Lindsay Clancy trial concluding, judge strikes down Texas drag show ban

**Pat** (0:00)
So good, so good, so good.

**SPEAKER_2** (0:01)
New fall arrivals are at Nordstrom Rack stores now. Get ready to save big with up to 60% off brands like Vince, Steve Madden, Kate Spade New York and Boss. Stock up on the latest trends like animal print, lace and suede. Join the Nordy Club for free to unlock exclusive discounts, shop clearance and new arrivals before anyone else and so much more. Plus, you can buy online and then pick up your order at your favorite rack store. It's fast and free. Great brands, great prices. That's why you rack. Cash rules everything around me. When that line dropped, it changed the whole hustle. Introducing the Sprite Living Tracklist, 50 tracks that shaped the culture from six decades of hip hop. Scan the QR code on a Sprite or Sprite Zero Sugar to see the full breakdown. Obey your thirst. Sprite.

**SPEAKER_3** (0:46)
This episode is brought to you by TikTok. Lace up and get your game on because the TikTok lineup just got a new teammate. Dr. Pepper Tic Tac, this new double threat puts two of your favorite flavors into one box of mints. And when two iconic flavors come together, the result can only be iconic.
Score big. Try Dr. Pepper Tic Tac today.

**David Pakman** (1:09)
Hey, thanks for tuning in to The David Pakman Show. You're listening to a free sample of the exclusive award winning bonus show, which we produce every weekday for our members. Unlock the whole lineup and support independent media at Join Pakman Dotcom.
Welcome to the bonus show. I don't know how many people in the audience have been following the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. But if you have been following it, the prosecution has rested in its rebuttal and the case is moving towards getting to the jury. I don't know if you if you haven't been covering it. This is a situation where a woman named Lindsay Clancy has stipulated that she did kill her children in January of twenty twenty three. The defense is based on the idea that she is not guilty by reason of insanity.
I've only been watching. I have friends up in Boston who are very sucked into this trial. I've only been seeing a few clips, but some interesting legal tactics have been used. And one of the things that I noticed, how close have you been been following it, Pat?

**Pat** (2:24)
Only around the edges. I haven't been following it that closely. To be honest, I'm not even sure why it's so big of a story, because I feel like it's a pretty cut and dry story. It's surprising to me why there are so many people coming to her defense and believing this insanity arguments. To be honest, here's why I take on it.

**David Pakman** (2:41)
I think it's gotten a lot of attention because often situations where people kill their kids involve taking their own lives, so there's never a trial. Number two, often in murder trials, what they're trying to prove is that the defendant did the act. In this case, the defendant is admitting that she did the act. But it is a trial around not guilty for reason of insanity. So that's different. I think when you have a, you know, sort of like it's a pleasant looking couple, her and her, I guess, now ex-husband. And it's, you know, rather than some kind of like a traditionally violent looking man, whatever that means, it's a sort of like normal ish looking woman and whatever. So the other thing that's been interesting is that Lindsay Clancy's lawyer has been. This is my interpretation, but I've seen others sort of say, I think he's doing the same thing in his questioning of her ex-husband, Patrick Clancy. I believe his name is Lindsay Clancy's lawyer.
He has not in any way come out and said, we have a theory that he actually killed the kids. He has not said that. And because she's stipulating to the fact that she did it, I don't believe that it's something that he could do.
But he has created an alternative storyline in which while Lindsay did the physical acts, he was involved or encouraging or psychologically manipulative in some way where he has some responsibility, which I think is interesting because strictly speaking, it is not part of what the jury is there to decide. And I'm not even saying that he would even be legally culpable. I'm just saying it's sort of like there's been this undertone of this from some of the witnesses that have been forward and the questioning of the of the ex-husband, which is also, I think, another interesting aspect because if you look online, you see tons of comments from people going, the husband did it and it's like, well, did what because she's acknowledging she did the act. But it's a question of whether he was maybe involved or manipulative or abusive or something where he would have some shared responsibility.