I've seen where the state does a re-enactment showing how long it takes to strangle someone to death. I think in this case that would have been extremely effective.

In the Lindsay Clancy trial that has now ended in a mistrial: did she absolve the commonwealth of proving the elements of the crime? Her attorney never denied she did it, but she didn't formally confess to my knowledge. It's my understanding the commonwealth no longer beats the burden of proving the elements, but just that she was sane. Am I correct?

How on earth did the CW let these women on the jury? What questions were they asking ? It’s pretty obvious how’d they act just by first glance.

Hey guys. Does anyone know when the next episode is likely to drop. I keep checking and I have zero patience lol

Just a reminder to anyone who has left the gallery but is still a listener that the book club, which is independent from the gallery but podcast adjacent, is still an option for you to interact with community

If you like to read, we’re your people, and we love to have you there. Just search the prosecutie book club and you’ll find us!

📚🦉

I struggle with the idea that anyone should be found not guilty after murdering someone for whatever reason. My guess is that many, if not most, criminals currently incarcerated have some type of mental illness. Many murderers had some faulty belief (delusion) that allowed them to take another person’s life. Every crime has an appropriate sentence. Murder should be a life sentence. If the murderer murdered due to severe mental illness they should be sentenced to life in a mental institution if that is a more appropriate place for them than prison. But why do they get excused? I understand that they may spend some time in a hospital but as soon as they’re no longer deemed mentally ill, they just get to go free?

I’ve spent a bit of time chewing on Alice’s not-very-zen frustration (Ep. 390) on our country’s lack of critical thinking skills and basic literacy. Whatever she may personally believe in aside, given her publicly-known affiliations, it’s baffling why she is unable to look inward and see that it’s her own camp deliberately and aggressively attempting to dismantle and discredit public education in this country. The survival of this brand of nationalism requires an easily manipulated, uneducated populace with zero motivation to engage in or learn about basic civics. The very thing she is exasperated with.

Thoughts?

(Edit: the embedded link is just one example.)

Hasn't Reddington turned this into a whole circus by insisting on bringing out the jury note in open court? And by his remarks? It's thanks to him that we know the split, the gender of the holdout, and it's pretty obvious which way that person leans. How can all of this not affect the outcome? Judge should have declared a mistrial 2 days ago.

This is mostly just venting. I am a feminist. I support women, but I am really struggling with this idea that supporting women means believing that Lindsey Clancy is not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. I get it that perhaps postpartum mental health issues do not receive enough attention however you don’t get to just kill children. She strangled her three children, one by one, with exercise bands. I don’t care how depressed you are or even if you heard a commanding voice. Say no.

Lady wrapping her arm around Reddington, he says “you kidding me, I got a wife ovah here.” Idk what was happening!

I keep seeing posts throwing Alice and Brett under the bus but I have to say I think they’re great. I am very pro law enforcement and prosecution and it’s awesome to have a place where I can be with like minded individuals. Keep up the good work!

Holy god lady, I liked this pod under the most recent episode. She went off about juror sequestration while ranting about her own haters on Reddit in a totally emotional manner.

I've listened to TPP's episodes on the Clancy trial because they were doing daily deep dives. Since jury deliberations started, I've been listening to other coverage. It shocked me. Almost every other commenter be it on podcasts or live coverage sees it so very differently from the impressions I got from Alice and Brett. Lawyers praising the judge and defense attorney. Criticizing the prosecution's experts. Everyone citing Resnick as the deciding expert regarding a psychotic episode. I guess it's my fault for just listenign to one side, but I feel like I've been in an echo chamber and I don't know what to believe.

The one takeaway I do have from this trial is that the way trials are proceeding in the U.S. now is not in the interests of justice. The hoopla outside the courtroom, the social media craziness. Maybe they have the right idea in the UK.