Happy Thursday.

Forgive the back-to-back trial posts. I know it’s a grim series, I promise we’ll get back to lighter topics and celebrity gossip soon. But Patrick’s role is a critical factor in the vitriol surrounding this case. When polled, nearly 50 percent of my audience said they were suspicious of him. And while no one here is suggesting Patrick Clancy is a suspect, there are glaring questions surrounding one of the most perplexing aspects of the case: why investigators failed to conduct any investigation, settling almost immediately on Patrick’s version of events.

The 911 call transcript is below the paywall + a discussion in comments.

At the very least, I think there’s more to the story but we’ll likely never know what exactly went down in that house on a winter night three years ago.

For those not familiar with the case—Lindsay came to in the hospital days later paralyzed, handcuffed to a bed surrounded by police, informed of what she had done.

Patrick was cleared almost immediately. Patrick’s account became the framework for much of what investigators believed happened inside that house that night.

So, to separate what was independently established from what was corroborated and what we accept largely because Patrick said it happened, I tasked Cassie with putting together a factual outline spotlighting the major points of contention.

As follow-up, I’ll share my POV based on my week in Plymouth, along with what some locals are saying about rumors of an alleged affair and how they believe it might connect to the horror that unfolded.

As for verdict: jurors returned for a sixth day of deliberations after twice telling Judge William Sullivan they couldn’t reach a unanimous decision. Sullivan responded with a Tuey-Rodriguez charge—essentially a final push encouraging jurors to reconsider their positions without abandoning honestly held beliefs simply to reach a verdict.

When the jury left for the day, it appeared that 11 want to acquit and there’s one lone hangup—what charge this loner wants to bestow, we don’t know, but the defense is arguing for that juror to be removed. They have been sent back by the judge 3 times to continue deliberating. This court doesn’t want to be hung, and it doesn't want to retry this case; but if they can’t come to an agreement, they may have no choice.

A bizarre development outside deliberations saw Dawn Light, a 56-year-old retired nurse and Clancy supporter, arrested and charged with aggravated intimidation of a juror after she was caught recording jurors leaving the courthouse. She pleaded not guilty Wednesday and was released under conditions including staying away from jurors and witnesses.

Most of the viral conspiracy theories online come down to one thing: much of the prosecution’s narrative rests on Patrick Clancy’s word alone.

This became a meme almost immediately.

Like “Epstein didn’t kill himself” became a cultural Mad Lib in 2019, Patrick became the punchline whenever the case asked the public to accept something without much corroboration:

Source? Patrick.

The joke is obviously exaggerated, but it went viral for a reason.

Much of the prosecution’s case was independently verified through phone records, surveillance video, digital searches, medical evidence, and third-party witnesses. But other details, some surprisingly significant to the case, seem to begin and end with Patrick.

This, I think, explains some of the wildly different reactions to the prosecution’s closing argument. Some heard a convincing accumulation of evidence. Others noticed how often the narrative returned to the same source and were yelling at their TVs.

So what was actually proven? What was partially corroborated? And what became part of the story simply because Patrick said it happened?

Let’s separate them.

Prosecution Points That Depend Heavily—Or Entirely—On Patrick

1. The powder in the tumbler was “crushed medication.”

This may be the clearest example. Police recovered the cup and residue but apparently didn’t test the powder. There was no toxicology analysis confirming it was medication, no identification of which medication, and no proof Lindsay ingested what was in the glass. Yet prosecution expert Dr. Gregory Saathoff treated the alleged pill crushing as meaningful when evaluating Lindsay’s account.

On cross-examination, we learned that the identification of the powder as crushed medication came from Patrick Clancy’s observation.

In other words: untested powder leads to Patrick saying it was crushed medication, which leads the expert to analyze Lindsay’s behavior as if crushed medication had been confirmed.

That’s not the same as forensic proof that crushed medication was found in the bedroom. With no testing and no pill-crushing device recovered nearby, it’s easy to see why this detail raises suspicions.

2. “I tried to kill myself.”

Patrick testified that Lindsay said this after he found her outside the house. The suicide attempt itself is hardly in dispute. Her injuries, the blood, the open window and the medical evidence independently support it.

But the statement is different.

Saathoff acknowledged he couldn’t hear this exchange on the 911 recording. Other testimony described Lindsay as having significant difficulty speaking. So there are really two separate things here: Lindsay attempted suicide, which is overwhelmingly corroborated, and Lindsay told Patrick, “I tried to kill myself,” which comes from Patrick’s recollection.

3. “The kids are in the basement.”

Again, Patrick testified that Lindsay directed him toward the basement. The children were there, which gives the statement circumstantial support. But the precise conversation between Patrick and Lindsay isn’t independently captured in a way that allows us to hear it for ourselves.

The location is fact.

The exact exchange is Patrick.

4. Lindsay was having “one of her best days.”

This phrase became one of the prosecution’s most memorable descriptions of January 24. But it’s worth remembering what it actually is: a husband’s impression.

Supporting evidence suggests Lindsay was functioning that day. She used her phone, made calls, interacted with people and handled ordinary tasks. None of that tells us what was happening internally. “One of her best days” sounds almost clinical when repeated in court, but it was Patrick’s subjective assessment of his wife.

5. She seemed normal immediately before Patrick left.

Read more

“As soon as Patrick left to pick up the food, there was a loud, demanding, repetitious voice: “This is your last chance. Kill the children so you can kill yourself.” “THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE. YOU HAVE TO KILL THE KIDS SO YOU CAN KILL YOURSELF.” Lindsay felt a force come over her.”

Update from Plymouth: the Lindsay Clancy jury has officially hit an impasse.

This afternoon jurors sent Judge William Sullivan a note saying that after hours of discussion they still couldn’t reach a unanimous decision. Sullivan ordered them to keep trying, reminding them how much there is to work through with more than 80 witnesses and 300 exhibits. We’re not officially at a hung jury yet, but a deadlock suggests that is where we’re headed.

I’m posting highlights from Lindsay Clancy’s civil lawsuits because this filing offers a chilling timeline and helps fill in the gaps on how Lindsay went from a seemingly attentive mother to the horrific events of January 24, 2023. Of everything I’ve read, this is probably the clearest roadmap we have.

Full Lawsuit Here

This is An Action For Personal Injury and Loss of Consortium Brought by Lindsay M. Clancy

This action arises from the catastrophic failure of multiple medical providers to properly diagnose, treat, and monitor Lindsay’s severe postpartum psychiatric condition, despite her repeated, desperate pleas for help and her family’s persistent efforts to obtain adequate care.

Lindsay Clancy did everything a mother in her situation could do. She recognized something was wrong with her. She sought medical treatment. She went to emergency rooms. She called crisis hotlines. She admitted herself to hospitals. She took the medications prescribed to her. She communicated her worsening symptoms to her providers. She told them the medications were making her worse. Her husband advocated for her. Her family drove from out of state to help care for her children. And still, the medical system failed her completely.

The defendants (see below) each failed to properly diagnose Lindsay’s bipolar disorder with postpartum onset and instead subjected her to a disorganized, uncoordinated course of polypharmacy that exacerbated her condition and precipitated a severe psychotic break.

Lindsay’s clinical course was “significantly complicated by polypharmacy and the involvement of multiple prescribers, which, in effect, obscured an accurate diagnosis and appropriate intervention and treatment,” even though Lindsay did all that she could to obtain the appropriate treatment.

The psychotropic medications Lindsay received appear to have paradoxically exacerbated her underlying psychiatric vulnerability, precipitating a state of manic psychosis characterized by compelling command hallucinations. The tragedy that followed was the direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ collective negligence in failing to recognize obvious warning signs, coordinate care, properly diagnose Lindsay’s condition, and provide treatment that met the applicable standard of care.

As a direct result of Defendants’ negligence, Lindsay suffered catastrophic physical injuries, including permanent paralysis, and she lost her three beloved children—Cora Marie Clancy, Dawson William Clancy, and Callan Patrick Clancy.

Lindsay now faces a lifetime of physical disability, psychological trauma, and the unbearable grief of waking up every day knowing she killed her children—all of which could have been prevented had Defendants provided competent medical care.

Defendants:

Jennifer A. Tufts, M.D. (”Dr. Tufts”), Alia Goodheart, M.D. (”Dr.

Goodheart”), Zobeida M. Diaz, M.D. (”Dr. Diaz”), Rebecca H. Jollotta, C.N.P. (”Nurse

Jollotta”), Aster Mental Health Inc. (”Aster”), South Shore Health System, Inc. (”South Shore”),

McLean Hospital (”McLean”), and Women & Infants Hospital of Rhode Island (”Women & Infants)

FACTS:

Lindsay Marie Clancy, born August 11, 1990, was raised in Wallingford, Connecticut. Her formative years were characterized by consistent academic excellence, culminating in a distinguished record throughout college and a rigorous accelerated nursing program at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Lindsay’s nine-year tenure as a labor and delivery nurse at Massachusetts General Hospital demonstrated notable professional competence and personal fulfillment. She was passionate about nursing and dedicated to her patients.

Lindsay married Patrick Clancy in December 2016, and they established their family home in Duxbury, Massachusetts.

Lindsay and Patrick had three children: Cora Marie Clancy, born December 24, 2017; Dawson William Clancy, born September 30, 2019; and Callan Patrick Clancy, born May 26, 2022.

As described by Patrick Clancy, before Lindsay became ill, she was dedicated to being a mom, even over dedicated -worked twice as hard as most. She rarely took a break to rest. Lindsay “loved our children” and “never took her frustration out on the kids. She remained as affectionate with the kids as always.”

Lindsay’s mother-in-law, Susan Clancy, testified in grand jury proceedings that she “loved everything about Lindsay. She was a fun loving, doting wife and mother. She loved her kids, and she was a nurturing mother who smiled all the time.”

Lindsay’s sister, Allison Olga, described Lindsay as “the kind of person who cares deeply for the people she loves. She shows up for the celebrations and writes handwritten notes to show her love and appreciation. She’s also there in times of need and finds just the right words to provide comfort and support.”

Lindsay consistently conveyed profound affection for her children and her husband. She had never previously engaged in any form of physical harm towards her children.

Lindsay’s Prior Postpartum History

During Lindsay’s first pregnancy with Cora, she experienced anxiety due to an abnormal ultrasound finding that later resolved. She experienced some anxiety during the postpartum period but returned to part-time work and breastfed for one year without incident.

During the postpartum period following her second child, Dawson’s, birth, Lindsay was initially elated with increased energy. Patrick described that “she had manic behavior” for multiple days. In October 2020, she had an episode of decluttering to “simplify her life,” obsessively cleaning and discarding items. She said she felt “amazingly on top of things.”

Her thoughts raced, and she constantly felt pressure to be active. After her second pregnancy, anxiety emerged at approximately two months postpartum. Although Lindsay was offered Zoloft by a psychiatrist, she declined due to concerns about breastfeeding. Her symptoms resolved through exercise, healthy diet, meditation, and several therapy sessions.

These prior postpartum episodes, including the hypomanic symptoms following Dawson’s birth,These prior postpartum episodes, including the hypomanic symptoms following Dawson’s birth, were critical indicators that should have alerted competent psychiatric providers to the risk of bipolar disorder and the potential for more severe postpartum psychiatric complications following subsequent pregnancies.

Third Pregnancy and Initial Postpartum Period

Lindsay gave birth to Callan on May 26, 2022. Both Patrick and Lindsay took parental leave following Callan’s birth. Lindsay demonstrated significant activation and hypomanic behavior, including an extensive program of exercise beginning only one week after delivery. She woke every day before the children at 4:00 a.m., ran three miles, did spinning for thirty minutes on the Peloton, and then thirty minutes of aerobics.

On July 4, 2022, only five weeks after delivery, she ran a five-mile race.

Lindsay’s sister Allison observed that, unlike her usual sensible self, Lindsay impulsively bought into a “beach body” multi-level marketing scheme, purchasing products to resell. She made videos of her exercise routines, posted them on Facebook, and encouraged friends to join the program.

These early postpartum behaviors constituted a hypomanic episode that, combined with her history following Dawson’s birth, should have immediately suggested bipolar disorder to any competent psychiatric provider who obtained an adequate history.

Lindsay’s Desperate Efforts to Seek Help

At approximately twelve weeks postpartum, Lindsay’s mood switched suddenly to anxiety and depression. She experienced debilitating anxiety, insomnia, sleeping only approximately three hours per night, and exhaustion during the day. She had no motivation and could not exercise. Everything about her body felt heavy and required effort. It was a chore to dress or shower. Her parents came from out of state to help care for the children.

Recognizing that something was seriously wrong, Lindsay took the initiative to seek psychiatric care. On September 12, 2022, she found Dr. Jennifer Tufts online and scheduled an appointment.

At her first appointment with Dr. Tufts, Lindsay’s Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) score was 23, indicating severe depression. Dr. Tufts prescribed Zoloft despite Lindsay’s hesitation about medication due to breastfeeding concerns.

Lindsay waited approximately two weeks before taking the medication, still concerned about its effects on breastfeeding, but ultimately began taking Zoloft in mid-October 2022 because she knew she needed help.

After increasing the Zoloft dose from 25 mg to 50 mg as prescribed, Lindsay experienced a severe adverse reaction: she did not sleep for 48 hours, had racing thoughts, worsening anxiety, and felt “awful.” This dramatic departure from her previous sleep patterns was an obvious warning sign of medication-induced activation consistent with bipolar disorder.

Lindsay promptly reported these symptoms to Dr. Tufts on October 20, 2022. Rather than recognizing the significance of this reaction and conducting appropriate testing to determine why Lindsay had such an adverse response to a relatively low dose of medication, Dr. Tufts simply discontinued the Zoloft and prescribed Ativan and Benadryl for sleep.

Even after carefully tapering these medications, Lindsay’s profound insomnia persisted, accompanied by distressing cardiac palpitations. Her condition continued to deteriorate.

On November 16, 2022, Lindsay’s insomnia had become so severe that she took herself to the emergency room at South Shore Hospital seeking help. She reported insomnia, anxiety, and palpitations. The ER doctor prescribed Trazodone for sleep, but it was not effective.

Patrick’s mother, a nurse at South Shore Hospital, contacted the South Shore Perinatal Behavioral Health Program on November 20, 2022, seeking additional help for Lindsay. Nurse Practitioner Julie Paul reached out to Lindsay.

Lindsay reported to Nurse Paul that she was “very frustrated and scared,” experiencing “extreme insomnia” averaging only three hours per night, and having racing thoughts. Nurse Paul prescribed Prozac on November 21, 2022.

After merely four days on Prozac, Lindsay reported that the medication intensified her insomnia. She immediately informed her providers and the Prozac was discontinued. This was the second antidepressant that had caused activation and worsening insomnia—a critical red flag for bipolar disorder that the providers failed to recognize.

On November 25, 2022, Nurse Paul prescribed three different medications: Ambien, Remeron, and Klonopin. On November 26, 2022, after taking Remeron, Lindsay experienced dissociation-perceiving the world around her as unreal, distorted, and distant. She was unable to determine what was real. She became disoriented, forgetful, confused, and disconnected from her own body. She was unable to drive and unable to be alone.

Lindsay reported these alarming symptoms to her providers on November 28, 2022, noting she was still struggling, sleeping only three to four hours, and feeling disoriented and forgetful.

On November 29, 2022, Lindsay began treating with Nurse Jollotta. Lindsay reported that she was “anxious and frightened about what is happening” and that she blamed herself. Nurse Jollotta correctly considered a bipolar presentation and prescribed Seroquel, an antipsychotic and mood stabilizer.

After starting Seroquel, Lindsay’s condition took a dramatic turn for the worse. She developed suicidal ideation and began experiencing what she described as “intrusive thoughts”-which were actually auditory hallucinations. The voice said, “I will not be the same. I want to die.”

Lindsay openly communicated her escalating internal turmoil to her husband, her parents, and her providers. She described her emotional state as “emotionless” and “like a zombie,” attributing this profound affective blunting to the Seroquel.

On December 2, 2022, Lindsay reported to Nurse Jollotta that she had lost fifteen pounds, had no appetite, was experiencing panic attacks and confusion, and had a lack of attention over the past four days.

On December 4, 2022, Lindsay was so frightened by the hallucinations that she called the New Bedford Suicide Hotline seeking help. She was told there was no emergency because she said she had no specific plan as to how she would kill herself.

On December 5, 2022, Lindsay met virtually with an ASPIRE Crisis Support clinician, again seeking help. She was told that she did not meet the criteria for inpatient treatment because she did not have a suicide plan.

On December 6, 2022, Patrick attended an appointment with Lindsay and Nurse Jollotta. Patrick connected Lindsay’s suicidal thoughts to the Seroquel. He told Nurse Jollotta that “Lindsay is ten thousand times worse since she has taken medication” and asked if they could “get Lindsay off medications and start from scratch to see what is going on.” He asked if there could have been some mistake, like using the wrong medications. Nurse Jollotta acknowledged “it is possible.” Despite this, Nurse Jollotta continued to increase the Seroquel dosage toward 400 mg per day.

On December 13, 2022, Lindsay remained deeply depressed, had no motivation, and still had suicidal ideation. She wanted “this to be all over.”

On December 15, 2022, Patrick called Nurse Jollotta’s office to report that “Lindsay has had a devastating week” and that “it was the worst day for Lindsay. She had HORRIBLE thoughts all day.” Lindsay had auditory hallucinations all day, every day. She felt debilitated, not interested in anything, exhausted, and could not get out of bed. The hallucinations were loud and continued all day, saying “I will never be the same,” “I will never be me again,” and “You are damaged. You will never be the same. The only option is to die.”

Lindsay told her husband Patrick, “I have thoughts of harming the kids.” She also told her mother about these thoughts. Because she was in a psychotic state, Lindsay also had paranoid delusions that people could hear her thoughts and that she would be locked in a hospital and have her children taken away.

Lindsay’s escalating suicidal thoughts prompted a visit to the Massachusetts General Hospital emergency room on December 20, 2022, where she sought help. The ER suggested either admission to McLean Hospital or the partial hospitalization day program at Women & Infants Hospital in Rhode Island.

Women & Infants Hospital’s and Dr. Diaz’s Failure to Properly Treat Lindsay

On December 20, 2022, Lindsay admitted herself to the partial hospitalization day program at Women & Infants Hospital in Providence, Rhode Island, a program intended for patients with postpartum depression. This was yet another active step Lindsay took to seek help for her worsening condition.

Lindsay’s chief complaint at Women & Infants was “I feel numb and crazy depressed.” She reported feeling “crazy depressed, numb to all emotion, can’t feel love,” that her “life is becoming a disaster,” that she couldn’t “feel fear,” and that she was “messed up beyond repair.” She had lost fifteen pounds in a month, had no motivation, and reported that “It takes all the effort in the world just to breathe.” Lindsay’s Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) score at Women & Infants was 23— indicating severe depression. Her Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) score was 21—higher than the threshold for the most severe category.

Despite these severely elevated scores, Dr. Diaz, the attending psychiatrist at Women & Infants, concluded that Lindsay had “no postpartum depression” and rejected a bipolar disorder diagnosis because of “no history of hypomania or psychosis or family history.”

This conclusion was negligent because Dr. Diaz failed to obtain an adequate history. Dr. Diaz’s own notes documented that Lindsay’s sister had experienced postpartum anxiety— a relevant family psychiatric history that should have been explored. Had Dr. Diaz properly inquired about Lindsay’s early postpartum period, she would have learned of the hypomanic episode that began immediately after delivery. Dr. Diaz also failed to recognize that Lindsay’s providers had previously considered bipolar disorder, as documented in Lindsay’s records stating she was started on “Seroquel...and concern for bipolar.”

Dr. Diaz accepted Lindsay and Patrick’s belief that her symptoms were due to overmedication and recommended weaning Seroquel. The clinical team at Women & Infants posited that Lindsay’s symptoms were “more pharmacologically induced than purely depressive.” Dr. Diaz’s assessment/plan documented that the “WIH DHP is not a suitable treatment facility” for Lindsay, yet Dr. Diaz failed to recommend or arrange appropriate alternative treatment and instead discharged Lindsay after only one day of treatment with inadequate follow-up care.

Women & Infants Hospital determined that its day program was not appropriate for Lindsay and reached out to Nurse Jollotta to discuss Lindsay’s care. Nurse Jollotta did not respond to them.

Dr. Diaz’s and Women & Infants’ negligent failure to properly evaluate Lindsay, obtain an adequate psychiatric history, and recognize the signs of bipolar disorder with postpartum onset resulted in a missed opportunity to provide appropriate treatment. Their recommendation to wean Seroquel without providing a proper alternative treatment plan or ensuring adequate follow-up care contributed to Lindsay’s further deterioration.

McLean Hospital’s and Dr. Goodheart’s Failure to Properly Treat Lindsay

Following the Seroquel reduction recommended by Women & Infants, Lindsay’s suicidal ideation resurged. By December 29, 2022, Lindsay told her husband, “I can’t tough it out anymore. I need to go to McLean.”

On December 30, 2022, Lindsay went to the MGH emergency room, which suggested admission to McLean Hospital. On December 31, 2022, Lindsay admitted herself to McLean Hospital-the nation’s top-ranked psychiatric hospital-due to her severe depression and suicidal ideation.

Lindsay’s admitting symptoms included passive suicidal ideation, feeling detached, hopelessness, depression, no appetite or energy to perform activities of daily living, no motivation, anhedonia, racing thoughts, inability to organize her thoughts, memory problems, anxiety, and insomnia. Her insight and judgment were documented as “limited.”

McLean placed Lindsay on a locked unit with fifteen-minute suicide checks. However, the care she received was grossly inadequate. She was admitted on New Year’s Eve, and there was a “skeleton crew” because of the holiday. Patients spent their evening doing puzzles and coloring. Nurses stayed behind a desk and glass. Lindsay did not see a doctor until January 3, 2023—three days after admission.

On January 3, 2023, the doctor advised Lindsay to stop Seroquel and benzodiazepines and prescribed Trazodone for sleep. On January 4, 2023, Lindsay asked if she could go home for Cora’s birthday. Because her thoughts had improved since the Seroquel decrease, she was approved for discharge.

Lindsay was discharged from McLean Hospital on January 5, 2023 after only a five-day stay. Dr. Goodheart authored and signed the physician discharge summary, approving

Lindsay’s release despite her documented “limited” insight, judgment, and suicidal ideations. Lindsay was returned to the care of the same outpatient providers who had been providing allegedly substandard care.

After discharge, Dr. Goodheart from McLean called Lindsay and spoke for only ten minutes, offering names of antidepressants. The staff at McLean suggested Amitriptyline-yet another antidepressant, the very class of medications that had repeatedly caused Lindsay to have adverse reactions.

When Lindsay was discharged from McLean, she thought, “I was just in the best hospital in the country so there was not much hope.” She decided she must appear like she was OK and “had to do her best.”

Dr. Goodheart’s and McLean Hospital’s negligent failure to properly evaluate Lindsay, obtain an adequate psychiatric history, provide sufficient inpatient care during her brief admission, and ensure appropriate discharge planning and follow-up care directly contributed to the tragic events that followed. Dr. Goodheart, as the discharging physician, approved Lindsay’s release after only five days despite her documented “limited” insight and judgment and her ongoing severe symptoms.

Continued Deterioration Under Dr. Tufts’ Care

Lindsay returned to treatment with Dr. Tufts on January 6, 2023, the day after her discharge from McLean. Dr. Tufts diagnosed Lindsay with “chronic” “major depressive disorder, single episode, moderate.” She recorded that Lindsay’s psychiatric condition was “Deteriorating” and that her medication was not effective. Despite her poor condition, Dr. Tufts met with Lindsay for only seventeen minutes.

At Cora’s birthday party on January 7, 2023, Lindsay was not herself. She smiled but could not converse. She avoided talking and could not make sense of what others were saying.

Lindsay’s hallucinations resumed within one week of her discharge from McLean.

On January 10, 2023, Lindsay returned to Dr. Tufts and was switched to Valium for a benzodiazepine taper. Dr. Tufts indicated that “at some point we will add an antidepressant.”

On January 16, 2023, Lindsay was still experiencing debilitating depression. She had to force herself to do anything. The hallucinations continued: “You should harm the children.” “You should kill yourself.” “You will never be the same. The only option is to die.” She felt like a “zombie.” Dr. Tufts prescribed Amitriptyline another antidepressant—at 10 mg per day.

On January 20, 2023, because Lindsay was having such awful thoughts and was so numb and emotionless, she researched “What is a psychopath?” to see if she was one, and whether there was a cure.

On January 23, 2023, during another seventeen-minute appointment, Lindsay reported being “a little more anxious” with heart racing and “more AM anxiety.” Dr. Tufts recorded that Lindsay’s “mood is the same flat/anxious,” that she had “no motivation, numb,” and “has to force herself up, out of the house.” Her sleep and medication efficacy were “Poor,” her insight was “poor,” and her psychiatric condition generally was “Unchanged.” Dr. Tufts increased the Amitriptyline to 20 mg per day. That night, Lindsay did not sleep.

January 24, 2023

On January 24, 2023, Lindsay woke severely depressed with suicidal thoughts. She gave the children breakfast. She took Cora to the pediatrician because Cora complained of astomachache. Later, she went to the backyard with the children, built a snowman, and sent a picture to Patrick and her mother.

The suicidal hallucinations continued all day nonstop. Later in the afternoon, the voice began saying, “You should harm the children.” Lindsay thought about dinner and realized she had not prepared anything. She asked Patrick about takeout. She looked at a map to see how long it would take because she did not want to be alone and needed help.

As soon as Patrick left to pick up the food, there was a loud, demanding, repetitious voice: “This is your last chance. Kill the children so you can kill yourself.” “THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE. YOU HAVE TO KILL THE KIDS SO YOU CAN KILL YOURSELF.” Lindsay felt a force come over her.

Lindsay experienced command auditory hallucinations: a “demanding, powerful male voice” explicitly ordered her. She felt an overwhelming, irresistible compulsion to comply, entering a dissociative “dream-like state” where her physical actions felt utterly disconnected from her conscious volition. She perceived her “body was just acting” and she was merely “watching [herself] do it.” She reported she had “no choice” but to follow these compelling directives.

Lindsay described: “I lost all control. My body started acting without any control on my part. I was just following commands, ‘all action’ This voice demanded action.”

Lindsay proceeded to strangle each of her children, uttering “Go to God, baby.” Following these acts, she undertook a severe suicide attempt, ingesting a substantial quantity of various medications, self-inflicting lacerations to her wrists and neck, and jumping from a second-floor window approximately twenty feet to the ground below.

Lindsay suffered catastrophic injuries including a thoracic spinal cord injury resulting in permanent paralysis below the sternum. She also suffered multiple closed fractures of her cervical and thoracic vertebrae and multiple rib fractures.

Cora and Dawson died on January 24, 2023. Callan succumbed to his injuries and died on January 27, 2023.

Lindsay consistently maintains her actions were compelled by a hallucinatory voice, not a conscious decision, and expresses profound, enduring love for her children.

Loss of Spousal Consortium

(Plaintiff against All Defendants)

Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

At all relevant times, Lindsay was married to Patrick Clancy.

As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness, and gross negligence of Defendants, Lindsay has suffered and will continue to suffer the loss of the normal marital relationship with her husband, including loss of companionship, consortium, society, comfort, guidance, counsel, advice, and conjugal fellowship, as a result of the devastating impact of the events of January 24, 2023 on her marriage.

As a result of the foregoing, Lindsay is entitled to recover damages from Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial.

We are officially on verdict watch and I’m hanging around Plymouth Superior Court until my flight back home this evening, but my Gosh, do we have a lot to talk about. I left court in tears today after closing arguments. Both sides were very tough to sit through, while my tailgating footnotes from the week read like something out of a Hunter S. Thompson fever dream (or nightmare): human remains (an urn) stuck at security, true crime fangirls in kimonos, pug dogs in court, Vanity Fair’s drunken guest editor expelled, and a compelling theory the locals have that no one is talking about. I’ll be back with a full recap of my week in Plymouth, including a video tour of Duxbury, where the Clancys lived.

In the meantime, my friend Kylie sent me this helpful footnote late last night I’m passing along for legal clarity.

KYLIE:

“I think the most important point to clarify is how Massachusetts law actually structures this case, because the legal posture has been repeatedly misrepresented.

First, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay committed the alleged acts. Only then does the question of criminal responsibility become relevant. The repeated claim that this trial is solely about whether Lindsay was sane because she “already admitted she did it” is simply not an accurate description of what is before this jury.

There is no stipulation before the jury conceding that Lindsay killed her children. Her plea is NOT GUILTY, and Reddington has not verbally conceded that she killed them either.

You will often see Reddington quoted from his opening statement as saying, “she knows that she killed these children.”

But that is not the full quote.

What he actually said was: “And they would bring their evidence in front of a jury that she knows that she killed these children. We’ll sit here, listen to the evidence, but I suggest to you that the issue of consideration is what was going on in that woman’s mind.”

That distinction matters. In context, Reddington was describing what the Commonwealth would attempt to establish before the jury, not stipulating that the allegation was fact.

The civil filings do not change that. They are not evidence in this criminal trial and are not before the jury. So reducing this case to “prison or a psychiatric hospital” skips a threshold question the Commonwealth still bears the burden of proving.

Reddington twice sought to bifurcate the proceedings so the act and criminal-responsibility questions could be considered separately. The court denied those requests.

Yesterday, while the attorneys and judge were discussing jury instructions outside the presence of the jury, Reddington explained why this creates such a difficult position for the defense in Massachusetts: he is essentially being asked to argue simultaneously that the Commonwealth has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay committed the acts and that, if she did commit them, she was not criminally responsible.

That exchange is important, but so is the context: the jury was NOT present and did not hear it.

POLYMARKET PREDICTS

Anyone interested in tracking major cultural events should be genuinely invested in Polymarket as a fascinating predictor of public sentiment and where specific trends and events are leaning. Now that the Lindsay Clancy jury is deliberating, the market has her chances of being convicted of murder at 44%—a percentage that has shifted dramatically throughout the trial (I’ve been tracking it) and jumped again today.

Those of you obsessively tracking trials, elections and all the other cultural chaos we love here at HIH are going to want to bookmark Polymarket.

Reddington also requested a specific Bowden instruction regarding alleged deficiencies in the police investigation. The judge declined to include that instruction in his final charge to the jury, but explicitly told Reddington that he may still argue those investigative failures during closing.

So the jury will likely hear those points directly from Reddington. They simply will not hear them presented as a formal instruction from the judge.

This entire case has become a mind fuck of selective quotes, legal misunderstandings, assumptions presented as established facts, and emotion being substituted for evidence. Strip all of that away and the framework is actually straightforward: What does the evidence establish, what has the Commonwealth proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and only then, if that burden is met, was Lindsay criminally responsible?, legal misunderstandings, assumptions presented as established facts and emotion substituted for evidence.

People’s feelings about Lindsay are irrelevant to that analysis. The facts, the evidence and the burden of proof are what matter.

And with that, I’m going to sleep. But there is one more thing I cannot stop thinking about: Aside from everything else, I cannot get over the fact that Patrick has baby Callan’s date of death wrong on the headstone he shares with Cora and Dawson. Maybe it seems like a small detail. It has no bearing on this trial, and the jury will never know about it. But I can’t stop thinking about it. Those three sweet children deserved so much more care, dignity and consideration, even in death. They were failed in the most unimaginable way, and my heart breaks knowing that after all of this, this trial still may not bring them justice.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: What a delight it is to have Aaron back with HIH. This piece should give you a sense of where future discussions are headed. I’m excited to expand these conversations and bring more voices into the mix as we move forward. I’m heading back to court in Plymouth today, but I also have a tour of the Chappaquiddick bridge for you, along with a stacked recap of my trial experience.

Our family of six has generated a copious amount of laundry in its near twenty-five years of existence. Boys are particularly dirty. In our house, there are only two females. My wife and the dog. So laundry became a constant chore—one that never seemed to reach the end of the rainbow. In those hours of laundry that my wife graciously took ownership of, she found some kind of friendship with podcasts and offbeat shows. She loves the strange ones. A 600 Pound Life and Hoarders were constant companions. I would often come home to the sound of an East Indian-accented doctor scolding a patient who couldn’t control their eating, resonating from her iPhone in her apron. She said that the shows kept her company in those long days in the laundry room. She enjoys hearing how people who have mental blocks try to wrestle their way through things. She finds compassion for the grandmother who can’t find her way out of her bedroom because she’s being buried alive by Amazon deliveries, and she wants to know why people get stuck. Why does the mind fail to do normal operations?

These days, there is a little less laundry to do. One of our twins was married this summer and lives with his lovely bride in New England. Our youngest son was just dropped off at school in North Carolina. So my wife’s laundry duty has been slowly being replaced by other things she finds interesting. Creative outlets like making music or trying to assemble old photos for baby books long ago set aside for the tornado of young boy energy and homeschooling have started to make their way out to our kitchen table. But podcasts remain a constant companion. She’s branched out into shows about cults in Utah and near-death experiences, and even some true crime ones about people who flip and make atrocious decisions. Killing their own children after postpartum depression, or men who murder their wives so that they can be with another woman, freed of the sin of adultery.

It’s a strange landscape for me.

I have never found much interest in the pain of others. It seems voyeuristic and intrusive. The trend of watching people live their lives on reality TV was too much for me. When we had our four children in two and a half years, my mom would have us over for dinner, and we would watch Jon and Kate Plus 8. At first it was fun to see someone managing twice the number of children we had, but after a few episodes, I told my mom we weren’t interested in watching. Kate seemed awful to her husband. What had started out as a noble endeavor to birth all of the children that had survived their in vitro pregnancy turned into an on-air nightmare of a larping woman emasculating her husband. It wasn’t something I wanted to watch. But millions of people tuned in each week to find out what adventures the Gosselins were having. It wasn’t the first reality show, but it certainly became a cultural milestone in the genre. Watching people break in real time, I suppose, is fascinating in the most basic sense. But there is something tragic about what our culture has embraced about it. The thousands of episodes of people who, on some level, crave fame or money and decide to air their dirty laundry for those of us in the laundry room have created something I am not sure our minds are designed to handle.

I’ve been writing here at House InHabit about world affairs and politics, interspersed with my concepts of how the world functions, and why Jesus actually matters in all of it, for almost two years. Jessica has been incredibly kind to me by letting me write to all of you—the audience she earned through her work and writing. It’s beyond generous. Part of what’s happened through my engagement with HIH is watching Jessica’s fascination with the glamorous parts of politics at Mar-a-Lago and the Kennedys in Cape Cod. I also find her reporting on court cases to be some of the best available. There is no doubt her writing shines when she covers the drama and insider details of a criminal case. She’s as good as it gets. So I have followed along and been intrigued by the journalism side of it. It’s unique coverage that the glancing-blows media fails at. It’s interesting, and her photography and storytelling are better than those of organizations with triple the budget and staff.

So last week, when the Clancy stuff started to heat up, her Instagram moved into full gear, and I found myself fascinated by what was going on. The staking out of “sides”, the conspiracy concoctions by the Scooby Doo gang over on X, and the unequivocal confidence of everyone who was following along seemed eerily similar to the reality television world that pervades every part of our culture. It seems everything these days requires dogmatic positions and bombastic pronouncements of “how it really is.” I have come to loathe that trend, as it has infiltrated our politics, our entertainment, and our religions. Our sideline watching and pronouncing is perhaps the worst manifestation of the dark side of gossip. Uninformed and only partially curious, we have watched an entire generation build platforms and wealth off of their ability to up the ante on their outlandishness. The wilder it is, the more the clicks roll in. Shrewd of those who have figured out the system — utterly destructive to the average American mind.

I found myself asking some new questions, however, about the Clancy trial. Why is this one so at the heart of interest for so many? Crime happens everywhere. Why is it that this case is so polarizing and filled with hard-line positions about who the victims are? This isn’t the first postpartum murder of children our culture has been exposed to. Dozens of these stories have been part of our media consumption over the years. Why is this one so intriguing? I know very little about the story. I have no theories or conspiracies about who-done-it. I’m fascinated by the world around it, with the people who feel so strongly that they must lionize and defend, and those who feel threatened by that lionization. Why are we here in this moment in America? Who have we become, and why does this trial seem to be at the heart of that change? Lots of questions, and fewer socially acceptable answers.

The Wizards of Smart

A Bible which does not assert its own independent meaning, as fairly interpreted by itself; a Bible which shall wait for distinct and changing human sciences to tell us what it shall be permitted to signify, is no sufficient rule of faith for an immortal soul. - Robert L. Dabney

In his 1871 sermon, “A Caution Against Anti-Christian Science,” Robert L. Dabney argued that the pressures of culture to adopt science, an ever-changing and evolving endeavor, as their God would result in a people unmoored from any anchor. Societies’ infatuation with “science” would ultimately result in an inability to explain the supernatural that interfaces with the earthly. We would, as mankind has since the Garden, replace the real Creator with ourselves. Science would finally allow us to be “like God.” The unexplainable could all be distilled down through the scientific method. New sciences would arrive to help form a narrative around what seemed impossible to understand. Psychology and medicine could help explain why people struggle with darkness and depression. Why alcohol has a death grip on some, and why somewhat normal people can somehow slip into the realm of crazy.

Before our modern craziness and self-indulgent belief in our own divinity, people relied on the supernatural to explain why these things happened. But through our smartness, science could help diminish the unexplainable and find plausible, non-God-connected reasons. It was a chemical imbalance. It was a psychosis. We now had answers through reason and could make our world manageable. After all, this God stuff was too fanciful. Demons? Evil? Inherent sin? Poppycock.

Why does a mother kill her children? Our culture will only allow the empirical version of events. There is a scientific explanation. The end. But what if our smartness can’t really explain what drives a mother to such an end? What if our hubris disallows us from seeing things for what they are? What if nearly 150 years of dismissing the supernatural has left behind an exoskeleton of a once divinely embossed people? What happens when our smarty-pantsness can’t explain atrocity?

Perhaps we end up with what we are seeing in the Clancy trial, and in our politics, and in our social structures. Fights and division and destruction are the only tools we have left to deal with one another, because there is no room in the inn for something like evil or the supernatural. We have forgotten how to live in a spiritual world. We ignore it because we fear what it might mean — that we are not the Gods we think we are. Maybe it was her meds that made her do it. Maybe it was her husband’s patriarchal methods of family rearing. Maybe it was a chemical imbalance. Anything to avoid the possibility that it might be a supernatural darkness, an evil from another realm. That is impossible.

Jesus

And when he came to the other side, to the country of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men met him, coming out of the tombs, so fierce that no one could pass that way. And behold, they cried out, “What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?” Now a herd of many pigs was feeding at some distance from them. And the demons begged him, saying, “If you cast us out, send us away into the herd of pigs.” And he said to them, “Go.” So they came out and went into the pigs, and behold, the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea and drowned in the waters. The herdsmen fled, and going into the city they told everything, especially what had happened to the demon-possessed men. And behold, all the city came out to meet Jesus, and when they saw him, they begged him to leave their region. - Matthew 8:28-34

The gospels are filled with stories like this. Odd moments where Jesus confronts the evil realm that dwells among humanity. Our modern minds can hardly comprehend it. The main line protestant church has, for the most part, dismissed these stories. There’s no room for them in modernity. In the seats of our self-help-razamataz churches, demons and devils are for the cartoon world. Something that happened a long time ago, but went away sometime in the early twentieth century when we became “enlightened.” But what if these stories from scripture give us a view into how this world actually works? What if Jesus and his power over the evil of this world are as real as the nose on our own faces? Our dismissal of the supernatural and the forces of good and evil harms our ability to live within the tumult of creation.

It’s an unimaginable and incomprehensible story for a people unfamiliar with the traditions and explanations of religion. How a battle of good and evil rages on behind a thin, unbreakable veil, where demons and devils invade unlucky humans and cause them to torment their fellow humans, seems like a fairy tale. But no one reads Paradise Lost any longer. Our culture has no connection to the words of Jesus when he says in Luke: “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.” We no longer know Origen, Tertullian, or Augustine. They are dead, long-forgotten men, whose dusty books have no pull on the intellect of the modern person of Western Civilization. But they all believed in Jesus’s explanations about the brokenness of this world. They understood that Ezekiel 28:12–19 described a being who was “the anointed cherub who covers,” perfect in beauty and wisdom, present in Eden on the holy mountain of God, until pride and iniquity were found in him and he was cast down. The church fathers called him Lucifer from the passage in Isaiah. They described how this fallen angel Lucifer, heaven’s most beautiful and highest-ranking angel and worship leader, rebelled out of pride, took a third of the angels with him, and was cast out by the Father. This synthesis of several passages from the Bible sounds utterly crazy to the ears of our time. Nothing like this is possible. No war in another realm is happening. No demons roam the earth tormenting people. There is no Satan or God or third-day risen Jesus. All things are explainable through our own minds. Or, as Thomas Edison described, “What man’s mind can create, man’s character can control.”

But then a mother stands accused of murdering her children.

Our minds can hardly comprehend how such darkness comes to our world. How could she do it? What do we do when all explanations offered fail to pinpoint the harsh reality of three dead children and a family and community destroyed? Jesus knew these tragedies too, and did not dismiss them as happenstance or medical deficiencies. He called them for what he saw them to be.

They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach. The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law. Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an impure spirit cried out, “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth?Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”

“Be quiet!” said Jesus sternly. “Come out of him!” The impure spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek.

The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, “What is this? A new teaching—and with authority! He even gives orders to impure spirits^, and they obey him.” News about him spread quickly over the whole region of Galilee. — Mark 1:21-28

Jesus knew that this man was overrun by something dark, and he called the spirit out of him. Even for non-believers and people outside of the Jewish people, Jesus understood that there were powers at work upon the souls of his creation.

Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an impure spirit came and fell at his feet. The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.

“First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

“Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”

Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”

She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone. —Mark 7:24-30

No Longer Dismissible

What we are witnessing in our world is impossible to ignore. A turning point is happening all around us, and our own wisdom has proven woefully inept at explaining the trials and troubles of our world. We medicate our children for their confusion, and drink ourselves to numbness in order to avoid the real pains that are ever-present. We refuse the Jesus reality over and over again because it seems too unbelievable. We want to refuse the truth that the world is not just an empirical data set. We can’t hold our tidy worlds together if we concede that the spiritual realm is real and dangerous. But as we watch things collapse around us, structures we have relied upon and trusted for centuries fail to keep order; our small scientific answers crumble under the weight of the unexplainable. We are being forced to look into the spiritual world, into the world of Jesus.

I am desperate for our world to know Him. Not the pablum served up in the self-help shows we call church in the strip-mall-pseudo-Starbucks, but the real, authentic Jesus who has the power to tame the demons. I long for our world to know of that power. That the medicine cabinets filled with prescriptions that chase the last prescriptions could be emptied by the transformative power of the One who can cast out evil. The Jesus who has power over darkness, who can tame the sea, who can stop the sun in its tracks— that Jesus who can make a difference in a world that is crumbling.

I don’t know if what is happening in Plymouth, Massachusetts, is something from the other realm. Perhaps it is. Regardless of what has caused this tragedy, I want a world where the possibility remains that our ability to explain the unexplainable could be overwhelmed by the realities of Jesus. Until we are willing to have that conversation, wars will rage, and division will dominate. There’s more happening than we want to admit, but circumstances will eventually overwhelm our ability to control the small worlds we have built and the illusion that we can manage them.

Most of the trials I’ve covered in depth over recent years have drawn me in because of the cultural hooks attached. My investment is largely personal. When I choose to cover a case in person, it’s to satisfy my own gnawing curiosity, trusting intuittive pings will determine where my energy is best directed.

Timing is usually on my side. This appears true with the Lindsay Clancy case, too.

Initially, I avoided content related to her trial despite massive interest from my following. I wasn’t in a solid mental state to digest such horror, and murder stories have a unique way of draining you if you’re sensitive to energy. They often breed paranoia where it doesn’t belong.

Clancy Trial Chat Here

Eventually, I was drawn in— not to defend or debate a particular side, but because I am intrigued by the divide among women and the fury directed at men. A fresh wave of collective female rage amplified by algorithms and social media bonding strangers through personal trauma projected onto Lindsay Clancy. Solidarity plays out in TikTok trends. Women are now filming themselves under the hashtag “same, Lindsay,” weeping, throwing ice cubes into the shower to release pent-up anger, acting out grim scenes from the Clancy trial, or recording themselves looking anguished by routine domestic duties. Stay-at-home moms gripped by this case are attaching their own struggles to its severity and passionately defending Lindsay. From the outside, it’s odd to watch. From the inside, it’s utterly unnerving.

Entering the courtroom yesterday just as the topic of God and the mention of mortal sin abruptly halted proceedings felt like another stroke of divine timing.

This is where my interest lies. If a crystal ball had outlined the entire trial, this is exactly where I would have entered.

By Now, The Broader Strokes Of This Horror Are Familiar To Most

On a freezing January evening in 2023, Patrick Clancy left his home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, to pick up dinner and medication for his wife. Gone less than an hour, he returned to find Lindsay gravely injured outside the house after alledgely throwing herself from their upstairs bedroom window, her neck and wrists slashed. Inside were the lifeless bodies of their three children: Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and Callan, 8 months old.

Yet critical pieces of the puzzle don’t add up. The timing of the emails and activity on her Apple Watch certainly offer compelling discrepancies. Not to mention lack of pattern. Lindsay had no history of violence. She was a labor and delivery nurse who, by all accounts, adored her children. She kept meticulous notes, worried over their milestones, searched for recipes and activities, took them to museums and playdates. As anxiety over her declining mental state intensified, she sought help. She saw doctors, entered treatment and cycled through medications, hoping to ease a mind she no longer trusted.

And yet, on January 24, something went catastrophically wrong.

In a moment of diabolic surrender, she meticulously strangled her three children using exercise bands while their father was out running mundane errands.

The prosecution argues that Lindsay knew exactly what she was doing. They say she waited until Patrick left the house, calculated the window of time she had alone with the children, killed them one by one, and then tried to kill herself.

The defense asks us to accept an explanation far more complicated: whether the woman who committed those acts was, in any recognizable sense, the same woman who had tucked those children into bed, packed their lunches and spent years caring for other mothers and babies.

Beyond Lindsay’s fate, her trial serves now as a modern referendum on motherhood, postpartum mental illness, psychiatry, medication and the limits of compassion. The question of where men fit into the conversation is hotly contested. Everywhere I go, I encounter women arguing with their partners about this case. Mothers across the country see themselves in Lindsay. Men watching on the sidelines are mostly horrified.

The question I keep returning to: How far can empathy stretch before it interferes with accountability? And what doors open when we entertain psychosis as an explanation for the inexplicable? Andrea Yates didn’t have this kind of support. If you trade prescriptions for religious delusions, her case is jarringly similar. I don’t recall women rallying behind her as a victim of an altered state of sanity.

Clancy Wedding Website: DECEMBER 3, 2016 • SOUTHINGTON, CT

Psychosis is a medical syndrome causing a break with reality in which a person struggles to distinguish what is real from what is not. Like a fever, it is not itself a single diagnosis but a collection of symptoms that can point to various underlying psychiatric conditions, physical illnesses or substance use. In this case, that distinction matters enormously. The jury is being asked to consider: what Lindsay understood, what she intended and how much control she possessed over her own mind that night.

I’m here in Plymouth to examine my own angle and to understand the case without online noise interfering. Sitting inside a courtroom changes everything. The faces of her slain children become more than photogenic abstractions buried beneath arguments about postpartum psychosis. Patrick Clancy is no longer just a man obscured by viral suspicions, and Lindsay is more fascinating than she appears onscreen, silent and sullen in a wheelchair, on display for strangers to project their theories about her innocence or monstrosity.

In person the horrors of that winter night gain gravity but remain undeniably difficult to stomach. There are no hard lines separating victim from villain, illness from intent, compassion from accountability. The blurring of these circumstances rattles us. We crave concise explanations even in senseless acts, and prefer that our monsters look like monsters, madness look like madness, and justice cleanly divided by righteous law and verdict.

Lindsay Clancy’s trial offers none of those comforts.

Over the coming days, I’ll be posting sporadic dispatches from court examining the case as it winds toward a verdict.I’ll also be sharing my personal story about postpartum recovery and how, like many of you, it has influenced my thoughts on this case.

Beware: themes are bound to shift.

Brace for spiritual warfare as an evolving theme.

In regard to the Lindsay Clancy trial, the defense is preparing to wrap. After their final witness is called to testify, closing arguments could begin as early as Monday. I’m planning to head to Plymouth next week to track deliberation developments from the courthouse. Stay tuned for details.

In the meantime, I present JK Ultra. Jen hopped on a LIVE with me Wednesday afternoon to discuss and debunk a number of the viral conspiracies surrounding the case. I was stunned to learn about a couple of them myself. Her insight adds much-needed clarity, particularly when it comes to evidence that has been collectively overlooked or misinterpreted by the swarm of online sleuths moonlighting as medical and forensic experts.

Back soon!

Get more from Jessica Reed Kraus in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

He’s shorter than you think. Slighter in build too, which is often the case with leading men. I mention this only because women who run into him often mention it first when I ask about their initial impression. They call to frantically relay bumping into him backstage, in a greenroom of whatever late-night show they’re on.

“Brad Pitt is here! But OMG way shorter than I realized!”

Current headlines want us aware that he’s drinking again. Frankly, I find it hilarious as PR strategy—to announce a famous man’s return to the wagon.

Selfishly, I do prefer Brad as refined wine aficionado. So, apparently, does Conor McGregor. When he got wind of Brad’s decision to drink again, he joined in unity, tweeting that he too would drink to that. McGregor sent his best wishes to Pitt, adding promo for a bevy containing 4.2 percent alcohol.

Brad in this latest article appears quite candid about just how dark things became in the aftermath of his marriage. In this new Esquire interview he admits there was a period when he struggled to see a way forward.

A Monday With Brad Pitt

“I’ve never been suicidal except for one little period,” he said. “I just didn’t see a way out.” He described the pain at the time as “so oppressive,” though he made clear he never intended to act on those thoughts.

He also revealed that after seven years of sobriety, he has started drinking again. “I was sober for seven years. And then I got back off the wagon.”

These days, he says, he drinks “in a more restrained manner,” having learned fairly quickly that overdoing it is still “not good for me.”

Angelina has also been opening up more as well. “I think my fighting spirit is finally back,” she recently told Variety.

“I lost it for a bit. I got kind of taken down a little bit.”

“Life has broken me a little,” she confessed.

She spoke about her daughters encouraging her to “live again” and “be free again.”

Which brings us back to Brad. Typically, I’m not inclined to find conventionally handsome men intriguing, but Brad is different. Unlike many his age and same level of fame, he’s never been a recluse. It seems like he likes to get out and hang with the public.

Years ago, he showed up at the Born Free motorcycle event with two women, without security, and mingled happily with straggly Orange County bikers, taking photos and talking with fans and non-fans alike. We all saw the selfies. Him in all white, holding a red Solo cup, looking almost like he belonged there.

More recently, I ran into a woman who works in PR, close to his current girlfriend, who shared details about their relationship as it stands now, as well as a great story about their first date. But we get to that below the paywall.

Before we dive into present-day fodder: his teenage kids ditching his last name, the infamous intoxicated plane ordeal, his ex-wife admitting their divorce ruined her, Brad returning to drinking, the weird fashion choices, and what might be one of the best facelifts in Hollywood, I want to briefly revisit the glory days of Brangelina. We may have lovingly tracked the relationships of all his former flames, but the days with Angelina were something special. Their union offered us a dose of idealized Hollywood glamour. This era’s version of Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. High glam, nonstop travel, a brood of beautiful mixed children, birthed and adopted, mounting drama, and later, legal wars over top-quality French rosé. All of it framed by enchanting DNA: two of the most attractive people of the modern age, still sparring.

REWIND:

Brad and Angie met while filming Mr. & Mrs. Smith in 2004, while he was still married to Jennifer Aniston. I remember reading that he had signed on to film with Angie and thinking Jen had better brace herself for what was coming.

As an unspoken rule: Women like Angelina are not expected to adhere to the moral laws of the universe. Blessed by the gods and attractive beyond measure, they exist as lawless creatures of nature who are prone to casual seduction. We can’t even fault them for it. I’ve always credited Angelina’s interest in philanthropy. Consider if we were as gorgeous. We might idle the hours admiring our reflection, disinterested in societal expectations, occasionally stepping out to steal someone’s husband as sport, because the privilege that exceptional beauty grants opens a universe unknown to those of us resigned to mediocre appeal.

She is unarguably one of the world’s most beautiful women and unfortunately, beautiful women are allowed to be considerably crazier than the rest. It’s why she can kiss her brother on the mouth, wear her boyfriend’s blood in vials around her neck, and then seamlessly evolve into whatever she desires without much judgment or scrutiny.

As spectators, we’re just content to watch.

Again, I don’t make the rules, God does. Clearly he was in a good mood when he created Jon Voight’s daughter. He carved for her features women of common design would later pay big money to replicate. A face for the ages: eyes like an ancient minx, subtly sloped nose, perfect bone structure, distractingly full lips, luxurious locks, and a flicker of deviant sexual charisma apparent in any expression. The kind of woman who can easily attract both sexes.

When the first images of her and Brad filming on location surfaced, her looking smitten with him and his freshly shaven head, we all knew where it was headed. In grainy tabloid shots from the Mr. & Mrs. Smith set, they openly flirted: her face flushed in a white two-piece, hair pinned like a Pre-Raphaelite muse, smiling too much when filming cut. Him sweaty, surrounded by empty beer bottles scattered across a cafe table, his arm around her waist on their way out.

There was drinking and dancing in exotic locations during the off hours playing out in real time as filming progressed.

Though both initially denied an affair, Pitt and Aniston separated in early 2005. By that summer, Pitt and Jolie were photographed together on a magazine cover. Who can forget the shock of seeing them in that moody W spread cast as a suburban family riddled by scenes of sex and rage just as the scandal around their relationship exploded?

We were all aghast. Collectively, aghast.

But the photos, they were SO good…

Aniston later admitted how much it hurt to see them styled in this spread, adding that Brad was clearly “missing a sensitivity chip.”

“Am I lonely? Yes. Am I upset? Yes. Am I confused? Yes. Do I have my days when I’ve thrown a little pity party for myself? Absolutely. But I’m also doing really well.”

Holed up in her Malibu, Calif., bungalow, the 36-year-old actress says the media coverage and tabloid rumors have been hard to deal with — especially reports that she didn’t want to start a family.

“A man divorcing would never be accused of choosing career over children,” she says. “I’ve never in my life said I didn’t want children. I did and I do and I will!”

Aniston filed for divorce in March, citing irreconcilable differences after 4 1/2 years of marriage. The couple separated in January.

Aniston says she was aware of Pitt’s attraction to Angelina Jolie, his “Mr. and Mrs. Smith” co-star, but doesn’t blame their split on her.

“It’s just complicated,” Aniston says. “There are all these levels of growth — and when you stop growing together, that’s when the problems happen.”

But when pictures showing Pitt and Jolie together with her 3-year-old son, Maddox, on a beach in Africa were published, the former “Friends” star says, “the world was shocked and I was shocked.”

She was also hurt by a fashion spread in W magazine — a concept of Pitt’s — that showed the actor and Jolie as a 1960’s-style married couple.

“There’s a sensitivity chip that’s missing,” Aniston says of Pitt.

Says Aniston: “I just don’t know what happened. ... I feel as if I’m trying to scrounge around and pick up the pieces in the midst of this media circus.”

Otherwise refusing to talk badly of Pitt, the actress says she doesn’t want to mimic the bitterness of her parents’ divorce.

“I love Brad; I really love him. I will love him for the rest of my life,” says Aniston. “I don’t regret any of it, and I’m not going to beat myself up about it.”

“The sad thing, for me, is the way it’s been reduced to a Hollywood cliche — or maybe it’s just a human cliche.”

Another false report, Aniston says, is her relationship with Vince Vaughn, her co-star in the upcoming movie “The Break Up.”

“I like a lot of people, but I’m sooo not ‘in like’ with anybody.”

Aniston also hasn’t lost her sense of humor. On Pitt’s recently dyed blond hair, she says, “Billy Idol called — he wants his look back.”

— Today.com

Gradually, the public came to forgive the affair even though we held a soft spot for Jen, who remained notably stoic throughout.

Meanwhile, Brangelina grew into a full-blown cultural phenomenon. They traveled constantly and built an international family of six children, three adopted and three biological. Humanitarian work, refugee camps, international adoptions, sprawling estates. Their daughter Shiloh’s first photographs sold for millions in 2006, with the proceeds donated to charity. Later came the intimate photographs Brad took of Angelina after the birth of their twins: Angelina in a cotton nightgown, nursing the newborns, the domestic life of the world’s most glamorous couple presented as something almost startlingly ordinary.

For years, they seemed to exist in their own strange category of fame: impossibly beautiful, globally mobile, almost mythological.

They finally married in 2014 at Château Miraval at their estate in France with their children involved in the ceremony. Remember her dress—embroidered with the kids’ art scribbles? Perfectly quirky.

We ate it up.

Two years later, it all spectacularly unraveled.

On September 14, 2016, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie were flying with their six children from France back to California on a private plane when something went very wrong. By Jolie’s account to the FBI, Pitt had been drinking, and tensions were already high. About 90 minutes into the flight, she says he asked her to come to the back of the plane, away from the kids, where an argument escalated. Jolie alleged that Pitt grabbed and shook her, pushed her against the wall, and punched the ceiling of the plane.

At some point, one of their children asked if she was okay. According to Jolie, Pitt responded: “No, mommy’s not ok. She’s ruining this family. She’s crazy.”

One of the kids reportedly fired back: “It’s not her, it’s you.”

Jolie described hours of chaos that followed. More drinking. Arguments involving the children. Wine and beer allegedly spilled or poured. Another confrontation as the plane prepared to land. Jolie later told investigators the family was “shell shocked.”

Pitt’s version has always remained considerably different. He acknowledged drinking and arguing with his son but denied physically harming him. A source describing his position at the time said: “Brad may have been drinking, and admits that he yelled at his son, but he insists he did not hit him or attempt to harm him.”

Pitt later spoke much more candidly about his drinking during that period. “Truthfully I could drink a Russian under the table with his own vodka,” he told GQ in 2017. “I was a professional. I was good.”

The FBI reviewed the incident and ultimately declined to pursue charges. Child-welfare authorities also investigated. Brad was not charged with child abuse.

Whatever happened inside that plane effectively marked the end of Brangelina.

Six days later, Angelina Jolie filed for divorce. I recall shedding a tear at the gas station when I read the news.

What followed was an extraordinarily long and bitter legal battle over custody, property, and Miraval. In the years since, several of their children have publicly distanced themselves from the Pitt name. Their divorce was ultimately finalized in December 2024, more than eight years after Jolie first filed.

In the end, as much as I miss them as Hollywood’s most stunning couple, it’s good to see they’ve both moved on.

As for who’s to blame: insight is oddly balanced. My sources are sufficiently divided so I don’t have a solid opinion on either party. For the sake of gossip (to ease the pain of tracking current murder trials) below is what I’ve heard lately: some side with Brad. Others swear Angelina is the real hero in this tragic fallout.

Read more

Greetings from California.

Dare I say it feels good to be home despite chronic exhaustion and lingering malaise.

I landed a week ago, just as a brutal heat wave hit Southern California. I arrived to find Laguna Beach drained of its vibrant summer light. The Pacific Ocean outside my office window dull and muted, as if someone had dragged the saturation all the way down on a generic seaside postcard.

Still, my office is always a relief to return to—an aura unlike anywhere else. I’ve always suspected the building is situated on some coastal vortex (yes, they exist in Laguna) that no one has bothered to examine.

Home is stranger these days.

I’ve spent most of the summer away, following a series of unravellings that began on a flight home from Washington early June. June feels like a decade ago now. Since then, much of what I believed to be real and true has gradually dissolved into the unfathomable. Time falls out of sync. Locked in heartache, days bleed into one another and weeks collapse until there is no clear distinction between calendar dates we use to catalog our lives and curate our memories. My journal notes are sparse and scattered, too. Nothing under my care is cohesive or coherent. I tell myself it won’t always be this way. Eventually, I will realign and return to sharper wits, but lost in limbo it’s hard to find solace in promises you make to yourself.

Gone sixteen days, navigating an accidental odyssey spanning four countries and three major American cities, with a little work mixed in, I drifted in and out of dazzling, exotic scenes amid dramatically shifting moods. Occasionally, I found myself forced to contend with quiet rage that festered despite stunning landscapes. My internal monologue took a sharp dark turn at times with no outlet to expunge jolts of fury. Without creative release, ordinary moments became harrowing feats to conquer rather than enjoy.

I did my best to overcome self pity, to focus only on what is within my control. What was meant to be a celebratory trip with friends—one our family looks forward to every year—was interrupted by a series of unfortunate circumstances, trials I’m still struggling to process. Because of this, a dreamy international vacation served more as a spiritual escape.

Eat. Pray. Dive.

“Mediterranean waters will heal you,” traveled women assured me before we left, recounting personal tales of how the waters helped heal their wounds. They spoke of death, divorce, the destruction of marriage—how it led to loss of identity in middle age. Whether combating fresh tides of grief or resentment, they all testified to some measure of peace intrinsic to the waters of Greece.

On the flight over, I started reading up on it to see if there was really something to this. Several travel sites backed their claims, weaving in ancient lore tied to hundreds of therapeutic hot springs rich in minerals said to remedy everything from eczema to heart disease, dotted across Greece. The region’s waters are steeped in mythology —connected to goddesses, water nymphs, and notoriously wounded heroes. Roman generals and philosophers like Aristotle sought the waters in places like Edipsos for mineral relief from debilitating arthritis and fatigue. Nessus washed his wounds there after Hercules shot him.

Placebo or not, the ladies were right. Foreign seas do offer a unique cellular recharge. A remedy I came to crave as routine during those two weeks.

I turned my phone off and floated for hours some afternoons in the pool overlooking the shoreline at our rental in Corfu.

Sank my whole body into turquoise waters on the island of Paxos.

Lay topless alone on a remote beach, outstretched on hot white rocks.

Grew seasick on a high-speed ferry with the boys, shuttling us to another island.

Napped through rough waters in Lugano, Switzerland.

Dove awkwardly off another rented tour boat in Lake Como, then had to walk back to the car in a soaking wet bathing suit because a wave had drenched all of our clothes.

What I concluded is the sea doth live up to ancient poetic metaphors. As a general rule Greek deities have long inspired classic literature. Writers since the dawn of time love any reason to meditate on the sea as a mystical force. Homer’s Sirens, for example—not the enchanting mermaid-like creatures they are often imagined as now—lured passing sailors toward destruction with an irresistible song. At closer look, through jaded lens, Homer’s idea is less poetic than pathetic proof that men have always been this stupid, willing to sail themselves toward destruction rather than resist being distracted by evil-natured creatures plotting to destroy them for sport.

What’s more pathetic is allowing their reckless actions to effectively dissuade us.

The Ariel passage I returned to a few years ago. We were still living inland the summer we found ourselves wandering the shores of Salt Creek Beach on an eerie, fog-drenched afternoon, searching for a missing body instead of relaxing on the sand together as a family, as we had planned. It was the kind of tragedy that resurfaces annually in local newspaper blurbs each summer as a grim reminder to tourists of just how dangerous coastal tides can prove. My friend’s father was an avid body surfer visiting from out of town who disappeared right in front of her after diving into a wave, with her husband only a few feet away. When her father failed to surface, confusion onshore turned swiftly to panic, panic to shock, and days later, after every rescue effort had been exhausted, shock gave way to grief.

His body was never recovered.

On the anniversary of his disappearance, I sometimes stumble upon images of her and her sister on the beach tossing flowers into the water where it happened, wondering what it must be like without closure. To have the sea as his grave, to live with the mystery of how he was swallowed whole by a sea he was trained to navigate.

I always thought I would write about it eventually.

Read more

“Life is full of surprises, some good, some not so good.” — Pablo Picasso

In five years, I’ve never disappeared from this space for this long. I wish I could say it was something within my control—a spontaneous summer sabbatical to realign my focus, or reinvigorate my work. But that is not the case. My absence is the result of a faltering mental state, frayed focus, and a bruised spirit. It’s been a difficult few weeks. Stepping away was my attempt to avoid slipping into a deeper depressive spiral. Logging off felt like turning off a television that had been blaring static at full blast. I’d forgotten how healing quiet can be.

When I’m in a healthier place, I’ll return to posting daily. Until then, I’ll be here more sporadically, sharing specific updates and archival highlights as we mark America’s 250th anniversary.

Thank you for reading.

Thank you for staying.

With love,

JRK

Last Weekend,

After a road trip north to San Luis Obispo to spend an afternoon with Steve Hilton, I headed back toward more familiar territory: Riverside County, where I grew up, to sit with Sheriff Chad Bianco.

I found the Biancos on their 26th wedding anniversary. A bucket of champagne atop an office conference table before a string of podcast appearances would come to claim the rest of the day. His wife, Denise, chimed in to recount her first impression of him—what drew her to him then and what she still loves most about him today.

Like many Californians I first became aware of Bianco during COVID when I was desperate for sensible voices in authority. While much of the state fell into lock step pushing mandates, irrational restrictions and closures, Bianco emerged as one of the few officials that publicly rejected this approach.

Bianco is backed fiercely now by a loyal following that extends Riverside County lines. Hilton may be polling exceptionally high by traditional polling, but Bianco routinely pulls close to 70 percent support among my audience, which is always an interesting contrast to consider, reminiscent of RFK Jr. when he first emerged as a subject.

A thirty-two-year veteran of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, Bianco was first elected Sheriff in 2018 and reelected in 2022. Today, he oversees one of the largest law enforcement operations in California, managing thousands of employees, multiple jail facilities, court security, patrol stations, contract cities, the Coroner’s Bureau, and a budget exceeding one billion dollars.

Face to face, he comes across as the real deal—passionate, but practical.

He does not present as a polished politician but a man invested in fixing California, which he views an easy and realistic feat.

Running one of California’s largest sheriff’s departments has given him something many of his competitors cannot claim: a record executing order and priorities, effectively translating ideas into action.

We met at his office in Riverside. Our conversation covered his path into law enforcement, the lessons he’s learned over three decades on the job, California’s political future, public safety, family, faith, and why he believes so many residents feel disconnected from the leaders making decisions on their behalf.

He does not believe California is broken. His plan centers largely on deregulating factions of the state so small businesses can thrive again.

This interview have been condensed for clarity — audio clips are included

JRK: HOW DID YOU AND YOUR WIFE MEET?

SHERIFF BIANCO: It’s our 26th anniversary. We met online. Before anyone was online. I didn’t even know how it worked.

We were both divorced, and I had two kids. My nine-year-old was just a genius. I took him to Best Buy because he wanted a computer. I knew nothing about computers. I was a cop. I wrote my reports by hand. I had a word processor—that’s all I knew. So I bought him whatever he wanted, and he set it all up. He had to show me how to turn it on.

At the time, I was working narcotics, and I’d get home between two and five in the morning. I couldn’t just fall asleep. The only thing the computer was good for was playing CDs. I’d come home and play music—Sheryl Crow was my favorite.

One night, an ad popped up that said, “Meet girls in your area.” So I clicked on it. I was scrolling through profiles and came across her picture. I read her profile and then went to bed.

The next day, all I could think about was her picture.

I went back online trying to find it again and couldn’t. For days I sat there waiting for that ad to come back.

Finally it did.

I spent hours finding her profile again and sent her a long email.

Several days later she responded.

DENISE BIANCO: Two of my best friends had put their ads up, and they convinced me to do it too. This was 1999. I probably got 150 emails in five days. I was 28 years old, and my dad heard I was on the internet and made me take the profile down. So by the time Chad emailed me, I was already off the site.

What stood out about him was that he talked about his kids first. His email was basically: “I have a five-year-old and a nine-year-old.” I thought, okay, I’m going to meet this guy.

Their Extended Meet

Q. HOW MANY CHILDREN DO YOU HAVE?

BIANCO: I had two, she had two. We’ve got four together. Most people don’t even know that. They think they’re all ours. Everybody gets along.

Her youngest daughter is my daughter. She’s my baby. Anybody who calls her my stepdaughter is going to hear from me. There’s no such thing.

Q. WHAT WAS YOUR HOUSEHOLD LIKE GROWING UP?

BIANCO: I had an amazing household. My mom was 16 when she had me, my dad was 18. My dad was in the Air Force, he served in Vietnam. My parents had three kids before my mom was 21. There is nothing bad about my childhood. Nothing. My grandparents were amazing, both sets.

I grew up in a tiny town of about 1,000 people. Everybody knew everybody. I always say I had about 200 dads. The whole town raised us.

I remember getting lost as a little kid and somebody just bringing me home because they knew exactly where I belonged.

It was a different world. We were protected. We were surrounded by people who cared about us.

Q. WERE YOU ATHLETIC?

BIANCO: Very. I wrestled, I played golf, I played baseball. Baseball was my best sport. That’s what got me out of town. I earned a baseball scholarship and went to the University of Utah.

That eventually brought me to California.

Q. WAS THERE A MOMENT THAT CHANGED THE DIRECTION OF YOUR LIFE?

BIANCO: Yes. I was 16 years old. I got pulled over with some friends. We had alcohol in the car. We all got tickets. The officer pulled each of us out one at a time. I was last. He knew who I was. He knew my parents. He knew I played baseball. While he was writing the ticket, he gave me a lecture. He told me: “You are headed in the wrong direction.”

He said baseball could get me out of that town. He told me I had a choice. I could choose my future, or I could keep hanging around the people I was with and end up exactly where they were headed.

I got back in the car completely embarrassed. My friends were talking about the ticket. All I could think about was what he said. My dad had said similar things, but hearing it from another adult changed everything. That was a turning point.

Q. SO HOW DID YOU ACTUALLY END UP IN LAW ENFORCEMENT?

BIANCO: Completely by accident. When I got to California, I needed a job. I worked construction, then I worked at a Ford dealership.

One of the mechanics there was putting himself through the Sheriff’s Academy on weekends. Every morning we’d go to the gym together. He kept telling me how much I’d love it. Eventually he convinced me to look into it.

At first, honestly, it wasn’t about law enforcement, it was about the paycheck and the benefits. It paid more than what I was making, it had benefits I didn’t have. It seemed like a good opportunity. So I did it.

And once I got there, I realized this is exactly what I was meant to do.

Q. WHAT KEPT YOU IN THE PROFESSION?

BIANCO: Helping people. Being a cop itself never impressed me. The badge never impressed me. What impressed me was being able to help people every day. That’s what kept me going. That’s what I loved about it.

And that’s what I still love about it today.

Q. I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE FIRST BECAME AWARE OF YOU DURING COVID. WHAT DO YOU THINK CHANGED IN CALIFORNIA DURING THAT PERIOD?

BIANCO: I think it started waking people up, including me. I was focused on my family, my wife, my kids, and my job. I had a very small bubble. We had our group of friends, our kids’ friends’ parents, and that’s who we spent time with.

I voted, but I never really cared about politics. I wasn’t paying attention.

That started changing around 2010 when I moved into administration in law enforcement.

Then in 2012 everything really started going sideways for law enforcement.

AB 109 with prison realignment was a disaster for us.

From that point forward, every year there were more and more bills that were anti-law enforcement. We could see it happening, but nobody else really could. The public didn’t know. And honestly, we weren’t helping because law enforcement never talked. We always said, “No comment.”

That ended up hurting us because we weren’t explaining what was happening. People started blaming us for things that Sacramento had actually caused.

They blamed us when people got released from jail. They blamed us when criminals weren’t prosecuted. They blamed us when crime increased.

But the laws had changed. Our ability to keep communities safe had changed. And nobody understood why.

Q. WHAT DO YOU REMEMBER ABOUT THE VERY BEGINNING OF COVID?

BIANCO: The first acknowledged COVID flight from Wuhan, China landed at March Air Force Base in Riverside County. We knew it was coming. We were getting briefings. We were being shown videos from China. People dead in the streets. People collapsed in pools of blood.

The information we were getting was terrifying.

They were telling us that 40 percent of people were going to die. I had 4,500 employees. I’m doing the math in my head thinking a thousand of them are going to die.

Then I started thinking about my family. There’s six of us. Which two are going to die? I honestly had a panic attack. It was scary.

Extended thoughts on COVID

Q. WERE YOU INITIALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE TWO-WEEK SHUTDOWN?

BIANCO: Yes, absolutely. At the beginning I supported it. I thought, okay, two weeks. Let’s slow the spread, let’s be responsible, let’s take a vacation. I even recorded a video telling Riverside County to stay home for two weeks. I said we’d get through it together. That seemed reasonable. But then two weeks became three weeks. Then four weeks. Then mandatory closures. Then enforcement. Then arresting people. And that’s when I said absolutely not.

Q. WHAT WAS THE MOMENT YOU DECIDED YOU WOULD NOT ENFORCE THE LOCKDOWNS?

BIANCO: I knew the county board meeting was coming. I knew they were preparing to go along with the governor’s orders. I told my wife I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t have my deputies enforcing that. She told me not to do it. She said it would be political suicide. She was worried about what would happen. But I felt like I had to speak up. I believed people were being misled. I believed the information wasn’t matching reality. And I wasn’t going to make criminals out of ordinary people.

Q. WHAT HAPPENED WHEN YOU SPOKE OUT PUBLICLY?

BIANCO: Immediately afterward, I started getting calls, emails, messages. Doctors reached out. Heart surgeons. Respiratory therapists. Medical professionals. They were telling me: “You’re right.” “Keep going.” “Thank you for saying what we can’t say.” People were scared to speak publicly. Once I heard from doctors and medical professionals, I felt at peace. I knew I was doing the right thing.

Q. YOU’VE SAID COVID PUT YOU IN THE PUBLIC EYE. THEN GEORGE FLOYD HAPPENED. WHAT DO YOU REMEMBER ABOUT THAT PERIOD?

BIANCO: I was a brand-new sheriff. At the same time that COVID was happening, we had George Floyd and the riots that spread across the country and eventually came to Riverside.

That was another moment that changed everything. COVID made me a voice for people who felt they weren’t being heard. The riots made me a leader in the law enforcement world.

Q. WHAT WAS DIFFERENT ABOUT THE WAY YOU HANDLED THE RIOTS?

BIANCO: We were the first law enforcement agency in the country to use overwhelming force and stop it immediately.

We cleared our city within an hour. We arrested the people who needed to be arrested. We forced the rest out, and they never came back.

I was very clear from the beginning: I support your First Amendment rights. I will defend your First Amendment rights.

But the moment your rights start violating someone else’s rights, it stops being a First Amendment issue.

At that point it’s criminal behavior, and I wasn’t going to allow it.

Q. WHAT MADE YOU TAKE THAT APPROACH?

BIANCO: A few nights earlier, my wife and I were watching television coverage from Los Angeles. We watched people coming out of broken store windows carrying merchandise. The camera panned down and there were police officers standing there watching it happen. I turned to my wife and said: “If that ever happens here, that will not be us.”

My deputies will not stand there and watch people destroy our communities. That was the moment. I knew exactly what I was going to do if it came to Riverside.

Q. WHAT DO YOU THINK THE BIGGEST LESSON WAS FROM THAT PERIOD?

BIANCO: Leadership. People want leaders, they don’t want excuses. They don’t want politicians explaining why they can’t do something. They want somebody willing to make decisions.

Good leaders make decisions. Sometimes they’re difficult decisions. Sometimes people criticize them, but you still have to make them. That’s what leadership is.

COVID and the riots both reinforced the same lesson. People need honesty, they need leaders who will tell them the truth. Even if it’s unpopular, even if it’s difficult.

What frustrated me during those years was watching people refuse to tell the truth because they were afraid of criticism. That’s not leadership. Leadership is standing up and saying what you believe is right, even when it’s uncomfortable.

Q. SO WHY ARE YOU RUNNING?

BIANCO: Because I think California can be fixed. I don’t think it’s hopeless. I don’t think it’s beyond saving. And if I thought it couldn’t be fixed, I wouldn’t run. I wouldn’t put my family through this. I wouldn’t put myself through this. I wouldn’t waste anyone’s time. But I believe it can be fixed. And I believe I can help do it.

Q. SIX YEARS AFTER COVID, WHAT DOES CALIFORNIA NEED MOST?

BIANCO: It’s actually relatively easy. It’s about turning government back over to the people. That’s really what this comes down to. People think California is broken. I don’t. California isn’t broken. Our teachers aren’t broken. Our business owners aren’t broken. Our police officers aren’t broken. Our beaches aren’t broken. Our mountains aren’t broken. Our weather isn’t broken.

The only thing broken is Sacramento.

Forty million people are being controlled by about 130 people in Sacramento.

The real problem isn’t California.

The real problem is who we’re sending there.

California Isn’t Broken

Q. WHAT WOULD YOU DO IN YOUR FIRST SIX MONTHS AS GOVERNOR?

BIANCO: The first six months would be transformative. I truly believe that. People would immediately see improvements. Gas prices, electricity costs, housing, business regulations, permitting. All of those things are regulatory. They can be changed. And once they’re changed, Californians are going to realize those improvements could have happened years ago.

That’s what will frustrate people. They’re going to realize how much of this was self-inflicted.

Q. LET’S TALK ABOUT HOUSING. WHY IS IT SO EXPENSIVE?

BIANCO: Because government won’t let people build. In California, it can take three to five years to build a house. In many other states it takes three to five months. Before you even begin, you’re writing checks. Environmental reviews. Permits. Impact fees. Consultants. Lawyers. All of those costs get added to the final price. A huge percentage of the cost of a new home is just recovering fees and regulatory costs. Remove those costs and housing becomes dramatically more affordable.

Q. WHAT ABOUT BUSINESSES LEAVING CALIFORNIA?

BIANCO: Nobody leaves California because they hate California. Nobody. They leave because they can’t afford it. They leave because of taxes. They leave because of regulations. They leave because they can’t operate here anymore. Every business owner I talk to says the same thing: California is a wonderful place to live. The government is what drives them away.

Q. WHAT DO YOU THINK PEOPLE ARE STARVING FOR IN POLITICS?

BIANCO: Honesty. Integrity. Leadership. People are tired of politicians. They’re tired of scripted answers. They’re tired of being told one thing while seeing another. People want somebody who will tell them the truth, even when it’s unpopular.

Q. WHY DO YOU THINK YOU CAN WIN?

BIANCO: Because I think I appeal beyond party labels. I have Democrats telling me they’re going to vote for me. Not because they agree with everything I say, but because they want change. They want honesty. They want somebody who will run government competently. We’ve seen that happen before. A sheriff won statewide office in Nevada using a very similar message: Public safety, accountability, leadership.

That’s the path.

Q. WHAT’S YOUR ARGUMENT AGAINST STEVE HILTON?

BIANCO: Nothing personal. I think he loves California. I think he wants what’s best for California. But I don’t think he can win. He’s tied too closely to Fox News. He’s tied too closely to Donald Trump. And I think those things make winning a general election in California extremely difficult.

My argument has always been simple: The goal isn’t getting through the primary. The goal is winning in November.

Q. WHY ARE YOU ULTIMATELY DOING THIS?

BIANCO: Because I love California. I don’t want to leave. I don’t want my children to leave. I don’t want future generations to lose the opportunities that brought me here. I believe government should work for people.

I believe California can be fixed, and I believe somebody has to step up and do it.

That’s why I’m running.

Last Weekend,

Last weekend, we took a road trip and drove the coast to San Luis Obispo to sit at a table in the sun with Steve Hilton, who is currently running for governor of California, ahead of his town hall at Cal Poly University. He is as energetic and charming as I’d been warned, candid, tan, steel-eyed, and according to him—a few pounds heavier than he prefers due to a hectic campaign schedule interrupting his more rigid exercise and dietary regimens.

AHEAD: FACE TO FACE WITH SHERIFF CHAD BIANCO

Over the course of an hour, we sat and talked through his background—growing up with Hungarian immigrant parents, his Oxford stint, and his almost accidental path from London advertising and political consulting to a new life in California, where family and politics converged.

We also dug into where he sees California heading: homelessness, affordability, and the daily pressure points weighing on people across the state.

Included are a handful of hot takes on Trump and Elon Musk, Princess Kate, Nigel Farage, and Charlie Kirk.

Donald Trump recently said that energy is what drives success. People have big ideas all the time, but not the energy required to execute them.

The California Post offered this assessment of Hilton: “He has the ideas, the energy, and the optimism to turn California around. That is why The California Post is endorsing him for governor. Hilton has spent years analyzing California’s challenges and coming up with solutions.”

The question now is whether the President’s endorsement helps or hurts in a blue state—and whether Californians are ready to hand the keys to Sacramento to a governor who still carries an English accent.

This interview have been condensed for clarity — audio clips are included

JRK: DO YOU HAVE A MORNING ROUTINE?

HILTON: Well, it’s much too… okay, I’m going to give you the ideal, and then I’m going to give you reality.

The ideal used to be before I became a candidate. So ideal is not early— but not too early. I want to say no earlier than six. I really don’t like getting up early. I felt quite embarrassed saying that once—we were talking about it in the Central Valley with farmers, and I said, “Not too early,” and these people get up at like… very early, you know what I mean. So, not too early.

And ideal is a stretching routine. That’s what I’m trying to implement. I’ve got it down to about 20 minutes for the full thing—so not long, not some massive yoga commitment. But I can do an express version in five minutes, just very basic. That’s a big deal, right?

So that would be ideal. Then a cup of tea—hot tea, black tea with milk. And then get on with the day. That’s it, really.

Ideal breakfast—if we’re doing perfect: two boiled eggs from our chickens.

Q. HOW DO YOU KEEP YOUR ENERGY UP ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL?

HILTON: I actually don’t know. It’s very… I think I just really enjoy it. And I’m not just saying that as a cliché—it’s genuinely fun for me.

My wife is the one who’s really doing the work at home. She’s very involved and enthusiastic about that. She’s also got a full-time job, and she’s at home with two teenage sons.

We used to split things—well, I don’t want to say equally, she’d probably laugh at that—but I did my bit around the house. For example, I typically did the cooking. So I’m not there now most of the time. And I really do enjoy what I’m doing, but

I’m very aware it’s her incredible commitment to keeping the show on the road at home that enables me to do it.

AUDIO: HIS WIFE RACHEL

Q. HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN MARRIED?

HILTON: Just over 18 years.

Q. WHAT DO YOU LOVE ABOUT HER?

HILTON: She’s just really… she’s incredibly cool. She’s a badass. I think that’s the right word.

Q. I’D LOVE TO KNOW A LITTLE ABOUT YOUR HOUSEHOLD GROWING UP—SPECIFICALLY YOUR MOTHER.

HILTON: I’m Hungarian. My parents are Hungarian. My stepfather too. Immigrants, exactly. My parents split up when I was young. And then my mother remarried… well, they never got married, but they’ve basically been together ever since.

So there was a stepfather in your life from?

Yes, from early on. My dad left when I don’t actually remember him being there. I only really remember him as someone I’d visit on holidays because he went back to Hungary.

And so where were you living with your mum?

In a town in England called Brighton, on the south coast.

AUDIO: HILTON’S MOTHER | THE QUEEN

How many siblings?

I didn’t have any full siblings. I had three stepbrothers from my stepfather, and one half sister. So four in total, but she wasn’t really there in that day-to-day sense. It was a very regular working-class, aspirational immigrant setup.

Was your mother supportive of your interests growing up?

She was pretty cool. Very hands off. Very warm and loving. But she wasn’t the kind of person saying, “You’ve got to do your homework,” because I just did it anyway.

WHAT ARE THE ODDS?

WHO Will Advance From the California Governor Primary

Polymarket Has Hilton’s at 83%

Track The Odds Here:

In Partnership with Polymarket

Q. WHAT DID SHE THINK OF THE QUEEN? WHAT DID YOUR FAMILY THINK OF THE MONARCHY GROWING UP?

HILTON: So it’s very interesting. What an amazing question. These are literally the only questions no one’s ever asked me. I’m a big fan. I became that, but I didn’t start out that way.

I’ll tell you a very specific story. At school there was a debate—I don’t think it was even a debating club, just a debate—about whether the monarchy should be abolished. This would have been in the early 80s. I don’t actually remember the debate itself, but I do remember what happened after. It was written up in the school magazine that gets sent home, and I was described as an “ardent republican,” in the sense of wanting to abolish the monarchy. I remember my mum saying, “You can’t say that. That’s terrible. You’ll get in trouble.” And it was really interesting because she wasn’t angry. She just genuinely thought it was dangerous. I think it came from her upbringing in a communist country—you just don’t speak out like that. You don’t say certain things. She really believed it could get me in trouble just for having said it.

But over the years, I’ve come to absolutely love the Queen. I was devastated when she died. I remember it very clearly. Every second of it.

I don’t support the system in a formal sense. I think the system here in the US is better. I’m an American, and I guess I have the zeal of the convert. I’ve actually renounced my UK citizenship.

Q. HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE YOURSELF AT 25?

HILTON: So at that point I was working in London for an ad agency—Saatchi & Saatchi—just before moving to Hong Kong for a year. I was very fast-paced, running around London, having fun, working, enjoying it. It was exciting. A really cool job.

And what do you think 25 has changed about you?

I mean a lot… none of us have, I’m sure that’s right—but this is where you have to ask my wife, because we’ve known each other a long time. We met in 1990. We were friends before we got married. My answer is I don’t feel that different. I’m pretty much the same. Well, politically completely different. But same passion for what you live in. High energy.

Q. WERE YOU POLITICALLY MINDED WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER?

HILTON: When I was I was at Oxford, and I started obviously because I studied philosophy, politics and economics. It’s a classic degree in England. It’s a bit of a cliche, you know, most of the prime ministers have studied.

It’s call it PPE, and it’s a classic, slightly mocked kind of PPE, you know. So obviously, I chose that as my degree, and even before then, yeah, so in fact, during that time, in the third, so the second, in between my second and third year in the summer, I got a job at a conservative party, in England, in London, because I’d done all these shitty jobs in the vacations to earn a bit of money, like, you know, washing up and all that kind of stuff. Just earn some money.

There was one job that was so boring I thought, I can’t do this again.

It was 1987. I remember there was a hurricane in England—very unusual, in the south—and I got a temporary job at Eagle Star Insurance. They were overwhelmed with claims, so they were sending paperwork to different offices around the country. My job for weeks was just stamping files, sorting them, and labeling where they went. If it was Edinburgh, you wrote “E” and put it in a box. That kind of thing. It was so mind-numbing.

Then I did another job at American Express in Brighton, their European headquarters. I was in the microfiche department—pre-internet. You’d manually scroll through records looking for account numbers. I’d get up at 6 a.m., work until 2 p.m., and I’d just fall asleep at the machine sometimes. I thought, I need something more interesting for vacation work.

So I wrote to the Conservative Party—literally a letter saying I was at Oxford and looking for work.

And they gave me a job. And that really changed things.

Q. THAT WAS A TURNING POINT?

HILTON: Yeah, I think so. It was quite transformational. A real game changer.

Q. ARE YOU STILL IN CONTACT WITH PEOPLE FROM THAT TIME?

HILTON: Yeah, a few of us are still in touch. My oldest friend I’m still very close to—we’ve known each other since primary school. We actually just went to Glastonbury together. We suddenly realised we’ve been friends for something like 45 years. You kind of stop and think… how long have we actually been alive?

Q. SO YOU END UP IN CALIFORNIA BECAUSE OF YOUR WIFE’S JOB OFFERS AT GOOGLE. WHAT IS IT LIKE WHEN YOU GET OVER HERE?

HILTON: Oh, it’s amazing. The sun, the light…

But the thing is, I had… I was running a business in London at the time, it was doing pretty well. And then David Cameron—who I’d worked with after Oxford—asked me to come back and help with his leadership campaign for the Conservative Party. So I did that. And he won. So it was all quite intense and political.

And then things shifted again. We had our first son at the end of 2007, just before Christmas. And at the same time, Rachel—my wife—was at Google. She was head of communications for Europe. Her boss left for Facebook, and she got promoted to global head of communications. So suddenly we’ve got a new baby, she’s in this major role, and I’m working in the UK for the leader of the opposition. The Google team were very understanding. They said, “We get your situation—come out, meet the team, spend some time here.” It was meant to be six months.

We came in 2008 and ended up staying a year in Palo Alto.

It was actually a really lovely time. Our son was very little, it was his first year, and I got to spend a lot of time with him.

We were just able to be a family. I was working remotely, which at the time felt quite unusual—flying back to London every few weeks. But it worked, because of the time difference.

After a certain point in the afternoon in California, the UK is asleep. So I remember those early mornings were for work, then later in the day I could be with my son.

I look back on that time very fondly.

Q. AND THEN YOU MOVED PERMANENTLY?

HILTON: Later, yes. When our second son was born in 2011, we were back in government—Downing Street, much more intensity. Rachel’s job had grown even more as Google scaled globally. She was managing California time from London, working late into the night. It was just a lot.

In 2012 we made the move. But by then we’d already spent time here, so it didn’t feel like a shock. It felt familiar. And in a deep way—not just the weather or lifestyle—I felt like this was where we were supposed to be. That’s how it still feels.

Q. WHERE DO YOU LIVE?

HILTON: We live in the Bay Area.

Q. WHERE DO YOU GUYS LIKE TO GO OUT?

HILTON: We don’t go out much, honestly. We just don’t really. We walk the dogs—that’s probably our thing. We’ve got two little dogs, which are very sweet. And we cook at home a lot. So it’s pretty quiet, actually.

Q. COVID WAS A PIVOTAL MOMENT FOR EVERYONE. YOU’VE BEEN AN EARLY CRITIC OF MANDATES AND RESTRICTIONS. WHAT DO YOU REMEMBER ABOUT THAT TIME?

HILTON: I think it woke up a lot of people. It could be the seeds of me winning this year, actually—I really feel that. It was a critical moment. There was a lot of rage and skepticism, like “this is crazy,” and I don’t think that’s really been reflected in an election yet in California.

You had the recall, but that was very last minute. Larry Elder did his best, but it was scrappy and not well timed. Then the 2022 race—again, the Republican candidate didn’t really have the profile or the resources. So this is the first time there’s a serious challenge. And I think since then you’ve got a whole shift in sentiment. There’s a kind of rebel energy out there. I really believe that.

AUDIO: CALIFORNIA’S RAGE AND REBEL SPIRIT | SPENCER PRATT

Q. WHAT DO YOU REMEMBER PERSONALLY FROM THAT TIME?

HILTON: I really remember it. I can still picture exactly where I was sitting. It was the second week of the “15 days to slow the spread.” I was sitting on the back porch. I knew it was going to be a long conversation. It was Charlie Kirk. We were talking and it just felt like—this is insane.

He was on it early too. Very much. And we said, we’ve got to do something about this. At that point I was hosting my show on Fox, and I remember thinking: okay, let’s actually try to influence this. I remember saying on air, “the cure is worse than the disease.”

And then that night the president tweets it. And everything escalated from there. The pushback was enormous. But we believed what we were saying was right.

AUDIO: COVID CORRUPTION | SANTA CLARA | STANDFORD | BIO WEAPONS | CHARLIE KIRK | A PRESIDENTAL TWEET

WERE YOU AWARE OF RFK JR?

HILTON: No, not at all, then. So neither was I, but. I mean, because he was suffering the same censorship and punishment.

Q. WHAT DID YOU THIINK ABOUT THE CENSORSHIP?

HILTON: That became very real. We had guests on the podcast talking about vaccine mandates, and it seemed like a legitimate scientific discussion.

Then the episode was taken down by YouTube.

We went through the appeals process, and it was rejected. At the same time, I went on air and did the same conversation on television. And almost simultaneously, we got two responses: One from YouTube saying it violated guidelines and wouldn’t be restored. And one from Fox saying it had been a mistake and should never have been taken down.

It was all happening in real time.

Q. AND THE RESTRICTIONS?

HILTON: Yes. It got very granular. Rules about parks, benches, time limits outside. It started to feel extremely controlled. And I remember thinking at the time—this doesn’t feel proportionate anymore.

Q. ABOUT MAHA?

HILTON: So I wrote a book in 2015 called More Human. It was really my reflection on working in government by then. We’d moved here, I’d been teaching at Stanford. It wasn’t a political memo—it was more of an ideas book. The theme was More Human: Designing a World Where People Come First. It’s divided into chapters—health, food, education, schools, family, poverty, economics, business.

I remember giving the book to Nicole Shanahan. I met her at Turning Point when we were both speaking there. That was the first time I met her. She lives near us, and she was on stage there. And I knew I was going to see her, so I gave her the book and said, “Just read the food and health chapters. It’s basically MAHA.”

That was 2015. So I feel very deeply connected to the movement in that way.

Q. THIS EXPLAINS THE OVERLAP IN SUPPORT YOU’RE SEEING NOW, RIGHT?

HILTON: Yeah, I think it can do it. People say it’s liberal, Republican, Trump, this, that—but I understand all that. And I don’t think it’s going to be easy to win.

Q. WHAT DOES IT TAKE FOR YOU TO WIN MATHEMATICALLY?

HILTON: The first thing is a big Republican turnout. I mean I’m Republican. It’s going to be very… look, the election is just over a week away, the primary. It looks like I’m going to be in the top two. That’s good. I don’t take it for granted, but it’s looking promising.

So then it’s me against another Democrat—either the vice or Tom Steyer. And then it becomes very clear: do we want change, or more of the same? I understand it’s a Democratic-dominated state. It’s going to be hard. The unions, the machine. But a majority of Californians want change—that’s what the polling says.

The best indicator is whether people think the state is going in the right direction or wrong direction. And “wrong direction” is now well over 50 percent. So there is a majority for change. But to get there, you need a big Republican turnout. That’s going to be helped by voter ID on the ballot in November. That helps Republicans a lot. It’s going to be hard, but I think it can be done. Because to me it’s obvious we need change.

Q. WHAT ARE THE TOP ISSUES VOTERS ARE CONCERNED WITH?

HILTON: So statewide it’s more economic issues. Because government is… if you look at it, I’ve got a plan on homelessness. And it’s actually very similar to what Spencer is saying in LA.

Q. SO YOU THINK HE’S GETTING THAT RIGHT?

HILTON: 100%. And he’s being very strong on the first point of it.. Which is you’ve got to take people off the streets.

No one’s gonna get better on the street. No one’s over whatever number you want to pick, most of the people on the streets are either addicted to drugs or have severe mental health problems or some combination. And nobody’s going to get better if they’re on the street.

So it starts with taking you off the street, and we can’t be pathetic about that. I mean, that’s against the law. All these homesless and cameras, they’re against the law, but for years, they haven’t been enforcing the law ‘cause they got this idea of compassion, and you can’t force people to get off and all this.

So Spencer’s completely right about that, and that’s basically broadly what he’s laid out for L.A is what I would want to do to statewide, except that. So your two are aligned on the messaging of, on scale. We’ not working.

You know, like, he’s got a very different thing. He’s a nonpartisan, I’m Republican. It’s not the same at all.

I mean, broadly speaking, I would say, for me, statewide, it’s more the economic issues that are the focus. So definitely everything being so expensive, home, has in costs, taxes, gas prices, electric bills. You know, my whole plan, we were going to town hall here at Cal, where we’re talking, it’s called the Californordable Tour.

Like that’s my brand. Calordable, and it’s $3 gas. Cut your electric bills in half.

First 100 grand tax free, a home you can afford to buy. Very practical things. I mean, underlying that, I’ve got a lot of kind of policy reform plans, and there’s a really deeper point, which is we’ve got to make the business climate more attractive in California because if we don’t do that, it’s all going to fall apart.

Right now we’ve got the highest poverty rate in the country, tied with Louisiana, and the highest unemployment rate of all 50 states, because so many businesses that you can’t do business here. Of course, you can, but it’s so difficult. I was just with the local business guy a beautiful business just here in the central coast, he makes gin distillery.

It’s exactly the kind of business we should love. Yes. Local, artisans fantastic.

Every single thing that he tries to do there.’re blocking, it’s, you have permits, he wants to expand. It’s a nightmare. The permits are out of control.

HILTON HOT TAKES

GAVIN NEWSOM?

HILTON: Okay, so I’ll do my… okay, it’s time for a governor with less hair.

DONALD TRUMP?

HILTON: I’m proud to be endorsed by the President. I’m looking forward to working with the President and his team to make California golden again.

PETER THIEL?

HILTON: Oh, that’s interesting. I’ve never met Peter. I’d love to meet him. He’s a great original thinker, great entrepreneur.

ELON MUSK?

HILTON: Oh, amazing. I mean, this is America at its best. He’s an incredible entrepreneur.

JRK: PRINCESS KATE?

HILTON: Oh yeah, I mean, the way she handled the cancer thing, she’s so great. I love her. She’s great.

NIGEL FARAGE?

HILTON: He’s fun. He’s great. I’ll tell you a very funny story. We were at the Republican Convention in Milwaukee, just walking around one evening, and there was the former prime minister Liz Truss. Someone with me said, “Isn’t that the former prime minister?”

And I said yes—there she was on her own, walking around.

So I went over, said hi, had a nice chat.

The next evening we’re up in the donor area, and I’m there and people are coming up for selfies, a bit of a crowd. I look over and there’s another crowd and I wonder who it is—maybe a senator, maybe Ted Cruz. So I walk over… it’s Nigel Farage.

He’s such a character. People love Nigel.

CHAD BIANCO?

HILTON: So look, it’s nothing personal, but I think he just loves this state of California and wants the best for California. So do I. That’s why we both did this.

But it’s obvious now that Chad is not going to be able to make it into the top two.

So I would love nothing more than to have me and Chad work together to make sure we get a strong Republican vote in the primary, and then we can really work together to turn California around.

YOU WERE CLOSE TO CHARLIE KIRK. WHAT DO YOU MISS MOST ABOUT HIM—WHAT WAS HE LIKE AS A FRIEND?

HILTON: Unbelievably loyal, and always so… I don’t know, just the strength of his friendship. I love Charlie. The twinkle in his eye, you know? He was always a little bit mischievous. I love that. I miss that.

And, you know, it’s funny. In a way I miss him, but I always feel… I’ve said this often at my events. He endorsed me on day one. One of the first people I spoke to about running for governor. For the first few months—I started my campaign in April, and he was murdered in September—so during that time I would go to events and say I’ve got all these different people behind me, and I always end with: I’ve got Charlie Kirk behind me. And I really feel incredibly strong. And I still say it now at events every day. I really feel it.

He loved California, actually. He really did. And he didn’t have that attitude a lot of conservative commentators have—“forget California, it’s a lost cause.”

Charlie was never like that. He was like, “We can’t let California go.” And I just feel he’s with me on this every step of the way.

I’ve now gotten to the point where I can barely talk about him without cracking up sometimes… but I want to say he’s still with me, actually.

If you’re familiar with even a fraction of the disclosure script, you know David Grusch is a pivotal figure in what’s currently unfolding.

Back in July 2023, he testified under oath before the House Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, stating that while he had not personally seen alleged craft, he had sensitive information gleaned from extensive interviews with roughly 40 intelligence officials and insiders with direct knowledge of what the government had in its possession.

His testimony alone shifted the whole credibility of the conversation, pulling UAPs out of the margins of fringe conspiracy fodder into the center of serious congressional scrutiny.

By all accounts, the kind of whistleblower desperately needed to expand transparency around the topic. He’s regarded as a hero in this strange plight.

Now, he’s personally urging the president to release “everything the government knows about UFOs and non-human intelligence.”

His concerns are linked in part to General Neil McCasland’s disappearance. I’ll have more on that for you when I return.

A UAP Site on X Announced:

“David Grusch will make a historic direct plea to President Trump in a call for the truth about UFOs and non-human intelligence.

Grusch will appear on the steps of the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, June 9, at 1:00 p.m. to issue a call to action on behalf of the American people.

Amid surging global interest, an unprecedented gathering of senior government officials and civilians will make a direct plea to the President to declassify specific files and for Congress to pass disclosure-related legislation.”

The statement further notes that Grusch, the former intelligence officer who testified before Congress, plans to discuss specific UAP and non-human intelligence-related evidence he encountered through highly classified channels and explain why those records should now be reviewed and released, consistent with legitimate national security protections.”

Probed Posted:

“Several signals are active around David Grusch and upcoming congressional momentum.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers, working with James Fox, announced a rally and call to action on the U.S. Capitol steps on Tuesday, June 9, at 1:00 p.m.

Grusch, the highly credentialed former intelligence officer who testified under oath, is expected to speak publicly again on specific UAP and non-human intelligence-related evidence.

We maintain structured profiles and mapping on Grusch, his claims, and connected entities.”

James Fox says congressional representatives are expected to rally behind passage of the UAP Disclosure Act as a formal path toward full transparency, stronger whistleblower protections, and international cooperation on disclosure efforts.

“The public deserves real answers. Congress deserves access. Reality should not be classified,” Fox said. “If our requests are fulfilled, this could change the course of history.”

InterstellarUAP Posted:

“Steven Spielberg’s Disclosure Day will show an archive of UFO cases that could possibly be released to the world.

There will be Roswell footage with technology authentic to the 1940s.”

The account noted Spielberg’s decision to shoot the film on traditional film stock, arguing that the format captures both the wonder and terror of first contact in a way digital technology cannot.

The film reportedly centers on buried secrets that fundamentally alter humanity’s understanding of reality, featuring dialogue such as: “What did you steal?” “Secrets. The data they paid me to protect.” “Are they people?” “No.”

Whether coincidence, marketing, or something more, the timing is difficult to ignore. As congressional momentum builds, whistleblowers re-emerge, calls for declassification intensify, and one of Hollywood’s most influential directors prepares to release a film centered on disclosure, the subject appears to be moving back toward the center of public attention.”

Ahead: New audio from detectives interviewing a woman who reportedly dined with missing General Neil McCasland + tracking his signals + recently uncovered police interview / audio.

Out of everything unveiled in these files so far the orbs, in my opinion, are of highest interest. This series centers around what I’ve come to learn about them through research and my own encounters. One in particular, spotted near my office at the end of January, triggered a series of peculiar incidents I’m still struggling to understand and interpret.

In Pt. 2, I’ll share what I learned from Dr. Steven Greer’s conference. He has fascinating theories on how to engage them.

Whatever they are, they are real, spotted along the coast quite frequently, seemingly interested in areas where nuclear plants are located, capable of emerging from the ocean, and no one— even at the highest level of government— is able to explain what they are or what they want.

We’ll start with the document below, included in the second batch of files released this week. What I see is similar to this description, but so high above me. This perspective offers insight to an aerial encounter at close range.

* Joint Operations Center = (JOC)

Titled “ODNI-UAP-D001_USPER_Narrative_Senior_USIC.pdf:

The report is presented as a legitimate declassified account authored by a senior U.S. intelligence official. The incident involves a 2025 helicopter mission over a Western U.S. test range, where military personnel encountered a glowing orb-like craft capable of splitting apart midair and accelerating at extraordinary speed. The incident was corroborated through radar and FLIR systems, with multiple witnesses present, including pilots and a senior intelligence official.

---

“In Late 2025, during early evening daylight hours, I — a senior U.S. intelligence officer - along with a colleague and two pilots, departed our Joint Operations Center (JOC) in a helicopter.

Our mission was to investigate loud thuds heard in the mountains on the test range, which coincided with Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) sightings reported over the previous several nights. We aimed to search remote mountain areas for possible debris or objects that might explain the orb-like sightings.

After leaving the JOC, we flew a low-altitude “map of the earth” route through the mountain range for several hours. Multiple times, we spotted debris on the ground and descended for closer inspection. Each time, we determined it was remnants from rockets and other projectiles that had crashed during years of weapons testing on the range. As we continued searching near areas of reported orb activity, we discovered a large cave entrance with no visible end in sight. The terrain around the entrance offered no safe landing spot, so l instructed the pilot to orbit it several times for observation. We noted the location and then pressed on.

Running low on fuel, we headed to a prearranged rendezvous point to meet a ground team and let my colleague disembark. The two pilots and I then proceeded to a prepositioned tanker on the range for refueling. Our plan was to return to base afterward, but the JOC radioed with a request to search a nearby mountain for debris spotted by one of the ground teams. By this time, the sun had set, and the pilots switched to Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) and Night Vision Goggles (NVG), while I continued using the unaided naked eye.

After a brief search of the mountain yielded no findings, the pilots began navigating back to the JOC to end the mission. I then received a message from the JOC: radar had detected hits several miles up range from our position - the same area where UAP activity had been observed on prior nights. I relayed this to the pilots, and we altered course to intercept.

What followed was a series of close UAP encounters lasting over an hour.

En route, ground teams reported spotting a UAP on FLIR, describing it as “super-hot,” low to the ground, and moving east then south at high speed. The object then split into two and changed direction. Upon arrival, we scanned the area using NVG, FLIR, and the naked eye.

The ground team suddenly radioed that the object had risen from the ground, approached within ten feet of the helicopter, dropped below us, and then sped away. The pilots observed it through NVGs and saw it split into two as a smaller object emerged before it accelerated out of sight. We briefly pursued but broke off, unable to match its speed. At one point, the JOC informed us that several fighter jets had launched on a training mission in our operating area and requested their assistance in identifying the UAP.

Minutes later, the JOC directed us to nearby radar detections. We took up a hovering position at approximately 700 feet above ground level (AGL). In the distance, we saw countless orange orbs swarming in all directions against the backdrop of the mountain.

The display lasted several minutes before fading. The JOC then redirected us to our previous position based on fresh radar hits. I provided coordinates to the pilots, and we moved to intercept, hovering again at 700 feet AGL. Through NVGx, the pilots and I (using the naked eye) observed two large orbs flare up side by side, close to the helicopter — stationary and just above the rotor disk to our right. They were oval-shaped, orange with a white or yellow center, and emitted light in all directions.

After a few seconds, a third orb flared up below the pair, followed by a fourth below that, forming a total of four or five in a “T” formation under the original two. Moments later, they dimmed in reverse order, remaining stationary until they vanished from view. The entire event lasted 10-15 seconds. I didn’t take photos, as I was focused on assessing what it was and whether it posed a threat.

After this encounter, the pilots briefly considered landing due to the objects’ proximity but opted to remain hovering at 700 feet AGL for further observation. We then spotted the fighter jets entering visual range at about 23,00 feet AGL, identifiable by their blinking navigation lights. As watched from afar, the same type of orbs appeared directly above the fighters. They flared up one at a time in a horizontal formation, matching the jets’ speed and flight path. After 10-15 seconds, they dimmed sequentially and disappeared. This repeated several times as the jets transited the airspace and eventually landed. I remarked to the pilots that it seemed the same orbs we had encountered were now “chasing” the fighters. We also observed orange orbs flaring up and down around us for several minutes, forming a distinct triangle before vanishing.

Low on fuel, the pilots decided to return to the JOC. After landing, I briefly spoke with the nostly to express thanks. We were virtually speechless after these observations. I the entered the JOC for a quick debrief before driving home.”

“The Day Science Begins To Study Non-Physical Phenomena, It Will Make More Progress In One Decade Than In All The Previous Centuries Of Its Existence.”

― Nikola Tesla

I realize we’re on the verge of another strike on Iran and there’s a lot brewing tied to that, but I’m here to inform you that along with everything else I’m tracking I’ll be publishing regular updates as part of a dual series on the disclosure files. Most will be brief. Majority will expand behind a paywall.

If you’re wanting a steady stream of unique insight on the matter, I’d encourage an upgrade to PAID.

Chats to discuss all topics are available as a paid perk as well.

TWO SERIES

Divided State of Disclosure will track and examine what is unfolding from an official stance: declassified UAP files, CIA documents, military anomalies, whistleblower testimony, intelligence leaks, and the accelerating collision between a factional war inside government, artificial intelligence, quantum theory, and public consciousness.

Close Encounters of Divine Kind is its philosophical companion framed as an autobiographical testament that mingles the mysteries of my own life with revelations surfacing in parallel alignment. Existential crisis is as vulnerable as I get.

Trust me when I say this is bigger than politics. We’re potentially entering a mass cultural unmooring driven by mounting awareness of anomalies, synchronicities, and technological acceleration that will disrupt what we have come to agree on.

Epstein. Iran. UAPs. CERN. AI. It’s all connected.

Human consciousness is shifting and evolving rapidly to accommodate accelerated rules of design. I’m sure some of you sense it, too.

Nikola Tesla warned us decades ago about the power of energy and higher frequencies— why then have they worked so hard to suppress it?

What’s emerging amid a dystopian AI infiltration is a fractured timeline elevating human awareness. It echoes the Jungian notion that the human psyche—our sense of reality—is tied to an all-encompassing cosmic architecture. It doesn't undermine faith. Quite the contrary, actually. From a biblical perspective faith-based parallels are undeniably at play.

Like the Epstein files before them, UAP disclosures are arriving in rolling drops. It’s messy online. Frantic interpretations are trying to make sense of what's being revealed yet key threads are overlooked. I’ve been pulling from multiple angles to map competing interpretations. Some of what I’ve uncovered is concerning. An update on the “missing” General, for instance, is sure to rattle trust in the official narrative.

For months now, I have been sifting through documents, interviews, archival footage, research threads, personal experiences, and historical parallels, collecting what feels most relevant as information continues to arrive.

I’m looking forward to sharing these findings with you—the weird, wild scope of what I’ve come to contemplate and connect.

It is true, as Sartre once wrote, referring to French Army atrocities in Algeria, that the real tragedy in our time is that any of us can be, interchangeably, victim or torturer.

— Gore Vidal

What Defines Victim?

The word itself is a source of debate among those in the business of studying words. It stems from the Latin victima, which referred to a living being sacrificed in a religious rite, but whether this was meant to imply the life lost transcended divine and noble off the earth or suffered senselessly remains in dispute. I think of a victim as someone who cannot speak for themselves due to unjust action taken against them. Or someone who can speak about the experience of enduring unjust action taken against them and applies that term themselves. The term grows more complicated when seized by opportunistic interests, people who seem less like they have endured unjust treatment and more like they have mutated from lioness to lamb in order to survive legally or socially.

As Washington prepares for another round of testimony tied to the sprawling crimes of Jeffrey Epstein, his former associates are set to appear before Congress, recast as victims. These women you’ve likely never heard of worked for him, traveled with him, lived inside his homes, and remained loyal to him for over a decade. A handful were named in the 2007 to 2008 non-prosecution agreement as co-conspirators, shielded from reputational harm. Others surface in redacted court filings, flight logs, depositions, and trial testimony, appearing in roles identical to what Ghislaine Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year sentence for.

My newsletter emerged on the heels of Maxwell’s conviction, initially as a space air skepticism without fear of cancellation. What I witnessed was strategically constructed to narrow the case in order to pin the scandal on a single villain.

Four years later, my stance hasn’t changed. New evidence implicates a wide network of powerful men, as well as devoted women who enabled Epstein’s depravities long after Maxwell had moved on.

Ghislaine’s family remain steadfast in their support—arguing biased media is largely to blame for tainting public perception and any chance of a fair trial.

When Jay Beecher was in town last month promoting his book Naked Lies, we sat down with Ian Maxwell to discuss his family’s take on the files release, Donald Trump, a family legacy tainted by scandal, Ghislaine Maxwell’s recent legal filings, disputed victim narratives, and first impressions of Jeffrey Epstein.

IAN MAXWELL

“Somebody had to pay the price for what Epstein did, and so the government and the media chose her. I genuinely believe that if Epstein were alive, he would be incarcerated and she would be free.”

NAKED LIES by JAY BEECHER

The House Oversight Committee is scheduled today to hear first from Sarah Kellen as part of the panel’s ongoing inquiry into the federal government’s handling of the Epstein files investigations. Kellen served as Jeffrey Epstein’s personal assistant for nearly a decade. Her name appears throughout investigative scheduling appointments and coordinating financial payments to women.

According to Kellen, she understood there was an investigation underway in the mid-2000s, but claimed that Epstein told her it stemmed from extortion attempts by girls who had misrepresented their ages and were “in cahoots” with plaintiffs’ lawyer Brad Edwards, who is now representing Sarah Kellen.

In his latest article, The Secret Plot Underway as Epstein’s ‘Assistant’ Sarah Kellen Finally Breaks Her Silence, Ian Maxwell Slams ‘Fake News’ About his Sister, and the Truth Revealed About Nadia Marcinko, Jay Beecher writes:

“Lawyers who are fully aware that some of their clients are not really victims, will be able to buy more summer houses and fancy cars at the expense of the lives of innocent men and women.

Epstein’s former yacht girls, sugar babies and, in some cases, self-confessed ex-escorts, will get paid yet again (though this time from Epstein-related compensation payouts rather than directly from Epstein’s wallet).

The real victims in the scandal, i.e. the school girls groomed and recruited by women such as Virginia Giuffreand Haley Robson, will continue to be ignored:

The lawyers need more sensational, insinuatory Epstein-related headlines to pile up pressure onto their wealthy targets, essentially extorting them into settlements. They turn to associates in the press, who rely on those same lawyers to feed them clickable stories — factual or not, and more often than not, not — to keep the tabloids alive and drive advertising revenue.

Suddenly, our newsfeeds are once again set to be flooded with unsubstantiated allegations and horror stories woven from tall tales heavily reliant on guilt by association.

We saw it at the beginning of this scandal: leaked messages showing attorney David Boies, alongside numerous other controversial lawyers representing Epstein accusers — some of whom have since been thoroughly discredited — discussing ways to squeeze enormous sums from wealthy men in exchange for keeping their names out of the spotlight.”

Jay Predicts:

“As part of the next phase of what could perhaps be described as the biggest fraud in history, new multi-million-dollar lawsuits will soon join those that are still ongoing. This time (so two prominent Epstein accusers have told me), the targets will be Harvard University and American Express.

The former will be extorted for simply accepting donations from Epstein. The latter, one of the world’s biggest bank holding companies, will be accused of ‘helping to facilitate Epstein’s crimes’ (for simply allowing him to use their services like anyone else).”

Adding:

“Politicians, working with Boies and his lawyer associates, began to realise that the public were beginning to see that the Epstein Files were a big nothing burger. Thus the likes of (now former) congressman Thomas Massie resorted to blaming the American government (and, of course, President Donald Trump) of orchestrating a cover-up.

To keep the public pitchforks waving, Massie and Ro Khanna stood up on the House floor and read out the names of four men whom they claimed to be co-conspirators. When that didn’t work, however (after it was swiftly revealed that the four men were in fact completely innocent and had never even met Jeffrey Epstein, they joined forces with their agenda-addled counterparts in calling for the ‘real’ co-conspirators to be forced to testify.

The two women whom they honed in on were Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova.

Facing mounting pressure from politicians and the press, both, it seems are now coming out of hibernation to ‘clear their names’.

Have they been manipulated by the likes of Boies to do so? Are they now cooperating with the lawyers and the lawyers’ pals in the media? Are they suddenly changing their stories to corroborate a crumbling mainstream narrative and help Boies bag more bucks, in exchange for the media (and subsequently media-influenced legal system) now presenting them as victims rather than the villains that the same media has been telling us they are for the past decade?”

Read more

Drama started before sunrise.

My phone pinged at 3:45 a.m.

A message appeared, then swiftly disappeared.

I replied immediately to acknowledge I had seen it.

The message returned.

A whistleblower was being threatened. No specifics were provided. It was offered more as a heads-up to monitor the situation should things continue to escalate.

It’s been an eventful few months. A disorienting vortex of information tossed at us all at once.

Is it accidental?

Between ongoing discussions about classified material and renewed calls for declassification, the volume of claims and counterclaims has made it incredibly hard to keep track of what’s verified and what’s speculation. Public discourse has become increasingly saturated by mangled narratives rapidly spreading conspiracies, tracking conspiracies, about all of these ancient high-profile scandals.

Epstein, Aliens, COVID, Mind Control. I’d argue most in media aren’t experts on all of it.

Renewed interest in highly shielded programs like MKUltra has resurfaced because of these hearings. Congressional efforts on declassification led by Anna Paulina Luna, has appointed a designated task force to each topic of declassification, aiming to examine Cold War-era intelligence activities, including the unsealing of documents pertaining to how and why the CIA conducted behavioral experiments on unwitting participants.

Was the operation ever really ended?

Read more

I hate to be the middle-woman here, but this is where the saga currently resides, and I happen to have insight into both parties and their theories. Nick Tartaglione you know as a frequent subject, given the hours of airtime he’s received in audio clips published as exclusives. I don’t typically pursue true crime as an extended series, but in this case I realized his value in this whole sordid tale immediately.

The rest of the media is just catching on.

That doesn’t mean I closed the books on other possibilities.

Back in December, I sat down with Mark Epstein to hear his side. In the middle of holiday chaos and work events I was juggling at the time, I took a train from DC one evening to meet him and spent a little over 90 minutes in a dimly lit private members’ club—an old-school New York artist haunt—listening to his account without a recording device to rely on afterward. Somewhere, I still have a stash of napkins covered in scribbled notes from that conversation.

In person, Mark was guarded, precise, and adamant in refusing to answer questions about his upbringing, which I of course pressed him on, or about his relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell—aside from a couple of off-the-record anecdotes and an acknowledgment that he wouldn’t speak ill of her because she had been “very good” to his mother and always been pleasant in his presence. He had “nothing against” her he told me. His sole purpose for meeting me was to raise suspicions about his brother’s death.

Mark Epstein is convinced someone arranged to take Jeffrey Epstein out based on evidence gathered through an independent investigation and autopsy he commissioned alongside the official examination conducted after Epstein’s death.

You might remember parts of his story being told at length by Tucker Carlson a few years ago.

Up Ahead: Dr. Steven Greer’s UFO Conference!

There are certainly aspects of the Epstein files I hold strong — yes, controversial — opinions about. The portrayal of legal aged escorts as false victims, for one. Corrupt lawyers invested in defaming Trump, and unverified accusations repeated as fact by misinformed sleuths, another. But when it comes to how and why Jeffrey Epstein died, I’ve always maintained a neutral position and that remains true today. I’ve always been open to hearing every angle. I’ve never conclusively said: this is what I believe to be true.

NICK ON AUDIO

May 10, 7:10 pm: “The truth is the truth.”

“It’s a shame that everyone else can’t hear how emphatic Nick is when he describes all this stuff. You know, His authenticity and genuineness and truthfulness bleeds through, you know, and you and I hear it.” — Jonah, inmate on call

The Suicide Note

Mark Vs. Nick

Mark Epstein is highly skeptical of the newly released suicide note purportedly written in prison by his late brother Jeffrey.

Mark disputes the authenticity of a jailhouse note unsealed this week, calling it “the work of a professional forger.”

The Note: “They investigated me for month — FOUND NOTHING!!!” the note reads. “So 15 year old charges resulted. It is a treat to be able to choose one’s time to say goodbye.. Watcha want me to do — Bust out cryin!! NO FUN – NOT WORTH IT!!”

Mark claims the note is forgery but does not dispute that it bears striking resemblance to his brother’s penmanship. “It wouldn’t be hard to get some pro forger to forge a note,” he told Business Insider. “That’s the easiest f***ing thing in the world to do.”

He had also acknowledged that the “bust out cryin” line is a reference to the “Little Rascals” TV show that they grew up watching in the 1960s. The same phrase appears in multiple emails from Jeffrey to his brother and friends. “It’s public knowledge, it’s in the emails” he told the outlet. “So they stole it from me to make it sound like it was him.”

However, that timing doesn’t add up. The emails Mark is referencing were only revealed by the Justice Department in the past year, as part of a larger release of files related to him, while the suicide note has been under seal by a judge this whole time, as Nick has stated several times before.

The judge unsealed the note after the NYT’s petitioned for its release. This month is the first time it was revealed to the pubic, so it’s highly implausible Nick could have known Epstein was fond of this particular phrase.

“Jeffrey Epstein wanted to be put back in the cell with me. I didn’t even know this existed until recently. I mean, that should show you right there. Epstein offered me money to not return to general population and stay in the box with him because he felt safe with me.” — Nick Tartaglione

“You saw pictures of me. Jeffrey Epstein had marks around his neck because he tried to hang himself. At the time, I was, you know, 240, 250 pounds, and had a bench press over 500 pounds. If I wanted to hurt Jeffrey Epstein, I could have heard Jeffrey Epstein. I didn’t hurt Jeffrey Epstein. Jeffrey Epstein killed himself.”

How Epstein Died Matters.

This conclusion—should we ever arrive there— will determine how this scandal-marred chapter of American history is ultimately regarded. An orchestrated hit suggests powerful people colluded to silence him.

Death by his own hand would deflate that theory and knock the wind out of a growing belief that a shadowy cabal controls the country and was responsible not only for his murder, but for the elaborate cover-up that followed.

Mark Epstein made it clear that evening that he has no interest in defending anything his brother was accused or convicted of. He doesn’t deny Jeffrey Epstein was guilty. What he wants is media attention on his findings, particularly the independent autopsy report.

Until there’s concrete evidence confirming either theory, I view both men as equally critical sources with compelling personal insight into this whole mess.

I’ll be back to expand on what I gleaned from my conversation with Mark.

What I have now is Nick’s response captured in a hectic soundbite. Because he is out of minutes until the 13th, he was forced to relay his thoughts on another inmate’s allotted call time.

Thank you, Jonah, for the facilitating it.

Statement From Nick’s Attorney, Inga Parsons:

“Comey was Epstein”s prosecutor as well as Nicks and PDiddy.”s. In my 35 years of federal criminal practice I have never seen such perjury, misrepresentations and obvious evidence tampering as in this case. You don’t need 90 meetings with federal prosecutors and agents if you are telling the truth but apparently you do when the three key witnesses started out exonerating Nick as not involved and admitting their own involvement in the killings. Nick is retired law enforcement - he rescues animals. He is not a killer. Nor is he a member of the Mexican cartel as the main cooperator and the men who were killed by the cartel were Cartel members. Nick Tartaglione is innocent and is unjustly serving life sentences for crimes he did not commit.”

I spoke to Nick this evening. He recorded a message to Mark Epstein I’ll share with you tomorrow.

Editor’s Note: Thank you Jay Beecher for compiling this entire case into one condensed article. You can read the narrative from Nick’s perspective, examine evidence from his hard drive, and click on the audio clips embedded throughout to hear Nick explain key aspects in his own words.

Refresher on the Cast of Characters Involved

AUDIO 1: “THIS ISN’T ABOUT TRUMP”

AUDIO 2: THE VICTIMS

On Paper,

The case against Nicholas (“Nick”) Tartaglione looks like the kind federal prosecutors love to present at trial: cartel money, a vanished crew, a former cop turned sanctuary boss, and violence so blunt it demands a villain. Four men disappear in Orange County, New York. Months later, four bodies are found buried on a property tied — however loosely — to Tartaglione. The story hardens when the government’s theory lands squarely on inevitability: Nick did it.

The trouble, as Nick’s petition for a pardon and the surrounding reporting insist, is that the case only looks inevitable once you accept a series of early decisions defended late — decisions he argues were shaped by grand jury perjury, witness coercion, and tampered evidence that turned an investigation into a conviction machine.

The four men were Martin Luna, Miguel Luna, Hector Gutierrez, and Urbano Santiago. In Nick’s account, repeated throughout his plea for clemency, they were not innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire. He describes them as violent undocumented immigrants and members of a Mexican drug cartel. He also claims the government knew this — and that key aspects of the case only make sense if the murders are viewed not as Nick’s crime, but as cartel business handled by cartel-connected individuals, with Nick as the convenient fall guy.

The story begins with a relationship that, in Nick’s telling, was unremarkable. Marcos Cruz worked for him at his animal sanctuary and lived on the property. Tartaglione, a former K-9 officer on disability after an on-the-job injury, had poured his life into animal rescue. Over the years he had saved thousands of animals from abandonment, abuse, slaughter auctions, and neglect—dogs, horses, deer, cats—the endless stream of injured creatures he rehabilitated and tried to place.

AUDIO 3: MEDICAL LEAVE

Cruz, Tartaglione claims, was working with the cartel and trafficking drugs alongside Martin Luna. According to Nick’s account, Luna had made a dangerous mistake: he stole cartel money, then disappeared with it. His family, gripped by fear, told local police that Luna had previously been kidnapped over stolen drug money and had managed to escape. This time, they warned, he might not survive.

Tartaglione says this is how his name entered the picture — not as an enforcer, but as a former cop Cruz approached for help recovering money he claimed he was owed. Nick says he assumed Cruz meant unpaid wages from another local farm. At trial, however, Cruz testified that he had been tasked with retrieving stolen drug money from Luna by any means necessary. Tartaglione insists he refused any involvement in that kind of work. What he says he did do was refer Cruz to Gerard Benderoth, a former law enforcement officer he had previously recommended for outside security jobs, a history he says is reflected in their text messages.

In his petition, Nick identifies Benderoth and Joseph Biggs as two of the men Cruz allegedly recruited. At trial, Cruz testified that he arranged Martin Luna’s killing with help from Benderoth, Biggs, and a third man, Jason Sullivan, a drug dealer who had moved from New York to Florida. Cruz claimed Luna was targeted over the stolen cartel money and that three of Luna’s relatives — Miguel Luna, Urbano Santiago, and Hector Gutierrez — were with him when the plot unfolded. According to Cruz’s testimony, he also knew Nick had vacated the rental property once used for his animal sanctuary and selected it as the burial site. Cruz said the men were shot, apparently by Benderoth, and that he buried the bodies there afterward.

In later filings, Tartaglione argues Cruz’s story only took its final shape after repeated sessions with investigator William Young. Nick’s petition claims Cruz initially confessed to carrying out the murders himself, then gradually shifted into a cooperation narrative that implicated others. Tartaglione argues that change was not organic but coerced, alleging investigators pressured Cruz by threatening that his children could be placed in foster care and his wife deported if he failed to cooperate.

One of the men Cruz implicated, Gerard Benderoth, never testified. When FBI agents later attempted to arrest him in broad daylight, Benderoth grabbed a gun and shot himself inside his car before he could be taken into custody.

This detail, Tartaglione says, is central to his argument because it involves one of the few elements of the case that cannot be dismissed as courtroom rhetoric. In audio transcripts he returns to it repeatedly: Benderoth was his age, roughly his height, bald, a former cop, someone he knew from gyms and law enforcement circles and had referred for work. In recorded conversations with Jessica Reed Kraus, Nick recounts being told that federal agents had pulled over Benderoth — his physical double — and that he shot himself before agents could approach the vehicle. Nick says his reaction was not shock but recognition. In his telling, one of the men he believes responsible for the killings was now dead, and the case against him would not change course.

The government’s timeline begins on April 11, 2016, at a bar in Chester, New York, called the Likquid Lounge. Prosecutors presented it as the place where the plot unfolded. Video footage shown at trial captures the entrance area of the bar, though Nick’s defense has long argued the footage cuts or freezes precisely when the doors open and the identities of those entering or exiting would be visible. According to prosecutors, Martin Luna was strangled there that night before his relatives were later transported to Tartaglione’s property.

Nick disputes the reliability of the footage entirely. In filings and recorded conversations, he alleges the video contains freezing frames, skipped segments, reversed timestamps, muted audio, and missing minutes — discrepancies he says become visible only when compared against a wall clock in the frame. According to his account, the moments that might show who entered or exited vehicles outside the bar are obscured by these glitches.

The footage also includes the repeated appearance of a white van parked near the bar.

In Nick’s account, that vehicle becomes a lingering anomaly in the case — present in the video but largely ignored in the government’s narrative.

AUDIO 4: VIDEO SKIPS AT 1:57

We Never See Who Exits The Vehicle.

A 911 caller who lived next door to Martin Luna’s residence reported seeing two threatening men at the house: a heavyset Black man and an overweight bald white man arriving in a white van. In his petition, Nick argues that those descriptions align with Joseph Biggs and Gerard Benderoth. He further alleges that Investigator William Young later presented the account differently in grand jury testimony, describing the white man as a “bodybuilder” — a characterization Nick says was intended to resemble him — while also changing the vehicle from a white van to an SUV and omitting the van from the account altogether.

Despite the prosecution’s confident façade, Nick argues the case against him rested on unstable foundations.

No murder weapon was ever recovered.

Searches of Nick’s home and vehicles uncovered no drug money or trafficking paraphernalia.

His DNA was not found on the zip tie prosecutors claimed had been used to strangle Martin Luna.

And, Nick contends, a trained K-9 officer familiar with cadaver detection would never bury bodies on property connected to him — particularly at a location he had already vacated.

Nick also disputes one of the prosecution’s central claims: that Luna was strangled inside the bar. At trial, Joseph Biggs testified that Tartaglione used a zip tie to strangle Luna and that the men were beaten and tortured. But the medical examiner, Dr. Roman, testified that Luna’s cause of death could not be determined and said strangulation was unlikely. He also confirmed that none of the bodies showed injuries consistent with Biggs’s account — no cuts, abrasions, bruises, or broken bones. Toxicology reports did detect alcohol and drugs in the victims’ systems, but Nick argues the findings do not support the prosecution’s version of a violent beating followed by a zip-tie killing.

One of Nick’s most pointed claims concerns a zip tie visible in crime scene photographs. According to his petition, the earliest timestamped images show no zip tie. Photographs taken three minutes later show what he describes as a “clean zip tie” resting on top of the bodies.

Nick believes investigators planted it at the scene.

AUDIO 4: PHOTOS IN EVIDENCE

Taken Three Minutes Apart —Show a Zip Tie Mysteriously Appear in the Second Frame.

The Issue of DNA

The kind of evidence juries are trained to treat as holy. Nick says Luna’s DNA was “discovered” on a piece of molding or floorboard in a bar bathroom eight months after the disappearances, after the bathroom had allegedly been cleaned with bleach for months. He claims he may know how it truly got there.

Investigator Young was at the burial site, left without signing out, went to the bar without signing in, and was later the person who took custody of the floorboard.

Nick says he learned after trial, through an FBI agent, that the case agent picked up the molding himself. He argues this points to either planting or cross-contamination between the burial site and the bar. He also notes that proper protective gear was not worn at either location.

AUDIO 5: Phone Forensics

Shows Date of Tampering.

If Tartaglione is right about that, then the murder story is not simply about what happened to four cartel men. It is also about what happened to the evidence inside a system with a target already chosen. The human engine of the prosecution, in his account, is not video or DNA but the three alleged cooperators: Marcos Cruz, Joseph Biggs, and Jason Sullivan. Tartaglione claims they initially denied his involvement and that Cruz repeatedly confessed to Investigator Young that he himself committed the murders. He says Cruz told Young, “I killed them alright,” and told his own brother, Miguel Cruz, that he hired Biggs and Benderoth to do it.

He further alleges that an officer interviewing Miguel Cruz can be heard suggesting there “might be a U-Visa” if Miguel cooperated, and that when Miguel refused to implicate Tartaglione, he was deported.

AUDIO 6: THE AUTOPSY REPORT

Nick claims the revisionism of the key narrative took place over time. His petition repeats a number like a hammer: over ninety meetings. Over ninety sessions with Young and prosecutors, including Maurene Comey, to “get their stories straight.”

“You don’t need ninety meetings to tell the truth, but you might need ninety meetings to align three men’s lies into a single prosecutorial narrative,” Nick stated in email correspondence and audio obtained by Jessica Reed Kraus.

Nick says Cruz’s inducements were enormous. Cruz — a man Nick portrays as a self-confessed murderer — received time served, citizenship, and permission for his family to remain in the United States. Biggs, he says, will be out in under six years. Sullivan has already been released.

There are additional contradictions he points to — the kind that don’t require a forensic lab to understand. Contradictions that may, in fact, provide him with an alibi. Prosecutors told jurors that Nick’s phone records show no usage while he and the alleged killers were supposedly together at the bar killing Luna and kidnapping his relatives to be killed elsewhere. But that is not strictly true. Rather than showing no phone activity, Nick’s records indicate that he called Benderoth’s home phone at 4:00 p.m., during the window prosecutors claim he was with Benderoth inside the bar. The records also show calls to businesses, family members, and friends during the period he was allegedly committing murder.

Nick also claims there is evidence suggesting the victims were alive long after the prosecution’s timeline says they were dead.

He states records show Luna called Florida, California, and Puerto Rico after the time that prosecutors claim he was supposedly killed. He cites shocking police notes: a former state trooper reporting seeing the four victims eating breakfast eleven days after they were supposed to have been killed, and a diner waitress who confirmed that she served them.

Law enforcement and Nick’s own trial attorneys curiously never followed up on those leads.

Nick’s petition goes further, toward details that sound small until you try to dismiss them. Family members of Michael Luna said that Luna had been wearing white pants on the day in question, a claim echoed by Young. Yet Luna’s body was found wearing blue jeans. Prosecutors, and even the judge, suggested that dye may have leached from other clothing and turned the white pants blue - a physical impossibility, particularly because Luna’s body was discovered on top of the others, not beneath it.

AUDIO 7: WHITE PANTS TURN BLUE

A photo of the pants is included because, on the day Martin supposedly died (by zip-tie strangulation), his family identified him on a video wearing white pants. Yet, when they pulled him out of the grave as Body #1, he was wearing blue jeans. Nick’s defense believes this proves he was not murdered on the date listed.

Furthermore, Biggs’s shifting account is a central example of why guilt ‘beyond any reasonable doubt’ should perhaps never have been applied to the allegations aimed at Nick. When Biggs was first arrested, he told his lawyer that Gerard Benderoth shot all three men. This is allegedly evidenced in an email from Comey herself, where she wrote that Biggs stated Benderoth shot all three victims. At trial, however, Biggs testified to a different version: that he shot one man, Tartaglione shot one man, and Benderoth shot one man. Nick argues this version is not only inconsistent with Biggs’s earlier statement but physically implausible. All three victims were allegedly shot with the same pistol, with consistent bullet trajectories.

Nick also alleges that his team later learned, based on post trial discovery, that prosecutors engaged in their own form of editing, not only in video but in transcripts.

Sullivan’s interview transcript provided to the judge was missing thirty-three minutes. That missing segment, Nick claims, reveals investigators feeding Sullivan information and that Sullivan and his wife were interviewed together, contradicting what Comey later told the court. He also claims thatprosecutors gave a non-prosecution agreement to Sullivan’s wife, that was never disclosed to the jury, as an incentive to make false statements against Nick.

Evidence was also allegedly withheld and destroyed, including a “lot front camera” video referenced in police notes and by an officer speaking to families, later claimed not to even exist.

AUDIO 8: NICKS’ RECEIPTS

In a recorded conversation with Jessica Kraus, Nick described a moment that reveals, at least emotionally, why he believes the system will not reverse itself even when confronted with its own contradictions. He said that, after learning about Benderoth’s suicide, he told his lawyer, in effect, “I’m out.” Not because he thought the government would do the right thing, but because he thought the facts were too obvious to ignore, that one of the true killers had died, and that there was simply no evidence to keep himself behind bars. But then he said the lawyer replied, “No, they won’t admit it”.

Tartaglione realized at that moment a stark reality: once the machine is in motion, its job becomes not to find the truth but to protect the story already told.

AUDIO 9: WHO IS BRUCE BARKET?

Nick was arrested on December 19, 2016.

In his telling, the arrest did not follow a completed investigation pointing cleanly toward him, but instead preceded one that was still groping for a coherent theory. He argues that law enforcement did not arrive at him because evidence led them there, but because once his name entered the frame, it became easier to bend the evidence than to abandon the narrative and pursue members of the cartel.

By the summer of 2019, according to Nick, his case was compromised by a federal prosecution framing him as a violent former police officer turned criminal mastermind. But it was his transfer to the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan that, he says, irreversibly altered both the public narrative around him and the internal dynamics of his case.

He was placed in the Special Housing Unit. It was there that he was assigned to share a cell with the prison’s most notorious inmate:

JEFFREY EPSTEIN.

At the time, Nick says he had only a vague idea of who Epstein was. Access to newspapers and television in segregation was limited, delayed, or nonexistent.

What he knew initially came largely from Epstein himself. They were housed together on J-tier, 9 South.

Early one morning, around 5:30 a.m., guards banged on the cell door and told Epstein to get dressed for court. Nick says he immediately understood what was actually happening. In his experience as a former police officer and long-term pretrial detainee, guards often told inmates they had “court” when, in fact, they were being taken to meet prosecutors for a proffer session, so other inmates would not overhear that someone was cooperating.

Nick says he explained this to Epstein before Epstein left the cell, and that Epstein was gone most of the day. When he returned late that evening, Nick describes him as visibly shaken, anxious, and withdrawn.

After some time, Epstein initiated a conversation. He asked Nick, explicitly referencing his law enforcement background, for his opinion on cooperating with prosecutors.

Nick told him what he considered the reality of cooperation: prosecutors do not release a valuable defendant unless that person can deliver someone more important to prosecute. Epstein, he says, then explained why he was asking. He told Nick that prosecutors had offered him the possibility of pleading to lesser charges and serving only a few years in a minimum-security camp, rather than dying in prison, if he could provide information that could be used to impeach Donald Trump.

Epstein was explicit about the pressure being applied. He told Nick that prosecutors had made clear the sooner he agreed to cooperate, the sooner he would be moved out of MCC. If he chose to go to trial, he would remain where he was. Epstein also allegedly told him that prosecutors said he did not need to prove the allegations against Trump — only to supply information or allegations that Trump’s people would be unable to disprove.

Nick challenged that logic. He reminded Epstein that, at the time, the FBI answered to the Trump administration. Epstein responded, according to Tartaglione, that prosecutors told him the FBI were “their people,” not Trump’s. Epstein also said prosecutors suggested his former girlfriend might corroborate his claims.

AUDIO 10: What Epstein Told Nick About Trump, Maxwell, The FBI

At that point, Nick says he reacted angrily and confronted Epstein directly — telling him he had already been incarcerated for years and was facing life sentences because of cooperators lying to protect themselves. He told Epstein that fabricated cooperation destroys innocent lives. Nick says this confrontation escalated into a serious problem almost immediately.

Shortly afterward, he learned that Epstein had accused him of assault.

Epstein had been found unresponsive in his cell, apparently strangled but still breathing. When he came around, he uttered five words: “Nick tried to kill me.”

AUDIO 11: EPSTEIN’S SUICIDE NOTE

“(Redacted) kept me in a locked shower stall for 1 hr. Noel sent me burnt food. Giant bugs crawling over my hands. No fun!!” the note reads.”

Media reports quickly followed, describing Tartaglione as a “killer cop” who attacked Epstein. But Nick insists this never happened. He says Epstein made the allegation to ensure placement on suicide watch, which would remove him from the cell and potentially shield him from further pressure or danger.

Nick recounts that Epstein later retracted the allegation, claiming he had merely passed out. He says Epstein apologized to him directly, including an exchange in which Epstein acknowledged that Nick had seen a suicide note Epstein had hidden inside one of Nick’s books. Nick describes the note as brief and bleak, referencing that the “feds looked everywhere, found nothing,” and ending with, “time to say goodbye.”

Nick states that on the night in question, Epstein appeared to be sleeping, snoring loudly. Nick put in headphones and went to sleep. At some point, he felt something hit his leg. When his eyes adjusted to the dark, he saw Epstein hanging, his eyes partly open. Using a small razor blade inmates were allowed for grooming, Nick says he cut Epstein down and began chest compressions while calling for guards. He says Epstein regained breathing before officers arrived.

Nick says that this episode permanently recast him in the public imagination. Regardless of the evidence in his own case, he became linked in headlines to Epstein, framed as violent, unstable, and dangerous. The image that circulated secured the visual needed — Nick as a hulking figure in a white tank top glaring into the camera. He believes this association bled into judicial attitudes as well, reinforcing a narrative that he says prosecutors had already constructed.

He also describes conversations with Epstein that extended beyond Trump. Epstein, he says, talked about Ghislaine Maxwell, referring to her dismissively as a “cold fish,” and expressing fear that prosecutors would go after her if he did not “pack it in.” Epstein allegedly insisted that some high-profile accusations were false, including claims involving Alan Dershowitz, telling Nick that Dershowitz had never been near certain accusers.

Looking back, Nick now views the cell placement itself as deeply suspect. He questions why a man charged with quadruple homicide would be placed in a cell with one of the most high-profile detainees in the country, unless officials were confident he would not harm him. He also questions why, after Epstein’s death, no serious scrutiny was applied to the decision to house them together.

After Epstein’s death, Nick was transferred to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn due to deteriorating prison conditions. While there, he was on the phone with a friend; when the call ended and he began walking back to his cell, other inmates attacked him with a plumber’s wrench because he was a former police officer. The assault left him with a serious head injury that required a metal plate.

He now believes the Epstein episode had another consequence: it distracted from, and even insulated, the prosecution in his own case. Media focus shifted almost entirely to Epstein’s death. His own claims of prosecutorial misconduct, evidence tampering, and coerced testimony received little attention by comparison. His name became shorthand for menace rather than that of a defendant asserting innocence.

By the time his trial resumed, Nick says the damage was already irreversible. Jurors, judges, and the public had absorbed a simplified story. He was no longer just a former officer accused of murder; he was “the killer cop who attacked Epstein.” He argues that this framing made it easier for contradictions in the government’s case to be overlooked and harder for his defense to be heard on its own merits.

When his case finally went to trial in the Southern District of New York, nearly seven years after his arrest, the prosecution presented what appeared, on the surface, to be a tightly woven narrative. Beneath that surface, he argues, the case was defined by contradictions, shifting theories, missing evidence, and testimony that changed repeatedly to fit whatever version of events prosecutors needed at a given moment.

By the time post-trial motions were filed, Tartaglione argues the case against him depended almost entirely on cooperators who admitted their own involvement, whose stories changed repeatedly, and who received extraordinary benefits in exchange for implicating him. Physical evidence was either absent, inconsistent, or tainted, while exculpatory material was ignored, minimized, or never shown to the jury. As his post-trial filings expanded, his claims moved beyond individual evidentiary failures into a broader allegation: that his prosecution was shaped by institutional protection, prosecutorial misconduct, and a culture within the Southern District of New York that rewarded convictions over truth.

Central to this claim is the role of Maurene Comey, the lead prosecutor in his case, who also served as a prosecutor in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.

Comey’s influence, he argues, extended far beyond the presentation of evidence at trial. From the earliest stages of the case, Nick says, the prosecution relied on perjury before the grand jury. Investigator William Young’s testimony included demonstrably false descriptions of witnesses, vehicles, and weapons. The 911 caller’s description of two men who came looking for Martin Luna as “a heavyset Black man” and “a heavyset white man driving a white van” was altered. Young recharacterized the white man as a “bodybuilder.” Nick maintains this was done deliberately to shift suspicion away from Gerard Benderoth and toward himself.

Comey presented this testimony without correction.

AUDIO 12: NICK ON WILLIAM YOUNG

Nick alleges DNA tampering.

Read recent accusations on Young here.

Judge Kenneth Karas accepted prosecutorial representations even when contradicted by records. Nick points to instances where demonstrably false statements were allowed to stand, including claims about phone silence, timelines, and cooperator conduct. He notes that Comey’s visible presence in the courtroom, standing behind the prosecution, underscored what he perceived as an imbalance of power no defense attorney could realistically counter.

Following sentencing, the pattern continued. Despite a judicial order that he be housed near his family and afforded protection as a former law enforcement officer, he was sent to Atwater Federal Penitentiary in California, one of the most violent facilities in the federal system. There, he was placed in general population. Staff and inmates were informed of his background.

His cell door was left open. He was attacked, strangled, stabbed, and left bleeding until he collapsed in the hallway. He required a blood transfusion and sustained permanent injuries, including partial vision loss.

Nick argues this was not negligence but indifference — bordering on intent. He notes that Epstein, too, was not protected despite obvious risks. In his view, both men were placed in environments where serious harm was foreseeable, and where the consequences of that harm would conveniently eliminate complications for the government.

Jessica Reed Kraus has played a singular role in bringing these details back into public view. Through repeated interviews with Nick from inside prison, she has documented his claims, examined trial records, reviewed exhibits, and highlighted inconsistencies that were ignored or minimized in mainstream coverage. Tartaglione argues that without this scrutiny, his case would remain frozen in its trial posture, never re-examined despite the volume of exculpatory material.

In his petition, Tartaglione does not ask to be viewed as sympathetic. He asks to be examined carefully. He emphasizes that he has already served nearly a decade in prison — longer than several admitted participants in the crimes. Cruz, who confessed repeatedly, is free. Sullivan is free. Biggs will be released in a few years.

While Nick remains in federal prison serving consecutive life sentences.

He frames his request for clemency as a question not just of individual injustice, but of institutional failure.

A case built on coerced testimony, manipulated evidence, shifting theories, and suppressed contradictions, he argues, is not a victory for justice. It is a warning that America’s justice system is not merely on the brink of failure.

In his view, it has already failed.