True Crime Today | Daily True Crime News & Interviews

Prosecutors in Matthew Farwell's federal trial say the state troopers who investigated Sandra Birchmore's death in 2021 closed it as a suicide without seeking one search warrant. Retired FBI Special Agent Jennifer Coffindaffer joins me on what accountability could look like for them.
Trooper Matthew Dunne and then-Sergeant John Fanning sat down with Farwell in a school parking lot, with no tape running. Farwell's twin brother testified Fanning said they needed the case like a bullet in the head. The medical examiner who ruled suicide testified she was never told Sandra's phone went still while Farwell was still inside her building.
The Massachusetts police certification board barred former Stoughton deputy chief Robert Devine in December 2025. Jen tells me whether Dunne and Fanning could face the same, or worse, and what it would take. Farwell has pleaded not guilty.
Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292
Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1
Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod
X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod
This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.
#SandraBirchmore #MatthewFarwell #TrueCrimeToday #StoughtonPolice #MassachusettsStatePolice #JusticeForSandra #FarwellTrial #JenniferCoffindaffer #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime

Closing arguments in Matthew Farwell's murder trial begin Friday, November 6th, after his defense called Dr. Thomas Andrew, the former chief medical examiner of New Hampshire. Retired FBI Special Agent Jennifer Coffindaffer and I go piece by piece through the government's case against the former Stoughton detective.
Prosecutors allege Farwell strangled Sandra Birchmore, who was pregnant, and staged a hanging. The lobby camera shows him leaving her building at 9:43 on February 1st, 2021, three minutes after her iPhone logged its last step. Prosecutors say that on February 9th he searched whether Cellebrite could pull back deleted iMessages. His lawyers say he gave state police his phone voluntarily.
Jen tells me which side of the phone fight the jury will believe, and what Andrew's answer about consent means for the defense's claim that Sandra never fought anyone off.
Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292
Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1
Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod
X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod
This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.
#SandraBirchmore #MatthewFarwell #TrueCrimeToday #FarwellTrial #JusticeForSandra #Stoughton #ClosingArguments #JenniferCoffindaffer #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime

Before Elizabeth Holmes entered federal prison, she spoke publicly about Sunny Balwani, the former Theranos executive who had been her partner. She testified about an assault she experienced as a Stanford student and described Balwani’s promise that she would be safe with him. Years later, in a new documentary, viewers see a very different man handling important parts of her life: Billy Evans.
Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim’s You Can See Everything begins in the 34 days before Holmes reported to prison. Holmes and Evans invited the filmmakers into their home to tell what they believed was a misunderstood story. Yet their effort to show the truth produced another set of questions: Who controls the narrative when one partner is incarcerated? How much can body language or an uncomfortable household exchange really reveal?
Tony Brueski and psychotherapist Shavaun Scott examine the contrast. The film shows Evans taking an egg bowl from Holmes during a kitchen scene, and it documents his power of attorney and operation of her social media account. Those details can invite questions about boundaries and agency. They cannot, by themselves, establish coercion. Evans has denied controlling Holmes and says he acts with her knowledge and consent.
Scott also explores why Balwani’s words might have landed powerfully with Holmes when she was young. The focus is on the concepts of trust, dependency, and competing interpretations, not a remote diagnosis of either man. And the criminal case remains what it is: a jury convicted Holmes of fraud involving investors in her blood-testing company, Theranos.
Holmes is scheduled for an August 2027 placement at a halfway house near Austin, where Evans has been caring for their children. The film captures the beginning of her absence; this conversation considers what the return might mean. Between the image someone presents, the story someone else tells, and what a court has actually established, those are three very different kinds of truth.
Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292
Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1
Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod
X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod
This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.
#ElizabethHolmes #BillyEvans #SunnyBalwani #Theranos #HiddenKillers #NathanFielder #ShavaunScott #YouCanSeeEverything #Psychology #TrueCrime

A mistrial did not end the Lindsay Clancy case. But the next criminal proceeding remains unsettled, and a separate civil lawsuit has introduced a dispute between lawyers over what Lindsay supposedly told her medical providers. Both developments matter. Neither has yet produced the definitive ruling some headlines seem to promise.
On November 2, Plymouth Superior Court Judge William Sullivan heard arguments on whether the case should be dismissed after the first jury deadlocked. Eleven jurors had favored a not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity verdict. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington argues the judge mishandled concerns about the one holdout, making a second trial improper. The prosecution disagrees. Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague indicated a retrial was expected but said the state had not settled which charges it would pursue. Sullivan set November 16 for further proceedings and considered a March trial date.
Across the legal landscape, Patrick Clancy's wrongful-death complaint accuses mental-health providers of failing to respond adequately to Lindsay's condition before the deaths of Cora, Dawson, and Callan. The providers dispute liability and seek dismissal. At a civil hearing, Patrick's lawyer Howard Cooper said he expected Lindsay to testify that she warned providers about homicidal thoughts. Reddington responded that she had not communicated such thoughts to her providers and had not agreed to testify for Patrick. That is a direct disagreement between attorneys, not sworn testimony from Lindsay in that civil case.
Tony Brueski is joined by criminal defense attorney Bob Motta and retired FBI behavioral specialist Robin Dreeke for a combined look at the legal stakes. The criminal case asks whether a second trial can go forward and on what charges. The civil cases ask what duty providers owed and what warnings they received. There are answers still to come. Until then, the most revealing detail may be the difference between what a lawyer predicts and what a witness actually says.
Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292
Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1
Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod
X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod
This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.
#LindsayClancy #PatrickClancy #HiddenKillers #BobMotta #RobinDreeke #KevinReddington #ClancyRetrial #WrongfulDeath #Massachusetts #TrueCrime

In February 2021, Sandra Birchmore was found dead at her Canton, Massachusetts, apartment. A police account described a suicide. The medical examiner who performed her autopsy later told the federal jury that those descriptions were already part of the record when she received the case and that she had not been asked to investigate the apartment itself. Her office sought updates and was reportedly told there was nothing new. The manner of death was ultimately ruled suicide in May of that year.
The same office later amended the manner to undetermined. At Matthew Farwell’s trial, the shift became a central disagreement rather than a simple resolution. Prosecutors argue investigators failed to treat the death as suspicious and supplied incomplete information. Farwell’s defense contends that an undetermined ruling leaves reasonable doubt and that Sandra took her own life after he ended their relationship.
Tony Brueski, defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis, and retired FBI behavioral specialist Robin Dreeke connect the medical examiner’s testimony to the other evidence. DNA analysis ruled out Farwell as the father of Sandra’s unborn baby, a finding the defense says weakens the alleged reason to silence her. Prosecutors say the issue is what Farwell believed after Sandra told him he was the father. The defense also points to no DNA beneath Sandra’s fingernails and no clear scene evidence of a violent fight. Those details do not themselves determine the manner of death, but jurors must decide their significance.
Farwell has pleaded not guilty to the federal charges, including an allegation he killed Sandra to prevent her from reporting crimes. This is a story about what the initial investigation accepted, what later evidence challenged, and how far the government must go to prove its theory beyond a reasonable doubt.
Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292
Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1
Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod
X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod
This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.
#SandraBirchmore #MatthewFarwell #HiddenKillers #FarwellTrial #MedicalExaminer #DeathInvestigation #EricFaddis #RobinDreeke #Massachusetts #TrueCrime