384. The Lindsay Clancy Trial Part 12

The moment a body is found, the clock starts ticking, 48 hours before the trail goes cold. From A&E and Crime House, this is the official podcast from the famous true crime series, The First 48. I'm Carter Roy. Every Thursday, I revisit a landmark homicide investigation in depth, with long-form storytelling built for your ears. Listen to and follow The First 48 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you listen to podcasts. I'm Brett. And I'm Alice. And we are The Prosecutors. Today on The Prosecutors, the battle of the experts begins. Hello, everybody, and welcome to this episode of The Prosecutors. I'm Brett, and I'm joined, as always, by my expert co-host, Alice. Ah, experts, shall we say. Here's the thing about experts, Brett. You should maybe listen to them, especially if they build your theory of the case. Now, I know you guys have been so patient. You've let three full days of Lindsay Clancy trial go by. Hold on now. Full days? Are we calling these full days? One of those was about 30 minutes of testimony days. Let's be honest. Let's be honest. Okay. Massachusetts days of trial. And you may have thought, I really want Alice and Brett to come back because I just feel like on the last day of trial, we're finally getting the story that the prosecution should have told us since day one. But, Brett, don't we always do this in trial? We say, hide the ball. We say, shock and awe them. Don't let them know where you're going. It's going to be a maze. And then day 18, you're going to be like, and that's how you do it, jury. Is that what you do? Yeah, it's like they were building some sort of J.J. Abrams mystery box out of this trial. Like, we're going to keep you guessing until the very end. We found out what the glass of water meant on day 18. And I was like, well, dang. And yeah, I mean, we've talked about this before. Trials are not dramatic. They're not supposed to be. They're supposed to be pretty boring. People say when you write a speech, you tell them what you're going to say, you say it, and then you tell them what you said. And trials are similar to that. And typically, you lay out your story at the very beginning, and then everything you do from that point forward is supporting that story. And we're getting a little bit ahead of ourselves because we got a couple of days to go before we get to this. But the prosecution on rebuttal is going to call an expert witness who tells a story that is one of the theories we had discussed as a possibility, but is very different from how the prosecution has pursued this case up to this point. And it's very unusual, and it's very strange. And it's not something I would recommend doing that because the jury has been listening to this prosecution attempt to lay out a story that it's not very clear what that story is. But it certainly wasn't one that suggested that Lindsay Clancy really was suffering from mental illness, that she really did try to take her own life, and that despite that, she's still responsible. That is not the story the prosecution's been telling. But their first and most important rebuttal witness, that's the story he tells. And it's not like it is a surprise to them what he was going to say. Yes. We won't do so much preview because there really is a lot to go on. And I will say, this is what we've been waiting for. We've told you that because this case comes down to whether she was in psychosis to the point where she could not appreciate or control what she was doing, it was going to be down. to a battle of experts. And I will say, it hasn't disappointed in the sense that some of these experts are disappointing. But it hasn't disappointed because I will say these experts have clarified a lot of things in my mind. And I hope it's clarifying for the jury as well. So the last thing I'm going to say before we dive into this, and it's going to take us a while to get through this, so we probably shouldn't be talking so much, is you guys often ask us, when you have one expert saying one thing and you have another expert saying another thing, how do you tell the difference? How do you decide who to believe? Actually, I don't know. I actually think this case has some really great examples of how to do that. And we're going to talk about that. Obviously, experts can be sort of confirmation bias machines, where just if you've already made up your mind, you're going to find whatever expert supports your position very convincing. But if you're not there, if you're still sort of on the fence, I think you really can see in these experts how you can judge an expert and decide how much credit to give to their opinion. We were talking about Dr. Zizel when we broke off from day 15. We're now on day 16, and he's still on the stand. And I will say this, this is where things really started to change for me, both in my view of Dr. Zizel and my view of this case. I liked Dr. Zizel. I still like Dr. Zizel. He seems like a nice guy, affable guy, pleasant guy on the stand. But he really starts to get into some of his theories of the case during this part of the testimony. And it was enlightening, to say the least. This is a very good example as you're diving into Zizel, why cross-examination is incredibly important. It's easy to train, and that's what it is, train on direct what you're going to say. But you can see things kind of, in one sense, crumble, but also enlighten for what they really mean, the reasoning behind what they're saying in direct on cross-examination if it's done well. So we're still going through what he describes as Lindsay's healthcare journey. November 29th, she's seeing nurse practitioner Jalada. And at this point, and this was the first time that I saw her, I was like, oh my gosh, this is the first time that I've seen her. And I was like, oh my gosh, this is the first time where I was like, hold on a second, what are we doing here? He talks about her having a derealization. And that's when you don't think the world you're living in is real. I'm sorry, at no point during nurse Jalada's testimony, nurse practitioner Jalada, or any of the review of her records, did that come out that she was having some sort of, she's not living in the real world. And this was the first time that I started to see Dr. Zizel rewrite history, where he starts to take things that happened before, that seemed not that important or relatively minor, and change the meaning of those things to bolster Lindsay Clancy's defense. And when I saw that, I immediately started to take a step back and say, hold on a second, what are we doing here? And why are we doing this? If there's enough evidence to support her psychosis, we shouldn't have to retcon her medical history. We've all heard it many, many times over the course of this trial. And we know, we all know, if you paid attention, that Lindsay, she was a nurse practitioner. She was a nurse practitioner. She was a nurse whatever was actually going on in her life, she's downplaying it to her doctors. So even if she did have a derealization, she's not sharing that with nurse practitioner Jalada in a way that he would be able to tell from the records. So at best, he's taking what Lindsay is telling him post-hoc and just accepting that at face value. And I feel like if you're going to be an independent examiner, you have to at least question some of the things she's telling you. And you'll see this with a lot of these witnesses. Anyway, so we go through the South Shore perinatal, December 2nd, she has suicidal ideations. She's not getting better. She says that she expressed fear that people could hear her thoughts and that her kids would be removed. Now, the people hearing her thoughts thing, this has come up a couple times that I guess she suggested to her mom at some point, or she asked if she could hear her thoughts. I must have missed that. I'm just going to assume that was testified to at some point before this. I feel like that would have stuck out to me, but it's possible I just missed that when they examined her mom. I don't know, but there's that. Now, she doesn't tell any of her doctors that either. And much of this is based on what she is telling Zizel afterwards. December 4th, they call the suicide hotline. She has no plan. December 15th, she calls the suicide hotline again. Once again, no plan. Now, at this point, he says she's having paranoid symptoms of psychosis. And an example he gives of that is that she was afraid her children would be taken away and she wouldn't see them again. That, to me, is the weakest possible example of paranoid psychosis you could have when we've repeatedly talked about how one of the reasons she might not have told her doctors everything she was thinking was because of a legitimate fear that it could result in Child Protective Services taking your kids away. So I don't know how you, once again, retcon this what seems like a reasonable thought into some evidence of psychosis. And it makes me feel like you're having to do that because at no point are you going to give us the evidence that you're having to do that. So I don't know how you're going to give us the evidence we've been waiting for and hoping for that there is some sort of independent evidence of psychosis. At this point, she's on Seroquel, Remeron, and Klonopin. That made her feel like a zombie. She couldn't enjoy life. She couldn't laugh. She couldn't have pleasure in anything. She goes to Mass General ER, doesn't get help. And by December 30th, she goes back to the ER and that's going to lead to the McLean visit. So on December 15th is when Patrick gets involved. He takes her to Rhode Island. Where they complained about the medication to gelata. We'll note though, Lindsay has never said or expressed thoughts of hurting the kids. Multiple times we see that she's maybe said, I have thoughts about not being here anymore or suicidal ideation, but her kids have never entered. It's never been homicidal ideations. On January 4th, she's discharged from McLean to go to her daughter's birthday party. And she had been tapered down off of the Seroquel and the Klonopin, but she still had intrusive thoughts and they don't stop. It's ego dystonic, which is you don't want them, but they keep you from getting through the day. Now, she says that she had voices telling her to kill herself. And they talk about all the things she was looking up on her computer. But interestingly, despite his version of events now post hoc, Lindsay never Googles auditory hallucinations. And he's saying that she now hears voices. But remember, she Googles everything else. She Googles every medication. She Googles even postpartum psychosis, but she never Googles auditory hallucinations. Or voices in her head or hearing voices or anything like that. So we're not being, it's not about semantics. Nothing touches upon anything on hearing voices. Now, they did a scale on her for antisocial personality disorder. In other words, was she a psychopath? And she does not have one of these disorders. And they go through the symptoms of hypomania, like we've heard before, and asks if Lindsay had those symptoms. And she said that she did. Remember, she would say, she had burst of energy and things like that. Now, at the time of the incident, was she suffering from a mental disease or defect such that she could not conform her behavior to the standard of law? So as soon I was listening to this, I was I was like out for a jog. And as soon as that question was asked by Reddington, I was like, well, obviously objection because calls for conclusion of law, which is the ultimate well, I should call for a conclusion of fact. This is exactly what the jury. It has to decide. And I was like, oh, clearly objection sustained. There was no objection at all. Am I missing something in Massachusetts law? Are we allowed to do this? Because this happened more than once. And I was actually shocked because you typically cannot ask the ultimate conclusion because the jury has to then finish the equation. You can give them all the inputs and you lead them right up to the edge of it. But then the instruction is the jury has to decide if at the time of the murders, she was suffering from a mental disease, or defect such that she could not conform her behavior. Remember, this is the whole kit and caboodle. This is why we are in trial. What's strange about this is he gets to answer it. He gets to answer it. And he says, of course, that she was. And what's strange about this is they have objected to other experts on much more minor things where they are testifying to the ultimate issue. And they don't do it here. And the only thing I can figure maybe because they're like, okay, you get to do it for him. So we get to do it for Mac. It's possible they just agreed. I have no idea. There was not even an objection. I've got to think there was an agreement ahead of time because you don't miss this. Right. It has to be because I mean, I did a cursory review of Massachusetts law when this case started just to make sure I did a quick Google because I was like, I am missing something. And it does not seem like Massachusetts law is different from anywhere else. You can testify, of course, to things that touch on the ultimate issue. So I think you could say she had a mental disease or defect. I think you probably could say that even though it's sort of the ultimate issue. I think a psychiatrist. A psychiatrist could say, yes, she was suffering from bipolar one. But when you get to that second part, which is really the ultimate issue for the jury to decide, ordinarily, you can't do that as an expert. You can't tell the jury, this is what you should say. That is typically not allowed. He literally said it like the law reads. So it's not even breaking it down, right? Like asking questions that get to the point like, did she understand what she was doing? Did she appreciate the criminal? Like, you could see how you. It might be sneaky and you get around it. He read it in the way that the standard is written, which I think is probably the jurisdiction. They did the exact. So when they did it with Dr. Mack, I was like, maybe they reached an agreement. And so we just know that there's literally going to be their expert who says no. And our expert who says, yes, that's my best guess. But that's not the way the law should work. And I don't know why the judge allowed it. And it really shouldn't. And the reason it shouldn't is because that's not the job of an expert. It is not the job of an expert to. Tell the jury what they should ultimately decide. They're supposed to be informing them about the science, explaining how the mind works, explaining how psychosis works, explaining the things that were happening to her that are signs of psychosis, diagnosing her with some sort of mental disease or defect if they want to. Because remember, the mental disease or defect in the Massachusetts Code is a legal term, not a medical term. So she could even have a diagnosed defect and the jury could say, OK, fine, she has that medical diagnosis, but that doesn't count for the purposes of the law. We're not going to say that counts. So the fact that they then just read the legal standard out to these experts and have them answered, it doesn't make any sense. And it should not happen. There's no value to that, in my opinion. I think it just messes with the jury in a way that shouldn't happen. But anyways, OK, now we have been very critical of the prosecution. We were critical of them earlier. We're going to be critical of them later. But I will say this. They are in their element on cross-examination. I don't know if they used to be defense attorneys or what, because they studied Zizel. I will say this. They knew Zizel's testimony forwards and backwards, and they knew exactly where they were going to lead him on cross. And they did an expert job, really, of doing it. Because I was already having, as I've said, weird feelings about Zizel. He already gave me like a, huh, you don't seem to make an expert because we're going to get into why it is. I was already getting a, I don't know, man. And then they just dissected him like a frog in sixth grade science class. They really do. And I'll just be honest with you. By the end of this testimony, I felt like I had never seen an expert do more damage to a defendant than he does. So they go through his testimony for the Commonwealth. He tries to say he's on both sides. I didn't really care for this part. I didn't think it was that effective, but he's an independent examiner for some company that works for the Department of Corrections. They argue about whether this counts. He last worked for Suffolk County in 2026. Prosecutor seems surprised by this. Not a great start. Weak start for this cross, I thought. I would have just left that alone. But after that, it starts getting good because we start talking about this relationship he has with Reddington and that he's worked with him a lot. And that they're friends. She talks about the ethical standards and how important it is to be impartial. And they go through a prior report that she was in Tewksbury in July 2025. And he actually wrote a letter, it's going to come out later, about how she needs these sort of accommodations. In 2025, she's stable. According to him, she's ready to be transferred to a different facility. She's ready to be off medication. And that opinion conflicts drastically. With the way he and other experts are going to describe her now. The way they describe her now is essentially, you know, she's suicidal under constant suicide watch. You know, there's somebody with her all the time. And you see this, this 2025 thing, and you wonder what happened, what changed. His last evaluation was June 2026. And he spent a lot of time with her. He talks about how she had been extubated the day before he met her on February 4th. It was actually back in late January, when that happened. He makes a lot of mistakes. That's only interesting because it's typical and normal. And Reddington, as you recall, was going after all these practitioners for minor mistakes in their records. Happens all the time. It's going to happen a lot with him. He talks about how she had already spoken to doctors. She had spoken to psychiatrists. She had spoken to an attorney when he first met with her. He says he performed a mental status exam, but there's no record of it. He did not record that or what he said. Interesting. If it's not in the notes, could it possibly be true? That's what I've been told. Call back to cross-examination of Dr. Tufts. Yes. So he says he didn't do the whole thing because she was foggy about where she was. Now, this is despite the fact that she was with it enough that he let her borrow his phone to call her husband so that she could have a conversation with him. Just doesn't seem consistent with what he's saying. And they talk about this very strange thing that he would give his phone to someone he's supposed to be doing some sort of independent evaluation for so that she can call her husband. She leaves a voicemail. In that voicemail, she says she loved Patrick and wanted to know how he was doing. She was clear and coherent. No mention, obviously, of the children. It's been so long since we've recorded, so I kind of forget if we said this before. But the more I thought about it, the more I, especially during this cross-examination, it was brought out how strange it is that he gives his phone to her. By the way, when I was interviewing witnesses, especially victims, who may also kind of be accessories to different criminal acts, would ask me to use my phone because they don't have access to phones or whatnot to call a significant other or something. The answer is always no. You don't touch my personal phone because, first of all, he's a psychiatrist. Who the heck knows where Patrick is mentally? If you are helping perpetrate some sort of tampering with witness or the fact that there might be a restraining order out there or all sorts of different things, you are getting yourself very personally involved in a way that is not professionally appropriate for this independent medical examiner. And he's kind of like, I did it from a human level. Great. We're all humans, but we also have professional jobs. You're not on the stand as a human. You're on the stand as an expert. And so I do want to point this out because this is not normal, what he's doing, nor do I think it's professionally appropriate. But he does defend it. And not only does he do it once, he does it a second time. So he lets her borrow her phone a second time. They kind of go into this like, how did you know his phone number? And he's like, I don't really remember. It's in your phone, right? Well, the point is she was clear-headed enough to remember his phone number, give the phone number to him. She wasn't in some foggy la-la land where she didn't know where she was because he's having his cake and eat it too, right? She's clear-headed enough to do lots of things, but she's not clear-headed enough to do an entire mental exam, for example. So she does a second phone call. Yet again, she does not mention the kids at all. She just talked to him about voices that she heard that made her do this. And this is a part that really stands out in the conversation. Not only does she not talk about the kids or about remorse or how she is or anything, she wants to know where she and Patrick are, as in the status of their relationship, which was like dumping cold water on me when I heard it. And I hope it was for the jury as well, because this hit me like a ton of bricks, the way that the doctor who first spoke to her by writing said when she said, I'm horrified. Are my legs straight? Is my body broken? And then do I need a lawyer? Do I need a lawyer? Right? This hit me in the same way, because now we're not talking like the day after she's extubated. This is several days later. She's clear-headed enough to be able to call Patrick's phone number two different times. She's talked to lots of people at this point. She is aware that her kids have passed. And I think this is just a very telling insight into where she is and maybe even into a little bit of motive. Just real quick. People have asked this. I think we've explained this, but maybe not. Why? Why? What she said to Patrick isn't hearsay. It is hearsay. It's totally objectionable. There's no exception. The Commonwealth wants this in. That's why they're not objecting. Both sides want this in. So it's coming in. I mean, that's the way it works. And I actually think it ends up being much more helpful for the Commonwealth than it does for Lindsay. So he admits that she had not heard voices since January 24th. So the only time this happened was basically as Patrick closed the door, voices came. But since January 24th, 2023, she has not heard voices. And he said the prior voices, he said, came from collateral contacts. Says that they disclosed the information to him. Who? Chaplain Sheila? I don't know her name. Kavanaugh told him that Lindsay told her the same thing, but that it was after the murders. She may have told her mother, but there's no record of this. And he's like, she heard voices. I've heard from this person. Maybe she told her mom, but there is nothing in writing, no record of her having these auditory hallucinations. And I thought it was very helpful because the Commonwealth, you know, asked like, well, is it, is it common to never hear those voices again? Like they did a good job walking through when you have auditory hallucinations and how long they last. And basically he's like, yeah, you're right. She heard him for about 20 minutes and then they were gone forever. Like, isn't that convenient? Now the Commonwealth brings up that in the records with the providers, Lindsay never called this thing voices. She's, she didn't. Reports over and over were simply intrusive thoughts, not auditory hallucinations or a voice or a man's voice or something telling her something to do. She always, if she had anything to report, it was intrusive thoughts. And she felt like she wanted to die, which yes, but that's different than of course, the voice telling her she had to kill her children to kill herself. Then they go through a bunch of records that he did not include in his report. And of course he says, well, I reviewed them. I just didn't include them, which you're supposed to list everything you review in an expert report. This was a bad point for him because he includes a bunch of records in his report that she then asked him about and he can't tell her anything. And then he's like, well, maybe I perused them. They were really long. Okay. You're, you're bolstering your report with claims that you reviewed a bunch of stuff you didn't review. I'm not saying that's necessarily that unusual, but it's a reason. If you're trying to judge this doctor's credibility and how much face should you put in it? When you hear that, it should give you some concern. You know, that feeling when you finally clean out a junk drawer, that's been bothering you for months. That's what switching to Gusto felt like for my business, payroll, HR benefits, all the admin chaos that has been piling up finally organized into one place. Gusto is online payroll and benefit software built for small businesses. It's all in one remote-friendly and incredibly easy to use. So you can pay higher on board and support your team from anywhere. They make it so easy with automatic payroll tax filing, simple direct deposits, health benefits, commuter benefits, workers comp 401k, you name it. Gusto makes it simple and has options for nearly every budget. They also have unlimited payroll runs for one monthly price. No hidden fees, no surprises. Try Gusto today at gusto.com. And get three months free when you run your first payroll. That's three months of free payroll at gusto.com slash prosecutors. One more time, gusto.com slash prosecutors. Do you ever finish lunch and find yourself reaching for a snack an hour later or notice cravings take over even when you're trying to eat healthy? That's exactly the problem Pendulum Metabolic Daily was designed to help solve. Pendulum Metabolic Daily is a program that is designed to help solve. Pendulum Metabolic Daily is a science-backed probiotic design to support your body's natural GLP-1 response, help you feel fuller longer, experience fewer cravings, and make it easier to stay on track with your health goals. Just one capsule a day with food. Some customers report noticing fewer cravings and more energy in as little as a week, though individual results can vary. Metabolic Daily is a five-strain probiotic, not just one ingredient doing the work, but a system that supports your metabolism, helps keep your energy steady, and helps cut down on sugar cravings. The key ingredient is acromantia, a gut bacterium that helps signal your body to produce more of its natural GLP-1 after eating. That's a hormone that helps regulate appetite and feeling full. Right now, podcast listeners can save up to 48% off their first order at pendulumlife.com slash prosecutors. That's pendulumlife.com slash prosecutors. To save up to 48% off your first order. Again, that's pendulumlife.com slash prosecutors. And get almost half off today. And just to be clear, this is just the standard for all experts across civil and criminal cases. You have a section where you list every single document, like by Bates number, that you reviewed. So that it's like a peer-reviewed article. There's no gotcha moment. It's I reviewed all these things so that you can point out, hey, you didn't review all of these records. Why didn't you review these records? Remember cross-examination by Reddington of other doctors, like Tufts, who didn't have her women and infants report, for example. And so this is relevant. When you don't list it as having been something you reviewed, you didn't review it. And so him kind of backtracking and said he did, does not bathe himself in glory. Now, the Commonwealth points out that Lindsay exercised before there was any issue, because he had said this was hypomania, that she was like exercising all the time. And this was really funny. So she, I guess, did Beachbody, which you can pay for. And essentially, he was like, she lost money on Beachbody. She was never doing it and basically called Beachbody a scam, which like, it was a funny kind of detour on this cross-examination. But again, this is not in his report, but they go into it. Now, he said in his report that she ran a five-mile race. It was a 5K race. So it's more like a 3.1-mile race rather than five miles. But the point was, it's not that it wasn't hypomania, is what the Commonwealth is trying to point out, because she'd been a runner before she was a mom, while she was pregnant with like all three kids. So her running this was consistent with the runner that she was already, rather than an indication that she had hypomania. Then they go through the Zoloft issue and the fact that she didn't take enough pills, because she had like the seven pills and she had to raise her dosage, remember? We thought it was a good point that she made. Again, I will say Zyzell did not bathe himself in glory, because he's like, you never know how someone takes pills. Totally true. Absolutely. We're all trying to figure things out after the fact, but we have these like 0.25 milligram pills and there's seven of them. And on the eighth day, she's supposed to take two of them. So when you have seven pills done and she says, I'm going to increase, the indication there would be that she has an increase. And so instead of saying something like, well, maybe she doubled up earlier or something, he says, she could have another Zoloft that we don't know about. There is zero evidence of this. And this is kind of a dumb thing to speculate about because of the PDMP that exists, because we have records of every time you fill any drug and she hasn't filled another Zoloft prescription for him to do that. So for him to speculate in this way, when it's so easy to disprove him, was not a good tactic for him. But again, it kind of shows his judgment and maybe lack of credibility as the expert. So even though he speculates, oh, she could have another bottle of Zoloft. Zoloft that you don't know about. She took seven days of this and then decided to open up a brand new or old bottle of Zoloft in order to increase the dosage. So then he also says, yeah, you're right. There are, there's no evidence of any prior prescription of Zoloft. So my speculation isn't right. Now in his report, he does say that Seroquel is used for psychotic symptoms, but this is actually just wrong that the Commonwealth is able to point out. Seroquel is for sleep. Yeah. In this case, I mean, he can't be for psychotic symptoms. It was right. It was very much clearly prescribed for sleep. And they also say, and if you were to use Seroquel for psychotic symptoms, it would be a much higher dosage, right? And he admits, yes. And look, this is a very minor point about the Zoloft, but I think it's one to focus on, because once again, I hope everybody's just learning stuff from this trial that you'll use in future trials. The really credible experts are the ones that say things that help the other side. The majority of their testimony obviously is going to help the side that they're testifying for, but they admit to things that help the other side. If you see an expert who is changing their opinion on the stand or just making up stuff to try and make it continue to fit, that's a sign. That's a sign that they are more interested in assisting the side that they're there for than giving the jury an independent analysis. And this was a very minor part of that, but I thought it was an important part, and we're going to see more of it as we go. Now, he goes through this whole thing. about how she was hearing voices before, even though she never told anyone else that. Now, she says she heard other voices before, but not the voice she heard on the 24th. That was a male voice that she'd never heard again and had never heard before. The Commonwealth points out a bunch of other errors. He thinks that she was on Klonopin when she wasn't. He was wrong about her taking Trazodone after Dawson was born. That was when she was prescribed Zoloft, but didn't take it. He got a bunch of dates wrong. He said she didn't get help at various facilities, but the Commonwealth was able to point out no. Number one, there were reasons why she was turned away. And number two, she actually declined inpatient assistance, even though that was recommended to her and opted for outpatient. He diagnosed her as bipolar with psychotic symptoms. He did not review Dr. Resnick's report, which I thought was strange because Dr. Resnick's going to testify next, and he's an expert on these kind of things, but whatever. Interestingly, he identified that in his report. So he put in his own report that he had reviewed that information, but turns out he had not. Once again, bad for him. And this is where the Commonwealth then goes through a bunch of things he claimed to have reviewed and reaching his conclusion that he can't back that up. He basically says, well, I probably just read through them. So this is where the Commonwealth, I just thought, just blew it out of the water. I mean, just amazing work. Because they say, well, did you review all her records from while she's been hospitalized? It's like, well, yeah. And he says the exact number, of pages or whatever. I mean, he does this sometimes where he tries to show just how knowledgeable he is. He'll some random factoid about the case. He'll throw out as if that matters. He knows exactly how many pages are in this report, but apparently he doesn't know what the Commonwealth is about to ask him about because they are going to go through some very important dates. They point out that on Callan's first birthday, remember he was about, I guess, eight months old when he was murdered. The records, indicate that Lindsay had dinner with her mother and was playing games with her on Cora's next birthday. Similar day where everything seemed normal on the one year anniversary of the deaths. She was pleasant and playing on her phone, which I guess she had in the hospital. And she also was playing dominoes with some of the other inmates. And what's so interesting about this is the hospital is on constant suicide. Alert for her. They're thinking these are going to be some really bad days for her. We better really pay attention to her behavior. But what they see from her is her doing these ordinary fun things. You know, it's the anniversary of the murders. It's Callan's birthday and she's playing dominoes. I mean, that's just that is a terrible breaking down in tears, not, you know, refusing meals, not refusing to see people really almost like no change in affect at all, which even he admits, like, those are really big days that you should be on high alert for someone to. I mean, think about it. If anyone's died in your life, our anniversary is hard. Yeah, of course they are. Certainly when it's like four months after the murders and it's your baby's first birthday. And once again, you know, we talked about how unusual it was that the very first thing she mentioned was she wanted a lawyer. And plenty of people said, look, maybe she was in shock. Maybe she was still under the medication. There's going to be all sorts of reasons. Perfectly legitimate arguments. But I just want to repeat to everyone what the theory of this case is. The theory of this case is that she was taken over by a mental breakdown, a voice that wasn't there that controlled her like she was a puppet with strings attached. That's how it's going to be described later on. And then she beyond her control in a fit of psychosis, brutally murdered them. I would think that a year later, a year after enough time has passed where she no longer believes that. And it is very difficult, I think, for most people out there to accept that if you did this horrible thing and had no control over it, that seemingly at no point afterwards do you show any emotion about it other than when the jury is present. That's the only time you seem to show any emotion about what happened is when the jury is present, not when the jury is present. And no one's watching except for the hospital people. And you're playing dominoes with other people in the hospital. And he doesn't know about any of this. And they go through each one. Did you know this? No. Do you know this? No. They walk through every single one of those birthdays that's passed since. That was brutal for him. Brutal. Brutal. Every anniversary of the murders. And they list exactly what she did on each one of those days. The hospital is always ready for some sort of escalation. They're always concerned about suicide attempt. But it never happens. Each day comes. Each day goes. There's no breakdown. No descent into depression. There's no indication that she is even particularly upset. She scrolls her phone. She hangs out with her parents. She has dinner. She plays dominoes. That's what she does on these days. They ask him if she knows whether she slept well in those days. And of course, he doesn't know. And so that part of the cross is doubly effective in the sense that those are facts for the defense, right? We didn't know about this ahead of time. So they got to bring out really, this does not make Lindsay look great. But secondarily, this is supposed to be their expert who just gave you the ultimate issue of fact the jury is supposed to say. And he claims to have read these and clearly had no idea what was in these records. So it's not only really bad for the defense's case in terms of the facts, but it's disassembling their expert to look like a that among the medical professionals, there's something called confirmation bias, right? He's like, yes, it affects clinicians as well, because the goal is to render an objective opinion. So you want to fight against confirmation bias and that you can have issues that don't necessarily arise to this mental disease or defect, right? Like you could have these issues and just not necessarily meet that level of the legal standard, right? And he says, yeah. And so they go, okay, well, you're being brought in as an evaluator to see if she has this mental disease or defect, right? And to see if it affects her ability to conform with the law. But one of the things that leads to confirmation bias is if you have multiple different relationships with the patient, right? Like if you're treating them, if you're their therapist, if you're their friend lending them to your phone, and if you're their evaluator. And he's like, yeah. And that's why you usually don't treat someone as a patient while you're evaluating them so that you can avoid bias. And he agrees, by the way, this is not exactly the same thing, but this is why you're not supposed to say, for example, if you're a doctor, operate on your own child, things like that, right? That's not exactly confirmation bias, but like when certain lines are crossed or you see them in a different way, it can affect how you treat them or how you evaluate them. And so they did a really good job of kind of dissecting this and having him agree that yes, confirmation bias is a thing that you can avoid and you try to avoid. So they're like, so it's kind of weird if you evaluate someone and treat them, right? He goes, yeah. Yeah. That's right. You shouldn't do that. But this is strange since he sure seems like he's treating Lindsay Clancy. For example, he met with her an awful lot of times for just being an evaluator. Was he the one who met with her like 200 times? 65? Two numbers are mixing up in my head right now. He met with her. He spent 35 hours with her. 35 hours. Okay. I can't remember if it's 65 different times or something like that. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. In one or two times, right? When you treat someone though, you would see them a lot of times. And let me just say, being involved in a lot of cases with psychiatrists, death penalty cases, cases about whether someone's competent to stand trial, cases about whether someone's insane, cross-examined experts on these issues. And one of the things we always cross-examine them on is the fact that they only spent 45 minutes or an hour with the patient. Because that's typical. And what they say whenever we do that is they say, well, that's actually pretty standard. That's about how much time. I didn't need any more time than that. I don't know that I have ever seen a psychiatrist who spent more than two hours with a defendant. And that includes death penalty cases where they are trying to keep this person from being executed. I don't know that I've ever seen that. This is an extreme amount of time that he spent with her. And it was about 35 hours. Someone corrected me, but 200 times was the chaplain, Kavanaugh. That's right. That number shocked me as well. But he met with her, I think, in the 60s time, but it was about 35 hours. So still, I mean, this is factors more than we've ever seen, even in the death penalty cases. Now, so he's kind of like, yeah, but she's not my patient. I am the evaluator. I'm the expert in this case, blah, blah, blah. But then the Commonwealth comes with their receipts. They note that he authored and signed a letter to this very court asking for accommodations for Lindsay, where he referred to Lindsay as, quote, my patient, Lindsay Clancy. Now he stumbles around on this one. He tries to like play with semantics here. He's like, she was a patient who he did a forensic evaluation of. Doesn't mean she's my patient. Now this comes off as completely disingenuous by him because everything he's described actually leads you to believe that in fact, he was treating her like a patient. And by the way, I hope the jury's hearing this and thinking, how stupid do you think we are? Because it would honestly be easier if he said something like, well, she is my patient in the sense that I'm evaluating her. So she's under my care for the time that I'm with her. Something like that. I don't know. But I feel like that's playing with semantics in a way that if I were a juror, I would. I would feel like I'm being talked down to. Now they go back through the APA guidelines and how you shouldn't be doing what he's doing. Lending you your phone, talking to her for 60 times just to evaluate her. And it appeared with Reddington throughout this legal proceeding. So he's like next to him during the news conferences, those sorts of things, right? He's not just some independent evaluator. Now he's been there for her during meetings with Reddington. I guess he'd have to be an expert. In order to not break the attorney-client privilege there. He's basically on the defense team. He's basically, that's a great point. He's on the news conference. He's standing next to Reddington. He does an interview with Daily News about her. Much more than your typical independent. Now, again, not only do they bring this out, but the Commonwealth plays the news conference. Ziesel and Reddington, they're standing side by side. It's hard to hear on the television what he says, but it's obviously in support of Lindsay. And these are lengthy statements. They had met with her. He had met with Lindsay on two occasions at that point. He says maybe three. He had none of the records that had been presented, but he was already out there stumping for Lindsay Clancy. And he had none of the records listed in his source of information. And yet his testimony now is entirely the same as it was when he spoke at the press conference, which should make you doubt him as an expert. That's why they're bringing this out. So he's actually doing the work of interviewing her for 35 hours and going through all these records that he didn't actually know what they said, did not change his views at all, because he'd already been on the news conference. And so Lindsay made his views at the very beginning of the case, as he told everyone on TV. And they talk about how in psychosis, you can still do things that you do every day. It's an automatic response. And on that day, Lindsay took Cora to the doctors, and it was for a stomach ache. She was able to get a prescription for her and all the things she didn't do on each day. It was just a regular day. So this doesn't mean anything. She could still be in psychosis, despite building snowmen, taking her to the doctor, calling CVS, calling 3V. And he said that she masked the symptoms. So wouldn't that take an amazing amount of control? And he says it depends on the level of psychosis. You'd think one where you are commanded to kill your children would be up there with the level of psychosis where you would have difficulty controlling your actions and masking. Yet, remember, she returned that phone call to Patrick within milliseconds of him calling. And he notes that, she never acted on the, quote, other voices. And he confirms that's right. So that's the end of the cross. Then we have redirect. And Reddington tries to get him out of this confirmation bias hole that he's in. He uses a ballistics case. He says, hey, you got a really difficult ballistics case. Well, if you called an expert and said, I really need your help or send an email saying I really need your help, that might be the kind of thing that would cause confirmation bias. Very strange example for Reddington to use, because that's exactly what happened here. He had a very difficult time. He had a very difficult case. He calls his buddy. Zizel gets a court order so he can get in to see Lindsay. And now he's on the team. I don't understand what he was trying to do with this because it just kind of confirmed the bias to me. And then he confirms that you got involved because of my request to you. And he says, yes. Then he says, and because you had compassion for her, because this was a woman in extreme distress. I have no idea what he's trying to do here. Look, that might be her. And have her as a patient and try and help her and try and help her get better. Those are all reasons to do that. But it is not a reason. And it's not appropriate for you then to come in and say, I have an independent medical judgment of what her state of mind was. It's crossing the lines, just like the Commonwealth said. And that's what's wild. The Commonwealth built this whole trap for him to fall into. And not only did he fall into it, but now Reddington seems to be throwing him back in the trap. I don't know. Maybe that will make the jury say, what a compassionate guy. I want to believe him. That's possible. But if they're really paying attention, I think they'll see the problem. As we said, he did see her 60 times before the report was done. 35 hours. He does stand by his opinion. He goes through the recommendation that he authored. It was that she shouldn't be in handcuffs, that she'd have people there for her. Now, this might be an entirely appropriate recommendation for him to write if she were his patient. It might even be an entirely appropriate recommendation for him to write in any event. Why they just didn't get another psychiatrist to write that recommendation so that this wouldn't come up, I don't know. That would have been better. Just get an independent doctor to do it. Then you don't have to worry about it. As it is, it seems like he's an advocate for her. So they have a break for some reason that's not clear. Happens a lot. Reddington is back. He asked him more about confirmation bias. Does the period of time matter? He says it depends, which of course it does. He has to say that. But he does say you maintain healthful boundaries. Tries to downplay the excerpts from that 7,001 pages of medical records. And I mean, he tries to do that. He tries to go through other days. But the problem is those other days don't matter as much as the ones that the Commonwealth pointed out. And he continues to try to say it, save it by saying there's nothing strange about Lindsay having nothing wrong with her on those days. You know, she has to eat. You know, she's meeting with her parents. They're trying to help her feel better about this. I mean, whatever. I mean, he says all that. And of course that's true. And we'll just, we'll see how much of an effect that has on the jury. Zazel says that she has bad days and worse days, which just isn't consistent with the records. I'm sorry. It's just not. I mean, you can say that, but it's not consistent and it's not even necessary. And this is the thing. They're doing all this stuff to try and bolster her argument that to me undermines it because it's undermined by the records themselves. He says, that she thinks of her kids every single day. And all I can think was, was she thinking about them while she was playing dominoes? The dominoes thing, for some reason, just really stuck with me that she was playing dominoes on one of those anniversaries. I don't know why. And this is the thing we often say this. Because it's a social event and it's not even fun. Like something about it being so. Dominoes is fun. What are you talking about? Sorry. The fact that she's doing it with other people. Like, I just, I don't know that there's something so. Inane about it. And I get it. Everybody handles grief and everything else differently. Totally fine. She's on trial for murder. She's trying to prove she had a psychosis for which there don't seem to be many symptoms. We really need something. I keep telling people this. I need something to grab onto. I cannot just continue to rest on faith that she had psychosis and she's completely broken up about this. And she obviously is not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. I want some proof. I want something to point to. If, for instance, those days came and she just locked herself in her room and she was really under tight suicide watch because she was so devastated by it and she just couldn't even think about it. That would have meant something to me. I would have been like, okay, that makes sense. That fits with the theory the defense is trying to give us. But the problem with this case is when we actually talk about facts, not about what's possible. It's possible that psychosis exists in certain circumstances. It's that you can mask psychosis in a way that no one would ever know. It's possible you can do ordinary things, including kill your children under psychosis and answer a telephone call from your husband while you're doing it under psychosis and mask it. It's all possible. That's what I keep getting. It's possible. But whenever we get to actual facts of things that happened, all I'm seeing is stuff that supports the prosecution's theory. I'm not seeing facts, actual facts that support what the defense is telling us. Reddington pulls out his wish vase again, which he's done sidebar that gets objected to and the redirect ends and we go back to recross. You're listening to this podcast, so I know you've got a curious mind. Here's a helpful fact you might not know yet. Drivers who switch and save with Progressive save over $900 on average. They make it super simple. Pop over to Progressive.com, answer some questions, and you'll get a quick quote with coverage options tailored to your needs. Plus, you'll see which discounts you may qualify for, like the online quote discount or savings for paying in full. In fact, 99% of Progressive Auto customers earn at least one discount. See if you could save when you switch to Progressive. You'll feel good about making a savvy choice. Visit Progressive.com and see if you can enjoy a little extra cash back. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates, national average 12-month savings of $946 by new customers. who saved with Progressive between June 2024 and May 2021. 25. Potential savings will vary. Running a business means you're always reachable until you're not. And the moment you miss that call, that text, that follow-up, a competitor is the one that picks it up. That's why today's episode is brought to you by Quo, spelled Q-U-O, the business phone system built so you never miss an opportunity. All your calls, texts, and voicemails live in one place so anyone on your team can pick up a conversation, see the full history, and respond fast. That's why Quo is the number one rated business phone system on G2, trusted by over 90,000 businesses who rely on it to stay reachable and look professional every day. And you can set it up in minutes on any device. Keep your existing number and add teammates as you grow. No IT, no hassle. Money is on the line. Always say hello with Quo. Try Quo for free. Plus, get 20% off your first six months. When you go to Quo, dot com slash prosecutors. That's Q-U-O dot com slash prosecutors. So then on Recross, I thought this was very effective and kind of cut to certain things about how extraordinary and out of the ordinary his actions are to Lindsay Clancy. They ask him, how many defendants have you spent 35 hours evaluating? He says, one other. And they say, okay, well, how many defendants have you spent 35 hours evaluating? He says, one other. And they say, well, how many have you testified that you cared deeply about? He also said, one other. Then they say, okay, how many have you given your personal phone to, to make a call? He says, none. How many have you gone back into the lockup to check on? And he also says none since he was sequestered, which doesn't really make sense. Yeah. Why would he be sequestered in any of these cases? He's an expert. He's an expert. You're not sequestered. Look, he's like sitting next to them in the news conference. He's part of the defense team. And that's typically the experts are separate from your lay witness. So that doesn't really make any sense here. Now, the prosecution has like an extra dig. They note that Reddington's gun ballistics hypothetical, fantastic, fits perfectly in this case. So again, that was a very bad example for Reddington. Don't know why he brought that up. But here, they also note to him, isn't it true that Lindsay constantly calls this situation, quote, my tragedy, not our tragedy, not the kid's tragedy, not a tragedy, but my tragedy. So again, kind of focusing on the, this is all about her situation. Then Reddington direct and says, well, she has had suicidal ideation at Tewksbury, right? Yes. And she's constantly on one-to-one review, right? Yes. And they ask why Zyzel goes back to see Lindsay in lockdown. He says, well, to see if she's competent and stable. So like, she's so delicate still that this is something that he has to continue to go back and see her on. So on re-recross, they ask a really simple question. Has she ever tried to harm herself despite what they just said? She has these suicidal ideations at Tewksbury. And he says, no. So that's the end. And I will just tell you, look, I try and be like a good juror. Good jurors not supposed to make up their mind until all the evidence comes in. But sometimes there's a witness that is just so bad for one side or the other that you're just like, how do you recover from this? And he didn't see it, which is partly why it was so bad, which is actually pretty surprising because it seems like he's done this a lot. He's an expert a lot. He works with, maybe he's only done small potato cases, but it was actually shocking how unaware he was how bad it was for the defense. By the time he was done, I was sitting there thinking, maybe she's a psychopath. Maybe she is a narcissist. And maybe Zyzelle's in love with the psychopath. That's what I got from this. This is what I got from this. He basically opened my mind to things that I was absolutely convinced weren't true. And after about an hour, I was like, no, none of that's true. But that's how bad it was. It was so bad that I was like, maybe these people are saying she's like this crazy narcissist or right. I mean, the things he was saying, the things he testified to, the my tragedy thing, the way she acted on those days. I don't, by the way, I don't actually think she's a psychopath. I don't think she's a narcissist, but my theory of this case is starting to develop. And I will just say this, when he finished, the one thing that I felt pretty sure about is there is no voice, period. You know, up to this point, we had discussed this case as you have to think about, she hears the voice. Is she able to resist the voice? If she can resist the voice, then she's still guilty. If she can't resist the voice, then she's not guilty. So people criticized us for that. I'm just going to note that in a second, the next defense witness is going to describe it exactly like that, but I'm not rubbing it in or anything. By the time this finished, I was like, there's no voice. The voice at best in my mind is her way of rationalizing what happened and him trying to say that her prior intrusive thoughts were voices is what made me think that because I was like, he is completely making that up. And if she told him making it up, she didn't Google voices. She didn't write in her journal about voices. She didn't tell anybody about voices. She was not hearing voices before January 24th. And the fact that either she's lying about that or he's lying about it made me think, you know what? There was no voice on the 24th. Doesn't mean she's not suffering from mental disease and defect. Doesn't mean that. But in my mind, at that point, I was like, there's no voice. There's no voice. This is just like they're trying to retcon the previous intrusive thoughts to be a voice. They're doing the same thing here. And we're going to have another expert who I thought did a better job of defending the voice, but there's going to be problems with that as well. But this expert was the worst expert I've ever seen for a defense attorney. And I, Reddington would have been so much better off not calling him. Frankly, by the end of the defense case, I was like, y'all should have just rested. You shouldn't have even called a witness. Like, here's why I think he was so bad because Reddington was too in his friendship to see how bad it was. And he was too emotionally invested from the very beginning. Cause he, maybe it came from a good place with all of these press conferences. I was like, I'm fighting the good fight for maternal wellness, maybe all those things, but it completely wiped him from the actual facts in this case. And that's why he was a terrible expert. He might actually be a good expert in another situation, but he was way too personally. We've said this all the time. The reason we can't get personally involved with our victims and our witnesses is because then we become very bad prosecutors. And I think he became a very bad expert either because he and Reddington can't see past their friendship or their like, I don't know, personal love of the greater issue to actually see the facts before him. He was not evaluating Lindsay Clancy. He was evaluating, I don't know, maternal mental health and trying to be something that was bigger than this case. But the problem is he was supposed to be an expert for the Lindsay Clancy case. And I don't think he was. So the next part of this, I know some of y'all been looking forward to this, but it is such a sideshow that we're not going to spend a lot of time on it because it doesn't matter. And I don't even know why we did this. So we have the Vordire, Vordire, I like saying Vordire, Vordire, Vorear D. Ray of the TikTok nurse who worked at McLean. Which by the way, real quick, just to clarify the Latin, Vordire means the jury's not hearing this. It's French. Is it Latin? Oh, I thought it was Latin. Maybe it is. I actually have no idea. Whatever. The not English word Vordire, this means the jury, it's not in the presence of the jury. And remember that motion where the defense asked to allow this TikToker to testify? The judge wants to hear the testimony ahead of time to decide whether she should be able to testify, whether it's relevant, et cetera, et cetera. And so all this means, because we usually have Vordire for the jury where you question the jury, this is questioning of the potential witness outside of the presence of the jury. So everything you're hearing, the jury is not hearing. So she lives in York. She summers on Cape Cod because she's spoiled like that. She says that. She literally says, cause I'm spoiled like that. She owns her own therapy practice and she worked on admission building first floor at McLean. She knows about the case based on what she watched before she was sequestered, which I didn't believe that. I think she knew a whole lot about this case. She watched the live stream up to that point. She was interested in the case. She got into trials with Karen Reed, which I think surprised no one. She was there for 14 to December, 2021 at McLean. She was a mental health specialist and a counselor on the floors. And then she became a clinical therapist. She worked on the same unit as Lindsay Clancy, but not at the same time she was there. She worked days and evenings at night. There are three mental health specialists, a nurse on each North and South floor with a floater as well. Lindsay was in South with 23 beds. The law mandates that a certain number of doctors are present. McLean might go higher. She's not sure. And the staffing she says has not changed since she left. Would know that she talks about watching Patrick's testimony. Reddington says the Commonwealth really talked up McLean, how great it was. And she did a tick tock because she was very emotional and she felt like what was said did not align with her experience. She says there's not individual therapy on the unit, says that you do see a doctor, but on weekends and holidays, it is one doctor seeing all the patients. Doctor is seeing 23 patients. None of which means, I mean, look, can we just be clear here? McLean's like a really well-respected facility. Lindsay Clancy was getting whatever care one would expect to get at a really good mental health facility in America. Maybe that's not great, but that's what she was getting. So any notion that it was somehow substandard, it wasn't. So, but we went through all this anyways. She felt like it was misleading. She talked about the clay they use, which is model magic. There's a lot of coloring. There's music in Mandela's. Patrick apparently was disgusted by the level of care that was offered to her. And she was upset at how misleading she thought it was. And that's why she did the tick tock. Now, she didn't know that there's very minimal family contact so it's not unusual that families wouldn't be getting updates which makes you wonder how patrick knows exactly what's going on there and the updates don't come in over the weekend she says she left because i love this so the whole thing we're talking about here is how during holidays there's nobody there and like how could she even get care during the holidays why did she leave why did she leave mclean because she didn't get many holidays off i mean you can't make that up so what it's so she's also she's also completely self-unaware where she can say something like i'm just spoiled like that who says that under oath gosh i know anyways so that's that's the direct and by the way this is all he's trying to get the judge to let him call her in front of the jury none of this is in front of the jury the jury doesn't hear any of this that's what we're doing right now and i can tell you before this cross-examination which points out all the reasons she shouldn't be a witness i don't know why there was a voir dire it seemed like it was very obvious when this motion was argued both of us were like no of course she shouldn't be letting she wasn't there at the right time and this is not relevant and she's some tiktoker the only reason she knows this is because she's watching the same trial we all are but he has this voir dire which is why we have so little testimony during these three massachusetts trial days because we waste time on things like this so the cross-examination they point out that she's an all-virtual counselor in other words she treats people by television shall we say and she did this and she doesn't typically work on weekends and she said there was red green and blue are like the teams but there was also another floating team but in each team there were four psychiatrists and four therapists total so she said in other words one of eight and she reports up to the psychiatrist by the way and then there's a legal argument that the attorneys do that is not asking her direct questions so reddington's like she's qualified she has experience of this very unit that lindsey was in and she's not asking her direct questions and she's not asking her direct questions even if it's not the right time that she's there and she knows about the staffing and she can contradict prior suggestions that mclean is this great and wonderful facility and then the commonwealth says well the best evidence of what lindsey was provided is the record from mclean the documents that list who she spoke to and when and what she did during her days there not some tiktoker who stopped working there months before lindsey ever got there doesn't actually know who treated her and can just general i mean she just sounds like a disgruntled employee to me like why this disgruntled employee why another not another one so the judge ultimately rules i think correctly that this tiktoker cannot testify under rule 403 he goes so far i guess to make her feel good she's like i find her credible i don't but whatever but that's not enough because it's not just if someone's credible you have to have materiality and like relevance here and she just has limited value because there's a risk of confusion to the jurors since she didn't treat lindsey she just has limited value because there's a risk of confusion to the jurors since she didn't treat lindsey she wasn't there at the same time she can't actually speak to these precise conditions from when lindsey was there but they do have the records that can talk about her time there and that is more accurate she hadn't worked at mclean for a year by the point that lindsey came and by that point there's different personnel and so she has limited value for her testimony now they do submit records on staffing and programs and whatnot and that's going to be sufficient to to show her time at mclean and the jurors can decide for themselves whether that was good care or not so that's the last witness of the day probably because reddington doesn't have another witness available which we do find out later i think it's because his expert has been sick that's probably why just another example once again we tell you this all the time ignore the clickbait ignore the like screaming headlines not because people are hanging out with their wives or whatever no people are like oh there's gonna be a mistrial they're discussing a mistrial and like all this other stuff and come on guys it's always something ordinary and boring and it wasn't this case honestly if i was a prosecution i would have withdrawn my objection and been like let her speak let her speak she sounded she was not even well spoken yeah it would not have been good for them so i have these running lists of pieces that i've always been hunting forever because they're just at such high prices i can't quite bring myself to buy them whether it's just the perfect dress from tuckernuck or honestly these football jerseys that my kids want but they're so expensive i think and i think and then all of a sudden they're gone from online i can't find them anywhere until i found them on poshmark for way less than what i could get them for anywhere else i have to tell you guys about poshmark because i love it poshmark is the leading fashion resale marketplace shaped by real people and real style millions of new and pre-loved items from daily wardrobe staples to vintage and luxury fashion archive worthy pieces you thought you missed forever to current essentials and one-of-a-kind vintage finds it's all there and when you're ready for a closet refresh you can even earn money by selling the pieces you're ready to part with reaching more than 80 million users on the platform recently i had this beautiful leather bag that i've been looking for for so long but i could not stomach the full price and i kept looking and i finally found it and i'm like oh my god i'm gonna buy it i'm gonna buy it i'm gonna buy it and i finally got online and i saw it oh my goodness it was the most beautiful bag and i'm so glad i found it on poshmark for a fraction of the price it was still being sold in stores you can find out what i'm talking about at poshmark new deals and styles are listed every day so don't wait download the poshmark app and use code prosecutors when you sign up to get ten dollars off your first purchase or shop now at poshmark.com slash prosecutors and get ten dollars off your first purchase that's p-o-s-h-m-a-r-k.com slash prosecutors all right ladies can we normalize the fact that your period deserves better than dry toilet paper if you've ever wished you could take a shower in the three minutes you've got between zoom calls get a tushy bidet quick gentle refreshing and exactly what you want when you're not feeling your best and let's just say it it's also awesome for new moms because you can really take care of yourself while you have a newborn with the tushy bidet i got the tushy bidet and i thought what am i going to do with a bidet and now i cannot live without it it was so easy to install it it looks just like it's part of my bathroom you can't even tell there's something extra but when you sit down it is like being at a spa because the cleaning experience is way better compared to traditional toilet paper i can't believe i ever didn't have the tushy bidet tushy bidet transforms your bathroom wellness for life gut to butt to bowl a game changer for periods postpartum recover ibs constipation or just feeling fresh in seconds after a workout tushy brings the comfort of clean instantly warm water to your everyday routine give your body the care it deserves for a limited time our listeners get 10 off their first bidet order when you use code prosecutors at checkout that's 10 off your first bidet order at hellotushy.com with promo code all right so now we move to day 17 and you know i was gone and i was worried i was like man how are we gonna fit all this in it's gonna be a long episode well what was this like 30 minutes it was 30 minutes like literally 30 minutes of testimony i think i even texted you was like did i did my feed go dead yeah so day 17 is sheila cavanaugh and let me just say that i'm not going to be there's been a lot of comments about how she presents and that's really that's important it's not one of those things that doesn't matter jurors pay attention to that kind of stuff and i don't think it's being mean or inappropriate to say that she did come off i don't know what the right word is i mean it was it was it was just a strange experience watching a strange affect no one way she talked no one has presented the way she has right it was just very different and maybe it's because of her position i don't know but it was just very different people pointed this out from the very beginning when she's like spelling her name it was just this is going to be a strange one it was very interesting because there was an affect of again i'm trying not to be mean because everyone will present differently and i do think the jury is going to pick up on this unlike every single other person who's testified first responders family members friends experts she presented very much like she was speaking like a kindergarten teacher to the jurors yes that's a great way to put it very very unkindergarten subject and so i think there was this really big mismatch because it was like talking as if you were talking to a child but about horrific things and it came across the way it did for me these very serious subjects feeling like i'm being spoken down to as if i'm stupid and you're somehow better than me but i kind of sniff out the things you are saying do not match up to me but the way you're trying to say them to me makes me feel like you're trying to pull the wool over my back and i'm like i'm not going to do that i'm not going to do that that's the affect that i got yes i think that's a great way to describe it very condescending in a lot of ways and she's a very impressive person she's board certified chaplain at brigham at women's she's you have to study how to be a counselor she went through a lot of different education and she is board certified she's a former vp at fidelity she has her ecclesiastical certification from cardinal sean o'malley she went to meet with lindsey on january 25th between 8 30 and 9 30 in the morning this was very weird because she was a board certified chaplain and weird, very weird testimony. She talked about how the unit was filled with law enforcement officers of course it was she had to make her way through what she called concentric circles of law enforcement lindsey could not speak at the time because she was dressed in quote medical armor just the way she talked was and she works in the hospital which is why it's so interesting like it wasn't medical armor she was intubated because she had cut her throat like to call it medical armor was such a interesting choice of imagery so she saw her again the next day and she saw her again on tuesday january 31st by this point she had been extubated and she could speak and she is this is going to be the first time the voice comes up her emotional state was neutral she had a flat affect and the first thing she said was apparently i am so glad my children are safe that's apparently the first thing lindsey clancy said to this chaplain at this point i don't know okay so and the chaplain responded yes they are safe in heaven with god and they prayed for them and i guess their souls and at this point she says that lindsey alluded to hearing a voice i didn't understand why she put it that way i mean did lindsey say she heard a voice or not and the voice told her this is what she alluded to that if she did not follow the command neither she nor her children would be safe and i just want to point out what the voice said and what lindsey says the voice said to various people is different so as you know one is that kill your children so you can kill yourself that's one description of it that's what's in the civil action that lindsey filed and it's what a doctor is going to say later as well this one is i guess if you don't kill your children you and your children won't be safe completely different statement which is another reason i don't think there's a voice i think it's her conceptualizing what was going on in her head through the voice and i think that's important i think it's important that the content of what the voice apparently said is different depending on who she's talking to because right here she's talking to a chaplain and what is the kind of thing you would say to a chaplain my children are safe they're with god you know they went to heaven talking about god she's talking about heaven right exactly and i wanted them to be safe and so that's what i did that's the kind of thing you might tell a chaplain you might tell a psychiatrist the voice told me the only way i could kill myself was to kill my children you might tell another psychiatrist that the voice took over your body and forced you to do all this it wasn't you had to kill your kids so you could kill yourself it was you were forced to do it you're getting different stories from her depending on who she's talking to i think that's significant she visited with her 14 times while she was in that hospital she continues to visit with her to this day she has seen her 200 times at this point and the voice conversation came up several times over her visits with her and this is the first person by the way to say that lindsey talks frequently about her children and other interactions obviously has not talked about her children she loves them deeply she carries immense grief and that continues presently and all that's true while she's playing dominoes apparently i mean but that's what she says and that's the story she presents and then the cross-examination is going to make you wonder about some things and that's what she says and that's the story she about this story again i'll say the commonwealth brought it on this cross-examination already in the direct which you obviously get to prepare i was already getting honestly heebie-jeebies from this that things were not matching up in her testimony and one other thing because people keep asking this how could the chaplain testify the defendant the person the whatever you call it lindsey clancy holds the she holds the privilege not actually even the chaplain doesn't so like you're a priest it's your privilege to give up so you can as the defendant be like i told my priest i didn't kill that person you can you know i waive that privilege kind of like the hearsay you can when they both agree like you can do it okay so the cross-examination gets right down to it so this witness is not only saying lindsey heard this voice or said that she alluded to hearing a voice within days of being extubated so able to talk but she talks about it all the time so they talk about this voice but the thing is the chaplain isn't just this chaplain that floats around and prays with people she actually keeps very detailed logs and notes in the records that's part of lindsey clancy's records and these notes are about her interactions with lindsey clancy but never once in all of her notes from 200 visits did cavanaugh write that lindsey said she heard a voice very interesting cavanaugh comes right back and says well of course not these are not verbatim transcripts and she doesn't know what they're talking about but she says that she heard a voice in a way that was very different from what she had heard before so she's saying that she heard a voice in a way that was very different from what she had heard before so she's saying that she heard a voice in a way that was very different from what she had heard before so she's saying that she heard a voice in a way that was very different from what she had heard before so she's saying that she heard a voice in a way that was very different from what she had heard before so she's saying that she heard a voice in a way that was very different from what she had heard before so she's saying that she heard a voice in able to walk again continue to express her fears that not being able to walk might make her vulnerable to others in the future and she also described lindsey as hopeful as being hopeful of being discharged not this immense grief that she was talking about that lindsey carries with her and in her notes repeatedly cavanaugh wrote that lindsey was hopeful about her physical progress in fact she feels quote and she's quoting lindsey here so directly cutting against her own testimony that she doesn't quote the person she's speaking with she wrote lindsey quote is deserving of this because she'd been working hard i guess on her physical healing i know everyone reacts differently if i in psychosis killed my three children i would think i deserve nothing in this life but boy does lindsey deserve to go to that marathon in her wheelchair so she's deserving of this and they go through many more instances in cavanaugh's notes where lindsey talks about being hopeful which contradicts cavanaugh's own direct testimony saying that she was just like broken up about this talking about these voices and her children are safe and all these sorts of things and there's many details about thoughts and feelings but again nothing in 200 visits does she write anything about hearing voices now and this cut against her too because she was like well i don't talk about like personal things but they she actually documents a lot of things that touch upon it but again never the voices and you would think of all the things especially if she's inpatient being treated for potential continued suicidal ideation that they would put in something about these voices so they could properly treat her and she would be treated for potential continued suicidal ideation her psychosis now spalding she was working out with a yellow exercise band she noted lindsey was which is just interesting because you know her weapon of choice to end her children's lives were three different exercise bands take with that what you will but they do bring that comment out which the jurors have now seen the exercise bands they've seen how they don't get knotted that this was a tool of destruction for her three children and it took minutes to do so and then we have this mental image of her deserving to feel better because she's been working hard with her exercise band if the prosecution brings us together it could be a very powerful narrative of who lindsey clancy is now lindsey had also applied for social security benefits so that she could have an income because of course now she's disabled so that was the cross-examination of course reddington gets up for redirect and he says well the social security disability income is just to cover expenses for her and her family and reddington suggests that she didn't write down notes about these voices because they were privileged and she talks about i'm this vortex of trust by the way no once you're on the stand you don't weigh part of your privilege and not the other privilege and those notes if they're going to be privileged they're all privileged you're still your notes of what happened there so the notes would be highly confidential i'd expect but in coming out you could redact them they could be under a protective order but you wouldn't just leave out parts of your notes so it is what it is there's always going to be confidential things in medical records and she noted that up lifted were not her words about lindsey so then on recross the commonwealth says but she is allowed to put her words in that's not prohibited there's not anything like that right and they put all these phrases and quotes that she wrote what that lindsey specifically told her which all had to do with herself nothing to do with her children so by the end of this i thought what they did a good job of was showing what kavanaugh represented about lindsey maybe it's true but it's certainly not reflected in any one of her 200 records at all she's not talking about her kids she doesn't seem broken up about it she seems incredibly hopeful she's working out with exercise bands and she has never once written about a single voice despite kavanaugh saying i met with her 200 times so she talked about these voices all the time so like zizel she came off as lindsey's friend who lied on the stand that's how she came off to me and once again it's just i don't know if she was lying i mean the way she talks about she alluded to things i don't know if she's convinced herself of it i think all these people think that they're fighting a good fight for postpartum i think that's part of it mental health they've spent so much time with her right which is a worthy cause but your job here is the lindsey clancy murder trial so you can go off and like do great things for postpartum mental health but then that's separate from what you are called to do here and they did not do their job here because maybe they've gotten too far into i don't know i just think they're all biased i think they've for whatever reason whether it's they've come to really like lindsey they really care about her they see some of her and them they care about the issues you're talking about they feel like this is a great fight just the way they talk doesn't seem to reflect reality and once again even to the extent it does like to me if she's making up the whole thing about they're safe with god the voice told me that that they wouldn't be safe and i wouldn't be safe if i didn't do this if she's making that up then i think that hurts lindsey because once again it's not consistent with the other things we've seen it seems like lindsey is tailoring what she says depending on who she's talking to and i think that's a problem so these two witnesses were just really bad i thought i mean they were bad for the defense exactly i thought they're really bad for the defense i think they undermined the defense's argument i thought the defense was in a much better position when the prosecution rested than they were at this point so the defense has one more witness they were supposed to have two this is a mystery we don't really know there is an expert on postpartum psychosis who was on the witness list who everyone thought was gonna testify everybody's really excited about that person is not gonna testify her name has escaped my mind interesting that that happened we don't know why i have seen speculation that it's because she had a lot of facebook posts that were very supportive of lindsey clancy i'm not on her facebook i don't know if that's true though reddington might have seen sort of the problem with these prior to witnesses and didn't want to have a third witness who also seemed like they were personally invested the witness he's going to have is not going to have that problem dr resnick i think who we're going to talk about in this next episode is the most sort of independent of the defense witnesses and we're going to see that so i think reddington decided just to rely on him instead of calling another witness probably a good call since we missed some time we don't want to give you a two and a half hour episode so we're going to go ahead and wrap this one up and then we're just going to do another one so we'll have two episodes the next one will be on resnick and the prosecution's first witness so i'll skip all the normal stuff we say at the end so you guys can get straight to that but until then i'm brett and i'm alice and we are the prosecutors okay be right back you're welcome snappy sausage we're not going anywhere pharma source racks just chill out you're going to have a little bit of trouble because i'm not going to be able to be here for a long time i'm going to have a little bit of trouble because i'm not going to be here for a long time i'm going to have a little bit of trouble because i'm not going to be here for a long time so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so hello and welcome to pluto phone if you hello and welcome to pluto phone if you hello and welcome to pluto phone if you know the name of the movie you'd like to know the name of the movie you'd like to know the name of the movie you'd like to see just stream it for free on pluto tv see just stream it for free on pluto tv see just stream it for free on pluto tv where all your blockbuster favorites are where all your blockbuster favorites are where all your blockbuster favorites are landing all summer long catch landing all summer long catch landing all summer long catch anchorman the legend of ron burgundy anchorman the legend of ron burgundy anchorman the legend of ron burgundy fantastic the matrix trilogy welcome fantastic the matrix trilogy welcome to the real world mean girls shut up to the real world mean girls shut up to the real world mean girls shut up titanic i'm the king of the world and titanic i'm the king of the world and titanic i'm the king of the world and so much more for showtimes press so much more for showtimes press so much more for showtimes press nothing they're free 24 7. that is so nothing they're free 24 7. that is so fast on pluto tv stream now pay never