Tupac Murder Trial Begins, OnlyFans Model Sentenced, and Lindsay Clancy’s Psychiatrist Grilled, with Julia Jenae

prosecutor, and I'm a former police officer. I've been in and around this justice system,

“I think, for around 40 years now, so I believe I know a great show when I see one, and we”

have one for you today. I'm very pleased and happy to be joined by my friend, and my co-host, Ashley Merchant, Ashley is a criminal defense lawyer from Atlanta, Georgia. Actually, before I toss to you, I want to just ask those people who are in the sound of my voice. If you have not yet done so, please go ahead and subscribe by podcast, anywhere you get your podcast, and also on YouTube, actually, because as you see, and as you know, we have things like in

today's show that have visual elements as well as audio elements, and Ashley, I think it makes for a better experience all together. Oh, I love watching the, the things actually happening live in court, so I agree with you Phil, and we've got quite a bit going on today. One case, I am super excited about. I've sort of been obsessed about this for a long time. History is being made this week as Duane Keefe Davis goes on trial for his alleged part in the notorious 1996 murder of legendary

rapper, Tupac Shakur. Think I might be dating myself with the 90s here, but we'll review the fatal shooting, and why Davis is now facing charges 30 years later. Well, they say anything you say,

“Kevin will be used against you, and that's what's happening with him, but we also have another”

unusual case out of Florida. We'll get into the story of Dr. Tomash Kazowski, a plastic surgeon, I guess maybe an ex plastic surgeon because now he's an inmate. He's accused of murdering an attorney that he once faced in court during a civil lawsuit between him and his former employer. And later, Phil, we've got attorney and journalist Julia Janay of court TV. She's going to join us to discuss crazy case of only fan's model Courtney Klenny's plea deal to her boyfriend's death,

and also the latest updates in the Lindsey Clancy trial. But first, Phil, let's talk to Pock.

It's been 30 years since Tupac was shot to death in Las Vegas. The crime has loomed large ever since Phil, but can you walk the audience through why this case is just now heading to trial this week? All right, so this says you mentioned this was from September of 1996, which by the way, I remember it very well. That was the year I got out of law school. So back at the time, there was the East Coast and West Coast rappers, and there were in this basically a

ferocious battle, if you will, for recording industry dominance. So Tupac's feud with the notorious BIG, also known as Biggie Smalls. This was the focal point of the tensions, actually, if you may remember, Tupac, along with Snoop Dogg and Dr. Dre. So they were in with death row records, which was associated with a gangsec mob Peru, which is part of the bloods gang. Now, Biggie on the other hand, represented by bad boy records, which was protected by the south side

Compton Crips. Now before you decide that you need a whiteboard to understand all this, this case itself is honestly, you know, it's not that complicated. It did go unsolved for decades, and it remained a headline in all the hip hop news and the media and the discussion, I guess the conspiracy theories and all the things that went on since then. But so, if I asked

“forward to, I think it was SWAT 2019, and key fee, basically, he publishes his memoir, right?”

And he goes into a fairly good detail, basically saying how he was there. He was in the car that

the killer was in. He's saying that they were essentially following, if you will, Tupac, and Shug Knight, in a BMW, and he goes on to basically say that he was there, and he saw everything. And so, he also later, in an unrelated case, out in Los Angeles, as part of a drug deal, actually, he was required to do what's called a make a proffer, which is he basically gave a statement to police in Los Angeles. It's part of an unrelated case that sort of locked down his,

let's just call it participation, because if you believe what's alleged, then he would have been at least a direct participant, if not the actual shooter. But this trial is now getting

finally underway after all these years in a courtroom out in Los Vegas, where we just were

are alleging, essentially, is that this Davis character, he orchestrated, they think, the killing

“in retaliation for Tupac and his crew, which included Shug Knight, beating up Davis's nephew,”

who was Orlando Baby Lane Anderson at the MGM Grand. There is casino surveillance footage that shows Tupac, Shug Knight, and others kicking and punching Anderson inside the MGM Grand, shortly before the shooting. So that is what they say, the authorities say precipitated this, but now they're saying in the past that they believed Anderson was the actual shooter. But apparently, some hearsay witnesses have testified in front of the Grand jury, and hopefully

we'll hear from them during this trial that say, well, a witness alleged another passenger in the

Cadillac who goes by DeAndre Smith that he actually took the shot, because Anderson didn't have

a clean line of sight from his car, which was really interesting. And then he said that Smith allowed Anderson to take credit for the murder. Maybe I do need this white board, so Anderson.

“You do need a white board. The Anderson was the one that got the beating at the MGM Grand, right?”

But he was also in the backseat of the Cadillac where the shooting, or where the gunfire came from, right? Apparently, but what I think really happened is Davis is the last man standing, because everybody else, who they think was in that car, is dead. And Shugnites and Jail, and Shugnite has is predicted to testify, and he has made very clear that whoever calls him to testify will be very sorry for it. He's essentially said, if the defense calls me, I'm going to

screw the defense over. If the state calls me, I'm going to screw the state over. So I don't think he's going to be a particularly credible witness. Since it sounds like he's just going to be angry for having to come and testify, and all the seats seems to have is Davis's various statements, and the judge, the judge had a motion to determine whether or not the book was going to be able

“to be admitted and said that the book is definitely going to be able to be admitted. But Davis has said,”

he had even read part of that book. He said he didn't write it. I mean, so now they're going to have to try to prove that he actually wrote this book. Well, so anyway, let's let's dive into that a little bit because in the book, assuming it's Davis, and the judge is ruled that he adopted it,

basically, even if he didn't write it himself, he adopted the statements. And in that book,

it confirms that Davis, the defendant Davis was in the Cadillac, and it describes the motive. Tupac and Shugnite jumping the nephew at the MGM Graham, and it says, quote, "them jumping my nephew gave us the ultimate green light to do something." That sounds a lot like conspiracy, and it sounds like a lot like the, I guess the act of the murder getting underway, and identifies all four people present in the Cadillac and Keith E. Davis was in the front seat. His nephew,

Orlando Anderson, was in the back seat along with the Andre Smith, and Terry Brown was driving. The book goes on to explain actually how Davis, the defendant in this case, now, supplied the murder weapon. He says he acquired a gun from an associate and threw it in the back seat that night. He won't, he's not publicly said who would pull the trigger as you mentioned, but he said, listen to this. He said that he told the driver to turn around and go after the car that was driven by

that, where Tupac was a passenger driven by Shugnite. And so when you, when you direct somebody to turn around on a car, and if the prosecutors can prove he provided the gun and all that, you know, it doesn't matter at this point who fired the shot, because if they can prove those two things, then he's a direct participant in the whole thing when it happened. And the judge you mentioned name is Carly Keerney. She ruled the book was admissible actually because Davis quote, "adopted

the book as his own." And as you know, everything you say can and will be used against you in court. Now, we also have more than the book though, Ashley. We have some interviews with BET's death row chronicles. What's going on with those? We definitely have a lot of interviews and I unfortunately think this is going to be a case filled where the prosecution is saying, well, he said 20 different things. And 18 of them were truthful because they helped support our theory. And then

the defense is going to be saying, "Oh, no, actually they didn't say that." He didn't say that or this was a lie or something like that that it doesn't mix in. It's going to be really interesting, but we do have Davis's BET interview at SOT1. If we could take a look at that, this has been going on for years. Who shot Tupac? Let's listen to SOT1. Stop messing with who's going to party this year. I don't know, Drinks. We came up with a

"Tupac, Tupac. Tupac, he used that." And like a celebrity was like using a parade. He wouldn't even

have been out the window. We were going to never see him. He might find a bus to you who pulled up.

I was in the front seat, happened to see him off-road, chill. He should look over. He sees you. He looks right at you. You said the shots came from the back, big tray, Orlando. Who shot Tupac? I came before the coat of the streets and just came from the back seat, bro. Actually, there were years of interviews that was one I think that was around or maybe even over two hours long. And in these interviews, he gave relatively

“consistent accounts of his involvement with the shooting. And I think that's why, you know,”

at least in large measure, why the judge ruled that regardless of whether you physically personally wrote the book with your own hand or if you had a ghost right or if you just adopted the statements, you know, it's called an adoptive admission. And under the law, it's as good as making the statement yourself. So it can all be used against him and it will. But it's interesting how he was fairly consistent when he was making money from the book. And he was getting the TV

interviews and getting a little notoriety from this alleged murder. But if you listen to him after his arrest, we have a 2025 jailhouse interview with ABC where, well, let's just say, he's singing a different tune. Let's let's take a listen to thought too.

I'm innocent. I ain't killed nobody. Never did ever kill nobody. They don't have no evidence

it gives me. Came to put me in Los Vegas, proved that I orchestrated this. You said, "Yokey with his orchestrated this. They top witness is the least suspect." I should have said nothing. He was saying I should have said nothing. And I'm innocent now. Well, he's right about that. Phil, he shouldn't have said nothing. That is true. When I was reading about the story, I thought, oh my god, his lawyers are cringing. But one thing

“that I think is interesting and probably will come up is this concept and we call it in, you know,”

the old Latin legal term, corpus delective. What does that mean? Uncorroborated out of court confession is not enough to sustain a conviction. And what does that really mean? That means that the prosecution has to have some corroboration. They've got to have something else. So, his statements alone are not enough for a conviction. Even if he makes a lot of them, they make some all over and he keeps saying them and they keep throwing them and they've got to have something else.

So, whoever this other witness has to actually bring some type of corroboration doesn't have to be much, but has to bring something or else he can't get convicted. Well, let me ask you a question because I've had this come up. And I don't know that necessarily has to be corroboration from a another witness. I think it can be corroborated by certain facts. And in this case, although it wasn't a separate person, you know, he admitted his involvement to Los Angeles Police and in

2008 as like we were talking about as part of that proper agreement related to certain drug charges. But then he now says that to ABC says, "Look, I told police what they wanted to hear to protect himself and his associates." But see, that was 2008. The memoirs, the book, or whatever, comes out in 2019. So, you got the multiple statements that are corroborated by the circumstances of the case. We know that Tupac is dead. We know he was dead by shooting. We know that the types of the cars

that were involved that corroborate his statements. So, even if they don't have physical evidence,

“or another witness, I think there's a reasonable argument that the circumstances of the case”

are corroborative of his statements that he made prior to his arrest. And I think that's where the trial is going to come down. I think the prosecution is most likely going to be arguing facts like, "Oh, the car, the make of the car." Things like that, that is corroboration. And it just has to be slight. But it has to be something that doesn't come from his mouth. So, something that doesn't come from Davis's mouth. So, his prior statements, those are

going to be enough to corroborate, but something, I mean, if they had DNA, if they had a fingerprint, if they have a witness, it definitely doesn't have to be a witness to your point, Phil. It can be some type of actual evidence. This is the car. This is the gun. You know, something like that, but it has to be something that didn't actually come from. Yeah, they don't have those. They don't have much or anything.

They don't have the car. They don't have the gun. They don't have any fingerprints, but look, before we get into the killer plastic surgeon down in Florida, which I think is a crazy case,

I just want to point out, actually, that if Davis is convicted, this would be the first time

that anyone has held responsible criminally for two pox deaths. And this is one of America's most

MK True Crime Show because we are going to be following this one every step of the way.

“You might already own a firearm, but what if you could start with less lethal methods to avoid”

the financial and mental repercussions of pulling the trigger? This is where Burna comes in. I love Burna. B-Y-R-N-A. Burna's less lethal launchers are equipped with tear gas and kinetic ammo, and they're designed to incapacitate an attacker for up to 40 minutes. And by the way, you don't have to actually hit the attacker for Burna to work. If you hit the wall right behind the attacker, they could still be incapacitated due to all of the gases that will overcome them.

So I like that if you're not a great shot. And Burna is excited to introduce the all-new compact launcher. It's sleek, it's slim, it hits like a sledge hammer, but it's the same size as a smartphone, so it will pop right into your purse. And women, for example, can conceal carry everywhere

comfortably and with confidence. It fires at 400 feet per second. That's a lot of power to stop

“aggressors in their tracks. And their pistols are American made in hand assembled in Fort Wayne,”

Indiana with over 80% of the components in the compact launcher being sourced in the USA. Burna is legal in all 50 states. Burna requires no background checks and can be shipped directly to your door. And Burna is trusted by hundreds of police departments, too. Try before you buy, visit BurnaBurna.com, BYRNA.com to find a Burna dealer partner near you. That's BYRNA.com. I like to switch gears now and talk about a case actually from your original home state of Florida.

Exactly, not only from my home state, it's from my home county. Home, well, if it's your home county, then I'm going to have to let you do the honors of telling us what in the hell is going on down there with this plastic surgeon Tomash Kazowski accused of killing a lawyer by the name

of Stephen Kozy, whose body, by the way, was never found. So in the two podcasts, you don't have

a murder weapon or a murder vehicle. This is a no body case. Right, no body case. Those are definitely hard cases. So I mean, and when I say hard, hard for the prosecution. But so this guy is in Largo, Florida, which is Penelis County, which also compromises Clearwater, which is where I'm from. So it's definitely my hometown. But he's a plastic surgeon. The doctor is a plastic surgeon. He's charged with first-degree murder. And he is now saying he wants to represent himself. That is

the latest. It is potentially a death penalty case. He is accused of killing a lawyer who actually represented someone who was suing this doctor. So he was suing him in another lawsuit. The doctor represented himself in that lawsuit. And apparently got really mad. And they are alleging killed

this man. Stephen Kozy, who is 41, body was never found. He's been missing since March 2023,

like you said, Phil. And so the big news now is the trial is supposed to begin or was supposed to begin on September 14th. But recently there was a hearing just last Thursday where Kazowski actually told the judge he wanted to represent himself. And the problem, it seems not how my own opinion on it. But his lawyer said that Kazowski was refusing to sign a consent form for a doctor's evaluation. And to me, and I know probably to you too, Phil, when I heard that, I thought,

doctor's evaluation. That's a mental health evaluation. And this is a death penalty case. And so you know, it is not uncommon for folks who are facing the death penalty to not want to reveal things about their mental illness because they are so focused on the first phase of the trial of the guilt or innocence. They don't want to do what's called mitigation. So that's not uncommon. But it sounds like we might have some type of a mental health issue going on here where

Dr. Kazowski does not want anyone to really know what's going on behind the curtains with his mental health. Well, you know, and I'm not talking about this a little later in the program when we do our closing argument section segments because, you know, representing a person who represents

“themselves as a fool for a client. But you know, this issue, not only does he have issues, I think,”

in general with lawyers because he's accused of killing one who was just suing him. All it was was a dispute between a former employer and him over billing records. But in any event, we're going to get into the evidence against him, the physical evidence, which is actually pretty compelling in the circumstantial evidence. But he back in May of 2025. Okay. Now as we record this, this is, you know, August of 26. So back in May of last year, he told the judge that he was

still interviewing lawyers. And at that time, he wanted one, slot three.

people. So. Okay. So, have you interviewed them in person? Have they been on video? Have they called

them? I've uh, interviewed them in person. Okay. So there are people who want to take your case, but you're still deciding who you want. Yes, sorry. All right. All right. I'm going to have that

“figure out this week. I don't think so. Well, I think it's pretty important that I get the right”

lawyer, not you. All right. All right. So what are you going to have a lawyer? I don't know. Well, since the trial's Monday, don't think it's ahead of you to get one of them sooner rather than later. Sure. All right. Yeah. When I hear that, I know because I've been on those sides of that. I know you have two fill. All I'm thinking is he's probably talking to lawyers who are telling

him no to what he's asking. And there's always this great divide between doing what your client wants

you to do and doing your legal duty. People ask us this all the time. We have a legal duty. So that overrides what our client necessarily is asking us to do. So he may have had a little bit of disconnect, but I did want to talk about some of the actual evidence in the case fill. Yes. So yeah,

“there's no body. Okay. So there's no body, but apparently cozy who is the victim, the deceased,”

in this case, who they believe is the deceased. He was representing one of Kossowski's former employees in a lawsuit, like you said, Phil. And around the time that Kossi went missing, the doctor's Toyota Tundra was seen outside of Kossi's law firm. There was some surveillance video that captured someone getting in and out of the truck going inside with a backpack and gloves while carrying a large box. And then two hours later, that same man, exited the law office with a different outfit

on and pulling a large cart. The police executed a search warrant at the office of Dr. Kossowski. And apparently, they found Kossi's blood in the office bathroom. Uh oh, Kossi's DNA was also allegedly found in the trunk of Kossowski's vehicle, along with, oh, let's get this right. A bad containing brass knuckles, a stun gun, duct tape, masks, syringes with a paralyzing agent, and other sedatives. I mean, just obviously the kind of stuff that naturally people just carry

around with them at all times. By the way, I was able to do a little quick research. The paralyzing agent is, um, well, if I could pronounce it right, it's called, um, Susina Colleen. Um, also known as Susina Colleen Chloride, police found a vial of it along with syringes in the Toyota and the vehicle when he was arrested, by the way. It was in his vehicle when it's a fast acting neuromuxcular blocking agent that causes temporary paralysis. And it's normally used in medical

settings. For example, when you're going to intubate someone and you need them to be perfectly still. So it just, you know, the mind goes to these awful places of somebody being maybe aware and awake, but just unable to move as all sorts of terrible dark things are happening. That's awful. Mm. All right. Well, look, we will leave it there for this segment of the mk true crime show. When we return, we are going to be joined by court TVs Julia Janae. She's also

an allure here in Atlanta, but like Ashley Merchett, she hails from Florida. She's going to be here to discuss Courtney Clintney's newly minted plea deal. And we have updates, of course, in the Lindsey Clancy trial. Stick around. Life insurance. We all know we need it, but we keep putting it off but cause 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 can have

coverage that fits your life and your budget. Look, if you have people who depend on you, life insurance isn't something to keep pushing down the road. It's one of those adult responsibilities

“that feels easy to lawyer until suddenly it's not. That's why select quote makes so much sense.”

Their 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 find options that fit your

Get the right life insurance for you. For less, at select quote.com/mk. Go to select quote.com/mk today

“to get started. Welcome back to the M.K. Tree Crime Show. Joining us now is Julie Jeoneye of”

Court TV. Welcome, Julia. So good to see you. We're talking about them. Yeah. Thank you. Well, thanks for coming and let's talk about the Courtney Clenney case. And I know you are from Florida originally. Courtney Clenney is down in Florida and just to remind her audience, she's the former

only fans model who had well over a million followers online. Before she was accused of stabbing her

boyfriend Christian to death, way back in April of 2022, she claimed that Christian was abusive and that she acted in self defense. She has actually been in jail without bond since her arrest in August 2022 and has been a waiting trial for about four years. So Julia, we just heard that she got a plea deal six years where you surprised by this plea deal? You know, I was surprised just because there were so many people who were anticipating that she was going to get much longer. I was though

anticipating that there will be a plea deal. In this case, though both sides were full on in the pre-litigation phase. They were filing their motions and getting their deposition and it looked like we were headed to a trial. I anticipated that the best outcome for both sides was going to be a plea deal. I don't think I anticipated that she was going to have four years time served and really only have two more years behind bars, meaning she'll be out at the age of 32. That was surprising.

You know, I got a question for you. To that point, you know, she does get credit. I mean, she's entitled to credit for every day that she's been in prior to trial or prior to the completion of the case. But if you take a case like like this one and like so many others where the facts of the case just have a little something for both sides sort of to hang their head on

“if it went to trial. That actually, you know, that's what brings the parties to the bargaining table.”

That's what brings, you know, prosecutors to the bargaining table. If they think maybe they can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, it can cause them to reduce charges, it can cause them to give more favorable sentencing recommendations or both like we saw in this case. And from the

defense perspective, you don't know what a jury's going to do. You never know. And that's like,

you know, the million dollar question. And if a jury were to find her guilty, she's facing, you know, life in prison. So this particular plea deal obviously looks pretty attractive to her. But if you take a look at what we have here at SOT4, this is a video of a fight between the victim and Courtney where, you know, basically, she says there's not going to be a next time I never want to see you again. Both sides in this case are pointing to this video as evidence that

well, the prosecutor says it shows she's the aggressive party in this obviously toxic relationship. And her defense team is going to say it's him. Let's take a look and listen, SOT4. Please, he's a f*****, he's just, you're a degree in my thoughts and he's sitting down. He's a slut dog, leg dog, leg dog. Okay. Come on boy, leg dog. Like, I hate him and like, I don't really care if he's a f*****, I don't even care if he's a f*****.

prison, she's son and I know he's looking. I'm f***** like that up with you, I'm f*****. And f***** that you f***** me.

You're fired? Fine. Hold on, shut up, you're never seen a f*****. You're the most good f*****.

Shut up, you're f*****. You're a f*****. You're a f*****. You're a f*****. You're a f*****. You're a f*****. Yeah. So my daughter like you? You're just like my f*****. Boy, if I'm just like your wife. I can actually,

“definitely shift down if you're not here. Yeah. You don't f***** out of here. Okay. I don't remember that next time. Yeah. No, not this time. You're gonna have to f*****. Yeah.”

You don't touch me again. Why are you screaming? There's people in this house. Get up, get up, get up, get up. I'm sorry, but who is recording them? Like you can see your foot? They're like laying there, recording it. What is going on? You know, those secret recordings, though, that was a big win for the defense in this case. The prosecution used those videos and we all got to see them play out in the public. That's really what I think elevated this from when they were just investigating

this case to then actually arresting her. It did not happen immediately. There were calls for justice for a long period of time in this case before she was arrested in Hawaii. So she had taken

ones that the prosecution wanted out in front of this jury, but the judge ruled that the ones

were Courtney had an expectation of privacy. Didn't know she was being recorded. The judge said those weren't coming in and the only ones that would come in are the ones we see in like the lobby

“or public areas where she didn't have that expectation of privacy. So I think that was a big”

blow to the prosecution and that just happened earlier this year which no doubt is leading to the plea that we saw play out today. And I got to go say this toxicity in this relationship it's just as heartening to see and it would have made it's very confusing for a jury to know one side or the other because they would have been asked to look at Courtney as a battered spouse.

Defense had a battered spouse, the expert that they were going to be calling and I don't know

that the jury necessarily would have seen that since there's that mutual combat but would they have seen Christian as a victim as well. We won't ever be able to see but now we have an agreement which I think is what you want. You want an agreement and so that we can keep things moving in a criminal justice system. Well obviously she Courtney Cleany is someone who's no stranger to notoriety and maybe you know trying to elevate her own media or there are the personal profile

it's very hard I guess in most cases for people to elevate their media profile by virtue of pleading guilty to manslaughter but if anybody can do it it's probably going to be her which is why the prosecutor has shown some concern about her profiting potentially from this because she will be out and I don't I don't know that she's going to serve the entire two years. I would imagine with it since it's manslaughter she's eligible for parole and she's served the majority of the

Senate's already due to the time served maybe she stays in for the entire six I don't know but maybe she gets out a little bit sooner than six either way. So five says the prosecution wants to bar her from profiting as a matter of floor to state law. Check it out. Although not specifically in this plea agreement the state attorney has asked me to discuss the

“topic specifically that it discusses and it's important that nobody who is a convicted murder or”

two to kill like someone as convicted of murder they are not to the financial benefit as a result of that that's the floor to statute 944.5.2 it is a statutory lien that attaches automatically and if the attorney general office works to decide to see some form of lien or process in that then that we would be supporting them in that. I'm going to put on the record that we believe that statute's on constitutional it's not an issue for the plea agreement like we're trying

to upset it is 100% accurate. However we reserved the right to challenge that in the future we do not think it's constitutional and we wouldn't challenge any attorney general is seeking force that but that's not even for another day should I consider rise. That tells me that she is planning on doing a tell off. What do you think Julia? Is that what we're going to see next? I think I think they definitely want to protect that for her. So much of her

entire brand had been public. People know her even now unfortunately it is only raised the amount of people who know about hers. I think they're trying to protect her future interests. This is an exaggeration like we sometimes see where the defendant may fit down with a documentary or two after crying. She literally could have an entire brand around Courtney Kliney and the fact that

she went through this murder case and it ultimately ended in a manslaughter. Please.

“Yeah, she'll go right back to only fans too. I'm sure. I know that's what I was thinking”

and I was I was telling Phil before the show. I mean I've I've had clients that I've learned things about only fans over the years and apparently there is a pocket community of people who like those on ankle monitors. So, you know, maybe if she gets an ankle monitor that would be a whole new avenue for her to make money on only fans who knows, right? We had a we had a second bed going into that as we do other actually we had a side bed was actually actually going

to reveal that there is a I do call it a fetish where people are into ankle monitor porn as it pertains to only fans. I mean is that is that the subset actually? I mean the things you learn with this job but apparently you can make money at it. So, maybe that's what she's going to do. I mean part of the deal is she's going to be on probation. So, you know, maybe there's something that she can capitalize with that. I don't know, but she did luckily resolve the wrongful death

lawsuit. There was a wrongful death lawsuit against her. She resolved that. So, I'm guessing, you know,

does she decides to make her new her new, you know, project when she gets released. Maybe she'll use that to satisfy that judgment that she's got that she agreed to in the wrongful death judgment. But I don't know. I think she's going to entertain us for years to come. It sounds like and, you know, one of the things our producers asked us on us curious Julia, your opinion. Is it unusual for a plea deal to flag something like this? And I thought, oh my gosh, heck yeah,

it's unusual, right? It's unusual for, well, to flag the son of Sam laws or to flag that she

can't go on to only fans. So, yeah, they always include about not profiting and usually the

fendants don't fight that. They don't say, no, I'd really like to possibly profit and almost seems tone-death inside of a courtroom where you have the loved ones of someone who is deceased.

“But here, I think it's an important part of representing your client, especially when you know”

who your client is and the potential for financial gain in the future. So, it's not that it's not the law currently. I understand from some of the legal analysts of interview on court TV that it's a first amendment question of whether son of Sam is even a legitimate law. So, she just now has the right. I'm glad she didn't say it, but I was surprised that she didn't say anything in terms of apology or remorse inside of the courtroom. Right, probably a smart move. I'm sure

her-- Never thought we'd be talking about ankle monitors for porn on this program. I'm sure

you guys don't get into that at court TV either. But I know that you're also following this other big case, of course, that's-- and look, this is-- when I say it's the talk of the town, guys, I'm not kidding. This is-- it's out to dinner the other night and this is what like all the moms that I know and that I run-- these people are all interested in the Lindsey Clancy case, whether they are true crime enthusiasts or not. This Lindsey Clancy case and the defense, which is

based on-- it's a mental health defense, based on postpartum psychosis. This really is resonating with moms and parents everywhere. And I got to think that, you know, if there's anybody on this jury that no somebody or has ever experienced anything like that themselves, this,

you know, this case may very well be headed to a verdict of not guilty by a reason of insanity,

by way of reminder, Lindsey Clancy, she's 35. She's charged with strangling her three young children, the youngest being seven months old back in January of 2023. She conceited through her attorney that she did, in fact, calls the deaths of these kids and she argues though that she's not criminally responsible because she committed the acts while in the midst of this mental health

“crisis or a psychotic break. One of the-- one of the-- what's the latest? What are the highlights?”

We know that we're in the defense cross-examination now of some of the states witnesses, but how far along are we? Yeah, we were covering this every single day on court TV. I just left being on air to come here and talk to you guys and they just wrapped up for the day for day 10. They have the treating psychiatrist on the stand for two days and a row that crosses the emanation, got contentious with one of the last things that psychiatrists talked about was this

drug that she had actually planned to increase with Lindsey Clancy the day before the strangulation of the children. And so the defense attorney was trying to say that that pushed her over the edge but then on redirect, the prosecution showed the pill bottle and said that based on what was left, there was only enough for her to have taken the same dose that she had been taking before. So she hadn't complied with increasing it. So there are so many issues you mentioned that there are so many

moms, women, but people who are paying attention, this case is pulling on the heartstrings because

“I think of all these issues, not just about the murder, not just victims that are children,”

but issues with your health care system. I mean, we're hearing about this witness that you know, she didn't even get her prior records because she didn't think it was necessary and I personally feel like that's one of those hot button issues for me that my health care providers just assume that they'll deal with what's in front of them, what about everything else that's out there, it's not that hard request. But it is something that certainly has everyone watching and I think

it could come down either way, it is not clear cut inside of that courtroom. Yeah, I watched some of it this morning and I saw that part as well and I immediately got that same impression, there's a lot of fault with the health care system, a lot of spotlight on the health care system. And we've seen that with other cases we've covered, I'm sure you have two where, you know, there's mental illness and it's just very disjointed, you know, we're relying on the patient who is

mentally ill to give all of the background and to put all of these records together and that's

medical record and access and that's really coming front and center and then I also think there's

a lot of moms who are just watching this and you know, one of the things that we've seen repeatedly is this theme that she was tired all the time and, you know, moms relating to that and how that can sort of lead to mental illness as well, you know, the dynamic I know you've been covering, what do you think about this defense lawyer? He's sort of become a crowd favorite for the public it seems like. Okay. I'm in Readington, it's scrappy. I mean, everyone is really impressed by the

way that he does his cross examinations. I don't think he's over the top, but he wasn't afraid to go after this psychiatrist who kind of came off as very junior on the stand. She actually had just gotten done with her residency when she started treating Lindsey Clancy and so she was very soft spoken on the stand. You almost felt for her being a very young psychiatrist who was really just starting out as an independent doctor and he did not let up though when he grilled her on different

things which she didn't do, how she didn't take into account that Lindsey Clancy was telling her she was only getting two hours of sleep here, one hour of sleep there and that even though she said she was paranoid of having suicidal thoughts that it didn't seem that this doctor took it seriously enough and of course hindsight 2020 when we know what happened in terms of the tragedy. We actually have a thought, we have thought 10, which is one of those crosses you're talking about

particularly about the access to the records if we could play thought 10. You know why she went to the ER? Because of depression.

“So, was she treated at the ER? Did they make any to your knowledge as your doctor?”

Making any recommendations? I'm not sure, but they told her, but they ultimately

did. They ultimately discharged her. They didn't admit her. When you looked at the records of a social, a perinatal clinic, what did they indicate about suicidal ideation, worrying about suicide, close to suicide, anything? I didn't have access to those records. You're going to keep your voice up so everybody can hear you. You what? I did not have access to those records because we're a completely separate clinic.

Seriously, she's visiting with you as a patient and you can't access her medical records. Is what you're telling this, Jerry? I did not have access to them now. Could she have signed a release? I hit before? Yes, she could have. And you could have the records? Yes. But you didn't? I did not feel like it was necessary because she provided all the relevant information about her treatment there.

You know, Lindsay Clancy has sued a lot of the her doctors, including this one, for medical

“negligence and malpractice. And I think that testimony probably just sunk the doctor's defense”

in that civil case because everybody who's been to any kind of healthcare provider knows as well as the next person that she could have easily gotten access to the medical records. You have the you know, you have the client tell you, you know, everywhere you went before. And then you get those records from those physicians. You tell them, okay, get your records, do the hippiforms, do whatever. But to say, I didn't have access to them is a little bit misleading

because she, she may not have had them in front of her, but she should have had them in front of her. There's mechanisms in place to get them and she absolutely should have got them. I found that testimony to be quite interesting. It can absolutely have implications for the civil suit against her. There's plenty of plenty of things to talk about about this doctor, but, you know, she had just finished her residency. It just, I guess, taken the boards and she just got her license to prescribe

medicine in August of 2022 and began seeing Lindsay in September of 2022. Never saw her in person.

It was always virtually. Did y'all see her that? It was always virtually. I actually mentioned her that it was seven hours she's been on the stand. That was longer than

“she ever saw Lindsay Clancy in person. Wow, that's, I mean, that's, that's, I think that's going to”

hit home to the jurors. Like, I mean, it's hard to evaluate, well, mentally illness when you haven't actually seen, you know, seen the patient. And that's one of the things that the defense lawyer was grilling her about. We've got a thought about that, um, sought nine, where he actually asks if the doctor had given her a hug if we could play that. The setup question. Is it in a shape? That, as it was, 14, when he said to the jury, 14, quite the study had with Lindsay during that

by a television birthday. Yes. And so you came in this horrible, Fred, you let us know the story

and the rest of it. Correct. Were you never concerned about your medical health as a crescent?

Absolutely. She was crying. She told you certain that she couldn't get out of bed. Isn't that right? That montage said it was, it was difficult to get out of that. Oh, difficult, difficult. Why was it difficult for Lindsay Clancy to get out of bed?

“Fishers are interested in it. And then you should figure a hug. Oh no, you're not telling us. So you couldn't”

get out of bed. We didn't have a chance to even look at her in person. Do you? I could book out her. It was always a big moment. I couldn't give her a hug, but that's not actually something that's a psychiatrist typically do with patients. In the, in the few minutes left, that we have in the segment guys, I want to point out that this is about from the defense perspective. It's about reasonable doubt. They need to plant the seed of doubt

reasonable doubt in the minds of at least one juror. I suspect they may have several

if not most or even all. But when you have this type of treating physician admitting that she never saw

her in person. And then there was more out of this doctor as well. She stated that she did not even warn Lindsay about a suicidal false as a possible side effect, even though Zoloft has a black box warning. She also confirmed that she knew Lindsay had anxiety symptoms following the birth of her second child Dawson and that Lindsay tried Zoloft at that time. She knew there were side effects, but she did not record them in her notes and could not remember exactly what they were.

“You mentioned how important that's going to be to the civil case. That's what I keep thinking.”

I was a civil litigation when I started out attorney and as easy as it is to get records, as easy as it is to get the information that this doctor needed. I think why we're seeing some fee for the defendant when we normally wouldn't is there's not the abuse leading up to it. There's not neglect of the child. This is something that just seemed to come out of nowhere, but they're probably were a lot of warning signs. Wow. Well, it's just a sad case all around.

And I know you'll continue to cover it. Thank you so much for being here, Julia. Can you tell our audience where they can find you? Oh, thank you both so much for being honest. Great to talk to you. I can be found on air at GordTV from 12 to 3 p.m. Eastern recovering the Clancy trial through the end and online on social media at Julia Court TV. Awesome. And I know the defense is starting soon. So everybody wants to tune in and follow the Clancy trial.

Well, everyone stay tuned. Our closing arguments are next. Everybody's talking about weight loss injections because the raw results are so dramatic. They work by lowering blood sugar and reducing appetite. But what if you're 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 into energy and curb your appetite and cravings. So you're not as hungry. But listen, lean is not for the casual diet or with only a few pounds to lose. The doctors at broadcast 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 exercise and diet plan. Visit takeleane.com and enter mk for your discount. That's promo code [email protected]. Welcome back to the mk true crime show. I'm Phil Holloway along with my co-host Ashley Merchant. Before we get into our closing arguments, don't forget. Check us out everywhere. You get your podcast and on YouTube. You can go to mk truecrime.com and find links to subscribe

everywhere. All right. With that, Ashley, go ahead and tell our listeners and our viewers what's on your mind this afternoon. All right. Well, the two podcasts has got me thinking about accomplice, accomplice liability, party to crime, felony murder and I just want to talk about how you

end up doing life for a murder that you didn't commit. You weren't present for and you never wanted

to happen. Two words, felony murder. Then you add a little bit of party to crime in and you've got really a hot mess. So let's talk about this using two podcasts as an example. I've talked about this

for an example. So you really understand how crazy felony murder and party to a crime laws are in

“this country and most countries have abolished them. You know, this is an old English concept and they”

have long since abolished it. So we're one of the few countries that's holding on to this. So let's use some examples. So what the law says, it's got this concept called party to a crime. What does that mean? That means if you intentionally help encourage a cyst or even just act as a lookout perhaps while someone else commits a crime, you're on the hook for that crime. Same as if you did the crime yourself. Now if you stack that with felony murder, it's where

really turns absurd. So felony murder means that you can be charged with first-degree murder,

without killing anyone, without intending to kill anyone, and without even being in the same room when the murder happens. And that's something we may see with this two-pot case since Mr. Davis is now saying he was not even in Las Vegas. So let's say the accomplished trips, a cop shoots him. You can get charged with that person's murder. Let me paint the picture using two-pot a little bit more. So, Davis, the one on trial now, he wants to send a message to two-pot because

he's mad about his brother being or his nephew being messed with, all right? So Davis tells his buddy, go scare him. Go scare two-pot and his crew. Don't hurt anybody. Take a gun just in case I'll throw it in the back. Don't use it. Don't hurt anybody. I just want them to know they shouldn't be messed with my brother. All right. So my nephew. So the buddy goes, things escalate. The gun

“comes out and somebody dies. Let's just imagine that's what happened. You weren't there. He”

wasn't there. Never wanted this. Doesn't matter. You don't get to choose the crime you become a

party, too. Because the crime happened without you even really being involved. You were involved in the planning stages of a different crime. So now let's take it a little bit further and see how broken this really is. You had zero intent. You never planned a murder. You never wanted anyone dead. If someone had asked you, you would have said no. Doesn't matter. Guilt by association. That's what party to a crime is. You agreed to something small. Some scare tactics. Something like

that. And that one decision changes your entire future. One decision by curious guilt. What is that? Well, the law pretends you pulled the trigger because you participated. Even if you participated early on as a party to a crime, that's it. That's the whole legal theory. And what do you get? You get the exact same thing that the person that shot and killed someone gets. Partied to a crime and felony murder. You get the exact same sentence, exact same charge as the shooter. This

happens all the time in our country. And we really have got to revisit felony murder and a complice liability and have a major overhaul. Just like England's done, just like all the other countries that had this antiquated legal concept. But just pay attention to this when you're watching the two podcasts and you're wondering how in the world is this man who wasn't the shooter

“and maybe wasn't even in the state is being charged. Phil? Great stuff as always. And I think you're”

right. And I think eventually we will see some movement in the area of changing or reforming some of the laws that go back a long way relating to a complice liability and the felony murder. So I want to speak just a minute about representing yourself in a criminal trial. Now you know where I'm going with this because I've already said it earlier in the program. Anyone who represents themselves in any case really that certainly in a criminal case has a fool for a client.

And it's almost always certainly a terrible idea. For example, if I got in trouble actually

I'm going to hire you or Dave or some of our colleagues or someone other than myself because we sometimes are just too close to it to be objective and you need an objective third-party advocate every single time. You may think that you know your case better than anyone else does. And that may be true, but the law is a maze of rules, procedures, personalities, people, relationships and strategy that most people never ever learn. A good lawyer knows how to, for

example, pick a jury to question or cross-examine a witness, knows which witnesses to call, which witnesses maybe you want to steer clear from. Lawyers know how to object to bad evidence, maybe things are not admissible. A good lawyer through objections can keep evidence out of a case that shouldn't be in the case before it hurts your case. You may not even recognize when the prosecution is trying to slip something past you and believe me. They will. So we'll defense lawyers

by the way, which is why we don't let lay persons be prosecutors for the same reason. But then there's emotion. Emotion creeps in and this can also be a trap. When you're fighting for your life

clearly rationally logically and tactically the way you need to in a trial or any kind of

criminal proceeding. And a lawyer gives you though the distance between the emotional aspect and the

“or the rubber meets the road in the courtroom. And here's the biggest, I think, irony. Studies have”

shown that people who represent themselves are far, far more likely to be convicted and to get longer

sentences. That's right. The odds are very much against you and the studies show it and this is why

“even experienced, very expensive lawyers, higher other lawyers when they are in trouble.”

I've represented lawyers. I know I actually represented lawyers. And there's a reason for that. As the adage goes, as I said, anyone who represents himself or herself has a fool for a client.

“So if experienced lawyers won't risk it, why would you? All right. We got to leave it there.”

Before we let you go, just another quick reminder, please subscribe to the MK True Crime Show on YouTube and wherever you get your podcast. Big special thanks to my co-host Ashley Merchant

and to our guest Julia Janay. And as always, thanks to our producers who make us look and sound

better than we deserve. And of course, to you, our audience. Because if it weren't for you, we wouldn't have a show and we're glad you're with us. Thanks again and we'll see you back here next time at MK True Crime.