Latest / The Matt Walsh Show / INSTANT REACTION: Mistrial Declared In Lindsay Clancy Case

Transcript

INSTANT REACTION: Mistrial Declared In Lindsay Clancy Case · The Matt Walsh Show

0:00
Speaker 1: The Lindsay Clancy trial has reached a conclusion, for now anyway,
0:05
Speaker 1: with a mistrial. And I will give my instant reaction
0:08
Speaker 1: and analysis of this news, which comes to us after
0:11
Speaker 1: an absolutely bizarre and unprecedented string of events that are
0:15
Speaker 1: almost hard to believe. But the only reason that we
0:17
Speaker 1: ended with a mistrial at the end of all this
0:19
Speaker 1: madness is simply because of the actions of a lone
0:23
Speaker 1: heroic male juror, as we now know. A lot of
0:26
Speaker 1: people speculated the jury of nine women and three men
0:30
Speaker 1: would break down to men against women. Well, it turns
0:32
Speaker 1: out we were right in assuming that every single woman
0:35
Speaker 1: on the jury would want to acquit a mother who
0:37
Speaker 1: brutally slaughtered her children. But we were wrong to assume
0:41
Speaker 1: that all three men would stand strong for justice and
0:44
Speaker 1: common sense. As it turns out, only one man did.
0:48
Speaker 1: And because of this one man, Clancy did not get away,
0:52
Speaker 1: not entirely, not yet anyway, with brutally murdering her three children. Apparently,
0:57
Speaker 1: Only one male member of the jury was willing to
1:00
Speaker 1: reach the obviously appropriate verdict in this case, which is
1:03
Speaker 1: that there is no excuse, either legally or morally, for
1:07
Speaker 1: the premeditated and systematic execution of your children. Based on
1:13
Speaker 1: all the information we have, this lone male juror was
1:16
Speaker 1: able to withstand a campaign of public intimidation by the
1:20
Speaker 1: defense attorney in this case, as well as the jury foreperson.
1:25
Speaker 1: The nine women on the jury and the two other
1:27
Speaker 1: men were apparently not only willing to absolve Lindsay Clancy
1:30
Speaker 1: of these barbaric murders, but they were also willing to
1:32
Speaker 1: pressure the lone holdout when he didn't agree with them.
1:36
Speaker 1: And thank God he fought back. We simply cannot live
1:39
Speaker 1: in a country when murder is considered justifiable because a
1:43
Speaker 1: woman claims that she was insane at the time. It's
1:46
Speaker 1: an incoherent standard, by the way, the insanity standard, as
1:49
Speaker 1: we'll discuss in a moment. And at least for now,
1:51
Speaker 1: there's still a possibility that Lindsay Clancy will face justice
1:55
Speaker 1: for what she did. We'll have to hear from the
1:57
Speaker 1: state about if they're going to refile the charges and
1:59
Speaker 1: what the charges will be. And hopefully they do. And
2:03
Speaker 1: the thing is, if you had asked me a week ago,
2:04
Speaker 1: I would have said that a mistrial in this case,
2:07
Speaker 1: instead of a guilty verdict, would be a travesty and
2:10
Speaker 1: a tragedy.
2:11
Speaker 2: And it is.
2:12
Speaker 1: I mean, it still is. But now that we know
2:14
Speaker 1: that we were one sane member of the jury away
2:18
Speaker 1: from a full acquittal, away from a woman admitting that
2:21
Speaker 1: she murdered her children and waltzing away scot-free, the mistrial seems,
2:26
Speaker 1: in that case, by comparison, like something of a win.
2:30
Speaker 1: Or at least closer to a win than the alternative.
2:34
Speaker 1: Clancy's odious defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, did everything in his
2:37
Speaker 1: power to corrupt the process and force the acquittal by
2:40
Speaker 1: any means necessary. When the jury returned today to say
2:43
Speaker 1: that they were still deadlocked, that the lone male juror
2:47
Speaker 1: was not intimidated by Reddington or the foreperson. Reddington initially
2:51
Speaker 1: demanded the jury be sent back to continue deliberations. In
2:54
Speaker 1: other words, he wanted the judge to tell the jury
2:57
Speaker 1: for a third time that he would not accept a
3:01
Speaker 1: hung jury. And of course, that would be coercive and inappropriate,
3:04
Speaker 1: so the judge declined. He announced his intent to declare
3:07
Speaker 1: a mistrial, and then Reddington walked all over the judge
3:11
Speaker 1: and demanded an hour to file an emergency appeal before
3:15
Speaker 1: the trial was finalized. Because you see, apparently when you
3:17
Speaker 1: don't get the verdict you want, you get to demand
3:20
Speaker 1: that an appeals court remove whoever is on the jury
3:24
Speaker 1: that disagrees with you. You get to claim that he's
3:27
Speaker 1: not following the law because he came to a different
3:30
Speaker 1: conclusion about the case. And that logic makes perfect sense
3:34
Speaker 1: to Lindsay Clancy's lawyer and to the brain rotted legions
3:38
Speaker 1: on TikTok and a lot of people in the media too.
3:41
Speaker 1: And that's where the judge should have denied the appeal
3:44
Speaker 1: and ended the circus for good. But instead, he gave
3:47
Speaker 1: him an hour to do this appeal on the absurd
3:50
Speaker 1: grounds that the lawyer didn't get the verdict he wants,
3:54
Speaker 1: and so he gets to appeal it. And as if
3:56
Speaker 1: the appeal wasn't nonsensical enough on its face, it somehow
3:58
Speaker 1: gets worse. So Fox News obtained the emergency appeal that
4:02
Speaker 1: was filed to the Massachusetts Supreme Court. This, again, is
4:06
Speaker 1: from the defense. This is their appeal to try to
4:10
Speaker 1: stop the jury from being... to try to stop the mistrial.
4:14
Speaker 1: And what they argue in this appeal, and I'm not
4:17
Speaker 1: making this up, they argue that the lone juror is
4:22
Speaker 1: engaging in a line of reasoning which, quote, reflects a
4:25
Speaker 1: bias against those who are suffering from debilitating mental illness,
4:30
Speaker 1: a protected category under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Yes,
4:34
Speaker 1: the defense seriously argued that by voting to send a
4:37
Speaker 1: woman to prison for killing her children... he was discriminating
4:42
Speaker 1: against the disabled. If you send a disabled person to court,
4:48
Speaker 1: then you're discriminating. I mean, to send them to prison,
4:50
Speaker 1: you're discriminating against them, I guess is the logic. It's
4:53
Speaker 1: a total farce, but this is a farce that was
4:55
Speaker 1: allowed to play out in court. The whole process was
4:58
Speaker 1: stalled just to allow all of this to happen. And
5:01
Speaker 1: of course, all for the sake of shielding a mass
5:03
Speaker 1: murderer from accountability, which, I mean, you could point out
5:08
Speaker 1: is the is the job of the defense attorney, but
5:11
Speaker 1: even so, it's a farce. And this is a recurring problem,
5:14
Speaker 1: by the way, in our legal system. Whenever the most
5:16
Speaker 1: loathsome and obviously guilty defendants are put on trial, given
5:21
Speaker 1: enough time, the legal process itself inevitably becomes a farce.
5:24
Speaker 1: It's very difficult to prosecute the dregs of society in
5:28
Speaker 1: an orderly and predictable fashion for the simple reason that
5:30
Speaker 1: the worst of the worst are very adept at finding
5:34
Speaker 1: ways to manipulate the system. It wasn't too long ago
5:37
Speaker 1: that Somali fraudsters literally delivered a $ 120, 000 cash bribe to
5:42
Speaker 1: a juror just before deliberations began in an attempt to
5:46
Speaker 1: secure a not guilty verdict. They blew up the whole
5:49
Speaker 1: trial in the process. This is a big challenge that
5:51
Speaker 1: prosecutors face when they're confronted with overwhelmingly evil defendants who
5:55
Speaker 1: tend to attract very depraved lawyers. As the saying goes,
5:59
Speaker 1: you know, you can't wrestle with a pig without everyone
6:01
Speaker 1: getting dirty. But even with this expectation in mind, especially
6:05
Speaker 1: over the past few days, the Clancy case devolved into
6:08
Speaker 1: a truly staggering, unprecedented display of corruption and lawlessness and
6:15
Speaker 1: moral rot. Yesterday, as well as this morning, before we
6:19
Speaker 1: even get to the preposterous last-ditch appeal, Clancy's lawyer engaged
6:23
Speaker 1: in an overt campaign of mafia-like jury intimidation in an
6:28
Speaker 1: attempt to secure an acquittal for his client. John Gotti
6:32
Speaker 1: would look at this trial and blush at the sheer
6:35
Speaker 1: audacity of Clancy's lawyer, whose name is Kevin Reddington. For
6:39
Speaker 1: whatever reason, Reddington was allowed in the middle of deliberations
6:42
Speaker 1: to publicly accost a specific juror and tell the entire
6:46
Speaker 1: world that there's going to be an investigation into this
6:48
Speaker 1: person's statements during deliberations. And the only reason for this
6:51
Speaker 1: investigation is that the juror all by himself appeared to
6:54
Speaker 1: be intent on convicting Clancy for the murder of her children,
6:58
Speaker 1: which is something that I'm sure this member of the
7:00
Speaker 1: jury figured he had the right to do. Like he's
7:03
Speaker 1: allowed to come to his own conclusion. Or so he thought.
7:07
Speaker 1: Today in open court, before the jury came back and
7:10
Speaker 1: a mistrial was declared, Reddington made it clear that the
7:12
Speaker 1: holdout on the jury is a man. So he told
7:17
Speaker 1: everybody that, which is a very specific piece of information
7:19
Speaker 1: because there are only three males on the jury. And
7:23
Speaker 1: during the same hearing, Reddington berated the judge for failing
7:25
Speaker 1: to intimidate the jury. He wanted the judge to scold
7:28
Speaker 1: them for not following the law, meaning not returning the
7:30
Speaker 1: verdict that he wants. And understand exactly what happened here
7:33
Speaker 1: and how unseemly and corrupt it is. Let's go back
7:36
Speaker 1: to the scene in the courthouse yesterday during the sixth
7:39
Speaker 1: day of deliberations in the case. And by this point,
7:41
Speaker 1: the jury had already sent two notes to the judge
7:44
Speaker 1: indicating that they were deadlocked. And in response to these notes,
7:47
Speaker 1: the judge followed established procedure by telling the jurors to
7:50
Speaker 1: return to the jury room and try to reach a
7:53
Speaker 1: verdict if at all possible. This is how the system works.
7:55
Speaker 1: It's not unprecedented. It is really stupid. But this part,
8:00
Speaker 1: the system does work this way. The jury says they're deadlocked.
8:03
Speaker 1: They're sent back. They say they're deadlocked again. They're sent
8:05
Speaker 1: back again. You know, this is how the system works.
8:08
Speaker 1: It shouldn't work this way, in my opinion. If a
8:11
Speaker 1: jury says that it's deadlocked after hours of deliberation, sending
8:14
Speaker 1: them back is just asking them. Even if you say
8:17
Speaker 1: you aren't asking them this, you are asking them to
8:21
Speaker 1: bully the minority into caving. If you don't want the
8:24
Speaker 1: minority to be bullied into caving, then why would you
8:26
Speaker 1: force them to stay in deliberations after they've considered the
8:29
Speaker 1: facts and deliberated and made up their minds? I mean,
8:34
Speaker 1: it's pretty absurd. But in any case, if the jury
8:37
Speaker 1: had come back yesterday with a third note insisting that
8:39
Speaker 1: they were still deadlocked, as they did today, then the
8:41
Speaker 1: judge would have declared a hung jury. That's generally how
8:44
Speaker 1: it works, because under our Constitution, the judge is not
8:46
Speaker 1: allowed to hold the jury hostage indefinitely. He can hold
8:49
Speaker 1: them hostage, and he did in this case, but there's
8:52
Speaker 1: an endpoint eventually. And the jury in this case almost
8:56
Speaker 1: certainly knew that. They were not sequestered, so they had
9:00
Speaker 1: access to the Internet. they would have known that with
9:03
Speaker 1: just one more note, they could go home and return
9:05
Speaker 1: to their families. But instead of sending another note indicating
9:09
Speaker 1: that they're deadlocked, the foreperson, who's apparently a woman, on
9:13
Speaker 1: the jury instead sent a note telling the judge that
9:17
Speaker 1: a particular juror wasn't following the law on reasonable doubt.
9:23
Speaker 1: And somehow this person, the foreman, foreperson, whatever, only decided
9:29
Speaker 1: to send this note on the sixth day of deliberations
9:31
Speaker 1: at the very last possible moment before mistrial was going
9:34
Speaker 1: to be declared because of a hung jury. So we're
9:36
Speaker 1: led to believe that on the other five days of deliberations,
9:40
Speaker 1: I guess this guy was following the law. And then
9:43
Speaker 1: on the sixth day at the most crucial moment, suddenly
9:47
Speaker 1: he's not following the law. We're meant to believe that
9:50
Speaker 1: somehow this other juror had announced his intention to disregard
9:53
Speaker 1: the law, which of course is ridiculous. Okay, it's ridiculous
9:58
Speaker 1: to claim that he, I mean, we don't, none of
10:00
Speaker 1: us were there. It's highly implausible, implausible rather, that this
10:06
Speaker 1: guy sat there and said, no, I'm not going to
10:08
Speaker 1: follow the law. I refuse to follow the law. Now
10:12
Speaker 1: he was following the law, but the law led him
10:16
Speaker 1: in his view, which was the correct view, to a
10:19
Speaker 1: different conclusion. The other members of the jury didn't like
10:22
Speaker 1: that conclusion and neither did the defense. So they attempted
10:25
Speaker 1: to berate and manipulate him into changing his mind. And
10:31
Speaker 1: they failed. Thank God. This was a clear act of
10:35
Speaker 1: jury intimidation by the jury, the foreperson. And in response,
10:41
Speaker 1: the judge did the appropriate thing. He took each member
10:44
Speaker 1: of the jury aside. He reminded them of the law
10:46
Speaker 1: on reasonable doubt. He didn't single anybody out. He didn't
10:49
Speaker 1: put any particular pressure on any one member of the jury.
10:52
Speaker 1: He asked all of them if they were going to
10:55
Speaker 1: follow the law, and they all said yes. But for Reddington,
10:58
Speaker 1: this wasn't nearly enough. He wanted the juror removed from
11:01
Speaker 1: deliberations and replaced with an alternate, presumably so that all
11:03
Speaker 1: 12 jurors could agree on a not guilty verdict. So
11:07
Speaker 1: he essentially made the claim that if a majority of
11:09
Speaker 1: the jury wanted to vote another member of the jury
11:13
Speaker 1: off the island, then they should be allowed to do that. Apparently,
11:17
Speaker 1: juries in this country, they should function like a reality
11:21
Speaker 1: TV show, like Survivor, where the least popular member gets
11:25
Speaker 1: voted off. And he's saying that jurors should be able
11:28
Speaker 1: to say whatever they want to a judge to convince
11:31
Speaker 1: him to throw the lone dissenting juror off the panel
11:34
Speaker 1: on the basis that he's supposedly not following the law.
11:37
Speaker 1: It's a funny thing when members of the jury accuse
11:39
Speaker 1: another member of the jury of not following the law.
11:42
Speaker 1: Because first of all, if you know anything about juries,
11:43
Speaker 1: you know that they don't understand anything about the law anyway.
11:47
Speaker 1: And they're happy to admit this right out in the open.
11:50
Speaker 1: This was the George Floyd jury, just for example, watch.
11:53
Speaker 3: We got to the point actually that we realized for
11:59
Speaker 3: charge two, at some point, I think it was Jody,
12:02
Speaker 3: I'm pretty sure it was Jody, said, wait a minute,
12:06
Speaker 3: does the intended act of harm have to be the
12:12
Speaker 3: death of George Floyd or can it be him not
12:15
Speaker 3: providing the life support And it was like all of
12:17
Speaker 3: a sudden light bulbs just went on for those people,
12:21
Speaker 3: I think, that were undecided or on the not guilty side.
12:25
Speaker 1: Go ahead. I want to hear from you, Jodi. You
12:28
Speaker 1: brought that up?
12:29
Speaker 4: I brought that up.
12:30
Speaker 1: Tell me what you brought up and why.
12:32
Speaker 4: I brought up to the fact that this is not
12:35
Speaker 4: what he did, but more or less what he didn't do.
12:38
Speaker 4: He did not provide life-saving measures for George Floyd when
12:42
Speaker 4: he knew that the guy was in jail pain or
12:47
Speaker 4: needed medical attention.
12:48
Speaker 1: Why do you think that was a light bulb?
12:50
Speaker 5: Well, when we were in deliberations, and Jody did bring
12:54
Speaker 5: that up, and we did look through everything very, very carefully,
12:58
Speaker 5: what I thought about is something that was said during
13:00
Speaker 5: the trial, and that is Minneapolis Police Department has a model.
13:05
Speaker 5: And if I'm understanding it correctly, their model is in
13:08
Speaker 5: our custody, in our care. George Floyd was in their custody.
13:13
Speaker 5: He was never in their care. And that, for me,
13:18
Speaker 5: it just hit hard. I don't feel like they ever
13:21
Speaker 5: cared for him.
13:23
Speaker 1: The female jurors clearly dominated the deliberations there. They explicitly
13:28
Speaker 1: decided to convict Derek Chauvin of murder, not because of
13:30
Speaker 1: what he did, but because of what he didn't do.
13:34
Speaker 1: In other words, they ignored the law. They ignored what
13:37
Speaker 1: the charge actually was, presumably because they knew that George
13:41
Speaker 1: Floyd had overdosed. They knew Chauvin didn't kill him, but
13:43
Speaker 1: they thought Chauvin was an unsympathetic guy. And they're probably
13:47
Speaker 1: advocates of BLM or whatever, so they convicted him of
13:50
Speaker 1: murder anyway. They don't mention any arguments about whether Chauvin
13:53
Speaker 1: actually caused Floyd's death at any point in that 10-minute
13:56
Speaker 1: CNN interview. They completely disregard the fact that under Minnesota law,
13:59
Speaker 1: third-degree murder requires the commission of some dangerous intentional act
14:02
Speaker 1: by Chauvin. Instead, they made up a new law in
14:05
Speaker 1: which the omission of an act, namely failing to care
14:08
Speaker 1: for George Floyd, could somehow qualify as an intentional action.
14:13
Speaker 1: They never sent a single note to the judge about this,
14:15
Speaker 1: by the way. They just created the law on their own.
14:18
Speaker 1: And the reason this verdict was not overturned, even after
14:21
Speaker 1: the CNN interview, where the jury admits they didn't follow
14:24
Speaker 1: the law, is that jury deliberations are considered sacrosanct in
14:27
Speaker 1: every court in this country, or at least they were,
14:31
Speaker 1: even when the jury admits on national TV that they
14:33
Speaker 1: were not following the law and had no idea what
14:35
Speaker 1: the law even was. The verdict still stands. The American
14:39
Speaker 1: legal system allows jurors to misunderstand the law. That's a
14:44
Speaker 1: known risk of having random everyday people on juries, particularly
14:47
Speaker 1: the people who are too dumb to get out of
14:49
Speaker 1: jury duty. You can make the case that we shouldn't
14:54
Speaker 1: have the system. You can make the case that there
14:56
Speaker 1: are some fundamental flaws with the system as we have.
14:58
Speaker 1: There are plenty of countries, including Singapore, as we discussed
15:01
Speaker 1: earlier this week, that don't have the system, that they
15:05
Speaker 1: have judges decide the cases. But in our system, juries
15:08
Speaker 1: decide guilt or innocence. And if they don't grasp the law,
15:12
Speaker 1: too bad. So with this well-known limitation of our legal
15:16
Speaker 1: system in mind, what exactly happened in the Clancy trial?
15:21
Speaker 1: Why might the juror in question have misunderstood the law
15:25
Speaker 1: in this case? And how, given the nonsense that we
15:29
Speaker 1: allow juries to do every day in this country, could
15:31
Speaker 1: this misunderstanding possibly lead to the member of the jury
15:35
Speaker 1: being dismissed from the case, which is what they wanted
15:37
Speaker 1: to have happened? Well, um, We kind of start piecing
15:44
Speaker 1: all that together yesterday, thanks to this press conference Reddington
15:47
Speaker 1: gave outside the courthouse yesterday, because for some reason he's
15:50
Speaker 1: allowed to intimidate the jury. Again, they're not sequestered. Watch.
15:57
Speaker 2: So the jury has been identified by the note from
16:04
Speaker 2: the foreman. And there will be an inquiry by the
16:08
Speaker 2: judge tomorrow at 9 o'clock. I don't know what his
16:11
Speaker 2: question is going to be. We'll have an argument about it.
16:15
Speaker 2: I don't think it will be at the sidebar. I
16:17
Speaker 2: think it will be in open court, which is my
16:19
Speaker 2: concern that we have our arguments in open court, but
16:23
Speaker 2: not at the sidebar. So I expect that... And that's B-A-R,
16:27
Speaker 2: not B-A-H, okay?
16:30
Speaker 1: Is this one person versus all the rest? Is this
16:32
Speaker 1: one person versus all the rest in the jury? Is
16:34
Speaker 1: it one person holding this up?
16:36
Speaker 2: Yeah. You heard the question. It's basically that there's a
16:39
Speaker 2: person who has doubt but will not listen to the
16:42
Speaker 2: judge's instruction.
16:44
Speaker 1: So the defense attorney decided to wage a public pressure
16:46
Speaker 1: campaign against someone on the jury during deliberations. I mean,
16:51
Speaker 1: this isn't saying it's totally unprecedented. They want to burn
16:55
Speaker 1: the whole system down for the sake of letting a
16:57
Speaker 1: woman get away with triple homicide. This is textbook intimidation.
17:01
Speaker 1: He's publicly complaining about a specific juror and falsely accusing
17:04
Speaker 1: him of not following the law. And again, doing this
17:07
Speaker 1: during deliberations. But for a second, let's put aside the
17:11
Speaker 1: sliminess of this defense lawyer. The key point in that
17:15
Speaker 1: footage is that he says one member of the jury
17:18
Speaker 1: has doubts, meaning reasonable doubts, about Clancy's guilt under Massachusetts law.
17:23
Speaker 1: Despite those doubts, he was allegedly failing to follow the
17:25
Speaker 1: judge's instruction in the case. He was ignoring the law,
17:29
Speaker 1: in other words, according to Reddington. So he puts this
17:32
Speaker 1: jury on blast during deliberations and threatens this one specific
17:37
Speaker 1: guy with a winch hunt. Well, why might this guy
17:41
Speaker 1: be interested in disregarding, quote unquote, the law of Massachusetts? Now,
17:48
Speaker 1: I don't think that he did disregard it, but let's
17:50
Speaker 1: follow that thread for the sake of argument. Okay, let's see.
17:55
Speaker 1: According to Massachusetts law, someone is criminally insane if, because
17:58
Speaker 1: of some mental problem, they lack the substantial capacity to
18:02
Speaker 1: appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of their conduct or to
18:06
Speaker 1: conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. A
18:10
Speaker 1: defendant is considered not guilty if there's reasonable doubt as
18:13
Speaker 1: to whether the defendant possessed this capacity in any way.
18:16
Speaker 1: And here's the important point. In Massachusetts, the prosecution has
18:19
Speaker 1: to prove, the state, the prosecution has to prove beyond
18:23
Speaker 1: a reasonable doubt that the defendant was criminally responsible, meaning
18:27
Speaker 1: they have to prove the defendant not just that he
18:30
Speaker 1: did the thing, but that he did not have a
18:33
Speaker 1: serious mental defect and that he retained the capacity to
18:38
Speaker 1: appreciate his conduct during the commission of the crime. Okay,
18:45
Speaker 1: so basically the prosecution has to prove a negative, basically.
18:49
Speaker 1: They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she
18:52
Speaker 1: was not crazy, even though crazy is something that's going
18:56
Speaker 1: on inside her head. Right, so we have to prove
19:01
Speaker 1: beyond a reasonable doubt what was going on inside her
19:04
Speaker 1: head in the moment when this thing, when this crime occurred,
19:08
Speaker 1: when it was committed three years ago. Well, the problem here,
19:12
Speaker 1: which should be obvious, is that there is doubt There's
19:15
Speaker 1: at least doubt, some doubt, for every single homicide under
19:20
Speaker 1: this standard. It is a ridiculous, unworkable standard. Because we
19:25
Speaker 1: don't know what's going on in anybody's mind beyond any doubt,
19:30
Speaker 1: it's impossible to know. No doctor can run a lab
19:33
Speaker 1: test or a diagnostic scan to determine whether someone could
19:36
Speaker 1: appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct or whether they lack
19:40
Speaker 1: the ability to control their actions. That's impossible. Even if
19:44
Speaker 1: they were hooked up to a brain scan while they
19:47
Speaker 1: committed the murder, which nobody ever is, obviously, that still
19:50
Speaker 1: wouldn't prove beyond any doubt what was going on inside
19:54
Speaker 1: their mind. And there's no testimony that can provide definitive
19:59
Speaker 1: proof on that point one way or another. You know,
20:01
Speaker 1: if a woman goes to the shrink and says she's
20:03
Speaker 1: losing her mind and then she commits mass murder, how
20:07
Speaker 1: exactly are we supposed to determine whether she was telling
20:09
Speaker 1: the truth? How are we supposed to determine whether her
20:11
Speaker 1: medications caused her to do something when no one understands
20:16
Speaker 1: how these medications even work in the first place? How
20:18
Speaker 1: are jurors supposed to come to any kind of conclusion
20:21
Speaker 1: when the trial features 20 different experts, all of them
20:23
Speaker 1: saying conflicting things about the state of this woman's mind
20:25
Speaker 1: at the time of the murders? There's no getting around
20:28
Speaker 1: the fact that doubt, and maybe reasonable doubt, depending on
20:31
Speaker 1: how you define reasonable, can theoretically apply to, I mean,
20:37
Speaker 1: if you apply it very liberally, to any case. You
20:40
Speaker 1: can contort your reasoning in such a way as to
20:43
Speaker 1: excuse pretty much any homicide that remotely resembles this case
20:47
Speaker 1: or any other case. Because you can never know for
20:51
Speaker 1: sure what's going on in someone's mind. That's the point.
20:54
Speaker 1: And that's why the insanity defense itself should be abolished entirely.
20:58
Speaker 1: It's totally incoherent, as I've said before. We need to
21:01
Speaker 1: get these psychiatrist quacks out of the court system entirely.
21:05
Speaker 1: It's an absolute farce that a person can commit murder
21:08
Speaker 1: And then the defense can drag in a bunch of
21:10
Speaker 1: random psychiatrists to perform some retroactive mind-reading stunt, right? Like
21:17
Speaker 1: they're an act on America's Got Talent or something, and
21:22
Speaker 1: doing card tricks, peering into the mind of this person
21:26
Speaker 1: three years ago to determine what was going on inside
21:29
Speaker 1: the consciousness of this killer at the time of the crime,
21:32
Speaker 1: as if they have the slightest clue at all. There
21:37
Speaker 1: is no expert on the face of the planet that
21:40
Speaker 1: has the supernatural ability to peer back in time and
21:43
Speaker 1: examine the unspoken thoughts of another human. You might as
21:49
Speaker 1: well let the defense present evidence from astrologists and fortune tellers. Which,
21:54
Speaker 1: by the way, these retarded TikTok feminists, they would be
21:57
Speaker 1: perfectly fine with that. They consider that to be bulletproof evidence.
22:04
Speaker 1: Your Honor, she's a Leo. She couldn't have That's literally
22:08
Speaker 1: what they think. This country really needs to get over
22:12
Speaker 1: its completely unwarranted reverence for psychiatrists. These people are just
22:16
Speaker 1: making stuff up as they go. That's what they're doing.
22:21
Speaker 1: And if you watch this trial, you're well aware of
22:22
Speaker 1: that fact. The testimony from the shrinks was extremely unimpressive
22:25
Speaker 1: and medically wrong in many cases, like when they claimed
22:27
Speaker 1: the serotonin theory of depression is real when it was
22:30
Speaker 1: debunked years ago. But here's the key point. Clancy's insanity
22:35
Speaker 1: defense rests almost completely on the claim that she heard
22:40
Speaker 1: a voice telling her to kill her kids. That's the
22:44
Speaker 1: only insane mental state ever reported by Clancy herself. Because
22:50
Speaker 1: aside from that, the only mental states she ever reported were,
22:53
Speaker 1: you know, she's really sad, she's upset, she's having disturbing thoughts.
22:57
Speaker 1: None of that is insane. None of that means you're insane.
22:59
Speaker 1: I don't care how sad you are. I don't care
23:02
Speaker 1: how depressed you are. I don't care how stressed you are.
23:03
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter. You could have the worst case of
23:09
Speaker 1: postpartum depression of all time. Doesn't matter. You're not insane.
23:12
Speaker 1: You still know you're not supposed to kill your kids.
23:15
Speaker 1: The only insane thing that has ever been reported about
23:19
Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy is that she heard a voice which told
23:23
Speaker 1: her to kill her kids. Well, the problem is, number one,
23:27
Speaker 1: there's no way to prove or disprove an imaginary voice.
23:32
Speaker 1: Any murderer can make this claim. And if that counts
23:36
Speaker 1: as reasonable doubt, then we can never convict anyone of
23:41
Speaker 1: anything ever again.
23:42
Speaker 3: Okay?
23:44
Speaker 1: Anyone can say, yeah, I did this terrible thing. It
23:48
Speaker 1: doesn't even have to be murder. Maybe I stole a car. Yeah,
23:52
Speaker 1: I stole a car, but a voice told me to
23:53
Speaker 1: do it. Can you prove? Can you prove a voice
23:57
Speaker 1: didn't tell me to do it? Can you prove beyond
24:00
Speaker 1: a reasonable doubt that I didn't have an imaginary voice
24:04
Speaker 1: in my head telling me to do this? Well, no.
24:11
Speaker 1: I can't prove anything about an imaginary voice. No one
24:15
Speaker 1: can prove anything about that. Neither can you. Second, she
24:20
Speaker 1: never reported this voice before or since the crime, strongly
24:23
Speaker 1: indicating that she made it up. And most importantly, even
24:26
Speaker 1: if she did hear a voice, why didn't she refuse
24:29
Speaker 1: to follow the command? That's the interesting thing when she
24:34
Speaker 1: talks about hearing a voice. She's actually separating her consciousness
24:39
Speaker 1: from the voice. She's saying, I heard a voice. So
24:44
Speaker 1: what you're telling us is that in this moment, when
24:46
Speaker 1: you allegedly heard the voice, that you still, like you
24:49
Speaker 1: yourself were still there. You still, your consciousness was there.
24:53
Speaker 1: And so your consciousness was experiencing this voice, right? Because
25:00
Speaker 1: she didn't say, oh, I was, I felt compelled. Like
25:03
Speaker 1: I couldn't even, I couldn't stop my arms from moving
25:06
Speaker 1: and strangling my kids. She said, I heard a voice
25:09
Speaker 1: that told me to do it. Told who to do it?
25:12
Speaker 1: Told you to do it. Okay, so you were there,
25:14
Speaker 1: not just physically, but like consciously. And if the voice
25:20
Speaker 1: told you to kill your kids, then why didn't you
25:22
Speaker 1: refuse the voice? If a voice told me to murder
25:25
Speaker 1: my children, I would simply refuse. If the voice threatened
25:30
Speaker 1: and harassed me, I would still refuse. If a real
25:35
Speaker 1: human voice belonging to a real human being told me
25:41
Speaker 1: to kill my kids and put a gun to my
25:43
Speaker 1: head and told me to do it, I would still refuse.
25:47
Speaker 1: So if this imaginary voice did appear, Clancy could have
25:49
Speaker 1: chosen to not obey it. But instead, by her telling,
25:53
Speaker 1: the voice spoke exactly one time, and she just immediately
25:59
Speaker 1: complied with what it told her to do. Not even
26:02
Speaker 1: a moment of pushback. Even if I bought that nonsense,
26:05
Speaker 1: which I don't, she would still be guilty as hell.
26:09
Speaker 1: Of course, the great irony, by the way, is that
26:11
Speaker 1: like 95% of the women blaming psych drugs for Lindsay
26:14
Speaker 1: Clancy murdering her children are also on psych drugs themselves.
26:18
Speaker 1: They supposedly believe that these drugs can cause you to
26:20
Speaker 1: annihilate your whole family. And that doesn't stop any of
26:22
Speaker 1: them from taking the drugs. And they certainly aren't calling
26:26
Speaker 1: for the drugs to be banned, which means the whole
26:29
Speaker 1: psych drug excuse is not even really believed by most
26:32
Speaker 1: of the people offering it. Now, all of these arguments
26:36
Speaker 1: are very straightforward and obvious, but in a courtroom... Defense
26:39
Speaker 1: lawyers are allowed to call a series of paid experts
26:41
Speaker 1: to the stand, all of whom have one job, muddy
26:44
Speaker 1: the waters as much as possible. And the job of
26:46
Speaker 1: those experts is to convince the jurors to disregard common
26:49
Speaker 1: sense and follow, supposedly, Massachusetts law, which is a law
26:53
Speaker 1: that presents the prosecution with a burden of proof that
26:55
Speaker 1: on a liberal reading is impossible to surmount. Well, there
27:01
Speaker 1: are shoes that you wear because you're required to have
27:03
Speaker 1: something covering your feet. And then there are boots. And
27:05
Speaker 1: great boots can actually improve you as a person. I
27:08
Speaker 1: can't prove that scientifically, but put on a good pair
27:10
Speaker 1: of boots and you immediately stand a little straighter. You
27:13
Speaker 1: walk with more purpose. Suddenly you look like a man
27:15
Speaker 1: who knows how to fix things. Whether you actually know
27:17
Speaker 1: how to fix things is really beside the point. I
27:20
Speaker 1: have a couple of boots from Takova's because they're genuinely
27:23
Speaker 1: great boots. They're classic leather roper boots with a slightly
27:27
Speaker 1: shorter heel and a clean understated design. They look great
27:30
Speaker 1: with jeans. They're extremely comfortable. And unlike a lot of boots,
27:34
Speaker 1: you don't have to spend weeks painfully breaking them in.
27:37
Speaker 1: Tacobas handcrafts every pair in more than 200 steps, and
27:40
Speaker 1: you can feel the quality immediately. They also carry other
27:43
Speaker 1: great pieces like belts, which I also have from them.
27:45
Speaker 1: And not only are they very well crafted, but also
27:48
Speaker 1: good for these in-between seasons when you're not sure what
27:51
Speaker 1: to wear. Is it summer? Is it fall? Well, with Tacobas,
27:54
Speaker 1: you don't need to worry about that. Right now, get
27:56
Speaker 1: 10% off at Tacobas.com slash Matt. When you sign up
28:00
Speaker 1: for email and text, that's 10% off at tecovas.com slash Matt. tecovas.com
28:06
Speaker 1: slash Matt. See Cypher details. Tecovas, point your toes west.
28:10
Speaker 1: We developed this strange habit of taking food, breaking it
28:14
Speaker 1: down into individual components, and then trying to recreate what
28:17
Speaker 1: nature already made for us. Balance of Nature takes a
28:20
Speaker 1: much simpler approach. Their fruits and veggies supplements contain 31
28:23
Speaker 1: different whole fruits and vegetables, including things like apples, blueberries, broccoli, carrots,
28:28
Speaker 1: and spinach. It's just an easy way to get more
28:30
Speaker 1: variety into your routine. Go to balsanature.com, use code WALSH,
28:34
Speaker 1: and get 10% off any subscription plus a free guiltless snack.
28:39
Speaker 1: So the holdout juror in this case, even if he
28:42
Speaker 1: were disregarding the law, which I actually don't even think
28:45
Speaker 1: he was, and I'll explain why in a minute, would
28:48
Speaker 1: have been logically justified in disregarding it and voting to
28:52
Speaker 1: convict this woman. That's what juries are supposed to do
28:57
Speaker 1: when the law is wrong, incoherent, and unjust. When there's
29:01
Speaker 1: no legitimate way to apply the law, when the law
29:05
Speaker 1: is unintelligible, you have to disregard it. To be clear,
29:10
Speaker 1: juries should not disregard the law because they identify with
29:13
Speaker 1: the race or gender of the defendant, like what happened
29:17
Speaker 1: with the OJ jury, for example. They disregarded the law.
29:21
Speaker 1: They disregarded the evidence simply out of racial tribalism. that
29:26
Speaker 1: can't happen. I mean, it does happen all the time,
29:28
Speaker 1: but it shouldn't. They shouldn't disregard the law because they've
29:31
Speaker 1: been bribed or because they have some hidden bias in
29:35
Speaker 1: the case. But in cases where a jury is being
29:37
Speaker 1: asked to follow rules that don't make any sense and
29:40
Speaker 1: are unintelligible and incoherent and self-contradictory and that prevent the
29:44
Speaker 1: prosecution from winning the case by default, then it's their
29:48
Speaker 1: right to vote guilty. This is one of the few
29:51
Speaker 1: benefits of the jury system that we currently have. It
29:54
Speaker 1: does at least still allow common people to serve as
29:57
Speaker 1: a bulwark a last line of defense against ridiculous laws
30:01
Speaker 1: and deranged government policy. There's plenty of Massachusetts precedent on
30:05
Speaker 1: this question, by the way, which I found in about
30:06
Speaker 1: five minutes. Here's a case called Commonwealth v. Hebert from 1980,
30:11
Speaker 1: which is still cited by courts today. Quote, although it's
30:14
Speaker 1: improper for a juror to disregard the law as given
30:16
Speaker 1: by the judge, it remains within the power of a
30:17
Speaker 1: juror to vote his or her conscience. So that case
30:22
Speaker 1: was about a juror who refused to convict a man
30:24
Speaker 1: for gun possession, even though she knew he had violated
30:26
Speaker 1: the law. The issue was that the man simply wasn't
30:28
Speaker 1: aware of a brand new law requiring him to carry
30:30
Speaker 1: a firearm identification card when he carried the gun. So
30:33
Speaker 1: it was a ticky tack charge and the juror thought
30:35
Speaker 1: it was stupid. So she wanted to acquit. It was
30:37
Speaker 1: basically jury nullification. And in response, the judge should have
30:40
Speaker 1: accepted the holdouts decision and declared a hung jury in
30:43
Speaker 1: a mistrial. But instead the judge berated this person, said
30:46
Speaker 1: that she should have followed the law and basically ignored
30:48
Speaker 1: her and accepted a pervert of guilty. And the judge
30:52
Speaker 1: was overturned because in our legal system, jurors have the
30:54
Speaker 1: ability to vote in accordance with their conscience. there's really
30:57
Speaker 1: no way to prevent them from doing so. Now, it's
30:59
Speaker 1: true that if a juror explicitly refuses to follow the
31:02
Speaker 1: law and decides not to participate in deliberations at all,
31:06
Speaker 1: if the juror were to say, I'm not even going
31:07
Speaker 1: to do this because I don't care about the law
31:09
Speaker 1: and I'm not going to deliberate. Well, then, yeah, in
31:12
Speaker 1: that case, the judge could have the juror dismissed and should.
31:14
Speaker 1: But that's not what happened here. It's also true that
31:18
Speaker 1: it's technically improper for jurors to ignore the law, but
31:20
Speaker 1: at the same time, judges are not allowed to grill
31:23
Speaker 1: judges the jury, about their reasoning during deliberations and throw
31:26
Speaker 1: out anyone on the jury who doesn't have the correct arguments.
31:31
Speaker 1: Once that starts happening, there's no longer any secrecy in deliberations.
31:34
Speaker 1: There's no way to ensure the jurors won't be intimidated
31:36
Speaker 1: into changing their minds. And there's no way for juries
31:38
Speaker 1: to serve as a last line of defense against the government.
31:41
Speaker 1: Might as well not even have juries. Maybe more importantly,
31:45
Speaker 1: there'd be no way for juries to serve as a
31:46
Speaker 1: last line of defense against the TikTok mob. Because whoever
31:50
Speaker 1: this holdout is, he put himself in extraordinary jeopardy to
31:53
Speaker 1: do what's moral and lawful, which is to ensure that
31:56
Speaker 1: no woman who deliberately murders her children can just walk
31:59
Speaker 1: away or roll away, as the case may be, like
32:03
Speaker 1: nothing happened. It's a profound failing of our civilization, maybe
32:06
Speaker 1: the greatest failing imaginable, that we're apparently relying on only
32:10
Speaker 1: one juror to make this stand. So again, even if
32:13
Speaker 1: this brave member of the jury did disregard the law,
32:15
Speaker 1: this brave man, he would have been totally justified in
32:19
Speaker 1: doing so. in my view, but he did not actually
32:24
Speaker 1: disregard the law. In fact, even by the totally ridiculous
32:27
Speaker 1: standards of Massachusetts law, and even with the existence of
32:31
Speaker 1: the insanity defense, a defense that shouldn't be allowed in
32:34
Speaker 1: the first place, but it is, still Clancy's guilt was
32:39
Speaker 1: still clear beyond the faintest shred of reasonable doubt. The
32:43
Speaker 1: evidence is overwhelming that she planned the murder of and
32:48
Speaker 1: then carried it out methodically and systematically over the course
32:53
Speaker 1: of several minutes. There is no reasonable doubt about either
32:58
Speaker 1: of those things. The notion that a person can engage
33:03
Speaker 1: in planning and forethought and then act methodically and systematically
33:08
Speaker 1: and also have no idea what they're doing is incoherent.
33:13
Speaker 1: Clancy engineered a window of time to murder her children.
33:18
Speaker 1: This is a matter of the digital record. She sent
33:21
Speaker 1: her husband away because she knew that murdering her children
33:26
Speaker 1: was wrong and that her husband would try to prevent it.
33:30
Speaker 1: You see, if she were actually insane, that would mean
33:33
Speaker 1: that she doesn't know that it's wrong to murder your kids.
33:36
Speaker 1: And so then she wouldn't have needed to send her
33:38
Speaker 1: husband away. She wouldn't have waited for her husband to
33:42
Speaker 1: be gone to do it. She would have just went
33:43
Speaker 1: and done it. But she did wait because she wasn't insane.
33:48
Speaker 1: She also confessed thoughts about harming her children to her family,
33:52
Speaker 1: demonstrating that she knew the thoughts were wrong. And then
33:55
Speaker 1: she did not confess those same thoughts to her doctors
33:58
Speaker 1: again because she knew those thoughts were wrong. And through
34:02
Speaker 1: the course of the murder, she not only had to
34:04
Speaker 1: make the willful choice to do it, but she had
34:06
Speaker 1: to reaffirm that choice three times as she systematically slaughtered
34:12
Speaker 1: three children. And she murdered them in a way, by strangulation,
34:17
Speaker 1: that would have required continued, determined, willful action for an
34:23
Speaker 1: extended period of time. And she did this again and
34:28
Speaker 1: again and again. And then she attempted suicide, either because
34:32
Speaker 1: she felt guilty, demonstrating that she knew that what she
34:35
Speaker 1: did was wrong, or the attempt was fake, which is
34:37
Speaker 1: my theory, which even more demonstrates that she was sane
34:41
Speaker 1: and lucid. So either way, these are all facts that
34:44
Speaker 1: altogether remove reasonable doubt. And if they don't, then again,
34:51
Speaker 1: we don't have enough certainty to convict anyone of anything.
34:55
Speaker 1: If a person can function, act, speak, and in every
35:00
Speaker 1: way appear and behave sane, as in Lindsay Clancy's case,
35:05
Speaker 1: and yet in some mysterious way still be insane, then
35:10
Speaker 1: the word insane has no meaning at all. And it's
35:12
Speaker 1: impossible to ever know whether someone is sane or insane.
35:17
Speaker 1: This is one of the claims that the defense's experts made,
35:21
Speaker 1: which is that, yeah, someone can, by all appearances, be
35:24
Speaker 1: totally sane, but actually be not sane. Okay, well, then
35:29
Speaker 1: you can literally just never know about anybody. I mean,
35:34
Speaker 1: if we cannot prove insanity, or if we can't prove sanity,
35:41
Speaker 1: based on someone's words, actions, and behaviors, then you can
35:47
Speaker 1: never prove it. Ever. Ever. That makes it an incoherent standard,
35:55
Speaker 1: and it would make it impossible to prosecute any crimes.
35:59
Speaker 1: So if that is actually the standard, then again, any
36:04
Speaker 1: member of the jury would have not only the right,
36:06
Speaker 1: but the moral obligation to disregard it. Lindsay Clancy, by
36:13
Speaker 1: any reasonable standard, by any moral standard, by the standards
36:15
Speaker 1: of any decent, rational, intelligent person, deserved to be convicted
36:19
Speaker 1: and thrown in a hole to rot and die. But instead,
36:23
Speaker 1: we're left with a mistrial, which itself was somehow a
36:25
Speaker 1: positive outcome when compared to the alternative. But that silver
36:28
Speaker 1: lining view does not erase the dark cloud that is
36:35
Speaker 1: in the middle of that silver lining. a dark cloud
36:38
Speaker 1: where 11 people wanted desperately to let a woman escape
36:42
Speaker 1: consequence for slaughtering all of her children, and where a
36:46
Speaker 1: defense lawyer demonizes and attempts to intimidate a juror, and
36:49
Speaker 1: where thousands of women flock to the murderer and defend
36:52
Speaker 1: and celebrate and canonize her, rallying to her side, writing
36:56
Speaker 1: her fan mail to gush over. This trial has truly
37:01
Speaker 1: been one of the bleakest, most eye-opening criminal cases in
37:04
Speaker 1: modern American history. This is an evil that can only
37:07
Speaker 1: be countered by men who are totally unafraid of the
37:10
Speaker 1: mob and whatever consequences they might bring. There's at least
37:14
Speaker 1: one man in this case who recognized that. And what
37:18
Speaker 1: we need now before more children are slaughtered is many
37:22
Speaker 1: more like him. The prosecution has to bring this case
37:26
Speaker 1: once again. The jury should be sequestered the second time around.
37:30
Speaker 1: And if we're going to have a worthwhile legal system,
37:33
Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy must be convicted and sentenced to spend the
37:36
Speaker 1: rest of her life in a dungeon. Precisely the kind
37:40
Speaker 1: of hellhole where if she were actually a worthwhile human being,
37:44
Speaker 1: she would admit she belongs. But in all of my
37:54
Speaker 1: years of public life, I have never.
37:57
Speaker 3: Profited from public service.
38:00
Speaker 2: I welcome this kind of examination because people have got
38:03
Speaker 2: to know whether or not their presidents are corrupt.
38:06
Speaker 1: Well, I'm not a crook. For more than five decades,
38:08
Speaker 1: from Iran-Contra to Monica Lewinsky to Russiagate, every political scandal
38:13
Speaker 1: has been measured against one, the Watergate affair. But what
38:16
Speaker 1: if Richard Nixon was telling the truth? What if Watergate
38:20
Speaker 1: isn't what it seems? What if hundreds of thousands of
38:23
Speaker 1: pages of sworn testimony, memoirs, and newly released government documents
38:27
Speaker 1: tell a different story than the one you learned in school?
38:31
Speaker 1: In 1972, Nixon won the biggest electoral landslide in modern
38:35
Speaker 1: American history with grand plans to remake the federal government.
38:39
Speaker 1: Two years later, he was out of office. You were
38:42
Speaker 1: taught that Nixon's men broke into the Democratic National Committee
38:45
Speaker 1: headquarters to spy on his political opponents. You were taught
38:48
Speaker 1: that when he found out, Nixon covered it up, and
38:52
Speaker 1: that the cover-up was worse than the crime. You were
38:55
Speaker 1: taught that two heroic Washington Post reporters guided by a
38:59
Speaker 1: righteous FBI whistleblower brought the most powerful man in the
39:03
Speaker 1: world to justice. But you were never told what really happened.
39:07
Speaker 1: I shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow. The
39:10
Speaker 1: real history of the Watergate scandal is available now on
39:13
Speaker 1: Daily Wire +.