Clancy Opening Statements, Kohberger Plea Reversal & What Openings Really Are | The Particulars Ep. 10

Headlines end. The details begin. In Episode 10 of The Particulars, Lacey and Nic walk this week's cases with a different lens — a private investigator and law student alongside a former federal agent.

Trial Watch: opening statements in the Lindsay Clancy trial. We cover the "lack of criminal responsibility" standard and why the burden falls on the Commonwealth, the medication testimony from day one, and an important correction to the charges — three counts of strangulation/suffocation were formally dismissed via nolle prosequi; the murder charges remain.

Legal Minute: what an opening statement actually is — and isn't. Straight from the model jury instruction: "the opening statements of the attorneys are not evidence." It's the map, not the territory.

Evidence of the Night: one year after pleading guilty to the University of Idaho murders, Bryan Kohberger has filed for post-conviction relief, seeking to withdraw his plea. We break down the "manifest injustice" standard he'd have to clear — and note that while the case background is docket-confirmed, the contents of the petition itself are so far only press-reported.

Red Flag: why "I can't independently verify this" is the reader's most important instinct — plus the Goncalves family's response. And an update on the Tate brothers' detention hearing.

OUR OPINION. OUR ANALYSIS. NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Everything here is our commentary and opinion, based on the public record — not legal advice, and not an active investigation. Presumption of innocence applies, every time.

⚖️ New episodes Monday / Wednesday / Friday, 9 PM ET — live on TikTok, replay on YouTube.

Chapters
00:00 Intro
00:45 Trial Watch: Clancy Opening Statements
01:15 The Burden Flip
03:03 The Medication Testimony
03:43 A Change to the Charges
11:53 Tate Brothers: Detention Extended
15:15 Legal Minute: Opening Statements Aren't Evidence
19:51 Evidence of the Night: The Kohberger Plea Reversal
24:29 Red Flag: If You Can't Verify It
25:35 The Goncalves Family Responds
35:38 Close

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:04

Good evening.

SPEAKER_00 0:06

Tonight, opening statements in the trial we've been following, and a same-day hearing that could shape what happens to two brothers fighting extradition.

SPEAKER_01 0:15

This is the particular particulars.

SPEAKER_00 0:18

It is Monday night. I believe today is July 27th.

SPEAKER_01 0:22

Something like that. They all run together now.

SPEAKER_00 0:24

This is episode 10. Welcome back. I'm Lacey. I run a licensed PI firm and I'm a law student.

SPEAKER_01 0:31

I'm Nick. Everything tonight is our opinion and analysis based on the public record. We are not attorneys, and nothing here is legal advice. Everything verified as of 5:30 Eastern.

SPEAKER_00 0:43

Quick reminder for anyone just joining Lindsay Clancy is on trial for the deaths of her three children. She's never disputed that she caused their deaths. The entire fight is over her mental state under Massachusetts lack of criminal responsibility standard, the formal name for what people usually call an insanity defense. It asks whether, because of a mental disease or defect, she lacked the substantial capacity to appreciate that what she was doing was wrong or to conform her conduct to the requirements of law.

SPEAKER_01 1:12

And once that sufficiency raised, the Commonwealth has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was criminally responsible. Both that she had the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct and the capacity to conform her conduct to the law. The defense doesn't have to prove she lacked that.

SPEAKER_00 1:33

Prosecutor Buckingham told the jury the children were deliberately and meticulously killed. A calculated decision, not a mental health referendum. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington didn't dispute that Lindsay Clancy caused the deaths. His argument is that she was over medicated and an extreme postpartum psychosis. Patrick Clancy was called as the prosecution's first witness and testified today. Now, I will also say that in terms of this case and this trial, different media is reporting things as far as day count. And you will see this, it's pretty standard across any um any trial watch that you will see, like you know, court TV, things like that that do like minute by minute. Um, a lot of times how they count their days is different. So for us and purposes of the trial, we are calling this day one, meaning when the test opening statements took place today. I count that as day one. So just all of that to say, day one has now concluded. And Patrick is scheduled or set, translated, planned, to return to the stand Wednesday when the trial resumes.

SPEAKER_01 2:53

Much of today's testimony centered on Lindsay's medications in the months before the killings. Patrick testified she was prescribed several drugs for anxiety and depression. And that's where things took a turn after she started Cerequel. He called that period the start of her big spiral.

SPEAKER_00 3:15

The prosecution's approach was notable here. They weren't holding or they weren't hiding the prescriptions, they were using them. Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague introduced a bag of prescription pills into evidence, pointing out that while a lot was prescribed, many of the bottles were still largely full, arguing Lindsay wasn't actually taking most of what she'd been given.

SPEAKER_01 3:36

Three of the counts of strangulation or suffocation were formally dismissed on July 8th and 9th per the docket itself. That's a change to what she's currently charged with. And we want you to have it accurately. This is the kind of discussion you know we've been looking for.

SPEAKER_00 4:00

Again, we've talked about this in other episodes. My newsfeed, due to the fact that I spend a lot of time in research and things like that, and I'm looking at it's targeted. My newsfeed, um, even my searches, everything is very targeted. I want to know did anyone have anything from the trial day today on their timelines? Has anyone seen that yet?

SPEAKER_01 4:25

Specifically with the Clancy case.

SPEAKER_00 4:28

The Clancy case is what I'm asking about. I I'm wondering if anyone has seen any of the coverage so far. Well, there is a picture of prosecution side, and I call it again, this is my scroll through, just flipping. Actually, I'm getting rid of my notifications on my phone because it drives me crazy. So I'm going through cleaning things out on my phone, and you know, you have your pictures. Of course, you have all of your news reporting on top of the pictures, but there's a picture of which would be the Commonwealth, and she is holding this bag. I say it's like a gallon Ziploc bag, you know, and my first thing is I'm thinking, first of all, now we are a little bit older, and every Sunday we have the little seven-day pill things Nick and I do. And so every Sunday we take our stuff out of the cabinet and we sit there and fill them all up. And as we get older, more and more gets added. Okay. And I'm thinking, when I first, honest to gosh, when I look at this bag of medicine that she's holding, I'm thinking in my head, I'm not trying to say Oh, it's a gallon bag full of medicine.

SPEAKER_01 5:40

I can see that.

SPEAKER_00 5:41

It's a bag of medicine, and I and they're all technically, they look to be at first glance prescription medication. However, different pharmacies have different bottles.

SPEAKER_01 5:50

So Yeah, and if they just if you emptied our medicine cabinet, there's probably a lot in there. Good lord.

SPEAKER_00 5:56

What I will say also, and I'm going to bring this up because this was one of the things, again, I was getting snippets of things and my quick glance. I kept seeing, and we talked about it, when they said that many of the bottles were still largely full. So I will go out on a limb and speak to some of my own personal testimony lived experience, if you will. So I struggle with obsessive compulsive disorder and general anxiety disorder. Okay. So I think I got diagnosed at 21, 21, 22. Over the course of time, they've tried multiple medications, which is standard for anyone that has any kind of anxiety, um, you know, depression, any of those things, they start with what, again, this is my lived experience. They start with one when that one maybe has the side effects or too much, or the patient doesn't like those side effects, they'll switch. So to me, when I see, you know, a bag full of medication, I'm not instantly thinking anything negative. I'm thinking, okay, that shows they've tried several different medications. And according to my own lived experience, when they switch from one to the other, you don't continue to take it. You discontinue use of what you were on and they switch you to something else. That's kind of, I mean, same with an antibiotic. If you're on an antibiotic, if you're having some kind of issue, sometimes they'll they discontinue it and give you another one. So stating that the bags were, in my opinion, when we see, you know, a bag of pills and the pills are largely there, where I think what they were trying to say is that she wasn't taking them.

SPEAKER_02 7:51

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 7:52

I I don't see it as that way. Again, I try to look at things from a lot of different perspectives.

SPEAKER_01 7:59

We went into pretty good detail about what we think as far as this trial, but for me specifically, and again, this is my opinion, it it's gonna be a difficult case for the prosecution. It is. Um, honestly, because of the dependency and the history that she had with mental health.

SPEAKER_00 8:27

I I do agree with that because I think, in all honesty, but you know, my my perspective on that is somebody that wasn't actively trying to get help.

SPEAKER_01 8:35

Here's the problem. Someone who is constantly actively trying to get help is sane. Someone who is not has a better chance.

SPEAKER_00 8:46

Okay.

SPEAKER_01 8:47

That's my opinion.

SPEAKER_00 8:48

I'm gonna say not necessarily.

SPEAKER_01 8:51

Because you have a track record of trying to get help.

SPEAKER_00 8:54

Yes, but in my opinion, for someone to seek out help, they realize, hello, 12 steps. They admit they have a problem. Absolutely.

SPEAKER_01 9:06

They are trying to But it takes a sane mind to do that. And that's what the that's what the state is trying to prove that she had the wherewithal to commit these crimes. And if you have that state of mind, she was a labor and delivery nurse.

SPEAKER_00 9:20

So again, they've had that a little more, I don't they they a little more knowledge than than than the lay person.

SPEAKER_01 9:27

Yeah, especially with postpartum depression.

SPEAKER_00 9:29

And again, considering, again, speaking from my opinion, I am not any kind of medical expert, right? But I have had two children. Yeah, and again, every time I went after having both of the children, every appointment, they ask those questions.

SPEAKER_01 9:43

Because it's a prevalent thing.

SPEAKER_00 9:45

So, you know, I mean, and again, I don't I don't want to overstate or simply state in any way because I don't know specific I was not in the room. I don't know, you know, her mindset, you know, if she was answering questions to and that's gonna be up to her defense attorneys to to present that.

SPEAKER_01 10:06

And like I said, it's gonna be tough both ways. Yeah, yeah. And that's why that's why I believe it's gonna take a while. Six to eight weeks of a of a court case, I don't think is gonna touch it.

SPEAKER_00 10:17

I do think they're moving along well again. Well, opening statements today, and then you know, Patrick. But I I I also want to say that this is a very heavy day. So I'm not speaking for the judge, I'm not speaking for any any parties of this, but I have a feeling that you may see a slower pace at some things just because we are taking, you know, the jury who was sitting there, and again, they are seeing they are hearing the 911 call, right? They are seeing the photos, they are hearing the testimonies, and I think that that's going to be a very heavy weight that the jury is is placed under.

SPEAKER_01 11:01

So I think that that may be that's where it's gonna slow down.

SPEAKER_00 11:04

These are kind of I think that the judge may say, okay, we'll we'll recess at this time and pick back up tomorrow or whatever. I think, again, I just can see some of that happening as it plays out. But because I think it's just it's a very hard case in any way, shape, or form that you look at it. I think it's it's a very hard case.

SPEAKER_01 11:26

So this has been the trial watch?

SPEAKER_00 11:28

Yes, it has. And with that, before we move on to our next segment, does anyone have any discussion, questions, anything in regard to the Clancy trial that is going on? Anything if you watched that you would like to share or that you want to discuss?

SPEAKER_01 11:44

We're gonna set up the legal minute later tonight, without giving it away, but I think you already did. So the Tate brothers, I love talking about them.

SPEAKER_00 11:58

You're gonna be nice.

SPEAKER_01 12:00

So confirmed to be reportable, U.S. Magistrate Judge Lauren Luis ruled today that Andrew and Tristan Tate remain in custody at least two more weeks. Setting a detention hearing for August 13th.

SPEAKER_00 12:18

To decide whether it was such a very exciting day, is all of you. I feel like to decide whether there's a lot going on in court on August 13th.

SPEAKER_01 12:27

They stay jailed or are released while extradition proceedings continue. Neither brother was required to attend today's hearing. Obviously, just their attorneys appeared.

SPEAKER_00 12:37

Everything we've got lives in one place. Our link tree, okay? So it the link is in our bio. Our schedule, our coffee. If some if we're saying that wrong, could someone please say, hey, it's Kofi?

SPEAKER_01 12:51

Yeah, it's K-O-H-F-I. I've never heard of this.

SPEAKER_00 12:57

I guess it's something that the coffee makes sense because if you go to the site, they're like, This, you can tip this person and buy five coffees or whatever. So it's and it literally shows a coffee mug. So to me, coffee makes sense.

SPEAKER_01 13:10

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 13:10

If that's wrong, oh well. At this point, it is what it is, right?

SPEAKER_01 13:15

But, anyways, well, I will say there have been no store or purchase updates tonight since our last live. Friday.

SPEAKER_00 13:23

So our sticker mule store is up. So if you would like to buy our two brand new stickers, we have one for the particulars, and then we also have the Case Walker Chronicles. And we have some pretty fantastic t-shirts. And I got a notification my shirt has shipped. I do believe I'm supposed to get it July 29th. Awesome.

SPEAKER_01 13:46

All right, ladies and gentlemen, we are moving on to the legal minute.

SPEAKER_00 13:51

Where's our thing? Thank you. I enjoy that.

SPEAKER_01 14:00

Thank you all. If you're just joining, we are in segment two of the podcast right now for tonight. This is the legal minute.

SPEAKER_00 14:07

The legal minute.

SPEAKER_01 14:08

What opening statements actually are and aren't?

SPEAKER_00 14:12

This one I am super excited about. This is gonna show a little bit of the nerdiness coming out, all right?

SPEAKER_01 14:19

We're all nerds.

SPEAKER_00 14:20

The Massachusetts Guide to Evidence spells this out directly. Section 1113. Quote: The proper function of an opening statement is to outline in a general way the nature of the case that a party expects to be able to prove or support by admissible evidence. The expectation must be reasonable and grounded in good faith. Argument for or against either party is not permitted, end quote.

SPEAKER_01 14:51

Yeah, and there's a real consequence if a side oversells it. In the same section, if what's outlined in an opening statement is, quote, plainly insufficient as a matter of law, end quote, to sustain that party's case, the court can direct a verdict against them.

SPEAKER_00 15:11

This is superior court, so there's also a hard time limit. Rule 7 caps opening statements at 15 minutes unless this the court extends it for cause.

SPEAKER_01 15:22

Right. And here's the actual line the juries hear from the judge, word for word, from the Commonwealth's own model jury instructions. Quote, the opening statements of the attorneys are not evidence. End quote.

SPEAKER_00 15:38

So whatever you heard this morning, that's the map, not the territory. The evidence is what comes next.

SPEAKER_01 15:48

What they're trying to do with opening statements is tell a story.

SPEAKER_00 15:52

I was gonna say they're they're putting their narrative.

SPEAKER_01 15:55

It's a story. It's a narrative, which is a story. They're telling their story of the case. And believe you me, it is gonna have everything to do to go against the other party. Everything in it is gonna go against the other party. They're not gonna have anything in their story that helps the other party. That's the way they frame it. They stuff will get left out, stuff will be embellished. Well, you It's not evidence because it can't be used as evidence, they can tell a story, and that's what happens.

SPEAKER_00 16:35

I'm just gonna say, I feel like when we've discussed this, and again, I I none of our episodes kind of build other than the trial watch, but what I will say, we've talked about it a little bit before, and because people have asked them questions like what kind of evidence or what would make it inadmissible, things like that. You know, some of that is where it gets really tricky because you have each side kind of competing, and I think Nick had talked about it at one point as like a game, and that makes sense because it's like this this team doesn't want this team to win or their side to seem more plausible than this side.

SPEAKER_01 17:17

So they're gonna play this.

SPEAKER_00 17:18

It's the give and take, it's a dance. So we'll call it a dance. That sounds a little nicer, but it's a dance between you know one side versus the other because they want their story to be believed. They basically, the other side, the defense, basically just want you to have doubt.

SPEAKER_01 17:33

Right. And understand that with tonight's legal minute, we try to keep it short. That's why it's called the legal minute, but we do want to emphasize that with our legal minute, the opening statements of the attorneys are not evidence. So they can't be used as evidence in the framing for the jury on their decision. All it is is a story to help them understand the evidence that they are going to be presenting.

SPEAKER_00 18:07

So the opening statement, in my honest opinion, the opening statement is like us. Okay, we're gonna sit here and we're gonna tell you something. Now we're just talking to you.

SPEAKER_02 18:16

Right.

SPEAKER_00 18:16

But what comes next through the witness testimonies and things like that, that is the presentation of the process.

SPEAKER_01 18:22

And that's how you interpret it.

SPEAKER_00 18:23

And so we're trying to say that this evidence proves what we stated.

SPEAKER_01 18:28

Yes.

SPEAKER_00 18:29

To make it seem like that is the fact, or and then the defense And understand that the prosecution is a good thing. Well, it's a common one we keep going prosecution, it's a common one. It was a little bit different. We need to cover that or something.

SPEAKER_01 18:41

In Massachusetts, for this instance, for the commonwealth, yes, it is, and that's what we were talking about, and their framing is and their model is that. But the commonwealth or the state or the prosecution in criminal cases always gets to go first. Yes, always, because they have the burden of proof. This is a good one.

SPEAKER_00 19:08

This, my friends, is going to be one of the most so Nick and I have been married for a hot minute, okay? And we have difference of opinions.

SPEAKER_01 19:22

You keep flip-flopping, though. Come on. Come on, we were on the same page when this all started, and then now you're like, oh, well, look at this.

SPEAKER_00 19:35

I will say that I was leaning one way before all of this.

SPEAKER_01 19:41

Yeah. You're gonna make some enemies.

SPEAKER_00 19:44

You know what? At this point, I feel like I'm making them every day. It is what it is. Evidence of the night. One year after pleading guilty to murdering four University of Idaho students, Brian Koberger is trying to take that plea back. Multiple outlets citing court filings report he filed a petition for post-conviction relief today in Ada County District Court, case number CR01-24-31665. The same case where Judge Stephen Hipler accepted his guilty plea on July 2nd, 2025, and sentenced him to four consecutive life sentences without parole on July 23rd, 2025.

SPEAKER_01 20:28

Now, post-conviction relief is a separate thing from a direct appeal. Yes. It's a way to challenge a conviction outside of the normal appeals process, usually on grounds like ineffectiveness, count or ineffective counsel, or newly discovered evidence. Koberger is currently representing himself on this filing, which is wild.

SPEAKER_00 20:56

In a statement to the New York Times, Koberger said his plea was, quote, hinged on by false promises and blatant disinformation, end quote, and that his actual innocence, quote, must, end quote, be recognized. Reporting, citing sources familiar with the filing, says he ours he's arguing ineffective assistance of counsel that his defense team didn't disclose certain exculpatory material before he pleaded.

SPEAKER_01 21:25

Now, before I read this, I'm gonna say my opinion. His defense attorney told him he was gonna make a lot of money off writing a book, and he didn't make a lot of money. So he's gotta tackle this shit again.

SPEAKER_00 21:44

Searching for this document because I wanted to see the filing myself.

SPEAKER_01 21:49

Idaho's legal standard for this is pretty high. Courts can only set aside a conviction to correct manifest injustice. That's the quote. Uh Um that's a real bar to clear when it comes to the legal system, not just changing your mind after the fact.

SPEAKER_00 22:06

If you are in the United States and you've never heard of this case, this was a wild case, and I will tell you that from the beginning, I thought it was very, very interesting because he was a PhD student, I believe.

SPEAKER_01 22:28

In criminology. So and a teacher's assistant.

SPEAKER_00 22:33

In my personal opinion, I feel like he was very um involved in his case. So if in theory he were trying to say, like ineffectiveness of counsel, he would be able to articulate it better than a lay person would. So that he is now, from what we are seeing coming out today, potentially filing on his own without counsel.

SPEAKER_02 23:02

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 23:03

The mind of that individual to me is quite fascinating because as someone who has lived through that trial and has that knowledge from post-high school education in some of these areas, I just think that's very interesting. It it literally piqued my interest. So I don't know. You know, I have not seen the actual petition.

SPEAKER_01 23:31

Our docket I searched. Our docket pool was dated before today's filing, so we haven't read the petition itself. That's sourced to NYT, CNN, Fox Reporting only.

SPEAKER_00 23:43

Um that note, can I just throw something in? Can I just throw this in?

SPEAKER_01 23:50

Sure.

SPEAKER_00 23:52

Do you know what really irritates me when it comes to media?

SPEAKER_01 23:57

Oh, we'll tell you this, but you can't look at it.

SPEAKER_00 24:00

No, here's what I think is really, really frustrating, okay? We've got these news people, okay, that come out and they're like, ooh, look what just happened today. But take my word for it because it's nowhere to be found. Yeah, yeah. Only we have this information.

SPEAKER_01 24:17

Well, I mean, it's a source that they have and they're not gonna give it up.

SPEAKER_00 24:21

Incorrect, incorrect. I I'm just gonna throw this out, okay? This is my thing that I'm saying to all the people out there. If you see something that a news station, media, anything like that is reporting and you cannot verify yourself, that's a red flag to me. That is not a red flag here. I'm just saying that's one of my red flags because why can't I verify what you said? Yeah. Why can I not see the document that you see as a public citizen? You don't get it. It's not like that game where, oh, you're younger, we're gonna give you a head start. That's not the way this works. You don't get a head start.

SPEAKER_01 25:01

Okay, it's kind of what this podcast is about, and I'll go ahead and say it. The mass media is controlled by a certain organization, and different political parties. And that organization that organization does not want an educated populace.

SPEAKER_00 25:21

Oh, I don't think anybody wants us to be able to do that.

SPEAKER_01 25:23

Because that is bad for them. But I'll digress on that because that's a different, whole different type of podcast.

SPEAKER_00 25:31

Yeah, and we don't do politics.

SPEAKER_01 25:33

That's right. Uh, the Gonzalez uh Gonzalez family.

SPEAKER_00 25:37

Yeah, they released the statement.

SPEAKER_01 25:39

What'd they say?

SPEAKER_00 25:41

They didn't hold back.

SPEAKER_01 25:42

I know.

SPEAKER_00 25:43

In a statement, they called Coburger's supporters and this filing, quote, the mosquito, you just can't seem to SWAT, end quote. And pointed out that when he pleaded guilty, he told the judge himself that his plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Their statement was long. I thought they, I thought, you know, which they are very very big advocates. Um, they are doing a lot. I understand. And please, please don't come at me that I am not supportive of the victims in this case. I think what happened was absolutely horrendous.

SPEAKER_02 26:24

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 26:24

However, I am a very big constitutional person, and there are a lot of cases in our country. Not that this is one, I'm not stating that. What I'm saying is there are a lot of cases in this country where there are truly innocent people that are in prison.

SPEAKER_02 26:46

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 26:47

That is why we have organizations such as the Innocence Project.

SPEAKER_01 26:51

I don't think they're gonna touch this with a 10-foot pole, though.

SPEAKER_00 26:55

I'm just saying. I I'm just saying that in theory, you've heard me say it multiple times. Anything should be able to uphold after scrutiny. So if it is truly he was guilty, and yes, it was proven, he was convicted.

SPEAKER_01 27:14

However, it should he was convicted on a guilty plea, not a trial of his peer or jury of his peers, though. That's different.

SPEAKER_00 27:22

We're not going there.

SPEAKER_01 27:24

That's fine.

SPEAKER_00 27:24

All I'm saying, okay. I know everybody's gonna come at me for this. It is what it is. I'm just saying.

SPEAKER_01 27:31

Uh, the attorney general of Idaho, uh, attorney general Labrador has already responded uh publicly saying his office is ready to do whatever's necessary to see justice is carried out. Worth worth what it is.

SPEAKER_00 27:45

So justice is a very interesting word, I'm just gonna say.

SPEAKER_01 27:51

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 27:52

Because I mean, I'm just gonna say this. If you are, so to speak, pro-victim, justice in your eyes is that the victim sees justice. If you are like a defense, like you're pro-defense, you're going to say justice to you is a defendant being proven innocent if they are truly innocent. And if you are from like a prosecutor side, you're going to say, Well, we upheld the law. The person that violated the law was guilty. That is justice.

SPEAKER_02 28:26

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 28:27

So what I'm telling you is when you see people throw things out like justice, understand that depending on which side, justice does not look the same for each of those all of those parties, justice means something different. And quite honestly, in the terms of this, those four lives are gone. They can never be brought back. So for them, there really is no justice because they are gone. That's my opinion.

SPEAKER_01 28:58

Alright, with that, we're gonna move on to our final segment of the nun.

SPEAKER_00 29:03

Man, it was good. I feel like it was good.

SPEAKER_01 29:08

Our red flag.

SPEAKER_00 29:11

The judge who was two people.

SPEAKER_01 29:16

Interesting.

SPEAKER_00 29:18

Tonight's red flag is one we found in our own research, not someone else's reporting.

SPEAKER_01 29:26

When we first pulled the Lindsay Clancy Docket, we hit a real discrepancy. The event grid listed the presiding judge as Gilda. But the docket's own narrative text said Sullivan.

SPEAKER_00 29:45

We went with the narrative text as the more reliable of the two, since it was more specific, but we flagged it as unresolved rather than guessing.

SPEAKER_01 29:53

Since then, it's been resolved independently. The Boston Globe, CBS Boston, WBUR, and Boston.com all confirmed Judge William Sullivan is presiding over the Clancy trial.

SPEAKER_00 30:07

So that's tonight's lesson. When your own primary source has an internal inconsistency, you don't pick the answer that sounds right, you flag it, and then keep checking until independent sources actually settle it.

SPEAKER_01 30:19

And I will say something I wish the justice system would do.

SPEAKER_00 30:25

What I'm going to say on that matter is that you will hear me repeatedly say that I think that in terms of our legal system, there are a few very strong candidates for sourcing. For example, the docket itself.

SPEAKER_01 30:43

Yes.

SPEAKER_00 30:44

And we talked about the docket in another one of our episodes. And again, remember.

SPEAKER_01 30:48

Lacey's talks about the docket all the time, but understand yet while it is a very reliable source with the information that's in it, it is not all the information by any means.

SPEAKER_00 30:59

No, it is not, but it is what is submitted to the court.

SPEAKER_01 31:02

Yes.

SPEAKER_00 31:03

So in theory, if a news place or magazine or social media or whatever is reporting that such and such was filed with the court, in theory, it should be there. It should be on the docket.

SPEAKER_01 31:19

So I should be able, unless And understand that it could be an interpretation, etc.

SPEAKER_00 31:25

But again, you should not be interpreting No, but the media outlets, they interpret it. Yes, we we do headlines.

SPEAKER_01 31:34

Yep. So with that being said, checking the independent resources and the independent sources.

SPEAKER_00 31:41

So again, like That's what we do here. Yes, the whole thing. I start with the docket, okay, and I look, and I look at your specific case, and I look at your case number.

SPEAKER_01 31:51

And then we look at the case. Okay, what's being said about this.

SPEAKER_00 31:59

And I I just want to let me be clear. When I say case number, so I am looking at your case number. I have a spreadsheet that I have created, and on my spreadsheet, it has the case, it has the parties, it has the county or what you know district level the court is in, and I have the case number. And then I also have the website that takes me directly to that county, to that website. And I click on it and I type in the case number and I pull every day the docket and I look and I see what has been entered to the court. However, we've already discussed in some cases where the court system may not be quick. We've talked about weekends, we've talked about holidays, we've talked about it could be a very heavy case uh county where there's a lot of casework that has to be put in. And there is a court clerk that is inputting all of this information. I review that. And then I go and I say, well, this outlet is reporting this. That doesn't match what's in the docket. So then I pull another source and I say, Well, this outlet is covering this. I tie it all back to what's already in the court record. However, when we start going to trial, there are some cases where they and some counties, some court systems don't upload directly, such like you know, your PDF documents of the actual exhibits, things like that, the motions themselves. It'll just say, for instance, motion filed, it'll tell you who filed it. Each is different. Each docket system, each county, each state, all of those things are different. Right. And I'm not trying to tell people that they need to go out and pull dockets for every case that's in the news every day. But if you feel like something is if you're questioning it, yeah, pull it. Look at it.

SPEAKER_01 33:53

Before we close tonight, we're gonna recap some of the segments we talked about tonight, the new format, because it is very yeah, it was started.

SPEAKER_00 34:01

It was started on Friday's episode, which was number nine, episode nine.

SPEAKER_01 34:05

And in our first segment, we covered the trial watch. The trial watch. I gotta find my mouse. And I need to make it bigger.

SPEAKER_00 34:15

And I will say the trial watch is a segment that we will continue. Right now, we are covering the Lindsay Clancy trial, and that will continue throughout the course of her trial. And if there yeah, if there's any kind of post post-trial things in regard to like movement with the case specifically, so any appeals or anything like that. Yeah, we'll we'll follow that. However, once her trial is concluded, we will find another trial.

SPEAKER_01 34:46

Yep.

SPEAKER_00 34:46

And after trial watch, we'll see legal segment to legal minute.

SPEAKER_01 34:51

That's it. Where we gave some legal jargon to you.

SPEAKER_00 34:56

What an opening statement actually is and what it isn't.

SPEAKER_01 35:01

And after segment two, we moved on to the evidence of the night. We did talk about Koberger and the fact that he is rescinding or wanting to rescind his guilty plea. In a way that's not necessarily like a formal appeal. Um but he's representing himself. And then finally, after evidence of the night, we hit our red flag segment when your own source contradicts itself. You flag it and keep checking. Alright, with that, this has been the particulars. Headlines and the details begin.

SPEAKER_00 35:45

We'll see you Wednesday. Follow, share, and find everything else. Schedule, merch, coffee at our link tree. Our opinion, our analysis, not legal advice. Thanks for walking the cases. We'll see you Wednesday.