Lindsay Clancy holdout juror’s first interview — body language expert on whether he’s truthful

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Hey guys, thanks so much for checking out my show. Really, really appreciate everybody for watching and everybody who has subscribed to my channel. In this episode, I'm getting into the latest on the Lindsay Clancy situation, specifically the holdout juror. His name is Michael Desronville. He has now given a full interview. And remember, in the past, I had interviewed a couple of times his spokesperson, Fugitive TV. That's the, he goes on YouTube, Fugitive TV. And we had heard like a video statement from him. But we hadn't actually heard like a full, long interview from Michael Desronville until now. He did an interview with Kaylee McEnany from Fox News. It was like 17 minutes long. And in this episode, I'm gonna tell you all the, everything he said in the interview, what stood out to me. And then I'm gonna talk to Susan Constantine, who is a body language expert and a jury consultant to see what she thought of the interview, if she thought that he was truthful in the interview, and if there was anything in particular that stood out to her in the interview. So that's coming up in a second. But first, let me tell you guys the latest on exactly what Michael Desronville, the Lindsay Clancy holdout juror, said in the interview. He said that he wanted people to know that he cares about people, especially children, that children are innocent, that he cares about his reputation and kind of feels like he's been dragged through the mud on this whole thing, cares about being a father and his family and cares about justice. And Kaylee said, the world knows you as the holdout juror. And he said, it's been interesting dealing with that, that he had never sat through a trial before, that it was like night and day before and after the mistrial. There were moments that were very, very tense. And she asked, do you feel you were listened to or heard? This was specifically about during deliberations. And he said, I definitely listened. Some moments in that deliberation felt like decisions were being swayed toward one way. He said he prayed a lot, that he read his Bible. He talked about the Patrick Clancy 911 call, said it was surreal hearing the pain in his voice, hearing the desperation. He called the desperation from that clip. Played him, they played in the clip of Kevin Reddington after court when he said Michael refused to apply the law. And that remember when Kevin Reddington said that he refused to apply the law, Michael, this holdout jury. Didn't use his name, obviously. And that he said that the jury was robbed, their decision was robbed by one man and that he stole seven weeks. And you could tell that Michael, you know, was not happy, obviously, that Kevin Reddington said these things about him. Kayleigh asked him, do you have reasonable doubt? And he said, no. It was very clear about that. Said he had a lot of evidence to back up his claims, that he didn't want to get into that evidence right now. And said, out of respect for the other jurors in the court system, he will put that to sleep for now. Says he answered everything truthfully when he was questioned. So this is important because remember, there have been these questions about his juror questionnaire. Was he truthful on the questionnaire in terms of his domestic violence arrest? And he said that he was truthful. That the domestic violence charge from 2021, an incident between himself and his ex-wife, got blown out of proportion, that there's no physical or emotional abuse. And then he was asked about his cell phone being used during trial. Because remember, one of the other jurors said that he looked something up on his cell phone. And he also said, at least to his spokesperson, that there was someone else who was using their cell phone. So there's been a lot of confusion about the cell phone. He said, everybody had their cell phones. Our cell phones were used while we had a break and not during deliberations. Said he thought that he would go on jury duty and then get back to his normal life. Had no idea, obviously, that it would turn into this. Realized his identity was out there the day after the mistrial. Because there were all these journalists at his door. And they asked, do you feel Kevin Reddington put a target on your back? And he said, yes, I do. He said that the journalist went through his mail, that he saw them on surveillance cameras, that they were peeking through his windows. But you can't go through someone's mail, by the way. I've never would do that. I mean, you can knock on people's doors. And honestly, I have kind of like looked in people's windows just to see like, well, not in a situation like this, but if it's like a crime scene or something that I've been able to get up to, I'll look in the windows. But in terms of going through someone's mail, that's, I think that might even be a federal crime. But he said people went through his mail, that he has it all on his surveillance cameras, were peeking through his windows. Said he's not received any physical threats, but he has been scared through this whole process. He talked about his religion, said that he's Catholic, but did not make his decision based on his faith, and said he had his decision based strictly on the evidence and paying attention during the whole trial. Said it was tough to say if you would ever want to be on a jury again. And then they actually went to the Clancy family playground together during this interview and talked about the kids. They asked, was there one piece of evidence that stood out to him? And he said, how methodical Lindsay was in the execution of the children. The focus has to be on the children. No one is fighting for them. And I just want to read you that part again, because this part stood out to me. He said, how methodical Lindsay was in the execution of the children. So I want you to hear now my full conversation with Susan Constantine. I just talked to her a little while ago, because she watched the full, the full interview was like 17 or 18 minutes. She watched the whole thing. I watched the whole thing. And I wanted to hear whether she thinks he was truthful throughout the entire interview, because this is what she does. She's a trained body language expert. She's also a juror consultant. She's been doing this for decades. So here's my conversation with Susan. Susan, it's nice to see you. I feel like we would spend so much time together at the trial and then, you know, I haven't seen you in a while. So thank you for joining me. [00:05:57] Speaker 2: Yeah. I have separation anxiety, Brian. [00:05:59] Speaker 1: Yeah. I wanted to know what you thought about this interview with Michael Desronville, who's the holdout juror. It's interesting because both of us were in the courtroom. So we saw him in the courtroom and then, you know, I never heard there was that one short video he released, but I never really heard his voice before long term. kind of got a feel for who he was until now. What did you think? [00:06:23] Speaker 2: Well, I think overall, I mean, the guy is authentic. I mean, I thought, wow, he's a guy that really knows himself. I walked away thinking not very many people that you're there that I wouldn't even call it. It was a sense of confidence, but he was also very humble. So, but he was totally, he knew himself. He was unwavering. He was very sturdy. You know, he was very solid overall. And then when I watched the interview, I was looking for any sort of deception because, you know, you can't get so rose colored glasses. This guy is like perfect in every way. You know, is there any untruths to what, what they're saying? Right. So overall though, I think that he was really truthful. These were, this was a high stake interview and there were some high stake questions, which would naturally create a lot of anxiety. But I was watching, you know, the forehead is like the billboard of your soul. You know, they say that the eyes are, but it's really the eyebrows, you know, no tension in his eyebrows, no worrying lines in his eyebrows. Really interesting because that tells me that he was confident in what he was saying. There was no real stress. I did see some stress indicators where he would rub his thumbs together. There is, you know, I don't know how far you want to get into us because I looked at lots of different segments. There were moments of where there was some rapid eye blinking. So that was important to kind of note. And for example, there was a moment where he's talking about what was really, you know, what's important to him. And then he had mentioned about his family, his father. And, and then he also uses the word justice. And when he does the justice part, he smacks his lips and he says, justice, justice. And so that was really kind of a powerful, it had a lot of emotional weight behind it. A lot of times we would do that when we smack. Well, you know, we tend to do that. So I thought that was really interesting because when he was talking about his family and then his dad, he closed his eyes. There was a strong eye closure there. So that person is very tight with him. And that was really, really important. The first thing that he mentioned though, was his reputation. Right? So each time he talked about reputation, family, his father, there were eyebrow flashes. And what that is, is those are emphasizes. So it didn't mean anything as far as truthfulness of deception. It just tells you what was important to him. If he didn't move his eyebrows and there were no eyeball flashes and those exact moments. And I would say that he probably doesn't really have a strong connection. And there were just words he was just saying. So I didn't really notice that. The other thing that stood out to me when he was talking about the questionnaire, I'm not convinced on that one. There was some cognitive load. Now it could have been for, because it could have been for, because it was a high stakes question. It was something that's been out in the media. And this is stuff that we're thinking about and asking. And when he was asked the question, he says, I answered the questionnaire truthfully. Well, he was trying, he was carefully constructing his words and he wanted to make sure it was coming out. But when he did that, he licked his legs and shaved his head. No. And oftentimes we see that with a few things. It can be deception, but it also can be under high stress or internal conflict. So when we think about those things, it's really important, Brian, that when we're reading people, we take everything into account. What is his baseline? And what is the context? And when you do that, I call this the ABC. I, as an expert, and I've been trained and certified and licensed. So it's not just something I read out of a book. I'm a licensed certified analyst. And when, what I'm taught to do is not to take one gesture or two and go bingo, because you need to look for three indicators and at least two of the channels, meaning like the face, the body, their interactional style, the psychophysiology and so forth within seven seconds of the question being asked. And there was really only two. So it wasn't conclusive enough to say that was deceptive. They were indicators, but didn't mean that it was deceptive. [00:10:55] Speaker 1: Yeah. Cause I was wondering, you know, he was just, just had a normal guy with a job before all this. I mean, never in the media, never probably did an interview like this before. He said, he never served on a jury before. So I would imagine he was nervous doing this interview. I mean, who wouldn't be, uh, you're going to be on national TV. You've become this known person. So how do you separate just him being just nervous and like whether or not you can tell he's lying? [00:11:26] Speaker 2: Sure. So that's really a good point. And thank you so much for asking that because you do have to take things into context. For example, if somebody had never been in a courtroom before and they're going to stand on stand beyond stand, and there's going to be asked questions about something that's really, you know, high stakes, naturally anyone, if they've never been in the courtroom, would show anxiety. Just the environment in itself will create and throw off all kinds of firecrackers or indicators, right? So when there is deception, there is things that we look for, or I look for. I'm going to listen to, maybe there's a slight pause, hesitation, uh, there's, uh, or there's, there's, I hate to go through it because there's like 136 indicators, so I can't really go through all of them, but there's clustered together within seven seconds. I might see him like lean back, lick his lips, pause, hesitate, stammer, and then throw out language that is contradictory to what we consider as being truthfulness, according to statement analysis. He may even, uh, put himself in a good light. Well, I've always been truthful. No one would ever say that I wasn't, or God be my witness. I am always truthful. So he didn't do any of what we call the indicators that are really, uh, high stake that when I look at there, there wasn't enough there. So the main thing is I have to see at least three indicators, at least three within two of the channels, face, body, interactional size, psychophysiology, et cetera, voice tone, um, all of that. There wasn't enough to say there was deception. So if they were just, he was deceptive, I would have seen pause, hesitation, lick his lip, you know, maybe rubbing his thumbs together, maybe you're stroking, you know, his head or adjusting his clothes or, um, uh, an anger expression, uh, or in fear. We see that in fear. So there's lots of things I look for, but there wasn't any there. So I just want people to understand that just because you see them do, uh, X plus Y doesn't make equals Z. And that's what people do a lot in behavioral analysis. They pull up this, this X plus Y equals Z. And it's not that way. The equation is much more complicated than that. And there's only 27 indicators within those channels that have been proven in research to be deceptive. So for example, you know, a lot of times we'll see where we have behavioral analysts are talking about, well, their eyes move up to the right or left or down to the corners. And all that's been debunked. Or even somebody's eyes are reverting left to right. Nope. That's been debunked. In fact, their eyes are moving around a lot. Oh, that's deceptive. No, it's not. That's been debunked. All that shows is in fact, newest research shows that is where the person's actually going through and recreating in their minds about the events. And once they land on it, their eyes become still. So when you ever see that when you're talking to somebody that kind of go like this and like this and like this, and then all of a sudden they get still. Yes. I'm just trying. We do it all the time. I've seen people pull that out and go, that was deceptive. No, it was not. You know, do that's what makes I feel like what I do Brian so different because I only teach and talk about what's been proven because anyway, other than that, it's just subjective. [00:14:50] Speaker 1: Right. And you have to look at the whole, I guess, the bigger picture, not just one eye movement. [00:14:53] Speaker 2: The whole picture, A, B and C, you know, the account, the baseline and the context. So that is ABCs. You know, we learned that in school too, right? As kids. [00:15:08] Speaker 1: The other thing I was watching it wondering is, you know, a lot of time has passed since the trial. He had, he has a lawyer now. He has kind of a little team behind him. I was kind of watching, looking to see if he was going to be rehearsed. Like, did they tell him exactly what to say for each question? And I didn't really get that vibe. I mean, I did kind of a little bit, a couple of times, which would just be normal. I'm sure they kind of prepped him, but I felt, and you're the expert, but to me, just what do I know? But I felt like he seemed kind of like authentic. [00:15:42] Speaker 2: Yeah. And you know, you are an expert too, Brian. So, I mean, you're interviewing people all the time. So you can see when things are kind of off and when they're off, it generally is off, you know, and you just don't know why I'm the one that kind of brings it into context. But overall, I didn't see anything that was out of the ordinary. I mean, normal people will be anxious or nervous, but it wasn't a lot. It was just minimal. So I didn't, I didn't find that there were any real red flags that were kind of glaring out at me overall. I think the guy was authentic. He was not rehearsed there. I mean, he had, he knew probably what the questions were going to be and, but they weren't scripted. They weren't scripted to the point where you go, yeah, well, he was ready for that question. I think that he was able to go off the grid if he did in order to show his own personality. But it went, let's look at like when he was walking through the park and so forth. There was no different really from him there other than he was more comfortable. He was walking and he's, there was a stride and he had his hands in his pocket and he was just more conversational. He was, he's just really comfortable in his skin, but he's definitely not cocky. And remember when we were in the courtroom, what are the things that we were hearing? What, what that, or actually it was after we left. And then all of a sudden everything was coming out and the jurors were saying how he was very arrogant. Well, they misread him. That's I did not sense anything about him that was arrogant or that he was smarter than everybody else. Right. He did not strike me as someone that was unable to be pushed and shoved. I think if anything, he was able to do is stand his ground and what he believed was true. And he was, his focus was on those three kids and what happened. And he stood in, I mean, he read the scriptures and the Bible that he stood by. It was like, it was like a sign for him, but I think he really believed it. I mean, that's what he's grounded in. So, and remember you and I, when we were there, I had mentioned, I said, there's more than likely a strong moral judgment. Do you remember that comment? [00:17:58] Speaker 1: I do. Yeah. [00:17:59] Speaker 2: Yeah. And it ended up being just that, you know, I didn't know what his religious beliefs were. It could have been Christian. It could have been, you know, Hindu. It could have been Muslim. I didn't, I didn't know, but I knew that if he were standing out amongst everybody, if there was a lot that was going on behind them for him to stand strong, it had to be a moral judgment because I knew he wasn't a stealth. [00:18:28] Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm the one thing I'm still struggling with is one of the other jurors saying that he was looking up things on his phone during deliberations. And then he was very clear in this interview that they did not have their phones during deliberations only on breaks. Cause like, which I don't know. I mean, I, I tend to believe him. I think just because he could have just said he didn't really dodge the question. He was very like clear. We did not have our phone during deliberations. [00:18:57] Speaker 2: Well, [00:18:57] Speaker ?: well, [00:18:57] Speaker 2: he collectively answered that. He said, we all had our phones. So it wasn't just him. So when did he pull up those phones? So the only thing is that I would say about that one is I would like to have him said, no, I did not have my phone out during deliberations. He didn't. He said, we all had our phones. And then he tried to clarify what it was. It was kind of a backwards way of answering that. But again, not conclusive enough to say, yeah, he was lying there because I'm trained to look for it. And it's, it wasn't there. You know, I mean, it's like, I was looking for the golden nugget, you know, that little piece. I go like, yeah, I gotcha moment here because you know, the bottom line is that most what people tell you is going to be truthful. There's only going to be a fragment of it. That's going to be deceptive. The question is, where did he go off the grid? Where did he just show maybe a partial truth? And I think if there were any partial truth, it would have been right there. Only because of the way he answered it. So did he have it out during deliberations or did he have it out during partially of the deliberations or was it towards maybe towards a break and one other person misinterpreted it? You know, there was a lot going on in there and you know, I mean, based on what he was saying and we knew what we could feel it in the courtroom that because of how many times it kept coming back exasperated. Right. And we knew that there was strong personalities. They even said afterwards, we found out what we were thinking and feeling. They said there was a lot of strong personalities, but I think it took a courageous person to stand his ground. it was tough. [00:20:42] Speaker 1: Yeah. I was thinking about that during his interview, like to not give in that for that amount of time when you could have just ended it, gone home, been done with it. Yeah. Also, if he gave any, no one would even know who he is. Probably, you know, he would have avoided this whole sort of like backlash. But I guess that's just the kind of person he is that he didn't want to, you know, he made up his mind and he wasn't going to change. [00:21:08] Speaker 2: Listen, I totally understand him because I come from a faith based, you know, Christian background. And I know that when he was quoting that scripture, that's what he was telling in his head. He was reciting that over and over again, that scripture that he believed in. And that was what he stood on. That's what the moral judgment came from. But he, you know, in watching his demeanor, I don't, didn't see any sort of contempt. I didn't see any sort of anger or defiance. Even when he was asked those hard questions. Now, keep in mind, Fox News was very pro this juror. So let's, you know, he was probably more at ease with this reporter than he would have been maybe from a CNN reporter, right? We don't know. But we obviously we know that he is a strong Republican. So he felt comfortable where he was at, but I didn't sense that he had anger, but he, she didn't ask the questions that would have provoked it or, or how would I say stimulated it? I mean, her tone was, was also more wanting to understand and ask for clarity and having him tell his truth, what he experienced. Now had he been asked questions that were much more derogatory or even accusatory, we might see, we might've seen some contempt or some anger, but that's not what we saw. [00:22:42] Speaker 1: Yeah. It was definitely, it was friendly ground for sure. I mean, he obviously chose to do the interview with her because she, I mean, she's talked about it. I mean, she's on his side, obviously, but I think she still asked the questions that were on all of our minds and mostly, you know, in terms of, but I think, but it wasn't a harsh accusatory tone. It wasn't, but I thought about this just from a journalism perspective, Susan, like he's not a criminal. I mean, if I was doing that interview, he was just a juror. I mean, you can't really, why would you go after him? I mean, no one went after those other ladies in an accusatory way. Like it's not really appropriate. I mean, it's appropriate to go after someone when they did something wrong or you're trying to, I don't know. I just, I mean, could she have been, she seems sympathetic to him, which I felt like maybe it was a little much at times, but overall, I just, I don't think that's the kind of interview where you're, you need to go after the person. No, [00:23:41] Speaker 2: I guess my point is with that, Brian, is that if he were asked it in a more stern way, you might have seen anger, but sometimes anger and contempt can be from contemptuous feeling towards the person who was interviewing you. Like that was a really terrible question or anger, but because he was protecting and standing his ground and he's agitated because you asked me a question in that tone, you know, I, I, I've reviewed. In fact, that was another case that I was reviewing and that the interviewer whole demeanor really affected, affected the person who was being interviewed. And so when I was looking at that, and that's something I look forward to it as that responsible call the ABCs. ABCs is that response because of what the, the context of the way you're presenting it. But so that makes a big difference. However, what we look, what I look for is that was there a sense of continuity, a sense of flow, authenticity throughout in different scenarios, sitting there, obviously it was a little bit more rigid, but he was still comfortable be firmly planted, shoulders squared off his hands neatly placed between his, his inner thigh, but he didn't show any sort of rigid or pouncing or slicing of gestures or grimacing, grimacing, nothing. It was just not there. He, he was a, he's a kind of guy. When I see him, he knows what he knows. He believes what he believes. And there's no, one's going to shake it because he knows who he is and what he believes. And that's really powerful because how many of us can really say that? I mean, really, he really dealt with a lot of high scrutiny and he stood firm. Couldn't be that he stood his ground because he was doing it just because he did it because he was, he felt that was the right thing to do. And I think that's a reason why so many people, including myself, look at him and going, wow, that's, I mean, he should deserve a medal or something because how many people could have stood up through that kind of scrutiny? When you think at 11 to one, actually it was 11 to, it ended up being 11 to one. It was 10 to two, right? [00:26:06] Speaker 1: Cause we have tough cookies, by the way, those women, some of them, some tough cookies with those women. [00:26:12] Speaker 2: Oh yeah. Well, yeah, they were, but they, I call them the triple pack. They're the three pack. [00:26:19] Speaker ?: They're the three pack. [00:26:20] Speaker 2: And, and they were so, obvious to me, you know, first of all, they show up there together, which means that they built rapport behind closed doors in deliberations, whether it's through facial expressions, or there was a sort of connection. So they stuck together as a clan. And it was almost kind of like a lynch mob clan, you know, they kind of stood their ground and they were quite derogatory. And what I respect about this lone juror is that, that he never spoke one negative word about anybody. He didn't point fingers at anyone. He didn't mention anybody, but he did. In fact, there was a moment where he really paused for quite some time trying to figure out, Hmm, how am I going to answer that question without, you know, bringing attention to a certain person. But when his eyes became still, I knew he knew who they were. It was like, he was, he had their, their visual imprint in his mind, but he wasn't going to say their name. [00:27:18] Speaker 1: Well, I think he's had time to, and has had advisors who have probably told him not to, you know, not legal reasons. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, maybe if you caught up with him right afterwards, he may have been a little more, uh, just, I don't know, raw, you know, [00:27:32] Speaker 2: you need to go out and go get it. [00:27:34] Speaker 1: I wish I had been able to talk to him. Uh, what do you think is going to happen, Susan? You know, there's this hearing on November 2nd where the, um, you know, the judge is going to decide whether to grant Kevin Reddington's, motion to actually go through his phone, really like investigate this juror. [00:27:54] Speaker 2: I don't think the judge is going to allow it. I just, I can't imagine because I think that what's going to happen is just because we know that Reddington has blustered a lot about stuff. I mean, he's just been crazy. Um, that the, the judge, I think knows that if he opens up that Pandora's box box, just imagine what's going to happen in all future trials. You don't want that on record. The judge doesn't want a record. I don't think there's enough evidence for that judge to be able to allow him to just because it was hearsay. I mean, there was no cameras. There was no one in there. Was there a, was there a court clerk that was in there that saw it? If there was a court's clerk in there that was there that have a good reputation and been with a judge for a long time, he would, he might've said something, but that's not, or he or she would have said something, but that's not what we're dealing with. We're dealing with the fact that he, Reddington is pulling out everything he can. Good for him. I mean, he's a great defense attorney. If you're going to want a defense attorney, you're in trouble. He's the one fighting for you, but doesn't mean it's going to get his way. And I don't think the judge is going to grant it. [00:29:02] Speaker 1: Yeah. I like what you said. Cause I think people, they get so depending on what side they're on of things, then they blame the lawyers, but everybody's just doing their job here. I mean, Reddington's doing his job to defend Lindsay Clancy. The lawyer who represents this holdout juror is doing his job to help him. Like even when I've been covering Krista Pike, you know, with the botched execution, people go after her defense team. How could these dumb lawyers trying to help? It's like, they are lawyers who help people avoid the death penalty. Like everybody's just doing their, you can't really go after the lawyers. I don't think, I mean, I just, I don't think that's fair. [00:29:39] Speaker 2: And you have to be in the courtroom and work on both sides, because as a trial consultant, I've worked with both States attorneys and a public defender. So, you know, you have to be able to be open-minded and be more of a neutral when you're looking at this, because it is really just about following the law and proceeding. You know, you know, judges instructions. I mean, that's the way that attorneys look at for now. Keep in mind, attorneys become very passionate and we do. I mean, even myself as a consultant, a trial consultant, we really get emotional about things. I mean, this is our client. We're going to fight to the, till death to do it, because we stand behind what is right for that person, because they have the right to be defended. Or on the other hand, right? We're going to work feverishly to be able to get the truth out so that people will be able to judge for themselves, judge by themselves. So, you know, I think for myself, not so much for other people, but I'm also a mediator. So I tend to look at things more of a neutral. It's not hard for me to be able to give two different viewpoints because there always is. [00:30:50] Speaker 1: Yeah. [00:30:51] Speaker 2: You know, we know that there's always, you know, truth and their truth and their truth. And this is fun. That's fun. And, you know, what the real truth is, is not always exactly what the real truth is, but that's just part of gamemanship in the courtroom. [00:31:07] Speaker 1: Yeah, no, I, I, I hear you. Anything else, Susan, before I let you go that stood out to you with him? [00:31:13] Speaker 2: Well, I think that one, one of the things I think that people need to understand too, is that he did not just come out into the media right away. He didn't. So comparing that to the three pack, it wasn't that long. They were both already jumping on it. So this is not about him getting a movie deal, a Netflix deal, a book deal, or getting paid deal kind of thing. He's doing, you can definitely tell he's doing it because he feels that this is what is right. And I also sense that he really didn't want to. He didn't really want to go under camera. He didn't want to have to do that interview, but his life has turned upside down and everybody's wondering. And he's the one that has some of those, I need some of those questions answered for all of us. And I thought he did a great job. [00:32:03] Speaker 1: And something else that I think backs up what you just said is, you know, he first reached out to this guy named fugitive TV, this kind of like smaller YouTube, not a huge following a nice guy, by the way. I mean, I, I don't know him that well, but I started talking to him since this happened. And I thought that was interesting because if he was looking for a lot of attention, he could have gone right to Fox news. He could have gone to really anyone in the world. He could have gone to the biggest YouTuber ever. He could have gone to anybody. And he chose to talk to this guy that no one really knew who he was just because he liked the guy and trusted the guy. And I think probably listened to him before the trial, which I think, I think that backs up your point that he like, wasn't just looking for like fame. [00:32:47] Speaker 2: No, no. And I think that he had trust with this person. He likes what he had to say. And he probably was a regular listener to him. He said that if I'm going to to him, I'm going to, and you know, I give him a lot of credit. And, and also too, I want to really give a wonderful shout out to our African American community, because, you know, this was a black man that stood strong in a white panel jury. That's not easy. And I'm so glad to see that because it's so different. Like even I think Gail from CBS, right. She goes, well, I need to sit and I need to kind of sit on that for a minute because it's usually just sometimes the reverse, but I just so appreciate that. And I just love all of, you know, the African American community that is standing behind him. And because it said he was the one that, that he did what was right. Right. Even if it was a white woman on that jury, he did what was right. [00:33:46] Speaker 1: Yeah. I think Gail, I think Gail knew by the way, just so you know, I think she knew that it was a black juror when he asked that question. [00:33:56] Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, by the way she answered it, [00:33:57] Speaker 1: she was just like, Oh, you know, I think she knew because we all knew like that, that got word got out. We weren't reporting it, but word got out. I don't know who started it, but there was someone with a source and everybody was kind of telling each other, Oh, I heard it was Boston. [00:34:13] Speaker 2: I think it was Boston. Cause I think it was right next to, cause I was doing a hit. The camera was, it was NBC and it was right next to where there was a guy. I know who she was. And so when that everybody's was complaining about her, but you know, she was the one that told me and she was standing right there. [00:34:27] Speaker 1: And yeah, everybody knew. So I think Gail knew and that was just sort of planned. Like, Hey, get to this question and you'll find, and she'll tell you that it was, you know, I don't know, but that's just my personal opinion. [00:34:37] Speaker 2: But the thing is we get to see and hear a lot of things. Other people don't get to see. [00:34:41] Speaker 1: That's true. Well, thank you, Susan for your time as always. [00:34:45] Speaker 2: Oh, my pleasure. Always Brian. [00:34:47] Speaker 1: I'll see you soon. I hope. [00:34:48] Speaker 2: Okay. Bye. Bye. [00:34:49] Speaker 1: Really, really appreciate Susan Constantine for taking the time to talk with me. She's always very, very helpful. And it was super helpful that she was actually there during the trial with me. And she saw, I mean, we saw this juror, you know, before we knew who he was, obviously, while we were there covering it. Because when you're in the courtroom, even though they don't show the jurors on camera, when you're sitting there, you can see them, obviously. So in terms of the latest with the Lindsay Clancy case, there's a hearing that's supposed to happen on November 2nd. I'm planning to go back to Plymouth, Massachusetts for it. Lindsay Clancy's attorneys are asking a judge to allow witnesses to testify at that key hearing. And there has not been a decision made yet from what I've been able to see. And he says he wanted the defense. Reddington wants the hearing postponed until witnesses can testify. So if Sullivan denies the request for witnesses to testify, Reddington wants the hearing postponed. Remember this hearing, part of it is about them at Reddington wanting to go through the holdout juror cell phone and wanting to really do a probe into the jurors. And what kind of happened behind the scenes and allegations of, you know, using the phone and other things. So I'll keep you posted if the hearing actually happens. I'm actually in my rental car right now. I've been on the road all week this week for my News Nation stories. I'm in Des Moines, Iowa right now working on a story. And then I'm going to go home tomorrow and then I'll be on the road again next week. I've got a couple of interesting podcast episodes for you. So if I look a little tired, that's why. But I appreciate you guys for following along. As always, thank you so much for watching my videos. If you guys want to watch the full interview with the juror, you can, it's like pretty much everywhere now. I saw it on X. But that's the latest. So appreciate everybody. Appreciate Susan for taking the time to talk with me. I'll talk to you guys later.