Lindsay Clancy RATTLED as Autopsy Testimony Takes Dark Turn

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Dispatch said that he couldn't wake them up. [00:00:03] Speaker 2: It was an absolute horrific scene inside the Clancy home on January 24th, 2023. Three children in the basement strangled with exercise ropes. Their mother, Lindsay, bloodied and paralyzed in the backyard. But this wasn't a home invasion. It wasn't a stranger who committed these acts. It was Lindsay. She admits she did it, but claims she's not criminally responsible because of her mental illness and medications. And the defense is pointing the finger at her mental health providers. [00:00:37] Speaker 3: She told you that she had been feeling numb and no emotion for 17 days straight, is what she told you, right? [00:00:47] Speaker 4: I'm not sure about 17 days straight, but that's how she was feeling. [00:00:51] Speaker 3: It increased the amitriptyline. [00:00:55] Speaker ?: Yes. [00:00:57] Speaker 3: That pushed her over the edge, didn't it? [00:01:01] Speaker ?: I don't think so. [00:01:02] Speaker 2: Lindsay Clancy is sitting in court in a wheelchair, facing three counts of murder and a life behind bars. [00:01:10] Speaker 3: Hold on here. [00:01:11] Speaker 2: Counsel, hold on. We're going to take a short break. And as the trial the nation is watching continues, the question remains. Can prosecutors prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the mental illness did not cause Lindsay to kill her children? The intensity inside this courtroom is high. Neither side is budging one inch. The prosecution versus the defense, both agreeing that Lindsay Clancy did this, but disagreeing about why she did it. So ultimately, the question for this jury will be, is Lindsay Clancy an evil sociopathic killer? Or is she the victim of a wrongful prosecution? I'm Vinnie Politan. Let's investigate. During the course of this trial, we've seen a real contrast inside the courtroom on a couple different levels. The first one, let's start with Lindsay Clancy and the way she's been sobbing in many parts of this case. And you can argue and try to interpret what exactly she's sobbing about. If it's the sadness of what happened to her children or the sadness of being on trial for doing it, for realizing what you did or not being able to control it or having some sense of remorse. That's something the jury will have to figure out. But it's real. It's not make-believe. It's real because you can see it throughout. Now, the camera angle isn't the greatest. You kind of get the side of her head. But it's clear that all this is impacting her inside of the courtroom. But the interpretation of that, obviously, is up for grabs. Contrast to that is her husband, Patrick, when he testified. He really did not break down. You saw something different from him. And I could see it in his eyes, the brokenness of his whole world imploding on him. But then, to me, at least to me, a sense of resentment and anger to being in the courtroom. And I took that from two parts of it, reliving everything, number one. But number two, not believing that his wife is actually criminally responsible. Being called by the prosecution but not agreeing with what the prosecution is doing inside of the courtroom. Despite the fact that she's now his ex, and she's his ex, and he's her ex, etc. And he has a new relationship, a new family, a new wife, a new child. Despite all that, he still doesn't believe what's happening here should be happening. Now, there's another contrast here. And that's what this case is all about. Prosecutors are blaming Lindsay for what happened. It's her fault. She is the one, the only one, responsible for what happened to those three children. And then you've got the defense, Kevin Rennington and Lindsay Clancy, blaming the doctors, blaming the misdiagnosis, blaming the medications, and, of course, blaming the mental illness for all of this. Have you ever Googled yourself and found things like your address, your phone number, or even your social security number available for anyone to look at? With Incogni, you can have that all wiped clean. Incogni automatically removes data from over 420 data broker sites. Incogni has some great features like suppression list requests so data brokers won't relist your data, risk assessment, and the great 24-7 customer support. Their new exposure scanner helps you find where you're exposed and shows it to you. With any unlimited plan, Incogni will seek out wherever your personal information is online, and you get to decide what to remove with the help of Incogni's removal specialists, all of it in one place. Now, I couldn't believe that more than 300 sites had my information. Thankfully, Incogni was automatically removing that data within days. They can't harm you if they can't find you. Use the code COURTTV at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan. Incogni.com slash COURTTV. So now I want to take you to the point where the investigation has begun. It's obvious that Lindsay Clancy is the one responsible, but because she exited that second-floor bedroom, she's paralyzed and she is in the hospital, but not free to go. People aren't free to come in and come out of her room. She's basically in custody, but at the hospital. And this is Sergeant Dan Lawler, who testified for the Massachusetts State Police, talking about what's happening and a court order that comes into play to sort of allow someone to go see Lindsay Clancy while she's in the hospital, a psychiatrist. Let's take a look. [00:06:34] Speaker 5: When you were there on watch, did you go into the room or were you outside the room? [00:06:40] Speaker 6: Outside the room. [00:06:41] Speaker 5: And as far as your memory of whether anyone else besides medical staff went in there, at any point when you were there at the Brigham Hospital, did you observe another individual come in to visit with her or meet with her? [00:06:55] Speaker 6: Yes. [00:06:56] Speaker 5: And were you advised that that person was coming in? [00:06:59] Speaker 6: Yes. [00:07:00] Speaker 5: And were you advised that that person was allowed in with a court order? [00:07:07] Speaker 6: Yes. [00:07:08] Speaker 5: When the person went in, did you know if it was an attorney, a doctor, somebody else? [00:07:13] Speaker 6: It was not an attorney. It wasn't a doctor. It was, I believe, a psychiatrist. [00:07:18] Speaker 5: And when that person went into the room, did you go in the room as well? [00:07:22] Speaker 6: No. [00:07:23] Speaker 5: And where did you stay? [00:07:25] Speaker 6: Outside the room. [00:07:26] Speaker 5: And when this man went into the room, did he leave the door open or close the door? [00:07:30] Speaker 6: I believe it was closed. [00:07:32] Speaker 5: And when he came out, did he speak with you? [00:07:37] Speaker 6: I don't recall. [00:07:39] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:07:40] Speaker 5: But as far as you knew at that time period, that person was permitted to be in there and could close the door? [00:07:46] Speaker 6: Correct. [00:07:49] Speaker 5: And you don't know what was said or what was done in that room? [00:07:52] Speaker ?: No. [00:07:53] Speaker 3: You know that nobody could get access to Lindsay Clancy in that hospital, and I mean nobody, right? [00:07:59] Speaker 6: Correct. [00:08:00] Speaker 3: And this went on for day after day after day, to your knowledge, facilitating, right? [00:08:05] Speaker 6: Correct. [00:08:05] Speaker 3: Her parents couldn't get in to see her, correct? [00:08:08] Speaker 6: I don't believe so. [00:08:09] Speaker 3: She had an attorney that had difficulty, not me, but another guy that had difficulty getting in to see her. Isn't that right? [00:08:15] Speaker 6: I'm not aware of that difficulty. [00:08:17] Speaker 3: I had to get a court order to get a doctor in there to see her, didn't I? [00:08:22] Speaker 6: Yes, it was a court order. [00:08:23] Speaker 3: And when I got the court order, a doctor came in and met with Lindsay pursuant to that judge's order, and that was Paul Zizel, correct? [00:08:35] Speaker 6: I believe that's the name. I'm not sure if he was a doctor, but I believe that was a gentleman that came in the court order. [00:08:40] Speaker 3: Okay, because only because in your direct, you said that he was not a doctor, but he was a psychiatrist. So, I mean, it's just, you knew that he had something to do with head doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist, something like that. Correct. Okay. Did he have to clear it with you to get into the room? [00:08:58] Speaker 6: He checked in with myself and the other trooper. We were advised that he was coming in to let him in on the court order. [00:09:05] Speaker 3: All right. Now, I wasn't there on that occasion, right? [00:09:07] Speaker 6: No. [00:09:08] Speaker 3: And when Dr. Zizel, or whoever it was, went into the room to see her, it's your memory that he was allowed to shut the door. Is that correct? [00:09:16] Speaker 6: I believe he shut the door. [00:09:18] Speaker 3: Now, you were involved in this investigation pretty intensely working with the DA's office, right? [00:09:25] Speaker 6: Correct. [00:09:25] Speaker 3: Isn't it fair to say that one of the contentions of the district attorneys is that Paul Zizel, my doctor, that I got a court order to get in to see her, told her to call Pat and tell him that she heard voices? [00:09:44] Speaker 2: Can I see counsel's sidebar in regards to this? Oh, this is a big deal. This is a big deal. Sidebar. Something's going on here, right? So, here's the contention. The defense is saying that, the prosecution is saying that the psychiatrist hired by the defense went into that room almost, you know, shortly after the killings and told Lindsay Clancy, told her to call her husband and say that she heard voices. There were voices in her head telling her to do it. This is a big deal, right? That's like a defense fabricating a defense. If it's true. Now, obviously, if the defense is bringing it up, they don't believe it's true and they don't want the jury to even go there. They want this out in front of the jury so they don't sort of think, oh, what exactly did that doctor say when he was alone with Lindsay? And then Lindsay called Patrick and said, I heard voices in my head. Because remember, that's a significant part of this. This is the first time she's talking about voices in her head is in that phone call. So, let's take a look now at what happens in the courtroom. They send the jury out. So, you're getting to see it, but the jury did not. Let's watch. [00:11:00] Speaker 3: Dr. Zizel, or a doctor, came in pursuant to a court order, right? Yes. And obviously, had been cleared through security and went into the room where Lindsay was laying on the bed, right? Yes. You don't know or you don't recall if he closed the door or if he kept the door open or if it was half open. You just don't remember, right? Yes. Would you agree with me that in the course of preparing this case for trial, that you have worked and collaborated with the prosecutors, the two district attorneys, correct? [00:11:48] Speaker 6: Yes. [00:11:48] Speaker 3: And you guys would talk about theories of the case and evidence that they want you to run down perhaps as an investigator or try to obtain or interviews and things of that nature, right? Yes. And one of the theories that they had indicated to you is that Patrick Clancy had indicated to the investigators and to the grand jury, I believe, that Lindsay called him from the hospital, right? [00:12:14] Speaker 6: I recall that. [00:12:16] Speaker 3: And that Lindsay used that doctor's cell phone to call him from the hospital, right? Yes. And they basically had a theory that they wanted to run with that Zizel told her, Lindsay, to say that she heard voices, right? [00:12:33] Speaker 6: I don't know if it's a theory or not. I just recall that conversation at some point. [00:12:37] Speaker 3: Okay. So when was the conversation? [00:12:39] Speaker 6: I don't recall exactly when. [00:12:41] Speaker 3: Do you remember where the conversation was? [00:12:44] Speaker 6: No. Okay. I'm assuming at the office. I just don't recall specifically where. [00:12:49] Speaker 3: And who was it you were talking to? [00:12:54] Speaker 6: Probably could have been one of the troopers in the office working the case. [00:12:59] Speaker 3: One of the troopers? Is it McGilligan? [00:13:03] Speaker 6: Probably. He's the case officer. So I imagine it probably wouldn't have been him, sir. [00:13:07] Speaker 3: Probably could have been him. [00:13:08] Speaker ?: Yeah. [00:13:08] Speaker 3: How about any of the prosecutors? You talk to the DAs about that? [00:13:12] Speaker 6: I don't recall specifically speaking to a prosecutor about this. [00:13:15] Speaker 3: Well, how about not necessarily specifically, but do you have any memory of talking to the prosecutor about, quote, this, end quote? No. So what is it that your memory is that the trooper, whoever it may have been, or the investigator for the state police may have been, what did that person tell you? [00:13:32] Speaker 6: That at some point, when Lindsay was in the hospital with the doctor in the court order, that she made a phone call to Patrick, and they discussed circumstances of the case. And then he was interviewed later on and communicated this phone call to, I believe, Trooper McKelligan. [00:13:56] Speaker 3: And what did McKelligan tell you about the conversation? What the theory or the understanding was that? [00:14:02] Speaker 6: That during the conversation, Lindsay communicated to Patrick that she had heard voices in her head. [00:14:10] Speaker 3: And there was also the conversation regarding the psychologist is basically the one that planted that idea in her head, right? [00:14:19] Speaker 6: The conversation between Trooper McKelligan and I? Yeah. I don't recall that specifically. I just recall the facts that, the facts that communicated to me that there was a phone call between Lindsay and Patrick. [00:14:30] Speaker 3: Okay, you already said that. I know, and I apologize. I don't mean to cut you off, but let's cut to the chase. [00:14:35] Speaker 6: Yeah. [00:14:35] Speaker 3: What I'm asking you are voices. You know what that means when someone hears voices, right? Yes. You may not hear voices. I may not hear voices, but some people might hear voices, right? [00:14:45] Speaker 6: Yeah. [00:14:46] Speaker 3: That was discussed with McKelligan, wasn't it? Yes. And what is it that he discussed with you about Lindsay hearing voices? [00:14:53] Speaker 6: That that's what she had told Patrick on the phone call, that she heard voices. [00:14:58] Speaker 3: And when she told Patrick that she heard that on the phone call, the prosecution determined that it was Zizel, or whoever that doctor was, you don't recall, that told her to say that for some type of a defense, right? [00:15:14] Speaker 6: I don't know what the prosecution determined. All I can say, that's what I recall, the conversation between Lindsay and Patrick. [00:15:23] Speaker 3: Okay. About when you said... The voices. The voices. [00:15:27] Speaker 6: Yeah. [00:15:27] Speaker 3: And the conversation also included the fact that it was the psychologist that planted that idea in her mind. That's the theory, isn't it? [00:15:37] Speaker 6: That would be the theory, but I don't recall having... [00:15:39] Speaker 3: Wait, wait, wait. Your answer is that would be the theory, right? [00:15:43] Speaker 6: Correct. I agree with you that that's what was discussed. [00:15:47] Speaker 2: All right. Okay. That makes prosecutors not look so great, right? This is a theory not really based on evidence, but some circumstances. And you're presuming the worst, that the defense is making up a defense. That Lindsay's being fed a script and being told what to do to make her defense look better by calling up Patrick and saying she heard voices. It's tricky, right? Because if the jury does kind of hear this, what do they believe? Do they believe that this was a fabrication by the prosecution in making this allegation? Or was this an actual fabrication of evidence by the defense? Let's take a listen now to what the jury got to hear after this hearing in front of the judge. [00:16:34] Speaker 3: We're at the point where you are assisting, if you will, in the custody of Lindsay at Brigham and Women's Hospital when you observed a doctor enter into that area and ultimately into her room. Is that correct? Yes. All right. And the door was either closed or open or halfway, you don't recall, which is understandable, but you just don't remember if it was closed completely or open a little bit, right? Correct. But either way, you weren't eavesdropping or trying to hear anything, were you? No. And then when the doctor finished talking with Lindsay, at some point, you as investigators were aware that the doctor had allowed her to call her husband and use his cell phone to speak to her husband, correct? [00:17:26] Speaker 6: I later learned that, yes. [00:17:28] Speaker 3: And you later learned and knew from the investigation that it was fairly recently to that point that the tubes had been removed from her mouth and she was able to at least talk to a degree. And then she talked on the phone, correct? [00:17:42] Speaker 6: Correct. [00:17:43] Speaker 3: And after that, fair to say that you did not, when I say you, I mean collectively, all the police officers investigating for the DA's office, you did not see any reports or anything that would indicate what, if anything, was said between Dr. Zizel and Lindsay in that room, right? [00:18:03] Speaker 6: Correct. [00:18:04] Speaker 3: And who is Sergeant, is it McGilligan? [00:18:07] Speaker 6: Sergeant McGilligan, yes, sir. [00:18:09] Speaker 3: And Sergeant McGilligan, Joshua? [00:18:11] Speaker 6: Yes. [00:18:12] Speaker 3: He's the lead investigator in this case, is that correct? [00:18:15] Speaker 6: Correct. [00:18:16] Speaker 3: And at the time, he was a sergeant and you were a trooper, right? [00:18:19] Speaker 6: At the time, we were both troopers. [00:18:21] Speaker 3: Oh, both troopers. Okay, so you both got promoted. And he, as the lead investigator, told you in a conversation, or perhaps more than one, that the government theory is that Dr. Zizel told Lindsay to say to her husband that she heard voices, right? Yeah, if you could rephrase that. Okay. Did you talk to McGilligan about the theory that Dr. Zizel is the reason that she told her husband that she heard voices? [00:18:59] Speaker 6: Yes. [00:19:01] Speaker 3: And do you remember where or when that conversation occurred or how many times that you guys discussed that? [00:19:07] Speaker 6: I believe it would have been at the office. I don't recall exactly when. [00:19:11] Speaker 3: Okay. And there's no investigator basis for that. That's McGilligan's speculation. Is that correct? [00:19:19] Speaker 2: Correct. Ooh, that's not good. That's not good. He's going to use that later in his closing argument, trust me. That's going to be a big theme here about speculation versus evidence. Investigators and prosecutors are supposed to find the evidence, find the facts, and go wherever it leads you to. Not come up with a theory based on speculation of what you think happened and then try to find the facts to fit in there. So this testimony from this trooper, this admission that this was speculation, may come back to bite the prosecution. So I want to tell you about something really exciting here at Law & Crime. If you haven't heard yet, we have the Law & Crime Plus app. And it's a total game changer. First of all, you get all your favorite shows from both Law & Crime and Court TV. And they're all ad-free. But what I'm most excited to share with you is a feature called Case Files. This is where we give you a deep dive into the biggest cases in true crime. You get access to the actual evidence, including body cam video, 911 calls, crime scene photos, trial footage, and so much more. You really get to explore the evidence like never before. Because we want all of you to check it out, here's what we're going to do. We're giving you, our viewers, a free one-month trial. Just head over to longcrimeplus.com, enter the promo code VPI, and start your free trial today. Lindsay Clancy was seeing a lot of mental health professionals. And she was seeking help. She was trying to figure out what's going on, right? I mean, this was ongoing. Day after day, week after week, month after month. And Rebecca Gelata was the nurse practitioner who testified yesterday. Leticia Dukes works with Rebecca Gelata. Rebecca Gelata is a nurse practitioner. She's sort of in charge of the medication part of the treatment. Leticia Dukes is a mental health counselor, certified mental health counselor. So she's more involved in the therapy and speaking with the patient, who in this case is Lindsay Clancy. So her perspective, important as well. She's one of the people treating Lindsay Clancy in the months leading up to the killings of her three children. Let's take a look. [00:21:54] Speaker 1: Her presenting concerns were anxiety, lack of sleep, depression symptoms, frequent passive suicidal ideation, thoughts of wanting to die and no longer be here. [00:22:09] Speaker 5: And had she reported to you that she had been on a number of different medications? [00:22:14] Speaker 1: Yes. [00:22:15] Speaker 5: So, Ms. Dukes, on this particular visit on 12-2, what was her mood? [00:22:25] Speaker 1: So, she reported having low mood and feeling numb. [00:22:29] Speaker 5: In regards to, on this particular first encounter on December 2nd, when it comes to the mental status exam, were you able to observe her facial expressions? [00:22:40] Speaker 1: Yes. [00:22:40] Speaker 5: And what were your observations over facial expressions? [00:22:44] Speaker 1: She was cheerful when discussing her anxiety symptoms. [00:22:48] Speaker 5: And were you, did you also ask those questions about thought, thought content? [00:22:58] Speaker 1: So, thought content, worry about her infant and that she had an addiction to Ativan. [00:23:04] Speaker 5: And you said you also, in this assessment, assessed suicidal thoughts, correct? Correct. And so, did you ask her anything more about those passive thoughts that you indicated she reported? [00:23:16] Speaker 1: Yes. And what she reported, as far as like passive thoughts, were thoughts of not wanting to be here or no longer wanting to live, but no plan. [00:23:25] Speaker 5: And is that significant to you, the fact that she identified there was no plan? [00:23:30] Speaker 1: Yes. [00:23:31] Speaker 5: And why is it significant? [00:23:33] Speaker 1: Because if she identified that she, in fact, had a plan, then that would escalate me to see it as a crisis and request higher level of support at that time. [00:23:42] Speaker 5: And as far as her expressed concern to you, fair to say it was focused on the one particular medication, the medication Ativan, correct? And why were you, why did you not find that that to be an issue based on your assessment? [00:23:59] Speaker 1: Based on my assessment and how she stated she was supposed to be using it, it was used correctly to remedy the anxiety symptoms. [00:24:12] Speaker 5: Sure. In that visit on December 5th, did she indicate to you or did she report to you how the weekend went for her? [00:24:19] Speaker 1: Yes, she did. [00:24:20] Speaker 5: And what did she say about the weekend? [00:24:22] Speaker 1: She reported that over the weekend she had a difficult weekend, having intrusive thoughts about wanting to die. And that she had contacted Aspire Crisis Support. She met with the clinician virtually and was told that she did not meet the criteria for inpatient treatment due to having no SI plan, suicidal ideation plan. So support during this meeting, I offered her support in connecting to, it seemed like she needed a higher level of care, so intensive outpatient therapy, partial hospitalization therapy. As well as we reviewed, one of her main concerns was also issues with sleeping, so we reviewed sleep hygiene and how to support better sleep to see if that would help with some of the intrusive thoughts. [00:25:03] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:25:04] Speaker 5: And as far as the recommendation for intensive outpatient or partial hospitalization, did she want to connect with those programs at that time? [00:25:17] Speaker 1: At that time, she didn't decline services, but she was interested in the information. Okay, and so did you agree to send her some information? At that time, I did not agree to send her information. [00:25:30] Speaker 5: Did she ask for any other information in that meeting? [00:25:34] Speaker 1: She did ask for information and support connecting to psychological testing. [00:25:39] Speaker 5: And is that something that you do at your clinic, do psychological testing? [00:25:44] Speaker 1: Yes. [00:25:45] Speaker 5: Okay. And so did you make a referral for her to see somebody else in the clinic, or did you provide her other information? [00:25:53] Speaker 1: So I discussed this information with a provider at the time, which was the psychiatrist and medication provider at the time. [00:26:02] Speaker 5: And would that have been Rebecca Gelata? [00:26:04] Speaker 1: Yes. [00:26:04] Speaker 5: And so did you subsequently send Lindsay Clancy some information about psychological testing? Yes. But there was no recommendation for it to be done at the clinic? [00:26:17] Speaker ?: No. [00:26:18] Speaker 1: Do you know why? At the time, it sounded like she wanted extra support or, like, outside opinion as far as, like, diagnosis and medication. [00:26:28] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:26:30] Speaker 5: And why did you recommend women and infants, or why were you recommending this higher level of care? [00:26:37] Speaker 1: I was recommending this higher level of care because of continued passive suicidal ideation, even with crisis intervention, as well as women and infants was more so for postpartum women, and the infant would be able to come to the program with her. [00:26:55] Speaker 5: And so did you work to make that referral after that visit? [00:27:00] Speaker 1: Yes. [00:27:00] Speaker 5: Now, you mentioned that she had continued passive suicidal ideation. In this meeting that you had with her, did you assess that, her suicidal ideation? [00:27:12] Speaker 1: In this visit particularly, did she have passive suicidal ideation? [00:27:17] Speaker 5: Well, do you ask if they still have that? Yes. Or if they currently have thoughts of suicide? Yes. And in this instance, did she have thoughts of suicide or wanting to die? [00:27:29] Speaker 1: Just reviewing, hold on. So, yes, she reported by continued suicidal ideation at the time. [00:27:39] Speaker 5: And, but did she ever indicate a plan? [00:27:41] Speaker ?: No. [00:27:46] Speaker 5: Having met with her on the 12th, did she ever articulate to you that she had made any attempts? [00:27:55] Speaker 1: No. [00:27:59] Speaker 5: And in your conversation with her on the 12th, were you able to identify any protective factors based on everything that you knew about her at this time? Now, this is your third time with her, right? Yes. So, what were you able to identify as protective factors for this particular patient? [00:28:16] Speaker 1: At this time, she had supports, which were her husband and her mother-in-law. At this time, she was able to, from the past visit I had with her, able to contact Crisis when she felt like she needed extra support. So, she was able to follow through with suggestions that I had given her in the previous visit. [00:28:37] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:28:38] Speaker 5: And, based on your visit with her on the 12th, she accepted a willingness to go to one of those programs, right? Yes. Or be, at least be referred. Yes. So, on this particular visit on the December 19th, did she report any further issues or anything that had happened between the 12th and the 19th that were of concern? [00:28:58] Speaker 1: So, she was continuing to have low mood and numbness. She did not have any SI and had no need for crisis intervention over that weekend. [00:29:09] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:29:10] Speaker 5: And, did she indicate to you that she had been doing things at home to try to help with her mood? [00:29:16] Speaker 1: Yes. And what was she doing? Let's see. She was spending time with family and her children and exercising. [00:29:28] Speaker 2: Here's the problem, and this is a big-picture problem that prosecutors have. This is the prosecution case. This is someone alleging a mental disease or defect that has the most documented history I've ever seen in my years at Court TV. When it's time for the defense to go, they'll call their own witnesses and bring on some experts, etc., but in this case, as in every case, a big part of the defense is the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, and specifically in this case, the cross-examination of the treating health professionals is so important. So, let's watch the cross-examination of Letitia Dukes, the licensed mental health counselor. [00:30:13] Speaker 3: For you to diagnose a woman, whether she's pregnant, has a baby, or after having the baby, with postpartum depression, there are certain things that are symptoms that you look for, right? [00:30:24] Speaker 7: Correct. [00:30:25] Speaker 3: Okay. One of which would be depressed or a sad mood, right? Yes. Lindsay had that, right? Yes. Next would be tearfulness, right? Yes. Lindsay had that, right? Correct. Next one would be loss of interest in social activities or usual activities or friends. She had that, right? Correct. Feelings of guilt. She had that, right? She didn't express feelings of guilt. Okay. Feelings of, uh, worthlessness? Did she express that she felt worthless? She did not express that. How about fatigue? Did she have that? She did not express fatigue, but lack of sleep. I know the lack of sleep. Were you aware that, in fact, that she had indicated that she was so wiped out that she couldn't even get out of bed, couldn't put her feet on the ground, and if she did, she felt heavy? I did not hear that from her. Okay. How about, you mentioned it, you got it, sleep disturbance is another issue, correct? Correct. She had that, right? Yes. Change in appetite, she had that, lost 10, 15 pounds, right? Yes. Poor concentration, she had that, right? She said she was numb. She could not focus. Suicidal thoughts? Yes. We know she didn't have a plan, but she had suicidal thoughts, right? Correct. So, under the Mass General Hospital Research Project for women that are suffering from postpartum issues, she pretty much hit every one of the postpartum depression symptoms, correct? Correct. And then it talks about if it increases in severity, significant anxiety symptoms may occur, not generalized anxiety, significant anxiety symptoms can occur, is that right? Correct. And one of the ways that you determine that is by the test, that it can be administered to a person who is in a postpartum status, and that would be what we talked about, the Edenberg test, right? Correct. And you're aware that she was given the Edenberg test and had a 23 out of 30, I think it was. [00:32:34] Speaker 1: I was not aware. [00:32:37] Speaker 3: Okay. And some women develop panic attacks, referred to as hypochondriasis. You'd agree with that, right? Agree with that in reference to. Lindsay, she had panic attacks and complained of having panic attacks. Yes. Okay. And then you can get into the various diagnoses of which, on a postpartum person, in that time frame, obsessive compulsive disorder, OCD, right? Correct. Or bipolar 1 or bipolar 2, right? Are you using them interchangeably or could develop? Trust me. Let's say bipolar 1. Yeah. Okay. So that would be one mental disease, correct? Correct. And it's pretty serious stuff, right? Yes. And if a person is diagnosed as bipolar, one of the things that you shouldn't, if you know, is prescribed SSRIs, such as Prozac or Zoloft, right? If you know. I'm not sure of that. Okay. Would you agree that with various cases dealing with postpartum depression, all of the symptoms that we talked about, that they utilize the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale, which is a 10-item questionnaire that can identify women that have postpartum depression and the severity that they have. And on the scale, the score of 12 or greater raises concern and indicates a need for more thorough evaluation, right? Correct. Do you know whether she was thoroughly evaluated by anybody other than Tufts and Gelata? I'm only aware of Tufts and Gelata. Okay. I mean, you were trying to do the best you could with what you had to work with, right? Correct. Okay. Now we get to postpartum psychosis. That's the third category, right? Postpartum psychosis, you'd agree, is the most severe form of postpartum psychiatric illness. Is that right? Correct. Would you agree that it occurs in averages about two out of a thousand women, right? Correct. And its presentation can be very dramatic with onset of symptoms, and that can be within a year, according to the CDC, Center for Disease Control, right? And when it hits you, it just hits you, bang, quick, right? Correct. And when you think about two out of a thousand people, seems like a daunting number, but if I tell you that Fenway Park, when they're full, when they're playing the Yankees, they have 37,700 people, if you take the 37,000 people and you multiply it by two, that would mean, as you're sitting there behind first base, 74 women possibly have postpartum psychosis, right? Not sure of that number, but... Well, if you agree that it's two out of a thousand, according to the studies and the statistics, and if Fenway Park has 37,000 seats, times two would be 74. Okay. That's a pretty large number of people, right? 74 people out of that crowd? Okay. It's not that horribly unusual. I mean, it's something that perhaps you've dealt with in your practice, right? Yes. And when you're dealing with people with postpartum psychosis, do you agree that generally they present with an episode of bipolar illness, if you know? No. No, they don't, or no, you don't know? No, I don't know. Okay. Um... Bottom line is, from your dealing with Lindsay, she appeared to be sincere, right? Correct. She appeared to be help, looking for help, right? Correct. She appeared to be hurting, right? Yes. Turning in every direction she could for help, right? Correct. And the last time you saw her was when? December 19th. [00:36:52] Speaker 2: And that, once again, is the problem for prosecutors here. Like, these are the facts. She was struggling. This is not someone who was alleging a mental defense who had no history of it. It is well documented, and witness after witness has been testifying about it. And what prosecutors are trying to do is minimize it, whereas the defense just wants it all to flow in front of this jury. [00:37:19] Speaker ?: Wow. [00:37:22] Speaker 4: I discussed with her and her husband the possibility of potentially an underlying bipolar disorder. That is huge. [00:37:30] Speaker 2: That is huge. That's a huge part of this trial. That is Rebecca Gelata. She's a nurse practitioner who treated Lindsay Clancy up until, uh, December of 2022. So, she is suspecting that she's suffering from potentially a bipolar disorder. When she told that to Lindsay and Patrick Clancy, they were like, no, no, no, that's not what's going on here. And they sort of fought that diagnosis. But she's really the first one that we've heard in the trial talk about this, other than the defense attorney, Kevin Reddington. Who part of his contention in his opening statement was, she was misdiagnosed. She was bipolar, and they're giving her this medicine that makes it worse. Medicine for depression. That makes the bipolar worse. And here's a nurse practitioner who is suspecting, well, maybe she is bipolar. So, we're going to watch now the cross-examination of Rebecca Gelata. But the reality of what's happening here in this relationship between, uh, health provider and patient is that the patient is, is hesitant towards this acknowledgement of potentially being bipolar at the time. But now at trial, it becomes part of her defense. So, let's watch this extremely important cross-examination. [00:38:58] Speaker 3: So, you knew that she had been reporting panic symptoms, that she was disoriented, that she was forgetful, that she was not connected to her body? That's what she told her, right? [00:39:11] Speaker 4: I would have to review that, just to be accurate. That's correct. [00:39:16] Speaker 3: Okay. Symptomology of mania, especially when incurred or encountered by a woman within the postpartum, period. That's one of the symptoms, is being disoriented, right? [00:39:36] Speaker 4: Not necessarily. [00:39:37] Speaker 3: How about maybe a little bit? [00:39:39] Speaker 4: Could be confused if you're manic. [00:39:41] Speaker 3: Yeah. How about forgetful? That's, that's an issue, isn't it? [00:39:46] Speaker 4: Not necessarily a symptom of mania. [00:39:49] Speaker 3: Okay. How about not connected to her body? What does that mean? [00:39:56] Speaker 4: I'm not sure what that means. [00:39:58] Speaker 3: So, if you have a patient who's coming to see you, who's indicated the day before that she has the panic symptoms, disoriented, forgetful, not connected to her body, wouldn't you ask her what she meant by that? [00:40:15] Speaker 4: Yes. Okay. [00:40:16] Speaker 3: So, when you saw her on November 29th, you diagnosed that she had postpartum anxiety, right? Mm-hmm. Adjustment, insomnia, right? Correct. And when you met with her, you noted that over the last two weeks, you asked her about how she had been feeling, and she said she was feeling nervous, anxious, and on edge, and she said nearly every day, right? That's November 29th? That would be under screenings? [00:40:48] Speaker 4: Yes, she was. [00:40:49] Speaker 3: I would give you a page number, but they don't give us page numbers. She told you, and you can pull it up if you have it there, that she was not able to stop or control worrying, and that had been for several days at least, right? [00:41:03] Speaker 4: Correct. [00:41:03] Speaker 3: And she was worrying and stressing about things, worrying about different things every day, right? [00:41:10] Speaker 4: Nearly every day, yes. [00:41:11] Speaker 3: Couldn't relax nearly every day, this is a questionnaire form that you have, right? Yes. Being so restless nearly every day, correct? Correct. Asked if she was annoyed or irritable, and she said not at all, sure, like she doesn't think, she didn't believe that she was a person that would be irritable or angry with people, right? Yes. And then feeling afraid as if something awful might happen, and she got that GAD 7 score of 14, is that correct? Correct. So what does a GAD score of 14 tell you on November 29th? [00:41:47] Speaker 4: Moderate anxiety. [00:41:49] Speaker 3: And then you ask about in the last seven days, trying to get a history, she denied definitely not so much now that she was able to laugh or see the funny side of things, right? [00:41:59] Speaker 4: Right. [00:42:00] Speaker 3: And that she was asked, is she looking forward with enjoyment to things, and she responded hardly at all, right? Yes. Blaming herself when things go wrong, she says yes, some of the time. Yep. Yes. Anxious and worried for no good reason, yes, correct? Yes. Scared and panicky for no good reason, yes, correct? Yes. Then they asked if she felt sad or miserable, if she was a miserable person, and she said, no, not at all, right? [00:42:27] Speaker ?: Right. [00:42:28] Speaker 3: And basically, you indicated that you were going to send along information about bipolar 1 or bipolar 2, which actually would be what's known as a bipolar spectrum disorder, is that correct? [00:42:40] Speaker 4: Yes, that was on December 7th. [00:42:43] Speaker 3: Okay, but it's underneath November 30th, so forgive me for looking at it that way. [00:42:47] Speaker 4: Yeah, I don't know why. [00:42:49] Speaker 3: That's all right, no problem. So, one of the things with the mania that you refer to and that you talk about is excessive activity, is that it? Excessive cleaning sometimes, right? [00:43:01] Speaker 4: Sometimes. [00:43:01] Speaker 3: Excessive exercise? [00:43:05] Speaker 4: Sometimes. [00:43:06] Speaker 3: Did you know that after she had Callan, that within a matter of a couple of weeks, that she ran a 5K? [00:43:16] Speaker 4: No, I did not know that. [00:43:18] Speaker 3: And that nobody wanted her to, including Pat, but she just had to get out there and run, and did. Objection. Overall. You know that? I did not. Is that something that would be important to know? I mean, as far as whether or not a person is in that manic stage where it's post-delivery, and that's a significant artifact, if you will, of exercising, right? [00:43:40] Speaker 4: It would have been something I would have considered. [00:43:42] Speaker 3: Okay. And as I said, you were pretty much the only one that actually considered bipolar spectrum disorder of all the doctors that she had seen. You know that, right? Are you aware of that? I'm... All right, never mind. That's all right. She's going to object. That's okay. Okay. So the symptoms that you noted were a mania. It says mania characterized by exaggerated excitement, hyperactivity, and racing scattered thoughts, right? [00:44:09] Speaker 4: Yeah. [00:44:10] Speaker 3: So what is... Go ahead. [00:44:11] Speaker 4: Was that from my note? [00:44:13] Speaker 3: I'm looking at the same thing that we've been looking at, which is... [00:44:16] Speaker 4: Oh, the information I sent her on bipolar? [00:44:18] Speaker 3: Yeah, it says, hi, Lindsay, and then your note. She... If you move ahead to, I think, the message portal or whatever it's called on November 30th, it's captioned, stopping Remeron. [00:44:32] Speaker 4: Yes. [00:44:32] Speaker 3: Okay, you're with me. And it says, no, this would go to the fact that she was still not sleeping. It was a huge problem for her, right? Yes. And she told you in her message thing, no, the weird thing is I don't feel tired at all. [00:44:48] Speaker 4: Correct. [00:44:49] Speaker 3: And that's one of the things that you had told us earlier is a symptom, correct? [00:44:53] Speaker 4: Correct. [00:44:54] Speaker 3: A person that is not getting sleep but doesn't feel tired. Correct. What is the symptom of? [00:45:01] Speaker 4: It's... It could... It's a symptom of mania that we look for. [00:45:04] Speaker 3: Okay. And when we looked for that mania, did you notice that? And did you factor that into your diagnoses? [00:45:09] Speaker 4: Yes. [00:45:10] Speaker 3: Okay. [00:45:12] Speaker 2: It's fascinating watching this dynamic because this testimony is playing into the defense. And we've been talking about that for a couple of days. But at the same time, in their civil lawsuit, Lindsay and Patrick Clancy are suing nurse practitioner Rebecca Gelata, who's the one who seems to be the only one who recognized this alleged bipolar disorder. We'll see what the jury does in the criminal case with this testimony. Significant, important. That's it for now. We're out of time. I'm Vinnie Politan. Thank you so much for watching. And as always, please don't forget to hug the kids. Transcription by ESO. Translation by —