Once again, the misinformed charlatan and FBI alumnus is peddling online nonsense as she begs people to "report" witness intimidation related to a Clancy juror. She smears (defames?) unnamed lawyers by claiming that while in court they worked to publicly identify jurors. Who, ma'am? What lawyers? Why not name them? What an irresponsible and outrageous thing to say. As far as her (non) expert opinion on what constitutes witness intimidation, there is no world in which @SueOC_NBCBoston , @DoctorTurtleboy or anybody else committed a crime by reporting about the juror's background, all information of which they received from sources and public records. The information is "newsworthy" in the sense that there is an open question as to whether a holdout who has been accused by others of ignoring the law...ignored the law in his juror questionnaire. It is irresponsible for this "expert" with a large following to casually throw out a "5 step analysis" alleging witness intimidation when she knows (or should know) that the statute requires intent to cause emotional harm or to harass the juror while also intending (or with reckless disregard for the fact) that it will somehow interfere with a trial in which a mistrial occurred because the juror disagreed with the rest, which is normal. There is no world in which any of the reports about the juror constitute a crime in Massachusetts. Having said that, it is entirely fair to criticize the reporters for publishing the information about the juror. Many valid points against publishing about the juror have been raised. Some have questioned why the reporters haven't dug into other jurors. Fair question. I imagine the reporters would cite the newsworthiness surrounding the holdout given the other jurors' claims. People should ask the reporters, who may or may not answer. They have to deal with professional consequences, if any, from that fallout. But if publishing information about the holdout juror was a journalistic decision, grounded in what the reporters deemed newsworthy, it is not witness intimidation under the Massachusetts statute, notwithstanding what a non-expert who exploits past employment at the FBI tells her large amount of followers.