Competency vs. Insanity, the Siders Docket & Guthrie's Ransom Notes | The Particulars Ep. 13

Headlines end. The details begin. In Episode 13 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: the Lindsay Clancy trial, Day 5 — the medical testimony from the doctors who treated Lindsay and her son the night of, and where the trial stands.

Case Breakdown: the Siders family case out of Vinton County, Ohio, built almost entirely from primary court documents we pulled and reviewed ourselves — the bond motions, the competency filings, and the gag orders now in place in two of the defendants' cases. We walk through exactly what those orders restrict, and what they don't.

Legal Minute: competency to stand trial versus the insanity defense — two things constantly confused in coverage, and they're not the same. One is about whether a defendant can understand and participate in the proceedings right now; the other is about their mental state at the time of the offense.

Evidence of the Night: the Nancy Guthrie case. Six months after the 84-year-old — mother of TODAY co-host Savannah Guthrie — vanished from her Arizona home, the Pima County Sheriff released the ransom notes, hoping someone recognizes the writer's distinctive language.

Red Flag: why that release matters, and a caution — there's already a confirmed hoax in this exact case, a reminder to be careful with amateur analysis of an active investigation.

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. Accused/alleged throughout; charged is not convicted; presumption of innocence applies, every time.

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

Chapters
00:00 Intro & Tonight's Lineup
01:16 Trial Watch: Clancy Day 5
02:37 The Medical Testimony
06:11 Case Breakdown: The Siders Family
16:18 Legal Minute: Competency vs. Insanity
19:32 Evidence of the Night: The Guthrie Ransom Notes
24:04 Red Flag: The Confirmed Hoax
29:26 Close

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:00

Good evening.

SPEAKER_02 0:01

I'm Lacey.

SPEAKER_01 0:02

I'm Nick. This is the Particular.

SPEAKER_02 0:06

It is Monday night. It is August 3rd. We are officially in August, my friends. So that means it's birthday month. Hey, there's a couple birthdays coming up this month. Absolutely. Absolutely. So welcome back. I run a licensed PI firm and I am also a law student.

unknown 0:25

Wow.

SPEAKER_01 0:26

I see how you don't have anything of what I am on the show.

SPEAKER_02 0:28

I've so I've talked about this multiple times. That's fine. It is it. Your disclosure, sir. What you want to put out into the wild is on you. I'm not doing it.

SPEAKER_01 0:37

I'm Nick. Everything tonight is based on the public record and reporting we've received through our 5 30 p.m. Eastern production cutoff. We're not attorneys, and nothing here is legal advice.

SPEAKER_02 0:51

So do you want to do a uh Yeah, let's tease it a little bit.

SPEAKER_01 0:54

You want me to throw it over there for you?

SPEAKER_02 0:55

Yeah, let's see what you got. I'm gonna make you do it.

SPEAKER_01 0:58

Make me do it. My goodness.

SPEAKER_02 1:00

Yeah, he doesn't put anything out there. He's like, you know, it is what it is.

SPEAKER_01 1:04

Secret squirrel stuff.

SPEAKER_02 1:05

Oh, that's all right.

SPEAKER_01 1:07

So a rundown of tonight's episode. As always, uh, since we changed it last week, we are doing four segments. Our first segment is gonna be the trial watch, which is gonna be Lindsay Clancy day five. Our second segment is gonna be a case breakdown. Correct.

SPEAKER_02 1:23

And uh You will notice it is it does have a different name for tonight, and there is a reason. And we usually discuss that.

SPEAKER_01 1:29

Usually we'll we'll do our legal minute before on our segment two, but um we took off our red flags for tonight because we wanted to we wanted to get the cider's family and the 16 children in because we haven't touched on that in a while.

SPEAKER_02 1:43

It has not gotten like a good chunk. Again, I have all of that in there. Quick giving all that in. Um I have a breakdown of why the tonight's episode is a little bit different.

SPEAKER_01 1:52

Segment three is gonna be our legal minute competency versus the insanity defense. And segment four is gonna cover our evidence of the night, Nancy Guthrie, and the ransom notes released.

SPEAKER_02 2:05

Yes. So 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. She has pleaded not guilty and raised a lack of criminal responsibility. Massachusetts legal framework commonly described as the insanity defense.

SPEAKER_01 2:29

The trial resumed live this morning after the weekend, moving into its second week. Yep. Today's session began with doctors, the medical staff who treated Lindsay and Callan the night of the killings. We're focusing tonight on that portion of today's testimony. Additionally, additional testimony occurred later in the session, and we'll address it only once we've received it fully.

SPEAKER_02 2:54

The ER physician at South Shore Hospital who treated Lindsay that night testified about her injuries. Her chart showed a body temperature that had dropped to 82.1 degrees, and she was given a warming blanket. Head CT came back unremarkable, a normal study, through though other scans showed a thoracic spine injury. And on those wrist and neck cuts we've mentioned before, McDonough testified they were superficial, not actively bleeding, and didn't require immediate attention before transfer. So one nuance before, and we want to be precise about it. Okay, so the 82.1 degree of figure, that is her chart direct testimony. And CBS Boston separately reports that on cross-examination, when defense attorney Reddington asked her the body temperature for memory, she testified she didn't remember it. That's normal. Treating physicians commonly testify from records rather than independent recall months later. We're not stating that this is like, you know, there is a discrepancy, a little bit. I don't even want to say discrepancy, but the second doctor, Dr.

SPEAKER_01 4:01

David Casaban, an ICU physician at Boston Children's Hospital, testified about Callan specifically. He testified that Callan had extensive brain swelling and did not respond to neurological testing. His heart continued beating for a period of time, but subsequent testing determined that he met the criteria for brain death. Life support was ended on January 27, 2023, after brain death testing and after clinicians consulted Patrick Clancy.

SPEAKER_02 4:45

Judge Sullivan remarked Friday that the trial was, quote, well on schedule, if not ahead of schedule, end quote. There's still no written ruling uh located on the defense's emergency motion from last week, which is number 152 and 153, um, or the 154 disputing the search date evidence. Testimony is continued, but the public docket does not currently show a written ruling. We are not characterizing the motion as granted, denied, or otherwise resolved because I cannot verify that with my own eyes per the docket.

SPEAKER_01 5:16

Yeah, one small housekeeping note for anyone tracking this closely: the trial did not conclude today. Proceedings are scheduled to resume tomorrow, Tuesday, August 4th at 9 a.m.

SPEAKER_02 5:25

Yes. If you're tracking this start, this trial, start to finish, hit follow. We cover it every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. And because we do have like a little bit of a gap in between, um, in theory, the trial would be a Monday through Friday thing. We try to give as much in our, I don't even want to call it a briefing, but in our lives as we can to kind of bridge the gap. That was the whole point. Uh, we wanted the podcast to be two, so to speak, down-to-earth people explaining things from our perspective, our analysis, our opinion, while also showing you what we use to get those opinions.

SPEAKER_01 6:07

Yeah. So we are moving on to segment two. Yes, the case breakdown.

SPEAKER_02 6:13

This one is has a different name tonight. It's usually the legal minute.

SPEAKER_01 6:17

Yes, we moved it.

SPEAKER_02 6:19

Uh, sorry, quick note on the segment name. For anyone who's watched us call this slot evidence of the night before, does anybody notice that it is technically moved up to the top? And instead of giving you two evidences of the night, we are giving this a case breakdown title. So we've been sitting on this case for about two, two to three episodes now, waiting for the docket to actually move before we gave it real airtime. That's just our no-filler rule. Okay. Um, tonight it finally cleared that bar and it needed its own segment rather than a shared slot. So that's case breakdown, a real case history, start to finish, not just tonight's episode and not tonight's update.

SPEAKER_01 7:08

Back on June 30th, 16 children were removed from a home in Hamden, Ohio, Vinton County, after a warrant tied to an unrelated matter led investigators to what officials called deplorable conditions. Four adults were charged. Gary Siders Sr., his wife Christina, their son Gary Siders Jr., and Gary's Gary Jr.'s wife Elizabeth. Each face 16 counts of child endangerment. Now there's a viral rumor online claiming a headstone links the two of the children who died.

SPEAKER_02 7:45

Links to two.

SPEAKER_01 7:46

Well, it links to two. We can debunk that directly. Uh twin girls Bailey Lee and Faith Lee Siders died of natural causes the same day they were born, November 20th, 2022. Extreme prematurity confirmed against actual birth and death records. That's not connected to the endangerment charges. All four defendants waived their preliminary hearings back in early July. By waiving, they allowed the felony allegations to be bound over the four further proceedings in common plea, in common please court, including the grand jury consideration. We located no indictment entry in the public dockets as of our checks this afternoon.

SPEAKER_02 8:34

So there's real context behind today's paperwork that hasn't been widely reported. This isn't actually breaking news, uh, though today's filing looks like it at first glance. So Gary Siders Sr.'s bond was actually modified to recognizance back on July 8th, not today. He fell and was hospitalized while being transported to a court appearance, and doctors found what prosecutor William Archer called a serious medical condition requiring specialized care outside the county.

SPEAKER_01 9:03

Prosecutor Archer said on the record that keeping him in jail on the original $300,000 cash bond would have made Venton County financially responsible for that medical care. A cost he said would could potentially bankrupt the county. So the recognizance bond was agreed to instead with a GPS monitor once he was released from the hospital.

SPEAKER_02 9:26

So what we're actually looking at in today's docket is the formal recognizance of accused document, his personal signature dated today, August 3rd. That's paperwork catching up now that he's apparently able to appear in person, not a new decision by the court.

SPEAKER_01 9:41

The conditions on that signed document are still worth reading exactly. He has to remain a law-abiding citizen, keep the court updated on his address and phone number, appear at every hearing, report to Venton County Sheriff within 24 hours for fingerprinting and DNA collection, submit to a drug and alcoholic screening on request, and wear GPS monitoring at the state's expense. A recognizance bond is not a dismissal and not an acquittal. It means Gary Sr. was released without depositing $300 cash or posting a secured bond for the medical reasons his attorney and prosecutor both put on the record. That stated amount remains an enforceable obligation. An underlying endangering children charge stands exactly as filed.

SPEAKER_02 10:31

So beyond that, though, three of the four defendants now have competency evaluations either ordered or granted. Christina's motion for competency evaluation was filed July 28th and granted the next day, sending her to the District 9 Forensic Center on a 30-day report clock. Gary Jr.'s competency evaluation was granted the same day. Gary Sr.'s was ordered earlier in early July. Elizabeth is the only one of the four without a competency evaluation pending, and her bond modification motion from July 8th is still unruled as of today.

SPEAKER_01 11:07

Yeah, Christina is also the one defendant of the four who's remained in custody the whole time. We now have her own attorney's bond motion filed July 28th. She's 66, has no prior criminal record, and the filing states she was the one paying rent and utilities for the household and caring for her husband's own significant medical needs. It also states she has documented medical and mental health conditions requiring treatment. Her attorney is asking the court to release her on her own recognizance.

SPEAKER_02 11:42

So this is one side's filing, making the strongest possible case for release. It's not a neutral account, and the court hasn't ruled on it. So we're reading what her attorney argued, not treating it as an established fact about her innocence or guilt.

SPEAKER_01 11:57

We can also now fully resolve that July 16th filing we'd flagged last time. We have Christina's actual, Christina's attorney's actual motion in hand. It's titled, in her attorney's own words, quote, motion for non-dissemination order, end quote. The docket's listing of it's of it as quote, motion for dissemination order, end quote. The clerk shorthand. Dropping the non. Not a substantive difference. And the July 23rd order we couldn't previously explain. We now have that order too. It was granted. Judge L. Rogers signed a non-dissemination order in Christina's case as well, restricting the party's attorneys and court staff from making extra extrajudicial statements about the case. Sorry, my mint got to me. Oh my gosh.

SPEAKER_02 12:58

Alright.

SPEAKER_01 12:59

A competency evaluation is a good idea. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 13:03

Take it away, boss.

SPEAKER_01 13:04

A competency evaluation isn't a finding of guilt or innocence. And it isn't the same thing as an insanity defense. It's a separate threshold question. Can this person understand the proceedings against them and assist in their own defense? Right now, Ohio standard is written directly in the statute. We'll walk through the exact language in legal minute in a few minutes. Since it pairs with tonight's Clancy update, too.

SPEAKER_02 13:31

There's also a gag order in Gary Jr.'s case, signed July 14th, and we now have his attorney's actual motion, so we can tell you exactly why it was filed rather than just that it exists. His attorney argued that public officials had already made statements likely to taint the jury pool. The motion quotes the Ohio Attorney General calling the scene, quote, pure evil, end quote, and saying the children, quote, looked like almost feral animals, end quote, and quotes the Vinton County Sheriff saying the children's living conditions were worse than how he'd keep livestock. We're reporting these quotes because they're the documented basis a judge relied on to restrict speech in this case, not to relitigate whether the officials' underlying characterization of the home's conditions were accurate. That's a separate question from whether those specific public comments made before trial risk prejudicing a jury pool.

SPEAKER_01 14:27

That's why the judge agreed the same day, you know, the signed order restricts the parties, their attorneys, and staff, all court personnel and any public official from disseminating information or commenting on the case outside of actual court filings and hearings.

SPEAKER_02 14:46

I think it was a good call. Based on the order's actual text, it restricts the restrictions apply to the parties. So the attorneys, the court staff, public officials. It does not restrict independent reporting of publicly available document information, which is what everything tonight is sourced to.

SPEAKER_01 15:03

So one more, one more procedural thread. Gary Jr.'s attorney tried to file some documents under seal in late July. Specifically the competency evaluation motion itself. The state opposed sealing the motion. And the court agreed with the state deny excuse me. Denying the sealing request as to the motion and a standard entry regarding the evaluation. But the court was clear that private medical information submitted as exhibits will stay confidential. And the completed evaluation report itself will be sealed or redacted once it's finished.

SPEAKER_02 15:47

So this case has 16 children in it.

SPEAKER_03 15:52

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 15:53

Um, it has gotten a fraction of the sustained attention of some of the other stories that we personally have covered.

SPEAKER_01 16:02

There's a reason for that.

SPEAKER_02 16:03

Part of that is the gag order limiting what officials can say publicly. That's exactly why the docket, not the headlines, is where we're getting tonight's information.

SPEAKER_01 16:12

So that case breakdown is gonna lead into Yes.

SPEAKER_02 16:17

We're coming full circle now.

SPEAKER_01 16:18

Legal minute.

SPEAKER_02 16:19

There you go. We're back on track, right?

SPEAKER_01 16:21

Statement three, legal minute. Competency stand trial versus not guilty by reason of insanity.

SPEAKER_02 16:31

Ta-da! Two mental health legal standards came up tonight in two different cases. We're gonna untangle them so that you don't get confused going forward. So, people mix these up constantly. So let's be precise. Competency to stand trial asks right now, today, can this person understand what's happening in court and help their own lawyer defend them? If it has nothing to do with their mental state at the time of the alleged crime.

SPEAKER_01 17:01

Ohio's statute puts it plainly. A defendant is presumed competent unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that because of their present mental state, they're incapable of understanding the nature and objective of the proceedings against them, or of assisting their own defense.

SPEAKER_02 17:22

That's the question the CIDER's competency evaluations are being ordered to examine. The evaluator doesn't make the final legal ruling, the court does. If competency is disputed, the judge considers the evaluation and other evidence and determines whether the defendant pres presently understands the proceedings and can assist in the defense. If not, Ohio law provides a provides additional procedures addressing treatment and possible restoration before the prosecution can proceed.

SPEAKER_01 17:50

Yeah, not guilty by reason of insanity or in Massachusetts, quote, lack of criminal responsibility, the McColl standard, McCow standard, the McCow standard we've walked through before on Clancy, ask a completely different question. At the time of the alleged offense, did a mental disease or defect cause the defendant to lack this substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of the conduct or to conform the conduct to the requirements of the law. That's about the defendant's condition at the time of the alleged acts, not whether they can participate in court today.

SPEAKER_02 18:34

And I think I will say uh this is exactly where like my forensic psychology coursework and Nick's investigative backgrounds actually meet. So competency evaluations and criminal responsibility evaluations use overlapping clinical tools, but answer legally distinct questions. And courts treat that distinction seriously even when press coverage doesn't. So that's why when you have some of these cases that are covered and they're throwing things out, it's really hard for people to understand because there are legal standards. There, there's legal precedent, there are statutes, and it's a very funnel almost, but they all work together. And sometimes it's just like, hey, we're gonna throw this out, even though we don't really want to give you an explanation. And that's where people get confused. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 19:33

We are going to move on to our evidence of the night. Segment four.

SPEAKER_02 19:40

So I I did a little foreshadowing there. Did anybody pick up on it? So Saturday marked six months since Nancy Guthrie disappeared from her Tucson home. Friday, the day before, investigators released something they'd held back the entire time. So Nancy Guthrie, 84 years old, mother of today's show co-host Savannah Guthrie, was reported missing from her Catalina Foothills area home on February 1st. Authorities are investigating the case as an apparent kidnapping for ransom. Friday, the Pima County Sheriff's Department and the FBI's Phoenix Field office released the full text of two ransom notes sent to a Tucson TV station in the days after she banished.

SPEAKER_01 20:20

The first note sent February 2nd demanded $4 million in Bitcoin within seven days, threatening to raise the demand to six million and ultimately kill her if deadlines passed. It included two details investigators say weren't public at the time: a smartwatch found near her bed and a destroyed floodlight in her backyard. Which is part of why they believed it might be genuine.

SPEAKER_02 20:49

So we're describing the contents and significance of these notes as officially released. We are not reading the full notes verbatim on air, and we're not speculating about who wrote them. That's exactly what investigators are asking the public's help with. Not something for us to guess at.

SPEAKER_01 21:26

Sheriff Chris Nanos told NBC News directly that the notes were released now specifically to reach anyone who might recognize the writer's language. The department describes a quote, unique linguistic style, end quote, in both notes, and they believe could be recognizable to someone who knows the person.

SPEAKER_02 21:49

Also released alongside the notes, investigators have said they're assessing whether surveillance video from Guthrie's doorbell camera may show the same masked individual on two separate days, not one. If confirmed, investigators believe it could indicate activity preceding the disappearance, and a hair sample recovered from inside her home has been tested. CNN reports the sheriff's department confirms it did not identify a suspect.

SPEAKER_01 22:15

The hair result is described as not identifying a suspect. We're not calling it exculpatory, a clearance or a non-match beyond the exact phrasing, and we're not naming or clearing anyone based on it. So, my opinion. Six months in, releasing evidence like this publicly is usually a sign investigators believe they are they've exhausted what they can do quietly and need the public's eyes now. That's not a knock on the investigation. It's often just where a case goes like this. Because it's I mean, it's an 84-year-old woman that's missing, and they have next to nothing. So we will get to our red flag, which kind of covers our evidence of the night. I'm just tonight's red flag. Spot on with this. Tonight's red flag is about what not to do with the Guthrie ransom notes because we can already see it starting online. Within hours of the notes going public Friday, we started seeing amateur linguistic analysis accounts online, people confidently naming specific suspects because based on word choice or sentence structure in two short letters. We're not doing that, and we'd caution anyone watching against trusting it either. Forensic linguistics is a real discipline, but it's slow, it's methodical and done by trained analysts working with investigators. Not something reliably done by a stranger on the internet in an afternoon. And this isn't hypothetical caution. There's already a confirmed hoax in this exact case. A California man, Derek Kallella, confirmed, or Derek Kallella unconfirmed, we'll say that's unconfirmed, pleaded guilty in July to two federal counts of harassment for texting and calling two of Guthrie's family members directly in the days after she disappeared, falsely suggesting he was connected to the Bitcoin ransom. That's a separate incident from the two notes we discussed tonight. But it's proof this case has already attracted people fabricating involvement for attention.

SPEAKER_02 24:42

Well, we don't know their motive.

SPEAKER_01 24:44

Yeah, Kalela's conduct, texting Guthrie's daughter and son-in-law directly, is distinct from the two ransom notes sent to the Tucson TV station that are the subject of tonight's segment. We're not implying he's connected to those notes. The record does not support that. You have an opinion on that?

SPEAKER_02 25:05

Do you really want it?

SPEAKER_01 25:06

Nope.

SPEAKER_02 25:09

Okay. This is the same instinct that we flagged with the crowdsource Clancy trial recaps a few weeks ago. Yeah. Just pointed at a different kind of content. So confident isn't the same as correct. So investigators asked people who genuinely recognized the wording or writing style to come forward. They did not ask the public to identify and accuse people through online profiling.

SPEAKER_01 25:37

It's gonna happen, though. I'm just saying. It did. So not mentioned tonight by design.

SPEAKER_02 25:47

Are you gonna let me say it? So Brian Koberger, no ruling or filing movement on the post-conviction relief petition since episode 11. Zero airtime tonight.

SPEAKER_01 25:58

And Tate Brothers, no movement since August uh 13 detention hearing set. And that was already reported in zero airtime for that tonight as well. Some housekeeping for tonight.

SPEAKER_02 26:11

Everything we've got lives in one place, our link tree. Link is in the bio, which has got our schedule, our Kofi, uh, the sticker mule store, every social, one link. And Kofi's are research and records fund because it costs us money to have these accounts to be able to pull this stuff, and it's not always I will say on that note, I will say on that note as well, that the other night when Nick came in to get me, because I was on the computer and I was down a rabbit hole trying to decide if I wanted to buy more subscriptions to like go further down the rabbit hole. I was like, can I buy this subscription so that I could have access to this? And he was like, No. No.

SPEAKER_01 26:58

So if you're watching this as a clip and not live, follow, like it, share it, and check the Kofi and the Sticker Mule links in our link tree.

SPEAKER_02 27:08

In this episode, which is Monday's episode 13, we did our trial watch, which was Lindsay Clancy, which was day five of the trial. And today there was a lot of medical um testimony that occurred. Um, we kind of went into that a little bit more in depth, and we actually did a lot, I think, even still more, of continuing to kind of refer back to points throughout the trial. We talked about opening statements and some things like that. So if you missed the trial watch segment tonight, that is our first segment. I do believe that is staying in the number one spot. So moving forward, if you do want the trial watch specifically, we are on live Monday, Wednesday, Friday. That is our first segment. So otherwise, though, you can catch the replay on YouTube. But then we went into our technically second segment of tonight, which we did a little bit different just because of what we were covering. This was a case breakdown of the Ciders family. So this was the 16 children case out of Ohio, and that is segment two. Again, when we put everything, the replay on our YouTube, there are chapter markers, so you can skip through and watch the specific, specific sections if you are wanting those sections. They are clearly marked. Then we went into the legal minute, which our legal minute tonight was competency versus the insanity defense. And we discussed how the cider's case difference differs than the Massachusetts Lindsay Clancy, which again I think is a very good segment as well. And then finally, we did the evidence of the night, which was Nancy Guthrie, the ransom notes released.

SPEAKER_00 29:05

And I just tripped you up.

SPEAKER_02 29:07

We had a red flag, a red flag at the very end. I didn't get in the grass. Like they were all pretty much tonight. I thought they all pretty much were connected in some way.

SPEAKER_01 29:19

Maybe I'm ran together really well, I think. It was a I think it was very well put together.

SPEAKER_02 29:25

Oh, thank you.

SPEAKER_01 29:26

But that's it for the particulars on this Monday night.

SPEAKER_02 29:32

Headlines end.

SPEAKER_01 29:34

The details begin.

SPEAKER_02 29:36

We'll see you Wednesday. Follow, share, find everything else on our link tree, our opinion, our analysis, not legal advice. Thanks for walking the cases with us. We will see you Wednesday.