On an exclusive episode of the Daily Mail's Trial USA podcast, brought to you by The Crime Desk, senior reporter Rachel Sharp sits down with misinformation expert Professor Michael Wagner to discuss the wave of conspiracy theories that engulfed the Lindsay Clancy trial.

Professor Wagner, director of the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Wisconsin Madison, specialises in how people form their beliefs from the information they encounter, and why some become hooked on conspiracy theories.

On Friday, Lindsay Clancy's murder trial collapsed after seven days of deliberation, with jurors unable to agree on whether she was criminally responsible for killing her three children.

Clancy never disputed strangling Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and eight-month-old Callan at the family home in Duxbury, Massachusetts. Her lawyers instead argued that she was in the grip of postpartum psychosis, and that she had spent months seeking help for her deteriorating mental health.

Despite a trial that turned almost entirely on the state of Clancy's mind, social media users spent five weeks building an alternative version of events, fixating on details as trivial as which shoes her ex-husband was wearing on the night the children died.

Professor Wagner told the podcast that this rush to find alternative explanations is primarily because people struggle to make sense of a mother killing her own children.

'So many people on Earth are parents and virtually all of those people love their children and cannot imagine doing something like this,' he said.

'When even the defence doesn't dispute that she killed her children, people are often inclined to think: well, how can that be? There must be some other explanation, because I cannot make cognitive sense of the fact that someone would do this willingly.

'This particular case really hits a conspiracy sweet spot, because it's something almost all of us can identify with in some way. Whereas election fraud or other kinds of political claims only really get excitability amongst people who really care about politics.

'This is something almost everybody intuitively understands.'

He added that while more contradictory information, including the evidence heard at trial, can sway some people, others simply double down.

Many baseless online theories centred around Clancy's ex-husband, Patrick, yet both surveillance footage and phone records proved he was not in the house at the time of the killings.

'People engage in what psychologists call motivated reasoning,' the professor explained.

'So, if I believe something, I am motivated to keep believing it. If you provide me evidence that I am wrong, I start to look for other evidence that can allow me to keep thinking what I already thought.

'You could imagine someone going through this internal monologue: 'Well, this mother is accused of killing their kids and I don't believe that. I know men are way more likely to commit acts of violence than women are. So, how could it be that the mother did it?'

'If someone is sure of something, evidence isn't enough. If facts were enough, more people would get their children vaccinated.'

Judge William Sullivan, who declared the mistrial, said he would like to retry the case later in the autumn, while Clancy's attorney Kevin Reddington has pushed for it to begin within weeks.

The decision rests with Plymouth District Attorney Tim Cruz, who said on Friday he would not be announcing it immediately.

Listen to this episode of Trial USA by subscribing to The Crime Desk. New subscribers gain access to exclusive podcast episodes, ad-free listening and much more.