Inside the Courtroom: Did the Blood Evidence Help the State—or the Defense? | Lindsay Clancy Day 6

Hello, hidden gems. It is good to be with you all tonight. Thank you for being here and thank you for supporting our work here in the courtroom in Massachusetts following very closely the Lindseay Clancy trial. Today was day six and before trial started this morning, the judge actually turned his attention directly to Lindsay.

This was before the jury had come in. And up until now, Lindsay had barely spoken in court. She had said, “Hello, judge.” in the morning. But Readington offered to stipulate to certain facts. and stipulate for those that don’t watch trials all the time means to agree agree to certain facts. So when we say to stipulate to both sides have stipulated to Lindsay killing her own children it means that’s not part of this argument. They agree that Lindsay killed her kids. This isn’t to prove whether or not she is who killed and took their lives. So Readington offer to stipulate to additional certain facts about this case, basically agreeing that some pieces of the evidence did not need to be proven through additional witnesses. Take a listen.

“All right, Miss Clancy. Uh I have been shown a a list or a summary of stipulations. It’s been marked as exhibit or uh J for identification. Uh so it’s my understanding that um you are requesting or offering to stipulate to certain facts. Is that correct?”

“Yes, your honor.”

“All right. And before I accept that, I got to make sure ask you some questions to make sure that your uh decision to do so is voluntary, that you understand the consequences. Uh, so I’m going to ask you some questions. If at any time uh you need to speak to Mr. Readington or you have any questions or have problems understanding what I’m saying, uh, just let me know. Okay.”

“All right.”

“Uh, now, um, do you understand that, uh, the Commonwealth in this case is required to prove each and every element of the case against you beyond a reasonable doubt? Do you understand that?”

“Yes, your honor.”

“All right. You understand that uh there are certain facts that could be introduced during the course of the trial that would support uh might support uh the Commonwealth’s uh position regarding uh those elements. Do you understand that?”

“Yes, your honor.”

“All right. And you understand that by signing the stipulation, you agree that the commonalth does not have to prove these certain facts that are contained in the stipulation. Do you understand that?”

“Yes, your honor. And um do you understand by signing or going along with that stipulation you you are basically relieving the Commonwealth of its burden to prove those certain facts? Do you understand that?”

“Yes, your honor.”

“All right. Is that what you want to do at this point?”

“Yes.”

“All right. Um uh have you gone over this stipulation or the summary of the stipulations uh with attorney Readington?”

“Yes, I have.”

“All right. You need any more time to do that?”

“No, thank you.”

“All right. Um no. By entering by entering into this stipulation, you’re given up some important rights. So, I kind of want to go over those with you at this time. Do you understand um by law you’re presumed to be innocent of each charge against you and you do not have to prove your innocence. All right? So, instead at trial, the Commonwealth, as I said before, has the burden of proving you are guilty of each element of the charges against you. And by entering into this stipulation, you’re giving up your right to force the Commonwealth to prove the facts that are contained uh in these stipulations. Uh do you understand that?”

“Yes, your honor.”

“All right. You’re also at trial where we are now, you have the right to confront the witnesses that would testify about these facts. And by entering into this stipulation, you’re giving up that right with respect to these stipulated facts. Do you understand that?”

“Yes, your honor.”

“All right. Um, you also, if you wanted to, could call your own witnesses at the trial to contest these stipulated facts if you wanted to. You understand you’d be giving up that right by entering into this stipulation?”

“Yes, your honor.”

“All right. Um, you also at trial have the right to remain silent and cannot be forced to uh testify at this. You understand? By entering into this stipulation, you’re giving up in a limited way that right with respect to just those facts?”

“Yes, your honor.”

“All right. Um, are you doing this willingly and voluntarily?”

“Yes, I am.”

“All right. Has anyone forced you or threatened you to to enter into this stipulation?”

“No, your honor.”

“Have you had enough time to talk to council about this?”

“Yes, I have.”

“All right. Um, are you All right. I I make the following findings. I find that uh Miss Clancy has knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily, and willingly entered into the stipulation of the facts that are contained and summarized in exhibit J for identification. I find that she is competent to enter into this stipulation. Uh I find she understands the consequences of entering into this stipulation. So accordingly, I now accept the proposed stipulation of facts. Thank you. I”

“I just would like, your honor, for the record, um to again reiterate the fact that we have not been contesting the government’s case and chief, if you will, um have been agreeing to evidence. This stipulation basically relieves the government of having to bring in dozens if not more witnesses to prove chain of custody of blood, fluids, the bands, DNA, all of that. Rather than have days of testimony, the stipulation will avoid that. So that’s why it was stipulated to”

“All right. All right. Come, anything else you want to add?”

“I got it.”

“Okay. All right. So,”

so essentially after she finished the judge made his findings as you saw there. He said that he found that Lindsay knowingly, willingly, intelligently, voluntarily, willingly entered into this stipulation or agreed to certain facts of this case and that she was competent to do so and that she understood the consequences. So again, formally accepting the stipulation, the agreement to facts. Then Readington, Kevin Readington added some more context for the record. He explained that the defense has actually never been contesting the government’s case and chief when it came to things like chain of custody, blood fluids, DNA, all of this sort of technical stuff, meaning where and who got the evidence, where did it come from, where where did it get transferred to, how it was it was handled. Sometimes that can take that chain of custody can take five witnesses sometimes. So they’re saying they’ve never not agreed with a chain of custody, with the blood fluids, the DNA, all that technical stuff. He said the stipulation would prevent the government essentially from having to call dozens of more witnesses just to prove sort of these foundational details. So again, in other words, it would save days of testimony that neither side needed to fight over. So after that, the jury was brought in. They actually looked a little bit fresher. They had a weekend. Uh they came with their notes. They are notetakers. I’ll tell you that. This jury takes notes and and there are there are two men in particular that I watch and they are always taking notes during the prosecution and um and the defense.

So, Christina Karpio was the first witness of the day, uh, a trauma and critical care surgeon at Southshore Hospital, and she tells the jury that Southshore is a level two trauma hospital. When cases come in that need more specialized care, they often are transferred to Boston, places like Breigham and Women’s. And as a trauma surgeon, she does operate at Southshore, but the hospital does not have neurosurgeons physically present the way a level one trauma center would. She said that she was on call the night of January 24th, 2023, that night. And at some point that evening, she was notified that a level one trauma was coming in, arriving soon. And that level one trauma was a woman named Lindsay Clancy, the defendant sitting right there. So when that kind of alert comes through, she has to get the emergency department quickly. She said she was able to go down and join the assessment team working alongside the emergency physician, Dr. Kelly Mcdano. Remember Dr. Kelly Mcdano? She uh we also know her as Dr. I don’t recall. So she worked with Dr. I don’t recall and she remembered that the information that came in from EMS that Lindsay had fallen from a height of about 20 ft and there were concerns for neurological and spinal injury. That alone triggers very quickly a level one trauma response. She said neurology was not part of the initial team, but she and the ER staff handled the trauma assessment of Lindsay. She saw Lindsay shortly after arrival. Lindsay was intubated by the hospital staff. Karpio noticed injuries to her neck and wrists, lacerations, but those lacerations, according to her, were defined as superficial, nothing that required immediate surgical intervention. She said CT scans were ordered, a full pan scan of the head, neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis. She reviewed the head CTS. The non-contrast scan showed no acute intraranial findings. The contrast scan was part of a head and neck angiogram. The head portion was back, but the the neck portion wasn’t yet available during her initial assessment. She said that was different from the cervical spine CT, which she did have. Those scans showed serious spinal injuries in the cervical and thoracic areas. And she said that Lindsay was hypoththerrmic, meaning her core temperature was extremely low. Remember it was in the 80s. She remembered seeing that in her documentation she clarified that Lindsay had been hypotensive, not hypertensive. So low blood pressure, not high. And that was clarified. They warmed the trauma room using a warming equipment like a bear hugger to raise her temperature. Eventually, her temperature came up to around 95°. Even after warming her, the neck lacerations didn’t change in a way that required surgery. The spinal injuries, those were the real concern to everyone there. She consulted with the neurosurgeon on call to review images remotely. And then after reviewing Lindsay scans, the neurosurgeon recommended transfer to a tertiary hospital. Karpio agreed. She said the complexity of the spinal fractures made transfer necessary and Lindsay was sent to Bighgam.

So then on cross exam, the defense was up. Readington was ready. And Readington started essentially by locking down just the basics. Southshore Hospital is a trauma hospital and Lindsay’s injuries were classified as level one. The doctor agreed level one is the highest level, the most serious, and the most urgent. Then Readington tried to pin down how long Lindsay had been at Southshore. And the doctor explained that admission wasn’t the right word because Lindsay was actually never formally admitted. She she was treated in the emergency department. She said she she’d need the chart to give exact times, but her memory was that Lindsay was there for several hours before the transfer. He asked about the decision to send her to Brigham and asked how she got there, whether it was by helicopter. And the doctor said she didn’t know medflight can mean helicopter or ambulance, and she didn’t recall which one was used. He continued pressing her and then cross got heated. Leave it to Readington. Take a listen.

“And the time that she left was after you all had provided the treatment that you were able to provide to Lindsay as a patient, right?”

“Yes.”

“And you reached the end of your rope. She had to be transferred because she needed immediate highlevel medical care. Right.”

“She needed higher level of care. Yes.”

“Higher level of care. And as a result, she was then brought to Brigham Women’s Hospital. Now, the treatment that you had given would include raising her apparently temperature, I guess, cuz she came in at a low temperature, right?”

“Yes.”

“And did you use IV fluids?”

“I would have to check the record, but that is a common intervention.”

“So your memory would be that you believe that you used IV fluids, but you’d have to have me get out of the box and check the record to ask that question, right?”

“Yes. Correct.”

“Okay.”

“Um it didn’t really work out very well though, did it? Because you know that when she was brought to Boston after all of the time that she was treated at your hospital, she was still core temperature of 82 when she hit Brigham Woman’s”

“no allow if she knows.”

“I did not look at the medical record from another institution. I only reviewed my note from Southshore Hospital.”

“Did you know that your patient had coded shortly after being brought to Brighamin Women’s Hospital?”

“No.”

“Did you know that she had to have massive transfusions be right after being brought to the hospital in Boston?”

“No.”

“Did anybody in Southshore Hospital make a determination that she had lost a lot of blood? There was the EMS report did not share that there was a large volume of blood at the scene. She was evaluated to her part of her CAT scans also help us evaluate for intraabdominal blood loss.”

“Okay. So when you raise the issue of the EMS that would be the ambulance, right?”

“Yes.”

“And their report their run sheet they prepare, right? That’s what you’re talking about, right? It’s there is verbal report from EMS when the patient is brought in and also the run sheet of the details.”

“Okay. And when the people from the EMS came in, did they speak to you about the verbal report?”

“They speak they address the entire room. So all the staff in the room is available to hear the details”

“and you’re able to look at the run sheet correct?”

“No, the run sheet is not always immediately available.”

“So, did the EMTs, to your knowledge, as a treating surgeon, physician in the trauma center, tell you that there was blood loss?”

“Not to my recollection.”

“Do you have did anyone tell you that at the scene where she was being treated after coming out of the window and striking the ground that there was blood on the snow and on the leaves and in the grass?”

“I cannot recall if they commented on that.”

“Is that important for you to know if there’s blood loss on a patient?”

“If there is a large volume of blood loss, yes, the EMS will routinely comment on the patient being found.”

“Yeah, but that’s the EMS. You’re the surgeon, right?”

“That is correct, sir. Yes.”

“Yeah. And and one of the things would be blood pressure, right? What the person’s blood pressure is, correct?”

“Yes.”

“And she had, if I understand your testimony correctly, low blood pressure. She initially when she came in are the note has a normal blood pressure and then after intubation her blood pressure dropped.”

“Okay. Do you know what caused the blood pressure to drop?”

“There were several factors at play. As we discovered from her CAT scan, she had an injury to her spinal cord and the thoracic region that very commonly causes issues with maintaining your blood pressure.”

“And do you know what her blood pressure was? I mean, if you don’t, that’s fine. You need the records. At blood pressure at which point?”

“At the point I’m asking you about when you noted that she had low blood pressure.”

“No, I don’t remember how hypotensive she was. No.”

“Um, as far as being hypotensive, did you know that when she finally hit the Boston hospital that she had massive transfusion of blood?”

“I thought you I thought I asked and answered.”

“Oh, did you?”

“You asked me before and I answered that no, I did not know that.”

“Okay. So, how about did you know that they introduced plural tubes in both sides of her chest and removed many many cc’s of blood from both the right and left plural cavity?”

“No, I just object to the line of question. The witness has already indicated she hasn’t reviewed those records. She’s not aware of what happened at the burgdome go through each and every injuries.”

“No, she can answer that.”

“No, I did I do not know that about the patient when she was not at South Hospital. How about the superficial cuts that you were talking about? Would you suggest or would you agree that on the right ulner area and the left uln area of the upper extremities right and left that there were a deep cut noted in the skin?”

“The notes about her wrist injuries said that it was through the skin with exposed fat but there was no exposed muscle or tendon. Okay.”

“So, those are more superficial.”

“So, you would not agree that they were deep cuts on both arms. You wouldn’t agree with that?”

“No, I would not.”

“And again, you’re not aware of anything that was diagnosed in Brigham Woman’s Hospital, right?”

“That is correct.”

“As far as the injury to her spine, um, what kind of injury was it? Do you remember?”

“It was at thoracic level T5 T6.”

“And what type of injury was there to the spine? The report said um that the stability of this the the pattern of it indicated that there was instability of the spine which is why we conferred with the neurosurgeon.”

“Right. And nothing much came out of that either as far as conferring with the neurosurgeon. Right.”

“I’m not sure what you mean by nothing much came about.”

“Well, you didn’t show up to come to the hospital, right?”

“We didn’t what? I’m not sure.”

“Okay. The spine was transsected at T5T6, right? the the person the team or rather the input you would need for further commentary on the spine would be a neurosurgery team. I am not a neurosurgeon. I am a general surgeon.”

“So you’re not aware of the transsection. You know what a transsection is, don’t you?”

“Yes.”

“Okay. And on your CAT scans or on your your pictures that you were describing for the jury with no problem for the DA, did you notice that the spine was transected at T5 and T6?”

“there was compression of the bones. I would have to specifically look at the report to see if it used the word transsection.”

“Okay. How about a thyroid? Did you notice anything about a thyroid?”

“The It said that there was concern there was edema at the thyroid, concern for contusion or laceration.”

“And and that’s the extent of your knowledge. You don’t know whether or not the thyroid was destroyed or or anything, do you?”

“Correct.”

“Okay. Um how about her ribs? You notice that some of her ribs were broken.”

“I would have to look at her cat scan report again.”

“Yeah. So, coming in here today, you’re not aware whether or not she had broken ribs because you haven’t been able to look at your records. Is that right?”

“I did review my records. I would have to specifically state into the record what was the injuries. I would be happy to read from my note, which I know is part of the evidence.”

“Yeah. So, who is it that decides that a patient is going to be medflighted into Boston from Southshore Hospital?”

“Some of it depends on the level of injury and the transport teams that are available at that moment. Sometimes medflight ambulance is faster. Sometimes medflight is available. It all depends on the available resources at the time of the event.”

“So what I asked you is who decides whether or not somebody’s getting medflighted out of Southshore Hospital”

“is collaborative between what resources are available for us to transport the patient. The decision to transfer the patient is made between the emergency room team and the trauma team and the input from the subsp specialist.”

“Go ahead. Let her finish.”

“Yeah, I know. I didn’t know she was still talking.”

“Go ahead.”

“I finished, sir.”

“All right. So, you as the trauma surgeon, would you agree that you had a little bit to do with whether or not she was in dire straits and had to be medflighted to Boston?”

“I would be part of the decision to transfer her.”

“Do you remember that decision being made and do you remember the meeting that you had to make that decision?”

“I remember conferring with the emergency room team that neurosurgery had said she needed transfer”

“and it was by medflight, right?”

“You don’t know whether it was an ambulance or a helicopter, but you know it was MedFlight.”

“It should have been MedFlight. Yes.”

“Okay, that’s all I had.”

“Comalth, any redirect?”

“Just very briefly, doctor, it was very clear to you that this patient has was suffering from multiple injuries. Yes.”

“And is it the policy of Sasha Hospital to make sure a patient is stable before they’re transported?”

“Yes, that’s correct.”

“And so that’s what the emergency team and the entire team that’s collaborating on here did, right?”

“Yes. Correct. We would not put an unstable patient in any mode of transport to another facility.”

“So in the review of all the CT scans, the abdominal scans, the head scans, the chest X-rays, all of the things that were reviewed, it was identified that she was stable enough to transfer.”

“I’m going to object because they think she’s a hostile witness and this is leading which I haven’t objected to yet but at this point I am on this witness.”

“I I’ll allow this question.”

“Okay.”

“Sorry. What was your answer?”

“Could you repeat the question please?”

“So after reviewing all of the um imaging, the CT scans, the chest X-rays, everything um you and your team were comfortable that she was stable enough to be transported to another hospital. Correct.”

“Yes. And I think your testimony was that um a large contributor to the decision of transport was the information that you got from the neurosurgery team.”

“Yes.”

“Thank you. Nothing.”

“Anything on that, Mr. Bington? All right. Thank you, doctor.”

Um very interesting conversation going on chat. Thanks everyone. I tried to share a variety of opinions because I think they’re really all important here as we follow this trial. It’s so interesting seeing what everybody’s thinking and how everyone’s feeling. And I do want you guys to know I’m going to share a few of my thoughts so far at the end of this. So, as I always say, stick with me. I will share some things that I think um soon. And I know that Grayson was sharing a little bit about jurors. We’ll also share that. Um like I said, they they are they are notetakers. That’s that is what I’ve been noticing. They are notetakers and they do don’t show a lot of emotion on their face or they haven’t ever since the I mean the 911 call is separate but since Patrick’s been on the stand there hasn’t been too much strong emotion just sort of really interested in taking notes and listening.

So, up next was Joseph Rabbit, a Massachusetts State Police trooper who now worked in the cyber crime unit. But back in January 2023, he was assigned to the Plymouth County Detective Unit. He had been with the state police since 2012 and had spent years working investigations in that county. Buckingham brought him back to January 24th. He said he remember the Ducks investigation clearly. His first stop wasn’t the house. He was sent to Beth Israel Deaconist in Plymouth, the old Jordan hospital because that’s where the three children had been taken. And his job was to check on their status and make sure crime scene services documented anything necessary. So while he was at the hospital, he spoke with Patrick Clancy. And after leaving the hospital, he went to Summer Street to help execute the search warrant. He said that when a death investigation is unfolding, everyone gets assigned different tasks. It’s all hands on deck. He was not the case officer, but he was part of the team searching the home. They had limited information at that point, and the warrant was executed shortly after the incident. Rabbit said he was in the kitchen area helping with the search. He recognized the photos shown in court, the kitchen island, the CV bag sitting on that kitchen island, the large paper bag nearby. Inside the CVS bag was a bottle of Pedilax. He also searched other parts of the kitchen. He opened an upper cabinet and saw medication bottles that stood out to him, prescription bottles on the top shelf. He pointed them out, had them documented, and placed them on the island so crime scene services could photograph him. There were four bottles in that cabinet. He did not inventory them himself. That’s handled by the evidence officer. And then Buckingham, who by the way, let’s pause really quickly here. Buckingham bow. She did have her bow again. her bow. I don’t know if you all of you know, but it is starting to make wide rounds online. There are many opinions growing about the Buckingham bow, and I think it depends on what side you’re on. Most people agree that there is purpose to this bow. She mentioned in opening statements, Shannon Buckingham did, prosecutor, that Kora loved hair bows. And the majority of the photos we’ve seen with core actually with are her with a sweet bow in her hair. So depending on how you are feeling about this case, those that believe this is a witch hunt with the prosecution and that this Lindsay Clancy is a woman who who killed her children in a sort of Andrea Yates postpartum psychosis are very upset by Shannon Buckingham’s choice of wearing a hair bow. Those who believe uh that Lindsay Clancy did this with intent and malice find the Buckingham bow a wonderful addition to remembering Kora the victim in this case. Let me know what you think. Additionally to even confirm that this is for Kora. I would love anybody to find previous cases that Shannon Buckingham has prosecuted and see if a hair bow is a thing she does all the time or specifically simply for this trial. Anyway, tangent interesting thoughts about the bow, but Buckingham Bow moved to something that happened later February 6th, 2023. And Rabbit said that Patrick came to the state police office with his attorney, J David Meyer. They brought in a CVS bag containing medication bottles. Rabbit asked crime scene services to come in and digitally document everything. The bag also had a blank greeting card, some paperwork, and a CVS insert. Rabbit laid out the bottles so they could be photographed. Then he inventoried them. He counted the pills in each bottle, noted the fill date, and compared the remaining amounts to what should have been there. He went through each one. Laorazzipam 1 milligram filled 10 2622 quantity 30 14 pills left. Certillene filled 91 1522 quantity 30 23 pills had been left. So only seven taken. Busperone first bottle filled 10 26 22 quantity 30 28 left so just two hydroxazine filled 10 26 22 quantity 30 27 left clinazipan filled 1125 222 quantity 14 11.5 pills left fluoxitine filled 112122 quantity 5643 left laorazzipam 0.5 5 milligram filled 11222 quantity 40 18.5 leftone that second bottle was filled 11922 a second bottle 30 of 30 left trazadone 1116 2022 quantity 30 22.5 left so once he finished counting and documenting everything he submitted the bottles to evidence so cross exam with Kevin Readington with rabbit focused almost entire entirely actually on the search warrant and the pill bottles.

Readington walked him through the basics to seize anything from someone’s house. Anything you need probable cause. You you need a list of what you’re authorized to take. Rabbit agreed. Prescription medication was specifically listed in the warrant. Readington made the point that the search was not random. Officers weren’t just grabbing whatever they saw. They were directed to seize prescription medication. And that’s exactly what Rabbit did when he found the bottles in the kitchen. He asked if Rabbit was in charge of the warrant execution. And Rabbit said no. He asked if Rabbit left the kitchen. Rabbit said yes. He went to one of the children’s bedrooms because someone mentioned a Nest camera. Readington asked if he went anywhere else like the master bedroom, but Rabbit could not recall. And then Readington asked anybody anyone if they had opened a nightstand drawer and found an Apple Watch, pills, sleep aids, anything like that. Rabbit said he didn’t know. He had not seen that. Readington pointed out that Rabbit had counted the pills in the bottles Patrick later turned in, but nobody had counted the pills in the bottles seized from the home. Rabbit said he didn’t know whether anyone had or had not. Readington then walked through the prescription dates, noting that many of the medications Rabbit inventoried were filled with a few weeks of each other. Rabbit agreed that whatever dates were on the bottles were when they were prescribed. He ended by asking whether Patrick had been cooperative, and Rabbit said he’d only dealt with Patrick at the hospital, but Patrick had been forthcoming.

The third witness was Moren Hartnett, a forensic scientist from the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab. Crime lab. So, she explained that she locates biological evidence and that she performs um screening tests at crime scenes for things like blood and semen. Buckingham walked her through the work she did in this case and on January 24th, 2023, she was asked to go out with the crime scene response team. The first place she went was Southshore Hospital and she made observations of Lindsay. She observed red brown stains on her hands, but she was not able to observe her entire body because she was covered with a blanket and medical equipment. Her focus was on her hands because she was looking for potential biological evidence related to the crime scene. At the hospital, she was also aware that Lindsay had been brought in with clothes that had been cut off and bagged. She turned in those clothes to the crime lab. And then next, Buckingham showed her photos from later that night at the Clansancy home, specifically in the basement and master bedroom. She confirmed that there there were areas where she had documented and swabbed some stains to turn in for testing. And in the bedroom, she remembered seeing the knife sitting on the nightstand that night. The knife in the photo marked as exhibit 170 was the same one collected from the house. She also observed some stains on the outside windowill outside the master bedroom, but she did not swab that at that time. Same with some stains on the bottom floor window frame. She did collect some more samples from stains in the yard and collected pajamas and a bathrobe from the basement. She later went to the Bighamin Women’s Hospital to take further samples from Lindsay, including from under her fingernails. And from there, Buckingham brought her back to June 15th, the day she returned to the home to examine stains on the shingles outside. She said that she had marked the stains and also collected the shingles themselves. Buckingham lane laid out the bagged pieces one by one. The shingle was stained D, then stained C, then another with stain D. Hartnet said all three were the same shingles she examined that day. Those pieces were admitted and she explained that they were taken back to the crime lab for analysis. She also collected swabs from each shingle at the scene before bringing everything in. Buckingham then switched to her other role in the lab, the criminalistics unit. Hartnett said that she handled confirmatory like testing on several items collected from the home on January 24th. She went through the stains they had talked about earlier. Stain A on the basement floor, stain B on the bedroom floor, stain D on the bedroom window seal, and stain F out in the backyard on the snow. And all of those tested positive for blood at the lab. She explained that the screening tests can suggest what a substance might be, but nothing is official until a confirmatory test is done, which is part of her job. Then they circled back to the knife. Swabs taken from the blade were tested at the lab and stain A on that knife was confirmed to be blood. She said that she handled both the screening and the confirmatory testing herself. And then once she confirmed biological material on an item, she prepared it for the DNA unit and for swa