This piece uses the Clancy trial to explain why the system rarely delivers the tidy "witness gets arrested" ending true crime fans expect. An acquittal isn't proof someone else did it, and prosecutors are institutionally reluctant to reopen cases they've already built and won. Real examples (Amanda Knox, a 2017 Arkansas case, the Marietta Seven) show this pattern is messier and slower than TV suggests. It ties back to Clancy through the defense's likely strategy: since the confession can't be walked back, Reddington's path is arguing not guilty by reason of insanity, which puts the origin of the "hearing voices" narrative front and center. Whoever the jury decides on, that deeper question won't be resolved by the court itself. It'll take outside pressure to ever get answered.

A personal and procedural look at the Lindsay Clancy case, examining the forensic inconsistencies raised by the defense alongside the deeper question of what happens when a mother's documented fight for mental health treatment becomes evidence used against her. Written through the lens of my own experience with postpartum depression and anxiety, it explores the tension between compassion and accountability, and makes the case for why postpartum education can't stop with mothers alone.

Bryan Kohberger filed a post conviction petition two days before Netflix dropped a documentary about the crime he pleaded guilty to. The internet called it a change of heart. I called it a calendar. Here's what the actual filing deadlines say, and why the timing isn't nearly the coincidence it looks like.

I used to fall asleep to true crime podcasts while writing documentation for a living. Somewhere along the way, that turned into something closer to a research habit, and I stopped trusting documentaries the moment I started watching actual trials. This is where that story starts.