Why Lindsay Clancy's Psychiatrist Never Met Her

**SPEAKER_1** (0:00)
This is The Big Breakdown, a long look back at some of the biggest stories we're covering for you at the Hidden Killers Podcast and True Crime Today. This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Brueski and Robin Drake.

**Tony Brueski** (0:17)
Well, as we've learned in the last several weeks, it's still 1693 in Massachusetts and the witch trials continue on. The Lindsay Clancy trial, the modern day equivalent of it, continues and we're going to break down what's going on with the prosecution, what's going on with the defense and what's going on with all of the allegations against Patrick Clancy and what inroads he may have for some of you out there who like to say that he killed his kids in terms of going after you legally. We're going to be covering all that today. To do that, Robin Drake, retired FBI Special Agent, Chief of the Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program, and of course, Eric Faddis, defense attorney and former prosecutor to help us break all of this down. Let's start in the area of the prosecution today. And we certainly welcome your thoughts in the comment section, wherever you're watching us as we work our way through this case. It's obviously we're three weeks in now.
The prosecution appears to have a bit of a problem going on that it's built for itself.
Every provider that it's put on the stand right now to prove Lindsay Clancy was sane has handed Reddington a cross-examination gift. Basically showing, yeah, she wasn't in her right mind. She wasn't in a good place. And we didn't do anything to help her get into that right mind, which you, the prosecution, have to prove that she was in. So how do they land this ship? That's a good question. The prosecution's strongest premeditation evidence is the Google search of ways to kill on Lindsay's phone. But even that is a bait and switch, because it's an omission of fact.
Ways to kill. She's like, yeah, I was looking that up for myself. The prosecution wants you to believe it was for the children. It was for all of this. When in fact, no, that's not what she was actually looking up. Eric, how does that land with a jury? Because it feels like there's been a lot of bait and switches here, or we're just going to kind of give you a little nugget of this. And then Reddington shows up and says, and here's the full picture. And you realize, oh, if I'm basing my decision just off of this little nugget of information, that really changes the context of what's actually being presented. It's kind of treating the jury like they're infantile children. That's the way I'm feeling about it. What's your take? And how do juries typically respond when one side of a courtroom omits a lot to get a picture to look a certain way and then they're shown the full scan of things?

**Eric Faddis** (3:02)
Tony, I think lawyers sometimes, they have a case, they really want it to be good. And so they sort of look through all the evidence and they cherry pick little things. And sometimes they're out of context. Sometimes they're in complete statements of evidence and things like that. And on paper, they're like, hey, this looks pretty good, right? They're talking in their echo chamber with their other attorney buddies on their side.
But then you get into that truth-seeking gauntlet of a jury trial and the entire picture comes out. And the jury sees it and they're like, hey, were you trying to pull the wool over our eyes? Why did you not tell me this really important piece of this larger presentation you're making? Are you trying to be misleading to me and dupe me? And so I think juries can really get offended once they hear the other side, once they get the full context. And they're like, oh, that's probably what that actually meant. Oh, Prosperity, you didn't tell us that. What else are you not telling us?

**Tony Brueski** (3:59)
And that's interesting because, I mean, it's watching the reactions and the comments out there on social media. I feel like there's not a it's very black and white on this. It's either people are willingly walking into the wool being pulled over their eyes and they're happy about it. They're like, pull some more wool down because we don't really want to see the scariness of what people are capable of. So pull away. People are willingly wanting that and ignoring facts, which I'm going to guess in the pool of 18 people, there may be a few people that are very comfortable with extra wool over their eyes. But then you also have the folks who are offended, are really taken aback by that and are viscerally upset that one would try to do this when you're trying to get to the truth of a case. To me, that reads as, we're going to have a hung jury at the end of the day, because both sides are very vested in their way of thinking, in their way of operating in this world that we live in. And it goes down to very core beliefs of how things operate. And those aren't easy things to change. And it seems a lot of this really goes down to the core of how we believe humans interact with one another, much more deeper than other cases.