Latest / Honey Badger Radio / Rogue Clancy Juror was a black man? Hold on, I need a minute

Transcript

Rogue Clancy Juror was a black man? Hold on, I need a minute · Honey Badger Radio

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: All right. And we are live. Hello everybody. And welcome
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: to honey badger radio. My name is Brian. I'm here
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: with Alison and this is maintaining frame. What did we
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: call this one? Rogue juror, the holdout hero demolished 11
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: bogus arguments to save due process or at least delay
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: the bastardization of it. I mean, you know, trial's not over.
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: It may still be the case that she gets acquitted
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: or something. I think there's a lot of people that
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: really want that to be the case. particularly women. But yeah,
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: we're going to look at a few clips, guys, and
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: it is going to be really something to behold the
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: latest sort of, I wouldn't say developments, but more like
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: commentary on what's been happening. So before we get into that, though, Allison,
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: why don't you do the things?
• 0:49
  Speaker 2: Yeah, sure. I hear that my voice or my connection
• 0:53
  Speaker 2: may be a little bit touchy, shall we say?
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: Your connection?
• 0:57
  Speaker 2: The Vols may be on strike. But yes, if you
• 1:01
  Speaker 2: at any point throughout the show, you want to send
• 1:03
  Speaker 2: us a message and tip with that message, go to
• 1:06
  Speaker 2: feed the badger.com and just the tip slash just the tip.
• 1:10
  Speaker 2: That's feed the badger.com slash slash just the tip. How
• 1:15
  Speaker 2: many ways can I say that wrong? And send us
• 1:18
  Speaker 2: a comment and a tip with that comment, because it's
• 1:20
  Speaker 2: the very best way for you to get those comments
• 1:22
  Speaker 2: to us because they don't go through YouTube's comment labyrinth.
• 1:26
  Speaker 2: And the best way for you to send us Support,
• 1:28
  Speaker 2: or one of the best, anyway. The other really good
• 1:31
  Speaker 2: way is feedthebadger.com slash support, which will be available shortly.
• 1:35
  Speaker 2: And if you want to join us in our community,
• 1:38
  Speaker 2: that's badgernation.online. All of these options are in the low
• 1:41
  Speaker 2: bar on YouTube, I assume in Rumble as well. And
• 1:44
  Speaker 2: so avail yourself of one of them, especially the comments.
• 1:47
  Speaker 2: I'm curious what you guys think about this trial. It's
• 1:50
  Speaker 2: your time to shine and tell us all.
• 1:53
  Speaker 3: Tell us all.
• 1:54
  Speaker 2: But your thoughts on how justice is proceeding in this
• 2:00
  Speaker 2: particular instance, or not proceeding, or falling down a hole
• 2:04
  Speaker 2: and getting stabbed by wooden stakes at the bottom of
• 2:10
  Speaker 2: that hole. All right. So, yeah, Brian, take it away,
• 2:14
  Speaker 2: because I know you got some stuff for us.
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. I got some. So, you know, Allison grabbed
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: a bunch of.
• 2:19
  Speaker 2: Some turns and twists.
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: I did. I'm adding some twists and turns to what's happened.
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: So Allison was, like, busily, you know, putting together a
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: bunch of clips for us to look at. And, yeah,
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: and your analysis and everything. But I wanted to add
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: something extra to it because, look, to me, and I've
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: said this from the beginning, like, the trial proceedings are
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: less important than the people's reaction, like the public reaction
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: to the trial. Because... you know, the trial could go
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: wherever it goes, but like people's like desire to see
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: a certain result is what I think is going to
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: set a cultural precedent going forward after this is over.
• 3:05
  Speaker 2: Right?
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: So for example, if everyone agreed that Lindsay Clancy was
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: guilty and should, you know, go to prison or suffer
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: whatever consequences to the fullest extent of the law, then
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: even if she got off somehow, at least you would
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: have a consensus of people saying that that was like,
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: you know, a travesty of justice and they'd all be
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: angry about it at the same time. And they would
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: all be, you know, there would be at least a
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: conversation about going forward, how the law should be reexamined,
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: or at least the way that we handle these kinds
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: of crimes should be reexamined because there'll be enough people
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: pushing against it. But since there is such a, we
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: don't know whether or not it's a majority, but there
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: have been studies that, that suggests that there is a
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: majority of women that are supporting Lindsay Clancy. It's not
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: just TikTok weirdos. It's like common, you know, everyday women
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: that just have this innate desire to essentially excuse other
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: women's bad behavior because they feel like it's a little
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: too close to home and it reflects poorly on them
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: or whatever.
• 4:09
  Speaker 4: But, um....
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: That is a big problem. Like if that many women
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: are in support of it. And yeah, some men that
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: basically are just, you know, parroting whatever the women are saying,
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: I assume, or they just have no concept of like
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: why law is important and punishment matters, right? So anyway,
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: one of the things that I learned about was I
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: thought I knew who the juror was. I saw some
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: photos going around and people were like, oh, here's the
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: juror that dissented. And it was like this Giga Chad
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: dude And then I learned today that it's not that guy.
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: So there was a, there's a picture floating around of
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: a white guy with a beard and dark hair. And
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: people are saying that's the juror that dissented. That's the holdout.
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: And apparently that's not the case. I'm going to show
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: this clip from Gayle King doing an interview. And she
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: is talking to one of the jurors and getting some
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: information because they're trying to figure out who is this
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: guy that's like, you know, pushing back. Who is this evil, evil,
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: you know, straight white male misogynist character that we can
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: like demonize in the media. And so they're trying to
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: fish this out because this is like, this is the,
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: you don't hate the media enough. part of the show.
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: So let's play the clip.
• 5:27
  Speaker 2: I'm curious about the jurors themselves because we know it
• 5:29
  Speaker 2: was nine women, three men.
• 5:32
  Speaker 3: What was the age range?
• 5:33
  Speaker 5: What was the racial makeup? I haven't heard any of that.
• 5:35
  Speaker 5: What was it?
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: So right off the bat, fishing for, obviously we know
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: their genders. So now it's like, okay, are these like
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: boomers or are they all white? Like if they're all white,
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: then we have another angle to attack this from, right?
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: It's like playing the progressive like poker deck thing. So
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: let's see what she says.
• 5:55
  Speaker 6: 70-ish to 22. And one person of color and then
• 6:02
  Speaker 6: everybody else was white.
• 6:07
  Speaker 5: A lot of the jurors had children.
• 6:08
  Speaker 2: One person of color was a person of color, a
• 6:12
  Speaker 2: woman or a man?
• 6:13
  Speaker 5: A man.
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: A man.
• 6:16
  Speaker 2: Is a holdout juror a black man?
• 6:20
  Speaker 7: Yes.
• 6:21
  Speaker 5: A black man is a holdout juror?
• 6:22
  Speaker 8: Yes.
• 6:25
  Speaker 5: Well, I have to sit with that for just a second.
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: How do I spin this to attack white male patriarchy
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: when it's a black guy? That was the holdout. Yes.
• 6:38
  Speaker 3: I have to sit with that for a second.
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: Because I can't spin it. How do you spin it now?
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: That's their problem.
• 6:47
  Speaker 4: Yes.
• 6:48
  Speaker 2: Do you see how these two women are like, well,
• 6:50
  Speaker 2: what is the relational web coordinates of this event? And
• 6:54
  Speaker 2: they're mapping it out, and then they hit the black man.
• 6:57
  Speaker 2: It's like, what? We're entering some part of the map.
• 7:01
  Speaker 2: There's no canned response to this. What do we do?
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: The RB Dragons were in the void.
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: Here there be monsters. What do we do? Exactly. And
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: that's the clip. I just wanted to share that. So
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: that's extra interesting. So yes, the panel, according to this juror,
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: All of the jurors were white, two males, and they
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: were standing with Lindsay Clancy, and then nine or eleven
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: women or whatever it was, nine women, and then you
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: have one black dude that's like, no, she's guilty. And look,
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: I don't care what the reasons are. It could be
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: because he wants revenge, I don't know, but it doesn't matter,
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: he is correct.
• 7:47
  Speaker 4: So.
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: They're like, how do we deal with this, right? So
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: they needed a new model to reframe. And at the
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: end of the day, this supports the thing that I've
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: been saying forever, which is the racial differences are irrelevant
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: compared to the gender differences or the sex differences. There
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: is more in common between black men, white men, Latino men,
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: et cetera, than there is between men and women. I'm
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: not saying that there's nothing in common between men and women,
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: but like that gap is bigger. the race gap so.
• 8:19
  Speaker 2: Well let's look at the this is what something i
• 8:21
  Speaker 2: wanted to point out let's look at that whole concept
• 8:23
  Speaker 2: of a jury of his peers being tried by a
• 8:26
  Speaker 2: jury of his peers the idea is that you get
• 8:30
  Speaker 2: justice from somebody who can actually i don't know be
• 8:34
  Speaker 2: in your situation but on the other hand it also
• 8:37
  Speaker 2: presumes something that the men who are trying the criminal
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: or the alleged criminal all have a sense of responsibility
• 8:46
  Speaker 2: to their custodial role so that they feel like they
• 8:50
  Speaker 2: are responsible for others. They're responsible for their nation. They're
• 8:54
  Speaker 2: responsible for an external standard of ethical behavior. They're responsible
• 8:58
  Speaker 2: for their families. They're responsible for their wife. They're responsible
• 9:01
  Speaker 2: for their kids. You notice how there's sort of a
• 9:03
  Speaker 2: theme in the way that men think? They're responsible for something.
• 9:08
  Speaker 2: They occupy a custodial role. So this whole idea that
• 9:12
  Speaker 2: you're tried by a jury of your peers assumes, I think,
• 9:15
  Speaker 2: at its base that your peers understand that you should
• 9:19
  Speaker 2: be held to your custodial responsibilities. And if you're not,
• 9:23
  Speaker 2: they're going to have a problem with that. So they're
• 9:26
  Speaker 2: not going to just be sympathetic to you. They're also
• 9:28
  Speaker 2: going to regard you as having custodial responsibilities that you
• 9:32
  Speaker 2: can fail to do.
• 9:36
  Speaker 3: Perform.
• 9:37
  Speaker 2: And that's completely absent here. I don't think women think
• 9:41
  Speaker 2: that way, natively. Even the women who are like, oh,
• 9:48
  Speaker 2: Lindsay Clancy is a murderer. She should be punished for
• 9:53
  Speaker 2: having killed her kids. Some of them will turn around
• 9:56
  Speaker 2: and say, oh, but look, we don't all believe this way.
• 9:59
  Speaker 2: We don't all believe that she should be let go
• 10:02
  Speaker 2: and be free because she's innocent. And so don't paint
• 10:06
  Speaker 2: all women with the same brush. And that is the
• 10:09
  Speaker 2: same problem because you are not looking at this from
• 10:13
  Speaker 2: a custodial position. When I look at this, And I'm like, well,
• 10:18
  Speaker 2: I'm a citizen. I'm responsible for maintaining the society that
• 10:22
  Speaker 2: I somewhat benefit from. I have some issues.
• 10:26
  Speaker 3: I'll put it that way.
• 10:27
  Speaker 2: But maintaining a society that is supposed to make things
• 10:31
  Speaker 2: safe and equitable under the law for all of us.
• 10:35
  Speaker 2: And I look at this situation and I see women.
• 10:37
  Speaker 2: And it is women perverting the course of justice, trying
• 10:43
  Speaker 2: to force this this case into the court of public opinion.
• 10:47
  Speaker 2: And then the female jurors engaging in pressure tactics, engaging
• 10:53
  Speaker 2: one juror or some of those jurors, getting up in
• 10:56
  Speaker 2: the front of the judge, having already apparently decided that
• 11:00
  Speaker 2: she was not guilty and saying that they were gonna
• 11:02
  Speaker 2: be impartial prior to the court actually even happening. I'm
• 11:08
  Speaker 2: listening to all of this and I can see exactly
• 11:11
  Speaker 2: what's missing. Women don't think they occupy a custodial role
• 11:17
  Speaker 2: when it comes to society, to men, to children, to
• 11:20
  Speaker 2: other people. And they don't judge women based on whether
• 11:24
  Speaker 2: or not they live up to that role. So even
• 11:25
  Speaker 2: the women who are saying, well, don't judge us for this. Well,
• 11:28
  Speaker 2: you're also doing the same thing. Like me, I'm here,
• 11:30
  Speaker 2: I'm looking at this and I'm saying, women engage in this.
• 11:34
  Speaker 2: Women have the power to do it. They're being empowered
• 11:36
  Speaker 2: by so-called equality to have these widespread perversions of justice
• 11:43
  Speaker 2: like we're watching.
• 11:45
  Speaker 3: Women do this.
• 11:46
  Speaker 2: Now, how do.
• 11:47
  Speaker 3: We stop it?
• 11:49
  Speaker 2: Ladies, ladies who are concerned by this, how do we
• 11:52
  Speaker 2: stop it? How do we take responsibility for keeping the
• 11:57
  Speaker 2: bitches in line? How do we stop it? And if
• 12:00
  Speaker 2: we don't have an answer, then we might have to
• 12:03
  Speaker 2: go with, yeah, no, we shouldn't be part of this process.
• 12:07
  Speaker 2: We either stop this behavior. We take responsibility for it.
• 12:11
  Speaker 2: We take responsibility for this failure mode because that's what
• 12:14
  Speaker 2: I'm seeing with everything that comes out of these jurors' mouths,
• 12:17
  Speaker 2: these female jurors' mouths. I'm seeing failure mode after failure
• 12:20
  Speaker 2: mode after failure mode. Everything is about the relational web.
• 12:24
  Speaker 3: Was she a good mother?
• 12:25
  Speaker 2: That has nothing to do with what you were supposed
• 12:29
  Speaker 2: to be deciding.
• 12:33
  Speaker 3: They set this standard. Was she a good mother?
• 12:36
  Speaker 2: First of all, none of the defense's witnesses could attest
• 12:40
  Speaker 2: to that. The only people who could attest to that
• 12:42
  Speaker 2: are dead. And I would say that their corpses make
• 12:46
  Speaker 2: a very strong statement on whether or not she was
• 12:48
  Speaker 2: a good mother, right? But the other thing is the
• 12:52
  Speaker 2: prosecution probably couldn't bring character witnesses because that would have
• 12:55
  Speaker 2: been considered prejudicial. So these women stack the deck and
• 13:00
  Speaker 2: then they find for the thing that they stack the
• 13:03
  Speaker 2: deck to find.
• 13:05
  Speaker 3: I'm like looking at this, I'm like, what is this?
• 13:08
  Speaker 2: This needs to stop. If you're a woman who's like, well,
• 13:11
  Speaker 2: I'm not like that.
• 13:12
  Speaker 3: Well, how do we stop it, ladies? How do we
• 13:16
  Speaker 3: stop doing this? Because if they keep doing this, we
• 13:20
  Speaker 3: are not going to have a society.
• 13:22
  Speaker 4: Yep.
• 13:24
  Speaker 3: So my concern is how do we stop it?
• 13:26
  Speaker 2: Not, oh, I want to feel blameless. I don't like
• 13:30
  Speaker 2: Lindsay Clancy. I think she's a murderer. I shouldn't be
• 13:33
  Speaker 2: lumped in with these other women.
• 13:34
  Speaker 3: Well, unfortunately, we are.
• 13:37
  Speaker 2: Because obviously women have this power, and this is beyond
• 13:40
  Speaker 2: just equal rights, because what I'm hearing from these female
• 13:45
  Speaker 2: jurors is they stomped all over this guy.
• 13:50
  Speaker 9: Yep.
• 13:52
  Speaker 3: They stomped all over him.
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: Yep.
• 13:55
  Speaker 2: And they were decided.
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: Well, they tried. I mean, they're trying to get him.
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: But I think this is a fascinating turn of events.
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: And then I want to contrast this. So we have
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: a black man that was the holdout, okay? He was
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: the one person. There were two other white dudes, and
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: they were like, no, let's listen to the ladies. And
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: this guy was like, no, fuck that. She's guilty. She
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: goes to jail. I mean, I don't know what the
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: words that they spoke were. But my point is he
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: was the guy who would refuse to back down and
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: good on him. The guy is a fucking Chad. But
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: let's look at the black women.
• 14:33
  Speaker 4: So.
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: Oprah Winfrey had done a little bit of a little
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: powwow with a bunch of ladies, and this is a
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: woman speaking on the case, okay?
• 14:45
  Speaker 10: And the other thing that I would just be remiss
• 14:48
  Speaker 10: to not say is I hope this never happens again.
• 14:53
  Speaker 10: We know statistically it really will.
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: It will.
• 14:57
  Speaker 10: I want us to have the same passion for people
• 15:00
  Speaker 10: who don't look like Lindsay. who don't have her same access.
• 15:05
  Speaker 11: Yeah. Yeah.
• 15:07
  Speaker 8: Men?
• 15:07
  Speaker 9: Yeah.
• 15:08
  Speaker 2: Should we have.
• 15:11
  Speaker 3: Compassion for men who do this?
• 15:12
  Speaker 10: Who don't have her same access and education, her melanin,
• 15:17
  Speaker 10: her privilege. There are women of color sitting around this
• 15:21
  Speaker 10: country in prisons for this same thing that we've never
• 15:24
  Speaker 10: heard of. And I just want to remind us to
• 15:26
  Speaker 10: have the pink shirts and the energy for them as well.
• 15:31
  Speaker 2: Mm-hmm.
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: How could i make this about us so so are
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: you fucking kidding me yeah of course no no allison
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: this is the way it works women do something bad
• 15:44
  Speaker 1: maybe they'll get away with it women support it And
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: then other women that are not the same women, they're
• 15:49
  Speaker 1: like black women, they're like, well, why are they not
• 15:51
  Speaker 1: doing that for us? We're going to make this about us.
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: It's just women making it about themselves. It's got nothing
• 15:56
  Speaker 1: to do with anything else. If it was like a
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: lesbian that did it or no, like if there was
• 16:01
  Speaker 1: a lesbian up there, she'd be like, well, can we
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: have that same energy for lesbians? It's just like, how
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: can we be a part of this? How can we
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: make this about us? But yes, and Oprah is sitting
• 16:11
  Speaker 1: there going, and all the women are clapping for it.
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: This is why these people should not have power at all.
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: Like they're just, I don't know what it is. They're
• 16:19
  Speaker 1: just lemmings. Like it's like, okay. And it was so
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: predictable that that was going to happen. I knew that
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: was going to happen. I knew there was going to
• 16:26
  Speaker 1: be a black woman that was going to come up
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: at some point and say, where's that energy for black
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: women when we murder our kids? Well, if we like.
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: convict her and she gets like a public hanging. Can
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: we have the same energy for you? Cause I have
• 16:39
  Speaker 1: the same energy for anybody who kills their kids. I
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: don't give a fuck, but they want special treatment. So anyway, I.
• 16:50
  Speaker 2: Honestly like that compared to whom. Women already get special
• 16:54
  Speaker 2: treatment when they kill their children.
• 16:56
  Speaker 1: Yes.
• 16:56
  Speaker 2: Like in Canada, it's a lesser crime.
• 16:58
  Speaker 1: The fact that this case is even being entertained as
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: one where she could be dismissed is already showing that
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: our justice system is completely screwed because no man would
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: be able to get away with that. Not that he should,
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: because he shouldn't. But no man would be able to
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: pull this off. Yeah.
• 17:17
  Speaker 2: No, because again... you know, jury of his peers, they're
• 17:21
  Speaker 2: going to be holding him to that custodial standard. And
• 17:24
  Speaker 2: I think that entire concept relied on something that nobody
• 17:28
  Speaker 2: really thought through. The fact that men hold each other
• 17:32
  Speaker 2: to a custodial standard. I've been getting into these arguments
• 17:35
  Speaker 2: on Twitter where women will bring up some guy who
• 17:38
  Speaker 2: killed his kids. And I keep having to tell them, yeah,
• 17:41
  Speaker 2: but where are the men supporting him? You know where
• 17:44
  Speaker 2: the men were? They were in the jury. sentencing him
• 17:48
  Speaker 2: to death. Well, not, I think the judge sentences, but
• 17:50
  Speaker 2: you know, they.
• 17:51
  Speaker 1: Were saying this guy is guilty. Yeah.
• 17:54
  Speaker 9: Yeah.
• 17:54
  Speaker 7: Yeah.
• 17:54
  Speaker 2: And they were absolutely clear cut cases of psychosis. The
• 17:58
  Speaker 2: guys were in the midst and some of them, or
• 18:00
  Speaker 2: at least one was in the midst of a hallucination
• 18:04
  Speaker 2: when he did it. So they were verifiably not in
• 18:08
  Speaker 2: their right mind. Doesn't matter. There wasn't enough, right? Reasonable
• 18:13
  Speaker 2: doubt in that case. Okay, he's going to spend the
• 18:17
  Speaker 2: rest of his life in jail. One of them, I
• 18:19
  Speaker 2: think the schizophrenic guy was on death row.
• 18:23
  Speaker 3: So it didn't matter.
• 18:24
  Speaker 2: Far more evidence that they weren't in their right mind
• 18:28
  Speaker 2: than Lindsay Clancy doesn't matter because they're men and men
• 18:33
  Speaker 2: are held to a custodial standard and they hold each
• 18:36
  Speaker 2: other to a custodial standard. And I want everybody to
• 18:39
  Speaker 2: think about this.
• 18:41
  Speaker 3: Can we have a society in which we take.
• 18:44
  Speaker 2: Care of each other while empowering the half of the
• 18:47
  Speaker 2: human race that seems to have no interest in being
• 18:50
  Speaker 2: held to any kind of custodial standard, where we protect
• 18:54
  Speaker 2: each other, where we uphold each other's citizens' rights, and
• 18:59
  Speaker 2: their right to live in a civil society with half
• 19:01
  Speaker 2: the human race deciding they have no obligation to anybody
• 19:04
  Speaker 2: but themselves, and people who look like them and share
• 19:08
  Speaker 2: the same woman card.
• 19:11
  Speaker 3: Is that possible? Is that going to work?
• 19:16
  Speaker 2: And this isn't really, like, okay, I'm not going to
• 19:21
  Speaker 2: just sit here making incoherent ranty noises.
• 19:24
  Speaker 3: Shall we move on to the next video?
• 19:26
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I got a Super Chow I'm going to read out,
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: and then I want to show you this other clip
• 19:30
  Speaker 1: from Oprah, and then we'll get into the, sorry, I'm derailing,
• 19:33
  Speaker 1: but I think these are really good. So Official Reverse
• 19:37
  Speaker 1: Trad gives us $ 5 and says, I was thinking about
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: the one lone juror as being like that famous picture
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: of the one guy in Germany not saluting the Nazis.
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: Then I realized if you ever read night, that was
• 19:48
  Speaker 1: in fact the one guy who didn't support baby murder.
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: So feminists are in fact exactly like Nazis once again.
• 19:54
  Speaker 8: All right.
• 19:54
  Speaker 1: Thank you for that. I think that's why people like
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: the Rush Limbaugh coined the term feminazi. Um, it's a
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: little bit old fashioned at this point, but all right.
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: Thank you for that. Now I want to show you
• 20:05
  Speaker 1: one more clip here. Cause this is, this is interesting
• 20:07
  Speaker 1: because this is like, um, I don't know what you
• 20:11
  Speaker 1: would call it. It's like the social push for consensus.
• 20:14
  Speaker 1: So Oprah, again, same sit-in she's doing. She's asking people
• 20:20
  Speaker 1: their thoughts, and there are these two women. They're going
• 20:22
  Speaker 1: to give their thoughts, so let's listen. Differing about the case.
• 20:25
  Speaker 8: We are.
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 20:26
  Speaker 7: Yeah, we have opposing views. We do, and I think,
• 20:29
  Speaker 7: you know, I say to her, I think because she
• 20:30
  Speaker 7: hasn't gone through it, she's not a mother, so she
• 20:32
  Speaker 7: doesn't know how it feels to have a child.
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: And you disagree.
• 20:36
  Speaker 4: I disagree.
• 20:37
  Speaker 7: I disagree. I feel like I'm not with the majority
• 20:40
  Speaker 7: right now. I do believe she's a murderer.
• 20:43
  Speaker 2: After all you've heard.
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: It's wild that she's like, I'm not with the majority.
• 20:49
  Speaker 1: She doesn't feel like she's in the majority because she
• 20:51
  Speaker 1: believes Clancy is a murderer. It just tells you about
• 20:53
  Speaker 1: the bubble that these women are in.
• 20:56
  Speaker 2: She's not a mother, so she doesn't know what it's
• 21:00
  Speaker 2: like to strangle a child to death and make.
• 21:02
  Speaker 1: Yourself a mother? To desire, yeah, to want to strangle
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: a child, yeah.
• 21:07
  Speaker 2: So she doesn't know how much women like guys, let
• 21:11
  Speaker 2: them reveal themselves. Apparently women who become mothers have an
• 21:16
  Speaker 2: unbearable urge to strangle their children that they're constantly fighting
• 21:20
  Speaker 2: and occasionally lose. So, you know, if you choose to
• 21:23
  Speaker 2: have a relationship with a woman and have children with her,
• 21:26
  Speaker 2: consider this, but also she should get full custody. Should
• 21:31
  Speaker 2: you get a divorce? Unbelievable.
• 21:34
  Speaker 3: What the, what?
• 21:38
  Speaker 2: They're even abdicating their custodial responsibilities for their own children.
• 21:43
  Speaker 2: And I'm like, if becoming a mother is gaining the
• 21:49
  Speaker 2: desire to strangle something that's utterly dependent on.
• 21:52
  Speaker 3: You, okay.
• 21:56
  Speaker 2: Can we stop seeing motherhood as saintly now?
• 22:00
  Speaker 1: Yeah, right.
• 22:01
  Speaker 3: Can we start seeing it as demonic? This is motherhood,
• 22:06
  Speaker 3: is it?
• 22:07
  Speaker 2: Something reliant on you. Occasionally you just have the urge
• 22:11
  Speaker 2: to kill it.
• 22:12
  Speaker 3: And sometimes it just needs to be indulged.
• 22:15
  Speaker 2: Guys, society needs to look the other way. What's a
• 22:17
  Speaker 2: little infanticide?
• 22:18
  Speaker 3: I brought him into the world.
• 22:20
  Speaker 2: I can take him out.
• 22:21
  Speaker 3: What's a little.
• 22:21
  Speaker 2: Infanticide when a saintly mother is doing it? Oh, wait,
• 22:25
  Speaker 2: this isn't even infanticide.
• 22:27
  Speaker 3: What's a little child slaying when a saintly mother is
• 22:30
  Speaker 3: doing it?
• 22:33
  Speaker 2: You can't handle that.
• 22:34
  Speaker 3: You can't give women what they need and want.
• 22:40
  Speaker 1: Oh good lord all right there's more to the clip
• 22:42
  Speaker 1: so so the i think this is a daughter and
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: a mother i hope it's not because it's crazy but
• 22:47
  Speaker 1: let's let's keep.
• 22:48
  Speaker 12: Going i'm all you've heard today you still i'm an
• 22:51
  Speaker 12: advocate for me so did.
• 22:52
  Speaker 1: You hear that oprah says after all you've heard today
• 22:56
  Speaker 1: you're still opposed to baby murder i'm gonna play.
• 23:00
  Speaker 7: That again i feel like i'm not with the majority
• 23:02
  Speaker 7: right now i do believe she's.
• 23:04
  Speaker 2: A murderer um After all you've heard today.
• 23:08
  Speaker 7: I'm an advocate for mental health. It's just unfortunate. And
• 23:12
  Speaker 7: she's so quick to say it. She's like, you've never
• 23:14
  Speaker 7: had a baby. You don't understand what it's like to
• 23:16
  Speaker 7: go through all the hormonal shifts. But I just feel
• 23:20
  Speaker 7: as though these were not instant deaths. They weren't gunshots
• 23:24
  Speaker 7: to the head. She was there strangling her kids three times.
• 23:31
  Speaker 7: You're telling me like even after the first time she
• 23:33
  Speaker 7: couldn't snap out of it. You're watching the life. leave
• 23:36
  Speaker 7: your kids eyes you know so i know i hear
• 23:40
  Speaker 7: everybody's opinions and god.
• 23:41
  Speaker 1: Bless them they're the women are furious in this audience.
• 23:45
  Speaker 2: God bless mothers i just don't understand yeah let's let's
• 23:52
  Speaker 2: do it let's guys let's all put a month of
• 23:55
  Speaker 2: celebration for mothers in honor of lindsey clancy let's celebrate
• 24:01
  Speaker 2: is can i just propose something Once you've killed a
• 24:07
  Speaker 2: kid as a woman, once you've killed one of your kids,
• 24:10
  Speaker 2: you no longer get to call yourself a mother.
• 24:12
  Speaker 3: Now, why don't we just.
• 24:14
  Speaker 2: Refer to you as a father so we can start
• 24:17
  Speaker 2: seeing the correct amount of justice done to these women?
• 24:22
  Speaker 2: Let's just erase their motherhood. Start referring to them as fathers.
• 24:26
  Speaker 2: You kill a kid, you become a father. And you
• 24:28
  Speaker 2: get to be hated by all of humanity. Because fathers
• 24:32
  Speaker 2: do not get these do-overs and free strangulation of your
• 24:36
  Speaker 2: kid passes.
• 24:38
  Speaker 3: Oh, and there's still, we gotta bless mothers.
• 24:41
  Speaker 2: We gotta bless them and say, yeah, you can kill
• 24:43
  Speaker 2: your kids.
• 24:44
  Speaker 8: Oh, jeez.
• 24:47
  Speaker 3: You just had a bad day. One dead kid.
• 24:50
  Speaker 2: Let's just, let's just, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's fine. You're
• 24:56
  Speaker 2: still a good mother. Those jurors still think Lindsay Clancy's
• 25:00
  Speaker 2: a good mother. Rock your head around that.
• 25:04
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 25:06
  Speaker 2: Rock your head around how insane our society has become.
• 25:11
  Speaker 1: Well, she was a really great mother, and then she
• 25:13
  Speaker 1: was a bad mother when she killed her kids, but
• 25:15
  Speaker 1: then she went back to being a great mother again
• 25:16
  Speaker 1: after that.
• 25:17
  Speaker 2: Well, I mean, nobody can disagree. Anybody who had any
• 25:22
  Speaker 2: a priori evidence of her motherhood was snuffed out. It's
• 25:28
  Speaker 2: mob justice.
• 25:29
  Speaker 3: But how can.
• 25:31
  Speaker 2: You simultaneously say that motherhood is saintly and that mothers
• 25:35
  Speaker 2: should have the right to kill their kids? Five-year-olds, strangle
• 25:40
  Speaker 2: them to death. I feel like I'm alone on the
• 25:45
  Speaker 2: island with the men. Well, most, like, I guess there's
• 25:49
  Speaker 2: a few cats on the other.
• 25:50
  Speaker 1: Like, just floating off into the distance from them.
• 25:54
  Speaker 2: Also a few women, yeah, admittedly. I'm sure Hannah would
• 25:57
  Speaker 2: love this freaking... I'm pretty sure that this is like
• 26:02
  Speaker 2: the anti-Hannah, this entire Hannah Wallen. This is the anti-Hannah
• 26:07
  Speaker 2: Wallen case. It has literally everything that she probably loathes.
• 26:15
  Speaker 11: Yep.
• 26:15
  Speaker 1: I'm going to play the rest of the clip real quick.
• 26:18
  Speaker 2: Yeah, go ahead.
• 26:19
  Speaker 7: I can empathize with somebody that They weren't strangers.
• 26:24
  Speaker 5: They were her kids.
• 26:25
  Speaker 7: And she was able to grab those exercise bands. That
• 26:29
  Speaker 7: took a lot of effort. And it breaks my heart
• 26:33
  Speaker 7: that these young kids have gone through that. But I'm
• 26:40
  Speaker 7: grateful that this conversation is happening because I do believe, like, women,
• 26:46
  Speaker 7: they are on the back burner when it comes to
• 26:48
  Speaker 7: mental health.
• 26:48
  Speaker 5: If this was a man.
• 26:49
  Speaker 3: Incorrect.
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: Incorrect. We spend like, I think we spend like three
• 26:57
  Speaker 1: times or more as much funding on women's health in general.
• 27:01
  Speaker 3: No, it's more like 20.
• 27:02
  Speaker 1: Mental health?
• 27:04
  Speaker 3: Astounding.
• 27:05
  Speaker 2: How is it that we've gotten to the point where
• 27:08
  Speaker 2: women can just be in their own universe that never
• 27:11
  Speaker 2: touches reality? I actually did a several week deep dive
• 27:18
  Speaker 2: into Movember, which bills itself as a charity for trying
• 27:26
  Speaker 2: to end prostate cancer and suicide in men. Guess what
• 27:30
  Speaker 2: they don't do anymore? They used to, up to the 2016,
• 27:34
  Speaker 2: actually have some kind of clinical health available for men
• 27:39
  Speaker 2: in Australia, but it only took like 40% men. But
• 27:44
  Speaker 2: at least they had services.
• 27:46
  Speaker 3: Then they quit that.
• 27:48
  Speaker 2: And now all of their services are promoting men renunciating
• 27:52
  Speaker 2: their masculinity. That's what men get for mental health.
• 27:56
  Speaker 3: Have you tried not being a man?
• 28:00
  Speaker 4: Allison?
• 28:01
  Speaker 3: That's what men get.
• 28:02
  Speaker 4: Oh, okay.
• 28:02
  Speaker 2: Sorry.
• 28:02
  Speaker 1: No, no, so you're my cutoff. You're my cutoff. Maybe
• 28:06
  Speaker 1: you're too.
• 28:06
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it's probably because I went nuts. Yeah, yeah, you did.
• 28:08
  Speaker 1: Okay, no, it's fine.
• 28:09
  Speaker 2: Let me try that again. This is what men get
• 28:12
  Speaker 2: for their mental health. And this is, again, me looking
• 28:16
  Speaker 2: through the paperwork of Movember for weeks. Movember used to
• 28:24
  Speaker 2: fund clinical services. Of course, those clinical services only were
• 28:29
  Speaker 2: expected to do 40% men. That itself seems a little sketch,
• 28:35
  Speaker 2: but at least they had something. At least they had
• 28:38
  Speaker 2: a place where men could walk in and get help.
• 28:40
  Speaker 2: You know what CAFE does or the Center for Men
• 28:43
  Speaker 2: and Families up in Canada, Justin Trottier? A place where
• 28:47
  Speaker 2: men could walk in and get mental health. Then they
• 28:49
  Speaker 2: ended it in 2016, and now their programs amount to
• 28:56
  Speaker 2: telling men to stop being men. Oh, you feel suicidal?
• 29:01
  Speaker 2: You have mental health issues?
• 29:02
  Speaker 3: Have you considered not being a man? This is it.
• 29:09
  Speaker 3: This is what they did.
• 29:10
  Speaker 2: This is what's available to men. You know, outside of
• 29:16
  Speaker 2: the stuff that people like us have fought for, fought
• 29:20
  Speaker 2: tooth and nail for. Yeah. The mainstream approach to men's
• 29:26
  Speaker 2: mental health is, have you tried not.
• 29:28
  Speaker 3: Being a man?
• 29:29
  Speaker 2: Yep. Okay. Let's continue with this.
• 29:35
  Speaker 4: All right.
• 29:35
  Speaker 1: I'm going to finish. Well, I think what's happening here is, uh,
• 29:40
  Speaker 1: think that there's... What she's doing is probably not defending
• 29:44
  Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy. I think that she's finding herself surrounded by
• 29:49
  Speaker 1: ravenous wolves. And she's like, oh, oh, I'm in trouble.
• 29:52
  Speaker 1: I'm about to get, you know, like... socially destroyed by
• 29:58
  Speaker 1: these women. I better say something sentimental that women will like.
• 30:04
  Speaker 1: I don't think, I think that's self-defense that she was
• 30:06
  Speaker 1: doing when she said, oh, I think women need mental health.
• 30:10
  Speaker 1: Like it's sort of like, how do I protect myself?
• 30:13
  Speaker 1: That's what I'm guessing because she's on point with everything else.
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: And I think that as she spoke more and was
• 30:20
  Speaker 1: getting more like knives, like eye daggers, she was like, oh,
• 30:23
  Speaker 1: I better, I better change course here. But let's keep going.
• 30:26
  Speaker 7: They are on the back burner when it comes to
• 30:28
  Speaker 7: mental health. If this was a man, like, there would be, like,
• 30:31
  Speaker 7: a law the next day or something going on, but.
• 30:33
  Speaker 1: We already have a law. It's called murder.
• 30:35
  Speaker 2: There would have been research.
• 30:37
  Speaker 9: Yeah.
• 30:37
  Speaker 2: It would have been funded.
• 30:38
  Speaker 7: Something right away.
• 30:40
  Speaker 2: But it's just.
• 30:41
  Speaker 3: I just feel like with.
• 30:42
  Speaker 7: Her, it's becoming... She's becoming a mascot for just... I
• 30:48
  Speaker 7: feel like so many mothers empathize with her.
• 30:50
  Speaker 2: So much that they want to put.
• 30:52
  Speaker 7: Her out there, make her a mascot, and... they're turning
• 30:55
  Speaker 7: something so negative into a movement. Okay.
• 30:59
  Speaker 5: I hear that.
• 30:59
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 31:00
  Speaker 5: They have no sense of responsibility.
• 31:04
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 31:05
  Speaker 2: What did, what did, I'm sorry. What did Oprah say?
• 31:08
  Speaker 2: All right here.
• 31:10
  Speaker 9: Yeah.
• 31:10
  Speaker 1: I'll go back to here.
• 31:13
  Speaker 5: Okay.
• 31:14
  Speaker 4: I hear that.
• 31:15
  Speaker 5: So y'all will continue.
• 31:16
  Speaker 7: You all will not be agreeing.
• 31:17
  Speaker 4: No time.
• 31:18
  Speaker 5: No, we're not.
• 31:19
  Speaker 2: Thank you for being.
• 31:20
  Speaker 1: Yeah, that was it. She was, But Oprah's the one
• 31:23
  Speaker 1: trying to maintain the narrative, though. She's like, oh, after
• 31:28
  Speaker 1: all that you've heard, you still think she's guilty? No,
• 31:33
  Speaker 1: obviously not.
• 31:34
  Speaker 2: There wouldn't be anything.
• 31:35
  Speaker 1: How did this become about men, by the way, all
• 31:37
  Speaker 1: of a sudden? You notice that this just became a
• 31:39
  Speaker 1: conversation about men now?
• 31:43
  Speaker 5: Okay, headline.
• 31:44
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 31:45
  Speaker 2: This is first order from peer-reviewed forensic literature. Fathers are
• 31:50
  Speaker 2: likely to receive much longer sentences than mothers who kill
• 31:53
  Speaker 2: their children. Fathers are also more likely to be sentenced
• 31:56
  Speaker 2: to execution than mothers. The same average U.S. sentence for
• 32:01
  Speaker 2: women convicted of filicide, 17 years. But, of course, men
• 32:06
  Speaker 2: are convicted to life in prison and death.
• 32:11
  Speaker 9: Mm-hmm.
• 32:12
  Speaker 4: Great.
• 32:14
  Speaker 2: Society often treats offenders, well, mothers, with lenience. No crime
• 32:20
  Speaker 2: is more likely to succeed with an insanity defense than
• 32:23
  Speaker 2: a mother who has killed her children. We need to
• 32:26
  Speaker 2: change that. If you are allowed as a mother to
• 32:30
  Speaker 2: just snap and kill your kids, no, that shouldn't be allowed.
• 32:35
  Speaker 2: If you're supposed to be so saintly, then you should
• 32:37
  Speaker 2: be held to the standard of sainthood. You kill your kid,
• 32:41
  Speaker 2: instant vaporization. Maybe we should be handing out vaporization rays
• 32:46
  Speaker 2: to children. Or just buttons that they can hit to
• 32:49
  Speaker 2: vaporize their mother if they look at them wrong.
• 32:54
  Speaker 13: Oh, okay.
• 32:54
  Speaker 2: So the categories are most likely to succeed altruistic and
• 32:57
  Speaker 2: acutely psychotic filicide for women. So that's what the defense
• 33:01
  Speaker 2: goes for. All right.
• 33:04
  Speaker 12: Yeah.
• 33:05
  Speaker 2: Okay, so the Finland 25-year national dataset of 200 filicides. Mothers,
• 33:11
  Speaker 2: 59% of filicide. Fathers, 39%. Stepfathers, two. Not being responsible
• 33:19
  Speaker 2: for one's actions by reason of insanity was recorded for
• 33:23
  Speaker 2: 76% of the maternal perpetrators. And 69% were not sentenced,
• 33:28
  Speaker 2: whereas fathers and stepfathers were deemed not responsible in 18%
• 33:32
  Speaker 2: of the cases. So while women were deemed not responsible
• 33:35
  Speaker 2: in 76% of the cases, men were deemed responsible in
• 33:40
  Speaker 2: 81% of the cases.
• 33:42
  Speaker 3: See how that's reversed?
• 33:44
  Speaker 2: This is absolute bullshit. These people are lying. Well, maybe not.
• 33:48
  Speaker 2: Maybe they just never have touched grass. That is reality.
• 33:53
  Speaker 2: These women have never touched reality. They have no clue
• 33:57
  Speaker 2: what they're talking about. Men don't get any lenience when
• 34:03
  Speaker 2: they kill kids. Only mothers do.
• 34:07
  Speaker 3: Only mothers.
• 34:09
  Speaker 2: And nobody cares about funding any kind of research for
• 34:12
  Speaker 2: men who kill kids.
• 34:14
  Speaker 3: Are you kidding? We don't even have research funded.
• 34:18
  Speaker 2: For men who kill themselves. Any legitimate research beyond.
• 34:22
  Speaker 3: Oh, have you tried not being a man?
• 34:24
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 34:26
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 34:26
  Speaker 2: And incidentally, these things, these studies, these are the men
• 34:34
  Speaker 2: who don't kill themselves because the majority of men who
• 34:38
  Speaker 2: kill their kids kill themselves. The majority of women who
• 34:42
  Speaker 2: kill their kids don't seem to get that step. They're depressed,
• 34:48
  Speaker 2: they're psychotic, but somehow it always lands on their kids
• 34:52
  Speaker 2: but not on themselves. Or they make some gesture to
• 34:55
  Speaker 2: suicide but just don't manage to do it. How come
• 34:58
  Speaker 2: men manage to do it but women can't? I'm just curious.
• 35:04
  Speaker 2: You know, a man kills his kids. He's like, yep,
• 35:06
  Speaker 2: that's it for me. A woman kills her kids.
• 35:09
  Speaker 3: He's like, well, you know what?
• 35:13
  Speaker 2: Maybe I could live. Something more for me. You know,
• 35:20
  Speaker 2: cue your Broadway musical number. Some I wish song.
• 35:25
  Speaker 7: Oh, God.
• 35:29
  Speaker 1: I just think I'm meant for more. All right. So
• 35:36
  Speaker 1: I got a super chat. And that's it for the
• 35:39
  Speaker 1: videos I wanted to show so we can get into
• 35:41
  Speaker 1: the other stuff.
• 35:42
  Speaker 2: Now, I think.
• 35:43
  Speaker 1: Yeah, do your five. Yeah, Master Goa gives us $ 5
• 35:48
  Speaker 1: and says, because of bad commie parenting, it takes a
• 35:50
  Speaker 1: village to raise a child. Yet the same village will
• 35:53
  Speaker 1: let a depressed mother and a child, and a child,
• 35:56
  Speaker 1: burn the village. All right. Thank you for the super chat.
• 36:00
  Speaker 1: So now we got this. This is a new interview
• 36:05
  Speaker 1: that just came out.
• 36:06
  Speaker 2: Juror five.
• 36:07
  Speaker 1: With juror number five. Yes. And I'm going to be,
• 36:11
  Speaker 1: we're going to be looking at this. So let us
• 36:14
  Speaker 1: get into the first time code. Let's see. I'll just
• 36:18
  Speaker 1: play the, am I playing the opening or no? It says, no. Oh, no, no, no.
• 36:25
  Speaker 1: We'll jump ahead 25 seconds. I don't know if it's
• 36:29
  Speaker 1: going to let me do that. Oh, yeah, it will. Okay,
• 36:31
  Speaker 1: here we go. Oh, it was muted.
• 36:37
  Speaker 2: Okay.
• 36:38
  Speaker 5: Can I ask, like, do you have kids?
• 36:41
  Speaker 1: I'm sorry. This thing is coming out of one side
• 36:44
  Speaker 1: for some reason. So let me see if I can
• 36:47
  Speaker 1: change it to mono.
• 36:49
  Speaker 2: So the reason why I wanted to bring this stuff
• 36:52
  Speaker 2: up is because I am getting a sense of what
• 36:59
  Speaker 2: happened in that courtroom. I think a lot of people are.
• 37:01
  Speaker 2: And what happened is, based on their own testimony, there
• 37:07
  Speaker 2: were jurors, the female jurors, or a portion of the
• 37:11
  Speaker 2: female jurors, that walked in that courtroom already deciding how
• 37:15
  Speaker 2: they wanted to vote. And they actually stood up in
• 37:18
  Speaker 2: front of the judge and said they'd be impartial. And
• 37:21
  Speaker 2: then I'm seeing them disregard evidence of intent. I'm seeing
• 37:29
  Speaker 2: them accuse the lone holdout of not having evidence. And
• 37:33
  Speaker 2: yet he's the only one is described as interacting with
• 37:36
  Speaker 2: the evidence. So I'm seeing browbeating. I'm seeing the process
• 37:42
  Speaker 2: of intimidation and social abuse. Just from their own words,
• 37:49
  Speaker 2: these women are implicating themselves and showing what justice appears
• 37:55
  Speaker 2: to mean to women. They're not looking at the facts
• 38:00
  Speaker 2: of the case. They're not looking at the evidence. They're
• 38:02
  Speaker 2: dismissing everything that isn't in line with what I call
• 38:06
  Speaker 2: their motivated doubt, which they've mis-termed reasonable doubt. So what's
• 38:12
  Speaker 2: motivated doubt? Doubt that won't shake. I doubt that no
• 38:20
  Speaker 2: evidence will resolve. If God himself went into that courtroom
• 38:26
  Speaker 2: and told those women she knew what she was doing,
• 38:31
  Speaker 2: they would probably say, but God, she was a good mother.
• 38:35
  Speaker 3: And because she was a good mother, good.
• 38:39
  Speaker 2: Mothers don't kill their kids for no reason. Well, the
• 38:42
  Speaker 2: fairy act of killing her kids means she's innocent of
• 38:46
  Speaker 2: killing her kids.
• 38:47
  Speaker 4: Yep.
• 38:48
  Speaker 2: Motivated doubt, everyone. That's not reasonable doubt. And I wanted
• 38:54
  Speaker 2: to point out all of the stuff that I saw. So,
• 38:57
  Speaker 2: have you fixed the sound?
• 38:59
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's fine now. I just changed it to mono.
• 39:02
  Speaker 1: It was only coming out of one speaker. So, it
• 39:04
  Speaker 1: should come out of both now. So, I'm going to
• 39:06
  Speaker 1: play it. I got another super chat, though, from Master
• 39:09
  Speaker 1: Goa for five. Thank you. And he says... Psychiatry has
• 39:12
  Speaker 1: been subverted. Mental health needs to be taken out of
• 39:15
  Speaker 1: the equation. Equal punishment needs to be dealt regardless of,
• 39:19
  Speaker 1: like in mice, of mice and men. Okay, thank you
• 39:22
  Speaker 1: for that. All right, here we go. Shit, it's still
• 39:26
  Speaker 1: doing it.
• 39:27
  Speaker 5: Well, don't worry about it. extra tough? I mean, it's
• 39:32
  Speaker 5: tough for anybody. I don't have kids.
• 39:37
  Speaker 8: And I feel like that probably made me a prime
• 39:41
  Speaker 8: juror for this. The fact that typically women are harsher
• 39:46
  Speaker 8: on other women and.
• 39:48
  Speaker 3: I don't have children.
• 39:49
  Speaker 8: So it wasn't as like emotional for me, like not
• 39:52
  Speaker 8: having children, not having grandchildren, et cetera.
• 39:55
  Speaker 5: And like I.
• 39:57
  Speaker 8: Said, the fact that I didn't follow this, I was
• 39:59
  Speaker 8: kind of like, fine.
• 40:01
  Speaker 2: You know?
• 40:01
  Speaker 5: Right. You were the perfect juror.
• 40:03
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 40:05
  Speaker 1: Okay. So it's about you now. That was the first
• 40:08
  Speaker 1: time code. So.
• 40:10
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 40:12
  Speaker 1: She was the perfect juror.
• 40:14
  Speaker 9: Yeah.
• 40:15
  Speaker 3: Go to 1-13.
• 40:16
  Speaker 1: 1-33. 1-33, okay.
• 40:19
  Speaker 2: Because basically between these two time codes, she just says, oh,
• 40:26
  Speaker 2: I was going to do it. She's just basically saying,
• 40:28
  Speaker 2: I'm going to be doing my juror duty. We don't
• 40:30
  Speaker 2: need to hear that.
• 40:31
  Speaker 8: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
• 40:32
  Speaker 1: I hear you.
• 40:33
  Speaker 5: We all would hope for us as well.
• 40:35
  Speaker 12: And you had to see like some of the most,
• 40:38
  Speaker 12: I mean, and hear. some of the most horrific evidence that, like,
• 40:41
  Speaker 12: anybody ever has to on a trial?
• 40:43
  Speaker 5: I mean, just what was that experience like for you?
• 40:46
  Speaker 8: I will never be the same after that 911 call.
• 40:50
  Speaker 8: After we learned, like, after the trial, I saw all
• 40:53
  Speaker 8: the conspiracy theories about how Patrick did it and that
• 40:57
  Speaker 8: he somehow convinced Lindsay that she had done it when
• 41:00
  Speaker 8: it was really him.
• 41:01
  Speaker 5: And all I could think was that if these people
• 41:06
  Speaker 5: could have heard.
• 41:08
  Speaker 8: that visceral, blood-curdling scream, I don't think I could name
• 41:16
  Speaker 8: a single actor or actress that could have performed that
• 41:19
  Speaker 8: the way he did.
• 41:20
  Speaker 5: And not that he performed it, but I will never
• 41:27
  Speaker 5: be the same after that.
• 41:29
  Speaker 2: What happens to people when they become mothers? Because I'm
• 41:33
  Speaker 2: noticing sort of a separation here. The women who aren't
• 41:37
  Speaker 2: mothers are like, this is horrifying. I think she's guilty.
• 41:41
  Speaker 2: And this woman even thought that she was, still thinks,
• 41:44
  Speaker 2: apparently according to her testimony, that she's guilty, but for
• 41:48
  Speaker 2: whatever reason didn't vote her conscience. But how is it
• 41:53
  Speaker 2: that women become mothers and they stop caring about kids?
• 41:57
  Speaker 2: How does that work? I got a dog. I got
• 42:02
  Speaker 2: a puppy. My dog, Scipio. And before I got a
• 42:06
  Speaker 2: dog and had to take care of a puppy, I
• 42:08
  Speaker 2: was not really... I didn't particularly like dogs or puppies.
• 42:13
  Speaker 2: And yet the process of having to take care of
• 42:15
  Speaker 2: a little life that relies on you utterly, I sort
• 42:18
  Speaker 2: of became very attached to the concept of puppies and dogs.
• 42:23
  Speaker 2: And now it would really bother me to watch someone
• 42:26
  Speaker 2: strangle a puppy in front of me.
• 42:28
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 42:29
  Speaker 2: That probably would have bothered me before, but now it
• 42:31
  Speaker 2: would be particularly bothersome. How is it that you become
• 42:34
  Speaker 2: a mother... and you see this little life that's utterly
• 42:37
  Speaker 2: dependent on you and you have to take care of
• 42:39
  Speaker 2: it in every capacity, and you don't develop, like you
• 42:44
  Speaker 2: don't develop care for it. Like it doesn't, like you
• 42:47
  Speaker 2: don't go walk into this courtroom thinking, my God, I
• 42:50
  Speaker 2: wanna see this woman fry. I want, and you have
• 42:53
  Speaker 2: to fight that back, right? You have to fight that back.
• 42:57
  Speaker 2: Of course they allude to this, but the problem is
• 43:00
  Speaker 2: that the jurors, apparently, when they walked in, saw her as,
• 43:08
  Speaker 2: or wanted to see her as innocent, at least according
• 43:11
  Speaker 2: to this particular juror. But how is it that you
• 43:14
  Speaker 2: go in there, how is it that this is happening?
• 43:18
  Speaker 2: How is it that women who've had children understand how
• 43:25
  Speaker 2: deeply satisfying it is to strangle one, and the women
• 43:28
  Speaker 2: who haven't had children are like, what?
• 43:32
  Speaker 3: What are you doing? It's wrong.
• 43:34
  Speaker 2: Do you notice the split? Does something happen to you
• 43:37
  Speaker 2: when you become a mother? Does child killing just become
• 43:40
  Speaker 2: on the table? It's like, yeah, this is something I
• 43:42
  Speaker 2: would consider now.
• 43:44
  Speaker 11: Yeah.
• 43:45
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I consider this now.
• 43:49
  Speaker 3: This is within my repertoire.
• 43:51
  Speaker 2: So instead of the process that I experienced, taking care
• 43:56
  Speaker 2: of something helpless... and then suddenly feeling like you're very
• 43:59
  Speaker 2: much responsible for its care, mothers go through the reverse process.
• 44:05
  Speaker 2: They take care of something helpless, and then suddenly killing
• 44:08
  Speaker 2: it just makes sense to them. Is this what we're
• 44:13
  Speaker 2: saying now? Is this what these women are indicating to
• 44:18
  Speaker 2: the world about motherhood?
• 44:19
  Speaker 3: I'm just curious.
• 44:20
  Speaker 2: I'm floating it out with you commentators. Have you noticed this?
• 44:23
  Speaker 2: Childless women are like, she murdered kids. Mothers are like, yeah,
• 44:28
  Speaker 2: but I understand that. I understand strangling my children to death.
• 44:36
  Speaker 2: Something I've considered. I've floated.
• 44:39
  Speaker 4: You know?
• 44:41
  Speaker 2: I have brunch with my mother friends.
• 44:45
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely wild.
• 44:48
  Speaker 2: Does something change in your brain when you become a mother?
• 44:52
  Speaker 2: To the point where you just don't care about kids anymore.
• 44:55
  Speaker 2: That's fascinating. Maybe we should have a study on mothers
• 44:59
  Speaker 2: killing their kids. Maybe we should go back to default
• 45:04
  Speaker 2: father custody. Another thing we should consider if this is
• 45:09
  Speaker 2: the case. I think that this is breaking me. This
• 45:16
  Speaker 2: is breaking my soul, my heart, my brain, this entire situation.
• 45:23
  Speaker 2: But I'm not a mother, so I actually care about kids.
• 45:26
  Speaker 1: I guess so. Yeah, that seems to be the case.
• 45:32
  Speaker 1: It seems to be the case. Okay, so that was
• 45:37
  Speaker 1: that time code. Do you want me to get to
• 45:39
  Speaker 1: the Oh, it just keeps going. It looks like there's
• 45:42
  Speaker 1: perjury and stuff. So we'll get into that.
• 45:44
  Speaker 2: Yeah, keep going.
• 45:45
  Speaker 1: I'm going to keep going. Horrifying. It's horrifying.
• 45:49
  Speaker 8: You know, just to imagine living through that and being
• 45:56
  Speaker 8: the person to find their children in that scenario, like, it.
• 46:02
  Speaker 7: Shakes you.
• 46:03
  Speaker 12: I want to ask you, the deliberations, what... Obviously, we
• 46:08
  Speaker 12: only know what the note from the foreperson said. What
• 46:11
  Speaker 12: was the situation in there? I mean, and for how
• 46:15
  Speaker 12: many days were you guys stuck like that?
• 46:19
  Speaker 1: Also, did you know that you guys know the prosecutor?
• 46:22
  Speaker 1: So this is the defense lawyer. The prosecutor was a woman.
• 46:26
  Speaker 1: I don't know how to square that circle. Maybe she
• 46:29
  Speaker 1: doesn't have kids. Anyway, let's keep going.
• 46:34
  Speaker 11: I will say a majority of the people on, it
• 46:37
  Speaker 11: doesn't matter what side it was on, was very firm
• 46:41
  Speaker 11: in their stance and their beliefs kind of from the beginning.
• 46:45
  Speaker 8: You know, the standalone juror was not the only one
• 46:49
  Speaker 8: that was unwilling to see things.
• 46:52
  Speaker 5: From the other side.
• 46:53
  Speaker 2: This directly contradicts... I'm not trying to.
• 46:55
  Speaker 11: Defend that individual in a sense.
• 46:59
  Speaker 1: What?
• 47:00
  Speaker 8: Go ahead.
• 47:00
  Speaker 2: This directly contradicts what the other juries are saying. Because
• 47:04
  Speaker 2: remember the one female juror, the four woman who's like,
• 47:08
  Speaker 2: I was already running. I was already filling out the form.
• 47:11
  Speaker 1: I was signing the paperwork. Yeah.
• 47:13
  Speaker 2: When he said he had doubt, he said reasonable doubt.
• 47:16
  Speaker 2: It's like any sign of doubt is not reasonable doubt, lady.
• 47:19
  Speaker 2: I don't know if I can call her a lady, Floyd.
• 47:24
  Speaker 2: I'm sorry. Once you start saying that women have the
• 47:28
  Speaker 2: right to murder their kids and– I think you qualify
• 47:34
  Speaker 2: as a foid at that point. I'm going to go
• 47:36
  Speaker 2: for it. Foid. I don't usually use that term, but
• 47:39
  Speaker 2: it's making me feel better about this entire situation. The foid.
• 47:43
  Speaker 2: The foid who was the foreman. She was saying, oh,
• 47:48
  Speaker 2: he expressed doubt because he was looking through the exhibits,
• 47:52
  Speaker 2: like the other ones didn't do. He's looking through the
• 47:54
  Speaker 2: exhibits and and he was expressing his, I would assume,
• 47:58
  Speaker 2: his logic, which probably was something he brought into the
• 48:02
  Speaker 2: room that they didn't recognize, so they thought it was
• 48:04
  Speaker 2: some kind of foreign evil magic. So here, I'm going
• 48:08
  Speaker 2: to show you my logical process.
• 48:10
  Speaker 3: Logic! What is this word?
• 48:13
  Speaker 1: What is this wizardry?
• 48:16
  Speaker 3: What is this wizardry?
• 48:18
  Speaker 2: What is this foreign evil magic that this man brings in?
• 48:22
  Speaker 2: So he's going through it. And he says, I think,
• 48:26
  Speaker 2: I think, you know. So he's going through the process
• 48:28
  Speaker 2: of how he got to his position, as far as
• 48:31
  Speaker 2: I can tell. That's the only way I can interpret that.
• 48:34
  Speaker 2: And she's saying, oh, he was set in his ways.
• 48:39
  Speaker 2: What she means is that at the end, he didn't
• 48:42
  Speaker 2: comply to them. Because every other testimony I'm seeing suggests
• 48:46
  Speaker 2: a man who was weighing the evidence, who actually was
• 48:50
  Speaker 2: doing what the jurors were supposed to be doing. But
• 48:54
  Speaker 2: what she reveals is really fascinating because she reveals that
• 49:00
  Speaker 2: the others, these unspecified others, came in determined to declare
• 49:09
  Speaker 2: for innocence. But let's continue.
• 49:12
  Speaker 1: Yeah. I got a bunch of super things that came
• 49:14
  Speaker 1: through just now. Okay. the hilarious irony that the 11
• 49:21
  Speaker 1: jurors will claim to be empathetic. Yet some women admitted
• 49:24
  Speaker 1: to wanting a black man to be lynched and they
• 49:27
  Speaker 1: are realizing it's a bad look. Gary Thomas gave us five. Well,
• 49:32
  Speaker 1: I think that's why they're so upset that it turned
• 49:34
  Speaker 1: out that the holdout was a black guy. because now
• 49:37
  Speaker 1: it's like, oh shit, do we dogpile him, or is
• 49:40
  Speaker 1: that going to look racist? Gary Thomas gives us $ 5
• 49:45
  Speaker 1: on Super Chow and says, I'm sure you guys have
• 49:48
  Speaker 1: heard the latest news that the lone male juror was
• 49:50
  Speaker 1: a black, and how shocked Gayle King was to find
• 49:53
  Speaker 1: that out. I don't know why, because I thought an
• 49:56
  Speaker 1: aversion to the murder of defenseless children transcended race, gender,
• 50:00
  Speaker 1: or religion, or at least I did until this case. No,
• 50:03
  Speaker 1: it just means that men and women... are more different
• 50:06
  Speaker 1: than black men and white men. That's what it means.
• 50:09
  Speaker 1: But thank you, Gary Thomas. Yes, we did. We looked
• 50:11
  Speaker 1: at it first thing when the show started. An anonymous
• 50:15
  Speaker 1: person gave us $ 10, thank you, and said, this is
• 50:19
  Speaker 1: really depressing. I feel like Frank Grimes just before he
• 50:23
  Speaker 1: grabbed the high voltage cables. We need women to behave right,
• 50:26
  Speaker 1: but we have these high profile women who actually arguing
• 50:29
  Speaker 1: that Lindsay is innocent because of hormones. Hormones affect everyone.
• 50:34
  Speaker 1: Men have testosterone running through their bodies, especially during adolescence
• 50:37
  Speaker 1: and into their 20s, and its strong presence makes men
• 50:40
  Speaker 1: angry and horny. If Lindsay can be acquitted due to hormones,
• 50:44
  Speaker 1: then there are some rapists we need to release back
• 50:46
  Speaker 1: out into the public for the same reasons. We cannot
• 50:49
  Speaker 1: have that. We can't have a civilization if we can't
• 50:52
  Speaker 1: hold people accountable for their actions. That includes women. If
• 50:57
  Speaker 1: women can't be held for their actions because women have
• 51:00
  Speaker 1: innate hormones, antisocial urges that they can't control, how can
• 51:04
  Speaker 1: they have power? They will ruin whatever they touch like
• 51:07
  Speaker 1: a meth junkie. Allison, how do we fix this? Can
• 51:10
  Speaker 1: we fix this? Do we continue to try and reason
• 51:13
  Speaker 1: with these women even when they don't reason? Or do
• 51:16
  Speaker 1: we have to wait for these women to be bred
• 51:19
  Speaker 1: out of the gene pool?
• 51:22
  Speaker 2: Okay, that's a mouthful. I can't address all of it.
• 51:25
  Speaker 2: But yes, literally they are saying because women have un...
• 51:31
  Speaker 2: fightable urges to kill children, they should be able to
• 51:35
  Speaker 2: kill children.
• 51:37
  Speaker 3: Well, wow.
• 51:41
  Speaker 2: And yes, men do kill children. But other men say, no,
• 51:44
  Speaker 2: that is not acceptable behavior. We're not going to make
• 51:47
  Speaker 2: excuses for it. We are going to send you to
• 51:49
  Speaker 2: the gallows. Because that's what men do. Because they judge
• 51:54
  Speaker 2: other men by how well they have lived up to
• 51:57
  Speaker 2: a custodial standard of behavior. which, again, is what I
• 52:01
  Speaker 2: think is behind the jury of 12 of your peers thing.
• 52:05
  Speaker 2: I don't think when they created that, they realized exactly
• 52:09
  Speaker 2: how women can found it. Or maybe they did. That's
• 52:11
  Speaker 2: why women weren't part of the process. But yeah, it's there.
• 52:19
  Speaker 2: It's right there. You can see it right plain as day.
• 52:22
  Speaker 2: Women think that if a woman has on.
• 52:28
  Speaker 2: Overwhelming urge to murder something defenseless, that should be indulged
• 52:34
  Speaker 2: and justified because of woman hormones. It's a complete reversal
• 52:42
  Speaker 2: of the kind of idea of custodial responsibility. The very
• 52:47
  Speaker 2: act of taking responsibility for something gives you right to
• 52:52
  Speaker 2: murder it for no reason. None whatsoever. Not that it,
• 52:56
  Speaker 2: you know, like... You got the paterfamilias in Rome and
• 53:00
  Speaker 2: this never actually happened. You're supposed to have life and
• 53:02
  Speaker 2: death of her as family members. Never actually exercised it.
• 53:06
  Speaker 2: Only under state coercion, right? But now we have it.
• 53:10
  Speaker 2: It's just like if the very act, the strain of
• 53:14
  Speaker 2: taking on a custodial role makes you depressed, women should
• 53:18
  Speaker 2: have the right to murder what they have responsibility for.
• 53:23
  Speaker 2: This is like the anti-male position. And I hope that
• 53:27
  Speaker 2: it is a big wake-up call for the average man.
• 53:31
  Speaker 1: Yeah. I think that it is affecting a lot of men.
• 53:35
  Speaker 1: I think.
• 53:35
  Speaker 2: Because this is the exact opposite of how men think
• 53:39
  Speaker 2: about their responsibility to things that are dependent on them.
• 53:44
  Speaker 2: They don't think, oh, hey, I feel a little depressed
• 53:49
  Speaker 2: because I don't have any more freedom. And I got
• 53:52
  Speaker 2: to feed this defenseless creature. They don't think, well, that
• 53:56
  Speaker 2: should give me license to kill it. It doesn't really
• 54:00
  Speaker 2: compute for men. It does for women. We've got to
• 54:03
  Speaker 2: think about that. We've got to think long and hard
• 54:05
  Speaker 2: about that. We've got to think long and hard about
• 54:08
  Speaker 2: how powerful that belief system is in women. Because we're
• 54:13
  Speaker 2: seeing institutional power fall in line with it. You've got Oprah.
• 54:18
  Speaker 2: You've got all the feminists. All the lockstep with this
• 54:23
  Speaker 2: idea that if a woman assumes custodial responsibility for a child,
• 54:27
  Speaker 2: and that responsibility proves to be a little depressing, a
• 54:31
  Speaker 2: little stressful, yeah, just off them. The custodial responsibility for
• 54:38
  Speaker 2: women isn't responsibility, it's license. Yeah, hmm. And again, that splits.
• 54:46
  Speaker 2: Like you were saying, it's a split down between men
• 54:49
  Speaker 2: and women. But also, apparently, childless women are on the
• 54:54
  Speaker 2: side of the children.
• 54:56
  Speaker 1: Yeah, wild, right?
• 54:57
  Speaker 2: Women who don't have children are on the side of
• 54:59
  Speaker 2: the children. They're like, wait, hold up, hold up. The
• 55:03
  Speaker 2: mothers are on the side of murdering children. The childless
• 55:06
  Speaker 2: women are like, ah, wait, hold up. Except for Oprah.
• 55:10
  Speaker 2: I don't think she's childless, but I think she's on
• 55:12
  Speaker 2: the side of whatever makes her money. All right, let's
• 55:15
  Speaker 2: keep going.
• 55:15
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 55:16
  Speaker 1: I got another Rumble rant from NovaFan, and then we're
• 55:19
  Speaker 1: going to keep going. For a dollar, and he says,
• 55:21
  Speaker 1: some people have made a theory that defending Lindsay Clancy
• 55:24
  Speaker 1: is revenge for the patriarchy taking away women's right to abortion,
• 55:28
  Speaker 1: or for the patriarchy taking away women's right to abortion.
• 55:30
  Speaker 1: May as well bring back men having the authority to
• 55:33
  Speaker 1: override women. All right, thank you for that. Possibly. All right,
• 55:38
  Speaker 1: let's keep going.
• 55:39
  Speaker 2: That's a stupid theory, if so.
• 55:41
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, it is stupid, but it's possible that
• 55:45
  Speaker 1: women thought, oh, we'll get revenge by supporting a woman
• 55:47
  Speaker 1: who murdered her children, I guess.
• 55:49
  Speaker 8: Big personalities in that realm. But at the end of
• 55:52
  Speaker 8: the day, I feel like it just came down to
• 55:57
  Speaker 8: an inability to kind of move past your convictions and,
• 56:03
  Speaker 8: you know, even after that dynamite charge to.
• 56:06
  Speaker 2: Move past your convictions.
• 56:07
  Speaker 8: Be unable to, you know, self-analyze yourself and be like, okay,
• 56:12
  Speaker 8: am I missing something? Am I failing to acknowledge or
• 56:15
  Speaker 8: give this a weight of something like this doubt weight
• 56:18
  Speaker 8: that it needs?
• 56:20
  Speaker 1: All right, that was that clip.
• 56:24
  Speaker 2: Inability to move past your convictions. Lady, that's what juries
• 56:31
  Speaker 2: are for. They're supposed to vote your convictions. And the
• 56:35
  Speaker 2: thing is that she's trying to, what she's doing is
• 56:38
  Speaker 2: she's doing the female thing. And you have to decompose
• 56:41
  Speaker 2: it using the Rosetta Stone for female language. What she's
• 56:45
  Speaker 2: actually saying when she says, oh, everybody was doing that. Okay, no.
• 56:50
  Speaker 2: What she actually is saying is there was a group
• 56:53
  Speaker 2: of women who were trying to coerce everyone to their
• 56:56
  Speaker 2: point of view. And she is trying to make two
• 57:01
  Speaker 2: things equal that are not equal. The group of women
• 57:05
  Speaker 2: coercing everyone to their point of view and the one
• 57:08
  Speaker 2: man who's like, nope, I'm just going to keep with
• 57:12
  Speaker 2: my conscience. And I'm going to mention one other thing
• 57:15
  Speaker 2: that was revealed. He offered to be replaced. Like when
• 57:20
  Speaker 2: he refused to step back from what he felt was
• 57:24
  Speaker 2: the correct position, the vote that was compelled by his conscience,
• 57:28
  Speaker 2: and they were all haranguing him, no doubt. And I
• 57:31
  Speaker 2: say haranguing because we know for based on their own
• 57:34
  Speaker 2: testimony that the arguing could be heard through the wall.
• 57:37
  Speaker 7: Right.
• 57:40
  Speaker 2: He eventually said after, I guess, the many, many days
• 57:43
  Speaker 2: of deliberation where they were trying to browbeat him into
• 57:45
  Speaker 2: changing his mind, he eventually said, you know, I will
• 57:48
  Speaker 2: just step back. Okay. You can replace me or something.
• 57:54
  Speaker 2: Of course, they couldn't. But he was willing to take
• 58:00
  Speaker 2: himself out of the process rather than vote against his conscience.
• 58:05
  Speaker 2: What does that suggest to y'all?
• 58:11
  Speaker 1: Right?
• 58:12
  Speaker 2: What does that suggest to y'all? Okay? That suggests an
• 58:23
  Speaker 2: absolute decision based on his conscience and based on what
• 58:26
  Speaker 2: he thought happened. Without even wanting a particular outcome. He's
• 58:34
  Speaker 2: willing to forego having his vote decide the outcome to
• 58:39
  Speaker 2: avoid having to be browbeaten away from his conscience. And again,
• 58:46
  Speaker 2: you have to look at this stuff and you got
• 58:47
  Speaker 2: to decode it based on how women frame things. She's
• 58:51
  Speaker 2: trying to make it a both sides. This wasn't both sides.
• 58:56
  Speaker 2: And she's already admitting that there were people that went
• 59:01
  Speaker 2: into that jury chamber already decided that Lindsay Clancy was innocent.
• 59:09
  Speaker 2: And they step up to a judge and they said
• 59:11
  Speaker 2: they could be impartial. Who knows? Maybe they decided it
• 59:14
  Speaker 2: before they even heard the case. But we can go
• 59:17
  Speaker 2: through all of their logic for how she's innocent and
• 59:20
  Speaker 2: none of it actually touches the meat of the matter.
• 59:23
  Speaker 2: But yeah, let's keep going. Let's hear more. I figured
• 59:26
  Speaker 2: this was a good place to start.
• 59:27
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, it's good.
• 59:29
  Speaker 3: That person.
• 59:30
  Speaker 8: The majority of the room was trying to kind of
• 59:32
  Speaker 8: sway that person.
• 59:32
  Speaker 5: From the very beginning.
• 59:34
  Speaker 2: So, where did you come down from the very beginning?
• 59:37
  Speaker 5: Like, what was your vote?
• 59:39
  Speaker 8: So, originally I felt as though she was guilty and she.
• 59:44
  Speaker 5: Was criminally responsible for it.
• 59:48
  Speaker 8: And maybe I still believe that in a certain way.
• 59:53
  Speaker 3: Yeah, listen.
• 59:55
  Speaker 2: I still believe that in a certain way. In a
• 59:57
  Speaker 2: certain way. You believe it, but it was against the sisterhood.
• 1:00:01
  Speaker 2: And this is the other problem, ladies. Women who do
• 1:00:06
  Speaker 2: stand up for justice, who do vote their conscience, what
• 1:00:10
  Speaker 2: happens to them? What does the sisterhood do to them?
• 1:00:14
  Speaker 2: It grinds them down into dust. So how do we
• 1:00:18
  Speaker 2: control that, ladies? How do we control this edifice of horror,
• 1:00:25
  Speaker 2: of evil, of feminine evil? because this is feminine evil.
• 1:00:29
  Speaker 2: We're watching her describe it right now. She still believes
• 1:00:33
  Speaker 2: that Lindsay Clancy is guilty. She just admitted it. She
• 1:00:37
  Speaker 2: doesn't want to say it explicitly. She's hedging it, but
• 1:00:41
  Speaker 2: she's admitted it. What happened in that jury chamber? What
• 1:00:46
  Speaker 2: happened to this woman to make her not vote her conscience?
• 1:00:54
  Speaker 2: That's the sisterhood in action. And until women can reign
• 1:00:58
  Speaker 2: the sisterhood in, the sisterhood, maybe women are fine. Maybe
• 1:01:03
  Speaker 2: women can vote. Maybe women can serve on juries. Maybe
• 1:01:06
  Speaker 2: women can have jobs in sensitive areas like being the president.
• 1:01:11
  Speaker 2: But the problem is that women aren't just women. Women
• 1:01:15
  Speaker 2: are also the sisterhood. And the sisterhood cannot be trusted
• 1:01:19
  Speaker 2: with anything. Not even the thing that women can be
• 1:01:22
  Speaker 2: trusted with, which is children. supposedly I'm guessing a lot
• 1:01:26
  Speaker 2: of people are questioning that now the sisterhood cannot be
• 1:01:30
  Speaker 2: trusted right you can like I said um fear and
• 1:01:36
  Speaker 2: loathing in Las Vegas you can turn your back on
• 1:01:39
  Speaker 2: the man but you can't turn your back on the
• 1:01:41
  Speaker 2: drug you can turn your back on the woman but
• 1:01:44
  Speaker 2: you can't turn your back on the sisterhood and unfortunately
• 1:01:50
  Speaker 2: women are embedded in it all right let's keep going.
• 1:01:54
  Speaker 1: Another Super Chow from Official Reverse Trad for Five. And
• 1:01:58
  Speaker 1: he says, response to the other Super Chower. Ten years ago,
• 1:02:03
  Speaker 1: Karen was citing research that linking testosterone with aggression has
• 1:02:07
  Speaker 1: been discredited. It's not until testosterone is converted into an
• 1:02:11
  Speaker 1: estrogen compound is it linked with aggression. The real answer
• 1:02:14
  Speaker 1: is if they already believed women hormones... Excuse crime and
• 1:02:18
  Speaker 1: men's hormones don't excuse crime. That was already evidence of
• 1:02:22
  Speaker 1: a cannot be reasoned out of a belief born of
• 1:02:24
  Speaker 1: non-reason moment. And the whole argument was pointless.
• 1:02:27
  Speaker 5: Okay.
• 1:02:30
  Speaker 1: All right. Yes, 100%. Now, let me see. Where is
• 1:02:34
  Speaker 1: this at? We're at 423. So, yeah, we'll just keep going.
• 1:02:38
  Speaker 8: I think that this was a woman who... You know,
• 1:02:42
  Speaker 8: she was not mentally healthy.
• 1:02:44
  Speaker 5: She was someone.
• 1:02:44
  Speaker 8: That was in the throes of a significant mental health crisis.
• 1:02:48
  Speaker 2: So I really just felt like.
• 1:02:50
  Speaker 8: She was so deep in it that she couldn't see
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 8: her way out.
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 1: Okay, that was the time code that you put in,
• 1:02:59
  Speaker 1: but go ahead.
• 1:03:00
  Speaker 2: She obviously saw some way out.
• 1:03:04
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:03:07
  Speaker 4: Right? I.
• 1:03:09
  Speaker 1: I got no words.
• 1:03:10
  Speaker 2: Again, again, she always had the option of just walking
• 1:03:16
  Speaker 2: out of the situation and giving Patrick full custody.
• 1:03:21
  Speaker 4: Right?
• 1:03:21
  Speaker 2: That was always available to her. And what this woman
• 1:03:25
  Speaker 2: is saying now is what the other women got her
• 1:03:29
  Speaker 2: to agree to. But it's interesting that she still maintains
• 1:03:33
  Speaker 2: that part of her still sees Lindsay Clancy as guilty. But,
• 1:03:37
  Speaker 2: you know, the part that is... beholden to the sisterhood,
• 1:03:41
  Speaker 2: has to speak the sisterhood's words, shall we say. All right,
• 1:03:46
  Speaker 2: let's keep going.
• 1:03:51
  Speaker 4: All right.
• 1:03:52
  Speaker 12: And so you kind of, like, describe, sorry, just tell
• 1:03:56
  Speaker 12: me a little more about, like, the evolution for you,
• 1:03:58
  Speaker 12: because I'm interested, because you mentioned how there were so
• 1:04:02
  Speaker 12: many strong personalities in there, but then tell me how
• 1:04:04
  Speaker 12: you kind of, you know, you changed a little bit.
• 1:04:08
  Speaker 5: Because at the end of the day, there's so much doubt.
• 1:04:11
  Speaker 8: You know, the prosecution to have a figurative, you know,
• 1:04:16
  Speaker 8: smoking gun, there was not a single moment throughout that
• 1:04:20
  Speaker 8: presentation in that case that you could say, oh, yep,
• 1:04:24
  Speaker 8: 100% I'm certain she did it or that she didn't
• 1:04:27
  Speaker 8: do it.
• 1:04:28
  Speaker 2: There's too much gray area.
• 1:04:31
  Speaker 3: Okay, what are you even talking about?
• 1:04:33
  Speaker 1: It's a gray area, though.
• 1:04:36
  Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, no, but even the lawyer, the NBC's lawyer
• 1:04:40
  Speaker 2: said there's nothing in life that doesn't have a certain
• 1:04:44
  Speaker 2: bit of doubt. That's not reasonable doubt. And she 100%
• 1:04:48
  Speaker 2: did it. She 100% did it. What you were adjudicating
• 1:04:55
  Speaker 2: on was whether or not she was sane when she
• 1:04:58
  Speaker 2: did it. Maybe this is just colloquialism and I shouldn't
• 1:05:05
  Speaker 2: get too into it. But this is like, did you
• 1:05:12
  Speaker 2: engage with the prosecution's evidence at all? Okay, let's keep going.
• 1:05:20
  Speaker 1: All right, this is the next time code, 521 to 537.
• 1:05:25
  Speaker 8: And eventually I just felt like the only way to
• 1:05:27
  Speaker 8: get justice for Cora, Dawson, and Callan, and Patrick, and
• 1:05:32
  Speaker 8: her parents, and everyone else that was closest, was to
• 1:05:36
  Speaker 8: get her the help that she desperately needed. And there's
• 1:05:40
  Speaker 8: no way she's getting that help, 100%.
• 1:05:41
  Speaker 4: Oh, God.
• 1:05:43
  Speaker 2: No. Yeah, but the rest of the world is getting
• 1:05:46
  Speaker 2: help by not having her in it.
• 1:05:50
  Speaker 4: Yep.
• 1:05:51
  Speaker 2: Okay, but this is exactly what I was talking about
• 1:05:54
  Speaker 2: last time when I explained the difference between men and
• 1:05:56
  Speaker 2: women's morality. You notice how help roots through the mother?
• 1:05:59
  Speaker 2: It's because with mammals, offspring don't survive unless the mother survives.
• 1:06:08
  Speaker 2: So self-interest is selected for with female mammals. And this
• 1:06:16
  Speaker 2: is what we're seeing here. Everything roots through Lindsay Clancy. Somehow,
• 1:06:21
  Speaker 2: if we take care of Lindsay Clancy, we take care
• 1:06:25
  Speaker 2: of her dead kids, her ex-husband, and the family that
• 1:06:30
  Speaker 2: she deprived of their grandchildren. Yeah, I don't buy it.
• 1:06:37
  Speaker 2: I think that the way that we take care of
• 1:06:39
  Speaker 2: everybody who isn't Lindsay Clancy is lethal injection. But that's
• 1:06:45
  Speaker 2: just me. Or just putting her away for the rest
• 1:06:48
  Speaker 2: of her life. Or sterilizations. So she can't do it again.
• 1:06:53
  Speaker 2: That's the other thing. There have been women who have
• 1:06:56
  Speaker 2: killed their children. There was a case in the 1950s
• 1:06:58
  Speaker 2: of a woman who drowned her three children, right? Was
• 1:07:05
  Speaker 2: released because this is something that we've been dealing with
• 1:07:09
  Speaker 2: for a very long time. It's still there in the 50s.
• 1:07:13
  Speaker 2: People still had this idea that mothers were saintly. I
• 1:07:16
  Speaker 2: hope that ends today or soon, right? Okay, and then
• 1:07:24
  Speaker 2: like 12 years later, she drowned her next set of
• 1:07:26
  Speaker 2: three children. Seems like she had a bit of a pattern,
• 1:07:29
  Speaker 2: that serial killer. She had like a, she had a signature,
• 1:07:34
  Speaker 2: shall we say. Same bathtub too.
• 1:07:37
  Speaker 3: Same fricking man.
• 1:07:38
  Speaker 2: Like what are you, okay, this is where I have
• 1:07:41
  Speaker 2: to deviate and start yelling at men. Don't, do not
• 1:07:46
  Speaker 2: touch women who do this stuff. Divorce them and get
• 1:07:50
  Speaker 2: a new one. Good Lord. I'm glad Patrick had the
• 1:07:54
  Speaker 2: good sense to do that. Even if he doesn't have
• 1:07:57
  Speaker 2: a good sense of a frickin' turnip in any other context.
• 1:08:01
  Speaker 2: I don't mean to be mean to him, but he's
• 1:08:04
  Speaker 2: going to bat for Lindsay Clancy. There's a lack of
• 1:08:09
  Speaker 2: good sense there somewhere. But anyway, so yeah. She should
• 1:08:17
  Speaker 2: not be allowed to have more children. Right, this should
• 1:08:20
  Speaker 2: be the no pass go. No more motherhood for you. Okay,
• 1:08:27
  Speaker 2: let's keep going.
• 1:08:28
  Speaker 1: All right.
• 1:08:30
  Speaker 5: That's so interesting.
• 1:08:31
  Speaker 12: And you mentioned like you wanna defend that lone.
• 1:08:34
  Speaker 5: Juror a little bit for standing their ground.
• 1:08:38
  Speaker 12: Do you agree with the note that was sent to
• 1:08:41
  Speaker 12: the court saying that they were like not following the
• 1:08:43
  Speaker 12: law on reasonable doubt?
• 1:08:45
  Speaker 5: I do, because at the.
• 1:08:46
  Speaker 13: End of the day, to not follow that reasonable doubt
• 1:08:51
  Speaker 13: and to acknowledge that it's there, you morally and legally.
• 1:08:54
  Speaker 5: Cannot convict somebody for that. And that was therefore.
• 1:08:57
  Speaker 2: yeah this is bullshit this is not reasonable doubt as
• 1:09:01
  Speaker 2: defined by the law it's reasonable doubt as defined by
• 1:09:04
  Speaker 2: the female foreman for for void yeah right that's that's
• 1:09:10
  Speaker 2: that's not like this is and i found out that
• 1:09:13
  Speaker 2: the lone juror wanted the judge to tell them all
• 1:09:17
  Speaker 2: what reasonable doubt was.
• 1:09:19
  Speaker 3: Yeah, probably.
• 1:09:20
  Speaker 1: I think that's why he was asking what it was like.
• 1:09:24
  Speaker 1: I think he was trying, but he was.
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 2: Also, he was trying to get the judge to tell
• 1:09:28
  Speaker 2: them because he likely realized that these women and the
• 1:09:33
  Speaker 2: men who supplicated to them did not understand what reasonable
• 1:09:37
  Speaker 2: doubt was.
• 1:09:39
  Speaker 1: Yes.
• 1:09:39
  Speaker 2: They were actually operating on motivated doubt and nothing will
• 1:09:46
  Speaker 2: prove that this woman killed her children. And I want
• 1:09:49
  Speaker 2: to point out that when you go through their testimony,
• 1:09:52
  Speaker 2: you discover that they based their belief of quote-unquote reasonable
• 1:09:58
  Speaker 2: doubt on evidence or just material, it wasn't even evidence,
• 1:10:03
  Speaker 2: that wasn't even germane to whether or not this woman
• 1:10:06
  Speaker 2: was sane enough to know what she was doing.
• 1:10:09
  Speaker 3: So they.
• 1:10:11
  Speaker 2: They didn't engage with the prosecution's evidence. They just engaged
• 1:10:16
  Speaker 2: with the defense showing Lindsay Clancy to be a quote
• 1:10:20
  Speaker 2: unquote good mother based on testimony that couldn't even establish that.
• 1:10:26
  Speaker 2: Let's be honest. You can't establish the goodness of someone's
• 1:10:30
  Speaker 2: acts if you're not somebody who is a beneficiary of
• 1:10:34
  Speaker 2: those acts. I'm sorry. You just don't know. The only
• 1:10:37
  Speaker 2: people who can establish that Lindsay Clancy is a good
• 1:10:39
  Speaker 2: mother are dead. And the fact that they're dead suggests
• 1:10:43
  Speaker 2: she wasn't.
• 1:10:44
  Speaker 4: Right?
• 1:10:45
  Speaker 2: So they just paid attention to that, which did not
• 1:10:48
  Speaker 2: bear on her sanity of whether she was sane enough
• 1:10:51
  Speaker 2: to know what she was doing. So these jurors didn't
• 1:10:56
  Speaker 2: even pay attention to evidence. They based their reasonable doubt
• 1:11:02
  Speaker 2: on some bullshit about how a good mother couldn't kill
• 1:11:05
  Speaker 2: her kids. Without even properly establishing that she's a good mother.
• 1:11:11
  Speaker 2: I mean, personally, I think once you kill your kids
• 1:11:14
  Speaker 2: as a mother, you're no longer a good mother. Right?
• 1:11:18
  Speaker 2: But they do it the reverse. They did it the reverse.
• 1:11:22
  Speaker 2: She's a good mother, therefore she couldn't have killed her kids.
• 1:11:25
  Speaker 2: I'm like, she killed her kids, therefore she can't be
• 1:11:27
  Speaker 2: a good mother.
• 1:11:31
  Speaker 1: Seems like that's a pretty low bar, by the way,
• 1:11:34
  Speaker 1: for not being a bad mother. It's a low bar.
• 1:11:37
  Speaker 1: I think we can clear this. Don't kill your kids.
• 1:11:40
  Speaker 1: Step zero. Don't kill your children.
• 1:11:44
  Speaker 3: Do you want to be a good mother?
• 1:11:47
  Speaker 2: Don't kill your freaking children. So I would say that
• 1:11:50
  Speaker 2: being a good mother or not being a good mother, personally,
• 1:11:53
  Speaker 2: I don't think she was. I think she foreclosed that option.
• 1:11:56
  Speaker 2: Not even relevant to the thing that they needed to
• 1:12:00
  Speaker 2: look at. was whether or not she knew what she
• 1:12:04
  Speaker 2: was doing, which required engaging with the prosecution's evidence that
• 1:12:10
  Speaker 2: she did know what she was doing, that she wasn't psychotic,
• 1:12:15
  Speaker 2: like she wasn't in the grip of a hallucination. And
• 1:12:19
  Speaker 2: the evidence that nobody who saw her prior to her
• 1:12:24
  Speaker 2: killing her kids knew. said that she had psychosis or
• 1:12:29
  Speaker 2: had these mental health disorders. The men who were charged,
• 1:12:34
  Speaker 2: who still went to death row, they did. They did
• 1:12:37
  Speaker 2: have a trail a mile wide of mental health issues. Incidentally,
• 1:12:42
  Speaker 2: women don't have children with men with mental health issues
• 1:12:45
  Speaker 2: like schizophrenia. Depression is fine, but it's just, I know
• 1:12:49
  Speaker 2: he's a bad boy and he talks to molecules, but
• 1:12:52
  Speaker 2: maybe don't do that. But anyway, that's an aside. Anyway,
• 1:12:55
  Speaker 2: so they didn't engage with that evidence, that there was
• 1:12:58
  Speaker 2: no evidence prior to her killing and no evidence that
• 1:13:01
  Speaker 2: wasn't motivated. Like the defense going and shopping for an
• 1:13:05
  Speaker 2: expert witness to say, oh, yeah. She had bunculitis, which
• 1:13:10
  Speaker 2: means that she can kill her kids without knowing she's
• 1:13:12
  Speaker 2: doing it. I made that up. It's my patented disease
• 1:13:17
  Speaker 2: of the mind. Oh, and by the way, if you
• 1:13:20
  Speaker 2: don't want bunculitis, why am I snake oil? Like, you
• 1:13:24
  Speaker 2: can find an expert witness to testify for anything. And
• 1:13:28
  Speaker 2: the fact is, nobody prior, nobody that saw her prior
• 1:13:32
  Speaker 2: to her killing her kids saw anything to indicate she
• 1:13:36
  Speaker 2: wasn't sane. And the state witnesses, the state expert witnesses said, no,
• 1:13:43
  Speaker 2: she's sane. But they didn't engage with any of that.
• 1:13:46
  Speaker 2: It's going to become apparent as we go further, which
• 1:13:50
  Speaker 2: is taking a while. So let's keep moving.
• 1:13:52
  Speaker 1: Okay. I got another Rumble rant from NovaFan21 for a dollar.
• 1:13:55
  Speaker 1: And he says, I haven't verified this, but I heard
• 1:13:57
  Speaker 1: men have used Lindsay Clancy as evidence to win custody
• 1:14:00
  Speaker 1: after divorcing their wives. I can accept this white pill.
• 1:14:03
  Speaker 4: All right.
• 1:14:04
  Speaker 1: Let us continue.
• 1:14:05
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I hope so.
• 1:14:06
  Speaker 6: I hope so.
• 1:14:07
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 1:14:08
  Speaker 13: Violation of her constitutional rights. And essentially that is what
• 1:14:13
  Speaker 13: we are there as a jury to do is to
• 1:14:16
  Speaker 13: uphold that constitution and give.
• 1:14:18
  Speaker 2: Someone a fair trial of their peers. And I don't necessarily.
• 1:14:24
  Speaker 11: Think that she was getting that with this juror.
• 1:14:28
  Speaker 8: And it's not simply because of the fact that he
• 1:14:31
  Speaker 8: had an opposing view or this person felt like she
• 1:14:37
  Speaker 8: was guilty. it was the inability to kind of back
• 1:14:41
  Speaker 8: that up with any logic.
• 1:14:44
  Speaker 2: That you guys would accept.
• 1:14:46
  Speaker 5: Just kind of digging their heels in on that vote.
• 1:14:49
  Speaker 8: Yeah, and again, just not being able to back it,
• 1:14:51
  Speaker 8: you know, everyone.
• 1:14:53
  Speaker 2: Okay, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Not being able to
• 1:14:56
  Speaker 2: back it. Now, I wish we could just bump over
• 1:14:59
  Speaker 2: to the extended interview that NBC went out, put out
• 1:15:04
  Speaker 2: at 28... You have it. Go to 2821.
• 1:15:08
  Speaker 1: The extended interview? This one that's like 33 minutes long?
• 1:15:12
  Speaker 2: Yes.
• 1:15:12
  Speaker 1: 28, 28 minutes.
• 1:15:14
  Speaker 8: 2821.
• 1:15:14
  Speaker 1: All right. Here we go.
• 1:15:16
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 1:15:17
  Speaker 1: I'm on it. Okay.
• 1:15:18
  Speaker 9: That she's not guilty by reason of insanity.
• 1:15:22
  Speaker 6: Or he would just deny, like we tried all different ways, right?
• 1:15:27
  Speaker 6: And we had one of the jurors in a very
• 1:15:29
  Speaker 6: calm way, asked him some questions and he said, I,
• 1:15:36
  Speaker 6: this didn't show it and this didn't show it. You know,
• 1:15:39
  Speaker 6: that he had doubt and he said it out loud
• 1:15:42
  Speaker 6: and they said to him, that's doubt.
• 1:15:45
  Speaker 2: Oh no, I didn't say that.
• 1:15:46
  Speaker 9: No.
• 1:15:48
  Speaker 2: Yes, okay, so he's going to the actual exhibits and
• 1:15:52
  Speaker 2: saying this didn't show and this didn't show. Now, honestly,
• 1:15:55
  Speaker 2: the way that I'm seeing this is, what needed to
• 1:16:01
  Speaker 2: be decided was whether or not she was insane. Okay,
• 1:16:06
  Speaker 2: so the defense needs to decide it. The prosecution needs
• 1:16:09
  Speaker 2: to decide that she's sane, right? This doesn't show it.
• 1:16:12
  Speaker 2: This doesn't show it. It reads more like this doesn't
• 1:16:14
  Speaker 2: show she's insane. This doesn't show she's insane. You know,
• 1:16:18
  Speaker 2: so I have doubt that she's insane. And she's like,
• 1:16:20
  Speaker 2: but you have doubt. And like, everybody's like, oh.
• 1:16:23
  Speaker 3: She said doubt.
• 1:16:24
  Speaker 2: He said the magic.
• 1:16:25
  Speaker 3: Word, doubt.
• 1:16:26
  Speaker 1: Yeah, like, well, okay. So they're saying doubt. So the
• 1:16:30
  Speaker 1: context of this is that she needs to be found
• 1:16:33
  Speaker 1: guilty beyond a reasonable doubt so when he says i
• 1:16:39
  Speaker 1: have doubt then the only question is is it reasonable
• 1:16:42
  Speaker 1: and i think it is so they think it's a
• 1:16:45
  Speaker 1: gotcha but i think they got it backwards i think
• 1:16:48
  Speaker 1: we're dealing with woman logic because they think that he
• 1:16:51
  Speaker 1: doubts her guilt but what he doubts is that the
• 1:16:56
  Speaker 1: evidence proves that she was not of sound yeah that
• 1:17:01
  Speaker 1: she was not of sound mind and body So, yes. So, yeah,
• 1:17:06
  Speaker 1: it's probably not wrong, even, you know, even if it's
• 1:17:09
  Speaker 1: misunderstood or misinterpreted or whatever.
• 1:17:11
  Speaker 2: Let's steel man. Let's steel man their accusation, right? He's
• 1:17:17
  Speaker 2: going through the evidence and says, yes, this gives me doubt.
• 1:17:21
  Speaker 2: But not reasonable doubt. And they're like, oh, oh, oh.
• 1:17:25
  Speaker 2: And then the guy says, but no, that's not what
• 1:17:27
  Speaker 2: I'm saying. It's not reasonable doubt.
• 1:17:29
  Speaker 3: I see your point of view.
• 1:17:31
  Speaker 2: I don't think it's reasonable. Hey, judge, can you describe
• 1:17:34
  Speaker 2: to these hooligans, these heritans, these gorgons, what reasonable doubt
• 1:17:39
  Speaker 2: actually means? Yeah.
• 1:17:41
  Speaker 3: Could you tell them?
• 1:17:42
  Speaker 2: That's what I'm getting from this.
• 1:17:44
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 1:17:46
  Speaker 2: It sounds like he was the most reasonable thing in
• 1:17:49
  Speaker 2: the room. Reasonable black man.
• 1:17:53
  Speaker 9: Yep.
• 1:17:54
  Speaker 1: Versus the coven.
• 1:17:56
  Speaker 2: Versus the coven.
• 1:17:57
  Speaker 1: Yeah. All right, so you want to go back to
• 1:18:01
  Speaker 1: this one? There's like a little bit, there's one more
• 1:18:04
  Speaker 1: clip from this one. So it's the last clip.
• 1:18:06
  Speaker 8: Sure. Wanting to understand where the other person was coming
• 1:18:10
  Speaker 8: from and how.
• 1:18:11
  Speaker 2: They kind of arrived to that conclusion.
• 1:18:13
  Speaker 8: So either they could explain where their reasonable doubt came
• 1:18:18
  Speaker 8: in or could open their eyes to something that.
• 1:18:21
  Speaker 5: Maybe they didn't see.
• 1:18:23
  Speaker 8: But this person, again, like I said, that.
• 1:18:25
  Speaker 5: Person really struggled with.
• 1:18:28
  Speaker 8: Again, acknowledged the reasonable doubt, but still was not able to.
• 1:18:37
  Speaker 5: Apply that like needed to.
• 1:18:39
  Speaker 2: No, okay, right, okay. No, they mean he didn't accept
• 1:18:45
  Speaker 2: their motivated doubt, right? He didn't accept their motivation. doubt,
• 1:18:51
  Speaker 2: which is exactly the point, right?
• 1:18:57
  Speaker 9: Yep.
• 1:18:58
  Speaker 2: Probably why he was going back to the judge and saying, hey,
• 1:19:00
  Speaker 2: could you explain this to him? Could we all listen
• 1:19:03
  Speaker 2: to what reasonable doubt is again so I don't have
• 1:19:06
  Speaker 2: to continue to go through the exhibits and show them
• 1:19:09
  Speaker 2: this doesn't create reasonable doubt, this doesn't, yes, it creates doubt,
• 1:19:13
  Speaker 2: but not reasonable doubt. I'm like, can you imagine this?
• 1:19:17
  Speaker 2: Like this guy just trying to school these people who
• 1:19:19
  Speaker 2: do not understand logic. They think it's some sort of
• 1:19:21
  Speaker 2: foreign wizardry. Oh, good lord. Okay. Yeah, wild.
• 1:19:30
  Speaker 1: Yeah, go ahead.
• 1:19:31
  Speaker 3: Let's get to the.
• 1:19:32
  Speaker 2: Extended cut and do those ones that I said.
• 1:19:34
  Speaker 1: Do you want to do those? Okay.
• 1:19:36
  Speaker 4: All right.
• 1:19:36
  Speaker 1: We're going to the extended cut. Here it goes. All right.
• 1:19:41
  Speaker 1: So time codes for this. I got to open my
• 1:19:45
  Speaker 1: document again. Hold on here. It's right here. All right.
• 1:19:49
  Speaker 1: Let me see. Extended cut.
• 1:19:53
  Speaker 4: Right. 33.
• 1:19:53
  Speaker 1: Do we have it?
• 1:19:56
  Speaker 2: What do we have any? I'm going to do something.
• 1:19:59
  Speaker 2: I'm going to do another call out before we go
• 1:20:01
  Speaker 2: into this.
• 1:20:01
  Speaker 1: Yeah, go ahead.
• 1:20:02
  Speaker 2: Yeah, this is this is essentially my rundown of the
• 1:20:05
  Speaker 2: 18 stupid arguments that these jurors presented or ways that
• 1:20:12
  Speaker 2: they tried to extort a not guilty verdict against this
• 1:20:16
  Speaker 2: guy's conscience. And again, when you're listening to this, he
• 1:20:20
  Speaker 2: was willing to withdraw as a jury member. So he
• 1:20:23
  Speaker 2: was willing to not have any influence over the ultimate decision.
• 1:20:28
  Speaker 2: One can only imagine what they did to get him
• 1:20:31
  Speaker 2: to that point.
• 1:20:32
  Speaker 3: But he couldn't, of course.
• 1:20:34
  Speaker 2: He was willing to not have any influence over the
• 1:20:38
  Speaker 2: ultimate decision in order to maintain his conscience. Now think
• 1:20:42
  Speaker 2: about that. Think about how absolutely firm he must have
• 1:20:46
  Speaker 2: been that he was voting his conscience over This wasn't
• 1:20:51
  Speaker 2: about a guilty verdict. If it was about a guilty verdict,
• 1:20:53
  Speaker 2: he wouldn't have made that offer. It was about staying
• 1:20:57
  Speaker 2: with his conscience, deciding based on his conscience, based on
• 1:21:01
  Speaker 2: what he believed was true. And everything these people are
• 1:21:06
  Speaker 2: saying is indicating that they don't understand what a jury
• 1:21:10
  Speaker 2: is for. They don't understand due process. They don't understand
• 1:21:14
  Speaker 2: court procedure. They don't understand reasonable doubt. All they understand
• 1:21:18
  Speaker 2: is consensus. And oh, was she a good mother? That's it.
• 1:21:23
  Speaker 2: Which they couldn't even establish from the evidence they had.
• 1:21:27
  Speaker 2: And it wasn't even relevant to what they were asked
• 1:21:30
  Speaker 2: to decide. All right, so yeah, let's go for it.
• 1:21:36
  Speaker 2: Let's do it.
• 1:21:37
  Speaker 1: All right, so playing it from here, cold open. Give
• 1:21:41
  Speaker 1: me a second.
• 1:21:45
  Speaker 4: I believe in the jury system. I believe that Lindsay
• 1:21:49
  Speaker 4: was wronged by the medical system. And I hope this
• 1:21:56
  Speaker 4: changes things in this country for women and all people, really.
• 1:22:02
  Speaker 1: What are you talking about? Like, I hope that you
• 1:22:05
  Speaker 1: can make it legal women for murder. Well, yeah, I know.
• 1:22:10
  Speaker 1: It has to come back to that. How can I
• 1:22:13
  Speaker 1: make this about women everywhere instead of This woman who
• 1:22:17
  Speaker 1: committed a crime.
• 1:22:18
  Speaker 2: Make it easier for women to kill their kids.
• 1:22:20
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:22:20
  Speaker 2: I want to make it easier for women to kill
• 1:22:22
  Speaker 2: their kids. And of course, she doesn't want to admit
• 1:22:26
  Speaker 2: that she's a maternal supremacist. So she says, and everyone. No,
• 1:22:31
  Speaker 2: I don't want to make it easier for everyone to
• 1:22:33
  Speaker 2: kill their kids, lady. Right? That's not a men's issue.
• 1:22:37
  Speaker 2: This is what's astounding to me. I'm like, I'm a
• 1:22:40
  Speaker 2: men's issues advocate. I'm treated like a pariah. Everybody who
• 1:22:43
  Speaker 2: does this, right?
• 1:22:44
  Speaker 3: What do we want?
• 1:22:45
  Speaker 2: We want equal services for men who are experiencing domestic violence,
• 1:22:49
  Speaker 2: sexual assault. We want false accusations to be recognized as
• 1:22:53
  Speaker 2: a problem and prosecuted properly.
• 1:22:55
  Speaker 4: Right?
• 1:22:56
  Speaker 2: We want men to have services for mental health issues. Right?
• 1:23:02
  Speaker 1: We want men to have access to their kids. We
• 1:23:04
  Speaker 1: want to stop mutilating baby boys' genitals. We want to...
• 1:23:09
  Speaker 1: You know, like these are not unreasonable, like allowing men
• 1:23:12
  Speaker 1: to kill their children.
• 1:23:13
  Speaker 2: Yeah, you know what's not there? Making it easier for
• 1:23:17
  Speaker 2: men to kill their children.
• 1:23:19
  Speaker 3: Men's rights activists, guys.
• 1:23:21
  Speaker 2: Men's issues advocates, guys. Not advocating for men to make
• 1:23:25
  Speaker 2: it easier for men to kill their children. Women's activists,
• 1:23:30
  Speaker 2: women's issues maternal activists.
• 1:23:33
  Speaker 3: What do they want to do?
• 1:23:35
  Speaker 2: Make it easier for women to kill their children. And
• 1:23:38
  Speaker 2: we're the ones who are like, you can't show our
• 1:23:41
  Speaker 2: faces in public. Can you freaking believe it?
• 1:23:47
  Speaker 1: Actually, yes, because what's left for women to fight for?
• 1:23:52
  Speaker 1: What is a right that women are still left to
• 1:23:59
  Speaker 1: try and get other than post-birth abortions like Lindsay Clancy's?
• 1:24:07
  Speaker 1: I mean, what else is there? Like, seriously. Because most
• 1:24:11
  Speaker 1: of the rights they talk about are not rights at all.
• 1:24:14
  Speaker 1: Things like, oh, I just don't want to feel unsafe. Well, sorry,
• 1:24:19
  Speaker 1: we live in the world. Like, the world is not safe.
• 1:24:22
  Speaker 1: And we do the best we can, you know. But
• 1:24:25
  Speaker 1: now it's like, well, I guess there's like killing our kids.
• 1:24:28
  Speaker 1: We should be able to do that. Some days, you know,
• 1:24:31
  Speaker 1: I just want to strangle my children. And that should
• 1:24:34
  Speaker 1: be legal when I feel that way.
• 1:24:37
  Speaker 2: Okay, I want you to go now to 1641 on
• 1:24:41
  Speaker 2: the extended cut.
• 1:24:42
  Speaker 1: All right, 1641.
• 1:24:48
  Speaker 4: One thing we all agreed on and that we believe
• 1:24:50
  Speaker 4: in Massachusetts, it's the jury should be pulled. The majority wins.
• 1:24:56
  Speaker 3: Yes.
• 1:24:57
  Speaker 4: We talked about that a lot. Yes. I personally believe
• 1:25:01
  Speaker 4: in the American jury system. I think having a group
• 1:25:04
  Speaker 4: of your average.
• 1:25:04
  Speaker 1: No, you just said you want to change it. So
• 1:25:07
  Speaker 1: you don't believe in it. Like you're mad that you
• 1:25:09
  Speaker 1: didn't get your way. And now you're like, well, we
• 1:25:12
  Speaker 1: just have to change everything to fit so that I'll
• 1:25:15
  Speaker 1: get my way.
• 1:25:19
  Speaker 2: And go to 1711. All right.
• 1:25:22
  Speaker 1: 1711. It's like right here, but okay.
• 1:25:26
  Speaker 4: But we'd like to see Massachusetts go to a, um,
• 1:25:30
  Speaker 4: Majority rules.
• 1:25:31
  Speaker 2: When the prosecution asked about... Okay, that's it.
• 1:25:35
  Speaker 1: That was it, yeah.
• 1:25:36
  Speaker 2: That's it. One thing we all agreed on, we believe
• 1:25:39
  Speaker 2: in Massachusetts, the jury should be polled, the majority wins.
• 1:25:42
  Speaker 2: We talked about it a lot. And we'd like to
• 1:25:44
  Speaker 2: see Massachusetts go to a majority. So they want to
• 1:25:47
  Speaker 2: see the judicial system changed completely to verify their process.
• 1:25:55
  Speaker 2: Could you imagine this, guys? This becomes the law of
• 1:25:58
  Speaker 2: the land.
• 1:26:00
  Speaker 1: It's women want consensus. Yeah. That's what they want.
• 1:26:05
  Speaker 2: This becomes the law of the land. Nobody votes their conscience.
• 1:26:07
  Speaker 1: The truth doesn't matter.
• 1:26:08
  Speaker 2: It's all majority.
• 1:26:09
  Speaker 1: Consensus matters, not the truth.
• 1:26:10
  Speaker 2: And it's not even consensus, like a free consensus, like democracy.
• 1:26:15
  Speaker 2: It's whoever the biggest, baddest bitch in the room is.
• 1:26:18
  Speaker 2: She makes the decision. Everybody kowtows to her. Everybody supplicates
• 1:26:22
  Speaker 2: to her. All the women who actually think that Lindsay
• 1:26:26
  Speaker 2: Clancy was guilty because apparently there was, I think, three
• 1:26:29
  Speaker 2: of them. They have to supplicate to the sisterhood. And
• 1:26:33
  Speaker 2: the sisterhood's opinions are established by the alpha female, who
• 1:26:38
  Speaker 2: apparently is the oldest, fattest, frizziest hair one in the room. Okay.
• 1:26:46
  Speaker 3: I love it. I love the sisterhood.
• 1:26:48
  Speaker 2: Can't have justice, can't have a modern system, and allow
• 1:26:51
  Speaker 2: the sisterhood to rule. I think that's what we're discovering here. Okay,
• 1:26:55
  Speaker 2: go to the next time code sequentially.
• 1:26:58
  Speaker 1: Xeranks, just real quick, Xeranks gave us five and says,
• 1:27:02
  Speaker 1: I believe she wants to believe the medical system failed Clancy.
• 1:27:05
  Speaker 1: Either that or I believe that she wants us to
• 1:27:07
  Speaker 1: believe what she claims to believe.
• 1:27:11
  Speaker 4: All right.
• 1:27:12
  Speaker 1: All right, let me see. Go to 2416 really quick.
• 1:27:14
  Speaker 2: All right, 2416. say out loud what you think.
• 1:27:26
  Speaker 6: One person said, you know, I really believe in my
• 1:27:30
  Speaker 6: gut that she wasn't in psychosis and she was guilty,
• 1:27:36
  Speaker 6: but I have to look at all the evidence and
• 1:27:39
  Speaker 6: the evidence is not showing me that that is true.
• 1:27:42
  Speaker 6: I have so much doubt and I have to do
• 1:27:44
  Speaker 6: the right thing. I mean, we all had different ways
• 1:27:47
  Speaker 6: of dealing with it.
• 1:27:49
  Speaker 2: The stress. So what do you think? Where did that
• 1:27:54
  Speaker 2: doubt come from? Because when you listen to how that
• 1:27:57
  Speaker 2: doubt was established again, it was simply this. The defense
• 1:28:02
  Speaker 2: showed that people said, people who had no ability to know,
• 1:28:06
  Speaker 2: Lindsay Clancy was a good mother. They brought in the
• 1:28:09
  Speaker 2: testimony that bears on nothing, not even the fact that
• 1:28:13
  Speaker 2: she's a good mother. And these women were like, oh,
• 1:28:15
  Speaker 2: but she's a good mother. Therefore, we must acquit. Because
• 1:28:20
  Speaker 2: a good mother wouldn't kill her children, therefore she didn't
• 1:28:23
  Speaker 2: kill them.
• 1:28:25
  Speaker 3: That's the logic.
• 1:28:27
  Speaker 2: What they were there to answer was, was Lindsay Clancy
• 1:28:32
  Speaker 2: capable of knowing what she was doing was wrong?
• 1:28:37
  Speaker 4: Right.
• 1:28:37
  Speaker 2: That's what the prosecution presented. That's the argument. That's not
• 1:28:40
  Speaker 2: the argument they engaged with. The prosecution can't even bring.
• 1:28:44
  Speaker 2: You know, if only the prosecution could have brought a
• 1:28:46
  Speaker 2: few witnesses to Lindsay Clancy smacking her kids around or.
• 1:28:52
  Speaker 2: Or alternatively, the prosecution could say that the evidence that
• 1:28:56
  Speaker 2: Lindsay Clancy is a bad mother is right here in
• 1:28:59
  Speaker 2: the pictures of her slaughtered children, right? But no, they
• 1:29:04
  Speaker 2: can't do that. That's prejudicial. So the jury decided on
• 1:29:08
  Speaker 2: an argument that the prosecution was blocked from opposing and
• 1:29:16
  Speaker 2: wasn't even germane to the actual question in front of
• 1:29:20
  Speaker 2: the court. And they ignored the argument and they explicitly
• 1:29:23
  Speaker 2: say this in their discussion that they ignored the argument
• 1:29:27
  Speaker 2: or they couldn't describe the prosecution's argument. And now they're saying, well,
• 1:29:35
  Speaker 2: reasonable doubt. No, what they mean is these people knew
• 1:29:42
  Speaker 2: that this was not a correct assumption, that what they
• 1:29:46
  Speaker 2: were adjudicating, what the jury's majority was adjudicating wasn't the
• 1:29:51
  Speaker 2: question before the court. It was some other thing they
• 1:29:55
  Speaker 2: decided in order to arrive on their already agreed belief
• 1:30:03
  Speaker 2: or their individually decided beliefs that this woman was innocent.
• 1:30:08
  Speaker 3: Again, juror five, what does she say?
• 1:30:10
  Speaker 2: She says they came in already decided, right? We have
• 1:30:16
  Speaker 2: evidence that the holdout actually went back and forth, which
• 1:30:21
  Speaker 2: is what he was allowed to do. And we have
• 1:30:23
  Speaker 2: evidence because the juries looked at this guy going back
• 1:30:27
  Speaker 2: and forth through the evidence and weighing it all and
• 1:30:30
  Speaker 2: maybe not making a decision until he had weighed it
• 1:30:32
  Speaker 2: all as evidence he was being duplicitous and denying due process.
• 1:30:37
  Speaker 3: Literally, the man was doing what he was asked to do.
• 1:30:40
  Speaker 3: And these people look at that and say, oh, my God.
• 1:30:43
  Speaker 2: He's undermining the process of law because he had an opinion,
• 1:30:50
  Speaker 2: then he had another opinion according to this new evidence.
• 1:30:53
  Speaker 3: Can you believe him? He didn't come into this believing
• 1:30:57
  Speaker 3: that she was innocent.
• 1:30:58
  Speaker 2: And having every bit of evidence that.
• 1:31:00
  Speaker 3: She wasn't bounce off his skull.
• 1:31:03
  Speaker 2: He actually engaged with the evidence? How dare he?
• 1:31:06
  Speaker 3: How dare a juror do that?
• 1:31:10
  Speaker 2: And then they're like, oh, yeah, this is evidence that
• 1:31:12
  Speaker 2: his opinion is wrong because it changed with the evidence,
• 1:31:16
  Speaker 2: you see. That's one interpretation of what they're saying. The
• 1:31:21
  Speaker 2: other interpretation is what they're saying is that he was always,
• 1:31:25
  Speaker 2: you know, in the camp that you never move from
• 1:31:27
  Speaker 2: the camp because the evidence didn't move him out of
• 1:31:30
  Speaker 2: her guilt. The evidence did, at places, move him out
• 1:31:35
  Speaker 2: of the camp of her guilt. But then, toto, it
• 1:31:38
  Speaker 2: moved him back. Either way, what they're describing is a
• 1:31:41
  Speaker 2: man doing his job. A man taking responsibility for his role.
• 1:31:45
  Speaker 2: A man with a custodial instinct about what he needs
• 1:31:48
  Speaker 2: to do. Oh, this is what I do as a juror.
• 1:31:52
  Speaker 2: And they're using that to indict him as the problem.
• 1:31:57
  Speaker 2: Because he didn't supplicate to their consensus. And now they want,
• 1:32:05
  Speaker 2: these women, guys, want to remove people being able to
• 1:32:09
  Speaker 2: vote a hung jury. They want to remove the reality
• 1:32:15
  Speaker 2: that if you can't convince 12 people of something, that
• 1:32:21
  Speaker 2: that itself is reasonable doubt.
• 1:32:25
  Speaker 3: Right there.
• 1:32:26
  Speaker 2: They want to remove that and replace it with consensus
• 1:32:29
  Speaker 2: because they're women and men who are supplicating to women.
• 1:32:39
  Speaker 2: So now they want to take this massive miscarriage of
• 1:32:42
  Speaker 2: justice that almost happened, and they want to make it standard,
• 1:32:47
  Speaker 2: legal standard.
• 1:32:51
  Speaker 3: And also, do.
• 1:32:53
  Speaker 2: You notice how this is a subtle self-own here? Oh, hey,
• 1:32:58
  Speaker 2: we want to change how juries are conducted so that
• 1:33:01
  Speaker 2: the way that we conducted this jury is accurate to how.
• 1:33:05
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:33:07
  Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a subtle cell phone because she's admitting....
• 1:33:12
  Speaker 1: Allison?
• 1:33:13
  Speaker 2: In a way, what she did as the foreman is
• 1:33:17
  Speaker 2: not procedurally correct. But let's... Or didn't result in the
• 1:33:23
  Speaker 2: outcome that she wanted, shall we say. Mm-hmm. That's not
• 1:33:26
  Speaker 2: motivated reasoning.
• 1:33:28
  Speaker 4: Okay.
• 1:33:28
  Speaker 2: Let's go to the next one.
• 1:33:30
  Speaker 1: What's the next one? Cause I've been bouncing around a
• 1:33:32
  Speaker 1: little bit, so I don't know where we are. Is
• 1:33:33
  Speaker 1: it three, three 25 or no. Did we do that one?
• 1:33:37
  Speaker 2: Just give me a second here. All right.
• 1:33:40
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 1:33:41
  Speaker 1: Sorry. We were bouncing around. So I'm a little confused. Yeah,
• 1:33:44
  Speaker 1: I know.
• 1:33:44
  Speaker 2: This is a little bit complicated. This is a lot
• 1:33:46
  Speaker 2: of material guys. I did a lot of work on this.
• 1:33:50
  Speaker 2: All right. Okay. So let's go to three 25.
• 1:33:55
  Speaker 1: All right, 325.
• 1:33:59
  Speaker 2: And this is the first.
• 1:33:59
  Speaker 9: Yes, it showed huge reasonable doubt.
• 1:34:02
  Speaker 2: Stupid argument.
• 1:34:03
  Speaker 9: That they started out with one motive or.
• 1:34:13
  Speaker 3: Saying that.
• 1:34:14
  Speaker 2: Okay, so what this person is doing is she's saying
• 1:34:18
  Speaker 2: the prosecution started out in their opening statements saying, with
• 1:34:24
  Speaker 2: apparently a mistake in what they thought happened. But this
• 1:34:31
  Speaker 2: changes over the course of a trial. That's why the
• 1:34:34
  Speaker 2: jury is instructed not to necessarily weigh the opening statement.
• 1:34:41
  Speaker 2: So let's keep going. So this is the first one.
• 1:34:43
  Speaker 2: This is the first doofus.
• 1:34:45
  Speaker 1: She's already trying to change the meanings of words too.
• 1:34:49
  Speaker 1: She's trying to figure out how to frame this so
• 1:34:52
  Speaker 1: it doesn't make Lindsay Clancy look guilty, but let's keep going.
• 1:34:55
  Speaker 9: She hung out the window.
• 1:34:58
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 1:34:58
  Speaker 2: No, keep going. Keep going. Yeah, I'll let them speak.
• 1:35:00
  Speaker 9: Things that they were saying was all disproven by professionals
• 1:35:05
  Speaker 9: and sometimes their own professionals.
• 1:35:07
  Speaker 2: So that brought huge reasons. Okay, but that's fact finding.
• 1:35:10
  Speaker 2: All right. Does her hanging out the window, is it
• 1:35:14
  Speaker 2: germane to whether or not she was sane or insane?
• 1:35:20
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 1:35:21
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:35:22
  Speaker 2: That's just a logistical question. It's like she has gone
• 1:35:28
  Speaker 2: into this deciding the truth, and any evidence that one
• 1:35:35
  Speaker 2: party in this is trying to figure it out is
• 1:35:39
  Speaker 2: evidence that they're lying.
• 1:35:40
  Speaker 5: Do you see that?
• 1:35:41
  Speaker 2: So it's like if you don't have everything in order
• 1:35:46
  Speaker 2: at the beginning of the fact-finding, then you're lying. Well,
• 1:35:50
  Speaker 2: what's the fact-finding for? What is interviewing these expert witnesses for?
• 1:35:58
  Speaker 2: If you already know everything, it's to participate in the
• 1:36:03
  Speaker 2: process of finding the truth. And it's like, this woman
• 1:36:07
  Speaker 2: doesn't understand that. It's just like the same thing with
• 1:36:10
  Speaker 2: the juror. The juror is like, okay, well, this piece
• 1:36:12
  Speaker 2: of evidence, this piece of evidence, I feel this way,
• 1:36:15
  Speaker 2: or I've come to this conclusion based on this piece
• 1:36:17
  Speaker 2: of evidence and this piece of evidence. But in total,
• 1:36:20
  Speaker 2: This is my conclusion. And the process of weighing everything
• 1:36:23
  Speaker 2: becomes evidence that he is being duplicitous. Like, she's just
• 1:36:29
  Speaker 2: basically demonstrated that women can't understand science. Or this woman can't.
• 1:36:35
  Speaker 2: Because you don't know everything before you start finding the facts.
• 1:36:40
  Speaker 2: Why it's called discovery. And again, I'm pretty sure that
• 1:36:43
  Speaker 2: the jury is counseled not to necessarily weigh the opening statements.
• 1:36:48
  Speaker 2: Because they're the opening statements. Things change. And that none
• 1:36:53
  Speaker 2: of this is germane to whether or not she was insane.
• 1:36:57
  Speaker 2: I want to point out all it does is show
• 1:36:59
  Speaker 2: that she's holding the prosecution to an evidentiary standard. Right.
• 1:37:06
  Speaker 3: She's saying, oh, well, this was wrong.
• 1:37:08
  Speaker 2: Therefore, it's reasonable doubt, even if it's not even relevant
• 1:37:11
  Speaker 2: to the question before the court. OK, let's keep going.
• 1:37:15
  Speaker 1: All right.
• 1:37:17
  Speaker 4: I just found it to be harsh, Sue. Very, very harsh.
• 1:37:21
  Speaker 4: I mean, again.
• 1:37:21
  Speaker 2: The prosecution is harsh.
• 1:37:23
  Speaker 1: Yeah, they're doing their job, but it's harsh. Remember, the
• 1:37:28
  Speaker 1: prosecutor was a woman, so.
• 1:37:30
  Speaker 4: The fact that they had no character witnesses in regard
• 1:37:39
  Speaker 4: to Lindsay of being a bad mother. I mean, right
• 1:37:41
  Speaker 4: out of the gate, it's like.
• 1:37:43
  Speaker 2: That's not germane. You see what I was saying?
• 1:37:46
  Speaker 1: Yeah. It's also not relevant, like character witnesses.
• 1:37:49
  Speaker 2: This is stupid. This is stupid argument number two, right?
• 1:37:54
  Speaker 2: Stupid argument number one is inconsistencies in the opening statement. Well,
• 1:37:59
  Speaker 2: you're not supposed to necessarily weigh the opening statement, right?
• 1:38:03
  Speaker 2: So basically they're holding the prosecution to their opening statement,
• 1:38:07
  Speaker 2: which they're not supposed to do. And they're saying if
• 1:38:09
  Speaker 2: there's any deviation, then that's reasonable doubt over the whole case.
• 1:38:14
  Speaker 2: That's an insane standard, and I'm pretty sure they would
• 1:38:17
  Speaker 2: have been counseled not to have it. Number two is
• 1:38:20
  Speaker 2: the prosecution is harsh towards the defendant. What? Okay, all right.
• 1:38:26
  Speaker 2: But also, the prosecution didn't bring any... negative character witnesses.
• 1:38:32
  Speaker 2: What do you think they would have said about the
• 1:38:34
  Speaker 2: prosecution if they had like a train of character witnesses
• 1:38:37
  Speaker 2: that were harsh towards Lindsay Clancy? What would these women say?
• 1:38:41
  Speaker 2: That would be even more evidence of her innocence because
• 1:38:46
  Speaker 2: the prosecution's being so mean to her. But also, it's
• 1:38:53
  Speaker 2: highly likely that the prosecution couldn't bring any character witnesses
• 1:39:00
  Speaker 2: to Lindsay's bad character because that would have been ruled
• 1:39:03
  Speaker 2: prejudicial and not relevant to the question at hand, which
• 1:39:09
  Speaker 2: is whether or not she was sane. So they had
• 1:39:13
  Speaker 2: their hands tied. And this juror has the audacity to say, Oh,
• 1:39:19
  Speaker 2: the prosecution didn't bring witnesses it couldn't bring. Well, aren't
• 1:39:23
  Speaker 2: you an ignorant one? So this is the second bogus argument. Actually,
• 1:39:28
  Speaker 2: there's two here. That the prosecution was harsh. What else
• 1:39:32
  Speaker 2: are they going to be? Or they weren't compassionate to
• 1:39:35
  Speaker 2: Lindsay Clancy. And two, the prosecution didn't bring character witnesses
• 1:39:39
  Speaker 2: it probably was restricted from bringing in the first place.
• 1:39:43
  Speaker 2: All right, let's move on to three.
• 1:39:46
  Speaker 1: All right. So 556.
• 1:39:50
  Speaker 2: Yes. Oh, no, wait, this is three. It was already.
• 1:39:53
  Speaker 3: It was already.
• 1:39:55
  Speaker 1: No, no, no, it's not. OK.
• 1:39:56
  Speaker 4: Was really really shot from his heart. Again, the prosecution
• 1:40:00
  Speaker 4: had no witness to question her credibility.
• 1:40:03
  Speaker 1: Yeah, this is 556. Oh, yeah.
• 1:40:06
  Speaker 2: No, this is good. This is good.
• 1:40:07
  Speaker 1: OK, I'm going to go back a little bit.
• 1:40:10
  Speaker 4: Kevin was really shot from his heart. Again, the prosecution
• 1:40:14
  Speaker 4: had no witness to question her credibility.
• 1:40:17
  Speaker 2: This is the evidence of her innocence, guys.
• 1:40:19
  Speaker 4: People that loved her family, their in-laws. I mean, even
• 1:40:23
  Speaker 4: Patrick was very compassionate. So we appreciated the fact that
• 1:40:28
  Speaker 4: he didn't just.
• 1:40:28
  Speaker 3: Delay dragging on.
• 1:40:29
  Speaker 2: What mattered here was compassion for Lindsay. Are you getting
• 1:40:33
  Speaker 2: a picture here, guys?
• 1:40:35
  Speaker 4: Oh, yeah.
• 1:40:35
  Speaker 2: These women walked into the courtroom and they were like, yeah,
• 1:40:37
  Speaker 2: we're advocates for Lindsay. Because she's a mom.
• 1:40:42
  Speaker 3: Mm-hmm.
• 1:40:45
  Speaker 4: Oh.
• 1:40:47
  Speaker 3: Is there, like, some kind of hormone.
• 1:40:49
  Speaker 2: That turns on in women's brains when they become moms?
• 1:40:55
  Speaker 1: I would think, and I mean, I would guess that, well,
• 1:41:00
  Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know. I don't think that
• 1:41:03
  Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy is the norm. I'm just going to go
• 1:41:06
  Speaker 1: on a limb. And I don't understand where this is
• 1:41:09
  Speaker 1: coming from. But they seem to be making the case that, yes,
• 1:41:13
  Speaker 1: when a woman becomes a mother, she is understandably becomes
• 1:41:19
  Speaker 1: more murderous, specifically towards her own spawn. So her own children.
• 1:41:27
  Speaker 4: Offspring.
• 1:41:28
  Speaker 2: That's the word I was looking for. We got a
• 1:41:30
  Speaker 2: ways to go and only 18 minutes to get there.
• 1:41:33
  Speaker 1: I know, I know.
• 1:41:33
  Speaker 4: With a bunch of more medical BS and get more
• 1:41:37
  Speaker 4: to the point of really who Lindsay... is and what
• 1:41:40
  Speaker 4: her life was like.
• 1:41:42
  Speaker 9: We kept having to bring ourselves back.
• 1:41:44
  Speaker 1: We gotta, we gotta, we gotta learn her, her backstory.
• 1:41:46
  Speaker 1: You know, I watched, I watched Maleficent the other day
• 1:41:50
  Speaker 1: and I, and even though Maleficent was like the evil,
• 1:41:53
  Speaker 1: dark demon fairy queen that, you know, tried to get
• 1:41:57
  Speaker 1: revenge on the king by, you know, poisoning his daughter
• 1:42:02
  Speaker 1: and putting her to sleep for a hundred years and
• 1:42:04
  Speaker 1: trying to kill him and take over the kingdom i
• 1:42:06
  Speaker 1: learned that a man done did her wrong in that
• 1:42:08
  Speaker 1: movie so all of that stuff is understandable now so
• 1:42:11
  Speaker 1: we just need context everybody context.
• 1:42:16
  Speaker 2: Back to the fact i mean.
• 1:42:17
  Speaker 1: Look i think there's what i'm saying i don't think
• 1:42:19
  Speaker 1: that's crazy though because like we have been bombarding people
• 1:42:25
  Speaker 1: with this sort of like hey, this person that's evil
• 1:42:28
  Speaker 1: that you know, well, maybe they're not because here's some
• 1:42:30
  Speaker 1: backstory that explains it. And you're like, oh, well, then
• 1:42:33
  Speaker 1: I like this person now. And now they're siding with
• 1:42:35
  Speaker 1: killers and child murderers. So, you know, just saying there
• 1:42:40
  Speaker 1: could be something there.
• 1:42:42
  Speaker 2: Okay, can I just point something out?
• 1:42:44
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:42:45
  Speaker 2: The question before the court was whether or not Lindsay
• 1:42:49
  Speaker 2: Clancy was sane.
• 1:42:51
  Speaker 1: Yes.
• 1:42:51
  Speaker 2: And knew what she was doing. This woman has just
• 1:42:54
  Speaker 2: said that that was medical BS, and she just wanted
• 1:42:58
  Speaker 2: adjudication on whether or not Lindsay Clancy signaled her goodness
• 1:43:04
  Speaker 2: to the relational web sufficiently, which apparently she did because
• 1:43:08
  Speaker 2: the prosecution, who probably couldn't bring negative character witnesses, didn't
• 1:43:14
  Speaker 2: bring negative character witnesses. So they wanted to adjudicate this
• 1:43:17
  Speaker 2: based on what Lindsay Clancy was signaling to the relational web.
• 1:43:21
  Speaker 2: All right, let's get to the next one, 622. All right, 622.
• 1:43:25
  Speaker 1: Yeah, that's what's playing right now.
• 1:43:28
  Speaker 2: All right, good.
• 1:43:29
  Speaker 1: I'll go back a little bit, yeah, right here.
• 1:43:33
  Speaker 9: Solves back to the fact that we weren't trying to
• 1:43:39
  Speaker 9: figure out if she murdered the children. She did, and
• 1:43:42
  Speaker 9: she's admitting that. We're trying to figure out, did she
• 1:43:46
  Speaker 9: know right from wrong at that time? And with everybody
• 1:43:49
  Speaker 9: saying she loved her children so much and everything proved
• 1:43:54
  Speaker 9: she loved her children from her journals to her mother-in-law.
• 1:44:01
  Speaker 9: Everything proved that she loved her children. So she had
• 1:44:04
  Speaker 9: to have snapped and not known what she was doing.
• 1:44:07
  Speaker 9: To me, that was proof.
• 1:44:10
  Speaker 2: All right. So there you go. All of the prosecution's
• 1:44:15
  Speaker 2: evidence that Lindsay Clancy was sane and knew what she
• 1:44:17
  Speaker 2: was doing is irrelevant because the real evidence lies with,
• 1:44:23
  Speaker 2: did Lindsay Clancy signal to the people around her that
• 1:44:27
  Speaker 2: she loved her children correctly? Oh, she did. Well, therefore,
• 1:44:31
  Speaker 2: she must have snapped. Therefore, she's innocent.
• 1:44:35
  Speaker 13: Right?
• 1:44:36
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 1:44:36
  Speaker 8: Yeah.
• 1:44:37
  Speaker 1: You know, some of this stuff we've already gone over
• 1:44:39
  Speaker 1: in the last stream that we did.
• 1:44:41
  Speaker 8: Yeah, I know.
• 1:44:41
  Speaker 2: But this is like, that's number four.
• 1:44:43
  Speaker 10: Yeah, yeah.
• 1:44:44
  Speaker 2: Let's go to number five. Let's just get through this.
• 1:44:46
  Speaker 1: All right, 730.
• 1:44:46
  Speaker 5: Did you make any points at all?
• 1:44:49
  Speaker 2: Did the prosecution make any points?
• 1:44:53
  Speaker 8: No.
• 1:44:54
  Speaker 4: I honestly feel like the prosecutor did themselves more damage
• 1:44:58
  Speaker 4: than good by just.
• 1:45:02
  Speaker 4: Not thinking about Lindsay. I mean, the whole picture, not
• 1:45:05
  Speaker 4: just postpartum depression, not just delusional, not just the voice,
• 1:45:11
  Speaker 4: but the meds, the whole cocktail of her mental health.
• 1:45:15
  Speaker 2: The prosecution didn't do them a favor by not thinking
• 1:45:20
  Speaker 2: about Lindsay Clancy.
• 1:45:21
  Speaker 3: Hey, guys, the prosecution.
• 1:45:23
  Speaker 1: And take it into consideration. What about her humanity?
• 1:45:25
  Speaker 2: A second defense.
• 1:45:27
  Speaker 3: A second defense.
• 1:45:28
  Speaker 1: Oh, my God.
• 1:45:30
  Speaker 2: Then they would have gotten further with these women. And
• 1:45:35
  Speaker 2: they didn't make any points at all. So the 7,000
• 1:45:38
  Speaker 2: pages of evidence about Lindsay Clancy's behavior and all of
• 1:45:43
  Speaker 2: the psychologists that saw her prior to the murder, the
• 1:45:47
  Speaker 2: state psychologists, none of this penetrated. The prosecution guys didn't
• 1:45:52
  Speaker 2: even make any points. Not that the points were bad.
• 1:45:55
  Speaker 2: They just didn't exist. Because all that mattered... was that
• 1:45:59
  Speaker 2: the defense proved that Lindsay Clancy was seen as a
• 1:46:02
  Speaker 2: good mother by people who couldn't actually tell if she was.
• 1:46:07
  Speaker 2: Like I said last time, the only people who can
• 1:46:11
  Speaker 2: say if Lindsay Clancy is a good mother, her children.
• 1:46:14
  Speaker 2: They're dead. So they speak with their corpses. No, she's
• 1:46:18
  Speaker 2: not a good mother. But we can now determine... whether
• 1:46:23
  Speaker 2: or not she was sane. But of course, what they're
• 1:46:26
  Speaker 2: saying here is that evidence didn't even enter the plaint
• 1:46:29
  Speaker 2: of their minds. It wasn't even considered. It wasn't taken
• 1:46:32
  Speaker 2: off the buffet of evidence to even be considered by them.
• 1:46:35
  Speaker 2: All right, we're going to skip.
• 1:46:37
  Speaker 1: 1855. Yep, I'm already there. All right.
• 1:46:42
  Speaker 11: Who's your least favorite expert witness?
• 1:46:44
  Speaker 4: There was a few, I'm going to tell you right now.
• 1:46:46
  Speaker 5: What?
• 1:46:47
  Speaker 4: Obviously, Dr. Mack.
• 1:46:49
  Speaker 1: Yeah, how come?
• 1:46:51
  Speaker 2: Um.
• 1:46:51
  Speaker 4: I thought he was smug. I thought he was uneducated with,
• 1:46:54
  Speaker 4: I mean, with his background, but the four weeks of
• 1:46:58
  Speaker 4: postpartum depression, I didn't like his expressions. I felt like
• 1:47:01
  Speaker 4: he was just not sincere at all. And I thought
• 1:47:06
  Speaker 4: he took way much time out in that court to
• 1:47:09
  Speaker 4: prove what he wanted to prove. And it was very
• 1:47:11
  Speaker 4: ineffective to us jurors.
• 1:47:13
  Speaker 8: Oh, gosh.
• 1:47:16
  Speaker 1: I don't like the way he made me feel. He
• 1:47:19
  Speaker 1: was kind of uneducated. His name was literally Dr. Something.
• 1:47:23
  Speaker 1: We don't know. Unbelievable. Unbelievable.
• 1:47:31
  Speaker 7: Okay.
• 1:47:32
  Speaker 3: What do you want to bet?
• 1:47:33
  Speaker 2: It was a spurg. Like he just, yeah, he.
• 1:47:35
  Speaker 1: Might've been, there's a little bit more to this soundbite,
• 1:47:38
  Speaker 1: but yeah.
• 1:47:39
  Speaker 2: Expert witnesses.
• 1:47:40
  Speaker 4: Okay.
• 1:47:40
  Speaker 2: Let's, let's finish that. And then I will go on.
• 1:47:42
  Speaker 9: He was Mac Mac. He wasn't believable. He wasn't professional. Also,
• 1:47:52
  Speaker 9: you know, being a special ed teacher, I'm very used
• 1:47:54
  Speaker 9: to having, giving my students wait time. But some of
• 1:48:00
  Speaker 9: those professionals needed so much.
• 1:48:04
  Speaker 2: Wait time, it was hard to follow them.
• 1:48:08
  Speaker 4: Giving them time to answer.
• 1:48:09
  Speaker 2: Okay, all right, so you're an.
• 1:48:13
  Speaker 8: Idiot.
• 1:48:13
  Speaker 1: Well, she works with special ed kids, so maybe some
• 1:48:16
  Speaker 1: of that rubs off, I don't know. but I'm sorry. Yeah.
• 1:48:21
  Speaker 2: Mentally disabled.
• 1:48:22
  Speaker 1: Maybe they're teaching her stuff. Yeah.
• 1:48:27
  Speaker 2: So these expert witnesses took time to answer the questions.
• 1:48:31
  Speaker 2: You know that when you're an expert witness, there's a
• 1:48:34
  Speaker 2: lot of stuff that you have to sift through to
• 1:48:37
  Speaker 2: create an accurate answer. So the fact that these people,
• 1:48:40
  Speaker 2: you know, Jordan Peterson pauses a lot. Have you noticed that?
• 1:48:44
  Speaker 1: Sure. Well, it's because he used to think about what
• 1:48:46
  Speaker 1: he's going to say. He tries to be very careful,
• 1:48:48
  Speaker 1: especially when you know that everyone is waiting for an
• 1:48:51
  Speaker 1: opportunity to use your words against you if you, like,
• 1:48:53
  Speaker 1: you know, speak carelessly enough. So, yeah, smart people take
• 1:48:58
  Speaker 1: their time to say what they mean.
• 1:49:02
  Speaker 3: Exactly.
• 1:49:03
  Speaker 2: They can take a lot of time because there's a
• 1:49:05
  Speaker 2: lot of factors in consideration. I mean, what these women
• 1:49:08
  Speaker 2: are revealing is they have no factors, no consideration.
• 1:49:12
  Speaker 4: Right.
• 1:49:12
  Speaker 2: Everything is just surface impression in the moment. Oh, he
• 1:49:16
  Speaker 2: had weird expressions.
• 1:49:18
  Speaker 8: Oh, he didn't.
• 1:49:19
  Speaker 2: He seemed like one of my special needs children. I'm
• 1:49:24
  Speaker 2: insulting him by using my special needs children because I
• 1:49:27
  Speaker 2: think they're stupid.
• 1:49:27
  Speaker 8: Yeah.
• 1:49:30
  Speaker 3: Oh, God.
• 1:49:31
  Speaker 2: Like, this is appalling. But yeah, they took time to speak.
• 1:49:36
  Speaker 2: They took time to weigh their words. They took time
• 1:49:39
  Speaker 2: to consider all of the factors that, as expert witnesses,
• 1:49:43
  Speaker 2: no doubt they had to consider. And these women were like, oh,
• 1:49:46
  Speaker 2: my God.
• 1:49:47
  Speaker 3: It just wasn't entertaining.
• 1:49:50
  Speaker 2: I had to think for more than five minutes. I
• 1:49:52
  Speaker 2: had to follow a thought for more than four than
• 1:49:54
  Speaker 2: five seconds. Like, how can you expect that from me?
• 1:49:57
  Speaker 1: Like.
• 1:50:00
  Speaker 2: Okay, let's go to the next one.
• 1:50:02
  Speaker 1: All right, next one, 2107. All right, all.
• 1:50:08
  Speaker 4: Right.
• 1:50:10
  Speaker 9: What was happening? You know, we were waiting for an
• 1:50:15
  Speaker 9: answer from the last note we sent, which we named
• 1:50:21
  Speaker 9: the number of the juror that.
• 1:50:27
  Speaker 9: Who had reasonable doubt, but would not acknowledge. He acknowledged
• 1:50:31
  Speaker 9: it to us, but would not acknowledge.
• 1:50:33
  Speaker 2: It in his verdict. No, he didn't acknowledge it to you.
• 1:50:37
  Speaker 2: We just went over that, remember?
• 1:50:38
  Speaker 1: Again, if he said he had reasonable doubt, that's not
• 1:50:42
  Speaker 1: a win for you guys. That means that he doesn't
• 1:50:44
  Speaker 1: believe that she's innocent. Or, yeah, that's what it means. Like,
• 1:50:48
  Speaker 1: there's not enough evidence to prove her innocence. So he
• 1:50:52
  Speaker 1: has a... Well, what they're trying to say... He does
• 1:50:53
  Speaker 1: not have a reasonable... Or he has a reasonable doubt.
• 1:50:58
  Speaker 2: Of her sanity. Yes, of her sanity. Of her insanity.
• 1:51:02
  Speaker 2: That hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But if
• 1:51:05
  Speaker 2: you actually listen to how the jurors are describing this thing,
• 1:51:09
  Speaker 2: he was... he was looking at this piece of evidence,
• 1:51:11
  Speaker 2: looking at this piece of evidence and saying, this gives
• 1:51:14
  Speaker 2: me doubt. No specification of what the doubt actually is about.
• 1:51:17
  Speaker 2: It could be a doubt to her sanity, considering that
• 1:51:21
  Speaker 2: that's the question. And honestly, the thing is that it
• 1:51:25
  Speaker 2: sounds like he had the process. He was like, okay,
• 1:51:27
  Speaker 2: I'm gonna look at the evidence of whether or not
• 1:51:29
  Speaker 2: she was insane. And these women were like, but that's
• 1:51:31
  Speaker 2: not relevant. Not relevant to an insanity plea, whether or
• 1:51:35
  Speaker 2: not she's insane. It's whether or not she correctly signaled
• 1:51:38
  Speaker 2: being a loving mother to the relational web. Like she
• 1:51:43
  Speaker 2: virtue signaled correctly. And like, again, no awareness that psychos
• 1:51:51
  Speaker 2: are very good at that, can be very good at that.
• 1:51:53
  Speaker 2: Narcissists can be very good at signaling correctly, but being
• 1:51:58
  Speaker 2: absolute bastards in private. Like all of these nurses seem
• 1:52:02
  Speaker 2: to be unaware of that, probably because it's a little,
• 1:52:04
  Speaker 2: it's a little too close to home for them. But
• 1:52:07
  Speaker 2: like I want to point out, and then he immediately
• 1:52:10
  Speaker 2: corrected them, according to another juror, when they said, oh,
• 1:52:13
  Speaker 2: you have reasonable doubt. He's like, no. So he's being
• 1:52:17
  Speaker 2: hung for doing what a juror is supposed to do,
• 1:52:22
  Speaker 2: which is looking at the evidence, letting it letting him
• 1:52:24
  Speaker 2: move himself, move one way or the other, and then
• 1:52:27
  Speaker 2: in toto making a decision. And they're just jumping on
• 1:52:31
  Speaker 2: him for that. OK, let's move to the next time. Cooks,
• 1:52:33
  Speaker 2: I know we're already there.
• 1:52:35
  Speaker 1: All right, here we go.
• 1:52:35
  Speaker 9: I think that's what it was. He admitted he had
• 1:52:39
  Speaker 9: reasonable doubt, and I started filling out the forms.
• 1:52:42
  Speaker 2: I was so excited.
• 1:52:44
  Speaker 9: I actually, there were three forms I had to fill out,
• 1:52:47
  Speaker 9: and I started filling them out. I wrote my signature
• 1:52:50
  Speaker 9: on each one.
• 1:52:51
  Speaker 2: We just went through that.
• 1:52:53
  Speaker 1: Oh, what, 30?
• 1:52:54
  Speaker 2: No, no, we didn't.
• 1:52:55
  Speaker 7: Yeah?
• 1:52:57
  Speaker 1: What, I played it. No, no, no, no, no.
• 1:52:59
  Speaker 2: I mean, we went through the time code where The
• 1:53:02
  Speaker 2: guy said, no, I didn't say that. Or at least
• 1:53:05
  Speaker 2: according to another juror.
• 1:53:06
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, right.
• 1:53:07
  Speaker 2: Okay, keep going. Keep going.
• 1:53:09
  Speaker 1: Well, this is the, no, wait, the 2809. Oh, okay, yeah.
• 1:53:15
  Speaker 9: And he said, but I'm still not going to say
• 1:53:18
  Speaker 9: that she's not guilty by reason of insanity.
• 1:53:21
  Speaker 2: Yeah, this is very motivated thinking for these women.
• 1:53:24
  Speaker 5: Like we tried all different ways, right?
• 1:53:26
  Speaker 6: And we had one of the jurors in a very
• 1:53:28
  Speaker 6: calm way asked him some questions. And he said, this
• 1:53:36
  Speaker 6: didn't show it and this didn't show it. You know,
• 1:53:38
  Speaker 6: that he had doubt and he said it out loud.
• 1:53:41
  Speaker 6: And they said to him, that's doubt. Oh, no, I
• 1:53:44
  Speaker 6: didn't say that.
• 1:53:46
  Speaker 4: And he clearly did so many times.
• 1:53:48
  Speaker 2: For me, I'm not sure. Yeah, but it doesn't matter. Okay,
• 1:53:54
  Speaker 2: they don't seem to understand the idea of conscience or
• 1:53:58
  Speaker 2: independent thought. He may have had doubt at any time
• 1:54:03
  Speaker 2: during the process of weighing the evidence. But if at
• 1:54:06
  Speaker 2: the end he weighed the evidence and said, no, this
• 1:54:09
  Speaker 2: isn't reasonable doubt, that's the way he should have conducted himself.
• 1:54:16
  Speaker 2: What I'm getting is that the only person who conducted
• 1:54:18
  Speaker 2: himself correctly is the holdout. And then the other thing
• 1:54:23
  Speaker 2: is that right here, right here they're saying, I think
• 1:54:28
  Speaker 2: what they're based on all of this that I'm hearing
• 1:54:32
  Speaker 2: is that his problem is he actually looked at the
• 1:54:35
  Speaker 2: evidence at hand and did not agree with them like
• 1:54:39
  Speaker 2: I mean can you imagine being on this jury and
• 1:54:41
  Speaker 2: they're talking about oh she's correctly signaling she's performing the
• 1:54:45
  Speaker 2: dance of a loving mother she's learned it really well
• 1:54:49
  Speaker 2: she must have a fantastic choreographer choreographer so therefore she's
• 1:54:53
  Speaker 2: a loving mother and they're like that's not germane we
• 1:54:56
  Speaker 2: need to figure out whether or not she's sane Right.
• 1:54:58
  Speaker 2: And they're like, but what I know it's perfectly. God damn.
• 1:55:02
  Speaker 2: And she and honestly, he's right. Because they're adjudicating on
• 1:55:07
  Speaker 2: something that isn't relevant to the question at hand.
• 1:55:11
  Speaker 3: Is this woman sane?
• 1:55:12
  Speaker 2: And they've made up this entirely new concept of evidence.
• 1:55:21
  Speaker 2: In order to, what a surprise, land on the likely
• 1:55:26
  Speaker 2: belief that they brought into this entire process, which is
• 1:55:29
  Speaker 2: that Lindsay Clancy's innocent. And that they're advocates for women
• 1:55:34
  Speaker 2: who have postpartum depression everywhere and just need to kill
• 1:55:37
  Speaker 2: their kids because that's going to make them feel better.
• 1:55:40
  Speaker 2: How does that work anyway? You got postpartum depression, you
• 1:55:44
  Speaker 2: kill your kids, that makes you feel better? Hmm. It
• 1:55:49
  Speaker 2: seems like it's a little bit off, but let's get
• 1:55:51
  Speaker 2: to the next one.
• 1:55:53
  Speaker 1: All right. 2916, I'm already there.
• 1:55:55
  Speaker 4: On numerous occasions, the definition of reasonable doubt from Judge
• 1:56:00
  Speaker 4: Sullivan's instruction.
• 1:56:02
  Speaker 5: He actually said.
• 1:56:03
  Speaker 4: One day in the end, well, why don't we have
• 1:56:06
  Speaker 4: the judge come in and read it again? And we
• 1:56:07
  Speaker 4: were like, no, we have it in front of us.
• 1:56:11
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and you guys are... You hear the anger in
• 1:56:14
  Speaker 2: her voice?
• 1:56:15
  Speaker 1: Yeah, she wants him to cave. She wanted him to
• 1:56:18
  Speaker 1: give up and just be like, submit, submit.
• 1:56:22
  Speaker 2: She wants him to submit to their version of reasonable doubt,
• 1:56:26
  Speaker 2: which obviously, from everything they're saying, is wrong. And he's like,
• 1:56:33
  Speaker 2: let's bring in the judge to please fool you people. Okay,
• 1:56:38
  Speaker 2: let's keep going.
• 1:56:40
  Speaker 1: All right, this is the next time code now, I think. 29-35.
• 1:56:43
  Speaker 1: Double checking.
• 1:56:45
  Speaker 8: Wait.
• 1:56:46
  Speaker 1: Yeah. No, no, no, no, no. It's not that. It's 30-19.
• 1:56:50
  Speaker 4: 30-19.
• 1:56:50
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Sorry.
• 1:56:52
  Speaker 2: Thumb on the scale.
• 1:56:53
  Speaker 5: Do you think Judge Sullivan should have done an inquiry
• 1:56:55
  Speaker 5: into this jury?
• 1:56:56
  Speaker 9: Well, what he did was he took us all individually
• 1:56:58
  Speaker 9: and asked us if we understood the reasonable doubt. And
• 1:57:04
  Speaker 9: everybody said yes. So when we came back in the
• 1:57:10
  Speaker 9: jury room at that point, I said, Well, if everybody
• 1:57:14
  Speaker 9: said yes, then, you know, because he should have said no.
• 1:57:18
  Speaker 9: And I said, okay, everybody raise your hands if you
• 1:57:22
  Speaker 9: said yes. And he raised his hand. I'm like, that
• 1:57:26
  Speaker 9: doesn't make sense.
• 1:57:27
  Speaker 4: And that's when a lot of us said, you know what,
• 1:57:29
  Speaker 4: that's it. This is no changing this guy's mind.
• 1:57:33
  Speaker 2: Thank God. Thank God. Thank God. Because literally, this guy
• 1:57:40
  Speaker 2: did everything he could. This man was holding on to
• 1:57:46
  Speaker 2: rule of law by his fingernails. And listen to what
• 1:57:51
  Speaker 2: they're saying. This is what they're saying. The evidence that
• 1:57:57
  Speaker 2: they weighed was a bunch of people beaking off about
• 1:58:00
  Speaker 2: this woman being a good mother when they couldn't have
• 1:58:03
  Speaker 2: even known. right? They were testifying to something that they
• 1:58:09
  Speaker 2: couldn't actually know. And they're ignoring the evidence before their
• 1:58:14
  Speaker 2: eyes of three dead children, whether or not she's a
• 1:58:16
  Speaker 2: good mother. And they're using the evidence that she's a
• 1:58:19
  Speaker 2: good mother to say, well, she must have snapped. So
• 1:58:23
  Speaker 2: the more horrific thing that Lindsay Clancy did, the more
• 1:58:26
  Speaker 2: innocent she was. And this guy was probably sitting there
• 1:58:29
  Speaker 2: listening to this thinking, I'm in hell. This is insane.
• 1:58:35
  Speaker 2: This is freaking insane. We have the question before the
• 1:58:38
  Speaker 2: court is, is this woman sane?
• 1:58:42
  Speaker 3: And I'm here wondering if women generally.
• 1:58:44
  Speaker 2: Are sane, if the women on the jury are sane.
• 1:58:48
  Speaker 2: The question before the court, is this woman sane? Nothing
• 1:58:51
  Speaker 2: to do with whether or not she's a good mother.
• 1:58:54
  Speaker 2: And your entire framework of generating reasonable doubt is incorrect.
• 1:58:59
  Speaker 2: Please talk to the judge. Have the judge tell us
• 1:59:03
  Speaker 2: all so we can bring it out in the open
• 1:59:06
  Speaker 2: and it isn't your narrative interpretation of reasonable doubt. That's
• 1:59:10
  Speaker 2: what I'm hearing from all this. They knew what the
• 1:59:14
  Speaker 2: question was before the court and he's the only one
• 1:59:17
  Speaker 2: who even considered it. They even admit, oh, the prosecution
• 1:59:20
  Speaker 2: made no points.
• 1:59:21
  Speaker 9: No points?
• 1:59:23
  Speaker 2: What do you mean they just went up there during
• 1:59:25
  Speaker 2: the entire trial and they were going hum-a-na-hum-a-hum-a-na-hum-a-na-hum-a-na for the
• 1:59:29
  Speaker 2: entire fucking time? They were just speaking like peanuts. You know,
• 1:59:34
  Speaker 2: Charlie Brown adults. Like they made no points.
• 1:59:39
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 1:59:40
  Speaker 3: Yeah. Like these women said they made no points. That's
• 1:59:44
  Speaker 3: not physically possible.
• 1:59:48
  Speaker 2: What she means is they made no points relevant to
• 1:59:51
  Speaker 2: what she had decided the entire court case was about,
• 1:59:55
  Speaker 2: which was what were not. Lindsay Clancy was a good mother,
• 1:59:59
  Speaker 2: which was not even. So it's like, thank God for
• 2:00:03
  Speaker 2: this guy because he defeated. He managed to wade through
• 2:00:06
  Speaker 2: the swamp of abject femoid ignorance and come out the
• 2:00:11
  Speaker 2: other end. Somewhat triumphant, but very stinky.
• 2:00:18
  Speaker 8: All right.
• 2:00:19
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 2:00:21
  Speaker 4: Okay.
• 2:00:21
  Speaker 2: And the 11th one, I'll just tell you what the
• 2:00:23
  Speaker 2: 11th one, the 11th one, which is the crowning jewel
• 2:00:26
  Speaker 2: of this shit, fricking casket shit cake is what we
• 2:00:31
  Speaker 2: just covered, which is that they want to make it.
• 2:00:34
  Speaker 2: They want to take away jurors being able to vote
• 2:00:38
  Speaker 2: their conscience and just replace it with majority rule. So
• 2:00:41
  Speaker 2: they want to take their travesty of justice and export
• 2:00:45
  Speaker 2: it to every courthouse in America. Wow.
• 2:00:50
  Speaker 1: Yep.
• 2:00:51
  Speaker 2: Yeah. Women voting, everyone.
• 2:00:53
  Speaker 1: And they want to continue to control that. Yep.
• 2:01:01
  Speaker 2: And like, again, I personally don't see how it's going
• 2:01:05
  Speaker 2: to happen because women would have to vote to get
• 2:01:07
  Speaker 2: rid of the vote. So we'll see. We'll see what happens.
• 2:01:12
  Speaker 2: I don't even think that Islam isn't also cucked. Like,
• 2:01:19
  Speaker 2: I don't know if they're going to be able to
• 2:01:20
  Speaker 2: do it.
• 2:01:21
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 2:01:22
  Speaker 2: Oh man.
• 2:01:24
  Speaker 4: Okay.
• 2:01:24
  Speaker 2: Let's, uh, so that's it.
• 2:01:26
  Speaker 1: Those are the 11 stupid.
• 2:01:28
  Speaker 2: Ridiculous arguments that they made. Absolutely retard. Nothing to do
• 2:01:34
  Speaker 2: with an actual evidence of whether or not she was
• 2:01:37
  Speaker 2: sane or insane. Everything to do with people's facial expressions,
• 2:01:42
  Speaker 2: their demeanors, uh, whether or not they thought before they
• 2:01:46
  Speaker 2: spoke or had a fluent and charming way about them.
• 2:01:50
  Speaker 2: Whether or not Lindsay correctly broadcast her love for her
• 2:01:56
  Speaker 2: children to people who couldn't really determine whether she did
• 2:01:59
  Speaker 2: or not. No evidence. No consideration or engagement with the
• 2:02:04
  Speaker 2: actual question before the court. Just a whole bunch of
• 2:02:07
  Speaker 2: relational web bullshit.
• 2:02:11
  Speaker 3: Okay. There you go, guys.
• 2:02:14
  Speaker 1: There you go.
• 2:02:16
  Speaker 2: Women in justice.
• 2:02:17
  Speaker 1: All right.
• 2:02:17
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 2:02:19
  Speaker 1: So, yeah.
• 2:02:20
  Speaker 2: Women in justice.
• 2:02:21
  Speaker 1: Let's, yeah. Female in justice.
• 2:02:23
  Speaker 4: Okay, so.
• 2:02:25
  Speaker 2: Oh, anyway, if you guys would like to send us
• 2:02:27
  Speaker 2: a message. Do we have any messages or we just
• 2:02:30
  Speaker 2: got them?
• 2:02:31
  Speaker 1: We did. Let me, I got to read them. So,
• 2:02:34
  Speaker 1: I got another super chat here. I believe it was from.
• 2:02:41
  Speaker 1: Massagoa who gave us $ 5 and said I'm sorry if
• 2:02:44
  Speaker 1: this is off topic but I'm curious to hear Allison's
• 2:02:46
  Speaker 1: story what broke her out of the out of or
• 2:02:49
  Speaker 1: how did she avoid the sisterhood cult of feminism I
• 2:02:53
  Speaker 1: don't know if you can give like a really short
• 2:02:56
  Speaker 1: answer for that.
• 2:02:58
  Speaker 2: I think I might be one of the most D1A
• 2:03:02
  Speaker 2: activated women on the planet that's all just considering what
• 2:03:06
  Speaker 2: I've lived through like I just I don't I don't
• 2:03:11
  Speaker 2: feel any sense of security from the sisterhood at all.
• 2:03:17
  Speaker 1: None.
• 2:03:17
  Speaker 2: And I can see who is actually protecting women, who
• 2:03:21
  Speaker 2: is actually enforcing justice, and I see who isn't. And
• 2:03:27
  Speaker 2: it's as simple as that. I'm going to align with
• 2:03:30
  Speaker 2: anybody who wants a society where you don't excuse child murderers.
• 2:03:36
  Speaker 2: That's it.
• 2:03:37
  Speaker 13: All right.
• 2:03:37
  Speaker 2: Okay, let's next one.
• 2:03:41
  Speaker 1: 49819D gave us $ 5 and said, super chat for the algo.
• 2:03:44
  Speaker 1: I'm not even spending my own money for this. And
• 2:03:47
  Speaker 1: then Xeranks gave us a super chat for five and said,
• 2:03:51
  Speaker 1: something I came across on X. In the ancient Greek
• 2:03:54
  Speaker 1: city of Miletus, there was a high profile suicide by
• 2:03:57
  Speaker 1: a young woman. And because depression and suicide are psychogenic illnesses,
• 2:04:02
  Speaker 1: some other Milesian maiden saw the intention she got and
• 2:04:06
  Speaker 1: committed suicide herself. And pretty soon, they had a suicide epidemic.
• 2:04:11
  Speaker 1: How did it end, you ask? Well, they tried everything,
• 2:04:13
  Speaker 1: but the young woman affected by this epidemic of madness
• 2:04:16
  Speaker 1: seemed immune to reason. And then the leader of the
• 2:04:19
  Speaker 1: city decreed that the next suicide would be stripped naked
• 2:04:22
  Speaker 1: and left hanging in the city center to be leered at,
• 2:04:25
  Speaker 1: and then rot. How humiliating, you say. How cruel. How inhuman.
• 2:04:29
  Speaker 1: But that was the last suicide in Miletus. Now I'm
• 2:04:33
  Speaker 1: thinking that there are too many that are uninterested in
• 2:04:36
  Speaker 1: capital punishment.
• 2:04:37
  Speaker 4: Fine.
• 2:04:37
  Speaker 1: How about we make permanent cases for such women as
• 2:04:40
  Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy to ever have to worry about another period
• 2:04:43
  Speaker 1: for the rest of their lives, either capital punishment or
• 2:04:45
  Speaker 1: something similar to what's done to pedos. I'm good with either.
• 2:04:48
  Speaker 2: Okay.
• 2:04:50
  Speaker 1: Thank you for that.
• 2:04:51
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 2:04:51
  Speaker 2: That's because you believe that people have custodial roles and
• 2:04:55
  Speaker 2: should be held to them on death or serious punishment. That's,
• 2:04:59
  Speaker 2: that's a very masculine way to think about things.
• 2:05:01
  Speaker 1: And then lastly, I just got one at the last second.
• 2:05:06
  Speaker 1: NovaFan21 gave us a dollar and said, Feminists, you just
• 2:05:08
  Speaker 1: hate women. Me, well, I see them more like a pet.
• 2:05:11
  Speaker 1: Quoting OmniMan from Invincible. Okay, let's get out of here.
• 2:05:14
  Speaker 1: Go ahead, Allison.
• 2:05:15
  Speaker 2: Yes, alright. So if you have any more comments that
• 2:05:18
  Speaker 2: you want to send after the show is over, please
• 2:05:20
  Speaker 2: go to FeedTheBadger.com slash JustDidItHip. Very best way for you
• 2:05:23
  Speaker 2: guys to send your comments because they don't go through
• 2:05:26
  Speaker 2: YouTube's comment labyrinth to be eaten by YouTube's comment minotaur.
• 2:05:29
  Speaker 2: and the very best way for you to send us
• 2:05:32
  Speaker 2: funds because YouTube also doesn't take its gigantic damn bite
• 2:05:35
  Speaker 2: out of that. Once again, that's feedthebadger.com slash justthetip. And
• 2:05:40
  Speaker 2: if you want to support, eventually, we'll be available. If
• 2:05:43
  Speaker 2: you want to support the show just directly, feedthebadger.com slash support.
• 2:05:46
  Speaker 2: And finally, badgernation.online for our community. All of these are
• 2:05:50
  Speaker 2: in the low bar in YouTube and also probably Rumble.
• 2:05:54
  Speaker 2: So yeah, pick your poison, go do it.
• 2:05:57
  Speaker 3: Back to you, Brian.
• 2:05:58
  Speaker 1: Okay, well, if you guys liked this video, please hit like,
• 2:06:01
  Speaker 1: subscribe if you're not already subscribed, hit the bell for notifications,
• 2:06:04
  Speaker 1: leave us a comment, let us know what you guys
• 2:06:06
  Speaker 1: think about what we talked about on the show today,
• 2:06:07
  Speaker 1: and share the video because sharing is caring. Thanks so
• 2:06:10
  Speaker 1: much for coming on this episode of Maintaining Frame, and
• 2:06:12
  Speaker 1: we will talk to you guys in the next one.
• 2:06:14
  Speaker 1: Have a good weekend.