440: Clancy Hold Out Juror, Teen Killed By Murder-Obsessed Couple, Incest Baby Left on Highway & Siders Family

Hello, hello, hello, and welcome back to an all new episode of "Serial A Sweet."

“Honestly, with me, you're host Annie E. Lease. Happy Thursday. I hope you're having a fantastic”

week so far. I know that there has been a lot going on this week, and I mean, a lot going on the tail end of last week. We had more information come out regarding the Lindsay Clancy case, more information specifically about the hold-out juror and some details about his background, some details about what transpired in the deliberation room. We also are now hearing once again that Rettington wants a full acquittal of Lindsay based on this new information. There has been

updates in the David case, D4VD for can doch back of the century, and the civil case that has been

filed against him. There is a case that actually was happening pretty locally to me that I've been following for the last couple of weeks regarding a 14-year-old girl who allegedly threw her

“newborn baby on the side of the highway because the baby was a product of incest with her 38-year-old”

father, and now the two of them have vanished and an amber alert has been released. The lot of disturbing details there, some updates in the cider family case, which is the Ohio House of Hours. I mean, just a lot to talk about, and also, I know we talked about it briefly last week,

the KJ Beerman of it all, Kim Zolciac from Bravo from Real Housewives Sun,

more fucked up and dark allegations have come out against him, video evidence, and the deep dive on that, it's coming because once I heard about that, I knew I needed to dig deeper and figure out what is really going on, there seems to have been a pattern of bad behavior and predatory behavior for the last three, four years now, and what does that look like? There's also been past sexual battery charges apparently that we're concealed, I don't know, because he's a minor, or because

they came to some sort of resolution and family court, but that deep dive is coming. It is very, very dark probably. The most deeply disturbing true crime case that has ever intercepted with pop culture that I've ever talked about. We've talked about the theft of it all, the Theresa Judice, Erica Jane, Jen Shaw, things where it's fraud and it's theft and things that are, of course, yes, very upsetting. This is really, really dark and disturbing, and so we're going to dive into

that together. Don't worry, that episode is going to be out very soon, and it will be a full deep dive. But for today, I want to talk about everything that has been going on in the true crime world this last week, and also when I talk with you about everything going on with the Lindsay Clancy case and this hold-out juror and what that means going forward, I'm actually going to be joined by a very special guest and new friend of mine who was there at the courthouse every single day inside the

courtroom outside the courtroom and saw everything that was going on. So stay tuned for that. Let's start with the David case, though, because even though I feel like we just recently

“had an update in this case, we now, once again, have another one. And it's an update that honestly,”

I kind of thought was coming, but I also question, like, where do you have the audacity to even do this to give in what your participation in all of this seemed to be and your alleged role? But anyway, as of December 8th, Celeste revises family is now taking legal action against David themselves. Celeste family has officially filed a civil lawsuit against David, who, by the way, remember his real name is David Anthony Burke, but he goes by the moniker D4VD, and this family is

making some very serious accusations in this suit. The lawsuit accuses David of more than a dozen different things, including wrongful death, fatally stabbing Celeste, sexual battery, child assault, holding her against her will, human trafficking, and causing severe emotional distress. Her family is now seeking compensation for Celeste death and the abuse that they say she suffered, and everything that they have also gone through in turn because of this. That said, though,

they haven't put an actual dollar amount on any event. The monetary amount would be decided later if the case goes to trial. However, here's the part that nobody really expected in all of this. I

charges are. Although the audacity of it all, what I mean by that is we know that Celeste parents

signed off on her leaving the country with David, it seems that they were very well informed about the relationship. I have made a few comparisons to our Kelly when talking about this case in the sense that with our Kelly, he would often pray on his victims by selling the thought of fame and celebrity to the parents saying, "I'm going to make your daughter a star. I'm going to take care

“of her for the rest of her life." Now, I don't know if that's what was also going on here,”

but obviously there was a reason why the parents knew and accepted what was going on and allowed her to travel internationally with him. So now the fact that they're filing this wrongful death

suit, I mean, surely they had no idea that he was going to murder her and that it was going to be

as horrific of a case at it, as it ended up becoming, but the fact that they are seeking compensation for it, I don't know. I understand it legally and I know that these are the steps that you go through typically in cases like this, but there's something that just doesn't really sit entirely right with me about it, and I don't know maybe that's just my jaded personal opinion. You tell me what you think. But again, I think it was kind of expected. It's not a huge surprise. However,

what a lot of people didn't expect is that David isn't the only person that's the less family is doing. They've also named several people who are around him personally and professionally, including his personal manager, his day-to-day manager who actually lived at David's Hollywood Hills home and the living security guard. Which if you remember, the living security guard was also

“occasionally the driver who I think facilitated the fake ID that's the less used when they”

went to clubs together and went out together. So people who seemingly had knowledge of this relationship that was happening and I say relationship very loosely. Obviously, she was too young to consent to a relationship with an adult, but I guess maybe you say the dynamic between the two or the interactions between the two. David's mom, Colleen Burke, is also named in the lawsuit

as well as his recording and entertainment company and his music publishing company. So basically,

everyone who was in David's circle or that he had as part of his entourage at some point or another are now being named in this wrongful death suit, which is pretty wild. I mean, they're going after everyone. All of this was announced by the family just one day after what would have been Celeste's 16th birthday, September 7th. And when it comes to her family, they have been very vocal about how they feel about everything that has been happening lately. In the last update

that I gave you guys last week, we talked about how they said that people should be outraged because David was now getting a public defender even though he's a millionaire, which is pretty outrageous considering the fact that he has so much money at his disposal, but

“I believe he's hiding all of those assets through his mom and that she is the shield for those.”

But they're saying that he is somebody who does not have a conscience who caused an unimaginable amount of pain to Celeste and their entire family, which 100% no doubt. I mean, I couldn't even imagine being in their position. So as we're continuing to watch all of this unfold and as more hearings are coming and the trial is, I believe in the near future, I will certainly keep you updated. This is just another chapter in the D4 VD David Anthony Burke saga. Now let's also go through

a quick little update regarding the site's family because this update is absolutely horrific. If you remember, I did a deep dive on this case. It was on the site's family out of Ohio in the public eye. It was labeled the Ohio House of Hours, where all of these 16 children were rescued, living in deplorable conditions, feces on the wall, no beds all confined to a 12 by 12 room and just a really horrific case, very reminiscent of the turpent family, which that case happened

here in California. So if you haven't heard that deep dive, I highly suggest you go back and listen, but be warned. It is a difficult lesson, but there have been multiple members of this family who have been charged since then, including 73-year-old Gary Cider Sr., the grandfather of all of these children who is living in the home. However, now, his case may not ever make it to trial. Because last week on Wednesday, September 9th, a judge ruled that Gary Sr. is mentally incompetent

to stand trial. His attorney had actually asked for this evaluation back in July because they were already some pretty serious concerns about Gary's mental state. He said the Gary has been dealing with declining mental health for years, along with memory loss and hearing problems. And apparently

And sure enough, after Gary was evaluated, it was decided that, basically no, he doesn't understand

“what is going on. His attorney said that Gary hasn't been able to fully understand what's going”

on around him throughout this whole process. So he wasn't surprised when the judge found him incompetent. And really, it's not just that he's incompetent, but according to the testing that he's had done, his mental state was also found to be, quote, "not restoreable," which means that they don't believe that his mental condition is ever going to improve enough for him to eventually understand the case and stand trial. So because of that, his attorney now believes that the charges

against Gary could actually be dismissed altogether. He didn't know what was going on at the time. He still doesn't know what's going on. You can't try him for this. Which at this point, his family is apparently looking at some other options within all of this, including possibly getting guardianship over him or having him evaluated by other professionals so that he can get the medical care that he needs. However, as far as the criminal case goes, it will not move forward with Gary and his current

condition. And if doctors really don't believe that he will ever become competent enough to stand trial, this could ultimately be the end of the criminal case against him altogether. And I find that deeply upsetting because if he is the responsible party or one of the responsible parties for what happened to all of these children, even if he's one of the responsible parties for what happened to Elizabeth and the 20-year-long breeding situation that was going on, where's the accountability

if he's never going to stand trial? Now, that's not to say that it's the end of the case altogether,

because as of today, the other three adults who were also arrested when these 16 children were rescued, Gary Jr., Elizabeth and Christina Cider, the grandmother, they are all still waiting for the same mental competency evaluations to be done, which on July 29th, a judge had ordered the Gary Jr. and Christina would have these tests done. And on August 10th, it was ordered that Elizabeth

“would also be evaluated. But what happens if all four of them are found mentally incompetent?”

What happens for justice? What happens for accountability there? I mean, yes, I'm happy that the children were rescued, but many of them are going to have life-long battles and illnesses because of this. And that's not even including and taking into consideration the trauma coming out of this. And that decades long battle that they're going to be facing. So I don't want to jump ahead too much, but worst case scenario, if all four of these adults who were supposed to be the trusted

adults for these children, the mother and father and grandparents of these children, if they are found mentally incompetent, how do these children receive the justice they deserve? I don't know. I am going to be doing an updated deep dive on this case pretty soon because there is a lot of information that has come out since our initial one, but I will keep an eye out for the results of those other three tests and I will bring you those updates as soon as we have them.

Okay, now this next case is right in my backyard. It's here in California, and it is heartbreaking, devastating, and beyond foul. And I swear, if I have to talk about one more case involving incest, I think I'm in a vomit. It is, I don't know what's going on. Like stop sleeping with your family members. It is so disgusting. Some of it is consensual, much of it is not, and much of it is

“under age and couldn't even be consensual. And that's what we're talking about today. Because right now,”

there is an active amber alert for a 14-year-old little girl named Diana Ochoa. And there are a lot of layers to this case. Okay, because Diana disappeared just a couple days after the investigators found the body of her newborn baby abandoned on the side of the road. And now, police believe that she might have vanished with her own father. 38-year-old Sergio Perez, who was accused of sexually assaulting her, getting her pregnant, and being the father of this now deceased newborn.

Now, I've been following this for the last month, but it's been coming out in drips and drives of information. There hasn't been a whole lot, so I haven't reported on it until now, but there is quite a bit that goes into this. It all started on August 1, when investigators found a newborn baby girl abandoned alongside the road right next to a field. They named her Baby Angelita, which means Baby Angel and Spanish. And an autopsy later found that she had suffered a traumatic

injury. Now, first investigators had very little to go on. They didn't know who this baby

belonged to. They didn't know exactly what had happened to her, so they basically had to work backward to piece everything together, which eventually, that investigation led to Diana. Authorities believe that Diana was only 13 years old when she was sexually assaulted by her

However, before investigators could fully figure out what had happened, Diana just disappeared.

“By August 31st, arrest warrants had been issued for Sergio, Diana, and Diana's mother.”

36-year-old, Ophelia, or Tega. Ophelia was arrested on suspicion of child endangerment and later posted bail. But Diana and Sergio, they were still nowhere to be found. And this is where the case gets a little bit complicated. Because investigators have said, they do have evidence supporting a murder charge against Diana in connection with the death of baby Angelita. They haven't publicly said what that evidence is though because they don't

want to jeopardize the investigation. Yet, at the same time, prosecutors have made it very clear that Diana is a child who they believe has been facing severe levels of harm. And as of right now, no decision has been made about whether she will actually face any charges in her baby's death.

Their focus right now is on finding her and finding her father. And here's what I take a little

“bit of issue with. And I'm going to go into more of the Amberler and where they believe they”

disappeared to and what happened. But if the mother was arrested on suspicion of child endangerment, after arrest warrants had been issued for all three of them. What does she know? What is that child endangerment charged stemming from? And if she was gone at the same time as her husband and daughter were gone, clearly she must know what was going on or that they are on the lamb and in hiding. And is it because she knows that she or her daughter was pregnant by her own father

and by her husband? What is she trying to protect her husband? So he doesn't go to jail and get caught. What is really happening here? Now, as I said, they haven't announced whether they will formally charge Diana or not. But they have said they have enough evidence to indicate that she was involved in connection with the death of her child. Surgeo, her father on the other hand, still does have that

“active warrant out for his arrest. And he is facing multiple felonies, including incessed,”

loot acts involving a child, unlawful sexual intercourse, child concealment, and child endangerment. And investigators believe that he may be hiding Diana all in an attempt to avoid it being arrested. So then on September 6th, an amber alert was officially issued for Diana, because the investigators

finally found something that gave them an idea of where she could be. Surveillance video was found

showing Diana and Sergio together on August 4th. Just three days before baby Angelito was found, they were traveling in a white Nissan Altima with no license plates. And with this surveillance footage, the authorities had finally gotten the vehicle information that they needed so that they could issue out the amber alert. And two days later, that Nissan was found, but Diana and Sergio were not in it. So the search has now expanded all across southern California, and investigators say that they

have received hundreds of tips since the amber alert first went out. But as of the time of this recording, Diana is still missing, and Sergio is still on the run. And this makes me a little bit nervous too, because authorities have said that Diana could be frightened and endangered or possibly even being held against her will, which right now their biggest priority is finding her and making sure that she's safe. And it makes me nervous for her, because we don't know if she went willingly

with her father, or if he kidnapped her, or God forbid if he's going to do something to Diana, so that he doesn't have a witness who can testify against him. We saw what happened in the Michaela settles case. Now, obviously her father didn't commit the murder and the crime she took her own life, but it was because of, in my opinion, he drove her to that over the incest and sexual assault he inflicted on her. So this guy is already on the run with his daughter. It's he going to kill her,

so that he doesn't have to face the consequences. Now, as for her mother, Ophelia, prosecutors are still reviewing whether she will face charges related to the alleged child endangerment. Those possible charges are separate from both baby Angelita's death and the alleged sexual assault of Diana, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions here, especially about what exactly happened to baby Angelita and what Diana herself may have gone through leading up to all of this.

However, right now, the most urgent part of this case is finding this 14-year-old little girl and bringing her home safely. So please share this episode, spread the word, and I will keep you updated. Okay, so this next case, it actually started all the way back in 2016, but it recently came to a close right around the same time as the Lindsey Clancy trial. And I'm going to give you kind of the summarized version, but I know I'll say this. I think I'm in a deep dive and tell me if you

backstory. It's a case that is also absolutely horrific, so fair warning, some of the details are

“pretty disturbing. So back in February of 2016, 19-year-old Morgan Bauer left the relatively”

small town of Aberdeen, South Dakota, and she moved all the way to Atlanta, Georgia, completely on her own. She arrived on February 12th without really knowing anybody there, without having a job

lined up, no friends, no family, and at first she was even struggling to find somewhere to stay.

However, within a few days, she managed to get a hotel room and she started working as an exotic dancer. Then, less than two weeks after she got to Georgia, Morgan disappeared. She had gone to work on the night of February 25th, but that was the last time that anyone saw her. She did make a post on social media the following day, but after that, there was nothing, radio silence. So her mom reported her missing, and police started investigating. Her family even hired a private investigator

to try to figure out where she had gone, but no matter where they looked or who they talked to,

“they could not find Morgan. And eventually, the case just went cold. And for seven years, her family”

had absolutely no idea what happened to her. They didn't know if she was alive, where she had gone, if something happened, if she was dead, just living in purgatory of the unknown. But then,

in the summer of 2023, they finally got a break. New information had led authorities to a property

in Porterdale, Georgia, where Morgan's remains ultimately were found. And shortly after that, police announced that two people were being arrested in connection with her death. They were a couple, Caitlyn Gobble, and Jonathan Alexander Warren. Now, Caitlyn was arrested in Illinois, and Jonathan was arrested all the way across the country in Los Angeles. And this is when the story of what actually happened back in 2016, finally started coming together. See, it turned out that Caitlyn

and Jonathan weren't strangers to Morgan at all. Caitlyn worked at the same club, dancing club, as Morgan, and they had actually been with her the night that she disappeared. So Caitlyn's story was that she and Jonathan picked Morgan up from her hotel that night, and they all hung out at the club where Morgan and Caitlyn both worked. Then, eventually, Morgan left with some random

guy that she met in a car. According to Caitlyn, she never saw her again. However, once the

investigators started looking back into Morgan's final days, there were some pretty big problems with that story. Because, for example, a coworker remembered Morgan leaving the club that night with a woman who matched Caitlyn's description. So Morgan's mom and the private investigator that she had hired had also spoken with people at the club who said the same thing. Morgan had left with Caitlyn. It also came out that Morgan and Caitlyn had gotten very close in the short amount of

“time that Morgan had been in Georgia. Remember, she was only there for about two weeks. But Morgan”

had even offered to give Caitlyn $370 so that she could get a work permit to dance, just trying to be a good friend to her, getting very close. So now you have some conflicting stories. Caitlyn saying that Morgan went off with some random guy, yet everyone else who was at the club, seemingly saying, "No, Morgan left with Caitlyn that night, and they were really close." But even more than what Caitlyn had told them, what prosecutors say actually happened that night

is absolutely horrific. They described Caitlyn and Jonathan as being obsessed with serial killers, obsessed with death, dismemberment, all these gruesome things, and they said that they saw Morgan, as basically the perfect victim. She was 19 years old, brand new to the area, didn't know anybody, didn't have connections with anyone in the community, was young, impressionable, and in their minds. They thought that she could disappear,

and nobody would come looking for her. Prosecutors say that Caitlyn and Jonathan picked up Morgan brought her back to their property, and then they killed her. Now, Jonathan eventually admitted his involvement, and he pleaded guilty to murder, tampering with evidence, concealing Morgan's death, and necrophilia, which I know all of you true crimeies out there know what necrophilia means, but in case you don't, it's when you have sex with someone post-mortem. Now, according to him,

even though he admitted all of this, he said that killing Morgan had actually been Caitlyn's idea. He admitted that he was the one who tackled Morgan, but claimed that Caitlyn was ultimately the one who killed her. He also said that Caitlyn had told him, quote, "I want to kill her, and I want to cut her up." And from there, the detail somehow get even worse, and even darker. Prosecutors said that this devious, disgusting ass couple waited for Morgan's blood to coagulate,

before then dismembering her. Jonathan then admitted to having sex with Morgan's body after

ate part of Morgan's remains. They then put Morgan's remains inside a suitcase and burned them

“in the backyard. So foul, so disgusting, and just how do people like this even exist,”

no less meat each other, and have their sick and twisted fantasies collide. It's unbelievable to me. So Jonathan was eventually sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Even though strangely enough, he had actually asked to the court to sentence him to death. Caitlyn though, she decided to take her case to trial. And she wasn't arguing that she had nothing to do with any of this. Her defense admitted that she was there when Morgan was killed,

but she said that Jonathan was the killer. Caitlyn only went along with everything because she was afraid of him. Her attorney claimed that Jonathan wanted to have a three-some with Morgan in Caitlyn, but the women were not interested. So Caitlyn supposedly left the room, and when she came back, she saw Jonathan on top of Morgan. She then, once again, left the room, and then when she came back

for a second time, she says that Morgan was dead. Her defense said that she wanted to call the police,

but she was afraid of Jonathan. And so because of that, she ultimately went along with helping him dispose of her body. However, prosecutors pushed back, basically being like, "No, no, no, this was not Caitlyn being forced to clean up Jonathan's crime." Their argument was that the two of them had planned this entire thing together, and it didn't matter which one physically killed Morgan because they were both responsible.

They also mentioned Caitlyn's alleged obsession with serial killers, death, and dismemberment, and even claimed that she believed that she had made some kind of deal with, quote, "The Duke of the Underworld" to sell her soul. And this is where it starts getting, like, slender man case. You know, all of these people who think that they are attoning or not attoning, but giving an offering to Satan or some sort of demon, it is sick and twisted.

Sure enough, though, after a week long trial, the case went to the jury, and they saw right through the bullshit, and it didn't take them long. After about 30 minutes of deliberations, they found Caitlyn guilty of malice murder. Also, a felony murder, aggravated assault, tampering with evidence, and concealing Morgan's death. So she was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. And at sentencing, Morgan's stepmom said, quote,

"The dignity Morgan lost during death is truly heartbreaking. She was a stripper for two weeks, but she was our child for 19 years. All we have are the beautiful memories that we hang onto, and their horrific details explain to us." Which Morgan was described as outgoing, outspoken, very charismatic. She loved disc golf, art, singing, dancing, and her family remembered her as the life of the party, and a bright light in their lives. Which, like I said, I think I am going to do

the deep dive on this case because I believe Morgan's story deserves to be heard and told in a more in-depth way. And also, there's so much more to this backstory and the crime and the years that followed that I don't have enough time in today's episode to touch on at all. So let

me know if you do want that deep dive. But it unfortunately serves as a reminder that you never

never know who you can trust. And I don't know, you just have to be extra cautious nowadays. It's really sad because there are some sick and twisted fuchs out there, truly.

“I think that one of the biggest misconceptions about investing is that you need to have a ton”

of money, or know exactly what you're doing before you can even start. And for a lot of people, that's what keeps them from starting at all. That's why I like the idea behind acorns. It's a financial wellness app that makes investing feel approachable. You can sign up in minutes and automatically invest your spare money, even if all you've got is spare change. And their potential screen can show you the power of compounding and how your money could grow over time while

letting you adjust how much you're investing based on your goals. Sign up now and join over

14 million people already investing with acorns. New customers get a $20 bonus investment just

for signing up. It takes about two minutes and it could be the quickest $20 you will ever earn. Head to acorns.com/AE. That's acorns.com/AE to claim your $20 bonus today. Acorns.com/AE limited time offer terms and conditions apply cacorns.com/terms for details. Payed non-client endorsement compensation provides incentive to positively promote acorns tier two compensation provided potential subject to various factors such as customers accounts, age and investment settings

does not include a corn fees result due not predict or represent the performance of a corn support portfolio. Investment results will vary. Investing involves risk acorn advisors LLC

“in an SEC registered investment advisor. Viewed important disclosures at acorns.com/AE.”

Today's episode of cereal is brought to you by Neuro, maker of the world's first smart and

all the little details that everybody else skips. And when I'm hours into researching and trying to actually retain everything, I need something that keeps me sharp. And that's where Neuro

sourments come in. Their sour first, which genuinely kind of snaps me awake, but then comes the

smart part. Natural caffeine and alphine for calm focused energy, plus B vitamins and zero sugar. So I can stay locked in for the deep dive without the crash. They come in sour apple,

“citrus, and berry. And honestly, they are the perfect little palette cleanser between all the”

dark stuff that we talk about around here. And while I'm going case to case, it's just such a little, you know, nice treat for me. So leave the dumb candy behind and make the switch to the smarter sour. For a limited time, you can get 20% off your first order at NeuroGumb.com by using code AE. That's NeuroGumb.com and use code AE for 20% off your first order. You can also find Neuro at CVS and Amazon. Now, I want to get into everything Lindsey Clancy. What's been going on the last

week? We know that there was a mistrial since then. Reddington has done a lot of interviews. Many jurors have spoken out. The one holdout juror has been docked, identified his alleged criminal background has come to light. It has gone very messy, even more chaotic than it already was in trial. And it's kind of difficult to wrap your heads around all of this. So what I wanted to do is

“over the course of the trial, I began speaking with several people who were there boots on the ground”

in the courtroom outside of the courtroom and working on this case. And there's a one woman in particular Sierra Gillespie who you may have heard of her or seen her on your feed. She works for long crime. She was a correspondent during the trial on court TV and was inside the courtroom and outside the courtroom recapping what went on. And so I decided to have her join me today because I have a lot of questions, especially about this holdout juror and just the dynamic within the trial

itself and the supporters who showed up, the Patrick Clancy theories of it all. So Sierra is going to be joining me for a little bit here. She currently hosts a show on long crimes network called scandal. You can check it out. She also will let you know all of the details of where you can find her. But I find her incredibly insightful and so I'm excited for you guys to hear from her as well. So Sierra, thank you so much for coming and joining today on Sierra Leslie. Thanks for being here.

Yeah, thank you so much. I'm such a fan of the show. So I'm really excited to come on today. Oh, thank you. Well, I know you and I have been talking offline about all things Lindsey Clancy, the trial. You were of course there boots on the ground in the courtroom reporting outside of the courtroom and really just completely entrenched in everything that was going on. And so I have some

questions where I would love to just get your first hand account of it if you're willing to share.

Yeah, of course I'd love to. Perfect. So obviously over the last week there has been so much conversation about this holdout juror. Everybody's trying to figure out what was the doubt that he had in his mind. What was really going on? What was his behavior in the courtroom? And it was reported that he had been scrolling on his phone during the deliberations with the other jurors, not really quite paying full attention to what was going on. But I'm curious given your perspective

and being inside that courtroom and now knowing who that holdout juror was, did you ever notice anything different about the way he was reacting during the trial? I was kind of troubled by that scrolling on the phone allegation also because I would think this is huge, right? This is so

“important deciding the fate of Lindsey Clancy. And if somebody is just so blassey about it,”

just kind of scrolling on their phone, that's a big red flag in my opinion. And I know that there's statutes and some states about it. I know in Massachusetts you are allowed to have your phone. You're just not supposed to be actively on it during deliberations. But back to your question about what stood out to me was he kind of zoning out or not paying attention? No. Not at all. This juror every time I saw him, he took notes at appropriate times when things were key that he thought

he was always writing down in his notebook. To me from where I was seated, it looks pretty diligent.

It looks like he was paying attention. And additionally, I was really shocked when it came out his identity because to me, he seemed very pro-defense. And I mean that by every time Kevin Readington would make a quick or a cross-exam question that was kind of like a burn. He left. When Kevin Readington would make a joke, he seemed into it. He seems like he was very much pro-defense just based on his reactions there. And that's to me kind of got me thinking this

guy isn't the whole doubt. There's no way. Of course, according to Paula Depplin, who came out on CBS morning, she identified this man. So I guess it was him. But initially, I never would have

I never would have guessed that he would be scrolling on his phone in the deliberation realm.

Well, that's interesting too because what am I mistaken? If I'm remembering this correctly,

“wasn't there another male juror who was not taking any notes through that's a trial?”

Yes. So that is the same man who I believed. I just hypothesized. I think that's the guy who is the holdout juror because at the very end before they had it into deliberations, Judge Sullivan gave jury instructions. And they were wrong. And they were dry. Very important obviously. But kind of tricky to pay attention to. And all of the jurors that I could see had the pamphlet in front of them. So they were following along with Judge Sullivan, kind of flipping the

pages at the same time. So they followed along and could kind of take a look. This man hadn't taken

any notes and did not follow along with jury instructions. So then when it came out that this

holdout juror was there was issues in question about reasonable doubt. I thought, oh, it's got to be that guy then. The guy who wasn't even reading along in the jury instructions and wasn't taking notes. That's me was so odd. And then it turns out it wasn't him. Absolutely. And it's interesting because during the entire trial and the duration of it, you said that this holdout juror was taking notes diligently. It was locked in, was focused on writing ten. How would you compare his attention

“and engagement to say the other jurors aside from this other one who was not taking notes?”

Did they all seem to be very just locked in, hanging on all of the words and really paying close attention? I think it was similar to how the world was. You know, when it was very

interesting testimony or closing arguments, for example, when Kevin running to slamming down the

quarters and the leader Jen Spragt takes them and put them in her pocket. Everyone was hanging on everywhere. Like all of the jurors that I could see were like leaned forward paying attention and some of it got emotional too. But for the most part, I would say that this was a very diligent jury. They most of them had their notebooks out, paying attention to, you know, if this witness is talking, looking this way, if not focusing, you know, whoever's talking, they're kind of following

the eye contact. Although I will say when things got really dry, talking about like medical examiner testimony or at the very end, some of the rebuttal witnesses were really slow to speak or took a long time to get answers out. And it just, I even found myself at times as a reporter like,

“okay, you have to pay attention. This is really important. And I saw some jurors at that time, like”

kind of glazing over where almost six weeks into the trial at this point, just kind of maybe frustrated like, okay, we want to get into deliberations. So at those points, when it's just natural for any human to kind of zone out, I did notice that at times, but truly for the most part, I will say that this was a very responsible jury that was paying attention throughout majority of the case. Okay, that's great to know and great to hear. Well, you obviously saw that it was

no secret. There were a lot of opinions flying throughout the trial about Patrick Clancy's alleged potential involvement and what the real situation was and the TikTok detectives were out and full swing accusing him of orchestrating this entire thing and framing Lindsay. And I think for at least speaking for myself, it became a bit frustrating when writing to wasn't speaking out on behalf of Patrick or shutting it down while I understood, okay, he can't do that because

he's defending his client. His client is in a favorable light right now with the public. He's not going to do anything that could potentially jeopardize that. However, now in the last couple of weeks throughout all of his interviews post trial, he has come to Patrick Clancy's defense saying he was a good father, he was a present husband, the conspiracies need to stop that he should be allowed to just move on with his life. I think some people are still so determined in their mindset

that he had something to do with it, that they believe that is some sort of strategy that running tennis, starting to play ahead of a potential, the potential retrial of the plea deal isn't met. But my question for you is while you were attending the trial and your boots on the ground outside of the courtroom, inside of the courtroom, when you saw all of the supporters coming out in droves, wearing pink, some of the women bringing their daughters even and standing in solidarity

for Lindsey, did you speak with any of them and was their sentiment and their support coming from a place of, we empathize and sympathize with Lindsey because of the postpartum psychosis because were matters to or were any of them vocal and say Lindsey didn't do this, we believe it was Patrick. I would say there was a little bit of both there because this trial drew a lot of people watching virtually on the live stream, but also to the real courthouse in Plymouth, Massachusetts. I mean,

one woman I remember speaking to, a war pink every single day and she drove all the way from Indiana because she said she felt really compelled she was hoping to promote mental health awareness and she was there to support Lindsey. So I kind of saw a variety of things, majority of the people who were there as spectators were supporters of Lindsey, there were a couple who were anti-Linsey,

because I was going live and trying to block them out only because I wanted to focus on what I was saying

“that they were screaming murderers, she sounded like really mean things that they would be screaming.”

So that was kind of the minority I would say. Majority were wearing pink in support of Lindsey Clancy. I saw people bringing their daughters babies, I saw toddlers who wouldn't even be old enough to go to school yet because they wanted to expose their daughters to, you know, this is mental health awareness, kind of talking about that. But as far as the question about Patrick, if people were talking about that, I would say it was kind of split. Some people were there truly saying

she was failed by the medical system. We are here to support Lindsey Clancy, this wasn't murder. Other people, and I noticed this more as the mistrial was declared afterwards, there was so many

reporters. It doubled if not tripled the amount of reporters or TikTokers or spectators who would

come and ask Reddington questions and he talked for about 45 minutes. And multiple people were asking about Patrick Clancy. Why didn't you go that route in the courtroom? We believe that Patrick did it. I do think that those people were in the minority out of Lindsey supporters, but they were definitely their asking questions. Okay, that's interesting. I'm curious just your personal opinion if you're comfortable sharing, of course. You mentioned that a lot of these

women brought their kids and some even their infant babies with them and that it was in an effort to raise awareness for mental health. What is your take on how that illustration really came to light only because it is a very polarizing case. Yes, but it's also one that has a lot of people

very divided where some are saying it doesn't matter if she was suffering from postpartum psychosis.

It doesn't matter if there is mental illness. She is a murderer. She killed her three children. While, of course, others are giving a little bit more grace given the mental health circumstances. But when somebody makes the choice to bring their children to something like this, children who are not of an age to even fully understand the complexities of the case, what is your opinion and have you seen anything like that as a reporter in the past with any

trials to wear? Does it borderline inappropriate? Does it feel like it would be confusing for the child? Because in my mind, I have two kids myself. I have a five-year-old and a seven-year-old.

“Yeah. And I've made it no secret that I believe Lindsey was suffering from postpartum psychosis.”

From day one, I have a friend who took her own life over postpartum psychosis. And while I would consider myself an advocate for the mental health stance of this case, I can't imagine that I would ever bring my child, my young child to something like this, to where if they asked me, what are we doing here? And I said, oh, this woman murdered her three children, but she was very unwell. So we're here to support that because that sense seems like it would create a very confusing

traumatic and mixed message for the children. How many children were there? And what is your opinion on that? I would say there weren't that many children. I would say probably I was there at the very end for the last two weeks from closing arguments until the mistrial was declared. And I would say I saw kids every day, if not every other day, but like one child or two kids together. So maybe 10 to 15 kids total that I saw. And it is interesting because I covered many different cases. I mean

high profile ones, Kyle written house. I was there for PDD in person. And I remember reporting there in the Southern District of Manhattan. I didn't see any kids at the PDD case. I mean, maybe teenagers who were interested, but I didn't hopefully know what he's bringing their kids to the kids. Right. Exactly. Exactly. It's not, and usually any of these trials people don't bring their kids because I cover murder cases, primarily. I mean, PDD wasn't murder, but for the

most part, I cover really gruesome stories or cases. And I don't often see children there. And so to

“me, that was interesting and noteworthy for sure, because to your point, I think these kids would”

probably be confused because at times, this was a very tense environment. I told you people were outside screaming at times. People were shoulder to shoulder. If Reddington was there, which people did bring their toddlers into this media scrum with 50 reporters, you know, pointing their microphones at him, they would pause it to take a photo with Kevin Reddington. I remember one woman specifically had a little daughter who was maybe three, like old enough to walk,

not old enough to be in school yet, to take a photo with Reddington. And I don't know, it's just tricky for me because I feel adults can feel however they want about this case. But to bring a kid, it's got to be confusing for them because see this many people around, they surely have questions. But how do you explain it then to the child why we're here? Because Lindsey killed her free children, but if this mom is supporting her for, you know, mental health reasons,

how do you really describe that to a child? I don't know that I would bring my kids there.

almost this like desire to be in the limelight regarding this case, we see it from one perspective

of the TikTok detectives and wanting to be the first to share their take or their breaking news

or what they think, you know, correct the case wide open. But then you also see it from this angle, people who are traveling to the courthouse, who want a photo with them and look to Reddington,

“to Lindsey, to anyone involved as though they are a celebrity. And I think we also saw a lot of that”

in the Karen Reed case. I was there for free trial and I remember pouring out on the steps of the courthouse, everybody had their phone out. Everybody was supporting. And this isn't anything new. It started, you know, decades ago, we saw with OJ, it's going to be something we can do to see. But what do you make of that where there's almost this, I don't want to say like blurred line, but almost as like parasocial relationships that people start to have with the defendants

a lot of the time to where they look at them as a celebrity. And they want photos with them. And I mean, to bring a three-year-old toddler-aged child into that pool of press that was surrounding Reddington, that's a risk in and of itself getting trampled, getting squashed, and all for what a photo, like, do you see this often? No, I do not see this often with children. And by the way, even some reporters got injured in this because there were cement benches just for people to

sit outside the courthouse. And we were walking backwards. I know multiple reporters who tripped and fell and like twisted their ankle or whatever, so to have a young child that it's dangerous just physically. But to your question about seeing the defendant or defense attorney as a celebrity, I've seen it before in other cases, like the Johnny Depp case. That's a great example. Like captivated the world. People were obsessed with Ben Xu, Camille Vasquez. Of course,

Johnny Depp, everybody, generally, was before that and during. And I think there are a couple of

reasons for it. First of all, because we live stream now, people can have this trial with them

wherever they go. I saw a woman literally at the grocery store with her cart, watching Lindsay Clancy, like she had her phone on her cart. And at the same time, people are in bed watching this. And so, or they, you know, you could have the volume turned up all the way and you can take a shower. You can still hear what's going on, you know? And so, I think people brought Kevin Rettington, Lindsay Clancy into their homes, into their lives. So it felt intimate, almost like

they knew them. And Rettington specifically is very compelling. I think the entire world saw this on the livestreams or the TikToks. He does a great job of forcing you to pay attention just by the nature of being a good defense attorney. I jumped off of, you know, the screen into people's

“reality. And so, I think that's why they were so interested. But it is odd to have someone who”

Lindsay Clancy was a normal woman. She was a mom. We went to have been able to pick her off

the street 10 years ago. And now she's in a way become a celebrity. And Kevin Rettington has always

been in the public light, at least in Massachusetts. But I don't think nationally or internationally at this point, people were coming truly from across the country taking photos with him or of him gifting him things because they were so infatuated with the way that he was handling this case. I've seen it in other cases, but it isn't normal. I don't see it as super often. So it just kind of added a level to the circus of this all. Absolutely. Well, and speaking of kind of

where we go from here now. And we know that it was a mistrial. We are kind of waiting on pins and needles. Will there be a retrial? Will they offer some sort of plea agreement? What's going to happen? Well, Rettington has now formally asked the judge to a quit Lindsay, rather than putting her through another trial. And sitting through the whole case, being in the courtroom, watching everything, was there a point where it ever felt like the defense had really won the jury over. And

you know, that you thought that this was going to be a slam dunk, not guilty by reason of insanity,

“or did it still feel like it was anyone's case when the jury went out for deliberations?”

I would say leading up to closing arguments. It felt you could just kind of feel the emotions in the courtroom. It felt like the defense was ahead. I mean, they'd made a great case. Like I said, Kevin Rettington is very compelling. The witnesses that the defense brought up were great. Even the rebuttal witnesses that the Commonwealth had. I think one out of the three was super compelling for the Commonwealth case. But for the most part, Rettington did a great job of turning

these witnesses for the Commonwealth into defense witnesses. Because two of these three experts testified, we believe that Lindsey was going through a mental disease or defect, being bipolar, to at the time of the stranglings. And that kind of led to the criminal responsibility. So to me, it felt like, okay, there is reasonable doubt here at times. I think that a juror could see reasonable doubt. I could see it going either way, but it seems like maybe the defense is ahead until

definitely captivated the attention of the jurors. At times, I think they were kind of like,

what are you saying? Like, the quarters were huge because you could see him slamming it down and it was very visual. But I remember looking at some jurors and they were like, why? Like, what are you talking about? So it maybe was kind of confusing for them. And then when the Commonwealth came up and presented their closing argument, I feel like it was really strong. They kind of changed their tune. And they said, hey, we know that mental health is a real issue here. And

that's we're not disputing that in any way. But what we are saying is that she was criminally responsible and here's why. And I feel like it was a very strong argument for them. So then after those two, you know, closing arguments were delivered. At that point, I was like, it's anyone's guess. And I do remember early on. A lot of reporters just because we were waiting around. There was like seven days of deliberation. So you just kind of chat with your friends that you meet from

“the globe or LA mag or whatever. And everyone was kind of like, honestly, we could see a mistrial”

because how do you convince 12 people to find a unanimous verdict here? Because there's so much going on. And it's so divisive across the country. So for it to end with 11 people unanimously, agreeing, and only one hold out, that to me was a shock. I agree, especially because to your point, there was not only so much going on in this, but there were so many options for what they combined as their verdict and on each of the charges to where murder one, murder two,

manslaughter, no guilty by reason of insanity, a street no guilty, which to be honest, I don't think that was ever on the table, but I get it. It's an option. So a few of five different options to choose from for various charges. And you have this group of people where you all have to come to the same thing. I mean, it's not shocking to me that this ended in a mistrial. I feel like, wow, I thought it was going one way. It really didn't surprise me. But I do want to circle back

to this holdout juror because over the last week, there has been, obviously, a lot of conversation going on, a lot of revelations made, a lot of allegations surrounding his past as well. And just some very troubling information for a lot of people, specifically that this man has a criminal history that involves domestic violence, and that he has a potential active restraining order. Now, I want to be very clear, a lot of the allegations from my research that I have found out

there, he has never been officially charged with anything. Nothing has been adjudicated. These are

all allegations and things that have, you know, surfaced from past interactions. Not that that diminishes the severity of them, not at all. But during what year, during jury selection, while you were there, was he questioned about any of this? Were any of the jurors questioned about

“their criminal history or their background? I think what's really hard with this is, yes, I was”

there for jury selection. But when they do volunteer, they play white noise. So you can't really hear exactly what every person was individually asked. So can I testify exactly to what he said? No, I have no idea exactly what he said. But what I will tell you is on the jur questionnaire, there were no questions that I recall regarding, if you've been convicted of anything, or if there are outstanding allegations against you, is all kind of focused on the mental health of it all.

I think that was the main concern here a lot of questions about postpartum depression or if you have anxiety. If you know someone who suffers from XYZ diagnoses, that's kind of what the focus was. And I assume this is just an assumption that generally, if there had been a conviction, that would have waved a red flag for him as part of the jury pool. But because if he hasn't had a conviction that these haven't been adjudicated, I don't know that it would necessarily raise a red flag

because here it's in a sentence of grooming guilty. If he's had these allegations against him, okay, severe, but if he hasn't been convicted, there were straining order to me, would have been a question mark that maybe would have caused pause for either side. But I'm truly just going to guess that it wasn't even on their radar, that they didn't even know about this at all. So now being, of course, in the thick of it, in this space, I know you have been

chatting with a lot of people closely involved and other correspondence and reporters,

“where do you see this going from here? What is your gut tell you?”

At first, my gut told me, I think the day off, I'm talking. The day is going to do this all over again.

I'm going to file first degree murder charges. They've just been so steadfast that this is justice for Cora Dawson and Callon. We can't back down. That was kind of the vibe I had. I was truly seated. I don't know, three people away from Tim Cruz. I could feel that when he talked about it during the press conference afterward. I felt that. Kevin Rettington, that same day, was like, okay, we're ready to do it again. I'm not going to

change anything. I basically won the case. I'm ready to do it on Monday. Let's go. And so I think it might have been heat of the moment that both sides were like, yeah, let's do it again. And that was my first thought. Okay, let's battle each other again. But now, I think the

in Kevin Rettington space anymore. He can kind of take a breather and sing with two crids.

“Well, arguably, he's putting a lot of cameras in his face. He's going, I guess that's fair.”

It isn't the same as the 50 cameras at once. But he is making the rounds. You're right, you're right. But what I would now guess my goddess telling me is that we might reach a plea deal. In this case, just so that if Kevin Rettington really cares about Lindsey Clancy, the way that he says that he does, which I have no reason to dispute that. It was clearly hard on her during this. I saw her crying multiple times putting her head down on the desk. It was very emotional for her, her parents,

by the way, who were there every day, very difficult. Her sister, everyone who had to, who knew the kids who was relate any of that. It's really hard for the world to watch this. And so I would guess at this point, maybe we reach a plea deal so that Lindsey doesn't have to go through this again. Her parents don't have to go through this again. And then it wouldn't necessarily be a loss for either side. I agree. I don't know that Rettington will ever accept

“a deal that involves jail time. I think the only one he's going to accept is”

not guilty by reason of insanity, and that she has to go to a facility and receive treatment for X amount of years at a minimum or something to that effect. But I agree. I think at this point, too, just thinking, if I were in the state's position, do you want to go through the full retrial knowing that it already was in favor of the defense? Do you want to spend the tax payer money doing that? How difficult will it be to find a jury who has not heard about this case?

Especially now with the craziness that's coming out regarding the individual jurors that we're on this trial. And it seems like that would almost be a cleaner way of finding a resolution in all of this. Because cheerpoint, people who live in Plymouth right now are following the case. They, if they went to trial again, they could be called for jury duty. And they could say, hey, I watched the entire last trial gavled a gavl. I watched it all because they, they were allowed to

at that point. They weren't potential jurors. And so I do think it would be really hard to find a jury pool for a future case like this. It's just, it's got to be tough. Now, I have to ask you, while you're here, what are your thoughts on all of the Patrick Clancy hearings of it all? Oh, this, I feel bad for Patrick Clancy. I know that maybe that'll got me canceled. But I, I truly feel bad for this man because, and now his attorneys have come

forward alleging defamation. They're, okay, so here, here, I, this is a struggle, like, tell me, you can't be. It's hard because I don't want to say anything. Super, okay, so here's just what I'll say. Was Patrick Clancy the best husband? I don't know. Was he the best father? I don't know. I wasn't there. There are things that are questionable. Did he murder his children? No. Did he convince Lindsay that she did it when in reality he was the killer? No. I don't see any evidence

“to that sort. And I really believe Kevin Rettington's a great defense attorney. I feel like I,”

that's very clear based on this conversation. He's very compelling. Not that the commonwealth,

the prosecutors are great too, but he just, you know, is an amazing defense attorney. And if there

was any indication that Patrick Clancy truly did this, why would he be doing essentially the knock-out see by reason of insanity, please? Wouldn't he be saying, hey, look at this guy, Patrick over here. It's totally him. Number one. Number two, the commonwealth, it would be so much easier to prove murder as opposed to criminally responsible if we have this man and take the mental health of it all out of the equation. I mean, there are things that are interesting to

follow. The TikTokers have done a good job of making not fun compelling videos to watch, you know, the timelines, the missing 15 minutes, the surface pro email. Did he change his shoes? All of that. I think is very interesting, but I don't think it's really rooted in reality. I agree with you. And to your point, I could see the argument where people would say, oh, well, the reason why Rettington

is not bringing in an alternative third party culprit is because he's already gone with the mental

health argument. So he's sticking through that till the end of the trial. However, about being said, now that there's been a mistrial, something that I have said is he's obviously seeing everything that's going on on social media. So even if for some reason, the truth and I'm using air quotes there about what really happened, got past the experts, the officers, Rettington, everybody over the course of the last three years, he now sees all of that out there. If he believed even for a moment

that there was some sort of negative truth within any of that to your point, given how much he cares for Lindsay, there is no doubt in my mind that he would be running to the retrial, full different defense strategy, trying to get her completely acquitted 100% rather than saying, hey, we actually will entertain a plea deal if you offer one up. And so I think that also is indicative of

but it was definitely interesting to see all of those videos coming up. And I know you mentioned

“Patrick changing his shoes. I think it started with an outfit change at CVS, but then it was his”

best friend cause playing him at CVS. And it was just a kept cutting going grandiose like this whole spoken mirror saying to where everybody else could see the truth, the sides, the people who are involved. And now I know that some cease and desists have already started going out on Patrick's behalf. And I think two things can be true at once. I think that Patrick can absolutely be a victim in this. I think he is a victim in this. He lost his three children. He lost his life, his wife,

everything he thought his life was going to be. But I also think it could be true that maybe he wasn't the best husband. Maybe he did meet Rachel ahead of this horrific night. And there was something going on who knows. It doesn't mean that he is a murderer or that he orchestrated this whole thing. How many bad husbands out there do we know, especially from the cases that we've covered. Now, granted, many of them do end in murder. But in my point is that I think two things can be

true at once here. That's so true. I mean, all of us have so many different sides of just ourselves.

“And so I think the internet is right to question some of his choices. For example, when he dropped”

Lindsey off at the hospital in Rhode Island and then went skiing. Like, what are you doing there? Or why in December when she said, I'm afraid I'm going to hurt the kids. Does he then leave her alone in January? There are some questionable choices that he made for sure. But at the same time, I don't think he actually killed the kids. So it's it's I think it's I think it's also easier

to judge in hindsight. If you have never been in that type of position, you don't know how you

would react or what the appropriate behavior or actions would be if you were in Patrick's shoes. And again, not to go into too much detail because I don't want to share too much of the personal information, but my friend who ended up taking her life over postpartum psychosis. Her husband was a close friend of ours as well. And he was doing everything he possibly could do in in my opinion to help her to take care of the girls to show up for her and luckily she never

hurt the children. She took her own life instead. But I think it's so easier to judge how you would react when you're an outsider looking in rather than being in it. And it could be that she was saying she was having thoughts in December and then come January. She maybe was either lying to fake it till she makes it or she was ashamed being like, I'm feeling better. It's okay

today. Like, you never know what's going on. And so I guess, I don't know, a lot of those

stories and theories that were out there. I took issue with and I was very vocal on because I just

“felt like they were incredibly dangerous and damaging to someone whose life is already been destroyed.”

And it does seem like now he is taking legal action. So we'll see what happens there. I understand why people are so invested in true crime. I mean, both of our jobs, we clearly love true crime. We have an audience for it. People are so invested in it. And I feel like for lack of a better term, it is on in a way to be an online sleuth and take a look at the time codes and the timestamps when he went to CVS. That generally is on to kind of being armchair detective.

But then to your point when we think about him as a real person who really went downstairs and found three of his children's strangled, I mean, hasn't the man been through enough for the entire TikTok Instagram to turn against him? I mean, he's already had the worst nightmare come to life and had to move on with his life afterward. Again, I'm not saying he's the best husband or father or whatever, but I don't know if he'd necessarily deserved that. I agree. I agree. Well,

thank you so much for joining me today. Is there anything else that you want to share a thoughts or anything about this case? The trial or anything else? I think I think we covered a lot of ground. Definitely if this goes back to a retrial, all of course be there and I'll come back on and tell you everything. I know that there's a hearing on the 29th. So I'll be there. I'll cover it and we can come back and talk about it then. Perfect. Well, thank you so much for joining

and can you let everybody know where they can find you so that they can follow along in real time? Yes, so you can find me on Instagram and TikTok. It's @seeraglespie. I also am the host of scandal for the long crime network and that is a weekly video podcast you can find it on Spotify on the long crime network channel. I also have a long form show called Crimes of Passion. Again, on Spotify and we have our own channel on YouTube as well. So I'm all over the place. Just look

for me. Perfect. I love that. Well, thank you again so much. Yeah, thanks for having me. Of course. All right, guys. So you just heard from Sierra what it was like, what she anticipates going forward with the Lindsey Clancy trial of it all. The next hearing is on the 29th. I will keep you posted.

Thank you so much for tuning in to today's episode. Let me know which of these cases you

“want the deep dives on and as a reminder, two deep dives already came out this week. On Monday,”

I did a deep dive into the St.lor Hayes case. We talked about that briefly last week on headline highlights. She is the five-year-old autistic non-verbal girl who went missing on family vacation.

Her parents have since been arrested. There is a whole lengthy shady past that I discovered about

these parents. So I'm exploring that entire case and with their potential involvement was

“in her death. Then on Tuesday, I released a deep dive on my second true crime podcast feed,”

10 to life, on the Lily Peters case. This is one I also have briefly touched on here on headline highlights. The one involving the cousin Carson. He was 14 years old at the time. He was supposed to be taking Lily his young 10-year-old cousin home for the evening. Instead, he lured her off onto a dark-wooded path, killed her and then sexually assaulted her deceased body. And we also talked

about how he is basically, in my opinion, getting a slap on the wrist for all of this because

of a plea deal that was reached. But in the deep dive, I go through what transpired that night, what Carson said to his family members, his past confessions to wanting to do something like this,

“his dad and what his dad's checkered past has been, who I believe Carson was trying to impress”

in doing all of this. So the whole deep dive is out now. You can go listen to both of those right now between the two different feeds, which if you're a podcast listener, that's just a reminder, make sure you're following both of the podcasts, whether it's on Apple, Spotify, wherever you listen, because that way, you'll get notified on your phone when the new episodes get posted. I also sidebar posted a bonus episode last Friday on the serial, Leslie Feed, on the my and the let take

case right here in California, how this husband hired a literal witch on Etsy to try to cast spells on her because she was trying to divorce his ass and just this insane ass case. So unless you're following the podcasts or subscribed to the YouTube channel, you won't be notified of those bonus episodes as they release outside of the regular release calendar. And again, because I have two different podcasts feeds for my audio, only listeners make sure that you're following both of them so that

you're keeping up to date with all of the cases. Alright, thank you guys again so much for tuning in and until the next one, be nice, don't kill people, stop with all the incessed and just protect your children. Okay, bye.