Episode Details

Todd examines the facts the Lindsay Clancy defense has acknowledged while the jury reports an impasse: Clancy killed her three children, and the disputed question is whether mental disease or defect removed her criminal responsibility. He explains the defense’s stipulations, opening and closing arguments, the five choices on the verdict form, and why presumed innocence does not mean the defense argued someone else committed the killings. Todd then considers why some supporters reject even the defense’s position, connecting that denial to emotional reasoning, cognitive dissonance, cultural hostility toward personal responsibility, and the need for truth and accountability in a free society.