Latest / The Matt Walsh Show / A Lot Of People Should Go To Prison For Doxxing Lindsay Clancy’s Black Juror

Transcript

A Lot Of People Should Go To Prison For Doxxing Lindsay Clancy’s Black Juror · The Matt Walsh Show

0:00
Speaker 1: Before we get into the show today, I want to
0:01
Speaker 1: remind you that the Daily Wire's newest film, Run, Hide, Fight, Infidels,
0:05
Speaker 1: drops on Wednesday exclusively for Daily Wire subscribers. The sales
0:09
Speaker 1: pitch for DW Films has always been that we're supposed
0:12
Speaker 1: to be making movies of the sort that you can't
0:14
Speaker 1: find anywhere else. And I can tell you that promise
0:17
Speaker 1: is certainly fulfilled by this movie. Whatever else you might
0:20
Speaker 1: say about it, it's definitely not something you'd find on Netflix,
0:24
Speaker 1: at least. And we'll have the latest trailer at the
0:26
Speaker 1: end of the show, so stick around for that. In
0:29
Speaker 1: the meantime, we've never seen anything like what's happening in
0:33
Speaker 1: Massachusetts right now, following the mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy
0:37
Speaker 1: triple murder case. And whatever your opinion is of the
0:41
Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy case, and maybe you don't care about the
0:44
Speaker 1: case at all, there's no getting around the fact that
0:46
Speaker 1: this has become a debacle of national significance. And unless
0:50
Speaker 1: people go to prison for what's happened here, our judicial
0:54
Speaker 1: system is done. I mean, at least in left-wing states
0:57
Speaker 1: like Massachusetts. They are legalizing murder, particularly the murder of
1:01
Speaker 1: children and anyone else they find inconvenient. And if you
1:04
Speaker 1: think that's an overstatement, here's the undisputed sequence of events. Okay,
1:09
Speaker 1: a man was conscripted into jury duty by the government.
1:13
Speaker 1: That's how it works. He didn't ask to be a
1:17
Speaker 1: part of this. He was conscripted into it. He performed
1:20
Speaker 1: his civic duty. and ultimately followed his conscience, refusing to
1:25
Speaker 1: acquit a woman who confessed to systematically executing her three
1:28
Speaker 1: children after first sending her husband away on an errand
1:31
Speaker 1: so the children would be defenseless. This juror listened to
1:34
Speaker 1: all the testimony and apparently concluded that these horrific premeditated
1:38
Speaker 1: murders are incompatible with the idea that Lindsay Clancy somehow
1:41
Speaker 1: couldn't control her actions or understand what she was doing.
1:45
Speaker 1: Even after the 11 other jurors banded together and tried
1:47
Speaker 1: to vote him off the island on the absurd theory
1:50
Speaker 1: that he wasn't following the law because he disagreed with them,
1:54
Speaker 1: the loan holdout didn't change his position. He did precisely
1:57
Speaker 1: what you're supposed to do when you're on a jury,
2:00
Speaker 1: and indeed what you must do if we're going to
2:03
Speaker 1: have a functioning legal system. He ignored the mob and
2:07
Speaker 1: reached his own conclusion, which was obviously also the correct one.
2:11
Speaker 1: In response, rather than accept the fact that he wasn't
2:15
Speaker 1: able to convince all 12 jurors to acquit an unrepentant
2:18
Speaker 1: child killer, Clancy's defense attorney immediately launched a public smear
2:23
Speaker 1: campaign against this guy. He went in front of television
2:27
Speaker 1: cameras and an appeals court and claimed that the juror
2:29
Speaker 1: was somehow prejudiced against disabled people solely because he didn't
2:33
Speaker 1: buy the manufactured insanity defense. And soon afterwards, several other
2:37
Speaker 1: members of the jury joined the smear campaign. Then the
2:40
Speaker 1: media joined in. Even the defense attorney's wife got involved.
2:45
Speaker 1: And now, as if all that was not enough, they
2:49
Speaker 1: are doxing this man, digging into his past, contacting his family,
2:55
Speaker 1: and showing up at his house. This is NBC Boston. Watch.
3:03
Speaker 2: Have exclusively uncovered new details about the one holdout juror
3:07
Speaker 2: from the Lindsay Clancy trial. Documents and interviews with family
3:11
Speaker 2: members reveal a history of domestic violence allegations. Now, this
3:15
Speaker 2: is a story you'll only see here on NBC 10 Boston.
3:18
Speaker 2: Thanks for joining me tonight. I'm Priscilla Casper. And we've
3:22
Speaker 2: also discovered an eviction case tied to months of not
3:25
Speaker 2: paying rent. The investigators found a restraining order against him
3:29
Speaker 2: active while he was on the jury in the Clancy case.
3:33
Speaker 2: Those details, of course, raise questions about the jury selection
3:36
Speaker 2: process and how he was picked for the high-profile case
3:39
Speaker 2: that ended in a mistrial. Our NBC10 investigator Ryan Cathap
3:43
Speaker 2: has been digging into the juror's history all week. Ryan,
3:46
Speaker 2: what did you find out?
3:49
Speaker 3: We've repeatedly tried to contact the juror at the home
3:51
Speaker 3: where his landlord is currently trying to evict him. We're
3:54
Speaker 3: not revealing his identity because he hasn't chosen to speak
3:57
Speaker 3: publicly and because the juror list is currently impounded.
4:03
Speaker 1: Now, dystopian does not begin to describe this. They're not
4:08
Speaker 1: revealing the juror by name, but they provided enough information
4:11
Speaker 1: that he's already been identified all over the Internet. And
4:15
Speaker 1: we'll go into depth on this coverage in a moment.
4:17
Speaker 1: But We need to be clear about this. They're targeting
4:20
Speaker 1: this guy for two reasons. First, of course, they want
4:23
Speaker 1: to punish him for refusing to go with their program.
4:27
Speaker 1: And second, they're trying to pollute any future jury pool
4:30
Speaker 1: by making it clear that anyone who votes to convict
4:33
Speaker 1: Lindsey Clancy will have their lives destroyed. I mean, it's
4:36
Speaker 1: truly one of the most outrageously evil things we've ever
4:39
Speaker 1: seen from the left, and that's obviously saying something. It
4:42
Speaker 1: is a direct assault on the integrity of our justice system.
4:47
Speaker 1: I mean, they're making it impossible that there could ever
4:49
Speaker 1: be a real trial now for Lindsey Clancy. They're burning
4:54
Speaker 1: down every boundary and standard in their path, and they're
4:57
Speaker 1: doing it all for the sake of a child-murdering psychopath.
4:59
Speaker 1: Let's not forget that. I mean, it's unfathomable. And it's
5:03
Speaker 1: also criminal. Massachusetts law makes it a felony offense to
5:07
Speaker 1: retaliate against any juror who participates in a trial. Intimidation
5:11
Speaker 1: and harassment are explicitly outlawed. So let's pull up the law. Quote,
5:16
Speaker 1: harass means to engage in an act directed at a
5:19
Speaker 1: specific person or group of persons that seriously alarms or
5:22
Speaker 1: annoys such person or group of persons and would cause
5:25
Speaker 1: a reasonable person or group of persons to suffer substantial
5:28
Speaker 1: emotional distress. Whoever willfully either directly or indirectly misleads, intimidates
5:33
Speaker 1: or harasses another person who is a judge, juror or punishes,
5:35
Speaker 1: harms or otherwise retaliates against any such person described in
5:40
Speaker 1: this section shall be punished by imprisonment in the state
5:42
Speaker 1: prison for not more than 10 years. If the proceeding
5:45
Speaker 1: in which the misconduct is directed at is the investigation
5:48
Speaker 1: or prosecution of a crime punishable by life imprisonment, such
5:52
Speaker 1: person shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison
5:54
Speaker 1: for not more than 20 years. So this should be
5:58
Speaker 1: a 20-year prison sentence for everyone who has played a
6:01
Speaker 1: role in doxing this juror and harassing him because of
6:05
Speaker 1: his participation in this trial. This was a coordinated hit job.
6:10
Speaker 1: And we're going to go through it, starting with the
6:12
Speaker 1: media campaign of following the mistrial. Piece by piece, mostly
6:17
Speaker 1: through interviews with the jurors, the corporate press began revealing
6:20
Speaker 1: more and more information about his identity, which led to
6:25
Speaker 1: this extraordinary moment on CBS when Gayle King went slack-jawed
6:30
Speaker 1: at the revelation that the lone holdout is Black. Watch.
6:37
Speaker 4: I'm curious about the jurors themselves because we know it
6:40
Speaker 4: was nine women, three men.
6:42
Speaker 5: What was the age range?
6:43
Speaker 1: What was the racial makeup? I haven't heard any of that.
6:46
Speaker 6: What was it? 70-ish to 22. And one person of
6:54
Speaker 6: color and then everybody else was white. A lot of
7:00
Speaker 6: the jurors had children.
7:01
Speaker 4: One person of color was a person of color, a
7:05
Speaker 4: woman or a man?
7:06
Speaker 1: A man.
7:07
Speaker 4: A man is a holdout juror, a person, a black man?
7:13
Speaker 6: Yes.
7:14
Speaker 4: A black man is a holdout juror?
7:15
Speaker 6: Yes.
7:17
Speaker 4: Well, I have to sit with that for just a second.
7:24
Speaker 1: Now, if the implications for this country were not so
7:27
Speaker 1: obvious and if this case wasn't so awful. then this
7:32
Speaker 1: would be genuinely hilarious. I mean, you couldn't script it
7:35
Speaker 1: any better. The other jurors have spent all week calling
7:38
Speaker 1: the lone male holdout an arrogant, uncooperative moron who didn't
7:43
Speaker 1: understand the law or follow the rules. They even attempted
7:47
Speaker 1: to report him to the judge in an attempt to
7:50
Speaker 1: silence him. The defense attorney filed a motion accusing him
7:53
Speaker 1: of bigotry. And now we come to find out that
7:56
Speaker 1: they were talking about the only black guy in the
7:58
Speaker 1: room this whole time. Leftists have accidentally sided with 11
8:04
Speaker 1: white bullies against a black man who stood up to them,
8:09
Speaker 1: which is precisely the kind of scenario that the left
8:11
Speaker 1: has fantasized about for years. And now it finally happens,
8:16
Speaker 1: but they accidentally sided with the white people. It's phenomenal.
8:21
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just an amazing twist. Gayle King says
8:25
Speaker 1: she'll need a few minutes to sit with that, process
8:28
Speaker 1: the information for obvious reasons. In any other context, when
8:31
Speaker 1: a room full of white people are berating a black guy,
8:34
Speaker 1: Gayle King would be wailing about white supremacy and white privilege.
8:39
Speaker 1: But in this case, the oppression hierarchy gets a little complicated.
8:43
Speaker 1: So maybe they have to revert to the Clarence Thomas
8:46
Speaker 1: playbook and say that it doesn't actually matter that the
8:48
Speaker 1: guy's black because he doesn't agree with leftist orthodoxy, namely
8:51
Speaker 1: that women should be able to kill their children or
8:53
Speaker 1: whatever they want. Whenever a black guy is to the
8:56
Speaker 1: right of Rachel Maddow, in every single case, leftists have
8:59
Speaker 1: to find some way to disavow him. And sometimes, as
9:02
Speaker 1: we saw in this interview, you can see the mental
9:05
Speaker 1: gymnastics playing out live on television. You know, the gears
9:08
Speaker 1: are visibly turning. And they were turning on TikTok also,
9:13
Speaker 1: as you can imagine.
9:14
Speaker 6: Watch.
9:16
Speaker 7: The holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial was a
9:18
Speaker 7: black man. And I'm not going to share any opinions
9:21
Speaker 7: because I'm not a person of color. I am a
9:23
Speaker 7: non-practicing white. I'm surprised. It changes the landscape of the
9:27
Speaker 7: conversation a little bit. And I think a lot of
9:30
Speaker 7: us were assuming that it was a white man.
9:32
Speaker 1: Yeah, she did just describe herself, you heard that correctly,
9:37
Speaker 1: as a non-practicing white. She just kind of slides that
9:42
Speaker 1: in there like we're all supposed to be familiar with
9:44
Speaker 1: the term. But speaking for myself, I was not familiar
9:48
Speaker 1: with that term. Somehow I'm just now becoming acquainted with
9:53
Speaker 1: the term non-practicing white. And I'm pretty upset that I
9:58
Speaker 1: had never heard this term before. My deep regret now
10:02
Speaker 1: from Am I Racist is that I hadn't seen a
10:05
Speaker 1: clip like this before we started filming. We could have
10:09
Speaker 1: had so much fun with this non-practicing white idea while
10:12
Speaker 1: we were making that movie. I mean, that would have
10:14
Speaker 1: been awesome. But at least this non-practicing white is wrestling
10:19
Speaker 1: with the issue. You know, she says the jurors' blackness
10:21
Speaker 1: changes the landscape of the conversation, which is a phrase
10:24
Speaker 1: somehow even cringier than non-practicing white. And this is perhaps
10:29
Speaker 1: the worst thing about these leftist white women. They speak
10:31
Speaker 1: in a way that can barely be described as human.
10:35
Speaker 1: I mean, at this point, it's not an exaggeration to
10:36
Speaker 1: say that chat GPT sounds significantly more human than the
10:42
Speaker 1: average leftist white woman. Like ChachiBT can pass the Turing test,
10:46
Speaker 1: but I don't think that lady can. And meanwhile, on Reddit,
10:50
Speaker 1: they're wondering if the lone holdout may have learning disabilities.
10:54
Speaker 1: You know, they can't bring themselves to attack a black
10:57
Speaker 1: man directly. So instead, they'll just imply that he's mentally disabled,
11:02
Speaker 1: which I guess gets the job done. But the big
11:04
Speaker 1: question here is, why exactly are they talking in any
11:08
Speaker 1: way about the jurors' skin color on national television and
11:11
Speaker 1: all of our social media? Doesn't seem like a relevant detail.
11:15
Speaker 1: And then you realize that during deliberations, they already outed
11:18
Speaker 1: the loan holdout as a male. And because there were
11:21
Speaker 1: only three men on the jury, that narrowed things down considerably.
11:24
Speaker 1: And now they're advertising the fact that the loan holdout
11:26
Speaker 1: was black, which eliminates all doubt as to his identity.
11:30
Speaker 1: If this juror told any friends, family or colleagues that
11:32
Speaker 1: he's on the jury, and he obviously has because people
11:35
Speaker 1: can't just disappear for seven weeks without any explanation, then
11:39
Speaker 1: his identity is compromised. And sure enough, his alleged name
11:43
Speaker 1: and photo were published over the weekend. Obviously, we're not
11:46
Speaker 1: going to publish them here. But to be clear, under
11:49
Speaker 1: Massachusetts law, yes, the identities of jurors eventually become public.
11:53
Speaker 1: That's not the issue. They weren't supposed to be public now,
11:57
Speaker 1: so that is part of the issue. But the real
11:59
Speaker 1: issue is that in this context, the identity of the
12:02
Speaker 1: juror has been disclosed along with his deliberations and how
12:07
Speaker 1: he voted in the jury room. And indeed, the point
12:10
Speaker 1: of these revelations was to lay the groundwork for even
12:13
Speaker 1: more doxing. So here's reporting from a woman named Sue O'Connell,
12:18
Speaker 1: who's a creature who calls herself a journalist. She's employed
12:22
Speaker 1: by the NBC affiliate in Boston. And this was the
12:26
Speaker 1: moment when the media formally decided to declare war against
12:31
Speaker 1: this juror and against the jury system itself generally. This
12:36
Speaker 1: is where they provided enough information for anyone to identify
12:38
Speaker 1: this particular individual. And again, that's exactly what happened after
12:42
Speaker 1: this reporting aired as they planned it. Watch.
12:47
Speaker 8: NBC 10 Boston has discovered new details about the holdout
12:51
Speaker 8: juror from the Lindsay Clancy murder trial. Of course, that
12:54
Speaker 8: trial ended last week, deadlocked, no verdict because of a
12:58
Speaker 8: lone holdout. Now, after the mistrial, our NBC 10 investigators
13:03
Speaker 8: pulled court records that were tied to that juror. And
13:05
Speaker 8: we found a 2021 charge for assaulting his wife that
13:10
Speaker 8: was later dismissed, an active restraining order that a nephew
13:14
Speaker 8: had taken out against him, and that has still been
13:16
Speaker 8: in effect even while he sat through weeks of testimony,
13:19
Speaker 8: and a pending eviction over unpaid rent. So why does
13:24
Speaker 8: that matter to the trial? Well, before you're seated, you
13:27
Speaker 8: fill out a questionnaire. It asks whether you've been arrested,
13:30
Speaker 8: charged with a crime, or served with a court order.
13:33
Speaker 8: It says right here, your experience with the law. And
13:37
Speaker 8: NBC 10's legal analyst says that if these boxes had
13:40
Speaker 8: been checked honestly, it's hard to see either side keeping
13:43
Speaker 8: this juror on the jury. And here's the part that's
13:46
Speaker 8: really worth knowing. If you answer this questionnaire falsely.
13:49
Speaker 5: It's a crime.
13:50
Speaker 8: It says so right here. The DA can review the answers,
13:54
Speaker 8: but juror questionnaires aren't public record, and it's not clear
13:58
Speaker 8: that this Completed record still exists after the mistrial. The
14:01
Speaker 8: juror has not been named and the jury list is sealed.
14:05
Speaker 8: The whole system runs on honest answers. What do you
14:08
Speaker 8: think should happen now? And do you think the answers
14:11
Speaker 8: potential jurors give on a questionnaire should be vetted against
14:14
Speaker 8: court records by officials? Tell me below and follow me.
14:18
Speaker 8: I'm Sue O'Connell, the courtroom insider for NBC 10 Boston.
14:25
Speaker 1: There's no reason that she should not be in handcuffs
14:27
Speaker 1: after this. We just went through the law. If you're
14:31
Speaker 1: the juror, this kind of reporting would obviously cause emotional distress,
14:35
Speaker 1: and it's obviously intended to punish him for defying the
14:38
Speaker 1: leftist women of Massachusetts. So she belongs in prison. Raid
14:43
Speaker 1: the studio and perp walk this despicable freak into jail.
14:46
Speaker 1: That's what should happen. Now, just take a step back
14:50
Speaker 1: for a second and think about what's happening here. You
14:53
Speaker 1: have to consider the full context of what's going on.
14:56
Speaker 1: They're flat out doxing an anonymous juror because he didn't
15:00
Speaker 1: acquit a triple murderer. They're digging up old allegations, his
15:04
Speaker 1: unpaid rent, to destroy him because he doesn't support child murder.
15:08
Speaker 1: I mean, these people are just evil beasts. They're demons
15:12
Speaker 1: from hell. I don't know how else to put it.
15:14
Speaker 1: Then she ends the video with a desperate plea for
15:16
Speaker 1: people to follow her on social media so they can
15:18
Speaker 1: hear even more slander about men who bravely defy the
15:22
Speaker 1: deranged sociopathic feminists who now run our society. And this woman,
15:28
Speaker 1: this woman in particular, Sue at NBC Boston, is right
15:30
Speaker 1: out of central casting. She's, you know, she's going to
15:33
Speaker 1: speak to the manager about her, about this hung jury situation.
15:36
Speaker 1: This is a woman who belongs in some HR department,
15:39
Speaker 1: mass firing all the white men because they didn't genuflect
15:43
Speaker 1: in front of the Obama statue in the lobby. The
15:46
Speaker 1: fact that she's employed by a media organization and in
15:48
Speaker 1: any capacity is utterly shameful. And we'll start at the
15:52
Speaker 1: end of her report. So the speculation that he lied
15:56
Speaker 1: to get on the jury is total nonsense on its face. Okay,
16:00
Speaker 1: for one thing, and we keep hearing this, oh, he
16:02
Speaker 1: lied to get on the jury. For one thing, basic
16:06
Speaker 1: concept issue, people don't lie to get on juries. That's
16:12
Speaker 1: not how it works in reality. That's like saying somebody
16:15
Speaker 1: lied on their taxes so they could pay more. People
16:19
Speaker 1: lie to pay less in taxes, not more. And they
16:22
Speaker 1: lie to get off of juries, not on them. When's
16:26
Speaker 1: the last time you heard of anyone lying to get
16:28
Speaker 1: on the jury? Have you ever heard of that in
16:32
Speaker 1: real life? Massachusetts pays like a $ 50 stipend for jury duty. OK,
16:39
Speaker 1: like that. That's the whole incentive is you get 50 bucks.
16:45
Speaker 1: Nobody's going to lie and give up weeks of their
16:47
Speaker 1: life for that. Trying to get on a jury deceptively
16:52
Speaker 1: is exceptionally rare because there's basically nothing to be gained
16:56
Speaker 1: from it. Humans are, you know, we are driven by incentives.
17:01
Speaker 1: There's no incentive to get on a jury. So it
17:07
Speaker 1: only happens, you know, if it does happen, it happens
17:09
Speaker 1: in rare cases, somebody lying or whatever to get on
17:12
Speaker 1: a jury. It happens in the case of activists who
17:14
Speaker 1: are trying to get on a high profile case, say
17:18
Speaker 1: like the Chauvin case. case, for example. Well, there is
17:21
Speaker 1: zero indication that this guy was some kind of activist.
17:26
Speaker 1: This guy who apparently is not paying his rent, supposedly,
17:31
Speaker 1: and he's just a guy. He's just a guy. So
17:35
Speaker 1: there's no indication he's some kind of activist who's trying
17:38
Speaker 1: to get on the jury, nor is there any proof
17:39
Speaker 1: that he actually lied on the jury for him. There's
17:42
Speaker 1: no information that points in that direction at all. This
17:44
Speaker 1: guy simply accepted the civic duty that he was forcibly
17:48
Speaker 1: conscripted into. But more importantly, none of these alleged offenses,
17:54
Speaker 1: which these vultures have dug up under the guise of journalism,
17:58
Speaker 1: would even disqualify him from serving on a jury anyway.
18:01
Speaker 1: You know, they quote some NBC legal analyst saying that
18:05
Speaker 1: it would be hard to imagine how the juror would
18:07
Speaker 1: be allowed on the panel, but it's actually not that
18:09
Speaker 1: difficult to imagine. Massachusetts law does not bar people from
18:12
Speaker 1: jury duty unless they've been convicted of a felony within
18:14
Speaker 1: the last seven years, or are currently facing felony charges,
18:18
Speaker 1: or are currently incarcerated, that's it. And that doesn't apply
18:21
Speaker 1: to this guy. Now, it's true that if the prosecution
18:24
Speaker 1: or the defense chooses to get rid of a juror
18:25
Speaker 1: because he was accused of a crime in the past,
18:28
Speaker 1: then they're generally entitled to do that. But there's no
18:32
Speaker 1: reason for them to do that in this case. First
18:35
Speaker 1: of all, they'd immediately get accused of racism for expelling
18:37
Speaker 1: the lone black juror from the panel. All of these
18:40
Speaker 1: feminist harpies would be outraged because they would have assumed
18:43
Speaker 1: that they would vote in their favor. There'd be lawsuits
18:47
Speaker 1: and like 20 different news cycles about it. But secondly,
18:49
Speaker 1: an arrest record is more likely to make a juror
18:51
Speaker 1: biased in favor of the defense, not against them. And thirdly,
18:57
Speaker 1: the allegation of domestic violence was never proven in a
18:59
Speaker 1: court of law. The charges were dismissed. And there's reason
19:03
Speaker 1: to doubt that they'd hold up in court. Listen carefully
19:06
Speaker 1: to this, which is also from NBC Boston. Okay, sir,
19:12
Speaker 1: do you have any issue complying with the order that
19:14
Speaker 1: you stay away from and have no contact directly or
19:17
Speaker 1: indirectly with the alleged victim in this case and also
19:19
Speaker 1: that you not abuse this person?
19:21
Speaker 5: You're listening to audio the NBC10 investigators obtained from Brockton
19:24
Speaker 5: District Court in September 2021. That's when the holdout juror
19:28
Speaker 5: in the Lindsay Clancy case faced a criminal charge for
19:31
Speaker 5: assaulting his wife. According to this police report, the juror's
19:35
Speaker 5: 13-year-old nephew called 911 after seeing his uncle grab his
19:38
Speaker 5: wife by the throat and throw her into a dresser.
19:41
Speaker 5: The report says the jurors mom repeatedly screamed your evil
19:45
Speaker 5: as police arrested him. Court records show the couple divorced
19:48
Speaker 5: after the incident and the criminal charge was eventually dismissed.
19:52
Speaker 5: The ex-wife told me this week she didn't want to
19:54
Speaker 5: testify in the case because she was worried about losing
19:57
Speaker 5: custody of her daughter.
20:02
Speaker 1: Well, wait a minute, NBC Boston. Why would the woman
20:04
Speaker 1: be worried about losing custody of her daughter? I mean,
20:06
Speaker 1: if he's testifying... accurately about domestic violence that she endured,
20:11
Speaker 1: why would a judge take her daughter away from her?
20:16
Speaker 1: That's an obvious issue that deserves some follow-up, but NBC
20:19
Speaker 1: never bothered to look into it. Were her allegations true?
20:23
Speaker 1: Was she worried that something might surface during the proceedings
20:26
Speaker 1: that revealed that, in fact, she was lying in order
20:29
Speaker 1: to get custody? We have no idea. NBC doesn't care.
20:33
Speaker 1: This is drive-by-character assassination on the juror, so they're not
20:37
Speaker 1: asking questions. And on top of that, we're later told
20:40
Speaker 1: that there's also a restraining order against the juror, but
20:43
Speaker 1: a restraining order does not require proof of anything beyond
20:45
Speaker 1: a reasonable doubt. It simply means the judge has decided
20:47
Speaker 1: that it's more likely than not that a restraining order
20:51
Speaker 1: is appropriate. And the other allegations are just personal attacks
20:54
Speaker 1: from anonymous sources that are totally irrelevant.
20:56
Speaker 6: Watch.
20:58
Speaker 5: The NBC10 investigators also learned the juror hasn't paid the
21:01
Speaker 5: monthly rent at his Plymouth County home since last March,
21:04
Speaker 5: according to housing court records. As jurors deliberated last week,
21:09
Speaker 5: the landlord secured a judgment of more than $ 12, 000 in
21:12
Speaker 5: unpaid rent and is moving forward with an eviction. When
21:15
Speaker 5: the NBC10 investigators contacted the jurors' family members, they said
21:18
Speaker 5: he'd been estranged since the alleged incident with his nephew.
21:22
Speaker 5: None of them knew of his involvement with the Clancy trial.
21:25
Speaker 5: One described him as a narcissist who she believed should
21:27
Speaker 5: have never served as a juror in such an important case.
21:33
Speaker 1: They also spoke to his ninth grade history teacher who
21:36
Speaker 1: said he only got a C- in class, that he's
21:39
Speaker 1: a lousy tipper. according to multiple local Uber drivers who
21:43
Speaker 1: spoke to NBC Boston on the condition of anonymity. And
21:46
Speaker 1: they're presenting this information breathlessly as if it's earth-shattering information.
21:50
Speaker 1: They're digging through this random juror's life in a manic
21:52
Speaker 1: frenzy simply because he voted against child murder. Think of
21:57
Speaker 1: how bloodthirsty and sinister these people are. They have no
21:59
Speaker 1: conception of how they're coming across to sane people. Even
22:03
Speaker 1: if we assume that all of these allegations are true,
22:08
Speaker 1: none of them matter. in the context of the Lindsay
22:11
Speaker 1: Clancy case. If anything, again, a juror with an alleged
22:14
Speaker 1: history of domestic violence should be all the more sympathetic
22:18
Speaker 1: to Clancy. Maybe that's why Clancy's lawyer left him on
22:22
Speaker 1: the panel. And yet somehow, despite his alleged criminal history,
22:26
Speaker 1: he was the only one with the moral clarity to
22:28
Speaker 1: find her guilty. Like if it is true, this guy's
22:31
Speaker 1: a violent scumbag, which again, I have no idea if
22:33
Speaker 1: that is true. That's just, that should make you feel
22:37
Speaker 1: even worse. if you're on the side of Lindsay Clancy,
22:41
Speaker 1: that the violent scumbag was able to see this thing
22:44
Speaker 1: clearly and no one else, and these other people weren't.
22:48
Speaker 1: For many women, including the wife of the defense lawyer,
22:51
Speaker 1: Deb Reddington, this simply cannot stand. So here's a post
22:54
Speaker 1: from Reddington, the wife on X, quote, shocked, holdout juror
23:00
Speaker 1: is a criminal and a squatter. Well, actually, no, he's
23:03
Speaker 1: not a criminal because he hasn't been convicted of any crime.
23:07
Speaker 1: And it's not clear whether he's squatting, but again, this
23:11
Speaker 1: woman belongs in prison. You don't get to harass and
23:13
Speaker 1: intimidate jurors who don't buy your husband's retarded insanity defense. Sorry,
23:18
Speaker 1: that's a felony. See you in 20 years. If you
23:22
Speaker 1: run a contracting business and one of your work trucks dies,
23:27
Speaker 1: so you'll have to get a new one, you don't
23:29
Speaker 1: get to tell your customer, sorry, the bank says they'll
23:31
Speaker 1: get back to me in three to five business days.
23:33
Speaker 1: The truck needs to be replaced so you can finish
23:35
Speaker 1: the work and get paid. You can't borrow the money
23:37
Speaker 1: from payroll because your employees still need to be paid.
23:40
Speaker 1: That's the problem with traditional business lending. Businesses, they move
23:44
Speaker 1: very quickly and banks often don't, but Cardiff does. Their
23:48
Speaker 1: application takes about three minutes. There's no impact on your
23:51
Speaker 1: personal credit. Just to apply and you can access up
23:53
Speaker 1: to $ 500, 000 in same day business funding. Approval can occur
23:57
Speaker 1: in just minutes with funding on the same day. Cardiff
24:00
Speaker 1: has funded more than $ 12 billion to small businesses nationwide.
24:04
Speaker 1: So if you've been in business for at least one
24:06
Speaker 1: year and you're doing at least $ 20, 000 a month in revenue,
24:09
Speaker 1: go to Cardiff.co slash Walsh. Again, Cardiff.co slash Walsh. Real growth,
24:14
Speaker 1: fast funding, Cardiff. Borrow better. A degree should do more
24:19
Speaker 1: than provide a credential. It should prepare you for meaningful
24:22
Speaker 1: work and a purposeful life. That's what I respect about
24:25
Speaker 1: Grand Canyon University. GCU integrates the free market system, a
24:29
Speaker 1: welcoming Christian worldview, and free and open discourse into over
24:32
Speaker 1: 325 online academic programs. GCU offers quality degree programs with
24:38
Speaker 1: generous scholarship and financial aid opportunities to help make private
24:41
Speaker 1: higher education accessible to all. Whether you're starting college or
24:45
Speaker 1: returning to school, pursuing your educational goals and God-given purpose
24:49
Speaker 1: at GCU. They say higher education is outdated, irrelevant, but
24:54
Speaker 1: at Grand Canyon University, They don't settle for the status quo.
24:56
Speaker 1: They shatter it. GCU's accredited MBA program is 100% online
25:02
Speaker 1: and is designed to shape leaders through servant leadership. GCU
25:05
Speaker 1: can help you take your passion and scale your business
25:09
Speaker 1: to serve your community. This is purpose-driven education. Take action.
25:13
Speaker 1: Find your purpose. Grand Canyon University. Visit gcu.edu. Now what's
25:20
Speaker 1: really astonishing is that these women are, you know, bouncing.
25:24
Speaker 1: They're going right from defending a woman who murdered all
25:29
Speaker 1: of her children to pretending to be horrified by allegations
25:34
Speaker 1: of domestic violence. So they're excusing the strangulation murder of
25:39
Speaker 1: three children while trying to make a scandal out of
25:43
Speaker 1: vague domestic violence allegations at the exact same time. Like,
25:48
Speaker 1: even if this guy did beat his wife or whatever,
25:50
Speaker 1: and again, there's no evidence of that and no conviction,
25:53
Speaker 1: but if he did, Maybe he was depressed. Maybe he
25:58
Speaker 1: was hormonal. You know, maybe he was an otherwise loving
26:02
Speaker 1: husband who was having a really hard time and feeling
26:04
Speaker 1: really sad. Maybe he heard voices. I mean, shouldn't Lindsay
26:09
Speaker 1: Clancy fans be lining up to defend this poor man?
26:12
Speaker 1: If they can find a way to excuse the brutal
26:14
Speaker 1: killing of three kids, you'd think it'd be really easy
26:17
Speaker 1: to excuse the non-lethal abuse of one adult family member, allegedly.
26:22
Speaker 1: That's nowhere near as bad. This guy, even if he
26:27
Speaker 1: did it, he's a Boy Scout compared to Lindsey Clancy.
26:32
Speaker 1: But that would require some measure of integrity and consistency,
26:35
Speaker 1: which these people lack. There isn't a shred of integrity
26:39
Speaker 1: and decency in any of them. Or are they just
26:42
Speaker 1: mad that he allegedly strangled his wife and didn't finish
26:46
Speaker 1: the job? Is that it? Like, is strangulation only okay? Like,
26:49
Speaker 1: strangling family members if you strangle them to death? Because
26:53
Speaker 1: this guy's only accused of grabbing his wife by the
26:55
Speaker 1: throat and throwing her into a dresser. So he let
26:57
Speaker 1: go of her. He didn't strangle her to death. But
27:01
Speaker 1: if you're a Lindsay Clancy fan, then you're fine with
27:05
Speaker 1: keeping the hands on the throat and killing the person.
27:09
Speaker 1: So what, he didn't stick with it? He was a quitter?
27:13
Speaker 1: Is that your issue? Now, for good measure, here's Sue
27:18
Speaker 1: during the Karen Reid trial going on and on about
27:21
Speaker 1: how juries are sacrosanct and how, you know, no one
27:24
Speaker 1: should ever intimidate them.
27:27
Speaker 8: The jurors here, I have jury duty coming up in
27:30
Speaker 8: August myself, and I'm going to show up and I'm
27:32
Speaker 8: going to hope that I get the same protection that
27:35
Speaker 8: these jurors do. To their point, it's the sanctity of
27:38
Speaker 8: the jurors room. This is how our system works. If
27:41
Speaker 8: you are unhappy with this, Vote for people who are
27:44
Speaker 8: going to change it. Find things that you can do
27:46
Speaker 8: to change the law. The jurors are not the bad
27:49
Speaker 8: guys or the good guys in this. They are just
27:52
Speaker 8: the jury of our peers. And when I was in
27:54
Speaker 8: that court, I didn't get into the courtroom today, but
27:56
Speaker 8: I was in the courthouse. Other people have trials going on.
28:00
Speaker 8: There's a A man who was there hoping that something
28:03
Speaker 8: would change so he could get a job. And people
28:05
Speaker 8: are outside screaming and he's unnerved by this. There are
28:09
Speaker 8: other jurors who are coming in for other cases watching this.
28:13
Speaker 8: What does this say about how we protect our jury
28:16
Speaker 8: system if they're going to be subjected to all of this?
28:19
Speaker 1: Now, she still believes all this as long as you
28:25
Speaker 1: vote the way she wants you to vote. If you
28:28
Speaker 1: defy her, then she thinks you should be destroyed. That's
28:31
Speaker 1: why no media outlet is harassing any of the jurors
28:34
Speaker 1: who voted to acquit Lindsay Clancy. Do any of them
28:36
Speaker 1: have an arrest record? Have any of them ever been
28:38
Speaker 1: late on their rent? None of these journalists have looked
28:42
Speaker 1: into that, which really gives the game away. Because if
28:45
Speaker 1: you had any doubt about the game to begin with,
28:48
Speaker 1: then it's revealed here. I'm like, They can't claim that
28:51
Speaker 1: they're just doing their journalistic due diligence by digging into
28:54
Speaker 1: this guy's past, because if that's all they were doing,
28:58
Speaker 1: they would have dug into the past of every member
29:00
Speaker 1: of the jury, but they did not. They only targeted
29:02
Speaker 1: this one guy. They are solely interested in punishing the
29:06
Speaker 1: lone holdout because he opposed the feminist fantasy that women
29:09
Speaker 1: should be allowed to execute their own kids. Now, before
29:13
Speaker 1: we get back to the NBC reporting, which gets worse
29:15
Speaker 1: the more you watch it, We need to spend some
29:17
Speaker 1: time looking at the more recent interviews from the jurors.
29:21
Speaker 1: Last week, we talked about the females on the jury
29:23
Speaker 1: who've gone public and completely humiliated themselves in the process.
29:27
Speaker 1: They were obviously infatuated with the defense attorney. They admitted
29:30
Speaker 1: that they tried to use improper evidence, namely the alleged
29:32
Speaker 1: expertise of the nurses on the jury, to sway the
29:35
Speaker 1: final verdict. And one of the women admitted that she
29:38
Speaker 1: only voted to acquit because she thought Lindsay Clancy wouldn't
29:41
Speaker 1: get enough help in prison. But the jurors kept on
29:44
Speaker 1: giving interviews, and they can't keep their mouths shut. They're
29:48
Speaker 1: just too in love with the spotlight. And the more
29:50
Speaker 1: they've been talking, the more they incriminate themselves. It's incredible
29:53
Speaker 1: because they have a sympathetic interviewer And the lone holdout
29:57
Speaker 1: isn't even there to defend himself. But despite this setup,
30:00
Speaker 1: the jurors are still somehow exposing themselves as complete and
30:04
Speaker 1: total morons. Watch.
30:07
Speaker 4: Was there any specific evidence that swayed you or, and
30:12
Speaker 4: I'm very curious about the evidence that he was opposed to.
30:16
Speaker 4: Let's talk about the evidence for you first.
30:19
Speaker 6: I think Dr. Resnick, his testimony about altruistic filicide was
30:26
Speaker 6: really impactful because all throughout the trial, we had all
30:31
Speaker 6: the witnesses. There had been nothing but good said about
30:34
Speaker 6: Lindsay and how amazing of a mother she was and
30:38
Speaker 6: how much she loved her children. We saw that in
30:41
Speaker 6: every picture that was taken of the house on the
30:44
Speaker 6: night that this happened. Everywhere you looked, there was just love.
30:49
Speaker 6: There was a big sign that said, it's a wonderful life. And,
30:55
Speaker 6: you know, there wasn't anything that said she wasn't that.
30:58
Speaker 6: And then to hear somebody talking about a real reason
31:03
Speaker 6: why all of a sudden this could happen, that was
31:06
Speaker 6: really impactful.
31:08
Speaker 1: Now, this woman has done something like 10,000 interviews by
31:11
Speaker 1: my count, give or take. She is just basking in
31:15
Speaker 1: the spotlight. You know, she's like some kind of a
31:17
Speaker 1: lizard on a rock in the desert soaking in the sun.
31:21
Speaker 1: This is a woman who clearly has been starved for
31:23
Speaker 1: attention her entire life, but she never did anything noteworthy
31:26
Speaker 1: or accomplished anything of significance. And, you know, she has
31:29
Speaker 1: nothing interesting to say because she's a bland, dull-witted nobody.
31:33
Speaker 1: So no one ever paid any attention to her for
31:35
Speaker 1: good reason. And now finally, in her twilight years, she
31:38
Speaker 1: has stumbled onto something that's bringing her attention and she's
31:41
Speaker 1: just guzzling it down. You know, she's like a frat
31:44
Speaker 1: guy with a beer bong. I mean, she just she
31:46
Speaker 1: can't get enough of it. She's guzzling down this attention.
31:49
Speaker 1: This is what happens when you take mediocre people who, again,
31:53
Speaker 1: have achieved nothing, have nothing interesting to say, just kind
31:56
Speaker 1: of dull-witted, dumb, mediocre people, and you out of nowhere
32:01
Speaker 1: just point the spotlight at them, and this is what happens.
32:05
Speaker 1: And you have to just kind of stand there in
32:07
Speaker 1: awe listening to this. Lindsay Clancy had a sign saying
32:11
Speaker 1: it's a wonderful life in her house, and therefore she
32:16
Speaker 1: can't be guilty of murder. I'm not overstating it. That's
32:18
Speaker 1: what she just said. You heard her. A piece of
32:23
Speaker 1: evidence that vindicates Lindsay Clancy is that she had a
32:26
Speaker 1: sign that says it's a wonderful life in her house.
32:28
Speaker 1: That really is what she just said. Because never before
32:32
Speaker 1: in human history has somebody purchased a trite or virtue
32:35
Speaker 1: signaling household ornament and then turned out to be a
32:38
Speaker 1: horrible person. That'd be unthinkable. I mean, she's basically saying
32:44
Speaker 1: that if you have a live, laugh, love doormat or
32:47
Speaker 1: a yard sign that says love is love or anything
32:49
Speaker 1: like that, then effectively you have a license to kill.
32:51
Speaker 1: I mean, the only reason you'd ever murder someone if
32:53
Speaker 1: you have a sign like that is if you suffer
32:55
Speaker 1: from some unspeakable psychosis and couldn't control what you were doing.
33:00
Speaker 1: Wear a T-shirt with like a smiley face on it
33:02
Speaker 1: everywhere you go and you could do whatever you want. Steal, kill, jaywalk,
33:08
Speaker 1: rob a bank. This lady will be there to plead
33:12
Speaker 1: your case. Your Honor, yeah, he blew up a school bus,
33:14
Speaker 1: but look at that fun smiley face on his shirt.
33:17
Speaker 1: Clearly a wonderful man. John Wayne Gacy was a clown,
33:22
Speaker 1: by the way. John Wayne Gacy, he had a bunch
33:25
Speaker 1: of bodies buried in his basement, but he was a clown.
33:28
Speaker 1: He was a clown. He had the clown makeup. He
33:30
Speaker 1: had balloons. Your Honor, he was a clown. He was
33:33
Speaker 1: a fun clown with balloons. He was smiling. Like, obviously.
33:39
Speaker 1: I mean, this is a wonderful person. Look at him.
33:45
Speaker 1: Except she undercuts that argument, as insane as it is already,
33:48
Speaker 1: in the same breath, because she says that some quack
33:50
Speaker 1: doctor gave her the pretext to vote not guilty by
33:53
Speaker 1: throwing around the nonsense term altruistic filicide. This juror was
33:58
Speaker 1: obviously going to vote not guilty from the beginning, but,
34:00
Speaker 1: you know, so it doesn't really matter. But this is
34:01
Speaker 1: the excuse she landed on. And the idea is that
34:05
Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy truly believed that she was helping her children
34:07
Speaker 1: by killing them. That's what altruistic filicide is. It's a
34:12
Speaker 1: clever trick. All you have to do is throw the
34:14
Speaker 1: word altruistic in there and mix in some New Age
34:16
Speaker 1: psychobabble and you're good. The thing is, even if you
34:20
Speaker 1: buy this made-up story, all that it means is that
34:24
Speaker 1: the jury should have voted to convict Clancy of murder.
34:29
Speaker 1: The whole point of the insanity defense in this case
34:31
Speaker 1: is that Clancy supposedly heard some all-powerful voice that told
34:35
Speaker 1: her to murder her kids. She was suffering from postpartum
34:37
Speaker 1: psychosis and lost her mind. and couldn't control herself. That
34:40
Speaker 1: was the central claim. This voice, strangely enough, only appeared
34:44
Speaker 1: once in her life for this purpose, and Clancy only
34:46
Speaker 1: began talking about this voice after she spoke to her lawyer,
34:49
Speaker 1: and somehow Clancy simply couldn't tell the voice no. She
34:52
Speaker 1: was obligated to kill her children and follow the instruction
34:54
Speaker 1: from the voice in her head. You know, that's the claim.
34:58
Speaker 1: But the altruistic filicide theory on its own terms completely
35:02
Speaker 1: undermines this defense. Altruistic filicide, which again is a fake term,
35:06
Speaker 1: but we'll just use their definition for a moment, does
35:09
Speaker 1: not mean that you're psychotic. It means that you have
35:12
Speaker 1: come to the conclusion that you want to deliberately murder
35:17
Speaker 1: your children and you believe that it's for their benefit.
35:21
Speaker 1: So you're doing something that you know is forbidden and
35:24
Speaker 1: criminal and wrong, but in your mind, it's for the best.
35:29
Speaker 1: This is called rationalization. Plenty of murderers do it. In fact,
35:32
Speaker 1: the vast majority of all criminals, in one way or another,
35:35
Speaker 1: believe that they're justified. In fact, you could say that
35:37
Speaker 1: every bad thing that's ever been done in the whole
35:40
Speaker 1: history of humanity was done by someone who felt that
35:44
Speaker 1: it was justified or necessary in some way. Think of
35:49
Speaker 1: any bad thing you've ever personally done. Hopefully nothing as
35:51
Speaker 1: bad as Lindsay Clancy. But whatever it was, did you
35:54
Speaker 1: ever think to yourself, This is wrong. It's not justified.
35:58
Speaker 1: There's no reason to do it. It will not benefit
36:00
Speaker 1: me or anyone else in any way, but I'm going
36:03
Speaker 1: to do it anyway. No, you never thought that before
36:07
Speaker 1: you did a bad thing. You did the bad thing
36:09
Speaker 1: because you had convinced yourself that there was some benefit
36:13
Speaker 1: to it, either a benefit for you or for someone
36:15
Speaker 1: else or whatever. If you thought there was no benefit
36:19
Speaker 1: of any kind for anyone... you wouldn't do it because
36:23
Speaker 1: you would have no motive. You would have no reason.
36:25
Speaker 1: Why would you ever do it? There'd be no reason
36:27
Speaker 1: to do it. Outside of Dr. Evil and Austin Powers,
36:31
Speaker 1: people don't do bad things simply because they're bad with
36:35
Speaker 1: no motivation outside of that. So I'll give just one example.
36:39
Speaker 1: Serial killers have executed homeless vagrants and prostitutes, not because
36:43
Speaker 1: they don't understand what they're doing, but because they think
36:47
Speaker 1: it's ultimately for the best for society and for the prostitutes.
36:52
Speaker 1: This behavior is not consistent with insanity to the extent
36:54
Speaker 1: that insanity can be defined at all. It's consistent with
36:58
Speaker 1: being evil. Whether they think they're being altruistic or not,
37:02
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter. So even if we take the jury's
37:05
Speaker 1: reasoning seriously, it means Lindsay Clancy deserves the electric chair. Now,
37:10
Speaker 1: if it makes you feel better, we could call it
37:11
Speaker 1: an altruistic electric chair, but that's what it means. Like,
37:15
Speaker 1: it cannot be emphasized enough just how disastrous this altruistic
37:19
Speaker 1: filicide claim is from this juror. She has admitted clear
37:24
Speaker 1: as day that she thinks Clancy was acting deliberately and
37:29
Speaker 1: intentionally when she killed her children. That's what altruistic filicide means,
37:35
Speaker 1: which means, according to the law, she is guilty, period. Now,
37:40
Speaker 1: none of this occurred to the women in the jury
37:42
Speaker 1: room for the simple reason that they were never actually
37:44
Speaker 1: interested in doing their jobs. By their own admission, they
37:47
Speaker 1: saw this case as an opportunity to advance the feminist movement.
37:51
Speaker 1: They didn't care at all about whether Lindsay Clancy was
37:52
Speaker 1: guilty under Massachusetts law. They were never going to convict her. Instead,
37:56
Speaker 1: this jury wanted to codify the right of women to
37:59
Speaker 1: execute their children whenever they want. This has been a
38:02
Speaker 1: long time coming for pro-abortion activists, which is why Massachusetts
38:04
Speaker 1: just passed a law allowing abortion up to the moment
38:07
Speaker 1: of birth. And that law, in the eyes of feminists,
38:09
Speaker 1: doesn't go nearly far enough. So they wanted to acquit
38:12
Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy to set a precedent that women are allowed
38:14
Speaker 1: to commit post-birth abortions on demand. One of these jurors
38:18
Speaker 1: just admitted all of this live on television. Again, the
38:23
Speaker 1: more they talk, they just can't help themselves. They keep talking.
38:26
Speaker 1: And they totally destroy their own case in the process. Watch.
38:34
Speaker 6: We knew that this was a turning point and this
38:40
Speaker 6: would be something that could change something to make it
38:43
Speaker 6: better for other women in the future, for other families.
38:48
Speaker 6: You know, justice for those children is this never happening again.
38:53
Speaker 1: So and there's the same woman again. Like I said,
38:55
Speaker 1: she just can't. She's just. I've never seen.
38:59
Speaker 8: Look.
39:00
Speaker 1: I have had, I mean, I work in the media.
39:04
Speaker 1: I've had movies to promote. I've made two movies. I've
39:07
Speaker 1: written books. Like I've gone on promotional tours that very unashamedly,
39:14
Speaker 1: like I'm promoting something, right? And I've never done this
39:19
Speaker 1: many interviews, even when I've got a thing I'm trying
39:21
Speaker 1: to sell. I've never done this many interviews in a week.
39:28
Speaker 1: This woman is, what is this, like malt? interviews a day?
39:33
Speaker 1: Flying all over the country? She's not even Skyping in
39:36
Speaker 1: for these things. She's like, she gets on planes and
39:38
Speaker 1: flying around. She's loving every second of it. And this
39:43
Speaker 1: is 100% confirmation that the female jurors were not only
39:47
Speaker 1: trying to make a statement, but were also following the
39:50
Speaker 1: trial on social media. The more these hags run their mouths,
39:55
Speaker 1: the worse it gets. And again, these were the same
39:58
Speaker 1: jurors who claimed the holdout wasn't following the law. Meanwhile,
40:00
Speaker 1: they're admitting that they wanted to score some kind of
40:02
Speaker 1: larger victory for women who murder their own children. By
40:08
Speaker 1: the way, if any of these jurors had talked like
40:10
Speaker 1: this during jury selection, they would have been thrown off
40:12
Speaker 1: the panel immediately, without any doubt. They all took an
40:16
Speaker 1: oath that they were interested solely in determining the guilt
40:19
Speaker 1: or innocence of the defendant in an impartial manner. And
40:23
Speaker 1: they are now admitting that they lied. We're supposed to
40:26
Speaker 1: be concerned about the loan holdout because of an allegation
40:29
Speaker 1: from a half a decade ago. Who cares about what
40:31
Speaker 1: happened five years ago? What about what happened five days
40:34
Speaker 1: ago or a week or two ago when they're in
40:36
Speaker 1: the room? And this woman is now telling us that
40:39
Speaker 1: they knew the societal implications of the case, and they
40:45
Speaker 1: had that in mind when they were deliberating. This is
40:50
Speaker 1: a flagrant defiance of the jury instructions that they were
40:55
Speaker 1: given by the judge. Did you hear? I mean, if
41:00
Speaker 1: you watch this case at all, do you ever hear
41:01
Speaker 1: the judge say, hey, by the way, jurors, before you
41:03
Speaker 1: go in there and deliberate again, just keep in mind
41:06
Speaker 1: that Keep in mind the social implications of this case.
41:11
Speaker 1: Keep in mind all the women who are watching and
41:14
Speaker 1: hoping for a victory for their sex. Did you ever
41:18
Speaker 1: hear the judge say that?
41:20
Speaker 6: No, no, no.
41:21
Speaker 1: The judge said the opposite of that. The judge said,
41:23
Speaker 1: forget about all the noise outside. The only thing that matters,
41:26
Speaker 1: guilt or innocence. Notice how these women never talk about
41:30
Speaker 1: any of the testimony from the prosecution about how Lindsey
41:33
Speaker 1: Clancy's defense It didn't even make sense in part because
41:36
Speaker 1: of all the premeditation and because the voice in her
41:38
Speaker 1: head only appeared once at precisely this moment. The female
41:41
Speaker 1: jurors never engaged with any of these damning pieces of
41:43
Speaker 1: factual evidence. Instead, the jury was interested in the political
41:46
Speaker 1: and ideological ramifications of a not guilty verdict. To the
41:50
Speaker 1: extent that the lone holdout tried to talk about the
41:52
Speaker 1: facts of the case, they reacted with shock and horror.
41:55
Speaker 1: One of the male jurors just came out and is,
42:00
Speaker 1: you know, we were kind of wondering, like we thought
42:03
Speaker 1: maybe it'd be three men against the women and two
42:06
Speaker 1: of the men defected. And now we see why, because
42:11
Speaker 1: these men are just as womanly, if not more so
42:13
Speaker 1: than the women on the jury, probably in fact, much
42:16
Speaker 1: more so. So there were two male jurors who went
42:19
Speaker 1: along with these women. And one of these guys also
42:21
Speaker 1: gave an interview in which he also embarrassed himself, just
42:26
Speaker 1: revealed himself to be an absolutely pathetic excuse for a man.
42:29
Speaker 6: Watch.
42:32
Speaker 5: Darjeet told us one time he confronted the holdout after
42:35
Speaker 5: the man picked up what Clancy used to strangle her kids.
42:39
Speaker 9: He took the exercise band out of the bag, grabbed
42:43
Speaker 9: an empty water bottle, and tied the band around the
42:49
Speaker 9: water bottle and pulled it.
42:50
Speaker 1: Did he explain why he did that?
42:52
Speaker 9: No. He might have. I'm not entirely... I think I
42:57
Speaker 9: was just so shocked that he did that.
42:59
Speaker 1: Is that a mimic of how She killed the children?
43:04
Speaker 9: Yeah, I assume so, yeah.
43:06
Speaker 1: What'd you think when he did that?
43:08
Speaker 9: I was shocked. It didn't make any sense to me.
43:10
Speaker 9: We're not in here to play detective or... It's not
43:14
Speaker 9: a game of Clue. Like, this is serious. I asked him,
43:18
Speaker 9: why are you doing that?
43:20
Speaker 1: That's a band that was used to strangle a child.
43:22
Speaker 9: It's disgusting.
43:27
Speaker 1: Like I said, he's even more... He's more womanly than
43:32
Speaker 1: the women we've seen. This simp, can you imagine what
43:36
Speaker 1: he was saying in that deliberate? Can you imagine the
43:38
Speaker 1: performance from this pathetic guy? What he must have been
43:41
Speaker 1: saying to the holdout? Hey, man, we got to listen
43:44
Speaker 1: to the voices of these women. I guarantee you this guy,
43:50
Speaker 1: I guarantee it. This guy dropped the term lived experience
43:54
Speaker 1: multiple times in the deliberation room. I guarantee you that.
43:59
Speaker 1: We need to listen to the lived experience of these women. Okay,
44:03
Speaker 1: stop your mansplaining. And he's looking over to the women
44:06
Speaker 1: for their approval. This guy is more concerned about the
44:11
Speaker 1: exercise ban being used to strangle a water bottle than
44:14
Speaker 1: about the execution of the three children. He's just horrified
44:17
Speaker 1: by the sight of the poor water bottle getting strangled.
44:19
Speaker 1: Can't fathom why the juror would have done something like
44:21
Speaker 1: that since his deliberation is supposedly very serious. After all,
44:26
Speaker 1: why would anyone want to look at the murder weapon
44:28
Speaker 1: during deliberations? What possible relevance could the murder weapon have?
44:34
Speaker 1: And then he says, well, did the juror explain why
44:37
Speaker 1: he did that? And the guy's like, no. Well, yeah,
44:41
Speaker 1: he might have. Oh, he might have told you why
44:44
Speaker 1: he was doing it, but you were too busy being, what, scandalized? Horrified? Well,
44:53
Speaker 1: here's a possible explanation. Maybe he wanted to get a
44:56
Speaker 1: sense of how someone might use an exercise band to
44:59
Speaker 1: strangle someone. Maybe he wanted the other jurors to see
45:02
Speaker 1: a sanitized makeshift demonstration of Lindsay Clancy's barbarism. Maybe the
45:07
Speaker 1: entire point of the case is that this woman used
45:09
Speaker 1: the exercise bands to commit an unspeakable murder. And it's
45:11
Speaker 1: pretty revealing if every other juror is horrified at the
45:13
Speaker 1: mere prospect of confronting that fact. Maybe like the method
45:20
Speaker 1: of the killing is actually very relevant to the defense
45:23
Speaker 1: that's being offered. Because if you're claiming that this is
45:28
Speaker 1: someone who didn't know what they were doing and was
45:29
Speaker 1: in a state of psychosis, well, the fact that strangling
45:34
Speaker 1: someone with an exercise band is by its nature a
45:38
Speaker 1: very deliberate, barbaric act that takes multiple minutes and must
45:44
Speaker 1: be repeated two other times after you kill your first kid.
45:47
Speaker 1: Maybe that's all very relevant, and that's what he was
45:51
Speaker 1: trying to explain to you. But we see something similar
45:55
Speaker 1: with abortion, where the left is happy to use euphemisms,
45:58
Speaker 1: but they react with shock and horror. If you talk
46:00
Speaker 1: about the physical act of abortion, suctioning a baby's brains out,
46:04
Speaker 1: for example, they're happy to deal in abstractions on every issue,
46:07
Speaker 1: whether it's abortion or crime or immigration. But the moment
46:09
Speaker 1: you talk about real life, they shut down. They act
46:11
Speaker 1: like you're committing a murder right in front of them.
46:14
Speaker 1: For what it's worth, one of the female jurors also
46:16
Speaker 1: spoke about the water bottle incident during deliberation. She actually
46:19
Speaker 1: contradicts his version of events. while also making it clear
46:21
Speaker 1: that he was indeed traumatized by the water bottle getting strangled.
46:27
Speaker 6: Watch. The exercise bands came out in the beginning because
46:33
Speaker 6: we wanted to see the weight of them and how
46:36
Speaker 6: they worked. There's a fellow.
46:37
Speaker 3: Juror who said that when the bands were taken out,
46:41
Speaker 3: that one juror, the holdout juror, wrapped the bands around
46:46
Speaker 3: a water bottle.
46:47
Speaker 6: Yes.
46:48
Speaker 1: Did that happen?
46:49
Speaker 8: Yes.
46:50
Speaker 6: It absolutely happened. And then it didn't work. It didn't work.
46:58
Speaker 6: And so somebody else got up to help and they
47:03
Speaker 6: wrapped it around his arm.
47:05
Speaker 1: So there were others who did that too?
47:08
Speaker 6: I think it was just one of those reaction moments
47:12
Speaker 6: where he was trying to do something and somebody got
47:14
Speaker 6: up to try to help him because.
47:17
Speaker 6: We all had different pieces of evidence that we needed
47:20
Speaker 6: to see. Those other people have apologized to Nick and,
47:26
Speaker 6: in hindsight, see how that could affect somebody. Again, we
47:34
Speaker 6: had to compartmentalize things. I can't say it enough. We
47:39
Speaker 6: had to just try to figure out what was true
47:43
Speaker 6: and what wasn't.
47:45
Speaker 1: So now we learned that another juror participated in this
47:47
Speaker 1: infamous R-rated water bottle demonstration, but they later apologized to Nick,
47:51
Speaker 1: the male juror from the other interview, for the trauma
47:54
Speaker 1: he somehow endured in the process. Yeah, they're apologizing over
47:57
Speaker 1: the fact that the lone holdout used the exercise ban
48:00
Speaker 1: on the water bottle, apparently because they don't want to
48:01
Speaker 1: be reminded in any way of what Lindsay Clancy actually did.
48:07
Speaker 1: These jurors would rather talk about women's rights and altruistic
48:10
Speaker 1: filicide than the actual facts of the case. We're also
48:14
Speaker 1: told that the exercise bands didn't work on the water bottle,
48:17
Speaker 1: which I guess means the water bottle survived. I mean,
48:19
Speaker 1: who knows? What does that even mean? It's an absolute
48:23
Speaker 1: clown show. And as for the reason these jurors banded
48:26
Speaker 1: together to complain to the judge, well, according to one
48:27
Speaker 1: of the jurors, it was because the lone holdout couldn't
48:30
Speaker 1: identify any testimony to support his reasoning. Watch.
48:36
Speaker 9: There was several times I would ask him to show
48:39
Speaker 9: us evidence or, you know, describe a witness testimony that
48:45
Speaker 9: helped to prove what he was saying, and he couldn't,
48:49
Speaker 9: which is why we ultimately sent in that note. Otherwise, like,
48:53
Speaker 9: there's nothing wrong with somebody having a completely opposite opinion. Like, that's,
48:57
Speaker 9: you know, that would be a hung jury. Like, that
49:00
Speaker 9: is our justice system.
49:01
Speaker 1: But he wouldn't engage or couldn't find something to support
49:05
Speaker 1: his view?
49:06
Speaker 9: There was times he wouldn't engage. Like, he'd be scrolling
49:09
Speaker 9: on his phone while people were talking to him, things
49:13
Speaker 9: like that.
49:14
Speaker 1: First of all, he doesn't have to point to any
49:16
Speaker 1: specific testimony that he found compelling. That's not a requirement.
49:19
Speaker 1: He doesn't have to participate in an inquisition. There were
49:22
Speaker 1: multiple witnesses, all of them highly credentialed, who testified Lindsay
49:24
Speaker 1: Clancy's alleged psychosis didn't seem plausible, based in particular on
49:27
Speaker 1: how the random voice in her head seemed to arrive
49:30
Speaker 1: at an awfully convenient time. The question for this juror is,
49:33
Speaker 1: why did you disregard that testimony? Why did you need
49:37
Speaker 1: the loan holdout to spell it out for you? Is
49:40
Speaker 1: it possible he felt that you were all a bunch
49:42
Speaker 1: of fame-seeking, ideologically motivated demons who were hell-bent on acquitting
49:45
Speaker 1: a child killer? Is it possible he correctly determined that
49:48
Speaker 1: you care more about a water bottle than the lives
49:50
Speaker 1: of three children? If so, it's a pretty good reason
49:54
Speaker 1: for him to scroll on his phone instead of engaging
49:56
Speaker 1: with you. I mean, is it possible that when he
50:00
Speaker 1: realized that he's trying to talk about the actual killing
50:03
Speaker 1: itself and you refuse to look at it, you're sitting
50:06
Speaker 1: over there trembling and crying? You want to acquit a woman,
50:13
Speaker 1: but you can't even bring yourself to think about what
50:16
Speaker 1: she did. Is it possible the lone juror noticed this
50:21
Speaker 1: disconnect and realized there's no hope? Did the lone juror
50:26
Speaker 1: pick up on the fact that the women on the
50:28
Speaker 1: jury were more interested in the societal implications of the case?
50:35
Speaker 1: And did that have a demoralizing effect on him where
50:37
Speaker 1: he realized, like, there's no reasoning with these women, with
50:39
Speaker 1: these stupid women. I can't reason with them. I couldn't
50:43
Speaker 1: blame him if that was his thought process. It would
50:45
Speaker 1: have been mine. Even when the other jurors actually did
50:49
Speaker 1: look at physical evidence, they somehow managed to completely miss
50:52
Speaker 1: the point.
50:52
Speaker 4: Watch.
50:55
Speaker 6: The knife, too.
50:57
Speaker 1: Correct. And we did.
50:59
Speaker 6: Because we had these... large blowups of Lindsay's injuries. And,
51:08
Speaker 6: you know, one of the witnesses said that she hesitated,
51:12
Speaker 6: you know, and the prosecution was trying to say that
51:15
Speaker 6: she really didn't try to commit suicide, that her wounds
51:19
Speaker 6: weren't deep enough. Right.
51:21
Speaker 9: So what did the knife tell you by looking more
51:24
Speaker 9: closely at it?
51:26
Speaker 6: It was dull. It was not sharp.
51:31
Speaker 8: Huh.
51:32
Speaker 1: Okay, well, I guess the prosecutors were right then. She
51:35
Speaker 1: was able to methodically execute her kids, but when it
51:37
Speaker 1: came time to kill herself, she managed to pick an
51:40
Speaker 1: extremely dull knife and cause no meaningful damage to her
51:43
Speaker 1: wrists whatsoever. So here we have a piece of physical
51:46
Speaker 1: evidence that supports the prosecution's theory of the case, which
51:49
Speaker 1: is that, you know, brutally murdering your three children is bad,
51:53
Speaker 1: and Lindsay Clancy was trying to garner sympathy after she
51:56
Speaker 1: did it. What do the jurors do with that piece
51:59
Speaker 1: of evidence? Apparently nothing at all. The dull knife wasn't
52:03
Speaker 1: anywhere near as compelling as a random shrink talking about
52:06
Speaker 1: altruistic filicide and other made-up psychobabble on the stand, so
52:10
Speaker 1: they just forgot about it. They didn't even stop to think,
52:14
Speaker 1: why would this woman who supposedly desperately wanted to kill herself,
52:18
Speaker 1: why would she pick a dull knife of all things
52:21
Speaker 1: to use? Especially after she just demonstrated the ability to
52:28
Speaker 1: think through killing someone and to do it methodically. with
52:33
Speaker 1: all the necessary follow through. And she did it three
52:36
Speaker 1: times in a row. The damage that these jurors and
52:40
Speaker 1: the media have done to our legal system is now irreparable.
52:43
Speaker 1: I mean, there is no longer any way to assemble
52:45
Speaker 1: a fair jury to retry Lindsay Clancy, which is the
52:48
Speaker 1: whole point. Every juror who's inclined to convict her will
52:51
Speaker 1: recognize that if they do so, their lives will be destroyed.
52:54
Speaker 1: Their identity and home address will be blasted all over
52:57
Speaker 1: the internet along with anonymous attacks from random people they've
53:00
Speaker 1: known throughout their lives. If they've ever done anything wrong
53:05
Speaker 1: or been accused of doing anything wrong, it'll be on
53:06
Speaker 1: national television. So the idea of a fair jury trial,
53:11
Speaker 1: the cornerstone of our legal system, is no longer possible.
53:14
Speaker 1: The only way to have a fair... I mean, you
53:15
Speaker 1: would need people on jury now who are combative. You
53:20
Speaker 1: need me. I need to be on the jury. You
53:21
Speaker 1: need someone who's like, yeah, okay, come try to destroy
53:23
Speaker 1: my life. I don't care. Bring it on. I hope
53:25
Speaker 1: you try. But that's not the kind of attitude that
53:30
Speaker 1: you actually want in a deliberation room. You want people
53:34
Speaker 1: who are just there. They're not there to prove a point.
53:36
Speaker 1: They're not there to be combative. They're just there to
53:39
Speaker 1: look at the evidence and assess it reasonably without taking
53:43
Speaker 1: into account anything else that's going on, any of the
53:45
Speaker 1: noise out there. That's now impossible. Every institution in a
53:52
Speaker 1: worthwhile society, one that cares about the rule of law
53:55
Speaker 1: instead of mob justice, would have done everything in its
53:58
Speaker 1: power to prevent an outcome like this. Instead, the institutions,
54:01
Speaker 1: particularly the corporate press, are fomenting the mob. They're unleashing
54:04
Speaker 1: the hounds and burning down our system of government on
54:07
Speaker 1: behalf of a child killer. And in the process, they're
54:10
Speaker 1: calling her altruistic as they demonize the one man who
54:14
Speaker 1: wanted to punish her for what she did. Everyone who
54:18
Speaker 1: steps foot in a left-wing state, man, woman, or child,
54:21
Speaker 1: should be paying very close attention to this case. These
54:23
Speaker 1: people will kill you without remorse. And they'll eagerly acquit
54:27
Speaker 1: your murderers based on the thinnest pretext from a fake doctor.
54:31
Speaker 1: They'll tell themselves they're good people and everyone else is
54:34
Speaker 1: backwards and unenlightened. Well, the truth is these people are
54:39
Speaker 1: barbarians who care more about a water bottle than the
54:41
Speaker 1: life of a child or three children. They are hopelessly
54:45
Speaker 1: broken and sinister. And until these people are removed from power,
54:49
Speaker 1: until they lose the ability to vote and until they're
54:52
Speaker 1: thrown in prison for the crimes they've committed, no sane
54:56
Speaker 1: person should go anywhere near them. We have no choice
54:59
Speaker 1: but to Watch from afar as they destroy not only themselves,
55:03
Speaker 1: but the legal system that their ancestors, American men, built
55:07
Speaker 1: before them, and which they clearly cannot hope to even appreciate,
55:13
Speaker 1: much less maintain. Before we go, as promised, I want
55:18
Speaker 1: to play for you now the latest trailer from the
55:21
Speaker 1: Daily Wire's new film, Run, Hide, Fight, Infidels, which releases
55:26
Speaker 1: on the platform this coming Wednesday. Check it out.
55:29
Speaker 2: Every significant movement in history has started with protesting.
55:31
Speaker 1: You're a traitor! Uncle Tom! This is our generation's civil rights!
55:34
Speaker 9: I have no idea what the protest is about.
55:37
Speaker 8: Bingo!
55:37
Speaker 1: Given the current climate, should a figure as polarizing as
55:41
Speaker 1: Clay Saunders even be allowed on campus? Uh, can you
55:43
Speaker 1: hear me okay? Saunders is a close personal friend of
55:45
Speaker 1: Chancellor Friedman.
55:46
Speaker 6: This is a decision I cannot fight.
55:48
Speaker 1: Islam will conquer the West. Assalamu alaikum. Are we paying attention?
55:57
Speaker 1: They've taken over the building. They're downstairs and they've blocked
55:59
Speaker 1: the doors.
56:01
Speaker 5: I seek forgiveness from Allah the Almighty.
56:05
Speaker 6: We cannot run and hide. Muhammad is the messenger of God.
56:10
Speaker 2: There is no God but Allah.
56:13
Speaker 1: What do you say we turn those SOBs into a
56:18
Speaker 1: fine red mist?
56:20
Speaker 7: As we move, one man will cover while the other
56:22
Speaker 7: guys go.
56:23
Speaker 5: They call that leap project.
56:24
Speaker 2: Stretch them out and listen.
56:27
Speaker 1: You need a course in safe weapons handling. So there
56:36
Speaker 1: it is. Again, make sure you're signed up for the
56:39
Speaker 1: platform by Wednesday so that you can watch when it
56:42
Speaker 1: comes out, Run, Hide, Fight, Infidels. And that will do
56:44
Speaker 1: it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening.
56:46
Speaker 1: Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed.