Clancy Trial Week Two & How a Parent Gets Convicted of Murder | The Particulars Ep. 14

Headlines end. The details begin. In Episode 14 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 full catch-up on the Lindsay Clancy trial — the rest of Day 5, all of Day 6, and today's Day 7. The treating physicians, the trauma-ICU nurses, the psychiatrists, the stipulation on chain of custody, the wound and toxicology testimony, and the former nanny who described Lindsay as "a wonderful mom." Plus an honest update on the pending motions — we told you Monday we wouldn't characterize the emergency motion until we saw a ruling on the docket ourselves, and we pulled the full docket today to keep that promise.

Legal Minute: how a parent ends up convicted of MURDER for a shooting their child committed — and why it's only happened a handful of times in American history. We walk through the exact Georgia statute that makes it possible (second-degree murder via second-degree cruelty to children), the difference between binding and persuasive precedent, and the line from the Crumbley manslaughter convictions to this one.

Evidence of the Night: the sentence that just came down in that case — 15 years, when prosecutors asked for 80 and the defense asked for 10 — and what the judge said on the record about negligence versus intent.

Red Flag: what's circulating online about the Clancy case versus what the actual blood-stain expert on the stand would, and would not, say. The discipline of "I cannot tell you that from a photograph" is the whole point.

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. Note: our Clancy coverage draws on the official court docket plus an unofficial, auto-captioned recording that is not a certified transcript; where wording matters, we flag it. Accused/alleged throughout; charged is not convicted.

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

Chapters
00:00 Intro & Tonight's Lineup
01:27 Trial Watch: Commonwealth v. Clancy
02:00 Day 5 — The Rest of the Witnesses
09:59 Day 6 — The Stipulation
17:46 Day 7 — Wounds, Toxicology & the Nanny
22:00 The Pending Motions: Keeping Our Promise
27:22 Legal Minute: When a Parent Is Charged for a Child's Crime
31:30 Is This "Precedent"? Be Careful With That Word
33:00 Evidence of the Night: The Colin Gray Sentence
35:54 Red Flag: What the Expert Would & Wouldn't Say
42:44 Close

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:00

So our opinion, our analysis, not legal advice. So it is a big night. Okay. Trial watch is a full catch up on Clancy. Monday we only got to the two doctors on day five. And since then we've had the we've had the rest of day five, all of day six, and today day seven. Then a legal minute that goes deep on something a lot of you asked about how a parent ends up convicted of murder for a shooting their child committed, and why that's only happened a handful of times in American history. Evidence of the night is the sentence that just came down in that exact case. And a red flag on what's circulating online about how she got out that window and what the actual expert on the stand would and wouldn't say. Sourcing up front, our Clancy content comes from the official court docket and an unofficial auto-captioned recording of the trial watch broadcast that is not an official court transcript, where wording matters will flag it. And I will also say that it includes my handwritten notes that I have taken. And as Nick has seen how I watch the trial, I will watch it. Pause, watch, pause, watch, pause, watch, pause. So if it's like a seven-hour video of the trials, that you know, it takes me almost double that time.

SPEAKER_03 1:24

Let's go.

SPEAKER_01 1:25

Segment one.

SPEAKER_03 1:27

Trial watch.

SPEAKER_01 1:27

Trial watch. So Lindsay Clancy is on trial in Plymouth Superior Court for the deaths of her three children, Cora, Dawson, and Callan in Duxbury, Massachusetts, in January of 2023. She's charged with first-degree murder. The defense has not disputed that she caused the deaths of her children. Instead, it argues she lacked criminal responsibility. A notice of lack of criminal responsibility, Massachusetts insanity defense framework, arguing she was in severe postpartum psychosis and could not understand what she was doing.

SPEAKER_03 2:02

Let's define lack of criminal responsibility, shall we? Massachusetts version of an insanity defense. Under the was it McCool?

SPEAKER_01 2:11

McAu.

SPEAKER_03 2:12

Macau. I always get that wrong.

SPEAKER_01 2:13

Yeah, I know.

SPEAKER_03 2:14

Under the McCow standard, the question is whether because of mental disease or defect, a person lacked the capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct or to conform their conduct to the law.

SPEAKER_01 2:29

And we covered that Monday.

SPEAKER_03 2:33

Yes, where we left off on Monday, the medical testimony of Kelly McDr. Kelly McDonough, South Shore ER, the 82.1 body temperature, superficial wrist and neck cuts, thoracic spine injury, and David, Dr. David Cosavant of Boston Children's ICU, which was Callan's brain death determination. Life support ended January 27th. We noted the Friday jury view and Judge Sullivan's well on schedule. If not ahead.

SPEAKER_01 3:12

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 3:13

They're moving along. And tonight we pick up everything else.

SPEAKER_01 3:18

So the rest of day five, the witnesses we haven't covered. So day five actually had 13 witnesses. We covered two. So here's the rest. Two more treating physicians for the children. Dr. Michael Snyder, ER at Beth Israel, treated Cora, arrived in cardiac arrest, CPR and Pediatric Advanced Life Support in progress. Ultimately declared deceased. Dr. Andrew Kapara at Boston Children's received Callan by MedFlight. Then the Brigham and Women's Staff who treated Lindsay herself. Rochelle Amid, a trauma ICU nurse, testified she was assigned to Lindsay's care overnight on a one-to-one, and that Lindsay coded at approximately 3:30 in the morning, meaning her blood pressure dropped to a level not sustainable with life, and the team began CPR.

SPEAKER_03 4:06

One-to-one. Used here because Lindsay was identified as a suicide suicide risk.

SPEAKER_01 4:21

So the next the next thing they're going to break down is coding. So for those that don't know, in a hospital, coding, they'd have different, and each hospital is a little bit different depending on what they give each color, but it is hospital shorthand for a medical emergency, typically cardiac or respiratory arrest, that triggers an immediate resuscitation response. So again, there could be like a code blue. They have different hospitals, different codes. We just said coding in general.

SPEAKER_03 4:48

A second nurse, Megan Collins, testified that after Lindsay was taken off a breathing tube, she became confused and agitated, was picking at her lines and drains, and had to be restrained. ICU delirium. And that improved over the following days. And two psychiatrists, different reasons, different days, often confused for each other. Dr. Sahal Shah evaluated Lindsay on January 29th regarding her capacity to change her healthcare proxy from her husband to her parents and testified she was able to voice a consistent choice.

SPEAKER_01 5:29

The healthcare proxy is actually, it's just the person legally authorized to make medical decisions for you if you can't make them yourself. So the rest of day five was the chain of custody. So the search warrant block. Sergeant Rose Stoffers and Trooper John Santos, crime scene search, Detective Mark Feroli and Trooper Leah O'Connell, collection and logging of Lindsay's blood and urine, and Duxbury Sergeant Robert Flynn, scene sweep. Flag them as witnesses. Okay. So all day five witnesses content here. We have used the transcript to catch. And I will say that when I'm taking my notes personally, I pause. Uh, because if you've noticed, if you can't caught any of the testimony as it's live going on, when they take the stand, they ask them to state their name, spell it for the record, and then they give their date of birth. So when they do that, I am actually making that note myself so that I can spell their name correctly based on how they say it. And I might have to rewind and pause multiple times before I can get it all. But some people talk fast.

SPEAKER_03 6:35

A legal point worth flagging, the second day five psychiatrist. There's one more day five witness, and she matters enough to stop on because her testimony connects to something the defense flagged all the way back on day one opening. So back to consciousness of guilt. And the definition of that. A legal concept where a prosecutor prosecutor argues a defendant's after-the-fact behavior, fleeing, lying, destroying evidence. That shows they they knew they'd done something wrong. A recognized category of evidence. What it is not is a person exercising a constitutional right.

SPEAKER_01 7:23

So in his day one opening statement, defense attorney Kevin Reddington directly addressed the prosecution's use of the fact that Lindsay asked for a lawyer, calling it sarcastically, quote, that's rich, end quote. Right before walking the jury through her cutting her own throat in front of the mirror as evidence this was not a faked suicide attempt. So the moment that traces to came on day five, and um it was Dr. Jilliam Bisoise, a forensic psychiatrist. On January 26th, the day after surgery, she evaluated Lindsay while she was still intubated and unable to speak. Lindsay answered by writing on paper. And that's actually depending on which some said she used like a dry erase or some have said paper, but basically she was intubated, couldn't talk, so she used another form of communication.

SPEAKER_03 8:15

Form of communication, yeah.

SPEAKER_01 8:17

Um asked her mood, she wrote, quote, horrified, end quote. She then wrote, quote, do I have an attorney? End quote. Followed by quote, is my body broken? Are my legs straight? End quote.

SPEAKER_03 8:35

And this is an auto-transcript source, not certified. So treat the wording as close, not verbatim, yeah until confirmed against the certified transcript. And so just to just to bridge my credentials a little bit, from an investigative agent standpoint, this is a well-settled invoking your right to an attorney generally cannot be used as evidence of guilt. It it is your right to to seek counsel, um, regardless of whether you think you did anything wrong or not. There are narrow context dependent wrinkles, though, pre-arrest versus post-arrest, Miranda, impeachment, those are all nuances when it comes to that. But as a substantive argument that someone is guilty because they asked for a lawyer, no. Um, not etiquette, constitutional law. It's it's in the constitution. If a jury heard it framed as suspicious without a clear instruction, that's a real appellate issue down the road.

SPEAKER_01 9:40

Viewed in context, those statements appear sequential, written one after another on the same page during the same medical encounter, while she was intubated and able to speak. We're not going to tell you what was in her head. Reasonable people may read that sequence differently. What we can say is a legal matter is narrower. A request for counsel standing alone is not consciousness of guilt. Day six. The stipulation and the forensic chain. So on Tuesday, August 4th, after a colloquy with the court, very good, Judge Sullivan found that Lindsey Clancy made a stipulation willingly, knowingly, and voluntarily on the record, defense counsel stated it covers chain of custody, the blood, the fluids, the exercise bands, the DNA, specifically to spare the jury what he called, quote, days of testimony, end quote, from custody witnesses.

SPEAKER_03 10:35

So definition of stipulation. Stipulation is an agreement between both sides that certain facts don't need to be proven witness by witness. Not a guilty plea. Says nothing about guilt or innocence on the charges. Here, purely about how physical evidence is handled. And that is a gameplay that the defense is doing to help minimize the amount of talking about the blood, the fluids, the exercise bands to the jury. It really is. That's what it is.

SPEAKER_01 11:08

I and I I agree, yes, but at the same time, like I have watched Days of This.

SPEAKER_03 11:15

And they and they are just doing it anyway.

SPEAKER_01 11:17

Well, it it is. I'm sorry. I mean, she people may paint her out to be a monster or whatever, but I can tell you as a mom, and I'm sitting here listening, and they are going through like what, you know, all of the things in regard to each specific child, and it is, you know, one person, I did this, and then the next person comes in and says the same thing. And it's like you hear now for six hours over and over and over and over. And you know, whether it's a show, whether it's whatever, but you can see her almost like just sobbing quietly as she hears, you know, the heart was not beating, or you know, that as I mean, again, take it as you will, but I'm telling me, like, as I'm watching this, if I was in that situation, I couldn't listen to that all day.

SPEAKER_03 12:09

Side note, we were going about our day-to-day the other day, and Lacey mentions to me, hey, do you want to stay up with me and watch some of this? I had I have the most disdain for this proceeding. The absolute I understand it's a part of the justice system and it needs to be done. It has to be done. But I don't my me personally, I don't have to be a part of it. I don't have to. In my in my life, in my way of living, I have so much disdain for what is happening with this situation. But I But it's a it's a reality. I have to understand it's a reality.

SPEAKER_01 12:51

Yeah, and I feel like the only way that you can elicit change or you know, things like that is to know. And like that's the thing. I get not everyone can sit for seven hours a day and watch this trial unfold. But at the same time, otherwise, you're taking somebody else's word for what was said or what was done.

SPEAKER_03 13:09

And I want to I want to put this through a lens, and I don't mean to cut you off. I do that all the time. But every time I talk, think about this exactly. Think about this. You're putting it through the lens of you. Think about the lens of somebody else who just does not care.

SPEAKER_01 13:24

They are the one that this happens to.

SPEAKER_03 13:26

That's your lens.

SPEAKER_01 13:27

No.

SPEAKER_03 13:28

That is your lens.

SPEAKER_01 13:29

Because the people that continue to go along in their life thinking, not me, not my problem, not my business, I'm just gonna move along. You never know. And you could be in a situation where if, say, for instance, they find that it was medical that led to this, and you know, maybe one day you are in a situation where you can't get the help you need, or this or that, or whatever. You never know. You never know if you know it's your kids that are, you know, gonna be away at college and something happens.

SPEAKER_03 14:04

I get that. We want to be the most well-informed that we can, and the more experience we have with a situation that could it potentially impact us down the road, yeah. We're more well-informed and we could make better decisions.

SPEAKER_01 14:18

But there's just too many people that go along in life and they're just like, oh well, not my problem, not my business.

SPEAKER_03 14:23

Or or they just react to whatever happens.

SPEAKER_01 14:26

Yeah, and they take what people say.

SPEAKER_03 14:28

That's called living, man. L I one of the reasons we started this podcast, honestly, and doing the lives was because the people that we talked to, the very few people that we talk to, they they enjoyed our dynamic uh between each other, the way we express.

SPEAKER_01 14:47

And that we don't always agree on everything.

SPEAKER_03 14:49

Always agree because uh case in point, you know, Lacey is very much wanting to know about this situation, this situation, to be prepared. Me, on the other hand, I'm a fly by my seated my pants type of guy for the most part, and I'll deal with it when it happens.

SPEAKER_01 15:13

Okay. Well, I'm just gonna go ahead and say that if we are willing to believe that everyone is all great, good, and wonderful, and everybody does their job to the best of their abilities, I don't believe that, then I wouldn't have anything to worry about.

SPEAKER_03 15:27

That and that and that's fine.

SPEAKER_01 15:29

But sadly, we know in too many situations where people are not always doing things with the utmost honesty and good intention. And good intention. Yes.

SPEAKER_03 15:41

You're right, you're absolutely right, and we hope that in our lives we don't experience that. But if we do, we're gonna be able to do that.

SPEAKER_01 15:48

But if I if I didn't pay attention to this, I wouldn't know that this kind of stuff goes on. Like, and I'm not saying this specific case, I am saying there have been counselors.

SPEAKER_03 15:56

Okay, but does that where does that help you as a person?

SPEAKER_01 16:01

I don't trust people.

SPEAKER_03 16:04

So it gives you anxiety.

SPEAKER_01 16:06

Well, I mean, maybe a little bit, but I'm also prepared. Okay.

SPEAKER_03 16:11

The rest of day six ran the forensic and medical chain. Dr. Christina Carpio, trauma surgeon, confirmed the 82.1 degree temperature and unstable thoracic spine fractures. Lieutenant Joseph Rabbit checked on the children at the hospital, then assisted the warrant. Maureen Hartnett collected stain swabs across the scene. Trooper Jonathan Olaflin fingerprints on the bands and the knives, the resistance bands and the knives. None recovered. Toxicology witness, uh, there were a couple of them, Hillary Griffiths, Lisa Yell, and Alicia Zimmerman. What was and what wasn't in her system, post-mortem screening for the children, and a bloodstained pattern analysis, Sherry Crook, whose testimony we're holding for the red flag, because it goes straight at what a lot of you have been debating online. We've seen a lot of debate on the bloodstained analyst.

SPEAKER_01 17:19

We are going to define post-mortem toxicology. So toxic toxicology testing performed after death here on the three children, separate from the clinical toxicology done on Lindsay while she was alive. And on that note, I will also say that if you are not following along with the trial, like in real time, you're missing a lot of key things where it's really good to hear some of this broken down.

SPEAKER_03 17:44

I can pretty much promise you you're not following along with the trial like she is.

SPEAKER_01 17:47

Day seven.

SPEAKER_03 17:48

Today.

SPEAKER_01 17:49

We're gonna fast forward now. We're going forward and we talked about day six.

SPEAKER_03 17:53

This is we're talking about day seven now.

SPEAKER_01 17:55

So this is the wounds, toxicology, DNA, and the nanny.

SPEAKER_03 18:00

Um Eaton Negri.

SPEAKER_01 18:02

Yes, a physician assistant at Bringham and Women's testified to a right wrist laceration about three centimeters deep, requiring one suture, and a left wrist laceration about two centimeters deep, also one suture, with other cuts superficial and closed with stairy strips. So you will hear, and again, if you were listening to any of the first parts of the witness testimony, it was repeated quite frequently that they were superficial cuts. Um, and then you know, they were trying to, you know, they were trying to elicit the testimony to bring out, well, how much blood was here and there. So you'll hear that superficial and deep about different on the same person. So it's not a contradiction. Um on cross, the point was made that in a medical chart, deep describes direction into the skin versus across it, not automatically severity. And also on that note, when uh some of these people were testifying, they were there on the scene, and they stated that they only saw on one side versus the other. Some said they saw like on in regard to her neck. Yeah, some of the testimony said that they saw it all the way across.

SPEAKER_03 19:22

Okay, I'm gonna stop you right there because you can claim what you saw.

SPEAKER_01 19:28

I'm I'm that's fine.

SPEAKER_03 19:29

You can claim what you saw and testify to it. But I'll tell you right now, from personal experience, when somebody's got somebody has dried blood all over them, yeah, you have no clue where cuts are. Period. Yeah, end of story, until you wash the entire area clean of blood.

SPEAKER_01 19:54

You well, and that's even even in the photos, like even like you know, because they show it and you can see, you know, the lacerations, but she's got blood on her hands. Oh, it's everywhere. They talked about the clothing that they had removed from her, and you know, it had soaked like into her brawl and things like that. So, I mean, I and again, it was dark. Like, she was outside, so it was dark. It was, you know, I don't necessarily fault them, so to speak, for what they say they saw or didn't see. However, what I was kind of in my head, as I'm listening to this, it was like regardless, it was like I hate when those things are said because I'm just saying they they and again, this was the Commonwealth that brought these witnesses, so they were trying to get the point across that they were very minimal, so to speak. They wanted to minimize that, you know, not minimize in the way that they just they're cr trying to kind of elicit that she wasn't being sincere in the attempt.

SPEAKER_03 20:56

Okay, well, um, the Commonwealth brought forth a ton of evidence that I got a little glance at today when I was prepping for the stream that had blood absolutely everywhere in that room.

SPEAKER_01 21:13

Well, and again, that was one of those things, like in this isn't superficial cuts, but sorry, the Commonwealth did did object to some of the photos, and I I was just like, I don't know. They presented, no, not that one. There was another it was another one later in testimony they objected because they were you know they're like, Well, well, objection to that. And I'm like, what the whole superficial thing we can't pick and choose, which irritates the crap out of the case. So, anyways, I will say that a large part of what is being, you know, kind of back and forth on social media, even within the courtroom, you've seen it. And I'm thinking as a juror in this case, it's they're gonna latch onto it. And I I they tried to say things like you know, like one of the testimonies, um, there Like, well, you didn't have to apply a tourniquet, so it wasn't a bad laceration. Well, I don't know that a lot of I mean, I don't, I I can't say, like, in my head, I wanted to be like, that should have been like I said before, not allowed because you don't know how many people actually get like you know, it's so frustrating for me. I think they're trying to put on that this wasn't really her trying to kill herself.

SPEAKER_03 22:29

Yeah, it would you know of course that's their that's that's their job. That's what they're trying to do.

SPEAKER_01 22:34

Again, and like I because I looked at it and I was like, that one, I know, like there's one, it's it's it doesn't necessarily look and again it's a picture, and most of these, I'm like, what printer are we using to print these photos?

SPEAKER_03 22:46

But but they said three centimeters deep, requiring one suture. That's an inch, ladies and gentlemen. That is nearly an inch. Now, if you have an inch deep laceration in your body, that is not superficial.

SPEAKER_01 23:04

Again, I don't necessarily think that unless we're talking about like a doctor or like a trauma person that is screening the three cylinder or centimeters, where we don't live in a nation that uses the metric system.

SPEAKER_03 23:17

So 99% of people have no idea how big three centimeters is. Well, let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, it's nearly an inch.

SPEAKER_01 23:25

I will also say that during some of the testimonies, they have they have pointed out, and and I don't remember who exactly said it, but they were like, Well, they she didn't have to have any sutures or anything until the next day. Well, most people know in in hospital settings that if if someone comes in in a trauma situation, yeah, and they have uh something that needs sutures, but they've got like they're missing an arm, the suture on the toe might not be as important as fixing this, you know, the arm that's missing.

SPEAKER_03 23:58

I'm gonna say this and then we're gonna move on to the two toxicology witnesses. I just wish and I would hope, but honestly, the government would just tell the truth. State the facts as they are, not how you want them to be interpreted.

SPEAKER_01 24:17

I agree. I agree. I mean, if the facts of the case are what they are, then you shouldn't have to elicit or uh try to persuade you know what I'm saying? Like it should just be the facts of the case. And let the people actually interpret the facts of the case without you giving them your interpretation.

SPEAKER_03 24:38

So the two toxicology witnesses, Nicholas Roberts, a former state crime lab analyst, and Justin Brouwer of NMS Labs, testified her prescribed psychiatric medications were larger largely a therapeutic level, with one exception. I don't know the name of this, but it's spelled Q-U-E-T-I-A-P-I-N-E. That medication elevated but far below overdose levels. Brower's opinion, the levels were not consistent with an overdose. A DNA analysis, Katrina Stashin. We'll try that. Testified to the lab. Testified to the lab across or gosh, I can't read right now. I'm so sorry. I'm just this is how heated I am about this whole situation. It's so frustrating.

SPEAKER_01 25:36

Okay, let's testify the lab process and that her controls and review passed. And Lindsay's former nanny, Elaine Rossi, testified, describing Lindsay as attentive and safety focused with no disclosures of harmful thoughts toward the children during her time with the family. According to multiple media reports today, she described Lindsay as a quote, wonderful mom.

SPEAKER_03 25:59

End quote. She helps me out so much.

SPEAKER_01 26:07

So still open, the promise we made Monday. Monday we told you that we would not characterize the defense's emergency motion, numbers 152, 153, and 155. 155 affidavit disputing the search date evidence until we can see a ruling on the docket ourselves, keeping that promise, and we pulled the docket today. As of the docket current through today, August 5th, there is still no written ruling on the emergency motion. Um, and there is also no ruling on the defense's limited testimony motion number 138. The jury instruction motion, which is number 118, remains under advisement, meaning the judge hasn't taken it under consideration or has taken it under consideration, but it is not decided. Between Monday and today, the only substantive docket entry is the stipulation. The trial is simply moving forward through testimony.

SPEAKER_03 27:02

Straight off the official record docket pulled today. Primary. Nothing decided on any of these three. We're not characterizing any as granted or denied.

SPEAKER_01 27:18

We will continue to our next segment. Segment two, the legal minute. When a parent is charged for a child's crime. You just refrain from Okay.

SPEAKER_03 27:34

I am I am gonna refrain from a lot of my commentary with this.

SPEAKER_01 27:39

Yes.

SPEAKER_03 27:40

And I am going to read it.

SPEAKER_01 27:42

If you want to talk, you can just talk about the the legal part of it.

SPEAKER_03 27:45

Okay. So legal minute.

SPEAKER_01 27:47

This is the kind of thing this whole show exists to do. So take something that sounds impossible, a parent convicted of murder for a shooting they didn't commit, and walk you through exactly how the law gets there. Because last week it produced what has been reported as the first murder conviction of a parent arising from a child's mass shooting following the Crumley parents' involuntary manslaughter convictions in Michigan. So the backstory.

SPEAKER_03 29:07

Carrying it out or being present when it happened. So how is that murder? The answer is a specific piece of Georgia law, and it's worth understanding. Second degree cruelty to children in the state of Georgia means causing a child cruel or excessive physical or mental pain through criminal negligence. Note the key word, negligence. It does not require that you intended to hurt anyone. Next, second-degree murder in the state of Georgia. A charge, Georgia's legislature created specifically to fill a gap, causing a death irrespective of malice, meaning without the intent to kill, while committing that second-degree cruelty to children offense.

SPEAKER_01 30:05

So here's why this is an important statutory distinction. So Georgia felony murder ordinarily requires proof of an underlying felony, while second-degree cruelty to children is specifically based on criminal negligence. Georgia created second-degree murder to address a death resulting from that particular negligence-based felony. Meaning the state can reach a murder conviction without ever proving the person intended a death. That is how a father who was found negligent, not malicious, ends up convicted of murder. Not a loophole, a statute built for exactly this. So we're explaining the general structure of Georgia's statute. We are not offering a legal opinion on whether it was correctly applied to Colin Gray. That was the jury's job, and they returned their verdict in March.

SPEAKER_03 30:54

So is this precedent? Is it going to become precedent? Be careful with that word. Because binding versus persuasive precedent. Binding precedent is a ruling from a higher court that lower courts must follow. What's happening here is different. A trial court conviction doesn't bind any other court. What it does is serve as a persuasive template, a model other prosecutors can point to and follow. Influential, not mandatory. So when you hear this case called precedent, hold that loosely. The real story is the prosecutorial trend, not a new rule of law.

SPEAKER_01 31:38

So in 2024, James and Jennifer Crumley became the first parents in the country convicted over a mass shooting committed by their child in Michigan for involuntary manslaughter. Colin Gray's case is the second homicide prosecution of its kind in the nation, and notably a conviction for murder, a step up from manslaughter. The judge himself called it the first case of its kind tried in Georgia, and the second he was aware of nationally. So prosecutors are already watching a next case. A Wisconsin father, Jeffrey Ruppnow, charged after his daughter's December 2024 shooting, though he faces a weapons charge, not homicide.

SPEAKER_03 32:20

You know, if you line them up, you can see the arc. Misdemeanor, reckless conduct pleas a few years ago, then manslaughter with the Crumleys, and now with Gray, I mean, murder with Gray. Each case stretches the theory a little further. That's why the judge here called these cases divisive on the record. The genuinely open legal question, the one reasonable people land on different sides of, is how far this net should reach. Our job is not to answer that for you. We have our opinions of it. We're not gonna state them here on this.

SPEAKER_01 33:03

Evidence of the night.

SPEAKER_03 33:05

Johnny on the spot with it.

SPEAKER_01 33:07

The Colin Gray sentence.

SPEAKER_03 33:11

So we just walked through how the law got there. Here's what actually came down last week. On Thursday, July 30th, Barrow County Superior Court Judge Nicholas Prim sentenced Colin Gray to 15 years in prison. Concurrent sentences on two counts of second-degree murder, two counts of involuntary manslaughter, and lesser counts. Prosecutors had sought 80 years. The defense had asked for 10. The judge was blunt about the nature of it, on the record, addressing Gray directly.

SPEAKER_01 33:49

Quote, it is clear you failed as a parent, end quote, Judge Prim said. Quote, you were convicted because the warning lights were flashing brighter and brighter and you didn't get him help, and you didn't remove his access to the guns, end quote. He added that if Gray had used gun locks or removed the ammunition, quote, you wouldn't be here today, end quote. But he also drew the line our legal minute was about negligence, not intent. So, quote, you didn't intend to commit these crimes that you've been convicted of, end quote, Prim said. Quote, but the loss here is profound, end quote. He described the difficulty of sentencing a crime of negligence and said he had to distinguish the father's acts from what he called the quote malignant heart, end quote, behind the sons. So this is secondary sourcing, um, and actually HP wire level. The sentencing quotes are carried identically across the Associated Press feed, which is PBS Huffing Post or Huff Post, WABE plus CNN, the Atlanta Journal, Constitution, Axias Atlanta, and Fox News, all consistent with on record judge quotes. We were not able to independently pull the case number. However, this is cooperated press, not a self-pull docket.

SPEAKER_03 35:16

Okay, 15 years when the state asked for 80 and the range ran to 30 per murder count. That's the court landing much closer to the defense's number. Read alongside the legal minute, it makes sense. A judge who kept emphasizing negligence over intent sentenced like it. The law let them reach a murder conviction. The sentence reflected that they still saw a meaningful difference between the father who failed and the son who fired. Segment four.

SPEAKER_01 35:52

I'm so nervous to what you've done.

SPEAKER_03 36:04

A lot of you have asked us to weigh in on this. So we're going to.

SPEAKER_01 36:09

Carefully.

SPEAKER_03 36:10

Carefully.

SPEAKER_01 36:11

Here's what's circulating. Online, there's been an ongoing debate about how Lindsay got out of that second floor window. People measuring window heights against door frames from photos, arguing whether she went out feet first or head first, trying to reconstruct the mech.

SPEAKER_03 36:30

Mechanics. Trying to reconstruct the mechanics.

SPEAKER_01 36:35

Of the exit from the images that are public.

SPEAKER_03 36:38

So let's do what we do. Go to the actual report, go to the actual expert testimony and see what it can and can't answer. On day six, the Commonwealth called Sherry Crook, a supervisor in the crime scene response unit at the State Police Crime Lab. 18 years a supervisor, 26 at the lab, a member of the International Association of Bloodstained Pattern Analysts, qualified as an expert more than 10 times in the in this Commonwealth. If anyone in that courtroom could answer the internet's question, it's her. So let's listen.

SPEAKER_00 37:22

Are you able to look at the stains here in the drip pattern and tell whether there was any movement or in what direction the movement was?

SPEAKER_04 37:32

We can't tell what type of movement there was because there are circular stains. The only thing we can say about this is for a drip pattern to be formed, there has to be a stationary blood source. So you have to say it was your finger. You would have to stand there for a while and allow the blood to drip out into each other, causing that drip pattern. So we know, or I've deemed that there was a period of time that the blood source was in a stationary position causing that drip pattern.

SPEAKER_00 38:02

And the amount of time that it would take for the that amount of blood to cool, would that be dependent on the wound and how it was bleeding at the time? Correct. And you can't tell that from the photograph, right?

SPEAKER_03 38:15

And you can't tell that from the photograph. Correct? What the expert said versus what they can't say.

SPEAKER_01 38:30

So transfer stain in blood stain analysis, a stain left when a bloody object or body touches a surface, distinct from splatter or projected patterns, which are created by force flinging blood through the air. So Crook classified the stains on the shingles to the left and right of the bedroom window as transfer stains, meaning something bloody made physical contact with that surface, not a pattern projected by force. But here's the part that actually matters for tonight, what she would not say.

SPEAKER_03 39:00

And that goes to the clip that you just saw and heard on more ambiguous stains. Crook testified in her own words. Asked whether she could determine more of the photograph, and she said, I cannot. Her bottom line on those stains was that all she could say is that something with blood on it touched that surface, and nothing more.

SPEAKER_01 39:28

Put plainly, the expert specifically declined to extend the evidence beyond what the stains could establish. That's investigator discipline, and it's the whole point.

SPEAKER_03 39:40

Now we have a little guardrail that we need to put in. There's an auto-transcript source that you just saw from that broadcast. It is not certified transcript, it is just closed captioning. The substance is solid, but treat these as close paraphrases of her testimony, not exact quotes. Because it's from YouTube, it could have been manipulated. We have to take it for what it is. So we don't want to put it out there as absolute fact that this is what it was said.

SPEAKER_01 40:10

And until you get the actual like transcript from the court.

SPEAKER_03 40:14

So it's a little disclaimer that we put out there so that you know we are covering our podcast, and and again, this is our opinion, our analysis.

SPEAKER_01 40:24

Not legal advice or forensic advice. But here's the red flag. The single most qualified person in that room to answer the internet's question, how did she go out that window? Got up on the stand, under oath, and declined to answer it. Because the evidence doesn't carry that far. She told the jury what the stains prove, contact. She refused to tell them the thing everyone online is trying to reverse engineer from photos. The movement, the sequence, the how. If the expert with 26 years and a bloodstain certification won't run past what the evidence shows, neither will we. That's the standard. We'll tell you what's confirmed. We won't hand you a reconstruction the witness herself wouldn't give. This is exactly the discipline we're trained on. So the evidence answers the question it answers. And the temptation always is to stretch it one inch further to satisfy the thing everyone wants to know. The red flag is when you quit getting on here, trying to take your ladders out your back window and see if you can calculate the distance. And that's what people are doing. And then they're they're pulling these clips off of the internet and they're taking it and they're saying, Well, I used my my ruler.

SPEAKER_03 41:38

Yes, and this is the red flag is don't pay attention to the reconstructions. The testimony she gave is what she can get.

SPEAKER_01 41:45

Correct. And that's it. That's the bottom line. Like she can't give you the answer because she wasn't in the room. And she can tell you that the evidence can only give you this answer. Right. But people don't want that. Of course. And it's not, they don't care necessarily. They want to stretch it. They want to say, well, I observed it, and I think that she threw herself feet first. Okay, well, that's what you think.

SPEAKER_03 42:07

All right, so segment one, we covered the trial watch, the Commonwealth versus Clancy, week two. In our segment two, we had the legal minute, which a parent charged for a child's crime. Evidence of the night in segment three. 15 years in the sentence, which covered information from the legal minute, and in our red flag. Segment four. What the evidence can't say. This has been our opinion, our analysis, not legal advice.

SPEAKER_01 42:47

This is the particulars, and we are live Monday, Wednesday, Friday on TikTok at 9 p.m.

SPEAKER_03 42:53

Headlines in.

SPEAKER_01 42:55

Details begin. We will see you Friday at 9 o'clock to continue the trial watch. And we will see what other uh what is it? Legal minute and evidence of the night and red flag we can come up with between now and then. So keep walking the cases with us. We'll keep walking as long as you'll walk.

SPEAKER_03 43:17

See you Friday.

SPEAKER_01 43:18

Have a good night, everybody.