Hidden True Crime - The Experts Couldn’t Agree — Psychologist Dr. John Matthias Breaks Down WHY | Lindsay Clancy Trial

Episode Date: September 6, 2026

The Lindsay Clancy trial ended in a mistrial, but one of the biggest questions remains: how could the psychologists and psychiatrists who evaluated Lindsay Clancy reach such different conclusions? Hidden True Crime’s Lauren Matthias sits down with clinical and forensic psychologist Dr. John Matthias to examine the conflicting expert testimony surrounding Lindsay’s mental state, alleged psychosis, diagnoses, medications and criminal responsibility. After weeks of testimony from mental health experts for both the prosecution and defense, Dr. John explains what stood out to him, where the experts agreed, where they sharply differed—and ultimately, who he believes got Lindsay Clancy right. Sponsor: Jones Road Beauty- Use code HIDDEN at https://jonesroadbeauty.com to get a Free Gift with your first purchase! 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

This is a woman who's stoic. She wants to present herself in the most favorable light. She wants to keep her job as a nurse. She doesn't want our kids taken away. What do you want her to do? Of course she's not going to talk about voices. Hello, Hidden Gems. Welcome to our table.

The Lindsay Clancy verdict or the not verdict, the mistrial, is now in. The jurors are home after seven weeks of testimony and a week of deliberating. One holdout juror led to a. mistrial. This case has gripped the nation, gripped the world. Honestly, I was there for the first two weeks of the trial. I heard the 911 call, but there are still questions lingering clearly after this mistrial. I keep wanting to say verdict. It's not a verdict. She still has murder charges. But there are a lot of questions, particularly from all of you about the experts on the and how there were so many psychiatrists and so many psychologists that could come to a different

opinion about Lindsay Clancy and who Lindsay Clancy is. Thus, we have brought our own, our own expert, forensic psychologist, Dr. John Matthias, also my husband, for those wondering why we're sitting so close and why this is our table. But yeah, he has many notes here, and we have a little. And we have a lot to talk about. You have watched hours and hours and hours, nine hours, yeah, he's like of court footage and testimony from these experts. So take it away. I'm going to get cozy. And I'm sitting crisscross applesauces, our son's teacher says. Yeah. So I think it's always a bit confusing to people when they watch trials like this because they see so many different opinions. And the problem is they're all looking at the same evidence. So you have essentially the same

that's 7,000 plus pages of evidence and discovery and a group of experts are given the task of evaluating this case or Lindsay Clancy and they come to very different conclusions. So how does that happen? Right. How does that happen with so many experts? Right. And it's a great question, by the way, because it's, by the way, it's going to be, my answer isn't going to be as obvious as people might think. We're going to go a little bit deeper than you probably guess, but that's why we're hidden. True crime. Hidden, the hidden motives. But I'm going to start by answering that question with a well-known study.

I'm going to hold this up here. I printed it out. It's called, are forensic experts biased by the side that retain them, question mark? meaning defense or prosecution. Yeah. This is Murray et al. It's from 2013. It's a very well-known study.

It's in psychological science, the journal psychological science. And the researchers here, Murray-Ed Al, there's actually four authors, but they're investigating something that they call adversarial allegiance. And I'm going to define adversarial allegiance for you here. I'm going to read from the article. This is page, what's the page on this? This is page 1892. It's the first page of the article.

They say, quote, little psychological research that's investigated what we call adversarial allegiance, the presumed tendency for experts to reach conclusions that support the party that retain them. So let's start with that. Okay. This study, fascinating study, it asked a group of 108 forensic psychologist and psychiatrist to evaluate,

they gave them a pretty simple task in forensic term, so they asked him to do an assessment of the risk for sexual recidivism, which is what I do primarily. They gave them two instruments. They gave them the static 99R, which is an instrument I use all the time, and they gave them the hair PCLR, which is the hair psychopathy checklist, revised, which is an instrument I use all the time. So I'm very familiar with these instruments, this request here,

which is to evaluate risk for sexual recidivism. And the recidivism. Recidivism means reoffence, reoffense, right. The likelihood of the offender reoffending. Right. And so just for some, this type of evaluation is pretty common in the forensic world because it's very hard because for sentencing, often for sentencing for sex offenders, judges in the courts want to know if somebody should be placed in the community or if they should be placed in detention. And these types of evaluations help determine that. So the judge will typically

get these reports or these evaluations and then make decisions about sentencing. So what's interesting here is this study, it was very simple. Just a couple of instruments that gave them the same information and then asked them to render an opinion. And what they found was on the instruments, they found that those who were hired, so they were paid, by the way, to participate in the study, those forensic experts who were hired to work for the prosecution gave the defendant's higher scores. Those who were hired by the defense hired, I say hired, because they weren't really doing this in a true forensic capacity.

they gave the defendants lower scores. Interesting. And not only that, the scores were significantly, statistically significantly different. This is what we're calling confirmation bias, which they actually talked about. Yeah, they call it. I like the term adversarial allegiance a little better.

The problem, right, the obvious problem with forensic work then is you have just based on the team you're on, you already introduced this, this underlying bias. You could, you know, they did talk about confirmation bias every time. But it doesn't change the fact that the research shows that this bias exists and it runs deep. And here's the problem with this. One of the reasons this study is fascinating is because, for example, so on the hair PCLR,

the bias was greater. So there's something called effect size, which measures the difference between groups. the bias between the two groups, the prosecution and the defense, was greater with the air PCLR because it's a more complex instrument. The static 99 R is a very simple, for the most part,

it's a very simple instrument. It's a very limited instrument. So the differences were less, but they were still significant. So in other words, depending on what team they were on, they were biased in that direction, even for a very simple instrument like the static 99.

So this is the important point I want to make here. Think about the complexities of the Lindsay Clancy case. No. Versus this study. This study could, one of the points of the study was to make it very simple and to see if even in a very simple task, forensic experts would have a bias. And they did. Now imagine taking this. and exaggerating or amplifying exponentially in a case like Lindsay Clancy's.

Think about all the different biases you're going to introduce at that point. That's what makes this case so complex, is forensic science and forensic psychology is in and of itself difficult because you deal with imperfect information. That's number one. Number two, the complexity of the task is enormous. there's as we heard from the both sides there's there were over 7,000 pages of discovery to go through. Yeah, crazy.

So, so to answer this question about why there's different opinions, I think I really want to start with some of the recent. And this is just, I'm just pointing out one study. There's a lot of, there are numerous studies showing bias depending on what side you're on. This happens to be one of my favorite because I assess risk for sexual recidivism. But again, imagine taking something so simple and then amplifying it for something as complex as Lindsey Kansy's case where the ask, the request, the presenting issue in Lindsay Clancy is much more complex than this. And because you're asking forensic experts to weigh in on criminal responsibility and psychosis and command hallucinations. And I like how you say they start with imperfect information that they have to kind of fill in the blame. What was Lindsay reporting?

Who was she reporting to? How perfect are the doctor's notes that they're going off of? How perfect is discovery? So you're starting with imperfect information already. That's helpful to understand. Exactly. And so, you know, forensic psychologists, we sometimes joke about how we're already in uphill battles because we're given information that's already imperfect.

There's no such thing in our field as perfect information. And the information changes all the time. I've done plenty of evaluations, for example. where I start off with one set of information and then somebody re-offends or there's another crime committed and now I have to reevaluate everything. That things evolve and that information evolves. So I necessarily have to adapt to changing circumstances. So let's start with that.

So you have an intrinsic bias or potentially, that's, you know, which by the way, this happens over and over in these types of trials. in trials that are primarily based upon expert opinions, this is what you're going to see. So if you go back to Dahmer, for example, if you go back to famous cases like Jeffrey Dahmer, that too was a criminal responsibility case. That too involved different opinions by a number of experts,

all trying to weigh in about whether Dahmer was he insane. Should he have been, right? Same issues, just a different context, a trial that was now, I don't know what, 30, 40, 40 years, old now. It's the same issues you see. So in Dahmer, the jury happened to find him guilty, obviously, of murder one. And so they didn't, the experts on his side clearly weren't as convincing. But it's the same, it's the same dynamic. Things don't change that much. It's the same dynamic because you have these biases in the system. You have adversarial allegiance and you have biases

in the system and you're dealing with imperfect information. and you're dealing with, you're dealing with something else. So let's move a little deeper into this discussion. I'm taking notes too, so I know if I'm to ask you. So right now, right now I'm on the surface of this. If you really want to get into why, there's so many different opinions, that's the first step. Okay.

There's adversarial legion. The second step is going to be, stay with me here, because this is going to be, this is going to get slightly complex. the second step is you have to understand the brain. And the human brain processes information with a delay. So there's been a lot of interesting studies that show that when you get information, we call it sense data, philosophers call it sense data, psychologists call it sensations, it has to do with perception.

So when information comes into our brains through our eyes, obviously, typically, not always, but through our eyes, through our senses, the brain has a slight delay in processing that information. So the brain does not take information and process it instantaneously. I think people think that. You feel that. You feel like you're, you're getting information real time. You're getting information, but you're getting it on a roughly a three millisecond delay. Okay. And what that means, this is the important. important part. What that means about the human brain and what that means about the human condition and human beings is that none of us interpret sense data as it is. That the only way the brain can make sense of the information and the sense data coming in is essentially to encode it in narrative form.

So what that means is if I'm going to take information and process it in a way that makes sense and that orders the world, I'm going to have to arrange that information in a way that makes the most sense to my brain. That's, by the way, why children have a more difficult time interpreting information than adults, because adults, we know the world, we've already assimilated and we've already learned certain things about the world that allow us to construct scripts or narratives that make more sense of that data coming in. It also is a reason why adults are more closed-minded than children. because children are more curious about that information coming in. It's newer to them.

Yeah. I've realized that my favorite makeup products are the ones that sort of quietly become part of my routine, the things that I reach for day in and day out without even thinking about it. And Jones Road Miracle Bomb has absolutely become one of those for me. I love that if you don't have a brush around, I can use my fingers, add a little color and glow, and my skin still looks like, my skin. I don't want to feel like I'm wearing a mask and I definitely don't want 10 different products just to get out the door. And now Jones Road has a new minimalist defining mascara,

which fits that same philosophy perfectly. It's designed to enhance your natural lashes with length, wellness, and definition, but it still gives you that soft feathery look without the clumps. I hate the clumps, the smudging or the flaking. Modern day makeup that's clean, strategic and multifunctional for effortless routines. For a limited time, our listeners are getting a free, full-sized mascara on their first purchase when they use code hidden at checkout. So just head to Jones Road Beauty.com and use code hidden at checkout. And after you purchase, they will ask where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them that we sent you. The point I want to make here. So again, the question is, why are they interpreting this data

differently. The point I want to make is going to take us into literary theory. I know that sounds really abstract. But the reason I say that is because literary theory is about reading texts. It's about reading text. And I'm going to use this as an example. So there are different approaches to reading text. So in other words, let's go back to this idea that since data come in, we interpret it. The fundamental idea is that human beings, we are interpreting, sense-making creatures. We don't just see the world and respond to it. We interpret the world. We're always interpret the world. Literary theory is about interpretation. It's about, so in other words, the best way for me to put that is we're all readers. We're all reading the world. We're all reading the environment. We're reading other people.

We're reading the room. We're reading our pets. We're reading our children. Sometimes we read texts. Sometimes we read books that all of us, in one way or another, to interpret the world is to read the world. Literary theory is about how we read. Okay, okay. Okay. So you have to see the human creature as the reading creature. Okay.

That's why literary theory is important. So there's different schools of, this is where it gets interesting. There's different schools of literary theory. There is, for example, a feminist school of literary theory. which basically puts on the lens of feminism to read books and to read the world. There's a school of literary theory called The New Criticism, which looks at the book in and of itself. So it used to be the case that a lot of people, literary critics,

would look at the author's intent. So they'd say, oh, what happened in Dosiewski's life? They let him to write this book. The new criticism basically said, we don't need to know that. we can just read the text as it is in and of itself. So you have these different, you have deconstruction is an approach to reading text that was found,

it was started by the famous French philosopher Jacques Derrida. And deconstruction basically posits, it's not really a school of thought per se, it's a way of reading, but it essentially posits this idea that texts need to be read and rewrite. There's no closure to a text. The text always change their meaning based upon the person reading it. And that different meanings accrue over time because different readers pick up the same text.

And then they contribute to the meaning of that text. And then a new reader reads it. And they contribute their meeting. And it goes on and on. Also sounds like how people interpret dating profiles. Yeah, Derrida would be rolling in his grave right now if you heard that. But yeah, he'd probably be, he probably agree that. But the point is, there's much.

Marxist criticism that people interpret the world through a Marxist lens. Now, I know if you're still with me, guys, I'm going to show you how this is relevant to this trial. So we're all readers. We're all interpreters. There's different lenses that we use to read text, even if you don't know it. You're using a lens to read people, I guarantee you. You're using a theory to read people. Absolutely.

This is where this gets relevant to this trial. The main language, the main way to read forensic psychology is through the DSM. So in other words, the lens, the main lens of forensic psychology is diagnosis. It's the DSM. And that's why you hear so much about the DSM and diagnoses and why that's so important, which. So much about the DSM in this trial. So much. So much.

Right. Because that's the language. of interpretation. The problem is that that's an imperfect language. The problem is, for example, that one of the most interesting parts of this trial for the experts for me was asking what her motive was. Yeah.

But the DSM is not motive. If you want to get to the motive of Lindsay Clancy, well, first of all, I'd recommend people listen to our old show where I did talk about motto because that's still relevant. But the DSM is the reason. very limited in terms of if you see the DSM as a language for describing human beings and human behavior you're going to have very limited interpretations and not only that because the DSM is based on as as the all the experts pointed out it basically lists symptoms or behaviors it doesn't get

to the cause yeah you have a group of symptoms and then you say hey look at this you're sad you're irritable you're you're you're you can't concentrate oh you're depressed these, this group of things that I'm listing here, these symptoms all mean you're depressed. But it's, it's the problem with that, it's kind of circular. It doesn't really resolve anything. You have these symptoms, which means it's depression. Oh, if it's depression, it must be these symptoms, right? It's self-referential.

Yeah. It doesn't really have any cause. I mean, people try to explain depression through causes like neurology, like neurotransmitters, like upbringing, like all the standard things. But what you see in a trial like this, unfortunately, is mostly diagnosis. Right. We're all wanting the diagnosis.

And not only diagnosis, but imperfect diagnosis. So, for example, if you look at some of these experts, let's take Mack as an example. Mack the quack? I didn't nickname him that. I'm not calling him that, by the way. I wasn't the one that came up with that name. you can thank the internet for that one.

I respect all experts, more or less. So I'm not going to denigrate my colleagues. I was just researching on TikTok. Okay, yeah, yeah. It was a, yeah. I mean, so. I get my info on TikTok. I think it's interesting.

If you just look, if you give an expert this language of the DSM, and you look at how these experts apply it, I think you learn a lot. So if you look at somebody like Mac, And if you look at Mac and how he's interacting with Reddington, for example, you see in a way how literal he is. Yeah. In the sense that he's saying like, he's, first of all, he's not conceding anything. There's like this rebellious streak at him. Yeah.

He won't answer. He won't answer anything. He won't concede any points to Redington. He's just being difficult, right? He's just pushing back on everything because he's angry. Yeah. Judge Sullivan saw it and social media saw it. Yeah.

But if you look at, so if the language of forensic psychology is the DSM, let's look at how he interprets it. So he's saying because, for example, Mac, we're going to get to other experts, Mack says essentially, guess what? Postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis don't exist because they're not diagnoses in the DSM. That's pretty literal. So he won't diagnose. Mac doesn't diagnose with postpartum psychosis,

because he says it basically it doesn't exist. And then when Redding. That's maddening. When Reddington pushes him and says, well, there's a qualifier. And I mean, for, right, for. Redington knows more about the DSM than he does. No, I'm serious. He's like, what about the qualifiers?

Yeah. Yeah, there's specifiers. And, you know, when you look at those, don't you think this exists? And, hey, look, it exists in the ICD10, which is the international classification of diseases, 10th version. Like if you, if it, it, because it's in there. And those two, by the way, the DSM and the ICD are very highly correlated. Typically they typically diagnoses have those between the two have a lot of similarities.

So the DSM is considering adding it as a diagnosis. But, but, but again, like let's take Mac as an example of someone who has this language, who looks to this lender to DSM. Well, if it's not in there, it doesn't exist. And obviously that's a problem. So if you look at the evidence, and this is something that drove me mad about this, for me crazy about some of these experts,

was Lindsay Clancy has a history of postpartum issues. Yeah. So it's not surprising that because her previous pregnancies involved some level of postpartum issues, that as she has more children, that issue escalation. Okay. And in other words, is, I guess the first question you want to ask is Mac is essentially saying it's not real.

So the first question you want to ask is, is it real? Is there something called postpartum psychosis that's real that happens to women? I think the answer, does it happen to Lindsay Clancy? Yes, she has some history of it. I think you have to say. There's some people disagreeing with you, but I agree with you. But I agree with you. Yeah.

Yeah. Some experts, many experts do agree. Yeah. Mac doesn't. Mac boy. Mac. So Mac's diagnosis was a major depressive episode, which could have been a part of major depression, not bipolar, not postpartum psychosis.

He denies there was any psychosis. He believes that she, you know, he believes she's, environmentally responsible essentially. He's got like a huge chart here. It's very good. Did you make that? Yes. Wow. Wow.

So let me see that. I'll give it back. I promise. Amazing. Okay, keep going. I'm listening. So you're losing my train of thoughts. Sorry. This is just so cool. No.

Don't show my trade secrets. Well, no, no, no, no, I'm not showing them. I'm not, you can't read this. I can't even read it. Okay, keep going. So my point is, the question is, the question is, hello, I'm, I'm listening. Okay. The question, the question is, how do experts come to different conclusions?

The answer is because we all, we interpret the world, differently. And if we're limited in our interpretation in the forensic world of the DSM, even then we're going to interpret the DSM differently. Mac is a great example of that. I think he would say his name. Yes, Mac. Mac. Let's move on to Satov. I don't know. Sotov. Sotov. Yeah. He was the very last. Dream rebuttal. He was the very last witness for the prosecution. He was, yeah, he was a.

rebuttal witness rebutting the defense experts. Right. So what was interesting about him was his basic argument was that Lindsay had heard no voices previously that she had disclosed or that were documented and her voices began and ended with the deaths of her children. And he finds that particularly problematic. So, I mean, for good reason, by the way. Like, it is an interesting argument.

I think of all the arguments against Lindsay Clancy and psychosis. The most compelling is this idea that she never disclosed it. It was never documented. It began and ended with the event. And he's bringing that up. The problem with him is that he's so linear. And he's so, like, he's trying to take something that's somewhat irration, and he's trying to put it in this box of complete rationality.

Right? He's very, very linear and logical. And that's fine. We want that from a forensic scientist. The problem is when you overdo that, you're probably missing some important elements. For example, with him, that argument is fine. It's interesting.

There's validity to it if you can show it. The problem with that argument is it completely negates the fact that intrusive thoughts, can lead to command hallucinations, and he's leaving out of that analysis, he's jumping to the fact that command hallucinations should have been there previously, neglecting to say that intrusive thoughts are documented, and they have been in there,

they have been with her for months. Yeah, they have. So he's making a semantic, there's a semantic confusion there, which is he wants the jury to assume, or make the assumption that it has to be psychosis or nothing, that it's not a progression from intrusive, which I talked about in our last episode.

Yes. He doesn't see this as a progression from intrusive thoughts to ending with command hallucinations, right? And the reason he doesn't is because, again, he's using this language in the DSM. He's interpreting through that lens, and he's looking for an overly rational explanation. He's not willing to see that intrusive thoughts could somehow evolve

into command hallucinations. So while I thought he was a decent witness, and I think that's a compelling argument, by the way, that none of these voices were documented. It overlooks a really important facet of this case, which is the intrusive thoughts. We know those are documented. We know they're there.

And this is what happens when you become overly, When you come in with a bias for the prosecution, number one, and number two, you become overly linear. And you're looking for one specific facet of the case, which in this instance would be command hallucinations. So he's making the assumption that there have to be commands hallucinations three months ago and two months ago and a week ago. Nope, not true.

So that's how somebody like the Satov can, I think, interpret from that perspective yeah that's interesting right let's let's look at and again undergirding all of this the foundation of all of this is the language of forensic psychology is diagnosis it's the DSM and I think by the way that's one of the limitations of our field I'll get into that more later but yeah I have questions I'll get into that more later because there are limit there are other ways to interpret information in forensic psychology, they're just not as used as much. Here's an example.

So the MMPI was talked about incessantly. The MMPI is a very empirically based, rational type instrument that assesses personality disorders. Well, it's essential personality and a sense is symptomology. It's a great instrument. I use it all the time. So it doesn't give somebody a personality disorder to make that clear? It would be one instrument.

It would be a part of you'd have to do a clinical interview. That was the other thing. I would do a lot more testing than these folks did. But that was me. But here's an example of different languages. So the MMPI would be a part of what I would call the very empirically based rational type approach to forensic work, which is good. I use it. I love it.

It's a great instrument. However, nobody gave the Roershock. The Roershock is a projective, which I happen to really, really like, by the way. You know, there's not a lot of people who are trained on the Roershack anymore. It's a dying instrument. It's not used very much in our field. But it is a different language. It does present a different perspective in a different language that isn't the DSM.

We're talking ink plots. Go ahead. In plots, right. The Roershack ink plot test. What do you see? What do you see? So it comes from the language, basically, of cycle analysis. It comes from that history and that tradition.

The basic premise in the Rorschach is that people project, that if you give them an ambiguous stimulus, that people are going to put their own perceptions and narratives and stories and views onto that stimulus, and it's going to tell you a lot about how they see the world. The other thing that's great about the Rorschach, by the way, more so than any instrument that they talked about, is it really, really shines when it comes to things like psychosis.

Because when a stimulus is vague, you're more likely to get, people are more likely to struggle with something that has shape or form. And so if they can't see a basic form or shape in an object, that's a problem. Because in order to make sense of the world, you have to have some, for the most part, You have to have some capacity to order something or shape something in a way that it can make sense to you. If you're in psychosis typically or if you're hallucinating, you're going to have a really hard time making sense of any shape. So this is an example of how, for example, this is an example of how there are other languages of interpretation in the forensic world. They're not using them here.

Okay. And we can debate. People are going to say, oh, that's a worthless instrument. It has no problem. Right. But that's not the point. It's one and many. The point is that it gives me a different way to explain a phenomenon.

It gives me a different language rather than being just stuck with the DSM. Now I can pull for some other traditions. And MMPI, more than that too. MNPI, correct. So let's look at Zizel. I like Zizel. I think Zizel was good. He was one of the major defense witnesses.

He spent a lot of time with Lindsay more than anybody else. He spent hundreds of hours. A lot of time. And he was there in the hospital room and helped her call Patrick and said it was because of compassion. But therein lies the problem, though. confirmation bias. Well, no, not even confirmation bias. Like, he says he's friends with Redington.

So, like, I just picture him, I picture him calling Reddington on a Saturday and jumping on a Harley. And off they go to, you know, I don't know where you go. They go drive around the Cape or something, and their Harley's like, I don't know if that's the best look.

Sure. For an expert who's trying, right, who, I mean, let's be honest. I mean, he seems like a decent guy, but like is that the best look for for somebody for somebody who's supposed to be objective and unbiased is he biased for the defense i mean it seems like you'd have to argue he is that was the prosecution's argument right and rightfully so there's already an intrinsic bias without being best friends with the guy and jumping out of harley with them we don't know if they're jumping

out of harley no i know i just picture it we just i know i just picture it we just want that i don't know for sure well they did say they'd go to dinner or whatever they socialize so i don't know what that means but we can throw them on a Harley. I want to throw them on a Harley because it's cool. Okay. You know, like a couple of like older seven-year-old dudes on Harleys. It's cool. I like that.

So that's my, that's going to be my, that's going to be my vision for these guys. Your literary interpretation. But it presents obvious problems, right? It's, it's, it's, raises questions about objectivity. I don't doubt his, compassion, but also, you know, one of the things I will, one of the things I do like about Zizel, though, is the fact that he was closest in terms of the actual date of the incident.

I agree. So therefore, I think he has a closer. He has an understanding there. Right. Others don't. He was there in the hospital room. He was, he was very near. First person to talk to her.

First person to talk to her, very near to the incident. And I believe, so he started. Even before her husband. He, he helped her call Patrick. So he was talking to her before even her family. Right. But the question is, given that, that's important because it gives him a, it gives him a clearer view of the incident and the aftermath of the incident and the consequences.

However, the question is whether he can maintain his objectivity. Sure. And it's not clear to me, those moments when he was in the hospital with her as a friend of Reddington and being compassionate, it's not clear if he was starting to cross over into some of that more clinical realm where you're more of an advocate where right in the clinical domain and the treatment domain it's a very different objective than it is in the forensic world so in the forensic world the world the goal is to be as unbiased an objective as possible in the clinical world you really throw that out the window and you want to get inside the client's subjective state but you know what I

love that he said, though, about the non-biased aspect when they were really pushing them, right, on confirmation bias and all that. He said, I don't find the conclusion. The conclusion finds me. And I love that. Yeah, he says that for a real role in your eyes. And I'm like that. I mean, yeah, I like that. I like that in theory. In practice. But he's saying that he, every time he takes a stand, he says that. I believe home. I don't. I, I, well, look. I mean, I, I mean, I, He was, I liked him a lot more than Mac. I'll just say that. Oh, no doubt about it.

I'm a Zaisel fan. One of my, one of my favorite Zizel moments was when he said, he inadvertently said, there was some, I think he was on cross and he said, I'm telling the truth. And the prosecution jumped all over that because you're, you know, you can't tell a jury you're telling the truth. Truth is going to be, as I pointed out, truth is going to be relative to the opinion of the expert.

Right. So, but he snuck that in, which I thought was pretty clever. And, you know, I don't, I believe him. I mean, I think that, I think, so he diagnosed with, by the way, I'm going to. Yeah, read, but he diagnosed Lindsay. He diagnosed her with bipolar disorder with postpartum psychosis. So he believed she did have psychosis. He believed that there was a male voice.

telling her that she had no choice but to kill her children and then herself. Cora, Dawson, and Callan. He did not believe that she was malingering. He did not lying, not exaggerating. Faking. He did point to the MNPI, the validity scales on the MNPI is an example of why they all did, why she wasn't malingering, which is interesting because those scales are really measuring whether someone is faking or malingering on the test.

They're not telling us whether she's malingering about hearing voices. Okay. And so it was interesting that a lot of these experts sort of implied that because she was honest on the test, and maybe therefore she was honest about everything else. Interesting. And that's debatable. But I'm surprised that Reddington, I'm sure, love that.

But I'm surprised the prosecution didn't jump on that a little more. So let's talk about Resnick. So Phil Resnick is, he was with the defense. He was with Redington. He testified on a Zoom link. Resnick is, for my money, Resnick is the big, the biggest figure, the biggest, the most famous expert that testified at this trial. And that's saying a lot because all these people have years and years of experience. And they all have.

Most well know. The most well known. Resnick in 1969, Resnick wrote a classic article Child Murder by called Child Murder by Parents, a psychiatric reveal with Philicide. It was the American Journal of Psychiatry,

Volume 126. And it is a classic article. It was the first main major article that had some empirical basis by any forensic psychiatrist or psychologist on Philicide. And this has been Resnick's main focus for many, many years. So Resnick is a giant in the field, and he's the one who developed the original taxonomies of philicide that I often talk about when we talk about phyllicide.

So I reference Resnick a lot. He's been updated. There's been a lot of updates to his taxonomy or his scheme. But most specifically, there's a guy named McKee who's done some excellent work. He's a forensic psychologist, and others, by the way. But his, I think getting a guy like Resnick who's evaluated, I don't know how many, they said the number, like over 40 phyllisides, I think, which is a lot because phyllisides are rare.

But getting a guy like Resnick to interview her and spend time with her, it goes a long way. It's a big deal. I think it gave the defense a lot of credibility. For my money, I thought Resnick was the best witness. I thought he had the most wisdom. I think he was. So what did he conclude then? So what did he conclude?

He concluded what you'd expect someone to conclude for the defense. He concluded that she had bipolar two with severe depression. He was, she was psychotic, and he did label her condition as postpartum psychosis. So the same was Zizel. Zizel was bipolar 1. Resnick was bipolar 2. Oh, interesting. So a lesser form.

So let's make that distinction. So bipolar 1 entails a full manic episode. Bipolar 2 is hypomania, which is a lesser. So a lesser type of mania. So which by the way, Heilbrom diagnosed her with bipolar 2 as well. And who is he? He is with the prosecution. With the prosecution. So both prosecution and defense attorneys late diagnosing her with B.

Then Mack didn't. Well, Mac didn't give her bipolar. Everyone gave her bipolar one or two except for Mac. Yeah, don't worry about Mac. Resnick was the one who actually came up with the idea of, in his classification scheme, what he called altruistic filicide. Altruistic filicide for right. You've talked about that.

Yeah. It's, it's, so altruistic filicide is, it's typically suicide associated to altruistic philicide, sometimes called extended suicide philocyte. This occurs when a parent basically wants to harm themselves and they develop the belief that the children will be unable to survive emotionally or practically without the parent. So in other words, the parent feels, like Lindsay Clancy, apparently, to some degree, that the children would be better off dead

than living in the world without that parent. Which, by the way, that also turns out to be that ended up being the prosecution's argument for motive, which is ironic since that's a Resnick idea that that is entail, it can entail, acute psychosis or psychosis more psychosis more broadly. But there's overlap. This is where it gets

interesting. There's overlap between altruistic thylicide and psychosis. Interesting. And that's where I think we'll get into Heilbrom in a minute. I think that's where Heilbram really tripped up. Because Heilbram, who's with the prosecution, argued that the two types,

the two motives were either psychosis with command hallucination, because Lindsay Clancy said so, or altruistic filicide. Either or. But it's not that simple because they can come together. They come together. In fact, in Resnick's scheme, that's precisely what happens. When there's acute psychosis, meaning that she's being driven by the, was it, was it,

Zizel who said she's a puppet without control of the puppet strings? I don't know, but sounds familiar. That's the equivalent of, that's the equivalent of acute psychosis. That's really important, though, what you just said, that altruistic felicide and psychosis are not an either or, because that was certainly presented to the courtroom that way. And I think the jurors, I'm going to guess, were back there deliberating between what it was. They're not mutually exclusive. And I think I wish Redington had clarified that a little more.

So in actually, because in Resnick, even in Resnick's original classification schemes, the, when a, when a, when a, when a philicidal parent is an acute psychosis, which is kind of what they were arguing, in other words, overtaking by command to hallucinations, there's really no comprehensive motor. There doesn't have to be a comprehensive motive because it's the command to hallucinations that are driving the person. Yeah. And I think I was watching the testimony by Heilbrun, and I kept thinking, does he not know Resnix? Like, of all the hundreds of hours he spent,

preparing for testimony, he's basically arguing Resnick's point. Yeah. He's basically making a case for the prosecution, I mean, for the defense. Huh. But the jury wouldn't get that, because he's suggesting that altruistic filicide. That's the problem.

What is separate. Is separate. I know. He's making it. That's what he made it seem like in court. Absolutely. He's making it in either or. He did.

He separated the two. He separated the two, but they're not separated necessarily. They, they, they, they can be separated, but they can happen together. He also argued that he made some, he, he made some, He also made some points for the defense inadvertently. He said she agreed that she was having serious mental health problems. He agreed that he said, quote, she was in pain. She was suffering.

He acknowledges that her self-harming attempts were very real. Yeah. But, and of course, so did I mention his diagnosis? So, Hyle Brum's diagnosis was bipolar 2 symptoms. He acknowledged he had severe mental illness. but not acute psychosis. So maybe that's the difference. He emphasized depression, hopelessness, and suicidality.

If we're thinking about this in terms of the DSM, he's overlapping quite a bit with the defense. Okay. Ironically. However, he thinks that what's distinguishing him from them is that she's criminally responsible because she has this capacity for planning because she is engaging in altruistic filicide

that's not acutely psychotic apparently. And I think, so for the prosecution witnesses, I think to me, he comes off as being a little more interesting and a little more complex, but I think he kind of inadvertently steps into the defense argument a bit too much too. I don't know how the jury saw that, but... I think that's true, but then when he ultimately landed on altruistic filicide, it was confusing. It felt like he was going a different place.

And I'm surprised Reddington. Maybe Reddington wasn't as aware of Resnick's research, but he had the guy there who could have rebutted that. But anyway, one of the most interesting things about Heil Brom was... this whole, he acknowledged that during his interview with Lindsay Clancy that he said isn't suicide immortal sin. So he stepped into the Catholicism issue. And I thought, I mean, I thought, okay, I mean, first of all, a forensic psychologist interviewing someone like, even if you, even if I know Lindsay Clancy is Catholic and I'm doing this interview, I'm not going to ask that question. Right. If it's a mortal sin, I want Lindsay Clancy to tell me that. It has to come from her. I'm not going to try to impose. Your own moral, your own moral compass on her.

So he apparently, Hiabron thinks it's a mortal sin and he wants to somehow shame Lindsay Clancy. Yeah. And to thinking it's a more, like I don't, it was an amazing moment to me because what the, I mean, for for somebody like myself watching this, I'm thinking he just discredited himself completely by saying that. He just told us that in an interview with Lindsay Clancy, he essentially imposed potentially, I don't know the guy, I don't know his beliefs, but he's apparently looking at some of this through the narrative of religion. Even if he inadvertently asked that question through that lens, he's telling us to some degree, and maybe he's not religious at all, I don't know, maybe it was a slip. But if we go back to this idea that we all interpret

the world, he's giving us a glimpse of how he interprets it. That's going to be a problem. And the judge, I love the judge's admonishment to him. And the judge, it was, the judge was standing up. Yeah, he stood up. Judge Sullivan stood up. The judge Sullivan stood up and he's like, uh-uh, not in my courtroom. No mortal sin here. Yeah, no mortal sin, no Catholicism.

We don't bring religion into this. But Hyobram did. I think he had my attention and I think he had a lot of a credibility until that moment. And this was like, what the hell is he doing? Yeah. I think we've covered all the experts, right? I think so. Yeah.

The ones that I was most curious about. I mean, there were so many. But yeah, the main ones, the most important in my opinion. So this, the experts are critical here because this case can be, I can summarize this case really simply. Okay. And that, this case, so if you want to understand the Lindsay Clancy Clancy's case, it's really simple.

It's either she's psychotic or she's not. Right. That's it. Either she's psychotic or not, if she's psychotic, and you think there's command hallucinations, that's the motive. If she's not psychotic, then it's planned. That, and so, but here's the difficulty, the only, way you can come to that conclusion is by bringing in these experts.

Correct. And that's why this is a mental health case. That's why I think this has sparked so much controversy and so much discussion about postpartum psychosis, postpartum depression, women's mental health is because. Thank you. And I'll just say this. The DA, Tim Cruz, in the press conference after the mistrial was declared, actually said that this case was not about.

you know, mental health or rather, yeah, so thank you for saying that. Yes, it is about the victims, Cora Callan, and Dawson, but it is also about mental health. This entire trial revolved around mental health and postpartum. In opening arguments, the prosecution said that the defense is going to want to make this a referendum on mental health, and Redington got up and said, you're damn right. I'm like, because this is a referendum on women's mental health. And there's, it absolutely is.

It is. And that's not justifying or excusing what she did at all. No. At all. I mean, it's a tragedy in any way you look at it. But if we're getting back to this question about why do these experts all have different opinions, why are some of them biased? Why are they not?

I mean, the answer is because they're limited to this language of the DSM, which drives most of forensic psychology, which is based on diagnosis. And diagnosis is imperfect, as you can see. Diagnosis is there's no definitive way to get to an absolute diagnosis that stands once and for all. And that's one of the tricky parts of my field. That was a big discussion too.

A lot of people angry and upset that postpartum isn't the diagnosis in the DSM, that it's just a signifier or something. Code it with the ICD10. Oh, I'll go do that. Exactly. But why is it not? A lot of women and people are upset.

to learn that, to find out that postpartum health is not studied enough, including not being in the DSM as diagnosis. I'm just saying it. You're not supposed to have the answer, but you are a forensic psychologist, so I'm like asking you. Yeah, no, I don't know, because it's one of those areas of the DSM that's understudy. It's one of those areas that's still, according to the American scientific. Psychiatric Association who publishes the DSM-5, it's one of those areas that requires more research. The problem with postpartum psychosis, if there is a problem, is that it's not common.

It's it's more common than people realize that women aren't sharing it because they're afraid to. Correct. That's I think what this trial has brought out. When I interviewed Geneva, a good friend, Genova, about her postpartum of, psychosis. She said, I didn't want to tell anybody because I was afraid my children would be taken away. And it is swarmed with comments from women saying, I have never, I have felt so alone and misunderstood until this moment. I thought I had so much shame because this happened to me. So I don't think it is necessarily rare. I think it's rarely reported. And I think that is an issue

with women's health. And let's talk about that for a moment too, by the way, because that was a big issue on during the expert testimony, which was this question about why she didn't report. Again, going back to, if I go back to Sathos. Satas. It's okay. If I go back to his testimony, his biggest argument was, well, she never reported voices. Forget about the interests of thought. She never reported.

voices or hallucinations or command hallucinations previously to any provider. And again, this is a little thing I picked up on, but on the MMPI 2, there's a scale. They talked about it. So I don't know the numbers. I obviously haven't seen the MMI here. I don't know which version they used. I don't know if they used the revised form, three, two. I don't know which version.

But there's a scale that they referenced called the L scale. or the lie scale. And so that scale is typically responsible for something we would call faking good. So if that scale is elevated, they implied it was elevated, by the way. So what they suggested was that every one of her scales was within normal statistical limits,

meaning that she showed no real psychopathology across the various scales on the MMPI. However, they implied that the LSA, scale and I don't know how elevated it was, but they implied they didn't give numbers. Typically, by the way, a psychologist is not going to throw out numbers for testing because it's it's a violation, potentially a violation of privacy. But let's let's go with, let's say that's true. Let's say the only scale that was elevated was the lie scale, which is faking good.

That would suggest that, so what that means essentially is exactly what it says, that people are, the people who take the MMPI are trying to exaggerate their mental health positively. Yeah. They're trying to present a favorable image of themselves. That would suggest that that's what she's doing with her providers. Faking good meaning not telling them the whole truth. Exactly. If that's true, then if I was Redington, I would have run with that and said,

look, this is a woman who's stoic. She wants to present herself in the most favorable light. She wants to keep her job as a nurse. She doesn't want her kids taken away. What do you want her to do? Of course, she's not going to talk about voices. And that is the problem in general with postpartum help. What do you want women to do?

Right. And right, he should have pushed that. What do you want her to do? He should have pushed that. He should have pushed it because if that's the only elevated scale she has on the MNPI. And again, I don't know which version. But that's very strong evidence. that she's not disclosing this because she wants to come across favorably.

She's going to underreport her pathology. And I don't know why that wasn't discussed more. But I agree. You could say it's not only a referendum on women's mental health, but perhaps even somewhat of a referendum on perceptions of motherhood. And how do women... safely share this is happening and without being labeled yeah and who's going to study it who's going to know no i'm kidding i know no i don't know someone's got to study it someone there has to be more

research on this on postpartum psychosis and postpartum health i agree and how women can report safely another question i want to address that that was that i heard a lot was this issue of and they they talked about it to some degree, but whether bipolar disorder, either one or two, can be diagnosed later in life, like in the 30s? And the answer is yes, it can be. It's not, it's not, it's most likely to be diagnosed late teens, early 20s. However, there's a lot of documented cases and research showing that women are and can be diagnosed. into their 30s. Women in particular?

Yeah. Yeah. And that, well, what's specifically in the context of postpartum. Okay. Oh, interesting. Yeah. That postpartum mania or psychosis can occur. It can occur without a previous bipolar history later in life.

So there's a decent amount of long. longitudinal research showing that not only mania, but typically after childbirth, that women can exhibit symptoms of mania. So it's not common, but it's not uncommon. It's not, it's documented in the research. The other thing I want to talk about is quickly is I want to go to it's it's kind of maddening to me to have all these experts on phyllisite up there and some of them are kind of talking about motive most of them aren't but this is the this is one of the limitations of the DSM is when you when you just consider diagnoses and you're trying to figure out the why or the motive you're not going to get there yeah

I mean, because if you want to think about the motive behind Lindsay Clancy, we talked about it in our last episode, but if you really want to get to the motive, you have to bring in the different role she was playing. You have to bring in issues related to her identity. And specifically, I think, this idea that she was a competent nurse and she was a loving mother and she was a protector of her kids. Like, all of that plays a role.

Yeah. As I talked about last time, this notion that she's having these in truth of thoughts about harming her kids, and that is so discordant, that is so conflictual to her in the sense that she, because she's having these intrusive thoughts that are so violent

and potentially harmful to her kids, I think she's really questioning her, I think it's really upsetting her, and she's questioning whether she's a good mother. I think she recognizes she's having these two, terrible thoughts. She doesn't see those as consistent with her identity. And now she's starting to think that maybe she's a bad mother. I think you can't, if you want to get to the why here, you can't go right to altruistic philosophize. No. You got to go back and look at her identity,

her upbringing, right? That's the only way you're going to get to a plausible why. Right. Right. And this, every one of these experts just threw that out the window. The motive is she was psychotic. No, that wasn't really the motive. How did she become psychotic? Yeah. She became psychotic by first, I talked about this last time, so I don't want to go through the whole progression, but there was a progression that began with, I believe,

it began with some degree of cognitive dissonance over her role, seeing herself as this very loving, protective mother. Correct. That became challenged by these and truth of thoughts that spiraled, that led to her progression from Intrusive Thoughts to enacting, enacting the command to hallucinations that she was experiencing. And so if you haven't listened to my previous episode, I get into more detail about that.

But I want to stress the fact that, because we're hidden true crime and we're a Y done at channel and we're focused on the Y, I want to stress the fact that these experts didn't address the why. The why is deeper than just altruistic philicide or psychosis. That's not the why. Not to mention which I can argue that in many philocides, a previous history of, and I don't know if this is true of Lindsay Clancy,

but typically in phyllisides that we've covered, there's usually some ideation around harm or violence. previously. In other words, you just don't get, you can, but you typically just don't get violent thoughts out of nowhere. Now, with Lindsay, I don't think that comes into play until she starts questioning herself as a mother. But in other cases, we've talked about, I think there have been some violent ideation prior to the phyllisides. Thoughts where postpartum psychosis is different, though, because all these mothers are coming forward saying they've never had these thoughts before and all of a sudden out of nowhere they're having them

and which is even more horrific if you've never had violent ideations to then have a child and then be experiencing it right there's a paradox and i talked about this on our last show the last show i did for us is the paradox is that these intrusive thoughts of harm originate from usually they originate from a desire to protect. So the paradox is that the mother wants to protect or overprotect, and yet because that desire to protect is so intense that they start imagining all types of harm that could fall on their child or that could happen to their child,

that's where those thoughts come from. So there's a paradox because you're trying to prevent harm and then you start thinking harm. So I want to call it. close with, I want to close with, so I started with a research article in psychology. I'm going to close, I've been thinking about, I've been thinking about this article since we've covered this case and now I finally get a chance to talk about it. But when I was a philosophy major as an undergraduate, some of our listeners know that I talk about philosophy, but

there's a philosopher by the name of Thomas Nagel who wrote a really famous essay, say. It's cited all the time still today. This article was published in 1974 in the Philosophical Review and the title of the article, it's called What Is It Like to Be a Bad? A Bad. What is it like to be a bad? And it's an article about trying. So when Thomas Nagel, who became famous from this one article, and again, it's like cited, I just saw an article the other day that cited it. I'm already intrigued. That was some great clickbait.

Okay. What's it like to be a bat? So what Nagel's interested in is back in 1974 and even today in philosophical circles, philosophers try to create these theories of consciousness or theories of mind. And a lot of these theories are based on the idea that the mind is purely physical or neurological. In other words, they try to reduce the mind to some objective scientific fact. And with bagel, what Nagel, sorry. Bat and Nagel combined, now I'm hungry. I want a bagel. I want to smear. Okay.

Nagel. What Nagel introduced into the equation in this article, and it's a really simple idea is what Nagel said essentially is that consciousness has a subjective character or quality. So what he argued is that living preachers, whether they're bats or humans, that there's something it is like to be that creature. In other words, there's some subjective state that human beings or bats have that represents their experience. So even if we try to study a bat's brain or body or behavior or echolocation from the, outside. And even if we try to provide the most complete scientific description and explanation

of a bat's perception of the world, we still can't determine what it's like to be that bad. In other words, we can't get to some objective description that's going to be entirely accurate of what it's like to be about. And so what Nagel is talking about. what Nagle is talking about essentially is, and this applies to forensic science, by the way, is that forensic science, forensic psychology seeks to provide objective descriptions that are independent of any observer's viewpoint, right? That's what you saw in this trial. That's what you see.

They try to prevent objective descriptions of something that's intrinsically subjective. And this applies, I think, this is an important argument in terms of evaluating legal insanity because there's always a gap between a person's lived mental and subjective experience and the outsider third person's attempts to reconstruct that experience from an objective scientific standpoint. And that's what's going on in this trial. Is it possible, right? That's the question. Is it possible that can we really reconstruct objectively

Lindsay Clancy's felt lived experience of psychosis? Because that's what they're trying to do. What is it like for her to have that experience of command hallucinations? And are we going to say that these men that have never given birth? Can we really say that these men, men can understand her experience to the point where they can render objective expert opinions? I mean, I think to some degree they can. Yes, you can go back and you can reconstruct her experiences and her mental health issues. You can go back and reconstruct a lot.

But it's still a reconstruction. Correct. We can't go back to that moment. And no. Nagel's point, larger point, as it applies to insanity or criminal responsibility. is that criminal responsibility can never be fully assessed from a completely perspective-free position. Perspective-free position. Perspective. And the DSM, if we go back to this idea, and now I'm coming full circle of our beginning,

if you go back to this idea that we all interpret the world and we all read the world, we all read everything in the world, right? We interpret the world from our perspective. And every one of these experts did that. That's why they're all different. That's why they're biased. Even though they think they're not, they're all trying to claim that they're objective.

But the reality is nobody can stand outside of themselves and reconstruct something completely objectively. The law tries to do that by putting in place certain provisions. Like, for example, could she conform her behavior or conduct to fit the law? The law attempts to help in that reconstruction. to assist jurors, for example, in making decisions. That's what a burden of proof is. But I think this is where I'm going to land here.

This is ultimately this is the point I want to make about, and this is why Nagel, by the way, people are probably saying, why the hell is he talking about Thomas Nagel? This is why. Not only is subjectivity important, the big question is, if you have this gap between someone's subjective view of the world,

and this attempt to reconstruct it from an objective third-person point of view. The question is, from a legal standpoint, how much uncertainty can be tolerated before imposing criminal responsibility? How much uncertainty, right? Because you can't ever bridge that gap. Right.

And this is where, I think this is where the defense wins. Because the burden of proof on the state is beyond a reasonable doubt. What Nagel says and what these experts tell us is, in this case, it would be really, really hard to get to beyond a reasonable doubt because there's so much uncertainty that's introduced into this equation.

There's so much uncertainty that's introduced to this trial. When you take her experiences and you try to look them objectively, even the experts can't agree, They can't even come close to a green. Right. And so I think one of the important points, the point I want to end with here, I think, is not only this issue of uncertainty,

but when human beings, when we as readers of the world, because that's what we do, I know people may disagree with me, we interpret the world. When we as readers of the world interpret the world, we're all fallible. we all have to deal with uncertainty because that little gap in our brains

between when information hits our brain and when we interpret it, that means that none of us interpret the world perfectly. No. And because of that, I think I like, I mentioned Derrida earlier, I like this idea of, I like Derrida's idea that we have,

have to read the world over and over again because we're not going to land on something that's absolutely certain. And so we read the world. This is why, by the way, you often make fun of me. Read the room. Read the world. You make fun of me for all my books. I'm like, well, you know, I see this book. I see this book differently every year. I don't make fun of you for all your books. I make fun of how you put them in boxes and lay them around the house. Well, instead of shelves. But one of the reasons... So let that be clear. I feel misunderstood.

You've misinterpreted. Maybe so. One of the reasons that I like to keep books is because there's a handful, there's, well, more than a handful. There's a lot of books I like to reread and go back to and revisit. And I always learn something from them. We don't just read something once, and then we're done with it once and for all. I don't read you.

in the morning and say, oh, I understand Lauren forevermore. I have to read you all day long. I have to interpret. And that's how relationships are. That's why relationships are so difficult, but also so wonderful, because we learn from people if we're open to it. We're reading each other all the time. And if we're lucky, we're learning from that.

We're growing from that. And so I love this idea that Nagle introduces the subjectivity, into this process, this subjectivity into forensic psychology, if you look for it there, that it's not just the DSM, it's not just these objective measures. It's about interpreting the world in a complex way that we recognize as being fallible, and it requires us to keep reading. So my takeaway is keep reading. And somebody, somebody start researching postpartum,

help more. All right. Thank you. Ever since you mixed Nagel with bat, I wanted a bagel. So let's go eat. I want a bagel. I want a shmere. A nagel bagel? I'm hungry, clearly. Don't eat a bat, though. No. No, I will not eat a bat. We have bats, by the way, in addition to coyotes. Outside. We have bats flying around our house at night. It's crazy. But yeah, bats and coyotes yep so what is it like to be about i don't know i'm going to go ask one i don't know who knows all right thanks everyone all right thanks guys we'll see it see you