9 Bombshells Emerge as Lindsay Clancy Breaks in Court

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: And what about injuries? Hi, counsel could... [00:00:05] Speaker 2: Lindsay Clancy breaking down multiple times in the courtroom. [00:00:10] Speaker 1: Did you form an opinion to a reasonable degree of professional certainty, to medical certainty as the cause of death of Cora? Yes. And what was that? Asphyxia. [00:00:25] Speaker 2: Meanwhile, bombshell moments from Lindsay's former prescriber when things get tense on cross-exam. [00:00:32] Speaker 3: I know it doesn't say not, but that is exactly what I meant. [00:00:35] Speaker 4: When did you see this that you noticed that it did not say not? [00:00:39] Speaker 3: I don't care what it says. I know what I meant. [00:00:42] Speaker 2: Plus, could a viral TikToker be called as a witness? [00:00:46] Speaker 5: I'm a Massachusetts social worker, and I also worked on the exact inpatient unit at McLean for nearly eight years that Lindsay Clancy was a patient at. [00:00:55] Speaker 4: This woman posted a video on TikTok which, much like yourself, I'm sure. I hardly know what TikTok is. [00:01:04] Speaker 2: And one thing no one could have predicted, this comment from the defense. [00:01:10] Speaker 4: Cannabis, the weed, the devil's lettuce. How about that? [00:01:14] Speaker 2: Here's a complete recap of the jaw-dropping moments in this week's coverage of the Lindsay Clancy trial. This is Scandal by Law & Crime. I'm Sierra Gillespie. Week three of the Lindsay Clancy trial is now in the books, and it's definitely made its mark. From courtroom outbursts to spicy moments on cross-exam, there's a lot to unpack. And we'll do it all, taking you through the most jaw-dropping courtroom moments that happened this week before sitting down with our expert guest, TikToker Elena True Crime, who's been following this case since day one. She's been giving her insight to her more than 70,000 TikTok followers daily about all the bombshells we've seen so far. [00:02:04] Speaker 6: There were some really big moments, in my opinion, including, but not limited to, the fact that the very first time that Lindsay's psychiatrist, who prescribed her all of these medications, saw her in person, was on Friday in court. That is right. All of their appointments, 14 appointments were done in telehealth. [00:02:25] Speaker 2: Elena is right. That's something everyone is talking about. The fact that Dr. Jennifer Tufts, Lindsay Clancy's former psychiatrist, never once saw her in real life until the trial began. [00:02:38] Speaker 4: 14 of them? [00:02:39] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:02:40] Speaker 4: Every single one of them were by telemedicine, weren't they? [00:02:44] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:02:45] Speaker 4: Until you came in this courtroom on Friday, you never saw this woman interesting, did you? [00:02:50] Speaker ?: Correct. [00:02:51] Speaker 4: And did you give her a hug? Oh no, you're on telemedicine, so you couldn't give her a hug, could you? [00:02:56] Speaker 2: On top of that, Dr. Tufts was a relatively new doctor at the time she first saw Lindsay, having only officially practiced in that space for about a month before Lindsay became her patient. She's also a name you might recognize as she's listed as a defendant in the civil lawsuit alleging medical malpractice. Here's what she has to say about all of that. [00:03:18] Speaker 3: I do not believe that I have been negligent. [00:03:21] Speaker 2: The civil lawsuit plays a lot into the plea by the defense, so let's talk about that briefly. Lindsay Clancy has been charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her children, five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson, and eight-month-old Callan Clancy. Now, this happened back on January 24, 2023 in the family's Duxbury, Massachusetts home. When Lindsay's then-husband Patrick went out to run a few errands, Lindsay reportedly strangled each one of her children with exercise bands before attempting to end her own life by slitting her wrists and throat, taking some pills, and jumping out of a second-story window. She survived the jump, but has been paralyzed from the waist down. According to testimony, Patrick arrived home to find Lindsay outside. He called 911 and later found the children. Since that horrific day, Lindsay's team has admitted she killed the kids, but they say she's not criminally responsible, and this is really important. It's essentially the insanity plea in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Lindsay's defense says she killed the children, yes, but she can't be found guilty of murder, for at the time of their deaths, she was not of sound mind. Specifically, she was suffering from postpartum psychosis. The defense points to what they call a cocktail of medications Lindsay was prescribed. 13 in all, leading up to her children's deaths. This is also referenced in that civil lawsuit Lindsay filed, alleging medical malpractice. The suit reads in part, Lindsay's clinical course was significantly complicated by polypharmacy and the involvement of multiple prescribers, which in effect obscured an accurate diagnosis and appropriate intervention and treatment, even though Lindsay did all she could to obtain the appropriate treatment. That's just a snippet of the lawsuit, by the way, in all, it's 784 pages long. If you want to read that entire lawsuit and get a look at all the Clancy case files, you're in luck. Behind every major scandal is a paper trail the public rarely gets to see. If you haven't heard yet, you can go beyond the headlines with case files on the Law & Crime Plus app. This is where you get direct access to raw evidence, uncensored body camera recordings, crime scene images, video recordings of interrogations, and so much more. You can analyze the facts and uncover the truth for yourself. Plus, you get ad-free streaming of all your favorite Law & Crime and Court TV shows. Unlock the evidence room today. Head over to lawandcrimeplus.com, enter promo code SCANDAL, and start your 30-day free trial. But the civil lawsuit is really relevant to the criminal trial, as one of the defendants listed in the suit, Dr. Jennifer Tufts, testified for the Commonwealth this week. [00:06:06] Speaker 4: You're a defendant in a very large lawsuit, are you not? Yes. [00:06:13] Speaker ?: No rule. [00:06:16] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:06:17] Speaker 4: You wouldn't happen to be represented by an attorney, would you? [00:06:21] Speaker 3: I am. [00:06:23] Speaker 4: And the fact that you have an attorney is you're right under the Constitution. It doesn't mean that you're guilty of anything, right? [00:06:30] Speaker 3: Right. [00:06:31] Speaker 4: And you know that the outcome of this case is very, very major to the outcome of your lawsuit. [00:06:44] Speaker 3: I don't actually know that. [00:06:49] Speaker 4: So, you understand that if, in fact, it's determined that you advertised as an expert in postpartum and in post-private psychiatry and you've had a month experience plus a residency, would you consider that to be negligent or misrepresentation? [00:07:10] Speaker 3: I do not believe that I have been negligent. [00:07:13] Speaker 2: Dr. Tufts was called to the stand last Friday by the Commonwealth, but this week her testimony began with cross-examination, questions from the defense. She testified she received her board certification in August 2022. She then saw Lindsay Clancy for the first time just weeks later on September 15th, 2022. [00:07:31] Speaker 4: So you were practicing as a psychiatrist for a little more than a month? [00:07:38] Speaker 3: I was practicing independently with my full credentials for about a month, but the training is just immense that goes on before that. [00:07:49] Speaker 4: Now, in August of 22, up until when you saw Lindsay, how many patients in that month or so had you treated for postpartum psychosis? [00:08:02] Speaker 3: How many patients in a month? Up until that month? [00:08:05] Speaker 4: I'm asking you about when you started working in August of 22, or after, and you are now on your own as an employee, how many patients had you treated before you saw Lindsay Clancy for postpartum psychosis? [00:08:21] Speaker 3: Well, in the span of one month, I would say none because it's a very rare disorder. [00:08:26] Speaker 4: Okay. But it exists, doesn't it? [00:08:29] Speaker 3: Absolutely. [00:08:30] Speaker 4: And one of the things would be the voices that people hear, right? [00:08:36] Speaker 3: That is a symptom of psychosis. Absolutely. [00:08:39] Speaker 4: And that's legitimate, isn't it? [00:08:42] Speaker 3: It is a legitimate diagnosis. Absolutely. [00:08:44] Speaker 4: Not the diagnosis. People that have postpartum psychosis hear voices. Do they not? [00:08:50] Speaker 3: Many do. The disorder can manifest differently in different people, but yes, many people do hear voices. [00:09:00] Speaker 4: How about postpartum depression? How many people in that month or so before you met Lindsay did you treat for postpartum depression? [00:09:12] Speaker 3: In the span of one month, it's really hard to pinpoint that. Maybe a couple. [00:09:19] Speaker 4: Maybe a couple? And do you recall how long you treated them for? [00:09:28] Speaker 3: Again, it's hard to really pin down the individuals in a short span of time. [00:09:35] Speaker 2: Dr. Tufts testified. Lindsay came to her with issues of anxiety and depression, but she never saw Lindsay in person. [00:09:42] Speaker 4: She had three kids, right? [00:09:44] Speaker ?: Yes. [00:09:45] Speaker 4: And the reason that you knew that she was married is because you spoke to her husband, Patrick, correct? [00:09:51] Speaker 3: He attended one of the appointments and I spoke with him on that date. [00:10:00] Speaker 4: Ah. And did you say, hi, no, how are you? Did you give me a handshake when you came to your office? [00:10:06] Speaker 3: It was telemedicine. [00:10:07] Speaker 4: It was what? [00:10:09] Speaker 3: Telemedicine. [00:10:10] Speaker 4: Telemedicine. Is it fair to say that after, what is it, 14, what you said to the jury, 14 appointments that you had with Lindsay during that period from September until January, 14 appointments? [00:10:28] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:10:29] Speaker 4: Every single one of them were by telemedicine. [00:10:33] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:10:34] Speaker 4: Until you came in this courtroom Friday, you never saw this woman in person, did you? [00:10:40] Speaker 3: Correct. [00:10:41] Speaker 4: Were you ever concerned about her mental health as a person? [00:10:47] Speaker 3: Absolutely. [00:10:48] Speaker 4: She was crying. She told you symptoms that she couldn't get out of bed. Isn't that right? [00:10:55] Speaker 3: At one time, she said it was, it was difficult to get out of bed. [00:10:59] Speaker 4: Oh, difficult to get out. Why was it difficult for Lindsay Clancy to get out of bed? Because she was very depressed. And did you give her a hug? Oh, no, you're on telemedicine, so you couldn't give her a hug, could you? You didn't have any chance to even look at her in person, did you? [00:11:15] Speaker 3: I could look at her. It was always a video appointment. I couldn't give her a hug, but that's not actually something that psychiatrists typically do with patients. [00:11:26] Speaker 2: The defense pointed to Dr. Tufts' use of the word deteriorating when describing Lindsay's condition as the treatments went on. [00:11:34] Speaker 3: She was a little bit worse at certain appointments and the deteriorating word, which is not my word choice, is what is in the note because I had to select that. [00:11:44] Speaker 4: Because why? You have some kind of a program that you have to check the box and you have to bring down the drop box? You can't take a pen and write something down about a patient? [00:11:55] Speaker 3: There are certain parts of the note where I can write whatever I feel is necessary, but that specific aspect of the note is a button where you have to click one of three choices. I didn't say she was terribly depressed in that initial visit, but she said she was anxious and she appeared anxious. That's pretty congruent. [00:12:18] Speaker 4: Okay. So did you put in the report that she was congruent or incongruent? [00:12:27] Speaker 3: So that is not an option for me to indicate in that section, but it was congruent. [00:12:34] Speaker 4: You're like a robot. You can't take a pen and write something down. You have to do the drop box and the X's on the computer? [00:12:43] Speaker 3: Well, if it's on the computer, I'm limited by the options that are up there. [00:12:50] Speaker 4: You're a doctor. Why are you limited? [00:12:53] Speaker 3: Because of the technology. [00:12:56] Speaker 4: What technology? The fact that there's a form on a computer? You're trying to treat a human being who comes to you for help. [00:13:04] Speaker 3: And that's what's most important. What's most important was the treatment, not what is checked off on a box. [00:13:12] Speaker 2: It was Dr. Tufts who prescribed Lindsay the medication Zoloft in fall of 2022. [00:13:18] Speaker 4: Suicidal aviation and homicidal aviation is a black box warrant. for children [00:13:31] Speaker 3: and adults younger than Lindsay. [00:13:33] Speaker 4: I apologize. Can you just listen to my question and answer it yes or no? Is there a black box warning on Zoloft? [00:13:43] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:13:43] Speaker 4: Okay. And a black box warning is required or prescribed by what? The FDA? [00:13:53] Speaker 3: Probably. [00:13:53] Speaker ?: Probably. Probably. [00:13:53] Speaker 4: And it basically warns that especially with young people or young adults that it may cause suicidal or God forbid homicidal ideation. Yes? [00:14:12] Speaker 2: Yes. And things are getting tense. Dr. Tufts and Kevin Reddington [00:14:16] Speaker ?: and Kevin Reddington [00:14:16] Speaker 2: the defense attorney talk over each other as the cross-exam goes on. [00:14:21] Speaker 4: Now, when you were going over the symptomology or when you were going over the side effects of Zoloft, one of the side effects of Zoloft is, and I quote, severe trouble sleeping, right? [00:14:34] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:14:35] Speaker 4: Did you tell her that? [00:14:39] Speaker 3: Well, insomnia is listed as a side effect. [00:14:42] Speaker 4: No, no, no, no, no. You already said yes. You know it. We just, did you tell her that Zoloft has a side effect of giving the patient severe trouble sleeping? That's all. [00:14:55] Speaker 3: So, I didn't use the word severe because it typically doesn't cause severe trouble sleeping, but I thought you were referring to when she told me that she did have severe trouble sleeping and that was true. [00:15:08] Speaker 4: Well, that's what she told you, right? That she had severe trouble sleeping, right? She told me, yes. Yes. And you know that one of the side effects of Zoloft is, let's say, trouble sleeping. You know that, right? Yes. Your answer is yes. The jury has to be able to hear you. [00:15:24] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:15:25] Speaker 4: And why would you prescribe Zoloft to a young woman who's postpartum, who's coming to you with anxiety we're telling you she can't sleep. She's got all of these symptoms and you prescribe a medication that would have a side effect of trouble sleeping? [00:15:44] Speaker 3: So, individuals have very varied responses to medications. Some have no side effects, some have one or two. It's impossible to predict that Zoloft is a top choice, a first-line medication for her. Says who? Says who? It's the general general consensus among psychiatrists. [00:16:06] Speaker 7: Again, we can't have both of you talking at the same time. So, let her finish her answer and then I'll give you plenty of time to follow up any questions regarding her answer. Can you finish your answer on that? [00:16:21] Speaker 3: There's extensive research supporting the use of search for lean in this instance and the general consensus among psychiatrists is that it's a first-line safe medication for individuals including postpartum women. [00:16:39] Speaker 2: Reddington pokes holes in Dr. Tufts' notes insinuating that she perhaps didn't take them carefully enough. [00:16:47] Speaker 4: Did she tell you what the side effects were after she had blossom? [00:16:52] Speaker 3: She did. I did not list them because... [00:16:56] Speaker 8: Excuse me, that means you didn't write it down? [00:16:59] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:16:59] Speaker 8: So what is it? Your memory? We'll go by that. Ready? [00:17:02] Speaker 3: Sorry? [00:17:03] Speaker 8: We'll go by your memory? [00:17:06] Speaker 3: Go by my memory about what? I don't recall exactly which side effects she said but I recall that they were some of the very common ones, the ones that are temporary. [00:17:27] Speaker 4: Hold on, hold on. You're telling this, Jerry, that you don't recall what the side effects were that she told you but it means that they were general, common? Yes, [00:17:39] Speaker 3: because if they were anything else I would have documented it. [00:17:44] Speaker 2: This is a common through line in the questioning and at one point Dr. Tufts even pushes back. [00:17:49] Speaker 3: No sleep last night, falls asleep after 40 minutes, heart racing, severe anxiety, worrying about kids, baby, sleep, yawns but not drowsy, not hyper pressured speech. [00:18:03] Speaker 4: What was that? [00:18:04] Speaker 3: Not hyper what? not hyper not pressured speech is what I meant. I know it doesn't say not but that is exactly what I meant. [00:18:10] Speaker 4: When did you see this that you noticed that it did not say not? [00:18:14] Speaker 3: I don't care what it says, I know what I meant. [00:18:18] Speaker 4: Well, when you wrote this you did not say not pressured speech, you said in the medical record pressured speech, right? [00:18:29] Speaker 3: no. [00:18:30] Speaker 4: Does it say that? [00:18:32] Speaker 3: Yeah, the word is the word not is right before not hyper comma pressured speech. The two are following the not. [00:18:40] Speaker 4: What does the comma mean to you? When you put down in a medical record heart racing, comma, severe anxiety, comma, worried about kids, comma, baby, comma, sleep, comma, yawns but not drowsy, period. Not hyper, comma, pressured speech. That's what you wrote, right? [00:18:59] Speaker 3: She did not have pressured speech. Did you write that, [00:19:01] Speaker 4: doctor? [00:19:01] Speaker 3: I wrote that but you're misinterpreting my note. [00:19:04] Speaker 4: Am I reading this correctly and the jury will be able to look at it that you put not hyper comma pressured speech. Did I read that right? [00:19:18] Speaker 3: Yes, but your interpretation is incorrect. [00:19:20] Speaker 2: When Lindsay expressed suicidal ideations, Dr. Tufts testified she still didn't recommend seeing Lindsay in person. [00:19:28] Speaker 4: And on December 1st is when she told you again that she was close to having suicidal ideation, feeling hopeless. Do you call that? Yes. Now, on the interval history on that date, you indicated that she can't sleep, she's panicking, she had worse depression, intrusive thoughts, she was numb, nothing mattered, I feel like I'm going to die, denies suicidal ideation but, quote, yesterday, close to it, feeling hopeless. Did you give her therapy and validations after she told you that? [00:20:20] Speaker 3: I believe that I did. [00:20:22] Speaker 4: What did you do? You got a woman that's telling you that she's hopeless, she doesn't care if she dies, can't sleep. What did you do to validate on your therapy? [00:20:35] Speaker 3: Well, I told her that this was something that we could address, that there was hope, that there were treatments and there are different types of treatment programs that are more supportive, like partial hospitalization programs. So she knew that she still had options and a reason to hope. [00:21:01] Speaker 4: Did you ever suggest to her that maybe come in and see me rather than talk on the computer? [00:21:08] Speaker 3: Discussing, talking with her over the video did not seem like an issue. It didn't seem like there was anything that I was missing or that there was any need to see her in person. [00:21:20] Speaker 2: If things were spicy for Dr. Tufts, that was not at all the case with nurse practitioner Julie Paul, who Lindsay was recommended to by her mother-in-law, Susan Clancy. [00:21:31] Speaker 9: Yes, I asked her specifically if she felt like she wanted to harm herself or her children and she said no. [00:21:36] Speaker 10: And how about asking her about homicidal ideations? Yes. And did she indicate whether she had any? She did not. Did you also ask her whether she had experienced any auditory hallucinations? I did. And did she experience any? Not at the time, no. And did she indicate to you whether she'd ever experienced any? [00:21:54] Speaker 11: No. [00:21:55] Speaker 10: How about visual hallucinations? Did you ask her about those? I did. And did she indicate that she had experienced any? [00:22:02] Speaker 9: No. [00:22:03] Speaker 10: And delusions, did you ask her whether she had any delusions? I didn't ask specifically about delusions, I believe. [00:22:09] Speaker 2: Paul stated that Lindsay tested very high for anxiety but not suicidal ideations. When Paul moved out of state in late November 2022, Lindsay was then referred to nurse practitioner Rebecca Gelata, who was also listed as a defendant in the civil lawsuit. [00:22:26] Speaker 10: And as far as your observations of her presentation, like her mood and physically how she presented, did anything stand out to you as far as any of that? [00:22:42] Speaker 9: she appeared, she seemed anxious. [00:22:49] Speaker 10: Okay. Do I remember? Okay, so as far as mood. [00:22:53] Speaker 7: Sorry, I couldn't hear that. If she can finish her answer. Sure, are you done with that? Yeah, I'm done. Okay, all right. [00:23:00] Speaker 10: So as far as mood, you noted her to be anxious, right? Yes. And you also look at a person's affect. [00:23:07] Speaker 7: Mm-hmm. [00:23:08] Speaker 10: And did you... [00:23:10] Speaker 7: You're going to have to answer yes or no. Yes, sorry. [00:23:13] Speaker 10: You observed her affect to be consistent with her mood, which you identified as anxious, right? [00:23:18] Speaker 9: Mm-hmm. [00:23:20] Speaker 10: And you examined somebody for their... [00:23:22] Speaker 9: Yes, sorry. [00:23:23] Speaker 10: That's okay. Thought process, right? [00:23:25] Speaker 9: Right. [00:23:26] Speaker 10: And did you... What did you observe her thought process to be? [00:23:31] Speaker 9: I observed her thought process to be linear, meaning you could follow it, went her train of thought easily and goal-directed. She understood that she was there to be assessed for treatment. Seemed to be her goal. [00:23:50] Speaker 2: Gelata testified Patrick Clancy was allegedly dismissive when she discussed a possible diagnosis of bipolar disorder. [00:23:58] Speaker 10: Did you express to Ms. Clancy thoughts that you had about her diagnosis based on your interactions over the last few weeks? [00:24:09] Speaker 9: I did. [00:24:10] Speaker 10: And what was that? [00:24:13] Speaker 9: I discussed with her and her husband the possibility of potentially an underlying bipolar disorder. I based this on several factors, one of them being that she had such what we call an activating response to the Zoloft. It's unusual for somebody to describe taking Zoloft and then going 48 hours without sleep and not being tired. So that raised my clinical suspicion a bit. and she had been I would say having difficulty tolerating other antidepressant medications that we had been trying to have her take since then. And so again I'm wondering if it's because potentially there might be an underlying what we call mood disorder bipolar disorder. [00:25:13] Speaker 10: And as far as as far as the information that you had about her past psychiatric history were there any indicators to you about manic episodes? No. And so while you noted that there were some concerns reported did what was the reported to you rise to the level of diagnostic criteria for bipolar disorder? [00:25:51] Speaker 9: Not at that time. [00:25:53] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:25:54] Speaker 10: And when you explained this to them your thoughts about her reactions to the medication and these reported prior symptoms did Patrick and Lindsay seem receptive to your diagnosis? [00:26:10] Speaker 9: I recall Patrick saying my wife is not bipolar Lindsay looked at me she did not say anything. [00:26:17] Speaker 2: The same day jurors heard all of this testimony there were discussion outside of their presence involving a TikToker. [00:26:26] Speaker 4: Your honor basically as the motion speaks for itself there is a woman her name is Emily Thorndike who's a LACSW here in Massachusetts. she owns and is an independent operator of her own clinical social work establishment called Wise Mind Therapy. [00:26:48] Speaker 2: That's this woman who made a TikTok a few weeks back. She used to work at McLean the medical facility Lindsay Clancy stayed at in late 2022 and early 2023. [00:26:59] Speaker 5: When a patient is admitted to the unit they are specifically assigned to clinicians. one is a psychiatrist and the second is the social worker. You are literally told as a patient this is your treatment team. This is your doctor. This is your social worker. With that being said legally every patient needs to be seen at least once a day by a doctor. So on the weekends and on the holidays when the physicians in charge the regular physicians who are working there are off because they work weekday hours on the weekends and on holidays the patients still need to be seen by a doctor. How that works is that there is one doctor who comes on the weekend and holidays and he or she sees every single patient on the unit. Okay? And if you think about it there's a reason that the doctors who are there during the week are only assigned four to five patients because you cannot spend a long amount of time [00:28:00] Speaker 2: literally worked the unit that Lindsay Clancy was presented to on New Year's 2022 2023. Ms. Thorndike would testify based solely upon her first-hand observations and eight years of experience while employed at McLean Hospitals short-term unit between 2014 and 2021. [00:28:17] Speaker 4: She left as the court is aware from the motion I vetted her out. I obviously would be concerned if there's any so-called axe to grind if you will. Any lawsuits pending? Were you fired? Did you have any difficulties? Any claims for harassment? Hostile workplace? Absolutely nothing. She has friends that are still employees that still work at McLean and I do not know this woman. I have literally never met her. Her involvement in this case came about after one of the prosecutors I don't recall which made it on direct examination that McLean is some kind of a five-star institution where the doctors the psychiatrists the psychotherapists the counselors were all banging into each other in the hallway trying to interview Ms. Clancy who was just blithely refusing care and treatment which is not the case. [00:29:21] Speaker 2: The Commonwealth had some reservations about this potential witness. [00:29:25] Speaker 10: Aside from that we have a number of other issues with this witness. One is this isn't somebody that's proposed to be an expert so they're not relieved they wouldn't be relieved of a sequestration order but this woman's TikTok admittedly she's been following the trial. She goes on for several minutes in a very long TikTok video where she identifies what she thinks lies based on her observations of Patrick Clancy's testimony. We have no idea what her thoughts are or what her comments are on the rest of the trial that we assume she's watched based on her comments in this particular video that she outlines in this video her experiences at McLean and her observations and how they are different from what was portrayed in that particular witness's testimony. [00:30:12] Speaker 2: judge on whether Emily will take the stand when it comes time for the defense's case-in-chief. Meanwhile, the Commonwealth continued their arguments with more testimony from medical professionals who treated Lindsay. [00:30:26] Speaker 10: Now, at any point that you were interacting with her between December 2nd and the last contact with December 27th, albeit limited, did you ever have any concerns about her physical well-being? [00:30:41] Speaker 11: No. [00:30:42] Speaker 10: Did you ever have any concerns about the physical well-being of others in her presence? [00:30:46] Speaker 11: No. [00:30:47] Speaker 10: Did you ever see or observe any signs of mania, delusion, or paranoia? [00:30:53] Speaker 11: No. [00:30:53] Speaker 10: Any signs of psychosis observed by you? No. Did you ever have any difficulty understanding what she was saying or notice any differences in her speech patterns? [00:31:01] Speaker 11: No. [00:31:03] Speaker 10: Did you ever have any concerns that she wasn't accurately reporting things to you? No. [00:31:09] Speaker 2: A mental health counselor testified she saw no signs of mania or psychosis when observing Lindsay. On cross exam, she discussed Lindsay's substance use. [00:31:19] Speaker 11: She said her alcohol of choice was wine. She would have one to two glasses. Did she say why she would do that? To cope with anxiety. [00:31:29] Speaker 4: Okay. And this is back in 2019, right? Correct. That would be three years before you actually met with her in December of 22, right? Correct. Cannabis, the weed, the devil's lettuce. How about that? Did she confess that she was using marijuana? [00:31:48] Speaker 11: Yes, [00:31:49] Speaker ?: yes, [00:31:49] Speaker 11: she said she did use marijuana. When? Last use was November 15, 2022. Why? [00:31:57] Speaker 4: I'm sorry? Why did she say that she used it? [00:32:00] Speaker 11: It's under comments? Yes, I'm taking a look. That's okay. She said she tried a marijuana gummy to help with sleep. And that was on November 15, 22, right? Yes. [00:32:15] Speaker 2: The defense alleges Lindsay was screaming for help and no one answered even after she said she had suicidal ideations and called a suicide hotline. [00:32:25] Speaker 11: She met with a clinician virtually and was told that she did not meet the criteria for inpatient treatment due to not having any suicidal ideation plan. [00:32:35] Speaker 4: So if she said in addition to the fact that she's been in counseling and therapy and seeing psychiatrists and on medications for the past three months or whatever the period ultimately would be and that she wanted to kill herself, didn't want to be here, couldn't care if she died, they told her because she didn't have a plan that they couldn't help her? [00:32:55] Speaker 11: Correct. [00:32:57] Speaker 4: Did they, to your knowledge, make any recommendations? Did they suggest, recommended that she attend a day program? [00:33:06] Speaker 11: Yes. [00:33:06] Speaker 4: All right. And that person from Aspire then said he would send her patient resources, right? [00:33:12] Speaker 11: Correct. [00:33:13] Speaker 4: But nothing never happened. He never sent her any, you did, but he never sent her any patient resources, right? If you know. [00:33:19] Speaker 11: Not to my knowledge. [00:33:20] Speaker 4: Okay. [00:33:21] Speaker 2: But things got really emotional when a medical examiner was called to the stand. [00:33:25] Speaker 1: How long, based on your training and experience, does it take for a brain to start dying after the loss of blood flow and oxygen? [00:33:33] Speaker 12: It varies based on different sources. Most sources say it's between about six to eight minutes. If there is no oxygen flow, then the brain will essentially start dying. It depends on if there's resuscitation that occurs afterwards, but it's generally in the frame of six to eight minutes or so. And once brain tissue dies, it can't be brought [00:33:55] Speaker 1: back, correct? Correct. Yes. I have nothing further. Thank you. [00:34:03] Speaker 5: You're welcome. [00:34:06] Speaker 1: Mr. Payton. [00:34:22] Speaker ?: All right. [00:34:25] Speaker 1: Hold on here. [00:34:27] Speaker 7: Council, hold on. We're going to take a short break. All right. So why don't we, this will be a very short break. Come out, we'll come right back. Okay? [00:34:33] Speaker 8: Court, all rise. Attorney, close the mouthfuls. One chance, please. [00:34:40] Speaker ?: This way. We'll be right back. [00:35:10] Speaker 4: We'll be in a short [00:35:15] Speaker 7: recess in the courtroom. [00:35:20] Speaker 2: Lindsay broke down three separate times on Wednesday, including when a forensic pathologist discussed Cora and Dawson's autopsy findings. [00:35:29] Speaker 1: And did you perform an autopsy on Cora Clancy on January 25th, 2023? Yes. And did you follow that same process with Cora Clancy? [00:35:39] Speaker 13: Yes. And then I noted evidence of trauma of the neck with associated injuries of her head and minor injuries of her right arm and of her legs as well. [00:35:50] Speaker 1: And in terms of the injuries that you observed, evidence of trauma to her neck, were there also injuries to her face and neck area that seemed to go along with the trauma to her neck? [00:36:12] Speaker 13: Yes. There were findings of the head that were associated with the trauma of the neck. And what were those? So on her neck, she had a ligature furrow. [00:36:22] Speaker 2: As the testimony continues, you can literally hear Lindsay breaking down. [00:36:27] Speaker 13: So again, the furrow is, a ligature is when you have external compression by an object on the neck and a furrow is simply a pattern of injury that occurs beneath it. It can be an imprint, it could be a pattern, or it could be more developed types of injuries such as bruising or abrasions. [00:36:44] Speaker 1: And what about injuries? [00:36:47] Speaker 2: You can actually hear Lindsay crying saying, I can't do it. [00:36:51] Speaker 1: What about injuries? [00:36:54] Speaker 2: The judge even notices this and calls for a break. [00:36:57] Speaker 7: Hi, counsel. Let me take a break for this time, all right? [00:37:05] Speaker 8: All right. Sure, it's post your notebook. Place them on the chairs, please. [00:37:11] Speaker ?: This way, please. [00:37:19] Speaker 7: We'll be in recess for a few minutes. I'm going to come back. We'll speak to council in regards to scheduling. [00:37:50] Speaker 8: Okay. [00:37:52] Speaker 2: When court reconvenes, Lindsay's head is on her desk and she continues to cry during the testimony. [00:37:58] Speaker 1: So your testimony is that you can strangle someone for 30 seconds, let go, and then they die. [00:38:04] Speaker 13: I said that in this presence of complete oxygen deprivation, there is a general time frame. And so 30 seconds, I cannot give a specific number to that. Once strangulation occurs, again, the brain starts to be subjected to a lack of oxygen. So whether the ligature is present or whether the ligature is not present, the oxygen deprivation and irreversible brain damage is already occurring. And there's no coming back from that? Not without intervention. It's very unlikely. again, the brain cannot heal those cells. [00:38:39] Speaker 1: Did you form an opinion to a reasonable degree of professional certainty, to medical certainty as the cause of death of Cora? Yes. And what was that? Asphyxia. And was that by manual strangulation? By strangulation. Mechanical strangulation, I mean. Yes. [00:38:56] Speaker 2: We've talked in other scandal episodes about the conspiracy theories surrounding Patrick Clancy. And if you're interested in all of that, check out our other video about Patrick's complete timeline on January 24th, 2023. I won't dig too deep into those accusations or the online discourse here except to say that more alleged inconsistencies were brought to light during Thursday's proceedings. [00:39:20] Speaker 4: When you're looking on the target's phone and out of this whole courtroom, the target would be Lindsay Clancy, right? [00:39:27] Speaker 11: Yes, sir. [00:39:28] Speaker 4: All right. And you had access to her phone, right? [00:39:31] Speaker 11: Yes, sir. [00:39:31] Speaker 4: And you all went into it with a search warrant, right? [00:39:34] Speaker 11: Yes, sir. [00:39:34] Speaker 4: And you were looking for different topics such as suicide, drugs, killing kids, I imagine, to investigate, right? You had buzzwords. [00:39:44] Speaker 11: Yes, sir. [00:39:45] Speaker 4: And did you come across, for example, a search that indicates carotid artery? [00:39:54] Speaker 11: I don't recall. [00:39:56] Speaker 4: Did you come across a search on Safari, had a slit your throat to die? [00:40:04] Speaker 8: I don't recall. [00:40:07] Speaker 4: Did you come across a search can you turn airbags off on Kia Sorento? [00:40:13] Speaker 8: I don't recall. [00:40:14] Speaker 4: Did you know that she had a Kia Sorento? [00:40:16] Speaker 11: I did not. [00:40:20] Speaker 2: Meaning, is it possible the searches were made by Patrick rather than Lindsay? [00:40:25] Speaker 4: These all came from Lindsay's phone, right? [00:40:28] Speaker 11: I can't confirm that. [00:40:29] Speaker 2: Wow, the twists and turns just keep on coming in the case of Lindsay Clancy. We took you through the highlights of everything that happened this week, but now I want to dissect them with our expert guest. Back by popular demand, it's Elena True Crime, the TikTok sensation with more than 70,000 followers. Elena, thank you so much for coming back on Scandal with us. [00:40:50] Speaker 6: Thank you for having me again. I really appreciate it. [00:40:53] Speaker 2: Yeah, everyone was so invested in our interview, so I was like, okay, we've got to have her back on and talk about this. And my first question for you is, have you ever experienced a trial like this before where it is going mad on social media on TikTok? I mean, maybe the Johnny Depp Amber Heard trial, but have you experienced anything like this before? [00:41:12] Speaker 6: Karen Reed would be the closest one that I would say people had the most explosive TikToks and going all over the place about it. I would say Karen Reed was a big one. [00:41:22] Speaker 2: Yeah, and I guess that makes sense too because Massachusetts, people sometimes have distrust in law enforcement here in Massachusetts, and also the conspiracy theories of it all, which we talked about last week and I'm going to dig into too, but let's talk about what happened so far this week. Was there any giant surprise or thing that stood out to you so far this week? [00:41:41] Speaker 6: Yeah, on the cross examination of Dr. Jennifer Tufts Monday morning with Lindsay's defense attorney Kevin Reddington when he said the first time you saw that woman was Friday in court and Jennifer Tufts said, yes, my jaw was to the ground. I knew telehealth visits were a big part of her care. I didn't know they were the totality of her care with Dr. Jennifer Tufts. It left me speechless. [00:42:06] Speaker 2: Yeah, actually, we used a clip from one of your TikToks in this scandal episode where you said just that. And I think it's so stark, right? I mean, the fact that the defense is saying she's had this ongoing postpartum depression, they even say psychosis, and yet 14 times she was seen virtually never in person. I think you did a pretty good job on the cross exam of grilling her about her notes. Things kind of got a little tense. Have you seen any discourse about what people are saying about the Jennifer Tufts cross exam? [00:42:35] Speaker 6: There is some people criticizing Kevin Reddington, saying he came off a little bit like a bully, saying they couldn't believe that Judge Sullivan allowed him to go at her the way that he did. But that's the only discourse I've seen outside of that in terms of Jennifer Tufts herself and the impact that it will have on her career, likely that testimony. I think it's going to have a big one because people are calling it medical malpractice all over the internet. Anybody who saw that cross-examination are saying they cannot believe that this doctor did what she did. [00:43:06] Speaker 2: Yeah, and she, I mean, is listed as one of the defendants in the civil lawsuit here, which is separate, but it is something that Kevin Reddington brought up where he's like, hey, you have a stake in the game here, right? I mean, you're part of this major civil lawsuit, and so I think that's something that they can't ignore. I don't know that the jurors are going to take that into consideration, but for her personal future, as far as her career, I don't know what's going to happen with all that, but I wanted to go a little bit back to what people are talking about on TikTok, because for the most part, what I've seen is people very pro-Lindsay, but this week, for the first time, I saw a couple people saying, lock her up, she's a murderer. I mean, what do you think is the general discourse about whether people are pro or con to Lindsay? [00:43:50] Speaker 6: I would say I've seen more support on the internet than I have seen against her, but there are some people who it just seems to be very black and white with people. If you're murdering children, then they don't want to hear your case. They just want you to be locked up and put away. When it comes to kids, when it comes to animals, those can be very sensitive topics for people, but there are a lot of people who are supportive of her because they've had their own mental health struggles, maternal mental health struggles and all of those things. So there's people who are just thinking that this has been the most egregious case of medical malpractice that they've heard or seen. So they're very pro-Lindsay. [00:44:26] Speaker 2: I think it's so hard because to your point, the details in this case are horrifying. I mean, we heard autopsy reports this week in court talking about five-year-old Cora and three-year-old Dawson. I mean, to actually have to hear that. And the jurors, by the way, had to see all of this. Thankfully, we didn't have to, but they have to. It's part of their job, their civil duty as jurors to pay attention and look at all of this. And I just, my heart goes out to them because that's got to be so tricky to have to go through. And actually, we even saw Lindsay herself during all of this breaking down in court. I think she said something like, I just can't do it. And the judge said, okay, hold on. We have to, you know, everyone go your separate ways for just a quiet little recess. And she was crying and breaking down. What was your reaction to that? [00:45:11] Speaker 6: It was super sad. I mean, and I think that the internet is saying that they're thinking that that was a really, you know, honest show of emotion from Lindsay. But I think it also shows the jury who is seeing all of this that she does have emotions about it. She's not sitting there stone cold, not emotionless. She has a lot of emotions about this to the point where doctors, I believe Renee Stoneberg was testifying, Stone Bridge, I apologize, Stone Bridge. And she broke down. That is when the judge called for the recess, the break. And then Dr. Olson came on, broke down again, and she like broke down three separate times. And it seemed like genuine, I cannot do this. I cannot do this. And it more points to the defense's moment of psychosis because now that she is out of the situation, she cannot even listen to it. She can't see the autopsy photos. This seems to be very hard for her to have to listen to. [00:46:05] Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, hard for anyone, but especially her who is admitting that she did carry out these horrific acts and now has to come to terms with it. I mean, at the very least, alone, okay? But then she's got her family there, and the world is watching this. I mean, it is being completely live streamed. And actually, by the way, my photographer is in there. We've talked about him in the past. He's the one shooting all of this. He told me that some of the jurors actually broke down. At least three of them were crying during the showing of this autopsy photos and the testimony because it has to be that just heart-wrenching. I mean, do you have any idea or what the narrative is online about that? Are people talking about all that? [00:46:44] Speaker 6: People are angry at the Commonwealth for bringing on more testimony from different medical examiners about the autopsies because they believe that this testimony is repetitive. They believe that other people have testified to the children, to their autopsies, which we have seen some testimony on those. So, people are saying that Judge Sullivan should have ended it. Kevin Reddington, his face during those testimonies, he kept putting his hands over his face. He was looking up, almost like he was looking up to God, like, why are you doing this? I mean, I could tell that was the first time I seen Kevin Reddington very emotional because it just did seem like it was too much. At one point, Reddington stood up during those testimonies and objected, and Judge Sullivan agreed to that objection and told the Commonwealth to go to the next question because it is just, we're going over the same things over and over to draw an emotional reaction from the jury to get them to, you know, hate Lindsay, hate what she did, and put her in prison. That is what the Commonwealth is trying to do. [00:47:46] Speaker 2: And, you know, when I was there, too, for jury selection, this is something that Kevin Reddington brought up as a motion before the jurors ever heard anything, before opening statements, he said, okay, the list of witnesses that the Commonwealth plans to call is repetitive. It's redundant. It's the same thing over and over, just to pull on the heartstrings of the jurors. And at the time, Judge Sullivan said, okay, it's too early to kind of rule on this. We're going to have to wait and see, and this can be kind of a case-by-case basis. But it does seem some of the things may be redundant, definitely are pulling on the heartstrings of the jurors, everybody watching, all of it together. And I don't know if it's swaying one way or the other, meaning do people believe that Lindsay Clancy really had psychosis in this moment, or do they believe she's a cold-blooded killer? And I guess I'm asking you about this, too. It's different in the court of public opinion versus the judicial system. But what is the court of public opinion saying, do they think that Lindsay Clancy is a murderer? [00:48:40] Speaker 6: I think that people think it was a moment of psychosis, a drug-induced psychosis. And I say that because right now we've only seen witnesses from the commonwealth, from the prosecution, and every witness is saying she was a loving mother. I mean, we have a mother who couldn't even sleep train her baby and hear him cry without feeling like she wanted to die. That is the level of emotion that she had towards her children, right? And even Patrick Clancy testified himself, she had a very hard time being away from them in regards to the children. So this is a mother that had so much love and emotion for her children to the point where maybe some people thought it was overbearing, right? Maybe she was a little bit of a hover mother, but a hover mother or someone like that, people just have a very hard time believing that they would just kill their children because they wanted away from it all. You know, this seems like truly from what I'm seeing in the trial, a moment of psychosis and the general public is mostly saying the same thing from what I've seen. [00:49:39] Speaker 2: And I mean, there has been discussion of postpartum depression before all of this. I mean, I definitely have heard about it. I know women who have experienced it. It was kind of out there in the world. But now, I mean, I can't go on Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, any social media without someone coming forward and saying, I experienced postpartum depression. A lot of people experience postpartum psychosis more than I thought. I mean, the statistics are one in 2000. But if I'm just looking online, going through, you know, my timeline, I'm seeing all of these women who say, yeah, I did experience something like this. This did happen to me. So from your perspective, if there are mothers on the jury, do you think that helps or hurt? Because if some of them did experience postpartum, okay, great. But if some of them didn't and they're thinking, how could you kill your kids? I mean, what are your just opinions on that? [00:50:26] Speaker 6: I think having mothers on the jury could probably help the defense and even having fathers on the jury because a lot of women who I've known that have gone through postpartum anxiety or postpartum depression, their husbands kind of went through it with them too or saw the effects or the person that their wife turned into at that time or partner. And people seeing it in real life and seeing like a once happy person turn into somebody who is struggling mentally in a way that they've never seen, it gives you some empathy for how it can change a person. And kind of like I have said prior, they don't give you a class in school on this. And when you experience it for the first time and maybe you don't have any other people in your life to tell you about it, you have no idea what's happening. So you reach out to the medical doctors like Lindsay did and you go to the places that you think are good places for help, right? And then you are turned away or not given the right kind of care. And even like kind of trailing off of this, but when Lindsay called the crisis hotline that Letitia Dukes, one of the testimonies from yesterday that they gave her in case she started feeling suicidal and she called it and they turned her away because she did not have a quote plan. So they could not help her and then they didn't give her any other resources to go to. I mean, what are we doing here? [00:51:44] Speaker 2: Oh my, that, that little part, truly I was just shocked by it. But like full disclosure here in the past when I've gone to the doctor, I will never forget this. I said to the doctor, like I'm struggling and she's like, are you suicidal? And I was like, yes. And she said, okay, there is a five to seven month waiting list. And I was like, okay. And so to hear that in this case, I mean, I'm, I'm just saying this to say there clearly is a problem going on in the mental health system. Like there truly is. And that is so stark and just chilling. So if any of the jurors, because a lot of us experience mental health issues or our friends, our family, whoever, if they do, I mean, I feel like that's got to pull on our heartstrings. That's got to be doing well for the defense. And okay, I know we talked about something really heavy, but I kind of wanted to talk to you specifically about TikTok because you're seeing all of it. You're there. You're reporting on it every single day. And I didn't expect a TikToker to come to the forefront here in this case, Kevin Reddington himself hoping to call a TikToker to testify. Obviously, this is someone who worked there at McLean before Lindsay Clancy was there. But is that something you expected? I mean, has anyone ever reached out to you as part of the case? [00:52:58] Speaker 6: I've never been reached out to as part of a case, but she had kind of a firsthand, you know, experience working eight years at McLean Hospital. It was TikToker who goes by the username Emily T underscore therapy, and she was a Massachusetts social worker for eight years. And she is saying that the prosecution is misrepresenting what it is like to stay at McLean Hospital for mental health. She claims that the prosecution is spreading misinformation about what it's truly like there and even how, and I thought this was such a great point and not something I thought about, how staying there during a holiday can impact your care as well because Lindsay went to the emergency room on December 31st, was transferred to McLean on New Year's Day, and she said around a holiday, a lot of these, you know, social workers, doctors, people take off, and then you see different providers. So you're not getting that same level of care. So the prosecution is trying to make it seem like Lindsay refused groups, she refused therapies, she saw a doctor every single day, and this tech doctor said, no, she wasn't seeing doctors every single day, she was seeing some type of health care worker that is not licensed in therapy or licensed to help her, and the prosecution, in her opinion, is misrepresenting what Lindsay truly experienced at McLean. Kevin Reddington tracked her down with a private investigator. [00:54:20] Speaker 2: Yeah, so going back to all of that, when the prosecution was questioning, I believe it was Patrick talking about McLean, and said something like, were you aware that she turned down therapy? Were you aware that there were X amount of doctors she could have seen? To me, I was like, oh, wow, okay, like, if she was refusing treatment at McLean, that's not looking good for her. But if somebody can actually testify that, you know, a holiday weekend, there weren't that many people there, I don't know if she actually was turning away people, that could be good for the defense. And again, we're still at the time of this recording in the Commonwealth case, the defense's case is coming up, and I guess this is just a general question asking ahead, what are you expecting? I mean, I feel like we're at an all-time high with views, like, even the live stream that we have on Long Crime and Court TV has currently beat some of our numbers for Karen Reed. So do you think it's just going to blow up even more as the defense comes? [00:55:11] Speaker 6: Yeah, I think so, because if the prosecution has called witnesses that hasn't made the prosecution look, you know, great and has made the defense not look terrible, I think the defense's case that they put on or, you know, anything that they bring to the table in terms of witnesses or evidence or anything like that is going to be probably explosive and reaffirm how somebody feels either one way or the other. [00:55:34] Speaker 2: Oh my God, this case is one of those ones that I just can't stop thinking about. I literally had a dream about it last night. It's everywhere and I think so many people relate to it. It triggers such crazy emotions from both sides whether people believe she is a murderer or whether they believe it was a psychotic break. I mean, obviously it's going to be up to the jury to decide Lindsay Clancy's fate and we're going to keep following it until that moment. Elena True Crime, thank you for coming on Scandal with us and we'd love to have you back on to talk even more in the future. [00:56:02] Speaker 6: Thank you. I'll come on anytime. [00:56:04] Speaker 2: We're going to continue to follow this case and bring you the latest updates right here on Scandal. And for complete live coverage of this trial, make sure to tune into Law and Crime where we're streaming with gavel-to-gavel coverage. And that is where today's episode of Scandal leaves us for now. If you like what you saw and you want to see more or connect with me on social media, you can find me on places like Instagram at Sierra Gillespie. Thanks for watching today's episode of Scandal. As always, I'm your host Sierra Gillespie and I'll see you next time.