Lindsay Clancy Case: Disturbing Timeline Emerges

Which one? Which one of these two? >> Uh, Miss Sprag. >> Miss Brag. Okay. You spoke to Jen Sprag. And what did you say to. >> Sprag? >> Was it? >> Attorney Sprag. >> You spoke to Jen Sprag and what did she. tell you? >> Attorney. >> A tense exchange in court and a. prosecution expert delivering a. devastating conclusion about Lindseay. Clancy's state of mind. >> It is my opinion within a reasonable. degree of medical certainty that Miss. Clancy was criminally responsible. Now, Clancy's defense team says a voice.

commanded her to kill her three. children, but the prosecution argued she. knew exactly what she was doing. And. today, we heard some incredibly. compelling testimony that could decide. which story the jury believes. Welcome. to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. We are back yet again continuing our. coverage of the woman that has a lot of. people talking, has a lot of mothers. around the country talking right now.

I'm referring to Lindsay Clancy, the. Massachusetts mom accused of fatally. strangling her three children back in. January of 2023. Now, before we get into. the testimony, okay, something happened. in this courtroom that I will tell you. you do not see every day, let alone in a. case like this. This is something that. got an audible reaction out of the jury. This is according to our reporter Sierra. Gillespie. She was there inside the. courtroom to hear it. She's going to. come on later and talk to us about it. But what was that moment? Well, it was a.

defense attorney asking a prosecution. expert how he even got access to. Lindseay Clancy's family. Take a listen. >> I contacted the um district attorney and. I. >> Which one? Which one of these two? >> Uh Miss Brag. >> Miss Brag. Okay. You spoke to Jen Sprag. and what did you say to. >> what was it? >> Attorney Sprag. >> You spoke to Jen Sprag and what did she. tell you? >> Attorney Sprag. >> She told me that she would uh reach out.

and attempt to uh see if if I could. interview uh Mr. Clansancy and um and. Miss Clancy's. family. >> Okay. So, did you do that? Did you reach. out to her mother? Did I reach out? >> Yeah. >> No. And. >> did someone tell you that she wouldn't. speak to you? >> Yes. >> And when was this, sir? Two about two. months ago. >> I did not call the mother. I did not. call the mother. >> I did not call the mother. Who told you.

that you couldn't talk to the mother? >> Uh, Miss Sprag. >> Attorney Sprag, please. >> Right. Attorney Sprag. >> Now, when Attorney Sprag called you and. said you cannot talk to the mother, did. it ever occur to you to reach out to me? you're being objective and all. >> No, >> the jurors actually had a laugh out of. that. And the way I look at it is. sometimes in a case that is so intense. and there's so much pressure on, sometimes an audible laugh kind of can.

ease it a little bit. Um, and remember. what's at stake here. This is a case. that has been a battle over who gets to. tell the story, which version jurors. should believe. Because Lindsey Clancy's. defense is not that she didn't do this. There is a consensus that she did this. The question is, should she be held. criminally responsible? The defense has. been arguing that as a result of. postpartum psychosis, she could not. appreciate the wrongfulness of her.

actions, that she could not conform her. behavior to the law, that this was not a. voluntary, conscious, intentional. decision. Now, Lindseay Clancy's defense. has been hinging on something very. important. We've talked about it before. This alleged voice, a male voice that. allegedly told her, commanded her to. kill her children. But this week, the. prosecution called their final rebuttal. witness, Dr. Gregory Satof, a forensic.

psychiatrist who works with the FBI's. behavioral analysis unit. He said that. the voice doesn't add up, that it. started and stopped at convenient times, came with no delusions, didn't match. anything he's seen in thousands of. patients. And at the same time, the. prosecution's own expert witness. conceded that Clancy was having severe. adverse reactions to the medications. that she was prescribed, that she was. getting worse, that the drugs might have. made things worse. So, what does that. mean for the jury? What are they.

supposed to do with this? Well, according to Massachusetts law, a person. can be suffering from a mental disease. or defect and still be criminally. responsible. You have to show that you. couldn't appreciate what you were doing. You couldn't control yourself. And we'll. talk about this a little bit more. But. the prosecution claims that Lindsey. Clancy could do both of those things. And we're going to explain why. And. later we're again, we're going to hear. from our long crime reporter, host of. the podcast scandal, Sierra Gillespie. She's been doing an amazing job. She's. been in that courtroom every day. watching these witnesses take the stand,

watching the jury react, watching. Lindseay Clancy, watching everything. unfold. She's been her eyes and her. ears, and she has seen the moments that. maybe don't make it into the testimony, and she's going to tell us what it's. been like to be inside that courtroom. So, before we go any further, I also. want to let you know this is a big case. that we're following here on Sidebar. We. follow a lot of big cases, and what we. do, I don't know if you're aware of. this, is we set up this section on our. Long Crime Plus app. It's called the. case file section. And we are opening up. the evidence vault on these major cases.

so you can inspect the raw body cam. footage and the 911 calls and the crime. scene photos and the full trial tapes. firsthand because we're kind of limited. in how much we can show you here on the. show. And you also get adree streaming. of all your favorite long crime and. court TV shows. You can see the full. picture for an entire month free. Head. on over to longrimeplus.com. Enter promo code sidebar. You can start. exploring today. Hope you can check it. out. Okay, so I want to start again with. Dr. Gregory Sadhoff. He is a forensic. psychiatrist. He's worked with the FBI's. behavioral analysis unit since 1996.

He's treated thousands of patients with. psychosis. He's evaluated women in. prison who have killed their children. And he was the prosecution's final. rebuttal witness. There's a strategy. here. Primacy recency, right? This is. going to be one of the last things the. jury hears before they go into their. deliberation. Sure, there'll be closing. arguments, but in terms of witness. testimony, in terms of what they have to. remember, this is the prosecution's. case. the prosecution's burden. This is. who they wanted to end things with. So, with all that said, the defense tried to. fight back. The defense tried to.

undermine him before he even started. They pointed out that he's not. boardcertified in forensic psychiatry. because he never did a one-year. fellowship. Now, he pushed back. He said. he's had decades of on the job training, even courses at the University of. Virginia's Institute for Law, Psychiatry, and Public Policy, that he's. even taken a board review course. So, the judge did allow him to testify. And. then he told the jury what Lindseay. Clancy told him about the voice. >> She said it was um a man's voice. It was. very clear. It was um external. Other.

words came from outside of her head. Um. that it was constant. So this phrase, this is your last chance. you have to. kill your kids and then kill yourself. was something that was repeated over and. over and over and over again during that. period that she uh strangled her. children. >> and what you've learned in all your.

training and schooling. Um is it typical. u for someone in psychosis to hear a. voice only one time, never before, never. after? >> No. And B again based on your training. experience, is it typical for someone in. psychosis to um. hear a a voice that's constant rather. than intermittent? >> No, that is not typical. >> And what does it mean the difference.

between a constant voice and an. intermittent voice? >> Well, an intermittent voice would would. come and go. Um, it wouldn't necessarily just keep. playing over and over again uh as if it. were on a tape, which uh Miss Clancy. told me that it was a voice. It's the. same thing in in the same tone repeated. over and over and over um until u she.

had strangled Ken. And is it typical. based on your training experience for. someone to hear command hallucinations. and then for them to stop abruptly? >> No. Um committing the act is not. curative of the voice. I've I've not. I've not ever seen that. an FBI trained. psychiatrist who's treated thousands of.

patients and he says he's never seen a. voice that stops the moment the act is. done. But Dr. Sof didn't stop there. He. testified about something else that. undercuts the defense's narrative. The. order in which Lindsay Clancy killed her. children. Miss Clancy told me that. she after the phone call with her. husband, she returned the call, that. that was when she took Dawson down the.

steps. um into her husband's office um to. strangle him. And um I asked Miss Clancy. about. um what she remembered about h how she. what she said to to Dawson to to get him. to go down the steps um and leave, you. know, his sister and brother upstairs.

um and. was there resistance, verbalization, you. know, etc. crying and she said she could. not recall that. She could only recall. bringing him down the steps and then. strangling him. And then she repeated that the next um. um child was Kora that she went back. upstairs and did not recall how she.

got Kora down the steps, how Kora came. down the steps. um but then brought her. into a different area, the kind of a. living room area in the basement. and strangled Kora. And then lastly, that she went up to get Ken. And I asked. her, I said, "Where was where was Callen. um upstairs?" Um and she said, "Well, maybe in a play pen, you know, often, you know," she said she couldn't really. remember. But then bringing Callen down.

and um he was the last child to be. strangled all during this time where. this voice is over and over over again. saying, "This is your last chance. Um, you have to kill the children before you. kill yourself. >> Dawson first, then Kora, then Ken. Let. me tell you from a legal point of view. why this is so significant. If this was. a case where a mother, let's say, put. all of her children in a car and had it. running in the garage, carbon monoxide.

poisoning. That would be one thing. There is an argument, and I'm curious if. you're going to see it from the. prosecution in their closing arguments, where they could say three separate. acts, deliberation, intentionality, right? It's those different moments that. point to murder as opposed to a. psychosis that took over not in just one. moment, not just in one act, but here, three separate acts. That might be tough.

to convince a jury. Maybe. Now, this. witness says that Lindseay Clancy. remembered the order, but when Dr. Sadhoff asked her how she got the kids. to the basement and how they were. reacting, she couldn't recall. So, the. prosecution's other point being if she. was in a psychotic fog, how did she. remember the precise order of the. killings? Right? But the defense's point. to this is that's what disassociation. looks like. She was acting on autopilot. She remembered the act itself, but not. the details of how she set it up. And.

the defense seemingly has evidence to. back that up, including from the. prosecution's own experts. Because. before this doctor ever took the stand, the jury heard from another prosecution. expert. I'm talking about Dr. Kirk. Halburn. He'd already testified that the. voice was convenient. You know, a win. for the Commonwealth. But then the. defense got their turn to question him, to cross-examine him. And that's where. things got interesting because under. cross-examination, Dr. Halun conceded. something. the defense has been pointing. to from the very beginning. >> Do you believe that she had adverse.

reactions. >> sustained as the form? >> Do you believe that she had adverse. reactions. >> to the medication that she had been. prescribed since uh September? >> Did she have adverse reactions, sir, up. to the time of late January when you had. no problem answering questions for the. DA yesterday? Did she have adverse. reactions into late January? I believe. she was having adverse reactions from. the time she began taking the medication.

in October up to and including January. >> Do you think that the treatment that she. got from Tus and Gelatada was good? >> Objection. >> Overruled. >> I don't know. That's not something that. I evaluated as part of uh my evaluation. of Miss Clansancy. You told us that she. stated that she was disconnected from. her body. Isn't that correct? >> That's how she described feeling. Yes. >> Could not relate to people. Felt that.

she was in a disassociative state. Isn't. that right? >> Yes, that is right. >> Thought that the medication was. resulting in this type of development in. her life. Correct. She felt the medications were. contributing to this. >> Yes, that's correct. So if if a patient. goes to a doctor and says, "I'm having. these intrusive thoughts. I'm having. dark thoughts. I'm having thoughts of. and and at the same time frame in. December,

>> she's talking about harming the. children." Correct. >> She said that those thoughts had come to. her at times. >> At times? >> Yes. >> And she mentioned that to her husband, didn't she? >> That's what she said. Yes. She mentioned. Did you talk to her husband about it? >> Yes, I did talk to her husband. >> Tell you that she said that to him? >> Yes. >> A couple of times she said it to him, right?

>> A couple of times she said, "I'm having. thoughts." And he he asked her, "Give me. more detail if you could." And she said, "They're just thoughts. It's not a. plan." That sort of thing. You got this. girl living in her house with her kids. saying she's having dark thoughts, saying she's thinking of harming the. children. And and and. Patrick's response, according to your. testimony, is just basically just power. through it. You'll be okay. >> Objection. >> No,

>> no, that was not his response as he. described it. He asked more questions. because one of the things that she had. been dealing with for some time are. thoughts about hurting herself and. possibly the kids. And so. so what he what he did was try to get. more information about uh about the. details. Do you he asked questions that. a mental health professional would also. ask which is how often? Uh what are they.

like? Do you have a plan? Uh things like. that. and she pretty consistently said, "No, I don't have a plan." Uh, and it. this is how often it happens, but. they're just thoughts. >> So, that's let's let's talk about that. because that's a that's apparently the. the standard reaction if a patient comes. to a doctor and says, "I'm having dark. thoughts, intrusive thoughts. I'm. thinking of hurting myself. I'm thinking. of hurting the kids." You say, "Do you.

have a plan?" That's the question you. ask, right? That's one of the questions. that you ask. >> Person says, "Nah, I don't have a plan. I'm just having these thoughts." And you. just basically move on. Give them more. drugs. You go. >> No, you don't move on. You're aware that. the person has reported having those. thoughts and you've appraised the risk. And the risk has to do with things like. uh how imminent is it? How serious is. it? Are there means? Uh how is there a. plan? What sort of detail is involved?

and so on. And so basically what you. what you do at that point is you take it. seriously but you also try to to to. describe how seriously to take it. Uh. so okay uh would you agree sir that she. was complaining through December about. these unwelcome and internal thoughts? Is that correct? >> Yes. >> So what do you take from that? The. prosecution's own expert agreed. Right. Lindseay Clancy was getting worse, not.

better. She was suffering. She was. having thoughts of harming herself and. her children. But Dr. Hobron still said. she was criminally responsible. And when. defense attorney Kevin Readington asked. him if the treatment she received was. good, Halron couldn't say yes. This is. what's going to complicate it for the. jury. I've said it before, I'll say it. again. I think this is going to be a. long deliberation process. I don't even. know if the juryy's going to get on the. same page. I I'm curious whether or not. this could be a mistrial. And then what. happened earlier today? Got to talk. about this. So, defense attorney Kevin. Readington actually did get Dr. Sof to.

concede something very important again. under cross-examination. Would you agree. with me, sir, that one of the. unfortunate components. of a woman who has had a baby and is. suffering from postpartum depression and. living with it, that can on a dime turn. into postpartum psychosis very quick, right? >> It can be rapid.

And you indicated sir that there. according to the DSM is a 4-week cut off. for symptomology and then you mentioned. that there are others is it the world. health organization that you said that. talks about a year. >> correct. >> there are some other uh psychiatric. organizations that talk about different. periods of time 6 weeks 8 weeks right. >> correct. >> um.

so when a woman is dealing with these. symptoms and goes to a doctor or even. you when you're treating as you. indicated 15 20 years ago that you're. treating her. >> Is it important to take a blood test? >> It can be based on what? >> Based on the presenting symptoms uh. based on the the history um based on u. medical medical history. For example, if. someone has recently been in a hospital.

um and been treated, uh there may not be. a necessity for drawing blood again uh. depending on the types of symptoms that. you encounter. It's not um a standard. that everyone who presents to a. psychiatrist. requires blood tests. So if you're a. psychiatrist who's been practicing. private practice for about I don't know. a month maybe two and is prescribing.

antiscychotic medications. um selective serotonin reuptake. inhibitor medications. benzoazipene medications to a young. woman who is complaining of what the. young woman perceives to be difficulties. postpartum. Is it important to take a. blood test to find out. what if any prescription drugs they have. on board in their system.

>> to check and find out. Did you say what. drugs are on board? >> Yeah. I mean, you're treating this. patient, right? They're coming off the. hypothetically with you, but you're. they're coming off the street to see a. psychiatrist for help, right? >> Yes. And if they're already been. prescribed drug after drug after drug by. a particular doctor with their two. months of robust experience, is it a. fair statement that you should take a. blood test of that person?

>> Well, it really depends on the the. medication. >> Did they do a thyroid test on Lindsay? >> No. >> So, what do we make from that? prosecution's own expert agreed. postpartum depression can turn into. postpartum psychosis and quickly and the. doctors never did the basic test that. could have helped them understand what. was really going on in her body. But the. prosecution claims they argue that's not. the whole story that Dr. Sadhoff also. testified about something else Lindseay. Clancy did that day. Something they say. proved she was in control because she.

allegedly researched the distance to 3V. restaurant before she ever texted. Patrick, her ex-husband, about takeout. remember the ideas. She sent them out to. kill the kids. She researched or. allegedly researched CVS for Mirax. before she ever asked him to stop there. and she allegedly waited until the last. minute right before he left to add that. CVS errand to his trip. The record shows. that um Miss Clansancy.

did a lot of searching prior to that in. terms of um. 3V the distance. um and the like. So there were a number. getting information prior to. um requesting a text, sending a text to. her husband. And in the text, rather. than saying, "What would you think about. takeout.

getting takeout?". She said, "How about getting takeout at. 3V?" the research for I think it was. Mirillax um which was uh suggested for. Kora's um constipation. They had had an. appointment that morning in pediatrics. and this was uh suggested. that the mirac and and CVS uh was.

something that Miss Glansancy looked. into sometime after 4:00 but but not. long after 4:00 and well before she. contacted her husband. Um but that. she did not communicate to her husband. the importance of picking up Mirillax at. CVS. Um who she had called. until really right before he left. Um,

so he had planned on going to 3B, driving to 3B almost six miles to get. the um um the takeout. and then. she also added on that other errand um. right before he left. And so was it. significant to you that she had. researched the the the Marillex and. looked into CVS an hour before but just.

added that um that part of the errand on. right before her husband left? >> Yes. >> And why? >> Well, it uh it lengthened the trip. Um, it added one extra. um obligation. um for for Patrick. Um, and that would. make for a um a longer time that he was. away.

>> And so after all of that, right, the. voice that stopped, the order she. remembered, the planning, the errands, Dr. Sof reached an important conclusion, one he delivered earlier today. He. believes that Lindseay Clancy was. suffering from a mental disease or. defect. He even diagnosed her with. bipolar, too. But he says that is not. enough to excuse what she did. >> My opinion is that she did have the. capacity to appreciate uh right from. wrong. The children um were strangled.

all in the basement. Uh and um according. to Mr. Clancy the door to his office had. been closed. Uh when he arrived to the. basement. timing timing was really really. significant in this. There was a window. of time that Miss Clancy was aware of uh. in which she would.

need to kill her three children as well. as to kill herself uh which she expected. uh would happen. Um. she. was conscious of time and told me that. she had mapped out the distance etc. because she didn't want her husband to. be gone too long. Uh but in this case, I. think the issue of of time and and her.

husband returning rather than being a. solution um for her. was a problem. Well, the phone call um. at what 5:34. uh in the afternoon I thought was. significant. So Mr. Clancy was at CVS and he called. his wife and she did not pick up, she. did not answer, but she called him back.

um and had that ability to um deviate. from what she was doing to be able to uh. respond. and so had the presence of mind. to um to do that but also to conceal. from him what was what was going on. Um. locking the door is another example. I.

mean, certainly Miss Clancy was aware of. time and the limited amount of time to. accomplish this, but by locking the. door, it kept her husband from being. able to enter the bedroom and therefore. being able to see what had happened. So, delayed that time. It is my opinion. within a reasonable degree of medical. certainty that uh Miss Clansancy was. criminally responsible. >> So, that's his final opinion. But the. defense, they had to try to take him. down, right? They went after his resume.

They pointed out his expertise in areas. that don't have to do with the major. state of mind we're talking about at the. heart of this case, postpartum. psychosis, trying to raise reasonable. doubt. >> And you would agree with me, sir, that. you've been in here telling this jury. all about Lindsay and how she didn't. hear voices or did hear voices or. exaggerated and lied. Um, have you. written any articles at all on the. concept of auditory hallucinations? >> No. Have you read any of them?

>> Read any articles? Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. You certainly have heard of. Dr. Philip Resnik? Yes. >> Yes. >> And is it fair to say, tell me if I'm. wrong, is he a literally a world known. authority in your field for philicide or. the killing of children by their. parents? >> Yes, he's well known. Now, in all of. your experience, sir, >> have you ever treated a woman suffering. from postpartum.

psychosis? >> Yes. >> When? >> In the late 1980s and also during the. 1990s when I ran when I I I ran a unit. in a uh a state hospital. So this would. be women 1980s. about 30 years ago or 20 years ago. depending on which one in a prison that. you were. >> No. >> Oh, was it. >> in a state hospital? >> State hospital. Were they committed?

Were they there because they wanted to. be there or were they committed by order. of the court? >> Yes. >> Yes. Was. >> usually committed. >> Okay. So other than that sir, do you have any. interest writing knowledge about. postpartum depression, postpartum. psychosis? Well, it really is a requirement when. you assess and treat women to be um.

aware of their histories and and making. determinations. So that has continued. really throughout my career. >> And that's where the prosecution's case. stands right now. Two experts who agree. Lindsay Clancy was suffering, but in the. end they believe she was criminally. responsible. And now we're going to hear. from someone who has been watching this. all unfold herself in that courtroom. And for that I bring on Sierra.

Gillespie, host of Long Crime Scandal. As I said, she's been in that courtroom. following this, doing an amazing. reporting uh on this case. Sierra, great. to see you. Before we even get into the. substance of the testimony, and there's. a lot I want to focus on. Um, what is. the scene like? Because the last time we. talked, we were focusing on there being. a lot of supporters for Lindsay Clancy. Are you seeing that today? >> Yeah. So, outside, Jesse, not too much. I mean, we see mostly media outside. It's not like Karen Reed. A lot of.

people are drawing comparisons in that. way. But inside the courtroom, I will. say completely packed. Some people even. have to be turned away. There's that. many supporters. I mean, today we saw. people who were bringing dogs. That's. not something I anticipated to see. inside of the courtroom. The same woman. who brought a dog. She also brought a. bouquet of flowers. She said for. Lindsay's grandmother, specifically. Lindsay herself and other people who, you know, maybe were going through. trying times as they're watching this. really intense trial. So, we are seeing. some colorful characters here and some.

support for Lindsay, but it isn't very. comparable or comparable rather to Karen. Reed. I I I got to say, look, I I. understand from a legal point of view um. if people side with her defense and. believe that she should be found uh not. guilty, that she wasn't criminally. responsible, but there is something. quite odd to be seeing this amount of uh. fanfare and to see this dogs and flowers. and shirts and a a sense of I don't know. if the word is joy when you're talking. about the death of three young children.

It's a it's a very unique thing to say. the least. But let's go into the. substance. I I kind of talked about it. before, but I want to ask you the. definition here of what criminal. responsibility is. Let's be very clear. about that, okay? Because that's going. to be what the jury decides. And that. came up a lot in the last two or three. days of testimony, including today, right? >> Yes, it did. So, let's kind of break. this down. There are three things that. are required for somebody to be held.

criminally responsible here. Okay. Number one, they do not have a mental. disease or defect. Number two, they can. understand or appreciate the difference. between right and wrong. And number. three, they can conform with the law. So, in order to not be held criminally. responsible, you have to check two of. those three boxes. And here's what's. really important that happened inside. the courtroom today. Dr. Sadhoff, who of. course was the final witness for the. Commonwealth that just rested moments. before I came on with you, Jesse. Now, he said, "I do believe that Lindseay.

Clancy was suffering a mental disease or. defect at the time. He said he believes. that she had bipolar, too." So, that. checks off one thing off the list. That's a win for the defense. However, I. will tell you that the other two he. disagrees with. He says Lindseay Clancy. was of sound mind. She understood the. sequence of events. She could appreciate. the difference between right versus. wrong. That's his opinion. He's an. expert for the Commonwealth, but it's. going to be up to the jury to decide if. she meets two of those three components. How's the jury reacting to that? >> Oh, yeah. Okay. So, the jury, I had.

close eyes on them today because it's. going to be one of the last times I see. them, right? They're headed into. deliberations likely tomorrow after. closing arguments. Now, yesterday at the. end of Dr. Sadhoff's testimony, I'm not. going to lie to you. Their eyes were. glazing over. It was getting a little. bit dry. I saw them kind of zoning off. Not too many people writing in their. notebooks. However, this morning, they. came back. Seems like they had a really. good night's sleep. They all were very. attentive. They were writing in their. notebooks. They were paying attention to. his testimony and then of course when. Kevin Readington steps up for cross exam.

and eventually recross things get a. little bit more intense and at that. point the jurors could not keep their. eyes off it. They were glued. It was. almost like a tennis match the back and. forth between Readington and then. eventually when Dr. Satov would finish. his answer. So they definitely are. paying very close attention to. everything that's being said. >> Yeah. and and it's very hard to read. from that where they might be leaning or. what they might be thinking, but clearly. they're paying careful attention to the. way he's cross-examining this witness. who it's a very clear and direct. witness. I'm not surprised that the.

prosecution saves a witness or witnesses. like this for the end. I mentioned it. before, primacy recency. This is one of. the last witnesses they're going to hear. before they go into deliberations who's. very clear she is criminally. responsible. expert, criminally. responsible, but yet what were the. points that stood out to you from Kevin. Readington to say, "Hey, jury, this. expert you're hearing from, not so. fast.". >> So, he really attacked the credentials. of Dr. Gregory Satov. He talked about, okay, you work for the behavior analysis. unit with the FBI. You were involved.

with a lot of things in Virginia, the. government, the military, and he at one. point even said, "So that makes you a. government guy." Right? Now, that had to. be stricken, but it was out there in the. ether. People heard that and kind of. wondering, okay, you're really going for. the government. You're really going for. the Commonwealth here. A couple of other. instances that I think were a win for. Kevin Readington were the discussion of. insomnia. So, because Dr. Sat has worked. in the past with military people, he. knows about different types of torture. So, Readington says, "Okay, insomnia,

lack of sleep, isn't that at times used. as a form of torture?" To which Dr. Satov said, "Yes, admittedly, it is." So. then Readington says, "Okay, interesting. Because Lindsay Clancy was. suffering from insomnia, you yourself. talked about on direct examination how. she went 48 hours without sleep. Couldn't that be considered a form of. torture here?" That was really important. as a win for the defense. And in. addition, they talked about the bipolar, too, because you and I have talked about. this on sidebar, Jesse, right? The fact. that the defense says that some of her. symptoms, this psychosis that they say.

that she was undergoing at the time that. the children were killed, could have. been brought on by over medication. And. Dr. Sat did admittedly say I believe. Zoloft may have triggered her bipolar to. or exacerbated all the symptoms that she. had. So even though this was a. Commonwealth witness, I do believe at. times it was a win for the defense. >> And why would Dr. Sof believe that she's. criminally responsible? Because that's. the key here, right? This idea of. responsibility for her actions, conscious decision, right? A voluntary.

choice. What was it in his opinion that. said despite what could be a serious. mental health issue, mental disease or. defect, she still could conform her. behavior to the law or still appreciated. the wrongfulness of her actions? >> Yeah, I think he was an interesting. witness to end with because he did say, "I believe that she had bipolar, too. I. believe that she struggled with mental. health. I believe that her suicide. attempt was a true attempt. However, I.

do see inconsistencies about her talking. about these hallucinations, the command. hallucinations that really are the crux. of everything that we've heard here that. she allegedly heard these voices, a male. voice rather, only one time the day that. she killed the children. And a couple of. things that Dr. Satov said was, okay, for instance, people hearing these. voices and having some sort of being. compelled to carry out whatever the. voices are telling them. Usually doing. that, whatever it may be, does not hear. the voices. It does not stop them. So. most people don't do it. That was number.

one. Number two, beyond all of this, and. these are things that we've heard really. from opening statements, right, with the. Commonwealth, include the fact that she. researched the 3V restaurant, that she. Apple Maps to see how far her home in. Duxberry was from the CVS to the 3V and. back. Now, this is interesting because. it kind of goes both ways. The defense. says, "Okay, he was gone for what, 45. minutes, and during that time, she had. this calculated, premeditated, cold-blooded murder." I don't know. However, Dr. sat off and the. Commonwealth do say I believe that this.

could have been her chance. She had a. phone call with Patrick if during that. time she had heard the voices and was. struggling. Why didn't she raise the red. flag, sound the alarm for Patrick on. that phone call as she had done to. Patrick in the past? I mean, she. confessed in December of 2022 to her. mother and Patrick, I'm having really. terrible thoughts. I'm worried that I'm. going to hurt the kids. So, if she said. it then, why the following month when. Patrick calls and she's in the midst of. this psychosis, did she not tell him, please come home? So, I do think that he. had some strong things to say for the. Commonwealth as well.

>> I I wanted to ask you about there was. this um there was this audible reaction. >> to the the Jenny Sprog U. Can you talk. to us about what was going on here? >> Okay. Yeah, this was this was. interesting. Okay. So, this is on. crossexam and Kevin Readington is asking. uh the witness, Dr. Sadhoff, whether he. when he spoke to the DA. Okay. And he. says, "Okay, which one were you speaking. to?" Jen. Jen Sprag. She objects and. says, "Attorney Sprag, excuse me, attorney Sprag." Kevin Readington looks.

at her and says, "So, Jen Sprag." To. which the judge says, "Okay, it's. attorney. Be respectful here." And at. that point, the jurors were looking. I. saw a couple of jaws that were like, "Did he just say that? Okay, what just. happened?" And then later, Dr. Sadhoff. was talking and said, "Okay, yes, Jen. Sprag." And Kevin Readdington says, "You. mean attorney Sprag?" At that point, I. literally saw jurors stifling their. laughter. Some of them even chuckled. audibly during it. It was one of those. moments where it was like, "Okay, things. are getting kind of tense in the. courtroom. It's kind of funny. It's kind.

of drawing our attention. I don't know. what to think." But some jurors had an. audible reaction. >> And he's an interesting character, Kevin. Readington. I've seen clips of him. coming in and out of court where he's. like he's addressing the media pretty. dead on. >> Oh, yeah. So, yesterday I came out of. the courtroom and it was all of these. reporters. It's everyone. I'm holding my. mic. I'm getting tripped over. People. are elbowing me. I mean, we are close to. Boston after all. So, I'm trying to get. some video of him and it's everyone. It's he he answers the questions, by the.

way. And then he sticks around, too. He'll talk to people. I've talked to him. multiple times. He's been very polite. with the media. If you ask him a. question that he can't answer or doesn't. want to, he'll just look at you and say, "I'm not going to answer that." But most. of the time, he's very upfront. He's. very honest about everything. And I do. think he's getting a lot of attention. because of his tactics in the courtroom. >> Yeah. Look, he he he's a good defense. attorney. I mean, he's a really good. defense attorney. He's given a lot of. people, uh, things to think about. Um, and clearly he has got this kind of fan. base or following on social media that.

I'm seeing quite often. I don't know if. that's going to translate to what the. jury is feeling or what their, you know, their views are are on him or his. arguments, but um, I I'll ask you about. what to anticipate with closings in a. second. I do want to ask you about. Lindsay Clancy. So, she's in that. courtroom. >> You're watching her. What has been her. reaction, her behavior today? >> I have kept my eyes on Lindsay. throughout this entire thing, right? Because I want to look at the jurors to. report to you what the viewers can't.

see, but also Lindsay to see her. reaction for everything. And I have yet. to see her crack a smile. Maybe kind of. a smirk once, just briefly, but for the. most part, she seems to be paying. attention. I think she understands. what's going on. That's from my. perspective because she's following. along with whoever is speaking. She. looks at that person, whether it's the. witness or the judge, whoever it may be. She seems to be following along, but she. seems very sad, very somber. At one. point when the cross exam got kind of. heated today, Kevin Readington's going. in. There's objection after objection. I.

saw her, she closed her eyes, she took a. deep breath almost to restart or reset. herself, like, "Okay, I'm here. Let's. get through this." It seems like her and. her family, they're all very somber. Their shoulders are kind of slouched. down. And I don't mean this in a a bad. way. I just think that they're mentally. exhausted to be put through all of this. and to have her journal entries read. across the world. It's all over Tik Tok. It's we're talking about it. I mean, it. is evidence, but to have something like. that opened up to the world, I think. it's mentally exhausting for her and her.

family. >> Yeah, it's a good point. Um, and look, it's not ending because we're about to. go into closing arguments and then the. deliberations, which is an incredibly uh. tense moment. Um, so talk to me about. closing arguments. What do you expect. from both sides here? >> Now, I do have a bit of a heads up, at. least on the defense's side of things. from Kevin Readington because I talked. to him about this yesterday and he does. not use notes. We saw this in openings, right? He goes in, he speaks from the. heart, he knows this case inside and. out. And something that I will say to. his credit, he doesn't have a defense.

counsel with him. He's doing it all. He's paying very close attention to. everything. And I think he's just going. to go back and hit on the points that he. has throughout this entire case, talking. about the psychosis of it all. We. believe that she was undergoing this. moment of a mental rage. She can't be. held criminally responsible for all of. this. Look at the way the system and. doctor after doctor failed her. Okay. And then for the Commonwealth, I do. think they're going to go back and pull. on the heartstrings. This is my. anticipation because of course we all. have that image in our mind of Jen,

excuse me, attorney Jen Sprag holding up. the outfits that all of the kids were. wearing at the time that they were. killed and the exercise bands. I mean, that is a moment that no one is going to. forget. And the jurors, you have to. remember, also heard that 911 call. I. think she's going to play on those. emotions, whichever of the prosecutors. are going to present here because. attorney Buckingham did present the. openings. Whoever it may be, I think. they're going to pull on the. heartstrings and lay out the facts, saying, "We believe she was criminally. responsible. We have multiple expert. witnesses who say the same. It's up to.

you, the jurors, to decide her fate.". >> Do we know how long the closings are. going to be? And if definitely the. juryy's going to get it tomorrow. >> I believe that they're going to get it. tomorrow. I mean, I haven't heard. anything about a time limit, but when I. was speaking to Readington, he said I. don't expect to go longer than a half. hour. Who's to say he might go toward an. hour, but I don't think that they're. they're going to be extremely long. tomorrow. >> Okay. Well, we will see. You're going to. be there, Sierra Gillespie. Thank you so. much as always for your terrific. reporting on this tough case. We'll. continue to follow it.

>> Thanks for having me, Jesse. >> And that's all we have for you right now. here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so. much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube. Apple. Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should. get your podcast. You can also check us. out on NBC's Peacock as well. If you. want to follow me, X Instagram, my. NewsNation show, Jesse Weber live, Monday through Friday, 11 pm Eastern. See you next time, everybody.