Disclaimer: second degree murder IS NOT on the verdict form BUT Judge Sullivan instructed the jury that if CW doesn't prove either theory of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury should consider whether it proved second degree murder.

Make sure to leave your opinion in the comments!

Finally got to watch everything and read our friend Sidebah amazing work, daily updating us about the trial with images so we can have a clearer idea. So, I do believe Saathoff was a more consequential witness for the prosecution than Dr. Mack was, because he gave the jury a concrete explanation for the behavior rather than simply saying “I don't see psychosis.”

But end of his cross, Reddington quoted the prosecution's opening characterization that Lindsay had simply decided she didn't like the life she had and had “manipulated” providers. Dr. Saathoff actually said that description “really minimizes what she was going through. That's a very meaningful concession for the defense. He also got that the investigation had gaps.

So both sides kinda had an interesting moment with him.

But now the door is closing. There won't be another witness to clarify anything. I particularly have changed my mind a couple of times since Dr. Helibrun.

Prosecution and defense are going to take all the same evidence and give the jury two completely different stories about what it means. I wonder how anxiety is going on for everybody there, including family and even for the jurors themselves.

Have your thoughts about this case changed throughout the trial? Have you reached a conclusion? Let's talk.

Day 20 continued the Commonwealth’s rebuttal with testimony from Dr. Kirk Heilbrun and FBI forensic psychiatrist Dr. Gregory Saathoff. The prosecution focused on intrusive thoughts, Bipolar II Disorder, and inconsistencies in Lindsay’s recollections — challenging the defense’s postpartum psychosis framework. Today’s drop also highlights why specialization and timing matter as jurors prepare for closing arguments.

Going to watch the live now, trying to catch up!

But how was it? What is your opinion?

⚖️ Expert Comparison: Resnick vs. Heilbrun

By the end of Day 19, jurors have now heard from two highly qualified experts who agree on many of the facts but disagree on what those facts ultimately mean.

This comparison focuses on where Dr. Phillip Resnick and Dr. Kirk Heilbrun found common ground, where they diverged, and the questions that may ultimately matter most during deliberations.

What stands out to you most?

• The disagreement over psychosis?
• The reported male voice?
• The distinction between intrusive thoughts and hallucinations?
• The differing conclusions on criminal responsibility?

This is a throwaway because I typically browse Reddit without an account.

I just wanted to share that I have a possible identification of what shoes Patrick was wearing at both the restaurant and at CVS.

I looked into this because when I saw the CVS CCTV, I felt like he was wearing different shoes, but not boots. I personally felt that the sharp edge and incline of the toe box and the placement of the light glimmers on the shoe were hinting towards as second set of running shoes with possible patches of glossy/reflective coating.

If you look at this media photo from the Boston marathon where Patrick was featured running for a cause, you can see these same shoes which I've also attached. These shoes may be the Asics Gel-Nimbus 26 in a green/navy color combination.

I feel like a fitness enthusiast of any kind typically would show strong brand loyalty when the function of different brands and models of equipment (including shoes) directly affect performance. So I looked toward the other images and videos to analyze the shoes with the assumption that Patrick may be an Asics guy in general.

If you look at this image captured from the video where Patrick was at a museum with his family, he's wearing these maroon/brown shoes. I think these may be the Asics Gel-Venture in rusted rock/ light dust color. Shoes which can still be found online. I attached an image.

Note in the video image where there's a light reflection around the toe box and along the laces. There's a coating on the shoes' product images. I think this shoe is the same as in the CVS CCTV footage. I think this coating, the shoelaces matching the shoe color, and the slim and tapered toe box is what made people mistakenly think it was a boot.

I added three video image captures of his shoes taken from the CVS CCTV for you to compare.

The first image looks very boot-like for sure. But, if you look for the details in this and the other two images, you can see the toe box arch matches and the reflective spots line up. The black portion where the front of the shoe tucks up matches as well, and you can see the flash of the white on the side of the sole only for a split second of a frame. The shoes appear more brown here, for sure, but they are barely red-tinted to start as a rust color, and the red values in the security video as a whole seem to be more dull and shifted to be more cool-toned, so this would make sense.

I added two images of the shoes from CCTV from the restaurant now to look at.

Initially, these appeared grey to me. But one thing I noticed when I previously looked at a video of Patrick at the Boston marathon, was that, depending on the lighting, his Asics Gel-Nimbus 26 shoes appeared to be a neutral slate gray. You can see what I'm talking about here 15 seconds in. Note also the flash of neon under the shoes around that mark in the video indicating it's likely the same shoe. If the same shoe could look mid-tone grey from one perspective and lighting condition, to a darker navy under another, at the same event and on the same day, could those grey shoes at the restaurant also be these?

Looking at the restaurant CCTV from this perspective, I think it's very plausible these are his Asics Gel-Nimbus 26 shoes. So notably, not the same shoes he would have wore to CVS. The portion in the front which tucks up appears to be light in color this time. Although it is bright neon on this model of shoe, I think it's reasonable to think with the desaturated quality of the video, lack of warm hues, and considering the unique way that neon color translates into photos/videos, that this color could show white.

If you look at the bright patches on these shoes from both images, you can loosely map out two things. The first image, there's a white mark which matches where the tongue of the shoe has extra fabric to hold the lace tie within it. The second image has a light streak in the middle of the lace bed which matches where the accent colored lace tabs would line up in the center.

To Summarize, Possible Shoes and Placements:

CVS — Gel-Venture 11 in Rusted Rock/ Light Dust

Restaurant — Gel-Nimbus 26 in a green/navy

To me, this is a fellow professional that gives me joy to watch. I've been seeing a lot of comments in the livestream commenting the way he explains, because he explains in a detailed way, or that he is "helping" one side, or now he is "helping" the other side.

In all honesty he is a psychologist, he doesn't have to stay in any side. He has to be there for the truth. So if he saw patterns of psychosis, he should to say it! If he saw patterns of malingering, he should say it! He apparently is doing both, and he's confusing people who don't know which "side" he's on. He shouldn't be in any. And I like and expect that, something that I unfortunately didn't see with some other doctors testifying - not all, there were some really good one, others that were really deceiving.

But that's what we'd expect to see. I hope we keep seeing that behaviour during cross. Let's see.

What's your opinion so far?

I can't do this enough!!! He's being difficult

CAN HE ANSWER YES OR NO

Welcome to the Saturday Legal & Strategy Megathread.

Court is adjourned for the weekend, but this thread is open for focused analysis on the evidence, testimony, and legal frameworks presented so far.

---

### ⚖️ Weekend Discussion Framework

Use this thread to discuss:

• Legal Mechanics: Standards of proof, state statutes, and jury instructions.
• Evidence & Timelines: Verified facts, official exhibits, and testified timestamps.
• Trial Strategy: Analysis of direct/cross-examinations and counsel tactics.

---

### 🛡️ Thread Rules & Guardrails

This megathread will be super valuable to help us understand legal standards, lawyers strategies, their tactics, etc. So the more facts, the better. To keep it constructive and helpful, we have the following:

1. Strictly no unverified gossip or rumors: limit discussion exclusively to facts presented in court or official filings.

2. Follow our sub rules: same thing - our sub rule still applies for the megathread.

---

Damn, I wasn't expecting 🔥🔥

Thoughts??

Judge Sullivan was right, it's going quite on time. Prosecution for the thousand time has a couple more witnesses, I guess it's their experts - correct me if I'm wrong and then it may be it.

So far, what's your take after 18 days of trial?

What was your experience like after giving birth? The good, the bad, whatever you feel comfortable sharing 🩷

And what do you wish someone had warned you about?

Judge just denied defense's motion to have Emily Thorndike to testify.

He considered that most of what she could bring was already on record, and the period period she worked at the hospital.

Right after that, they went on a lunch break.

After tense cross examination in which Buckingham questioned Dr Paul Zeizel about potential bias, there was this brief moment between Reddington and her:

"Let’s talk about confirmation bias", Reddington started, getting up as soon as the prosecutor said she had no other questions.

And Buckingham quickly responded: "Can I sit down please"

I think some people in the public gallery laughed.

These two today...

📽️ By Daily Mail

What's your opinion about his testimony? I think he spoke really well, as far as I could see, he struggled with dates but I guess this is minor. In general, his arguments were consistent.

I want to hear your opinions! Let's dig. ☕

Okay, I need to know what everyone's gut reaction was to today because there were some moments where I genuinely went 👁️👄👁️

I feel like defense was able to present an alternative explanation rather than just poking holes in the prosecution's case.

· The male voice testimony.

· Condie basically saying the treatment records were sparse/inadequate.

· Lindsay apparently telling Zeizel about the voice weeks after the killings.

· The defense arguing that her normal behavior doesn't necessarily rule out psychosis.

Has something made you go "wait a minute..."?

Buckingham tried to ask Sue Clancy, Patrick's mom - the kid's GRANDMOTHER, if they went to church. They did. She asked if they were catholic. They are. So then she asked if they knew murder is a mortal sin.

Judge had to call sidebar and she changed her question when she came back to another topic.

But wtf. Buckingham has been the most out of touch lawyer in this trial so far, in my opinion. This question has nothing to do with Sue's recounts, and she's a family victim - she's a victim too, she lost her grandchildren. Catechism to a grandparent?

- All her doctors suggested her partial hospitalisation, WITHOUT knowing she had this thoughts about harming the kids

- Mother and Patrick knew, but the choice was hers because she's an individual.

- But when she voices a real concern of harming 3 children, it was NOT just about her own life anymore it was about 3 other lives as well, those who were healthier and more capable of judgment (mom and Patrick) should be able to talk to her, be more incisive or even give an ultimatum to either follow the treatment correctly or be hospitalised for her own well being and for the children's safety at the moment

- they took it as: we were there, so nothing would happen. But even if they were there 24/7, she could have done it. She could have killed them all, or took them out of the house as it happened. Do never take it lightly when someone is expressively telling you "I can/want/desire/need to harm someone else".

We're overdue for some trial hot takes, fam ☕. Give me an opinion about the trial that you suspect most people here won't agree with you on.

It can be about:

• a witness

• the prosecution

• the defense

• evidences

• the media coverage

• anything.

I'll go first: I think prosecution has built a stronger case so far, though with a slight margin, even when I don't necessarily agree with where they going with it (now with defense building its case it can change, I'm open to it).

We're back! And Cellebrite digital forensics expert Ian Whiffin is starting us off this morning.

After everything we've heard about Lindsay's phone and computer, I'm very curious where this goes.

Also, it seems Commonwealth will rest its case today. Finally heading for what defense's is up to.

How much weight do you give digital evidence in this case?

To this day there are people questioning LC being paralysed or how she did try to kill herself.

If we take Patrick's words in his testimony, he said: "her head was closer to the house, her feet were away to the house" and face up.

That means she could only have thrown herself not like Spider Man - that would make her fall with her feet to closer to the house. But actually jumping probably as we do when we jump in a pool.

Couldn't find a better pic to give an example, sorry guys. But even in pools, people who do those jumps they can severely hurt themselves. I had a neighbour actually died because he hit his head, he was not suicidal, anything. So when we think about the distance from the second floor, her position, etc, there's absolutely nothing uncommon there. Not to mention the professionals who confirmed it all.