Columbia University’s leadership appears determined to avoid a public confrontation. Rather than decisively addressing the pro-Hamas demonstrations and alleged criminal conduct on campus, administrators have restricted access to the urban campus—disrupting an entire neighborhood and raising questions about whether the university is violating its legal obligations.

The restrictions followed months of turmoil surrounding Columbia’s protests and encampment, when students joined outside activists in occupying portions of the university’s Morningside Heights campus.

After prolonged hesitation, Columbia eventually asked the NYPD to intervene and restore order. The decision came after protesters took over Hamilton Hall, prompting demands that the university continue delivering meal-plan food to the building to prevent occupiers from going without food or water.

The university also closed College Walk, the section of 116th Street between Broadway and Amsterdam Avenue that has been open to pedestrians since at least 1953. That year, the city transferred the roadway to Columbia under an easement that guaranteed public access.

More than two years later, the closure continues to force pedestrians to take a route six blocks longer. The detour has inconvenienced the broader community and created particular hardships for older residents and people with disabilities.

Columbia maintains that it has the authority to restrict access in order to preserve a quieter and more secure campus environment.

Critics argue that the policy has simply shifted the disorder beyond the university’s gates. Crowds and demonstrations now spill onto surrounding sidewalks, burdening the same neighborhood that is already dealing with the closure of a heavily used public passage.

The university says it has broad discretion to close the campus and points residents to a QR-code system, combined with state identification, that can be used to request access to College Walk.

CONTINUE READING: Hong Kong Socialite Abby Choi’s Ex-Husband, In-Laws on Trial

Even if the closure is ultimately deemed lawful, the policy raises questions about Columbia’s responsibilities to a community whose streets and public spaces the university has steadily absorbed over time.

Columbia should accept responsibility for maintaining order on its own campus rather than transferring the consequences to nearby residents.

If outside activists violate campus rules, the university should remove them and formally bar them from returning.

If students erect tents or barricades in unauthorized areas, administrators should dismantle them promptly instead of allowing unauthorized encampments to become entrenched.

And if students or activists—including Mahmoud Khalil, identified in the original controversy as an Algerian graduate student—publicly call for negotiations over the university’s response, Columbia should evaluate whether their conduct violates campus rules and apply disciplinary measures consistently.

University officials should not allow intimidation tactics, masks or theatrical demonstrations to determine campus policy. The standard should be clear rules, lawful enforcement and equal accountability.

If Columbia wants to demonstrate control of its campus, it should restore order through consistent enforcement—not by blocking seniors, disabled residents and other neighbors from reaching local shops or the downtown IRT.

The university should reopen College Walk and restore public access.

The lone juror who declined to find Lindsay Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity has shared a touching image of his newborn daughter as a fundraiser launched after he allegedly faced death threats and doxing continues to grow.

Michael Desronvil, 48, is pictured cradling his baby daughter in a photograph posted by his attorney, Edward Paltzik. The image surfaced after Desronvil became the focus of intense public backlash over his role in Clancy’s murder trial.

Desronvil reportedly stood alone against the other 11 jurors, refusing to agree that Clancy, 36, should be acquitted of murdering her children on the grounds of insanity. The deadlock ultimately resulted in a mistrial.

Clancy, a former labor and delivery nurse, was tried in connection with the deaths of her three young children at the family’s home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, in 2023.

Her defense focused on her mental state at the time of the killings. Clancy did not dispute that she had killed her children, but argued that postpartum psychosis meant she should be found not guilty by reason of insanity.

Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, were found strangled at their Duxbury home on January 24, 2023.

After jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict and a mistrial was declared, several members of the panel spoke publicly about what they described as an extraordinary breakdown during deliberations.

They said 11 jurors supported acquitting Clancy, while Desronvil remained the sole holdout.

Several jurors later accused Desronvil of refusing to seriously engage with their arguments, with some characterizing his conduct as “arrogant.”

Another juror described his behavior as “shocking.”

Paula Devlin, 65, told the Daily Mail that Desronvil’s explanations for his guilty vote “made no sense” when he was pressed. She said he remained largely “quiet” throughout the weeklong deliberations.

According to Devlin, he spent more time policing the tone of the group’s discussions than explaining why he believed Clancy was guilty.

“The main thing he focused on is sometimes we would all want to talk at once, and that was very upsetting to him,” she said.

“He would get upset and say, ‘Listen to what she’s saying, listen to what he’s saying, be respectful.’”

“We were trying to say to him that sometimes somebody says something and they get lost in their thought or they can’t find the right word, and somebody else puts that word in there for them or finishes their thought. That’s how normal conversation works.”

“But when that would happen, he would get upset and just take all this time lecturing us about not being respectful.”

Devlin also claimed the holdout was a married man and rarely fraternized with the group during the trial, instead preferring to speak to his wife or watch videos on his phone.

Devlin said the 11 jurors who decided Clancy was not guilty of murder or manslaughter in the deaths of her kids felt ‘defeat’ and ‘anger’ when the mistrial was declared.

She told the Daily Mail: ‘I don’t want to bash anybody, even that person.

‘They did whatever they did for their reasons, and we will never know, and we will never understand.

‘That’s what hurts so much.’

Three other women who served as jurors also spoke out earlier this week.

‘We weren’t trying to figure out if she murdered the children, she did and she’s admitting to that. We’re trying to figure out: Did she know right from wrong at that time?’ jury foreperson Roni Carlson recounted to NBC Boston.

‘And with everybody saying she loved her children so much and everything proved she loved her children, from her journals to her mother-in-law, everything proved that she loved her children,’ Carlson continued. ‘So she had to have snapped.’

ALSO READ: Michael Jackson's son Blanket, who is not often seen in public, goes out to have lunch in Calabasas at the age of 22. – NewsFinale

‘He had reasonable doubt. He admitted he had reasonable doubt,’ Carlson said.

‘I started filling out the forms, I was so excited. There were three forms I had to fill out, and then he said, ‘But I’m still not going to say she’s not guilty.”

The father from a Haitian immigrant family had a fundraiser launched ‘if they come for him, and they will’ to cover ‘security, lawyers and lost work,’ the GiveSendGo page said. 

After Desronvil was identified as the holdout juror he explained in a statement that ‘based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses and what the prosecution presented, I thought it was enough proof that [Clancy] knew exactly what she was doing.’

He doubled-down, emphasizing that he ‘didn’t have any doubts’ about Clancy’s guilt. 

The fundraiser garnered a flurry of donations in wake of the jurors identity surfacing publicly and reached over $361,970 as of Sunday evening. 

Desronvil received ‘death threats, doxxing and harassment’ following the trial’s collapse and reportedly had to leave his home, opting to stay at an ‘undisclosed secure location’ in New England, according to his attorney. 

In a statement on X, Paltzik said: ‘Michael will be making a personal statement in the near future, in his own words. But in the meantime, this is only me talking. I want to thank everyone who has sent me emails, texts, and voice messages over the last few days intended to support Michael. 

‘Thank you for being caring and nice people. I apologize profusely that I cannot respond to all of them right now but I wanted to say we really appreciate and notice every message, and it all matters a great deal. 

Every individual message that was sent matters a lot to us. I also want to say that if you disagree with us about anything that we say, that’s your right. In fact, I’d be concerned if every single person agreed with every single thing we say. This country was built on intelligent debate in the public square. 

‘That’s the same reason we support the good faith right of an individual juror to follow the evidence and the law to wherever they take him or her, free from fear of reprisal.’

Since the juror was pulled into the controversial case, it was revealed that the recently new father had previously faced domestic violence allegations and had an active restraining order against him, court records and police reports showed. 

NBC10 Boston revealed how he was allegedly charged with assault in September 2021 following an incident involving his then-wife. 

A police report obtained by the station said the man’s 13-year-old nephew called 911 and alleged his uncle had grabbed his wife around the throat before throwing her into a dresser.

The man’s mother was allegedly screaming, ‘You’re evil!’ as officers arrested him, according to the report cited by NBC10.

The criminal charge was ultimately dismissed, and the couple later divorced.

His ex-wife told the station that she had not wanted to testify because she feared she could lose custody of her daughter. But the juror allegedly became embroiled in another family confrontation years later.

Last year, the same nephew who had called police during the 2021 episode obtained a restraining order against his uncle, according to NBC10.

In an affidavit, the teenager accused his uncle of knocking him to the ground and repeatedly punching him in the face.

The nephew claimed his uncle told him: ‘You ruined my f***ing life,’ in an apparent reference to his earlier decision to call police.

‘You’ve had this coming your way for a long time,’ the juror allegedly added, according to the affidavit quoted by NBC10.

The restraining order was still active when the man was chosen to sit on the Clancy jury and throughout the weeks of evidence in the explosive case, the station reported. 

Family members contacted by NBC10 said they had been estranged from him since the alleged confrontation with his nephew and claimed they had no idea he had been serving on the Clancy jury.

One relative went further, describing him to the station as a ‘narcissist’ and saying she did not believe he should have been allowed to serve on such a consequential case.

The Daily Mail reached out to Paltzik and Clancy’s lawyer Kevin Reddington for comment. 

Presley Gerber spoke openly about his struggle to overcome addiction just six months before his death at a rehabilitation center, saying he was finally confronting what he had spent years “running from.”

The 27-year-old model shared video in March from a wellness clinic in Cancún, Mexico, where he participated in a spiritual ritual and prayer ceremony.

“Pre-ibogaine flood dose — quiet moment before everything changed,” Gerber wrote in the post.

“I was absolutely terrified, and I knew I would be again if I ever had to face something like this,” he continued. “It helps not to go into the situations you do that get you there, but that’s life sometimes. My mantras were ‘love yourself’ and ‘let this be the last time.’”

“Letting go of control didn’t come easily, but I trusted that something bigger than me was guiding the process. I knew why I was there.”

“I faced what I had been running from, and somewhere in all of it, I started finding my way back to myself,” Gerber said.

“We shall see… Praying it’s the last time I have to come back. Next time I’d like to choose.”

Gerber, the only son of supermodel Cindy Crawford, also expressed gratitude to the “incredible, caring and kind” staff at the facility.

His sister, model Kaia Gerber, responded by saying she was “so damn proud” of her older brother.

“You are a warrior,” Crawford wrote.

“Walked through the fire to find yourself. So proud!”

“Love you, mama,” Gerber replied.

His father, Rande Gerber, also praised his son’s bravery, writing, “I’m so proud of you and your courage.”

“Facing what’s hard takes real strength, and watching you find your way back to yourself is everything. I love you so much,” he added.

MORE STORY: Seven healthy Igbo foods to eat even if you are not from the tribe – NewsFinale

Gerber, who began modeling at 16 for Italian fashion brand Moschino, had turned to ibogaine, a psychoactive substance derived from the root bark of the West African shrub Tabernanthe iboga.

Ibogaine has been explored as a potential treatment for opioid addiction, while Stanford researchers have also studied its possible effects on traumatic brain injuries experienced by military veterans.

“No other drug has ever been able to alleviate the functional and neuropsychiatric symptoms of traumatic brain injury,” Nolan Williams, an associate professor of psychiatry, said in connection with a 2025 study.

Gerber was staying at an undisclosed rehabilitation facility when news of his death was announced Sunday. An autopsy has not yet been completed.

He had reportedly battled addiction for roughly a decade.

In 2024, Gerber disclosed that he had endured a severe, yearslong opioid addiction and survived a near-fatal fentanyl overdose that left him in a coma for several days.

The same year he also disclosed he was suffering from prescription medication dependency after seeing over 15 different psychiatrists who allegedly heavily medicated him without giving him a structured recovery direction.

Last December, he revealed in a now-deleted video how he used prescription medication such as antidepressants and Xanax for panic attacks, CNN reported.

“Unfortunately, I’ve had a lot of loss in many different forms recently,” he said.

“So that is not an excuse, but it’s the reason why I am where I’m at now.”

Just a month before his death, Kaia opened up about her brother’s battle with addiction.

“When something like that happens in a family, it kind of levels everyone,” she told Vogue.

The anger surrounding Charles Spencer’s explosive memoir about his sister Diana is easy to understand. The King already faces a demanding period, from the continuing scandal involving his brother Andrew and Harry and Meghan’s return to Britain to concerns about his own health.

Even if Spencer remains understandably embittered towards his former brother-in-law, many may wonder whether he could not have kept his feelings private.

Three decades ago, Charles Windsor was among England’s most unpopular figures, while his partner at the time, Camilla Parker Bowles, was viewed with similar hostility. But public opinion has changed considerably since then.

To the surprise of many, Prince Charles—whose disastrous marriage had caused immense damage to the monarchy—eventually emerged as a warm, humorous and widely admired King. His conduct during illness has also been seen by many as courageous and dignified.

Camilla, now Queen, has appeared to be a patient and perceptive partner through the years. Most people have made mistakes in their younger days, so perhaps the argument goes that old grievances should finally be left behind. Why, critics ask, should Lord Spencer disrupt that hard-won peace with what they describe as a hostile memoir?

That is the case being advanced by people presented as the King’s allies. They have mounted a fierce campaign against Charles Spencer, attacking his own failed marriages and portraying Swan Song as the product of spite—or even as an attempt to meet financial obligations to his third former wife.

Those reactions may be predictable, but they overlook what seems to be the central issue. In my view, Charles Spencer was justified in publishing the book, and the timing was justified too.

The first reason is that the substance of his account appears to be true. Although the King has expressed his outrage, he has not directly rejected the essential accuracy of Spencer’s memories. I have no doubt that those recollections are genuine.

It is difficult to believe that Spencer fabricated the now infamous telephone exchange in which the then Prince of Wales reportedly concluded: “We’ll forget her soon enough.”

Another memory also rings true. Spencer recounted it to me years ago, not long after the death of his father. On the day of John Spencer’s funeral, Prince Charles is said to have told the young, grieving earl: “You’re so lucky!” Although the prince was attending the funeral of his father-in-law, the moment was interpreted through Charles Windsor’s own sense of grievance. Spencer had inherited his title, while the future King remained in an apparently endless wait for his mother to die and the crown to pass to him.

It is difficult to judge how strong the King’s sense of humour really is, despite his fondness for the notoriously absurd Goon Show. He seems unlikely to have possessed the easy wit of his predecessor, Prince Bertie, who later became Edward VII. After attending a Diamond Jubilee service for his mother, Queen Victoria, Bertie heard an equerry praise the ceremony. “Ah,” he replied. “You have just spent an hour giving thanks to the Eternal Father. But I am cursed with the Eternal Mother.”

Charles Windsor spent much of his life waiting to occupy centre stage. He was eager to become King, yet Queen Elizabeth II lived until the age of 96. He felt neglected by his parents and, after 15 years as an adult and several unsuitable relationships, was married—essentially in an arranged match—to Diana Spencer, who was just 20.

Diana captivated the public on an extraordinary scale. After spending three decades in his mother’s shadow, Prince Charles appeared to resent the attention as the world embraced his new wife.

In a display of extraordinary insensitivity, he told Diana on the eve of their wedding that he did not love her, while continuing his relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles—the one person, apart from his sister Anne, whom he regarded as a dependable presence.

Diana’s devastation at her husband’s infidelity was therefore hardly surprising, and neither is her brother’s continuing anger on her behalf.

I would describe my relationship with Charles Spencer as that of cordial acquaintances rather than close friendship. We have encountered one another several times, I have stayed at Althorp on three occasions, and for a period we were represented by the same agent.

Our first meeting took place in a small but fashionable Oxford restaurant. Spencer was an undergraduate dressed in the traditional subfusc—white tie and academic gown worn for final examinations—and Diana had arranged a celebratory lunch for him. When I saw her again years later, during a lunch at the Evening Standard, where I worked, she displayed the same warmth, wit and elegance. In private, as in public, Diana possessed an extraordinary charm. Anyone married to her would have risked disappearing completely beside her and would have needed exceptional humility to cope with that.

King Charles, by contrast, has often appeared deeply preoccupied with himself. People who have known him have long been familiar with his defensive flashes of anger—an impression reinforced on the day he became King, when an ink-stained fountain pen reportedly triggered an angry outburst.

He was the worst possible husband for her, and she was the worst possible choice of wife for him. He spent the honeymoon sitting on the deck of the Royal Yacht reading twaddle by Laurens Van Der Post while the bored Diana chatted to the crew.

So, the whole thing is a tragedy. A true tragedy, in that probably all those concerned, flawed and imperfect as they were and are – the grannies who dreamed up the marriage, the bride and groom so ill-matched, their flawed, damaged sons – set out with the hope that they would do good.

As it was, this disastrous marriage very nearly brought the monarchy to an end. And its consequences – two traumatised sons, who are still living with the consequences and making the rest of us live with those consequences, could yet finish off the monarchy itself.

So, these things do matter.

Since I first met Spencer he has gone on to be an excellent historian and a first-rate writer. As an historian, he knows that he must set the record straight.

Although it might sound strange, it is more tactful for Spencer to do so now, while the King is still alive, rather than to wait for Charles III to die. Then it would seem like dancing on his grave.

We need to be reminded of how appallingly not only Charles Windsor, but all the Royal Family, behaved towards Diana. That is why the nation turned against all of them. It was not just the Press and the paparazzi who drove her to her desperate end, it was the callousness of the Windsors. I salute Charles Spencer for his bravery in saying all this.

He is a sensitive man who would know full well what the reaction to his book would be. The ‘friends’ of the King and the stuffpots will try to impugn Spencer’s integrity by smearing his character. But the truth is the truth. And, when you think about it – now Diana is, alas, no longer with us – no one else could have told the true story except her brother.

JAN MOIR: I just can’t accept that Prince Charles practically revelled in the death of his former wife 

Something profound and elemental emerges from Charles Spencer’s book, Swan Song: Diana, My Sister.

It is not how much he mourns his sister Princess Diana, from whom he was estranged at the time of her death. It is how much he utterly despises King Charles, a hatred that has roared away, a bitter furnace in his soul, for more than 30 years.

READ MORE: Paris Hilton ‘Heartbroken’ by Death of Friend Presley Gerber, Cindy Crawford’s Son

In the extracts published by the Daily Mail, Spencer’s undimmed malice burns off the page, a heartless corrosion that is awful to behold. In his version of events, we are encouraged to believe that the then-Prince Charles practically revelled in the death of his former wife.

Indeed, he appeared to be quite pleased that 36-year-old Diana, the beloved mother of his two young sons, met her end in a convenient car crash in Paris.

‘I suspect the prince’s first reaction must have been to think more of how this event might free him to marry the woman he loved, rather than appreciating the loss of one he did not,’ writes Spencer.

He recalls that, unlike others who telephoned to give their condolences in the days and hours after Diana’s death, Charles sounded ‘giddily elated – like a lottery winner’. What a terrible and damning allegation, backed up by precisely nothing, least of all the weight of history.

Yet, according to Spencer, the prince also sounded ‘strangely matter-of-fact, given the enormity of the disaster’.

How could he have been both these things at the same time?

By Earl Spencer’s account, while his own grief was profound, the brutish prince seemed to regard the death of Diana with all the detachment of a man who has just witnessed a bug being squashed on a windscreen.

Oh dear, how sad, never mind. That is the mood Charles Spencer ascribes to his former brother-in-law at this tragic moment of global import and personal bereavement in both their lives.

Spencer also writes that Charles said the following to him, delivered in true Bond-villain fashion, perhaps while stroking a cat: ‘Rest assured,’ he hissed, ‘we’ll forget her soon enough!’ Did he really? Not only does it not sound like King Charles, but it is also a remark you could surely put any number of interpretations upon. It is also a remark that could easily be misheard.

Isn’t it far more likely that Charles said ‘they’ll forget her soon enough’ – meaning the public, who were going crazy?

Isn’t it far more likely that Spencer’s own heightened emotional state meant he could have misinterpreted or misunderstood what was coming down the phone line from the royal residences as his own world fell apart?

The Palace responded to this latter allegation by saying: ‘While we do not comment on books as a matter of principle, His Majesty is mindful that the pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgment and colour memory in ways others do not recognise, even many years after such a loss.’ Recollections may vary, Mark II.

Some argue that the King should not have commented on Spencer’s words – yet I believe that he had to. The slur is so terrible, the smear so profound, that he simply could not let it lie unchallenged.

In writing these incendiary words, Charles Spencer meant to wound and harm, to thrust a dagger deep into the royal ribs, to cause as much damage as possible, to make a 77-year-old man, not in the best of health, look like a heartless, weak adulterer who simply did not care about the tragic death of his ex-wife.

Spencer’s judgment is thunderous and cruel for many reasons but most of all because it does not acknowledge a speck of humanity within the prince, or that at the worst moment in life, many of us do not behave at our best.

Ultimately, it all boils down to a choice that seems medieval – which Charles do you believe? Spencer or Windsor, the King or the earl, the husband or the brother, the aggrieved or the grieving. Well, I know who I think is the better man – and it is not Earl Spencer.

Is this a choice Prince Harry must also make? One wonders how he can remain on close terms with his fuming uncle while his father is being so viciously traduced and the monarchy attacked. It seems impossible that he can remain neutral, a gingery Switzerland of calm in this bloody war of attrition.

In later chapters, for example, the earl also recounts his version of the row regarding Prince William and Prince Harry walking behind Diana’s coffin at her funeral procession. Are we back here again? I am afraid so.

This is an issue Harry has bemoaned, too, as further evidence of the moral futility and chronic failings of monarchy.

Look. No doubt it was an ordeal; two young boys in their smart suits and neat hair, trying not to cry in front of the whole world. It still breaks my heart just to think about it.

Yet there is a price to pay for the trappings and advantages of being a member of the Royal Family – and here it was, being marched out in funeral lockstep across a city and a nation in mourning.

Perhaps, with hindsight, they could all look at it another way: that walking behind the coffin was a privilege, it was an honour, it was what was expected of them as heirs to a throne that stretches back more than 1,000 years.

She was their mother, this was their destiny – and in the end, what did it have to do with Charles Spencer? He was an uncle, a man whose views were welcomed – but surely those views could only be secondary to the wishes of the boys’ father?

From that day onwards, all four of these men had to learn how to live without a mother, without a sister and without a first wife.

Some of them, of course, have done so better than others. Spencer and Harry have much in common, for both of them are caught in the amber of three decades of hurt and resentment, unable to move on. Compare this to Prince William, whose burden grows heavier by the day but who never complains. And then there is Charles Spencer, a historian who wants to rewrite history.

Back in 1997, Earl Spencer welcomed his sister’s body back to Althorp in a way he did not welcome her presence in life. When she asked if she could live in the Garden House on the estate in 1992, he said no. Now, she lies in her island grave at Althorp but she does not rest in peace. Her brother has seen to that.

Read more: 

CHICAGO (WLS) — Rain poured over Soldier Field on Sunday as the Chicago Bears absorbed a frustrating 9-3 loss to the Minnesota Vikings and watched quarterback Caleb Williams leave with a hamstring injury.

Minnesota’s defense made the decisive plays, with Isaiah Rodgers recovering a fumble and later blocking a late Chicago field-goal attempt to preserve the Vikings’ victory.

Aaron Jones powered Minnesota with 105 rushing yards, while Will Reichard connected on three field goals, including a 39-yarder with 1:09 remaining. The Vikings moved to 2-0 for the first time since beginning the 2024 season with five straight wins.

Williams was injured on a scramble midway through the fourth quarter, abruptly quieting the rain-soaked crowd of 58,914 at Soldier Field.

Tyson Bagent took over at quarterback, but Chicago’s ensuing possession ended when Rodgers blocked Cairo Santos’ 23-yard field-goal attempt, allowing Minnesota to hold onto its 6-3 advantage.

Dallas Turner helped anchor a Vikings defense that held Chicago to 297 total yards. Turner recorded two of Minnesota’s four sacks, while Byron Murphy Jr. picked off a risky Williams pass in the opening quarter.

The Bears entered the game after producing 291 rushing yards and 552 total yards in a 59-37 win over Carolina in Week 1, the highest-scoring season opener in NFL history.

Williams went down with roughly 7 1/2 minutes left after scrambling deep into Minnesota territory. The third-year quarterback had enjoyed a spectacular opener, throwing two touchdown passes and running for two more, but needed assistance leaving the field Sunday.

The No. 1 overall selection in the 2024 NFL Draft was helped across the slick, rain-covered field at Soldier Field.

With a towel covering his head, the 24-year-old Williams was taken toward the locker room on a cart. He later removed the towel, raised his right arm and tried to energize the disappointed crowd of 58,914 along the sideline.

Williams completed 15 of 26 passes for 138 yards and an interception. He also carried the ball five times for 42 yards.

“I mean, you could kind of see it in real time. I’m actually happy it’s nothing with the knee,” Bears coach Ben Johnson said. “That was my first inclination. But, yeah, a hamstring can be pretty damaging as well. We’ll see how bad it is tomorrow and go from there. You’ve quickly got to turn the page.

Bagent completed a pass to D’Andre Swift for 1 yard before an incomplete throw on third down. Johnson opted to send Santos out for a 23-yard attempt, but Rodgers broke through to block it.

After Carson Wentz guided Minnesota into position for Reichard’s third field goal, Chicago mounted one final threat. Bagent connected with Rome Odunze for 21 yards and Luther Burden for 8, moving the Bears to the Vikings 12-yard line.

Wentz finished 11 of 20 for 143 yards, while Justin Jefferson caught three passes for 55 yards. Wentz started because Kyler Murray was still progressing through the NFL’s concussion protocol.

With Chicago trailing 6-3, Williams led the Bears to first-and-goal at the Minnesota 1 on the opening drive of the second half. Swift then lost the ball after a hit from Jalen Redmond, and Rodgers recovered for the Vikings.

The teams traded field goals on their first possessions. Jefferson’s 30-yard catch helped set up Reichard’s 35-yarder, while Williams’ 19-yard run sparked Chicago’s drive to Santos’ 50-yard kick.

Fans react to Williams injury, Bears loss; doctor provides insight

When Williams was taken off the field in the fourth quarter, trainers quickly surrounded him as he struggled to get upright after suffering the hamstring injury.

READ MORE: Porsha Williams Aims to Inspire Women After Partial Hysterectomy

“It was probably something serious,” fan Bobby Nesby said. “I’m just praying it’s not.”

Orthopedic surgeon Dr. Andrew Riff of UChicago Medicine AdventHealth watched the injury unfold live.

“I think we’re all fearing the worst,” Riff said. “He’s the critical piece of, probably, the team that we’ve been most optimistic about for a long, long time.”

“This was, really, sort of an overstriding-type injury, and that is classic for a hamstring strain,” he said.

The moment sent Bears fans into disbelief as their star quarterback left the game.

“When we saw him getting kind of helped off the field, I think our minds went to, ‘Is this the Madden curse?'” fan Sam Razi said.

ESPN reports that Williams will undergo imaging on his right hamstring Monday.

Riff said the rehabilitation plan will likely last for weeks and could require crutches.

“The hope is that within, you know, two to three weeks, we might see him kind of training with the guys,” Riff said.

Williams’ injury overshadowed the Bears’ 9-3 loss to the Vikings. At times, both teams appeared to struggle on a wet and slippery Soldier Field.

“You saw everybody slipping and sliding on the field,” fan Julie Zhu told said. “They were having trouble, obviously, catching the ball because it was so slippery.”

Zhu and her family were among the thousands in the stands. They were wearing ponchos.

“