Lindsay Clancy's Best Witnesses Will Never Testify

**Tony Brueski** (0:01)
This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Brueski and Robin Drake.

**Tony Brueski** (0:08)
Now let's move on over to the defense. Reddington isn't disputing that Lindsay Clancy killed her three children. He offered to put it in writing. His entire case is that the woman who did it wasn't there, that she'd been begging for help for months, and every single person around her missed it. We're digging into the defense of Lindsay Clancy now, Bob Motta, defense attorney, host of the podcast, Defense Diaries with us, as always, to help break down these tough cases. She told her husband at the end of December that she was having thoughts of hurting her kids. She checked herself into a psychiatric hospital on New Year's Eve. Nineteen days after they discharged her, her children were dead. The case should be a referendum and spotlight on our broken mental health system.
But it's not. It's going after another victim of the mental health system. Will her story help people see the reality of how broken this system is? Bob, do you think, I mean, I know if people are paying attention to it closely and are objective, they will hopefully see it. Do you think this will shine a bigger light on it beyond the true crime fans who are watching this sort of thing as closely as we are?

**Bob Motta** (1:22)
God, I hope so.
I really do, you know. It's like I've been working in the criminal justice system for decades. And my biggest frustration always in dealing with prosecutors was getting them to acknowledge, first and foremost, that mental illness is a real thing. I think if we were able to kind of calculate the crimes that are committed and put them into either one of three buckets, which is addict, mental illness or defect, or both, that 90% of crimes and the people that are committing them would fall into one of those three buckets.
And trying to get to humanize defendants with prosecuting attorneys and this, because of the shift to where truth is not what's at stake, it's convictions, because that's what gets people elected. When that happened, and that happened long, long ago, because make no bones about it, prosecutors are elected officials, it is a political job. I'm tough on crime is always the rallying cry. And what I, what I do to prove that as I show you my, my prosecutor's record is, you know, I have a 98% conviction rate. That's what they do to sell themselves that they're tough on crime. Because people want to live in safe communities.

**Tony Brueski** (2:50)
Yeah.

**Bob Motta** (2:50)
It's, you know, it's an easy sell for a prosecutor. I'm going to make where you live safer, because I'm going to put the bad guys away.
And when you have that battling with the concept of reality.

**Tony Brueski** (3:04)
Yeah.

**Bob Motta** (3:05)
And the concept of that we're dealing with human beings in every different case is its own story.
Like there are no two cases are the same. It's like I was going, going through our live on Clancy and a lot of people in chat. Yeah, it reminds me of Andrea Yates down in Texas back in the early 2000s. I'm like, no, no, they're all different cases. They're all all different circumstances.

**Tony Brueski** (3:31)
And if you're just if you're just following it as a bumper sticker, which unless you're into this stuff, that's that's most of the general public is it is a bumper sticker. It is I'm tough on crime. Well, that's great. You're tough on crime, but let's actually define what's a crime.
And what's just just padding the record here to show that you have another person behind bars, whether they should be or not.
That's not that's not necessarily dealing with reality. And this is one of those cases where it is not Andrea Yates. And look, there's there's we've seen plenty of cases where the mom should go, you know, take a flying leap off a cliff and just be gone for the the monstrous shit that they've done while being sane. Ruby Frankie comes to mind. There's several others. But but this is a case where where Lindsay Clancy did everything right. I don't I that's that's what what strikes me about this. This is not someone who just sat there and went, well, this is me deal with it. And then crazy things happened. This is someone who recognized it enough to have 13 psychiatric drugs, 13 scripts, 13 different times a doctor had to go to their pad and go, oh, you should have this. And throughout those 13 times, they didn't communicate with the other doctors. It also wrote her scripts as well. That's part of the civil suit. That's a whole conversation unto itself. But this is a case where this woman exhausted all of the the roads to go down. And at every single turn, she was failed. Now, I don't look at these doctors and go, I'm sure you were conniving and trying to kill her, make her do crazy. No. But the system is broken the way it communicated. It could have caught itself. It did not. But because the system failed her in all those different ways, you put anybody take take postpartum psychosis out of it, take bipolar, take, take you or me, take take a person who can't be pregnant.