Lindsay Clancy: Eleven Jurors Wanted WHAT?!

0:00Earn your Farm D in as little as 33 months with West Coast University's hybrid program no bachelor's degree required. Eligible transfer credits may be accepted. West Coast University, as real as it gets, visit westcoastuniversity.edu. WCU cannot guarantee employment. Imagine your friend tells you she's taking an innocent family trip to Greenville, South Carolina. We'll call her Emma. The trip sounds great to you. Hiking at Jones Gap, dinner at Topsoil, a room at the best hotel in town. Harmless, right? Here's the thing. Emma and her family never returned from Greenville. They disappear. You search for answers, but nothing adds up. Emma had a great life back home. You guys were best friends. What happened? Well, the truth is, once Emma realized she could have access to Michelin recognized restaurants, nature, local shops, and performing arts all in one place, everywhere else started to seem a little. Meh. Emma's vacation is a cautionary tale.

1:01If you're coming this way, don't forget to tell your friends and neighbors goodbye. Visit Greenville, South Carolina, but you may never want to leave. Learn more at visitgreenvillesc.com. Your path to pharmacy can be closer than you think. West Coast University's hybrid doctor of pharmacy program can be completed in as little as 33 months, and no bachelor's degree is required to apply. If you've started pharmacy coursework elsewhere, WCU may accept eligible transfer credits to help students keep moving forward. Learn online, train hands-on at our Center for Graduate Studies in Los Angeles, and prepare for real-world pharmacy practice. West Coast University, as real as it gets, visit westcoastuniversity.edu. WCU cannot guarantee employment. Imagine your friend tells you she's taking an innocent family trip to Greenville, South Carolina. We'll call her Emma. The trip sounds great to you. Hiking at Jones Gap, dinner at Topsoil, a room at the best hotel in town. Harmless, right? Here's the thing.

2:01Emma and her family never return from Greenville. They disappear. You search for answers, but nothing adds up. Emma had a great life back home. You guys were best friends. What happened? Well, the truth is, once Emma realized she could have access to Michelin recognized restaurants, nature, local shops, and performing arts all in one place, everywhere else started to seem a little... Meh. Emma's vacation is a cautionary tale. If you're coming this way, don't forget to tell your friends and neighbors goodbye. Visit Greenville, South Carolina, but you may never want to leave. Learn more at visitgreenvillesc.com This is The Big Breakdown. A long look back at some of the biggest stories we're covering for you at the Hidden Killers Podcast and True Crime Today. This is Hidden Killers with Telly Brusky.

3:07Kevin Reddington wanted to be back in court... Well today, yes of this recording Tuesday to ask the judge to... To Andalinsie Clancy Case. If the judge refused, he wanted to start picking another jury the following Monday. That's what he... That's what he initially wanted after they got the mistrial. It was, okay, well, let's get right back to work. You got to... You got to appreciate the work ethic in Kevin Reddington without a doubt. All right? This one didn't work. Keep going. We have to wait though to discover what the DA is wanting to do. First what are the possible paths forward here for Lindsay Clancy? We're going to get into all of that in this piece. Your thoughts in the comments section on Substack and YouTube. The links are in the description or right below this video if you'd like to start commenting. So that was his request after Friday's mistrial. After weeks of testimony.

4:08Seven days of deliberation. He was ready to go again almost immediately. Kevin Reddington is no spring chicken, but my God. This guy's got the gusto and the willpower of someone half his age putting it lightly. Judge William Sullivan slowed that timetable down. He... He talked about a possible trial later in the fall with schedules still to be worked out. So yes, another trial is a real possibility. And I understand the reaction. Are they seriously going to put this family through all of that again? Reddington is trying to get the prosecution stopped before that happens. This is to turn a Tim Cruz has to decide whether his office will keep pursuing this as this goes forward. Cruz has announced a decision to retry her yet. Clancy's three murder charges remain unresolved.

5:11You could hear how close Reddington believed he had come when he spoke about 11 jurors favoring acquittal. That's his account of the split from his point of view. He persuaded almost the entire room. And one person had kept his client from being acquitted. Of course, he wanted to hang onto that jury. I mean, think about getting that close, then having to explain to your client that you're still facing the possibility of starting all over again. We just went through this, this horrific multi week experience in court of having to relive all of the worst moments of your life. And some of you are like, she deserves it. She should have to do that. And some of you are like, Oh my God, the woman had a break from reality. So severe that she thought it was a good idea to end the lives of her children. She's living in the horror reality of that as long as she breathes.

6:13She wants to be in an institution for the rest of her life, because she knows she's not well. Why do we have to keep taking her out of the cage and poking her with sticks? What are we getting out of that? Are you teaching her a lesson? Don't kill your kids. We folks take you. This will teach the next one. Yeah, that always works as you're about to fall into a fit of psychosis. You go, wait a second, I shouldn't get into that status psychosis because the last time it happened is someone who didn't work out so well and her name was Lindsey Clancy. Let me stop my mind from deteriorating so much as I fall into that status psychosis and do horrible things. Let me just put a roadblock up and stop that from happening. Oh, you can't do that. Oh, if you can't do that, then should we be handling this as if you can, as if it were a calculated choice on her part? Let's go back to the hold out.

7:16The complaint about the hold out deserved attention. The four person reported that the juror had acknowledged doubt, but wasn't applying into the verdict as the law required. Readinton wanted further questioning. Sullivan said the note didn't establish a refusal to follow the law and put it out of the jurors had said they could follow his instructions. The defense is the emergency request to the state's highest court failed and the jury was then discharged. I would have wanted that concern examined carefully too. Being the person who disagrees with everybody else doesn't automatically make you wrong. Refusing to follow the judge's instructions, though, would be another matter. Sullivan did not find that established or doesn't mean it wasn't happening. It just means the judge within the confines of the note that he got back didn't have

8:18that clearly established. We can question his handling of it without pretending we know everything that happened in that room. Now, writing to Sullivan to look at whether the prosecution ever gave the jury enough evidence to convict. He'll hear this called a required finding of not guilty. That's the request. He told the judge he wanted to argue. The judge has to ask even, even taking the evidence at its strongest for the prosecution could a reasonable jury find that the state proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt of finding that the evidence was legally insufficient could end the prosecution on those charges. That would be a huge result for the defense without having to persuade another jury. That's a tough argument to win though. Sullivan has to apply that standard even if he personally finds the defense persuasive. He can't just add his vote to the 11th, writing to described and call it an acquittal.

9:23Clancy's defense has acknowledged that she killed Korra Dawson in Caledon. Her lawyers argue that postpartum psychosis left her without criminal responsibility. Prosecutors maintain she knowingly planned the killings her mental state at the time is the issue that would be fighting all over again. The prosecution had to prove she was responsible under the law beyond a reasonable doubt. So when someone asks why the defense didn't prove she was on a remind, it's a problem with the question. The prosecution still has to prove its case. You can be horrified by what happened to these children and want a very hard look at whether that burden was actually met. For example, prosecutors called a pharmacy manager and a restaurant hostess who had spoken with Clancy by phone that day. Both said they noticed nothing unusual about those conversations as if the restaurant manager and the pharmacy employee are supposed to somehow be experts on, you know, radaring psychosis

10:28through a phone call. Here's a fun little fact for you. Psychologists, psychotherapists, experts in their actual field are probably not going to really necessarily pick that up over a quick phone call when somebody's asking about mirror lax. So the weight of when you were on the phone with them that day and what they said and what you got back, well, they said that everything was fine. I don't know. I mean, I was I was putting away the the combos and the wheat pens and then I got a call and she seemed fine. So you're telling me she wasn't psychotic on the phone call? No, I'm pretty sure she wasn't psychotic. See, Jerry, the man who was putting away. The combos and wheat pens in aisle seven who answered the question about mirror lax says she wasn't psychotic.

11:29Fuck. Those observations are part of the prosecution's weak presentation. Reddington's request puts the strength of that whole case before the judge. Sullivan has to consider the evidence prosecutors actually offered and what a jury could reasonably conclude from it. Not just you got a phone call about mirror lax. If Sullivan turns reddington down, the pressure moves to cruise. The state outside of the courthouse, he emphasized justice for the children. I understand why he brought the focus back to them. It's a lot of attention. It's a lot of people excited. You mentioned the kids. It is. It's like red meat to some people. I mean, it's sick. It rates sick. I mean, I understand why he brought the focus back to them.

12:29It is ultimately about them, their deaths. They're the ones who paid for this hellscape. But how they got there is the question. Some are going to say it doesn't matter how they got their dead. To a certain extent, I do hear you. But in the interest of not repeating Lindsey Clancy's case over and over and over with different characters and different people every time, it might be in our best interest to try and understand this sort of illness or postpartum illnesses, depression, psychosis and all the other mirror it of fun that women have to go through after giving birth to children. That might be a little more in our best interest as human beings. To try and understand that world, rather than pretend it's full of witches and demons and people who just want to kill their children for fun. Because when you really look at it, it's not.

13:32There's sick people. There's hormones. There's chemicals moving in our bodies in ways we can't control and don't understand. And sometimes they move us into very unhealthy places that we ourselves do not have control over. And that's a scary thought. Without a doubt, that's a scary thought. But when that does happen, and it doesn't happen to everybody, but it does happen to some people, do we look at those people and go, well, that's your fault. That's your fault. This happened to your body. It's your fault that you asked for help and there's nothing we could do to prevent this. It's still your fault and you need to burn for it. I mean, I get that if somebody's actively plotting and this is their plot in life of being a horrible human being, like, yeah, you can burn for that. But if this is not remotely how they've ever acted at any point in their life, and they've

14:39been begging for help and saying, so I feel sick. I feel like there's something going on my brain and then the brain goes bad. It seems rather insane to look at that person and go, see? Yeah, they've been telling you the whole time. Not a sea moment. So, do we do that again? Do we do all of that again? My question for the state for crews, it's pretty basic. After presenting this case once, what gives you confidence to prove it to another jury? You know? You may believe the evidence already supports a conviction. A different jury could agree. Prosecutors don't need a dramatic new discovery just to retry an unresolved case in Reddington's

15:40account of an 11 to one split won't carry any votes in a second jury room. The next 12 would have to work through the evidence themselves just as the last 12 did. Both sides would also have a chance to rethink how they tell the story. Perhaps a witness's explanation needs to be clear. Perhaps a particular argument was less effective than the lawyer expected. We don't know what either side would change here, but they would be preparing with the benefit of having already seen each other's put on a full case. That alone makes a second trial a different experience to the attorneys. How do they work out of agreement and avoid another trial? That's possible. Although there's no confirmed deal to report as of this moment, the defenses spent this trial seeking an acquittal on mental health ground. So a guilty plea would be a major decision for Clancy. Prosecutors would have to decide what they could accept.

16:43Wanting to spare people another trial doesn't buy itself, give both sides terms. They're willing to sign. Officers could also decide against continuing the prosecution. He has that option. He takes it. I want to hear his reasoning too. These aren't three children's lives. These are three children's lives that we are talking about here. So what is the plan? What would you want to do? What happens to the questions about the care Clancy received? She and Patrick have separate civil cases against medical providers. Her civil attorney said after the mistrial that they intend to continue pursuing her lawsuits, which alleges failures and diagnosing and treating her mental illness for anyone wondering whether the questions about her care disappear when the murder trial ends. Those claims are still there. The lawsuits still have to establish that the providers were legally at fault and they're

17:45going forward. Meanwhile, Clancy remains in custody at Chukesbury State Hospital. She wasn't released when the jury was dismissed. She's still waiting for the next decision while receiving care there, even a future, a future finding of not guilty because of mental illness. Wouldn't Guarantees should go home. Massachusetts has a process for examination and possible continued hospitalization after that kind of acquittal. The court would have to consider her present condition and the risk of serious harm. She could remain hospitalized if the legal requirements are met or be released if there's no lawful basis to keep her. We can't put a number of years on that at this second. September 29th, though, is the next scheduled hearing. The court said it for discussion of where the case stands, possible trial scheduling, and ready to request for a finding of not guilty. As request for a hearing within days didn't become the court schedule. Sullivan mentioned a possible full trial, but there's no fixed retrial start date yet

18:48to give you. She got a clearer picture of how Wreddington intends to argue at the case should end and what prosecutors want to do in the coming weeks. There may be more arguments and another date on the calendar before there's actually a final answer. So be careful about treating September 29th as the day that everything gets settled. It's not necessarily that it's the next, it's the next role of the dice on the candy land from hell board. Patrick has already been through the process of telling a courtroom how he came home and discovered what had happened. His 911 call was played for the jury. He was out of the room while it played. As the kinds of moments that sit behind the ordinary, the ordinary sounding words of another trial is attorney David Miter released a statement. Thanking the court and jurors for their work and perseverance, he called the prospect

19:50of reliving the tragedy through another trial extraordinarily painful. He also said there would never be closure for Patrick. People keep talking about closures though he's a version of this or there's some version of this where the court gets it right and a father gets to feel better. I mean, imagine being asked to prepare for those questions again. Let's talk about the trip out to dinner coming home, discovering your children, Patrick already described those moments under oath. It's a hell of a thing to ask your father to go through that again. Although for so many people in their minds, he did it. So there's no problem doing that. I mean, is that the audacity of this case? Is that part of the thinking of Patrick did it? Does that make it like acceptable then to put him on the stand? Because if you think he had something to do with it, then you're working at getting to the truth. You're not just revictimizing someone all over again for your entertainment purposes.

20:54I don't know. I'm still trying to really grasp the psychology on Patrick did it. Obviously he did not do it. I'm talking about the theory and the mindset that so many people have on this. How they got there, it's, that's a fun one. I mean, fun in a twisted sort of you need serious help sort of way. The prosecutor makes the charging decisions, Patrick's statement doesn't decide the case. But he has said what another trial would cost him. Before this family is asked to go through another round, I want the people pursuing it to explain why exactly it needs to happen. Why were we here in the first place? And I don't want to hear further kids. Because that is completely ignoring the whole reason why we got here.

21:57It's completely ignoring the mental health aspect of all this and pretending that that is not the main factor of all of this. And I guess I mean, the more we keep pretending it does not a thing, I guess the more we can keep moving on with our lives and pretending that this couldn't happen to someone you love, your daughter, your sister, your friends, whatever somebody. If it's not a thing, it can't happen to you, right? I don't know. The distancing and gymnastics that have gone on in this case for people to digest the case in whatever way they're able to. Has been incredibly fascinating. Your thoughts in the comments section on Substack in YouTube, we will continue our conversation right there. Until next time, I'm Tony Bursky. We'll talk again real soon.

23:10This is Hidden Tillers Live with Tony Bursky and Robin Dree. Well, we've all watched weeks of anganizing testimony and this last Friday is stunning 11-1 deadlock, leaving everyone without closure. It's a pure emotional whiplash for the families and the public who followed every minute of the trial. We're going to break it down. What happens next? We're going to break down the actual human mechanics of the hung jury and what dragging everyone through a second trial actually means with us to do that. Bob Mata hosted the podcast, Defense Diaries and of course Robin Drake, retired FBI Special Agent, Chief of the Counter Intelligence Behavioral Analysis Program. Well, as predicted, we had a holdout. We just watched the jury grind for seven days only to hang on the one single holdout who said,

24:12yeah, no, I think she's guilty, no matter what, according to Reddington, someone who was not following the instructions of the judge to the jury. That I think is where a lot of us kind of get lost, Bob. I mean, take us into that, that jury room. They're given instructions. The instructions here, you have to determine if she is not guilty by reason of insanity. And it's a state job to prove it. In this case, it's not the other way around. And the jurors basically telling the judge, we don't think this one juror is following your instructions in that specific realm. The jury instructions also talk about following your convictions and what you think is right. I mean, it ends up being confusing to say the least after an hour of instructions to expect everyone to walk out of that space and go, oh, I get it. I'm going to be perfect on this. I think is a bit of a task with our long instructions.

25:16How do you think this went down in that jury room now that we've had a weekend to kind of soak this all in? Well, I think that to try to kind of understand it, obviously we're speculating. You know, but inside that room, I think that the first thing that we have to try to understand is that by day seven of the deliberations, in my estimation, nobody is arguing about evidence anymore. Yeah, they're arguing about each other. The 11 that have already walked the holdout through every exhibit, all of the experts, every instruction. And then when that fails, the room stops being about a deliberation and becomes kind of like a siege, where it's 11 versus 1. And the majority is cycling through persuasion and they're frustrated and they're angry, they're exhausted. I mean, 40 hours of deliberation or damn near 40 hours is exhausting.

26:19You know, you're coming in day after day and try to imagine being in it and forget about sides in terms of which side is which side right now. Just imagine being 11 people on either side trying to convince one and it's like smashing your head against a brick wall day after day after day after day. So you can imagine that we get very frustrating, right? It would be exhausting. So ultimately the four person in the case apparently sends the note telling the judge that the holdout, in the word that the judge used, the word, the phrase is that the holdout acknowledged it out but was refusing to apply the law as to reasonable doubt. And at that point, you know, what is that? Right there, right there. What refusing to apply the law to reach reasonable doubt?

27:21I think that's where a lot of confusion comes in and understanding because we're talking about individuals who have convictions, which is another very loose term. I mean, applying the law to determine if there's reason, what if someone just says, fuck it, I don't care. She killed the kids. Yeah, I mean, that's their conviction. That is following the judge's instructions, but it's also not applying the law. Right. So at the same point, again, this is where I get so muddy with the damage instructions and muddy with what are we expecting out of 12 human beings to really come up with here? We're wanting the human aspect of a person giving what their core beliefs are on something and applying it as a juror, but we're also saying you better follow this to to a tee. Even if following it goes against your own conviction, I mean, we're asking them to basically become a computer to a certain extent while still maintaining their human abilities.

28:24Why don't we just have AI do it at this point? You might get a better, you might truly get what you're asking for then because I don't think you're going to get it out of humans. I mean, let's talk about that for a second. Yeah, no, in look, we've been talking about, you know, the different types of jurors that could be on this case. Yeah, you know, we have the juror who I refer to as kind of the eye, eye for an eye, you know, the person who's like, look, a mother who kills her three kids does not walk out period that person goes to prison. Yeah, there could be the person that's kind of where you're at where there's a misunderstanding of the burden, treating reasonable doubt as any doubt or in reverse treating the commonwealth's in session of mental illness. Yeah, remember that part. It makes me even more confusing. Right. At that point, everybody's like, okay, well, she definitely had a mental disease or defect. We're all in agreement to that. Yeah, that point. What we're not in agreement about is whether or not that mental disease or defect caused Lindsey Clancy not to know right from wrong or didn't allow her to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law.

29:38Right. So, and that's a, that's a weird thing for people to try to understand. It is. It's like, okay, wait, you know, because basically there, there are last two witnesses landed in the commonwealth I'm talking about landed on the concept that they went with bipolar to like that is what they said that she had. Yeah. And they both said like with bipolar to she still understood right from wrong and she was able to conform her conduct. Right. So you've got that kind of floating through this jurors had it potentially we don't we don't know what this jurors thinking we don't know if it's the eye for an eye juror. But in the other part of it is we don't know exactly what the note says. Yeah. Well, we had was judge Sullivan kind of paraphrasing because it's Sullivan who says. The jury's basically saying that the jurors acknowledged doubt with the refusing to apply the law that that was like the sentence that he said.

30:40Yeah. Doubt is slippery. Yeah. They didn't use the word reasonable doubt. He just said the word doubt. So that leaves us out in the outside world kind of speculating. So was it appropriate for Sullivan to paraphrase it that way because I keep doing all these different scenarios in my head because I've learned so much from you Bob, you know, especially on the defense side. You know, I saw them deliberating long as like wow, as Bob says they're doing the hard work. This wasn't just a call it in thing. And this is actually watching the justice system at work in the state of Massachusetts because any other or many other states. This wouldn't be going on like this. And then the interpretation of what the law is if that person believes they were acting lawfully then they're acting lawfully. I mean, because it's kind of a subjective thing. But at the same time, there's a few things that had they not been done or said. Would we be here like if they tried another state? And also if Sullivan, judge Sullivan had not said that and merely said the jury came back again and said they couldn't all agree.

31:43I mean, was he was in other words, what was compulsion to share because that's what I really flamed things up even more is like thrown care scene on the fire that he said, well, we have one hold out then everyone's jumped into conclusion. Rightfully it looks like including Reddington that it's a hold out for criminally insane. And it's like, and so it just it seems to exasperate a situation. What do you think about that? Yeah, it first of all, it is rare. I don't know that I've ever seen a four person of a jury sent out a note like that. Essentially, like if the four person is not the elected official of the, you know, a country. It's not a talk or see it's, you know, there are a person that is kind of in charge of going through the instructions and trying to keep some, you know, some modicum of control in there in terms of all right, let's like everybody calm down. Let's try to, let's try to ease it back a little bit. You know, they're trying to move the deliberations forward in a positive way if they can.

32:50You know, which is a tough gig back there. Yeah, you know, but for that, that juror that wrote the note, they didn't independently write it without talking with the other jurors, including the other juror, which was probably more like, look, I'm about to whistle blow on your ass. Like 11 of us are in agreement. I'm sending this note out. I'm telling the judge what's happening in here. And that's it. And the other jury was probably like, go for it. I don't care. You know what I mean? I mean, we know the holdout was holding out because the other personality trade is that people harden under pressure. You know, if you're going to bristle up to 11 versus one and you're feeling cornered, I mean, you're going to, you're going to protect yourself. I mean, it's human nature. And we all do that. And you're going to get defensive. You know, which is a natural instinct. So, should you filter that? Yeah. Should you filter that out then? Sullivan? What I would like to have seen is just the actual note red verbatim. Like that, that's typically what you hear is one of the other.

33:56Forbate. I mean, the difference between us and the lawyers is the lawyers heard the note verbatim. So whatever Ruddington saying, and he's really on the note, spoke on the note, because you have to understand in this situation, this was, this was an absolute hail Mary touchdown catch for the comment. Well, because they were, they were on the verge of losing this trial. Right. Like they, they were thrilled. They were thrilled with the mistrial. This was, this is a weird opposite effect. Because in my estimation, it was a reverse jury nullification, wearing it was one particular juror that was refusing to, to it from, again, from my estimation, follow the law, because I believe that the juror said, look, OK, you know, whatever, there's doubt. You know, maybe didn't even say, yeah, OK, I think there's reason we have no idea what was going on was being said over seven days, right? Right. But at some point, there's some acknowledgement by that person that, yeah, OK, there's some kind of doubt. I don't care. I don't care. You know, like she killed her kids. She's going to prison. That's I like you're never getting me to change my vote. That's that. So we talk about this for a hundred years. And I'm never changing my mind. The problem with that is, is that I'm not going to change my mind.

35:12And then the other thing that I do, I don't care about is, is that that person before they were selected as a juror was asked if they could put that aside, that you put your personal biases and your feelings and your convictions. And if your answer to that is no, that's totally fair. And then you're not on the jury. Yeah. Yeah. You have to be honest about it. Yeah. And you have to tell the judge, I'm sorry, judge. I feel so strongly about this. I am going to ever change my opinion on that. I honestly don't care with the evidence. There is no shame in that. They could also done though, but they also could have done it. I mean, few of us, if any of us have seen and heard such horrendous things as they saw during that case. And so you could easily come in with thinking you have a very open mind until you witness on the things that it like the nine 11 call, which is horrific. Again, just from what we heard. And so it would make you would make you more convicted in there. And this isn't the first case that things like this has happened on either.

36:15So it just again, it's in perfect solutions, an imperfect system, but it's still a system. So it's a tough situation. Yeah. And that's what I've said. You know, like that juror could have been asked that question at the point because every jurors ask that question. Yeah. Every juror that indicates that they're might be some kind of bias that they have an opinion on it coming in is ask that question. Well, okay, it's how you rehabilitate jurors. You know, I always hate it as a defense attorney. I'm like, they're not changing their mind. I know, you know, and the judge is like, because then we were talking about this last week, that's the point where I have to get rid of a juror for, you know, using one of my challenges, my paramptory challenges. I have to say, okay, well, they should have been booted for cause that you and I both know that's bullshit. That that person's never changing their mind because they're human. You know, so that question's asked, but to your point, Rob, and it's very likely that that juror wasn't lying on the front end.

37:16Yeah. The juror probably said, well, yeah, I can apply the law despite what he feels. And then like you said, as the evidence starts coming in, he realizes midway through like, man, there's no way. Right. Like, I cannot, I'm not going to be able to do this. It's like I, I feel the way I feel my convictions are what they are. My morality is what it is. And I'm not going to be able to change my mind on that. And then what's that juror supposed to do at that point? You know what I'm saying? Like the train is left the station. You know, and the other part of this, so that's really, you know, problematic is that we get rid of the juror. Is that we get the two erudriga's charge, all right, or the dynamite charge or the Allen charge they call it different things and different jurisdictions. But that essentially tells the language in that tells the jurors in the minority to reexamine their views, but it also tells them not to surrender an honest conviction just to reach a verdict.

38:19Right. So that language exists in the two erudriga's charge, which is the last charge that went back. So when that jurors hearing that, like that exact language, you know, not to surrender an honest conviction just to reach a verdict, Sullivan reads it. And then the usual comfort, as your personal confirmation, by sure, here, what you want to hear to double down on what you're already thinking. Yeah. Yeah. It's like a dog and pony show that we present and we think, oh, this will all work out. Well, these people will follow these these rules and this two erudriga's charge. This will get at the end of the day. There really are no consequences to a juror not following the instructions. It's pretty much it's the honors system. But in their mind, they did, you know, they're mind that you're exactly right. And somebody early on here in this, you know, there's a lot of ways you can think about it. You can think about it. Well, they they went in and they knew that they were going to do this. Maybe not. Like you were saying, maybe they went and thinking, I will be very embarrassed.

39:19And maybe the evidence hit them in such a way they're like, shit, I know, bitch is going down. If that's what that's how they're thinking. And that's their conviction. That's truly what they believe. And that's not them necessarily going in thinking, I'm going to convict no matter what that's them seeing the evidence and further being fortified into their own position at the end. I mean, and then everybody goes into the world of what if what if this juror had, you know, what if they came into what knowing they're going to hang in and they were, okay, there's that argument. And that certainly can happen. I'm not saying it happened here. I don't know if it happened here. But that can certainly happen. But Bob Arthur is does a consequence exist for someone who goes into a trial with the ill intent, not the my opinion change or further fortified this way that way. One that went in lied to the the attorneys, lied to the judge going in that they could be unbiased knowing full damn well. I'm going to convict her. I don't care what the hell you present to me in the next handful of weeks.

40:21This is what I'm going to be. Is there any consequence for that if that could ever be proven like if it's like, yep, they said it going in here. They are on videos saying exactly that. I'm not saying we are not going to wear. No, it's just like, okay, I mean, the attorneys were not catching that person that that basically got through the cracks basically. Right. You know, because I mean, if you go all the way back to the the OJ jury, you know, when it came out after the fact long after the fact, you know, when we've seen some of the documentaries that were made and they got some of the jurors on there. Like this was a this was an eye for an eye for us as black people because the Rodney King. Yeah, they'd come down for the cops who would beat the shit out of them on the side of the road. And they were all acquitted. Like this, this was us literally saying, okay, how you like it? We're doing you know what I mean? And I don't remember hearing anything happening to those jurors. You know, I don't know what you do in that situation.

41:25If if I were the whole Dow juror, you know, I mean that your your solution to that is to simply say, I my understanding of reasonable doubt is that the commonwealth medits burden. Like, you know, they proved to be on a reasonable doubt to me that she didn't have psychosis. I mean that that's the easiest thing for that person to say. But then again, like we don't know what the note says verbatim. Yeah, that's where the whole thing here is. You know, it's like, maybe it says exactly that. Maybe it just uses the word doubt. You know, and maybe the other 11 or misconstrued. It's a situation wherein we can't get into the providence of the the providence of the deliberations has to be sacred. You know, which is ultimately why why Sullivan's like and I disagreed with them. I think that there was probably a like a very generic answer or a question rather than he could have asked that wouldn't have gotten into the providence of the jury deliberations because you can't have a judge inserting himself in there.

42:36You can't have a judge asking specifics about what they're deliberating about. Like, okay, well, let me let me what what is your understanding of reasonable doubt and like, let me tell you what it means. Like that can't happen. Right. Yeah. That can never happen with the jury. You know, they're given the instructions. They've been agreed upon by both sides, both sides, send them back and the judge sends them back. And that's it. And there is no explaining the law. We say whatever the law that has been given to you that you are to apply is in your hands. You need to go back. You need to read it again. And you need to apply it as you see fit. But is this one of the reasons why also because you know, I don't think I've ever followed a case this closely with so many what ifs going through my mind with deep analysis, not just on the loss of the three children. And what caused it in Lindsay and whether I believe in the psychosis or not psychosis, but all these things. And to come back with the jury finding like this with one person holding out is this one of the reasons why we haven't appeals process because it isn't in perfect system or is that a holy different thing.

43:44It's a holy different thing. I mean, this isn't this isn't really. I think there's going to be there's going to be a filing in this case by the appellate council probably the same one who did the two 11 three petition to try to stay this. In order to try to force the judge into having that that individual board dire with that one particular juror as you saw the SJC turned around pretty quickly. Yeah, it's that now. Yeah, we don't we don't see it here. And I'm assuming if the note would have been any more particular as to what was said. Then they might have come back a different way. So because we read that petition on the air like when that that whole thing when it was happening was insane. Right. It was watching too fast. It was out of it was completely out of left field, even though Ali and I were screaming on our live that they need to file that thing.

44:46And then and then read all of a sudden does it. And you know, and he had he had been talking to like after I think it was probably right after two was sent back. And then I think at that point, he probably reached out the appellate lawyer said, look, you know, you need to prepare this this petition because I have a feeling this thing is going to come back on like this jurors just not budget. And I want the judge to question this juror in generically though. Again, it has to be generic. You know, it has to be like a question like that same question that was asked in the beginning, not getting into the details of the deliberations, but just saying, you know, are you able to put aside your bias or your opinion and follow the law? Because the law is if you find that the commonwealth is not met their burden beyond a reasonable doubt. And they use that moral certainty language in mass.

45:51Right. It's it's lofty language. You know, and I mean it's it's way loftier language that we have an Illinois. And moral certainty is is pretty intense. So, you know, and just ask that generically. And you know, if if the juror at that point, if there are one of those folks that in good faith said, yeah, I'll be able to put my my bias or my opinion or my convictions aside and follow the law on the front end. Like you said, Robin, he hears the plaintiff whales of Patrick Clancy when he discovers his kids and he's like holy shit. Yeah, I'm not going to be able to do this. Right. You know, human reaction. Yeah. Right. It's very reasonable. It's a human reaction. And it's it's only going to bolster bolster the way that that person feeling coming in. Any. Very much so your your thoughts in the the comment section on substacking YouTube as we continue our conversation about the Lindsey Clancy lack of verdict.

46:57Want more on this case and others then press subscribe now and don't miss a moment of true crime coverage from Tony Brusky and the Hidden Killers podcast. Earn your farm D in as little as 33 months with West Coast University's hybrid program no bachelor's degree required eligible transfer credits may be accepted West Coast University as real as it gets visit westcoastuniversity.edu WCU cannot guarantee employment. Imagine your friend tells you she's taking an innocent family trip to Greenville, South Carolina. We'll call her Emma. The trip sounds great to you. Hiking at Jones Gap, dinner at top soil, a room at the best hotel in town. Harmless right. Here's the thing Emma and her family never returned from Greenville. They disappear. You search for answers but nothing adds up Emma had a great life back home. You guys were best friends. What happened? Well the truth is once Emma realized she could have access to Michelin recognized restaurants, nature, local shops and performing arts all in one place.

48:02Everywhere else started to seem a little. M. Emma's vacation is a cautionary tale. If you're coming this way don't forget to tell your friends and neighbors goodbye. Visit Greenville, South Carolina but you may never want to leave. Learn more at visit GreenvilleSC.com Imagine your friend tells you she's taking an innocent family trip to Greenville, South Carolina. We'll call her Emma. The trip sounds great to you. Hiking at Jones Gap, dinner at top soil, a room at the best hotel in town. Harmless right. Here's the thing Emma and her family never returned from Greenville. They disappear. You search for answers but nothing adds up. Emma had a great life back home. You guys were best friends. What happened? Well the truth is once Emma realized she could have access to Michelin recognized restaurants, nature, local shops and performing arts all in one place.

49:02Everywhere else started to seem a little. M. Emma's vacation is a cautionary tale. If you're coming this way don't forget to tell your friends and neighbors goodbye. Visit Greenville, South Carolina but you may never want to leave. Learn more at visit GreenvilleSC.com Your path to pharmacy can be closer than you think. West Coast University's hybrid doctor of pharmacy program can be completed in as little as 33 months and no bachelor's degree is required to apply. If you've started pharmacy coursework elsewhere, WCU may accept eligible transfer credits to help students keep moving forward. Learn online, train hands on at our Center for Graduate Studies in Los Angeles and prepare for real world pharmacy practice. West Coast University, as real as it gets, visit westcoastuniversity.edu. WCU cannot guarantee employment. Earn your farm D in as little as 33 months with West Coast University's hybrid program no bachelor's degree required. Eligible transfer credits may be accepted. West Coast University, as real as it gets, visit westcoastuniversity.edu. WCU cannot guarantee employment.

50:10Imagine your friend tells you she's taking an innocent family trip to Greenville, South Carolina. We'll call her Emma. The trip sounds great to you. Hiking at John's Gap, dinner at top soil, a room at the best hotel in town. Harmless, right? Here's the thing. Emma and her family never returned from Greenville. They disappear. You search for answers, but nothing adds up. Emma had a great life back home. You guys were best friends. What happened? Well, the truth is, once Emma realized she could have access to Michelin recognized restaurants, nature, local shops, and performing arts all in one place, everywhere else started to seem a little. Meh. Emma's vacation is a cautionary tale. If you're coming this way, don't forget to tell your friends and neighbors goodbye. Visit Greenville, South Carolina, but you may never want to leave. Learn more at visitgreenvillesc.com Your path to pharmacy can be closer than you think. West Coast University's hybrid doctor of pharmacy program can be completed in as little as 33 months, and no bachelor's degree is required to apply.

51:19If you've started pharmacy coursework elsewhere, WCU may accept eligible transfer credits to help students keep moving forward. Learn online, train hands-on at our Center for Graduate Studies in Los Angeles, and prepare for real-world pharmacy practice. West Coast University, as real as it gets, visit westcoastuniversity.edu. WCU cannot guarantee employment. Imagine your friend tells you she's taking an innocent family trip to Greenville, South Carolina. We'll call her Emma. The trip sounds great to you. Hiking at John's Gap, dinner at Topsoil, a room at the best hotel in town. Harmless, right? Here's the thing. Emma and her family never return from Greenville. They disappear. You search for answers, but nothing adds up. Emma had a great life back home. You guys were best friends. What happened? Well, the truth is, once Emma realized she could have access to Michelin recognized restaurants, nature, local shops, and performing arts all in one place, everywhere else started to seem a little.

52:21Meh. Emma's vacation is a cautionary tale. If you're coming this way, don't forget to tell your friends and neighbors goodbye. Visit Greenville, South Carolina, but you may never want to leave. Learn more at visit GreenvilleSC.com Earn your Farm D in as little as 33 months with West Coast University's hybrid program no bachelor's degree required. Eligible transfer credits may be accepted. West Coast University, as real as it gets, visit westcoastuniversity.edu. WCU cannot guarantee employment. Imagine your friend tells you she's taking an innocent family trip to Greenville, South Carolina. We'll call her Emma. The trip sounds great to you. Hiking at John's Gap, dinner at Topsoil, a room at the best hotel in town. Harmless, right? Here's the thing. Emma and her family never return from Greenville. They disappear. You search for answers, but nothing adds up. Emma had a great life back home. You guys were best friends. What happened?

53:23Well, the truth is once Emma realized she could have access to Michelin recognized restaurants, nature, local shops, and performing arts all in one place, everywhere else started to seem a little. M. Emma's vacation is a cautionary tale. If you're coming this way, don't forget to tell your friends and neighbors goodbye. Visit Greenville, South Carolina, but you may never want to leave. Learn more at visitgreenvillesc.com Your path to pharmacy can be closer than you think. West Coast University's hybrid doctor of pharmacy program can be completed in as little as 33 months, and no bachelor's degree is required to apply. If you've started pharmacy coursework elsewhere, WCU may accept eligible transfer credits to help students keep moving forward. Learn online, train hands-on at our Center for Graduate Studies in Los Angeles, and prepare for real-world pharmacy practice. West Coast University, as real as it gets, visit westcoastuniversity.edu. WCU cannot guarantee employment.

54:27Hey, it's Kelly Rowland. You may not know this, but I have eczema, so I get how it can steal your time. But why let eczema take over when you can talk to your doctor about ebglyce? Ebglyce, Lebrichezema, LBKZ, a 250-mg per 2-mg leader injection, is a prescription medicine used to treat adults and children 12 years of age and older, who weigh at least 88 pounds or 40 kg with moderate to severe eczema. Also called a topic dermatitis that is not well controlled with prescription therapies used on the skin, or topicals, or who cannot use topical therapies, ebglyce can be used without topical corticosteroids. Don't use if you are allergic to ebglyce. Allergic reactions can occur that can be severe. Eye problems can occur. Tell your doctor if you have newer worsening eye problems, you should not receive a live vaccine when treated with ebglyce. Before starting ebglyce, tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. Respect your time. Ask your doctor about ebglyce and visit ebglyce.com or call 1-800-LilyRX or 1-800-545-5979.

55:28Hey, it's Kelly Rowland. You may not know this, but I have eczema. So I get how it can still your time. But why let eczema take over when you can talk to your doctor about ebglyce? Ebglyce, lubricism app, LBKZ, a 250-mg per 2-ml injection, is a prescription medicine used to treat adults and children 12 years of age and older, who weigh at least 88 lbs or 40 kg with moderate to severe eczema. Also called a topic dermatitis that is not well controlled with prescription therapies used on the skin, or topicals, or who cannot use topical therapies, ebglyce can be used without topical corticosteroids. Don't use if you are allergic to ebglyce. Allergic reactions can occur that can be severe. I-problems can occur. Tell your doctor if you have newer, worsening eye problems. You should not receive a live vaccine when treated with ebglyce. Before starting ebglyce, tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. Paid partnership with Lili. Respect your time. Ask your doctor about ebglyce and visit ebglyce.com or call 1-800-LilyRX or 1-800-545-5979. It's fall in Jeep country and during the drive into fall sales event, get a great deal on 4x4s that refuse to be contained, like Jeep Wrangler.

56:35Confidence built into every drive with the most awarded SUV ever, Jeep Grand Cherokee, and freedom that can't be denied, with the open air freedom in Jeep Gladiator. After 85 years, it's no surprise that Jeep became America's SUV brand, get a great deal during the Jeep Drive into fall sales event. Jeep is one more awards over its lifetime than any other SUV brand, Jeep and the Jeep Grill Registered Trademarks of FCAUS LLC. You can't predict the future, but you can prepare for it. Arizona State University is building degrees for what's ahead. Programs designed around emerging fields taught by faculty whose research is shaping our future. Not just teaching about it. It's why we've been ranked number one in innovation for more than a decade. Your future is worth preparing for, and you don't have to prepare alone. Become future ready. Explore more than 400 programs at ASUOnline.asu.edu. That's a degree better.