Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
It's Lacey, and I'm Lauren, and welcome to another episode of the Llamas podcast.
[00:00:12] Speaker B: And today we're kind of going to finish up. Well, we. I won't say finish up, because right now the Lindsay Clancy trial is still going on, but we're going to talk about it a little bit more. And then Lacey's going to talk about some recent charges she's been seeing and her area and see if that stuff happening in yours. But it's probably going to be a little bit of a shorter episode today. We are both tired. It is back to school. It is, I don't know, just tiredness.
[00:00:39] Speaker A: Yeah.
It is just a lot harder. Like, getting back into the routine. It's nice to have the routine, but, yeah, the other day, Matt got up and he goes, mommy, the power's out. Meanwhile, the hall light's on. I said, buddy, your. Your nightlight is on a timer. It's been on a timer. It means it's time to wake up and go to school. And he looked at me and said, but I wasn't done sleeping.
[00:01:02] Speaker B: I feel you.
[00:01:04] Speaker A: I was like, same kid, same.
[00:01:08] Speaker B: Well, so Maddie's had issues because Maddie really hadn't napped much in the summer, but she is in 4k, and in 4k, they still take naps. So now she's napping and wanting to stay up later at night. And I'm like, no, ma'. Am. I need my, like, hour of TV time.
[00:01:23] Speaker A: Yeah. Oh, yes, I agree. Mark did the dishes and dinner yesterday, which normally does not do both. And it was so nice just to kind of sit for a bit longer than my hour. I need. I need more of that.
But question is, Lauren, Lindsay Clancy is just about done. I think. They're doing closing arguments today, right?
[00:01:48] Speaker B: Yep.
[00:01:49] Speaker A: So are you still convicting her?
[00:01:53] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, like, I.
It's really hard, but I will say from.
Okay, so realistically, this is a different trial than I think people realize this is not about guilt or innocence. And I don't know, I guess, like, different states kind of. Of have different laws on this. So she's saying she's not guilty by reason of insanity, not that she's not guilty of killing the children. And people still are, like, going on about how she's not guilty.
[00:02:28] Speaker A: I think I know why.
Here's my thoughts on that, I think.
And I'm curious to see how the jury will do this. One thing we talk about, and Sean Kent was actually talking about it with stipulations, and. And that's when this kind of registered. So a lot of the witnesses that would have gone towards identifying her were stipulated to. Right. The attorney stipulated that she did it. And so the state didn't call a bunch of witnesses that would have got on the stand to talk about how Lindsay did this, because like you said, he's a very smart lawyer, if that. He didn't have that defense. So he stipulated, which means there was a lot of witness testimony nobody sat through. Right. And so one thing like Sean Kent was saying is, even if somebody wants to stipulate, you don't have to. So, for example, if the state puts on an expert, the defense can say, I stipulate to this person being an expert. I'm not objecting to it. We don't need to go through all the qualifications. The state can still choose to go through all of the qualifications anyways to strengthen their case. So that way the jury knows, yes, they're an expert. Yes, the defense agrees they're an expert. But this is why, like, you need to know why we think there should be such weight on this person's, you know, thoughts and opinions on whatever this is. Because listen to where all they went to school, what all training they did.
So hearing that from Sean Kent when he was talking about stipulations, I'm like, I wonder if that is why we are seeing this, because there's so many witness statements that would have said Lindsay did it, that didn't testify. I don't necessarily think that everybody understands that what a stipulation is and what they're doing and what that means. And I'm wondering if by accepting the stipulation, the state has weakened their case by not calling those witnesses.
[00:04:22] Speaker B: I mean, I get. But I feel like maybe sometimes people aren't listening to what the judge says.
And I think that's been a big issue is they're not listening to what the judge is telling people or they're reading too much into it that's not there. Like, the judge constantly tells them, don't get on social media and look at this case. Don't do your own independent research. And people are like, they're doing that because of all of our theories. I'm like, no. Every single time I was with Judge Cole and we had a case and the jury wasn't sequestered, and it doesn't matter if it was civil or criminal. We always had that. Don't do your own research. And I think that's like one of these things where people are just taking off on stuff that's not there. And Maybe it is because they don't understand, but like some of it is just use common sense. And I feel like that's what's gotten on my nerves with all of this is people don't use common sense. Listen to the judge, listen to the evidence. And I think the jury is going to probably see things a lot differently than how all the Internet switches loose have seen them because they are sitting there. And I do think the jury's probably taking their job seriously. They've been there for three freaking weeks or four weeks, like right. Or five weeks. I don't know. They've been there a long time. So like they have probably listened to the judge more. Listened to. And I think, like, I think, yeah, I get what he's saying. Like, yeah, the prosecution could have called all these witnesses to do this, but then you're going to have the jury sitting there two more weeks.
So is that something you want to do too? And I will say in civil cases a lot of times, if it's stipulated to, you don't want to go back and redo it because you're boring the crap out of the jury. So like, I think some of it is weighing. Well, she said she did this. We're going to accept the fact the jury's going to accept this and we're not going to make these people miss work another week or two. Like that's probably a lot of the thought behind it in my side of it. Because at the same point these people have miss work for six weeks.
[00:06:22] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, I agree. I definitely understand the stipulation for sure. I just don't think people who aren't attorneys understand the strength of that stipulation and perhaps the witness testimony would have strengthened that more. But maybe not. Maybe I'm wrong and we'd still have conspiracy theories, of course. But that is just some thoughts.
[00:06:43] Speaker B: I think this is the tick tock people, the wine moms who watch too much Law and Order or too many Lifetime movies and want some smoking going that is in a smoking gun is never going to happen. Realistically, like very rare. They're just wanting stuff to happen or it to be more exciting or us to put the blame on somebody else. And at the end of the day, she did it. And I don't feel like there's. It depends how you weigh the experts. And people are like, oh, this expert was rude to him or oh, experts are paid by one side or the other. It's like any witness, they're going to be more responsive to the person they're Called to they are going to be more nice to decide their own and is how you weigh the experts and how you feel they presented is a lot of it. And I think realistically nobody ever actually proved in that moment she had postpartum psychosis. To me.
[00:07:41] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:07:43] Speaker B: And even if she did, does that really make her insane to where she's not criminally liable? Because that's just the hard part for me to reconcile.
[00:07:54] Speaker A: Like
[00:07:56] Speaker B: she was very capable of doing everything else.
[00:08:00] Speaker A: I would find her not guilty about reason of insanity. 1 I'm very defense biased. I'll just straight up be honest. So take this with bias. Grain of salt.
But what got me was actually something that I found out yesterday. I don't know again, I've not been following this trial like Lauren. So my thought is very biased and off minimal information.
I didn't know she was paralyzed from jumping out the window.
Yeah, right. I do know. I heard that. But see the way it was told to me by my paralegal was she didn't believe it was a true suicide attempt because who would jump out of a second floor and think they would actually die is what she told me. So I thought like it wasn't really that bad of a fall.
So I didn't really believe the psychosis because of that. But then once I saw that she was paralyzed, I heard she was paralyzed. I said I saw her in a wheelchair, but I didn't know why.
To me that would weigh heavily on her not being in her right state of mind. Because I don't believe people are often in the right state of mind when they are trying to kill themselves.
So I would find her not guilty by reason of insanity and I wouldn't find her completely not guilty and her just be acquitted. It I would want by reason of insanity and putting a mental health institute and in a mental health facility.
And with that I do believe it will be a mistrial.
That is my call.
[00:09:30] Speaker B: I don't think there's going to be a mistrial. I think there could possibly be a hung jury because yesterday they did argue the jury instructs.
[00:09:38] Speaker A: That's what I meant, a hung jury. By mistrial
[00:09:42] Speaker B: they are going to get manslaughter, I believe as one of their choices. Which I think is going to add to some people thinking it's manslaughter and not premeditated murder like heat of the moment.
I will say though, if I threw myself out a second story window, I think I think I would die. I think, I think I'd break my neck.
[00:10:03] Speaker A: I would Too. I mean, for me, threw me off saying how crazy that was. And she thinks that I was like, I thought you would, like I would never want to jump off of a two story window. But then once I started thinking I have a two story house, if I jumped off of that, I would die or be significantly injured for sure.
[00:10:21] Speaker B: Right. I'm thinking I'm looking out like the floor of my office, like I'm on the second floor. I mean, maybe I wouldn't, maybe I would. But I guess, like, I feel like this is a very much slippery slope in all areas of the law. Because if we're saying because she was psychotic, she's not criminally liable and needs to be held in a mental institution with. Not the same thing be said for Jeffrey Dahmer who was a serial killer. He was psychotic, he had a lot of guilt about being gay, he had a lot of trauma. I mean Susan Smith was raped as a child. Like where do we draw that line?
Where mental defense? Because I don't think she actually was in psychosis because a lot of what she said is like textbook stuff that says you should be in it, but she wasn't actually in it is what I believe.
[00:11:13] Speaker A: Well, let's take the, the, the thing that she's. What if she was in psychosis in that moment? What makes her different than the other two cases you mentioned? In my opinion, while Susan Smith did have prior traumas, she was not in. She in her mental state, she killed her kids and not herself. So I don't believe she was in a state that lacked criminal responsibility at the moment those murders were committed. I have not heard anything to say that otherwise there's no evidence that has come forward. So let's say that if Lindsay Clancy was in psychosis, she is different.
[00:11:48] Speaker B: That was 30 years ago.
[00:11:51] Speaker A: Right. But I think if we brought it
[00:11:53] Speaker B: up today, this, she would claim some type of defense trauma based psychosis. Like what I'm saying is I think we're seeing things through a 2026 perspective when people didn't believe this years ago. So I mean, like it wasn't meditation
[00:12:10] Speaker A: fully shown in Susan Smith. I mean she drove miles and miles and miles from town where John D. Long Lake was. She drove down a gravel dirt road,
[00:12:20] Speaker B: her husband to a restaurant miles away on purpose.
Like I, I sent him out of the house at that time.
[00:12:30] Speaker A: I think they're drastically different.
I think they are drastically different.
Oh, and her.
[00:12:39] Speaker B: I think the hard part is watching it and seeing like the experts, like you haven't seen everything presented and like,
[00:12:48] Speaker A: realistically,
[00:12:51] Speaker B: she sent him out.
Yeah, she did the same thing as a lot of killers have done. And is she a danger to society?
I don't know. Because if you can murder your children, what is to say she's bipolar. That's what the issue really is. And she's never going to not be bipolar. But because she was bipolar, she has a lot more tendency to have psychosis states. And to me, because everybody after the fact is saying it was an anxiety. She's bipolar, too, because of the bipolarness. She's still going to be a risk in the future because she can still go in. It's not just postpartum. Right. It's because of her diagnosis. And bipolar people don't take their medicine on the regular.
[00:13:32] Speaker A: I think the biggest difference, too, with those cases is she actually tried to kill herself. Lindsay Clancy, that, to me, goes to her mental state. Whereas Susan Smith didn't. She just put her car neutral and let it roll.
She didn't try to kill herself, although I know she said later that she tried. But she also lied about a black man. So I don't really give her too much credibility.
Also, Susan's gonna try to cover it up and lighten everything. Lindsay Clancy, from my understanding, didn't. She has always maintained that she did it. So that also goes to mental state for me.
But, yeah, I mean, I definitely see what you're saying. I do think there's a lot of precedent that could potentially be set if she's found not guilty or not guilty by reasonable insanity.
I don't necessarily think it's all bad. I mean, one thing I'm very passionate about changing is our laws on people with DiSAB, which is definitely different for mental illness. But I, you know, represent clients with autism on the spectrum, and I've just learned a lot about the differences in their social connections and stuff. And so when I see them be charged with crimes that stem from something that they can't help, that's difficult. Right. And in our legal system, like, we want to punish the person who chooses to do wrong, who wants to do wrong, knows what right and wrong is, and chooses to do the wrong thing. And what I've noticed with people on the spectrum, that's not.
That's not what's happening.
[00:15:07] Speaker B: Is that it? Do we want people to pay for what they did wrong? Even if, I mean, if you're honest, a sociopath doesn't believe what they're doing is wrong. Like, in their head, they don't believe it, but they're a danger. To other people. So I do think it's not just.
[00:15:24] Speaker A: It's not black and white. No, I'm not saying black and white. But, you know, a basic foundation of our judicial system is that, right, somebody who, who is doing things that we all agree are wrong and they, they choose to do that.
Of course, there's always exceptions with sociopaths and even narcissism. Narcissism. But anyways, you know, I'm very passionate about changing the laws for people with autism on the spectrum. A lot of states are doing a lot of things different than we are. With people with autism, the recidivism rate very low because when they go through diversion programs and learn in a way that their brain comprehends, they are very successful in the future and recidivism is a zero. And so to hear those statistics and learn about that, there is going to come some good precedent, too. I hope that I leave our justice system in a better situation for people with disabilities and mental health issues and seeing what other states do, I think we could do the same.
I mean, I understand, like, Kayla kind of has some of the same concerns as you do. We want this case as precedent, like a mom killing her kids do. We want that to be, you know, what, what makes the change? Because that's kind of scary. So I get the, that part of it too, but I can't, I can't say we shouldn't just ignore mental health. Even with Susan Smithing freedom.
[00:16:49] Speaker B: I think mental health is obviously an issue, but I think also, like, it's one of those issues where, where's the line, are you going to take somebody's rights away? So should she have been committed? When that's the thing, like, you want people to have freedom, but then like, you send them to mental health court and people get mad when you take away their rights. So it's like, and especially I will tell you, dealing in the mental health region with conservatorships and guardianships, bipolarness is one of the hardest because if they take their medicine, they're fine, but they're not going to take their medicine. A lot of times because they take their medicine, they get fine and then they go off their medicine. I've had multiple bipolar manic depressive clients and it is such a cycle that it's hard and like, it's more black and white. When you have like dementia, you can easily take away that person's rights because it's progressively going to get worse where those things are just a harder. I don't think any judge Based on what was happening and what she told the doctors, I do not think any judge would have committed her because she never told the doctor she wanted to harm her children. She never told the doctor she had a suicidal intentions. She thought about it, but what person on this world has never thought about suicide? I'm just being honest. Like, at some point in somebody's life, you have probably thought about it. And then she was changing pills where, like, she was on Zoloft. Zoloft takes two to three weeks, even start to work. And she would take it two days. Oh, I'm nauseous. I gotta stop. Let me go find a new doctor. But Ativan, she would pop, which is benzo, you know, like the way she did things. And you can say, oh, she was screaming for help, but if you really want help, she left. When she was impatient, she left.
Which is consistent with bipolar.
[00:18:41] Speaker A: And I can kind of back up what you were talking about with bipolar.
Had a client, terrible rap sheet, many, many years. When they were young, long gap. And then something small. I didn't have anything serious, but found out that they were bipolar. And that long gap, when they were not getting arrested, they were on their medication.
So they were getting medication and they didn't get rearrested. And like I said, there were several, several arrests. They were actually diagnosed in prison with their mental health. And they were very successful on the medic, the medication.
And still, they still are. Like, what I had was something very minor, not a big issue. But. But yeah, so I definitely understand that perspective. And I've seen it. I've seen it help. And this all goes back to, you know, what we've said, the history behind facilities. They closed a bunch of facilities that could have helped people get back on their medication and keep their medication that can't keep track of it themselves. And we just don't have that anymore because they were being abused and they weren't being run appropriately. And now here we are with these issues with people who can't take their medication like they're supposed to because they're not in the right state of mind. And there's not many places to put people. The places to put people are very expensive and it's hard to get somebody committed, like you said, and it just goes. It's still a huge problem.
And right now there's no solution.
[00:20:15] Speaker B: And I think the hardest thing with all of this is I feel like the fact that three innocent children lost their lives in all of this, and it is sad, and I guess it bothers me how much people are rallying around her instead of saying, what? Why did she not stay in inpatient?
[00:20:37] Speaker A: I mean, like it's.
[00:20:38] Speaker B: The blame is on everybody else. And I just don't like part of that because I think that's a slippery slope where we're making other people responsible for somebody else's actions. A doctor can only go off what you tell them with mental health. But we're gonna blame her because Lindsay didn't tell her the full picture. But we're blaming a doctor who can only go off what you tell me. Her husband probably sucked, I get that. But he wasn't the only one in her life. She had parents, she had a mother in law. I guess one question I do have with this is something that I mentioned, you know, my video is the fact that they asked her Catholic mother in law, was this a mortal sin? Would that be a normal grounds for a mistrial or. No, it was not an appropriate question. But realistically, is that grounds for a mistrial? I feel like that's very minor.
[00:21:23] Speaker A: I don't think it's. I would have, as a judge denied the mistrial and given a curative instruction, which believe is what the judge did here as well.
[00:21:30] Speaker B: He did his drunket and everything.
[00:21:32] Speaker A: Hindsight, if the jury comes back with a question that pertains to that and they come back with a guilty verdict with whatever answer that is, that could be grounds for appeal.
But I would have to see, you know, if hindsight it should have been a mistrial, I would have to see that it weighed on the jury in their decision. And again, that's just going to be handled on appeal.
[00:21:53] Speaker B: I guess to me though, like, if you're religious and Catholic, you already think that way. So like not saying that about all Catholics or all religious, but like, if you are already preconceived to think that way, it was probably already in your head, I guess, is what I'm thinking. So, like, I feel like that probably did not. And like the people who aren't religious at all that are sitting on the jury, who are atheists, they're like, well, that was a stupid question that just looked bad on the prosecution. So I don't feel like overall that would have been the grounds for the mistrial.
[00:22:24] Speaker A: I do think with the support that Lindsey Clancy is getting, at the end of the day, it comes down to, I think there's a lot of women who feel that they've not been supported mentally.
And I agree, like, you can't sit there and just blame all the doctors, all the Husbands, all the families. But I do feel that most moms can say in postpartum they didn't feel supported. I didn't feel supported postpartum. I, especially with Mac. My husband had postpartum depression, not me. And I would most nights be along with my baby for several months. Actually it lasted about a year. I, it was on me, everything. And my husband would admit that my, you know, so much was going on.
I don't think my mom and my mother in law knew what I needed in that, in those moments. And it's hard to say, like, this is what I need, because you just need people to kind of take care of you. And so like, I just know how hard it was. And Luke was hard too, but in a completely different way because of his disability. I'll say. But if I say if, if I go back to my not right state of mind, it was definitely worse with my second kid. And I think there are a lot of women who have similar stories to me, whether it's because of something they went through postpartum, whether it's, you know, something that they went through just a really hard time with mental illness or something. But I think the reason so many people are supporting Lindsey Clancy and it's gotten the attention of so many women is because there is a clear outcry of women saying, we deserve better. Like we deserve, we deserve better in postpartum care, in our jobs, we should have paid maternity leave. That should be a normal thing in America. There should be better follow ups. You know, our system should change to make women more supportive. And so I, I do believe the reason that, that that is the core of the support. Not necessarily like the details and stuff, but I think just the overall basis of the case, just not having that support, you know, after having a baby and mental health issues. I think a lot more women resonate with that than they probably would have vocalized before this trial.
[00:24:46] Speaker B: I mean, I, I guess the thing is like, postpartum's hard, but I think like at some point you have to advocate for yourself too. And I think that's like people kept saying, she advocated and advocated, but she wouldn't stay consistent with the same doctor. She wouldn't stay on her medicines. And I think that's where we can blame the system. But at some point the system was trying to work there because they were giving her medicines, they were listening to her, but because this one made her nauseous, she wouldn't take it. Like that's one of those things where I don't know how that could have got better because the doctors were working with her.
It's just they couldn't keep her on her medicines. And that's the point of the issue of in bipolar people. And a lot of people with mental health issues is how do you keep them on their medicines if they don't want to take them?
[00:25:37] Speaker A: I'm not even mentally unwell and I couldn't advocate for myself with Mac. I mean, my mom and my mother in law didn't know much of what was going on. And when they did come to help, I felt bad if I asked them to do what I actually needed. So I just did it all myself instead of asking for help. But I can tell you straight up, I don't have, I mean the only mental health diagnosis I really have is, you know, anxiety, like, but it's controlled, like I'm not medicated for it. And it honestly comes in spurts. It's not daily.
I've had more depressed depressive episodes but you know, I don't have like a severe mental illness and I could not have had it advocated for myself with Mac. I didn't, I, I vividly remember they would come visit and I would need so many things and I'm like, I don't understand why they're not doing this, but yet I never spoke it.
[00:26:27] Speaker B: But how can you expect people to read people's minds? Like that's the issue.
[00:26:33] Speaker A: I think a lot of women are that way. I think a lot of women, we are just programmed to do it all and we're expected to do it all and to carry the mental load from the day. We either have that cesarean or push that baby out of our vagina. We carry the mental load. Like in society, we make the kids schedules, we make sure the babysitters are there, we make sure we do the dinner list, we do the grocery shopping, we make sure food's on the table while we're working full time jobs. And so I just think we're just so programmed to do everything and not ask for help and not advocate for ourselves. And I'm not saying right, but
[00:27:13] Speaker B: say
[00:27:13] Speaker A: like, we have to advocate for ourselves.
[00:27:17] Speaker B: I guess to me, sometimes women have to break the cycle. You got to step up and say what you need, whether you're programmed or not. Like I guess to me, like I told my husband, like, you gonna have to step up and do stuff. He was a very supportive husband. We get more fights now with our kids being older than we ever did postpartum for us. And like we, and I think Some of it is we have been through a lot of trauma as a couple in general. So like having a baby was not as hard for us as other things we have went through. Like, and so I guess. And we have lost half of our support. Like my mother in law died during us having kids. Like, our life has been traumatic in a lot of ways, but postpartum for me was not. I'm probably more stressed right now in life than I was postpartum.
[00:28:03] Speaker A: I mean, Luke was hard to. Luke is what ended me up in therapy. But I also acknowledge Luke was different because it was. I think if he did not have a disability and I had all those appointments and stuff, it would have been different. But I was in a better mental state postpartum. With Luke, it was really just the schedule and the appointments and worrying about Cart, like that kind of thing. But I was very supportive with Mark during that. Like, we were such a team. We were stronger when Luke was a baby. Like everything but that parse poison. Postpartum depression in him was terrible for my mental state too. With Matt, I mean, it was just horrible.
But again, I think this is a good way to wrap it up. We wanted to get into another topic, but I am curious from our listeners, are you more like me or Lauren? Because I think that from my perspective, I think a lot of people are like me where they're just not trying to advocate for themselves. And I agree we need to change that. And I even implement that in my office when somebody wanted to raise. I said, then you need to advocate for yourself for a raise. You need come and say, I want to raise. This is why. Because we're not taught to advocate for ourselves.
So are most women like me in that aspect? And you just suffer in silence. And what can we do to be better? Or are you more like Lauren? Like, hey, what I need is what I. I say it, I expect it. And I'm great at advocating for myself.
[00:29:27] Speaker B: So say I'm great at advocating for myself. But at the same point, like, I just, I know, like if I don't say how I feel, it's not on somebody else to do that for me. I have to do that. And sometimes I have been miserable, said nothing. And I know I'm probably in the minority on this Lindsay Clancy thing because women. My pink is not for Lindsay. My pink is for Dolly.
Because I.
It just breaks my heart. And watching the trial has broke my heart knowing three little babies lost their lives. And I guess to me that's been the biggest factors. I think so many People have lost sight of the fact, no matter what, these three kids died.
[00:30:06] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:30:06] Speaker B: And it breaks my heart.
[00:30:07] Speaker A: Well, we will see what, what the jury does. It's ultimately up to them, not us. So comment below. Let us know what y' all think are going to happen with the trial. Let us know, like, what y' all think the solution is for women, if they do feel like they can't advocate, like, what is the. What is the solution? What could be better? What do you think? Because one thing this trial has mentioned is, oh, well, this person is wrong. This person. What? But what's the solution? Okay, if you want to say this is a problem, you got to come back and say there's a solution for it, Right? So what are the solutions to that? Do you feel like you do advocate enough or that you need to work on it and what you see? So that's it for our episode next week. I really hope to touch on our topic of parents being charged when their kids commit crimes, because it happened again just last week.
[00:30:57] Speaker B: And you know what? I think that really could tag on to this because are we going to hold others responsible? And I think that will be a good segue to go into that.
[00:31:07] Speaker A: Stay tuned and we will see you all next week. Bye.
[00:31:09] Speaker B: Bye.
