Skip to content
Lindsay Clancy— Case Archive
evidenceevidencedocument2026 Criminal TrialHead-imaging reports, including the CAT scan impression on page 110 of the recordsSprague identified a CAT scan impression on page 110 stating that there were no acute intracranial findings. Sejal Shah acknowledged that the scans showed no visible damage but explained that a brain injury could exist despite a normal CAT scan.
← All Evidence
Documents & Records

Head-imaging reports, including the CAT scan impression on page 110 of the records

Sprague identified a CAT scan impression on page 110 stating that there were no acute intracranial findings. Sejal Shah acknowledged that the scans showed no visible damage but explained that a brain injury could exist despite a normal CAT scan.

1 proceeding1 mention1 trial

About

Sprague used the imaging findings to question whether Clancy had a brain injury, while Shah explained that normal CAT scans did not rule one out.

Trial Record (1)