Lindsay Clancy's Own Note Says THIS About Her Kids

**SPEAKER_1** (0:01)
This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Brueski and Robin Dream.

**Tony Brueski** (0:09)
Good morning, you got me today. Robin is out here, we'll be back tomorrow. Lindsay Clancy is on trial in Plymouth for the deaths of Cora, Dawson and Callan, her three children. And nobody's arguing about who did it. The whole fight is whether she knew what she was doing. And prosecutors say the answer is all over her phone.
That's the big thing, her phone. Because she checked where her husband was going when he went to get takeout. That means she's a criminal mastermind who wanted to murder her children. We're going to break all this down and we're going to try and understand it from every perspective here. If you've been watching the coverage, you know what I feel about this already. But we're going to talk about it from the prosecution standpoint. That's actually where we're going to start first. We're going to talk about it from the defense standpoint. We're also going to talk about it for what does justice actually look like in a case like this. Joining me today to do all that, it's Bob Motta, Defense Attorney, host of the podcast Defense Diaries, wherever you get podcasts and on YouTube.
Bob, I know you guys are covering this extensively over on Defense Diaries, and we are as well over here. Let's just start with where a lot of the prosecution, where they're seeming to hang their hat. Trial's not even started as of yet, but we're seeing a lot of the noise come out of. She texted him at 453 that she didn't feel like cooking. They ordered dinner at 510 He left at 515 Prosecutors say that she checked how long the drive was while he went out to get takeout, and that's when she acted.
And they're saying, well, if she was out of her mind, how does she pull that off by looking at the app and seeing where her husband is? Well, I mean, the idea of what someone is when they're out of their mind, there's the movie version and there's the real life version, and they don't look exactly the same. People don't understand that a person that is in a psychotic state can seem normal on the outside, but I guess you've been in courtrooms your entire life and having a jury try to understand some of these kind of basic psychological principles of human beings. Will a jury understand that, Bob?

**Bob Motta** (2:26)
I mean, that is the million dollar question, and that's why, frankly, to me, this is probably one of the most important cases to come along in probably the last two decades because it's really putting not just Lindsay Clancy on trial, but it's also putting the healthcare industry on trial. It's putting Big Pharma on trial because that's going to be the defense. And to your pointed question, I think, and we'll probably see it in the chat, and I just want to say that obviously destroyed that those three little beautiful babies lost their life. Like, I think we all agree that that is beyond the pall. It's the most horrific thing and it was at the hand of the person that biologically is supposed to protect those children more than any other person on the planet. So it's a very, very hard thing for people to kind of look at this case and say, wow, yeah, I'm willing to keep an open mind, which is all I'm ever asking anybody to do with this case, which is listen to the evidence. Try to learn a bit about mental health and try to learn a little bit about SSRIs. Try to learn a little bit about psychosis and what it really is, and then come to a decision on this case. And it's just human nature is going to make it very, very difficult for people to do that because of the babies. When you have that type of loss at the hand of the mother, people are coming into that courtroom as potential jurors feeling a certain way about it, and they're not wrong to feel that way about it. Because at first blush, it's so shocking that it's impossible for you to kind of put that aside. And we're always talking about that on your show and I'm with you on our show all the time. You know, emotion has no place in the courtroom. As cold and shitty as that sounds, that's the reality of it. We have to deal with the facts and the evidence and the law, that's it.
We can't allow for emotions to rule the day and make our decisions in those courtrooms in terms of verdicts based on what we're feeling. You know, so it's a very tall tatch for the defense. I mean, they don't call and they call it lack of criminal responsibility in Massachusetts as opposed to not guilty by reason of insanity.