#90. Why Evidence Wasn't Enough for the Lindsay Clancy Jurors

In this episode, I look at the Lindsay Clancy juror interviews and the psychology behind how the jury processed the case. Why did evidence of psychosis seem less important than the belief that Lindsay was a loving mother? Why did the holdout juror become the problem? And what do the interviews reveal about conformity, cognitive dissonance, the motherhood halo effect, and female group dynamics? I also explain what I think the prosecution was really fighting against, why simply presenting more evidence was unlikely to solve that problem, and how the holdout juror might have persuaded the female jurors differently by understanding the social and emotional dynamics in the room.