Lindsay Clancy Trial: Psychiatrist Details 11 Hours of Interviews and the Voice She Heard PT 2

**Tony Brueski** (0:00)
This is live courtroom coverage of the trial of Lindsay Clancy from the Hidden Killers podcast in True Crime Today. Now, back to the courtroom. Doctor, based on your training and experience in dealing with diagnosing and treating people who have psychosis and what you've learned in all your training and schooling, is it typical for someone in psychosis to hear a voice only one time, never before, never after?
No. And again, based on your training and experience, is it typical for someone in psychosis to hear a voice that's constant rather than intermittent?

**Gregory Saathoff** (0:48)
No, that is not typical.

**Tony Brueski** (0:50)
And what does it mean the difference between a constant voice and an intermittent voice?

**Gregory Saathoff** (0:56)
Well, an intermittent voice would come and go. It wouldn't necessarily just keep playing over and over again, as if it were on a tape, which Ms. Clancy told me that it was a voice. It's the same thing in the same tone, repeated over and over and over until she had strangled Callan.

**Tony Brueski** (1:27)
And is it typical, based on your training and experience, for someone to hear command hallucinations and then for them to stop abruptly?

**Gregory Saathoff** (1:37)
No.
Committing the act is not curative of the voice. I've not ever seen that.

**Tony Brueski** (1:50)
And, Doctor, based on your training and experience, someone in psychosis, hearing a voice without accompanying delusions, is that typical?

**Gregory Saathoff** (2:07)
That would be pretty rare. It's absolutely not typical.

**Tony Brueski** (2:14)
And in talking to Ms. Clancy, did you speak to her about the concerns she had, that if she had voiced thoughts of harming her children to providers, medical providers, that her children would have been taken away?

**Gregory Saathoff** (2:29)
Yes.

**Tony Brueski** (2:30)
And did you see that as a delusional thought?

**Gregory Saathoff** (2:34)
No. Certainly, with the requirements that healthcare professionals have to report any issues that could cause harm to children, for example, has required reporters, it's very rational for her to be concerned that by voicing her thoughts of harm could cause her children, certainly an assessment and a rapid assessment and a determination about how best to keep the children safe. So I didn't see that as irrational, but rather rational, just understanding the healthcare system.

**Tony Brueski** (3:29)
And when reviewing the records and speaking to Ms. Clancy, did you see or notice any delusional statements or beliefs surrounding the hearing of that voice on the 24th?

**Gregory Saathoff** (3:42)
No, I didn't.

**Tony Brueski** (3:44)
Now, based on your training experience, is it typical for someone in psychosis to hear a voice and immediately act on it?

**Gregory Saathoff** (3:52)
No.

**Tony Brueski** (3:53)
And why is that? I'd like to have adobia hearing at this point, Judge, unless this is... I'd like to test his qualifications to that. Same objection, same ruling.
So your opinion is, it's not typical, correct?

**Gregory Saathoff** (4:11)
Correct.

**Tony Brueski** (4:18)
Now, you mentioned the defendant told you that when she received the call from her husband at 533 and called him back at 534, that she was getting dinner ready for her children, correct?

**Gregory Saathoff** (4:33)
Yes.

**Tony Brueski** (4:33)
And did she tell you what she was about to get out of the refrigerator?

**Gregory Saathoff** (4:38)
Yes. She said she was at the refrigerator and that the refrigerator door was open and that she was getting chicken nuggets out of the refrigerator section for her children.

**Tony Brueski** (4:54)
Now, in your collateral interview with Patrick Clancy, did you learn from him that when he left the residence, the children were already eating chicken nuggets on the couch?

**Gregory Saathoff** (5:04)
Yes.

**Tony Brueski** (5:05)
And did Patrick Clancy tell you that Dawson in particular was eating chicken nuggets and green beans out of a bowl on the couch?

**Gregory Saathoff** (5:12)
Yes. That's what he told me.

**Tony Brueski** (5:14)
And is it fair to say that there are crime scene photographs showing a bowl on the couch?

**Gregory Saathoff** (5:20)
Yes.

**Tony Brueski** (5:22)
And so is there any significance to you in the defendant telling you that when she got the phone call from Patrick when he's at CVS that she's making chicken nuggets versus Patrick telling you that that had already happened and the crime scene photo is showing you the bowl was already on the couch?

**Gregory Saathoff** (5:43)
Well, it's inconsistent.

**Tony Brueski** (5:45)
And are inconsistencies like that important in your evaluations in cases like this?

**Gregory Saathoff** (5:53)
Yes.

**Tony Brueski** (5:53)
And how so?

**Gregory Saathoff** (5:56)
Well.
Looking at someone's mental status at the time of an offense, it's important to understand what was going on in their mind at the time. And in this case, the widely divergent reports from Lindsay Clancy vs. her husband Patrick raised questions about what she is telling me and how things are happening. So certainly, that's a cause for significant concern. One of them is not correct in their statement.