The Lindsay Clancy Defense Is Almost Done, Karmelo Anthony's Trial Judge Removed, and Detective Who Heard Keffe D Say 'We Did the Other One'

Defense psychologist Dr. Paul Zeizel finished cross-examination in Lindsay Clancy's murder trial, testifying that psychosis comes and goes "like waves at a beach" and that testing by a state-retained doctor found no evidence she was faking. Prosecutor Shanan Buckingham pressed him on the roughly sixty visits he has made to Clancy since her arrest. Judge William Sullivan barred a former McLean Hospital social worker from testifying but admitted the hospital's staffing records, then adjourned early Wednesday citing an unforeseen circumstance he did not explain. The defense is expected to rest shortly; closing arguments could begin Monday. Clancy has pleaded not guilty to three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, and contests criminal responsibility. Also: in McKinney, Texas, visiting Judge Sid Harle recused Collin County Judge John Roach Jr. from all further proceedings in Karmelo Anthony's case, finding a reasonable observer might question his impartiality after a post-verdict interview. Retired Judge Michael Chitty now hears Anthony's motion for a new trial in the 2025 killing of Austin Metcalf; his conviction and 35-year sentence stand. And in Las Vegas, two former investigators testified about statements Duane Davis made years before publishing his memoir.

Join our new FB groups page here. Take the poll!

Join the Daily Crime & Justice community on social media! We're building a passionate group of true crime enthusiasts who love diving deep into the most shocking cases in America.
Follow us on Facebook and Instagram by searching "Daily Crime & Justice" on either platform. 

You'll get exclusive behind-the-scenes content, breaking news updates on cases we're covering, and early alerts when new episodes drop. Our social media is where Garret Fisher's hottest takes live, including reactions that don't make it into the show.

But more importantly, it's where YOU come in. Share your theories, debate the verdicts, and connect with fellow listeners who are just as obsessed with justice as you are. Did the jury get it right? What questions do you still have? Your comments and insights often shape future episodes.

We cover the trials that matter, but our community makes the conversation unforgettable. Come for Garret's signature cynical commentary, stay for the incredible discussions with thousands of true crime fans who get it.

Speaker 1: Kalaroga Shark Media.

Speaker 2: Good morning.

Speaker 1: This is Daily Crime Injustice from Calaroga Shark Media powered

by AI. I'm Garrett Fisher and it is Friday, August

twenty first, twenty twenty six. Three courtrooms today, and all

three of them are at a Hinge Point in Plymouth, Massachusetts.

The defense in the Lindsay Clancy case is down to

its last witnesses, which means we are days away from

a jury deciding whether a woman who killed her three

children is criminally responsible for it. In Las Vegas, prosecutors

spent Wednesday putting cops on the stand to say Dwayne

Davis told them he was involved in the murder of

Tupac Shakur years before he ever told a publisher. And

in Collin County, Texas, the judge who ran the Carmelo

anthony trial has been thrown off the case. And I

want to be careful with you about what that does.

Speaker 2: And does not mean. Let's go to Plymouth.

Speaker 1: We are in the fourth week of testimony in the

murder trial of Lindsay Clancy. And if you are new

to the show, here is the whole thing in about

thirty seconds. On the evening of January twenty fourth, twenty

twenty three, in a house on Summer Street in Duxbury, Massachusetts,

Lindsay Clancy strangled her three children with exercise bands while

her husband.

Speaker 2: Was out picking up takeout and a prescription.

Speaker 1: Cora was five, Dawson was three, Callen was eight months old.

She then cut herself and went out a second story window.

She survived, and she has been paralyzed from the chest

down ever since. She has pleaded not guilty to three

counts of first degree murder. Her lawyer, Kevin Reddington, does

not dispute that she did it. What he disputes is

whether she is legally responsible and under Massachusetts law that

puts the burden on the commonwealth to prove she was

of sound enough mind to be held responsible. That is

the whole case, not what happened why. The centerpiece of

the defense has been a psychologist named Paul Zizel, and

Wednesday was his last day on the stand. He has

met with Lindsay Clancy roughly sixty times in the three

years since she was arrested. He is the one who

told the jury she had bipolar disorder with postpartum psychosis

that she could not conform her conduct to the law,

and that she had no appreciation for the wrongfulness of

what she did. Those are not casual words. Those are

the exact legal boxes and insanity defense has to check,

and he checked all of them out loud. So on Wednesday,

Prosecutor Shannon Buckingham went after him, and the cross examination

was smart because it did not try to prove that

Lindsay Clancy was fine. Nobody in that courtroom is arguing

she was fine. The prosecution's argument is narrower and I

think more dangerous for the defense. Their argument is that

being sick and being responsible are not mutually exclusive.

Speaker 2: Here is how that played out.

Speaker 1: Zizel had testified that in early February of twenty twenty three,

he went to see Clancy at Brigham and Women's Hospital

under a court order because at that point nobody was

allowed in to see her, not family, not friends, not

a priest. She was in a hospital bed, wired up

with a handcuff on her right wrist, and she asked

to borrow his phone to call her husband. She gave

him the number from memory. Patrick did not pick up,

so she left a voicemail. Two days later, Zeizel came back.

She asked to try again, and this time Patrick answered,

She told him she loved him, and then, according to Zeizel,

she told him she had heard a man's voice ordering her,

telling her she had no choice, that she had to

kill her children and then kill herself. The prosecution's move

was to take that scene and turn it around. If

she could pull her husband's phone number out of her

own head from a hospital bed, if she could hold

a conversation, if she could remember what she had done,

then what exactly was broken a. Zayzel's answer was that

psychosis is not a light switch. He told the jury

that hallucinations come and go like waves at a beach,

and that somebody in the grip of postpartum psychosis can

still do ordinary things make a phone call, drive a car,

take a kid to the doctor, which is exactly what

Lindsey Clancy did on the last day of her children's lives. Look,

I'm going to be honest with you. This is the

argument that decides this case, and it is not an

easy one for either side. The prosecution has spent weeks

showing this jury a woman who searched things on her phone,

who timed how long her husband would be gone, who

was functional enough to move through an ordinary Tuesday. And

the defense answer is that all of that is compatible

with being psychotic, because psychosis does not politely announce itself

and clear your calendar. Zezel also told the jury something

that cuts against the state's theory in a different way.

He said psychological testing administered by a doctor working for

the government found no evidence that she would faking or

exaggerating symptoms, and he said that before the killings, she

described having horrible thoughts and believed those thoughts were so

loud that strangers around her could hear them. The prosecution's

other angle was the expert himself. Buckingham asked Zeisel whether

he had ever spent as much time with a defendant

he was evaluating for criminal responsibility. He said that in

his entire career as a defense expert, there had been

exactly one other person. The word the prosecution was reaching

for is confirmation bias. Sixty visits, three years a relationship,

At what point does the evaluator stop evaluating and start advocating.

That is a fair question, and it gets asked of

every expert in every insanity case in America. The defense

has an answer for it. On redirect Reddington went back

to the records from Tewksbury Hospital, where Clancy has been

held since twenty twenty three, and pulled out the parts

the prosecution had not read aloud. Zeizel told the jury

she is well regarded on the unit, that she has

bad days and worst days, and that she talks about

her children, that she loves them and misses them and

thinks about them almost every moment of every day. That

testimony is not evidence of anything legal. Grief after the

fact is not a defense, and it is not proof

of guilt either.

Speaker 2: What it is is the.

Speaker 1: First time this jury heard how the woman at the

defense table feels now about the three children she killed

and juries are.

Speaker 2: Human they notice.

Speaker 1: Then Wednesday got strange twice. First, there was a fight

about a witness the defense wanted and did not get.

Her name is Emily Thorndyke. She is a licensed clinical

social worker who worked at McLain Hospital, the psychiatric facility

where Lindsey Clancy was treated. In late twenty twenty two.

She had been watching the trial, and she posted a

video on TikTok pushing back on what prosecutors were telling

the jury about staffing levels at McLain. The defense wanted

her on the stand. Judge William Sullivan sent the jury

out and listened to her himself. Then he ruled she

could not testify. And that ruling is correct. And here

is why Thorndyke left McLain in twenty twenty one. Lindsey

Clancy did not get there until late twenty twenty two.

Whatever she believes about that place, she was not there

for the part that matters. But watch what the judge

did next, because this got lost in the noise. He

let the McClain staffing records into evidence. So the underlying

point the defense wanted that the hospital may have been

thin on staff when Clancy was there is in front

of the jury. Anyway, it came in on paper instead

of threw a person with a TikTok account. The evidence

got in the influencer did not. That is a judge

doing his job. The second strange thing happened right after lunch.

Court was supposed to resume around two fifteen. Instead, Sullivan

called the lawyers to sidebar, then came back and told

the jury they were going home. He said it was

due to an unforeseen circumstance. He told them this was

not something anybody saw coming, that they were not to

speculate about it, and that they were not to hold

it against either side. He said the case was still

on schedule, and then everybody went home. No explanation, not

to the jury, not to the press, not to anybody.

I have no idea what that was, and I am

not going to pretend I do. In a trial where

the defendant needs a medical transport van and round the

clock supervision, there are about forty ordinary things that can

go sideways in an afternoon. What I will tell you

is that the judge said the schedule holds, and the

schedule is the thing to watch now, because here is

where this trial actually stands. The defense was expected to

call one more witness and then it may rest. After

that the prosecution gets rebuttal, and rebuttal here means their

own mental health experts telling this jury a different story

about the same woman. Reddington has said publicly that closes

arguments could start as early as Monday, and that each

side would get thirty minutes thirty minutes, four weeks of testimony,

seventy something witnesses for the state alone, and it comes

down to thirty minutes aside, and then eighteen people carrying

it into a room. Cora Clancy, Dawson Clancy, Callan Clancy,

five three and eight months old. Everything in that courtroom

is an argument about their mother. Somebody has to say

their name. Now to Las Vegas, where the trial of

Dwayne Davis is in its first full week of testimony,

and prosecutors have started calling the people who heard it

first quick reset. Davis is sixty three. He is charged

with murder with a deadly weapon with an enhancement for

allegedly acting to promote a criminal gang. He has pleaded

not guilt. He is not accused of pulling the trigger.

The States theory is that he was the one who

bought the gun and handed it into the backseat of

a white Cadillac on the night of September seventh, nineteen

ninety six, and that the man who fired it was

his nephew, Orlando Anderson. Everyone else in that car is dead.

Anderson was killed in an unrelated shooting in nineteen ninety eight.

He was twenty three, and he was never charged in

Tupac Shakur's death. Tuesday belonged to James MacDonald, known as

Mob James, who ran security for Suge Knight and death

Row record, and he did not want to be there.

He testified under court order, told the room that people

have not talked about that night in thirty years and

today was not going to be the day, and declared

himself hostile. When Davis's attorney, Michael Samft kept pressing him

about the aftermath in Compton, McDonald told him he did

not want to send him to prison. Then he looked

past the lawyer at the defendant and told Davis to

talk to his own attorney. There is a playbook for this.

A witness who will describe the politics and the record labels,

but not what he actually saw is not new. What

McDonald did do was knocked down one of the internet's

favorite theories about this case, the one that says death

Row's own head of security orchestrated the killing. His answer

was blunt and practical. Tupac was the money killed Tupac,

and there is no death Row. Wednesday was a half day,

and it was the day this case stopped being about

atmosphere and started being about Dwayne Davis's mouth. The first

witness was Wade Lee, a former FBI special agent who

worked gangs in south central Los Angeles. Lee testified that

he arrested Davis for drug trafficking in the late nineteen nineties,

that he was investigating gangs rather than the Shakur murder,

and that he interviewed Davis twice off the record, and

in those conversations, according to Lee, Davis denied everything, said

he did not know who killed Tupac. Shakur said he

and Anderson were anger after the casino fight, but were

not about to do anything with that many police around.

He also pointed the agent toward people from New York,

which is an accusation about living people that has never

been charged and that we are not going to repeat

on this show. Then came Darren Dupree, a former Los

Angeles police detective, and Dupree is the reason Wednesday mattered.

In two thousand and eight, Dupree was working a task

force on a completely different unsolved murder, that of Christopher Wallace,

the notorious Big who was shot in Los Angeles in

nineteen ninety seven. Davis was a person of interest in

that case, partly because he drove the same kind of

car the shooter had been in, so they brought him

in for what is called a profit session, which is

an off the record conversation between investigators and a suspect

that can become the basis for a deal later on.

And in that room, according to Dupree, Davis denied having

anything to do with the Wallace killing. He said, they

did not have anything to do with that. One on

the investigators caught the word that one. What do you

mean that one? And dupre testified that Davis answered, we

did the other one. Dupre told the jury there was

only one other one. From there, According to the detective,

Davis laid out a version of the night that lines

up with what he would put in a book. Eleven

years later, four men in the cadillac, Davis handed the

gun toward the back seat.

Speaker 2: The man he handed it to was afraid to fire, and.

Speaker 1: Anderson reached over him, took it and shot across him.

The prosecutor asked Duprex whether he had any reason to

doubt the story, and Dupree's answer was the strongest thing

the state is put in front of this jury so far.

He said he did not believe Davis was lying because

Davis was putting the gun in his own nephew's hand

in that neighborhood Dupree said, Orlando Anderson was the prince,

his family loved him. You do not hang a murder

on your own nephew for fun. That is not forensic evidence.

There is no gun, no DNA, no eyewitness in that

cadillac who is still breathing. This is a case built

on what a man said repeatedly to different people over

about fifteen years, and whether you believe he meant it,

which is exactly where the defense lives. Soft told the

jury in his opening that his client was known to

make things up, that the memoir was fiction, that the

interviews were a hustle, and he asked what facts actually

put Keffi d in a car in Las Vegas that night.

Speaker 2: That is a real argument.

Speaker 1: It is also an argument that requires a jury to

believe a man confessed to orchestrating one of the most

famous murders in American history repeatedly to cops and to

federal agents, and to a publisher and to a camera

and meant none of it. I will say this plainly.

If the defense is right, then Dwayne Davis spent twenty

years selling the story of a murder he did not commit,

using a dead kid's name to move copies. That is

the most generous version of his own case. That is

what winning looks like here. There is more coming. The

witness list still includes Suge Knight, who is currently serving

twenty eight years for voluntary manslaughter and who is publicly

indicated he will not be helpful, and Nevada's current governor,

Joe Lombardo, who was the sheriff in Las Vegas when

this case was revived. This trial is expected to run

about another month. Tupac Shakur was twenty five years old.

He was shot on the Las Vegas Strip on September seventh,

nineteen ninety six, and he died six days later. Nobody

was ever charged for thirty years. Somebody has to say

his name. Our third story today, and this one has

been running in the background of this show since the spring.

On June ninth of this year, a Collin County jury

convicted nineteen year old Carmelo Anthony of murder for stabbing

seventeen year old Austin Metcalf in the chest at a

high school track meet in Frisco, Texas, in April of

last year. Both of them were seventeen when it happened.

The jury took about three hours. It rejected the lesser

option of manslaughter. Then it rejected the argument that he

acted in sudden passion, which would have opened the door

to a much lighter sentence, and it gave him thirty

five years. In July, Anthony's new legal team, working without

pay and led by a Dallas attorney named Russell Wilson,

filed two motions. One asked for a new trial, the

other asked the trial judge John Roach Junior to step

aside from ruling on it. On Wednesday, they won the

second one. The hearing was handled by a visiting judge

Sid Harley out of San Antonio, who runs the fourth

Administrative Judicial Region and who most recently presided over the

Uvalde School shooting prosecution, and the defense opened by hitting

play on an eighteen minute interview that Judge Roach gave

to a Dallas television station after the verdict came in.

In that interview, Roach was asked whether the jury got

it right. He said, whatever they say, they got it right.

He described Anthony as a nice young man who committed

a crime who now understands the consequences. He defended his

own courtroom rules, and he said he was irritated about

AI generated images circulating as though they were shot inside

his courtroom, when no cameras were ever allowed in the

defense's argument was simple, You cannot go on television and

endorse a verdict while a motion attacking that verdict is

sitting on your desk. And here is where Judge Harley

was careful in a way I want you to hear,

because the headlines flattened it.

Speaker 2: Harley said he did not know Roach. He said recusal

is a very high bar. He said he.

Speaker 1: Did not find that Roach violated the rules of judicial conduct,

and he said he personally believed Roach could rule fairly

on the motion. And then he said that is not

the test. The test is whether a reasonable member of

the public, looking at all of it from the outside,

could question the judges in partiality under that standard, and

only that standard. He granted the recusal. Prosecutor Bill Wirsky

pushed back hard. He argued that Roach did nothing wrong,

that the people who actually lived through that trial know

it was run properly, and he put a good chunk

of the blame for the atmosphere around this case on

online influencers. He also said something worth remembering that both

sides in this case have received death threats. By Wednesday afternoon,

a retired Kaufman County judge named Michael Chitty had been

assigned to take over, and he took the bench Thursday

morning at nine to hear the motion for a new

trial itself. Now I need to be clear about what

that motion is, because it is being wildly misreported. It

does not argue that Carmelo Anthony is innocent. It does

not ask anybody to let him out. He is in

the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice serving

thirty five years, and nothing that happened this week changed

that by a single day. What it argues is that

the trial was run in a way that violated his

constitutional rights three grounds. One that the courtroom was effectively

closed to the public, that seating was severely limited, and

that an overflow room was shut down once testimony began.

Two that prosecutors backed out of an off the record

agreement about what character evidence would stay out, and that

when it collapsed, Anthony was effectively forced into giving up

his right to take the stand and tell the jury

he acted in self defense. And three that the jury

instructions made it hard for jurors to reach self defense

at all. Those are process arguments, every one of them.

And process is how convictions actually get overturned in this country.

When they get overturned at all, which is rarely. The

recusal ruling produced cheering in a courthouse hallway and chanting

in a parking lot. And I think that is because

a lot of people heard the word removed.

Speaker 2: And thought it meant something. It does not mean.

Speaker 1: An appellate lawyer in Dallas put it about as well

as it can be put. You do not see this often,

and you do not see it granted often, but it

does not mean he has won anything. The new judge

inherits a jury verdict, and a jury verdict is a

heavy thing to move. There is a second reason this

case runs so hot, and I am not going to

pretend it away. Carmelo Anthony is black. Austin Metcalf was white.

This case became a national argument about race within about

forty eight hours of the stabbing on both sides, most

of it conducted by people who were not in Frisco,

Texas and who never met either kid. Attorneys on both

sides told that jury the case was not about race.

The jury deliberated for three hours whatever you think about

the verdict, that is what happened inside the room. And

Austin Metcalf's father has been talking publicly again this week.

He has said the ruling reopened a wound that it

started to close, and that his focus is the foundation

he started in his son's name and the work of

keeping other parents out of the chair he is sitting in.

That is the part that does not move. There are

motions and hearings and new judges, and there will be

an appeal after this, and probably an appeal after that.

Accountability doesn't have a legal department. It has a courtroom

and a docket and a family that has to show

up every time. Austin Metcalf was seventeen years old. He

died under a tent at a track meet in the

rain in his twin brother's arms.

Speaker 2: Hunter Metcalf was there. Somebody has to say his name.

That's the show for Friday.

Speaker 1: If this one gave you something you didn't have this morning,

do me a favor and send it to one person.

Text the link, say the name of the show out

loud to somebody who likes this stuff. That is how

this thing grows, and it is the only advertising we

have got, and if you're listening on Spotify, drop a comment.

I want to know what you make of that thirty

minutes aside in Plymouth, because I've been chewing on it

all week. Whether that is enough time to hand a

jury a case this size. YouTube comments work too, I

read them. We'll be back Monday, and by then the

Clancy defense should have rested. We should know what came

out of Thursday and Friday in Las Vegas, and we

should have a ruling out of Colin County, Cora Dawson

and Callan Clancy, Tupac Shakur, Austin Metcalf do better now

the disclaimer, and there is a fair amount of it today.

Everything in this episode comes from court proceedings, court filings,

and reporting by outlets covering these cases directly, including Court TV,

the Associated Press, Courthouse News Service, Boston twenty five News,

The Boston Globe, CBS News, CNN, NPR, PBS, WBUR, NBC five,

Dallas Fort Worth, k r A, the Dallas Morning News,

the Las Vegas Review Journal, and Las Vegas television stations.

Testimony just described here is what a witness said under oath.

It is not a finding of fact. Juries decide what

testimony is worth. Reporters don't, and neither do I. On

the Clancy case, Lindsay Clancy has pleaded not guilty and

her defense's lack of criminal responsibility. She has admitted through

counsel that she killed her children. The dispute is her

mental state. Outlets have reported her age inconsistently through this

trial as thirty five and as thirty six, and some

have listed Callan Clancy as seven months old, while the

court record and most reporting say eight months. We use

thirty six and eight months. Doctor Paul Zeisel is an

expert retained by the defense, and the prosecution is expected

to call its own mental health experts in rebuttal, so

the jury has not heard the other half of this

argument yet. The number of times he met with Clancy

has been reported as roughly sixty and as dozens, and

we use the higher figure. Thursday session in Plymouth was

still underway when this episode was recorded, so anything from

Thirdursday or Friday comes to you Monday. The suggestion that

closing arguments could begin Monday comes from Defense council.

Speaker 2: Speaking to a newspaper.

Speaker 1: It is not a court order and it can move

and judge Sullivan gave no reason for Wednesday's early adjournment,

so anyone telling you what it was, including me.

Speaker 2: Is guessing.

Speaker 1: On the Las Vegas case, Dwayne Davis has pleaded not

guilty and is presumed innocent. He is not charged with

firing the shots. The statements attributed to him in that

courtroom come from investigators describing conversations from two thousand and

eight and from the late nineteen nineties.

Speaker 2: And those profer sessions were.

Speaker 1: By their nature, off the record, so what the jury

is hearing is a former officer's account of them and

not a recording. Davis's defense maintains that his memoir and

his interviews were fabricated for money and attention. Accounts still

differ on how many shots struck Tupac Shakur and on

who fired them, and nobody has ever.

Speaker 2: Been charged with pulling that trigger.

Speaker 1: Orlando Anderson was never charged and died in nineteen ninety eight.

We have not repeated the uncharged allegations Davis made about

living people in his book or in those interviews, and

we are not going to. On the Texas case, Carmelo

Anthony's conviction and thirty five year sentence stand as of

this recording. The motion heard Thursday does not claim he

is innocent. It claims his trial was constitutionally defective. The

hearing before Judge Chitty was still in progress when we recorded,

so if a ruling came down after that, the number

we could not give you is now public and you

should check the latest. The off the record evidentiary agreement

described in that motion is again off the record, which

means it is characterized in filings and by legal analysts

rather than sitting in a transcript. Comments attributed to Austin

Metcalf's father this week come from an interview he gave

to a tabloid outlet, So we have described the substance

of what he said rather than quoting him, and we

would treat the exact wording with care. This case has

been argued in racial terms online for well over a year.

We have reported what was argued and decided inside the courtroom,

where attorneys on both sides told the jury.

Speaker 2: The case was not about race. We're a podcast, not

a courtroom.

Speaker 1: This is commentary, not legal fact, and when we get

something wrong, we correct it on air. This is Daily

Crime and Justice. I'm Garrett Fisher,