Podcasts about motta

O Aos Fatos desta terça-feira (29) destaca o último ato de campanha de Lula no Nordeste antes do primeiro turno das eleições. O presidente esteve em Salvador ao lado de Jerônimo Rodrigues (PT), em uma caminhada entre Ondina e a Barra que também reuniu Jaques Wagner e Rui Costa.

Alexandre Garcia comenta mensagens entre Hugo Motta e Daniel Vorcaro, operação policial contra deputado Antonio Doido, e déficit no balanço de pagamentos.

Aos 74 anos, o designer e arquiteto que fez do móvel uma questão de conforto e originalidade e da arquitetura a expressão de seu jeito sensível de estar no mundo, está abrindo um instituto, um cinema comunitário e um liceu de artes e ofícios na Serra da Mantiqueira. Ao Trip FM, ele fala da infância, da Califórnia no auge da contracultura, dos dois cânceres na medula óssea que enfrenta e das transformações do surfe e das praias por onde surfou

The foreperson was reportedly signing the verdict forms when the holdout pulled back. Eleven jurors had agreed after 38 hours of deliberation. One man, who reportedly admitted reasonable doubt and couldn't point to a single piece of supporting evidence, collapsed the entire proceeding into a mistrial on September 4.Defense attorney Bob Motta joins the show for an extended analysis of the Lindsay Clancy mistrial across three fronts. Inside the jury room, multiple jurors have now spoken publicly, describing a holdout who reportedly wouldn't engage with the medical or toxicology evidence and spent deliberation time on his phone. Motta examines what Judge Sullivan could and couldn't do, why Reddington's emergency SJC appeal was denied, and what both sides face in voir dire if this case returns to trial.Behind the legal curtain, Reddington filed a Rule 25 motion on September 10 asking the court to enter an acquittal finding, with a hearing September 29 — the same day Cruz is expected to reveal the state's next move. Motta walks through the double jeopardy argument behind the motion, why the prosecution's trial theory may be unsalvageable after 11 jurors reportedly rejected it, and what the plea deal dynamics look like when both sides are publicly entrenched.At the center of everything is the human cost. Patrick Clancy facing another trial. Lindsay reportedly paralyzed and severely ill at Tewksbury State Hospital. Dr. Resnick's testimony on altruistic filicide accepted by the overwhelming majority of the jury. Motta addresses who a retrial serves, what the system gets wrong about maternal mental illness, and what message continued first-degree murder prosecution sends.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 #ClancyMistrial #HiddenKillers #PostpartumPsychosis #BobMotta #KevinReddington #TimCruz #Retrial #MaternalMentalHealth #TrueCrime

The Lindsay Clancy murder trial ended with an 11-to-1 split, a mistrial, and a system that reportedly had no tools to prevent the outcome. One holdout juror allegedly admitted reasonable doubt and refused to apply the court's instructions. Seven weeks of testimony, over 80 witnesses, and 38 hours of deliberation were erased on September 4.Defense attorney Bob Motta joins the show to analyze the full scope of what the mistrial exposed. He starts with the jury room — what jurors have publicly described about the holdout's conduct, why the defense's emergency appeal to the Massachusetts SJC was denied, and what the legal system's inability to act reveals about how well-equipped it is to handle cases built on psychiatric evidence.Motta moves to the legal maneuvering that followed. Reddington filed a Rule 25 motion on September 10, arguing the mistrial was not a manifest necessity and seeking an acquittal finding before the state can retry. The hearing is September 29. Reddington has publicly stated he won't accept prison time in any deal. Cruz has said only that his office will address the case at the appropriate time. Motta examines the power dynamic and where a realistic resolution might fall.The conversation closes on the question the system is avoiding. Lindsay is reportedly paralyzed at Tewksbury State Hospital on suicide watch. Patrick Clancy faces the prospect of another extended trial. Eleven jurors reportedly accepted Dr. Resnick's testimony that Lindsay's psychotic state, not malice, drove her actions. Motta addresses whether the first-degree murder framework can process this kind of case — and what continued prosecution signals about the system's treatment of maternal mental illness.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 #ClancyMistrial #HiddenKillers #PostpartumPsychosis #BobMotta #KevinReddington #TimCruz #Retrial #MaternalMentalHealth #TrueCrime

The twelve-member jury in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial deliberated for over 38 hours across seven days before Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on September 4, 2026. The panel was split 11 to 1 in favor of acquittal by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. Foreperson Roni Carlson told NBC10 Boston that the lone holdout admitted to having reasonable doubt but stated he would not vote not guilty by reason of insanity.Defense attorney Bob Motta examines the procedural and legal framework surrounding the holdout juror's conduct. Kevin Reddington moved to have the juror removed, arguing the man was not following the court's instructions on reasonable doubt. Judge Sullivan declined the request. Reddington then filed an emergency appeal with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, contending the holdout's reasoning reflected bias against individuals with mental illness rather than a good-faith evaluation of the evidence. The SJC denied the appeal.Since the mistrial, juror Nick Dargie told ABC News the holdout could not identify any evidence or witness testimony supporting his position, reportedly would not engage with fellow jurors during deliberations, and spent time on his phone. Dargie also reported the holdout handled a piece of physical evidence from the case during deliberations.Motta analyzes the voir dire challenge both prosecution and defense face if the case proceeds to a second trial. Massachusetts law places the burden on the prosecution to disprove insanity beyond a reasonable doubt. Screening prospective jurors for bias against psychiatric defenses in a case where the sole contested issue is postpartum psychosis presents a procedural challenge with limited existing legal remedies.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 #ClancyTrial #TrueCrimeToday #Mistrial #HoldoutJuror #PostpartumPsychosis #BobMotta #KevinReddington #JurySystem #TrueCrime

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington filed a Rule 25(b)(2) motion on September 10, 2026, requesting that Judge William Sullivan enter a finding of Not Guilty by Reason of Lack of Criminal Responsibility on all charges against Lindsay Clancy. The motion is scheduled for hearing on September 29 at Plymouth County Superior Court — the same date as the status conference at which the Plymouth County District Attorney's office is expected to indicate whether it intends to seek a retrial.Defense attorney Bob Motta analyzes the legal basis of Reddington's filing. The motion argues that 11 of 12 jurors applied the reasonable doubt standard and concluded the prosecution did not prove criminal responsibility. Reddington concedes that a hung jury does not ordinarily terminate jeopardy but contends the holdout juror's reported admission of reasonable doubt, combined with his alleged refusal to follow the court's instructions, creates an argument that the mistrial was not a manifest necessity — potentially triggering double jeopardy protections.Motta examines the prosecution's position heading into the hearing. The Commonwealth's trial theory argued both that Clancy staged her suicide attempt and that she killed her children because she wanted to die. With eleven jurors reportedly rejecting that theory, the state faces a significant strategic question about whether to retry on the same basis.Reddington has publicly indicated willingness to negotiate a plea but stated he will not accept any agreement involving incarceration. The Plymouth County DA's office has a documented history of rarely entering plea agreements. Motta discusses the range of potential outcomes, including reduced charges, a bench trial on second-degree murder, and the practical obstacles to reaching a resolution when both sides have publicly staked out positions.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 #ClancyCase #TrueCrimeToday #KevinReddington #TimCruz #Rule25 #PleaDeal #Mistrial #PostpartumPsychosis #BobMotta

A second trial in the Lindsay Clancy murder case would require Patrick Clancy and the families to endure another extended proceeding in which the deaths of Cora, Dawson, and Callan Clancy are presented in clinical and evidentiary detail to a new jury. The 911 audio, expert psychiatric testimony, and forensic evidence from the first trial — which lasted seven weeks and included over 80 witnesses — would be substantially replicated.Defense attorney Bob Motta examines the practical implications of continued prosecution. Lindsay Clancy is reportedly confined at Tewksbury State Hospital, paralyzed and under suicide watch with severe ongoing psychiatric illness. Motta analyzes what a conviction would change in terms of her custody and treatment conditions — and whether the legal distinction between commitment to a secure psychiatric facility and a prison sentence produces meaningfully different outcomes given her reported current medical status.Motta addresses the systemic challenge this case exposes. Dr. Phillip Resnick's trial testimony on altruistic filicide provided the clinical framework for understanding how severe postpartum psychosis can produce actions rooted in delusional protective impulses rather than malice. Eleven of twelve jurors reportedly accepted that framework. The first-degree murder statute provides no graduated mechanism for cases in which the defendant's alleged actions originated in documented psychiatric crisis.The Plymouth County DA's decision extends beyond this case. Motta discusses the resource cost of a retrial after an 11-to-1 split, the weight the DA should give to the impact on the surviving family members, and the broader implications for how the criminal justice system processes severe maternal mental illness when the available legal framework was not designed for the medical reality.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 #PatrickClancy #TrueCrimeToday #Retrial #PostpartumPsychosis #MaternalMentalHealth #BobMotta #TrueCrime #Tewksbury #AltruisticFilicide

A retrial means Patrick Clancy sits through all of it again. The 911 audio. The expert testimony describing how Cora, Dawson, and Callan died. The clinical dissection of his wife's psychiatric collapse. Seven weeks of testimony replayed for a new jury while the 11-to-1 split from the first trial hangs over the entire proceeding.Defense attorney Bob Motta joins the show to examine the human cost the legal maneuvering obscures. Lindsay Clancy is reportedly paralyzed at Tewksbury State Hospital on suicide watch with severe ongoing psychiatric illness. Motta walks through the practical reality of what a conviction changes — whether the difference between a secure psychiatric facility and a prison sentence justifies the toll of a second trial on everyone involved.Motta digs into Dr. Phillip Resnick's trial testimony on altruistic filicide — the clinical framework for understanding how a mother experiencing psychosis could believe she was protecting her children. Eleven jurors reportedly heard that evidence and accepted it. The legal system has no adequate mechanism for cases built on this kind of psychiatric evidence. The first-degree murder framework forces binary choices — guilty or not guilty — in a case where the medical reality doesn't fit either box cleanly.The question reaches beyond this family. Mothers across the country followed this trial because they reportedly recognized their own postpartum experiences in Lindsay Clancy's story. What the state does next sends a message about how the system treats women who suffer the most extreme documented forms of maternal psychiatric crisis — and whether continued prosecution serves justice or a prosecutor's conviction record.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 #PatrickClancy #HiddenKillers #Retrial #PostpartumPsychosis #MaternalMentalHealth #BobMotta #TrueCrime #Tewksbury #AltruisticFilicide

Kevin Reddington filed a Rule 25(b)(2) motion on September 10 asking Judge Sullivan to enter a finding of Not Guilty by Reason of Lack of Criminal Responsibility on all charges against Lindsay Clancy. The hearing is scheduled for September 29 — the same date DA Tim Cruz is expected to indicate whether the state retries. The timing appears deliberate: Reddington is forcing the prosecution to respond to his motion before a second trial gains momentum.Defense attorney Bob Motta joins the show to break down the legal architecture of the filing. Reddington concedes in the motion that a hung jury doesn't ordinarily terminate jeopardy. His argument is narrower: that the holdout juror's reported admission of reasonable doubt, combined with his alleged refusal to apply the court's instructions, means the mistrial was not a "manifest necessity." If Sullivan finds merit in that argument, double jeopardy attaches and the prosecution loses the right to retry.Motta also dissects the prosecution's credibility problem. The Commonwealth's trial theory — that Lindsay staged her suicide attempt while simultaneously arguing she killed because she wanted to die — was reportedly rejected by 11 of 12 jurors. Going back with the same theory risks the same result. Going back with a new one invites the defense to ask why the state changed its story.The plea deal dynamics are equally complicated. Reddington told ABC's "Good Morning America" he hoped Cruz would "revisit" the case, then told CNN he won't agree to any deal involving incarceration. The Plymouth County DA's office rarely negotiates. Motta examines what falls between those two positions — including the bench trial option on reduced charges that Reddington has said he'd consider for second-degree murder but not for first.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 #ClancyCase #HiddenKillers #KevinReddington #TimCruz #Rule25 #PleaDeal #Mistrial #PostpartumPsychosis #BobMotta

Foreperson Roni Carlson was filling out the verdict forms. Eleven jurors had reportedly agreed that the prosecution failed to prove Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children. Then one man allegedly admitted reasonable doubt — and refused to apply the legal standard he swore an oath to follow. The foreperson told NBC10 Boston she had already begun signing the paperwork when the holdout said he still wasn't going to vote not guilty by reason of insanity.Defense attorney Bob Motta joins the show to dissect the legal mechanics of what happened inside the jury room and why the system had no remedy. Reddington asked Judge Sullivan to remove the holdout, arguing the juror was not following instructions. Sullivan declined. Reddington filed an emergency appeal with the Massachusetts SJC, arguing the juror's conduct reflected bias against mental illness. The SJC denied the appeal, and Sullivan declared a mistrial on September 4 after 38 hours of deliberation over seven days.Since the mistrial, multiple jurors have spoken publicly. Nick Dargie told ABC News the holdout wouldn't engage with fellow jurors, reportedly spent deliberation time scrolling his phone, and couldn't cite a single witness or exhibit supporting his position. Dargie told ABC the man picked up a piece of physical evidence from the case during deliberations.Motta breaks down the screening problem both sides face heading into a potential retrial — how voir dire handles prospective jurors who refuse to accept psychiatric evidence in a case where the only contested issue was whether postpartum psychosis negated criminal responsibility.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/hiddenkillerspodFacebook 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 #ClancyTrial #HiddenKillers #Mistrial #HoldoutJuror #PostpartumPsychosis #BobMotta #KevinReddington #JurySystem #TrueCrime

The Lindsay Clancy jury split 11 to 1 in favor of acquittal by reason of insanity. The holdout reportedly acknowledged he had reasonable doubt about Clancy's criminal responsibility. Then he allegedly refused to apply the legal standard the court instructed him to follow — collapsing seven weeks of trial into a mistrial on September 4.Defense attorney Bob Motta joins the show to analyze the behavioral and legal dimensions of what happened inside that deliberation room. Multiple jurors have now spoken publicly, describing a holdout who wouldn't review the medical or toxicology evidence, reportedly spent time scrolling his phone during deliberations, and when pressed for any evidentiary basis for his position, allegedly had none.Motta examines what drove a juror to acknowledge doubt and still refuse the verdict that doubt required — whether this reflects a bias against mental illness defenses, a refusal to accept postpartum psychosis as a legitimate medical condition, or something else entirely. He walks through the legal constraints Judge Sullivan faced, why Reddington's emergency appeal to the Massachusetts SJC was denied, and what the defense's argument that this juror showed bias rather than legitimate disagreement actually means under the law.Looking ahead, Motta breaks down the voir dire challenge if this case goes to retrial. In a prosecution where the sole contested issue was whether severe postpartum psychosis negated criminal responsibility, both sides face the problem of identifying prospective jurors whose personal beliefs about mental illness would prevent them from following the court's instructions — and the legal system's limited tools for catching that before it derails another trial.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 #ClancyTrial #HiddenKillers #Mistrial #HoldoutJuror #PostpartumPsychosis #BobMotta #KevinReddington #JurySystem #TrueCrime

Kevin Reddington moved within days of the mistrial. The Rule 25 motion he filed on September 10 asks Judge Sullivan to enter a finding of Not Guilty by Reason of Lack of Criminal Responsibility — an acquittal that would prevent the state from retrying Lindsay Clancy. The hearing is September 29.Defense attorney Bob Motta joins the show to analyze the legal and strategic logic behind Reddington's approach. The motion's core argument: the holdout juror reportedly admitted reasonable doubt but refused to apply the court's instructions, which means the mistrial may not have been a "manifest necessity" — a legal finding that, if Sullivan agrees, would bar retrial under double jeopardy protections. Motta explains why legal analysts have called this a long shot but also why Reddington's argument has real weight given the juror conduct multiple panel members have now described publicly.Motta also examines the power dynamic between Reddington and DA Tim Cruz heading into September 29. The 11-to-1 split gives the defense leverage the prosecution didn't expect. Reddington has been publicly aggressive — telling reporters he "crushed" the prosecution, then telling CNN he'd hear what Cruz has to say but won't agree to incarceration. Cruz has said only that his team will address the case "at the appropriate time."The prosecution's trial theory — that Lindsay staged her suicide attempt while arguing she killed because she wanted to die — was reportedly rejected by the overwhelming majority of the jury. Motta walks through whether the state can survive a retrial with the same approach, whether reduced charges and a bench trial represent a more viable path, and what Reddington's public maneuvering tells us about where this case is actually headed.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 #ClancyCase #HiddenKillers #KevinReddington #TimCruz #Rule25 #PleaDeal #Mistrial #PostpartumPsychosis #BobMotta

The Lindsay Clancy mistrial reset the clock on a case that had already put Patrick Clancy, the families, and the public through seven weeks of devastating testimony. A retrial means all of it happens again — the 911 audio, the expert psychiatric analysis, the clinical descriptions of what happened to Cora, Dawson, and Callan — in front of a new jury that knows the last one split 11 to 1 against the prosecution.Defense attorney Bob Motta joins the show to analyze what a second trial actually accomplishes. Lindsay Clancy is reportedly paralyzed and confined at Tewksbury State Hospital on suicide watch. Motta examines the practical difference between her current confinement in a secure psychiatric facility and a prison sentence — and whether that difference is large enough to justify the toll of another extended trial.Motta also addresses the systemic failure this case exposes. Dr. Resnick's testimony at trial explained altruistic filicide — how severe postpartum psychosis can produce actions rooted in delusional protective impulses rather than criminal intent. Eleven jurors reportedly accepted that framework. The first-degree murder statute offers no graduated response for cases where the defendant's actions originated in a documented psychiatric crisis.The conversation ends where the system doesn't want to go. If the state retries this case and loses, the prosecution spent enormous resources proving what 11 jurors already concluded. If the state retries and wins, the question is whether incarcerating a paralyzed, severely mentally ill woman in a prison instead of a psychiatric hospital serves anything beyond a conviction statistic. Motta addresses who a retrial is actually for — and what it tells the mothers who saw their own postpartum struggles reflected in this trial.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 #PatrickClancy #HiddenKillers #Retrial #PostpartumPsychosis #MaternalMentalHealth #BobMotta #TrueCrime #Tewksbury #AltruisticFilicide

In this episode of New Books Network, Željko Stanojević speaks with historian Giuseppe Motta about Jewish Refugees and the International Community Between the Two World Wars: Beyond the State (Routledge, 2026), a study of Jewish displacement, statelessness, humanitarian action, international law, and international institutions between the First and Second World Wars.Drawing on extensive archival research in the records of the League of Nations and the Joint Distribution Committee, Motta reconstructs the political and legal environment in which Jewish refugees from East-Central Europe struggled to find protection after the collapse of empires and the redrawing of national borders. The book follows the refugee question from the aftermath of World War I through the rise of Nazism and the Évian Conference of 1938, asking how states, international organizations, humanitarian agencies, and Jewish institutions responded to people increasingly left outside effective national protection.A central theme of the conversation is the tension captured in the subtitle, Beyond the State. The interwar refugee crisis exposed a basic contradiction: refugees required protection that crossed national borders, while international law remained dependent on the sovereignty and political choices of individual states. Motta explains how the Jewish refugee question became connected to statelessness, minority protection, humanitarian responsibility, migration control, legal identity, and international cooperation across Europe.The discussion also explores the wider forces surrounding Jewish displacement: the legacies of World War I, new states in Central and Eastern Europe, nationalism, antisemitism, Bolshevism, Zionism, migration policy, and the restrictive political climate of the 1920s and 1930s. Particular attention is given to the League of Nations and the Joint Distribution Committee, whose archives reveal both institutional debates and the practical difficulties faced by refugees seeking safety and legal recognition.Rather than treating Jewish refugees only as a prelude to the Holocaust, Motta places the interwar period in its own historical and legal context. This perspective helps explain how ideas later central to international refugee law and human rights developed through earlier crises, experiments, failures, and negotiations.Giuseppe Motta is Associate Professor of History of International Relations at Sapienza University of Rome and a member of the Editorial Board of the European Hebrew Journal (EHJ).Motta will also speak at the European Hebrew Journal International Online Conference, New Discoveries and New Directions in Biblical, Hebrew, and Theological Studies. On 7 November 2026 at 19:00 CET, he will lead a live scholarly debate based on this book. His biography, book information, presentation details, and conference session are available on Giuseppe Motta's conference page.The interview is hosted by Željko Stanojević, President of the Institute for Hebrew Language and Literature, Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editor of the European Hebrew Journal, and a New Books Network host in Biblical Studies. The Belgrade-based Institute promotes international scholarship in Hebrew language, Jewish studies, Biblical studies, Semitic studies, history, religion, and related interdisciplinary fields.Keywords and themes: Jewish refugees, interwar Europe, League of Nations, Joint Distribution Committee, statelessness, Jewish migration, Évian Conference, antisemitism, minority rights, humanitarianism, refugee law, international law, East-Central Europe, Jewish history, human rights, nationalism, international relations, refugee protection. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode of New Books Network, Željko Stanojević speaks with historian Giuseppe Motta about Jewish Refugees and the International Community Between the Two World Wars: Beyond the State (Routledge, 2026), a study of Jewish displacement, statelessness, humanitarian action, international law, and international institutions between the First and Second World Wars.Drawing on extensive archival research in the records of the League of Nations and the Joint Distribution Committee, Motta reconstructs the political and legal environment in which Jewish refugees from East-Central Europe struggled to find protection after the collapse of empires and the redrawing of national borders. The book follows the refugee question from the aftermath of World War I through the rise of Nazism and the Évian Conference of 1938, asking how states, international organizations, humanitarian agencies, and Jewish institutions responded to people increasingly left outside effective national protection.A central theme of the conversation is the tension captured in the subtitle, Beyond the State. The interwar refugee crisis exposed a basic contradiction: refugees required protection that crossed national borders, while international law remained dependent on the sovereignty and political choices of individual states. Motta explains how the Jewish refugee question became connected to statelessness, minority protection, humanitarian responsibility, migration control, legal identity, and international cooperation across Europe.The discussion also explores the wider forces surrounding Jewish displacement: the legacies of World War I, new states in Central and Eastern Europe, nationalism, antisemitism, Bolshevism, Zionism, migration policy, and the restrictive political climate of the 1920s and 1930s. Particular attention is given to the League of Nations and the Joint Distribution Committee, whose archives reveal both institutional debates and the practical difficulties faced by refugees seeking safety and legal recognition.Rather than treating Jewish refugees only as a prelude to the Holocaust, Motta places the interwar period in its own historical and legal context. This perspective helps explain how ideas later central to international refugee law and human rights developed through earlier crises, experiments, failures, and negotiations.Giuseppe Motta is Associate Professor of History of International Relations at Sapienza University of Rome and a member of the Editorial Board of the European Hebrew Journal (EHJ).Motta will also speak at the European Hebrew Journal International Online Conference, New Discoveries and New Directions in Biblical, Hebrew, and Theological Studies. On 7 November 2026 at 19:00 CET, he will lead a live scholarly debate based on this book. His biography, book information, presentation details, and conference session are available on Giuseppe Motta's conference page.The interview is hosted by Željko Stanojević, President of the Institute for Hebrew Language and Literature, Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editor of the European Hebrew Journal, and a New Books Network host in Biblical Studies. The Belgrade-based Institute promotes international scholarship in Hebrew language, Jewish studies, Biblical studies, Semitic studies, history, religion, and related interdisciplinary fields.Keywords and themes: Jewish refugees, interwar Europe, League of Nations, Joint Distribution Committee, statelessness, Jewish migration, Évian Conference, antisemitism, minority rights, humanitarianism, refugee law, international law, East-Central Europe, Jewish history, human rights, nationalism, international relations, refugee protection. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode of New Books Network, Željko Stanojević speaks with historian Giuseppe Motta about Jewish Refugees and the International Community Between the Two World Wars: Beyond the State (Routledge, 2026), a study of Jewish displacement, statelessness, humanitarian action, international law, and international institutions between the First and Second World Wars.Drawing on extensive archival research in the records of the League of Nations and the Joint Distribution Committee, Motta reconstructs the political and legal environment in which Jewish refugees from East-Central Europe struggled to find protection after the collapse of empires and the redrawing of national borders. The book follows the refugee question from the aftermath of World War I through the rise of Nazism and the Évian Conference of 1938, asking how states, international organizations, humanitarian agencies, and Jewish institutions responded to people increasingly left outside effective national protection.A central theme of the conversation is the tension captured in the subtitle, Beyond the State. The interwar refugee crisis exposed a basic contradiction: refugees required protection that crossed national borders, while international law remained dependent on the sovereignty and political choices of individual states. Motta explains how the Jewish refugee question became connected to statelessness, minority protection, humanitarian responsibility, migration control, legal identity, and international cooperation across Europe.The discussion also explores the wider forces surrounding Jewish displacement: the legacies of World War I, new states in Central and Eastern Europe, nationalism, antisemitism, Bolshevism, Zionism, migration policy, and the restrictive political climate of the 1920s and 1930s. Particular attention is given to the League of Nations and the Joint Distribution Committee, whose archives reveal both institutional debates and the practical difficulties faced by refugees seeking safety and legal recognition.Rather than treating Jewish refugees only as a prelude to the Holocaust, Motta places the interwar period in its own historical and legal context. This perspective helps explain how ideas later central to international refugee law and human rights developed through earlier crises, experiments, failures, and negotiations.Giuseppe Motta is Associate Professor of History of International Relations at Sapienza University of Rome and a member of the Editorial Board of the European Hebrew Journal (EHJ).Motta will also speak at the European Hebrew Journal International Online Conference, New Discoveries and New Directions in Biblical, Hebrew, and Theological Studies. On 7 November 2026 at 19:00 CET, he will lead a live scholarly debate based on this book. His biography, book information, presentation details, and conference session are available on Giuseppe Motta's conference page.The interview is hosted by Željko Stanojević, President of the Institute for Hebrew Language and Literature, Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editor of the European Hebrew Journal, and a New Books Network host in Biblical Studies. The Belgrade-based Institute promotes international scholarship in Hebrew language, Jewish studies, Biblical studies, Semitic studies, history, religion, and related interdisciplinary fields.Keywords and themes: Jewish refugees, interwar Europe, League of Nations, Joint Distribution Committee, statelessness, Jewish migration, Évian Conference, antisemitism, minority rights, humanitarianism, refugee law, international law, East-Central Europe, Jewish history, human rights, nationalism, international relations, refugee protection. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Angélica Motta, profesora de la maestría de Género, y Rocío Gutiérrez, directora de Manuela Ramos, conversan con #GlatzerTuesta en #NoHayDerecho vía Facebook y YouTube de @ideeleradio No Hay Derecho en vivo de lunes a viernes, desde las 7 a. m., por el YouTube y Facebook de Ideeleradio.

In this meeting with the Bob's, Motta gives us the facts of the case that grabbed all the headlines over the last few weeks. Lindsay Clancy was being tried for the murder of her three children. The case has drawn the attention of the world because Clancy does not claim to have not killed her children. In fact, she admits that she did it. The question at trial was whether or not she should be held criminally responsible for the murders, due to her suffering from postpartum psychosis. Bob explains the legal theory, breaks down the facts, and shares his experience from being inside the courtroom during trial.The majority of the funding of our work comes directly from listeners, through our Patreon community.  To join Patreon, click THIS LINK.  At the $5/month level you'll get access to lots of Patreon Only BONUS EPISODES, Ad Free versions of all episodes, an hour of Patreon Exclusive video content every week, and our new weekly podcast “Pre-Game”, which drops every Wednesday.  Not to mention early access to some episodes and the ability to watch and participate in interviews live.

Lindsay Clancy's post-mistrial legal battle has moved far beyond the jury room, with defense attorney Kevin Reddington publicly asking President Donald Trump for help in a Massachusetts state murder case. Reddington knows federal pardon power does not reach Clancy's state charges, so the move is best understood through the pressure it may create while prosecutors decide whether to try her again. That strategy lands after a trial in which the prosecution challenged the seriousness of Clancy's attempt on her own life. Doctors and first responders testified that cuts to her neck and wrists were superficial, while the fall from the second story caused a severe spinal injury and paralysis. Reddington accused the Commonwealth of using the wound testimony to suggest the attempt was staged or insincere. The jury never reached a verdict. Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on September 4 after about 38 hours of deliberations across seven days, and Reddington later said the panel stood 11-1 for acquittal on criminal responsibility. Jurors who spoke afterward also described a lone holdout. An emergency Supreme Judicial Court request over that juror was denied, and a spectator was arrested after allegedly filming jurors outside the courthouse. Reddington is now pursuing the path that has actual legal force inside the state case. On September 29, Sullivan is scheduled to take up status, trial assignment, and the Rule 25 motion seeking a required finding of not guilty. The Commonwealth must also decide whether it wants another trial, a negotiated resolution, or no further prosecution. Bob Motta of Defense Diaries and defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis join Tony Brueski for the legal mechanics after the mistrial. Motta examines whether the prosecution's handling of Clancy's injuries became a strategic liability. Faddis explains the Rule 25 fight, the effect of a reported 11-1 split on negotiations, and why a defense lawyer would seek presidential attention when the pardon itself is unavailable. Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292 Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1 Join 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/tonybpod 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. #LindsayClancy #KevinReddington #HiddenKillers #BobMotta #EricFaddis #Rule25 #ClancyMistrial #CriminalResponsibility #MassachusettsLaw #TrueCrime 

Neste episódio do CNA News, você confere a entrevista exclusiva gravada durante o TS Summit 2026 com o presidente da CBAt, Wlamir Motta. A conversa destaca a reaproximação histórica da confederação com o universo das corridas de rua, o fim dos muros no atletismo nacional e o crescimento expressivo de provas com selos internacionais da World Athletics no Brasil. Motta detalha ainda o trabalho de formação e capacitação de medidores oficiais de percurso, as diretrizes do Anexo 3 da Norma 07 para aumentar a segurança médica em eventos e faz um alerta contundente sobre os impactos do corte de 30% das verbas das apostas destinadas ao esporte na PEC da Segurança Pública.- O TS Summit 2026 no Memorial da América Latina (01:10)- Entrevista com Wlamir Motta: aproximação da CBAt com as corridas (01:59)- O recorde de provas com selos World Athletics no Brasil (02:27)- Capacitação de medidores oficiais de percurso pelo país (04:30)- Integração com as federações e fiscalização de eventos (05:24)- Anexo 3 da Norma 07 e reforço nos protocolos médicos (07:43)- PEC da Segurança Pública e o risco de corte de verbas no esporte (10:14)- A importância da PEC 44 de 2024 para o financiamento esportivo (12:50)Nossos cupons e links - https://cnoar.run/cuponsO Corrida no Ar News é produzido diariamente.

No Chupim Metropolitana você curte as melhores entrevistas e fica por dentro das notícias mais quentes sobre os famosos! Confira tudo que está rolando, além de dar muitas risadas: Chupim Metropolitana!

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 

En el marc de les activitats de La Pregonera, demà dissabte a les 20h a l'Escorxador es presenta l'espectacle 'Guillermotta. Vidal canta Guillermina Motta', un espectacle de cançons teatralitzades que ha escollit 18 temes del gran repertori d'una de les cantants i actrius catalanes més personals dels 70. I no només escoltareu la Guillermina Motta dels cuplets, sinó també a la gran intèrpret de cançó francesa. Guillermotta és Jordi Vidal, que estarà acompanyat al piano per Jordi Cornudella en una proposta dirigida pel dramaturg Jordi Vidal Coll. N'hem parlat amb Jordi Vidal. L'entrada Jordi Vidal recupera Guillermina Motta demà a l’Escorxador ha aparegut primer a Radio Maricel.

Confira nesta edição do JR 24 Horas: Donald Trump afirma que EUA vão controlar 65 milhões de barris de petróleo da Venezuela. Daniel Vorcaro, ex-dono do Banco Master, depõe por quatro horas à PF e defesa acena por delação premiada. Brasil passa de 214 milhões de habitantes - mas ritmo de crescimento diminui. 

Confira os destaques de Os Pingos nos Is desta quinta-feira (27):No editorial do Os Pingos Nos Is desta quinta-feira (27), o apresentador André Marsiglia falou sobre o almoço do presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) com Hugo Motta (Republicanos), presidente da Câmara dos Deputados, e Davi Alcolumbre (União), presidente do Senado. O encontro serviu para acelerar a votação de pautas como o fim da escala 6x1 e a retirada da taxa das blusinhas. Marsiglia questionou se o movimento representa uma reconciliação institucional ou um afago político à campanha de Lula. “O ano legislativo não acabou. Existem matérias importantes para o país que precisam ainda ser analisadas, independentemente da coloração política e de quem possa ser beneficiado”, destacou. O presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva acertou com os presidentes do Senado, Davi Alcolumbre (União-AP), e da Câmara dos Deputados, Hugo Motta (Republicanos-PB), a pauta de votação para o esforço concentrado do Congresso Nacional marcado para a próxima semana. O martelo foi batido após um almoço entre eles, nesta quarta-feira (26), no Palácio da Alvorada. A Advocacia-Geral da União (AGU) acionou o Discord na Justiça Federal por supostas violações ao Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente (ECA) Digital e falhas na proteção de usuários. O órgão cobra a adoção de medidas efetivas de segurança para combater o assédio e proteger crianças, adolescentes e mulheres no ambiente digital, além de pedir uma indenização de R$ 500 milhões por danos morais coletivos após o fracasso nas negociações com a empresa. A Meta aceitou pagar cerca de 16 bilhões nos Estados Unidos para encerrar centenas de processos judiciais que acusam a empresa de desenhar o Instagram e o Facebook de forma viciante para crianças e adolescentes. As ações alegavam que o uso prolongado das plataformas causou danos à saúde mental dos jovens, incluindo depressão, ansiedade e transtornos alimentares. A taxa de desemprego no Brasil caiu para 5,3% no trimestre encerrado em julho, segundo dados divulgados nesta quinta-feira (27) pelo Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). O resultado é o menor para um trimestre encerrado em julho desde o início da série histórica, em 2012. Em relação ao trimestre terminado em abril, a taxa recuou 0,5 ponto percentual. O Grupo Gennius, que controla a Ragazzo, Tendall e o Habib's entrou com pedido de recuperação judicial na segunda-feira (24), com uma dívida de R$ 265 milhões. A companhia informou que a solicitação foi aceita pela Justiça de São Paulo na terça-feira (25). Segundo a empresa, a medida faz parte de seu processo de “reestruturação financeira”. “Com o objetivo de preservar a sustentabilidade e a evolução do negócio no longo prazo”. O governo da Flórida implementou novas diretrizes que proíbem a aquisição de itens considerados não essenciais ou supérfluos com recursos de programas sociais e auxílios governamentais. A defesa da empresária Karina Ferreira da Gama, CEO da produtora do filme Dark Horse, acionou o ministro André Mendonça, do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), solicitando a avulsa do inquérito que tramita na Justiça de São Paulo. Você confere essas e outras notícias em Os Pingos nos Is.

Lula almoçou no Alvorada com Hugo Motta e Davi Alcolumbre e acertou a instalação da comissão mista para votar a MP que acaba com a taxa das blusinhas no esforço concentrado da próxima semana.Wilson Lima e Ricardo Kertzman desmontam o discurso de institucionalidade: os interesses eleitorais de cada um dos três, a MP que vence em setembro, a disputa pelo Senado em 2027 e a viagem de Lula à Paraíba para ajudar o pai de Motta.Uma análise sobre por que o encontro tem menos a ver com o Brasil e mais com a reeleição.Meio-Dia em Brasília traz as principais notícias e análises da política nacional direto   de Brasília.     Com apresentação de José Inácio Pilar e Wilson Lima, o programa aborda os temas mais quentes do cenário político e econômico do Brasil.     Com um olhar atento sobre política, notícias e economia, mantém o público bem informado.    Transmissão ao vivo de segunda a sexta-feira às 12h no nosso canal do Youtube.  https://www.youtube.com/@OAntagonista  Apoie o jornalismo independente. Assine O Antagonista e Crusoé com 10% via Pix ou Google Pay:  https://assine.oantagonista.com.br/   Siga O Antagonista no X:  https://x.com/o_antagonista   Acompanhe O Antagonista no canal do WhatsApp. Boletins diários, conteúdos exclusivos em vídeo e muito mais.  https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va2SurQHLHQbI5yJN344  Inscreva-se no canal, ative as notificações e deixe sua opinião nos comentários!  Leia mais em www.oantagonista.com.br | www.crusoe.com.br  #Spotify #ApplePodcasts #AmazonMusic #TuneInRádio #PolíticaBrasileira #BastidoresDoPoder #economia #jornalismo #noticias #politica #lula #motta #alcolumbre #alvorada #almoco #reuniao #bastidores #politica #congresso #governo #senado #camara #podermake #acorda #brasil #podcast #audio #viral #noticias #analise

No 3 em 1 desta quarta-feira (26), o destaque foi que o atual presidente Lula se reuniu em um almoço com os presidentes da Câmara, Hugo Motta (Republicanos), e do Senado, Davi Alcolumbre (União). Na pauta, foram discutidas as pautas prioritárias do governo, entre elas o fim da escala 6x1 e da taxa das blusinhas. Apesar disso, Alcolumbre não deu pistas sobre o avanço das votações. Reportagem: André Anelli. O ministro do STF André Mendonça rejeitou o pedido da Procuradoria Geral da República para encaminhar a investigação sobre Fábio Luís Lula da Silva, o Lulinha, para a primeira instância. O pedido foi feito sob a alegação de que Lulinha não tem foro privilegiado. Apesar disso, o caso deve continuar no Supremo Tribunal Federal. Reportagem: Bruno Pinheiro. Em sabatina no 3 em 1, o candidato à reeleição ao governo de Santa Catarina, Jorginho Mello (PL), comentou sobre seus planos de governo para um eventual segundo mandato. Mello falou sobre a saúde estadual, investimentos em infraestrutura e o combate à facções criminosas em Santa Catarina. De acordo com uma pesquisa da Genial Quaest mostram os estados com maior número de eleitores indecisos. Rio Grande do Sul, Minas Gerais, Paraná e Rio de Janeiro são os estados que lideram com as maiores parcelas desse eleitorado. Uma pesquisa do Instituto Gerp elencou os principais problemas que impactam na decisão dos votos do eleitorado. A pesquisa trouxe a violência como principal problema, seguido pela falta de hospitais e a corrupção. O senador e candidato à Presidência Flávio Bolsonaro (PL) ligou para seu irmão, Eduardo Bolsonaro, pedindo para ele reduzir os ataques públicos a aliados. O senador tenta conter os atritos entre o irmão e a candidata ao senado Michelle Bolsonaro (PL). Reportagem: Bruno Pinheiro. O ex-governador de Goiás e candidato ao Palácio do Planalto Ronaldo Caiado defendeu a possibilidade de impeachment de ministros do STF. Em sabatina, Caiado defendeu que a medida deveria ocorrer de dentro do próprio Supremo, e afirmou que “não tem impunidade para ninguém”. Reportagem: Misael Mainetti. O ministro do Supremo Tribunal Federal, André Mendonça, afirmou que o salário pago à juízes proporciona “uma condição média de vida”. Mendonça afirmou, ainda, que os magistrados não devem ter o propósito de ficarem ricos. A base aliada do atual presidente Lula (PT) defende que ele aborde temas sensíveis como o ajuste fiscal e a segurança pública para atrair votos dos eleitores indecisos. Aliados defendem a antecipação nesse momento para evitar possíveis ataques no futuro. Reportagem: João Vitor Revedilho. Um deslizamento de terra atingiu a região da fronteira entre Nepal e China, deixando ao menos 160 mortos e cerca de 400 desaparecidos, grande parte de turistas estrangeiros. A tragédia também atingiu uma região do Tibet. Reportagem: Fabrízio Neitzke. Tudo isso e muito mais você acompanha no 3 em 1. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Lula, Motta e Alcolumbre acertam avanço de fim da escala 6x1 e da taxa das blusinhas antes das eleições. Enchentes no Nepal e no Tibete matam ao menos 160 e deixam centenas de desaparecidos. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Com Lula, Alcolumbre e Motta definem votar fim da 6×1 e pautas prioritárias. Almoço no Alvorada sela compromisso para que redução da jornada, taxa das blusinhas, PEC da Segurança, Marco dos Minerais Críticos e regulamentação de serviços de Datacenter sejam analisados na próxima semana.Sonoras:

Hoje, 'No Pé do Ouvido, com Yasmim Restum, você escuta essas e outras notícias: Ordem para ação partiu do próprio presidente Lula. Processo exige que plataforma realize mudanças imediatas em verificação de idade, supervisão parental e moderação de conteúdo. Avalanche e “tsunami de lama” deixam rastros de destruição e mortes no Nepal e no Tibete. Lula fecha acordo com Motta e Alcolumbre para derrubar “taxa das blusinhas” e destravar fim da escala 6x1. E confira as estreias desta quinta-feira nos cinemas.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Neste domingo, GP da Holanda. Para analisar a prova, o programa PÓDIO recebe Felipe Motta, apresentador dos canais ESPN e ex-repórter de F1 in loco.

O Podcast Motorsport.com chega com tudo em sua 401ª edição, falando sobre a volta da F1 no último GP da Holanda. Felipe Motta, apresentador dos canais ESPN participou, com a participação de Guilherme Longo e a apresentação de Erick Gabriel.

Confira os destaques de Os Pingos nos Is desta quinta-feira (20):Em editorial, André Marsiglia analisa o pedido da PGR para enviar investigações sobre Lulinha à 1ª instância. O advogado constitucionalista explica que, para manter o caso no STF, o ministro Mendonça precisará demonstrar a presença de autoridades com foro privilegiado nos inquéritos, o que pode gerar novos desdobramentos políticos e impactos diretos no governo. O comentarista Motta analisa a estratégia por trás da decisão do ministro André Mendonça no STF em relação ao caso Lulinha. Entenda os argumentos apresentados pelo analista sobre o foro competente, o impacto da decisão no STF e como a medida afeta o cenário político atual. O Plenário do TSE formou maioria para impor restrições cautelares à pré-candidatura de Pablo Marçal. A decisão liminar restringe o acesso ao fundo eleitoral, o uso do horário gratuito de TV e a participação em debates até o julgamento do registro pelo tribunal. Confira a cobertura completa dos desdobramentos jurídicos e o impacto na corrida eleitoral. O comentarista Mota analisa o pedido do senador Carlos Viana (Podemos-MG) para criar uma CPMI focada no filho de Lula. Veja os argumentos do analista sobre os desdobramentos dessa iniciativa na comissão do INSS, o desgaste político gerado para o Planalto e os desafios regimentais para a instalação do colegiado no Congresso. Em votação no Supremo Tribunal Federal, os ministros fixaram a tese de que a condição feminina é o fator central para a concessão de proteção judicial. A decisão abrange agressões no ambiente público, profissional e na violência política de gênero. Entenda as mudanças jurídicas e o impacto na proteção às vítimas. Assista à entrevista completa com o jornalista Luís Pablo, autor da reportagem sobre o ministro Flávio Dino. André Marsiglia e Roberto Motta comentam. Você confere essas e outras notícias em Os Pingos nos Is.

Lindsay Clancy called a suicide hotline twice before her three children died. The psychiatrist treating her at the time had no idea. That psychiatrist, Dr. Jennifer Tufts, took the witness stand this week as a prosecution witness at Plymouth Superior Court — and defense attorney Kevin Reddington spent three hours pulling her treatment decisions apart.Clancy has pleaded not guilty to three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months. The defense argues she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and was overmedicated by the providers now testifying against her.Tufts treated Lindsay for four months through telehealth. She never met her patient in person. She did not request records from another clinic. When Reddington confronted her with her own medical notes, she told the courtroom her written documentation did not reflect what she meant.Criminal defense trial attorney Bob Motta of Defense Diaries has been in the courtroom watching the prosecution's witness parade all week. Five mental health professionals took the stand, and every one of them described a woman who was cycling through medications, losing sleep, and asking for help she wasn't getting.Motta breaks down what he saw, what the jury is absorbing, and whether the prosecution's case is surviving its own witnesses.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/@UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJgJoin 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 #BobMotta #PlymouthSuperiorCourt #TrueCrime #HiddenKillers #PostpartumPsychosis #MurderTrial #DefenseDiaries #TrueCrimeToday

Convidada: Bela Megale, colunista do jornal O Globo. Nos últimos quatro anos, a relação entre Executivo e Legislativo foi atribulada, marcada por atritos nos bastidores e até por críticas públicas de lado a lado. O governo Lula e o Centrão, bloco formado por partidos que vão desde o centro até a direita e que comanda o Congresso, chegaram a um ponto de quase não retorno, mas a proximidade das eleições mudou o clima de lado a lado. Arranjos regionais colocam governistas e integrantes do Centrão no mesmo palanque. No contexto nacional, os partidos que compõem o bloco anunciaram neutralidade na corrida presidencial – depois de namorarem uma aproximação com Flávio Bolsonaro (PL). Mais recentemente, Lula e o presidente do Senado, Davi Alcolumbre (União-AP), se reencontraram depois de meses sem se falar. E nesta segunda-feira (10), o presidente da Câmara, Hugo Motta (Republicanos-PB), anunciou que irá apoiar a reeleição do petista. Neste episódio, Natuza Nery conversa com a jornalista Bela Megale sobre como governo e Centrão buscaram pacificar a relação. Ela conta os bastidores do encontro de Lula e Alcolumbre e explica o que motivou o apoio de Motta ao presidente. Bela e Natuza também analisam o futuro dessa relação, quem ganha e quem perde, caso o petista se reeleja.

O presidente da Câmara, Hugo Motta, declarou apoio à reeleição de Lula na Paraíba, mesmo com o Republicanos oficialmente neutro.A bancada do Meio-Dia em Brasília analisa o risco político do gesto, que aposta na vitória de Lula e mira também a eleição do pai de Motta ao Senado e comenta a curiosa declaração de bens: os mesmos R$ 250 mil em dinheiro vivo declarados em 2022, além de apartamentos avaliados em valores bem abaixo do mercado de Brasília.Uma conversa sobre estratégia eleitoral, o fim da unidade partidária no Centrão e o que se esconde na papelada do TSE.Meio-Dia em Brasília traz as principais notícias e análises da política nacional direto   de Brasília.     Com apresentação de José Inácio Pilar e Wilson Lima, o programa aborda os temas mais quentes do cenário político e econômico do Brasil.     Com um olhar atento sobre política, notícias e economia, mantém o público bem informado.    Transmissão ao vivo de segunda a sexta-feira às 12h no nosso canal do Youtube.  https://www.youtube.com/@OAntagonista  Apoie o jornalismo independente. Assine O Antagonista e Crusoé com 10% via Pix ou Google Pay:  https://assine.oantagonista.com.br/   Siga O Antagonista no X:  https://x.com/o_antagonista   Acompanhe O Antagonista no canal do WhatsApp. Boletins diários, conteúdos exclusivos em vídeo e muito mais.  https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va2SurQHLHQbI5yJN344  Inscreva-se no canal, ative as notificações e deixe sua opinião nos comentários!  Leia mais em www.oantagonista.com.br | www.crusoe.com.br  #Spotify #ApplePodcasts #AmazonMusic #TuneInRádio #PapoAntagonista #PolíticaBrasileira #BastidoresDoPoder #economia #jornalismo #HugoMotta #Lula #PolíticaBrasil #Patrimônio #DinheiroVivo #BastidoresDaPolítica #Notícias #Brasília #Polêmica #AnálisePolítica #PodcastBrasil #Opinião #EmAlta #Atualidades #Informação #Brasil #NotíciaDeÚltimaHora #DebatePolítico #Mídia

No “Estadão Analisa” desta terça-feira, 11, Carlos Andreazza analisa o acordo costurado entre o Palácio do Planalto e Hugo Motta (Republicanos-PB) para a disputa da Câmara em 2027, além da tentativa de o governo fechar um pacto semelhante com o presidente do Senado, Davi Alcolumbre (União Brasil-AP). Em busca de apoio dos dois líderes nas eleições de outubro, o presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva já sinalizou que vai apostar em mais uma gestão de Hugo Motta (Republicanos-PB) à frente da Câmara. Ao mesmo tempo, também pretende dar respaldo a Alcolumbre — desde que o senador colabore com o Planalto. Essa nova aliança com o Centrão, pensada para um eventual novo mandato de Lula, foi um dos temas centrais de um jantar na casa do ministro do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) Alexandre de Moraes, ocorrido na última terça-feira, 4, do qual participaram o presidente e Alcolumbre. O encontro também serviu para um “acerto de contas” entre os dois, logo nos primeiros momentos da reunião. A mediação ficou por conta de Moraes — amigo próximo do presidente do Senado — e do também ministro do STF Cristiano Zanin, que já foi advogado de Lula. Assine por R$1,90/mês e tenha acesso ilimitado ao conteúdo do Estadão.Acesse: https://bit.ly/oferta-estadao O 'Estadão Analisa' é transmitido ao vivo de segunda a sexta-feira, às 7h, no Youtube e redes sociais do Estadão. Também disponível no agregador de podcasts de sua preferência. Apresentação: Carlos AndreazzaEdição/Produção: Jefferson PerlebergCoordenação: Renan PagliarusiFoto: Wilton Junior/Estadão See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The prosecution's own lead witness walked out of the courtroom and filed a civil lawsuit against the people who were supposed to help his wife. Patrick Clancy is not suing to punish Lindsay. He is suing the doctors. Both he and Lindsay filed separate suits naming the providers who prescribed, adjusted, and failed to monitor seven medications that were in her blood that night.Criminal defense attorney Bob Motta of Defense Diaries examines what the defense extracted from cross-examination — testimony that no provider warned Patrick it was unsafe to leave Lindsay alone with the children despite her ER visits and documented intrusive thoughts. Motta covers the documented fact that Women and Infants Hospital identified overmedication, reached out to her nurse practitioner, and never heard back. He also addresses what it means to ask a jury of non-medical professionals to decide whether someone was sick enough to lack criminal responsibility.Tony Brueski and criminal defense attorney Bob Motta of Defense Diaries.END LINKSJoin 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/TrueCrimePodDISCLAIMERThis 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 #PatrickClancy #HiddenKillers #BobMotta #DefenseDiaries #PostpartumPsychosis #PlymouthSuperiorCourt #CriminalResponsibility #TrueCrime #HealthcareFailure

The language in Bryan Kohberger's handwritten post-conviction petition mirrors a true crime book published in April 2026. The key evidence term he uses appeared nowhere in court records — only in the book. And the evidence he claims was hidden was already tested by an expert his own defense team hired.Criminal defense attorney Bob Motta of Defense Diaries examines the petition against the record. He covers the nine-page questionnaire Kohberger signed confirming his plea was free and voluntary, Steve Goncalves welcoming a retrial and saying the family will pursue the death penalty, and the historical pattern of defendants who tried to undo death-penalty-avoidance pleas and failed.Motta also addresses the one question that hangs over this entire filing: is there a single defense attorney in the country who would take Kohberger to trial carrying a signed confession and a sworn admission under oath?Tony Brueski and criminal defense attorney Bob Motta of Defense Diaries.END LINKSJoin 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/TrueCrimePodDISCLAIMERThis 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#BryanKohberger #KohbergerPlea #HiddenKillers #BobMotta #DefenseDiaries #IdahoMurders #UniversityOfIdaho #PostConvictionRelief #SteveGoncalves #TrueCrime

Patrick Clancy took the stand and described a woman having one of her best days. The prosecution is betting the jury cannot reconcile that with a psychosis defense.Criminal defense attorney Bob Motta of Defense Diaries joins Tony Brueski to analyze whether the prosecution's first week at Plymouth Superior Court built a legal case or an emotional trap. Motta covers the seven-minute 911 call that forced a recess, the fourteen-second phone call the prosecution says proves awareness, the doctor shopping argument, and what ADA Buckingham meant when she told the jury that sick and guilty are not opposites under Massachusetts law.They cover what the defense has to overcome after the prosecution's evidence sequence, how juries process psychiatric testimony after emotional exposure, and whether there is a version of this case where medical evidence can still land.Tony Brueski and criminal defense attorney Bob Motta of Defense Diaries.END LINKSJoin 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/TrueCrimePodDISCLAIMERThis 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 #LindsayClancyTrial #HiddenKillers #BobMotta #DefenseDiaries #PostpartumPsychosis #PlymouthSuperiorCourt #TrueCrime #CriminalResponsibility #MurderTrial

The central claim in Bryan Kohberger's petition is that his defense team withheld exculpatory evidence — specifically hair found in Ethan Chapin's hand. But a DNA expert retained by that same defense team examined the hair and found it consistent with Chapin's own reference sample. That report was filed in June 2025, a month before the plea.Criminal defense attorney Bob Motta of Defense Diaries examines the gap between what the petition claims and what the record shows. He covers the true crime book that appears to be the source of Kohberger's legal theory, the nine-page questionnaire confirming the plea was voluntary, and the Goncalves family now welcoming a retrial and the return of the death penalty.Motta addresses the procedural reality of what Kohberger faces if he succeeds — Idaho, firing squad, and a jury that knows he already confessed — and whether the historical pattern offers a single case where this worked.Tony Brueski and criminal defense attorney Bob Motta of Defense Diaries.END LINKSJoin 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/TrueCrimePodDISCLAIMERThis 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#BryanKohberger #KohbergerPlea #BobMotta #DefenseDiaries #HiddenKillers #IdahoMurders #UniversityOfIdaho #PostConvictionRelief #EthanChapin #TrueCrime

The prosecution told the jury something in its first week that reframes the entire case. Lindsay Clancy was having one of her best days. She built a snowman with her children. She texted normally. And the state says that is the evidence — not of recovery, but of rational capacity.Bob Motta of Defense Diaries joins Tony Brueski to work through the prosecution's argument at Plymouth Superior Court. They cover the seven-minute 911 call that shook the courtroom, the fourteen-second phone call where Lindsay sounded normal after, and the prosecution's claim that visiting multiple providers was not desperation but doctor shopping. ADA Buckingham opened by telling the jury that people with mental illness are held responsible for crimes every day.Motta breaks down whether that argument survives once the defense puts a psychiatrist on the stand — or whether the prosecution has already made the medical testimony irrelevant.Tony Brueski and criminal defense attorney Bob Motta of Defense Diaries.END LINKSJoin 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/TrueCrimePodDISCLAIMERThis 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 #LindsayClancyTrial #TrueCrimeToday #BobMotta #DefenseDiaries #PostpartumPsychosis #PlymouthSuperiorCourt #CriminalResponsibility #TrueCrime #Massachusetts

Convidado: Breno Pires, repórter da revista "Piauí". Na última semana, o ministro do STF Flávio Dino determinou o bloqueio de R$ 125 milhões em bens de caciques políticos sem mandato. A decisão trouxe à tona um possível esquema de destinação de verbas públicas que envolve a cúpula do Congresso. As investigações da Polícia Federal (PF) buscam esclarecer se o Orçamento Secreto deu origem a novos mecanismos para camuflar a distribuição de recursos, mesmo após ter sido considerado inconstitucional pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), em 2022. Em outras palavras: a PF investiga se dinheiro público continua sendo usado para gerar ganhos políticos por meio de emendas parlamentares. Entre os investigados de agora estão o ex-presidente da Câmara Eduardo Cunha e o presidente do PL, Valdemar Costa Neto, que teriam atuado como "agentes privados" com influência superior à de deputados eleitos. A engrenagem desse "arranjo decisório paralelo", como definiu a PF, seria abastecida por servidores da própria Casa Legislativa. Mensagens obtidas pela investigação mostram, por exemplo, Cunha, cassado em 2016, gerenciando planilhas e reclamando de "mineiros enrolados" enquanto direcionava milhões de reais para redutos eleitorais em Minas Gerais, de olho em sua própria campanha. Não para por aí. O cerco às emendas parlamentares parece se aproximar da atual presidência da Câmara. Breno Pires, repórter da revista Piauí, explica n'O Assunto como Hugo Motta (Republicanos-PB), que classificou as decisões de Flávio Dino como uma "indevida intervenção judicial", vê seu próprio partido sob escrutínio. Isso porque, como mostra o estudo da Transparência Brasil divulgado nesta segunda-feira (13), quase metade dos recursos de emendas de comissão do Republicanos foi destinada à Paraíba, reduto político de Motta, sem que se saiba qual parlamentar fez as indicações. Neste episódio, Natuza Nery conversa com Breno Pires para explicar como o poder sobre o Orçamento da União continua concentrado em poucas mãos, à revelia da transparência exigida por lei.

A guilty plea provides certainty — conviction, sentence, finality on the charged cases. It does not provide the full public accounting a trial would have produced. This look back, with criminal defense attorney Bob Motta, examines what Rex Heuermann's plea resolves and what it leaves open.Heuermann pleaded guilty to three counts of first-degree murder and four counts of second-degree murder, and admitted to killing an eighth woman as part of the agreement. He confirmed strangulation as the cause of death for each victim. He is expected to be sentenced to three consecutive life terms plus an additional hundred years. The plea eliminates the risk of acquittal but also eliminates the evidentiary presentation, cross-examination, and public testimony that the victims' families were preparing to hear.Motta examines the mechanics of the plea from both sides: what the defense gained by avoiding trial when every pre-trial motion had failed, and what the prosecution secured through the cooperation requirement with the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit. He addresses the additional cases connected to the Gilgo Beach corridor — victims whose remains were found in the area but who were never charged to Heuermann — and whether the plea agreement and FBI cooperation may produce answers on those cases. The segment also considers the psychological dimension, with psychotherapist Shavaun Scott examining the dynamics inside the Heuermann family: an ex-wife who maintained she knew nothing and a daughter who publicly stated her belief in his guilt. We revisit where the matter stood at the time of our reporting.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/TrueCrimePodThis 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.#RexHeuermann #GilgoBeachKiller #LISK #GuiltyPlea #BobMotta #ShavaunScott #UnansweredQuestions #TrueCrime #GilgoBeach #HiddenKillers

Among the special circumstances alleged against David Anthony Burke in the first-degree murder charge is financial gain — a specific allegation that prosecutors say Celeste Rivas Hernandez was killed because she was threatening to expose a relationship that endangered Burke's music career. This look back, with criminal defense attorney Bob Motta, examines what that allegation means legally and how it shapes the prosecution's entire theory.The financial-gain special circumstance is not about money changing hands — it's about prosecutors asserting that the motive for the killing was the preservation of a lucrative career. Paired with the lying-in-wait and witness-killing special circumstances, it creates a layered structure in which each charge reinforces the others: the alleged relationship with a child under fourteen created the secret, the threat to the career created the motive, and the alleged killing eliminated the person who could expose both. Motta explains how that layering functions procedurally, what the prosecution must prove for each element, and where the evidentiary burdens diverge.The defense team's public statement — that Burke "was not the cause of her death" — is itself a substantive signal. Motta analyzes what that formulation suggests about the defense theory, what kinds of alternative narratives it could support, and what the defense must ultimately present to counter charges of this magnitude. The segment also considers the degradation of evidence acknowledged by the LAPD chief, the implications of the now-unsealed medical examiner's findings, and the resistance to testimony from individuals in Burke's circle. Burke has pleaded not guilty. We revisit where the matter stood at the time of our reporting.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/TrueCrimePodThis 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.#D4VD #CelesteRivasHernandez #DavidAnthonyBurke #FinancialGain #SpecialCircumstances #BobMotta #FirstDegreeMurder #TrueCrime #JusticeForCeleste #HiddenKillers

Burke's defense team — led by one of the most high-profile criminal defense attorneys in Los Angeles — drew a line before charges were even filed: he "did not cause her death." That is not a vague denial. That's a defense theory announced in public. This look back, with criminal defense attorney Bob Motta, breaks down how D4VD's team fights charges this severe — and where the strategy either holds or collapses.The defense has to do more than poke holes. At some point, Burke's lawyers have to tell a jury a story that explains how a fourteen-year-old girl he was publicly connected to ended up in the condition she was found — in his car. Not just create doubt. Actually give jurors a version of events that makes sense. If the defense already knows what the now-unsealed autopsy findings show, and they're confident it helps them, Motta explains what kind of alternative explanation that carefully worded public statement could be building toward.Prosecutors allege the financial motive was specific: Celeste was threatening to expose a relationship that endangered Burke's career on the night she was last seen alive. But the defense will argue a twenty-one-year-old artist had options that didn't involve taking a life. Motta examines how they dismantle that motive and whether it can work. Then there's the question of what happened after — the condition of the remains. Even if the defense creates doubt about who caused her death, explaining what happened to her body is a separate problem entirely. Motta explains whether you can separate those questions in front of a jury. Burke has pleaded not guilty. We revisit where the case stood at the time of our reporting.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/TrueCrimePodThis 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.#D4VD #CelesteRivasHernandez #DavidAnthonyBurke #DefenseStrategy #BobMotta #FirstDegreeMurder #SpecialCircumstances #TrueCrime #JusticeForCeleste #HiddenKillers

Every door closed. The DNA challenge failed. The motion for separate trials was denied. The 178-page omnibus motion was rejected. And then Rex Heuermann, who had spent nearly three years insisting through tears that he didn't do this, stood up and pleaded guilty to seven murders — and admitted to an eighth. This look back, with criminal defense attorney Bob Motta, examines the mechanics of a plea when a defendant's options have been systematically eliminated.Motta walks through what actually shifts in an attorney-client relationship when the legal avenues are exhausted and a trial date is approaching. The sentence — three consecutive life terms plus an additional hundred years — was reportedly the same whether Heuermann went to trial or pleaded. So the question becomes what he gained: avoiding the public spectacle, controlling the narrative of the admission, and securing the FBI cooperation requirement that his defense attorney described as part of the agreement. The victims' families, who were preparing to hear every piece of evidence laid out in a courtroom, got a hearing where Heuermann answered questions without emotion and described the cause of death in a single word.Motta also examines what the plea means for the additional cases connected to the Gilgo Beach corridor — victims whose remains were found in the area but who were never charged to Heuermann. A guilty plea closes one legal chapter but may leave questions that only a trial would have answered. We revisit where the case stood at the time of our reporting.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/TrueCrimePodThis 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.#RexHeuermann #GilgoBeachKiller #LISK #GuiltyPlea #BobMotta #DefenseStrategy #LongIslandSerialKiller #TrueCrime #GilgoBeach #HiddenKillers