Inside The Courtroom | The Latest on Lindsay Clancy & D4VD

Summary

CRIME WEEKLY – EPISODE SUMMARY
Podcast: Crime Weekly
Episode: Inside The Courtroom | The Latest on Lindsay Clancy & D4VD
Hosts: Stephanie Harlowe & Derrick Levasseur
Date: July 29, 2026

---

Episode Overview

Stephanie and Derrick provide an in-depth update on two high-profile cases currently unfolding in the courts: the Lindsay Clancy murder trial and David Anthony Burke (D4VD) preliminary hearing. The episode is not a deep dive but a timely, nuanced rundown of the latest developments, legal arguments, and public discourse surrounding each case. The hosts also touch on courtroom strategy, the role of expert testimony, and the powerful emotional undertones these cases carry—offering insight from both investigative and personal perspectives.

---

Key Segments & Timestamps

1. The Lindsay Clancy Trial (01:09–25:01)

Trial Status and Charges

• Trial Commenced: Officially began July 27, 2026, Plymouth Superior Court.
• Current Phase: Jury is seated, opening statements made, testimonies underway.
• Charges: Lindsay Clancy stands accused of killing her three children. The central legal issue is whether she was criminally responsible, or suffering from postpartum psychosis.

Prosecution vs. Defense Strategies

• Prosecution: Asserts deliberate, premeditated murder—emphasizes evidence of planning, attempts to hide acts, and contradicts psychosis defense.
• Defense: Acknowledges killings, asserts Clancy was in a state of severe postpartum mental illness, possibly psychosis, influenced by “rapidly changing psychotic medications.”
  • "They're not disputing, obviously, that Lindsay physically killed the children. The defense is arguing that she's not criminally responsible at the time because she was suffering from severe postpartum mental illness." — Stephanie (02:27)

Jury & Public Reactions

• Jury Selection: Proceeded very quickly.
• Public Discourse: Heavily split, especially among women who have experienced postpartum depression/psychosis.
  • “A good amount of women who have experienced postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis...have said, yes, I've experienced these things. I was diagnosed, I never thought about killing my children.” — Stephanie (05:21)

Evidence and Testimony Highlights

• Key Detail: Clancy returned a call during the murders, which the prosecution argues shows she was aware of her actions.

  • “She literally either picked up a call or returned a missed call in the middle of killing these children.” — Derrick (04:56)

• Patrick Clancy (husband): First prosecution witness; his testimony highlights Lindsay’s mental health decline, intrusive thoughts, medication regimens, and a lack of concrete plan to harm children until the day of the murders.

  • “He was called first by the prosecution. He's also listed as a possible defense witness. And I think this does reflect how complicated his testimony may be for both sides and how complicated his position in this really is.” — Stephanie (09:03)

• Expert Witness Disputes: Defense was barred from calling late-added expert witnesses due to improper disclosure, a procedural win for prosecution.

  • “If Lindsay's found guilty now her defense team appeals and says, well, if we had been able to introduce these witnesses, the outcome may have been different.” — Stephanie (13:25)

Postpartum Psychosis Debate

• Jury's Main Task: Decide if Clancy's mental state constitutes legal insanity or mitigates criminal responsibility.
• Both hosts express skepticism about whether actions (like making a phone call mid-crime) are compatible with psychosis.
• Notable Quote: “Where in that postpartum psychosis where you're out of control, would you have the wherewithal, the foresight to call your husband back in the middle of killing your kids...?” — Derrick (15:02)
• Anecdotal experiences are acknowledged as significant for public discourse, but the judge barred them from the trial due to lack of evidentiary value.

Ethical Coverage & Media

• Sensitive Evidence Restrictions: Judge restricted public and press access to 911 calls, crime scene and autopsy photos to protect the victims’ and family's privacy.
  • “Any true crime creators who try to promote show anything regarding these children...you're a scumbag and you shouldn't be in the space because it doesn't add any context to the case.” — Derrick (23:34)
• First Responder Testimonies: Defense seeks to limit these witnesses to avoid emotional jury overload; the judge will address as trial proceeds.

---

2. The David Anthony Burke (D4VD) Preliminary Hearing (28:34–43:13)

Current Status

• Hearing Format: Preliminary hearing—judge to decide if prosecution's evidence warrants a full trial.
• Charges: Murder, sexual abuse of a child, mutilation of remains; related to the death of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez.

Summary of Allegations

• Burke allegedly met Celeste at age 11, began a sexual relationship when she was 13, murder and dismemberment at age 14.
• Evidence: DNA, digital correspondence, purchases (chainsaws, body bags, shovel using aliases), text messages discussing pregnancy and abortion, tracking data from Tesla.
  • “There is plenty of evidence of this. Pictures, text messages...You keep thinking you can't be more disgusted, but you are.” — Stephanie (29:51)
• Motive: Celeste allegedly threatened to expose the relationship, jeopardizing Burke’s burgeoning music career.

Defense Approach

• Questioning evidence collection and chain of custody; pointing out that others lived at the residence or had access.
• Not presenting alternative suspects or motives; focused on suppressing evidence for technical reasons.
  • “It's a lot of smoke and mirrors, a lot of misdirection. And now...they're going after how the evidence was collected." — Derrick (35:41)
• Prosecutor’s burden is low at this stage; overwhelming public and evidentiary support for moving forward to trial.

Key Quotes from Victim Texts & Testimonies

• “Let this abortion be the last one till we have the real one.” — David Burke to Celeste (cited at 36:38)
• “He was having sex with a 13 year old, right? So not only is that going to destroy your career, you're gonna, you're gonna go to prison, right? This is, this is prison time.” — Stephanie (36:15)
• Testimonial evidence indicates deception, manipulation, and predation by Burke; texts and movement data provide strong case foundation.

Host Analysis & Prediction

• Both hosts believe the case against Burke is exceptionally strong and likely to proceed.
• Law enforcement's thorough, methodical approach noted as a positive sign that case preparation was robust.

---

3. Reflections, Community Engagement, & Patreon Shoutouts (43:13–52:04)

• Stephanie and Derrick reflect on the emotional complexity and gravity of the cases, reiterate importance of public discourse—especially from women with lived experience.
• Advocated for ethical true crime covering, not sensationalizing or sharing distressing or private images.
• Patreon Community: Birthday shoutouts for July, with sweet astrological descriptions of Cancer and Leo patrons.
  • “Cancers are protective and loyal. When they love someone, they tend to take that bond very seriously.” — Stephanie (46:14)
  • “Leos often have a childlike, kind of fun loving side...they can be dramatic. They can be attention seeking.” — Stephanie (48:51)
• Reminders for community feedback on episode format, call for shared stories, and ongoing engagement.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “No, I am not a woman. No, I have never experienced postpartum psychosis...But I do know what happened during that day.” — Derrick (04:49)
• “This trial is going to come down to the jury's interpretation, slash understanding of postpartum psychosis. And like many cases, it's going to come down to which expert witness is more believable.” — Derrick (18:43)
• “Everyone deserves a defense, right?...I think everyone knows how we feel about this case so far.” — Derrick (40:55)

---

Final Thoughts

Stephanie and Derrick provided thoughtful, balanced commentary on two emotionally charged cases, elevating courtroom specifics, ethical considerations, and community involvement. They urge listeners to educate themselves, share first-person experiences thoughtfully, and foster a true crime discourse that is both empathetic and evidence-based. Listeners are encouraged to keep up with developments, engage respectfully in the community, and expect more updates as these cases unfold.

---

Transcript

[Angel Soft Advertiser]

Try Angel Soft for your tushy. It's made by Angels Soft and Strong. Budget friendly. The choice is simple. A roll that feels like paradise and always at a heavenly prize. Angel Soft. Angel Soft.

[Stephanie Harlow]

Soft and strong.

[Angel Soft Advertiser]

So example, pick up a pack today.

[Stephanie Harlow]

Angelsoft.

[Thumbtack Advertiser]

Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start. Thumbtack knows homes. So you don't have to don't know the difference between matte paint, finish and satin or what that clunking sound from your dryer is. With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro. You just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates and read reviews all on the app. Download Today.

[Angel Soft Advertiser]

Foreign.

[Derek Levasseur]

Hey, everyone. Welcome back to Crime Weekly News. I'm Derek Levasseur.

[Stephanie Harlow]

And I'm Stephanie Harlow.

[Derek Levasseur]

This week on Crime Weekly News, we're covering two cases that are unfolding in the courtrooms right now. We'll begin with the latest developments in the Lindsey Clancy case. I see a lot of you talking about that. And then we're going to turn our attention to the case involving David, which we've covered extensively on Crime Weekly News. But there are new details that are continuing to emerge through the legal process. Both cases have generated intense public attention. We're seeing it online and we're going to break down what's happening currently and what's being argued in court and where each case currently stands. Now, this isn't going to be a deep dive, but this is trying to keep you updated on what's going on in the news. And there are multiple stories. David Lindsey Clancy. There's also updates in the Nolan Wells case as well. There's just a ton going on in social media and in the news. And we're trying to keep you guys updated on where we currently stand.

[Stephanie Harlow]

Yes. So we're going to start with Lindsay Clancy. So her murder trial officially began today, not while you're hearing this, but while we're filming this. Monday, July 27, 2026 in Plymouth Superior Court. So this is no longer a story about an approaching trial. The jury is seated, opening statements have happened, testimony is underway.

[Derek Levasseur]

So jury selection was fast, too. Yeah, super fast.

[Stephanie Harlow]

Yeah. We actually covered Lindsay Clancy when the case first happened, long before there was a trial getting planned. Obviously, I think that there's going to be a lot that's going to come out during the trial because we have the prosecution presenting its theory that the killings of Lindsay's children were deliberate and premeditated, not the product of psychosis. And we have the defense, which they're not disputing, obviously, that Lindsay physically killed the children. The defense is arguing that she's not criminally responsible at the time because she was suffering from severe postpartum mental illness, potentially postpartum psychosis following months of a deteriorating mental health insomnia.

[Derek Levasseur]

Right. Also some mixtures of maybe some medications

[Stephanie Harlow]

as well, rapidly changing psychotic medications. So it's going to be an interesting trial to hear because obviously we know both sides are going to present their own experts, right?

[Derek Levasseur]

Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. And guess what? They're not going to agree. They're both going to present the same evidence and they're going to come to a different conclusion, which is what we talk about on so many cases where they're both, quote, unquote, experts. But just like a lot of science, it's open to interpretation.

[Stephanie Harlow]

It's ultimately going to be up to the jury.

[Derek Levasseur]

That's it. What do they believe? And I will say, as we're going to talk about a little bit later today as well, but, you know, even just looking online right now, in between our recordings, I'm seeing some of the stuff that's coming out of the courtroom. And, you know, when we initially covered this case, I know for me, I had a pretty visceral response to what happened, of course. And I believe, if I quote it correctly, it was something along the lines of F. Lindsey Clancy was something that I said, and not everyone loved that. But, you know, I'm going to let this one play out, and I want to see what happens in the courtroom. I know where my gut and my head is right now, based on what we do know about this case. No, I am not a woman. No, I have never experienced postpartum psychosis. No, I am not an expert in that field. But I do know what happened during that day, at least a lot of it. And we're going to learn more. And to me, with what I have learned about postpartum psychosis, it seems like there was a lot that happened here in order for this to be the case. It doesn't seem likely to me, but just one of the things that we saw online today that I was looking at was the fact that she literally either picked up a call or returned a missed call in the middle of killing these children. So, again, it's a horrific case.

[Stephanie Harlow]

So which the prosecution. The prosecution is going to argue this is not a psychosis. She is actively trying to hide what she's doing.

[Derek Levasseur]

And there was premeditation.

[Stephanie Harlow]

Yes, she's taking a call. So people don't get worried and check in. What I found interesting was the Internet discourse on this.

[Derek Levasseur]

There is so much is.

[Stephanie Harlow]

It is, it is split for the most part. And I think it's split to the point where people are giving her the benefit of the doubt, kind of like we are. We're saying, let's see what comes out of this trial. What are the experts going to present to us that's compelling. But what I did see that I found interesting was a good amount of women who have experienced postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis who have said, yes, I've experienced these things. I was diagnosed, I never thought about killing my children. So that is something to consider because you have people who have experienced this, who have gone through it, who are women who have had the, you know, not everybody's going to experience a mental illness in the same way. And her changing medications could be some sort of swaying factor here. But women who have said, yes, I went through this, and yes, it was terrible, and yes, you know, your head goes through, but I never thought that I should kill my children.

[Derek Levasseur]

So, you know, and I really hope that some of those women feel comfortable enough to comment on this, on this post and to get in the, and get into the community section here and let us know your stories, because you're going to be able to tell them better than us. Listen, for me, when it comes down to this case as we go through this trial, it's not going to be binary. It will not be black and white. It's going to be dependent on what you want to believe. And for me, when we think about proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it doesn't say proof without any doubt, just proof beyond reasonable doubt. And so for as a judge, I'm going to be looking for this, to me, with the evidence presented, is, is more than likely what happened here. There's proof beyond any doubt that she experienced maybe something, but there were opportunities to stop what she was doing. Yes, it's a higher threshold than a civil case where, you know, you're looking at preponderance of evidence.

[Carl's Jr. Advertiser]

Right.

[Derek Levasseur]

More likely than not. But I still think we would hit that threshold. However, I'm reserving judgment until we hear everything. What I've heard so far and what I've read so far, to me, as a jury member, I put myself in those shoes. I would find her guilty. I would find her guilty. We're talking about the murder of multiple children and the manner in which they were killed. And we're not going to go there today, but because I don't have it in me. It's bad, man. It's bad. And it's. If it was just that moment where everything was fine before and everything was fine after, maybe. But there were things that transpired. We talk about her sending him off, Patrick off. To do. To go out and get medication.

[Stephanie Harlow]

Go. To get. Yeah. To get dinner. And then.

[Derek Levasseur]

Yeah, it appeared to be planning to me. However, we know that it's.

[Stephanie Harlow]

There definitely was. Yeah.

[Derek Levasseur]

Are split. And I. I want people to comment about. If you've had an experience of postpartum psychosis, if you've gone through something like that. I'm really interested, although it's anecdotal, I'm really interested to hear your experience of how long something like that took place for how long did it transpire? Were you in that psychosis for a matter of minutes, seconds, hours? Do you not remember anything throughout the entirety of that day? I'm trying to learn as. As a man who has not experienced something like that. I've never given birth. I've never gone through that. I know postpartum depression is a real thing, and postpartum psychosis is a scary world to be in. I can't even imagine going through something like that. We know it's real. The question is not whether or not it's real, it's whether or not it happened here or it's being used as a. As a line of defense. So that's. That's the real crux of the issue here.

[Stephanie Harlow]

Or I think, was she in a state of psychosis in that moment? Because if you're answering calls and you're planning things and you're trying to evade being detected, is that a sign that she wasn't? So basically, the defense presented a timeline showing that Lindsay had repeatedly sought help before January 24, 2023. The defense claims that Lindsay experienced auditory hallucinations and that on the day that she killed her three children, she heard a male voice telling, this was her final opportunity to kill the children and then herself. And that allegation also appears in the civil lawsuits which have been filed by Lindsay and her husband, Patrick, against her medical providers. Now, Patrick Clancy was the first witness. So Patrick Clancy, Lindsay's former husband and the father of the children, he was called first by the prosecution. He's also listed as a possible defense witness. And I think this does reflect how complicated his testimony may be for both sides and how complicated his position in this really is.

[Derek Levasseur]

A woman he loved and his three children he loved. He's losing everybody.

[Stephanie Harlow]

Yeah. One Way or the other.

[Derek Levasseur]

You know, he's lost everybody.

[Stephanie Harlow]

Yeah. Yeah.

[Derek Levasseur]

So, by the way, I don't agree with the decision to. To call him first as a witness. I. I'm not a. I'm not an attorney. But I would have much preferred them to lay out the facts of the case and tell that story and save him for a little bit later in the trial. But again, they might have a strategy they're implementing. But it's interesting to me that their first witness that they call is Patrick. Just my opinion.

[Stephanie Harlow]

Yeah, I kind of agree, because Patrick is going to. Patrick isn't going to go all in in condemning Lindsay.

[Derek Levasseur]

I agree.

[Stephanie Harlow]

And I'm not saying that he should. I'm saying that the prosecution would probably want to paint that picture first. They want to win this case first. However, they may be saving those more damning witnesses or more damning testimony for later on. So that's fresher in the minds of the jury before they go into deliberation. I'm not sure what the. What the idea is there, by the way.

[Derek Levasseur]

Full disclosure. So people are coming at us. This trial is happening as we're recording. It's Monday afternoon, so you're going to see this on Wednesday. So there may be more things disclosed today that are not in this episode where you're like, did you guys even watch? No, we're recording with you guys. We're just seeing snippets online right now.

[Stephanie Harlow]

So. So far, Patrick has testified about Lindsay's difficulty returning to work and being separated from the children, her escalating anxiety after childbirth, the numero providers she saw, medications she received, her psychiatric hospitalization shortly before the killing, and statements she made about intrusive thoughts involving the children. And Patrick testified that in early December of 2022, Lindsay told him she was having thoughts about harming the children, according to his testimony. He asked whether she had a plan and whether the thoughts disturbed her. She reportedly denied having a plan, although his testimony about that conversation will likely be examined closely, of course, by both sides, especially if he's acting as a prosecution witness right now. Because what the prosecution is going to want to prove is that there was premeditation here.

[Derek Levasseur]

Yes.

[Stephanie Harlow]

So.

[Derek Levasseur]

Yes. Which we know. I mean, I'm trying to recall some of the responses to our coverage of it. And if there was a defense made, that psychosis can take place over months. I don't believe there was.

[Stephanie Harlow]

So there wasn't really a ton of. Not at least officially. Right. There was mental health experts coming out commenting on the case. But what we do know is that there were some proposed defense experts that ended up being excluded because just before jury selection, the prosecution objected to several experts who'd been added late to the defense witness list without accompanying reports or adequate disclosure. So the judge, Judge William Sullivan, ruled that the defense could not call expert witnesses who had not been properly identified during discovery. This is pretty standard, actually. You can't just last minute, especially an expert witness, where the prosecution is going to want vet them, thoroughly review the report, vet them, look at their credentials so that when they go on the witness stand, they have, you know, they're equally as prepared as the defense to talk to this person. Now, the defense may be able to revisit the issue if an unexpected prosecution argument or witness opens the door to rebuttal testimony. But this was still a meaningful victory for the state. However, the way I look at it, because once again, we've seen this happen so many times. The way I look at it, if is Lindsay's found guilty now her defense team appeals and says, well, if we had been able to introduce these witnesses, the. The outcome may have been different.

[Derek Levasseur]

And now, spoiler alert, that's probably going to happen.

[Stephanie Harlow]

And now they can say, well, the. Yeah, well, let's bring it to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court can say, well, the judge made the wrong call. And we. We think that they should have let those expert witnesses in or delayed the trial or whatever. So now this matters because the case will likely be decided largely through competing psychiatric experts, which we talked about.

[Derek Levasseur]

Yep. There's nobody disputing that she killed him.

[Stephanie Harlow]

Yeah.

[Derek Levasseur]

You know, so now it's just a question of what. What mental. What was her mental capacity at the time?

[Stephanie Harlow]

Did you know what you were doing was wrong?

[Derek Levasseur]

Basically, I want to make the point that there's a clear distinction from what I've learned from all of you and just doing my own research, that there's a clear difference between postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis. And to me, it's very clear that Lindsay Clancy was experiencing postpartum depression.

[Stephanie Harlow]

I think that's fair.

[Derek Levasseur]

Nobody's disputing that. Nobody's doubting it. The question is, did it get to a point of postpartum psychosis in the exact moment when she sent Patrick away? That's the question you have to ask

[Stephanie Harlow]

yourself and then continue to remain in that psychosis throughout the entire time that she had to strangle her three children with exercise bands.

[Derek Levasseur]

Right. While also calling Patrick back and saying she was busy with something. And the belief is that she was Killing them. She was mid. Killing them.

[Stephanie Harlow]

Yes.

[Angel Soft Advertiser]

Yes.

[Derek Levasseur]

When she called them back. So there's a lot of. Where there could have been something that broke you out of that cycle. And I would love to hear your comments again. Where in that postpartum psychosis where you're out of control, would you have the. The wherewithal, the foresight to call your husband back in the middle of killing your kids, or would you be totally focused on that, whatever that action that you're carrying out? And I just don't want to conflate postpartum depression with postpartum psychosis, but I think there's a lot of learning that can be done here. Truthfully, I think the better defense is the argument that the mixture of medications was what caused this. And I think that's going to become a very important thing when it comes to medical doctors. And if there's any case history of these types of combinations of medication where you've had similar results, similar actions to prove that this is possible, or is Lindsay Clancy the first of its kind?

[Stephanie Harlow]

So here's where I'm looking at it. I have had postpartum depression. I think a lot of women have.

[Derek Levasseur]

A lot of women have. Yeah.

[Stephanie Harlow]

I've never experienced postpartum psychosis. The way that it's kind of being made to seem is almost more of like a demonic possession. Right, right. Where, like, somebody takes over you entirely. You are no longer yourself. To the point where you get a call while it's happening and you have the presence of mind to act sane and to act like everything's fine when everything, in fact is not fine. Like somebody took you over completely. There is not a scrap of left. Yes. And I don't know if that's what the experience really is. Like, if. If Patrick had walked in while she was doing it and he was like, stop. Would Lindsay have turned on him and tried to kill him in order to prevent him from stopping her from impeding what she's doing, killing the three kids? Like, is that where we're at right now? Like, is that what the defense is, is trying to. To argue where it's, like, completely taken over. She has no control of herself. This entity, like this demonic possession has taken control. Because if that's the case, I feel like we might see a lot more of these incidences happening than we do.

[Derek Levasseur]

You're saying the claim. The claim of postpartum psychosis.

[Stephanie Harlow]

Yeah. Or people killing their children and then saying, well, I had postpartum psychosis.

[Derek Levasseur]

You know, I'm interested to see how this one plays out. I know people are very passionate about it on both sides of the aisle. And I feel like there's a lot of women who have experienced postpartum depression who. It can get really bad, and they. They feel some empathy for Lindsay in this moment.

[Stephanie Harlow]

And so they feel empathy. But I also feel like they might be like, yeah, I. But I don't want it to be mischaracterized. I've experienced postpartum depression. I've experienced postpartum psychosis. I still would never do this. So I don't want everybody to think that just because you've been through something like this, this is what you would do, because I feel like that's a mischaracterization. But once again, that seems to be, for me, like you said, the anecdotal evidence from a lot of women out there who've been through this and have said, like, yeah, it sucked. It was terrible. It was horrendous. I didn't feel like myself. However, I still was not compelled to do this.

[Derek Levasseur]

I really hope we get some people who are willing to share their stories, because, like you said, you haven't experienced postpartum psychosis. And I want to learn more about it from people who have. Like I said, what was your experience when you went into it, when you came out of that psychosis? What did you feel? How. What was the duration of. We can all learn here to see if there's any validity to this claim. And I think at the end of it, the jury's going to be learning as well. They're going to become experts in postpartum psychosis. And so that's going to be a big deal.

[Stephanie Harlow]

Are they or are they going to hear from two separate sets of witnesses who are going to say two different things?

[Derek Levasseur]

They're going to be.

[Stephanie Harlow]

This.

[Derek Levasseur]

This trial, if you want to boil it down, is going to come down to the jury's interpretation, slash understanding of postpartum psychosis. And like many cases, it's going to come down to which expert witness is more believable.

[Stephanie Harlow]

Well, here's the interesting thing. So the defense had tried to call women who could describe their personal experiences with postpartum depression or postpartum psychosis. Right. And the judge actually excluded that type of testimony, which I agree with, because it's like, we want to hear anecdotal evidence, but anecdotal evidence honestly doesn't have any place in a courtroom during a trial such as this. The judge ruled that ordinary witnesses can't offer diagnostic or accident expert opinions. Based on their own experiences. Still, I think it is interesting to hear those experiences, but you know that the defense would cherry pick witnesses who had the same experiences allegedly as Lindsay. So you're not going to hear an unbiased pool, or, you know, at least a. A pool of women who have been chosen unbiasedly. Like, they're not going to put everybody who's had an issue with postpartum psychosis into a hat and then randomly pull out names. They're going to select the ones that support their argument, which. That. That doesn't have any place in a courtroom.

[Derek Levasseur]

I don't believe I agree with you. And, and here I'll take it a step further as to why I agree with you. Like you just said, there are going to be people who have experienced similar circumstances, and the defense is going to put them on. On the stand. And conversely, the prosecution could do the same where if there was five defense witnesses, they're going to find five prosecution witnesses who are going to. Basically, they're just going to wash each other out.

[Stephanie Harlow]

No, I never. I never experienced that. I would never do that.

[Derek Levasseur]

Yeah, so it's just. It's. It's going to be just. They're both going to have the same amount of witnesses. What's more important to me, and I said this earlier, is the history. Are the statistics. Right. In postpartum psychosis, what's the percentage of women who experience something similar to Lindsey clancy? Is it 1%? Is it 30%? Is it 70%? That, to me, that statistic is more important than finding individual cases that support either side.

[Stephanie Harlow]

Yeah, but if it's 1%, then that still means Lindsay could be a part of that 1%. So does that statistic present it?

[Derek Levasseur]

Present it. And then from that 1%, let's dive into those details from the documentation, from the documented history of those observations, what was experienced, how many of those women went on to kill their children. All these things. You can dive into the actual data as opposed to anecdotal stories. I do think for. I think you said it best for us. We want to hear from everybody. We want to have a better understanding. But I also think we. We can't just base an outline if that's what it is.

[Stephanie Harlow]

I think it would muddle the facts.

[Derek Levasseur]

Yeah, it's going to just be a lot of. A lot of probably unnecessary testimony, because, like I said, they're going to counter each other. Whatever defense presents, the prosecution can find the same amount of people that will. That will dispute that. And that doesn't mean that either is right.

[Stephanie Harlow]

The prosecution's not saying postpartum psychosis doesn't exist. The prosecution is saying is that what Lindsay was experiencing at the time.

[Derek Levasseur]

Yes. Her particular case, based on her behavior and some of the. Some of the. Some of the things that she did that would potentially contradict the idea that she wasn't in control at that moment and she was kind of in a trance, just going through the motions because of what had happened to her at that time. Fascinating case. I hate this case for numerous reasons. Nobody wins here. The children are gone. But there has to be accountability. If it is determined there's proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay was experiencing postpartum psychosis at the time, well, then she should be found not guilty. And we will wait and see. And I think we're going to cover CWN probably a couple more times where we talk about Lindsey, because there's going to be updates. Um, is it enough for a deep dive? Probably not. And to be honest with you, I don't even know if I want to go there again. So there's gonna be a lot more to cover, and we're gonna keep you updated on it, for sure. There's. There's more even. I know we have more to talk about today.

[Stephanie Harlow]

Yeah. So just quickly. Patrick, Lindsay's former husband, has asked the court to restrict public access to a few things. His 911 call, which I don't know how I feel about that. The rest of them, though, I find to be completely reasonable for him to request this. Crime scene photographs, photographs of the children and autopsy photograph. Those should be restricted from public access. I completely agree with that. Now, the judge has allowed this evidence to be presented in court, but restricted the media from publicly distributing the most sensitive audio and images reporters may describe. However, what is played and displayed to the jury. I don't want to see those things.

[Derek Levasseur]

And if by chance it does get out, I will publicly state. And I think you support me on this, Stephanie. Any true crime creators who try to promote show anything regarding these children, especially

[Stephanie Harlow]

knowing that their father has asked not to.

[Derek Levasseur]

But it shouldn't even. It shouldn't even need to be asked. But you're a scumbag and you shouldn't be in the space because it doesn't add any context to the case. We all know the details. We're going to know the details. If you haven't already looked into it, that is enough. We don't need to see the images.

[Stephanie Harlow]

Yeah, I agree. So what's going to come next? Obviously, we're going to probably hear Patrick, his testimony. Continue. The defense has asked the judge to limit the number of first responders because they feel that the cumulative testimony from the first responders could emotionally overwhelm the jury. But the judge indicated that objections may be handled as the trial progresses rather than excluding a large group in advance. So the defense is like, hey, maybe don't have these people who had to respond to this scene and see what they saw. Don't have them testify as much because it's going to overwhelm the jury.

[Derek Levasseur]

Which is a bad look. Yeah, it's a bad look. But I. But to the defense's point, this kind of goes back to, in my opinion, the having the, the, the witnesses from the defense side who have experienced postpartum psychosis similar to what they're claiming for Lindsay, it. To me, it's like, yeah, we know that these fathers and these mothers and

[Stephanie Harlow]

even just human beings, they want to overwhelm the jury emotionally in the way they want to do that. But, yeah.

[Derek Levasseur]

Yes. So I'm to try to be objective here. I don't disagree with it. Like, we know it's horrific. The jury members know that. Let's get to the facts. Yes.

[Stephanie Harlow]

So, I mean, the first responders will be giving facts, but that I'm okay with. Their facts that they're giving are going to be emotionally horrible. Yeah. So let's take a quick break and we will come back and discuss a little bit more about the David case. This episode of Crime Weekly News is brought to you by Wildgreen.

[Derek Levasseur]

Yeah. Which is great, because nothing makes your house feel more put together than fresh bread. I love the smell of fresh bread. And I love eating it, too.

[Stephanie Harlow]

Yeah. Doesn't fresh bread in your house make it seem like you have your life in order, even if 5 minutes earlier you were eating shredded cheese out of the bag while standing in front of the fridge? Which.

[Derek Levasseur]

That's also good. I'm not hating on those people because I do that all the time. The only thing, I would add a little caveat with the bread. Gotta have the French butter.

[Stephanie Harlow]

The French churned fresh butter or the. The churned French butter. It's so good. And, you know, it's called authenticity, Derek. Okay. It's called elevating your life. It's called being fancy. And wild grain makes it very easy to have authenticity and fanciness and also to have fresh bakery quality bread, pastries, and pasta at home without having to run to the store or plan your entire day around it.

[Derek Levasseur]

And one thing that we absolutely love about Wild Grain is that it's baked from frozen, which we've talked about this before. A lot of the things out there, you got to let it sit on the counter for 20 minutes. And for us it's like, hey, when I want it, I want it now.

[Stephanie Harlow]

Yeah. Actually, Wild Grin is the first baked from frozen subscription box for sourdough breads, artisanal pastries and fresh pastas. So everything's going to arrive frozen and then you bake it when you want it, no thawing required.

[Derek Levasseur]

And that's it for me right now. Now, anything that requires thawing, you lost me.

[Stephanie Harlow]

With Wild Grain, everything bakes in 25 minutes or less, which is perfect for busy weeks, family dinners, breakfast, dessert.

[Derek Levasseur]

Yeah. And they use simple ingredients and a slow fermentation process. So great food tastes great and not terrible for you.

[Stephanie Harlow]

Their sourdough loaves actually go through a 20 hour slow fermentation sourdough bread.

[Derek Levasseur]

And that the French churned butter, man.

[Stephanie Harlow]

And the good thing about Wild Grain is you can get what you want. So you can choose from the variety box, which is basically you're designing it. You're putting what you want in there. You're getting what you want every month. They have a gluten free box, a vegan box. They even have a new protein box. So it's really not one size fits all.

[Derek Levasseur]

Yeah. So you got bread, pastries, pasta, breakfast, dinner and dessert. They got you covered.

[Stephanie Harlow]

A freezer, glow up. And honestly, we all deserve that. So imagine having fresh bakery quality bread, pastries and pasta at home. Try out the gnocchi's. They're amazing. Without any trips to the store. Don't just take our word for it, okay? Wild grain has over 40,000-star reviews and they've been voted the best food subscription box by USA Today for three years in a row. And for a limited time, Wild Grain is offering our Crime weekly listeners $30 off your first box. Plus, get this, free croissants for life when you go to wildgrain.com crimeweekly30 to start your subscription today. That's $30 off your first box and free croissants for life. And all you have to do is visit wildgrain.com crimeweekly30 or you can use promo code CRIMEWEEKLY30 at checkout.

[Carl's Jr. Advertiser]

Yeah, Maxim is so maxing right now, bro. Get ready for spicy chicken maxing because Carl's Jr. Is saving you big with a 5, 9 maxed out double stack, double stack, double stack spicy chicken sandwich. Seriously, just 5.99 double stack spicy chicken. This is unreal value in the bromosphere. The new spicy chicken Max wallet friendly. Max tasty only at Carl's Jr available for limited time at participating restaurants. Taxon included. Not valid for use within a combo or a combination with any other offered discount.

[Stephanie Harlow]

So we're back now as far as the David Anthony Burke trial, the murder of Celeste Rivas Hernandez. We are now in basically a preliminary hearing format. It began on Tuesday, July 21. It entered its fifth day today, which, like I said, is Monday, July 27. And then at the end of this preliminary hearing, the judge, Judge Charlayne Olmido, will decide whether the prosecution have presented enough evidence to require that David Burke stand trial on the charges. So this is not the judge deciding whether he's guilty. It's just, should he stand trial, Which I think we have uncovered. I mean, just, I feel like in the first, the first before even the preliminary hearing happened, I think the public was like, this dude needs to stand trial. Even really early on in the preliminary hearing, it was like, I. I do we have to keep going? Like, do the taxpayers have to keep paying this? There's more than enough. So where we presently stand, we know that David Burke was arrested in April of 2020, pleaded not guilty to the charges involving the murder of Celeste Rivas hernandez, who was 14 years old. I believe, if I remember properly, her body was actually found a day or two before her 15th birthday, but she would have been 14 at the time of her death. He's also standing trial or looking to stand trial, and he pled not guilty to sexual abuse of a child and mutilation of human remains. David Burke remains in custody without bail. His attorneys, of course, maintained that he did not murder Celeste and he was not responsible for causing her death. I'm not sure how they can do that. Prosecutors have also alleged special circumstances connected to this killing which could make the case eligible for the death penalty, Although the d. A. Has not announced a final decision about whether to seek it or not, probably because it hasn't even been determined yet whether a trial should happen. So the preliminary hearing is essentially the prosecution's first public presentation of its case. It's sometimes called a mini trial, but the prosecution's burden is much lower than it will be at an actual trial. Now, prosecutors allege that David Burke met Celeste when she was approximately 11, began a sexual relationship with her when she was 13 and he was 18. There is plenty of evidence of this. Pictures, text messages. I was reading through some of the text messages that they were Exchanging today that have come out during this preliminary hearing. You know, you keep thinking you can't be. Be more disgusted, but you are. So the prosecution claims Celeste later threatened to expose the relationship at a time when Burke's music career was becoming extremely lucrative. There is once again, evidence of that as well. The prosecution alleges that Celeste was stabbed, that her body was subsequently dismembered in David Burke's garage, and that her remains restored in the Tesla. The car was eventually towed, and we know that her body was discovered inside of it in September of 2025. Now, there were purchases that we talked about made after Celeste's death. Two chainsaws, body bags. Now, remember, we were like, how did they get body bags? Can you order body bags? These were like Halloween prop body bags, by the way, like that you would use for Halloween decorations. Also the inflatable pool and the shovel. Now, they. The prosecutions alleged that Burke used an alias when making some of these purchases. And once again, there's correspondence between David Burke and Celeste where he's saying, oh, I use this alias when I make purchases so that they can't be tied to me. So there's once again, correspondence kind of supporting everything the prosecution is stating. Now, crime scene technicians testified about. About apparent blood recovered from areas and objects in the garage of David Burke's Hollywood Hills residence, including a rubber floor mat, a rowing machine. So this is like an exercise, a piece of exercise equipment. It's like a machine, and you kind of row on it and then a Tesla charging component. So an LAPD DNA analyst testified that several samples match Celeste. One statistical calculation indicated that the DNA result was vastly more likely if the sample originated from Celeste than from an unrelated person. However, the defense has questioned the collection and testing process because that's all they can question now. Right? This is what the defense is doing. They have such a weak case, in my opinion, that they're going to. Now, instead of defend David, they're going to attack the way the law and order process worked, right? How was the evidence collected? How is it stored? Chain of custody, things like that. That's what they're going to go after. They really can't defend him, so they're going to try to get things eliminated from evidence. Burke's attorneys have emphasized that multiple people had access to or lived at the residence and asked why certain potential important objects, reportedly including some of the chainsaws, were not subjected to the same DNA testing. They are attempting to expose gaps in the forensic investigation and preserve the possibility that the evidence does not conclusively identify David Burke as the killer. But once again, like, who else had a motive to kill this 14 year old girl? Who else did besides David Burke?

[Derek Levasseur]

Well, that's, that's going to be the other thing here. They, they. They don't have to prove who, who did it. They're not, they're not, they're not there to work for the police department. That's not their job. But to everything you're saying, they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't their client because that's who law enforcement believes that it was. So they're acknowledging, hey, listen, we believe it was David. We think we have the evidence to support it. And whether it's your intention or not, you're gonna have to prove it wasn't him. And part of the way you would do that, part of the way you would create that doubt is by presenting an alternate scenario. Another suspect who may have more of a motive than your client being David to kill Celeste. Right. Again, not your responsibility, but that would help.

[Stephanie Harlow]

Well, so exactly some of the way you would do that is to be showing, well, this person could have done it like they were present at this time and. But then you'd have to show like, what was this person's, what was this person's motive?

[Derek Levasseur]

What was the reasoning? Yeah, overall there is, from the public perception of it, if you are innocent of a crime, I'm not saying you have to sit there and give a polygraph test because we know they're not always good and you don't want to. You have the right against self incrimination. But the lack of cooperation in this case, to show very simply that you are not responsible for what is being alleged would not be difficult. And yet that's not what's happening here. It's a lot of smoke and mirrors, a lot of misdirection. And now, as you pointed out to a little couple minutes ago, it's not about whether or not they're going to present an alternate theory like a lot of defense cases will do. They're going after how the evidence was collected, right?

[Stephanie Harlow]

Yeah.

[Derek Levasseur]

Fruit of a poisonous tree doctrine. They're going to try to prove that everything they have to implicate their client should be inadmissible. From the outside looking in, I feel like they have a big hill to climb here. It's going to be difficult for him. There's a lot of evidence that we've talked about over our coverage on the crime weekly news about David and his potential involvement in some of the things and behaviors that took place. And again, we know that Celeste had been with him on multiple occasions, and there was things that were said and done that would give him a potential motive. So we'll see how it goes. It's not looking good for David.

[Stephanie Harlow]

David. Now here's the thing, right? Like you would say, a very strong motive for David. Not only like, oh, my career, but the fact that you were having a sexual relationship. And I only say that. Don't come at me, but because that is how it's described. Legally, a 13 year old cannot consent to a sexual relationship with a grown ass adult man. I get it. You were having sex with a 13 year old, right? So not only is that going to destroy your career, you're gonna, you're gonna go to prison, right? This is, this is prison time. Hopefully it should be correct. So you look at the text messages and this is something new. Like we knew that, that they had found evidence of Celeste on David's phone. Pictures of her, pictures of David and Celeste engaging in this activity at the same time. They had sent each other pictures that were of a sexual nature. There are so many messages between David and Celeste about pregnancies and the termination of pregnancies. And this is what really grossed me out because it's like, not only did you have sex with this girl, you got her pregnant, it seems, more than once. And this is going to be emotionally traumatic for Celeste in multiple ways. And you could tell that it was, right? So In June of 2024, when Celeste was 13 years old and David Burke was 19 years old, Celeste texted him, what if the first abortion didn't work? Obviously this is. She's saying the first one, as in, you know, what if I'm. And he responded to her and he was like, no, you've. You've had your period multiple times since then. What are you talking about? And then he suggested that she use an app to track her period. He's a 19 year old talking to a 13 year old about this. In an exchange From January of 2024, David Burke apologized to Celeste for putting her through this. And her response to him was, quote, neither of us are capable of watching and taking care of the baby. It's for the best. No. And then David Burke says, quote, also, my mother always told me to ask this question, if I was ever in this situation, it is mine, right? End quote. The audacity. Celeste replied, of course it's yours, David. The court heard about another text to Celeste sent in June of 2024. And Burke wrote, quote, let this abortion be the last one till we have the real one, end quote. There were some things that sort of suggested to me that David's mother knew that he was with Celeste. And I believe Celeste had asked her, like, well, does she know that we're, that we're doing this, that we're like having sex? And David's response sort of made me feel like maybe his mother did and, and there were, there was some indication that maybe his, his mother, at least his mother, if not both of his parents, were aware that he was having a sexual relationship with Celeste. Were they aware that Celeste was 13 at the time is the question. There was also evidence shown that they had been talking about moving in together. That David told Celeste, I'm going through it too, because you think that it doesn't make me feel terrible that we had to, to get rid of this baby and we had this baby happen out of wedlock and, and when I marry you and then we can have a baby, you know, for real, in the right ways. And they were talking about moving in together. They had dubbed this operation awesome. The idea of them moving in together and then eventually getting married once again. 19 year old David Burke, who I think has the mental capacity of an actual child. And then prosecutors said they argued on the night before Celeste's death. Apparently Celeste was upset because David was having relationships with other women. And she said basically like, you know, I'm going to reveal what's been going on. So it seems like the, the motive is, is, is, is genuinely there. They did show how much he stood to lose between record deals, sponsorships, things like that. But in my opinion, it really was about, I don't, I don't want people to know that me, a grown ass man, was having this kind of interaction with a 13 year old. I know it looks bad, which means he knows it looks bad, which means he knows it's wrong, which means he knows it's illegal, which means there's really no basis for defense there. But yeah, the text messages that we've seen throughout this preliminary hearing have been pretty bad. And once again, I don't see what kind of defense his team could mount for him besides to say, oh, well, maybe the evidence wasn't collected correctly.

[Derek Levasseur]

No, I mean, listen, everyone deserves a defense, right? The opportunity to go in there and present their side of the argument as to why they're not guilty, you know, try to show reasonable doubt enough that would result in an acquittal. I, I think everyone knows how we feel about this case so far. And I'm trying my best as an investigator to separate the fact that he was having sex with a. An underage girl. Right. They're two different crimes, although they're both disgusting. But I, I want to really focus on the murder itself. And I think there is, like you have said multiple times, there is a lot here that is incriminating in nature. And when we think about Celeste's last known whereabouts, the behavior of David before, during, and after the event, like I said, I. I know I'm sounding a little redundant here, but he has his defense team has their work cut out for him. They really do.

[Stephanie Harlow]

Yeah. Do you think that there's any chance that the preliminary hearing is going to decide that the prosecution doesn't have enough for a trial? No.

[Derek Levasseur]

No, I don't. I'm not an attorney, but no, I don't. I think the. The approach that they're going with is the only approach to go with. And I hope for the sake of everyone involved, most importantly Celeste, that law enforcement dotted their eyes, crossed their T's and did what they were supposed to do the right way. And the only hope that I have, the only me, the only thing that makes me feel a little better is if you remember a couple episodes when we covered this, I talked about how law enforcement waited a while before making their move. And that's something that doesn't always happen. Usually there's a knee jerk reaction to go out there and get this person. That's not what they did. There was even frustration that they waited so long. But to me, that that indicates that they took their time with this one, understanding the significance, understanding that this person was going to have the financial resources to get the best legal team possible to fight it. And they really took the steps to make sure they had their entire case sewn up before bringing him in and exposing their cards. So time will tell. Everyone's entitled to a trial. If this goes forward, which I believe that it will, we're going to have plenty of updates in this case because I do think we are just scratching the surface. And as they unveil everything that they have, this case is going to go from worse to even more discussing as we. As we start to learn the details.

[Stephanie Harlow]

Okay, we're going to take a quick break and then we're going to come back with our final thoughts. And. And we have a few other things to talk about. Okay, we're back. So basically, I think we cut. We wrapped up Lindsay Clancy. I will be watching every day to see where this trial is going and what's Happening. I do want to say once again, as far as David Burke goes, I think that the prosecution's case is so strong, they have evidence of him buying the things that were used to dismember Celeste. They have evidence of objects he purchased to try and get rid of her body. They have DNA evidence of Celeste at his home in the Tesla. They also have David Burke's movements, which we talked about, not just from his cell phone but from the Tesla which had, has location services on it, showing that he, he went to the rural location where Celeste's passport was recovered. He went there more than once. I believe it was three times. So we also have obviously the communications between them which show that they, they knew each other, that there was a, there was sex happening and that it would have been bad for him if anybody found out. We also have body camera footage that was shown when the police first came to do the welfare check on Celeste and they went to his house. David Burke was like, I mean, she told me she was 18, but people have been saying she's 13. So like, I don't know, guys. And this was before he hooked up with her again, right? That, not, I don't mean hooked up in a sexual way. I mean reached out to her and continued to try to have contact with her where the police are telling him, no, she's 13. And he's like, what? I had no idea. I had no idea. So he knew. There's never going to be a question about whether he knew what her age was. So we've got a pretty strong case here and I am looking forward to seeing it go to trial.

[Derek Levasseur]

I am as well. I, I, I want justice for, for everybody involved. And you know, this can be a long process, but listen, it's just as important to find the guilty as it is to find the innocent. So let it take as long as it needs to take.

[Stephanie Harlow]

Let it take and tell us everything. Tell us. I want to know everybody who knew that this was going on.

[Derek Levasseur]

I agree. If he had some yes men who helped.

[Stephanie Harlow]

There are, well, they, yeah, there are,

[Derek Levasseur]

are, yeah, let's, let's bring them down as well.

[Stephanie Harlow]

So we have to do our crime weekly Patreon birthday shout outs for July, which is a happier note.

[Derek Levasseur]

Yeah, we actually have a, a lot of birthdays in July. A lot of patrons are, are all apparently born in July. So that was an interesting statistic.

[Stephanie Harlow]

And we're split, we're split between, we got some, mostly cancers for July and then some Leos. Yeah. Because Leo goes into August. But we're going to start off with July 8th, we have Angel Lee. Happy bir birthday, Angel.

[Derek Levasseur]

Happy birthday.

[Stephanie Harlow]

On July 9, we have Petra. Happy birthday, Petra. And then on July 10, Lulu. On July 11, Amy Hodap. On July 13, Brooke Pape. On July 15, Mandy. On July 16, Caitlin Woodruff. On July 17, Anise. On July 21, we have Savannah Jeffries. And on the 22nd of July, we have Stacey Hawkins. So all of these people that I just listed off, they are cancers. So cancer, really great sign. They are emotionally perceptive. They're very sensitive to shifts in tone, body language, atmosphere. Hyper vigilant about that. They may notice that something's wrong before anyone says it out loud. Cancer people are often described as deeply emotional, intuitive, nurturing, loyal, protective. They may seem reserved or guarded at first. Once they feel safe, they can become extremely warm, affectionate, funny, definitely devoted. Cancers are protective and loyal. When they love someone, they tend to take that bond very seriously. They're often very protective of their partners, friends, children, family members, even their pets. They have a very strong I will take care of my people instinct. And cancers are associated with the home, family, familiarity, traditions, emotional safety. They may enjoy creating a cozy environment, cooking for people, preserving memories, maintaining sentimental traditions. They are very, very sentimental. They attach meaning to photographs, songs, gifts, old messages, anniversaries, childhood memories, places they remember. Small emotional details that people often forget. So shout out to all the cancers, you guys are awesome. Now listen, you're not perfect because at your worst, you can be kind of moody, defensive, maybe a little clingy. Okay? Prone to, like, going into a shell. So maybe passive aggressive. Instead of saying, hey, you hurt me, you might become quiet, distant, sarcastic. You might expect other people to figure out what's wrong, because you do that for other people. You pay attention to what's going on with other people, and you want them to do that for you. I get it. So next we have a few Leos, and my son is a Leo, an August Leo. But we have Chris on July 28, Terry Hegerdorn on July 30, and Cindy Lou Sastre on July 31. We have three LEOs here. So Leos are often described as warm, charismatic, proud, loyal. They're very expressive, naturally noticeable. They stand out. They tend to bring energy into a room. They often enjoy making life feel bigger, brighter, more memorable. Like I said, Leos are confident. They feel most alive and they can be themselves. They may enjoy performing. So on the stage. They like entertaining, creating, leading. They dress boldly sometimes. They like to tell stories. They like to make people laugh. They can be very warm and generous, extremely giving with affection, time, encouragement, attention. They often really enjoy making people that they love and care about feel special. And like cancer, Leos are very protective. Like the lion, Leo is associated with pride and protectiveness. They may defend friends and family fiercely. They take betrayal or disrespect very seriously. I have noticed that. And the Leos have a such a strong presence. They are not trying to be the center of attention, but they are just naturally noticed. They have this confidence, humor, even something in their voice or their style or their emotional intensity. And I will say that Leos often have a childlike, kind of fun loving side. They like celebrations, games, humor, experiences that make them feel alive. Now listen once again, like anybody else, Leos are not perfect. They can be prideful, stubborn, they can be dramatic. They can be attention seeking. They can also be a little controlling and sometimes overly sensitive to criticism. Some Leos need a lot of appreciation. It doesn't mean they're vain. They may simply need to be seen and valued. But when insecure, they can become dependent on praise or compete for attention. So happy birthday to all of you July babies. We appreciate you Patreons so much. We love you guys. Happy birthday to you all. And we look forward to talking to everybody next month when we talk about August birthdays, which we're gonna talk about. Leo again.

[Derek Levasseur]

Yeah, we had, we had a lot of July birthdays. We also just finished all of our cameo slash questions. And if you're someone who's interested in joining the Patreon, you can see it in our links below. It's also available on social media. There's different tiers to it, but regardless of what tier you're in, you're going to get access to bonus episodes, the discussion boards for case specific questions. Also, there's some personal boards as well for promoting your own businesses. It's relatively new, but it's, it's grown a lot already. So if you're interested in joining, it's available. There's also YouTube membership as well. If you're watching on YouTube and you don't want to get as involved in the Patreon membership, there's access to the YouTube side of things where you'll get featured on our YouTube page and also have some specific emojis that you can use. Some of them are pretty funny. But we appreciate all the love, all the support.

[Stephanie Harlow]

We have a lot of fun with you guys. We love you.

[Derek Levasseur]

Yeah, it's great, it's great. It's a lot of fun. And the birthday shout outs. We think it's a nice little way of saying thank you to you guys to acknowledge the people who are supporting us by supporting you. So this was a different Crime Weekly News today. We went back and forth as to how we were gonna cover it because there's so much in the news right now, and one of the things we get a lot is, hey, you know, why didn't you cover this case? Or why didn't you do that one? Well, we're usually just doing one Crime Weekly News, so we switched it up a little bit today. Didn't go as deep, but tried to diversify a little bit. Let us know if you guys like that. If that's something where you want more highlights and headlines of what's going on, if that is the case or if you'd rather it be just one case, no matter what, we're open to suggestions. And I know it's not going to be across the board. So regardless of what we do, don't take it personal, guys, as always, we appreciate you being here. We appreciate the love and support. We'll be back later this week with another episode of Crime Weekly. But until then, please everyone stay safe out there. We'll see you soon.

[Stephanie Harlow]

See you soon. Bye.

[Angel Soft Advertiser]

Try angel stuff for your tushy. It's made by Angels Soft and Strong. Budget friendly. The choice is simple. Pick up a pack today.

[Stephanie Harlow]

Angel Soft.

[Angel Soft Advertiser]

Soft and Strong.