A MASSIVE WIN FOR THE DEFENSE & THE PROSECUTION’S SELF-DESTRUCTION: When Medical Science Speaks, Religion Gets Exploited!

A MASSIVE WIN FOR THE DEFENSE & THE PROSECUTION’S SELF-DESTRUCTION: When Medical Science Speaks, Religion Gets Exploited!

it’s day 15 of Lindseay Clancy’s trial and we get into the meat of the defense’s case. All of the questions we’ve had throughout. So many of them were answered today. Like, can psychosis come and go? Can people seem fine but still end up being in a state of psychosis? What does it actually mean to have a psychotic break? Can you control what you’re doing? If you don’t, what would that present like? How is it possible that all of these medical

professionals could miss this? And then from the prosecutors, what do we get? But potentially the worst day of the entire trial. I don’t even know how much grace I can possibly have for the way they handled themselves on cross-examination with multiple witnesses. the attitude, the lack of professionalism, and getting out over their skis, asking a question that could absolutely be something that reverses this trial if it gets appealed, if Lindsey Clancy does lose, because it is that big of a mistake today to make in

the United States of America in our criminal justice system. We’re going to talk about all that. We’re going to get to the clips of the trial today. We’re going to answer your questions. So, hit that like button. Let’s get to it. So the reason I said today is such an important day is I think maybe more than any other day the juxtaposition between the defense and the commonwealth was most apparent and I think any normal human being on the jur jury had to feel that stark difference today with the lack of empathy, the way they

cross-examined witnesses, even when they had some good points because we’re going to talk about some of the very good points the Commonwealth made on cross. The way they asked some of these questions, I was thinking you’re losing the pack of that punch with the delivery and the method at which you’re deciding to impeach a witness, to ask a question, to bring up a point.

 And then it’s like, why did you even ask some of these questions? There’s so much to get to today. Um, so we started off with Susan Clancy, which is Lindsay Clancy’s mother-in-law, Patrick Clancy’s mother. And I thought it was interesting that the Commonwealth called the father-in-law, the defense called the mother-in-law.

 Uh, the mother-in-law has the medical background, labor and delivery nurse. We know she referred her to Julie Paul. And she noticed a difference after Cal was born. She has a little bit of experience with postpartum psychosis and depression. Um, she talked to Dr. Spinelli who is an expert in the area and had Spanelli, I think, like I don’t know, speak to her co-workers or give a presentation.

 We’re going to hear from Spinelli later. And Readington does a really good job in this case of setting up his witnesses and letting the jury hear about these witnesses and want to hear from these witnesses. He builds them up through his opening statements. He builds them up through questions of other witnesses like, “Hey, you know my tech expert, right? He’s a good tech expert. Oh, hey, you know Dr.

 Spanelli, they’re an expert here, right?” So, he builds them up so the jury like can’t wait to hear when they take the stand. And then they’re kind of getting up in their seats like, “Oh, okay. Here’s Zisel. We know all about him that he worked with the CIA and overseas with the military.” So, he builds them up and he does the same thing with Spinelli.

When uh Lindsay’s mother-in-law was on the stand, she did notice a difference, but Lindsay Clancy was a a wonderful mother. She loved Dawson. He wasn’t some bad child that she hated. Uh Lindsay did tell her she felt unwell. She was trying to get help. She was begging for help. Holidays were tough because Lindsay was struggling.

 And then he shows a stack of texts and says, “These are you and Lindsay’s texts, but we’re not going to get into all of them. The jury can listen to these texts if they want to.” Then we get to cross and she’s like, “Well, you didn’t connect Spanelli with Lindsay, did you? Lindsay to herself to the ER because of trouble sleeping.

 Did Lindsay tell you she had a weed gummy?” Lindsay’s main concern was about lack of sleep. Yet, when she drove to the ER, she drove herself and she drove herself home. And Julie Paul, the one you recommended, is the only one not getting sued. Isn’t that interesting? And then she gets into a line of questioning that would be the worst line of questioning I’ve seen in this entire trial if it weren’t for the line of questioning that they asked later to this same exact witness.

 But first, we’re going to get into something that I want you guys to listen closely and tell me what the probative value of this line of questioning is. What does this line of questioning prove? Does it tend to prove or disp prove any material fact in this case that Lindsay Clancy killed her kids, knew she killed her kids, wanted to premeditated, intentional, had the men’s rehea, the culpability to commit this crime and understood what she was doing.

 Does it prove or disprove any of that? Or does it say, “Hey, this witness is going to be really biased for Lindsay Clancy.” Does it prove that? What does this line of questioning go to prove? Because I thought this line of questioning was despicable by the prosecutors. Let’s listen to it. Um, >> so did you offer to watch the kids at night time? >> I don’t remember exactly.

>> Did the kids come to stay at your house overnight so that she could get some sleep? >> No, they didn’t. >> Fair to say you offered and she didn’t want the kids to come to your house, right? >> No, that’s not right. >> Well, were they um Did they ever sleep over your house? >> No, they didn’t. >> And Cora was five, right? >> Yes. Correct.

 She turned five that December. So these kids, Lindsay Clancy never wanted these kids to come sleep at your house. And Cora was 5 years old. You have a 5-year-old granddaughter that has never stayed over your house. >> So at any point they they never stayed over. >> We decided together it was best for them to be in their own beds at their own house with all the belongings.

 And Lindsay’s parents were very actively involved in staying over and helping out. So, it was the best decision that they stay home in their own beds. >> So, so what does it prove? Lindsay Clancy didn’t trust her in-laws to leave the kids there. Somebody complaining about the prosecutor leading.

 They’re actually allowed to lead now that it’s cross. But I don’t understand what this proved. That Patrick’s parents weren’t good grandparents. That has nothing to do with this case. Prior to the um November of 2022, did you and your husband ever come and stay over the night so that um Patrick and Lindsay could go off? >> We never did stay at their house.

>> And as far as kind of watching the kids or taking the kids outside of the house during the daytime, did you often take Kora on kind of day trips out to lunch? >> Yeah, we used to go to lunch together. >> How about Dawson? Did you take him one-on-one out to >> Not as much. He was younger. >> And how about Ken? Did you ever take him out of the house without Lindsay? No.

>> And are you aware that um Lindsay told one of the therapists that she wasn’t close with you as in-laws and that she >> I didn’t know that. No. >> That she said she doesn’t generally allow the in-laws to watch her children. >> I did watch the kids. >> Okay. But are you >> are you aware Lindsay basically said she didn’t like you, wasn’t close to you, and didn’t trust you.

Now, if I’m going to try to stretch and figure out some relevant application of this, Lindsay is a liar and a manipulator, I guess. Is that what they’re trying to prove here? >> Aware that she told the therapist that? >> No. >> Are you aware she told the therapist that she didn’t have any particular reason why, and that they don’t bug me about it either? >> I don’t I didn’t know any of that.

>> Now, um Lindsay, uh the defendant, she communicated with you. So what was the purpose of that? What was the purpose of asking those questions? It proved literally nothing. The popular baiff 8:42. Yeah, you never know. It’s really close to 8:41. It’s really close. Could that prosecutor have caused a mistrial with that nasty question? Can she still at least or can she at least be sanctioned? I’m still horrified.

 We are going to get to that question in a second and I will answer that. Hey, Peter, I was just served with a subpoena today in Florida as a witness. Do I have to go if I have no idea who the defendant is that’s named in the case? I can’t answer that. I would not tell you to violate um or disregard a subpoena without looking at it and knowing what it was about.

 So, I can’t answer that question. That could be taken as legal advice. Uh Laposada is wonderful. Side note, the prosecution really stepped in it today. And the DA made this comment with Rose Scarpacio in the courtroom, who is a fierce, renowned appellet lawyer in Massachusetts. Oh boy. I had a pretty literal lol when the prosecution objected and Red replied before the judge said, “Let me finish.

” Just showed the rule how he rules the room. Yes, I I do remember. And the judge didn’t even step in. Um, that was interesting. I want to hear about what Peter thinks of the resistance band part. We will get there. Um, Red’s questions lead us to the conclusion he wants us to arrive at. At some point today, Readington said, “Judge, I don’t want to lose this jury.

I know what I’m doing. I’m not going to call these people and have them drone on forever.” And that felt like a little wink wink to the prosecutor. Uh, thank you Vimont Bellow for gifting a lawyer, you know, membership. And Mega Waffles, thank you for gifting five lawyer memberships. So, as bad as that line of questioning was and as heartless as it was for someone who lost her three grandb babies, okay, don’t forget that.

Don’t lose sight of this because for all this talk of, oh, some people don’t want this case to be about the kids. Like, what are the prosecutors doing here? That makes no sense to me why they would treat Patrick Clancy’s mother like that. I I have no idea what they were thinking when they did that. But it gets worse because they talk about the fact that church was great on Christmas Day and mass was great and then they get into this line of questioning.

>> Her family, >> right? Um now are you a active member in the Catholic church? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So you’re um aware that murder is considered a mortal sin. Consecration you over here. >> Are you an active member of the Catholic Church? Yes. Are you aware that murder is a mortal sin? Number one. Irrelevant.

 Prosecutor knows that. Number two, inappropriate. Asking about someone’s religion or trying to use religious beliefs or pressures to influence a jury to make a decision is completely and utterly inappropriate. And every lawyer on the planet knows that. There is no way she could possibly have a good faith basis why that question would be relevant or appropriate here regardless of what the answer is.

 And also plenty of religions disagree with what she said and it is not relevant to the jury’s decision. And the jury will decide whether it was an intentional homicide or if she’s actually not guilty because of this mental health defense. Unbelievable question to me. Incredibly, and I don’t mean this as in like the prosecutors are stupid, but an incredibly idiotic question by this prosecutor.

 If they go through all this work and they win this case, this will absolutely be a point on appeal and the judge gives an instruction. Oh, hey, just don’t consider that for any reason. You know, that’s not evidence. Yeah. Blah, blah, blah. Good luck putting that toothpaste back in the tube. Do you think in Massachusetts there might be some Catholics on the jury potentially? And are you trying to make them think, “Oh yeah, I’m Catholic.

 I think that’s a mortal sin. How could I possibly vote not guilty on this? Now, regardless of what the law says, that could be considered asking for jury nullification that you know murder is a mortal sin in your religious belief, so who cares what the law says? Utterly idiotic and horrible, an embarrassment to the profession.

 You have to know better than that. You have to I don’t understand how that’s possible to happen in this case. Obviously a big case. Obviously a high-profile case, right? No surprise there. I I just can’t imagine what went through her head before she asked. It almost felt like she was like getting excited leading up to it.

 Like she had this real banger coming. Horrific. And I think it’s possible it turned off as many jurors as it may have worked in her favor. And she finished with the fact that which I actually thought was a fine point, like you weren’t at the medical uh appointments with Lindsay Clancy. You don’t know all the options they gave her.

 And we’re going to listen to a little bit of that as she ends cross with that and then in redirect how Readington comes and combats that. But that is the worst part of this trial so far in my opinion. As horrible as all the stuff about the kids and going a little bit too much into that and the graphic nature and trying to gain sympathy from the jury, at least I can understand they do have to prove those elements of the crime.

This does nothing but damage the propriety and professionalism and legality and ethics and morals of this trial and this case. >> Were you aware of that? It sounds accurate to me. >> On the ski trip, did they ask you to come over and stay with Lindsay while she was with the other kids? >> I don’t remember. >> So awful.

 But couldn’t sin question go to to Lindsay Clancy knowing wrong? First off, and I don’t want to come at you MLC, but nobody is arguing that Lindsay Clancy doesn’t know it’s wrong to kill children. She said it to her friend when they talked about the Yates case. Any mother that would kill her children. The point is, what was she feeling, doing, and thinking in that moment? Did she have a psychotic break? And if so, did that lead to X, Y, and Z, including her not being able to conform her actions to the law or not knowing right from wrong in

that moment, feeling she could not stop herself from doing that physically. And um you were asked on direct examination about um Lindsay going to see providers and you said I think she was begging for help, right? >> She was >> um do you did you attend any of those u meetings with her therapists or doctors? No.

>> So you don’t know what she told the providers, right? >> I don’t know. >> And you don’t know what kind of help she asked for other than medication, do you? >> No. >> And do you know whether there was any opt other options offered to her other than MLAN like a partial hospitalization program or intensive outpatient? Were you aware of those options? >> Yes.

>> And do you know she went? >> She went to Women and Infants. >> So that’s the one day where Pat dropped her off and went skiing and then came back, right? >> I believe so. >> How about that shot at Patrick Clancy? That’s when Pat dropped her off and then went skiing. Are they trying to create a motive there? Troubles in the marriage potentially.

just that side comment that they won’t actually come out and say that in case the jury uh maybe feels bad for Patrick Clancy and isn’t reading anything online. >> Nothing further. >> Then we get to Readington’s redirect. >> All right, Mr. Redirect. >> So, she asked you about options that were available to Lindsay, correct? >> Yes.

 You mentioned one of them was that she could go to the uh women and infants program in Rhode Island that specializes in perinatal and postpartum, right? >> Yes. >> You know that she went there, right? >> Correct. >> You know she was turned away because she was over medicated, right? >> Yes. >> You also know that they gave her numbers to call suicide hotlines, right? >> Yes.

>> She called twice, not once but twice and again was turned away. Isn’t that right? >> Yes. >> Thank you, ma’am. Come on. >> So every time, every chance he gets, he’s going to get in. The reasons why she was turned away. Fox read, “As a lawyer, why would she even ask that? I literally cannot think of a single reason.

As a Catholic, this is absolutely disgusting. What does religion have to do with the law in this case? She just completely lost the jury.” I mean, yeah, it’s just so bad. It’s it’s unfair. It’s just everything I can think of. Because first off, you want to talk about religion, what a lot of people believe about God is he has grace on people that don’t deserve it and has mercy on people who don’t deserve it, which could also be a version of jury nullification.

 If you feel bad for somebody even though you think they commit a crime, which is not what you’re supposed to do as a jury, you don’t play God. You review the facts and the law and you follow the law and you make a decision. That is your legal duty as a juror. Thank God for mercy and grace and we should give it to each other.

 That’s not the role of a jury in a trial on that. So, you’re aware she was turned away because she told you she was turned away, right? >> I don’t remember the details of that visit or that day. >> You didn’t review the records, did you? >> No. >> So, you’re not aware that they actually um deferred to Pat and Lindsay reporting over medication? >> I remember something being said that she wasn’t a candidate for that program.

That’s what I recall being told by Patrick and Lindsay. >> Okay. And that’s because she everything she described was reported connected to medication and occurred well after um what’s considered the postpartum period. Right. >> I don’t know. >> Well, you’re a labor and delivery nurse. You know the postpartum period could be up to a year, right? >> I’ve heard it could be longer.

>> Um but generally it’s within the first 12 weeks that you start to see some symptoms. >> I don’t know. But you’re aware that um she was sent from women and infants with actually several options where it included inpatient treatment for medication management, a partial hospitalization program focused on general mental health or continued outpatient management.

 That’s that’s what she was sent away with. >> Okay. >> Nothing. One more. Go ahead. Fine. >> He wants one more question. So outpatient management that would include somebody like Gelatoa, right? >> Yes. >> Did you know that women and infants called Gelato and she never called them back? >> I didn’t know that. >> Come up with anything on that.

>> Rutro, great job by Readington. I think he absolutely won that exchange. A lot of people saying there was reports from the court that there were gasps and the jury looked disgusted with that mortal sin question. No surprise. What could her follow-up questions possibly be? Nothing. Because that’s what they do.

 It’s like they’re a little bit passive aggressive, which I don’t like. You know, the person that like says all these things and you know what they mean, but they don’t come out and say it. So, if you accuse them of saying it, they’re like, “Well, that’s not what I meant.” Yes, the appeal could hinge and on unhinged religion question.

 Judge shut it down before Readington could object. Will that matter? The appellet court could say, “Oh, yeah, that didn’t have an effect on the case. We’ll see. But it was just so blatant and obviously bad.” Is it possible the prosecution wants to lose? No. I don’t I mean, is it possible? Sure, anything’s possible.

 But I don’t think that’s possible. No, Peter, you’re right. I was so excited when ZZz Oh, Zazelle. Sorry, I didn’t know how to spell. That’s not how I spell his his name in my head. I was so excited when he took the stand, I text my friend. Isel’s on the stand. Been waiting for it. Exactly. That’s what good defense lawyers do.

Can we petition to have a prosecutor’s law license revoked? She infuriated me today with demonstration and her anger. So unprofessional. Peter, I know you don’t subscribe to conspiracy theories, but do you think the Commonwealth is presenting their case so poorly uh is the cause or people just don’t know, don’t want to believe a mother would do this? I do think the bad investigation um does come into play with the conspiracy theories.

 I’ve watched enough trials with Peter in the chat, you know, to know I’m updating my resume. Two attorney uh refs available upon request. lawn crime trials by day and law, you know, by night. Apparently, this is my job now. It’s like the honorary degrees some people get, right? What happens if there’s a hung jury? Technically, they can retry it again.

I have been mad during things in this case with prosecution, but today I was furious. It proves nothing to me. Maybe the grandparents just don’t do sleepovers for whatever reason. I’m beyond disgusted at these prosecutors. This was their worst cross-examination, just themes and theories, and they’ve had some bad ones, right, with the fake self harm and stuff like that.

What about the horrible question basically saying Lindsay was going to hell? The prosecutors are trying to use shame and more shame to prosecute. Absolutely. The comment regarding the mortal sin asked to Patrick’s mother was disgusting. I would think they’d teach you not to do that in law school. If not, they should use this prosecutor as a real life example of what not to do.

There are law I mean we we there are so many different ways they tell lawyers not to bring religion or you know many other things that are protected classes and not ways to shame guilt or otherwise into these trials. It is like 101 type stuff. 101 type stuff. After the comments like the Commonwealth Mortal Sin comment, does anyone ever reprimand or just say something like, “WTH, are you thinking maybe even a co-orker?” Co-workers absolutely should.

Bosses should and the judge should at sidebar. Don’t be pulling stuff like that. That’s what the judge They should verbally reprimand them. Can she be sanctioned for that comment? Do I think she’ll be sanctioned? No. Could she? I think there’s a I think there are ways you could read into that. The prosecution is diabolical trying to discredit this grandma. Heartbreaking.

 I don’t see how this plays well with the jury in any way. And also, when the grandma walks off the stand, she gives Lindsay Clancy a head nod. Let’s see if we can see that here. >> All right. Thank you, M. Let me step down. Thank you. There was the head nod. like I still feel for you and I still believe what I believe about this case.

 Would you move for a mistrial after that? Absolutely. And I can almost guarantee Readington did because if they would grant a mistrial after the prosecutor did something like that, it’s double jeopardy. Double jeopardy attaches. The prosecutor created this mistrial, it should be over. It should be over. Um, okay.

 Next witness was supposed to be La Pasada. We had a bunch of breaks, but we’re going to do La Pasada later. And instead we’re going to do Dr. Condi who is a um psychiatrist. He said child, adolescent, and adult has dealt with postpartum psychosis, a fellow at Harvard and taught there, psychopharmarmacology expert, etc., etc. goes into what the pills are, the Zoloft, how she was feeling, a lot of what we already knew, but the defense still has to put in the background of how they know things like this and how it’s in evidence and why they can make

these arguments, why they can ask these questions, why they have a good faith basis um to ask these questions to the other witnesses and make these arguments in opening and closing. And that’s why we heard a lot of that from Condi. I thought he did a good job explaining dissociation can be a symptom of postpartum psychosis.

 explains that system uh symptoms, losing touch with reality, audible hallucinations. Uh they go through what the meds are, the SSRI, the anti-depressants, how that works, how the nerves work. Kind of went over my head. Maybe some jurors even apologize for how complicated it was. Um many uh experienced postpartum blues, postpartum depression.

 He talks about blood tests, how easy the blood test would have been, and how they can give you a lot of information because it’s important, what’s going on with your thyroid, and what can happen after um uh pregnancy like check the thyroid levels and the function because it can be affected after childirth. Dysfunction sometimes can cause psychiatric symptoms or make them worse like anxiety, depression, sleep deprivation.

 uh it can also lead to psychosis. He talks about bipolar moods go up, you’re manic and uh then depressed. Uh and then they get into a little bit about what can be psychosis. Uh but Peter, psychosis wasn’t one moment but three separate ones. It can be that’s that’s what you know multiple experts said today. Um, but let’s listen to a little bit about how Readington asks, “Well, could these things be psychosis?” And then they also get into um why she was discharged from the ER because Readington has asked a lot of people, “Were you aware this is

why she was released or rejected? Where do we get that information?” Condi gives us it. like I said that you’re destined to win the lottery or uh in serious cases you can believe that God is speaking to you and has appointed you to do some special um thing in life. Um >> how about u excessive cleaning and uh let’s say divesting oneself of personal property, cleaning garages, things of that nature.

>> Divesting oneself of personal property like a garage sale. It’s kind of funny the way you put it. Uh, there was talk in the records of an episode where Miss Clancy and her husband cleaned out the garage, but it was difficult to tell from the records whether or not that represented what we would call a hypomomanic episode.

>> You know what? That answer was not perfect for the defense. It made me trust this witness more cuz he didn’t just say, “Oh, yeah, Mr. Lawyer, whatever you say, that was definitely a manic or that was definitely a indication she was bipolar.” He’s like, “I wasn’t really sure based on the records.

” And Readington doesn’t get flustered. He just asks another question. >> There were a lot of references to exercise. >> There were a lot of records, uh, references to exercise. Um, and exercise can be a very useful thing. Um, >> that’s one of the things that a woman in postpartum may very well be prescribed to do by a doctor like or nurse practitioner like Juliet, right? >> I believe that nurse practitioner Julie Paul recommended a long run at one point.

 So, there’s nothing wrong with a woman going to, let’s say, Kingsbury or whatever it is or taking her kids to the the local uh gym uh with a swimming pool and trying to get some exercise in the postpartum stage. That doesn’t that’s something you would hold against it. >> No. Okay. Now, how about u are you aware that uh within a very short period of time after she had baby Ken that she actually ran uh a road race? >> Yes.

 that is that indicative of a person that’s that’s kind of ramped up and and doing these things you’re talking about. >> It’s unusual to uh decide to run so soon after delivering a baby. I believe that she ran on the day that she uh might have delivered her last child. Ken, that’s correct. >> I mean that I for some reason I didn’t pick up that it was the actual day.

 I thought people had used terms like shortly after. How is that possible physically? And I guess your answer could be that was a manic episode. I guess you could call it. Wow. The day she That feels impossible, right? I mean, it can’t be the day she delivered, right? And I get what you’re saying, Elshot. I get what you’re saying.

 And when they push the lines like that, it’s hard to blame you. So during the month of December, um, in your review of the records, would you agree that her symptoms that she has related to the doctors that were there to help her um, they basically increased, did they not? >> I’m sorry, I couldn’t >> increased. Yes. >> And and are you aware that then she went somewhere voluntarily in December? >> Yes.

>> Where? >> She went to the Mass General emergency room on um, I believe that was in December. She had gone to the Southshore emergency room previously >> and um did you in the record see that in fact she had gone to uh women and infants program in Rhode Island for a day? >> Yes.

 And and are you familiar with that particular establishment? Is that a supposedly helps pregnant women? >> Yes, I reviewed those records as well. And um do you know why she was discharged after a day? But records stated that they thought that uh she was having complications from medications more than she was suffering from postpartum issues and therefore was not a good candidate for their program.

>> And this was after getting there at 8 in the morning and leaving there around 4:00 in the afternoon. Right. >> That’s my understanding. Yes. >> And the records indicate if you read them that uh during that period of time there were little group discussions and and coloring sessions and things like that.

 Is that correct? >> Yes. You know that there are suicide hotlines that people are told to call, right? >> Yes. Especially if a woman is is in postpartum and is experiencing these difficulties and is describing the symptomology and on all these medications that if you feel like you’re going to kill yourself, you’re supposed to call a telephone number, right? >> Well, it wouldn’t be the advice I would give, but that was some advice that was given. Yes.

>> And did she call, to your knowledge, from reviewing the records, the telephone? She called uh the Aspire hotline, I believe, on two occasions. >> And uh was she given any help by the Aspire hotline? >> I believe the records say that she was told by Aspire that since she did not have a suicide plan, she did not require what’s called a higher level of care.

Mean, >> and so there’s all the confirmation about why she was rejected and couldn’t get the help she was so seriously asking for. Couple more questions on the mortal sin question. Can the judge reprimand the prosecutors for their behaviors today? Like the question on religion and the the actual performance with the band? He can.

 The band probably is not something he would reprimand them for, but he can. Um I I don’t know if he did at Sidebar. Peter, after the mortal sin comment, can Readington did Readington even have to object? I think the judge just was like, “Whoa, whoa, whoa, stop.” Uh, thank you. Thank you. Thank you for pointing out how horrendous that question was.

 Everyone hit the like button, please. What does it mean that the judge stepped in before Readington could even object? That he wanted to stop it and not let it go any further because the judge judges always want to prevent mistrials. I’m starting to despise the Commonwealth. Why in the world ask such a stupid question regarding religion? It’s becoming hard to stay objective.

And I get it and we really need to no matter what we feel about the lawyers. You have to stay objective. But you can understand we’re getting an example of sometimes how that can be hard. She knew she had a mental issue for a long time and stayed near the kids and killed them. It’s like drinking at a bar knowing you will drive home and then killing someone. Guilty. Possible.

 I hope that the Commonwealth’s experts maybe explain something like that to us. Is the prosecution throwing this case or what? No. Biggest biggest bummer to me is that the prosecution has never apologized or said sorry to any witness. And my dad and I every every week when we get together to do this podcast, we are baffled at the lack of empathy they have.

As a spectator, it feels like the prosecutor has bias against Pat’s family for being defense friendly. I wonder how jurors might see this. I think you’re spot on. I get the same feeling. Anyway, this prosecutor is prosecuting so badly because they didn’t want to prosecute. It seems like they’re hanging themselves at every turn. I really don’t.

 There’s not a lot of lawyers that do that. Not a lot of lawyers that do that. So glad you’re fired up about this as much as we are. Horrible. This was horrible. Truly horrible. If they get a mistrial with prejudice over that question, which is unlikely, they can never try her again and she can never be tried again.

 Probably, most likely, that’s what would happen. I don’t understand how the prosecution is using the self-reporting of Lindsay Clancy as cross strategy when their experts also literally relied on self-report. She lied. She was manipulative. She didn’t really have these problems. She wanted attention. I think that’s what they’re going for.

She said mortal, not moral. Let’s use the correct term. Mortal means death. I believe that’s what I said. Um, if it sounded like moral, mortal is what I said. Bob M was in court sitting pretty close to Kevin. He did object to the religion question. These prosecutors are gross in my opinion. No empathy at all. Yeah.

Whether he objected or not, the judge knew it was bad. I was so turned off and disgusted today. Her comment about the sin and her anger towards the me. Yes, we’re going to get there. what does being sanctioned means? So, it’s like a punishment for a lawyer. It can be a fine. It can be a reprimand.

 It can be, you know, a public reprimand where the judge says something to the lawyer. All right. So, then talks about the DSM. Is it a cookbook uh or a bible? It’s more of a dictionary. Postpartum psychosis only mentioned on one page, but on the WHO, it lists PPP as a separate entity, and that’s what insurance companies use for billing.

It’s a pretty big deal. Um, are you familiar with how other countries treat pregnant women with postpartum conditions when they see a doctor? Yes. How is that different than the USA? Objection sustained. What do you think he was going for there? On cross, the majority of your experience was child psychology.

 Where does it say you work with pregnant women? Well, it doesn’t specifically, but he does have some experience with that that they discussed. your involvement in this case is that you provided information in the civil suit. You didn’t look at the police report or the photos, the scene, just the medical records.

 I wanted to be like, “Yeah, wouldn’t it have been nice if some of your uh experts looked at the medical records?” Um, and then she he’s like or she’s like, “You cited the New Yorker article for facts.” And I was like, “That’s not great. That’s not great.” But then he comes back with on uh I think it was redirect or no he said he met with Patrick Clancy.

 This was on cross met with Patrick Clancy and interviewed him for 90 to 100 minutes. I was like ouch ouch that’s embarrassing as the prosecutor. Um Lindsay Clancy sought psychiatric help not psychologist because she wanted the meds not therapy. He’s like well psychiatrists are also trained in therapy.

 And that’s exactly what Tufts said as well. And then again, why would she need the blood test? Really important for the thyroid levels like we’ve already talked about. They argue whether or not she actually had mania. Pressured speech wasn’t there, but the racing thoughts were. They argue about seven pills. Were they taken over seven days? And you know from my perspective it didn’t really get anywhere again with me.

Uh then they talk about the cerakquil start out small doses uh which helps for sleep. Then if it’s for bipolar disorder you get all the way up to 800 milligrams. Gelato had concerns about bipolar disorder. The goal was to titrate up to 400 but not sure Lindsy Clansancy ever got there. It was zero at the time of discharge from a clean I believe.

 And then I thought this was important that they go through the active scripts she had at the time um on January 12th of 2023. >> Well, did she leave MLAN hospital with a prescription for amatuline? I don’t know if she left with a prescription, but it was discussed uh in the records that they recommended that. >> And um as of January 12th of 2023, you’re aware that the only active prescriptions for the defendant were for amatipptalene, right? >> Yes.

>> And um Valium as needed and trazadone. >> That sounds correct. Yes. So throughout the course of your review of the records and all of the different med >> So again, that I think was a solid point for the Commonwealth that she wasn’t on 13 meds um in January when this happened. Now, what effect did those meds already have on her? You know, those are always interesting questions.

But uh she ends with Lindseay Clancy never reported to providers that she heard a voice. Only time she said she heard a voice was on January 24th, 2023. He said correct. Uh then oh actually I want to play a little bit more of this. I want to play a little bit more of this point. >> But yes >> and she had expressed um particular medications that she wished to return to like Adavan at some point. Correct.

>> She was quite ambivalent about Adavan and talked uh a great deal in the records about being worried that she was addicted to it. >> But Adavan tended to work for her. Correct. It made her feel less anxious. Yes. >> And she actually described that at certain points to the providers that when she felt intrusive thoughts or she had a bad experience that she took the Adavan and the thoughts were gone, didn’t she not? >> I’m not sure that she said the intrusive thoughts were gone, but she would feel less anxious when she took it.

And as far as um your conversations about hallucinations and auditory hallucinations, you indicated that at some point or at points, I think was your testimony, that um the defendant did hear a voice, but you’re aware that she never reported to Jennifer Tus that she heard a voice. >> She did not. >> She never reported to Rebecca Gelato that she heard a voice, did she? >> She did not.

>> She never reported to Leticia Dukes that she heard a voice. >> She did not. >> And I I thought these were good questions, right? It doesn’t tell the whole story, of course, but lawyers rarely do on cross. I thought these were good questions. >> The only time she’s ever said that she heard this voice was on January 24th of 2023.

 Is that fair to say? >> Correct. >> Thank you. Nothing further. >> But then we get redirect from Readington, which I loved. >> So, when the district attorney asks you whether or not, >> and by the way, this is yet another big question we have had throughout the entirety of this case that we get the answer to. after all the symptoms that we’ve already gone through told uh Rebecca Gelato that she heard a voice, told Dr.

Tus that she heard a voice and and denied that she heard a voice. Would you agree that there are reasons that a woman would not tell the doctor or minimize their symptoms out of fear? >> Yes. What kind of fear? Fear of what? Well, in the records, it stated that uh Miss Clancy reported she was worried that her children would be taken away from her, >> which is exactly what people said in the chat yesterday, and we discussed yesterday. You guys are spot on.

 And my guess is the jury, because the chat’s been thinking this, my guess is the jury has also been thinking this, and now we hear it from an expert. It’s a common issue that women had that Lisa is sharing with us as well. uh perhaps by the department of children and families if she reported very severe symptoms.

 Uh the other thing is as a health care professional uh boards of registration sometimes take a dim view of people who have so she could lose her job and her kids. You think that was important to her? Now I’m not saying that’s a good excuse to not tell somebody, but it’s the reality that we live in and how we all can think we would do the right thing or we would do x y and z.

 When you’re presented with this issue and a difficulty in life, sometimes you don’t know how you would respond. Eileen said, “I live in Plymouth County and can say the majority of Catholic rooted residents, whether practicing or not, are angry. That comment alone would have turned me off entirely on a subconscious level at least.

” And a lot of you guys are saying that in the chat, so that would make me nervous if I was the prosecutor. >> Uh been in treatment for certain psychiatric illnesses. And so, uh, she might have been concerned about her nursing license, but that’s speculation. >> So, there are other reasons why, uh, a person may be concerned about telling healthcare providers, mandated reporters that they’re hearing voices.

 Correct? >> Yes. Would you agree with me that you don’t have to see the proverbial unicorn in the corner to your health provider to be suffering? >> He’s used that a ton. The unicorn in the corner >> from psychosis. Yes, that’s true. >> And and can you tell us uh council was asking about the uh symptomology u psychosis? Is is that something that just grinds on for day after week after month or is that something that comes on out of nowhere very quickly? >> Oh, that’s an important question that we’ve been waiting on because when the

Commonwealth’s entire theory is she was fine, she was fine the day before. Oh, she was doing better at Thanksgiving. Oh, she went to mass on Christmas. So, she must be fine. She must not be able to be in a psychotic state. Can we hear from an expert? Is that actually true? What does the research say? >> Also was asking about the uh symptomology u psychosis.

 Is is that something that just grinds on for day after week after month or is that something that comes on out of nowhere very quickly? >> No world. >> It can be quite episodic. What does that mean? >> It means that an episode can start and stop and then an interval of time goes by. It could be days, weeks or months, and then another episode occurs.

>> It can be episodic. And to me, that’s one of the ultimate issues and questions in this case. Was it episodic? Did it come and go? Did it come on when she didn’t know it was going to happen and she had a psychotic break and a psychotic episode? Did we did we know that was even a possibility? Now, the answer is yes.

 It’s in evidence from an expert. And from my perspective, in a case like this where the defense has no burden, this is about as big of a hole as you can blow in the prosecution’s case who has to disprove that she had this psychotic break and that she could conform her actions to the law because this expert opinion answered one of the ultimate questions that it’s episodic. It can come and go.

It can go come for a day, leave for a week or a month, and come back, which is exactly what Readington has been trying to present throughout this entire trial. >> Council asked you about bipolar disorder, uh, the suspicions of bipolar disorder from Dr. Gelato and then tal talked about the prescriptions that were prescribed.

 Is it in your opinion appropriate to prescribe a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor to a person that is bipolar? No overrule. >> It would uh be considered something to be done cautiously and usually with a mood stabilizer uh begun at the same time to prevent the possibility of making manic symptoms worse. >> And I liked that question too.

 It was not a perfect answer from the witness. He didn’t say, “No, you never uh prescribe an SSRI to bipolar person.” He’s like, “Well, you can, but you also have to prescribe something with it because it can be very dangerous.” So, a bunch of questions about why didn’t he object? Why didn’t he ask for a mistrial? I am sure all of that happened at Sidebar. I’m sure.

>> Thank you, sir. Bucky. >> So, just briefly, you didn’t interview the defendant, did you? >> I did not. You don’t know what she was concerned about. You’re speculating. >> Yes. >> And um for a person >> Yeah. But guess what? The jury heard it. So it’s like he’s speculating. That’s usually why you can keep evidence out, but you didn’t keep the evidence out.

 So the juryy’s going to uh consider it. And Readington can argue it. It’s an evidence. >> Begging for help. Wouldn’t it be important to be honest with the providers about what you’re feeling, seeing, and hearing? >> It should be, but that’s not always what doctors find. It’s like, yeah, sure. You hope everybody’s honest with you, but that’s not the reality we live in.

Again, that’s the point. What is the reality? What are we actually dealing with here? Uh, I think that’s it. >> Nothing further. >> Yeah. Okay. Then we get to La Pasada who appeared by Zoom and we know who she is. is a forensic pathologist. Uh medical examiner’s office. Uh they first talk about the bruises or injuries on the kids.

 You know, none of that came from abuse. Basically, we knew she was going to testify to that. That was important. Um and then uh then they started get to get into the same questions about the injuries on the wrist and the neck. Are they consistent with self harm? Objection sustained. Then she is a witness on his side. Okay. because she pressed to make sure she got this answer in.

 Uh let’s take a listen to how she answered these questions and how she forced in some good evidence for the defense. >> Penetrate the skin to what degree? >> Yes, they’re they’re cutting type wounds made by a sharp object such as a knife. >> Okay. And how about the neck? Did that penetrate the fissure or did that penetrate the skin to what degree? >> Um yes, there were also um linear uh superficial insized wounds to her neck.

uh and there were several several of them and one or two of them went deeper. There was bleeding. >> So several superficial and some went deeper >> also from the wounds on the wrist and there were numerous attempts at cutting the skin which we call hesitation marks which are a classic finding in suicide attempts and >> hesitation marks which are classic findings in an attempt of self harm.

Oh, she was faking it. Oh, they were superficial. Oh, they weren’t deep enough. Oh, she jumped off, but she just got paralyzed. She didn’t die. She did that on purpose. Huh? Or is this common to hesitate when people try to do this to themselves? Logically, that makes sense. And they did those incisions did cut in through the skin and cut um blood vessels that were under the skin.

 And you can also tell from looking at the photos of Lindsay taken in the hospital when she was first admitted. Um and also uh when the photograph of her bedroom, her bedroom, you could see there was significant bloodshed event from those cutting injuries. >> No. Um, did she also sustain an injury to her neck from your review of the medical records? >> Yes.

>> Can you tell us what type of injury? And if we could, and if it assists the jury with you, uh, you can make reference to the pages of the little report in the diagrams, page four, five, and six, and tell us what we’re looking at. >> Um, okay. Um, let’s see. So, are we ready to look at number four? >> Sure. Yep. Start off with four.

 So, I’m just going to show you the diagram. Can’t really see it because the um box is over it, but basically shows how she went out the window, fractured her spine um and suffered the paralysis. Packer fan said, “Do you think the prosecution said the mortal sin in hopes for a mistrial because they’re losing?” Uh, no.

 If you do something like that and you throw it on purpose as a prosecutor and the judge finds that it was intentional, this case is getting thrown out. You don’t get to try it again. Only under very certain circumstances would that not be the case. Uh, Peter, I was going to cry if you tried to give the ADAs the benefit of the doubt after today’s diabolical antics.

 Thanks for being the real deal. I mean, I’m going to always try to give people the benefit of the doubt. There was no benefit of the doubt to be given there in my opinion. I need more than psychosis can happen suddenly to ignore what providers saw in real time and decide that later they were all wrong.

 Catholic question was crazy. So, frozen recon, do you need more from the defense? Because they don’t have to prove anything. Is what that doctor said that psychosis can happen, you know, episodically and come and go, is that enough for you to doubt that she was able to conform her actions to the law, that she did not have a psychotic break? Cuz that’s what the state needs to prove, not the other way around.

Love the random time starts uh for the lives. Cannot wait to hear Papa’s pit on the cardinal sin question. Was he shocked as we all were? When do we get to hear his thoughts? You’ll get to hear his thoughts on Monday every week. Sorry, Sunday. Sunday night every week. I haven’t even talked to him about it today. I’ve had a packed day.

Uh, what are we going to next? Not a Spider-Man jump, obviously. Okay. Then another big question that we’ve had, and this comes sometimes from the conspiracy theorist, but also I think it’s a fair question. How did her body temperature get so low so fast on this timeline? Well, La Pasada is going to medically explain it to us.

 And I know there’s going to be people that think, “Oh, that wasn’t a good enough explanation.” That’s fine, whatever. But we’re getting an expert opinion on how that’s possible. And she says, “Yes, it’s absolutely possible.” >> Her voice box cartilages. >> And if we look at panel page six, can you tell us what we’re looking at there? >> Yes, this is the The final resting position of Lindsay’s body is documented on all the materials I reviewed.

 That is on the left hand side. So, she is lying down on hard frozen ground. Um, her clothing is wet. She has on indoor clothing. Um, the time that this occurred, it was dark and no sun. The temperature was in the low 30s. So, she is going to be at risk of her body temperature going down lying on that um cold ground.

 In addition to now that her cerv thoracic chest spine is fractured that has totally disrupted the thermal regulation of the bottom half of her body. So she is >> So that’s part of the explanation. She ran before giving birth that day, not after. Okay, that makes a lot more sense to me. Makes a lot more sense. Uh you said bad investigation equals possible conspiracy.

 Are you shifting? Absolutely not. I’m somebody asked me why I think people are coming up with the conspiracy theories and I said the the investigation was not as thorough as you’d like to to see >> lose heat from the lower half of her body and as to approach ambient temperature. So there she is lying there on the ground.

 Then if we go to the right side of that, this is a scene photograph showing the area where R’s body landed. You can see on the right at the base area there is some medical debris from the EMS uh emergency treatment. Uh then circled in or put in a red square is a little bit of snow that has some blood on it which would correspond to her position lying down as we see it in the left hand side there.

>> Sorry. Go ahead. >> Okay. Then the the last bit here is a X-ray of Lindsay which was taken in early February after she had um surgical stabilization of her fractured spine. So this is looking at the side of her and you can see the hardware which they look like little golf tees going to the left side.

 So this is the surgical metal hardware that was placed in her spine to open up and align her spine to try to preserve any function that was still available. >> Now doctor, when she went to the uh bringing the woman’s hospital, were you reviewing the medical records and able to discern that she actually coded as a result of her injuries? >> Yes, she did.

 She was in um spinal shock and hypothermia and her heart did >> spinal shock, hypothermia, um loss of blood, laying in the frozen ground, wet clothes, all those things combining. >> Did you observe that there were they called massive blood transfusions to to treat her at bringing the woman? Yeah, she lost a lot of blood around the muscles that hold the spine up because that was so damaged.

 So her hemoglobin and vomatic and her red blood cell level was very low on admission. >> And the final question I had, Dr. as it relates to the records, it showed that she had a core body temperature of 82 degrees as opposed to 98.6 which we’re accustomed to. Can you tell the jury in your opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty? What does that mean and how did that happen? And that’s pretty low.

>> Um, yes, that is low. That’s like, you know, 16 degrees below normal. And so her low body temperature came from lying on the hard frozen ground, which would be 32° frozen ground. Um, she had wet clothing on. So wet clothing is going to transmit the body heat into the atmosphere quicker than dry clothing.

She had it was indoor clothes. She didn’t have big a big parka on. There was no sun at that time to keep her body temperature up. The ambient or the air temperature was around 30°. She has a skin body and also most importantly because of that the rassic spinal cord um transsection she lost the ability to control the her body temperature below that level.

 So that means all those blood vessels. >> And that’s the big deal that’s different than so many other cases, right? Is because of her injury to her spine, she lost the ability to control um the lower half of her body, the the thermal, the heating, the blood flow, all of that changes, >> dilate, and they just lose um heat to the atmosphere.

>> Thank you very much. >> So I thought that was really good. Really good by La Pasada. Um, okay. I’m going to go through some questions here. I’m trying to save all the questions about the bands until we get to that which is coming on cross. Uh, so so thankful for your thoughtful analysis, Peter.

 Been a court junkie for years, but I’ve learned so much from you and your dad. I work in mental health with complex needs. Psychosis is extremely complicated, so heartbreaking for all. I agree. I agree. And there’s another comment in here I want to get to, but it’s hard for me to find. Um, the Commonwealth came out blaming the families, her husband, their parents, then slipped in the mortal sin comment.

In my opinion, breaking their own theory. Whatever it is, I still don’t know. Giving an appeal real legs. Lindsay Clancy said she heard a voice, but I want to know what she believed would happen if she didn’t do what the voice said. I feel this could make a difference, and I think we’re going to continue to get more context on that.

And I understand if people still have questions. If the Commonwealth had any jurors on their side, they lost them today. You can present a case and not be heartless. I wonder what the DA’s office thinks about how they are working this case. They have to be embarrassed, right? After today, I would be.

 After today, I would be. A lot of these are, could Shreddington go home tonight and write up a motion for his trial or is it too late? He probably already made it. I doubt he’s going to waste his time writing emotion on it, but maybe. Do you think the Commonwealth knew how risky the question sin question was, or do they think they’re genuinely tonedeaf? Uh, it feels like a lack of self-awareness more than strategy.

 I think they thought it was really good. That’s That’s just my guess, right? It’s just my guess. Did you notice the ADA’s smuggly smirk at each other after the exercise band part of Cross? Such diabolical women with the bows. I didn’t notice that. I didn’t notice that Dr. Lapasado recross was callous and disgusting. We’re about to get there.

Also, don’t forget the queen Dr. Lapasado was once again today. Grock says the comm claims she ran mere hours after Cal’s birth. Defense claims it was several weeks. I I have thought the See, this is what I hate when stuff like this happens at trial where it’s like contradicting evidence and contradicting testimony.

 I hate that because then I second guess what’s in my head. All right. Uh let’s talk a little bit about La Pasad’s cross. So you were head of the Rhode Island Medical Examiner office when it was unsafe conditions, 10 violations. She’s like, “Yeah, there was a light bulb out. Uh, you said she fell 13 ft, but she didn’t hurt her head.

” I actually thought this was a good line of questioning. I’m not going to lie. I thought it was a good line of question to talk about how her skull wasn’t fractured, not a lot of bruising, not, you know, raccoon eyes or anything like that from hitting her head. I thought that was all good questioning by the Commonwealth, which I was like, “Okay, they they’re doing okay here.

 They’re doing okay.” And then it all falls apart when they decide to try to double down on the strangulation questions. Not really something that was asked about a ton on direct, but they decide to get into it on cross. And when they get into it, from my perspective, this was one of the other embarrassing parts of this trial to them.

 I think they thought it was a slam dunk. I I want to see if I can find it. I didn’t clip it. So, okay, it was on recross. So, maybe I do have it clipped. No, I don’t have it clipped. Um, but again, they talk about how long does it take. Um, oh, in another case, you said 10 to 20 seconds and today you said 5 to 10 seconds.

 um continuous pressure for three to two to three minutes, especially if the child’s struggling. Redirect, he tries to clear it up, but again, it’s all so bad for them. Talking about the difference between, you know, strangling with the hands versus the exercise bands. Um and then they get up on the recross and they thought they had just this moment.

 And a lot of you guys, I’m going to put some of the comments up about how great they thought this went. To me, it was like it fell flat. And I remember Patrick Clancy saying he had to take the exercise bands off of their necks. So, were they tied on? Were they not? Did we get specific enough instruction for that? I’m going to put your comments up of how you guys remember it.

 Let me know in the comments about um let me know uh in the comments what you remember Patrick Clancy’s testimony to be about how he found the children. We didn’t get into the details because we’re trying to stay out of the most gruesome details. Um, but we’re going to listen to a little bit of this. Uh, people are saying you wouldn’t get raccoon eyes with the top of the head.

 I understand. And she explained it would be under the hair. She held her own. I’m just saying I thought it was fair cross-examination. Um, but let’s watch this moment here and you tell me what you remember uh Pat saying about this >> several times. >> And I don’t tell that from the >> I don’t know why Readington did didn’t talk about what Pat said.

 Maybe he’s hoping the jurors remember it. band doctor wrapped around the child’s neck several times and then left there. I guess you can’t see it from where you are, but it just fell apart and didn’t stay in a circle. >> But like, what if they were tied? What if they were under the kids? Because the other theory is she could have tied them around their necks and then walked away is what Readington tries to say.

 Like she wasn’t standing there looking in them in their eyes. But she was trying to show that if you circled it around their neck then it would just fall and it would go limp or whatever. I don’t think we have proof of that. Right. >> Yeah. I I sort of saw what you did. So >> what was that? >> I said I saw that. >> You saw it.

 So it was left there and it fell apart. Correct. >> Yeah. What you just did? Sure. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Yeah. That’s what you just did. >> Sure. Because what point did that prove? Was that an aha moment? Was that a home run? Or did it fall flat? What do you guys think? I’ve always believed the exercise bands were tied like a person would do to a to starting an IV with blood.

 I don’t think she held them for the duration. I don’t know. I don’t feel like that’s been fully explained to me. But I do absolutely remember in my mind’s eye Patrick Clancy saying he had to like untie it and take the take them off of their necks, which if they were just sitting there limp and any of the kids were still alive when she walked away, they would have been able to take them off.

I don’t know. I don’t know. Have a four and a halfyear-old and two-year-old. Neither have ever slept over my very involved mom’s house. What a weird way to insult a grieving grandma. Yeah, I can think of about a million reasons, right? It’s kind of crazy to see Massachusetts of all places inappropriately bringing religion into the courtroom multiple times.

The way the prosecutor put the gloves on and open the bag with the exercise bands and gave so much attitude to Readington today really shows how much she really thinks she’s right. I think so. Can planning prove both premeditation and criminal responsibility? or must the Commonwealth separately prove she knew it was wrong and could stop herself for me.

 They haven’t proven the latter beyond a reasonable doubt. They need to prove that she was able to conform her actions to the law. And there are different ways of doing that. There’s not just one way of doing that. So, if you believe the fact that she planned it, got him out of the house, had the exercise bands ready in the basement, did it while he was out of the house, then was trying to take her own life after because she knew what she did was wrong, I think it’s possible for you to get there.

 But I think there’s so much more coming from the defense experts. Graham said, “I’ve been following nearly every video since February of 24. Finally broke down and became a ride-or die member today.” Graham, welcome to the crew. Two things. LC did report the Adavan stopped her intrusive thoughts, which I questioned based on my medical knowledge as an RN.

 Two, maybe I’m the only one, but I thought La Posada was unprofessional during cross- examination. Her tone gets a little bit much with me sometimes. I felt like the entire cross was so adversarial and I don’t know who looked worse. I think it depends on the person. So you guys let me know. Did anybody else think negatively of La Pasada? Cuz I felt like La Pasada, unlike Condi, who I felt like was just down the middle, you know, not trying to press for the defense.

 I thought La Pasada wanted to be a good witness for the defense. Pretty interesting knowing you’re hearing voices. Here it is. This is an interesting comment to me. Knowing you’re hearing voices, your family knows you have thoughts of hurting the children, yet you don’t remove yourself or them from the situation.

 We hold others to the same standard. That’s a fair question. And where do you go as far as the outcome of this trial with those points? Like you’re afraid of losing your job. Maybe DCF should take your kids at a certain point, right? Or remove you at least and leave them with your husband. There are absolutely situations where that’s necessary.

So, your choices, what what ended up happening and what really happened that night. I’m new here and enjoy hearing your perspectives on this heartbreaking case. Thank you so much, Jen. I appreciate it and I’m happy you’re here and I’m happy you’re sharing your thoughts with us. Um, yes, it’s absolutely an appealable issue and I think the defense is doing as good as they can so far.

 And somebody asked me if I thought it was ineffective assistance of counsel. Here it is. uh because he’s proving she knew she was sick. It’s hard for people to understand what ineffective sentence council really looks like. It is nothing like this on either side, frankly. Okay, so we get to Zel, who we’ve all been waiting for.

 One of the highlight witnesses for the defense, clinical and forensic psychologist. Uh he does testing and there’s different kinds of testing that show if somebody’s lying to make themselves feel seem better or seem worse. And Lindsey Clancy was not trying to fake or minger to make it seem worse. She was an honest citizen.

 He testifies for the Commonwealth and the Defense, worked with the DEA, the CIA, the FBI, the US Marshalss, four years in Afghanistan, as good of a resume as you could possibly have. And when he saw Lindseay Clancy in the hospital, she had real cuffs on, not soft cuffs. And Readington and Zizel are friends.

 They socialized together, but they did not talk about this case. He just wanted Isel to go help Lindsay. And what did he do when he went to see Lindsay? Well, he gave her a brief mental status exam. And we start to get into one of the other big questions in this case. Did Lindseay Clancy hear voices? What did they tell her? Is this legit? By the way, we’re on the last witness, Isel. We’re past an hour.

 We’re at the overtime mark. Take a second. 25,000 people in here. I think this is our biggest live of this trial. Hit that like button. Let’s get to 20,000 likes. I don’t think we’ve gotten to 20,000 likes on a video. Take a second, hit that like button. Hit like bottom like button. >> Troop is in their blue uniforms sitting each in a chair on either side of the doorway uh to Miss Clancy’s room with a nurse sitting in the corner of her room.

>> When you went in to see her on that date, was it your understanding she had recently been excubated? In other words, they removed the tool from remote. >> Yes. >> And do you recall the conversation that you had with Lindsay at that time? Yes, I did. >> What the memory is? >> The conversation I had with Miss Clancy at that time was one where I asked if she knew where she was.

 So, I did what’s called a mental status exam, a brief mental status exam. It’s orientation to time, place, location. She didn’t know where she was. Wasn’t quite sure what time it was. She knew who she was. and uh she told me that she remembers what happened but it was very fuzzy and foggy at the time she had been on medication for the significant pain postsurgery uh while in that hospital room.

>> And during the course of that interview with her, did she express any concern to you about her husband Patrick? >> Yes, she did. >> Tell the jurors what she indicated to you. She said since 11 days prior to my meeting with her, which would have been January 24th, 2023, she had no contact with Patrick.

 She wanted to know how he was doing. She wanted to know if she could call him and find out where things are with her and with him and how he was fairing and to just speak with him. >> So, what does that say to you? Normal response, abnormal response? Like, shouldn’t you know how your husband’s going to feel about this? uh loving wife, just wanted to call him on the phone, didn’t want to set up her defense.

 Do you believe this guy? Do you not? Because the the Commonwealth does kind of have to call him either a shyer or a liar. Uh to win their case, right? I don’t think they’re just going to say, “Oh, he’s wrong.” What determines if a witness can appear by Zoom? Most jurisdictions allow it if it’s absolutely necessary for the um schedule of the trial not to hold things up so that we can be fair and it’s a fair trial the for the defendant and they can get their witnesses called in an order that makes sense.

 Trials are living and breathing things. If it didn’t work out with the scheduling that they expected, we don’t want to screw the whole thing up. If we have this technology, um we need to use it. >> Concern about her family? >> Yes, she did. >> Did she express concern about what had happened? >> Yes. Did she ask you or did you offer to her the ability to speak to her husband Patrick? >> She asked me if she could use my cell phone to call her husband.

>> Did she do that? >> Yes, she did. >> Did you hear the conversation? >> Yes. I told her we’d call. It would have to be on speaker phone. >> And tell us about that conversation. >> So that first phone call, I believe on the 24th, he did not pick up. We left. She left a message. I did not leave a message.

 We then called back two days later on the 6th. >> And after the two days had transpired and the call was made on the 6th, did she have a chance to talk to Patrick? >> Yes. >> Were you there? >> So, she did have a chance to talk to Patrick eventually, not the first time. Did she know the voice was a hallucination? I don’t think we have that answer yet.

 We’re about to hear about the voices right now. So, you’ll hear what we know about the voices right now. We’re going to listen to it together and you tell me what you think. How powerful is this? Do you believe it? Is it enough that she couldn’t say no? Is it a command hallucination? We’re going to hear it right now.

 And by the way, for the whole Patrick did it crowd, to me, that’s got to be withering away. Unless everybody’s lying. >> Yes. >> Was she still chained to the bed? >> Yes. >> Were the cops still outside the room? >> Yes. Not in blues. They were in civilian clothing, jeans, flannel shirts. >> And tell us what she said to Patrick in your presence on the speaker phone at that point.

She had told Patrick that she loved him very much. She was unable to express a lot of emotion, but she expressed love for him. And she had said that she heard a male voice ordering her telling her that she didn’t have any choice. But she had to kill her children and then kill herself. She didn’t have a choice.

 She had to kill her children and then she had to kill herself. That’s what the voice said to her. She didn’t say she knew it was hallucination. She heard a male voice. How could the ADA say there was no evidence the bands were tied? Patrick testified he untied them. That’s how I remember it, too. I don’t know why Readington didn’t object or go into that more, but a lot going on in a trial.

 And I can’t imagine trying this by yourself. Is it a big deal that the photo of Lindseay Clancy in bed was admitted into evidence after it was published to the jury gallery? No. For the most part, I think the judge has been fair to both sides with his response to objections. I do wish Readington objected more to the leading.

If anything, I think he’s been on Readington’s side, and Readington like feels like an authoritative figure to this judge in my opinion. What’s with the hard frozen ground in Massachusetts and the 82 degrees? I don’t know, man. So weird all the parallels in this case, right? Now, doctor, have in mind your your background, your career, your >> Did you tell Lindsay Clancy to lie or make that up? >> In case you can’t hear, he’s asking, “Doctor, did you tell Lindsay Clancy to lie and make up those hallucinations?”

And he said, “Given your career and your background, like serving our country basically, would you lie for Lindsay Clancy?” >> Did you tell Lindsay Clancy to lie or make that up and pretend that she was hearing voices? >> No. >> Did you have any conversation or any suggestions to her at all that she should say she heard voices or anything like that? >> Absolutely not.

 Why did you let her call her husband on your cell phone? >> I let her call her husband out of human compassion. >> As time >> human compassion, but that makes sense. I think the jurors can understand that. How did she talk to Pat but not the EMT? They’ve explained that a little bit. And I I think we’ve heard from people in the courtroom that you could hear her saying basement on the 911 call.

 Um, so I mean outside of that I don’t know what else to add to that. WTF is the Commonwealth doing? Are they going to introduce rebuttal that she’s not actually paralyzed? I hope so. Otherwise, this theory of minimizing the injuries is wild. I agree. I definitely think they’re going to have a rebuttal case, but I don’t think that’s what they’re going to say.

 If the jurors are intellectually honest with themselves and each other, wouldn’t the expert testimony today be enough reasonable doubt that she is a secret psychopath who wanted to kill her children? I feel like I could understand if they were. We’ll see what ends up happening. My fiance Abby and I always watch you. You can’t screen a crisis with checkboxes.

 Providers did the standard of care. Nothing slipped through the cracks. She just she’s just one of the rare few who acted on it. Oo, interesting. So, how would that make you feel? Even if the providers didn’t drop the ball, do you think she had a psychotic break to where she is not mentally responsible for this legally speaking? >> By did I then Oh, by the way, you’ve testified for for me on other matters, have you not? >> Yes.

>> We go back about 20 years. >> Yes. >> And and we socialized together. >> Yes. >> So, we’re friends. >> Yes. And uh as you worked on the case, can you tell the jurors what information you had access to that would allow you to continue with your investigation as a psychologist? >> I had access to her clinical records.

Many of that were discussed here. Uh emergency records, Jan, sorry, grand jury minutes. uh with the longitudinal nature of my evaluation I have records from Pier Women’s Southshore Spalding Hospital and most recently Tukesbury Hospital which go back to I believe March 27th or so 2023 till today. >> How many times have you seen Lindsay since that day in January of 24? So, I’ve met with >> 2023.

 I’ve met with Miss Clansancy over 45 times since then. And that was at the writing and the issuance of my report to attorney Readington. That was in middle of June. And I’ve seen Miss Clansancy since then 20 times probably or 15. And do you think that that was done to compare the 60 plus visits, most of them, I think he said, in person, to her treating physicians, maybe.

Is it normal for a DA to be good on direct? I feel like Kevin Readington hasn’t had an awkward moment when switching. I disagree. I think he has had a couple awkward moments, but what he’s doing is trying to push it along and tighten it up, which I respect and is exactly what you should do. But sometimes it does feel like he’s rushing through his own witnesses, but he’s trying not to bore the jury, which is so important.

 He’s such a compelling lawyer. Couldn’t agree more. Thanks for doing these lives. Very informative. I’m a nurse and my husband’s a retired criminal defense attorney. He will watch two lawyer podcasts with me. Lawyer, you know, in courtroom confidential. He loves your passion for the law, but balanced perspective.

 Well, shout out to him and to you. Thank you for the comment. I love hearing stuff like this. The bottom line is she lied about her symptoms to people who could have helped and she didn’t take her meds. So, the lying about her symptoms the defense is even agreeing with. So, what does that make you think? Is she guilty because she lied about her symptoms? Does that mean she did not have a mental disease or defect and either didn’t know right from wrong or couldn’t conform her actions to the law? inclusive of being in this courtroom and

sometimes meeting with her in the holding unit. >> And we’ve had occasion to visit with her in Tukesbury Hospital, many many of those times, right? >> Yes. >> Um and you’ve had occasion to visit with her in in in the lockup to this courthouse, correct? >> Yes. >> Um and and she’s been >> He was probably like, “Hey prosecutors, thank you for that good idea.

I should mention the fact that he’s still meeting with her throughout the trial and it opened up the door for this. >> Well, by everybody, the court officers, everybody. Is that correct? >> Objection. This >> Yeah, the sustain. >> Well, you had a chance to see her in the lockup, right? >> Yes. >> Why would you? >> No. Overruled.

>> Why would you Why would you see her in the lockup? I would see Lindsay Clancy in lock up because the nature of presentation in this court has been gut-wrenching for anyone who would be exposed to such horrific >> objection and move to strike. It’s not responsive to the question. >> Can I see council? >> He’s like, why are you meeting with her during the court? and he’s like the brutal presentation of evidence here.

How horrible it is to Lindseay Clancy, which is exactly what Readington said in opening that is totally inappropriate, not relevant. I don’t mean inappropriate as in like sanctionable, but not relevant, not something that really uh needs to to come into this case because it has nothing to do with whether or not she had a psychotic break at the time.

Um, nothing really relevant to prove in this case, but but He got it in. The jury heard about it. I also think I also think it’s possible that some jurors may feel, “Hey buddy, she killed her kids. She wrapped those things around their neck. She did this to them.” So, the fact that she’s got to sit there and listen to it, did anybody feel bad when Lorie Valow had to hear about what she did to her kids? Did anybody feel bad about what Brendan Banfield had to hear about what he did to his wife? Wouldn’t hesitation be evidence Lindsay

Clancy was not in psychosis? So, this is what I love. If we were back there discussing it, I’d be open to discussing this. She knew what was going on. That’s why she hesitated. I think we can continue to kind of take the full context and see what GB Packer saying. So many people need Lindsy Clancy, Lindsey Clancy to prove she was in a psychotic state. Exactly.

 That’s probably what I would push back on to the last comment. The Commonwealth has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt she knew it was wrong and she could control her actions. Hope the jury isn’t this way. So many of them are, frankly. So many of them are. waited all day to hear what you had to say about murder being a mortal sin.

 I have loved some of the comments I put up about the grace and forgiveness that is also taught in the Catholic religious belief system and in the Bible, right, that they’re trying to bring into this because that that’s why we’re we’re not having this religious debate because that’s not marrying the facts to the law and making a legal decision for the jury.

Random questions, but do you have seasonal allergies? Don’t you? I do that same alligator call when the roof of my mouth itches. I I I know it anyway. This I didn’t even realize I was doing that. Uh that’s hilarious. I don’t know if I have seasonal allergies, but I know I haven’t slept good the last couple nights.

 Our AC went out last night in Florida when it’s only 100°, which is brutal. We’ve had some long days and late nights. Like, I’m usually in bed right about now. Uh but we keep grinding. We keep grinding. She couldn’t have possibly had time to hold each child for 10 minutes, which the Commonwealth is proposing. The time simply does not allow for that.

 Which makes sense about Patrick saying he untied the bands, right? He said they were tied like shoelaces with bunny ears. I’ve heard a ton of comments. Look at another one. A ton of comments saying that. I’m assuming you guys went back and listened to that. So, I appreciate that. You guys are the best.

 This is why this works, right? We work together. You complete me. Uh, Peta, I love the compassion with which you are handling this trial. It is difficult at best, but you make listening to all of this just a little bit easier. And hopefully, we can learn from each other, even in tragedies like this. Peter, did you appreciate the defense’s example of how bad the television can be for communication, starting with tech difficulties and delay? That’s a smart lawyer who’s sharp, man.

He’s sharp. Don’t miss any possibility that can help your client’s case. All right, let’s keep listening to the expert. >> Let me All right, so that answer, Lis, that answer is strict to hospital. Have you had to see her to evaluate her in addition to your testimony per >> Yes. >> Why? Because the nature of mental health is something that’s not a static or what we consider historical piece of information.

 Static information means a date of birth that’s never going to change. Dynamic issues are things that are subject to change like the weather, like your health, like your mood. So to do an evaluation for a case that Miss Clansancy is involved in, which is a triple homicide case, requires an examiner to ensure that she’s competent to stand trial and that her mental health is stable enough to be able to go forward with court proceedings.

 Is there an additional component and has there been an additional component of her suicidal ideiation while she’s been since she’s been in custody at Brigham Women’s and then of course transferred years ago to Tukesbury. >> Objection approach council. >> All right. So they approach um we’re going to skip the sidebar. Actually, we’re going to skip ahead a little bit here.

They go through basically the entire defense of the case, all the treaters, um the suicide hotline turning her away because she was overmedicated. Uh or sorry, the the the hospital turning her away. She’s over medicated, not having a plan. Um they go through all of that. But here was an interesting thing.

 When they start to get the psychosis and the fact that she believed other people could hear her thoughts. How about that? And the different symptoms of psychosis >> in Belma. It’s a Harvard affiliate. >> This is like the last five minutes of the day today. So this is what the jury is going to go home remembering.

>> Hospital. >> Now that MLAN hospital when you say was sent to there to say that even though they had to transport her, it was a voluntary commitment. Yes. >> And what was her state of mind that caused her to have a voluntary commitment to the locked wards of McLean Hospital? >> She was worried about killing herself and she uttered concerns about killing her children.

>> How about did she relate any intrusive thoughts and dark thoughts, things of that nature during this period of time, October, November, December? >> Yes. >> Tell me about that. >> She said she had quote horrible thoughts unquote. She felt that people could actually hear her thoughts. The thoughts were so loud that strangers could hear them.

>> Expressed at that point, for example, that she was concerned about school teachers with the Little Sprouts uh school with the kids that they could read her thoughts and that she would lose custody. >> Yes. It’s called ideas of reference. You believe other people can hear what you’re thinking and that can have a very negative interpretation for the person believing that, feeling that, and thinking that the outcome is going to be a negative one that their children may be relieved from their care.

>> I like the way he testifies, right? when he looks at the jury, it’s not like yes, no, it’s, you know, and and what they’re doing is they’re thinking and they can they can think people can hear their thoughts and that can really negatively affect like he’s actually talking to them and explaining this to them.

 And that to me, I I like his demeanor and the way that he presents. How about the smirk between Readington and Zazelle at the end? Ziselle seems like a fraud. Interesting. I didn’t feel that way. You guys let me know though. Maybe I missed the boat with this witness. I like the way he presented. So, I guess the defense doesn’t know or doesn’t care if the jury knows she’s in lockup. No.

 So, what I’m saying he wants them to know that. I think he doesn’t want them to think she’s going to go home if they vote not guilty by reason of insanity. >> Relates to the concept of psychosis. You told me in 25 words or less. What is psychosis? >> In 25 words or less, >> he’s like, I don’t want to waste this jury’s time. Okay. 25 words or less.

 I can’t do anything in 25 words or less. >> Cosis is what’s considered a major mental health disorder. It’s when people have disorganized thinking and the symptoms most typically are hallucinations. There are different types of hallucinations. 80% of people with psychosis hear voices. There different types of voices that one can hear. Benign, get a glass of water.

Benevolent, you’re a good person. Keep it up. Or malevolent, threatening them, telling them, ordering them to do something horrible. And you believe those voices. Now during that period of time u when she got out of the MLAN hospital what medication what medication was she titanically getting off of? >> I believe she’s getting off the cerakquil.

>> Was she able to do that? >> Yes. >> Um relating back to November 27th with a disassociated state. Is that an indication or havener of psychosis? >> Yes. And does a psychosis is that something that would be somebody would be suffering from a psychosis for a month at a time, two months at a time or is that short periods or how does that work? >> People with psychosis have intermittent symptoms.

 They can function fine one day and the next day they can be hearing voices. They could be seeing things. That’s two experts that tell us they can be fine one day and then they can be hearing voices the next. >> Intermittent simp. >> We’re going to listen to one more time. It’s like the last minute and a half. I’m going to let it play before the judge calls it for the day because this is the last these are the last points the jury hears.

>> People with psychosis have intermittent symptoms. They can function fine one day and the next day they can be hearing voices. They could be seeing things, feeling things, smelling things. To be clear, those additional types of hallucinations did not plague Miss Clansancy. She only had auditory hallucinations.

 But hallucinations are like the waves at the beach. They come and go. They come and go. >> They’re called waxing and waiting. >> Yes. And and would you tell me doctor in your opinion is a an individual and we refer to postpartum psychosis. Is that a particular affliction that afflicts women that have had babies and they go through a period of postpartum depression and then ultimately postpartum psychosis? >> Yes.

>> Can you tell us uh is a person even if they are in the throws of psychosis are they able to make a phone call? >> Yes, they can. >> Are they able to drive a car? >> Yes. >> Oo. Are they able to make a phone? Sorry, I said I wasn’t going to stop it and I did. Are they able to make a phone call, drive a car, all the things they’re going to say or that the prosecution has been saying the whole case that Lindsey Clancy did? Does that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did not have a psychotic break? The answer is very clearly no. If you

believe this expert, this is the definition of reasonable doubt and poking holes, not of proving that Lindsay Clancy did have a psychotic break. The difference that the Packer fan um said earlier, >> psychosis, are they able to make a phone call? >> Yes, they can. Are they able to drive a car? >> Yes. >> Are they able to say, “Hi, Hawaii.

 I’d like to have a hi dog.” >> Yes. >> They don’t They don’t have to look at the unicorn in the corner. Right. >> That’s correct, >> Mr. R. It’s 4:00, so it’s a good time to >> Sure. >> All right. So >> So that is the end of what the jury heard today. Unbelievable. Unbelievable ending for the defense. And they get to bring Isel back when the jury’s fresh in the morning and locking in so many of the questions I have had and a lot of us have had in the chat.

Why would she lie about our symptoms? Can psychosis is it episodic or is it a long period of time? How do they go in and out? What is psychosis? What do they hear? What does it mean when they hear? What does it cause them to do? They think other people are are hearing their thoughts. So many things.

 How does the medication affect them? How are you supposed to prescribe SSRIs with somebody that might be bipolar? What would she be able to do if she had psychosis? What wouldn’t she be able to do? We haven’t heard that yet. I’m interested to hear that. So many major questions. But how was she doing the day of her psychosis episode? Typically, the day of psychosis episode by the person is not doing well.

 By all accounts, Lindsay was having her best day. That doesn’t track. I don’t know that they’ve said that, Gwen. I I I you might be adding in the because they’re saying it can come and go. I don’t think they said it’s an entire day if it’s bad, but maybe I’m wrong. And I think that would be a great cross- examination question from the Commonwealth if that is in fact the answer.

 Will the jury pick up on the judge stopping the Catholic line of question going to sidebar in your opinion? If so, what effect? Absolutely. And my guess is I didn’t see Readington’s face. My guess is it turned bright red and he was pissed off. He hasn’t hid his emotions and the jury can see that and pick up on that. Is it possible the Commonwealth has known damning evidence that they can’t use for whatever reason and that’s why they’re so confident? Yeah.

 So, I tried a case once where uh it was a DUI. I was prosecuting it and the defendant blew a 31, but the cop screwed up and it got suppressed. We still prosecuted that case cuz I know darn well that guy was drunk driving and we won even without that blow. So, the jury didn’t know about that blow. Why didn’t the prosecution mention the psych test? They did.

 Will that come out in rebuttal or was it just not helpful to them? My guess is we’re going to hear all of that with the Commonwealth rebuttal witnesses. Watching the 1999 movie, The Mummy, my daughter said, “The warrior guy, Ard Bay, looks just like the lawyer guy you always watch.” I think I agree. I got to look that up. Ardith Bay.

 Off the top of my head, I just know Brendan Frasier was in that. When are we going to meet the clergy from Bingham Bighgam that she confessed hearing voices to? We better hear from them because Readington said he had the goods on that. Psychiatric PhD student, this case isn’t like drunk driving because drunk driving predicts crashes.

 We can’t predict self harm, homicide, etc. Uh even with SIHI or psychosis and that’s the really sad part and that’s why it might not even be medical malpractice and it could still be not guilty by reason of insanity. I feel like this case has so many moving parts and multiple people dropped the ball.

 her family, Patrick’s family, providers. Patrick, I don’t blame them by any means, but more could have been done as a family and her, right? Did she drop the ball by not telling her medical providers? I understand why she did, but by hiding certain things from people, she stopped them from being able to help her fully. Doesn’t mean she’s guilty.

Doesn’t mean she’s not guilty. But I don’t think it’s a bad thing to say she had a part in this, right? And did she not do enough therapy? Did she do too much therapy? Did she seek out too many prescriptions? Did she not take the prescriptions right? I think those are fair questions, but we have to make sure we know where we’re going with those questions.

 Still not sold on psychosis. On board with extreme depression and meds issues, certainly mental distress based on how the law is written in Massachusetts, not guilty. That’s a wellthoughtout comment. First super chat. Patrick Clancy said with the bands, we’re tied like a shoe without the bow. Thanks for your expertise. Yeah, we’ve had a lot of explanations there.

 Zizelle cleared my son for return of duty after a significant attack in Afghanistan where he lost nine men. My son was one of two survivors. Let’s say I was if I was on Lindsay Clancy jury, I believe I would need to disclose. Absolutely. You would have to disclose and they read all the witness names before. So if somebody has your experience, which is an amazing one, probably couldn’t be fair and unpart impartial when it comes to size.

 would love to email you about my bipolar 2 and postpartum depression. A lot of people have emailed me with their um experiences and I’ve learned a lot throughout this trial. Go nullles. My dad was general counsel at FSU from 1978 to 1987. Uh wasn’t J’s 85? I don’t remember exactly, but my dad was in law school.

 I think right around then, maybe right before your dad was uh general counsel there. If I’ve learned anything these past years on law tube, never commit a crime in Massachusetts and never go there in January. Honest really thinking it’s Pat got was the prosecutor was doing but confusing at end more reasonable doubt have four boys had postpartum depression told my husband after the fourth you’d be all better off without me.

 Shocked Pat left Lindsay Clancy after going through the same H. Shout out to John for keeping all the super chats uh for keeping the chat a place to learn. Sorry. Uh like yes, like it for John. I thought Zazelle talking about the cops and cuffs shuts down the Commonwealth saying it’s weird she asked for a lawyer.

 Oo, I didn’t even think about that. I thought it was just kind of impeaching what a lot of the Commonwealth witnesses and law enforcement said was the vibe of the hospital. In the winter, it’s cold. The ground freezes. The same week uh a year after John O’Keefe died in the cold, snowy in January. He was there a lot longer than she was. Maybe.

 Or maybe he was placed there later. I don’t know. Readington calling him at 11:30 at night shows his empathy. I agree with you there. Who is the young guy sitting next to Lindsay Clancy? I don’t know. Did Readington say at some point his son helps out? I’m not sure. Could Lindsay being a healthcare worker have made her less willing to fully disclose symptoms? Maybe.

 Even with HIPPA, she may have feared what was documented. I think that’s what Readington said is a possible fear. Dr. Z’s credentials are S tier. Interesting to see how tomorrow goes. He seems very professional and trustworthy so far. I see the prosecution was trying to get visitor logs. Uh, anything they can do to discredit him.

 Yeah, good luck. Oh, this is might be our longest video yet, folks. So, sorry for those that like when I keep it to an hour, I do my best. You can’t stay with your person at day hospital. So P and Kora drove L. Then P took Kora skiing at nearby Wusetts. Then they picked up Lindsay. Love for wife and daughter. Normaly for Kora.

The kids would take or they would take her kids if she was actually honest with the doctors. As a mom, you’re never going to be honest. If that’s the consequence, you’re just not. I mean, unless that’s the only way to protect your kids because like as a mom, she still did this to her kids and maybe she could have protected them by telling.

I’m just trying to see this from every which way. I’m pretty sure they said she ran it the day she went into labor, then five or seven days later she ran a race. Yeah, I’m I’m unclear on that. Peter, if you’re facing life, who do you call AJ or Readington? Um, it’s funny. I call my dad first, obviously, right? And I have had some conversations with Alan Jackson now. Uh so probably Alan Jackson.

 That would probably be my my call if between those two. Pharmacy tech 10 plus years and in school to be a PA. The Adavan stopping intrusive thoughts make sense if they are due to overthinking and anxiety. Thanks. See I love this perspective because I wouldn’t know that stuff. Regarding the Catholic question, I wonder if the DA watched a trial of Tim Haidker. I did not.

 That was the line of questioning there. I did not watch that. So I don’t know. I am new and just want to give my appreciation. Ashley, thank you. It’s awesome. I love meeting and hearing from the new people. A big thank you for all your expertise and consistency in covering these trials. Appreciate your willingness to cover cover the difficult trials.

 I get why people don’t. So much of what I deal with in my life is difficult. So uh so it’s part of part of my work. Fellow Clearwater resident here, Peter. I distinctly remember Patrick testifying the bands were tied like a shoe. God bless you, brother. Appreciate you, Gregory. Thank you, man. And maybe we’ll bump into each other one day.

 I’m behind, but Patrick specifically said the bands were tied the way you would first start tying sneakers. Peter, I get that she did it, but while in a mental break and not knowing right from wrong, and then having to listen to it now and see while hopefully on a better treatment regimen. Uh, it’s got to be gut-wrenching, Grace. 100%.

 It’s got to be gut-wrenching. I’m just saying there are people in the chat, which means there could be people on the jury like, “Hey, you did this.” So, yeah, it’s sad, but you created this sad situation, not a Florida trial. It’s taking forever. Yeah, we would be going till 6:00 uh late days, early mornings. It’s a different schedule.

 Feels more like a federal trial. Carol Coronado killed her three girls in 2014 in Cali. obvious PPP three life senses postpartum postpartum psychosis tragedy when the health system fails mothers objecting to laada’s visual aids was wild to me not really if they had issues with them and I mean it even seemed like readington agreed with some of them Bridget thanks for the super chat and theres thank you for the super chat please call her Lorie Del she killed Charles Valow sorry in my head it’s Valow listen I say a lot of words online. I always do my best. Nothing is

ever intentional. That probably won’t be the last time I call her Lorie Valow, if I’m honest with you. Um, so I apologize if it bothers you. Peter, what happens if they find her not guilty? Can the judge keep her in the hospital or put her in another one because she still harmed herself? She will go to a mental health institution and not until things happened and bridges are crossed will she even be considered to get out.

Mental health providers and experts need to say she can get out. and a judge. Peter knows how Florida changed with the rules. Peter knows how Florida changed with the rules. Yes, we’re constantly changing. I don’t know which ones you’re specifically saying. Peter, I appreciate your attention to the ultimate issue, but I feel like you’re not giving enough attention to the role of medications and timing.

 Okay, I give as much attention as I can to what I think is important. No one doesn’t have compassion for the kids. Uh, does compassion mean locking her up and throwing away the key? Absolutely not. Potentially. Why not learn and prevent? If she had a psychotic break, don’t we owe it to the kids to know? Difference between Lorie Valow and BW was that they never showed remorse.

 This woman has sat there sobbing. I hear you. That means something to me. Thanks again, PETA. Judge was right. This was a good time to stop. I agree. This case hopefully will show that it’s time to fix the system of mental health treatment in this country and everywhere really. And that’s what Readington pretty much said.

 I love the head nod for Patrick Clanty’s mom. I agree. Uh I hope the juror saw it. It speaks volumes. Hope Readington clears things up with the bands and a strong close. I think he will. Especially if he has anybody following social media. No burden, but I’m at guilty. Convince me otherwise. Well, if the Commonwealth convinced you, that’s how it’s supposed to happen. Uh Dr.

 Barry, psychologist says having the best day is a red flag. It could mean she was happy cuz she is leaving soon. She has a plan. See that? That’s what I want to hear from the Commonwealth experts. That’s exactly what I want to hear. If that’s true, would it be reasonable for a juror to consider the fact that the prosecutor is desperate enough to even ask such irrelevant questions of murder being a sin as a reasonable doubt? No, they really shouldn’t consider that in my opinion.

 Like if they think the lawyer’s desperate, but if they think they can’t prove the case, obviously that’s something. pharmacy student here really confused why no pharmacist has been called in for questioning on drug interactions if they talked about prescribers the comm had an expert that did talk about it I think Hayden Peditier gave up custody when she knew she wasn’t well enough to care for her daughter I wonder why Lindsay Clancy didn’t walk away in that moment that feels like an unanswerable question followup yes Lindsay Clancy is at fault

too I agree I think she wasn’t forthcoming as she should have been her mental because of shame and fear. Maui loves the lawyer, you know. Well, guess what? I love Maui, too. Still probably my favorite vacation ever on my honeymoon with my wife. 14 years tops four. She didn’t drop the ball. It’s not her fault. Context matters.

 I think she’s involved in the spectrum of what happened. I do. Now, legally, is she responsible? Should she pay that price? That’s the question here. Mental health counselor and lead of suicide prevention for our province state. Sometimes people make a decision about what to do and feel relieved or appear happier. Shelby said, “I appreciate you.

 Thank you. You guys are the best. I appreciate you. And I appreciate everybody gifting memberships. I’m going to go through some of them. The real me here, thank you for gifting 20 lawyer you know memberships. Savertoothoth, thank you for gifting 10 lawyer you know memberships. Uh Cassidy, thank you for gifting a lawyer you know membership.

Katie Marie, thank you for gifting a lawyer you know membership. Katie H, thank you for gifting five lawyer you know memberships. Anna Joski, thank you for gifting 10 lawyer you know memberships. Cassidy, thank you for gifting a lawyer you know membership. And Charlie, what’s up buddy? Thank you for gifting five lawyer you know memberships.

I listened to the pre-trial hearing today and I heard the ADA say the bands were tied around the kids’ throats. So all that dramatic recreation recreation was definitely a big act. And that’s a bad faith argument in my opinion. They they should not be making arguments they know are false. I recently became a US citizen.

 Could I be called for jury duty? It is my dream. I love the law and American trial so much. Yes, you could be called for jury duty. Um, I had pneumonia and was hallucinating horribly. I was in the middle of a custody case and begged my mom not to say anything or take me to psych unit. No mom wants to dark things. I get it.

 And I’m not saying like shame these people, guilt these people. I would feel guilty if I was anybody involved here. Like I I’ve talked about my friend who ODed and I still think I know there’s nothing I could do, but I still think could I have done more? I wish I would have done more. I wish I would have reached out more. And I’m just sure people feel that way.

Lack of empathy is divi is the divisive factor here in my opinion. Interesting. A lot of you guys have said that. Trial judge have followed this trial with you. Would have seriously considered ordering a mistrial after the religion question. I wouldn’t blame you. And it’s like, how are you going to be mad about that prosecutor? You should know better.

Would have admonished the prosecutor in front of the jury and ordered sanctions. I love it. I love a judge that does what’s right and isn’t just always like, “Oh, come on, everybody get along.” Too many judges are like that. How many PPP incidents have to happen before people finally realize that moms are capable of doing something as horrific as this? And maybe we can start trying to prevent it by actually giving the this disorder attention.

 So, what does that mean? Right? I have to ask the next question. So, are we going to take more kids away from moms? Where is the line? We need more research. We need more people that understand how this works to help us formulate a plan and what works best and how long is that plan and what is the treatment.

 Tell me, would anyone ever be okay with this woman having more children? That’s a fair question. I get it. And I think the research and the studies about what the recovery and treatment of this is is important. Just because she didn’t act overtly crazy doesn’t mean mental health or mental illness did not prevent her compliance with the treatment plan or failure to take meds. Fair question.

Thank you HMS for gifting five Lino memberships. Fell 15 feet head first onto the cement. Broken at C67. Not one cut or scrape or bump on the head. But I did lose an earring. 25 years. We now talk about TBI. Oo, you were talking about you. I love it. I love when we get this anecdotal evidence from you guys. Will Emily Thornike voadier be tomorrow? Thought it was today.

 maybe delayed by tech issues. How do you think that will go? I I don’t really know. I haven’t followed a lot of the pre-trial behind the scenes stuff. I’m mostly been focused on what’s happening in the trial. If Readington asked for a mistrial after religion comment, would the judge rule immediately or when would we know? Usually rule immediately.

Sometimes he could take it under advisement. My guess is he denied that motion. Mothers have very strong bond with babies to the point of unreasonable. Not something we husbands fully understand. 100% agree with you. uh thinking she could fix it before things got worse probably bolstered by validation. I agree. I get it.

 And if it was me, I feel like I would want to fix it and not say something that could have my kids taken away from me if I’m being honest. I hope the priest did the father, the son, and the holy ghost sign when the prosecutor said that. It’s a good point. FSU fan doesn’t know FSU is the original dynasty. 14year in a row top four. Bama never did it. Okay.

 I did not know what the heck you were talking about. So, you’re talking about during the Bowen era. That’s when I was a kid. That’s when I fell in love with sports. That’s why I’m so obsessed with Florida State. And of course, my dad went there as well. Patrick’s Foundation is for justice.

 PPP and women in a safe place. I love to hear that. Absolutely love to hear that. I’m tired, folks. I’m tired. Got to call it. That’s all we got. Loved hanging with you guys. Almost two hours. Sorry it was so long. Hit the like button if you like the long ones. uh previous DCS investigator, we would have intervened. Being the least restrictive, we would have held that against Patrick and grandma for not intervening.

 Children’s safety is our goal. All right. Really? This is the last one. Hannah, if a mind is diseased, is it reasonable to expect that mind to recognize, self monitor, interpret, and accurately report psychiatric symptoms with the same insight and capacity we’d expect from a healthy mind? Did she really drop the ball? It’s a good question.

I may stand corrected there, Hannah. I think that’s a good point. And I always like to reserve the right to change my opinion when I get more information. I think that’s a good point. That’s fair. And that’s what we’re asking on the legal side, too. So, that makes sense. Okay. I appreciate you guys. Hit that like button.