Two HUGE Mistakes Rock the Lindsay Clancy Trial (Trial Day 15)

that they should be left alone.Suzanne, the mother of Patrick Kilansi, has surpassed someone who did not like the extent of the harm that this defense witness has suffered in the case of Lindsay Kilansi.Hello everyone to a witness, and sometimes there is a witness you just have to leave him alone.You just have to accept that they are not Suzanne Kilansi, the mother of Patrick Kilansi, one of those witnesses who have been touched by them, In my opinion, it is very strong.You might expect Suzanne Killency to hate Lindsay.At least, you might think that she will at least be in an internal conflict about her feelings towards Lindsay right now.

Suzanne Clancy did not have much to say on behalf of the defense.In other words, she did not do anything fundamentally to the case.She was mostly there to show the jury that Clancy's family does not blame Lindsay.They support her.

Did you find that Lindsay was always interested in improving and meeting the doctors?

Certainly, and in a big way.When you have a witness like Suzanne Kilensi, she is in my opinion a character that cannot be touched, or at least she should be.She is a witness who has empathy, she did not commit any mistakes, and I think that her attack will be a blatant mistake.This makes you look like an overbearing and evil lawyer, and it is a sign that a lawyer does not suit the court.However, this is exactly what the claimant did.Suzanne is the one who connected Lindsay to her contact in South Shore, Poole's nurse.

The claimant suggested that Suzanne's relationship with Poole's nurse is the reason behind Lindsay and Patrick's call for a civil case against all Lindsay's mental health care providers.care providers, with the exception of nurse Boole.Isn't it true that Julie Boole is one of the few doctors who dealt with the claimant, and she is the only one whose name has not been mentioned personally in the civil case?I'm not sure.The appeal also pointed out some points about whether Lindisi truly trusts Suzanne Kilansi.For example, the appeal pointed out that the children have not yet come to Suzanne's house.

So, has staying there been a priority for them at any time?

We decided together that the best thing for them is to stay in their family, in their home and with all their belongings.Lindsay's father was very active in staying with them and helping them.Therefore, the best decision was to stay at home in their family.

So, before November 2022, did you and your husband have to stay there in order for Drake and Lindsay to be able to leave?The cat didn't stay in their house for a long time.It seems that the claim is trying to sow discord between Lindsay and Patrick, and even between them and the parents.It seems that Lindsay didn't need help to the extent that she was ready to accept it from Susan.But the blow to the case, in my opinion, was the news of Susan that Lindsay spoke ill of her to her psychological therapist.Did you know that Lindsay told one of the therapists that she was not close to Kika Ashar?

I did not know that.No.And she said that she does not allow nannies in general to monitor their children.I used to monitor the children.Good.But do you realize that the nurse told you that?

No.Are you aware that the nurse told you that she has no specific reason and that they do not bother me about that either?No.I did not know that.about that.There is no reason, there is no reason at all for my saying this to Suzan.

When Suzan told the Law Enforcement Agency that she was close to Lindsay and close to the family, I remembered what she said to the processor and I think many lawyers will remember that as well.So why did Suzan say that?It is a shameful and humiliating matter here on the platform of witnesses in public.And what does that add to the case of the claim?Al -Muhallafeen knows exactly what Lindsay said, and the time has come for an incident to occur between Suzanne and Lindsay.Suzanne is indeed on the witness stand and testifies in favor of the defense, but the claim has exceeded a separate limit in responding to Suzanne.

Suzan came back to remember last Christmas when they were all with us.Here's what happened.Do you remember the Eftar meal on Christmas Day?Yes.Was that at their house or somewhere else?At their house.

Good.And what did you do after Eftar?We went to church.Wow.Is it fair to say that you have seen before that Eftar was great?Yes.

And that the church was beautiful?Yes.And in fact, the preacher told you that it was great and that she was happy to go to church that day?On Christmas Eve?Yes.You did that.

Now, are you an active member of the Catholic Church?Yes.So you realize that murder is considered a deadly sin.

Dear lawyer, can I see you here?

While watching this, I was in a state of complete amazement, like a movie, alone in the house.I can't believe I asked that to the priest.I was completely astonished that she asked this question.This was, in my opinion, a blatant mistake.It is clear that this annoyed the judge.She said, let's all go up to here now.

And I think the plaintiff thought this was a way to show that she was wrong.Perhaps Suzanne was worried that if she thought that Lindsay had committed a murder, then Lindsay had committed a fatal mistake.Therefore, Suzanne wanted Lindsay to be acquitted because she was not guilty of a crime, because the psychological burden of dealing with the idea that Lindsay was a killer and committed a fatal mistake was greater than possible.But this is simple.There is a very big opportunity for the presence of Catholicism in the Church of the Apostles, and the claimant answers very well that she has lost three grandchildren, but she is still forgiving and kind.Therefore, I am astonished that they asked this question.

The judge returned and presented to the Judiciary the so -called correctional instructions.The video of the first words of the press coverage did not meet completely, but you will understand the intended meaning.Here is what happened.

Good.And this means that you should not take that into account for any reason or purpose.Understood.Good.Oh lawyer.

I thought these remarks might stop at that point after the judge took care of the matter at the platform, but they did not stop.The claim was that Suzanne was not there to support Lindsay during that last month when Lindsay was in such a crisis.Were you at home a lot between January 7 and 24?I do not remember.Do you remember that you mentioned previously that you were not at home?I do not remember.

Perhaps the public prosecutor indicated that this witness did not have much information about that last month, but she told the jury that she did not have much information about what happened in the last month.The public prosecutor added that Patrick may also have not been concerned about Lindsay.It is no exaggeration to say that he left her in a mental health clinic and then went for a walk until I forced him to come back to pick her up.I went to the women's and nursing hospital.So this is the day he left her at home and went for a walk and then came back.Isn't that so?

I think so.From my point of view, Suzanne Blancy was not a witness who should be treated harshly.I think this style results in the opposite with a witness like Suzanne.But the defence came to save the claim by making a bold mistake on his part.Dr Laposada was an expert in the defence and talks, among other things, about how Linsky -Glancy was injured when she came out of the second floor window in her house.The defense says that this was a attempt by Lindsay to end her life.

The claim is that Lindsay did not try to end her life, but the truth is that she cut her nape and neck, took pills, jumped out of the window, and almost died twice that night.So, will this argument win the case?And is it very important in any case?The question is whether she was criminally responsible for what she did to the children or not.and not if she had tried to end her life.But Dr. La Posada was there to present the defense position that Lindsay's injuries to her neck and neck were real and that she was trying to commit suicide.

As Dr. La Posada also said, if Lindsay did not jump, it was enough from the window of a bedroom.She was pushed to the outside with her head first.Dr. Laposida witnessed that the first cervical vertebra of Lindsay exploded when she hit her head on the ground.Then her lower vertebrae were torn.This is what hit her in the leg.She is always injured in the leg.

So I was injured as a result of bending.She was also injured in the leg.in the right back vertebrae.You can see its shoulders as they hit the ground in the board on the left.This may have caused the fracture of the first right vertebrae from behind.It also caused her neck to bend to the detriment of her cervical vertebrae and some of her thoracic vertebrae.

The public prosecutor insisted that the evidence indicates that Lindsay did not hit her head.And you are saying that it fell with a force that led to the explosion of the first cervical vertebra, then broke other vertebrae in its back and broke its ribs.Isn't that so?

Yes.It is just the force of the fall of a free body.Yes.Its head was intact.The force moved to the first cervical vertebra, i .e.

through its head.which is a very common result when you drop your head down and bump into the ground.

I present to you here a picture of the top of the accused's head.There are no blood stains.There is no blemish.Isn't that so?We only see her hair.There is no blood on that whitish white spot.

Isn't that so?

Okay.I don't see what's under her head.But this is not important to understand that she actually fell with her head down.

The doctor dealt with those arguments, but she withdrew when asked about her testimony in another case dating back to 2011.This was an excellent response from the public prosecutor and an exciting search for admiration for finding this case, especially with a very accurate testimony.I don't think the Judiciary will make its decision based on whether Lindisi tried to end her life that night, or whether she jumped out of the window or jumped.Rather, they will make their decision based on what if she suffers from a mental illness and lacks the ability to realize that what she was doing was wrong and that she could have done the right thing instead.And for this reason, he wants to call for evidence about the time it took to kill each child.If the murder of each child took several minutes, that would significantly double the child's fear, as well as the time it could take for Lindsay to regain her consciousness and stop what she was doing.

The claimant wanted to clarify this testimony, and when they called one of their witnesses, the medical examiner, to the witnesses' platform, they asked a series of questions about the time it could take.But from the response of the public prosecutor, It seems that the medical examiner did not provide them with the certificate they were expecting.Then the claim was made by one of the investigators, who told the Judiciary what the legal doctor had told him in a previous time around the time that each child could be killed by a knife.The defense objected.They discussed the matter on the side, but perhaps the defense argued that it was a word conveyed, a rumour.That was an acceptable point for the defense to take.

And of course, the witness of the investigator was not as strong as she would have been if she had come from the legal doctor himself.But as you will see, the defense himself saw all this as evidence of the claim, and it was very bad.This went on for about 15 or 20 minutes, because the defense tried to make amends for what had happened, but it ended up being worse.It started when the prosecution asked Dr. Laposada about a case in which she testified 15 years ago.Dr. Laposada said she does not remember what she said when she testified.that case, which is not surprising at all, of course.

But the public prosecutor said, but this is medical knowledge.Of course, you still have your medical knowledge.At that moment, Dr. Laposada felt the need to prove herself.And so I explained and presented all kinds of details about the worst defense case.For her, as a legal doctor, this seemed natural.But for the audience and the opponents, it was not like that at all.

I will give you a small sample only.This went on for a long time.A woman killed her 8 -year -old daughter by suffocation.So, in that case, you did not witness that the matter was delayed from 5 to 10 seconds.You witnessed that it was delayed from 10 to 20 seconds.and that if there was any resistance, he may take a longer time, isn't that so?

Ahin, yes.You also asked me in the same trial, Doctor, the question that was asked to you in that trial was, but just by the occurrence of the blindness, do you agree with me that it was necessary to continue the pressure, whether by suffocation or cramping or chest pressure, for two to three minutes in a continuous manner while the child was unconscious?Correct.And you answered, I think this is a fair statement.Is your medical knowledge still the same?

Yes, that is a different case.There was no bandage.He was strangled with a tool.It was a manual strangle.

In both cases, you are talking about the pressure of the neck, which causes the loss of oxygen and blood, correct?

Yes, there are many ways that can happen.And the method of applied pressure is very important to understand the time it takes for a person to lose consciousness.

Do you understand what I mean?This does not help the defense.In fact, the witness is talking about the most dangerous case for the defense, which is the kidnapping of children.This is the worst truth in the case, in terms of defense, and it is a fact that they prefer to run away from it, the training ropes around the necks of the children of the Clancy family, and the matter was overshadowed temporarily.This witness clarifies the long claim that overshadowed that, and the witness added more details about what happened.

In order for a person to die or have a brain death, physiologically, to lose consciousness within 5 to 10 seconds, when you are unconscious but you haven't died yet.Then the blood pressure must continue continuously to kill the brain.Correct, then.Yes.This is what happens and this is what happened to the children of the Kilansi family.The bandages were wound around their necks.

They lost consciousness within 5 to 10 or maybe 20 seconds.At least less than 20 seconds, because he was suffocating with a bandage, not a manual suffocation.So there was an immediate pressure and loss of consciousness within 10 seconds, then death within 5 to 10 minutes after that.With constant pressure?Yes.With constant pressure around the neck?

Yes.Because he choked.Thank you.Not manually.

This is the nightmare of the worst defense.So, the defense tried to save the situation.But it made things worse as the doctor continued to speak.

Choking with a bandage in exchange for manual choking.Tell us, from your point of view, what does that mean?

Good.They are completely different.Hand cramping means that a person did not use his hands and pressed on the sides of the neck.Good.Hand cramping is a hand cramp.Cramping means that you stopped the outflow of blood from the brain, while the spinal cord continues to pump blood to your brain, but it cannot circulate through the vagus nerve.

Therefore, with continuous pressure, blood cannot enter because it cannot exit.It is like a pipe that disappears from consciousness within 5 to 10 seconds, but with continuous pressure, your brain dies.Therefore, the difference between manual pressure and connection is that manual may be intermittent.

I want you to look at the position of my defense lawyer.He was beaten two times while standing and two times away from the witness.The language of a strong body expresses dissatisfaction with what is said and rejected.And this is a very bad thing for the defense because it reminds the jury of the extent of the absurdity of what really happened.This is not what the defense wants.The call for a resumption of interrogation was resumed, and through a clear and clear display, things got worse for the defense.

The defense succeeded in making Dr. Laposada agree that Lindsay may not have been forced to continue the pressure.Perhaps as soon as the connection was established, she could have left.He wants to defend that because the alternative is an idea that is frankly unbearable.It was necessary to stay there and continue the pressure.The public prosecutor pointed out that the tie was not tied around the neck.It was only wrapped.

Then he took out the actual tie and made a simple explanation inside the courtroom.So when you wrap the tape around the child's neck several times and leave it there, I think you can't see that from your place, but it simply broke.It didn't stay in the shape of a circle.Yes, you kind of saw what you did.So what was that?I said I saw that.

I saw it.So leave it there and break.Isn't that so?Yes, I did not do it to cover up, of course.Yes, in general, it was tough on the defense.No matter how much the defense earned from this witness, it paid a terrible price in return.

They spent 20 minutes in the middle of the defense's case discussing the worst possible case for them, which is forced labor and time.it takes to kill three children.The defense also presented other medical experts.The first is Dr. Donald Kunde.He is an expert in medicine.I will move directly to the symptoms that occur from it, which may point to a brain, which will clearly affect the medicine you should take.

On November 27, 2022, the practicing nurse Julie Bullen -Lindsey stated that she was detached from reality.and that it was not in contact with reality.Do you remember that?Yes.And what are the symptoms of that?Is separation and lack of contact with reality one of the mental symptoms?

Certainly it can be so.Separation may mean that people feel that the things around them are not real.Correct.And this is a very serious feeling, isn't it?Indeed.And this is a common thing, unfortunately, among single women suffering from postpartum dementia, isn't it?

Certainly it may be so, yes.And what are the other symptoms of postpartum dementia, sir?Well, dementia in general means the inability to distinguish between what is real and what is not.Therefore, a person with a mental illness can be affected by delusions, which are firm wrong beliefs.They may think, for example, that God has commanded them to do something.Well, they can also be affected by hallucinations sometimes.

About hallucinations Most people are affected by auditory hallucinations, not visual hallucinations.Is this correct?Auditory hallucinations mean hearing sounds, don't they?Yes.

Dr. Kondi also said that it may have been lindesia.afraid of doctors' reports of her severe symptoms in reality.

As Kilansi mentioned, she was worried that her children would be taken away from her, perhaps by the administration of the children and the family if she had very severe symptoms.Another thing is that the professional registration offices of health care workers sometimes look negatively at people who have undergone treatment for certain psychological illnesses.Therefore, they may have been concerned about their own medical license, but this is just an assumption.So there are other reasons that may make a person worried about the health care provider's news or the authorities' obligation to report that they hear voices.Isn't that so?Nam.

One of the issues in this case was a suggestion to claim that Lindsay's condition was improving throughout January, so that people did not expect what happened around her.He did not think she was in a bad condition.Dr. Kundy explained that the brain can appear suddenly and can be very intermittent.

What does that mean?

It means that the regression can start and end, then a period of time passes, it may be days or weeks or months, In the response, the claimant pointed out that Lindsay had not heard any of the medical services provided to her except after the death of the children.But you realize that Jennifer Tafs never heard a sound.The only time she said she heard that voice was on January 24, 2013.Is this an accurate statement?

Correct.

The last witness, who is still on the witness stand, is Dr. Zizel, who saw Lindsay in the hospital after about 10 days of child murder.Dr. Zizel said that lawyer Redington, the current defense lawyer, obtained a court order to be able to interview Lindsay.

At that stage, Did you and I meet and talk about this issue at all?

No.

What was the reason that prompted me to ask you to go to the hospital?

I was worried about her mental health in view of the dangerous event that happened just a few days ago.I was worried that she did not have any power to receive visitors.No visitors were allowed to meet her, from family members to friends and even priests.No one was able to see her.

This witness also mentioned that Lindsay was led to the bed by metal bars.Armed police officers were stationed outside the hospital room.She remembered what happened.But Dr. Zizil said her memories were distorted and mysterious.She didn't know where she was.and allowed her to use his mobile phone to contact her husband, Patrick, in defense of what he described as just human compassion.

The prosecutor suggested that maybe when she contacted Patrick on his mobile phone and said that she heard our voices, maybe all of that was part of the beginning of a defense plan on how to defend Lindsay in this case.The witness denied that.

Did you ask Lindsay to forget the lie or invent that and claim that she was hearing our voices?

No.Have you heard any conversation or made any suggestions to her at all to say that she hears our voices or anything from this tribe?Certainly not.

Witness Anne Lindsay thought she was suffering from a mental illness.She said she was afraid to tell anyone about what she heard because she thought she might lose her children.So, after the 15th day, I think that both sides have what they regret.The prosecution risked a lot in pursuing Patrick's mother, Suzanne Kilansi.But the defense may have been hit harder because his personal attorney spent nearly 20 minutes presenting a testimony to the prosecutor about one of the most harmful cases in the trial, as well as the death of these children and what the matter requires for their death.Will this change the view of the commission on the defense of insanity?

We are only a few days away from knowing that.If you found this analysis useful, there is a pressure on the like button and subscribe for more.I will be back tomorrow with everything that is new in the trial of Lindsay Kielansi.See you then.