LIVE: Lindsay Clancy Trial | Day 16

I have a motion and a second.Before we get going, we may have a little bit of a delay actually starting at this point through no fault really of anyone.So I just kind of wanted to come out so maybe we go sidebar, kind of talk about what the day, the schedule is, and just so everybody's aware that we're trying to get this moving.So, council?All right, so at this point, what we're gonna do is we're gonna be in recess, and we'll come back as soon as we can in regards to this.We'll resume the trial at that time, okay?

Thank you.All right.Council, are we ready for the jury?All persons having anything to do before the Honorable William Sullivan, Justice of the Superior Court, now sitting in Women, before the Commonwealth, draw on the amendment of your attendance, and you shall be heard.By the State of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, this court is now in session.Please be seated.

Good morning, Your Honor.May I proceed?Yes, please.We have a continuation of the jury trial in the matter of Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy.Ms. Clancy is present.She is represented by Attorney Kevin Reddington.

And the Commonwealth is represented by Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague and Assistant District Attorney Shannon Buckingham.Thank you, Madam Clerk.Good morning, members of the jury.Nice to see all of you.I appreciate you being here.So what I'm going to do is we're going to go over the questions.

that you know are common, and then what we'll do is we'll get right back into the case.So the first question, is 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?Next question, is there any other serious matter or concern bearing on your service as a juror in this case that anybody needs to bring to my attention?Again, thank you so much for following those instructions.And so what we're going to do now is we broke yesterday.There's a witness on the stand who's testifying on behalf of the defense.

We're going to return to that witness at this point.And so if the witness could retake the stand at this time.Good morning.Sir, I'm going to.try to just redirect towards the interview that you had of Lindsay regarding her journey.On November 29th of 2022, do you recall which health care provider she visited?

I believe that Ms. Ms. Gelada for treatment.That'd be nurse practitioner Gelada?Yes.Do you know what she complained on November 29th that her symptoms were?She was having issues with unstable mood, depression, and psychotic symptoms of disassociation.Did she also on that date, November 29th of 22 complained that she had what is referred to as a flattened effect?

Yes.And that was also paired with derealization.And what does that mean?That an individual experiencing derealization doesn't feel things are real when they look around.They don't think that what they're seeing is in the reality that they're in.Now, at this time, towards the end of November into early December of 22, she was living in Duxbury, is that correct?

That's correct.And she's living with her husband and her three children, three young children, correct?Yes.And was the husband working?Yes.Was he working?

Yes.Pardon me.Where was he working?He was working for Microsoft, but in a home office that was in the basement of the house.And she's obviously taking care of Cal and the infant and Dawson and, you know, Cora.Yes.

And the kids were in school a couple of days a week in the preschool.the little sprouts or something like that, right?Yes.So, did she improve at that point, sir?Or did she end up going to a perinatal clinic on December 2nd?She did not improve.

she was getting worse, she did go to the South Shore Perinatal Clinic.And would that be on December 2nd?December 2nd, yes.And what was the reason, what were her complaints that brought her to South Shore Perinatal Clinic on December 2nd?She felt that her brain was damaged, she felt that she should kill herself, and she's never going to get any better.Did she also express fear that people could hear her thoughts and that anything adverse would happen in her life regarding being a mother and having children?

Yes, that's called thought broadcasting.And what was her concern about the children?Her concern was that when people could hear her thoughts, her children would be removed from her care.I think that's a good point.I think that's a good point.Yes, that's correct.

What did she do?She called the suicide hotline.And do you know when that was, sir?That was December 4th, 2022.Did she receive any help from the suicide hotline?She did not.

Why is that?They told us she did not meet the standard of care.She did not have a plan.Did she call the suicide hotline again if you're aware?Yes, she did.Do you know when that was?

Was that in December?Yes, I believe that was perhaps the No, she did not.Can you tell us at this point now we're talking about in December, let's say towards December 15th or thereabouts, what were her symptoms at that time regarding any complaints or observations that she had about paranoia or things of that nature?Yes, she was having paranoid symptoms of psychosis and she was getting more depressed.Did she make any comments about DCF or the police at that point?Yes.

Now, to your knowledge, did she ever have any involvement in her entire life with the police?Never.And did she express that she was in fear or concerned about DCF and or the police in the middle of December 22?Very much so.What did she say?She was worried that her children would be removed from her and that she would never see them again.

Now, at this point, what medication was she on?The first paragraph, page 9.She started to take at that point Seroquil, Remeron and Klonopin.Did she make any complaints at that point about the effect, if any, of the medications?Yes.What did she say?

She said she felt like a zombie.Did she present with any particular medical observation that you refer to?I'm not sure I understand your question.Well, paragraph one on page nine, you indicate she presented with anhedonia.Yeah.What does that mean?

Anhedonia is a word that means without pleasure.When someone has anhedonia, they cannot enjoy life.They don't laugh, they have no pleasure.Continuing on into December, what was her status of her condition of depression and symptoms of paranoia and intrusive thoughts, et cetera, that we've talked about?It continued unabated.On December 15th of 22, right before the holidays, did she go somewhere?

Yes, she did.Where'd she go?She went to the clinic in Rhode Island, Parents and Women's Clinic, partial day hospitalization program.And she didn't get any help there either, right?That's correct.Did she go at some point around that same time frame to Mass General Hospital?

Yes, she did.But you know that she worked at Mass General Hospital for nine years, right?That's correct.And labor and delivery.She wasn't there visiting friends, right?That's correct.

Why was she there?She was in the emergency room to seek help.Did she get help on that day?She did not.So after going to the MGH ER at some point in December 30th, what did she do?She went back to the emergency room at Beth General.

Now, for example, on December 15th, did Pat Clancy, her husband, get involved with her medical treatment?Yes.And do the medical records indicate that he did something with her?Yes, he brought her to the partial hospitalization program in Rhode Island.Did he also bring her to the Mass General Hospital ER?Yes, he did.

Did he also bring her to see the doctor or the nurse practitioner, Gelater, and complain about the medication?Yes.So December 30th, 31st of 2022, she was admitted voluntarily to McLean, right?That's correct, yes.How long was she there for?She was discharged to, she was there till the 5th.

She was discharged January 5th, 2023.Was that a voluntary discharge?They cleared her as well to be discharged?Yes.That was not what is referred to as AMA or against medical advice, right?Yes.

Yes, what?Yes, it's not AMA.It's not against medical advice.She was following hospital guidelines.She was discharged accordingly.And she wanted to go to her daughter's some function?

She wants to go to her daughter's birthday party, which was held on the 7th of January.Now, at this point, what was her status?Was she weaned off of medication or on her way to being weaned off of medication when she got out of McLean?I believe so, yes.She was being tapered down on her medication.And what was the medication that she was tapered down on?

I believe it was Seroquel and Klonopin.Did her intrusive thoughts and the paranoia, did that abate?Did that stop?It did not.Now, when she was home in the month of January after Cora's birthday, which I think was on January 7th, did she continue to have these intensive, intrusive thoughts?Yes.

Can you tell us, when we sayintrusive thoughts, is she referring to intrusive thoughts like you might think of something coming up next week that's bothersome, or is this a indication, in your opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to what she was experiencing at that point in January of 2023?She wasn't just having everyday thoughts that we all have.reminding ourselves to do something which we make note of and then we move on.Intrusive thoughts are unrelenting.They don't stop.

They're what we call egos dystonic.You don't want them.They keep interfering with your ability to get through the day.Did she have, at this point, intrusive thoughts continuing regarding voices in her head that she heard constantly.Yes.What were these voices saying to her?

They were getting worse and they were telling her to kill herself.And as January continued, she was, to your knowledge, using her computer to look up drugs and interactions and side effects and things of that nature.Yes.If a person is in a psychosis or as I think you said, premorbidly psychosis.Are they able to do things like look up things on a computer?Yes.

And you're aware that she actually at one point looked up, can you cure, I think, a sociopath or a psychopath or something like that?A sociopath, yes.Was that indicative of her feeling that she is a homicidal maniac and has to have some help?Or is that in the same time frame that she was Googling all of the effects of medications ona human being.So during the period that she was googling, well let me ask you, what was she googling?

Googling words about sociopaths, sociopathy.Can you treat a sociopath?What are hallucinations?What else?Bear with me one moment.Well, you had a chance, did you look at the Google searches that she had done that's in evidence and the jurors were able to look at it?

Yes.Did she continue to Google the effects of medication, psychosis, numbness, heaviness, unable to, things like that?Yes, all things that are related to - And if a person is in a psychotic state, are they able to continue to Google and use a computer to look things up?Yes.They're able to use a phone?Yes.

Yes, people who are in that state can do things they've done before.New tasks may be difficult, like changing a tire, but if you looked up things on the internet, you can look them up again.If you drove a car, you can drive a car.Now, the morning of January 24th, I believe, she went somewhere.Is that right?Yes.

You should take a daughter to a pediatrician, a standing pediatrician appointment.And is it your understanding to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that a person who's in a psychotic state is able to drive a car for a short distance, go to an appointment and interact and talk to people?Yes, they can do everyday tasks of living.So the fact that she's not talking about the unicorns in the corner and she's not slurring her speech and she's not unable to walk, to your opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, does that mean that she's not in a psychotic state?It does not.Would you tell us after she took Cora to the doctors and the jurors have had a chance to look at the exhibits, there's photographs between her and her husband, Pat, back and forth.

In the afternoon, what did she do?She built a snowman in the backyard with two of her kids.Later in that day, Google directions to a restaurant, 3D restaurant.Yes.Is that something that a person can do when they're in that type of a state?easily.

Did the voices or the intrusive thoughts to your interview and your understanding abate or stop at that point on January 24th?No.Did they continue?Yes.And did she communicate by text with her husband about getting dinner and getting something from CVS?Yes.

What was it that was Pedialax?Pedialax or Flexalax, it's a stool softener for her child.And that's something that was prescribed by the doctor, right?Yes.Does that make sense that if somebody is in a state where they're having these symptoms that they're able to remember the Pedialax?Yes, it does not interfere with that type of everyday living.

She indicated to you, Sarah, that that evening after the husband had, oh, by the way, was it your understanding from talking to her that the husband had Taking trips, going away for weekends, going to school.trips, had brunches with his friends, and was out of the house on a regular basis.Yes.That night is when the children were killed.Is that correct?Yes.

And we've heard repeatedly about the circumstances of going out the window and the weather and the damages and the injuries and going to the hospital.Doctor, based on your review of all of the medical records, I'm going to go to the next slide.I'm going to go to the next slide.I'm going to go to the next slide.I'm going to go to the next slide.I'm going to go to the next slide.

I'm going to go to the next slide.I'm going to go to the next slide.I'm going to go to the next slide.I'm going to go to the next slide.I'm going to go to the next slide.I'm going to go to the next slide.

I'm going to go to the next slide.Someone has a field of knowledge, who's the president, what directions you travel, and basic things like where are you, what day is today, who are you?And then I did another test as well.What other test was that, sir?That's the HARE, psychopathy checklist, H -A -R -E.What does that do?

That's a measure of antisocial personality disorder.And do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty based upon the scale that you use to assess whether or not Lindsay Clancy had antipersonality disorder?Yes.What was the result?The result is that she does not have any type of antisocial personality disorder, also known as sociopathy.In addition to reviewing the medical records and testing and meeting with her, did you also interview third parties?

Yes.Does that refer to when the psychology is called?contacts?Yes.And you reviewed and interviewed a number of people in her family or friends or people in her social circle, is that correct?Yes.

Can you tell the jurist to a reasonable degree?Well, let me ask you this.Are you familiar with Mass General Hospital doing a major research program on postpartum psychosis?Yes.And did they publish an article, a significant article, regarding the circumstances, symptomology, and things of that nature of postpartum psychosis?Yes.

And would you agree, sir, that the symptoms of postpartum psychosis would be depression?Is that one?Yes.Did Lindsay, to your opinion, have depression?Yes.Were there indications from your review of the medical records that she felt low, flat, tearful, emotional, crying?

All of those things, yes.Did she also express anxiety, feeling tense, nervousness?All of those things, yes.Did she also express feelings that she was withdrawn, not able to socialize with people, wanting to talk or be near others?All of those things as well, yes.Did she indicate that she felt tired, heavy, without energy?

Absolutely, yes.Did she indicate that she was having a harder time taking care of her children?Yes.Did she indicate that she was having issues regarding personal hygiene, not bathing, things of that nature?Yes.Did she indicate that she had severe confusion in actually hearing or seeing things that aren't there?

In her case, it would not be seeing, that would be visual hallucinations.But did she complain of hearingthings that weren't there?Hallucinations?Yes.Did she complain of thoughts and beliefs that were not within reality and that she was in a disassociated state out of reality?

Yes.Did she indicate that?Did you observe that there was a there were circumstances where she exhibited increased energy, activity, productivity, otherwise known as hypomania?Yes.Did she complain that she had racing thoughts, a quote, busy brain, end quote, increased creativity?Yes.

And when she said in your review of the medical records that she was having a busy brain, did she express the fact that she would get confused and that it was she thought her brain was damaged?Yes, that's correct.Was she restless and agitated, unable to keep still?Yes.Unable to sleep?Yes.

Extremely unable to sleep.So can you tell this jury, sir, in your opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty based upon all of what you have reviewed, all of what we have talked about, all of what you have considered as to whether or not at the time of this incident resulting in the killing of these three little kids that she was suffering from a mental disease or defect such as that she lost substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her act or, in the disjunctive, was unable to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law.Yes.Tell the jury what your opinion is, please.My opinion is that she did have, indeed, a mental disease or a defect.That's a legal construct, not a DSM -5 one, but she had bipolar disorder with postpartum psychosis.

In addition, she was unable to conform her behaviors to the rule of law and she had no appreciation for the wrongfulness of her act.In this field of being a psychologist and a forensic psychologist, you circulate a curriculum vitae where all that is outlined, right?Yes.And fair to say you testified yesterday and on your curriculum vitae, you speak briefly about the fact that you have previously testified for the Commonwealth, you said, as well as for the defense, correct?Yes.You referred to defendants and respondents, right?

Yes.And so one of the things that you've done in the past is to be what's called a qualified examiner, right?Yes.You aren't currently not actively doing those examinations, are you?I actually have done one, but I don't actively do that anymore.Okay.

And so in those respects, is that when you say youtestify for the Commonwealth, is that primarily the work that you would do where you say you testify for the Commonwealth?Yes.And in those evaluations that you do, is it fair to say that you're actually an independent contractor with a company that contracts with the Department of Correction on those cases?Those are what qualified examiners are.That's correct.

That's how you become a qualified examiner three through the D. O. C. Right.And you're an examiner.Qualified examiner is retained or takes work in doing evaluations in order to perform independent assessments.Are they not?Yes.So they're not hired by the Commonwealth.

They are because the company that retains the qualified examiners, is hired by the Commonwealth, and these forensic psychologists are then appointed cases.to do these types of examinations.So it's under the big umbrella of the Commonwealth.So big umbrella Commonwealth, meaning Department of Correction, an agency that is under the seal of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.But as far as when we talk about Commonwealth, like Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy, that's the prosecution.In those proceedings, the Department of Correction sometimes is the moving party, right?

Yes.And sometimes it's the district attorney's office who's the moving party.Yes, but it's never the defendant who's the moving party.Never.And in those types of proceedings, sometimes if you opine a person is what they call sexually dangerous, you would testify for the Commonwealth, right?Yes.

And if they're not or if you find that they're not sexually dangerous, you testify for the respondent.Yes, we're neutral.So you're not testifying for the Commonwealth.You're as in the prosecution, you're testifying under the big umbrella of the Commonwealth.I think it's a matter of semantics because if you do an evaluation and you render an opinion that this patient is sexually dangerous, when you testify, you are working with the district attorney's office and you review your case with the DA.And the way I see it is that you're testifying for the Commonwealth as an independent examiner.

But on that day, you're testifying for the Commonwealth or that DA's office.And you haven't done that work in closely rough a decade, fair to say?No, that's not true.Well, pre pandemic, correct?That's not true.So when was the last time you testified for the Commonwealth, meaning the prosecution in an SDP proceeding?

So I was assigned a case through Suffolk County, the sexual dangers, dangerousness unit by ADA, Kelly Ryan, K -E -L -L -Y.And I did that evaluation on July 2nd, 2026.And have you testified at a probable cause hearing for that?No, I wrote a report which was in lieu of testifying.Where you opined that somebody was sexually dangerous?Yes.

that's what we're trying to do.We're trying to make sure that we're doing the right thing.Fair to say, though, the majority of your work here in Massachusetts over the last few years is contracted with the committee for public counsel services, correct?Yes.And for the fiscal year of 2024, you were paid by CPCS in the open checkbook for approximately $340 ,000 And for the fiscal year of 2025, it was approximately 300 ,000 that you were paid through the committee public counsel services.That sounds about right.

You also indicated yesterday that you have known Attorney Reddington for a number of years, correct?Yes.Fair to say you've done quite a bit of work with him over the years?That's an expansive term, but I work with him.It just requires a yes or a no?Yes.

And you've also testified that you have your doctorate in clinical psychology, right?Yes.And you testified yesterday or you told us a lot about your military experience.But as you sit here today, you are not a prescriber of medications here in the Commonwealth, are you?I am not.I was not yesterday either when I was asked about that.

Right.You just you told us all about your experience in the military and having that limited ability to prescribe years ago.But as far as you sit here today and in your evaluations that you do today, you don't do forensic psychiatry evaluations, do you?I just that's correct.But I just want to clarify it for a point of accuracy.I was not in the military.

I worked for the Department of State.I believe I said your work with the military.But thank you.So in Here in Massachusetts, you conduct primarily forensics, you conduct evaluations in forensic psychology, correct?Yes, for the most part.And you are aware that there are particular standards for forensic psychologists working within the criminal justice system, right?

Yes, but just to be a little more clear.Forensic psychologists such as myself also work for a police department doing evaluation.fitness for duty.So although they are law enforcement, they're not engaged or accused of any criminal activity.Well, I'm referring to your role when you come into the court and you testify as you are today as a forensic psychologist.That's what I'm referring to.

You're aware that there are particular standards in place by the ABA criminal justice mental health standards is one of them, right?You're familiar with that?Yes.And you're familiar with the American Psychological Association specialty guidelines for forensic psychology?Yes.And fair to say that with those standards, they're not required, but people are encouraged to follow them, right?

I think that's fair to say.And the criminal justice, the ADA criminal justice mental health standards actually identify the different types of roles that forensic evaluators have in the criminal justice system, including evaluating, consulting and treating, right?Yes.And so, fair to say standard 7 -1 .3 indicates that for evaluative experts, the obligation is to make a thorough and impartial assessment based on sound evaluative methods to reach an objective opinion.Would you agree with that?Yes.

And so, again, in the American Psychological Association Specialty Guidelines, Section 1 .3, to be unbiased and impartial and avoid partisan presentations of unrepresentative, incomplete or inaccurate evidence.Would you agree with that?Is that a standard you strive to follow?In this case, you indicated that you've been with the case since February 4th of the year 2023, correct?Yes, 41 months.And you've authored a report, you said, in June, I believe, of 2026, correct?

Yes.But you've also offered other reports or updates of the defendant's condition over the years.Is that fair to say?Yes.that the defendant was residing at Tewksbury hospital, do you recall that?And that there was a plan transfer to Worcester recovery center and hospital.

Do you recall writing that?and a goal, but it was not an official plan.Well, I could provide you with your report if you'd like to review, but it reads currently Ms. Clancy resides at Tewksbury Hospital with a planned transfer to Worcester Recovery Center and Hospital.That sounds right.Is that right?Yes.

Okay.And that she is presently medication stabilized and is in the process of discontinuing most, if not all, psychotropic medications, demonstrating an emerging capacity to stabilize without them.Do you recall writing that?Yes.So in July of 2025, it was your opinion that she was stable and she would be hopefully, as you say, transferred to a different facility, correct?Yes.

And you're aware that currently she's still at Tewksbury Hospital?Yes.And currently she's still taking psychotropic medications?That's true.Yes.I think you also write in that report, I'll strike that, going back to your most recent evaluation in June of 2026, you would agree with me that in an evaluation for criminal responsibility, being a forensic psychologist, it's really important to be as accurate as possible in your reports, correct?

Yes.You want to make sure you get the facts right, right?Yes.Because your evaluation is not just based on what you learn from the individual you're evaluating, but also an independent review, an unbiased review of the records of the facts.Is that fair to say?Yes.

Okay.So in your report, you indicate that the period of evaluation that you had with this individual is approximately 45 hours.Do you recall writing that and testifying about that yesterday?I think I actually said I've met with her a total of 45 hours, but the evaluation was more than 35 hours, and I think it was 37 hours.Okay, and you also said yesterday that in addition to that, you've met with her several other times for a total of approximately 60 times at least.Not 60 additional times, but in total, yes, since the court trial has started a few weeks back.

Is that typical for you to spend 35 hours with a person that you're evaluating?It does happen, but it's not typical.You also indicated yesterday that One of how you became involved in this case is Attorney Reddington called you and asked you to go check on the I think you said mental well -being.Is that what you're?question is?Mental health and mental well -being at the time of her admittance to Brigham and Women's Hospital, which was roughly late January 2023.

And your first time there was February 4th, correct?Yes.Were you examining her as a potential patient at that point?I was examining her as a colleague and friend of Attorney Reddington to see how she was faring.There was no predetermined notion whether I would be interested or willing or even offered the opportunity to take the case.I was just going to meet with her given the fact that she was in a bed in ICU locked to the bed frame and no one was able to visit her.

So you went in to visit her?Yes.And when you went in to visit her, you indicated that she had recently been extubated in your testimony yesterday.You're aware from the review of the records that she was extubated on January 28th?Yes.So the difference between January 28th and February 4th, I didn't know the date at that time, but I knew she was able to breathe on her own and express verbal language, expressive language.

You're aware that she had been communicating with staff at the hospital, including psychiatrists, right?I don't know if I knew at that time, but I knew she had been speaking with the doctors and staff.Well, not specifically who was a person who goes through major trauma and is at a hospital and has made suicidal attempts.In your opinion, it would behoove the hospital to have that person talk to a psychiatrist, correct?Yes.Now, in addition to meeting with the staff and the psychiatry team, prior to your arrival, were you aware that she had an attorney that had came to visit her a few times?

Not Mr. Reddington, but a different attorney?Yes, I don't know how many times, but I am aware that there was an attorney, Gelb, who was somehow involved in the case.So there was somebody that came in to see her prior to you coming in to see her?Yes.Now, you testified yesterday that you performed a mental status exam that day on February 4th.Do you recall that?

I do.Where in your report or the previous report from July or your June report, do you outline the results of your mental status exam?There is none, because if someone's not capable of just explaining who they are, where they are, and if they're clear of mentition and thinking, then I'll meet with them, but if they're not, I won't.So it's a, it's a sin kwan non, it's, you do that just to make sure you can keep meeting with them and that they are able to understand what you're talking about.Standard practice.But you indicated yesterday that she didn't know who she was, right?

Yes.She didn't know where she was.Yes.But I believe your testimony was that she did remember what happened, but she was foggy as to what happened.Yes, that's correct.And she actually, according to your testimony yesterday, asked you for your phone or to access your phone to make a phone call.

Is that correct?Yes.So she was able to communicate with you.Yes.She asked you for something and you clearly understood what she was asking for.Yes.

And you indicated that she asked to call her husband, right?Yes.Had you spoken with her husband before that time?I didn't, did not speak to him at that time.I didn't know him and I hadn'tspoken to him prior to that time.

So how did you get the phone number to call him?I did not have the phone number to call.So she provided you with a phone number to dial so that she could call him on speakerphone, right?Yes.And she remembered the number?Yes.

And so you indicated on that day, on February 4th, that she left a voicemail, right?Yes.So in that voicemail message, were you able to identify that it was Patrick Clancy's phone?Did it say, hey, this is Pat, leave a message or something to that effect?I don't remember the salutation from the voice recording, but there was no evidence that it was not Patrick Clancy.And as far as her confidence in the number, she she gave it to you with no issue, did she not?

That's correct.She didn't have her own cell phone to refer to, did she?That's correct.Or a pad of paper where all the numbers were written down?She didn't.You indicated that she left a message.

Do you recall what the message was?She expressed her love for him, wanted to know how he was doing, and that was pretty much it.And again, you said that you didn't write down what the mental status exam was, but the fact that she was able to relay that message, was it clear and coherent what she was saying?Yes.Mental status exams are multiple levels.Different things are asked.

If you don't know where you are, it doesn't mean you can't have a conversation with someone.And she was able to have a conversation with you that day?Yes.Now, you said you went back on February 6th and met with her again, correct?Yes.And you guys made another attempt at calling Patrick.

Yes.Again, did you remember the number?Did you have it stored in your phone?No.Did she provide you his phone number to call?Well, it was in my phone.

I could just look it up on my phone.I didn't write it down.I didn't enter his name.Either she gave it to me again, or I just looked it up from two days prior.But you don't recall as you sit here today which it was, do you?No.

And you didn't write a report about that interaction, did you?I did not.So in this In the second phone call, you were able to actually hear that she was talking with Patrick on the other end, right?Yes.And at that time, when you were now second time meeting with her and having this phone call, were you aware that she had already changed her health care proxy from Patrick to her parents?I did not know that.

Did you talk to Patrick in between the fourth and the sixth to find out if he had tried to come in to visit her?I didn't speak to him at all, so I knew nothing about what his plans or intentions were.Your testimony yesterday was that she had called him to tell him that she loved him and to see where they were at, right?Yes, that was your testimony, meaning what their relationship that I made no interpretation of what that meant.She left.the message and we left it at that.

But in that subsequent conversation that you are witness to where they were speaking on the phone and she told them about these voices or explained about the voices, did she ask about the kids?She did not, as I recall.Now, in all of the times over the course of the last few years that you've met with Miss Clancy,How many times has she told you since the incident that she's heard a voice currently?She has not heard voices since the event took place in 2023.And you've now testified that over the course of a period of time that she did hear voices, right?

Yes.And is that based on one of these 35 hours worth of conversations you had with her.How do you know that?Well, they were collateral contacts.Spoke to other people.I spoke to other people who I asked the nature of their interactions with Miss Clancy.

And it was not a fishing expedition.I asked if they can tell me what happened.I'm asking you.So they disclosed information to me that Miss Clancy shared that information with them.So who did she tell that she had a voice that told her to kill herself?She spoke to a chaplain named Sheila Cavanaugh, who I spoke with, and Chaplain Cavanaugh told me that Ms. Clancy told her that she heard a male voice instructing her to first kill her children and then to kill herself.

So the same message that she delivered to Patrick that day on the phone, you heard from a chaplain at Brigham and Women's Hospital after the incident occurred in January of 2023.Yes.And so from all of the records that you reviewed of her treatment and all of the interviews with her family, who did she tell that she heard voices telling them to kill, telling her to kill herself?I believe she told family members.Which family members?I believe she may have said that to her mother.

She, I believe, told her husband that she felt like killing herself as well.In the records with the providers, you're aware, you've reviewed them all and you've sat through all of their testimony.You're aware that when she described intrusive thoughts, she never referred to them as a voice telling her to kill herself, did she?No, she was referring to...It's just a yes or no?No.

So as far as her reports of these intrusive thoughts that appear over and over in the notes, You would agree that it was simply when asked about what they were, it was simply that she felt like she wanted to die, right?Yes.And it's just a yes or no.Yes.Now, in your report, you go through what's called the sources of information.You're familiar with that part.

It's pretty standard in a forensic report, right?Yes.Where you list all of the things that you've gone through and reviewed in compiling the information for your report.So in my sources of information, I write, I reviewed the following, but that list is not limited to the following.So there might be other pieces of information that I may have reviewed, but didn't put in the list.Okay, so not on the list are the Tewksbury Hospital records that you said you reviewed recently, correct?

I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.I'm sorry.And how about the women and infant records?Did you list that in your sources of information section?I do not.She was there for one day.

Okay, but you've testified about that, right?Yes.Did you review them at all?Yes.And as far as the McLean records, you don't list the McLean records as a source of information in your report, do you?I did not, but I did review them.

Now, you've described and you describe in your report that you believe that Ms. Clancy was hypomanic, right?Yes.And I believe you testified to some extent and you've written in your report that you identify her as euphoric, excessively energetic for three months postpartum.Do you remember writing that in your report?Yes.That you note that she exercised early, Right.

Yes.But you're aware that she exercised pretty frequently before birth.Yes.And while pregnant with Callen.And while post pregnancy with her children as well.Yes.

So it was part of her routine.Fair to say.Right.It's part of everyday living.Things sometimes change when you have a baby.And a few weeks later, if you're still doing the same exercise, it's sometimes a reflection of something other than

committed to fitness.And you identify what you refer to as a marketing scam being that beach body business, right?Yes.But you're aware that that's a series of workouts in a line of nutritional shakes and exercise plans that millions of people engage in across the country.Yes.So it's not a scam.

It's just a way of that's a lifestyle choice.If you do something for marketing and you lose all your money and there's no effort to get that back, it's a scam.You've asked them to figure out what his definition is.So did she tell you she lost money with the Beachbody?Yes.When was that?

It was summer of twenty twenty two after her third child was born.No, when did she tell you that she lost money?I don't recall that.And is it in your report?It may be, but I'm not sure.Well, I have it with me.

Or do you have it up there?Can you look and point to me where she told you at what point she told you she lost money in this endeavor?I don't know where it is.If it's here, it didn't seem relevant whether she lost money in a scam after her child was born in terms of the big picture of what we're here for today.You've described it as a scam because you said she lost money.Would it be important to know if she actually lost money?

I don't really think so.Okay.You also identify the five mile race that she completed.Was it a five mile race or a five K race?Well, I wasn't sure which it was.I was told in the end.

it was a five -mile race.After my report was submitted, it may have been, with reflection, a 5K race.And you've sat in the courtroom each and every day of this trial, so you've heard all the testimony about the evidence, right?Actually, I've not been here every day, but I've been here most days, yes.You're also aware that prior to the kids being born that she considered herself a runner?Yes.

She had a treadmill at her house.She went to the gym and used the treadmill.She ran other races.Yes.Now, in your report, you indicate that part of her, the timeline of her medication and her decline is the September time period where she was prescribed the Zoloft, right?the Zoloft.

And you indicate that she had reported, and it's reflected in the records, that she increased the Zoloft, and that's when she couldn't sleep for 48 hours straight, right?And you're aware of what the instructions were, having reviewed everything in this case, what the pill bottle said as far as the plan for the Zoloft?to 50 milligrams of Zoloft.That's 25 milligrams to 50 milligrams.Again, having been at the majority of this trial, are you aware that there were 30 in that prescription and 23 left in the bottle when they were inventoried?Yes.

And those are pills that were in Patrick Clancy's possession at the time of these events in January, you're aware, right?Yes, I believe they were in the middle console on the lower part of his truck, the lower part of the middle console in his truck.So if there's only seven pills missing from a prescription that requires the person to take a particular dosage for one week or seven days, how did she double the dose?Well, sometimes when you or given medication, you may have medication of the same exact dosage and the same exact medication another time, and you therefore may have pills that you didn't take the previous month, the month before that, and sometimes people just finish what they've had before and before they go on to the most current dose.So I am aware of what you're referring to, but I don't know if there are other bottles there that you may have had medication still in those pill bottles.Well, I'm looking at exhibit number one, a record from CVS Pharmacy, which all of these bottles are from.

And the only time a prescription for Sertaline is filled is on September 15th, 2022 for 30 pills.You aware of that?Yes.So there's no prior prescription for Sertaline?I don't think so.Now in your report, you also refer to 1129 and your report on page 8, paragraph 2 is on 1129 Paula gelada.

Is that supposed to be Rebecca gelada?Yes.Okay.So it also says that she prescribed Seroquel to treat Ms. Clancy's anxiety, depressed and unstable mood and psychotic symptoms of disassociation and derealization.Where is that in Rebecca Gelata's record that that's why she prescribed Seroquel?I'm not sure.

And in fact, you were present when Ms. Gelata testified and said that she prescribed it at 25 milligrams for insomnia, not for anxiety, depression, unstable mood or psychotic symptoms.Did she not?It's used off -label.It's sometimes medications are made from anything.Sometimes they're used off -label, not for what they're prescribed for.So that's a medication that is used for sleeping, although it's an antipsychotic.

So you're aware from reviewing the records and hearing testimony that that initial prescription was for a 25 milligram dose, correct?Yes.I know you're not a prescriber, but you're aware that a dose for treatment of bipolar is significantly higher than 25 milligrams.Yes.Now, You've described in your testimony in this court auditory, repeated auditory hallucinations about wanting to kill herself or that she should kill herself and that she is damaged or her brain is damaged, right?That's correct.

Now, did you have a conversation with her in one of these 35 hours about that particular?voice or thought or belief?So when I meet with Ms. Clancy, it's not as if I have one conversation on one of the 35 hours.To have thoroughness and exactitude, one does what we call intra -rater reliability.In other words, over the period of time to confirm what someone says to you to help endorse the veracity or accuracy of that, you'll ask that question in a multitude of different ways.So I don't just ask once, did you hear a voice on that day?

I ask in different ways over time, and her answers pretty much remain the same.So when you quote in your report, When questioned about the nature and content of these horrible thoughts, Ms. Clancy stated, quote, like a really bad and intrusive thought that I didn't feel like it was mine telling me I should kill myself.Your brain is damaged.You're never going to get better.End quote.Where does the quote come from?

Where does the quote come from?Right.She had said that to me, to you at some point.Yes.Okay.And this is well after the incident occurred, correct?

And you reviewed all the records to know that she did not endorse that she was hearing a voice to any of her providers between September and January 23rd of 2023.So when someone yes or no, sir, that's a difficult question to say yes or no from because sometimes if someone says something that's inaccurate, it's not an affirmatory or a negative that's misleading.My quesin the records from September to January 23rd or 2022, did she tell any of the providers she saw that she heard a voice telling her to kill herself?It's not in the records.Okay.

And you're aware that she has spoken to several forensic psychiatrists and psychologists over the course of this case, right?Not just yourself.Yes, she spoke to three retained experts in April, 10th and April 12th of 2026, and then on June 12th of 2026, 1 ,172 days after I initially met with her, then 1 ,220 days after I met with her.That's the third examiner.Well, you're aware that you're referring to Dr. Haliburn, Dr. Mack, and Dr. Satoff, correct?Correct.

You're aware that she also spoke with Dr. Resnick and Dr. Spinelli well before that.On May 5th of 2023, approximately 90 days more or less later.Yes.And you're also aware, sir, that she has never told, she never told Dr. Resnick in a recorded interview, nor Dr. Halperin, Dr. Mack, or Dr. Satoff that she heard Your testimony is that she told you that she heard this voice.Fair to say she identified to you that it was her own voice that she heard, correct?That's not correct.

So she told you that she heard a male's voice?That's correct.When?On the night of the incident, January 24th, 2023.No, I'm referring tothe fact that you've now testified that she heard this, as you call it, a persistent, what's the word you use, persecutorial voice over the course of time?

Was that your testimony?In fact, other people could hear those voices thought broadcasting.So there are multiple layers here of hearing intrusive thoughts.So I'm hearing voices so loud that she believed other people could hear her.Those are two separate phenomenon, if you will.In those voices that you are saying she told you she heard about wanting to die or to kill herself or her brain was damaged prior to January 24th of 2023.

Did she say it was her own voice she could hear?It was her own thoughts?She did not identify whose voice it was.Fair to say the only time she specifically said she heard a male voice was when she recounts the events on January 24th of 2023.Yes, that's accurate.And you'd agree that there's a difference between the idea that somebody believes their thoughts would be or could be heard by others and the belief that they are being heard by others, right?

Yes, it's a matter of semantics, and it's a level of degreeism.Believing and knowing are two totally separate things.And believing, having a fixed belief like that, would be a delusion, right?That's correct.A delusion is a fixed false belief that is unshakable and not something you get rid of either through your ownefforts to tell the voice to go away or other people saying just, for example, try to stop thinking about it.

And the idea that she believed that something was wrong with her brain or that if she if people could know what was happening, that the police might get involved.That is something that could happen if somebody articulates those things.Right.Absolutely.It's common sense.Now, in your report, you also indicate that in your testimony, you indicated that on January 5th of 2023, that that's when Miss Clancy was discharged from McLean Hospital.

And I think your testimony was that she went in there on Seroquel and I think you indicated Klonopin, correct?Yes.And your report says Seroquel and Klonopin.You recall that?Yes.You're aware that based on the medication journal, that is an evidence that she hadn't taken Klonopin since November 27th of 2022.

She had a prescription for that, and I think she may have taken some, but may not have been on a regular basis.But you've seen the pages of her journal to know that she's pretty diligent about saying exactly what she took on each particular date.Yes.Leading up to her stay at McLean and even after.Yes.Now, kind of sticking with these medications for a second, you have testified, I think this was yesterday, you testified that you were familiar that after Dawson's birth that she had sought some medication, correct?

Yes.And I believe you testified yesterday that she was on trazodone.But in fact, she was prescribed Zoloft after Dawson and reported she did never take it, right?So after my testimony, I reviewed that and I confabulated the trazodone with another medication, the Zoloft.And again, you've talked a lot about that the medications that she was taking, the different medications haven't, didn't provide her with any sort of relief.So it's important to know the different medications she was taking and what the reactions were, right?

I don't know if I talked a lot about it.I was asked questions.I answered them honestly.They didn't provide relief.I agree with that.So that was the whole point of her seeking help.

In her history, whether it be medication history, a social history, family history, those are all important things overall for you to look at and examine when coming to ultimate conclusions, right?For everyone, yes, of course.So it's important to be accurate when you're recalling or reporting that information.As much as possible as one can be, yes, that's true.And as far as the medication goes, I think you testified yesterday that she also took medication in nursing school, correct?Yes, she did.

And having met with her as many times as you did and reviewing all these records, you're aware that those were, in fact, Prozac, Welbutrin, and Propanol that she took in nursing school.That's correct.That was for her what's called glossophobia, G -O -L -L -O -S -P -H -O -B -I -A.It's fear of public speaking, most common fear For Americans, 85 % of Americans have public speaking phobia, pretty commonplace.But yes, those are the medications she took while she was in nursing school to go through the program.But that's not what you testified to yesterday.

I think I mentioned only one or two medications, she had taken three.And you also mentioned today in your testimony, you were asked about the date of December 15th.And I believe your testimony was that's the day she went to Women and Infants.Is that correct?I believe so, yes.If I show you the record, is it fair to say she didn't go to Women and Infants on the 15th, but it was actually December 20th?

Right.I believe shown to the Mass General Hospital ER on the 15th.And you said in your testimony today that at the Mass General ER, she did not get any help.Do you recall that testimony?She declined admission to the inpatient.She didn't appreciate it, didn't want to do that.

So it did not get help.So go ahead.Thank you, Your Honor.We have something called the subjective baseline.The cognitive appraisal theme.Help is in the eye of the beholder.

If she felt she didn't get help, That's how she felt.Well, sir, that wasn't the question.And your testimony was she went to the ER and did not get help.That was your testimony, not hers.Well, my testimony is based on my evaluation of her.This is what Ms. Clancy shared with me.

Who am I to doubt what she believes or doesn't believe about the offer for treatment or help?It's her opinion.She chose to decline the bed at McLean on December 15th, did she not?Yes.And she then indicated to the Mass General Hospital that she was going to opt for an outpatient program at the Women and Infants, correct?Yes.

That's what's in the records?Yes.And did she tell you that as well?Yes.And as it pertains to the Women and Infants, again, after you review the records, you're aware that a referral had been made to her well before her visit to the ER on the 15th for that same program.I believe so.

Now, you've indicated in your testimony that it's your opinion that her diagnosis is bipolar disorder with psychotic symptoms, correct?Yes.And fair to say you've reviewed prior to your report, you had reviewed Dr. Resnick's report.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.Resnick in all your sources of information and before you came to a conclusion about diagnosis?

No, I did not.Sorry.On page four of your report, where you list the sources of information, you do identify as number 24, forensic psychiatric evaluation of Philip J. Resnick from 92724, do you not?I do.And so that's something you reviewed.review all of that report from Dr. Roesnick or Dr. Spinelli for that matter.

Now, in talking about your review of records, you indicated thatthere are several thousand pages of Tewksbury Hospital records, correct?Seven thousand and one page.And you, did you review all of those?I would say I looked through them, but I did not read every word on every page.They do have a tendency to hang together and are replicative as well.

I have a question for you, Mr. Chairman.Were you aware that on May 26, 2023, that the defendant was observed by staff in a note stating that she was visible along the unit hallway, self -propelling her wheelchair with her one -to -one staff.She had a visit with her mother who brought dinner for her.So three years ago and a few months, I don't know that, I don't remember.That would have been approximately four months after the incident and on the day of Callen's first birthday, right?Yes, but you asked if I remember that event and I don't.

You don't or you do?I don't remember that she was seen with her mother on that day who brought food and she was seen I don't remember.I don't remember.I don't remember.I don't remember.I don't remember.

I don't remember.I don't remember.I don't remember.I don't remember.I don't remember.I don't remember.

I don't remember.I don't remember.I don't remember.I don't remember.I don't remember.I don't remember.

I don't remember.I don't remember.I don't remember.I don't remember.I don't remember.I don't remember.

I don't remember.I don't remember.I don't remember.I don't remember.I don't remember.I don't remember.

I don't remember.I don't remember.I don't remember.I don't remember.I don't remember.I don't remember.

I don't remember.I don't remember.I don't remember.I don't remember.I don't remember.I don't remember.

I don't remember.I don't remember.I don't remember.I donutilizing phone, and visited with family.Do you recall that, reading that note on page 613 of the Tewksbury records?

Of 2023?Yes.Honestly, I don't.And that would have been Cora's birthday.Okay.But would you agree with me that if I read that from page 613 in the records, that that would be within that 7001 page of the record?

I would not doubt that.How about on January 24th, 2024, where she's observed in a note from Tewksbury State Hospital on page 674, saying where the note reads, patient was visible in the milieu, engageable with both staff and select peers, patient accepted select medications as her baseline, that she was pleasant during interactions, self propelling in wheelchair in the halls, spending much of the morning and early afternoon in her room and hall on her electronics.of the record.And on January 24th, 2024, we have the year anniversary of the incident.Do you recall reading that record?And January 24th, 2024 would have been the year anniversary of the incident, correct?

If I read from page 674, you would agree with me that's part of the record?I have no reason to doubt that.I don't know if that's the case.I don't know if that's the case.I don't know if that's the case.I don't know if that's the case.

I don't know if that's the case.I don't know if that's the case.I don't know if that's the case.I don't know if that's the case.I don't know if that's the case.I don't know if that's the case.

I don't know if that's the case.I don't know if that's the case.I don't know if that's the case.I don't know if that's the case.I don't know if that's the case.I don't know if that's the case.

I don't know if that's the case.How about on September 30th of 2024, page 1 ,229 of the Tewksbury record, where it's noted that she was visible in the unit, attended startup slash coffee group, assisted with AD, or she was assisted with ADLs as needed.She was in safe behavioral control for the duration of the shift.And that later reads, patient visible in the hallways, seated in a wheelchair outside her bedroom using her cell phone, pleasant upon approach, social with select peers.That would have been on September 30th, 2024, which would have been Dawson's fifth birthday.Do you recall reviewing that in the record?

Not off the top of my head, but I have no reason to doubt that's not an accurate record.December 24th, 2024, page 1442 of the Tewksbury records says the patient was visible on the unit utilizing her phone.Her parents were in to visit and they brought dinner with them.Patient accepted medications and fluids.I have no reason to doubt that that's not an accurate reflection of what took place that day.And so, December 24th, 2024, that would have been Cora's seventh birthday, right?

Yes.So, January 24th, 2025, from page 1514 of the Tewksbury records, it reads, inpatient treatment goal, to work on my mental health and to feel better.Says, she participated in morning ADL routine with staff assistance.Patient was visible on the milieu at times in the hallway utilizing her phone.No SIB has been reported this shift.I have no reason to doubt that.

Do you have any reason to doubt that that's contained on page 1514?I have no reason to doubt that.And further observations on that day were that the patient was visible on the unit.She was social with select staff and peers and also seen utilizing her phone.Her parents were in to visit and brought her dinner or excuse me, and they brought dinner with them.That was again on January 24, 2025, which would have been the second anniversary of this incident, correct?

Yes.May 26, 2025, page 1782 of the Tewksbury records.It says she did not engage in any SIB.She was visited by her parents this shift.She attended Startup Group and watched TV.That would have been on May 26, 2025, which would have been Callen's third birthday.

Do you have any reason to doubt that in the record?I have no reason to doubt that.And on September 30, 2025, of the Tewksbury record on page 2056, Reid's patient was visible in the hall.I have no reason to doubt that that's not accurate.the Tewksbury records.The Tewksbury records.

monitoring for abrupt behavior change and attempt to prevent escalation or self -harm, encourage patients to participate in groups that, on this particular day, she's also observed compliant with meds, ate breakfast, participated in coffee group, visible in the hallway utilizing her phone, later visited with parents and had an early lunch.That was on January 21st.of 2026.Do you have any reason to doubt that's within the records?No.And that she was later observed to not have any SIB or behavioral issues.

Again, on January 24th, 2026.Do you have any reason to doubt that's contained within the Tewksbury records?No.And again, you reviewed or looked at some of them, but not every one of these, but these are already I would move to admit these excerpts as the next exhibit, please.And Dr. Zeisel, as far as the records that I just read in, do you know if in those records it indicates that she slept well on those occasions?I wouldn't know.

I don't know.You would agree that noting her sleeping habits based on this particular individual's history would be an important thing for the hospital to monitor, correct?I would agree with that.In this particular case, well, let me ask you, are you familiar with the concept of confirmation bias?Of course.And fair to say it's pretty prevalent in most areas of science and forensic psychology and psychiatry, correct?

Of course, as all domains of work and life.And as far as confirmation bias for psychiatry or providers, it's fair to say that clinicians are warned that they may lean towards or support their own theories and overlook contradictory evidence.Now, you have to be aware of that, correct?Yes.And again, in forensic psychology, the goal is to give, render an objective opinion, right?Yes.

The facts come to you.You don't go to the facts.And There's a danger for clinicians and forensic psychologists of quickly forming an initial diagnosis before having all the information, correct?Yes.And that confirmation bias accounts for the fact that a lot of times people, clinicians and providers will cling to diagnoses and interpret subsequent information in light of that kind of already perceived idea.Is that fair to say?

I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying.They cling to a diagnosis?Well, once a diagnosis is reached, they cling to that diagnosis when interpreting subsequent information.That happens, yes.But you would agree that in practice of forensic psychology that it's important not to do that, right?Particularly with the guidelines of criminal responsibility where you don't need a diagnosis, just need a mental disease or defect.

Diagnoses are helpful in understanding whether the person was suffering from thelegal construct of a mental disease or defect, correct?That's fair to say.And it's fairly accepted in the field that if somebody has a disorder or a diagnosed mental illness, that they then in turn suffer from a mental disease or defect or could.Could, because you can have a phobia.It doesn't mean you have a mental disease or defect.

If you're afraid to jump out of airplanes, it can make you ineffective and have a defect or a disease.So yes, it could.Yes, Ron.So it could, but it doesn't always have to.Thank you.Of course.

And you're aware of the danger of this idea of confirmation bias, of having multiple relationships and conflicts in this type of work, correct?Yes.And that's why it's important not to be treating somebody as a patient when you're also evaluating them for this type of legal issue.Right.Of course, you cannot be the therapist and the examiner.The therapist is an advocate.

The examiner looks for the truth.And do you recall in this case submitting recommendations to the court in November of twenty twenty five about the defendant regarding accommodations for her?I know in general, but I don't know specifically what those accommodations requests were.I can't remember them.But you wrote, you authored and signed a letter dated November 13, 2025 to the court, correct?Yes, but I'm saying I don't remember specifically what those recommendations were.

I know I did that.I'm not asking you that.I'm just asking if you wrote the letter.Hold on.Just let me ask a question.If you listen to the

I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.I'm sorry.able to define her as something else.She was a patient who I did a forensic evaluation of.Well, you referred to the court outside of this evaluation you're testifying about to her as your patient in this letter from November 13th of 2025.Right.

I evaluated Ms. Clancy, who was a patient.If I evaluated her, then she's my patient, as she is other doctors' patients at Tewksbury and other places that she's been at.But you call her my patient in the letter.I wrote the letter.Who whose patient would I be referring to if I'm speaking about Miss Clancy, given that she's my patient?Yes, I wrote she was my patient.

That's correct.And you're aware of, again, the APA guidelines on forensic psychology where it warns therapeutic -forensic role conflicts, providing forensic and therapeutic psychological services to the same individual involves multiple relationships that may impair objectivity and or cause exploitation or other harm.You're aware of that, section 4 .02?Yes.And in this particular case, since the beginning, you've appeared regularly in court hearings, right?Yes.

You've appeared with Attorney Reddington at arraignment proceedings?At his request, yes.Both here and at Tewksbury State Hospital, where you were sitting next to the defendant?Yes.And you also, on February 8th of 2023, participated in a news conference, did you not?Yes.

It was outside the courthouse here.Yes.And you gave an interview with the Daily News.Were you commenting on this?I just made a comment.That's correct.

And at this time, Your Honor, I'd like to play a clip of the news conference, please.and individuals who can present an elusive, linear, and clear thinking, do not make those people not mentally ill.They have the capacity for, on occasion, to be able to do things that they've been doing for a long time.When you have delusional thinking, fixed beliefs that are unchangeable, and hallucinations, namely event hallucinations, tell me if you can tell me what you're using that level in.And you believe those voices, that what they say, that's when things go downhill.Behaviorally, ethically, and familially.

And that's what we see in the most tragic of cases, where individuals who could be healthy and normal, frankly, are paranoid of what others think.They hold back.In some cases, throughout the country and the world, it's the people who one day will be functioning well, or because they have the onset of translucidation.So, sir, on December 8th of 2023, when you provided that your observations, you had met with the defendant on two occasions, correct?I believe three occasions.Okay.

Had you all had you any of the records that have been presented in the course of this trial?any of the records that are listed in your sources of information?No.And as you sit here and testify today,you've testified to the same conclusions, correct?What I said was individuals like that present this way.

I was not referring to Ms. Clancy.I said individuals who have these symptoms like the ones I clarified present that way.That was not an assessment of Ms. Clancy.That was an assessment of people who go through major mental health crises.But as you sat here today, you've talked about the fact that people that she had delusional thinking, the fact that she had command hallucinations, the fact that she believed that these voices and that she was paranoid and worried.You've consistently testified about that throughout the course of yesterday and today, correct?

So it's a yes or no.You make it impossible to answer that question.The next question, in addition to well, you testified today that a person in a psychotic state can do things they've done before, but it might be hard for them to do new tasks, right?Yes.So if it's something that is part of their daily life, getting up.caring for the kids, eating, making a meal, driving a car.

Those are things that people do every day and a lot of times don't even have to think about, right?Yes.No thinking necessary.But your response, automatic response.You're aware that on this particular day of this incident, on January 24th of 2023, that the defendant took court to the doctor.right?

Yes.And you indicated in your testimony today that it was for a regular checkup, but in your report, you identify that it was for a stomachache, right?Yes, she had a stomachache.But in addition to maybe her having a stomachache, she had previously had this visit scheduled, and you're aware of that now, correct?Yes.And at the doctor, there was a recommendation made for an over -the -counter medication, right?

Yes.And the defendant was able to process that information, take it back with her, and then later, not immediately after the visit, but later in the day, search for where to get that medication, right?Psychosis doesn't lower your intellectual functioning, so you can do all those things.Well, that wasn't my question.My question was, did she do those things?Yes, so that's correct.

Okay.And would you, you've talked a lot about that a person can operate as normally as they can.But fair to say, if you're in a psychotic state, that person themselves has a significant amount of distress, right?Yes.And that in order to mask those symptoms, it requires an enormous amount of control, does it not?It depends on the level and the extremism of the psychotic processing.

So some people will hear voices that are nominal, they whisper.Some people hear voices that are yelling and screaming.So it's on a range, it's a continuum.So the more upsetting, more powerful, demanding the voice, the more difficult it might be to resist it and do other things.The less, the easier it is.In all of the time between September of 2022 and January 23rd of 2023, at any point in which

the defendant heard these voices about harming herself, she didn't act on them then, did she?That's correct, yes.She did not act on those.She sought help instead.Your Honor, I would move to admit the recording played as the next exhibit.The recording that was played, I move to enter it as the next exhibit, please.

That may be admitted.I have no further questions at this time.Let's talk about confirmation.Can I sit down, please?Hold on.Thank you.

Confirmation bias in the field of forensics, interfaces, science and the law, trial of cases, hiring experts, having people give an opinion that a jury is going to listen to.Confirmation bias means that the individual might want to help out the person that they're testifying for.Is that right?It can be, yes.So in other words, if you have a shooting case and you're a believer inand without the ballistics showing that the defendant's gun shot the victim, the government has no case, they may send an email to that witness and say, hey, I really need your help here.

And that might influence them, right?Yes.Now, you got involved with this case, as you indicated out of my request, obviously.Yes.Compassion.Correct.

The fact you had a young lady that was literally in extreme condition, emotionally, physically, you went to speak with her, correct?I did.Yes.Do you care for her?I do.And is that a violation of the canon of ethics for professionals like you, if you care for your patient?

Not at all.Within the ethical standards, it's also noted to do an appropriate and meaningful forensic evaluation.It's strongly suggested you develop empathy and rapport.And when you have those two psychological constructs, you get more information from the respondent.You do not cherry pick the information.You include what's in all in your report that avoids confirmatory bias and you avoid confirmatory bias.

by also not looking at conclusions that other examiners come up with when they render their opinions.And you do your evaluations independent of anyone else.You do it by yourself.How many times did you see her?At the time that my report was60 times.

How many hours have you put in sitting with Lindsay, either in the hospital or?More than that, roughly.And you have all of that information that you have brought here today to testify to this jury, is that correct?Yes.Are you confirmed bias?Are you not telling the truth just to help Lindsay out or is this your opinion based upon your review of the records, your interview of her, whether or not you care for her or not.

Overruled.Overruled.I am telling the truth.We've re -asked that question.That answer would be stricken.So you can't tell someone you're telling the truth.

That's up to the jury to decide.Your opinion based upon all of the times that you met with Nancy, right?Yes.All the documents that you've reviewed, all of this, all the exhibits, everything.I'm not aware of.I'm not aware of.

I'm aware of.I'm aware of.I'm aware of.I'm aware of.I'm aware of.I'm aware of.

I'm aware of.I'm aware of.I'm aware of.I'm aware of.I'm aware of.I'm aware of.

I'm aware of.I'm aware of.I'm aware of.I'm aware of.I'm aware of.I'm aware of.

I'm aware of.I'm aware of.I'm aware of.I'm aware of.I'm aware of.I'm aware of.

I'm aware of.I'm aware of.I'm aware of.I'm aware of.I'm aware of.I'm aware of.

I'm aware of.I'm aware of.I'm aware of.I'm aware of.I'm aware of.I'm aware of.

I'm aware of.I'm aware of.I'm aware of.I'm aware of.I'm aware of.I'm aware of.

I'm The five -week trial?Yes, from Tewksbury to Plymouth.And her medical condition with her paralysis and all of the rest of the bodily functions that you lose, that's a concern, isn't that right?Very much so, yes.And we also had to have the help of nurses that would be available in the event.that there was any type of emergency issue, correct?

That we had to ask of the court.Yes, they're here every day.So confirmation bias, can you tell this jury, is your opinion based upon money?Maybe you like me, maybe you want to help her, or is that based to your best ability as a professional of many, many years?Yes.Confirmation bias is coming up with a conclusion before you reach an opinion.

It's in Latin as tabula rasa, a blank slate.You draw no conclusion.The conclusion finds you.And if you don't do that, you are at risk of having confirmation bias.Ask you a hypothetical and see if the hypothetical fits within your understanding as an expert of confirmation bias.Let's say hypothetical.

that a young woman is involved in an incident such as this that results in the death of her three babies.And that young woman is paralyzed.That young woman is in a hospital.That young woman is facing indictments for triple homicide.And the incident occurred on January 24th, 2023.And it's not until 2026 that the district attorney's office hires three doctors

Been sitting here for a little bit.We're going to take a short break at this point, give you a chance to take a break.And then we'll come right back and we'll continue with the testimony.Okay.Hello, CC Live Trials viewers.My name is Joshua Ritter.

I spent over a decade as a prosecutor in the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office before entering private practice as a criminal defense attorney.On our main channel, Courtroom Confidential, I used that experience to break down cases like this one from both sides of the courtroom with live shows every Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday.Here's a clip from one of our recent episodes.I think awkward might be putting it mildly, but there was a moment here when she was on cross -examined from the prosecution.I'll play it and we'll just react to it.Now, are you active member in the Catholic Church?

Yes.So you're aware that murder is considered a mortal sin.Can I see you over here?So I'm very, I wanted, I'm so glad that I have you on today to talk about that because many people, Um, it reacted to that and said, oh my God, that was so distasteful.Um, how kind of tone deaf by the prosecution.I understand why the prosecution is asking it because the question here is the wrongfulness of her actions.

Did she know voter was wrong?He's kind of want a point they're trying to make, but even the judge, if you, if you listen to that, it wasn't the defense who asked for a sidebar.The judge said, counsel, can I see you?How does the jury react to a moment like this one kind of the emotion of asking the mother -in -law a very kind of on a delicate question and then the judge.judge reacting to it.What are your thoughts?

Well, first of all, a major questionnaire, you never ask religion.Hey, I mean, I don't even know how that even got through.Actually, I mean, it's shocking to me. I think those jurors were probably stunned.Like, did I just hear what I just heard that prosecutor say?I was like, You know, it was, it was mind blowing.My, I had never heard, ever heard something like that ever in any trial that ever done.

And you could see it in her facial expressions, right?Look at her eyebrows lifted up.Her eyes are big and wide.It's like, huh?Like what?You know?

So I understand what she was trying to do.What she's trying to do is just say, you know, you have been a strong supporter.of Lindsay, you have been beside her.I mean, even though maybe you had some struggles, there's been some talk about whether they really did have a close relationship throughout that marriage.But on the other hand, they're kind of trying to figure out like, where is she coming from, right?Like, does she feel some guilt, some sort of guilt?

Because it's her son, her son didn't see the signs.She didn't see the signs.Or is it that, you know, you know, she's a Christian, that she's, you know, forgiveness, right?That she has forgiven her and understands and is able to compartmentalize and separate.She has been sick.I know she's been sick.

And then at the same time, right, she also may feel forgiveness or empathy.So that can actually have a adverse effect, right?So if you're having all this sympathy, do you have rose -colored glasses?Did you not see it?Were you not paying attention?So again, I think it was great that first of all, the judge did call a sidebar, because it was absolutely unequivocally inappropriate, inexcusable,

and very, very poor taste.I understand why she did it.I think the jury would be like, especially the Catholics that are on there saying, well, you know, yes, you can believe in a postpartum depression and this person that has it so severely they take their children, kill their children because God forgives everyone.If you are a Christian and I'm a Christian and you don't go to Erica Kirk.Same thing, I forgive him.So I think that that's not going to fall well on some of those jurors at all, especially since the majority of Christians are Catholics.

I don't think that's going to go over very well at all.Maybe the judge is Catholic too, who knows?Yeah.I know this too, that having done trials, the jurors really respond and take a lot of their cues from the judge.If the judge gets upset, they get upset.If the judge laughs, they laugh.

It's like they view him almost as this father figure in, you know, the professor of the courtroom.And if a judge reacts and says, with that question, says, counsel, get up here.They might not have even caught it or may not have been that important to them, but they're going to remember that moment.I'm going to call the meeting to order.I'm going to call the meeting to order.I'm going to call the meeting to order.

I'm going to call the meeting to order.I'm going to call the meeting to order.I'm going to call the meeting to order.I'm going to call the meeting to order.I'm going to call the meeting to order.I'm going to call the meeting to order.

I'm going to call the meeting to order.I'm going to call the meeting to order.I'm going to call the meeting to order.I'm going to call the meeting to order.I'm going to call the meeting to order.I'm going to call the meeting to order.

I'm going to call the meeting to order.I'm going to call the meeting to order.I'm going to call the meeting to order.I'm going to call the meeting to order.I'm going to call the meeting to order.I'm going to call the meeting to order.

I'm going to call the meeting to order.I'm going to within which an expert is hired by one side or another to evaluate a person and give an opinion.In other words, if it's a compressed period of time as opposed to an expanded period of time, is that one indication of confirmatory bias overall?It depends on the examiner and the situation.It can be, but individuals who pay attention to that concernshould maintain healthful boundaries and not have any confirmatory bias.

What does that mean?It means stay in your lane.That's better.Now, one of the things that the district attorney did is took the 7 ,001 pages of the records from Tewksbury Hospital and read excerpts from them to you.Is that correct?Yes.

And Lindsay, After she was taken from Social Hospital to Brigham and Women's, then from Brigham and Women's to the rehab, Spalding Rehab, she ended up in Tewksbury.Is that correct?Yes.And Tewksbury has been very good.I mean, in your opinion, have they been good with her?Fantastic.

Fantastic.But nevertheless, that is still a facility that is a state facility, right?Yes.And the district attorney asked you about the plan to have Lindsay go to another facility, Worcester, I think it was?Worcester Recovery Center Hospital.Is that a relatively new facility?

It's, I believe, the newest facility in the Commonwealth.And did we have Lindsay evaluated to have her transferred to Worcester Hospital?Yes.Was she allowed to make entry into Worcester facility?She was not.Why is that?

She was not allowed because she...Nova Rosa.she was not allowed because she has pending criminal charges.That would be this case here, right?That's this case here.And the district attorney took the 7 ,000 pages in one of the records and apparently went through them to the anniversary

the death of her three children, correct?Yes.Went through them to highlight each birthday of her three children, is that correct?Yes.In your opinion, you've been in a lot of medical institutions and facilities in the Commonwealth and out of the state, correct?Yes.

Is it your understanding to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the fact that a woman who is paralyzed is propelling herself down the hall from one room to another is indicative of anything?Not at all.How about the fact that her mother and father, who have been with her for three years and practically missed not one day of sitting with her and bringing her dinner or lunch, is that something that would be indicative of undercutting the fact that the woman was suffering from mental disease or defect?That's indicative of love.How about the fact that she's talking to other inmates or people that are patients?And in your review of the records, would you tell us your opinion as to her level of degree of popularity, bluntly, in that particular ward?

She is extremely, extremely well regarded and well liked on that unit by everyone.How about in reviewing the records, I didn't hear that she's laughing and partying and having a good time while she's in the Tewksbury Hospital.Did you see anything like that?No.Lindsay Clancy has bad days and worse days.And when you speak with her and meet with her doctor, has she ever mentioned her children?

Because apparently, according to thethat you underwent, she never talks about her kids.She does speak about her children.What does she say?She really loves them and misses them and thinks of them every single day, almost every moment of the day.And finally, Doctor, I'm holding up what has been marked as Exhibit 1, or I, I don't know, for identification.

Have you seen this before?Yes, I have.And in your dealing with Lindsay and Do you know what that is?Yes, I do.What is it?It's called the Wish Vase.

What does that mean and what is it?This is a vase that Ms. Clancy and her husband purchased in Hawaii when they went on their honeymoon shortly after getting married.Yeah, sure.Sidebar, please.Your Honor, I would hand this to Chrissy to hand it back.Over the Cuomo's objection, that may be admitted.

Thank you very much.Cuomo?How many defendants that you've evaluated for criminal responsibility have you spent 35 hours evaluating?One.One other one.One other person.

And how many other defendants have you evaluated that you've testified that you care deeply for them?I would say one other one.And how many other defendants have you given press conferences about?None.And how many other defendants that you've evaluated have you gone back every day until the lockup to check on?I was sequestered on all those other trials.

I was not even allowed in the court.Now, you were asked about confirmation bias and given a hypothetical about if somebody was asked to examine a gun, right?You recall that questioning?Yes.You were hired by the defense in this case, were you not?Yes.

As far as your conversations with the defendant about her children, you're also aware that she continually refers to this situation as my tragedy, does she not?That moniker of my tragedy, that's just wild.the things that she'll say.All right, thank you.You're welcome.And what's the reason that, with the understanding of the court permission, that you go to the lockup and see her during this trial?

I go to the lock.Sustained.Well, while she's in Tewksbury, counsel kept referring to S -I -D, S -I -S -I.What is S -I?S -I is suicide intention or suicide ideation.In Tewksbury.

in Tewksbury, has there been a concern of suicidal ideation?Yes.And what as a result of that SI, as counsel kept repeating to you through the records, is her status at Tewksbury?She's on a one -to -one, constant one -to -one to ensure that Ms. Clancy doesn't take her own life.And that is somewhat similar to the reference in Brigham and Women's Hospital when you were talking with her that there was a nurse that was sitting in the corner of the room at all times.Is that right?

Yes, that's correct.I inferentially was able to hear any conversation that you had with Lindsay, right?I asked those people to leave.Finally, I will ask you again, what to your understanding is the purpose of you during this trial going back as the council asked you about to lock up with Lindsay?To ensure that Miss Clancy is stable and competent to stand trial.Any concerns as far as her SI?

She's in good hands at the moment, but there's always a concern that sits directly below the surface.Thank you.You're welcome.Attorney Buckingham, please.In three years, she's never made an attempt to harm herself, other than January 24th.No.

Any further questions?All right, thank you, Doc.Thank you, Your Honor.Attorney Reddington?It's up to you, Your Honor, as to the Gladiator, or McLean Hospital witness, or Dr. Spinelli, I don't know.All right.

Counsel, let me just see in regards to the timing.This is another one of those moments I've got to talk to counsel about a matter that I've got to talk to them outside of your presence.All right, so I thought we'd do it at this point and excuse you till two o 'clock.We'll take up the next witness.We're going to stay in here and we're going to take up that other matter.All right, so with that during the break, remember the same instructions, talk about it.

Don't do any research about it.Don't read anything.Don't go anywhere in regards to this.See everybody at two o 'clock.Council be ready toI'm sorry.

I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.I'm sorry.

I actually live in Brooklyn, New York, but I summer on Cape Cod.I'm spoiled like that.So I'm in Chatham.So where do you live now?Brooklyn.But where are you living?

In Chatham.Chatham.Yes.And what do you do for work?I own my own therapy practice right now.So I'm practicing as a business owner and a therapist.

And what is the name of the business?It's called Wise Mind Therapy Practice.What is it?Wise Mind.Wise Mind.Yeah.

OK.And where is that located?It's a virtual practice.So.And how long have you been doing that?So I had my own private practice for, I opened that January 2023, and then this past May, I expanded.

I hired somebody, so technically it's a group practice, but I've owned my own business technically for, what is that, four years?So tell us your educational background, please.I went to Dover -Sherborn High School, and I went to Hartwick College, and then I went to Boston College School of Social Work.And what degrees do you have?So I have my master's in social, well, my BA in sociology, I have my master's in social work, and then I have two social work licenses, I guess.You have to get one before the other.

So I only go by a licensed independent clinical social worker.So, but you have to get your, it's very confusing.You have to get two licenses, essentially.You have those licenses?Yes.Within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?

Yes.Now, Your employment, can you tell us what your employment history was since I guess you got your master's at BC or something?Since I got my master's at BC, I did my final year internship at McLean Hospital at their trauma program.And then once I graduated, got my MSW, my master's of social work, and then my social work license, I was offered a per diem position at that program.And I did that position for, I think it was two to three months, and then I was rehired.I went back to the short term unit at McLean, which I had previously worked at.

So when you say the short -term unit, is that also referred to as the STU?Yes, we call it the STU.It's just short -term unit.It's also referred to as AB1, which is admissions building first floor.Are you familiar with this case of Lindsay Clancy?I'm only familiar about it from what I watched before I was sequestered.

But other than that, I don't know the case at all.And when you say what you watched before you were sequestered, what does that mean?What did you watch?I think it was 9 -1 -1.past Thursday, but the one before that.I'm not going to recall the date off the top of my head, but that's when, you know, you had told me that I'm sequestered and to no longer watch the trial or consume any of it.

So what were you watching?I had just been watching like the day -to -day, like the live stream and just, yeah.Why is that?I'm interested in the case.I honestly got into sort of watching trials from the Karen Reid trial.And then I wanted to watch this case.

And obviously, well, I worked at McLean.So I was curious to watch it.And when did you work at McLean?I started there in 2014.And then I left there at the in December 2021.So how many years is that?

Oh, seven, seven years, seven, eight months, I think.And what, what did you do?and I'm going to start with you.I'm going to start with you.What was the nature of your work?Would you do?

we are the ones to intervene and unfortunately, there are a lot of restraints that happen on those units and that's one of our main jobs.So the STU that you refer to.So I'll try to explain it.When I first started there in 2014, it was one unit with 28 beds.During the time I was there, there was a renovation.They expanded the unit.

It's a little confusing, but in 2016, I believe it was, it became two separate units operating the same way.So there's short -term unit north and then there's short -term unit south.south.And now south has 22 beds and north has 23.So that's why you'll see like, you know, AB1S or, you know, so they're the same unit, but there's a south side and a north side, if that makes sense.for a significant amount of time.

And for all those years that you worked there, did you work days, nights, weekends, holidays?So days and evenings, I preferred the evening shift, but you're supposed to do both, day and evening.I didn't do night.Sometimes you get mandated and you have to work an evening and a night shift, which is always pretty brutal, but I was day and evening.Now, how about the staffing at STU, your experience?So there's always during the I can sort of start with the week I guess there's always for mental health specialists and for nurses during the week for both for the day shift and then in the evening it's for mental health specialists and three nurses.

And then there's one.and a half, it's hard to explain.There's at night, there's three mental health specialists, and then there's one nurse on north and one nurse on south, and then there's a nurse that goes in between at night to help both sides.And how many beds are in the north and the south?North is 23, south is 22.And which one was Lindsay in?

South.I'm going to go ahead and open it up for questions.would be on staffing.Yeah.So the Department of Mental Health has to oversee all of the mental health facilities in Massachusetts, and they have specific requirements for safety regulation, for staffing ratios, how the unit has to be set up.use it to harm yourself.

So DMH, there's usually an annual or biannual inspection, and they will go around and they will look at charts, they will look at the unit, so they oversee everything.And do they mandate how many doctors or nurses or safety people would be on a particular unit?Yeah, they definitely have those requirements.And what's your understanding of those requirements?I believe, I don't want to say, I'm not sure exactly.I know McLean follows those regulations, but I guess there's potential that McLean might go higher than the ratio.

I'm not sure.So you have to at minimum have a certain amount of staff, but I'm not exactly sure.So are you aware in this case that McLean forwarded to the district attorney's office and the court a certain discovery indicating how many Doctors, nurses and safety workers.Did you have a chance to read that?I did.Is it your understanding that the requirements of the DMH and minimum staffing on, well, let's say on weekends and holidays, for example.

Is that change year to year?Is that pretty static?It's never changed.I mean, it didn't change from when I was there and with that document.So I guess that goes to what 2023 it was.So it had it didn't that was how it was when I started.

Well, I guess one caveat when it changed from a 2023.-bed unit to 22 and 23, there was, you know, different numbers because with 28 patients, you have to have, you know, a certain number of staff.But so since it's been 22 and 23 patients on those two units, the staffing has not changed from when I started there and from that document that I reviewed.You indicated that you, because of your interest, were watching the proceedings on this case.Yes.On what, YouTube or something?

Yeah.Yeah.And you had the occasion to hear the cross -examination of Patrick Clancy by the district attorney, is that right?Yes.You mean the direct?I'm sorry?

The direct.Sorry, you're right.It's been a long week.Okay.Direct examination.And the focus was on the fact that when Lindsay went into the hospital, it was on New Year's Eve.

Is that correct?Right.And that she was there for that holiday weekend.And then I think the following Monday was a holiday.Yes.And you heard the crossings, the direct examination of the district attorney asking about McLean being number one hospital in the country.

McLean having all of these services available to the inmates that are in there, treating them.offering all these fantastic programs on the holiday weekends, in the holidays, as opposed to what Patrick had testified to.Do you see that?We would re -ask that question, I think I understand, but...Okay, when you were watching on the television, you saw, or the computer, you saw the questioning of the district attorney of Patrick Clancy.Yep.

You heard Patrick Clancy make reference to the fact that his wife admitted herself intothe STU on a holiday weekend, New Year's.Was there all that weekend, into a holiday.And the district attorney then questioning Patrick, inquired as to whether he was aware that it was the best hospital in the country, that there were many doctors and nurses and staff available and programs available.And Lindsay wasn't interested in any of that, right?Yes, that's what I took from it.

Now, in your nine, eight, however many years of experience that you've had, is that what your understanding was in that unit?No, that's, yeah, no, that's not what I was understanding, no.So tell the judge what your understanding was from your experience, hands -on, day after day, working in the STU for all of those years.Right.But you also were a supervisor of the STU at one point.I actually wasn't.

I became a social worker there, so I guess you could One way to look at it is that, you know, the social worker and the psychiatrist, you are the treatment team.So, you're making all the decisions for the patients.And so, the nurses and the mental health specialists, I don't like to create a hierarchy, but they are operating underneath you.So, in a way, I'm supervising, but I'm not a, I was never a direct supervisor.You came out with a TikTok.I did.

a real or whatever you call it.Yeah, TikTok.And would you agree with me that you were pretty angry when you did that?Yeah, definitely emotional.Tell the judge, why were you emotional when you did that TikTok?Well, it is a lengthy TikTok.

It's about 10 minutes.And I was emotional because I felt like what was discussed in court was not aligned with what my experience was.I noted several things.I'll try to summarize some of them.There was mention that there's individual therapy on the unit.There is not.

There was mention of seeing a doctor every day.I felt like there was some misleading of that.You do see a doctor every day, but on the weekends and on a holiday, it's one doctor who's seeing all of the patients.The meetings can be as short as one minute.Many patients decline those meetings.And the doctor who's there on the weekend and holidays is seeing 23 patients.

So I felt it was misleading to indicate that there's sort of a in -depth doctor session when it's very brief.How about programs that are often like making things out of clay and crayons and stuff like that.Yes, there's there's clay on the unit.It's called model magic.It's a non toxic kid.It's, you know, for I mean, it's advertised for kids, but it's on the unit.

It's In the nursing station, it's out on the unit.There is a lot of coloring.There's a specific group that I saw in the documents I reviewed called Music and Mandalas.Mandalas are basically adult coloring books.The designs are kind of abstract.You could compare it to like looking through a kaleidoscope or something, and you color them in.

And Music and Mandalas is a group where you play music and the patients color.So you understand from watching the proceedings that you became emotional over is that Lindsay went in on New Year's Eve with some fairly serious symptomology, is that correct?Yes.And Patrick indicated that they were quite frankly, pretty bluntly disgusted with the help and the care that was allegedly offered to her, right?Right.And you were upset about what you felt was a misleading of this witness based on the questions that were asked, is that right?

Yes.And Patrick had made reference to the fact that she was doing coloring and she was in the groups that were sitting there dealing with the clay and basically they felt that it was not.that's what we're trying to do.providers aren't gonna happen over the weekend either.Now, one of the things that occurred just for the background is that your TikTok was observed by me, and I tried to reach out to you and couldn't find you.That's correct.

And then I had a private investigator, Bob Jones, hunt you down kind of, and ended up in front of your house.No, Bob and I were sort of chuckling about that, because he never ends up outside of my house, but the rest of it is all accurate.He wasn't outside of my house, but the rest of that was true.So he was able to locate you.He was able to talk to you.He was.

Yes.Get your contact information.Yes.Provide that to me.Yep.And as a result of that, I reached out to you and then you indicated that you initially somewhat reluctant, but then ultimately agreed to get involved and talk to the judge.

Yes.Yes.Now, the district attorney is objecting to your testimony, and I believe they're going to argue that the change from that one -year period, when did you leave working there?I want to say my last date was, like, December 18th.Since working there, you don't get a lot of holidays off, so out of all my time there, I said, I'm going to leave right before the holidays and be able to enjoy that.So I believe it was December 18th, but mid -December.

2021.2021.Yeah.And when was that?in there?January, what, December 31st, right?

She came in on New Year's Eve.20, what would that be?2022, right?Yeah.Two.Yeah.

So in your opinion, is there a change that is significant in the staffing in the nurse to patient ratio, in the safety issues, the crayons, the coloring and all of that.Is there any change from that one year that you left to the time that she was in there?From the records I reviewed as well, those are exactly the same staffing ratios and all the groups are the same.So there's no change whatsoever?Not from what I can tell from what I reviewed.Thank you.

Kamal.Good afternoon.Hello.So You are currently a social worker who does their own, a licensed independent clinical social worker, right?That's the license, or when you're saying that's really what you kind of go by.Yes, I'm a social worker by trade, you could say, but I'm practicing as a therapist.

And you do that virtually?Yes.So you don't have a brick and mortar where clients come and engage in therapy with you, right?No, rent is expensive.So right now I'm all virtual.And you indicated that in your time at McLean Hospital that you first started as a per diem, and that was as a mental health specialist, right?

I didn't start per diem there.I started at a 32 -hour position at the per diem.There's another position I held at McLean, which is called a community residence counselor.That was a per diem position.And then the social work position I took afterand before I went back to McLean that or sorry the short -term unit that was a per diem position.

So the per diem role that you had how long did you do that role?On which unit?I'm going to ask you a question.I'm going to ask you a question.I'm going to ask you a question.I'm going to ask you a question.

I'm going to ask you a question.I'm going to ask you a question.As well as a mental health specialist.Yep.And so you said, once you got your master's, you took on a role of clinical social worker there, right?So, yes, yes, I did.

And that was in September of 2019.Yes.And you said you had a chance to review the records that were sent over by McLean, right?Right.Now, when you were a social worker from September of 2019 to December of 2021, what was your schedule?So I would come in around 9, you could view it as sort of normal business hours.

My clinical rounds that I did with all the multidisciplinary staff was at 9 .55, so that was kind of a little bit of my start time, but generally probably like 9 to 5 you could say.And was that Monday through Friday?Yes, I did cover weekends on occasion.Social workers, you know, you're not required to, but it's kind of highly encouraged.So, you know, every once in a while, I would cover a weekend as a social worker.And you're aware that the records that came from McLean Hospital indicated

a day position that was Monday through Friday.while you would pick up shifts, the majority of your schedule was nine to five, Monday through Friday.Yeah.From 2019 to 2021.Yeah, I mean, I did regularly pick up weekends, but yes, primarily I was there during the week.Okay.

Now, you provided attorney Reddington with some kind of like typed up notes.Do you recall that?Yes.Where you outlined kind of what your experience was on the unit and how inpatients were how inpatient experiences went, like the schedule and that kind of thing.And you noted that as far as the treatment team, which you referred to yourself as a social worker, worked with a psychiatrist, right?And you identified that in your experience, there was three teams, red, green or blue.

Yes.But you are also aware that the records show that every day during the week, that the treatment team of a social worker and a psychiatrist, there was four social workers and four psychiatrists that were on shift.So where's the fourth?social work colleagues would have six.So it's not an even distribution of the threeyou know, some of the doctors and some of the social workers just carried a different number of caseload, so.

But your testimony today, after having now reviewed the records, is that it's always been four social workers, four doctors.Yeah, I'm not, I didn't say that there wasn't before.Well, we don't.That's why you're here, because we don't know.Yeah, I just I just thought I answered your question.So but yes.

And you came aware of this case by watching the trial, right?Yes.And so would you say that you were how many days of the trial did you watch all of them up until that point?At what point?What day?I'm not remembering the date exactly, last Thursday, not last Thursday, but the Thursday before.

What was the last content of testimony that you remember watching?I believe it was maybe Patrick's friends or, you know, I was aware that there were doctors testifying, you know, Mr. Reddington made sure I was not watching anymore and that there were, you know, doctors coming up that were particularly important for me to not watch.And you were asked by Attorney Reddington here about observing that testimony or the direct examination of Patrick.And I think he mentioned where it was referred to that McLean was the best hospital in the country.Do you recall that being the question that was asked of Patrick Clancy?I don't recall.

And in fact, the Commonwealth didn't ask about his opinions of the status of the hospital, but did just verify with reference to records whether or not he knew his wife participated in particular things that were contained within the records.Did you see that in the testimony?Yes.And so you're aware that the testimony actually was thator the question was, were you aware that she declined groups?Yes.

And that's based on records you've never seen, right?Correct.And as far as the contact with the staff and the doctors, meaning nurses or social workers or whatnot, you haven't reviewed any of those records, right?I have not.And so you don't know the extent you don't know the extent of what the interaction was with the nurse and the patient, do you?I mean, there are some general guidelines that you have to follow.

I can't tell you the content within them.But for example, mental health specialists, you're not supposed to meet with a patient longer than 20 minutes because you have other things to do.So I can't speak specifically to what happened in those conversations.But I know the general gist of how everybody's role works.But you, when you say everybody's role, did you ever perform the role of a nurse?No, but I work directly with them.

I'm operating on the job description.It says specifically you're under the direction of the nurse.So I worked directly with nurses.Do you go through the same training as a nurse?No.As far as your, what's your knowledge as a mental health specialist, fair to say the last time you were employed as a mental health specialist there and did that work yourself was in May of 2019.

Yep.And then you transitioned to being a social worker where you worked closely with a psychiatrist and primarily Monday through Friday.Yes.Psychiatrists, the nurses and the mental health specialists, you all really work together and you can only attest to.what you would put in a note, right, as far as your contact with the patient as a social worker?No, you have access to all the patients on the unit.

So I'm able and it's not a HIPAA violation to do that because we all work together.Sometimes I cover other social workers patients.So I do have access.You have access toall of the records in everybody's, every patient's file.So you can read everybody's notes.

I guess my question, and that probably was a bad question, but my question is to you.When you are the social worker for a patient on the treatment team that you've described, you enter the information into the note for the social worker that becomes part of the record.Correct.And those are your words, your observations, your contact.Correct.You don't write them for other people, do you?

No, but we have to follow a certain format.So, for example, we have to write a bio cycle And then we have a biopsychosocial note, which is a fairly lengthy assessment, but that's a social work.You know, I learned that in grad school, so I don't know how everybody writes their notes, but we have to follow a pretty strict format to write our notes.And is it your testimony that McLean requires only that each social worker spends a particular period of time or a max amount of time with each patient to do that?Yeah.I mean, I have eight patients on my caseload, so I have to see eight patients every day.

can spend with them because there's several other tasks I have to do.So you really can't spend a significant amount of time with your patients.That wasn't my question.My question was, does McLean tell you that you can only spend 5, 10, or 15 minutes with a patient?Yes, it's directly told from the people above me.It's something that's communicated in a way where you could sort of get in trouble if you're not doing that.

So yes, it comes directly from McLean.And do you have any information, having left there in 2021, that the same people supervising the social workers were giving those same instructions?I mean, no, I don't know that.Do you know anything about how many people were actually occupying beds between January 1st and January 5th of 2023?No, it obviously has a max of, but yeah, so I don't know how many patients were there, but you can have up to 22 there.So, yeah.

And you've also indicated in your notes to Attorney Reddington that sometimes the people that are there for a particular period of time have the ability to go out on passes for weekends.Does that, in your experience, does that tend to happen around holidays?Yes.And so you don't know between January 1st and January 5th of 2023 who might have been assigned to a bed there but out on a pass that weekend, do you?No, I'm not.I don't know what happened that weekend.

And that would affect how many people are actually occupying the beds would affect the ratio of staff to patient during that time period, right?If I'm understanding the question correctly, I mean, it's the same amount of staff there.Are you saying like they're meeting with patients?Right, it's the same amount of staff regardless because it's by shift, right?Right.So if the bed, the unit has 22 beds in it, but say five people are off on a pass for that weekend, then the the same staff that are there for the entire weekend have five less patients.

No, no, no, you're still assigned.Every patient has to be assigned to a mental health specialist and a nurse.And so when you go on a pass, there's a limit and day and evening shift like the limit of the passes is eight hours.So no matter what, you have to check in with your staff person before you leave for your pass and you have to check in with your assigned staff when you come back.So there's no patient who's not assigned to somebody.It's just they might not be on the unit the whole time when you're on your ship.

Okay, so if they're not, they might not lose a patient on their load, for instance, but that person isn't there that they have to check in with every so often or they have to check in with about groups or keep track of or meet with, right?If they're on a pass and they're out of the facility for eight hours, they're physically not present and that worker doesn't have eyes on them.Yeah, you only check in once per shift anyway.So if they're going, you check in with them before and when they come back, you check in with them after.But yes, you're not checking in with them when they're off the unit.And you don't know what the numbers were?

No, I don't.During that time period.I don't have any other questions.Thank you.All right.And I'll hear you on the motion.

You may step down.Thank you very much.Thank you.I think it's obvious that has the educational background, certainly has the experience.Interestingly enough, of that very unit that Lindsay was on that period of time, well aware of the staffing, indicated to you that the staffing ratio to patient, et cetera, has not changed according to the items that the government has brought here today.That at the time that she was there, it was on a weekend, she took, she indicated about the weekend staffing, the holiday staffing, indicated that they have these coloring programs and programs that Patrick was relating to.

and indicates the skeleton curl, if you will.in a sense, on that particular period of time in the holidays, which is very corroborative of what Patrick had indicated in his testimony.So I'm not looking to bring her in to disparage McLean Hospital.They've done a good job of that themselves.I'm bringing her in just to have evidence as to what Patrick's testimony was relating to what his wife went through when she was in McLean to corroborate the fact as opposed to what was raised on direct exam with the government when they were questioning him about all of these wonderful programs that she apparently was not interested in participating in, which is very, very, I would argue, improper inference for the jury to consider.All right.

Kamal?Your Honor, I would object to the witness.And even now, after the four deer, I think it's clear that the best evidence of what the defendant was provided by way of care, treatment, however you want to call it, is the record in and of itself.It's the record from McLean that documents each and every contact she had with each and every person that was on staff during the time period she was there.Now just to be clear, there's been some indication that she went there on the 31st of December, but the records are clear to say she was transported and she didn't arrive at McLean until the early morning hours of January 1st.So that's when the records start and they document her each and every day and each and every step of the way consistent with how Dr. Goodhart described the process of how you're intake and then how you go through the day and what the general schedule is in the contact with the treatment team.

This witness is offering no more information than what's contained within the record and no more information that's what's contained in the records that were just received for the trial subpoena.And I would suggest to you that the fact that she, in her last role as a social worker,from 2019 to 2021, where she was a day staff person that worked one day through Friday that wasn't there on the weekends, that she does have a limited amount of information.And it's attenuated, more attenuated than we initially believed from the dates in which the defendant was at this particular hospital.So I would suggest or I would object and argue that the best Evidence is the records and the records that now have been subpoenaed that can be admitted to identify the particular stuff.I'd also like to point out that Council's referring to offering this to rebut certain inferences or certain statements that the Commonwealth made in the direct examination of Mr. Clancy, but.

No one has said that McLean is a number one hospital.That wasn't the testimony.That wasn't the question before him.It was simply what he knew, what he observed, and if he knew, what was contained within the record.So there's been no presentation of evidence that would suggest that a person needs to come in to dispute that the groups are the groups.The court and the jury can see from the record what the groups were, and they can make their own decisions based on what they described them to be in the record if that was treatment or not treatment.

I don't believe that the commonwealth presented it as treatment.I believe the commonwealth presented it as resources available to the individual while they were there at the hospital.The treatment piece or the therapy comes from the psychiatrist, which this witness can't testify to because she's not.So I would object for her to being called as a witness for those reasons.All right, well, I'm looking at this really as a kind of two issues.First is late disclosure of the witness.

And I'm not that goes into a whole different analysis and also analysis under rule 403, which is relating to relevant evidence.And as that rule, proposed rule says, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury or by considerations of, well, that part doesn't apply.First off, I find this witness credible.I find that, and I appreciate her being willing to offer the information that she has, but that's not always the whole finding on this.And so under cases such as Taylor versus Illinois, Commonwealth versus Dunning, Commonwealth versus Steinmeier, a couple other cases, I have to look at a number of factors.The first is prevention of surprise.

Well, the Commonwealth has been aware of this issue for at least a week or so, so I'm not considering that evidence of bad faith.There's no bad faith they see from either side in naming this or calling this person at this time.There's the prejudice to the other party.I think there's just limited prejudice, if any, to the Commonwealth.However, though, the final two are the issues that I think are more relevant in this.One is the materiality of the testimony.

in this.And I find that there's limited materiality, that's hard to say, because mainly this witness hadn't worked there for a year.So there's at least a gap between when she worked there and when the relevant time period is here.There's also, I imagine, different personnel that are working on different shifts.And so there's kind of a limited value to that testimony.I also, I don't remember any

five -star type inferences.In fact, so I'm not going to, that's going to be measured by the jury, but I didn't see any mentions that this was a five -star facility.And then also the concern is, or the factor is the effectiveness of less severe sanctions.And I would find that the Records that have been brought in pursuant to the subpoena in the last couple of days from McLean's talks about the staffing levels on holidays and not on holidays.So if there's a question of whether or not there was a quote unquote skeleton crew that was on for those at least the first two days of this time that Miss Clancy was there, that's reflected in the records.They're also in the records here is a list of whatever programs were offered and also when they were offered.

So if there's a question of less programs being offered on a holiday than during the week, those are contained in the records.And so I'm going to deny the defendant's motion to call this witness, but I am going to allow the defendant, if the defendant wishes, to submit those McLean's records specifically regarding the staffing and the programs that are available, not just on that weekend, but for the week.And I think there's records in there for the week before, so there could be a comparison between what was available to Ms. Clancy during the week and what was available to her on a holiday weekend.So that's going to be my.finding.I'll issue a written ruling on this, but I just kind of wanted to give parties at least some idea, as well as the witness who's been here, I know a couple of days.

I just kind of wanted to thank her for that.So with that, we'll be in recess till 2 .15, and we'll come back and resume the trial, okay?Duly noted.Thank you.All right, Council.I would ask you to approach.

All right, sure.Everyone, thank you for your patience.And I'm going to ask you for some more patience.All right.Due to some an unforeseen circumstance, we're going to excuse you until tomorrow morning.All right.

This is not something we saw coming, but you're not to speculate about what it is.You're not to hold it against either side.It's just something that we have to deal with.All right.And so I'm going to excuse you.until tomorrow morning.

I'm going to remind you, as I have every night for the last number of weeks, don't do any research about this case.Don't talk about it.Don't read anything.Don't watch anything about this case or similar cases.And with that, we'll bring you back here.We will do what we have to deal with, and we'll get right back on track.

We are still well within the timeline that I gave you regarding this case.That's just something we can't control.So I'm gonna excuse you till tomorrow with my thanks for your patience, and I'll see you tomorrow morning.All right, thank you.All right, here we can be seated.Yeah, anything we need to address before tomorrow morning?

All right, so we will be in recess till tomorrow morning at 9 o 'clock.Thank you.Thanks for watching Courtroom Confidential Live Trials.My name is Joshua Ritter.I spent over a decade as a prosecutor in the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office before entering private practice as a criminal defense attorney.If you want to learn more about what you watched today, join me on our main channel, Courtroom Confidential, where I break down the testimony, evidence, and strategy from both sides of the courtroom.

We're live every Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday with ongoing legal analysis and trial breakdowns.Follow the link in the description to subscribe.