Welcome to this very special edition of In The Well.
girls, he's not here this week, but for all you Ashley Merchant fan boys, we've got
Ashley here, and I'm not going to say it's an upgrade from that, but it certainly is a conversation I'm looking forward to. So welcome, welcome to my favorite Southern lawyer, Ashley Merchant. I'm going to make a lot of enemies by saying that, but I fell in love with Ashley in the courtroom when I watched her do some of the best cross-examination I've ever seen, and now we become great
friends and Ashley, I will not discuss our late night early-moving evening though we might talk about that with Lauren Conlon, because she was, she was a witness
to that, she was, she was a late night witness in Vegas, what happens in Vegas
“days in Vegas? I think great, yeah, we had a great time, I mean it was, it was a”
good time, you know, where's Matt, is he off surfing somewhere fabulous? So Matt is Matt is, he's kind of vacilates between the West Coast, and then he summers, I guess it in upstate New York or okay, and that's his thing, so I've got my whole theories on it, but I'll wait till he comes back to torture him with it. Well, I would be him when I grow up and you don't live on both coasts, and so they wanted
us to talk about a bunch of stuff, but we've got Lauren Conlon coming up, and I wanted to talk about the Clancy Cates, because I know that we were supposed to do in the B-block, but I am fixated, and I thought of you when I saw your tweet, that there was a question that was asked, and I wish we had the tape, but the
“prosecutor, and you probably been there. I think we have the tape, yeah, we have the”
tape of the document. Are you talking about this mortal sin? Yes. Oh my gosh, we do, when crazy, we definitely have that. We've previously testified that breakfast was great. Yes. And that church was beautiful. Yes. And in fact, the defendant, she told you that it was great, and that she was glad she went to church, not the anchors. Yes, she did. And then after that, they went down to Connecticut to see
her family. Right. Now, are you active member in the Catholic church? Yes. So, you're aware that murder is considered a mortal sin. It sounds like they see you over here. Like that poor judge, I mean, he didn't even need to wait for an objection. He had to have been so mad when that happened, because you know that prosecutor had that
question planned out, and was so proud of herself, and knew that was so wrong. And you know, you hit exactly what I was going to say. She said this up three questions before. I'm so glad you played the whole side when she started talking about Oh, she said church, because she was looking for a hook to commit the prejudicial air, so she led into it with the church guarantee you she thought, oh,
that gives me a free pass to run down this absolute gamut of prosecutorial misconduct. Now, the reason I wanted to discuss this with you, and I saw a couple of things, and I saw Mr. Reddington say, I don't want to mistrial when I had to try this again. And I have been there. I can think of a case in LA that I tried last witness, and they committed unforgivable air. And I've been making mistrial
after mistrial, finally the judge, she's a friend. I consider a friend granted the
mistrial, and I said, what I after, I said, why did you grant the mistrial? And to her credit, she said, because you were winning. And so you get it. So in this
“case, however, I think you could make the argument. There is a U.S. Supreme”
Court case organ be Kennedy. I've won this only a handful of times where if you can show that it's prosecutorial misconduct, where they are goading, and that's the turn of G. Oh, indeed, goading the defense into and requesting the mistrial, so they can get a real doover. It's once in jeopardy. Right. If you only had faith that the judge would do that, you know, and I'm wondering if this judge would do that or not. I just think
it's so outrageous, it's so beyond the pale, to invoke in a trial, in a murder trial,
That this is a mortal sin, which is the ultimate.
do other than saying, oh, yeah, well, did you know that she confessed that she did this intentionally, and with premeditation and malice, and that that got struck. I can't think of something that crosses the line worse in terms of, and they have to know that they're getting hammered in that courtroom don't they? They have to know. They've got to be watching this. Someone in their office is watching the coverage, and they have to
feel it. I mean, the case is clearly not going their way. I wonder the same. I wonder if she almost did it on purpose because she wanted to go to the mistrial, but it's hard to prove that. And the thing, though, is that this is, I mean, she's experienced, you know, as much as we don't like this prosecutor. She's experienced. There's no way she would be doing this case if she wasn't. So she had to know that that was objectionable. I mean,
she had to know that she was going to get in trouble for that, and she just said, you know, what? I'm going to try and get it out before I get in trouble, but the thing for me that makes me think that she was trying to go to the mistrial is it's not helpful. I mean, it's bad, but it doesn't really advance their case. You know, sometimes I, this happens a lot, unfortunately, I'm sure you've experienced this with officers, where there's something
that may be, they weren't allowed to talk about, you know? Okay. Well, they, you know, the defendant invoked his right to silence. Let's use that as an example. And the cop just can't wait to get that out on the stand. The prosecutor asks the question, and it's not
responsive, you know, and the objection is always non-responsive, but the cop is like, oh,
I know you asked about X, but I'm going to tell you about Y, and it's like, yeah, and he wouldn't talk to me, blah, blah, blah, blah. And you're like, oh, and you object non-responsive, the prosecutor doesn't get in trouble, because they didn't ask that question. The cop gets yelled at a little bit, but not much. You know, we've all experienced that. That's not this. Yeah. She asked the question. She knew what she was asking. She knew exactly what she was asking.
“I think I can think of another case. I did it. I tried it in Van Eyes, and I got the”
mistrial. And it was also, it was in my case. It was in the defense case. And I filed the once in jeopardy motion. The prosecutor attaches a note from the judge, where the judge had written to the head deputy in Van Eyes, and said, I declared a mistrial today, because of your line prosecutors misconduct. And they attached that incident exhibit. She thought that was helpful, that it was the next party of communication. I got it. You just, you just literally
took the judge's brain and got something out on the record that I could never get out
myself. Yeah. But in this case, I think that, and this is something I'll bet. I mean, I'm going to read your brain here. Don't you think that these prosecutors are so out to lunch, because they're so used to demonizing the defendant. And they're so used to jurors wanting to convict because I don't care what anybody says. The first thing that happens when they go into a juror room, there's always one or two jurors who are, I don't care where anybody says
“I'm going to vote guilty. And it's up to the others to say, no, you've got to know. But I think”
they're not reading the room. When people say that jurors are hating this defendant, this accused, I'm not in the courtroom. I don't buy that. I just don't think that's the case. No, I don't either. And I think that they hung their hat on the fact that this crime was awful. And it was the manner, any child death is awful. Any death is awful. You take a child. That's even worse. Then a mother killing a child, pilot on three children. I mean, wiping out
her all of her children. Like, it doesn't really get any worse than that. And then you make it violent. And I'm sure the autopsy's were just awful and the manner. I mean, it was just awful. And so I think that they're just depending on that. I see that all the time. I have cases where the cops just cut corners. You know, prosecutors cut corners. And I'm like, well, you cut corners because there were four dead people or there's three dead people. And so you were just like, hey,
“you know, this is a slam dunk case. And I think the prosecutors have thought from day one,”
this is a slam dunk because there's these dead children. And it's so atrocious that any jury,
we put this up. We put those autopsy pictures up. They're never going to get past it.
And I think they were ready for Kevin Rettington. I don't think they were ready. There might have been a pun intended not ready for prime time, but the interesting thing. I think about other cases where the mothers on trial for accused of murder of their kids. And I think a case the Anthony and Jose trying that case. And one of the worst pieces of evidence in that case to me was her actions after the fact. And that that I thought was the heaviest lift if you're
Jose bias. But contrast that to this case, she tries to commit suicide. She's paralyzed.
The ultimate victim here, even though he's been vilified by a certain dark co...
the husband and the fine lost his kids. He got up there. He's supportive. You didn't see him, and who better to be a gas, and I think one of the reasons this judge did not allow the 911 to go out. I mean, he allowed the transcript, but not the tape is because the anguish in that 911
call was so powerful, was so moving that nobody could get past it. I mean, I mean, I mean,
and I just jurors heard that by the way, the public is not, but jurors heard that. And I think when you look put all that together, they see the jurors sees that the husband has moved on. They see that the wife is forever tormented, and she's being tormented, sitting there. How do how do you sit there as a prosecutor and say they're going to hate him or they're going to
“despise him? And so I can break every rule. Right. I know. And that's why I wonder if they were trying”
to throw the case because at this point, they must feel as though they're losing it and they certainly don't want to do that in the public eye. So maybe if they do a mis trial, they can quietly, you know,
resolve the case on the outside. I don't know. It's it's interesting. I also think beyond just
Patrick being supportive of Lindsay, his mother-in-law has said, you know, that she was a good mother, and all of these things that were positive about her. I mean, mother-in-law is the hardest people to win over. And he's the ex-mother-in-law. Take it from a grandfather. He's where her grave is. He's where his grave may be. Do I? I mean, I don't even understand if people get. Those jurors are not unlike everybody else. It's only one of the reasons I get so frustrated so many times
with prosecutors because it's like they're talking to an audience that that lives on some other planet. This is the grand mother up there. And really, you're going to go there? I have? Well,
so I had, we had earlier on the show this week on an M. K. True Crime. We had a friend of mine who is also,
she does, she does postpartum depression counseling. And I actually saw her last week and she's been all over the Lindsay Clancy trial. And so I saw her last week and I said, you got to come on the show and talk about it. But when I saw her, I was out with a group of moms and she was out with a group of moms and we were at the local pizza joint and, you know, her group of moms came and sat with my group of moms. And we also were talking about Lindsay Clancy. And so you've got, you know, eight moms
who have all had various degrees of some postpartum something, you know, and I don't know that the jury really understood that there pretty much every mom has suffered something. Not psychosis, not depression, but something, some mood alteration after having children, you know, lack of sleep, hormones all over the place. Like it's just inevitable. And how they missed that moms were going to identify with that. And maybe, you know, maybe it's not psychosis. Maybe they haven't proven
this psychosis. But that there's enough people out there that are like, you know what? I have experienced some depression. I've experienced some weird thoughts, something like that that they're gonna identify with Lindsay Clancy. Obviously they didn't go out and kill their kids. But, you know, it's, I just feel like they really missed out on that. Like, maybe they don't do focus groups. I mean, I don't know the prosecution not do these focus groups on jurors where they, they talked to them and
say, you know, how are you guys going to feel about this? I feel like they would have caught this if they
“had a focus group. So, and that's why I love your brain. I've been through the last three weeks”
what I'm talking about this case. And every, it seems like every woman in my immediate circle is a mother or a mother to be virtually every single one, daughter, associate, everything. And every single one of them, two of one, has mentioned to me, I cannot believe the kinds of things that the prosecutor is trying to twist into intent or pre-meditation. Talking about comments from years ago about, I can kill this kid or I can, you know, just flip kinds of comments. And it's so out of
touch with the reality of motherhood. And it's really, it's really hard to understand just how you could be that divorce from what is actually the human experience. Right. Now, you totally hit it on the head. And I think everybody, every parent, you know, thinks one minute could kill my child. They don't really want to kill their child. You're just mad at what they're doing because they're kids. And, you know, that's just parenthood. You just feel those things. You say those things,
you know, you have camaraderie with other parents, with your spouse. It doesn't mean that you actually want to kill your child. So, the fact that she made a Facebook post, you know, that she was suffering from some insomnia. I mean, who hasn't, you know, when it's frustrated by it,
“by being a parent, that's just normal. And I really think that they were just out of touch with”
with reality because there's no way to get a juror that does not have moms on it that have
Experienced that or husbands or grandpas or grandparents or someone.
experienced it through someone they love. They all have. I mean, reproduction is stressful. It's
you know, the whole reason kids. It's all, it's, you know, it's a roller coaster. And they, they just forgot that it's this whole roller coaster that goes up and down. And they think that it should just be one way, exactly. And I don't know. It's, it's, I just really feel like they've missed
“the mark. But I think, you know, maybe it sounds like we'll get some closing arguments next week.”
I know, I'm curious to talk to Lauren when she's on a little bit about what's going on on the ground right now because the jury has their dismissed. Which, you know, isn't that abnormal? I know that there's a lot of all, I know. I'm like, there's a lot of time here. Oh, there. I saw something today where, oh, they dismissed because Patrick did this or Patrick did that or it was a, there was a picture in the New York Post. No, this is what happens when you get to the end of a trial, every
single trial, low profile, no profile, you end up doing charging conferences, you end up having
witness issues that inevitably and always, this is a defense floor, inevitably you've got witnesses
who have been cooling their heels for God knows how long it didn't know the prosecution was going to rest and now are scrambling to get them in there to do the defense case. Yeah. And you can't do jury charges early. You've got to wait until you figure out what the evidence is. So the judge, you know, is kind of chomping at the bit the whole time. Anytime you end with a witness at like three in the afternoon, they always ask, I'm sure they do this with you. They always ask me, who's your
next witness? How long are they? They don't want to start a seven hour witness at three o'clock in the afternoon. You know, if you have a short witness, they'll do that. Otherwise, the judges are always like, are you ready to do jury charges yet? Are you ready to do jury charges? They're like stomping at the bit for that. So I'm sure we finally got to the point in the evidence where we could do jury charges. Kevin Reddington, probably he's like, hey, I got a long witness. The judges
“like, let's start that one more fresh tomorrow because I think his last witness is probably the”
longest. It says forensic, you know, his, his expert, his forensic psychiatrist is going to be a long one. So, you know, it makes sense. Let the jury go home. Go ahead and do the charge conference. Now, and then start fresh. So, you know, it's crazy though, all these conspiracy theories. Everybody wants to know and tell us what jury's, you know, and I hate it because you can't tell jurors what's going on when you're having these side bars and they're leaving early and they
have to leave the room. It's like, you almost want to just trust me. It's nothing sinister, but the jurors are the same way. They have these conspiracy theories. They think we're like sending them out to talk about something that's super secret. And I'm like, no, we're literally just trying to figure out what you guys want to order for lunch. That's it. It's not. It's not that super secret. They really isn't. But they all look at us. So before we bring in Lauren, we'll take
one segue. Which of the other cases that we were supposed to talk to, do you why you just spent
“a little bit of time talking about? I want to talk about Carmella Anthony. For just a minute,”
Hayden Pins Harry, I mean, it's tragic. We don't know enough. We don't need to talk about that. But Carmella Anthony. So just today, he had his motion for neutral hearing and some pretty huge stuff came out. I was actually on Megan show earlier when a lot of the stuff was happening. So we were getting like live updates and I just am going to tell you some of the things. I thought was really interesting. So apparently he did have quite a little bit of history and the more
morning before the stabbing happened. So Carmella Anthony is the the kid in Texas who was convicted of stabbing another gentleman, another kid at a track meet in his high school was convicted and there's been a lot of outrage about it just to catch our audience up. But he had his motion for neutral hearing this morning. The judge was recused, which shocker. I mean, of course, the judge is going to be recused. Well, I was doing interview for all those people who thought, wow, I can't believe
the judge got recused. The judge stepped so far over the line. There wasn't a line to even look at it anymore. Doing an interview, depending on a pending case and decided that and it was for the most horrific of reasons. He realized like everybody else that his shutting down of the media had had the unintended consequence of creating all kinds of suspicion about what was happening. So I'm going to go out and I'm going to violate every judicial canon and I'm going to get
interview about this pending case when we know there's going to be a motion for neutral. And comment on the defendant's skill. I mean, come on. It's like that man had to have won it off
this case because there's no way. First of all, you know that he's going to appeal. Of course,
he's going to appeal. Why would he not appeal? Everybody appeals. So why is he going and doing this interview if he doesn't want to get recused? So yeah, that was a no brainer and people were like, "Oh, we won the recusal." I'm like, of course you want. My like 15-year-old dog could have won the recusal. Like it's not complex. You know, he went on TV. exhibit one. Here is the video of him going on TV. Okay, you win. That's really no brainer. But so now they're doing the next phase.
They've got a new judge. They're doing the motion for neutral. But so apparently the morning before
The stabbing happened, Carmella Anthony's girlfriend broke up with him and th...
"Hey, y'all, you want to bring it. Let's bring it. It gloves her off and has been introducing
“texts where he's talking about being on the verge, texts where he's talking about wanting to”
stab someone and lick the blade, lick the blood off the blade." I mean, just really bad stuff that if they didn't have that little gentleman's agreement, which which don't even get me started on that because you know, who is going to ever try a case with 404 B evidence under a gentleman's agreement that's not written down. Don't even get me started. But apparently they did. I do not understand how in the world some people understand what you're saying
in is in a case where somebody is facing a what I call a life top. And you have devastating
other acts style evidence or more prejudicial than probative. You're not going to do that under the confines of emotion and women. Or emotion to exclude or suppress. You're going to do it under and the gentleman's agreement. A non-written down, non-mortialized, non-speciting gentleman's agreement. Double secret, the National Lampoon Probation Area agreement that's not written anywhere. It's my bug. And they didn't figure out if it applied if he testified or not, which I mean, if you have
a self-defense case, you kind of need your client to testify. And if your client has prior bad acts, which is, you know, the evidence we're talking about, it kind of need to know if that's coming in or not. So, yeah, we'll see. I do know that again. I do know, but I actually think it helps tremendously
“for IAC. I think it's ineffective assistance, it's a council. It's hard to understand. I mean,”
if there was a something there that, and the reason it becomes IAC is precisely what you point out. The one decision that is the defendants and the defendants alone is whether to testify. He is now in a position where he can say that he could do a declaration. They didn't tell me this or they didn't tell me this. It doesn't comport. I made my decision because they told me it was my decision. That he may end up getting somewhere. He may get some traction. I think if they do it right,
if they really lay the foundation and put up the evidence, like you said, put up his testimony through a declaration through him taking the stand, put up the trial attorney. They could get some grounds with it. They could make some leeway. I think so too. I will tell you that on most IAC claims, they're lost before they're even started in a lot of ways. But when you implicate somebody's ultimate decision is to whether to testify. That's where you, that's the constitutional
“bright line. I think they may have some issues there. Thanks so too. Now, we're going to go.”
We've got a very special guest. You know her well. I will describe everything because as you aptly said, what happens in Vegas, they say next block, we're going to bring in Lauren Conlon, contributor L.A. Magazine. Also on the ground, I saw several people comment today that she's probably doing the best job of reporting on this case of anybody connected with. In fact, when I first met her, she was reporting on Ditty and I didn't agree with her on a lot of things.
But I was impressed with her reporting. She's great. She's great on the ground. I can't wait to see some of the interview she's gotten. She's got some good clips with Kevin Reddington. Welcome back to In The Well. We are joined today by L.A. Magazine reporter Lauren Conlon, who's coming to us from live on the ground by right now, at least, at the Lindsey Clancy
Trial. She's been doing some amazing reporting there. So Lauren, you got to catch up with Lindsey's
defense attorney Kevin Reddington on Thursday morning. Let's take a look at Psalm 3. Morning, Kevin. It's all running. I said, hey, back. I love you. Thank you guys. We're going to rest today. That will see. It's going to be a run day. A long day. Okay. You got a lot of cheers, Kevin. Is Lindsey aware of the support Kevin? I haven't seen it yet. What do you expect to happen today in court? I don't know. I don't know. I don't like. Can I just walk in and
unfortunately, or I don't know, fortunately, or unfortunately, he was incorrect in his assumption
That it would be a long day because we actually adjorned, I think, at 11 some...
Yeah, I think he probably thought his star witness, I guess his clean up witness, the
forensic psychiatrist, she's really his expert. I guess he thought that that was going to be today, but apparently it's going to be tomorrow, but they did. They took some time to do jury charges, as my understanding had some some meetings on that, some jury charges shoes. So I'm curious, though, what's it like outside the courthouse? She's had a lot of support. I know that you've got a video that you recorded of outside. Tell me about the people that were there.
They weren't pink. I did. And you know, it wasn't my intention to capture any type of gacha moments. I'm really not trying to do anything like that. Although, you know, I have in the past,
“that's why I just wanted to press with that. I felt like these women, they mean very well. And I”
think that it is a positive that we're talking about postpartum depression and mental illness,
absolutely. But I did make it a point to say to a few of them, I just haven't seen mentioned of the children. And maybe this is your mention of the children. And someone even said, "Well, if we treated mental illness like we should, the children would still be here, I totally understand that. I completely understand that." There's just something for me that just felt incomplete. But again, I don't want to disparage anyone. This is very sensitive. And
I just, it's tough, Ashley. I'm sure you understand. So, I try not to take the position of shaming anyone. Just try to understand maybe why the children weren't the forefront. And I got it.
Yeah. I think that's been this whole trial, you know, with, when Patrick testified,
I felt that because I just felt like he had to be conflicted. You know, he's supporting Lindsay, and he doesn't think that she was in her right mind. But he lost his children. And, you know, it had to just, that has to be present for everyone in the courtroom. And it's this awful tragedy. And it's got to be hard too for the defense lawyer to be trying to focus this on, we're not talking about, you know, the tragedy of the children's death. We're talking about
her mental illness. It's just, it's like this palpable thing that's just sitting in that courtroom all the time. And I don't think the prosecution has really memorialized the kids, the way that they should. I mean, I know we've got the bow, but I don't know. It just hasn't felt like this memorializing that I'm used to. Yeah, the bow, I'll, I'll leave it there. It's, it's a bit odd to me. But no, I, I just feel like at this point, I go back and forth, Mark knows
because we've discussed this, where I don't necessarily know exactly where I'm swaying yet in terms of Lindsay. I just know that the burden is not on the defense. And I don't think the Commonwealth is really putting on this case that is convincing me that she was this absolutely evil mother with the intention of, you know, starting a new life after viciously murdering her children. I, I don't, I don't really see that. And, and, you know,
time is up. They're doing a, a rebuttal case. And I'm like, kind of rolling my eyes a little bit three more doctors. It's like just cross-examined ladies. Okay. The jury is tired. Everybody is tired
“of this. I, I, I just, uh, and if it's a mistrial, which by the way, I think it's going to be a”
hung jury. I, I have to say, really know what happens. Can you, yes, how are these people going to unanimously agree that she was experiencing psychosis? How? How the hell is that going to happen? And what happened when, when they can't agree? And then the Commonwealth decides not to try it again, does she just live her life? Well, her pay had to come and well, got agrees not to try it again. It's over. The odds on that, you, you see anything in the psychological makeup of this particular
prosecutorial agency or these prosecutors, which leads you to believe that they'd ever let this alone. I don't know if they're reading what's cited in the media, and maybe that the locals don't want to spend any more money prosecuting this. I, I don't know, but you're right. You make a good point. They're not letting up, and they're not letting up on on it. It's the opposite. Questioning her. Yeah. It's, it's, it's the opposite. I was postulating with,
actually, that the, at, at some point, I almost get the feeling that they're just trying to
“tank the case. I don't even understand some of these things are inexplicable. I, the only thing”
we can guess. Yes. I don't get it. I don't understand it. I think they tried to go a mistrial. I will go to my death believing that. I think that when Kevin says, I don't want to try this again. You think, or what was the, what was the question you asked to match with? So, Lauren, me? You asked him. Yeah. Yeah. I, yes, sir. I. So, there were rumors that we were
Late because he may have moved for a mistrial because of that question about ...
if she's Catholic and what she aware that that murder is a mortal sin. I, he was in the hallway during a break and I was sitting on a bench and another reporter started talking to him and I was like, oh, maybe he's willing to chat right now. So, from the bench I was sitting on, I was like, Kevin, I'm like, did you call for a mistrial this morning? Is that why we were late? He was like,
no, why would I do that? So, I can do this all over again. Basically, it's kind of what he said.
“And I think he said something else under his breath. He's kind of known for doing that. So,”
you can't really catch everything. But I was like, oh, I guess that does kind of make sense. Like, why would you want to go through this absolutely awful trial again with everything that we've all had to listen to and endure? It's, yeah, but the, the problem with that, in my opinion, and I often said this, I, I think I probably had more hunting juries than anybody walking around is, and I don't think that's necessarily because of me or my trial style, I think it's because
of the cases I select. I tend to take cases that are polarizing and you can't get a more polarizing case in a lot of ways than this case. And when you have polarizing cases, jurors reflect the community. And if that's the case, people are going to feel strongly when they get back in
there in the jury room. And all it takes, you know, you always hear all takes is one. It's,
I always say it always takes just one in a wingman. If you've got one in a wingman, you can usually get the jury to do what they should do. But in this case, I could see this. I, on a bell purve, I could see a hungry jury out of this. Yeah, I could definitely see a hungry out of this. And it's, it's interesting you're asking, what happens with a hungry? I mean, I don't love it. I've actually had a lot of them too, Mark. And I mean, they're not my favorite things because we work hard to get
ready for trial. It's stressful. It's taxing. And so I understand with Kevin, I mean, if you ask me, I'd say, no, I do not want to, you know, I don't want to mistrial because you got to do it again. And the state can just keep going. And it's exhausting. And where's people down and where's their finances down? They're paying all these experts. You know, they're, they're having to pay all these experts. So I, I meant specifically for Lindsey Clancy as in length. Yeah. We're in this very odd, not we, but,
you know, she is in this situation where she admitted to killing her children. So you can't, if it's a mistrial, you know, I, I feel for her and the mental illness. I absolutely do. But,
“you know, we, I mean, I saw, like, I think it was something on social media where she was”
painted as a saint or something. And it's like, yeah. You got to draw the line where you can feel for someone and not make them out to be a saint and glorify what they did. So I guess I'm asking what happens to her if they don't try this case again. She, yeah. I mean, if they, if they held her, she would stay. So if they decided not to try it, it would just be dismissed. But I think that would be unlikely. You know, most likely they'd try to work out some type of a deal with her. You know,
there's ways that they can, there's ways that they can try to get, you know, something with probation or maybe she agrees to certain treatment, you know, something like that. But we have a couple of years. That's, I want to, I want to play. We've got the chaplain. This was, this was
some powerful testimony. I thought her chaplain, actually, the chaplain, it's been visiting her,
actually testified about some of his conversations with her. And if we could place that five. But I remember vividly the first thing she said to me. Now, she had heard me for a couple of days. We had been praying together. And so when I went in on Tuesday the 31st, she said to me, as I held her hand to comfort her, I am so glad my children are safe.
“Was there any other conversation that you've got with her?”
I replied, theologically, the Lindsay, and I said, Lindsay, your children are a safe. They're safe in heaven with God. And I held her hand throughout that conversation and we prayed for them. I mean, that almost supports that she still has some type of psychosis going on. You know, either that or she thinks that she helped her children by sending them to, to heaven. I mean, I don't know. That's, that was just a few days after a few days after. So she was
intubated when the chaplain first saw her the first day, same thing the second day. And then I believe it was the 3rd or 4th day. She started talking again. And so this was very, very soon after the killings and soon after she led uply killed herself. But one of my questions here, and it was brought up by the, the prosecutors. So the, the chaplain took lots of notes during her visit to Lindsay. I mean, we're talking hundreds of visits at, uh, bringing them in young, bring them in young. It's
Excuse me, women's hospital.
notes, she did not say that Lindsay told her that a male voice told her to do this to kill her
“kids and herself. And that is like the crux of the case here. And the prosecutor said, you took”
all these notes and, and, you know, Lindsay discusses with you. Why isn't this in your notes? And she said that I'm not here to clinically evaluate her. I'm here to help her with her trauma, et cetera, et cetera. But she did take a lot of notes. And, um, those notes, she also explained were privileged at the same time. So I'm a lay person. I'm confused about that. How is she able to speak about this on its stand? And maybe I miss something during the pretrial stuff. But how
is, is that possible, I guess, that she's able to review these notes. Speak about these notes if, if they're privileged? Well, you can wave privilege and by calling her as a witness, I would assume that they had talked about that and wave to privilege. And it's one of the things you can't really pick and choose, you know? So I guess they had to make a choice before she took
“the stand. Because you can't say, oh, well, I don't want to answer that one because it's privilege,”
but I'll answer this one. See the privilege, it's not. So they must have made the calculated decision. Yeah, and we've got, we actually have that, um, we have that thought where, where she testified that there were no notes on the male voice. She also said that Lindsay alluded to a male voice, but there was nothing about it. We've got, um, Scott 6, and Scott 7 on that. She alluded to having heard a voice and the voice according to Lindsay told her that if she did not
follow the command, neither she nor her children would be safe. And did she indicate whether it was a male voice or female voice, loud, soft? She alluded to the fact that it was a male voice, and it was persistent. And if for the conversation that you recall about that, not about general things, you know? That came up several times. I visited Lindsay minimally 14 times while she was hospitalized at the Brigham, and the voice conversation came
up several times during several of our visits. Now, you mentioned that on January 31st, 2023, you spoke to the defendant, and she told you that she heard a voice telling her that if she did not follow the command, neither she nor her children would be safe. Correct? Correct. Um, you, you wrote very detailed notes that are contained in the Brigham and women's hospital records regarding your interactions with Lindsay Quincy, didn't you? Yes, I did. And in all of these notes that
detail every time you interacted with her, you never once wrote that she told you she heard a voice
or what that voice said. Correct? Correct. And you also said that this voice, talking about the voice came up in several of your meetings. Correct? Correct. And you never once wrote about any of it, and any of your very detailed notes. Correct? Well, Chaplain notes are not for beat 'em transcripts of patient conversations. I'm not there to evaluate the patient. I'm there to be a witness to their suffering. Okay, but the question was, you did not document those statements
in your notes, correct? Correct. So how in the world does the chaplain's notes become part of the medical record at Brigham and Young? That's the question I have. That just seems odd to me, Mark, have you ever seen that? No, I haven't, but Massachusetts has got a lot of quirks when it comes to religious organizations and religion in general. And I say that they've got caps, for instance, on the maximum amount of damages you can sue for. They've got other kinds of
quirk quirks, meaning they're not, you don't see them in other jurisdictions. So not practicing there, I will leave it to those who do. But I would imagine that there is a waiver going on and that the waiver is just like you can have a chaplain come visit you in the jail or you can have a chaplain come and get it to the hospital and give you last rights or something like that. There's probably a robust relationship where there's a chaplain on staff at the hospital and
they may even get paid by the hospital for a while now. Yeah, and I would imagine that they made that decision, you know, to wave privilege and to have or justify same with medical records and you actually do give up a lot of privileges when you claim insanity, you know, because otherwise your mental health and your records, especially counseling records, those are highly, highly private, highly privileged, you know, you've got HIPAA, you've got lots of other, you know, legal privileges
“there and so you have to wave all those when you alleged this type of defense. So that's sort of,”
yeah, that's sort of open at all. So it's all so one of the only times where when you enter that
plea, that opens up your client to be examined and basically wave the fifth. And so that's
That's one of the biggest decisions you ever have to make.
when it comes to Nick Reiner here in LA as well. Yeah, and it's scary because you get, you know,
the government has a doctor that does the evaluation. And so it's not, it's not necessarily someone of your choosing and, you know, how thorough they are is not necessarily of your choosing.
“I think that's probably why we heard all of these witnesses tell all the hours they spent with”
Lindsay Clancy because if you hear one expert say, "Oh, well, I think that she's not guilty by reason of insanity." And I spent 50 hours with her and then you hear the states witness say, "Well, I definitely, I think she's mulling her and I think she's faking." And they her spent 90 minutes with her. Who are you going to believe? You know, as the jury. You're going to believe the
question is that reminder too, actually, that medical records, hello, you wave your right
here. Everything is on the table if you're pleading insanity. Yeah, I remind her here. So. Yeah, it is. I mean, everything. And I think that's one of the reasons we've seen that. I also think, you know, we were talking about this earlier this week. I think maybe some of the things the state's not objecting to because they want to be able to ask it also, you know, like, you know, what's good for the pieces, good for the gander. I've seen that before.
It's like, maybe they're letting some hear say slide so that they can get into it as well. I don't know. We'll see. So I have a question for Lauren. You're sitting in that courtroom. What is this jury
“doing? That's the most exciting thing I think Ashley will tell you. In fact, Ashley, we did”
talk about this. I know I want to know. In trial, jury reading is everything. I mean, you're looking at every race, die, brow, rolling of the eyes. What are we doing? So yesterday, I didn't have the best view today. I had a bit of a better view. This jury is so tough. What I will say, it's predominantly female. And the men, they look very engaged. There is this one man that is
always sitting forward like this, paying attention to every single witness. And there's another
man that I noticed yesterday. He was nodding his head at Dr. Zaisel, the defense psychiatric witness. I was not in the courtroom for any of the very traumatic testimony about the children's autopsies or anything like that. So I didn't see that. But I will say this jury is engaged. And it's hard to tell if they are agitated at all because there's a lot of stopping and starting, which the judge preface is every single day. But lots of breaks, lots of stopping and starting.
And also, it's unpredictable. I've never seen a trial so unpredictable like this where
“this jury really probably doesn't even know what to do in their normal life. So I think they're”
handling it very well. But this morning, they were all resworn in. And I think that had something to do with the outside, with the rally and the support for Lindsay. I'm not certain. But I think everyone comes in the same way. I only saw a couple of entrances. But we were all sitting there wondering, why are they reswearing them in? I mean, you guys tell me, does that sound about right? Like you're walking in and you're seeing people with like Lindsay Clancy shirts on? Do you
have to do something about that or? No. You can definitely pull the jury. So whenever I've had like a high profile case or a case where, you know, there's some people outside or influence, I've asked the judge to repole the jury as what we call it, asked them every day. And I actually do that a lot now with social media. I asked them at the beginning. I asked after the lunch break and at the beginning of the day for the jurors to be pulled to make sure that they haven't done any
research, haven't looked on social media, haven't read anything about the case. Um, you know, but that's something you would do on regular basis. Yeah, like why this was different, though, which is strange to me, it makes me think something happened. You know, I could listen to this forever, but unfortunately, we have time constraints. I want to thank Ashley for co-hosting and doing things for having me. Thanks for having me. Thank you, you're any time Lauren. I keep up the great work.
I, uh, I'm rumor has it. You may be camped out there next week. So we'll see. And to all of you who watch in the well, thank you, subscribe. Ashley, I think I saw you and Phil, your compatriot there to is talking that we're knocking on the door of 100,000. We are. We are so close to 100,000 subscribers. So that's kind of our little goal. So hell's out. I love it. Thank you. So if you like it, subscribe. Thank you.
