The behavior of a spectator in the Lindsay Clancy trial has drawn widespread attention after a video surfaced, showing a woman appearing to grin and wink at a camera capturing the courtroom proceedings.

As the trial session came to a close, the camera focused on the spectators. When asked to stand, a woman in a green dress seemed to smile and wink just as the camera moved away.

The individual in question seems to be Brittany Romano, a journalist based in New York City. According to her professional website, Romano contributes to publications like “Elle,” “Cosmopolitan,” and “Teen Vogue.”

Romano has been following the trial, posting on her various social media profiles about the case.

Lindsay Clancy is the Massachusetts mother currently on trial for murder for the 2023 strangling deaths of her three young children inside the family’s Duxbury home.

LINDSAY CLANCY’S PARENTS GET MASSIVE GLOBAL DONOR SUPPORT AS FUNDRAISER SURPASSES $830K

RELATED: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Form New Friendship with Geri Halliwell and F1’s Christian Horner

She doesn’t deny the charges, and her defense argues she is not “criminally responsible” because she was suffering from undiagnosed postpartum psychosis at the time of the killings.

As for Romano, she recently posed for a “selfie” with Clancy’s Attorney Kevin Reddington last week and posted it on X.

In a video posted to social media following the Monday proceedings, someone appears to ask Romano why she was reportedly smiling on the livestream, to which she responded and said, “I was laughing because I grew up with Lindsay,” she says.

Following her new social media fame, Romano has defended her actions and wrote in a post: “I’m actually proud of myself because these trolls have been absolutely vile,” the now-deleted post said in part.

News Media has reached out to the court and Romano for comment.

Could this be just coach speak?

Klint Kubiak appears to leverage the Raiders’ fluid quarterback situation to deliver a broader message to his team: complacency is not an option. The implication is clear—positions aren’t gifts; they’re prizes to be fought for.

There’s also a chance that Kubiak genuinely sees potential in rookie Fernando Mendoza to surpass Kirk Cousins and claim the title of starting quarterback for the Raiders.

Alternatively, Kubiak’s hesitation to declare a starting QB might be an implicit challenge for Mendoza: continue striving, continue competing. The opportunity remains open, and seizing it is entirely within reach.

If that’s the case, Mendoza is on the clock with about a week to make his mark and stake his claim.

“We got another week. I don’t want anyone to be comfortable in their job,” Kubiak said after the Raiders’ preseason win over the Texans. “It should always be that way for all positions. So, let’s keep going.”

The comment was not exactly a declaration that Mendoza is breathing down Cousins’ neck. The Raiders have been careful throughout the offseason to avoid putting that kind of pressure on the rookie.

From Tom Brady to general manager John Spytek, the organization has consistently made it clear that it does not want to rush Mendoza. Cousins was brought in to provide precisely that protection, a proven veteran capable of running Kubiak’s offense while Mendoza adjusts to the speed, complexity and pressure of the NFL.

That remains the most logical plan.

But until Kubiak officially names Cousins the starter, Mendoza has an opportunity. However narrow it might be, the door remains open.

The question is what Mendoza can do over the next week to force Kubiak to keep it that way, or perhaps open it even wider.

It starts with avoiding the type of mistake he made against the Texans.

Mendoza’s 80-yard pick-six was the quintessential rookie error. One play after Mike Washington Jr. ripped off a 33-yard run, Mendoza tried to go right back to him through the air. The decision itself was defensible. The throw was not.

Mendoza delivered the ball behind Washington and directly into the arms of Texans linebacker Wade Woodaz, who returned it for a touchdown.

That single play will not define Mendoza’s preseason. Nor should it. Rookie quarterbacks make those mistakes – and, for that matter, so do some of the greatest quarterbacks ever.

Matthew Stafford has thrown 32 pick-sixes, tied with Brett Favre for the most in NFL history. Dan Marino threw 29, while Drew Brees and Peyton Manning each threw 27.

READ MORE: North West Defies Celebrity Stereotype, Aspires for “Regular Job” at Popular Chain

That is Hall of Fame company and a reminder that even greatness comes with the occasional disastrous decision. Mendoza will certainly throw more pick-sixes before his career is over. Better to experience his first one – and learn from it – in August rather than October.

But if Mendoza is going to close the gap on Cousins, he must show that he learned from it immediately.

What Mendoza needs to do

To close that gap, that means protecting the football, understanding where the danger is coming from and knowing when a play is over. The spectacular throws will come eventually. Right now, Kubiak needs to see whether Mendoza can consistently make the routine ones—and whether he can prevent one bad decision from undoing an otherwise productive drive.

Mendoza must also show greater command before the snap.

Can he get the Raiders in and out of the huddle cleanly? Can he recognize pressure, adjust protections and identify where the favorable matchup will be? Can he play on time rather than waiting for receivers to come open?

Those details rarely generate highlights, but they are often what separate the quarterback a coach trusts from the quarterback he is still developing.

Mendoza also has to demonstrate that he can move the offense when the first read disappears.

He has already flashed the ability to work through progressions and find secondary options. The next step is doing it more consistently and against increasingly complicated defensive looks. Kubiak needs to see Mendoza process quickly without rushing—and remain aggressive without becoming reckless.

Most importantly, Mendoza must make the Raiders believe the offense belongs to him.

That does not require a dramatic speech or an exaggerated display of leadership. Command reveals itself in smaller ways: how teammates respond to him in the huddle, how quickly the offense resets after a mistake and whether everyone appears more confident when he is directing traffic.

Cousins has spent more than a decade developing that presence. Mendoza cannot manufacture it in one week, but he can show that he is further along than expected.

None of this means Mendoza must be perfect in the preseason finale. In fact, chasing perfection might be the quickest way to tighten up and regress. He simply needs to look like the same quarterback from one practice and one series to the next.

If he protects the ball, plays on time, handles pressure and consistently leads scoring drives, he can make Kubiak’s decision more difficult.

Cousins still has the advantage. His experience, command and understanding of NFL defenses make him the safer choice for a rebuilding team that does not want to sacrifice its young quarterback’s long-term development for short-term curiosity.

But if his message to Mendoza is genuine – that there remains a path to the starting job – the rookie’s assignment is clear.

Keep pushing. Protect the football. Command the offense. Make the routine plays look routine.

And then force Kubiak to make a decision he may not have expected to be quite so difficult.

In a significant testimony during Lindsay Clancy’s trial, a forensic psychologist shared his belief that Clancy was fully aware of her actions when she took the lives of her children.

Offering his expert opinion for the prosecution, Dr. Kirk Heilbrun affirmed to the court that Clancy should be held criminally responsible for her deeds.

Now standing trial, 36-year-old Clancy faces charges for the tragic murders of her three children—Cora, aged five, Dawson, who was three, and Callan, just eight months old—committed at their Duxbury, Massachusetts home in 2023.

The devastating events unfolded as she used exercise bands to strangle the children, after which she reportedly attempted to end her own life. Her suicide attempt was unsuccessful, resulting in paralysis and confining her to a wheelchair permanently.

While Clancy has confessed to the killings, she pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, attributing her actions to postpartum psychosis. Her defense seeks her placement in a state mental health facility over serving time in prison.

Dr Heilbrun, who interviewed Clancy in April this year and has spent 180 hours working on the case, believes that she was suffering from a mental defect of bipolar disorder and sleep problems during the tragic incident, not psychosis.

But he said that she retained an awareness of the illegality including of killing her children.

She was aware of the illegality and moral wrongfulness of what she was doing, he testified.

This was a serious suicide attempt and altruistic filicide rather than psychosis, in his opinion.

‘Although this depression and hopelessness influenced her decision, she retained control over when, where and how she carried it out,’ he testified.

It is his opinion that she was criminally responsible on January 24, 2023.

Dr Heilbrun testified to several reasons that he did not believe she was psychotic.

She said she was ‘horrified’ when she woke up in the hospital – something he said shows she was thinking about what happened.

There were also inconsistencies in her statements about the voice, he said.

He said that in the days after the killings she said that the voice told her it was her ‘last chance’ and also that the children would suffer without her. She later said the voice did not tell her the children would suffer without her.

He also said that it would be ‘very unusual’ for her to be able to have the phone call with her husband, Patrick Clancy, in the middle of a psychotic episode. Patrick had called her from CVS when he went to pick up children’s medicine.

Heilbrun also suggested that Clancy was experiencing peritraumatic dissociation – where someone goes through a traumatic set of circumstances and so it feels like things are unreal.

‘You feel as though you’re watching yourself,’ he explained.

The expert testified that it can sound psychotic because someone can feel as though they lack decision-making but it is more about going through a traumatic set of circumstances.

Her strangling her children could be an example of that because that was very traumatic for her, he said.

During the strangulation, he said that Clancy made several decisions.

‘Why the basement? Who of the children goes first? What do you say to the children to keep them from panicking?’ he said.

Dr Heilbrun testified that where the children were killed, how they were strangled, what to use, the order with which to kill them, and the way to try to kill herself were all decisions she made.

‘She was going through what she called, “no thinking, no decision-making, only responding to the voice,”‘ Heilbrun said.

‘There are just many ongoing decisions that have to be made to accomplish a killing like this in just 18 minutes.’

On Monday, Heilbrun also said that the phrase Clancy said to her children when she killed them also points to altruistic filicide.

Altruistic filicide is the killing of one’s children out of love, when the disturbed mind believes that they would be better off dead.

Clancy said to her children as she strangled them, ‘Go to God, baby,’ according to Heilbrun.

He said that was part of her expectation that she and the youngsters would be together in heaven.

‘She was raised as a Catholic and this as I understand Catholic considerations that’s not necessarily what happens,’ Heilbrun said.

‘But when I ask her about that, when I said, “Isn’t suicide a mortal sin?”‘ he continued before Reddington’s objection.

That remark led Reddington to file for a mistrial, which the judge rejected but struck the comment from the record.

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.