MA v. Lindsay Clancy Day 20

Jennifer Sprague (06:21:26):

So, instead of the one-year fellowship, did you have more on the job training as a forensic psychiatrist?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:21:32):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (06:21:33):

And as a forensic psychiatrist, have you evaluated subjects for things like competency and criminal responsibility?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:21:42):

Yes, I have. And let me just say also in addition to on the job experience, it's important to get teaching and training. And so I've taken advantage of courses within the Institute for Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy at the University of Virginia and other opportunities as well, in terms of even taking a board review course that was very helpful and quite comprehensive.

Jennifer Sprague (06:22:14):

So, you've had other training other than the fellowship in order to be a forensic psychiatrist?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:22:20):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (06:22:26):

And can you talk a little bit about the work that you've done with inmates?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:22:33):

I'm sorry, can you repeat that?

Jennifer Sprague (06:22:34):

Can you talk a little bit about the work that you've done for the Bureau of Prisons with inmates?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:22:39):

Yes. Well, specifically, most of my work has been with the Virginia Department of Corrections rather than the Bureau of Prisons. And since 1992, I guess, maybe 34 years, I have assessed and treated patients within the prison system, both men and women at men and women's facilities. And in that time, I have brought medical students and residents and fellows and taught them. So, over the course of my career thus far, I've brought more than 2,500 medical students and residents into the prison system to learn about psychiatry and significant mental illness.

Jennifer Sprague (06:23:31):

And in the course of your evaluating and treating female inmates, did you have the opportunity to evaluate and treat female inmates who had killed their children?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:23:44):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (06:23:45):

And how often was that, that would occur, that you would treat that type of patient?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:23:55):

Well, in consulting to a maximum security women's prison, I would say five to seven women who had killed their children.

Jennifer Sprague (06:24:11):

And in terms of your interactions with them, you said that you evaluated them. Did that involve diagnosing them?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:24:18):

Correct.

Jennifer Sprague (06:24:19):

And then what did the treatment involve?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:24:22):

Treatment involved working with a team within the system. Prisons have psychologists and social workers and those who are responsible for working with patient inmates. Medication treatment is very important, but also there are important therapeutic aspects. For a number of years, I ran a group in prison, as I felt that that was important and my students felt that that was important as well.

Jennifer Sprague (06:25:03):

And in terms of the group you ran, what type of group was that?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:25:08):

It was a therapy group in which individuals were brought together, all who were diagnosed with a significant mental illness, and being able to speak about their experience and also how to deal with issues or how they dealt with issues over and above the medications that they were receiving.

Jennifer Sprague (06:25:35):

And in your experience in the Department of Correction at the Bureau of Prisons treating these patients, and also in your experience working at the FBI, did you encounter individuals who suffered from psychosis?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:25:51):

Yes, very much so.

Jennifer Sprague (06:25:52):

And could you estimate how many patients you have treated who suffered from psychosis?

Attorney Kevin Reddington (06:26:00):

I'm going to object at this point, Judge.

Judge William Sullivan (06:26:01):

Overruled.

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:26:09):

Thousands. I spent 15 years running an inpatient admissions unit in a teaching state hospital. And so-

Attorney Kevin Reddington (06:26:15):

First sidebar.

Judge William Sullivan (06:26:15):

Sure.

Jennifer Sprague (06:29:11):

Excuse me. Doctor, you were about to describe a hospital that you had previously worked at, is that correct?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:29:16):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (06:29:17):

And where was that, and what type of hospital?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:29:19):

It was a state hospital in Virginia, near Charlottesville, Virginia, where the University of Virginia is. It was a teaching hospital with medical students and residents, and was a facility that dealt with some of the most severely mentally ill individuals who would have been committed to the hospital.

Jennifer Sprague (06:29:49):

And how long were you at that hospital in that role?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:29:54):

15 years.

Jennifer Sprague (06:29:54):

And during that timeframe, is that when you saw the thousands of patients that you treated with psychosis?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:30:02):

I saw them there, yes, but also within the prison system, and of course, during training, during my residency.

Jennifer Sprague (06:30:13):

Have you ever written any articles about postpartum psychosis?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:30:17):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (06:30:18):

And when was that?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:30:22):

We published an article in 1987 relating to two cases of postpartum psychosis that I actually saw when I was an intern. One was my patient and one was one that I consulted on.

Jennifer Sprague (06:30:43):

And that article that you wrote, was that entitled Postpartum psychosis induced by bromocriptine?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:30:48):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (06:30:48):

What was bromocriptine?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:30:52):

So, bromocriptine, at that time, was a medication that was used to inhibit or to stop lactation. Some women would, after birth, make a decision, for whatever reason, that they were not able to breastfeed. And so in those days, this medication, bromocriptine, was used to inhibit lactation.

Jennifer Sprague (06:31:23):

And in your treatment of one patient and what you learned of the second patient, did you come to a conclusion that bromocriptine was having some effect of inducing postpartum psychosis?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:31:36):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (06:31:37):

And is that what you wrote the article about?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:31:39):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (06:31:40):

And eventually after you wrote this article, were there other studies that cited to your article?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:31:47):

Yes. And let me just emphasize, I was one of five authors of that article.

Jennifer Sprague (06:31:52):

And eventually was bromocriptine... Did people stop using that to stop lactation in women?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:32:04):

Yes. The FDA took it off the market, I believe, in 1994 or 1995. Not just for the reason of postpartum psychosis, but also for other problems, cardiac problems and the rest, that bromocriptine sometimes caused in people.

Jennifer Sprague (06:32:21):

And to your knowledge, was your article with the other co-authors the first article that brought to scientific attention this issue with bromocriptine and postpartum psychosis?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:32:35):

I'm sorry, can you ask that question again?

Jennifer Sprague (06:32:36):

Sure. To your knowledge, was this article that you wrote with others the first article that brought to scientific attention the possible link between bromocriptine and postpartum psychosis?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:32:49):

That's my understanding. There were a few letters to journals commenting about bromocriptine and a connection, but I think the first article that was written was ours, that we wrote about the two women who suffered postpartum psychosis.

Jennifer Sprague (06:33:14):

Now, you've mentioned your experience in diagnosing and treating psychosis. What is psychosis?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:33:21):

Well, psychosis, it can take a number of forms. I think we most often think about people who are psychotic as having hallucinations, and so we call those perceptual disturbances. It's oftentimes auditory hallucinations, so people hearing voices or sounds, but they also can be other types of hallucinations as well. Not as common in psychosis, such as visual hallucinations or even what we call tactile hallucinations, where the sense of touch is affected, or olfactory hallucinations. Most commonly, it is auditory hallucinations though, if we're talking about those perceptual disturbances.

(06:34:21)
Now, there are other areas that psychosis can show itself. Delusions are fixed false beliefs. They can be bizarre or non-bizarre. And sometimes, people who have auditory hallucinations also have delusions. Sometimes you can have psychosis or someone can be psychotic with just a delusion and no perceptual disturbance, no type of hallucination.

(06:35:07)
And the third area is with regard to thought and how people communicate. So, in that part of psychosis, when it demonstrates itself, is that people have a great difficulty communicating with even speech disorganization. They may engage in what we call neologisms or making up words that have a specific meaning for them, but no one else. And the way that thought is translated, either in writing or in speech, oftentimes people who are psychotic and also have a difficult time with stringing their words together...

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:36:01):

... stringing their words together. So what we would call looseness of associations. So really there are three arenas that psychosis can show itself, maybe in all three, the perceptual disturbances, the delusions, but also related to thought and communication. But it's also possible to be psychotic and have just one of those three elements.

Jennifer Sprague (06:36:35):

And is psychosis its own mental illness or a symptom of mental illness?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:36:41):

Psychosis is a symptom.

Jennifer Sprague (06:36:43):

And why is it a symptom of mental illness and not its own defined mental illness?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:36:54):

Well, because there are many different possible causes of psychosis. Someone who has a serious medical problem, for example, can actually become psychotic. A brain tumor is one example in which those symptoms of psychosis show themselves. But there are other ways that people can experience psychosis. Some can be secondary to say drug abuse. There's certain drugs like cocaine or amphetamines or bath salts that can cause people to have the kind of perceptual disturbances or delusions or problems with communicating that I talked about. So really, I think it's just important to know that it is not a cause. It represents a significant finding or presentation. Schizophrenia is one diagnosis where we will see psychosis in a number of forms, but also someone who has a serious mood disorder or schizoaffective disorder or a brief psychosis. So there are many different roads that can lead to psychosis. And so it's important to find out what's originating because that's how we make the best decisions about how to treat any psychotic symptoms that we're seeing.

Jennifer Sprague (06:38:38):

And doctor, the signs and symptoms of psychosis that are present, is that dependent on the underlying cause, the mental illness or whatever is causing the psychosis?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:38:56):

Yes. When you say dependent, it just is clearly something that is a result of or a manifestation of the illness. For example, there are many different things that can cause a fever. And so while a fever is a symptom, it's a presentation that's very significant and can be very significant. What we need to do in medicine and psychiatry is find out, well, what is the cause? Because that is what's going to lead to the most appropriate treatment.

Jennifer Sprague (06:39:35):

So for example, an analogy would be a bacterial infection can cause a fever. Bipolar disorder can cause psychosis.

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:39:47):

Correct.

Jennifer Sprague (06:39:50):

Now, you mentioned earlier serious mental illness. What is considered to be a serious mental illness?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:39:59):

Well, serious mental illnesses affect a small portion of the population, a smaller portion, maybe 4%. So people who have schizophrenia have a serious mental illness, people who have bipolar one, which is manic depressive illness, that is a serious mental illness. Schizoaffective disorder is also a serious mental illness. So while many people can have symptoms of mental illness and can benefit from treatment, either psychotherapy or medication or some kind of combination, there are some that are just really, really profound and that's a much smaller percentage.

Jennifer Sprague (06:40:48):

And so serious mental illness, is that sometimes shortened to SMI?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:40:52):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (06:40:53):

Now, is there something called any mental illness, AMI?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:40:57):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (06:40:57):

And what would be in that category of any mental illness?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:41:01):

So any mental illness would be certainly adjustment disorders or anxiety disorders, mild depression, depression without psychotic features, for example. PTSD, which can have significant symptoms, is also something that would go under the category of any mental illness.

Jennifer Sprague (06:41:36):

Now, were you asked to do a forensic evaluation of Lindsay Clancy?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:41:42):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (06:41:42):

And you were asked to do that by the Plymouth County District Attorney's Office, correct?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:41:48):

Correct.

Jennifer Sprague (06:41:49):

And did you receive direct payment from the Plymouth County District Attorney's office for your evaluation?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:41:59):

No.

Jennifer Sprague (06:42:00):

How did that work between the DA's office and your services?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:42:05):

So I do my work in testimony and the like through the University of Virginia. So my department is the recipient of any funds that come from the work that I do. I get a salary from the university that is not dependent on the number of cases that I am involved with or whatever. So I don't receive payment myself. I see it as part of my job as a professor.

Jennifer Sprague (06:42:38):

And in terms of your work with the university, does the university have any impact or influence on what your evaluation is or what your conclusions are?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:42:51):

No, not at all.

Jennifer Sprague (06:42:58):

For your review of Lindsey Clancy, what types of records and other materials did you review?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:43:07):

Well, they were extensive. They involved significant medical records, not just the psychiatric records, outpatient, inpatient, but also medical records. Certainly the hospital records from McLean, the hospital records from Tewksbury, but also emergency department visits at South Shore and Mass General Hospital. So significant body of medical and mental health records, both inpatient and outpatient. But in addition, there was a substantial amount of grand jury materials that I reviewed and videos, for example, videos not only of interviews of individuals. But also in January when the Clancy family went to the museum where they went to the Cape Codder water park, was able to review those kinds of videos as well. I also received the reports from both the government, but also the defense. And so those experts who were retained, I had an opportunity to review those. The list of materials is very significant. CVS records, for example, pharmacy records, and law enforcement records, for example, the police reports and things like that from that day, 24 January 2023 in which the event occurred.

Jennifer Sprague (06:45:07):

And doctor, is it typical for you to have such a breadth of records and information, both pre-killing and post-killing when you do a forensic evaluation?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:45:21):

No, I wouldn't say that's typical. Certainly for any evaluation, it's important to try and obtain as much information as possible. But in this case, I think the amount of information was truly significant.

Jennifer Sprague (06:45:42):

And you also interviewed the defendant, correct?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:45:46):

Yes, I did.

Jennifer Sprague (06:45:47):

And how many times did you interview her and for how long?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:45:51):

I interviewed Ms. Clancy on two occasions. One was on the 29th of May of this year and the other was the 4th of June. I believe on the 29th of May, I interviewed her for approximately six, six and a half hours. And then the second time in June, June 4th, it was about five hours.

Jennifer Sprague (06:46:17):

And were those interviews in person or on Zoom?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:46:20):

They were by way of Zoom.

Jennifer Sprague (06:46:22):

And why were they by way of Zoom?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:46:30):

For personal reasons, I was unable to travel at that time. And so I requested the ability to have an interview by way of a Zoom video platform, and that was approved.

Jennifer Sprague (06:46:49):

And did you find that doing the interviews by Zoom inhibited your ability to evaluate Ms. Clancy in any way?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:47:01):

Well, I think there are always limitations when one is not physically present, when one is seeing someone in a video setting. Sometimes it takes longer to be able to get information and establish rapport. Some other limitations are just having an opportunity to see the environment that the individual is in. I have done evaluations in the past using a Zoom format. There are certainly advantages to being in person.

Jennifer Sprague (06:47:53):

Did you, in your interviews with Ms. Clancy, have any difficulties having her answer questions or establishing a rapport with her?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:48:06):

No. She was very pleasant, very responsive to questions that I asked on both occasions.

Jennifer Sprague (06:48:22):

Were there any benefits to doing the interviews on Zoom?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:48:27):

Well, one benefit that one doesn't always have with an in-person evaluation is that a platform like this can also save the entire interview and both video of the interviewer, myself, but also Ms. Clancy. So if someone wants to really understand that the interview and how it went, you not only have a transcript, but you have a video that really demonstrates the course of the interview, how it went. And that can be very helpful. That can be more helpful than if as a clinician or as an assessor, I am writing notes, because when you're writing notes, sometimes it's harder to be able to attend to the individual. So certainly being able to have a transcript of the interview is helpful, and I think it makes the process more transparent as well, which I think is a positive.

Jennifer Sprague (06:49:49):

As part of your evaluation in this case, did you also interview what's known as collaterals or other people who knew the defendant?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:49:56):

Yes, I did.

Jennifer Sprague (06:49:57):

Who did you interview?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:49:59):

Well, I interviewed Patrick Clancy, also on a Zoom platform.

Jennifer Sprague (06:50:08):

And after you had reviewed all of the records that were provided to you and the criminal file and all the evidence that was provided to you and conducted these interviews, both with Ms. Clancy and Patrick Clancy, were you able to conduct an analysis of all of that material in order to come to your eventual conclusions?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:50:30):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (06:50:31):

And if we could just go through your analysis of this case, and if we could start with, I think what you called in your report, Ms. Clancy's characterization of the command auditory hallucinations.

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:50:45):

Yes. So Ms. Clancy stated to me and some other evaluators that her hallucination, that of an external voice, something coming from outside, outside of her head, occurred when she was standing at the refrigerator. She said that she was in the process of making her children their dinner when she received a call from Patrick Clancy, returned the call. And then as soon as she finished the call with Patrick Clancy, she said that that is when she heard the voice, "This is your last chance. You have to kill your kids and then kill yourself." And so that was what she told a number of us.

(06:52:03)
There are also other accounts that she made to individuals that were quite a bit different, to Dr. Spinelli, for example. She said that the voice happened at what, 5:10 or 5:15 PM, as soon as Patrick Clancy left on his errands. And she described the voice to Dr. Spinelli as increasing in intensity, but saying, "This is your last chance. You have to kill your kids before you kill yourself." But also that her children would suffer if she did not do that. When I asked her about the voice that she heard, again, she said that it started really right after the telephone call at 5:34 with her husband, Patrick. And she said it was a man's voice. It was very clear. It was external. Other words came from outside of her head, that it was constant. So this phrase, "This is your last chance, you have to kill your kids and then kill yourself," was something that was repeated over and over and over and over again during that period that she strangled her children.

(06:53:53)
And then just as soon as it had started, it stopped when she had finished strangling the children.

Jennifer Sprague (06:54:08):

Doctor, was there anything about what she reported to you about the voice that was significant to you in your evaluation, and if so, why?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:54:31):

Well, what was significant to me is that she had not spoken about hearing voices before that in any of the mental health professionals, the psychiatrists, the nurse practitioners, the physicians and staff in the emergency departments or at McLean. And so this was the first time that she reported, that was documented, but also that she experienced an auditory hallucination, according to what she told me. So that was unusual. And then also what was very unusual was the fact that the voice stopped with the strangling of her youngest son, Callan. And that she went upstairs and then proceeded to engage in behavior in an effort to kill herself, but that the voice had stopped as soon as she had strangled her last Callan, her youngest child.

Jennifer Sprague (06:56:13):

If I could stop you there for a moment and ask you, you said that it's unusual that this was the first time that she had heard this voice. Why is that unusual?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:56:30):

Well, she had certainly suffered with symptoms of mental illness, depression and anxiety most specifically. Anxiety that she had reported to Dr. Tufts in mid-September. And then certainly symptoms that later on included suicidal ideation and also what she said were dark or intrusive thoughts to harm her children that she mentioned to her husband and her mother on, I think, two occasions.

Jennifer Sprague (06:57:18):

And Doctor, you also mentioned that it was unusual that the voice stopped after Callan was killed. Why is that unusual?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (06:57:33):

Well, I've worked with... Compared to other patients that I've treated who have had command auditory hallucinations-

Speaker 15 (06:57:47):

I'm going to object to that, Your Honor. Same objection was raised before.

Judge (06:57:50):

Counsel, can I see it?

Jennifer Sprague (07:00:13):

Doctor, based on your training and experience in dealing with diagnosing and treating people who have psychosis and what you've learned in all your training and schooling, is it typical for someone in psychosis to hear a voice only one time, never before and never after?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:00:35):

No.

Jennifer Sprague (07:00:37):

And again, based on your training and experience, is it typical for someone in psychosis to hear a voice that's constant rather than intermittent?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:00:50):

No, that is not typical.

Jennifer Sprague (07:00:52):

And what does it mean, the difference between a constant voice and an intermittent voice?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:00:58):

Well, an intermittent voice would come and go. It wouldn't necessarily just keep playing over and over again as if it were on a tape, which Ms. Clancy told me that it was a voice. It's the same thing in the same tone, repeated over and over and over until she had strangled Callan.

Jennifer Sprague (07:01:30):

Is it typical, based on your training and experience, for someone to hear command hallucinations and then for them to stop abruptly?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:01:40):

No. Committing the act is not curative of the voice. I've not ever seen that.

Jennifer Sprague (07:01:53):

Doctor, based on your training and experience, someone in psychosis, hearing a voice without accompanying delusions, is that typical?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:02:10):

That would be pretty rare. It's absolutely not typical.

Jennifer Sprague (07:02:17):

In talking to Ms. Clancy, did you speak to her about the concerns she had that if she had voiced thoughts of harming her children to medical providers, that her children would've been taken away?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:02:32):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (07:02:33):

And did you see that as a delusional thought?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:02:37):

No. Certainly with the requirements that healthcare professionals have to report any issues that could cause harm to children, for example, as required reporters, it's very rational for her to be concerned that by voicing her thoughts of harm could cause her children. Certainly an assessment and a rapid assessment and a determination about how best to keep the children safe. So I didn't see that as irrational, but rather rational, just understanding the healthcare system.

Jennifer Sprague (07:03:32):

And when reviewing the records and speaking to Ms. Clancy, did you see or notice any delusional statements or beliefs surrounding the hearing of that voice on the 24th?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:03:44):

No, I didn't.

Jennifer Sprague (07:03:47):

Now, based on your training and experience, is it typical for someone in psychosis to hear a voice and immediately act on it?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:03:55):

No.

Jennifer Sprague (07:03:56):

And why is that?

Speaker 15 (07:03:57):

I'd like to have a [inaudible 07:03:59] hearing at this point, Judge, on this. I'd like to test his qualifications to this.

Judge (07:04:06):

Same objection, same ruling. Yeah.

Jennifer Sprague (07:04:10):

So your opinion is it's not typical, correct?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:04:12):

Correct.

Jennifer Sprague (07:04:21):

Now, you mentioned the defendant told you that when she received the call from her husband at 5:33 and called him back at 5:34, that she was getting dinner ready for her children, correct?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:04:35):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (07:04:36):

And did she tell you what she was about to get out of the refrigerator?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:04:41):

Yes. She said she was at the refrigerator and that the refrigerator door was open, and that she was getting chicken nuggets out of the refrigerator section for her children.

Jennifer Sprague (07:04:56):

Now, in your collateral interview with Patrick Clancy, did you learn from him that when he left the residence, the children were already eating chicken nuggets on the couch?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:05:06):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (07:05:08):

And did Patrick Clancy tell you that Dawson in particular was eating chicken nuggets and green beans out of a bowl on the couch?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:05:14):

Yes, that's what he told me.

Jennifer Sprague (07:05:16):

And is it fair to say that there are crime scene photographs showing a bowl on the couch?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:05:23):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (07:05:25):

And so is there any significance to you in the defendant telling you that when she got the phone call from Patrick, when he's at CVS, that she's making chicken nuggets versus Patrick telling you that that had already happened and the crime scene photos showing you the bowl was already on the couch?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:05:46):

Well, it's inconsistent.

Jennifer Sprague (07:05:48):

And are inconsistencies like that important in your evaluations in cases like this?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:05:55):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (07:05:55):

And how so?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:06:05):

Well, looking at someone's mental status at the time of an offense, it's important to understand what was going on in their mind at the time. And in this case, the widely divergent reports from Lindsay Clancy versus her husband Patrick raised questions about what she is telling me and how things are happening. So certainly that's a cause for significant concern. One of them is not correct in their statement.

Jennifer Sprague (07:07:03):

And in terms of what you testified about earlier about the defendant giving you one version of what the voice told her, and giving Dr. Spinelli a different version of what the voice told her, is there any significance in your evaluation to that?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:07:21):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (07:07:22):

And what is that?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:07:24):

Well, again, it's markedly inconsistent. Ms. Clancy was very clear with me about the time that the voice started and that it was constant for a period of time until the children were killed and then it stopped. And according to Dr. Spinelli's report, Ms. Clancy stated that the voice started much, much earlier, actually when Patrick Clancy left. And so we're talking about a significant difference in time and those two just, they don't match. So it's hard to, which version is the one that I should consider.

Jennifer Sprague (07:08:36):

Now, further along in your analysis, you talk about Ms. Clancy's outward portrayals misleading her family and providers. What do you mean by that? And what did you see in the records and in your interview of her?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:08:53):

Yes. Well, in looking back at her history, for example-

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:09:00):

Her history, for example, with Patrick. She dated Patrick when she was in nursing school, and that was at a time that she was experiencing fairly significant anxiety, according to her, such that she went to a psychiatrist and was treated for her anxiety with Prozac and Wellbutrin and also propranolol. And this was for a fairly significant period of time during their dating, approximately a year. And when I spoke with Mr. Clancy, and also in other testimony and collateral information, he was completely unaware that she was experiencing mental health symptoms at that time that they were dating, or that she was taking medication. And he said he did not learn that she had taken medication, mental health medication, Prozac, Wellbutrin. Those are both antidepressants as well as propranolol, which helps with anxiety, particularly with the kind of presentations that she was doing. But he was unaware until during this time that she was having great difficulty, November, December time period.

Jennifer Sprague (07:10:35):

And that's of 2022?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:10:36):

Yes. But there are other aspects too where the portrayal, her portrayal misled others in terms of how she was doing.

Jennifer Sprague (07:10:56):

Can you give us an example of that?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:10:59):

Yes. Well, in the numerous text messages, which really varied, there were times when she stated that she was doing very well. And for example, even in the days leading up to the 24th of January 2023, the photographs that she was sending on Instagram and the like really portrayed something very different than what she stated, later stated was going on inside. With regard to providers, Ms. Clancy told me that during this period that she was having such difficulty, and that was really starting in October. She started taking medication in October. Ms. Clancy told me that she was having a real difficulty with some symptoms and anxiety and the like.

(07:12:42)
Her mother-in-law suggested to her that there was a doctor that she knew named Rose who was willing to talk with her just on an informal basis. And so as I understand, this doctor made time for her to be seen, not in an official way, not as in a doctor-patient relationship, but just to get an understanding about Ms. Clancy's problems and that this doctor recommended Lamictal or Lamotrigine as a medication that could be very helpful with regard to the depression she was experiencing, the issues with mood and the like. And so in looking at Tufts' notes, there is a note I believe on December 1st of 2022 in which they discuss Lamictal as a real possible medication. And then by mid-December, it was really a very, very difficult time. The whole month of December in many ways was very difficult. But after this experience-

Speaker 16 (07:14:27):

Yeah, if we have a question.

Jennifer Sprague (07:14:29):

So you've talked about the defendant seeing the provider named Rose and getting the recommendation for Lamictal, the defendant talking to Dr. Tufts about the Lamictal. Was there another provider that she talked to about Lamictal?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:14:44):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (07:14:44):

And who was that?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:14:46):

That was Nurse Practitioner Jollotta.

Jennifer Sprague (07:14:50):

And eventually was Lamictal prescribed by one of these providers?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:14:54):

Well, really by both. And when you say talking, it was a written communication and not a verbal one.

Jennifer Sprague (07:15:07):

And so could you tell from the records whether or not Ms. Clancy filled the prescription for Lamictal?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:15:14):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (07:15:15):

What is Lamictal?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:15:18):

Lamotrigine is actually... Lamictal is an anticonvulsant that was approved for bipolar disorder back in the early 2000s, I think 2003, for bipolar disorder. Now it's used for epilepsy, but also been found by the FDA to be extremely helpful in depression related to bipolar disorder.

Jennifer Sprague (07:15:50):

And after receiving the three recommendations to try Lamictal and the prescription from Dr. Tufts, which she filled, did the defendant tell you whether or not she took the Lamictal?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:16:05):

She told me that she had decided not to take the Lamictal because she was concerned about the potential for a rash, a serious rash.

Jennifer Sprague (07:16:17):

And the fact that three providers recommended this medication to help her and the defendant chose not to take it because of the potential of this rash, was that significant to you in any way in your evaluation?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:16:33):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (07:16:33):

And how so?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:16:36):

Well, Dr. Tufts had written the prescription and it had been filled. Actually, Nurse Jollotta also wrote a prescription for the Lamictal and Ms. Clancy told her, "Well, you can cancel that because I already have a prescription of Lamictal from Dr. Tufts." What was concerning was that I don't see evidence that Dr. Tufts was notified that she had decided against the Lamictal. And so that would have given a provider an opportunity to think about something else that also could help in this domain, but yet Ms. Clancy had decided not to take it, but also not to tell the doctor that she had decided not to take it.

Jennifer Sprague (07:17:33):

Doctor, was there also something that you noticed in the way she described, Ms. Clancy described to you how she was feeling at McLean Hospital when she was there versus the description of her feelings in the McLean records?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:17:55):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (07:17:56):

And what was the difference between the two and how was it significant in your evaluation?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:18:05):

I recall that she told me that she felt like a zombie, very, very significantly affected. And certainly while the records at McLean demonstrate that she was not doing well, there were differences in terms of how she characterized that.

Jennifer Sprague (07:18:38):

And when a patient is characterizing how she felt at a certain time in different ways, one to you and a different way to her actual provider at the time, is that concerning in any way?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:18:49):

Well, yes.

Jennifer Sprague (07:18:56):

And why is that?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:18:58):

Well, the more candid a patient can be with the symptoms that they're experiencing, the better able the prescriber is to make a determination about how best to treat those symptoms. And also it can be very helpful in diagnosis as well.

Jennifer Sprague (07:19:20):

And did you also take note of the appointment Dr. Tufts had with the defendant on January 23rd, 2023 in the records and the fact that the defendant denied experiencing suicidal or homicidal ideation in that meeting?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:19:39):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (07:19:39):

And how was that significant, if it was?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:19:45):

Well, Ms. Clancy had been looking into alternative treatments and had discussed with Dr. Tufts earlier the potential for esketamine. This is an FDA approved medication that has to be administered by a doctor within a facility, but it can have rapid positive effects in treating depression. And so in that note, Dr. Tufts wrote that the potential for esketamine treatment or transcranial magnetic stimulation were ones that they were exploring.

Jennifer Sprague (07:20:45):

Doctor, did you discuss with Ms. Clancy or did she describe to you in any detail her ability to suppress her feelings and mold her behavior into what she wanted people to see?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:21:01):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (07:21:02):

And what did she tell you about that?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:21:05):

Well, I believe it was a Christmas time with her family, a morning breakfast, in which she stated she was not feeling well, not doing well, but yet felt the need to act like she was cooking and helping her husband cook. And she questioned why she would do that or engage in that behavior when her family knew that she was struggling and having difficulty. So she used the word fake with regard to just how she was attempting to present to her family. So this was on reflection in talking to me about that behavior at that time.

Jennifer Sprague (07:21:53):

And did she also tell you about an incident at Spaulding Hospital when she was interacting with a friend of hers who was visiting there after she went to Spaulding Hospital for rehabilitation?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:22:06):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (07:22:07):

And what did she tell you about that?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:22:10):

She told me that this friend who visited was a long time friend from when they were both really quite young, and that when this friend visited, Ms. Clancy engaged in, I'm trying to remember how she characterized it, gossip, really talking about the old times and catching up basically on news that this friend, I believe her name was Amy Bevins, they had similar or shared experiences. And so Ms. Clancy told me she was upset at Spaulding Hospital because this superficial conversation that she had without discussion of the incident of 24 January 2023, that that gave an impression, maybe a false impression of Ms. Clancy and that it hurt the friendship as a result. And she felt that Spaulding Hospital, had they provided better psychiatric care, better mental health care, she would not have been so superficial in talking with her friend.

Jennifer Sprague (07:24:04):

Did she also express anger to you that the staff at Spaulding had prioritized her spinal cord injury needs over her mental health needs?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:24:13):

I'm sorry, can you repeat that?

Jennifer Sprague (07:24:15):

Did Ms. Clancy tell you or express anger to you that the staff at Spaulding Hospital had prioritized her spinal cord injury needs over her mental health needs?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:24:26):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (07:24:30):

Your Honor, at this time, I'd like to put into evidence excerpts from the Spaulding records showing the mental health consult and treatment of Ms. Clancy.

Speaker 17 (07:24:41):

No objection.

Speaker 16 (07:24:43):

They may be admitted.

Jennifer Sprague (07:24:50):

And so doctor, did you have an opportunity to review the Spaulding records?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:24:55):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (07:24:55):

And did you see in the Spaulding records that not only a psychiatrist, but also a psychologist and a social worker met with Ms. Clancy while she was at Spaulding multiple times?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:25:06):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (07:25:06):

And is there anything about the inconsistency of Ms. Clancy telling you that she didn't receive that treatment or that focus at Spaulding versus what the records show that are significant in your evaluation of her?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:25:23):

Well, it's inconsistent and doesn't match up with that collateral information. So her depiction of the lack of mental health care at Spaulding didn't match up with the evidence from Spaulding in terms of the documents. Spaulding is a rehab hospital and they were really concentrated on the spinal injury, but also did have mental health services available.

Jennifer Sprague (07:26:02):

And doctor, moving along in your analysis, did you look into and evaluate the defendant's decision to send Patrick Clancy on errands on January 24th, 2023?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:26:17):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (07:26:18):

And what stood out to you as significant in what you learned from the records and from Ms. Clancy herself in that area?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:26:28):

I asked Ms. Clancy to tell me about that afternoon and specifically that decision for takeout. And as I recall, she told me that she texted her husband, Patrick, basically to say, "What would you think about having takeout? It's been a long day." And a fairly broad, open-ended request, and that he responded positively. And from then she made the arrangements to look up the distance between her home, their home and ThreeV Restaurant in Plymouth, but also looking at basically making plans to have the food ordered. And she had texted her husband ultimately and asked him about to tell her what order to make. And so in looking at the record, it was really reversed.

(07:28:11)
Instead of starting with asking her husband, "What would you think about takeout? How about us getting takeout?" The record shows that Ms. Clancy did a lot of searching prior to that in terms of ThreeV, the distance and the like. So there were getting information prior to requesting a text, sending a text to her husband. And in the text, rather than saying, "What would you think about getting takeout?" She said, "How about getting takeout at ThreeV? It's been a long day." Et cetera. And so this reversal, in terms of what she told me and what actually we see in the collateral, I thought was significant.

Jennifer Sprague (07:29:28):

How so?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:29:30):

Well, she told me that the only restaurant that she could think of, could remember about getting takeout was ThreeV. And Patrick told me that they had never gotten takeout from ThreeV. He named West End Grill and Chestnut Grill as places that were in Duxbury and close by that they liked and that they often got takeout from. They had been to ThreeV and they liked it. They had gone as a family, but they had never gotten takeout there, takeout from ThreeV. And so presenting not just the idea of takeout, but how about ThreeV, and she had already done lots of checking about distance and the like, I thought was inconsistent. What I saw from the record was not what she told me in terms of the order in which she made those decisions. And so I saw that as being significant.

Jennifer Sprague (07:31:01):

And was there a similar scenario with the request of Patrick from the defendant to also go to CVS?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:31:11):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (07:31:12):

And so what was the difference between what she told you about the plan to go to CVS or what she told Patrick and what she had done in terms of research?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:31:24):

Well, the research for, I think it was MiraLAX, which was suggested for Cora's constipation. They had had an appointment that morning in pediatrics, and this was suggested that the MiraLAX and CVS was something that Ms. Clancy looked into sometime after 4:00, but not long after 4:00 and well before she contacted her husband, but that she did not communicate to her husband the importance of picking up MiraLAX at CVS, who she had called until really right before he left. So he had planned on going to 3V, driving to ThreeV almost six miles to get the takeout. And then she also added on that other errand right before he left.

Jennifer Sprague (07:32:38):

And so was it significant to you that she had researched the MiraLAX and looked into CVS an hour before, but just added that part of the errand on right before her husband left?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:32:52):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (07:32:53):

And why?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:32:55):

Well, it lengthened the trip. It added one extra obligation for Patrick, and that would make for a longer time that he was away.

Jennifer Sprague (07:33:17):

And moving along in your analysis, you discussed Ms. Clancy's suicide attempt, and you say that it was serious, but required sequential decision making. Is that correct?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:33:29):

Can you just repeat that? I'm sorry.

Jennifer Sprague (07:33:31):

Sure. In your report, you described Ms. Clancy's suicide attempt as serious, correct?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:33:36):

Correct.

Jennifer Sprague (07:33:37):

And you also state that it required sequential decision making, is that correct?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:33:42):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (07:33:42):

Can you talk a little bit about why you found that it was serious and how you found that it required that sequential decision making?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:33:52):

Well, I think in looking over her records previous to that day, 24 January, she had contacted Aspire twice, the suicide hotline, and spoken to them. And really, as I recall, since early December, had been speaking about suicidal ideation. So this was something that was significant for her. There was, of course, an assessment in the emergency department on the 15th of December. So you look through the record and you do see that she was concerned about self-harm and suicidal ideation. If we look at the actual day after the children were killed or after the children were strangled, Callan was still living at the time that EMS arrived. She told me that she got a knife from the butcher block in the kitchen and then went upstairs and attempted to cut herself, that she also took pills or took an overdose. And I asked her about that, really trying to understand-

Speaker 17 (07:35:50):

Objection as to what he was trying to say.

Speaker 16 (07:35:53):

Overruled.

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:35:57):

Really to try and understand how she accomplished the overdose, because if you're swallowing lots and lots of pills, that can be difficult. And so essentially, how many times, how many handfuls of pills did you take or whatever? And then she told me that she had slashed the screen and dove out of the window.

Jennifer Sprague (07:36:28):

Doctor, if I could ask you a question, in terms of taking the pills, what did Ms. Clancy tell you about how she took the pills?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:36:40):

I'm sorry?

Jennifer Sprague (07:36:41):

What did Ms. Clancy tell you about how she took the pills?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:36:51):

It wasn't really very clear. I was-

Speaker 17 (07:36:55):

Objection. Requesting what she said is the question.

Jennifer Sprague (07:36:59):

Do you recall what she said?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:37:01):

I'm sorry?

Jennifer Sprague (07:37:02):

Do you recall what she said about taking the pills, whether she took handfuls or did something else?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:37:06):

Oh, she did not say that she took handfuls. She did not describe the overdose in any specific terms.

Jennifer Sprague (07:37:19):

Did she tell you anything about crushing up pills?

Speaker 17 (07:37:21):

Objection, leading question.

Speaker 16 (07:37:25):

It's already been answered. Next question.

Jennifer Sprague (07:37:28):

Did she give you any other information about taking the pills?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:37:32):

No.

Jennifer Sprague (07:37:45):

Now, if you could tell us that portion that I asked you about earlier, what is sequential decision making and how did you see that in her behavior?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:37:58):

Well, as I mentioned, after strangling the three children with the exercise bands, she went up the steps, went to the kitchen, she got a knife, and then ascended yet another group of steps to her bedroom, to their bedroom, and described the attempt or cutting her wrists as well as her neck, and also described the overdose and barely... It was just hard for me to get a good idea about how specifically the overdose occurred, what she did. But she omitted some things that I thought were significant.

Jennifer Sprague (07:39:23):

And what things did she omit that you think were significant?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:39:27):

Well, she omitted the fact that she had actually crushed the pills. And I found that to be quite significant.

Jennifer Sprague (07:39:39):

And how did you learn that she had crushed the pills?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:39:44):

I learned after interviewing her husband, Patrick, and he went through that evening and talked about coming to the home and the like, and mentioned that on the bedside table, there was a wine tumbler with powdered medication, crushed up medication, that there was still some in the wine tumbler. And I had not heard... I mean, she had not told me that she had actually crushed the medication. And I know that in Dr. Resnick's report and also in what Lindsay Clancy told me that she had lemonade in that wine tumbler when she took the overdose. And when I asked Patrick Clancy, he told me that he didn't think they had any lemonade in the house, that that was not typical at all.

Jennifer Sprague (07:41:05):

And doctor, what is the significance-

Speaker 17 (07:41:07):

Let him finish, please. Thank you.

Jennifer Sprague (07:41:10):

I'm sorry, were you not finished?

Speaker 16 (07:41:11):

You done with it? Hold on. You done with that answer?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:41:12):

Yes.

Speaker 16 (07:41:12):

All right. Next question.

Jennifer Sprague (07:41:14):

And so doctor, what is the significance to you, if anything, of this atypical use of lemonade and the crushed powder in the cup?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:41:25):

You say what is atypical?

Jennifer Sprague (07:41:27):

I think you just said that Patrick Clancy said it wasn't typical to have lemonade, correct?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:41:32):

Correct.

Jennifer Sprague (07:41:33):

So is there any significance to you to the fact that there was lemonade in the cup and that there was powder residue in the cup? Or strike that. Was there any significance to the fact that Lindsay Clancy told you that there was lemonade in the cup and that Patrick Clancy saw powdered residue in the cup?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:41:56):

Yes. It made sense that lemonade would be in the cup if you're trying to take an overdose of medication that you've-

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:42:00):

If you're trying to take an overdose of medication that you've crushed, just because of the bitterness that these pills have, so that made sense. I asked her more about the lemonade, and she told me that it had been in the wine tumbler from the night before.

Jennifer Sprague (07:42:25):

Okay. And in terms of the decision-making process, what types of decisions is she making? Are you referring to what to take and how to take it and when to take it and when to cut herself, those types of decisions?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:42:43):

Well, crushing pills is really a challenge if you don't have the right equipment, if you don't have a mortar and a pestle that they might have in a pharmacy. And so, what I wondered about was that process of crushing the pills to the point that they were powder in order then to put them in lemonade and then drink them. I mean, to crush pills, significant number of pills, into fine powder is not an easy thing to do, particularly if you don't have the right equipment. It's just kind of a laborious process.

(07:43:50)
It was Patrick Clancy who told me about the door being locked, and she told me she did not recall locking the door.

Jennifer Sprague (07:43:59):

Okay. And in terms of Ms. Clancy's ability to execute the strangulation of her children, is there anything about how she did it, what she did, that stood out to you in your evaluation?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:44:19):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (07:44:20):

And what is that?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:44:25):

Ms. Clancy told me that she, after the phone call with her husband, she returned the call. That was when she took Dawson down the steps into her husband's office to strangle him. And I asked Ms. Clancy about what she remembered about what she said to Dawson to get him to go down the steps and leave his sister and brother upstairs, and was there resistance, verbalization, et cetera, crying? And she said she could not recall that. She could only recall bringing him down the steps and then strangling him.

(07:45:25)
And then she repeated that. The next child was Cora, that she went back upstairs and did not recall how she got Cora down the steps, how Cora came down the steps, but then brought her into a different area, kind of a living room area in the basement and strangled Cora.

(07:45:54)
And then lastly, that she went up to get Callan. And I asked her, I said, "Where was Callan upstairs?" And she said, "Well, maybe in a playpen." She said she couldn't really remember but then bringing Callan down, and he was the last child to be strangled, all during this time where this voice is over and over again saying, "This is your last chance. You have to kill the children before you kill yourself."

Jennifer Sprague (07:46:27):

Doctor, is there any significance to the fact that this voice is telling her to kill the children, but not telling her how to kill the children?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:46:37):

Yes.

Jennifer Sprague (07:46:38):

And what is that?

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:46:45):

Just like adults, children have a will to survive, strong, strong will to survive. I think it's just part of being human. And so, I know that Dr. Resnick described Ms. Clancy as acting as if she were a puppet, but the children are not puppets. And just in looking at the Cape Codder video, where Ms. Clancy is holding Callan, and Dawson and Cora are there; I mean, they both are active. They can walk. They can run. And so, to make the determination about-

Mr. Reddington (07:48:01):

I'm going to object, Your Honor [inaudible 07:48:03].

Judge (07:48:04):

Can I see Counsel at sidebar?

(07:48:05)
All right. Doc, you may step down if you'd like. You may step down at this time.

Dr. Gregory Saathoff (07:52:09):

Step down?

Judge (07:52:19):

Yes, please.

(07:52:19)
All right. Well, Members of the Jury, we're going to break for today. All right? And in talking to Counsel over here, it is anticipated that the evidence will close tomorrow. All right? So I just wanted to give you a little bit of a heads-up in regards to that.

(07:52:36)
Now, the way it works in a case like this is it requires, after the evidence closes, I have to meet with the attorneys and go over some of the instructions. So it's probably, and you've all seen how good I am in my predictions about the schedule, but it's probable that we will be doing closing arguments, not tomorrow, but the day after. All right? So the anticipation is the evidence will wrap up, finish tomorrow, and then we'll start arguments and charge the next day with deliberations that day. All right? So I just wanted to give you as much heads up as I can. Well, I don't even want to go where I think about this prediction, but I think it's a good one. So I just wanted to give you some idea of where we are in regards to this.

(07:53:27)
So I'm going to excuse you until tomorrow morning. You've heard a lot of evidence, but you haven't heard all of it. All right? And like I've said before, you haven't heard the closing arguments of the attorneys. You haven't heard the law that you're going to have to apply to this. So you still have to keep an open mind. You still have to follow those instructions. Don't read anything about this. Don't listen to anything about this. Don't watch anything about this, and don't talk about it with anyone. You've been so good at following those instructions for all these weeks. I'm just going to ask you to kind of hang with those instructions a little bit longer. And so with that, I'm going to excuse you until tomorrow morning. We'll continue with the witness who's on the stand. And like I said, I anticipate that the close of evidence will be tomorrow. Okay? So with all my thanks, as I've done it all the time, thank you so much, and I look forward to seeing you tomorrow. Okay?

Speaker 18 (07:54:42):

Court, all rise. [inaudible 07:54:59], please. It's this way.

Jennifer Sprague (07:55:02):

[inaudible 07:55:03] it's a flash drive of-

Mr. Reddington (07:55:02):

Okay, thank you.

Jennifer Sprague (07:55:02):

... that video.

Speaker 18 (07:55:02):

Jurors have exited the courtroom. This court's in session. Please be seated.

Judge (07:55:07):

Anything that we need to address before tomorrow morning?

Mr. Reddington (07:55:11):

No.

Jennifer Sprague (07:55:11):

No.

Judge (07:55:11):

All right. Mr. Reddington?

Mr. Reddington (07:55:14):

No, thank you.

Judge (07:55:15):

All right. Thank you, Counsel. Thank you, everyone. We'll be in recess until tomorrow at nine o'clock.

Speaker 18 (07:55:19):

Court, all rise.

‍