381. The Lindsay Clancy Trial Part 9

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 prosecution case continues, but is it almost over? Hello everybody and welcome to this episode of The Prosecutors I'm Brett. And I'm joined as always with my wrapping it up, co-host, Alice. Brett, dare we say it? Dare we say it? Day 13 and maybe the prosecution is wrapping up in the Lindsay Clancy trial. Yeah. I know we could last you six weeks of trial, but I mean, well, the defense case is going to last for a long time. Don't you worry. And there's going to be a rebuttal. So it will go on for quite a while, but we've always said the prosecution goes first because they have the burden of the proof. So if by the end of their case, you don't really know what's going on. It's not great because it's kind of like, who has the ball in the game? Like you're not, you might score if you're on defense, but like that's not the time to score. Right. So we'll go through what happened in the last two days because there's been a lot of interesting testimony. I guess it's weird. Weird test. If this is the end, if this is the end, it's not a bang. It did not end with a bang. It's not a bang. These last two days have been strange. Before we get into that though, there are a couple things I want to go ahead and discuss. One thing I'm going to do is read an email. I know you guys have sent such good emails. You said so many. I spent like hours reading emails today. This one was I felt like important just because this person explained a bunch of things that no one ever bothered to explain. So I think this could be helpful for you guys in the trial. Yeah. So this could be helpful for you guys to understand. These are the kind of things you would hope. The jury understands, but if they do, it's going to be because of magic, not because it was explained to them. Okay. So this is from a woman who is very familiar with the world of psychiatry. She's a licensed therapist and she wanted to explain a few terms that have been used. So one, the first thing she wanted to explain is that psychosis doesn't just happen in one chunk. It has phases. In fact, it has three phases. Prodromal, acute, and recovery. Now, eventually they're going to be experts. In this case, maybe they'll talk about this, but you would think we could have asked some of the people who treated Lindsey about this. The prodromal phase is very hard to recognize specifically in someone who has never had a psychotic episode before. It often occurs in connection with other mental health concerns. It's very possible Lindsey was in this phase through the visits with her many doctors. Providers cannot be faulted for not identifying this. It's a lot like depression and anxiety. And it's also very rare. In order to meet a criteria for psychosis, one must be having symptoms of acute psychosis, often called a psychotic break. It is much easier to see in hindsight when a prodromal phase is occurred, but almost impossible to identify before the acute phase in someone like Lindsey, who had no prior psychotic features. This is a really interesting point just because so much of this case is being viewed through hindsight and so much of the criticism of the doctors and the nurses and the nurse practitioners has been hindsight based. Like if you knew Lindsey was going to kill her three kids, what would you have done then? Well, they didn't do that. So that's bad. And you see that a lot in the defense cross. And so I thought that was interesting. So the second thing she wants to explain is higher level of care. When Lindsey and Patrick told Nurse Jalada they needed a higher level of care. They were not insinuating that she was incompetent. Rather, they were saying they needed to move to a higher spectrum of mental health care levels. And Jalada was suggesting inpatient, but Lindsey chose to try IOPP, who also directed her to go inpatient. So here's some definitions of this. So for outpatient care, low risk weekly or every other week therapy and or psychiatric services, intensive outpatient program with a treatment team where patients go for slightly more elevated risk 10 to 20 hours weekly. Many of these folks are still participating in their everyday lives. Partial hospitalization program, same as IOP, but higher risk, maybe just stepping down from inpatient or residential, means for about 40 hours a week. Residential longer term treatment homes for treatment resistant, high risk individuals, inpatient short term medical stabilization in a hospital. I wish the prosecution and defense understood that when Lindsey was turned away from the day program because of too much medication, they suggested she go to McLean. This was not them turning her away. It was them saying she needed 24/7 medication stabilization support, which is only available in an inpatient setting. They were saying they were not equipped and that she should go to the hospital, which was better equipped for the care she needed. They would have been irresponsible of them to take her because she was clearly in need of medical stabilization, which is an inpatient issue, not an IOP PHP one. Key term there. It would have been irresponsible for them to take her because they didn't have the resources for her because all over you see the quick like 180 characters where people are like she got turned away, she got turned away, she got turned away. No, if someone comes to me and says I need an M&A lawyer, I say no, not because I'm turning them down because I'm a cold-hearted person, but because that's not my expertise. If I took your money, I would be just taking your money because I'm not that kind of an attorney. They're saying we're not equipped to do the thing that you need in support of it. And I think that's so key because everyone's pointing to this. I'm seeing everyone write short shrift without really listening to the testimony. And I think this is coming out in the testimony, but this was explained so well that not only are they not turning her away in the sense that they don't care or don't think she needs help, but actually she needs a very specialized type of healthcare that they cannot provide is so, so key here. And it's like if I'm a trust in a state lawyer and you come to me and you say, Hey, I've been charged with murdering my wife. Would you represent me in this death penalty case? If I say yes to that, I am negligent and ineffective and probably should be. They're responsible all the things. My license should be taken away. What I should tell you is I am not equipped to do that. You should go do X. That is not me turning you away. That is me directing you to the proper level of care for your issue. And then what she do after that is to some extent up to you and she goes on to say that hospitalization, stabilization, ongoing high level care would probably have prevented this, but it is not the fault of the outpatient providers. They recognize that she needed inpatient care and she continuously refused. And then when she did go, she left early. They may have been if fault had they not referred her to a higher level, but since they all did, they followed standard of practice and did everything they could. I'm not going to read this other email, but we also had someone who's been a suicide hotline worker for 20 years. And they talked about how the way the defense is describing what happened when she called the hotline is just incorrect that when you call a hotline, the first thing they do is they essentially triage you. Are you in imminent danger? Exactly. If you're in imminent danger, they call the police. If you are suicidal with a plan, they try and get you to a hospital. If you are suicidal without a plan, but pretty serious suicidal, that's really the most murky issue and difficult. If you are just expressing feelings of depression and sort of low level passive suicidal ideation, then what they do is try and give you resources because they are not in a position to hospitalize your section 12. You were doing anything like that. They're just trying to respond to your needs. And I think this has been repeated so often that people just take it for granted now that all of these medical centers, all of these doctors, all of these nurses, all these nurse practitioners, all these emergency numbers, just uniformly decided for some reason that's not clear that they were going to turn away not treat, refuse care for Lindsey Clancy. And that's just not what happened. And maybe you think the mechanisms by which these decisions are made and the standards that apply are wrong, but that's kind of a different story for a different time. And I think it's important to remember, and somebody else pointed this out, who sent an email, one of the issues that people need to grapple with, and frankly we probably all should grapple with, is that suicidal ideation is incredibly common to the point that there simply are not enough resources. If you wanted to take a more proactive approach, the approach some people seem to think should have happened with Lindsey. If you wanted to do that, that with every person who called the suicide hotline or every person who spoke to a psychiatrist, then we have to massively increase our investment in mental health 'cause we don't have the beds. We don't have the resources to treat everybody. - But also, I think what is coming out here as well is that that may not be the best course of action either. Right? Like the thing she was doing, right? Going to meditation and taking time for herself, writing in a journal, exercise. Those are things that you are inhibited from doing when you are hospitalized and forced to take medication, for example. There's a reason why those are higher levels of care where you have more of your freedoms taken away from you, which could actually push you closer to greater depression than otherwise maybe necessary at that stage. It's kind of like, you don't jump to fentanyl right when you have a headache, right? It would be super effective if everyone who came in and was like, I have an Maui, no matter if it's a paper cut or your arm's been sliced off, fentanyl for everyone. Yes, that would be highly. - Especially what we used to do with oxy. - That is literally what we used to do with oxcote on which is why we're in the opioid crisis that we're in. But that is clearly not a perfect corollary to the mental health stage, but you can imagine how it's like, yes, that would be highly effective. And in hindsight, right now we're like, well, it doesn't matter what we should have done. We should have done it all because there are three dead children. Yes, we are in a horrible situation. Clearly something did not go right. By the way, a possibility of the clearly something didn't go right could be that a person decided to end someone's life and had nothing to do with mental health. That is on the table. That's why we have a trial. Even if she were given all these drugs, that's what we're trying to figure out in this trial. Even if she was hospitalized, all these things. When people want to do something, they will do it. What we're trying to figure out is if she made that decision in psychosis without the ability to actually think and conform her actions to the law or doesn't matter what anyone was going to say to her, doesn't matter what medication she was given, doesn't matter what help and support she was given, she made a decision to do this. And so I think that's really important here. There's a reason we don't treat every single pain with fentanyl. There's also a reason we don't treat every mental illness like the second you say, you know, some days it's really hard to get up and I'm just, some days I'm like, you know what? It'd be better if I didn't get up in the morning. And that person was immediately whisked off to like six weeks of inpatient care. Well, crap, they just lost their job. They might not have healthcare to pay for all of that. They may actually really need a community sport or they would just have it a hard day, but we're treating them all the same is, first of all, not realistic. We don't have the resources for it, nor is it actually the best course of action for probably the majority of people who say something like that. I mean, honestly, if that's what you think they should have done and so many people have said that and we sort of said this before, you're not taking medical care forward. You're taking it back about a hundred years when women were regularly hospitalized, institutionalized, lobotomized for all sorts of ordinary issues. History literally comes from the Greek word for women. So there's a reason that we don't do that anymore. And I don't think we necessarily should go back to that. Maybe there should be some more resources. And I'm not saying everything that they did was perfect. I'm not saying that the way she was treated, they shouldn't have done more things, but the people who immediately jumped to, they should have section 12 to her. I just don't see how you can support that based on what those folks knew at the time. - And this, I don't know yet, like this case, my thinking on this case has changed drastically from day zero before we even heard opening statements. So I'm not saying this is necessarily what it is, but what Brett and I have seen a lot of the times is especially when it comes to parents and children, in some ways it's final destination. If that parent wants to end their children's life, there will be an opportunity. I'm not saying that that was what was going to happen here, but everyone that I've seen online who's angry about this case keeps saying, if only Patrick never left the house, if only he never went to work or never went out to get food, or they never left her alone, all these things. Look, we deal, especially with cartels, we deal with this all the time, when someone wants to off someone, they will get an opportunity to off that person. And especially someone who has access to children who depend on them, even if they're under 24 hour watch. So I'm not saying that's where they're, we're trying to figure that out right now. And so to blame everything saying, these three kids will 100% be here. If only she was given a real psychotic dose of seroqual. Maybe, maybe not. She was given lots of opportunities for lots of different therapies that she turned down. And at some point, you have to take that into account here too. - And last thing I'll say before we get into the trial, thank you to the, I don't know, something like there was a thousand of you. Psychiatrist, therapist, everybody who emailed in with their opinions on whether or not Patrick and the parent should have been involved. So the general consensus was talking to Patrick in the way that he was taught to is fine. That you have to be careful with the way you approach that with someone. It depends on the circumstances, but it's good to have sort of an insight into a person's life. Almost universally, people thought, Reddington's, oh my God, you didn't talk to the parents, was crazy. Now we didn't have one person who actually emailed us today. He went through this about why you might want to talk to somebody. And I was like, do you think it would have been appropriate in this circumstance to talk to Lindsay's parents? And they said, because this was such a weird case in that Lindsay should have been getting better and wasn't, it might have been worth it. If she would agree to it, you got to talk to her about it first. It might have been worth it just to see if the parents knew about any kind of underlying like alcohol, drug abuse, anything that could have been preventing it. Most people thought that given that she doesn't live with her parents as independent on her parents, that it would have been very unusual to ask for her parents. So that's how it struck me as well. And also just to note, the point is not that you should never reach out to various collateral people if the patient agrees. But the way the defense has put it is that after ever, this is the way I took it. Maybe this is not the way the people saw it. That like after every time she met with one of these doctors, they should be calling up Patrick and saying, hey, so she said X, Y and Z is that true. And it was just this very strange, they should be constantly going to him to confirm the things that she was saying. And then even that it was insane that they didn't speak to the parents. And this is one of the things about the way the defense has approached us. It's a little bit, and I understand why they're doing it because they're doing it for the jury. These are all really hard questions. Whether you should talk to the husband, when you should talk to the husband, what circumstances you should, how you should broach it with the patient, when you should go to the parents, if you should go to the parents, these are all really difficult questions that are very fact intensive and very particular to each case. And the way it's been presented as if I can't believe it, that's how could they not? They're so obviously incompetent is just not reflected by anything that we've heard, certainly, from the various professionals who've reached out to us. I've really appreciated you guys for sharing that. Like I said, been really helpful and we want to try and share that information there but out there because we're not doctors, we're not psychotrists and most of you aren't either. So hopefully that is helpful. Well that's it. How else did you have anything on that? Before we dive into the-- - We better get started because there's a lot to cover. - Okay, we got two days of trial and they were weird. So we'll start with Dan Lawler. This is day 12, this is yesterday of the trial. And Dan Lawyer is a Massachusetts state police sergeant been with the force for nine years. He was part of the state detective unit during Clancy. He collected clothing and a wedding ring from Clancy. He helped execute search warrant. His role was to document the evidence that was found, wasn't involved in the search on the side table. Complete nothing burger of a witness, not even sure why he was called. Everything he talked about has been stipulated to and he didn't add anything. So I don't know why the prosecution called him. - This is a shooting yourself in the foot prosecution. He added nothing and you knew exactly what he was going to be crossed on. - Well, you knew some of what he was going to be crossed on and then all of a sudden-- - That's the perpetrator. - That's the perpetrator. - So the obvious thing he was going to be crossed on was the fact that the side table wasn't searched. And let me just say this about the side table. People say, "Who searched the bedroom?" This is kind of like the old mistakes were made, passive voice. The bedroom was searched. Who searched it? Who no one seems to know. No one who's testified searched it. No one wants to take credit for being the one who didn't search that drawer. - And to be totally fair, they probably were focused on the open window and the blood spatters everywhere. That's honestly-- - Still should have searched it. - No, no, they should have searched it. But that's honestly probably why it got overlooked 'cause there was so much to do in the bedroom. - And he talks about that. He talks about there's blood. One thing that was interesting and I wasn't exactly sure why Reddiction focused on this, but it was interesting to me 'cause I think it actually tells us something not necessarily good about Lindsay. And that's that there was no blood on the phone. Reddiction brings this up. And the first thing I thought was, okay, when Patrick called her, he said she seemed like she was in the middle of something she was busy. There are two things she could have been in the middle of. Killing her children or attempting to kill herself. One of the two things. If she had already cut her wrist, there'd be blood on the phone. So there's no blood on the phone. So if she had already killed the children, which we're gonna see if the timeline later does the same possible, but if she'd already done that, She did not know. gotten to the point. Whatever she was quote unquote busy with doesn't seem like it was a suicide. So I don't know, I thought that was a little interesting, a little tiny point, not sure while Reddington talked about it, but he did. - Then. - One of the strangest things I've ever seen in a trial. So Reddington starts talking about how no one could get access to Lindsay Clancy in the hospital. In fact, the lawyer could barely get in and he had hired a doctor, Paul Zazal, a psychiatrist, to go talk to her and he had to get a court order to make that happen. And this is the question he asks of this state trooper. He says, "Isn't it fair to say that one of the contentions of the DA is that Paul Zazal, my doctor, that I got a court order to get him in to see her, told her to call Pat and tell him that she heard voices. - What in the holy hear say is that? - It's insane. Obviously the prosecution immediately objects. I didn't get into the craziness that followed here, but I've got to tell you. There have been times in the trial where I thought, did Lindsay make up the voice? Is the voice just an excuse for what she did? Did she really hear the voice? At no point in the trial, did I think? I bet a psychiatrist told her to do that. And certainly at no point in the trial, did I think? The psychiatrist who's going to testify, told her to make up a voice and call Patrick. And as soon as he said that, I was like, "Huh, I guess that's possible. She didn't say it to the doctor. She taught to him and I've got to imagine." And I know there are a bunch of you. I mean, I was getting messages left and right. What is he talking about? Is he saying the psychiatrist? - Multiple people, did I miss something? Was this in the opening statement? Like, why is the defense bringing this up? This is a consequence of theory? - And the thing is, and people are like, well, you know, maybe he's trying to take the sting out of it. Take it to sting out of what? - The prosecution. - The prosecution. - He introduced it. They can't call the DA to the stand and be like, "DA, got any theories?" You think the psychiatrist could have told her? They can't do that. They got to have actual evidence. And I haven't seen anything to indicate that there's anyone who's going to testify that they heard this psychiatrist. - I mean, literally when he said it, I did a double take and was like, I've watched every minute of this trial. Did I miss a witness? Was this the previous witness? And I somehow absolutely fast-forwarded it? Because to hear it from the defense in the first place, I had no idea what was going on. And there was nothing in the direct that would lead you to ask a lawyer this question. He didn't say anything about discussing theories. He honestly was like kind of a little man on the totem pole. Over here, he was just executing a search warrant. He probably just like heard about it and had to be part of the search warrant team. - And honestly, if I'd been the prosecution, I'd been like, let him cook you on it. - Can't he? - Let him go. Does he have any more questions? Does he have any questions about maybe she's, she Googled psychosis, so she would know the symptoms that later on she could tell you to tell you to tell me, is there any other theories he wants to throw out and put in the back of the jury's mind? That was so wild about it, but he asked it and there was an objection. - Obviously an objection. So this honestly should have been an easy like sustained. Like what are we talking about? But no, the judge has the jury leave so that they can not just sidebar, but like potentially vlog deer, the witness. So you do this when there's more discussion to be had and it's gonna take longer than just a sidebar. So the judge does that. He allows vlog deer on this, meaning he allows questioning of Lawler by Reddington on this line of questioning without the jury there. So he can hear the answers and decide if it's objectionable or if it can come in. So Reddington takes Lawler through Zizal visiting Lindsey Clancy in the hospital and he asks some questions about his discussions with the prosecution. What? (laughs) Again, this is highly unusual and also not admissible typically. Now they go through the fact that Lindsey called from the hospital using the doctor's cell phone called Patrick using Zizal's cell phone. And the prosecution wanted to run with the theory that Zizal told her to say that she heard voices obviously after the fact to like make it up. And Lawler's like, I mean, maybe he is again, not part of the like prosecution team. He is one of the search warrant executors. And he says, okay, I kind of remember something like this vaguely maybe in discussion. He says, I might have discussed it with the head case trooper. Those of you who've ever worked on any teams doesn't have to be an investigative team. You probably talk about lots of things with your teammates all the time about anything, right? So he's like, okay, maybe I talked about this with the case trooper. He doesn't recall discussing it with the prosecution at all. And I would be surprised honestly if the prosecution discussed it with like a sergeant anyways. And the head trooper said that at some point, Lindsay made a phone call to Patrick and they discussed the case. Notice the head trooper is not Lawler. So this is hearsay. During the conversation, Lindsay told Patrick she heard voices in the head. And he doesn't specifically recall discussing this quote unquote Zizal theory with the other trooper. It might have been an indication that Zizal told her to say that, but he is literally like, I don't know, I kind of remember something like this, but I definitely wasn't like the one talking about it. Seems like if anyone was talking about it, it would be the head trooper. So I just think this is such a wild line of questioning. So then-- - I guess this is actually redirect. - This is redirect. So then the prosecution gets up and says, it was a very good redirect because it gets straight to the point. None of this had been allowed. It was like, you don't actually know anything except the things you heard and that might have been told to you. But you don't know anything about this theory, right? And he's like, yeah, correct. I know about the search warrant. And then Reddington gets back up on Recross and says, but you've testified to your conversation, right? And that's the void here. - Now, can I just say in any-- - That's a wild. - In America. Any court in America, any judge who is even aware that there's a rule about relevancy, any hearsay rule, just knows they exist. It has never really plot them, but can read them in the rulebook. Would say, let's say that, yeah, two troopers in the trooper station are B.S. and about the case. And one of them says, I bet that Dr. Tolder to say that. - But that's exactly what happened. - How is that relevant? That's not evidence. - No. - And moreover, imagine if the prosecution tried to get this in, they would be burning the courthouse down. The judge would refer them to the bar to try and get in a random theory of a trooper. But here you have a defense attorney asking about a random conversation, asking a trooper what another trooper told him-- we call that hearsay-- what the prosecution told the other trooper. We call that hearsay within hearsay. This is just wild. It is completely wild. And it should have been very easy for the judge just to say, I'm going to sustain this objection. Let's move on. Instead, he takes a break to think about it. And then up having a sidebar. And here's what-- this is my best case, explanation. For why the judge allows writing to-- and some people miss this. They were like, oh no, they didn't avoid it. Look, yeah, they had that. Then the jury came back in, and he was allowed to ask the questions in your best theory. I think they went over there on sidebar and Reddington essentially said, judge, I already put it out there. I got to clear it up. Like, I've got to ask them the questions. If I don't get to ask them questions, then I've put in the jury's head that my psychologist might have done this and didn't get to clear that up, so I need to be able to clear it up. I almost think the judge did this as like a prophylactic against some sort of ineffective assistance of counsel thing. Because I've seen these kind of claims, ineffective assistance claims, where a attorney throws out some theory-- like, I had one once-- where the attorney actually suggested that the defendant might have been part of a cult. And the reason they said they might have been part of a satanic cult was to argue that the leader of the cult, who was really just his co-conspirator, had someone's control over him that he really wasn't fully culpable for the crime and shouldn't get the death penalty. So this attorney was trying to say this is actually mitigating. Obviously, there was an ineffective assistance claim. And the claim was no reasonable attorney would suggest that their client's a devil worshiper. And I had to argue this in front of the 11th Circuit and explain, no, it's crazy as this makes out. This was a strategic decision to try and lessen the culpability. It was the only way to get out of this, right? So people do that and they get in trouble. And I almost think the judge was like, I'm going to let you ask some limited questions here just to clear this up, because there's no other reason in law or the rules of evidence or anything that any of this ever, ever should have come in. - Or in a less charitable interpretation. He did not know what he was doing because he should have sustained the original objection and given an instruction to the jury, not take this long break and do a voidier and just say, yeah, we're going to strike that entire from the record. I've been instruct you to rewind the tape. I know what he's going to say. He's going to be like, this is wanting to prejudicial, but he's the one who put it in the record. But if he limited it to one question, not this like 30-minute sidebar, where clearly a lot of discussion was happening, it would have stemmed the mistake by the defense quickly, but he had to hem and haw and honestly create this problem. So that's the less charitable interpretation of what happened. The Prosecutors is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance company to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy. Just drop in some details about yourself and see if you're eligible to save money when you bundle your home and auto policies. The process only takes minutes, and it could mean hundreds more in your pocket. Visit progressive.com after this episode to see if you could save. Progressive casualty insurance company and affiliates, potential savings, will vary. Not available in all states. Guys, if you're like me, the past few months with kids at a school, lots of travel, has just meant that I have not been in my normal routine going grocery shopping, cooking healthy. And so I really need to get back to eating real food, and I'm so glad that factor makes it easy even if you're on the go. Because I'm always on the go, it seems. Factor meals are ready in two minutes. Yes, you heard me two minutes. It requires no prep and no cleanup, which is music to my ears with four kids. So even on the day's your schedule is completely out of control, eating well is still achievable and let me tell you, their meals are delicious. I didn't really think that they could send well-made steak to my door. So I put them to the test. I ordered like five different steaks and let me tell you, it was actually the best filet menu I've ever had. My kids ate it all and I kind of wish I got more so that I could eat some more. Every week you'll find over 100 nutrient dense menu items to choose from and new options like salmon burgers, shredded pork, collard greens and more. Plus add-ons at your crave like pumpkin flavored cheesecakes and protein shakes. It's no surprise that 97% of users agree that factor meals help them live a healthier life. So you can feel confident that you're doing something good for yourself with every meal. Let's eat real. Head to factor meals dot com slash prosecutors 50 off and use code prosecutor's 50 off to get 50% off and one free breakfast item per box for one year while supplies last until 1031 2026. That's code prosecutor's 50 off at factor meals dot com slash prosecutors 50 off factor meals dot com slash prosecutors 50 off. See website for more details. Valid sin Shopify, koska alusto ja test sa ni totesin sen ehdottomasti yhdeksi helpokäyttöisimmistä alustoista. Minulo oli tärkeä pohtia kehittymistä me tulevaisuudessa. Kaikki myyntiin tarvittava työkalut, kuten varaston suunnittelu, ovat kätevästi dashboardissa. Aloita ilmainen kokeilu Shopify piste kom sivustolla. So, at this point jury comes back in, cross resumes and basically he gets out that this stripper knew that the doctor let her talk to her husband on his cell phone, that he didn't see any reports indicating what he said and that there may have been a theory that Zazal told Lindsey Clancy to say that she heard the voices, but it was only a theory. That was the testimony that on redirect the Commonwealth says do you sometimes have conversations with troopers about theories to those theories change sometimes did you hear anything that happened that day and he says no none of this ever should have been discussed. It's a very strange moment. I think it was absolutely stepping on a rake by writing to Joshua McGilligan who is the lead trooper. He's going to testify, he testified today, guess what he didn't testify. He didn't say he overheard the psychiatrist telling Lindsey to lie about the voices. The only reason this jury is even aware of that is a theory and an idea is because Reddington put it out there and there may be a juror who's now like oh, I got it. I know what happened now and there's certainly some of you out there who that's what you thought. So I don't know why he did that and it's the first of many instances where either side seems to be giving help to the other side. Basically this was two days of the defense helping the prosecution and the prosecution helping the defense and it was really, really strange. Okay. So that was the end of law. The most bizarre witness so far next was Latisha Dukes. You may remember her. She's the licensed mental health counselor at South Shore Perry, Nadal. She does counseling at the clinic. She's a telehealth or in person practitioner depending on the patient's preference. The initial visit for her is always in person though. She met with Lindsey Clancy on December 2nd and she was referred to her for postpartum anxiety and depression during that meeting. They went through her psychosocial history and she didn't rely on previous records because she wanted to get to know the patient in front of her and she wanted to do her own fresh assessment. Imagine that. Where have we heard that before, basically all the practitioners. Now she told her that she had a prior history with mental health that she had seen a psychiatrist while she was still in nursing school and that she'd been engaged with a psychiatrist before coming to this particular clinic and that she'd been suffering from anxiety and depression. She also reported to Latisha that she had passive suicidal thoughts and depression and she gave an overview of the medication she'd been prescribed or taking but doesn't get into how to take them or what to take. Now, that's because Latisha is not a psychiatrist who can write prescription medication and it's not her role or her training to advise on medication doses or a medication treatment plan. Rather, she works on treatment plans that work on coping skills, community support or if she sees something concerning to refer her to a higher level of care. So Lindsay Clancy's mood was consistent with what she was reporting. She was tearful when discussing the anxiety symptoms, which I thought was interesting. This was one of the first instances where we really hear about real emotion from Lindsay. In fact, oftentimes she's kind of reported as not having emotion. That's one of her symptoms. She's very flat. She can't crash. She can't laugh. That's coming to several times. Here she actually is tearful, eyes out like a big deal. I don't know that it is, but I just thought that was interesting. She's also going to talk about her laughing later on. This is like the first person and this is probably because this is the first therapist we've heard from. So we've heard from psychiatrists. We've heard from people who were prescribed medication. This is the first person who really did talk therapy with her that we've heard about. So they talked about her thought content. She was worried about her infant and that she was addicted to adivan. She was asked about suicide. She said she had passive thoughts of not wanting to be here but no plan. And Duke's explained that the fact that she did not have a plan means it is not a crisis that needs to be elevated. A lot of people have a lot of problem with this that you can have suicidal thoughts but no plan and that means the next step is a little bit more limited. Like I said, I'm not a psychiatrist. I'm not a therapist. But every single one that is testified has said this. So maybe standard treatment plans need to change but that is seems to be the standard of care and what the general position is of people who work in this area. Her thought processes were within normal limits. She had no past attempts to harm herself or others. So even though she was concerned about being addicted to adivan, when Duke's didn't assessment on her for substance use disorders, she found that she did not present any symptoms of that. She was using adivan correctly as needed at least as she described it to her. And she diagnosed her with postpartum anxiety. The plan was outpatient therapy, medication and weekly visits with Duke's. Now what Duke's thought she should do is do a partial hospitalization plan that should be the outpatient therapy and then meet with her weekly in tandem with that outpatient therapy to make sure that she was making progress and she gave her information about potential partial hospitalization programs that she could consider. So that first visit was on December 2nd. She had a second appointment with Lindsay on December 5th and this one was by telehealth. Lindsay reported that she'd had a difficult weekend and had thoughts about wanting to die. She told Leticia that she called the aspire suicide hotline but on that call, she didn't meet the criteria of like the elevated emergency because she didn't have a plan to carry out the suicide. So again, I know people have take issue with that but again, that's how they classify these sorts of things. So she does tell Duke's that she called the hotline but no, I didn't have a plan. I was just feeling very, very depressed. Now, she said that Lindsay didn't show any signs of psychosis or homicidal ideation and during the visit, again, she asked her questions about it and she did not display any suicidal ideation. Now, during this telehealth visit, Patrick joined in. This visit was 30 minutes long and they went through sleep therapies and recommendations for intense partial hospitalization yet again. This is the second visit she's had with Duke's and the second time she's brought a partial hospitalization. But Lindsay said, I'm not interested in this at this time. She wanted and said information related to psychological testing and she had spoken to Rebecca Jolotta about that and Jolotta had sent information about that psychological testing to Lindsay. Now this testing wasn't done at the clinic because at the time she indicated she wanted outside help beyond the clinic. So Duke's reported that Lindsay's presentation was again within normal limits. It was no different from the earlier visit despite her saying that she had a different what Weekend had called the suicide hotline, and she said that there were no signs of mania, delusions, paranoia, or psychosis. Now, Duke's met with Lindsay a total of four times. The next one was within a week. It was on December 12th, and it was also by telehealth. Once again, they discussed that partial hospitalization program. Those who are keeping count, three for three. Three visits with Duke's three recommendations for partial hospitalization. This time, Lindsay indicated she was going to start a program on December 20th at Narwall. They talked about her need for a higher level of care and suggested another program. This one at Women in Infants. Now, Duke thought this was going to address some of the hesitations she had for the other hospitalization programs because women in infants was focused on postpartum, and Lindsay could bring talent. She could bring the baby with her, which had been some of the hesitations for Lindsay and going into any of these programs. The Lindsay at the time consented, and letitia, Duke's, made the referral to women in infants. At that visit, Lindsay did report continued suicidal ideation, but again, nothing warranted higher levels of immunodevention at this point from her, but she did make that referral to women in infants. The fact that she's not the first, and she won't be the last person to suggest to Lindsay, the need for more intense, a higher level of care, as we talked about, is the one email we had discussed, and eventually it seems like Lindsay kind of comes around to it. I mean, she wants to do women in infants, and she's going to be, quote, unquote, turned away, even though we know that's not what happened. But her resistance to this, and I think Patrick's resistance to this, gives us, I feel like a better idea of just generally speaking, what's going on here, you know, it's been presented. It is certainly the case that Lindsay was seeking help, that she was, as some people have said, begging for help. But she wants a very specific kind of help. She really wants to find something, I mean, as she even says, she just wants to feel like herself again. She just wants to feel better again. Her exact words, I think, were, I can't wait to wake up and feel like myself. Which is, look, I'm not belittling how hard this is. Those of you who've written in, say, the first few weeks of taking these medications were the worst of your life, because the symptoms were amplified and it took weeks before you got to the therapeutic levels, and you had to do the hard work of it. I agree it would be so great to wake up healed, right? And she verbalized that, and I don't fault her for wanting that to happen, except it can't, it doesn't happen in mental health treatment. And I just think, you know, this is so important because people have focused on it so much. And this back and forth in these conversations are the kind of things that I think is worth exploring. And it's worth us all knowing how this is going and why this is important. All right. So that brings us to December 19th. This is their final meeting. It is a telehealth meeting. They do a risk assessment, which she does every single time. She notes that sleep had improved. She was waiting on a call back from women in infants, so she had called them to try and set up some sort of appointment. Her mood had remained the same. She seemed more engaged. She smiled and laughed. She was enjoying time with the family and everything seemed positive. You know, in the smiling and laughing thing, it just felt like this was the first time. Liz is kind of tired in a corner. She's starting things are getting a little bit better. She's going to do the impatient thing. She's having more sort of emotion. She's sleeping better. She's doing the things that are good for her. And you kind of feel like, okay, this is good. Obviously, as we're going to see within a month, things are very bad and they're going to get bad very quickly after this. So December 27th, she has an interaction. So the last time she sees her and the last time she treats her is December 19th. And much like nurse practitioner Jolada, she thinks next day she's going to women in infants. Then the 27th comes around and she speaks with Lindsay and her husband, Patrick. And she actually called her to know the referral had been completed. I don't really know what that meant and nobody asked, but I seem just like all the paperwork had gone through and everything was finalized on that. But Patrick called her back and reported some concerns about the prescriptions. And she said, look, I don't deal with prescriptions. You're going to have to speak to the provider. So she would testify that she repeatedly pressed her to engage at a higher level of care, whether in a partial or full-time hospitalization. She never saw any signs of psychosis, never had any concerns that she was lying. No problems with speech patterns, no signs of mania, no indication they needed a safety plan or a section plan. And there was nothing about her visits that indicated that anything like that would be necessary. And so she's just the latest person who spent significant time with Lindsay, who attempted to treat Lindsay, who did not see those critical issues arising. And that's key what Brad just said there. It'd be one thing if she were the only practitioner, the only therapist who we heard this from. What she's saying now, I've already lost count, every single practitioner basically has said the same things. Yes, she has expressed insomnia concerns and XYZ concerns, but when asked to do either higher levels of care or different drugs to help her taper off the more addicted ones, she has resisted. And the key thing is every single one of them asked questions every single time about the having a plan and the psychosis and speech patterns, all of those things. And every single one of them across the board have reached the same conclusion. Now, Reddington crosses Latisha Dukes, of course. And he says, you only met with Lindsay four times, right? And he asks about the behavioral health intake form. He loves these intake forms and these screening tests. Now one thing you're interested in, he asks her, is how honest the person is, right? So he goes through much of the medical history we've discussed ad nauseam, but he does it again with Dukes, and then they talk about that passive suicidal ideation. And that remoron and the seroquial we're not working. Now, Lindsay reported that Adivan works, but she's afraid she's addicted to it and that it's unmanageable anxiety that she has about her children, especially about the baby. And she's worried something bad will happen to her kids. Now, Dukes says, she had family support. She had her mom and dad and in laws, which is like four more people than most people have when they have young children, again, parenthood, immensely difficult, you need a community. But this was not a situation of a woman who was like, hold away, having kids against her will with her husband completely isolated from the world. She was in the world, constant support, not just from her husband, who is very involved, right? Like, he's showing up to her telehealth. He's showing up to in person meetings. He's pushing her to do in person when things are just telehealth, like he's very involved, but not just him. They were his parents, so are her parents. Now, part of the cross comes out that Lindsay reports to Lichisha Dukes that she last drink not, not yesterday, not the one or two drinks, not last week, not even last year. She last drank October, 2019, interesting, because for one, she definitely didn't tell that to Toph. She was telling Tophs that she was drinking in real time, but only one to two drinks a week. She told Dukes she was drinking nothing since 2019. What is that? Since Cora was born, basically, soon after Cora was born. And this was Reddington. Once again, Reddington was one who brought this out, prosecution didn't bring it up. I don't even know if it's accurate. I mean, Reddington could be misreading it for all I know. But he said that she last drank in 2019. And if she told Dukes that she's lying to somebody, she either lied to Tophs when she said she was drinking two drinks a night and felt guilty about it. And remember, he asked Tophs what's her drink choice, and she didn't know. Well, Dukes actually asked that question and does know. But so you've got a situation, and this immediately made me think of what I thought was a coffee cup, but was a wine tubbler on the bedside table next to the bloody knife. And people said, well, you can drink other things out of wine tubbler, 100%, you absolutely can. But why would you buy a wine tubbler in the first place or be gifted one if you didn't drink? Yeah. If you haven't drank since 2019, you know who doesn't ever get alcohol-related gifts this girl? I've never bought my mom a wine tubbler. She's never drinking her life. I'm not going to buy her a wine tubbler. Well, you can put sweet tea in there, mom. I'm not going to do that. And it says because kids on it, I mean, it's always. But the fact, and this is kind of circumstantial case-top stuff, could it have had something else in it? Yes. But the fact it's there, the fact that she told her first provider that she was drinking twice a night and feeling bad about it, then she tells later on, remember, this is later, she tells Duke she hadn't had a drink since 2019, what does that make me think? It makes me think she's still drinking. And that we kind of joked, and it wasn't really joked, but we kind of joked that if you say you're having one to two drinks a night, you're probably having more than that. Well, now she's scaled that love even more. Now she's saying hadn't drank since 2019, and it just makes you wonder, now, obviously, when her blood is tested after the murders, there's no alcohol in her system. An alcohol, as we talked about in our DUI episode recently on legal breeze, alcohol is processed fairly quickly. She could have had alcohol before and by the time her blood's tested, maybe she's already processed it, or maybe she didn't have anything to drink that day. But if she's drinking throughout using all these different drugs, that could be a real issue. And here's the thing. Here's something that she did tell Tofs about the drinking, and she also told because Zeus is a really good provider. Despite her saying she'd patent drinks since 2019, she still said, well, when you did drink, what was your alcohol of choice? And Lindsay said, wine, which she also told tuffs, if you remember. And she said, one to two glasses, exactly what she told tuffs. And here's the most interesting part. It's fine to drink wine. Some people say it's good for your heart. Antioxidants, all these sorts of things. It's great to have with a nice steak. Sure, but she specifically said, I drink wine to cope with anxiety. And she said that to tuffs as well. So that leads me to believe she's been using alcohol and self-medicating for quite some time. And we see this in her medication. She doesn't really follow any medication plan, Adivan. Yeah, she kind of told the truth when she said, I only use it as needed, except I need it every day. So kind of, yes, it is just as needed, except it's your as needed every single time you have anxiety. So she's told the truth, except not the whole truth there. And we also know she self-medicates with other stuff. I learned something new, and I prosecuted a whole lot of drug cases when I was a prosecutor. But I did not know this term, Brett. The devil's lettuce. (laughing) That was awesome. I'm not gonna lie. I cracked up. I laughed. I laughed. I really have never heard that term. You may say, what's the devil's lettuce? The devil's lettuce was Reddington's term for the marijuana gummies that Lindsey took. Or the one marijuana gummy that she took. So they go into the whole fact that she took this marijuana gummy for sleep. And the only thing I remember from that line of questioning was that he called it the devil's lettuce and I couldn't stop laughing. Didn't hear the rest of the questioning. And with dukes, just like he did with several other witnesses, he did the whole, you know, BS of, keep your voice up. Speak into the microphone. I can't hear you, you know, that sort of thing. He's a little less aggressive than with other witnesses. He was the most aggressive for sure with Dr. Tufts, but he continued to pull that with Latisha who is a younger female provider. Oh no, I don't like it. I don't think it comes off well. It looks like bullying. So he highlights the four visits with her and notes that she wasn't avoiding therapy and she was more than happy to receive it. I actually thought this was a really good point because up to this point, we had seen evidence of her avoiding therapy, but at least with dukes, it seems like she was more willing to meet with her in person and do the therapy. It's only four visits, but it's also in a relatively short period of time. Obviously she met with her psychiatrist more, but I think this is a positive for Lindsay. I think it takes some distinct out of that notion that she was avoiding that kind of therapy. Goes to the women in infants and over medication issue, talks about the unburke scale. She doesn't know if it was administered. It's not something she does. She's been in the field since 2011, writing to describes her as having an impressive background and experience. Ask her about continued education. He asked about mass general health. He says there's an article that mass general put out. She had not read it. He then goes through the article. Did you know it says this? He's like, I haven't read the article. Goes through Lindsay's various issues. Again, he talks about the postpartum depression symptoms. Now here's another place where I thought this was a weird point that he makes. Fascinating point, but a weird point. Postpartum psychosis that you may be thinking. We're trying to say she has postpartum psychosis and that's why she murdered her three children and that means she's not guilty. And you probably feel like, well, then that diagnosis needs to be pretty rare because we don't necessarily want to be handing out not guilty by reasons of lack of mental competency. Too much, he points out, and I was shot by this when we talked about it with momma psychologist. Then it affects two out of a thousand women now granted different severities, and she's obviously an extremely severe situation. But he nevertheless points that out, talks about that it can happen within a year. Then he keeps going. He does his whole Fenway Park analogy and how many people fit in Fenway Park and that based on that, that means there's like 100 women in Fenway Park. If you put all women in Fenway Park, 100 of them would have postpartum psychosis. How does this help him? It doesn't help him. Because you know what's not happening in Fenway Park? 100 psychotic people killing their children in Fenway Park. Exactly. Like guys. And I get it. Once again, I know her situation would be extreme. And intellectually, I know that, but I'm also hearing the defense attorney saying, this thing I'm saying she had that led her to murder her children is not actually that rare. And I just thought that was a little bit of a weird thing to highlight so forcefully as he did. So in redirect, she's asked, you didn't review the other records because you wanted to have a fresh set of eyes, which I thought was a really interesting point. Obviously she's going to look at the records eventually, but she wanted to view Lindsay of Fresh. And this fits what so many of you have told us, the just different people looking at the same client are going to see different things. And so it's better not to have the preconceived notions. And she said if it's an entirely new process and she had no role in medication management. And one thing I wanted to emphasize that we've already said previously and we heard from more practitioners who confirmed, this is the case. She was clearly in a heightened state. She was seeking help. She was going to providers and therapists and going into women and infants program. She was speaking to someone nearly every day. These records take time to transfer, even if she had signed a release. She needed to go see Latisha Dupes on December 2nd. Latisha didn't need to wait four weeks for the records to come in, review them, and then see Lindsay who in her own words was in crisis, needed to be seen right away. So what do you want? Do you want us to put off women who are in crisis for weeks, three, maybe four, five, six weeks until their records come in before you even begin to treat them? No, because of course you're supposed to treat the person right in front of you. So I thought that was a really good point that someone wrote to us was like, yeah, they'll get the records eventually, but like they got to treat the person in front of you too. - So in recross, in Reddington, he just can't help himself. This was a really good cross. He was respectful of her, and then they keep your voice up, thank. But for some reason, and I think Reddington has a tale, I think sometimes he gets snippy with the witnesses he shouldn't when they have hurt him. And I think he does that with her. So he asked her if the visit on the 19th was on the television because he can't help it with telemedicine. He just can't help himself. He says she told you that she was exercising, and of course he wants to know when she went exercising, and what she did when she exercised. And she says, well, we discuss that, but I don't write down everything, which I think actually hurts him once again, because it's another provider saying, I don't transcribe our conversations. He thinks there's a contradiction between her reporting that Lindsay was feeling numb, and that she was laughing with Dukes, which just once again leads Dukes to go back through the exact situation in which they started laughing with each other. So I don't know, I thought the Red Cross, he could have not done that, and he probably would have been better off. But that was the end of Latisha Dukes, a very important witness. (upbeat music) Guys, it's summer, which means it's hot out, which usually means I wanna wear less clothes, but the reality is I still need to wear shapewear and bras to feel supported. And I have to wear it all day, when it's like a hundred degrees outside. Well, that's why I love Honey Love. It is truly the most comfortable bra you will ever put on, that you're never gonna wear anything else. I'm so glad that I have now stepped into the next age of Honey Love bra, because they're so supportive, they're so comfortable, and I kinda notice that I need a little more lift or structure than I used to, and my body changes over time, but Honey Love knows that, and they support me in all the right ways. There's no slipping, no constant adjusting, just a secure, flattering fit that actually stays in place. And I also love their shapewear. I have lots of shapewear, because let's be honest, I'm a lawyer, I've been suits all the time, dresses all the time, I've had a lot of kids. Their shapewear, you will love. You'll forget your even in it. It won't be the first thing you take off when you come home. That's how comfortable it is. Honey Love is an independent female founded brand, and all Honey Love products are intelligently designed by women who actually wear them, including their founder Betsy, who's highly involved in the development of each product. And let's be honest, finding that right bra, the older you get, can get really frustrating. What used to work just doesn't work anymore, but with Honey Love, they know what you need, and it's without stiff wires digging in or bulky padding that feels outdated. And their cloud embrace bra, it's just a game changer. It's my favorite, it's soft, it's breathable, and it's incredibly comfortable, but still supportive enough to replace your old, underwire bras. It's the kind of bra you put on in the morning, and don't think about again all day. - Treat yourself to the most advanced bras in shapewear on the market. Use our exclusive link to save 20% off. Honey Love and Honey Love dot com slash prosecutors. That's Honey Love dot com slash prosecutors. After you check out, then ask where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you, experience the new standard and comfort and support with Honey Love. Guys, we talk about therapist and mental health a lot, and we know that finding a therapist you like is hard enough, but what can make it even more difficult is finding one who actually takes your insurance. And that's where most online therapy platforms fall short. Many don't work with insurance at all, which means you're stuck paying the full cost of out-of-pocket or paying for an expensive monthly subscription. And that keeps a lot of people from going and getting the therapy that they really need. Well, that's where RULA does things differently. They partner with over 100 insurance plans, making the average copage is $15 per session. That's real therapy from licensed professionals and a process that actually makes sense. Think about it. Use your insurance benefits to maintain your physical health, so why wouldn't you do the same for your mental health? And Rula isn't just affordable, the experience is tailored around you. Other online therapy platforms might match you with the first available provider, whether or not they're the right fit. Rula considers your goal preferences and background to provide you a curated list of licensed in-network therapists who are actually aligned with what you need, because they know that finding the right therapist can make all the difference. There are no weightless, no frustrating back and forth, Rula makes it easy to find a mental health provider who's accepting new patients and appointments are available as soon as tomorrow. Plus, Rula sticks with you throughout your journey, checking in to make sure that your care is helping you move forward. So get the help you need now, whether it's dealing with burnout at work or just having a bunch of anxiety and stress piling up, because there's a lot to deal with in life. Now is your chance to really deal with it with Rula. Go to Rula.com/Crossacuters to get started today. That's r-u-l-a.com/Crossacuters for quality therapy that's covered by insurance. Next is Cameron Dayley, who's a Ducksbury Police Department officer. Now he's there basically because he was at the hospital with Lindsay on January 25th. He was there to be on duty for security. His job was not to let anyone in, which breading tin is very fixated on, and he did his shift and then the sheriff's office took over watch. There was no attorney or anyone else who came in while he was on watch. He was there for a relatively short amount of time. He just did his shift to watch her. Now we know what the cross is going to focus on, writing tin thinks it's somehow offensive that they're guarding a woman who just killed three children. And they're protecting her too, isn't it? Exactly. I would think it would be much worse if they weren't doing something. She's tried to harm herself as well. I mean, for all my know, Patrick's going to show up with a gun and sheater. They don't know how he views this. It's just weird. Reading tin's like obsession with the fact that they guarded her, and he's done it with several different witnesses. That's very strange. So next they call Nicole Bradley, who's with the Plymouth County Sheriff's Department. She's in the field services division, and she basically took over hospital watch. So similar witness, I'm not really sure why the prosecution called them, because it's writing tin's whole theory that they guarded her like a criminal, which when you kill three people, like that's why there's a trial right now, she's likely going to be charged with their murders. And once again, she needs to be protected. She needs to be protected as well. There's a reason they put bulletproof vest on people who are accused. She's showing up for the serious grubs. I mean, but I don't know why the prosecution called her because it's completely relevant. This was very confusing. There were short witnesses. Not much came of them. Certainly didn't help the prosecution's case. I guess the only point was they've treated her like a criminal defendant the whole time. So the next two witnesses are probably the most controversial thing that happened during the entire day. And I was annoyed by this whole thing and how it went down because I thought these were really important witnesses, and I could barely concentrate on them because of what was going on in the courtroom. The first one was Dr. Renee Stonebridge. She works at the medical examiner's office, double major in German literature, in languages, and biology. So some people are just smarter than the rest of us. Seriously. Seriously. Very intelligent. Well, autopsies like cheese, which isn't like a really emotionally difficult thing. Yeah. So she focuses on the deaths of young children and neuropathology, so we need sort of injuries to the head and the brain. And she goes through the findings on the children, the injuries were consistent with thisphyxiation, which led to brain death. It takes between six to eight minutes for the brain to start dying from lack of oxygen flow. Let me say a couple of things about these witnesses because I keep seeing people criticizing the prosecution for calling them because Lindsay Clancy has stipulated to the fact she did this. That is completely irrelevant. And there's like a thousand cases on how it's irrelevant. The prosecution gets to tell this story. And guess what? These children deserve to have their story told. How they're killed matters and may show the planning and action and intentionality behind it. Because if they're arguing that it was a psychotic moment in time that quickly flashed away that soon as she called Patrick at 634, then this is relevant because if we're talking six to eight minutes times three, that is different than you threw them all in the bathtub at the same time or something like that. This was methodical across all three, so absolutely it is relevant to showing what happened because the only person who was there who was alive is Lindsay Clancy. And look, I think this is really important just for the factual question of how long this took. No one can say exactly because it differs and we're going to see some of that testimony. But it did take some time and the children fought and their mother didn't let them go when they were clawing at their throats and fighting their mother and trying to save their lives and trying to take a breath over whether it's 30 seconds or a minute or two minutes, however long it lasted, she never stopped. And the jury needs to know that when they're thinking about psychosis. Frankly, some people out there who are following this case need to know that because the way people talk about this case, sometimes they have totally forgotten what happened here. And they forgotten what happened to these children. And at the end of the day, it may be the case that Lindsay Clancy was insane at the time and is not responsible for what she did. But you can only resec conclusion, not based on your own personal experiences, not based on the failings of the medical system, not based on how you think, the psychiatry, and America is terrible, not how you think women are discriminated against in medicine across all these different things. These are all important things. The question here is whether Lindsay Clancy murdered her children and these facts matter in making that determination and they need to be put in front of a jury and the jury needs to be able to focus on the testimony and it was really difficult to do that because while this testimony is happening, Lindsay Clancy is breaking down. She's saying, "I can't do this. I'm sorry, I can't do this. She's vocalizing all this." But you could do it. But you quite literally could do it. Maybe she was doing it, she wasn't breaking down, right, stopping. But while she's hearing what she did now, she is. Now granted, I'm sure what people would say is unfair and she's now intrigued and she never realizes what she did was wrong, etc., etc., and get all that. But nevertheless, she's breaking down to the point that we have to take a break. So we take a break. Then we come back in. Then we call Dr. Barbara Olsen and we talk about the autopsy on Cora. We talk about the ligature furrow across her throat where her mother tightened this exercise band so tightly around her daughter's neck that when she was dead, you could still see the indentation of the ligature she used. She talked about how she was killed by a fixation and once again, Lindsay breaks down and once again, we stop. At this point, the judge should have taken control of this courtroom and he should have made it available for Lindsay if she wants to watch this testimony to do so in another room where she can take part in this but she doesn't distract the jury from their duty. And also doesn't inject emotion into the decisions and it could be emotion either way. There are people who saw this and you have sent me the messages who saw this and immediately despised Lindsay Clancy. People sent me messages saying things like I was keeping an open mind but I saw what she did today and she's guilty and I'm done with this. And there may have been jurors who thought the same thing and that's unfair to her. And it's unfair to the state and it's unfair to the victims if there are people in that jury who said I can't handle this, there's no way I can convict this person. And I will give you an example of this happening that I saw with my own two eyes. We had a trial in our office, the jury said guilty, the defendant broke down and started whaling and the judge did a very stupid thing. He took a break, let her compose herself, comes back in and pulls the jury. And one of the jurors who had voted guilty back in the black box of the jury room after looking at the evidence and applying rational thought when he was pulled said no, I'm not guilty. And that ended up in an 11-1-hung jury. And they had to do that again because her emotional outburst affected a juror. Now she was convicted next time, the evidence was overwhelming. But you had an emotional outburst affected juror. That happens and it is the responsibility of a judge to control and this judge refuses to do it. He refuses to take control of his courtroom. I don't care, she's allowed to cry if she wants. But if it distracts from the testimony, then the judge needs to do something about it. And he did not do that here. And it was very, I was trying to shut her out. And I'm not even sitting in the courtroom and I could barely hear the actual testimony. And I didn't want to watch this testimony three times, but I did because I was trying to get the information and avoid what she was doing. They come back in and she just cries the whole time. She's wailing the whole time. And this time they don't take a break. We go through the photos, the ligature photos. It's obviously strangulation. It would be painful into loss of consciousness and loss of consciousness. It depends on a lot of different factors. It can occur as early as 10 to 30 seconds. But obviously it can also take longer than that. Brain damage begins about one minute after you lose consciousness. Brain death is early as five minutes, but you got to keep going, which actually this is going to be on come important. Takes around 10 pounds of force to compress the arteries. - I just wanna know, there's a lot of force. Again, why this is relevant testimony because we're not talking about something that you like tripped into. Like I tripped and fell on my baby and they strangled to death. We're talking about something that takes physical effort to execute. And if they're struggling, it could be more. - Yeah, if they're resisting, you could accelerate the timeline. It's a little unclear. The factors gonna include the force use, the ligature used, the intensity and the duration. She also did an autopsy on Daweson Clancy. Same kind of testimony. Lindsay is like sobbing very loudly at this point. And if you missed it because of her behavior, and look, I am not saying she's faking it. That's not the point. The point is if a witness or a person in the gallery or anyone cannot compose themselves and they become a distraction, it's like the person who keeps coughing. If you can't stop coughing, get out of the courtroom and it's a similar situation. The judge has to take action and remove her. And it's not about sincerity, it's about the distraction. - Yeah, I actually don't care if this was sincere or not. I think anyone would cry. Like her or not, who knows? Maybe it's remorse, maybe it's realizing for the first time that you did this, maybe it's crap. Now everyone knows what I did. Who cares, I don't care what that is. I've had people removed in my trials like moms who sit behind the defendant, like the defendant's mom, whaling and like, my baby wouldn't do that. Like this is literally what happened in one of my trials. My baby didn't do that, you don't know, you don't know. You know what they did, they removed her. It's an open court where anyone can come in but you can't disrupt the testimony, you can't disrupt the trial. And it was very clear that she was crying on behalf of the defendant in that case. - And I'll tell you how it's affected this trial. It affected it in two ways. Number one, I think it distracted the witness because the fact of the matter is and the undisputed fact and the thing the witness had said before is that if you strangle someone, you have to maintain pressure. You don't just strangle them until they go unconscious and then they die if no one helps them. That's not how it works. You gotta maintain the pressure, which is very witness attestified to you before. But now she's like, she says that's not the case. So the prosecutor at this point confronts her with the prior statement, which she absolutely can do. Reddington objects, the judge who's also affected by this, who doesn't sustain anything, by the way, is sustaining this objection and he's doing it for one reason 'cause he wants to get done with this because what Lindsey Clancy is doing is bothering him. And it affects his judgment and it affect how he ruled. It affected what the prosecution could do, which they should have been able to do. And that is not the way courtrooms work. It was a massive failure on the part of the judge. And like I said, don't get distracted by whether or not it was intentional, whether or not she was faking it, that is completely irrelevant for what we are discussing. And the other thing I think it distracted from and you may not have noticed is that Dawson's injuries were worse than the rest of the kids. He had bruising. Now look, several of the kids had bruising. It's impossible to say where exactly they came from but they had fresh bruises. And the indication on Dawson was that he was struggling and the ligature, the way the ligature was on his throat, shifted at various times, which is an indication that he is struggling against the ligature. He is fighting back against his mother who is strangling him to death. And that is the testimony. That's what was testified to. And you might not have noticed that because of Lindsey Clancy and what she was doing, but that's what happened and everyone needs to know that because it does implicate the rest of the evidence in this case and it tells you something about how this murder was committed. - And the day ends there, probably because the judges is done with it and because Lindsey cannot compose herself. So that was day 12. We move into day 13, which was today. The first to the stand is Kyle Pavelo who is a trooper in the cybercrime unit at the time. Now, he examined the surface pro taken from the house. I don't know why the prosecution called him. You're about to see why, but it was not just a waste of time. It was a shooting the prosecution in the foot. So because we already had testimony from Patrick Clancy, member day one, when during the cross examination, he was already adamant that it was his surface pro and he was obsessed with some artists called Tom Hall who had killed himself and he had searched Tom Hall's Wikipedia page and he was the one who looked at basically how Tom Hall killed himself and then clicked on a bunch of links about suicide, five methods. So they already know this because we're in day 13. That testimony happened on day two, but the prosecution puts up Kyle and he testifies he's just looking at data. Like he talks about cell bright and like he does extractions and reviews the metadata. And so he can only tell you what the data says. And he says there's a visit to suicide methods a webpage in August of 2022. He says that Lindsey Clancy's Facebook accessed it at 9.42 in the morning. At 9.44 someone spotifies that's how I got to Memphis and then there's a Google search for Tom Hall at 9.44 and then there's a visit to a Wikipedia page for Tom Hall. We already know this because Patrick said this was him. Okay, and someone clicked on death and then clicked on a hyperlink that led to suicide methods and a page on Wikipedia and then someone within that clicked on another hyperlink that went to the graphton bridge which is like a bridge in Australia I think where people have committed suicide. - I mean, what in the world is it doing? - What in the world? Because it's not like the prosecution doesn't know and what are they gonna say, Patrick lied? Okay, well, not only has Patrick already testified to this, there's also like corroborating information that this is Patrick and not Lindsey. So I don't know what this is doing. - In what world is this incriminating? It's not even if it was Lindsey. - She said she had suicidal ideations. - Listen Tom Hall and she goes down the rabbit hole, you know? I mean, I go down rabbit holes like this all the time. If I get a Wikipedia, I lose 30 minutes in my life at least. - And also my search history is horrendous, y'all. Like it doesn't, I search all sorts of her. Like literally, I'll watch them Instagram real about someone like falling into one of those manholes 'cause someone left the top off and then all of a sudden I'm on this like horrendous thing of like how long does it take to die when they're steaming your face? Like all these sorts of things, right? Like so, anyways. - Remember that case? Anyway, it's horrible. - Continue. - Yes. - Too much about my search history, but I did laugh out loud here because the prosecution really just delivered this to the defense. So Reddington stands up and his first words out of his mouth which did elicit a laugh from me was, that's it? That's why you've been called to the stand which is objected to and obviously sustained. And he's like, yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever. But everyone's thinking this, why? Why are you being called to the stand? So they go through the fact that did he know that the Surface Pro was owned by Patrick? No, he doesn't know, he just looks at the data, right? But we know 'cause Patrick told us on day two this is his Surface Pro and that he did not come across any other search in this entire Surface Pro for suicide methods. This is just a hanging curveball for the prosecution. It's not like there's months of search history about suicide methods, this is the one. And Patrick already said he did it. So this isn't great at all for the prosecution. And it was Patrick Cleansie's email that accessed Facebook. And that same day, now there's no reason this guy, the cybercrime guy knows any of these things. So he's just being talked to, he's like, no, I didn't know that. Reddington's like, also that same day at 10, 15. In the morning, Lindsay was at the pediatrician with Dawson for his checkup. Oh my gosh, come on, like not only do we have Patrick's word, she's literally at the doctor. At the time, these searches are happening and he goes through all the searches that Lindsay made for not suicide methods, but therapies and drugs and mental issues, all the things that we would expect her to be looking which you can see actually makes her look great. She's trying to seek help for her issues that she is telling all her practitioners. The prosecution should have just like taken the L and sat down, but somehow they're like, put me in coach, I can fix it. Spoiler alert, they can't fix it. So on redirect, the prosecutor stands up and says, I don't know why. They're like, what's the point? Only Jesus. I said that, this was me. They literally get up and they are like this doctor. They like, no, but she's at the doctor, but this happened at 944. Guys, the search happened at 944. I know the doctor's office was like four minutes away, but like, I don't know if you've left the house with kids before, especially sick kids. Like, takes me forever to get four minutes. Might as well be Tim Buck too, doesn't matter 'cause I'm loading the car with snacks and bottles of milk and everything. So I don't know why the prosecution even stands up for a redirect. This is dumb. I mean, this was like a low point of low points. They should have just let it go, let it go, but they're like, you can just tell us what the data says, right? And like Kyle's just like, please let me off the stand. But please let me go. It's just, look, this doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. But it makes the prosecution look so bad. Exactly. And you're asking a jury to convict a woman of killing her three children. That takes some trust. You know, I mean, you're supposed to be doing only evidence, but you still expect to trust the people who were telling you, this is the evidence. And then you have them attempt to convince you of this. when it really seems like Patrick did this search. And if she was at the doctor for a 10, 15 appointment, she wasn't looking up Tom Hall. - Or listening to it at 944. And that's exact, and I don't, so they literally say that they're like, the doctor's office is only four minutes away. And on recross, which, if I'm ready to not, let's play ball, let's do this again. He's like, it takes some time, even if it's four minutes away, right? To get your kids in the car and go and, you're supposed to show up at doctor's appointments like 15 to 20 minutes early anyway. - Exactly. - I never do that, but they always tell you that. - They're all getting a three-year-up. - Yeah. - This was, she didn't search this. - She didn't search it. And even if she didn't, I don't actually see how it helps the prosecution's theory, because she didn't search homicide. She didn't search how to strangle someone. That, I might be more like, okay, I see what you're trying to get at, but it's not even the suicide method she picks. It's literally about an artist that someone's listening to at the time. And Patrick has said, yeah, I got obsessed with him back in August. - Okay. - We're never gonna finish this. We're almost there, guys. - Okay, so now we're up to Timothy Chiappini. He was also a state police officer. The first one is not bald. It seems like all of Massachusetts state police officers are bald. - She did a very blonde hair that looks bald. - When the guy got on the stand yesterday, the one who got asked about the conversation, I was like, oh my goodness, that's proctor. Proctor's testifying? - Look just like him. - It wasn't him, obviously, but look just like him. Anyway, so this guy's on the technical investigation team. He does cell phone forensics. He's a cell broad analyst, and he extracted Lindsay's phone. And we're gonna walk through the contents. On January 20th, 2023, she searches, can you treat a sociopath? That's a pretty interesting search. Could go either way, good benefit either side, but interesting thing that she's searching on her phone. She speaks to, I think, her state of mind at the time, which may be good for the defense, but certainly an interesting search. Honestly enough, the most interesting one she did, which the prosecution doesn't bring up. Reddington brings those up. We'll get to those in a second. So she kept a journal on her phone. I'm just gonna read you what she said in the journal. I'm sad and depressed because I am not able to parent my third child like my first. This, by the way, is on October 25th. I want to treat everyone of my babies like my first, but I know that's not a feasible possibility. I'm sad that I start to breastfeeding. I feel not as connected with Cal now. I think I sort of resent my other children because they prevent me from treating Cal like my first baby. And I know that's not fair to them. I know that. I was feeling so depressed last evening. When Corin Dawson came home from school. I know it runs off on them, I think she meant rubs. So we had a pretty rough evening. I want to feel love and connection with all my kids. I'm also probably having a bit of an internal conflict because my whole life, I've wanted to have lots of kids. No, she does, not Patrick, TikTok people. Patrick did not force her to have a bunch of kids. I still don't want Cal to bear less, but I have a lot of figuring out to do before I have another. I'm on the fence about starting a new medication for anxiety, depression. I just want to feel happy. I want to be able to relax and take care of my kids. And when they go to bed and not, I want to deeply relax and hang out with Pat and then fall into a deep sleep for four hours. I mean, don't we all? Get up and pour hard into myself for an hour and a half. Cal was so very planned and desired. I want to be able to give him all the love he deserves. I guess that's what it's like to be the third child though. He's not the first third child to ever exist. I think I know he'll be okay, but it's really hard for me. I hate that he has to get himself to sleep. I'm sad I'm not breast fitting anymore, but I think deep down that we made the right choices. - By the way, I think this has been the truest thing she said to anybody in all of these notes and everything. Like, this is the first time I really feel for her because everything she says, totally normal, right? I think people report feeling this about not just the third kid, the second kid feeling bad that the first kid doesn't have as much attention and all these things. But I think something is really teasing out for me because I know people are obsessed with motive, right? You don't have to prove motive, but like, we all want to know how does a mom who wants kids wants a lot of kids. And is a good mom by all accounts, right? Is the one who responds to school app messages and takes the kids to the doctor's appointments and is around all the time is leaving her job so that she can be at home more with the kids. Like, she is not your typical negligent mother or the type of mother who didn't want kids in the first place and just wants to go party, Allah, Casey Anthony. So it is totally normal for people to be asking, why? She kind of gives this little view into it herself here. She sees herself clearly. Everyone who's known her before she had kids, what did they say? She can't wait to have kids. She went into labor and delivery probably 'cause she liked babies, right? Like, that's a great thing. Fantastic to love babies. Every labor and delivery nurse I've ever met is like the angel on earth because it is really difficult work to be working with people in the most sensitive times in their lives, happy and sad, right? Like, it's really emotional and intense when you're having a baby and then caring for these little babies. Typically people are driven to it because they love babies. So it would totally make sense and she's told everyone, including Patrick, before they got married, that she wants babies and she wants to be a mom and she wants lots of babies. Here she is talking about wanting a fourth baby when her baby's eight months old. Like, I was like, no, it would not like another baby when I had a baby that was only eight months old. So this is a woman who has looked forward to babies, probably her whole life. Before she had kids, this was like the shining prize. When I get married, I get to have kids and guess what, she had kids and it's hard. I'm not blaming her, it's just a reality. But have you ever wanted something so badly when you got it? It was the, I'm not saying her kids were a disappointment, but it was not everything you thought it was going to be. It's triple disappointment when that's the case. For example, my kid really wanted purple ice cream. We don't need ice cream typically at home, but she, Brittany loves the color purple. And so she wanted purple ice cream. And I kept trying to tell her it was a specialty ice cream and it was an Asian ice cream that's made from a sweet potato that's purple. In other words, it doesn't taste like ice cream. It's a vegetable. - Yeah, it's vegetable. It's literally a vegetable. She kept me like, I want the purple ice cream. And I was like, sweet girl, I know you love purple, but I don't think you're gonna like this one. And she was like, all I want is this purple ice cream. Like, you can't see it right here. She had ice cream truck. It's made from cardboard inside it. She has the Melissa and Doug ice cream scooper. We don't give her ice cream typically. And so this was a big deal. She waited all week to have this ice cream and she got to pick any ice cream she wanted 'cause we were at a party. And she kept wanting this purple ice cream and I was like, just pick the pink one. Like, it's a normal strawberry. And she's like, I want purple. And I kept trying to prepare her and saying like, it's not gonna taste like what you think it is. And by the way, this is like a very popular Chinese or Asian ice cream flavor. It does not taste sweet. People who grew up with it like it. But a kid who thinks she's gonna have like a sherbert flavored ice cream is gonna be highly disappointed. She gets it. She has the biggest smile on her face. My heart is crushed 'cause I know she's not gonna like it. She opens her mouth and she takes a huge bite out of that purple ice cream. Her favorite color. And then her mouth just starts quivering. And tears start going down her face. She goes, I don't like it mama. I don't like it at all. And I was like, it's okay baby, you don't have to eat it. And I put my hands out, she spit it all out in my hand. And but she was like, she was so distraught. She couldn't get another ice cream because all her hopes and dreams were in this purple ice cream are favorite color. I know that seems like an infantile example. But those of you who've hoped and dreamed for something your entire life and gotten it. And it is not what you thought it was going to be. The disappointment is so much, so much more intense. And that's what I'm hearing here from Lindsay. She's like crap. I had anxiety before. I was so excited. I was gonna be happy once I had kids. I had these kids and they are making my life damn hard. And that sucks a lot. I'm not saying that necessarily drove her to kill her kids. But I think this is the first time we're seeing Lindsay's real thoughts for the first time because she's talking to herself and not to a practitioner. Because a practitioner can put her on drugs or can put her somewhere else where she has to explain her deepest vulnerability to someone and she doesn't want to maybe Patrick included. Which is the thing she wanted her entire life is making her sad. - Damn, man, that was really insightful. We don't talk about it in this four years. - We never talk about it in this. - It's always, that's, wow. Okay, well I have one other note that she, that was, man, that's, shoot, okay. - You can see where I'm going with my theory of this case now, though. - Yeah, when you were talking about, I was like, "How are we talking about this is going?" But this is a good story, you know? - Wow. - Did it come around? Did you get it? - Yeah, I sure did. Guys, if you know us, you know that we're always feeding children. And usually that means we're having to cook something. That's where our place comes in. Our place makes beautiful, high performance kitchenware designed to make home cooking easier, simpler, and more enjoyable. Everything is designed to be multifunctional. So you're not filling your kitchen with single use pans and appliances that only do one thing. And this is important to me with three little kids. Their cookware is made without forever chemicals and has been since day one. It's third party tested to meet global safety standards. Their products aren't just aesthetically pleasing. They generally perform, which is what keeps people coming back. - Okay guys. I heard all the hype about the Wonder of In Pro, and I thought, I don't know, I have so many devices in my kitchen, I am cooking literally three times a day, every single day, I don't know if I should add yet another appliance to my countertop. Hold up, because I got it. I got the Wonder of In Pro, and I can honestly say it has now become one of my most used appliances in my kitchen. It's eight in one that preheats 60% faster than a traditional oven and cooks up to 40% faster, so meals actually happen quicker. It air-fries, it roasts, bakes, toasts, reheats, proofs, dehydrates, and broils, all in one compact footprint, and every cooking surface is made without forever chemicals. It's especially great for quick meals, reheating leftovers, crisping things up, on nights when you don't wanna turn on the full oven. I did that tonight. We were out late, the kids were so hungry, everyone was dirty, I had maybe 10 minutes to prepare dinner before everything, just melted down. So while the kids were still taking off their shoes, washing their hands, I started the Wonder of In Pro with the air fryer, I made fries, fresh chicken, and vegetables in minutes. They were ready to eat quite literally in 10 minutes and everything tasted amazing, and it fed my entire family of six people. Upgrade your kitchen with our place today. Visit fromourplace.com/prosecute and use code prosecute for 10% off-site wide. That's F-R-O-M-O-U-R-P-L-A-C-E. dot com slash P-R-O-S-E-C-U-T-E and use code prosecute for 10% off-site wide. With a 100 day trial, you can try it completely risk-free. (upbeat music) - Another note she wrote in October, affirmations. I am strong, I am brave, I will get through this, I will overcome postpartum anxiety and depression, which I think is just interesting because she knew she had postpartum anxiety and depression. It wasn't like it was a mystery to her. I'm a great mom, I love my kids, I love my family, I love my life, I am happy, I take care of myself, gratitude. My mom for being there for me, no matter what, and coming to help with the drop of a hat, my husband for picking up the slack, when I've been feeling so down, my husband for taking the big kids out to do things when I've felt like I can't, the knowledge of how I can turn things around naturally, also interesting, naturally, her just resistance to medication, the space in my house to do this routine. So these are her two notes that she makes to give us some sort of insight into what she's thinking and what she's writing down. - Okay, so then they talk about the extraction on her phone with the photographs. The metadata shows that there's images created earlier than listed on the data in which they are modified. So these pictures are captured November 22nd, and they're modified on January 23rd. This is interesting only because of what happens the next day. I modify pictures all the time. I usually modify them that day or after a weekend, like we go to the water park and I look at all the pictures and I crop them or brighten them or delete the bad pictures or whatever. So modifying itself isn't interesting to me. What they're pointing out here is that she's modifying old pictures the day before. Of course she carries out these murders. So this was true of several photographs of the children, all modified during the evening hours of January 23rd. So on January 24th, between 4 and 8 PM, we're gonna go to the metadata on her phone. So her last entry is at 702. Now a lot of you have been asking what's the timeline? So her phone is probably going to be the closest thing to understanding what her movements were that night. So from 430 to 435, she does a search for Miralax for Kids. At 413 PM, she searches 3V restaurant in Apple Maps. This is going to tell you how long it takes to get there and back. Now at 448, there's an outgoing call to CVS in Kingston. We've heard from the CVS person. - I just wanna make one note. I put these into maps because I was curious if the CVS was a natural CVS to go to. The theory here is that she's doing this to figure out how long he's gonna be gone. So I thought if she sent him to a CVS, it's not along the route. That would be more indicative of that. That is not the case. The CVS is the natural CVS you would go to if you were going to 3V restaurant. - So next, 453, she texts Patrick who's working in the basement. Any chance you wanna do take out from 3V? His response is yeah. And she says, "Oki-Doki, check the menu when you can." Back and forth about what they're gonna end up getting. And there's also a message that Alan just woke up after a short nap. Then there are two calls, one to CVS and one to 3V, asking about the mere lapse and then also putting in the takeout order. At 513, she does another search for PDLX. And at 515, she texts Patrick, the PDLX liquid stool softener that he needs to go get a CVS. - And this is right as he's leaving. By the way, 515. - And at 533 and 51 seconds, Patrick calls Lindsay, but she doesn't answer. It's not even the next minute. So at 534 14 milliseconds, so it's like half of a second later. So basically immediately misses it, immediately calls him back. There's a second call to Patrick from Lindsay. - And this is where she confirms the PDLX and it's where he notes that she seemed like she was in the middle of something and was distracted. - And for what it's worth, this would be only about what is that 20 minutes after he left. Now at 554, Patrick picks up the food from 3V at about 609, he gets home. So he's out of the house just under one hour. At 609, he's just walked in the door. It's eerily quiet. He can't find anyone. He calls Lindsay's cell phone, but no one answers. - And that's the time one. That's how quickly this happened. Like Alice said, less than an hour. The crazy people, he think Patrick did this. Oh, the time one doesn't fit because when I Google map it, you can get there in five minutes faster than he would have gotten there. I don't know if you ever driven in Massachusetts at around six o'clock, but let me just go ahead and tell ya. It takes you longer to get places than you would think. This timeline is completely consistent with exactly the story he's told. And it tells you when this murder happened and remember she's having to apply that pressure to the children for, I mean, we're saying five minutes for brain death. In the end, she has to cut her on wrist. She has to take the pills. She has to go out the window. He finds her in the snow. And another note, just a recall, when he left and said by to those kids, Dawson was sitting on the couch eating a snack. That snack was not completed. It was found on the couch. So he essentially walked out that door, got in the car, and the moment he was out of that driveway, she starts killing these kids. Now the voice might have came right then, I don't know. But it's just important to know, this was a tight run thing that she did. And you know, it's just, she didn't have a whole lot of time. So she had to have started very quickly and the fact that Ra's writing to notes that there's no blood on that cell phone tells me that when she gets that call, the thing she was distracted by was murdering her children. He called her in the middle of her killing her kids. That's what happened. You may disagree with that. - And based on the timeline that it took six to eight minutes, she may not have been done killing all of them. - Right, it's very possible. - Okay, so we have cross examination, writing to notes that a full file search gets more information. He says yes, but another officer rabbit did that. He believed called him Roger Rabbit, writing to him called him Roger Rabbit, and the officer corrects him that his name is not Roger Rabbit. So. - I did hear that, and I was like, what? - Remington, man. I mean, I love him, I hate him. - He's a character. - He's a character. - He's probably really fun to have it. - He's grown on me. - So at this point, Remington, you know, comes back. It's like, why hit a home run once when he can hit it twice? He goes back to note that on this extraction, they have Lindsay's calendar. And when you know it, on the calendar, she had an appointment at 10 a.m. in the morning for an ear checkup on the day of the infamous suicide search. Interesting that she has it at 10. Exactly what I would do. You said it for earlier, so you're not late, which makes it even more likely that it wasn't her that did the search. And of course, he notes that it was Patrick's Gmail that signed on to Lindsay's Facebook at the time. He turned on that computer. He did his Gmail. It automatically signed into her Facebook. He played the Spotify song by Tom T. Hall. Decided to search the guy. It's all the suicide methods. She didn't have anything to do with it. Why this is even in this case, I don't know. So he notes that there were 180,000 pages of information about her phone. And they did all these searches to try and find information and found very little incriminating stuff on that phone. It's a great point by him. But then he makes some points that I don't understand why the prosecution didn't make. And the prosecution would have made it more fully. He asked whether or not he came across a search how to slit your throat to die. Can you turn airbags off on a Kia Serrento and carotid artery? These are searches that indicate some sort of premeditation and thoughts about how you're gonna kill yourself and possibly your kids. Why Reddington's the one to bring these up? I have no idea. But because he brought them up, he doesn't really do a searching questioning on this. I have no idea when these searches were made. They could have been that day. They could have been a week before, a month before. I have no idea. And for some reason, the prosecution not only doesn't raise them, but I'll redirect and clarify that. And it's like, what are we doing in this trial? I just don't get it. - I don't understand really what even one of these sides. - And those are way more effective than this stupid Tom Hall search. - So much more. - Corrotted artery, she caught herself y'all. Like flitting the throat, she did that. Why are we talking about a bridge? She didn't jump off a bridge? - And then we just be clear. Maybe there's somebody out there who thinks that if you commit a murder suicide and the suicide fails, you shouldn't go to prison. Like I think pretty much every family annihilator who commits a murder suicide, if they somehow survived, should be sent away forever. Like I'm just not buying that if you decide to kill yourself, you get to take your family with you. I don't buy that. So if that's what she did in my mind, she's guilty. That is my position on this. If this was depression that led to her rationally, to the extent that it sounds ever rational, wanting to take your own life and she didn't leave her kids behind or for whatever reason she decides to kill her kids, that's murder in my mind. If she's psychotic, if there's truly a voice, if she's under command, if she can't control herself, that's different. You show me that. I'm in the not guilty camp, but I'm not in the not guilty camp if this is a murder suicide, and I don't understand what the prosecution isn't presenting that theory more forcefully. And I feel like we have to say it every time because I feel like people can't hear. Even if she's psychotic, which we've not seen evidence of, that doesn't necessarily make her not guilty by reason of mental defect. It has to be that the psychosis controlled her in a way that she could not conform herself to the law. - So then we go on to some tech she has with her mother. She has her mother in her phone as mommy. Some people thought that was weird. I'll leave that to you guys to decide what there it is. Just some techs back and forth with her mom. - Where's your mom? - Honestly, I wish my kids still called me mommy. Even Alyson, who's one and a half because the older kids call me mom. - Yeah. - He calls me mom. So I don't think it's, I wish someone would call me mommy. - Honestly, the most interesting thing about the techs between her mom and her is how superfluous they are. They're not deep. They're not that thoughtful. It just made me think, yeah, even more reason. There was no need for the psychiatrist to talk to her. She wasn't spilling at her heart to her mom. She's telling her very basic things. She's feeling fine. She slept fine. She's thinking about this. She's thinking about that. Not really that important. I don't know why Reddington got into it. These are all techs in January. I don't know. But he goes through a lot of these techs with her mom. - Yeah, so some of these techs, like Brett said, they're pretty wrote, not super deep. January 10th, she asks, how are you feeling? When's your response good at the gym with the kids on January 14th about the same hanging in there? Waiting for the day I wake up and feel like me. That was the techs that was talking about earlier where the hard work of feeling better, both the therapy, the medication, all of these things, I know they're hard work. And again, don't fault her for that. I also hope I wake up and lose 15 pounds. But like, that's not gonna happen. January 23rd, she said it was fun. Kora and Dawson enjoyed it. There's another techs asking her about her medication and how she was doing. On January 24th, the day of the murders, Lindsey sent a picture of her and her kids with a snowman to Patrick. And Patrick texted right back, oh wow, you're a good mom. I'd like to note, this is going into my deep theory of like, you know, all she had wanted in life was what was making her sad. Patrick knows this to some degree. And I think that's why he's like using the exact words of affirmations she needs to lift her spirits, right? He's working from home because she's not doing great. And so he's not just texting back like, oh, how cute, snowman. He's saying something very specific. And I think it goes to exactly what is driving her, like depression is her thoughts of not being a good mom. We're not enjoying being a mom. Now, she does lots of drugs. So the search is about drugs on her phone, such as Trasidone's side effects and adivant addiction. On January 19th, she searched for schizophrenia. And she also searched for psychosis on January 20th. She Googled surrequile and side effects and she Googled sleep. All across the time period, all this was going on. Many of this was in January. And she also searched intrusive. And she searched for amatryptaline and on January 19th, she searches hallucinations. Doesn't mention that to her doctors though. So here's the thing, how does this cut? I, well, this is where storytelling is going to be really helpful. But I'm thinking she is not telling anybody this. This, along with the searches that the defense brought in, that the prosecution didn't clarify, I'd be saying she's looking at ways to kill her kids and herself and she's trying to look for an excuse for it all. Or if you really want to do the whole, it wasn't a serious suicide threat, that she's searching for basically coverups. Like, what does psychosis cover? What does hallucinations cover? Like, how guilty are you if you do this? Here's the problem with that. You say this is where storytelling matters. The prosecution obviously doesn't understand. This is part of the story. This is not the, this is the defense bringing this up. That's a, that's a fair point. That's a really fair point. But I don't know, I can't help the prosecution. I don't understand. Like, if you, I don't know why they didn't bring this up. If you're searching hallucinations, days, five days before the murders, doesn't that indicate some sort of like planning coverup? Recognition on your part. And that you weren't controlled by a voice the minute Patrick left? Yeah, I mean, you're searching signs of psychosis. I mean, I don't know. I always thought one of the signs of psychosis was you didn't know you're in psychosis. I could be wrong about that. Someone can correct me if you're a psychiatrist out there. But like, it's just weird that she's searching these things, days before this happened, never tells anybody any of this stuff. Like, and I know this is a hard question. But let's say she was psychotic. Let's say she was a sociopath or a psychopath. Let's say she was having hallucinations. Let's say it's all happening. Let's say she's hearing voices. If she knew that five days beforehand, does she not bear any responsibility for not taking action at that point to separate herself from her children? If she spends the next five days under this state, can you truly say that she was completely out, she had no control of her actions? Particularly when later on, she's gonna talk about this moment of psychosis thing, which is not consistent with this at all. And I just don't know. I just don't know what this means. And unfortunately, I just don't think the prosecution has any ability to put this in any kind of context that's going to make me feel confident in exactly what's going on here and exactly what responsibility she has. But I got lots of questions. - And I'll just put it out there. I don't think the prosecution's throwing this case on purpose. I don't want criticizing them guys. That's a really passive aggressive way to call someone a bad lawyer. Don't do it. - Seriously, yes. - Don't do it. There's not activist prosecutors. Look, the thing is, we also have the benefit of getting to listen to all this testimony after they've done all the work and putting it out there and dissecting it in real time. Also post-talk, right? These files are insane. It's possible they just didn't even read all these 180,000 pages of searches and didn't know this existed in there. That's all possible. They're not throwing this case. This is the biggest case probably, either of them had ever done. It's a massive case. There's a massive amount of information. They are doing the best they can. It's a hard case. It's hard to see these things clearly when you're in the weeds of all of this. And there's the emotion of the fact that there are three dead children. So, no, they're not activists, prosecutors, throwing this case. Just say what you're thinking that they're not doing a good job. That's fine, but don't make up the fact that they're throwing this case. Okay, on December 31st, she searches, children's motron stores and child with the scented belly and lethargy. And children's Tylenol, which is the same as infants. I learned that too. That's the exact same. They just put it in a different bottle. It's cheap. It really is. It literally is that you have to use a little dropper thing for it. Yeah, I just buy the toddler now. Give it to everybody. Adult included, just a different dosage. So, some infant formula searches, then there's a bunch of searches totally expected on mom's phone, Paw Patrol, Cape Cod Resort. I think it's Cape Cod Resort. Cape Codder. Cape Codder Resort, that is eight month milestones, which is interesting because remember, she thought that Caled wasn't meeting his milestones. So in some ways, this feels like trying to create a problem. Like, is there a milestone? Maybe he's not meeting a bunch of other stuff that seems like a complete waste of time that we don't need to go into. And then there's a picture of Korra sent to Patrick that morning and he responds cutie. And then there's email updates on Korra's checkup that her urine was good. Nothing was wrong with her kidneys. And then, of course, the whole snowman thing. Building snowman, taking a picture, sending it to Patrick. And him saying, you're a good mama. And she responds to that comment with a smiley face with hearts. - So then he asks about the modifications of the photographs. The photos were edited in some fashion, but it's unclear how that's not that unclear. Basically, she took the live photo. You know, you take a picture and it gives you two seconds for and two seconds after. When she modified them, she just turned it from a live photo to a still photo. That's all she did. I don't really know why we had to get into this, but that's all she did. The judge asked that there's any redirect, prosecutor responds, yep, which I thought was funny. So I don't know why she went into this, but she's like, all the stuff that you just went through. That's all in the exhibits we provided. He says, yes, I guess just to show she wasn't hiding it. The search about psychosis was about the symptoms for psychosis. On January 19th, there was a text from her mother to Lindsay about she would bring something on Saturday, which indicated a visit on Saturday. We know that their visit did happen and recall. us as short just confirms the text are between Patrick and Lindsay. Okay, so last witness of today was Joshua McKelligan, he was a case officer, and he supervised the search of the house. He walked the house and they had taken a video of the house, so we all got to see this video that was played, and it recorded the master bedroom. There were a lot of drawers to search in the master bedroom, and there were photos of the exterior of the home as well, showing kind of the window that she jumped out of and the state of it when the window was pushed open. And of course they get into the search of the bedside table and the pill bottles. So it comes out that those pill bottles, there were a bunch of other pills. Remember that Patrick came across and handed them to the police officer, but the pill bottles in the nice stand were brought to the lawyer or not to the police officer and writing to an objection. Apparently, he doesn't like testimony about his conversations, interesting. And McKelligan confirms, yeah, Patrick gave those pill bottles to Reddington, not, this is really interesting. He was like, Reddington object, it was like, I'm not his lawyer. But McKelligan was like, Patrick told me he gave them to his lawyer, and he was referring to Reddington, so Reddington is like, don't get me into this, he's already into it. And they want it again, which I think is a really good point. And honestly, I think the prosecution should have done this on cross a long time ago, because it really takes the sting out of the hole they didn't search the bedside table, is like, yeah, why did Patrick give it to his lawyer and not the police? And McKelligan met with the medical examiner and it was noted that there was constant pressure that needed to be applied to the children's next in order to affect death, not just to knock them out. And it takes several minutes to strangle someone to death, of course, times three. And there is the cross examination, and they say that there's pills in the master bedroom, and the same thing that Reddington has done with multiple of the witnesses. And McKelligan's like, look, I don't know, I don't know why they weren't found. All I know is that Patrick found them, gave them to you, didn't give them to the police. And the day ends there. But just for the jury, because there is, of course, yet another motion to be argued this time, not about a late breaking witness, but the prosecution wants access to a trial court security log, because they want to know who is going back and talking to Lindsay or seeing Lindsay and when. And they note that like, Zizal, the doctor is going back to see Lindsay, and they note that father Bob, the priest is also going back there. And the judge is like, really, prosecution, do you really want to know the priest's name and his address? I'm not going to give it to you. And then Reddington does honestly the right thing, which is to take this thing out of all of it. He like stands up with the stack of papers, like, I don't care, you can look this list anytime you want. Prosecution. Why didn't you just ask nicely? Go for it. And that's when you just drop the whole thing as a prosecution, but the prosecution continues to push. And essentially the judge is like, okay, it sounds like he's okay giving you this information. I'm going to give you the doctor, because the doctor is going to testify, but you don't need to know anything about father Bob and about father Bob's address. And then there's some weird conversation, because I see some of you post just in general, like, what is her religion, totally extraneous information about her religion. But like, Reddington's like, she's Catholic, not devout though, but like, really likes father Bob, but not in a religious way. They just like to check any sense because he's basically saying there's no privilege. I know. I was like, no, you have to say that's her confessor, and he can't testify to anything. So, and that was a really strange detour, but that was the motion that ended a heck of a day. And I'll just say this, I honestly, you see little things in trial to tell you a lot. There have been times where this prosecution's done a good job. Their judgment is terrible. I think the way they organized this trial was bad. I think the way they called witnesses was bad. And this is such a good example. Why are you pushing on the priest? And the judge makes it clear that he's not giving you the name of the priest. You say, oh no, you're on it. We don't want the priest's name. Absolutely. We will. We don't care about that. We're just talking about witnesses. We're going to testify your honor. Yes. So anyways, now, I'll tell you just a little inside baseball here. Ordinarily, the case agent is the last witness because the case agent can testify big picture of anything you want to testify to, which you kind of saw this. Like he went back over a few things throughout the case that were important, usually the last witness. I think most likely the reason we're not having trial tomorrow is because the prosecution indicated this is their last witness and they're probably going to rest. This will give them the weekend to think about it, an additional day to think about it, just to make sure there's no one else they want to call. They who knows they might decide to call another witness. I think most likely their intent is to stand up on Monday morning and rest at which point the defense case will start. And this gives the defense the weekend plus the day to get ready to go and to line up all their witnesses and also to give the time to the defense to do the motion that everyone does at the close of the prosecution's case, which is to move for a directed verdict. It will be an argued motion outside of the jury and it kind of goes to the entire prosecution's case and how they fall and down on the job. And there's not enough evidence to prove their case that the judge should direct the verdict now and not let the trial continue. It's not going to don't click on the clickbait. It's going to happen 1,000 percent. It'll be like an effective assistance of counsel if he doesn't do that. But this gives him time to also prepare that motion and it's oral. He doesn't have to file anything, but you still have to think through what exactly you're going to point out to show the judge why the prosecution has failed to make their case. And you may be thinking, well, yeah, but what about the experts in the prosecution going to call experts? Remember, although the burden is ultimately on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was within her right mind when she committed these crimes, the burden of production is on the defense. The defense has to make the initial production. Arguably, they've done that through cross examination, but the fact of the matter is the judge is going to find that this jury could determine that she was within her right mind based on the evidence we have so far and deny the motion. There's no way Reddington's not going to call witnesses. So it makes sense for them to actually hold their witnesses for rebuttal. Use your expert witnesses in rebuttal, let Reddington lay out his case, bring in your experts to tear down his case, give you sort of the advantage that the defense normally has to go after your witnesses. So I think it is likely that the prosecution won't put forward their experts until he makes his expert case for lack of competence. So it would be a little unusual to call michael again, not at the end. It's not impossible that they decide, let's go ahead and call those experts witnesses on Monday. Maybe that's what's going to happen. Could be. Maybe they didn't want to do it tomorrow because the experts need to fly in. Maybe. Won't shock me if they do, but it really won't shock me if they go ahead and rest at this point and then we move forward into the defense case. Woo. Another two hour episode ads. I just want to note, you get like hours of content for those ads. I don't know if you'll watch television anymore, but the ad to content ratio on this podcast is insane. So anyways, all right, guys, you've been sending emails. So keep doing it, prosecutor's pod at gmail.com, that prosecutor's pod for all our social media, Twitter, Facebook, ex, whatever we call it now, TikTok, all that. Jazz at prosecutor's pod, join Facebook, the gallery to interact with us there. If you want to watch these love, you can join Patreon for as little as $3 a month. You'll also get episodes early and ad free. You can get those episodes early and ad free on Apple as well if you'd rather do that. If you want to watch the edited versions of these videos, just go to our substack. I love that we have so many new listeners. You guys are awesome. Thank you so much for joining us for this. I hope you'll check out some of the back catalog. I hope you'll check out the Scott Peterson's and the ad non-sia ads and the John Bene Ramsey's and the Deat Love pass and the DB Cooper's and all the things that we've done. Stick with us. Don't leave us after this trial is over. We have a lot of fun on this podcast and you're going to enjoy it as well. Alice, you've said so many brilliant things tonight. I hate to even ask you, but do you have anything else you want to add before we sign up? I just want to encourage you all to keep writing in really everyone's own expertise, own experiences. Thank you for sharing. I think it really is incredibly enlightening and my plea that I think I've made in every single episode. This is a deeply personal case for so many reasons, but we are here to judge the guilt of Lindsey Clancy. You're not Lindsey Clancy. There can be people who suffer from similar struggles, who do not end their kids' lives. And so when you have these discussions about the evidence and testimony with each other, don't tear each other down. Don't throw out thoughtless words like you don't know what postpartum depression is like. Are you even a mom? Are you even a dad? Take the ad hominin attacks out of all of this. This is a sad case for everyone. And let's focus on the trial here and justice for Kora Dawson and Callan. Amen. Alice, brilliant as always. All right, guys. Probably listening to this on a Friday will probably be back Monday or Tuesday, maybe Monday and after. We'll see what happens. Who knows? You know, if they call a bunch of experts, certainly. Defense case, probably then as well. All right, guys. This has been awesome. We will talk to you soon, but until then, I'm Brett and I'm Alice and we are the-- (upbeat rock music) - Yo, yo, yo. - Yo, yo, yo. - Those of you who were so disappointed that we didn't do a Lindsey Clancy episode yesterday. - We're back. - We're back. - You know, last Lindsey Clancy episode we did, we were so excited to start that I forgot to do the intro for the right of the episode. - Let's do it. - So this time I'm gonna try and remember that. - Okay, let's get started. You guys have waited a little longer. - We'll let her own us some antics. Let's do it. - Okay. (upbeat rock music) (upbeat rock music) (upbeat rock music) - All right. - Whew. - That was a lot. - Sorry, I talked too much. That was all my fault. - You don't talk too much. There was a lot. This is two days worth of testimony. I was kind of glad to hear there wasn't trial tomorrow because-- - I was too. - Man, if I had to go travel this week for work, we would four days, but not record it. - Hmm. - What would be a plan? (upbeat rock music) (upbeat rock music) (upbeat rock music) (upbeat rock music) (upbeat rock music) (beeps) - Hello and welcome to Pluto Fo. If you know the name of the movie you'd like to see, just stream it for free on Pluto TV. We're all your blockbuster favorites or landing all summer long. Catch anchor man, the legend of Ron Burgundy. - Fantastic. The Matrix Trilogy. - Welcome to the real world. - Mean Girls. - Side up. - Titanic. - Run the key in the world! - And so much more for showtime. Express nothing. They're free 24/7. - That is so effects. - On Pluto TV, stream now. Pay never. (upbeat rock music)