Latest / Honey Badger Radio / Female Clancy jurors target holdout: 'He couldn't get over her viciously killing the kids

Transcript

Female Clancy jurors target holdout: 'He couldn't get over her viciously killing the kids · Honey Badger Radio

• 0:01
  Speaker 1: Okay, and we're live. Hello, everybody, and welcome to Honey
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: Badger Radio. My name is Brian. I'm here with Allison,
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: and this is Maintaining Frame. Female jurors speak out on Clancy,
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: convict themselves predictably. Well, we're going to be, I added
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: the predictably to that because I thought it was predictable.
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: We're going to be looking at, I know this has
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: been doing the rounds. People have been seeing this, going
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: around and responding to it. And basically NBC News Boston,
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: the local news of the area in Massachusetts, basically conducted
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: interviews with three of the female jurors. And it is
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: a thing. It is something to behold. And we're going
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: to be looking at it and reacting to it.
• 0:49
  Speaker 2: Yeah, everybody who.
• 0:51
  Speaker 2: Wondered what was going on in the, you.
• 0:54
  Speaker 3: Know, the sequestered jury chamber.
• 0:57
  Speaker 2: You know, everybody who was.
• 1:00
  Speaker 3: All of your wonderings turned out to be correct and worse.
• 1:05
  Speaker 2: Like worse, if you can imagine it. And what's astounding
• 1:10
  Speaker 2: to me is these women.
• 1:11
  Speaker 3: Just openly admitted all of this behavior in public. Now,
• 1:20
  Speaker 3: I mean, there's going to be no recourse. There's no
• 1:23
  Speaker 3: actual punishment or anything that's going to happen to them
• 1:28
  Speaker 3: for doing this. It's just now we know what they
• 1:32
  Speaker 3: did when they were on this jury. And it's completely inexcusable.
• 1:39
  Speaker 4: It's completely.
• 1:40
  Speaker 2: There is no justification for this behavior.
• 1:44
  Speaker 5: Right?
• 1:44
  Speaker 2: Like, it's not.
• 1:46
  Speaker 3: they have completely discredited their entire position by describing what
• 1:53
  Speaker 3: they did, not just to the jury, well, specifically to
• 1:59
  Speaker 3: the holdout, but probably also there's some implication from their
• 2:03
  Speaker 3: testimony for self-incrimination that they were doing this generally to
• 2:09
  Speaker 3: the three dissenters There is some indication that they engaged
• 2:18
  Speaker 3: in bullying. Apparently there was some name-calling that could be
• 2:23
  Speaker 3: heard by the alternates through the room, like through the wall.
• 2:26
  Speaker 3: So they have alternate jury members who were also sequestered,
• 2:30
  Speaker 3: and they could hear the yelling through the wall, the name-calling.
• 2:36
  Speaker 3: And apparently they browbeat this holdout to the point where
• 2:39
  Speaker 3: he just completely shut down. So this just Just imagine
• 2:45
  Speaker 3: being the 12th juror on this and having, it wouldn't
• 2:50
  Speaker 3: be 12, it wouldn't be 11 Karens, it would be nine.
• 2:52
  Speaker 3: Because 10 and 11 were the men who supplicated. And
• 2:57
  Speaker 3: having nine Karens screaming at you.
• 3:00
  Speaker 2: And abusing you for however long. Because that's what happened.
• 3:06
  Speaker 3: And every word out of this women, well, not every word, okay?
• 3:09
  Speaker 3: That's probably indefensible. I'm sure there were some participles that
• 3:12
  Speaker 3: they could stand behind, like.
• 3:14
  Speaker 4: V and A, right?
• 3:16
  Speaker 3: But most of the words out of these women's mouths,
• 3:19
  Speaker 3: testimony to their own behavior, condemn them and their behavior.
• 3:23
  Speaker 3: And honestly, I'm like listening, I'm looking at this, I'm thinking,
• 3:29
  Speaker 3: all right, so what we have now is an object
• 3:31
  Speaker 3: lesson why women shouldn't be serving on juries, right?
• 3:35
  Speaker 2: Can I say that?
• 3:38
  Speaker 3: Because this is where I'm at now. Every one of
• 3:43
  Speaker 3: these women have displayed a failure mode that is unique
• 3:46
  Speaker 3: to women.
• 3:48
  Speaker 2: And not just that, guys.
• 3:51
  Speaker 3: They didn't just pervert the course of justice in this instance.
• 3:55
  Speaker 3: They're going to continue their campaign. So the next trial,
• 3:59
  Speaker 3: they're going to be there doing whatever they can to
• 4:05
  Speaker 3: continue their campaign to find Lindsay Clancy innocent. I mean,
• 4:09
  Speaker 3: she's guilty, but innocent by virtue of insanity, which was
• 4:13
  Speaker 3: discovered later after she committed her acts, not before, because
• 4:18
  Speaker 3: the state psychologist or psychiatrist said that they didn't see
• 4:23
  Speaker 3: any evidence of psychosis. And all of the psychiatrists and
• 4:28
  Speaker 3: psychologists she saw prior to committing her act also didn't
• 4:32
  Speaker 3: see any evidence. But afterwards, After the defense got involved,
• 4:37
  Speaker 3: they found somebody to testify to that effect.
• 4:41
  Speaker 2: But we'll continue.
• 4:44
  Speaker 3: They will continue their campaign to ensure that Lindsay Clancy
• 4:49
  Speaker 3: is innocent because that is what they have decided.
• 4:53
  Speaker 2: Evidence would not sway them.
• 4:57
  Speaker 3: No evidence of guilt would apparently sway these women. And
• 5:04
  Speaker 3: we're going to go through I'm calling it five perversions
• 5:08
  Speaker 3: of justice that these women engaged in. Also, they are
• 5:16
  Speaker 3: perversions of justice, but there's no recourse, of course. There's
• 5:20
  Speaker 3: absolutely no recourse.
• 5:21
  Speaker 2: They can do this.
• 5:22
  Speaker 3: They can intimidate other jury members.
• 5:25
  Speaker 2: They can create cliques.
• 5:26
  Speaker 3: And exclude people and abuse them.
• 5:30
  Speaker 2: There's a point at which these women... The.
• 5:32
  Speaker 3: Lone jury, the guy who the holdout said, I would
• 5:36
  Speaker 3: like the judge to instruct me on what reasonable doubt is.
• 5:40
  Speaker 2: And these women said, no, you don't get to do that.
• 5:44
  Speaker 3: We will tell you what reasonable doubt is.
• 5:48
  Speaker 2: Can you freaking believe that? And then the reasoning, their
• 5:54
  Speaker 2: so-called reasoning will astound you because it doesn't resemble reasoning.
• 6:03
  Speaker 3: Essentially said, well, Lindsay Clancy occupies the position of a mother,
• 6:07
  Speaker 3: which she doesn't, by the way, because she killed the
• 6:13
  Speaker 3: qualification for occupying that position.
• 6:16
  Speaker 2: She murdered them.
• 6:17
  Speaker 3: But because Lindsay Clancy occupies the position of a mother,
• 6:21
  Speaker 3: she's innocent by virtue of her position in the relational web.
• 6:26
  Speaker 3: And I'll cover that as well, because it has a
• 6:28
  Speaker 3: lot of bearing on the how.
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: These women think and the conclusions they came to.
• 6:35
  Speaker 3: And why men are watching this in utter astonishment.
• 6:41
  Speaker 2: Why men don't understand this, how they could come to
• 6:44
  Speaker 2: these conclusions.
• 6:48
  Speaker 3: That will be explained by my relational web hypothesis. And
• 6:54
  Speaker 3: for those of you who don't know what that is,
• 6:55
  Speaker 3: I have discovered through literature analysis and some other stuff
• 7:01
  Speaker 3: that the way that men and women structure what they
• 7:05
  Speaker 3: attend to in reality is different. Women have relational web thinking,
• 7:12
  Speaker 3: which means they take information and they map it into
• 7:16
  Speaker 3: a topography of where everyone sits within a relational web.
• 7:20
  Speaker 3: you know, who's in a relationship, who likes who, whatever,
• 7:23
  Speaker 3: you know, what their position signals. So Lindsay Clancy's position
• 7:28
  Speaker 3: signals that she's a loving mother. Therefore, the fact that
• 7:32
  Speaker 3: she killed her children is evidence of her innocence.
• 7:37
  Speaker 2: Because she's a loving mother. A loving mother.
• 7:40
  Speaker 3: Would never kill their children. unless something was happening to her. Therefore,
• 7:47
  Speaker 3: she's innocent. By killing her children, she declared herself innocent.
• 7:51
  Speaker 3: That's the logic of the relational web in the context
• 7:54
  Speaker 3: of this particular trial. But yes, it keeps track of
• 7:58
  Speaker 3: where people are relationally.
• 8:00
  Speaker 2: It signals positions.
• 8:02
  Speaker 3: It looks at who gets access to resources, apportions resources.
• 8:07
  Speaker 2: It's basically a relational positional topography. That's how women engage
• 8:12
  Speaker 2: with the world. Men engage with the world very differently.
• 8:17
  Speaker 3: They say, Lindsay Clancy's actions created the consequence of dead children.
• 8:23
  Speaker 2: Therefore, she's guilty.
• 8:26
  Speaker 3: Because men look at actions and consequences and derive conclusions
• 8:31
  Speaker 3: from them.
• 8:32
  Speaker 2: Women don't. They look at positions and.
• 8:38
  Speaker 3: Signals and decode from that.
• 8:44
  Speaker 2: Very different thinking.
• 8:46
  Speaker 3: And it's why, again, we got this huge split between
• 8:50
  Speaker 3: women who are like, oh yeah, she's innocent. By killing
• 8:53
  Speaker 3: her children, Lindsay Clancy became innocent of killing her children.
• 8:57
  Speaker 2: .
• 8:58
  Speaker 3: .
• 9:03
  Speaker 2: How can we exist on the same planet?
• 9:07
  Speaker 3: And again, it's the two cognitive modalities clashing, not understanding
• 9:14
  Speaker 3: each other. And oh my gosh. Anyway, it's going to
• 9:19
  Speaker 3: be a ride. But if at any point throughout the
• 9:22
  Speaker 3: show you want to send me a message, you want
• 9:24
  Speaker 3: to scream at me, some of you do that. You
• 9:28
  Speaker 3: can do so at feedthebadger.com slash justthetip. That's feedthebadger.com slash
• 9:33
  Speaker 3: just the tip. Very best way for you to send
• 9:35
  Speaker 3: us a message and a tip with that message. Our support,
• 9:39
  Speaker 3: you can send us support at feedthebadger.com slash support.
• 9:42
  Speaker 2: It's not up yet, but it will be soon.
• 9:46
  Speaker 3: So just keep it in mind as an option. And badgernation.online,
• 9:50
  Speaker 3: if you want to join us in our community. Yeah,
• 9:55
  Speaker 3: so those are the three options. They should be in
• 9:57
  Speaker 3: the low bar.
• 9:59
  Speaker 2: They usually are.
• 10:00
  Speaker 6: And, uh, yeah.
• 10:01
  Speaker 2: So let's, uh, shall we.
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: Just get into it?
• 10:05
  Speaker 2: Shall we start?
• 10:07
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: So before we start, uh, first of all, I did
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: get a super chat right at the top of the
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: show by Albatross who gave us $ 2 and said they
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: openly admitted to cheating and still lost and Well, it's
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: not over yet, but yeah, I see what you mean. Okay,
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: so this is an exclusive interview with three of the nine...
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: Did somebody just join this call?
• 10:32
  Speaker 7: Oh.
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: Three of the nine... Okay. Three of the nine female jurors.
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: I think these three are.
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: The Furies, Electo, Tisiphone, and Megara, but I could be wrong.
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: Maybe they're one of the Norns or the Mori. So,
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: I don't know. But, anyway. So, let's just start with
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: the cold open because it's revealing all on its own. So,
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: let's play it. There's no sound.
• 11:06
  Speaker 6: Hold on.
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: There we go.
• 11:07
  Speaker 7: Jurors from the Lindsay Clancy trial, including the foreperson, talk
• 11:11
  Speaker 7: exclusively to our courtroom insider.
• 11:14
  Speaker 5: He admitted he had reasonable doubt after we watched that
• 11:17
  Speaker 5: video of the interview.
• 11:18
  Speaker 4: I think that's when it was.
• 11:20
  Speaker 7: They describe their repeated deadlocks and what it was like
• 11:24
  Speaker 7: in the deliberation room.
• 11:25
  Speaker 4: But he had the.
• 11:26
  Speaker 8: Hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed
• 11:30
  Speaker 8: her children.
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: What is.
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 11:39
  Speaker 2: Is it horrible that I'm laughing?
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: No, it's just....
• 11:45
  Speaker 2: It's so fucking insane.
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: Yeah, like, that's kind of the whole thing in a nutshell.
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: This sentiment.
• 11:54
  Speaker 7: Okay, let me explain.
• 11:55
  Speaker 4: Okay, go ahead.
• 11:55
  Speaker 9: Look, Let me use relational modality, relational.
• 12:09
  Speaker 2: Web versus cognitive or operative.
• 12:12
  Speaker 3: All right. So men have this thing called like a,
• 12:15
  Speaker 3: a sense of custodial duty and custodial duty is supposed
• 12:20
  Speaker 3: to be discharged onto pretty much sacrifice. It's like the whole, um, uh,
• 12:27
  Speaker 3: the Christian formulation, Christ sacrifice, you know, men sacrifice for
• 12:31
  Speaker 3: the wives as Christ sacrifice for the church. That is
• 12:33
  Speaker 3: a custodial duty. That's a custodial position, a custodial duty.
• 12:39
  Speaker 3: You put yourself before your charge. And this makes a
• 12:42
  Speaker 3: lot of sense to men for various reasons related to
• 12:46
  Speaker 3: their evolution. And you see the same kind of custodial
• 12:52
  Speaker 3: duty of discharge to the point of death, things like
• 12:54
  Speaker 3: the Titanic, World War I, officers dying at higher rates
• 13:00
  Speaker 3: than enlisted men, the 9-11. the CEOs that actually died,
• 13:08
  Speaker 3: male CEOs or male C-suite, the executives, male executives who
• 13:13
  Speaker 3: actually died in the process of trying to get their
• 13:17
  Speaker 3: employees out of the building.
• 13:19
  Speaker 2: This is all custodial behavior and the expectation that you
• 13:24
  Speaker 2: discharge it onto death.
• 13:26
  Speaker 3: And the evolutionary part of that is that men are
• 13:31
  Speaker 3: very critical for the survival of their children especially in
• 13:36
  Speaker 3: a scenario that's ancestral, so no settled buildings and other
• 13:42
  Speaker 3: kinds of stuff like that, just the ability to grab
• 13:45
  Speaker 3: a kid and run away from the saber tooth. That
• 13:47
  Speaker 3: makes men very critical, but it also makes them critical
• 13:50
  Speaker 3: in a sacrificial sense. And women don't understand that because
• 13:55
  Speaker 3: mammalian evolution has made female mammals, their physical bodies, critical
• 14:02
  Speaker 3: for the survival of their offspring. So a woman is
• 14:05
  Speaker 3: more inclined to see herself first and foremost before her children.
• 14:11
  Speaker 3: And again, there's an evolutionary reason for that because women's
• 14:15
  Speaker 3: bodies are critical, when mammals, are critical for the survival
• 14:19
  Speaker 3: of their offspring. They have to, they gestate, they lactate,
• 14:22
  Speaker 3: et cetera. It's not like an egg-laying situation. If the
• 14:26
  Speaker 3: mother dies, the kid most likely will die too, which
• 14:29
  Speaker 3: is why she prioritizes herself more often first. relative to men,
• 14:35
  Speaker 3: who regard the custodial duty to be a sacrificial one.
• 14:39
  Speaker 3: So when men encounter something like this, they're basically looking
• 14:43
  Speaker 3: at Lindsay Clancy and saying, she failed in her custodial duty.
• 14:49
  Speaker 2: And sometimes that's just enough.
• 14:52
  Speaker 3: Like, you know, there are men who have failed similarly
• 14:55
  Speaker 3: to Lindsay Clancy, not even similarly, they're verified, like they
• 14:59
  Speaker 3: have psychosis, verified. Like they verified that before anything happened
• 15:04
  Speaker 3: or they have schizophrenia verified before anything happened. Thinking of
• 15:09
  Speaker 3: one case where the man killed his five children and
• 15:11
  Speaker 3: then gouged out his eyes like some sort of Greek tragedy, right?
• 15:15
  Speaker 3: And so he was literally in the depth of some
• 15:18
  Speaker 3: kind of hallucination. He didn't know what reality was. Still
• 15:24
  Speaker 3: got the electric chair though because men don't care. Like
• 15:29
  Speaker 3: this is where their instinct lies, where their emotion lies.
• 15:32
  Speaker 3: If you're a threat to your children, yeah, that's all
• 15:35
  Speaker 3: that matters.
• 15:36
  Speaker 2: That is the consequence.
• 15:38
  Speaker 3: And the fact that you are insane doesn't matter, right?
• 15:42
  Speaker 2: It's irrelevant. You're a threat.
• 15:46
  Speaker 3: And that means that you are not discharging your custodial duty,
• 15:50
  Speaker 3: which means either you're a man who will be so
• 15:53
  Speaker 3: wracked with guilt for have failing, in which case killing
• 15:56
  Speaker 3: you is a mercy, or you're not, in which case
• 15:59
  Speaker 3: killing you is a necessity. I think that's where men
• 16:01
  Speaker 3: sit on this whole thing. However, they can set aside
• 16:05
  Speaker 3: the emotion, the instinct and the intuition and do due.
• 16:10
  Speaker 10: Process, right?
• 16:12
  Speaker 3: In order to determine whether or not the guy is
• 16:14
  Speaker 3: guilty or not.
• 16:16
  Speaker 5: Right?
• 16:17
  Speaker 3: Women can't because that's not the way they see it. Again,
• 16:21
  Speaker 3: because a child's survival is tied to the survival of
• 16:25
  Speaker 3: the mother, at least in the first few years, mothers
• 16:28
  Speaker 3: have more of the tendons.
• 16:30
  Speaker 2: This is more critical.
• 16:32
  Speaker 3: And also, women generally see things in terms of positions.
• 16:38
  Speaker 2: So when women look.
• 16:39
  Speaker 3: At this trial, I'm not saying all women, but this
• 16:42
  Speaker 3: is an inclination. They don't see it in terms of, oh,
• 16:46
  Speaker 3: Lindsay Clancy failed in her custodial duties. That's all that matters,
• 16:51
  Speaker 3: as men generally do. They see it in terms of, oh,
• 16:54
  Speaker 3: Lindsay Clancy occupies a position that I also occupy.
• 16:58
  Speaker 2: I better defend that.
• 16:59
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 17:00
  Speaker 2: Because then I might be out in the cold.
• 17:03
  Speaker 6: Right?
• 17:04
  Speaker 3: So that sort of explains the difference.
• 17:07
  Speaker 2: So what this.
• 17:08
  Speaker 3: Woman is saying is you don't look at Lindsay Clancy's
• 17:12
  Speaker 3: actions as, You have to look at her position. And
• 17:17
  Speaker 3: the man's like, no, I think her actions are rather
• 17:20
  Speaker 3: critical to her guilt.
• 17:23
  Speaker 2: And the women are like, no, but you're wrong.
• 17:25
  Speaker 3: It's her position that matters. Because we share that position.
• 17:29
  Speaker 2: And we need to defend it. We need to render
• 17:31
  Speaker 2: it blameless.
• 17:32
  Speaker 3: Because the position that we share with Lindsay Clancy, let
• 17:35
  Speaker 3: me use the colloquialism, the woman card. We share a
• 17:38
  Speaker 3: woman card with Lindsay Clancy. And if the woman card
• 17:41
  Speaker 3: stops being blameless... It loses all.
• 17:44
  Speaker 2: Of its value.
• 17:47
  Speaker 3: So yeah, that's sort of where she's going. How she
• 17:50
  Speaker 3: can even conceive of saying he couldn't get away from
• 17:54
  Speaker 3: the horrifying aspects of the crime that she committed when
• 17:58
  Speaker 3: determining her guilt.
• 18:01
  Speaker 2: You're not supposed to think about that, guys. That's irrelevant.
• 18:06
  Speaker 3: What you need to think about is the fact that
• 18:08
  Speaker 3: Lindsay Clancy was a loving mother. And loving mothers don't
• 18:11
  Speaker 3: kill their children. Ipso facto, she didn't kill her children.
• 18:14
  Speaker 3: Even though she did.
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: Or she killed them because she loves them so much. Yeah.
• 18:23
  Speaker 1: It was love that killed them. It was just a
• 18:25
  Speaker 1: hug with an elastic band around their neck for a
• 18:28
  Speaker 1: long time. But it was a hug nonetheless. You can't
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: change that.
• 18:33
  Speaker 10: Yeah.
• 18:34
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. All right. So was that the first? Let
• 18:38
  Speaker 1: me see. No, there's a little bit more to this,
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: so let's keep going.
• 18:42
  Speaker 7: The plea Clancy's defense attorney made this morning on national
• 18:45
  Speaker 7: television and how her now ex-husband is reacting to relentless
• 18:50
  Speaker 7: online harassment. A special edition of Commonwealth Confidential.
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: At least they acknowledge the husband is getting harassed. There
• 18:59
  Speaker 1: is that. And it's worse than that. I don't know
• 19:01
  Speaker 1: if you've seen some of the stuff that these terminally
• 19:04
  Speaker 1: online women have been saying about about Patrick Clancy. Like
• 19:09
  Speaker 1: they're accusing him of being a pedophile. Like that he
• 19:13
  Speaker 1: was like preying on his own children because he would
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: take his daughters out to things. This is all just
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: women speculating online. None of it's legitimate. Like some of
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: the stuff they're claiming, it's like... Anyway, I don't want
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: to get into it right now. But what I despise
• 19:30
  Speaker 1: is people who are blaming this on TikTok or true crime.
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: That pisses me off because... No, no. You can't blame... Like,
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: blaming media for this attitude is basically like blaming video
• 19:44
  Speaker 1: games for violence. Or porn for rape culture or something. That's...
• 19:50
  Speaker 1: the same mindset, but I see this a lot. Well,
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: TikTok's the problem. It's true crime that's the problem. No, no.
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: There's something wrong with these women. That's the problem.
• 20:04
  Speaker 3: Or, alternatively, this is a failure mode of female thinking.
• 20:10
  Speaker 3: And you've got to account for it. The fact is
• 20:15
  Speaker 3: that these women are not neutral. They have a motivated
• 20:20
  Speaker 3: interest in this case. The currency of the woman card
• 20:24
  Speaker 3: is blamelessness. So they're seeing their currency. They're defending a
• 20:30
  Speaker 3: material interest that they have in their position within the
• 20:34
  Speaker 3: relational web as women. So this is all motivated reasoning
• 20:40
  Speaker 3: on their behalf, and it's motivated by self-interest.
• 20:46
  Speaker 2: And that's why, until.
• 20:47
  Speaker 3: You understand that, what they're saying sounds completely insane. Oh,
• 20:52
  Speaker 3: in this murder trial, we can't consider the murderer. Okay,
• 20:58
  Speaker 3: seems insane, doesn't it? But it doesn't seem insane once
• 21:02
  Speaker 3: you step into the mind of a positional thinker. The
• 21:06
  Speaker 3: facts are irrelevant. The actions are irrelevant. The consequences are irrelevant.
• 21:11
  Speaker 3: What's relevant is the position that Lindsay Clancy occupies in
• 21:16
  Speaker 3: the relational web and further, the position the jury occupies
• 21:21
  Speaker 3: in relation to her. If Lindsay Clancy is declared guilty,
• 21:26
  Speaker 3: then blame can be land on the position that she
• 21:31
  Speaker 3: occupies in the relational web, which means blame lands on
• 21:35
  Speaker 3: the juror.
• 21:36
  Speaker 1: Yep.
• 21:37
  Speaker 3: And of course her blamelessness is what is a, is a,
• 21:42
  Speaker 3: is a actual material good in her world.
• 21:48
  Speaker 1: Okay. Let's, um, all right. So I got, I got, yeah,
• 21:52
  Speaker 1: we can move. Uh, well, hold on. I got us
• 21:56
  Speaker 1: some super things to read out. So, um, we'll go
• 21:59
  Speaker 1: from there. Dizzy Lizzy gave us two, two euros and said, uh,
• 22:03
  Speaker 1: these look exactly as I expected. I think he's referring
• 22:06
  Speaker 1: to the women. Um, official reverse trad gives us a
• 22:11
  Speaker 1: $ 5 super chow and says, is it true that the
• 22:13
  Speaker 1: fact that women kill children more than men traces back
• 22:16
  Speaker 1: to the biological phenomenon of sexual selection like that? It
• 22:20
  Speaker 1: is like that. It is an act of the mother
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: rejecting the father. I just don't like the idea of
• 22:25
  Speaker 1: crazy rad femmes using that as an argument that it's
• 22:29
  Speaker 1: the father's fault somehow because you know, they, they are
• 22:32
  Speaker 1: that fucked up.
• 22:34
  Speaker 2: Um, okay, move on.
• 22:36
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 22:36
  Speaker 1: Thank you for that. I, I, I do think that
• 22:39
  Speaker 1: there's some truth to it, but I don't know that
• 22:40
  Speaker 1: it's biological. I think it's a lack of moral character. Yeah.
• 22:46
  Speaker 1: More morality. Like they just, there's no sense of it.
• 22:48
  Speaker 1: Kit gives us $ 8 and says, hearing the jurors talk
• 22:52
  Speaker 1: has been truly shocking. They talk about how much they
• 22:55
  Speaker 1: liked the defense attorney and how funny he was as
• 22:58
  Speaker 1: if that was the decided, what decided guilt or innocence.
• 23:02
  Speaker 2: Relational web. Relational web, my dude.
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: The defense attorney was safely within the relational web. That's
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: why they had nothing but compliments. It was why they
• 23:12
  Speaker 1: praised people like Fauci. It was the same kind of thing.
• 23:17
  Speaker 3: Okay, it's not even like he has nothing of compliments.
• 23:20
  Speaker 3: This is not tribalism. They are decoding him based on
• 23:23
  Speaker 3: his surface behavior and factors.
• 23:28
  Speaker 2: That's it.
• 23:29
  Speaker 3: They're encoding his position based on how he made them feel.
• 23:34
  Speaker 2: And his rightness based on how they made him feel.
• 23:37
  Speaker 3: But of course, it's probably also tribalism or like I
• 23:40
  Speaker 3: would say, they feel like they share a similar positional
• 23:45
  Speaker 3: coordinate in the relational web with Lindsay Clancy.
• 23:49
  Speaker 2: Therefore, they have to defend it. And the defendant is,
• 23:52
  Speaker 2: of course, aligned with their interests. So there's that as well.
• 23:55
  Speaker 2: But again, it's also very relational web.
• 23:58
  Speaker 3: Just figuring out where somebody stands in the web based
• 24:02
  Speaker 3: on their surface appearance is like 100% women thinking.
• 24:09
  Speaker 9: Yeah.
• 24:11
  Speaker 2: Okay.
• 24:11
  Speaker 1: All right. So let's go to, let's jump ahead to
• 24:15
  Speaker 1: the one 38 time code.
• 24:17
  Speaker 2: No, no.
• 24:18
  Speaker 3: Two, two 14, two 14, 14 group. This is the
• 24:23
  Speaker 3: first perversion of justice, which is the campaign to see
• 24:26
  Speaker 3: Clancy declared innocent.
• 24:28
  Speaker 11: Yeah.
• 24:28
  Speaker 3: Okay. So it's not a deadlock jury.
• 24:31
  Speaker 2: It's an acquittal.
• 24:32
  Speaker 3: It's like a drive for acquittal. Like we're doing a drive.
• 24:35
  Speaker 3: We're doing a drive for, I don't know, muscular dystrophy. No,
• 24:39
  Speaker 3: we're doing a drive to acquit Lindsay Clancy, except we're
• 24:42
  Speaker 3: the 12 jurors, well, 11 jurors, with one obstruction. So yeah,
• 24:48
  Speaker 3: they were all on a drive to acquit this woman
• 24:50
  Speaker 3: with one obstruction, at least one remaining obstruction, because it
• 24:53
  Speaker 3: sounded like the other two men were just browbeaten into it.
• 24:57
  Speaker 3: All right, so video one, do it.
• 25:01
  Speaker 10: And they really did feel like they failed.
• 25:05
  Speaker 12: From what they said to you, it seems they were
• 25:07
  Speaker 12: frustrated by the one juror who would not agree with that.
• 25:13
  Speaker 12: So let's right now, let's take a reminder of what
• 25:17
  Speaker 12: that juror had to say.
• 25:18
  Speaker 10: And Sue, we want to play your whole story. So
• 25:20
  Speaker 10: let's take a listen.
• 25:21
  Speaker 1: That guy, by the way, OmniChad. Three jurors.
• 25:27
  Speaker 10: Kelly, a chef for a senior center in Plymouth County. Ronnie,
• 25:30
  Speaker 10: the foreperson and a former elementary school teacher. And Paula,
• 25:35
  Speaker 10: who does work for a defense contractor. They became closer
• 25:38
  Speaker 10: during this period. Friends for life, they say, but.
• 25:42
  Speaker 1: Oh my goodness, the sisterhood. They probably did a blood
• 25:48
  Speaker 1: ritual to become friends.
• 25:49
  Speaker 10: The jury process wasn't easy.
• 25:52
  Speaker 13: How did you react to the 911 call?
• 25:55
  Speaker 8: How did I react to it? It's something that I
• 25:58
  Speaker 8: will never not hear if I think about it.
• 26:02
  Speaker 2: What the heck?
• 26:03
  Speaker 11: What?
• 26:04
  Speaker 2: Alright, so this doesn't seem... Did you go to 214?
• 26:08
  Speaker 1: I started from 212, Allison. Is it them talking?
• 26:11
  Speaker 6: Okay.
• 26:13
  Speaker 3: Yeah, it's just interesting that this is incorrect. I think
• 26:15
  Speaker 3: the time codes are incorrect.
• 26:18
  Speaker 2: Let's just keep going. Let's keep going. I'll figure this out.
• 26:21
  Speaker 3: It was the most horrific thing.
• 26:22
  Speaker 4: No doubt about that.
• 26:24
  Speaker 14: Yeah, it was horrible. I felt like being sick, actually.
• 26:32
  Speaker 14: They all had criticism for the prosecution. I just found
• 26:35
  Speaker 14: it to be harsh, Sue. Very, very harsh.
• 26:37
  Speaker 4: We weren't trying to figure out if she murdered the children.
• 26:40
  Speaker 10: She did.
• 26:41
  Speaker 4: And she's admitting that.
• 26:43
  Speaker 5: We're trying to figure out, did she know right from
• 26:46
  Speaker 5: wrong at that time? And with everybody saying she loved
• 26:50
  Speaker 5: her children so much, and everything proved she loved her children,
• 26:55
  Speaker 5: from her journals to.
• 26:58
  Speaker 4: Her mother-in-law.
• 27:01
  Speaker 5: Everything proved that she loved her children, so she had
• 27:04
  Speaker 5: to have snapped.
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: What about the killing your children part? Does that throw any...
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: doubt as to whether or not she loved her children
• 27:13
  Speaker 1: does what about the murder of the three kids is
• 27:15
  Speaker 1: that is it no it's just the letters and the
• 27:17
  Speaker 1: diary entries and the and the testimonies from people relatives
• 27:21
  Speaker 1: and friends and stuff and okay all right just wondering
• 27:25
  Speaker 1: i'm curious i'm trying to figure out what holds weight
• 27:28
  Speaker 1: here okay is that the part allison that you wanted
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: to um let me see 214.
• 27:37
  Speaker 2: No, no, just keep going. Just keep going.
• 27:38
  Speaker 10: All right, all right. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington.
• 27:41
  Speaker 5: He was entertaining, which was good because we needed some
• 27:44
  Speaker 5: of that.
• 27:45
  Speaker 4: And arrogant at the same time.
• 27:48
  Speaker 11: Yes.
• 27:48
  Speaker 4: Like arrogant and entertaining.
• 27:52
  Speaker 1: So arrogant, like you, like, like arrogance, not normally a compliment,
• 27:56
  Speaker 1: but apparently they think that it's nice that he was arrogant.
• 28:00
  Speaker 6: Hmm.
• 28:02
  Speaker 1: It's almost like women, like, they say they want one
• 28:04
  Speaker 1: thing and they actually want something else.
• 28:06
  Speaker 2: What?
• 28:06
  Speaker 4: Compassionate arrogance? Compassionate arrogance?
• 28:10
  Speaker 1: Hot ice. It's hot ice.
• 28:24
  Speaker 3: Well, this is the defense counsel, so he can't do
• 28:26
  Speaker 3: anything wrong.
• 28:27
  Speaker 2: So no, I know.
• 28:29
  Speaker 6: I know.
• 28:29
  Speaker 1: I know.
• 28:30
  Speaker 2: And yes, when they talk.
• 28:32
  Speaker 1: About this stuff, none of this stuff should matter, but
• 28:35
  Speaker 1: it does to them. And it just shows you like, well,
• 28:38
  Speaker 1: it's like what Allison said. What are what are women
• 28:40
  Speaker 1: looking for when they're looking at a case like this?
• 28:43
  Speaker 1: Are they looking at evidence? Okay, go ahead.
• 28:47
  Speaker 3: Well, I mean, if you actually listen to everything they say,
• 28:50
  Speaker 3: they don't look for evidence. You strip out everything that's
• 28:54
  Speaker 3: just a surface impression, like the defense lawyer is arrogant
• 28:59
  Speaker 3: yet charming and compassionate.
• 29:02
  Speaker 1: And funny and compassionate, yes.
• 29:05
  Speaker 3: And the 12th juror is arrogant and wouldn't listen and
• 29:09
  Speaker 3: wouldn't submit to the position we assigned to him. And also,
• 29:15
  Speaker 3: Lindsay Clancy was a loving mother, and nobody could say
• 29:17
  Speaker 3: anything bad about her. If you strip out everything that's
• 29:23
  Speaker 3: simply relational or emotional, there's nothing left to everything that
• 29:27
  Speaker 3: they say. Facts, evidence, intent, consequence, none of this enters
• 29:35
  Speaker 3: into their deliberation, apparently.
• 29:37
  Speaker 2: At least according to this.
• 29:39
  Speaker 3: I don't know.
• 29:39
  Speaker 2: Maybe they.
• 29:40
  Speaker 3: entered the room and they suddenly became a news dragnet,
• 29:44
  Speaker 3: just the facts, ma'am. But based on this interview, they
• 29:49
  Speaker 3: never considered one single fact.
• 29:51
  Speaker 1: Well, Alison, have you considered that Mercury was in retrograde and...
• 29:59
  Speaker 1: Cancer was rising. No facts could be considered. No, I mean,
• 30:03
  Speaker 1: you're just, you're so limited, you're limited to just like
• 30:06
  Speaker 1: these weird, like material facts, like the data and the
• 30:10
  Speaker 1: stuff we can see and hear and touch and reason through,
• 30:13
  Speaker 1: but you're not considering. The greater astrological consequences of this trial.
• 30:22
  Speaker 3: No, I realized thinking through this that astrology is perfect
• 30:28
  Speaker 3: science for a relational web because everything is about position.
• 30:32
  Speaker 2: See what I'm saying? Everything is about position in relation
• 30:35
  Speaker 2: to other things.
• 30:37
  Speaker 3: All of the celestial bodies have positions and characters that
• 30:41
  Speaker 3: you can read. Okay.
• 30:44
  Speaker 2: Okay.
• 30:45
  Speaker 1: Alright, let's keep going until.
• 30:47
  Speaker 2: I figure this out.
• 30:48
  Speaker 4: The action towards Lindsay was amazing.
• 30:52
  Speaker 10: As for the jury deliberations, the women told me that
• 30:55
  Speaker 10: things got tense, including some name-calling, but they were also
• 30:59
  Speaker 10: there for hugs and words and actions of support and self-care.
• 31:06
  Speaker 10: They were there for hugs, Brian!
• 31:09
  Speaker 1: Self-care?! Self-care!
• 31:15
  Speaker 2: Yeah, self-care. Oh, so you were there for self-care, were you?
• 31:19
  Speaker 3: You're supposed to be finding, you're supposed to be adjudicating
• 31:23
  Speaker 3: on justice, but you're there for yourself.
• 31:25
  Speaker 2: Well, that's revealing.
• 31:26
  Speaker 3: Mm-hmm.
• 31:28
  Speaker 2: God damn.
• 31:29
  Speaker 13: All right.
• 31:30
  Speaker 10: Unbelievable. Yeah.
• 31:31
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Let me see here. Okay.
• 31:35
  Speaker 10: We're persuaded to find the defendant not guilty by reason
• 31:39
  Speaker 10: of insanity, but they say one juror, a man, would
• 31:43
  Speaker 10: not budge.
• 31:44
  Speaker 2: A man!
• 31:47
  Speaker 1: A man. You know, they're not supposed to do that.
• 31:53
  Speaker 1: You're not supposed to reveal any details about jurors. Yeah,
• 31:58
  Speaker 1: but it kind of came out in court, though. Like,
• 32:01
  Speaker 1: I don't know if it was intentional or not, but
• 32:03
  Speaker 1: the defense attorney let it slip, I believe. Like, we
• 32:06
  Speaker 1: didn't know. That one of the people dissenting was a man. No,
• 32:09
  Speaker 1: I knew it was a man. I mean, I thought
• 32:13
  Speaker 1: there was only one man. When I learned there were
• 32:14
  Speaker 1: two other men that were like, oh, okay, she's innocent.
• 32:18
  Speaker 1: It just only served to make me more angry, but
• 32:21
  Speaker 1: that's okay. Those guys can kill each other and figure
• 32:23
  Speaker 1: out who is the one good man between the two
• 32:26
  Speaker 1: of them. But, yeah, so... Well, they were.
• 32:30
  Speaker 3: They were probably, if you go further into this, henpecked, browbeaten, yeah.
• 32:35
  Speaker 9: Sure, maybe.
• 32:36
  Speaker 2: Into their particular position.
• 32:38
  Speaker 1: Yeah, maybe.
• 32:39
  Speaker 2: Okay.
• 32:40
  Speaker 1: I don't respect them, though. I have no respect for
• 32:42
  Speaker 1: those guys for doing that.
• 32:43
  Speaker 2: No, that's, yeah, that's.
• 32:45
  Speaker 1: A good point. Yeah, they caved. They should not have caved.
• 32:48
  Speaker 1: They should not have buckled. I don't care how much
• 32:50
  Speaker 1: browbeaten these witches... Yeah, but ultimately.
• 32:54
  Speaker 2: The blame lies with the.
• 33:01
  Speaker 2: The three Meduses here.
• 33:04
  Speaker 1: The Iranias. Is that what they call them? Irines? The Fates? Yeah.
• 33:10
  Speaker 1: The fucking... The Muses? Not the Muses. Okay. Anyway, the Gorgons.
• 33:18
  Speaker 10: All right. The Gorgons, yes.
• 33:20
  Speaker 13: He really did not take anything that anybody said. The nurses,
• 33:27
  Speaker 13: he tried to ask a question.
• 33:29
  Speaker 3: And when they see anything that anybody said, they mean
• 33:32
  Speaker 3: other jurors. So this guy was not allowed his own conscience, guys.
• 33:37
  Speaker 3: And again, these women think that this is perfectly valid.
• 33:43
  Speaker 3: He would not take their opinion. He means that he
• 33:46
  Speaker 3: would not agree with them.
• 33:48
  Speaker 2: That makes him invalid. No, it doesn't. He has a
• 33:51
  Speaker 2: right to his own conscience.
• 33:54
  Speaker 3: And he doesn't have to listen to other jurors.
• 33:57
  Speaker 2: I'm not sure. Where did this come in? Where is
• 34:00
  Speaker 2: it that, oh.
• 34:01
  Speaker 3: Every juror, jurors have to listen to other jurors. They
• 34:04
  Speaker 3: have to listen to the witnesses. They have to listen
• 34:07
  Speaker 3: to the judge. I guess they have to listen to
• 34:10
  Speaker 3: the lawyers. They do not have to listen to other jurors,
• 34:13
  Speaker 3: as far as I know.
• 34:14
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 34:16
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 34:17
  Speaker 2: I don't think that's a requirement. And then, I mean,
• 34:22
  Speaker 2: if it was, what does a jury.
• 34:23
  Speaker 4: Duty end up?
• 34:25
  Speaker 2: A rule by mob?
• 34:26
  Speaker 3: Like whoever's the... Why have a hung jury?
• 34:31
  Speaker 1: Right?
• 34:31
  Speaker 3: Why have it so that one individual, one dissenting individual
• 34:35
  Speaker 3: can cause a hung jury? Why not just change the
• 34:39
  Speaker 3: law to, yeah, just whichever is.
• 34:41
  Speaker 2: Loudest and most numerous. Okay.
• 34:46
  Speaker 3: I'm done.
• 34:46
  Speaker 2: Unless you want to add anything to that?
• 34:48
  Speaker 1: No, you, you've said enough. I think I got it.
• 34:52
  Speaker 1: All right. Uh, we're going to keep going. Yeah, these
• 34:55
  Speaker 1: time codes are a little.
• 34:56
  Speaker 4: Off, but it's okay.
• 34:57
  Speaker 13: And we went back to the report from South Shore Hospital.
• 35:01
  Speaker 13: We had the toxicology report. We could see exactly the amounts.
• 35:06
  Speaker 13: The nurses in the room spoke to that and talked
• 35:10
  Speaker 13: to that.
• 35:10
  Speaker 10: There were nurses on the jury.
• 35:12
  Speaker 6: Yes.
• 35:12
  Speaker 13: And they spoke to that specific thing.
• 35:16
  Speaker 1: I bet the nurses were, well, they were obviously on
• 35:20
  Speaker 1: the side of Lindsay Clancy, so... I guess they're just like, no,
• 35:24
  Speaker 1: I know he doesn't have to listen to them. They're not,
• 35:26
  Speaker 1: they're not witnesses. They're not giving like professional testimony there.
• 35:30
  Speaker 1: They're just nurses. Like, well, okay. What does that mean? Nothing.
• 35:34
  Speaker 4: It's a question that he had.
• 35:36
  Speaker 13: And he just completely disregarded the information that they gave him.
• 35:40
  Speaker 4: I mean, he had reasonable doubt.
• 35:42
  Speaker 3: Yeah, because you're not expert witnesses. And the fact that
• 35:44
  Speaker 3: you're pressuring him to take you as expert witnesses means
• 35:48
  Speaker 3: that you are presuming to pervert the course of justice.
• 35:53
  Speaker 3: Because at that point, you're basically an external witness, like
• 35:56
  Speaker 3: an external expert witness that hasn't been okayed to go
• 36:00
  Speaker 3: in and testify.
• 36:02
  Speaker 1: Right?
• 36:04
  Speaker 2: You can have your opinion, but once you start trying
• 36:08
  Speaker 2: to enforce your opinion at the same level as an
• 36:10
  Speaker 2: expert witness in the case, yeah, that's not good. That's
• 36:15
  Speaker 2: not kosher. And he was doing exactly what he should
• 36:20
  Speaker 2: have been doing.
• 36:20
  Speaker 3: It's like, I'm not going to listen to you.
• 36:23
  Speaker 2: I'm going to listen to the judge. I'm going to
• 36:24
  Speaker 2: listen to the expert witnesses.
• 36:27
  Speaker 3: That's what I'm going to use to weigh my opinions
• 36:34
  Speaker 3: or my eventual conclusion.
• 36:36
  Speaker 2: Keep going, Brian. Let's get through this.
• 36:39
  Speaker 5: Did he have reasonable doubt after we watched that video
• 36:42
  Speaker 5: of the interview?
• 36:43
  Speaker 2: Oh, this is the one, yeah.
• 36:44
  Speaker 1: Yeah, he said he admitted he had reasonable doubt.
• 36:48
  Speaker 4: He admitted he had reasonable doubt?
• 36:51
  Speaker 1: Yeah, go ahead. What were you going to say?
• 36:53
  Speaker 2: He admitted he had reasonable doubt, okay?
• 36:55
  Speaker 10: Okay.
• 36:56
  Speaker 3: After you watched one piece of evidence, first of all,
• 36:59
  Speaker 3: this is her testimony. We don't know how he would
• 37:01
  Speaker 3: actually characterize this.
• 37:03
  Speaker 2: He might've said, you know, yeah, that does, that does.
• 37:06
  Speaker 1: Well, maybe he did at first. And then he said, nah, like,
• 37:09
  Speaker 1: I mean, so what? Like she probably was like, oh,
• 37:12
  Speaker 1: you said it. You said it. It's, it's, it's, it's legit.
• 37:14
  Speaker 1: Now I'm going to start the papers. We're done. She's,
• 37:17
  Speaker 1: she's free. And he was like, no, actually, no, no,
• 37:21
  Speaker 1: we're not doing that.
• 37:24
  Speaker 4: And I started filling out the forms. I was so excited.
• 37:27
  Speaker 5: I actually, there were three forms I had to fill out.
• 37:31
  Speaker 5: And I started filling them out. I wrote my signature
• 37:34
  Speaker 5: on each one. And then he said, but I'm still
• 37:38
  Speaker 5: not going to say that she's not guilty by reason
• 37:41
  Speaker 5: of insanity.
• 37:44
  Speaker 3: What is your, okay. A new piece of information was entered.
• 37:49
  Speaker 3: He had an opinion about it. And then he weighed
• 37:52
  Speaker 3: the information in Toto.
• 37:56
  Speaker 5: What?
• 37:57
  Speaker 3: Like they're trying to make it out like he was
• 37:58
  Speaker 3: dishonest or he was motivated.
• 38:01
  Speaker 14: No.
• 38:02
  Speaker 2: He was weighing evidence as it came.
• 38:05
  Speaker 3: And she is basically revealing that she was going to
• 38:10
  Speaker 3: probably render an innocent verdict no matter what.
• 38:15
  Speaker 8: Yep.
• 38:19
  Speaker 3: Even before he's finished, she's signing on the dot-it line?
• 38:25
  Speaker 2: Like, what?
• 38:28
  Speaker 3: And going forward, the way they describe evidence and how
• 38:32
  Speaker 3: they weighted it is astounding.
• 38:34
  Speaker 2: But keep going with this one. I think this is
• 38:36
  Speaker 2: all might be fixed.
• 38:38
  Speaker 1: I'm going to just play it here.
• 38:39
  Speaker 12: Well, obviously, these three jurors clearly have strong opinions about
• 38:43
  Speaker 12: that one particular juror.
• 38:45
  Speaker 10: Yeah, I mean, and I think it's important to point
• 38:47
  Speaker 10: out they weren't upset that they disagreed with him or
• 38:50
  Speaker 10: that he disagreed with them. They had concerns that he
• 38:53
  Speaker 10: wasn't following the law and they had concerns that he
• 38:56
  Speaker 10: also would go back and forth between what he said
• 38:59
  Speaker 10: to them one moment and then another moment. So they
• 39:02
  Speaker 10: at one point actually had a juror get up.
• 39:04
  Speaker 1: Note how they're framing this. This is the media. Note
• 39:07
  Speaker 1: how they're framing this. I think they're relishing in this
• 39:10
  Speaker 1: because they literally put out at the beginning of the
• 39:13
  Speaker 1: video is the clip of one of the jurors saying,
• 39:17
  Speaker 1: you know, basically just saying that she brutally murdered her children.
• 39:23
  Speaker 1: So they know she said that that's been acknowledged. And
• 39:27
  Speaker 1: now they're but they're still trying to sew this conversation.
• 39:30
  Speaker 1: of like antagonism between the people who are siding with
• 39:34
  Speaker 1: the you know the lindsey clancy supporters and the people
• 39:37
  Speaker 1: who are siding with like i don't know the law
• 39:40
  Speaker 1: like the like the law of the of the of
• 39:43
  Speaker 1: murder like that one so And they know that these
• 39:49
  Speaker 1: women are insane, but they're also siding with them. They're
• 39:52
  Speaker 1: sympathetic anyways. It's crazy.
• 39:54
  Speaker 10: And make his presentation like this is what you're trying
• 39:57
  Speaker 10: to say, right? And at that point, he had pretty
• 39:59
  Speaker 10: much stopped participating.
• 40:00
  Speaker 15: We should talk about how these jurors felt about Reddington's
• 40:04
  Speaker 15: defense presentation. I do recall that at one point, they
• 40:07
  Speaker 15: recognized that there were no witnesses who had anything bad
• 40:11
  Speaker 15: to say about Lindsay as a mother.
• 40:13
  Speaker 4: We weren't trying to figure out if she murdered the children.
• 40:16
  Speaker 2: She did.
• 40:17
  Speaker 4: And she's admitting that.
• 40:19
  Speaker 5: We're trying to figure out, did she know right from
• 40:21
  Speaker 5: wrong at that time?
• 40:24
  Speaker 4: Yes.
• 40:27
  Speaker 1: Yes.
• 40:28
  Speaker 2: Yes. Yes, she did.
• 40:30
  Speaker 3: If she knew that her husband would stop her, and
• 40:33
  Speaker 3: she knew that the older boy would attempt to stop
• 40:35
  Speaker 3: her strangling his younger sisters, therefore she did him first,
• 40:45
  Speaker 3: I made sure to separate them.
• 40:46
  Speaker 2: I'm pretty sure that's how it worked. Don't quote me.
• 40:48
  Speaker 1: Yeah, she lured each one to the basement one by one.
• 40:52
  Speaker 1: It was very premeditated. It was very planned out. She
• 40:56
  Speaker 1: wasn't on drugs at the time. She took a bunch
• 41:00
  Speaker 1: of pills afterwards, but it wasn't enough. Obviously, it wasn't
• 41:04
  Speaker 1: like a fatal dose because she survived. But no, it
• 41:08
  Speaker 1: was premeditated. I don't know how else to look at it.
• 41:10
  Speaker 1: I mean, postpartum, it doesn't even last that long. Like,
• 41:14
  Speaker 1: she had three kids, and I think that the third
• 41:21
  Speaker 1: one was like eight months old when this happened. Or
• 41:23
  Speaker 1: eight months, I think. Maybe less. Maybe three months old.
• 41:26
  Speaker 1: But postpartum doesn't even last that long. So, anyway, look,
• 41:31
  Speaker 1: I'm not going to get into the legal... aspects of
• 41:34
  Speaker 1: the case itself. Cause that's not the story really. It's this,
• 41:37
  Speaker 1: it's the reaction to the story. It's this right here,
• 41:41
  Speaker 1: this miscarriage of justice.
• 41:43
  Speaker 10: Yeah, it is.
• 41:44
  Speaker 3: Well, no, it's not a miscarriage of justice because this
• 41:47
  Speaker 3: one dude.
• 41:48
  Speaker 2: It's a perversion, no sale.
• 41:50
  Speaker 1: Well, yeah, he did.
• 41:53
  Speaker 3: But the attempt to pervert justice, but right. And what's
• 41:57
  Speaker 3: terrifying is that.
• 41:58
  Speaker 2: 11 people, were browbeaten, probably one of these women is
• 42:04
  Speaker 2: the ringleader, right?
• 42:07
  Speaker 3: Out of actually voting for their conscience and into voting
• 42:13
  Speaker 3: for their motivated reasoning, their deciding before the fact. Like
• 42:20
  Speaker 3: he's still weighing evidence and she's trying to get.
• 42:25
  Speaker 2: These forms filled out. He's still weighing evidence.
• 42:29
  Speaker 3: And she's filling out forms of innocence. Okay, that's the
• 42:35
  Speaker 3: picture right there.
• 42:38
  Speaker 1: Yep.
• 42:39
  Speaker 2: Okay, let's... All right. If you refresh the time codes,
• 42:42
  Speaker 2: they should be corrected.
• 42:43
  Speaker 1: Oh, okay, okay.
• 42:45
  Speaker 5: Hold on.
• 42:45
  Speaker 1: I'll do that. Okay, got it. And let's see. Well,
• 42:52
  Speaker 1: this is still video one. It looks the same.
• 42:55
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it is still video one. Let's just keep going.
• 42:57
  Speaker 2: Let's just keep going with video one.
• 42:58
  Speaker 1: All right, we're going to keep going.
• 43:00
  Speaker 4: She loved her.
• 43:00
  Speaker 5: Children so much, and everything proved she loved her children,
• 43:05
  Speaker 5: from her journals to.
• 43:08
  Speaker 4: Her mother-in-law. Everything proved that she loved her children, so
• 43:13
  Speaker 4: she had to have snapped and not known what she
• 43:16
  Speaker 4: was doing.
• 43:16
  Speaker 2: Okay, so this is the circular argument here.
• 43:18
  Speaker 10: Mm-hmm.
• 43:20
  Speaker 1: Right?
• 43:21
  Speaker 3: This is the circular argument. Because she loved her children...
• 43:25
  Speaker 3: She must be innocent of having killed them instead of
• 43:29
  Speaker 3: if she killed her children, she probably didn't love them
• 43:32
  Speaker 3: that much.
• 43:35
  Speaker 1: She killed them with kindness.
• 43:38
  Speaker 2: She like the way that you describe that, Brian.
• 43:42
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 43:43
  Speaker 3: Everything, every step of this was planned and premeditated. She
• 43:47
  Speaker 3: got her husband out of the house.
• 43:50
  Speaker 2: Yep. Right. She lured them down one by.
• 43:55
  Speaker 3: One so they didn't know it was happening. And so
• 44:00
  Speaker 3: she wouldn't have to deal with the older one who
• 44:03
  Speaker 3: she considered a handful fighting back when he saw her
• 44:09
  Speaker 3: kill his younger sisters. You know, five-year-old, six-year-old boy has
• 44:14
  Speaker 3: more of a custodial instinct than his mom, than his whelper.
• 44:18
  Speaker 2: I don't even want to call her a mom.
• 44:24
  Speaker 3: She lost that label when she killed what made her
• 44:27
  Speaker 3: a mom. She just whelped those children. She's a whelper,
• 44:32
  Speaker 3: not a mother. But of course, because she never overtly...
• 44:38
  Speaker 3: And this is the funny thing, guys. Abusers are often
• 44:43
  Speaker 3: really good at appearing absolutely.
• 44:48
  Speaker 2: Angelic in front of others.
• 44:52
  Speaker 3: So this is worth nothing. The mother-in-law's testimony worth nothing.
• 44:59
  Speaker 2: Her own journals?
• 45:00
  Speaker 3: Like she's reading the journals of the murderer and the
• 45:03
  Speaker 3: murderer says, oh, I'm such a wonderful person. And she's like, yep,
• 45:06
  Speaker 3: she's a wonderful person.
• 45:08
  Speaker 1: Says so right here. Says so right here in her journals.
• 45:12
  Speaker 2: She's a wonderful person in her journals.
• 45:14
  Speaker 1: Sorry, read them and weep.
• 45:15
  Speaker 2: She must be a wonderful person.
• 45:18
  Speaker 8: What?
• 45:19
  Speaker 2: It says worth nothing.
• 45:22
  Speaker 3: Again, abusers have an incredible knack of appealing angelic to
• 45:27
  Speaker 3: everybody who isn't the person they're abusing or the kids
• 45:30
  Speaker 3: they're abusing.
• 45:32
  Speaker 2: So this is worth nothing.
• 45:33
  Speaker 3: The fact that you say nobody could say she was a.
• 45:36
  Speaker 2: Bet, worth nothing. It's worthless. It's not evidence. You know
• 45:40
  Speaker 2: what it is? What it is, it just signals.
• 45:43
  Speaker 3: That she thinks that Lindsay Clancy belongs in the category
• 45:47
  Speaker 3: of mother.
• 45:47
  Speaker 2: And mothers love their kids, right? So it's just a
• 45:52
  Speaker 2: confirmation of her already existing bias. And it's sickening.
• 45:59
  Speaker 3: It's sickening that this was involved in the process of justice.
• 46:06
  Speaker 2: This motivated reasoning. This relational web.
• 46:10
  Speaker 3: Everything pattern matches to where you think things belong in
• 46:15
  Speaker 3: their categories.
• 46:18
  Speaker 2: And nothing to evidence... accountability, action, consequence. All right, let's
• 46:27
  Speaker 2: keep going.
• 46:28
  Speaker 1: All right.
• 46:30
  Speaker 4: To me, it was proof that she didn't know what
• 46:34
  Speaker 4: she was doing.
• 46:35
  Speaker 15: And that's a central issue, right?
• 46:37
  Speaker 2: All right, again.
• 46:39
  Speaker 1: She didn't know what she was doing. Okay, go ahead.
• 46:41
  Speaker 3: She didn't know what she was doing because she said
• 46:44
  Speaker 3: she loved her children in her journal.
• 46:47
  Speaker 6: Right?
• 46:48
  Speaker 3: Because her mother-in-law thought she loved her children. Like, this
• 46:51
  Speaker 3: is not even worth.
• 46:54
  Speaker 2: This is it, guys.
• 46:58
  Speaker 3: Woman strangles her three children. Oh, but the mother-in-law said
• 47:03
  Speaker 3: she loved her children. We must acquit. Therefore, the very
• 47:07
  Speaker 3: act of strangling her children demonstrates she's innocent in the
• 47:10
  Speaker 3: act of strangling her children.
• 47:13
  Speaker 2: What is this?
• 47:17
  Speaker 1: Yep. Okay.
• 47:19
  Speaker 13: Yep.
• 47:23
  Speaker 1: All right, let's keep going. Okay.
• 47:25
  Speaker 2: No, I'm done. I want to keep going. I want
• 47:27
  Speaker 2: to get through this.
• 47:29
  Speaker 15: Criminal responsibility, was there a common thread among the three
• 47:32
  Speaker 15: of them on what convinced them that she wasn't criminally responsible?
• 47:36
  Speaker 10: Because there was nothing that led up, in their opinion,
• 47:39
  Speaker 10: to Lindsey Clancy acting that way, right? She had begged
• 47:42
  Speaker 10: for help, she got help. No one said anything bad
• 47:46
  Speaker 10: about her. That was what they kept coming back. They
• 47:48
  Speaker 10: had all these witnesses from all parts of her life.
• 47:51
  Speaker 10: The prosecution called witnesses and no one said a bad
• 47:54
  Speaker 10: word about Lindsey Clancy.
• 47:56
  Speaker 1: Well, there you go.
• 47:57
  Speaker 2: So it doesn't matter.
• 47:58
  Speaker 10: It happened, they said.
• 47:59
  Speaker 1: Yeah, that's, there it is. Nobody said a bad word.
• 48:02
  Speaker 2: So what the hell?
• 48:03
  Speaker 3: All the prosecution had to do is find someone who,
• 48:06
  Speaker 3: I don't know, Lindsay Clancy didn't tip them. And then
• 48:10
  Speaker 3: the jury would have been like, oh yeah, yeah, yeah.
• 48:12
  Speaker 2: Like what the, again, abusers have a fantastic knack of
• 48:18
  Speaker 2: making everybody but the person they're abusing and the people
• 48:21
  Speaker 2: they're abusing think they're angelic. This is nothing. This is meaningless.
• 48:28
  Speaker 3: This isn't a he said, she said case where you
• 48:33
  Speaker 3: have to establish something based on credibility.
• 48:36
  Speaker 2: She already confessed to it. The fact that everybody liked
• 48:39
  Speaker 2: her doesn't matter.
• 48:41
  Speaker 3: Does it matter when these women complain about their narcissistic
• 48:44
  Speaker 3: exes that everybody sides with because they're so charming?
• 48:47
  Speaker 2: No, this is exactly the same thing.
• 48:50
  Speaker 3: Lindsay Clancy, sociopaths, superficially charming. They can get everybody on
• 48:58
  Speaker 3: their side because they know how to push people's buttons
• 49:03
  Speaker 3: and be likable.
• 49:03
  Speaker 2: It's nothing. It's meaningless.
• 49:07
  Speaker 3: And if this is what they based their decision.
• 49:12
  Speaker 6: On, I.
• 49:14
  Speaker 2: Don't, how?
• 49:15
  Speaker 3: How could we justify this? We have a system of
• 49:23
  Speaker 3: justice with juries like this.
• 49:28
  Speaker 1: No idea.
• 49:28
  Speaker 2: Oh, he wore a bow tie. The defense council wore
• 49:33
  Speaker 2: a bow tie. I like bow ties. Oh, innocent.
• 49:36
  Speaker 6: Like.
• 49:39
  Speaker 1: Remember the women who were commenting on the Johnny Depp trial?
• 49:43
  Speaker 13: Yes.
• 49:44
  Speaker 1: You see any parallels there or similarities in how they
• 49:48
  Speaker 1: were looking at everything?
• 49:49
  Speaker 10: Yeah.
• 49:50
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 49:51
  Speaker 3: Well, they were defending a position too. Amber Heard had
• 49:54
  Speaker 3: to be blameless because blamelessness is the currency of the
• 49:57
  Speaker 3: woman card.
• 49:59
  Speaker 2: That's it. They're just defending their hordes.
• 50:04
  Speaker 3: Their money, their resources, their key to unlocking their social
• 50:09
  Speaker 3: position and all the resources they get from it. Nothing,
• 50:14
  Speaker 3: not a single brain cell spared for what responsibilities they have.
• 50:20
  Speaker 3: What responsibilities Lindsay Clancy failed to enact, failed to properly
• 50:28
  Speaker 3: do or live up to.
• 50:31
  Speaker 2: None, not a single brain cell for that.
• 50:34
  Speaker 3: Everything is about resources and maintaining access to resources and
• 50:38
  Speaker 3: securing blamelessness in the positional web. And I hate to
• 50:43
  Speaker 3: tell you guys, but this is, based on my research,
• 50:46
  Speaker 3: this is basic bitch female thinking. And they don't understand
• 50:53
  Speaker 3: why you're so... They think it's misogyny that men are
• 50:56
  Speaker 3: getting so upset. And I'm like, you were saying that
• 51:00
  Speaker 3: Stephen Crowder is even.
• 51:02
  Speaker 2: Starting to realize.
• 51:03
  Speaker 1: Oh, dude, dude. Did you... Today's... Steven Crowder did a
• 51:07
  Speaker 1: show today because he saw this clip that we're responding to.
• 51:11
  Speaker 1: He saw these clips floating around. He has... Man, the guy's, like,
• 51:16
  Speaker 1: getting really red-pilled right now. And it's amazing to watch.
• 51:19
  Speaker 2: Red-pilled or black-pilled?
• 51:20
  Speaker 1: No, red-pilled. No, no, red-pilled. He's still, like, he.
• 51:24
  Speaker 2: Genuinely red-pilled or manosphere red-pilled?
• 51:26
  Speaker 1: No, I think genuinely... No, he doesn't care for the
• 51:29
  Speaker 1: manosphere guys. No, he's genuinely... Like he, he praises Karen
• 51:32
  Speaker 1: all the time still. Um, but lately, you know, Karen's
• 51:35
  Speaker 1: been MIA for years. So, you know, he's been instead,
• 51:40
  Speaker 1: he brings up Karen still, he brought it up today.
• 51:42
  Speaker 1: So he, he sat down with Jillian Michaels, you know,
• 51:45
  Speaker 1: Jillian Michaels is, I think we should like look at
• 51:48
  Speaker 1: this clip at another, on another show. Cause I think
• 51:50
  Speaker 1: it's awesome. Jillian Michaels was like the fitness, uh, she
• 51:55
  Speaker 1: was like a fitness celebrity. She would put out these
• 51:57
  Speaker 1: videotapes and, you know, it was like the, I don't know,
• 52:00
  Speaker 1: like steel abs or something and like working on your
• 52:04
  Speaker 1: butt and legs and whatnot. So she was like a
• 52:06
  Speaker 1: fitness celebrity person that made these training videos and she
• 52:11
  Speaker 1: started doing a podcast. And so anyway, she sat down
• 52:14
  Speaker 1: with Steven Crowder to talk about this Lindsay Clancy thing. And,
• 52:17
  Speaker 1: and he set her straight on a bunch of stuff.
• 52:19
  Speaker 1: It was, I was like, it was all shit that
• 52:22
  Speaker 1: I would have said. I was like, dude, I've said this.
• 52:24
  Speaker 1: And he was saying it. He was like, you ladies
• 52:26
  Speaker 1: need to start calling these women out. You need to start,
• 52:29
  Speaker 1: stop trying to be friends with everybody. You just start like,
• 52:32
  Speaker 1: you know, basically like doing, and, and he was also
• 52:34
  Speaker 1: talking about, um, you know, he, he made some repeal
• 52:38
  Speaker 1: the 19th cracks too. Like, And I don't think it's
• 52:40
  Speaker 1: a joke. I don't think he was paying lip service.
• 52:43
  Speaker 1: I thought it was great. So yeah, no, a lot of,
• 52:46
  Speaker 1: a lot of men are, this is like a wake
• 52:49
  Speaker 1: up call and a lot of men are noticing now.
• 52:51
  Speaker 1: So I would, uh, I would check out the, um,
• 52:55
  Speaker 1: if you guys are on rumble and you have like, uh, well,
• 52:59
  Speaker 1: if you have rumble premium, you can see the whole thing,
• 53:00
  Speaker 1: but you can still watch about 20 minutes of his
• 53:02
  Speaker 1: interview with Jillian Michaels. It's awesome. I was like, this
• 53:05
  Speaker 1: is awesome. So yeah.
• 53:08
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 53:08
  Speaker 1: Very based.
• 53:09
  Speaker 2: That's good.
• 53:09
  Speaker 3: Well, women will look at that and say that men
• 53:12
  Speaker 3: are becoming misogynist. No, they're, they're recognizing that women put
• 53:20
  Speaker 3: themselves before kids and it's horrifying. It's horrifying to men.
• 53:25
  Speaker 5: Yep.
• 53:25
  Speaker 1: Yep. That's what he said. He said, cause Jillian Michaels
• 53:29
  Speaker 1: was all like, well, it's, it's gotta be a minority
• 53:31
  Speaker 1: of women. It's, it's gotta be a, cause I know
• 53:33
  Speaker 1: when he was like, it's too many. I don't care.
• 53:36
  Speaker 1: It's too many. And he said, and men everywhere are
• 53:39
  Speaker 1: also saying it's too many. Like, when men are saying, like, look,
• 53:43
  Speaker 1: if there's a woman who begins to make an excuse
• 53:46
  Speaker 1: for Lindsay Clancy, the men should cut her off immediately. Nope,
• 53:49
  Speaker 1: we're not doing this. Because I want to have kids
• 53:51
  Speaker 1: one day.
• 53:52
  Speaker 6: Right?
• 53:53
  Speaker 1: A lot of men. Most men want to have kids. Yeah,
• 53:55
  Speaker 1: you don't want to come home to a... They don't
• 53:56
  Speaker 1: want to, yeah.
• 53:57
  Speaker 2: You don't want to come home to a killing field.
• 53:59
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Exactly. So... Oh, I said it. Like, I said
• 54:05
  Speaker 1: it on Tuesday. This is... Like it or hate it,
• 54:08
  Speaker 1: but there's a white pill hidden inside of this. And
• 54:11
  Speaker 1: it is the way men are seeing this and they
• 54:13
  Speaker 1: are reacting to this. And they are reacting in the
• 54:16
  Speaker 1: right way, most of them, I think. So, I don't know.
• 54:19
  Speaker 1: We'll see. But it's good to see.
• 54:21
  Speaker 2: Well, here's the thing.
• 54:24
  Speaker 3: Now, this is women when you completely remove any recognition
• 54:30
  Speaker 3: of the importance of the way men conduct themselves.
• 54:35
  Speaker 7: Mm-hmm.
• 54:35
  Speaker 1: Right?
• 54:36
  Speaker 3: These women have been living in generations of a regime
• 54:39
  Speaker 3: that has marginalized, demonized, and attempted to eradicate the masculine
• 54:46
  Speaker 3: approach to reality. Yeah.
• 54:50
  Speaker 2: Right? And they think. They think. So it's not just
• 54:54
  Speaker 2: that women think this way.
• 54:55
  Speaker 3: It's that women think this way, and they think it's superior.
• 54:59
  Speaker 1: Right?
• 55:02
  Speaker 3: Now, if women were taught, that in some locations and situations,
• 55:09
  Speaker 3: relational web thinking is not superior to the way that
• 55:14
  Speaker 3: men conduct themselves, the way that men naturally think about
• 55:18
  Speaker 3: the world. We might see very different outcomes. If we
• 55:23
  Speaker 3: could shame women for excesses of relational thinking, for excesses
• 55:28
  Speaker 3: of positional thinking, like wanting a man who's in the
• 55:33
  Speaker 3: top 10%.
• 55:34
  Speaker 2: That's a positional ask, by the way, guys. A woman
• 55:38
  Speaker 2: who wants a man who's in the top 10%. She
• 55:41
  Speaker 2: doesn't want a man.
• 55:43
  Speaker 3: For any kind of actual concrete reasons. She wants a
• 55:50
  Speaker 3: man to make her girlfriends jealous and the top 10%
• 55:54
  Speaker 3: will do that. It's a positional statement and it's always relative.
• 55:59
  Speaker 3: So even if all men got into the top 10%,
• 56:01
  Speaker 3: it would be the top 10% of those top 10%
• 56:04
  Speaker 3: men and on and on and on into infinity because
• 56:07
  Speaker 3: it is a positional ask.
• 56:09
  Speaker 2: And it is recent.
• 56:10
  Speaker 3: It is the last 50 years that we have been
• 56:12
  Speaker 3: dealing with this. Before then, for a century, women just
• 56:17
  Speaker 3: were fine with the median man.
• 56:20
  Speaker 2: Why were they fine with the median man?
• 56:22
  Speaker 3: Because the median man could help them create the resources
• 56:26
  Speaker 3: to have a family and children. It was about the
• 56:29
  Speaker 3: end goal, which was a family, which was lodging, which
• 56:33
  Speaker 3: was the material necessity of life.
• 56:36
  Speaker 10: And it had a ceiling, right?
• 56:40
  Speaker 2: It had a ceiling.
• 56:42
  Speaker 3: But then for some reason in the 70s, that ceiling
• 56:45
  Speaker 3: just got blown off and it all became positional web thinking.
• 56:49
  Speaker 3: What does this man, what is having this man, does
• 56:51
  Speaker 3: having this man make my girlfriends jealous? Will it make
• 56:55
  Speaker 3: every woman jealous on social media? Not can this man
• 56:59
  Speaker 3: provide basic components of living so we can have a
• 57:04
  Speaker 3: family together, which is the way it was decided in
• 57:07
  Speaker 3: the past. And I imagine if somehow in the past
• 57:11
  Speaker 3: women were schooled in their expectations so that their expectations
• 57:17
  Speaker 3: of men actually occupied reality and were goal orientated, so
• 57:22
  Speaker 3: orientated to consequences and outcomes. That something happened in the
• 57:27
  Speaker 3: 70s to completely divorce women from the way that men
• 57:33
  Speaker 3: think or generally think or completely divorce women from substrate,
• 57:38
  Speaker 3: from consequences, from goals, from actual facts and actually building something.
• 57:44
  Speaker 3: Something happened in the 70s, guys.
• 57:46
  Speaker 2: I don't know what. It's a big mystery, big fucking
• 57:49
  Speaker 2: question mark in history. But something seemed to happen in
• 57:52
  Speaker 2: the 70s.
• 57:52
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 57:54
  Speaker 1: Couldn't put my finger on it.
• 57:56
  Speaker 4: No, no.
• 57:57
  Speaker 2: It's a mystery, isn't it? It's just like, what could
• 57:59
  Speaker 2: have happened?
• 58:01
  Speaker 1: Disco.
• 58:01
  Speaker 2: What could have happened?
• 58:02
  Speaker 3: Disco did it.
• 58:06
  Speaker 1: Yeah. All right.
• 58:08
  Speaker 2: Let's keep going.
• 58:09
  Speaker 1: I got some super chats. So Dark Kikimora gives us
• 58:12
  Speaker 1: $ 5 and says, Court's looking at what all her friends
• 58:15
  Speaker 1: said about her reminds me of that Better Call Saul
• 58:18
  Speaker 1: episode about Huel. I've never watched that show, but thank you.
• 58:23
  Speaker 1: Dizzy Lizzy gives us two euros.
• 58:25
  Speaker 2: I did watch it.
• 58:26
  Speaker 3: I did watch it. Better Call Saul about Huel. Could
• 58:29
  Speaker 3: you give me some more details?
• 58:30
  Speaker 1: Each UEL. Yeah, so Dizzy Lizzy gives us two euros
• 58:36
  Speaker 1: and says, As women, we must start speaking out and
• 58:39
  Speaker 1: stop voting. Dylan gives us $ 5 and says, Even Ted
• 58:44
  Speaker 1: Bundy had marriage proposals at his trial. Yeah, there were
• 58:47
  Speaker 1: women who thought he was cute. Zarynx gives us $ 10.
• 58:50
  Speaker 1: Thank you, Zarynx. And says, A lot of people are
• 58:52
  Speaker 1: starting to realize that love is always conditional. It's a
• 58:55
  Speaker 1: very sobering thought. Did you see the video of the
• 58:57
  Speaker 1: woman who said her mother was similar to Lindsay Clancy?
• 59:01
  Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, I've seen a lot of videos. Maybe.
• 59:04
  Speaker 1: I've seen a lot of them. I haven't really been
• 59:07
  Speaker 1: looking for them. But thank you. for that. I'll see
• 59:11
  Speaker 1: if I can dig it up someplace. Or you can
• 59:13
  Speaker 1: put it in the Discord server and we'll watch it.
• 59:16
  Speaker 3: I think we can just start with these women not
• 59:23
  Speaker 3: only are relational web thinkers, they think relational web thinking is.
• 59:30
  Speaker 2: Superior or even the only.
• 59:33
  Speaker 3: Way that people should think. And that we can trace
• 59:37
  Speaker 3: to a particular movement. I just, that's what I want
• 59:41
  Speaker 3: to say. Okay, let's, let's, let's go do some more
• 59:43
  Speaker 3: of this.
• 59:44
  Speaker 1: All right.
• 59:45
  Speaker 10: That would have led her to strangle. I mean, they,
• 59:48
  Speaker 10: they understand the violence that Dawson and Callan and Cora
• 59:51
  Speaker 10: went through. They didn't minimize this at all, but they
• 59:54
  Speaker 10: felt the only way that.
• 59:56
  Speaker 1: Could happen is if she Yeah, right.
• 59:58
  Speaker 2: That makes it.
• 59:59
  Speaker 10: Worse in their language, you know, so it.
• 1:00:01
  Speaker 3: Was and they believe that because and they believe that
• 1:00:05
  Speaker 3: because nobody had a bad word for her.
• 1:00:08
  Speaker 1: So.
• 1:00:10
  Speaker 2: They're delusional. So these nurses all know about the world.
• 1:00:15
  Speaker 3: And the universe, and they apparently don't know that abusers
• 1:00:19
  Speaker 3: can be very sneaky.
• 1:00:21
  Speaker 1: Oh, I know what happened in the 70s. The Beatles
• 1:00:24
  Speaker 1: broke up in the 70s. Yoko Ono happened. Is that why?
• 1:00:28
  Speaker 1: Is that the inciting event? Was it Yoko Ono? Sorry.
• 1:00:36
  Speaker 1: I'm trying to make light because this is a dark topic.
• 1:00:39
  Speaker 3: Yoko Ono did it.
• 1:00:42
  Speaker 1: She's responsible for all of this. Well, I mean, in
• 1:00:46
  Speaker 1: a way. There's some truth to it. Okay. Okay. So
• 1:00:52
  Speaker 1: should we continue or did you? I interrupted you. I'm sorry.
• 1:00:55
  Speaker 2: No, that's fine. Let's continue.
• 1:00:56
  Speaker 10: Point out they were entertained by Reddington. That did not
• 1:01:00
  Speaker 10: influence how they viewed the evidence in front of.
• 1:01:03
  Speaker 1: Yes, it did. Are you kidding me?
• 1:01:05
  Speaker 12: I mean, can't have been easy for this jury. They
• 1:01:07
  Speaker 12: spent more than five weeks listening to that heart wrenching testimony.
• 1:01:12
  Speaker 4: How did you react?
• 1:01:14
  Speaker 2: So it's hard on them.
• 1:01:15
  Speaker 1: Yeah, they're women most affected.
• 1:01:21
  Speaker 16: Three kids dead guys women most affected yep women had
• 1:01:25
  Speaker 16: to hear the story of like how that happened that's
• 1:01:27
  Speaker 16: why they're so hurt by it Hillary Clinton would like
• 1:01:30
  Speaker 16: to know our location.
• 1:01:31
  Speaker 8: The 911 call it's something that I will never not
• 1:01:36
  Speaker 8: hear if I think about.
• 1:01:38
  Speaker 1: It so the 911 call wasn't that Patrick Clancy calling
• 1:01:44
  Speaker 1: the police and saying she killed the kids I didn't
• 1:01:47
  Speaker 1: listen to it because I don't think I could take
• 1:01:48
  Speaker 1: it But it's him trying to call the police, I think,
• 1:01:53
  Speaker 1: is the 911 call. I'll check. Yeah, yeah, go ahead.
• 1:01:58
  Speaker 6: And when we heard it again in the jury room,
• 1:02:02
  Speaker 6: we were crying again.
• 1:02:04
  Speaker 8: We were just like, my God, the desperation, the despair
• 1:02:08
  Speaker 8: in his voice was... Again, it's something that will stick
• 1:02:16
  Speaker 8: with me.
• 1:02:17
  Speaker 10: And I felt that.
• 1:02:17
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it's really about you, eh, lady?
• 1:02:19
  Speaker 1: Well, it's funny, you know, this guy is, he was
• 1:02:24
  Speaker 1: probably fighting toxic masculinity by, you know, being in his
• 1:02:28
  Speaker 1: feelings when he was calling the police about his three
• 1:02:30
  Speaker 1: murdered children. And that didn't seem to have affected this
• 1:02:35
  Speaker 1: woman's position at all. So I guess we just got
• 1:02:38
  Speaker 1: to be toxicly masculine, guys.
• 1:02:41
  Speaker 3: Technically, Patrick Clancy- Feelings about the 911. Don't really bear.
• 1:02:50
  Speaker 3: On Lindsay Clancy's guilt. They do bear on the impact.
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 2: Of her actions.
• 1:02:56
  Speaker 1: Oh I mean. Factually speaking yes. But we're talking about
• 1:03:00
  Speaker 1: these women's feelings. About what people are doing.
• 1:03:03
  Speaker 2: But here's the thing. They obviously put.
• 1:03:07
  Speaker 3: Blamelessness. And defending the position. That they occupy. Which is
• 1:03:12
  Speaker 3: the same position. That Lindsay Clancy occupies.
• 1:03:15
  Speaker 2: Woman, right?
• 1:03:17
  Speaker 3: They feel like that's more important than the absolute horror
• 1:03:22
  Speaker 3: that Patrick was put through. Or the absolute, like, hell.
• 1:03:30
  Speaker 3: Lindsay Clancy visited hell on her children. Right?
• 1:03:35
  Speaker 2: She visited hell on them. That's what she did.
• 1:03:39
  Speaker 3: But that's not more important than defending the position of
• 1:03:43
  Speaker 3: woman for these women. So what this particular testimony does
• 1:03:49
  Speaker 3: is show what is important in their schema, like in
• 1:03:54
  Speaker 3: their worldview. What matters, what has weight in their thinking.
• 1:04:01
  Speaker 3: And it's not Patrick's pain, and it's not.
• 1:04:05
  Speaker 2: The children's terror.
• 1:04:06
  Speaker 3: And it doesn't really have anything to do with Lindsay
• 1:04:09
  Speaker 3: Clancy either. No. It's just they have a resource, and
• 1:04:15
  Speaker 3: they're defending it. And that resource is the woman card.
• 1:04:19
  Speaker 3: And the woman card is worthless without blamelessness. So it's
• 1:04:24
  Speaker 3: like they walk into that courtroom and their only purpose
• 1:04:29
  Speaker 3: in being there is to defend their own.
• 1:04:31
  Speaker 2: Interests as women. That's it. That's what it comes down to.
• 1:04:38
  Speaker 3: And again, this is relational web thinking, but it's relational
• 1:04:42
  Speaker 3: web thinking that's been told for two, three generations. That
• 1:04:46
  Speaker 3: it's the only legitimate way of being and that it
• 1:04:49
  Speaker 3: is superior to how men view the world.
• 1:04:52
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:04:52
  Speaker 3: So it's like a relational web completely out of control.
• 1:04:56
  Speaker 2: A cancer. A cancerous relational web.
• 1:05:04
  Speaker 8: Okay.
• 1:05:05
  Speaker 1: All right.
• 1:05:06
  Speaker 4: It was absolutely genuine.
• 1:05:07
  Speaker 10: There's no doubt about that.
• 1:05:09
  Speaker 5: There were jurors that had to put in their ear
• 1:05:11
  Speaker 5: pods and just could not hear it.
• 1:05:15
  Speaker 4: They had to turn up their music and put it
• 1:05:17
  Speaker 4: in because it just, it was too much. Once was it.
• 1:05:21
  Speaker 1: So wait, wait, there were jurors who weren't listening to
• 1:05:24
  Speaker 1: the testimony because it was.
• 1:05:26
  Speaker 2: They couldn't hear it again. They heard it once and
• 1:05:28
  Speaker 2: then they couldn't hear it again.
• 1:05:29
  Speaker 1: Oh, they didn't want to hear it again.
• 1:05:31
  Speaker 13: But.
• 1:05:33
  Speaker 2: It's amazing because this is really evidence.
• 1:05:35
  Speaker 1: That's your job, though. Suck it up. No, it is. Yeah.
• 1:05:39
  Speaker 3: But this is really evidence of how much women will
• 1:05:43
  Speaker 3: disregard in favor of protecting their position, their resource.
• 1:05:51
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:05:53
  Speaker 2: It doesn't even weigh. It doesn't even.
• 1:05:57
  Speaker 3: Occur to them that they're in a position to punish
• 1:06:01
  Speaker 3: this behavior. prevent it from happening again yeah.
• 1:06:08
  Speaker 2: It's minor in.
• 1:06:12
  Speaker 3: The scheme of things for them relative to making sure
• 1:06:17
  Speaker 3: that their resource remains blameless and thus usable amazing you
• 1:06:25
  Speaker 3: know I don't even think like what I'm saying I
• 1:06:28
  Speaker 3: don't even think women can comprehend what I'm saying But
• 1:06:35
  Speaker 3: it is a mirror to what they're doing. And men
• 1:06:38
  Speaker 3: need to realize this. At least in this turn of
• 1:06:44
  Speaker 3: the screw, women would rather make sure they have access
• 1:06:50
  Speaker 3: to resources than to protect children. They have access to
• 1:06:56
  Speaker 3: their woman card and it remains blameless than to protect children.
• 1:07:01
  Speaker 3: And these women, I can't believe That they're talking about
• 1:07:05
  Speaker 3: how this affected them. Look at what we had to
• 1:07:10
  Speaker 3: sacrifice to retain access to our resources as women. Can
• 1:07:14
  Speaker 3: you believe it? And no consideration for Patrick and no
• 1:07:19
  Speaker 3: consideration for his children.
• 1:07:22
  Speaker 6: No.
• 1:07:23
  Speaker 11: Okay.
• 1:07:23
  Speaker 1: All right.
• 1:07:25
  Speaker 2: Let's keep going.
• 1:07:27
  Speaker 12: So Sue, what did they take away from the process
• 1:07:29
  Speaker 12: as a whole?
• 1:07:30
  Speaker 10: Well, this was something they felt that was their duty
• 1:07:33
  Speaker 10: to do, and they wanted to see it through. I mean, remember,
• 1:07:36
  Speaker 10: all 18 jurors stayed the entire time. They didn't lose
• 1:07:40
  Speaker 10: any of them. They felt it was very important that
• 1:07:42
  Speaker 10: they review all the evidence. They made sure that they,
• 1:07:46
  Speaker 10: you know, they did yell at each other, but they
• 1:07:47
  Speaker 10: also took care of each other. But it was a
• 1:07:49
  Speaker 10: bit like.
• 1:07:50
  Speaker 2: They- No, they didn't. They yelled at the hell out- Yeah.
• 1:07:52
  Speaker 1: I think they yelled at the men. That's what they did.
• 1:07:55
  Speaker 1: They- They probably already had it in mind they were
• 1:07:58
  Speaker 1: going to acquit her. The women, I know that at least,
• 1:08:02
  Speaker 1: I don't know if it's these women, but there were
• 1:08:04
  Speaker 1: some women that were in solidarity with Lindsay Clancy, wearing
• 1:08:08
  Speaker 1: pink and everything. They were probably yelling at the men,
• 1:08:11
  Speaker 1: if they were yelling at anybody. They were probably getting
• 1:08:13
  Speaker 1: the men to fall in line, and two of them
• 1:08:16
  Speaker 1: caved and did it, and one of them did not. So.
• 1:08:21
  Speaker 10: You know, they have been chosen by the government. A
• 1:08:23
  Speaker 10: couple of them had served on juries before and said
• 1:08:26
  Speaker 10: they would do it again. Although one was like, this
• 1:08:29
  Speaker 10: is one and done, I'm thinking here for me. But
• 1:08:31
  Speaker 10: absolutely felt like this was their civic responsibility. This is
• 1:08:35
  Speaker 10: what our nation is about. And they owed it to
• 1:08:37
  Speaker 10: everybody in the state and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
• 1:08:39
  Speaker 2: Oh, they owed it, did they?
• 1:08:40
  Speaker 8: God.
• 1:08:41
  Speaker 3: They went in there with motivated reasoning to preserve a
• 1:08:44
  Speaker 3: resource that they felt was threatened. They all shared with
• 1:08:48
  Speaker 3: Lindsay Clancy the woman card, the blamelessness of the woman card.
• 1:08:52
  Speaker 2: They all went in there.
• 1:08:54
  Speaker 3: Yeah, that's their civic duty, is it? Their civic duty
• 1:08:57
  Speaker 3: certainly isn't protecting children or husbands. from coming home and
• 1:09:01
  Speaker 3: finding their entire brood slaughtered on the basement floor.
• 1:09:04
  Speaker 4: Oh, God.
• 1:09:06
  Speaker 2: I can't even fucking imagine.
• 1:09:07
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I know.
• 1:09:10
  Speaker 3: If I had been on that jury, I would have
• 1:09:14
  Speaker 3: declared the electric chair for Lindsay Clancy and my fellow jurors.
• 1:09:23
  Speaker 3: I'd be like, you get an electric chair, and you
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 3: get the electric chair, and you get the electric chair.
• 1:09:31
  Speaker 2: God damn.
• 1:09:34
  Speaker 10: All right.
• 1:09:35
  Speaker 1: Let's keep going.
• 1:09:36
  Speaker 10: To do their jobs, and they stuck to it and
• 1:09:38
  Speaker 10: took it very seriously.
• 1:09:39
  Speaker 15: Sue O'Connell, our courtroom insider, thank you for bringing us
• 1:09:41
  Speaker 15: these voices.
• 1:09:42
  Speaker 1: You're welcome.
• 1:09:42
  Speaker 10: Very important stuff.
• 1:09:43
  Speaker 4: Thank you.
• 1:09:44
  Speaker 2: I just don't understand it. I'm with men.
• 1:09:48
  Speaker 3: When I hear the details of this case, yes, I
• 1:09:50
  Speaker 3: know that we have to set aside our emotions. And
• 1:09:52
  Speaker 3: Lindsay Clancy deserves due process.
• 1:09:55
  Speaker 2: But I have to fight.
• 1:09:56
  Speaker 3: I want to see this woman fry. I want to
• 1:10:00
  Speaker 3: see her fry. I don't understand why these women don't
• 1:10:05
  Speaker 3: have to fight that. They listen to this and they're like, oh, wow.
• 1:10:10
  Speaker 3: It's not a situation where they go in and they're like,
• 1:10:12
  Speaker 3: this woman should fry. And then they see like 7,000
• 1:10:16
  Speaker 3: pages of documents. So she had psychosis, which didn't exist,
• 1:10:20
  Speaker 3: by the way.
• 1:10:20
  Speaker 2: It was the reverse.
• 1:10:22
  Speaker 3: There was all of the psychologists and psychiatrists that saw
• 1:10:25
  Speaker 3: her prior to her murdering her children in cold blood
• 1:10:29
  Speaker 3: did not find any evidence of psychosis.
• 1:10:32
  Speaker 7: Right.
• 1:10:33
  Speaker 2: But even if there was, let's.
• 1:10:34
  Speaker 3: Just imagine a counterfactual in which there was actual evidence
• 1:10:39
  Speaker 3: that Lindsay Clancy had psychosis. In that situation, I would
• 1:10:43
  Speaker 3: be going in there and I would be like, this
• 1:10:46
  Speaker 3: woman should fry. Convince me otherwise. And I'd have to
• 1:10:51
  Speaker 3: really sit in my neutral.
• 1:10:54
  Speaker 2: You know what I mean, just judging the evidence. But
• 1:10:57
  Speaker 2: that's not what we see with these women. They came
• 1:11:00
  Speaker 2: in and were like, yeah, she's innocent.
• 1:11:02
  Speaker 3: Do you see any evidence that they had to work
• 1:11:05
  Speaker 3: from a position of absolute horror of what this woman
• 1:11:09
  Speaker 3: had done to deliver justice, neutral justice?
• 1:11:14
  Speaker 4: No.
• 1:11:15
  Speaker 2: And that's the thing.
• 1:11:16
  Speaker 3: You know, men, like I said, my case of Leonard,
• 1:11:23
  Speaker 3: Leonard Clancy, I'm pretty sure men.
• 1:11:25
  Speaker 2: Would be going into that being like, yeah, he should fry.
• 1:11:28
  Speaker 2: And in fact, they do.
• 1:11:30
  Speaker 3: There's this schizophrenic who literally is in a grip of
• 1:11:35
  Speaker 3: a hallucination. He probably saw his kids as demons or something.
• 1:11:40
  Speaker 2: And then after he did it, he went so far.
• 1:11:42
  Speaker 3: He was in a state of such psychosis that he
• 1:11:46
  Speaker 3: gouged out his own eyes.
• 1:11:47
  Speaker 2: Guess what?
• 1:11:48
  Speaker 3: He gets the electric chair. The jury of his peers
• 1:11:51
  Speaker 3: is like, no, I get it. He wasn't in his
• 1:11:54
  Speaker 3: right mind too bad, so sad. He failed in his
• 1:11:57
  Speaker 3: custodial duty. You know, he dies. Like, that's it.
• 1:12:04
  Speaker 6: Right?
• 1:12:05
  Speaker 2: But these women, they walk in there, and their sympathy
• 1:12:08
  Speaker 2: is with the woman who strangled her children to death.
• 1:12:12
  Speaker 2: I don't understand that. I don't freaking understand it.
• 1:12:18
  Speaker 3: Like, it's obvious to me that their.
• 1:12:21
  Speaker 2: Sympathies lie with the woman.
• 1:12:23
  Speaker 5: Yep.
• 1:12:26
  Speaker 2: I get it.
• 1:12:27
  Speaker 3: She deserves due process. She deserves a fair trial. But
• 1:12:31
  Speaker 3: I'm not going to be walking into that room sympathizing
• 1:12:33
  Speaker 3: with her. I'm going to be walking into that room
• 1:12:35
  Speaker 3: imagining her frying. And then maybe if they make a
• 1:12:40
  Speaker 3: good case, yeah, reasonable doubt, no, she should.
• 1:12:42
  Speaker 2: And it wouldn't be this one.
• 1:12:46
  Speaker 1: There's no freaking evidence.
• 1:12:50
  Speaker 2: Okay.
• 1:12:51
  Speaker 1: Okay. Uh, Just make sure I didn't get any super chats.
• 1:12:56
  Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I'm just passing the time while you're ranting.
• 1:12:58
  Speaker 2: Get the super chats in. Super chows, guys. No, that's fine.
• 1:13:03
  Speaker 2: Get those super chows in, guys.
• 1:13:05
  Speaker 12: Michael, thanks for being with us. You thought you got away,
• 1:13:08
  Speaker 12: but we're bringing you back in here. It's only been
• 1:13:11
  Speaker 12: four days since the mistrial was declared. Does it surprise
• 1:13:13
  Speaker 12: you that jurors were willing to speak this quickly?
• 1:13:17
  Speaker 2: Yes, it does.
• 1:13:18
  Speaker 11: Usually you think they'd want a little time.
• 1:13:21
  Speaker 1: All right, this is just getting into some other bullshit.
• 1:13:23
  Speaker 1: Is there anything else in this? Okay, all right.
• 1:13:26
  Speaker 2: Let's listen. Let's listen.
• 1:13:29
  Speaker 11: Detox, as I had looked at it in my own
• 1:13:31
  Speaker 11: involvement here, is to take a step back and to
• 1:13:34
  Speaker 11: try and think about the case and think about what
• 1:13:37
  Speaker 11: their role was. But obviously they have a voice here
• 1:13:41
  Speaker 11: that they want heard. They're an intelligent... Oh, fuck.
• 1:13:47
  Speaker 1: Are you kidding me?
• 1:13:47
  Speaker 11: Committed jury to try and get it right, to do
• 1:13:51
  Speaker 11: their job.
• 1:13:53
  Speaker 1: Just flattering, just flattering. Oh, gosh.
• 1:13:56
  Speaker 2: He does say something important.
• 1:13:57
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 1:13:58
  Speaker 2: But I, unbelievable. Yeah, these are not intelligent people.
• 1:14:01
  Speaker 15: After listening to those jurors, I really only have one
• 1:14:04
  Speaker 15: question because I know every juror has a right to
• 1:14:08
  Speaker 15: their own interpretation of the evidence. But does a juror
• 1:14:11
  Speaker 15: also have the right to ignore the judge's instructions if
• 1:14:15
  Speaker 15: they conflict somehow with his beliefs?
• 1:14:18
  Speaker 6: No.
• 1:14:19
  Speaker 1: So this, okay, so what? Are they talking about the
• 1:14:23
  Speaker 1: one guy, the holdout?
• 1:14:25
  Speaker 2: Yeah, the guy thinks he's talking about him, but he isn't.
• 1:14:28
  Speaker 2: Keep going.
• 1:14:28
  Speaker 1: Oh, I see, I see.
• 1:14:30
  Speaker 11: No, the jurors' role, apply the law as the judge
• 1:14:35
  Speaker 11: instructs them to the facts as they find them to be.
• 1:14:38
  Speaker 11: You can't decide to impose your own moral code with
• 1:14:42
  Speaker 11: respect to the enforcement of criminal law. That's just not
• 1:14:45
  Speaker 11: the way it is. So if the jury had returned
• 1:14:48
  Speaker 11: a note saying he has reasonable doubt, he's expressed that
• 1:14:52
  Speaker 11: to us, but says he will not follow the law,
• 1:14:55
  Speaker 11: then Judge Sullivan would have likely gone further with the inquiry.
• 1:14:59
  Speaker 2: Yeah, but that's not what happened. That's not what happened.
• 1:15:04
  Speaker 11: Right.
• 1:15:04
  Speaker 2: OK, that's not what happened.
• 1:15:07
  Speaker 3: Yeah, he said that maybe he said he had doubt
• 1:15:11
  Speaker 3: and then he weighed the evidence in total.
• 1:15:15
  Speaker 12: Right.
• 1:15:15
  Speaker 3: But keep going, because this this is interesting. This is
• 1:15:17
  Speaker 3: interesting because the jury did do something.
• 1:15:20
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:15:21
  Speaker 2: In regards to reasonable doubt.
• 1:15:23
  Speaker 11: The juror from serving the completion of that jury duty.
• 1:15:28
  Speaker 10: That's where things get a little murky, Michael.
• 1:15:31
  Speaker 12: The note sent to the judge by a poor woman
• 1:15:34
  Speaker 12: gave us some insight into what was happening with deliberations,
• 1:15:37
  Speaker 12: including knowing it was an 11 to 1 vote. But
• 1:15:42
  Speaker 12: this seems to go against the sanctity of the jury's process.
• 1:15:45
  Speaker 12: So is this something that we should be concerned about
• 1:15:47
  Speaker 12: moving forward?
• 1:15:49
  Speaker 3: So what she's saying, and she brings up a good point,
• 1:15:52
  Speaker 3: is that They were concerned about this juror, so they
• 1:15:56
  Speaker 3: sent a note to the judge. And that is actually
• 1:15:59
  Speaker 3: violating the sanctity of the process.
• 1:16:02
  Speaker 2: And this lawyer is going to respond to that. I
• 1:16:05
  Speaker 2: don't know what the heck he's going to say, but
• 1:16:06
  Speaker 2: I'm curious.
• 1:16:07
  Speaker 11: The judge did it correctly based on what evidence and
• 1:16:11
  Speaker 11: information that the jury submitted is that a juror has
• 1:16:16
  Speaker 11: expressed doubt to the other jurors, but doubt doesn't mean
• 1:16:19
  Speaker 11: reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is pretty intricately under the law
• 1:16:27
  Speaker 11: defined as not free from all doubt because nothing in
• 1:16:30
  Speaker 11: life is free from all doubt.
• 1:16:33
  Speaker 2: Which is what their standard was, guys.
• 1:16:36
  Speaker 11: Yeah.
• 1:16:36
  Speaker 3: Like literally the women's standard was actually there was nothing.
• 1:16:41
  Speaker 3: There was nothing that they would have been shown that
• 1:16:44
  Speaker 3: they would have considered evidence of guilt.
• 1:16:46
  Speaker 2: That's what I'm getting from them. But let's continue. Let's continue.
• 1:16:51
  Speaker 11: Expressed more that the juror wasn't following his oath, then
• 1:16:54
  Speaker 11: we have a different analysis. I really don't think that
• 1:16:58
  Speaker 11: people and the law would want Judge Sullivan or anyone
• 1:17:02
  Speaker 11: to have done more. The whole system is designed that
• 1:17:05
  Speaker 11: each juror votes their conscience as instructed by the law
• 1:17:09
  Speaker 11: to the facts, and if it's 11 to 1 to
• 1:17:12
  Speaker 11: vote one way or the other, that lone juror's voice
• 1:17:16
  Speaker 11: is still just as strong and should be considered equal
• 1:17:19
  Speaker 11: to all of the 11 other jurors.
• 1:17:22
  Speaker 1: So we're not doing this consensus bullshit. Go ahead.
• 1:17:27
  Speaker 3: I want to add another detail, which if we have time,
• 1:17:29
  Speaker 3: we'll cover. The female jurors wanted, he was the one
• 1:17:37
  Speaker 3: who was asking the judge to tell him what reasonable
• 1:17:40
  Speaker 3: doubt meant. He wanted the judge to instruct him and
• 1:17:46
  Speaker 3: the jury or to enlighten So he requests the judge
• 1:17:53
  Speaker 3: to explain it.
• 1:17:54
  Speaker 1: Yes.
• 1:17:55
  Speaker 2: And the jurors, the other jurors vetoed that. I don't
• 1:18:00
  Speaker 2: know how they managed that.
• 1:18:02
  Speaker 3: I'd have to look more into it. And this is
• 1:18:04
  Speaker 3: based on their testimony and it's a little fractured, but
• 1:18:07
  Speaker 3: they vetoed that and said that they would define it
• 1:18:10
  Speaker 3: because they had all the information there. Yeah, but they're
• 1:18:14
  Speaker 3: not going to be giving the judge's definition. Even if
• 1:18:18
  Speaker 3: the judge wrote something.
• 1:18:19
  Speaker 2: Down, They're going to give their.
• 1:18:22
  Speaker 3: Interpretation of what reasonable doubt is. And the juror, the
• 1:18:26
  Speaker 3: lone juror, apparently was like, no, that's not sufficient for me.
• 1:18:29
  Speaker 3: I want the judge to explain reasonable doubt. Probably because
• 1:18:36
  Speaker 3: that lone juror realized that these women have no effing
• 1:18:39
  Speaker 3: clue what reasonable doubt is. And that their doubts were
• 1:18:44
  Speaker 3: actually unreasonable. But that's my conjecture. Don't take that to
• 1:18:50
  Speaker 3: the bank.
• 1:18:52
  Speaker 2: It just sort of fits the facts.
• 1:18:54
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:18:56
  Speaker 2: But anyway, so the.
• 1:19:00
  Speaker 3: Other jurors were actually responsible for trying to enforce their
• 1:19:06
  Speaker 3: opinion on this juror.
• 1:19:08
  Speaker 2: But let's continue.
• 1:19:10
  Speaker 1: Let's see if this guy addresses that. I got another
• 1:19:12
  Speaker 1: super child just came through, so I'm going to read
• 1:19:14
  Speaker 1: that real quick. Dylan gave us $ 5 and said, both
• 1:19:18
  Speaker 1: the facts and men's feelings slash needs must bow to
• 1:19:21
  Speaker 1: the women's feelings according to these jurors.
• 1:19:24
  Speaker 5: Yeah.
• 1:19:25
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 1:19:26
  Speaker 15: Michael Coyne, our chief legal analyst. Thanks very much for
• 1:19:28
  Speaker 15: joining us tonight.
• 1:19:30
  Speaker 3: Thanks.
• 1:19:30
  Speaker 15: Those jurors are not the only people connected to this
• 1:19:32
  Speaker 15: case who had something meaningful to say today.
• 1:19:34
  Speaker 12: Let's go live to Plymouth, where our Mary Marcos is
• 1:19:37
  Speaker 12: standing by. Mary, Lindsay Clancy's attorney now asking President Trump
• 1:19:41
  Speaker 12: to pardon her. So can a president do that? No, no,
• 1:19:46
  Speaker 12: the president does not have the power to pardon state charges.
• 1:19:50
  Speaker 4: But that didn't stop Kevin Reddington from asking him to
• 1:19:53
  Speaker 4: do it today.
• 1:19:53
  Speaker 2: OK, let's let's.
• 1:19:56
  Speaker 1: Yeah, so I heard about this too. Look, this guy,
• 1:19:59
  Speaker 1: this lawyer, he sees an opportunity to make a name
• 1:20:05
  Speaker 1: for himself. So he's doing these big, grandiose things. And
• 1:20:08
  Speaker 1: I think he understands how easy it is to use women.
• 1:20:19
  Speaker 1: Because he can basically be like, I called for Trump
• 1:20:23
  Speaker 1: to pardon her and he didn't do it, even though
• 1:20:25
  Speaker 1: he doesn't have the authority to do it in any case.
• 1:20:28
  Speaker 1: And all it's going to do is send these women
• 1:20:30
  Speaker 1: into a further frenzy because everybody has fucking TDS now.
• 1:20:33
  Speaker 1: And that's just what we're, this is the world now.
• 1:20:35
  Speaker 1: This is where we are. Everyone's fucking possessed. And like,
• 1:20:38
  Speaker 1: we have to make it about Trump every time, no
• 1:20:40
  Speaker 1: matter what. This has nothing to do with that. And
• 1:20:43
  Speaker 1: the lawyer knows, he knows that you can't do that.
• 1:20:46
  Speaker 1: So why would he do that if it wasn't just
• 1:20:48
  Speaker 1: to signal to these cunts online that And basically get
• 1:20:52
  Speaker 1: them to be like, oh, we love him. He called
• 1:20:54
  Speaker 1: out the president. He didn't support him. He must hate him.
• 1:20:57
  Speaker 1: And it's just, it's a gesture with no meaning. And
• 1:21:04
  Speaker 1: the fact that they're even addressing, I mean, I guess
• 1:21:06
  Speaker 1: they have to address it because they're the journalists. But
• 1:21:08
  Speaker 1: the fact that they're even like bothering with this. Yeah,
• 1:21:10
  Speaker 1: they called for a, what do you think? He said
• 1:21:13
  Speaker 1: he can't do it. Sounds like he said no to me.
• 1:21:16
  Speaker 1: I think he hates women. It's crazy. All right. Do
• 1:21:19
  Speaker 1: you want me to go to the next video?
• 1:21:24
  Speaker 2: Yeah, sure. Let's take a look.
• 1:21:26
  Speaker 3: I do have time codes. I want to make sure
• 1:21:28
  Speaker 3: that these time codes are correct.
• 1:21:30
  Speaker 1: I don't know. Is this video two right here? This
• 1:21:33
  Speaker 1: is 13 seconds. This might be an ad.
• 1:21:36
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it's probably an ad. Oh, God damn.
• 1:21:38
  Speaker 1: It's an ad.
• 1:21:39
  Speaker 2: Don't listen to this, guys.
• 1:21:41
  Speaker 1: Instagram. I think this is like a clip from something
• 1:21:43
  Speaker 1: we already watched, but I could play it or I
• 1:21:45
  Speaker 1: could jump ahead to the next one.
• 1:21:47
  Speaker 5: He had reasonable doubt. He admitted he had reasonable doubt
• 1:21:51
  Speaker 5: after we watched that video of the interview. I think
• 1:21:54
  Speaker 5: that's when it was. He admitted he had reasonable doubt.
• 1:21:58
  Speaker 5: And I started filling out the forms.
• 1:22:00
  Speaker 4: I was so excited.
• 1:22:01
  Speaker 14: I actually.
• 1:22:03
  Speaker 4: There were three forms I had to fill out.
• 1:22:05
  Speaker 5: And I started filling them out. I wrote my signature
• 1:22:08
  Speaker 5: on each.
• 1:22:09
  Speaker 1: I think that's just... We already saw this clip. So
• 1:22:12
  Speaker 1: let's go to this one, I guess. Nine minutes... Let's
• 1:22:17
  Speaker 1: see which video this is. Jurors on prosecution and defense. Okay, well,
• 1:22:24
  Speaker 1: let's see.
• 1:22:25
  Speaker 2: Okay, wait, actually go to.
• 1:22:27
  Speaker 3: All right, yes, that's actually a really good one. She's
• 1:22:31
  Speaker 3: talking about how she was so excited. So this is
• 1:22:37
  Speaker 3: a campaign to find her innocent. And then if you
• 1:22:42
  Speaker 3: go to V3, the third video, and then go to 732... Right?
• 1:22:48
  Speaker 3: There's this pledge that they've made. Is this the third video?
• 1:22:52
  Speaker 1: Well, I don't know.
• 1:22:53
  Speaker 2: Go to the top. It's not the Instagram video.
• 1:22:57
  Speaker 1: Yeah, this is the third one. Yeah, this is here, right?
• 1:22:59
  Speaker 1: Do you want me to play it? I want to make.
• 1:23:02
  Speaker 2: Sure this is the right thing.
• 1:23:04
  Speaker 3: All right.
• 1:23:04
  Speaker 6: 7.32.
• 1:23:04
  Speaker 2: Let's see.
• 1:23:05
  Speaker 6: Yep.
• 1:23:05
  Speaker 1: 7.32. It's a little bit difficult because they.
• 1:23:12
  Speaker 2: Cut everything up into like five videos.
• 1:23:15
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't know. Well, there is a full-length one
• 1:23:19
  Speaker 1: that played while we were live. They just released it.
• 1:23:23
  Speaker 1: It's like the whole thing uninterrupted. But we'd have to
• 1:23:25
  Speaker 1: like find all of the– do you want me to
• 1:23:27
  Speaker 1: send you the link to it?
• 1:23:29
  Speaker 10: Yeah, sure.
• 1:23:29
  Speaker 3: Send me the link.
• 1:23:30
  Speaker 1: Yeah, then you can like get the time codes from that.
• 1:23:32
  Speaker 1: But until then– Yeah, I know.
• 1:23:34
  Speaker 2: Until then, I think it's the third one.
• 1:23:37
  Speaker 1: Yep, here. Here's the link. All right. I just put
• 1:23:41
  Speaker 1: it in Discord.
• 1:23:42
  Speaker 10: For Lindsey Clancy, what's their take on that? Yeah, they
• 1:23:45
  Speaker 10: were clear that they don't think that Lindsey Clancy should
• 1:23:48
  Speaker 10: be retried. In one way, one juror said they wanted
• 1:23:51
  Speaker 10: her to have her day in court, right, and be
• 1:23:53
  Speaker 10: found not guilty. But if Lindsey Clancy were retried, all
• 1:23:57
  Speaker 10: three of these jurors said they would be in court
• 1:23:59
  Speaker 10: every single day supporting Lindsey Clancy. All right.
• 1:24:03
  Speaker 1: Sue, we appreciate you being inside that courtroom.
• 1:24:05
  Speaker 2: So they're basically campaigning.
• 1:24:07
  Speaker 1: Mm-hmm.
• 1:24:07
  Speaker 2: They're going to continue this.
• 1:24:08
  Speaker 3: They're going to continue to try to influence this trial.
• 1:24:11
  Speaker 1: Yeah, this is the new moral panic. This is the
• 1:24:15
  Speaker 1: new current thing. This is the new current thing that
• 1:24:17
  Speaker 1: women will have to get behind. So... Yeah, go ahead.
• 1:24:22
  Speaker 1: What was that?
• 1:24:24
  Speaker 2: I'm just looking at everything.
• 1:24:25
  Speaker 3: I'm looking at each of the segments because, again, they
• 1:24:28
  Speaker 3: cut everything in weird ways, so it's very difficult to
• 1:24:31
  Speaker 3: find the time codes.
• 1:24:32
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 1:24:32
  Speaker 2: But anyway, so the five ways that these women.
• 1:24:36
  Speaker 2: Basically perverted justice let me.
• 1:24:38
  Speaker 1: Just do you want me to read those don't worry.
• 1:24:41
  Speaker 3: About i'll just sure but you know it's it's easier
• 1:24:45
  Speaker 3: for me to read them because it's not written in
• 1:24:47
  Speaker 3: a way that's.
• 1:24:47
  Speaker 2: Easy to read.
• 1:24:48
  Speaker 1: All right so okay.
• 1:24:49
  Speaker 3: First of all they have we just looked at that
• 1:24:51
  Speaker 3: the campaign to see clancy declared innocent right does that
• 1:24:55
  Speaker 3: sound like a neutral jury to.
• 1:24:57
  Speaker 1: You no they were going in with an intent and
• 1:25:00
  Speaker 1: look somebody in the chat said that um i'm surprised
• 1:25:04
  Speaker 1: like they didn't keep them sequestered. But the problem is,
• 1:25:07
  Speaker 1: is that this case is so high profile. I don't
• 1:25:09
  Speaker 1: think there was any way to do that. Um, this
• 1:25:12
  Speaker 1: is sort of like the same thing with the Derek
• 1:25:14
  Speaker 1: Chauvin trial. Like there was no way that people were
• 1:25:17
  Speaker 1: not going to know what was going on because everyone
• 1:25:20
  Speaker 1: was talking about it everywhere. Um, so yeah, it was, it,
• 1:25:24
  Speaker 1: there was no way to keep them sequestered and they
• 1:25:26
  Speaker 1: probably already had their bias like before they even walked
• 1:25:29
  Speaker 1: into the courtroom, to be honest, at least the women,
• 1:25:31
  Speaker 1: I think. And somebody else asked if there were men
• 1:25:34
  Speaker 1: on the, if there were any male jurors. There were
• 1:25:37
  Speaker 1: three male jurors and nine female jurors. Of the three males,
• 1:25:43
  Speaker 1: two of them sided with the women against, well, in
• 1:25:48
  Speaker 1: favor of Clancy. Yeah, eventually. And only one stood his ground, so.
• 1:25:57
  Speaker 2: Okay, so if you go to.
• 1:25:58
  Speaker 3: Four, the fourth video, and you play 130 to 147,
• 1:26:02
  Speaker 3: this is actually a critical point because it's just that
• 1:26:07
  Speaker 3: individual's statement.
• 1:26:09
  Speaker 10: Okay.
• 1:26:09
  Speaker 3: Yes, it was 12 jurors, three were men, and nine
• 1:26:15
  Speaker 3: were women.
• 1:26:16
  Speaker 1: Well, nine women, three men. Yeah.
• 1:26:20
  Speaker 2: Yeah, one male holdout. However, let's hear 130 onward.
• 1:26:26
  Speaker 1: Okay? Yep. Okay.
• 1:26:29
  Speaker 10: I asked them what they thought of him being described
• 1:26:31
  Speaker 10: by the prosecution as a rogue juror. Here's what they said.
• 1:26:37
  Speaker 4: He was very arrogant.
• 1:26:38
  Speaker 13: He really did not take anything that anybody said. The nurses,
• 1:26:45
  Speaker 13: he tried to ask a question about the medications and we.
• 1:26:50
  Speaker 11: Went back to.
• 1:26:50
  Speaker 2: What is the number? What video is this?
• 1:26:56
  Speaker 1: This is six minutes and 45 seconds long.
• 1:27:01
  Speaker 10: All right.
• 1:27:01
  Speaker 1: Is it this one? Jurors share thoughts on prosecution? Because
• 1:27:05
  Speaker 1: this is the one I'm playing right now. Okay.
• 1:27:08
  Speaker 13: The report from South Shore Hospital. We had the toxicology report.
• 1:27:12
  Speaker 13: We could see exactly the amounts. Nurses in the room
• 1:27:18
  Speaker 13: spoke to that.
• 1:27:20
  Speaker 8: What?
• 1:27:20
  Speaker 1: It's the wrong one?
• 1:27:22
  Speaker 2: Yeah, just give me a second.
• 1:27:25
  Speaker 10: My.
• 1:27:26
  Speaker 2: time codes are all screwed up.
• 1:27:28
  Speaker 3: Just give me a second. I'll figure this out.
• 1:27:31
  Speaker 2: But yeah, the point is.
• 1:27:32
  Speaker 3: That, um, the point is that they actually it's V.
• 1:27:44
  Speaker 1: Yes. Alison.
• 1:27:48
  Speaker 6: Sorry.
• 1:27:49
  Speaker 3: The point is that they didn't actually start with 11
• 1:27:52
  Speaker 3: to one split. The split wasn't 11 to 1. It was,
• 1:27:56
  Speaker 3: there were jurors who were on his side, or at
• 1:28:00
  Speaker 3: least not decided. And they say they persuaded them to
• 1:28:07
  Speaker 3: go over to the other side. And if it's not,
• 1:28:12
  Speaker 3: if it's, oh yeah, actually the V1, it's, just let
• 1:28:20
  Speaker 3: me double check.
• 1:28:21
  Speaker 1: Yeah. So just to confirm which video this is, this
• 1:28:25
  Speaker 1: is number one. This is an ad. This is number two.
• 1:28:29
  Speaker 1: This is number three. This is number four. So this
• 1:28:31
  Speaker 1: is the one I'm currently looking at. This is the
• 1:28:34
  Speaker 1: fourth video. And I know NBC, I don't know, maybe
• 1:28:38
  Speaker 1: they get more ad revenue by... breaking it up like
• 1:28:40
  Speaker 1: this I have no idea.
• 1:28:42
  Speaker 3: Yeah it's a it's a pain in the bloody ass
• 1:28:45
  Speaker 3: um okay so three jurors were persuaded to find the
• 1:28:52
  Speaker 3: defendant not guilty by reason of insanity it's the network's
• 1:28:55
  Speaker 3: own narration and it's the clear so the This didn't
• 1:29:00
  Speaker 3: start 11 to 1. These women worked on other jurors
• 1:29:06
  Speaker 3: that didn't agree with them.
• 1:29:09
  Speaker 2: Now they call it persuading. Yeah.
• 1:29:11
  Speaker 3: But there's also another point where they say that they
• 1:29:15
  Speaker 3: were yelling so much that they could be heard through
• 1:29:17
  Speaker 3: the wall. So who knows what they really mean by
• 1:29:21
  Speaker 3: the word persuading.
• 1:29:22
  Speaker 8: Yeah.
• 1:29:27
  Speaker 1: Yep.
• 1:29:28
  Speaker 3: It is an interesting situation because it really sounds like
• 1:29:35
  Speaker 3: there was a bunch of bullies on this jury.
• 1:29:37
  Speaker 2: It wouldn't take no for an answer.
• 1:29:39
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:29:41
  Speaker 2: But anyway, justice, everyone.
• 1:29:43
  Speaker 10: Okay.
• 1:29:46
  Speaker 1: All right. I got a Rumble rant from NovaFan21 who
• 1:29:49
  Speaker 1: gives us a dollar and says... Woman logic be like,
• 1:29:52
  Speaker 1: but mothers like us struggle with raising kids and working
• 1:29:54
  Speaker 1: a job and cleaning the house. That means she was
• 1:29:56
  Speaker 1: the real victim of her strangling her kids.
• 1:29:59
  Speaker 3: Yep.
• 1:30:01
  Speaker 1: Zerank says, for five, actually, you know, you think that's
• 1:30:03
  Speaker 1: a ridiculous claim, Nova fan? I've seen it online. I've
• 1:30:07
  Speaker 1: seen it. I've seen women saying that because of my labor,
• 1:30:10
  Speaker 1: my unpaid labor. Zerank gives us $ 5 and says, someone
• 1:30:15
  Speaker 1: suggested having Amish jurors for the new trial. It's not
• 1:30:19
  Speaker 1: going to happen. I think the Amish did a smart
• 1:30:22
  Speaker 1: thing by avoiding modernity completely. All right. Let's keep going,
• 1:30:27
  Speaker 1: I guess. Are we playing more of this?
• 1:30:29
  Speaker 4: They spoke to that.
• 1:30:30
  Speaker 10: There were nurses on the jury. Yes.
• 1:30:34
  Speaker 13: And they spoke to that specific thing.
• 1:30:37
  Speaker 4: That was a question that he had.
• 1:30:40
  Speaker 13: And he just completely disregarded the information that they gave him.
• 1:30:44
  Speaker 4: I mean, he had reasonable doubt.
• 1:30:46
  Speaker 5: He admitted he had reasonable doubt after we watched.
• 1:30:49
  Speaker 3: OK, they completely disregarded the information. You mean the way
• 1:30:52
  Speaker 3: he should have? Because they're not expert witnesses.
• 1:30:56
  Speaker 1: Yeah, they're not expert witnesses. They're just trying to get
• 1:30:58
  Speaker 1: him to fall in line. That's all it was. So.
• 1:31:04
  Speaker 1: And he just wouldn't do it.
• 1:31:06
  Speaker 5: Interview i think that's when it was he admitted he
• 1:31:09
  Speaker 5: had reasonable doubt and i started filling out the forms
• 1:31:13
  Speaker 5: i was so excited.
• 1:31:14
  Speaker 4: I actually there were three forms i had to fill.
• 1:31:17
  Speaker 3: Out okay go to v3 go to the video three
• 1:31:20
  Speaker 3: 641 let's hope let's hope this is correct 641 the
• 1:31:25
  Speaker 3: other thing is the other thing is nbc changes the
• 1:31:28
  Speaker 3: order of his videos in its actual html page the.
• 1:31:32
  Speaker 1: Entire time Yeah.
• 1:31:34
  Speaker 10: When they went in originally, it wasn't 11 to 1.
• 1:31:37
  Speaker 10: It was split differently. And remember, they had different choices.
• 1:31:39
  Speaker 10: They had murder one. They had murder two. They had manslaughter.
• 1:31:42
  Speaker 10: They had not guilty by reason of insanity, our Massachusetts
• 1:31:45
  Speaker 10: version of that. And they had to actually persuade other
• 1:31:48
  Speaker 10: jurors to come over to be not guilty. So it
• 1:31:52
  Speaker 10: wasn't always that split. But when they got down to
• 1:31:54
  Speaker 10: business the last few days, it was all about trying
• 1:31:57
  Speaker 10: to convince this juror who changed his mind several times.
• 1:32:01
  Speaker 10: It wasn't just that they disagreed with them or.
• 1:32:05
  Speaker 2: What changed his mind?
• 1:32:07
  Speaker 1: Well, that's her framing.
• 1:32:09
  Speaker 11: Yeah.
• 1:32:10
  Speaker 2: Yeah, that's her framing.
• 1:32:12
  Speaker 3: Based on their testimony, there was a moment where he
• 1:32:15
  Speaker 3: might have had doubt, but then apparently he waited in
• 1:32:18
  Speaker 3: total and it doesn't matter if he changed his mind.
• 1:32:21
  Speaker 1: Yeah, that's what you do when you're with deliberations in
• 1:32:25
  Speaker 1: a jury. You talk about it. You're probably going to
• 1:32:27
  Speaker 1: start on one position.
• 1:32:28
  Speaker 3: What kind of woman logic is this woman presenting? Oh,
• 1:32:32
  Speaker 3: he doesn't have the right to change his mind. He
• 1:32:34
  Speaker 3: should have just gone into the room and been like, oh,
• 1:32:36
  Speaker 3: she's a woman. She's innocent.
• 1:32:37
  Speaker 2: Like what?
• 1:32:39
  Speaker 6: Yep.
• 1:32:39
  Speaker 2: Oh, are you supposed to have.
• 1:32:41
  Speaker 3: Your opinion formed in the first 10 seconds, lady?
• 1:32:44
  Speaker 2: And then that's it.
• 1:32:46
  Speaker 3: If you change your mind, you know, no doers. You
• 1:32:48
  Speaker 3: go into the jury penalty box. Like, basically what she's
• 1:32:55
  Speaker 3: saying is he weighed the evidence and didn't have a
• 1:32:59
  Speaker 3: firm opinion until he had weighed all the evidence.
• 1:33:01
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and then he landed on.
• 1:33:03
  Speaker 2: I can't believe this man.
• 1:33:04
  Speaker 1: Guilty. I can't believe that he jumped the gun like
• 1:33:08
  Speaker 1: that or flip-flopped that hard.
• 1:33:13
  Speaker 2: I can't believe that he had....
• 1:33:16
  Speaker 3: Again, guys, when you're on a jury and evidence is presented,
• 1:33:21
  Speaker 3: presumably your opinion will change.
• 1:33:25
  Speaker 2: Really, you shouldn't be having to state an opinion. Why
• 1:33:28
  Speaker 2: is he having to state his opinion to these women?
• 1:33:30
  Speaker 2: That's the other thing.
• 1:33:32
  Speaker 3: Why are they taking his temperature through this process?
• 1:33:38
  Speaker 2: What's your opinion now? What's your opinion now? That's his
• 1:33:41
  Speaker 2: own business.
• 1:33:44
  Speaker 3: And even if he offered it up, the fact that
• 1:33:46
  Speaker 3: it changed over the course of the trial is normal.
• 1:33:51
  Speaker 3: And this woman is using this normal behavior as a
• 1:33:55
  Speaker 3: reason to indict him. Yep. What a fucking, like, octopus
• 1:34:02
  Speaker 3: nest of insanity.
• 1:34:03
  Speaker 2: Like, squirming insanity.
• 1:34:06
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 1:34:07
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 1:34:09
  Speaker 3: So, yeah, so this is the campaign to declare her innocent.
• 1:34:14
  Speaker 3: And it's fairly obvious there's a lot of motivated reasoning here.
• 1:34:18
  Speaker 3: And then they're manufacturing the next perversion of justice that
• 1:34:21
  Speaker 3: they engaged in is manufacturing the evidence for it. Everybody's
• 1:34:26
  Speaker 3: saying she loved her children so much. Everything proves she
• 1:34:29
  Speaker 3: loved her children. So she had to have snapped and
• 1:34:33
  Speaker 3: not known what she was doing. To me, that was proof,
• 1:34:36
  Speaker 3: even though there's another explanation. She's a sociopath, and sociopaths
• 1:34:41
  Speaker 3: can be very charming to everybody they aren't abusing. Okay,
• 1:34:47
  Speaker 3: obviously something happened to this woman that shouldn't have happened. Yeah,
• 1:34:52
  Speaker 3: something happened to her that shouldn't have happened.
• 1:34:55
  Speaker 10: Her.
• 1:34:57
  Speaker 3: Because it's the woman spot in the positional realm. Like
• 1:35:01
  Speaker 3: everything comes down to the woman card being under siege.
• 1:35:07
  Speaker 1: Right?
• 1:35:08
  Speaker 3: Prosecution's Facebook post evidence converted on contact apparently something was
• 1:35:15
  Speaker 3: posted on Facebook and that has to be evidence that
• 1:35:19
  Speaker 3: she is not guilty. And then when they were asked,
• 1:35:23
  Speaker 3: did the prosecution make any points at all?
• 1:35:25
  Speaker 2: No, I don't think so. Five weeks of testimony, zero
• 1:35:30
  Speaker 2: points registered.
• 1:35:31
  Speaker 3: If you want to see that one, it's at V3 631,
• 1:35:35
  Speaker 3: I believe.
• 1:35:36
  Speaker 1: Three, so that's this one, 631. We just watched that one. Yeah,
• 1:35:40
  Speaker 1: I hope.
• 1:35:41
  Speaker 2: Oh, God damn it. Then the.
• 1:35:44
  Speaker 2: The numbers are still wrong.
• 1:35:46
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't know what you're.
• 1:35:49
  Speaker 2: No, V2 631.
• 1:35:50
  Speaker 11: V2?
• 1:35:50
  Speaker 2: The problem is that.
• 1:35:52
  Speaker 1: This is the Instagram video? I don't think the Instagram
• 1:35:56
  Speaker 1: video is that long.
• 1:35:58
  Speaker 2: Skip the... No, the Instagram video isn't counted.
• 1:36:01
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 1:36:02
  Speaker 2: So it's just.
• 1:36:03
  Speaker 1: Well, that's the second video, and this is the third one. So... No, no.
• 1:36:08
  Speaker 3: The Instagram video, don't count.
• 1:36:10
  Speaker 2: It as a video. It's zero.
• 1:36:11
  Speaker 10: Zero.
• 1:36:12
  Speaker 1: Okay, so V2 would be the one we just watched,
• 1:36:15
  Speaker 1: and we're at 7.10, so it would be before this?
• 1:36:18
  Speaker 2: Oh, I think that's where the problem is. Then go
• 1:36:20
  Speaker 2: to V2, no, V2, 6.31. And that is sort of horizontal.
• 1:36:24
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 1:36:24
  Speaker 2: That's the horizontal.
• 1:36:26
  Speaker 1: Jury deliberations, was it always.
• 1:36:34
  Speaker 12: You know, about this one particular man who just was
• 1:36:38
  Speaker 12: not budging the entire time.
• 1:36:40
  Speaker 10: When they went in originally, it wasn't 11 to one.
• 1:36:43
  Speaker 10: It was split.
• 1:36:43
  Speaker 1: It's the same with a clip that we just responded to.
• 1:36:47
  Speaker 1: It's that time code that you just gave me.
• 1:36:50
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 1:36:51
  Speaker 10: I don't, you know what?
• 1:36:51
  Speaker 2: I can't, I can't help this.
• 1:36:53
  Speaker 3: Like, For whatever reason, NBC labels its videos separately from
• 1:37:00
  Speaker 3: what it actually is.
• 1:37:01
  Speaker 1: Let me try something crazy. I'm going to refresh the
• 1:37:03
  Speaker 1: page and see if it changes anything. This is a
• 1:37:08
  Speaker 1: wild experiment I'm doing right now. So this is video one.
• 1:37:13
  Speaker 1: This is video two right here. So let's see if
• 1:37:16
  Speaker 1: this is the one. Six what?
• 1:37:18
  Speaker 13: 631.
• 1:37:18
  Speaker 10: Or 641.
• 1:37:20
  Speaker 2: 641?
• 1:37:25
  Speaker 1: Well, it's.
• 1:37:27
  Speaker 2: Not right.
• 1:37:29
  Speaker 8: No.
• 1:37:30
  Speaker 2: I don't think so.
• 1:37:31
  Speaker 13: I mean, I've thought about that a lot.
• 1:37:34
  Speaker 6: I honestly feel like the prosecutor did themselves more damage
• 1:37:37
  Speaker 6: than good by just not thinking about Lindsay. I mean,
• 1:37:44
  Speaker 6: the whole picture. Not just postpartum depression. Not just delusional.
• 1:37:49
  Speaker 6: Not just the voice.
• 1:37:50
  Speaker 8: But the meds. The whole cocktail of her mental health,
• 1:37:55
  Speaker 8: and these doctors that are.
• 1:37:57
  Speaker 2: Wait a second. The prosecution didn't do the... Did you
• 1:38:00
  Speaker 2: just hear what they just said?
• 1:38:02
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:38:04
  Speaker 3: The prosecution's job is not to defend Lindsay Clancy.
• 1:38:07
  Speaker 10: I know.
• 1:38:07
  Speaker 3: Or to consider her. The prosecution's job is to present
• 1:38:13
  Speaker 3: evidence of guilt.
• 1:38:14
  Speaker 1: It's the prosecute. It's the prosecute.
• 1:38:18
  Speaker 3: So we have a jury here saying that why did
• 1:38:21
  Speaker 3: the prosecution prosecute?
• 1:38:27
  Speaker 7: What?
• 1:38:27
  Speaker 3: Let's just keep going here i'm i feel like we
• 1:38:31
  Speaker 3: might find a lot of a.
• 1:38:33
  Speaker 1: Gem okay there's a little left in this yeah yeah
• 1:38:38
  Speaker 1: a little bit.
• 1:38:38
  Speaker 2: But that isn't the gem it's like this woman this.
• 1:38:40
  Speaker 1: Woman is great because she just says what she says
• 1:38:44
  Speaker 1: the most insane things and things are totally normal That's
• 1:38:47
  Speaker 1: like how in a bubble they are, the echo chamber,
• 1:38:49
  Speaker 1: and you just be like, yeah. You know? I don't
• 1:38:53
  Speaker 1: understand why he's stuck on this whole, like, Lindsay Clancy
• 1:38:56
  Speaker 1: murdering his three kids thing. That's... Way to get hung
• 1:39:02
  Speaker 1: up on something.
• 1:39:03
  Speaker 8: Her mental health and these doctors that are prescribing this
• 1:39:08
  Speaker 8: and prescribing that and they're taking her off this and
• 1:39:10
  Speaker 8: they're taking... And none of them communicated with each other, Sue.
• 1:39:13
  Speaker 1: Not one of them.
• 1:39:14
  Speaker 8: I mean, Dr. Gelada got a call from women and
• 1:39:18
  Speaker 8: infants saying we can't take this patient because she has
• 1:39:22
  Speaker 8: too much drugs in her system, but never returned the
• 1:39:26
  Speaker 8: call to.
• 1:39:26
  Speaker 6: Women and infants.
• 1:39:27
  Speaker 8: That was extremely damaging to me.
• 1:39:31
  Speaker 2: Why is she going to so many doctors?
• 1:39:34
  Speaker 1: She was shopping around. That's why. that's what people are
• 1:39:40
  Speaker 1: saying I don't know if it's true.
• 1:39:42
  Speaker 3: Wasn't it also proven from like a count of their
• 1:39:44
  Speaker 3: pills that she wasn't actually taking them.
• 1:39:46
  Speaker 1: No she had a lot of prescriptions she wasn't taking
• 1:39:48
  Speaker 1: the pills she did apparently pop a bunch when she
• 1:39:52
  Speaker 1: was doing her suicide attempt but that's probably why there
• 1:39:57
  Speaker 1: was they found some in her blood because it was
• 1:40:00
  Speaker 1: a toxicology but that was something she did after she
• 1:40:04
  Speaker 1: killed them so yeah Um, that's what, that's what I,
• 1:40:10
  Speaker 1: I don't know for positive. So don't hold me to that.
• 1:40:13
  Speaker 1: Cause I haven't really been, well, I didn't watch the trial.
• 1:40:16
  Speaker 1: I just see the reactions to it. So, uh, Nova
• 1:40:19
  Speaker 1: fan just gave us another dollar on the rumble and said, OMG,
• 1:40:23
  Speaker 1: like you can believe the prosecutor blamed her. Um, that's
• 1:40:26
  Speaker 1: his job.
• 1:40:27
  Speaker 7: What?
• 1:40:27
  Speaker 1: Oh, okay.
• 1:40:30
  Speaker 2: Or people.
• 1:40:31
  Speaker 8: And I feel like the medical system completely failed her.
• 1:40:35
  Speaker 2: That doesn't mean what?
• 1:40:37
  Speaker 1: The medical system failed her. Big Pharma. Big corporations. Okay,
• 1:40:45
  Speaker 1: that's the end of the clip.
• 1:40:48
  Speaker 2: Koof is okay.
• 1:40:49
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. Get the jab. I mean, don't not do that. But,
• 1:40:53
  Speaker 1: you know. Anyway. So, that's the end of that video clip.
• 1:41:01
  Speaker 1: What's next? What do you want to do? We got
• 1:41:03
  Speaker 1: 15 minutes. Oh, yeah. They did change the order of
• 1:41:06
  Speaker 1: these things. NBC, what's your problem? I refreshed it and
• 1:41:11
  Speaker 1: everything's moved around now.
• 1:41:13
  Speaker 2: Oh, God.
• 1:41:15
  Speaker 3: They're probably trying to prevent exactly what we're doing. It's
• 1:41:18
  Speaker 3: going through it and analyzing everything. But anyway, the point
• 1:41:24
  Speaker 3: is that this juror doesn't understand what prosecution means. Doesn't
• 1:41:28
  Speaker 3: seem to understand the purpose of the prosecution. They don't
• 1:41:33
  Speaker 3: seem to understand what reasonable doubt means.
• 1:41:36
  Speaker 2: And they don't seem to.
• 1:41:37
  Speaker 3: Understand that they are not expert witness testimony and he
• 1:41:40
  Speaker 3: does not have to pay attention to them. And they
• 1:41:44
  Speaker 3: also don't seem to understand that should they be pressuring?
• 1:41:52
  Speaker 3: Should this be a situation where the alternatives can hear
• 1:41:55
  Speaker 3: them screaming at the holdouts through the wall?
• 1:42:00
  Speaker 2: I mean, that seems to be what's happening.
• 1:42:02
  Speaker 3: I don't think they're screaming at each other if they
• 1:42:03
  Speaker 3: were hugging each other. if they all agreed on innocence.
• 1:42:08
  Speaker 3: So there's all kinds of stuff that the more these
• 1:42:11
  Speaker 3: women talk, the more it's like, do you even know
• 1:42:14
  Speaker 3: what the hell you were there for?
• 1:42:15
  Speaker 2: Of course they do.
• 1:42:18
  Speaker 3: They were there for their civic duty of defending the
• 1:42:20
  Speaker 3: woman card.
• 1:42:21
  Speaker 1: That's 100% true.
• 1:42:24
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 1:42:24
  Speaker 1: So, okay. Okay.
• 1:42:34
  Speaker 3: And so the other thing is the sympathy as the
• 1:42:36
  Speaker 3: legal standard. And this ties into the whole relational web thing.
• 1:42:40
  Speaker 3: So they described the, you heard it, they described the
• 1:42:45
  Speaker 3: prosecution as harsh, biased right out of the gate, unprofessional
• 1:42:50
  Speaker 3: and just without a heart. Right from statement one, there's
• 1:42:53
  Speaker 3: no compassion in this courtroom right now. So literally the
• 1:42:57
  Speaker 3: prosecution was prosecuting Lindsay Clancy and that was enough for
• 1:43:03
  Speaker 3: her at least one of these juries, to convict the
• 1:43:06
  Speaker 3: prosecution is wrong.
• 1:43:09
  Speaker 1: Yep.
• 1:43:11
  Speaker 2: I am sorry for my sex, gentlemen. I am so sorry.
• 1:43:17
  Speaker 1: No comments, eh?
• 1:43:23
  Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah, the prosecution was faulted for not presenting a
• 1:43:28
  Speaker 3: woman and a mother of three children. a demand for
• 1:43:31
  Speaker 3: positional layer testimony with motherhood as the requested credential credential.
• 1:43:36
  Speaker 1: I do remember what, I don't know where it is
• 1:43:38
  Speaker 1: in the video. Um, but I do remember one of
• 1:43:41
  Speaker 1: these ladies saying that she felt that there was not
• 1:43:45
  Speaker 1: enough compassion for Lindsay Clancy from the prosecution.
• 1:43:50
  Speaker 6: Yes.
• 1:43:50
  Speaker 3: They just said that. That was just what you.
• 1:43:52
  Speaker 1: There wasn't enough compact. No, they literally use the word
• 1:43:54
  Speaker 1: compassion though. Like, I think it was like a, They
• 1:43:57
  Speaker 1: probably mentioned it multiple times. They were like, I didn't
• 1:44:00
  Speaker 1: get any compassion from the prosecution.
• 1:44:04
  Speaker 2: You mean they were dispassionate?
• 1:44:09
  Speaker 1: Yes.
• 1:44:10
  Speaker 2: Like, why should they feel compassion?
• 1:44:12
  Speaker 14: Oh, yeah.
• 1:44:13
  Speaker 3: I remember the prosecution even concluded with some very harsh
• 1:44:16
  Speaker 3: words for Lindsay Clancy, which is why the jury decided
• 1:44:20
  Speaker 3: for Lindsay Clancy, because the prosecution was so prosecutorial towards her. Again,
• 1:44:26
  Speaker 3: I apologize for my sex. I don't even know what
• 1:44:29
  Speaker 3: to say.
• 1:44:30
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:44:32
  Speaker 6: Yes. Yes.
• 1:44:34
  Speaker 13: I know.
• 1:44:35
  Speaker 2: It's like... Okay, so....
• 1:44:41
  Speaker 3: The other thing that they said was... The defense.
• 1:44:47
  Speaker 2: Okay, this was... Hopefully, I don't know.
• 1:44:49
  Speaker 3: I guess we can't trust these time codes because NBC
• 1:44:52
  Speaker 3: is moving the freaking videos around. But if you go
• 1:44:56
  Speaker 3: to the video that is....
• 1:45:01
  Speaker 1: They have titles. So if you gave me the title,
• 1:45:04
  Speaker 1: I can probably look for it there.
• 1:45:08
  Speaker 3: Seven minutes and 42 seconds long, I think.
• 1:45:11
  Speaker 1: Where?
• 1:45:13
  Speaker 11: Which video?
• 1:45:14
  Speaker 1: All right.
• 1:45:14
  Speaker 2: Then I have to... It's V2, but that's not... Let's
• 1:45:19
  Speaker 2: move it around.
• 1:45:20
  Speaker 1: Let me look. Let me look.
• 1:45:21
  Speaker 8: Let me look.
• 1:45:21
  Speaker 1: Let me look. All right. Video two is called jurors
• 1:45:28
  Speaker 1: on prosecution and defense, right? At least to me.
• 1:45:32
  Speaker 2: Yes.
• 1:45:34
  Speaker 1: Yeah. So, uh, let's just play it.
• 1:45:37
  Speaker 3: Let's just play it. We'll probably find everything in there.
• 1:45:39
  Speaker 1: Uh, prosecution and defense. It's right here. It's this one.
• 1:45:43
  Speaker 1: So what's the time code for that?
• 1:45:46
  Speaker 2: We begin to just play the whole thing. It's going
• 1:45:49
  Speaker 2: to be easier than trying to find.
• 1:45:51
  Speaker 12: The Clancy trial from those on the jury.
• 1:45:54
  Speaker 2: Good evening, everyone. I'm J.C.
• 1:45:55
  Speaker 1: Monahan.
• 1:45:55
  Speaker 10: And I'm Glenn Jones.
• 1:45:56
  Speaker 15: After the trial ended, everyone had the same question. What
• 1:45:59
  Speaker 15: happened inside that jury room? Well, now we're getting answers
• 1:46:03
  Speaker 15: in an interview you will only see here on NBC10 Boston.
• 1:46:05
  Speaker 12: So let's get right to NBC10' s courtroom insider, Sue O'Connell,
• 1:46:09
  Speaker 12: with what they had to say. They were eager, it seems,
• 1:46:11
  Speaker 12: to really talk about this.
• 1:46:14
  Speaker 10: They were indeed, J.C. and Glenn. I spoke to three jurors.
• 1:46:17
  Speaker 10: Kelly is a chef in Plymouth. Ronnie, who was the foreperson,
• 1:46:23
  Speaker 10: is a retired fifth-grade special needs teacher. Of course, those
• 1:46:26
  Speaker 10: skills came in handy. And Paula, who works for a
• 1:46:29
  Speaker 10: government contractor. We spoke for over an hour about a
• 1:46:32
  Speaker 10: lot of things, including the controversial ending and how they
• 1:46:36
  Speaker 10: felt one of the jurors, the holdout, was not following
• 1:46:39
  Speaker 10: the law. I asked them what their impression was of
• 1:46:42
  Speaker 10: the prosecution. And the defense, they said they felt the
• 1:46:47
  Speaker 10: prosecution didn't show enough compassion.
• 1:46:51
  Speaker 1: Is this the prosecutor? It's a woman, right? Yeah, it is.
• 1:46:55
  Speaker 1: That's the prosecutor. The prosecutor was a woman. Well, I
• 1:46:57
  Speaker 1: guess not anymore. You are no longer a woman. Give
• 1:47:01
  Speaker 1: us your woman card.
• 1:47:03
  Speaker 10: And here's what they said. I just found it to
• 1:47:06
  Speaker 10: be harsh, Sue. Very, very harsh.
• 1:47:08
  Speaker 8: I mean, again, we're talking with ourselves here, but the
• 1:47:13
  Speaker 8: fact that They had no character witnesses in regard to
• 1:47:21
  Speaker 8: Lindsay of being a bad mother. I mean, right out
• 1:47:24
  Speaker 8: of the gate, it's like you're presenting all these medical professionals,
• 1:47:28
  Speaker 8: but nobody's presenting for the prosecution a woman and a
• 1:47:33
  Speaker 8: mother of three children.
• 1:47:35
  Speaker 10: So I found it to be biased right out of
• 1:47:38
  Speaker 10: the gate.
• 1:47:39
  Speaker 1: Former mother of three children.
• 1:47:41
  Speaker 5: But do you see what she just said?
• 1:47:44
  Speaker 1: Yes, yes, I did. This was the part I think
• 1:47:51
  Speaker 1: is the part I was thinking about when I talked
• 1:47:52
  Speaker 1: about no compassion. She was so harsh. They didn't have
• 1:47:56
  Speaker 1: any character witnesses that could testify that she was not
• 1:48:00
  Speaker 1: a good mother, so she must have been a good mother. Okay.
• 1:48:05
  Speaker 2: Yeah, that's not the point.
• 1:48:08
  Speaker 1: Maybe everybody who might have had a criticism is dead.
• 1:48:12
  Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly.
• 1:48:16
  Speaker 1: Okay, go ahead.
• 1:48:19
  Speaker 3: I guess Patrick is motivated reasoning ought to actually reveal anything,
• 1:48:23
  Speaker 3: if there's anything to reveal.
• 1:48:24
  Speaker 2: But do you see what she just did?
• 1:48:27
  Speaker 3: The prosecution's wrong because they focused on whether or not
• 1:48:31
  Speaker 3: she was actually sane. The question at hand. rather than
• 1:48:37
  Speaker 3: what kind of mother other people thought she was. Let's
• 1:48:41
  Speaker 3: be honest, that's what this is asking for. Because it's
• 1:48:45
  Speaker 3: perfectly plausible that Lindsay Clancy was a terrible mother, but
• 1:48:48
  Speaker 3: she seemed like she was okay to women or people
• 1:48:51
  Speaker 3: who didn't know her well, or who weren't directly impacted
• 1:48:55
  Speaker 3: by her mothering. Bystanders aren't directly impacted by the mothering.
• 1:49:02
  Speaker 3: So they may not actually have the most accurate view
• 1:49:06
  Speaker 3: of whether or not Lindsay Clancy is a good or
• 1:49:08
  Speaker 3: bad mother. I think there are three people who have
• 1:49:13
  Speaker 3: an accurate view of whether or not Lindsay Clancy is
• 1:49:17
  Speaker 3: a good mother. Of course, they can't be heard anymore
• 1:49:21
  Speaker 3: except for being left as corpses by her.
• 1:49:27
  Speaker 2: She's the bad mother.
• 1:49:29
  Speaker 3: I'm pretty sure the prosecution was like, do we need
• 1:49:31
  Speaker 3: to prove that Lindsay Clancy is a bad mother? And
• 1:49:33
  Speaker 3: then they're like, no, actually, I think we got ample
• 1:49:35
  Speaker 3: proof of that. What we really need to prove is
• 1:49:37
  Speaker 3: whether or not she's sane.
• 1:49:39
  Speaker 2: And then these women were like, well, why didn't they
• 1:49:41
  Speaker 2: prove that she's a bad mother? The dead children proved that.
• 1:49:46
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 1:49:47
  Speaker 1: And she also, I don't know, confessed to doing it. Yeah.
• 1:49:53
  Speaker 2: It's a foregone conclusion. Yeah. You're trying a woman who's
• 1:49:56
  Speaker 2: killed her children. She has a bad mother. What you
• 1:49:59
  Speaker 2: need to.
• 1:49:59
  Speaker 3: Determine is whether or not being a bad mother was
• 1:50:03
  Speaker 3: driven by the fact of her autonomous will, free will,
• 1:50:07
  Speaker 3: or if she was insane. But of course, being a
• 1:50:12
  Speaker 3: bad mother is the thing that they are most important.
• 1:50:15
  Speaker 3: Other people's opinion, where Lindsay Clancy sat in the web,
• 1:50:21
  Speaker 3: the social web of her community, we.
• 1:50:23
  Speaker 2: Need to find that out. no that's not relevant what's
• 1:50:32
  Speaker 2: she saying and then they have.
• 1:50:34
  Speaker 3: The audacity the next thing that they say listen to
• 1:50:37
  Speaker 3: this should.
• 1:50:39
  Speaker 1: I play it yep.
• 1:50:43
  Speaker 4: She did And she's admitting that.
• 1:50:46
  Speaker 5: We're trying to figure out, did she know right from
• 1:50:49
  Speaker 5: wrong at that time? And with everybody saying she loved
• 1:50:53
  Speaker 5: her children so much, and everything proved she loved her children,
• 1:50:58
  Speaker 5: from her journals to her mother-in-law, everything proved that she
• 1:51:05
  Speaker 5: loved her children.
• 1:51:06
  Speaker 4: So she had to have snapped.
• 1:51:10
  Speaker 10: I also asked about Kevin Reddington. They found him very
• 1:51:14
  Speaker 10: entertaining to watch. They said that was not a problem
• 1:51:16
  Speaker 10: for them to set aside.
• 1:51:18
  Speaker 8: Okay.
• 1:51:19
  Speaker 1: Do you want me to keep playing this or no?
• 1:51:22
  Speaker 2: I'll give you a time code, but I am.
• 1:51:26
  Speaker 1: Skeptical about whether or not it's going to be found.
• 1:51:28
  Speaker 2: Yes, this video is 7 minutes and 42 seconds.
• 1:51:31
  Speaker 1: No, it's not. It's 3 minutes and 42 seconds long.
• 1:51:35
  Speaker 1: So there must be another one. This one's 6 minutes
• 1:51:37
  Speaker 1: and 45 seconds long. This one's 9 minutes and 13 seconds.
• 1:51:43
  Speaker 1: This one's 7 minutes and 42. That's this one.
• 1:51:45
  Speaker 2: Yes, that's the one now. We are going to attempt
• 1:51:50
  Speaker 2: to locate a time code.
• 1:51:52
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 1:51:52
  Speaker 2: 2 minutes and 28 seconds. 2 minutes and 28 seconds.
• 1:51:57
  Speaker 1: Maybe I'll go like right here.
• 1:51:59
  Speaker 3: Unless NBC is switching the titles too.
• 1:52:02
  Speaker 1: Yeah, like maybe. I don't know. Let's see.
• 1:52:04
  Speaker 10: Go back into the deliberation room and review the case
• 1:52:07
  Speaker 10: and think, well, he didn't say this.
• 1:52:08
  Speaker 8: But you did say that or?
• 1:52:12
  Speaker 6: Not very much for us.
• 1:52:14
  Speaker 8: We were appreciative that Kevin didn't delay the trial two
• 1:52:19
  Speaker 8: more weeks with bringing in other doctors. I mean, you
• 1:52:25
  Speaker 8: could only listen to so much of that. Kevin was really,
• 1:52:27
  Speaker 8: he really shot from his heart. Again, the prosecution had
• 1:52:31
  Speaker 8: no witness to question her credibility. He brought all these
• 1:52:35
  Speaker 8: people in. People that loved her family, her in-laws.
• 1:52:39
  Speaker 2: I mean, even Patrick was very compassionate. Can I just
• 1:52:43
  Speaker 2: say something? This defense attorney absolutely clocked these women.
• 1:52:49
  Speaker 5: Yeah.
• 1:52:50
  Speaker 3: So he brings in all of these people who have absolutely,
• 1:52:54
  Speaker 3: like there's, let me be really honest. Mothers are incredibly
• 1:52:59
  Speaker 3: good at abusing the crap out of their children and
• 1:53:02
  Speaker 3: nobody knows about it.
• 1:53:04
  Speaker 2: Except the children.
• 1:53:06
  Speaker 3: This must be like up there in motherhood skills. This
• 1:53:13
  Speaker 3: is like a top motherhood skills. Ability to abuse your
• 1:53:16
  Speaker 3: children and nobody knows. I don't think that any of
• 1:53:21
  Speaker 3: the witnesses saying, oh, she was a wonderful mother.
• 1:53:24
  Speaker 2: They don't know.
• 1:53:25
  Speaker 3: They might as well be making testimony for something that
• 1:53:31
  Speaker 3: happened on the other side of the planet. None of
• 1:53:34
  Speaker 3: them are credible witnesses to that.
• 1:53:37
  Speaker 2: But this guy knew it. This guy knew. He clocked
• 1:53:40
  Speaker 2: these women.
• 1:53:40
  Speaker 3: The moment that the defense attorney clocked these women the
• 1:53:43
  Speaker 3: moment they walked in.
• 1:53:44
  Speaker 2: I know what to do.
• 1:53:46
  Speaker 3: Just give a whole bunch of people who will say
• 1:53:48
  Speaker 3: a whole bunch of bullshit about something they know nothing about.
• 1:53:52
  Speaker 3: None of those people are capable of knowing if Quincy
• 1:53:57
  Speaker 3: Clancy was a good mother. There is only three people,
• 1:54:01
  Speaker 3: not even her husband, Because he's so deep in Simpsville.
• 1:54:06
  Speaker 2: He's never coming out.
• 1:54:08
  Speaker 1: Right?
• 1:54:08
  Speaker 3: There's only three people who know if Lindsay Clancy is
• 1:54:13
  Speaker 3: a good mother. And they're dead at her hand.
• 1:54:18
  Speaker 1: Yep.
• 1:54:18
  Speaker 5: Right?
• 1:54:18
  Speaker 3: So this guy, this defense attorney, he clocked these women.
• 1:54:21
  Speaker 3: He's like, I'll just bring out a bunch of people.
• 1:54:23
  Speaker 1: He charmed their pants off.
• 1:54:25
  Speaker 2: Charmed them.
• 1:54:27
  Speaker 3: I'll bring out a bunch of people to talk about
• 1:54:29
  Speaker 3: how Lindsay Clancy was a good mother, even though they
• 1:54:31
  Speaker 3: have no idea. It's like getting a whole bunch of
• 1:54:33
  Speaker 3: people to say that somebody is a.
• 1:54:35
  Speaker 2: Good car mechanic. Have you ever gone to there? Have
• 1:54:38
  Speaker 2: you ever had a car?
• 1:54:39
  Speaker 5: No, no, no.
• 1:54:41
  Speaker 2: They've never fixed my car.
• 1:54:42
  Speaker 3: But your honor, all of these people have say that
• 1:54:46
  Speaker 3: Lindsay Clancy is an excellent car mechanic. None of them
• 1:54:50
  Speaker 3: have actually gone to her to get their car fixed.
• 1:54:53
  Speaker 2: So she must, you know, she must have fixed the
• 1:54:56
  Speaker 2: car perfectly.
• 1:54:58
  Speaker 3: And the prosecution is wrong, I rest my case.
• 1:55:04
  Speaker 2: That's how ridiculous it is.
• 1:55:06
  Speaker 3: These women, these people who came and said, Lindsay Clancy
• 1:55:09
  Speaker 3: is a good mother, right? They've never experienced her mothering
• 1:55:12
  Speaker 3: because they are not her children. There are one class
• 1:55:17
  Speaker 3: of people who can determine if someone is or is
• 1:55:20
  Speaker 3: not a good mother. And that is the people mothered
• 1:55:24
  Speaker 3: by the mother.
• 1:55:26
  Speaker 2: No one else. No bystanders, no mother-in-laws, no friends, no
• 1:55:33
  Speaker 2: one else. So this should never happen in a court.
• 1:55:38
  Speaker 2: This should just be ruled inadmissible. Just judge and be like, no,
• 1:55:41
  Speaker 2: this is irrelevant. Like these people.
• 1:55:44
  Speaker 3: Cannot possibly, unless these people have been mothered by this individual,
• 1:55:47
  Speaker 3: how can they have an opinion on her mothering?
• 1:55:49
  Speaker 2: And the answer is they can't. All of them, gone.
• 1:55:54
  Speaker 2: But he knew.
• 1:55:55
  Speaker 3: He knew exactly what he needed for these women. Grabbing
• 1:56:00
  Speaker 3: a bunch of people who can't possibly know anything about
• 1:56:03
  Speaker 3: Lindsay Clancy's mothering to say that she was a good mother. Yeah,
• 1:56:09
  Speaker 3: don't disregard the bodies on the floor, guys. The McDonald's
• 1:56:16
  Speaker 3: clerk says that Lindsay Clancy's a good mother.
• 1:56:21
  Speaker 2: Because she saw Lindsay Clancy buy her child a Happy
• 1:56:26
  Speaker 2: Meal once. Like, Absolute bullshit.
• 1:56:30
  Speaker 3: And the prosecution is doing, they're treating this like an
• 1:56:34
  Speaker 3: adult activity, right?
• 1:56:37
  Speaker 2: What is the issue here?
• 1:56:39
  Speaker 3: Was she insane when she proved to the world that
• 1:56:42
  Speaker 3: she's a terrible mother? Did insanity cause Lindsay Clancy to
• 1:56:47
  Speaker 3: become one of the worst examples of motherhood we've seen recently?
• 1:56:53
  Speaker 2: Was it insanity?
• 1:56:54
  Speaker 3: Can we attribute that to insanity? Well, we'll need medical
• 1:56:59
  Speaker 3: professionals to give expert witness testimony on whether or not
• 1:57:05
  Speaker 3: Lindsay Clancy was insane.
• 1:57:08
  Speaker 2: That's what we'll do.
• 1:57:09
  Speaker 3: And then they completely misunderstood their jury. Defense understood the jury.
• 1:57:15
  Speaker 3: Prosecution didn't.
• 1:57:17
  Speaker 6: Right.
• 1:57:17
  Speaker 3: So they bring in the medical, the medical testimony and
• 1:57:20
  Speaker 3: all of these nurses who know better.
• 1:57:23
  Speaker 2: Don't you know we're nurses? They just no sale. All
• 1:57:30
  Speaker 2: the expert testimony, they even go so.
• 1:57:32
  Speaker 3: Far as to say in this interview that they were
• 1:57:35
  Speaker 3: glad the defense didn't even bother with expert medical testimony
• 1:57:40
  Speaker 3: on the issue of Lindsay Clancy's ability to know what
• 1:57:43
  Speaker 3: she was doing.
• 1:57:44
  Speaker 2: Didn't even bother with that. That's irrelevant.
• 1:57:47
  Speaker 3: And they judged that the prosecution for bringing too much
• 1:57:50
  Speaker 3: of that medical BS into the courtroom. This is a joke.
• 1:57:58
  Speaker 3: And all I can say is, my God, I am
• 1:58:00
  Speaker 3: so sorry for women.
• 1:58:03
  Speaker 2: I am so sorry for the existence of women, guys.
• 1:58:06
  Speaker 3: I don't even know how I.
• 1:58:08
  Speaker 2: Can articulate this. Because this is just a farce. These
• 1:58:13
  Speaker 2: women are a farce.
• 1:58:19
  Speaker 3: Everything out of their mouths proves that they shouldn't have
• 1:58:22
  Speaker 3: been on that jury. That every aspect of their conduct there, invalidated.
• 1:58:30
  Speaker 3: any kind of sanctity of law. They judged the prosecution
• 1:58:36
  Speaker 3: for being the prosecution. They judged the prosecution for bringing
• 1:58:41
  Speaker 3: evidence that was germane.
• 1:58:43
  Speaker 2: To the question in front of the court. I don't
• 1:58:53
  Speaker 2: know if they could have been.
• 1:58:55
  Speaker 3: More wrong Had they gone through the door and said,
• 1:58:59
  Speaker 3: you know, let's all work together to be the worst
• 1:59:04
  Speaker 3: jury in human history. Let's all pressure other jurors so
• 1:59:12
  Speaker 3: they don't have a right to their own conscience. Let's
• 1:59:16
  Speaker 3: all ignore evidence that's germane to the question in favor of.
• 1:59:23
  Speaker 8: Just....
• 1:59:27
  Speaker 3: Shallow affect, just shallow testimony from people who don't even
• 1:59:33
  Speaker 3: have any direct evidence of what they're testifying for. And oh, oh, oh,
• 1:59:39
  Speaker 3: the defense attorney is so charming. He's just like, better
• 1:59:42
  Speaker 3: call Saul.
• 1:59:43
  Speaker 2: I like that guy.
• 1:59:45
  Speaker 3: And the defense, the prosecution, she's so, like, she's so cold.
• 1:59:52
  Speaker 3: Why isn't she kissing Lindsay Clancy every time she comes in?
• 1:59:56
  Speaker 3: And giving her a hug and a carnation and a
• 2:00:00
  Speaker 3: hot cocoa?
• 2:00:02
  Speaker 2: Why isn't she making Lindsay Clancy feel good about herself?
• 2:00:06
  Speaker 2: What is the prosecution here for?
• 2:00:08
  Speaker 3: If not to make Lindsay Clancy feel good about herself
• 2:00:11
  Speaker 3: and look innocent.
• 2:00:14
  Speaker 2: Like what?
• 2:00:17
  Speaker 3: It's... These jurors, like, if you left a box of
• 2:00:22
  Speaker 3: crayons in the jury room, you shouldn't, because they might
• 2:00:27
  Speaker 3: eat them.
• 2:00:29
  Speaker 2: Oh, God.
• 2:00:33
  Speaker 1: For sure.
• 2:00:34
  Speaker 2: What a flippin' joke. Okay, no, like, let's move on.
• 2:00:39
  Speaker 2: This is, uh... No, actually, you know what? We probably
• 2:00:41
  Speaker 2: should end it.
• 2:00:41
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I gotta stop.
• 2:00:42
  Speaker 7: Yeah.
• 2:00:42
  Speaker 8: We can, uh.
• 2:00:48
  Speaker 1: Well, go ahead. What were you going to say?
• 2:00:51
  Speaker 2: Continue this, maybe with.
• 2:00:53
  Speaker 1: Friday?
• 2:00:53
  Speaker 2: Yeah, maybe. We can continue it with a new one, right?
• 2:00:58
  Speaker 2: Because there's a new one out.
• 2:01:00
  Speaker 1: Yeah, well, I'll have to watch it first. I sent
• 2:01:03
  Speaker 1: it to you, but I don't know how long it is.
• 2:01:06
  Speaker 1: Let me see. There's a new episode out, guys. It's
• 2:01:11
  Speaker 1: a half hour. It's a half hour. So, yeah, they
• 2:01:15
  Speaker 1: released the whole thing. It's a half hour long. So
• 2:01:19
  Speaker 1: I don't know if that's all interview.
• 2:01:20
  Speaker 2: New episode in the farce of the century.
• 2:01:21
  Speaker 10: Yeah.
• 2:01:23
  Speaker 1: Yeah. So that should be, that should be interesting. Hmm.
• 2:01:30
  Speaker 3: I don't know.
• 2:01:30
  Speaker 2: It might be dead by then.
• 2:01:31
  Speaker 10: Right.
• 2:01:32
  Speaker 2: Everybody moves on. Nobody gives a crap that this is astounding.
• 2:01:38
  Speaker 2: This is like, I can't even, I.
• 2:01:42
  Speaker 3: Mean, is there anything that these women said that made
• 2:01:45
  Speaker 3: them sound like they were credible in the role of jurors?
• 2:01:52
  Speaker 2: I guess they were breathing.
• 2:01:54
  Speaker 1: What was that?
• 2:01:56
  Speaker 3: I said, was there anything that these women said that
• 2:02:00
  Speaker 3: suggested that they were competent as jurors?
• 2:02:03
  Speaker 1: No.
• 2:02:05
  Speaker 2: I mean, I guess they were breathing during the trial.
• 2:02:09
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I guess.
• 2:02:11
  Speaker 4: I mean, this is.
• 2:02:14
  Speaker 3: And the funny thing is that they have no idea
• 2:02:17
  Speaker 3: of what they just revealed about themselves.
• 2:02:23
  Speaker 2: It's astounding. Okay, well, I mean, I have some.
• 2:02:31
  Speaker 3: Relational web stuff, but I'm pretty sure that we got
• 2:02:34
  Speaker 3: to go.
• 2:02:34
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm out of time. Sorry.
• 2:02:38
  Speaker 3: And this is fairly, well, okay, if you're interested in that,
• 2:02:43
  Speaker 3: it's a deeper analysis of where these women are coming
• 2:02:47
  Speaker 3: from and the failure modes of women's thinking compared to
• 2:02:51
  Speaker 3: how men view this kind of stuff. Go to badgernation.online
• 2:02:56
  Speaker 3: and join us in our community. I'll make that available
• 2:02:58
  Speaker 3: so people can read it after the show. But it'll
• 2:03:01
  Speaker 3: only be available there. So badgernation.online to join the community.
• 2:03:05
  Speaker 3: And if you want to support the show, it'll eventually
• 2:03:07
  Speaker 3: be available at feedthebadger.com slash support. And if you want
• 2:03:11
  Speaker 3: to send us a message at any time after the
• 2:03:13
  Speaker 3: show is over.
• 2:03:13
  Speaker 2: I know this ended rather abruptly, but Brian's done. I'm done.
• 2:03:19
  Speaker 1: Well, we went for two hours. So I don't think
• 2:03:22
  Speaker 1: it's abrupt, but yeah. Okay.
• 2:03:25
  Speaker 3: Well, it's inevitable, abrupt but inevitable.
• 2:03:28
  Speaker 2: Okay, there you go.
• 2:03:29
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 2:03:30
  Speaker 2: All right. We've achieved a consensus, guys.
• 2:03:34
  Speaker 15: All right.
• 2:03:34
  Speaker 2: So anyway, if you want to send a message, feedthebadger.com.
• 2:03:37
  Speaker 3: If you want us to go through the next installment
• 2:03:40
  Speaker 3: of the world's greatest farce, send us a message at feedthebadger.com
• 2:03:45
  Speaker 3: slash just the tip.
• 2:03:47
  Speaker 2: Say you want to hear me lose my mind even more.
• 2:03:51
  Speaker 2: I'm sorry, guys. I'm sorry to inform you women.
• 2:03:57
  Speaker 3: Uh, anyway, feed the badger.com slash just the tip and
• 2:03:59
  Speaker 3: I'll send it back to you, Brian.
• 2:04:00
  Speaker 1: All right. I'm just gonna read some super chats and
• 2:04:03
  Speaker 1: a rumble rants and then we'll close it out. So
• 2:04:05
  Speaker 1: gay spastic sent a dollar through and said, feminism isn't
• 2:04:08
  Speaker 1: a sex or gender. It's a religion. Um, senior sticks
• 2:04:12
  Speaker 1: gives us $ 2 and says proving she sane is hard.
• 2:04:16
  Speaker 1: Bad mom. Irrelevant.
• 2:04:18
  Speaker 6: All right.
• 2:04:18
  Speaker 1: Thank you for that. And, uh, Yeah, with that said,
• 2:04:21
  Speaker 1: if you guys like this video, please hit like. Subscribe
• 2:04:24
  Speaker 1: if you're not already subscribed. Hit the bell for notifications.
• 2:04:27
  Speaker 1: Leave us a comment. Let us know what you guys
• 2:04:29
  Speaker 1: think about what we talked about on the show today.
• 2:04:30
  Speaker 1: And share the video because sharing is caring. Thanks so
• 2:04:33
  Speaker 1: much for coming on this episode of Maintaining Frame. And
• 2:04:36
  Speaker 1: we will talk to you guys in the next one.