What the Voices Told Lindsay Clancy the Night Her Children Died

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

**Tony Brueski** (0:08)
Reddington spent three hours cross-examining Lindsay's psychiatrist, Dr. Jennifer Tufts. She never met Lindsay in person. She had 14 telehealth sessions with her. She got board certified the same day Lindsay filled out intake forms. She didn't, it's like, did she get it at Kmart out of the vending machine up front? No, with all the... That's timing. I got some spree and medical certification. She didn't use the Endeberg scale. She didn't request Lindsay's hospital record. She didn't know Lindsay had called the suicide hotline twice. She also told us there wasn't a drop down menu for certain things in one of her more famous lines from the trial.
Eric Faddis, defense attorney, former prosecutor, is with myself and Robin Drake as we continue to break down this case.
Eric, I mean, is he proving she was psychotic with that or is he proving the doctors just really never bothered to look as hard as they should have with her on the stand?

**Eric Faddis** (1:12)
It seems almost similar to like a fly-by-night operation where they just sort of, they come in and they establish things really quick. Like she got board certified the same day the intake papers were filled out. What a coincidence. What is her purpose there?
Oh, she must have some kind of agenda if she's taking all these measures for that kind of thing. And yeah, it just sort of seems not like some providers who's concerned about her well-being or who is really there to help her get better or something like that. Instead, it seems kind of like a higher gun situation in a legal case where the provider might have some bias, might have some angles in an agenda, but still scoring points for the defense, surprisingly.

**Tony Brueski** (1:58)
Yeah, I mean, and this was a prosecution witness. That's what really got me about this.

**Eric Faddis** (2:03)
I'm starting.

**Tony Brueski** (2:04)
I'm wondering at some point here, I mean, is the prosecutor throwing the case? I mean, as much as I, you know, and by the way, that Massachusetts piece was a joke, but the idea that they willingly brought her in there knowing, unless they just didn't do their homework and didn't realize how just inexperienced she was and how green she was going to come across. I mean, does that happen, Eric? How frequently does that happen when you think, okay, this is going to be a good witness for us.
Let's bring her up. Or are you sometimes really surprised by what you get on the stand? It's not what necessarily you were expecting going in. Or sometimes is it another case of they didn't ask the right questions, just like the physicians?

**Eric Faddis** (2:53)
Yeah, I mean, it comes down in part to witness preparation. That's something that you have to do for virtually every witness, especially in a triple homicide case. So you know what they're going to say. You know their strengths, you know their weaknesses, you know how the other side is going to attack them. You know how they might fear off course, and you can at least try and anticipate that, and think about ways to remedy it. But sometimes it does just go south on you.
But also the point you bring up Tony about throwing the gays, you know, I can't, this is just my speculation, opinion, but I've seen things like that before, where the office is like, hey, there are three dead kids, we got to go through the motions at the very least. And I wonder if that might be a part of it.

**Robin Drake** (3:38)
Yeah, and Eric, I don't know how much, I'm watching way too much of this case. What I don't cover during the day, I put in watch on YouTube at night before I go to sleep. It's a good nighttime, going to sleep stuff, right?
But what I'm seeing, and I'm not sure if you're seeing as much, because I know you're busy, but are you seeing any kind of adjustment that the prosecution made? Because kind of Tony's point, your point right there is we see them doing something that apparently from the layman who's not in the courtroom, although I feel like I'm in the courtroom a lot with them, because you're getting that emotional impact of these testimonies from people, and you're seeing the impact on the courtroom. You know, it's interesting. You're seeing the impact on everyone in that courtroom but the prosecutors. They seem like immune to the emotional impact of everyone around them. And then, so my question is, does it look like to you they're not adjusting to what's going on in the courtroom or are they doubling down and just, in other words, they're stovepipe. This is stay on target, stay on target because I'm not seeing any adjustment from what we saw from the prosecution and the, you know, the redirect on Tufts to what we saw yesterday in that courtroom, which was absolutely devastating. In other words, every time they've seen Lindsay completely losing her shit, I'm sorry for the vernacular, but I mean, she completely collapses. And yesterday was the worst. And you keep seeing the prosecution doing the same thing, even though I would think that they are thinking in terms of the delivery that any impact is having on the jury.