Podcast appearances and mentions of karen read

​In the Karen Read murder trial, concerns have emerged regarding the transparency of autopsy information related to the death of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. While autopsy photographs have been made public through defense court filings, the full autopsy report remains inaccessible due to Massachusetts state laws that restrict the release of such documents. This lack of access has fueled public speculation and debate, as the detailed findings and conclusions of the medical examiner are not available for independent review. Critics argue that withholding the complete autopsy report hampers a comprehensive understanding of the case and contributes to the proliferation of unverified theories.​In the Karen Read case, unsealed letters between Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey and federal authorities reveal a complex dynamic. Morrissey expressed concerns about a federal investigation potentially interfering with the state's prosecution of Read, suggesting possible biases within the U.S. Attorney's Office. He requested the investigation be transferred to another jurisdiction. The Department of Justice reviewed this request but found no basis for recusal, indicating the federal investigation would proceed under the current office. These correspondences highlight tensions between state and federal authorities regarding the handling of the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

​Michael Proctor, a former Massachusetts State Police trooper, served as the lead investigator in the case against Karen Read, who is accused of the 2022 death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. Proctor's role encompassed overseeing the investigation, gathering evidence, and providing testimony during Read's initial trial. However, his conduct during the investigation came under scrutiny due to the revelation of inappropriate and derogatory text messages he sent about Read to family and colleagues. These messages, which included offensive language and unprofessional remarks, raised concerns about potential bias and compromised the perceived integrity of the investigation.In March 2025, following an internal review, Proctor was terminated from the Massachusetts State Police. The disciplinary board cited unsatisfactory performance and violations related to the mishandling of sensitive information and inappropriate communications during the investigation. This development has significant implications for the upcoming retrial of Karen Read, as Proctor's actions and the subsequent questions about the investigation's integrity are expected to be focal points in the defense's strategyto  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

​In the Karen Read murder trial, concerns have emerged regarding the transparency of autopsy information related to the death of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. While autopsy photographs have been made public through defense court filings, the full autopsy report remains inaccessible due to Massachusetts state laws that restrict the release of such documents. This lack of access has fueled public speculation and debate, as the detailed findings and conclusions of the medical examiner are not available for independent review. Critics argue that withholding the complete autopsy report hampers a comprehensive understanding of the case and contributes to the proliferation of unverified theories.​In the Karen Read case, unsealed letters between Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey and federal authorities reveal a complex dynamic. Morrissey expressed concerns about a federal investigation potentially interfering with the state's prosecution of Read, suggesting possible biases within the U.S. Attorney's Office. He requested the investigation be transferred to another jurisdiction. The Department of Justice reviewed this request but found no basis for recusal, indicating the federal investigation would proceed under the current office. These correspondences highlight tensions between state and federal authorities regarding the handling of the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​Michael Proctor, a former Massachusetts State Police trooper, served as the lead investigator in the case against Karen Read, who is accused of the 2022 death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. Proctor's role encompassed overseeing the investigation, gathering evidence, and providing testimony during Read's initial trial. However, his conduct during the investigation came under scrutiny due to the revelation of inappropriate and derogatory text messages he sent about Read to family and colleagues. These messages, which included offensive language and unprofessional remarks, raised concerns about potential bias and compromised the perceived integrity of the investigation.In March 2025, following an internal review, Proctor was terminated from the Massachusetts State Police. The disciplinary board cited unsatisfactory performance and violations related to the mishandling of sensitive information and inappropriate communications during the investigation. This development has significant implications for the upcoming retrial of Karen Read, as Proctor's actions and the subsequent questions about the investigation's integrity are expected to be focal points in the defense's strategyto  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Najbolji dio ove epizode je kad Filip 11 minuta objašnjava premisu hit serije Suits kako bi Tia shvatila jednu (1) osrednju šalu.Rasplet slučaja Karen Read, samo na Mjestu ZločinaPočastite nas kavom: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/mjestozlocinaPodržite nas na Patreonu i otključajte ekskluzivni sadržaj: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/mjestozlocina⁠⁠⁠Pratite nas na Instagramu: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/mjestozlocinapodcast⁠Pridružite nam se na Discordu: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/2NU9cprjM

One juror stopped eleven others from acquitting Lindsay Clancy by reason of insanity. Now that juror is the subject of a formal judicial inquiry, and his own court records are the reason.Judge William Sullivan on September 21 granted defense attorney Kevin Reddington's motion to produce the holdout's sealed juror questionnaire and conduct a limited investigation. The defense alleges the juror may have given false answers during selection about his criminal history and existing court orders.The holdout has been identified as Michael Desronvil, 48, of Bridgewater. He was arrested in 2021 on a domestic assault charge that was later dismissed. His teenage nephew obtained a restraining order against him after alleging Desronvil pushed him down and repeatedly punched him in the face. That restraining order was active during the entire Clancy trial. Massachusetts law requires prospective jurors to disclose this information on their questionnaires.The motion also targets Desronvil's cellphone. Multiple jurors told interviewers that the holdout scrolled through his phone during deliberations rather than engaging in discussion. If the phone shows outside material was accessed, that constitutes an external influence courts can investigate.Through an attorney, Desronvil says he had no doubts about Clancy's guilt. The foreperson and multiple jurors say the opposite. Defense counsel Martin Weinberg, who joined from the Karen Read case, is preparing a double-jeopardy motion arguing that a jury broken by a disqualified juror cannot produce a lawful mistrial. The September 29 hearing will determine how far this investigation goes.Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#LindsayClancy #LindsayClancyTrial #HiddenKillers #HoldoutJuror #KevinReddington #PlymouthSuperiorCourt #MichaelDesronvil #DoubleJeopardy #TrueCrime #TrueCrimePodcast

Defense Attorney Alan Jackson joins Kelly to give an update on Karen Read's case, his thoughts on the Lindsay Clancy trial and his latest case defending Fraser Bohm. They discuss the new phenomenon of crowds outside of courtrooms and jurors talking to the press. Plus he gives his opinions on the Bryan Kohberger case. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In April 2025, Karen Read returned to Norfolk Superior Court facing a second murder trial for the death of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. With lead investigator Michael Proctor officially fired and a complete roadmap from the first trial, both sides delivered an explosive replay of contested digital evidence, accident reconstruction, and claims of corruption. Also, who and what is a Turtleboy? --For early, ad free episodes and monthly exclusive bonus content, join our Patreon! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Jedan klasičan slučaj u dva dijela kako bismo nastavili sa sedmom sezonom. 2 dijela, 2 suđenja i vaša 2 najdraža voditelja.Počastite nas kavom: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/mjestozlocinaPodržite nas na Patreonu i otključajte ekskluzivni sadržaj: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/mjestozlocina⁠⁠⁠Pratite nas na Instagramu: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/mjestozlocinapodcast⁠Pridružite nam se na Discordu: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/2NU9cprjMd⁠

Aidan Kearney, aka Turtleboy, joins "Harmony" to discuss his role in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial. You should remember Turtleboy, the social media influencer who played a heroic role in the Karen Read murder trial. In the Clancy case, Turtleboy has faced criticism for appearing to be unsympathetic toward the lone holdout juror. Jason will confront Turtleboy in hopes of unpacking the truth about the case and the courageous juror who held Lindsay Clancy accountable. ➢ Show Outline 00:00 - Intro to Turtle Boy and Clancy Mistrial 02:30 - Why Turtle Boy Published Juror Details 05:15 - Aidan Kearney on Backing Patrick Clancy 08:30 - Love Mental Health and Justice 11:45 - The Problem With Cheering Lindsay Clancy 14:30 - First Amendment Faith and NBC Reporting 18:00 - Inside the Holdout Juror Decision 21:00 - Men Sacrifice and Postpartum Debate 24:00 - Defending Patrick Clancy Role 27:00 - Documentary and December Trial Preview ➢ Follow Our GUESTS https://www.youtube.com/@TurtleboyLive  ➢ Subscribe to Jason's other channel https://www.youtube.com/JasonWhitlock?sub_confirmation=1 https://www.youtube.com/@JasonWhitlockHarmony?sub_confirmation=1 https://www.youtube.com/@JasonWhitlockBYOG?sub_confirmation=1 https://www.youtube.com/@JasonWhitlockClips?sub_confirmation=1 ➢ Connect with Jason on Social Media:  https://x.com/JasonWhitlock  https://www.instagram.com/realjasonwhitlock/ https://www.facebook.com/jasonwhitlock ➢ Send Jason an Email FearlessBlazeShow@gmail.com ➢ Support The Blaze Visit https://TheBlaze.com. Explore the all-new ad-free experience and see for yourself how we're standing up against suppression and prioritizing independent journalism. Support Conservative Voices! Subscribe to BlazeTV at https://www.fearlessmission.com and get $20 off your yearly subscription. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A major new development in the Lindsay Clancy case: veteran Boston attorney Martin Weinberg, who previously represented Karen Read in her double-jeopardy fight, has joined Clancy's defense team for the legal battle over whether she can be tried again. Kevin Reddington is also continuing his effort to have the case resolved without another trial following the 11-to-1 deadlock over criminal responsibility. We break down what Weinberg's involvement means, what the defense is trying to accomplish and why the September 29 hearing could become one of the most important dates in the case. We'll also update the case of Corie Walsh, the Illinois mother accused of killing her 2-year-old son, as her attorneys reject suggestions that the case was somehow inspired by Lindsay Clancy. Then we head to Florida for Day 3 of the Tomasz Kosowski murder trial, where prosecutors are presenting surveillance, blood evidence and video connected to the disappearance of attorney Steven Cozzi — while Kosowski continues representing himself in a death-penalty bench trial. Plus, social media influencer Gabriela Gonzalez, her father and her ex-boyfriend have pleaded not guilty in an alleged murder-for-hire plot targeting singer Jack Avery. Prosecutors allege the alleged plot developed during a bitter custody dispute and included discussions about making Avery's death look like an accident. Scott Reisch breaks down the evidence, the legal issues and the latest developments — plus Legal History, today's Legal Quote and another Dumb Criminal.

Did Karen Read strike her boyfriend with her vehicle, or was she framed by a tight-knit circle of local law enforcement? The death of John O'Keefe sparked one of the most divisive criminal cases in modern New England history. In Part One of our two-part series on True Crimecast, we examine O'Keefe's legacy as a dedicated officer and guardian, the timeline of the night at the Waterfall Bar, the controversial 2:27 a.m. phone search, and the investigative missteps that ultimately led to the lead trooper's termination. --For early, ad free episodes and monthly exclusive bonus content, join our Patreon! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

OA1296 - Dave Wedge is a veteran Boston reporter and New York Times bestselling author who covered (among many other things) hundreds of murder trials as a reporter for the Boston Herald and other local outlets. Dave joins OA to discuss his new book Blizzard of Lies, the definitive account of the prosecution and two unsuccessful attempts to prosecute Karen Read for the still-unexplained death of Boston police officer John O'Keefe. Beyond its excellent coverage of one of the most infamous prosecutions in modern Massachusetts history, Dave's book takes an objective look at the case for a fascinating snapshot of how, among other things: so-called “forensic fandom” in independent and social media has driven public perception of the justice system-, Aiden “Turtleboy” Kearney's aggressive and questionably ethical independent coverage propelled the trial into international news, and the “Free Karen Read” movement may have influenced the defense, the prosecution, and the outcome of a case which Dave convincingly argues may be an unfortunate turning point in American legal history. Blizzard of Lies is this month's OA Book Club selection! Patrons at every level are invited to join at 4:30 PM EST on Sunday September 27th before we discuss the book. Dave Wedge's website Blizzard of Lies: Karen Read, John O'Keefe, and the Shocking Unsolved Murder in Cop Town, USA, Dave Wedge (2026) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

DONATE! STAND WITH THE JUROR: Give Send Go:  https://www.givesendgo.com/standwithjurorBe protected if you ever have to defend yourself or family, JOIN CCW Safe TODAY! https://lawofselfdefense.com/ccwsafeThe hero hold-out juror in the Massachusetts mistrial of Lindsay Clancy over her murder of her three children—5 years old, 3 years old, and 8 months old—with exercise bands after sending her husband out of the home on errands to get him out of the way—has been doxxed, and is now being harassed at his home by hostile persons. A key figure in this post-trial retaliation against this sole black male on the jury who simply did his legal duty?  One Aidan Kearney, also known as “Turtle Boy,” a self-styled “journalist” who came to public light when engaged in shenanigans outside the trial of Karen Read, also in Massachusetts. Indeed, Kearney is already being prosecuted for felony jury and witness intimidation charges in Massachusetts for his conduct during the Read trial. Interestingly, Kearney's own past appears shares similarities with that of the hero juror, in that both have been in the past charged with domestic violence—which might have led a wiser man to not throw stones in a glass house. MOST IMPORTANTLY, HOWEVER!  A GiveSendGo campaign has been established for the hero juror, who had been facing eviction in a rental disagreement with his landlord, and as of this writing the sum collected had exceeded $70,000. The link to donate or just share this campaign is at the top of this description!Join me LIVE at 6:00 PM ET as I break it all down!Make sure you're ready to win the LEGAL FIGHT that follows the PHYSICAL FIGHT if you're ever compelled to defend yourself or your family from criminal predation. Learn why I am PERSONALLY a member of CCW SAFE, and why YOU SHOULD CONSIDER JOINING, TOO:  https://lawofselfdefense.com/ccwsafeAll @TheBrancaShow mugs & MORE! https://tinyurl.com/k778wj2kJOIN OUR COMMUNITY! Exclusive Members-only content & perks! Only ~17 cents/day! $5/month! YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/hn32rfz9 Locals: https://tinyurl.com/yck4w9kfFOUNDING FATHERS SPEED DIAL: Founding Fathers SPEED DIAL: https://tinyurl.com/3f7pc8nzEpisode #1448.

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/full-trial-audio-karen-read-john-o-keefe-murder--6163325/support.

Five verdict options. One outcome that might not exist. Lindsay Clancy's jury has been weighing not guilty, not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and manslaughter — and defense trial attorney Bob Motta, who sat through all five weeks of testimony, says the split between them matters less than people think. Motta walks through what each verdict actually means: prison with no parole under some outcomes, commitment to a locked psychiatric facility with no maximum sentence under others. He points to Andrea Yates, who drowned her five children in 2001 and was found not guilty by reason of insanity in 2006 — and who has remained committed ever since, never released. Lindsay Clancy has been at Tewksbury State Hospital since the day her three children, Cora, Dawson, and Callan, died, paralyzed from the waist down after her own suicide attempt on January 24, 2023. She hasn't reported hearing voices since. He also addresses the malpractice suits Lindsay and her husband Patrick filed against her medical providers, and whether the criminal case changes those. Defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis picks up where a deadlock leaves off. If this jury hangs, DA Timothy Cruz likely seeks a retrial — Massachusetts just did exactly that in the Karen Read case. But there's another option: Lindsay Clancy could waive her right to a jury entirely and let one judge, instead of twelve laypeople, referee the fight between dueling psychiatrists. Faddis also revisits the bifurcation motion Kevin Reddington already lost — a hung jury may be the argument that gets it granted the second time around, splitting guilt from responsibility entirely. Two attorneys, one impossible case, and a defendant whose future may already be decided by someone else's. Links & Footer Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/ Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePod Check out Robin Dreeke's Master Class http://masterclass.com/robindreeke   This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice. Hashtags #LindsayClancy #BobMotta #HiddenKillersPodcast #EricFaddis #AndreaYates #InsanityDefense #BenchTrial #PlymouthSuperiorCourt #TrueCrime #TrueCrimePodcast 

Massachusetts already ran this exact experiment once. Andrea Yates killed her five children, was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and has remained committed for more than twenty years without ever walking out. Defense trial attorney Bob Motta says that precedent is the real story behind the Lindsay Clancy case — not which of the five verdicts the jury eventually lands on. Motta sat through the entire five-week trial and breaks down what each option actually carries: prison with no parole under some outcomes, indefinite psychiatric commitment under others. Lindsay Clancy has already been living that second reality at Tewksbury State Hospital since the day her three children — Cora, Dawson, and Callan — died, paralyzed from the waist down after her own suicide attempt on January 24, 2023, medicated daily, and evaluated once a year. The defense has never disputed the physical facts of that day; the only real fight left is over what was happening in her mind. Motta also breaks down the malpractice lawsuits Lindsay and her husband Patrick filed against her medical providers, and whether the criminal verdict changes anything about those. If the current jury can't agree, defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis says a retrial isn't the only road left. Plymouth County DA Timothy Cruz could pursue one — Massachusetts moved fast on exactly that in the Karen Read case — but Lindsay Clancy could also waive her right to a jury and let a single judge weigh the psychiatric evidence instead of twelve people who couldn't agree on it. Faddis also revisits Kevin Reddington's failed bifurcation motion, which could split any retrial into a guilt phase and a responsibility phase entirely. Two attorneys, two outcomes, and a case where the ending may already be written. Links & Footer Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/ Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePod Check out Robin Dreeke's Master Class http://masterclass.com/robindreeke   This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice. Hashtags #LindsayClancy #BobMotta #HiddenKillersPodcast #EricFaddis #AndreaYates #InsanityDefense #BenchTrial #PlymouthSuperiorCourt #TrueCrime #TrueCrimePodcast 

There's a woman who already lived through the exact legal question hanging over the Lindsay Clancy case — she killed her five children, was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and has stayed locked up for more than two decades since. Her name is Andrea Yates, and defense trial attorney Bob Motta says her outcome is the closest thing to a preview of what happens to Lindsay Clancy next. Motta sat through all five weeks of the Clancy trial and breaks down the five verdicts this jury was choosing between — not guilty, not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter — and what each one actually means day to day. Some paths lead to prison with no parole. Others lead to a psychiatric commitment with no maximum sentence, annual evaluations, and a locked ward that looks a lot like the one Lindsay Clancy has been living in since her children — Cora, Dawson, and Callan — died and she tried to take her own life on January 24, 2023. Motta also unpacks the malpractice lawsuits she and her husband Patrick filed against her medical providers, and what a criminal verdict could mean for those cases. Defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis covers what happens if the jury can't get there at all. A retrial is the obvious move — Massachusetts just retried Karen Read within minutes of her own deadlock — but Lindsay Clancy also has the option to waive a jury completely and let a single judge decide. Faddis explains why that changes everything, and why Kevin Reddington's already-denied bifurcation motion might get a second look. Two guests, one case, and a defendant who may already know how this ends. Links & Footer Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/ Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePod Check out Robin Dreeke's Master Class http://masterclass.com/robindreeke   This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice. Hashtags #LindsayClancy #BobMotta #HiddenKillersPodcast #EricFaddis #AndreaYates #InsanityDefense #BenchTrial #PlymouthSuperiorCourt #TrueCrime #TrueCrimePodcast 

The Lindsay Clancy murder trial at Plymouth Superior Court has generated three simultaneous crises, each with the potential to reshape the case's trajectory.First, the jury has been unable to reach a verdict after days of deliberation. They have told the judge they are stuck. He read them the Tuey-Rodriguez instruction—the last tool Massachusetts gives a deadlocked jury—and they remained deadlocked. The impasse centers on a psychiatric dispute twelve lay people cannot resolve.Second, a woman was arrested outside the courthouse for filming the jurors as they left. Police found deleted videos on her phone. The judge questioned each juror individually before allowing deliberations to resume. Any verdict that emerges now carries the shadow of documented outside interference.Third, if a mistrial is declared, the defense has options that extend well beyond a conventional retrial. Kevin Reddington can request a bench trial, putting the case before a judge instead of twelve jurors. He can renew the bifurcation motion the judge denied pretrial. He enters the next phase with strategic options that did not exist before the first trial.Massachusetts has retried cases after hung juries before. Karen Read was acquitted at retrial. Emanuel Lopes was convicted. The precedent goes both ways.Defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis covers the deadlock, the arrest, and every path forward.Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#LindsayClancy #LindsayClancyTrial #HiddenKillers #EricFaddis #HungJury #JuryFilming #BenchTrial #PostpartumPsychosis #TrueCrime #TrueCrimePodcast

Three developments in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial at Plymouth Superior Court are converging into a single question: what happens next?The jury has been deliberating for days and has sent notes indicating they cannot agree. Judge Sullivan read the Tuey-Rodriguez instruction and sent them back. The impasse continued. The deadlock centers on a psychiatric dispute that twelve lay jurors appear unable to resolve.Outside the courthouse, a woman was arrested for filming the jurors. Police found deleted videos on her phone. The judge questioned each juror individually. The arrest created documented interference during active deliberation—evidence that could affect any appeal or future proceeding.If the jury hangs, the defense enters the next phase with options that did not exist before. A bench trial would put the case before a judge instead of a new jury. A renewed bifurcation motion could split a retrial into two phases, focusing only on criminal responsibility. Massachusetts precedent suggests the DA will retry—Karen Read was retried after a hung jury, as was Emanuel Lopes.But the depth of the deadlock, the outside interference, and the defense's strategic options make this a more complicated decision than a simple retry.Defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis covers all three developments and what they mean for Lindsay Clancy, for the DA's office, and for the mothers watching who needed this trial to deliver an answer.Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#LindsayClancy #LindsayClancyTrial #HiddenKillers #EricFaddis #HungJury #JuryFilming #BenchTrial #PostpartumPsychosis #TrueCrime #TrueCrimePodcast

The Karen Read case helped create a toxic blueprint for modern true-crime culture, where serious criminal proceedings are treated like team sports and public opinion is manipulated through repetition, outrage, harassment, and absolute certainty untethered from actual evidence. What happened in Canton went far beyond ordinary disagreement about guilt or innocence. Witnesses were turned into villains, critics were attacked, speculation was elevated into fact, and social-media personalities helped transform a homicide prosecution into an entertainment ecosystem built around loyalty, monetization, and tribal warfare. The most dangerous part of that legacy is how easily the formula can now be transferred to other cases: choose a side early, construct a simple counter-narrative, punish dissent, flood the public with emotionally charged claims, and hope the resulting pressure reaches far beyond the internet. None of that is skepticism or citizen journalism. It is a culture where popularity begins competing with evidence and where people convince themselves that screaming louder somehow makes their version of events more credible.Years of covering Jeffrey Epstein have only made that behavior more intolerable because Epstein's history provides legitimate reasons to distrust powerful institutions without requiring anyone to invent facts. Prosecutors can fail, police can make mistakes, governments can lie, and wealthy people can receive extraordinary treatment, but none of that means every rumor becomes true or every preferred theory deserves to be treated as established fact. Serious scrutiny demands the same skepticism toward your own conclusions that you apply to prosecutors, investigators, and institutions, and that standard disappears once criminal cases become fandom. Victims become props, defendants become mascots, witnesses become targets, and tragedy becomes content for people whose audiences reward outrage over accuracy. The Karen Read circus did not teach people to question authority; it demonstrated how easily public certainty can be manufactured before factual certainty has been earned. If that blueprint continues spreading, the justice system risks becoming another spectator sport driven by algorithms, personalities, money, and whichever crowd can scream the loudest.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The Karen Read case helped create a toxic blueprint for modern true-crime culture, where serious criminal proceedings are treated like team sports and public opinion is manipulated through repetition, outrage, harassment, and absolute certainty untethered from actual evidence. What happened in Canton went far beyond ordinary disagreement about guilt or innocence. Witnesses were turned into villains, critics were attacked, speculation was elevated into fact, and social-media personalities helped transform a homicide prosecution into an entertainment ecosystem built around loyalty, monetization, and tribal warfare. The most dangerous part of that legacy is how easily the formula can now be transferred to other cases: choose a side early, construct a simple counter-narrative, punish dissent, flood the public with emotionally charged claims, and hope the resulting pressure reaches far beyond the internet. None of that is skepticism or citizen journalism. It is a culture where popularity begins competing with evidence and where people convince themselves that screaming louder somehow makes their version of events more credible.Years of covering Jeffrey Epstein have only made that behavior more intolerable because Epstein's history provides legitimate reasons to distrust powerful institutions without requiring anyone to invent facts. Prosecutors can fail, police can make mistakes, governments can lie, and wealthy people can receive extraordinary treatment, but none of that means every rumor becomes true or every preferred theory deserves to be treated as established fact. Serious scrutiny demands the same skepticism toward your own conclusions that you apply to prosecutors, investigators, and institutions, and that standard disappears once criminal cases become fandom. Victims become props, defendants become mascots, witnesses become targets, and tragedy becomes content for people whose audiences reward outrage over accuracy. The Karen Read circus did not teach people to question authority; it demonstrated how easily public certainty can be manufactured before factual certainty has been earned. If that blueprint continues spreading, the justice system risks becoming another spectator sport driven by algorithms, personalities, money, and whichever crowd can scream the loudest.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Karen Read case helped create a toxic blueprint for modern true-crime culture, where serious criminal proceedings are treated like team sports and public opinion is manipulated through repetition, outrage, harassment, and absolute certainty untethered from actual evidence. What happened in Canton went far beyond ordinary disagreement about guilt or innocence. Witnesses were turned into villains, critics were attacked, speculation was elevated into fact, and social-media personalities helped transform a homicide prosecution into an entertainment ecosystem built around loyalty, monetization, and tribal warfare. The most dangerous part of that legacy is how easily the formula can now be transferred to other cases: choose a side early, construct a simple counter-narrative, punish dissent, flood the public with emotionally charged claims, and hope the resulting pressure reaches far beyond the internet. None of that is skepticism or citizen journalism. It is a culture where popularity begins competing with evidence and where people convince themselves that screaming louder somehow makes their version of events more credible.Years of covering Jeffrey Epstein have only made that behavior more intolerable because Epstein's history provides legitimate reasons to distrust powerful institutions without requiring anyone to invent facts. Prosecutors can fail, police can make mistakes, governments can lie, and wealthy people can receive extraordinary treatment, but none of that means every rumor becomes true or every preferred theory deserves to be treated as established fact. Serious scrutiny demands the same skepticism toward your own conclusions that you apply to prosecutors, investigators, and institutions, and that standard disappears once criminal cases become fandom. Victims become props, defendants become mascots, witnesses become targets, and tragedy becomes content for people whose audiences reward outrage over accuracy. The Karen Read circus did not teach people to question authority; it demonstrated how easily public certainty can be manufactured before factual certainty has been earned. If that blueprint continues spreading, the justice system risks becoming another spectator sport driven by algorithms, personalities, money, and whichever crowd can scream the loudest.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The Karen Read case helped create a toxic blueprint for modern true-crime culture, where serious criminal proceedings are treated like team sports and public opinion is manipulated through repetition, outrage, harassment, and absolute certainty untethered from actual evidence. What happened in Canton went far beyond ordinary disagreement about guilt or innocence. Witnesses were turned into villains, critics were attacked, speculation was elevated into fact, and social-media personalities helped transform a homicide prosecution into an entertainment ecosystem built around loyalty, monetization, and tribal warfare. The most dangerous part of that legacy is how easily the formula can now be transferred to other cases: choose a side early, construct a simple counter-narrative, punish dissent, flood the public with emotionally charged claims, and hope the resulting pressure reaches far beyond the internet. None of that is skepticism or citizen journalism. It is a culture where popularity begins competing with evidence and where people convince themselves that screaming louder somehow makes their version of events more credible.Years of covering Jeffrey Epstein have only made that behavior more intolerable because Epstein's history provides legitimate reasons to distrust powerful institutions without requiring anyone to invent facts. Prosecutors can fail, police can make mistakes, governments can lie, and wealthy people can receive extraordinary treatment, but none of that means every rumor becomes true or every preferred theory deserves to be treated as established fact. Serious scrutiny demands the same skepticism toward your own conclusions that you apply to prosecutors, investigators, and institutions, and that standard disappears once criminal cases become fandom. Victims become props, defendants become mascots, witnesses become targets, and tragedy becomes content for people whose audiences reward outrage over accuracy. The Karen Read circus did not teach people to question authority; it demonstrated how easily public certainty can be manufactured before factual certainty has been earned. If that blueprint continues spreading, the justice system risks becoming another spectator sport driven by algorithms, personalities, money, and whichever crowd can scream the loudest.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Karen Read case helped create a toxic blueprint for modern true-crime culture, where serious criminal proceedings are treated like team sports and public opinion is manipulated through repetition, outrage, harassment, and absolute certainty untethered from actual evidence. What happened in Canton went far beyond ordinary disagreement about guilt or innocence. Witnesses were turned into villains, critics were attacked, speculation was elevated into fact, and social-media personalities helped transform a homicide prosecution into an entertainment ecosystem built around loyalty, monetization, and tribal warfare. The most dangerous part of that legacy is how easily the formula can now be transferred to other cases: choose a side early, construct a simple counter-narrative, punish dissent, flood the public with emotionally charged claims, and hope the resulting pressure reaches far beyond the internet. None of that is skepticism or citizen journalism. It is a culture where popularity begins competing with evidence and where people convince themselves that screaming louder somehow makes their version of events more credible.Years of covering Jeffrey Epstein have only made that behavior more intolerable because Epstein's history provides legitimate reasons to distrust powerful institutions without requiring anyone to invent facts. Prosecutors can fail, police can make mistakes, governments can lie, and wealthy people can receive extraordinary treatment, but none of that means every rumor becomes true or every preferred theory deserves to be treated as established fact. Serious scrutiny demands the same skepticism toward your own conclusions that you apply to prosecutors, investigators, and institutions, and that standard disappears once criminal cases become fandom. Victims become props, defendants become mascots, witnesses become targets, and tragedy becomes content for people whose audiences reward outrage over accuracy. The Karen Read circus did not teach people to question authority; it demonstrated how easily public certainty can be manufactured before factual certainty has been earned. If that blueprint continues spreading, the justice system risks becoming another spectator sport driven by algorithms, personalities, money, and whichever crowd can scream the loudest.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Karen Read case helped create a toxic blueprint for modern true-crime culture, where serious criminal proceedings are treated like team sports and public opinion is manipulated through repetition, outrage, harassment, and absolute certainty untethered from actual evidence. What happened in Canton went far beyond ordinary disagreement about guilt or innocence. Witnesses were turned into villains, critics were attacked, speculation was elevated into fact, and social-media personalities helped transform a homicide prosecution into an entertainment ecosystem built around loyalty, monetization, and tribal warfare. The most dangerous part of that legacy is how easily the formula can now be transferred to other cases: choose a side early, construct a simple counter-narrative, punish dissent, flood the public with emotionally charged claims, and hope the resulting pressure reaches far beyond the internet. None of that is skepticism or citizen journalism. It is a culture where popularity begins competing with evidence and where people convince themselves that screaming louder somehow makes their version of events more credible.Years of covering Jeffrey Epstein have only made that behavior more intolerable because Epstein's history provides legitimate reasons to distrust powerful institutions without requiring anyone to invent facts. Prosecutors can fail, police can make mistakes, governments can lie, and wealthy people can receive extraordinary treatment, but none of that means every rumor becomes true or every preferred theory deserves to be treated as established fact. Serious scrutiny demands the same skepticism toward your own conclusions that you apply to prosecutors, investigators, and institutions, and that standard disappears once criminal cases become fandom. Victims become props, defendants become mascots, witnesses become targets, and tragedy becomes content for people whose audiences reward outrage over accuracy. The Karen Read circus did not teach people to question authority; it demonstrated how easily public certainty can be manufactured before factual certainty has been earned. If that blueprint continues spreading, the justice system risks becoming another spectator sport driven by algorithms, personalities, money, and whichever crowd can scream the loudest.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

As another day of jury deliberations in the Lindsay Clancy trial continued, I sat down with Boston-based journalist Dave Wedge to chat about another Massachusetts case that captured international attention - the Karen Read trial. His new book, Blizzard of Lies, went straight onto The New York Times bestseller list, and provides captivating insight into the death of John O'Keefe, the explosion of online speculation and the accusations of police corruption. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Daejon Love scammed women by pretending to be an NFL player, Eli Zaret stops by, Howard Stern trades Howard 101 for HBO, Lindsay Clancy crazies, Death of a Pastor's Wife on Netflix, Corey Feldman fibs, and no Hooters for Brian Hickerson. Eli Zaret joins the show today to declare the Detroit Tigers finished for the third time this season, the ending of Justin Verlander's career, the glorious return of College Football, USC's poor attendance, UM & MSU predictions, elderly CFB players, never-ending drama in the WNBA, Deshaun Watson's triumphant return, Green Bay Packers Josh Jacobs legal issues, Aaron Donald comes out of retirement, CTE ravaging former NFL players, Cowboys rookie Shiyazh Pete's trailblazing and more. Dolly Parton: Garth Brooks' daughter made Dolly's death all about her. CNN had to apologize after eulogizing Dolly with an incorrect photo. Dolly's charting like crazy. She once did a duet with Pee Wee Herman. Barbara Walters hated Dolly. Howard 101 is now Andy Cohen 101 on SiriusXM. Stern apparently has an HBO deal.  Drew breaks down the good and bad in the world today. Zohran Mamdani mourns a murderer. Lindsay Clancy fans are out of control. Karen Read fans have a new hero. 85-year-old Donna Mills is raking in the dough on OnlyFans. Meanwhile, Honey Boo Boo's fat sister is getting other gigs due to her OnlyFans earnings. Brooklyn Beckham and Nicola Peltz are the most annoying nepo-couple ever. Brian Hickerson is not welcome at Hooters or Twin Peaks. Former NFL player, Alan Page, is a judge now. Hopefully he doesn't have CTE. Daejon Love scammed a bunch of chicks by pretending to be a wide receiver for the San Francisco 49ers. Drew and Marc recommend Untold: The Testimony of Vince Young on Netflix. Robert De Niro stars in The Whisper Man. Spoiler: It sucks. Death of the Pastor's Wife on Netflix covers the sad tale of Mica Miller. Blake Lively posted about Hayden Panettiere and Michelle Trachtenberg saying "Be Kind" and it doesn't go well. Blake Lively wanted $8M from Justin Baldoni but only got $400K. She calls it a "win". Hugh Jackman still loves her. The 'It Ends With Justice: Justin Baldoni vs Blake Lively' doc is available now. Drew's stream is excellent thanks to Flomax. Markleverse: Meghan and Harry are booed in the UK. Montecito is glad to see the couple out of their town. The poor UK has to deal with her now and they're not happy about it. Fergie has weaseled her way back in the country under the cover of Harry and Meghan. Ian Wace funded the royal losers trip back to the UK because they don't pay for anything. We're hoping the citizens of the UK rise up against them. We learn that they give nauseating hugs. Corey Feldman clips continue to leak from Corey Feldman vs The World. Jim & Them may be responsible for the famous Monster Truck attack. Alabama Barker is accused of cultural appropriation. Nice parenting, Travis. Kylie Jenner wants bigger boobs. Better Half with Stas & Vic had Kylie on their crappy podcast. Stas & Vic are hot, but suck at their job. Hot privilege is rampant. Merch is available if you want to rep the show. You'd look amazing too. If you'd like to help support the show… consider subscribing to our YouTube Channel, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter (Drew Lane, Marc Fellhauer, Trudi Daniels, Jim Bentley, BranDon, and Roberto).

Three verdicts. Three completely different futures. Lindsay Clancy's jury begins deliberations after closing arguments Thursday, and the outcome determines whether she spends the rest of her life in a prison, a psychiatric hospital, or back in a courtroom for a second trial.Eric Faddis sits down to walk through every scenario. He covers the jury room first — the Massachusetts legal standard that puts the burden on the prosecution, the two-prong test for criminal responsibility, and why the prosecution's own expert acknowledging severe mental illness matters under a standard that says mental disease or defect without requiring a specific diagnosis.If the jury acquits, Clancy enters a commitment process with no end date. Under Massachusetts law, the state can petition for involuntary commitment after 40 days of observation. Andrea Yates has been in a state hospital for twenty years after a similar verdict. Periodic review hearings require the state to prove Clancy remains mentally ill and dangerous. Reddington continues to represent her through those hearings.If the jury convicts on first-degree murder, the sentence is mandatory life without parole. Clancy transfers from Tewksbury Hospital to the corrections system — a paralyzed woman on 24-hour suicide watch moving from a treatment facility to a prison. The conviction goes to the SJC on automatic appeal with the full trial record, including the rejected mental health evidence.If the jury deadlocks, a mistrial is declared. The Karen Read jury deliberated 23 hours across five days and could not reach agreement even after Tuey-Rodriguez instructions.Faddis covers the mechanics of each outcome and what the legal fight looks like for Reddington after every possible verdict.Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#LindsayClancy #LindsayClancyTrial #HiddenKillers #JuryDeliberation #NotGuiltyInsanity #LifeWithoutParole #PostpartumPsychosis #CriminalAppeal #TrueCrimePodcast #TrueCrime

In most states, the defense has to prove insanity. In Massachusetts, the prosecution has to prove sanity. That distinction is at the center of the Lindsay Clancy trial as closing arguments approach Thursday, and it changes how everything this jury heard over 21 days of testimony gets weighed in that deliberation room.Eric Faddis, a defense attorney and former prosecutor, explains the standard the Commonwealth must meet. Under the McHoul test, prosecutors have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy could appreciate the wrongfulness of strangling Cora, Dawson, and Callan and that she could have conformed her conduct to the law. Two parts. Both required. Failing on either means Clancy is not criminally responsible.The prosecution called Dr. Avram Mack as a rebuttal witness. He told the jury Clancy had a severe depressive episode. He would not call it psychosis. The defense called experts who did. The legal standard does not pick sides on the diagnosis — it asks whether a mental disease or defect deprived her of the substantial capacity to understand or control what she was doing.Faddis walks through the human side of deliberation — how holdouts operate, how twelve people with no psychiatric training evaluate dueling expert testimony, and what happens when a jury tells the judge they are deadlocked. In the Karen Read case, five days of deliberation and a Tuey-Rodriguez instruction could not break the impasse. The judge declared a mistrial.This jury must reach a unanimous verdict. That process starts after closing arguments.Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#LindsayClancy #LindsayClancyTrial #HiddenKillers #PostpartumPsychosis #JuryInstructions #CriminalResponsibility #InsanityDefense #MassachusettsLaw #TrueCrimePodcast #TrueCrime

Most people following the Lindsay Clancy trial assume the defense has to prove she was insane. Massachusetts law says the opposite. Once the defense raises mental illness, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy was criminally responsible when she strangled Cora, Dawson, and Callan on January 24, 2023. That burden does not shift back.Defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis walks through the legal standard this jury was handed and why it matters. The McHoul test requires the Commonwealth to prove two things — that Clancy could appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions and that she could conform her conduct to the law. Fail on either, and she is not criminally responsible. The standard says mental disease or defect. It does not require a diagnosis of psychosis.Dr. Avram Mack, the prosecution's own rebuttal psychiatrist, told this jury Clancy had a severe depressive episode. He stopped short of psychosis. The legal question is whether that distinction matters under a test that never uses the word.Faddis also covers the mechanics of deliberation — how jurors choose a foreperson, how holdouts shape the conversation, and how long a judge allows a deadlocked jury to continue before stepping in. The Tuey-Rodriguez instruction is a last-resort tool Massachusetts judges use to push past an impasse. In the Karen Read case, it did not work.This jury heard from 84 witnesses across 21 days of testimony. What they do with it begins after closing arguments Thursday.Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#LindsayClancy #LindsayClancyTrial #HiddenKillers #JuryDeliberation #CriminalResponsibility #InsanityDefense #PostpartumPsychosis #TrueCrimePodcast #TrueCrime #MassachusettsMurderTrial

Closing arguments in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial begin Thursday after 21 days of testimony and 84 witnesses. What happens next is the part of the trial most people never see — twelve jurors behind a closed door, trying to agree on whether a mother who admits killing her three children was criminally responsible when she did it.Defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis sits down to explain the mechanics of that room. Massachusetts law requires the prosecution to prove criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense does not carry that burden. The legal test — rooted in the McHoul standard — asks two questions: could Clancy appreciate the wrongfulness of what she did, and could she conform her conduct to the law. Prosecutors must prove both. If the jury has reasonable doubt on either, the verdict is not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.The prosecution's own rebuttal expert conceded Clancy suffered from severe mental illness. He called it depression, not psychosis. The legal standard does not specify a diagnosis — it says mental disease or defect.Faddis covers how jurors organize deliberations, how unanimous-verdict requirements shape the dynamics when holdouts emerge, and what tools the judge has when a jury reports it cannot reach agreement. He explains the Tuey-Rodriguez instruction — Massachusetts' last-resort charge to a deadlocked jury — and what happened when it was used in the Karen Read case.The jury in this case includes twelve women and six men. They begin their work after closing arguments end.Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#LindsayClancy #LindsayClancyTrial #HiddenKillers #JuryDeliberation #CriminalResponsibility #InsanityDefense #PostpartumPsychosis #TrueCrimePodcast #TrueCrime #MassachusettsMurderTrial

Lynette and Stef get more into Lynette's upcoming move to Santa Clarita, give an update on Bald Bryan and then get into Karen Read and a twin on twin crime that was your homework this week.Hero Bread is offering 10% off your order. Go to hero.co and use code FCOL at checkout

The ugliest part of what has happened around the Lindsay Clancy case is how quickly three dead children have been pushed into the background while strangers online make the story about themselves. Some of the same wine-aunt, conspiracy-soaked energy that surrounded the Karen Read case has migrated over here, complete with slogans like “Same Lindsay,” amateur psychiatric analysis, and disgusting speculation about Patrick Clancy based on nothing more than vibes, facial expressions, and the need to invent another villain. Meanwhile, Cora, Dawson, and Callan keep getting reduced to footnotes in a story that should begin and end with them. They were the victims. They were the ones who lost everything. They were the ones who should have had birthdays, first days of school, scraped knees, teenage years, graduations, families, and entire lives ahead of them, and instead their deaths have become fuel for another online fandom that seems more interested in picking teams than confronting what actually happened.I never even wanted to talk about this case, and I had no intention of making it part of what we do, but some of the behavior has become so grotesque and so far beyond the line that staying quiet started to feel like pretending not to see it. This has never been about entertainment for me. I do not sell merch, I do not do livestreams, I do not chase collaborations, and I do not care whether people like me at the end of an episode. The point has always been to get as close to the truth as the evidence allows, to demand accountability where it is deserved, and to keep the victims from being swallowed by the noise. And that is really where this entire conversation lands: when the hashtags are gone, the creators have moved on, and the crowd has found another tragedy to obsess over, Cora, Dawson, and Callan will still be dead. The question for everyone who turned this into content is whether, when they look back, they are going to be proud of the person they became while three children were lying at the center of the story.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The ugliest part of what has happened around the Lindsay Clancy case is how quickly three dead children have been pushed into the background while strangers online make the story about themselves. Some of the same wine-aunt, conspiracy-soaked energy that surrounded the Karen Read case has migrated over here, complete with slogans like “Same Lindsay,” amateur psychiatric analysis, and disgusting speculation about Patrick Clancy based on nothing more than vibes, facial expressions, and the need to invent another villain. Meanwhile, Cora, Dawson, and Callan keep getting reduced to footnotes in a story that should begin and end with them. They were the victims. They were the ones who lost everything. They were the ones who should have had birthdays, first days of school, scraped knees, teenage years, graduations, families, and entire lives ahead of them, and instead their deaths have become fuel for another online fandom that seems more interested in picking teams than confronting what actually happened.I never even wanted to talk about this case, and I had no intention of making it part of what we do, but some of the behavior has become so grotesque and so far beyond the line that staying quiet started to feel like pretending not to see it. This has never been about entertainment for me. I do not sell merch, I do not do livestreams, I do not chase collaborations, and I do not care whether people like me at the end of an episode. The point has always been to get as close to the truth as the evidence allows, to demand accountability where it is deserved, and to keep the victims from being swallowed by the noise. And that is really where this entire conversation lands: when the hashtags are gone, the creators have moved on, and the crowd has found another tragedy to obsess over, Cora, Dawson, and Callan will still be dead. The question for everyone who turned this into content is whether, when they look back, they are going to be proud of the person they became while three children were lying at the center of the story.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The ugliest part of what has happened around the Lindsay Clancy case is how quickly three dead children have been pushed into the background while strangers online make the story about themselves. Some of the same wine-aunt, conspiracy-soaked energy that surrounded the Karen Read case has migrated over here, complete with slogans like “Same Lindsay,” amateur psychiatric analysis, and disgusting speculation about Patrick Clancy based on nothing more than vibes, facial expressions, and the need to invent another villain. Meanwhile, Cora, Dawson, and Callan keep getting reduced to footnotes in a story that should begin and end with them. They were the victims. They were the ones who lost everything. They were the ones who should have had birthdays, first days of school, scraped knees, teenage years, graduations, families, and entire lives ahead of them, and instead their deaths have become fuel for another online fandom that seems more interested in picking teams than confronting what actually happened.I never even wanted to talk about this case, and I had no intention of making it part of what we do, but some of the behavior has become so grotesque and so far beyond the line that staying quiet started to feel like pretending not to see it. This has never been about entertainment for me. I do not sell merch, I do not do livestreams, I do not chase collaborations, and I do not care whether people like me at the end of an episode. The point has always been to get as close to the truth as the evidence allows, to demand accountability where it is deserved, and to keep the victims from being swallowed by the noise. And that is really where this entire conversation lands: when the hashtags are gone, the creators have moved on, and the crowd has found another tragedy to obsess over, Cora, Dawson, and Callan will still be dead. The question for everyone who turned this into content is whether, when they look back, they are going to be proud of the person they became while three children were lying at the center of the story.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Meghan Markle & Prince Harry moving back to the UK, Dave Landau joins us in-studio, Penn State cocaine ring, NFL denies Terrion Arnold, Lindsay Clancy supporters, Scopolamine in Medellín, and Hayden Panettiere's boyfriend Brian Hickerson's strange interview. Internationally touring comedian Dave Landau joins us. Podcasts are all the rage at Rock & Brews Royal Oak. Hayden Panettiere and Brian Hickerson were not a very good couple. Her mother is pointing the finger at everyone but herself. Turns out Brian is a Matthew McConaughey impersonator. Penn State fraternities are busted for running a cocaine empire. Actor Timothy Busfield is finished. Darline Graham BOMBS in the South Carolina Senatorial debate. What has Greta Thunberg been doing lately? She taught Drew about flotillas. Race Cases: The trial judge in the Karmelo Anthony murder cased is tossed out and his "fans" are ecstatic. The Nolan Wells case is dragging along. Don Lemon hates Race-bait'em Tatum. The Seattle Seahawks really want Terrion Arnold on their team. Unfortunately his eight felony charges might get in the way. Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson is facing a recall after blowing out the police chief fatal mass shooting at the Bite of Seattle festival. Breaking News: Meghan Markle and Harry are moving back to the UK. Don't let the door kick you in the ass on the way out. We can't wait for their next Netflix production. A Telemundo executive was killed in a helicopter accident. Reminder that Brooks Nader's dad likes her fantastic rack. Polymarket is predicting AOC as the Democratic Presidential Nominee in 2028. Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom are making a charge as well. Jon Ossoff is the dark horse. Some people are saying, Donald Trump is totally nailing this Natalie Harp broad. A 'TikTok Therapist' was barred from testifying in the Lindsay Clancy trial. Make sure you pay for her parent's retirement right here. Karen Read's fans are now behind Clancy. Fights: A nice brawl broke out at Duggan's Irish Pub during the Woodward Dream Cruise. A fun filled fight was reported at the Chicago Cubs/White Sox ball game. Reminder that people will fight you for filming them. Careful using scopolamine. You'll become a zombie and do ANYHTING. Kratom is not much better. Jared Leto lives in an old military base. He thinks he's Jesus Christ. Thirty Seconds to Mars sucks, btw. Jim's Picks and the Bonerline are back tomorrow. Merch is available if you want to rep the show. Word of mouth, brah. If you'd like to help support the show… consider subscribing to our YouTube Channel, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter (Drew Lane, Marc Fellhauer, Trudi Daniels, Jim Bentley, BranDon, and Roberto).

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/full-trial-audio-karen-read-john-o-keefe-murder--6163325/support.

This episode of the Billy and Lisa in the Morning podcast is a wild ride, full of laughter, embarrassing stories, and thought-provoking discussions. From amusement park mishaps to true crime stories, this episode has it all. Billy and Lisa dive into a hilarious story about Billy's recent visit to an amusement park, where he got motion sickness after eating too many tacos. But that's not all - they also chat with Dave Wedge, a New York Times best-selling author, about his new book "Blizzard of Lies," which explores the Karen Read case.The conversation with Dave Wedge is a fascinating look into the world of true crime and the impact of social media on the justice system. Billy and Lisa discuss the case of Karen Read, who was accused of murdering John O'Keefe, and the ways in which the media and public opinion can influence the outcome of a trial. Meanwhile, Billy shares more of his personal story, including a funny anecdote about his elevator etiquette and a surprising admission about his past as a waitress at the Hampton Beach Casino.But the episode isn't all serious - Billy and Lisa also play a game of "real or fake" with some wild and wacky headlines, and discuss the importance of being kind to one another in everyday interactions. And in a special segment, they welcome Governor Maura Healey to the show to talk about her efforts to make ticket prices more affordable for fans and artists alike.If you're looking for a podcast that's equal parts entertaining and thought-provoking, look no further than this episode of Billy and Lisa in the Morning. Join the conversation and tune in to hear the full discussion on ticket prices, true crime, and more.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Grab a beer and join us tonight as we wrap up our series on the death of John O'Keefe and the trials of Karen Read! In Part 3, we'll get into the Google search fight, and the FKR crowd that showed up outside the courthouse every single day. From there we'll go through both trials, the mistrial in 2024 and the retrial in 2025, and get into what it all means. Spoiler, we don't know. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Grab a beer and join us tonight as we continue our series on the death of John O'Keefe and the trials of Karen Read! In Part 2, we'll get into the evidence itself, starting with John's phone. Then the autopsy and the fight over what actually killed him, the dog the Alberts rehomed a few months later, and the broken taillight that the state's whole case leans on. And we'll get into the video out of the Canton police garage, and why the defense says pieces of that taillight kept turning up days after anybody should have found them. https://www.necronomipod.com https://www.patreon.com/necronomipod Sponsored by Boll & Branch: https://www.bollandbranch.com/necro Sponsored by BetterHelp: https://www.betterhelp.com/necro Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dr. Fauci's diary has been released and he will have a lot to explain at the next hearing. Then, Larry Forman joins Howie to discuss the latest update in the Karen Read civil case. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Grab a beer and join us tonight as we kick off our series on the death of John O'Keefe and the trials of Karen Read! In Part 1, we'll cover who John was, the Boston cop who took in his sister's two kids and raised them as his own out in Canton, and how he reconnected with his old girlfriend Karen Read in 2020. Then we'll get into the night of January 28th, 2022, a blizzard, a couple of bars, and an after-party at a house full of cops. John's body was found in the snow the next morning, and from there we'll get into the investigation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Go to https://incogni.com/EMILY and use code EMILY to get 60% off annual plans. Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D. Baker YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/vBsUzuAjj6s  This Case Brief covers a status hearing in the O'Keefe v. Read Wrongful Death litigation, focusing on the court's recent discovery orders and the ongoing disputes regarding deposition dissemination. Emily breaks down the judge's controversial discovery order—which notably lifted the stay on Michael Proctor's deposition via a "sassy" footnote—and discusses the subsequent status conference from July 16, 2026, where parties continued to struggle with discovery timelines and potential dispositive motions. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D. Baker YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/Q6X5fgMQG2k  During a July 13, 2026, criminal court hearing, defense attorney Alan Jackson argued for the disqualification of special prosecutor Mr. Cosgrove from any further involvement regarding Karen Read's cell phone search warrant and witness intimidation investigation. Jackson contended that Cosgrove breached the required standard of prosecutorial independence by admitting coordination with the conflicted Norfolk County District Attorney's Office. In response, Cosgrove argued that Read lacks standing because there is no actual conflict, as his prosecution focuses on Aidan Kearney rather than Read. He further attempted to discredit the defense by citing prior judicial findings regarding a lack of candor. Ultimately, the judge took the matter under advisement amid ongoing discovery disputes over why Read's cell phones have not yet been returned despite multiple court orders. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Audio from Bob and Ali's youtube liveSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

How do you know whether to reel it in or reel it all the way out? It's still a learning process even when the kids are grown. Plus, Karen Read updates and a relisten of Scamanda.

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D. Baker YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/Q6X5fgMQG2k  During a July 10th court hearing, the court addressed two primary motions regarding discovery disputes. First, in Karen Read's motion to compel Colin Albert's deposition, the court delayed its ruling to gather more information regarding Albert's availability during his military basic training, while also ordering his attorneys to put recent updates about his scheduling into writing for the opposing counsel. Second, regarding the O'Keefe party's motion to compel further answers from Karen Read, the judge pushed the attorneys to privately discuss narrowing the scope of requested medical records and financial documents. After a brief sidebar, the parties reached an agreement to table the motion for a later date, leading the speaker to observe that the attorneys on both sides seem overly reliant on the court to resolve communications that could otherwise be handled independently. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In San Diego County, jury deliberations begin in the trial of Larry Millete, a man accused of killing his wife, Maya, as she sought a divorce. In Pennsylvania, a 33-year-old woman is charged with her parents' murders. Prosecutors suspect she has ties to the Zizians, a cult-like group connected to several violent deaths across three states. In Dateline Round Up, updates on the Karen Read wrongful death lawsuit. And the U.S. Coast Guard releases new video from its investigation into a woman missing in the Bahamas. Plus, AI scams and how to avoid them.    Find out more about the cases covered each week here: www.datelinetruecrimeweekly.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.