383. The Lindsay Clancy Trial Part 11

Perustin pyöräilyvää teitä valmistavan ornotin vuonna 2013. Mielestäni parasta Shopify saan se, että voimme harjoittaa liiketoimintaa ilman teknistä osaamista. Voimme hallinnoida yrityksen taustajarjestelmien ja frontendia sekä myydä verkossa, vaivatta. Jos Shopify olisi pyöräilyvaruste, sollisi mielestäni itse polkupyörä. Sillä asiat hoidetaan ja meidän liiketoimintamme hoituu Shopify'ssa. Aloita ilmainen kokeilu, Shopify piste.com sivustolla. <i>The moment a body is found, the clock starts ticking.</i> <i>48 hours before the trail goes cold.</i> <i>From A&E and Crime House,</i> <i>this is the official podcast</i> <i>from the famous True Crime series,</i> <i>the first 48.</i> <i>Carter Roy.</i> <i>Every Thursday,</i> <i>I revisit a landmark homicide investigation in depth</i> <i>with long-form storytelling</i> <i>built for your ears.</i> <i>Listen to and follow the first 48</i> <i>on Apple podcasts,</i> <i>spotify Amazon music</i> <i>or wherever you listen to podcasts.</i> <i>Today on the prosecutors.</i> <i>We hear from the defense experts</i> <i>and the Lindsey Clancy trial.</i> [Musik] -Hello, everybody and welcome to this episode of The Prosecutors. I'm Brett, and I'm joined as always by my active member of the Catholic Church Co-host, Alice. Hahaha! Those of you who are mad about that, that's not the most offensive Catholic comment today. Because I will say the prosecution took it away today. -Yeah, they sure did. -Oh my, look at that. I even got a kneeler in here. There you go, let's look at that. I mean, you better not ever be a witness in a murder trial. -Oh, my goodness. -This is our question. You're about to release. It's the only Lindsey had a kneeler in her house. -Here you go. -We wouldn't be here. -But. -We're back in the 1600s and Massachusetts. It's his Massachusetts. We should have moved the trial to Salem for a jury. -Good morning. -Good morning. Today was a day. I just thought it's time to sit down sometimes prosecution because you just keep. -Yes. -And yourself in the foot. You know what I say to my kids all the time? Do nothing. It's better. Do nothing. Well, do no harm is not just a rule in medicine. It's a rule in the law, too. And it is really important when you're doing cross examination to know what not to do. And who not to cross in a really aggressive manner. And as we're going to see today, this group of prosecutors did not learn that. They lacked that, you know, I will say. It is something that when younger lawyers ask me, like, how do I develop that sense of the innate judgment? But real answer sometimes, I'm like, you know what? It comes with experience with for some people. It never comes for other people. Like, I'm not sure it's something that I can just say. If you practice for 20 years, you'll get it. There are people who just do not have that sense of judgment. And I do think that is the difference at the end of the day of, like, great lawyers who there's like a genus aqua that I don't even think you can teach. And there were lapses of judgment today that I've been trying to put my finger on. Is it an experience or is it just one of those things where I don't know that you can teach? And I don't know that you can teach judgment. The problem, I mean, we're way ahead of ourselves already. We're going to get to this and we're going to talk about a lot. So I'm just going to start talking about it for now. We're back with Lindsey Clancy trial. We're in day 15. We're in the midst of the defense case. We're going to hear from a lot of expert witnesses today, which I have some take some. I don't think the expert witness part maybe went as well for the defense as you might have expected. But the prosecution overshadowed any of that with some mistakes that we're going to talk about. And it started with a witness that you would think is one of those defense witnesses who gets called, they say what they got to say. The prosecutor stands up and here's how you handle family members. If you're out there and you're prosecuting. If mama gets on the stand or daddy or sister or whatever. You just ask, did you live with him at the house where he was selling drugs? No. Do you know what he was doing there? No. Do you love your son? Yes. No further questions, right? I mean, and that says to the jury, this person doesn't really know anything. They love their kid. They're going to say anything. Yeah. You don't tear him apart. And you really do deal with them by the same thing. You deal with them with kid gloves because they're not worth tearing up. Because like, what do you think mom is going to say? What do you think mother and law is going to say? That's what this is even worse. Because it would be one thing. You know, her mom testified to say and her sister testified yesterday. And they're her family. I don't think you should go after them. But, you know, if you did, at least they're her family. This is the mother-in-law. This is Patrick's mother, who also, by the way, lost her three grandchildren. And is only really tangentially even connected to any of this. Had very little actual interaction with Lindsay other than recommending Nurse Paul, as we're going to see. But as the prosecution brings out on cross, didn't really have a super close relationship. Lindsay didn't let them keep the kids. Maybe Lindsay, you know, didn't love her. I mean, she taught her and stuff. I think they were friendly, but I don't think they were like best friends or anything like that. The witness that you would think the prosecution would have very little to do with. But as you're going to see, that's not what happened. So Sue Clancy is the first witness of the day. And this was Patrick's mom. She was a labor and delivery nurse for 30 years. And she said Lindsay was a great mom. She loved her kids. And she'd actually met Lindsay when she was a student working at the same hospital as her. But around November, the same story we've been hearing. She was starting to feel unwell. She was losing her appetite. She couldn't sleep and she asked her for help. And that's when she reached out to South Shore Medical, as we've heard in the past. She said Lindsay was begging for help. And the writing just sort of goes through, you know, you had some text messages back and forth, whether you're being supportive or relatively uneventful direct. This is not an important witness at all. Frankly, if the prosecution had asked no questions, I don't think that would have been inappropriate at all. But instead, the cross is much longer than the direct. And it does start off with their working together that she started noticing those issues. It talks about how she actually went to the emergency room when Lindsay was at the emergency room. And this was something that I was confused about for a while. Because some of you may remember it seemed like there was a contradiction where Lindsay said she went to the emergency room for suicidal ideation. But Patrick said she went because of insomnia. I think she went twice. I think the first time was insomnia, and that's this one, the South Shore. And then later on, I think she went to maybe MGH for the suicidal ideation. So I think she did both. And this is the one where she's having trouble sleeping. Notice that Lindsay drove herself. She was having heart palpitations. And the prosecution just cannot let go of this weed gummy thing. That she took a weed gummy. And that could have caused the heart palpitations. And I don't get it. But they brought it up again. It's like their gotcha card. If you knew nothing because you didn't know she took one gummy. Yeah, you knew she's exactly. It's like it is. You know nothing, Jon Snow. It's like one weed gummy. What do you mean she's not taking a listen, drugs? She took a weed gummy. I know that. Anyway. So get through the fact that she was prescribed trasidone and that she left in her own car. And look fine. I mean, this stuff, fine. She's actually driving herself. It's serious but not maybe as serious as people have made it out to be. She connected to nurse Julie Paul. Then Sue went on to say that she offered to help more with the kids to help you know whatever Lindsay was going through. She said that she helped out at the Clancy home. But the kids never slept at her house. And she never stayed at Lindsay's house to help with the kids. And they went there with mother-in-law in the cross. They were like the prosecution was like, were you aware that Lindsay told her therapist that she's not close to you and your husband, your in-laws? And she doesn't let you keep the kids. No. Sue Clancy didn't know that Lindsay said this. This is not great, right? I mean, this look, I think this is a bad look from the jury perspective. And she says that they did have conversations with Lindsay about how she was feeling. And Lindsay told her that she thought she had a benzodiazepine dependency. And she says Lindsay said no one is hearing that or addressing it. Now, she also told her that she was never this depressed before. And it was brought on by the medication, which is kind of the story whether that's true or not. That's certainly the narrative that she is telling to me. multiple people. Now she also recalls something that her husband testified about that on Thanksgiving, they went to her daughter's house and that they all went to her daughter's house and they spent Thanksgiving together and that she told the grand jury that things were better at that point. But now she's saying that's when she noticed something was wrong. So there's an inconsistency with back during the grand jury. November, all things were good. But now she's saying that's when there was a turning point. And then the shooting in the foot of the prosecution, not the only time I would say, I don't, I don't know. Maybe they didn't look in the mirror that day. Maybe they have been in a room in a war room. The two prosecutors together too much and they haven't talked to people in the outside world for years and they don't understand what questions won't land. But yes, if you watch the trial, you know what I'm talking about because the prosecution asks Sue Clancy and I quote, are you an active member in the Catholic church? She says yes. And then the next follow up question. So you're aware that murder is considered a mortal sin, side by side by no one even objects. The judge is like, shuttin' us down. Let's go side by. Which is totally appropriate. Yes. I thought it was interesting that Reddington didn't even get an objection out. He could. The judge was like, I think the judge perked up when she said, are you an active member in the church? There's not going to be a lot of follow up questions that are going to be unobjectionable. Now recall, this is not the prosecution's first rodeo into Roman Catholicism. Oh, it is. And it's not the first time they've seen the judge's reaction when they start bringing up priests and religion. Remember, they wanted to see father bobs this person record and the judge was like, you want to see the records of the priest. And I was like, just say, of course, we don't want to see the priest. We just want to know how often the doctor's been there. Of course, we don't care about her talking to a priest, but they don't do that. They're like, well, you never know. He could be a witness, could be important. And the judge is like, I am not giving you the records of a Roman Catholic priest. It's not going to happen. So you would think his reaction then would tell you what his reaction is going to be to a completely irrelevant question, completely as a legal matter, just as a legal matter. There's no relevancy to her being Catholic or knowing that murder is a mortal sin. No relevancy at all, particularly given that no one outside of the crazies is contesting that Lindsey did kill her kids. This is all about her mental state, which I'm not Catholic, Alice is, I mean, mental state matters as to whether that matters. Exactly. 100%. So even if you wanted to get into a religious battle, you're going to lose it. You got all the same grounds. But also, I mean, okay, so what here's the thing, I don't think that was her last question. It ended there. But it wasn't. I know it wasn't. This is such an offensive and objectionable question that this is like when the defense is like, it's going to be their last question, they don't even care. And they're like, might drop it and they're like, and that's why you're killed or isn't it objection. I don't care, George, I'm sitting down. That's what this question is like, except they don't even know that because it's not their last question. And they actually meant to ask it as part of their outline. Okay, so for those of you who don't understand why we're so outraged, it's completely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with this case. Whether it is a mortal sin or not, she's not an expert. She's not father-bomb. It literally has no bearing on the legal elements of this case. And you have this like grandma who's lost her three children who try to help by introducing her to a nurse practitioner who she worked with, who they were hands on. Like, look, don't criticize all this family. All this family, they were trying to help. Okay, everyone was trying to take care of the kids. They were bringing over food. They were spending holidays together. Don't go after the grandma. Like, this is the wrong person to go after. And think about your jury. Your jury pool is coming from the same cultural pool as well. I bet you, most of them have been to mass. Most of them are probably at least culturally Catholic. At the very least, their neighbor is Catholic because of where we are in Duxbury, Massachusetts, right? Lot of Roman Catholics. It doesn't land with anybody. It looks abusive and it looks irrelevant and it makes you look like a bully. It's just such a misstep. I mean, project misstep. And this is why I said that they not look in the mirror because they practice this. This was not a throwaway question. She had a lead up question to us. She was proud of this. This was her like Perry Mason moment. And someone who was like with her prepping was like, that is a good question. Nailed it. You didn't nail it. So I don't know who they've been talking to or not talking to, but their judgment is completely off. And they deeply, deeply misstep early on in today's testimony. And it's one of those things where we've talked about how misguided, unclear, lacking direction, lacking clarity, the prosecution's case has been. And it's just yet another nail in that coffin. And look, you can win a case if the jury hates you. You can't because the jury is going to try and put aside all that stuff. They're going to try and decide it on the evidence in the law. But those 12 people are human. And if they really don't like you and it's close, even if they don't realize it, it could be one of those things that pushes them in the other direction. I mean, that absolutely can happen. And this isn't even a religious fanaticism case. No one is alleging that this has to do with like religious fanaticism, which you may be able to see in some sort of like other type of case. And I did find it amazing because the judge has been so gunshot to do anything that's correct in this case in terms of like shutting down lines of questioning. He immediately said sidebar. And then of course, when he came back, he told the jury to disregard the question completely and just to move on, which is appropriate. But that's how offensive it was as he even knew. He's like, we got to shut this down. And look, I can't wait. I hope they release the transcripts of the sidebars eventually. Yeah. Because I can't imagine what he said to her. I tweeted that he probably told her you asked question like that again. You better brought a toothbrush because you're going to spend the night in jail. I mean, just a completely ridiculous question. But I do want to say this. It, I think, cleared up something that some of you, some of you have wondered if their heart's not really in this, if they don't really want to do this, they're being forced to do it. And that's why, no, they hate Lindsey Clancy. The prosecutors despise her. They think she absolutely is a co-blooded murderer of her three kids. And they not only hate Lindsey Clancy. They hate Patrick and Patrick's family and Lindsey's family for sticking by her. And you can see, you've seen that from the very beginning, from the way they treated Patrick, from the way they treated all these family members and coming to this point. Maybe you agree with them out there. Maybe you think that this family has betrayed those three kids and they're standing by a murderer and they deserve everything they get. Maybe you feel that way. But when you're in a courtroom, in a case like this and you're trying to convince 12 jurors, you got to put that aside. And you got to act professionally. And you got to treat these people with a little bit of respect. And they don't know how to do that. This was just the ultimate example of that. It was awful. It was a terrible- They let their emotions get in the way. Remember, we've said this before how it's a relief to get to do this podcast because we're able to access parts of our emotion that we honestly have to shed away when we prosecute cases. Because the victims actually are the ones who suffer if the prosecutor is way too emotionally invested in the case. They can't see things clearly. They're not keeping it purely strictly on the evidence. Their judgment is honestly clouded by emotion. And that's kind of what we saw in some of their cross-examinations today because you'll know, the prosecutors did great on the experts. I thought their cross-examinations were fantastic. They were organized and they asked the right questions. And they got really good points across. It was these types of witnesses, the family members, the friends, where they lost their marbles and were completely off-track for what the prosecution's job is. And they started off from the wrong foot. And a lot of people noticed it and a lot of people didn't like it. They didn't like the way they questioned Patrick. And they didn't like the way they treated him. But I think that's why. And the issue I have of this case, I just want to know whether or not this woman needs to go to prison for murdering her three children or not. That's all I want to know. You know? I mean, I'm not invested in the what is now become like a quasi-political fight over this case and everybody trying to turn it into their own personal crusade on either side. I'm just not interested in any of that stuff. I just want to know if this woman was sane or not when she did this. And I would like a prosecution that is capable of putting on that case. And I just don't know that they are. And I feel like all of us are just having to sort of make our own way through this. And so is the jury. The evidence is coming in and the jury is having to make their own way through it without anybody guiding them or leading them or explaining anything to them or having a competent story or roadmap or bookcase, whatever you want to call it and these two come in every day and they have some good moments and they're going to have some good moments later. But the reason this is so problematic and then I'll stop harping on it because people were like, well, people who care more about one question, in fact, Lindsey killed her three kids or whatever. No. Questions like this overshadow everything else. Yes. They make people forget the good points. They make people forget the evidence. They make people forget the subtle questions that got good things out and this is what they remember. So that's why it's so problematic. Even if it weren't just also insulting and completely improper in a courtroom to be asking somebody that kind of question in this kind of case. It's just while. Insurance is at one size fits all and shopping for it shouldn't feel like squeezing into something that just doesn't fit. That's why drivers have enjoyed progressives name your price tool for years. With the name your price tool, you tell them what you want to pay and they show you options that fit your budget. Enough hunting for discounts, trying to calculate rates and tinkering with coverages. Maybe you're picking out your very first policy or maybe you're just looking for something that works better for you and your family. Either way, they make it simple to see your options. No guesswork, no surprises. Rate to see how easy and fun. Shopping for car insurance can be. Visit progressive.com and give the name your price tool to try. Take the stress out of shopping and find the coverage that fits your life on your terms. Progressive casually insurance company and affiliates price and coverage match limited by state law. Guys, do you love finding a good deal? One of my formative memories in life was going with my mom shopping. We would go to these outlet stores that had all these great products that you could buy for cheaper than you could ever imagine. And my mom was always looking for a good deal and I grew up thinking that is a good thing and you know what, it is. And now in the modern day, when you're looking for a deal, you should look to what not. It is an app that focuses on community, on deals, on being a seller yourself and enabling you to find all the great brands that you didn't realize had great deals or what not you're connecting with sellers and other shoppers. It's like hanging with the group that gets you. This is a fun way to shop and you almost never pay full price. You can shop name brands across makeup, perfume, clothes, handbags, jewelry and more, all without the retail sticker shock. This is the best place to find great deals on the products you love. Guys, I love shopping, I love a good deal, but I'm also really busy so I don't really get the live shopping experience that I just crave until what not. This is where shopping happens in real time with real people, real conversations and these incredible deals. Okay, I like nice things but let's be honest, I have lots of kids I have to feed so I can't really afford to pay top price for it. I wanted this beautiful designer bag and I thought, you know, let me just check what not for it. Not only was it on what not for literally half of what what it's going like right now on other sites, I got to watch the seller show me close up everything about the bag. I got to ask questions to a real person about the bag and its condition. I knew exactly what I was getting and I was thrilled. Download what not today and get $20 off your first purchase. Search what not W-H-A-T-N-O-T in the app store sign up and start finding the best deals on the products you love with $20 off your first purchase. They're not done and the next few questions I ask are fine whether or not Lindsay was still taking her the kids out in January. Patrick's going on various trips. He's taking course skiing. She's keeping the other kids just stuff to show that she was behaving normally. Then we have redirect. Reddington goes through the number of times Lindsay was quote unquote turned away from various providers and then we have recross where we talk about the reason that she was turned away from women and infants and finally the prosecution explicitly said this that she was turned away because the drugs were causing the problems but the reason they believe the drugs were causing the problems is that was what was reported to them by Lindsay and Patrick because that's what Lindsay and Patrick believed so just because they turned them away from that reason doesn't mean they made some sort of independent investigation and determined that that was the cause they're going on based on what they're told. Then we have redirect or reddington notes that nurse gelata nurse practitioner gelata issues nurse practitioner never called women and infants back which we already know he's brought that out before so that's the end of that witness at this point the jury leaves and we have some arguments. We have Dr. Lapa Sada who's going to testify today by zoom. What one might call television if you were so inclined which I thought was quite ironic but how will they hug her? Yes she won't be able to give anyone a hug. How will you tell what her feet are doing while she's giving her expert testimony. So we have some objections to some exhibits. One of them the drawing is an accurate the window wells and from place where they have her landing would have been in the window well and so we argue about that for a little while. The defense says look the point is to show how she failed not necessarily exactly where she landed. The window well doesn't really matter some of these exhibits come in some don't and then the television breaks. So we don't have Dr. Lapa Sada at this point because we can't figure out the technology. Reddington was right all along if he just had her there instead of doing this zoom this new thing. Did they say why was it just because of expense. They just get oh I don't know why she didn't come. I'm surprised the judge allowed it to be told honest but. No I think the judge is up for anything. He may never allow it again after the circus that happened when they were trying to do this. It was pretty terrible. The television did break. But Reddington he's ready to move. You know he's limber for an old guy so he's like that's fine. I'll just call somebody else and so he does. And he's ready. You always do have to be ready. So he calls Dr. Donald Condi to the stand and he is a child adolescent and adult clinical and forensic psychologists. He worked at the hospital affiliated with Harvard. Basically his whole background is just to say Harvard as many times as possible to show how qualified he is. Lots of Harvard. So he knows a lot about medication treating people with psychotic disorders. And he had worked in the state institute the Massachusetts Mental Health Center and that's where he dealt with a lot of psychosis cases. In fact he said I was like half in psychosis so he's like the expert here. Now goes all the way back to him treating psychotic patients back to 1983. And he treated specifically women with postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis. He's been a doctor for 43 years and though he did not treat Lindsay Clancy he reviewed her medical records from Tufts to Gelata and all the rest. Now he talks about the Zoloft. How Zoloft can be helpful but it can't have side effects and it would appear somewhat in the breast milk. So in other words Lindsay's concern about taking Zoloft while she was breastfeeding was a real concern. Now he says based on the records she eventually does take Zoloft. But there are a series of rapid difficulties after they increased her dose. And he calls that activation. Then he goes through the reporting for Dr. Tufts and he now I understand honestly where Reddington's Cross of Tufts came from because it was really everything Condi said. And this is pretty typical. You get your experts because he may not know how to criticize Tufts. But you can see that everything he was criticizing about Tufts was in Reddington's Cross examination about these check boxes for what it's worth. I was like you're not making yourself look real. Hit 43 year veteran doctor. He was like there's all these her notes are terrible. They're all these check boxes. I don't know anything. There's no narrative in here telling me what she actually saw. These are terrible notes. That's basically the gist of what he says about Dr. Tufts. And he also criticizes her prescribing. He says that antidepressants usually take four to six weeks for their useful effects. Beside effects can happen more quickly. This is interesting because I think the prosecution agrees. And guess who didn't take any of these medication for even close to four weeks would of course be Lindsay. Now he notes this and it actually ends up being a little bit inaccurate. But he says that Tufts considered Zalresso, which is an infusion drug. And he mentioned that you don't have to be inpatient, but you have to be medically monitored the entire time. And it's wildly expensive. It's $34,000 to get this infusion. And that Lindsay didn't end up getting it because it was not actually recommended. So then we get into psychosis and what it means. Means a lack of understanding of what is real and what is not. He talks about fixed false beliefs or delusions. something like, told by God to do something, auditory hallucinations are common, they're rarely visual hallucinations. Reading to ask if she had auditory hallucinations, and he asked this in a way that makes it sound like she had more than one, number one, and that she reported them earlier than the murders. And actually saw a headline because effective questioning that literally said, doctor says Lindsey Clancy had auditory hallucinations and it made it sound like this was something that was ongoing. And as we know, she's only described, one of them is an auditory hallucination. They've sort of retconned some of her intrusive thoughts to maybe be auditory hallucinations, but certainly not, that's not the way she described it at the time. And look, this is what's interesting about these witnesses because when he talks about psychosis, it sounds different from what Lindsey was experiencing. Now, obviously, she says that she had a psychotic event the day of, and if she literally heard a command voice telling her to kill the kids, then I think that would qualify. But nothing that leads up to that fits in with that. You don't see the sort of fixed false beliefs type thing. You don't really see the delusions. She seems to have a very good idea of what's going on with her. She seems to have a pretty good idea of her symptoms. And I think a lot of people, it's just interesting to watch people watch this case because a lot of people thought that the defense case today actually hurt them for reasons like this because they're hearing this and they're saying, that doesn't sound like Lindsey. Now later on, you are going to have a witness who's basically going to say that someone can be psychotic and you have no idea whatsoever, but his description of it seems different. And it's just, I'm always curious what the jury is thinking when they're hearing that or they're thinking, I hear what you're saying, but that doesn't really sound like what Lindsey has described. Then we talk about hormones and problems during pregnancy, some go up, some go down. We talk about lactation and prolactin. Reddington gets off on this whole tangent about this. He's really interested in this about breastfeeding. And do you think Reddington really can't understand words because he asked the like, he was like, did you say males or mammals? How he does? He does. Like, can you really not hear what he's saying, but they were like completely irrelevant and we're just completely, you know? He does that a lot. That's how it is. I think Reddington's a really good lawyer in a lot of ways. I don't think he handles experts very well. And we're going to see this later, Dr. Lapisada's testimony, I thought was a great example of this where he just, he doesn't take her through the stuff you would expect him to take her through. They're very short for experts. He doesn't spend much time with him at all. I mean, he basically gets him to say a few things that he thinks you're helpful. He can't ever figure out exactly how to word the question to avoid the objection that it gets to the ultimate issue that happens to him again today. But he talks about this stuff. They talk about hormones are going up. They're dropping off quickly and it causes many women to have at least postpartum blues, which is sadness associated with having a baby that doesn't go to postpartum depression. Postpartum depression is a more serious condition and it is a more rare condition. It involves things like not being able to connect to the baby, feeling isolated. No energy, insomnia, and Lindsey reported all of these symptoms. And this again, so interesting about this case. There are some people who think Lindsey's a psychopath. She planned this all thing and it was all a big plot to kill her kids. Maybe it was, but let's go ahead and put that aside. It seems pretty clear to me that Lindsey Clancy is suffering from postpartum depression. I just feel like that is not even the question. We don't need to fight that. I think it's just, it's in there, right? Yeah. Now the prosecution doesn't know how to handle that. It's like they don't want to admit it. Just like they can't handle the fact that she may have really tried to kill herself. Exactly. Those two things I don't think hurt them. I think they, in a narrative, could actually very much help them because postpartum depression, not psychosis. Yeah. In fact, I think that gives you a motive if anything. And I think the prosecution's better course if they had just been more sympathetic with everybody, including the family, maybe even including Lindsey, maybe even just saying that she has postpartum depression, that she tried to kill herself, but she has no symptoms of psychosis. She was never psychotic. And this is essentially a murder suicide going on. That's essentially what she did. I just, the more this case goes on, the more I think that is your argument for guilt. Not whatever it is they're trying to do. And I think this expert, if they keep fighting, this guy seemed reasonable. He was credible. I mean, he was a little old, but that just means he's been doing it for a long time. I feel like the jury probably thought that guy seems like he's legit. What he's telling me, I believe. And I think she probably did have postpartum depression. And if the prosecution makes it seem like she couldn't have had postpartum depression because that would mean she's not guilty, and she's clearly guilty. I mean, if that's the message they send to the jury, then I think they're going to lose because I think the jury's going to believe in the end of this that she had postpartum depression. Let's talk about blood tests, which this related back to Tufts. And how one of the things you can test is the thyroid. This has come up several times on Reddington because thyroid issues can happen in pregnancy and they can affect the mood and they can cause things like the various symptoms that Lindsey was having. There were no blood tests in this case. There were no thyroid tests in this case. So, and again, that showed up in his cross-examination earlier. So you can see how the pieces are put together in a trial. Then they talk about bipolar disorder and how bipolar disorder is classified kind of by the manic and depressive phases. So there's like one and two phases. So one is the most serious. Two has similar fluctuations. Now, most people spend more time depressed than manic and ready to reach up, working out and running as examples of Lindsey's mania. Oh, this is really weak. Yeah, I don't know about that. I guess he did say like, was it this witness that they brought up that she ran 5K the day she gave birth? Yeah, but even that, I don't know. Oh, no, no, I agree with that. But also, did she? I thought the whole picture of running a 5K was, so she didn't want a 5K. She just went for a run because later on, like three months postpartum, she ran a 5K race, which a lot of people do. After my first baby, when I was fit, sure, I ran the day I gave birth to, not by my fourth baby. I barely walked at the same time with my fourth baby, first baby, whatever, sure. It doesn't help you to point out that she was a runner to the extent she's running on the day she gave birth. If you want to say that that later 5K she ran was an example of Mania, so it sounds like that's just something she does. The way he described Mania, grandiosity, it wasn't just like you went out and ran, you run like a Mania for eight hours straight and can't stop. That would be something like Mania. Yeah, so I think Reddington just finds things that he thinks are unbelievable and he gets lashed on them. But I don't think that actually helps. Then they talked about how bipolar disorder can lead to suicide and it has to be considered here. She was frequently asked if she had a plan along with her suicidal ideation, and even though she said she had suicidal ideation reported frequently, she didn't talk about a plan. Jalada did consider bipolar disorder for her, but didn't reach that diagnosis. They further discussed the possibility of a mood stabilizer, but nothing really worked for Lindsey. Then they turned their attention to the DSM and that it does not list postpartum psychosis as a separate entity. Then they talk about other countries and there's an objection and it gets sustained because it's really not relevant what other countries do in their diagnoses of postpartum disorders. Yeah, I mean, we spent a lot of time on generalized how we handle these things and it's relevant to a certain extent, but it's not really that relevant, particularly what they do in other countries, because once again, the only question is, what was her state of mind the day that this happened? Okay. So then we get to cross. He's crossed on whether he really treats postpartum women or whether he mostly treats children and adolescents. And it's always interesting to hear experts answer these kind of questions because he would say things like when he was at the hospital, the Massachusetts State Institute, there were women there who had postpartum issues, like that's kind of how we describe it. But it's not like he was saying, and I treated them regularly. He seemed like he had a wide breadth of knowledge about various things, but maybe the prosecutions did a little bit with, we might be overstating his quote-unquote expertise in postpartum health. They noted, and this is always effective, that the reason Readington knows about him is because of the civil suit. He is an expert in the civil suit. This information comes from the medical records that were provided to him as part of that. And he also, in his affidavit, that he wrote for the civil suit, cited his facts from a New Yorker article, which is where he apparently got most of his facts. Now he did speak to Patrick. He did not include that part in his affidavit. And obviously there's a little bit of, given that Patrick's suing and she's suing, you can see there's, it's a little conflicty there, you get the expert who's testifying for her. There's a little bit of an Ick factor when it comes to some of the lawsuits and the lawsuits involvement in the criminal case. So they ask, you know, you talked about a blood test. Why would you want to have a blood test for five months postpartum? He says you can do it to look at the level of antidepressants in the blood to see if it's too hard to low. And I thought this was a great point by the Commonwealth. She took the Zoloft for a week. How valuable is a blood test going to be if it's not pretty close to when she took it? Even if the Zoloft is still affecting her, which I am led to believe it can, it probably would not be in her system that you would observe in a blood test. So, I don't know, I thought that was pretty good. And remember, I believe Dr. Tufts, they didn't even have a phlebotomist on staff. They didn't do blood tests. It just wasn't part of what they did. And this goes back to sort of a thing about this. There's no, this is the universal way you do this. Step one, you take a blood test. Step two, you check the thyroid. Step three, you give them Zoloft. It's not like that. You have all these different practices. They have their different approaches. And the fact that this one practice doesn't do blood tests and the other one doesn't, doesn't necessarily mean the one practice is bad. Some practices may do this genetic test that they have now, which apparently is pretty effective at showing what drugs would be effective. Okay, that may be great that somebody does that. Doesn't that so? I mean that every psychologist is going to. And that's one of the issues. Reddington really wants to set this up as, this is the way you do it. They didn't do it this way. Therefore, it's really their fault. They also go through the stuff with Tufts and the Zoloft. And they say, like you said that her taking the pills, the increase is what set her off, did you know she only took seven pills, which she did not know? And he's like, well, that doesn't necessarily mean she didn't increase it. And they said, well, how could she have increased it if she took it for a week and then increased it? They're seven missing. And he's like, well, maybe she only took a few. Okay, well, if that's what she did, that's also just another example of her not doing what she was told. She was supposed to take the Zoloft for seven days, which the reason that you do it for seven days at the low dose is for the side effects. You're making sure that you don't have side effects on Zoloft so that you can then move up. If you make it seven days without side effects, then you can double your dose. And maybe you have side effects, but it's less likely because we've already established and maybe you don't have that. I don't know if this was a weak point for him because whenever you have an expert who seems like they are changing their opinion to continue to help their client when the facts change and they get undermines the expert. I think it's better when the experts just acknowledge, I don't know anything about that. I'm not going to guess. We're gonna see this happen again with Dr. Lopasada. And then they talk about how to look. You know, Lindsay is choosing not to go to the inpatient programs that Duke's had talked to her about going to women in infants, but she didn't go at that time. And they know that many of these medications that were listed and discussed, she was prescribed, but she never took. They talk about the Sarah Quell. He at one point in his testimony talked about her being on 400 milligrams. In fact, is she never actually got to 400 milligrams and she requested to take her off the Sarah Quell. And then McLean, by the time she got there, she was already at 100 milligrams. She was down to 100 milligrams and she got down to zero. And then they note, you keep talking about the 13 medications, but at the time of the actual murders, she's only on amatryptaline, volume, and trasodone. Those are the only prescriptions that she was taking. And in various times throughout this, she was only on three or four medications, not 13 all at once. He called her ambivalent about Antivand, which, I don't know anybody who's listened to this, thinks that's true. Now, eventually she became concerned that Antivand was so helpful for her that she was becoming addicted to it, but I would not call her ambivalent about Antivand. And the Commonwealth is able to note that she never reported to any of her providers that she heard of voice. This is clearing out what Ridington said. And at the only time she said she heard of voice was on January 24th the day of the murders. It is hard to believe, but it is back to school season. I am shocked about this. I know you are as well. My kids start at school tomorrow. And I gotta tell you, and additionally, being concerned about what they're gonna learn, there's something else that keeps me up at night as a parent. Our kids are the first generation growing up on ultra processed foods. And what are the long-term effects? We're only beginning to understand them, but that's why Haya exists. It gives parents a real solution in a market flooded with kids' vitamins that prioritize candy-like appeal of her actual nutrition. That is not Haya. It is packed with a blend of 12 organic fruits and vegetables plus 15 essential vitamins and minerals into every chewable. We're talking vitamin D, B12, C, zinc, folate, all the foundational nutrients that support immune health, brain function, mood regulation, concentration, and the development of strong teeth and bones. - And Haya is NSF certified and received clean label projects' highest purity award. Music to a parent's ears, but here's the thing. Even if it's the best ingredients, if my kids won't eat it, it's no good to me. Well, here's the thing. You guys know I have four kids. Sometimes a little picky on what they eat, not when it comes to Haya vitamins. They love it. They get their own bottles and stickers that come with it so they can personalize their own bottles. They fill it with their vitamins and they're the ones who remind me every single day that they get to take their Haya vitamin. What more could you ask for as a parent? And if bedtime battles and restless nights are a struggle in your house, a calming, nightly, chewable design just for kids might be exactly what they need, especially when the new school year is just around the corner. Haya's new kids bedtime essentials is a total game changer. It's not a sleep aid. It's a non-habit forming chewable with L-F-E-N-A-N, B-G-6 GABA, and chamomile flower extract, plus magnesium and calcium that helps kids relax before bed and wake up rejuvenated and refreshed. No synthetic hormones like melatonin, no sugar, just calm support to help them recharge for everything they've got going on. You can now find Haya in person at Target stores nationwide or order directly from their website with a special deal we've worked out just for you. Receive 50% off your first order on any of their products. To claim this deal, you must go to hayahealth.com/prosecute. This deal is not available on their regular website. Go to h-i-y-a-h-e-a-l-t-h.com/prosecute and get your kids the full body support they deserve. Guys, summer is the season of ponytails, messy buns, and braids. When it's hot outside, I need my hair off my neck. I used to feel self-conscious about how my hair looked in these styles, but after using neutralful, I've noticed a real difference in how I feel about my hair. Instead of worrying about it, I can pull it back and get on with my day knowing it still looks healthy, full, and beautiful. Neutralful is the number one dermatologist recommended hair growth supplement brand, and it's the number one hair growth supplement brand personally used by dermatologists. Neutralful's hair growth supplements are peer reviewed, NSF certified for sport and clinically tested. - It's not a one-size-fits-all approach. Neutralful offers multiple formulas for men and women tailored to different life stages, like postpartum or menopause, and lifestyle factors such as a plant-based diet, so you get support that actually is right for you. Adding neutralful to your daily routine is easy. Order online, no prescription needed, with automated deliveries and free shipping to keep you on track. Plus, with a neutralful subscription, you can save up to 20% off, and get added perks to support your hair, health, journey. Let your hair be one less thing to worry about. See visibly thicker, stronger, faster growing hair in three to six months with neutralful. For limited time, neutralful is offering. Our listeners, $10 off your first month subscription, and free shipping when you visit neutralful.com and interpromo code, prosecutors. That's neutralful.com, spelled in-u-t-r-a-f-o-l-dot-com, promo code, prosecutors. (upbeat music) - So then there is redirect. And Reddington says that maybe Lindsay didn't tell them this out of fear. You know, witnesses say that they're worried her children would be taken away from her if she reported various severe symptoms. And he notes that boards of registration take a dim view if she were to express these very dark and severe thoughts, but that's just speculation. So psychosis he then goes into can be episodic. You can stop and start. For what it's worth when they were talking about it being episodic, he said it was episodic. He said the rapidity of it could be like, you see someone in one week and the next week they have it. What he doesn't say is that you're talking to someone and then it switches off as soon as they walk out the door and then switches back on or switches off in 30 seconds when you have a phone call with them and switches back off. So even though he's getting to like the fastest of these episodes, I think there is still a timeline issue that hasn't really been addressed yet by any expert in terms of just how episodic can this psychosis be. Now he says that SSRIs are given cautiously to bipolar people which we've heard from multiple medical experts. But again, Lindsay has not been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Now on recross, the Commonwealth said that this expert never interviewed the defendant and he doesn't know what she's concerned about. He's just speculating when he's going into things that may have affected whether she reported or didn't report certain things, which is effective because it's showing the limits of his knowledge. And honestly, we've seen that across the board. I mean, people have been doing this. Well, you know, okay, she didn't report in it. Well, she could have just been hiding it for because of all these concerns. I mean, she could have been. She could have not been too. (laughs) Here's the thing. If she was so worried about her nursing license, would she go to an inpatient therapy where she can't leave and she's locked up for five days? Would she take all these different drugs? Would she go to all these people? It seems like she was willing to tell people up to a point what was going on in her life. And honestly, the only reason we think that she's not telling these doctors everything is based on what happens later and what she says later. You know what I mean, for all we know, when she said she had suicidal ideations, but no plan, that's exactly what it was. She wasn't downplaying the homicidal thoughts in her head. She was just telling them exactly where she was. I don't know. It's hard to say, but the just, well, she could have done this or she could have done that, especially from an expert. Yeah, it's a complete speculation. So although that was a good point. Okay, the television is fixed. We fixed the TV and now we're ready for Dr. Elizabeth La Posada, famous to some of you who follow big cases out of Massachusetts because she is yet another Karen Reed alum this time for the defense. She was one of the dog bite experts, one of the experts on the wounds in that case. So many of you are going to have opinions on her one way or the other. Today, she's going to testify by Zoom. And she is going to go through what she believes happened to Lindsay that caused the various physical injuries that Lindsay had. And she reviewed Lindsay's medical records in various pieces of evidence. Before we get to Lindsay, we start with the children. And you know, this was another just purely speculation. The kids have these bruises on them. I don't think anyone's arguing that they were beaten, but I think some of them are consistent with a struggle that probably happened while their mother was killing them. She says they're consistent with active jumping and running. I mean, okay, I guess some of them could be. Now, she's certainly right. I think that Karen's bruising is probably the result of medical intervention. He had more medical intervention than any of them. He was barely alive, basically, when he was found. They tried very hard to save him. So that was fine. But I thought the other stuff was a little, I mean, once again, it seemed like she was speculating and we're going to see more of that speculation. And Reddington doesn't really go into this. Could have been a strategic decision or could have just been sort of the way he handles these experts. She talks about Lindsay having cutting-top wounds on the neck and wrist. She says that several are superficial wounds, which also makes you wonder why Reddington was so hard on people saying that she had superficial wounds earlier. Now, granted, she did have some deeper cuts and the doctor's going to talk about that. But I think the superficial thing he did earlier actually hurts him now that his own witnesses are noting. Yeah, many of the cuts were superficial and there were some hesitation wounds. I want the prosecution to put on an expert talking about these hesitation wounds. Is it consistent with psychosis to have hesitation wounds? It's absolutely consistent suicide. See, hesitation wounds all the time. And you have someone who so efficiently kills her children who doesn't seem to have hesitated much at all doing that. And granted, there's pain involved, I guess, when you're cutting yourself. So maybe that's the explanation. But you would think if you were psychotic, would that even affect you? I don't know the answer to that. I would love to hear an expert on it. Maybe the next expert would say, yeah, totally consistent. Well, then the defense should have somebody say that. But if it's the other side, then the prosecution should probably do it. She did have significant blood loss in the bed room, which is where the cutting event occurred. Oh, so then they go through the fall from the window. Now, Dr. Labasada says that Lindsay would have gone out headfirst and she thinks the blood transferred to the side of the building as she felt, which honestly just doesn't seem possible. And you just got to wonder if Labasada is an expert in blood spatter as well, because that's certainly not what she is qualified to talk about here. Now, she says there's a Jefferson fracture from hitting her head on like you do in a swimming pool, like straight on. And it squashes the first vertebrae like a donut. She had fractures like that. And the injury transmitted down the vertebrae until one of the vertebraes moved over and hurt her spinal cord itself. And that's why there wasn't damage to her skull because the spine absorbed the full shock of the fall. Then they go over the core body temperature. She said that her low core body temperature came from lying on the hard frozen ground. And she also had wet clothing on. And they were indoor clothes. She didn't have a big jacket on. And there was no sun at the time. And so the air temp was just 30 degrees. And because she has a thin body, she'd lost a lot of weight in this last month and she's not a large person to begin with. And most importantly, the spinal injury prevented her body from being able to regulate her body temperature. And she seems to attribute most of it to honestly her spinal injury for causing that low core body temperature. So instead of the vessels contracting, they expand, releasing all the heat into the atmosphere. And shout out to Reddington for asking this question. Because it doesn't really matter all that much for this case. And I honestly think he did it because of all the stuff about Patrick. Because he basically has her explain one of the core tenets of the Patrick did at conspiracy, which is her low body temperature, which the conspirators think, I guess she was out there for hours that day. Like, all this happened right after the snowman. And then he just left her out there. And that's why her body temperature went down so far. And she explains exactly what happened. And exactly why it happened. I thought, the whole thing about the blood vessels was so interesting because your body reacts to preserve heat when you're outside. And her body's doing the exact opposite. And that is causing her to lose all of this heat that she would normally have. So shout out to Reddington. I thought, not that helpful for the actual case, but I thought it was pretty good. Now say this, one thing I didn't think was good was the other part. So he's got this witness. She's trying to explain what happened. He does not walk through stuff in the way that I think would have been helpful. So the blood, the commonwealth put on somebody who was very clearly a blood spatter expert. And she just came across so well. I just enjoyed her testimony so much as a true crime nerd, just hearing her talk about all the different things and how they happened and why they're called what they are and when they happened and the distinctions joined the two. And she just was solid. You have Dr. Lapisada who it's almost just like a throw away. Oh, well, you know, as she's going out the blood, that is when the blood happens. And it's like, is that really possible? But he doesn't go back and say, now let's talk about the blood. How exactly would it have happened? When would it have happened? Was it happened when she was leaning out? 'Cause she had been leaning out for a while. You know, could it have not been so quick? And so she's leaning out of words and the blood's dripping down, could it have been that? You know, are you saying it happened as she passed the wall? Any of those sort of clarification questions, I think would have been good. But he just doesn't really go into it. He just kind of lets it go. And once again, she's not on direct for very long at all. She basically answers these questions and then she's done and then cross begins. And they start with the fact which is always used against her that she was the head of the Rhode Island Office of Medical Examiner and it was cited for a bunch of issues including unsafe conditions. She says they were all minor things, no big deal. She was glad they came so they could fix 'em. She also had 10 other violations which she said were minimal, no big deal. Now the prosecution doesn't go through these either. So are they minimal? I don't know. I assume if it was like you said, people who were stabbed, death got shot. They would have pointed that out about how wrong she was about that. They don't. So it's sort of just left hanging. And we don't know. Now she didn't treat Lindsay. She didn't examine Lindsay. This is true almost always of experts but it's always the attack you use. You didn't actually look at the data. You didn't actually look at the car. You didn't actually treat her. You didn't actually et cetera, et cetera. That's what you do to try and weaken the testimony. She says can't you get that fracture by hitting the back of your head on the top of your shoulders? She says no. I assume prosecution's gonna have an expert who's gonna say of course she can. Of course she can get it. It happens all the time. This is exactly how it happens. And then that expert is probably going to say if this had happened, if she had fallen head first and hit this icy ground, then all of the prosecution's questions that follow would have happened. They say isn't it true that she had no injuries to her head? And La Pazada's like well I'm sure she had bruising but she doesn't know. There's no reporting of bruising. She hasn't seen any reporting of bruising. Prosecution points it out. And once again, this is an example of the expert rather than just answering the question and letting it go, starting to try and change or make things up or assume things to help the defendant. And I think that makes them less credible in the eyes of the jury when they do stuff like that. Prosecution says, so you're saying her head hitting the ground is what caused this. That could cause that. And La Pazada walks right into it. She's like yes, all that force and the weight of the body coming down the head, that's what causes it. But it didn't cause the skull fracture. didn't cause any cuts, didn't require any sutures. There were no dents in her head. Her brain was fine. She didn't have a concussion. She didn't have any brain injuries. No cuts, no bleeding from the head, nothing. That is what the prosecution asks. And then they show a picture of her, the Lindsey Clancy of her head in the bed. And there is no evidence whatsoever of an injury. And it's just one of those things where it's like, maybe that's possible, but it doesn't seem like something that you would expect to happen, just in your common life experience. But Lopasada sticks by the fact that Lindsey definitely had a fall onto her head. And then the prosecution moves on from there. And this was uncomfortable for Lopasada, because what do experts do, they testify. And so the first thing you should do as a lawyer, when you know there's a testifying expert, is you look up all of their past testimonies and see what they said, see if it can help in your case or it's something that you can cross examine them on. And that's exactly what they did here. They pulled up some of her old testimony, also about manual strangulation. So they turned to questions about the children. She said it takes five to 10 seconds for unconsciousness. But in a prior case, the commonwealth said, she testified in 2011, and at first she's like, I don't know what case you're talking about, because they cited like the number. It was her being a little bit cheeky. And so they then got to go into the fact like, oh, you know the mother who manually strangled her daughter. And they're like, oh, go, go, go, go, go, go, yeah, yeah. I remember that case. So in that case, she had testified that a complete compression would lead to loss of consciousness after 10 to 20 seconds. So twice as long is what she's saying in this case. But usually there's a struggle going on and it could be longer because of that struggle, which is interesting because of course, I think we've heard some experts in this case say that the struggle may have actually shortened it. And she had testified in that other case in 2011 that it would take two to three minutes of continuous application to lead to death. So even after the children would be unconscious, it would take two to three minutes of constant pressure to then cause them to die. And La Pousada does the thing that experts do best. She's like, that's a different case, totally different. She says the way the pressure was applied matters. And in that case, the prior testimony, the question wasn't about the method of strangulation. It was based on the presumption that you completely compressed the throat. So it's not clear why it would matter here. Well, she was saying that case was a manual strangulation. So using your hands, whereas here we have a band. Both I think are compressing the throat. So I didn't think this was super effective for her. And she continues to stand by the fact that it would have only taken five to 10 maybe 20 seconds for unconsciousness in this case. But I think the prosecution did a pretty good job of pulling out her previous testimony, showing the length of time that Lindsay had to stay on their throats to cause death because all three children died. They were never able to be revived. It was interesting the prosecution managed to move her basically back to 20 seconds. And the interesting thing about the question, why I thought this was effective. You can imagine a scenario in which manual strangulation with your hands would be less effective than ligature strangulation. So you can imagine that. And that's essentially what she's saying. But that's not the question she was asked. She wasn't asked that question in that last case. She was asked if someone completely cut off circulation. So basically you have a full complete compression case which is what you have here. How long would it take? And she said 10 to 20 seconds. So in the other case, she said, if you have complete compression as 10 to 20 seconds, in this case, she's saying five to 10. The manual versus ligature thing doesn't really matter given the question that she was asked. When you could imagine in that case, someone on cross saying, Dr. you said it would take 10 to 20 seconds with complete compression. Do you normally have complete compression with the manual strangulation? No, that would be the way you attack that there. But her trying to flip it here, I don't think it worked as well. Now of course, Rennington is gonna seize on that because this is what you do in good redirect. You listen to the question. You listen to the attempt by your witness to answer it. And then you give them the opportunity with a friendly question to really lay it all out, which is what they do. And they go through strangulation versus manual strangulation. And basically a ligature type strangulation would work better. And manual might be often on. And so maybe you would be conscious for a little bit longer, different mechanism of injury, which all makes sense. I just don't think it's relevant to the question she was asked. Then we have re-cross. My daughter has saw my notes and she's like, what's a re-re-cross? I had to explain to her and she's like, that's not a word, that's like you're right. It's not a word, but it happened today. Anyway, so first we have re-cross. And this is an effort to just reiterate that the ligature has to be continuously applaud that it's gonna take that two to three minutes of compression to lead to death. Even if you had some sort of unconsciousness at five to 10 seconds, you're gonna have to keep it up, then we have re-re-direct. And on re-re-direct, Reddington basically gets her to say that, well, maybe it was just tied around the kid's throat and left. So maybe she just tied the bands around their throat and left. Prosecution has another this. They get back up on re-re-cross and note that there's no testimony or evidence that anything was tied in a knot and then left around the kid's neck. And points out that it seems absurd that you would just wrap it around their throat and leave them. The prosecution at this point uses the opportunity to get those bands back out, show that that's not gonna work in sort of a physical demonstration to Lopisada, which I thought was really effective and it's consistent with the evidence. If you recall, Patrick tells us how the bands were found around their throat. They were not wrapped around and tied up in a knot tight. That's not how they were. He described it as if you were tying your shoe without doing the bow tie. So you can imagine exactly how this happened. I mean, she took the thing, put it around their throat, wrapped it around, pulled it tight, like you would your shoes, one loop and held it there until the kids passed out. And then eventually she did leave it like that, but I don't think that one tie, like you tie your shoes without doing the bow tie, I don't think anybody's gonna say that that's tied enough to compress the blood vessels sufficiently for strangulation. And this is a failure by the prosecution, 'cause if you don't know how strangulation works, you might think that's possible, but that is not what you see with strangulation. If you've ever seen autopsy photos of someone who has been strangled with the ligature, it is shocking and horrific, what you see, because the indentations on their throats are dramatic because it has to be really, really tight. There has to be a lot of pressure to cut off that blood in those massive arteries, which is what you're having to do. You know, you think of it as they can't breathe and that's part of it, but really the blood is cut off. Lopisada described it as like, you know, tying off a pipe, the blood can't get up to the brain. The oxygenated blood cannot get to the brain and so your brain is dying. And the amount of pressure that you have to put on someone's throat to do that is immense. It simply is not possible that she just tied even a tight knot, which there was no knot, but even a tight knot around these kids started to some left them. That's just not what happened. - And what I think of and you could kind of see it when they did the physical demonstration with the exercise bands is think about an exercise band. It's elastic. And so you have to readjust your hands because when you pull it out in order to get a better grip, you come closer to the middle, right? This is not even like a rope that has no give. And I think about that because you do. Someone asks, you know, why do we have to go through all these autopsies and the specifics of it? Because it shows your intentionality and the process of what you do. So think about a rubber band. When you're trying to pull a tight, especially if someone's struggling, you actually have because it is not a static rope. It is something that's moving. It requires you to fight back or at least move in response to the movement of the band, which I think is something the prosecution should bring out. In terms of how much you have to think 'cause if you're someone who's like a robot or a zombie, going through the motions 'cause you're in the midst of psychosis, you can imagine like I do the action and then I'm done. The kids may have been able to get away, honestly, if she was just a robot. But instead, this was something that was mobile and moving and required, hurt to react to the actual physicality of the bands themselves. But, you know, I don't know, I'm not the prosecution. - And I just want to highlight something you said 'cause I think it's really important. All those people who were like, why do we have to go through the autopsy? Why do we have to go through exactly what happened to these kids? Why do we have to put Lindsay Clancy through this? This is why. And frankly, we needed more testimony on this. We needed less Lindsay Clancy crying in the courtroom and interrupting this testimony. We needed to hear more of this. It needed to be more detailed, more thorough than it was. And you might have missed this because of all the other dramatic stuff that was going on during that testimony. But recall, it was clear from the ligature lines on Dawson's throat that he fought and it moved. So it started in one place. He was fighting and the ligature moved on his throat and created another ligature line, Another pharaoh, exactly where he was. was showed. That didn't happen from, it was Todd and left behind. I just, there's no way that happened. And I don't know if we'll see. And also, if it were one knot, even a child could undo one knot. So we're not looking at some sort of Boy Scout knot where it was impossible to get out of. This is not like the job in a Ramsey case where the Gerot was tight, so tight around her neck that her hair was stuck within it. Right? There was no room to put a hand in there. Guess what? That wasn't an elastic band. That was a hard, right? That had no give. And then one other thing I'll say about this, if I'm the prosecution, I use this as an excuse and rebuttal to either call the medical examiner back or have a new witness and go through this because I think they need to go through exactly what happened to those kids. It shouldn't be a question. It shouldn't be something people are left to worry about. They need to know exactly what happened. And it may not change anyone's view on whether or not she was in psychosis. But I do think if you know exactly what she had to do, it might affect the way you view that. Could she have been in psychosis when she's doing this to her children for the amount of time that it would take, then gets a phone call, returns a phone call, then goes and does the rest. So I think it's all important. And I thought this was a moment for the prosecution that was a little controversial. Some people didn't like it. I thought it was absolutely necessary. They had to do this. And I thought it was effective. I did as well. Guys, if there's one thing you know about us, it's that we are always cooking for ourselves, but mostly for our ravenous children. That's why I'm so glad that our place is a sponsor. Our place makes beautiful high-performance kitchenware design to make home cooking easier, simpler, and more enjoyable. Everything is designed to be multifunctional. So you're not filling your kitchen with single use pans and appliances that only do one thing and that frankly, you're probably never going to use again. And their cookware is made without forever chemicals and has been since day one. It's third party tested to meet global safety standards. These products aren't just aesthetically pleasing. They genuinely perform which is what keeps people coming back. Okay, you guys know I cook every single night of the week. I have too many children who eat too many foods. So we cook all the time. I was a little wary about getting yet another appliance to let me down, but I was influenced. I got the wonder of in pro and oh my goodness. Honestly, it's become one of the most used appliances in my kitchen. It's an eight in one that preheats 60% faster than a traditional oven, which means dinner gets done 60% faster for me. And it cooks up to 40% faster. So meals really happen quicker. It air fries. It roasts. It base. It toasts. It reheats. Proofs. The hydrates and broils all in one compact footprint. And every cooking surface, my favorite part, is made without forever chemicals. Just tonight, I air fried some salmon and then I made homemade fries in the wonder oven pro all in one thing, enough to feed my family of six. Everyone loved it. The kids love the wonder oven pro. And it's easy enough for them to use it. Upgrade your kitchen with our place today. Visit from our place.com/prosecute and use code prosecute for 10% off site wide. That's F-R-O-M-O-U-R-P-L-A-C-E.com/P-R-O-S-E-C-U-T-E and use code prosecute for 10% off site wide. With a 100-day trial, you can try it completely risk free. Does anyone else feel like August is the Sunday of summer? It's the perfect time to hit reset before the autumn rush. And for me, that always starts with my wardrobe. Quince proves you don't need a crowded closet to look incredible. You just need the right pieces. Quince specializes in effortless high quality essentials like ultra soft organic cotton and premium Mongolian cashmere sweaters. They're beautifully tailored, built to last, and transitioned seamlessly from morning meetings to dinner. Quince also has premium stretch denim starting at just $50. You heard me. And with the kind of perfect fit structure and weight you'd expect from a luxury designer brand, I have all of these pieces from their washable silk to their amazing jeans. And I wear them all the time going out to dinner. I even wear them to court. And it makes me feel put together and also like I'm in the highest quality of clothes. Guys, if you see me out, if you saw me at Cramcon, if you see us on the various things we do, chances are I'm wearing one of two things. Either it's a t-shirt, probably some shorts, or I'm wearing something for Quince. Oh, I got a jacket on. That's Quince. Oh, nice button up shirt. Quince. Oh, I got some nice pants. Quince. And you know what? It's August. It's still hot, but I'm looking forward to the winter because I've got my Quince cashmere sweater. And anyone who ever grew up watching Seinfeld knows cashmere is the best. And you can get it from Quince. So, what are you waiting on? Upgrade your every day. Download the Quince app for app exclusive offers, or go to quince.com/prosecuters. Get free shipping on your order in 365 day returns. Nail available in Canada and the UK too. That's Quince, Q-U-I-N-C dot com slash prosecutors. Now, the next person is someone we've heard a lot about. The next person to the stand was Paul Zizel, the psychologist who we know saw Lindsey Clancy in the hospital and apparently has been visiting her as part of the visitor log motion that the prosecution submitted. Now, he says that he knows a lot about malingering. He says faking good and faking bad as he says. Now, he reviewed a government psych test and the opinion was that Lindsey was not faking. She's not malingering. Now, he's a forensic psychologist who practices at the intersection of mental health and law. He's been involved in a thousand cases, which is a lot. I just have to say that's a lot of cases for any expert to be a part of. And he's testified on both sides. This is something that you want to point out because you want to show someone's not just a defense hack or a prosecution hack. And for what it's worth, when I hear someone say that they've been part of like a thousand legal cases, I think you're not a clinician then. You're just a expert. Like, so thank you for what it's worth. At some point, you like become just the testifying expert. And he said these days, he's mostly testifying for defendants, but he has testified on both sides. And he's qualified everywhere. But Nan Tucket. Hey, to get this man a Nan Tucket. I was going to say, I guess Nan Tucket is just really hometown in him. Nan Tucket's such a nice place. Probably nobody ever has any kind of issues in Nan Tucket. They just happy. No mental issues and no mental issues. No depression whatsoever over there. I like this guy. Oh, yeah. I mean, he was very, he's like redding to his bud. So he's literally, I don't know why they talked about the friends. I was like, is this I think maybe they figured the prosecution would bring it up. Yeah, it was really like, and I hired you because we're friends, right? I guess maybe it was to take a sting out of it. But Reddington hires him after Lindsey cries to enthrone life. And so he heads up to go see Lindsey at the hospital on February 4th was when he saw her, which was about 11 days after the murders. He testified as to why Reddington sent him, which is a little bit weird, but whatever. He says that the troopers were there and they're guarding her, but they're in plain clothes and that there's a nurse in the room. I tell you what, Reddington is obsessed with the fact that they would dare to put police officers outside of her room. And I don't get it. It just is it hitting people murder. Like it is nothing else. She's definitely a harm to herself. And you know, once again, you don't know how Patrick's going to react to that. Maybe Patrick's the kind of guy who'd show up and shoot her. He just don't know. So I don't know, but he always focuses on it. He is just all about that. Okay. So he talks about he does a mental status exam, orientation, a time place identity, that kind of thing. She knew who she was, but she was foggy on everything else. I thought this was interesting because this was a good bit after all this happened. February 4th, when he says, it's 11 days later, recall we had that doctor testify earlier about how before they even had taken out the ventilator. In fact, very early on, like the next day, I forget the exact day, they did the whole her writing on the chalkboard thing. And it seemed like at that time she didn't have these issues. But I don't know. It's just he says she was foggy about stuff, but she did remember what had happened. Now this part I thought was interesting. This was a part of the testimony. Then when I heard it, I was like, man, the people who don't at Lindsey Clancy are going to run with this because she's worried about Patrick. She hadn't had any contact with him. I did think this was very good. Didn't have any contact with him since the 24th. And the way he put it was she wanted to call him to see where they were, to see where she was with her and him. I feel like he gave more of a motive right there than the prosecution did. You write like, oh, get rid of the kids because our marriage is suffering. I don't think that's actually the motive. But him saying that I was like, well dang, it sure makes it sound like that. It wasn't a good look. I mean, number one, regardless of why this happened, obviously your relationship is over. You're not going to come back from this, right? Number one, number two, it's just strange that that is her focus, that her thought is, I want to find out where we're at, you know, you can microanalyze all these things. She's drugged up. She's in the hospital, a lot of trauma, maybe psychosis, all these things, but like, remember, right when she wakes up the first thing she's communicated and writing was, do I need a lawyer and am I broken? Not great looks, right? But then you add this in 11 days later and everyone reacts differently, but instead of reacting with, oh my God, does my husband hate me? I have to talk to him. It's so late, where do we stand now? Just, just as it's not great. - And somebody just pointed this out. I thought about this, but I'm gonna give you credit anyway, person on the chat. - No one, so far, has testified about her having some sort of overwhelming emotional reaction, questions, anything about her kids. No one has. - Oh, I don't think she's, from the New York testimony, I don't think she's even talked about her kids. - And I just, I think back to some of these hot car deaths, where someone leaves their kids in the back of the car and their kids die. And it's a total accident, but oftentimes, acts and they're not, you're gonna be charged with at least involuntary manslaughter negligence, something. And the way you see those parents react, it's just crushing, because they're so devastated by this horrific thing they did, you know? Some of them take their own lives. And I realize this is a different situation, but you just don't see it. And it may be her medication that she was on, it may be lingering effects from the psychosis, it may be any number of things. I feel like people would look at this case differently if there had been a lot of recorded, emotional reactions from her about what she did before the trial. We've seen it in the trial. People have pointed out that when very similar things were discussed in her preliminary hearing, when there was no jury in the room, she wasn't breaking down and crying. She wasn't inconsolable, she just sat there. We're seeing it now, convenient time to see it for the first time. May all be perfectly legitimate, perfectly sincere, but the fact that you don't see it before is a problem for her and there may be somebody on that jury who thinks it's a problem and makes forceful arguments about it once they start having the deliberations. The deliberations in this case, they're either gonna be really short or they're gonna go for a while. I think they're either gonna walk back there and they're just all in agreement that she had a mental disease and defect or she absolutely didn't. I think that's the possibility. I think much more likely you're gonna have multiple jurors who take very strong positions and end up being the prosecutors in this case in the defense attorneys and it's just gonna turn on which side it's more convincing and who's willing to give. Because these little things that they're relatively minor in the grand scheme of thing, there may be somebody on the jury who really feels impacted by this. So in any event, she's worried about Patrick, so he decides I'm gonna let her call him on my phone, but I don't actually think it's appropriate. He says he did it 'cause it was a very human thing, but whatever. So they call, put him on speaker phone. He doesn't answer and leave a message. Stop for just a second, you're right. I know he's there to treat or evaluate Lindsay, but inserting yourself in the middle of a very emotionally fraught and sensitive criminal situation is I don't think professional. Yeah, I don't, and I don't let any witness or anyone touch my phone and certainly not to call a potential victim. Yeah, potential victim, a core witness, and what happens? A core witness, right? Yeah, but anyways, they call, they leave a message. Can you imagine if you're Patrick and you got that message, you check your voicemail? And it's not a number you know, so you're gonna check the voicemail. Yeah, and then it's the first time you've heard from your wife since you found her in the snow and then found your three children. So two days later, on the sixth, she calls them again. He was there and they speak. And my question is why isn't all this hearsay? Why does this doctor get to testify about the things he overheard in a conversation between Lindsay and Patrick? Because this is the way hearing the voices is gonna come in. This is not the statement of a party opponent because it's being offered by Lindsay Clancy. It is not a statement made in furtherance of medical treatment. This is not something that happens in one of their discussions, though frankly, I don't know why they haven't had this discussion and he couldn't have just testified to that. It's not something that happened in the furtherance of medical treatment. This is literally he let somebody borrow his phone and he's overhearing what she said. It's not the present mental state because she's not describing her mental state at the time. She's telling Patrick what happened back on the day of the murders. It is offered for the truth of the matter asserted because it's offered to prove that she heard a voice using her own statement. It's getting that in without her having to take the stand. Now the main reason it's not hearsays because the prosecution didn't object. I don't know if this was dealt with in a pre-trial motion type situation. But there's no obvious exception to me that should have allowed this very self-serving testimony to come in from the defendant without the defendant having to take the stand, say it on the stand and be subject to cross-examination, but whatever it comes in any way and this is what she says. First she says that she told Patrick that she loved him and she said that she heard a male voice telling her that she didn't have any choice that she had to kill her children and then kill herself. And the other problem with this is he's not giving as verbatim what she said. We have what we think is verbatim what she said in her own declaration in her legal suit, her civil suit, which gives more detail to this and I actually think sounds much worse for her than this. This is just, she is commanded to kill the kids, she is commanded to kill herself. That's not what she says in the civil suit. In the civil suit, she says, kill your kids so that you can kill yourself, which is a very different statement than kill yourself. To me, I expect that at some point the prosecution is going to try and introduce that statement. I don't know why they wouldn't, but I guess we'll say. - And I will say the lead up to this 'cause we knew that this call happened and this is where the voice was reported for the first time. I will say this doctor talking about how this was him as a human who lent his phone over because she wanted to know where the two were at is horrible for this testimony for the defense because he has shaded what she's about to say. She is worried about where they stand as a couple, as a partnership. - It's a good point. - And then she says this voice came about. So I actually think instead of, and also, let's just say, even though this was never brought up by the prosecution, it was brought up across examination by Reddington, if the allegation is Zyzel is the one who told her to save the voices, you would also see why he would have, he would be wanting to testify that she's wanting to say, this is actually because she's worried about their relationship or whatnot. Either way, I don't think he's a good person to be testifying about this. First of all, it's hearsay. But also, I don't know if the jury's picking up on this, but when I heard it, I was like, oh, this doesn't sound good for Lindsay at all. It sounds like whether it's Zyzel telling her to say this or not, the reason she's saying this is because she's worried about what Patrick thinks about her. - That's a really good point because, I didn't even thought about that, but she survives the suicide. She's future-oriented according to the nurses. She's thinking about the future. She's thinking about what's gonna happen next. She's now worried about her relationship with Patrick. She's just killed their three kids. - But she's got to tell himself. - Yeah, she has to say something. She's got some explaining to do, Lucy, because that's what you come back from. - She's a nurse who was very familiar by this point with all sorts of different psychological issues. She had Googled every single one of them. She'd been to a lot of different doctors. That's a good point. This is a good bit after the murders. She's had some time to think about it. She's had some time for her mind to clear. She's now talking to him for the first time. And this is the first time we ever hear anything about voices. That's a good point. - But he does say that he didn't tell her to say that. And he gave her no suggestions that she should say that. It was just what she said when she taught to Patrick. - So then he goes on to say that he has met with Lindsay Clancy more than 45 times. - Wow. - That's a lot. - Including throughout the trial. He was one of the people going back there. - Right. And he goes through her prior treatment. Notes says she didn't get better. Her insomnia got worse with time and she kept seeking help. And that she had many concerns. She felt numb, she felt this associated and she couldn't feel happy, et cetera, et cetera. We've heard this over and over. And he goes through her treatment history and says that she was, quote, "turned away." Now, he says that hearing voices is part of psychosis. It's not an unusual symptom of psychosis. And that people in psychosis can still do things like drive cars and make calls. And they don't have to appear to be in psychosis. He says that you don't have to always be looking at the unicorn in the corner when you're in psychosis. You don't always have to have crazy eyes, basically. Now, they're not done with the direct yet. But the judge breaks for the day because he realized that they'd been going from more than three hours. - Yeah, exactly. - It's like-- - Well, it's time to go, guys. - We're in the three o'clock hour. And the funny thing about this judge, he doesn't even call for like a sidebar and say, how much time do we have for the day? - Yeah, like, if anyone's got five more minutes-- and you should. Usually you like reach the end of a subject, right? Council, I'd like you to wrap this up here. Oh, yeah. Your honor, I only have three more questions on this point and then we can wrap for the day. That's usually what happened. - Yeah, he's just like, no, I gotta go. I gotta go. - Time's up, that's it. We're breaking. So we broke in the middle of this direct and that's where we are at the end of day, 15. Well, I do have bad knees for those of you who've been enjoying these episodes. I am traveling the rest of the week. So we will not be doing any episodes after Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. Just gonna have to wait until next week for our thoughts. We'll have, I guess, a big, I don't know what time I'm getting home on Sunday but it's a big Sunday night wrap up. - You gotta report on Sunday. You're gonna be coming from far away. - The three days of testimony. We gotta knock it out. - I guess at least we could do one day. (laughing) - We'll power through. Just get a lot of rest. - I was gonna say, when we block off the rest of Sunday. - Yeah, maybe they won't say much. - Well, you know, three days. The veil is the, you know, really fast witnesses. - I literally put in three hours on Sunday. - I'll say this. I don't know how much longer he has. - That's fair. - He's speeding through these experts. - I do agree with you. He's a good defense attorney in the sense that he connects with his witnesses who are the lay witnesses very well. The experts, he, it's just, shall we say, superficial. They're incredibly superficial. He needs to go deeper. He needs to go way deeper with them because this case is made on whether she had psychosis and he is leaving a lot on the table, I think, here. - Yeah, I think he is, and I think we need to know more. And honestly, you know, I think Reddington has done a good job of convincing us that she had postpartum depression. He's done a good job of getting experts to lay out what happens in postpartum depression and then connecting her symptoms to postpartum depression. But when it comes to postpartum psychosis, he's having to do a little switch. And it's something we've talked about. It's not postpartum psychosis. People have this symptom and she had that symptom and this symptom and she had that symptom. And another, she didn't have that, but she had the fourth symptom. He can't do that. So it's more if she had psychosis, could she still do all the things? Could she still drive a car? Could she still talk on the phone? Could she still go to parties? Could she still appear normal? And that's fine. That pushes back on a certain argument of the prosecution, but it doesn't provide the evidence of psychosis. You have to assume the psychosis and then say, if you assume the psychosis, these things don't necessarily contradict that. That's what we're doing, but we're never getting to the proof of the psychosis. And I think that's a little bit of a problem. Now he has, as we've said, the silver bullet of a seemingly ordinary woman murdered her three children. What else could it be? And that's a powerful argument, but it's not really an evidentiary argument. And I don't know if honestly, he will ever have an evidentiary argument. I think it just, you just have to believe, and it may be true that she would not have done this, were it not for psychosis. And this is one reason I think the prosecution's kind of messed up in the way they've approached this, because they haven't given a good believable alternative. They haven't said, and maybe they will, but they haven't said, you actually don't have to believe that, 'cause you could believe that she had postpartum depression, which she actually has symptoms of, unlike postpartum psychosis. And she was suicidal. We know that, because she told every doctor that, and she reached a point where she decided to take her own life and decided to take her kids' lives as well, and that's not enough. And that's your alternative. It's not just a happy, healthy, normal woman, all of the sudden killed her three kids. That's not what you're seeing, which would seem to require psychosis. You're seeing someone who does have a mental illness, but not one sufficient to meet the standard. And they've never made that argument. I don't know if they're going to make that argument, and maybe they just think that's slicing things too thinly, and that no jury would ever buy that. But Reddington's rhetorical point is a powerful one if you don't have any kind of rebuttal. All right, well, this has been fun as always. Would love to hear more from you guys. Please send us some emails. I keep thinking I'm gonna read, I read an email, but I wanna read this one. And then we go for an hour and a half. So many of them I know. And they're so good, they're all so good. Like we had one that was just a harrowing email from somebody whose mother was in the midst of a psychosis was going to kill her and her sister and her brother and she managed to like get to the phone and call her dad. And her dad was able to get home in time and her mom ended up in a facility for a very long time, but recovered and now their best friends. The story she told was just horrific. I mean, that's one I'd like to read. We had one from Dr. Retreat Psychosis and talked a lot about psychosis. So there's a lot of stuff. Maybe one day we'll just have an episode but we read all these emails 'cause they're great. But keep 'em coming because they helped before us. - It'll be a nice, I don't know if it's a break from the sadness. - Well, I mean, look, I think there's something to be said for how many of you have written in about these issues that did not lead to where Lindsey Clancy is. There is hope. - Right. - You can get better, you can find treatment, you can find help out there and that has been a message that you guys have sent us over and over again. And I hope it's one, if you're out there struggling with this stuff that you definitely take the heart, you can get through this. Shoot us an email prosecutor's pod at gmo.com, @prosecutor's pod for all your social media. We're on TikTok, we're on X, we're on Facebook at the gallery. We're on Instagram, find us wherever you prefer to be. If you want to see us record these episodes, join Patreon for as little as $3 a month. If you want to get these episodes early and add free, you can get those on Patreon or Apple subscriptions. And if you like the videos but you want to see them edited, we do those on Substack. And then of course, you get everything we ever do eventually. It just has ads, which I know some of you hate. Thank you guys so much, really appreciate so many new people riding in and talking about how much you're enjoying this. We're glad you found the podcast. We hope that you'll stick around. When this trial is over, this has been a tough one. We've been getting through it together. I know there's a lot of emotions. As we've said before, have a lot of grays with each other. A lot of people have experiences you don't know about. They come from places you can't see. And I think it's good just always treat each other with grays as much as you can, unless it's someone saying the Patrick Clancy did it, in which case, feel free to do whatever you want. Alice, you have anything you want to share before we sign all for today. There are so many thoughts I have to share except, I guess all this is not in reaction to what happened necessarily in court today, but something that has been percolating in my mind a lot for this. You mentioned that there are a lot of women, a lot of people who have this diagnosis, who do not kill their children. And one thing, and I truly don't know how the jury will come out of this case. My thinking on this case, as I hear more in the testimony, is becoming more honed. And I will say it's very different than when we initially started this case. And it shouldn't be a surprise to you guys what I'm thinking here. But one thing I am cognizant of in terms of how this case ends up being talked about and what ultimately happens in this case is I pray this has not become a permission structure for people who are diagnosed or struggling with mental health issues to claim or be told that they've lost agency in all aspects of their lives. I don't know if that's what happened here with Lindsey Clancy. There are still experts testifying. But I see, and this is like a different side of the coin of what we've been talking about, which is like, you're not Lindsey Clancy. You can have postpartum psychosis and depression and not kill your children. But in addition to that, I'm not just saying a permission structure for those who suffer from it to say, now I can do whatever I want. But when you change the dialogue of how you talk about mental health and whether the second you have mental health issues diagnosed or struggles that your agency has been taken away from you, I think everyone loses. Not just the person who may be using it as an excuse 'cause I'm not saying it's necessarily that person who is an excuse. But those around them who tell that person you have no agency, you don't get to be safe around your kids or you've lost all your ability to be a good mother or X, Y, or Z. And then children who I think could potentially be in danger if we allow this permission structure really to exist where you no longer have agency. As soon as we label you with a diagnosis because I think that takes incredible dignity away from most people who do not fall under the Lindsey Clancy umbrella. So that's not said very articulately, but it's something I've been thinking about in terms of where the dialogue and responsible dialogue of this case could end up doing a lot of damage in a way that may be kind of unforeseen consequences of mental health. My favorite part about this podcast is when I'm like, "You got anything else you want to say?" And now it's always says, "No." But, and then she drops some absolute brilliance as she often does. So thank you Alice for that, absolutely true. And I hope you guys will listen to that because I think it's important. All right, well, we'll be back not tomorrow, bro, or the next day or Friday, but we will be back soon to cover what happens in the last three days of this week in the Lindsey Clancy trial. I'll miss you guys. I can't wait to see you again. But until then, I'm Brett. And I'm Alice. and we are the prosecutors. (upbeat music) - We haven't read great. - We have ads, but do you want me to just handle them tomorrow? 'Cause you have to like, travel with more. - How many are there? - I don't know. I didn't open it. Probably a half. - I hate to make you do that. - I'll do it. It's fine. I have, oh, so many. There's like five or six. There's six. I'll do 'em, 'cause I have to do ads for the other podcasts too. - You sure? - I got you. I got you, boo. - It's so great. - We've been recording for like an hour and a half, so. - That's a short one. - There's a short one, but also you have to go pack and travel across the country. I'll do it. - Okay, we don't forget to stop recording. (upbeat music) (upbeat music) - I was surprised at how many said they wanted to be prosecutors and defenders. - Oh, what? - So that's good. They're actually, you know, invested in the-- - Do you think they're saying that to just suck up? - No, I don't think so. (laughs) I mean, if they were sucking up, they would've said they all wanted to be prosecutors. But they were plenty on me when the defense attorneys said, - That's fair. That's fair. (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (beep) - Hello and welcome to Pluto Fo. If you know the name of the movie you'd like to see, just stream it for free on Pluto TV. We're all your bloodbusters favorites are landing all summer long. Catch anchor man, the legend of Ron Burgundy. - Fantastic. The Matrix trilogy. - Welcome to the real world. - Mean girls. - Side off. - Titanic. - I'm the King of the World. - And so much more for showtime. Press nothing. They're free 24/7. - That is so fast. - On Pluto TV, stream now. Pay never.