Lindsay Clancy Speaks, Luigi Mangione’s Livestream Stunt, and Netflix’s “A Toxic Love Story,” with Dr. Jaime Zuckerman

Welcome to the MK True Crime Show.

“I'm Dave Aaronberg, aka the Florida Law Man, former state attorney for Palm Beach County,”

and current managing partner at Dave Aaronberg Law. I'm joined today by Mike Cohos, the former Florida Law woman now residing in Atlanta, GA, criminal defense attorney Ashley Merchand, hello Ashley. Hey Dave, how are you? It's good to see you.

So let's go over what we've got on the docket today. Luigi Mangione, he is the accused killer of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, and he is now pushing to have his state trial live streamed in New York next month. We will discuss. And we'll discuss a TikTok trend that ended in a murder suicide.

We'll break down the murder of Oklahoma mom Sarah Gilson, who posted about leaving her husband after he was accused of child molestation. That was a crazy story. Later, we've got licensed psychologist and narcissistic abuse expert, Dr. Jamie Zuckerman. She's going to join us to discuss the latest developments in the Lindsey Clancy murder trial

and the hit Netflix documentary, a toxic love story. But first, Dave, it is our one-year anniversary of MK True Crime. Kind of unbelievable, we have been producing this show for a year now. And just some stats, we have 85,000 subscribers.

We're going to hope to get up to 100 soon and we've had over 2.4 million podcast downloads.

So we're pretty excited about that. It's been a lot of fun and we want to thank everyone who has tuned in. But let's get into Luigi's media access demands now. Dave, oh my gosh. So New York is one of the states that says no to cameras in the courtroom.

You know, there's only a few states to do that. And of course, the federal government, they all have their reasons. But Luigi is fighting back and saying, hey, I really want my trial live stream. Do you think he's got a shot? No, New York doesn't seem to bend.

I mean, Donald Trump should have had his trial live stream. But it wasn't.

“So if they don't make an exception for him, why Luigi?”

And I support transparency.

I think it's a good idea. I have cameras in the courtroom. New York should change its ways. But to change it for Luigi, gives him an unfair advantage. Because Luigi benefits from his legion of fans and people who are just pretty delude in the

fact that he either is innocent, which, of course, he's not or that the victim Brian Thompson deserved it, which murder come on. And so this is not surprising that this narcissistic individual wants this. But I think he's actually right that trials should be broadcast. Because otherwise, we have a lack of transparency, which is bad for the criminal

justice system, which has plenty of secrecy already, and also conspiracy theories flourish. Yeah, you know, I was looking when I knew this was coming up this topic. But in the news, and you were going to be talking about it kind of looking at the history of the law to see why New York, you know, since they are minority jurisdiction, why they've got this rule, it's actually interesting.

“It stems from a trial back in the, I think it was the 30s.”

Lindbergh's kidnapping of his child, and apparently there was a lot of news cameras there, and a lot of flashing and things like that, and they didn't like it. They thought it was a circus, so they enacted this law, and it's been challenged over the years, and they've even had an experimental period where they tried to see if they could have news reporters and cameras in the courtroom.

And I guess the judiciary didn't like how it went, and so they reported back to the state legislature that they'd love for this law to stay on the books, and it has all these years. And now, every time it's challenged, like you said, it was challenged, and Trump's case, court TV has challenged it a couple years ago. Every time it's challenged, the courts just say, oh, well, that's legislature.

The legislature has enacted this, and so we can't do anything about it. So I think you're right, I think he's going to be out of luck, but maybe it will prompt some renewed efforts to maybe redo this law, because I'm with you. I like transparency in the courtroom, but I also think this was interesting because, you know, how the defense did this, they not only filed a motion for it to be live stream, but they're

also challenging who from the media is actually allowed to be in the courtroom. So I thought that was an interesting motion, also Dave, where they're trying to challenge the process of which reporters are actually allowed or which journalists are actually allowed to be in the courtroom. Yeah, like why do they want to pick and choose?

I mean, shouldn't it be everyone? I mean, why does that matter? Like, what are they getting out here? Right, well, what it seems like is the defense lawyer used to work in that prosecutor's office. So I thought this was interesting.

I wanted to talk to you about it, the dynamic. So what it sounds like is the defense lawyer had many years working for the DA's office, and sort of knows how things happen behind the scenes, and it sounds like maybe had some indication that the court administration office, and for our viewers, the court administration, is typically the one, it's not a judge, but it's the one that sort of administers everything

with the courts. So, you know, if you need a translator, they get the translator. If you need a court reporter, they get the court reporter. You know, things not really controversial, so to say.

courtroom, which I mean, I can think about, you know, that could sway how it's reported in the media,

potentially, depending on who gets those seats. But I guess the defense lawyer knows something it seems like that maybe the prosecution has an in, and it seemed like they were maybe saying they were tipping the scales as to who the court administration was going to pick to be in the judge's school. But that's quite an illustration.

That's not the DA's office. In fact, the DA's office Alvin Bragg said they had no role in developing the plan for media access, or in selecting journalists on the list. Yeah.

“So, you know, I think they're just trying to, again, spread some more conspiracy theories,”

where it's just like, and I shouldn't say more.

I shouldn't conflate the defense, in Luigi's team, with the defense lawyers in the Tyler Robinson case, which had been spreading stuff that I disagreed with, obviously. When it comes to Luigi's case, the lawyers have done a really good job, but yeah, they may want their own set of facts out there of broadcast to the people. But I just think there should be transparency, and there should be people in the court who are

selected by whom the Office of Court administration, who else would you select to make these decisions? Who else? What other group? You want to have maybe Luigi wants his own defense lawyers, be the ones to decide. No, let the same group that decides it for every other case decides who gets in the court. Yeah. Well, if the defense wins, what they've asked for is they've asked for a motion

to determine how these people were selected. So, I guess they want to actually see how

“these journalists, and apparently there was a reserve list. The New York Office of Court”

administration announced that there's this reserve list of 68 journalists who have been promised a seat in the courtroom. So, because there's no live streaming, those are the people that are actually going to be able to be there and actually report on what they see, what they hear, what they experience in the courtroom, which is a big deal. I mean, that's, you know, that's a really big deal. The list hasn't been published yet, but apparently it's journalists that are frequently

covering New York proceedings. I'm sure the court administration had a good list. I'm sure that these are neutral, and, you know, various members of the media, but Miancioni's team is saying that they were selected by a private attorney who's actually representing the media organizations. And that's, you know, that's, that's common for our listeners, you know, there's usually one lawyer, because every single newspaper and every single outlet, they don't want to all have to hire a lawyer

to challenge this. So, they all band together and hire one lawyer and that lawyer usually represents all the media. So, that's not abnormal, but what they're saying is they think that that lawyer is the

“one that picked and shows who is going to sit there. So, it's kind of confusing because it's like”

recorded administration to the DA's office, did this private lawyer like who really picked it, but I guess they want to hearing to figure that out? Yeah, I don't know why that makes it a big deal out of this. Like they've done pretty well so far. They got the death penalty off the table. Yeah, they're able to get some of the evidence suppressed. So, I mean, this is the hell they want to die on. I mean, they're worried about the media coverage. Miancioni's been

pretty good for him so far. He's got so many fans out there, and that's in part because of the media coverage. It made him look like a model. He's this young, angry young man who was doing it to save the world from insurance companies when he and his family came from privilege. He didn't have any policies with the United Health Care. He wasn't denied anything by the United Health Care. I mean, while the person he murdered, father of two, he picked himself up from his bootstraps

and went to public schools and then made a success of himself instead of being born into privilege like Luigi Mangeoni, who is now a hero to so many. Right. It's like a backwards world line. Right. I can't help but think that the defense lawyers are doing what their client is insisting that they do in this case, which, you know, a lot of times is difficult to balance what we do that our clients request and what we don't do. I mean, we have to follow our own moral compass and our

own ethics, but it does give us kind of a little bit of indication about how this trial might go. If we do get a chance to peek behind the curtain, which I don't think we're going to get to. But if we do get to watch it, it sounds like it's going to be kind of fighting between them because, you know, the DA's office has already said, well, they don't have any, you know, any role in this and they have made a statement. They actually responded saying that it's a baseless allegation

and it appears to be nothing more than an attempt to spread misinformation about the case and delegitimize the proceedings. So it sounds like they're coming in strong. They also were, this was the big one to me. The DA's office asked the judge to remind the defense of its ethical

obligation to avoid knowingly making false statements to the court or third parties. So it's

definitely getting heated. The defense clarified they filed a follow-up motion and they responded and saying that they were not claiming the DA's office had influenced the media's access plan apparently. Now they're saying that they just wanted to evaluate whether or not the DA's office communicated regarding this access. So it sounds like they've sort of backtracked a little bit on what they said initially about this once it got a little heated. Yeah. Well, I think this thing

going to be in the courtroom, not whether or not it's going to be broadcast on TV. We know it's not. And so, I mean, there's 68. I mean, are all 68 going to be biased towards a prosecution come on, hey? Right. Well, this is what we call in the law much to do about nothing. I'm gonna because I wanted to go personally. I wanted to see. So, would you be considered one of the

“journalists? Are we considered journalists here? I don't know. I think we would be, but you know,”

it's, this is what's always sticky to me when we talk about public access because I like to watch

trials. I actually do. I mean, I'm one of those lawyers that if I have a trial against a certain DA, I go and watch them try a case. I typically do that. I think it's good. I think it's smart. And in this case, I'm just interested. You know, I'm just interested because I like to see the people testifying. It's very different to me. And I hate reporting on cases where I can't watch it. You know, I haven't been able to watch all of Lindsey Clancy, but I've watched enough. So, I've got a

huge sense of the players and their demeanors and things like that. And I would love to be able to go and just just as a member of the public, if nothing else, and watch this case. So, you know, it's disappointing that we probably aren't going to get a seat at that table in that forum.

The wellness space is packed with promises. I get that. But I have got to tell you about

Veracities metabolism Ignite. No complicated routine, no major lifestyle overhaul. You can take it in the morning and move on with your day. You know, that feeling when it's mid afternoon and suddenly you're wandering into the kitchen looking for something, anything at all to snack on? Well, this might be able to help. So, before metabolism Ignite sells out again, make the switch to GLP ones the natural way. Head to VeracityHealth.co and use the code MKTC

for up to 65% off your order. Once again, that's v-e-r-a-c-i-t-y-health.co for up to 65% off. And make sure you use our promo code MKTC so they know we sent you. Ashley, this is another crazy watch. It is, it is just tragic. I mean, it is awful. It's this social media influencer. I don't know if you've seen this trend on social media where people sit down and say I'm they're getting ready for their Netflix documentary on something. She apparently

picked up on that trend and she did a TikTok where she accused him of pedophilia and posted that TikTok and just two weeks after that, he killed her, shot her and then killed himself in a murder suicide. So, she was fatally shot in her Oklahoma home by her husband. It was her husband at the time. He goes by Sean Duffy on social media. His name is actually Jeremiah Duffy, but he went there and he shot her and then he killed himself. And this was after she had filed and was granted an emergency

protective order against him after the police informed her that he'd been accused of molesting a minor. So, apparently she got that. Yeah, and then she went on Netflix, and not on Netflix on TikTok.

“And I think we actually have her and you see, I think we actually have her TikTok. Yeah, we do”

at salt one, if we could watch where she's outing her husband as a pedophile.

You know, this whole thing is awful because I mean, first off,

she's doing what so many people. I've seen so many of these videos out there. She took it to another level. And I think that if you're going to accuse someone of something like this, you go to the police. If you go public like this, the police are not going to be there to protect you. There's not investigation. There's not an arrest. And you're leaving yourself open for crazy retaliation like someone who takes everything in his own hands and decides to murder you.

I mean, this is terrible. And I just think that this could have been avoided in so many different ways. And I just think we need to learn more about what really happened as far as whether or not this guy was a molester. Yeah. Well, apparently, so what happened back in June, early June,

“a month before she posted this video. So, on June 9th, and she posted the video in July. I think”

it was around July 11. So, a month before that, there was a girl and a parent who told the police that Duffy, who actually he was the coach of the girls traveling basketball team, said that he had inappropriately touched her during an event at the elementary school earlier that evening. So, it was immediately reported. Another team coach even saw what happened and immediately intervened. So, it's not just the child that's saying this. It's also another coach that coach

reported it to the girls parent. And apparently, there was some similar conduct by the coach, by coach Duffy, by her husband, towards the same child, the same juvenile player that had apparently happened over an extended period of time. Multiple law enforcement jurisdictions across multiple states prior to the incident. So, it sounds like there was quite a lot going on. He had fled, Duffy had fled and he hadn't been seen by the police since. So, they have her report and the

police contacted her. They contacted Gilsen and they gave her all the information about how to

this is all happening. June 10th, she gets this protective order. He's ordered to stay 100 yards away

“from her on her home. She's got an attorney. And then, unfortunately, on July 23rd, the officers”

got a call for this domestic violence call at their home. And 911 call. And they tried to call her back, but they got no answer. Someone heard a woman screaming by what's sound and then followed by what sounded like a gunshot. And so, that is what happened when they found this lady. They came out to her house. They found her. It's a little bit complicated, Dave, because Duffy was a member of a Native American tribe. And I probably going to pronounce this wrong. I don't

want to a size trial. It's OSAGE tribe. And the incident happened on tribal land. So, apparently, the U.S. attorney's office is the one that's reviewing it. And, you know, investigating it,

but it is a suicide. So, we probably won't have anyone held accountable ultimately, but it was just,

you know, just a tragedy. Anyone held accountable except for the lawsuit, Dave, about the estate. So, that was an interesting twist. Yeah. So, what you had here is that you have the X of the victim,

“who is now trying to make sure that the defendants family doesn't get control of the estate.”

And it's an interesting legal question. You want to block Duffy's beneficiary from inheriting any of the estate. So, this is Sarah Gilson's X husband, because this guy, Lyle Lander's, there he is. Is that the X, is that the X husband right there? That's the X husband. Yeah. So, we've got a picture. If you're listening, go check out the YouTube. And you can see, there's a picture of the X husband who is filing this lawsuit. Yeah, he had two children with Sarah

before she married Duffy. So, there's something called the Slayer Statute, which is an Oklahoma law. That prevents a killer from inheriting their victim's money or property. And the filing says that that Lander's believes he's entitled to serve as a administrator of Sarah Gilson's estate. It has a attorney's wrote that Lander's seeks to preserve and protect the decidance of state for their children who are minors. And Lander's also told NBC News that he had repeatedly

“urged her to leave Duffy. I always told her, he said, "You're not locked into this, get away.”

I try to tell her. I don't feel this a good situation for you or your children. I knew the had violent tendencies, but I didn't think he had this in him. I really didn't." And that could be an answer to the question of why would she go and put this on social media as an influencer if she knew he had violent tendencies. But here you have Lander's who

always believed that this guy had violent tendencies. And yet, didn't still think he was capable of that.

So, you know, it's not the amount of money quarterback. It's just that here's a tragedy that could have been inverted. Police were still looking for him. He was on the run at the time. But she had this restraining order. And then she went public with it. When you go public with something like that, it's better that the person isn't custody or is on pretrial release where someone's watching over you, it's just not enough to be protected by a piece of paper that's a restraining order.

Now, it's not. And apparently, this wasn't the first one. Apparently, there had been a series of protective orders that Gilson had actually got against Duffy over the course of apparently five years, different, you know, the last five years. So, this wasn't the first incident. It just sounds like this pedophilia allegation had sort of put her over the edge. I mean, clearly put him over the edge. But yeah, like you said, Dave, I mean, the piece of paper doesn't necessarily protect you.

And it's unfortunate because there's not a whole lot more that, you know, they can do other police can do other than these protective orders. But it sounds like that, you know, she, she put it out there publicly. And she has over 30,000 followers on TikTok. So there were a lot of people out there that saw it. I'm sure Duffy saw it. The accusation of pedophilia. And, you know, it's, it's extremely tragic. I can't help but think maybe she posted it to get the word out. You know,

hopefully that someone might report him because he did flee. So, you know, maybe she was trying to get some some word out on him so that she would have some more protection. But, you know, it is unfortunate that there's this children and they're really the true victims left behind. You know, influencers will put things out to influence, to get their counts up, to get eyeballs also. I mean, she wanted perhaps to draw attention to this. I mean, this is something that

when you are a victim and you've seen your husband act like this that you want to learn other people of what's happened. And so I get it. It's just so tragic. And I wish we didn't have to talk about it here on MK True Crime. But we will, even though there's not going to be a trial, but this case isn't over. And next, psychologists, Dr. Jamie Zuckerman joins us to discuss Lindsey Clancy's mental health defense and Netflix, a toxic love story. I still need to see that actually.

Oh, my gosh. It's wild. John and I watched it a few days ago. It is wild.

Life insurance. We all know we needed, but we keep putting it off because we think it's complicated

or expensive or that will live forever. I'll stop telling yourself you'll handle it later and take care of it today. With select quote, in 15 minutes, you can have coverage that fits your life and your budget. Look, if you have people who depend on you, life insurance is not something to keep pushing down the road. It's one of those adult responsibilities that feels easy to delay

“until suddenly it isn't. That's why select quote makes so much sense. Their life-sense insurance”

agents work for you. Not one insurance company. They compare multiple carriers that'll find the right coverage at the lowest price. They've been doing this for nearly 40 years and it helped over

2 million people find coverage and whether you have high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease,

or you're perfectly healthy, like Ashley Merchant. They can help find options that fit your situation. In fact, some healthy applicants can even get same-day coverage with no medical exam. So get the right life insurance for you. For less, that's select quote dot com slash MK. Go to select quote dot com slash MK today to get started. Welcome back to the MK True Crime Show. Joining us now is licensed psychologist and expert

and narcissistic abuse, Dr. Jamie Zuckerman. But I hear you go by Dr. Z. Welcome, Dr. Z. It's good to have you. Thank you for having me. Well, I'm excited to talk to you about a couple things we've got on the docket today, but one of them we want to start with is a Lindsey Clancy trial. So as our viewers know and as you know Lindsey Clancy is accused of murdering her three young children back in 2023, and she has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.

Her claims are that she suffered from postpartum psychosis at the time of the tragedy,

“but Dr. before we get into more detail, what are your thoughts on this Clancy trial so far?”

Yeah, so all around, it's just absolutely tragic. I don't think there's any other way to look at this except tragic. I I do strongly believe that this was an overlooked situation of postpartum psychosis. We know that postpartum psychosis is very rare and oftentimes it is easily overlooked because of the way that it presents. It's not a constant state of psychosis. It waxes and it wains. Somebody can present very organized, but yet still have very delusional thinking, auditory hallucinations,

visual hallucinations, and one minute can present us together and take care of their children and bathing them and two hours later present in a psychotic fashion. Yeah, it's I mean, it's just tragic. The whole case, like you said, it's tragic and I think a lot of people are just realizing that postpartum issues mental health issues are not that uncommon, but like you said this psychosis, apparently is uncommon, but it seems like the state doesn't

understand or accept the fact that this you can go in and out of psychosis and particularly today, they had a slew of different doctors and it seemed like they were getting at, you know, maybe she, obviously they think she's faking, but you know, they talked to some doctors that thought it was interesting saying, well, at this time she seemed fine, you know, when we talked to her, she was fine. Oh, well, she was fine during these 30 minutes. She was fine during these 30 minutes,

but what you're saying is it's fleeting. So that's not abnormal that goes with the disease. It fits

“the characteristics of the disease, right? Yeah, and that's why it's oftentimes overlooked, you know,”

it's not a technically formal diagnosis in what we call the, you know, the psychology manual, the DSM, and because of that, a lot of attention is not paid to it. So you have to depend on the context. And so when she was trying to get hospitalized and and being discharged to soon in my opinion, because this is a psychiatric emergency, you need to take the context into consideration and look at the previous episodes that she's had where she was talking about having thoughts about harming

herself or harming her children or being scared to be alone. When you put all of those pieces together, you get a much broader picture. And I, I really do believe that's, that's what was mixed, mixed in addition to because of that a host of medications that were, in my opinion, mismanaged, managed, intermittently, no oversight by family or doctors on how many pills she was taking when she was taking the pills. So I just, I think all around it was, it was a failure.

You know, I finally heard Lindsay speak out in court. I think we all did on Tuesday morning.

And this was the first time. And she spoke out about her agreement to stipulate to certain facts.

Do you understand that the Commonwealth in this case is required to prove each and every element of the case against you beyond a reasonable doubt? Do you understand that? Yes, you're all right. You understand that there are certain facts that could be introduced during the course of the trial that would support, might support the Commonwealth's position regarding those elements. Do you understand that? Yes, sir. I'm sorry. And you understand that by signing the stipulation,

you agree that the Commonwealth does not have to prove these certain facts that are contained in the stipulation. Do you understand that? Yes, sir. All right. And

you understand by signing or going along with that stipulation, you are basically relieving the

“Commonwealth of its burden to prove those certain facts. Do you understand that?”

Yes, sir. Is that what you want to do at this point? Yes. All right. So this, this is one of those things as a defense lawyer. They're not saying this is a who done it. They're not saying who did it, how did it happen? So it doesn't, it's not a big deal that she stipulates to these things. I mean, they don't want to have to sit through and have, you know, all these people come into the chain of custody saying that yes, that is the child's blood. Yes,

is that my DNA on that? I mean, she says she did it. She says she did it with an exercise band.

You know, we, we know these things. We know that the children died. We know how they died.

So what she's doing here is she's just stipulating that, you know, after this that we heard from quite a few doctors. And one of them, I want to go a little out of order. But one of them is the

“forensics psychiatrist who said that they didn't document any signs of psychosis. But what you're”

telling us, Dr. Z is that's normal. So I want to take a listen to SOT 5, which is this forensic psychiatrist who testified only saw a cleancy for 20 or 30 minutes and asked if the psychosis was a continued condition or whether it comes to a stop and start. And he said just like you that it depends on the patient, but it doesn't sound like the state is listening. But let's go ahead and

take a listen to SOT 5 and I'm curious your thoughts on it. In your conversation with this

Clancy, did you notice any internal or external signs of psychosis? At the time I documented that I did not note those. And did you also note that, you know, she was her thinking was linear, goal-oriented, thoughtful, and she didn't appear to be responding to internal stimuli? Yes, that is typical language and psychiatric mental statuses and I did document that. And so that, I mean, that goes along

“with exactly where you're saying, Dr. This is something that comes and goes, right? Yeah, and that's”

very true. She may not at that moment have been having any type of, you know, response to internal stimuli. But there's a couple other things to keep in mind. Lindsay is an nurse. So she's well aware of psychiatric condition. She's well aware of the process of how that works. And she could have been scared. She could have been concerned that her children would be taken away from her. She could be scared of what she's experiencing and doesn't want to talk about it. So there's also that aspect

to it because when you're in a postpartum psychosis, auditory hallucinations, visual hallucinations are extremely scary. And so we have to keep that in mind that there may have been times where she didn't report it. Yeah, I mean, that makes perfect sense. Definitely makes perfect sense. We heard from some other doctors. Also, there was another forensic psychiatrist who testified that Lindsay wrote, and this was interesting to me. So she is intubated at this point. I'm imagining highly medicated.

She is in a hospital confused. And she wrote that she was horrified. And the doctor has to fight about that. And we heard a lot of questions about it. Well, listen, it's not for just a minute. But I mean, she's intubated. All I couldn't get past the fact that she's intubated when she sang, she's horrified. I mean, that's that's normal. I don't know what that proves. But let's take a listen to stop for and then love your thoughts on it on the other side. And did you ask her about

her mood that day? I did ask her her mood. And what did she write? She wrote horrified. And what was her affect during this interaction? At the time that I saw her, she was intubated and that in and of itself is very uncomfortable. And so she seemed very anxious. And did she write anything else on that paper that you saw? Yes, the entire evaluation was done through writing because she couldn't speak. So what types of questions were you asking her and what was she

responding with? So we asked her, you know, how are you feeling horrified? And then she wrote down, do I have an attorney? And I said with my team that at this time we're just getting to know

I don't by the way, I'm the pro prosecution guy. I'll see this as a big win for the prosecution when

“I'm hearing. So that's why I mean, this is the tough one from the beginning, right, Dr. Z?”

Yeah, I mean, listen, I understand that they had to do a mental status examin evaluation. But to do a mental status examin evaluation on an insulated patient who is sedated and we know that when you're intubated, your agitation and your anxiety is through the roof. Right. She's what she went through was traumatizing on all levels. I just, I'm not sure how you can take what she's writing

down in that moment is anything incredible as far as how her mood is or what her thought

process is. I mean, that to me was very strange. I'm with, I'm with Dave on this. I don't think it helps the state at all. I was shocked at these witnesses. I was shocked it. I was shocked quite frankly that they seem to be minimizing her suicide attempt. I mean, there was, you know, we have some thoughts about these superficial injuries and, you know, how deep her cuts were. Nobody's disputing. She tried to kill herself. She cut her wrists, tried to kill herself and threw herself out of a window.

Like how serious she was about killing herself is that really we're going to spend a whole day talking about how serious she was about trying to kill herself. And I listened to some this morning and I could tell the defense lawyer was kind of like, what, okay, that's, you know, why are we bringing these witnesses to testify about this? You know, I could, I could sense the frustration. And I am guessing that the state has, has a goal here. I haven't quite seen it yet, but I'm guessing

there's one coming up. Dave, you look horrified. No. I, you know, I, I just thought that the

state overcharge is case from the beginning. Yeah. I charge in first remurder when maybe they can

get a lesser charge, a something that wouldn't be life in prison, but it would still be something involuntary, manslaughter. I don't know, something that that recognized that she was not in her right mental state. Because you remember, Massachusetts uses a much more lenient standard. So defendants can more easily claim insanity than in other states, the burden shifts to the prosecution.

“Plus they don't adopt what's called the menotten standard, which is where you have to show that you”

didn't know the difference between right and wrong. No, you don't have to show that. You just have to show she couldn't control what she was doing. And I mean, nothing that I've heard so far really undermines that to such an extent that I think the prosecution is going to win here. I think to me

this sets up for a not guilty verdict unless something changes. Do you agree with that?

I do. And one of the themes I keep hearing that I, I don't think is the correct route to go down is this notion that because, but no one's disputing that, that she killed her children. I mean, it's tragic and it's horrific. But what I keep hearing is because she, quote, planned this, that therefore she was not psychotic. And I, I think it's important to let people know and have people understand that even in a state of psychosis, when you're hearing voices,

planful doesn't, it doesn't correlate to that. You can be planful within your psychotic state.

“And I, I think that that's, it's, it's, it's a lot of misinformation that that's being given”

because one really has nothing to do with the other. I hope that a fence brings an expert like you to explain that because I kept thinking that as well. I'm like just because someone's in psychosis doesn't mean that they can't feed themselves. So they can't plan out their data. They can't get dressed. Like they can still have executive functions. You know, those aren't, it's just psychosis. And so I hope that the defense does, does bring that. We heard a lot also from Lindsay's

journal entries from the months leading up to this tragedy. The defense questioned a lot of it, but both the prosecution and the defense read from those journals. And, you know, Lindsay details these feelings of extreme anxiety being overwhelmed, things like that. You know, she's, I mean, she's up and down. You know, one of the things that it seems like they may be trying to focus on the state is that they're saying that she was very, you know, obsessive about the sleep that she was

trying to, the sleep training schedule that she was trying to get her kids on. And, you know, that she was just this controlling personality and controlling parenting style. And then it seemed like they were trying to get that testimony from the Nanny who testified earlier today. And the Nanny wasn't given it to them. You know, the Nanny was like, now, like, you know, she was great. So, you know, I don't know where they were throwing this obsessive personality in how they thought

that that that played in. I don't know, Dr. Well, you think they had some motive for that or were they just throwing everything out and seeing what sticks. I think they're throwing to see what sticks because to be honest with you, when you're bringing that up, that personality style up, when you're in, when you're in that new mom, or I just say infant stage. And if you're if you're a parent, you understand this that you are very neurotic about the sleep, you may be not everybody,

you don't sleep. And one of the things that is, I don't think is being stressed enough

is the sleep, the lack of, put a psychosis aside, lack of sleep can cause disorganized thinking. It can cause depression, anxiety, it can cause mania, lack of sleep is a massive issue which is another reason why I think she should have been hospitalized. But that type A personality, I really don't understand the point of that. I think, and you can hear it in her journal entries, which were heartbreaking, that lack of sleep, she became scared to not sleep. And to be honest with

you, I can't blame her because that is a really scary place to be when you are not sleeping, plus you have a baby, plus you have other children. It was, it was very just heartening to hear her words because you understand where she's coming from, but that sleep piece of it, I think

to say she was type A. No, she was genuinely concerned about her health. And when you're sleep training

“a baby, that's what's required. You have to be very neurotic in terms of how you document their”

sleep, right? And it actually, I mean, it causes more stress too because when you hear your baby crying because you're sleep training them, you know, as a new mom, you do kind of go a little crazy in your own head. Like I feel awful because you want to run to your child. I mean, and there's some moms on that jury. I think that's a very normal reaction they would have. Well, I talk about Lindsay Clancy all day. Dave, you want to. Well, I just want one more point,

you bring up a really important point about the lack of sleep because the prosecution won some points that I thought are at least when they provide the evidence from the toxicology reports about how the medication wasn't necessarily extreme. It was what they said, the therapeutic levels, except maybe the circuit, which is slightly elevated. So they may say, aha, the drugs didn't do it. But what you're saying is it's more than just the medication. It's everything combined.

“And that's something that parents on the jury, at least, especially the mothers can probably relate to.”

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's the intermittent taking up the pills. It's the weaning them off. And, you know, a lot of times the doses weren't wained down. She was just taken off and switched to something else. And that over time, plus the lack of sleep and that's a closest. It really was just a recipe for disaster. And it was very sad to watch her spiral over those three months. It is just tragic. Being everything about the case is tragic. We have another tragic, but

insane case. We want to talk about a toxic love story. It is the trailer. Let's play the trailer sought seven, which is the trailer for the Netflix true crime documentary that explores a very bizarre 2016 Orange County case that involves a wrongful rest, a fake stalking campaign, and a deep web of domestic deception. It tells me that Angela has been receiving these emails. From someone called Lilith is truth. Are they threatening violence? I'm going to tell you email.

They have this biblical undertone. We were thinking the exact same thing.

Holy ****. It's his ex Michelle. I do not hate Michelle. I have never hated Michelle.

I just want to grab out of my life. It slowly ratchets its way up. She didn't have my work. She knows what I look like. He told me she wished he could burn this whole of **** out. And then something unbelievable happened. Well, I guess we're going to have to give away spoilers.

Yes, poor Dave hasn't watched it yet. I have a bit now. I want to show you. It's all in my to-do list. Told you, right? All right, after. That's a good one. I'd last so. I know. That's okay. I mean, we're happy to talk about it. And hopefully all of our viewers who haven't watched the yet, will still want to go and talk about it. But so the background of the case is

Michelle Havley. She was she was wrongfully jailed for 88 days. And I was curious about that. So I did a little research myself. And she was compensated. We don't know how much, but she did file a false arrest claim against the police. And she should have. We'll talk about that in a little bit. But she was jailed for 88 days after being accused of sending these death threats and posting fake rape fantasy ads, targeting the new wife of her ex-fiance. So she was married to

NDS. I mean, she was engaged to NDS. They bought a condo together. She, they break up. And he goes with this new girl, Angela, they get married and, and he and Angela are in the condo.

“And all of a sudden, Angela says she's pregnant. And with twins, I think it was with twins,”

you know, has pictures and all this stuff. Yeah, twins, right? And surfskidding these emails and calls the police and says, "Oh my God, all these emails, these are threatening." And they were awful. And apparently there was this fake rape plot that was, you know, put out on Craigslist where they were having men come to the house to pretend they were going to rape her. And come to find out, I think Angela and Ian came up with this whole plot. Doctors, what I mean, I think

Angela is right there with Ian. They're both in prison. Sorry. That's the spoiler. Both in prison.

I, what I think happens, I think this is a, this is a documentary of how coercive control

and domestic violence plays out in relationships that doesn't always look like physical abuse,

which is very hard to detect. You don't really realize it until you're in it. And it's a very slow and serious process. And, you know, when you hear about the relationship and health started with Michelle, he slowly started becoming more possessive was tracking her car or what she was wearing, her cell phone started, you know, forcing her to do things sexually that she was uncomfortable with. And she was really trapped in this relationship and couldn't get out. He was

financially abusive to her. She spent her savings on this down payment for the condo. So he really trapped her in multiple ways, made her quit her job. She was working at Disney where apparently

his old colleagues could monitor her, her movements. So when she left, somebody like Ian, who is

dead set on gaining control and power over somebody else. And this is a, this is a personality pattern that we see with him, very charming, very manipulative. He lost control of her. And in, in my clinical opinion, what happened and what transpired was a way to punish her for, you know, leaving him and losing control. I think ironically with Angela, Angela had notoriously lied, giving things away and that's so spoiler alert. Had notoriously lied for years, for years, about having cancer and

doing a go-fun me and that she was pregnant with twins, which she really wasn't. And so she has this lengthy history of manipulation and lying to friends and family. And I think what happened was Ian

and her when they were together, Ian kind of looked at Angela's fear of abandonment,

needing to be loved, needing attention, and weaponize that against her. And I think the two of them just can cop to this plan to torment Michelle and set her up. And I think Angela, you know, for her reasons, looked at this as a way to connect with Ian and have Ian love her and stay with her.

“I think it's just, it's absolutely twisted. Oh, that's, that's crazy. And that's what the”

documentary sort of left, you know, unsaid. Like why? So I was curious, you're opinion about how Angela, I mean, she had all these issues before, but how did Ian rope her into this? Did he manipulate her into this? That's sort of what, you know, what it doesn't say? Why they did this? Are they just two? I mean, are they just whacked and doing this crazy thing for no reason? They sort of alluded to me. I thought maybe that they, you know, they were trying to get Michelle out because she had a stake in the

condo-eyone. I don't know. It was just nuts. I'm kind of hoping they'll do another installment, and give us some more information. Maybe go and interview them from prison, but apparently they're not talking. Yeah, that would be super fun. I really think it was a matter of Ian regaining control and access to Michelle because he no longer had that. And I think Angela was used as a pawn in his plan

“to, to do that. And the reason why Angela, I think, was, I don't want to say, okay, but maybe it was”

roped into that is because like, as I said, he weaponized her vulnerability as well. And this is how coercive control operates within relationships. It's very hard to identify, but once you are in it, you are in it. Well, before we close out, I want to let our audience hear Sott and Nine, which is when the DA says that Angela tricked them, if we could play Sott and Nine. She tricked us. So we had all the evidence that we had had at that point at Miss Hadley,

but as we found out, it now appears that Angela deas was the one behind it. Wow, so Dave, you're excited to watch it now? Yes, I may even skip Ted last sort of watch it. And yes, I, because, you know, I think this is like the Mackenzie Sharilla case where there are twists and turns. And when you, you know, I think that the quality of true crime docs on Netflix and others have really up their game in recent years. And I think that's because of the interest in true crime.

“That's why we exist. I think this is such a hot genre that you're seeing a lot of really good”

filmmakers decided to go into that area as opposed to doing other things. Yeah, I can't wait to hear what you think of it because it does, it's, it's interesting, but how they build it is interesting. So that'll be fun. But thank you so much, Dr. Z. Jamie. Can you tell our audience where they can find you? Sure, my website, Dr. Jamie Zuckerman.com, and I post a lot about narcissistic personality sort of things like that on my Instagram, Dr. Z. psychologists and safer YouTube and Facebook.

Awesome. Well, thank you so much. And next up, we've got our closing argument. Stay tuned.

Your credit card and the security it offers are under attack. Senators Dick Durbin and Roger Marshall

“want to change the nation's payment system to benefit corporate mega stores like Walmart and”

Target at the expense of everyday Americans. Credit cards keep your payments secure and provide rewards that families use to help make everyday purchases more affordable. The Durbin Marshall mandates would let corporate mega stores cut corners on credit card processing, routing transactions over cheaper, untested networks with weaker securities and fewer protections. That means higher risk of fraud, greater chance of stolen personal data in the loss of rewards program. So just

corporate mega stores can pocket billions of dollars in higher profits. Tell Congress to guard your card. Visit guardyourcard.com to take action and learn more. Welcome back to the MK True Crime Show. It's time for our closing arguments. Ashley Merchant. After you. I thank you, sir. So I know we talked a little bit about this early in the show, but New York has a ban on cameras in the courtroom and that dates back all the way to 1935

when the Lynnburg baby kidnapping trial was underway. Apparently there was a huge media frenzy that was out of control. Flash bugs were going off, reporters were swarming the courthouse. The judges just thought that it really had become a spectacle of a trial instead of a search for truth and justice. So they had this fear that cameras, this is the other fear. The cameras would also intimidate witnesses. It would sway jurors and it would invite grandstanding from lawyers.

“And then that would all, and this is the key part, undermine a defendant's right to a fair trial.”

So that was, you know, it's always at the end of the day they say it's about the defendant's

right to a fair trial. So fast forward to today and Luigi, the defendant, his legal team is asking for cameras. So it's not an accident here. It's a strategy. When the trial is broadcast, the public sees every argument, every ruling, every objection for themselves. It's not filtered headlines. It's not second-hand versions of the events. It's not someone else's interpretation. They get to actually judge the process, judge the witnesses, judge the evidence with their

very own ears and eyes. And so here is the really uncomfortable truth about this. Courts, they love to talk about transparency. But what they don't love is actually being transparent. Some do. Some are great. But the less people see the easier it is for courts to preserve this

myth that the system always gets it right. We talk a lot about how the system doesn't get it right.

We talk about it in cases. You know, that we talk about every time on this show. The cameras, they cut against that. They show how the system actually works. They show maybe that exactly what makes some people uncomfortable. How it works. The more the public sees, how the sausage gets made, the more questions they're going to ask about the system and about fairness and about justice.

“I think that's a good thing. If we expect people to trust our system and trust our courts,”

we should let them see the courts. Accountability. It doesn't weaken the justice system. Transparency doesn't weaken the justice system. All it does is it strengthens it. And public trials, they're not just a constitutional right. They're actually what I would call a constitutional

safeguard. The Constitution guarantees public trials for one reason. Sunshine has always been the

best disinfectant. And it's what keeps the system and power honest. Thank you, Dave. That was great. And concise. Well done, actually. He starts. Well, actually he may remember previously. I called out the Irish government because they tried to rename Herzog Park. Well, the Irish government has done it again in their latest case of Israel derangements syndrome. And their political virtue signaling has officially crossed into absolute comedy. So I previously called out the Irish

government for trying to dename Herzog Park, which honored time, Herzog, the Dublin raise, Bell Fastborn, former president of Israel whose father served as Ireland's first chief rabbi during the war of independence. You see the folks of Dublin wanted to erase a pillar of Irish Jewish history just to make a geopolitical point. Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed after a backlash. And the proposal was shelved. But Ireland did not learn its lesson. See, they just spent

53 million euros on a brand new state jet or top ministers. Only to deliberately strip out the standard life-saving falcon eye landing system. That's the important vision tech that lets pilots

weren't in their right minds because the Falcon Eye landing system happens to be co-developed

“by an Israeli firm. So to avoid signing off on Israeli technology, Irish politicians chose to”

compromise their own pilot's vision in severe weather. A former Irish air core pilot named

Kevin Fipps told the Irish media that the missing system provides the ability to land in fog

when other aircraft would have to divert to another airport. Talk about a self-owned,

“I mean, putting your own lives at risk to troll another country is so stupid and so hypocritical.”

You don't see them do this with any other country. You don't see them gutting components from China over its treatment of the leaders or Russia because of its war of aggression against Ukraine. But when it comes to Israel, logic goes completely airborne. And if you really want to boycott

“Israel and hand over your smartphones through away your laptops and dump every microchip that keeps”

your daily life running, but they won't do that. You can disagree with the government's policies without hating the country. You can do without hating its businesses. You can do without hating its people. I my own issues with current government policies of the United States, but I still love

America and regardless of Ireland's ongoing absurdities, I declare that I will always love my Irish

friends, although rooting for Nordic football is clearly a bridge too far. And that's by closing statement. Ashley Merchant, it was great being on with you today. It was great to be on with you. Thank you. Dave Aaronberg, aka Florida Lawman, Quaker Minder, subscribe to the MK True Crime Show on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you, Ashley, and thank you to our guests, Dr. Jamie, Zuckerman, aka Dr. Zee,

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