374. The Lindsay Clancy Trial Part 2

I'm Brett and I'm Alice and we are the prosecutors today on the prosecutors we continue our look at the Lindsay Clancy case including the first day of trial hello everybody and welcome to this episode of the prosecutors I'm Brett and I'm joined as always by my opening day co-host Alice different kind of opening day than sports shall we say this is the opening day of the Lindsay Clancy trial of course very watched streamed on like every channel and we watched it for you all I did not want to watch it but we did so if you're here to hear about it you came to the right place yeah and and look guys already this case we're about half a witness in it's already a very difficult one I know a lot of you have said this is not one you're going to follow totally understand my wife's one of those people she usually watches us record these she's not interested in watching this and I totally get it but it's a tough case last episode we were giving you some of the introduction now before we get into the trial we want to continue sort of setting the stage for you with the medication timeline in this case going through some of the medications that Lindsay Clancy was on as we're going to talk about with the openings by the prosecution and the defense and the first witness this is something that is going to be highly disputed as we said last time what we're giving you now is mostly from the complaints these civil complaints filed by the Clancy's who are suing various people and take it with a grain of salt already we've seen the prosecution attempting to poke some holes in this but we want to give you an idea of exactly what was going on in Lindsay Clancy's life in the run-up to these murders as we talked about last time she has her third child the summer of that year seems to be fine but going into the fall she starts to suffer from anxiety depression insomnia and really a a cycle that seems to be working worsening at some point she seeks help and the first medication we're going to talk about is zoloft zoloft as most of you know is an SSRI antidepressant it is often prescribed for depression and anxiety which is what she was suffering from at the time and it was prescribed by psychiatrist Jennifer Tufts who's already come up in the trial on September 15th 2022 so she started this it's prescribed around then she's taking it sometime after that into possibly mid October it begins as a 25 milligram pill though that has increased to 50 milligrams now initially she resisted taking this medication because she was breastfeeding and she told Tufts on October 3rd that she wanted to try therapy first but eventually she did begin the zoloft after approximately one week she increased the dose from 25 to 50 milligrams as directed by Tufts on October 20th she reported that she had no sleep for approximately 48 hours had racing thoughts worsened anxiety and depression crying throughout the day poor appetite mental fog fear that she might be developing suicidal thoughts and fear of being left alone these are all really bad signs for someone who was on zoloft and Tufts correctly did discontinue the use of zoloft now this is central to Lindsey's claims both on the civil side and the criminal side her experts and in fact her attorney today characterize the severe insomnia and racing thoughts as antidepressant induced activation which they say raises the possibility of a bipolar disorder essentially they think she had some underlying bipolar disorder that had never been diagnosed that was activated by the zoloft zoloft is something you don't give someone who has a bipolar disorder and it can cause mania and hypomania and some people who have this bipolar vulnerability now this is a theory it's not necessarily what happened and in fact it seems like her hypomania occurred earlier before the zoloft but it does seem like she had a pretty bad reaction to zoloft so next she is prescribed lorazepam also known as ativan and this is a benzodiazepine and it's usually prescribed for rapid relief of anxiety and insomnia both of which she reported she had and the prescriber was yet again tufts this started approximately October 20th and her dose is unknown at this time I'm sure this will come out during the trial after discontinuing zoloft tufts prescribed ativan and benadryl for sleep benadryl is not included in the reported 13 medications because it's an over-the-counter antihistamine rather than ordinarily classified as a psychiatric drug but it's relevant when we're looking at the interactions of all the drugs that she's taking so ativan worked temporarily in a November 8th Facebook group post Lindsay reportedly wrote that it made her quote feel like myself again but she was extremely concerned about Dependence and later said she believed that she had become physically dependent on benzodiazepines to sleep now her symptoms reportedly intensified when the drug wore off she reports racing horror panic rocking back and forth and terror without an identifiable cause her husband Patrick later told a friend that Lindsay suffered severe benzodiazepine withdrawal symptoms we don't yet know whether a medical expert will attribute those symptoms to actual physiological withdrawal rebound anxiety her underlying illness or some combination but I expect this to be part of the expert testimony and trial so not being able to sleep is a big problem for her she has insomnia she will be prescribed trazadone which is an antidepressant with pronounced sedating effects on November 16th at the South Shore Hospital emergency department and she eventually is taking as much as 150 milligrams and she will be prescribed this drug again on January 3rd at McLean Hospital that's where she's going to spend five days so by mid-november as we've said Lindsay was only sleeping about three hours a night at some point she's sleeping in the in the basement just trying to figure out a way to sleep after two consecutive nights of no sleep she drove herself to the emergency room the ER prescribes trazadone and she says it doesn't work they kept increasing the dosage up to 150 milligrams it didn't work at 150 milligrams which is apparently pretty rare like 150 milligrams of trazadone I'm no doctor my understanding from you know handy Google research is that 150 milligrams of trazadone should knock down just about anybody but it's not working for her so at some later point when she gets to McLean they're going to stop some other drugs we're going to talk about and put her back on trazadone and trazadone will be found in her blood after the murders though the prosecution says the concentration was too low to have any clinical effect but we're obviously going to see what the medical experts say about that so next is fluxitine also known as Prozac this is an SSRI antidepressant and the purpose of it is to treat depression and anxiety this one was prescribed by nurse practitioner Julie Paul and it was prescribed November 21st 2022 the dose 10 milligrams and it was stopped pretty shortly after it was prescribed approximately November 25th so she was on it for about four days so when Prozac was prescribed Lindsay was reporting racing thoughts severe insomnia yet again fear and feeling overwhelmed after four days she said her insomnia had become worse so the Prozac was discontinued the defense considers this the second SSRI induced activation following the zoloft reaction and therefore another missed warning sign of possible bipolar disorder the providers have not yet presented their complete response to that allegation though yeah this is like I said and I just want to keep repeating it we are giving you the version of the medical history that the defense has provided because that's what we have we may see in this trial and obviously we're going to talk about as we go forward that all this turns out not to be true or it's not as serious as we think it was but we'll just have to see so let's talk about Ambien this is a non-benzodiazepine hypnotic it's also for insomnia this is prescribed by nurse Paul on November 25th 2022 it was one of three medications prescribed on the same day after Prozac was stopped so according to complaints the Ambien didn't help but it's not clear how many doses of Ambien Lindsay took Ambien can produce sedation I mean that's basically what it's supposed to do but it can also cause memory impairment it can cause unusual sleep related behavior in some patients patients. But it doesn't seem like there's any specific evidence that Lindsay had such a reaction to Ambien. So next is mirtazapine, also known as Remeron. This is an atypical antidepressant, and it's often sedating. It's used to treat depression, insomnia, and poor appetite. And this is prescribed also by Nurse Paul. It's prescribed November 25th, 2022, same day as the previous Ambien. Now, the dose is not publicly established yet. Lindsay's lawsuit alleges that after taking Remeron on November 26th, she experienced a dissociative episode. According to the complaint, she says that the world seemed unreal, distorted, and distant, and she could not determine what was real. She became disoriented and forgetful, and she felt disconnected from her body. She said she couldn't drive, and she could not safely be alone. She reported these symptoms November 28th. Remeron was also detected at peak levels in Lindsay's blood at approximately 8.15 p.m. on January 24th, the day of the murders. The prosecution argues that the level indicates she ingested it roughly two hours earlier after attacking the children, but shortly before attempting suicide. And we know from at least today's opening statement that she had crushed up some pills and taken them right before she cut herself and jumped out the window. So this would be consistent with Remeron's death. Remeron was also detected at peak levels in Lindsay's blood some amount of drugs in her system. Now, this would mean that she still possessed Remeron, even if it was no longer part of her ordinary regimen. This timing is an inference from blood concentration, not a directly observed ingestion since she was alone when the ingestion would have happened. You know, it's interesting. We're talking about these. This brings me back to our very first case, the Elisa Lam case, and we're going through a lot of these same drugs that were in her system when that incredibly bizarre, bizarre, bizarre, bizarre, bizarre, bizarre, bizarre, case happened. And now we're seeing Lindsay Clancy, who's taking a lot of the same drugs that we talked about then. The next one is clonazepam, also known as clonopin. It is a long-acting benzodiazepine. It's also for anxiety, panic, and sleep. And this was also prescribed by Nurse Paul on November 25th, 2022, alongside Ambien and Remeron. So by November 28th, Lindsay reported feeling hungover, which how would you not at this point? Panicked, disoriented, and physically dependent on benzodiazepines or sleep. And she was petrified that she was becoming addicted. This is consistent with her personality. Even if she wasn't becoming addicted, Lindsay, just what we know from her, number one, she's a nurse. Number two, she's very health conscious, very, you know, she's into working out. She's into all of these things. She obviously has anxiety. She has anxiety about her children and possible medical issues with them. It doesn't surprise me that she would be very much on guard for becoming addicted to these drugs. Which obviously that can happen. So at this point, Lindsay has taken so many drugs that it's difficult, if not impossible, to separate the effects of the clonopin. Earlier Ativan use or withdrawal, Remeron's possible side effects, just the fact that she's experiencing profound sleep deprivation, or some sort of underlying psychotic condition. This is going to be a huge part of the trial, trying to break all this down. The defense signaled that very strongly. Today, and we're going to have a lot of medical testimony on this, and we aren't even done. Nope, not yet. So next is, so this is number eight, if you're keeping count, Questiopine, which is also known as Seroquel. It's an atypical antipsychotic and mood stabilizer. It's used to treat possible bipolar symptoms and severe mood disturbance and for, you know, sleep issues. Nurse practitioner Rebecca Gelada prescribed this on November 3rd, 30th, 2022. And the dose was allegedly titrated towards 400 milligrams per day. So when Gelada first evaluated Lindsay, she reportedly recognized a possible bipolar presentation and prescribed Seroquel. According to Lindsay's complaint, this was when everything really went wrong. She describes the following symptoms, emotional numbness, a zombie sensation, suicidal ideation, panic attacks, confusion, loss of appetite, and approximately, 15 pounds of weight. Thoughts that she would never recover and what she then called intrusive thoughts, but now carries as auditory hallucinations. On December 4th, Lindsay contacted a suicide hotline. And on December 5th, she sought help from Aspire Crisis Support. On December 6th, Patrick reportedly told Gelada that Lindsay was quote, 10,000 times worse since beginning medication and asked whether she should be taken off everything so that they could start from scratch. Nevertheless, according to the complaint, the Seroquel dosage continued to be increased towards the 400 milligrams daily. This is hard for me. We're going to hear a lot of experts about this, but this is interesting that in the complaints for Lindsay, they're saying that this is the turning point. But all along, they've been saying that she's been misdiagnosed and mistreated for bipolar. So the first time she's actually given bipolar meds, they're saying that this is when things are terrible. I mean, look, I know, especially when it comes to like antipsychotics and medication, but I don't think it's a good thing. I don't think it's a good thing. I don't for brain chemistry. It is absolutely not a science, but this is going to be really difficult in terms of, you know, on the one hand, they're saying you missed all the bipolar diagnoses. And here we have her being treated for bipolar symptoms. And this is when like, it seems like the bottom has fallen out. It also seems pretty clear the prosecution, one of their things they're going to press is that she's sort of doctor shopping, that she's looking for a bunch of different drugs. She's kind of self-medicating, not in a recreational way or an addiction way, but she's not going to the same person for a continuous treatment plan. She goes to one person for a little while, then she goes somewhere else. Then she goes somewhere else. I don't know if it's a fair characterization or not, but you certainly see these are different prescribers who are giving her these various drugs. And once again, back to Elisa Lam in our, I feel like our very first thing we could not pronounce was quetiapine. And I don't know that we're pronouncing it correctly now. I'm not even sure how you pronounced it earlier. For what it's worth, I heard it more than a couple times, a couple different pronunciations by the defense. So I feel better about it. Which is why we just call it Seroquel. Seroquel. I can do Seroquel. Okay. So things continue to worsen. Now she's up to 400 milligrams daily. By December 15th, Patrick is telling Jolotta's office that Lindsay has experienced a devastating week, that she's hearing voices. She's hearing voices. She's telling her that she would never be herself again, that she's permanently damaged and that death is her only option. And at this point, Lindsay is telling her mother and Patrick that she had thoughts of harming the children. And this has now been confirmed in trial. Now she doesn't say she has voices telling her to kill the children, but she's having thoughts of harming the children. So things start to accelerate a little bit now. And eventually she is going to go to McLean. First, she goes to Women and Infants Hospital. They recommend reducing Seroquel. It's obviously not working and seems to be making things worse on December 20th. And McLean will discontinue it altogether on January 3rd. Nevertheless, Seroquel was detected at peak levels in Lindsay's blood on January 24th. As with Remeron, the prosecution says this indicates that she took it after attacking the children. It seems like she kept these drugs. I mean, I'll say this. This makes me a bad person. I never throw away drugs. Like if I get prescribed drugs, I just keep them. I don't know what I plan on doing with them. Like I'm going to take them one day if I have the other problem. It seems like she did the same thing. Like she gets prescribed these drugs. She takes a few. It doesn't work. She throws it in a drawer and moves on. Then the murders happen. And it seems like she's taking basically everything she has as part of her suicide attempt is what it seems like to me. So I think that's why you're seeing it in peak levels. One thing that's going to be interesting. If the defense tries to say no, she actually took these before doing anything to the kids and sort of desperation for her symptoms. And they made things even worse. I mean, that's a possibility I could see. We'll just have to see what they say about that. It'll be interesting on the timeline. So well, so far, the timeline seemed to map up because I think the killings had to happen by like 611. And if by 815, it's saying it's within two hours, it would appear that it's one of the last things she does. Now, I'm a little. Questioning of this soul. And we've talked about this before, trying to determine when you took a drug based on the level in your blood. It's hit or miss, especially when you're trying to be very specific. So I don't know. I'll be interested to see how that evidence develops. We do know that the prosecution psychiatrist is going to say that the Seroquel level in her blood at the time would not have caused psychosis or violence. And the defense is going to go in the other way, saying that this whole prescription sequence. Was destabilizing, that it was causing this unrecognized bipolar condition to worsen and that the emergence of suicidal thoughts and voices was part of the deterioration and part of this long train that's going to lead to the murders. Now, look, as Alice said, Seroquel is used to treat mania and psychosis and bipolar not to cause them, proving that it paradoxically to the opposite will be a lift for the expert. experts, however, anyone who's ever Taking a drug knows. Benadryl. My wife takes Benadryl and keeps her up all night. That's the opposite of what it does to most people. It does it to a lot of kids, right? Yeah. They report that. So this could be a similar situation where it's just different folks. I mean, ordinarily, yeah, it helps. But for some narrow set of people, of which she may be one, it makes things much worse. Quick PSA, just because people are listening to this. Brett just admitted to having a lot of prescription drugs at his house. Now, actually, if you live with someone who has a lot of prescription drugs, or you yourself have them, this is a good case to show you where you aren't supposed to keep your prescription drugs if there's leftovers. There's take back days that the DEA does. You can take them to any pharmacy. They'll take them back and dispose of them properly. And it's like best practices. You should not flush them. My understanding is you should not flush them down your toilet, because it's going to like totally mess up our water system. And you shouldn't throw them away, because someone can find them and use them. But it is incredibly dangerous to have just like drugs laying around your house for kids, for people who just come to your house. Someone you may not even know has a problem can be looking through your medicine cabinets. And so that's my PSA is that you can dispose of them. Don't flush them down your toilet and don't throw them in the garbage can. But take them back to your pharmacist or DEA has like take back days, which I don't know how effective they are. They're supposed to be great. When Brett and I worked with them, we would always do these take back days. But do that. I mean, I think this is. This is a good example of how much harm there can be when you have like just these 13 medications just sitting around in her cabinet and has access to them. So the next one is diazepam. You'll know it as Valium. This is a long acting benzodiazepine. It's used to treat anxiety and controlled benzodiazepine taper. Now, this is prescribed by either Gelada or Tufts. The records are not completely consistent on when it was prescribed, by whom Patrick's complaint says that Gelada prescribed Valium around December 6th after Lindsay reported dependence concerns and her severe reaction to Zoloft. Lindsay's complaint says it's actually Tufts who switched her to Valium on January 10th as part of a benzodiazepine taper. Both may be true. Valium may first have been introduced in December and then adopted more formally for a taper in January. Because Valium is longer acting than Ativan, clinicians sometimes use it to taper a patient off shorter, actually. So, the next drug is Lamotrigine, which is also known as Lamictal. It is an anticonvulsant and a mood stabilizer. It is used for bipolar spectrum depression and for mood stabilization. This was prescribed by Tufts sometime in mid-December. According to Patrick's complaint, Tufts prescribed Lamictal while Lindsay, was reporting persistent suicidal thoughts and seeking emergency assistance. This is a bipolar mood stabilizer and it is particularly used for preventing depressive episodes. It is not generally considered a rapid treatment for an acute mania or psychotic crisis because you have to titrate it slowly. You've got to get the dose just right for it to work. An anticonvulsant was later found in Lindsay's blood at a therapeutic level. That was presumably this Lamictal, Lamotrigine, although the publicly reported prosecution summary does not expressly identify it by name. Now, interestingly, Lindsay's amended civil complaint barely discusses this drug, even though Patrick's complaint and the reported original 13 drug list that you see in the news a lot always include it. Some of you have already noted, and I think this will be interesting to go into, but look, she has a medical background. She's a labor and delivery nurse. So, her fear of being addicted to these drugs may simply be that she's treated wrongly. A lot of people have maybe seen dependency develop, or it'll be really interesting to see what her whole psychoanalytic background is and why there is this immense fixation on dependence because it seems, at least in her complaints, she has raised it several times. Okay, the 11th drug is hydroxyzine, which is a sedating antihistamine with anti-anxiety effects. The purpose is for short-term or as-needed anxiety and insomnia. And, you know, we don't yet know who prescribed it at what dose and when. Hydroxyzine appears on the reported 13 drug list, but it's not meaningfully discussed in either of the complaints. So, it's not a benzodiazepine and does not create the same dependence concerns, but it can cause substantial drowsiness and cognitive slowing. At this point, all we can safely say is that it was prescribed at some point between October and January, and we don't yet know whether she regularly took it. I think it just adds to the whole there's a list of 13 prescriptions in a relatively short amount of time. Next, there's buspirone, which is also known as buspar. It's a non-benzodiazepine anti-anxiety medication, and it's for generalized anxiety. Again, the date, dose, and the prescriber are all yet unknown right now. We'll probably know throughout the trial. Now, buspirone also appears on this original 13 drug list, but it's absent from detailed medication narratives in both Lindsay and Patrick's studies. Unlike Ativan, Klonopin, and Valium, buspirone is not an immediate sedative. It generally has to be taken consistently before its anti-anxiety effect develops. So we don't yet know when it was prescribed, how long Lindsay tried it, or whether she actually took it at all. So then the last of the 13 is amitriptyline, which is a tricyclic antidepressant. The purpose in this case was to treat Lindsay's depression and possibly her anxiety. It was prescribed by Tufts. You know, Tufts is trying a lot of different things, and she tries this on January 16th, 2023. It's at 10 milligrams daily. It'll be increased on January 23rd to 20 milligrams daily. Obviously interesting because the next day is the day of the murders. So after leaving McLean, remember she's there for five days, Lindsay continued to report profound depression, emotional numbness, poor motivation. She's feeling like a zombie. On January 16th, Tufts prescribed this amitriptyline. According to Lindsay's lawsuit, she says she had voices at this time that were telling her things like, you should harm the children, you should kill yourself, and the only option is to die. Now, it's not clear, at least at this point, it's going to become pretty clear soon, whether Lindsay disclosed these precise statements to Tufts on January 16th. Tufts reports say that Lindsay denied suicidal ideation, and that even though she was depressed, she was able to survive. She was able to force herself to perform basic child care. On January 23rd, Lindsay reported increased anxiety, racing heart, poor sleep, a flat mood, poor motivation, numbness, and poor insight. Tufts increased amitriptyline to 20 milligrams, and Lindsay allegedly did not sleep that night. Unsurprisingly, amitriptyline was detected in her blood after the killings, but the laboratory reportedly could not determine the precise cause. To sum all this up, she was prescribed these 13 drugs, she was taking them at various times, not necessarily all at the same time, but based on the blood draw at 8.15 p.m., which is a few hours, a couple hours after the killings occurred, Lindsay had seven medications in her system, three antidepressants, one antipsychotic, two sedatives, and one mood stabilizer, and according to public reporting, those included trazodone, amitriptyline, remeron, saraquel, and amitriptyline. as present in her system. So those were the drugs she was on, and that is something that is going to be a big focus in this case going forward, as we learned today, day one of the trial that began with opening statements. ♪ ♪ ♪ Everything that we know before trial started, and obviously today, they started with actually relatively short opening statements, considering this is estimated to be a six-week trial. We've talked about this before, but typically with opening statements, the judge will ask both sides what they want, and if it's a relatively reasonable amount of time for a trial of this length, 45 minutes to two hours, I would say is within the spectrum of reasonableness. As long as both sides agree, he'll give both sides the same amount of time. I was a little surprised, Brett, by the shortness, actually, of the opening statements, especially by the prosecution. I thought it was going to be more narrative and a little bit more of a roadmap than we ultimately got from the prosecution. So, as you guys know, we've covered a lot of cases with a lot of different lawyers, and we're always hesitant to criticize the people in the arena, you know, who are out there having to do it, having to come up with a strategy, with an approach, step in front of that podium, with the whole world watching, and three children's deaths on your mind, and deliver. It's a very hard thing to do, and so I have a lot of respect for the people who are doing it. Two women are prosecuting this case, which I think is interesting. I think that was an intentional choice. I don't think they just happened to be the two attorneys in the office who, you know, had some availability for a lengthy trial. I think that was done on purpose. We're going to talk about the substance of the openings, but. there are some issues. cases that already are apparent to me in the prosecution's case. And it began with the opening. I mean, number one, and look, this could have been the judge. The judge might have said, y'all are getting 30 minutes and that's it. This is gonna be a long trial. This jury's gonna be here a long time. We're not taking all day. Wrap it up. That's possible. If you watch the trial, it's supposed to start at nine. No one came out for a while. That's typical because the lawyers are back there with the judge. They're discussing issues before the trial, how everything's gonna go, giving some heads up to each other about what they're gonna do. And you can tell these attorneys, prosecutors and defense attorney, they have a good working relationship. There was one point, for instance, where the defense attorney's like, your honor, I have no objections to all these exhibits. She doesn't have to show them to me every time she's putting them in, which is nice because that shows we're gonna move this thing forward as quickly as possible. We're not gonna have just a bunch of fights to fight. In a trial that is supposed to last as long as this one's gonna last, that has a relatively complicated theory behind it for the prosecution, that involves someone with severe mental illness, admitted severe mental illness, and there's gonna be a lot of people testify, I would have expected a longer, more detailed narrative about how this trial is gonna go, which is often what you want to do in an opening. Alice, I think very helpfully, I've missed before, is building a bookshelf. And Alice, do you want to talk a little bit about that for people who maybe haven't heard that analogy in the past? Yeah, so there's a reason it's called opening statements, and then the closing is called closing arguments. So technically, by the law, you are only supposed to tell the jury what facts you reasonably believe will come in during trial, and you're not supposed to shade it with your argumentation yet. So the closing argument is where you get to argue the facts for your side. But the opening is supposed to be where you tell the jury what you expect to hear. Now, there is still some strategy to that. So it's not just reading a book and saying, first bullet point, you're going to see one, two, and three. You want to kind of set the stage or build a bookshelf so that the jury knows. The jury may have heard about this case. It's a very famous case. It's been on the news. But they're supposed to come in and leave everything they know and all preconceived notions at the door, and they're supposed to focus on what the attorneys and witnesses are telling them in that courtroom. So the first time they're really hearing about this, they're going to be able to say, well, 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 And the prosecution's theory of this case is during opening statement. And during that statement, the prosecution's main job is to help set the stage of what's going to happen for the next six plus weeks. And so I've used this analogy before. It was taught to me, and I think it's really helpful when I'm preparing an opening statement to build my case around this. Imagine them as essentially being a blank slate. And so what you have to do is not only give them the facts, you have to give them the structure of the case. And so what you have to do is not only give them the facts, but you have to give them the structure whereby they put the facts. So think of a bookshelf. There are big openings, small openings, different levels, and you have this blank thing. So first, you have to build the bookshelf because that's not even there for them. You don't know if this is a three-tiered even bookcase or if it's slanted on one side, and then there's going to be like special little areas that you get to put all the drugs in over here. You have to first build the structure. Once you have the structure, you set the stage because you get to go first as the prosecution. The defense then has to basically work off of your bookcase. So if you've done a good job, you've built the structure and as every fact they are receiving from the trial, from every witness, they now know where to put it on the bookshelf. Okay, Patrick, loving husband, loving father's testimony. Now I know where this goes based on the prosecution's structure. You see how powerful that is when you're the one building the structure of the bookcase. That is a massive advantage, but also burden on the prosecution to have to build the structure. So you have to build that bookcase so you know where to put the facts on the bookshelf. If you don't have that, imagine a bookcase that just has way too many books on it and it eventually just crashes down and you don't know how to make sense of the figurines you have on it and the different books you have on it. It's a complete mess, right? All the same facts, but it is completely different than say a well-organized bookcase where you can look at this and say, these are my 13 drugs. This is my legal theory. Here's the insanity defense. Here is X, Y, or Z. We're all people who need structure. And the prosecution's job, I think, is to create that structure so you can make sense of the evidence coming in. And just think about the way you listen to this podcast. I mean, why do we do the podcast the way we do? You know, we didn't say, we're going to talk about the Lindsay Clancy trial. Let's talk about the 13 drugs she was on and then just go through the 13 drugs. Because you'd be like, hey, why is she on these drugs? Why are we talking about these drugs? When do these drugs come in? Is she someone who is addicted to drugs? Like, what's exactly? No, we, in every case we do for you guys, we have a very standard way of building our bookshelf for the podcast. We typically lay out the overarching story. Then we give you a timeline of the events to orient you, to give you some basic facts so that you'll understand when we go into the more in-depth details later on. You know, you do the Adnan Saad case. We did three episodes, four episodes, I don't know how many, on the timeline. And then we went back and hit specific things and went into the bookshelf. And then we did the Adnan Saad case. And then we went in detail on those specific things. And by the time we're talking about in detail about cell phone pings, you understand why we're talking about cell phone pings, because you know, from listening to the timeline, that those cell phone pings are important and you're able in your own mind to organize what you're hearing. It's even worse for a jury because you probably came into this case knowing a little bit about it. You may have listened to all sorts of stuff and read all sorts of stuff. Some of the jurors may know things about this case. Frankly, all of them probably do. But the whole purpose of jury selection was to try and weed out people who knew as much as you probably do about this case. If someone went in and said, yeah, I've listened to five true crime podcasts on this and read every article about it, they probably didn't end up on the jury, which means they don't have a basis of fact in which to categorize the evidence they're receiving. So you need that bookshelf. Take Patrick. We're going to talk about his testimony. The prosecution made a decision to put Patrick on first. And I'm already seeing out there in the world some criticism of things that happened. I understand why it's happening because I'm a lawyer, but you don't. So people are saying things like, why are they torturing him by showing these videos? Why are they asking him whether he knew she was on this drug? Why would he know? How would he all this other stuff, right? Okay. Well, the reason they're asking him things like, were you aware that she did X, Y, and Z is to get the jury. They're not prosecuting Patrick. How is it possible? You didn't know she was on that drug. That's not what they're doing. They're getting the information in front of the jury, but the way they're doing it is they're using Patrick. Why are they showing videos? They want to humanize the kids. They want people to see the children out there living their lives before they're killed. These are all things you could have said in the opening. You know, you don't want to spend a whole lot of time on it, but you could have said something like, look, the first witness you're going to hear from is going to be one of the hardest. It's going to be Patrick. The father of these children, the father of these children, the father of these children, the father of these children, a man who, who loved Lindsay. And I will tell you, you know, to this day is one of the most forgiving people I've ever heard. And he is said things in support of her, despite the fact that she killed his three children. I can't imagine what he's going through, but it's important for you to hear exactly what their life was like. It's important for you to see the kids, see how they were interacting. It's important for you to know the lies that Lindsay was telling him about the things that she was taking about the drugs that she was on about the voices she was hearing. That's why we're going to have him first. Cause we want you to know all of these things, right? Like you can give them an idea of what's coming. And so then when it comes, they're fine. So everything Brett just said there, the explanation, which by the way, we didn't get in today's opening statement, maybe because it was time restrained, everything he just said, why it's important, what you're going to hear, what you expect, that's building the bookcase. So if you needed like an example, and then the facts that you're putting on that bookcase is Patrick's testimony, which we are in the middle of right now. I've heard from a lot of people because a lot of people are watching this trial. People who don't even know I have podcasts don't know that I'm like covering this. And they're like, I watched the trial today. And they know as much about the case as basically they're seeing, you know, streamed online. They don't really know all the things about Patrick and whether he supports Lindsay or not. And multiple people are like, I don't know what to make of Patrick. Does he hate the prosecutor? Are they being mean to him? Is he here against his will? Like all of these things are very confusing. And he's lost his whole life as well. We know that he came out and supported her saying that she is not his wife who killed these children, that she was under some psychosis. Immediately, days after, you know, Callan passed away, right when Callan passed away. And we know that he's filed his own lawsuit alleging that there was malpractice here. And remember, Brett said this yesterday. While we are going through the criminal trial, and these are criminal charges for whether Lindsay is guilty for the three homicides, there's also a subtext. civil trial happening right now, malpractice against all the doctors that's happening, that is absolutely going to affect the civil lawsuit. And so the defense is absolutely kind of prosecuting that case at the same time. Because as you can tell, it is completely relevant to the insanity defense as well. So there are kind of two trials happening at one time. But if you don't know all this is happening, and they can't bring in the civil lawsuit. But if you don't understand the interplay of all the complexities of the relationships and the emotions and why you have to deal with this, you don't have a bookshelf. You don't understand what you're listening to and the importance of it all. And this is day one of six weeks or more of testimony. And if you felt like, I didn't want to get back to the opening, but if you felt like it was hostile with him, it's because it is. He's a hostile witness. He's actually a defense witness. The prosecution's called him. They never declared him a hostile witness. And I actually think this was probably something that was discussed in chambers before. Because you may also notice, if you're an attorney especially, a lot of leading questions, which you can do with a hostile witness. I think some of that's also prosecution and defense just want to get through this with him. Don't want to have a lot of objections. But the defense attorney is not objecting to some very clearly leading questions. And I just feel like, to jump ahead a little bit, this was a big misstep in the beginning of the trial to call him first. I don't think he's setting the stage in the way that a victim ordinarily would. It's not like calling the mother of the little girl who was murdered first to really set the stage. They're fighting with him up there to get their points across. And I don't imagine it's setting a very good stage for the jury. And frankly, probably is confusing to them about why we're doing this the way we're doing it. Yeah. And I understand the story arc they're probably going for, which is what they did in the opening statement. They started with, and we'll get to the opening statement here. They started with, the children, the victims, as most and probably appropriately so, any murder trials should start with the victim. And it starts with Cora and Dawson and Callen. It's Callen, by the way. I heard it multiple times today about how full of life they were, how cute they were, what they loved, what they, you know, how much they loved their family and the cute things they did all day long. All completely appropriate to humanize the victims, to make the jury care about who's on trial for the end of these three children's lives. But calling Patrick, who normally would be the right call, the parent of slain children, that would probably be a good call. Not in this case. When he's filed a civil lawsuit and is, like you said, a hostile witness. Yeah, what you do, what I would have done, what I think is the obvious thing to do, is you call the first responders. Not that it worked out in this case, but you kind of follow the Karen Reid, you call the first responders who show up to this house. And better if they're like wearied, gruff men who have, been on the job for 30 years and they break down crying that they have never seen so devastating a scene as three dead children. And that, you can imagine, that moves everybody. No one expects to answer a 911 call to find three dead children. Because look, as we've said before, trials are not scientific endeavors where you literally have a scale and you're putting evidence on various sides of the scale. And eventually one side goes down and it's either, oh, he's guilty or he's not guilty. It's not that. It's a very human affair. And one thing you want to do is you want to get the jury on your side as quickly as possible for the prosecution. You want the jury to feel the absolute horror of what happened that day. You want them to be angry at Lindsay so that they are more willing to buy your arguments later on about why that anger is justified. And I think if you had done that, had the first responders come, played the 911 call as horrific as it is, had the photographs of these poor children, done all that, and then you have Patrick. To any extent that he is hostile towards the prosecution, I think the jury at that point would take it very differently. They'd be like, I don't understand why this guy is pushing back on the prosecution after what I just heard about what happened to his children. You know what I mean? I think to the extent he's hostile, it takes out some of that sting. But starting with him with nothing before, just to me is a real, I mean, they just walked into the punch, basically. I understand a lot of times when you have a weakness in your case, you want to deflate it on your own as quickly as possible. You want to be the one to present it, not the defense. I understand that. But doing it this way with the very first witness in this trial seems like a mistake. It's not the only mistake. I also think the prosecution's overall theory of this case is problematic. We heard it for the first time really in the opening statement today. And so one question we talked about last time is, how are they going to do this? How are they going to present the motive that you don't have to present? How are they going to explain this as anything other than psychosis? Why would this woman do this? This is not a woman who's dating a man who doesn't want children and so she kills her children to get rid of them. This is not anything like that. It's not a woman who's abusing her children and they die in her care. Anything along those lines. This seems to be a woman who loved her children and had some severe mental issues. And eventually killed her children. That seems to be what the evidence is going to show. So the prosecution decides to describe this case after they do what I think was the correct way to start, the kids, obviously. They then go into Lindsay and they describe her as an overachiever and a perfectionist and someone who is very detail-oriented and controlling. They talk about how she controls every aspect of her life down to the minute her children would go to sleep, which. I'm sorry. I sleep. And my kids and I do the same, to be totally honest. How do you think we record this podcast at 8 o'clock? It's because we both, like, force our kids into bed by a certain minute. Yeah, I was like, I don't really. Is that a bad thing to do that? So one thing. Did you note this? Sorry if you already noted it. But the prosecutors are. There's two prosecutors and they're both women, which I think is a strategy and it's a good strategy, probably. But I did not love the delivery of the opening statement. We've already talked about that. But I do think this is going to be very interesting how this comes off because this motive that they're beginning to describe, it is coming from a woman. So take that for whatever it is. But I think the way it's coming off right now is a lot of, well, who doesn't do that? And they have to get past the who doesn't do that to this is calculated cold blood murder that is not due to psychosis. And the way they've chosen to frame the motive so far in the opening in the amount of short time that they had concerns me. Yes. And you said you see some of the development through this the way they are framing it. And as Alice said, you know, framing her as controlling and using that to tie into the medical care that she's manipulating the medical care, picking which doctor she's going to, that she wants to get certain medications. She's withholding information, vital information from the doctors. She's withholding it from her husband. And at some point, they kind of get to their theory of what happened, which was she was losing control of her life, a very ordered, well-connected, well-controlled life. She was now losing control of it. That was something she couldn't handle. She wanted to die. And she decided to take her children with her. Sort of a classic family annihilator type situation. You see this a lot in these family annihilator cases where something's going horribly wrong and one of the parents decides, I'm killing everybody and killing myself. That seems to be kind of the way they're going. But that theory doesn't really fit. It doesn't fit to me what we already know one day in about the case. I don't know what you thought about that particular framing, Alice. Yeah, I thought they tried to play both sides of the coin and I thought it weakened that theory. So the family annihilator, it was on one hand, she was losing control and so she needed to take back all control and kill her children as she killed herself. But then there were also these like, they didn't directly say it, but the defense addressed it in their opening statement. Essentially shading at the fact that it was a weak attempt at suicide rather than a true attempt, something like superficial marks. They said that. They said it was superficial marks and the defense really addressed this and I thought used some demonstratives well showing what she looked like in the hospital, which she did not look superficial at all. She had neck braces on and, you know, had basically casts on all parts of her body. So I felt like they weakened that argument. It wasn't a strong argument to begin with, but then they kind of threw in these descriptors like superficial cuts and jumped out and was still breathing and, and alive even though the kids were dead in a way that weakened already kind of a weak framing of the annihilator and their own, I will say, I know in the opening statement what you learn in law school and what you're supposed to do like buy the book, but a good attorney knows how to work around the edges is to not make argumentation. I got lost in the opening statement for the prosecution, not just because there wasn't a bookcase being built and I didn't understand the import of what was going to happen, but the facts that they intended to come in during trial were read to me like, like such a flat list without telling me what was important, what was not, what was going to be rebutted and what was not going to support their theory and why that doesn't matter. It was all given to me so flatly that I actually, if I didn't know it was the prosecution, I don't think I would have known what I was listening to. Like, am I listening to a commentator who's just reading to me the facts I'm going to hear? So even though technically an opening statement, you're not making argumentation like Brett was doing previously with how he would have described the importance of Patrick's testimony, you needed more of that because if you give me everything looking black and white, I as the jury am going to completely have no idea how to begin to look at this narrative that's going to happen. And remember, the burden is on the prosecution. And so what I felt like were the facts being laid out, including the motive, were all given to me incredibly flatly without telling me this should be bolded, this should be italicized, this is in like 16 point font, whereas everything else is in 12 point font. I had no idea what was important to the prosecution, which made following their narrative difficult for me. And I think one of the reasons is I don't think the prosecution really has a clear theory on this. I think that's one of the issues. I think that was obvious. And this is a very difficult strategic decision to make in this trial, particularly given all the facts in the medical history. I will tell you how I look at this case, and I'll tell you how I think I would have presented it to the jury. And this comes with a lot of danger, and I understand not wanting to say it, but I think I would have just basically conceded most of what the defense is going to say. I think I would have just said, Lindsay Clancy was absolutely dealing with mental illness, and she was 100% failed by the medical system, and she should have gotten help. But the fact of the matter is, on that day, she made a choice. She still had the ability to do what she wanted to do, and she still had the ability to do what she wanted to do. And she still had the mental capacity to make a decision. And you're going to see that throughout this trial. All the different things that she did, that's actually evidence against her, because it's showing that she has the mental capacity to make a choice, that she recognized what was going on. And on January 24th, she made a choice, and that choice was to send her husband off to get some food so that she could murder her children and take her own life. Her suicide attempt failed. It was a legitimate suicide attempt, but it failed, and she's sitting over here, and her children are dead, and they cry out for justice. And she's sitting over here, and she's sitting over here, and she has to be held accountable for that choice. And making a choice like that is not consistent with someone who is insane. It is not consistent with someone who doesn't have mental capacity. And you can't say it exactly like this, because I'm very much making an argument now. But crafting the theory of the case in, you're going to hear about a woman who made a decision, and who had the mental capacity to make that decision. And you're going to hear from this doctor who's going to tell you about how she did that, and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I think that's how I would have presented it. And if at the end of the day, the jury's like, no, I just don't think she could make that choice. I think she was too far gone. That's the case. But at least you've laid out what I think is a viable argument for them to return a guilty verdict. And what I think has to be the viable argument, because they're going to present the insanity defense, we know this, and they're going to be able to show this list of 13 medications, and the fact that Lindsay herself sought therapy, admitted herself, got evaluation. So you have to have a theory of the case that works with all of those things. And I think that's a viable argument for them. We say this all the time. You need to know what parts of your case you need to embrace as part of it and not make it a weakness. But when you embrace it, you're able to turn it around. Because then once you have that theory, and you're able to not minimize the fact that she tried to kill herself, not minimize the fact that she actually was prescribed 13 medications and more in a very short amount of time, is to then say, she knew how to reach out for help. She did it on this day, on this day, on this day. She was very, because of her medical background, she knew exactly how to describe the things that she was feeling. And she had had other suicidal ideations before, thoughts of harming others, and she verbalized those. But on this day, she knew exactly what she was doing. She was not going to seek help because what she wanted to do was end it all. And so that day was a day like every other in that she had control. And she went to the doctor with her child. She built snowmen. She made sure to send pictures to everyone. She made sure to call Patrick back when he called her at CVS to make sure that she was okay. And she made sure that there was not an error, a simple doubt in his mind that anything was wrong that would make him turn back home because she didn't answer the phone. She made sure to call him despite being in the middle of killing her children. She did that because she was cold and calculated and knew exactly the amount of time she needed to strangle and kill all three children and not be caught before they were dead. And that's exactly what happened. All three children are dead today, but she's sitting here today and we're asking for justice for the three, children who can't be here, right? You have to make sense of that because you know what the evidence says and you know what, before the defense even stood up, I knew exactly what his opening statement was going to be. It was going to be compelling. There is a really good argument for postpartum psychosis or just medical malpractice here. Absolutely. You don't have 13 prescriptions in four months period and not at least have the lay person on this jury say, huh, that's a lot of benzodiazepines. That's a lot of times where she's getting checked in and asking for help. She's not sleeping for days at a time. So you know exactly what the defense is going to bring. And if you don't deal with that in your narrative as the prosecution, I think you may have lost it on the first day. I don't know. We're only on day one, but I will say it was very, I felt like we got off to the races and the car was just swerving all over the place. And I didn't even know where the track was. Well, and I think they also never decided whether, are they going to say that she was suffering from mental illness or not? Because at times during the opening, it seemed like they were going to acknowledge that and they did acknowledge it in the opening. But at other times, it seemed like they were questioning that. And you even saw that in the questioning of Patrick, you know, she's admitted to the hospital. She's taking selfies at the hospital, isn't she? Yeah. I guess that's a bad fact for her that she's taking selfies. Are you trying to say that she wasn't actually upset when she went to the hospital and the selfies prove that? Stuff like that. Like, what is your argument? And that's the thing. We, I don't think we had clear direction here and we need to because we've said this from the very beginning. This is a difficult case. And you heard it from the defense's opening today. They said, this is not a righteous prosecution. I actually think this is exactly the kind of prosecution we need. What the jury, now, if the jury decides that she is not guilty by way of mental defect, then that is just because the jury has spoken. But I actually don't think this is an unjust prosecution. And they had to explain why this is not just them piling on some poor woman who was abused by the medical system and was completely out of her mind. And, you know, these poor children died, not because of her, but because of nurse X, Y, and Z and nurse practitioner, this and doctor, this, who were prescribing these, you know, Zoloft and Ambien and Valium like candy to her. You have to get past that. And I don't think we heard a theory there today that really understood it. So first of all, they need to have confidence. And they've sat with this case for three years. Look, things can change during trial. And you can even acknowledge that at closing argument if there's a slight shift, but you can't keep, you know, you can't keep going. And so, you know, you can't keep going. You can't keep all of your options open by opening statement. You actually have to make some hard decisions. And people don't like to do that because they think it closes doors. We saw this actually with like this Michael Peterson case where they had to decide on the blow poke. It was the wrong choice. The blow poke was not the murder weapon. But that was an example. Now, maybe they shouldn't have made that specific choice. But that's an example where by the time opening statements come around, you're no longer in the investigative stage. You have to close some doors in your theory, even if you don't have all the answers to be able to tell a story. And you have to make sure that you've marshaled enough evidence to support that theory, recognizing you don't have it all. And I felt like this prosecution came into this with tough case. Let's keep it all open because we don't know what exactly will resonate with the jury. Maybe they're really going to latch on to the whole like she's a labor and delivery nurse. So she knew what she was doing and she knew doctors and medicines that she could drug shop. I don't know. But you can't leave that up to chance by opening statement. I think that this is going to come back to haunt the prosecution. We got a long trial. This is the first day. I mean, maybe they narrow things down. But I just I felt like in a case like this, you need this jury to be focused on the one thing they need to decide. And they may decide against you. You may say to this jury, look, the fact that she killed her children doesn't mean she's guilty. And the fact that she has a mental illness doesn't mean she's not guilty by mental disease or defect. You're going to have to decide whether or not she was capable of making a decision that day to do this. You're going to have to make that decision. And we're going to put on all this evidence that shows that she was. And the jury at the end of the day may say didn't get there. OK, you laid it out. You made your play. It didn't work. You know, it's like it's like a football game. Third and 10. You got to call something right. And you got to believe in what you call and you got to follow through on it. And maybe the defense is perfect and you don't get the first down and the game ends. That happens. But you got to make the call. And I feel like they didn't do that. You know, they called like some weird play where the quarterback could run it or he can option or he could throw it and then nothing works. I mean, that's to me in a case like this, you really need to focus this jury so that the jury knows exactly what they're looking for and exactly what they need to decide the case. I don't think the prosecution did it. I think the defense in some ways, weirdly, had an easier job and just accepted the obvious thing they had to do, which was they went up there and said, this is an awful case is horrible. Bless you, folks. Can't imagine sitting through the horrible things you're going to have to see. Just acknowledging this terrible thing. No one denies that she killed her kids. But this is all going to be about the mental aspect of things. And that's what you're going to have to decide. Yeah, I thought the defense's opening statement was exactly like what I would have done on the defense side. It tells a compelling story. You know, they do things like call this a non-righteous prosecution. I remember what I was going to say about the prosecution's opening statement. In some ways, while it may seem they have a really big hill to climb. With all of her medical history and all the cries for help and all the admittance and, you know, like she was not someone who holed away from medical help is to this is where building the bookcase, I think, could have really come in handy. I think they needed to focus the jury's mind, not on all the medical history they were going to hear about the last four months before the murders or even since her first postpartum with Cora. I think they needed to say there's all this stuff happening. It's going to be a lot of noise. It's going to build you a big picture. And it's going to tell you a lot about who Lindsay was and the things that she was struggling with, but just like in every other murder case, and this is a triple murder case, you look at the day of the murders and the decision making behind those murders. And on this day, she knew exactly what was happening and not even the day. I would say like a couple of days before, right? And you'll see the calculation and don't get lost in the medical history of the four months. It's going to help paint a picture of where we arrive at, but I think they needed to set the stage on all that. Otherwise you are awash in all this medical history and you don't know how to make sense of it. And you can imagine someone just saying, by the 13th drug, I stopped listening. None of this is her fault. And they needed to give some sort of framework to understand why it's relevant to understand the big picture, but it may not be relevant for the exact charges brought here for purposes of guilt. I think at this point, we've already talked about most of what Patrick said, but there are a few points from his testimony so far, and he will continue on Wednesday, because they don't, they're not going to have trial on Tuesday that I just want to bring out because there are a few things that I think are somewhat important. Okay. So what is the defense going to be? Remember the defense doesn't have to have a unified theory. They just have to create some doubt. They have, it seems to me, two possible ways to go. They can either say this is fully some sort of postpartum psychosis, or they can say this is really a bipolar disorder activated by medication. Or they can say, this is a combination of all those things. And all the medication she was on put her in a state where she could not make rational decisions. I mean, they can pick or choose how exactly they want to have this. And it doesn't have to be completely consistent because that's the great thing about being the defense as opposed to the prosecution. Prosecution has taken some shots at the medication aspect by pointing out that it seems as though Lindsay did not take as many pills as maybe we would have thought. They highlighted today that she only took seven Zoloft pills, and Zoloft was a medication the defense hammered on in their opening. So there was that from Patrick's testimony that was interesting. The second thing I thought was interesting, and this seemed like they were just clearing up misinformation, which I have seen. I saw somebody post this on the gallery that the reason that she was discharged was a combination of the doctors and insurance, which everyone hates insurance and to some extent doctors. So like, that's a story that plays, right? Prosecution asked him about that. She left of her own accord, told the doctors that she wanted to be at Cora's birthday party, number one. Number two, there was no issue with insurance. And to the extent there was, Patrick said, would have paid it, not an issue. So that's not a real thing. The third thing that I thought was interesting is the suicide angle. Obviously, the defense is going to try and say this was medication induced, or at least they're going to point to that. Apparently, there was a file on Lindsay's case, and they're going to point to that. And they're going to point to that. As early as August, which said methods of suicide was the title that someone clicked on. They asked if it was him. Apparently, it was not him. That was before she started taking medication, before the medication would have activated and done a lot of things. So it seems as though she was considering suicide as early as August. Be interested to see more of the evidence that comes out with that. And the other thing, and this is how it ended today. And if I were to say, the prosecution, I put a pin in this and I build this into my argument later on. Patrick said that the day of the murders was one of her best days, one of the best days she'd had. That is incredibly consistent with the psychology of suicide. People who kill themselves often seem happier right around the suicide because they've already made the decision and they feel like a weight is off of them. I think the prosecution can probably argue that the reason she felt like she was that day is she had decided that she was going to do this. This was not the result of her hearing voices in the time that Patrick was gone. This was a planned thing from the beginning. She had decided she was going to do it on that day. That's why she sent him out when she did. And that's why that was one of her best days, because much like we see in suicides, she felt as though the decision had been made and she was going to do this thing. So those were the things out of his testimony that I thought were particularly interesting today. Yeah, I think you covered it really well. There's obviously still going to be more to his testimony. Overall, so far, I am questioning the decision strategically to put the grieving husband who supports her and has filed his own civil lawsuit first. We'll see how this plays out. It's going to be a long trial. So we'll see how this ultimately plays out. Maybe it might be that the rest of the witnesses are really bad. Who knows? So we can only see one piece of the puzzle right now. But I do think this has been an interesting choice to start with, not the choice that I would have started with. But there's still a lot to come out. So obviously, this is the first or second episode in this case with the first episode on the trial. We're going to play it by ear about how often we do these. This in some ways, not a lot happened today. I mean, we ended up talking about it for a good bit of time, but there wasn't a ton. There are going to be days where just not a lot happens where I mean, there's a lot of breaks in this trial. We'll just see how quickly it moves. We will do episodes when it seems appropriate. And you're probably going to see a lot of us over the next few weeks. Interested to know what you think. We're going to give you our honest assessment of the prosecution and the defense, as we always do. We'll tell you when we think they did something good. We'll tell you when we think they misstepped. But obviously, you know, we're not the experts in this case. They are. So they probably have a reason for why they're doing things the way they are. And we should give them the benefit of the doubt, as we often try and do. These are just our thoughts. Curious what you think if you're out prosecutor defense attorney. Curious if you think the thing went down the way we saw it or if you have other thoughts, shoot us an email prosecutors pod at gmail.com at prosecutors pod for all your social media. A lot of discussion in this case, obviously in the gallery. Join that. It's our fan run fan created Facebook page. If you want to watch us record these episodes, join Patreon. You can watch us record them live or if you want to see the edited versions, we release those on our sub stack. We release episodes early and ad free on Patreon and on Apple. So if you want to hear us, you don't want to see us and it doesn't have to be the day the trial happened. That's always a good way to do it as well. All right, Alice, is there anything else you want to add tonight before we sign off? You know, I think there's probably going to be a lot of people who are covering this case. I think you can probably gather this from the last couple episodes. There is not an outcome that I'm rooting for at all. I know we both are. But I think there's probably going to be a lot of people who are like what we thought the opening should be more so because we're kind of critiquing the strategy and of, you know, attorneys, which is obviously easy to do when you're not the one up there. So all props to the attorneys who are living, breathing a horrific case. I can't even imagine what their lives have been in prep and then for the next several months as they probably live in a hotel room and live and breathe this incredibly tragic case. So it's easy for us to do that. With that said, I am really not rooting for one or the other because we've said this time and again, and it's a good reminder when you are having heated conversations about this case. There are no winners in this case, whether she is convicted or she is found not guilty by reason of mental defect. This is just horrific across the board. I hope we are able to get some silver linings from this about how we can support mothers, families, children through mental illness, through postpartum diagnoses or misdiagnoses. But this is not a case where we should be taking sides. This is not a case where we should be taking sides. through. actually says immense things about his character that I don't know that I would be able to do in his same position. So if anything, he deserves more than grace, because he is probably the person next to Lindsay who could give us the most insight into what is happening. And we are looking for truth after all. The final thing I'll say is unrelated to this case. So Brian Koberger filed his habeas corpus petition, his ineffective assistance of counsel claim today. We'll do a legal briefs on it. You can skip it. It's going to fail. It's not even worth worrying about. He's not going to withdraw. Don't worry. We'll still find an hour's worth of discussion about it, but not going to go anywhere. So we'll talk about that. Don't worry. Don't worry. All right, guys, we'll be back at some point, probably soon with more on this case. Like I said, we're trying to sort of put a link up on Patreon so you guys can discuss the trial as it's going. We tried to use Patreon to do that today. It seemed like it didn't work as well. So I'll figure something out so the chat's a little bit more manageable. But follow this case, and we'll give you our thoughts as we go. We will see you soon. But until then, I'm Brett. And I'm Alice. And we are The Prosecutors. This is going to be the beginning of yet another thing where we see each other. I brushed my hair today for you. You look great. I thank you. I changed shirts. Look at you. This is just like I said, when we started recording this yesterday, I take no pleasure out of this case whatsoever. Legally, I guess I find it a little bit interesting, but it's just such a devastating case. It overcomes all of it. So the least I can do is brush my hair and look presentable to talk to all of you about this case today. Yeah. Yeah. This is a rough one, but really appreciate you guys. Thanks for having me on the show. Thanks for having me on the show.