The Lindsay Clancy case produced two very different trials. One unfolded inside a courtroom, where jurors heard weeks of testimony about psychiatric treatment, medications, digital searches, expert disagreement and the events surrounding the deaths of three children. The other unfolded online, where selected clips, headlines and repeated claims often became substitutes for the complete evidentiary record. While following the trial, I became increasingly frustrated by the distance between what was actually being presented in court and what people confidently claimed the evidence showed. Important details disappeared from public discussion, speculation became accepted as fact and every new fragment was quickly …