? [00:10:51] Speaker 3: I think it was 12 hours. [00:10:54] Speaker 2: But it wouldn't be 12 hours altogether. It would be spread out over the week. Is that right? [00:10:58] Speaker 3: Correct. [00:11:01] Speaker 2: And who was she hired to take care of? [00:11:05] Speaker 3: Everyone. But mainly it was going to be Callen. [00:11:10] Speaker 2: Because Cora and Dawson would be at school? [00:11:13] Speaker 3: For the most part, yeah. [00:11:15] Speaker 2: And what was the plan for when Elaine would work? Was it that same type of after Lindsay worked shifts or something different? [00:11:26] Speaker 3: Yeah. [00:11:28] Speaker 1: Okay. So Marlon is saying that we don't hear audio. And do you mean just for... Hopefully you mean just for the video. Hopefully you can hear my audio. Although we need to see both, right? We need both. I hear audio. I have audio. But do you have audio for me or do you also have it for the video? [00:11:59] Speaker 3: Goal was after Lindsay would work. I mean, she never went back to work. But I think we wanted to get her just like oriented with our house. [00:12:12] Speaker 1: I'm getting a lot of people saying I have audio on both. So we are going to hope that's the case. [00:12:18] Speaker 3: So we had her start before and then she was amazing. She was an amazing caregiver. But eventually we decided to let her go because Lindsay was home anyways. [00:12:34] Speaker 2: Did she also, Elaine, did she also do some cleaning, laundry, and food prep? [00:12:39] Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, she was amazing. So you kind of see the drumbeat here, right? Lindsay's life is pretty good. She's only going to go back to two shifts at work, not full time. The family's got enough money to even stretch that out a little bit. You've got a nanny who's doing cleaning and laundry and food prep. Although, to be clear, they had to let the nanny go before all of this mental illness stuff hit for Lindsay. So all of the stuff actually hits at one time. Patrick goes back to work. He had the entire summer off with her 12 weeks of paternity leave, which is really unusual here. He was working for Microsoft, I think, at the time. And then additionally, you've got the nanny, and now suddenly both of those are gone, and you've got Lindsay by herself. And the kids, he's now going to talk a little bit about the kids' activities, and they weren't crazy. They were pretty much what you would expect for younger children like this, not anything crazy like a travel sports team for a high schooler might be. [00:13:50] Speaker 2: Now, during this time frame, again, in the end of summer, fall period of 2022, what types of activities were Cora and Dawson doing? [00:14:02] Speaker 3: Gymnastics. Are you talking about organized activities or just in general? Organized. I only remember gymnastics. [00:14:16] Speaker 2: Did they both do the gymnastics? Yeah. And then were they also participating, maybe not in organized situations, but in swimming, soccer, skiing, things like that? [00:14:24] Speaker 3: Yeah, they were doing swimming. And, yeah, Cora and Dawson did skiing. Yeah, Cora started doing soccer. She didn't really like it, but did a little bit. [00:14:34] Speaker 1: So they also talked about the fact, the prosecutor did, about Lindsay working out, that she went to the gym a lot. And I think there could be two directions the prosecution wants to use this. One is Lindsay's getting plenty of self-care. She's getting what a mother might want. She's getting support and help and she's getting some self-care. But also, it could be something that gets used in closing arguments. She is big and she's strong. She's fit compared to those tiny little kids, the ones that she attacked and harmed. So, and then we get into Patrick and that really impressive three months off he got. [00:15:20] Speaker 2: Did Lindsay work out? Yes. She was very health conscious? I think so. And were you aware that she had been an athlete in both high school and college? [00:15:32] Speaker ?: Yes. [00:15:33] Speaker 2: Do you recall what she did? [00:15:36] Speaker 3: Competitive cheerleading. [00:15:39] Speaker 2: Now, when you were together, what type of exercise would she do or did she prefer? [00:15:46] Speaker 3: She did a lot of running. She did the peloton and she did, there's like some program called Beachbody, I think. [00:15:54] Speaker 2: Do you recall when she started Beachbody? [00:15:57] Speaker 3: Maybe in the spring of 2022, I'm not sure. [00:16:03] Speaker 2: So, right before having Callan, would that be accurate? [00:16:06] Speaker 3: Probably, yeah. [00:16:08] Speaker 2: When you returned to work, and you said that was in August, correct? [00:16:13] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:16:14] Speaker 2: What was the defendant's demeanor when you returned to work? [00:16:20] Speaker 3: Increased anxiety and definitely, you know, stressed out. [00:16:28] Speaker 2: Do you recall describing her as slightly stressed but in good spirits? [00:16:34] Speaker 3: Yeah. [00:16:35] Speaker 1: So, what you're hearing is this theory that Lindsay, and it was explained partly in opening statements and you're sort of hearing it fleshed out now, is that Lindsay was basically very selfish that she had this great life and she had these children and she just didn't want that, she wanted to move on from that. She wanted not to have that. Now, all of this is a little bit hard to connect to the fact that she really was seriously seeking medical help. And it'll be interesting to see where the prosecution goes with this. It would not be enough for the prosecutor to say, look, she had a great life. That wouldn't even be close to enough. So, the prosecutor is going to go on and try to say that there was also this real intention to what Lindsay did, that she was intentionally hiding things from, about her medical condition. She was hiding them from Patrick, her husband, and she was also hiding them possibly from medical providers, I think we'll hear that. And if she would hide from those people, then how far a leap is it, jurors, to say she would hide it from both medical professionals and maybe even her intent to kill from everyone? Maybe she was just hiding it from everyone. So, for example, and the prosecution got into this with Patrick, Patrick says that Lindsay was getting worse at the end of October. His thinking was that this was because she was doubling her dose of Seroquel. But the prosecution suggests maybe that was just false. Maybe she actually wasn't taking medicine at all. Maybe he just doesn't know what really went on. And maybe that makes him not that credible a witness. Not because he's lying, but because he doesn't have the information. She's withholding it from him. So, for example, they go to a wedding and Lindsay tells him that she's going to go to a doctor and she's going to ask for a Zoloft. But truth be told, he tells the jury in this testimony, she'd already gone. She actually already had the medication. So, why would she say it this way to him? [00:19:07] Speaker 3: She wasn't really improving. She just kind of seems to be gradually becoming more in like a depressed state. [00:19:16] Speaker 2: Now, do you recall learning that she had actually obtained the prescription the day before she told you she was going to ask for the prescription? [00:19:27] Speaker 3: I did later learn that, yeah. [00:19:29] Speaker 2: So, she's telling you at the wedding that she is going to ask to take this medication and going to see a psychiatrist to get on that medication, but she actually already had the prescription. Is that correct? [00:19:40] Speaker 3: Correct. I don't think she started taking it yet, but she already had it. [00:19:42] Speaker 2: Had you noticed prior to her telling you this that she was up a lot or having trouble sleeping, like physically seeing her awake? [00:19:49] Speaker 1: I'm going to stop it there and go ahead and talk for a little bit. So, I'm not exactly sure where the state is going to go with this argument. Are they suggesting that this was a long con, that she had the plan to kill the kids and she faked this mental health issue? In other words, planned it all in advance to give her an excuse? I don't know that that as an argument is going to work because that's a really long con. That's a whole lot of work and effort into doing that. It would be, I think, hard for many jurors to swallow that. I think maybe they may be going more for an argument that her knowing she knew what she was capable of and she didn't take responsibility for managing it. She lied, she didn't take medications, she was prescribed, and she hid that. Now, we're going to hear a lot from Patrick. He may be the prosecution's first witness, but he's also ultimately still on Lindsay's side and that makes him a hostile witness. So, he is going to say that Lindsay did not make up the claim that she heard a voice telling her to kill the kids. In fact, he's already said that, that she had mentioned that to him before. And he's going to say that she tried valiantly to get help, that the medical professionals just failed her. So, the prosecutor spent some time trying to suggest that maybe Patrick doesn't really know as much as he thinks he does because Lindsay was hiding things. And maybe then he didn't know about her meds and maybe he doesn't truly know about things like her sleep. [00:21:35] Speaker 3: No, not that I recall. [00:21:37] Speaker 2: And so, during that time frame, was she telling you that she was still having trouble sleeping? [00:21:42] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:21:43] Speaker 2: But you weren't actually down there watching her sleep. You're getting this information from her, correct? [00:21:48] Speaker 3: Correct. [00:21:48] Speaker 1: So, he's saying that while she was complaining that she didn't have enough sleep, but she was down in the basement and separate from him. And in other words, the prosecution seems to be suggesting maybe she made that up. Now, the prosecutor did some really good cross-examination, I thought, on the pills that Lindsay was taking. One of the two arguments that Lindsay's side has made is not just that she had this postpartum psychosis that wasn't really being treated appropriately by mental health providers, but also that she was over-medicated with a host of different drugs. And the last thing, they said this in opening, the last thing you should do for a person with bipolar disorder is give them a whole bunch of medications. Many of those will cause them to go into a further manic or depressive episode. Now, there's not, according to the prosecutor, clear proof that she actually had bipolar disorder, but that is what is being contended by the defense, or at least it seemed to be. So, what the prosecutor did was say, okay, you say, you're claiming she took all these medications. Well, what if she didn't really take all that many? And she did a really interesting cross-examination. So, she talked about the fact that Patrick apparently had collected, I don't know why they were in his car, but in his car, he had a bunch of pill bottles that Lindsay had gotten from various medical professionals. He was going to take those to the police and turn them in because he had been told, yeah, he didn't want to just throw them out. So, he was going to take them in and the police would destroy them. Apparently, his attorney then turned those over to the police. So, the police, when they got these bottles, they looked at what they were, and I did a, let me see if I can share that screen with you, because I did a chart for you. So, let me show you the little chart I did, just showing you. These are the drugs that he talked about giving, not giving, that he had in his car. And, for example, there was a Zoloft, and I've got the date that it was prescribed, and then the number of pills taken. So, there were, I guess, six bottles of pills in there. There was Zoloft, and seven of the 30 of that had been taken. There was Ativan, six of the 30 had been taken. Buspar, two of 30. Hydroxazine, three of 30. Buspar, again, zero of 30 pills were taken. And then Trazodone, seven and a half of 30 pills were taken. So, the prosecution is saying, does this look like over medication? Does it even look like medication? What it more looks like is she isn't taking her meds. And she is being prescribed these things, but she's not getting actual, she's not actually taking them. She's not actually using these drugs to help her feel better. So, let's pull that out and add back to the stage. Let me stop for just a minute as we talk a little bit more. Now, she also suggested, look, Patrick seems to have the timing wrong. And here's an example of that. [00:25:15] Speaker 2: The prescription in September, started taking it in October, took seven pills, but was having difficulty in December. Is that what you're saying? [00:25:25] Speaker 3: Yes. From this medication? Yep. Well, I don't know which medication it was from, but yeah. [00:25:29] Speaker 1: So, in other words, if Patrick is saying, well, she started taking this drug, she picked it up in September, started taking it in October, but she only took seven pills. And then what she told him about how she was doubling up, maybe she wasn't because, in fact, the seven pills wouldn't have lasted all the way until December. She must not have been taking it. And that's going to be a really interesting argument. I thought that was really well done by the prosecution. He also, the prosecutor pointed out, wasn't actually with her when she supposedly was taking these, so he doesn't really know whether or not she took them. There is still a lot of room for the defense to come in here and respond. For example, Patrick made it clear that this might not be all the bottles. Maybe she had more than one bottle, and she used the first bottle, and then this was the second. He kind of left that open. Here you go. [00:26:29] Speaker 2: There were a lot of pills prescribed, but not a lot of pills taken, correct? [00:26:36] Speaker 3: Is that comprehensive of all the pills that were prescribed? [00:26:39] Speaker 2: These are the pills that you brought into the police station. So, out of these? [00:26:43] Speaker 3: Out of those, yeah. It's possible that not a lot were taken. [00:26:47] Speaker 1: Now, the prosecution also tried to downplay just how many pills it was that were prescribed in a single time, because that also has been something that's at least been speculated about in the media, is if she had 12 different medicines and she was taking them all at once, maybe that would create a problem for just about anybody. But they're saying it wasn't really as many as all that. [00:27:11] Speaker 2: Do you recall what was the most amount of pills prescribed? I guess I could ask this better. What was the maximum number of medications she was on at any one time? Would it surprise you to know that she, at any given time, the most she was prescribed was three, but most of the time it was two medications that she was prescribed at any given time? [00:27:43] Speaker 3: It wouldn't be terribly surprising, no. [00:27:45] Speaker 1: I thought that was actually pretty funny. He said, well, I would say three or four would be the maximum. Would it surprise you that it was three? Well, no, as I said, it might be three. But I think the prosecution's point is, this is not a situation where she was given 12 medications at once. It's a situation where she might have had three at a time, and she may not have even been taking those. I will be really interested to see what evidence the defense brings to counter this suggestion. Continued throughout the theme that Lindsay was hiding things from Patrick. Lindsay hiding was a common element of what they talked about. [00:28:31] Speaker 2: Did you own, at that time, a Surface Pro, a type of tablet that works as a laptop? [00:28:37] Speaker 3: Yeah. [00:28:38] Speaker 2: And who had access to that laptop? [00:28:41] Speaker 3: Both did. [00:28:42] Speaker 2: You and Lindsay? [00:28:43] Speaker 3: Yeah. [00:28:44] Speaker 2: And going back to August 22, 2022, did you click on a link on that Surface Pro that was titled Methods of Suicide? [00:28:54] Speaker 3: Not that I recall. [00:28:57] Speaker 4: And August 22, 2022, that was... Guys, I'm back. [00:29:07] Speaker 1: Here's what I'm going to do. I think that StreamYard is just not stable enough tonight for me to be able to do clips. So, I've got the clips. I'm going to read them to you so that it will be a little easier and hopefully more stable. Hopefully, we will stay up and running the entire time. So, let's see if... Is everybody... Can you hear me? Can anyone hear me? Thank you. Yay. That's... Woo-hoo. Hopefully, that means that's a yes. All right. So, let's go ahead and pick up where we were. So, the suggestion that I was just playing was that Lindsay had actually looked up methods of... I'll use the YouTube euphemism of unaliving. Had she actually looked that up back in August. That was before she took any medication. So, it wasn't something like medication pushed her over the edge. She was already in a bad state. Now, that leaves one of the defense arguments, which is she had this postpartum psychosis. She was mentally unstable. And that was still a problem. But at this point, they're trying to say, let's at least knock out the prosecutionists. Let's knock out the too much meds because it must not have been related to the meds. She already had a problem. She wasn't taking all her meds like she supposedly said she was anyway. So, he told the jury, though, one of the most important pieces of testimony for the entire trial is what Patrick said about Lindsay having intrusive thoughts. These are commanding thoughts. We heard that phrase or intrusive thoughts. Things that came in, she wasn't... They just suddenly she would hear this voice telling her to do something. And what Patrick said was at the beginning of December, she said she was having intrusive thoughts. And she said, he asked her, you know, what are those thoughts? And I'll read this section for you. And what was her response? She described thoughts of hurting the kids or them having some sort of ailment. So, like, she was very worried that Cora had, whenever she had a stomachache, she became overly worried that she was, you know, like, like, had like a liver problem or something much more dramatic than it was. And the prosecutor said, but going back to that first part, she said she had thoughts of harming the kids. Is that correct? And he said, yeah. And did she tell you whether or not she had specific thoughts of how she would do that? And I'm using some YouTube shortcuts. And he says, no, she didn't tell him what she would do. And she didn't describe that as hearing this external voice telling her to harm the kids. Correct? And he says, correct. She told you she was having intrusive thoughts herself of having or harming. And correct, he says, correct. And did you ask her how it seems like I'm duplicating that? I don't know. Perhaps I did. He said, I didn't ask it in that way. It was the same thing. I said, do you have a plan? And is it disturbing to you? And she said, no, she didn't have a plan. And yes, it's disturbing. And and he explained that and said, so it was more something that might happen than she might do something. Is that correct? He said, yeah. So his statement was not so much that she was saying, I'm going to do this, but that she seemed to be excessively anxious and worried about the children. And it wasn't entirely clear what exactly she meant by that. Now, that's really important because the prosecution believes that her statements in the hospital after she did this about how this voice commanded her to do this, that she made that up after the fact to protect her from criminal responsibility. And then I saw many comments on the channel where I was watching the trial where people were saying, why didn't Patrick do something about this? Like, why would he leave his children alone with her when he knew she had problems? And here is what he said in answer that I think would be his answer to that. He said, I asked her at some point, you know, do you feel like you need to be kept away from them? And she said, no. And then, you know, it was very confusing because a minute later she was making them lunch or playing with them or, you know, getting them ready for bed or whatever it was. So, so, so, and the prosecutor said, so it was confusing in that she wasn't physically harming them at the time, but was having had these thoughts. Is that what you're saying? And he said, right. And Patrick said that she seemed a lot better right around the time, ironically, that she actually committed the murders of the three children, that she seemed better. He actually was comfortable leaving her at home with the children. He took his oldest, Cora, out skiing and he left the other two with Lindsay and he felt fine because he said she seemed to be doing a lot better and her mood seemed better. She was more active. She was able to partake in more things, he said, and she was going to the gym. He said he was hopeful that things were getting better. Now, the prosecution is going to bring in a slew of witnesses who will say that Lindsay was acting completely normally, that, and part of the reason they're doing that is they want to say there was nothing really wrong with her that would cause her to do this. She just is a person so evil that she wanted to do this. This was just what she wanted. It wasn't driven by any kind of mental illness. That's going to be the prosecution argument. And they're going to bring a bunch of witnesses to say she was totally fine. There was nothing wrong with her right around this time. So Patrick sort of set that up with, while she was, yes, acting pretty normally, she was able to function anyway, she was also acting differently. She was maybe doing normal things, but she wasn't acting exactly the same. For example, he said they went to a friend's house called the Carney's house for, on Sunday, they had a bonfire and roasted marshmallows. And that was just a fun event for the families. And he said she was quieter. She was able to interact, but she was very quiet that day. But he really felt like she was doing better. And specifically, her mother visited the weekend before that. Both her parents did, I believe. And her mother wrote her a text afterwards saying, I'm glad you're doing so much better. So the people around Lindsay felt like she was doing fine. To sort of bolster that, the prosecution also put in a number of photographs, like Lindsay with her mother, everybody smiling, the kids and Lindsay and Patrick at the Museum of Science, all of them at a water park. So all of these things are designed to make the jury think, look, what was really so significant? No one around Lindsay knew of this incredible mental illness that supposedly was destroying her equilibrium. No one else saw that. And then we get to the day of the actual murders. And on this day, Lindsay and Patrick are texting all day. It's completely normal. They're sending each other pictures of the kids. And Lindsay takes their oldest daughter to the doctor, sends a picture of her wearing a mask. And meanwhile, Patrick's at home taking pictures of the kids, sending them to Lindsay. In the afternoon, Lindsay builds a snowman with the kids. Nothing about this seems like someone who has this severe mental illness and is on the verge of breaking, which is why the prosecution believes that this is not something that was suddenly caused by a mental illness. That's going to be their argument. And he said specifically that he was up there several times. He worked from home. So he was in and out throughout the day. And he said, she seemed happy. Prosecutor says, happy? How could you tell that? What was she doing? And he said, she was playing with the kids and she seemed in a good mood. And at any point during that day, when you came up or while she's texting you, did she tell you she was having suicidal thoughts? And he said, no. Did she tell you she was having thoughts of harming the kids? He said, no. Did she ask for help or anything that caused concern? And he said, no. And this quote, I think, will be very, very important. He said, she was having one of her best days. And the prosecutor said, one of her best days. And he repeated, yeah. That's going to be really important because the prosecution is going to say, this doesn't look like someone who is in the middle of a mental illness episode. This is someone who's doing fine. She's having one of her very best days by her husband's own admission. And therefore, we should not look at this as something that was caused by postpartum psychosis. It's something caused by what she evilly intended to do. So the prosecution, I think, will make its very finest point around, and we've sort of begun this at the end of the day, was Lindsay planning for Patrick to be out of the house. And one thing, I have a question for you. Do you believe it's strong enough? I'm going to read part of it. And they asked about the, at 4.53 p.m. that day, Lindsay sent him a text. And it said something like, do you want to get takeout? I haven't planned anything. And I didn't cook anything. It's been a long day. Don't feel like cooking. And said, how about the 3V restaurant? She looked up how far it was from the house, et cetera. And the prosecutor said, had you been to this restaurant before? He said yes. And the family had been there about three times. It wasn't where they normally got their takeout. They normally got it from one of a couple of other different restaurants that were closer to their house. But she wanted this. Now, the one reason I think this may not end up being all that powerful, we didn't get into this, is I think it was still only 15 minutes from the house, which by the standards where I live is pretty close. So, but Lindsay came up with this idea that he would go to this restaurant, 3V, and that he would also go to CVS and stop and pick up some medication for their oldest daughter, Cora. So, they text back and forth what food they're going to order. She calls the order in. And then Patrick gave some very poignant testimony about his last minutes with the kids. He said, and I'll quote, I took Callum for a minute, and I rocked him by my knees, kissed Cora on the head, and I said, I'll be right back. And they asked, the prosecutor asked, what was Dawson doing when you were leaving? He said he was eating chicken nuggets on the couch. Then there was an unusual question. Do you recall if he was using a bowl or a plate? It was a bowl. So, I guess that'll come in somewhere. I couldn't figure it out. So, that scene clearly embedded in his mind, the last moment with his children. And then the prosecutor brings out a very small detail, but I think they're going to blow it up when it comes. Where was Lindsay standing at the moment when he was leaving the house? She was standing in the doorway of the living room by the basement door. Why is that important? Because that's where the children were found. Basically, the prosecution is sort of suggesting she's like, okay, get out of here. Get out of here. I got my plan. I'm standing by the basement door ready to go. She's holding Callan and she's about to do it and she just wants him out the door. That's what they're suggesting. The defense, I'm sure, will say, look, she just happened to be standing there. The break happened after he left in that 55-minute period when he was gone. So, as emotional as the testimony was from Patrick Clancy, and it was, he completely held it together, but it was clearly something hard to talk about. But I really do believe this was a day more about strategy than just about emotion. The prosecution is laying out the story and suggesting that Lindsay is a liar, she's a planner, and she hid what she intended to do, which was to murder the children. The trial is far, far from over. We haven't even had cross-examination yet of Patrick Clancy. In fact, we haven't even finished the direct examination from the Commonwealth of Patrick Clancy. So, I would love to hear from you what stood out to you today. If you watched the trial, what was important to you, or just from the summary we've talked about, what sort of impacted you. Leave your thoughts in the comments, if you would. I'd like to see them there, but also, let's do a few questions. We won't do too long. [00:42:49] Speaker 4: I don't want to tempt. [00:42:57] Speaker 1: Shout out to our first five in tonight's chat. Goliath, Pascaline, Oklahoma GG, Bama Queen, and Betsy Sue. Also, shout out to our mods, Marlon and Mama Pinks. So, Loretta Powell is saying no court tomorrow. Absolutely correct. There is not. If we can get the internet up and running. I'm planning to cover the opening statements tomorrow. Maybe I'll do a video instead. Watch for that. If you aren't subscribed, we would love to have you back for more. Please be sure to turn on your subscription so you'll get notification when I either go live or when I drop a video. Does anyone have a question? If you would, please put... Okay, so, no Q&A. We're calling it while we're ahead. At least I'm back on. Thanks for watching. And I will see you tomorrow night by video or live stream. Bye. [00:44:16] Speaker ?: Bye. Bye.