MINI TRUE CRIME ROUNDUP: Diving deep into the Lindsay Clancy case, postpartum psychosis and strange courtroom drama

**Lauren Barry** (0:02)
This is a True Crime Roundup from The On Deadline Podcast. We explore crime stories reported on by Audacy's radio newsrooms across the country. I'm your host, Lauren Barry.
This week, we're diving further into the Lindsay Clancy case, as jury deliberations begin. She is a Massachusetts mother who is on trial for killing her three children. And the case has opened up a national conversation about postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis.
We'll hear a listener who called in to an Audacy radio station about his own experience with postpartum disorders. Hosts from Audacy stations will also share their experiences and draw connections to past cases. We'll also hear about a bizarre development inside of the court room this week.
A mother accused of strangling her three children to death. It's a case that's almost too gruesome to fathom. Yet, it's not the first time a mother has taken her children's lives. And the Lindsay Clancy case has shed light on the challenges that families face in the postpartum period. Mothers are often exhausted and left to deal with physical, mental, and emotional changes that their bodies went through during childbirth. Sometimes they can suffer from postpartum depression, or the more rare postpartum psychosis condition. That's what Clancy's legal team says she was dealing with when she killed her kids. But does it explain the allegedly premeditated actions that she took? While Clancy has some dedicated defenders, others see her as evil. Conservative political commenter Matt Walsh, for example, said that he thinks she was simply selfish and hated her children. Kim St. Ong and Marc Cox of the Marc Cox Morning Show out of Audacy Station, KFTK in St. Louis, discussed Walsh's comments and some of the other discourse around the Clancy case this week.

**Kim St. Ong** (2:24)
The trial for Lindsay Clancy is continuing today, but this is when it all builds up and we wait to see what happens, because they're expecting closing arguments and then the jury to start deliberating. Keep in mind, this is a Massachusetts mom, a former labor and delivery nurse, who prosecutors say that she strangled her three children at their home, and then tried to jump out the window. She survived and is partially paralyzed. The argument for her has been that she suffered from postpartum psychosis, that she heard voices and that that led her to do that, and that she, for that reason, belongs in a psych ward, not convicted of first-degree murder and in prison.
Now, I made the argument about this whole thing. I had pretty strong feelings about something that Matt Walsh had said, about postpartum depression, and I didn't suffer from postpartum depression with either of my two kids, but I have dealt with some stuff, and it can get kind of scary, the thoughts that go into your head, and so I was very irritated that Matt Walsh was saying that stuff. I actually unfollowed him. I just didn't want to deal with it. I thought it was completely just lack of taste, I guess, the way he completely, it seemed completely dismissed any sort of a mental thing going on after women have children. I think that's garbage if you want to pretend that that's not a thing. Now, do I think that that means that Lindsay Clancy is not guilty? No, I have not, I've never said that. I do think Lindsay Clancy is guilty.
So you can say what Matt Walsh said was stupid, but also think that Lindsay Clancy deserves to be in prison. Because when you look at the things, the way she went about it, it seems like it was very well planned out. And I know, Marc, you were talking about Ally Beth Stuckey during the commercial break, and that's someone who I have followed closely over the years. She's got a podcast called Relatable. And it sounds like she, what, changed her mind, her stance on this?

**Marc Cox** (4:20)
So she, this is about a seven and a half minute clip that she put out, which, let me summarize it before I play the part that I've edited for you here. She basically said that she misunderstood and she apologized, because she truly believed that this woman was a victim of the medical system. And multiple doctors had put her on 13 different medicines that were conflicting and drove her into this psychosis.
And she, not that she didn't think she was guilty of the action she took, but she thought that the circumstances of her guilt were altered by this medicine, and that should play a role in this trial. And she has since changed her mind after coming across some new information, after listening to the actual evidence that was presented at trial.