Following five intense weeks of testimony in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial, the judge has granted the jury the option to deliberate on a manslaughter charge as they consider the mother’s future.

At the age of 36, Clancy faces serious accusations of deliberately strangling her three children—Cora, aged five; Dawson, aged three; and eight-month-old Callan—using exercise bands at their home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, in January 2023.

In a tragic sequence of events, she reportedly attempted suicide afterward by slitting her wrists and neck before leaping from a second-story window, resulting in paralysis from the waist down.

With the presentation of evidence now complete and the final witness dismissed, the judge convened a charging conference on Wednesday to decide which lesser homicide charges the jurors should be allowed to evaluate during their deliberation.

Judge William Sullivan has introduced the possibility of a manslaughter charge to the jury, providing them with a potential lesser conviction in lieu of a murder charge, which carries the severity of a life sentence.

Clancy’s parents walked out of court grinning from ear to ear, appearing visibly relieved after the proceeding. 

Three charges are now on the table: first-degree murder, second-degree murder and manslaughter – though it was not specified which form of manslaughter. Her defense had previously sought an involuntary manslaughter charge.

The charging conference marked a critical moment for Clancy, with her defense arguing that postpartum psychosis and her heavily medicated state should give jurors a path to a lesser conviction than murder. 

Prosecutors, however, argue that she deliberately killed her children as part of a plan that involved sending her husband, Patrick Clancy, out on errands while she strangled the children in the basement before attempting to take her own life. 

The labor and delivery nurse has already admitted to killing her children but pleaded not guilty to murder by reason of insanity. Her goal is to be committed to a state mental health facility rather than sent to prison.

But the one key question still remains: Is she criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children?

‘It’s going to be basically an up or down vote from the jury on whether she had the mental capacity to understand that what she did was wrong and the mental capacity to avoid doing what she knew was wrong,’ David Rossman, director of the Criminal Law Clinical Program at Boston University, told CT Insider.

The stakes are enormous for Clancy, with each of the three charges carrying vastly different consequences. 

First-degree murder  

During opening statements, prosecutors argued that Clancy ‘deliberately and meticulously’ killed her children and ‘acted intentionally, rationally and swiftly to accomplish a very specific goal.’

Boiling the case down to its most fundamental question, they asked: ‘Did Clancy know what she was doing, and could she control her actions?’

Prosecutors have pushed for jurors to be instructed on first-degree murder, the most serious option before the jury.

If convicted on all three counts, Clancy would face the harshest possible punishment: life behind bars without the possibility of parole. 

In Massachusetts, prosecutors bear the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy was criminally responsible at the time of the killings.

They can argue either that she was not suffering from a mental disease or defect, or that, despite any such condition, she understood her actions and could control her behavior. 

Under state law, first-degree murder requires prosecutors to prove deliberate premeditation, meaning the defendant formed an intent to kill and had time to think about it before carrying out the act. 

A killing can also constitute first-degree murder if it was committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty, or while the defendant was committing or attempting to commit certain felonies. 

But even if jurors conclude Clancy intentionally killed her children, they must still decide whether severe postpartum mental illness and depression left her not criminally responsible for the killings. 

If jurors reject her defense and find her guilty of first-degree murder, Clancy would automatically face life in prison with no possibility of parole. 

Second-degree murder  

Prosecutors have also pressed for second-degree murder to be put on the table – still a murder conviction, but less severe than first degree. 

That distinction is important: second-degree murder does not necessarily mean a less intentional killing, but rather one that fails to meet the legal requirements for first degree.

If jurors convict Clancy of second-degree murder, she would still face life behind bars, but unlike a first-degree conviction, she could eventually be eligible for parole. 

Another possible, but unlikely, outcome is that jurors could find Clancy not guilty of murder because prosecutors failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she killed the children.

Still, the defense has never disputed that the children died at Clancy’s hands. 

‘Since she’s conceded that she in fact committed the crime, in terms of the physical act that caused the death of the children, I don’t think the judge is going to instruct them on the basic not guilty verdict,’ Rossman said, according to CT Insider.

RELATED: Court Lifts Mail-In Voting Block, Warns of Potential Chaos

A conviction for either first- or second-degree murder would send Clancy to prison, though she would likely still have access to psychiatric and medical treatment behind bars. 

Involuntary manslaughter 

Clancy’s attorney Kevin Reddington opened the trial with a starkly different question: ‘The issue for consideration is what was going on in that woman’s mind?’

He sought to put involuntary manslaughter on the table for jurors, arguing Clancy was suffering from a ‘toxic soup’ of over-prescribed medications. 

Under Massachusetts’ 2026 model jury instructions, a lesser offense can be put before jurors when the evidence gives them a rational basis to reject the greater charge but still convict on the lesser one. 

As part of the proposed jury instructions, Reddington argued that Clancy’s heavily medicated state amounted to involuntary intoxication, severely impairing her ability to control her behavior or act with deliberate clarity.

The charge is substantially less serious than first-degree murder, but prosecutors have pushed back, arguing there is insufficient evidence to warrant giving jurors the option. 

Involuntary manslaughter applies when someone causes another person’s death without intending to kill them, but does so through sufficiently reckless or unlawful conduct.

Prosecutors generally must prove that reckless conduct by the defendant caused the death – a dramatically different standard from first-degree murder.

The distinction is crucial: first-degree murder requires proof of deliberate intent to kill, while involuntary manslaughter involves an unintended death caused by criminally reckless conduct.

If the judge puts the charge before the jury and Clancy is convicted, she could face a maximum sentence of 20 years in state prison. 

Voluntary manslaughter  

While it is unclear whether Reddington also sought voluntary manslaughter, it too is a lesser charge – though vastly different from involuntary manslaughter.

Voluntary manslaughter is an intentional killing, but one committed under circumstances that make the defendant less culpable than a murderer. 

A classic example is a killing in the heat of passion after a triggering act causes a sudden loss of self-control, though Massachusetts law sets its own specific requirements. 

It appears Reddington specifically sought an involuntary manslaughter instruction, tying the lesser charge to his argument that Clancy was severely intoxicated and over-medicated when her children died. 

Even so, a conviction could still land her in state prison for up to 20 years under Massachusetts law. 

Not criminally responsible  

Jurors could also find Clancy not criminally responsible, or ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ – the outcome her defense has spent the past several weeks fighting for. 

In Massachusetts, a person is not criminally responsible if a ‘mental disease or defect’ left them unable to understand that their actions were wrong or unable to follow the law. 

But a finding of not criminally responsible would not mean Clancy simply walks free and returns to life as usual.

Under state law, Clancy could be hospitalized for up to 40 days for ‘observation and examination,’ with prosecutors or hospital officials then able to seek her involuntary commitment to a psychiatric facility. 

A judge could order Clancy confined to a psychiatric facility if she is found to be mentally ill and her release would ‘create a likelihood of serious harm,’ under state law. 

A psychiatric commitment typically begins with six months and can be renewed in one-year increments. 

That means Clancy could potentially spend the rest of her life in a psychiatric hospital unless a judge determines she is no longer a danger to herself or others. 

Since the killings, she has been confined within the clinical corridors of Tewksbury State Hospital, behind the doors of the pre-Civil War psychiatric facility. 

There, confined to a wheelchair, she receives round-the-clock care for her physical and mental health.

Hung jury

Clancy’s panel includes 12 women and six men, but only 12 will ultimately decide her fate, with the remaining six serving as alternates and dismissed before deliberations begin. 

In Massachusetts, a jury verdict must be unanimous. 

Should jurors fail to reach a unanimous verdict, Clancy could face a hung jury, leaving them deadlocked over whether she is guilty.

If jurors become stuck, the judge can order them to continue deliberating and give additional instructions encouraging them to reconsider their positions and work toward a unanimous verdict. 

‘But if in the end they can’t, then it’s a mistrial and the prosecution would be free again to try with a different jury,’ Rossman told CT Insider. 

If you or someone you know needs help, please call or text the confidential 24/7 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline in the US on 988. There is also an online chat available at 988lifeline.org. 

For those struggling with suicidal thoughts, reach out to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255) for support.

In a high-profile courtroom drama, the prosecutor famous for convicting Susan Smith, who tragically took the lives of her two sons, claims Lindsay Clancy’s defense fell short of evidencing a “break with reality.” As the jury readies to deliberate after Thursday’s closing arguments, this assertion remains pivotal.

Lindsay Clancy, aged 36, is charged with three counts of first-degree murder related to the tragic deaths of her children—Cora, Dawson, and Callan—who were found strangled in the family home in January 2023. With the prosecution having concluded its rebuttal by Wednesday afternoon, closing arguments are set for Thursday, setting the stage for the jury’s in-depth deliberations.

Her legal defense insists that Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the tragic moment she took her children’s lives, a point of contention adamantly challenged by the prosecuting team.

Smith, a South Carolina mother, was convicted of killing her two young sons — 3-year-old Michael and 14-month-old Alexander — after she strapped them into her car and allowed it to roll into a lake. Prosecutors contended she killed the boys at least in part because the man she was romantically involved with did not want a relationship with a woman who had children. She received a life prison sentence.

Smith’s defense contended she was in a fragile mental state and suffered from severe depression, characterizing the act as a failed suicide attempt in which she had intended to end her own life along with her sons’.

As jurors begin to deliberate on Thursday, Rep. Tommy Pope, who is currently the speaker pro tempore for the South Carolina House of Representatives and prosecuted Smith, told News Media he thinks Clancy failed to prove she had a break from reality.

“So as a prosecutor, what you try to do, and you’ve seen it in this case, is the prosecutor will point out all the things that she did that it can be mundane. Sometimes people watch and go, why do they care that she ordered dinner? Why do they hear that she sent her husband away or was able to dial the phone or those things? But that’s what you’re looking at. Was it a break from reality? Or did she just commit a horrible, horrible crime and make a horrible, horrible choice?” Pope said. “In these circumstances, Clancy had, like I said, all the prior treatment. But I still don’t really see the break with reality.”

READ MORE: Unmasking Drama: ‘Mormon Wives’ Returns with Season 5

However, Pope said that one of the things that “jumps out” for him is a clear lack of motive in Clancy killing her children, which was present in the Smith murders.

“In this one, it’s hard to see the end game,” Pope said, referring to the murder case against Clancy. “What was her goal after? Let’s say that even jumping out the window was a suicidal gesture, which obviously went terribly wrong for her, if that was the case. But what was her end game? And that’s one disconnect I see.”

Gregory Saathoff, a University of Virginia forensic psychiatrist who consults for the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit, testified Wednesday that financial pressure was among the stressors Clancy faced and may help explain why she killed her children.

Saathoff said Clancy felt her “brain had been damaged” and could no longer do the work she loved or help support her family, which left her with a sense of being a burden.

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington questioned Saathoff about his experience with terrorism, drawing from him an acknowledgment that sleep deprivation is employed as a form of torture and that severe insomnia “can actually lead to psychosis.” Saathoff confirmed the point, saying, “Yes, it’s possible.”

Ed Martin is set to conclude his role as the pardon attorney next week. During his tenure, President Trump granted pardons to hundreds caught up in what they perceive as the Biden administration’s biased use of the justice system against Trump and his supporters. As a devout Catholic, Martin has been instrumental in restoring both the reputations and dignity of these individuals, a period he fondly refers to as “Trump’s year of mercy.”

While some critics dismiss his efforts, they are simultaneously apprehensive, recognizing Martin’s effectiveness as a driven and happy warrior who has accomplished significant achievements in his relatively short tenure.

In his additional role as interim DC US attorney, which lasted four months, Martin played a pivotal part in terminating all January 6 prosecutions following Trump’s sweeping pardons and commutations. He also dismissed overzealous prosecutors accused of misusing the law and warned Senator Chuck Schumer regarding his threats to Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh during a Supreme Court abortion-rights rally back in March 2020.

Moreover, he was appointed as a special attorney for mortgage fraud at the Department of Justice. In this capacity, he spearheaded investigations involving New York Attorney General Letitia James, Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook, and Democratic Senator Adam Schiff, known for his participation in the Russiagate controversy.

Adding another layer to his broad responsibilities at the DOJ, Martin served as associate deputy attorney general leading the Weaponization Working Group. This group launched inquiries into what Martin claims are the Biden DOJ’s aggressive actions against Catholics, concerned school board parents, and pro-life advocates. He accused Lisa Monaco, deputy attorney general under Merrick Garland, of orchestrating these partisan pursuits.

It rankles Martin that she has been rewarded handsomely for her conduct with a prestigious high-paying job at Microsoft as president of global affairs.

“Lisa Monaco should not be received in polite society,” he says. “Instead she is paid tens of millions by Microsoft. When people do something wrong . . . they should be named and shamed and in a culture that values shame.”

Martin’s critics sneer at his small-town Missouri cheerfulness and the Columbo-style trenchcoat that has become his trademark, but they fear a rare man in Washington who knows right from wrong and never flinches from the fight.

Conservatives have had no better warrior since his mentor Phyllis Schlafly died in 2016, two months before Donald Trump won the presidential election in which she threw the might of the most influential social conservative movement in the country behind the showy real estate developer from Queens.

The Missouri powerhouse activist’s early support for Trump split her movement and bogged her down in lawsuits from a rogue group of Never Trumpers inside her own Eagle Forum which continue to this day.

No MAGA left behind

Martin was her protégé co-authoring the New York Times bestseller “The Conservative Case for Trump” that was published the day after her death and gave the green light to conservatives to vote for the uncontrollable Fifth Avenue billionaire. He saw firsthand how the law can be weaponized against conservatives and, most importantly, how Schlafly, by then in her 90s, remained cheerfully undeterred.

In an hour-long meeting in the Oval Office with the president last week, half the conversation was about Schlafly, and Trump’s gratitude to her and Martin.

“She never wavered,” Trump told Martin.

Neither has Martin, and Trump knows it.

“Ed Martin has been with me from the very beginning, and done an incredible job,” Trump posted on Truth Social after their meeting.

“Ed is now leaving to go outside to fight Legal Battles for the upcoming Midterm Election, and the Presidential Election of 2028. I know he will do an outstanding job, ensure Free, Fair, and Honest Elections, and strongly advance our Constitutional Rights.”

Martin sees the president as “the greatest fruit of the Norman Vincent Peale American movement.”

He said Trump embraced the themes of Peale’s famous book “The Power of Positive Thinking,” and he also internalized “the Horatio Alger myth of America” popularized by Peale, which holds that “every American can pull himself up by his bootstraps . . . In the 1940s [as the] GI Bill kicked in and the greatest shift of working-class Americans into the middle and upper class happened, it was the Horatio Alger story that became the American myth.

“Trump lived that from his own family and those around him that’s what he’s trying to get America to be again.”

ALSO READ: Fans Concerned: Where is Simon Cowell on Tonight’s ‘AGT’ Episode?

In a way, Schlafly and Martin forged the origin story of MAGA.

“No MAGA left behind” was Martin’s motto as pardon attorney.

Thus Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s former lawyer, Mark Meadows, his former chief of staff, election lawyers John Eastman, Sidney Powell, Kenneth Chesebro, Jenna Ellis and Christina Bobb, and Tina Peters, a Colorado clerk caught up in another election witch-hunt, were all pardoned.

Every week, Post columnist Miranda Devine sits down for exclusive and candid conversations with the most influential disruptors in Washington on ‘Pod Force One.’ Subscribe here!

So was Devon Archer, Hunter Biden’s former business partner who was targeted by the same Biden DOJ that was protecting the then-president’s son. Where there was injustice, abuse of the system and unequal treatment, Martin set about putting things right.

He said as soon as the Democrats lost in 2016, they embarked on a decade-long operation to take down Trump and his world. Once in power under Biden, they weaponized the DOJ to attack Trump and protect Joe Biden.

“When the system is lacking in transparency and the rules change depending on who you are, this is not just unfair but a problem of the administration of justice,” he said.

The system is working against the citizen.

Ready to ‘fight’

“Reagan used to say ‘trust but verify’ about Soviet communism. My experience after all of this, when it comes to the government in this era of lawfare, is ‘distrust and rectify.’ ”

Of course, Martin is attacked daily by Deep State exiles like disgraced former FBI Deputy Director and Russiagate plotter Andrew McCabe and Liz Oyer, Joe Biden’s pardon attorney.

Oyer criticizes Martin on lefty podcasts over pardons of conservative Trump allies, despite the fact that on her watch, Biden pardoned his son. Not to mention the autopen.

Oyer calls Martin “one of the most dangerous people in the Justice Department,” a criticism he wears like a badge of honor, although his boss, AG Todd Blanche, was discomfited by his cowboy ways.

But Martin appears to hold no ill will and is focused on his next task: energizing a moribund MAGA base to get out and vote at the midterms.

His prime vehicle is also his favorite cause: defending the Second Amendment. One of his last acts as pardon attorney was to oversee the new Federal Firearm Rights Restoration rule, which allows non-violent felons to request clemency “so that they can once again protect themselves, their families and businesses, and know again the joys of gun collecting, target range practice and hunting.”

“The Second Amendment is so important that it trumps a felony conviction,” he said. It “is the stabilizer for our American nation.”

He said 30 million Americans, including felons, have lost their Second Amendment rights in a concerted encroachment over more than 30 years.

He said he won’t be trying to speak to swing voters or soccer moms but to MAGA people, to get them to understand what Trump has achieved.

“I want to fight, fight, fight for the midterm elections. Get out the vote of conservatives and Second Amendment supporters.

“Midterm elections are always tough, but we have a great argument to make about what we’ve done.”

A fierce legal skirmish has erupted over the $400,000 estate of late actress Daveigh Chase. In a dramatic twist, her former manager has waded into what has already become a contentious standoff between her estranged parents, all vying for control of her remaining assets.

This unusual probate conflict comes in the wake of the passing of the former child sensation, best known for haunting audiences as Samara in ‘The Ring’. Tragically, Chase passed away at just 35, her life marred by tumultuous bouts with addiction and a heartbreaking stint without a home in Los Angeles.

Living in an RV amidst the struggles of Skid Row—a neighborhood infamous for its homelessness—Chase was elusive, as her loved ones tirelessly searched for her during those final months.

According to findings from the Los Angeles County Medical Examiner, Chase’s death on June 16 resulted from a dual affliction: acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and complications from polysubstance abuse.

Despite the hardships that defined the end of her days, court filings have disclosed that Chase left behind an estate her mother appraised at about $400,000, as reported by documents acquired by the Daily Mail.

Despite being unhoused in her final months, control of that money and Chase’s remaining assets has become the focus of an increasingly bitter legal fight involving her mother Cathy Chase, estranged father John Schwallier – and her former manager John Ryan.

At a hearing on Wednesday at a Downtown LA courtroom, Daveigh’s parents and their attorneys told a judge that they plan to move forward with competing petitions to each take over their daughter’s estate.

Cathy told the Daily Mail that Daveigh also had residuals that she never collected from her work in various commercials, film and TV shows.

John Schwallier, who has not seen Daveigh since she was a child, initially told the Daily Mail he would rather have a fiduciary, Megan Boling, be appointed by the court to deal with settling the estate affairs.

He also filed paperwork asking a judge to approve Boling as administrator to Daveigh’s estate.

Then, in a surprising turn of events, another name came forward to obtain a piece of Daveigh’s earning. 

An attorney representing Daveigh’s former manager also told the judge that his client, John Ryan, had filed paperwork in support of Boling as the administrator.

Ryan had publicly criticized Daveigh’s boyfriend, Roy Hernandez, for setting up a GoFundMe for the actress, calling it ‘fake’ and warned the public not to donate to the crowdfunding site.

‘That GoFundMe is not going toward ANY expenses for Daveigh,’ Ryan said in a statement. 

‘Myself, her father, her uncle and all of us close friends who knew her for decades are encouraging people not to donate to this page. This man making these claims brought her into the hospital in terrible condition and didn’t let any of the family know until she passed so he can control the dialogue. 

‘Daveigh’s actual family is handling all arrangements, we have contacted go fund me to let them know this man started this page on his own under Daveighs name when she was already unresponsive and urging people to report the page and not donate.’

Attorney Richard Pershing, who represents fiduciary Megan Boling, told the judge he met with Cathy Chase’s attorney, but they could not ‘find a resolution.’

Cathy Chase, who was on the video call, remained quiet. Her ex-husband, however, spoke to the judge in frustration.

‘Ultimately, I would like a court-appointed person,’ said Schwallier as he rubbed his brow. 

RELATED: NYCFC Strengthens Defense with Tayvon Gray Contract Extension

‘I’ve got nothing but ill representation from my ex-wife and I don’t see her treating this fairly. That is why I want a fiduciary person to do it.’

Attorney Cliff Melnick, who represents Cathy, said he was concerned with the amount of time it could take to argue over the competing petitions.

‘Your Honor, I am concerned about the length, time and expenses this is going to take,’ Melnick said. 

‘There are so many competing petitions. And as far as Ms. Boling is concerned, my client clearly has priority over Mr. Schwallier’s nominee.

He continued: ‘I guess my overall worry is that we’re just going to keep pushing this. A resolution is important to my client. It’s a tough situation, and under these very difficult circumstances, I am further worried that we are being engaged in discovery. 

‘It’s going to become some form of a fishing expedition. There is nothing in any of the papers that I’ve seen indicating Cathy Chase should be disqualified for any reason whatsoever.’

Before the 15-minute hearing ended, Schwallier told the judge he also plans to file his own petition.

He told the judge, ‘If you are not going to grant [Boiling to take over] or a court-appointed fiduciary today, I will file a competing petition.’

The judge told Schwallier to file his petition by January 8. The hearing was continued to February 10, 2027.

In June, Cathy Chase told the Daily Mail about the harrowing moments she experienced upon learning of her daughter’s death via online news alerts.

‘I was devastated,’ Cathy said. ‘It felt like something inside of me squeezing all of the air out of me, and at the same time, it felt like I was exploding outwardly.’

She continued, ‘I let out this guttural scream and I just was running. And these weird sounds were coming out of me, these kind of, like, primeval sounds.

‘And I went out into the backyard, and I was screaming, “No, no, no, no!” I am in so much pain but I hope her soul heard me.’

Cathy told the Daily Mail she had said a prayer for her late daughter when she identified her at a Los Angeles hospital early June 18.

She said a chaplain joined her as they ‘were able to lay hands and pray.’

Cathy added, ‘We were able to lay hands and pray. Technically, we were touching the glass, but it’s as close as we could get, so we were able to lay hands and pray for her.

‘It was a beautiful experience, and, I feel very blessed to have been able to share that with my daughter.’

Daveigh Chase was best known for her work in films such as The Ring and Lilo & Stitch, both of which had been released in 2002.

The Las Vegas-born actress had previously appeared in the 2001 film Donnie Darko and 2003 series Oliver Beene.

Content warning: This article contains details that may be distressing to some readers, including descriptions of sexual assault.

Attorneys representing Timothy Hudson, the teenager implicated in the brutal slaying of his 18-year-old stepsister Anna Kepner, point to a “unique—and very unfortunate—family dynamic” as justification for requesting more time before his federal murder trial commences.

In response to the defense’s call for delay, U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom acquiesced, agreeing to postpone the trial, which was initially scheduled for September, to kick off during a two-week period starting November 2, 2026.

Hudson, 16 at the time of his alleged crime against Kepner in November 2025, faces adult charges of first-degree murder and aggravated sexual abuse. Kepner, a senior and cherished cheerleader at Titusville High School, met her tragic end aboard the Carnival Horizon cruise vessel. Hudson has entered a plea of not guilty.

In an Aug. 24 motion, Hudson’s attorneys said they need additional time to complete their investigation of issues they said could affect the resolution of the case.

The defense cited the seriousness of the allegations, Hudson’s status as a juvenile and family circumstances that have limited the lawyers’ access to certain relatives. His attorneys said they were “purposefully being vague” because of intense media scrutiny surrounding the case.

“Although substantial progress has been made, more still needs to be done,” the filing states. The lawyers said the additional time would allow them to complete their investigation and properly advise Hudson about “the options available to him to resolve the pending charges.”

The prosecution did not oppose the request.

Bloom wrote that the interests of justice served by the continuance outweighed speedy-trial concerns.

The court’s deadlines report lists Oct. 23 as the deadline for any plea agreement.

When asked about a potential plea deal, Hudson’s attorney told News Media that they were “still not in a position to make a statement.” The U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Florida declined to comment.

A calendar call is scheduled for Oct. 27 at 1:30 p.m., and the jury trial is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. Nov. 2, at the Wilkie D. Ferguson Jr. U.S. Courthouse in Miami.

Prosecutors say Kepner left dinner because she wasn’t feeling well, saying that she had mouth pain from her braces and an upset stomach, and returned alone to cabin 8343.

CCTV allegedly shows Hudson entering the cabin.

CCTV allegedly shows Kepner entering the same cabin. Prosecutors say she was never seen leaving again.

Kepner’s 13-year-old brother briefly entered the cabin and later told investigators he saw her alive.

Prosecutors say Kepner and Hudson were alone in the cabin for roughly three hours.

10:13 p.m.: Prosecutors say Hudson exits the cabin and looks left and right down the hallway.

10:53 p.m.: Prosecutors say Hudson places the privacy sign on the cabin door and goes back inside.

Kepner’s younger brother returns briefly to the cabin. He later tells investigators he did not see her inside.

The brother returned again. Prosecutors say Hudson blocked him from entering, told him he was changing and made him wait outside for a couple of minutes.

The brother said the bathroom and closet doors were open, and the cabin lights were on.

Prosecutors say Kepner’s phone, which was missing from the cabin, was tracked by ship Wi-Fi/router data moving along the same path as Hudson.

Prosecutors say CCTV and router data placed Hudson, and allegedly Kepner’s phone, near the jogging track, smoking area and later near the trash-bin area where the phone was found.

Cabin attendants discovered Kepner’s body, prosecutors say, wrapped in bedding and partially hidden under a bed, with a box of life vests positioned to obscure it.