Lindsay Clancy Breaks Down, Luigi Plea Deal Speculation, and Chris Watts Plans Prison Marriage, with Ashleigh Merchant

state attorney for Palm Beach County, also current managing partner of Dave Aaronburg Law. I'm going today by my co-host Phil Holloway, criminal defense lawyer, former prosecutor, and former police officer located at Lannat G.A.A. Phil.

Dave, how are you, buddy? Great as always, to co-host this show with you.

“Look, let's go over what we have on the docket today. I think it's a great show. We've”

got big developments in the Luigi Mangeoni case. There's a surprise federal hearing or perhaps maybe better bill, there's a meeting between lawyers and the judge. But this is spark speculation that Luigi Mangeoni could be considering some kind of a plea deal with the feds, which by the way, for reasons we will discuss, could affect the course of his state trial, which is currently due to begin next month, Dave.

Well, family and I later Chris Watts has found love behind bars. We'll always see this, right? Again, daily mail reports that Watts is playing a Mario Realtor will bring you the details. And then later on in the program, we're going to be joined by a very special guest and who

also happens to be the third M.K. True Crime Show, Musketeer, our friend and colleague Ashley

Merchant. She's going to be our guest in the B-block to discuss the latest updates with the Lindsay Clancy Trial, as well as the case of Kendra Scott. She's a mom charged with murder after she shot a man who she found hiding under her child's bed. But Dave first, we've got a lot to talk about in Luigi Mangeoni. So I guess we'll start with Tuesday's hearing regarding his Mangeoni's New York state trial. The big news there really was the judge has decided that

the media, of course, he is going to be able to cover it. No questions asked is going to be plenty of

“sound and video much different than the tendency towards, I think, unnecessary closures. We're seeing”

out of Utah and the Tyler Robinson case, very different dynamic there. But of course, the judge also ruled that there's going to be a media overflow room, Dave. And also that the jury will be hidden. Then there was there going to be anonymous. We're not going to do who they are, not going to do their names. And that's fine. We don't need to know those things. But on the heels of that motion hearing, Dave, the lawyers for Luigi Mangeoni and federal prosecutors have asked

for a meeting on Friday with the federal judge. And the speculation there, Dave, is that they're going to be discussing a possible plea deal at least in the federal case. So what's going on, bud? Yeah, well, first off, I agree with the prosecutors that the jury should be anonymous because you have some real hardcore fans, Luigi, a lot of them work green. The courthouse sealer, Dave, apparently because of Mario Brothers, the Nintendo character, Luigi. That's kind of, these folks,

“I could see trying to harass and intimidate jurors. And that's why you need to keep their identity”

anonymous. And, I mean, after all, if you're like a die heart of a ledge murder, then, you know, you gotta have your head examined anyway. So as far as the plea deal, well, you know, they say that in the halls of justice, justice is often done in the halls. And indeed, looks like anything could be played out. The question is, how's it affect the state case? And what does that mean for plea? That's the devil's and the details. So we'll see. But I admit, because of the, the attitudes of the

feds, where they were going to, they weren't, they wanted to step in front of the, of the state. And they wanted to get Luigi. I mean, remember when a training gentleman bond, he was out there, she wanted to seek the death penalty and they did, and I was taking off the table. But they wanted this guy for them now to enter into a plea deal. Was it a bit surprising to hear that? Wouldn't it surprise you? Well, you know, like, yes and no, because you've not been doing this for a long

time. And I've had cases that played out, while the jury was deliberating, okay? When I was a prosecutor one time, he reached a plea deal while the jury was in the back discussing guilt

or innocence. So it's never too late, I guess. But that being said, you know, this is, it's like

I said on AM update this morning. This case is, in my opinion, there's overwhelming evidence, right? And so a defendant, any criminal defendant, even if they realize they're looking for, looking at potentially decades and decades in prison, whether it's 25, 35, whatever number of years 40, whatever, a some degree of certainty with regard to your own fate is attractive. And that's what would bring the defense to the bargaining table. But the question is what would

on this, under New York's law, there's a case actually, it's regarding Paul Manafort, who used

“to of course work with the Trump campaign. The current attorney general of the United States,”

right? He actually represented Paul Manafort as a criminal defense lawyer. Paul Manafort was indicted by the feds and by the state. And the New York courts ruled that because he was prosecuted for essentially the same conduct, essentially the same facts in the federal system that New York law, New York's more restrictive, double jeopardy law, barred any state prosecution. So if you're the defendant, right, and you have an opportunity to get, let's just pull this out, I would say 35

years. If you're able to get that as a plea deal, and you're not going to be prosecuted twice

because of this quirk of New York law possibly now there may be some exceptions. But that would be

a strong incentive from the defense perspective to at least seek a plea deal. And because both sides, the prosecutor and the defense are asking to meet with the judge at 11 a.m. on Friday, it suggests to me that at least those parties have reached some kind of a deal. Now it could be, I could be wrong. They could be talking about scheduling or other things. We just don't know. But it's being reported that based on sourcing and all this, that plea deals are underway.

So we just have to wait and see, but it's definitely one to watch. Yeah, here's another twist in this case. So the lawyer for Paul Manifort was Todd Blanch. Right. He's now representing the government. He's the attorney general. So he's on the government side to prosecute Luigi and the lawyer for the state against Paul Manifort was Karen Friedman Agniffleau. Well, she was number two. And she's now the defense lawyer for Luigi.

So it's like, probably the good guys become the bad guys and the bad guys become the good guys. Well, you could see you were the state attorney down there until very recently. I mean, I was probably, you know, good lawyers can change sides. Speaking of Agniffleau, we have a little sound from Agniffleau regarding the issue of the overflow rooms. It's obvious for the reasons Dave and I want to ask you about this on the other side,

because they really want publicity. They want more publicity from the defense perspective. So let's listen to salt one. The judge was very stern this morning. Any comment and response to the judge? Only when I said, I think it actually changed the complexion of the coverage of the tribe. So you're satisfied with an overflow room, 80 members at the

“media? I think there's no overflow. I'll take one. Why do I want two overflow rooms, Dave?”

Because they're worried that the group within New York, whatever the person is or the organization that picks, the media are going to pick media friendly to the prosecution. So they think the more media, the more diluted the story, the better, and they'll get some of their friendly media in there, the more the better. Because they don't trust the current system of choosing who the press is in the one room. They want three rooms of possible. Because then you get the weirdos in

there. You know, the one is a newspaper printed in their mother's basement where they have a total readership of two and it's all about conspiracy theories. That's the kind of juror that Luigi Manjony wants. Well, for sure. Yeah, they want more of the green Manjony Colt wackos out there.

And you know, but here's the thing, by the time the jury gets seated, I'm less concerned about

those people. And I am right now. Because I'm going to talk about this a little later preview to my closing at the end of the show. You know, I'm worried about stealth jurors. I'm worried about people who have this agenda, who are trying to get on this jury because you're going to have 12 people in the alternates and all that. But they're coming from the general population of Manhattan. And yes, who we see out there in the streets, protesting in favor of Luigi Manjony is the, you know,

it's his supporters. Could those people, could those people have an agenda? Are they, are they the general public that we're going to get the, get the final jury from? I mean, it's, it's crazy to think of, but you could just get one of those on there and derail the whole trial. You know, you're supposed to select jurors who can set aside their biases and just follow the evidence

“and the law. You don't need an empty vessel or a blank slate. And that's why you can get a”

fair jury anywhere. But you do worry about the Trojan horse juror. And I think about Trojan horse because I saw the Odyssey over the weekend really could move it by the way. Yeah. Yeah. I told my

in Africa? So, as far as the Trojan horse juror, you worry about someone who just wants to get the jury and they'll say, yes, I, I, I will totally put my feelings aside or I don't know anything about this case. And they get on and they're already thinking about chapter three of their book and how to free manjony and how they're going to live together happily ever after in the Catskills. So, you got to worry about that. But prosecutors are good at vetting these jurors. They're aware of it.

They may even have jury consultants in a case this big normally. The state and federal officials don't have the money for jury consultants. That's something that defense lawyers generally do in a big case. But in a big case, that's where you want to bring in maybe some extra firepower because you don't want to lose your case like OJ Simpson's case was lost. Well, this is, you know,

“we, I mentioned what I think might be drawing and bringing the defense to maybe the bargaining”

table. Probably these wackos and green, the manjony cult and the, maybe the possibility of a stealth juror, that might be what's buzzing in the back of the prosecutors head when they decide to go to the bargaining table as well because you, in an even in an ordinary case that doesn't have any

publicity, you never know what a jury is going to do. I mean, it's literally almost a crap shoot,

even when you think the evidence is clear and one way or the other. But in this case, given the wildcard of who's going to be on that jury, I can see where there might be some inclinations by, by both parties as to getting some kind of a plea deal. By the way, this was, this is really not new. There was some effort made at this, maybe not as sincere, but there was some effort made back in June of this year towards possibly reaching a plea deal

in the federal case, but the parties were never able to reach a conclusion. Before we get to the Chris Watts family and the federal case of the state case. Now, that was with the federal case, is what was being reported before. Previously, there was a report in June. So they weren't able to reach a deal. So this is, this is kind of like round two, but it's also on the heels of the or on the verge of the state trial. So when you get to the foot of the trial, so to speak, these things

tend to take on a life of their own. But hey, this could be, we could all be wrong. We could talk next week about this and maybe we were completely all-based. This could be about scheduling. It could be about any number of things, but it's definitely fluid, but logic and experience tells

“me that this is definitely, I think, going to be about plea negotiation.”

Time for some life talk. You probably have life insurance, but you might be paying too much for too little coverage. And did you know, if you get it through your employer that, then you're laid off, that you could lose your coverage? Scared to think about, but it's simple to fix things to select quote. For over 40 years, select quote has been one of the most trusted

insurance brokers out there, helping more than two million Americans secure over $700 billion

in coverage. Unlike one size fits all life insurance companies, select quotes licensed agents work for you for free. In as little as 15 minutes, they will compare policies from top rated carriers to find the best fit for your health and budget. Head to select quote.com and a licensed agent will find the right policy for you. Get the right life insurance for you for less and save more than 50% as select quote.com/magan. Save more than 50% on term life insurance as select quote.com/magan

today to get started. But what I asked you about this Chris Watts case out in with it's Colorado Day. You were a cool Colorado. Yeah, this was all over this case. This was

“a family annihilator and what tell us why Chris Watts wants to get married?”

Well, just to give you background about who this Chris Watts character is. He played guilty

to multiple counts of first remurde. He did it to avoid the death penalty. He got five light

sentences without parole and yet there are women out there who want to marry this guy. He's a family annihilator. Go find someone else. What like Osama bin Laden isn't available? Oh, that's what he's dead. But I mean, come on, there's gotta be someone better than Chris Watts to marry. I mean, swipe left on this guy. It must be someone out there. So we're talking about a woman named Shannon Watts. Okay. This is the woman who was married to Chris Watts. She was 15 weeks pregnant.

She had her daughter's Bella and Celeste. Four years old and three years old. They're all reported missing. And Chris Watts gave these interviews saying, I don't know. You know, he was feigning ignorance pleading for his family's return. But then he failed a lie detector test. Okay? And here, just so you know who you're marrying or who you want to date. Here's Chris Watts

This is the liar, the killer, the social path you want to date. Check it out.

Thanks, you just took off. Do you think? I mean, right now, I don't even want to just like throw anything out there. Like, I hope that she's somewhere safe right now and with the kids. But I mean, could she event? Could she just take it off? I don't know. But if somebody has her and they're not safe, like, I want them back now. I mean, I mean, yeah, I make my kids in my life. I mean, those those smiles light up my life. I just want them back. I just want them to come back.

“And if if they're not safe right now, that's what's that's what's tearing me apart. Because if they”

are safe, they're coming back. But if they're not, this, this, this, this has got to stop. Like,

somebody has to come forward. If your wife can see this, if she, she can watch this with a vote,

or she likes to tell your wife to get to it. Chanel, Bella, Celeste, if you're out there, just come back. One of the last whole day, because when he made that comment, he knew that his wife that he had killed his wife, left her in a shallow grave, and he put his little daughter's bodies in oil tanks at a petroleum work site where he was employed. And that's where they were when he made that statement. But for some reason, the Daily Mail is now reporting, as you mentioned,

that he wants to get married. The reporter Steve Helling, by the way, who's previously shared with us, he's spoken with numerous women who have correspondent with, with Watts. And he tells them he's accepted

“Jesus Christ. This is Savior yet. He exchanges sexual messages with them. He makes promises about”

getting out and being together. And now, we have Lizzie. Lizzie Henderson, who's gone so far, as to starting even before they have approval, Dave, to get married. They have to get approval from the Department of Corrections, I guess, that that she's already using his name. She's wearing wedding rings, and they've been seen, I hate to say this, they've been seen making out when they have contact visits with each other. I didn't know that conjugal visits were really a thing.

Wasn't conjugal, it's contact. Apparently, they get to have 10 seconds of hugging or whatever before the end of a contact visits. There's no reporting that we're aware of on conjugal visits, but they're definitely allowed to swap the spit and make out. Well, maybe if they don't actually consummate the marriage, she can get it at an old at some point when she comes to her senses.

“I mean, you really gotta be scraping the bottom of the barrel. I mean, you know, I'm sure someone”

in her life probably cares about her, this Lizzie woman, and it's probably like, you know, I can set you up with a nicer boy, have a Brian Coburger, you know, because Lizzie didn't kill his kids, but, you know, I don't know who else is, I mean, this could be anyone in the world, pick one of the phone book and point that someone. And by the way, that's not in Dorson, Brian Coburger, who's disgusting evil devil. So, as far as the gentleman in the hell,

Mr. Hellen, who was on our show before, the reporter, he's been a real leader of this. He is the fact that here, this guy's a hypocrite again. He's supposed to be religious guy now, he's all into, you know, chastity and religion now, he's, but yet they, they sex each other. And the prison logs show that Lizzie is a frequent visitor. And, yeah, they've been making out, she's been Christmas with him. I just, I don't think this is worth talking too much about because it's just so gross all around,

except to say that apparently Lizzie has not been upfront with her family about Watts' crimes. Her brother is again, Johnny Henderson is currently in prison for sexual assault. And he told Steve, the reporter, that she, his sister, Lizzie, told me that he, Chris Watts, was serving time for committing a murder. But she made it seem like the person he killed stole something, did something wrong to him. Okay. Yeah, he, he could, he said he confessed and said that he was felt trapped by his wife and

kids and wanted to start over with a girlfriend speaking of which, Steve at the Daily Mail, Steve Helling has, has told us, quote, "We'll run a story and like clockwork, another woman will reach out to me on social media or whatever and basically be like, I thought I was his girlfriend in our, our producer Michelle basically says that she's guessing that he hears, he's hearing a lot from disgruntled pin pals now that this news is breaking." Yeah, there was a case down in Southwest

Florida. I always forget the guy's name. He's a handsome devil he called and Wade Wilson,

there he go. And he is, he ran over a woman, a woman he just was walking on the street. He

That was his words, not mine. He also killed another woman. There's a double murder and yet

“he continues to go, all these love letters behind bars and women fighting over each other to be his”

girlfriend. And I don't know, I love to have a psychologist on one day just to have a conversation as why, why is this phenomenon still exists? We see it, this happened Ted Bundy. We've seen this so many years. I just don't understand it and maybe this is something beyond comprehension, but maybe what we'll do is we have the best producers on this show, Michelle, Natasha and I know they could help get an incredible guest who will answer these questions. Although, Phil, you know,

today we have an incredible guest. Someone who's never been a guest in our show before,

but who's been on our show many times. There's a little riddle for you. Yeah, that's right. Coming up in the B-block, we're going to be joined by our very own Ashley Merchant. She's going to be with us to go over Lindsay Clancy. We were trying to figure out

“who to talk to and it occurs to our producers and I say, there's no better person than Ashley”

to bring into this conversation. We haven't all three been together on the program since we were at CrimeCon out in Las Vegas. I'm looking forward to this. She's going to also discuss with us this case of Kendra Scott, the mom who shot a man, she says she found under her 13-year-old's bed. So stick around. Everybody's talking about weight loss injections because the results are so dramatic. They work by lowering blood sugar and reducing appetite. So what if you're looking

to lose weight? But not interested in painful weekly injections? Well, especially when you hear about some of those intense side effects, that's where doctors created a weight loss supplement called lean and the results are remarkable. The studied ingredients in lean have been shown to lower your blood sugar. Burn fat by converting it into energy and curb your appetite and cravings. So you're not as hungry. But listen, lean is not for the casual diet or with only a few

pounds to lose. The doctors at Brick House Nutrition created lean for frustrated dieters with ten more pounds to lose. Let's get you started with 20% off and free rush shipping so you can add lean to your healthy diet and exercise plan. Visit takeleane.com and enter MK if you're a discount. That's promo code [email protected]. All right. Welcome back to the MK True Crime Show. I'm Phil Holloway along with my co-host Dave

Erimberg. Also joining us now in this second segment of the show is our friend and colleague

and co-host here at the MK True Crime Ashley Merchant. Ashley's going to talk with us about the Lindsay Clancy Trial. But before we bring Ashley into the conversation, I want to go to something that just happened before we started recording the show. Lindsay Clancy broke down in tears and the judge had to put a halt to the prosecutors calling of the witnesses. This was during the testimony of the medical examiner who, of course, had some terrible, terrible injuries and

findings to discuss. Let's take a look. What about um injuries? I can't. Let me take a break. All right. All right. Sure. As close to notebook. Thanks a lot of chance for each. Ashley, I know that you have been spending a lot of time today as we all have

“watching this case and checking in on the development. So that's what happened during the medical”

examiner, right? But we also have had some things that have happened since you and I have to show on Monday or Tuesday of this week. What's the latest and what's the state of the testimony in the case? Yeah. Well, we're still hearing the state's case. So it sounds like they didn't they didn't even rest today. So they're still not done. I guess we're going to still hear more from them. But the most recent witnesses were the medical examiners. And that's the one that

you heard Lindsey Clancy on that last video actually breaking down. There were a series of them. There were different people. There was um, you know, different pathologists and pathologists are really just medical examiners. It's the same sort of interchangeable. But there were different ones working on different aspects of the case. And so we heard a lot of testimony about their investigation and what they actually saw with the bodies of these little children, these poor little

children. And it was interesting because the defense lawyer, you know, the first two, he didn't have

any questions. And he didn't object. I mean, the state called them and he's not objecting. They're not objecting to any of this. They're not saying that she didn't kill them. They're not saying that they didn't die this awful death, not saying that she didn't strangle them. So these really aren't facts that are, you know, in contention. And so what he was doing was he was really

all of this awful testimony, you know, this graphic details about these poor little kids and what that how they suffered and how they died and it's really prejudicial. But then we're also seeing Lindsey Clancy in real-time breakdown, which is sort of the opposite of what you'd expect if someone actually wanted the children dead. You know, those are tears, those aren't tears for her. Those are tears over what she did and really having to grasp what she did. So I think that's going to be

really impactful on this jury. But by the way, I don't think she was faking. I think those were real.

“I mean, I do think she is, she has real mental issues. And that's why I was always concerned about”

the prosecutors going for first remurter. I mean, if there was ever a chance of getting a first remurter

conviction, seeing a woman in a wheelchair well about the deaths of her kids, just, I mean, maybe manslaughter, but there's no way they're getting first remurter here. Well, I agree with you, Dave. I think that those are obviously very serious issues. You know, one thing, though, that I just can't get out of my mind. I mean, she obviously had mental health concerns problems, disorders, however you want to characterize it. She, you know,

was she, she hospitalised herself for a while. She had lots and lots of medications that she was on. And I know that's been a subject of debate as to how how compliant with treatment she may have been in terms of her meds, but she did, you know, jump out of a window and, you know, people say it was a fake suicide attempt. I don't know. I wasn't there, but she, she was seriously injured. She's paralyzed. And to me, let's just, I put my prosecutor hat back on here for a second.

I would say, you know, that that is some kind of consciousness of guilt. I would also say that she made, you know, she was on the phone with her husband apparently while she was killing the children or in that certainly in that timeframe that she had did certain other things that said that she knew what she was doing and she knew it was wrong, which is why she tried to harm herself. So that would be the prosecutor's argument. Some wondering if there's some kind of a middle

ground here or something other than not guilty by a reason of insanity, something maybe not just

“straight guilty, but can the jury maybe find her like guilty, but mentally ill?”

It's interesting because we always say, you know, jury's like to split the baby and that's

that's the term we use and, you know, jurors want to get it right, but a lot of times they just want to have it. Yeah. And so, you know, they may not as split sentence. They may decide to go with a lesser charge. That may be something that they decide and it's interesting talking to jurors after they're done with their service and listening to how they get to those decisions, you know, and a lot of it is just based on fairness. They probably feel bad for Lindsey. They, they know

she killed her child or all three children and they know she's mentally ill. I mean, these are things that they know. So they're going to try to get it right and they may do what you're talking about fill and find a lesser included offense, you know, something like manslaughter like Dave was mentioning.

The problem is if they find a person guilty, but they're still mentally ill, you go to prison.

Your sentence, that doesn't change anything about where you end up. If you're found not guilty by reason of insanity, then you go to a state mental institute. And the reason that the state usually challenges cases like this is they're afraid that those doctors at the state mental institute are not going to keep her. And so they're concerned that as soon as she's not psychotic, as soon as she's, you know, under treatment, her psychosis is gone. She's no longer to a danger to

“herself or others. They will release her. And I believe that's why the state is pushing this case so hard”

because they don't have any guarantee about how long she'll have to stay in that mental institution. Yeah, I mean, I think that's right because not guilty by reason in sanity doesn't mean you go free. You go to a mental institution, which can be terrible. You see in the movies, but at the same time, someone like that, a woman in a wheelchair, she suddenly snaps back in the reality. Remember, she's had a lot of lucid moments or husband found her lucid enough that she that he did not take away

her access to the kids. Even after she said she had dreamed of harming them and that they were in trouble, she would act normally other times. So yeah, what's to say that she gets put in a mental institution for, you know, year or two, and then she's out. And so that's something prosecutors don't want to see her. There's some interesting, well, I guess it's directly, but sort of related news to this case. So the judge who's presiding over the case is Judge William Sullivan. He also presided

over the case of litarsha Sanders in 2022, who was convicted then of killing her two young sons ages five and eight. And while this client's case has been the while the child's been going, he's been reversed on appeal for not allowing the defense in that case to call certain witnesses, which brings me to this next point. The defense wanted to basically call as a witness. I guess maybe some kind of an argument expert witness, but they wanted to bring a TikTok creator

creator who would testify about conditions at a mental hospital where Clancy had previously checked herself in and had been treated. And this place was called McClain. That was the name of the hospital. So we've got slot three, which is the TikTok creator who wanted the prosecutor wants,

excuse me, the defense wanted to bring into the case to talk about what the reality is of the

conditions there and how McClain runs its business. So I'm a Massachusetts social worker and I also works on the exact inpatient unit at McClain for nearly eight years that Lindsey Clancy was a patient at. Very important. I was not there when she was there, but I literally worked there for eight years. We need to correct the misinformation that this prosecutor is saying about McClain and what the stay there is like. So I'm going to break down everything for you and tell you the truth.

McClain needs to be held accountable. They did clearly not do their proper assessment when they granted her discharge. I'm going to be straight up, okay? And I'm going to say that somebody who's worked on that unit and had to approve discharge. You are a well trained mental health professional.

“You know, when you are assessing a woman with postpartum mental health, you need to be doing a”

damn good job of making sure that she's not going to go hurt her kids because of where she's at her mental health. And I don't think McClain did a proper assessment. I don't think they asked any questions about the kids. A lot of times when you're discharging from this unit, it's about are you going to go hurt yourself? And she was suicidal. So she should have had a suicidal assessment. But knowing that this is postpartum, I do believe that McClain failed her.

She doesn't have any direct evidence, though. She's it's all speculation. And she's not going to be allowed to testify. Yeah, she wasn't a big whole. It's a creative argument. And the judge

did say, he basically, well, we can run slot four in a minute. This is what the judge had to say about it.

He did not her as a witness, which I agree with, but he had, he had this to say about maybe finding a different witness with maybe a little bit of a proposed testimony. Let's listen to slot four. I mean, just so we know who's hurt going. I can't imagine that that witness would be allowed to give her, in a sense, review of McClain's. If it's five star and she may say it's two star, you know, this is not TripAdvisor. I wouldn't allow that. And no one. But the question

seems to be, for me, a closer call about what the standard staffing in programs may be available on a holiday weekend. Okay. Well, I mean, if it were me, I would take the judge's cue, and I would try to find maybe someone who could come who is familiar with the facility who's familiar with it. The time she was there and maybe tender them as some kind of an expert witness. Because remember, actually, it doesn't take much to be qualified as an expert. You just got to know

a little bit more about the issue than the average juror would know, right? So why couldn't they go

out and find somebody else to basically say what this TikTok creator was saying?

And I think that's exactly what they should do, what the defense should do, because this lady said

“she wasn't there at the same time. But it is important. And I think it could be relevant. I think”

the judge might let it in if they actually found someone else who was there maybe around the same time, maybe worked weekends had some knowledge of it and could actually testify about what was happening at the facility. And the reason it would be relevant is the prosecution has pointed to Clancy's choice to check herself out of McLean. And they're saying that that's evidence that she didn't take her mental health seriously. So why would she want to check herself out of a unit

if they aren't actually helping her? That makes a whole lot more sense. And so I think that's a reasonable argument for the defense to be able to bring this witness. And the biggest reason the state was saying they objected to this was that this witness has been watching the trial. So the defense could go and find someone who has not been watching this trial and probably get that witness.

“And I agree, Phil, with that case that was just overturned, I think the judge might be a little”

bit more likely to let the defense bring this in as sort of a rebuttal to the prosecution's argument that McLean was great. They were giving her all this therapy. And so, you know, her checking herself out. That's really bad on her part. Yeah, I agree with everything you just said. I think the judge made a good middle ground there. We can't let that tech talk blogger in. She's in that first hand knowledge. But if someone does, yeah, then it's relevant. Well, actually, I know that Sierra

you're barely, well, you guys have been following this case. So, um, I've been interested to, maybe we'll get Sierra to come on the program one time, sometimes we'll talk to us about what it's like as sort of a lay person watching this. But you guys, um, there's this, there's another witness,

of what the pediatric nurses testimony was all about? Yeah, she's definitely had a lot to say.

“Before that, I'll tell you what Sierra's biggest issue is. And she is dying for us to dig into this.”

The fact that Patrick Clancy got married and there's some, there's some theory out there that he got married. So, his wife would not have to testify. And so, she really wants us to go down that. I'm, I'm thinking I might go down that rabbit hole and figure it out. But apparently, the fact that they got married is going to prohibit her from having to testify and that protects the conversations that she had with Clancy. I don't know. I don't know if there's anything to it.

But the witness you're talking about, Rebecca Jolata, she was a psychiatric nurse practitioner. And so, she's one of the people that actually treated Lindsey, um, you know, in the, in the, in the years leading up to this. And this is part of the same theme that we're seeing. We're seeing

the defense point out that these, these treatment providers were disjointed. That basically, they didn't

know what the other treatment provider was doing. They didn't know what medications were being taken. They didn't know what medications were stopping or were starting and things like that. But the things that are helping the defense are the messages that they're able to get out. There's messages that Lindsey was sending to these nurse practitioners, Jolata, in particular, about having intrusive thoughts, about having horrible thoughts, about not sleeping and then sleeping.

And there's evidence about her changing medication, you know, increasing medication and decreasing medication. Lindsey sang she felt numb. She felt like she was going to die. The witnesses, of course, saying, oh, I didn't think she was suicidal. But a lot of those things to the jury probably sound like she was suicidal. And to me, you know, the stopping and starting of the medication and the lack of

“this continuity of medical records, I think that's really significant because these are all medicines”

that are supposed to alter your mind. I mean, that's really what they do. So when you're stopping and starting those and when you've got doctors that are changing them and maybe they don't all know about them, that's something that I think the jury may really, you know, may really sink their teeth into and may just think we don't know what was going on in her mind right then because she was so medicated and that was another piece of testimony that, you know, Lindsey had tried to get into this

treatment facility and they rejected her because she was over-medicated. So I think that's something that the jury may sink their teeth into. You know, she's taking too much medication and so they didn't want to actually treat her when she's trying to get help. Dave, one of the messages that was exchanged, there was a message with this pediatric, excuse me, the psychiatric nurse practitioner that she, Lindsey was feeling numb and she felt she was going to die and she

quote, "didn't care." And the witness said she did not feel that it was a suicidal fault and we have more from nurse practitioner, Jolada, it's SOT 5, let's take a listen. And her message where she says, "I feel like I'm going to die and I don't care. Did you take that as a suicidal thought or suicidal ideation?" No. And so did you tell her to go to the ER right away? No. Dave, I don't know about you, buddy, but I feel like the defense gained some ground with that

witness. Yeah, I mean, she expressed her suspicion about this underlying bipolar disorder and suggested

gradually increasing thoseage of this powerful drug, Sarah Quill. So she also Jolada said that she

suggested adding another medication. So this is all the stuff there. I mean, yeah, maybe she wasn't suicidal, but she keeps saying, "Keep medicating her. There are problems here." And then she also the Patrick that has been rejected the idea and said, "My wife is not bipolar." So yeah, maybe she was not bipolar, but she is clearly as mental ailments. You can see it

“for yourself. And that's why I think in this case, the prosecution has arid in overcharging because”

even if the jury is likely to find her guilty of a lesser charge, the fact that you're charging her with first degree murder can lose credibility in the eyes of the jurors. Sure. Sure. Don't want to see prosecutors just overcharging and essentially how they interpret it as fitting, is sort of telling a white lie in front of the jurors at, like, "Well, we think she committed

pre-meditated first of your murder when it's really like now it's clear she did not."

Actually, did you hear Jolada, basically talking about, well, she did not think that Lindsay was suicidal despite hearing that she said, "She felt like she's going to die. Let's listen to a lot of that." What was reported to you rise to the level of diagnostic criteria for bipolar disorder? Not at that time. And when you explain this to them, your thoughts about her reaction

your diagnosis. I recall Patrick saying my wife is not bipolar. Lindsay looked at me,

“she did not, she did not say anything. I mean, so Patrick's supposed to be the one diagnosing her,”

you know, the mental health professional takes into account that Patrick the husband said, "Yeah, my wife is not bipolar." I mean, that's ridiculous. They're taking this out of context. And of course, the husband doesn't want to believe his wife is bipolar. And, you know, maybe she wasn't long-term bipolar. It's something that tends to develop in your 20s,

maybe you're early 30s. You know, you don't always have it. And these are things bipolar,

particularly, that's on a spectrum. You go up, you go down. So maybe she had been depressive for many years and maybe now she's going into mania because things are happening. You know, that doesn't mean just because her husband says, "No, my wife is not bipolar." That's definitive. Just like you can't trust when someone who's in a mental illness, especially in psychosis, when they're the ones telling the doctor all of their symptoms. And they rely on that to make

their diagnosis. They've got to go outside of that with the self-reported symptoms are. Dave, before we have to let Ashley go, I know that you've been wanting to talk about this case and so have I, but you've really been wanting to talk about this case, right? So this is an

interesting case. Dave, just tell us what's going on with Kendra Scott. This is a first-degree murder

charge. Well, this is a case that I'm fascinated by because you have this mother who warned her daughter under age teenage daughter, not to bring home any men or any boys or else she'll be a lot of trouble and so will so will the boy or man she brings home. And then she finds the mother finds a man under her teenage daughter's bed, a man. And she didn't know the age of the time. And the guy runs out, she follows behind him, grabs a gun and shoots him from behind to death.

“Now, a lot of people would say, yeah, that's what you get for hiding under a teenage daughter's”

bed, which is obvious he was trying to do something that would be illegal and unethical at all wrong. But at the same time, how do you get to shoot someone in the back of the head who's leaving? Who's outside on your porch? In fact, here is Kendra Scott's attorney who is saying that well, maybe she didn't intend to kill him, but it's just an accidental discharge. Let's place thought seven. We expect anybody to be able to act in a cool calm manner, pre-meditate any

sort of action is just unrealistic. I think even the best of us, the worst of us, any of us would be acting irrationally given this sort of circumstances. I don't know enough about what led to the actual shooting. I don't know if there was a scuffle. I don't know if it's an accidental discharge. I just don't know. Okay, I actually pretend you're a prosecutor and tell us how maybe the felony murder rule that you discussed on Tuesday's program might apply

here. Oh, yeah, that's the worst rule that would apply here. Because let's just say that this mom didn't want to kill him, but let's say she wanted to harm him. Okay, she wanted to do something like an aggravated assault. An aggravated assault is really, it's kind of sometimes called assault with a deadly weapon, but let's say she was trying to scare him using a weapon. And it did accidentally just charge. Well, she could still be charged with felony murder because if she

intended to shoot him to scare him and then it accidentally shot him instead, but only really wanted to fire a gun and it was an accident, that's felony murder because she intended to shoot it him. Maybe she didn't intend to hit him. Maybe she didn't intend to kill him, but if she intended to discharge that weapon in his area and commit an aggravated assault, that would be enough for him to get charged or for her to get charged with felony murder. But what I really think

the prosecutor should do in this case, and I think the defense lawyer, this is, this is a heat

“of passion. That's what this is. It's not a good self-defense, you know, it's not a clean self-defense.”

It's not a first-degree murder. That's ridiculous. I mean, this is, it seems like a heat of passion,

you know, unless there's some history with these folks before where she wanted this guy dead, it seems like it's a heat of passion. Work the case out. Yeah, and can I, I mentioned that the daughter was a teenager, the daughter's actually 13 years old. And this gentleman, uh, Raderius Morton, was 20 years old. He was pronounced dead after suffering a gunshot wound to the back of the head. One last point, apparently Morton's former teacher, the victim's here, uh, says that he was special needs.

Before we go, we can just play, sought aid before we go to our break. He was special needs. And I was his special needs teacher. I do not condone his actions as, uh, going and mingling with a 13 year old. However, when you're cognitively not 20,

gone away from the house. I just wish he wouldn't have never shot him. That's it. There were so many

opportunities for her to stop and think. So many different ways that this could have had a different

“outcome. It's all true, right? I mean, this is not an easy case. And that's why it's important”

for us to discuss it here on our show. Because we're the best of the best guys. I agree. And actually we're going to leave it there with you. We appreciate you coming in. I would normally ask our guests to tell our audience where they can find you, but we know where we can find Ashley Merchant. You can find all of us here on YouTube at MK True Crime. This is the MK True Crime show. We've got two other shows on the channel as well. And you can find us anywhere you get your podcast. So if you haven't

subscribed in both places, do so because we have audio and video elements of this program that you don't want to miss. Alright folks, stick around. Dave and I will be right back and we will give you our closing arguments and answer a question from the viewer mailback. Like me, you might already own a firearm,

“but you could start with less lethal methods to avoid the financial and mental repercussions of”

pulling that trigger. This is where burner comes in. That's BYRNA. Burners less lethal launchers are equipped with tear gas and kinetic ammunition, and they are designed to incapacitate an attacker for up to 40 minutes. And burner is excited to introduce the all-new compact launcher. It's sleek, slim, and hits like a sledge hammer. The same size as a smartphone, it allows everyone to conceal

carry everywhere comfortably and with confidence. It fires at 400 feet per second with 41 joules of

force per square inch. That's a lot of power to stop an aggressor in their tracks without having to deal with the complexities of a homicide. Their pistols are American-made and hand-to-simile in Fort Wayne, Indiana, with over 80% of the components in the compact launcher being sourced right

“here in the USA. Burner is legal in all 50 states, requires no background checks, and can be shipped”

directly to your door. And burner is trusted by hundreds of police departments and government agencies worldwide. Try before you buy. Visit Burner.com to find a Burner partner near you. That's BYRNA.com. Welcome back to the MK True Crime Show. We got a viewer question. Bill, take it away. Before we get to our closing arguments today, we have a great question from the male bag and this comes from Christy in Lake of the Ozarks, which of course is where I got my

television acting debut course I had just, but I was in season 3 episode 1 of the TV show Ozark. But anyway, Christy, thanks for that great question. Her question is, if B.K. Brian Cober is allowed to

get a second trial, can the prosecution use his guilty plea against him? And the easy and short answer

is no. That's kind of would be the whole point. If he were successful in claiming that his plea were given invalidly or illegally or involuntarily or in with some kind of constitutional violations, no, it cannot be used. Dave, would you like me to go ahead and go with my closing? Are you it now? And you take us out? Go ahead, my friend. All right, great. We talked earlier in the program in the context of the Luigi Manjoni case coming up that we may have a problem with what we call

stealth jurors. I want to expand on this just a little bit. stealth jurors, these are individuals who will deliberately lie and conceal their true biases, their beliefs, their political and personal agendas. The lie about it during jury selection, just so they can get on the jury. They present themselves as impartial open-minded, but they secretly hold on to strong preconceived views about the case, whether it be the defendant or the law itself or some other thing that they really need

to keep out of their mind if they're going to be on the jury. In a high profile case like this, jurors, these stealth jurors can pose a particular danger because media coverage, as we've seen, shapes public opinion, and social media often creates and foamants strong biases in favor of one side or the other. Once these jurors are seated, they can influence deliberations from the inside. They can push for an outcome that serves their personal ideology rather than the evidence and the law

given to them by the judge that comes from the open courtroom. And this brings us to the related

defendant not guilty, even though the prosecutor and even if they believe the prosecutor has, in fact,

“proven down a guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They just ignore the law and they do in a acquittal.”

They do this because they maybe they disagree with the law, they disagree with the charges, or they're in love with the defendant. That can happen. In some cases like Ouija Manjioni, the accused has developed this cult-like following. Jury nullification is a power that historically has existed as a check on government and prosecutorial overreach, but it carries serious risks in high-profile criminal cases. A single stealth juror committed to jury nullification

can hang a jury or can force an acquittal, and this, of course, would undermine the public

confidence in the judicial system. In cases that dominate the news, the pressure multiplies. Jurors can feel empowered to send a message rather than to render a verdict based on facts.

“This results in chaos, mistriles or verdicts that appear political instead of legal.”

Courts and the lawyers who try these cases can do their best to try to screen for this through careful jury selection, but a determined stealth juror can still slip through. And the risk of jury nullification is real, it threatens the fairness of trials when the stakes and the spotlights are the highest. Dave? Thank you, Phil, and as usual, you bring the heat on some important serious subject, and I do the opposite. Because the internet is, once again, eating itself alive,

over the term, hot girl walk. Have you heard of it? Phil, you haven't heard of it. Because if you're

not on TikTok, a hot girl walk is basically a four mile outdoor stroll during which you focus

on gratitude, your goals and your own confidence, instead of wasting mental energy on

“relationship drama. Honestly, it sounds healthier than most things you'll find on TikTok.”

The phrase was popularized by creator of Mia Lind, whose company obtained federal trademark registrations covering particular products and services is also aggressively enforced those trademark rights. Sooning a Miami walking group and an Indianapolis organizer, among other, among others. Critics say that enforcement has sometimes swept up much smaller creators and community groups. One Canadian personal trainer says her Instagram account, which is an important part of her livelihood,

was deleted after post promoting a free community walk. We're flagged for intellectual property violations. To be clear, that is her account of what happened and social media take down systems are not exactly known for due process. The legal reality, though, is more nuanced than either side on TikTok would have you believe. A trademark is supposed to identify the source of goods or services and prevent consumer confusion. It does not give you ownership of a phrase in every

conversation, caption or context. But a federal registration is also not just a decorative piece of paper. It does carry legal rights. In fact, a federal judge, preliminarily, blocked fashion Nova from using hot girl walk on a parallel while the litigation continues. So, unfortunately, the mark against a national retailer selling clothing is not the same thing as policing someone who merely says I'm going for a hot girl walk. The real question is where legitimate brand protection ends and

and attempt a monopoly over internet culture begins. Now, I realize there's some irony in hearing this from a guy who trademarked Florida lawman, fair enough, but you don't see me dispatching process service to every lawyer or deputy in the Sunshine State, at least not yet. There's a difference between stopping someone from passing off their businesses, yours, and trying to issue traffic tickets to everyone who use the same words. You may be able to trademark a brand

built around a walk, but you cannot trademark walking itself. And if you're enforcement strategy causes the entire internet to run in the opposite direction, that is not brand protection. That is one hot mess. That is my closing statement here on MK True Crime. Before I let you go, a quick reminder to subscribe to the MK True Crime Show on YouTube and wherever you get your podcast, thank you to my coes, Bill Holloway, for our guests, our own Ashley Merchett, and thank

all of you for joining us. Have a great week.