Lindsay Clancy Didn’t Kill Her Kids?

"This entire case is based on speculation. Where is the admission? Where does she say that she did this?" Lindsey Clancy's attorney reigniting TikTok conspiracy theories in the courtroom. "The time line is ridiculous as fire is him, leaving the house, sending off the 524 email, whether it was from his laptop, whether it was from his cell phone, and attacking the police investigation in open court." "In this case, there was no investigation. They just immediately assumed that this woman was guilty." All this begs the question. Did Lindsey Clancy kill her kids? This is Scandal, presented by Lon Cron. I'm Syargo Esmeralde. "Jaws dropped, eyebrows raised, and shock all across the board. That was the feeling in the courtroom when Kevin Reddington said this. "Where's the evidence that she did this? Where is the evidence that she did this?" And I've been accused of being dramatic, but I'm not exaggerating about this part. I was there in the courtroom typing on my notes, and I truly thought I had misheard Kevin Reddington. Because I was there, following along with the world, all six and a half weeks of the trial, and at the time, the defense's strategy was simple. They admitted Lindsey Clancy killed her kids, but said she should not be held criminally responsible. Their entire argument was that she had been over-medicated, and was in the throes of postpartum psychosis when she killed the kids. As a result, they asked the jury to find her not guilty by reason of insanity. And if you followed along on social media, you saw the separation of court and TikTok. On TikTok and social media, there were conspiracy theories unlike anything I've ever seen before, alleging things like Patrick Clancy really killed the kids, and that he brainwashed Lindsey to take the fall for him. To be clear, Patrick Clancy has not been charged in this case, but that did not stop TikTok from pointing out some major inconsistencies in the case, like, for instance, the 524 surface pro email, or the way Patrick seemingly changed to shoes between CBS and 3V. We learned about these details at trial, but honestly, they weren't a big part of either side's case. In my opinion, the defense's case was largely about mental health, what Lindsey's mindset was at the time, and the allegations that she'd been over-medicated, thus leading to postpartum psychosis, and it was confusing for some. Especially for people half-watching the trial live, and half-watching it on social media. People really came out of the woodwork to ask me about conspiracy theories, whether I thought Patrick did it, or whether this was a botched police investigation. I even had a few people ask me, where did Lindsey admit that she did this? And every time I got this question, I went back to the same answer. Lindsey admitted she did it by the nature of her plea. Her defense says she did it, but that she wasn't in the right mind at the time, so she shouldn't have any criminal responsibility. And I'll remind you, this is what Kevin Reddington himself said in opening statements. She knows that she killed these children. We'll sit here and listen to their evidence. But I suggest you that the issue, but consideration is what was going on in that woman's mind. Then yesterday in court, Kevin Reddington did a complete 180, and said that things tick-tockers have been yearning to hear. This entire case is based on speculation. Where does she say that she did this? I was in the courtroom for this hearing, and I will tell you, this argument was a complete shock. Reporters were wide-eyed, asking each other, did he really just say that? The law in crime slacked by the way, blowing up like crazy. So now let's break this all down. What the defense's arguments are here, how the Commonwealth replied, and the major question. Now, we've got an expert to walk us through this by the way. It's criminal defense attorney Ashley Merchant, who can give us some insight into the defense's strategy and the legal meaning behind all of this. But first, we got to talk about what happened. This September 29th hearing was put on the book's literally seconds after Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial. At that point, Reddington indicated he already had plans for an argument. I know I would like to argue with 25b2, and I have to be done within five days. So, I mean, I would like it possible to have this on for a hearing on a motion for required finding reconsideration 25b2 on Tuesday. Reddington got a couple of days longer than that five day deadline, 25 days, in fact. But in any event, we knew that rule 25 and that argument was coming. Now, it's something known as a renewed motion for not guilty. This is straight from Mass.govit reads, "The judge on motion of a defendant or on his own motion shall enter a finding of not guilty of the offense charged in an indictment or complaint or any part thereof after the evidence on either side is closed if the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a conviction on the charge." So basically, that means the judge has to go back and look at the prosecution's case. He would then need to determine whether the Commonwealth met its burden of proof. That part is standard. We knew Reddington would argue for this, but we didn't know the route that he would take. So when he said this, the world was taken aback. Where's the evidence that she did this? Where is the evidence that she did this? You have a situation where Patrick comes home. You run a recalls the evidence that he indicates that when he came home, that he enters the house, he puts the food down on the table, comes back from the restaurant. It's quiet, eerily quiet, as the government indicates in their motion. That he then indicates that he goes upstairs into the bedroom. After yelling downstairs to the basement, there's no response. He goes upstairs. And when he goes upstairs, he goes into the bedroom and your owner will recall that the evidence is that he's able to make an observation that the window was open. It's called in the room. He sees blood. My memory is that it appeared as it was sprayed on the walls. In fact, your owner will recall it was not sprayed on the walls. I would say copious blood drops on the floor and on the mirror. When you consider the evidence that the government has, you have the exercise bands. You have the woefully deficient DNA. You have the woefully deficient fingerprinting. You have the horrific, ridiculous investigation using the term loosely by the police. There was no investigation. It was not even a horrendous investigation. Reddington attacked what he called the ridiculous police investigation, saying a wealth of evidence just wasn't collected. And the evidence that was doesn't add up. You want to recall looking at the blood spatter evidence and the drops on the floor. Where are the smears from a person who has just cut their wrists, cut their throat, is in a status psychosis that throws themselves out of the window? Where are the smears from that person walking across the blood up to the window and then propelling themselves out the window? Where is the evidence that the cop that was on the nightstand contained crushed up, not just medication, crushed up medication? Where is the evidence of that? Where does that come from? Did the police even seize that cup? No. Did they examine the residue, the white residue? No. Patrick said that in fact it was medication. Patrick said that in fact it was crushed up medication. Where is the crusher? Where is the pill crusher? Where were the two scones to use the crusher? Where is the residue? Why is it not on the table? Why is it not on the floor? Why is it not on the bed? Why is it no blood on the bed with the copious bleeding? They don't seize that. They don't test the substance. Reddington pointed to things we've previously heard on TikTok, like the fact that Lindsay was found not wearing shoes. Why? She was wearing a pair of black socks, but there was no blood found on the socks. How could that be if the entire bedroom was essentially covered in blood? And this next part, it's a big one. This was all over social media. Lindsay's body temperature, that didn't make sense. The core body temperature. If you talk to a profusionist, a profusionist would indicate that it would take at least two hours for a human being to get down at core body temperature of 82 degrees, they would have to warm the blood, which they did in the hospital to bring that person to the level where they're not ready to expire. And in fact, you want to know is that she did obviously expire. She died in the hospital, massive transfusions, and it just goes on and on and on. And then there are the Patrick theories. And I want to be clear here. Reddington does not point the finger at Patrick. He does not say Patrick did it, but he does question some major inconsistencies in Patrick's timeline. This time, lying is ridiculous, as far as him, leaving the house, sending off the 524 email, whether it was from his laptop, whether it was from his cell phone, driving the CVS, driving down to the restaurant to pick up the food. you got videos from both of those places. He's coming back. He's got shoes. He takes his boots off as what he says. You're going to can see in the photographs as far as the sneakers are concerned. Whatever he takes off he takes it off. The time frame does not match. Really quickly, in case you're new here, and don't know these theories of the timeline, let me just explain. Patrick Lansy testified he left the Clancy family home in Duxbury, Massachusetts at 515 on January 24th, 2023. He then drove to CVS, which is a three-minute drive from the Clancy home. But here's where the inconsistencies start to come in. Patrick isn't caught on camera entering CVS until 532 p.m. What's more, there was an email sent at 524 from Patrick's Surface Pro. Now that's a physical computer. It's not an iPhone. The 524 email suggests that Patrick was actually at home sending that email, meaning his timeline of leaving home at 515 doesn't quite add up. But also what doesn't add up, the inconsistencies in his outfit between CVS and the 3v restaurant. On the CVS security video, Patrick is wearing what appears to be brown boots and a half-zip jacket. But when he arrives at the 3v restaurant, he appears to be wearing a full-zip jacket and tennis shoes instead of boots. So at the very least, there are some question marks here, and Reddington addresses them. But here was the biggest mic drop for me, when he suggested Lindsey never admitted to killing her kids. And what's most chilling is the fact that when she comes out of this obvious coma that she is in, that when she comes out of it, you run a herd of testimony from the psychiatrist and from the doctors of Brigham and Women's Hospital, she was told what happened. She had no memory of what happened. Why does she recall cutting the screen? Why does she recall killing the children? Where she's told what happened and had no memory? There's no evidence that she admitted that she did this. So you have no evidence from the defendant. In Massachusetts, an uncorroborated statement of a defendant, obviously, is not evidence. You have to have corroboration. I submit to the quote, there is no evidence that she made any statements as far as the actual killing of the children, which forms the basis of the indictments. And here's where things get tricky, because going so far back as 2023, Reddington alludes to the fact that Lindsey killed her kids, saying it was a mental health break. This is from a hearing from October 26th 2023. So obviously, had no reason to kill those three beautiful children. You have to ask yourself, why? Why? And when you ask yourself why, and you consider all of these factors, it's readily apparent that they suggest that this woman was a troubled soul. So when the case goes to trial, I believe she has a very, very, very good defense of very strong kids. And just to be fair, Reddington doesn't outright say there that she killed her kids. But again, I'll remind you of this statement to the jury on July 27th of this year. But you're right. That's an opening statement. It's not fact. In the courtroom, we never heard Lindsey say I killed my kids, but we did see it in writing that is. Now, it's a different case. It's Lindsey's civil case, the one filed back in January of this year, where she lists multiple healthcare providers as defendants, including Jennifer Tuffs and Rebecca Gelotta. The civil case reads in part, Lindsey experienced command auditory hallucinations, a demanding, powerful male voice explicitly ordered her. She felt an overwhelming, irresistible compulsion to comply, entering a dissociative dream-like state, where her physical actions felt utterly disconnected from her conscious volition. She perceived her body was just acting, and she was merely watching herself do it. She reported she had no choice but to follow these compelling directives. Lindsey described I lost all control. My body started acting without any control on my part. I was just following commands. All action. This voice demanded action. Lindsey proceeded to strangle each of her children, uttering go-to-god baby. Following these acts, she undertook a severe suicide attempt, ingesting a substantial quantity of various medications, self-inflicting lacerations to her wrists and neck, and jumping from a second floor window, approximately 20 feet to the ground below. The civil lawsuit rounds out by saying quote, "Defendant collective failures to comply with the standard of care, more likely than not, directly and approximately cause the injuries suffered by Lindsey, including Lindsey's killing her children, and attempted to kill herself." And again, this is Lindsey's civil case, not the criminal case. But it is worth noting, how does this affect Reddington's motion at the hearing, and where did this argument come from? I was supposed to have a one-on-one interview with Kevin Reddington after this hearing, where I would ask some major follow-up questions to this argument. But after the Commonwealth filed a motion seeking a potential gag order, Reddington's PR said it was best to keep two group interviews. So that's where Reddington told reporters quote, "I argued that in the trial. I argued it on a motion for required filing. It's not new rocket science by any means. It's the fact that they cannot prove probable cause." And I do have to note that prosecutors did push back on the argument that Reddington made, calling it, quote, "laffable." ADA Buckingham pointed out several instances when she says the Commonwealth met its burden of proof. "I suggest to you that the entire record is voluminous as to the information supporting the fact that she did this. We have, she's the only one in the home with three young children. We have that her husband testified under oath that he left the house, that she sent him out on those errands, that he went to the exact places where she directed him to go. Not only did she direct him to go based on his testimony, but we confirmed that with her own cell phone data that says that she made the call to the restaurant, that she made the call to CVS, that he then went there. He's on video surveillance at those locations during the time period in which these murders occurred. He comes home and he finds the children in the manner that they were in and he finds that defendant where she was. We have all that information. We have, they are, was DNA on those exercise bands that was attributable to this defendant and it was on the ends of those bands, the ends of those bands that she had a pull in order to strangle each and every one of those children. We have that she woke up in the hospital and spoke to a chaplain within days of regaining consciousness where she talks about the fact that she had these hallucinations telling her what she had to do that she had to kill the kids and that she was glad that the kids were safer now. Well, what a world we're hearing. I mean, only three motions total were heard and yet those arguments were heard around the world. I mean, we've all got questions myself included and I really need some answers. So for that, we have an amazing guest today. It's criminal defense attorney Ashley Merchinch. You may recognize her. She's the host of the MK True Crime Show and has been following this Lindsey Clancy case extensively. So Ashley, thank you for stopping by scandal today. It's great to see you. It's good to see you. Thanks for having me. Okay. So I have to ask the question that everybody is now asking did Lindsey Clancy kill her kids? I know. Well, it's crazy. Everybody's talking about that now because of some things that her lawyer said in court and when I was listening to it, I thought, is he, you know, what's he trying to tip us off to? And I've been thinking about it and I think the best way to explain it is when the state has to prove venue. Okay. I'm going to explain it using venue. So I might have a trial. I get to the end of a trial and, you know, everybody knows it happened in this county. You know, I mean, it's just kind of assumed, but I'm like, well, did they actually prove that? You know, and it seems stupid, but I might argue to the jury and sometimes I feel dumb doing it. You know, hey, they have to prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt. Like did they actually do that? Because it is a legal technicality. And I kind of feel like that's what he was arguing. He was like, you know, look, we said she did it, but they didn't accept our stipulation. So the state still has to actually prove that she did it, you know, judge on this legal technicality. You could grant this motion. If you wanted to, we're kind of giving you an out. And I think it's similar to that venue argument, you know, where I always feel stupid arguing it because I'm like, okay, we all know what happened at the apartment complex down the street and that's in full and county and, you know, but did someone actually testify that it happened in full and county? It's similar to that argument. I feel like that was a great breakdown. No, it was because this really got the entire internet going because I know you've been following this case. So you have definitely seen TikTok, Instagram, wherever on social media, people running with the conspiracy theories prior to this. And now that Reddington got in court and said, he literally said, where's the evidence? Where did she admit to this? It kind of perpetuated, in my opinion, these conspiracy theories. What do you think? Oh, I think it did. As soon as I heard it come out of his mouth, I thought, oh my gosh, we're going to hear this, you know, everybody's going to say, okay, now this is his defense. The other thing a lot of folks are talking about is you actually can change your defense. And, you know, we dislike that because we want a jury trial to be the search for the truth. But sometimes for the defense, it's not. Sometimes it's what can they prove. And, you know, if his defense was psychosis, he could change that. He could say, well, the state can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it. So, you know, what? We're going to go back to trial. And now we're going to argue that she didn't do it. He could do that. So if this goes to trial, again, which clearly Kevin Ridington is trying to prevent that. That's really why we had this motion and some of the others that he's filed. But let's just say, for instance, hypothetically, we go back to trial. First, a remurder charges again for Lindsey Clancy. What do you think? Do you think he would go the criminal responsibility route that we saw in the first trial? Or would he kind of change his tune and do a bit more of what we saw yesterday? I think he'll stick with the criminal responsibility and the reason is the jury, the actual law on that that the jury gets is so pro-defended that the state has to essentially disprove beyond a reasonable doubt the mental health defense, the criminal responsibility defense. It's really hard to not argue that because it's such a strong standard, particularly when he had good experts. And I mean, the jury, it was 11 to 1. So even though we didn't win outright, that's about as close, I mean, that is as close as you could get. And so I think that and the feedback that he got from the jurors, I think it'll be a little more my careful injury selection next time, but I think he would use the same defense. And I also wonder if when he does, if he does do that, if some of the state's witnesses will perhaps change their testimony a little bit. Oh, that's interesting. And actually, that's something that he brought up to in his argument. He, I think he compared it to, he called the common wealth a poodle dragging themselves across the linoleum floor. I remember that specifically because I have a poodle and I was like, wait, I never expected poodles to be brought up in on this. Yeah. But anyway, he mentioned how they changed their tune. And I think the entire world can agree on this. When we had Shannon Buckingham go up and present the opening, it sounded like they were saying almost Lindsey didn't really try to commit suicide. Some of the witnesses even testified to that. You know, she didn't take enough pills. The slits on her wrists were acute. And then at the very end, when we heard from Jen Spragg, she said, no, you know what, this was really a mental health issue. So they kind of did a 180 there. Now you said the defense can change its strategy, but can the common wealth? They can, they can change it as well. The one thing that sticks is the witness testimony. So the arguments of counsel, those can completely change. But the testimony, the actual locked in testimony, they'll use that at the next trial. So a witness can't change their story. And if they do, they're going to get what's called impeached, which is bad. You don't want it, you know, you don't want your witness to be impeached. But if they change their stories, they can do that. But the lawyer is nothing they say is evidence, so they can definitely change their tune. I think it's really interesting, though, how the prosecution changed some of their arguments for closing and seeing how they'll adopt different arguments. If they do retry the case, it's just really telling now that we have this court of public opinion. It's almost like a mock jury, you know, and for years, we hired folks to be mock jurors in cases because, and I do that all the time. I mean, a lot of defense lawyers do it, we'll hire people. It's, it's, it's, it's very interesting. We'll hire people off the street, we'll tell them about a case and we'll get their interpretation, their impressions about it. And sometimes we'll try out different defenses with the mock jury. So, you know, listening to the news and listening to people's public discourse on this case is almost like having a live mock jury to give you feedback. And I wonder if that's why the state, for example, they didn't have both in their hair yesterday. I'm sure they saw that on the internet. Yeah, exactly. I've been calling this trial by TikTok. Right, because that's really what it is. I mean, Reddington has set in some of the scrums afterward. Yeah, I watched TikTok. I don't watch a lot of TV, but I'm on TikTok. And you know that the prosecution, people are talking about this across the world. So, perhaps they saw some of the TikToks about the bows. They saw the public feedback. And that's why they kind of switched things. That's, that's really an interesting point. And I guess I have to go back to TikTok to harken back to that because all of these conspiracy theories out there about the 524 surface pro email or Patrick changing his shoes between CVS and 3v restaurant. Was it even Patrick? Could it have been someone else? The botched police investigation, Massachusetts police are out to get everyone. All of those theories online. Now we're kind of discussed in the courtroom yesterday. So, do you think it's Reddington giving credence to any of those those theories? You know, I do wonder how much he is using the news and using the media to shape the narrative. And this is a hot topic for lawyers with ethics because we don't like that the media interferes with what happens in a courtroom, but it does. And so, I always tell lawyers, you know, you're not doing your job if you're not paying attention to that because it does. I mean, your community is talking about cases. That's why we have public trials for criminal cases. The community's talking about it. And so, I think he would not be doing his job if he wasn't paying attention to some of that. Obviously, we want everything to be inside the courtroom. And there's certain rules that happen inside the courtroom. But I definitely think he is playing to the public to a certain extent because that think about it also. I mean, that's funded the campaign. A retrial is expensive. I mean, they've got to go fund me for, you know, for her defense. They had one in the original trial. I'm sure they've got one for this trial. And that's going to be important because experts don't come for free. And his experts were probably very expensive. I bet retrying this case is going to cost a lot of money. Oh my god. And I thought so much about that too because of course, the defense is going to have to pay for those expert witnesses. But then also the people of Plymouth County, I mean, I think about this because I'm two counties away. I live in Boston. So I'm thinking, what about taxpayer money to go through and do this all over again. This was a six and a half week trial. I mean, that's kind of on the political side. But it's something we have to think about the money here. Is it worth going back? And I guess, I'm sorry, I have to ask one more question about these conspiracy theories. Please. I've seen people already online on TikTok commenting on my videos yesterday. They were saying, oh, so Kevin Reddington admits Patrick Clancy did it. And I'm like, hold on. I did not hear that. Did you hear that, Ashley? I did not hear that. I definitely did not hear that. And I don't even think that he was really saying that she didn't do it. I think there's a difference between saying she didn't do it, and they haven't proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it. You know, he said there's no evidence. Not she didn't do it. Not Patrick did it. You know, his words were very carefully chosen. And I guess I do have to wonder about that too, because today I went through and I was looking where did Lindsey admit that she did it. And I couldn't find anywhere that Lindsey verbally said, I killed my kids. Right. However, I did look at her civil lawsuit against a couple of defendants that actually were witnesses for the Commonwealth. We're talking about, you know, Jennifer Tufts, Soror Rebecca Gelata. And in her civil lawsuit where she is filing, she admits in it that she strangled her kids. I highlighted in this episode. So I have the exact words that were in her lawsuit. Does that count? Because it was a civil lawsuit, as opposed to a criminal case. So if it was what's called verified, so with a civil lawsuit, sometimes you have to verify it, which means you have to swear to the contents of it. And a lot of times in civil lawsuits, you'll see lawyers use fancy works that say upon information and belief. That's I think so. That's not an, you know, an affirmation. And so it would depend on exactly the works that were used and it would depend on whether or not she actually swore to those facts. And most of the time a plaintiff in a lawsuit does have to swear to the facts when they're actually being filed in that complaint. Oh, wow. So that could be, I'll have to go back. Yeah, you got to look at the lawsuit. And then there's probably an affidavit. You know, it's probably, it'll be interesting to see if she swore to anything or if Patrick swore to it, because I know he filed the lawsuit as well. And how they boarded this upon information and belief as to what statements can actually be attributed to her. Oh, wow. That will really, that could be a make or break situation. I don't know. I guess I have to ask about the Commonwealth too, because Shannon Buckingham went up. And I remember specifically, she was kind of like, this came out of the blue. This is the first time we're hearing this. I think she called the argument laughable. And she made a list of, I think it was like five or six things, just really off the top of her head saying, this is how the Commonwealth proved that Lindsey Clancy did it. Do you think that this argument was justifiable. Do you think that the Commonwealth really proved it? I think that they proved that the children were murdered in this horrendous fashion. And I think they proved those facts. Did they prove that Lindsey Clancy is the one that actually did it? You know, that, that I'm with you. I don't see anywhere where she actually admitted it. I don't see anywhere where they saw any, you know, nobody witnessed her do it. So it's one of those cases where there's no eyewitnesses. So there's nobody coming in and saying, yeah, I saw her with the, you know, with it in her hand. I mean, it's built on what we would consider circumstantial evidence. And so, you know, there is no definitive proof. I think they were caught off guard by that, but they shouldn't have been. I mean, it is their burden. And it was kind of ironic because they made such a stink out of the defense not stipulating, because the defense wanted to stipulate to the facts, the case. They wanted to stipulate that Lindsey did it. And the reason they wanted to do that was so the jury would just be able to hear information about criminal responsibility. They didn't want all the autopsy photos. They didn't want all the awful details coming out from that jury. And the state said, no, thank you. So if they said no, thank you, well, then you got to prove it. And so he's really just calling them on that. They would have admitted to it. I guess I do have to wonder too. I mean, I'm not both sides worked hard. Clearly, they had a lot of witnesses. They did research. This is over three and a half years. I went back today. And I was looking at a hearing that Jen Sprag was in in 2023. So they have been on this for a really long time. However, I do have to wonder if maybe not that it slipped their mind, but it wasn't a major focus to prove Lindsey was the one who did it because the defense straight up in their police that yeah, she did it, but you know, she shouldn't be held criminally responsible. Like it wasn't the major focus as we see in some cases where it's a who done it, where the prosecution and whatever state is really proving, okay, we found this person, their fingerprints or they were caught on security camera, whatever. That's usually what we see. And we didn't as much in this case. So do you think it just kind of fell by the wayside? I think it did. I think it fell by the wayside like my example about venues. Sometimes you get so caught up in in what you're arguing over that you forget what all you have to prove. And that does happen sometimes to the state. They have to remember that they've got some of those tiktok conspiracy theory jurors that potentially are on their jurors. You know, you're trying to make sure you don't have those, but you may have some of those. So they still have an obligation no matter what the defense is to still prove all of the elements and sometimes they get so caught up in their case and in what they're, what they're arguing or trying to prove that they forget all the other little things that they have to prove. You'd actually be surprised how many times cases have been reversed on that venue example I used. And it's something that's so basic and so simple, all you have to do is literally ask the officer, you went to the house, the house is in Plymouth County, you know, is that in the state of Massachusetts? It's like three questions, but you'd be shocked at how often it's missed. Well, I think it's because we all focus so much, myself included, by the way, on the nuances here. Yes. Because to me, criminal responsibility, I had to reread that a couple of times when we were heading into deliberations, I was like, okay, I want to make sure I fully understand what they are going in and what the jurors have to determine. Because it's already been set in stone or so I thought that Lindsey Clancy did this. And I remember people sending me DMs and they were like, where does it say that Lindsey did this? And I said the plea, but now I mean, did the Commonwealth really prove that? That's the question. And I guess now it's in the hands of Judge Sullivan. And this is complete speculation in the hypothesis. But what are your thoughts? I mean, what do you think would be going through his mind as he has to review the argument and kind of rule on it? I think he really wants to grant it, but I don't think he's going to grant it. And it's one of those things that I'm sure he just really wants this to be over. And it's hard when there's an 11 to one verdict and, you know, they likely will not win a retrial. And that's what it seems like, you know, and obviously you could be betting on it. But that's what it would seem like to the judge. And so does he really want to spend another six weeks with what was a very stressful trial? Probably not. So if there's a procedural out, I would imagine he would want to take it. But at the same time, judges are very, very nervous about taking a decision away from a jury. And that's what they would be doing, you know, he would be taking this decision away from the jury if he granted this. So I don't think he's going to, but I think he really wants to. Yeah. I mean, definitely have to go through way the options, look at the case law or the statutes and what was presented. So he has a major task in front of him. And this will be my last question for you, Ashley. But I was there in the courtroom yesterday. And it was interesting because both sides kind of were hesitant to set a trial date or a date. And Judge Sullivan was like, you guys, come on. You wanted to do this next week after the mistrial and now you're not setting a date. What's going on here? And some of the things I've seen are that in Massachusetts. You turned 70. You have to retire as a judge. And he would turn 70 kind of coming out and he would turn 70 about even June. So, and I think Reddington said June was when he could be ready to try that case, which was odd to me because he seemed like a very good judge. I mean, you know, he seemed very fair. I mean, I'm going to be honest, my seniors for judges are pretty low, you know, just, just be fair. Don't lose your temper. Like, I don't really have a high standard. Unfortunately, I wish I did. But, you know, he seemed like a good judge, but there may be some strategy behind that as well. The other thing that they've got to pay attention to is they were going to want all the transcripts and those take a while. So, there's a court report. It's still old school. There's someone taking down court proceedings. They take them down, you know, they record them and then someone has to actually produce those transcripts. And anytime you have a mistrial, you always want to get the testimony that people gave previously. Because let's just say a doctor changes their story or something like that. You want that prior testimony to impeach them. So, they're going to want all those transcripts and that takes a little bit of time. Oh, yeah. Just like preparing for this trial took a lot of time to prepare again to redo it. There's so much we have to think through. And we still don't know. Is it going to happen again? Does the DA want to do this again? They have until November 2nd, the next hearing to decide what their plans are. Reddington's going to fight against it. I don't know what's going to happen, Ashley, but I'd love to have you back on Skandal to talk about it when we know a little bit more. I would love to. It's been a pleasure. So, what's ahead? I don't know. That's one thing I can say for sure about this case. I never really know what's ahead. The only thing I can say for sure is that Judge William Sullivan took this rule 25 argument under advisement and will make a ruling at a later date. That could be on November 2nd when Lindsay's schedule to head back to court again or before that. But at that hearing, by the way, we can expect even more motions to be discussed, like the Commonwealth's motion for a gag order, and the defense's motion about juror-do information, and debatably, the biggest piece of info that we're going to have, whether the Commonwealth plans to retry this case, will they go for first to remurder again? Bump it down to murder, too. Reach a plea deal, maybe something like manslaughter and a hospital sentence. That part remains to be seen, but Judge Sullivan did give prosecutors a deadline of November 2nd to get their ducks in a row. And that is where today's episode of Scandal leaves us for now. Thanks for watching. I'm your host Sierra Gillespie, and I'll see you next time.