Luigi Pleads GUILTY, Lindsay Clancy Defense Begins, and Tupac Murder Trial Underway, w/ Kristin Mize

from Atlanta, Georgia. And today, I'm joined by my friend, and co-host Phil Holloway, who is also a criminal defense lawyer, but he's a former prosecutor and former police officer.

Hey Phil, how are you? Ashley, I am doing great. It's always great to be with you here

on the MK True Crime Show. Let's go over what we have on our docket for today. On Friday, August the 14th, Luigi Mangione pled guilty to federal stalking charges in the death of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. He did so in a New York federal court. We'll go over the plea and what it could mean for Mangione's impending New York State murder trial. Yeah, that's definitely interesting. In 30 years after two poxicore was actually shot to death in Las Vegas,

Duane, Keefe, Davis, is now on trial for his alleged partner murder. We'll discuss opening arguments and the witnesses that are expected to come up and testify. And coming up later in the program, Ashley, we're going to be joined by your friend, and someone you've actually used in cases, licensed clinical social worker and parenting coach, Kristen Miles. She'll be here to discuss the latest developments in the Lindsay Clancy trial. We'll review Lindsay's heartbreaking journal

entries and footage from one of the Clancy family's final outings together. But first, Ashley,

we've got to get into this Luigi Mangione federal plea. The big question, will he or will he not get his New York State case tossed on the basis of New York's crazy rule? Well, not so crazy,

“but more I guess it has more teeth. They're rule against double jeopardy. What do you think?”

Yeah, you know, I think that he's got a shot at it. I mean, he's definitely got a good argument. A lot of folks get confused on double jeopardy because everybody, you know, we've seen the movies. We think double jeopardy means what is in the movies. You can't be tried twice for the same offense. And that's just not true. Particularly in the federal government. The feds have wonderful carve outs where they can pretty much try you for anything after a state court has tried you. The difference, though,

is when the federal government goes first, a lot of the state courts actually have constitutions

and certain statutes like New York. It's a court rule. It's a statute that actually give greater double jeopardy protection. So a lot of folks get really confused by that because it doesn't really make sense. You think, why did there is a different double jeopardy in state court as there is in federal court? But it's true. And in New York state, they have a very strict double jeopardy statute that actually limits New York's ability to try someone when they've already been convicted

“in federal court. And so I think the defense has a very strong argument here. We're going to see”

some good arguments and no matter what happens in this case, we're going to see it appeal. So I think the result fill is going to be delay, no matter what. He's going to be sentenced in the federal case. He's going to very likely get a life sentence is what it sounds like. He's eligible for a life sentence because he did plea to stalking that resulted in a death. And while that is all playing out, I think we're going to see some motions practice. We've already seen the defense file their

motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy. The state will probably respond. And I think it's probably going to go to a public court fell. Yeah. Well, I want to unpack that just a little bit more because you're exactly right. Each with this, this starts with something called the dual sovereignty doctrine. The United States of America, the federal government is its own sovereign government entity. And it has its own sovereign sort of police power, the ability to charge people

and convict them with crimes that are based on the federal criminal case. Right now, another state, whether it's New York, Texas, Georgia, where we are states, they are also sovereigns. And so this is how our federal system works. Right? The states are their own sovereign entity. So under the dual sovereignty doctrine, you can be prosecuted by both the feds and any

“any given state without it violating the federal constitutional ban on double jeopardy. Right?”

There's there's a double jeopardy clause in the federal constitution, but this is an exception. And so what's happened, New York has decided they want to be more protective, if you will, of people who are charged with crimes. And so their statute basically says, okay, if the feds prosecute you for a crime, then New York will not and cannot prosecute you for that same thing. If it is based on the same transaction or occurrence, that's the language that's used in the

statute. But now there are some exceptions, actually, and basically the big exception is like,

criminal statutes seek to prevent are different. So let's take, take the federal charges. These are

interstate stalking, right? That would seek to prohibit a certain type of harm being done to any given victim. On the other hand, New York can say, yeah, it's the same transaction. It's the same occurrence where all talking about the same shooting, but we are seeking to, basically punish him for other things for the actual killing for printing this 3D gun and other things. And so I think that state prosecutors are going to make a very strong argument. They're going to try to

keep the case alive. It's not going to trial in September, as we were discussing on this program just like a week ago, because it's going to be tied up in litigation in one way or the other, whichever side loses in the New York trial court, they're going to appeal. So we're going to have now the New York, uh, a pellet courts weighing in and making the final decision on whether he can

stand trial in both cases. You know, I always wonder why, you know, why, why would they want

to plea guilty in federal court first or why does the state in New York want to prosecute them

“so bad? The only thing I can imagine in this case is me and Gianni probably wants to serve”

his time in a federal prison system versus the state prison system. I mean, that's really the only benefit at this point. And we hear a lot about how awful where he is in the detention facility is, but federal prison does tend to be known to be much better than state prison systems. They just, they just are. I don't know why, it just, that's how it is. Um, not always, but often, so that's the only thing I can really imagine why he would care, you know, if it's federal versus state court.

Um, but his lawyer, you know, his lawyer talked about, we've got a sought one, it's lawyer talked about how he's accepting responsibility, but saying that he's been treated unfairly by New York. So that makes me think that he probably does want to stay in the federal system and doesn't want to actually enter into the state system. But if we could take a listen at sought one, with today's guilty plea, Mr. Manjoni has accepted full responsibility for the death of Brian Thompson

arising from the events of December 4th, 2024 outside of the United Health Care Investor Conference here in Midtown, Manhattan. Despite this being a single isolated event, Mr. Manjoni has been unfairly treated since the outset in every way and has successfully fought off terrorism charges and the death penalty while also fighting at the same time. Two simultaneous prosecutions in two jurisdictions who are trying to punish him twice for the exact conduct. He's been treated

differently from every other defended charged with this offense in New York. However, thankfully, New York law does not allow this. New York law does not permit a person to be prosecuted and punished twice for the exact same crime under a statute that govern successive prosecutions. It's also known as the double jeopardy law. Today's guilty plea triggers the statute and we just filed our motion and state court explaining why the state charges must be dismissed under

“New York's double jeopardy protections. Now this is, I think, some really creative and good”

law-uring to be honest with you because not only are they trying to keep their client in a more comfortable place and by that I mean the federal prison system versus the New York state prison system. So as to your point, I think you're exactly right. Also, there's something else to remember here because he goes into court in federal court and he accepted responsibility even without a plea deal, by the way. This was what we call pleading to the sheet. He just pled guilty

to the indictment without a deal and he's going to throw himself on the mercy of the court to the extent that you can do that in federal court which judges use these federal financing guidelines. And under those guidelines, he gets some consideration and he's entitled to, I think a three-point reduction under the guidelines for acceptance of responsibility. So theoretically, and his lawyers will

“argue for the bare minimum, right? Theoretically, I think he's looking at just over possibly like”

22 or 23 years as a minimum, right? If you're going by the guidelines and judges are not

bound by the guidelines, but still, the maximum is life. So here's what they're trying to do.

This is a Hail Mary. They throw themselves on the mercy of the federal judges. They're trying to get something much less than life. They're trying to get something, let's just call it 25, maybe 30 years and they're trying to get the New York case tossed out on double jeopardy grounds. And if they

blood in public and will not serve anytime for murder and will get out of prison before he's

extremely elderly, right? And so if they can pull that off, that's a real coup, right? So

“that would be I think the plan and look, he cannot win. Louisiana, Manjona, cannot now win a federal”

excuse me, a state murder case because he's gone into court. He's admitted specifically what he did, how he did it, that he knew it was wrong. This is like the complete opposite of the co-burgrer plea where co-burgrer didn't go into any details. This defendant, Manjona, he laid a specific factual basis. And so if there's ever a New York trial, those words will be used against him. He can't win unless we get some kind of a stealth juror on there that's just hell bent and determined

to sabotage the verdict. Right. And I'm thinking his lawyers must feel pretty solid about that

double jeopardy argument. And I would too. I mean New York law is pretty clear on it. I think they're on good footing with this double jeopardy. I think what we're going to see next, though, fill in the next couple of months is we're going to see a lot of artful lawyering on the sentencing guidelines that

“she mentioned because that's really in a federal case like this where someone please guilty. The real art”

is determining the sentencing guidelines that apply. And he will get downward departures for accepting responsibility for saving judicial economy, things like that. So they're going to be going back and forth on what guidelines actually apply and what the sentencing range is because the federal

government has a very narrow range that a judge can impose. So they're going to, you know,

be going back and forth. We'll see memos. We'll see arguments in court about sentencing. So we're going to get to learn a lot about this case and about Luigi Mangeoni as a person during this sentencing process because they're going to be arguing all these different factors. But if he gets a steep sentence, it'll be interesting to see what the state of New York does at that point because if he does get something that will render the rest of his life, essentially in custody, you know,

what's the point at that at that point? You know, what's the, what's the, what's the judicial economy argument? Why are we prosecuting him at that point? I guess what folks, life in prison is still within the guidelines and the judge can give him life and the judge had him acknowledge in court when he entered his plea that he knew he could be facing life. So if he gets a life sentence, then New York may very well say fine. He's got a life sentence. We'll just let it go.

And then that would be the end of it. And then so this Hail Mary would not have work. Did you know many U.S. homes have toxic chemicals in their tap water? Even though contaminated water looks clear, it could put you at risk for devastating health concerns, including fatigue, hormone disruption, cognitive decline, even cancer. Surprisingly, standard fridge and picture filters do little to remove most contaminants and bottled water contains microplastics.

So what's one solution? Introducing aquatru, the countertop water purifier, which they say has been tested and certified to remove 84 contaminants, including chlorine, lead forever chemicals and microplastics. Its patented four stage reverse osmosis system goes way beyond ordinary filters. For pure healthy water, you can trust. No plumbing, no installation. Aquatru has been featured in business insider popular science and named best countertop water

filter by good housekeeping. Go to aquatru.com now for 20% of your purifier using the promo code true crime. Aquatru even comes with a 30 day best tasting water guarantee that's aquatru.com acuatru.com promo code true crime. I want to move on if we can. We have this, we have another interesting case and but for different reasons. This is I'm talking about the the two-pock murder

“trial, right? We're key fee D, right? Key fee D Davis, Dwayne, key fee D Davis is accused of the murder”

of two-pock secure out in Las Vegas. And this was from what? 1996 or 30 years ago. And so we're in a situation where we have little to know. I guess actually no physical evidence in the case. Ashley and all we've got is the words that have been uttered by key fee D Davis and he's uttered a lot of words by the way. Whether he admits it or not, he certainly you know done podcasts, he's done books. The judge has ruled that even if he had like a ghost writer, he's adopted the

words of those of that ghost writer and essentially confessed. Everything you say can be used against you in court. And that's where we are. The issue is actually can prosecutors, can they corroborate

And we're going to hear from a false confession where it doesn't all kind of stuff in this case. If they can't corroborate his confession with some other independent it doesn't have to be

“much, but it's got to be some corroboration. Then legally they can't convict him, can they?”

No, no they can't. They've got to have some corroboration. And we got a glimpse of that with the opening statements. The defense, they emphasize that there's no physical evidence because there isn't. There's no physical evidence actually tying Davis to the shooting. You know the gun was

never recovered. The Cadillac was never recovered. Nothing like that. The prosecution is relying

very heavily on Davis's own statements about his involvement. What's interesting about that Phil is he's also made statements that he wasn't involved. So you've got someone who's made 100 different statements and they all say completely different things. And you've got the state who's going to be saying, well that statement, you know the third one he made. That one's true. And the seventh one he made, that one's true. You know all the statements that he made where he said he did it,

“all of those are true. And jury, you should believe all of those. All the times he said he didn't do it”

and that you know he was saying those things for book deals or you know whatever fame, fortune, whatever he was lying for, those you should just disregard. That's a hard case for that. That's a really hard case for the state to prove. Should night, right? We all know should night he's also wrapper. He's the only sort of survivor. And by the way, should night is also a victim. He was grazed by a bullet in the shootout. And so he's technically a victim. Now whether or not he testified

as it remains to be seen, should night doesn't want to testify. He's basically let it be known

that whichever side calls him, he's going to try to tank it for him. Oh yeah. But here's the thing.

Should night himself has also made some statements. So I think maybe the prosecutor wants to call should night to to basically say whatever he's going to say it, but then also to get into the things that should night has said outside of court. So let's take a listen to shot two, which is should discussing keyfee d and all the times he's basically confessed on himself. He essentially confessed that he wrote a book. He's talked about this on podcasts. He's now kind of moonwalking back here

and saying, "Well, I had a ghost writer in the book. What do you make of that?" He'd fool me. I look at it like this. It's not about picking on keyfee d, but at the same time, most of his situations, I know he did it to himself. One podcast seven times, another podcast five times,

“any did it book. So that destroyed his immunity. But I believe in given everybody the opportunity.”

I have a book coming out called, "Your pain is my joy." It was coming out this month. When I found out that he was being going to trial, I said, "Well, I'm not going to put the book out. I put it out of September." Because it'd be too much, you know, thinking of the deal with. He's ever a fair shake. So he's got a book fell. He's got a book coming out. I mean, this is just timing. I feel like this is all orchestrated. So everyone's books will sell and everyone

wants to know all of these different stories, but Shuk Nights in prison. I mean, he's in prison. So whoever brings him, it's going to be insane. It's going to actually run mind me quite a bit fill of the YSL trial when we saw Woody testify. We saw this guy, Woody testify. And basically, he just said, "All I do is lie. I lie then. I lie then. I just lie. I lie about lying. I just lie." And the state brought him, and it was a circus. It really derailed the entire trial. But it was

a circus because they're arguing over while he lies so much. We don't know when he's going to tell the truth. And the state was just trying to get in all these prior statements. So they're bringing in all these statements. And then he's saying, "Well, I lied in that statement. Well, I lied in that statement." And it was just, it was a circus. It was an absolute circus. So I hope that the state learned something from if they watched the YSL case and that prosecution and realized that bringing

someone like Shuk Nights, who says, "I'm going to lie. I'm going to make it hurt for you." Probably is not going to be a successful prosecution move, but we shall see. We shall see what they do. If Shuk Nights comes to court and says, "If he says nothing else other than, you know, admitting he was grazed by a bullet, there was a shootout that the bad guys were in a Cadillac, he was in his BMW, and there was a shooting and that he basically saw his friend Tupac get shot.

You could make an argument that that is corroborative of KFED's essential, you know, his multiple

confessions. And that would be enough to survive, I guess, the directed verdict on this and get the case to a jury for a decision. But we, it's speaking of the jury. The jury was shown some video of

In Las Vegas, and this was apparently the alleged motive, right? For this murder, let's check

“out slot 3, which is from the prosecutors opening. "This fight occurs. Travelling and the death”

road group sees Orlando Anderson standing by himself, and they decide to attack him and retribution but what happened is that the leg went wrong. You'll see Orlando Anderson's on the bottom of that road. Is he security coming, trying to break his up?" And then you'll see Tupac's a court should lay, as should, just nine, straight on the leg, and that could exit BMW. On September 7th, 1996, Tupac's a court publicly on camera participated in a humiliating beating of Dwayne Davis's nephew

Orlando Anderson. Dwayne Davis and knew that in his world, that required a response. And over the years, in private interviews, in public statements, and even in private calls. Dwayne Davis has repeatedly told us, over and over again about the anger he felt, and his own role in the revenge drive by shooting of Tupac's nephew. All right, so that is the state's opening, and my favorite part of the defense opening is this witness, and I've been obsessed with this witness since the beginning of

the case. His name is Devante Lee, Devante Lee. So this is the witness we heard about earlier when there was this, you know, unnamed grand jury source, and this was the great corroboration evidence. And so the defense in theirs talks about this guy, talks about this, this grand jury witness, and he's the one who testified that Orlando Anderson couldn't take the shot, and they gave the gun

to DeAndre Smith, who ultimately pulled the trigger. So apparently, apparently this guy, okay,

this is this great informant from the grand jury. Apparently he's a longtime paid informant, and this is my best favorite part. He was not present for the shooting. So how in the world do they think he's going to testify as to who didn't have a clear shot, or who pulled the trigger, stuff like that? I mean, come on, it's here saying at the grand jury, but he didn't see it. So someone

“else must have seen it, and told him about it, or they did. I mean, that's what he was KCD that told”

him. Oh, maybe it's great. Another lie that KPD said, I mean, this is just going to be like, we need a chart for all the lies that KPD has said, and everybody else said, it's going to be insane. It's going to be nuts. Well, you know, I mentioned earlier, and I think we talked about this last week, as well, that in 2008, KPD told some cops out in, I guess, Los Angeles about his participation in the murder, and the defense is eating it up because they're saying back in 2008, apparently the cops

did not believe him in 2008, so that's soft for him. But at the time that he gives his statement

to the task force in 2008, there's another individual that's still alive. They never interviewed

that individual to verify that information was true. By not because the FBI just policy, that the LNPD just didn't care. KPD was never charged for any of what he said during that time period, and it's because they knew he was going back. It's because they just didn't care about two cops, your court or his life, or as because they looked into it and realized, we can't verify this information. We don't believe this is true. Outside of statements made, allegedly by KPD,

and other people, we don't have anything to verify any of that information. Not one single thing to corroborate the statements made by that man. So this is great. The defense is basically, my client is a liar, but not a murderer, and you can't prove that he didn't lie.

“Awesome. Sounds good. Well, they're setting up. I think they're doing the right thing. They're”

trying to stay the theme of their defenses. They can't corroborate it. We're going to see and hear from witnesses who are experts in the field of false confessions, which by the way, for those of you who don't know, my co-host today, Ashley Merchant, is on the legal side of things, a leading expert in the field of false confessions. So actually, we're going to be with this case for a while here on the program, and we certainly want to pick your brain when it comes to

why people confess to things that they later say they didn't do, but we'll leave it there for the two-pack case for now. Coming up, we're going to be joined by licensed clinical social worker, Kristen Mies. She will be joining us to provide her insight on key moments from Lindsay Clancy's trial. Stay tuned. Everybody's talking about weight loss injections, because the

looking to lose weight but not interested in painful, weekly injections, especially when you hear

“about some of those intense side effects? That's why doctors created a weight loss supplement,”

called lean, and the results are remarkable. The studied ingredients in lean have been shown to lower your blood sugar, burn fat by converting it into energy, and curb your appetite and cravings. So you're not as hungry, but listen, lean is not for the casual dieter with only a few pounds to lose. The doctors at Burkhaus Nutrition created lean for frustrated dieters with 10 or more pounds to lose. Let's get you started with 20% off and free rush shipping so you can add lean to your

healthy diet and exercise plan. Visit takeline.com and enter MK for your discount. That's promo

code MK at takeline.com. Welcome back to the MK Tree Crime Show. Joining us now, I'm very excited.

It's licensed clinical social worker and parenting coach, Kristen Lise. Welcome to the show, Kristen. It's good to have you. We are excited to talk. Yes, thank you. Well, it's, and I want to tell everybody, tell our other listeners sort of how it came about. We're excited to talk to you about the Lindsay Clancy trial because this is really your particular area of expertise. But you and I know

“each other, we are actually, I think our viewers will really get a kick out of this. We're actually”

moms in this same community outside of Atlanta, the Atlanta suburb. And we've known each other for several years. Kristen has boys, I have girls and they're a little bit different age, but they actually, we have two kids that go to the same high school right now, kind of funny. And you know, just group with lots of different moms and just all of us have all been talking about this case, just like most of our viewers have been watching this case. We're all glued to it and I know

that Kristen's been very passionate about it as well as I have. And she's got it just a really, really unique perspective because she actually treats moms and families going through this.

So I'm really excited to have you because I think you're going to give us some amazing insight,

you've given me some amazing insight in what all is going on with Lindsay Clancy. And I think one of

“the things really is how this could be handled better by the village. I think one of the things”

that a lot of the moms are upset about a lot of the viewers are upset about is how to this happen, you know, how did Lindsay fall through the cracks and I want to play actually. We heard earlier today from her mom. I want to play this segment for you and then get your reaction to it. It's actually Lindsay's mom. She testified earlier today and it just kind of broke my heart. She said that Lindsay had confided in them that she had thoughts of harming herself. So if we could just take a

listen to that and then get your thoughts on it. I remember her being very nervous. I remember her saying I just have to tell you guys something and then she told us. What does she tell you? She told us that she had thoughts of harming the children. Thank you very much. But she's crying for help, right? Yeah, I think that was from 2022. I understand it. So look, the prosecution is they're trying to say that this is just some excuse that's like a recent fabrication to try to get out from under this

triple murder charge. That testimony seems to undercut that argument. It seems to show that going back away, Lindsay Clancy was confiding in people, things that are very difficult and dark to confide. Things like I'm having thoughts of harming my children. So I guess based on your work and your expertise, do you find that kind of testimony surprising? Or is it maybe, is it maybe the kind of thing that you would expect when you have a mother who is suffering from legitimate postpartum

depression or even psychosis? Sure. So honestly, I see women like Lindsay Clancy in my office every day not to say that they all experience psychosis. But there are such things called intrusive thoughts, which are very common with postpartum depression or postpartum OCD, or postpartum anxiety. And the hallmark of these intrusive thoughts is that they are horrifying and very ego-distanic to the client. Meaning it qualifies them to think that they're having these thoughts,

but we cannot control what we think. And so there's a difference between having an intrusive thought where what if I do something or some women tend to visualize bad things happening or them doing bad things to their children? And again, this is something that they absolutely find horrifying and she even said Lindsay was scared telling her own mother this and oftentimes women are afraid that people will then come and take their children away from them. I've seen it happen to a

kind of mind in the emergency room. But the hallmark of these intrusive thoughts is that they are very disturbing to the client, whereas a psychotic event is they are not aware of the severity or the consequences of acting on such a thought. They are not in touch with reality and they do not have

psychosis, that's what they're arguing that she couldn't really understand that. I mean that's really

“what this whole trial is about, right? Whether that is what she was suffering from. Yes, yes. And so”

I've been paying very close attention to the timeline, like you said back in 2022, when she first

reached out for help and then got in touch with five different medical providers who saw her between the end of November in 2022 until the end of December in 2023. And that coupled with hearing their medical documentation in the chart, as well as her diary entries I know have been reported in the trial. The combination of those two things do show a picture to me, a clinical impression that they were much more frequent and desperate in nature, where she was reaching out to one of

her medication providers at least three times a day during the report all. That to me suggests

“severe anxiety and oftentimes she had a shift in her position. Do I want to take the medicine?”

I do. I don't. I'm scared. It just suggests to me more frantic thought process rather than a depressive state and does this lean to was she hypomanic? Was she trending on agitation? And then we get into the psychosis discussion or standing. I have a personal theory that I've gleaned from some of the testimony, you know, I must summarizing it sort of, but there's been testimony that she started taking SSRI and anti-depressive and it looks to me like that SSRI might have

started kicking her up into a manic state or a hypomanic or actual manic state, which can mimic bipolar as I'm sure you know and probably many of our audience probably are aware of that as well. And so sometimes treatment providers will see that and they'll fail to recognize that this could be a side effect of the SSRI versus some type of actual bipolar type of mental pathology if you will. So let's I want to get your thoughts on that to tell me if that

theory of mine holds any kind of water, but also to your point about these women who who have these intrusive thoughts, they they can have them but also be very upset because they have them, right? So we've got a prosecutors witness, there was a state police investigator,

“Timothy T. Apeni, he testified about data, he recovered from Lindsay's phone, right?”

And one of the things that apparently she had searched on her phone was, "Can you treat a sociopath?" So let's let's listen to SOT 5 and then I want to speak with you about it on the other side. The item is shown here in the screen are all associated with web browsing. If you'll have you see one zero seven seven three one zero seven seven four and they both stay

can you treat a sociopath? But there are two entries that have basically the same search for

correct. Yes. And that was on January 20th, 2023? Yes. In the book they both say eight 28 29 p.m. So it's one search that is categorized as multiple different things. That's possible. And so here when we had the search at the exit, some of that kind down to the second that appears to be one search for "Can you treat a sociopath?" Not two, correct? Yes. What's your take on that? Okay, again as this is coming into January. So let's go back to

your question about SSRIs when she initially started the zool-off. Again, tracking the timeline of when she really started to experience what I appears to be much more much deeper struggle than just postpartum depression. So yes, it does seem that the SSRI did kick her into a more sleepless state. I won't call it hypo manic. I did not see her observed her to treat her. But what we know is, and Rebecca, a lot of the nurse practitioner

eventually caught on to, hey, listen, on these SSRIs, you tend to become a little bit more

agitated and more restless. So she's the first clinician who brought into the picture this idea

of a potential bipolar diagnosis, which was great. However, she just kept throwing medication in my opinion, multiple medications, at the symptoms of not sleeping instead of assessing

support of her husband, or her family. My, again, clinical impression after closely following

“the timeline of when she sought treatment, where she was denied higher levels of care,”

I just believe that as time passed and her hypo manic or manic state was not pharmaceutical managed well, that she was much more trending into much more likely. We know about brain health. The longer you stay in hypo manic or manic state, the more likely you are to experience a psychotic episode. I'll just leave that there. But as it relates to her search about can you treat a sociopath? I have not had the time or the bandwidth to go down the Patrick

Clancy did this theory, but oftentimes someone in her mental state, in Lindsay Clancy's mental state,

will chronically be googling things, which actually fuels more anxiety. But typically people

like Lindsay who get that anxious about having all of these problems with them, she perhaps had the fear of herself being a sociopath. And that's my initial impression. Again, not knowing as much about Patrick's involvement and his diagnoses and things like that. But it could be a real fear. I've had clients sending you my office asking if they're a narcissist or a sociopath. And I can quite honestly tell them whether it's doesn't know that is not true.

But you start to Google anything, especially as desperate as she sounded to find answers and

“certain team what was going on with her, I think anything is possible. That's how I viewed it.”

You know, that search, I was like, she's just desperate, whether she's Googling it for herself

or Patrick. And one thing that also broke my heart, we've got another video to watch. This one really rigged me goosebumps. The snowman photo. So apparently just earlier that day. And I think this hangs a lot of people up. And you and I were talking about this before how you can go, you know, you can be fine. And then you're not fine. And the prosecution doesn't seem to believe that you can be okay. And then go into manics, psychosis. And then be okay. Like they think it's all

or nothing. But this, this, um, snowman picture. So she took up picture was building a snowman with the kids. I mean, a wholesome, wonderful activity that gives me goosebumps. Took up pictures sent it to Patrick just that day. If we could play socks six and then I'm curious about how you're explaining that you can go from being a good mom to, you know, being psychotic. I mean, really within the same day. If we could play socks six. Do you recall that Lindsay sent a

picture of her and her children thinking that afternoon? I recall the snowman photo.

“I'm sorry. I recall the snowman photo. Okay. And that was on the 24th of January, right?”

It was, sir. You recall the pat texted back and said something like, oh, wow, you're a good mom. I call that. I don't recall the text. Understanding jury would be able to be looking at the photo and has a little history. If we look at this report, um, Patrick to Lindsay. Oh, wow. Patrick to Lindsay. You're a good mama. Lindsay to Patrick. Smalley face with hearts. Lindsay to Patrick. Blank. Patrick to Lindsay. Lapped at our image.

Lindsay to Patrick. Any chance you want to do take out from 3v period period period period. I didn't cook anything period period period. It's been a one day. Smalley face. Patrick to Lindsay. Yeah, Smalley face. Lindsay to Patrick. Okidoki. Smalley face. Kristen, the jury is going to have their work cut out for them because this exchange is a great example of something that I've noticed. Um, all throughout the trial really,

certain evidence introduced by, let's say, the prosecution can be, you can help either side or both sides depending on how you look at it. Prosecutors are saying that that exchange demonstrates that, uh, you know, Lindsay's behavior was relatively normal, uh, and that she was capable of communicating and coordinating and acting rational, uh, whereas the defense emphasizes that apparently, or, or a behavior that is apparently normal doesn't necessarily rule out psychosis.

So my question for you, um, and this is actually one that was this question was thought at by our intrepid producer Michelle, is it unusual to see a mother who is struggling internally, but still appears high functioning to others? Um, absolutely not. And I have said this since the beginning of this, the trial where the thing that scares me the most about Lindsay Clancy's situation is that I see women like her every single day in my office, where they appear to be

extremely high functioning, and they are just barely hanging on internally. And to that I say, level of functioning is not necessarily, um, the same as mental status in capacity. Um, you know,

had just been gardening in her yard. And when she got to my office, completely fell apart, and we, you almost talked about hospitalization. So it can go from, you know, one thing to another very quickly because especially in motherhood, where do we stop the functioning? You know, the baby still has to be fed, um, they need to be clothed, that, you know, especially here, Lindsay Clancy was quite type A in perfectionistic. She had extremely high standards for herself from

what I'm hearing from, you know, her friends and family's reports. And, you know, when you're high functioning, that doesn't necessarily mean that you're as well internally. You know, as it relates to that switch from building a snowman that day into then the tragic events that happened that night,

“what, um, I think the jury needs to really understand, this is really hard for them to understand”

the psychiatry and the neuroscience behind what is happening or what was happening within Lindsay's brain during this time. But what we know is Lindsay could have, in fact, been in a mixed episode, where she is waxing and waning between psychosis or hypomania. And that can be very common in which, you know, you will experience a rapid shift in decision-making, a rapid mood shift. Of course, every account in her diary, she expressed deep desire to be a good mom and to have fun with her

kids. So that could point to where she's building a snowman and trying to have a good day with her kiddos. And, you know, again, if the hypomania or mania was not properly treated, then yes, of course, you're much more likely to be able to switch ever so quickly. All that takes is one auditory hallucination, um, as they're trying to prove where something can switch, just like that. Wow. Well, and you see in her journal entries that what you said was she does want to be a good

mom. I mean, we can listen to some of them, but some, what she's talking about is she, her

overwhelming goal is to be a good mom and she felt like she was failing because this was her third

child and she just wasn't able to hold it all together. And I can't even imagine, you know, you have

“three, I have two. And I remember my second child thinking, oh, you know, it's kind of a joke”

when you let your kid eat off the floor. Oh, it's a second child, you know, my first child. It was like pristine. Everything was pristine. The second kid, I was like, oh, yeah, do whatever you want. Go eat the dirt, sure. Um, and this is her third. And so we've got that in her journal entries. We can take a listen, um, and saw seven where she's talking about being less connected, resent the older kids. And when I, when I listen to it, it sounds like, you know, she's trying, but she feels really

guilty. And you can tell she's sort of what you were saying in this mixed mixed state if we can

listen to sought seven. I'm sad and depressed because I am not able to parent my third child like my

first. I want to treat anyone of my babies like my first. But I know that's not a feasible possibility. I'm sad that I stopped the breastfeeding. I feel not as connected with Cal now. I think I sort of resent my other children because they prevent me from treating Cal like my first baby. And I know that's not fair to them. I know that. I was soon so depressed last evening when Koran Dawson came home from school. I know her runs off on them. So we had a pretty rough evening. I want to feel love and

connection with all my kids. I'm also probably having a bit of an internal conflict because my whole life, I wanted to have a lot of kids. I still don't want Cal to be our last, but I have a lot of figuring out your deal before I have another. Cal was so very planned and desired. I want to be

“able to give him all the love he deserves. I guess that's what it's like to be the third child though.”

He's not the first third child to ever exist. I think I know he'll be okay, but it's really hard for

me. I'm struggling so hard because I wanted to parent each of my kids like my first and since I can't that's the pressing to me. This is definitely the root cause of all our problems. Now I feel like I'm not parenting any of my kids the way I want to and that makes me sad too. But I'm going to try my best today. Kristen, when you hear that journal entry, you know, you're the professional here, what sticks out in your mind professionally when you hear that? Again, I think it's the desperation

of where she wants to be versus where she currently was sitting with depression, anxiety, struggling with balancing three children. And particularly, I heard guilt in there about having to stop breastfeeding. I know in a similar diary entry, she felt extreme guilt about sleep training. It just screams to me that she was just riddled with guilt and anxiety and difficulty feeling confident in the decision that she made with her third child. Again, all very normal things I hear

in my practice. And just because she's voicing real vulnerable thoughts of possibly even resenting her other too, that doesn't make her a bad mom. It can be very real and I think it's hard.

you know, she's unsure about her medications and she wants to feel authentically happy.

“She's terrified of parenting in the wrong way. Let's listen to Sadeh.”

Obviously, we sleep to five in paranoid. I know what we did was the right thing and okay. I'm on the fence about starting a new meta-not. I want to feel happy, but it would be nice to feel authentically happy and not fake. But I need to feel happier than I did last evening because then I was pretty depressed and not enjoying any of my children. It was really sad. I've just fallen out of the habit of doing anything fun, anything for myself, anything with Pat, and I need to work on that.

On a positive note, I had a great deep bite of sleep. I'm terrified of something happening to my kids or doing something wrong to mess up their development. For the last five years, I've just filled my mind with all things parenting and it's just unhealthy.

“Okay, so before we have to let you go, I want to touch on one thing she said, sleep. That I think”

that's one thing that to me is significant here because even if you're not suffering all of this stuff, sleep is huge. I mean, is that something you've seen in your practice every day? Absolutely. I talk a lot about there's certain risk factors for more of postpartum anxiety, stress, OCD. But the number one predictor of having a more disregulated sense of self, your nervous system

and your emotions is lack of proper sleep. And so think about a mom of a third now child newborn

and she's not sleeping well. And so that to me is the biggest red flag in all of this is that she desperately wanted to be able to relax and she couldn't. Sometimes people have this idea that Mania is grandiose, it's impulsive spending or doing, engaging in risky behavior. But other times Mania can be way more subtle in terms of difficulty sleeping inability to rest but also not feeling tired and she did mention that in one one document, one piece of documentation that been

nerding out over. And so yeah, this that piece of it the whole time for me was a red flag that if you're not sleeping, it puts you and your brain at way more risk of experiencing much more serious symptoms. Yeah, well thank you so much, Chris. And we're going to keep following Lindsey Clancy. I know you are too and in folks I want to tell them how they can find you because you've

been doing some amazing little videos on your thoughts on the Lindsey Clancy trial. So if you could tell

everyone our audience how they can find you. Sure, so I'm on Instagram. I'm called calm mom, counselor. I specialize in helping women overcome anxiety especially in motherhood and my website is www.ChristinMise.com and that's where you can find more about myself and my private practice here in my area of Georgia. And that's where you can find me. Sure, thank you so much, Kristen. That was awesome. I really appreciate it. Next we've got our closing arguments, stay tuned.

Let's talk about life insurance. We all know we need it but we keep putting it off because we think it's complicated or expensive or that we'll live forever. Stop telling yourself you'll handle it later and take care of it today with select quote in 15 minutes. You could 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. They're licensed”

insurance agents work for you. Not one insurance company. They compare multiple carriers to help find the right coverage at the lowest price. They've been doing this for nearly 40 years and have

helped over 2 million people find coverage. And whether you have high blood pressure, diabetes,

heart disease, or if you're perfectly healthy, they can help you find options that fit your situation. In fact, some healthy applicants can even get same day coverage with no medical exam. Get the right life insurance for you. For less at select quote.com/mk. Go to select quote.com/mk today

hallway along with my co-host today, Ashley Merchant. Before we get into our closing

arguments, I want to just remind folks. We are on video and audio. Listen on podcast. Anywhere you get your podcast, but also subscribe to our channel mk True Crime on YouTube.

“We have video elements and we have audio elements in this program and it really I think makes it”

for a better complete presentation if you check it out both ways. So anywhere you get your podcast, mk True Crime.com you can go there. All the links to subscribe are right there for you to easily, click and join. All right, Ashley. It's time for our closing arguments. Take it away. Thanks, Phil. Well, today's show had me thinking a lot about judicial economy. Any time double

jeopardy or delayed prosecutions come up, I always think about judicial economy. And the three

cases that we covered today all sort of touch on that concept. Honestly, I think it's dying in this country, judicial economy. I think we're overpricicating, overpriccuting and overcriminalizing actions. But I want to talk to you today about what exactly is judicial economy and how does it play into these cases we're following? So let's start here. Crime's gate committed every single day. Every day. Everyone commits crimes. You don't even realize it. You might run a red light,

something like that. More than our system could ever actually handle. But the system wasn't designed to handle all of them. That's not the point. That's not how our system works. And we don't want to win every possible case without asking what the win actually cost society. The goal of our system is to make society a better place and to actually have judicial economy. So let's talk about these three cases. Let's talk first about Luigi Manjoni. We talked a little bit earlier about

Luigi and double jeopardy and what the possible sentence ranges are. Well, you know, he can get a life sentence. He can get a sentence that effectively means he's going to spend the rest of his life

“in prison. Well, if he does get a sentence like that, is the state going to actually prosecute him?”

Are they going to spend the time and money trying to get another life sentence? Get a second life

sentence for Mr. Manjoni? I mean, you can't serve a second life sentence. There's always a cost

in these cases. There's thousands of victims waiting for their cases to be heard and thousands of people accused of crimes waiting for their day in court, waiting on a prosecutor with too many files, or waiting on a judges' DACA to open up. So what are the other cases? The other two cases we talked about, two poxichore. We talked about this case. It is 30 years old. This case has been around for 30 years. I know that the prosecutors want to try to solve this case and want to get a win,

but at what cost? They're prosecuting a case with little to no evidence. Lots of people who are liars in this case and they're prosecuting a man who out of all of the people involved in this case has lived a law-abiding life for the last 30 years. He is not in prison. He has not been killed. He has not done any of those things that typically you would expect if he was a cold-blooded murderer to see happen again. So why are we prosecuting him? It's not a slam dunk for the prosecution.

It's actually a really hard messy trial. It's going to be hard for the jurors. It's going to be hard for everybody involved. Their own admission says that this is a really, really hard case and you know, there's a real chance that they actually don't get a conviction. And then we talk about the Lindsey Clancy Tray. And we really have to think about judicial economy in this case. She has admitted to the crime. She has admitted that she killed her children. This entire prosecution is about

whether or not she should spend the rest of her life in prison or the rest of her life in a mental institution. I think everybody involves agrees that she is mentally ill. I think that everybody involves probably things that she is hoping to die essentially. I mean, she tried to kill herself. So we know we all assume that that's probably what she wants. You see her in court every day. So what are we trying to do in this case? What are we trying to do? It's not really judicial

economy. And the victims are the people who are waiting for their day in court. So I think that this is just a failure of the system when we have these delayed punishments, when we have these inappropriate punishments. And it really doesn't take into account the ultimate goal of making people whole and making our society safer. It doesn't advance any of those goals. So I just hope that prosecutors will continue to look to see if a case actually does need to be prosecuted or if it's

“a case that maybe you should agree, let Lindsey Cansy spend the rest of her life in a mental”

institution. Something like that, let Luigi Manjoni spend the rest of his life in federal prison, something like that, because that can actually be the outcome that's right. That could actually

about a couple of things that, well, these are the criminal fads of the day that really kind of

“piss me off. And I'm sure a lot of you as well. I'm talking about so-called street takeovers and”

their first cousin teen takeovers. These, these crimes, these are just, this is just pure foolishness

dressed up as kids just wanting to have fun. You know, blocking a public road, spinning donuts, laying drags, or crowding patrons out of the public place. That's not a party. That's a crime scene. This past week in Medford, Suffolk County, New York, police shut down a street takeover early Saturday morning, and they hauled in 15 people. Could have been more. Should have been more. 14 of them got charged with both participating in an unlawful speed contest, as well as

spectating at one. Seven vehicles were impounded. That's not a slap on the wrist. That's at least a night in jail, a criminal record, and a whole pile of funds. The law is clear, and it treats these events as the crimes that they are. They're organized crimes, actually. As reckless endangerment and

unlawful speed contests, of course, these things are always crimes, but you also have things that

like riding, looting, or sometimes worst things happen if these things turn violent. So, young people, listen up, you know, you can lose your license, you can face jail, you can face

“present time even, and not to mention what your insurance rates are going to do. Remember,”

spectators are not innocent bystanders either. They are the ones that are encouraging it. They're

eating, and they are abetting, and they are active participants, and they can go right along to jail

with everyone else. Nearly watching one of these things is a chargeable offense. The police task force and Suffolk County, they tracked this group across the county from Iceland to Medford. That's because they knew exactly what was coming, and law enforcement should do more of this, by the way, because the risk is real. One wrong move, one pedestrian in the way,

“one uncommon car, and somebody is going to get killed. These things are not happening in empty”

industrial lots. They're happening on public roads where people live, where people drive, where people walk. The thrill last mere seconds, but the consequences can last forever. For a young person, that criminal record can follow you for decades. Employers run back ground checks, and a charge for participating in an unlawful street takeover can cost you a job offer, maybe a college scholarship, or an internship, before you even get started in life. You might

miss out on careers in law enforcement, for example, or the military, or any field that requires a clean record. One night of stupidity can close doors that take years to open again if they ever do. This is a kind of organized crime, and it should be dealt with swiftly, and it should be punished harshly. And with that, we'll leave it there. I want to say thanks to all of you, and thank you to my co-host Ashley Merchant, and again, a quick reminder. Subscribe to the MK True

Crown Show on YouTube, and wherever you get your podcasts. Special thanks to our guest, Kristen Mas. And we will see you back here next time on the MK True Crown Show. Have a great week.