While Lindsay Clancy is fighting murder charges in a Massachusetts courtroom, social media is exploding.

Armchair lawyers at home, forensic analysts, phsychiatrists and medical professionals have taken over, throwing in their two cents about the case. Not all of it is factual.

"I can't believe what I'm seeing on some of these TikToks that are out there and some of the dangerous and reckless theories that I'm seeing," said crime podcast host Annie Elise.

But those videos are the ones getting noticed. The likes and comments are all racking up.

Annie Elise hosts her own true crime podcast and Kathryn Coduto studies the intersection of true crime and media. Theyre both concerned some individual users are looking to fit a particular juicy narrative, just for clicks.

"People look at it as entertainment, and in the comments of all of these videos, whether it's an outlandish theory or not, I'm seeing 'grabbing the popcorn. Can't wait for court to start.' 'We're gonna have a watch party when Reddington's defense starts,' and I'm like, 'this is not entertainment. Three children lost their lives. You're losing the plot here,'" Elise said.

Scripps News' Alex Miller: Has this become a fandom?

Kathryn Coduto: I think, in a way, it has. I think that when you look at the case itself, it has these key characters that people are drawn to.

Coduto: As people have gotten interested in this story and really committed to it, the algorithms have figured that out. The algorithm is not making a determination about we're only going to show factual content.

RELATED NEWS | Women in pink rally in support of Lindsay Clancy, who is on trial for killing 3 children

And thats what can be confusing. Coduto says seeing controversial videos coupled with educational ones can make deciphering the truth even more difficult.

"On the one hand, you will watch a video and it's going to be a conspiracy theory about Patrick Clancy that is absolutely not based in fact, but then the next video might be someone talking about postpartum depression, which is really important to have conversations around," Coduto said. "And so I think that makes it really difficult for people to know as they're going through their feeds what's real, what's not. It's also really hard to know if someone is an expert. You know, they might hide behind a TikTok handle or an Instagram handle."

But it's not always the random person in a basement. Those with some experience are getting involved too. One of those so called experts was propelled into the case.

Emily Thorndike once worked at the psychiatric facility Clancy was treated at. She made a video about her time working there and made it to the stand before the judge ultimately denied the defense from using her as a witness.

"When you see a TikToker get called to the court, that opens an avenue for others to say, 'Well, this could be me,'" Coduto said.

And if the stand isnt the goal, being interviewed for an eventual true crime documentary might be.

"When people are sharing their theory or their evidence that they've come up with and their timeline that they're hopeful that they will somehow get embedded within the case itself," Elise said.

RELATED STORY | Psychologist testifies Lindsay Clancy was not criminally responsible in killing of her 3 children

But what are the ramifications for perpetuating something false or even disparaging about another person on Tiktok? Criminal defense attorney Seth Zuckerman says its not much.

"It's really hard to prove that someone did so made a knowingly false statement and that you're able able to track down these people to begin with," Zuckerman said.

Luigi Mangione pleaded guilty Friday to federal stalking charges in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.

In court, Mangione read a statement laying out the motive for the crime, saying he had suffered from severe back pain for years after breaking his back and had heard about others dealing with similar issues. He said that prompted him to research UnitedHealth Group's investor conference and pose as an investor so he could attend.

Mangione also appeared to take a dig at UnitedHealthcare, saying he received an invitation to the conference within an hour of reaching out about attending as an investor. He appeared to contrast that quick response with complaints from some patients about their experiences with the company.

During his statement, Mangione admitted to stalking Thompson before fatally shooting him on Dec. 4, 2024, as Thompson walked to a Midtown Manhattan hotel where UnitedHealth Group was holding the annual investor conference.

"With today's guilty plea, Mangione has taken full responsibility for the death of Brian Thompson," defense attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo said.

Mangione's plea agreement means he will not go to trial in the federal case in 2027, but still faces life in prison. The agreement could also have implications for his separate state murder case, which was scheduled to begin Sept. 8 due to a double jeopardy argument.

Friday's guilty plea marks a major turn in a case that has drawn national attention since Thompson's killing.

Mangione, now 28, was arrested at a McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania, five days after the shooting. A customer recognized him from images released by police.

Investigators said they found a gun and notebook that tied Mangione to Thompson's murder.

Mangione was later extradited to New York, where he faced separate state and federal prosecutions. He initially pleaded not guilty in both cases.

Public reaction to Mangione has been sharply divided. While the killing was widely condemned, Mangione also attracted a vocal group of supporters because of his apparent motive.

Ammunition recovered from the scene bore the words "delay," "deny" and "depose," an apparent reference to a phrase commonly used by critics to describe tactics they say insurers use to avoid paying claims.

Thompson started with UnitedHealth Group in 2004 and was promoted to CEO of UnitedHealthcare in 2021. During Thompsons time at the top of UnitedHealthcare, the companys rate of denials became a focus of investigators in the U.S. Senate. The Senate investigative report said UnitedHealthcares denials for post-acute care surged from 10.9% in 2020 to 22.7% in 2022.

UnitedHealth Group defended its denial rate in a news release after Thompsons death, saying the company approves and pays about 90 percent of medical claims.

A former U.S. Marine being held in Russia is reportedly on the brink of death, according to his family and advocates.

32-year-old Robert Gilman was detained in Russia in 2022. Gilmans representative tells Scripps News theyre concerned for his life after hes been in in what they call a dissociative stupor for 50 days as a result of abuse in prison. They say Gilman was moved from a prison hospital to a civilian one and is unable to interact, eat or drink. Hes currently being tube fed and has a high fever and blood pressure.

Gilmans mother flew to Russia to see him but was denied entry by hospital officials.

RELATED STORY | Senate approves Russia sanctions package backed by late Sen. Graham

Gilman was sentenced first to 4.5 years in prison for allegedly kicking an officer and has had his sentence extended twice first to more than 8 years and then again to 10 years.

His sister said in a statement I am more afraid for my brother than I have been since this horrible nightmare started.

Former FBI Assistant Director Kieran Ramsey is working on Gilmans case.

"It's not hyperbolic to say this family is living hour by hour, wondering if they're ever gonna see Robert again," Ramsey said. "So there's a big opportunity right now for the Russian government. They can either do the right thing, this will cost them nothing from a geopolitical perspective, this is not a concession in any way, this is simply a life-saving medical evacuation for this former Marine."

The State Department says it is deeply concerned about Gilmans health and has raised his case repeatedly with the Russian government and has requested his release on humanitarian grounds.

Gilman is not currently classified as wrongfully detained, which affects how negotiations with Russia proceed. There are currently eight Americans in Russian custody, only one of them considered wrongly detained.

Scripps News has learned the New Mexico Department of Justice has filed a 40-page lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice, accusing the agency of failing to comply with repeated records requests related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The lawsuit asks a judge to order the federal government to turn over unredacted investigative files that New Mexico officials say were promised years ago but never delivered.

The state is seeking documents tied to investigations into Epstein, his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, his Zorro Ranch in New Mexico and any alleged co-conspirators.

RELATED STORY | Epstein probe in New Mexico could expose high-profile names

New Mexico Attorney General Ral Torrez said he has made repeated requests for the records since taking over the investigation earlier this year. According to the lawsuit, the records contain evidence of alleged abuse that occurred in New Mexico and are necessary for the state to continue its own investigation.

The U.S. Department of Justice has argued Torrez's requests are overly broad and has cited privacy concerns and ongoing investigations as reasons for withholding the records. The New Mexico Department of Justice disputes those claims, arguing Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has made clear the department is not conducting any active investigations into the matter.

RELATED STORY | Former New Mexico AG says he was told to stand down in Epstein ranch probe

Former New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas on latest Epstein suit

The lawsuit also revives a yearslong dispute over records related to the case. Scripps News previously reported that then-New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas opened a state investigation in 2019 but agreed to defer to the federal government after being told the records would eventually be turned over so New Mexico could conduct its own investigation. Balderas has said that never happened.

Speaking to Scripps News after the lawsuit was filed, Balderas said he supports the legal challenge and believes federal authorities should honor what he describes as a longstanding agreement to share evidence between law enforcement agencies. He argued the records could help identify potential co-conspirators beyond Epstein and Maxwell.