Andrew Will, Esq.
Region: US
Thursday 10 September 2026 01:50:01 GMT
14853
1356
171
31
Music
Download
Comments
TeamPluto :
Great video. I like Reb but she missed big time
2026-09-10 11:20:18
224
glowaboutyou :
I’m not a lawyer but that creator seems to be arguing a technicality for some asinine reason. I completely agree that most lawyers I’ve seen comment on this case have clearly expressed while it’s a *possbility* it was highly highly unlikely given ✨common sense✨
2026-09-10 12:34:29
122
DANISHA CARTER :
yep
2026-09-10 15:21:17
46
Rebeca Brown Gurgel :
Oh so she’s not the only lawyer that understands law? Lol I like Reb but you can get very arrogant acting as if she’s like the keeper of the truth
2026-09-10 21:51:14
10
Destiny Baker-Davids :
Not a lawyer, and not a conspiracy theorist, and after reflecting on all of this, I can see that some of the content creators that knew a straight not guilty and NGRI were both an option, but never really differentiated between the 2. They keep saying Not Guilty and expecting the audience to know that what they meant was NGRI. Intentionally vague so the audience forms different conclusions. Then they come back and act like everyone is crazy because "I didn't say that". It's gross. It's bullying.
2026-09-10 10:45:50
53
cinder_and_ash :
while her statements were technically correct for all intents and purposes she was practically incorrect and gives the vibe of hoping for a not guilty verdict.
2026-09-10 03:11:59
191
Joseph M. Pinkerton :
I commented on her post the exact same thing. it's legal jargon at best. in every criminal case not guilty is a requirement that can't be taken away. but stipulating that a ton of evidence was handled, collected, and tested properly, kinda makes it hard to say the results aren't correct. if you hire a contractor to build a house, and you agree that the materials were collected, handled and used correctly, you also can't say it's not a house. because if it wasn't a house or had some major error, the materials wouldn't have been used correctly. with the stipulation and the uncontested physical evidence, that's what the jury had. they don't have other evidence so of course the only conclusion would be that she killed her kids. so while she didn't "admit" to it, the only logical outcome is the jury was going to find she did. it's like pleading no contest, you are not contesting the evidence against you but you are not admitting guilt, 99.9% of time you are found guilty because it's the only outcome. these lawyers on their legal technicality reminds me of the fedora "actually" people. there was always a near 0% chance of an unconditional aquittal and a lay person is just using language they know. the results are the same. it's exhausting.
2026-09-10 02:39:18
74
Lifestyle with Lexi 🦋 :
What you are fundamentally incorrect about is that it wasn't a small amount of people that didnt understand they had to prove she committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt as well. A LOT of people were misinformed regarding the early motion and outcome and were repeating that misinformation. Watching Reb's content she's really a big advocate for holding the prosecution to the highest standard regardless of the case. I honestly think you are misinterpreting her passion for wanting to hold the Prosecutions feet to the fire for her actually being invested in Lindsey Clancy personally going free. An 11-1 for NGRI is not a good showing for the Prosecution.
2026-09-10 02:39:57
30
Hayley Frye147 :
It reminds me of the scene from Dumb and Dumber where he says “So your telling me there’s a chance” 🤣
2026-09-10 11:46:51
36
The Weed Out Podcast :
she has 2.1 million followers and an expert at meme-ing. she knew what she was doing to farm engagement
2026-09-10 10:32:23
101
heymisshoney :
I also commented on her post because I was so confused. What would have been the point of the defense’s argument if not guilty was a truly viable option?
2026-09-10 12:43:47
39
mdg650hawk :
I’m a recently retired trial attorney of 28 years. Excellent video. I’ve been called every name in the book by Lindsay’s fanbase and more creators than I can count over the last couple weeks. It’s been super fun.
2026-09-10 05:12:47
54
Aroserudd :
I’m less than 30 seconds in and you’re already using comments as examples while actively misrepresenting what the comments actually say? This doesn’t help address my previous criticism, further supports it. Swarms of people have said from the beginning of this trial that a NG verdict is literally impossible due to Lindsay accepting legal responsibility. That is false information. Pointing out that this is false does not mean that they are pushing for a NG verdict or think that it’s likely. Pointing out that the case is complicated isn’t advocating for one side or the other. Pointing out weakness in the prosecutions presentation of the evidence for first-degree murder isn’t either.
2026-09-10 03:08:30
14
4_lap90 :
Feels like relentlessly explaining the existence of a legally available option is being used as a way to justify the possibility of their desired verdict of not guilty.
2026-09-10 04:18:43
49
kdmmotion :
Esp when the ppl who watched her vid were going around and spreading fallacies and calling anyone who said different out their name
2026-09-10 02:30:41
20
Okidokitokidoki :
I saw these people call lawyers who were very clearly explaining what you just did incompetent. Even other lawyers! Just because you want it to be correct, it doesn’t make it so
2026-09-11 02:34:53
0
Sarah :
Thank yoooouuu For making this video. The discourse over this has made me feel like an insane person. Why would any jury find her completely not guilty when her own defense team has been saying the entire trial that she did it?
2026-09-10 17:26:08
22
a_glade_plugin :
I never understood Reb's comments to the effect of probability. It was always in the light of what's legally possible. People with knowledge of the law may interpret it as probability because of their base understanding of not guilty always being an option would make a statement to that effect feel like "no duh..." But it very much came across as a counter specifically to those who were saying it was off the table full stop.
2026-09-10 14:23:57
5
Rashad Johnson :
Big Reb fan but from one lawyer to another, i think you’re correct
2026-09-10 18:37:43
5
Mike Esq :
is there any credible evidence or indication that a literal "not guilty"/full acquittal (i.e. defendant goes free), despite being "on the table", was seriously considered by this jury?
2026-09-10 02:47:26
12
MonkeyDogDelmer’s Mom :
I was perplexed by Reb’s videos
2026-09-10 16:41:47
5
Kenny_Dreadfuls :
It was always an option, that would become less viable as the evidence comes out and is not contested. Statements by the lawyers are not evidence, but words have meaning and provide the framework for how to process the evidence.
2026-09-10 06:00:32
9
Jarradwiththeshits🤬 :
Common sense doesn't exist on the Internet unfortunately.
2026-09-10 10:00:11
7
bri.anne.e :
I think there’s a way to acknowledge the legal misconceptions people have and the practical realities of the trial, she just wasn’t doing that. LiterallyHistoric has struck a pretty good balance of it I think.
2026-09-10 11:23:48
6
delfadoodledoo :
like ya NG was on the form but nothing that was brought up in opening, evidence, or closing ever even made mention of it. in fact, it was quite the opposite.
2026-09-10 06:14:22
7
To see more videos from user @andrew.will.esq, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
