Hidden True Crime - Inside the Courtroom: Does Blood Spatter Analysis Help the Defense—or State? | Lindsay Clancy Day 6

Episode Date: August 6, 2026

Lindsay Soeaks & Forensic experts, & blood stain analysis took center stage in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial as jurors heard critical testimony about blood evidence, toxicology, DNA, prescription medications, and the crime scene investigation. Reporting inside the courtroom, Lauren Matthias breaks down testimony from trauma surgeons, Massachusetts State Police investigators, crime scene analysts, toxicologists, and bloodstain pattern experts who explained what they found inside the Clancy home and how they interpreted key pieces of evidence. The defense also highlighted the severity of Lindsay Clancy's injuries following her fall, while prosecutors focused on the forensic evidence they believe supports their case. This in-depth recap covers every major witness, the most important moments from today's testimony, and what the evidence could mean as one of the nation's most closely watched murder trials continues. 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

Isn't it interesting that when we get older, we sometimes think, oh, my mom was right. I think the older I get, the more I finally appreciate having a closet full of pieces that are simple, that are well made, quality, easy to wear, timeless. I'd rather have a few things I genuinely love than a closet full of clothes I never reach for. And that is one reason I have become such a huge fan of quints. They're 100% organic, cotton waffle stitch open cardigan has become one of my favorite layering pieces. It's lightweight, it's comfortable, easy to throw on, whether I'm headed into a chili courtroom, the studio, or to dinner. And I have been pairing it with their brown Italian leather sandals. They're so comfortable, so classy. They're comfortable enough to wear all day, yet they still look polished. I also love

that Quince focuses on high quality essentials. Prices that are 50 to 80% less than similar brands by working directly with the ethical factories and cutting out the middleman. They even have beautiful home essentials now, bedding, bath, thoughtfully designed furniture. Upgrade your every day. Download the Quince app for app exclusive offers or go to quince.com slash hidden true crime. Get free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK too. That's quince, quince, q-u-in-c-e-com slash hidden true crime. Hello, hidden jams. It is good to be with you all tonight. Thank you for being here and thank you for supporting our work here in the courtroom in Massachusetts following very closely the

Lindsay Clancy trial. Today was day six. And before, trial started this morning, the judge actually turned his attention directly to Lindsay. This was before the jury had come in. And up until now, Lindsay had barely spoken in court. She had said, hello, judge, in the morning. But Reddington offered to stipulate to certain facts. And stipulate for those that don't watch trials all the time means to agree, agree to certain facts. So when we say to stipulate to both sides have stipulated to Lindsay killing her own children. It means that's not part of this argument. They agree that Lindsay killed her kids. This isn't to prove whether or not she is who killed and took their lives. So Redington offer to stipulate to additional certain facts

about this case basically agreeing that some pieces of the evidence did not need to be proven through additional witnesses. Take a listen. All right. Ms. Clancy, I have been shown a list or summary of stipulations. It's been marked as Exhibit or J for identification. So it's my understanding that you are requesting or offering to stipulate to certain facts. Is that correct?

Yes, Your Honor. All right. And before I accept that, I got to make sure. ask you some questions, make sure that your decision to do so is voluntary, that you understand the consequences. So I'm going to ask you some questions. If at any time you need to speak to Mr. Reddington or you have any questions or have problems understanding what I'm saying, just let me know, okay? Now, do you understand that the Commonwealth in this case is required to prove each and every element of the case against you beyond a reasonable doubt? Do you understand that?

Yes, Your Honor. All right. You understand that there are certain facts that could be introduced during the course of the trial that would support, might support the Commonwealth's position regarding those elements. Do you understand that? Yes, Your Honor. All right. And you understand that by signing the stipulation, you're agreeing that the Commonwealth does not have to prove these certain facts that are contained in the stipulation. Do you understand that?

Yes, Your Honor. And do you understand by signing or going along with that stipulation, you are basically relieving the Commonwealth of its burden to prove those certain facts. Do you understand that? Yes, Your Honor. Is that what you want to do at this point? Yes. All right. Have you gone over this stipulation or the summary of the stipulations with Attorney Reddington?

Yes, I have. Need any more time to do that? No, thank you. All right. No, by entering into, by entering into the stipulation. into this stipulation. You're giving up some important rights. So I kind of want to go over those with you at this time. To understand by law, you're presumed to be innocent of each charge against you, and you do not have to prove your innocence. So instead, at trial of Commonwealth, as I said before, has the burden of proving you are guilty of each element of the charges against you.

And by entering into this stipulation, you're giving up your right to force the Commonwealth to prove the facts that are contained. in these stipulations. Do you understand that? Yes, Your Honor. All right. You're also at trial, where we are now, you have the right to confront the witnesses that would testify about these facts.

And by entering into this stipulation, you're giving up that right with respect to these stipulated facts. Do you understand that? Yes, Your Honor. All right. You also, if you wanted to, could call your own witnesses at the trial

to contest these stipulated. stipulated facts if you want to. You understand you'd be giving up that right by entering into this stipulation. Yes, Your Honor. You also at trial have the right to remain silent and cannot be forced to testify at this. You understand by entering into this stipulation, you're giving up in a limited way that right with respect to just those facts. Yes, Your Honor. Are you doing this willingly and voluntarily? Yes, I am. All right. Has anyone forced you or threatened you to enter into this stipulation? No, Your Honor.

Have you had enough time to talk to council about this? Yes, I have. All right. I make the following findings. I find that Ms. Clancy is knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily and willingly entered into the stipulation of the facts that are contained and summarized in Exhibit J for identification.

I find that she is competent to enter into this stipulation. I find she understands the consequences of entering into this stipulation. So accordingly, I now accept the proposed stipulation of facts. Thank you. I just would like, Your Honor, for the record, to again reiterate the fact that we have not been contesting the government's case in chief, if you will, have been agreeing to evidence in this stipulation basically relieves the government of having to bring in dozens, is there's not no witnesses to prove chain of custody of blood, fluids, the bans, DNA, all of that. Rather than have days of testimony, the stipulation will avoid that.

So that's why we're stipulated to like that. All right. All right. Comoth, anything else you want to add? Okay. So essentially after she finished, the judge made his findings, as you saw there, he said that he found that Lindsay, knowingly, willingly, intelligently, voluntarily, willingly, entered into, this stipulation or agreed to certain facts of this case and that she was competent to do so and that she understood the consequences. So again, formally accepting the stipulation, the agreement

to facts. Then Redington, Kevin Reddington, added some more context for the record. He explained that the defense has actually never been contesting the government's case in chief when it came to things like chain of custody, blood fluids, DNA, all of this sort of technical stuff, meaning where and who got the evidence, where did it come from, where did it get transferred to, how it was handled. Sometimes that can take that chain of custody can take five witnesses sometimes. So they're saying they've never not agreed with a chain of custody, with the blood fluids, the DNA, all that technical stuff. He said the stipulation would prevent the guard government essentially from having to call dozens of more witnesses just to prove sort of these

foundational details. So again, in other words, it would save days of testimony that neither side needed to fight over. So after that, the jury was brought in. They actually looked a little bit fresher. They had a weekend. They came with their notes. They are note takers. I'll tell you that. This jury takes notes. And there are two men in particular that I watch. And they are always taking notes during the prosecution and the defense. So Christina Carpia was the first witness of the day, a trauma and critical care surgeon at South Shore Hospital. And she tells us a jury. that South Shore is a level two trauma hospital. When cases come in that need more specialized care, they often are transferred to Boston, places like Brigham and Women's. And as a trauma surgeon,

she does operate at South Shore, but the hospital does not have neurosurgeons physically present the way a level one trauma center would. She said that she was on call the night of January 24th, 23 that night. And at some point that evening, she was notified that a level one trauma was coming in, arriving soon. And that level one trauma was a woman named Lindsay Clancy, the defendant sitting right there. So when that kind of alert comes through, she has to get the emergency department quickly. She said she was able to go down and join the assessment team working alongside the emergency physician Dr. Kelly McDonough. Remember Dr. Kelly McDonough? We also know her as doctor, I don't recall.

So she works with Dr. I don't recall. And she remembered that the information that came in from EMS that Lindsay had fallen from a height of about 20 feet and there were concerns for neurological and spinal injury. that alone triggers very quickly a level one trauma response. She said neurology was not part of the initial team, but she and the ER staff handled the trauma assessment of Lindsay. She saw Lindsay shortly after arrival. Lindsay was intubated by the hospital staff. Carpio noticed injuries to her neck and wrists, lacerations. But those lacerations, according to her, were defined as superficial.

nothing that required immediate surgical intervention. She said CT scans were ordered, a full pan scan of the head, neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis. She reviewed the head CTs. The non-contrast scan showed no acute intracranial findings. The contrast scan was part of a head and neck angiogram. The head portion was back, but the neck portion wasn't yet available during her initial assessment. She said that was different from the cervical spine CT, which she did have. Those scans showed serious spinal injuries in the cervical and thoracic areas.

And she said that Lindsay was hypothermic, meaning her core temperature was extremely low. Remember, it was in the 80s. She remembered seeing that in her documentation, she clarified that Lindsay had been hypotensive, not hypertensive. So low blood pressure, not high, and that was clarified. They warmed the trauma room using a warming equipment like a bear hugger to raise her temperature. Eventually her temperature came up to around 95 degrees. Even after warming her, the neck lacerations didn't change in a way that required surgery. The spinal injuries, those were the real concern to everyone there.

She consulted with the neurosurgeon on call to review images remotely. And then after reviewing Lindsay scans, the neurosurgeon recommended transfer to a tertiary hospital. Carpio agreed. She said the complexity of the spinal fractures may transfer necessary, and Lindsay was sent to Brigham. So then, on cross exam, the defense was up. Reddington was ready. And Reddington started essentially by locking down just the basics. South Shore Hospital is a trauma hospital.

And Lindsay's injuries were classified as level one. The doctor agreed. Level one is the highest level, the most serious and the most urgent. Then Reddington tried to pin down how long Lindsay had been at South Shore. And the doctor explained that admission wasn't the right word, because Lindsay was actually never formally admitted. She was treated in the emergency department. She said she should need the chart to give exact times,

but her memory was that Lindsay was there for several hours before the transfer. He asked about the decision to send her to Brigham and asked how she got there, whether it was by helicopter. And the doctor said she didn't know. Med flight can mean helicopter or ambulance, and she didn't recall which one was used. He continued pressing her. And then cross.

got heated. Leave it to Reddington. Take a listen. And the time that she left was after you all had provided the treatment that you were able to provide to Lindsay as a patient, right? Yes. And you reached the end of your rope. She had to be transferred because she needed immediate, high-level medical care, right? She needed higher level of care. Higher level of care. And as a result, she was then brought to Brigham a woman's hospital. Now, the treatment that you had given would include raising her apparently temperature,

I guess, because she came in at a low temperature, right? Yes. And did you use IV fluids? I would have to check the record, but that is a common intervention. So your memory would be that you believe that you used that. IV fluids, but you'd have to have me get out of the box and check the record to ask that question, right? Yes, correct. Okay. It didn't really work out very well, though, did it? Because you know that when she was

brought to Boston after all of the time that she was treated at your hospital, she was still a core temperature of 82 when she hit Brighamow Women's. No, allow it if she knows. I did not look at the medical record from another institution. I only reviewed my note from South Shore Hospital. Did you know that your patient had coded shortly after being brought to Brigham and Women's Hospital? No. Did you know that she had to have massive transfusions right after being brought to the hospital in Boston?

No. Did anybody in South Shore Hospital make a determination that she had lost a lot of blood? The EMS report did not share that there was a large volume of blood at the scene. she was evaluated to part of her cat scans also help us evaluate for intra-abdominal blood loss. Okay. So when you raise the issue of the EMS, that would be the ambulance, right? Yes. And their report, their run sheet, they prepare, right? That's what you're talking about, right?

There's verbal report from EMS when the patient is brought in and also the run sheet of the details. Okay. And when the people from the EMS came in, Did they speak to you about the verbal report? They speak, they addressed the entire room, so all the staff in the room is available to hear the details. And you're able to look at the run sheet, correct? No, the run sheet is not always immediately available. So did the EMTs, to your knowledge, as a treating surgeon, physician, and the trauma center tell you that there was blood loss? Not to my recollection.

Did anyone tell you that at the scene where she was being treated after coming out of the window, and striking the ground that there was blood in the snow and on the leaves and in the grass. I cannot recall if they commented on that. Is that important for you to know if there's blood loss on a patient? If there is a large volume of blood loss, yes, the EMS will routinely comment on a patient being found. That's the EMS. You're the surgeon, right? That is correct, sir, yes.

Yeah, and one of the things would be blood pressure, right, what the person's blood pressure is, correct? Yes. And she had, if I understand your testimony correctly, low blood pressure. She initially, when she came in, the note, has a normal blood pressure, and then after intubation, her blood pressure dropped. Okay. Do you know what caused the blood pressure to drop? There were several factors at play. As we discovered from her CAT scan, she had an injury to her spinal cord in the thoracic region that very commonly causes issues with maintaining your blood pressure. And do you know what her blood pressure was? I mean, if you don't, that's fine. You need the records.

Blood pressure, at which point? At the point I'm asking you about when you noted that she had low blood pressure? No, I don't remember how hypotensive she was, no. As far as being hypotensive, did you know that when she finally hit the Boston hospital, that she had massive transfusion of blood? I thought I asked and answered. Oh, did you? You asked me before, and I answered that no, I did not know that.

Okay. So how about did you know that they introduced plural tubes in both sides of her chest and removed many, many ccs of blood from both the right and left plural cavity? I just object to the line of question. The witness has already indicated she hasn't reviewed those records. She's not aware of what happened at the program to go through each and every injury is not. Oh, she can answer to that? No, I do not know that about the patient when she was not at South Shore Hospital.

How about the superficial cuts? that you were talking about, would you suggest or would you agree that on the right ulnar area and the left ulnar area of the upper extremities right and left, that there were a deep cut noted in the skin? The notes about her wrist injuries said that it was through the skin with exposed fat, but there was no exposed muscle or tendon. So those are more superficial. So you would not agree that there were deep cuts on both arms. You wouldn't agree with that? No, I would not.

And again, you're not aware of anything that was diagnosed in Brigham a woman's hospital, right? That is correct. As far as the injury to her spine, what kind of injury was it? Do you remember? It was at thoracic level T5, T6. And what type of injury was there to the spine? The report said that the stability of this, the pattern of it indicated that there was instability of the spine, which is why we conferred with the neurosurgeon. Right.

Nothing much came out of that either, as far as conferring with the neurosurgeon, right? I'm not sure why you mean by nothing much came about. Well, he didn't show up to come to the hospital, right? We didn't. I'm not sure. Okay, the spine was transected at T5-T-6, right? The person, the team, or rather the input you would need for further commentary on the spine would be a neurosurgery team. I am not a neurosurgeon. I am a general surgeon.

So you're not aware of the transsection. You know what a transsection is, don't you? Yes. Okay. And on your CAT scans or on your pictures that you were describing for the jury with no problem for the DA, did you notice that the spine was transected at T5 and T6? There was compression of the bones. I would have to specifically look at the report to see if it used the word transsection. Okay. How about a thyroid?

Did you notice anything about a thyroid? It said that there was concern, there was edema at the thyroid, concern for contusion or laceration. And that's the extent of your knowledge. You don't know whether or not the thyroid was destroyed or anything, do you? Correct. Okay. How about her ribs? You notice that some of her ribs were broken?

I would have to look at her cat scan report again. Yeah. So coming in here today, you're not aware whether or not she had broken ribs because you haven't been able to look at your records. Is that right? I did review my records. I would have to specifically state into the record what was the injuries. I would be happy to read from my note, which I know is part of the evidence. Yeah. So who is it that decides that a patient is going to be med-flighted into Boston from South Shore Hospital? Some of it depends on the level of injury and the transport teams that are available at that moment. Sometimes a med-flight ambulance is faster. Sometimes med-flight is available. It all depends on the available resources at the time of the event.

So what I asked you is who decides whether or not somebody is getting med-flighted out of South Shore Hospital? It is collaborative between what resources are available for us to transport the patient. The decision to transfer the patient is made between the emergency, C-room team and the trauma team and the input from the subspecialist. Let her finish. Yeah, I know. I didn't know if she was still talking. Go ahead.

I finished, sir. All right. So you as the trauma surgeon, would you agree that you had a little bit to do with whether or not she was in dire straits and had to be med-flighted to Boston? I would be part of the decision to transfer her. Do you remember that decision being made and do you remember the meeting that you had to make that decision? I remember conferring with the emergency room team that neurosurgery had said she needed transfer.

And it was by MedFlight, right? You don't know whether it's an ambulance or a helicopter, but you know it was MedFlight. It should have been MedFlight, yes. Okay. That's all I have. Comalth, any redirect? No, it was very briefly, doctor, it was very clear to you that this patient was suffering for multiple injuries.

Yes. And is it the policy of the Central Hospital to make sure a patient is stable before they transported? Yes, that's correct. And so that's what the emergency team and the entire team that's collaborating on her did, right? Yes, correct. We would not put an unstable patient in any mode of transport to another facility. So in the review of all the CT scans, the abdominal scans, the head scans, the chest, x-rays, all of the things that were reviewed is identified that she was stable enough to the transfer. So I don't object because I think she's a big of costing witness and this is leading, which I haven't objected to yet, but at this point I am on this witness.

I'll allow this question. Sorry, what was your answer? Could you repeat the question, please? So after reviewing all of the imaging, the CT scans, the chest axries, everything, you and your team were comfortable that she was stable enough to be transported to another hospital, correct? Yes. And I think your testimony was that a large contributor to the decision to transport was the information that you got from the neurosurgery team. Yes.

Thank you. Nothing private. Anything on that? Thank you, Dr. So up next was Joseph Rabbit, a Massachusetts state police trooper who now worked in the cybercrime unit. But back in January 2023, he was assigned to the Plymouth County Detective Unit. He had been with the state police since 2012, and it spent years working investigations in that county. Buckingham brought him back to January 24th.

He said, he remember the Duxbury and. investigation clearly. His first stop wasn't the house. He was sent to Beth Israel, Deaconess, and Plymouth, the old Jordan Hospital, because that's where the three children had been taken. And his job was to check on their status and make sure crime scene services documented anything necessary. So while he was at the hospital, he spoke with Patrick Clancy. And after leaving the hospital, he went to Summer Street to help execute the search warrant. He said that when a death investigation is unfolding, everyone gets assigned different tasks. It's all hands on deck. He was not the case officer, but he was part of the team searching the home. They had limited information

at that point, and the warrant was executed shortly after the incident. Rabbit said he was in the kitchen area helping with the search. He recognized the photos shown in court, the kitchen island, the CV bag sitting on that kitchen island. The large paper bag nearby. Inside the CVS bag was a bottle of pedilax. He also searched other parts of the kitchen. He opened an upper cabinet and saw medication bottles that stood out to him, prescription bottles on the top shelf.

He pointed them out, had them documented, and placed them on the island so crime scene services could photograph them. There were four bottles. in that cabinet. He did not inventory them himself. That's handled by the evidence officer. And then Buckingham, who by the way, let's pause really quickly here. Buckingham bow. She did have her bow again. Her bow, I don't know if all of you know, but it is starting to make wide rounds online. There are many opinions growing about the Buckingham bow. And I think it depends on what side you're on. Most people agree that there is purpose to this bow. She mentioned in opening statements

Shannon Buckingham did, prosecutor, the Cora loved hair bows. And the majority of the photos we've seen with Cora actually are her with a sweet bow in her hair. So depending on how you are feeling about this case, those that believe this is a witch hunt with the prosecution and that this Lindsay Clancy is a woman who killed her children in a sort of Andrea Yates' postpartum psychosis are very upset by Shannon Buckingham's choice of wearing a hair bow. Those who believe that Lindsay Clancy did this with intent and malice find the Buckingham bow. A wonderful addition to remembering Cora, the victim in this case. let me know what you think. Additionally, to even confirm that this is for Cora, I would love anybody to find previous cases that Shannon Buckingham has prosecuted and see if a hair bow is a thing she does

all the time or specifically simply for this trial. Anyway, tangent, interesting thoughts about the bow. But Buckingham Bow moved to something that happened. later, February 6, 2023. And Rabbit said that Patrick came to the state police office with his attorney, David Meyer. They brought in a CVS bag containing medication bottles. Rabbit asked crime scene services to come in and digitally document everything. The bag also had a blank reading card, some paperwork in a CVS insert. Rabbit laid out the bottle so they could be photographed. Then he inventoried them. He counted the pills in each bottle. Notice. the fill date and compared the remaining amounts to what should have been there.

He went through each one. Larazepam, one milligram, filled 10, 26, 22, quantity 30, 14 pills left. Certraline filled 9.1522, quantity 30, 23 pills had been left. It's only seven taken. Buesprone, first bottle, filled 10, 26, 22, quantity, 30, 28. left, so just two. Hydroxazine filled 10, 26, 22, quantity 30, 27 left. Klanazepan, filled 1125, 22, quantity 14, 11.5 pills left. Fluoxetine filled 11, 2121, 22, quantity 56, 43 left. Larazepam 0.5 milligram filled 11, 22, 22, quantity 40, 18.5 left.

Busebrone, that second bottle was filled 11922, a second bottle, 30 of 30 left. Trazidone, 1116, 22, 22.5 left. So once he finished counting and documenting everything, he submitted the bottles to evidence. So cross-exam with Kevin Reddington with Rabbit, focused almost entirely actually on the search warrant and the pill bottles. Reddington walked him through the basics to seize anything from someone's house anything you need probable cause you need a list of what you're authorized to take rabbit agreed prescription medication was specifically listed in the warrant redington made the point that the search was not random officers weren't just grabbing whatever they saw they were directed to seize prescription medication and

that's exactly what rabbit did when he found the bottles in the kitchen he asked If Rabbit was in charge of the warrant execution, and Rabbit said no. He asked if Rabbit left the kitchen. Rabbit said, yes, he went to one of the children's bedrooms because someone mentioned a nest camera. Reddington asked if he went anywhere else like the master bedroom, but Rabbit could not recall. And then Reddington asked anybody if they had opened a nightstand drawer and found an apple watch, pills, sleep aids, anything like that. Rabbit said, he didn't know. He had not seen that. Reddington pointed out that Rabbit had to count the pills in the bottles, Patrick later turned in, but nobody had counted the pills in the bottles

seized from the home. Rabbit said he didn't know whether anyone had or had not. Reddington then walked through the prescription dates, noting that many of the medications Rabbit inventoried were filled with a few weeks of each other. Rabbit agreed that whatever dates were on the bottles were when they were prescribed. He ended by asking whether Patrick had been cooperative and Rabbit said he'd only dealt with Patrick at the hospital but Patrick had been forthcoming. The third witness was Maureen Hartnett, a forensic scientist from the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab. So she explained that she locates biological evidence and that she performs

screening tests at crime scenes for things like blood and semen. Buckingham walked her through the work she did in this case. And on January 24th, 2023, she was asked to go out with the crime scene response team, the first place she went with South Shore Hospital, and she made observations of Lindsay. She observed red-brown stains on her hands, but she was not able to observe her entire body

because she was covered with a blanket and medical equipment. Her focus was on her hands because she was looking for potential biological evidence related to the crime scene. At the hospital, she was also aware that Lindsay had been brought in with clothes that had been cut off and bagged. She turned in those clothes to the crime lab. And then next, Buckingham showed her photos from later that night at the Clancy home, specifically in the basement and master bedroom. She confirmed that there they were areas where she had documented and swabbed some stains to turn in for testing. And in the bedroom, she remembered seeing the knife sitting on the nightstand that night, the knife in the photo.

Mark does Exhibit 170 was the same one collected from the house. She also observed some stains on the outside window still outside the master bedroom, but she did not swab that at that time. Same with some stains on the bottom floor window frame. She did collect some more samples from stains in the yard and collected pajamas and a bathrobe from the basement. She later went to the Brigham and Women's Hospital to take further samples from Lindsay, including from under her fingernails. And from there, Buckingham brought her back to June 15th, the day she returned to the home to examine stains on the shingles outside. She said that she had marked the stains and also collected the shingles themselves. Buckingham laid out the bagged pieces one by one.

the shingle was stained D, then stain C, then another was stained D. Hartnett said all three were the same shingles she examined that day. Those pieces were admitted, and she explained that they were taken back to the crime lab for analysis. She also collected swabs from each shingle at the scene before bringing everything in. Buckingham then switched to her other role in the lab, the criminalistics unit. Hartnett said that she handled confirmatory like testing on several items collected from the home on January 24th. She went through the stains they had talked about earlier, stain A on the basement floor, stain B on the bedroom floor, stain D on the bedroom window seal,

and stain F out in the backyard on the snow. And all of those tested positive for blood at the lab. She explained that the screening tests can suggest what a substance might be, but nothing is official until a conformatory test is done, which is part of her job. Then they circled back to the knife. Swabs taken from the blade were tested at the lab, and stain A on that knife was confirmed to be blood. She said that she handled both the screening and the confirmatory testing herself, and then once she confirmed biological material on an item, she prepared it for the DNA unit.

And for swabs she collected, including the ones from the knife, she cut them into portions, signed new item numbers and preserved half for potential DNA testing. The other half stayed stored in case, just in case like future analysis was needed. She explained that DNA testing happens in a different unit of the crime lab and she swabs that the ones that she prepared were sent forward for that work. And then Buckingham Bow moved to the exercise bands, three of them. Very heartbreaking, actually. Because the exercise bands are the murder weapons. So three of these exercise bands, all different colors. Hartnett said she documented each band at the lab and took samples from both ends and the center of each one. The idea was to separate potential contact points who might

have held the ends versus who might have touched the middle. She followed the same approach for all three bands. And the yellow band was item 2-2. She photographed it, swabbed both ends and the center. The black band, item 2-3, was handled the same way. And then the blue band, item 24, again, ends and center. Each photograph shown in court matched the items she worked on in the lab. And after collecting the swabs, she let them air dry, assigned them numbers, and preserved half of each sample for DNA testing. She said she knew those swabs were later sent to the DNA unit for further analysis. When cross-exam, Reddington first asked her when she actually went into the house that night, and she said it was early morning on January 25th. She also mentioned she had someone training under her at the time, shadowing her through the scene.

He walked her through the area she went into the basement first where she took swabs from a stain on the carpet, then upstairs, eventually ending up in the bedroom. Can you imagine, by the way, if you're training a crime scene and this is the crime, just something else to think about. Horific. But she said there were numerous red brown stains on the floor. He pushed a little on whether she saw stains on the bedding, but she wasn't sure and didn't think she documented any. She confirmed the knife on the nightstand was there and that she saw a red-brown stain on the right side of the bedroom window. Reddington pointed out how she had also noticed markings on the shingles directly below that window, right above where the red-brown stains were found in the snow. And then he switched and started talking about her testing methods.

So he asked about ortho-eludine, but she said they don't use that anymore. Now they use Taslemere. and he reminded her that older tests could give false positives from vegetation, chemicals, and even animal feces. He made the point that even with better screening tests, you still need this sort of confirmation test. And he asked what confirmation test she uses now. And she explained it's a human trace test card, kind of like a COVID or pregnancy test. You put the liquid on the card, it runs up and two lines mean positive. And then one line means negative. Let's take a listen. I also had shown you a number of drops that were in the floor between the bed and that mirror, right? You did confirmatory testing on that? I did back at the lab.

I screened it at the scene and then, I'm sorry, confirmed it back at the lab. And that confirmed that it was human blood? It confirmed that it's blood and it indicates human blood. You have to do a precipitant test or something to determine if it's animal blood or human blood, right? So the test card that we use indicates that it is, it confirms that it's blood. It indicates human blood because it may react with primate blood. So it's not specific to human blood. The bottom line is that you as a chemist working for the mass state police investigating this case

are confirming that the stains that are on the floor of the bedroom, all the blood, all those stains are in fact human blood, right? I'm confirming the single stain that I collected from is blood. All right. And when you say the single stain, that would be used the Q-tip and you swab it. And that would be from all of the stains that were all over the place on the floor, right? I did not swab each individual stain. I took a swab from each collection of stains. Okay.

And that was human blood, confirmatory, indicating it was human, right? It was confirmatory for blood and indicated human blood. All right. And then he moved to the full-length mirror, Exhibit 161. we actually heard about this full-length mirror and opening statements by the defense. He pointed out the downward running drops. And she said that she screened one of those stains at the scene, but did not do this sort of confirmatory testing back at the lab.

He tried to get her to say all of the stains in the room were the same consistency. But she didn't go there. She said she didn't make any determination about consistency and didn't conclude they were human blood. She explained she doesn't assume anything. She screens, then confirms. He pointed to a photo showing what looked like insulation or foam near the window. He asked if she saw the red brown stain on it. She did, but she didn't test it, odd. So they don't know if that was blood. He tried to get her to say it was obvious. She didn't

bite. She didn't. She repeated that it appeared to simply be a red brown stain, but she didn't test it. He asked about the timing of the shingle collection, noting that it was five months later. It is interesting. Five months later, they did the testing. She said she didn't know when the decision was made, only that she was asked to go back out on June 15th. He asked if she did that conformatory testing on those shingles. She said, no, only screening tests. The stains had darkened and they were not red-brown anymore, so she didn't want to use up

material on that testing. He also asked if whether it could degrade blood, and she agreed. He asked about a red-brown stain on the bedroom door, and she said she might have noticed it, but did not collect from it. So they don't know if that was blood either. Same with the drops under the doorknop. She did not test those. So redirect was short. Buckingham just wanted to the jury to understand why Hartnett didn't run confirmatory tests on those shingles. Hartnett explained that by the time she went back in June, she could not see the red brown stains. What had been visible back in January now looked darker and faded.

So whatever material was on those shingles had already been limited and this testing would have used up more of it. She said that she didn't think it was in the best interest of the case, especially of DNA testing might be needed later, so she only did a screening test, got a positive result, took a swab, preserved it, no further testing at the lab. Buckingham reminded her that she had seen those same red-brown stains back in January when the shingles were first documented. Hartnett said yes, she had. And then up next was Jonathan of Loughlin, a Massachusetts state police trooper who had been working the crime scene in crime scene service.

the section back in January 2020. He explained that he had been a trooper since 2011. He'd spend a few years in crime scene services before moving to the Logan Airport Barracks in late 2023. He talked a little about the training that goes into that job, reading moxings, fingerprint development, competency testing, all the stuff that gets you cleared to respond to real scenes. And And then he walked the jury through what crime scene services actually does. He said the first thing at every scene is documentation, photos, sometimes videos, sometimes sketches. Then depending on the case, they collect evidence or process items right there.

Fingerprints are a big part of it, developing them, analyzing them, and sometimes doing that work back at the lab instead of on scene. He said they usually respond alongside local departments and the state police detective unit, especially in death investigations. And when they get to a scene, the local police have already secured it. Nobody goes in until crime scene services arrive. They start outside, then move room by room photographing everything exactly as it appears. After that, they go back through and highlight anything that looks relevant. Either thing they notice or things detectives ask them to document. They use numbered placards to mark those items so the photos line up with the evidence later.

He explained that sometimes they photograph things they don't collect, items that might matter to investigators, but they don't need to go to the lab. Those don't get item numbers, just placards in the photos. And then Buckingham brought him to January 24, 2023 the night. He was called to Summer Street. He said the Duxbury Police and State Police had already secured the home. They waited for the search warrant to be signed, photographed it, and then started documenting the scene. He remembered placing eight placards that night marking things like a brown belt, three exercise bands, red pajamas. So heartbreaking.

A pink robe belonging to little Cora. A sweatshirt, a knife with a black handle, and a phone. Buckingham focused on placard seven and eight. Placard seven marked the knife in the upstairs bedroom sitting over a red, brown stain. Placard 8 marked a cell phone. Both photos were admitted. He said several of the placarded items were collected, the three exercise bands, the red pajamas, the silver knife with a black handle. He personally collected the knife. Buckingham asked why crime scene services would collect the knife instead of the forensic scientist. And he explained that fingerprint analysis needed to happen

before any biological testing because fingerprints are extremely fragile. Anything, the forensic scientist does could destroy them. He confirmed the knife shown in court was the one he collected. He also brought the exercise bands back to the lap. He explained how they test items for latent prints since the knife and bands were non-porous. They used super glue fuming, placing the items in a chamber filled with heated super glue fumes and humidity. I found this fascinating. So the fumes adhere to fingerprint residue and make any prints visible. It also hardens and preserves them for further testing. That was incredible to me. I feel like that was like a DIY directions on how to get fingerprints. So you put them in super, you place them in a chamber

filled with heated superglue fumes and humidity. The fumes adhere to. The fumes adhere to to the fingerprint residue, making the prints visible. It also hardens and preserves them for further testing. He talked about all of those things that can affect fingerprints, the texture of an object, obviously, humidity, whether the person had residue on their hand, movement, grip, strength, even wiping, and said it's very common to examine an item and find nothing usable. For the knife, he said there was a small area of friction-rich detail, enough to find. photograph and examine more closely, but not enough to make any comparison. So the knife was deemed no value for fingerprint analysis.

Same with the exercise bands. None of them had enough detail to compare to a known print. Once fingerprint work was done, he repackaged everything and sent it on to the forensic scientists for their testing. Buckingham then showed him a few photos from the basement, a dresser, an open drawer, and an item pulled out. He said the showt us full of the location of a brown journal. We know the brown journal from yesterday. Yes, the brown journal. He didn't collect that item. The state police detective unit collected that brown journal, Lindsay's journal. And then on cross

examination, Reddington was back up. I'm really learning to like crosses. Like I know, like a lot of you have opinions on Kevin Reddington, but one thing he does is deliver. It's interesting. His crosses are getting a little bit more and more heated. So he started by asking how long the training actually was to become a crime scene technician. And O'Loughlin said it took about a year before you're certified in fingerprints, all internal training, no formal schooling for it. Reddington made a little jab about how O'Loughlin had just walked everyone through his training, his experience, the fingerprint process, how items get seized, how friction-rich detail works,

and then pointed out that none of it produced any fingerprints. O'Loughlin agreed they didn't get any fingerprints. And I didn't have schooling for it. Anyway, Ruddington pushed the idea that O'Loughlin could have just said that from the start, take a listen. So you told us about your training, you told us about your experience, you told us about fingerprints, you told us how you seize items in the course of a search, warrant, and then you told us about looking at the photographs that would, and the items that would

depict Friction Ridge, if any. But the bottom line is that you didn't get any fingerprints. Correct. And you could have just said that, right? You just come on the witness stand and say, we didn't get any fingerprints. It's a state. I mean, he had a point. Anyway, he switched back to the search warrant. He asked if officers are supposed to be thorough when they're searching for items. O'Laflund reminded him that he doesn't surge. He documents. Redington gave a hypothetical. He said, okay, so you walk into a bedroom, you find drugs in a nightstand along with blood on top of that nightstand and the knife they'd been talking about. O'Loflin would have photographed it. O'Loflin said, yes. Redington asked

if he ever saw anything like that. O'Loflin said, no. Next up was Hillary Griffiths, another forensic scientist. She worked in the toxicology unit at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab and had been there for more than two decades. She started and DNA then moved through alcohol testing and had been in toxicology since 2011. Boom, boom, boom. So we have a toxicologist. And she explains what the toxicology unit actually does.

And what it does is they test biological samples like blood and urine for drugs, alcohol, and certain poisons. Most of the samples come from hospitals, police departments or the medical examiner's office. She never collects the samples herself. She just receives them and tests what's inside. Buckingham walked her through how the unit operates. Everything is done in batches. Each analysis is assigned specific tests for the month, and any case that needs that test goes to that analyst. A single case might need several different tests, so multiple analysts contribute. And then one analyst reviews all of the raw data

at the end, looks at the police report, the documentation, the results, and writes the final report. Buckingham asked her to explain screening versus this conformatory testing. She says every case gets in a Lisa screen, a quick color test that looks for eight broad drug categories. It's sensitive, but it's not specific. It basically says something might be there. They also run a general unknown screen that looks for hundreds of prescription drugs over-the-counter drugs and drugs of abuse. Depending on the case, they might also screen for alcohol or GHB. Whatever shows up in the screens determines what tests they run next. She explains that some tests only tell you whether a substance is present.

Others can tell you how much is in the blood. There are limits, though. Some drugs cannot be quantified at their lab. And in those cases, they report the substance as detected and send the sample to an outside lab if the concentration is important. Buckingham then brought her to the specific lab number in the case. And I actually wrote the lab number down 23-01-723. Her role was to run the benzodiazepine confirmation on the urine and the benzodiazepine quantitation on the blood.

She explained how that testing works. They use solid phrase extraction to pull the drug out of the biological material, separating them from things like lipids, blood cells, bacteria, anything that could interfere. Then they run the sample on a single. an LCMS, a liquid chromatograph mass spectrometer, which separates the drugs, identifies them, and determines how much is present. So blood concentrations can be reported. Urine concentrations aren't meaningful, so they don't report those. And in this case, the lab receives six vials of blood and one vial of urine. Four blood vials, two serum, plasma vials,

and the urine tube. She said the alisa screen for benzodiazepines on the urine was positive when she ran the confirmation. She detected nordiazepam, oxyapam, and how do we pronounce this, one, Grayson? And I'm going to get it right because these drugs are important in this, in this tamazepan. Is that what I said? Yeah. So I just want to make sure I do get those drug names right, because drugs are actually very important in this case. So, and larazepam. She explained that those substances can be separate drugs, but they can also be metabolites. Diasopam breaks down into nordiazepam and tamazepam.

So detecting those doesn't necessarily mean multiple drugs were taken. It could all come from one. Then she moved to the blood result. She found nordiazepam, oxyapam, am I saying that right? And then tamazepam. And lorazepam. She said her job was to run the test to make sure the controls work, to make sure the instrument was functioning, and determine what was positive.

And after that, she handed the data to another analysis who reviewed everything and wrote the final report. And in this case, that reporting analyst was Nicholas Roberts. She also noted that other forensic scientists tested for other drugs in the same case, but that wasn't part of her batch. All right. So Ben cross-exam once again. So Reddington, he starts by going over the toxicology report dated February 24th, 2020. So this is almost like exactly a month later.

he walks her through the specimens listed on it, the four vials of blood, the two serum plasma tubes and the urine. He asked her to explain the serum plasma whether it was something different or just blood that had been separated. She said the hospital had drawn blood for medical reasons and separated the cells from the liquid portion before it ever reached the lab. So by the time she received it, it was serum plasma, but originally it had been blood. Same idea with the urine. He pointed out the additives listed on the tubes, potassium oxalate, sodium fluoride, and she said those were just anticoagulants to keep the samples stable. Then he moved into the numbers. He had her look at the toxicology blood report and confirmed the concentration she already talked about, the diazepam, the nordiazepam, the oxamapam, and the tamazepam.

and the lorazepam, all listed in nanograms per milliliter. So from there, he shifted to the general unknown screen, the part of the report that listed organic bases and neutrals. He asked what that meant. And she explained that the test separates drugs into ascetic and basic fraction so they can target different types of substances. It's part of the broad screen that looks for hundreds of drugs, the acidic and basic fractions. She said another analysis, Lisa Yell, performed that portion. And he went through each drug detected in the screen. The Maratapine and the Lamo...

Martasapine and Lomotritazine. Matrazic... You know, Grayson comes from a long history of health care workers. So, move your mic over. Okay. He went through each drug detected in that screen. Mertazapine, Lomotrogen, quatyapine, quatapine metabolite, trazidone, trazidone metabolite. I'm really good with the SSRIs and the benzos, which I mean, I don't know, what does that say?

Guess what that means? All right. She explained what a metabolite is. The body breaks down a drug into another molecule. And sometimes the test picks up both the original drug and the breakdown products. So detecting quitoapine and the metabolite simply meant the drug had been taken and processed by the body. He also walked through the list of the things that were not detected, alcohol, cocaine, fentanyl, methamphetamine, opioids. And then he circled back to the benzodiazepines, noting which ones were detected and which ones were.

And then finally, he asked about outside labs, specifically NMS labs in Pennsylvania. She said the toxicology unit does sometimes send samples out when they need concentrations. The state lab can't determine. He asked if Lindsay's blood had been sent there. She said yes. He asked if there were results. And she said she believed so. And then up next is who we just heard about.

Lisa Yao, she took the stand. She currently works for a biotech pharmacy company, but back in January and February of 23, she was still at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab, working in the toxicology unit. She had been there 15 years. Buckingham focused her right into the case, lab number 2301723. She said she did batch work on it specifically the general unknown screen. She explained the test in simple terms. It's a broad drug screen that looks for hundreds of prescription medications and drugs of abuse.

It doesn't give levels or concentrations. It just tells you whether something is detected or not. And she said that she ran that screen on a vial of blood from the case. She checked her notes to be sure and then listed what they found is Lomotrigine, trazidone, trazidone, metabolite,

quatyapine, and the quotapine metabolite. She explained that the general unknown screen only tells you detected or not detected, not the number.

So then Buckingham asked if there were any issues with the controls, and she said no. The only hiccup was a syringe error during the run, and basically a plunger got stuck, which, you know, kind of sounds traumatic. But she explained that the run can last 24 to 48 hours.

So when the error pops up, you just replace the syringe and restart from that point with the control to make sure everything is still functioning. She said that kind of error doesn't affect the results. She also ran the same general unknown screen on the urine sample. The same substances were detected there too. So again, no quantification. just it was detected. Buckingham asked whether she knew the blood had been sent to another lab for further testing. She said she wasn't aware.

She wasn't the reporting analyst. She just did her portion of the testing. And then after she finished, she created a summary sheet for each sample, documented what was detected, and submitted everything for batch review. The second analyst independently reviewed her work. Once both agreed, the paperwork went into the case. case file, then the reporting analyst. In this case, Nicholas Roberts reviewed the entire case and wrote the final report. Buckingham tried to clarify that detecting multiple substances doesn't

necessarily mean multiple drugs were taken. Some could be metabolites of a parent drug. She explained that once you ingest a medication, the body breaks it down and those breakdown products can show up in the screen. But her role was simply to report what was detected nothing more. So, cross-exam, during cross-exam, they're becoming my favorite parts of the day. Reddington started by reminding the court that both sides had already agreed to the toxicology results, the blood, the chain of custody, the testing. And he asked her if everything was done properly. She said, yes, it was a good test. then he circled back to the metabolites again.

He pointed out that even though the report listed multiple substances, that did not automatically mean multiple drugs were taken. It could be one drug breaking down into several different metabolites, right? Or a parent drug. And she agreed. So he used a simple example. Marijuana breaking down into its own metabolites and leaving residue in the blood. And she said, yes, that's how it works.

He asked her about how NMS labs, whether she knew the lab, she said she was familiar with it, but she didn't know what the acronym stood for. And after court, after that court broke for lunch. I think Grayson, I am so sorry, I didn't do another lunch live. We went to, we had to make a run to Duncan. It's where we went. I'm serious. You know, it's an East Coast thing.

We don't go to Duncan a lot back west, but we do back east. So that's where we ate. Took some time off, decompressed, worked on our notes because there was a lot of information clearly. So that's what we did at lunch. Forgive that I did not do another lunch line. But after lunch, Alicia Zimmerman took the stand. And Alicia Zimmerman is another forensic scientist from the Massachusetts state, police crime lab, but her work was different from the toxicologist earlier. She too worked at the

toxicology unit, but her specialty was specifically postmortem toxicology after death. So she explained that in the toxicology unit, everything is done in batches, different analysts handle different parts of the workflow, and some analysts are authorized to issue final reports. She was one of them specifically for post-mortem investigations. She walked the jury through how post-mortem samples get to her. The office of the chief medical examiner sends them to the evidence control unit in Sudbury. They're assigned a lab number and barcode and then transported to the toxicology unit in Maynard. And her unit takes custody, samples the evidence, and assigns testing. She said that postmortem cases are separate from the crime lab's criminal cases. They get their own lab numbers.

They're tracked by the medical examiner's case number two. Samples can include blood, urine, and other fluids. And so in other words, let's be honest, we know what she's talking about now. She's talking about the children. They're postmortem. They're deceased. Lindsay is not. So we know what we're getting to. She explains that the screening tests they run on every postmortem case. that there are three standard screens, a volatile analysis, an eight-panel, Alyssa for commonly abused drugs, and a general unknown screen using gas chromatography, mass spectrometry, spectrometry. Correct me in chat for those of you that are in the toxicology field. If the decedent is 11 or younger, they run additional pediatric.

screens. Another elisa panel in acidic and neutral drug screen and vitriose chemistry. Zimmerman said, if none of those screens detect anything, no further testing is done. The report simply says none detected. Buckingham then moved into the three postmortem toxicology cases involving, yes, the Clancy children, just as suspected, post-mortem testing. I will point out, I'm going to say this, there was a part of me that kind of hoped that the children might have some drugs in their system, meaning maybe they felt a little bit better when things were happening. At the same time, I didn't expect that because of how fast this happened, right?

Patrick was barely home or had barely left and all of this happened. But if you want to know where my brain was, I thought for a second, you know, maybe, maybe something. Zimmerman confirmed she worked all three on all three children from Callan Clancy, eight-month-old Calin lab number 23 to one-for-one. She received his blood from both actually Beth Israel Plymouth and blood from children's hospital and urine from Beth Israel. remember, Callan survived just a little bit longer and he was transported and it was in two hospitals. All screens were run and then nothing detected.

And then for Corrclancy, lab number 2301-875, she received heart blood from the medical examiner. All screens were run, nothing detected. And then for three-year-old Dost. Three old Dawson, who was wearing dinosaur underwear and a t-shirt who had dressed himself for the first time that day. For Dawson Clancy, lab number 2301-874, she received heartblood. All screens were run, nothing detected. She said that because all screens were negative, she issued reports stating none detected. and if anything had been positive, they would have done some more quantitative testing.

Buckingham asked why Callan's samples came from two hospitals, and Zimmerman, of course, explained that when a child is treated in a hospital before death, the medical examiner often sends those hospital samples because they reflect what was in the child system before any medical interventions. That makes sense. That's interesting. She said once her reports were complete, they were sent back to the medical examines. examiner to be included in the final autopsy findings, and there was no cross-exam. So yes, as I said, there was this part of me that thought maybe, just maybe there was something, right, that she gave them to make them feel less panic. Like, you know, she had plenty of Xanax

and Klanazepan. And at the same time, I realized that likely wasn't the case because of how sudden things went. So no, there was nothing. But yeah, I was actually always kind of a hope for months, maybe, just maybe, because we had heard about all the drugs in her house. And then she had crushed up drugs. I thought maybe did she have the children take anything? No. So Sherry Crook was the final witness of the day. Yes, we were on the final witness, and then I'll share some thoughts and look at some of your comments that we've shared and saved. So Sherry Cook is an experienced bloodstain pattern analyst and supervisor in the Crime Scene Response Unit at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab in Lakeville.

She had been at the lab for 26 years and supervising the unit for 18. And as a supervisor, she coordinates forensic responses across the southern region of the state, Plymouth. County, Cape and Islands, Norfolk, Bristol. But she also takes calls statewide. She oversees the forensic scientists who responded to scenes, reviews their reports, and handles sort of this criminalistic work herself. And that includes testing evidence for blood, semen, saliva, hair, fibers, gunshot residue, anything tied to violent crimes or major incidents. So Spray asked her to explain bloodstained pattern analysis. I honestly thought this was one of the most interesting witnesses of the day. And this was the last. So this was about bloodstained pattern

analysis. And do we have some of those photos? Are we going to show some of them? Yeah. So she said it's the examination of bloodstains and patterns to understand how they were created. The size, the shape, the distribution of stains to tell the story of how blood was deposited and how the incident unfolded. She said analysts can often determine directionality by looking for a tail on like the blood spatter. So an extension on an elliptical blood stain that points in the direction the blood was traveling. It makes sense. This is really interesting to me. So she broke down the categories of stains. There's passive stains, there's transfer stains,

and there is dynamic. There are dynamic stains. So passive blood stains are created only by gravity. In other words, drips of blood, flows, pools of blood. Transfer stains happen when a bloody object touches another surface, smears, wipes. You know, swipes. Dynamic stains involve an external force, projected blood, spurts, cast off. She explained each one. So a drip stain is blood falling straight down from a source. A spat her stain, and we often hear about blood spatter. That is created when force sends blood flying through the air and then cast off as a line of stains created when blood flies off a moving object. A transfer stain is blood left behind when a bloody surface touches another.

And then a wipe is something when the blood moves through the blood pool. A swipe is when a bloody object touches a clean surface, a smear is a combination of wipes and swipes with lateral movement. a pool is accumulated liquid blood from a source like an injury seeping into a surface. And then she also explained the term target. The surface, the blood lands on. So she explained how drip patterns form when blood falls into other blood, creating overlapping stains in small secondary droplets. She said that if a person is moving while blood is dripping,

It creates a drip trail. So single drip stains aligned along a path. She describes saturation stains. Saturation stains similar to a pool, but they're on an absorbent surface like a carpet or a mattress. Blood seeps down into the material instead of spreading across a hard surface. She talked about satellite stains. Yeah, I had no idea there were this many type of stains.

satellite stains, tiny droplets that break off when a large drop hits a surface. And she explained flow when enough blood accumulates that gravity pulls it downward, creating a stream. Sprigg asked whether sun stains cannot be classified. Crook said yes, sometimes the size, shape, or distribution does not give enough information. Sometimes the photo quality is too poor. In those cases, they're simply documented as red-brown stains. And then she explained, sorry, I accidentally muted myself, she explained how blood stains are documented at the scenes,

trained forensic scientists, sketch them, measure their height from the floor, place ruler tape next to the individual stains, and photograph everything. from far, medium, and close range. The analysis itself happens back at the lab using those photos. So Sprague then showed her slides that she recognized from her training materials. Examples of drip stains at different angles, spat her stains with elliptical shapes and tails and projected patterns like arterial spurts. She explained each one how the shape changes with angle,

how tails show direction, how these spurts create curving lines on walls and distinct patterns on floors. I'm sitting here learning that blood spatter and blood analysis really is, it's a science, it's an art. And then she moved, I mean, I knew that, but it was quite the education. She then moved, though, into the Clancy case. So education over, now case at hand. She said that she was asked to perform blood stain pattern analysis and use photographs from crime scene services along with Maureen Hartnett's reports. The stains had already been labeled with letters and she kept those labels in her own notes. She started with stain A on the basement carpet.

Her notes showed the photo of her handwritten observations. She determined it was a saturation stain. Blood soaked into a carpet forming a darker central area. Around it were lighter red-brown stains, transfer stains created when something moved across the saturated area. She could not say what caused the transfer, only that movement occurred. Next, she looked at stain B on the master bedroom floor between the mirror and the bed. Her notes showed round circular drip stains, blood falling straight down due to gravity. The overlapping stains formed a drip pattern, blood dripping into blood over time.

She also saw smear stains, lateral movement through some of the drip stains, creating elongated marks. And then she analyzed the mirror itself, that full-length mirror we keep hearing about. The stains there were elliptical with visible flow downward due to gravity. because of the shape, she narrowed the possibilities to either drip stains that fell at an angle or spatter stains created by blood in flight. That's interesting. So it could be blood in flight. She couldn't determine which one definitively, but she limited it to those two categories. She said the stains could have come from someone standing near the mirror with blood dripping or from blood being projected. onto the mirror by movement of a bloody object. Kirk moved on to the next stain, label D, the red-brown mark on the bedroom window seal.

She said she didn't give, it didn't give her much information, but it was irregular in shape, no clear features. So she classified it as a transfer stain, something bloody, touched the window seal and left that mark. She could not say what touched it or how. she then examined the nightstand in the master bedroom. The photos showed the knife and the surrounding areas. She said she identified two types of stains there. The circular spots of the lower portion of the nightstand were drip stains, blood falling straight down due to the gravity. The long linear stain to the right of the knife was a transfer stain. The bloody edge of the

knife had touched the nightstand and left that line. She said the knife had been in that position long enough to leave the stain, and then at some point afterward, it was moved. She could not say whether that was its original location, only that it had been there for a period of time. Next was stain F, the red-brown stain in the snow below the bedroom window, and she said it was diluted, it was irregular, and it did not provide enough information to classify beyond red-brown stain. It was one of those examples where the stain simply did not reveal anything.

She then looked at the stains on the floor at the master bedroom entrance, even though those photos did not have ruler tape, they were clear enough for her to classify them. She said that they were drip stains, circular spots formed by blood falling straight down at a 90 degree angle. Kirk moved to another set of stains on the floor further up along the side of the bed, and she said they were similar to the ones between the bed and the mirror. circular drip stains and a drip pattern where blood had dripped into itself over time. She pointed out the satellite stains, the tiny droplets that break off when a larger drop hits a surface. She said that she could not determine any movement from those stains because they were circular. The only thing she could say was that the stationary blood source had been present long enough to create the drip pattern. She could not determine how long that was.

Sprague then shifted to the exterior of the house. Crook examined the photos of the shingles between the second floor and the first floor windows. She said the red-brown stains there were transfer stains, something bloody touched the shingles and left those marks. She pointed out two distinct areas of staining. In one of them, there was an accumulation of blood forming, a droplet at the bottom of the shingle. She reviewed her notes, the close-up. showed the same transfer stains with arrows pointing to the areas that she had analyzed. She said the stains were consistent with a bloody object contacting the exterior siding.

Sprague then showed her the open second floor window, the red-brown stain on the exterior window sill. We saw this in, we actually saw this in opening statement, but here it is again. Crook said that she examined that too, like the interior window seal stain. It did not give her enough information to classify it beyond a transfer stain. Something with blood on it touched the sill, but she couldn't determine direction, motion, or how it was applied. She said she did not examine the stains on the first floor window sill. And then on cross, Reddington started by confirming her title,

a forensic scientist at the supervisory level. So he asked where Marine Hartnett, who he had heard from earlier, fit into the hierarchy. Crook said Hartnett was also a forensic scientist, one level below her, and train to document bloodstains and perform screening and that confirmation testing. So he pressed that point, he really pressed that point, that Crook relies on other trained professionals at scenes, people like HeartNet and crime scene services to properly document and test substances. She agreed. He emphasized that an analyst don't assume a stain is blood. They call it a red-brown stain until testing confirms it.

Crook agreed and explained that they never classify something as blood until the screening and testing is done, followed by DNA. I've asked. So we asked about the stains on the window. Crook said the interior stain was on the left side of the sill and the exterior stain was on the right. And he asked if she knew whether those stains were tested. She said she didn't know. She only classified them as red-brown stains based on their appearance. So in other words, they are not classified as blood. So he pushed her on inference. suggesting that based in her experience, she would infer they were blood. Kirk said her report states that she does believe that she is examining blood,

but she still labels them red-brown stains until testing confirms it. So he asked about the insulation ball under the window, the orange foam with red-brown staining. She said that she didn't examine that object, only the window-seal stain. And then he moved to the shingles beneath the window. The two red-brown stains, she had classified as transfer stains. He asked if that meant something bloody touched the siding. She said yes. He brought up the stains at the bedroom doorway, the two red-brown marks on the floor.

He said they were never tested. Crook said she didn't know whether they were tested, but she classified them as blood in her analysis. He asked about blood on the doorknob. She said she didn't recall any red-brown stains on the doorknop. Then he returned to the knife. He asked about the linear stain she identified as a transfer from the knife. She confirmed that. He asked whether the circular stains on top of the linear line suggested the knife had been moved or bumped.

She said yes. Either someone knocked into the table or the knife was moved after leaving the original transfer stain. And next he moved to the mirror. He asked whether the stain, she classified. fight is either drip or spatter could be consistent with violent movement, like blood cast off during a throat-cutting motion. Crook said the stains could be consistent with blood in flight or blood falling at an angle by either gravity or force. He asked whether spatter could come from a knife tip, a cut on the hand, or any blood source in motion. She said, yes, any of those

could produce spatter. So in redirect, Buckingham, brought Crook back to the basics of how stains are actually confirmed as blood. Crook explained that at scenes they use the Castle Meyer test, a screening test that tells them a stain is possibly blood, but it does not distinguish human blood from animal blood. She said when the stain is small, they don't want to use up the sample. They sometimes skip that confirmation step and send it straight to DNA testing. DNA will tell them if it's human or whose blood is it. Buckingham then revisited the red-brown stains on the window sill, both sides, inside and out. Defense had suggested they could be from someone

leaning out the window. Crook agreed that was possible. But Buckingham asked if they could also be from someone hanging out of the window, gripping those exact spots. Crook said yes, that was also consistent. Buckingham pushed the point further. She asked whether someone bleeding heavily from their wrist would leave drip stains on the shingles below the window, including the one Crook had described earlier that had droplets forming at the bottom edge. Crook said yes, depending on the amount of blood and where the contact occurred. That's exactly what would be deposited. Then Buckingham asked if someone climbed out the window and scaled down the side of the house, gripping the shingles as they went, would that leave a continuous smear all the way down?

Crook said yes. If their hands or the bloody object made contact with the entire way down, there would be transfer stains running down the siding. And after that, really intense education on blood spatter, blood movement, and then learning about all of the blood in the clancy case, in the bedroom and on the window seal and on the ground and on the house, judge called for recess. So after court was interesting, a lot of the media is kind of circling and trying to process it. A lot of the same media has been sitting in there every day. Amazing journalists, I want to say.

I am so intimidated in there. They are the most incredible journalism. journalists, the New York Times and the Boston Globe and the Daily Mail and some documentary filmmakers and they're all so kind to, and they are so interesting. And it's wonderful to see who is covering this case and why and how they feel it is so important. So there was sort of a group, and forgive me if I forgot someone that, I mean, I met Boston.com. I met many others, too. wonderful local reporters as well. I don't mean to forget anyone. Just incredible reporters in there. Very intimidating, very warm and wonderful. And they were all kind of like discussing like what everybody

was thinking. One person was asking, and don't worry, Dr. John is actually going to talk about this. What's a difference between intrusive thoughts and delusions? And then there's psychosis. And do we feel like the prosecution is proving their point? Do we feel like cross-eastern? exam if the defense is good. What is the prosecution trying to do? How is everyone feeling about it? And everyone is just kind of sitting around media-wise talking about this case, trying to figure it out. And so I'll just tell you my thoughts. Here, I have not been able to stop thinking about my interview with Andrea Yates' attorney. I brought this up yesterday. And one thing he said. And that is that the motive matters, almost also just the kind of getting rid of some certain motives.

And then what are you left with? And I think probably it resonates with me because we're hit into crime. I actually, we always say this. We're not a whodunit channel. We're a why done it channel, right? That's what we're covering this case. We want to understand the why behind this crime. This is clearly not a who done it. case. This is why. This trial is very much about the why. Why did this happen? Again, Lindsay has stipulated to killing her three children. That is not disputed. What's on trial here is the why. And we're hidden true crime. That's what we think about. So the motive is sort of everything, right? I mean, even if it was, was it postpartum psychosis, Andrew Yates 2.0 essentially, was it delusions? Was it severe mental health, but not necessarily psychosis? Was it a mother tired of parenting who regretted having her children and wanted to be done with them? Was it a murder suicide that didn't work?

And, you know, if Patrick had been, I know there's a lot of rumors about Patrick and Lindsay in their relationship, but I'm going to just be honest. If Patrick was cheating on Lindsay, the prosecution would have had that out by now. I mean, that would be like their motive. It would be like, there you go. Well, yeah, it would be a slam dunk. There's your go. There's your motive. She's angry.

You know, she's angry. She wants revenge. If, you know, he had been abusive or there were signs of that. if there was life insurance on the children involved or there were financial gain, so many things. And none of those motives have come up, right? The typical motives. Like in the Cory Richens case, we just covered the motives were just unending, a love affair, financial, lust, like, you know, I call them all the classic 2020 date line motives, you know,

money, power, sex. And you have, I also think about the Susan Smith case, because that's example of a woman who killed her two beautiful children, little boys, because she didn't want to be a mother anymore. And, you know, she wanted a date and she wanted to be done with them. And she was, you know, she's a very hated mother. So where I am with the motive, is there isn't a good one yet.

And I think for me, too, I think this is interesting with the prosecution. I'm trying to think like the prosecution. So if the prosecution was trying to paint a motive, I told this to Grayson, the motive, I feel like that would be the most compelling for me that I would think maybe this wasn't postpartum psychosis or mental health, meaning like convince me prosecution that this isn't mental health. That's what I'm saying. So what could change, you know, my belief?

And I think that maybe a murder self-harm, we try to say self-harm instead of, you know what, because of you two. But a murder-self-harm sort of situation would make sense because, you know, she doesn't want to be a mother. And she did absolutely try to harm herself. And it just simply didn't work. So it was a murder-self-harm gone wrong. because it didn't work for her. She wanted to die and she didn't. That could be something I think I could be persuaded by,

but it doesn't make sense to me, motive-wise, what the prosecution is trying to say right now for me. And that is that essentially she was tired being a mother. It was too hard. She was overwhelmed. She was having some mental health struggles. she wanted to be done so thus she killed her children and then pretended what they're kind of implying here is that she pretended to sort of self-harm that she didn't really want to die

she just sort of pretended to to get away with it and that just doesn't make any sense to me because if this is a Susan Smith sort of a motive and I do want to explore that that case a little bit more as we cover Lindsay Clancy because I think a lot of people, including the prosecution, are comparing it to that type of case. So Susan Smith. Then, you know, Susan Smith wanted to connect to men who didn't want children. And it just doesn't make sense. My point is she wrote in her journal, I want to connect with Pat again. Pat's not going to want Lindsay Clancy if she chooses to kill their children their dearly love. And so, survives like a fake self-harm event, which is what the prosecution is, I think, trying to

paint motive-wise. Like, it makes no sense to me. What would she gain from that? Like, it would end in divorce. It just, it just, it makes no sense. It makes no sense that this would be fake. So for me, the prosecution, for me personally, is not enticing me or convincing me with this idea that Lindsay chose to no longer want children and then faked sort of this self-harm event. Because I think that's where they're going. It's not working for me. I'd be curious. your opinions. That's where I am now. And so for me, I don't understand. I did not experience, well, I did experience postpartum anxiety, but not like a severe postpartum depression. I have not experienced psychosis. So I can't try to pretend to understand. I'm listening to the medical

professionals and I'm listening to women who in postpartum had these experiences. I do want Dr. John to come on and explain to us a difference between delusions and intrusive thoughts and psychosis. I think that's going to be a really important episode. But where I am is, I guess right now I'm still just that the prosecution hasn't convinced me with anything really powerful. They could change my mind. They could bring more. They could bring more and more evidence, and I'm listening, and I'm listening to it. But right now, nothing that they have brought me tells me, aha, this was done with malice because she was done with having kids, and this was plotted and planned to kind of pretend

to hurt herself with some superficial wounds and drag herself down the window sill and drop lightly below so she can stay alive. That's where I am. Those are my thoughts. Convinced me otherwise. But when I'm thinking about what Andrea Yates' attorney said, that it has to be the motive. Eliminate the other motives. What's the why? And there's no powerful motive for me right now beyond severe emotional mental health issues for why she would do this. Now, if the prosecution shares a motive in their witnesses that make more sense, I will listen. That's where I am right now.

There you go. So, yeah, I'm looking at all your comments. And like I said, and I always say it, change my mind. You know, Grayson mentioned this on WebSus the other day. I'll say it. Last year, I gave a speech at a conference called Thrive. And it was essentially that certainty is more dangerous than doubt. So in other words, don't doubt your doubts, embrace your doubts, sort of doubt your certainty. That was kind of what I talked about. In other words, I think certainty and things, strong certainty in things when we're not willing to change your mind can lead to some harmful things. They can even lead to people committing crime, you know, if you're so certain about something. And so I always try to question my certainty. I'm remaining open.

I'm remaining open to the evidence. I am listening. But that is where I am right now. I see no solid motive besides mental health right now. And God bless everyone that misses Cora, Dawson, and Callan, and they are the victims in this case. As is Patrick, as are all of the people, though, that love those little kids. It is very, very sad. I don't know how I feel about, if Buckingham is wearing a bow for Cora, I don't know how I feel about that, especially if Patrick supports Lindsay.

Right. But I don't know. All right. So I also just want to say thank you to those that have supported us here following this trial. It has meant a lot. A lot of you guys have reached out. A lot of you have shown your support and your kindness. Yeah. It just means a lot. This has been a commitment. This has been a hard trial to cover. It's an important one, and I just want to say thank you for all of your kind comments that you guys have been sharing publicly and privately and your sincere support. Truly, thank you. So I just want to say that too. Go ahead, Grayson. Do you want to, yeah, do you want to just get on all mute and then you can get on? No, I just have like a couple of thoughts. Read the bow.

I don't know if it's for Cora or not. but I will say the opening statements and how they've painted the children is not much painted the children, but you know, the characteristics of the children is not much difference in their obituaries. I've talked about this with a friend too. And like the family didn't want this prosecution to happen. They've made that clear. So I don't think the family is sitting here being like, let let's tell you about our children to the prosecution and giving them all these characteristics. So I think the prosecution really kind of just went off the obituaries when it comes to the characteristics of the children. Yeah, it was in the obituary.

That's what I like, that's interesting. They didn't have very much difference from the obituaries. I don't think this family is willingly going to sit there and tell them all about these children so they can go try this case. They don't want it. That's true. They're not. You're right. They're not going to share everything about their beloved children with them.

So that is even more interesting. They're just getting that from public. Public document. Public documents in obituary. Yeah. That says she loved hair bulbs. Yeah. So if she's wearing it based off that, I'm not a fan of that.

The other thing I was thinking about is, you know, there's been so much talk about this. Was it self-harm? Was it? Was she faking it? Was she not? And I was actually talking to you about it. I was like, well, the whole, how she landed on the ground is telling of itself. Because if she was hanging and she fell, she's not going to be hanging backwards off the

window. She'd be hanging, you know, face toward the window, which would mean she'd fall and her feet would be at the house, head the other way. That's not how it happened. No, her head was a... Her head was towards the house. And her feet were away. In other words, it felt like it was a flip, like a dive. Exactly. And she's not going to do a 180 when she goes out. That's just not going to happen. So I do think it was more of a dive out, which would be consistent with an actual attempt. I also just think the act of crushing up so many medications itself and taking them. We still don't even know exactly all of them. We kind of do, but like not, you know, in that exact moment, what was taken in that exact moment. And that alone is the act of somebody

who doesn't care if they're here or not anymore, who doesn't want to be here. Yeah. So I don't know. That's my thoughts on it. I think it's definitely a real attempt. And I don't think it was because she thought nobody could take care of her children better than her. Right. I think it was, there's no reasonable answer anymore other than like pure psychotic break in my brain.

But they could change my mind. Yeah. someone mentioned that they heard that she went she dove that is actually how there are no cameras right so nobody can know but i do think that during opening statements the defense made some compelling arguments that she landed head first because it was the same type of injury one would get if they dive into a um swimming pool i don't you know fully understand that i'm not um in medicine but there you go right trace in the case like that's a compelling motive for me in her mind she's protecting her children from a life without her that's a compelling more compelling motive for me than what the prosecution is presenting which is that she wasn't even trying to harm herself fully i think i've covered everything i want to share tonight i did i know that people ask my opinions that's where I am. So I'm following this long with all of you. That is where I am. It's just so sad. Lindsay's

parents continue to sit there every day. As does a family friend of Patrick and Lindsay, as does quite a few media that are dedicated, one person writing a book. Yeah. So there you go. This is truly the saddest case I've ever seen. You know, and yeah, it has intrigued me. I know, like I said, I've kind of dug deep into the Andrea Yates case. I'm going to maybe dig a little bit deeper into the Susan Smith case and revisit that one a little bit too, because clearly that's kind of the prosecution's angle, right? So I think that the defense angle is this is Andrea Yates.

The prosecution is suggesting this is Susan Smith, I think. So maybe we'll talk about this this weekend too. So stay tuned. We haven't confirmed. Yeah, we need to confirm. But there might be some overlapping witnesses in this case that there were in the Yates case. So, oh my gosh, we just got a Dunkin' Donuts fan, a Duncan Donuts budget. So thank you.

Yeah. You know what? I'm getting it. like East Coast Dunkins are like 10 times better than West Coast. West Coast, like they have like five. They don't even have cruellers in my neighborhood, Duncan. So they have all these good donuts. But they've got avocado toast now.

Duncan has come a long ways. So thank you, Caroline. We appreciate it. Where did the priest go? The priest wasn't there today. He hasn't been there since the first. He hasn't been there since the first week. He'll probably be back, probably attending other affairs, but we'll be back. So, and I'm sure that the first week was very, very hard.

I'm sure that he will likely be back when they are needed. So, all right, everyone, we'll continue covering this. Share with your friends that we're doing this. Anyone's interested? Oh, podcast. We do have a podcast exclusive episode. The video is on Spotify, right? You can the video on Spotify or you can listen on Amazon or Apple or wherever you listen to podcast, but we do have a sort of everything you need to know about the recent updates in the Brian Coburger case. So we're making that a podcast exclusive. Check it out. We go deep and there is some new evidence. And so anyone that was following that case, Brian Coburger, he won't go away. He won't go away.

So, and you know, in some ways, I want him to go away. So this is going to be a podcast exclusive, but it is very important information. So we're sharing that with you. He did his first interview, really, with the New York Times. So there you know. That too. Head over to our podcast. All right.

Thank you, everyone. Have a great evening. And we'll see you guys tomorrow. And I will try doing some lunch lives once again. Forgive me. Yeah. So thank you, everyone. We'll see you.

Bye-bye.