Lindsay Clancy Murder Trial: Can She Plan a Crime and Still Be Legally Insane?

[00:00:00] Joshua Ritter: One of the most highly anticipated criminal prosecutions in the country began today. Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts nurse accused of strangling her three young children before attempting to take her own life, is finally headed to court. From the very beginning, this case has raised questions about mental illness, criminal responsibility, and where the law draws the line between tragedy and crime. Tonight, we are joined by Court TV's Cody Thomas to help us break down the expected testimony, evidence, and the legal strategies from both sides. All this and more on Courtroom Confidential. Good evening and welcome, everybody. It is Monday, July 20th, 2026, and this is your Monday night special from Courtroom Confidential, the fastest growing true crime news channel on YouTube. Thank you all so much for being here. It's been a while, right? Doesn't it feel like it's been forever since we've seen you live, at least? We hope that you all enjoyed that special programming that we had on Friday and Sunday. We'll get into that again later. But thank you all so much for carving out some time on a Monday evening to join us. Just Jules is here. Just The Facts is here. Miss Kitty, therapist you know. Best Nancy, the crafty RN. Thank you, everybody, so much for being here. I appreciate you. Let me... Oh, and hello to everybody who's watching on Facebook and X, by the way. And if you are joining us, please say hello in the chat. We would love to hear from you. First of all, to everybody who is a Spaniard, a fan of the Spanish team out there, the Espana team out there, congratulations to everybody from Argentina. My condolences. I thought it was an incredible World Cup. I am not going to be one of those people who fakes like they know anything about soccer. I follow it intently every four years, just because I love the spectacle of sports. But I thought, and I think a lot of people are saying, it was one of the better World Cups. So, exciting run for both teams. Congratulations all around. We were in New York, actually, for the weekend leading up to that. And I got to tell you, it was an incredible atmosphere to see. The streets were just filled with people wearing Argentina and Spain jerseys. So, we turned to ourselves at one point, Tiffany and I, and said, are we making a huge mistake by not just staying and kind of taking part in this whole thing? And then we all of a sudden remembered, oh, yeah, we got three kids. So, we got to get back home. So, anyhow, hope you all enjoyed that weekend. Let me introduce myself to everybody who might be new here. If you are joining us for the first time, my name is Joshua Ritter. I'm a former prosecutor with the LA District Attorney's Office. I was there for about 10 years before I left to go into private practice as a criminal defense attorney. And this is Courtroom Confidential, where we do our best to give you both sides of the courtroom, both sides of the issues, both sides of the stories. And we hope that we do that. And tonight is a show that we call our Monday Night Special, where it's a look ahead at the week in true crime. And a couple of really big cases are in court this week. First of all, the David prelim is expected to start tomorrow for the murder of Celeste Rivas Hernandez. And starting today was jury selection on the Lindsey Clancy case. So we're going to get into that first with, like I said, Cody Thomas, who, by the way, is now officially an anchor at Court TV. So congratulations to him. We're going to be asking the question, how do you find impartial jurors for one of the most emotionally difficult cases to reach a courtroom in recent memory? As far as I'm concerned, this is going to be a real difficult emotional case for jurors. State to the end, as always, we do have announcements, some fun stuff coming up. I don't want you to miss out on, but for right now, take a deep breath, everybody. You've made it. It's Monday. It's the beginning of a new week. It's going to be a great week. Hit that like button if you haven't already. Subscribe if you haven't already and share this with anyone that you feel might enjoy. But let me bring on my friend, Cody. How you doing, buddy? [00:04:23] Cody Thomas: I'm great, man. I'm always happy to be here. You know, this is the fun part. I do my old button up work at the desk, but when I get here, it's time to let loose. And you do a good three, is it three hours? Three hours, man. Three hours straight. That's rough. Yeah. You know, so in those commercial breaks, you guys think I'm sitting there listening to testimony. I'm stretching my lumbar region. That's really what I'm doing. [00:04:45] Joshua Ritter: Grabbing a drink, wiping your brow. [00:04:48] Cody Thomas: Yeah, dabbing the forehead. [00:04:49] Joshua Ritter: It's like the fighter in between rounds. You're just trying to survive through the next 15 minutes. [00:04:54] Cody Thomas: Like you said, it's a Monday Night Special. It's like Monday Night Raw. So it's pretty much about back in the day. It's why we're here. [00:05:00] Joshua Ritter: Exactly. Well, Cody, I'm so glad to have you back. We covered, you and I, the Carmelo Anthony case a few weeks ago. And you were incredibly helpful to join us because you were inside the courtroom and you were able to give us a perspective of what things were like inside of court. And you just made fans out of everybody here at Courtroom Confidential. And so people have been screaming at us to have you back. And I said, all we're doing is looking for an excuse. And we felt that this was a good one to get into this case because this is another one that Court TV will be following from gavel to gavel. [00:05:33] Cody Thomas: Absolutely, 100%. And to everyone who I guess I made a fan out of, I appreciate you following along. But I also appreciate you, Josh, for having me on and giving me a platform to have this discourse back and forth between us. But yeah, this Lindsey Clancy one, this is going to be a big one. I mean, as far as Massachusetts trials go, you got Karen Reed and you got this one in the close second. [00:05:50] Joshua Ritter: Yeah, yeah. It is funny how a lot of stuff seems to be coming out of Massachusetts. I was thinking about that today. A lot of the big cases and trials that we've been talking about and that are upcoming are coming out of this same kind of general jurisdiction. This one, though, I said this up front. You know, we talk, we live in a world, you and I, covering stuff that's awful for the most part. None of it, none of it's all that great. I mean, people doing horrific things to each other, people doing horrific things to children. But I cannot think of a case in a while that is involved such emotional kind of turmoil on both sides. And what I mean by that is we've seen cases in the past where, and some of them are notorious, where a mother has taken the lives of her children. But I don't remember a case where people going into the trial really felt torn about the defendant. Usually they go into that and they go, this woman's evil, right? I don't care what you have to say. I think this woman is evil and she took the lives of her children. This one, a lot of people are saying, hey, she was very emotionally unwell. And there's documented proof of all of that. Is that how you've kind of felt about this going into this one? [00:07:19] Cody Thomas: Well, I mean, to your point, yeah, it's kind of like you're torn. Because, I mean, we have, you know, back in the early 2000s, Andrea Yates. We know about that one where her five children, I believe, that she killed and was also a similar situation to this one. And, you know, just saying, you know, again, to your point, we deal with a lot of bad stuff, the stuff we cover. But when you have children, at least for me, involved, it ups the ante, for lack of a better term here. But, yeah, when you're dealing with this, you got three kids with exercise bands tied around their necks. It's, you know, not to say any killings are good, but that's not a quick death. You know what I mean? Five years old, three years old, eight months old, and then by their own mother. But on the flip side, you have the mental health aspect of it. You know, the postpartum depression, the postpartum psychosis, which are real things. We can't just discredit that and cast it aside and just, you know, just have tunnel vision, as you know, many people probably may have just due to the sheer gruesome facts of this case. But, yeah, I feel there's two sides of this coin here. [00:08:21] Joshua Ritter: You know what I mean? Yeah, yeah. And I'm even watching the chat as we're talking about this, and people feel strongly about it both ways. And I always appreciate our chat for being very respectful of everybody's opinions, but I know people are pretty heavily divided. I find myself being divided. Like, I go back and forth myself about how I feel about this, because the more I think about it, the more I kind of go in between these arguments. Just to update everybody, jury selection began today. 55 people were questioned. Five people were seated. And we're going to talk about what that actually means. Three women and two men. Now, these five individuals are not exactly sitting on the jury. They've just kind of passed the first hurdle, correct? [00:09:09] Cody Thomas: Yeah, that's right. You know, they're trying to get, ideally, to 18, including all the alternates and everything together. But that is it. Five today. The three women, two men, as you said. So they'll be back at it tomorrow at 9 a.m. to try to finish it out. We expected to last in jury selection for a few days here, because you got to think about finding an impartial jury in this area, you know, in this area here. This is something we've heard about, not only us true crime people, but that's something that's sent shockwaves through the community out there in Duxbury, Massachusetts, which my understanding is a very affluent, tight-knit area on the way to Cape Cod. So, you know, people are talking about it. And so I imagine they're trying to, you know, really comb through the jury pool here to get as much of an impartial jury as possible. [00:09:49] Joshua Ritter: Yeah. And that's a good point, too, because a lot of people, I imagine, are going to be disqualified on this from hearing about it on the news in that community and just, you know, maybe not being able to, maybe this isn't the right kind of trial for them because of the subject matter, because it does involve children or because it does involve mental health. So what they do in this jurisdiction is they kind of go through what we would call the four cause challenges, people who can't sit on a trial for, the judge said, six to eight weeks, people who might know the parties involved, people who might know, you know, too much about it. And then they get, then they seat everybody who's past that. And then the attorneys will begin to, I imagine, question. I think they first get to question them, but then they get to use their peremptories, which are challenges that don't need to have necessarily a reason behind them. So we'll get through that eventually, hopefully this week. Isn't that the plan? [00:10:51] Cody Thomas: That is the plan. And I mean, at the rate they're moving, we got five today. Who's to say how many they'll get tomorrow. We might have opening statements Thursday morning, maybe Wednesday to try to move fast. So, I mean, we'll have to wait and see. But again, combing through all of those jurors, trying to get as impartial or as fair of a jury pool as possible here, because the last thing they want is an appeal, you know, to have to do this all over again. [00:11:13] Joshua Ritter: Yeah. Yeah. All right. The way that we thought was a good way to handle this tonight was we created some poll questions that we're going to pose to everybody watching. And we'll put up those questions, allow everybody to vote on that. You and I can kind of discuss it amongst ourselves and then see how everybody else falls on these issues. I'm not going to get really into a lot of the facts of the case. We, we, if you want to know what are the, um, events that led up to this, we did a special on this last week. We did a five things you need to know about the Lindsay Clancy case. I encourage everybody to check that out. We got a lot of positive response to that where we went into all the kind of legal issues and factual issues attendant to this case to catch you up on, on everything. So please check that out, but for tonight, um, we're going to do these individual polls. So question number one, poll number one to everybody, and we're going to allow you guys to, we're going to open this up to voting for everybody watching is number one, can someone carefully plan a crime and still be found legally insane at the time they committed it? So I know you, uh, have probably refreshed yourself on the, uh, uh, the, the legal standard here, but why don't you kind of walk through your thoughts on this? [00:12:36] Cody Thomas: Yeah. It's just, there's a fine line, Josh, you know, it's, I mean, not to be loose about it, but you know, when I think insanity, I just kind of think like you are unaware. You're clearly in no capacity in the right mind, you know, of what the acts you're doing or, you know, taking place these heinous criminal acts that one individual is doing. But then when, when you see things like, uh, she, she researched, uh, you know, some of these things, she, she looked how long it would take for her husband to go to rest, this restaurant in the CVS to pick some things up and then come back home. That that's a search that they found. It's like, and then you wrote things in her journal about, about her, her ideations that she was having. Sometimes it's hard for me to, to, to place insanity when there's an amount of, of somewhat premeditation or elements of premeditation in a, in a situation. Because again, to me, it's like insane means, boom, you had a snap, you did something, you know, outlandish, and then maybe you snap back in or however, you know, mental health presents itself in different ways for different people. So I don't mean to be brash about it, but it's just like when you walk that line of days or moments leading up to said act, and there's evidence that shows you kind of thought about said act, it's kind of hard for me to, to, uh, put insanity on that thing when you, when you have a plan in place. Yeah. [00:13:57] Joshua Ritter: Yeah. And, and you just kind of, uh, articulated, I think why this case is going to be so difficult because you're right. It has, I think, strong arguments on either side. And I think the part of the, that, uh, initially people have a difficult time wrapping their heads around is we, we use the word insane in a context outside of court. Like we, we look at something, we go, oh, that person's insane or whatever that, you know, that thing that happened, that was insane, you know, but it has a very specific definition in, in the criminal context. And even Massachusetts defines it in their own particular way, which by the way, is very favorable to the defense. So here's just so we all are on playing on the same, playing by the same playground rules here. Yeah. Uh, in Massachusetts, um, if a person is not criminally responsible, if at the time of the crime, they lacked substantial capacity. And think about that term to substantial capacity to one, appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness or their conduct or two conform their conduct to the requirement of the law. So there's a, there's a cognitive prong and a volitional prong to that one. You have to know what you're doing is wrong, right? Or not, you know, knowing it's wrong or knowing it's not wrong, not be able to control your own actions. So those are, those are pretty difficult kind of, um, areas to fall into. [00:15:34] Cody Thomas: And the thing about it, Josh, too, we, uh, on, on the show earlier today, we went back through some of the arraignment. And one of the statements that the prosecutors, uh, brought up during that arraignment was that, you know, everything happened. Uh, she, we're not, they've conceded that she's killed these children. It's not a whodunit. It's she did. This is just a matter of, was she in her right mind or not? So we know she went to the hospital because she jumped out of the window and became paralyzed, uh, trying to self-harm herself. But they said when she woke up, one of the first things she asked was, do I need an attorney? And it's like, did, did you know you did something bad? Why did, why did you wake up just already trying to cover your own behind? You know what I mean? But again, it's just like, if she's in that psychotic break, maybe she even realized that when she comes out of it, she realizes I was in this, you know, hallucination. Maybe I know what I've done is wrong at this moment in time. Now, maybe I need an attorney. Like, you know, not trying to argue that I did it, but it's a, it's just a weird line, [00:16:29] Joshua Ritter: Josh. [00:16:30] Cody Thomas: It's a weird line. [00:16:32] Joshua Ritter: Absolutely. I'll tell you too, when you talk about, you know, she sent her husband on this error errand, uh, she knew how long it would take all of that. The question becomes why, why would she do that? Okay. Why, why would she do that? Well, she wanted him out of the house. Why, why did she want him out of the house? And eventually when you ask enough whys, I think the answer you get to is because she knew he would try to stop her or he would disapprove of it or something because she knew he would think it was wrong. You know what I mean? It's not so much. She thought it was wrong, but she knew she was doing something that somebody else would think was wrong or criminal. And that to me kind of kicks her out. I mean, and I'm not saying this is the only fact in the entire case, but we're looking at that, that is definitely an argument for why this is not criminal insanity. [00:17:29] Cody Thomas: And then just to, to piggyback off of that, Josh, just conveniently, the, the heinous act happened in the window when he wasn't at home. It wasn't like this could have happened when he was not in the basement doing his work and it just, he just came upstairs and it happened. It just so happens. Hey, can you run to the restaurant, can you run to the store, comes back, here we are. So just, I'll just follow it up to your points there. I mean, it doesn't, it doesn't look great as far as the insanity plea here. [00:17:55] Joshua Ritter: No, let's see what everybody else had to say. Viewers poll 57% say yes. So, I mean, you know, decisive, but still fairly split here that they can, you can plan a crime and still be found legally insane. So people are saying, listen, just planning alone might not be indicative of sanity. So we'll see. I mean, again, this is, this is something that we'll have to see how this plays out in court, but already you can see how people are torn on this kind of nuanced issue and understanding. We're going to move on to poll number two, but let me thank some people who've been so patient to, to be around with us tonight and joining us. Odell Burgess. Thank you so much. Says, I do not like cases like this, but just like with every trial, follow the evidence because either way, outcome is not going to be a win for anyone. Agreed. Yeah. Many times we filed, follow trials where there's a clear bad guy. And at the end of it, when the bad guy goes off to prison, we're all applauding. This is not one of those, right? Like, I don't think anybody's going to be cheering the idea if Lindsay Clancy is, is convicted here. Thank you for that, Odell. Heather Cooper Smith. Thank you so much for the super sticker. And Paige Werner says, yay, it's Cody. Finally caught the live. Don't worry, Josh. I am. Oh, I appreciate that. All right. Poll number two. Does Clancy's immediate attempt to take her own life, strengthen her insanity defense? I thought this was one is interesting because it can kind of cut both ways. Don't you think? [00:19:35] Cody Thomas: I, I wholeheartedly agree because it's, it's to the point where if she's at that sort of mental break, she does this, this bad thing to her children and now she's ready to end it all for herself. It's just as part of, it's part of the whole, you know, shebang, or I could see, you know, it's like part of me that, that saw this, Josh, she, she, she jumps out of the second floor window in her house. It's not the highest elevation. You know what I mean? It's, it's, it's, it's to me, it's, it's like just enough. [00:20:04] Joshua Ritter: Yeah. [00:20:05] Cody Thomas: It's just enough to mangle you up or obviously, you know, paralyze her from the waist down. So even that could be kind of a testament to where her, her, her mental capacity was at because in no world, I mean, yes, I guess technically it can, I'm looking at my, at the second door, when our second floor window right now, I guess technically, yeah, if you landed the right way, um, it could complete what she was attempting to do, but that's not my first thought when I'm thinking about that. So I'm, I'm feel like, you know, even that small fact, I know that was a big, uh, point of contention during one of the pretrial hearings is the jury view of the house. And for a minute, you know, just, I was wondering, I was like, you know, we, we know what happened in the house. Excellent point. You know, I'm like, we know what happened there. Um, why do they have to go see this? It's not like a Murdoch situation where they have to walk down to the kennels or, or, you know, just, let's just say, for example, if the Idaho four house was still up, let's go walk through the house and, and see, but this one I was confused. But then I thought I was like, maybe they just have to see this thing to realize that she was in a break. Maybe that, that could, that could be the, the hinge on someone's, uh, you know, decision making. [00:21:06] Joshua Ritter: I have been thinking about this for a while and you just hit on probably the best reason for it, for, for the prosecution, I think. Cause I had been thinking maybe they're going to try to show the distance between the basement and upstairs and all of that kind of stuff, which is, you know, kind of material. But not all that important. I think prosecutors to your point, probably want those jurors to look out that window and see that height because you're right. The prosecution, I imagine is going to argue. This wasn't a legitimate attempt. This was a, um, perhaps a coverup. I mean, if they're getting really cynical about this, they might be arguing. This was not a legitimate attempt. This was somebody trying to make it appear as though they attempted to take their own life and it went tragically wrong. Cause she ended up paralyzing herself. Right. But you know, the cuts, it'll be interesting to see what the, the, the experts say about those cuts. Were they real deep cuts that somebody was trying to take their life? Did she, did falling from that distance with, would one expect that to be life threatening or not very interesting, um, obviously going to say, listen, this is all because part of the problem here, I think for the defense is timing, right? [00:22:26] Cody Thomas: Right, right. [00:22:27] Joshua Ritter: They're going to have to show that all of this was part of a unhinged moment, right? And they, if they can show even afterwards, she was still so in the throes of a mental break that she tried to take her own life, but the prosecution, I think is going to say exactly what you just said. [00:22:45] Cody Thomas: And another point that, uh, one of me and my friends were talking about this last night and she was saying, uh, I had forgotten about this. Lindsay Clancy was a nurse that worked in kind of like labor delivery department. Yep. So, and she, you know, as we were just discussing, you know, just speculating on everything, she was like, what if she just kind of knew what to say? Or like to your point that acts to enact, to make it seem like postpartum depression, it might be a stretch and you know, it's all speculation now. We'll see what the facts of the case are once this does, of course, officially get underway. But that was another angle that I hadn't considered, you know, versus, you know, just a lay person doing this. She knows, she sees women going through this every day. They might come back to her as a nurse, uh, uh, dealing with these young children. So up in the air, but, but yeah. [00:23:28] Joshua Ritter: Yeah. Yeah. I think, um, I think another thing to consider too, is that the prosecution might take a look at this and go, well, why would she want to take her own life? You know, the defense will say, because she's lost her mind. Yeah. Prosecution could say, well, because she knows what she did was wrong. And that plays into the whole, you knew what you were doing was wrong. You may have been a suffering from a mental break, but you still knew what you were doing was wrong. Um, I will say too, uh, one of the more difficult things for the prosecution going into cases like this is what I call the crazy factor where if at initial, at your first blush, if I'm telling you the story and you go, that sounds crazy, that's a hurdle for the, for the prosecution, because they're going to have to get past that with jurors. Cause I think jurors are going to look at a woman who had no history of any kind of violence towards her children. living, uh, you know, a happy, apparently a very happy, secure marriage. They weren't going through a divorce. They weren't going through custody issues. And she takes the life of her beautiful three children. Why would she do that other than she was insane? [00:24:46] Cody Thomas: And, and, and, and you know, this only came up after the last baby, the eight month old. Right. Right. So it's like, excellent point. Yeah. You had, you had a five-year-old, no reports of any of this behavior. You had the three-year-old, uh, you know, no reports of this, but now it comes out here, which just goes to the point of, you know, mental health presents itself in different ways at different times for different people. So that, that could be advantageous to the defense's argument. [00:25:11] Joshua Ritter: Yes. Yes. Every single one of these, you can go back and forth for a long time. [00:25:15] Cody Thomas: I'm telling you, man, I'm telling you, you know, that could, this could be a hung jury. Look how many, I mean, look, imagine the arguments once they get into that deliberation room in a few weeks. [00:25:23] Joshua Ritter: Very true. Uh, let's see what our viewers said. Uh, you all felt that 52% said yes. [00:25:30] Cody Thomas: Look how close that is. Look how close that is. [00:25:32] Joshua Ritter: Immediate attempt. Yeah. Again, very close. Immediate attempt to take her own life. Strengthens her insanity defense. You guys feel that it does. Very, very interesting. Again, a reason why I think the prosecution should be concerned. This is not a lockdown case for them by any stretch. Okay. Do we have some other people to thank, um, Tiffany, before we move on? Yes. Bailey B, uh, says the civil suit is a great look into the defense. Awful case. In my opinion, she was begging for help and was, and was failed. I don't have experience here, so I don't know. It was so sad. Really good point is that this isn't just a mental health defense. They're also going to make the argument that in seeking help, she was, uh, misdiagnosed, over prescribed medication, under prescribed medication, that it was actually the doctors who had failed her and caused her to kind of spiral into this mental health crisis. [00:26:31] Cody Thomas: I mean, we were doing the show today and they listed off the, man, 15 different, different, incredible, uh, prescriptions she was on. I was like, these words don't even sound like English. Sounds like a bunch of letters just thrown together. And I was like, that can't be, that could not be good for the brain balance going on. No matter what. [00:26:48] Joshua Ritter: Early duty, psychotropic stuff that she was on and a lot of them. You're right. Uh, thank you so much, Bailey. Bailey, Julia Diner says, we need to know what her voices were saying to her. They could have been telling her to do all of those things. That's a very good point. She was hearing, she has, there's evidence that she was hearing auditory, uh, hallucinations and that they were saying things like, uh, it was a loud, demanding, repeat, uh, repetitious voice telling her, this is your last chance. Kill the children so you can kill herself. Now, what's interesting about that. Okay. Here's, here's where this gets so nuanced. Let's say that is true. Okay. Yeah. Take, take, listen up. Let's say that is true. Let's say that jurors believe she was hearing those voices. Does that alone mean that she's criminally insane just because you're hearing voices? Notice what the voices are not saying. Okay. The voices are not telling her it's the right thing to do. Lindsay. You are not, you are not. This is, this is, everyone will be happy when you do this. Lindsay. It's telling her to do something awful, which is obviously the signs of a mentally unwell person, but can she still believe that doing that is a, the wrong thing? And that's the criminal question, right? [00:28:16] Cody Thomas: It's almost like Josh was a former prosecutor. You guys, I'm going to send an old man. I'm about to get locked up. I ain't even done nothing. [00:28:24] Joshua Ritter: Yeah. Watch out. Yeah. I agree. I agree. Crazy. I'm crazy. That's the wrong word. Really interesting. When you really start to get into the weeds on this stuff. But why? Thank you so much. Says strategic planning during active psychotic psychotic break. Pragmatically impossible. Psychosis causes severe cognitive disruptions. And one cannot follow a single train of thought. She could have left, chose, but she chose to kill. Listen, it sounds like, but why is got a far better understanding and grasp of this than I do. Obviously the experts are going to talk about these particular issues, but that is interesting. Can a person, and I imagine we're going to hear experts on both sides of this issue. Can a person be having a psychotic break and still make plans? And that's, I imagine, a huge question that will need to be answered by the experts in this case. [00:29:23] Cody Thomas: And it's going to be one of those things where it's going to be a battle of the experts. Battle of the experts. And I just wonder if they have a conflicting, if you've got a psychiatrist on one side and one on the other side going back and forth, and it's like, who's telling the truth here then? Exactly. If y'all are both psychiatrists, then it should be a singular, you know what I'm saying? Like a singular lane of thought. [00:29:39] Joshua Ritter: And this is one of those sciences where you can easily disagree on this stuff too. This isn't like, you know, math, right? Right. This is like very kind of soft science. And I don't mean that pejoratively, but like people can take the same information and have very vastly different views of it that are not necessarily right or wrong. It's just a different way of interpreting it. [00:30:01] Cody Thomas: Individualistic, you know, it's case-back-based. [00:30:05] Joshua Ritter: All right. Poll question number three, everybody. Get ready. Get your voting fingers ready. Should Patrick's, this is her husband, Patrick's continued support for Lindsay influence how jurors evaluate her insanity defense? Interesting. What do you think? [00:30:23] Cody Thomas: It's just, this is something we talked about on the show today, right? And it is just, it's a very peculiar dynamic because for one, just to throw it out there, I cannot imagine having three children. I see them on the way to the restaurant. I come back home and they're all strangled to death. And then at the hands of my spouse, my significant other, and I'm still in support. That, that's, that just, I can't fathom it. But here he is doing that. He's openly forgiving her publicly. And in fact, has filed all these, you know, lawsuits on her, civil lawsuits on her behalf saying, no, she was begging for help. We tried this stuff months before. This wasn't just a today thing. We've been doing all this. Look at all these medications she had. Um, and so to, to the point of this question, I see, I see how it could influence because who, who would know better than the man that was living in the house, dealing with her every day. I don't mean dealing with her like negatively. I mean, like they're in dealings with each other. He saw her every day. They have three children. He's been there, uh, during, you know, when they got married, when they had the first two kids, everything's been going great. And then all of a sudden this happens. It's like, it's almost like he would know his wife better than you or I would, or any of those jurors would, or the prosecution or the defense attorney, anybody I would imagine would. So I could see how, if I'm on the jury, if I'm the 13th juror, he, he's going to be the most crucial witness in this trial, because what he says to me is probably going to maybe not a hundred percent make my decision, but it's going to have a heavy, heavy hand in what I think, you know, going into that deliberation room. [00:31:49] Joshua Ritter: Yeah. And well, and it's also going to play into that emotion factor, which, you know, I don't care how much you try to try to voir dire on this. I don't care how much you, as a prosecutor, stand in front of people and say, don't allow emotion to play a role in all of this. People cannot help themselves. And if the husband gets up there, a man who I cannot fathom how he puts one foot in front of the other every single morning, the tragedy that he has suffered, he gets up there and tearfully says, this is not my wife. This was, my wife was not a monster. He's already said this. My wife got sick. She was not a monster. How do they get past that? You know, how do they, how do they go back into a jury room and go, well, listen, we're not supposed to consider that. That's not the law. It's going to play a role in their deliberations. On this really quickly, because I know a lot of people have asked about this, about testifying as a husband. How does that all work with these different privileges? So I'm going to walk this, everybody through this really quickly, because I don't want to turn this into a... You're going to get your notebooks out. Get your notebooks out. [00:32:57] Cody Thomas: I'm ready. [00:32:58] Joshua Ritter: But there's two privileges at play when you're talking about married people. There's the marital communications privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege. Okay. And it's important to understand who holds each privilege. Marital communications protects confidential communications between spouses. So anything, if you are in a marriage, anything that is said in private, confidential communications is privileged as if it were attorney-client privilege. And that privilege is held by the defendant. So if a person, if a spouse gets up to testify, unless signed off on by Lindsay Clancy, he cannot testify to conversations they had. So she's going to have to waive that for him to get up and testify to their conversations, which I imagine she will. The other privilege at play here is what's called the spousal testimonial, which is you cannot compel a person who's currently married to testify against their spouse. So if they're currently married, the prosecution cannot subpoena him and force him to take the stand and testify against his wife. Those are, in most jurisdictions, how they exist. Massachusetts, they don't have that spousal testimonial privilege nearly as strong. So the prosecution could compel him to testify. But it sounds like he plans on testifying anyways for the defense. We'll see if he gets called as a prosecution witness or as a defense witness or as both. But those are how he is. They are going to allow this all to take place and how he will be able to testify. So just, well, don't worry. There's a quiz on all of this later. Okay. We've got our results. Let's see. Should Patrick's continued support for Lindsay influence how jurors evaluate her insanity defense? Wow. Most say no. [00:34:52] Cody Thomas: Yeah. Which I could see why. I could see why. I mean, because it's as much as it is the human element that we're talking about, because we are all humans in the emotions. It's more so how those emotions and everything apply to the facts of the case. You have to have a marriage, for lack of a better term, between both of those ideologies. And, you know, I was watching the chat over here, and somebody brought up a good point. If she was so sick and you knew she was so sick, why would you leave her alone with the kids? [00:35:23] Joshua Ritter: I've heard this before, too. Yeah. I didn't even think about that. [00:35:25] Cody Thomas: I forgot who said that, but shout out to you, because I didn't even think about that. [00:35:29] Joshua Ritter: And here's what I'll say. First of all, I am not at all trying to pass any kind of judgment on this man. Like I said, what he has lived through is a nightmare I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy. But who knows what life was like for them? And that's maybe something he will explain. Maybe she had great days, and maybe she had bad days. And maybe there were weeks that went by where he didn't have a worry in the world and thought she was completely cured, and that her medication was working fantastic. And maybe there were days where he had to keep an eye on her 24 hours a day. I don't know, but I imagine it's a question that they're going to have to somehow address, because it is something that people naturally go, hey, if this woman was so sick, why was she ever allowed at home alone? And I imagine the answer will be because it wasn't like a constant thing. It was an ebb and flow sort of a thing. [00:36:28] Cody Thomas: Who knows? And maybe it wasn't as hostile. I mean, of course, we see what we see now, but maybe her episodes or whatever she was going through wasn't as dangerous, you know, or presented as something he would be that concerned about. Right. Like you said, it's going to be addressed. You know what it is, like 100%. [00:36:45] Joshua Ritter: Yeah, going to have to be. [00:36:47] Cody Thomas: Yeah. [00:36:48] Joshua Ritter: All right. This is our final poll, everybody. Oh, first of all, let me thank some folks. Allie Foley says, I want to know if she was truthful with her doctors. I was treated at the same hospital system, and they are diligent when it comes to prescribing meds. Very interesting, very interesting, because we're not talking about she had, you know, kidney problems. [00:37:12] Cody Thomas: Yeah. [00:37:13] Joshua Ritter: Where it's something they can test for. We're talking about something where a much of the doctor's work is going to be based upon the truthfulness and evaluation coming out of the mouth of the patient. Right. If she's saying it's not working, I've got troubles, you know, maybe they start messing around with her medications, but it's not like they can do a blood test for postpartum psychosis. I imagine. Again, I'm not a doctor, but I imagine. [00:37:41] Cody Thomas: Yeah. I mean, that's a great point to bring up, because they can only treat what you tell them. You know, exactly. They can only apply what you're there for. Right. And only if you're being honest. Maybe that's why we have 10 or 12 different medications that she was on. But that's not for us. I mean, we don't know that decisively, but it's a great point. [00:37:59] Joshua Ritter: We will see how that plays out as well. Thank you, Ali Foley. Heather Cooper Smith, thank you so much for the super sticker. Super sticker. And Ali Foley says they are not married. Okay. So why is that important? It would still protect the marital communications, though. Understand, the communications that took place during the marriage last whether they're married or not. If they're not married, that would only affect the spousal testimonial, meaning whether or not he could be compelled to testify against her. But again, Massachusetts does not have that. There is nothing in the court records in the entire state of Massachusetts that show that Lindsay and Patrick are divorced. I did a complete search and nothing came up. My point is, married or not married, who knows the answer to that? It doesn't matter because he holds the privilege. He can waive the privilege. It's only a privilege held by the testifying spouse. In other words, it can't force Tiffany to testify against me at our upcoming criminal trial. But if Tiffany is like, screw it, I want to testify against Josh, she can go ahead and do that because, right, because that's her privilege to hold. It comes from the idea that we want to protect marital. We don't want to force people to testify against each other. But if you want to, you know, go ahead and have at it. But all of those private conversations we've had, Tiffany, you cannot testify to that because I hold that privilege. So just. [00:39:34] Cody Thomas: All right, Josh, blink twice if you're in trouble, OK? [00:39:38] Joshua Ritter: All right, last poll question here, and this is really kind of where the rubber hits the road. Number four, if Lindsey Clancy is found not guilty by reason of insanity, would you consider that justice? Let's say it plays out. This is the jury. They have spoken. What do you think? [00:39:59] Cody Thomas: This is a hard one, man, because you got three, three deceased children, five, three, and eight months that didn't even begin. In life, really, if you look at the grand spectrum, they don't know themselves from second base at that point in time, let alone the eight-month-old. So it's like, if that happens, which, I mean, if that plays out and they can prove that she had a psychiatric break, but you still got these three dead kids, there's no accountability anywhere? Does that even fall on the umbrella of accountability, even though she was criminally insane or whatever, what have you? Do we still point the finger at her for that in the same way we'd point the finger at someone who was not criminally insane? I don't want to say it to be abrasive, but it's like, you got three dead kids and they're dead for what? You know what I mean? And they're just gone in vain. So I don't know if it'd be justice for me personally, but what do I know? [00:40:57] Joshua Ritter: I'm looking at the chat and a lot of people are saying, well, listen, we don't know enough yet. And that's the absolute correct answer. I mean, you know, she is innocent until proven guilty. And you're right. We're asking you all to kind of guess upon a limited amount of information. And I appreciate that. And yes, I've said this from the start. Like, I'm trying to imagine myself, if the evidence is what we believe it is, right? How would I feel if they came back NGI? Would I feel in my gut, oh, that's awful? Or would I feel in my gut like, okay, well, these things, this is kind of what happened here. This is as awful as it is. It sounds like you had an incredibly sick woman and there's no reason to add more wrong to a wrong, right? You know what I'm saying? Like, it's not going to bring those children back to put a very sick woman into prison for forever. You know, that's another way to look at it. But I don't know. I don't have a clear answer. I just feel like, I feel like unless something comes out in this trial, that I am convinced she fully was unconnected to reality, untethered to any kind of understanding of what she was doing. I feel like as sad as it is, you just cannot walk away from three dead kids and say justice has been done, you know? [00:42:28] Cody Thomas: Yeah, I wholeheartedly agree. And even so, even if she was disconnected, you still got three dead kids, Josh. I know that might sound a little insensitive, but it's just, I mean, they're not coming back. No. [00:42:41] Joshua Ritter: And I'll tell you too, even if she goes off to prison, I'm not going to feel great about it. Yeah, I'm not going to parade. I'm not going to be like, yeah, this isn't one of those ones where you're, you know, there are cases, Rex Hewerman, everybody's happy that man's going off to prison. There's no, you know, people torn. [00:42:59] Cody Thomas: I verbalized it very much so on air when it happens. [00:43:02] Joshua Ritter: Yeah, right. Here, even if this ends up with a conviction and they don't find her NGI, I don't think anybody's going to be all having a great day afterwards, you know? [00:43:13] Cody Thomas: No, there's no win. There's no real winning situation here. It's just whatever way it goes, this is what it's going to be. [00:43:19] Joshua Ritter: Yeah. All right. Viewers poll. If Lindsay Clancy is found NGI, would you consider that justice? Wow. Again, very evenly split. 53% say yes, though, that they would consider that justice. And again, I think that that has to do with, you know, one, we don't know. But two, it's also respecting the jury's verdict. I think I will feel that way, right? Yeah. Hopefully, that I will try to do, I will try to respect their verdict no matter how this turns out. Because, like I said, of all of the trials we've considered in a very recent memory, this is like a one I do not envy these jurors at all. [00:44:04] Cody Thomas: Absolutely not. And I mean, it's just, I guess you got to put faith in your justice system. You know, sometimes it's contentious as I can get these days, but it's just, you know, it's what we have. You know, and it's just, like I said, just a minute ago, however it plays out. And I agree with you. It's just, we have to respect their decision and move forward with whatever they come back with. Yeah. [00:44:24] Joshua Ritter: Cody, you are the man, and I appreciate it, and I always enjoy our conversations. Tell everybody where they can find you. Again, huge congrats, my friend, to finally receiving the title you deserve as an anchor over now on Court TV. Where can people find you? When are you on during the day? What do you got coming up? [00:44:47] Cody Thomas: So I'm on every day, 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. Eastern time. I'm primarily on Facebook and Instagram. Just search my name, Cody Thomas. I changed my profile picture, Josh. I'm not sitting there, you know, my hand on my hip now. Oh, no. I'm official with a new seat on, because I'm an anchor now. I got to put on for them. [00:45:04] Joshua Ritter: Oh, right, right, right. [00:45:06] Cody Thomas: You have still Cody Thomas underscore on Instagram. Something in the works right now. I have a YouTube show coming out at some point late summer, early fall. We don't have an official date yet. We're still, you know, working out the kinks, getting the name down. They're hiring a producer now. But someday I'll be trying to get like Joshua Ritter, you guys, and have my own show. Maybe I'll have Josh as a guest. We'll flip-flop this thing. I love it. It'll be great. But you can find me on all those platforms. Excellent. [00:45:31] Joshua Ritter: Thank you again, my friend. So good to see you. [00:45:33] Cody Thomas: Always, man. Good to see you. Great to be on here every time. [00:45:36] Joshua Ritter: All right. Take care. There you have it. Cody Thomas, anchor at Court TV, everybody. Wasn't he great? I always love chatting with him. And I am going to give him full-fledged credit. My biggest takeaway from this evening was that point about why is the jury view of the home important? I can't believe I'd been thinking about this as long as I had, and I had not thought about every single one of those jurors, I imagine, are going to go up to that window and take a look down at that ground. And they're going to be thinking to themselves, is this a legitimate attempt? Is this the height at which somebody would believe this is ending it all for them? Or is this a height that somebody who might not be all that honest about an attempt would jump from? That's very interesting. That is why this is what you have jury views for. You don't have jury views just to kind of walk through the area. You have jury views when the area, the crime scene, the home plays a role and the distance of things plays a role. He referenced the Alec Murdoch case. It played a role. How far were the dog kennels from the home? That was huge. This, that distance from that window to the ground is going to play a role in this case. That's a great point. I'm going to give him full credit. And then later on, I won't give him credit at all. I'll just take credit and act like I came up with it all myself. You all keep your mouth shut about that. Therapist, you know, says, is there an easy way to explain the difference between McNaughton and McCool or is that better for Sunday Funday? Look at you, therapists, you know. How do I answer this in a way that is easy to understand? So what therapists, you know, is referencing here is the, the standards for insanity. McNaughton is kind of the benchmark standard for insanity, which is a person who is unable to appreciate the consequences of their actions. All different kinds of variations on insanity come from that, the McNaughton rule. Did a person in the moment, were they so suffering from some sort of criminal or some sort of mental illness or injury that they could not appreciate the consequences of their actions? They could not appreciate that what they were doing was either legally, morally, ethically wrong. The, and I will answer this and I, and therapists, you know, I would love for you to ask this and I will answer this more thoroughly on a Sunday Funday, but for right now, one of the differences is Massachusetts goes off of a standard, which says lacked substantial capacity, which is less than if you think about it, complete capacity, right? It's not saying you couldn't understand, but it's saying that you, for the most part, you lack the substantial capacity to understand, which is dialing it back a bit, isn't it? I'm telling you this Massachusetts law will become, will play a huge role in this case. It, first of all, I didn't get into all of it and we got into it in much more specifics on our, uh, five things that we did last week. So please check out that episode again. I'm, we're very proud of the work we put into that, but, um, it's a standard that has a lower kind of threshold and it's a standard that doesn't switch the burden to the defense. As long as the defense raises the issue, the prosecution still has to prove she was legally sane at the time, uh, the curvial, uh, thank you so much as, can you explain what NGRI means? I think some feel it means she would walk free. She has admitted committing the crime. No, she would not walk free, uh, if she were found NGRI or NGI, uh, she would go into a civil commitment by the court. This is the episode, by the way, uh, that we put out the, I get into all of these issues in more depth, but she would go into a civil commitment by the court. Uh, they would evaluate her. Uh, they, Massachusetts law allows for continued confinement. As long as she has not been cleared by the, uh, her medical providers and the court. And many people spend years in confinement in a mental institution. Many people, in fact, statistically across the U S people spend more time in mental health confinement than they would in their own prison term. Many people spend the rest of their lives in a mental confinement, but if she is found to no longer pose a risk due to her mental illness and the doctor sign off on it and a court signs off on it, she could be released. So that's what, that's what it means, but it does not mean she would walk out the back door or I'm sorry, not the right way of phrasing that in this case does not mean she would be leaving a free woman, uh, if she were found not guilty by reason of insanity, but she wouldn't have a criminal conviction. She wouldn't have anything on her record. All right. Um, one really quick case. I wanted to update you about a, that is also starting this week that I wanted to do with the last few minutes that we have left and then give you some quick announcements. David, David, Anthony Burke, his, uh, prelim is starting tomorrow here in Los Angeles. This is for the murder of Celeste Rivas Hernandez, who was 14 years old at the time that she lost her life, according to prosecutors at the hands of David Anthony Burke. Um, prelim is expected to start Tuesday. It is expected to go for, uh, four days. So last throughout the week, um, they believe that her murder, I'm just going to give you the real quick outline of this, uh, Celeste goes missing April 5th of 2024. She is, uh, has been, uh, dismembered. She is in the trunk, the front trunk of a Tesla. That Tesla was registered to David Anthony Burke, who goes by the name David or D4VD as a singer. Uh, the grand jury convenes in November and he is indicted, uh, or pardon me. No, he's arrested to get very specific about this April 16th of this year, and then charged on the 20th. So they didn't use the grand jury for an indictment. They used it to conduct an investigation. He's been charged with first degree murder with special circumstances, meaning, meaning he is eligible for the death penalty or life without parole. At the minimum, the special circumstances are lying in wait, financial gain, murder of a witness, uh, along with crimes for lewd and lascivious acts of a person under 14 and the mutilation of the body. This is as serious a case as you can get. These are the types of crimes that when I was a prosecutor would go to the most experienced and, um, you know, battle hardened prosecutors. This is a case involving exploitation of a young girl, the systematic sexual assault of a young girl. And then when that girl decides, according to the prosecution, that she's going to out him for it, come start to tell people what he's been doing to her, that he lures her, lures her to his mansion in the hills and murders her and then cuts up her body. Horrific stuff. This is the type of case that by the way, they would pursue the death penalty. The only thing I think that is going to give them pause here is he's got no criminal record and he was a relatively young man himself. Uh, he was 21 at the time of the murders. So that could play a role in their consideration. They have not made a decision on it yet. So, uh, what do we expect to hear over the next few days? Well, we're going to hear evidence about their travel. He had apparently, uh, arranged for her to travel to Vegas, Texas, and yes, London with him. Uh, how that happened, how he was able to get a, uh, a, a, um, ticket for an underage, uh, young girl to travel without her parents is going to, is obviously a question. A lot of people have been wondering, how did she get that passport? How did she get that ticket? Were her parents aware of it? Were they not? Did he sign off on documents? Did he, um, did he, um, uh, forge documents? We'll, we'll have to find out. There's going to be a lot of digital evidence presented, text messages between the two of them, uh, discussing, uh, their ongoing sexual relationship. Uh, there's apparently discussions about her, uh, uh, potential pregnancies, uh, and terminations of those pregnancy of that pregnancy. Um, and then there's the text leading up to the evening of April 22nd. They believe that she was murdered on April 23rd because of these text messages where she is talking about a lengthy exchange between the two of them talking about how she's unhappy with their relationship, that all they do is have sex, uh, and that she's going to tell somebody. And he was on the verge of releasing his debut album. By the way, I think his album came out within days of her murder. So that's where the kind of financial gain of all of it comes in. And then afterwards there was some very disturbing, uh, Amazon and Home Depot purchases. He purchased chainsaws, a body bag, uh, a blue inflatable pool, which apparently was used, uh, in the process of dismembering her body. Like I said, this is about as bad as it gets. This is the sinister, depraved kind of stuff that you see in death penalty cases. Um, so all of that, you know, uh, on top of the, um, kind of tracking information that they have of his vehicle, uh, in the days after he had made a kind of an inexplicable trip up to Santa Barbara, they actually found her passport up there in Santa Barbara. Um, uh, and then just the, the, her, her remains themselves. She was very, uh, in a, in a, in a advanced state of decomposition and what are they able to glean from that with the autopsy reports we did actually did a, um, an interview with, uh, one of your favorites, uh, Joseph Scott Morgan, who really went into the details of what they were able to learn from that autopsy. Um, the most crucial point of it being that there is one wound stab wound in particular that pierced her liver, I think it was, and that they believe that that wound, she would have bled out from that wound and that that wound was made anti-mortem, meaning before she died. So you've got a stabbing that is lethal liver. Somebody saying, I think you're right. Liver. Is that what I said? Did I say liver? I think I did that stab to her liver. She would have bled out and died from that. Had she not received medical care and that stab was made while she was still alive. So in other words, that's not a post-mortem part of the disposal of her body, but that is what may have likely caused her death. So what you're dealing with is not a, you're dealing with it. In other words, a case where they cannot claim she died from some sort of unrelated overdose. And then he, the worst he's guilty of is disposing of her body. That's what it comes down to. So, uh, and then we're going to get into the whole motive thing. You know, he was on the verge of a major success debut album coming out on the 25th. That's it. On the 25th. Um, and no witness lists, by the way, they have not disclosed a witness list. So we will, uh, we will watch that one. Join us, uh, on Wednesday where we start to break down the latest on that. We're going to have a special guest, which I'm going to tell you about just now. So, uh, let me, first of all, thank some folks who've been so patient and then give you some announcements and get you all out of here. First of all, the crafty RN 600 for Tiffany. Are we, are we there? We're at 520. All right. You got a few minutes left, everybody. There's the challenge. Tiffany's, this, this determines whether or not Josh has a pleasant evening is if we hit that 600 for Tiffany, uh, sky goddess. Thank you so much for supporting the mods with copies. Appreciate you. Allie B from Tennessee says, Josh, when you stream trials, do you ever do live commentary? I know you go in person to a lot, but would love to watch the Lindsay Clancy one with you joining us. I don't, uh, for the most part, I will try. If you're asking Allie B just for you, I will try to break in here or there, um, during, um, uh, breaks. Um, but we've also kind of got some feedback from folks who are saying, Hey, I kind of like to watch it without a bunch of commentary. So the commentary is in the chat. If you want to watch it with all of us, we'd love to have you. We do have a great chat who follows it. I will try to kind of break in, uh, if you all would like that during breaks to say hello, but we will definitely be giving you plenty of commentary on the trial at night during our regular kind of scheduled programming court. Dog Daniel says, I was in court today for jury selection. Some interesting observations do tell my friend, uh, we would love to get some feedback from you on that. He is our reporter in the field court talk, Daniel. All right. Um, here are some quick announcements for you. First of all, let me tell you about the courtroom confidential.com. We invite you to go here because we put a lot of work into making it your one-stop shop for the following things. Uh, one messages. We referenced this earlier. If you've got questions about the Lindsay Clancy case or the David case or marital privilege or whatever else dealing with true crime or the law, please leave us a voice message at the courtroom confidential.com and we will answer that live on our upcoming Sunday funday. We missed last Sunday. So I expect we're going to have a lot of questions for this coming Sunday to memberships. Thank you. Everybody who gifted a membership tonight. If you didn't receive one, don't get discouraged. You can always go to the courtroom confidential.com and join yourself for the low entry price of two 99 a month. You'll get access to a lot of the benefits that we have here at courtroom confidential, including the most important, the hottest new show on YouTube, the members only exclusive tea time with TIF every Thursday is tea time with TIF on Thursdays. So please join us. Uh, if you are a member or if you're not, go ahead and join up and you can take part in that and then merch, we have, um, we've got a lot of stuff available at the shop. If you go to the courtroom confidential.com and click on the shop, we've got T-shirts and in every color you could imagine, but we know it's summertime, which means you're hot, which means you need a survival kit. So we've got your not my fault summer merch available now from courtroom confidential. We've got tote bags. We've got flip-flops. We've got pajama pants. We've got T-shirts. We've got beach towels. We've got koozies. Uh, we've got you covered here at the courtroom confidential.com to help you survive the summer heat. Uh, please check us out at the shop at the courtroom confidential.com. All right. And we've got you covered. If you get into a fender bender too, uh, what did you miss on Friday? Um, so we had a couple of special programming, uh, things over this weekend. We're doing a multi-part series on the Idaho four that we're calling the Idaho four after the plea. Part one, uh, was an interview with Kevin Fixler, uh, where we, from the Idaho Statesman, he was one of the lead investigative reporters on this whole case. He broke a lot of the stories and we had a real nice chat with him about, uh, his experience and kind of his thoughts. Now looking back on this, uh, pivotal case, uh, on Sunday, we had our second part in this series with Joseph Scott Morgan from the body bags podcast, talking about, he's a former death investigator, talking about the forensics of the scene and of the, uh, all of the evidence and the autopsies. Very interesting conversation with him as well. So those are both up and available on the channel. And we're going to talk to him as well. [01:04:06] Speaker ?: And we're going to talk to him as well. [01:04:06] Joshua Ritter: And we're going to talk to him as well. And we're going to talk to him as well. And we're going to talk to him as well. And we're going to talk to him as well. And we're going to talk to him as well. And we're going to talk to him as well. [01:04:12] Speaker ?: And we're going to talk to him as well. [01:04:13] Joshua Ritter: And we're going to talk to him as well. And then we're going to talk to him as well. And we're going to talk to him as well. And we're going to talk to him as well. [01:04:17] Speaker ?: And we're going to talk to him as well. [01:04:18] Joshua Ritter: Is this for everybody or just members? Members only tea party for, with Tiff and Kaylin. That will be at, it's a Zoom meeting at 1:30 PM Pacific, 4:30 PM Eastern for the top secret and for your eyes only members. So if you are in that membership tier, join Tiffany and Kaylin tomorrow. Uh, for their tea party. Josh is not invited. [01:04:52] Speaker ?: Wednesday. [01:04:53] Joshua Ritter: We have our Wednesday night live. Uh, that will be at 5:00 PM Pacific, 8:00 PM Eastern, where we're going to be talking about the, uh, David prelim for the most part, some other stuff, but we have special guests, James Quealy from the LA times. He's been on before and he is deep in the weeds on the David case. So we'll be talking with him on Wednesday, Friday, very busy. Very busy day, Friday, Friday, weekly rap sheet on Fox nation at 12:00 PM Pacific, 3:00 PM Eastern. This is a show that I co-host alongside Paul Morrow and Donna Rotuno on Fox nation. We're going to be talking about David, Lindsey Clancy, uh, Kendra Scott, by the way, if that case means anything to you, uh, please join us there. Also Friday later on that same day, 4:00 PM Pacific, 7:00 PM Eastern back here on the channel. We'll have our weekly roundup. Then immediately following that I'm already tired. I'm already wondering how I'm going to get through Friday. I'm already wondering how I'm going to get through Friday. This is going to be an exhausting day. Immediately after that. The monthly members only are July members only live for everybody in the classified and above. I told you that we got a lot of stuff going on in our membership program. Uh, that will be at 5:00 PM Pacific, 8:00 PM Eastern immediately following the weekly roundup. Uh, so busy, busy Friday. And then we're back at it again on Sunday for Sunday, fun day, 9 or 10 AM Pacific, 1:00 PM Eastern. Did I miss anything ladies? I think that's everything, right? Do we have that queued up? November? Yes or no? I'm getting the one minute here. All right. Well, there you go. Uh, if you don't already have plans for November, here's, here's what we would invite you to do. Crime con puts on a crime cruise, don't you know? So if you didn't get enough in Vegas and you want a little bit more of your crime con action, please join us November 18th through 22nd, uh, for the crime cruise. Uh, I've been, uh, very honored to be invited to be a guest, uh, alongside, uh, Matt Murphy. And, uh, who else is going? Nate Eaton is going to be there. Chris Hansen's going to be there. Uh, one other person, right? Uh, one other person, right? Dr. Catherine Ramsland is going to be there. It's going to be a fun time. Me and Matt actually to give you a little, I don't think I'm disclosing anything. That's too insider here. Me and Matt have some special programming. We're going to be doing together that will be very interactive with everybody on the boat. So if you want to be trapped with me on a boat for five days in the Caribbean, where you can't run and no one can hear you scream, join us at the crime cruise this coming November. And you can get 10% off your badge with the code word RIDDER, all caps, all one word. All right. Uh, let me thank the following new members for being so fantastic and joining our membership program to Kate. Oh, first of all, thank you to best Nancy for gifting the membership to Kate. Lady. Thank you guys for, for hitting the, the, the, uh, the challenge. There's some gifted memberships. To Kate, a bath horse, welfare, Mary Smith, Marshall dove, Lauren, HF, Nikki Craig, sea salt and driftwood. Pamela cat, right? Uh, or cart, right? Pardon me. Aaron 33, 12 lucky cat work hard. Lift richly, Stella, Luna cat ride. Mabel. Tina. Van. Narkle. L. C. L. C. T. [01:09:05] Speaker ?: R. N. [01:09:05] Joshua Ritter: Miss. Trial. Try all. Jen. Jenna Mason. Extreme. Blonde. Sweetness. Forever. Alice. An. Janake. An. An. Asky. I don't know. AISC. DMB. JJJ. Lisa Cook. Marcella. Silva. Patch. Lindy. Jenny Wilson. Four. Suzy. M.T. Three. The three J's. 842. And latte. Lou. 68. You guys are all fantastic. Thank you so much for joining the, uh, membership crew over here. Court dog. Daniel says. 121 days till crime cruise. Juiced. Big shout out. And thank you to Cody Thomas from court TV. Isn't he fantastic? I love that guy. And he's just so easy to talk to. So please. Give him a shout out wherever you can. Big. Thank you to the best mod squad on YouTube to, uh, Afton. Shy Gal. Kathy. Therapist, you know, best Nancy and Becky B. We couldn't do this without you. Kaelin. See Kaelin. It always comes together. Kaelin was a little panicked before we began everybody, but wasn't that an incredibly smooth show? I think so. Kaelin. And it's all because of you. And Tiffany, you are the best thing that ever happened to me. Take care, everybody. We will see you all here on Wednesday. Bye bye. Bye bye. [01:11:04] Speaker ?: Thank you.