Latest / The Matt Walsh Show / The Lindsay Clancy Case Isn’t A Who-Dun-It. Why Are TikTok Moms Pretending It Is

Transcript

The Lindsay Clancy Case Isn’t A Who-Dun-It. Why Are TikTok Moms Pretending It Is · The Matt Walsh Show

0:00
Speaker 1: Today we're going to discuss one of the most horrifying
0:02
Speaker 1: murder cases in memory, and we don't often cover murder
0:05
Speaker 1: cases on the show unless the case has political implications
0:08
Speaker 1: of some kind. Outside of those kinds of cases, this
0:11
Speaker 1: is not a true crime podcast, and this murder case
0:15
Speaker 1: in particular is so awful, so dark, so totally unthinkable
0:20
Speaker 1: and ghastly that, frankly, I don't like to think about
0:23
Speaker 1: it and would therefore prefer not to talk about it.
0:26
Speaker 1: Yet the case does have implications, not merely political, but
0:29
Speaker 1: deeper than that. The murder itself, the reaction to it,
0:32
Speaker 1: the commentary on it, the defense that's being argued in court,
0:36
Speaker 1: all say something and something quite troubling about our culture.
0:40
Speaker 1: And that's why I've decided to spend at least one
0:42
Speaker 1: episode of the show discussing it. So Lindsay Clancy is
0:46
Speaker 1: a former.
0:47
Speaker 2: Labor and delivery nurse.
0:48
Speaker 1: Back in January of 2023, she sent her husband, Patrick,
0:51
Speaker 1: out of the house to run an errand at CVS
0:53
Speaker 1: and pick up food. With Patrick out of the way,
0:56
Speaker 1: Clancy took her young children, Cora, age five, Dawson, age three,
1:00
Speaker 1: and Callan, eight months, into the basement, where she methodically
1:04
Speaker 1: strangled them each to death with exercise bands. Clancy then
1:10
Speaker 1: slashed her wrists and jumped out of a second-story window,
1:13
Speaker 1: sustaining serious injuries that left her paralyzed from the waist down.
1:17
Speaker 1: When her husband arrived, she told him the kids were
1:19
Speaker 1: in the basement. He ran downstairs to find them all dead.
1:23
Speaker 1: And later, according to her husband, Lindsay claimed that she
1:25
Speaker 1: had heard a voice commanding her to kill the children
1:28
Speaker 1: and then herself. Now, despite what the wannabe Nancy Drews
1:33
Speaker 1: are saying on TikTok, this is not exactly a whodunit.
1:38
Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy confessed to the crime. Her guilt is self-evident.
1:42
Speaker 1: And her attorneys in front of the jury said, aren't
1:45
Speaker 1: even attempting to argue that she didn't commit the crime.
1:48
Speaker 1: They've stipulated to all of the forensic evidence, which means
1:51
Speaker 1: they formally agree that all the evidence is real and
1:54
Speaker 1: legitimate and valid. Again, they are not trying to argue
1:57
Speaker 1: that she didn't do it.
1:59
Speaker 2: She did it.
2:00
Speaker 1: That is not being disputed by any rational person, though
2:03
Speaker 1: it is being disputed by plenty of irrational people, as.
2:06
Speaker 2: We will see.
2:07
Speaker 1: Instead, the case is about whether Lindsay Clancy qualifies as
2:10
Speaker 1: not guilty by reason of insanity. specifically by reason of
2:14
Speaker 1: postpartum psychosis exacerbated by the medications that she was taking.
2:19
Speaker 1: This is a defense that should not exist as a
2:22
Speaker 1: matter of law. Once a woman brutally murders her own children,
2:26
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter what a therapist says about why she
2:29
Speaker 1: did it. It doesn't matter how she felt. It doesn't
2:32
Speaker 1: matter if she was sad or anxious or indeed insane.
2:36
Speaker 1: She should be removed from society permanently as a matter
2:40
Speaker 1: of justice. If her defense is that she's so crazy
2:43
Speaker 1: that she just can't help herself, that she had no
2:46
Speaker 1: choice but to strangle her own children to death, then
2:49
Speaker 1: that's all the more reason to remove her from society permanently.
2:53
Speaker 1: It should not be controversial to say that a person
2:55
Speaker 1: who methodically executes three children, strangling each to death while
3:00
Speaker 1: the others watch in horror, is a person who must
3:04
Speaker 1: be punished to the fullest extent of the law, crazy
3:07
Speaker 1: or not, on medication or not. There are some things
3:11
Speaker 1: that you can do in life that, once they've been done,
3:15
Speaker 1: preclude you from ever walking free again. These are actions
3:20
Speaker 1: that cry out to heaven for vengeance. Justice must be done.
3:25
Speaker 1: Punishment must be given. And if murdering three children, your
3:29
Speaker 1: own young, helpless children, does not qualify as one of
3:33
Speaker 1: those sorts of actions, if it does not call for
3:36
Speaker 1: the most severe punishment, then nothing does.
3:41
Speaker 2: We should note that a successful.
3:44
Speaker 1: Insanity plea in the state of Massachusetts does not at
3:47
Speaker 1: all mean necessarily that the person who was found not
3:50
Speaker 1: guilty by reason of insanity will spend the rest of
3:54
Speaker 1: their life in a mental institution. You'll often hear people
3:57
Speaker 1: claim that there's no reason to get upset when a
4:00
Speaker 1: murderer is found not guilty by reason of insanity because
4:03
Speaker 1: they'll still be locked up in an institution for life.
4:06
Speaker 2: But that's not true.
4:08
Speaker 1: There's a reason defendants try for the insanity defense. The
4:11
Speaker 1: fate of a person found not guilty on that basis
4:14
Speaker 1: is considerably more favorable than one who is found guilty. Now,
4:19
Speaker 1: if we were still living in the 1940s, when the
4:21
Speaker 1: criminally insane were committed for life to insane asylums, which
4:25
Speaker 1: were institutions often more punishing and nightmarish than actual prisons,
4:29
Speaker 1: then I might feel differently, but we're not in the
4:32
Speaker 1: 1940s anymore. If Clancy's insanity defense is successful, She will
4:37
Speaker 1: be placed in a mental health institution indefinitely, but not
4:40
Speaker 1: necessarily permanently. And the state will have to petition every
4:44
Speaker 1: single year to keep her there. Every year, they will
4:47
Speaker 1: have to prove that she is still mentally ill and
4:50
Speaker 1: a risk to society. If they can't prove it, or
4:54
Speaker 1: if they decline to petition in the first place, then
4:57
Speaker 1: she will, in fact, be released back into society.
5:00
Speaker 2: That happens all the time.
5:03
Speaker 1: And there's a very high chance that it would happen
5:05
Speaker 1: with Lindsay Clancy. The only way to permanently remove this
5:09
Speaker 1: woman who, again, murdered three children from society is to
5:14
Speaker 1: find her guilty of murder in the first degree and
5:16
Speaker 1: put her into prison.
5:18
Speaker 2: For life with no parole or execute her.
5:22
Speaker 1: The entire concept of an insanity defense, as I've argued before,
5:26
Speaker 1: is completely nonsensical and antithetical to the basic notions of
5:29
Speaker 1: justice and fairness, not to mention common sense. And that
5:33
Speaker 1: is particularly true In this context, watch.
5:38
Speaker 3: A Massachusetts mother is facing murder charges in the strangulation
5:42
Speaker 3: deaths of her three young children.
5:43
Speaker 4: This was a woman who acted intentionally, rationally and swiftly
5:49
Speaker 4: to accomplish a very specific goal.
5:52
Speaker 3: After the alleged killings, Clancy cut her wrists and neck
5:55
Speaker 3: and jumped out of a second story window. leaving her paralyzed.
5:58
Speaker 3: The defense argues Clancy lacks criminal responsibility, also known as
6:02
Speaker 3: the insanity defense, because she was suffering from postpartum depression
6:05
Speaker 3: and psychosis. Her then husband testified she had been treated
6:09
Speaker 3: multiple times for her mental health, including for suicidal thoughts.
6:13
Speaker 3: She had been prescribed more than a dozen different medications
6:16
Speaker 3: by various providers and was also admitted to a hospital
6:19
Speaker 3: for postpartum depression. But what is postpartum psychosis?
6:23
Speaker 5: It often is characterized by periods of of confusion or disorientation.
6:29
Speaker 5: It can be characterized by an increased energy racing thought and.
6:33
Speaker 6: Often is characterized by sleep disturbance.
6:36
Speaker 7: Then a woman often.
6:37
Speaker 5: Begins to have what we call psychotic symptoms. And those
6:42
Speaker 5: are when a woman has a kind of what we
6:43
Speaker 5: call a break from reality, sees things that aren't there.
6:47
Speaker 6: It's hard to diagnose and treat.
6:48
Speaker 5: Because it's an uncommon condition.
6:51
Speaker 6: That does not present in the same way every time.
6:55
Speaker 6: And we do not have a definitive lab test or
6:58
Speaker 6: MRI or brain test that tells doctors they do or
7:02
Speaker 6: do not have that condition. If a mother is saying
7:06
Speaker 6: she's not feeling right or the family's noticing that she's struggling,
7:11
Speaker 6: I would suggest reaching out for more information.
7:16
Speaker 1: So, quote, if a mother says she's not feeling right
7:18
Speaker 1: or if she's struggling, then that might mean that she
7:21
Speaker 1: has postpartum depression or even postpartum psychosis. And other symptoms
7:26
Speaker 1: to look out for include confusion, disorientation, increased energy, racing
7:30
Speaker 1: thoughts and sleep disturbance, which incidentally are all symptoms that
7:34
Speaker 1: every human has at some point in their life, particularly
7:37
Speaker 1: when they're in a stressful situation. There's no lab tests
7:41
Speaker 1: for this disorder, and the diagnostic criteria are so broad
7:44
Speaker 1: that they could apply to about 95% of the population
7:47
Speaker 1: at some point or another. Nevertheless, postpartum psychosis is currently
7:51
Speaker 1: a viable defense to first-degree murder, and we're all supposed
7:55
Speaker 1: to take it seriously as a defense. Now, to be clear,
7:57
Speaker 1: I'm not denying that postpartum psychosis can occur. Sometimes people
8:01
Speaker 1: do hallucinate for one reason or another. Certainly, postpartum depression
8:05
Speaker 1: is a real phenomenon. But even if you're fully on
8:08
Speaker 1: board with the idea that some women can develop this
8:11
Speaker 1: psychosis because their hormones get out of whack, the idea
8:15
Speaker 1: that it completely removes all agency, that they are not
8:19
Speaker 1: responsible at all for anything they do, up to and
8:22
Speaker 1: including slaughtering three humans, is ludicrous. Remember that Clancy sent
8:27
Speaker 1: her husband out of the house so that she could
8:30
Speaker 1: murder her kids. Remember that she murdered them with exercise bands,
8:34
Speaker 1: one at a time. Remember that she brought them to
8:37
Speaker 1: the basement so they could be killed. This was not
8:41
Speaker 1: a sudden explosion of violence in the heat of the moment. Now,
8:44
Speaker 1: even if it were, she should still rot in prison
8:46
Speaker 1: forever at a minimum. But it wasn't that. Instead, this
8:50
Speaker 1: was a planned, organized, systematic execution of her children. There's
8:57
Speaker 1: a long history of women murdering their children and then
9:00
Speaker 1: being found not guilty by reason of insanity. Women who
9:04
Speaker 1: murder their own children are especially likely to play this
9:07
Speaker 1: get out of jail free card. And it's especially likely
9:11
Speaker 1: that it will be successful. Most people will recall the
9:14
Speaker 1: Andrea Yates case 20 years ago. She drowned all five
9:19
Speaker 1: of her kids in a bathtub. And she was initially
9:22
Speaker 1: convicted of capital murder, but an appeals court a few
9:25
Speaker 1: years later threw out the conviction. And then she was retried.
9:29
Speaker 1: And then she was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Now, today,
9:34
Speaker 1: Andrea Yates, after having murdered five children, spends her days
9:40
Speaker 1: in a low-security mental health facility with no bars on
9:43
Speaker 1: the windows or razor wire fencing or armed guards. And
9:47
Speaker 1: the only reason she's still there and not walking free
9:49
Speaker 1: is that she wants to be there. This is the
9:53
Speaker 1: generosity and kindness the criminal justice system tends to show
9:56
Speaker 1: women who murder their kids. And it's why statistics women
10:00
Speaker 1: who plead insanity are much more likely to be successful
10:04
Speaker 1: than men who enter that plea. In fact, a woman
10:07
Speaker 1: who pleads insanity is 50 percent more likely to be.
10:11
Speaker 2: Found not guilty. Now, there are plenty of recent examples, too.
10:16
Speaker 1: Just a few months ago, or just really a month ago,
10:19
Speaker 1: as we discussed at the time, a black woman in
10:20
Speaker 1: Miami was found not guilty of drowning her 15-month-old daughter
10:25
Speaker 1: and stabbing her husband because COVID made her do it. Yes,
10:28
Speaker 1: COVID supposedly forced this woman to slaughter her 15-month-old child,
10:32
Speaker 1: never mind the fact that she was upset about her
10:34
Speaker 1: husband's alleged infidelity.
10:36
Speaker 2: That had nothing to do with it. COVID was responsible.
10:40
Speaker 8: Watch.
10:41
Speaker 9: Tears filled the courtroom as the mother who admitted to
10:44
Speaker 9: killing her baby daughter was found not guilty by reason
10:48
Speaker 9: of insanity following a two-day bench trial.
10:52
Speaker 10: As to count one aggravated manslaughter, the defendant is not
10:54
Speaker 10: guilty by reason of insanity. As to count two attempted
10:58
Speaker 10: murder in the first degree, the defendant is not guilty
11:00
Speaker 10: by reason of insanity. And as to count three attempted
11:04
Speaker 10: murder in the first degree, the defendant is not guilty
11:06
Speaker 10: by reason of insanity.
11:07
Speaker 9: Her lawyers argued Bland was overcome by the voices in
11:10
Speaker 9: her head and had a COVID-induced psychotic break.
11:15
Speaker 11: There's so much that we don't know about COVID, and
11:17
Speaker 11: this was one of the first cases in the country
11:22
Speaker 11: to go to trial on COVID being in the defense
11:25
Speaker 11: to murder.
11:26
Speaker 9: Bland spent three and a half years behind bars before
11:29
Speaker 9: being released about a year ago. Now, after a judge
11:32
Speaker 9: cleared her of criminal responsibility in her daughter's death, she
11:36
Speaker 9: says she's focused on moving forward.
11:41
Speaker 1: Now, if you ever have difficulty convincing somebody that the
11:43
Speaker 1: insanity defense should be abolished, just show them this clip.
11:48
Speaker 1: Judges are letting murderers out of prison because they had COVID.
11:52
Speaker 1: It's so utterly insane, speaking of insanity, that you have
11:56
Speaker 1: to give them credit for creativity, at least, I guess.
11:58
Speaker 1: And as long as the insanity defense exists, it's the
12:02
Speaker 1: perfect loophole if you want to legalize post-birth abortions. just
12:06
Speaker 1: bury the jury in nonsense, give it an air of legitimacy,
12:09
Speaker 1: bring in some psychiatrists to say a bunch of nonsense,
12:14
Speaker 1: a bunch of pseudo-scientific nonsense, and hope they acquit.
12:16
Speaker 2: That's the strategy.
12:17
Speaker 1: And that's exactly what we're seeing right now with the
12:21
Speaker 1: Clancy case. Virtually all of the testimony to this point
12:24
Speaker 1: has been a morass of meaningless back and forth about
12:28
Speaker 1: the precise psychological symptoms that Clancy was demonstrating or not demonstrating.
12:33
Speaker 1: When she spoke to her doctor, take a look at
12:35
Speaker 1: this heated interaction on cross-examination between the defense attorney and
12:39
Speaker 1: Jennifer Tufts, who was one of Clancy's psychiatrists. We're going
12:43
Speaker 1: to try to get through this together because it illustrates
12:45
Speaker 1: exactly what this whole trial is really about.
12:48
Speaker 2: Watch.
12:49
Speaker 7: Did she call Suicide Hotline?
12:52
Speaker 12: I was not aware that she did.
12:54
Speaker 7: Did you ever ask her?
12:57
Speaker 12: I don't think I specifically asked that question.
13:00
Speaker 7: No, not specifically. Did you ask her anything? Did you
13:02
Speaker 7: beat around the bush? Maybe you asked her anything about
13:04
Speaker 7: suicide hotlines?
13:07
Speaker 12: I don't think I asked her about suicide hotlines.
13:10
Speaker 8: Would it surprise you to know that she called suicide
13:13
Speaker 8: hotline in that time frame not once, but.
13:17
Speaker 13: Twice, and was turned away? You guys were in the
13:21
Speaker 13: front line of this, aren't.
13:24
Speaker 14: You?
13:24
Speaker 7: That's not true.
13:25
Speaker 1: Hold on.
13:29
Speaker 12: It does surprise me, yes. Not hyper pressured speech.
13:33
Speaker 4: What was that?
13:34
Speaker 13: Not hyper what?
13:35
Speaker 14: Not hyper, not pressured speech is what I meant. I
13:38
Speaker 14: know it doesn't say not, but that is exactly what
13:40
Speaker 14: I meant.
13:41
Speaker 8: When did you see this that you noticed that it
13:43
Speaker 8: did not say not?
13:45
Speaker 12: I don't care what it says. I know what I meant.
13:49
Speaker 8: Well, when you wrote this, you did not say not
13:53
Speaker 8: pressured speech.
13:54
Speaker 13: You said in the medical record, pressured speech, right?
13:59
Speaker 15: No.
14:00
Speaker 13: Does it say that?
14:03
Speaker 14: Yeah, the word not is right before not hyper comma
14:07
Speaker 14: pressured speech. The two are following the not.
14:11
Speaker 8: When you put down in a medical record heart racing
14:14
Speaker 8: comma severe anxiety comma worried about kids comma baby comma
14:19
Speaker 8: sleep comma yawns but not drowsy period not hyper comma
14:26
Speaker 8: pressured speech That's what you.
14:28
Speaker 13: Wrote, right?
14:29
Speaker 12: She did not have pressured speech.
14:31
Speaker 13: Did you write that, doctor?
14:32
Speaker 14: I wrote that, but you're misinterpreting my note.
14:34
Speaker 8: Am I reading this correctly, and the jury will be
14:37
Speaker 8: able to look at it, that you put not hyper, comma,
14:44
Speaker 8: pressured speech.
14:45
Speaker 13: Did I read that right?
14:49
Speaker 12: Yes, but your interpretation is incorrect.
14:54
Speaker 1: Well, it's all pretty mind-numbing. Inane does not begin to
14:56
Speaker 1: describe this from both directions. There's precisely zero relevant information
15:01
Speaker 1: being disclosed to the jury in this testimony or in, indeed,
15:04
Speaker 1: much of the testimony in this trial.
15:05
Speaker 2: It's all theater.
15:07
Speaker 1: Did the doctor write in her notes that Clancy had
15:10
Speaker 1: pressured speech or not pressured speech?
15:13
Speaker 2: Was there supposed to be a comma there or not?
15:16
Speaker 2: Does any of this matter?
15:18
Speaker 1: And pressured speech, by the way, I think means like
15:20
Speaker 1: someone who's sort of frantic and hyper and talking a lot.
15:23
Speaker 1: like talking fast, talking a lot. There are a lot
15:27
Speaker 1: of people I would describe that way. There are podcast
15:30
Speaker 1: hosts who, if they walked into a shrink's office, would
15:32
Speaker 1: get a diagnosis immediately of pressured speech.
15:35
Speaker 2: The distinction doesn't matter.
15:37
Speaker 1: And that's especially true in this case when the doctor
15:40
Speaker 1: is telling the lawyer how to interpret the note based
15:42
Speaker 1: on her observations. But I guess we're supposed to conclude
15:44
Speaker 1: that this is some kind of gotcha moment because everybody's
15:46
Speaker 1: supposed to pretend that pressured speech is an actual clue,
15:49
Speaker 1: like finding fingerprints on a murder weapon.
15:52
Speaker 2: It's ludicrous.
15:54
Speaker 1: The field of psychiatry has been allowed to fester unabated
15:57
Speaker 1: for decades without anybody telling these shrinks to get a
15:59
Speaker 1: real job, as they just make stuff up constantly, and.
16:03
Speaker 2: This is the result.
16:04
Speaker 1: The more relevant testimony concerned Clancy's response to taking the
16:08
Speaker 1: SSRI known as Zoloft when the doctor prescribed it.
16:12
Speaker 7: Watch. So when did she actually take the Zoloft?
16:29
Speaker 14: She told me in her October 20th visit that she
16:34
Speaker 14: had taken it one week prior.
16:35
Speaker 8: And she told you that when she increased it in
16:38
Speaker 8: accordance with your instructions, she went off the rails, right?
16:42
Speaker 12: I don't think she used those words, but she had
16:46
Speaker 12: said that.
16:47
Speaker 7: What words did she use for you as her doctor?
16:51
Speaker 12: She felt awful.
16:52
Speaker 14: Awful.
16:53
Speaker 7: Why did she feel awful? Did she have a stomach ache?
16:56
Speaker 7: Did she have a headache? Why did she feel awful?
16:59
Speaker 12: She did have some stomach aches.
17:01
Speaker 14: She had some diarrhea and had a difficult time eating.
17:06
Speaker 14: She also had increased anxiety. She had some more depressed feelings.
17:13
Speaker 14: She had more difficulty sleeping.
17:18
Speaker 8: And what was your advice to her as her doctor
17:20
Speaker 8: on the 28th of October after she told you about
17:24
Speaker 8: the effect the Zoloft had on her?
17:26
Speaker 12: I told her to stop it. Stop the medication.
17:31
Speaker 1: Well, this, by the way, is a common experience for women,
17:33
Speaker 1: particularly with careers like Clancy. To a staggering degree, women
17:37
Speaker 1: are being prescribed SSRIs as a first line of defense
17:40
Speaker 1: against any problems they might be dealing with. And the
17:43
Speaker 1: results have not been good, to put it mildly. This
17:46
Speaker 1: is from the Institute for Family Studies. Quote, stay-at-home mothers
17:49
Speaker 1: are less likely to have experienced a major depressive episode,
17:51
Speaker 1: about two-thirds as likely, in fact, than women who are
17:54
Speaker 1: not stay-at-home moms. 32% of stay-at-home mothers have taken a
17:57
Speaker 1: psychotherapeutic medication in the past year. while 38% of non-state-home
18:01
Speaker 1: mothers have. By far, women who are not state-home mothers
18:05
Speaker 1: are the most copious users of prescription pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants,
18:11
Speaker 1: or sedatives. So to restate, 32% of state-home moms and
18:16
Speaker 1: 38% of working moms are on psychiatric meds. A third
18:21
Speaker 1: of all moms, working or not, are on some kind
18:24
Speaker 1: of psychotropic drug. That is nothing short of cataclysmic. Big
18:30
Speaker 1: pharma and the psychiatric industry are turning the whole country
18:33
Speaker 1: into drug addicts, and nobody's doing anything about it. And
18:36
Speaker 1: the numbers are nearly as bad for men when you
18:40
Speaker 1: look at that. As a side note, one thing to
18:43
Speaker 1: keep in mind when you see reports about alcohol use
18:45
Speaker 1: declining is not only that lots of people have swapped
18:49
Speaker 1: booze for weed, but also many more people are using
18:51
Speaker 1: psychiatric meds to calm themselves down and handle stress at.
18:56
Speaker 2: The end of the day.
18:56
Speaker 1: We are not in any way even remotely a more
19:00
Speaker 1: sober society today than we were back when everybody was
19:03
Speaker 1: drinking booze. We traded one substance for myriad other substances
19:08
Speaker 1: that mess with your mind much more deeply and in
19:11
Speaker 1: ways that we don't even understand. And what's even more
19:14
Speaker 1: extraordinary about these numbers is that the doctors prescribing these
19:17
Speaker 1: psychoactive medications have no idea how the drugs work. Here's
19:23
Speaker 1: more testimony from Clancy's psychiatrist, for example.
19:28
Speaker 7: Would you agree with me.
19:29
Speaker 8: That prior to telling her to stop the Zoloft, that
19:33
Speaker 8: one of the concerns that we had is that Zoloft
19:35
Speaker 8: affects anxiety and affects sleep, and you hope that it
19:39
Speaker 8: treats the underlying anxiety by balancing brain chemistry and increasing serotonin, right?
19:46
Speaker 13: Yes.
19:46
Speaker 7: Is that fair? And you'd agree?
19:50
Speaker 8: With me that it does, as a side effect, have
19:52
Speaker 8: an impact on a person's falling.
19:55
Speaker 7: Asleep or staying asleep, as a common side effect, right?
20:00
Speaker 12: It can happen.
20:01
Speaker 14: It doesn't happen to everyone, but it certainly happens to some.
20:05
Speaker 14: But it is temporary. That's the important distinction.
20:11
Speaker 1: So she stated on the stand that she was prescribing
20:13
Speaker 1: SSRIs to correct the serotonin imbalance that she believed was
20:17
Speaker 1: taking place in Clancy's brain. There's just one problem, and
20:20
Speaker 1: it's a pretty big one. As we discussed many times
20:22
Speaker 1: on the show, the serotonin imbalance theory of depression has
20:25
Speaker 1: been completely abandoned. There was a paper about it in Nature.
20:30
Speaker 1: This is well established.
20:31
Speaker 2: The theory has long since been debunked. It's not real.
20:35
Speaker 1: Quote, the general public widely believes that depression has been
20:37
Speaker 1: convincingly demonstrated to be the result of serotonin or other
20:40
Speaker 1: chemical abnormalities. The huge research effort based on the serotonin
20:43
Speaker 1: hypothesis has not produced convincing evidence of a biochemical basis
20:49
Speaker 1: to depression. This is consistent with research on many other
20:51
Speaker 1: biological markers. We suggest it is time to acknowledge that
20:54
Speaker 1: the serotonin theory of depression is not empirically substantiated. Okay,
20:59
Speaker 1: that was in 2022. And in 2026, we're still hearing
21:02
Speaker 1: from doctors on the witness stand about how a lack
21:05
Speaker 1: of serotonin is linked to depression.
21:07
Speaker 2: It's not.
21:09
Speaker 1: And then after all this, she puts Clancy back on
21:11
Speaker 1: Zoloft a few months later.
21:13
Speaker 2: Now, it's hard to come away.
21:16
Speaker 1: From this testimony without concluding that the entire psychiatric industry
21:19
Speaker 1: needs to be shut down. As it continues, there's more
21:22
Speaker 1: consternation about her notes and the strategies she used in
21:25
Speaker 1: talk therapy to calm Clancy down.
21:28
Speaker 2: It's all just pseudoscience. Watch.
21:31
Speaker 4: So I provided emotional support and validation and encouragement.
21:43
Speaker 7: What does that mean?
21:45
Speaker 14: Something like, I understand this is a very difficult time.
21:51
Speaker 14: It really, you know, it varies on the individual.
21:56
Speaker 15: Sure.
21:56
Speaker 7: How about Lindsay?
21:59
Speaker 14: I don't remember the exact therapeutic words that I used.
22:02
Speaker 7: Okay.
22:03
Speaker 13: How long did you give the therapy?
22:06
Speaker 7: Validation and all that stuff.
22:09
Speaker 12: I don't remember exactly the duration.
22:11
Speaker 7: Maybe about ten minutes?
22:14
Speaker 14: Maybe.
22:15
Speaker 7: Through the television, right?
22:19
Speaker 12: Through the computer.
22:22
Speaker 1: She kind of waves her hands around and says that
22:24
Speaker 1: she's describing the 10 minutes of emotional support and validation
22:29
Speaker 1: she provided.
22:30
Speaker 2: Validation.
22:31
Speaker 1: Validation is, you know, this is a good indication that
22:35
Speaker 1: this is all pseudoscience. It's not real medicine. As much
22:38
Speaker 1: as we're told that these are real doctors and they're
22:40
Speaker 1: treating real illnesses, real diseases. Okay, well, in what scenario
22:46
Speaker 1: can you treat a real disease with validation? In what
22:50
Speaker 1: other scenario can you go to the doctor with an
22:53
Speaker 1: actual disease and the way to treat the disease is
22:56
Speaker 1: just by acknowledging that it exists? You go to the
23:01
Speaker 1: doctor and say, hey, doc, you know, I have cancer.
23:04
Speaker 2: You do have cancer. I validate that. Anyway, that's it.
23:10
Speaker 1: Go pay your bill at the front. That doesn't work
23:13
Speaker 1: that way with any real disease, but it does. That's
23:16
Speaker 1: how it works in the psychiatric industry. The entire industry
23:19
Speaker 1: is based on vibes. None of it actually holds up
23:22
Speaker 1: under scrutiny because they're making it up as they go.
23:24
Speaker 1: A college education can be one of the biggest purchases
23:28
Speaker 1: in a person's life. Not only that, but it can
23:30
Speaker 1: sometimes take years to know whether or not it was
23:32
Speaker 1: worth it. That's not a sensible system. If you're choosing
23:36
Speaker 1: a university, you should know what that education will help
23:39
Speaker 1: you accomplish. It should prepare you for a career, certainly,
23:43
Speaker 1: but it should also develop discipline, judgment, and a sense
23:46
Speaker 1: of purpose. Well, that's the approach at Grand Canyon University,
23:49
Speaker 1: which is a private, non-profit Christian university offering hundreds of
23:52
Speaker 1: programs on its Phoenix campus and online. GCU has held
23:56
Speaker 1: tuition steady on its traditional campus for 17 years while
23:59
Speaker 1: continuing to invest in its students. More than 132,000 students
24:03
Speaker 1: have chosen GCU for an education grounded in practical preparation, leadership,
24:07
Speaker 1: and Christian values. If college is the next step for
24:10
Speaker 1: you or someone in your family, Take a closer look
24:13
Speaker 1: at Grand Canyon University. Learn more at gcu.edu. Grand Canyon University,
24:17
Speaker 1: private Christian affordable nonprofit.
24:20
Speaker 2: That's gcu.edu.
24:22
Speaker 1: Summer is when bad clothing is put to the test.
24:25
Speaker 1: Something that seemed perfectly acceptable in April becomes heavy, uncomfortable,
24:29
Speaker 1: and completely intolerable by August. That is where Mack Weldon's
24:33
Speaker 1: Air Knit X collection comes in. It's breathable performance fabric
24:37
Speaker 1: is available in everything from t-shirts and polos to undershirts
24:40
Speaker 1: and socks. So you can stay cool from head to toe.
24:43
Speaker 1: Airknit X combines breathable nylon mesh with four-way stretch so
24:47
Speaker 1: it moves with you without bunching, without sagging, without feeling restrictive.
24:51
Speaker 1: It has a classic, well-made look that remains comfortable when
24:54
Speaker 1: the temperature climbs. For more than 10 years, Mack Weldon
24:57
Speaker 1: has designed timeless menswear that keeps up with modern life.
25:01
Speaker 1: It's clothing that helps you look put together without requiring
25:04
Speaker 1: much thought or effort. Stay cool and comfortable. with the
25:07
Speaker 1: Air Knit X collection. Don't sweat the heat this summer.
25:10
Speaker 1: Feel as effortlessly cool as you look with Mack Weldon.
25:13
Speaker 1: Go to MackWeldon.com and get 20% off your first order
25:18
Speaker 1: of $ 125 or more with promo code WALSH.
25:20
Speaker 2: That's M-A-C-K-W-E-L-D-O-N.com, code WALSH.
25:26
Speaker 1: An important point in this trial, which has a lot
25:28
Speaker 1: of relevance for the broader problem of over-medicated women, is
25:31
Speaker 1: that Clancy had multiple providers, at least five by my count,
25:35
Speaker 1: And she was on a lot of different medication. She
25:39
Speaker 1: was actually prescribed many more drugs.
25:41
Speaker 2: Than she took. She often didn't complete the.
25:43
Speaker 1: Full course of medication, and that's a point relevant for
25:46
Speaker 1: and inconvenient to her defense. Yes, she was prescribed a
25:50
Speaker 1: bunch of meds, but she didn't actually take most of it. Still,
25:54
Speaker 1: there were far too many prescriptions being written, and that's
25:57
Speaker 1: an understatement. A psychiatrist named Nicholas Badre put together this chart,
26:02
Speaker 1: which shows the extent to which Clancy was being medicated.
26:06
Speaker 1: In total, she was on around 14 different medications in
26:09
Speaker 1: four months. So she was being over-prescribed by a rotating
26:11
Speaker 1: cast of providers to an extreme degree. And as he
26:15
Speaker 1: points out, most of the drugs were intended to help
26:17
Speaker 1: her sleep. Ativan, Benadryl, low-dose Trazodone, Klonopin, Ambien. But Badre
26:25
Speaker 1: notes that the Seroquel that she was on was, quote,
26:28
Speaker 1: ultimately increased to 200 milligrams, the dose range where antipsychotic
26:32
Speaker 1: activity becomes relevant. Clancy's ex-husband, who she sent out on
26:37
Speaker 1: errands while she committed the murders, testified about the effects
26:40
Speaker 1: of some of these drugs.
26:42
Speaker 2: Watch.
26:44
Speaker 13: Did Dr. Gelada, to your knowledge, put her on medication?
26:49
Speaker 8: Yeah.
26:49
Speaker 13: And what was the medication, if you know?
26:53
Speaker 15: Mainly Seroquel and benzodiazepines, Ativan.
26:59
Speaker 13: Now, benzodiazepines, they're addictive, right?
27:05
Speaker 15: Apparently.
27:05
Speaker 7: Objection.
27:10
Speaker 13: I'll allow it. And a benzo would be, for example, Ativan, correct?
27:15
Speaker 15: Correct.
27:16
Speaker 13: Now, Seroquel, she was placed on Seroquel as well. Is
27:21
Speaker 13: that correct?
27:22
Speaker 2: Right.
27:23
Speaker 13: And to your observation, again, you're not a doctor, what.
27:25
Speaker 8: You saw of your wife, was she affected positively or
27:30
Speaker 8: negatively by the Seroquel that she was on?
27:35
Speaker 15: It appeared that she was affected very negatively, and she's
27:38
Speaker 15: reporting that she was getting worse on the Seroquel.
27:43
Speaker 13: And do you know, did she report that to Dr.
27:46
Speaker 7: Gelada?
27:47
Speaker 13: Yeah.
27:48
Speaker 8: Was there a number of occasions that you would actually
27:51
Speaker 8: see her on the sofa, rocking back and forth with
27:54
Speaker 8: her head under a pillow?
27:55
Speaker 14: Yeah.
27:56
Speaker 13: Did you report that and other symptoms to Dr.
27:58
Speaker 7: Gelada?
28:00
Speaker 15: Lindsay did.
28:03
Speaker 1: Now, what's absurd or one of the many absurd things
28:05
Speaker 1: anyway about all the Internet theories that this guy somehow
28:08
Speaker 1: committed the murders himself, and we'll get to that in
28:11
Speaker 1: a little bit, is that he's actually helping her case.
28:14
Speaker 1: I mean, if he really orchestrated the murder and framed
28:17
Speaker 1: her somehow, he'd obviously want her to.
28:19
Speaker 2: Take the fall.
28:19
Speaker 1: But in this case, he's helping her make the argument
28:22
Speaker 1: that the drugs made her do it. Separately, he talks
28:25
Speaker 1: about how normal she seemed at various points, including shortly
28:28
Speaker 1: before the murders.
28:29
Speaker 4: Watch.
28:31
Speaker 7: Again, September 1st of 22. Remember when that was taken?
28:37
Speaker 15: Yeah, that's with Callen and Dawson.
28:39
Speaker 7: Was that your yard?
28:40
Speaker 12: That's in the backyard.
28:41
Speaker 7: Backyard, okay.
28:44
Speaker 8: This would have been September of 22, obviously right before 23, right?
28:49
Speaker 7: Right. And again, for.
28:58
Speaker 13: This one here, July of 22, can you tell me, Ferris,
29:01
Speaker 13: You guys had a pretty good.
29:02
Speaker 7: Summer that year.
29:03
Speaker 13: It was a good summer.
29:04
Speaker 15: Yeah, that was on Cape Cod.
29:06
Speaker 7: This picture was on Cape Cod?
29:08
Speaker 15: Yeah.
29:12
Speaker 2: Well, again, who knows what they're proving here.
29:14
Speaker 1: I mean, okay, she took happy pictures before she killed
29:18
Speaker 1: her family. So, I mean, you could pull up the
29:21
Speaker 1: Facebook feed of pretty much any first-degree murder suspect and
29:24
Speaker 1: find periods where they seemed completely normal and happy and
29:27
Speaker 1: were smiling. Even just moments before the murder, that's not
29:30
Speaker 1: unusual at all. Some of them are happy during the murder,
29:34
Speaker 1: some of them afterwards. The fact that this woman had
29:37
Speaker 1: extreme mood swings does not demonstrate that the drugs were
29:40
Speaker 1: partially responsible.
29:41
Speaker 2: They might have been. We really have no idea.
29:43
Speaker 1: No one, including these experts, has any idea what these
29:47
Speaker 1: psychoactive drugs are doing to the brain.
29:50
Speaker 2: That's a reason to avoid taking them.
29:53
Speaker 1: And it's a reason to throw this woman in prison
29:55
Speaker 1: because whether the drugs affected her mindset or not, she
29:58
Speaker 1: ultimately made the decision to murder her own children. Therefore,
30:02
Speaker 1: she cannot be allowed in society ever again. She simply
30:04
Speaker 1: cannot be trusted around anyone, especially children. Now, I'm very
30:09
Speaker 1: sympathetic to the idea that the drugs may have messed
30:11
Speaker 1: with Clancy's mind, making her even more unbalanced than she
30:14
Speaker 1: already was. As I said, the drugs might even be
30:16
Speaker 1: partially responsible. That doesn't mean that she should ever see
30:21
Speaker 1: the outside of a prison cell ever again.
30:23
Speaker 2: She still murdered her children.
30:25
Speaker 1: She herself, Lindsay Clancy, that particular human, went into her
30:29
Speaker 1: basement and strangled her kids to death.
30:31
Speaker 2: She did that. Nobody else did it. She did it.
30:35
Speaker 1: And she must pay for it. If her doctors share
30:38
Speaker 1: some blame, and maybe they do, then they should be
30:40
Speaker 1: tossed in the prison cell right next to her. If
30:42
Speaker 1: Big Pharma shares some blame, and they almost certainly do,
30:45
Speaker 1: then Big Pharma execs should be dragged into prison in
30:48
Speaker 1: handcuffs and leg irons.
30:50
Speaker 2: That sounds good to me. The more, the merrier.
30:52
Speaker 1: But Lindsay Clancy, the killer of children, must pay for
30:56
Speaker 1: her crimes that she committed. That is the only reasonable
31:01
Speaker 1: takeaway from this sordid, seemingly endless trial. The psychiatric industry
31:05
Speaker 1: is a sham. They have no idea what they're doing. People,
31:09
Speaker 1: especially women, are far too reliant on these medications. And
31:12
Speaker 1: when it comes to Clancy, none of that matters because
31:14
Speaker 1: she is a murderer. At least to the extent it
31:17
Speaker 1: does matter, it does not vindicate her or exonerate her
31:21
Speaker 1: or change the simple and terrible fact that she herself
31:24
Speaker 1: murdered her kids. So the verdict should be guilty, and
31:27
Speaker 1: we shouldn't have to talk about this monster ever again.
31:31
Speaker 1: But if you ask women on the internet about this case,
31:33
Speaker 1: there's a good chance you'll hear a very different takeaway.
31:36
Speaker 1: The Lindsay Clancy case, like the cases involving Karen Reid
31:39
Speaker 1: and Tyler Robinson and many others, has become a phenomenon
31:42
Speaker 1: among women, particularly on social media. There are many women
31:44
Speaker 1: who have rallied to Clancy's defense on the basis of
31:47
Speaker 1: her insanity defense. On social media, you'll find countless posts
31:51
Speaker 1: like this one from a woman named Katie, who identifies
31:54
Speaker 1: herself as a former prosecutor and says, I was a
31:57
Speaker 1: prosecutor for 12 years, eight of them doing crimes against children.
32:00
Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy is a file I would have left on
32:02
Speaker 1: my boss's desk and said, find someone else for this one.
32:05
Speaker 2: It won't be me. Just saying.
32:08
Speaker 1: And this post has thousands of likes. Katie goes on
32:10
Speaker 1: in the comments to say that Clancy is is not
32:12
Speaker 1: responsible for murdering her own kids because she, quote, begged
32:15
Speaker 1: for help and tried to get it. Katie says that
32:18
Speaker 1: Clancy spiraled into darkness.
32:23
Speaker 2: You hear this a lot, by the way. She was
32:24
Speaker 2: begging for help. She was trying to get help.
32:26
Speaker 1: Okay, good for her. So she didn't get help, so
32:29
Speaker 1: she killed her kids? My sympathy for you, like, it's
32:34
Speaker 1: very simple.
32:35
Speaker 2: The moment you kill a child.
32:39
Speaker 2: My sympathy for you evaporates.
32:44
Speaker 1: Prior to that, if you're looking for help and you're
32:47
Speaker 1: experiencing something psychologically.
32:48
Speaker 2: I have a lot of sympathy for you.
32:50
Speaker 1: The moment you do that, I don't give a damn
32:54
Speaker 1: about that. Oh, she needed help.
32:56
Speaker 2: Too bad. Too bad.
32:59
Speaker 1: She should rot in prison. Let's give her that help.
33:02
Speaker 1: Rot in a jail cell until you die.
33:05
Speaker 2: How about that?
33:07
Speaker 1: You killed a child, three of them, your own. There
33:11
Speaker 1: is no point. I don't care if you're begging for
33:13
Speaker 1: help for 50 years. I don't care if you never
33:16
Speaker 1: get help. I don't care if every single person you
33:18
Speaker 1: ask for help looks at you and flips you the
33:21
Speaker 1: middle finger and.
33:21
Speaker 2: Says, get out of here, go to hell.
33:24
Speaker 1: It still would not even come one inch in the
33:27
Speaker 1: direction of justifying murdering your kids.
33:32
Speaker 2: Obviously. Now, It may be true.
33:39
Speaker 1: That Clancy spiraled into darkness, but someone should inform Katie,
33:44
Speaker 1: the alleged prosecutor, that literally every murder ever in history
33:48
Speaker 1: has spiraled into darkness. Murder is not something that you
33:52
Speaker 1: tend to do if your mind is in a bright, clear,
33:55
Speaker 1: and happy place. No matter how Clancy was feeling, she
33:59
Speaker 1: killed her kids. Even if it's true that Clancy heard
34:02
Speaker 1: a voice telling her to kill her kids, which is
34:04
Speaker 1: what she claims, and, you know, it's something that can
34:06
Speaker 1: never be proven or disproven anyway.
34:08
Speaker 2: Oh, a voice told me to do it, okay. So
34:12
Speaker 2: you say. I mean, we don't know if that's true.
34:15
Speaker 1: And even if it is, you still chose to kill
34:18
Speaker 1: your kids. Even if you do hallucinate a voice telling
34:21
Speaker 1: you to murder your whole family, the correct response to
34:24
Speaker 1: the voice is to decline to follow the commands of
34:28
Speaker 1: the hallucinated voice. What if a real voice told you
34:31
Speaker 1: to kill your kids? Would that make it okay? Would
34:33
Speaker 1: that make you not guilty? In fact, if an actual
34:36
Speaker 1: person told you to kill your kids and put a
34:39
Speaker 1: literal gun to your head, you would still have the
34:44
Speaker 1: choice to not follow that command, even at the penalty
34:48
Speaker 1: of death.
34:48
Speaker 2: And moreover, as a society, we.
34:52
Speaker 1: Would expect you to resist that command even to the
34:56
Speaker 1: point of sacrificing your life. rather than intentionally harming your
35:00
Speaker 1: own children. And we should expect that. And again, I
35:07
Speaker 1: have to point out that there have been plenty of
35:09
Speaker 1: cases of men killing their families, and the men in
35:13
Speaker 1: those cases are significantly less likely to get away with
35:17
Speaker 1: an insanity defense. And they almost never have the women
35:21
Speaker 1: of the internet rallying to their defense. The Katie's of
35:26
Speaker 1: the world are not stepping up to argue that Joe Smith,
35:29
Speaker 1: the family killer, was in a dark place.
35:32
Speaker 2: He was asking for help. He felt really sad. It
35:36
Speaker 2: wasn't his fault. When's the last time the women of
35:39
Speaker 2: the internet ever did that?
35:40
Speaker 1: Can you think of an example of a guy who
35:42
Speaker 1: killed his family and the women of TikTok are, oh,
35:46
Speaker 1: he was asking for help.
35:47
Speaker 2: He's the victim here. No, they only tend to have
35:52
Speaker 2: that kind of sympathy for other women. That's interesting, isn't it?
35:56
Speaker 1: There's one other point about the insanity defense that is
35:59
Speaker 1: rarely made, so I want to make it here. The
36:01
Speaker 1: insanity defense, indeed the concept of insanity itself and its implications,
36:06
Speaker 1: is as much a philosophical and existential question as it
36:10
Speaker 1: is a medical one. So when you claim that a
36:12
Speaker 1: woman who murdered her children is not responsible for the
36:15
Speaker 1: crime she committed, when you say, as I believe even
36:18
Speaker 1: her husband has said numerous times, that it wasn't really
36:21
Speaker 1: her who did the thing, You're making a profound claim,
36:25
Speaker 1: not just about the nature of psychiatric conditions, but about
36:28
Speaker 1: the nature of the self. OK, because if it wasn't
36:31
Speaker 1: really Lindsay Clancy who did what Lindsay Clancy did, then
36:35
Speaker 1: who was it?
36:37
Speaker 2: It was her body doing the strangling.
36:39
Speaker 1: It was her arms, her hands, her eyes that looked
36:43
Speaker 1: into her children's eyes as they stared at her in
36:46
Speaker 1: terror and confusion. And she did it intentionally. She did
36:50
Speaker 1: it deliberately, even with forethought. She wasn't sleepwalking. She wasn't
36:53
Speaker 1: otherwise unconscious. Was that not her self acting? What other
36:58
Speaker 1: self could it be? I mean, what do you mean
36:59
Speaker 1: it's not her?
37:00
Speaker 2: Who is it? You seem to be.
37:02
Speaker 1: Positing the existence of some kind of other self, some
37:06
Speaker 1: alien self, which was acting within Clancy's body while her
37:09
Speaker 1: real self, whatever that means, lay dormant in some mysterious
37:13
Speaker 1: corner of her subconscious. Well, I find that whole idea...
37:18
Speaker 1: the entire concept, incoherent. I don't think it means anything.
37:22
Speaker 1: And I don't think any of you can explain what
37:24
Speaker 1: it means. It wasn't really her.
37:25
Speaker 2: What do you mean by that? What do you mean
37:27
Speaker 2: by that? Explain exactly, explain.
37:30
Speaker 1: Exactly, precisely how a person can do something and yet
37:34
Speaker 1: it wasn't them doing it.
37:38
Speaker 2: That is nonsense.
37:39
Speaker 7: Okay.
37:40
Speaker 2: That is like, you know, a married bachelor. Okay.
37:43
Speaker 1: That's it's, it's a, it's a, it, it is, Literally nonsensical. Now,
37:51
Speaker 1: our laws are not even consistent on this point. If
37:53
Speaker 1: a man gets drunk and sits behind the wheel of
37:56
Speaker 1: a car or a woman and then causes a fatal accident,
38:00
Speaker 1: he'll be held entirely culpable for it and be punished
38:03
Speaker 1: accordingly and deservedly so. In fact, a drunk man who
38:09
Speaker 1: causes an accident will be punished more severely. He will
38:14
Speaker 1: face a greater punishment, not a lesser one, than a
38:18
Speaker 1: sober man. Yet the drunk man, we all agree, was
38:22
Speaker 1: not in his right mind. His mental capacities were certainly diminished.
38:25
Speaker 1: He was acting in ways that he would not have
38:27
Speaker 1: otherwise acted. If there is such a thing as a
38:30
Speaker 1: real self, then his real self, that is his sober, rational,
38:34
Speaker 1: competent self, was not really involved in the accident. His inebriated,
38:38
Speaker 1: mentally compromised, deluded, confused self was. And yet we still
38:43
Speaker 1: hold him completely responsible. I mean, he may wake up
38:47
Speaker 1: the next morning and not even remember the accident. He
38:50
Speaker 1: might have been literally blackout drunk. And yet we still
38:54
Speaker 1: will send him to prison to serve a punishment for
38:57
Speaker 1: a crime he has no memory of committing. Now, you
39:02
Speaker 1: might argue that, well, the drunk man chose to get drunk.
39:04
Speaker 2: That's the difference. But so what?
39:05
Speaker 1: If the idea is that we can't hold people accountable
39:07
Speaker 1: for awful crimes committed when they were in a state
39:09
Speaker 1: of psychological derangement, then all that matters is their state
39:13
Speaker 1: of mind in that particular moment.
39:15
Speaker 2: Choices made prior to that moment are irrelevant.
39:18
Speaker 1: That, in fact, is exactly what is being explicitly argued
39:22
Speaker 1: in the case of Lindsay Clancy or any other temporary
39:26
Speaker 1: insanity case. And besides, most people today would say that
39:29
Speaker 1: alcoholism is a disease anyway, so did he actually choose
39:33
Speaker 1: to get drunk?
39:35
Speaker 2: I mean this all as devil's advocate.
39:37
Speaker 1: I absolutely believe that we should throw the book at
39:39
Speaker 1: drunk drivers, but I apply the same logic to people
39:42
Speaker 1: allegedly intoxicated on psych meds or on their own mental
39:45
Speaker 1: delusions and or on hormones from pregnancy or anything else. Recently,
39:52
Speaker 1: a woman in California avoided prison time completely after stabbing
39:55
Speaker 1: her boyfriend a hundred times, killing him. And the judge
39:59
Speaker 1: decided that she was the victim of cannabis-induced psychosis.
40:04
Speaker 2: She was not herself, you see. She was not in
40:06
Speaker 2: her right mind.
40:07
Speaker 1: Even though she chose to pack a bong with weed
40:10
Speaker 1: and smoke it.
40:13
Speaker 2: So there is no consistency.
40:15
Speaker 1: At all in how this idea of temporary psychological impairment
40:19
Speaker 1: is applied in court. The only consistent theme is that
40:23
Speaker 1: women are much more likely to be the beneficiaries of it.
40:28
Speaker 2: But back to Clancy.
40:30
Speaker 1: The sympathy for this child killer goes even deeper. In fact,
40:32
Speaker 1: in this case, as in other recent cases, it's turned
40:35
Speaker 1: into its own kind of TikTok psychosis. Women and a
40:38
Speaker 1: relatively small number of men, most of them probably gay,
40:41
Speaker 1: are spending hours dissecting the case, looking for evidence of
40:44
Speaker 1: a vast conspiracy that proves Lindsay Clancy is actually entirely innocent.
40:50
Speaker 1: Not just innocent by reason of insanity, but actually innocent,
40:52
Speaker 1: as in she didn't commit the crime at all. And
40:55
Speaker 1: I don't think this phenomenon is entirely unrelated to the
40:58
Speaker 1: fact that many women are hopped up on psychoactive drugs,
41:00
Speaker 1: by the way. When you're giving mind-altering substances to a
41:03
Speaker 1: third of women and women suddenly become interested in psychotic theories, well,
41:07
Speaker 1: maybe there's something to explore there. Most of these deranged
41:11
Speaker 1: theories conclude, based on fake evidence and immense logical leaps,
41:14
Speaker 1: that her ex-husband is really responsible. You'll find women claiming
41:18
Speaker 1: that the voice that Clancy claims to have heard in
41:20
Speaker 1: her head was, in fact, the voice of her ex-husband.
41:24
Speaker 2: So they're writing these like movie scripts in their minds.
41:29
Speaker 2: Here's one example. No, because what in.
41:32
Speaker 16: The Chris Watts is happening right now? Welcome back to
41:34
Speaker 16: another episode of Creepy Corner with Ken. If you are
41:36
Speaker 16: a true crime lover, then I know you have been
41:38
Speaker 16: seeing everything about this Lindsay Clancy case. And we're going
41:41
Speaker 16: to talk about why I think and know, allegedly, allegedly,
41:46
Speaker 16: Patrick did it, not her.
41:47
Speaker 14: Mm-mm.
41:48
Speaker 16: It was her husband, 100%, but let's get into it.
41:51
Speaker 16: I have a bunch of notes on my computer here
41:52
Speaker 16: that I'm gonna be looking at because I didn't want
41:54
Speaker 16: to miss anything I found important. So let's start with
41:57
Speaker 16: number one. This one really just kind of pissed me
41:59
Speaker 16: off more than anything. And it's that stupid doctor that
42:02
Speaker 16: went on the stand to testify. All this doctor kept
42:04
Speaker 16: saying was, I don't recall.
42:05
Speaker 7: I don't recall.
42:06
Speaker 13: I don't know.
42:07
Speaker 16: It got so ridiculous to the point that Kevin Reddington,
42:09
Speaker 16: the guy that was asking her these questions was like, Ma'am,
42:11
Speaker 16: you know you're on a murder trial, right? Like, did
42:14
Speaker 16: you not even look at your notes?
42:15
Speaker 12: Like, hello?
42:16
Speaker 16: What are we doing? Seems suspicious.
42:18
Speaker 17: I don't like it.
42:18
Speaker 16: And allegedly, she has some ties with Patrick's new wife,
42:21
Speaker 16: but we'll get into that in a minute. Number two,
42:23
Speaker 16: they said that her body temperature when the medics got
42:25
Speaker 16: there was at 82 degrees. And so many doctors here on.
42:29
Speaker 7: TikTok have talked about how that's.
42:30
Speaker 16: Almost impossible for even a dead body to get to
42:33
Speaker 16: 82 degrees within 55 minutes. That doesn't add up.
42:38
Speaker 2: Now.
42:41
Speaker 1: These women are so smug. Like, I can't even take
42:43
Speaker 1: these videos. This is just very, it's like a very
42:47
Speaker 1: difficult thing to discuss and do the research to talk about.
42:52
Speaker 1: First of all, because of the crime itself, which is horrifying.
42:55
Speaker 1: But also, these women are so mind-numbingly stupid and smug.
43:03
Speaker 1: These dumb women on TikTok.
43:05
Speaker 2: That doesn't add up. Sorry, that doesn't add up. I know.
43:12
Speaker 1: I know exactly. I've watched some TikTok videos, and I
43:16
Speaker 1: know exactly what's happening here.
43:18
Speaker 2: I'll tell you.
43:20
Speaker 1: The first point she makes has nothing to do with
43:22
Speaker 1: whether Clancy committed the murders. Yes, as we discussed, the
43:24
Speaker 1: psychiatrist is an unimpressive witness. Most psychiatrists are unimpressive. That's
43:28
Speaker 1: part of the profession.
43:29
Speaker 2: That doesn't mean Clancy's husband framed her for murder.
43:31
Speaker 1: And as for the second point about the body being
43:33
Speaker 1: too cold, this is something you'll hear a lot on
43:35
Speaker 1: social media.
43:36
Speaker 2: All the TikTok doctors are weighing in.
43:39
Speaker 1: The idea is that the official narrative doesn't make sense
43:41
Speaker 1: because Clancy's body, after she jumped outside the second story
43:44
Speaker 1: window and crumpled on the ground, was far too cold
43:47
Speaker 1: for the time that she spent on the ground. And therefore,
43:49
Speaker 1: she must have spent much longer on the ground than
43:50
Speaker 1: the prosecutors are claiming, which means the murders may have
43:53
Speaker 1: happened at a different time, which means the husband is guilty.
43:58
Speaker 1: Here's another example of this just profoundly stupid argument.
44:05
Speaker 18: Things are really starting to not add up, specifically her
44:09
Speaker 18: body temperature. Even if Lindsay went out the window the
44:13
Speaker 18: moment Patrick drove away, which obviously didn't happen, that means
44:17
Speaker 18: she would have been laying in the snow for 55 minutes.
44:20
Speaker 18: How did her body temperature drop 16 degrees in less
44:23
Speaker 18: than an hour? I've spoken to many ICU nurses about this,
44:27
Speaker 18: one of them being my cousin. It's physically impossible. One
44:31
Speaker 18: nurse that I spoke to said she literally cared for
44:33
Speaker 18: someone who passed out in the snow, cold drunk, in
44:37
Speaker 18: three degree weather for three hours, and their temperature only
44:41
Speaker 18: dropped down to 88 degrees. But this woman laying in
44:45
Speaker 18: the snow, even with a spinal injury, for less than
44:48
Speaker 18: an hour, gets down to 82 degrees?
44:50
Speaker 2: I don't know, guys.
44:51
Speaker 18: Timeline's not making sense for me. Never mind the other
44:54
Speaker 18: major inconsistencies that I'm starting to see. But but the
44:57
Speaker 18: body temperature seems the most perplexing.
45:03
Speaker 1: I want all these people deported. I can't share a
45:06
Speaker 1: country with people like this. We can't do it. It's
45:08
Speaker 1: the stupidity. You brain-dead clowns. Your brains are mush. You're
45:17
Speaker 1: a sea cucumber. You're barely sentient. None of these people
45:24
Speaker 1: should be allowed to vote. none of them should be
45:27
Speaker 1: allowed to be in the country. We can't do it.
45:32
Speaker 1: We can't share a country with these people. Oh, this
45:36
Speaker 1: random guy talked to a nurse. He literally talked to
45:40
Speaker 1: a nurse, guys. I talked to a nurse, okay? I'll
45:45
Speaker 1: tell you what the... No, discard everything that everyone else
45:48
Speaker 1: has said, like in court and all the forensics and
45:50
Speaker 1: all the detectives. No, I talked to a nurse, you guys.
45:55
Speaker 1: And the nurse literally said that the body was too cold.
46:00
Speaker 2: Hang on, everyone. Hang on. Stop the trial. Stop it.
46:03
Speaker 2: Shut it all down. This guy talked to a nurse.
46:07
Speaker 2: Hang on. Stop everything. Run into the courtrooms. Shut it
46:10
Speaker 2: all down, everybody. Your honor, your honor, your honor. Hang
46:14
Speaker 2: on a second. Hang on.
46:16
Speaker 1: This guy talked to a nurse. Yes, this unnamed nurse
46:19
Speaker 1: who spoke to this unknown guy on TikTok anonymously is
46:22
Speaker 1: a more reliable expert than every doctor, law enforcement officer,
46:25
Speaker 1: and every other expert involved in the trial.
46:29
Speaker 2: Why should we believe that? Who knows? Because, just because....
46:35
Speaker 1: This is very common on social media now, of course.
46:36
Speaker 1: The internet sleuths get together. They reject the theory of
46:39
Speaker 1: the case that all of the evidence points to. They
46:41
Speaker 1: concoct a new theory with much less evidence or none
46:45
Speaker 1: at all. And they assert that the new theory is
46:48
Speaker 1: somehow more credible despite being based on evidence that is
46:52
Speaker 1: astronomically worse and less credible by every metric. Now, the
46:58
Speaker 1: thing is, when somebody jumps from a second story window
47:00
Speaker 1: and sustains a spinal injury, as Clancy did, all kinds
47:03
Speaker 1: of things can go wrong in the body. You might
47:04
Speaker 1: lose your ability to shiver, for example. Your blood vessels
47:07
Speaker 1: might not be able to narrow and constrict. These are
47:10
Speaker 1: major ways that your body preserves heat when you're out
47:12
Speaker 1: in the cold. And before long, if you don't have
47:13
Speaker 1: those basic mechanisms, you get a lot colder than normal.
47:17
Speaker 2: Blood loss has the same effect.
47:18
Speaker 1: These are all things that I found from a little
47:20
Speaker 1: bit of research, but I am not an authority on
47:22
Speaker 1: the subject of how long it takes for a body
47:24
Speaker 1: to lose heat after somebody jumps out of a window.
47:27
Speaker 1: In fact, I never even thought about that question until
47:30
Speaker 1: this very moment. And the same is true for every
47:33
Speaker 1: TikTok detective. All of these dumbasses never even considered any
47:39
Speaker 1: of this until right now. They know nothing about it.
47:43
Speaker 1: They have no relevant base of knowledge at all. And
47:46
Speaker 1: yet they suddenly know enough to dismiss every piece of
47:51
Speaker 1: evidence being presented in court, evidence the.
47:53
Speaker 2: Defense itself does not dispute.
47:56
Speaker 1: In fact, these TikTok detectives are so brilliant, they're such geniuses,
48:01
Speaker 1: that they apparently have a better understanding of who killed
48:03
Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy's kids than Lindsay Clancy does. Because Lindsay Clancy, again, confessed.
48:11
Speaker 1: And there's a lot of that going around, too. As
48:13
Speaker 1: you notice, the Tyler Robinson case is an example that
48:15
Speaker 1: springs to everybody's mind. That's yet another case where the
48:19
Speaker 1: defendant confessed, admitted their own guilt, and yet the Internet
48:24
Speaker 1: detectives believe that they are greater authorities on the defendant's
48:27
Speaker 1: guilt or innocence than the defendant himself. So in this case,
48:33
Speaker 1: the TikTok doctors have it all figured out. Even though
48:36
Speaker 1: there's been no testimony in this case to support their theory,
48:38
Speaker 1: they're confidently telling the audience that, indeed, the official narrative
48:42
Speaker 1: is impossible because the body was too cold.
48:44
Speaker 2: And the hysteria continues from there.
48:46
Speaker 5: Watch.
48:47
Speaker 16: Number three, Patrick claims that when he went to CVS,
48:50
Speaker 16: which is three minutes away from their house, that he
48:52
Speaker 16: called his wife, Lindsay, to ask if it was okay
48:55
Speaker 16: to buy the off-brand of Black Sips because the name
48:57
Speaker 16: brand wasn't in stock. However, they've been showing us footage
49:00
Speaker 16: of the CVS and where he was standing and It
49:03
Speaker 16: looks pretty stocked.
49:04
Speaker 9: To me, but whatever.
49:05
Speaker 16: But here's why this is interesting to me because he
49:07
Speaker 16: claims that he talked on the phone with her about this.
49:09
Speaker 16: And she said that the off-brand was fine. Now, when
49:11
Speaker 16: she jumps out of the window from their room, her
49:13
Speaker 16: thyroid had been crushed. And so she wasn't able to
49:16
Speaker 16: speak to them, but somehow this man not only spoke
49:18
Speaker 16: to his wife on the phone about this, the laxatives
49:20
Speaker 16: but that when he found her outside he went up
49:23
Speaker 16: to her and said what happened and she responded with
49:26
Speaker 16: i tried to myself and then when he asked her
49:28
Speaker 16: where the kids she said another whole sentence and said
49:31
Speaker 16: the kids are in the basement her thyroid was crushed
49:35
Speaker 16: and she wasn't able to speak So how were you
49:37
Speaker 16: speaking to her in all of this? Another thing is
49:38
Speaker 16: that she only had a limited amount of time to
49:40
Speaker 16: do this because he was just going to the CVS
49:42
Speaker 16: to get food and back. So I find it hard
49:44
Speaker 16: to believe that during this limited amount of time, she
49:46
Speaker 16: picked up the phone to talk to you about the
49:48
Speaker 16: laxative while she's trying to murder her three kids and herself.
49:52
Speaker 16: Another thing that didn't make sense to me about her
49:54
Speaker 16: being a certified nurse with something that they're saying that
49:56
Speaker 16: she did was that when she went to cut her wrist,
49:59
Speaker 16: that she cut horizontally. Now a nurse would know if
50:02
Speaker 16: they wanted to get the job done to do it vertically,
50:04
Speaker 16: but hers were found horizontally. Once again, it's giving someone
50:07
Speaker 16: that knows nothing about any of this. Now let's focus
50:09
Speaker 16: a little bit more on her jumping out of the
50:11
Speaker 16: window and what that entailed. The main thing you need
50:13
Speaker 16: to know is that this woman did not jump out
50:15
Speaker 16: the window, okay? She was dangled by her feet. I
50:19
Speaker 16: think this because of two different things. One, they were
50:21
Speaker 16: investigating the crime scene. They found these two blood spots
50:25
Speaker 16: on the side of the house. Didn't make sense at first,
50:27
Speaker 16: but when you picture Patrick dangling her by her legs
50:30
Speaker 16: out this window, it makes perfect sense where two blood
50:33
Speaker 16: spots would be on that wall if she's dangling. Number two,
50:36
Speaker 16: when they found her, her head was closest to the
50:39
Speaker 16: side of the house and her feet were the furthest
50:41
Speaker 16: from the house, which wouldn't make sense if someone is
50:43
Speaker 16: like jumping out the window. They would be head furthest
50:46
Speaker 16: away with their feet towards the house. And also they
50:48
Speaker 16: would be on their stomach.
50:49
Speaker 7: She was found on.
50:50
Speaker 16: Her back with her head closest to the house. And
50:53
Speaker 16: that only makes sense if he was dangling her outside
50:55
Speaker 16: of the window. Another thing that's suspicious is that it
50:58
Speaker 16: shows that he sent an email out from his house
51:01
Speaker 16: at 5 24 PM, which doesn't make sense because he
51:04
Speaker 16: said he left his house at 5 15. How are
51:07
Speaker 16: you sending an email out? Also, also they have nanny
51:10
Speaker 16: cams in this house. But you guessed it, nanny cams
51:12
Speaker 16: weren't working due to no Wi-Fi. But that's weird because
51:16
Speaker 16: you must have had Wi-Fi to send your email out
51:19
Speaker 16: at 524 at your house. It's not adding up, Patrick.
51:22
Speaker 16: If none of that convinced you at all, this man
51:24
Speaker 16: got married four months after this.
51:26
Speaker 7: Mm-hmm.
51:26
Speaker 14: Yeah.
51:27
Speaker 16: And has a new baby already.
51:31
Speaker 7: That's weird. That's weird.
51:32
Speaker 2: No, no, no.
51:34
Speaker 1: What's weird is that you were able to breathe and talk.
51:37
Speaker 1: What's weird is that you're able to tie your shoes.
51:39
Speaker 13: You.
51:44
Speaker 1: And we want to dismiss this kind of thing, but
51:46
Speaker 1: these videos have millions of views, thousands of women watching them,
51:52
Speaker 1: taking notes.
51:53
Speaker 2: Oh my gosh, that's an interesting.
51:56
Speaker 2: Get out of my country. I don't know.
51:59
Speaker 1: Get out of my country. You are a wart on
52:01
Speaker 1: the ass of society. You are stupid and bad. These
52:07
Speaker 1: are also bad people because on top of all this,
52:10
Speaker 1: this is also a case where three children were brutally
52:14
Speaker 1: murdered and you are turning it into like it's entertainment
52:19
Speaker 1: for you. You're treating it like it's a, you know,
52:22
Speaker 1: like it's a Netflix show. Not to mention implicating an
52:27
Speaker 1: innocent man based on nothing. Like his children were killed.
52:31
Speaker 2: You scum. His children, he lost three children and you're like,
52:35
Speaker 2: I think he did it. No, you're scum. That's what
52:37
Speaker 2: you are.
52:39
Speaker 1: Anyway, the last part isn't even remotely true, by the way.
52:43
Speaker 2: Well, everything she said is true.
52:44
Speaker 1: She said Clancy's husband got remarried three years after the murder,
52:47
Speaker 1: not four years, or not four months. Pretty big fact
52:50
Speaker 1: to get wrong. And even if he got married the
52:52
Speaker 1: next day, that would not be evidence that he committed
52:55
Speaker 1: the murder Lindsay Clancy confessed to. And no, he didn't
52:58
Speaker 1: send the email from his home, as far as we know.
53:00
Speaker 1: As the testimony made very clear, he sent emails all
53:02
Speaker 1: the time from his iPhone. People can do that these days,
53:05
Speaker 1: you know. And this particular email, based on the evidence
53:07
Speaker 1: that's been presented, was probably one that was sent from
53:10
Speaker 1: an iPhone. The whole video is like this, as you saw,
53:12
Speaker 1: it's just an onslaught of stupidity. This woman apparently found
53:15
Speaker 1: a picture of the CVS and it was stocked with
53:17
Speaker 1: certain laxatives. And therefore there's no way in her mind
53:19
Speaker 1: the laxative was out of stock when the husband called
53:22
Speaker 1: Lindsay to inform her the item was out of stock.
53:25
Speaker 1: So apparently if an item is in stock at one
53:28
Speaker 1: particular moment in time, it must always be in stock forever.
53:31
Speaker 1: It can never be out of stock. And therefore he's
53:33
Speaker 1: lying about everything. Again, this is not an argument the
53:37
Speaker 1: defense is making. because it's absurd on its face. It
53:41
Speaker 1: doesn't prove that he actually saw that the item was
53:43
Speaker 1: in stock or that it was in stock at that
53:45
Speaker 1: moment he called. But she moves on from this point
53:48
Speaker 1: very quickly because she understands that if you think about
53:49
Speaker 1: it for five seconds, you'll realize it's total nonsense. She
53:51
Speaker 1: also claims at one point that because the husband's DNA
53:54
Speaker 1: was on the exercise bands that were used to strangle
53:57
Speaker 1: the kids, therefore he must.
53:59
Speaker 2: Have done it.
53:59
Speaker 1: Nevermind the fact that it's a common household item that
54:01
Speaker 1: everybody was touching. His DNA could be found on most
54:04
Speaker 1: of the stuff in his house probably because it's his house.
54:07
Speaker 1: She moves on to claiming that there's no way Clancy
54:09
Speaker 1: could have confessed to her husband because her throat was
54:11
Speaker 1: crushed from the fall. But again, plenty of reasons why
54:14
Speaker 1: somebody who sustains a serious injury might be able to
54:16
Speaker 1: speak one minute and then be incapacitated afterwards. Swelling is
54:19
Speaker 1: one of them. We have dying declarations for a reason.
54:22
Speaker 1: It's extremely common for people who are gravely injured to
54:24
Speaker 1: lose their ability to speak very quickly. But again, we're
54:27
Speaker 1: meant to conclude that this is simply impossible. Never mind
54:29
Speaker 1: the fact that Clancy can speak now. She can speak now.
54:33
Speaker 1: But she's still refusing to identify her husband as the perpetrator. Instead,
54:36
Speaker 1: she is now herself, who can speak, admitting her guilt.
54:41
Speaker 1: Then she makes the extraordinary claim that Clancy couldn't have
54:43
Speaker 1: really tried to kill herself because she slashed her wrists
54:46
Speaker 1: in an ineffective manner. And as a nurse, she would
54:48
Speaker 1: have known the right way to do it. At some point,
54:51
Speaker 1: sticking with the same wireless company stops being about loyalty.
54:54
Speaker 1: It just becomes inertia or even laziness, especially when there's
54:57
Speaker 1: an alternative as easy as pure talk. Right now, you
55:00
Speaker 1: can get any Pure Talk plan for just $ 15.
55:03
Speaker 2: A month for your first three months.
55:05
Speaker 1: That applies to any plan, including their unlimited high-speed data
55:08
Speaker 1: plans and their top-tier $ 65 plan. Buy now, just $ 15
55:13
Speaker 1: a month for three months. And get this, there's no
55:15
Speaker 1: service contract and there's no cancellation fee. So if you've
55:18
Speaker 1: been hearing me talk about Pure Talk over the years
55:21
Speaker 1: and think that you want to check it out eventually, well,
55:23
Speaker 1: now is the time. You can potentially save up to
55:26
Speaker 1: $ 150 just in those first three months. Families save more
55:28
Speaker 1: than $ 1, 000 per year. You get reliable service, a 100%
55:32
Speaker 1: US-based customer service team, and three months to decide for
55:35
Speaker 1: yourself whether Pure Talk makes more sense than whatever you're
55:39
Speaker 1: paying for now.
55:39
Speaker 2: And I'm sure it does.
55:40
Speaker 1: For a limited time, you get any Pure Talk plan included,
55:43
Speaker 1: which includes unlimited data for just $ 15 a month for
55:47
Speaker 1: your first three months. Simply go to puretalk.com slash Walsh
55:50
Speaker 1: to claim this offer. Again, it's puretalk.com slash Walsh to
55:54
Speaker 1: start saving today. So understand what's happening here. We have
55:58
Speaker 1: a woman who's so psychotic and evil and unstable that
56:00
Speaker 1: she just murdered her own kids one by one in
56:02
Speaker 1: her basement. She just deceived her husband to get him
56:04
Speaker 1: out of the house while she committed these crimes. And
56:06
Speaker 1: despite all that, we're supposed to assume, first of all,
56:08
Speaker 1: that she didn't actually intend to kill herself. And secondly,
56:12
Speaker 1: that she couldn't possibly have made a mistake in this deranged,
56:15
Speaker 1: homicidal state of mind. There's just no way that she
56:18
Speaker 1: wouldn't have slashed her wrists at the ideal angle. Therefore,
56:22
Speaker 1: there's a vast conspiracy and the husband did it. This
56:26
Speaker 1: is not idle speculation, by the way. Again, accusing a
56:29
Speaker 1: man of murder without any evidence is despicable. If you're
56:31
Speaker 1: watching this garbage content yourself, you are just as culpable
56:38
Speaker 1: as this vulture. And I'm not even going to discuss
56:41
Speaker 1: her retarded theory about how the woman must have been
56:43
Speaker 1: dangling from the house because of the blood spots that
56:46
Speaker 1: were found on the outside wall.
56:48
Speaker 2: Or if she jumped out of a window, she would
56:50
Speaker 2: have landed on her stomach.
56:51
Speaker 13: What?
56:53
Speaker 1: Where are you getting that from? It's impossible for someone
56:56
Speaker 1: to jump out of a window and land on their back?
56:58
Speaker 2: What? You just made that up.
57:04
Speaker 1: Makes no sense, and we're all dumber for having listened
57:06
Speaker 1: to it, but it's incredibly popular content. You know, that
57:08
Speaker 1: TikTok video is something like 40,000 likes, and believe it
57:11
Speaker 1: or not, it's actually one of the better pieces of
57:14
Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy content you'll find on social media. Most of
57:17
Speaker 1: these videos don't even bother to lie about the evidence.
57:21
Speaker 2: Here's another one.
57:23
Speaker 19: I think that we are all watching Lindsay Clancy realize
57:29
Speaker 19: she actually didn't kill those kids. Why did he need
57:33
Speaker 19: a GoFundMe? Is he paying for her lawyer? $ 1. 7 million
57:39
Speaker 19: for what? How much does a funeral cost? He is
57:45
Speaker 19: panicking right now. He's got a family member in law enforcement.
57:49
Speaker 19: The new wife's husband is connected to Hollywood. He's living
57:53
Speaker 19: in a high-rise in Manhattan with a new doctor wife
57:59
Speaker 19: and a new baby. This man has not shed one tear.
58:04
Speaker 2: Okay, anyway. Yeah, shut up. Shut up, you scumbag. Filth. Well,
58:14
Speaker 2: there you have it. The ex-husband.
58:15
Speaker 1: Notice he talks about the kids, by the way. Those
58:17
Speaker 1: effing kids. The kids were killed. Those effing kids. this ex-husband, well,
58:26
Speaker 1: he didn't cry on the stand, so he probably murdered
58:28
Speaker 1: his own kids and framed his wife. And then he
58:30
Speaker 1: cast a spell on her that forced her to confess.
58:33
Speaker 1: There's another common theme among the TikTok detectives. They formulate
58:36
Speaker 1: wildly implausible alternative theories fueled mainly by the feelings and
58:40
Speaker 1: vibes they get from watching facial expressions. The internet is
58:44
Speaker 1: now suddenly full of body language experts who have the
58:48
Speaker 1: psychic ability to solve murder cases just by looking into
58:51
Speaker 1: somebody's eyes. That's really what these women think. Many of
58:54
Speaker 1: them have implicated Erica Kirk on the same basis, as
58:56
Speaker 1: we know. Something just feels off. Something feels off. I
59:01
Speaker 1: don't know, something feels off. All the forensic evidence, all
59:06
Speaker 1: the witness testimony, all the data on the ground, even
59:08
Speaker 1: the confession of the murder. all of that can be dismissed, disregarded,
59:14
Speaker 1: because women on the internet think.
59:16
Speaker 2: Something feels off. Something's just off. My spidey sense, you know,
59:21
Speaker 2: I'm a psychic. This is X-Men. Not convinced?
59:26
Speaker 1: Well, on top of that, the police didn't fingerprint anything,
59:29
Speaker 1: she says, at some point in that video. We might
59:32
Speaker 1: have cut off before she said it, doesn't matter. She
59:34
Speaker 1: says they didn't fingerprint anything. Can you imagine that? I mean,
59:37
Speaker 1: it sounds pretty bad, almost like they wanted to frame
59:39
Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy for murder. And then you realize that actually
59:41
Speaker 1: they did process the entire scene for fingerprints. They didn't
59:44
Speaker 1: recover usable prints from the main pieces of evidence, but
59:46
Speaker 1: that's very different from not fingerprinting anything. And again, this
59:51
Speaker 1: is all moot because she confessed to the crime. And
59:54
Speaker 1: her defense has never attempted to argue that she didn't
59:57
Speaker 1: do it. But maybe I'm being too harsh on this woman.
1:00:00
Speaker 1: I mean, there's even worse content out there, if you
1:00:01
Speaker 1: can imagine it. The more you look at these videos,
1:00:04
Speaker 1: the worse they get. Somehow the bar continues to go
1:00:07
Speaker 1: lower and lower with each one. A large percentage of
1:00:10
Speaker 1: these videos don't even talk about the case at all.
1:00:12
Speaker 1: They just straight up worship Lindsay Clancy because she killed
1:00:15
Speaker 1: her kids.
1:00:16
Speaker 4: Watch.
1:00:18
Speaker 20: How many other New England girlies would like to take
1:00:20
Speaker 20: the day off from work and drive up to the
1:00:22
Speaker 20: courthouse to show our support and advocacy for Lindsay Clancy?
1:00:28
Speaker 20: We ride at dawn. Seriously, let me know if you're
1:00:32
Speaker 20: down for that.
1:00:33
Speaker 17: I have decided I'm going to send Lindsay Clancy a
1:00:35
Speaker 17: letter of encouragement. Of course, I'm not going to mention
1:00:37
Speaker 17: anything about the case or anything like that, but I
1:00:39
Speaker 17: did want to write to her and tell her that
1:00:41
Speaker 17: there are so many women that are out here praying
1:00:42
Speaker 17: for her. I think some words of encouragement might... bring
1:00:47
Speaker 17: a smile to her.
1:00:49
Speaker 2: I don't know if.
1:00:49
Speaker 17: She's able to receive any mail or not, but at
1:00:53
Speaker 17: least I want to try.
1:00:55
Speaker 21: Do you guys think that Lindsay Clancy is going to
1:00:57
Speaker 21: like know about us? Like that we're all here, like
1:01:03
Speaker 21: standing behind her. Like, is she going to ever find
1:01:06
Speaker 21: out about us? Like her little army? Like, do you
1:01:13
Speaker 21: think we'll ever become her friends? Like, Like, will she
1:01:18
Speaker 21: talk to us?
1:01:19
Speaker 2: Okay, shut up. Tell me that was a cat in
1:01:22
Speaker 2: the background, not a kid. I don't know.
1:01:25
Speaker 1: I heard something in the background. Was it a cat
1:01:27
Speaker 1: or a kid? I would assume cat. God, I hope
1:01:31
Speaker 1: these women don't have kids. These women that are like
1:01:35
Speaker 1: on her side after she murdered her children.
1:01:37
Speaker 7: That's startling.
1:01:46
Speaker 1: Social media is the worst thing that ever happened to women.
1:01:49
Speaker 1: I don't know how else to put it. I mean,
1:01:51
Speaker 1: there's been a lot of hand-wringing and dire warnings and
1:01:53
Speaker 1: breathless lectures about how the internet has sent young men
1:01:56
Speaker 1: down a dark path to extremism and led them into
1:01:58
Speaker 1: the clutches of Andrew Tate and Nick Fuentes and whoever.
1:02:02
Speaker 1: But at a certain point, we need to have a
1:02:05
Speaker 1: very serious conversation about the full-blown psychotic break TikTok and
1:02:10
Speaker 1: Instagram and other social media apps have provoked in not
1:02:14
Speaker 1: all but many women. And not necessarily just young women either.
1:02:18
Speaker 1: I mean, middle-aged women are spending all day developing schizophrenic
1:02:20
Speaker 1: theories about murder cases and posting videos about them and
1:02:23
Speaker 1: forming communities of support for mass murderers and child killers.
1:02:29
Speaker 1: But in a way, at least these are the more
1:02:31
Speaker 1: honest videos in the genre. These women are at least
1:02:33
Speaker 1: being transparent about their motives. They revere Lindsay Clancy because
1:02:37
Speaker 1: she murdered her children.
1:02:38
Speaker 15: Because.
1:02:39
Speaker 1: Because she murdered her children. That is the unspoken reality
1:02:43
Speaker 1: of the Clancy case. Some of her advocates are unstable
1:02:45
Speaker 1: women with a bad case of TikTok brain, but others,
1:02:49
Speaker 1: you know, there's.
1:02:50
Speaker 2: Something else going on.
1:02:52
Speaker 1: She is a folk hero among some leftist women because
1:02:55
Speaker 1: leftist women believe that mothers have the right to execute
1:02:58
Speaker 1: their children at any point, whether it's the moment of
1:03:00
Speaker 1: birth or eight months.
1:03:01
Speaker 2: After the fact or five years after the fact.
1:03:05
Speaker 1: Leftist women don't quite have the political capital to formally
1:03:08
Speaker 1: legalize these post-birth abortions so they'd settle on an alternative solution,
1:03:12
Speaker 1: the insanity defense, and it's working out very well for them.
1:03:16
Speaker 1: That's why Massachusetts, the state where this trial is taking place,
1:03:19
Speaker 1: it just so happens, just this week passed a law
1:03:21
Speaker 1: permitting abortion up until the moment of birth. It's not
1:03:25
Speaker 1: because they believe that children become human once they're born
1:03:28
Speaker 1: and they aren't before. It's because they want to continue
1:03:30
Speaker 1: pushing the envelope further and further until post-birth abortion is legal.
1:03:34
Speaker 2: That is the goal.
1:03:36
Speaker 1: No matter what you may hear in the media, the
1:03:37
Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy case is not just about postpartum depression. It's
1:03:40
Speaker 1: not even about SSRIs, at least not in isolation. It's
1:03:44
Speaker 1: yet another referendum on the legality of post-birth abortion in
1:03:47
Speaker 1: this country and the lengths that millions of modern American
1:03:50
Speaker 1: feminists will go in order to avoid facing the consequences
1:03:54
Speaker 1: of their own actions. Quite a few of these feminists
1:03:57
Speaker 1: truly believe that if their life isn't going well, a
1:04:00
Speaker 1: drug can fix it, and if a drug doesn't fix it,
1:04:02
Speaker 1: maybe murder will. Is there a constitutional right to execute
1:04:06
Speaker 1: your own child if they become inconvenient even years after
1:04:10
Speaker 1: their birth?
1:04:12
Speaker 2: That's the question.
1:04:13
Speaker 1: And with the Lindsay Clancy case, at least in the
1:04:16
Speaker 1: state of Massachusetts, we're about to find out.
1:04:20
Speaker 2: That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching.
1:04:21
Speaker 2: Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed.
1:04:31
Speaker 7: Your country is beneath contempt.
1:04:35
Speaker 15: We who love and serve Allah fought back against the
1:04:39
Speaker 15: Americans and the Zionists from the scourge of secularism and
1:04:44
Speaker 15: the lands of unbelief.
1:04:51
Speaker 12: Anyone gonna listen to Captain Saunders tomorrow? The retired Delta
1:04:54
Speaker 12: Force soldier with the new book out.
1:04:57
Speaker 2: He's the polar opposite of those brain-dead protesters. Given the
1:05:00
Speaker 2: current climate, should Clay Saunders even be allowed on campus?
1:05:03
Speaker 13: Mr.
1:05:03
Speaker 2: Saunders is a close personal friend of Chancellor Friedman. This
1:05:06
Speaker 2: is a decision I cannot fight. There are three ways
1:05:10
Speaker 2: Islam will conquer the West.
1:05:13
Speaker 14: Through immigration, through the wombs of our women, and by
1:05:20
Speaker 14: using our nation's freedoms against us.
1:05:27
Speaker 2: Are you paying attention?
1:05:35
Speaker 13: Listen carefully. The great Satan America will fall.
1:05:48
Speaker 2: You are infidels.
1:05:49
Speaker 12: The bodies of women are not pure and the men's
1:05:52
Speaker 12: souls are unclean.
1:05:54
Speaker 2: What makes them so dangerous? Their goals are not in
1:05:58
Speaker 2: this life, but the next.
1:06:05
Speaker 12: Anyone?
1:06:05
Speaker 2: I got friends here. I can't just leave.
1:06:07
Speaker 13: Listen to me.
1:06:08
Speaker 8: In the law, we cannot run or hide from what
1:06:13
Speaker 8: is coming.
1:06:14
Speaker 2: We have to fight.
1:06:16
Speaker 10: I will be rewarded 10,000 times in the next life.
1:06:19
Speaker 13: When you die, you're nothing. Only one way to find out.
1:06:25
Speaker 13: That's the American way.