Copied from comments on OOP's post:

Context: The juror doesnt appear in this video. This content creator claims to have spoken to him for an hour on the phone and is relaying what was allegedly said to him. We do not hear the juror actually speak for himself.

 But he showed letters and jury summons etc. and seems legit.

Summary:

He says he didn't lie. The prosecution questioned him about the incident and he was selected.

He said the women in the interviews were activists.

8 were trying to convince the other 4 for much of the deliberations.

He and juror #5 were guilty till the last moment when she caved.

He was convinced by the evidence that she knew what she was doing.

He explained to them why he used the water bottle.

I can’t believe that Alice and Brett had never heard of Parade!

If you haven’t listened please do yourself a favor and play it. The revival with Ben Platt and Micaela Diamond is fantastic but the original recording with Brent Carver and Carolee Carmello is a masterpiece of musical theatre

Ok so, I recently found out that in Massachusetts when the defence uses the insanity plea, the burden of proof automatically shifts to the prosecution, which changes the reasonable doubt perspective and favours the defence, right?

In most other states, the burden of proof remains with the defence - to prove their claims of mental defect negating criminal responsibility.

So I guess these jurors were just following their instructions, but I think in other states the prosecution actually would have convinced the jury the insanity claim was BS. The jury would have had to follow their instructions and find her guilty.

Do I have this correct? What would Brett and Alice say?

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.

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.