Hidden True Crime - Lindsay Clancy WAILS in Court as Autopsy Details Emerge - Judge Pauses Trial | Day 12

Episode Date: August 13, 2026

Lauren Matthias is here to break down Day 12 of the Lindsay Clancy trial which came to an emotional halt as the medical examiner detailed the autopsies of Cora and Dawson Clancy and jurors were shown photographs documenting their injuries. Lindsay began wailing in the courtroom, becoming so distraught that the judge called a break. The day also brought stunning testimony from a Massachusetts State Police trooper about investigators discussing whether Lindsay’s psychiatrist could have influenced her later claim that she heard a voice, while her former mental health counselor testified about Lindsay’s repeated pleas for help, intrusive suicidal thoughts and efforts to access higher levels of psychiatric care. Lauren Matthias breaks down the autopsy testimony, the evidence presented to jurors and the biggest moments from an extraordinarily emotional Day 12 of the Lindsay Clancy murder trial. BEAM: Get up to 35% off with code TRUECRIME at https://shopbeam.com/truecrime\ 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 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, Q-U-I-N-C-E dot com slash hidden true crime. Real Canadian Superstore has everything you need this back-to-school season. Save on lunchbox savers like Ziggy's sliced deli-meat products for always 375. And get life brand pure Vita shampoo or conditioner for $8 each.

At Real Canadian Superstore, when you're ready, we're ready, with a whole world and more. Hello, Hidden Gems. What a day, day 12 of the Lindsay Clancy trial. I'm actually going to be completely honest. I thought about maybe taking a break because the prosecution had been going so long until, like maybe going live tomorrow, right? Until what happened today? Because the prosecution, in my opinion, brought some of their. main witnesses to testify today. Some really big deal witnesses, things that actually don't look great for Lindsay, Clancy. And it's clear to me they're probably winding down because usually prosecutions typically save some of the most dramatic, some of the most memorable for last because they want the jury to remember. And that's exactly what they did today. Each and everyone was kind of a woe, but there was one witness that I wonder if it backfired. Very emotional. It was the medical examiner testifying, discussing the autopsies of Lindsay Clancy's children, clearly emotional

for everyone, for the jury, for the gallery, and for Lindsay Clancy. Let me show you Lindsay, and let me ask you if you guys think that this is ultimately going to help the defense of the prosecution. Take a listen to this. And what about injuries? All right, counsel could. Let me take a break this time. All right. All right. Sure, it's phone your notebooks. Plates them all the chair. Free. I'll be recess for a few minutes and I'll speak the council in regards to schedule. Okay.

I mean, those were whales. And I don't know if you heard, but you can actually hear at the very beginning right before the judge says, we need to take a break. She says, I can't do this. I'm seeing in chat that some of you think these are fake whales of a mother who's a murderer, and there are other people whose hearts are shattered in chat saying that they can't hardly listen to this because they see a grieving mother who is in the bouts of psychosis. Ultimately, that's the question of this trial, madness or meditation, right? Meditated murder.

And so, I don't know about all of you. But if I was the jury watching that, my heart might go out to her, even though they just saw horrific photographs and images of her children's autopsies, the victims in this case. And let's not forget the victims are Cora Dawson and Callan Clancy. But when I was in that courtroom for two weeks, the one thing that I really noticed with the jury is when there were emotional witnesses, on the stand. They didn't look fully at the emotional witness. They were looking at Lindsay. And I think it's because ultimately, at the root of this entire trial is one question. Who is Lindsay Clancy? Who is the real Lindsay Clancy? Is she a mother who chose to murder her children? Or is she a mother who had a mental help break from reality psychosis, heard voices, and killed her children. And it wasn't her fault.

So the jury seems to be grappling with that question. At least that's what I can gather. And so I wonder today, as Lindsay cried during a very emotional testimony, a very emotional testimony during the medical, within a medical examiner, what did the jurors think? and I bet you that there were jurors that thought maybe she was acting and I bet you that there were jurors who thought this is a grieving mother who did not know what she was doing. It'll be interesting deliberations in this case. And the other witnesses were just as big of a deal. But let's start with day 12 because there is there is so much.

to go over. So, so much. The day it started with Sergeant Dan Lawler. Yes, so we have more law enforcement. You thought we were done with law enforcement? No, we have more, but it's someone that's important. So Buckingham, she questioned and walked through where he worked, how long he'd been with the Massachusetts State Police, and the fact that he had spent a few years assigned to the Plymouth County DA's office, as part of as part of the detective's unit. And then after that, they went straight into January of 2023 because Lawler actually remembered being sent to Summer Street in Duxbury, the Clancy home. His first stop, though, wasn't the house. He had also been told to stop at South Shore Hospital. And the reason is because Lindsay Clancy had been transported there. And when he arrived,

the Duxbury Detective, Mafia, was already on site. He described seeing Lindsay in the emergency department. She couldn't speak. She was intubated, hooked up to medical equipment, and he noticed visible injuries. While he was there, he served the hospital with a preservation notice, basically a request to hold onto her blood and urine until a warrant, a search warrant essentially could be obtained. Along with that, he collected items the medical staff had removed from her, including her clothing and wedding rings. Buckingham then went through each piece of clothing.

The tank top, the jeans, and bra were all cut down the middle exactly how the hospital had removed them. And Lawler noted the staining on each item. Everything had been passed from the hospital to Duxbury PD and then to him, then documented, and eventually sent off to the crime lab. After South Shore, he also went to Boston Children's Hospital because Callan had been taken there.

At that point, Callan was still alive, but in critical condition. And by the early hours of January 25th, a search warrant had been approved for the Clancy home. Lawler explained that the house stayed frozen until the warrant was signed and then crime scene services went in first to document everything with posts, with photos and with videos. That's how they documented. And after that, the detectives began their search. He said that there were a lot of people involved state police detectives, crime scene technicians, and local officers.

His role was the evidence officer who documented and kept custody of anything collected. As a search went on, he learned that Trooper Rabbit had found prescription pill bottles in the kitchen. And once those bottles were photographed and collected, Lawler inventoried them. He counted the remaining pills in each one, Frazadone, diazepam, and two, different dosages, and amatryptoly. He read the fill dates and quantities, then confirmed how many were left. For example,

the tracadone bottle originally held 30 pills, but only 20 of them remained, whereas the diazepine bottles had a pink mark on it. But he said that that mark wasn't his. He also helped search the master bedroom. He remembered locating a baby monitor and a Google Nest camera. other investigators were in the room too checking different areas and later on his involvement switched to follow-up work and one of those tasks brought him to brigham and women's hospital where lindsay was actually being watched by the sheriff's department so she had her own room luller stayed outside the doorway at one point a man came to visit her a psychiatrist who he had been told was allowed in under a court order the door closed

behind him. Lawler did not go inside but didn't know what was said. But then on cross-examination, Reddington started by clearing up that Lawler hadn't been a sergeant back then. He was actually a trooper at the time. Reddington then walked him into the timeline of when he first got involved. Lawler said it was the evening of January 24th, around 7.30, when he headed to the South Shore Hospital. By then, everyone knew the gravity of what had happened because two children were already dead, already gone. Another critically injured, Callan. Reddington mentioned how wild the media presence had been around the house and hospitals. Lala remembered reporters at the house, but he wasn't sure about the hospital. So when they talked about Lindsay, Loller described seeing her in the emergency room, she had a tube in her mouth,

tape across her face, her arms wrapped, wires everywhere. He agreed it was a shocking scene to walk into. He confirmed that he collected her clothing and wedding band, and when Reddington asked about the stains, Lawler said that in his experience, that was blood. Reddington asked whether she had shoes. Loller didn't remember any, maybe just two black socks. And if shoes had been removed, he said they would have been saved with the rest of her clothing.

From there, Reddington moved him through the sequence of South Shore, then Boston Children's, then back to the house for a search warrant, Luller explained he wasn't the lead investigator. He was, again, simply one of the troopers working under court-ordered search warrant that allowed them to look for a range of items, including medications. Reddington held up an item that looked like Lindsay's nightstand drawer and asked if Loller had ever seen it. He said he hadn't and didn't know what had been inside.

Well, Reddington asked him to explain how the detectives worked together. And Lawler said they'd walk through the house first to get a sense of the layout, then break into teams. As evidence turned up, he'd been alerted so he could document it and collect it. Crime scene handled the photos and video. He remembered seeing things like wall hangings, fingerprints, handprints, well downstairs, Reddington asked about the finished basement and whether it looked like an office. He wasn't sure about the layout, but he did remember items being seized down there, including two laptops.

He did not know whose they were at the time and when the questioning shifted to Lindsay's phone, he said he believed it had been seized from the master bedroom. One phone was on the bed,

another in a dresser drawer. He did not remember blood on either one and said that if a phone had blood on it, he probably would not have remembered, although he did recall blood in the upstairs bedroom. On the floor near the mirror, and on the floor leading toward the back window is where he remembers seeing the blood.

He also said that he never came across an Apple Watch while Reddington asked how long the search took. He didn't remember exactly, maybe a couple of hours. At some point, though, after that, he went to Brigham and Women's Hospital. He could not pin down the exact day, but said it was a few days after the incident. Lindsay had been transferred there, and the sheriff's department had custody. His unit was helping maintain coverage. She was in a a small ICU-type room filled with machines. He said access to her was extremely restricted. Even her parents could not get in. Take a listen. Then transferred out of South Shore Hospital, she was transferred to Brigham a woman's hospital.

You went to Brigham and Women's Hospital. Imagine you had to go through security to get in there, right? Well, you're bad. Right. At some point, yeah, we were probably assisted with security to get that. Right. Well, you know that nobody could get access to Lindsay Clancy in that hospital, and I mean nobody, right? Correct. And this went on for day after day after day, to your knowledge, facilitating, right? Correct. Her parents couldn't get in to see her, correct? I don't believe so.

She had an attorney that had difficulty, not me, but another guy that had difficulty getting in to see her. Isn't that right? I'm not aware of that difficulty. I had to get a court order to get a doctor in there to see her, didn't I? Yes, it was a court order. And when I got the court order, a doctor came in and met with Lindsay, pursuing to that judge's order, and that was Paul Zaisal, correct? I believe that's the name.

I'm not sure if he was a doctor, but I believe that was a gentleman that came in the court order. Okay, because only because in your direct you said that he was not a doctor, but he was a psychiatrist. So, I mean, it's just you knew that he had something to do with head doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist, something like that. Correct. Okay. Did he have to clear it with you to get into the room? He checked in with myself and the other trooper. We were advised that he was coming and to let him in on the court order. All right? Now, I wasn't there on that occasion, right? No. And when Dr. Zizelah, whoever it was, went into the room to see her, it's your memory that he was allowed to shut the door. Is that correct?

I believe he shut the door. Now, you were involved you were involved in this investigation pretty intensely working with the DA's office, right? Correct. Isn't it fair to say that one of the contentions of the district attorneys is that Paul Zaisel, my doctor,

that I got a court order to get in to see her, told her to call Pat and tell him that she heard voices? I see counseled sidebar in regards to this. So, here's where things get kind of very interesting.

Right as things got into that territory, the judge paused. Okay, he sent the jury out. And the reason he said the jury out was so they could do a quick voir dire of the witness. That means questioning, essentially, of the witness. They needed to do some things outside of the presence of the jury. But we were able to see what was going on. So the judge told Reddington that he could start the voir dire and Buckingham would follow.

So Reddington goes up for the defense, and he goes through the setting. Brigham and Women's Hospital, the purpose of being there, the fact that a doctor had come in under a court order, Lawler agreed, and he said that the doctor

had gone through security and entered the room where Lindsay was lying in the bed. So then when Redington asked whether the door had been open, closed, or somewhere in between, he said he didn't remember. Reddington then asked how the case had been prepared.

He asked whether Lala had worked with the prosecutors while getting ready for trial. He said yes. They spoke about theories, evidence to chase down interviews, all the usual investigative back and forth. And one of the things that had come up was Patrick telling investigators that Lindsay had called him from the hospital, right? So Lala remembers this. He also remembered hearing that she had used a doctor's cell phone to make that call talking to her husband.

So then Raddington pushes a little further, asking whether investigators had floated the idea that Dr. Paul Zizal had told Lindsay to say she heard voices. Yeah, take a listen to this. I don't know if it's a theory or not. I just recall that conversation at some point. Okay. So when was the conversation? I don't recall exactly when Do you remember where the conversation was?

No Okay I'm assuming at the office I just don't recall specifically And who was it you were talking to? Probably could have been One of the troopers in the office work in the case One of the trooper Is it McGilligan?

Probably, he's the case officer So I imagine it probably wouldn't have him, sir Probably could have been him About any of the prosecutors? You talked to the the DAs about that? I don't recall specifically speaking to a prosecutor about this. Well, how about not necessarily specifically, but do you have any memory of talking to the prosecutor about, quote, this, end quote? No. So what is it that your memory is that the trooper, whoever it may have been, or the investigator from the state police, may have been,

what did that person tell you? That at some point when Lindsay was in the hospital with the doctor during the court order that she made a phone call to Patrick and they discussed circumstances of the case and then he was interviewed later on and communicated this phone call to, I believe, Trooper McElegan. And what did McElega tell you about the conversation? What the theory or the understanding was that that during the conversation Lindsay communicated to Patrick that she had heard, voices in her head. And there was also the conversation regarding the psychologist is basically the one that planted that idea in her head, right? The conversation between True McHilligan and I? Yeah. I don't

recall that specifically. I just recall the facts that the facts that communicated to me that there was a phone call between Lindsay and Patrick. Okay, you already said that. I know, and I apologize, I don't mean to cut you off, but let's cut to the chase. Yeah. What I'm asking you are voices. You know what that means when someone hears voices, right? Yes. You may not hear voices. I may not hear voices, but some people might hear voices, right? Yeah. That was discussed with McGilliot, wasn't it? Yes.

And what is it that he discussed with you about Lindsay hearing voices? That that's what she had told Patrick on the phone call that she heard voices. And when she told Patrick that she heard that on the phone call, the prosecution determined

that it was Zizel, or whoever that doctor was, you don't recall, they told her to say that for some type of a defense, right? I don't know what the prosecution determined. All I can say, that's what I recall, the conversation between Lindsay and Patrick. Okay. About the voices. The voice?

Yeah. And the conversation also included the fact that it was the psychologist that planted that idea in her mind. That's the theory, isn't it? That would be the theory. but I don't recall have it. Wait, wait, wait. Your answer is that would be the theory, right?

Correct. Okay. I'm with you, that's what was discussed. All right. And this would be you and, is it McGilligan? McElligan. McElligan. Yes, sir.

And you're unable to assist us, though, with any of the detail. You do recall that there was a conversation about that. Correct. And in the conversation, it was about the conversation that Lindsay had with a husband indicating about voices, right? Correct. Using the psychologist's cell phone, right? Correct. And there was an indication that the psychologist told her to basically say that.

You just told us, yes. Yes. Okay. That's all I have. Trudy Buckingham. Sergeant Lutter, at the time that you were at the Brigham Hospital and at the time the doctor came in, you didn't know anything about a theory of the case, correct? No. And you didn't know or overhear anything outside that room about conversations between the doctor and the defendant, did you? Correct. And you indicated that you never had a conversation with the prosecution about their theory of the case, did you? Did not. So anything that you recall was simply conversation with another trooper in the unit.

Correct. And as you sit here in your testimony today and testify about your memory of that particular night, is anything about that conversation with Sergeant McGilligan guiding your testimony? No. You changed or your memory changed as to that incident after you had this conversation with Trooper McGilligan. No. And in fact, you don't know anything about whether there's any evidence about Dr. Zaisal giving or prompting the defendant to have that conversation other husband, do you? No. All you know factually is what came out of the investigation from what

Patrick said the call was and who he said the call was from and how the call occurred, correct? Correct. Thank you. So, so let me, yes? Yeah, please. So basically, my contention is that you're, you're obviously up here testifying as honestly as you can. It's pretty apparent, right? Yes. And, and, and, you, You're very consistent with your oath and you understand that it's important. And you're trying to, it may be difficult, but you're trying to explain what your memory is about conversation with the lead investigator, McElligan, right? I mean, you're trying to tell us what your memory is, right? Yes.

So your testimony pertains to your conversation with the lead investigator, McElligan. It's got nothing to do with the fact that you don't recall this or you don't recall that. What you've testified to is for the judge to consider, right? Yes. So clearly now, because of this questioning outside of the presence of the jury, we know exactly why. And the theory that it's about to be floated, right? Which is essentially somebody told Lindsay to say she was hearing voices. Like we're getting hints.

So then the judge brings the jury back in. And the cross-examination continues. So again, the jury didn't hear that, but now they're going to hear this. And once the jury's back, Reddington picks up right where he left off. He walks Lawler through that moment at Brickman Women's. when state police were helping maintain custody over Lindsay. He reminds him that he had seen a doctor come into that area and eventually step into her room. Loller agreed.

Redington pointed out that Loller didn't remember whether the door had been fully shut or left open a bit, and Laller said that was true. He wasn't listening in or trying to hear anything anyway. Well, after the doctor finished with Lindsay, Redington asked whether investigators later learned that she had used the doctor's cell phone to call her husband. And Loller said he learned that afterward. He also knew from the investigation that her tube had recently been removed so she could speak now, at least somewhat, and that she had talked on the phone.

Reddington, well, he pressed this point that none of the officers had any report or documentation showing what was said between Lindsay and the doctor inside the room, which is important. There is no record of that. And Laller confirmed this. Yeah, you're right. So then Redington asks about Sergeant McGilligan, the lead investigator. Reddington asked directly whether McGilligan had talked to him about a theory. And that theory that Dr. Paul Zaisal was the reason Lindsay told her husband that she heard voices. Let's watch this. He, as the lead investigator, told you in a conversation, or perhaps more than one, that,

the government theory is that Dr. Zaisal told Lindsay to say to her husband that she heard voices, right? If you can rephrase that Okay. Did you talk to McDelegan about the theory

that Dr. Zizel is the reason that she told her husband that she heard voices? Yes. And do you remember where or when that conversation occurred or how many times that you guys discussed that? I believe it would have been at the office. I don't recall exactly when. Okay. And there's no investigator basis for that. That's the Gelligan speculation. Is that correct? Correct.

When you went there and you observed Lindsay after the doctor left, she's still obviously in the bed because she's paralyzed, right? Correct. You're still in the bed. Was she restrained by either soft restraints or handcuffs or whatever? Do you remember where her hands or her wrist restraints of the bedpost? I don't recall specifically restraints. Okay. And you mentioned that the state police were there. That would be people that were obviously working with you, right?

Correct. And do you remember how many state police were there that you were coordinating or assisting? Per shift, there was two of us. Two? Yes, sir. Okay. And also there were sheriffs from the Flint County Sheriff's Department that were there, right? So we relieved the sheriffs.

And how many sheriffs did you relieve? I don't recall it. Yeah, probably two, though. Okay. And how about Dexbury Police? Should you recall the Dexbury Police being there? I do not recall Dexbury Police there. How about the security cops for the hospital?

Do you recall them being there either in the room or outside the room? I don't recall them being outside the room. Do you recall coordinating with the security boss, the head guy for the hospital security? I recall having some assistance at some point from security to get up there. Okay. And do you remember how many days it was that you were assisting in the custody situation of Lindsay before she was allowed to have family and me and different people visit with her? I don't recall exactly how many days. About a week maybe or less or longer?

Less than a week. Less than a week? I think, yeah. I don't remember exactly at all. And even though she was allowed to have visitors, still the police presence was there. Is that correct? After I left, I'm not sure after I left what the visitation was like. So when you say after you left, you mean when you left the hospital,

you mean after you were finished with your tasked duty of dealing with for security and being under arrest? Correct. After my assigned shift, I don't know. So after you were involved, obviously you don't know what happened after that. Correct. Okay. So we have, thank you, sir.

Thank you, sir. Redirect this, Buckham? Sergeant Luller, in your experience working in the detectives unit as a trooper, is it fair to say you oftentimes will have conversations as investigations are unfolding with other investigators that you're working on a case with about the case, potential evidence, theories of the case? Yes. And it's also fair to say that theories change over time based on your investigation and what evidence you find. Correct. Is there anything about a conversation that you had with Trooper McGilligan about this theory? that affects your testimony as you stand here today.

No. And you didn't hear anything that occurred in that room that day that you were there when Dr. Zaisal was there, did you? I did not hear anything. Nothing further. Briefly. Well, your testimony basically, unobjected to, is talking about clothes that were seized at the house

and the other investigation going to the hospital. That's it, right? Objection. Be honest. Sustain. All right. All right. Anything further?

All right. Thank you, sir. Thanks, your honor. Thank you. It's quite a theory. I wonder if it's going to stick with the jury to say that a doctor, Dr. Zizal, encouraged Lindsay to tell her husband that she had heard voices. Quite the theory. The next witness was Letitia Dukes.

She was the therapist. So she's very important for the prosecution. She explained that she worked as a license. mental health counselor, and for about five years, she had been a perinatal clinician at South Shore Hospital. She has a bachelor's in psychology, a master's in mental health counseling. And another master's, an education focused on mental health counseling. She described the perinatal clinic as a place where women came for short-term therapy during pregnancy, birth, and postpartum. Her job was to support them through anxiety, depression,

trauma and the complicated emotional shifts that can happen after having a baby. She helped connect patients to whatever level of care they needed, sometimes weekly therapy, sometimes intensive outpatient programs, sometimes partial hospitalization, and sometimes inpatient care. She said she collaborated constantly with nurse practitioners and other clinicians, and she helped manage treatment plans as part of a team. A lot of her work depended on building trust. She said her ability to help a patient hinged on the rapport that she developed with them. And she relied heavily on what they reported during sessions. In fact, every appointment involving assessing a patient, she presented that day, she looked at their mood, she assessed their

mood, their safety, their history, their current stressors. She performed psychosocial assessments, risk assessments, as well as diagnostic evaluations. She offered cognitive behavioral therapy as well. That was recommended to Lindsay. Remember that? CBT, dialectical behavioral therapy and EMDR for trauma. Sessions usually ran anywhere, according to Letitia, from 30 minutes to an hour,

depending on what the patient needed. and if she felt someone was heading towards crisis, she had tools that she could use. She would loop in her supervisor, coordinate with crisis teams, help create safety plans, or call crisis support numbers with the patient. In more serious situations, she could involve police or initiate a Section 12, remember Section 12, is saying, you don't really have a choice, we're putting you inpatient, we're making the decision for you, an involuntary process. Otherwise, that brings the court into the picture.

She said the clinic offered both in-person and telehealth appointments, but the very first intake was always in person. After that, patients could choose telehealth unless she felt they needed to come in, for example, if they'd fallen out of care or she had concerns about their safety. So when Buckingham asked about Lindsay Clancy, the Tisha Dukes remembered first meeting her around late November or early December. Lindsay had originally been treated by Julie Paul, but by the time Dukes got involved, her care switched, remember, to Rebecca Jolada. We've heard from Rebecca. Dukes confirmed she had the most contact with Jolada about Lindsay's case.

So that's interesting. So Dukes and Jolada did chat about Lindsay. They had conversations. The intake appointment on December 2nd was in person. Lindsay had been referred to postpartum, for postpartum anxiety and depression. Dukes went through the full psychosocial history. She said she did it fresh.

So she didn't really. lie on Julie Paul's earlier notes. Lindsay told her that she'd had prior mental health treatment, including seeing a psychiatrist during nursing school and being prescribed medication. She also said that she'd been working with a psychiatrist before coming to the clinic. Let's watch this. In regards to, on this particular first encounter on December 2nd, when it comes to the mental status exam, were you able to observe her facial expressions?

Yes. And what were your observations of her facial expressions? She was tearful when discussing her anxiety symptoms. Okay. And were you, did you also ask those questions about thought content? You just have to answer out loud. Yes. Okay.

And so what did you say about thought content? So thought content, worry about her infant and that she had an addiction to Ativan. And you said you also in this assessment assessed suicidal thoughts, correct? Correct. And so did you ask her anything more about those passive thoughts that you indicated she reported? Yes. And what she reported as far as like passive thoughts were thoughts of not wanting to be here or no longer wanting to live, but no plan. And is that significant to you? the fact that she identified there was no plan?

Yes. And why is it significant? Because if she identified that she, in fact, had a plan, then that would escalate me to see it as a crisis and request higher level of support at that time. As far as your observations of her thought process, were those within normal limits? Yes.

And her intellectual functioning, with those within normal limits? Yes. Did she report to you any past attempts to harm herself or others? No. Did you go through with her behavioral health history? Yes. And other than what you indicated as the anxiety and sleep,

did she identify any concerns around substance abuse issues? So she did identify concerns about, not in her history, but in that visit, about misuse of Ativan. And if somebody expresses concern about that substance use, do you have a tool available to you to assess whether they have substance use issues? Yes, so there is an assessment within the initial intake appointment that has. has a specific section to further assess substance use disorder. And did you identify whether she presented with any substance use disorder issues? I did assess that she did not present with any substance use disorder issues. And as far as her expressed concern to you, fair to say it was focused on the one particular

medication, the medication at a van, correct? And why were you, why did you not find that that to be an issue based on your assessment? Based on my assessment and how she stated she was supposed to be using it, it was used correctly to remedy the anxiety symptoms. Okay. And after this initial intake, oh, I guess the first question is approximately how long is this initial intake appointment? The initial intake appointment is typically an hour. And after having spent the hour, gone through these assessments, spoken to her about her history, were you able to come up with or give an opinion about diagnosis? Yes.

And based on her presentation to you, what was your opinion about diagnosis? At the time, my opinion about her diagnosis was postpartum anxiety because she had a lot of anxiety about most things. Okay. And so what were your recommendations as far as a treatment plan for her? My recommendations at that visit was outpatient therapy, continued medication, and weekly visits with me. And why did you recommend outpatient therapy on top of therapy with you? So outpatient therapy was kind of like a blanket therapy, but more so like intensive outpatient therapy, partial hospitalization therapy. And was your role in offering her weekly sessions?

an attempt to kind of bridge services and make sure she was getting everything she needed or something different to bridge services. And so after that meeting with the recommendation for weekly visits, did you begin to schedule additional visits with her? Yes. And after that particular visit on December 12th, did you send her any particular information? Yes. And how do you do that? How do you send patients information if you're not able to, you're not able to give it to them? I can send it through my chart messaging.

And on this particular day, after you're meeting with her, you sent her some resources about cognitive behavioral therapy. Did you not? Yes. So their next contact was December 5th and was a telehealth visit. Latisha Duke said that was probably the soonest available appointment that week. And during that December 5th visit, Lindsay told her that she had had a very difficult weekend. she had experienced intrusive thoughts about wanting to die and had contacted, they were so bad, Aspire crisis support.

Aspire met with her virtually and told her, though, that she didn't meet criteria for inpatient care because she had no plan. Dukes followed up on those intrusive thoughts. Lindsay said they were continuous thoughts of not wanting to be here. But again, no plan. I'm going to stop. How many, I sincerely don't know. If there are any mental health professionals in chat, help us know.

How many times does someone need to say, I am having ideation, self-harm, no plan, but it's so bad I'm calling a crisis line and they won't go away. I don't want to be here. They're continuous. But because there's no plan, she doesn't qualify. I don't know. I would love to know. Dukes completed another mental status exam. Lindsay then had no suicidal ideation during the visit. There were no signs of psychosis, mania, or homicidal ideation.

Duke said that Lindsay's husband ended up joining that telehealth session, likely because he was concerned. And that visit lasted about 30 minutes and the focus was the difficult weekend and the crisis call. Well, Duke's offered support and talked about higher levels of care, intensive outpatient therapy, partial hospitalization. She also reviewed sleep hygiene because sleep was one of Lindsay's biggest concerns. She said that Lindsay didn't decline services and wanted more information. She also asked about psychological testing. Duke discussed that with the psychiatrist Rebecca Jolotta and later sent Lindsay information about testing, but the clinic wasn't recommending it internally. Lindsay had brought it up herself. Duke said Lindsay's demeanor during that visit was

within normal limits. Nothing about her presentation felt any different from the intake. She did not appear anxious or unusual. Dukes did have concerns about the difficult weekend, but nothing that triggered crisis interventions like, again, a section 12. Again, how many times? The next visit was December 12th. Again, telehealth, as Reddington says, the television. Lindsay said that she would be starting a partial hospitalization program in Norwell on December 20th. Dukes was not the one who referred her to Norwell. She continued recommending women and infants instead.

She explained that women and infants, they actually specialized in postpartum care and they allowed mothers to bring their infants. Lindsay consented to the referral. During that December 12th visit, Lindsay still, still, still, had passive suicidal ideation, but again, still no plan and no attempts. So I guess it's okay, but Dukes did identify protective factors,

her husband, her mother-in-law, and the fact that she had followed through with contacting crisis when she needed support. Lindsay accepted the referral to women and infants and nothing about the visit required emergency interventions. The final visit was December 19th, another virtual appointment. Lindsay still had low mood and numbness,

but she had no suicidal ideation, and she had not needed crisis intervention over the weekend. She told Dukes that she had been spending time with her family, her children, and exercising. So at that point, Dukes had already put in the referral for women and infants. Lindsay said the program had reached out, but she missed the call and planned to call back. Sleep had been a major concern, but Lindsay reported that her sleep had improved. she said her mood was still low, but she was more engaged, able to smile and able to laugh, enjoying time with family. Dukes saw that as a positive sign, nothing about the visit,

suggested to her that she needed higher level of care beyond what had already been recommended. And then after December 19th, Dukes did not have any more in-person visits. Contact actually became limited. On December 27th, two days after Christmas, less than a month, before the horrific day, she called Lindsay to let her know the referral had been completed. Before that call, she spoke with Lindsay's husband Patrick, with Lindsay's consent. He had concerns about prescriptions, and Dukes redirected him to the prescriber because medication was not her area. Her area was therapy.

And throughout all of these interactions with Lindsay, Duke said she never had concerns about Lindsay's physical safety or the safety of others. I mean, it's weird to me, guys. Call it just me. I'm going to share more opinion, but she's repeatedly saying she doesn't want to be here. She's having intrusive thoughts. She doesn't want to live. There's ideation. Yeah, it's back and forth, Sundays, yes, and days, no.

But she's never concerned over her physical safety or the safety of others. I mean, that's, it's confusing to me. But whatever, we'll keep going. She never saw signs of mania or delusions, paranoia or psychosis. Okay. Lindsay's speech was normal, according to Dukes. Dukes never felt Lindsay was inaccurately reporting things, and she never needed to initiate safety planning or a section 12,

meaning involuntary commitment to a hospital. Her recommendations stayed focused on higher levels of care like intensive outpatient or partial hospitalization. By the last visit, Lindsay was doing things outside the home, spending time with family, exercising, and engaging more. Duke saw that as improvement, which was a sign that she was connecting with others and trying to manage her symptoms. And that ended the direct examination with the prosecution. But then on cross-exam, Reddington gets up, right?

Okay, we're like, okay, here we go. Reddington is up. Whenever Reddington gets up, you know, who knows what's coming. Cross-exam starts with Reddington, confirming how many times Duke's actually met with Lindsay. And she told him it was four. intake on December 2nd, then December 5th, December 12th, December 19th, and then a phone call on the 27th. He handed her the stack of records the DA had been using. He asked whether she'd been able to see the notes written by Julie Paul and Rebecca

Gelada before meeting Lindsay on December 2nd. Duke said she could have accessed them, but she didn't look at them. She did the intake fresh. Reddington walked her through the December 2nd, behavioral health intake. and he pointed out that one of the first things that she should want to know is whether a patient is being honest. Dukes agreed. Latisha Dukes was like, yeah, absolutely. So he reminded her that Lindsay had disclosed using Prozac back in nursing school because she struggled with public speaking. Letitia Dukes confirmed that. He moved to the next part of the record, the section where

Lindsay said she had been prescribed at a van by Dr. Tufts. Take a listen. So she told you that she was prescribed against a benzodiazepine by her treating psychiatrist. And further on into your interaction with her, she told you that she was very concerned about taking medication, right? Yes. And she was really concerned about becoming addicted to medication, such as a benzodia like Ativan, right?

She was concerned about becoming addicted to medication, yes. All right. In the very last paragraph, it says when no longer taking Ativan. You see that one? Yes. Okay. She then explained that she had issues with the sleep and she started having heart palpitations and she went to the ER for anxiety. Is that right? Correct. And at that time, she told you that she felt that she had an addiction to Ativan. That's why she couldn't sleep, right? Yes. And she was stressing about that. It was really concerned about that, right?

Yes. She then said that she had weight loss, right? Yes. No appetite, right? Correct. Panic attacks, right? Right. Couldn't sleep, right?

Yes. Next page, December 2nd, office visit, the same visit. First paragraph, she was prescribed Remeron and Serequel in the past four days, right? I'm sorry, this is a different date on this one. What date do you have? Okay. So the next page, mine it goes to 12. Okay, all right, let's look at this one.

Would you agree that this is a record from social health and talks about continuing your appointment December 2nd? Yes. Okay. If you can find out. I think they were just out of alert. Okay. That's fine.

No problem. It's not your phone. Are you with me on that? that she was prescribed Remmeron and Syracuse? Yes. Okay. And that was within the past the last four days. Is that right?

Yes. So when you saw her on December 2nd, after telling you about the Ativan and telling you about her weight loss and her anxiety and everything else, she told you that she had been prescribed Remeron and Syracul, and I understand you don't do the drugs,

so you don't really have- No, I don't do medicine. Very difficult to get the brand names and the other names, but we have a chat for that. So she started Remmeron and Seraquel, and then she told you that since starting the medication, she's had thoughts that she no longer wants to be here, meaning, I guess what, on the Earth? No longer wants to be here. Could mean anything. But in that instance, when assessing for suicidal ideation, no longer want to be here,

qualifies as passive suicidal ideation. Good. And then she indicates further that this week, she was seeing you, feels like she's going to die. That's what the DA read to you, right? Yes. But then it goes on and says, but she doesn't care if she dies, basically. She feels like she's going to die, but she doesn't care. She said that, right? Yes. She then talked about how the Remeron and Sarah Kool were not helping her sleep.

Yesterday she took A-A-V-In, she told you, right? Yes. Due to intrusive SI suicidal ideation thoughts, right? Yes. Did she indicate what the intrusive suicidal ideation thoughts were yesterday, which would be December 1st, did she tell you what that meant? Did you ask her what she meant by that? I did ask her what she meant, and that would mean that she had the thoughts that she told me about,

about no longer wanting to be here. Okay. And you then told her that she could go to the ER and that you then sent her local crisis contact information. Is that right? Yes. And then talks about onset. It says three months after the baby was born, she had unmanageable anxiety, correct? Correct.

What does she tell you the anxiety was about? One second. Yep. It's under onset. And what was the question? To onset, she indicated three months after the baby was born, she had unmanageable anxiety. Yes. The district attorney asked you.

And then it continued on with a sentence. What was her anxiety about? About her children, especially the baby. And what does that mean? That she was having unmanageable anxiety. What does it mean? So constantly worried that something was going to. to happen to her children or something bad was going to happen to the baby.

And at that time the children were four, three, and six months, right? Correct. Under social, the notes indicate that she reported she talks about her anxiety all the time with her mom, husband, and mother-in-law, correct? Correct. And one of the questions the DA asked you is about her support, family supports or collateral contacts and indicated the mother-in-law. She also had her mother and father as family support as well, right?

Correct. And you knew that her mother and father had actually lived in Connecticut, but moved up or came up and stayed with her for at least a week, if not longer, during December, right? If you know. And I know it's difficult if it's not in the notes for you to remember. I'm just asking, do you remember it all that she said that her mother and father came up and stayed with her to help out?

I don't remember that. Okay. She further went on and said that she's uninterested in, And other topics from friends, what did that mean? She just didn't want to talk to her friends about anything? She just had a lack of interest in conversation with friends. And that would be her social circle. She didn't care, right?

Right. She said that she felt numb, right? Yes. She had a lack of attention, right? Right. Confusion, right? Right. Under mood, it says, well, of course, you have disturbed sleep.

She's only sleeping two to four hours a night is what she told you, right? Correct. And then it says supports. Mother and Father have been staying with her for the past week. Is that refresh your memory that you did get that info that they were staying with her for the past week? Yes. That's fine. I just saw that too.

No problem. You took her history, that she was a nurse, that she had been on leave. And she told you that she lost 10 pounds in the past month, right? Correct. Now, can you flip to the next page and make sure we're both on the same page? And the substance use assessment, do you have that? One second. Yep.

Yes. Okay. So one of the things that you're concerned about is whether or not your patient has a substance abuse problem like drugs or alcohol or something like that, right? Correct. And you've already told us that your opinion was that Lindsay did not have any substance abuse problems other than her fear about the prescribed adaband, right? Correct. So did you ask her about alcohol? Yes.

Can you tell me what she said about alcohol? She said the last time she drank alcohol was in October of 2019. Go ahead. Yeah. Did she tell you how much what it is her alcohol of choice was? She said her alcohol of choice was wine. She would have one to two glasses. Did she say why she would do that?

To cope with anxiety. Okay. And this is back in 2019, right? Correct. That would be three years before you actually met with her in December of 22, right? Correct. Cannabis, the weed, the devil's lettuce. How about that?

Did she confess that she was using marijuana? Yes, she said she did use marijuana. When? Last use was November 15th, 2022. Why? I'm sorry? Why did she say that she used it? Send to comments?

Yes. taking it. That's okay. She said she tried a marijuana gummy to help with sleep. And that was on November 15th of 22, right? Yes. Go to the next page, assessment and recommendation. If you have that, make sure we have it. Okay. And I think the district attorney had asked you about the mental status exam facial expression and you indicated that her facial expression showed anxiety right correct fear right do you know what the fear was just going back to that part of the issue yeah it's on the facial expression and you said facial expressions right please yeah anxiety fear apprehension sadness okay so if I can

apologize if you just keep you but you're very soft spoken yes I walk way so the jurors can hear you yeah thank you and you said that facial expression exported to you anxiety, right? Correct. Fear of something, right? Yes. Apprehension, right? Yes.

Sadness? Yes. Depression. Yes. And she expressed that she was having anxiety and numbness, right? Yes. And she was crying when she was telling you this, right? Yes.

And again, indicated that her thoughts were worried about her baby, the new baby she had, the infant, as well as if she's being addicted to. Adavan is what she told you, right? Yes. And again, thoughts of wanting to die, but there was no plan. Correct. Well, Reddington then walked her through the risk assessment. Lindsay again admitted suicidal ideation, but passive. Dukes confirmed that. He pointed out that the list of medications Lindsay was actively prescribed Syracquil Prozac Ativan Remmeron. Duke's agreed. He reminded her that Lindsay had asked for addiction support services, then Dukes had sent her resources through my chart. Dukes confirmed that. He pointed out that Dukes had diagnosed postpartum anxiety

and recommended outpatient therapy, partial hospitalization or intensive outpatient therapy. Dukes agreed. He asked whether Lindsay had been willing to accept help. Duke said yes. She came to therapy four times and did not avoid treatment. And then he moved to the December 5th visit, Lindsay told her she had had a difficult weekend. Intrusive thoughts, intrusive thoughts of wanting to die and had contacted Aspire crisis support. Dukes confirmed that Aspire told her that she didn't, again, meet the criteria for inpatient care because she had no plan. He asked whether Lindsay's presentation stayed the same, anxious, sad withdrawn. Duke said yes. Then we get to December 12th. Again, the intrusive thoughts,

December 12th, and she had contacted Aspire twice. Aspire both times told her they couldn't help her. Why? Because she didn't have a plan. I mean, my goodness, she clearly got herself a plan. How many times do you have to say to someone you don't have a plan before maybe they need to start making one to get help? I mean, I don't know. I don't know.

We're going to have, by the way, can we put the crisis hotline in chat, somebody, a moderator, and we will have it in the description of this video. Reddington then went into the part of Lindsay's care where Dukes had tried to help her get into the women and infants program in Rhode Island. Take a listen to this. And she told you that she was going to start a Ph.P. in Norwell on December 20th, right? Correct. But in fact, you were able to, knowing people that you may have and pull strings, you were able to try to get her into the Rhode Island Women and Infants Program, right? Correct.

Which is a really pretty good program. Correct. And did you know that she did, in fact, go to women and infants on December 20th? She didn't go to the Norwell program. She went to Women and Infants Program and that she was there for the day and that they basically turned her away. I did know that she went to the women and infants program. I was not sure of the date. Okay.

So if I suggest to you, it was the same date that she had told you that she was going to go to the program in Norwell on December 20th, and then that you and Nicole Hardin-Francis reviewed various options, one of which was that, which made sense to attend the woman and infants program, IOP or PHP program, right? Correct. And that she, patient, provided you with verbal consent to sign whatever had to be signed and get her into that program, right? Correct.

So you know that she did on December 20th after not getting anywhere with Aspire Times 2 and after dealing with Jolada for all those times and she dealt with her, I'm sorry, the other one, Tufts, you were trying to get her into this program, which would be pretty good for a woman that had post-pattern problems, right? Correct. And you made your referral, you opened the door for her and she got in there to at least be interviewed, right? Correct. And they didn't take her, right? Correct. You know why? I am not aware as to why.

Would you be surprised if I told you that they indicated that they could not help her out because their diagnosis or secondary diagnosis was that she was over-medicated? Repeat the question? Would it surprise you to know that they indicated that they couldn't treat her as a woman with postpartum psychosis or postpartum depression or post-pitome anxiety or any of that? because their opinion was that she was suffering from an overmedication. It would surprise me, yes. But you don't know?

I do not know. Okay. Did you know that the records from women and infants indicate that, in fact, on that very same day, they reached out to nurse Jolada and asked her to call them so that they could discuss the medication and July to never get back to her. I was not aware of that. I'm sorry?

I was not aware of that. So he then went back to December 19th. So on December 19th, it was the last time that Dukes had actually met with Lindsay. He asked whether the list of calls in her notes meant Lindsay had not answered, and she said no, those were just the things she herself had done that day. She and Lindsay were in communication, she claims. Reddington asked whether she was familiar. familiar with the Edinburgh scale. By the way, thank you to those who taught me that I was saying it

wrong. I was saying Edinburgh. Although I did learn, I will say this before we get to the Edinburgh scale, Edinburgh scale, that in some American clinics, they do say Edinburgh. So I wasn't completely wrong. But I prefer Edinburgh anyway, because it's what my son calls me, Bra. So Edinburgh scale. Duke said she knew of it, but she didn't think it had been administered to Lindsay. that's the scale of 10 questions about postpartum depression. Then he asked about polypharmacy, whether she knew the term. She said she had heard it but didn't know the exact definition. He asked whether she knew the Mass General Center for Women's Mental Health.

She said that she was aware of it. He asked whether she knew about a study that they'd published on postpartum periods. She said that she did not. He then walked her through the categories of postpartum psychiatric. illness, postpartum blues, postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis. He went symptom by symptom through postpartum depression, depressed mood, tearfulness, loss of interest, sleep disturbance, appetite changes, poor concentration, self-harming thoughts. Duke confirmed Lindsay had most, if not all of those symptoms.

She didn't recall Lindsay expressing guilt or worthlessness, and she didn't remember her describing fatigue, but she did agree. with the rest. He pointed out that Lindsay's symptoms lined up with postpartum depression. Dukes agreed. He asked whether she knew that Lindsay had scored a 23 on the Edinburgh scale. And Duke said that she did not know that. And then he moved into postpartum psychosis, the most severe category.

He asked whether she agreed it occurred or occurs in about two out of a thousand women. And she said, yes. he asked whether postpartum psychosis usually presents with bipolar illness. And she said that she didn't know. It kind of surprised me for her background. But he ended by asking about Lindsay's sincerity. That was an interesting question to end on. Asking about how sincere Lindsay was.

Duke said that Lindsay appeared sincere, that she appeared to be looking for help, that she was hurting, and that she was reaching in every direction she could. The last time that she saw her was December 19th, and then that closed out cross-exam. But no, no, Buckingham is going to get back up for redirect. And so Buckingham came back up.

She asked Letitia why she hadn't reviewed the records from Julie Paul or Rebecca Jolotta before meeting Lindsay, and Duke said that she wanted a fresh set of eyes. That was standard practice to do her own intake, her own diagnostic assessment, her own evaluation of the patient's presentation. She explained that while she could collaborate with the prescribers, her therapy was her own lane. She did not manage medication. Anything listed under current medications in the chart was just whatever auto-populated from the system. She didn't know which prescriptions were active or when they had been written. Buckingham clarified the timeline around partial hospitalism.

Dukes had been recommending a higher level of care for some time. Take a listen. And on December 12th, you had already talked to Lindsay Clancy about the women and infants program, had you not? Correct. And so when she told you on the 12th that she was starting that program in Norwell, that wasn't from your referral, right? No. And you still recommended women and infants. Correct. And you got her consent on that visit, right? Yes. And on the 19th, when you saw her, were you aware that she had been at the Mass General ER on December 15th for evaluation? No. And that she had reported then to them that she opted for an outpatient program at women and infants as opposed to going inpatient to McLean. Did you know that? I wasn't aware of that. Okay. And when you met with her on the 19th, after the visits of the ER, she still hadn't engaged with women. women and infants, had she? No. And so you had to re-refer her. Yes. But you weren't aware that she had already gotten her referral from Mass General. No. And so you did later learn she went on December 20th, correct? Correct. And were you able to review those records about this visit to the 20th? So you

don't know that the ultimate plan and assessment for her was that, they didn't think she qualified for the program, but they provided her with several options for other inpatient treatments for medication management, partial hospitalization and general mental health. Did you know that? No. And as of your last meeting with her on December 19th, ultimately, what were your impressions of how she was doing? My impression was that her symptoms were improving because of the social aspects, spending time with family and friends and able to exercise when before it was difficult for her to engage or pay attention. And your observations of her while you were interacting with her, were they more positive than on previous occasions? Yes, she was able to smile and laugh.

Okay, thank you. When was it she was laughing with you? I believe that was the last visit, the 19th. So on the 19th, it was on television or was it in person? It was a virtual visit, a video visit. And on the 19th, on the virtual visit, what was the purpose of that visit? The purpose of that visit was to see if she was able to connect with care. Okay.

So you would have. I guess in your notes or reference to the fact that on the 19th of December that she was laughing. Not that she was laughing but that she was able to laugh. Able to laugh. Okay. Because I'm looking here on December 19th telemedicine. Latisha, I apologize Dukes, perinatal behavior health program. And you talk in that form about the date of the service, December 19th, psychotherapy, PCP, Margaret, that would be be the primary care, Margaret Anastasy.

Permanatal behavioral health program. You talk with a quote. If this is telehealth visit, please dot the phrase, video visit, whatever. Therapeutic intervention. She's 32 years old. Married female presents for postpartum anxiety. Symptom management. Patient continues to have low mood and numbness.

Numbness. Was she laughing when she had numbness? What date are you looking at? December 19. The last day you saw her or the last time you had any contact with her? She didn't appear to have that now. She didn't appear to have what? Laughing or numbness?

Numnus. Well, it says right in the notes. Does it not that patient continues to have low mood and numbness? Yes. Okay. I don't want you to say yes unless it's relative to. Patient continues to have low mood and numbness, right? Correct.

The patient has not had suicidal litigation and did not need crisis intervention over the weekend. In other words, she didn't kill herself, right? Correct. To help with the mood, patient has been spending time with her husband, children, and exercising, right? Yes. And exercise is one of the things that people would generally recommend the mother do, right? Correct. That's a good thing to try to do is to exercise, right?

So the fact that the government has records that show that she would take her kids or her husband would take her kids that they would go to a local gym and exercise or swim, that's consistent with what she was advised, right? Correct. It doesn't mean that she's just out there having a good time exercising, right? Objection. No rule. She was told that that's a good thing to do, right? She was told that that was a good thing to do, but the fact that she's able to follow through and do it shows improvement. Oh, okay. So when did she go to the gym?

She didn't give me exact dates. These are things that she told me she did. Did you ever ask her if you're telling me that, you know, this is showing improvement? Is it in the records? Does it indicate that you asked her if she was exercising? And if so, where and when? So we don't write down every thing that we talk about in the meeting is particularly a summary of that visit. Okay. And all I did was ask you about patient was spending time with her husband, children, in exercising and then you said that that's an indication that she's improving. Correct. Okay. And then I asked you if she's going to a gym, that's not a bad thing, isn't it?

No, it's not. Okay. And then it says that she received a call, and counsel asked you about this. She received a call from women and infants, but missed the call. Do you remember that? Remember the DA asking you that question? You said that she said that she said that she said, she missed the call. Yes. She didn't continue to read that the reason she missed the call is that she was at another medical appointment, right? Correct. And she called you back, right? Yeah. Okay. Clinician, you provided contact information for women and infants. Patient reported that she would contact them today, being December 19th, but in fact, she did, and you did with, she, back it up. she did with your help and she then went the following day on the 20th, right?

Correct. And finally, fair to say that nowhere in here doesn't say that she was laughing? You would have to go to the assessment, the risk assessment. Okay. You got it? Let me say it, please. Okay. Now, what's a mental status exam?

So a mental status exam is to, assess how the person is appearing that day, their mood and their interaction with you in that visit and how you proceed them. Okay. From the DA, we have December 19th, the telemedicine form, clinical notes, right? Yes. The laughing wouldn't be in that area, would it? No, it would be more so in this area.

Okay. Yes. Mental status exam, right? Appearance, hygiene, WNL. Within normal limits. Okay. Clothing normal, eye contact normal, build normal, posture normal, body movement normal, right? Yes.

Behavior is cooperative, right? Yes. And speeches within normal limits, is that correct? Correct. Emotional state, affect, patient reports feeling numb and having low mood for most of the day, right? Yes. Facial expression, other, facial expression, calm, was able to laugh and smile. smile, right? Yes. Would that be in response to you saying something funny or why was she laughing?

That would be in response to me saying something funny. So you guys were kind of bonding a little bit. Yes. All right. But she basically still continued to report that she was numb, having no move, and basically the symptomology that she had already reported, right? Correct. Okay. Thank you, I appreciate it. All right, Kamal. All right, thank you. Thank you. May step down. Thank you. So even though Lindsay had been laughing some and getting out more, she continued to report low mood and numbness, the same symptoms she had been describing all along. Now before we get to the next witness, we have a wonderful trial sponsor. Quick word from them and then we will get to a very important actual next witness.

Something I don't talk about a lot is what happens after we finish recording. because covering these cases, you don't just turn it off. There are nights where my body is exhausted. I'm ready for bed, but my brain is still going, replaying everything. I've always struggled with sleep. That's no secret. I've shared about my insomnia here. And for a while, I had this nightly ritual with Beam Dream that was really intentional. This year got busy, really busy. Late nights turned into researching, writing, keeping up with everything. And honestly, I stopped prioritizing sleep. I skipped the ritual and I felt it. So I have been trying to get back to myself and that starts with how I end my day. I have brought beam dream back into my routine and it's becoming that

signal again. The day is over. That's what it means. I'll make a cup. Sometimes I'll put a little bit of hot milk or oat milk in it. Just sit for a few minutes. No phone, no notes, just letting my body catch up. What I love is that it doesn't knock me out. It just helps me slow down and fall asleep naturally. It's made with things like magnesium and althianine, rishi mushroom. It's low calorie, 15 to 20 calories with no sugar, no dairy, no gluten. I've noticed I'm falling to sleep a lot faster. I'm not waking up in the middle of the night and I actually wake up feeling rested, which everyone is happy about because as a mom and a wife, that matters.

I need energy. I need patience that starts with sleep. For me, this isn't a quick fix. It's just a small nightly rhythm that helps me wind down and improve everything. else in my life. So if you've been struggling with sleep too, you can check it out at shopbeam.com slash true crime and use code true crime for up to 30% off your first order. I've linked it below. The QR code is on the screen. And honestly, if anything, maybe this is just a reminder, even a few minutes at night to slow down, get rid of those screens. It can make more of a

difference than you know. Our next witness was Officer Cameron Daly from the Duxbury Police least department. He'd been on the force about six and a half years and back in January, 2023, he was working as a patrol man. Buckingham asked him about the night of January 24th, and Daly said he'd been assigned to head to Brigham and Women's Hospital for a hospital watch, essentially guarding Lindsay Clancy because she was in custody. So when he arrived, two other Duxbury officers were already there, Officer Leopard and Officer Broderick. Daly was also with Officer Thomas Johnson. He said he was able to observe Lindsay while he was there. She was asleep, hooked up to medical devices and being treated periodically by staff. Daly stayed outside the

room the entire time. No visitors came in. No attorneys, no family. No one besides medical personnel. During his shift, he reported on the 25th arriving at around 10 in the morning and staying until about seven that evening. He was technically an eight to four. shift, but he stayed longer. And when he left, he was relieved by state police detective McDonald with the crime scene team and deputies from the Plymouth County Sheriff's Department. They took over the watch. Buckingham asked again whether anyone besides medical staff had gone into Lindsay's room during his shift. Daly said no. And he didn't return for any additional hospital watches after that day. So Redington's Cross was short. He asked

whether Daly had been in uniform. Daly said yes. Yes. He said. Yes. whether he had a gun and badge. Daly said he did. Readington pointed out that both officers were armed and in full uniform while guarding a woman who was tied to the bed. Daly confirmed that. And that wrapped up his testimony. Court took a lunch break. You know, there's a reason for that testimony.

But after lunch, the Commonwealth called its next witness, Nicole Bradley. Bradley worked in the field services division of the sheriff's department. and one of the responsibilities in that division involved hospital watch. She explained that whenever a detainee or inmate had been taken to the hospital, deputies stayed with them and kept a security watch. Part of that job required logging every person who came in or out of the patient's room, booking them approached with a packet of documents and asked her to take a quick look. Bradley said that that packet contained the hospital logs maintained by the sheriff's department.

She also verified that between January 25th and February 3rd of 2023, the department had been conducting hospital. The department had been conducting hospital watch on Lindsay Clancy. The judge admitted the records, and that was it, no cross-exam. Clearly, they are laying foundation for evidence. So then the Commonwealth then called Dr. Renee Stonebridge. And Stonebridge worked at the Massachusetts office of the chief medical examiner in Boston. She'd been there since 2017. Her background was extensive.

Four years at Sunny Stony Brook with a double major in German languages and literature and biology medical school at the American University of Antigua, a combined clinical pathology residency at NYU, Winthrop where she served as chief resident, a president, a forensic pathology fellowship in Boston, a two-year neuropathology fellowship through Brown University. I mean, she was board certified in forensic pathology, clinical pathology, and anatomic pathology. Yeah. So, okay, she's clearly an expert.

So Spray asks her to explain neuropathology and Stonebridge described as a study of the brain, Dura, eyes, spinal cord, and muscle. At the medical examiner's office, she served as the director of cardiac and neuropathology, and she also performed autopsies. She received brains, eyes, and other tissues when certain criteria were met, cases involving children under two, suspected homicidal head injuries, and situations where the autopsy revealed something unexpected inside the skull that required special specialized evaluation. And so she had been assigned to examine materials from all three Clancy Chalancey children, Cora Clancy, Dawson Clancy, and Callancy, take a lesson.

And were you tasked with doing some examinations regarding Corr, Clancy, Dawson, Clancy, and Cal and Clancy? Yes. And specifically for Cora Clancy, what did you examine? For Cora Clancy, I examine the eyes. And what were your findings when you examined her eyes? The findings when I examined the eyes were that there was acute hemorrhage of the extra ocular muscles and adipose tissue. So when the eyes are taken out, this happens after the brain comes out of the skull. And there is a thin portion of bone in the bottom frontal portion of the skull where that bone is broken and the eyes can then be examined on the inside of the head. Obviously, they're examined. and also on the outside of the head as well.

But you can look at the optic nerve and you can look at the tissue that is surrounding the eyes. So the eyes are within the head with some muscle and some adipose tissue. So there is hemorrhage in these portions of adipose tissue and muscle that is surrounding the eye itself. And then also one of the findings was that the optic nerve sheath on the left side has some,

punctate hemorrhage. So the eyes, they're sitting in the head, and then there's the optic nerve that connects to the back of the eye and goes to the brain, which sends these signals so people can see. And there was some hemorrhage in this portion surrounding the nerve that connects the left eye. And are you able to determine by seeing these hemorrhages what caused them? hemorrhages themselves are very general finding. However, given the entirety of the case, knowing what I know from the autopsy findings, I can say it is consistent with something asphyxial. And why is it that when there's something exfiscial? That means strangulation of some type, correct? Yes, it can be. Why is it that these types of hemorrhages occur in the eye? what happens when there's some sort of asphyxial element to a person it could be from many different things

but what happens is the the blood in the head if there's say some type of compression of the neck or something else that causes asphyxia there's many things but if there's some sort of compression the blood basically gets kind of stuck in the head area and because the blood can't flow back down through the body, what happens is there's little tiny blood vessels. They're in the eyes, they're in the skin, in the mouth, all over the head region. They basically get blocked up with this blood because it can't move. And these little blood vessels will burst, which leads to these little hemorrhages. And in terms of Dawson-Clancy, what did you examine with Dawson-Clancy? For Dawson-Clancy, I examined the eyes as well. And what were your findings? The findings. The

For that, there was also some acute hemorrhages in these muscle and adipose tissue surrounding the eyes. And then the right eye had some small, small hemorrhages in the posterior retina and the optic nerve sheath. So the back of the eye, there's the retina within the eye and the retina connects with the optic nerve at the back portion of the eye. And in this case, there was a little bit of hemorrhage at that connection point where the retina connects to the optic nerve. And what is hemorrhage? Hemorrhage itself is just blood that is no longer

contained in a blood vessel. So it's burst from that vessel? Correct. And then in terms of Callin Clancy, what did you examine with Calin Clancy? For Calin Clancy, I examined the brain, the dura, the spinal cord, and the eyes. And what were your findings? The findings were that there was hypoxic ischemic changes. essentially that means that there has been some sort of incident which has caused the brain to have a certain period of time in which blood and oxygen flow were not appropriate. So in this case, there was a time frame in which there was no blood going to the brain, there wasn't enough oxygen going to the brain, and the brain will show certain findings in these sort of circumstances. One of the things I note is that there's edema. edema. Adema is when the brain starts to swell. Adema is also a very general finding. It can happen in many instances, but the edema basically means that the brain starts to swell, so you don't have the nice kind of bumpy pattern on the brain. It starts to swell up and it gets a little more flattened because the brain is encased in the skull, so now it's pressing against the skull because it's swelling up and getting bigger. One of the other things I noted was that there was compression, ventricles. So the ventricles are almost like a tunnel system inside the brain that allow for the

cerebral spinal fluid to flow through the brain and go into the spinal cord. And when the brain starts to swell up, it not only swells up outwards, but swells inwards on itself as well. So these ventricles that are located in the inside portion of the brain are starting to get kind of squash because the brain is swelling. Another thing I noted was that the brain was diffusely friable, meaning that it's very soft. So one of the things I do on all my brain cases is they go into formulin. The formulin allows them to fix, which basically firms up the tissue. And it makes the tissue more easy to manipulate. A fresh brain coming out of a skull is very soft. It's very easy to damage it. It's very easy to put your fingers through it if you're not careful. So one of the things that gets done is these brains will

go into formalin. I typically will let them fix for about two weeks or so. And, And sometimes regardless of the fixation time at the formuline, sometimes the brain still will not firm up the way it should because if I'm receiving a brain and it's already has hypoxic ischemic changes, the formulin is only going to penetrate the tissue so much because the tissue is essentially already dead. Can I just stop you for a second? What is hypoxic ischemic changes? Hypoxic ischemic changes is when you are getting lack of blood. oxygen flow. So hypoxic is the oxygen portion and ischemic is the blood portion. So what you saw with Callum's brain was consistent with the lack of blood and oxygen? Correct. Which then led to brain

death? Correct. Yes. How long, based on your training and experience, does it take for brain to start dying after the loss of blood flow and oxygen? It varies based on different sources. Most sources say It's between about six to eight minutes. If there is no oxygen flow, then the brain will essentially start dying. It depends on if there's resuscitation that occurs afterwards, but it's generally in the frame of six to eight minutes or so. And once brain tissue dies, it can't be brought back, correct? Correct.

Yes. All right. The Commonwealth's next witness was Dr. Barbara Olson, and I'm going to give a trigger warning for, this testimony, very difficult. And during her testimony, this is when Lindsay became noticeably emotional. We watched that. We watched part of Lindsay becoming emotional at the beginning of this live, and she was really struggling to keep herself composed. She actually said, I can't do this. But we're going to get to that part in just a bit. Olson started by explaining her background as a

medical examiner. She completed four years of medical school at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine. After that, she moved to Boston for her pathology training at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, where she spent four years studying both anatomical and clinical pathology. Once her residency ended, she went on to the surgical pathology fellowship focused on the gastrointestinal tract, liver, and pancreas. She finished her training with the Forensic Pathology Fellowship at the Boston Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, she was board certified in anatomical pathology, clinical pathology, and forensic pathology. The Spray egg asked her to define forensic pathology.

Nolson described it as the study of diseases, disorders, and trauma, or trauma that lead to sudden, unexpected, or non-natural deaths. She currently worked as a medical examiner at the Cape Cod office. She'd been there since 2021. So over the course of her career, she had examined more than 1,900 bodies and performed over 800 autopsies. She walked the jury through the autopsy process. I would always begin with reviewing documents like preliminary police reports, EMS records, or emergency department notes. Then came the external examination where she documented identifying features and looked for signs of disease and trauma.

After that, she moved to the internal examination, creating a Y-shaped incision to evaluate the organs, bones, and soft tissues. She also examined the brain in every case. Olson confirmed that she performed Cora's autopsy, and she performed Cora's autopsy on January 25th, 2023 following that same process. And did you start with an external examination of Cora? Yes. And what did you observe during that external examination? The external examination of Cora, I saw evidence of medical intervention. She was intubated, had various EKG pads and defibrillator pads on her body. She also had a catheter on her right hand and puncture sites on her left hand and her left groin.

She had her neck stabilized with a cervical collar, and she had an intra-ausius catheter, which is a type of IV. They put directly into the bone on her right lower leg. Her hands at the time of my external examination were covered by police evidence bags, and they were secured at the wrist with tape. When I removed those, the fingers showed no evidence of injury, and the fingernails were all of equal length and intact. And then I noted evidence of trauma of the neck with associated injuries of her head and minor injuries of her right arm and of her legs as well. And in terms of the injuries that you observed, evidence of trauma to her neck, where there also injuries to her face and neck area that seemed to go along with the trauma to her neck? Yes, there were findings of the head that were associated with the trauma of the neck.

And what were those? So on her neck, she had a ligature furrow. A ligature is an an object used to apply external force to the neck or compress the neck. And a furrow is simply the pattern of injury that develops underneath the side of compression. So for Cora, her lichature furrow consisted of a linear, horizontally oriented area of pallor or paleness around her neck with distinct superior and inferior edges. On the front part of her neck, the lower half of the ligature furrow was associated with additional red abrasions ranging from one to two millimeters in size. And on the back of her neck, the superior and inferior edges of the

ligature furrow had developed some linear bruising as well. And what do you mean by your furrow? So again, the furrow is a lurgature is when you have external compression by an object on the neck. And a furrow is simply a pattern of injury that occurs beneath it. It can be an imprint, it could be a pattern, or it could be more developed types of injuries such as bruising or abrasions. And what about injuries? All right, counsel could. Let me take a break this time, all right? All right.

Sure, it's motion no-foot. Place on the chair's free. Recess for a few minutes. I want to come back. We'll speak to counsel in regards to schedule. So for those that didn't hear, she does state, I can't do this right before the judge says, all right, let's take a break. I think she's saying, I can't do this.

No. After, though, that recess, Dr. Olson continued her testimony. By the way, guys, remember this too. She used to have a giant screen right in front of her. Lindsay, they've finally removed that. So there are going to be images that were shown today in court, and so she did not have the screen right in front of her. The Sprague picked up right where she left off asking whether the injuries and

Corr's face lined up with the trauma on her neck. Olson said they did. When she examined Corr's face, she saw diffuse patecule hemorrhages across the skin, particularly around the eyes. She also found patiqual hemorrhgages on the inside of the eyelids and the inside of the lips. The Commonwealth displayed a photo. And Olson explained that in the image, she had pulled down Laura's coras, she had pulled down Cora's lower lip and those tiny red dots on the inside were the pecteal hemorrhages. Sprague asked whether the marks on the eyes and eyelids look similar and Olson said yes.

they were the same pinpoint hemorrhages she saw when she inverted the eyelids and checked the inside of the lips. So then another photograph comes up of Cora, and this time it's showing Cora's neck from the left side. And Olson points out in this photograph, the ligature furrow, that linear band of pallor with clear upper and lower edges. and in that same image you could also see some of the small punctate hemorrhages on her face. A different photo showed the front of Cora's neck. Olson described the ligature furrow again, the distinct pale line. On the lower half of that furrow, she noted, scattered, red abrasion. When Sprague asked her to explain the abrasions, Olson said they were caused when friction removed,

the superficial layer of skin, basically a scrape. And then another close-up image showed the back of Cora's neck. The same pale line was visible, and the edges has started to develop linear bruising. Sprague then moved on to the rest of Cora's body. Olson said there were additional injuries on her right arm and legs, and the photographs showed small faint bruises, scattered and minor. One image focused on her right leg, actually where three bruises appeared on the knee and two more on the lower leg. Olson also pointed out the catheter site as well where the needle had been placed directly into the bone. They did that in a life-saving attempt. More photos showed bruises on the left leg, including two near the ankle and others along the lower leg.

Another image showed Cora's right arm extended with three small bruises on the bicep. Spray asked whether Olson could determine the age of a bruise just by looking at it. Olson said no. But what she could do was describe the color. Fresh bruises tended to be red, blue, or purple, right? While older ones turned yellow or green as they healed, all of Kora's bruising's had yellow or, excuse me, had red coloring, not yellow. Thus, the red coloring meant they were recent.

She could not say exactly when they occurred. or how they happened, only where they were and how they looked. And then Sprague returned to the injuries on Cora's neck. Olson explained that when she saw the horizontally oriented ligature furrow combined with significant patigial hemorrhages, those findings were consistent with ligature strangulation. She defined it again. A ligature is an object used to apply external force to the neck,

and strangulation is when that force is applied by another person. person. Sprague then asked her to go through what happens inside the body during ligature strangulation. Olson described how asphyxia deprives the brain of oxygen when the neck is compressed. The airway narrows or closes making it difficult or impossible to breathe. The veins in the neck collapsed with about four pounds of pressure, which prevents blood from draining from the head. That trapped blood meets the incoming arterial blood, raising pressure inside the vessels and increasing intracranial pressure. With around 10 pounds of pressure, the arteries compressed too, cutting off oxygenated blood to the brain. Spray compared the pressure buildup to a balloon, filling with water. We'll

and agreed the blood pooling in the face and head created the same kind of pressure. As the pressure rose, the smallest vessels, capillaries, and venials ruptured. She said that process was painful until the person lost consciousness because nerves run throughout the body just like blood vessels. Sprague asked how long it could take for someone to lose consciousness. Olson said she couldn't give a precise number because it depended on the ligature, the force and the intensity of the struggle. In cases of complete oxygen deprivation,

loss of consciousness could happen in 10 to 30 seconds, with brain damage beginning around one minute and irreversible brain damage and death occurring as early as five minutes. She emphasized that variables could speed up or slow down that timeline. Sprigg asked whether constant pressure made unconsciousness happen faster. Olson said it could. If someone was resisting or struggling, the body's stress response increased oxygen demand,

and with less oxygen being delivered, loss of consciousness could happen even faster. Take a lesson. What do you mean by accelerate the time to loss of consciousness? It would just make it occur faster. And so if that pressure isn't constant, say someone struggles and is it, able to get free a little bit and then you have to tighten it again does that make it take longer sustain sustained you said anywhere from five to 30 seconds what are the factors i'm sorry you said 10 to 30 seconds is that correct yes for loss of consciousness what are the factors that are at play

for whether it's 10 seconds or 30 seconds again there's multiple variables so the the force of the ligature against the neck the actual ligature itself and the intensity and duration of the altercation And once someone loses consciousness, do they immediately die? No, so if there's no intervention, the brain continues to have a lack of oxygen. And so until the brain cells start to die, it's irreversible injury to the brain. The person is alive until the body can no longer sustain the lack of oxygen. If someone is strangled to the point of unconsciousness and the strangulation stops, can they wake up? without intervention is very unlikely.

So do you recall testifying previously that when asked if a person were to use a ligature around someone's neck to the point where they pass out? Counsel, we've had that answer, right? It's an inconsistent statement. This is your witness. I know, and I can impeach with an inconsistent statement. I see it's sidebar. Doctor, do you have to continue to apply to

strangles someone past the 30 seconds to cause death? No. Once the brain is subject to oxygen deprivation and brain cells start to die, it's irreversible. And so it will continue to progress towards death if there's no intervention. What do you mean by intervention? Resuscitative efforts, if somebody tried to give CPR, if they were hooked up to oxygen machines. Do you recall testifying previously that it would be your opinion that, pressure would need to be continually applied even after losing consciousness to cause death?

Sustained. Hold on. Sustained. Next question. So your testimony is that you can strangle someone for 30 seconds, let go, and then they die. I said that in this presence of complete oxygen deprivation, there is a general time frame. And so 30 seconds, I cannot give a specific number to that. Once strangulation occurs, again, the brain starts to be subjected to a lack of oxygen.

So whether the ligature is present or whether the ligature is not present, the oxygen deprivation and irreversible brain damage is already occurring. And there's no coming back from that. Not without intervention. It's very unlikely. Again, the brain cannot heal those cells. Did you form an opinion to a reasonable, degree of professional certainty, it's medical certainty, as the cause of death of Cora.

Yes. And what was that? Asphyxia. And was that by manual strangulation? By strangulation. Mechanical strangulation, I mean. Yes. You know, I agree.

The prosecution trying to impeach their own witness is wild. That's what they were trying to do. Very confusing. Never seen that before. Nonetheless, moving on. Because then we moved on to Dawson, and Olson confirmed that she performed his autopsy on January 25th. During the external exam, she saw trauma to his neck injuries to the head and minor injuries on his left arm and legs. They moved into Dawson's autopsy findings next, and Sprague began walking Dr. Olson through the photographs.

The first image showed Dawson's lower lip being pulled down. And then Olson pointed out the patiquial hemorrhages on the inside of his mouth, the tiny red dots, just like the one she saw on Cora. Spray gas, whether they also appeared around the eyes. Olson said yes. There were particular hemorrhages around the skin around his eyes and the same pinpoint marks were visible when she lifted his eyelids. Another photograph then comes up on the screen showing.

Dawson's neck. Olson explained that similar to Cora, he had a linear, horizontally oriented ligature furrow, a pale band wrapping around the neck with distinct upper and lower edges. On the back of his neck, abrasions ran parallel to those edges. The next image showed the front of his neck. The pale line of the ligature furrow was very clear, and the skin of his face showed diffuse patiquial hemorrhages. Sprague asked. asked about a mark on his shoulder and Olson said it was just dried body fluid. A similar photograph followed, again, showing the ligature furrow and the widespread patikil hemorrhages across Dawson's face. Sprague noted that Dawson's patikil, patika looked

darker and more extensive than Kora's. Olson agreed they appeared more prominent on him. Sprig asked what could cause the difference and Olson explained that particular hemorrhens. form when tiny vessels rupture. The fact that Dawson had more of them suggested there were moments when blood briefly pushed through a ligature, little spikes of pressure. She said those spikes could happen if the arteries managed to push blood forward, something that could occur from movement of the ligature, movement by the person applying it, or movement from Dawson himself. So in other words, it could reflect struggling or changes in pressure. They then moved to photos of Dawson's extremities.

One image showed the back of his left forearm where three small bruises were visible. Another photograph for the side of his right leg while he was positioned face down, a faint bruise appeared there. A close-up shot revealed small bruises in the center of the frame. And then a photo of the backs of his legs showed several bruises, some on the outer portion of the left upper leg, others near the inside of the right knee. Sprague asked about Dawson's hand next. The photo showed subtle blueness in the nail bent. Olson explained that she wouldn't call them fully, like, signotic, but the slight discoloration reflected decreased oxygen. in the body. And then the final photo showed Dawson face up with both legs visible.

And on his right lower leg, there were small bruises on the knee. On the left knee, another bruise. Olson pointed out the intros the intraoceros catheter site, as well, the spot where the needle had been placed directly into the bone during medical intervention. Sprayegh asked whether the bruises on Dawson's were fresh or old, and Olson said they were red and purple, so again, meaning they were recent. Then Sprague asked for her official opinion, and Olson said that Dawson's cause of death was a fixia, and she reached that conclusion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. The Commonwealth moved to admit the original photos of Cora and Dawson, the judge marked them for identification and admitted them, over the defense objection. The death certificates for both children were also admitted.

Sprig said she had nothing further and Olson excused. There was no cross-examination and after that court recessed for the day for the jurors to be left with a very traumatic afternoon. Lindsay, the mother, also the killer, weeping and children and their bodies and cause of death being shown to those jurors. My goodness, what a day. Yeah, a lot of jurors will need therapy likely. And some places offer that to jurors. Others do not.

But a lot of jurors will need therapy after murder trials. That is so true. So I've started a few things. Someone is discussing jurors. I was in that courtroom for two weeks, and the jurors are a variety of ages. I saw a comment where it said that they had heard several jurors were over the age of 50.

There were a few. I don't know about that. I actually think there's quite a variety of ages. There are young jurors. There are older jurors. And there are, you know, I don't know if they're over 50. or not, just a little middle-aged jurors. But yeah, there's a variety.

There is a variety. Someone else is asking this. I wanted to bring it up. Because I feel like this is one thing that made me feel a little bit better. Can you imagine the kids watching her harm their siblings? Those poor babies suffered so much. So we did learn one thing that the children were found in separate rooms. Dothan was in one room.

and Callan and Cora were in the other room. And it's been told to the courtroom that first it was Dawson, who died. And then in other words, I don't believe that Callan and Cora were seeing it. They were in the other room. She likely asked Cora to watch Callan, but I don't know. I'm making that up in my brain. But then she went to the other room. and then

Cora was next and then baby Callon, which is likely why Cullen possibly survived just a little bit longer. There was hope for Callin that he was last. So one thing that I hope is that the children didn't see anything, but I don't know.

Let's see what else you guys are saying. I wonder how hard it is for Redington to try to concentrate on both soothing his client and paying close attention to the testimony, objecting sidebars. Yeah. Interesting. Interesting that they had no cross-exam after this, right?

I think he understood that he should just let this testimony speak for itself. And someone said, I'm 65 and understand mental illness completely. I don't think age matters when it comes to the jury. I agree. I think, I don't, yeah, I think sometimes the older jurors have been through more experience and more sadness and heartache and understand. I don't, I agree that I don't. think age makes a difference in whether or not a juror understands or doesn't understand mental health.

You're asking if we are okay. Thank you for asking. We're all doing our best over here. So we're all doing our best. Thank you for thinking of us. Yeah. I agree if people don't understand mental health, they will have less empathy. And yeah, I think anything is possible in this case. I want to remind all of you, you know, I interviewed Andrea Yates' defense attorney just recently. He's 85 years old now. Still in touch with Andrea Yates, a woman who's well known to have suffered from postpartum depression, killing, drowning all five of her children in the bathtub. The oldest one, yes. Seeing one of his siblings, little Mary, in the bathroom.

And this gentleman still talks to Andrea. Yates refers to her as a daughter, someone he takes care of. But to remind you, Andrea Yates had two trials. Andrea Yates in her first trial was found guilty. The trial ended up being overturned because of a law and crime episode that one witness used, it allegedly wasn't even a real long crime episode. That long crime episode had to do with the fact that they implied that Andrea Yates had watched a long crime episode about postpartum depression or postpartum psychosis, which gave her the idea to kind of blame postpartum psychosis. Well, that trial was overturned. She got a new trial and then was found not guilty by reasons of insanity. Andrea Yates chooses to stay where she is.

and she knew about my interview with her attorney. I was grateful we were talking about postpartum mental illness. Now, I bring that up, though, to point out just how this jury could go either way. I consider kind of what happened today, this idea that a doctor, Dr. Zaisal, told Lindsay to tell Patrick she was hearing voices, is sort of similar to this law and crime episode that ended up being a big part in the jurors' decisions. And ultimately, Andrea Yates was found guilty. I'm just trying to assess what the jury might be thinking and wondering about. And I think, that's why I think this might be very compelling for the jury if they find Lindsay Clancy guilty.

the idea she was told by someone, hey, heads up, say you're hearing voices, that'll be psychosis. If the jurors buy that testimony and believe that testimony to be true, I think it could be similar to this long crime episode that originally found Andrea Yates guilty, that she watched a long crime episode that was about postpartum psychosis. and thus gave Andrea Yates the idea. I mean, it's same-sies to me, right? But ultimately, again, Andrea got another trial and was found not guilty by reasons of insanity.

So I think that today's witnesses were really important. And then, though, as much as I think that that testimony about a possible witness or theory, let's call it a theory because there are no written records of it that that a doctor told Lindsay to tell Patrick that she was hearing voices. I think that the medical examiner's testimony, despite it being necessary, they can't remove the defendant from that. I remember Lori Valo at her trial.

I was there when her children's autopsies were shown. She tried, she fought. She said, I don't want to be here for this. And they're like, you have to be here for this, Lori. She looked down. didn't cry like Lindsay, just to you know. She just looked down and kind of angry she didn't get her way. But she wouldn't look. I don't think she wanted to see it. So for Lindsay to be weeping, wailing, truly wailing, sobbing hysterically and saying she can't do this and having to take a

break, I wonder ultimately, will this witness help the defense? or help the prosecution, it could be that the jurors see a Lindsay Clancy that they believe is a heartbroken mother who was suffering from postpartum psychosis and looking for help. You know? And that's the one thing I noted. I'll say again, I started and I'll end with this too. What is really interesting about this jury is how much they're studying the defendant. And don't get me wrong, jurors always look at the defendant.

They're always checking the defendant out, like, what's the defendant doing now? But not like this jury is. They are studying her. And in my opinion, they are really trying to figure her out because ultimately this trial is about Lindsay Clancy. Who is the real Lindsay Clancy? That's ultimately the question in front of this jury. Is she a murderer? is she a woman who had such severe depression and decided, you know what, my children can't live

without me, I'm going to take them with me in this sort of murder suicide. Or is she a woman who had a moment of psychosis, who was hearing voices, who even perhaps sent Patrick out for medicine because the voices were telling her to do something drastic, and had a moment and said, if you don't do it now, we'll never do it. And psychosis took over. And she had no idea what she was doing. That is in the jury's hands. And so what I noticed is they look at Lindsay. They are trying to figure Lindsay out. And I'm, I suspected that was no different today. And there was a lot to see when it came to Lindsay today, right, if they're trying to figure her out. But ultimately, I just wonder. I just wonder.

if the medical examiner's testimony will help the prosecution or help the defense. But this jury, I do not, man, they've got a big job ahead of them. I also suspect that the prosecution is winding down. They're bringing some of their most major witnesses, witnesses that I think are going to really make the jurors question things. And I want to point this out. Yeah, the ultimate question, the lies in the prosecution, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she intended to unalive her children. Yes. All right.

I'm going to take off. Thank you, everyone, for being here tonight. This is a tough one for everyone. So everyone, check your mental help. Whatever side you're on, this is really heartbroken. And I don't, I want to say, I don't think it's forgotten by anyone. And I want to remember that the three victims in this are. Cora, Cora Clancy, Dawson Clancy, and Kellyn Clancy. And I don't think anybody's forgetting

that. But I think that, yes, people are divided between whether or not Lindsay Clancy is a murderer or if she had a moment of madness, essentially, of postpartum psychosis. It's clear that she was suffering for mental health severely, severely. I wish that they could have gotten her into to an inpatient facility. All right. And then as far as the theories about Patrick floating, especially on TikTok, no, I don't not believe them. No.

No. He is a victim as well. He is a victim in deep grief. So no, I do not believe those theories and those conspiracy theories about Patrick online as someone that has sat in there for two weeks. No. So there you go.

Yeah, I agree. I think we all remember the babies. So, all right, everyone. Thank you to our moderators. Thank you to those that have jumped on as moderators. This is a very difficult chat because everybody is so torn. So thank you for being here. Thank you for respecting people's differing opinions.

And, yeah, I even see I disagree with you, Lauren. That is, yeah, fair. So thank you all. I'm listening to the evidence and I am, you know, I'm looking at it all. We'll see. All right, everyone. Thank you. Thank you. We'll see you guys tomorrow. I think it's going to be a big day. Like I said, I'm just suspecting that the prosecution might be winding down. We will see. Like I said, they have laid some foundation for some things as well. All right. We'll see you guys. Bye-bye.