Tim Cruz Has WHAT Coming Before the Lindsay Clancy Hearing?!

0:00This is Hidden Tillers Live with Tony Brusky and Robin Green. There are consequences to actions. For weeks on this podcast, we've been sounding the alarm on the vial, baseless conspiracies, targeting Patrick Lansing. We've been saying it was time for him to take the gloves off and go after these toxic online sleuths legally. Now he's doing exactly that through his attorney. Patrick has issued a stern warning. The defamation campaign stops now or lawsuits are coming. But what does hunting down internet trolls look like in actual practice, joining us to continue the very conversation we started just a few weeks ago on this very topic, defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Fattis, along with Robin Drake, retired FBI special agent and chief of the counterintelligence behavior analysis program. Eric, let's start practically speaking.

1:02How difficult is it for a legal team to track down an unmask, TikTok users, Reddit sleuths, people disposting their videos? I mean, I get when you have brands and bigger names that may be doing this, but a lot of it doesn't even necessarily come from bigger names. Some does, but the the the tendrils are the thousands of people that just keep spreading it. It's whack-a-mole from hell. I mean, how do you go about trying to patrol something like this or bring consequences to those who just refuse to stop spreading baseless lies about a man who lost his three children? That's true. There are a lot of complicating factors to that. You know, one is that you really need a solid investigator and probably an investigation team and not one that is limited to your home state, but one that has reached throughout the country and I guess conceivably internationally, because these folks, they could be anywhere.

2:09And then on top of that, how do you learn who they are? Some of these folks do this anonymously. Sometimes they are working through encrypted channels and things like that. And so getting a pass those barriers is tough too. And then on top of that, how do you identify that they're the ones who were actually posting? They say it's an exit counter, something like that where it's a textual post. How do you identify that they're the person behind that doing that work? You know, you can do production for records or quests. You can do certain legal mechanisms to try to learn that, but it is a tremendous undertaking with so many moving parts. Is there a way Eric, I'm going to research here as I go, as we're talking about this, it just keeps coming to my mind like you're saying how challenging and difficult this is. Our laws, I don't think have kept up nearly as fast on defamation or even cease and assist or restraining orders. I mean, is there any other legal mechanizations that you think would fit better or on top of?

3:09But again, if you can't identify these individuals, how do you do that? So I guess a multiple question packet here is, should we be updating the laws? How would we update them? And would any other mechanisms work better or in congruence with a defamation suit? Everything go. Yeah, you know, I agree that the defamation laws are kind of behind the times on stuff like this. You know, back in the day, you might have a person in a news article who is quoted making a factual statement that was defamatory. And then you can go to the reporter and be like, hey, it was John who said that wasn't it. You can go to John and you can bring a claim for defamation against that person. Here, there's anonymity issues, there are platform issues. And so the logistics of trying to bring a successful claim against these folks, let alone whether it would even be collectible if they have assets that kind of thing. And in what state do you bring it?

4:10You know, there are then you and jurisdiction issues when we're talking about digital communications and and where those would fall on. Let's let's try and define the line here between theory, which exists in many cases and defamation. A lot of creators protect themselves by throwing in phrases like in my opinion and it's just a theory. I mean, legally, where is the line drawn where we're a true crime, you know, hot take crosses over into financially, you know, ruining us defamation with what's being said online? It is a bit glorious, I'd say, you know, and for defamation, that only applies to statements of fact, not opinions. Well, what's the difference between those two if I say, you know, in my opinion, Reddington is a bad person or something.

5:12Oh, sure. I mean, he's a horrible dresser. You know, those things, an opinion or that actually statement of fact, veiled as an opinion. You know, I think you can include that qualifying language and that might confer some protections. But really, the heart of it is, was it actually a representation of fact that was wrong or not? And, you know, who decides that ultimately a jury, you know, months or years down the road? And so you can see sort of how attenuated and complicated it could be to try to prevail on a defamation claim under these circumstances. But there's a big difference between saying, I don't like how Reddington or I think Reddington is a bad dresser versus Patrick Lancy killed his children. You know, there's ones, an opinion, a clear opinion. The other is a statement of fact of something that isn't even up for debate. I mean, you can't just like one randomly go online and start accusing people of killing their children when there's no evidence pointing to that whatsoever.

6:15There's no charges of it. I mean, that is, I mean, that is, that's a defamatory statement right there. So there, I mean, there is a big difference there. Is there a big difference? So even if, I mean, how well does, how well is one protected who makes the statement of I think Patrick Lancy killed his children in my opinion? I don't feel that way, by the way, but how protected truly is someone who just follows it up with that caveat. Right. You know, I think you can't make what is an obvious statement of fact and then sort of do this cop out and be like, oh, well, that's just in my opinion or that's, you know, the theory that I'm thinking. And that is Patrick Lancy killed his children. I think if you're asserting that in an affirmative factual sense, and then you just sort of hang something on the end saying, that's just my opinion, I'm sure that that provides complete protection. I think the jury is going to look at what was the meaning of the statement? What was the intention of the declarative?

7:16Those things matter too. And, and, you know, if it's to get a bunch of views by saying something provocative, like Patrick Lancy killed their children, I think adding on in my opinion, I'm not sure that that that provides full protection. Yeah. And so I looked it up for those that are curious. So the famous rule was 1964 and it's still standing as of this past summer, the last nationwide statue for defamation was updated in 2010. Last practical updates of the state anti-slap and deep fake bills was 2025, 26, so they're kind of doing little things along the way. So when someone is, I lost my train of thoughts, I was going on that side and I thought, go back, I mean, Tony, go back to your head. Let's talk about the, what actually would happen here. You know, the threats have been made. So if an influencer does get hit with one of these suits, and I mean, an influencer, somebody who's been saying this online, I would assume they'd be looking at folks that

8:16have somewhat of a, of a following to, to go after someone who's saying things like this. So if an influencer gets hit with one of these suits, I mean, what exactly does the discovery process look like for something like this? Are they suddenly going to have to hand over their, their private DMs and monetization records to prove they were profiting off of the falsehoods? Because a lot of the people who are saying this sort of shit aren't making money. They're just, they're, they're, they're getting their emotional capital, if you will, by feeding this machine and, and these theories. And there's just a lot of people that do that. This is what they do all day. It's not necessarily a money making venture for them. Even if they have large followings and their voice is making an impact in the ether. If there's no profit mode of going on, just sheer, I want my voice to be heard mode of going on. Does that change the dynamics of a potential suit? Well, it doesn't change the letter of the law in the sense that the, the claimant would

9:21not have to prove that the influence are actually made money. But it certainly changes the, the nature and dynamic of the case. Because if you can show that there is some monetary intent for making false statements about somebody, that probably increases your damages. It certainly makes the at fault party look more culpable. You probably have a stronger case. That being said, even if there was no monetary intent, just the reputation of damage, if you can prove it on behalf of somebody like Patrick Clancy, who is received death threats allegedly, and things like that, you, you could prove that. And so, you know, that monetary intent piece, though, it would certainly be a factor in how the case is hit. And here's what I was, I forgot to ask when I let it slip my mind. So and what about cases like this, Eric? Because I think this is part of the challenge with us also. A lot of people are putting in really inflammatory titles on videos, titles on articles, titles

10:22on tiktok, all these things that are the clickbait that the algorithms picking up on that are very, very inflammatory, very derogatory and could be subject to defamation. But the content of the video themselves has nothing to do with that. So there's an impact there, obviously, but is it, I mean, how does that look that by a court? I know I hear you and I've seen that myself. I've seen where there's some kind of, you know, provocative title like, Patrick Clancy, you want to blame. Yeah, yeah. So others actually the one to blame. And then you get into that the content and it's like, well, these are some theories and, you know, some people have suggested this, whatever. But that title alone, Robin, that alone can be a factual representation that could cause damage to another person. And so even if they're sort of hiding behind this title and trying to protect themselves in the content itself, that title is on the table when it comes to possibly the famed or his statements for sure. And doesn't also defamation doesn't have to show that the, the person being targeted

11:26in this case, Patrick would have monetary loss because of the defamation. Does he have to show that not show that because like, I know the challenge in this case is he's is employed, he is working in Manhattan and he's married and but he's getting assaulted. And so because in, in this case to me, it's not necessarily the monetary loss, although if he loses a job over it, that's one thing. But also the, the fear factor of his life and physical threats against him because of this because as we said yesterday, you know, you got a lot of people self radicalizing because you have all these people out there saying all these horrendous things, well, they come together and want a group and they start escalating up from there together. So is that come part of it? You know, it depends on the jurisdiction, Robyn, some jurisdictions for civil tort claims, like a defamation claim do require showing of economic loss. Now this can be a modicum of economic loss. It could be, you know, that a person works hourly and they had to take five minutes out of their day to respond to somebody else. It didn't get paid for that five minutes because they're responding to a death

12:27threat or something. That would probably be enough. Whereas other jurisdictions just say, hey, the threat alone, the reputational harm, the emotional distress, the pain and suffering, the inconvenience, those are all legitimate categories of damages too. And those would be at the forefront item, actually, of the case like this. And I doubt a judge is going to kick such a case just because there might be some difficulty in showing some financial loss that that's really not what's that issue in this toward anyway. And one more fall into that because everyone keeps now taking pictures of Patrick with his new wife. Can she fall? Can she also file as a separate or to be on with her or does she not have a claim even though she's not really being targeted by name necessarily, but because she's being photographed together with him? You know, most my understanding is, is most states do not allow for like a, what's called a derivative claim like that. So for example, if someone would, let's say a different claim, someone's hurting a car accident, a husband, and he can no longer be romantic with his

13:27wife. The wife would have a derivative claim against the at fault party in that sense. But in this sense, I doubt a court's going to let that kind of a derivative claim. I think the wife would have to show, would have to meet the elements on her own that there was a full statement against and she suffered damage. What about the ones that claimed she was the mistress? Oh, yeah, that would be a direct claim. That would be a direct statement affecting the wife there. And that could be grounds, yeah. Is it ever, I mean, let me ask you this. I mean, at the end of the day, I'm going to guess a lot of the people who have gone down this road. I mean, I can't think of any reputable creators that have gone down this road. Um, it's just a lot of kind of one-offs, if you will, that, that some have some followings. But is it, is it truly worth it for Patrick Lansing to go after these people and continue to draw more attention? I mean, people have their dumb ass opinions, no matter what. The facts don't matter to some people.

14:27And these are the ones who are going down this road. Uh, does it, do you should you keep pouring fuel on the fire that you will never truly extinguish because these people will never truly be extinguished? And there's, there's far more of them than any human could possibly whack a mole down. You know, when deciding to file a lawsuit, there are legal considerations and there are practical considerations. And you've got, you've got to have both front of mind because you could have the strongest case in the world. But if it is not collectible, if there is no way your attorney's going to get paid, if they're, um, you know, those things, uh, might dissuade someone from pursuing such a lawsuit. Now on the other hand, Tony, you look at, um, the Alex Jones and info worst stuff that he was prominent enough to where it did make sense to go after him for defamation based on some statements he made that a jury determined were forced about a school student, um, is my understanding. And so, um, if it's a bigot of it, the answer and they have assets and they're all a sizable platform, maybe in

15:28this world, it does. Yeah. I, I agree there. It's, I, I've yet to see one that's, you know, Susie from Paduca being anywhere close to info wars, um, you know, in terms of, of stature. What about the, the, the criminal cross over? Patrick's team mentioned notifying law enforcement. I mean, at what point does a coordinated, relentlessly, online smear campaign cross, you know, from a civil defamation and issue into to criminal cyber stocking when they say we notified law enforcement. What does that mean? You know, um, is that a completely hollow threat that, that, uh, and they know law enforcement would be hard pressed to sort of bring a criminal action on this? Or do they have something more that that, uh, some of which might not be public, you know, stock stocking. Um, you have to prove that there is emotional distress. You have to prove usually repeated contacts that are unwanted and you told the person to stop. Um, you have to prove a knowledge on behalf of the other person that they knew

16:31that this is going to cause distress to somebody and they keep doing it. Um, and then you have to contrast that our way it against possible first amendment concerns, which I think Jensie may have mentioned in the comments. And so, uh, it gets a little prickly and a little tough. Uh, in this, in this world of cyber stocking and, uh, online harassment, everything else. Yeah, I mean, it's really kind of new territory for everybody, uh, in in terms of how, how this ecosystem all works and the causes and effects. I mean, some are obvious shit. You, you make up claims about somebody that are patently false and continue to peddle them. There might be consequences at some point for saying a human being did horrific things to their children when they clearly did not. Maybe just maybe your thoughts in the comments section on sub stack in YouTube. We'd love for you to weigh in right there as we continue our conversation about the aftermath and the consequences of the Lindsey Clancy case. Following the 11 to one mistrial and the Lindsey Clancy case defense attorney Kevin Reddington is pulling out every stop to prevent a second trial,

17:34including going on national TV and asking the president for a pardon. Reddington knows a federal pardon is legally impossible in a state case. So this is a highly calculated chess move. Many are confused. What's he doing? Is he an idiot? Yes, he knows what he's doing. He's publicly boxed himself and stating he will not accept a day in jail for Lindsey. So what exactly is the defense's end game here back with us to help break all this down attorney and former prosecutor Eric Fattis, along with Robin Drake, retired FBI special agent chief of the counterintelligence behavioral analysis program. So yeah, let's talk about that. Reddington obviously knows a presidential pardon doesn't even exist as an option in a state case. So so what what from a attorney land defense attorney land might actually be the strategy here? How does it offense attorney weaponize a national television plea to the president to somehow create leverage against the local DA?

18:38Sure. I mean, sometimes in defense, you've got to get created and there might be measures you take that have more of a practical import than a legal import. And this might be one of them because you know, you look at the team of Peter's case. She was the clerk in Colorado convicted of of giving access to voting systems and she requested a pardon from Trump, even though it was a state conviction. Well, low and behold, in that case, Trump was being very vocal about warning justice for Tina Peters whom she whom he believes is innocent. And ultimately, the Colorado governor felt that pressure and truck directed it specifically at him. He commutes it her sentence. He lessened her sentence. Many folks in my state believe because of this presidential influence. And so even though the president's pardon would not have any legal import in the state case, it could have some very serious practical import. And I think Reddington's leaving nothing on the table and considering all of those evidence. It was an interesting move because I totally get that aspect Eric.

19:41But then what when you do a deeper analysis of of where again, this has not really been too much of a political case. It's been more of a gender case and mental health case, all these other areas. I mean, it's kind of cross party lines and it's to some extent because if you follow the people or look at the people that Trump typically looks at, like the Megan Kelly's, the Nancy graces, you know, these people are hard core anti Lindsey throw away, lock away and why we even talking about that she's a murderer for her three kids. And so with an and Trump statement that he made the one statement that we saw was more in lines with that kind of saw. I'm curious. Do you still see that in play or was I mean, what do you think was in Reddington's mind? Kind of in your mind or was he seeing something bigger? Because I out. So here's right. Give credit. I give credit to the guys. But got 50 years of reps being Reddington about knowing exactly what he's doing. But a lot of us with smaller brains don't quite understand it necessarily as

20:42it's playing out. So you got a 50 pound brain air. What do you think? You know, I think that there is a lot going on there and might characterize Trump as a flexible on policy issues on, you know, positions that might historically align with this party or something like that. There have been times in the past where maybe Republicans were of a certain position. And then Trump saw an opportunity and and he came out with something different. And in fact, sometimes sues the positions of his own followers to a different side. And so perhaps Reddington said, Hey, I know that a lot of folks on that side might not be the biggest fan of Mike's line. But Trump might be more receptive, might be open minded. Maybe there's some kind of political traction for Trump there. And he's got an appetite for pursuing those things. And so, you know, Reddington's doing the best he can for his client. And I think that on the balance, it makes sense to do everything he can.

21:44And this is one of those measures. Yeah, that's good analysis. That's good insight. I like that. It's it's interesting. I mean, is I mean, this just feels like a case where I don't think any politician. I don't care what side you're on. I think would want to touch it with a 10 for all because there, there's no winning here. I mean, you're, I mean, I'm sure there if we were to look at stats, there probably is some sort of correlation with where it would weigh heavier based on this party or that party to a certain extent. But, but even within that, even within a single party, I'm sure there's still quite a divide. Uh, this doesn't necessarily go along political lines, per se. I don't see an advantage to any politician, including Trump weighing in. I mean, I maybe Trump is your best bet, though. Someone who seems to not really give a shit about just kind of do whatever he wants. If he feels one way, you might get him to do something one way, even if it's not the interest of his political things, I don't know.

22:44I don't know. I like a political on this. It's just I don't see why anyone would take this hot potato no matter who you are. So what Eric did right there was. He's looking at the behavior arc of a politician, you know, if no one likes the Trump word, I don't care. But he's taking that behavior arc. If it's politically advanced advantageous to him, and as you laid it out, Eric, first of all, it costs nothing to take the shot as Reddington did to see. And at the same time, though, if you have a huge, if he's assessing, who knows, right? But if he's assessing that there's a large part of the voting population that would be aligning that he doesn't currently have, it would be aligning with Lindsey that coming up on midterms could actually help. I mean, so there's Reddington kind of reading the tea leaves as they, hey, it doesn't hurt the try. So it's a really, that was a really interesting assessment, Eric. Yeah. I think it's a gamble. The big, beautiful part. And I love Gen Zs. That's the big, beautiful part. Yeah. I just don't, I don't know.

23:45I just think it's too hot of a potato. But who knows? I mean, people do dumb shit all the time. The new jail ultimatum, Reddington publicly had boxed himself in this week's getting. He absolutely would not plead Lindsey into a day in jail. Okay. I mean, you're, that's, you know, why you're speaking a little before we get to any sort of new trial or pleading here. I mean, when a defense attorney draws a hard line like that in the media, is that a bluff or doesn't 11 to one mistrial truly give him the power to demand terms like that when the state's sitting back on their side going, do we really want to do this again? I think especially in the legal world, when you have leverage, when you have momentum and we're talking about the highest stakes case there is, you've got to wield them. And I think that you can make some forceful representations. And sometimes, are you bluffing? Are you partially bluffing? You know, maybe she would take something that's like two years in incarceration.

24:49And maybe she would get credit for that for a lot of time she's already been, you know, restrained. I'll be at a thank you after hospital. You know, I'm not sure that that that if there was a sweetheart deal that came through that said, hey, you know, have her do another 30 days jail, we're going to call it good. I think he would be a fool not to take that. Yeah. But I think it makes sense to show the DA, hey, we're not screwing around and we're willing to take this all the way next time. And what are y'all going to do about? Hey, Eric, one of the comments just posted up there. Thanks Lisa. And I saw this online too. We haven't talked about it yet. So by Reddington asking for the pardon, can that be used against him and Lindsay at the next trial? If it goes to trial, saying that he automatically assumed her guilt? Um, it's a little complicated, I think. And that's why I want your take on it because they've already admitted that she killed her kids, but they're saying not guilty by reason. Sandy, so how does that play out if by by him making a statement, he's seeking a pardon?

25:49Does that automatically say, hey, we admit she's guilty? It's a really good question because especially historically, pardons would be given after a person was convicted. Then they're pardoned. The conviction is erased as is the sentence. However, recently there have been preemptive pardons, including for like Joe Biden pardoned, Hunter Biden, preemptively his son because he was worried about a future prosecution. So I don't think it necessarily admits any sort of fault or criminal liability or conviction. But yeah, so I think that you could request a preemptive pardon without acknowledging that kind of wrongdoing. So I think he's probably in the clear there. I think a judge would never let it in in the second go around in part because it didn't necessarily come from Lindsay. You can't attribute everything a person's attorney says to that person. And so yeah, I think that for those issues, a judge would not let it in. We're learning a lot more through the testimony of jurors to various

26:49media outlets about what was going on in that jury room behind closed doors about the holdout juror. The allegations basically stating that they they saw a reasonable doubt. They verbally said they saw a reasonable doubt that the allegations other jurors are making about the one holdout. But they were going to follow their convictions and their conviction said, we don't care. We don't care that there's reasonable doubt. I can see that. And a lot of people can a lot of people can look at this case. This is why it ended the way it did. There's a lot of people that can easily look at this case and go, yeah, I understand how there might be a mental illness process going on here. I understand that she was failed by the system. She still killed her kids. I don't care. She should burn. That's the attitude of some people. Okay, I get it. That's that's how some people think. But it is also not following the law per se or at least one, I'd say one part of the instruction of the law that was given by the judge to the jurors of follow the letter of the law

27:53understand what reasonable doubt means apply it to this case. Because in the hour long jury instructions that sound more like and look on paper, more like the sign this agreement here, as you scroll through 72 pages of very fine type and then apply every sentence of this to this case. Also in there is, you know, your convictions matter follow your convictions as well. Convictions aren't the law. Let's talk about that. You got that 11 to 1 split. Is this how the law is supposed to be followed? Is this what was intended when we give jury instructions about understanding reasonable doubt or have has the minutia of jury instructions literally turned into that huge list of instructions that nobody reads or fully understands. They just end up checking the box at the end of the day because it contradicts itself throughout

28:54the entire process. Jury instructions can be a confusing, just a confusing, overwhelming mess for these jurors. I've sat through some jury instruction readings that take more than an hour. And the jury doesn't get the instructions in their hand usually as the judges reading them. And so they're just being talked at for an hour about all these foreign arcane legal concepts. And then we're saying, hey, apply every single word of what we do just heard over an hour plus to this case. These are official jurors. That's hard to shit to do. So I think that's a problem. Do we give jurors so much power and rightfully so to determine guilt or innocence. But we don't give them power to override the law and just make their own judgment calls that contradict that law. And so I think we got to be careful in terms of how much latitude we're giving jurors and their application of the law and what their role really is. Did the juror violate the law, the one that

29:58that held out? I'm not like I'm not in any way saying, you know, go after this person or be, but I'm just if we're trying to understand the jury instructions, what we've understood this person said in the courtroom or in the the jury room of understanding the reasonable doubt, but still sticking with it. Were they violating the law or were they following their convictions? In my world from what I understand as a lay person, just like that juror, I don't know. I think that's the problem here. I don't know. I don't think they knew. I don't think anybody knows. Yeah, that that is that is a tough issue. I you know, one possible analogy is like let's say that there was a case against an alleged gang member that he assayed someone tortured them and then brutally off them. And that during the trial, there was just insufficient evidence. There was reasonable doubt, but that juror said, yeah, I know, but I hate this guy. He's scum of the earth.

30:58I think that he did do some of these things. And my convictions are saying, I can't let this guy go. And so I'm not going to vote not guilty. As you know, as difficult as that juror's situation might be, I think that that would not be following the law if there was reasonable doubt. And when we apply it to this situation, if this potential juror did acknowledge that he believes there is reasonable doubt, but my conviction should override that. That last part is just not consistent with the law and consistent with jurors are allowed to do back there. And so to follow up with that, reading and again, correct me if I'm wrong on my facts on this, but I believe I saw that Reddington had stated that he might pursue the double jeopardy issue because of this one juror. Is that is that a possibility? Right. Right. And that's my question is so it's here say because only the other jurors are saying what that 11 jurors said and his double jeopardy potentially in play because of that. I don't think so because double jeopardy would I think require a complete acquittal.

32:07I think it can't be that if there is still a disagreement among the jury and there's no finality as to the charges regarding guilt or innocence, I don't think you can go back and say, yeah, well, this juror screwed up and it should have been a not guilty because it should have been a not guilty. That should have a percussive effect on any future prosecution to prevent it. I don't think you can do that. And I don't think you can file a appeal like saying, hey, this juror should have voted for my side, but they didn't. And I'm mad about that. So court, I need you to change what the outcome was of this trial. I think that's a bridge too far. I think it's going to happen. Did the judge fail in not putting in an alternate juror when Reddington brought that to his attention? I ask because if there are no consequences, I'm just let's say that that this juror was wrong for what they did. I'm not saying that I don't know. I'm just kind of playing this out. If in fact they were wrong and we're never going to know,

33:08it's not like this is going to go to trial or they're never going to like try this person of what were you thinking and were you following the letter of the law, there is no consequences. You can do whatever you want if you're a juror, you're relying on actual rules to be enforced by a judge. If you want to sit there and stone wall the whole damn thing and nobody calls you out for it, or even if they do call you out for it and they're still like, well, we don't want to intervene. Then there's no rules. It's do whatever you want. No one fucking cares because no one's going to hold you accountable and you can go on your merry way as soon as the day is over. When there's no consequences and no one is actually pulling the levers that exist to take care of someone who may try and hijack the system. If that's what was going on here, was that a failure for not going on that road or is that really getting into dicey territory when someone is arguing their conviction say, no, I'm not going to go that way, even if the 11 are going that way. And I'm following your

34:09rules as I interpret them. Right. We give jurors significant discretion in terms of how they're going to apply these laws. And so, you know, a judge needs to ensure that the jurors are informed on the law and they're not confused about the law. But the judge absolutely must stop short of influencing that jurors opinion. And so I think the judge could have done a better job at instructing the jurors when they came back as to what the law was. And even on top of that, Tony and Robin, the judge could have interviewed this holdout and could have said something to the effective, I'm going to read you the reasonable doubt instruction. And then said, is it your position that there is no reasonable doubt or is your position different? I don't think you can say like, hey, you know, you're really thinking about this part of the instruction. Are you sure, you hear this other piece of evidence? Does that affect how you feel about it? I think you cannot go into that territory at all. And in fact, we're going to have to raise the disagree. How folks who

35:10interpret the law through their own lens, through their own experience and in a different fashion. And even if we might not like their opinion, but I think we got to be super careful about having any sort of sway or influence or pressuring these folks to give up some position they have about a case unless they are blatantly contrary to the law, in which case I think the judge does have to step in. So why didn't I mean, or was everybody far more concerned about belaboring the beginning of their Labor Day weekend? We heard that reaction. You're asking these jurors to come here on a Saturday. And then he stops and he stops. Well, you're asking this jury to put her away in a small cell for the rest of her existence. Maybe a Saturday is part of the fucking job. Why didn't they? Why did it me? You know, I think you should have been more hands on. I always get so frustrated when I'm in trial and jurors are indicating some kind of confusion or indicating we don't know what to do. We're at a point where we can't move past it. We need some help. I think the judge has a duty to

36:17try to ensure that the process moves along in a just fashion. And sometimes that means informing the jurors of the law, assailing any confusion, and also individually interviewing certain jurors. And if the judge were to learn that one holdout was not following the law, I'm not saying that's what happened, but if that hypothetically did, I think a judge could say, hey, we have concerns about potential juror misconduct, about the integrity of the jury deliberations. That's why we have alternatives. Why in the world not at least consider that? But I guess the prosecution would say, if you put in an alternate, you're taking away our only vote. You're putting your finger on the scales of justice. There are just so many potential dipoles with the judge intervening with the jury deliberation. And let's reverse it now because a few people have put this in there too. So what would have precluded the 11 juror of the 12th from then going to the judge and saying, hey, these people are bullying me. Is there a mechanism for the one juror to write a note to the judge,

37:20the court, and say, I'm being bullied. And if he said something like that, there's high pressure, that I don't feel it's fair. What's the repercussion of that? What can happen in those cases? Yeah, that and I was worried about something that was happening here. One thing, Robin, is the jurors don't always know that they can go to the court for help when the deliberations have stalled or something. They don't say, hey, and if you guys are deadlocked, make sure to come back to me and we'll consider a mistrial later. They don't want the jury to know that because they want them to go through the process reach a final outcome. And so this juror might not even know that they could go to the judge. But if there was such an influence, such pressure, I think that that is, I think that is structural error during the deliberations of mistrial would have to be or should be imposed at that time and when we'd go round two. So in other words, if this one juror had gone to the judge with a note saying there's pressure back there, Reddington could again call it for mistrial and it had a higher probability. So could the prosecution do and say, and the

38:24prosecution could say, hey, the one person who was on our side is getting bullied back there. That is patently improper in terms of jury deliberations. Got to do a mistrial. I think that that would certainly be on the table. Yeah. Is a result of a mistrial the same as a hung jury? Yes. Yes. So we're still we're still saying. Mistrial could be determined on other grounds beside a hung jury, but that's one of the grounds on which it could be disturbed. It's just feels like patently insane that the jury doesn't fully understand the levers they can pull in the options they have. I find that interesting where I remember the like two days before they actually finally came to the verdict, everybody's like, all they have to do is big one more call to the judge and it's done. But they don't know that like why the fuck don't they know that they should know every option that's available to them. You just spend an hour and a half reading the litany of instructions that contradict themselves and you couldn't slip that sentence in there and option they may actually have.

39:27I love it. I love it. I just caught the one sweet pie says 11 jurors had preconceived bias towards Lindsey Clancy. No, they didn't if you're actually watching interviews of a maftoward. So incorrect. Yeah. Your thoughts, comments section, sub stack YouTube. Be sure to to drop them in there. We'd love for you to weigh in as we continue to break down the Lindsey Clancy case. Obviously, the Lindsey Clancy case has reached a massive legal crossroads following the stunning mistrial where the jury reportedly hung 11 to one in favor of not guilty. The ball is now entirely in the court of Flemith County District Attorney Tim Cruz. The defense is putting on a media master class to pressure the state into dropping the case, leaving the prosecution with an impossible choice. Drag the shattered family through another highly publicized second trial or concede defeat on first degree murder charges for a mother who killed her three children joining us to discuss

40:27where this goes next in the prosecution standpoint. Eric Fattis defense attorney and Robin Drake retired FBI special agency for the counterintelligence behavioral analysis program. Eric, put your former prosecutor hat on for a second. 11 to one one hung jury leaning towards not guilty. It's a catastrophic mystery to the room by the state. When a prosecution team gets back to the office after after a blow like that after this long weekend, I mean, how how do they autopsy their case? What was the fatal flaw and how they tried to sell this and the jury was that far in the other direction? They can't be looking at this going, I think we did a good job, guys. Let's do that again. Exactly. The conversation is not oh, gun hole. Let's set the new trial for two weeks from now. I can't wait to get to get back after this and do this again. No, instead, they're going to be talking about wow. We have some real concerns. We have an extremely serious loss of three children. And we're the

41:28prosecutors, our social protected community, seek accountability for crimes. That's on one side. And then on the other side, how are we going to get there? What do we have to change? I think the prosecutors' tone in the beginning sort of billifying Lindsey Clancy came to bite them in the butt later when the evidence just didn't really match up with that that she was manipulative and all of these things. A lot of folks are saying that's not what the evidence showed to them. But then you can't also just drop it and take the black eye. I think you begin some negotiations. And you say, hey, we can bring this again. And you're client could go to prison for the rest of her life or maybe there's some sort of alternative that everyone can live with. There isn't a lot. Go ahead. No, I was just saying, I guess that's why a cruise doesn't come out yet with what they're going to do next because they're probably talking behind those doors saying, you know, coming up to a conclusion. And so, so now let's just do the the plan for saying they can't come up with a resolution to not go back to trial with a ple- you know, sign the plea deal.

42:30Do you think the prosecution then uses the same two trial attorneys that they used in that one or do they move on to different people? Bigger bows next time. Bigger bows. Yeah, yeah, couple or the benched in. I don't know. Everybody gets a $50 certificate to clairs before every day of trial. Yeah, I wonder if they're, you know, it'd be kind of crummy to be the new guy in that office. And I think I have a new file for you. This trial is going to be reset. We want you to handle it. You know, that would be pretty difficult. But one thing too, Robin, is it's just speculation, but I can't help but wonder if the prosecutors began those discussions with Reddington saying, hey, is there some kind of alternative resolution? And that prompted a statement like the one Reddington made where he said publicly, we're not taking one day of jail. Maybe that is a message during those negotiations to try to gain some leverage in there. I wouldn't be surprised. Those kinds of the actress happened all the time. Yeah, I guess I want to ask you about that. How the

43:32sausage is made here a little bit. Behind the scenes, there's negotiation going on, correct? I'm very likely at some point there will be. Or some dialogue to continue this forward, whether it's happening now or might be happening at some point. And that dialogue will go back and forth. How different is that dialogue behind the scenes of both parties, the defense and the prosecution trying to come to some sort of a conclusion here versus what's being presented to the public on Good Morning America or wherever Reddington's giving an interview or anybody's talking for that matter where they're going to be grandstanding and really pushing their side of the case. And the other side is crazy for wanting what they want. Where, okay, both sides are coming up pretty strong for their case to the public, but behind the scenes, are they are they likely a lot more in line with trying to figure out a resolution here than we're feeling out here or is it really

44:35very much dependent on the case? You know, it reminds me a little bit of politics. Back in the day, there was kind of a very open dispute between Democrat Ted Kennedy and I forget the Republican dude, but he was a leader at the time as well. And publicly, they were at each other's throats, they're hurling insults, they're saying all this stuff. And then behind closed doors, their bodies do, they're hanging out. And they're trying to reach resolutions and progress for the American people. That kind of thing can happen on the legal side too. You can have this bluster and you can be making these theatrics publicly, but behind closed doors, down, that the prosecutor made an offer that involved incarceration, Reddington's response would be, we're not doing one day of jail and don't you dare make that offer to me or something. I think it'd be more like, okay, I hear you're out with it. You know, we have some exposure on our side. You guys have massive exposure on your side. Let me talk with my client. I'll get back to you. And so, yeah, so those conversations can be a lot more congenial, but something not.

45:37So what kind of charge? So let's do our conjecture hat again and play it forward. So let's, so a win for Reddington would be no jail time in general population for Lindsay. So for those that are enraged by letner go, no, this is not about letner go. This is about he's looking to put her in Tukesbury where she's been in a state run mental facility that is jail for for people with mental illness. That's a win for him and a win for the prosecution. I'm guessing would be a charge that they want to have heard mid to, which is whether it's first degree, second degree, third degree, man. So something like that. So what actually do you think could actually land legally that the both sides win where the prostitutions gets to incarcerate her where she doesn't have freedom. He wins because he gets her at Tukesbury instead of in general population and what charge then is aligned with legally what can what can serve both. You know what comes to mind Robin is

46:38involuntary manslaughter in some states it's called criminally negligent homicide. It's where the person was negligent and caused the death. They should have been more careful. They should have done something more they did. You know that certainly doesn't fit neatly. But is it consistent with a narrative that Lindsay Clancy should have exercised more care with respect to the issues she was experiencing how they were affecting her how they were influencing her behavior. She should have done something else she didn't that resulted in the loss of these three children. Could that be you know a legal fiction that everyone could live with it could I think. And in terms of that the potential incarceration is so much lower for that charge depends on the state oftentimes like three to eight years or something. And Lindsay Clancy has been confined for the dependency of this case. She would probably qualify for credit for that. So that could give her credit for time serve. The prosecution gets a conviction that is roughly consistent with the facts and the defense gets

47:40free. Maybe everyone can live with it. They leave a fiction everyone can live with. That's an interesting statement. I wonder what the TikTok world would think about that. It's more like who can walk away with the least amount of egg on their face at the end of the day while the whole carton blew up. I saw someone in the comments had said it's a bad idea. They didn't sequester the jurors. We've talked about this before. It's not that common of a practice of sequester jurors these days. That should have linked at time. Let me ask you this. For a case like this the way it ended up. Do you see that sequestering would have made a damn bit of difference in where this landed at the end of the day? No. There's just I just don't see you know obviously there's the prospect and risk of outside influence of these jurors were getting information from social media, regular media, all of that. But we don't have I don't have any significant evidence of that. And so you know it sounds like these deliberations for rather spirited as it is. And so

48:41confining these people to like the same hotel and further depriving them of outside contact is that more likely to lead to an agreement among the jurors and the unanimous verdict or less likely? I think it could be even more problem. Do you if we were let's say that we do go to another trial here which we don't know the answer to that yet. But let's say we do. Does the prosecution bring on their same experts? They didn't round one. I can think of one who's not going to be there. But the others, I mean they were good experts. They agreed they did more help for the defense than the actual prosecution. So do you bring them back in? I mean I could see an argument for yes and for no from the prosecution side of see we really do understand that this woman had problems. But we still think she should burn for it. Or not. I don't know. I mean I wonder how much they were surprised by the reactions they got from some of their experts on the stand that weren't exactly

49:41touchdowns for the prosecution. Totally. When you're considering a retrial sometimes it makes sense to switch up the game plan and sometimes that includes different witnesses. You sort of try to gauge how do this witness do where they actually helpful or not. But you run a bit of a risk because if let's say the prosecution gets all new experts and at the second trial, Reddington's asking him, hey didn't you review reports from the guy who was in your shoes before. There was another expert who would find on the exact same thing you did didn't they? And you're aware that they've said you know x, y and z that's helpful for the defense. And now you're just kind of like the new guy whose opinions appear to align more with the side that's paying you. Aren't you? And like so I think that those folks could be very vulnerable if there are new experts at the second trial. But sometimes you got to do it because you're. So if it's retried is the testimony that they made in the first trial as I know that when we were talking about the murder trial

50:42the things that you can't use in the second one because of all the financial stuff. And so it gets a little complicated for my non legal brain. But in this case on the retrial can all the testimony that was used by the experts in the first trial like you say and can that be referenced when Reddington does his devastating cross examinations of these guys where they're basically going to be impeaching themselves not impeaching the sense of lying but they're they're contradicting themselves all over the place. Good question. Usually you need live testimony at a second trial in order to reference and comment on but the exception Robin is with experts with experts you can present here say information you can present hypotheticals and you could say like hey look you know if there was a prior expert who was also hired by the state who was exactly in your shoes who analyzed everything you analyze and came to a totally different conclusion. What would it matter to you to be aware of that would you review that and and what that influence you know how your opinions in this case there are ways to do it for sure. So basically they're making it as clear as mud mixed with gravel

51:45and horse excrement for the jury. It's a tough retrial because basically it's a tough retrial. You're taking all of the expert testimony from the first trial which for the most part did kind of line into one direction of she was mentally ill except for a little bit and if you were to get new experts that maybe don't quite agree there. You just you just have double the experts double the fun and double the confusion for the jury of well all these experts now it's not just I don't remember we had but it's not just seven now it's 14 that are contradicting each other and the experts were bringing in because we want you the jury to have a much better understanding of this case. Meanwhile all the experts are contradicting the other expert. Good luck and if I'm reddington I am mucking that up so bad I am recovering every single expert I can and then at the end in closing I'm going to say hey you've heard about statements

52:45from 25 different experts they all disagree that they all can't come to a conclusion as to this issue. Does it that mean there's doubt? Does that mean reasonable lines can differ about it and isn't that doubt reasonable and so if I'm redding then I'm exploiting the hell out of them. Yeah. There is a political calculation here. Cruise is an elected official. I should have this. I don't know what I'm talking about. I don't know when he's up for election again maybe you could find that Robin while we ask this. And he's facing immense pressure from Kevin Reddington's media blitz and unfortunately the reality is a lot of times DA's and people will make decisions on who they're going to prosecute or not based on if they will be reelected for that decision or not. At what point does the DA look at this political reality and say this might be a little tough. This could weigh. I don't know that this is one anyone wants to hang their hat on in either direction because it's so vile and so so diverse in in each direction in a fairly split

53:48way. I don't see this as a clear. Oh yes we're on the side of righteousness here. I don't know if you'd really you know how do you think politics will play into the decision Eric of whether or not to prosecute. And before you answer Eric he's up for re-election November 3rd in 2026 he cleared the September 1st public interest. He cleared the September 1st Republican primary with no opponent. So we're pro there's no opponent. He's not opposed. Well then he's going to win no matter what. It's interesting that he's Republican in Massachusetts too. So okay so he's on opposed. Does it matter then? If he's running on opposed if there's no if there's no also a Democrat opponent then you know he's going to win man. So he doesn't need to no Democrat. And in fact he might be well served to try to somehow distance himself from this. Yeah he could even say like hey look I think we need to have a special prosecutor take a look at this it's such a high profile case. Trying to punt it in some fashion to avoid any political ramifications which

54:55are not good on either side. Yeah he's been the DA there since 2001. One more for you one more for you Eric from the perspective of Patrick Clancy. I know his attorneys released his statement saying the prospect of reliving this tragedy through another trial is extraordinarily painful especially through the bullshit that he's had to deal with throughout this entire damn thing. It's not like he necessarily has a huge choice in testifying again unless he were to just completely leave the country. Maybe Adelson it. Go to a place with non-extradition and go I'm not coming back for this. I mean what options does Patrick have going forward if there's another trial. He does he really have a choice in not having to go on the stand again and relive this shit show. He probably doesn't if he is lawfully subordinate he's got to be there. But that's also a potential out for the DA let's say the DA really didn't want to try this case but it's a big case we have three deceased children. You know perhaps they use the ground that in the interest of justice the primary living victim

56:01now is Patrick Clancy. He has been devastated his life has completely changed. We think it's justice for the victim's family at this juncture to not proceed because we want to protect Patrick. You know could that be an outpiligley and otherwise to skirt around this really prickly potential retrial it could. I could see that being an acceptable answer for some and others I don't think there's ever going to be an acceptable answer to this case. Eric Fattis defense attorney former prosecutor as always thank you so much for coming on and giving a great insight on Thursday. Huh a lot of questions answered today also Robin Drake. He is on masterclass now Robin telling about masterclass. Yeah all about behavioral analysis understanding what makes people trust you so check it out if you want masterclass.com backslash Robin Drake. Link is in the description. Press subscribe wherever you're watching or listening so you don't miss any of our coverage. We'll continue our conversation in the comments on substack and YouTube until next time for Robin for

57:06Eric for Todd for Lisa. I'm Tony we'll talk again real soon.