True Crime Today | Daily True Crime News & Interviews

Eleven jurors in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial reportedly wanted to acquit. One refused. After seven days and more than thirty-six hours of deliberation, Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial at Plymouth Superior Court.
The jury of nine women and three men faced one question: was Clancy criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children — Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months — at the family’s Duxbury home in January 2023. Clancy admitted to killing them. Her defense argued postpartum psychosis and overmedication stripped her ability to understand what she was doing. Prosecutors said she was rational and deliberate.
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington characterized the split as eleven to one for acquittal and went public immediately. He called the holdout biased, thanked the jurors “minus one,” and said the jury was “robbed.” He then filed an emergency petition with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to intervene. The court denied it within the hour.
When the formal mistrial was read, female jurors broke down in the courtroom. One put her face in her hands. Another clenched her fists. A third would not open her eyes.
DA Timothy Cruz defended his prosecution and said he would decide shortly on a retrial. Sullivan scheduled a status conference for September 29 and said he wanted to retry the case in the fall.
Criminal defense trial attorney Bob Motta of Defense Diaries examines whether one holdout truly changes the trajectory of this case and what leverage the eleven-to-one split gives Reddington in retrial negotiations. He also asks why the families on both sides may be the ones who decide whether this happens again.
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 #LindsayClancyTrial #BobMotta #Mistrial #HungJury #PlymouthSuperiorCourt #TrueCrime #HiddenKillers #DefenseDiaries #TrueCrimeToday

Barry Morphew’s Denver traffic encounter is now part of the legal fight over the conditions keeping him out of jail while he awaits trial in Suzanne Morphew’s death.
Court records say another driver accused Morphew of aggressive driving before two vehicles were struck. Judge Amanda Hopkins later reviewed video and wrote that the person visible in it is clearly Morphew.
According to Hopkins, he refused to give his name or identification and indicated he didn’t have insurance. He then allegedly offered the other driver a specific amount of money for the damage.
She refused and said police were being called. The judge says Morphew left, nearly struck another person, and drove over a curb.
Hopkins restricted him to his home. Prosecutors want no driving and tighter monitoring, arguing that the encounter gives the court new reasons to examine flight risk.
The cash offer is the detail that makes this episode impossible to ignore.
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.
#BarryMorphew #SuzanneMorphew #TrueCrimeToday #BarryMorphewTrial #SuzanneMorphewCase #ColoradoTrueCrime #MorphewCase #TrueCrimePodcast #ColoradoCourts #CrimeNews

Lindsay Clancy is the defendant, but the public has spent this trial judging nearly everyone around her.
The jury is being dissected after days of deadlock and an allegation that one member is not properly applying reasonable doubt. Patrick Clancy has been attacked online for forgiving Lindsay and rebuilding his life despite no evidence implicating him. Prosecutors are facing questions about why the case went to trial after Kevin Reddington said no plea offer was ever made.
Tony Brueski connects those controversies to the central issue jurors must decide: whether Lindsay was criminally responsible.
Psychiatrists disagreed. The jury disagreed. The public certainly disagrees.
Maybe that is the real story.
A legal system designed to produce binary answers has collided with a tragedy in which almost every important human question exists somewhere in the gray.
END LINKS
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
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.
#LindsayClancy #LindsayClancyCase #PatrickClancy #LindsayClancyTrial #JuryDeadlock #PostpartumPsychosis #CriminalResponsibility #JusticeSystem #CourtroomAnalysis #TonyBrueski

Tyler Robinson pleaded not guilty in the Charlie Kirk case after a Utah judge found probable cause for aggravated murder and six other charges. Prosecutors say a private message exchange, surveillance footage, DNA testing and a rifle recovered near the alleged escape route support their case. Robinson remains presumed innocent.
The defense is testing the state’s evidence without committing publicly to one final theory. Its lawyers have challenged identification and forensic interpretation and argue that one shot directed at Kirk does not establish the danger to others required for the capital aggravator.
Utah law allows Robinson to maintain a not-guilty plea, force prosecutors to prove every element and later change that plea before conviction. No agreement has been announced. One alleged message remains the detail that makes the plea difficult to square with the prosecution’s account.
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.
#CharlieKirkCase #TylerRobinson #TrueCrimeToday #CharlieKirk #NotGuiltyPlea #AggravatedMurder #DeathPenaltyCase #UtahCourt #TrueCrimeNews #LegalAnalysis

Kevin Reddington says Plymouth County prosecutors never offered Lindsay Clancy a plea deal.
With first-degree murder charges remaining in place, Massachusetts law required a jury trial. Now that jury has struggled for days with the exact question everyone knew would define the case: criminal responsibility.
The defense says Clancy experienced postpartum psychosis and lacked the substantial capacity required by law. Prosecutors argue that despite her mental illness, she understood the wrongfulness of her conduct and could control it.
Tony Brueski asks whether a system offering such radically different destinations—life without parole or psychiatric confinement—is actually measuring culpability with the precision this case requires.
And if the central goal is protecting society, what specifically does incarceration accomplish that secure psychiatric treatment would not?
That is not an argument for either verdict. It is a question about what punishment is supposed to do.
END LINKS
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
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.
#LindsayClancy #LindsayClancyCase #LindsayClancyTrial #PleaDeal #CriminalResponsibility #PostpartumPsychosis #JusticeSystem #MassachusettsLaw #CourtroomAnalysis #TonyBrueski