440: Clancy Hold Out Juror, Sider Family, Teen Killed By Murder-Obsessed Couple & Incest Baby Left on Highway

Hey, it's Mario Lopez from the AllMarioLopez Daily Podcast. All right, quick question. You ever notice how some cars just steal the spotlight? Well, that's the 2026 Toyota RAV4. It's got bold standout style, intuitive tech inside, and now hybrid power standard, which means efficiency without the need to plug in. So whether you care about looks, smarts, or just everyday practicality, RAV4 brings all of it. If you've been holding out for the right SUV, this is your sign. Check out the 2026 Toyota RAV4 at your local Toyota dealer or visit toyota.com. See packages and options at toyota.com for feature availability. Hey, true crime besties. Welcome back to an all new episode of Serialistly. Hello, hello, hello, and welcome back to an all new episode of Serialistly with me, your host, Annie Elise. Happy Thursday. I hope you are having a fantastic week so far. I know that there has been a lot going on this week. And I mean, a lot going on the tail end of last week. We had more information come out regarding the Lindsay Clancy case, more information specifically about the holdout juror, and I hope you're having a great day. And I hope you're having a great day. And some details about his background, some details about what transpired in the deliberation room. We also are now hearing once again that Reddington wants a full acquittal of Lindsay based on this new information. There's been updates in the David case, D4VD, fricking douchebag of the century, and the civil case that has been filed against him. There is a case that actually was happening pretty locally to me. That I've been following for the last couple of weeks regarding a 14-year-old girl who allegedly threw her newborn baby on the side of the highway because the baby was a product of incest with her 38-year-old father. And now the two of them have vanished and an Amber Alert has been released. A lot of disturbing details there. Some updates in the Sider family case, which is the Ohio House of Horrors. I mean, just a lot to talk about. And I think that's a lot to talk about. Also, I know we talked about it briefly last week. The KJ Bierman of it all, Kim Zolciak from Bravo, from Real Housewives' son, more fucked up and dark allegations have come out against him. Video evidence and the deep dive on that, it's coming. Because once I heard about that, I knew I needed to dig deeper and figure out like what is really going on. There seems to have been a pattern of bad behavior and predatory behavior for the last, three, four years now. And what does that look like? There's also been past sexual battery charges, apparently, that were concealed. I don't know because he's a minor or because they came to some sort of resolution in family court. But that deep dive is coming. It is very, very dark. Probably the most deeply disturbing true crime case that has ever intersected with pop culture that I've ever talked about. We've talked about the theft of it all. The, Teresa Giudice, Erika Jayne, Jen Shah, things where it's fraud and it's theft and things that are, of course, yes, very upsetting. This is really, really dark and disturbing. And so we're going to dive into that together. Don't worry. That episode is going to be out very soon and it will be a full deep dive. But for today, I want to talk about everything that has been going on in the true crime world this last week. And also when I talk with you about everything going on with the Lindsay Clancy case and this holdout juror and what that means going forward. I'm actually going to be joined by a very special guest and new friend of mine who was there at the courthouse every single day inside the courtroom, outside the courtroom and saw everything that was going on. So stay tuned for that. Let's start with the David case though, because even though I feel like we just recently had an update in this case, we now once again have another one. And it's an update that honestly, I kind of thought was coming, but I also question like, where do you have the audacity to even do this given what your participation in all of this seemed to be and your alleged role. But anyway, as of December 8th, Celeste Rivas' family is now taking legal action against David themselves. Celeste's family has officially filed a civil lawsuit against David, who by the way, remember his real name is David Anthony Burke, but he goes by the moniker D4VD. And this family is making some very serious accusations in this suit. The lawsuit accuses David of more than a dozen different things, including wrongful death, fatally stabbing Celeste, sexual battery, child assault, holding her against her will, human trafficking, and causing severe emotional distress. Her family is now seeking compensation for Celeste's death and the abuse that they say she suffered and everything that they have also gone through in turn because of this. That said though, they haven't put in, an actual dollar amount on any of it. The monetary amount would be decided later if the case goes to trial. However, here's the part that nobody really expected in all of this. I think everybody assumed a wrongful death suit probably would come, especially given how serious these charges are. Although the audacity of it all, what I mean by that is we know that Celeste's parents signed off on her leaving the country with David. It seems that they were very well informed about the relationship, but we don't know how much of a difference they made in the relationship. I have made a few comparisons to R. Kelly when talking about this case in the sense that with R. Kelly, he would often prey on his victims by selling the thought of fame and celebrity to the parents saying, I'm going to make your daughter a star. I'm going to take care of her for the rest of her life. Now, I don't know if that's what was also going on here, but obviously there was a reason why the parents knew and accepted what was going on and allowed her to leave. Allowed her to travel internationally with him. So now the fact that they're filing this wrongful death suit, I mean, surely they had no idea that he was going to murder her and that it was going to be as horrific of a case as it ended up becoming. But the fact that they are seeking compensation for it, I don't know. I understand it legally and I know that these are the steps that you go through typically in cases like this, but there's something that just doesn't really sit entirely right with me about it. And I don't know, maybe that's just my jaded personal opinion. You tell me what you think. But again, I think it was kind of expected. It's not a huge surprise. However, what a lot of people didn't expect is that David isn't the only person that Celeste's family is suing. They've also named several people who are around him personally and professionally, including his personal manager, his day-to-day manager, who actually lived at David's Hollywood Hills home, and the live-in security guard, which if you remember, the live-in security guard was also occasionally the driver who I think facilitated the fake ID that Celeste used when they went to clubs together and went out together. So people who seemingly had knowledge of this relationship that was happening, and I say relationship very loosely. Obviously, she was too young to consent to a relationship with an adult, but I guess maybe you say the dynamic between the two or the interactions between the two. David's mom, Colleen Burke, is also named in the book. as well as his recording and entertainment company and his music publishing company. So basically, everyone who was in David's circle or that he had as part of his entourage at some point or another are now being named in this wrongful death suit, which is pretty wild. I mean, they're going after everyone. All of this was announced by the family just one day after what would have been Celeste's 16th birthday, September 7th. And when it comes to her family, they have been very vocal about how they feel about everything that has been happening lately. In the last update that I gave you guys last week, we talked about how they said that people should be outraged because David was now getting a public defender, even though he's a millionaire, which is pretty outrageous considering the fact that he has so much money at his disposal, but I believe he's hiding all of those assets through his mom and that she is the shield for those. But they're saying that he is somebody who does not have a conscience, who caused an unimaginable amount of pain to Celeste and their entire family, which, 100%, no doubt. I mean, I couldn't even imagine being in their position. So as we're continuing to watch all of this unfold, and as more hearings are coming, and the trial is, I believe, in the near future, I will certainly keep you updated. This is just another chapter in the D4VD David Anthony Burke saga. Now let's also go through a quick little update regarding the Siders family, because this update is absolutely horrific. If you remember, I did a deep dive on this case. It was on the Siders family out of Ohio. In the public eye, it was labeled the Ohio House of Horrors, where all of these 16 children were rescued, living in deplorable conditions, feces on the wall, no beds, all confined to a 12 by 12 room, and just a really horrific case, very reminiscent of the Turpin family, which that case happened here in California. So if you haven't heard that deep dive, I highly suggest you go back and listen but warned. It is a difficult listen, but there have been multiple members of this family who have been charged since then, including 73-year-old Gary Sider Sr., the grandfather of all of these children who was living in the home. However, now his case may not ever make it to trial because last week on Wednesday, September 9th, a judge ruled that Gary Sr. is mentally incompetent to stand trial. His attorney had actually asked for this evaluation back in July because there were already some pretty serious concerns about Gary's mental state. He said that Gary has been dealing with declining mental health for years, along with memory loss and hearing problems, and apparently there were questions about whether he really understood what was even happening within his case. And sure enough, after Gary was evaluated, it was decided that basically no, he doesn't understand what is going on. His attorney said that Gary hasn't been able to fully understand what's going on around him throughout this whole process. So he wasn't surprised when the judge found him incompetent. And really, it's not just that he's incompetent, but according to the testing that he's had done, his mental state was also found to be, quote, not restorable, which means that they don't believe that his mental condition is ever going to improve enough for him to eventually understand the case and stand trial. So because of that, his attorney now believes that the charges against Gary could actually be dismissed altogether. He didn't know what was going on at the time. He still doesn't know what's going on. You can't try him for this, which at this point, his family is apparently looking at some other options within all of this, including possibly getting guardianship over him or having him evaluated by other professionals so that he can get the medical care that he needs. However, as far as the criminal case goes, it will not move forward with Gary and his current condition. And if doctors really don't believe that he will ever become competent enough to stand trial, this could ultimately be the end of the criminal case against him altogether. And I find that deeply upsetting because if he is the responsible party or one of the responsible parties for what happened to all of these children, even if he's one of the responsible parties for what happened to Elizabeth and the 20-year-long breeding situation that was going on, where's the accountability if he's never going to stand trial? Now, that's not to say that it's the end of the case altogether because as of today, the other three adults who were also arrested when these 16 children were rescued, Gary Jr., Elizabeth, and Christina Sider, the grandmother, they are all still waiting for the same mental competency evaluations to be done, which on July 29th, a judge had ordered that Gary Jr. and Christina would have these tests done. And on August 10th, it was ordered that Elizabeth would also be evaluated. But what happens if all four of them are found mentally incompetent? What happens for justice? What happens for accountability there? I mean, yes, I'm happy that the children were rescued, but many of them are going to have lifelong battles and illnesses because of this. And that's not even including and taking into consideration the trauma coming out of this and that decades-long battle that they're going to be facing. So I don't want to jump ahead too much, but worst case scenario, if all four of these adults who were supposed to be the trusted adults for these children, they're going to be found mentally incompetent, they're going to be found the mother and father and grandparents of these children. If they are found mentally incompetent, how do these children receive the justice they deserve? I don't know. I am going to be doing an updated deep dive on this case pretty soon because there is a lot of information that has come out since our initial one, but I will keep an eye out for the results of those other three tests and I will bring you those updates as soon as we have them. Okay, now this next case is right in my mind. And it is heartbreaking, devastating, and beyond foul. And I swear, if I have to talk about one more case involving incest, I think I'm going to vomit. It is, I don't know what's going on. Like, stop sleeping with your family members. It is so disgusting. Some of it is consensual, much of it is not, and much of it is underage and couldn't even be consensual. And that's what we're talking about today. Because right now, there is an active Amber Alert for a 14-year-old girl named Diana Ochoa. And there are a lot of layers to this case, okay? Because Diana disappeared just a couple days after the investigators found the body of her newborn baby abandoned on the side of the road. And now, police believe that she might have vanished with her own father, 38-year-old Sergio Perez, who was accused of sexually assaulting her, getting her pregnant, and being the father of this now-deceased newborn. Now, I've been following this for the last month, but it's been coming out in drips and drabs of information. There hasn't been a whole lot, so I haven't reported on it until now. But there is quite a bit that goes into this. It all started on August 1st, when investigators found a newborn baby girl abandoned alongside the road, right next to a field. They named her Baby Angelita, which means baby angel in Spanish. And an autopsy later found that she had suffered a traumatic injury. Now, at first, investigators had very little to go on. They didn't know, this baby belonged to. They didn't know exactly what had happened to her. So they basically had to work backward to piece everything together, which eventually, that investigation led to Diana. Authorities believe that Diana was only 13 years old when she was sexually assaulted by her biological father, Sergio Perez, and ultimately became pregnant as a result of the sexual assaults. However, before investigators could fully figure out what had happened, Diana just disappeared. By August 31st, arrest warrants had been issued for Sergio, Diana, and Diana's mother, 36-year-old Ophelia Ortega. Ophelia was arrested on suspicion of child endangerment and later posted bail. But Diana and Sergio? They were still nowhere to be found. And this is where the case gets a little bit complicated. Because investigators have said they do have evidence supporting a murder charge against Diana in connection with the death of baby Angelita. They haven't publicly said what that evidence is, though, because they don't want to jeopardize the investigation. Yet, at the same time, prosecutors have made it very clear that Diana is a child who they believe has been facing severe levels of harm. And as of right now, no decision has been made about whether she will actually face any charges in her baby's death. Their focus right now is on finding her and finding her father. And here's what I take a little bit of issue with, okay? And I'm going to go into more, of the Amber Alert and where they believe they disappeared to and what happened. But if the mother was arrested on suspicion of child endangerment after arrest warrants had been issued for all three of them, what does she know? What is that child endangerment charge stemming from? And if she was gone at the same time as her husband and daughter were gone, clearly she must know what was going on or that they are on the lam and in hiding. And is it because she knows that her daughter was gone? Or is it because she knows that her daughter was gone? And is it because she was pregnant by her own father and by her husband? Is she trying to protect her husband so he doesn't go to jail and get caught? What is really happening here? Now, as I said, they haven't announced whether they will formally charge Diana or not, but they have said they have enough evidence to indicate that she was involved in connection with the death of her child. Sergio, her father, on the other hand, still does have that active warrant out for his arrest. And he is facing multiple felonies, including incest, lewd acts, and murder. And he is facing multiple felonies, involving a child, unlawful sexual intercourse, child concealment, and child endangerment. And investigators believe that he may be hiding Diana all in an attempt to avoid being arrested. So then on September 6th, an Amber Alert was officially issued for Diana because the investigators finally found something that gave them an idea of where she could be. Surveillance video was found showing Diana and Sergio together on August 4th, just three days before baby Angelita was found. They were traveling in a white Nissan Altima with no license plates. And with this surveillance footage, the authorities had finally gotten the vehicle information that they needed so that they could issue out the Amber Alert. And two days later, that Nissan was found, but Diana and Sergio were not in it. So the search has now expanded all across Southern California, and investigators say that they have received hundreds of tips since the Amber Alert first went out. But as of the recording, Diana is still missing, and Sergio is still on the run. And this makes me a little bit nervous too, because authorities have said that Diana could be frightened and in danger, or possibly even being held against her will, which right now their biggest priority is finding her and making sure that she's safe. And it makes me nervous for her because we don't know if she went willingly with her father, or if he kidnapped her, or God forbid, if he's going to do something to witness who can testify against him. We saw what happened in the Michaela Settles case. Now, obviously, her father didn't commit the murder and the crime. She took her own life, but it was because of, in my opinion, he drove her to that over the incest and sexual assault he inflicted on her. So this guy's already on the run with his daughter. Is he going to kill her so that he doesn't have to face the consequences? Now, as for her mother, Ophelia, prosecutors are still whether she will face charges related to the alleged child endangerment. Those possible charges are separate from both baby Angelita's death and the alleged sexual assault of Diana, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions here, especially about what exactly happened to baby Angelita and what Diana herself may have gone through leading up to all of this. However, right now, the most urgent part of this case is finding this 14-year-old little girl and bringing her home safely. So please share this episode, spread the word, and I will keep you updated. Okay, so this next case, it actually started all the way back in 2016, but it recently came to a close right around the same time as the Lindsay Clancy trial. And I'm going to give you kind of the summarized version, but I know I always say this, I think I'm in a deep dive. And tell me if you want me to do the deep dive, because there is so much complexity within this case and like a lot of backstory. It's a case that is always going to be a little bit more complex, but it's a case that is always going to be a little bit more complex, but it's also absolutely horrific. So fair warning, some of the details are pretty disturbing. So back in February of 2016, 19-year-old Morgan Bauer left the relatively small town of Aberdeen, South Dakota, and she moved all the way to Atlanta, Georgia, completely on her own. She arrived on February 12th without really knowing anybody there, without having a job lined up, no friends, no family. And at first, she was even struggling to find somewhere to stay. However, within a few days, she was able to find a place to stay. And she was able to find a place she managed to get a hotel room, and she started working as an exotic dancer. Then, less than two weeks after she got to Georgia, Morgan disappeared. She had gone to work on the night of February 25th, but that was the last time that anyone saw her. She did make a post on social media the following day, but after that, there was nothing. Radio silence. So her mom reported her missing, and police started investigating. Her family even hired a private investigator to try to figure out where she had gone. She was able to find a place to stay, but she was also unable to find a place to stay. But no matter where they looked or who they talked to, they could not find Morgan. And eventually, the case just went cold. And for seven years, her family had absolutely no idea what happened to her. They didn't know if she was alive, where she had gone, if something happened, if she was dead, just living in purgatory of the unknown. But then, in the summer of 2023, they finally got a break. New information had led authorities to a property in Porterdale, Georgia, where Morgan's remains ultimately were found. And shortly after that, police announced that two people were being arrested in connection with her death. They were a couple, Caitlin Gobble and Jonathan Alexander Warren. Now, Caitlin was arrested in Illinois, and Jonathan was arrested all the way across the country in Los Angeles. And this is when the story of what actually happened back in 2016 finally started coming together. See, it turned out that Caitlin and Jonathan weren't strangers to Morgan. They were just friends. And they were just friends. And they weren't friends with Morgan at all. Caitlin worked at the same club, dancing club, as Morgan, and they had actually been with her the night that she disappeared. So Caitlin's story was that she and Jonathan picked Morgan up from her hotel that night, and they all hung out at the club where Morgan and Caitlin both worked. Then, eventually, Morgan left with some random guy that she met in a car. According to Caitlin, she never saw her again. However, once the investigators started looking back into Morgan's final days, there were some pretty big problems with her. She didn't even know what she was doing. And she didn't even know what she was doing. So, for example, a co-worker remembered Morgan leaving the club that night with a woman who matched Caitlin's description. So Morgan's mom and the private investigator that she had hired had also spoken with people at the club who said the same thing. Morgan had left with Caitlin. It also came out that Morgan and Caitlin had gotten very close in the short amount of time that Morgan had been in Georgia. Remember, she was only there for about two weeks. But Morgan had even offered to give a work permit to dance, just trying to be a good friend to her, getting very close. So now you have some conflicting stories. Caitlin saying that Morgan went off with some random guy, yet everyone else who was at the club seemingly saying, uh, no, Morgan left with Caitlin that night and they were really close. But even more than what Caitlin had told them, what prosecutors say actually happened that night is absolutely horrific. They described Caitlin and Jonathan as being obsessed with serial killers, obsessed with death, dismemberment, all these gruesome things. And they said that they saw Morgan as basically the perfect victim. She was 19 years old, brand new to the area, didn't know anybody, didn't have connections with anyone in the community, was young, impressionable. And in their minds, they thought that she could disappear and nobody would come looking for her. Prosecutors say that Caitlin and Jonathan picked up Morgan, brought her back to their property, and then they killed her. Now, he admitted his involvement and he pleaded guilty to murder, tampering with evidence, concealing Morgan's death, and necrophilia, which I know all of you true crimeys out there know what necrophilia means, but in case you don't, it's when you have sex with someone post-mortem. Now, according to him, even though he admitted all of this, he said that killing Morgan had actually been Caitlin's idea. He admitted that he was the one who tackled Morgan, but claimed that Caitlin was ultimately the one who killed her. He also said that Caitlin had told him, quote, I want to kill her and I want to cut her up. And from there, the details somehow get even worse and even darker. Prosecutors said that this devious, disgusting-ass couple waited for Morgan's blood to coagulate before then dismembering her. Jonathan then admitted to having sex with Morgan's body after her death. And investigators also said that Jonathan himself claimed that he and Caitlin, ate part of Morgan's remains. They then put Morgan's remains inside a suitcase and burned them in the backyard. So foul, so disgusting, and just, how do people like this even exist, no less meet each other and have their sick and twisted fantasies collide? It's unbelievable to me. So Jonathan was eventually sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, even though, strangely enough, he had actually asked the court to sentence him to death. Caitlin though, she decided to take her case to trial. And she wasn't arguing that she had nothing to do with any of this. Her defense admitted that she was there when Morgan was killed, but she said that Jonathan was the killer. Caitlin only went along with everything because she was afraid of him. Her attorney claimed that Jonathan wanted to have a threesome with Morgan and Caitlin, but the women were not interested. So Caitlin supposedly left the room, and when she came back, she saw Jonathan on top of Morgan. She then, once again, left the room, and then when she came back for a second time, she says that Morgan was dead. Her defense said that she wanted to call the police, but she was afraid of Jonathan. And so because of that, she ultimately went along with helping him dispose of her body. However, prosecutors pushed back, basically being like, no, no, no, no, this was not Caitlin being forced to clean up Jonathan's crime. Their argument was that the two of them had planned this entire thing together, and it didn't matter which one physically killed Morgan because they were both responsible. They also mentioned alleged obsession with serial killers, death, and dismemberment, and even claimed that she believed that she had made some kind of deal with, quote, the Duke of the Underworld to sell her soul. And this is where it starts getting like Slenderman case, you know, all of these people who think that they are atoning, or not atoning, but giving an offering to Satan or some sort of demon. It is sick and twisted. Sure enough, though, after a week-long trial, the case went to the jury, and they saw right through the bullshit, and it didn't take them long. After about 30 minutes of deliberations, they found Caitlin guilty of malice murder, also a felony murder, aggravated assault, tampering with evidence, and concealing Morgan's death. So she was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. And at sentencing, Morgan's stepmom said, quote, All we have are the beautiful memories that we hang on to and the horrific details explained to us. Which Morgan was described as outgoing, outspoken, very charismatic. She loved disc golf, art, singing, dancing, and her family remembered her as the life of the party and a bright light in their lives. Which, like I said, I think I am going to do the deep dive on this case because I believe Morgan's story deserves to be heard and told in a more in-depth way. And also, there's so much more to it. There's so much more to it than just the story. There's so much more to it than this backstory and the crime and the years that followed that I don't have enough time in today's episode to touch on at all. So let me know if you do want that deep dive. But it unfortunately serves as a reminder that you never, never know who you can trust. And I don't know, you just have to be extra cautious nowadays. It's really sad because there are some sick and twisted fucks out there, truly. I think that one of the biggest misconceptions about investing is that you need to have a ton of money or know exactly what you're doing before you can even start. And for a lot of people, that's what keeps them from starting at all. That's why I like the idea behind Acorns. It's a financial wellness app that makes investing feel approachable. You can sign up in minutes and automatically invest your spare money, even if all you've got is spare change. And their potential screen can show you the power of compounding and how your money could grow over time while letting you adjust how much money you're investing. So if you're a financial wellness app, you can sign up you're investing based on your goals. Sign up now and join us. over 14 million people already investing with Acorns. New customers get a $20 bonus investment just for signing up. It takes about two minutes and it could be the quickest $20 you will ever earn. Head to acorns.com slash AE. That's A-C-O-R-N-S dot com slash AE to claim your $20 bonus today. Acorns.com slash AE. Limited time offer. Terms and conditions apply. See acorns.com slash terms for details. Paid non-client endorsement. Compensation provides incentive to positively promote Acorns. Tier 2 compensation provided. Potential subject to various factors such as customer's accounts, age, and investment settings. Does not include Acorn fees. Results do not predict or represent the performance of Acorns portfolio. Investment results will vary. Investing involves risk. Acorn Advisors LLC and an SEC registered investment advisor. View important disclosures at acorns.com slash AE. Today's episode of Serialistly is brought to you by Nero, maker of the world's first smart and sour mints. Now you guys know I go deep on these cases. Timelines, red flags, court documents, all the little details that everybody else skips. And when I'm hours into researching and trying to actually retain everything, I need something that keeps me sharp. And that's where Nero sour mints come in. They're sour first, which genuinely kind of like snaps me awake. But then comes the smart part. Natural caffeine and L-theanine for calm focused energy. Plus B vitamins and zero sugar. So I can stay locked in for the deep dive without the crash. They come in sour apple, citrus, and berry. And honestly, they are the perfect little palette cleanser between all the dark stuff that we talk about around here. And while I'm going case to case, it's just such a little, you know, nice treat for me. So leave the dumb candy behind and make the switch to the smarter sour. For a limited time, you can get 20% off your first order at nerogum.com by using code AE. That's nerogum.com and use code AE for 20% off your first order. You can also find Nero at CVS and Amazon. Now, I want to get into everything Lindsay Clancy. What's been going on the last week? We know that there was a mistrial. Since then, Reddington has done a lot of interviews. Many jurors have spoken out. The one holdout juror has been doxed, identified. His alleged criminal background has come to light. It has gotten very messy, even more chaotic than it already was in trial. And it's kind of difficult to wrap your head around that. So I want to get into everything Lindsay around all of this. So what I wanted to do is over the course of the trial, I began speaking with several people who were there, boots on the ground, in the courtroom, outside of the courtroom, and working on this case. And there's one woman in particular, Sierra Gillespie, who you may have heard of her or seen her on your feed. She works for Law and Crime. She was a correspondent during the trial on Court TV and was inside the courtroom and outside the courtroom recapping what went on. And so I decided to have her join me today because I have a lot of questions, especially about this holdout juror and just the dynamic within the trial itself and the supporters who showed up, the Patrick Clancy theories of it all. So Sierra is going to be joining me for a little bit here. She currently hosts a show on Law and Crime's network called Scandal. You can check it out. She also will let you know all of the details of where you can find her. But I find her incredibly insightful. And so I'm excited for you guys to hear from her as well. So Sierra, thank you so much for coming and joining today on Serialistly. Thanks for being here. Yeah, thank you so much. I'm such a fan of the show. So I'm really excited to come on today. Oh, thank you. Well, I know you and I have been talking offline about all things Lindsay Clancy, the trial. You were, of course, there, boots on the ground in the courtroom, reporting outside of the courtroom, and really just completely entrenched in everything that was going on. And so I have some questions where I would love to just get your firsthand account of it if you're willing to share. Yeah, of course, I'd love to. Perfect. So obviously, over the last couple of weeks, I've been talking about the trial. I've been talking about the trial over the last week. There has been so much conversation about this holdout juror. Everybody's trying to figure out what was the doubt that he had in his mind, what was really going on, what was his behavior in the courtroom. And it was reported that he had been scrolling on his phone during the deliberations with the other jurors, not really quite paying full attention to what was going on. But I'm curious, given your perspective and being inside that courtroom and now knowing who that holdout juror was, did you ever think that you were going to be able to notice anything different about the way he was reacting during the trial? I was kind of troubled by that scrolling on the phone allegation also, because I would think this is huge, right? This is so important, deciding the fate of Lindsay Clancy. And if somebody is just so blasé about it, just kind of doom scrolling on their phone, that's a big red flag in my opinion. And I know that there are statutes in some states about it. I know in Massachusetts, you are allowed to have your phone. You're just not supposed to be actively on it during deliberations. And I think that's a big red flag. But back to your question about what stood out to me, was he kind of zoning out or not paying attention? No, not at all. This juror, every time I saw him, he took notes at appropriate times when things were key that he thought he was always writing down in his notebook. To me, from where I was seated, it looked pretty diligent. It looked like he was paying attention. And additionally, I was really shocked when it came out his identity, because to me, he seemed very pro-defense. And I think every time Kevin Reddington would make a quip or a cross-exam question that was kind of like a burn, he laughed. When Kevin Reddington would make a joke, he seemed into it. He seemed like he was very much pro-defense just based on his reactions there. And that to me kind of got me thinking, this guy isn't the holdout. There's no way. Of course, according to Paula Devlin, who came out on CBS Morning, she identified this man. So I guess it was him. But initially, I never would have guessed based on his note-taking, paying attention, and his reaction. And I think that's just his demeanor in the jury box. I never would have guessed that he would be scrolling on his phone in the deliberation room. Well, and that's interesting, too, because am I mistaken? If I'm remembering this correctly, wasn't there another male juror who was not taking any notes throughout the trial? Yes. So that is the same man who I believed, I just hypothesized, I think that's the guy who is the holdout juror. Because at the very end, before they had it into deliberations, Judge Sullivan gave instructions, and they were long, and they were dry. Very important, obviously, but kind of tricky to pay attention to. And all of the jurors that I could see had the pamphlet in front of them. So they were following along with Judge Sullivan, kind of flipping the pages at the same time. So they followed along and could kind of take a look. This man hadn't taken any notes and did not follow along with jury instructions. So then when it came out that this holdout juror was, there was issues in question about reasonable doubt, I thought, oh, it's got to be that guy then, the guy who wasn't even reading along in the jury instructions and wasn't taking notes. That to me was so odd. And then it turns out it wasn't him. Absolutely. And it's interesting because during the entire trial and the duration of it, you said that this holdout juror was taking notes diligently, was locked in, was focused on Reddington. How would you compare his attention and engagement to, say, the other jurors aside from this other one who was not taking notes? Did they all seem to be very just locked in, over the words, and really paying close attention? I think it was similar to how the world was. You know, when it was very interesting testimony or closing arguments, for example, when Kevin Reddington's slamming down the quarters and then later Jen Sprague takes them and puts them in her pocket. Everyone was hanging on every word. Like, all of the jurors that I could see were, like, leaned forward, paying attention, and some of it got emotional, too. But for the most part, I would say that this was a very diligent jury. Most of them had their notebooks out, paying attention. You know, if this witness is talking, looking this way. If not, focusing. You know, whoever's talking, they're kind of following the eye contact. Although I will say, when things got really dry, talking about, like, medical examiner testimony or at the very end, some of the rebuttal witnesses were really slow to speak or took a long time to get answers out. And it just, I even found myself at times as a reporter, like, okay, you have to pay attention. This is really important. And I saw some jurors at that time, like, kind of glazing over. We're almost six weeks into the trial at this point, just kind of maybe frustrated. Like, okay, we want to get to deliberations. So at those points, when it's just natural for any human to kind of zone out, I did notice that at times. But truly, for the most part, I will say that this was a very responsible jury that was paying attention throughout majority of the case. Okay, that's great to know and great to hear. Well, you obviously saw that it was no secret. There were a lot of opinions flying throughout the trial about Patrick Clancy's alleged potential involvement and what the real situation was. And the TikTok detectives were out in full swing, accusing him of orchestrating this entire thing and framing Lindsay. And I think for, at least speaking for myself, it became a bit frustrating when Reddington wasn't speaking out on behalf of Patrick or shutting it down. While I understood, okay, he can't do that because he's defending his client. His client is in a favorable light right now with the public. He's not going to do anything that could potentially jeopardize that. However, now in the last couple of weeks, throughout all of his interviews, posts, trial, he has come to Patrick Clancy's defense saying he was a good father. He was a present husband. The conspiracies need to stop, that he should be allowed to just move on with his life. I think some people are still so determined in their mindset that he had something to do with it, that they believe that is some sort of strategy that Reddington is starting to play ahead of a potential, the potential retrial if the plea deal isn't met. But my question for you is while you were attending the trial and you were boots on the ground outside of the courtroom, inside of the courtroom, when you saw all all of the supporters coming out in droves, wearing pink, some of the women bringing their daughters even and standing in solidarity for Lindsay, did you speak with any of them? And was their sentiment and their support coming from a place of, we empathize and sympathize with Lindsay because of the postpartum psychosis, because we're mothers too, or were any of them vocal in saying, Lindsay didn't do this, we believe it was Patrick? I would say there was a little bit of both there because this trial drew a lot of people watching virtually on the live stream, but also to the real courthouse in Plymouth, Massachusetts. I mean, one woman I remember speaking to wore pink every single day and she drove all the way from Indiana because she said she felt really compelled. She was hoping to promote mental health awareness and she was there to support Lindsay. So I kind of saw a variety of things. Majority of the people who were there as spectators were supporters of Lindsay. I think there was a lot of people who were anti-Lindsay. There were a couple who were anti-Lindsay. Some people would scream truly at the top of their lungs. And this is ingrained in my memory because I was going live and trying to block them out only because I wanted to focus on what I was saying, but they were screaming, murderer, she's a murderer, like really mean things that they would be screaming. So that was kind of the minority, I would say. Majority were wearing pink in support of Lindsay Clancy. I saw people bringing their daughters babies. I saw toddlers who wouldn't even be old enough to go to school yet because they wanted to expose their daughters to, you know, this is mental health awareness, kind of talking about that. But as far as the question about Patrick, if people were talking about that, I would say it was kind of split. Some people were there truly saying she was failed by the medical system. We are here to support Lindsay Clancy. This wasn't murder. Other people, and I noticed this more as the mistrial was declared afterwards, there was so many reporters. It doubled, if not tripled the amount of reporters or TikTokers or spectators who come and ask Reddington questions. And he talked for about 45 minutes and multiple people were asking about Patrick Clancy. Why didn't you go that route in the courtroom? We believe that Patrick did it. I do think that those people were in the minority out of Lindsay supporters, but they were definitely there asking questions. Okay. That's interesting. I'm curious, just your personal opinion, if you're comfortable sharing, of course, you mentioned that a lot of these women brought their kids and some even their infant babies with them. And that it was in an effort to raise awareness for mental health. What is your take on how that illustration really came to light? Only because it is a very polarizing case. Yes. But it's also one that has a lot of people very divided where some are saying it doesn't matter if she was suffering from postpartum psychosis. It doesn't matter if there was mental illness. She is a murderer. She killed her three children. While of course, others are giving a little bit more grace given the mental health circumstances. But when somebody makes the choice to bring their children to something like this, children who are not of an age to even fully understand the complexities of the case. What is your opinion? And have you seen anything like that as a reporter in the past with any trials to where does it borderline inappropriate? Does it feel like it would be confusing for the child? Because in my mind, I have two kids myself. I have a five-year-old and a seven-year-old. And I've made it no secret that I believe Lindsay was suffering from postpartum psychosis. From day one, I have a friend who took her own life over postpartum psychosis. And while I would consider myself an advocate for the mental health stance of this case, I can't imagine that I would ever bring my child, my young child to something like this to where if they asked me, what are we doing here? And I said, oh, this woman murdered her three children, but she was very unwell. So we're here to support that because that sentence seems like it would create a very confusing, traumatic, and very, very confusing situation. And I think that's a very important point. mixed message for the children. How many children were there? And what is your opinion on that? I would say there weren't that many children. I would say probably I was there at the very end for the last two weeks from closing arguments until the mistrial was declared. And I would say I saw kids every day, if not every other day, but like one child or two kids together. So maybe 10 to 15 kids total that I saw. And it is interesting because I've covered many different cases. I mean, high-profile children, high-profile children, high-profile children, high-profile ones. Kyle Rittenhouse, I was there for P. Diddy in person. And I remember reporting there in the Southern District of Manhattan. I didn't see any kids at the P. Diddy case. I mean, maybe teenagers who were interested, but I didn't. Hopefully nobody's bringing their kids to the Diddy case. Right. Exactly. Exactly. And usually at any of these trials, people don't bring their kids because I cover murder cases primarily. I mean, P. Diddy wasn't murdered, but for the most part, I cover really gruesome stories or cases. And I don't often see children there. And so to me, that was interesting and noteworthy for sure, because to your point, I think these kids would probably be confused because at times this was a very tense environment. I told you people were outside screaming. At times people were shoulder to shoulder. If Reddington was there, which people did bring their toddlers into this media scrum with 50 reporters pointing their microphones at him, they would pause it to take a photo with Kevin Reddington. I remember when I was there, I was like, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't specifically had a little daughter who was maybe three, like old enough to walk, not old enough to be in school yet to take a photo with Reddington. And I don't know. It's just tricky for me because I feel adults can feel however they want about this case. But to bring a kid, it's got to be confusing for them because see this many people around, they surely have questions. But how do you explain it then to the child why we're here? Because Lindsay killed her three children. But if this mom is supporting her for, you know, mental health reasons. How do you really describe that to a child? I don't know that I would bring my kids there. What do you make of the fanfare of it all with people wanting photos with Reddington and almost this like desire to be in the limelight regarding this case? We see it from one perspective of the TikTok detectives and wanting to be the first to share their take or their breaking news or what they think, you know, cracked the case wide open. But then you also see it from this angle. People who are traveling to the courthouse who want a photo with them and look to Reddington, to Lindsay, to anyone involved as though they are a celebrity. And I think we also saw a lot of that in the Karen Reid case. I was there for the retrial. And I remember pouring out on the steps of the courthouse. Everybody had their phone out. Everybody was supporting. And this isn't anything new. It started, you know, decades ago. We saw it with OJ. It's going to be something we continue to see. But what do you make of that where there's almost this, I don't want to say like blurred line, but almost as a parasocial relationship that people start to have with the defendants a lot of the time to where they look at them as a celebrity and they want photos with them. And I mean, to bring a three-year-old toddler age child into that pool of press that was surrounding Reddington, that's a risk in and of itself, getting trampled, getting squished and all for what, a photo? Like, do you see this often? No, I do not see this often with children. And by the way, even some reporters got injured in this because there were cement benches just for people to sit outside the courthouse. And we were walking backwards. I know multiple reporters who tripped and fell and like twisted their ankle or whatever. So to have a young child, that it's dangerous just physically. But to your question about seeing the defendant or defense attorney as a celebrity, I've seen it before in other cases, like the Johnny Depp case. That's a great example. It captivated the world. People were obsessed with Ben Shu, Camille. Vasquez, of course, Johnny Depp, everybody generally was before that and during. And I think there are a couple of reasons for it. First of all, because we live stream now, people can have this trial with them wherever they go. I saw a woman literally at the grocery store with her cart watching Lindsay Clancy, like she had her phone on her cart. And at the same time, people are in bed watching this. And so, or they, you know, you could have the volume turned up all the way and you can take a shower. You can still hear what's going on, you know? And so I think people brought Kevin into their homes, into their lives. So it felt intimate, almost like they knew them. And Reddington specifically is very compelling. I think the entire world saw this on the live streams or the TikToks. He does a great job of forcing you to pay attention just by the nature of being a good defense attorney. It jumped off of the screen into people's reality. And so I think that's why they were so interested. But it is odd to have someone who, Lindsay Clancy was a normal woman. She was a she just, we wouldn't have been able to pick her off the street 10 years ago. And now she's in a way become a celebrity. And Kevin Reddington has always been in the public light, at least in Massachusetts. But I don't think nationally or internationally at this point, people were coming truly from across the country, taking photos with him or of him, gifting him things because they were so infatuated with the way that he was handling this case. I've seen it in other cases, but it isn't normal. I don't, I don't see it super often. So it, it just kind of added a level to the circus of this all. Absolutely. Well, and speaking of kind of where we go from here now, and we know that it was a mistrial, we are kind of waiting on pins and needles. Will there be a retrial? Will they offer some sort of plea agreement? What's going to happen? Well, Reddington has now formally asked the judge to acquit Lindsay rather than putting her through another trial and sitting through the whole case, being in the courtroom, watching everything. Was there a point where it ever felt like the defense was going to be able to get rid of Lindsay? I don't know. I don't know. I don't had really won the jury over and you know, that you thought that this was going to be a slam dunk, not guilty by reason of insanity, or did it still feel like it was anyone's case when the jury went out for deliberations? I would say leading up to closing arguments, it felt you could just kind of feel the emotions in the courtroom. It felt like the defense was ahead. I mean, they had made a great case. Like I said, Kevin Reddington is very compelling. The witnesses that the defense brought up were great. Even the rebuttal witnesses that the Commonwealth had, I think one out of the three was super compelling for the Commonwealth's case. But for the most part, Reddington did a great job of turning these witnesses for the Commonwealth into defense witnesses, because two of these three experts testified, we believe that Lindsay was going through a mental disease or defect, being bipolar too, at the time of the stranglings. And that kind of led to the criminal responsibility. So to me, it felt like, okay, there is reasonable doubt here at times. I think that juror could see reasonable doubt. I could see it going either way, but it seems like maybe the defense is ahead until the closing arguments. And while Kevin Reddington brought a lot of emotion to his closing and definitely captivated the attention of the jurors, at times, I think they were kind of like, what are you saying? Like the quarters were huge because you could see him slamming it down and it was very visual. But I remember looking at some jurors and they were like, what? Like, what are you talking about? So it maybe was kind of confusing, for them. And then when the Commonwealth came up and presented their closing argument, I feel like it was really strong. They kind of changed their tune and they said, hey, we know that mental health is a real issue here. And we're not disputing that in any way. But what we are saying is that she was criminally responsible and here's why. And I feel like it was a very strong argument for them. So then after those two closing arguments were delivered, at that point, I was like, it's anyone's guess. And I do remember early on, a lot of reporters, just because we were waiting around, there was like, seven days of deliberation. So you just kind of chat with your friends that you meet from the Globe or L.A. Mag or whatever. And everyone was kind of like, honestly, we could see a mistrial because how do you convince 12 people to find a unanimous verdict here? Because there's so much going on and it's so divisive across the country. So for it to end with 11 people unanimously agreeing and only one holdout, that to me was a shock. I agree, especially because to your point, there was not only so much going on in this, but there were so many people who were like, oh, we're going to do this. We're going to do this. There were so many options for what they could find as their verdict. And on each of the charges to where murder one, murder two, manslaughter, not guilty by reason of insanity, a straight not guilty, which to be honest, I don't think that was ever on the table, but I get it. It's an option. So if you have five different options to choose from for various charges and you have this group of people where you all have to come to the same thing, I mean, it's not shocking to me that this ended in a mistrial. I feel like while I thought it was going one way, it really didn't surprise me. But I do want to circle back to this holdout juror because over the last week, there has been obviously a lot of conversation going on, a lot of revelations made, a lot of allegations surrounding his past as well. And just some very troubling information for a lot of people, specifically that this man has a criminal history that involves domestic violence and that he has a potential active restraining order. Now, I want to be very clear. A lot of the allegations that I've heard so far have been based on the fact that this man has a criminal history. So I want to be very clear. A lot of the allegations from my research that I have found out there, he has never been officially charged with anything. Nothing has been adjudicated. These are all allegations and things that have surfaced from past interactions. Not that that diminishes the severity of them, not at all. But during voir dire, during jury selection, while you were there, was he questioned about any of this? Were any of the jurors questioned about their criminal history or their background? I think what's really hard with this is, yes, I was there for jury selection, but when they do voir dire, they play white noise. So you can't really hear exactly what every person was individually asked. So can I testify exactly to what he said? No, I have no idea exactly what he said. But what I will tell you is on the juror questionnaire, there were no questions that I recall regarding if you've been convicted of anything or if there are outstanding allegations against you. It was all kind of focused on the mental health of it all. I think that was the main concern here. A lot of questions about, you know, what's going on with you, what's going on with you, what's going on with you, what's going on with you, what's going on with you, what's going on with you, what's going on with you, what's going on with you, postpartum depression, or if you have anxiety, if you know someone who suffers from XYZ diagnoses, that's kind of what the focus was. And I assume this is just an assumption that generally, if there had been a conviction, that would have waved a red flag for him as part of the jury pool. But because if he hasn't had a conviction, if these haven't been adjudicated, I don't know that it would necessarily raise a red flag because here it's innocent until proven guilty. If he's severe, but if he hasn't been convicted, the restraining order to me would have been a question mark that maybe would have caused pause for either side. But I'm truly just going to guess that it wasn't even on their radar, that they didn't even know about this at all. So now being, of course, in the thick of it, in this space, I know you have been chatting with a lot of people closely involved and other correspondents and reporters. Where do you see this going from here? What does your gut tell you? At first, my gut told me, I think the day, like the day, I'm talking the D.A. is going to do this all over again, going to file first degree murder charges. They've just been so steadfast that this is justice for Cora Dawson and Callen. We can't back down. That was kind of the vibe I had. I was truly seated, I don't know, three people away from Tim Cruz. I could feel that when he talked about it during the press conference afterward. I felt that Kevin Reddington that same day was like, OK, we're ready to do it again. I'm not going to change anything. I basically won the case. I'm ready to do it on Monday. Let's go. And so I think it might have been a little bit more of a, you know, a little bit more of a, you know, a little bit heat of the moment that both sides were like, yeah, let's do it again. And that was my first thought. OK, let's let's battle each other again. But now I think the dust has kind of settled. Everyone has calmed down a bit. There aren't a bunch of cameras in Kevin Reddington's face anymore. He can kind of take a breather and same with Tim Cruz. Well, arguably, he's putting a lot of cameras in his face. He's he's going. I guess that's fair. It isn't the same as the 50 cameras at once, but he is making the rounds. You're right. You're right. But what I would now guess my gut is telling me is that we might reach a plea deal in this case just so that if Kevin Reddington really cares about Lindsay Clancy the way that he says that he does, which I have no reason to dispute that it's it was clearly hard on her during this. I saw her crying multiple times, putting her head down on the desk. It was very emotional for her. Her parents, by the way, were there every day. Very difficult. Her sister, everyone who had to who knew the kids who was relayed any of that. It's really hard for the world to watch this. And so I would guess at this point, maybe we reach a deal so that Lindsay doesn't have to go through this again. Her parents don't have to go through this again. And then it wouldn't necessarily be a loss for either side. I agree. I don't know that Reddington will ever accept a deal that involves jail time. I think the only one he's going to accept is not guilty by reason of insanity and that she has to go to a facility and receive treatment for X amount of years at a minimum or something to that effect. But I agree. I think at this point, she's going to have to go through this again. I think the only one she's going to have to go through is not guilty by reason of insanity and that she has to go to a facility and receive treatment for X amount of years at a minimum or something to that effect. But I think the only one she's going to have to go through is not guilty by reason of insanity and that she has to go to a facility and receive treatment for X amount of years at a minimum or something to that effect. Do you want to go through the full retrial knowing that it already was in favor of the defense? Do you want to spend the taxpayer money doing that? How difficult will it be to find a jury who is has not heard about this case, especially now with the craziness that's coming out regarding the individual jurors that were on this trial? And it seems like that would almost be a cleaner way of finding a resolution in all of this. Because to your point, people who live in Plymouth right now are following the case. They if they went to trial again, they could be called for jury duty and they could say, hey, I watched the entire last trial gavel to gavel. I watched it all because they they were allowed to at that point. They weren't potential jurors. And so I do think it'd be really hard to find a jury pool for a future case like this. It's just it's got to be tough. Now, I have to ask you while you're here, what are your thoughts on all of the Patrick Clancy theories of it all? Oh, this I feel bad for Patrick Clancy. I know that maybe that'll get me canceled, but I I truly feel bad for this man because and now his attorneys have come forward alleging defamation there. OK, so here this is a struggle. Like, tell me, tell me it's hard because I don't want to say anything super. OK, so here's just what I'll say. Was Patrick Clancy the bad guy? Was he the best husband? I don't know. Was he the best father? I don't know. I wasn't there. There are things that are questionable. Did he murder his children? No. Did he convince Lindsay that she did it when in reality he was the killer? No, I don't see any evidence to that sort. And I really believe Kevin Reddington is a great defense attorney. I feel like I've that's very clear based on this conversation. He's very compelling. Not that the Commonwealth, the prosecutors are great, too, but he just, you know, is is an amazing defense attorney. And if there was any indication that Patrick Clancy truly did this, why would he be doing essentially the not guilty by reason of insanity plea? Wouldn't he be saying, hey, look at this guy, Patrick, over here. It's totally him. Number one. Number two, the Commonwealth, it would be so much easier to prove murder as opposed to criminally responsible if we have this man and take the mental health of it all out of the equation. I mean, there are things that are interesting to follow. The tick tockers have done a good job. Did he change his shoes? All of that, I think, is very interesting, but I don't think it's really rooted in reality. I agree with you. And to your point, I could see the argument where people would say, oh, well, the reason why Reddington is not bringing in an alternative third party culprit is because he's already gone with the mental health argument. So he's sticking through that till the end of the trial. However, that being said, now that there's been a mistrial, something that I have said is he's obviously seen everything that's going on on social media. So even if for some reason the truth, and I'm using air quotes there, about what really happened got past the experts, the officers, Reddington, everybody over the course of the last three years, he now sees all of that out there. If he believed even for a moment that there was some sort of nugget of truth within any of that, to your point, given how much he cares for Lindsay, there is no doubt in my mind that he would be running to the retrial, full different defense strategy, trying to get her. He would be running to the retrial, complete retrial, completely acquitted 100% rather than saying, hey, we actually will entertain a plea deal if you offer one up. And so I think that also is indicative of what he believes and knows to be true as to who is truly responsible, Lindsay, of course. But it was definitely interesting to see all of those videos coming up. And I know you mentioned Patrick changing his shoes. I think it started with an outfit change at CVS, but then it was his best friend cosplaying him at CVS. And it was just, it kept getting more grandiose, like this whole smoke and mirrors thing to where everybody else could see the truth besides the people who were involved. And now I know that some cease and desists have already started going out on Patrick's behalf. And I think two things can be true at once. I think that Patrick can absolutely be a victim in this. I think he is a victim in this. He lost his three children. He lost his life, his wife, everything he thought his life was going to be. But I also think it could be true that maybe he wasn't the best husband. Maybe he did meet Rachel ahead of this horrific night and there was something going on. Who knows? It doesn't mean that he is a murderer or that he orchestrated this whole thing. How many bad husbands out there do we know, especially from the cases that we've covered? Now, granted, many of them do end in murder. But my point is that I think two things can be true at once here. That's so true. I mean, all of us have so many different sides of just ourselves. And so I think the Internet is right to question some of his choices. For example, when he dropped Lindsay off at the hospital in Rhode Island and then went skiing. Like, what are you doing there? Or why in December when she said, I'm afraid I'm going to hurt the kids, does he then leave her alone in January? There are some questionable choices that he made for sure. But at the same time, I don't think he actually killed the kids. Right. So it's tricky. I think it's also easier to judge in hindsight. If you have never been in that type of position, you don't know how you would react or what the appropriate behavior or actions would be if you were in Patrick's shoes. And again, not to go into too much detail because I don't want to share too much of the personal information. But my friend who ended up taking her life over postpartum psychosis, her husband was a close friend of ours as well. And he was doing everything he possibly could do. And in my opinion, to help her, to take care of the girls, to show up for her. And luckily, she never hurt the children. She took her own life instead. But I think it's so easier to judge how you would react when you're an outsider looking in rather than being in it. And it could be that she was saying she was having thoughts in December. And then come January, she maybe was either lying to fake it till she makes it or she was ashamed being like, I'm feeling better. It's okay today. You never know what's going on. And so I guess, I don't know, a lot of those stories and theories that were out there, I took issue with and I was very vocal on because I just felt like they were incredibly dangerous and damaging to someone whose life has already been destroyed. And it does seem like now he is taking legal action. So we'll see what happens there. And I understand why people are so invested in true crime. I mean, both of our jobs, we clearly love true crime. We have an audience for it. People are so invested in it. And I feel like, for lack of a better term, it is fun, in a way, to be an online sleuth and take a look at the time codes and the timestamps when he went to CVS. That generally is fun to kind of be an armchair detective. But then, to your point, when we think about him as a real person who really went downstairs and found three of his children strangled, I mean, hasn't the man been through enough for the entire TikTok, Instagram to turn against him? I mean, he's already had the worst nightmare come to life and had to move on with his life. Again, I'm not saying he's the best husband or father or whatever, but I don't know that he necessarily deserved that. I agree. I agree. Well, thank you so much for joining me today. Is there anything else that you want to share? Thoughts or anything about this case, the trial, or anything else? I think we covered a lot of ground. Definitely, if this goes back to a retrial, I'll, of course, be there and I'll come back on and tell you everything. I know that there's a hearing on the 29th. So I'll be there. I'll cover it. And we can come back and talk about it then. Perfect. Well, thank you so much for joining. And can you let everybody know where they can find you so that they can follow along in real time? Yes, you can find me on Instagram and TikTok. It's at Sierra Gillespie. I also am the host of Scandal for the Law and Crime Network. And that is a weekly video podcast. You can find it on Spotify, on the Law and Crime Network channel. I also have a long-form show called Crimes of Passion, again, on Spotify. And we have our own channel on YouTube as well. So I'm all over the place. Just look. Just look for me. Perfect. I love that. Well, thank you again so much. Yeah, thanks for having me. Of course. All right, guys. So you just heard from Sierra what it was like, what she anticipates going forward with the Lindsay Clancy trial of it all. The next hearing is on the 29th. I will keep you posted. We will see if this does go to retrial or if a plea agreement is made. And we'll go from there. Thank you so much for tuning in to today's episode. Let me know which of these cases you want the deep dives on. And as a reminder, two deep dives already came out this week. On Monday, I did a deep dive into the Sailor Hayes case. We talked about that briefly last week on Headline Highlights. She is the five-year-old autistic nonverbal girl who went missing on family vacation. Her parents have since been arrested. There is a whole lengthy shady past that I discovered about these parents. So I'm exploring that entire case and what their potential involvement was in her death. Then on Tuesday, I released a deep dive on my second true crime podcast feed. It's called The 10-2 Life on the Lily Peters case. This is one I also have briefly touched on here on Headline Highlights. The one involving the cousin, Carson. He was 14 years old at the time. He was supposed to be taking Lily, his young 10-year-old cousin, home for the evening. Instead, he lured her off onto a dark wooded path, killed her, and then sexually assaulted her deceased body. And we also talked about how he is basically, in my opinion, getting a slap on the wrist for all of this because of a plea deal that was reached. But in the deep dive, I go through what transpired that night, what Carson said to his family members, his past confessions to wanting to do something like this, his dad, and what his dad's checkered past has been, who I believe Carson was trying to impress in doing all of this. So the whole deep dive is out now. You can go listen to both of those right now between the two different feeds, which if you're a podcast listener, that's just a reminder. Make sure you're following both of the podcasts, whether it's on Apple, Spotify, wherever you listen, because that way you'll get notified on your phone when the new episodes get posted. I also, sidebar, posted a bonus episode last Friday on the Serialistly feed on the Maya Milete case right here in California, how this husband hired a literal witch on Etsy to try to cast spells on her because she was trying to divorce his ass, and just this insane ass case. So unless you're following the podcast or subscribed to the YouTube channel, you won't be notified of those bonus episodes. As they release outside of the regular release calendar. And again, because I have two different podcast feeds for my audio-only listeners, make sure that you're following both of them so that you're keeping up to date with all of the cases. All right, thank you guys again so much for tuning in. And until the next one, be nice, don't kill people, stop with all the incest, and just protect your children. Okay, bye. Transcription by CastingWords Transcription by CastingWords 12 separate occasions. Wow. Mysterious. Wonderful. The world really wants them to exist. What about this one? When Ronald Reagan left office, he left a note on the White House lawn for the squirrels, warning them to beware of George Bush's dogs. So there you go. If you like fascinating facts and much more besides, we are no such thing as a fish.