Latest / The Matt Walsh Show / Lindsay Clancy Jurors Disgrace Themselves in New Viral Interviews

Transcript

Lindsay Clancy Jurors Disgrace Themselves in New Viral Interviews · The Matt Walsh Show

0:00
Speaker 1: Well, it finally happened. After waiting for a grand total
0:03
Speaker 1: of one half of a business day, several women on
0:07
Speaker 1: the Lindsay Clancy jury decided to run to the media
0:10
Speaker 1: for a tell-all interview about their deliberations. They simply couldn't
0:13
Speaker 1: stay out of the spotlight, alone with their own thoughts,
0:17
Speaker 1: what few thoughts they might have for another moment. So
0:20
Speaker 1: these females did what you'd expect any serious, good juror
0:24
Speaker 1: to do if they have utmost reverence for our legal process.
0:29
Speaker 1: They picked a friendly left-wing media outlet, NBC News, and
0:33
Speaker 1: they got in front of cameras to run their stupid mouths. Now,
0:37
Speaker 1: the idea was to make themselves look intelligent, thoughtful, empathetic. Instead,
0:43
Speaker 1: what these depraved imbeciles actually achieved very clearly was to
0:48
Speaker 1: affirm every stereotype about female jurors that they possibly could
0:53
Speaker 1: have affirmed in record time. They single-handedly set the feminist
0:57
Speaker 1: movement free the suffrage movement, democracy, back by about a
1:03
Speaker 1: century with this one interview. Now, as we discussed last week,
1:08
Speaker 1: we always assumed the women on the jury were tormenting
1:11
Speaker 1: the lone male holdout like an unspeakable Lovecraftian horror. We
1:17
Speaker 1: knew that the women were subjecting this one man to
1:19
Speaker 1: never-ending screeching condescension, passive aggressiveness, and mind-numbingly stupid non-arguments as
1:26
Speaker 1: he held his ground and insisted on voting guilty. We
1:29
Speaker 1: always assumed that the jury deliberations from the perspective of
1:32
Speaker 1: the lone sane male must have resembled a Twitter comment
1:36
Speaker 1: section come to life as he tried desperately to reason
1:39
Speaker 1: with people who lack the capacity for rational thought. And
1:42
Speaker 1: while we were correct about all those assumptions, in the end,
1:46
Speaker 1: we didn't go nearly far enough. The reality of the
1:49
Speaker 1: situation was somehow even more disturbing and bleak and intolerable
1:54
Speaker 1: than we could have imagined. The footage from the interview
1:57
Speaker 1: from NBC News and another interview with CBS is not
2:00
Speaker 1: simply radicalizing in the sense that it might have you
2:04
Speaker 1: rethinking democracy, the 19th Amendment, jury trials, perhaps even civilization itself.
2:10
Speaker 1: It's also ironic in a very dark sense because, you see,
2:14
Speaker 1: it turns out that the very same women who accused
2:17
Speaker 1: the lone male member of the jury of ignoring the
2:19
Speaker 1: judge's instructions in the case were in fact themselves ignoring
2:24
Speaker 1: the judge's instructions and the law in an obvious and
2:27
Speaker 1: wildly inappropriate and flagrant manner. And they admit as much
2:32
Speaker 1: in this nationally televised interview without realizing it. In fact,
2:37
Speaker 1: in multiple interviews, including a phone interview that we'll play
2:40
Speaker 1: in a second, these females admitted that they disregarded the
2:44
Speaker 1: law in no uncertain terms because they personally sympathized with
2:51
Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy, just like the Derek Chauvin jury. They had
2:54
Speaker 1: an outcome in mind from the beginning of the trial,
2:57
Speaker 1: and they were hell-bent on achieving that outcome. There is
3:01
Speaker 1: no other way to interpret these interviews. This, again, is
3:05
Speaker 1: not so much a surprise itself, but the casual, brazen
3:09
Speaker 1: way that they admit it openly and publicly is genuinely shocking.
3:15
Speaker 1: And it's also grounds for these particular women to be
3:18
Speaker 1: held in contempt of court. And there's reason to question
3:22
Speaker 1: whether the prosecution deliberately tanked this case, especially the female prosecutors,
3:29
Speaker 1: because for some of these jurors, their bias was exceedingly obvious.
3:34
Speaker 1: And if the prosecution had done any due diligence at all,
3:38
Speaker 1: they would have known that. Filling the jury with feminist
3:43
Speaker 1: boomers is prosecutorial misconduct of the worst kind. There was
3:48
Speaker 1: never any hope. of a guilty verdict, it turns out.
3:52
Speaker 1: And that was ensured before opening arguments even began. And
3:56
Speaker 1: you know that just from looking at these creatures. That's
3:58
Speaker 1: before they open their mouths and remove all doubt. But
4:02
Speaker 1: before we even get to the jurors' social media history
4:05
Speaker 1: or their admissions about ignoring the law, we have to
4:08
Speaker 1: begin with a truly jaw-dropping statement from one of the
4:11
Speaker 1: many elderly women on the jury, who you will notice
4:15
Speaker 1: is apparently incapable of even pronouncing the words reasonable doubt.
4:19
Speaker 1: This is an elderly woman who is attempting to answer
4:22
Speaker 1: a question about whether the male was a rogue juror
4:27
Speaker 1: or not, whatever that even means, rogue. Apparently not agreeing
4:31
Speaker 1: with the women makes you rogue. But I want you
4:35
Speaker 1: to listen very carefully to every word of this.
4:40
Speaker 2: Try to understand. We read to him on numerous occasions
4:43
Speaker 2: the definition of a reasonable doubt from Judge Sullivan's instruction.
4:50
Speaker 3: He actually said.
4:51
Speaker 2: One day in the end, well, why don't we have
4:53
Speaker 2: the judge come in and read it again? And we
4:55
Speaker 2: were like, no, we have it in front of us.
4:59
Speaker 2: We don't need that. And we would highlight it. And,
5:03
Speaker 2: you know, so-and-so, this is the definition of reasonable doubt.
5:08
Speaker 2: But he had the hardest time getting off the fact
5:10
Speaker 2: that Lindsay viciously killed her children.
5:14
Speaker 1: Yes, you heard that correctly. They tried again and again
5:18
Speaker 1: to tell the male about reasonable doubt. But he wouldn't
5:22
Speaker 1: budge because, and I quote, he had the hardest time
5:27
Speaker 1: getting off the fact that that Lindsay viciously killed her children.
5:33
Speaker 1: Can you imagine that? This one guy, this total madman,
5:38
Speaker 1: had a hard time getting off the central fact of
5:42
Speaker 1: the case, the entire reason the trial was taking place
5:47
Speaker 1: to begin with. This guy really struggled to move beyond
5:53
Speaker 1: the fact that Lindsay Clancy sent her husband out of
5:56
Speaker 1: the home in premeditated fashion, so that she could systematically
6:00
Speaker 1: execute her children one by one in the basement. That's
6:04
Speaker 1: just classic male behavior, right ladies? I mean, talk about mansplaining.
6:08
Speaker 1: He shows up to a murder trial and can't get
6:10
Speaker 1: past the murder. Who does he think he is? This
6:15
Speaker 1: reminds me of the time that I went to the
6:16
Speaker 1: dentist and all the guy did the whole time was
6:21
Speaker 1: focus on my teeth. He was obsessed. It was so weird.
6:27
Speaker 1: I'm like, dude, what, you can't get off the teeth?
6:30
Speaker 1: What's with you and teeth, man? Never even asked about
6:34
Speaker 1: my feet or my elbow. What a freak. Now, not
6:40
Speaker 1: to get too hung up on pesky things like the
6:42
Speaker 1: meaning of words, by the way, but the word vicious
6:46
Speaker 1: literally means something done maliciously and with intent. So if
6:53
Speaker 1: this woman agrees, as she says, that it's a fact,
6:57
Speaker 1: that Clancy killed her kids viciously, which obviously it is,
7:01
Speaker 1: then she had an obligation, by her own words, to
7:05
Speaker 1: vote guilty. If the killing was vicious, then it was
7:09
Speaker 1: intentional and deliberate by definition. There's no such thing as
7:13
Speaker 1: doing something viciously by accident. So this woman has confessed,
7:18
Speaker 1: even if she didn't mean to, that she actually agreed
7:21
Speaker 1: fundamentally with the holdout, even as she tries to throw
7:26
Speaker 1: him under the bus. And I don't think the word
7:29
Speaker 1: vicious here is incidental or accidental. All of these women
7:33
Speaker 1: heard the 911 call. One of them admitted that hearing
7:37
Speaker 1: the father's anguished cries over his dead children has changed
7:41
Speaker 1: her life. She'll never get over it. These women peered
7:46
Speaker 1: directly into the abyss with this case. I mean, they
7:50
Speaker 1: saw and heard things that nobody should ever have to
7:54
Speaker 1: see or hear. So she called it vicious. because she
7:59
Speaker 1: knows it was. She knows even better than I do,
8:02
Speaker 1: or you do, or any of us. And yet she
8:05
Speaker 1: still wanted to acquit. These women sat in a trial
8:11
Speaker 1: for weeks with evidence so shocking, so gut-wrenching, that they
8:16
Speaker 1: say they will never recover from having witnessed it, and
8:19
Speaker 1: yet they still sided with the killer. And not as
8:24
Speaker 1: like sober, objective observers, but as cheerleaders. With pom-poms. The
8:31
Speaker 1: moral depravity on the part of these women is hard
8:36
Speaker 1: to fathom. I truly hope that they live in shame
8:41
Speaker 1: and humiliation for the rest of their lives. That's what
8:43
Speaker 1: they deserve. They deserve to live in shame. They deserve
8:50
Speaker 1: to live as pariahs. That's what they deserve. But I'm
8:53
Speaker 1: sure they're incapable of experiencing either of those emotions, so
8:57
Speaker 1: they'll be fine. Now, this particular female juror is named
9:02
Speaker 1: Kelly Farina. She's a retired chef from Plymouth, Massachusetts. According
9:08
Speaker 1: to Mama Magazine, which was in the courtroom for the trial,
9:11
Speaker 1: Farina was the juror wearing the pink dress during the trial.
9:15
Speaker 1: Clancy supporters, you'll remember, rallied outside the courthouse wearing pink
9:18
Speaker 1: in an effort to sway the jury. And additionally, a
9:21
Speaker 1: few online sleuths went looking around Farina's Facebook page and
9:25
Speaker 1: And one of them found that Farina is apparently a
9:28
Speaker 1: member of the Free Karen Reid Facebook group. The profile
9:32
Speaker 1: picture matches. And in this group, if this is accurate,
9:36
Speaker 1: Farina appears to endorse a conspiracy theory about how Reid
9:39
Speaker 1: was supposedly framed for murder. In other words, based on
9:42
Speaker 1: this reporting, there's reason to believe that this juror publicly
9:46
Speaker 1: indicated long before the Clancy trial began that that she
9:49
Speaker 1: was willing to believe deranged online narratives in order to
9:53
Speaker 1: find a woman not guilty of a murder she obviously committed.
9:57
Speaker 1: And somehow, this never came up. during jury selection. The
10:03
Speaker 1: prosecution completely missed this. There's a random woman on X
10:07
Speaker 1: named Meredith who managed to find this Facebook post in
10:11
Speaker 1: five seconds as soon as she learned this woman's name.
10:15
Speaker 1: But somehow, no one in the prosecutor's office could find this?
10:20
Speaker 1: That's what we're supposed to believe. So there are only
10:22
Speaker 1: two options. Either the DA is completely incompetent or they
10:26
Speaker 1: wanted to tank the trial. And we need an explanation,
10:31
Speaker 1: and ideally new prosecutors, before any retrial begins. Keep in mind, again,
10:35
Speaker 1: the prosecutors on this case were women. Female lawyers in Massachusetts.
10:42
Speaker 1: So the chances that they are themselves bitter feminists who
10:46
Speaker 1: personally sympathize with Lindsay Clancy is statistically... very high. So
10:51
Speaker 1: the possibility of them intentionally tanking the case is not far-fetched.
10:55
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know if that's what happened, but
10:57
Speaker 1: there's reason to suspect that maybe it did. And again,
11:00
Speaker 1: we're just getting started. So here's more brilliant insight from
11:07
Speaker 1: this lady.
11:07
Speaker 3: Listen.
11:08
Speaker 4: Kelly, I experienced you to be one of the more
11:10
Speaker 4: expressive jurors. Everybody was very serious and somber and human
11:16
Speaker 4: by all means, but you kind of had a, you know,
11:19
Speaker 4: an eyebrow that occasionally went up. And I'm wondering what
11:22
Speaker 4: your reaction was to the prosecution's opening statement. There were
11:26
Speaker 4: some things that they said in their statement that I
11:28
Speaker 4: thought got a reaction out of you on day one
11:32
Speaker 4: of testimony.
11:33
Speaker 2: I just found it to be harsh, Sue.
11:34
Speaker 4: Very, very harsh.
11:36
Speaker 2: I mean, again, maybe we were talking with ourselves here
11:39
Speaker 2: but the fact that they had no character witnesses to
11:48
Speaker 2: in regard to lindsay of being a bad mother i
11:51
Speaker 2: mean right out of the gate it's like you're presenting
11:54
Speaker 2: all these medical professionals but nobody's presenting and for the
11:58
Speaker 2: prosecution a woman and a mother of three children. So
12:03
Speaker 2: I found it to be biased right out of the gate.
12:06
Speaker 2: I found them also to be kind of unprofessional and, um,
12:12
Speaker 2: just without a heart. And, and for me that right away,
12:16
Speaker 2: I was like, okay, where is this going? Right from
12:19
Speaker 2: statement one, there is no compassion in this courtroom right now,
12:25
Speaker 2: which I guess is, is expected of a prosecution. but
12:30
Speaker 2: I thought it was very cold.
12:32
Speaker 1: So these women are somehow profoundly dumber than I even expected.
12:38
Speaker 1: You need to understand how stupid everything you just heard is.
12:42
Speaker 1: So they claim they needed to see character witnesses to
12:45
Speaker 1: prove that Clancy was not a good mother. Somehow murdering
12:50
Speaker 1: her three children wasn't enough evidence for that. To be
12:55
Speaker 1: clear about this, The prosecution is supposed to be adversarial
12:59
Speaker 1: to the defense. That's kind of the whole point. They're
13:01
Speaker 1: not supposed to present the defense's case for them. They're
13:04
Speaker 1: supposed to be biased against the defense. How else could
13:09
Speaker 1: it work? How could you have a trial where the
13:12
Speaker 1: prosecutors are entirely impartial as to the outcome of the case?
13:19
Speaker 1: They're arguing for one point of view. Of course, they're
13:23
Speaker 1: biased in favor of the point of view they're arguing for.
13:26
Speaker 1: What is she even babbling about? Now, the jury, on
13:30
Speaker 1: the other hand, is not supposed to be biased in
13:32
Speaker 1: any way. The defense is going to be biased in
13:35
Speaker 1: its favor. The prosecution is going to be biased in
13:37
Speaker 1: its own favor. The jury's whole job is to not
13:41
Speaker 1: have a favorite and to follow the facts impartially. So
13:46
Speaker 1: this woman is accusing the prosecution of bias when, in fact,
13:49
Speaker 1: she was obviously committed to a not guilty verdict from
13:51
Speaker 1: the beginning. This is a classic case of projection, and
13:54
Speaker 1: it's not particularly subtle. No, the fact that Lindsay Clancy
13:58
Speaker 1: was nice to her children before she murdered them, allegedly,
14:02
Speaker 1: but the fact that she was allegedly nice to them
14:06
Speaker 1: before she factually murdered them has no relevance whatsoever to
14:11
Speaker 1: the question of whether she deserved to go to prison
14:14
Speaker 1: or for deliberately killing them in a premeditated manner. There
14:19
Speaker 1: are millions of examples of murderers who at one point
14:23
Speaker 1: in their lives were on friendly terms with their victims.
14:26
Speaker 1: Chris Watts, for example, was very nice to his wife
14:29
Speaker 1: and his children before he slaughtered them all so he
14:31
Speaker 1: could run away with some woman that he was having
14:33
Speaker 1: an affair with. Robert Durst was a big fan of
14:36
Speaker 1: Susan Berman before she outlived her usefulness. Aaron Hernandez partied
14:41
Speaker 1: a lot with Odin Lloyd right up until the moment
14:42
Speaker 1: that Hernandez drove Lloyd to a secluded industrial park and
14:46
Speaker 1: orchestrated his execution. Jodi Arias was enamored with her ex-boyfriend
14:50
Speaker 1: until she decided to slit his throat in the shower,
14:52
Speaker 1: stabbing him dozens of times before shooting him in the head.
14:55
Speaker 1: And if you want to go really far back, Marcus
14:58
Speaker 1: Junius Brutus was a close ally to Julius Caesar right
15:01
Speaker 1: up until the Ides of March, and we all know
15:02
Speaker 1: how that turned out. So all this to say the
15:05
Speaker 1: fact that the defense was able to present evidence that
15:08
Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy was at one point to all superficial outward appearances,
15:12
Speaker 1: at least supposedly, allegedly a loving mother is completely irrelevant.
15:18
Speaker 1: The vast majority of murderers snap in some way. That
15:23
Speaker 1: doesn't mean they're not guilty by reason of insanity. What
15:26
Speaker 1: the jury is doing here, in case it's not obvious,
15:27
Speaker 1: is creating a new legal rule where women can get
15:31
Speaker 1: away with murder anytime they want. They're saying that by definition,
15:35
Speaker 1: anyone who kills their own child cannot possibly be guilty
15:38
Speaker 1: of murder because only a criminally insane person would ever
15:41
Speaker 1: do that. I mean, think about how you could extend
15:44
Speaker 1: this logic to every other relationship in your life. And
15:49
Speaker 1: you can never convict anyone of anything ever again. It's absurd.
15:53
Speaker 1: Everyone is now not guilty by reason of insanity if
15:56
Speaker 1: you take their rule to its logical conclusion. Let me
16:00
Speaker 1: put it this way. I'll try to break it down
16:02
Speaker 1: for these ladies. Anyone who has ever murdered anyone ever
16:09
Speaker 1: was not a murderer up until the moment when they
16:14
Speaker 1: committed the first murder. So we could get more into
16:18
Speaker 1: the metaphysics here if we need to, but I don't
16:20
Speaker 1: think it should be necessary. A person has not done
16:25
Speaker 1: a thing until they've done it. The fact that they
16:30
Speaker 1: didn't do it before they did it does not disprove
16:34
Speaker 1: the fact that they did it when they did it.
16:38
Speaker 1: Does that make sense? Does that make sense? If someone
16:44
Speaker 1: commits murder, you can't say, well, but they, but, but
16:47
Speaker 1: they never murdered anyone. They were never, they weren't doing
16:49
Speaker 1: any murders up until that murder. You got this like
16:55
Speaker 1: infinite regression thing going on now where it's like no one.
16:57
Speaker 1: So it's, it's, So the only time we could convict
17:02
Speaker 1: someone of murder is if they've just been murdering since
17:04
Speaker 1: the very moment of their existence. Is that the only time?
17:10
Speaker 1: If you're confused about how this works, then you are,
17:15
Speaker 1: and I mean this in a clinical sense, retarded. And
17:19
Speaker 1: you shouldn't be on a jury. This alleged failure of
17:24
Speaker 1: prosecution to prove that Clancy was a bad mother came
17:28
Speaker 1: up multiple times from these women. And it comes up
17:32
Speaker 1: a lot among Lindsay Clancy supporters generally. It's a major
17:35
Speaker 1: hang-up for them, apparently. But the problem isn't just the
17:40
Speaker 1: fact that her bad mothering was very definitively proven by
17:43
Speaker 1: the fact that she killed her children. That's all the
17:46
Speaker 1: proof that any reasonable person could ever need. The other
17:50
Speaker 1: problem is that the prosecution was illegally barred from presenting
17:56
Speaker 1: that kind of evidence anyway. The rules of evidence prohibit
18:00
Speaker 1: the prosecution from bringing on character witnesses to prove generally
18:06
Speaker 1: that Lindsay Clancy was a bad mother.
18:09
Speaker 2: Okay?
18:10
Speaker 1: They can't even do that. They're not allowed to. So
18:12
Speaker 1: if there's anyone out there, and I think it's very
18:16
Speaker 1: likely that there is, who knew Clancy, and saw her
18:21
Speaker 1: being a bad mother prior to the killing, the prosecution
18:25
Speaker 1: could not, under the rules of evidence, present that person
18:29
Speaker 1: as a witness. I mean, it is highly likely that
18:34
Speaker 1: there are female acquaintances, friends of friends, who knows, in-laws, cousins,
18:40
Speaker 1: former classmates, former coworkers out there, who, if they were
18:45
Speaker 1: asked and felt safe to speak freely, would tell you
18:48
Speaker 1: that Clancy was, in their hypothetical words, a total... Every
18:53
Speaker 1: woman has other women out there who would describe them
18:57
Speaker 1: that way. It is reasonable to assume that a woman
19:00
Speaker 1: who is also a mass murderer certainly has a few
19:04
Speaker 1: of those other women out there. But the prosecution could
19:08
Speaker 1: not legally present any of that as evidence. And for
19:12
Speaker 1: good reason, because it wouldn't be evidence. You can be
19:16
Speaker 1: a total and kill your kids or you could be
19:19
Speaker 1: a total and not kill your kids. That's not really
19:22
Speaker 1: evidence of anything. So these women on the jury decided
19:26
Speaker 1: the prosecution was not credible because it failed to do
19:30
Speaker 1: something that it was not legally allowed to do. They
19:34
Speaker 1: are criticizing the prosecution for following the law. They are
19:38
Speaker 1: claiming the prosecution should have defied the law and presented prejudicial,
19:43
Speaker 1: irrelevant character assassination witnesses. Something that if they had done that,
19:49
Speaker 1: obviously these women would have condemned them for it anyway.
19:53
Speaker 1: Because these women had already made up their mind. And
19:57
Speaker 1: it really didn't matter what the prosecution did or didn't do.
20:01
Speaker 1: So speaking of the law, what does it actually mean
20:05
Speaker 1: in Massachusetts to be not guilty by reason of insanity?
20:08
Speaker 1: I'm not going to relitigate my many criticisms of the
20:11
Speaker 1: insanity defense or the fact that Massachusetts law is extremely
20:15
Speaker 1: absurdly lenient to defendants to the point that, frankly, if
20:20
Speaker 1: it's applied in a very liberal manner as it has
20:22
Speaker 1: been here, it's hard to imagine any defendant ever getting convicted. Massachusetts,
20:27
Speaker 1: unlike most states, requires that the prosecution prove the defendant
20:30
Speaker 1: is not crazy beyond a reasonable doubt. So they have
20:32
Speaker 1: to prove a negative about what was going on in
20:35
Speaker 1: someone's mind beyond a reasonable doubt. The reason I'm not
20:39
Speaker 1: going to relitigate these legal criticisms is that based on
20:41
Speaker 1: their own comments, the jurors frankly didn't care about Massachusetts
20:46
Speaker 1: law anyway, one way or another. Nor did they care
20:49
Speaker 1: about the jury instructions.
20:51
Speaker 3: Watch.
20:52
Speaker 5: Ronnie talked a lot about how managing those deliberations was
20:56
Speaker 5: harder than her work as a fifth grade teacher. And
20:58
Speaker 5: they confirmed there was one holdout juror. I asked them
21:02
Speaker 5: what they thought of him being described by the prosecution
21:05
Speaker 5: as a rogue juror. Here's what they said.
21:10
Speaker 6: He was very arrogant.
21:11
Speaker 7: He really did not take anything that anybody said. The nurses,
21:18
Speaker 7: he tried to ask a question about the medications, and
21:23
Speaker 7: we went back to the report from South Shore Hospital.
21:27
Speaker 7: We had the toxicology report. We could see exactly the amounts.
21:31
Speaker 7: The nurses in the room spoke to that and.
21:35
Speaker 3: Talked to that.
21:36
Speaker 4: There were nurses on the jury.
21:37
Speaker 2: Yes.
21:38
Speaker 7: And they spoke to that specific thing. That was a
21:42
Speaker 7: question that he had. And he just completely disregarded the
21:48
Speaker 7: information that they gave.
21:49
Speaker 1: This is an astonishing admission, and she doesn't even realize it.
21:53
Speaker 1: And of course, neither does the NBC reporter. She's saying
21:55
Speaker 1: that when the loan holdout was refusing to acquit, the
21:59
Speaker 1: nurses on the jury tried to convince him that Clancy
22:02
Speaker 1: was not guilty using their medical expertise as nurses. So
22:06
Speaker 1: the nurses spoke to that, she says. This is completely,
22:11
Speaker 1: obviously inappropriate based on the standard jury instructions in Massachusetts
22:15
Speaker 1: and every other state. Jurors are not allowed to consider
22:18
Speaker 1: expert analysis from other members of the jury. They're only
22:23
Speaker 1: allowed to consider the testimony of experts who testify on
22:26
Speaker 1: the stand along with any evidence presented at trial. Quote,
22:31
Speaker 1: no juror is better qualified to determine the truth of
22:33
Speaker 1: the facts in controversy or to deliberate upon a verdict
22:36
Speaker 1: than any other juror or solely because of that juror's occupation, education, experience,
22:41
Speaker 1: or any other characteristic. So that's from the model jury instructions.
22:45
Speaker 1: Jurors are allowed to use their own common sense and
22:48
Speaker 1: draw from various life experiences, but they're not allowed to
22:50
Speaker 1: act as an unsworn witness with any kind of special knowledge. Instead,
22:54
Speaker 1: they're supposed to analyze the testimonies provided in the court,
22:57
Speaker 1: including the expert testimony. And the reason is simple. Experts
23:01
Speaker 1: in court are subject to cross-examination. both sides can probe
23:06
Speaker 1: their credentials and the legitimacy of their findings. But in
23:09
Speaker 1: a jury room, if someone says, I'm a nurse, and
23:12
Speaker 1: here's the truth about postpartum psychosis, then other jurors are
23:15
Speaker 1: going to feel pressured to agree with them. It completely
23:18
Speaker 1: defeats the purpose of calling expert witnesses. It defeats the
23:21
Speaker 1: purpose of the trial. What's the point of having jurors
23:25
Speaker 1: listen to testimony if they're going to provide their own
23:27
Speaker 1: unvetted testimony in secret in the jury room? And by
23:33
Speaker 1: the way, The guy was completely right to ignore the
23:37
Speaker 1: nurses in the jury room because nurses don't really know
23:40
Speaker 1: much that's relevant to this case.
23:43
Speaker 2: Sorry.
23:45
Speaker 1: Most of them can't even prescribe medication. Didn't go to
23:48
Speaker 1: medical school. I mean, what is a random nurse in
23:51
Speaker 1: a jury room? Suddenly, how is that going to be
23:54
Speaker 1: a credible expert on psychoactive drugs? You know, we're talking
23:59
Speaker 1: about nurses, school teachers, chefs. These women don't have any
24:04
Speaker 1: base of knowledge that gives them any secret insight, any
24:07
Speaker 1: additional insight into this case at all. The whole thing
24:09
Speaker 1: is absurd. So what's so incredible about this juror's admission, which,
24:14
Speaker 1: by the way, is grounds for holding her in contempt
24:16
Speaker 1: of court, is that she doesn't seem to even realize
24:19
Speaker 1: what she's saying. It's not simply that these women are dumb.
24:22
Speaker 1: They're dumb, while also believing that they're extremely intelligent and savvy.
24:27
Speaker 1: They've been convinced by a lifetime of feminist propaganda that
24:31
Speaker 1: that everything they say is a stroke of genius, and
24:34
Speaker 1: here we are. Again, these are the same women who
24:37
Speaker 1: think that the lone male holdout was the one who
24:39
Speaker 1: was ignoring the law and bypassing the judge's instructions. And
24:42
Speaker 1: in the same breath, they're admitting on camera that they
24:45
Speaker 1: tried to pull rank on this guy. Even if we
24:50
Speaker 1: assume that they're characterizing this male juror's statements fairly, which
24:53
Speaker 1: they obviously aren't, there's still no way to get around
24:55
Speaker 1: the fact that they tried to intimidate him. They wanted
24:57
Speaker 1: to pressure the lone holdout to acquit, And when that failed,
25:01
Speaker 1: they tried to have him thrown off the jury. Actually,
25:05
Speaker 1: for a while, it appears there was another holdout on
25:07
Speaker 1: the jury, at least one more. Before we get back
25:10
Speaker 1: to this NBC interview, I want to pull some footage,
25:12
Speaker 1: which is audio only, from a CBS phone interview with
25:16
Speaker 1: another woman on the jury, who's apparently the youngest woman
25:20
Speaker 1: on the panel. So listen to her reasoning. She said
25:23
Speaker 1: that she was initially leaning towards a guilty verdict, and
25:27
Speaker 1: then she changed her mind. And listen to why. She
25:30
Speaker 1: changed her mind. So where did you come down from
25:34
Speaker 1: the very beginning? Like, what was your vote?
25:37
Speaker 3: So originally I felt as though she was guilty and
25:42
Speaker 3: she was criminally responsible for it. And maybe I still
25:47
Speaker 3: believe that in a certain way. I think that this
25:52
Speaker 3: was a woman who... You know, she was not mentally healthy.
25:57
Speaker 3: She was someone that was in the throes of a
25:59
Speaker 3: significant mental health crisis. So I really just felt like
26:03
Speaker 3: she was so deep in it that she couldn't.
26:07
Speaker 7: See her way out.
26:09
Speaker 3: Because at the end of the day, there's so much doubt.
26:12
Speaker 3: You know, the prosecution to have a figurative smoking gun
26:18
Speaker 3: There was not a single moment throughout that presentation or
26:22
Speaker 3: that case that you could say, oh, yep, 100% I'm
26:25
Speaker 3: certain she did it or that she didn't do it.
26:28
Speaker 3: There's too much gray area.
26:30
Speaker 4: Yeah.
26:32
Speaker 3: And eventually I just felt like the only way to
26:35
Speaker 3: get justice for Cora, Dawson, and Callen, and Patrick, and
26:40
Speaker 3: her parents, and anyone else that was closest, was to
26:43
Speaker 3: get her the help that she desperately needed. And there's
26:47
Speaker 3: no way she's getting that help at that point in time.
26:52
Speaker 1: So this woman says she went into deliberations thinking Clancy
26:56
Speaker 1: was guilty. But she switched to not guilty because it
26:59
Speaker 1: was the only way Lindsay would get the help she needs,
27:02
Speaker 1: quote unquote. That's how she wants to get justice for
27:05
Speaker 1: the murdered children and their father. She's openly admitting, leaving
27:10
Speaker 1: aside the fact that, you know, the idea that getting
27:13
Speaker 1: her help means justice for the victims, like leaving aside
27:16
Speaker 1: how absurd that is and incoherent. The point is that
27:20
Speaker 1: she disregarded the law in order to ensure that Lindsay
27:22
Speaker 1: Clancy would get better mental health treatment. Suffice it to
27:26
Speaker 1: say that on the jury, you are not supposed to
27:29
Speaker 1: be making decisions based on those kinds of calculations. You
27:34
Speaker 1: are there to judge whether Clancy was guilty or not, period.
27:40
Speaker 1: Your job is not to ensure that she gets the
27:43
Speaker 1: help she needs. That is not a legitimate legal factor
27:47
Speaker 1: to be weighed by the jury. In fact, the jury
27:50
Speaker 1: was explicitly instructed not to take That kind of thing
27:54
Speaker 1: into account. Not to take potential punishments and consequences for
27:57
Speaker 1: Clancy into account at all. Their one single sole responsibility
28:02
Speaker 1: was to determine whether Clancy was criminally responsible for murder
28:07
Speaker 1: or not. Whether that determination would lead to her getting
28:11
Speaker 1: help or not was not only irrelevant, but it was
28:14
Speaker 1: a factor the jury was explicitly forbidden from weighing. But
28:19
Speaker 1: they did anyway. Now, to the extent that this woman
28:22
Speaker 1: actually talks about Clancy's guilt or innocence under the law,
28:25
Speaker 1: she says the following, quote, there was so much doubt.
28:28
Speaker 1: The prosecution didn't have a figurative smoking gun. There was
28:31
Speaker 1: not a single moment throughout the presentation of the case
28:34
Speaker 1: where you could say, yep, 100 percent, I'm certain she
28:36
Speaker 1: did it or that she didn't do it. There's too
28:39
Speaker 1: much gray area. OK, so there's a lot to examine there,
28:44
Speaker 1: starting with the fact that the prosecution's burden of proof
28:48
Speaker 1: is not. to demonstrate with 100% certainty that Lindsay Clancy
28:54
Speaker 1: is guilty. That is not what proof beyond a reasonable
28:58
Speaker 1: doubt means. And this is not a minor detail. This
29:02
Speaker 1: is not semantics. The burden of proof is one of
29:06
Speaker 1: the most important issues in the trial. And this woman
29:10
Speaker 1: did not understand it. And again, this is ironic because
29:14
Speaker 1: these women were making the claim that the lone male
29:16
Speaker 1: juror was the one who didn't understand the concept of
29:18
Speaker 1: reasonable doubt. but clearly they didn't. Because now they're giving
29:22
Speaker 1: these interviews all over national television where they state explicitly
29:26
Speaker 1: that they couldn't convict Lindsay Clancy because they weren't 100%
29:29
Speaker 1: certain she did it. Now, by the way, for the record,
29:33
Speaker 1: Clancy admits she did it. Her defense attorney admitted it
29:36
Speaker 1: multiple times during the trial. The only question under the
29:40
Speaker 1: law is whether she was in control of her actions
29:43
Speaker 1: and could appreciate that they were wrong. So this is
29:47
Speaker 1: a woman who deliberately sent her husband away from the
29:50
Speaker 1: house so that she could slaughter her children alone. And
29:52
Speaker 1: then after she methodically committed the murder, she threw herself
29:55
Speaker 1: out of a window in the most half-hearted suicide attempt imaginable.
29:58
Speaker 1: Suddenly she forgot how to kill a human being when
30:00
Speaker 1: it came time to kill herself. These actions make it
30:03
Speaker 1: clear that Clancy was in full control of her actions
30:06
Speaker 1: and appreciated that her actions were wrong. Clancy didn't mention
30:10
Speaker 1: psychosis a single time until she lawyered up. She never
30:13
Speaker 1: mentioned this alleged voice she heard until after the fact.
30:16
Speaker 1: So even under the law, even under Massachusetts law, as
30:20
Speaker 1: absurd as it is, it's clear beyond a reasonable doubt
30:25
Speaker 1: that Clancy was guilty. Is it 100% clear? Well, no,
30:31
Speaker 1: in the sense that nothing is 100% clear if you
30:35
Speaker 1: want to be philosophical about it. You know, I can't
30:38
Speaker 1: be 100% certain Clancy was criminally responsible because I can't
30:43
Speaker 1: be 100% certain that she even exists. Maybe this is
30:47
Speaker 1: all a simulation. Maybe we're plugged into the matrix. Maybe
30:51
Speaker 1: it's an elaborate dream. OK, maybe pigs really can fly
30:55
Speaker 1: and they've been lying to us the whole time. Any
30:57
Speaker 1: of those things are technically possible, which is why it's
31:01
Speaker 1: a good thing the juries are not tasked with weighing
31:04
Speaker 1: every technical possibility. If they were, deliberations would take an
31:08
Speaker 1: eternity instead of just half an eternity like this jury.
31:12
Speaker 1: The question is about reasonable doubt. Yes, it's technically possible.
31:19
Speaker 1: that Lindsay Clancy isn't responsible because maybe she was being
31:22
Speaker 1: mind controlled by aliens or something? Like technically, is there
31:29
Speaker 1: like a 0.0000001% chance of some sort of sci-fi reality
31:38
Speaker 1: like that? Sure. Is it reasonable to assume that?
31:44
Speaker 3: No.
31:46
Speaker 1: Is it reasonable to have any practical doubt about her guilt?
31:50
Speaker 1: Are there any reasonable doubts? No, there is no reasonable doubt.
31:57
Speaker 1: The only doubt that you can have about Lindsay Clancy's
31:59
Speaker 1: guilt is the kind of doubt that you might have
32:03
Speaker 1: about whether you're going to walk outside and suddenly start
32:06
Speaker 1: floating into the sky. It could technically happen, but it's
32:12
Speaker 1: not a reasonable thing to worry about. But none of
32:17
Speaker 1: the jurors understand any of this. Instead, the more they talk,
32:20
Speaker 1: the more they make it clear that they rigged the case.
32:23
Speaker 1: So here's more from this same interview. Listen carefully.
32:26
Speaker 3: You know, the standalone juror was not the only one
32:30
Speaker 3: that was unwilling to see things from the other side.
32:34
Speaker 3: So I'm going to kind of defend that individual.
32:38
Speaker 6: In a sense.
32:40
Speaker 3: There were some big personalities in that room. But at
32:43
Speaker 3: the end of the day, I feel like it just
32:47
Speaker 3: came down to an inability to kind of move past
32:53
Speaker 3: your convictions. And, you know, even after that dynamite charge
32:56
Speaker 3: to be unable to self-analyze yourself and be like, okay,
33:03
Speaker 3: am I missing something?
33:08
Speaker 1: Now, I haven't really seen anyone else mention this, but
33:11
Speaker 1: she references the dynamite charge from the judge. That's the
33:14
Speaker 1: jury instruction the judge issued after the jury reported being
33:17
Speaker 1: deadlocked twice. The instruction is basically to go back to
33:20
Speaker 1: the jury room and really try hard to reach a verdict.
33:23
Speaker 1: There's just one problem. The judge never called it a
33:26
Speaker 1: dynamite charge, nor did any of the lawyers in the case.
33:30
Speaker 1: It's a very strange term, very specific term to use
33:33
Speaker 1: if you think about it. Most people have no idea
33:35
Speaker 1: what a dynamite charge is in reference to a trial.
33:40
Speaker 1: But if you were on social media during the trial,
33:42
Speaker 1: or if you were watching court TV, Then you heard
33:45
Speaker 1: dynamite charge mentioned hundreds of times. So it seems likely
33:51
Speaker 1: that this juror was violating another important rule, which is
33:54
Speaker 1: that she wasn't supposed to read or watch any outside
33:56
Speaker 1: information or analysis about the case. Not that there was
34:00
Speaker 1: really any doubt that that was happening anyway. It's one
34:02
Speaker 1: of the many reasons this jury should have been sequestered.
34:04
Speaker 1: Everything they were told by the judge or by witnesses
34:06
Speaker 1: in the case was quickly filtered through social media and
34:09
Speaker 1: court TV, in all likelihood. It was all corrupted. And
34:13
Speaker 1: it's a big deal because it makes the judge's instructions
34:15
Speaker 1: completely useless. And now the jurors are coming out and
34:17
Speaker 1: admitting it without realizing it. It's also likely, if we're
34:20
Speaker 1: being honest, that the jurors concocted the plan to oust
34:23
Speaker 1: the loan holdout by consulting outside sources. I mean, that
34:25
Speaker 1: could have happened. At the very least, the dynamite charge
34:28
Speaker 1: language would raise a question about whether this juror is, again,
34:32
Speaker 1: at the very least, a true crime fan. You know,
34:35
Speaker 1: it's not like true crime, true crime, like women who
34:38
Speaker 1: are really into true crime will just kind of casually
34:40
Speaker 1: use this sort of like legal language, even though they're
34:43
Speaker 1: not lawyers. because they just watch this stuff all the time.
34:46
Speaker 1: And now this is in their vocabulary. But the problem
34:49
Speaker 1: is that a true crime fan should not be on
34:52
Speaker 1: this jury or any jury ever. But admittedly, in terms
34:57
Speaker 1: of egregious rule violations by these jurors, this is just
35:00
Speaker 1: the tip of the iceberg. So let's go back to
35:02
Speaker 1: the NBC interview we were looking at. Here's the jury foreperson,
35:05
Speaker 1: a retired fifth grade teacher, demonstrating her infinite wisdom.
35:11
Speaker 8: Watch.
35:12
Speaker 6: I mean, he had reasonable doubt. He admitted he had
35:16
Speaker 6: reasonable doubt after we watched that video of the interview.
35:19
Speaker 6: I think that's when it was. He admitted he had
35:22
Speaker 6: reasonable doubt. And I started filling out the forms. I
35:26
Speaker 6: was so excited. I actually, there were three forms I
35:29
Speaker 6: had to fill out. And I started filling them out.
35:32
Speaker 6: I wrote my signature on each one. And then he said,
35:36
Speaker 6: but I'm still not going to say that she's not
35:39
Speaker 6: guilty by reason of insanity.
35:42
Speaker 1: First of all, why exactly is the foreperson so excited
35:45
Speaker 1: by the prospect of a not guilty verdict? Put aside
35:48
Speaker 1: the fact that she's excited about a child killer getting
35:50
Speaker 1: acquitted and potentially walking free in society in a few
35:52
Speaker 1: months or rolling free, at least, as disgusting and pathetic
35:56
Speaker 1: as it is to be excited about that. The fact is,
35:59
Speaker 1: it shouldn't matter to her one way or another how
36:01
Speaker 1: the trial ends. No one on the jury, especially not
36:04
Speaker 1: the foreperson, should be excited about any particular verdict or outcome.
36:08
Speaker 1: When a jury gets excited during deliberations, then by definition,
36:11
Speaker 1: something has gone seriously wrong. They're supposed to play the
36:14
Speaker 1: role of a neutral, serious arbiter. And this jury clearly
36:19
Speaker 1: did not fulfill that responsibility. What's evident in this clip,
36:24
Speaker 1: of course, is that the foreperson was excited because from
36:26
Speaker 1: the very beginning of this case, she wanted Lindsay Clancy
36:29
Speaker 1: to be acquitted. She had a vested interest in the
36:32
Speaker 1: outcome of the trial. She was eager to fill out
36:35
Speaker 1: those forms and announce a not guilty verdict. the same
36:38
Speaker 1: reason she's giving these idiotic interviews. She desperately wanted to
36:40
Speaker 1: be a hero for feminists everywhere, to establish the legal
36:44
Speaker 1: precedent that they can murder their children at any age
36:46
Speaker 1: and get away with it. And she was thrilled that
36:49
Speaker 1: for a brief moment, she thought her fantasy would become reality. Now,
36:54
Speaker 1: as for her claim that the jury admitted or the
36:56
Speaker 1: juror admitted that he had reasonable doubt, we have no
36:58
Speaker 1: idea if that's true or what the context was. But
37:02
Speaker 1: from this clip, it's clear that these female jurors didn't
37:05
Speaker 1: actually care about the guy's reasoning. By her admission, the
37:08
Speaker 1: moment she heard the word doubt, she started filling out
37:11
Speaker 1: the verdict forms for an acquittal. She wasn't interested in
37:15
Speaker 1: what doubts the lone juror may have had or how
37:18
Speaker 1: significant those doubts were. All she cared about was the
37:22
Speaker 1: end result. So when he told her that he wasn't
37:24
Speaker 1: going to vote not guilty, she became frustrated and angry.
37:27
Speaker 1: This was not a deliberation, in other words. They were
37:30
Speaker 1: trying to reach a particular result. At 18, people are
37:35
Speaker 1: expected to choose a career before they've had enough experience
37:39
Speaker 1: to actually know what kind of work suits them. And
37:42
Speaker 1: then if they reach 30 or 40 and realize they
37:44
Speaker 1: chose the wrong path, changing direction is treated like failure. Well,
37:48
Speaker 1: it is. What I appreciate about Grand Canyon University is
37:51
Speaker 1: that it understands education is not limited to the traditional
37:54
Speaker 1: path from high school to a college campus. GCU is
37:57
Speaker 1: a private, nonprofit, Christian university. Whether you study on its
38:01
Speaker 1: Phoenix campus or online from home, GCU offers hundreds of
38:04
Speaker 1: programs designed to help students build practical skills and prepare
38:08
Speaker 1: for meaningful careers. That flexibility can make pursuing a new
38:11
Speaker 1: direction possible for working adults who already have jobs and responsibilities.
38:16
Speaker 1: GCU has also held tuition steady on its traditional campus
38:19
Speaker 1: for 17 years while continuing to invest in its students.
38:23
Speaker 1: In fact, 75% of its programs and facilities have been
38:27
Speaker 1: built within the last decade. It's never too late to
38:29
Speaker 1: pursue meaningful work without abandoning the values that guide you.
38:33
Speaker 1: Learn more at gcu.edu, Grand Canyon University, private Christian, affordable, nonprofit.
38:39
Speaker 1: That's gcu.edu. Finding a t-shirt that looks good, feels high quality,
38:45
Speaker 1: and doesn't break the bank is a lot more difficult
38:48
Speaker 1: than it used to be or should be. That's why
38:50
Speaker 1: my producer was overjoyed to find Mack Weldon after listening
38:53
Speaker 1: to this show. They make classic menswear that looks good
38:56
Speaker 1: without being flashy or complicated. Their Air Knit X collection
39:00
Speaker 1: follows that same philosophy. It combines breathable nylon mesh with
39:05
Speaker 1: four-way stretch, so it moves with you without bunching, sagging,
39:08
Speaker 1: or feeling restrictive. It's lightweight, moisture-wicking, odor-fighting, but still looks
39:13
Speaker 1: like regular, well-made clothing. Mack Weldon offers Air Knit X
39:17
Speaker 1: in t-shirts, polos, undershirts, socks, and more. It's made for
39:20
Speaker 1: guys who want to stay comfortable throughout the day while
39:22
Speaker 1: still looking presentable without wasting time planning an outfit, constantly
39:26
Speaker 1: adjusting their clothes, or Putting any more thought into getting
39:28
Speaker 1: dressed than absolutely necessary Go to MackWeldon.com and get 20%
39:32
Speaker 1: off your first order of $ 125 or more with promo
39:35
Speaker 1: code Walsh. That's M-A-C-K-W-E-L-D-O-N.com, code Walsh. As the interview continued,
39:43
Speaker 1: that became more and more obvious. It also became clear
39:45
Speaker 1: that the DA badly miscalculated by putting two female prosecutors
39:48
Speaker 1: on the case. I mean, honestly, the prosecution had no
39:52
Speaker 1: chance anyway, based on what these jurors are saying. But
39:55
Speaker 1: we still need to talk about the assumption in the
39:56
Speaker 1: DA's office about how female jurors can be expected to
39:59
Speaker 1: behave in a murder trial like this one. So with
40:03
Speaker 1: that in mind, watch the jurors' assessment of Kevin Reddington,
40:06
Speaker 1: who's the slimy defense attorney.
40:08
Speaker 7: Watch.
40:09
Speaker 5: Here's what they had to say about Kevin Reddington and
40:11
Speaker 5: the defense.
40:13
Speaker 6: Just his whole demeanor was funny. And there was one time,
40:20
Speaker 6: whatever he said, I don't know, but I went... Because
40:27
Speaker 6: he was entertaining, which was good because we needed some
40:30
Speaker 6: of that.
40:31
Speaker 4: And arrogant at the same time.
40:34
Speaker 2: Yes. Like arrogant and entertaining.
40:37
Speaker 7: He would go back and forth between that.
40:39
Speaker 6: Yeah.
40:39
Speaker 4: But compassionate. Yes.
40:41
Speaker 7: Through his with his arrogance. His compassion towards Lindsay was amazing.
40:48
Speaker 1: His compassion for Lindsay was amazing. Never mind the fact
40:53
Speaker 1: that he's getting paid like, you know, ten thousand dollars
40:56
Speaker 1: an hour or whatever for that compassion. But, you know,
40:59
Speaker 1: it was amazing. He was arrogant yet compassionate at the
41:03
Speaker 1: same time. He was funny. He made them laugh in court. Meanwhile,
41:08
Speaker 1: the female prosecutors were supposedly unprofessional. They lacked compassion. They
41:12
Speaker 1: were biased. Now, it's grotesque to imagine, but it's clear
41:17
Speaker 1: that these postmenopausal women were sitting in the jury box
41:19
Speaker 1: just swooning over the decrepit old defense attorney, too busy
41:25
Speaker 1: having hot flashes to even listen to the facts of
41:27
Speaker 1: the case. This is yet another clear argument against making
41:30
Speaker 1: important decisions through the lens of DEI. It simply doesn't work.
41:35
Speaker 1: The DA made this mistake in two separate ways. First,
41:38
Speaker 1: the DA staffed the case with female prosecutors. And secondly,
41:40
Speaker 1: the DA was willing to load the jury with women
41:43
Speaker 1: to the point that it was nine females and three men. Presumably,
41:48
Speaker 1: the DA thought that those nine women on the jury
41:50
Speaker 1: would be disgusted by the thought of another woman killing
41:53
Speaker 1: her own children. And they'd identify with the stern female
41:57
Speaker 1: girl boss prosecutors instead. That was never going to happen
42:01
Speaker 1: because the vast majority of leftist women in this country,
42:04
Speaker 1: which is to say the entire female population of Massachusetts,
42:07
Speaker 1: by the way, genuinely want the right to murder their children.
42:13
Speaker 1: I mean, a huge number of them, millions already have.
42:18
Speaker 1: Millions of women in this country have already murdered their
42:23
Speaker 1: own children. through abortion. That's just a statistical reality. And
42:32
Speaker 1: women like that are not going to be objective or
42:36
Speaker 1: impartial about a case like this. They see themselves on trial,
42:42
Speaker 1: their own guilty conscience. And that's how it is. They're
42:47
Speaker 1: playing for keeps. The whole trial is just merely a
42:52
Speaker 1: game to them. You know, on top of that, it's
42:57
Speaker 1: also an opportunity to be entertained, it turns out. They
43:00
Speaker 1: don't actually care about the facts or the evidence. They
43:03
Speaker 1: want the right to murder their children whenever they feel
43:06
Speaker 1: like it on the demonic theory that children are essentially
43:08
Speaker 1: parasites that prevent women from satisfying all of their personal
43:12
Speaker 1: narcissistic desires. The 50 different waves of feminism have all
43:16
Speaker 1: been leading to this point, and now we're here. Kevin
43:20
Speaker 1: Reddington understands precisely how to appeal to women like this.
43:23
Speaker 1: He'll pose for selfies outside the courthouse. He'll entertain all
43:25
Speaker 1: kinds of deranged theories about the case. He'll even badger
43:29
Speaker 1: witnesses and the judge during the trial. Reddington does not
43:33
Speaker 1: care about the integrity of the legal process or professionalism
43:35
Speaker 1: or anything you'd expect a lawyer to care about or
43:37
Speaker 1: hope that they would anyway. He's the perfect match for
43:40
Speaker 1: jurors who don't care about the law either. That's why
43:43
Speaker 1: he just went on Good Morning America to demand that
43:45
Speaker 1: Trump pardon his client even though he obviously knows the
43:49
Speaker 1: president cannot pardon a state-level murder charge.
43:54
Speaker 3: Watch.
43:56
Speaker 1: What's next for Lindsey?
43:58
Speaker 8: I'd like to say that perhaps Donald Trump, who felt
44:02
Speaker 8: compelled to speak out about this case, may very well, Mr. President,
44:06
Speaker 8: I would hope that you would consider this young lady,
44:09
Speaker 8: the type of person she is, what she's been through,
44:13
Speaker 8: and consider a pardon.
44:18
Speaker 1: So that's totally ridiculous. Again, it couldn't even happen anyway.
44:23
Speaker 1: But the goal here is to bait Trump into talking
44:26
Speaker 1: about the case so that he can argue his client
44:28
Speaker 1: can't get a fair trial. It's all calculated and manipulative.
44:33
Speaker 1: It's behavior that repulses any well-adjusted person because it's so
44:36
Speaker 1: obviously dishonest. But millions of women find this kind of
44:38
Speaker 1: lawyering to be compelling because in their own lives, they're
44:41
Speaker 1: manipulative and dishonest as well. I mean, that's the whole
44:44
Speaker 1: point of feminism after all. It's a license to strike
44:48
Speaker 1: back at the patriarchy by any means necessary. These jurors
44:54
Speaker 1: are no longer hiding their commitment to this ideology. During
44:57
Speaker 1: the same interview, they told NBC that if there's a retrial,
45:01
Speaker 1: they're going to show up to the court to show
45:04
Speaker 1: solidarity with Lindsey Clancy. Presumably, they'll be wearing pink again,
45:08
Speaker 1: just like they did during the trial. Watch.
45:12
Speaker 3: Sue, all of our analysts on Commonwealth Confidential seem pretty
45:15
Speaker 3: confident there will be a retrial here of some kind.
45:18
Speaker 3: What did these jurors have to say about that likelihood?
45:23
Speaker 5: They were not necessarily supporting a retrial at all. One
45:27
Speaker 5: of the jurors was a little bit back and forth
45:29
Speaker 5: on it but said, all three of them, if... Lindsay
45:33
Speaker 5: Clancy is brought for a retrial by DA Cruz. They
45:37
Speaker 5: will all of them be in the courtroom to support
45:40
Speaker 5: Lindsay Clancy. So interesting development there.
45:43
Speaker 1: That is an interesting development. All right.
45:45
Speaker 2: Sue O'Connell, our courtroom insider.
45:47
Speaker 3: Thank you.
45:50
Speaker 1: I mean, these women are just sick. These women. And
45:54
Speaker 1: I feel perfectly fair saying that these are sick, evil
45:57
Speaker 1: women on the jury, those women specifically. who've chosen to
46:01
Speaker 1: come out and identify themselves. They didn't have to do that.
46:03
Speaker 1: They could have remained anonymous. We're not outing them. They
46:07
Speaker 1: outed themselves. And so we can say about them that
46:10
Speaker 1: they are sick, evil, awful women who, again, deserve to
46:14
Speaker 1: be pariahs in the community and deserve to live with
46:17
Speaker 1: shame and humiliation for the rest of their lives. They're
46:19
Speaker 1: bad people. And I mean, just think about this. Not only, again,
46:25
Speaker 1: did they acquit this woman, they're cheerleading for her, and
46:28
Speaker 1: now they're saying they're going to go back to the trial.
46:30
Speaker 1: You're going to sit and listen to these descriptions of
46:34
Speaker 1: children being executed again? You couldn't get enough of it
46:39
Speaker 1: the first time? You're that entertained by it? What is
46:42
Speaker 1: wrong with you, you demons? You would want to go
46:45
Speaker 1: back and listen again? You want to hear the 911
46:49
Speaker 1: call again? You want to hear the description of how
46:51
Speaker 1: those children were strangled to death and their eyes were
46:53
Speaker 1: popping out of their heads? Blood vessels on their face? Rupturing?
47:01
Speaker 1: You want to hear all that again? You sick, twisted monsters. Disgusting. Now,
47:10
Speaker 1: if the prosecution is worth anything, and it probably isn't,
47:13
Speaker 1: they need to play every single piece of footage from
47:15
Speaker 1: these interviews in court as soon as possible. These women
47:20
Speaker 1: were corrupt from the moment they were selected. The legal
47:24
Speaker 1: process failed at every level. There should be a hearing
47:27
Speaker 1: to establish exactly what went wrong and how to prevent
47:29
Speaker 1: it from happening again. They should all be charged with
47:37
Speaker 1: any relevant crimes, contempt of court. They should all be
47:40
Speaker 1: charged with contempt of court. The retrial needs new prosecutors
47:44
Speaker 1: and a new method of jury selection. And to that end,
47:49
Speaker 1: now would be a good time for the lone male
47:51
Speaker 1: holdout to come forward anonymously if necessary, if he wants to,
47:56
Speaker 1: to explain exactly what happened in the jury room, what
47:59
Speaker 1: actually happened. He can certainly come on this show anytime
48:02
Speaker 1: he wants. It would be highly useful and informative for
48:05
Speaker 1: the court and the public to learn about the specific
48:08
Speaker 1: horrors he had to endure at the hands of these harpies.
48:12
Speaker 1: The role of the entire news media and the defense
48:15
Speaker 1: and most of the jury in this case was to
48:17
Speaker 1: silence this man and browbeat him into submission, to allow
48:21
Speaker 1: a triple murderer, a child killer, to go free. Nearly
48:26
Speaker 1: one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in American history.
48:31
Speaker 1: And now this heroic juror has the opportunity to expose
48:33
Speaker 1: this corruption at length in front of a national audience.
48:37
Speaker 1: And if he does so, and if more people hear
48:40
Speaker 1: his story, then the next time a barbaric child killer
48:43
Speaker 1: is put on trial, there's a chance more men on
48:46
Speaker 1: the jury will do the right thing, which is to
48:48
Speaker 1: ignore the retarded nurses and school teachers and chefs and
48:52
Speaker 1: send her to prison for the rest of her miserable existence.
48:58
Speaker 1: That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching.
48:59
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed.
49:10
Speaker 1: in history has started with protesting. You're a traitor! Uncle Tom!
49:13
Speaker 5: This is our generation's civil rights!
49:14
Speaker 2: I have no idea what the protest is about.
49:16
Speaker 6: Bingo!
49:17
Speaker 1: Given the current climate, should a figure as polarizing as
49:20
Speaker 1: Clay Saunders even be allowed on campus? Uh, can you
49:23
Speaker 1: hear me okay? Saunders is a close personal friend of
49:25
Speaker 1: Chancellor Friedman. This is a decision I cannot fight. Islam
49:28
Speaker 1: will conquer the West.
49:31
Speaker 2: As-salamu alaykum.
49:34
Speaker 1: Are we paying attention? They've taken over the building. They're
49:38
Speaker 1: downstairs and they've blocked the doors. I seek forgiveness from
49:43
Speaker 1: Allah the Almighty. We cannot run and hide.
49:47
Speaker 6: Muhammad is the messenger of God.
49:50
Speaker 1: There is no God but Allah.
49:53
Speaker 4: What do you say we turn those SOBs.
49:57
Speaker 1: Into a fine red mist?
50:00
Speaker 3: As we move, one man will cover while the other
50:02
Speaker 3: guys go.
50:03
Speaker 1: They call that leap project.
50:04
Speaker 3: Stretch your arms and listen.
50:07
Speaker 1: You need a course in safe weapons handling.