Hidden True Crime - Inside the Courtroom: Psychiatrists Testify. Lindsay's Journals Tell Their Own Story | Clancy Day 5

Episode Date: August 4, 2026

Day 5 of the Lindsay Clancy murder trial delivered some of the most emotional and closely watched testimony yet. Reporting inside the courtroom, Lauren Matthias takes you through the powerful testimony from psychiatrists, emergency physicians, ICU nurses, investigators, and Massachusetts State Police as the jury heard evidence surrounding Lindsay Clancy's mental state, medical treatment, and the investigation. The courtroom also heard deeply personal entries from Lindsay's private journals, offering an intimate look into her struggles in the months before the deaths of her three children, Cora, Dawson, and Callan. Was this evidence of postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis, overwhelming anxiety, or something else entirely? 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 been a lot of one. It's a lot of 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, betting, 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 qI nc e dot com slash hidden true crime hello hidden gems day five of the Lindsay Clancy trial I was once again in the courtroom for the day still here new week Monday prosecution still going a lot of witnesses today

And I just want to ask actually at the end of all of this what you think. There have been some interesting opinions, prosecutors' podcast saying that it was not a good day for the defense, that it was a good day for the prosecution. A lot of people saying the same things. Other people are saying, I think that Reddington did an excellent job on cross-exam. So let me know what you think at the end of all of this as we go through. everything. Also, we got through a lot of interesting things. We heard from the first psychiatrist, mental health experts who treated Lindsay Clancy. We heard about her journals leading

up to this. Her journals were read in court. Part of the search warrant. Journals were collected, read today. There's a lot to get through. So, thank you for being. with us today. And I also just want to point out, the sugar-free cereal thinks Reddington was on fire today. I actually agree with that. There were some really fiery cross-exams and some really, really interesting witnesses who are some more willing to answer the defense and others not so willing. It was interesting. All right. So the first witness of the day was Dr. Michael Snyder. He's been at Beth Israel for about 12 years, working primarily in the emergency department. Buckingham.

Yes, Shannon Buckingham defend, sorry, not defend the Commonwealth, the prosecution, Shannon Buckingham. She was back with her infamous Buckingham Bow, which a lot of people are actually now discussing, not just me. A lot of people are noticing it feeling like she is wearing it daily for a point because little Cora Clancy loved hair bows. And she actually mentioned that in her opening statements. And the photos that they have shown of Cora have all been with bows. Whether or not that's true, she could also just like her Buckingham bow. I don't know. But it was back today, her Buckingham bow.

And she quickly brought it back, of course, to that terrible day on January 24, 24, 23. Buckingham asked about that day. And he remembered working that night and being notified that multiple pediatric traumas were on their way in. He explained how those alerts come through. EMS calls ahead gives whatever information they can and the ER starts preparing. When the ambulances arrived, there were three children. Dr. Snyder was specifically assigned to Cora, the five-year-old. Before she even got there, he had already learned that all three children were in cardiac arrest and that Cora was still receiving CPR and pediatric advanced life support. He actually said that they had been giving her epinephrine, the main medication used during cardiac arrest, and they had already shocked her heart twice with a defibrillation. They were still doing CPR as they rolled in. He said that information was important knowing how long that she would have been without a pulse, how long she had been breathing, had not been breathing, what had already been tried.

It helped him anticipate what he might be able to reverse and what damage might be already be done, what might be too late. So when court arrived, he and his team immediately took over care. he said she was not breathing on her own. Her heart was not beating. Her skin had a blue tint, meaning there had been a lack of oxygen. He noticed bruising on her neck and around her eyes, tiny spots of bleeding under her skin. He saw a small amount of blood coming from her nose. Her hands were blue as well. He checked her eyes. Her pupils were fixed and enlarged. She explained the epinephrine can dilate pupils, but so can brain injury. When the brain stops functioning normally, the pupils lose the ability to constrict. Cora had not been intubated in the ambulance, so they attempted

to intubate her in the ER. An anesthesiologist was already in the room because of the multiple pediatric traumas coming in. He said neck injuries can complicate intubation because you normally need to tilt the head to get a clear view, but when there's concern for spinal injury, you stabilize the neck and lose that ability. Still, they were able to get the breathing tube in and manually ventilate her. They performed a cardiac assessment, listening for a heartbeat, checking for a pulse, and using ultrasounds to look directly at heart function. He knew that she'd already been shocked twice in the ambulance. He explained that defibrillation is used when the heart is in a rhythm where it cannot pump blood, quivering instead of beating. They continued medications.

They continued CPR. They consulted with intensive care physicians at Boston Children's, who were already preparing to receive the children if they survived long enough to be transferred. He said that Beth Israel could stabilize pediatric trauma patients, but they could not provide the specialized ongoing care. So the plan was always to transfer if possible. At this, point, they noticed that as the doctor was speaking about Cora's condition, Lindsay had her eyes closed and seemed to be whispering to herself. Take a listen. Once a breathing tube was put in, were you and your team able to manually give breath to Cora? Yes. Now, did you then perform an assessment, a cardiac assessment of her? Yeah. So in addition to listening to the heart feeling for a pulse,

will also tend to use an ultrasound machine in the room where we can get a direct view of heart function. And you were aware that they had defibrillated her twice in the ambulance. Why is that significant when you're treating a patient that's in cardiac arrest? So when they defibrillate a patient, it's typically the heart's in or might be in a rhythm where it can't pump blood so it might be sort of out of sync or quivering. where we may attempt to use electricity to kind of shock it back into a rhythm. Once you performed the ultrasound, the cardiac ultrasound, were there any attempts made further to use a defibrillator? No.

Throughout your course of treatment with her, did you continue with various medications? Yes. And was CPR ongoing throughout your entire time with her? Yes. Were you consulting with any other colleagues or any other? hospitals in regards to the care of Cora. Yeah, so we actually had, in addition to all my colleagues in the emergency room, we had intensive care physicians from children that were on the phone with us, kind of working

through any things that may have come up in the case, also expecting that they would be receiving the patients from us. Is your hospital at the Beth Israel equipped to handle this type of pediatric trauma? So we can do the initial stabilization. but then we need to ship the patients out to either get a specialty care or continued inpatient care. And how long did efforts in treating Cora continue? So in the emergency room, roughly 30 minutes. And fair to say that all of the efforts that you made were not successful.

Correct. And at approximately 17, excuse me, 1928 or 7. 28, did you finally declare Cora deceased? Yes. Thank you. There was no cross-examination. And next, the Commonwealth called Dr. Andrew Caprero. He worked as an attending physician in the emergency department at Boston Children's Hospital.

He explained that his job basically means guiding the care of whatever patients came in during his shift. He always stationed in the emergency department, which is split into zones. and he oversees one of those areas. Sprague walked him back to January 24, 2023. He said he had been working that night. And at some point, he learned that a little boy named Callan Clancy was being flown in from Beth Israel Plymouth. The hospital's communication center had reached out to him with the detail so that he could prepare.

What he was told was devastating, that Callan was believed to have been strangled, that he had arrived at Plymouth in cardiac arrest, that they had intubated him, started CPR, gotten his pulse back, and were sending him to Boston Children's for further care. When Callan arrived, Dr. Caparro saw him himself. He said that Callan was cold, limp, and not making any purposeful movements. His pupils were fixed and dilated, which he explained was medically significant because it usually meant, the brain had suffered such severe swelling that it was pushing downward, essentially herniating. He also saw linear marks around Callan's neck and swelling in that area.

Callan's heart was beating, but they had to keep him on an effenephyne drip to maintain his blood pressure. He said that had already been started at the first hospital because Callan's blood pressure was low, and low blood pressure meant his organs wouldn't get the blood flow they needed. As for breathing, Callan had been intubated and needed the ventilator to breathe for him. Every once in a while, he'd trigger a breath on his own, but it was rare. The ventilator was doing almost all of the work. And once they stabilized him enough to run tests, they did blood work, a head CT, a neck CT, and chest X-ray. The head CT showed significant brain swelling consistent with an injury, a hypoxic injury,

meaning the brain had not gotten enough oxygen or blood flow, and because of that, it was damaged in swelling. He said that type of injury could absolutely be caused by strangulation. The marks on Kellyn's neck were consistent with strangulation by an object because of the straight linear bruising. After reviewing the scans, they had to decide whether surgery could help. Neurosurgery came down, but there was no bleeding to evacuate and nothing surgical that would fix what they were seeing. And so the next step was transferring Callin to the ICU for continued care. Once he was moved, Dr. Capraer's role ended.

Up next was Dr. David Kassavant, and he'd been at Boston Children's for 18 years, always in the ICU. Sprague asked him about January 26th, 2023, the day he took over Callan's care, so two days after the incident. And by incident, I mean, the tragedy. So on January 26, 2023, he takes over Callan's care. Before he even stepped into the room, he talked with a colleague who handled Callan the day before and reviewed all of the scans and reports. And by the time he saw Callan himself, he already knew that the situation was dire. He said the head CT showed enormous swelling, the kind of swelling you see when the brain has been deprived of oxygen. He explained it the way he usually did for families, that mild oxygen loss is like a sunburn where swelling built slowly.

But what Callan had was more like a touching a hot stove. It was immediate. It was severe. profound and seeing the level of swelling so early told him that Callan had suffered a very significant lack of oxygen. When he examined Callan, the first thing he noticed was the breathing tube. Callan wasn't sedated, which normally would be unbearable. He said that no one could tolerate a tube through their vocal cords without sedation. The fact that Callan wasn't reacting to it, it told him that Callan was not feeling that pain. He went through the steps he always used to check responsiveness. He talked to Callan but got nothing. He rubbed the bottom of his foot, rubbed his feet, nothing. He used more painful stimuli like pinching the nail bed, still nothing. All of this

told him that Callan was completely unresponsive to discomfort and pain. And then he checked Callan's pupils. He shined a light and saw that they stayed wide open. He explained that the eyes are basically an extension of the brain and when the pupils don't constrict, it's a sign of serious brain injury. He made clear that this wasn't for medication or trauma. It was from the lack of oxygen and blood flow. Because of all of this, the neurology team had already been involved. in cases like this, when a patient shows no response, they begin brain death testing. He explained how someone's heart can still be even if their brain is no longer functioning, that the automatic part of the nervous system can keep the heart going as long as the head itself isn't injured. That

told him the injury was in a part of a brain responsible for consciousness, the part that made Callan who he was. While the brain stem was still doing the bare minimum, he, he was. He, he was, he was, walk through the brain death testing, checking reflexes like blinking, coughing, gagging, even putting cold water in the ear to see if the eyes move. Callan had no response to any of it. And then came the apnea test, disconnecting the ventilator to see if the brain would trigger a breath as carbon dioxide rose. And on the first day, the CO2 level rose to just 59.7, which is just shy of the required 60. He said that he didn't want even a fraction of doubt.

So he repeated the test later that day. The second time the level rose to 87. The next day, they repeated everything again. Same results. No responses. CO2 rising. No attempt to breathe. Then he explained what happened next.

Take a listen. No question about the data that we were gathering at the time. And you said that this testing is again repeated 24 hours later, correct? Yes, it is. Why is that? Well, that's just to make sure that if there were any lingering effects of medications, if there was anything that else might have changed in the patient's level of alertness or level of response to make sure that it still meets all those requirements 24 hours later.

And is it because you want to be sure that there's brain death before you remove life support? Yes. And again, it's too important, it's too important a discussion and a gathering of data to not be very exact about it. And so when you did observe the testing and the following day on Callan were the results the same in terms of no reaction and the carbon dioxide increasing? Yes, they are. And at that point in time, did he meet brain death criteria? Yeah, he did. He met, so we had determined that it was, that he had met death by neurologic criteria. And at that point in time, was a decision made to stop life support?

Yes, yes, it was. And that's done in consultation with the family, his father, correct? Yes, that's true. Okay. And was life support ended for Cowan Clans? on January 27, 2023. It was. And one of the things is there's, there's, when you determine that someone has met criteria for

neurologic brain death, that, although we know that their brain is not functioning at that point, we, there's often a period of time where we don't have to remove, his heart is still beating. So we don't have to remove the endotracheal tube at that time. and we often will give families once it's been confirmed that the brain is no longer functioning. We often give families a period of time to able to process it and a window of time. Sometimes there's relatives who will need to travel and things like that. And so we'll often then choose a time later on to accommodate the rest of life,

knowing that they're stable at the time to when we would actually remove. the tube and that would be the the declaration of death. No cross-examination either, but just wait for it. Little cross-examination at the beginning. Fire to recross soon. Later, stay with me. The third witness of the day was Dr. Kelly McDonough, an emergency medicine physician for South Shore Hospital. She's gotten the nickname Doctor Don't Recall online and you'll see why. She was a really interesting witness. Yeah. In fact, I'm going to be honest. We'll go over it, but I will share some opinions. I've never, at one point I did, I was on X and I was like, wow, like I've never seen someone just sort of, I don't recall, I don't remember as much as her.

But not for the prosecution, just the defense. Buckingham brought her straight to January 24th, 2023. and Bo. She said, this doctor, that she had been working that night when she was told a trauma patient was coming in and that trauma patient was Lindsay Clancy. All she knew at first was that Lindsay had fallen from a window and that this was being treated as a trauma one response, which is the most serious level. She explained that trauma one meant gathering the full team, emergency physician, anesthesia, trauma surgeons, sometimes neurosurgery, plus nurses, and texts. She said EMS had told them Lindsay was found outside her home unresponsive and that there was concern for a spinal injury. Lindsay had reportedly been moving her arms and head,

but not her legs. So when Lindsay arrived, they went through the standard trauma assessment, airway, breathing, circulation, then the secondary survey. Lindsay was breathing on her own first, but they eventually intubated her for airway protection because they were worried she might have a head injury and could deteriorate. So Dr. McDonough, she said that she did not see any obvious signs of head trauma, no bleeding, no lacerations, nothing that jumped out. She did see superficial cuts on Lindsay's neck and wrist, and that's how she described them, superficial cuts. Lindsay came in on a backboard with a sea collar and they briefly loosened it to check her neck before putting it back on. The photos shown in court matched what she remembered small cuts on the neck

and one on the wrist, one deeper cut on the front side, but still not something she considered an emergency. She said she didn't see any arterial bleeding, nothing bright red, nothing that needed immediate intervention. She said the focus was the possibility of a head injury or spinal cord injury. A trauma surgeon was present, but she said there was no neurosurgeon there that day. They ordered CT scans of Lindsay's entire body, head, neck, chest, abdomen, pelvis. She explained how blood is drawn automatically on arrival and sent through a pneumatic tube system to the lab and how doctors then enter orders electronically. So when Buckingham asked about the head CTs, this is. This is.

is where Dr. Mick don't recall nickname. It started to make sense. She kept saying she didn't remember. She kept saying she didn't recall. So Buckingham showed her the reports to jog her memory. The head CT without contrast was normal. The head CT with contrast also normal. No school fractures, no bleeding, no aneurysm, no malformation. She agreed. The report basically said that the study was unremarkable. She remembered that Lindsay did have a thoracic spine injury and the chest CT reflected that. So after reviewing everything, the team decided that Lindsay's injuries were too severe for South Shore and that she needed to be transferred to another care center. They stabilized her first, which she said was standard before transport. She was not aware of any surgical intervention being done before Lindsay left.

So then Bucking and Bow circle back to the wrist and neck injuries, asking her to explain the difference between the arterial and venous bleeding. And she said that the venous bleeding is slower and darker. Arterial bleeding is bright red. She said neither was happening here. Nothing needed to be controlled to prevent bleeding out. They also talked about Lindsay's body temperature. which had dropped to around 82 degrees.

I was surprised you hear that. That is a low temperature, 82 degrees. So Dr. McDonough said that she did not recall whether that was noted on arrival or developed later. They used a warming blanket called a bear hugger. She didn't know what caused the hypothermia and didn't remember whether her temperature returned to normal before transport. She said Lindsay stayed in the emergency department for about four hours before being sent to Brigham and Women's. She didn't recall any active bleeding from the neck or wrist wounds after that initial assessment. She did not see any cuts or blood on Lindsay's head, and the head CTs

showed no injury. During cross-examination, Reddington was intense. And honestly, this was where Dr. McDonnell's lack of recall really started to stand out. You cannot ignore it any longer. She said, I don't recall so many times I lost count. Listen to this. So would you agree with me that when Lindsay was brought into the social hospital that she was unconscious? I recall her eyes being open, but she was non-verbal. Okay. So as an experienced emergency room doctor, can you tell me when someone's unconscious, what is that, what are the symptomology of it?

What does that mean? usually means they're completely unresponsive with eyes closed. Okay. Was she responsive? Not verbally. Was she responsive at all? She was responsive to pain. So that means that you would do something to cause pain, perhaps the bottom of the foot or whatever it is, to see if they have a reaction?

Correct. And would you agree with me that when people even have very, very serious brain injuries, that they can respond? on to pain, stimulate? Sometimes. Sometimes. So her eyes were open. Were her pupils equal and reactive to light? I don't recall.

You don't recall. What does it mean with P-E-R-L, pupils equal reactive to light? What does that mean? Exactly what you just said. It means her pupils are equal and reactive to light. And as a doctor, what does that tell you? It tells me that there's no significant neurologic injury.

And in this case, you don't recall if her pupils were equal or reactive to light? I don't. Okay. And that's when you take the little flashlight sometimes and you put it over the eye and see if there's constriction of the pupil. Correct. Did you do additional evaluations of her to see what her neurological function was? She was pretty quickly intubated from what I recall, so after that it would be difficult. to assess her neurologically.

Sure. Was she on any pain medication, if you remember? I don't remember. You recall, did she have difficulty being intubated? I mean, would you agree with me that if you're not under some type of medication or sedation or unconscious, it hurts to be intubated, doesn't it? We wouldn't intubate somebody without first giving them some induction medicines. Okay.

So what would the induction medicines be? They're not universal. Well, what are the induction medicines that you used on Lindsay Clancy? I don't know. I'd have to refer to my record. And also, I wasn't the one who did the intubation. So she was intubated, had the tube coming out of her mouth. She's laying on the table, and you are continuing an assessment. You were the lead doctor in the emergency route for Lindsay Clancy, right? I wouldn't say I was the lead. I think the trauma surgeon and I work together. Right.

Her temperature, her core body temperature, is 82 degrees. Is that right? If that's what the record states, then yes. I'm sorry? If that's what her medical record states, then yes. As you sit here, you don't know what her core body temperature was? I saw her three years ago. I see about 200 patients. I'm sure you're very busy, but this is a murder trial, doctor. Did you review your records and your notes?

I'm happy to look at my record if you bring it here. Did you review your records and notes before you came in here today to testify on this case? Sorry, I did, but I don't. have a photographic memory. Did she regain consciousness at all while she was in your emergency room? No. Can you tell me what CF, CSF is? Cerebrospinal fluid? Yeah. So what that is? Cs. It could be. I'm not sure in what context you're referring to it. Well, how about if there's a massive leakage of CSF from her nose? What does that tell you as a doctor? It could mean that there's a skull fracture. Did you notice any clear fluid coming from her nose? I did not. Is that something

you would look for? Yes. How quickly do you get the results of the x-rays when you're in the emergency room? Well, these were CT scans, but fairly quickly in a trauma. I'm sorry, CT scans, x-rays. So you had CT scans that were able to show you the damage to her neck in upper chest. Is that right? Yes. And what did those CT scans show you? Well, what I remember is a thoracic spine injury. And when you say a thoracic spine injury, would you agree that the tough part of your neck,

your throat area would be cervical, right? Correct. And that's when the numbers go C1, two, or whatever they are. That would be the actual vertebrae in the cervical area of the upper body, correct? Yes, the cervical spine. Okay. And then below the cervical spine would be the thoracic spine. Is that correct?

Correct. And the thoracic spine would be, and sometimes they're delineated as T1, T2, meaning thoracic one, thoracic two, all the way down to what, five or six? Twelve. I'm sorry? 12. 12. So when you looked at it, and the lower portion would be the lumbar.

Is that right? Now, when you looked at the CAT scans, did you determine the extent of the injury to the spinal cord? I could determine the extent of the injury to the bony thoracic spine. Okay. What was that? I don't recall exactly the level. I would have to look at the report. What does that mean?

The level of the T? Correct. Was her sereneal? cervical spine injured? I don't recall. I'd have to look at the report. Were you aware that the thyroid was crushed? I don't recall.

Do you know that her cervical spine vertebrae was fractured destroyed? I don't recall. Doesn't that control a person's breathing? Does that have anything to do with breathing? It can. What do you remember about looking at the damage to the spinal cord depicted?

on the CAT scan. What sticks out most in my mind is for thoracic injury. Okay. And what was the thoracic injury? I don't recall the exact level. What does it mean by effect level? The exact level. I'm sorry.

Were you aware that there was a complete transsection of the spinal cord on T5 and T6? I'm sure I was aware at the time, yes. Okay. And just can you tell me what does it mean when it says a complete transsection of the spinal court at a particular, apparently that would be at thoracic five and thoracic six, right? Mm-hmm. What does that mean with a complete transsection? It means the bones are no longer one on top of the other there, moved apart.

Were you aware that there was a significant edema noted in her chest? If that's what the report says. Okay, and what is edema? Swelling. And does it also refer it to fluid? It can. Did it refer to fluid in this case? I'm not sure I would have to read the report.

So in addition to the edema that was noted, was there edema noted around C7, T1, T2, T3, to T4? Again, I would have to have the report in front of me. When you noted her base temperature as being 82 degrees, what does that tell you as a doctor? It means that her body temperature is lower than normal. And what is normal? 98.6.

And if a person goes from 98.6 to 82 degrees before you place her in the bear hugger, what does that tell you? Does that affect the body at all? Yes, the body works ideally at 98.6. So anything outside of that range, not ideal. To what effect? As a doctor, what effect, if any, on the body if a person has an 82 degrees base temperature? The list of things that could go awry is quite long.

Can you give me an idea? Maybe the top three? She could have a metabolic derangement. What's a metabolic derangement? Meaning her body wouldn't be processing things the way that it was before. Her cells are not working the way that they should because it's too cold. Would you agree with me that when you were looking at the injuries to the wrist, And to the both wrists, actually, you noted that lacerations in the voler aspect of the wrist?

Yes. What is a voler? What does that mean? It's the anterior aspect of the interior? Okay, thank you. Would you agree that on both wrists there was deep laceration? I wouldn't characterize them as deep. You would not?

And when you made reference to her being transferred to a tertiary care center, what does that mean? It means that it's a hospital that has more services and specialized care than we do at our hospital. Now, when she was at the South Shore Hospital, counsel asked you about whether or not you noted any injuries to her head. You did not notice any bleeding or scrapes or bruises of that nature, right? Not that I recall. Did you notice any injuries to her lower body, her legs, her feet, let's say the feet, her robotics? I don't recall.

At any time while she was at South Shore Hospital, did she have a cardiac arrest? Not that I recall. Do you know she had a cardiac arrest when brought to the Boston Hospital? Did not know that. How about blood? Was there any blood transfusion at South Shore Hospital Medical Center? I don't recall. Are you aware that she had a massive transfusion of a hospital?

blood once she hit Brigham a woman's? No. What does that tell you? Massive transfusion of blood. What does that mean? I couldn't comment on why they gave it to her. Were the police in the hospital when she was there with you? I don't recall.

Was she chained to the bed by handcuffs? I don't recall. Go ahead. I don't recall. So Buckingham, after all of those I don't recalls, came back for redirect. And she hands Dr. McDonough her notes and lets her look through them. So after reviewing, Dr. McDonough said Lindsay's pupils were normal, nothing that suggested head injury or herniation. She confirmed Lindsay moved her arms in response to painful stimuli.

She said that she didn't see any mention of CSF leakage in her notes or the CT results. she reminded everyone that as an ER doctor, she was not treating the spinal injuries. Her job was to assess, stabilize, and transfer. She reiterated that the wrist injuries were superficial because she did not see muscle, tendon, or active bleeding. And she explained that patients with spinal injuries are often kept from moving, sometimes with soft restraints. And that wrapped up her testimony. But next, Buckingham called Sergeant Rose Stoffers. And she said that she had worked in the state police crime scene services section, the unit that documents crime scenes with photos and videos and processes evidence either on scene or back at the lab. In 2023,

she was working out of the Lakeville office, which meant she responded to a lot of Plymouth County cases. She remembered being called to South Shore Hospital on January 24th. She got there around 8.35 p.m. and met Trooper Lawler from the Plymouth Detective Unit, along with forensic scientist Marine Hartnett. Stoffers explained that the forensic scientists were civilians who handled biological testing, things the troopers didn't do. They often worked side by side at serious scenes, and this was one of those nights. Her instructions were to document. Lindsay Clancy and any injuries she had and photographed the areas heartnet swabbed. She went into one of the trauma rooms in the emergency department and saw Lindsay there.

Lindsay was covered in blankets and heating devices with a neck collar on. Stauffer said that she couldn't see much at first, just Lindsay's face and the neck brace because everything else was under the blanket. She took an overall photo first showing Lindsay wrapped up in the warming blanket and then she needed to document Lindsay's arms. But when she tried to pull out Lindsay's right arm, Lindsay resisted pulling back and fighting against her a little. Stoffers had to get help from the nurses to get the arm out from under the blanket. She said the room was very hot. The blanket was being used to raise Lindsay's body temperature. Remember her body temperature was really down. And once they

got her arms out, Stoffer saw red-brown staining on Lindsay's hand. and gauze wrapped around her wrists. She asked the nurses to remove the gauze so she could photograph whatever was underneath. She documented both hands, both sides, the wrist area, her face and her neck once the nurses opened the neck brace. She also photographed Lindsay's personal belongings, the clothing that had been cut off her and the two rings that she had with her. Buckingham asked her about how cases were tracked in the crime lab.

She explained that every case had a lab number that followed all of the evidence, reports, custody logs, everything stayed connected under that number. And then Buckingham moved her to the second time she was called out under the same lab number, February 6th. She said she went to the Plymouth Detective Unit office in Brockton and met Trooper Rabbit. He asked her to photograph a bag of medication and some documents inside it. Cross was quick. Ruddington asked if she had gone into the house with Trooper Rabbit under a search warrant. She said, no, she never went into the house at all. The bag was already at the detective unit when she arrived.

That was it. No redirect. And then Judge Sullivan called for recess. After that, the next witness was a trauma surgical ICU nurse from Brigham and Women's, Rochelle Amadee. And she said that Lindsay came up from the east. went to MRI, then was brought straight to her in the ICU on January 24th. Lindsay was intubated when she arrived and the nurse was assigned as her one-to-one,

meaning Lindsay could not be left alone because she was considered a risk for self-harm. So someone had to be stationed outside her room at all times. That first night was rough. Amity said Lindsay coated around 3.30 in the morning. her blood pressure dropped so low it wasn't compatible with life. They started CPR right there in the room. She said they increased Lindsay's pressers, adding two more placed chest tubes and started a massive blood transfusion protocol. All of it happened in that same trauma ICU room.

She remembered two police officers standing outside the door the entire time. And during that first night, Lindsay wasn't responsive at all. She was intubated and sedated, which Amity explained was normal. Sedation keeps patients from fighting the ventilator and keeps them comfortable. Sedation makes them calmer, basically asleep. Amity treated Lindsay. Again on January 26th, Lindsay was still intubated and sedated then. But she was arousable, right?

So Amity said that she could follow simple commands, squeezing her hand, moving her fingers, turning her head. Lindsay had a spinal injury so she did not move her lower extremities, but she did move her arms and head. She also treated Lindsay on the overnight shift of January 28th, and at that point, Lindsay was still intubated. And they used a whiteboard to communicate. Amity said Lindsay wrote on it that her eyes were open. She was responsive and she told the nurse she was confused and could not feel her lower extremities. Omidy didn't remember whether Lindsay complained of pain. During that shift, Lindsay was placed in soft restraints.

Amity explained that all intubated patients were restrained for safety so that they did not pull out any tubes or any lines, hence being restrained. She described the restraints as cushioned wraps tied to the sides of the bed. And by the end of that shift, Lindsay, Amidi said that they removed the tube and they were stopping sedation. So once Lindsay's tubes were removed, Omidy could assess her more clearly. She said Lindsay's presentation did not change. She was flat, no emotion either way. She was alert and oriented, but her effects stayed the same. Amity treated her again on January 30th. Lindsay was still flat, still cooperative, still following directions. Sleep had become an issue. So the plan was to

start one sleep medication, wait a couple of hours, see if it worked. and if not try another. This went on for a few days. On February 2nd, Omni worked another overnight shift with Lindsay. She remembered that night because Lindsay asked for something she hadn't asked for before. She wanted to reach out to her lawyer. Omidy documented it because this was the first time Lindsay referenced anything related to a case. She said that she put in a consult to the social worker so they could coordinate contacting a lawyer. Amri said Lindsay was not allowed visitors, which she'd been told on the first night. She said that's common when police are involved, right? She remembered troopers coming in to take photographs of Lindsay's injuries and was in the room

while they did that. Her contact with Lindsay ended on February 3rd when Lindsay was transferred out of the trauma surgical ICU. She said she was not the only night nurse who treated Lindsay, on her off nights. Another nurse covered her. During the day, Lindsay was usually assigned to Megan Collins. With the law enforcement presence and the nature of the case, the staff was kept limited, the same people over and over. During Cross, Reddington walked Nurse Amity back through the timeline making sure the jury heard exactly when Lindsay arrived in what shape she was in. He confirmed that she got to the ICU around three in the morning, coming from MRI, and that was. was already bleeding into the early hours of January 25th. He went over the whiteboard again, making sure that the jury understood Lindsay

first used it on January 28 and she could stay and be restrained. And then he moved to February 2nd. The night Lindsay asked to reach out to her lawyer. He asked whether she knew who the lawyer was. She did not. She had not seen him, didn't know his name, and didn't know if Lindsay had ever spoken to him. All she knew was that Lindsay had asked, that's it.

And she sent a consult to the social worker. From there, he shifted into the medical records. He had them in front of him and walked her through each piece. He confirmed she was there when Lindsay went into cardiac arrest shortly after arriving. He asked her to explain CPR, chest compressions, oxygen already being delivered through the tube. He confirmed that bilateral chest tubes were placed, puncturing, into the lungs and that each tube drained 100 to 300 cc's of blood. He went through the massive transfusion protocol, rapid infusion of blood products.

He asked about the clear fluid that came from Lindsay's nose when they turned her. Amri said that there was suspicion it was CSF, spinal fluid. He kept going page by page, acute blood loss anemia, multiple transfusions. Omni then said she didn't know. the full extent of Lindsay's injuries at first, but learned later. He asked about the burst fracture at C1. He asked about the transsection at T5 and T6. She said that meant severed. He asked about the rib fractures. Amity confirmed those two. He asked about shock. He asked about whether she knew Lindsay had postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis listed in her history. And what did she say?

She said yes, yes to that. He asked whether she knew Lindsay was transferred from South Shore Hospital. She did. He pointed to a note from January 25th, 9 in the morning, saying the patient was under arrest and had police officers at her bedside. Amity clarified that in her experience, the officers were outside the room, but she wasn't there during the day. He asked whether there was a difference between officers and the bedside versus outside. the room, she said yes. And so let's watch the rest of this cross together. And there's a difference from you guys as far as your medical records. If the police officer is at the bedside as opposed to sitting in a chair in the hallway outside the room. Yes. So indicating police officer at her bedside, we will involve social work and legal teams, right? Yes. Okay. And again, on page 72, there's a reference to CSF leak, and that's a significant amount of fluid coming from her nose. Do you have any memory of observing that in your treatment? I did.

Okay. And then, of course, there was the code event that you've already described for us. There's the 100 to 300 ccs of blood coming from the tubes. then it makes reference to on page 74 it's a massive transfusion protocol. Is that like a medical term or is that somebody describing it? It's a medical, it's a protocol that we have at the hospital. Okay. And on page 75, did you make reference to or did you observe the injuries, for example, to her wrist?

I observed. Yes. And would you agree with me? page 75 of the medical record, indicating if it says RUE, what does RUE mean, do you know? Oh, right upper extremity. Right upper extremity. 3.5 centimeter deep laceration, voler aspect of wrist. Tell me, what is the voler aspect of the wrist?

I just don't know. I'm not sure what that's referring to. That's fine. Would you agree that there was noted a 3.5. five centimeter deep laceration on her wrist? I can't say exciting measure. This is somebody else's note. Well, when you looked at her, did you

observe with your own eyes and your own experience that she had a deep laceration on the? She had a laceration, yes. You can't say it's deep or not? I can't say. I didn't. You want to say it was superficial? I can't say that either.

So when you looked at the laceration on her wrist, you can't tell us if you would agree that it was a deep laceration? I really didn't get to assess it at the time when she arrived. L-U-E underneath that, left upper extremity, apparently, right? Yes. Two-centimeter deep laceration, again, on the bowler aspect of the wrist. You did see laceration on the left wrist?

Yeah, she had dressings. Okay. And when she was admitted, she had the core temperature of 82 degrees. Is that correct? If that's what's noted. All right. Do you remember, did they use a bear claw or something like that? What is it they call it?

A bear hugger. Yeah, they put a bear hugger blanket on them. And when I say them, I mean people that have a low temperature to warm them up. Hopefully raises the temp, right? And then if it has warm intravenous IVF, that would be putting warm saline in the body? Yes, through an IV. All with an effort to try to get the temperature up, right? And her core temperature was 82 degrees even after she was at the South Shore Hospital and underneath the bear thing and all that.

That's what's noted. Again, that's not my note. That's pretty low, isn't it? It is. And you made reference to pressors. I'm sorry. Pressors, blood pressure medication to bring up the blood pressure. Okay.

On January 26th, she was still intubated. Is that right? Yes. And she was under sedation, right? Yes. And then you referenced January 29th, January 28th overnight shift, she was still intubated, right? Yes. And January 28th is when she first started utilizing the whiteboard.

Is that correct? Yes. But she was intubated, yes? Yes. She was restrained to the bed. Yes. and had the tube was still in her mouth and she was writing on a whiteboard on the 28th of January, correct? She was able to, yes.

January 30th, she was exubated as the district attorney asked. You right? Yes. So at that point, was she able to talk, like, you know, talk? Talk. Okay. And then on February 2nd is when she asked about wanting to reach out to her attorney. attorney. Is that correct? Yes. But you had no knowledge as to her mother and father getting an

attorney for her while she was in custody with the police all around her? No. Okay. And you try to help her out as best you could. Yeah, to coordinate. It's harder at night to, you know, so I wanted to pass it on. And finally, she was not able to have visitors per order of the police. Is that correct? Correct. Thank you very much, man. Thank you. All right. Well, direct was short. Buckingham essentially went right back to like the two things she wanted the jury to hear clearly, the timing of the whiteboard and the timing of the lawyer request. She confirmed again that the first time Lindsay used the whiteboard with her was January 28th. So first time,

remember, it happened January 24th. This is four days later, January 28th, using the whiteboard. And Omidy, was not aware whether Lindsay had used it with other nurses and other shifts, and she confirmed that February 2nd was the first time Lindsay mentioned a lawyer to her. So Buckingham then cleaned up the medical sequence. She walked Omidy through the order of Lindsay's arrival at the Brigham ER, first, then MRI, then the trauma surgery ICU. She confirmed Lindsay had other imaging, including CT scans, and that the head CTs did not show any intracranial injuries.

Amity said her focus was not on Lindsay's head. It was on keeping her stable, managing her cardiac issues, and dealing with the internal bleeding in her chest. Buckingham asked about Dr. Anderson, one of the trauma surgeons. Amity said that she knew he was treating Lindsay and giving orders. Buckingham asked whether she knew he documented that Lindsay had postpartum mood symptoms, not psychosis. Amity said that she didn't remember and would need to look at the notes. She reminded

everyone that she wasn't the one taking the full history. So Buckingham asked whether she knew psychiatry had evaluated Lindsay. She did, whether she knew they identified uncertainty in her diagnosis. She didn't remember. So then Buckingham circles back to the wrist and neck lacerations. Amity said she didn't have to change bandages except for the first night, but they never got to it because Lindsay coded. Buckingham asked whether she knew a physician assistant treated the lacerations the next day and she said yes. And whether she knew Dr. Anderson documented the lacerations were very superficial and did not require treatment. She said she didn't remember the note, but she agreed that if it was in his record, that was his assessment

and he never instructed her to do anything further with those injuries. That was the end of redirect. And then Redington stood up again for a couple more questions. He went back to the psychiatric evaluation. He asked whether Amadie knew when psychiatry evaluated Lindsay. She didn't. She said it happened during the day, but she didn't know which day. He pointed out that he had shown her the record referencing postpartum depression,

and postpartum psychosis. Omidy confirmed that, yes, she saw that in the documentation. Up next was Megan Collins. She said that she had been an ICU nurse for over a decade and had spent the last eight years at Brigham and Women's. And in January, 2023, she was working the trauma surgical ICU on the day shift, seven in the morning to seven at night. She said Lindsay arrived at the hospital the evening before,

but didn't come straight to the ICU. Like most patients, she went through the emergency department first, then imaging finally up to their unit. And by the time Collins met her, Lindsay had already been through the night shift and had already coated. Colin said she took over for Rochelle Omidy that morning. And she was told that Lindsay had coded overnight and had been unstable. So one of the first things they did was sent her for more CT imaging.

Lindsay was intubated when Collins came in and she stayed sedated for most of that first day. Colin said that was intentional. Lindsay was critical and they needed her calm. They needed her comfortable so she wouldn't fight the breathing tube. She said Lindsay was on a one-to-one because of her condition. Collins stayed with her the entire shift. Police officers were outside the room the whole time. Colin said that she noticed injuries right away, the neck and wrist injuries.

they were visible. She recognized the photos, Buckingham showed her, the marks on Lindsay's neck. She said they required dressing changes, but they weren't the main focus. Lindsay had far more serious injuries, spinal injuries, chest trauma, respiratory issues. Those were the things they were fighting to stabilize. She treated Lindsay again on January 26th. She remembered noting that Lindsay needed additional sedation because she was not tolerating the tube. Take a lesson. Do you recall making notes that the patient required additional sedation due to the tube intolerance? Yes.

Okay. And that she was started on low dose of propofal? That is correct. And that in the afternoon that she had the chest tubes and you kind of checked those chest tubes to, it says interval CXR looked okay with chest tubes to water seal. Yes, that's correct. And so she had previously been given chest tubes and your role was just to kind of make sure that everything was fine. They placed bilateral chest tubes and monitoring those is a part of my responsibilities in the ICU. And we were concerned for her respiratory status.

So that is why I made a note of it. Okay. And as far as the injuries that were a part of your assessment of her, fair to say, on January 29th, you also were treating her that day from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and you made a note where you identified injuries, right? Correct. And those injuries would have been things that were reported to you based on doctors review of labs and images and that kind of thing, correct? Yes. You don't make your own assessment about thoracic injuries or cervical injuries.

I do not diagnose. Also on the 29th or the 28th into the 29th, that is at that point when the patient was extubated, correct? Correct. Do you recall making observations of the patient after she was extubated? She was not extubated on my shift. I was there the following day. Okay. Did you note how her demeanor, her presentation the next day? I did. And fair to say, you noted increased confusion, agitation, and picking at lines and drains, correct?

That's correct. And fair to say the patient had to be restrained because of the activity. That is correct. Is that something that you often see when patients come out of extubate? intubation that when they're exubated that they exhibit signs of confusion or delirium? Yes, it's called ICU delirium. And over the course of the next few days in your interactions with her, did you see that delirium decline or decrease? Yes, it was a multi-modal approach to manage the delirium agitation.

and it did get better and it did improve. And fair to say, during the time that you were treating this particular patient, there was also sleep issues that were part of the treatment plan. That is correct. And on January 29th and January 30th of 2023, were you present when the psych consult team came in to speak with the defendant? Yes, I was. What was the purpose of you being present? The purpose is we had consulted the psychiatry team to evaluate and determine capacity.

And my role is the, as the ICU nurse, is advocacy on behalf of the patient and to alert the providers if there's any changes in the mental status. Now, when they came in and you said advocate for their position, you're aware that the patient was looking to change her health care proxy, correct? The patient was changing her health care proxy. That is correct. And that there has to be an evaluation to determine whether she's of a particular mental status and medically able to make that decision on her own. Is that fair to say?

Yes. And do you recall who was present other than your son? and the psych doctors from the psychiatric unit? There was the social worker, myself, and her lawyer was present. Had you been present when a lawyer or somebody else was with her prior to this consult? No. And fair to say, you were made aware very early on that there was a particular group of people that would be having access to this individual, correct?

Can you clarify? Well, is it fair to say that the treatment team was kept small on purpose? And the same people were coming in and being the nurse day and night staff, there was limited access. Is that fair to say? It was kept to a, yes, it was kept to a smaller team, but that was also protection of privacy for the patient. And during the course of time when she's on the ICU, which is between the 24th to February 3rd, there's always law enforcement posted outside the room, correct?

Yes, and it was because she was. Well, I'm just asking you if there were law enforcement. There was. Do you recall having to check with the nursing director and the legal team at the hospital to make sure that it was permissible to allow anyone in besides medical staff? Yes, that's standard protocol. So Reddington started across by confirming her experience 11 years as a nurse. He pointed out that she clearly took her real seriously and saw herself as someone who protected her patients and she agreed.

He asked about the health care proxy. She said that Lindsay was changing it from her husband to her parents. This was interesting. Then he asked her was a DNR. What is a DNR? It's first what he asked. It's a do not resuscitate. She said it meant, do not resuscitate. Essentially means when somebody's on hospice, do not resuscitate. So he asked whether she knew Lindsay's code status. Colin said Lindsay was full code when she treated her, meaning she was to be resuscitated if anything happened to her. He asked whether she knew that Lindsay had repeatedly said that she wanted a DNR, meaning do not resuscitate her if something happens.

Colin said that she was not aware of that. She had not been privy to those conversations. He said that it was noted in the medical record, and she agreed that if it was in the record, that's where it would be. And then up next was Dr. Sejell Shaw. She said that she was a psychiatrist at Brigham and Women's and had been there for 19 years. I was looking forward to hearing from this psychiatrist. She led the consultation liaison psychiatry service, the team that gets called when

medical doctors need psychiatric input for their hospitalized patients. So Sprague is questioning her. And Sprague asks her about January 29th, 2023, the first day that she met Lindsay. So this was the 29th. So let's do the math. Let's see if I can math my math here. It was the 24th, 25th, 26, or 7, 28th, so five days after the horrific day. And the first day that she met Lindsay, she said that her team had been following Lindsay for a few reasons.

Lindsay had come in after reporting a self-harm attempt. So they were assessing her psychiatric safety, making sure that she was safe in the hospital. They were also advising on medications. And on the 29th, they were asked a new question whether Lindsay had the capacity to change her health care proxy from her husband to her parents. And when you consult to help determine whether someone's capable of making a decision like that, changing their health care proxy, are you evaluating their medical decision-making capacity? That's correct.

How do you go about doing that? So there's generally four parts to medical decision-making capacity. The first is whether somebody's able to voice a choice. and whether that choice is consistent over time. The second is whether they understand the situation under which they're making that choice. The third part is appreciation of the risks and benefits. And the fourth part is kind of being able to reason or rationalize that information to be able to come to a choice and how they came to that choice.

Now, if you're doing this evaluation to determine someone's capacity to make decisions, Would a traumatic brain injury factor into that evaluation? It could. When you evaluated Lindsay Clancy, was she able to voice a choice to you about who she wanted to be her healthcare proxy? Yes. And is she speaking to you or writing this down? She's speaking.

So she's already been extubated at that point. That's correct. And she's speaking to you, and were you aware that Patrick Clancy was her health care proxy? I was told that by her primary medical team. And when you talked to Ms. Clancy, did she tell you who she wanted to take over that role? She did. And who was that? Both her parents. And you talked about that needing to be a consistent choice. How did you ensure that was a consistent choice with her? Yeah. So we waited to make the change from Patrick Clancy to her parents

until the next day for a variety of reasons. We wanted to ensure that that choice was consistent over time, and especially because the day that I saw her, she had just gone through some pretty major medical events, including she had a major spine surgery, a decompression and a fusion. She had gone through some oxygen desaturations overnight, so was not breathing as well. Her heart rate was up, all of which then led to her being what we call delirious. She was confused overnight to the point where she asked her nurse, am I delirious? And she was also experiencing some visual hallucinations. So that was one of the reasons why I was called in to make sure that she was able to make that decision to change her health care proxy.

And then in addition, the team had also voiced concerns that she had come in after a reported suicide attempt. And so making sure that she was able to make that decision of sound mind. And so we actually waited until the next day when she could be reassessed. At that point, her delirium had cleared, and she was continuing to make that consistent choice to change her health care proxy to her parents. And in fact, you noted in the medical records that the hallucinations were part of an issue with oxygen? It could be. That could be one of the reasons. Delirium is usually due to a variety of different medical reasons, and oxygen desaturation could be one of them. She had also just recently had anesthesia related to a surgery that she had on her spine, so that could be another reason.

And then her heart rate was also actually quite elevated, so that could be another reason. Is it common for patients who are just coming off of anesthesia from surgery who have an issue with oxygen and other medical issues that you described to have visual hallucinations? They can. It's not that everybody does, but they can. and delirium can be quite common after surgery and particularly anesthesia. And those hallucinations that she was having, those were resolved by the next day. They were over by the next day, correct?

That's correct. And her choice to change her health care proxy to her parents was consistent the following day, correct? That's right. You also talked about the patient has to understand the risks and benefits of the decision, correct? That's correct. How do you make sure the patient understands that? Yeah, so one of the things we do is really ask patients to take us through their thought process of why they're making that decision and what led to them making that decision at that moment

and time. So we're able to kind of see their thought process and ensure that they're understanding, you know, what it means to remove one person and add another. And what was Ms. Clancy's thought process in explaining that to you? Yeah, she was saying that her parents are quite supportive to her and that she was thinking that she would have to change her health care proxy from her husband to somebody else. And we didn't necessarily go into the reasons as to, you know, why she would have to change it. But she explained that she was very close with her parents. They would see each other frequently, given that they lived

in close geographic proximity and that she felt that they were very supportive to her and would have her best interests in mind should we need to invoke the health care proxy or that she couldn't be, if she couldn't make her own medical decisions. So was there a concern on her part that her husband and wouldn't have her best interest in mind at that point in time? Sistine. You also talked about the patient, you have to make sure the patient's thinking about the information rationally. How do you go about doing that?

Yeah, so one of the things we do is really ensure that the patient understands the situation and all of the kind of parts around it. So this comes into play much more when it's about a specific medical intervention, like an invasive medical procedure, something like an amputation or a surgery. With a health care proxy, one of the things you want to make sure is that the person that they want to change their health care proxy to or appoint, does their health care proxy make sense in the context of their life? And, you know, Ms. Clancy was able to talk about how her parents were quite involved in her

life. And so that's one of the things that we would assess. And then the last thing was making sure the patient understands the risk if the change doesn't happen. Did you go over that with Ms. Clancy and how did you do that? Yeah, I did go over that with her. We talked a little bit about how it could mean that she would not have a health care proxy. Were she not to appoint her parents? And so we went through that, you know, it's always in health care. We always talk about how it's great to have a health care proxy just in case you become unable to make medical decisions and who would you want that to be. And during this conversation

with the defendant going over all these points, did you ever have difficulty understanding? her. I did not. Did she? So Sprague then asked whether Lindsay ever had trouble understanding her. Dr. Shaw said that that first day, January 29th, Lindsay told her she felt confused and Dr. Shaw saw it too. She said she did a bedside cognitive evaluation and Lindsay made mistakes. So she diagnosed her with delirium. But when she saw Lindsay the next day, the delirium, it was gone. Lindsay understood everything, and there were no issues with comprehension. Sprague asked whether Dr. Shaw knew Lindsay didn't have a brain injury. Dr. Shaw explained that she looked at the medical information available, including Lindsay's Glasgow Coma scale score when she was transferred to the Brigham. It was a 10, which can indicate a moderate brain injury. She said she didn't specifically focus on whether Lindsay had a brain injury, but she did review the head injury.

Imaging. Sprigg pointed her to the cat scans. They showed no acute intercranial findings. Dr. Shaw said she reviewed the imaging and confirmed that you can have a normal cat scan and still have a brain injury. Sprigg asked whether she knew Lindsay had multiple cat scans at both hospitals showing no school fractures, no bleeding, no visible damage. Dr. Shaw said yes. She also knew Lindsay had no external head injuries. Spray asked, change her health care proxy. Dr. Shaw said yes. Spray asked whether someone with a brain injury so severe they couldn't process information would be allowed to make that kind of decision. Well, Dr. Shaw explained that it depends on the extent most patients with head injuries or severe mental illness still retain the ability to make most medical decisions. She said changing a health care proxy was considered low risk, not like consenting to a major

surgery or say like an amputation. And Lindsay's choice made sense in the context of her life, right? Sprig asked when Lindsay's Glasgow score was 10. Dr. Shaw said it was during the transfer from the outside hospital. She confirmed Lindsay was unconscious then, not speaking, not opening her eyes. But when Dr. Shaw saw her days later, Lindsay was awake, communicating responsive. So yes, her Glasgow score would have been higher at that point. So Sprague walks through the mental status exam, Dr. Shaw performed. She confirmed Lindsay's mood was listed as okay. Her thought process was organizing goal directed. Lindsay denied hallucinations or delusions aside from the ones she had overnight after surgery. She denied suicidal intent and homicidal intent. Dr. Shaw listed her insight and judgment as fair.

Lindsay was calm and cooperative. Dr. Shaw said she didn't see anything suggesting Lindsay was responding to voices or hallucinations during the evaluation. Interesting. She explained again that she had spoken with the nurse beforehand and knew Lindsay had reported visual hallucinations overnight, but not during the evaluation. Sprigg moved to February 19th. Dr. Shaw said she saw Lindsay again to prepare her for transfer to Spalding rehab and to continue evaluating her psychiatric safety and medications. Lindsay denied suicidal intent, denied homicidal intent, denied hallucinations. She said her mood was okay and she was looking forward to moving to Spalding. She denied confusion or disorientation. Dr. Shaw described her as future-oriented. Interesting. Sprig asked about February 21st and Dr. Shaw said that she saw Lindsay again on February 21st.

Lindsay said she felt down about her paralysis and the events leading up to the hospitalization. But her thoughts about what she had done, they were not constant throughout the day. She denied suicidal intent, denied homicidal intent, denied hallucinations, denied paranoid ideation. Dr. Shaw noted that Lindsay had a low mood in the context of her physical and legal situation, but did not meet criteria for major depressive episode. Lindsay was still hopeful about moving to Spalding. Sprague asked about February 22nd, the last visit Dr. Shaw said Lindsay was hopeful about treatment at Spalding,

future-oriented and again denied suicidal ideation, denied homicidal ideation, auditory hallucinations, visual hallucinations, all of it denied. So on Cross, Cross, exam, Reddington, Kevin Reddington, asks whether in Dr. Shaw's experience, Lindsay had been truthful about her symptoms. And Dr. Shaw, well, she said yes. Take a listen. Yes. In other words, she didn't go off and try to exaggerate to you and say I'm seeing visions and I'm hearing voices and I'm suicidally ideated and I'm homicidely ideated. She didn't see any of those things to you, did she? No. She actually denied them, right? Correct. So this is not, in your opinion, someone who was

trying to exaggerate her conditions for some legal reason, correct? No. And you obviously were in close contact with her for about a month, right? That's right. Just a couple of questions. counsel asked you whether or not, and I think it may have been in the beginning in January, that you had difficulty understanding her, obviously, after removing the tubes and everything else. You're able to talk with her, correct? Correct. And you knew that one of the concerns, if you will, was postpartum issues. You knew that, right?

Yes. And in your experience as a psychiatrist, you're familiar with the concept of postpartum psychosis, Correct? Yes. And you know that people can communicate and plan and act on plans, even if they're in the middle of a psychosis, right? Yes. You don't have to be drooling and stumbling and unable to walk and talk to be in a psychosis, do you? Yeah. So in other words, a person can be in a psychosis and can communicate to friends, family, people, talk, correct? He asked whether Lindsay appeared cooperative when Dr. Shaw interacted with her. She said, yes.

And then he shifted to bipolar disorder. He asked whether she was familiar with it. She said, yes, he asked her to explain it. And she described bipolar disorder as a mood disorder with depressive episodes and either hypomanic or manic episodes, decreased need for sleep, racing thoughts, impulsiveness, irritability, feeling out of control, and in severe cases, psychosis. I honestly thought that sounded a lot like Lindsay's.

symptoms. He asked her to explain hypomania. She said it was a lesser degree of mania without psychosis, but with raising thoughts, irritability, moving too quickly, talking too quickly, he asked whether hypomania could look like someone waking up earlier to exercise, cleaning obsessively, selling things, having trouble sleeping, staying awake all night. She said yes. And then he moved to medications. He asked whether she was concerned about what Lindsay had on board when she first came in. She said yes. He asked whether she remembered the medications Lindsay had been prescribed before the incident. She listed amatryptylene, diazepan, laurazepam, and possibly one more. He asked whether she knew toxicology had been done on Lindsay's blood on January 24th. She said yes. She

learned that later because those labs take time. He asked whether she knew the blood was tested by the State Police Lab and NMS Labs in Pennsylvania. She said she didn't know much about NMS, but knew the blood had been tested. He asked whether she agreed Lindsay had Trazadone in her system. She said yes. He asked what Trazidone was. She said it was an antidepressant, although it is often used as a sleep aid because it does cause sedation. He asked whether Trazadone shared qualities with SSRIs and she said yes. He asked her to explain SSRIs and she said that they were selective serotonin inhibitors, antidepressants essentially, antidepressants that affect serotonin. He asked what serotonin was. She said it was a neurotransmitter, a hormone in the brain that helps regulate moods.

He asked whether she knew SSRIs like Zoloft and Prozac should not be prescribed to someone with bipolar. She said that they can be prescribed, but usually alongside another medication that protects against triggering mania. Well, Reddington asked about SSRI, serotonin, antagonists, and Dr. Shaw explained how SSRIs worked, how serotonin functioned, how antagonists did the opposite. She confirmed Lindsay had been seen psychiatrists right before the suicide attempt and had been prescribed multiple medications. He went through them one by one, diazepine, bisporum,

well, butrin, hydroxazine, clonapine, lamotrogen, prozac, remoron, syracil, tracodone, amatryptylene, Ambien, Sylexa. So many. She confirmed each one. She explained what they were, antidepressants, anti-anxiety meds, mood stabilizers, antipsychotics, sleep. He asked about black box warnings. She said, yes, some antidepressants do carry suicide warnings, especially in adolescence and young adults. He pointed out that all of these medications were prescribed between late September and January. Four months were when all of those medications I just read were prescribed. It is kind of crazy. The prosecutor objected when he called it an awful lot of drugs, of course. And the judge sustained the objection. Interesting. And then Buckingham stood for a

redirect. She asked Dr. Shaw to clarify something that Lindsay was not on all of those medications at the same time. Dr. Shaw said correct. Buckingham asked whether she knew Lindsay took very small amounts of some and none of others. And Dr. Shaw said she didn't know that. Buckingham asked about Buporin and whether Dr. Shaw knew Lindsay took only two pills from the first prescription, zero pills from the second. Dr. Shaw said she did not know. Buckingham asked where Dr. Shaw got her information about what Lindsay was taking. Dr. Shaw said she looked at what was prescribed and relied on reports from Lindsay and other providers. Buckingham pointed out that Lindsay had reported taking certain medications and asked whether Dr. Shaw would be surprised to learn that she took

none of one of them. And Dr. Shaw said she would not be surprised. Buckingham asked whether Dr. Shaw knew that right before Lindsay was admitted, she was only prescribed three medications, tracidot, valium, and amitryptylene. Dr. Shaw said yes, and then Buckingham addressed the many examples Reddington had used. She asked whether exercise. Every day meant someone was manic. Dr. Shaw said no. She asked whether cleaning out a messy garage meant someone was manic. Dr. Shaw said no.

She asked whether selling belongings you no longer need meant mania. Dr. Shaw said no. She said mania actually usually looked disorganized. People start tasks that don't finish them. If someone organize a garage with another person, sort of items to keep, sell, throw out, that was organized behavior. Dr. Shaw agreed selling junk you don't need wasn't mania. Selling your stove though and leaving yourself with nothing to cook on, well, that is more concerning. Dr. Shaw agreed. Then Reddington stood up for recross. Let's just listen to Reddington

on recross. Here we go. Dr.ington. So the person, as counsel said, they're exercising every day and they have a messy garage, that obviously would not be indicative of hypomania. Probably. A normal person could have, as counsel said it. How about a person that at the same time can't sleep because the insomnia is so bad, they go 48 hours without sleep? Is that something to be considered in the whole evaluation? Yes.

How about the fact of the person saying that my brain is broken and that they can't concentrate, they can't think? Is that something that the person you would consider? in conjunction with the messy garage and the exercise? Yes. Thoughts of hurting themselves. Suicidal ideation, that's something that's important to evaluate? Yes.

Homicidal ideation, telling your husband that you're having thoughts about hurting your children. That's something you consider, isn't it? Yes. In reference to counsel's comment about just three medications that she was on prior to committing, trying to commit suicide, you're not aware of the doctors telling her to discontinue this medication, start a new medication, go on to a different medication, depending on the doctor. You're not aware of that, right? No.

And finally, if you know, did she sign a DNR, do not resuscitate? She asked to the day after the first evaluation that I did of her, which was the capacity assessment to change her health care proxy. But in the context of her reporting a serious suicide attempt, we did not change her code status. We continued to chat with her about that. and she ultimately came to the conclusion that it made sense to make sure that her mental health was stable before she considered her code status. That ended the cross, and Judge Sullivan actually called for lunch recess.

So lunch was good. We had chick-fil-a. I did not do my lunch-live. Apologies. I actually had an appointment during lunch, so I could not do a lunch-life. Forgive me, but I will be back to doing those tomorrow. So after lunch, the Commonwealth called Gillum Biswas. And she introduced herself as a forensic psychiatrist and a psychiatrist on the Consulate Liaison Service at Brigham and Women's.

And on January 26, 2023, she was working in that role, not as a forensic evaluator, but as part of the hospital psychiatry team. She met Lindsay that afternoon, sometime between two and three. Lindsay was in the ICU. intubated awake but unable to speak. Dr. Biswas said Lindsay gestured that she wanted to write, so she gave her paper and a pen. Lindsay was exhausted and anxious, so they did not push her with a full orientation exam. They let her write what she could. And then when Dr. Biswas asked about her mood, Lindsay wrote one word, horrified. I thought that was really interesting. Dr. Biswas said Lindsay's effect matched that anxious, overwhelmed, uncomfortable from the tube.

Everything was done through writing. Lindsay wrote questions like, do I have an attorney? Is my body broken? Are my legs straight? Can I have visitors? Where is my family? Dr. Biswas said all of those questions made sense given the situation. Nothing she wrote was bizarre or disconnected from reality.

Dr. Biswos explained that they had been called in for diagnostic clarity and safety to evaluate her before surgery to assess her self-harm ideation, to make sure she was stable enough to proceed. She said Lindsay understood the questions and she understood Lindsay's responses. Lindsay needed breaks, but she stayed engaged. Sprigg asked about psychosis, and Dr. Biswas explained the range, negative symptoms like withdrawal and lack of response, positive response like paranoia, darting eyes, responses to voices, delusions. She said that she didn't see any of that in Lindsay. She documented, though, that Lindsay's thinking was linear, it was goal directed, thoughtful, and that she wasn't responding to internal stimuli. Spragast her to explain internal stimuli. And Dr. Biswa said, that's when someone is

interacting with hallucinations, talking to voices, looking at things that aren't there. She said she didn't see any of that in Lindsay, no disorganized thinking, no word salad, no signs of someone in an active psychotic state. But she clarified that she only saw Lindsay for a limited time, one snapshot on January 26th, about a day and a half after Lindsay was admitted. Lindsay was still intubated. But even in that moment, Lindsay's questions were appropriate. Her responses were coherent. And she was oriented enough to ask about her lawyer.

Sprague asked whether Dr. Biswas had any concerns that Lindsay could make a decision about surgery. Dr. Biswas said no. She felt Lindsay had the capability to make that decision at the time. And that ended the direct. On cross, cross-exam, Reddington goes straight into her experience with what else psychosis, asking whether she had treated a lot of patients who had heard voices, who had command hallucinations, delusions, all of it. She said yes.

She actually said that she had seen many patients with those symptoms over the years. He asked whether she had seen any indication that Lindsay had psyched. psychotic delusions while in the hospital. She reminded him she only saw Lindsay once for about 20 to 30 minutes a day and a half after she was admitted. She said she hadn't heard anything about psychotic delusions at that time. He asked whether psychosis had to be continuous or could come and go and she said it depended on the patient. Some have moments of clarity. Some have continuous symptoms. It's case specific. He asked whether she was aware of Lindsay's medical and psychiatric history before she saw her.

She said she was aware of what was in the medical record at the time. He asked whether she knew about documented postpartum depression. She said she mostly saw postpartum anxiety in the record. He asked whether postpartum anxiety could include insomnia. She said yes. He asked whether Lindsay had insomnia before she saw her. She said yes. He asked whether she knew Lindsay had gone 48 hours without sleep.

She said she didn't recall that number. He asked whether she knew Lindsay had expressed concern that her brain was broken. She said Lindsay asked her if her body was broken, but she didn't recall seeing that specific language in the records. He asked whether she knew Lindsay had expressed self-harm ideation. She said yes. He asked how many times Lindsay had expressed it. She said she didn't recall the number. He asked whether she knew Lindsay had expressed homicidal ideation and she said she didn't see that in the records he asked whether homicidal ideation would be concerning for psychosis she said yes she would be concerned listen to this is that one of the factors that one would be concerned about as a psychiatrist

if a person was expressing homicidal ideation i would be concerned about that as a psychiatrist and and in fact in this case you knew at least about the suicidal ideation that she had been expressing, right? Yes. But you didn't know about any homicidal ideation she was expressing, right? From the records or from... Frients are coming to see you for 20 minutes.

I knew that there was an event that had occurred and that... Three children died. That's the event you're referring to, right? Yes. Okay. Next question. Now, as far as the period of time that she was involved with... By the way, what's hypomania?

hypomania is sort of the gradual increase towards mania, the symptoms that we see in somebody who might have bipolar disorder. And with bipolar disorder, we see mixed depression and we see mania and we see symptoms that kind of gradually increase to mania. And we call that period hypomania. Did she exhibit to your knowledge from the medical records any periods of hypomania? of cleaning, exercise, or activities being awake at night, things that nature? At that moment, on January 26th, I don't remember reading about that. Okay. Do you have any memory of reading about it at all? Other than that moment, as a treating physician, a doctor, psychiatrist?

I don't remember. So what is your purpose at the hospital? I mean, you're not treating the person for any, illness that they have as far as their mental condition, right? You're not treating them. We are, we are. Oh, you are? Yes. So you were concerned about, obviously, their symptomology, if any, that they present at the time that you're looking at them and talking to them, or in this case, she couldn't talk, but she couldn't talk and she was going into surgery, and we had recommended suicidal precautions, we had recommended trauma-informed care so that she was getting the care that she needed. She was going to go into surgery. And then after that, we were

going to continue to follow her and assess her and make sure that we were evaluating her appropriately and making recommendations to the surgical team for the care that she needed. Go set? Objection. So when you're dealing with this person that's going into surgery, did you know what type of surgery she was going in for? At the time, we knew that she was going into surgery for her spine. Did you know what happened with her spine? I knew that she had injuries to her spine. Did you know that there was a transsection injury,

that her spine was basically exploded in T5, T6, other thoracic vertebrae fraction, including the cervical vertebrae up by the throat? You knew all that? We were reading about it. It was all actively happening at that time. Was she in pain? Yes.

I'm sure she was. Was she on medication? She was on a few medications related to pain and blood pressure. So she's brought into the hospital. You knew from reviewing her records as a psychiatrist that in fact she coded the day before, right? I don't recall her coding the day before I saw her. I do recall from the records that she had a code. coding event after on, I think on the 27th or 28th.

Okay, so you were not involved with her when she coded. Did you know that she had any events of that nature right after she was brought from the South Shore Hospital? I don't know what you're referring to. You know what a code is, right? Yes. Did she almost die before you saw her? I think it was after.

Okay. How about perfusion, blood in the body and tubes? being inserted into a chest. Did you know that from looking at the records? I think that happened after, but I don't recall because I don't have the records on me. Okay. So did you know that she had massive transfusions? Not at the... I'm telling this jury that it was after she saw you that she coded, had transfusions, had double tubes put into her both sides of her lungs. It's your testimony that it was after she saw you?

You don't know, do you? My understanding is the surgery happened after I saw her. Oh, the surgery did. I'm asking you about the massive transfusions. I'm asking you about the tubes being inserted so that the 300 milligrams and whatever it is of blood can be profused and take it out of the chest can. I'm asking about whether or not you knew that she had coded. I'm not asking about the surgery. Obviously, that took place after you saw her, right?

Dr. Mason answered. No, rolled. because that's why you were talking to her, right, to see if she could make an informed consent to a surgery, I guess. No, I was called for the suicidal ideation. Okay, I'm sorry. I thought you said that you wanted to talk to her about the surgery as well. No.

The suicidal ideation continues to this date, is it not? Objection. It's a state. Did the suicidal ideation that you were concerned about continue the time that she was in, bringing the women's hospital for a month? I saw her one time. Right, I know that, 20 minutes, right? Yes.

So you know nothing about suicidal ideation after you saw her intubated and then laying in the bed and then you talk to her as you've discussed with the jury, right? That's correct. That's it. That's correct. How about the cops? How many cops were there? I don't recall. There were some, right?

They were armed men in that room, were they not? I don't recall. I think they were outside the room, if I remember correctly from three years ago. Okay. I know it's been a while. Do you recall armed police officers being outside the room? I think I recall. I don't recall.

Do you have any memory of any police officers being outside the room where she was laying in that bed? I knew she was in custody and generally in custody. No, no, not generally. Let's talk about Lindsay Clancy. I can't recall. Okay. Did you know that she couldn't even have visitors in the sense that the police would not even let her mother or father visit with her? I can't recall. Did you know that when you were dealing with her, was she handcuffed to the side of the gurney of the stretcher?

She had a soft restraint, according to my documentation. Soft restraints, okay. Yes. Did you have any conversation with the police at all? No. And after you spoke to her for 20 minutes, that really ended your involvement with Lindsay Clancy until today, right? That is correct. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. You direct? Doctor, when you were being asked about these records that you reviewed, what records did you review? I reviewed the records in Epic, which is our medical record at Brigham and Women's Hospital. And so you didn't do a deep dive into Ms. Clancy's entire psychiatric history prior to coming to Brigham and Women's, correct? I did, as you do as is protocol for a consult, you look at the records and you make sure you have an understanding of what's been happening with the patient. But did you have access at that time to all the records for all the treatment providers Ms. Clancy had seen regarding her mental health for the last six months?

You know, I don't even know. You get, I had some of the records. I don't know if I had all of the records. And so you reviewed what you had, correct? Correct. And then you met with the patient, correct? Correct. And in meeting with her where she's, you know, she's had these events happen.

She's had the tubes in her chest. She's about to go into surgery. One of the first things on her mind is, do I have a lawyer? Correct? Risk off wasn't quite to cross. Secondly, this is the fourth time the council has tried to accentuate that. Oh, well, I'll love that question.

Go ahead. Well, that was one of her first thoughts was, do I have a lawyer, correct? She wasn't able she was exhausted. She was intubated. She could barely talk. She was writing and she was getting ready for surgery.

And so those were the few questions that came up. Right. She's exhausted, she's anxious, she's in pain, she's about to go in for surgery, and she wants to know, do I have a lawyer? Sustained. So given the condition she was in at that time, you know, the defense counsel asked you about the pain she was in. Defense counsel asked you about the surgery she was about to go into.

Those are the issues that she was focused on in your conversation with her. Am I broken? Are my legs straight? Do I have a lawyer? Yes. Thank you. She wasn't focused on much while she was exhausted in pain, anxious and concerned about the future surgery that she was imminent, was she? If you could speak up, ask that question.

Sorry. She wasn't focused on much of anything while she was exhausted in pain, unable to talk and anticipating imminent surgery, right? That's correct. Thank you. That's all you. Next on the stand was Sergeant Robert Flynn with the Duxbury Police Department. So now we're back to law enforcement. And in January of 23, he was assigned to the Detective Bureau. On January 24th, he worked his normal 8 to 4 shift, went home and then got called back in around 6th that evening. He said, Sergeant Detective,

Jamali told him to respond to Summer Street. And while he was driving there, he had the radio scanning the surrounding agencies, Fire, Pembroke, Kingston, Marshfield, He could say he could hear officers screaming. He said he could hear chaos on the radio. So when he arrived, first responders were already there. He said he initially believed the children were still inside the house because in most sudden death cases, the fire department pronounces on scene and the police take over. But he learned shortly after arriving that the children had already been transported.

He also learned that the mother had been transported as well because of the nature of what he believed he was walking into. He notified the Massachusetts State Police. He explained that State Police have jurisdiction over death investigations in Duxbury and as a detective, he was familiar with working alongside them. He said once he learned the children had passed, he made the call to the State Police Detectives Unit. And after that, he and other Duxbury officers secured the scene. They conducted a security sweep of the house, not searching for evidence, just making sure no other suspects or victims were inside. He said three of them entered himself, another sergeant from Kingston and Lieutenant Weiler. They split up and checked all three floors. And on the main floor,

he went into the kitchen. He said it was clear, the young children, very clear, young children lived there. Paintings were on the wall, a takeout bag with Mediterranean on their seat. He recognized the photo that Buckingham showed him. He also, So went into the living room and saw food on the couch, bowls signs of a child's presence. He said that Patrick Clancy was actually still unseen when he arrived. And later, Patrick Clancy went in an ambulance. He then went into the basement. He said the scene was chaotic.

Firefighters everywhere. Equipment left behind. He said the three officers together made sure every part of the basement was checked, but he personally stayed mostly on the left side. Then he went up to the top floor. He entered the master bedroom and immediately noticed it was cooler than the rest of the house. A window was open. He said he saw his cell phone on the bed, which I want to point out.

We've talked about this before, but Lindsay's cell phone was on her bed, meaning that last 14-second call that she had with Patrick and was likely in the bedroom. That's where she called him. knowing what she was doing at that moment. Nothing else about the bedding stood out to him. After finishing the sweep, they went out to the back slider into the backyard. He said he saw matted down snow and medical equipment, the area where they believed Lindsay had gone out from the window. And from that vantage point, he could see into the basement window, well, that led into what he later learned was in office or a gym area. He said the window screen looked pushed up. And once the sweep was done, they secured the scene, crime scene tape, logging who went in and out, securing doors.

He said around that time, he got a call from Trooper McGalligan. He stayed on scene until troopers arrived and then went back to the station to help coordinate further. He said he was aware of search warrants that were being requested. And when the warrant was received, he went back to Summer Street with the team. He was present during the execution of the warrant, but did not search or collect evidence. That was left for state police. And after the search warrant was completed, his lieutenant told him to go back upstairs and close the open window. He said he didn't see any damage to the window or screen. He said there was blood in the area and the bed had been pushed in front of the window. So he had to move the bed to close. He had to move the bed to close

blows it. The only items he personally removed from the home were medical equipment left behind by the fire department during the search warrant. He confirmed that after the initial response, the state police took over the investigation entirely. He assisted with follow-up interviews and coordination, but the state police were the primary investigators. There was no cross-examination on this one. And next up was trooper Mark Farioli. He had been a state trooper since 2005, was assigned to the Plymouth County State Police Detective Unit in January 2023. His involvement in the Clancy investigation was limited, but it was important. He explained that on January 27th, a search warrant was obtained

to collect Lindsay's blood and urine from South Shore Hospital, so toxicology, right? On January 31st, at 1025 in the morning, he went to the hospital to execute that warrant. He collected the samples from the lab, specifically from the specimen process supervisor. He said he collected seven vials total, six blood, one urine. And after collecting them, he brought them directly to the Massachusetts State Lab in Lakeville. He arrived around 1115 a.m. and handed the vials to forensic evidence technician Leah O'Connell. And then we heard from Leah O'Connell. So Leah works for the Massachusetts State Police in January 2023. She was assigned

to the state lab, crime lab, as a forensic evidence technician. Her job was to receive evidence, submit it to the lab, log it, assign case numbers, and move it through the testing process. She said evidence came from local, state, and federal agencies, and sometimes

from chemists who collected items at scenes. She confirmed that on January 31st at 11.15 a.m., she received six vials of blood and one vial of urine belonging to Lindsay Clancy from Trooper Faroli. She logged them into the system under Lindsay's case number. She said the samples were placed into a heat-sealed plastic pack,

initialed, and then stored in a refrigerator. Next was Trooper John Santos with the Massachusetts State Police. He was assigned to the Plymouth County State Police Detective Unit back in January 2023. On January 24th, he was part of the search warrant team at Summer Street. he explained that his role was to search multiple areas of the house, the basement, the kitchen, and the master bedroom upstairs. And in the kitchen, he searched a cabinet above and to the right of the stove.

He recognized the photographs, Sprague showed him, the notebooks and books stacked on the shelves. Remember that? Just piles of books. He said those items were removed. Those items were cataloged and then logged by the state police. And so we're seeing all of these books stacked. So Sprague walks them through each of the items now. Discharge paperwork from MGH for Lindsay, including a medication list,

Larazepam, one milligram, melatonin, 5 milligrams, trazodone, 50 milligrams with instructions on when to take them, a notebook containing postpartum depression and anxiety information, plus handwritten notes detailing, those medications, the amounts taken and dates. And then that book, remember that book that's already been brought up, the book, Good Moms Have Scary Thoughts. What a book. It's a pregnancy and postpartum anxiety workbook, completely blank though. And a notebook labeled Ken Patrick Clancy, containing messages between Lindsay and the nanny. He said he searched the basement next. He went into the

office portion of the basement, someone had already been in that room before he got there. He collected two laptop computers and an external hard drive. He explained how evidence collection works. One trooper is assigned as the evidence officer and crime scene services photographs each item in place before it's removed. The evidence officer comes to the location of the item, logs it, and then it's taken out. That's what happened with the laptops and the notebooks and the books and the kitchen. He said he later went upstairs to the master bedroom. He helped search the room, but didn't recover anything there. He did not look in the nightstand drawer near the open window and said that he assumed someone else had already searched that area. He said he searched the closet and the left

side of the bed. Sprague asked how troopers know what to look for during a search warrant. He said it depends on the investigation. They look for items connected to the suspect victims at anything relevant to the incident. And in this case, the notebooks in the kitchen cabinet stood out immediately because of what they already knew about the situation, right? So he said that during the search officers, they did not know that Lindsay had crushed up pills and taken them with lemonade. He said he learned from Patrick that she had been prescribed medication and then later learned medication was found in the kitchen. And that was the extent of his involvement. So in cross-exam, Reddington focus on one thing and one thing only on cross-exam, who found what and why it mattered.

He asked Santos, who found the medication in the kitchen. Santos said, he didn't recall who at all. But it was law enforcement, either a trooper or one of the local officers assisting. Reddington walked him through it. The pill bottles were found by police, seized by police, and documented because someone believed they were relevant to the investigation, and Santos agreed. And then Reddington went through the books again, the postpartum depression notebook, the postpartum anxiety workbook. Good moms have scary thoughts. The MGH discharge paperwork.

The notebook with medication logs. Santos agreed each one was seized because investigators believed they were relevant and material. Reddington asked about the search of the master bedroom. Santos said he wanted, he was a part of that team, but several officers were in that room. He didn't remember who seized what, but said the report documented it. He estimated about five officers were involved in searching that single bedroom, five officers. Reddington pointed out that Santos himself seized the laptops and external hard drive from the basement office. Santos agreed. Reddington asked whether the cell phone on the bed was also seized.

Santos said yes. He believed the phone was taken from the bedroom. Reddington asked whether electronic media was important in an investigation like this. Santos said yes. And then Reddington asked about the Apple Watch. Santos said he believed it was recovered later, not during the search warrant. He thought Patrick Clancy had turned it in afterward, but he did not know the exact timing. Reddington asked whether Santos remembered a nightstand drawer in the bedroom

containing pill bottles and other items. Santos said he didn't search that drawer. Reddington asked why nobody had searched it. Santos said he didn't know that it wasn't searched, only that he didn't search it. He said whoever searched that area may not have believed the items were pertinent, but he could not speak for them.

And then, believe it or not, we are now finally at the last witness of the day, but it was a big witness. It was Trooper Corey Mello. And this trooper, Corey Mello, he said he worked for the Massachusetts State Police. And back in January 2023, he was assigned to the Plymouth County District's Attorney's Office as part of the State Police Detective Unit. And on January 24th, he was one of the many troopers who responded to Summer Street after the incident. He wasn't the case officer, but he assisted with search warrants, neighborhood canvases, and witness intervieced.

interviews. He confirmed that a large group of state police detectives went out to Duxbury that night. He helped search the home, the basement, the first floor, and the second floor. He said there were several detectives and troopers searching at the same time. He remembered locating a phone in the upstairs bedroom, a laptop and workout bands hanging on the basement door. And when he found items that might have evidentiary value, he directed the evidence officers to them. He said that after the search warrant was completed. Many items were brought back for further examination. This is normal protocol. The scene was chaotic. And they could not thoroughly examine everything inside the house. But back at the office, he was asked to review some of the books and some of the journals collected from

the home. And one of them was a brown journal that has now been marked as Exhibit 151, a Brown Journal. a brown journal. So in other words, Lindsay Clancy's Brown Journal is now evidence. It's now an exhibit, Exhibit 151. He didn't find this brown journal himself, but he reviewed the contents later. He said the first pages, they weren't dated. Sprague walked him through several entries, though, that he had reviewed. Okay, page one, Lindsay wrote about being obsessed with her.

son's sleep schedule, hearing him cry for over an hour saying, I want to die. To Patrick and becoming fixated on nap timing. Page two, she wrote about doing sleep training when he was overtired, making it harder and now having horrible insomnia and anxiety. Page four, she wrote that she felt guilty because he was not hitting his milestones. Page 8, she wrote, she was completely overwhelmed taking care of three kids, drowning every day. He said some pages were dated.

One, dated November 18th read, quote, It's like, I'm so desperate to get a mental break from taking care of everyone that my mind is trying to make something physically wrong with me. end quote. He said he also reviewed the second journal with handwritten notes similar to the Brown Journal. Those entries spanned only a few pages from October 13th to January 18th. He reviewed the third journal too. It was a yellow one. And this yellow journal was labeled Callan Clancy. He knew that Callan was one of the children. He said the handwriting inside appeared to be two

different people. The entries were detailed, outlining schedules for the baby. That was the extent of his involvement with the journals. Cross with Trooper Mello centered almost entirely on the journals. So, Reddington is back up on cross-exam about these journals. Reddington walked him through page after page using Mello's own report to highlight what Lindsay had written. And these were actually very emotional. So I personally want us to listen to Ruddington. Read these. Let's listen.

So one of the things that the district attorney did was read to you certain entries from what is referred to in your report is the Tree of Life Artisan Journal, Correct? Correct. And when you refer in the report to the Tree of Life Artisan Journal, is that this here? What do you call the tree on a diagram? Should have a tree on it, yes. But in any of that, you would recall that that particular diary or notebook set forth on a number of pages per

her feelings dealing with her children. Is that fair? It's fair to say, yes, sir. And you wrote in your report on page 19 of 63. Counsel asked you first about her stating that she had horrible PTSD from sleep training, Callan, hearing him cry for one in a hot one hour plus and not intervening just about killed me. I even said the words, I want to die to Pat while he was crying. He would be the baby, right? Correct. And this is her saying that not being able to. to go to her child because they were trying to do sleep training she indicated that it was

just about killing her correct that's what was stated yes and after that i meaning lindsay became obsessed with his sleep and nap schedule like to the minute i would tell lany and you know who lany is right yes who's lany the other child the what i'm sorry again what's this laney lany lany y lany why laney no recall this stuff time. Do you recall that she had a young lady or they had a young lady that was in their home helping with the baby while she was supposed to recall this time? Okay that she would tell Lainey to put him down at 1036. I would also drive him around for car naps for hours every day feeling guilty for doing this to my baby. Do you recall making that notation? Yes. I also feel guilty we did it too young

parenthesis one week shy of four months in parentheses right? Correct. You will also noted in your report that I also quote I also feel like I did it wrong because I did it when he was overtired so I made it harder I now have horrible insomnia and anxiety which is causing depression I have no appetite I don't know what's wrong with me I want help I want to be well you saw that in there didn't you yes and then she went on and said I think the anxiety started after sleep training doctor said it was okay to let him cry I need to get a good night sleep and take care of him, rocking him to sleep every nap and bed in the middle of the night. She noted that, right?

Yes. Noting further and separate occasion, he's still a very happy baby despite his sleep training. Why I feel guilty is not really hitting his milestones, not rolling over, although he almost is, exclamation point, and he's babbling, which is a new milestone. She wrote that, right? Correct. She wrote, I have crazy brain fog. I feel like I can't make a plan.

I can't carry it out. like I just live moment to moment waiting for the next nap time. I'm terrified of Cal getting over tired now because I feel I can't help him. She wrote that, right? Correct. She then wrote, I'm really worried about going back to work and not being able to function with the brain fog. I feel like I should start with a four-hour shift and see how I do.

I can't tell if I am withdrawing from Ativan and Benadryl, or is this my new baseline? I feel completely disconnected with my baby. I feel like I'm going through the motions. every day. She wrote that, right? Correct. And there were a number of other entries that you put in your police report about that. One of which was that I feel horribly guilty about my marriage. I want to connect with Pat again. I know he needs it. I need it. I'm terrified because I'm terrified of the relationship. She needs to get birth control first. She made reference to her inability to

have conjugal relations with a husband, right? I believe so. She indicated further on into her travels. I am completely overwhelmed trying to take care of the kids. I'm drowning every day. I feel guilty that I'm spending my family's money and not making any. I feel like I spend way too much. She wrote that, right? Correct. I'm tired of, I'm terrified of

Callan getting sick. He's a sick baby. A sick baby is miserable. He's sick now with a double ear infection. Clearly has a bellyache. It's miserable. I feel like the other kids are going to get him sick all winter long. She wrote that, right? Correct. I always feel strongly against sleep training. I feel like it's

abusive to let the baby cry and not respond. But I made the decision. I did it with Cal. It is way too much crying. It's incredibly stressful. She wrote that, right? Correct. He's okay. He will be okay. It's not harmful in any way. The doctor said it was okay. Plenty of people sleep praying their kids at that age. It's necessary as a third child is what she wrote, right? Correct. I feel incredibly sad and guilty about not breastfeeding anymore. That was the one thing I could do to help his immune system, and I can tell he really doesn't like the formula. I'm very sad about this. I know at this time it's what I needed to do for my mental health. She wrote that, right? Correct. And then the statement started getting smaller and smaller as time went by one occasion.

It's like I'm desperate to get a mental break from taking care of everyone. My mind is trying to make something physically wrong with me. My mind never shuts off. It's constantly thinking of the next thing someone needs. I can't shut it off. I desperately want to. I desperately want go back to work, but now I don't know how I'm going to function, and it worries me. Wrote that, right? Correct. There were two consecutive or two pages that were blank that she didn't even write on. And then on the third entry, affirmations, she wrote affirmations on November 22 of 2022.

I am calm. I will remain calm today. There is nothing that needs to be on my mind. The weight is lifted from my mind. I will sleep tonight. She wrote that, right? Correct. Continuing on into November, I slept well last night.

I will sleep again tonight. Today will be a great day. I will go back to work on Sunday. I will thrive. I can feel like myself again. That was November 23rd. She wrote that, right? I believe that's a day, yes.

Gratitude. I'm grateful for Sue, who's always listening. That would be a mother-in-law. You knew that, right? Yes. Sue, I'm grateful to Sue for always listening and trying her best to help me. Kids are sleeping great for Pat.

Pat is handling nighttime stuff. Julie, for making a plan for me. A big thing is I feel disconnected with myself. Time, reality. I think going back to work will help with that. She wrote that, right? Correct. And then there are numbers of pages 22 of 63, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,

all reproducing what counsel asked you about and what I just went through that were from those journals, right? Correct. Do you have anything to do with the search of the house? Yes. Did you search in the bedroom? Yes. How many other people were with you searching in the bedroom?

I don't recall how many other people were with me at that time. You know why nobody looked in the drawer and found pills and sleep aids and Apple watches? I'm not aware. Did you see the draw? I don't recall. What? I don't recall. Okay.

I'm, I mean, I'm going to. to share an opinion there. It sounds like a mother who loved her children but had a lot of, a lot of guilt. I don't know. I don't know, though. I mean, I wonder, do you think it sounds like the words of a mother who didn't love her children? That is how court ended for the day on that. So I actually curious, I don't know if we can do a poll. And I want to share a little bit more. People have asked about the jury, what the jury was doing. I'm in there. I, I sat and watched them. It was kind of interesting today.

But I want to know what you guys think as far as if you feel like it was a day for the prosecution or a day for the defense ultimately. If we can do a poll on that. A poll in chat right now. Okay, yeah, I'm curious. I want to share one thing I heard on X was from the prosecutor's podcast. I'll share what they said. They stated today was a bad day for Lindsay Clancy with some subtly devastating testimony by psychiatrists at Brigham.

One would expect that if you murdered your children the grip of uncontrollable psychosis, that when you came out of that psychosis, the absolute devastation of your actions would be your main focus. Lindsay, that was asking about a lawyer and whether her legs were straight, body broken, and if she ever asked about her kids. It's not clear. She would later report that the murders were not dominating her thoughts throughout the day. There may be a good trauma shock explanation for this. But if there is, the defense needs to spend some time on it.

It's hard to say what Lindsay Clancy was thinking at the time of the murders, but to all leisure her behavior after is not consistent with someone who's in broken mind, forced her to kill her children. That's from the prosecutor's podcast. So my thoughts are ending on those journals was powerful. And then I have some additional thoughts. I did an interview this weekend. I don't know if all of you saw it.

I would recommend it with Andrea Yates' attorney, George Parnum. Many of you probably in chat know who Andrea Yates is for those that don't or maybe too young to know, Andrea Yates really, actually, really set the stage for this postpartum psychosis, depression. I mean, her case was, it's still huge. It's still talked about. It really brought to the forefront women's mental health. So, George said some interesting things. First of, George said that he met Andrea Yates shortly after what she did. She murdered or killed all five of her children. She killed all five of her children by drowning them in a bathtub.

Horrific. Horrific. It shocked the nation. And he said that one of the first things Andrea Yates said to him was, don't leave me alone. That was interesting. He also mentioned he had never talked to her about what happened. happened that day, which is interesting, you know, because Lindsay's not talking about it. George didn't talk about it ever with Andrea Yates, said that he considers Andrea Yates, say,

like a daughter to him. And then, a interesting poll, I'll share that. And so right now the poll is 81% say the defense had a better day, 19% say prosecution. So you guys disagree with. the prosecution podcast. Interesting. The one thing that George got me, though, was ultimately, so Andrea Gates' attorney who I spoke to, and he said that Andrea knew that he was doing the interview with me. They still talk. They are still close. And he said it's essentially motive. He said, so we can argue, in other words, all of this, what is or isn't psychosis, is it or is it not? how did were her wound superficial were they not and but george says ultimately it comes to motive if you remove every other motive then what are you left with if you remove the motive George Parnum Andrew Yates's

attorney said of revenge like if if their spousal revenge involved you know they're not getting along if you remove financial motive you know like life insurance if you remove all of these other typical motives, what are you left with? And so I've been thinking about that as I watched this trial. I met two wonderful hidden gems today. They were so wonderful. They came all the way from New Jersey, Marianne and Lisa. And at one point, they asked, you know, what are you thinking about this?

Is it really affecting you, Lauren, all of this, whether or not she really tried to self-harm how superficial the wounds were. And it does a little. I'm listening to the evidence. Are they really going to be able to prove that Lindsay Clancy, like, fake this? She really wasn't trying to die. She was just trying to, like, fake it? Because I think that's kind of what they're trying to pull. You know, or was it really psychosis? Was it not? And for me, ultimately, where I am right now, I guess I'm sharing a few of my opinions is I don't know. I'm not a doctor. There's so many varying opinions here. I don't know. I haven't experienced psychosis. I can't tell you. But what I can't look at, I think, and assess for me is what would her motive be to do something so horrific?

I see no evidence that she wanted revenge on Pat. In fact, today and Patrick, in fact, in fact, in journal, she was saying she wanted to reconnect with Patrick and that he needed more from her. It doesn't seem like revenge was on her list. It doesn't seem like any financial gain was on her list. I don't see any motive. I see that she loved her children. So for me, it does seem like some sort of medical break right now. Change my mind.

That's what I always say. Change my mind. I'm still listening to the prosecution. The prosecution is several days ahead of them still to bring all the witnesses they want, and I will continue listening. jurors many of you asking what the jurors were doing it's interesting um different groups of jurors take notes at different times and starting to notice that pattern um a lot of people taking notes during the psychiatrist really trying to understand lindsay's state that's what i noticed and they were taking notes both during the prosecution and the cross

Some jurors took more notes during the prosecution. Some jurors were taking more notes during cross-exam. Also interesting. Everyone's, you know, no one's showing too much emotion on their face, but they come in with those notebooks and they are certainly taking notes. So that's what I'm noticing with the jurors. And then I just want to reiterate, I recommend this interview with George Parnham, Andrea Yates's attorney. I really do think it's a good one. And I also want to share a few

things start here and then we will conclude. Thank you to those. This is, I'll start with my comment. I made this. Thank you to those who remember to like this episode, to like our channel, our podcast, and to subscribe to both our podcast and YouTube channel. We have a podcast. podcasts as well. It means so much and it is such a huge support. Thank you for the kindness in chat. It means so much. Thank you, Wendy, for your support. I really appreciate that. Thank you, Devin. He says, I appreciate this channel on how respectful. Everyone is. This case is beyond scary to all of us, no matter what we may agree on and if she planned it or not. As a fellow mother, this is absolutely awful. And I think that's the one thing we can agree on, right?

This is absolutely awful, right? I hope that we all agree on that. This is horrific. Those three children are victims and should be alive. And this is just horrific. I understand, though, that we all have a variety of beliefs on Lindsay Clancy and this trial, understandably, because that's why we're here. Thank you for sharing your experience that you were psychosely.

for almost a year and you work through it and raise six kids with a husband. I'm so glad that you're for the people that have been bravely sharing their experience. Why would she change who her proxy was? I think for a lot of reasons. Let's think about that though. Patrick Clancy was having an absolute breakdown. He was actually ended up being taken in an ambulance in the hospital. And then at that point, if you think about it, the future is going to be a lot more

unexpected for Patrick. What's Patrick going to do? Is he going to stop supporting her? Is he going to divorce her? Is he going to stay with her? I think the most stable person and consistent person for changing her medical proxy to at that moment as Patrick's, her parents are absolutely experiencing an absolute tragedy too, as is Patrick, would be her parents, her family of origin. So for me, it makes sense. And there's two of them. Someone says, this is a question, becomes how to prove she was psychosis literally for a few moments. I haven't seen either side prove anything. That's my point. I don't know if anyone will ever be able to prove anything. I think it's ultimately going to come down to opinion and feeling. And so that's why I lean towards a motive for me. Because ultimately,

I think that whether or not she was experiencing psychosis is going to be dependent on each individual juror. What I think can be processed is what is just eliminating the other most. motives? What other motive would she have to do such a horrific thing? Denise, that's beautiful. They went to a playground in Duxbury that was built in honor of the children. It was beautiful. We have yet to be there, but we go there, but we plan to. That's interesting. Thanks for sharing. As a medical professional, you actually get the medical chart weeks before a deposition to review it. That's really interesting. Yeah, I agree that that doctor on the stand, it was giving gatekeeping.

keeper, like not a girl's girl. You know, someone else, though, oh, and a physician says, I'm embarrassed by her behavior. Sugar, sugar free says, I wonder if she went home thinking she did a good job on the stand today. Someone else pointed out that another thing the doctors could be dealing with, too, you have to realize there's also a lawsuit out there. where Patrick is essentially they're saying that a lot of people are to blame doctors for over-medicating Lindsay. And so I also wonder if that plays a part in some of these testimonies and some of these I don't recalls, right? Nobody and none of these medical professionals want to find themselves in a lawsuit later. So that was something that somebody put in chat. I thought, that's also a good point.

Interesting. All right. Well, I'm going to take off. We started a little bit later than planned, and we're going to get up and go to court tomorrow, too. We are here this week. We are here. And thank you for your support. Thank you for following hidden true crime. Truly, thank you. We really care. I just want you to know about covering this trial. Dr. John, as you guys know, John, my hobby. My Bay, he really cares that we cover this trial too. It's always a group decision. And so thank you for supporting our channel. Thank you for supporting by subscribing. Also, you can join Patreon, patreon. Patreon.com slash hidden two crime. And thank you for, yeah, subscribing, liking this episode and letting your friends know about us. And also remember, we have a podcast on Spotify, on Apple or anywhere you listen to podcasts, we often post these nightly lives the next morning because we edit them and make them extra clean for people that prefer a smoother sound and

less small talk. And so if you could subscribe to our podcast and support us there as well, it means so much. Thank you. We really care about victims. We really care about covering these cases with dignity, and we really appreciate all of our hidden gems. So, thank you. And we'll see you. Good night.