Hidden True Crime - Chaplain Reveals What Lindsay Clancy Told Her About THE VOICE | Trial Day 16 & 17

Episode Date: August 21, 2026

Lauren Matthias breaks down a pivotal Day 16 and 17 of the Lindsay Clancy trial as testimony about the mysterious “voice” Lindsay says she heard takes a dramatic turn. Hospital chaplain Sheila Cavanaugh testified that Lindsay told her shortly after the deaths of Cora, Dawson and Callan that a male voice commanded her to act and warned that she and her children would not be safe if she didn’t comply—but on cross-examination, prosecutors revealed that the alleged voice was never documented in Cavanaugh’s detailed chaplain notes. Jurors also heard extensive testimony from psychologist Dr. Paul Zeizel about Lindsay’s worsening depression, paranoia, dissociation, intrusive thoughts and his opinion about her mental state, while prosecutors aggressively challenged the accuracy of his reports, his unusually extensive relationship with Lindsay and potential confirmation bias. Plus, the defense and prosecution battle over what options jurors should have when the case finally goes into their hands. About Hidden True Crime What started as a simple conversation at their dinner table became a captivating podcast. Join the dynamic duo of Dr. John Matthias, a criminal psychologist, and Lauren Matthias, an investigative journalist, as they delve into the psychological facets of unthinkable crimes every week. Their unique perspectives and in-depth analysis offer a fresh take on true crime storytelling. Thank you for your support through sponsorships, subscribing, listening, and becoming a Patreon member at⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/HiddenTrueCrime⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hello, Hidden Gems. Two days we're going to cover today. Two days, day 16 and day 17. Last night, we were doing something else that you'll learn about at a later time. But we're going to cover day 16 and day 17. We heard today from a chaplain. Take a listen to this. She alluded to having heard a voice. And the voice, according to Lindsay, told her that if she did not follow the command, neither she nor her children would be safe. And did she indicate whether it was a male voice, a female voice, loud, soft? She alluded to the fact that it was a male voice and it was persistent.

A male voice and it was persistent. Another thing is happening as well in Plymouth, Massachusetts. it's Lindsay is gaining support from people arriving at the courthouse. I don't know if we have a video available. Yes, we do. Look at this. Women in pink all lining up for Lindsay Clancy. As she arrived, not only that, they rolled the windows down.

She saw it. And her attorney, Kevin Reddington, has said that she is aware of the support and is appreciative of women who are standing up and saying, I too, could have been Lindsay Clancy. It's clearly many women. And there were some men there to believing in Lindsay's innocence in that, yes, she did kill her children, but no, she did not know what she was doing. And it was a mental health breakdown. Of course, the prosecution, the Plymouth prosecution, is saying something very different.

that this was premeditated murder of her three children, Cora, Dawson, and Callan. So the country's divided. I think some hidden gems are divided. And clearly the defense and prosecution are very, very divided. The defense is going. Let's start day 16. Day 16 began with Reddington picking back up with Dr. Paul Zaisal.

So he is back on the stand. Lindsay's psychologist, forensic and clinical psychologists. This is what he does, by the way. I just want to explain because we're going to learn a little bit more about what he does and how he does it. This is what Dr. John does as well, my husband and co-host of the Hidden True Crime Channel. So Paul Zaisel, Dr. Zaisal, treated Lindsay. And in November and December of 2022, Zaisel testified that on November 29th,

Lindsay had seen nurse practitioner Rebecca Jolata, and at that point, she was experiencing unstable moods, depression, psychotic symptoms, and disassociation. She was also reporting what was described as a flattened affect along with de-realization. Zizel explained that de-realization was when someone looked around and didn't feel like what they were seen was actually real. things could appear familiar, but the person didn't feel connected to the reality around them. And at that time, Lindsay was living in Duxbury with Patrick and their three young children.

Patrick was working from Microsoft, home office, right? In the basement, Lindsay caring for the children. The kids, two of them at least were attending preschool a couple days a week. But according to Zaisal, Lindsay was not getting better. She was getting worse. December 2nd. She goes to South Shore Paranatal Clinic, South Shore Paranatal Clinic with complaints that she brought with her were becoming even more concerning.

So Redington asked Issel about Lindsay reporting that she was having bad and intrusive thoughts that didn't even feel like they belonged to her. The thoughts were telling her that she should kill herself, that her brain was damaged and that she was never going to get better. She also believed other people could hear her thoughts. Zaisel described that as thought broadcasting, thought broadcasting. In other words, Lindsay was afraid that if people could hear what she was thinking, DCF, you know, DCFS, would take her children away. It was something that we've speculated about before, right? Was Lindsay afraid

that her children could be taken away if she was honest with her thoughts? And those thoughts did continue. these thought broadcasts. On December 4th, Lindsay called the suicide hotline. And according to Zaisal, she did not receive help because the hotline determined that she did not meet the standard for interventions since she didn't have a suicide plan. Again, she called later in December, again, didn't receive the help she was looking for. Mid-December, Zizel testifies that Lindsay was experiencing worsening depression, paranoia, and other symptoms of psychosis. Her fears about DCFS and the police had also become stronger. And this is significant because according to Zizel, Lindsay had never had any involvement with the

police during her life. Her fear was that her children would be taken away from her and that she would never see them again. So at this point, Lindsay had started taking Syracquil, Remeron, Clonopin, but she complained about how the medication made her feel. She told provider she felt like a, quote, zombie. Lazzel also discussed other symptoms documented in her records called anedonia. Basically, that meant Lindsay was unable to experience pleasure, that she wasn't enjoying

things, laughing, feeling any positive emotions whatsoever. And as December continued, her depression, paranoia, intrusive thoughts, they did not let up. December 15th, Lindsay went for partial hospitalization, a program at the parents and women's clinic in Rhode Island. She still didn't get better. She went to the emergency room, a Mass General Hospital. Redington pointed out that Lindsay had worked at Mass General for about nine years as a labor and delivery nurse, but now she was the one seeking help. And according to Zizel, she didn't get the help she needed there either. Patrick was also becoming increasingly involved in her treatment. The records show that.

that he brought Lindsay to the partial hospitalization program in Rhode Island, brought her to the Mass General ER, and accompanied her when she went back to see Gelada about her medications. And then around December 30th or December 31st, so New Year's Eve, Lindsay voluntarily admits herself to McLean Hospital. And then she remains there until January 5th when she was discharged. Redington classified that this wasn't an AMA discharge, meaning she wasn't leaving against medical advice.

That was important because the prosecution kind of implied that, that she was pushing to get out. She wasn't leaving against medical advice. Isel testified that the hospital cleared her for discharge and that she was following hospital guidelines. One reason Lindsay wanted to return home was so she could attend Cora's birthday party on January 7th. Cora had turned five.

And when Lindsay left McLean, she was being tapered down from some of her medications, including Syracwell and Clonopin. But the intrusive thoughts and paranoia hadn't gone away back home in January, Lindsay continued experiencing what Zaisal described as intense, unrelenting, intrusive thoughts. Reddington asked him to explain the difference between ordinary thoughts and what Lindsay was experiencing. Continue to have these intensive intrusive thoughts. Yes. Can you tell us when we say intrusive thoughts, is she referring to intrusive thoughts like you might think of something coming up next week that's bothersome? Or is this a indication, in your opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to what she was experiencing at that point in January of 2003?

She wasn't just having everyday thoughts that we all have reminding ourselves to do something, which we make note of, and then we move on. Intrusive thoughts are unrelenting. They don't stop. They're what we call egos dystonic. You don't want them. They keep interfering with your ability to get through the day. Did she have, at this point, intrusive thoughts continuing regarding

voices in her head that she heard constantly? Yes. What were these voices saying to her? They were getting worse and they were telling her to kill herself. And as January continued, she was, to your knowledge, using her computer to look up drugs and interactions and side effects and things of that nature?

Yes. If a person is in a scientific, Psychosis or, as I think you said, premorbidly psychosis, are they able to do things like look up things on a computer? Yes. And you're aware that she actually at one point looked up. Can you cure, I think a sociopath or a psychopath or something like that? It was sociopath, yes. Was that indicative of her feeling that she is a homicidal maniac and has to have some help?

Or is that in the same time frame that she was Googling all of the effects? of medications on a human being. Is it an objection? Yes. That sustained. So during the period that she was Googling, well, let me ask you, what was she Googling? She was Googling words about sociopath, sociopathy.

Can you treat a sociopath? What are hallucinations? What else? Share with me one. moment, it's in mind. Well, you had a chance. Did you look at the Google searches that she had done that's in evidence and the jurors were able to look at it?

Yes. Did she continue to Google the effects of medication, psychosis, numbness, heaviness, unable to, things like that? Yes. All things that are related to the way we feel. And if a person is in a psychotic state, are they able to continue to Google? and use a computer to look things up? Yes.

They're able to use a phone? Yes. People who are in that state can do things they've done before. New tasks may be difficult, like changing the tire, but if you looked up things on the internet, you can look them up again.

If you drove a car, you can drive a car. Now, the morning of January 24th, I believe she went somewhere. Is that right? Yes. Where she go? You should take her daughter to a pediatrician,

a standing pediatrician appointment. And is it your understanding to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that a person who's in a psychotic state is able to drive a car for a short distance, go to an appointment, and interact and talk to people? Yes, they can do everyday tasks of living. So the fact that she's not talking about the unicorns in the corner and she's not slurring her speech and she's not unable to walk to your opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Does that mean that she's not in a psychotic state? It does not. Would you tell

us after she took Cora to the doctors and the jurors have had a chance to look at the exhibits, there's photographs between her and her husband, Pat, back and forth. In the afternoon, what did she do? She built a snowman in the backyard with two of her kids. Later in that day, Google directions to a restaurant, 3V restaurant, I believe. Yes. Is that something that a person can do when they're in that type of a state? Easily.

Did the voices of the intrusive thoughts to your interview and your understanding abate, a stop at that point on January 24th? No. Did they continue? Yes. And did she

communicate by text with her husband about getting dinner and getting something from CVS. Yes. And what was it? Was it pedilax? Pedylac or flexlux. It's a stool softener for her child.

And that's something that was prescribed by the doctor, right? Yes. Does that make sense that if somebody is in a state where they're having these symptoms that they're able to remember that the doctor wanted the child to have pediolax and she tells her husband to get pediolax? Yes. It does not interfere with that type of everyday living.

So the fact that Lindsay was not visibly disorganized in the way people might stereotypically imagine psychosis, that she wasn't slurring her words, unable to walk, or talking about things that obviously weren't there, did not necessarily mean that she wasn't psychotic. Reddington then moved into the psychological testing Zaisal had performed, and he explained that he initially administered a mini mental state examination, which was a basic assessment used to determine things like orientation, general knowledge, and awareness of where someone was, what day it was, and who they were.

He also administered the hair psychopathy checklist, which is used to assess traits associated with antisocial personality disorder. Now, this is what a lot of people have been wondering about, Liz and Zee, so I think this is a really important moment, right? A lot of people say, well, she's a narcissist, she's manipulating, she's a sociopath, Well, all of those things are associated with antisocial traits. So traits associated with antisocial personality disorder. Zaisel had an opinion about Lindsay on that issue.

He testified that based on the assessment, Lindsay did not have antisocial personality disorder, also commonly referred to as sociopathy and beyond the medical records and psychological testing. Zizel had also interviewed people who knew Lindsay. These interviews are referred to as collateral consequences. contacts for collateral interviews. Dr. John does them too. Forensic psychologists actually reach out to other people that know the person that's being assessed. So he spoke with people from her family and social circle. Redington then connected Zaisal's findings to research on postpartum psychosis. Zizel testified that he was familiar with major research conducted at Mass General Hospital

involving postpartum psychosis. Reddington went through a long list of symptoms associated with that condition and then asked whether Lindsay had experienced them. Depression, yes. Zazel testified that the records showed Lindsay feeling low, flat, tearful, and emotional, with episodes of crying. Anxiety was clearly present. She described feeling tense and nervous. She had withdrawn socially and struggled with being around people. She wanted to talk to people and be near them but was having difficulty socializing. There were also physical and functional changes. Lindsay described feeling tired, heavy, and without energy.

She had difficulty caring for her children and struggled with basic personal hygiene, including bathing. And then Redington got into the psychotic symptoms. So as I testified that Lindsay experienced severe confusion along with thoughts and beliefs that were outside of reality. She described being in a disassociated state. and she also reported hearing things that weren't actually there. At the same time, there were periods when Lindsay appeared to have increased energy and

activity, which Zaisal identified as hypomania. She reported racing thoughts and described having a busy brain. She also talked about increased creativity, which I thought was interesting, increased creativity, but that increased mental activity was happening alongside confusion. So in other words, Lindsay believed her brain was done. damaged, and she struggled to understand what was happening to her. Lizelle also described Lindsay as restless and agitated, unable to sit still and suffering from

extreme insomnia. After going through all of those symptoms, Redington finally asked Seizal for his ultimate opinion. So can you tell this jury, sir, in your opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty based upon all of what you have reviewed, all of what we have talked about, all of what you have considered as to whether or not at the time of this incident resulting in the killing of these three little kids that she was suffering from a mental disease or defect, such as that she lost substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her act or in the disjunctive was unable to conform her conduct. to the requirements of the law. Yes. Tell the jury what your opinion is, please.

My opinion is that she did have indeed a mental disease or a defect. That's a legal construct, not a DSM-5-1, but she had bipolar disorder with postpartum psychoses. In addition, she was unable to conform her behaviors to the rule of law, and she had no appreciation for the wrongfulness of her act. There you go. His diagnosis of her was, was bipolar disorder with postpartum psychosis. That's his ultimate opinion. And then it was time for cross-examination. Buckingham started with Seizel's professional background. The jury had already heard some of it the day before, including the fact that he had testified in cases for both the Commonwealth and the defense. She asked about his work as a

qualified examiner. It involved conducting independent evaluations through a company that contracted with the Massachusetts Department of Correction. Blaisell explained that qualified examiners were independent evaluators. Buckingham pointed out that in those proceedings, the Commonwealth or the district attorney's office could be the party bringing the case while the defendant was never the moving party. One type of evaluation involved determining whether someone met the criteria to be considered sexually dangerous. Does I acknowledge that when his evaluation found someone was sexually dangerous, he could end up testifying for the Commonwealth.

If he found that a person wasn't dangerous, he could testify for the respondent. In other words, he would testify for the prosecution or the defense, either or. His role he maintained was neutral. It was independent. But Buckingham pressed him on the distinction between an independent examiner and someone testifying for the prosecution. And you're an examiner, a qualified examiner,

is retained or takes work in doing evaluations in order to perform independent assessments. Are they not? Yes. So they're not hired by the Commonwealth. They are because the company that retains the qualified examiners is hired by the Commonwealth, and these forensic psychologists are then appointed

cases to do these types of examinations. So it's under the big umbrella of the Commonwealth. So, yeah, big umbrella Commonwealth, meaning Department of Correction, an agency that is under the seal of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. But as far as when we talk about Commonwealth, like Commonwealth v. Lindsay Clancy, that's the prosecution, in those proceedings, the Department of Corrections sometimes is the moving party, right? Yes. And sometimes it's a district attorney's office who's the moving party. Yes. it's never the defendant who's the moving party.

Never. And in those types of proceedings, sometimes if you opine a person is what they call sexually dangerous, you would testify for the Commonwealth, right? Yes. And if they're not, or if you find they're not sexually dangerous, you'd testify for the respondent.

Yes, we're neutral. So you're not testifying for the Commonwealth. You're in, as in the prosecution, you're testifying under the, big umbrella of the Commonwealth? I think it's a matter of semantics because if you do an evaluation and you render an opinion that this patient is sexually dangerous, when you testify, you are working with the district attorney's office and you review your case with the DA. And the way I see it is that you're testifying for the Commonwealth as an independent examiner. But on that day,

you're testifying for the Commonwealth or the FDA's office. And you haven't done that work in closely rough a decade, fair to say? No, that's not true. Well, pre-pandemic, correct? That's not true. So when was the last time you testified for the commonwealth, meaning the prosecution, in an SDP proceeding? So I was assigned a case through Suffolk County, the sexual dangerousness unit,

by ADA, Kelly Ryan, K-E-L-L-Y, and I did that evaluation on July 2, 2026. And have you testified at a probable cause hearing for that? No, I wrote a report, which was in lieu of testifying. Where are you opines that somebody was sexually dangerous? Yes. Okay. Fair to say, though, the majority of your work here in Massachusetts over the last few years, is contracted with the Committee for Public Council Services, correct?

Yes. And for the fiscal year of 2024, you were paid by CPCS in the Open Checkbook for approximately $340,000 worth of time and work. That's about right. We get paid a fixed rate. It's a government rate that's assigned to all examiners. And for the fiscal year of 2025, it was approximately $300,000 that you were paid through the committee public council services. That sounds about right. You also indicated yesterday that you have known Attorney Reddington for a number of years, correct? Yes. Fair to say you've done quite a bit of

work with him over the years? That's an expansive term, but I work with him. It just requires a yes or no. Yes. And you've also testified that you have your doctorate in clinical psychology, right? Yes. And you testified yesterday, you told us a lot about your military experience, but as you sit here today, you are not a prescriber of medications here in the Commonwealth, are you? I am not. I was not yesterday either when I was asked about that. Right.

You just, you told us all about your experience in the military and having that limited ability to prescribe years ago. But as far as you sit here today and in your evaluations that you do today, you don't do forensic psychiatry evaluations, do you? That's correct, but I just want to clarify for a point of accuracy. I was not in the military. I worked for the Department of State. I believe I said your work with the military, but thank you.

So here in Massachusetts, you conduct primarily forensic psychology, you conduct evaluations in forensic psychology, correct? Yes, for the most part. And you are aware that there are particular standards for forensic psychologists working within the criminal justice system, right? Yes, but just to be a little more clear, forensic psychologists, such as myself, also work for police departments doing evaluations for fitness for duty. So although they're law enforcement, they're not engaged or accuse of any criminal activity. Well, I'm referring to your role when you come into the court and you testify, as you are today, as a forensic psychologist. That's what I'm referring to.

You're aware that there are particular standards in place by the ABA criminal justice, mental health standards is one of them, right? You're familiar with that? Yes. And you're familiar with the American Psychological Association. specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. Yes. And fair to say that with those standards, they're not required, but people are encouraged to follow them, right?

I think that's fair to say. And the criminal justice, the ABA criminal justice mental health standards actually identify the different types of roles that forensic evaluators have in the criminal justice a system, including evaluating, consulting, and treating, right? Yes. And so, fair to say standard 7-1.3 indicates that for evaluative experts, the obligation is to make a thorough and impartial assessment based on sound evaluative methods to reach an objective opinion.

Would you agree with that? Yes. And so Buckingham then brought the focus back to Lindsay, Seizel, had been involved in Lindsay's case since February 4th, 2020. By the time of trial, he said that amounted to about 41 months. He had prepared a report in June of 26, but Buckingham said that he had also provided updates on Lindsay's condition over the years. And one of those updates was from July 2025 in that report. Zaisel had written that Lindsay was residing at Duke'sbury Hospital as of July 23, 2025 and that there was a planned transfer to Wooster recovery center in hospital.

But Zaisel pushed back slightly on that characterization. He explained that the transfer wasn't actually an official plan at that point. It was more accurately a hope and a goal. Buckingham continued challenging Zizel's earlier testimony by going back to one of his reports from July 2025. She had the report in front of her and read the language back to him. It stated that Lindsay was residing at Tewksbury Hospital with the planned transfer to Wooster Recovery Center in hospital. It also described her as

medication stabilized and in the process of discontinuing most, if not all, psychotropic medications with what the report called in emerging ability to stabilize without them. Zazel agreed that was what he had written. Well, Buckingham pointed out that in July 2025, his opinion was that Lindsay was stable and was hopefully going to be transferred to another facility. But more than a year later, Lindsay was still at Tewksbury, and she was still taking psychotropic medication. So Zayl agreed with both points. Take a listen. Going back to your most recent evaluation in June of 26, you would agree with me that in an evaluation for criminal responsibility, being a forensic psychologist, it's really important to be as accurate as possible

in your reports, correct? Yes. You want to make a you get the facts right, right? Yes. Because your evaluation is not just based on what you learn from the individual you're evaluating, but also an independent review, an unbiased review, of the records of the facts. Is that fair to say? Yes. Okay.

So in your report, you indicate that the period of evaluation that you had with this individual is approximately 45 hours. Do you recall writing that and testifying about that yesterday? I think I actually said I've met with her a total of 45 hours, but the evaluation was more than 35 hours, and I think it was 37 hours. Okay. And you also said yesterday that in addition to that, you've met with her several other times for a total of approximately 60 times at least. Not 60 additional times, but in total, yes, since the court trial has started a few weeks back. Okay.

Is that typical for you to spend 35 hours with the person that you're evaluating? It does happen, but it's not typical. You also indicated yesterday that one of how you became involved in this case is Attorney Reddington called you and asked you to go check on the, I think you said, mental well-being. Is that what your testimony? Mental health and mental well-being at the time of her admittance to Bremen Women's Hospital. which was roughly late January, 23. And your first time there was February 4th, correct? Yes.

Were you examining her as a potential patient at that point? I was examining her as a colleague and friend of Attorney Reddington to see how she was fair. And there was no predetermined notion whether I would be interested. or willing or even offered the opportunity to take the case. I was just going to meet with her, given the fact that she was in a bed, an ICU, locked to the bed frame, and no one was able to visit her. So you went in to visit her?

Yes. And when you went in to visit her, you indicated that she had recently been exubated in your testimony yesterday. You're aware from the review of the records that she was extubated on January 28th. Yes. So the difference between January 28th and February 4th, I didn't know the date at that time, but I knew she was able to breathe on her own and express verbal language, yes, expressive language. You're aware that she had been communicating with staff at the hospital, including psychiatrists, right? I don't know if I knew at that time but I knew she had been speaking with the doctors and staff.

Well, a person who was. A person who goes through major trauma and is at a hospital and has made suicidal attempts, in your opinion, it would behoove the hospital to have that person to talk to a psychiatrist, correct? Yes. Overall. Yes. Now, in addition to meeting with the staff and the psychiatry team, prior to the

to your arrival, were you aware that she had an attorney that had came to visit her a few times? Not Mr. Reddington, but a different attorney. Yes, I don't know how many times, but I am aware that there was an attorney, Gelb, who was somehow involved in the case. Okay, so there was somebody that came in to see her prior to you coming into Sierra. Yes. So, Buckingham returns to Zaisal's mental status examination from February 4th. She asks where the results of that examination were documented in his report. reports. He said they weren't, but he explained that he didn't formally document the results because

a mental status examination was something he used to determine whether a person was capable of participating in an evaluation in the first place. So if someone couldn't explain who they were, where they were, or demonstrate clear thinking, he would not continue with the evaluation. He described that as a basic prerequisite for being able to proceed. But Lindsay did know who she was. She just didn't know where she was. So according to Zaisal's testimony, she also remembered what had happened, even though her memory of the events was foggy. There was another detail from that first meeting that Buckingham focused on. Lindsay asked Zizel if she could use his phone to make a call.

She wanted to call Patrick. Zaisel had not known Patrick before that meeting and didn't have his phone number. Lindsay provided it to him. She remembered the number without having her own phone or a written list of contacts in front of her. So hezell dialed it and Lindsay left Patrick a voicemail. He could not remember exactly what the recorded greeting on the phone said. So he couldn't definitively identify that is what was actually Patrick's, that was actually Patrick's phone number, like from the greeting alone, right? But there was nothing indicating that it wasn't Patrick's phone number. We just couldn't tell due to the generic reading.

So as for Lindsay, Zaisel said she gave him the phone number without difficulty. The message itself is short, Lindsay said she loved Patrick and wanted to know how he was doing. Buckingham asked whether Lindsay's message had been clear and coherent. Zizel said it was. He explained that a mental status examination involved multiple different areas, not knowing where you are did not automatically mean you were incapable of having a coherent. conversation. And Lindsay had been able to communicate with him. Two days later on February 6th, Zaisal met with Lindsay again. They made another attempt to call Patrick. This time, Zaisel couldn't remember whether Lindsay had given him the number or whether he had retrieved

it from his phone. He just didn't remember. He hadn't saved Patrick's name, though, but the number was still available in his phone. There was also no report documenting that interaction. This time, Zaisal actually heard Lindsay speaking with Patrick on the other end of the call. Buckingham asked whether Zaisal knew at that point that Lindsay had already changed her health care proxy from Patrick to her parents. He said he did not know that. She also asked whether Zaisal had spoken with Patrick between February 4th and February 6th to find out whether he had tried to visit Lindsay. He said he had not spoken with him at all. So he didn't know anything about Patrick's. plans or his intentions. Buckingham returned to what Zaisal had testified about Lindsay's first

phone call. Your testimony yesterday was that she had called him to tell him that she loved him and to see where they were at, right? Yes. That was your testimony, meaning what, their relationship? That, I made no interpretation of what that meant. She left the message and we left it at that. But in that subsequent conversation that you were a witness to where they were speaking on the phone and she told them about these voices or explained about the voices, did she ask about the kids? She did not, as I recall. Now, in all of the times over the course of the last few years that you've met with Ms. Clancy, how many times has she told you since the incident that she's heard a voice? currently? She has not heard voices since the event took place in 2023.

And you've now testified that over the course of a period of time, that she did hear voices, right? Yes. And is that based on one of these 35 hours worth of conversations you had with her? How do you know that? Well, they were collateral contacts. I spoke to other people. I spoke to other people who I asked the nature of their interactions with Ms. Clancy. And it was not a fishing expedition.

I asked if they can tell me what happened. Well, I'm asking you. But they disclosed, pardon me. Yes, let them finish. So they disclosed information to me that Ms. Clancy shared that information with them. So who did she tell that she had a voice that told her to kill herself? She spoke to a chaplain named Sheila Kavana, who I spoke with, and Chaplain Cavanor told me that Ms. Clancy told her that she heard a male voice instructing her to first kill her

children and then to kill herself. So the same message that she delivered to Patrick that day on the phone, you heard from a chaplain at Brigham Women's Hospital after the incident occurred in January of 2023. Yes. And so from all of the records that you reviewed of her treatment and all of the interviews with her family, who did she tell that she heard voices telling them to kill, telling her to kill herself? I believe she told family members. Which family members? I believe she may have said that to her mother. She, I believe, told her husband that she felt like killing herself as well. In the records with the providers, you're aware, you've reviewed them all and you've sat through all of their testimony. You're aware that when she described intrusive thoughts,

she never referred to them as a voice telling her to kill herself, did they? Did she? No, she was referring to. It's just a yes to know. No. So as far as her reports of these intrusive thoughts that reappear over and over in the notes, you would agree that it was simply, when asked about what they were, it was simply that she felt like she wanted to die, right?

Yes. And it's just a yes or no. Yes. Yes. And then Buckingham turned to the sources that were in his Zaisal's forensic report. She pointed out that this was a standard part of the forensic evaluation right where a psychologist identifies the information and materials that he used to form his ultimate opinion. So he explained that the list in his report wasn't necessarily exhaustive. He had written that it included the following sources, but that there could have been other materials.

he reviewed that weren't specifically listed. So then Buckingham begins identifying some of those missions. For example, the Tewkesbury Hospital records weren't listed, even though Zaisal had recently reviewed thousands of pages of them. So then Buckingham asks about Spalding Rehabilitation Hospital. Zaisel had reviewed those records too, but they weren't included in the sources. So ultimately, he didn't cite Spalding records

in reaching his ultimate conclusion. He acknowledged that. So then Buckingham asks him about his record, from women and infants hospital because that wasn't in his sources either. So the doctor explains that Lindsay had only been there for one day. So, you know, wasn't too much for his evaluation. Buckingham continues going through the records and the information that he had relied on for his kind of conclusion, his ultimate final opinion. She pointed out that Zaisal testified about the women in infants records, even though they weren't listed in the sources of information section of his report.

He confirmed that he had reviewed them. Same is true of the McLean Hospital Records, the McLean Hospital Records. They weren't listed in the report either. Zazel said he had reviewed them. So, you know, I'm starting to agree, I'll be honest with Zaisal, this is a little bit about semantics.

Nonetheless, you know, the defenses were the prosecution is trying to discredit him. So Buckingham then challenged one of the central parts of his final opinion, his diagnosis. He described Lindsay as, hypomanic and his report characterized her as euphoric and excessively energetic about three months after

giving birth. And I believe you testified to some extent and you've written in your report that you identify her as euphoric, excessively energetic for three months postpartum. Do you remember writing that in your report? Yes. That you note that she exercised early, right? Yes. But you're aware that she exercised pretty frequently before birth.

Yes. And while pregnant with Callan. And while post-pregnancy with her children as well, yes. So it was part of her routine, fair to say, right? It's part of everyday living. The things sometimes change when you have a baby. And a few weeks later, if you're still doing the same exercise, it's sometimes a reflection of something other than.

committed to fitness. And you identify what you refer to as a marketing scam, being that beach body business, right? Yes. But you're aware that that's a series of workouts and a line of nutritional shakes and exercise plans that millions of people engage in across the country. Yes.

So it's not a scam. It's just a way of a lifestyle choice. If you do something for marketing and you lose all your money, and there's no effort to get that back, it's a scam. You've asked them, can't figure out what his definition is. Did she tell you she lost money with the beach body? Yes. When was that?

It was summer of 2022 after her third child was born. No, when did she tell you that she lost money? I don't recall that. And is it in your report? It may be, but I'm not sure. Well, I have it with me, or do you have it up there? Can you look and point to me where she told you, at what point she told you she lost money in this endeavor?

I don't know where it is if it's here. It didn't seem relevant whether she lost money in a scam after her child was born in terms of the big picture of what we're here for today. You've described it as a scam because you said she lost it. money. So wouldn't it be important to know if she actually lost money? I don't really think so. Okay. You also identify the five-mile race that she completed. Was it a five-mile race or a 5-K race?

Well, I wasn't sure which it was. I was told initially it was a five-mile race. After my report was submitted, it may have been with reflection. a 5K race. And you've sat in the courtroom each and every day of this trial. So you've heard all the testimony about the evidence, right? Actually, I've not been here every day, but I've been here most days. Yes. You're also aware that prior to the kids being born, that she considered herself a runner.

Yes. She had a treadmill at her house. She went to the gym and used to the treadmill. She ran other races. Yes. Now, in your report, you indicate that part of the timeline of her medication and her decline is the September in time period where she was prescribed the Zoloft, right? Yes.

And you indicate that she had reported, and it's reflective in the records, that she increased the Zoloft and that's when she couldn't sleep for 48 hours straight, right? Yes. And you're aware of what the instructions were, having reviewed everything in this case, what the pill bottles said as far as the plan for the Zoloft? I'm not sure specifically the incremental plan to go from 25 milligrams to 50 milligrams of Zoloft. In that Zoloft, right? right?

Yes. It says take one oral tablet once a day for one week, then increase to two tablets daily thereafter. Right. Right on the label. That's 25 milligrams to 15 milligrams. And again, having been in the majority of this trial, you aware that there were 30 in that prescription

and 23 left in the bottle when they were inventoried. Yes. And those are pills that were. We're in Patrick Clancy's possession at the time of these events of January. You're aware, right? Yes, I believe they were in the middle console on the lower part of his truck, the lower part of the middle console on his truck. So if there's only seven pills missing from a prescription that requires the person

to take a particular dosage for one week or seven days, how did she double the dose? Well, sometimes when you are given medication, you may have medication of the same exact dosage and the same exact medication another time, and you therefore may have pills that you didn't take the previous month or the month before that, and sometimes people just finish what they've had before and before they go on to the most current dose. So I am aware of what you're referring to, but I don't know if there are other bottles there that you may have had medication still in those pill bottles.

Well, I'm looking at exhibit number one, a record from CVS Pharmacy, which all of these bottles are from. And the only time a prescription for sirtoline is filled is on September 15th, 2022 for 30 pills. You're aware of that? Yes. So there's no prior prescription for sardoline. Is there? I don't think so. Now, in your report, you also refer to 1129.

and your report on page 8, paragraph 2 says on 1129 Paula Gelada, is that supposed to be Rebecca Gelada? Yes. Okay. So it also says that she prescribed Sarahquil to treat Ms. Clancy's anxiety, depressed, and unstable mood, and psychotic symptoms of disassociation and derealization. Where is that in Rebecca Gelada's record that that's why she prescribed Sarahquil? I'm not sure. And in fact, you were present when Ms. Jolada tells.

testified and said that she prescribed it at 25 milligrams for insomnia, not for anxiety, depression, unstable mood, or psychotic symptoms. Did she not? It's used off-label. It's sometimes medications that are made for many things. Sometimes they use off-label, not for what they're prescribed for. So that's a medication that is used for sleeping, although it's an anti-psychotic. But you're aware from reviewing the records in hearing testimony that that initial prescription was for a 25 milligram dose, correct? Yes. I know you're not a prescriber, but you're aware that a dose for treatment of bipolar is significantly higher than 25 milligrams.

Yes. I'm glad that MLMs could unite the chat. That was delightful. And I think beach body reps everywhere are a little stressed out. All right. The cross-examination then returned to clearly Dr. Zaisal's most important claims that Lindsay had experienced repeated auditory hallucinations involving messages. telling her to kill herself and telling her that her brain was damaged.

Buckingham asked whether Zaisal had actually discussed that particular voice were experienced with Lindsay during his 35 plus hours of interviews. And Dr. Zaisel explained that his interviews were not one single conversation stretched over 35 hours. So in other words, he would revisit important subjects in different ways and at different points in the evaluation to see whether her. answer remain consistent. That's really interesting, right? Did they remain consistent? According to Dr. Zaisal, Lindsay's answers about these experiences remain substantially consistent. So Buckingham then read one of the

direct quotes from Zaisel's report. Lindsay had described the experience as like a really bad and intrusive thought that I didn't feel like it was mine. A really bad intrusive thought and she didn't feel like it was mine, hers. She said that the thought told her she should kill herself and that her brain was damaged and that she was never going to get better. Buckingham asked where that quote came from. Dr. Zizal said Lindsay had told that to him herself.

And that conversation happened well after the killings. This is well after the incident occurred, correct? Yes. And you reviewed all the records to know that she did not endorse that she was hearing a voice to any of her providers between September and January 23rd of 2023. So when someone... Yes or no, sir.

That's a difficult question to say yes or no from, because sometimes if someone says something that's inaccurate, it's not an affirmatory or a negative response that's misleading. My question to you, though, was where in the records from September to January 23rd or 2022, did she tell any of the providers she saw that she heard a voice telling her to kill herself? It's not in the records. Okay. And you're aware that she has spoken to several forensic psychiatrists and psychologists over the course of this case, right? Not just yourself.

Yes, she spoke to three retained experts in April 10th and April 12th. of 2026. And then on June 12th of 20206, 1,172 days after I initially met with her, then 1,1220 days after I met with her. That's the third examiner. Well, you're aware that she, you're referring to Dr. Halibrand, Dr. Mack, and Dr. Satoff, correct? Correct. You're aware that she also spoke with Dr. Resnick and Dr. Spinelli well before that. On May 5th of 2023, approximately 90 days more or less later. Yes. And you're also aware, sir, that she has never told, she never told Dr. Resnick in a recorded interview,

nor Dr. Halberin, Dr. Mack, or Dr. Satoff that she heard. sustain. Your testimony is that she told you that she heard this voice. Fair to say she identified to you that it was her own voice that she heard, correct? That's not correct. So she told you that she heard a male's voice? That's correct. When?

On the night of the incident, January 24th, 2023. No, I'm referring to the fact that you've now testified that she heard this as you call it a persistent procured what's the word you use persecutorial voice over the course of time is that was that your testimony so you're referring to the ongoing negative voices or intrusive thoughts that she was hearing right where she felt in fact other people could hear those voices thought broadcasting so there are multiple layers here of hearing intrusive thoughts Hearing voices so loud that she believed other people could hear her. Those are two separate phenomenon, if you will.

In those voices that you are saying she told you, she heard, about wanting to die or to kill herself or her brain was damaged prior to January 24th of 2023, did she say it was her own voice she could hear? It was her own thoughts. She did not identify whose voice it was. Fair to say the only time she specifically said she heard a male voice was when she recounts the events on January 24th of 2023. Yes, that's accurate. And you'd agree that there's a difference between the idea that somebody believes their thoughts would be or could be heard by others and the belief that they are being heard by others, right?

Yes, it's a matter of semantics and it's a level of degreeism. believing and knowing to totally separate things. And believing, having a fixed belief like that would be a delusion, right? That's correct. A delusion is a fixed false belief that is unshakable and not something you get rid of either through your own efforts to tell the voice to go away or other people saying, just, for example, try to stop thinking about it. And the idea that she believed that something was wrong with her brain

or that if people could know what was happening, that the police might get involved, that is something that could happen if somebody articulates those things, right? Absolutely, it's common sense. I love that. Absolutely, it's common sense. So Buckingham continues picking apart the accuracy of Seizel's report, starting with Lindsay's medications at the time she left McLean.

Zizel testified that Lindsay was discharged there on January 5th, 2023, taking Syracoyle and clonopin. But Buckingham pointed out that Lindsay's medication journal showed she had not taken clonipin since November 27th, 2022, Zaisel acknowledged, yes, she had a prescription and may have taken some of it, but apparently, yes, she wasn't taking it. regularly. Buckingham mentioned that Zaisal had reviewed Lindsay's medication journal and agreed that she appeared to be very diligent about documenting exactly what she took each day, both before and after her stay in McLean. Zazel had also previously testified that after Dawson was born,

Lindsay had taken Trazadone, but Buckingham pointed out that Lindsay had actually been prescribed Zoloft, Zoloft after Dawson's birth, and reported that she never took it. Zaisal admitted that she had confused the two medications. He explained that after his testimony, he went back and reviewed the records and realized he had confabulated the tracadone with the Zoloft. Buckingham returned to something Zaisel had emphasized throughout the testimony, that his testimony that the medications Lindsay had taken weren't providing relief and pointed out that if the medications and Lindsay's reactions to them were important to his

opinion, then it was important to accurately identify which medications she had actually taken. So Izel agreed that medication history, along with social and family history, they were important when evaluating someone that meant getting those details right. And it was important. Buckingham then brought up Zaisel's testimony about Lindsay taking medication while she was in nursing school. He had mentioned some of those medications the previous day, but apparently hadn't identified every single one of them. Zayzel clarified that Lindsay had taken Prozac, wellbutrin,

and propranamol, the beta blocker while she was in nursing school. The medications were prescribed in connection with glossophobia, which is a fear of public speaking. So there you go. He described public speaking anxiety as extremely common. They in roughly 85% of Americans experience

some degree of it. Buckingham noted that Zaisal hadn't identified all three medications when he testified previously, and he acknowledged that he had only mentioned one or two of them. Buckingham then decided to go back to the timeline of Lindsay's treatment in December 2022. Zazel had testified that Lindsay went to women and infants on December 15th, but Buckingham showed him the records, and he acknowledged that the women and infants visit was actually December 20th, not the 15th. December 15th was when Lindsay went to the Mass General emergency room. Buckingham challenged Dr. Zaisel's earlier statement that Lindsay hadn't received any help there. And you said in your testimony today that at the Mass General ER, she did not get any help.

Do you recall that testimony? She declined admission to the inpatient. She didn't appreciate, didn't want to do that. It didn't not get help. So, go ahead. Thank you, Your Honor. We have something called the subjective baseline. The cognitive appraisal theme. Help is in the eye of the beholder.

If she felt she didn't get help, that's how she felt. Well, sir, that wasn't the question. And your testimony was she went to the ER and did not get help. That was your testimony, not hers. Well, my testimony is based on my evaluation of her. this is what Ms. Clancy shared with me. Who am I to doubt what she believes, what doesn't believe about the offer for treatment or help?

It's her opinion. She chose to decline the bed at McLean on December 15th. Did she not? Yes. And she then indicated to the Mass General Hospital that she was going to opt for an outpatient program at the women and infants, correct? Yes.

That's what's in the records. Yes. And did she tell you that, well? Yes. And as it pertains to the women and infants, again, after you review the records, you're aware that a referral had been made to her well before her visit to the ER and the 15th for that same program. I believe so. Now, you've indicated in your testimony that it's your opinion that her diagnosis is a bipolar disorder with psychotic symptoms, correct? Yes. And fair to say, you've reviewed prior to your report, you had reviewed Dr. Resnick's report.

I'm not sure. I see counsel. Go ahead, counsel. So the question, I believe, was, did you review a report of Dr. Resnick in all your sources of information and before you came to a conclusion about diagnosis? No, I did not. On page four of your report, where you list the sources of information, you do identify as number 24, forensic psychiatric evaluation of Philip J. Resnick from 92724. Do you not?

I do. And so that's something you reviewed. I didn't draw my opinion. That wasn't a question, sir. Well, hold on. He asked the question again. Go ahead. Did you review his report?

Now, in talking about your review of records, you indicated that there are several thousand pages of Chewkes-Berry Hospital records, correct? 7,000 and one page. And did you review all of those? I would say I look through them, but I did not read every word on every page. they do have a tendency to hang together and are replicative as well. Were you aware that on May 26, 2023, that the defendant was observed by staff in a note stating that she was visible along the unit hallways, self-propelling her wheelchair with her one-to-one staff, she had a visit with her mother who brought dinner for her.

They ate and played games during the visit. Are you aware of that? on May 26th. May 26 of 2023. In 23. So three years ago and a few months, I don't know that.

I don't remember. That would have been approximately four months after the incident and on the date of Callan's first birthday, right? Yes. But you asked if I remember that event, and I don't. You don't or you do? I don't remember that she was seeing. with her mother on that day who brought food and she was seen using a wheelchair to travel

down the hallway at the hospital. I don't remember. If I tell you that was read from page 176 of the Tewksbury Hospital records, would you agree with that? I would not doubt that. And on December 24th of 2023, were you aware that the defendant was observed at Tewksbury monitored on one to one for safety, that she accepted medication, meals, and snacks. She spent time in the TV room or sitting outside her room, utilizing phone, and visited with family. Do you recall that, reading that note on page 613 of the Tewksbury Records?

Of 2023? Yes. Honestly, I don't. And that would have been Corr's birthday. Okay. But would you agree with me that if I read that from page 613 in the records, that that would be within that 7,000 and one page that? I would not doubt that.

How about on January 24th, 24, where she's observed in a note from Chewkesbury State Hospital on page 674, saying where the note reads, patient was visible in the milieu, engageable with both staff and select peers, patient accepted select medications as her baseline, that she was pleasant during interactions, self-propelling in wheelchair in the halls, spending much of the morning and early afternoon in her room and hall on her electronics. Do you recall reading that record?

Not specifically. In January 24th, 2024 would have been the year anniversary of the incident, correct? Yes. But if I read from page 674, you would agree with me that that's part of the Chukesbury record. Yes, I believe it's part of the record. And on May 26th of 2024, from page 924, from page 924, of the Tewkesbury record. Patient monitored one-to-one for safety.

She's been monitored for high suicide wrecks, accepted medication. It says BFK and snacks. She spent some time in the TV room or sitting outside her room, utilizing phone. Would you agree that that's a fair reading of page 922? I have no reason to doubt that. Okay. And that she's also observed on that same day.

visible on the unit while utilizing her phone outside her room was able to make her needs known appropriately. Patient was observed playing dominoes with peers in the TV room. That was later in the day on May 26, 2024, which would have been Callan's second birthday. I would believe that that record's probably accurate. I don't remember looking at that record specifically. How about on September 30th of 2024, page 1,200,000. 29 of the Tewkesbury record, where it's noted that she was visible in the unit, attended startup slash coffee group, assisted with AD.

She was assisted with ADLs as needed. She was in safe behavioral control for the duration of the shift. And that later it reads, patient visible in the hallways, seated in a wheelchair, outsider bedroom using her cell phone, Flesit-Aprana approach, social with select peers. That would have been on September 30th, 2024. which would have been Dawson's fifth birthday. Do you recall reviewing that in the record?

Not off the top of my head, but I have no reason to doubt that it's not an accurate record. December 24th, 2024, page 1,442 of the Tewkesbury Records. It says the patient was visible on the unit utilizing her phone. Her parents were into visit, and they brought dinner with them. Patient accepted medications and fluids. patients in good behavioral control, maintaining safety. No SIB noted or reported. Do you have reason to doubt that that's on page 1442 of the Tewksbury record?

I have no reason to doubt that that's not an accurate reflection of what took place that day. And what's SIB? Elf injurious behavior. And so December 24th, 2024, that would have been, course, 7th birthday, right? Yes. So January 24th, 25, from page 1,514 of the Chewesbury Records, where it reads, inpatient treatment goal, to work on my mental health and to feel better. Says she participated in morning ADL routine with staff assistance.

Patient was visible on the milieu at times in the hallway utilizing her phone. No SIB has been reported this shift. Does that, do you have any reason to doubt that that's contained on page 1,500? I have no reason to doubt that. And the further observations on that day were that the patient was visible on the unit. She was social with select staff and peers and also seen utilizing her phone. Her parents were into visit and brought her dinner or excuse me, and they brought dinner with them. That was, again, on January 24th, 2025, which would have been the second anniversary of this incident, correct?

Yes. May 26, 2025. Page 1,782 of the Tewksbury Records. It says she did not engage in any SIB. She was visited by her parents this shift. She attended startup group and watched TV. That would have been on May 26, 2025, which would have been Callan's third birthday.

Do you have any reason to doubt that in the record? I have no reason to doubt that. And on September 30th, 2025 of the Tewksbury record on page 2056. Reads, patient was visible in the hallway using her phone. No SIB or behavioral issues observed or reported.

Do you have any doubt? Do you have reason to doubt that that is an accurate read of page 2056? I have no reason to doubt that that's not accurate. And that would have been September 30th, which would have been Dawson's sixth birthday, right? Yes. And on December 24th of 2025, page 76 of the patient notes in the Cheeksbury Hospital records. It reads, ate breakfasts, refused lunch, took snacks, utilizing phone, assisted with ADLs, spent some time in the TV room, attended PT, resting in bed after lunch.

Do you have any reason to doubt that is contained within the Chewkesbury records on page 76? No. And December 24th, with. have been course eighth birthday correct yes and on page 152 of the chukesbury records January 24th 2026 this year patient observed for safety assessmental status encourage safe behavioral control monitoring for abrupt behavior change in attempt to prevent escalation or self-harm encourage patient to participate in groups that in on this particular day she was also observed

consigned with meds, ate breakfast, participated in coffee group, visible in the hallway, utilizing her phone, later visited with parents and had an early lunch that was on January 24th of 2026. Do you have any reason to doubt that's within the records? No. And that she was later observed to not have any SIB or behavioral issues, again on January 24th, 2026. Do you have any reason to doubt that's contained within the Tewksbury records? No. No. And again, you reviewed or looked at some of them, but not every one of these, but these are already currently in evidence.

Correct? Yes. Your Honor, I would move to admit these excerpts as the next exhibit, please. Any objections? That may be admitted. But Buckingham wasn't finished. And look, I saw a lot of you in chat saying this is redundant. Is she done yet?

come on, come on. Well, no, she wasn't finished with what those records might show. She asked whether Dr. Zaisel knew if Lindsay had slept well on all of those specific dates. He didn't know. So then Buckingham suggested that given Lindsay's history of severe insomnia, her sleep patterns, would have been important for the hospital to monitor. And Dr. Zaisel agreed. But, I mean, what is Buckingham trying to show here that Lindsay didn't seem sad on these important dates, her dead children's birthdays, that she is able to sleep, that she's eating dinner with her parents, that she seems calm and collected, that she's sleeping. I guess, I mean, I don't know. I actually, I'm just so curious how this is playing for the jurors.

and no matter the evidence, in my opinion, I don't think it's going to play well. We, you know, we've seen Lindsay crying in court. The jurors, you know, we sat for two weeks in that courtroom. The jurors intently watch Lindsay. I've said it before. I'll say it again, it's like they're trying to figure out who the real Lindsay Clancy is. for the prosecutor to now pull out, I mean, nitpick what Lindsay is doing or not doing on these particular days that are her children's birthdays. Not to mention one of her children's birthday is Christmas Eve, right? So her parents are there. She's eating dinner. I don't think that's making Lindsay look bad.

I feel like it's probably going to make the prosecution. bad. But what do I know? There are a lot of jurors we shall see. But that led Buckingham into the concept of confirmation bias. And maybe I have confirmation bias right now. I don't know, but I haven't been to impress with the prosecution yet. So I'm starting to share or insert a few more opinions here and there. But nonetheless, she brought up confirmation bias. And she said that confirmation bias could occur across science, psychology, and psychiatry. First, before she explained what it was, though, first she actually asked the doctor,

the psychologist, if he knew what confirmation bias was, which I thought was very delightfully funny. Yes, he knows exactly what it is. Clinicians could develop an initial theory and then unintentionally focus on the information that supports that theory. We do it with conspiracy theories, too, or any theory we want to have. even when we are put facts in front of us, if we want to believe something else, we will ignore those facts and evidence

and deny them and reject them, overlook information that contradicts our bias or what we want to believe. Whether even we do that with religion, we do that with people, we do that with trials, we do that with a lot of things in life, right? Nonetheless, guess what, Dr. Zaisal knew what confirmation bias was.

And then Buckingham also asked about the danger of forming an initial diagnosis too quickly before all of the available information had been reviewed. Zaisal agreed that confirmation bias could happen, but once a diagnosis had been established, clinicians could sometimes interpret later information, right? Newer information through the lens of that original diagnosis. I always say, stay open, stay open. We never know what information is going to come our way. We don't know what we don't know.

He agreed that this could happen. But Dr. Zaisal made an important distinction when Buckingham asked about criminal responsibility and evaluations. But you would agree that in practice of forensic psychology, that it's important not to do that, right? Particularly with the guidelines of criminal responsibility, we don't need a diagnosis, just need a mental disease or defect.

The diagnosis are helpful in understanding whether the person was suffering from this legal construct of a mental disease or defect, correct? That's fair to say. And it's fairly accepted in the field that if somebody has a disorder or a diagnosed mental illness, that they then in turn suffer from a mental disease or defect. Or could. or could because you can have a phobia doesn't mean you have a mental disease or defect

if you're afraid to jump out of aeroplanes that can make you ineffective and have a defect or a disease. So yes, it could. Does he keep your voice up? Yes, Ron. So it could, but it doesn't always have to. Thank you. Of course.

And you're aware of the danger of this idea of confirmation bias of having multiple relationships and conflicts in this type of work, correct? Yes. And that's why it's important not to be treating somebody as a patient when you're also evaluating them for this type of legal issue, right? Of course. You cannot be the therapist and the examiner.

The therapist is an advocate. The examiner looks for the truth. And do you recall in this case submitting recommendations to the court in November of 2025 about the defendant regarding accommodations for her? I know in general, but I don't know specifically what those accommodations requests were. I can't remember them. But you wrote, you authored, and signed a letter dated November 13, 2025 to the court, correct? Yes, but I'm saying I don't remember specifically what those recommendations were.

I know I did that. I'm not asking you that. I'm just asking if you wrote the letter. Hold on. Just ask me a question. If you listen to the question. I'm asking if you wrote the letter, sir. Yes.

And in that letter, you refer to providing essential clinical findings regarding the transportation of my patient, Lindsay Clancy. Do you recall writing that? Yes. And so at various points throughout, over the years of this case, you have referred to it as your patient. Have you not? I wouldn't be, I think, able to define her as some. something else. She was a patient who I did a forensic evaluation of. Well, you referred to the court outside of this evaluation you're testifying about to her as

your patient in this letter from November 13th of 2025. Right. I evaluated Ms. Clancy, who was a patient. If I evaluated her, then she's my patient as she is other doctor's patients at Tewkesbury and other places that she's been at. But you call her my patient in the letter? I wrote the letter. Whose patient would I be referring to if I'm speaking about Ms. Clancy, given that she's my patient? Yes, I wrote she was my patient.

That's correct. And you're aware of, again, the APA guidelines on forensic psychology, where it warns therapeutic forensic rule conflicts, providing forensic and therapeutic psychological services to the same individual involves multiple relationships that may impair objectivity and or cause exploitation or other harm. You're aware of that, Section 4.02? Yes. So in other words, he said evaluators are seeking truth. And that was a little crazy making to watch, you know, honestly. Yes, Lindsay is his patient. Yes, he wrote that she was his patient. Anyway, Buckingham then moved into Dr. Zaisel's involvement outside of his formal evaluation.

He had regularly appeared in court during the case, attended arraignment proceedings at Reddington's request, including proceedings at Tewkesbury, where he sat near Lindsay. Zizel acknowledged all of this. Then Buckingham brought up February 8, 2023. It was just days after his initial visits with Lindsay. So, when Zizel participated in a news conference outside the court, house. He also gave an interview to the Daily News. Buckingham asked to play a recording from that news conference just days after he first met with Lindsay, and the recording was played for the jury. What I can say, without going too far, is that her ethic is absolutely planned. She's in a very

surreal state. She's a pretty much to her. She's described to me on all the other occasions. And individuals who can present as being lucid, linear, and clear thinking do not make those people not mentally ill. They have the capacity for on occasion to be able to do things that they've been doing for a long time of time. When you have delusional thinking, fixed beliefs that are unchangeable, and hallucinations, namely command hallucinations, tell you to do things, telling you to do things, telling you things that are unchangeable. malevolent and you believe those voices that are how many of you need to follow what they say that's when things go downhill behaviorally, psychiatrically, and familiarly. And that's what we see in the most tragic cases for individuals

who could be healthy and normal and quite frankly because they're paranoid and worried about what others think they hold back to what they're here. And in some cases throughout the country, the world, these people who are they will be functioning well, or because they have the onset of manned of solutionation, which they're here to leave with, they have to do something. That's when tragedy occurs. And I think that sort of is undue to be the override number that this case falls for.

So, sir, on December 8th of 2023, when you provided that, your observations, you had met with the defendant on two occasions, correct? I believe three occasions. Okay. Had you all, had you any of the records that have been presented in the course of this trial? No. Any of the records that are listed in your sources of information? No. And as you sit here and testify today, you've testified to the same conclusions, correct?

What I said was, individuals like that present this way. I was not referring to Ms. Clancy. I said individuals who have these symptoms like the ones I

clarified present that way. That was not an assessment of Ms. Glancy. That was an assessment of people who go through major mental health crises. But as you sat here today,

you've talked about the fact that people that she had delusional thinking, the fact that she had command hallucinations, the fact that she believed that these voices and that she was paranoid and worried, you've consistently testified about that throughout the course of yesterday and today, correct? So it's a yes or no? Did you make it impossible to answer that question? The next question. In addition to, well, you testified today that a person in a psychotic state can do things they've done before, but it might be hard for them to do new tasks, right? Yes.

So if it's something that is part of their daily life, getting up, caring for the kids, making a meal, driving a car, those are things that people do every day. and a lot of times don't even have to think about, right? Yes. No thinking necessary. But you're... A little response, automatic response. You're aware that on this particular day of this incident on January 24th of 20203, that the defendant took court to the doctors, right?

Yes. And you indicated in your testimony today that it was for a regular checkup, but in your report you identify that it was for a stomachache, right? Yes, she had a stomachache. But in addition to maybe her having a stomach ache, she had previously had this visit scheduled. And you're aware of that now, correct? Yes. And at the doctor, there was a recommendation made for an over-the-counter medication, right?

Yes. And the defendant was able to process that information, take it back with her, and then later, not immediately after the visit, but later in the day, search for where to get that medication, right? Psychosis doesn't lower your intellectual functioning. So you can do all those things. Well, that wasn't my question. My question was, did you do those things? Yes, I said that's correct. Okay.

And would you, you've talked a lot about that a person can operate as normally as they can. But fair to say, if you're in a psychotic state, that person themselves has a significant amount of distress, right? Yes. And that in order to mask those symptoms, it requires. is an enormous amount of control. Does it not? It depends on the level and the extremism of the psychotic processing. So some people will hear voices that are nominal, they whisper.

Some people have voices that are yelling and screaming. So it's on a range. It's a continuum. So the more upsetting, more powerful, demanding the voice, the more difficult might be to resist it. and do other things. The less, the easier it is. In all of the time between September of 2022 and January 23rd of 2023,

at any point in which the defendant heard these voices about harming herself, she didn't act on them then, did she? That's correct, yes. She did not act on those. Well, I agree, Semi-Gold. Immediately, Reddington, begins redirect though. So Redington jumps up, ready for redirect, returning right away to the issue of confirmation bias. And I'm talking immediately. He didn't even give Buckingham a chance to sit down

before he was up talking confirmation bias. I have no further questions at this time. Let's talk about confirmation. Can I sit down? Hold on. It's fucking am. Thank you. And a seat. Confirmation bias, right? Look at that. That was intense. She's like, can I have a seat?

She was at the mic still. Confirmation bias. Well, he asked Dr. Zaisel whether confirmation bias could happen when an expert starts feeling pressure to help the person or side their testifying for. Dr. Zaisel agreed that it could. Redington gave the jury a hypothetical example involving. a ballistics expert in a shooting case. If the prosecution desperately needed that expert to connect the defendant's gun to the shooting, and someone from the government reached out saying they really

needed the expert's help that could potentially influence, could that potentially influence the experts thinking? Dr. Zaisel agreed. Redington then reminded the jury how Dr. Zaisel had originally become involved with Lindsay. It had been at Redington's request, but Zaisel said his initial reason for going to the hospital was compassion. Lindsay was in extreme physical and emotional condition, and he wanted to see how she was doing. Redington asked whether Zaisel cared about Lindsay. He said he did. And Zaisel said caring about a person wasn't itself an ethical violation. In fact, he explained that developing empathy and rapport is encouraged when conducting a meaningful forensic evaluation. Building that relationship can allow an evaluator to get more

complete information from the person being evaluated. The key is not to cherry pick what they hear. An evaluator is supposed to include the relevant information, including information that might not support their ultimate opinion. He said that that helped protect against confirmation bias. Zaisel also said he tried to avoid being influenced. by the conclusions reached by other experts. His evaluation was supposed to be independent. Rittington asked how many times he had met with Lindsay, again, approximately 60 times,

and he had spent many hours with her, both in the hospital and elsewhere. Reddington asked whether everything Zaisel had learned through those meetings. The records, exhibits, and collateral contacts and interviews was what ultimately formed the opinion he had given the jury. Zizel said yes.

Grittington then asked the question, directly. Was Dr. Zaisal simply telling the jury what he was saying because he wanted to help Lindsay? Are you confirmed bias? Are you not telling the truth just to help Lindsay out? Or is this your opinion based upon your review of the records, your interview of her, whether or not you care for her or not. Overall. I am telling the truth. She can't. Yeah. You can re-ask that question. That answer would be stricken. So you can't tell someone you tell them the truth.

That's up to the period of the side. Your opinion is based upon all of the times that you met with once, right? Yes. All the documents that you've reviewed. All of this, all the exhibits, everything. You're aware of it, right? Yes, as well as collateral contacts. And in the course of your treatment and evaluation of her,

One of the things the DA asked you about is the request that we brought to the court for accommodations. Do you recall that question from her? Yes. And is it your understanding that the request that we had seeking help from the judge was that she not be chained to a van where she's brought into this courthouse for five-week trial? Yes, from Tewkesbury to Plymouth. and her medical condition with her paralysis and all of the rest of the bodily functions that you lose, that's a concern. Isn't that right? Very much so, yes.

And we also had to have the help of nurses that would be available in the event that there was any type of emergency issue, correct? Objection. No, overruled. Yes. They hear every day. So confirmation bias. Can you tell this jury is your opinion based upon money? Maybe you like me.

Maybe you want to help her. Or is that based to your best ability as a professional of many, many years? Yes. Confirmation bias is coming up with a conclusion before you reach an opinion. It's in Latin as tabula rasa, a blank slate. You draw no conclusion. The conclusion finds you. And if you don't do that, you are a risk of having confirmation bias.

I'm going to ask you a hypothetical and see if the hypothetical fits within your understanding as an expert of confirmation bias. Let's say hypothetical that a young woman is involved in an incident such as this, that results in the death of her three. babies. And that young woman is paralyzed. That young woman is in a hospital. That young woman is facing indictments for triple homicide. And the incident occurred on January 24, 2003. And it's not until 2006 that the district attorney

is off hires three doctors restriction yeah sustain I love that I'm going to use that more you don't find the conclusion

the conclusion finds you that would be how you avoid confirmation bias you don't find the conclusion the conclusion finds you So after the sidebar, Reddington rephrased the question.

He asked whether from Zizel's experience the amount of time between when an expert was hired and when they conducted an evaluation, could itself be relevant to concerns about confirmation bias. In other words, could a compressed evaluation period create a greater risk than an evaluation that unfolded over a longer period of time? Zazel said it could depending on the examiner and the circumstances. But he emphasized that an evaluation. evaluator who was conscious of the risk should maintain appropriate boundaries and avoid allowing

confirmation bias to influence the evaluation. Reddington asked him to put that more simply. Zaisal then essentially said, look, stay in your lane. Reddington then returned to the 7,001 pages of Tewkesbury's records that Buckingham had gone through during the cross-examination. He established the path Lindsay had taken after the killings. She went from the hospital to Brigham and Women's, then to Spalding Rehabilitation, and then eventually to Tokesbury Hospital. Zazel had positive things to say about Lindsay's treatment at Tewksbury. He described the care she had received there as fantastic, even with it being a state facility. Rudington brought up the possibility of Lindsay being transferred to Wooster Recovery Center in hospital.

Dezell described it as to his knowledge, the newest facility in Massachusetts. The defense had arranged for Lindsay to be evaluated for a possible transfer there, but she wasn't allowed to enter the facility. The reason was that she had pending criminal charges, meaning the charges in this case, right? Reddington then returned to Buckingham's use of the Tewkesbury records. He pointed out that the Commonwealth had gone through years of records and highlighted entries from the anniversaries of the killings of the children's birthdays. Reddington asked whether Zaisal had extensive experience with psychiatric facilities, both in Massachusetts and outside the state, he said he did. Then he challenged the significance of some of the everyday

behaviors that Buckingham had highlighted. The district attorney took the 7,000 pages in one of the records and apparently went through them to the anniversary of the death of her three children, correct? Yes. Went through them to highlight each birthday of her three children. Is that correct? Yes. In your opinion, you've been in a lot of medical institutions and facilities in the

Commonwealth and out of the state, correct? Yes. Is it your understanding to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the fact that a woman who is paralyzed is propelling herself down the hall from one room to another is indicative of anything? Not at all. How about the fact that her mother and father, who have been with her for three years and practically missed none one day of sitting with her and bringing her dinner or lunch?

Is that something that would be indicative of undercutting the fact that the woman was suffering for mental disease or defect? That's indicative of love. How about the fact that she's talking to other inmates or people that are patients? And in your review of the records, would you tell us your opinion as to her level a degree of popularity, bluntly, in that particular one? She is extremely, extremely well-regarded and well-liked on that unit by everyone. overall. How about in reviewing the records, I didn't hear that she's laughing and partying

and having a good time while she's in the Tewksbury Hospital. Did you see anything like that? No. Lindsay Clancy has bad days and worst days. And when you speak with her and meet with her a doctor, has she ever mentioned her children? Because apparently according to the questioning that you underwent, She never talks about her kids.

She does speak about her children. What does she say? She really loves them and misses them and thinks of them every single day, almost every moment of the day. Wow, that was one of the biggest moments, I think, of that day as well. We couldn't decide which, what to start with, but to share. really that hadn't come up yet in trial, how much Lindsay misses her children and loves her children and thinks about them every day. Again, she has bad days and then she has worst days. Wow. Wow.

Finally, Reddington brought up an object that had been marked as an exhibit. Liselle recognized it and explained that it is what's known as a wish face. It had been purchased by Lindsay and Patrick in Hawaii during their honeymoon shortly after they were married. The Commonwealth objected, and the attorneys went to a sidebar. Surprise. Well, after the sidebar, the judge ruled that the vase could be admitted into evidence over the Commonwealth's objection. We didn't get to learn about any of the contents inside the vase, but by it yet, but by it being admitted into evidence, the jury will get to analyze the contents. And we have heard about the contents publicly before the trial,

and essentially their wishes, but we'll get to those later. Anyway, Buckingham came back for a few more questions. She wanted to put Zaisal's relationship with Lindsay into context. Buckingham asked how many defendants he had previously evaluated for criminal responsibility where he had spent 35 hours conducting the evaluations. His answer was one. She then asked how many other defendants had he had evaluated where he had testified that he cared deeply about them.

Again, one. How many other defendants had he held a press conference about none? And how many other defendants had he gone back to the lockup every day to check on during trial? Well, Dr. Zazel explained that in his other trials, he had been sequestered and wasn't even permitted to be in the courtroom. then she turned back to Lindsay's discussions about her children. Buckingham asked whether Zaisal was aware that Lindsay repeatedly referred to what happened as, quote, my tragedy.

Zazel acknowledged that was one of the many phrases Lindsay used, my tragedy. And then Redington briefly came back. He wanted to clarify why Zazel had been going to the lockup during the trial. Buckingham quickly objected. when he initially began answering, and the objection was sustained by the judge. So Reddington moved to something else he had heard repeatedly during the questioning. The references to S-I and S-I-B. So in the Tewkesbury records, S-I-S-B. Reddington asked whether S-I or suicidal ideation had remained a concern for Lindsay at Tewkesbury.

Zell said yes, and because of that concern, Lindsay was being monitored on a constant one-to-one basis. The purpose was to make sure she did not harm herself. Redington connected that to something Zaisal had described from the very beginning of his involvement with Lindsay at Brigham and Women's. When Zaisel first met her in the hospital, a nurse had been sitting in the corner of the room while they talked. That nurse could potentially hear their conversations. Zizel said that when he needed privacy for his conversations with Lindsay, he asked those people to leave. Redington then returned to the reasons Zizel had been going to see Lindsay.

during the trial, he explained that his purpose was to make sure she remained stable and competent to stand trial. Buckingham then got one final question in. Over the three years since the killings, had Lindsay made another attempt to take her own life? Dr. Zaisal said no. And after that, there were no further questions and he was excused. Well, up next, the court, this was interesting. conducted of Wadier of Emily Thorndyke. Outside the presence of the jury, the jury is not seeing this. This is the woman that the defense discovered on TikTok after she posted videos about her experience working at McLean Hospital.

Remember, you never know you could post a TikTok and end up getting voir dire during a big trial. That's what happened to Emily. So Reddington wanted to call her as a witness, right, to discuss the care that McLean provided when she worked there, the amount of providers on the unit particularly during weekends and holidays and basically just how McLean ran as a whole. But the prosecution didn't want her to testify. They argued that this was a late disclosed witness and also that Emily did not work there during the time that Lindsay was admitted to the hospital. She worked there a year prior. But the defense said that McLean hadn't changed at all in that year's time. So I wasn't. I wasn't.

wasn't planning on adding in the voir dire if the judge had allowed her to testify because she'd likely just be repeating right the same thing during questioning but ultimately the judge decided not to let emily thorndyke testify so i do want to go over at least what she would have talked about if she had been allowed to testify and again this was outside the presence of the jury that this will not be part of the juries deliberations or anything the jurors will here. But Thorndyke told the court that she was a licensed clinical social worker who now owned a virtual therapy practice. She had worked at McLean about seven years beginning in 2014 and leaving in December 2021. So seven years there. She started as a mental health specialist on the short-term unit

or STU where her job involves safety checks, monitoring patients, crisis intervention, and responding to patients who were at risk of harming themselves or others. She later became a social worker on the same unit. When she first started, the STU was one 28-bed unit. It was eventually divided into a north and south unit with 23 beds on the north side and 22 on the south where Lindsay was admitted. Thorndyke had worked on both sides and had experience with day, evening, and weekend, and holiday shifts.

She described the general staffing as structured and explained that McLean was also subject to the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health Requirements regarding staffing, safety, and the physical setup of psychiatric units. So according to hospital records, she reviewed the staffing structure hadn't significantly changed between the time that Emily worked there in Lindsay's admission. Take a listen. Now, you indicated that you, because of your interest, were watching the proceedings on this case.

Yes. On what, YouTube or something? Yeah, whatever. Yeah. And you had the occasion to hear the cross-examination of Patrick Clancy by the district attorney, is that right? Yes. You mean the direct. I'm sorry?

The direct of the Patrick Clancy. You're right. It's been a long way. Okay. Direct examination. And the focus was on the fact that when, Lindsay went into the hospital, it was on New Year's Eve. Is that correct?

Right. And that she was there for that holiday weekend and I think the following Monday was a holiday. Yes. Okay. And you heard the direct examination of the district attorney asking about McLean being number one hospital in the country, McLean having all of these services available to the inmates that are in there, treating them, offering all these fantastic programs

on the holiday weekends and the holidays as opposed to what Patrick had testified to. Will you re-ask that question? I think I understand, but... Okay, when you were watching on the television, you saw, or the computer, you saw the questioning of the district attorney

of Patrick Clancy. Yep. You heard Patrick Clancy. Patrick Clancy make reference to the fact that his wife admitted herself into the STU on holiday weekend, New Year's. Yes, yes. Was there all that weekend? Right. Into a holiday.

Right. And the district attorney then questioning Patrick required as to whether he was aware that it was the best hospital in the country that there were many doctors and nurses and staff available and Lindsay wasn't interested in any of that. Yes, that's what I took from it. Now, in your 98, however many years of experience that you had, is that what your understanding was in that unit? No, that's, yeah, no, that's not what I was understanding, no. So tell the judge what your understanding was from your experience, hands-on day after day, working in the STU for all of those years. Right. But you also were a supervisor of the STU at one time.

I actually wasn't. I became a social worker there, so I guess you could, one. way to look at it is that, you know, the social worker and the psychiatrist, you are the treatment team, so you're making all the decisions for the patients. And so the nurses and the mental health specialists, I don't like to create a hierarchy, but they are operating underneath you. So in a way, I'm supervising, but I'm not a, I was never a direct supervisor. Now, you came out with a TikTok or a real, whatever you call it. Yeah, TikTok. And would you agree with me that you were pretty angry when you did that?

Yeah, definitely emotional. Tell the judge, why were you emotional when you did that TikTok? Well, it took lengthy TikTok. It's about 10 minutes. And I was emotional because I felt like what was discussed in court was not aligned with what my experience was. I noted several things. I'll try to summarize some of them. There was mention that there's individual therapy on the unit.

There is not. There was mention of seeing a doctor every day. I felt like there was some misleading of that. You do see a doctor every day, but on the weekends and on a holiday, it's one doctor who's seeing all of the patients. The meetings can be as short as one minute. Many patients decline those meetings. And the doctor who's there on the weekend and holidays is seeing 23 patients.

So I felt it was misleading to indicate that there's sort of a in-depth doctor session when it's very brief. How about programs that are often like making things out of clay and crayons and stuff like that? Yes, there's clay on the unit. It's called Model Magic. It's a non-toxic kid. It's advertised for kids, but it's on the unit. It's in the nursing station.

It's out on the unit. There is a lot of coloring. There's a specific group that I saw in the documents I reviewed called Music and Mandalay. Mandalayas are basically adult color. coloring books. The designs are kind of abstract. You could compare it to like looking through a kaleidoscope or something and you color them in. And music in Mandala's is a group where you play music and the patient's color. So you understand from watching the proceedings that you became emotional over is that Lindsay went in on New Year's Eve with some fairly serious

symptomology. Is that correct? Yes. And Patrick indicated that they were quite frankly pretty bluntly disgusted with the help and the care that was allegedly offered to her, right? Right. And you were upset about what you felt was a misleading of this witness based on the questions that were asked. Is that right? Yes. And Patrick had made reference to the fact that she was doing coloring and she was in the groups

that was sitting there dealing with the clay and that basically they felt that it was not want to be any help yes and there's very minimal like family contact when the main treatment team is not there so it's not abnormal that families wouldn't be getting like regular or like in-depth updates or what's going on you're you're sort of supposed to wait until the treatment team comes back whether it's on a Monday or in this case a Tuesday since Monday was a holiday that's the team who's going to be working with the patient so most updates and communication with family and with providers aren't going to happen over the weekend either. Now, one of the things that occur just for the background is that your TikTok was observed by me.

And I tried to reach out to you and couldn't find you. That's correct. And then I had a private investigator, Bob Jones, hunt you down, kind of, and ended up in front of your house. No, Bob and I were sort of chuckling about that because he never ended up outside of my house. the rest of it is all accurate. Yeah. So he wasn't outside of my house, but the rest of that was true.

So he was able to locate you. He was, yes. He was, yes. He was, yes. Get your contact information. Yes. Provide that to me. Yep.

And as a result of that, I reached out to you, and then you indicated that you initially somewhat reluctant, but then ultimately agreed to get involved and talk to the judge. Yes, yes. Now, the district attorney is objecting to your testimony, and I believe they're going to argue that the change from that one-year period, when was it, when did you leave working there? I want to say my last date was like December 18th. Since working there, you don't get a lot of holidays off. So out of all my time there, I said, I'm going to leave right before the holidays and be able to enjoy that. So I believe it was December 18th, but mid-December.

2021. Yeah. And when was Lindsay in there? January what December 31st right she came in on New Year's Eve 20 what would that be 2022 right yeah two yeah so in your opinion is there a change that is significant in the staffing in the nurse to patient ratio in the safety issues the crayons the coloring and all of that is there any change from that one year that you left to the time that she was in there from the records I reviewed as well. Those are exactly the same staffing ratios and all of the groups are the same. So there's no change whatsoever. Not from what I can tell from what I reviewed.

Well, it's interesting, right? But then there was cross exam after Reddington was done. Buckingham did a cross after Thorndyke stepped down then. Reddington asked the judge to allow her to testify before the jury. Well, he argued that she had both the education, the firsthand experience to speak about McLean, particularly because she had worked on the same short-term unit where Lindsay was admitted. He said that based on the McLean records, she reviewed the staffing ratios, the general structure of the unit hadn't meaningfully changed since she'd worked there. He pointed to her testimony about the weekends and the staffing issues. He said her testimony would corroborate Patrick's account and give the jury context because of the way the prosecution's questioning went.

But the Commonwealth, of course, objected. Buckingham argued that the McLean records were the best evidence of the actual care Lindsay received. They documented her interactions with staff, the programs available, and what happened during her admission. She also pushed the fact that Thorndyke had left McLean about a year before Lindsay was admitted. She was a social worker, primarily worked weekday daytime hours, hadn't personally been working the holiday weekend when Lindsay was there. She also, Buckingham also rejected the idea that the prosecution had portrayed McLean as a number one or five-star hospital. She said the Commonwealth had simply asked Patrick about activities documented in Lindsay's records

and whether he knew she had participated in them. And finally, Buckingham pointed out that Thorndyke wasn't a psychiatrist and couldn't testify about Lindsay's psychiatric treatment. So after hearing both sides, judge said his main two issues were the late disclosure of Thorndyke as a witness in Rule 403, which allows relevant evidence to be excluded if its potential prejudice, confusion, or ability to mislead the jury outweighs its value. Importantly, the judge said he found Thorndyke credible, but he explained that credibility alone didn't mean her testimony belonged before the jury. The bigger question was, the bigger question was how much her testimony actually added. And the judge pointed out, again,

you know, the roughly one year gap before Lindsay was admitted. And along with the fact that different staff worked different shifts, that limited how much firsthand knowledge Thorndyke could offer about what Lindsay specifically experienced. He rejected the defense's characterization that the Commonwealth had portrayed McLean as a five-star facility, saying the inference, he He didn't recall that inference being in evidence. Most importantly, the judge said the McLean records already contained much of the information the defense wanted Thorndyke to provide. The records address staffing levels during holidays and regular weekdays as well as the programs

that were available. So if the defense wanted to show that Lindsay was there during a reduced or skeleton holiday crew or compare the programs available during the holiday weekend with those offered during the regular week, the records themselves could establish that. Because the same information could be presented through the records without bringing Thorndyke before the jury, the judge denied the defense's request to call her as a witness. He did, however, allow the defense to introduce the relevant McLean records covering staffing and programming. So there you go, including records from the surrounding days for comparison.

And then, after that, the court recessed for the following day, day 17. Thursday. Today, we're doing this live today. So Thursday, court was supposed to begin at nine. I was getting taxed. Why isn't court started yet? I'm sorry, I couldn't respond to all of them. But the start was delayed by about an hour. And then once everyone was in the courtroom, which was packed by the way, an absolutely packed courtroom, I'm not surprised by the people you saw there wearing pink on the sides, you know, the supporters that Lindsay has outside the courthouse, the courtroom was also just packed. The judge also announced that it was going to be another shortened day. He specifically told the jury not to speculate about the reason for the shortened schedule and not to hold it against

either side. But there's already been a lot of discussion outside the courtroom about the delays, particularly because Dr. Margaret Spinelli had reportedly experienced. some travel problems. Spinelli is a psychiatry professor at Columbia and a nationally recognized expert in postpartum psychosis. So her testimony has been highly anticipated, so much so Dr. John even talked about Dr. Spinelli's findings because we had pretrial reports from her. So this has been a hugely anticipated testimony. But when Redington laid out the defense's plans for the day, he did not mention Spinelli. Instead, he indicated that Dr. Philip Resnick would be his final witness, and he suggested that the defense will probably finish presenting its case on Friday,

also known as tomorrow when we're doing this live on Thursday. So that raises a lot of questions. And many people are asking how both Spinelli and Resnick could both fit into one day, right? Or if we'll even get to hear from Dr. Spinelli at all. I saw some rumors in chat. I'm not going to confirm nor deny those rumors because I can't. But for Thursday, today, the defense did call one witness. And that was Sheila Kavanaugh. The Kavanaugh told the jury that she was a board certified chaplain at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. So in other words, Reddington began by establishing exactly what that certification involved,

because it's not a title someone could obtain without extensive training. So Kavanaugh explained that becoming board certified as a chaplain required at least a master's degree in theology or divinity, so religious studies, followed by 1,600 hours of postgraduate training. I didn't even know this. It's so impressive. I had no idea the amount of training and education, a chaplain for a hospital needed. So most of that training is clinical with additional classroom work covering areas. areas like psychology, sociology, philosophy, theology, and ethics. And then she needed another

2,000 hours of clinical experience before she could even apply for board certification. And on top of that, chaplains have to demonstrate competency in 30 different areas and receive an ecclesiastical endorsement. I mean, I had no idea that this is what a hospital chaplain would need to do. I'm so impressed actually knowing that this is what their education is. So in Kavanaugh's case, that endorsement came from the, from the, let's see, the archdiocese of Boston, okay, and Cardinal Sean O'Malley. And she's now been working as a chaplain at Brigham and women's for about seven years. That job eventually brought her into contact with Lindsay Clancy. So Kavanaugh explained that she arrived at Brigham on the morning of January 25th,

2023 at around 8.30. She had been scheduled to take the overnight chaplain's pager for the 9 a.m. to the 1 p.m. shift, but she was working the full day. And during that morning, she was summoned to the director of spiritual cares office and then sent to Unit 8C in the hospital's tower to meet with Lindsay. And so, when Kavanaugh arrived at the U.S. She described the area as being filled with law enforcement. There were officers outside the unit, Brigham security personnel, Plymouth County officers, and Boston police.

She said she had to make her way through what felt like several layers of law enforcement before she could even reach Lindsay's room. Lindsay was in extremely serious physical condition. She was intubated and unable to speak. She was wearing a neck brace and was covered in bandaged. a medical equipment that was helping her breathe. Reddington showed Kavanaugh a photograph that had already been marked as an exhibit, and she said it appeared to have been taken at South Shore, but looked very similar to how Lindsay appeared when she first saw her at Brigham.

Kavanaugh saw Lindsay again the following day, and she was still intubated and unable to communicate. The next time she saw her was several days later. And then, on January 31st, By then, Lindsay had been extubated. The breathing tube, in other words, had been removed, likely a couple days earlier, and she was able to speak. But physically, she still looked much like she had when Kavanaugh first encountered her. She was still covered in medical equipment and still wearing the neck brace.

Kavanaugh described Lindsay's emotional presentation as very neutral with what she characterized as a flat affect, meaning kind of like no emotion. She then recalled something that Lindsay said that stayed with her. Her emotional state was very neutral, a flat affect. But I remember vividly the first thing she said to me. Now, she had heard me for a couple of days. We had been praying together. And so when I went in on Tuesday the 31st,

she said to me as I held her hand to comfort her, I am so glad my children are safe. Was there any other conversation that you had with her? I replied theologically to Lindsay, and I said, Lindsay, your children are safe. They're safe in heaven with God. And I held her hand throughout that conversation, and we prayed for them. Did she make any other statements to you?

She did. She alluded to having heard a voice, and the voice, according to Lindsay, told her, that if she did not follow the command, neither she nor her children would be safe. And did she indicate whether it was a male voice, a female voice, loud, soft? She alluded to the fact that it was a male voice and it was persistent. Any further conversation that you recall about that, not about general things? That came up several times. I visited Lindsay minimally 14 times while she was hospitalized at the Brigham. and the voice conversation came up several times during several of our visits.

Now, after Lindsay was transferred or cleared to go from Brigham and Women's Hospital, did she go to another facility? She did. She went to Spalding Rehabilitation Hospital. And do you know when that was? That was roughly late February, perhaps around the 23rd. And did you continue to see Lindsay at Spalding Rehab? I did. You know when she left Spalding Rehab?

In the late March, early April timeframe, perhaps. Okay. Now, Reganman Women's Hospital in Spalding, yeah, Spalding Rehab are under the same umbrella of hospitals. Is that right? They are. So Brigham and Women's Hospital in Spalding Rehab are, under the Mass General Brigham complex.

So for me to visit Lindsay and Spalding, I was still within the same hospital complex, and her psychiatrist at Spalding, as well as the chaplains, advise me to continue. You can't say what anybody told me. So when she was discharged from Spalding rehab, where did she go?

She went to Tewksbury State Hospital. And fair to say that that would be back around February. It's been a little more than three years, three and a half years. Yes. Is that correct? Now, when you saw her in Spalding Rehab and in Brigham and in Brigham and in Brigham and women, you were acting in the course of your job. Is that right?

That's correct. You're being compensated. You're getting your paycheck and that type of thing. Yes. How many times have you seen Lindsay at Tewksbury Hospital? perhaps 200 times. Tell the jury why you continue to see her for 200. Sustained.

So can you tell us how often on a weekly basis you would see her at Tewksbury? Yes. When Lindsay was admitted to Tewksbury State Hospital, I continued to see her on a weekly basis. We had built up a very comfortable, respectful rapport. and I felt it was in her best interest to continue that as she healed. She was still in deep grief. She was suffering.

Sustained. That opinion would be stricken. So did she express anything about her children and their loss over that period of 200 times that you saw her thereabouts in Tewkesbury? Objection. No, overall. Yes. How does yours? Lindsay talks frequently about her children.

She loves them deeply. She carries immense grief. The question. Next question, though. And has that continued to your observation? It continues presently. When was the last time that you saw Lindsay in Tewksbury? Just prior to the trial starting.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Then. Sprigg took over for the Commonwealth. She started by going back to Kavanaugh's description of the scene at Brigham on January 25th. Kavanaugh had described seeing a large number of law enforcement officers around Lindsay's unit. Sprig clarified that some of the people Kavanaugh had seen were actually Brigham's own security personnel, not police officers. And Kavanaugh did agree.

Sprague asked whether Kavanaugh knew that a search warrant was being executed that day to collect evidence from Lindsay and her belongings at the hospital. Kavanaugh said she didn't know that. No, she did not know that. She also wasn't aware that state police and crime lab personnel had been involved in collecting that evidence. Sprague then established that outside of the hospital security personnel and those search warrant activities,

there were generally only two actual law enforcement officers stationed outside Lindsay's room at a time. Kavanaugh recalled seeing officers outside the room. So Sprague essentially narrowed down Kavanaugh's description of the large police presence to that initial January 25th visit when hospital security and the search warrant activity were also taking place. The questioning then turned to something much more significant. Kavanaugh had testified that Lindsay told her about a male voice that commanded her to do something, warning that if she didn't follow the commands, she and her children wouldn't be safe. if you heard her say that. Kavanaugh confirmed that conversation happened on January 31st. The Sprague pointed out that Kavanaugh, I kept detailed chaplain notes documenting her interactions with Lindsay.

And nowhere in those notes did Kavanaugh document Lindsay telling her that she heard a voice. Now, you mentioned that on January 31st, 2023, you spoke to the defendant and she told her, you that she heard a voice telling her that if she did not follow the command, neither she nor her children would be safe, correct? Correct. You wrote very detailed notes that are contained in the Brigham and Women's Hospital records regarding your interactions with Lindsay Clancy, didn't you? Yes, I did. And in all of these notes that detail every time you interacted with her, you never once wrote that she told you she heard a voice or what that voice said, correct? Correct.

And you also said that this voice, talking about the voice, came up in several of your meetings, correct? Correct. And you never once wrote about any of it in any of your very detailed notes, correct? Well, Chaplin notes are not verbatim transcripts of patient conversations. I'm not there to evaluate the patient. I'm there to bear witness to their suffering. Okay, but the question was you did not document those statements in your notes, correct? Correct.

But you did document some other statements in those notes, correct? Perhaps. For example, on February 6, 2023, in a note that you wrote regarding your interaction with the defendant, you said that, or you wrote, Lindsay welcomed the visit and shared her fears of, quote, not being able to walk again, end quote. She continued to express her fears of how her inability to walk may make her vulnerable to others in the future. Do you recall writing that? Yes. Do you recall writing on February 9th,

2023, that the defendant was sitting in a chair adjacent to her bed and appeared to be visibly engaged, energized, and hopeful than in previous visits? Do you recall that? Yes. You also wrote in that note, Lindsay spoke hopefully of being discharged

when the time arrives to Spalding, correct? Correct. And then in February 13, 2023, you wrote in your note that Lindsay also expressed hopefulness in relation to her physical progress. She feels she has gained considerable physical strength and agility despite an inability to move her legs. She admitted that she feels, quote, deserving of this, end quote, in light of recent events. Do you remember writing that? Yes. Do you remember on February 16, the 18th, 2020, 3, that you wrote in a note that the defendant expressed hopefulness with the news of her anticipated discharge of Spalding and seemed uplifted that she would be cared for in a facility with an excellent reputation.

Yes. Do you recall writing on February 16, 2023, that Paula, the defendant's mother and Lindsay, the defendant, were playing a card game as they commune quietly and that Lindsay expressed hopefulness with the news of her. and just anticipated discharge to Spalding and seemed uplifted. Yes. And again, you've got all these details about her feelings and her thoughts and what she's doing, but nothing about the voices that you spoke of so many times, correct? Correct. Sprague pressed the same point.

Again and again, Kavanaugh had documented Lindsay's fears, hopes, physical progress, family interactions, and emotional state in considerable detail. But none of those notes mentioned the voice. Well, then Sprague moved into Lindsay's time at Spalding. Kavanaugh continued visiting her there, but Sprague asked about some specific details that did not appear to be part of Kavanaugh's conversations with Lindsay. For example, did Lindsay ever tell her that she had been doing physical therapy with a yellow exercise band? Kavanaugh said she didn't remember that. What about Lindsay reaching out to a social worker at Spalding for help completing SSDI paperwork so she could establish

an income. Kavanaugh said that would have been outside the scope of their conversations. So she hadn't heard Lindsay tell her about that either. And with that, Sprague ended her questioning. Well, Redington had a brief redirect for Kavanaugh, starting with the SSDI paperwork that Sprague had brought up. He asked whether Kavanaugh was aware of the financial expenses Lindsay's family was facing as a result of her paralysis, physical limitations, and prolonged hospitalization. Kavanaugh said that based on her experience with thousands of hospital patients, she had a very clear understanding of how enormous those expenses could become.

Reddington then returned to the distinction between what Kavanaugh had documented in her chaplain notes and what Lindsay may have shared with her privately. There's a difference between, as the district attorney very appropriately referred to, that your comments were about her thoughts and her appearance and her feelings. Is that correct? Correct. Is the difference, however, between privileged communications with a chaplain and observations of a person's feelings and thoughts, correct? Correct.

So the jury, what effect privilege communication has when someone talks to you personally as a chaplain? Because I'm not a medically trained clinician, I approach patients in a vortex of trust. Some of our chaplains at the Brigham are ordained clergy. And so there's this understanding that when a patient interacts with a chaplain, the conversations are confidential. Do you put them in medical records? No. The words like Lindsay indicated that she felt uplifted, I think the counsel read that twice. Were those your notes, or is that what she said to you?

Did she say I feel uplifted? That was my perception of Lindsay. It was not her words. Thank you. Thank you. Como? You said you're not allowed to put the defendant's words in your medical records. Is that correct?

No, that's not correct. It's not that I'm not allowed. It's an understanding. And it's a conversation that's held in confidence with the patient. Then why are there direct quotes in these medical records from the defendant? Well, they're not verbatim transcripts. No, not a transcript of the whole conversation, but you put phrases in quotes. For example, on February 6, 2023, where it says, Lindsay welcomed the visit and shared her fears of,

quote, not being able to walk again. So those were her words in your note, in quotes. in the medical record, correct? Yes. Thank you. I used my best judgment. Okay. Well, the defense had no objection to admitting those, so the judge put them into evidence.

And once Kavanaugh was excused, the jury was dismissed for the day as well. The court then moved into a preliminary charge conference that meant the judge and attorneys began discussing the jury instructions that would eventually be given at the end of the trial. They went over potential instructions, suggestions from both sides, and some of the legal issues that would need to be addressed before the case went to the jury. The judge said that he wanted to hear from both sides about what instructions they were asking for before preparing a draft. He planned to base the instructions primarily on the Massachusetts model jury instructions, including the most recent recommendations from the Supreme Judicial Court. Sprague went first for the Commonwealth. She requested several standard instructions dealing with opinion testimony, prior consistent and inconsistent statements, redaction, stipulations, and consciousness of guilt.

As far as the actual charges, the Commonwealth wants the jury instructed on both first degree and second degree murder. For first degree murder, they want both theories available to the jury, deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty. but there was one instruction the Commonwealth specifically wanted left out. That was the intoxication as part of the criminal responsibility instruction. The Sprague argued that there isn't evidence that Lindsay was intoxicated from drug or alcohol at the time she killed her children. She pointed out that Lindsay had been taking relatively low doses of prescription medications, including amatryptylene, tracidone, and valium. and there's evidence that she hadn't reported side effects from those medications. She said there is also evidence that Lindsay had taken additional pills after the killings.

But Sprague argued that the toxicology levels were low. The judge then asked Sprague to clarify something. If a person takes a prescription medication as directed and experiences some effect from it, could that still qualify as intoxication for purposes of the jury instruction? Sprague's position was that simply taking medication as prescribed would not necessarily constitute intoxication. She argued that the concept generally involved taking a substance in excess or combining substances in a way that affected someone's ability to think, act, or control their behavior. Well, as you probably expected, Reddington pushed back on that. He argued that the evidence absolutely supported an instruction on involuntary intoxication.

His argument wasn't that Lindsay had intentionally, intentionally gotten herself intoxicated, but he said the jury had heard evidence about prescription medications, possible over-prescription, medication side effects, changes in dosages, tapering the medications, being stopped abruptly. he said that all of those things could have affected Lindsay's mental state. Redington pointed to Lindsay's repeated statements that medications had affected her badly. He referenced her complaints about benzodiazepines, her concerns about becoming dependent on them, her attempts to get off them, and her reported reaction to the increase in searcherling. From the defense perspective, those prescription medications were directly relevant to Lindsay's

mental state, even though they weren't illegal drugs. Redington argued that the jury should be allowed to decide whether those medications contributed to an involuntary intoxication defense. He also asked for an instruction on involuntary manslaughter as a lesser offense. It's interesting. His argument was essentially that the jury should not be forced into an all or nothing choice between murder and nothing. And right, this is what we've been saying all along.

Could this be two more extremes, one within malice and cruelty, premeditated, and another, you know, innocent because of insanity? There was murder or nothing, right? He wanted them to have an option, involuntary manslaughter, considering whether the evidence supported a lesser offense based on Lindsay's mental state and the effects of the medications. But Sprague disagreed. She argued that involuntary manslaughter did not fit the evidence because the Commonwealth's position was that Lindsay specifically intended to kill her children. She also returned to the medication issue. The Commonwealth's argument was that many of the medications Reddington was discussing were medications Lindsay had taken months earlier.

By the time of January 24th killing, Sprague said those medications had been discontinued and out of Lindsay's systems, out of Lindsay's system for weeks. So in her view, whatever affects those medications may have had in the fall of 2022, they were not relevant to criminal responsibility on January 24th. Well, the judge clarified that the relevant question would be what Lindsay was taking on or around January 24th, 2023, rather than what medication she had taken months earlier. And Sprague agreed. I actually disagree with that, but Redington then raised another issue involving the jury

instructions. So let me just say, I disagree with that because a lot of those medications when you're tapering them and you're coming off of them, they still have an effect. But nonetheless, Judge ruled. Sprague prosecution agreed with the judge. Reddington then raised another issue involving the jury instructions. The model instructions apparently contemplate giving jurors some type of written chart or checklist laying out the elements of first degree murder, including deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty. Reddington specifically asked the judge not to give the jury. kind of checklist, he argued that reducing a murder charge to a simple list of boxes for jurors to check could oversimplify the legal analysis. He also said he had objected to a similar chart in another

murder case and didn't want the jury to approach the case as though they were simply checking off elements one by one. The judge agreed with the basic concern. He explained that his normal practice was not to give jurors that type of chart anyway. He said he generally provided each juror with a full copy of the actual jury instructions so they can follow along during the charge. He said that the instructions are lengthy. And he put it honestly and fairly, they're dry, lengthy and dry. But he feels that the jurors having the complete instructions is useful. The judge said he would prepare a rough draft of the instructions for the attorneys to review, which will give both sides an opportunity to see where he's headed and raise objections or suggest changes before the final

charge. And that is where court ended for the day. I have a few things to say. I know we've been on here for two and a half hours. Yeah, when I was a kid, I went to church for three hours. We're almost there. But I could talk about this trial forever. So here I am, two and a half hours. I have things to say. First off, I want to read a few of your chats. Oh, and then about the medication issue, I completely understand why the defense wants it in. It's a whole other motive. But also there's a civil lawsuit pending and that will also help with a civil lawsuit if if they find medications are relevant guilty or not in this case. So a few things you've stated. I agree. I'm sorry if things I say don't align with others. That's a great thing about life. We can all believe what we want.

No need to judge. Yes, this has been a varied chat tonight, except for, of course, when we were talking about MLMs, we were united when talking about Beach Body. But other than that, we have had some varying opinions. Thank you to everyone's support. I thought this one was interesting, Devin Briggs. When the trial first started, I was on the decide that Lindsay did this on purpose. But after watching the trial each day, I think the prosecution has done such an awful job. I've completely switched sides. Someone else pointing out. she's properly medicated now likely right all these new things someone stated this i think the commonwealth has confirmation bias that she is horrible and did it this is Kayla and they are used to

trying cases out of public and being on the good side where they can treat the defense witness with anger i think you're right i think this has been um not what they're used to thank you Kayla i think the commonwealth has had confirmation bias as well and that ending shows that Redington lays it out, hey, how about voluntary manslaughter as a possibility, right? That's still a verdict and a solid sentencing, and they were like, absolutely not. It's this or nothing. I agree. I have seen the Commonwealth have confirmation bias from the very beginning, no plea deal for either.

And I do think that they are used to as a prosecution trying these cases out in public and being on the good side where they can treat the defense witness with anger. Yeah, and I don't know how it's going for them, honestly. When you've got people outside, cheering and standing in solidarity for the defendant for Lindsay Clancy, I'm not sure that treating these witnesses with anger is helping the defense. This too. So even if Buckingham is right and Lindsay did this out of malice, Buckingham seems so mean, abrasive and argumentative there's no compassion or kindness or empathy. She's just a bully and she will lose her case. Yeah.

Phil says she can put bows in her hair until the cows come home. The prosecutor has dreadfully failed to meet the Commonwealth burden. I'm so grateful for your coverage and for Dr. John's input as well. Thank you. Dr. John, Matthias, clinical and forensic psychologist, the same training as Dr. Zaisal. He has shared a full episode. We can post that. We'll post that in pin comments and then in the description of this episode afterwards. Phyllis said each day gets me closer and closer to my original opinion. Now I'm getting ready to drive eight hours to Boston to show my support and enjoy

a Boston summer. I agree with the chaplain, she could moonlight reading e-books to fall asleep to. I agree with that. And I agree with sugar-free cereal that that chaplain, And while many of you did say she sounded like Jennifer Coolidge, I do agree. Sugar-free cereal states that I imagine her being a very calming presence in a hospital setting or during a tragedy. And I completely agree with that. Yes. There you go. I'd love to know how you guys are doing how everyone's feeling.

Thanks for letting me share some of those. It's interesting. It's interesting. Thank you for many of you sharing how your opinions have changed. I thought I started another one, and I guess I don't see it here, but somebody said that they were also on the side that Lindsay did this, but they embraced, you don't know what you don't know, and now they are changing their opinion and are on more so the side of the defense. I thought I had saved that one, but I cannot find it. But thank you for the person that shared that because I thought, I think it's really interesting how people's opinions are changing. You know, a lot of us can. with our confirmation biases. Confirmation biases are a very real thing. And so to see some of those opinions changing shows that I love Dr. Zaisal's, you know,

quote, you don't find a conclusion, a conclusion finds you. And I appreciate everyone for staying open. And yeah, and you don't know what you don't know. It's been interesting. All right. Well, I'm going to take off. It's been a late night. night. Oh, yeah, Eric, I say it is interesting. My thoughts have swayed in different ways as well.

Donson, I wonder how this is affecting the jury. Yeah. It's very interesting. Very interesting. Well, there are some things coming this weekend. I'll just share that a couple of interviews. So hit subscribe, hit notification because you guys might be surprised where we're going this weekend with a couple of interviews. So hit subscribe and the bell for notifications for when we share those. And of course, we'll be going live tomorrow as well. It is interesting. I agree with every, you know, it is interesting that Dr. Spinelli has not been mentioned and that it looks like the defense is going to rest tomorrow.

I did see what people are saying. There is speculation. But we're going to, we're going to solidly confirm some things before we share. We don't know what's going on. other words, we'll learn soon. And I'm sure that we'll learn in court tomorrow, whether Dr. Spinelli is a witness or not. But yeah, she has been a very important person in evaluating Lindsay. So it would be interesting if she wasn't a defense witness. We shall see. All right. Thank you. And then a huge, huge thank you to our moderators. They don't get enough

things. This has been a very difficult trial with a lot of division, understandably. So And these moderators are rock stars. And they jump on and they do this. And they keep things light. Thank you, Monty. And yeah. So a huge thank you to our moderators for being here. And I know it's late for some of them.

So thank you, everyone. As Ames, 85 says, peace, homies. So I'm out. Have a good night. And I'll see you tomorrow.