The Clancy Emergency Motion & Kohberger's Disputed Hair Evidence | The Particulars Ep. 11

Headlines end. The details begin. In Episode 11 of The Particulars, Lacey and Nic walk this week's cases with a different lens — a private investigator and law student alongside a former federal agent.

Trial Watch: a new emergency defense motion halted the Lindsay Clancy trial for a full day. We break down what it actually asked the judge to do, the injury claim from Kevin Reddington's opening statement, and the impoundment question over what the public can and can't see.

Legal Minute: what "Commonwealth" actually means. Massachusetts, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Virginia are the four commonwealths — a historical title written into each state's constitution, functionally and legally identical to "state." Plus the difference between a direct appeal and post-conviction relief.

Red Flag (we swapped the order tonight): the line we drew this week — what we deliberately won't touch, and why. Plus a Tate brothers update.

Evidence of the Night: one disputed piece of forensic evidence in the Kohberger case — clumps of hair — described two very different ways by two different named sources. One account (People Magazine, citing unsealed court documents) describes a defense expert's morphological comparison; another (from Christopher Whitcomb's book and forensic expert Brent Turvey) describes the hair differently and says it was never tested. We report the discrepancy — we don't resolve it, because the underlying lab documentation hasn't been fully produced. This flows into a discussion of dueling expert witnesses and "junk science."

OUR OPINION. OUR ANALYSIS. NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Everything here is our commentary and opinion, based on the public record — not legal advice, and not an active investigation. Presumption of innocence applies, every time.

⚖️ New episodes Monday / Wednesday / Friday, 9 PM ET — live on TikTok, replay on YouTube.

Chapters
00:00 Intro & Trial Watch: The Emergency Motion
03:50 Reddington's Opening: The Injury Claim
06:03 What the Motion Actually Asks the Judge
11:24 Tate Brothers Update
14:01 Legal Minute: What "Commonwealth" Means
16:30 Direct Appeal vs. Post-Conviction Relief
17:19 Red Flag: The Line We Won't Cross
21:21 Evidence of the Night: The Disputed Hair
24:14 "Grasping at Straws": The Long-Shot Theory
25:29 Expert Witnesses & Junk Science
37:59 Close

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Good evening.

SPEAKER_01 0:01

Tonight, a new emergency motion and the trial we've been following. Three competency evaluations now pending in one Ohio family case. And Brian Koberger's own defense expert may have already examined the evidence he's now building his case to withdraw his plea on. This is the particulars.

SPEAKER_00 0:25

The trial watch.

SPEAKER_01 0:27

This is the Lindsey Clancy trial. Quick reminder for anyone just joining. Lindsay Clancy is on trial for the deaths of her three children, Cora, Dawson, and Callan. She's never disputed that she caused their deaths. The fight is over her mental state under Massachusetts lack of criminal responsibility standard, the formal name for what people usually call an insanity defense.

SPEAKER_00 0:50

Today was Patrick Clancy's second day on the stand as the prosecution's first witness. His testimony concluded today. Court resumes Thursday with the next prosecution witness.

SPEAKER_01 1:04

So the jury heard the 911 call Patrick made after finding his children. We're not going to describe its contents beyond what's already been reported by name in the courtroom press. The recording itself and the autopsy photos are impounded under a Supreme Judicial Court Rule 119 order. Judge Sullivan's order is explicit. Media cannot record, display, reproduce, distribute, or otherwise disseminate either. What outlets in the courtroom have reported is that Patrick can be heard telling the dispatcher, quote, she killed the kids, end quote, and that he described, quote, blood everywhere, end quote, when he found them.

SPEAKER_00 1:42

Yeah, and if you've seen images online claiming to be a transcript of the 911 call, don't trust them. And we're not using them. That order blocks reproduction of the actual actual recording. Anything circulating outside of what named news outlets in the courtroom have reported is either violating that court order or unverifiable. And we're not going to be the ones repeating it either way.

SPEAKER_01 2:09

And I I I will say also on that note, because there are a lot of things going around. What happens a lot of times with stuff like that, when the judge orders something saying that, you know, it can't be reproduced and things like that outside of court, you will see people that were in the courtroom um give their version. So while I'm not saying that parts of what you're seeing online aren't true, I'm just stating that as it was not to be, you know, reproduced and things like that, I didn't feel comfortable even kind of like covering what was in some of that was going around.

SPEAKER_00 2:52

The judge's order, the court order made sure that, hey, only this information that's coming from this specific source should be verified. But uh also today, assistant DA Jennifer Sprague held up the exercise bans prosecutors allege used to strangle the children. The first physical evidence beat we've had in this trial. And testimony touched on Lindsay's attempts to seek mental health care in the months before the killings.

SPEAKER_01 3:27

So, okay, I will go ahead and say this part. The testimony touching on Lindsay's mental health care attempts is evidence the defense relies upon for its postpartum psychosis theory. So keep that in mind as we continue to go through some of this. And we also went back and confirmed two details that have been floating around unverified. First, defense attorney Kevin Reddington told the jury directly in his opening statement exactly how severe Lindsay's injuries were. Quote, she shattered, exploded her thora thoracic spine, shattered her cervical spine, first disc broke every rib, end quote.

SPEAKER_00 4:05

Yeah, and the first disc of the cervical spine is way up by the skull. It's right at the base of the skull.

SPEAKER_01 4:13

And I will say that that was a direct quote from the courtroom coverage. Yeah. But because there is a lot of different things. Again, with all this stuff, that's what's crazy about um about the the trial. As you see, so much is just mass-produced. Like you may have some verifiable things, but then it's like people take it and run with it, and it just becomes so that's why I feel like it's very hard to trust a lot of what's going around.

SPEAKER_00 4:43

Yeah, because the any outlet is gonna try to grab something and glorify it, dramatize it, yeah, and and and have a story, you know, and that's what gets their ratings and gets their views.

SPEAKER_01 4:54

So I will say that these specific things that we are talking about right now, we did cross-verify those.

SPEAKER_00 5:00

Secondly, on redirect, uh prosecutor Sprague asked Patrick to confirm the drop from that second floor window to the ground is 12 feet. He testified he had never personally measured the distance. When asked whether it was approximately 12 feet, he said he believed that was correct. That was um citing that was the window height figured 12 feet via Sprague's redirect question to Patrick Clancy, and that was covered on CNN Live.

SPEAKER_01 5:33

And separately, this one came up off-air this week, and we want to say it plainly rather than let it float around unverified. Lindsay Clancy is paraplegic, paralyzed from roughly the sternum down since that fall. Reddington has told the court directly she requires a two-person assist for transfers to flat surfaces, and that her medical team has flagged a real suicide risk requiring constant supervision. That's not speculation, that's Reddington's own on-record statements to Judge Sullivan. So moving on to the emergency motion. So Tuesday, the trial actually paused for a day. The scheduled jury trial event was canceled by the court. That's because the defense filed an emergency motion asking Judge Sullivan to instruct the jury to disregard specific portions of the prosecution's opening statement and Patrick Clancy's early testimony.

SPEAKER_00 6:24

Specifically two things, the defense wants to the timeline of when the children were killed, struck. And they want any reference to Lindsay searching ways to kill struck. Reddington calls that an ongoing false narrative. And attached text, he says, from the prosecutors characterizing her search history that way.

SPEAKER_01 6:51

Attached to that motion is an affidavit uh from a digital forensic ec forensics expert, Stephen Verono, who disputes the specific dates and times attached to some of those searches. So as of this afternoon, there is no ruling yet from Judge Sullivan on this motion. We're reporting it as filed and pending, not decided. Uh, so this is like a live example of exactly what we talked about Monday in legal minute. That an opening statement oversold or built on disputed facts can have real consequences. We're watching that play out actually in real time.

SPEAKER_00 7:29

And this trial watch, if this is the kind of discussion you've been looking for, you know, tell your friends, hit the follow. We do this every Monday, Wednesday, Friday. And we're tracking this trial start to finish, barring any catastrophicness that will keep us from being able to do it. But we we are we've let's just say we've been through a lot this past week and weekend, and we're still here trying to be here with you, trying to get this information across.

SPEAKER_01 8:00

And we appreciate each and every one of you that likes, follows, shares. Um, that means the world to us, and we appreciate all of you. Um and and while we love doing this, one of our biggest things was we wanted to be able to give our our analysis and in a way that is maybe easier for people to understand.

SPEAKER_00 8:21

And and there are gonna be some things where we don't have an opinion or an analysis on. We're gonna present the facts and it's it's gonna be out of our outside of our purview. Yeah, I think you know, we are not attorneys. We are not, you know, yes, I'm a formal former federal agent and Lacey, you know, she is a licensed PI, but a lot of this stuff we are learning as we go. So some of the stuff that's gonna be out of our purview, you we're not gonna touch on, and and we don't really want to give our opinion because obviously we don't want to make fools of ourselves.

SPEAKER_01 8:57

I try not to like discuss things that I don't have kind of a general understanding of.

SPEAKER_00 9:03

Right. So we're gonna cover some housekeeping since Monday.

SPEAKER_01 9:05

Yes. Everything we've got lives in one place, our link tree, link in the bio. Schedule, coffee, the sticker mule store, every social, one link. And I will say as a follow-up that I did get another email that I was thinking that today was gonna be the day that my t-shirt was in, and I am sad to report. Ah, it shipped. Okay, good. Mine has shipped and it was supposed to be delivered today. And yesterday I got a notification that it's going to be here tomorrow. So maybe I will have the t-shirt to show you live on Friday. I'm hoping. But again, anybody that is interested in stickers or t-shirt that is on our sticker mule store, I think it is a really neat design. I don't know. I Amy bought it, so good. I think she's she's gonna like it. But you know, anyway.

SPEAKER_00 10:00

Quick production note, uh, you know, then a couple of updates on cases we've covered before. Yep. Um we've discussed, we've kind of changed our production a little bit. You'll see that we uh what was it last Friday, I believe.

SPEAKER_01 10:18

It's ever evolving.

SPEAKER_00 10:19

We moved to a four-segment structure. Uh um, and you kind of saw that in the very beginning, where we have our four different segments. We also have a housekeeping within that, and we opened the floor to the to the chat and to the view to the viewers.

SPEAKER_01 10:36

So we are touching back in with Nancy Guthrie. So she hasn't been missing now for nearly six months. Her daughter, Savannah Guthrie, released a new public video plea this week, and Pima County Sheriff Chris, I say Nanos gave fresh on record comments saying the case remains active and that he's quote, still positive, end quote, it'll be resolved. So we're not going into the ransom note authenticity claimed or the hidden message theories circing circulating online right now. Those are single source and speculative. Um, and we, you know, like we've said before, we try to cross-verify and give you specific sources. And most of the time, like, if I can't find the source for it, I'm like, I'm not putting that out there. So that's why we didn't cover that. Um, but now how you always end up with this one.

SPEAKER_00 11:26

I wonder who who writes all this stuff. Onto the Tate brothers. Um, if you don't know, uh Tristan and Andrew Tate. The federal prosecutors are seeking to keep them detained while the extradition proceedings continue rather than release. And a status conference has been set to schedule the fight itself. Their attorney separately claims the brothers face threats to their safety in the Miami jail. That's the defense claim, independent not independently confirmed. So the UK is trying to extradite them back to the UK and uh the FBI is involved.

SPEAKER_01 12:08

I I will just say on this though, I I with high profile cases, because which we're gonna actually kind of touch on this in a minute um with something else, but a lot of times with high profile cases, like I'm not trying to be anyway or throw shade at anything, but when when we put out, so like say we're going to do um, we're gonna put something under seal, I do think there are a lot of valuable reasons that we would seal things. However, in some cases, just because you are a celebrity or something like that, that I don't necessarily think that's but in in terms of some of these cases, it is extremely hard. So annoyed with sealed records, it's extremely hard because it's again like we've talked about this on another another one of our episodes. It's like how you you're basically telling me that I have to take somebody else's word for something, yeah. And I don't like that as a person because I want to verify.

SPEAKER_00 13:12

I I want to know. It's not that we want the tea, we just want to we want to I just don't believe information and knowledge is power.

SPEAKER_01 13:23

I don't believe a lot of things. I'm like uh okay, show me that's great, but show me where that came from. How did how did you get that information? Why are you saying that? That's and it's like when you say, Well, just believe me, no, no. And with a lot of the some of these, well, again, more so the high profile cases. Yeah, it's like, well, you just have to take our word for it. Well, all right, I guess.

SPEAKER_00 13:50

But okay, if you're watching this as a clip and not live, uh follow it, like it, share it, and check the coffee and sticker mule links in our lean tree.

SPEAKER_01 14:00

And now we're gonna go on to our next official segment, which is segment two, the legal minute. Massachusetts, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Virginia are the four Commonwealths in the United States. It's a historical, traditional title written into each state's own constitution, not a different legal status, functionally, legally, constitutionally, identical to state.

SPEAKER_00 14:33

That's why the Clancy case is captioned Commonwealth versus Clancy instead of state versus Clancy. Same reason it's Commonwealth versus McCool or McCowl, sorry, uh, and the 1967 case that actually sets the legal standard we've been citing all along. And it's the same reason the Conley case out of Kentucky Kentucky is a Commonwealth versus Conley. That was a lot of c yeah, I know not a typo and not a different kind of prosecution. And I believe that when we were having this discussion about But details matter, but it's not the state, it's the Commonwealth. And we just said it's identical to state. So we don't want to confuse anyone when we say Commonwealth. Think of it as state versus because that that's more familiar. Like we just said, only four states in the nation are referred to as a commonwealth when it comes to criminal cases.

SPEAKER_01 15:48

And it just so happens that there's been some very high-profile cases, trial watches in Commonwealth areas. So a direct appeal challenges legal errors made during the trial or sentencing itself. Brian Koberger gave that up, waived his right to a direct appeal as part of his guilty plea.

SPEAKER_00 16:16

Post-conviction relief is a separate, narrower track. It's typically built on ineffective assistance of counsel, an involuntary plea, or evidence that was withheld or newly discovered. In Idaho, the bar to actually get a conviction set aside this way is high. Courts can only do it to correct a manifest injustice.

SPEAKER_01 16:46

That's the path Coburger is pursuing now. After waiving his direct appeal right as part of the plea agreement, keep that in your back pocket. We're about to walk through exactly what he's arguing, which leads us into we are skipp skipping, I believe.

SPEAKER_00 17:10

She thro she she's always throwing me off. Always.

SPEAKER_01 17:15

It makes it interesting.

SPEAKER_00 17:17

So we we bring up some red flags about something we deliberately didn't use. Segment four, we're skipping segment three for right now. What red flag, what we won't touch. Earlier this week, Lacey was shown images claiming to be a transcript of Patrick Clancy's 911 call, the one impounded under Judge Sullivan's rule 119 order.

SPEAKER_01 17:50

We didn't verify it, we didn't use it, and we're not going to describe what it said. That order specifically bars reproduction of that recording. And even setting the legal risk aside, we had no way to confirm it was authentic. And I'm gonna even push back one more with this. I'll let you give your little thing, and then I'm gonna give you another example of this because I did this twice this week.

unknown 18:12

Go ahead.

SPEAKER_00 18:14

Oh, I thought you were gonna.

SPEAKER_01 18:15

No, I said go ahead, and then I'm gonna give you my other one that was a little bit.

SPEAKER_00 18:18

This is the same instinct behind every sourcing tier we use on this show. If we can't trace something back to a named credentialed source who was actually there, it doesn't go on air, no matter how interesting it looks.

SPEAKER_01 18:31

Now, I I say all that to say that I am a keeper of things, okay, and I am I was I was also sent very early on a text image of Brian Koberger's handwritten plea.

SPEAKER_00 18:57

And what did he what did he call it? Do you remember?

SPEAKER_01 19:00

I know, but uh what I when I looked at it, I was like, wait, what? And then I was like, I immediately go like to the world wide web and I'm like trying to source this. I go to the docket, I go, I'm like pulling up all these things. I'm like, this is nowhere. And then I'm like, I'm not, I'm not saying a word about this on on the particulars because I don't know. I mean, I know where it came from, but I don't know, like, I'm thinking, how how did this get?

SPEAKER_00 19:32

You can't verify it.

SPEAKER_01 19:33

Yeah, I couldn't verify it. But then then you started seeing that people had taken the image of the handwritten and they had transcribed it.

SPEAKER_00 19:42

Krista, thank you for the follow. We greatly appreciate it.

SPEAKER_01 19:45

And I was just like completely blown away that I'm like, first of all, I can't verify the image, and now all I'm looking at now is your transcription of the unverifiable image. So I'm like, how many unverifiable items do we have? And it was just like TikTok video after TikTok video and Facebook post after Facebook.

SPEAKER_00 20:05

I was like, they're all running with it. Yeah, and I'm thinking it could it could be completely uh fictitious.

SPEAKER_01 20:13

I will say it was his, it was his letter, but so so you did verify? It's come out now, yeah.

SPEAKER_00 20:22

Okay.

SPEAKER_01 20:23

Did anyone see me post? No, I didn't post about it because so again, I I look at things and while you know, because I actually it was somebody had sent it and they're like, What? Is this real? And I'm just like, Well, I've never seen this. Like, I watched uh this is unrelated, but not so I watched a Cinderella story, it's one of my favorite movies, and I watched it, I watched it, and there's a part where it's Jennifer Coolidge, right? Yeah, and at the end of the movie, it's just like I had never seen my husband's hidden will before, and it's kind of the same thing. It's like I've never seen this document before. Like I just sorry, that that was probably not that was just it is what it is. I thought it was funny, like it makes me giggle. It's like I love Jennifer Cooley, she's one of my favorites, right?

SPEAKER_00 21:13

So this leads in to the segment we skipped.

SPEAKER_01 21:20

And now you see why.

SPEAKER_00 21:21

Evidence of the night, Koberger's petition one disputed piece of forensic evidence, two accounts, and what the record shows.

SPEAKER_01 21:36

So, one year after pleading guilty to murdering four University of Idaho students, Brian Koberger is trying to take that plea back. He filed a petition for post conviction relief in Ada County District Court, case number CR01 24 31665. The same case where Judge Stephen Hipler accepted his guilty plea and sentenced him to. To four consecutive life sentences without parole.

SPEAKER_00 22:03

Adding on to that the heart of his claim. He says his attorney didn't properly disclose or investigate exculpatory evidence before he pleaded guilty. Specifically, he points to what he calls clumps of unknown hair found in Ethan, which happens at Taven's hands.

SPEAKER_01 22:30

Here's where it gets genuinely complicated. Not because we're being cagey, but because the named sources are describing potentially different hair evidence in materially different ways.

SPEAKER_00 22:42

One account from People magazine citing court documents unsealed earlier this year. Koberger's defense retained forensic expert Ruth Ballard, reportedly examined hair recovered from Chapin's right hand and found it morphologically consistent with Chapin's own reference hair. That's not a DNA match or a unique identification. A morphological comparison looks at visible characteristics, visible physical characteristics under a microscope. Meaning, according to that account, his own expert looked. And what they found was consistent with Chapin's own reference hair.

SPEAKER_01 23:26

So a different account for from former FBI profiler Christopher Whitcomb's book and forensic expert Brent Turvey's public statements describes the hair roughly six inches dark blonde with a reddish tint that was allegedly never tested by authorities at all and doesn't match Koberger's own hair characteristics. So we genuinely don't know if these two accounts are describing the same hair sample or they're two different ones. And at least one outlet reporting on this has said outright it hasn't independently but reviewed the underlying lab documentation. At this stage, we cannot independently determine which account is accurate because the underlying forensic documentation referenced by both competing reports has not all been publicly produced. We're reporting the discrepancy, not resolving it for you.

SPEAKER_00 24:14

Idaho's own reporting includes a local attorney, Ryan Black, calling the whole theory a long shot, quote, grasping at straws, in his words, given how much evidence was already on the table before the plea.

SPEAKER_01 24:30

So for context on what he's actually serving, the docket itself shows 10 years for burglary plus four consecutive life sentences, each explicitly with no possibility of parole, and he still owes over $300,000 in restitution and fees. That's the sentence this petition is trying to unwind.

SPEAKER_00 24:49

So we're going to call back the Gonzalez Gonzalez family's prior statement calling the filing the mosquito, you just can't seem to SWAT. It kind of still stands and is worth a quick callback here.

SPEAKER_01 25:02

Um, I will say that setting aside the merits, I think this is a genuinely useful case study and how a single piece of evidence can be described two completely different ways by two sets of credentialed people. And why primary source or didn't happen matters even when the source material is contested. And I think that directly links back to, and I should have, I should have pulled which episode that was, but we talked about it in one of our episodes where expert witnesses.

SPEAKER_00 25:29

We did that. I believe that was Friday.

SPEAKER_01 25:34

Um, no, I think it was before that. Because somebody'd asked the question. We were talking about the witnesses in this case. Well, maybe it was Friday because we were talking about the trial watch.

SPEAKER_00 25:41

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 25:41

But, anyways, um, in terms of expert witnesses, no, it was when we were talking about um Scott Peterson because we were talking about the documentary. Was it I I'm pretty sure um I could go back, but um with that, what I was meaning to say, squirrel, uh, was that you can have different expert witnesses that that say completely different things, and that is how you have, you know, so for this situation in the Commonwealth versus, you know, the prosecution or in Idaho's case.

SPEAKER_00 26:17

I remember it was Peterson's case. Yeah, see. Um it was the it was the FBI. Hydrologist. Yes.

SPEAKER_01 26:23

Oh, I was thinking the hydrologist.

SPEAKER_00 26:25

Is that versus the uh state's FBI analysis that was done.

SPEAKER_01 26:31

So there's a lot you will see that because again, and we do also have like standard operating procedures. So depending on which you know, lab does what and things like that. So there's a lot of different variables that kind of go into play with some of that. And it it's expert witnesses, I think is a very loose term.

SPEAKER_00 26:49

I say that because uh there could be an expert essentially they have to have they have to have or be able to present to a jury that they have like extensive or knowledge than than what a what even a person studying that would. I mean, you and not only that, but to be an expert witness, a lot of times it calls for you to already have testified not in that particular instance, but in similar cases for those type of things.

SPEAKER_01 27:26

A lot of times you will find so like an expert, um they don't necessarily have to be like a PhD or you know, they don't have to be like a doctor or anything like that, but depending on what the topic is. But like you could have like a firearms expert, and that's literally that day in and day out for 50 years, they dealt and handled, and you know, they have extensive knowledge of firearms and not just like one, and it's like firearms, I can't think of anything.

SPEAKER_00 28:00

But for instance, uh a case that we covered in our Casewalker Chronicles season one, the defense attorney for Richard Allen, and I know this isn't part of any of what we're talking about tonight, but I just want to bring this in with the subject matter expert. The defense brought in or tried to bring in a uh an individual whose title was called a metallurgist.

SPEAKER_01 28:26

Oh, yeah.

SPEAKER_00 28:27

Um, which is a true science of of met the study of metal and and how the properties of metal are studied. And that was a it was very interesting to me, uh, and it makes sense because if if you've ever watched the show, um I can't remember the name of it, they make they make blades, they make knives.

SPEAKER_01 28:51

Oh, forged and fire.

SPEAKER_00 28:52

Forged and fire. Um those people technically are metallurgists because they use different types of steel and different types of alloys to to bond and you say that when so when we were first going through like um that specific trial and when we were talking about witnesses and they were like a metallurgist, I looked at Nick and I'm like, um, what is a metallurgist?

SPEAKER_01 29:19

And what why would we be having this person? I've never heard of that.

SPEAKER_00 29:23

Because if you would have said something like with that case, and this again, um this is a tangent. I'm I'm sorry, but it's But it's it's a direct relation. When we're talking about subject matter experts, it it gives you an idea of what kind of what And there are so many narrowed lanes. Like so that you know I But I will say, in that case, the judge suppressed that because we're not going into that.

SPEAKER_01 29:47

No, I'm just saying, no, what I was gonna say, I'm not I'm not gonna say what I was gonna say. I'm gonna say something that actually falls along with it. A lot of times in terms of science, you will hear things like junk science. I hate that term, and it is because now I'm sorry, I think science in general is like if okay, if it's scientifically proven to me, I feel like that's Yeah, but science is theory, science is high as hypotheses that are tested.

SPEAKER_00 30:18

Tested, yes, but test tests are subjective.

SPEAKER_01 30:24

But I don't feel like they are. Like I feel like, you know, I I'm trying to think of an example of Well, ex a metallurgist.

SPEAKER_00 30:34

That's a perfect example because with that particular instance, that individual had extensive research and knowledge in in how a particular alloy can cause particular markings on a different type of alloy. To be more clear on that, how this type of steel can make this type of mark on this type of brass. That's metallurgy.

SPEAKER_01 31:03

Yeah. Which I think that is actual science. Now, absolutely.

SPEAKER_00 31:07

However, it was suppressed.

SPEAKER_01 31:09

I think there are situations, for example, where we talk about things like a polygraph test.

SPEAKER_00 31:15

Oh gosh, don't we're not started on that.

SPEAKER_01 31:18

Science.

SPEAKER_00 31:23

It's the same as you want to get on your soapbox? It's the same as a uh uh a drug dog sitting on a car. Junk science.

SPEAKER_01 31:31

I okay, well, I will agree and disagree, but I'm what I'm saying, and here's what I'm saying, because I, as somebody who who does and favors psychology over a lot of things. So when we um break apart, and maybe one day we'll talk about polygraph tests, okay? But if you if you ever come at me and say something about a polygraph, I'm gonna be like, no, I don't, I don't care what it says because, and here's why. My understanding, I am not an expert, so I am not an expert in what do they call a polygraphy test or examiner or something like that. I am not that person, but I can tell you the the psychology, so to speak, behind it. So um I've actually been through two. Basically, it it's a a biological reading or like the biological functioning of your body, so to speak.

SPEAKER_00 32:25

And it's more than biological, too. It's physical analysis by the examiner. Yeah, again, so Which is subjective.

SPEAKER_01 32:33

Exactly. Point white right there. But what I'm talking about, so you say, for instance, someone who is a pathological liar who who is constantly lying and doesn't really have the same physiological reactions as someone who is lying, right? Like for me because they know they're wrong. I can't lie. Yeah, I cannot lie. So for me, if I took that test, yeah, it would be very, very factual because if I was lying, I would have a response that would that would register on on the machine, therefore it would be a valid, but it I don't think that you can.

SPEAKER_00 33:11

That's why you that's why you get a lot of polygraphs that come back inconclusive. They don't come back to exonerate somebody because they can't. They've already they've already established in law that polygraphs cannot be admissible.

SPEAKER_01 33:25

And because I think it it it requires the interpretation from someone else, which is exactly I will give you the link to the to the dog science because it requires the interpretation. So therefore, apples and apples. Right, they're the same. Anyways, what I'm saying is there's with science, a lot of times the reason people label things as junk science is because it there's not like a standard.

SPEAKER_00 33:54

Right. And we got off of the subject matter expert stuff a little bit.

SPEAKER_01 33:58

No, it wasn't because it directly ties to our expert witnesses, and when you have witnesses that are contradicting each other, and then you can understand why in cases you have defense experts, yes, and you have state or commonwealth experts. Yes. And they are going to find the expert that speaks, so to speak, to their theory, uh narrative, story, whatever word you want to use, strategy. They're going to put people in place to verify or corroborate their side. Yeah. So that's my thing on expert witnesses. Is I think you could find an expert witness for anything.

SPEAKER_00 34:51

Ultimately, yeah. If you've if you've studied it enough.

SPEAKER_01 34:54

And there's somebody out there, I mean, like, what is it? Is it etymology, the study of bugs or something? What was it? Is that yeah. Like, so I mean, there, yeah, like there's there's somebody out there that studies everything. You could find somebody, but again, it's you in terms of that, like if I'm talking about like like the with the metal thing, okay, great. Yeah, you say that does that. I'm sure you've seen it do that. I I will take your word for it.

SPEAKER_00 35:20

Right. Thank you so much. Tap the the live event uh on our profile and register. TikTok will notify you the second we go live. Which I don't know if it does.

SPEAKER_01 35:29

I don't know if it does that anymore because supposed to and it goes through OBS.

SPEAKER_00 35:34

Well, and I don't know that it doesn't go through and it and it I go actually I go through the TikTok live studio. That's the program that I use. It's not through the phone, like the the the the TikTok app.

SPEAKER_01 35:47

Yeah, but that does that does if you do it through that, you can create an event.

SPEAKER_00 35:52

If you want to support what we do here, um take a look at the merch store. We do get a small commission off of the shirts that you buy. Um, it's not much, but everything that we do get goes to help fund our production here, um, our research.

SPEAKER_01 36:09

That is one of those things like subscriptions, uh, document fees.

SPEAKER_00 36:16

Yeah. It's expensive.

SPEAKER_01 36:17

It there's a lot. So if you in some court systems make you do I think it's like 10 cents per page.

unknown 36:26

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 36:26

And depending on on the well, yeah. So that that is what we mean when we say the funding goes to that kind of thing, because that those are ever growing.

SPEAKER_00 36:36

Yes. Tonight's recap of the segments we had. We started off with our trial watch. Yes. Um, still looking at the Lindsay Clancy case, and from there we moved on to our legal minute. And Lacey made me jump around from our typical evidence of the night.

SPEAKER_01 36:55

What was our legal minute, though?

SPEAKER_00 36:57

Red flags. Our legal minute? What did we cover in our legal minute? Tell me. Do you remember?

SPEAKER_01 37:02

Yes, it was the Commonwealth versus well, not Commonwealth versus State, but specifically. And then we also talked about Coburger.

SPEAKER_00 37:11

Right. And what but the Coburger was part of our red flags.

SPEAKER_01 37:18

Yep.

SPEAKER_00 37:19

Also in our evidence of the night. We kind of swapped those up tonight and and changed it up a little bit. But we still had all four segments in.

SPEAKER_01 37:27

Yes, we tried to get them to flow so that hopefully by the time we discussed Coburger's filing, it made a little bit more sense. So let us know uh all of your feedback. Um, and again, share.

SPEAKER_00 37:42

Yeah, feel free to reach out to us.

SPEAKER_01 37:44

Yes. I mean, replays are on YouTube. And if you are on YouTube, um, you can subscribe. I think it's subscribe, right?

SPEAKER_00 37:53

Or follow YouTube, subscribe.

SPEAKER_01 37:56

Yeah, and TikTok is follow.

SPEAKER_00 37:59

So Amy, thank you for being here.

SPEAKER_01 38:02

As always, headlines end.

SPEAKER_00 38:06

The details begin.

SPEAKER_01 38:08

We'll see you Friday. Follow, share, find everything else.

SPEAKER_00 38:12

Our opinion, our analysis, not legal advice.

SPEAKER_01 38:16

Thanks for walking the case with us. We'll see you soon. Night, guys.