Day 7 LINDSAY CLANCY Trial- The Nanny Tells All

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: B2 will be kind of classy, a cupcake so sweet and sexy Have fun and enjoy the journey, just have a good attorney No big whoop, no biggie, she lives near New York City Not just the YouTube show, you know you know You better grab a straw, learn about the law It's cool here in the shade, sipping motions of lemonade Cool hands will prevail, kindness will never fail Be classy and vastly wise, oh Melanie, little is going live Oh no, where is Melanie, follow the island's melody There's a concert within reach, no surprise she's at Jones Beach She heard some music far away, Captain Jack's at Harbor Bay He sings in his piano plays, not all sounds are water away Speaking Yiddish and Latin, it's not just for Manhattan It's for Gupta and Meshagas, a ridiculous mess that in Santa's Boy, they mock us, the girl said, that's for schmucks Be cool, be kind, be classy, my cupcakes are sweet and sexy And not just the YouTube show, you know, you know, you know Cool hands will prevail, kindness will never fail Be classy and vastly wise, Melanie, little is going live Good morning, good morning, happy hump day [00:01:50] Speaker 2: Today's Wednesday, August 5th, 2026 and we are on day, today day seven Of the Massachusetts versus Lindsay Clancy trial How's everybody doing? How's everybody doing? Let's start off with our motivational quote of the day Albert Einstein said, and this is for Wednesday, August 5th Today's the 5th, I'm sorry, August 5th, I think I said 6th I don't know what day it is anymore All these trial days blend together after a while, don't they? Albert Einstein said, great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds Oh, that's a good one Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds That is your motivational quote of the day How's everyone? I am shooketh, I am shooketh I am shooketh because I clicked on the Perez Hilton video last night If you haven't seen it, do not look for it I don't know if it's even still up I think I saw it right after it went live For those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about Perez Hilton, celebrity gossip Had a psychotic break last night on a TikTok live And I thought it was fake Somebody saw it live, True Crime Junkie saw it live On TikTok, it was on TikTok live And it's, you can't unsee it once you see it And it is like, it is watching a psychotic break in real time I don't even know how much of it I can describe to you But he, there was eventually, eventually people called authorities And law enforcement was outside his house I think he was barricaded in, he wouldn't come out The last thing I heard last night before I went to bed And I had nightmares about this Was that he was brought into an ambulance And he was brought to the hospital Thankfully his children and his mother were not in the house with him But it was like watching a psychotic break in real time Self-inflicted, self-inflicted It's like a horror movie Like a slasher film But it was live And he was doing it to himself It was terrifying Perez Hilton Absolutely terrifying He had sepsis a couple of weeks ago, I think And he was in the hospital for a month And so do not Hopefully they took the video down It was all over socials And it took something like 34 minutes For them to even remove it from Twitter I mean, not Twitter, TikTok He was hurting himself with an implement Let's just say All over his body It looked like a slasher film It was You can't unsee it You can't unsee it And it is so scary And prayers up for him And for his family And yeah His account is suspended But other people have it And it was everywhere At least last night Before I went to bed But the timing of this While we're talking about psychotic breaks Is insane But not every psychotic break looks the same I mean, that was something that you just can't unsee If those of you who saw it You can just tell me if you saw it And tell me what you thought But I don't think he's related to Perez Hilton In fact, that's not his real name It's his stage name, Perez Hilton His name is something else It's still on X I mean, just warning, warning Danger Danger, Will Robinson Do not watch it If you are Someone who is very sensitive to gore I will just say But at first I didn't think it was real And what was It was like a TikTok Live On his own platform And then he invited people To come on And there were three younger people On there with him That were flipping out Like, what are you doing? And I think they called 9-1-1 And Once again Scrolling along the bottom of your screen Your screen Scream Because I was screaming When I was watching this Is the National Maternal Mental Health Hotline 1-833-852-6262 And remember If you are having thoughts Of hurting yourself 988 Is the number to call 988 He has kids He has three children Horrific And prayers up Is all I can say We are waiting for them To come into court today But while we do that Let's look at our Badass affirmation of the day Where's the deck? Here it is Affirmations for a badass Yeah, it happened around I want to say It was around I don't know 1130 last night Maybe Before midnight I think It was one of the scariest things I've ever seen too And I And You know I like horror movies And this was just No way to describe it Okay Here it is Here it is You guys For those of you You need to hear Your badass affirmation Of the day You will get there You're going to do great today You will get there You're going to do great today For anyone Who needs To see this And my understanding is Because of course I fell into my rabbit hole Call me Alice And I I'm not really a follower Of Perez Hilton But He does have a family channel Also And he has Three children That he had through Surrogate And he recently moved from I think Las Vegas I think it was Las Vegas Where he lived To Miami And he lives in Miami now And I think that's where it happened And Yeah, the timing was We need more mental health support That That I If you see something Say something If you have a feeling That someone in your family Or one of your friends Is a little off Check in with them And I Here it is again Your badass affirmation of the day You will get there You're going to do great today You're going to do great today Listen We have a lot of moms in the chat Heard from them yesterday Some of them even wrote me emails Who said That this stream And all of you In the chat Are helping them Get through some rough times Postpartum So Listen If by televising this trial And by covering this trial And watching this trial No matter how hard it may be For many of us It is so important Because It's opening up a conversation And a dialogue Around postpartum Depression Postpartum psychosis And it is letting women know Who are going through this right now That you are not alone And just like the badass affirmation says You will get there You're going to do great today Right It's like one day at a time Check in with your friends Who are new moms Or moms Who feel like they're at the end of their rope Maybe And maybe you can do something To make a difference In their lives And yours So sad So sad All around I don't know who's going to be testifying today What I do know is It's going to be a Hoff day As Judge Canoni used to say It's going to be a Hoff day Over there in Plymouth Superior And I think Court's going to go from 9 to 1 today So everyone can have an afternoon To decompress And breathe And breathe Okay Again Weren't you in here yesterday? You were in here yesterday You kept saying it yesterday I gave you a chance to come back Lindsay Clancy was never diagnosed With postpartum depression Or psychosis Are you a treating physician Of Lindsay Clancy? Are you? Because it was in her history At the Brigham That she had postpartum psychosis It was in her history And I will remind you That from the time She arrived at South Shore Hospital Until the time That she was transferred to Brigham She never regained consciousness So that's not something That she told The medical providers It is something That was already In her medical records So I don't know if you're a troll But you're not going to ruin my day But that's just not accurate We don't know the answer to that yet Then why was it in her history In her medical record At the Brigham? That is my question And I think that they said That they use Epic, right? Which would pull All her medical records in From all of her providers The wild speculation That is out there on the internet That's the same person I know Don't tell me what to do I'll respond to them if I want to They're going to be called out Because they come in here To disrupt on purpose And so Sometimes They need to be addressed And that's what I'm going to do Right If she was never diagnosed With anything Why was she given All those prescriptions? It's epic, right? Epic Oh, at least I hope You're recovering From your surgery Meditating honey badger said Wait, I think Hold on I know That's interesting, right? Scarlett Begonias Says a lot of people Seem to be often mistaken But never in doubt When it comes to Diagnosing people They don't even know That's right, Katie Katie says It's noted in pages 72 to 74 Of her Brigham Hospital record Where she stayed for I think a month Thank you, Brandon Thank you, Brandon I appreciate you Here's Devin Ashley Is pregnant with baby number two Congratulations 35 weeks Praying I don't experience PPD It's something that It's not really talked about I don't know Should women be Maybe Maybe if When women were pregnant They were given pamphlets And some more awareness around it Maybe that would help Because I think A lot of people Don't realize That it's a thing And so maybe They should be told The warning signs And maybe their family Should be told The warning signs And things to look for So that it can be Diagnosed early Before it gets to A situation like this If indeed That is what Happened here Because we still We still don't have any evidence We still don't have any evidence Of that We have her journal Which told us a lot About what she was going through But I haven't heard evidence That she was 100% In a psychotic break At the time And I'm waiting for that We're hearing a lot of evidence About what happened to the children We know that We're hearing a lot of evidence About Lindsay's injuries And what happened to her But so far We haven't heard a lot About Whether or not She was suffering From a psychotic break And it's going to be On the burden Of the Commonwealth To prove that she wasn't The burden The Commonwealth has to prove That she was not Suffering from a psychotic break And that she was Criminally responsible Monique says Lindsay was a walking pharmacy Doctors need to pay more attention Right Charlie says I wonder if any of the jurors Heard about the poor Perez Hilton thing last night And have a new life experience For this trial Yes Technical Out says Awareness of this terrible issue Is the first step This is great Thank you Emma Oslin says When my daughter-in-law was pregnant And I had several talks With my son About her And this To let them be aware of it And to ask for help If anything was off Mike Mike and Em Coming in hot Parody Copying and repeating words Without true thought Or understanding I know It's like people read things On the internet And they just take them as true And so they go around And they just Spew them As if they're facts Like these wild theories Now that are going around About Patrick And it's just It's insane And that's why We're so vigilant here About the chat And about what Things are said In the chat Because we know From past trials And past experience That families Do come in And read the comments And watch the chat And just not going to tolerate it Jad says Absolutely Postpartum depression Is bad enough I had no idea I was suffering from it But my OBGYN advised me To go to therapy Thank goodness It's great It's me April says My daughter's 31 She went through PPD I never fully understood it Until I saw it so close My heart breaks For everyone That suffers And their families Lynn Downing says So glad you reconsidered To cover this trial I knew we would learn From the experts at trial And from each other I know Me too And I guess it surprises me I guess it shouldn't surprise me Anymore That there are so many people Trolling On this case I mean I get the Karen Reed thing Because there was a huge Faction of people Who were maybe Protecting other people Who still have not yet Been arrested And so they were out In full force To try and change the narrative But this one is just So wild to me That the That the trolls are out In full force On this one I mean I don't know It's interesting Kelly you're pregnant too Congratulations She's also pregnant And had PPD With her oldest Afraid to get it again But glad I know more About it now And realize that There's help out there Yes A lot of people are saying That Lindsay Clancy Had serotonin toxicity And I wonder if the experts Are going to talk about that Oh Chief says I work in health Information management We also utilize Epic here in Minnesota It's amazing It's an amazing thing To see a patient A patient's records From other Epic facilities That's right I have the papers On Matthew Farwell And Sandra Birchmore Just haven't had a chance To read them to you Maybe If this ends early today Which I believe It's going to Perhaps that could be An afternoon stream today If you guys are interested In that There's stuff out On Matthew Farwell A lot of motions Dropped in federal court And it is exposing All the corruption In the Massachusetts State police That happened In the Karen Reed case Same players Same state But now the feds Are involved And that trial Is supposed to happen In October right Matthew Farwell Federal court [00:17:28] Speaker 3: Here we go God save us From the commonwealth Yes please The caption said [00:17:38] Speaker 2: The court is now In session Q-U-A-R-T All right I'm boosting [00:17:42] Speaker 3: Your Honor Before the court today We have the matter Of commonwealth Vs. Lindsay Clancy Ms. Clancy is present She is represented By attorney Kevin Reddington The commonwealth Is represented By assistant district Attorney Jennifer Sprague And assistant district Attorney Shannon Buckingham [00:17:59] Speaker 4: Hi Well good morning counsel Good morning Good morning Ms. Clancy [00:18:02] Speaker 3: All right [00:18:03] Speaker 4: Before we bring the jury Could I speak to counsel Just for a couple Of minutes [00:18:08] Speaker 2: That's Wednesday It happens every day The reason it happens When they get into the room Is because the court reporter Has to take down Everything they're saying At the side Bye EMT Collins is here First responder Says I'm a first responder It's sad So many patients tell me Who are suffering That they are just so scared To ask for help Right They're afraid That their children Are going to be taken Away from them And put into Foster care And I think that's A legitimate fear But I've seen That there's People out there Like Carol Erskine Who's a retired judge From Massachusetts Talking about safety plans And how safety plans Should be put in place For the children Thank you Mac MSN And Khaleesi For gifting five memberships You're amazing And to the five Lucky members For the five To the five Lucky new members Of the channel Welcome And as random YouTube picks them Directly We're not going to Talk about the bow Today We're not going to Talk about the bow We've talked about it Ad nauseum It derails the chat Please Keep it to yourself We all can see it Let's not derail it First thing in the morning Say no to the bow Thank you Say no to the bow What's up bow? On top Thank you for your Super sticker DN7357 Thank you for your Super sticker Jamie says I heard someone Refer to the prosecutors As prosecutors By accident While we were talking About Sandra Birchmore And Karen Reed Thanks for your time Jamie It's a half day today Nine to one Your dad's favorite mom Says I wonder If this prosecutor Would think Perez Was just faking it Since the Yeah Since the cuts Weren't dead that deep I can't unsee that I'm still I'm still Shooketh I'm shooketh Aaron thanks for your Ten says I mentioned this yesterday But I had serious PPD requiring Intervention My doctor told me Not to worry Because I wasn't As bad as the mom Who tried to eat The used syringes Out of the sharps Container Yes you did mention That yesterday That's frightening And I think There's all kinds Of degrees Of psychotic breaks Right If you watched The Perez Hilton Video last night Which I do not Suggest that you do That is at A different level And if Lindsay Clancy Did indeed Suffer From a psychotic Break That is a level Further Than that And that's I'm It's time to get A new doctor Aaron is all I can say to you Get a new doctor Thanks for your time Leah says Thanks for covering And talking about This issue You're welcome You're welcome It's not easy Because the crazies Are out I guess Jess Gifted five Memberships too You know why Because she too Is amazing Thank you Jess And Nona to B Nona to three Nona to B Nona to three Thank you for Your super sicker Nancy's been here For 22 months Because those who Like it here Really like it here And are very Very very loyal Very loyal And I love you guys With all of my heart I love you With all of my heart Dinderloo Became a new member [00:21:27] Speaker 5: Welcome [00:21:27] Speaker 2: The sidebar Could be anything The sidebar Could be anything Every morning They go to sidebar First thing So I can't guess What it's about Because my crystal ball Is broken today My crystal ball Is broken today So I don't know What the sidebar Is about But Whatever it is The reason that They have to wait To do it While they're in court Is because The court reporter Has to be Taking everything down Or actually In Massachusetts They use a system Where they speak Into what looks like An athletic supporter And if you can't Be an athlete Be an athletic supporter Name that movie And so the court reporter Has to take everything down And so there's that Is Melanie going for the defense I haven't made up my mind I am willing to listen To all of the evidence It is way too early [00:22:18] Speaker ?: It is way too early [00:22:18] Speaker 2: In my opinion For anybody To make a decision About what's happened here Because we haven't heard Any evidence It is from Greece You're right About what Lindsay Was going through From any real medical providers Who treated her Or experts I'm going to wait For the experts Before I make my decision And so I'm not going For anyone I am Terribly Conflicted On this case Terribly Conflicted We looked at the jury Instructions yesterday And from The jury instructions The six month thing Is something that I don't know If as a juror I could reconcile In my head And so I am not Going for anyone What I am going for Is awareness What I am going for Is Shining a light On something That is very Very real In postpartum mothers That is not talked About enough And that a lot of people Don't know about And what I am going for Is Spreading the word About Things that can happen To new moms So I'm not going for Lindsay Clancy Or going against Lindsay Clancy Right now At this moment But I have empathy And I think It is something That needs to be discussed And more awareness Needs to be Brought To it Listen I listened to Annie Elise Did a video A couple of days ago On this And she was Very raw And very honest At the end of it And she broke down In tears And she said That she too Suffered from Postpartum depression Slash I don't know If it got as far As psychosis But so many celebrities Have talked about it In the past I think Brooke Shields And many others Have brought a lot Of awareness to it But still Apparently People just don't Think it's real Or that it can Really happen Or that it's just Some sort of excuse Or that women Should just suck it up And that is something That I disagree with Thank you very much Just another low For your ton Thank you She likes my Outfit today Thank you I think people That have already Made a decision About this case It's just too soon And it's very divisive And people are so Dug in on either side What I'm willing to do Is look at Listen to the evidence Show me some experts We already learned From Lindsay's Treating psychiatrist Who treated her for a month That you don't need To see unicorns In the corner To be going through A psychotic break That you can make decisions You can communicate You can execute a plan You can make a plan Even in psychosis And that is something That I did not know Because I am not an expert So what I'm willing to do Unlike many others With closed minds Is wait For the evidence Thank you Zimmy For being here for 19 months Way too soon Police 123CD Became a member Crash out Mana became a member Praying for anyone Who's ever suffered With PPD Says Berkshire girl Thank you Bub's mom 69 Good morning to you too Thanks for being here For 10 months Good morning Scarlet Mantis Thanks for giving Your time To walk through this With us Thank you for your five R and kitty mom Says psych nurse With a day off today I get to watch live Wish they had considered ECT for Lindsay First line treatment For treatment Resistant depression Electric shock therapy Thank you [00:25:56] Speaker ?: Thank you [00:25:58] Speaker 5: Thank you Craig Smith For your super sticker [00:26:09] Speaker 2: A lot of nurses in the chat A lot of psych nurses Listen to them Because they know Better than many people Who just are trolling [00:26:23] Speaker 6: Hey hey hey All the rest of us Having anything to do Before the Honorable William Sullivan Justice From the Superior Court Now sitting Within Florida Before the court [00:26:46] Speaker 3: Today we have the Continuation of the jury trial In the matter of Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy Ms. Clancy is present She is represented By attorney Kevin Reddington The Commonwealth Is represented by Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague And Assistant District Attorney Shannon Buckingham [00:27:01] Speaker 4: All right Well good morning again Nice to see everyone Thank you for being here What I'm going to do Is I'm going to ask you Those questions again And then go over The schedule Forget we are not You are not Sitting this afternoon [00:27:18] Speaker 2: If you're not Looking at your screen These are Lindsay's parents Sitting next to expert The expert witness here Paul Zizel Dr. Zizel has testified In other trials That we have watched Including the Lucy Medina trial Which ironically Hank Brennan Was Lucy Medina's Defense attorney And He's an amazing man And he's such a great witness And he's such a great doctor And he's still treating Lindsay to this day Which Indicates to me That not only Is he going to be able To speak to His first meeting With her When she was in The Brigham Up until the present day And so It's going to be so interesting To hear from him That I think it may Change some people's minds And the state Also had their own Expert Examine Lindsay That was video I think that In the end That was videotaped By the defense They were allowed To tape it Because I remember There was a pretrial motion About that And he's really amazing So just like Try and keep an open mind Try and keep an open mind And if you If you saw what happened With Perez Hilton Last night That was real That was a real Psychotic break In real time On TikTok And it's frightening So these are Lindsay's parents They've been there Every day As far as I know [00:28:36] Speaker 4: Okay And that's Not going to change So you're sitting This afternoon Okay And that's Not going to change So you can count on that So let me ask you At this point Has any member Of the jury Read, seen, heard Or overheard Anything from any source About any aspect Of this case That would affect Your ability To be fair And impartial As a juror [00:28:58] Speaker ?: All right [00:28:59] Speaker 4: Next Is there any Other serious matter Or concern Bearing on your service As a juror In this case Anybody needs to Bring to my attention Great Thank you again For following Those instructions And what we're Going to do Is we're going to Return to the Commonwealth case And like I said We are not Going to be You're not going to Be sitting This afternoon The plan And I'll double check When we get To that point Would be To return tomorrow At nine o'clock And pretty much Relatively full day Tomorrow And probably Friday as well But I'll double check As we go through that All right And I'll let you know As soon as I can If there's any Changes to that schedule So with that I'm going to ask The Commonwealth To call Their next witness Come on [00:29:49] Speaker 7: Thank you The criminal Calls Etan Negri [00:29:53] Speaker 2: This is the doctor From New York Who fought the subpoena I believe [00:29:58] Speaker 5: I did not want to come in As I recall [00:30:06] Speaker 8: Good morning You stop right here Raise your right hand To the clerk Good morning [00:30:13] Speaker 3: If you saw In the sweat At the testimony And she shall get To the court And the jury In the matter And I'll have To see Tom Wong Thank you [00:30:23] Speaker 8: You may have a seat All right [00:30:30] Speaker 4: Good morning sir Good morning sir I just asked you To speak into that microphone Sure All right Turn your back in please [00:30:37] Speaker 7: Thank you Good morning sir [00:30:39] Speaker 9: Good morning [00:30:39] Speaker 7: Could you please Tell the jurors Your first and last name [00:30:42] Speaker 9: My first name is Etan Last name is Negri [00:30:44] Speaker 7: Can you spell Your first name For the record [00:30:46] Speaker 9: E-I-T-A-N [00:30:48] Speaker 7: And your last name [00:30:49] Speaker 9: N-E-G-R-I [00:30:51] Speaker 7: And what do you do For work [00:30:52] Speaker 9: I'm a physician Associate Physician Assistant [00:30:55] Speaker 7: And did you go To school for that Yes Can you tell us About your educational Background [00:30:59] Speaker 9: I did my undergraduate At City College In New York And I did a postbac At Brooklyn College Followed by a PA program At Torrey University In Manhattan [00:31:09] Speaker 7: And do you currently Work as a physician's assistant Yes And do you work Currently work In the state of Massachusetts [00:31:17] Speaker 9: No ma'am [00:31:18] Speaker 7: Are you licensed In the state of Massachusetts [00:31:19] Speaker 9: Yes ma'am [00:31:20] Speaker 7: Are you licensed In any other states [00:31:22] Speaker 9: New York state [00:31:23] Speaker 7: I'm going to go back To January of 2023 Were you working In Massachusetts then Yes And where Where were you working Brigham and Women's Hospital And were you in that same role As a physician's assistant Yes And what were you doing What were your general duties In that role Working at Brigham and Women's [00:31:42] Speaker 9: Generally You assess a patient You diagnose You formulate a plan With an attending physician And you execute that plan [00:31:51] Speaker ?: And you execute that plan [00:31:51] Speaker 9: Throughout the day And it encompasses Various things [00:31:54] Speaker 7: Were you working In any particular department At Brigham and Women's Back in January of 2023 [00:31:58] Speaker 9: Trauma burn Surgical ICU [00:32:00] Speaker 7: Now I'm going to draw your attention To a particular patient That came into the Brigham And Women's Hospital On January 24th of 2023 That patient was Lindsay Clancy Do you recall Encountering this patient On January 25th of 2023 Yes And what did you do As it pertained to The care and treatment Of this patient [00:32:23] Speaker 9: I received the information From the shift before me Formulated a plan Examined her Assessed her Staffed that plan With the attending physician And executed that plan Throughout the day [00:32:35] Speaker 7: And fair to say This particular patient Had injuries That you were directed To observe Review Form that plan on [00:32:44] Speaker 9: Correct [00:32:44] Speaker 7: What were the injuries [00:32:45] Speaker 9: She had multiple injuries The most acute Were injuries That were requiring Consultation with other services And the ones That I directly managed Were the lacerations To her wrists And her Just her wrists actually [00:32:59] Speaker 7: And as far as When you say She had other acute injuries You were not involved In the care of her For those Correct [00:33:05] Speaker 9: I was involved In the care That involved Consulting other services To manage those things Yes [00:33:12] Speaker 7: Okay And as far as Any sort of Repair work That you were doing As a physician's assistant Working with the trauma surgeons What repair work Were you assigned to do? [00:33:24] Speaker 9: Laceration repair [00:33:25] Speaker 7: And on this particular patient Where were the injuries Or lacerations That you were Going to repair? [00:33:32] Speaker 9: She had Multiple lacerations On both of her wrists She had superficial On her neck Which I did not repair Okay [00:33:38] Speaker 7: And as it pertained To the wrists Did you go through That process of Observing Reviewing Coming up With a plan And then repairing Those injuries Yes And were you Directed to do that By any particular Doctor? [00:33:55] Speaker 9: Not necessarily directed A lot of those things Fall within my scope And since they were Less acute They kind of Fell down the chain To me [00:34:03] Speaker 7: Okay And you're aware That she was being Seen and treated By a host Of other doctors Nurses An entire team Yes As it pertains To the wrist injuries What did you do To examine Those Those areas [00:34:21] Speaker 9: The first thing I do is assess The location Then I assess The severity Whether it requires Intervention By someone Other than myself In this instance It did not So then I proceed With just kind of Protocol Laceration repair [00:34:38] Speaker 7: When would it Be a situation Where you'd need Somebody else To intervene [00:34:43] Speaker 9: If it required Surgical intervention Or suturing repair Beyond my skill set In this instance It did not Okay [00:34:53] Speaker 7: And so Referring to these Particular injuries When you observed them Did you observe Any areas of active bleeding? No And fair to say They had been treated By nurses And other staff Prior to you Encountering these injuries Correct? Yes They were dressed And covered Before I got there Now When you assess them You noted that They were bilateral Correct? Yes What does that mean? [00:35:16] Speaker 9: It means on both sides Of the body So both wrists Okay [00:35:19] Speaker 7: And so Referring to [00:35:22] Speaker 2: The right wrist Do you see What's going on here? Do you see What's going on here? And tell me If you think I'm wrong Or overreacting I think that She's trying to show That because a PA Stitched up her wrists It must not have been So bad Because if it was so bad They would have had A surgeon do it And this is a physician's assistant And so therefore It wasn't that bad That's what I think She's trying to show here Maybe that's why He didn't want to come in He's in New York now He didn't want to come in [00:35:53] Speaker 5: There we go [00:35:58] Speaker 7: What were your observations Of the injuries To the right wrist [00:36:03] Speaker 9: The right wrist As far as My reference to the note Is that she had A few lacerations One of which Was severe And deep enough To require repair [00:36:13] Speaker 7: And I'm afraid to say That That right wrist injury Was The one that you Repaired Was three centimeters deep [00:36:26] Speaker 9: Approximately If that's what my note says Then that's That's what it was [00:36:31] Speaker 7: And on a wrist Or this area of the wrist Where you observed the injuries That depth Of three centimeters Did that require Further surgical intervention Or were you able To suture that area [00:36:44] Speaker 9: I was able to suture that area As far as what Happened subsequent to that I wasn't there So I'm not sure Okay [00:36:49] Speaker 7: And how many sutures Did you use To repair that injury I believe three And in relation To any other cuts Or lacerations That were on that right wrist Did any other Of those lacerations Require suturing No How did you treat Those other injuries [00:37:05] Speaker 9: Just irrigation Meaning cleaning them out And then Using a type of tape To close them shut And that's generally [00:37:12] Speaker 7: Referred to as a [00:37:13] Speaker 9: Steri strip Correct [00:37:14] Speaker 7: Correct Okay Can I approach the witness May I'm showing you Two photographs Do those photographs Depict The repairs Of the sutures Of the sutures That you did On the right wrist Of Lindsay Glancy Yes Shannon works [00:37:39] Speaker 2: In an operating room And they have students Stitch people After major surgery Anybody who watches The pit Knows that too Right Anything to minimize The superficial injuries That's right Scott [00:37:50] Speaker 7: I'm just going to show On the screen What's now been marked Is exhibit 201 And you should be able To see it On the screen In front of you Can you see that [00:38:02] Speaker 9: Yes Okay [00:38:03] Speaker 7: And so This is the right wrist Correct [00:38:06] Speaker 9: Correct [00:38:07] Speaker 7: And those black lines In the middle Of the photograph Are those The sutures That you Did [00:38:12] Speaker 9: Correct [00:38:13] Speaker 7: And just showing you 202 These white strips That are all around The injury Are those The stary strips [00:38:23] Speaker 9: Correct [00:38:24] Speaker 5: He did a nice job [00:38:26] Speaker 7: Now On the left wrist Do you recall What the What you observed To be the injuries On that wrist [00:38:36] Speaker 9: I believe There was a similar Laceration Just shorter in length That required fewer sutures Okay [00:38:44] Speaker 7: And fair to say If your notes reflect That the left wrist Had a one Had one Meaning Just a singular Two centimeter deep Linear cut That that would have been What your observations Were of the injury That you repaired Correct And how many sutures Did that injury require [00:39:04] Speaker 9: One suture [00:39:05] Speaker 7: And were there other areas That you observed That had some sort of Laceration [00:39:10] Speaker 9: I believe similarly Just superficial ones That needed stary strips [00:39:14] Speaker 7: And again In treating this particular Injury When you came upon it Was there active bleeding Or any concern That you needed more intervention Other than a suture At that time No I'm going to show you [00:39:29] Speaker 6: Two more photos [00:39:30] Speaker 7: Are those familiar to you? Yes And are those the suture That you did On the left wrist Of Lindsay Yes ma'am All right [00:39:51] Speaker 4: That may be admitted Or they may be admitted [00:39:53] Speaker 7: And now again just showing What's been marked Marked is exhibit 203 And you see the injury There on the wrist Near the ruler In the photograph [00:40:24] Speaker 9: Yes [00:40:25] Speaker 7: And exhibit 204 Which is just a closer Upshot of that Is that correct? [00:40:31] Speaker 9: Yes [00:40:32] Speaker 7: And again You see the white Strips Those are also stary strips That were applied [00:40:37] Speaker 9: Correct [00:40:38] Speaker 7: Now in relation To any of these wounds On the right Or the left wrist Did you observe The lacerations To go any deeper Than the subcutaneous tissue? On my observation No And when we talk Subcutaneous tissue We're talking about That fatty tissue On your Underneath your skin Correct? Correct And did you have To return at any point To your knowledge To readdress these issues Or do any further Laceration repair As it pertained To this patient? On that shift No Do you recall If you didn't [00:41:11] Speaker 2: Three centimeters deep Is over an inch deep So I don't know Why everyone's calling This superficial But that's a medical term Also Her right wrist Was deeper Is she a lefty? I have questions But again This testimony Is not really That important to me Because I do think It was a legitimate attempt [00:41:32] Speaker 7: Any other shift? No I have no further questions Thank you [00:41:43] Speaker 10: Mr. Reington Is it Mr. Negri? Negri, yes sir And you're not a doctor You're a physician assistant Is that what it is? That's correct And how long Had you worked For Brigham and Women's Prior to Seeing Lindsay Clancy That On January 24 Or 23 [00:42:04] Speaker 9: I believe I was In my second year Of employment With Brigham and Women's Okay [00:42:09] Speaker 10: And you've got to [00:42:09] Speaker 9: Keep your voice up Because people back here Have to be obligated to Okay I believe I was In my second year Of employment At Brigham and Women's [00:42:16] Speaker 10: You're not suggesting You're not suggesting For one minute That after you did Your butterfly stitches Lindsay could have Get up and walked Out the door Of the hospital Right? No sir And would you agree With me that In fact She was critically ill When you saw her Right? Yes sir And she certainly Wasn't critically ill From COVID Or a flu Or something like that Right? No not to my knowledge You know that There are notes That are prepared For the records From the hospital For example On January 24 2023 Hospital admission Form Is filled out Do you know it Dr. Jeffrey Andrew Anderson? Yes And he was What was his position That night? [00:43:04] Speaker 9: He was one of the Trauma surgeons And also One of the intensivists The attending physicians In the ICU [00:43:09] Speaker 10: All right And you've Had a chance To review A number of records And photographs With the DAs I imagine Right? [00:43:18] Speaker 9: I've reviewed My own Procedure note [00:43:20] Speaker 10: Okay So what does What does that mean? [00:43:24] Speaker 9: It means I reviewed The note That I wrote myself Regarding the laceration Repairs [00:43:27] Speaker 10: Okay Is that Is that the note That indicates That It appears As though That For example On the Right upper extremity There's a Three and a half Centimetre deep Laceration On the volar Aspect of the wrist [00:43:40] Speaker 9: I don't Believe that I commented Saying volar Specifically So I don't know If that's In regards to my note But I believe My note did say About three centimetres Deep Yes [00:43:49] Speaker 10: Okay So do you recall Indicating in your note That it was Superficial laceration Or did you indicate That it was A deep laceration [00:43:57] Speaker 9: I indicated That some of them Were superficial And the one That I repaired In particular Was three centimetres deep [00:44:04] Speaker 10: And you've had occasion To speak to the prosecutors On this case And they've asked you About the superficial Superficial Superficial Injury to a wrist Right [00:44:13] Speaker 8: Correct [00:44:14] Speaker 10: In addition to the As indicated On page 75 Of the Brigham A woman's hospital Record that I have And we can fix that With other records If it doesn't coincide There's a note From Dr. Anderson That the right upper Extremity 3.5 Centimetre deep Laceration Volar aspect Of the wrist Left upper extremity Two centimetre deep Laceration On the volar Aspect of the wrist Do you agree With that assessment? Yes sir All right And then you Were able to As you say Clean it up With saline Or whatever And then you Stitched up What you had To stitch up Right Yes sir Did you have Anything to do With the massive Transfusion That she had? No sir Do you have Anything to do With the treatment Of the transected Spine that she had The shattered Spine No sir Do you have Anything whatsoever To do with The insertion Of tubes On both sides Of her body And the draining Of the blood That had pulled In her middle cavity Just the management Of those tubes After but not The placement [00:45:12] Speaker 9: Okay So you were there While that was done I was there Managing once They had been placed But I was not There for the placement Okay But you knew [00:45:20] Speaker 10: That they were in there That they were draining The blood Okay And do you know Where the blood Came from That was in her Middle extremity I don't know Specifically I'd have to refer Back to the Imaging reports In any event You know that Shortly thereafter She coded Right Yes Were you there For that No sir And basically That means that The patient has In effect died From cardiac arrest Right Not necessarily Died But their heart Has stopped beating For that And then there's Crash teams And everybody Hopefully revives The person Right Correct And you guys Did that Or they did And they were Successful Reviving her Correct So without Going through Everything You'd agree With me sir That your Observations Would be Of the wrist The repair And the Taking care Of the tubes After they were Inserted into Both sides Of her chest [00:46:12] Speaker 9: That's correct [00:46:13] Speaker 10: And that was Your involvement Extended Correct [00:46:15] Speaker 9: You're all done After that I was involved In the ongoing Management of her Care throughout The day But just as You stated Not the things That you asked Me about Okay Thank you sir Sure [00:46:25] Speaker 7: They're part of The record I would object If we could Approach [00:46:34] Speaker 10: I don't want To have a jury Go through I know [00:46:37] Speaker 4: Listen Mark them For identification And then we Can address that [00:46:43] Speaker 10: Thank you sir Okay [00:46:45] Speaker 7: I may just With a few Questions Sure Thank you [00:46:50] Speaker 4: She's salty [00:46:52] Speaker 7: I'm just going To approach And show you The five [00:46:54] Speaker 4: We'll go on She's salty [00:46:55] Speaker 7: Thank you [00:46:57] Speaker 4: All right Thank you [00:46:59] Speaker 7: I'll show you Page from the Records That's labeled Brigham and Women's Page 76 You can hold it If you're just [00:47:08] Speaker 9: Specifically Just how Are you there [00:47:10] Speaker 7: Yeah I would direct Your attention To the bottom Paragraph Where it says Exam That's not Your note From the record Correct And when It's noted That the right Upper extremity Left upper Extremity Has Three and a half Centimetre deep Laceration Two centimetre deep Laceration Deep In the Medical notes Is not An adjective Of it Correct It's more Of a directionality Of the injury [00:47:45] Speaker 9: It's a description Of yeah Basically An objective Unit of measure [00:47:49] Speaker 7: But when we say Deep it means That it goes It goes down Into the skin As opposed To across The skin [00:47:55] Speaker ?: It doesn't matter [00:47:55] Speaker 4: What we say It's what the Records say All right You can ask That question [00:48:00] Speaker 7: As far as Your assessment Of injuries Deep goes Down in the skin As opposed To across The skin Correct Okay And As far [00:48:13] Speaker 2: Three and a half Centimetres Do the math Is like An inch And a third That's deep Okay Look at your wrist It's not Your wrist Is not that deep So if they're saying This is three centimetres Deep It's over an inch But again What are you trying To prove She's not helping Her case Because every Medical witness That she puts Up there Kevin Reddington Is going to go Through all Of her other Injuries But you know You weren't Assigned to help With or to Treat her Shattered spine Were you You weren't There to To treat her All of her Broken ribs You didn't Insert the Chest tubes And so every Medical witness That comes up He's going to Repeat what All of her Injuries are I'm not a Medical provider But it sounds Pretty deep to me [00:49:09] Speaker 7: As Dr. Anderson Goes You knew That him To be One of the Attendings And a trauma Surgeon In this case As far as Dr. Anderson Goes You knew That him To be One of the Attendings And a trauma Surgeon In this case Were you Aware That on January 24th He had He had Examined These injuries And indicated They did Not require Repair At that time [00:49:33] Speaker 9: I don't Recall Specifically I'm sorry [00:49:36] Speaker 7: But you Came in To repair These On January 25th Yes Okay Thank you [00:49:41] Speaker 4: Anything Anything on That All right Thank you Yes sir Thank you You're welcome You're all set Kay Shred [00:49:49] Speaker 2: Hi Jenny Cochran Kay Shred [00:49:51] Speaker 4: Trudy Buckingham [00:49:57] Speaker 7: You may remember [00:50:02] Speaker 2: Nicholas Roberts From testifying At the Karen Reid trial He works For the Crime lab I believe Yes We love him He was the One who told Us the Extrapolation Was BS Blood alcohol Content Good morning [00:50:19] Speaker 8: Sir [00:50:20] Speaker 2: He's an All star [00:50:21] Speaker 7: Thank you Good morning [00:50:26] Speaker 11: Good morning [00:50:27] Speaker 7: Could you Please tell The jurors Your first And last Name [00:50:29] Speaker 11: It's Nicholas Roberts [00:50:31] Speaker 7: And where Do you Currently work [00:50:32] Speaker 11: I work For a company Called Thermo Fisher [00:50:35] Speaker 7: What is What is that What do they Do [00:50:37] Speaker 11: They sell Plenty of Laboratory based Products Including Refrigeration They sell Solvents They do Instruments As well [00:50:46] Speaker 7: Prior to Working for That company Did you work For the Massachusetts State Police Crime lab [00:50:50] Speaker 11: I did [00:50:51] Speaker 7: In what Unit did You work For the Crime lab [00:50:53] Speaker 11: I was in The toxicology Unit [00:50:55] Speaker 7: How long Did you work For the Crime lab [00:50:57] Speaker 11: For about Nine years [00:50:59] Speaker 7: And in Working for The crime lab What kind Of training And experience Did you have To work In the Toxicology Unit [00:51:06] Speaker 11: So prior Prior to Being hired I have Both a Bachelor's And a Master's Degree In Applied Forensic Science Concentration In chemistry And toxicology I also Have The Masters Is in Forensic Toxicology While Being hired On the Job They provide Training For all In house Stuff That we Test For Which Includes Not only A theory Based Training But also Practical Stuff So that You can Analyze And run All the Tests That we Do In house [00:51:44] Speaker 7: And as Far as Your work In the Toxicology Unit Fair to Say In January Of 2023 Or February Of 2023 You were What's Referred to As a Forensic Scientist Too Correct [00:51:56] Speaker 12: Yes [00:51:56] Speaker 7: And Throughout Your time At the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab Did You Have To Undergo Competency Tests And proficiency Tests [00:52:06] Speaker 12: Yes [00:52:06] Speaker 7: And why Is that Why Do you Have To Do That [00:52:09] Speaker 12: So Mainly It's To [00:52:11] Speaker 10: One [00:52:13] Speaker 4: At a Time Good [00:52:15] Speaker 10: I Know He's Qualified I Have No Problem With His Credentials And His Test All Right Counsel [00:52:22] Speaker 7: Thank You Sir In Working At The State Police Crime Lab [00:52:28] Speaker 2: Hey K Red Don't Get Don't Get Salty With This Witness He's An Excellent Witness And He Tells The Truth He Left The MSB So Fast He Left Skid Marks And What The Hell Was That That Was You Know Her Trying To Go Through His CV And Him Saying I Don't Need It We Agree He's Qualified We'll Stipulate To That But He Just Threw Her Off Is What It Sounded Like Listen To It Again [00:52:53] Speaker 5: What [00:52:55] Speaker 7: Potency Tests And Proficiency Tests And Proficiency Tests [00:53:03] Speaker 12: Yes [00:53:03] Speaker 7: And Why Is That Why Do You Have To Do That [00:53:06] Speaker 12: So Mainly It's The [00:53:08] Speaker 10: One [00:53:10] Speaker 4: At A Good [00:53:12] Speaker 10: I Know He's Qualified I Have No Problem With His Credentials And His Test All Right [00:53:18] Speaker ?: All Right [00:53:18] Speaker 7: Counsel Thank You Sir In Working At The State Police Crime Lab Did You Just Work In The Toxicology Unit Or Did You Work In Any Other Units In Your Time There [00:53:31] Speaker 11: No Only In Toxicology Okay [00:53:33] Speaker 7: Now As It Pertains To [00:53:34] Speaker ?: To [00:53:34] Speaker 7: To To To To To Say The State Police Crime Lab Has A Specific Set Of Protocols And Procedures That Are Followed In Every Case [00:53:42] Speaker 11: Yes [00:53:43] Speaker 7: And At That Time In February Of 2023 Was The State Police Crime Lab Using The Batch Review Process [00:53:50] Speaker 12: Yes [00:53:51] Speaker 7: And So When The State Police Used This Process There Are A Number Of Different Technicians Or Forensic Scientists That Work On Any Given Case Is That Fair To Say [00:54:02] Speaker 11: Yes [00:54:02] Speaker 7: And At The End Of It One Analyst Is Responsible For Reviewing All The Data And Authoring A Report [00:54:09] Speaker 11: Yes [00:54:09] Speaker 7: And Based On Your Training Experience If You Are That Person Reviewing The Data And Authoring The Report Do You Have The Ability To Interpret Some Of The Data In The Report [00:54:17] Speaker 11: Yes [00:54:18] Speaker 7: Or Data In The Testing I Should Say [00:54:20] Speaker 11: Yes We Review All The Data That Is Provided Within The Case File [00:54:24] Speaker 7: And Did You During Your Urine [00:54:41] Speaker 11: Yes They Keep Us Up To Date On Drugs That Are Commonly Used So [00:54:50] Speaker 7: One Of The Roles In The Toxicology Unit Is For You To Report Whether Substances Are Detected In Blood And Urine Is That Fair To Say [00:55:00] Speaker 11: Yes [00:55:00] Speaker 7: And At Some Points Are You Also Called On To Interpret The Levels [00:55:07] Speaker 11: Of Drugs So We In Blood We Report Values So We Get Concentrations Of The Different Drugs And We Mainly Report Them In Blood Okay [00:55:16] Speaker 7: And As Far As The Concentration Levels Themselves Did You Have Training And Experience On Interpreting Those Levels [00:55:23] Speaker 11: We Usually Get Training On The Effects Of The Drugs It's Hard To Say With Some Drugs As Well As Some People What One Level Might Mean For One Person It Might Differ And You Have Different Effects On Another [00:55:39] Speaker 7: Okay And Fair To Say That's A Limitation Of Just Reviewing Blood And Not Knowing Anything Else About A Case Right [00:55:46] Speaker 11: That Yes [00:55:48] Speaker 7: At The Toxicology Unit At The Crime Lab Is There A Limitation As To How Or What Types Of Drugs Can Actually Be Quantified Or Given Concentration Levels [00:56:02] Speaker 11: Yes We Only Quantify Certain Drugs And [00:56:06] Speaker 7: What Happens If There Are Other Drugs Present And There Is A Request For Quantification Or Concentration Levels What Does Your Lab Do With That [00:56:12] Speaker 11: Usually They [00:56:16] Speaker 7: And Are You Familiar With The NMS Lab [00:56:18] Speaker 11: Yes [00:56:19] Speaker 7: Is That Or Was That At That Time A Common Lab That Would Be Sent Drugs That You Could Not Quantify In Your Lab [00:56:26] Speaker 12: Oh Yes I'm [00:56:28] Speaker 7: Going To Direct Your Attention To The Lab Number Of 23 Dash Zero One Excuse Me Zero One Seven Two Three It's A Case That You And Fair To Say That There Were Several Items That Were Submitted To The Toxicology Unit As Specimens [00:56:53] Speaker 11: Yes [00:56:54] Speaker 7: Including Blood Plasma And Urine [00:56:57] Speaker 11: Yes [00:56:57] Speaker 7: And Did You Work With Other Members Of The Toxicology Unit To Have That Those Specimens Screened And Then Further Tested [00:57:08] Speaker 11: Yes The Batch Process Was Followed [00:57:11] Speaker 7: And As Far As Any Screening Test Did You These Items [00:57:16] Speaker 11: Yes What [00:57:18] Speaker 7: Screening Test Did You Do [00:57:19] Speaker 11: The Screening For The Alcohol [00:57:20] Speaker 7: And Was There Any Alcohol Present No And In This Screening For Alcohol Does It Just Tell You Whether It Was Detected Or Not Detected [00:57:28] Speaker 11: Yes Okay [00:57:29] Speaker 7: And So When You Don't Have A Result There Is Nothing Further To Do [00:57:33] Speaker 11: Correct [00:57:33] Speaker 7: Now As Far As The Blood That Was Tested In This Case In The Urine You Were Aware That There Were Tests Screening Tests Done For What's Called The ELISA Screen Benzodiazepines And General Unknown Screens For These Samples Correct [00:57:52] Speaker 11: Yes That's Usually Our Protocol [00:57:54] Speaker 7: And In Any Of Those Circumstances Were There Positive Results [00:57:58] Speaker 11: Yes [00:57:59] Speaker 7: And As It Pertained To The Positive Results What's What's Your Understanding Of What Was Positive [00:58:05] Speaker 11: So To My Knowledge It Was Positive For The Benzodiazepine Panel And ELISA That Would Have Gotten Further Confirmatory Testing Done On It To See The Levels As Well As The Individual Types Of Benzos That Were Present In The Blood And The Same Was For The Urine As Well We Also Identified A Few Substances Via Our General Unknown Screen Which Was Confirmed In Blood And Urine [00:58:32] Speaker 4: Now As Far As Is There An Agreement As To Whose Blood Is Being Tested At This Point Instead Just By The Number [00:58:42] Speaker 10: Yes It [00:58:44] Speaker 4: Might Be Easier For Everybody For The Jury To Follow [00:58:47] Speaker 2: Thank You He Hasn't Said Whether This Is Lindsay Blood I Thought I Was The Only One Who Was Just Assuming That It Was Lindsay Blood That Was Taken Right He Didn't Say That Thank You Judge Because The Jury Maybe He Noticed That The Jury Was A Little Bit Confused That It Was Lindsay Blood In Urine All She Said Was The Sample Number [00:59:07] Speaker 4: Blood Being Tested At This Point Instead Just By The Number [00:59:11] Speaker 10: Yes It [00:59:13] Speaker 4: Might Be Easier For Everybody For The Jury To Follow [00:59:16] Speaker 7: So Would Your Honor Just Like You To Read The Results No Just [00:59:24] Speaker 4: Instead Of Referring To It By A Number Well Let Let Me See It Sidebar He [00:59:31] Speaker 2: Is Like What Are You An Idiot You Haven't Even Asked Him Whether This Is Lindsay Clancy Blood And Urine Hello Sometimes We Need Cardi B In Here To Tell Us What Up Because Cardi B Says It's Nice To See That The Trolls Seem To Have Gotten More Petty Cash Than Usual They Must Have Given Them A Bigger Allowance [01:00:02] Speaker 5: See If We Can Scooch Oh Good We're Behind We Can Scooch It Forward [01:00:14] Speaker 2: I Think Kay Shred Threw Her Off With His Objection Before She She's All Flustered Now Looking For Her Papers Through Her Papers A Big Stack Of Papers There [01:00:59] Speaker 7: Sir Um I Tell You That Your Report Was Previously Entered As Exhibit 183 Have You Had The Opportunity To Review Your Report Before Coming Today [01:01:22] Speaker 11: Yes [01:01:23] Speaker 7: And so The lab Number That We've Been Referring To You're Aware That The Person Associated With That Lab Number Was Actually A Woman By The Name Of Lindsay Clancy Yes Okay Now As Far As The Testing That Was Done You Received Results To The Positive Benzodiazepines In The Screen And Then It Was Confirmed Correct [01:01:43] Speaker 11: Correct [01:01:44] Speaker 7: How Many Benzodiazepines Were Present [01:01:46] Speaker 11: There Were At Least Four Or Five Okay [01:01:52] Speaker 7: And Were You Able To Get Concentration Levels From The Blood Samples After That Screen And The Confirmatory Tests [01:02:01] Speaker 11: Yes [01:02:02] Speaker 7: And Again Already In Evidence But The Toxicology Report For Item 10-101 On The Blood With Those Benzodiazepines There's Diazepam Correct [01:02:15] Speaker 11: Yes [01:02:16] Speaker 7: Norodiazepam [01:02:17] Speaker 11: Yes [01:02:18] Speaker 7: Oxazepam Yep Temazepam Yes And Lorazepam Yes And As Far As Your Review Of The Testing On Those Substances And The Concentration Levels Did Anything About Any Of Those Levels Stand Out To You As Far As Based On Your Training And Experience [01:02:38] Speaker 11: Only That They Were Reportable [01:02:41] Speaker 7: Okay Are You Familiar Whether They're In Any Sort Of Therapeutic Level For Any Of Those Drugs [01:02:49] Speaker 11: I'm Not Sure Okay [01:02:50] Speaker 7: You Mentioned There Were Other Substances That Were Detected In The General Unknown Screen Correct [01:03:00] Speaker 6: Yes [01:03:01] Speaker 7: And That Would Have Been Mirtazepine Lometrogen Cetiapine Cetiapine Metabolite And Trazodone [01:03:10] Speaker 11: Yes [01:03:10] Speaker 7: And Was Was Your Lab Able To Get Concentration Levels For Those [01:03:14] Speaker 11: No And [01:03:17] Speaker 7: So What Did You Do Or What Was Done With The Samples Or The Specimens As It Pertained To Those Substances [01:03:25] Speaker 11: To My Knowledge They Have To NMS Labs [01:03:28] Speaker 7: And You've Previously Stated That You Are Trained On Effects Of Certain Types Of Drugs But Your Limitation Is You Don't Know How It Affects A Particular Individual Correct [01:03:45] Speaker 11: Correct [01:03:46] Speaker 7: These Particular Five Benzodiazepines Do You Know Where They Fall In The Type Of Drug What The General Effects Of Those Drugs Are [01:03:55] Speaker 11: So Benzos Tend To Be Central Nervous System Depressants [01:03:59] Speaker 7: And The Ones That Were Detected But You What Category Are Those Drugs [01:04:10] Speaker 11: Those Tend To Also Be Central Nervous System Depressants Quetiapine In Particular Is Usually Known To Bipolar Disorder Schizophrenia [01:04:21] Speaker 7: And As It Pertains To The Presence Of The Five Benzodiazepines Your Testing Is Limited In That You Don't Know Whether That Was From One Medication Or Multiple Medications Correct [01:04:36] Speaker 11: Correct Because The Nordiazepam Oxizepam And Tamazemam Tend To Be Metabolites Of Diazepam Okay [01:04:44] Speaker 5: I Mean If You Confuse The Jury Enough They're Good To Stop Taking Notes [01:04:53] Speaker 10: Morning [01:04:57] Speaker 11: Morning [01:04:58] Speaker 10: How You Doing [01:04:58] Speaker 11: Not So All [01:05:00] Speaker 10: Right Just A Couple Of Brief Questions First Of All Would You This Would Be A Blood Sample That Was Taken From Lindsay On A Particular Like One Day This Is Not A Panel Of A Bunch Of Different Samples Right To [01:05:15] Speaker 11: My Knowledge There Would Have Been A Few Different Test Tubes Submitted To Us Okay Test [01:05:21] Speaker 10: Tubes But When You Draw The Blood It Would Basically Be The Same Time That They Put In Different Test Tubes [01:05:27] Speaker 11: Yes I'm Not Familiar With These Specific Ones Like If They Were Done Over Span Of Time But Usually [01:05:35] Speaker 10: That's Fair Enough I mean You Have The Test Tubes And You Know That It's Lindsay Clancy's Blood Right Yes And You'd Agree With Me That That's A Fairly Large Number Of Drugs And Metabolites That Are In That Particular Blood Sample Right I Have Seen More I'm Sure But Nevertheless That's Still A Large Number Of Drugs Though Right Yeah There's Quite A Few And You Don't Know [01:05:56] Speaker 2: Which Is Crazy Because From The Opening Statement The Prosecution Wanted Everyone To Believe That Lindsay Wasn't Taking Her Meds There's Only One Pill Missing From Here Only [01:06:12] Speaker 10: As Working Your Job For The State Police At That Time You Don't Know How Many Of These Drugs Are Coming From Scripps Prescriptions And Things Of That Nature Right [01:06:21] Speaker 11: No [01:06:22] Speaker 10: One Of The Things That You Had Mentioned Metabolites And You Said That Because The District Attorney Asked You [01:06:42] Speaker 11: Just A Breakdown Of Anything Usually By The Body So You Have What We Call A Parent Drug And The Body If You Ingest That The Body Would Then Break It Down Or Put It Into A More Digestible Form In Order To Get Rid Of It [01:06:58] Speaker 10: Okay So When You Have A Number Of Metabolites For Example Someone May Have A Prescription For Amitriptyline Or A Prescription For And It Is In Their System And Then Over Time It Would Metabolize And There Would Be Different PAMS Or Whatever It Is That Would Break Down Into The Blood Is That Right Yes How About Tetrahydrocannabinols THC Marijuana What Was The Level On That [01:07:30] Speaker 11: To [01:07:31] Speaker 10: My Knowledge We Didn't Find Any No Marijuana Right [01:07:33] Speaker 11: Correct [01:07:34] Speaker 10: Thank You [01:07:42] Speaker 2: Pam Is The New Karen Good One Melanie Schuyler Hi [01:07:51] Speaker 8: Come On [01:07:57] Speaker 7: At This Time Upon Agreement I'd Ask To Admit As The Next Exhibit Just A Chart That The Parties Have Agreed Upon That Lists The Brand Names Of Some Of The Drugs That Have Been Spoken About Throughout The Course Of The Trial As Well As What They Were Also Known As For The Ease Of The Juris So [01:08:15] Speaker 4: By By Agreement That May Be Admitted [01:08:18] Speaker 7: And The Commonwealth Would Call Dr. Jonathan Brower As His Next Witness [01:08:27] Speaker 5: Another Doctor [01:08:29] Speaker 8: Raise Your Right Hand For The Clerk Please [01:08:34] Speaker 3: Good [01:08:38] Speaker 4: Morning Doc Good Morning I Ask Keep [01:08:42] Speaker ?: Keep [01:08:42] Speaker 4: Your Voice Up So The Jury Can Hear You And [01:08:45] Speaker 7: With That Counsel Thank You Good Morning Sir Can You Please Tell The Jurors Your First And Last Name [01:08:52] Speaker 13: It's Justin Brower B R O W E R [01:08:57] Speaker 7: And What Do You Do For Work Sir [01:08:59] Speaker 13: I Am A Forensic Toxic Toxic [01:09:01] Speaker ?: Toxic [01:09:01] Speaker 13: Toxic Toxic Toxic Toxic Toxic Toxic [01:09:03] Speaker 7: And Where Is That Laboratory Located [01:09:04] Speaker 13: The Laboratory Is Located In Horsham Pennsylvania Just North Of Philadelphia And [01:09:09] Speaker 7: What Does Your Laboratory Do [01:09:11] Speaker 13: We Are A Reference Laboratory We Do Postmortem Work Clinical Work And Forensic Drug Work So Primarily My Role Is On The Forensic Side I'm A Forensic Toxic Toxic [01:09:25] Speaker 7: And Does Your Lab Receive Specimens From All Across The Country We [01:09:31] Speaker 13: Do We Have Clients In All 50 States We Do Approximately Half Of The Postmortem Work In The United States As Well As A Large Number Of Clinical Clients [01:09:41] Speaker 7: And Is Your Lab Accredited Across Several States And Across The Country [01:09:47] Speaker 13: We Are Because We Deal With All The States In The United States In The Country We Are Accredited By Just About Every Accrediting Body That I'm Aware Of In The Clinical And Forensic Aspects As Well As A Lot Of State Certification So A Lot Of States Have Again Every Accrediting Body That I'm Aware Of [01:10:12] Speaker 7: And How Long Have You Worked For NMS Laboratory [01:10:15] Speaker 13: Four Years As Of August 1st [01:10:17] Speaker 7: And What's Your Educational Background As Forensic Toxicology [01:10:21] Speaker 13: I I Have [01:10:21] Speaker ?: Have [01:10:21] Speaker 13: A PhD In Organic Chemistry [01:10:23] Speaker 7: Where Did You Get That From [01:10:25] Speaker 13: The University Of Nevada [01:10:26] Speaker 7: And Do You Have Any Other Professional Experience In This Field Prior To Working For NMS I [01:10:32] Speaker 13: Do Before Joining NMS Laboratories I Was A Laboratory Supervisor And Forensic Toxic Toxicologist For The North Carolina Office Of The Chief Medical Examiner Which Is A State Wide System So We Did The Post Mortem Toxicology Work For All 100 Counties Of The State Of North Carolina [01:10:49] Speaker 7: And When It Comes To Your Role In The Forensic Area Of Doing The Toxicology Testing What Is Your Role In The NMS Lab When It Comes To Cases That Come To The Laboratory For Forensic Analysis So [01:11:08] Speaker 13: When A Case Comes Into NMS And Is Logged In And The Assigned Or The Requested Test Assigned And Then Run And Reviewed Multiple Times In The Laboratory When All That Testing Is Completed It Comes To To To Toxicology Department And My Role Is To Review Every Aspect Of That Case So I Making Sure That Everything On The Toxicology Report Is Complete And Accurate Such As All Demographic Information Date Of Birth Where It From The Specimens That We Received And Then Also That All Of The Everything That Is Reported Is Complete And Accurate Making Sure That All The Drugs That Were Tested For Are Reported That The Reported Concentrations Are Correct And Accurate And Looking At Every Piece Of Raw Data Accumulated From The Laboratory With That Case Associated With That Case [01:12:03] Speaker 7: Fair To Say The NMS Laboratory Uses A Batch Review Workflow [01:12:08] Speaker 13: That Is Correct So We Not Only Run The Cases In Batches So We Don't Run One Case At A Time That Is Not Very Efficient I Don't Really Know Of Any Laboratory That Does That Anymore So We Will Run Cases You Know 10 15 You Know 30 Or 40 At A Time [01:12:29] Speaker 7: So As Far As Running Particular Tested Tests And Getting The Raw Data That Is Usually Done By Other People In The Laboratory Correct [01:12:37] Speaker 13: That Is Correct [01:12:37] Speaker 7: And Then You Come In At The End And Review Everything And Have The Ability To Interpret The Data That [01:12:44] Speaker 13: Is Correct [01:12:44] Speaker 7: Your Training And Experience As A Forensic Tech Psychologist Does That Allow You To Interpret Concentration Levels Of Particular Types Of Drugs It Does Now As Far As The Testing Done At NMS Laboratories The Traditional Testing Is Kind Of The Drug Testing The Panels For Different Common Drugs Correct And [01:13:07] Speaker 13: Typically We Have A Client Request Panels To Be Run But We're Looking For Multiple Drugs And Classes Of Drugs At A Time [01:13:15] Speaker 7: But Are There Circumstances When Outside Laboratories Or Outside Individuals Retain Your Lab In Order To Run Specific Tests [01:13:24] Speaker 13: Oh Absolutely [01:13:25] Speaker 7: Now I'm Going To Draw Your Attention To This Particular Case Where Was Your Police Crime Lab In April Of 2023 I [01:13:40] Speaker 13: Believe So I'd Really Like To See The Toxicology Report So I Can Just Confirm All Of That Please Sure [01:13:44] Speaker 10: Thank [01:13:53] Speaker 13: You So Much [01:13:53] Speaker 7: That's Fine [01:13:56] Speaker 13: Correct We Received The Specimens On April 7th 2023 [01:14:03] Speaker 7: And It Came From The Massachusetts Day Police Crime Lab [01:14:07] Speaker 13: No I Don't Know Where They Were Initially Sent From But The Client Or The Submitting Agency Is The District Attorney's Office Of Plymouth [01:14:18] Speaker 7: Okay Now As It Pertains To The Requested Testing That Was Done Was It That Panel That You Described Or Was It More Specific Testing [01:14:29] Speaker 13: This Is What We Call Direct Testing Where They Requested Just Four Specific Drugs To Be Tested For [01:14:35] Speaker 7: And What Were The Four Specific Tests Requested [01:14:38] Speaker 13: Lamotrigine Mirtazapine Catillapine And Trazodone [01:14:42] Speaker 7: Are You Familiar With Those Substances Or Those Drugs [01:14:45] Speaker 13: Yes Ma'am Okay [01:14:46] Speaker 7: And You Reviewed All Of The Data And Information Done At Your Lab In Regards To These Tests Correct Yes [01:14:54] Speaker 13: Ma'am [01:14:54] Speaker 7: Were They Able To Identify Concentration Levels In The Sample That Was Submitted For Each One Of Those Four Substances [01:15:01] Speaker 13: Yes Ma'am [01:15:02] Speaker 7: And For The First Can You Tell Us What The Result Was [01:15:06] Speaker 13: Would You Like Me Just Run The List [01:15:09] Speaker 7: Sure [01:15:09] Speaker 13: We Detected Lamotrigine In A Concentration Of 6.1 Micrograms Per Milliliter Mirtazapine At A Concentration Of 200 Nanograms Per Milliliter Cateapine At A Concentration Of 1800 Nanograms Per Milliliter And Trazodone At A Concentration Of 0.44 Micrograms Per Milliliter And These Were All In Blood [01:15:36] Speaker 7: And So With Each Each Drug That You Just Listed Are You Familiar With [01:15:43] Speaker 2: It Would Help If They Could Just Instead Of Using Like These Generic Names They Could Tell Us What The Bottle Said In Her House Or What It's Commonly Known As Like If It's Lamictal What Like What Are These Drugs And Is That A Lot I Don't Know Is Anybody Going To Tell Us Are They Just Going [01:16:10] Speaker 13: I'm Not Always That Great With Common Names But I Can Wing It [01:16:13] Speaker 7: Okay Well The Lamotrigine And Forgive Me If I Watch The That's Okay The Pronunciation That's Also Referred To Commonly As Lamictal [01:16:25] Speaker 13: It Is Correct Lamictal [01:16:26] Speaker 7: What Kind Of Drug Is That [01:16:28] Speaker 13: It's Typically Used As An Antiseizure Medication So If Somebody Has A Seizure Disorder It Can Be Prescribed To Alleviate Seizures But It Is Also Used For Bipolar Disorder As Well [01:16:42] Speaker 7: And Mirtazapine Fair To Say That's Commonly Referred To As Remeron [01:16:47] Speaker 13: Correct [01:16:48] Speaker 7: And What Kind Of Drug Is That [01:16:50] Speaker 13: That Isn't Typically An Antidepressant [01:16:53] Speaker 7: And Cetiapine What's What's That Common [01:16:57] Speaker 13: Drug Cetiapine Is Known As Seroquel [01:16:59] Speaker 7: And Fair To Say That's An Antipsychotic As Well For Bipolar [01:17:04] Speaker 13: Yes Ma'am [01:17:05] Speaker 7: Are You Familiar With Whether That Often Can Be Prescribed In Low Doses For Sleep [01:17:11] Speaker 13: It Is It Can Be For Insomnia [01:17:13] Speaker 7: And Trazodone What's The Common Name For Trazodone If You Know [01:17:19] Speaker 13: I Am Drawing A Blank On The Trazodone If [01:17:24] Speaker 7: I Suggest Trazamine Is That [01:17:27] Speaker 2: Familiar Not [01:17:30] Speaker 13: The One I'm Most Familiar With And I Apologize That's [01:17:33] Speaker 7: Okay But You're Familiar With Trazodone [01:17:34] Speaker 13: Correct And [01:17:35] Speaker 7: What Class Of Drug Is That [01:17:36] Speaker 13: That's An Antidepressant [01:17:38] Speaker 2: Somebody Saying That My Volume Is Low And You Can't Hear Me Is That True I Thought My Volume Was On Automatic Hold On Scott Brittany Little Cupcake Is My Volume Equal With The Stream Hold On Me It's On Auto So This Is Interesting Because For All Of You Out There Who Saying She Wasn't Diagnosed With Anything Prior To This Well That's Interesting Because She Was Admitted To The Hospital When She Was Thank you When She Was Transported From South Shore To The Brigham Not Having Ever Regained Consciousness She Was On An Antipsychotic A Medication For Bipolar Disorder An Antidepressant And Trazodone But Everyone Wants You To Believe She Wasn't Diagnosed With Anything Prior To Taking The Lives Of Her Three Children And Someone Else Was In Here Before Another Troll Says You Never Talk About The Children Welcome We've Talked About The Children Quite A Bit In Fact I Wasn't Going To Cover This Trial Gavel To Gavel At All Because I Am So Heartbroken About The Children I Have Five Children Of My Own It Is Unfathomable To Me How This Could Ever Happen Ever How Any Woman Could Ever Do This Ever And I Am Covering It Gavel To Gavel Because I'm Going To Push Through It Because This Is So Important To Talk About How This Could Happen Why How Important It Is To Educate People On Postpartum Psychosis What Postpartum Psychosis Is What Postpartum Depression Is Whether Or Not Lindsay Clancy Suffered From It Yet I Don't Know Because I Haven't Heard The Experts Testify So I'm Going To Say It A Little Bit Louder For Those In The Back I [01:19:43] Speaker ?: I [01:19:43] Speaker 2: Am Heartbroken About The Deaths And The Murders Of These Three Children It Is I Cannot Wrap My Head Around It But The Reason This Case Is On Trial And The Reason That We Are Here Is Because The Defendant Who By The Way While She's Sitting In That Chair Is Innocent Every Defendant Is Innocent Until If And When The Commonwealth Can Prove Beyond A Reasonable Doubt That That Person Is Guilty And In Addition To That Burden The Commonwealth In This Case Also Has The Burden To Prove Beyond A Reasonable Doubt By The Way That Lindsay Clancy Was Not Suffering From A Mental Disease Or Defect At The Time Of These Crimes Was Not Suffering From A Psychotic Break That Caused Her To Not Be Able To Know That What She Was Doing Was Wrong That What She Was Doing Was Illegal So They Have That Burden This Man Is Telling Us Because The MSP Crime Lab Is Not Equipped To Test Blood For Concentrations Or Levels Of Drugs That Are In The Blood And He Is Telling Us That In Her Blood She Had Lamictal Which Is A Bipolar Medication Remeron Which Is An Antidepressant Seroquel Which Is An Antipsychotic Hella Strong Ask Anyone In The Chat About Their Experiences With Seroquel And If You're Going To Talk About Your Experiences With Seroquel Just put A Capital S Don't Spell Out The Drug Name YouTube Hates It And Trazodone I Would Like To Think That Doctors Just Don't Prescribe That Stuff Willy Nilly That There's A Reason For It [01:21:45] Speaker 5: So We're Going To Wait To Hear The Evidence Is He Going To Testify Whether That's [01:21:56] Speaker 2: A Lot I Don't Know Because I Don't Know What You Know 66 1 Micrograms Per Liter How Much That Is Or 200 Nanograms Per Milliliter Is Or 1800 Nanograms Per Milliliter To Me I Don't Know I Don't Know How Many Pills That Is I Don't Know How Long It's Been In Her System I Don't Know How Long It Stays In Her System We Have Heard Or I Have Heard From People In The Chat That It's Been Said Maybe In Articles Because It Hasn't Come Into The Trial Yet That She Crushed Up Some Pills And Put Them In Her Lemonade But I Don't Know Where That's Coming From Because I Haven't Heard It Yet In The Trial Unless I Was Sleeping During That Part Of The Trial But We Been Here Every Single Minute Right Okay So Let's See If He'll Tell Us More [01:22:41] Speaker 7: Now In Your Review Of The Levels That Were Detected In These Four Tests For Each Of These Substances Do Any Of These Levels Appear To Be Outside Therapeutic Concentration Levels [01:22:56] Speaker 13: The Only One That's A Little Elevated Would Be The Coteapine Okay [01:23:00] Speaker 4: We're Going To Take A Very Short Break At This Time All Right So This Will Be A Short Break And We'll Come Right [01:23:11] Speaker 6: All [01:23:15] Speaker 5: Right Don't Know Why But My Crystal Ball Again Is Broken Today So I Can't Tell You Why Close Captions Pick Something Up But I Don't Hear Any Sound Okay Let's Was It Because Of The Cougher I [01:23:37] Speaker 2: Don't Know If It Was Because Of The There Was Always A Cougher In The Court Room And There Is Always Somebody Who Likes To Rustle Their Papers In The Mic We've Become Used To It No The Morning Break Is Usually At 11 So It's Not The Morning Break I'm Not Sure Maybe The Judge Had to Take A Call I [01:23:52] Speaker ?: Don't Know [01:23:55] Speaker 2: At Least He Doesn't Have Grave Concerns I Really Like Judge Sully Because He Has A Soft A Soft But Firm Command Of The Court Room And He Doesn't Insert Himself Where It's Not Necessary [01:24:08] Speaker 5: Tell Me If You Like Him Too Lainey Thank You [01:24:25] Speaker ?: For [01:24:25] Speaker 5: Your Very Generous Generous Venmo She [01:24:27] Speaker 2: Says Thank You For Your Gracious Insightful Brilliant Coverage She Says One Of Her Loved Ones Had Treatment Resistant Depression Oh I'm So Sorry And Then He Was Diagnosed With Stage 4 Colon Cancer And Passed At 44 I'll Never Forget Him Telling Me That He Rather Have Cancer Than Mental Illness Oh Wow Thank You Pink Crown Says I Didn't Think I'd Be Able To Watch This Case Thank You For Making It Easier No Matter What Happened It's Such A Sad Situation It Is And It's An Important Case And It's I'm Glad There's A Lot Of Eyes On It Thank You For Your Five Ann Says Thanks Melanie For Your Hard Work On This Channel I Appreciate You Leading Me To An Open Mind On This Case Many Shades Are Gray Here Many My Opinion Oh Look I Love You Guys So Much She's Changed Her Username To Unicorn In The Corner She Says Thank You For Covering This With Empathy Empathy Empathy Empanadas On The Brain Empathy And An Open Mind Thank You Very Much For Doing The Same Thank You Mabel's Lobster Says Melanie Please Interview Brooke Shields I Would I Would Love To Interview Brooke Shields I Think She Even Lives Here In The Hamptons Maybe Still If Anybody Knows How To Get In Touch With Brooke Shields Put Her In Touch With Me I Would Love To Interview Brooke Shields That Would Be A Great Idea Better With The Irish Says Lyrica Gave Me Horrible S Ideation So Much So I Was Unable To Nancy Says I Wondering If PPD Is More Prevalent These Days Than Years Before We Really Didn't Hear Much About It In Years Past I Don't Think It's More Prevalent I Think It Is Something That Is Being More Talked About And I Think Also I Mean If You Want To Go Back You Know Centuries And Stuff Because I Did Kind Of Do A Deep Dive Into This I [01:26:40] Speaker ?: See [01:26:40] Speaker 2: Generations Living Together In Homes In Communes And So Women I Think In Centuries Past Had Much More Support Around Them When They Had A New Baby And A Lot Of People Around To Help And To Be There And It Was More Understood And I Think People Have Become More Isolated Now And There Is A Lot More Talk About It Andrea Yates Is Probably The Most Public Case 2001 She Drowned Her Five Children She Was Convicted That Was In Remind Me Where That Was Texas The Conviction Was Overturned Because It Turned Out That The Expert Witness For The Prosecution Lied About A Law And Order Episode That Wasn't Real That He Said That Andrea Yates Must Have Watched She Was Tried Again She Was Found Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity She Has Been Confined To A Mental Institution Since 2007 And [01:27:54] Speaker ?: And And [01:27:54] Speaker 2: Every Time She Comes Up For The Opportunity To Be Able To Get Out She Doesn't Want To Get Out Thanks Nancy Mixed Chick said He only Said The neck Was Superficial Not Her Wrist Wicked Snark Can These Prosecutors Be Held Accountable For Not Choosing To Accept Defense's Initial Offer To Stipulate To Avoid All Of This After Lindsay's Diary Nope Nope They Have Immunity They Don't Have To Accept Any Stipulation Offered By The Defense Cupcakes Positioning For Activity Gifted Membership Thank You Jedi Jen Says That Three Centimeters Is 1.81 Inches That's Deep For Arrest Yeah And Then I Think In The Second Part They Said Three And A Half Centimeters Right Honey And Salt Says Can We Talk About Mr. Reddington Has No Legal Assistance With Him In Court If I Was There I Would Volunteer Just To Make Sure His Coffee Is Sticking Out Of The Banger Box Stay Hot He Doesn't Have Anybody Sitting At The Defense Table With Him He's A Solo Guy And I Think He Likes To Be Like That I Think He Likes To Be Bird Mad Girl Gifted Five Memberships Thank You So Very Much Bird Mad Girl Bird Mad Girl Thank You For 10 Says Question If She Goes To The State Hospital And PPP Happens Because Of Postpartum Specifically Wouldn't That Resolve Relatively Quickly But You Say She Would Be In For Decades How Do You Know Actually Yesterday We Read The Jury Instruction And It Is A Jury Instruction In Massachusetts That Is Not Always Read But What It Does Say Is That If She's Found Not Guilty Or Not Criminally Responsible In Massachusetts She Would Be Evaluated After Six Months And Then Every Year After That To See If She Was Dangerous And So While It Is True That Andrea Yates Has Been In Prison For I Don't Know 25 Years We Can't Say How Long It Would Be And I Said Specifically Yesterday If You Didn't Watch That Part Of The Stream It Was The Very End Of The Day Yesterday That If I Was A Juror And I Heard That It Might Give Me Pause So We Don't Know But I Think They're Going To Argue Also That She Has Undiagnosed Bipolar And Kevin Court During Pretrial That She Still Has The Very Real Desire To Take Her Own Life And So If She's Still A Danger To Herself She Wouldn't Get Out But You Never Know You Never Know You Don't Know Amicus Says We'll Keep An Open Mind But The Commonwealth Better Have More Than Discontinued Prescriptions Red Brown Stains On The Shingles And She Didn't Try Hard Enough With The Knife Right Sarah Knows That I Do Not Suffer Fools Fellow Empaths Appreciate That Love From Canada Thanks For Tuning In From Canada Thank You Christy Painter's Daughter For Being 27 [01:31:27] Speaker 5: Months [01:31:27] Speaker 2: And I Did Say Yesterday That I Forsee A Hung Jury I Don't See How 12 People Are Going To Agree I Just Don't Because You Can See How Divisive This Is And How People Out There You Know In Life In The Chat Are So Divided On This Case Many People Think She Should Fry In Prison Forever And Many People Think That She Is Not Guilty Because Of Her Psychotic Break But She Should Be Confined To A Mental Institution I Don't Think Anybody Is Straight Up Saying She Didn't Do It She's Not Guilty Let Her Go Jessabelle Says I Wonder If The Very Public Tragic Incident With Perez Hilton Might Help People See How Quickly An Episode Can Occur We Have No Idea What Was Going On Behind The Scenes With Him But It's Tragic Mandy Says I Have Three I Had Three C Sections My First One I Had Staples But The Other Two I Tape Over The Incision Was That Not Major Surgery I Think It Was You Know I Had Babies Pulled Out Of My Stomach Right Karen Thank You For The You're 20 Says Glad To Be Spending My Birthday Happy Birthday Karen Karen For The People 56 Years Ago She Was Born At Brigham And Women's Hospital My Parents Were Residents Of Norfolk County Praying For The Clancy Family Today Happy Birthday Karen [01:32:38] Speaker 4: And We Also For The Jury [01:33:05] Speaker ?: The Jury Of The Jury Of The Jury Of The Jury Of The Jury Of The Jury Of The Jury Of The [01:33:21] Speaker 1: Jury Of The [01:33:24] Speaker ?: Jury Of The Jury Of The Jury Of The Jury Jury Of Jury Of The Jury Of The Jury Of The [01:33:43] Speaker 2: Jury [01:33:44] Speaker ?: Of [01:33:44] Speaker 2: The Jury [01:33:46] Speaker ?: Of [01:33:46] Speaker 2: The Jury [01:33:48] Speaker ?: Of [01:33:48] Speaker 2: The Jury [01:33:50] Speaker ?: Of [01:33:50] Speaker 10: The Jury [01:33:52] Speaker ?: Of [01:33:52] Speaker 10: The [01:33:53] Speaker 3: Jury [01:33:54] Speaker ?: Of The [01:33:54] Speaker 3: Jury Of The Jury [01:33:58] Speaker ?: Of [01:33:58] Speaker 3: The Jury [01:34:00] Speaker ?: Of [01:34:00] Speaker 3: The Jury [01:34:02] Speaker 7: Jury [01:34:03] Speaker ?: Of [01:34:04] Speaker 7: Jury Jury Jury [01:34:07] Speaker ?: Jury [01:34:07] Speaker 7: Jury [01:34:08] Speaker ?: Jury [01:34:08] Speaker 7: Jury Jury We mentioned the term therapeutic concentration. Are you familiar with that term? Correct. What does that mean? [01:34:17] Speaker 13: It's the typical concentration that one would achieve when they're taking the medication or drug as indicated by their prescriber. [01:34:26] Speaker 7: And are you familiar with toxic concentrations or suicidal concentrations? [01:34:31] Speaker 13: I am. [01:34:32] Speaker 7: And what does that mean? [01:34:33] Speaker 13: Those are concentrations that could lead to adverse events and potentially death. [01:34:38] Speaker 7: Now, in relation to the four substances that were tested at the NMS laboratory, you just [01:34:46] Speaker 2: want to point out for those of you who are new maybe to Massachusetts, here's the court reporter. Come to your screen if you can. She's speaking into this device right here. The one that Nancy, the court reporter, had in Karen Reed trial, number one, looked way more like an athletic supporter. But the court reporter speaks into this device instead of in New York, we have old fashioned, you know, stenography, stenographers with the they type everything in. And then they have a ticker tape that comes out and they can read back. We do also do readbacks in New York, which is something they don't do for the jury in Massachusetts at all, ever. Or maybe it's up to the judge, but they never allow it, as far as I can tell. And she speaks into that thing. It's a very interesting system. Pointing it out to you as we go through. [01:35:27] Speaker 7: You identified the lower tested at the NMS laboratory. You identified the levels for each of the four substances. Were any of those levels, excuse me, concentration levels considered within therapeutic concentration? [01:35:45] Speaker 13: It would all be in what I would say therapeutic concentration, except maybe the feteapine, which is slightly elevated. [01:35:52] Speaker 7: Okay. And in your experience as a forensic toxicologist, have you had the occasion to review cases, postmortem cases in which suicide was a mechanism of death where the person consumed medication? [01:36:06] Speaker 13: Absolutely. Yes. [01:36:07] Speaker 7: And so, that level of the... Ketiapine. Ketiapine. At the 800 nanograms per milliliter, would that have been in that toxic or suicidal level? [01:36:21] Speaker 13: No, ma'am. [01:36:24] Speaker 7: Would you generally expect to see that as significantly greater in a suicide case? [01:36:29] Speaker 13: Typically, ketiapines in suicide cases might be in the, you know, close to 10,000 nanograms per milliliter. Usually, people take handfuls of pills when they're trying to harm themselves and take their own life. And this is not consistent with that. [01:36:45] Speaker 2: Okay. Just to recap, the ketiapine is the Seroquel, right? So, this prosecutor wants everyone to believe she didn't really mean to kill herself because she didn't take enough pills, forgetting about, you know, the knife and the diving out the window. So, this is gross. Yes. Yeah. I mean, that's great. Word for it. This is gross. So, if she really wanted to do it, she would have taken a handful of pills. Thank you so very much. That's great. Fantastic. Like I said before, a big case like this that is being televised worldwide, once again, if you're watching from outside the U.S., tell everyone in the chat where you're watching from. The World is Watching, a case like this can make or break your career. This is not the case that is going to make Jennifer Sprague's career, in my opinion. It might break it. Remember big cases like O.J., Marsha Clark? It can make or break your career. This is not the hill to die on, if it's me. Okay. [01:37:53] Speaker 7: Now, are you also familiar in your training and experience with the class of drugs called benzodiazepines? [01:38:00] Speaker 13: Yes, ma'am. [01:38:01] Speaker 7: And do you have the occasion to interpret data as it pertains to concentration levels for those? [01:38:05] Speaker 13: Every single day. [01:38:07] Speaker 7: And as far as the substances, diazepam, noradiazepam, oxazepam, temazepam, lorazepam, you're familiar with those? I am. And if fair to say, noradiazepam, oxazepam, temazepam, those are all metabolites of diazepam? [01:38:25] Speaker 13: Typically, yes, ma'am. [01:38:27] Speaker 7: And what's the common name for diazepam? [01:38:30] Speaker 13: Valium. [01:38:32] Speaker 7: If I show you what's been marked as exhibit 183 already. Can you see that on the screen beside you? [01:38:48] Speaker 13: I can, yes. [01:38:50] Speaker 7: Okay. [01:38:53] Speaker 2: The lab report is on the screen. [01:38:58] Speaker 13: Right there. [01:39:03] Speaker 7: Can you see the levels? [01:39:06] Speaker 13: They're all blurry. [01:39:07] Speaker 7: Yep. Hold on. There you go. [01:39:09] Speaker 13: My eyesight's not great, too. [01:39:10] Speaker 7: Okay. So that's the best I can do with the autofocus. [01:39:14] Speaker 13: Don't touch it. [01:39:17] Speaker 2: Correct, memory says. So she's proving that she was taking her other medications as prescribed because they're at therapeutic levels. Yep. So she was taking her medication as prescribed. [01:39:28] Speaker 7: What do you think about the levels that you observed here regarding those substances, those benzodiazepines, that tell you that they're outside therapeutic concentration levels? [01:39:39] Speaker 13: The diazepam and the norezepam, oxazepam, and temazepam metabolites. The diazepam looks to be sub-therapeutic, meaning lower than what is typically expected from a therapeutic dose. Most therapeutic doses of diazepam, which is an anxiolytic drug or an anti-anxiety drug, are typically 200, 250, thereabouts, nanograms per milliliter. The lorazepam, depending upon the dose, could be a therapeutic concentration, if not maybe a little bit lower than expected. [01:40:15] Speaker 7: Now, when you're reviewing these cases as the reporting forensic toxicologist, are there limitations on what you can say about the effects of these types of medications? [01:40:32] Speaker 13: We can speak as to the general effects that drugs can have on the general population, but we try to restrict ourselves from saying with absolute certainty that a drug will have this effect on this specific person, because we just aren't there to witness their behavior. [01:40:50] Speaker 7: Okay, so that was kind of the follow-up. I'm sorry. What are the things that are the unknowns for you when you're just looking at data? [01:40:59] Speaker 13: We say that we can't do toxicology in a vacuum. You can't know everything about the case just by looking at numbers on the toxicology report and drugs on a toxicology report. You need other information to have an informed opinion in the post-mortem world. That would be the investigation itself, the history of the case, the scene findings, interviews with families and friends of the decedent, as well as autopsy findings as well. In a case like this where it's not a decedent and the person is alive, you still need to know some facts of the case, some sort of history of the case, like what happened. So just numbers on a page, you can just make very generalized types of opinions, such as that looks to be therapeutic, it looks to be high, it looks to be low, and then again, just the general effects on the drugs on people. [01:41:58] Speaker 7: And in this particular instance, you were not provided any further information about the case or the investigation in order to make any more opinions about effects? [01:42:07] Speaker 13: I knew nothing about this case until we spoke, I think it was probably a few weeks ago. [01:42:12] Speaker 7: And as far as the information available to you, you only had the data from the specimen that was tested, correct? [01:42:17] Speaker 13: That is correct, just these four drugs that were requested to be tested for. [01:42:21] Speaker 7: And as far as the drugs, the four drugs that were tested by your lab, what are the general characteristics of some of those drugs? [01:42:29] Speaker 13: So these are generally antidepressants and antipsychotic medications. So if somebody had, well, the Lamotrigine, if somebody has, say, bipolar disorder, like wild mood swings, depressive episodes or psychotic episodes. [01:42:49] Speaker 2: Oh, you mean psychotic episodes like what Lindsay Clancy had right before she killed her children? Thank you so much. This is very helpful to the defense, by the way. He's saying this is why this is why this would be prescribed. This is why Lamictal would be prescribed to someone. Listen to that again. She asked the question. She opened the door on this. [01:43:07] Speaker 7: that you had tested for. And as far as the drugs, the four drugs that were tested by your lab, what are the general characteristics of some of those drugs? So these are generally antidepressants [01:43:20] Speaker 13: and antipsychotic medications. So if somebody had, well, the lamotrigine, if somebody has, say, bipolar disorder, like wild mood swings, depressive episodes or psychotic episodes, these drugs could be prescribed. They also have depressant effects, so they could make people [01:43:45] Speaker 7: become lethargic or sleepy. Okay. And would any of the combination of these drugs... [01:43:53] Speaker 2: He's not the right witness for this. He's not, but okay, let him go, I guess. Drugs cause a person to stop breathing? [01:44:03] Speaker 13: It's possible. Especially the mirtazapine, the teapine, the trazdone, and then the two other benzodiazepines. Those are all central nervous system depressants. So they could, in large combinations or large concentrations and in combination with each other, cause central nervous system depression, which could reduce people's respiration rates. [01:44:28] Speaker 7: But in the levels that you observed in the testing that your lab did, as well as what I just showed you from exhibit 183, is there anything about those concentration levels that would give you a sense that the person could have stopped breathing as a result of these? [01:44:44] Speaker 13: Not necessarily, but if I had the information that, you know, a patient presented to an emergency department and they had labored breathing and weren't breathing adequately, and I had this information, then you could probably tie all that together. But without that extra information, then generally no. [01:45:01] Speaker 7: Based on the levels alone, you can't give any sort of opinion? [01:45:04] Speaker 13: I would like to not. [01:45:06] Speaker 7: Okay. And finally, are you familiar with the drug Narcan? [01:45:13] Speaker 13: I am. [01:45:14] Speaker 7: And what kind of effect does the drug Narcan have on a person who has consumed these drugs, if any? [01:45:22] Speaker 13: Just these drugs that we've talked about here today? [01:45:25] Speaker 7: Mm-hmm. [01:45:25] Speaker 13: Yeah. Absolutely nothing. [01:45:30] Speaker 2: Narcan would do nothing. [01:45:32] Speaker 7: Can you explain to us why it is that Narcan wouldn't have an effect? [01:45:37] Speaker 13: Narcan is an opioid overdose reversal agent. It is an opioid antagonist. So it binds to the opioid receptors. So it doesn't allow other opioids like say fentanyl or oxycodone to bind to those receptors to have to exert its effects. So it only works on opioids. None of these drugs work on the opioid receptors. So Narcan would have no effect whatsoever on these drugs. [01:46:05] Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. I don't see how that helped at all. I thought that was more helpful for the defense. Good morning. I know what you think. [01:46:14] Speaker 10: Dr. Brower, so one of the things that you had mentioned is that you, and I think I would quote you, I would like not to give an opinion without basically the underlying facts. In other words, what you're saying is that the numbers alone do not tell the tale of what happened to a particular individual, right? [01:46:35] Speaker 13: Correct. They don't tell the entire story. [01:46:37] Speaker 10: Right. And you're, for NMS Laboratory, you were retained or working for the DA's office, these people here, right? [01:46:46] Speaker 13: That was the submitting agency. Correct. [01:46:48] Speaker 10: And they certainly were not constrained from picking up the phone and calling you and telling you that this is blood from a woman that threw herself out a window and tried to kill herself after cutting her wrists and her neck. They could have told you that, right? Overruled. [01:47:07] Speaker 13: It's possible. It's possible that does happen in rare occasions and high-profile cases. [01:47:11] Speaker 10: Right. And so that would have been something, for example, that the facts that you wanted to know that you would have liked to have known to kind of round out your opinion about the actual level of the drugs and the blood that you examined, right? It's not necessary. Well, it's not necessary, but you did indicate that you would like to have not given an opinion without the facts. [01:47:32] Speaker 13: Correct. Okay. Today. [01:47:35] Speaker 10: From the witness stand? [01:47:36] Speaker 13: Correct. I don't have all the information. [01:47:38] Speaker 10: Of course. And the word therapeutic, is that consistent with, in other words, the treatment level of a particular narcotic in or drug in the blood? [01:47:54] Speaker 13: Correct. It's the concentration of the drug in the body to elicit an effect or the desired effect. [01:48:01] Speaker 10: Thank you. [01:48:31] Speaker ?: I have a nice slide that tells you the records that I need to use, but they will not the IE. [01:48:51] Speaker 10: She's trying to find the records. As it relates to the therapeutic level, sir, is it your understanding that the lorazepam, proazepam, clonazepam, the counsel had asked you about the benzodiazepines were within therapeutic level? [01:49:13] Speaker 13: I'm sorry. I had trouble hearing you. [01:49:15] Speaker 10: Yeah, I'm sorry. They were within therapeutic level. [01:49:18] Speaker 13: I'm sorry. Can you repeat the entire question? [01:49:20] Speaker 10: Sure. What is lamotrigine? [01:49:23] Speaker 13: Lamotrigine is typically used as an anti-seizure medication and could also be used for bipolar disorder. [01:49:29] Speaker 10: Okay. Do you have the results for your lab in front of you? Yes, sir. Yeah, you can read along just so you can refresh your memory if it helps. The lamotrigine, it says 6.1. What does that mean? [01:49:45] Speaker 13: 6.1 micrograms per milliliter. So there were 6.1 micrograms of lamotrigine per milliliter of blood. [01:49:53] Speaker 10: All right. Is that above therapeutic, below therapeutic or therapeutic? [01:49:58] Speaker 13: It's right in the middle of the therapeutic range. [01:50:01] Speaker 10: So if somebody had a prescription, for example, for that narcotic or that drug, then they were taking the drug according to the recommended dose, right? [01:50:10] Speaker 13: That's what it would appear to me if they were prescribed it correct. [01:50:13] Speaker 10: How about the mirtazapine? [01:50:15] Speaker 13: The mirtazapine also looks to be probably used appropriately as prescribed. [01:50:20] Speaker 10: And you need a prescription for that, don't you? [01:50:23] Speaker 13: Yes, you need a prescription for all three, I'm sorry, all four of these drugs. [01:50:28] Speaker 10: Okay. And what is, is there another name for mirtazapine? [01:50:31] Speaker 13: Remeron. [01:50:33] Speaker 10: Remeron. All right. And what is the purpose of what do you use Remeron for? [01:50:37] Speaker 13: It's an antidepressant. [01:50:39] Speaker 10: How about the creatapine is the number three? [01:50:43] Speaker 13: The creatapine is also known as Seroquel and that is generally used as an anti-psychotic. [01:50:50] Speaker 10: And what does that mean when you say an anti-psychotic? What does that mean? [01:50:54] Speaker 13: To, so somebody has psychotic episodes, say like hallucinations or just not seeing reality like, [01:51:04] Speaker 5: Oh. [01:51:05] Speaker 13: Quote, quote, normal person would. Hallucinations? They could be prescribed cutiapine to, as an anti-psychotic to try to kind of level out their, their brain chemistry. [01:51:17] Speaker 10: And what was the result on the cutiapine? [01:51:21] Speaker 13: 1800, 1800 nanograms per milliliter. [01:51:25] Speaker 10: Now is that within therapeutic? Is that below or high? [01:51:28] Speaker 13: It looks high to me, depending upon the dosage. [01:51:32] Speaker 10: Okay. And trazodone is the next one. What is that? [01:51:36] Speaker 13: Trazodone is also an antidepressant. And is that, what's the result on that? Oh, I'm sorry. 0.44 micrograms per milliliter. [01:51:47] Speaker 10: Okay. And is that therapeutic, below therapeutic or above therapeutic? [01:51:52] Speaker 13: I would say that's a therapeutic concentration. [01:51:55] Speaker 10: Okay. So basically with the exception of the cutiapine that was 1800 nanograms per, what is a nanogram? What does that mean? Nanograms per milliliter. What does that mean? [01:52:06] Speaker 13: It's a very, very small amount. It's one millionth of a milligram. [01:52:14] Speaker 10: Okay. And that's how you measure the quantity of a particular substance that would be in a person's blood, correct? In the blood, correct. So on the cutiapine at 1800 nanograms per milliliter, that's the only one that was not therapeutic. That was a little higher than therapeutic. Is that correct? [01:52:35] Speaker 13: Correct. It's approximately maybe double what you might expect. So when I say it's a little elevated, it's not in a concentration that I would consider to be necessarily toxic or lethal. Okay. [01:52:50] Speaker 10: And you don't know working for NMS labs or whether or not a person had a prescription for these drugs or when they got the prescription or who gave them the prescription? You don't know that, right? [01:53:09] Speaker 13: I have none of that information, no. [01:53:10] Speaker 10: You could have known that if somebody had told you that, but you don't know it from looking at the numbers that we have here, right? [01:53:14] Speaker 13: Correct. It's possible if they would have given us that information. We don't always need to have it, though. Can I just see it again first? [01:53:27] Speaker 7: Oh, sure. [01:53:31] Speaker 2: Seroquel can also cause hallucinations, and that's the one that was high, the highest level. More than normal is what he said, right? Higher than he would expect. Yeah. And we're going to learn more about the dosages and how her dosages were increased. And, uh, Zoe, is it, I got to go back and look at the date on that report, but did they only send this stuff out to NSM labs a couple of weeks ago? [01:54:17] Speaker ?: All right. [01:54:18] Speaker 4: All right, so we're going to, uh, introduce that exhibit at this time. [01:54:27] Speaker 10: Thank you. So just if I may, excuse me first, this basically is a, uh, an NMS lab report. Same as this one. Same numbers on the top, right? Where the square is? Correct. Same numbers. Correct. All right. [01:54:44] Speaker ?: That's all I have. All right. All right. Yeah. [01:54:47] Speaker 4: Come off. [01:54:48] Speaker 7: Just, uh, Dr. Brower, you, in fact, um, once got this case for review, you authored a, a corrected report, um, in, in regards to this case, correct? Correct. At this point, I would move to admit the report. So good. [01:55:03] Speaker 4: All right. That may be admitted as well. [01:55:05] Speaker 7: Okay. [01:55:06] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. [01:55:08] Speaker 10: Okay. Okay. I have nothing further. [01:55:11] Speaker 8: Thank you, sir. All right. [01:55:13] Speaker 13: All right. Thank you, doctor. Am I relieved? [01:55:16] Speaker ?: Through all, sir. Thank you. Thank you. [01:55:19] Speaker 14: Your Honor, prior to the next witness, the Commonwealth would move to submit, um, four stipulations the parties have entered into, uh, the first being a stipulation regarding DNA known standard samples. The second being a- [01:55:38] Speaker 2: Okay. More stipulations this time regarding DNA. So this is good. This is going to cut a lot of witnesses off the list. [01:55:46] Speaker 14: The first being a stipulation regulations the parties have entered into, uh, the first being a stipulation regarding DNA known standard samples. The second being a stipulation regarding DNA evidence for the blue exercise band and the red-brown stain on the basement floor. The third being the stipulation regarding DNA evidence for the yellow exercise band and the black exercise band and the fourth being stipulation regarding DNA comparisons for the blue exercise band and the red-brown stain in the basement. [01:56:21] Speaker 10: That's right. We don't need to have all those witnesses. [01:56:24] Speaker 4: All right. So those stipulations may be, uh, entered as exhibits. [01:56:31] Speaker 2: It means they're stipulating so that all of the chain of custody witnesses who tested the DNA and extracted the DNA and put the DNA in the centrifuge or whatever they do with the DNA. None of those people have to come and testify. Only the witnesses who are going to testify about the results are going to testify. This is cutting a lot of time off the trial, and this is a good thing. [01:56:56] Speaker 4: Councilor, do you want those, uh, published or read to the jury or satisfied that they'll have those? And the parties can, the parties can refer to the contents of the, of the stipulations. Yeah. [01:57:16] Speaker 14: The only, um, one that we would like to have to have read to the jury, uh, I'm sorry, are you outside? That's, that's on me. [01:57:24] Speaker ?: I kind of jumped in there. [01:57:25] Speaker 4: I'm sorry. Because it's 208 and 211. [01:57:27] Speaker ?: Would be the exhibit 211 stipulations regarding comparisons to the blue band and the red-brown stain? Um, I don't think she, if she wants you to read it, I don't have a problem. [01:57:27] Speaker 4: Yeah. Well, you know what, I want to read it. [01:57:29] Speaker 3: I don't think she, if she wants you to read it. I don't have a problem. Yeah. [01:57:32] Speaker ?: Well, you know what, I want to read it. Did something just happen to the volume? Because it just decreased greatly on my end. I don't think she wants you to read it. [01:57:37] Speaker 14: I don't have a problem. Yeah. Well, you know what? I want to read it. Did something just happen to the volume? [01:57:46] Speaker 10: Because it just decreased greatly on my end. Yeah. [01:57:54] Speaker 14: Yeah. [01:57:55] Speaker 4: Well, you know what? I want to read it. [01:57:58] Speaker 2: Did something just happen to the volume? Because it just decreased greatly on my end. Let me know. Yeah. [01:58:04] Speaker ?: All right. [01:58:05] Speaker 4: So that's what we'll do. All right. So, members that you remember, I think it was yesterday or the day before, I talked a little bit about those stipulations. So the same instructions. I think these are facts that we're going to read, that the parties have agreed to, that you can rely on in arriving at your verdict at the end of this case. These stipulations, this is one of four that was just introduced. You'll have all four of them with you back in the jury room when you're deliberating. But, so let me just read this one stipulation. This doesn't mean this stipulation is any more important than any of the other ones, but the parties would like me to just read this one here. All right. So, this is a stipulation regarding the DNA comparisons for the blue exercise band and the red-brown stain, it was marked A. Now, in the above captioned matter, the parties agree to the following facts as it pertains to the DNA comparisons for the blue exercise band and the red-brown stain A in the basement. Number one, forensic scientist, Emily Oliver, reviewed and interpreted the data relating to the question items, parentheses, item 2-4, blue exercise band and item 3-3, the red-brown stain A from the basement floor, close parentheses, and conducted comparison analysis to the known standards in this case. Number two, the parties agreed to the following conclusions regarding comparison analysis of these items. A, item 2-4.1.1, sample from the ends of the blue exercise band, the DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of three contributors. There are five individuals who have a likelihood ratio that indicates an inclusion in the profile. They are Dawson Clancy, Callan Clancy, Cora Clancy, Lindsey Clancy, and Patrick Clancy. B, item 2-4.2.1, sample from the middle of the blue exercise band, the DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of three contributors. Callan Clancy is included as a major contributor. And C, item 3-3.1, sample of swabs from the red-brown stain A on the basement floor. The DNA profile was interpreted as originating from a single contributor. Cora Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile. So that's the stipulation that the parties have agreed to. [02:00:51] Speaker ?: All right. [02:00:52] Speaker 2: That was Cora's blood on the rug. And one last stipulation. That answers our question. That was Cora's blood on the rug. [02:01:00] Speaker 14: The stipulation to be marked as the next exhibit, the stipulation regarding the batch work done at NMS Labs. We're not asking that this be read at this time. Okay. [02:01:12] Speaker ?: All right. [02:01:17] Speaker 14: The Commonwealth would call Katarina Stashen. [02:01:37] Speaker 8: Good morning, ma'am. Can you stop right there? Raise your mic in. Good morning. [02:01:41] Speaker 3: Do you saw how I swear that the testimony and the evidence you take is court and the jury and I'm not having between the Commonwealth and the pen of the batch? Yes. Thank you. You can have a seat now. Watch your step, please. Thank you. Hey, good morning. Good morning. Good morning. [02:01:55] Speaker 4: All right. [02:01:56] Speaker 14: Denise Sprague, please. [02:01:57] Speaker 4: Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning. [02:01:59] Speaker 14: Can you please state and spell your name for the record? [02:02:03] Speaker 15: Good morning. My name is Katarina Stashen. My first name is spelled K-A-T-A-R-I-N-A. Last name is spelled S-T-A-S-H-Y-N. And can you describe for us your educational background? I have a bachelor's and master's degree in biotechnology from the University of Nevada, [02:02:25] Speaker 14: Reno. And what is your occupation? [02:02:27] Speaker 15: I'm currently employed by the Washoe County Sheriff's Office Forensic Science Division, which is located in Reno, Nevada. I'm a criminalist in the biology and forensic investigation sections. [02:02:38] Speaker 14: Back in January of 2023, where were you working? [02:02:44] Speaker 15: I previously worked for the Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory as a forensic scientist in the DNA unit, which is functionally the same role that I currently have in the biology section. [02:02:54] Speaker 10: I'm sorry. We agreed to the DNA. Just letting you know that. [02:03:00] Speaker 14: Okay. All right. I'm just giving that evidence to the jury. Go ahead. So when did you start working for the state police? [02:03:08] Speaker 15: I worked for the Massachusetts State Police from June 2021 to February of 2025. [02:03:15] Speaker 14: And what was the nature of your work for the lab at that time? [02:03:22] Speaker 15: As a DNA analyst, I processed evidence items obtained either from a crime scene or from an individual associated with a criminal investigation. These items of evidence would be processed through the laboratory. I then would perform interpretations, comparisons as needed, write reports. I also could perform administrative reviews of other analysts' work and provide expert witness testimony as needed. [02:03:47] Speaker 14: And part of your employment at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab, did you take competency tests and proficiency tests to guarantee that you were capable and proficient in the areas you were working? Yes. [02:04:01] Speaker 15: I took both competency tests after my training and proficiency tests throughout my career at Massachusetts and at my current role. [02:04:08] Speaker 14: And have you passed all of those tests? Yes. [02:04:11] Speaker 15: Yes, I have passed all competency and proficiency tests that I've taken so far in my career. Can you tell us what is DNA? DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid. And this is genetic information that is stored in our cells. This is information that makes us who we are, determines how we develop and grow. A person's DNA is inherited approximately half from their mom and half from their dad. DNA is forensically relevant because it is expected that no two individuals will have the same forensic DNA profile. [02:04:42] Speaker 14: And is DNA the same in every single cell in a person's body? Yes. [02:04:48] Speaker 15: The DNA profile obtained from different cells, different cell types like a blood cell or from a saliva cell or cell in your saliva would have the same DNA profile barring your mutation. [02:05:00] Speaker 14: And can you explain generally the process used to analyze evidence in this case, the testing involving the defendant, Lindsey Clancy? [02:05:12] Speaker 15: The items tested in this case and in all cases will go through a four step laboratory process of extraction, quantification, amplification, and detection. And then profiles developed from that laboratory process will be interpreted and compared. [02:05:28] Speaker 14: Can you just briefly explain what is extraction and how it's done? [02:05:32] Speaker 15: Extraction is the first step of that laboratory process that involves applying a variation of heat and chemicals to a sample. This breaks open cells that are present and releases the DNA and then isolates that DNA. [02:05:45] Speaker 14: And was the next step quantification? Yes. [02:05:50] Speaker 15: And what is that and how do you do that? Quantification is the second step when we determine a reliable estimate for the amount of DNA in those samples that were extracted. And those values are then used to optimize the rest of the process with the goal to obtain a quality profile for that sample. And the third step, amplification, can you explain that? Amplification is when we make millions and millions of copies of certain areas of DNA to make it able to be detected and visualized. And then detection, what is that? And then the fourth step is separation or detection. This is where we separate out all those millions and millions of copies that we made to make them visual. This produces a DNA profile that an analyst is then able to review and interpret. [02:06:38] Speaker 14: And when you worked at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab, were there certain standardized protocols and procedures that you used at that lab? Yes. And were there controls used in your testing? Yes. [02:06:51] Speaker 15: What does that mean? So there are two different types of controls that were used in our testing. The first is a positive control. This is a sample that contains a known DNA profile and it is processed alongside evidence samples. So when that known DNA profile is obtained at the end of the process, it confirms that the process is working appropriately. The second type of control is a negative control. And this is a sample that contains no DNA that is also processed alongside evidence samples. And this is able to monitor any contamination and confirm that clean technique is used during testing. [02:07:25] Speaker 14: And does your work undergo a review process at the lab or did it? [02:07:29] Speaker 15: Yes. All work goes through two stages of review, technical review and administrative review. Technical review is when another qualified analyst reviews all of the work done in the file and in the report. For overall clerical accuracy and completeness. [02:07:57] Speaker 14: And when you worked on lab number 23-01723 evidence involved in the deaths of Cora Clancy, Dawson Clancy, and Callan Clancy, did you follow the standardized protocols and procedures? Yes. Were there any issues with the controls that were present when you did this testing? [02:08:17] Speaker 15: All controls were acceptable per the laboratory protocols. [02:08:20] Speaker 14: And did your work undergo and pass that review process you just described? Yes. All work went through both technical and administrative review. And if we could talk specifically about the work that you did in this case. First, I'd like to talk or I'd like you to talk about your work done on the yellow exercise band and the black exercise band. Now, you didn't actually handle those items, correct? [02:08:49] Speaker 15: I did a portion of the laboratory work for those samples, but I did not handle the actual bands themselves. I handled swabs of those bands. [02:08:59] Speaker 14: So at some point in time in the lab, someone took swabs from those bands and then that was forwarded to the DNA unit, the swabs? Yes. [02:09:07] Speaker ?: Okay. [02:09:07] Speaker 14: And specifically, there was item 2-2.1.1 swabs from the ends of the yellow exercise band and item 2-2.2.1 swabs from the middle of the yellow exercise band, correct? Could I refer to my report to confirm that? [02:09:27] Speaker 15: Any objection? [02:09:28] Speaker 4: Of course. [02:09:29] Speaker 15: Thank you. [02:09:38] Speaker 14: Yes. And when doing your comparison work, did you also use some DNA profiles that had been generated in the lab for Dawson Clancy, Cora Clancy, Callan Clancy, Patrick Clancy, and Lindsey Clancy? [02:09:53] Speaker 15: Yes. They utilized known standards that were developed from those individuals. [02:09:57] Speaker 14: And known standards, are those basically the DNA profiles for each of those individuals? Yes. [02:10:04] Speaker 15: Known standards are samples collected directly from a known individual for comparison purposes. [02:10:09] Speaker 14: And going to item 2-2.1.1, the swabs from the ends of the yellow exercise band, what were your findings? [02:10:21] Speaker 15: So, I'm going to start with a general statement for this report as a whole. [02:10:33] Speaker 2: Again, this was stipulated too, but she wants to call this witness to go through it, so that's what she's doing. [02:10:47] Speaker 15: A mixture DNA profile can impact overall interpretation, including the determination of the number of contributors and likelihood ratios. Relatedness was considered for the following results. For item 2-2.1.1 sample from ends of yellow exercise band located in basement office, 47 Summer Street. The DNA profile is a mixture, including male DNA. Due to the possible relatedness of low-level contributors to this profile, an alternate number of contributors was considered. First, assuming two contributors. First, assuming two contributors. The DNA profile is a mixture of at least two contributors, including male DNA. Contributors 1 and 2 are suitable for comparison. The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of two contributors. The DNA profile from this item is at least 1.7 non-million times more likely if it originated from Dawson Clancy and an unknown individual than if it originated from two unknown, unrelated individuals. This provides support that Dawson Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile. Cora Clancy, Callan Clancy, Patrick Clancy, and Lindsey Clancy are excluded from this DNA profile. Assuming three contributors. The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of three contributors. Contributor 1 is suitable for comparison. Due to limited information and possible relatedness of contributors, contributors 2 and 3 are not suitable for comparison. The DNA profile from this item is at least 920 octillion times more likely if it originated from Dawson Clancy and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown, unrelated individuals. This provides support that Dawson Clancy is included to this DNA profile. Cora Clancy, Callan Clancy, Patrick Clancy, and Lindsey Clancy are excluded from contributor 1 of this DNA profile. [02:12:44] Speaker 2: So that's the ends of the yellow exercise band. Only Dawson's DNA was found on the ends of the bands. Which I guess she's going to argue is because he tried to take it off. I'm going to ask you a few questions about what… Remember, only the ends of the exercise bands and the middle of the exercise bands were… Tested. She's got a big smile on, which is not appropriate. Bad freeze frame on my point. [02:13:11] Speaker 14: You just told us. You mentioned the effect of relatedness. What does that mean? [02:13:16] Speaker 15: So, as I mentioned, an individual's DNA is inherited approximately one half from their mom and one half from their dad. So, this means that there's a lot of DNA shared between relatives, including between parent and children and between siblings. So, this can affect the determination of the number of contributors. So, when I review the profile to see how many people are in that profile because there's so much DNA that is shared. So, taking that into account, I did two different interpretations. First, assuming two contributors. And the second, assuming three contributors. Again, just due to the complexity of relatedness and its effect on this profile, especially low-level contributors. [02:14:02] Speaker 14: And would it be correct to state that when there is this level of relatedness where you have two parents and three siblings, that you can have false exclusions? [02:14:14] Speaker 15: If there is an under-assignment of the number of contributors, meaning that the number of contributors is incorrectly assigned lower than it actually is, which is a possibility with relatedness because you're working with less information because that information is shared, the under-assigning could lead to false exclusions of true contributors. [02:14:35] Speaker 14: Could you also miss some people to include? [02:14:39] Speaker 15: Due to the effects of relatedness, it could be difficult to determine number of contributors simply because so much information is shared. Therefore, it is more complex when assigning this number. [02:14:52] Speaker 14: And for item 2-2.1.1, the ends of the yellow exercise band, whether you considered two contributors or three contributors, both of your findings find that Dawson Clancy was a contributor, a potential contributor. [02:15:08] Speaker 15: So both propositions, either two contributors or three contributors, had high inclusionary stats for Dawson Clancy. Correct. What's a nonillion? [02:15:20] Speaker 14: Nonillion is a very large number. Do you know how many people are on earth? [02:15:28] Speaker ?: I know. [02:15:29] Speaker 10: This is typical DNA gobbledygook at this point, Judge. I object to his objection. [02:15:37] Speaker 2: This is typical DNA gobbledygook at this point. The gobbledygook has entered the chat right now. Thank you, Bub's mom for a gift and a membership and the Goodmans for a gift and a membership. Gobbledygook is now at this trial and now she's going to get mad. Hold on. I want to hear that again. My eyes were starting to glaze over. Earth. [02:15:56] Speaker 14: Do you know how many? [02:15:58] Speaker 2: Nonillion is a very large number. Usually they're able to say how many zeros come after a one in a nonillion, but that's okay. She doesn't know. Do you know how many people are on earth? Earth. Do you know how many people are on earth? Okay. We have now entered the upside down inside out Narnia. That is Massachusetts. We are so far deep into the lion. We are so far into the wardrobe at this point that my head has popped off. I know it's. [02:16:28] Speaker 10: This is typical DNA gobbledygook at this point, Judge. I object to his objections. [02:16:35] Speaker 14: That's ridiculous. [02:16:36] Speaker 8: You can ask. He's not having it. [02:16:44] Speaker 2: She's been talking about unicorns and zombies and all kinds of craziness. And the craziness continues. And now maybe Reddington is going to get. [02:16:53] Speaker 8: How many counts? KC over sidebar. [02:16:59] Speaker 2: Probably going to get chastised by the judge at the sidebar. [02:17:02] Speaker 14: Earth. [02:17:03] Speaker 2: 1.7. None. [02:17:05] Speaker 14: Thank you, Your Honor. 1.7 million. Is that more than there are people on the earth? [02:17:13] Speaker 15: That is more individuals that are on earth. But I would like to clarify that a likelihood ratio is not. A random match probability or a rarity of that profile. A likelihood ratio is a ratio that describes the probability of observing the DNA profile. If a certain person is included versus the probability of observing that DNA profile if a certain person is excluded or if it is another unknown unrelated individual. [02:17:42] Speaker 14: And you said a million is a very high number, correct? [02:17:45] Speaker 15: Yes, that's a very large number in my opinion. [02:17:47] Speaker 14: So it's a very large probability that Dawson-Clancy is a contributor to that mixture. [02:17:54] Speaker 15: It is a large likelihood ratio that provides support for the inclusion of Dawson-Clancy to the profile. [02:18:03] Speaker 14: And then going to item 2-2.2.1, the swabs from the middle of the exercise band, what were your findings for that? [02:18:13] Speaker 15: The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of two contributors including male DNA. The DNA profile from this item is at least 1.5 non-million times more likely if it originated from Dawson-Clancy and an unknown individual than if it originated from two unknown unrelated individuals. The DNA profile from this item is at least 3.6 million times more likely if it originated from Kalen-Clancy and an unknown individual than if it originated from two unknown unrelated individuals. This provides support that Kalen-Clancy is included as a contributor to this profile. The DNA profile from this item is at least 1.4 billion times more likely if it originated from Patrick Clancy and an unknown individual than if it... [02:19:07] Speaker 2: I have to go off-camera for a few minutes to deal with something, so I'm going to be listening in the background. Don't miss me too much. Try and be nice in the chat to each other. Thank you. [02:19:24] Speaker 15: ...originated from two unknown unrelated individuals. This provides support that Patrick Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile. Cora Clancy and Lindsey Clancy are excluded from this DNA profile. The mixture DNA profile from this item is consistent with having originated from two individuals. There are three individuals who have a likelihood ratio that indicates an inclusion. Though there is support for the individual inclusions of Dawson-Clancy, Kalen-Clancy, and Patrick Clancy to the mixture DNA profile, under the stated assumptions, these individuals cannot be present in the mixture together. Assuming one, two contributors, and two, Dawson-Clancy is one of the contributors, Kalen-Clancy and Patrick Clancy cannot be present in the mixture together. Support for inclusion may be impacted by mixtures which contain relative, especially first-degree relatives. Refer to the independent inclusionary statistics above. [02:20:23] Speaker 14: So this swab from the middle of the yellow exercise band, you stated was a mixture of two contributors, two people, correct? [02:20:32] Speaker 15: Yes. I determined using my training and experience that the profile was a mixture of two contributors. [02:20:39] Speaker 14: And then you had three possible contributors, Dawson, Kalen, and Patrick, for the two-person mixture. So is it accurate that that relatedness issue was having an effect on that data or that result? [02:20:57] Speaker 15: Yes, relatedness of potential contributors was having an effect on this profile. And that is because so much DNA is shared between potential contributors. [02:21:08] Speaker 14: And what you stated at the end, that if Dawson-Clancy is one of the contributors, then Kalen-Clancy and Patrick-Clancy cannot be present together in that mixture, correct? Correct. And Dawson-Clancy was the one who had the 1.5 million times more likely if it originated from him, correct? [02:21:28] Speaker 15: Yes. The likelihood ratio for Dawson was 1.5 million. [02:21:33] Speaker 14: And would it be accurate to state that with male relatives, they share the same YSTR profile? [02:21:48] Speaker 15: Yes. Male relatives will share the same YSTR profile, barring rare mutation, but YSTR analysis was not done in this case. [02:21:57] Speaker 14: Okay. And does that fact, when you have male relatives, does that affect the relatedness complications of your evaluation? [02:22:06] Speaker 15: The fact that they're male doesn't necessarily have an effect, but just in general, relatedness has an effect in this case because so much DNA is shared between potential contributors. [02:22:17] Speaker 2: And then going... Zoe, sorry, I had to step away. Zoe, if you're here, I'm relying on you to tell me what the results are because I know you're probably, I know you're probably keeping copious notes. Thank you. [02:22:29] Speaker 14: I'm going to item 2-3.1.1, the swabs from the ends of the black exercise band. You found that that sample was a mixture but wasn't suitable for comparison, correct? Correct. And what does it mean to be not suitable for comparison? [02:22:48] Speaker 15: I'll read the statement in the report and then I'll clarify as needed. The DNA profile is a mixture, including male DNA, and is not suitable for comparison due to the complexity of the profile, the possibility of at least five contributors, and the relatedness of potential contributors. [02:23:05] Speaker 14: So, was it not suitable for comparison because there were so many potential contributors, many of them who were related? [02:23:13] Speaker 15: Yes, there was multiple factors that made this profile not suitable. Relatedness was definitely one of those factors. And per laboratory protocols and validation, if there is any indication of a fifth contributor or more, a profile is not suitable for comparison due to limitations of our technology and software used. [02:23:31] Speaker 14: So, basically, if you're examining a profile and it looks like there's five or more, your work stops because of the limitations of your equipment. Correct. And then going to item 2-3.2.1, the swabs from the middle of the exercise band, what were your findings there? [02:23:51] Speaker 15: The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of three contributors, including male DNA. The DNA profile from this item is at least 870 trillion times more likely if it originated from Dawson-Clancy and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown, unrelated individuals. The DNA profile from this item is at least 1.6 million times more likely if it originated from Cora Clancy and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown, unrelated individuals. The DNA profile from this item is at least 2,600 times more likely if it originated from Cora Clancy and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown, unrelated individuals. The DNA profile from this item is at least 220,000 times more likely if it originated from Cora Clancy and two unknown individuals than if it originated from Cora Clancy. The DNA profile from this item is at least 11 times more likely if it originated from Cora Clancy and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown, unrelated individuals. This provides limited support that Cora Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile. The Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab DNA validation studies showed inclusions for known non-contributors in the likelihood ratio range of at least 2,000 to 1,000 adventitious support could be attributed to this conclusion. The mixture DNA profile from this item is consistent with having originated from three individuals. There are five individuals who have a likelihood ratio that indicate an inclusion. Though there is support for the individual inclusions of Dawson Clancy, Cora Clancy, Callan Clancy, Patrick Clancy, and Lindsey Clancy to the mixture DNA profile, under the stated assumptions these individuals cannot be present in the mixture together. Assuming one, three contributors, and two, Cora Clancy is one of the contributors, Dawson Clancy, Callan Clancy, Patrick Clancy, and Lindsey Clancy cannot be present in the mixture together. Support for inclusion may be impacted by mixtures which contain relatives, especially first-degree relatives. Refer to the independent inclusionary statistics above. [02:26:39] Speaker 14: And so again here you're dealing with the effect of the relatedness of the parties, correct? [02:26:45] Speaker 15: Correct relatedness is having an effect on potential contributors again to this profile. I'd just like to say that likelihood ratios are calculated independently for each person. They are not to show a likelihood ratio for more than one person or multiple people together in a profile. And again, because so much DNA is shared between potential contributors, that is why we're seeing some of the things we're seeing in this report. And for this item… [02:27:11] Speaker 2: Okay, so I know I had to step away, but is Lindsey Clancy's DNA on any of these exercise bans? Has Lindsey's DNA been mentioned at all? Are we supposed to assume she was wearing gloves? Asks Erin. And I have the same question. Maybe I missed it when I had to step away, but I don't know if somebody who's a DNA expert in the chat can let me know. [02:27:34] Speaker 14: In the middle of the black exercise band, the highest number of possible conclusion was the 1.6 million times more likely if it originated from Cora Clancy and two unknown individuals, correct? [02:27:50] Speaker 15: Yes, the highest statistic for this item was a likelihood ratio of 1.6 million for Cora Clancy. [02:27:58] Speaker 14: And based on your analysis of the data that you had, you determined it was a mixture of three contributors, correct? Correct. And so when you have the three contributors and Cora Clancy has the highest likelihood of being a contributor, if you include her in the mixture, the other four members of the family are excluded, correct? [02:28:20] Speaker 15: Assuming one, three contributors, and two, Cora Clancy is one of the contributors, Dawson Clancy, Callan Clancy, Patrick Clancy, and Lindsey Clancy cannot be present in the mixture together. Again, those statistics are all calculated independently and don't say anything about those people being in the mixture together. [02:28:42] Speaker 14: And moving on to some other work you did in this case, specifically, some swabs from the backside of the house, some shingles on 47 Summer Street in Duxbury, items 14-1, 14-2, and 14-3. Did you do work on those samples as well and compare them to the known profiles of Dawson Clancy, Cora Clancy, Callan Clancy, Patrick Clancy, and Lindsey Clancy? [02:29:16] Speaker 15: Your Honor, may I refer to my second report for these items? Thank you. Yes, I did work on those items in my second report. [02:29:29] Speaker 14: And direct your attention to item 14-1, a swab from stain B on the backside of the house, 47 Summer Street. What were your findings regarding that swab? [02:29:40] Speaker 15: The female DNA profile was interpreted as originating from a single contributor. The DNA profile from this item is at least 18 octillion times more likely if it originated from Lindsey Clancy than if it originated from an unknown, unrelated individual. [02:29:56] Speaker 2: Okay, so Lindsey's blood was on the back of the house, the shingle on the back of the house that they didn't test for like five months or so. [02:30:07] Speaker 15: This provides support that Lindsey Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile. Dawson Clancy, Cora Clancy, Callan Clancy, and Patrick Clancy are excluded from this DNA profile. [02:30:19] Speaker 14: And so unlike the samples and profiles we talked about earlier, this sample 14-1, the swab from stain B, wasn't a mixture, correct? It was just one person's DNA? [02:30:31] Speaker 15: Correct. This was a single contributor profile. [02:30:34] Speaker 14: And your findings was that Lindsey Clancy is at least 18 octillion times more likely if it originated from Lindsey Clancy than an unknown, unrelated individual. [02:30:44] Speaker 15: The DNA profile from this item is at least 18 octillion times more likely if it originated from Lindsey Clancy than if it originated from an unknown, unrelated individual. This provides support that Lindsey Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile. [02:30:59] Speaker 14: And so it's support that she's included as a contributor to this profile of one person, correct? [02:31:06] Speaker 15: Yes, there is support with a likelihood ratio of 18 octillion for Lindsey Clancy. And the other members of the family were excluded, correct? [02:31:16] Speaker 14: Correct. And then item 14-2, the swab from stain C on the backside of the house, 47 Summer Street. That profile was a mixture and not suitable for comparison, correct? [02:31:27] Speaker 15: Correct. The DNA profile is a mixture and is not suitable for comparison due to the quality of the profile. [02:31:33] Speaker 14: And what does it mean when something is not suitable due to the quality of the profile? [02:31:38] Speaker 15: This was a low level profile with not enough information to be interpreted. [02:31:42] Speaker 2: Do you have to have a certain level? Yeah, because you know weather in New England five months later is when they took the sample. So yeah, totally tracks. [02:31:52] Speaker 14: Of information in the data to make findings based on your protocols and procedures at the lab? [02:31:58] Speaker 15: Yes, there are protocols and procedures that determine how we can determine our number of contributors. And therefore, if there's not enough information, a profile is not suitable for interpretation or comparisons. [02:32:11] Speaker 14: And then item 14-3, the swab from stain D on the back of the home, 47 Summer Street. What were your findings for that swab? [02:32:19] Speaker 15: The female DNA profile was interpreted as originating from a single contributor. The DNA profile from this item is at least 96 trillion times more likely if originated from Lindsay Clancy than if it originated from an unknown, unrelated individual. This provides support that Lindsay Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile. Dawson Clancy, Cora Clancy, Callan Clancy, and Patrick Clancy are excluded from this DNA profile. [02:32:46] Speaker 14: And again, this is a single contributor. So the DNA profile of one person was found on the swab, correct? Correct. And nothing further. Thank you. Brandon? [02:33:01] Speaker 4: Brandon? [02:33:02] Speaker ?: Brandon? Brandon? [02:33:04] Speaker 4: Brandon? Brandon? Brandon? [02:33:07] Speaker 15: All right. [02:33:08] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [02:33:11] Speaker 5: So what did we learn? Rochester. [02:33:14] Speaker 7: The Commonwealth would call Elaine Rossi as its next request. [02:33:27] Speaker 2: Kevin Reddington had nothing that he wanted to clarify. He's just like, whatevs, whatevs. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you. All right. [02:33:44] Speaker 4: Counsel. [02:33:45] Speaker 2: Thank you. She's giving, she's giving a 1970s Charlie's Angels with that hair. Love it. Good morning. [02:33:53] Speaker 7: Good morning. Could you please tell the jurors your first and last name? [02:33:56] Speaker 16: My first name is Elaine Rossi. [02:33:59] Speaker 7: Can you spell your last name for the record? R-O-S-S-I. And what city or town do you live in? I live in Kingston. What do you do for work? [02:34:08] Speaker 16: I'm a nanny. [02:34:09] Speaker 7: How long have you been a nanny? [02:34:11] Speaker 16: For about 15 years now. [02:34:13] Speaker 2: Come on back to me. Come on back to me if your mind has started to wander. And you got bored with her. And you got bored with the DNA. The nanny is here. The nanny is here. The nanny is here. Let's see if she's going to be a friendly for the Commonwealth or a friendly for the Clancy's. Or if she's going to be neutral. This is a very important testimony to me. Because nannies know everything about things that go on in the house. She's going to tell us about Lindsay. She's being called, however, by the Commonwealth. Lainey. I think she went by Lainey also. So come on back. [02:34:52] Speaker 7: Can you spell your last name for the record? [02:34:54] Speaker 16: R-O-S-S-I. [02:34:55] Speaker 7: And what city or town do you live in? [02:34:57] Speaker 16: I live in Kingston. [02:34:59] Speaker 7: What do you do for work? [02:35:01] Speaker 16: I'm a nanny. [02:35:02] Speaker 7: How long have you been a nanny? [02:35:04] Speaker 16: For about 15 years now. [02:35:06] Speaker 7: In July of 2022, did you become familiar with the Clancy family? [02:35:11] Speaker 16: I did. [02:35:12] Speaker 7: How did you become involved with their family? [02:35:14] Speaker 16: I answered a Facebook advertisement seeking a part-time nanny position. [02:35:18] Speaker 7: And who posted that advertisement? [02:35:20] Speaker 16: Lindsay did. [02:35:22] Speaker 7: And did she respond to your message? [02:35:27] Speaker 16: I responded to her message. [02:35:29] Speaker 7: Right. And so you said you were interested, right? [02:35:32] Speaker 16: I did. [02:35:33] Speaker 7: And then did she respond to you? [02:35:35] Speaker 16: She did. [02:35:36] Speaker 7: So did you have then communication back and forth with her about possibly taking on a nannying position for their family? Yes, we did. [02:35:44] Speaker 16: Okay. [02:35:45] Speaker 7: That was on July 22nd of 2022 that initial back and forth occurred, correct? [02:35:52] Speaker 16: Correct. [02:35:53] Speaker 7: And as a result of your initial communication with her, did you end up setting up a time to come meet their family? [02:36:00] Speaker 16: We did. [02:36:01] Speaker 7: And how did that happen? Where did you meet them? [02:36:03] Speaker 16: I met at their residence in the back end of their home. [02:36:08] Speaker 7: And that would be 47 Summer Street in Duxbury? Correct. And when you went to their home, were you able to meet the children? [02:36:15] Speaker 16: Yes. [02:36:16] Speaker 7: And how many children were there? [02:36:17] Speaker 16: Three. [02:36:18] Speaker 7: And who were they? [02:36:19] Speaker 16: Cora, Dawson, and Callan. [02:36:21] Speaker 7: And present at that meeting that you had in their backyard were also Patrick and Lindsey Clancy? [02:36:26] Speaker 16: Yes. [02:36:27] Speaker 7: And what was the purpose of kind of meeting at their home in the backyard? [02:36:31] Speaker 16: It was to get familiar with the kids just for an introductory meeting. I got to hold Callan and play with Cora and Dawson a little bit and talk to Lindsey and Patrick. [02:36:43] Speaker 7: And so at that time, Cora was four, right? Yes. And Dawson was three. Yes. And Callan was an infant. [02:36:52] Speaker 16: Yes. [02:36:53] Speaker 7: Now, as a result of your kind of interview or interaction with them, what eventually happened with your relationship with the Clancy's? Did you become their nanny? I did. And did you communicate with Lindsey about what the expectations of the job were going to be? I did. So what was your role or your expectations of the role? [02:37:16] Speaker 16: My role was to take care of Callan when she went back to work. [02:37:21] Speaker 7: Okay. And did you know when that was expected to happen? [02:37:25] Speaker 16: I believe right around Thanksgiving. [02:37:28] Speaker 7: And did you start working for them prior to that? Prior to November? [02:37:34] Speaker 16: Yes, I did. I started first week in September of 2022. [02:37:38] Speaker 7: And so while the original terms were for you to primarily watch Callan, did you take on a slightly different role in between September and November? [02:37:47] Speaker 16: I did. [02:37:48] Speaker 7: And so what were their responsibilities or what did the Clancy's ask you to do for the family during the time of September through essentially when you stopped working for them? [02:37:58] Speaker 16: It was to get to know the family, to get to know how they worked as a family, to get to know their schedule and essentially mostly to take care of Callan. Occasionally Cora and Dawson would be home and I would interact with them as well. [02:38:13] Speaker 7: So going into it, you knew that you would sometimes be spending time with Cora and Dawson. Yes. But to your understanding, were they at the home all the time? [02:38:23] Speaker 16: No, they were at school. [02:38:25] Speaker 7: And other than caring for Callan, did you agree to take on some other responsibilities in the household? [02:38:32] Speaker 16: I did. [02:38:33] Speaker 7: And what were those responsibilities? [02:38:34] Speaker 16: It was food prep, light housekeeping, laundry, things like that. [02:38:40] Speaker 7: Was that something that you offered to do as part of your services or were you asked to do it? [02:38:45] Speaker 16: I offered initially. I said those were things I did as a nanny for previous families. [02:38:51] Speaker 7: And what was your expected schedule going to be for the Clancy's? [02:38:56] Speaker 16: It was three days a week. I believe it was 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. [02:39:03] Speaker 7: And was the three days a set schedule or was the expectation that it might change? [02:39:10] Speaker 16: Initially it was set and then it changed. [02:39:13] Speaker 2: As far as your... Yep. Remember the extensive notes that she would leave for the nanny? And there was a whole notebook of all the notes that they would write back and forth to each other. This woman presents, if you're not looking at your screen, she is Jacqueline Smith to me right now. From Charlie's Angels. And she is very professional. Very professional. She's been doing this for 15 years. This is what she does. Not only will she take care of your babies, but she will also do some light housekeeping for you and some food prep. So let's see what she thinks about the copious notes that Lindsay would give her. I would think it would be helpful, but let's see what she's got to say. Original expectation. [02:39:58] Speaker 7: As far as your original expectation, fair to say, you were originally asked to do Monday, Tuesdays and Thursdays. Correct. And then as you started working for them, you were asked to kind of adjust some of the days. Yes. And was that something that you could do? [02:40:18] Speaker 16: If I could, I would. [02:40:20] Speaker 7: And how about the time? You said from 8:30 to 1:30, were the times flexible too? Yes. [02:40:27] Speaker 16: Sometimes it was 9:00 to 1:30. That was about the only difference. [02:40:34] Speaker 7: Okay. And how would you communicate with Lindsay? [02:40:38] Speaker 16: So we communicated via text a lot. Lindsay also had a notebook in her kitchen that we communicated. She would leave notes for me for the activities or the instructions for me for the day. Okay. [02:40:53] Speaker 7: And you started, you said the week of Labor Day, that was your first week with the Clancy family, right? And primarily during that week, did you care for Callan? [02:41:06] Speaker 16: Yes, I did. [02:41:08] Speaker 7: Did they come to call you something particular as far as like a nickname? They called me Lainey. And that was something the kids called you as well as Patrick and Lindsay? Yes. [02:41:22] Speaker ?: So... [02:41:27] Speaker 7: I'm going to just show you what's been marked as exhibit 150. Okay. She's got the notebook. [02:41:46] Speaker 2: You want to just take a quick look inside of it. [02:41:50] Speaker 7: Okay. You can flip through the pages if that's helpful. [02:41:52] Speaker ?: Okay. Okay. [02:41:54] Speaker 7: Does the handwriting in that notebook look familiar to you? It does. And fair to say there's two different handwritings, right? Right. Did you come to know one of the handwritings as Lindsay's handwriting? [02:42:17] Speaker 16: I thought all of it was Lindsay's. [02:42:20] Speaker 7: Okay. But as far as the second set of handwriting, do you recognize? [02:42:25] Speaker 16: Oh, it's mine. Okay. [02:42:27] Speaker 7: I'm sorry. No, it's okay. And so, is this the notebook that you would kind of communicate with her back and forth about Callan and his schedule? It is. Actually, she left you pretty detailed instructions on his care. She did. [02:42:39] Speaker 16: Yes, she did. [02:42:40] Speaker 7: And you were aware that she was very particular about sleep and food and keeping on a schedule, right? Yes. And so that's the purpose of this notebook. [02:42:48] Speaker 16: Yes. [02:42:49] Speaker 7: When you would come to the household in the morning, would you often interact with Lindsay prior to taking care of taking the baby? [02:43:09] Speaker 16: Sometimes if she was there, I would interact with her. Some mornings she wasn't there. [02:43:14] Speaker 7: If she wasn't there, was Patrick home? Yes. And did you know where she was when she wasn't there? [02:43:21] Speaker 16: Sometimes she'd leave in the notebook that she was in the basement working out. Sometimes she'd drop the kids off to school. [02:43:29] Speaker 7: And would you often see her throughout the day when you were there from your nine to one shift? Yes. But there would be times when you see her come back to the home? Yes. And in those times when she left, sometimes she had the other two children with her, correct? Correct. And sometimes she did not. No. At times were you left with all three children? [02:43:52] Speaker 16: I think on one occasion I was. [02:43:56] Speaker 7: And would you get there before or after Cora and Dawson would be off to school usually? [02:44:04] Speaker 16: Most times I would be pulling in the driveway and they would be waiting to say goodbye to me or hello to me. [02:44:10] Speaker 7: And you're aware that they did not have school on Tuesdays, right? Were you aware? I don't remember. [02:44:19] Speaker 16: Sorry. Okay. [02:44:21] Speaker 7: Okay. When you started working for the Clancy family, was there a conversation with Lindsay about Callan not taking a bottle? [02:44:35] Speaker 16: I don't remember that. [02:44:38] Speaker 7: Did you often feed him a bottle when you were caring for him? I did. And do you recall at one point that you actually made video to Callan taking a bottle and sent it to Lindsay? [02:44:49] Speaker 16: Oh, yes, I did. Yes. [02:44:51] Speaker 7: And that would have been on September 9th, correct? [02:44:54] Speaker ?: Yes. [02:44:55] Speaker 7: At this point, Your Honor, I'd like to just play a short video. [02:45:00] Speaker 8: I don't have a point. Let the jury see the video. [02:45:04] Speaker 2: Can I see? Again, Kevin Reddington is like, fine, just let the jury see the video. But it's going to be a video of Callan taking a bottle. And I know what the prosecutor is doing. She wants to humanize the children and she wants the jury to see the children in their natural habitat when they were alive. And I understand why she's doing it. And Reddington's going to object. But I think, you know, I don't see any harm in it. The children were killed. Let the jury see the children. But she's trying to point out that she was micromanaging the nanny. Oh, here's the baby. Oh, here's the baby taking the bottle. If you want to see the baby taking the bottle, come. And I think he's, again, probably giving Kevin Reddington a little talking to about his attitude in front of the jury, which he does not like. It's clear. But, you know, credit the judge, Sully, for not doing it in front of the jury. He calls them to sidebar to do it. But I'm pretty sure that's what happened. That's what's happening. All right. Trudy Buckham. [02:46:09] Speaker 4: You're in it. [02:46:10] Speaker ?: Oh. [02:46:11] Speaker 7: Do you love you about that? [02:46:12] Speaker ?: He's loving it. [02:46:13] Speaker 13: Oh, the baby. And it was Callen. [02:46:18] Speaker 7: Is that the video that you took of Callen taking the bottle? [02:46:25] Speaker 2: It was Callen taking the bottle. [02:46:27] Speaker ?: Yes, it was. [02:46:28] Speaker 7: It's fair to say you sent that video to Lindsay Clancy on September 9th of 2022. Yes, I did. At this point, I'd move to admit a copy of that clip. All right. [02:46:38] Speaker 4: With no objection that may be admitted. [02:46:40] Speaker 2: This proves to me that this is a really good nanny, that she's sending the mom videos because she was concerned about him not being able to take the bottle. And then this is a really good nanny sending her a video. Like, look, he's doing it. He's doing it. I think it goes to more of their relationship. [02:47:05] Speaker 7: In your care of the children, were you ever permitted to take them outside of the household? Like, to the park or the library or anything? [02:47:13] Speaker 16: I took Callen for a walk on one occasion. And I took Cora and Dawson to a Tumble Fun gymnastics class. Okay. [02:47:23] Speaker 7: And that would have been in October of 2022 that you took Cora and Dawson, correct? When you went to Tumble Fun, what is that? [02:47:31] Speaker 16: It's a toddler, like, gymnastics place, indoor gymnastics place. [02:47:38] Speaker 7: Did you only take Cora and Dawson or did you also take Callen? Just Cora and Dawson. Okay. And why was it that you took them on this particular day? [02:47:49] Speaker 16: Lindsay had mentioned to me that they had Tumble Fun, but they wouldn't be going because she couldn't drive. Okay. So I offered to take them. [02:47:58] Speaker 7: Did she tell you why she couldn't drive at that time? She didn't. So you took them. Did you drive her car or your own car? I drove her car. And you were able to bring them home, correct? Correct. Did you notice anything different when you came back to the home on that day? I didn't. During the course of the time in which you were at the Clancy's house, fair to say from September to early December is the time that you were there. Three days a week. Yes. Um, did you come to find out that Lindsay was having some issues? I did. Did she talk to you about that? She did. And what did she tell you about her issues? [02:48:44] Speaker 16: Uh, she shared with me that she was suffering from postpartum. [02:48:48] Speaker 2: Um, now when she shared this information with you. Oh, so Lindsay told you that she was suffering posts from postpartum. To all of those people in the chat who says Lindsay never had postpartum. She never told anyone she had postpartum. She was never diagnosed with postpartum. She told the nanny. Nannies know everything just like your hairdresser does. [02:49:10] Speaker 7: Did you notice anything different about her demeanor or her presentation around the house? I didn't at all. Had her trips out of the house when you were there stopped or decreased during that time period? No. And did she tell you that at that time that she was seeing some doctors? She did. What about medication? Did you have any conversations with her about her taking medication during that time period? [02:49:36] Speaker 16: Um, I think we talked about she was going to stop a medication because she was trying to, um, stop nursing. That she was going to stop medication or she was going to start medication? Uh, she was, I think she was trying to stop something because she was going to, oh, I'm sorry. Uh, that's okay. Take your time. [02:49:54] Speaker ?: Um, she was not going to nurse count anymore because she was going to be starting a new medication. [02:49:54] Speaker 16: Did she ever give you any details about the medication? She didn't. Do you recall seeing, um, prescription bottles around the house? I did. Um, did you ever, um, did you ever learn from Lindsay that she had gone to the emergency room in November of 2022? [02:50:08] Speaker 7: No. [02:50:09] Speaker ?: How about, um, going to the emergency room in December of 2022? [02:50:09] Speaker 7: No. Um, did anything about your arrangements with, um, coming on the three days, caring for Callan and sometimes Cora, did any of that ever change? Um, because, um, do you ever, um, do you ever, um, do you ever have a medication? Um, do you ever have a medication? [02:50:26] Speaker 16: Um, do you ever have a medication? [02:50:27] Speaker 7: Um, do you ever have a medication? Um, do you ever have a medication? Um, do you ever have a medication? Um, do you ever have a medication? Um, do you ever have a medication? Um, do you ever have a medication? Um, do you ever have a medication? Um, do you ever have a medication? Ever change, um, because of what she reported to you about having postpartum? [02:50:41] Speaker 16: Um, only at the end of my time with them. Okay. [02:50:47] Speaker 7: We'll, we'll get there in a second. Okay. But, um, did you have the occasion to observe her interacting with the children? I did. And did you have any concerns about her interacting with the children? None at all. [02:50:58] Speaker 16: She was a wonderful mom. [02:50:59] Speaker 2: Thank you, Lainey. Lainey says she was a wonderful mom. No concerns with her interacting with the children. But is telling us that she knew that Lindsay has postpartum. And Lindsay told her she had postpartum. And she was so, such a good mom that she knew she shouldn't drive on some of the medications. Maybe that's why she couldn't take them to the Gymboree or whatever it was that day. She told her that she was starting a new medication and she had to stop breastfeeding because she was starting a new medication. Can't wait for cross. [02:51:33] Speaker 7: Did she have any further conversation with you about maybe more specific sleep or sleep issues that she had been having during the time period you were nannying for them? I did. And what did she tell you about that? [02:51:48] Speaker 16: She told me she was having difficulty sleeping and that she was sleeping in the basement. [02:51:55] Speaker 7: Now, when you would watch Callan and she would be in the basement, would you often see her in the basement? No. And one of the things you said that you sometimes did was do some laundry, right? I did. And where was the laundry in the Clancy house? It was in the basement. And so you'd have to go through that living room area down there where the couch was to get back to the laundry room? Yes, it was in the back. How about working out in the basement? Do you recall if you went down the basement stairs to the right that there'd be like a little area where there'd be weights and that kind of thing? Did you ever see her working out there? [02:52:37] Speaker 16: I don't recall if I did. [02:52:39] Speaker ?: Okay. [02:52:40] Speaker 7: As far as the medications, do you recall where you observed the medications in the house? [02:52:50] Speaker 16: Yes, they were to the right of the refrigerator, I believe in a cabinet. [02:52:56] Speaker 7: And you had to go into the Clancy, Patrick and Lindsay's bedroom, right? I did. Fair to say Callan's crib was in there. It was. Yes. So do you recall ever seeing medications in the bedroom? I didn't. You had mentioned that you knew. [02:53:19] Speaker 2: I'm sure she wasn't rifling through the drawers in the bedroom. [02:53:23] Speaker 7: Lindsay, to be going back to work. You mentioned that you knew Lindsay to be going back to work in November, correct? Were you advised or did you know that she was originally scheduled to go back in October, but then bumped it back to November? I didn't know that. But as you began working for them, that November date was in mind, right? Yes. Moving to Thanksgiving of 2022, did something change about the plan for her to go back to work? [02:53:56] Speaker 16: Yes. I came in, I think it was a few days after Thanksgiving, maybe the day after Thanksgiving. And Lindsay was in the kitchen and I had expected her to be asleep. Why was that? Because I thought she was working that shift, that Thanksgiving shift. And she told me that she wouldn't be going back to work. Right. [02:54:19] Speaker 7: And was there any further conversation of what the plan was for you and the family during that time period? [02:54:28] Speaker 16: No, I think I mentioned if she wasn't going back to work and that if they didn't need me, if they could let me know. Okay. [02:54:35] Speaker 7: And so do you recall being at the home at one point where Patrick and Lindsay left the house and came back? Yes. [02:54:42] Speaker 16: Can you tell us about that interaction? Of course, Patrick and Lindsay went for a walk and when they returned, I was in the living room on the floor with Callen and they came in and told me that they would have to let me go because Lindsay would not be going back to work and the two of them would be home to care for the children. [02:55:02] Speaker 7: Okay. And so did they give you anything else, any other information about why Lindsay wasn't going back to work during that meeting? [02:55:10] Speaker 16: No. [02:55:11] Speaker 7: And did they give you some time to kind of make other arrangements after that? They did. I believe they gave me two weeks. And during that time after Thanksgiving, did you have the occasion to see Lindsay interacting with the kids in the home? I did. And was anything about your observations ever different? [02:55:30] Speaker 16: Nothing. [02:55:31] Speaker ?: I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. [02:55:40] Speaker 7: I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. [02:55:45] Speaker ?: I think that's a good question. [02:55:46] Speaker 7: I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. [02:55:51] Speaker 16: I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. [02:56:07] Speaker 7: I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. [02:56:09] Speaker 2: I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. In the back of your head. To me is not an appropriate. Thing to wear to court. That's just me. This lady right. This nanny Laney is not going to say anything meaning. Mean about Lindsay. She's trying to get her to say some mean things about Lindsay. That she was seeing unicorns in the corner. Or she was acting crazy. She was like a zombie. Maybe they couldn't afford the nanny anymore. If Lindsay wasn't going back to work. And obviously. If she was going back to work. You would hire the nanny. To give her like a. A breaking in period. So you would be around while she was there. So you should make. You can make sure that you have the right person. To take care of your children. Your most precious possessions in the world. That you're trusting with this person. Give her. And she gave her something like. I don't know. A month or two months. Before she was supposed to go back in October. And she pushed it to November. Because she probably wasn't feeling up to it. For whatever reason. She's not going to say anything bad about Lindsay. Keep trying. [02:57:31] Speaker ?: I don't think it's going to work. Tim was a full of energy. Rambung. [02:57:34] Speaker 2: Maybe they could afford it. But remember in Lindsay's journal. That was read out in court the other day. She said she felt guilty. [02:57:38] Speaker ?: She felt guilty. [02:57:39] Speaker 2: Cause she wasn't working. And she was. She felt like she was spending too much money. And she felt like. It was driving a wedge. Between her and Patrick. So maybe it was Lindsay's idea. Because of her guilt. Even though Patrick said. He would have spent any amount of money. To make her better. Even if the insurance didn't cover her. Stay at the Brigham. Right. Now she wants to. She wants to. She wants to. Her to tell us about. I think Callen. Children's supermarket. Which she was very sweet. [02:58:00] Speaker ?: And she loved arts and crafts. [02:58:01] Speaker 2: And loved playing with her. And she loved her. [02:58:03] Speaker ?: And her. [02:58:03] Speaker 2: And loved playing with her. It was driving a wedge. [02:58:05] Speaker ?: With her. [02:58:05] Speaker 2: It was driving a wedge. Between her and Patrick. [02:58:07] Speaker ?: So maybe it was Lindsay's idea. Because of her guilt. Even though Patrick said. [02:58:10] Speaker 5: He would have spent any amount of money. To make her better. She wants to. Her to tell us about. I think Callen. Children's supermarket. [02:58:17] Speaker 16: Which she was very sweet. And she loved arts and crafts. And loved playing with her. Fresh Mart. Which was a little. Children's supermarket. She was lovely. And Dawson. [02:58:30] Speaker 7: How about him? How would you describe him? [02:58:32] Speaker 16: Dawson was. Full of energy. Rambunctious. Funny. Silly. [02:58:38] Speaker 7: Did you ever have any. Um. Problem. Watching Dawson. Or. Keeping him under control. Or. [02:58:46] Speaker 16: Not at all. I was only with him. [02:58:48] Speaker 7: On a handful of occasions. Um. Did you ever see. Dawson. Kind of interacting. With his siblings. With Cora. Or with Callen. I did. And did you see anything. Um. Or could you tell us a little bit. About Dawson's interactions with them. [02:59:01] Speaker 16: Um. Cora and Dawson played well. I. Uh. There was one occasion. In the kitchen. Where. They were playing. Cora took one of his. Uh. Play-Doh. [02:59:12] Speaker ?: Something. [02:59:13] Speaker 16: He was playing with Play-Doh. And his reaction. He was frustrated. And he's. Reached out and slapped Callen. [02:59:20] Speaker 2: Now. Were. Lindsay is sobbing. We can't see her face. But her head is in her hands. Remember she's paralyzed from the chest down. Oh. Some. Some of you think the bow is likely. Is to torment Lindsay. Um. Her shoulders are heaving. Kevin Reddington. Is looking at the jury. Not a happy face on. Swinging in his chair. But remember. Well don't remember. Cause you might not know this. Lindsay was in a bunch of moms groups on Facebook. And they're gonna come up with a post from. I. [02:59:51] Speaker ?: I don't. [02:59:51] Speaker 2: I don't know the exact date of the post. But Lindsay posted in this Facebook group. And I'm sure it's gonna come into evidence. How. At the time. Dawson. Was. 19 months old. And she was struggling with him. Because he was very. Uh. I forget how she described him. But. It's interesting to me. Because the nanny just said that Dawson was. Full of energy. Rambunctious. And she just told us. That he. Slapped. Callen. Okay. At the time. Callen. Callen was born in May. Callen was maybe four months. Five months old. And so this is important testimony. Cause this is coming now. From an outsider. From someone. Who also was with the children. And she didn't wanna say anything negative about him. But the fact that she's saying that he was rambunctious. Gives some credence to what Lindsay was talking about. In the Facebook group. That I guess we're gonna see later. So I wanna hear that again. And to me that's just like normal mom frustration. Doesn't mean she wants to kill her kids. [03:01:00] Speaker 16: Um. Cora and Dawson played well. I. Uh. There was one occasion in the kitchen. Where. They were playing. And. I think Cora took one of his. Uh. Play-Doh. [03:01:11] Speaker ?: Something. [03:01:12] Speaker 16: He was playing with Play-Doh. [03:01:13] Speaker 2: And his. Right. I'm sorry. Did I say. Dawson was three. Cora was five. At the time of their deaths. But this is a couple months before. Cora was five. Dawson was three. Callen would have been. At the time of this event. I'm not sure exactly what the date is. That she's talking about this. But she just says there's one. A kitchen. One occasion in the kitchen. And she started in September. It's reaction. Something. [03:01:38] Speaker 16: He was playing with Play-Doh. And his reaction. He was frustrated. And he's. Reached out and slapped Callen. [03:01:46] Speaker 7: Now. Were you alone with the kids during this interaction? Or was Lindsay present too? [03:01:50] Speaker 16: Uh. Lindsay was. I think in the kitchen at the same time. Did you see her react to that? When she saw that behavior? She did. And what it. What was the reaction? What did she do? She went over and removed Callen. Um. Sorry. She removed Dawson from the room. And came back and consoled Callen. [03:02:06] Speaker 7: Okay. And eventually did you see her go back. And kind of talk to Dawson about his behavior. And address it. Okay. And was that appropriate in your opinion? Of course. Yes. [03:02:15] Speaker ?: Um. [03:02:16] Speaker 7: How about your. How. How you would describe Callen. How would you describe him? You. You spent the most time with him. Correct? [03:02:23] Speaker 16: Uh. He was. The happiest. Sweetest. Easiest. Baby. It was just a love. Thank you. [03:02:31] Speaker ?: It was just a love. Um. If. [03:02:34] Speaker 7: Lindsay had told you in one of these exchanges. And again, you exchanged mostly either in this notebook or via text, right? Correct. Um. If she told you about working out. Do you know. If she wasn't in the basement where she would go to work out? [03:02:59] Speaker ?: Um. [03:03:00] Speaker 16: I think it was the Kingsbury club. Okay. [03:03:03] Speaker 7: And. Um. As far as. Um. When you stopped working for them. Do you remember exactly when it was? You said. Maybe two weeks after Thanksgiving. I think it was. [03:03:12] Speaker 16: Um. December 8th. December 10th. [03:03:15] Speaker ?: Um. [03:03:16] Speaker 7: And. In the time that you were with the Clancys in their households caring for their kids. Um. You know. Interacting with Patrick and Lindsay. Did you ever have any concerns that the children were not safe? [03:03:30] Speaker 16: No. [03:03:31] Speaker ?: Thank you. Here's Cross. [03:03:32] Speaker 7: Alright. [03:03:33] Speaker ?: Cross. Morning. Good morning. Good morning. [03:03:37] Speaker 10: So you first met Lindsay and Patrick and the kids and was it July of 22? Yes. Um. And then you were hired obviously. Um. And you then took over as a nanny. [03:04:04] Speaker 16: Yes. [03:04:05] Speaker 10: So you got a lot of years of experience as a nanny, don't you? I do. Um. And this was that you wanted to kind of pick up some more hours. And that's why you fortunately reached out to the two of them. And ended up taking care of those kids. Yes. So from July until. Uh. What was it? November after Thanksgiving? Or was it early December that they had to walk? And then they came in and told you that she was going to. [03:04:27] Speaker 16: Early December. [03:04:28] Speaker 10: Early December. Yes. Um. And you all left on good terms, right? [03:04:33] Speaker 16: Oh, wonderful terms. Yeah. [03:04:35] Speaker 10: I mean, you guys stayed in touch with each other. You texted them Christmas, things of that nature, right? [03:04:38] Speaker 16: I did reach out to Lindsay to wish her a Merry Christmas. [03:04:41] Speaker 10: Did she respond? [03:04:42] Speaker 16: She did. [03:04:43] Speaker 10: Um. Would you agree that on March 1st of 2023, the state police interviewed you for about a half hour or longer about your observations of the Clancy family? Yes. Do you recall that the trooper, were there one or two of them, if you remember? [03:05:05] Speaker 16: I believe there were two. [03:05:06] Speaker 10: Yeah. Um. Do you recall the trooper asking you questions about your observations of the Clancy family with particular focus on Lindsay? They were asking you about your, how well you knew her, what you thought of her, what she did as far as a mother in your presence. [03:05:25] Speaker 16: I'm sorry. I can't really hear you. [03:05:27] Speaker 10: I apologize. Um. They wanted to know what kind of a mother she was, right? Yes. And you were able to respond to that, right? I did. Um. They also wanted to know any observations that you had about her use of prescription drugs, right? Yes. And you were forthcoming on that as well, right? They also wanted to know whether or not you observed or if she made any statements about any symptomology or symptoms that she might have been having that were causing her difficulty, right? Yes. [03:05:55] Speaker 16: Um. [03:05:56] Speaker 10: Do you recall indicating to the troopers that in your opinion that she was a loving and a doting mother? Yes. Can you tell the jury what that means? I mean, what did you observe about her as a mother interacting with her kids? [03:06:12] Speaker 16: I observed a wonderful mom who loved her kids. She was very concerned with their safety. She was very concerned with Callan's eating and sleeping. She was a wonderful mother. [03:06:26] Speaker 10: And the district attorney asked you questions about what apparently is exhibit 150 in this case. And that's the book that she would write notes to you on and then you would on occasion write notes back to her. Is that right? [03:06:43] Speaker 16: Yes. [03:06:44] Speaker 10: So when the district attorney asked you to identify her writing. Um. So like also there were like photographs like that in the book as well, right? Mm-hmm. Would she draw that or would you draw that? I think I drew that. [03:06:57] Speaker 16: Would you do that one? Yeah, I think so. [03:06:59] Speaker 10: Um. And for example, Thursday, September 29th. It says Callan last fed the time. Put him down for a nap at 9:35 with a smiley face. We will be home. Clean the clothes and the dryer if you get to it. Uh, and then up Callan up at 10:45. And then some scribbling mark on the bottom. [03:07:21] Speaker 2: Publishing portions of the Callan notebook. There's a Callan notebook just for Callan. Uh, and the notes between Lindsay and the nanny on the overhead and he's reading it aloud. That's what you're hearing now if you're not watching. [03:07:36] Speaker 10: Um, that's an indication of the type of notes that she would leave for you. [03:07:41] Speaker 16: Correct. [03:07:42] Speaker 10: Would she also leave notes for you to the effect of cutting up, uh, sweet potatoes and cutting, cutting up, uh, celery and things in one inch squares so that the kids to eat? [03:07:56] Speaker 16: Yes. [03:07:57] Speaker 10: Food prep. Yes. Did you find that to be overbearing or? [03:08:00] Speaker 16: Well, not at all. [03:08:01] Speaker 10: You didn't find that to be controlling that she was trying to exert control over you? Did you? [03:08:06] Speaker 16: Not at all. [03:08:07] Speaker 10: Thought that was appropriate for her to tell you about the cutting up of the vegetables and the squares and things? [03:08:12] Speaker 2: Yes. She found those notes to be appropriate about cutting the vegetables and how to cut them and what, what shape to cut them in. Remember how the Commonwealth made a big deal. The prosecutor made a big deal like that was so over controlling and overbearing and weird for her to make notes like that. And this, that he's like, that's totally normal, totally appropriate. Not controlling at all. [03:08:35] Speaker ?: Yes. Did you find that to be overbearing or? Well, not at all. [03:08:38] Speaker 2: You didn't find that to be controlling that she was trying to exert control over you? Did you? [03:08:40] Speaker ?: Not at all. Not at all. [03:08:42] Speaker 2: Not at all. [03:08:43] Speaker 10: Not at all. [03:08:44] Speaker ?: Not at all. Not at all. [03:08:44] Speaker 10: Not at all. [03:08:45] Speaker 16: Not at all. [03:08:46] Speaker 10: Not at all. You thought that was appropriate for her to tell you about the cutting up of the vegetables and the squares and things? Yes. Yes. She also told you during that period of time that she was unable to sleep. [03:09:00] Speaker 16: Isn't that right? [03:09:01] Speaker ?: Correct. [03:09:02] Speaker 10: She also told you during that period of time that she was unable to sleep. Isn't that right? [03:09:14] Speaker 16: Correct. [03:09:15] Speaker 10: She told you that lack of sleep was becoming a significant impact on her life and that she had to see doctors and was on medication for that, right? Correct. Again, the troopers were questioning you and directing you on your questions or your answers. And at one point, do you recall saying to the trooper, I loved my Lindsay? [03:09:38] Speaker 16: I loved my Lindsay? Yeah. I don't recall saying that. [03:09:43] Speaker 10: Okay. [03:09:44] Speaker 16: Did you? Do I love Lindsay? Yeah. I did love Lindsay, yes. [03:09:48] Speaker 10: Now, when was she sleeping in the basement? Do you remember that? [03:09:53] Speaker 16: Do I know when or why? [03:09:55] Speaker 10: When? When was she sleeping in the basement? [03:09:58] Speaker 16: I honestly don't remember. [03:10:00] Speaker 10: Okay. Do you remember, if I suggest to you that it was around the end of November, mid-December, that she was sleeping in the basement for a period of time? If you remember. [03:10:10] Speaker 16: I don't remember. I'm sorry. [03:10:12] Speaker 10: Okay. Did she indicate to you why she was sleeping in the basement? [03:10:17] Speaker 16: She... I don't think she did. [03:10:20] Speaker 10: Would you agree that she was forthright with you as far as telling you what was going on in her life as far as her concentration and her inability to sleep and things of that nature? [03:10:31] Speaker 16: Yes. [03:10:32] Speaker 10: Sustained. Would she tell you about those problems that she was suffering? [03:10:39] Speaker 16: She shared with me that she had postpartum and that she couldn't sleep. [03:10:43] Speaker 10: And as a result of that, you were pretty concerned for her, weren't you? [03:10:47] Speaker 16: I really don't know much about postpartum, but I would always ask her how she was doing. Right. [03:10:53] Speaker 10: And in fact, you noted that in addition to the inability to sleep, that she would speak about that she was unable to focus. Do you recall her ever saying she had difficulty focusing on things? [03:11:03] Speaker 16: I don't recall her saying that to me. [03:11:05] Speaker 10: How about Finn? Did you notice that she appeared to be losing significant weight? [03:11:09] Speaker 16: I did, and I commented to her about that. [03:11:12] Speaker ?: Okay. [03:11:14] Speaker 10: And you had occasion to see her as a mother playing with the children, obviously, right? [03:11:21] Speaker 16: Yes. [03:11:22] Speaker 10: Would the two of you stay in touch with each other by text, even when she was out and you were home, in their home with the kids? Yes. Fair to say that you would take many, many videos of the kids and send them to Lindsay on her phone, right? I did. And fair to say that during that period of time, from your involvement, Ms. Ross, you were going to tell her, Ms. Rossi, as a nanny, that you sent her videos of the children playing and as we saw the baby taking a bottle and the baby eating and things of that nature, right? [03:12:02] Speaker 16: I did. [03:12:03] Speaker 10: Did she ever send you any videos or did she ever respond to your emails or videos? [03:12:08] Speaker 16: Yes. She responded to most of my texts she responded to. [03:12:14] Speaker 10: Did she seem to be appreciative of your work? Yes. [03:12:17] Speaker 16: Very much so. [03:12:18] Speaker 10: And in fact, she was pretty vocal about that. She thought the world of you, right? Yes. [03:12:24] Speaker 16: Yes. [03:12:25] Speaker 10: Thank you. That's all we have. Redirect? [03:12:28] Speaker 7: Just one question. In all that she told you about postpartum sleep and all that you observed in the house, did you ever have any conversations with her about intrusive thoughts or thoughts of harming [03:12:39] Speaker 4: yourself? Thank you. Anything on that? No. All right. [03:12:44] Speaker 2: Let me slip down. Thank you. Not exactly something that you might tell your nanny, but she did share a lot of other concerns with her. And she loved Lindsay. We're a little bit behind, so let's see. They're at sidebar right now. [03:13:16] Speaker 5: Do we have another witness? [03:13:19] Speaker 2: Why did they go to sidebar? It's like they're looking around. [03:13:48] Speaker ?: We're a little bit behind. Sit this afternoon. All right. So members of the church, as I told you, we're not going to sit this afternoon. We're going to break at this point. All right. We're going to break at this point. All right. And so. Breaking for the day for the jury. We're going to ask you to come back tomorrow at 9 o'clock. Remember those instructions. Don't talk about this. Don't talk about this. We're going to break at this point. All right. We're going to ask you to come back tomorrow at 9 o'clock. Remember those instructions. [03:13:54] Speaker 5: we're a little bit behind so sit all right so members of the church as i told you we're not [03:14:11] Speaker 4: gonna uh sit this afternoon we're gonna break at this point all right and so breaking for the day for the jury at nine o'clock remember those instructions don't talk about this don't do any research about this don't listen about anything uh don't talk about it with anyone uh and i'm gonna ask you to come back tomorrow at nine o'clock um and we'll start with the testimony tomorrow okay [03:14:35] Speaker 2: all right thank you very much all right all right we're gonna do uh we're gonna do some some questions and then uh since you guys want to go over the matthew farwell papers let's come back at two o'clock for that so if you don't want to hear the questions that we're going to address right now smash the like button on your way out and uh let's come back and we're going to come back at 2 p.m to talk matthew farwell in the sandra birchmore case and catch up on some other things that we have not been able to take care of while we've been gavel to gavel on this very very important trial but we will be back here tomorrow at 9 00 a.m if you're not interested in the other topics we're going to discuss today and who knows how far we could go with all of the other things uh 2 p.m eastern right now is 12 15 p.m eastern we all need to take a break breathe schedule touch some grass hold on [03:15:33] Speaker 4: no expected we're not coming there's nothing scheduled uh at two o'clock uh in this matter any further okay so we're this court on this case will be in recess for tomorrow at nine o'clock [03:15:47] Speaker 2: tomorrow at 9 a.m rough day for lindsay rough day for everyone okay let's get to the your questions and your comments and your thoughts and the nanny told us everything and i think the nanny was a really good witness yeah we can go over the better letter letter for turtle boy yes but let's let's um get to the questions first and then i want to take a break too so then we will come back at two o'clock i have to set it up and do all the things uh cat is here from norway and she says for me it's difficult to understand this but i'm not going to be in the case because i'm not going to be in the case because in my country the husband and the doctors would be in the defendant's place very interesting thank you mrs bouquet for your super sticker sherry says perez hilton is what a psychotic break looks like that that was the chilling don't don't you can't unsee it if you look for it uh alexander says uh melanie you're always correct this is where the statement of phraseology it takes a village to raise a child came from that's right takes a village it's not that this has never been happening in the history of women giving birth it's that there was always more people around and it's talked about it wasn't really talked about very much uh devon says according to google 3.5 centimeters is equal to 1.38 inches slightly larger than a u.s corridor's diameter or the width of a wooden matchstick yeah that sounds deep to me according to google ai this is an extremely deep life-threatening injury thanks for your 10. alex thank you for your uh five dollar super sticker me ma formerly known as michelle says my original diagnosis was ppd that was in 1990 i have battled with bipolar 2 since thank you for sharing your experience jersey queen thanks for your 10. women in former days had family to help doctors now tell moms to only ask their office for help not to follow the old wives tale of their mother grandmothers etc these new moms are left alone just another low thanks for your 10. why don't they just record the audio instead of stenography or what this woman is doing speaking into the device i don't know that's the system that they use there and recordings can often be garbled and so in my opinion it's better to have a human do it but because recordings are not always decipherable as we know from listening to many audio recordings not that mickey from south africa says the reason her injuries didn't continue to bleed is because when you have a wound your body helps itself from bleeding and blood coagulates that's why it's visible in the room and not later in the hospital thank you alexandra was on sarah qualla turned her into a zombie caused her hands and feet to move on their own she said i couldn't wait to get off i've spent 20 years of it never again red kelly is watching from australia thank you so much for your super chat dream catcher thank you so very much for your 20. uh my way of dealing with trolls is my way of dealing uh with trolls and uh that is my choice my chat my choice thank you so very much for your 20. but i'm going to continue to do it the way i choose to do it lynn thank you for tuning in from canada i appreciate you and hello says i am a certified postpartum doula uh taking care of newborn infants at nights or their siblings during the day i also take care of parents emotional support education cleaning meals even feet massages you sound like an amazing person uh toke says why isn't anyone talking about how long it takes for meds to stabilize or weaning off before anything new is prescribed she was handed a lethal mix they will talk about that with the proper witnesses and the proper witnesses are going to be the psychiatric experts who are going to talk about the pharmacology and the medicines that were prescribed and you can rest assured they are going to get into it these are not the right witnesses for those questions though thank you so very much for your five marilyn price says i have a different take on the bow i think she's trying to look sweet or gentle marcia clark was advised to soften her look too it's not working yeah um what lawyers wear to court is a very intentional choice it's a very intentional choice madeline says curious how the jury reads a k red interjecting to mention stipulations trying to hide facts trying to keep the trial moving the jury may want to hear it all good point thanks for your five toke says just a silly aussie here this is what uh this is just a silly aussie here what is it with uh massachusetts eases didn't think it could get any worse than marcy and brennan trifecta now completed uh thank you for your super chat this is an interesting comment i started earlier uh boss sports gal says cheer coach here lindsey was a competitive cheerleader she should be tested for brain injury i had witnessed many head injuries and concussions and cheer accidents that's interesting i'm gonna have to go back and listen to the um the dna testimony because i didn't hear the results chibi packer fan says i took six doses of remeron and would sleepwalk i painted the porch at 1 30 in the morning don't remember any of it these meds do different things to different people that's wild people a lot of people talk about seroquel and their crazy experiences with it a little cupcake princess said i wonder if prez hilton news will affect the jury uh i don't they're not supposed to be on social media really in general i don't know if they could have received that information some other way but um dancing quinn says they did say that she had to stop cheerleading due to an injury that is [03:21:33] Speaker 5: so i think that's interesting we um hold on one second thoughts questions comments concerns uh laney i believe that i did um thank you for your very generous venmo [03:22:11] Speaker 2: kathy says i think this prosecutor was raised by wolves her trying to build our builder create or deceive another narrative is shameful we all feel devastation from the loss of these babies but let's not lose and then your comment got cut off yeah i wish laney could have stayed with them too [03:22:28] Speaker 5: i do [03:22:30] Speaker 2: well shorter day than expected i thought they were going to go till one we're going to come back here uh at 2 it is 12 20 right now and talk about some other things that we have not been able to catch up on since this trial but it is what it is maybe they didn't want to start another witness and then break until tomorrow that's what it is kbd says kevin reddington looks like she was looks like this trial is getting to him big time today uh she's not out on bail no she's been confined to tooksbury hospital um since uh 2023 since she was released from the brigham it's biddy says i'm so conflicted here i feel bad for her but i don't understand how people are blaming the husband or acting like lindsey is innocent it's a sad situation it's a sad situation it's a sad situation all around i don't know what the answer is i don't know what the correct verdict is i think it's too early for me to decide but i too am very conflicted and i'm waiting to hear from the experts postpartum psychosis is real it affects about one or two women out of a thousand did she have it i don't know i'm not i can't i'm not qualified to make that decision yet but we're learning a lot more about the history and also do you think that maybe just maybe the jury feels like the the commonwealth tried to dupe them a little bit in many different ways with the pills and other ways they have done full full days of trial but you know trials are a living breathing thing beth thank you so very much she's enjoying the lindsey clancy trial with me and uh so right no the issue is is she not guilty is she not criminally responsible because she was suffering from a psychotic break and didn't understand her actions at the time she was given anti-psychotic meds for a reason thank you mr falcon and dancing quinn says she's not innocent but in my opinion she was driven by a mental break they are very real and if that is 100 your decision as a juror and they've proven it beyond a reasonable doubt the commonwealth has to prove she was not suffering from a psychotic break at the time then the verdict should be not guilty by reason of insanity my personal opinion sitting here right now today i don't think 12 people are ever going to be able to agree on this i'm calling a hung jury right now i just don't think they're going to be able to agree just like nobody in the chat can agree this is a very very divisive conflicted conflicting case kay anderson says melanie i know you weren't sure you could cover this case gavel to gavel you're calling balls and strikes while showing empathy thank you thank you for your super chat uh not innocent we're saying i know what she meant to say she meant to say not criminally responsible um and that's what she meant to say you and me cassidy oh grateful dead reference she reached out for help so many times thanks for being here for four months sunny moon says if you've ever witnessed a paradoxical effect of a psychiatric med you understand this trial yes our n2 mom says i'm not conflicted it's absolutely horrible but she needs mental health health help not prison laura says it's very real i'm living proof and i thank god for ect electroconvulsive therapy thank you many of you say you were not that interested before but you're interested now saucy meat sauce says how would they even manage lindsay in a prison they have medical wards and they may have some sort of facility they may confine her um just a place where they can care for her needs remember she's paralyzed from the chest down we are charlie says i think this goes hanged as well the ada will not be able to convince 12 people she did this maliciously and with intent and jackson's mimi also hasn't heard enough of the evidence yet to have a real opinion waiting to see what the doctors say many people say that they were on psych meds and were very altered while on psych meds the real question at the end of the case for the jury prison or not well there's going to be a not guilty on the on the verdict sheet as well because the commonwealth wouldn't stipulate to the actual killing so they'll be not guilty guilty not guilty by reason of insanity or not criminally not criminally responsible as they say in massachusetts and that is where we break for the day thank you to uh rivers mom 11 11 i don't believe i've commented but listening to uh taking breaks thanks to me elsie was a wonderful mother pressure on herself that compounded everything my heart goes out to her a lot of people have empathy a lot of people and uh i'm glad it's not me breathe in breathe out this case hurts this is one of the worst cases of mother and in my opinion mental health struggles says golden mayor is one of the worst cases of mother and is one of the worst cases of mother and in my opinion mental health struggles says golden mayor is one of the worst cases of mother and is one of the worst cases of mother and in my opinion mental health struggles says golden mayor uh it is uh having only been here on these rough youtube streets for the past three years this is one of the hardest trials that we've covered together and it's also going to be one of the longest karen reed i think her trials went 30 days both times uh it'll be interesting to see hopefully this one doesn't go 30 full days of trial it'll be interesting to see if it does um but if it runs up on my travel schedule it's going to be hard for me to do this gavel to gavel but gavel near the end so we're going to do what we can shout out to the mods 100 shout out to the mods all right let me uh set up the 2 p.m stream uh we're going to come back at two that's an hour and a half from now so look out for that in the meantime stay cool stay kind stay classy stay safe don't believe everything you read on the internet try and keep an open mind try and be kind to each other reach out to new moms and your family and your friends and and see if there's any way that you can help just do a check-in that would be a really nice thing to do i'll see you guys thanks mods i love you so much i could never do this without you um but i'll see you guys at you guys at the end of the video too peace out you