3.Paul Zeizel — Redirect/Recross (Part 4)
178 linesMR. REDDINGTON: Let's talk about confirmation bias.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Can I sit down, please?
THE COURT: Hold on. Thank you. Ms. Buckingham.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Thank you.
THE COURT: Have a seat.
MR. REDDINGTON: Confirmation bias. In the field of forensics interfaces science and the law, trial of cases, hiring experts, having people give an opinion that a jury's gonna listen to. Confirmation bias means that the individual might wanna help out the person that they're testifying for. Is that right?
PAUL ZEIZEL: It can be, yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: So in other words, if you have a shooting case and you're a ballistics guy, and without the ballistics showing that the defendant's gun shot the victim, the government has no case. They may send an email to that witness and say, "Hey, I really need your help here." And that might influence them, right?
PAUL ZEIZEL: Yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: Now, you got involved with this case, as you indicated, out of my request, obviously.
PAUL ZEIZEL: Yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: Compassion.
PAUL ZEIZEL: Correct.
MR. REDDINGTON: The fact you had a young lady that was literally in extreme condition emotionally, physically, you went to speak with her, correct?
PAUL ZEIZEL: I did, yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: Do you care for her?
PAUL ZEIZEL: I do.
MR. REDDINGTON: And is that a violation of the canon of ethics for professionals like you if you care for your patient?
PAUL ZEIZEL: Not at all. Within the ethical standards, it's also noted to do a appropriate and meaningful forensic evaluation. It's strongly suggested you develop empathy and rapport, and when you have those two psychological constructs, you get more information from the respondent. You do not cherry-pick the information. You include warts and all in your report. That avoids confirmatory bias, and you avoid confirmatory bias by also not looking at conclusions that other examiners come up with when they've rendered their opinions, and you do your evaluations independent of anyone else. You do it by yourself.
MR. REDDINGTON: How many times did you see her?
PAUL ZEIZEL: At the time that my report was—
MR. REDDINGTON: No, no. Right about now. How many times?
PAUL ZEIZEL: 60 times.
MR. REDDINGTON: How many hours have you put in sitting with Lindsay, either in the hospital or—
PAUL ZEIZEL: Oh.
MR. REDDINGTON: … evaluating her?
PAUL ZEIZEL: More than that, roughly.
MR. REDDINGTON: And you have all of that information that you have brought here today to test, and yesterday, to testify to this jury. Is that correct?
PAUL ZEIZEL: Yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: Are you confirmed bias? Are you not telling the truth just to help Lindsay out, or is this your opinion based upon your review of the records, your interview of her, whether or not you care for her or not?
THE COURT: Overrule.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Objection.
THE COURT: Overrule.
PAUL ZEIZEL: I am telling the truth. She can—
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Objection.
THE COURT: Yeah. You can refer… Re-ask that question. That answer will be stricken.
MR. REDDINGTON: So you can't tell someone you're telling the truth. Okay, that's up to the jury to decide.
MR. REDDINGTON: Your opinion is based upon all of the times that you met with Lindsay, right?
PAUL ZEIZEL: Yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: All of the documents that you've reviewed, all, all of this, all the exhibits that you're aware of, right?
PAUL ZEIZEL: Yes, as well as collateral contacts.
MR. REDDINGTON: And in the course of your treatment and evaluation of her, one of the things the DA asked you about is the request that we brought to the court for accommodations. Do you recall that question from her?
PAUL ZEIZEL: Yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: And is it your understanding that the request that we had seeking help from the judge was that she not be chained to a van when she's brought into this courthouse?
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. REDDINGTON: The five-week trial.
PAUL ZEIZEL: Yes, from Tewksbury to Plymouth.
MR. REDDINGTON: And her medical condition with her paralysis and all of the rest of the bodily functions that you lose, that's a concern. Isn't that right?
PAUL ZEIZEL: Very much so, yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: And we also had to have the help of nurses that would be available in the event that there was any type of emergency issue, correct? That we had to ask of the court.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Objection.
THE COURT: No, overruled.
PAUL ZEIZEL: Yes. They're here every day.
MR. REDDINGTON: So confirmation bias, can you tell this jury, is your opinion based upon money? Maybe you like me. Maybe you wanna help her. Or is that based to your best ability as a professional of many, many years?
PAUL ZEIZEL: Yes. Confirmation bias is coming up with a conclusion before you reach an opinion. It's in Latin, a tabula rasa, a blank slate. You draw no conclusion. The conclusion finds you. And if you don't do that, you are at risk of having confirmation bias.
MR. REDDINGTON: I'm gonna ask you a hypothetical and see if the hypothetical fits within your understanding as an expert of confirmation bias. Let's say hypothetically that a young woman is involved in an incident such as this that results in the death of her three babies, and that young woman is paralyzed, and that young woman is in a hospital. That young woman is facing indictments for triple homicide, and the incident occurred on January 24th, 2023, and it's not until 2026 that the district attorney's office hires three doctors—
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Objection.
THE COURT: Yeah. Sustained.
MR. REDDINGTON: Sidebar.
THE COURT: And you've been sitting here for a little bit. We're gonna take a short break at this point, give you a chance to take a break. And then we'll come right back, and we'll continue with the testimony of this witness. Okay?
BAILIFF: All rise, please. Jury is exiting.
BAILIFF: Jurors have exited the courtroom. This court's in session.
THE COURT: All right, we'll be at a short recess at this time. Thank you.
BAILIFF: All rise, please. Jurors entering.
COURT CLERK: You may be seated. Your Honor, for the purpose of the record, we are returning back to the trial, Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy, all parties are present, including the defendant and including the 18 jurors.
THE COURT: All right. We'll return now to redirect. Counsel?
MR. REDDINGTON: Thank you.
MR. REDDINGTON: So as it relates to the concept of confirmatory bias, sir, in your opinion, with your experience, does the period of time within which an expert is hired by one side or another to evaluate a person and give an opinion—in other words, if it's a compressed period of time as opposed to an expanded period of time—is that one indication of confirmatory bias?
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Objection.
THE COURT: No, overruled.
PAUL ZEIZEL: It depends on the examiner and the situation. It can be, but individuals who pay attention to that concern should maintain healthful boundaries and not have any confirmatory bias.
MR. REDDINGTON: What does that mean?
PAUL ZEIZEL: It means stay in your lane.
MR. REDDINGTON: That's better. Now, one of the things that the district attorney did is took the 7,001 pages of the records from Tewksbury Hospital and read excerpts from them to you. Is that correct?
PAUL ZEIZEL: Yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: And Lindsay, after she was taken from South Shore Hospital to Brigham and Women's, then from Brigham and Women's to the rehab, Spaulding Rehab, she ended up in Tewksbury. Is that correct?
PAUL ZEIZEL: Yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: And Tewksbury has been very good. I mean, in your opinion, have they been good with her and-
PAUL ZEIZEL: Fantastic.
MR. REDDINGTON: … Fantastic. But nevertheless, that is still a facility that is a state facility, right?
PAUL ZEIZEL: Yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: And the district attorney asked you about the plan to have Lindsay go to another facility, Worcester, I think it was.
PAUL ZEIZEL: Worcester Recovery Center Hospital.
MR. REDDINGTON: Is that a relatively new facility?
PAUL ZEIZEL: It's, I believe, the newest facility in the Commonwealth.
MR. REDDINGTON: And did we have Lindsay evaluated to have her transferred to Worcester Hospital?
PAUL ZEIZEL: Yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: Was she allowed to make entry into Worcester facility?
PAUL ZEIZEL: She was not.
MR. REDDINGTON: Why is that?
PAUL ZEIZEL: She was not allowed because she-
THE COURT: Overruled.
PAUL ZEIZEL: She was not allowed because she has pending criminal charges.
MR. REDDINGTON: That'd be this case here, right?
PAUL ZEIZEL: That's this case here.
MR. REDDINGTON: And the district attorney took the 7,000 pages in one of the records and apparently went through them- to the anniversary of the death of her three children, correct?
PAUL ZEIZEL: Yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: Went through them to highlight each birthday of her three children. Is that correct?
PAUL ZEIZEL: Yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: In your opinion, you've been in a lot of mental institutions and facilities in the Commonwealth and out of the state, correct?
PAUL ZEIZEL: Yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: Is it your understanding to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the fact that a woman who is paralyzed is propelling herself down the hall from one room to another is indicative of anything?
PAUL ZEIZEL: Not at all.
MR. REDDINGTON: How about the fact that her mother and father, who have been with her for three years and practically missed not one day of sitting with her and bringing her dinner or lunch, is that something that would be indicative of undercutting the fact that the woman was suffering from mental disease or defect?
PAUL ZEIZEL: That's indicative of love and-
MR. REDDINGTON: How about the fact that she's talking to other inmates or people that are patients? In your review of the records, would you tell us your opinion as to her level or degree of popularity, bluntly, in that particular ward?
PAUL ZEIZEL: She is extremely, extremely well-regarded and well-liked on that unit by everyone.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. REDDINGTON: How about, in reviewing the records, I didn't hear that she's laughing, and partying, and having a good time while she's in the Tewksbury Hospital. Did you see anything like that?
PAUL ZEIZEL: No. Lindsay Clancy has bad days and worse days.
MR. REDDINGTON: And when you speak with her and meet with her, Doctor, has she ever mentioned her children? 'Cause apparently, according to the questioning that you underwent, she never talks about her kids.
PAUL ZEIZEL: She does speak about her children.
MR. REDDINGTON: What does she say?
PAUL ZEIZEL: She really loves them, and misses them, and thinks of them every single day, almost every moment of the day.
MR. REDDINGTON: And finally, Doctor, I'm holding up what has been marked as exhibit 1 or, I don't know, for identification. Have you seen this before?
PAUL ZEIZEL: Yes, I have.
MR. REDDINGTON: And in your dealing with Lindsay and interview of collateral contacts such as Patrick, do you know what that is?
PAUL ZEIZEL: Yes, I do.
MR. REDDINGTON: What is it?
PAUL ZEIZEL: It's called a wish vase.
MR. REDDINGTON: And what does that mean, and what is it?
PAUL ZEIZEL: This is a vase that Ms. Clancy and her husband purchased in Hawaii when they went on their honeymoon shortly after getting married.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Sir, I would object. Can we approach, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yeah, sure. Let's see sidebar, please.
MR. REDDINGTON: Your Honor, I would hand this to Chrissy to have it marked for exhibit.
THE COURT: All right. Over the Commonwealth's objection, that may be admitted.
COURT REPORTER: Exhibit 285.
MR. REDDINGTON: Thank you very much.
THE COURT: All right. Commonwealth.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Very briefly, please. Doctor, how many defendants that you've evaluated for criminal responsibility have you spent 35 hours evaluating?
PAUL ZEIZEL: One.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Is that-
PAUL ZEIZEL: One other one. One, one other person.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: And however... How many other defendants have you evaluated that you've testified that you care deeply for them?
PAUL ZEIZEL: I would say one other one.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: And how many other defendants have you given press conferences about?
PAUL ZEIZEL: None.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: And how many other defendants that you've evaluated have you gone back every day into the lockup to check on?
PAUL ZEIZEL: I was sequestered on all those other trials. I was not even allowed in the court.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Now, you were asked about confirmation bias and given a hypothetical about if somebody was asked to examine a gun, right? You recall that line of questioning?
PAUL ZEIZEL: Yes, I do. Yes.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: You were hired by the defense in this case, were you not?
PAUL ZEIZEL: Yes.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Okay. And as far as your conversations with the defendant about her children, you're also aware that she continually refers to the situation as “my tragedy,” does she not?
PAUL ZEIZEL: That moniker of 'my tragedy,' that's just one of the things that she'll say.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: All right. Thank you.
PAUL ZEIZEL: You're welcome.
MR. REDDINGTON: And what's the reason that, with the understanding of the court permission, that you go to the lockup and to see her during this trial?
PAUL ZEIZEL: I go to the lock-
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. REDDINGTON: Well, while she's in Tewksbury, counsel kept referring to SID, SISI. What is SI?
PAUL ZEIZEL: SI is suicide intention or suicide ideation.
MR. REDDINGTON: And in Tewksbury—
MR. REDDINGTON: Excuse me. In Tewksbury, has there been a concern of suicidal ideation?
PAUL ZEIZEL: Yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: And what, as a result of that SI, as counsel kept repeating to you through the records— Is her status at Tewksbury—
PAUL ZEIZEL: She's on a one-to-one, constant one-to-one to ensure that Ms. Clancy doesn't take her own life.
MR. REDDINGTON: And that is somewhat similar to the reference in Brigham and Women's Hospital when you were talking with her, that there was a nurse that was sitting in the corner of the room at all times. Is that right?
PAUL ZEIZEL: Yes, that's correct.
MR. REDDINGTON: Inferentially was able to hear any conversation that you had with Lindsay, right?
PAUL ZEIZEL: I asked those people to leave.
MR. REDDINGTON: Thank you.
THE COURT: Counsel, could I see just one—
MR. REDDINGTON: So finally, I will ask you again, what, to your understanding, is the purpose of you during this trial going back, as the counsel asked you about, to the lockup with Lindsay?
PAUL ZEIZEL: To ensure that Ms. Clancy is stable and competent to stand trial.
MR. REDDINGTON: Any concerns as far as her SI?
PAUL ZEIZEL: She's in good hands at the moment, but there's always a concern that sits directly below the surface.
MR. REDDINGTON: Thank you.
PAUL ZEIZEL: You're welcome.
THE COURT: Attorney Buckingham, please.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Dr. Zeizel, in three years she's never made an attempt to harm herself, has she, other than January 24th of 2023?
PAUL ZEIZEL: No.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Anything further?
MR. REDDINGTON: No further questions, Judge. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, doctor.
PAUL ZEIZEL: Thank you, Your Honor.