Ep. 1821 - The Lindsay Clancy Case Isn’t A "Who-Dun-It." Why Are TikTok Moms Pretending It Is?

Today, we're going to discuss one of the most horrifying murder cases in memory. And we don't often cover murder cases on the show unless the case has political implications of some kind. Outside of those kinds of cases, this is not a true crime podcast. And this murder case in particular is so awful, so dark, so totally unthinkable and ghastly that frankly, I don't like to think about it and would therefore prefer not to talk about it. Yet the case does have implications, not merely political, but deeper than that. The murder itself, the reaction to it, the commentary on it, the defense that's being argued in court, all say something and something quite troubling about our culture. And that's why I've decided to spend at least one episode of the show discussing it. So Lindsey Clancy is a former labor and delivery nurse. Back in January of 2023, she sent her husband Patrick out of the house to run an errand at CVS and pick up food. With Patrick out of the way, Clancy took her young children, Korra, age five, Dawson, age three, and Callen eight months into the basement where she methodically strangled them each to death with exercise bands. Clancy then slashed her wrists and jumped out of a second story window, sustaining serious injuries that left her paralyzed from the waist down. When her husband arrived, she told him the kids were in the basement. He ran downstairs to find them all dead. And later, according to her husband, Lindsey claimed that she had heard a voice, commanding her to kill the children and then herself. Now, despite what the wannabe Nancy Drew's are saying on TikTok, this is not exactly a who done it. Lindsey Clancy confessed to the crime. Her guilt is self-evident. And her attorneys in front of the jury aren't even attempting to argue that she didn't commit the crime. They've stipulated to all of the forensic evidence, which means they formally agreed that all the evidence is real and legitimate and valid. Again, they are not trying to argue that she didn't do it. She did it. That is not being disputed by any rational person, though it is being disputed by plenty of irrational people, as we will see. Instead, the case is about whether Lindsey Clancy qualifies as not guilty by reason of insanity, specifically by reason of postpartum psychosis exacerbated by the medications that she was taking. This is a defense that should not exist as a matter of law. Once a woman brutally murders her own children, it doesn't matter what a therapist says about why she did it. It doesn't matter how she felt. It doesn't matter if she was sad or anxious or indeed insane. She should be removed from society permanently as a matter of justice. If her defense is that she's so crazy that she just can't help herself, that she had no choice but to strangle her own children to death, and that's all the more reason to remove her from society permanently. It should not be controversial to say that a person who methodically executes three children, strangling each to death while the others watch in horror, is a person who must be punished to the fullest extent of the law, crazy or not, on medication or not. There are some things that you can do in life that once they've been done, preclude you from ever-walking free again. These are actions that cry out to heaven for vengeance. Justice must be done. Punishment must be given, and if murdering three children, your own, young, helpless children does not qualify as one of those sorts of actions. If it does not call for the most severe punishment, then nothing does. We should note that a successful insanity plea in the state of Massachusetts does not at all mean necessarily that the person who was found not guilty by reason of insanity will spend the rest of their life in a mental institution. You'll often hear people claim that there's no reason to get upset when a murderer is found not guilty by reason of insanity because they'll still be locked up in an institution for life. But that's not true. There's a reason defendants try for the insanity defense. The fate of a person found not guilty on that basis is considerably more favorable than one who was found guilty. Now if we were still living in the 1940s, when the criminally insane were committed for life to insane asylums, which were institutions often more punishing and nightmarish than actual prisons, then I might feel differently, but we're not in the 1940s anymore. If clansies and sanity defense is successful, she will be placed in a mental health institution indefinitely, but not necessarily permanently. And the state will have to petition every single year to keep her there. Every year they will have to prove that she is still mentally ill and a risk to society. If they can't prove it, or if they decline to petition in the first place, then she will, in fact, be released back into society. That happens all the time. And there's a very high chance that it would happen with Lindsay Clancy. The only way to permanently remove this woman, who, again, murdered three children from society, is to find her guilty of murder in the first degree and put her into prison for life with no parole or executor. The entire concept of an insanity defense, as I've argued before, is completely nonsensical and antithetical to the basic notions of justice and fairness, not to mention common sense. And that is particularly true in this context. Watch. A Massachusetts mother is facing murder charges in the strangulation deaths of her three young children. This was a woman who acted intentionally, rationally, and swiftly to accomplish a very specific goal. After the alleged killings, Clancy cut her wrists, a neck, and jumped out of a second story window, leaving her paralyzed. The defense argues Clancy lacks criminal responsibility, also known as the insanity defense, because she was suffering from postpartum depression and psychosis. Her then-husband testified she had been treated multiple times for her mental health, including for suicidal thoughts. She had been prescribed more than a dozen different medications by various providers, and was also admitted to a hospital for postpartum depression. But what is postpartum psychosis? Often is characterized by periods of confusion or disorientation. It can be characterized by an increased energy-racing thought. And often is characterized by sleep disturbance, then a woman often begins to have what we call psychotic symptoms. And those are when a woman has a kind of what we call break from reality sees things that aren't there. We have to diagnose and treat because it's an uncommon condition that does not present in the same way every time, and we do not have a definitive lab test or MRI or brain test that tells doctors they do or do not have that condition. The mother is saying she's not feeling right or the family is noticing that she's struggling. I would suggest reaching out for more information. So if a mother says she's not feeling right or if she's struggling, then that might mean that she has a postpartum depression or even postpartum psychosis. Other symptoms to look out for include confusion, disorientation, increased energy, racing thoughts and sleep disturbance, which, incidentally, are all symptoms that every human has at some point in their life, particularly when they're in a stressful situation. There's no lab tests for this disorder and the diagnostic criteria are so broad that they could apply to about 95% of the population at some point or another. Nevertheless, postpartum psychosis is currently a viable defense to first and remurder, and we're also supposed to take it seriously as a defense. Now to be clear, I'm not denying that postpartum psychosis can occur. Sometimes people do hallucinate for one reason or another. Certainly, postpartum depression is a real phenomenon. But even if you're fully on board with the idea that some women can develop this psychosis because their hormones get out of whack, the idea that it completely removes all agency, that they are not responsible at all for anything they do up to and including slaughtering three humans is ludicrous. Remember that Clancy sent her husband out of the house so that she could murder her kids. Remember that she murdered them with exercise bands, one at a time. Remember that she brought them to the basement so they could be killed. This was not a sudden explosion of violence in the heat of the moment. Now, even if it were, she should still rot in prison forever at a minimum, but it wasn't that. Instead, this was a planned, organized, systematic execution of her children. Now, there's a long history of women murdering their children and then being found not guilty by reason of insanity. Women who murder their own children are especially likely to play this get out of jail free card. It's especially likely that it will be successful. Most people will recall the Andrea Yates case 20 years ago. She drowned all five of her kids in a bathtub and she was initially convicted of capital murder, but an appeals court a few years later threw out the conviction and then she was retried and then she was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Now today, Andrea Yates, after having murdered five children, spends her days in a low security mental health facility with no bars on the windows or razor wire fencing or armed guards. And the only reason she's still there and not walking free is that she wants to be there. This is the generosity and kindness the criminal justice system tends to show women who murder their kids, and it's why statistical women who plead insanity are much more likely to be successful than men who enter that plea. In fact, a woman who pleads insanity is 50% more likely to be found not guilty. Now, there are plenty of recent examples too, just a few months ago, or just really a month ago, as we discussed at the time, a black woman in Miami was found not guilty of drowning her 15-month-old daughter and stabbing her husband because COVID made her do it. Yes, COVID supposedly forced this woman to slaughter her 15-month-old child. Never mind the fact that she was upset about her husband's alleged infidelity. That had nothing to do with it. COVID was responsible. Watch. Tears filled the courtroom as the mother who admitted to killing her baby daughter was found not guilty by reason of insanity following a two-day bench trial. "As to count one aggravated manslaughter that is not guilty by reason of insanity, as to count two attempted murder in the first degree, the defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity, and as to count three attempted murder in the first degree, the defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity." Her lawyer's argued bland was overcome by the voices in her head and had a COVID-induced psychotic break. "Fain is a deceiver." "There's so much that we don't know about COVID, and this was, you know, one of the first cases in the country to go to trial on COVID, doing the defense to murder." Blaine spent three and a half years behind bars before being released about a year ago. Now, after a judge cleared her of criminal responsibility in her daughter's death, she says she's focused on moving forward. "Now, if you ever have difficulty convincing somebody that the insanity defense should be abolished, just show them this clip. Judges are letting murderers out of prison because they had COVID. It's so utterly insane speaking of insanity that you have to give them credit for creativity, at least, I guess, and as long as the insanity defense exists, it's the perfect loophole if you want to legalize post-birth abortion. Just bury the jury in nonsense, give it an air of legitimacy, bring in some some psychiatrist to say a bunch of nonsense, a bunch of pseudo-scientific nonsense, and hope they acquit. That's the strategy. And that's exactly what we're seeing right now with the Clancy case. Virtually all of the testimony to this point has been a morass of meaningless back and forth about the precise psychological symptoms that Clancy was demonstrating or not demonstrating when she spoke to her doctor. Take a look at this heated interaction on cross-examination between the defense attorney and Jennifer Tufts, who was one of Clancy's psychiatrists. We're going to try to get through this together because it illustrates exactly what this whole trial is really about. Watch. "Did she call suicide hotlines?" "I was not aware that she did." "Did you ever ask her?" "I don't think I specifically asked that." "Question specifically." "Did you ask her anything to be around the bush maybe, ask her anything about suicide hotlines?" "I don't think I asked her about suicide hotlines." "Would it surprise you to know that she called suicide hotlines?" "In that time frame, not once, but twice. It was turned away." "You guys went in front lines, isn't it?" "It does surprise me." "Yes." "Not hyper-pressured speech." "What was that?" "Not hyper-not-pressured speech is what I meant." "I know it doesn't say not, but that is exactly what I meant." "When did you see this that you noticed that it did not say not?" "I don't care what it says. I know what I meant." "Well, when you wrote this, you did not say not-pressured speech. You said in the medical record, pressured speech, right?" "No." "Does say that?" "Yeah, the word is. " "The word not is right before not hyper-com-up-pressured speech. The two are following the knot." "When you put down in a medical record, heart racing, comma, severe anxiety, comma, worried about kids, comma, baby, comma, sleep, comma, yawns, but not drowsy, period, not hyper, comma, pressured speech." "That's what you wrote, right?" "She did not have pressure speech." "I wrote that, but you're misinterpreting my note." "Am I reading this correctly in the jury will be able to look at it, that you put not hyper-com-up-pressured speech. Did I read that right?" "Yes, but your interpretation is incorrect." "Well, it's all pretty mind-numbing. Inane does not begin to describe this from both directions. There's precisely zero relevant information being disclosed to the jury in this testimony or in, indeed, much of the testimony in this trial. It's all theater." "Did the doctor write in her notes that Clancy had pressured speech or not pressured speech?" "Was there supposed to be a comma there or not? Does any of this matter?" "And pressured speech, by the way, I think, means like someone is sort of frantic and hyper and talking a lot, like talking fast, talking a lot." "There are a lot of people I would describe that way. There are podcasts, hosts, who, if they walked into a strength's office, would get a diagnosis immediately of pressured speech. The distinction doesn't matter. And that's especially true in this case when the doctor is telling the lawyer how to interpret the note based on her observations. But I guess we're supposed to conclude that this is some kind of gotcha moment because everybody's supposed to pretend that pressured speech is an actual clue, like finding fingerprints on a murder weapon. It's ludicrous. The field of psychiatry has been allowed to fester unabated for decades without anybody telling these shrinks to get a real job, as they just make stuff up constantly. And this is the result." The more relevant testimony concerns Clancy's response to taking the SSRI known as Zoloft when the doctor prescribed it. Watch. "So when did she actually take the Zoloft?" She told me in her October 20th visit that she had taken it one week prior. "When she told you that when she increased it in accordance with your instructions, she went off the rails, right?" "I don't think she used those words, but she had what was the use for you as her doctor?" She felt awful. "Why did she feel awful? Did she have a stomach ache? Did she have a headache? Why did she feel awful?" She did have some stomach aches. She had some diarrhea and she had a difficult time eating. She also had increased anxiety. She had some more depressed feelings. She had more difficulty sleeping. "And what was your advice to her as her doctor from the 28th of October? After she told you about the effect the Zoloft had on her?" "I told her to stop it. Stop the medication." Well, this, by the way, is a common experience for women, particularly with careers like Clancy, to a staggering degree. Women are being prescribed SSRIs as a first line of defense against any problems they might be dealing with. And the results have not been good. To put it mildly, this is from the Institute for Family Studies. "State home mothers are less likely to have experienced a major depressive episode. About two-thirds is likely in fact than women who are not state-home moms. 32% of state-home mothers have taken a psychotherapeutic medication in the past year, while 38% of non-state-home mothers have. By far, women who are not state-home mothers are the most copious users of prescription pain lint relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants, or sedatives." So to restate, 32% of state-home moms and 38% of working moms are on psychiatric meds. A third of all moms working or not are on some kind of psychotropic drug. That is nothing short of cataclysmic, okay? Big pharma in the psychiatric industry are turning the whole country into drug addicts, and nobody's doing anything about it. And the numbers are nearly as bad for men when you look at that. As a side note, one thing to keep in mind when you see reports about alcohol use declining is not only that lots of people have swapped booze for weed, but also many more people are using psychiatric meds to calm themselves down and handle stress at the end of the day. We are not in any way even remotely a more sober society today than we were back when everybody was drinking booze. We traded one substance for myriad other substances that mess with your mind much more deeply and in ways that we don't even understand. And what's even more extraordinary about these numbers is that the doctors prescribing these psychoactive medications have no idea how the drugs work. Here's more testimony from Clancy Psychiatrist, for example. Would you agree with me that Friday telling for the staff is all up that one of the concerns that you had is that Zola affects anxiety and affects sleep and you hope that it treats the underlying anxiety by balancing brain chemistry and increasing serotonin, right? Yes. And you'd agree with me that it does is a side effect have an impact on a person falling asleep or staying asleep as a common side effect, right? it can happen, it doesn't happen to everyone, but it certainly happens to some, but it is temporary. That's the important distinction. So she stated on the stand that she was prescribing SSRIs to correct the serotonin imbalance that she believed was taking place in Clancy's brain. There's just one problem and it's a pretty big one. As we discuss many times in the show, the serotonin imbalance theory of depression has been completely abandoned. Okay, there was a paper about it in nature. This is well established. The theory has a long sense been debunked. It's not real. Quote, the general public widely believes that depression has been convincingly demonstrated to be the result of serotonin or other chemical abnormalities. The huge research effort based on the serotonin hypothesis has not produced convincing evidence of a biochemical basis to depression. This is consistent with research on many other biological markers. We suggest that it is time to acknowledge that the serotonin theory of depression is not empirically substantiated. Okay, that was in 2022. And in 2026, we're still hearing from doctors on the witness stand about how a lack of serotonin is linked to depression. It's not. And then after all this, she puts Clancy back on Zoloft a few months later. Now, it's hard to come away from this testimony without concluding that the entire psychiatric industry needs to be shut down. As it continues, there's more consternation about her notes and the strategy she used and talk therapy to calm Clancy down. It's all just pseudoscience. Watch. So I provided emotional support and validation and encouragement. Something like I understand this is a very difficult time. And it really varies on the individual. Sure. How about Lindsay? I don't remember the exact therapeutic words that I used. Okay. How long did you give a therapy? Validation and all that stuff. I don't remember exactly the duration. Be about 10 minutes. Maybe. Through the challenges, right? Through the computer. She kind of waves her hands around and says that she's describing the 10 minutes of emotional support and validation she provided. Validation. Validation is, you know, this is a good indication that this is all pseudoscience. It's not real medicine. As much as we're told that like these are real doctors and they're treating realment, like real illnesses, real diseases. Okay. Well, in what scenario can you treat a real disease with validation? In what other scenario can you go to the doctor with an actual disease and the way to treat the disease is just by acknowledging that it exists. You go to the doctor and say, "Hey, Doc, you know, I have cancer." You do have cancer. I validate that. Anyway, that's it. Go pay your bill at the front. That doesn't work that way with any real disease, but it does. That's how it works in psychiatric industry. The entire industry is based on vibes. None of it actually holds up under scrutiny because they're making it up as they go. The college education can be one of the biggest purchases in a person's life. Not only that, but it can sometimes take years to know whether or not it was worth it. That's not a sensible system. If you're choosing a university, you should know what that education will help you accomplish. It should prepare you for a career, certainly, but it should also develop discipline, judgment, and a sense of purpose. Well, that's the approach at Grand Canyon University, which is a private non-profit Christian University, offering hundreds of programs on its Phoenix campus and online. GCU has held tuition study on a traditional campus for 17 years while continuing to invest in its students. More than 132,000 students have chosen GCU for an education grounded in practical preparation, leadership, and Christian values. If college is the next step for you or someone in your family, take a closer look at Grand Canyon University. Learn more at gcu.edu. Grand Canyon University private Christian affordable, non-profit. That's gcu.edu. Summer is when bad clothing is put to the test, something that seemed perfectly acceptable in April becomes heavy, uncomfortable, and completely intolerable by August. That is where Mac Weldon's AirNit X collection comes in. It's breathable, performance, fabric is available, and everything from t-shirts and polos to undershirts and socks. So you can stay cool from head to toe. AirNit X combines breathable nylon mesh with four-way stretch, so it moves with you without bunching, without sagging, without feeling restrictive. As a classic well-made look, that remains comfortable with the temperature climbs. For more than 10 years, Mac Weldon has designed timeless menswear that keeps up with modern life. It's clothing that helps you look put together without requiring much thought or effort. Stay cool and comfortable with the AirNit X collection. Don't sweat the heat this summer. Feel as effortlessly cool as you look with Mac Weldon. Go to Mac Weldon.com and get 20% off your first order of $125 and more with promo code of walls. That's m-a-c-k-w-e-l-d-l-n.com code of walls. An important point in this trial, which has a lot of relevance for the broader problem of over-medicated women, is that Clancy had multiple providers, at least five, by my count. And she was on a lot of different medication. She was actually prescribed many more drugs than she took. She often didn't complete the full course of medication, and that's a point relevant for and inconvenient to her defense. Yes, she was prescribed a bunch of meds, but she didn't actually take most of it. Still, there were far too many prescriptions being written, and that's an understatement. A psychiatrist named Nicholas Bodre put together this chart, which shows the extent to which Clancy was being medicated. In total, she was on around 14 different medications in four months, so she was being over-prescribed by a rotating cast of providers to an extreme degree. And as he points out, most of the drugs were intended to help her sleep, out of Anne, Benadryl, Lodos, Trazodone, Clonopin, Ambien. But Bodre notes that the syrup will, that she was on, was, quote, "ultimally increased to 200 milligrams of the dose range, where antisecotic activity becomes relevant." Clancy's ex-husband, who she sent out on errands while she committed the murders, testified about the effects of some of these drugs. Watch. "Did Dr. Jalada to your knowledge put her on medication?" Yeah. "And what was the medication, if you know?" "Mainly seroquil and benzodiazepines out of Anne." No, benzodiazepines. They were addictive, right? "Apparently." "Objection?" "I'll allow it." And a benzodiazepines would be, for example, add-of-an, correct? "Correct." Now, seroquil, she was placed on seroquil as well, is that correct? "Right." And to your observation, again, you know, Dr. what you saw of your wife, was she affected positively or negatively by the seroquil that she was on? It appeared that she was affected very negatively, and she's reporting that she was getting worse on the seroquil. "And do you know, did she report that to Dr. Jalada?" Yeah. "Was there a number of occasions that you would actually see her on the sofa rocking back and forth with her head under a pillow?" Yeah. "Did you report that in other symptoms to Dr. Jalada?" Linsy did. Now, what's absurd or one of the many absurd things, anyway, about all the internet theories that this guy somehow committed the murders himself, and we'll get to that in a little bit, is that he's actually helping her case. I mean, if he really orchestrated the murder and framed her somehow, he'd obviously want her to take the fall, but in this case, he's helping her make the argument that the drugs made her do it. Separately, he talks about how normal she seemed various points, including shortly before the murders. Watch. "Again, September 1st of 22. I remember when that was taken." Yeah, that's with Kalin and Dawson. "It was that year, yeah?" That's in the backyard. Backyard. This would hit then September of 22, obviously right before it's 1.8, okay? Right. And again, this one here at July of 22. Can you tell me, Tira's, you guys had a pretty good sum of that year? It was a good summer. Yeah, that was on Cape Cod. This picture was in on Cape Cod. Yeah. Well, again, who knows what they're proving here? I mean, okay, she took happy pictures before she killed her family. So, I mean, you could pull up the Facebook feed of pretty much any first-degree murder suspect and find periods where they seem completely normal and happy and were smiling, even just moments before the murder. That's not unusual at all. Some of them are happy during the murder. Some of them afterwards. The fact that this woman had extreme mood swings does not demonstrate that the drugs were partially responsible. They might have been, really, have no idea. No one, including these experts, has any idea what these psychoactive drugs are doing to the brain? That's a reason to avoid taking them. And it's a reason to throw this woman in prison because whether the drugs affected her mindset or not, she ultimately made the decision to murder her. own children. Therefore, she cannot be allowed in society ever again. She simply cannot be trusted around anyone, especially children. Now, I'm very sympathetic to the idea that the drugs may have messed with Clancy's mind, making her even more unbalanced than she already was. As I said, the drugs might even be partially responsible. That doesn't mean that she should ever see the outside of a prison cell ever again. She still murdered her children. She herself, Lindsey Clancy, that particular human, went into her basement and strangled her kids to death. She did that. Nobody else did it. She did it. And she must pay for it. If her doctor share some blame, and maybe they do, then they should be tossed in the prison cell right next to her. If Big Pharma shares some blame, and they almost certainly do, then Big Pharma execs should be dragged into prison in handcuffs and leg irons. That sounds good to me, the more the merrier. But Lindsey Clancy, the killer of children, must pay for her crimes that she committed. That is the only reasonable takeaway from this sorted seemingly endless trial. The psychiatric industry is a sham. They have no idea what they're doing. People, especially women, are far too reliant on these medications. And when it comes to Clancy, none of that matters because she is a murderer. At least to the extent it does matter, it does not vindicate her or exonerate her or change the simple and terrible fact that she herself murdered her kids. So the verdict should be guilty. And we shouldn't have to talk about this monster ever again. But if you ask women on the internet about this case, there's a good chance you'll hear a very different takeaway. The Lindsey Clancy case, like the cases involving Karen Reed and Tyler Robinson and many others, has become a phenomenon among women, particularly on social media. There are many women who have rallied to Clancy's defense on the basis of her insanity defense. On social media, you'll find countless posts like this one from a woman named Katie who identifies herself as a former prosecutor and says, I was a prosecutor for 12 years, eight of them doing crimes against children. Lindsey Clancy is a file. I would have left on my boss's desk and said, find someone else for this one. It won't be me just saying. In this post, as thousands of likes, Katie goes on in the comments to say that Clancy is not responsible for murdering her own kids because she quote, begged for help and tried to get it. Katie says that Clancy spiraled into darkness. Hear this a lot, by the way, she was begging for help. She was trying to get help. Okay, good for her. So she didn't get help, so she killed her kids. My sympathy for you, like it's very simple. The moment you kill a child, my sympathy for you evaporates. Prior to that, if you're looking for help and you're experiencing something psychologically, I have a lot of sympathy for you. The moment you do that, I don't give a damn about that. Oh, she needed help. Too bad. Too bad. She should rot in prison. Let's give her that help. Rot in a jail cell until you die. How about that? You killed a child, three of them, your own. There is no point. I don't care if you're begging for help for 50 years. I don't care if you never get help. I don't care if every single person you ask for help looks at you and flips you the middle finger and says, get out of here, go to help. It still would not even come one inch in the direction of justifying murdering your kids. Obviously. Now, it may be true that Clancy spiraled into darkness, but someone should inform Katie, the alleged prosecutor, that literally every murderer ever in history has spiraled into darkness. Murder is not something that you tend to do if your mind is in a bright, clear and happy place. No matter how Clancy was feeling, she killed her kids. Even if it's true that Clancy heard a voice telling her to kill her kids, which is what she claims. It's something that can never be proven or disproven anyway. Oh, a voice told me to do it. Okay. So you say, I mean, we don't know if that's true. And even if it is, you still chose to kill your kids. Even if you do hallucinate a voice telling you to murder your whole family, the correct response to the voice is to decline to follow the commands of the hallucinated voice. What if a real voice told you to kill your kids? Would that make it okay? Would that make you not guilty? In fact, if an actual person told you to kill your kids and put a literal gun to your head, you would still have the choice to not follow that command even at the penalty of death. And moreover, as a society, we would expect you to resist that command even to the point of sacrificing your life rather than intentionally harming your own children. And we should expect that. And again, I have to point out that there have been plenty of cases of men killing their families. And the men in those cases are significantly less likely to get away with an insanity defense. And they almost never have the women of the internet rallying to their defense. Okay, the Katie's of the world are not stepping up to argue that Joe Smith, the family killer, was in a dark place. He was asking for help. He felt really sad. It wasn't his fault. Was the last time the women of the internet ever did that? Do you think of an example of a guy who killed his family and the women of TikTok? Oh, he was asking for help. He's the victim here. Now, they only tend to have that kind of sympathy for other women. That's interesting, isn't it? Now, there's one other point about the insanity defense that is rarely made. So, I want to make it here. The insanity defense, indeed, the concept of insanity itself and its implications is as much a philosophical and existential question as it is a medical one. So, when you claim that a woman who murdered her children is not responsible for the crime she committed, when you say, as I believe even her husband has said numerous times, that it wasn't really her who did the thing, you're making a profound claim, not just about the nature of psychiatric conditions, but about the nature of the self. Okay, because if it wasn't really Lindsey Clancy, who did what Lindsey Clancy did, then who was it? It was her body doing the strangling. It was her arms, her hands, her eyes that looked into her children's eyes as they stared at her in terror and confusion. And she did it intentionally. She did it deliberately, even with forethought. She wasn't sleepwalking, she wasn't otherwise unconscious. Was that not herself acting? What other self could it be? I mean, what do you mean it's not her? Who is it? You seem to be positing the existence of some kind of other self, some alien self, which was acting within Clancy's body while her real self, whatever that means, lay dormant in some mysterious corner of her subconscious. Well, I find that whole idea, the entire concept incoherent. I don't think it means anything. And I don't think any of you can explain what it means. It wasn't really her. What do you mean by that? Explain exactly, explain exactly precisely how a person can do something and yet it wasn't then doing it. That is nonsense. That is like, you know, a married bachelor, okay? It is literally nonsensical. Now, our laws are not even consistent on this point. If a man gets drunk and sits behind the wheel of a car or a woman and then causes a fatal accident, he'll be held entirely culpable for it and be punished accordingly and deservedly so. In fact, a drunk man who causes an accident will be punished more severely. He will face a greater punishment, not a lesser one, than a sober man. Yet, the drunk man we all agree was not in his right mind. His mental capacities were certainly diminished. He was acting in ways that he would not have otherwise acted. If there is such a thing as a real self and his real self that is his sober, rational competent self was not really involved in the accident. His inebriated, mentally compromised, deluded, confused self was. And yet, we still hold him completely responsible. I mean, he may wake up the next morning and not even remember the accident. He might have been literally blackout drunk. And yet, we still will send him to prison to serve a punishment for a crime. He has no memory of committing. Now, you might argue that, well, the drunk man chose to get drunk. That's the difference, but so what? If the idea is that we can't hold people accountable for awful crimes committed when they were in a state of psychological derangement, then all that matters is their state of mind in that particular moment. Choices made prior to that moment are irrelevant. That in fact is exactly what is being explicitly argued in the case of Lindsay Clancy, or any other temporary insanity case. And besides, most people today would say that alcoholism alcoholism is a disease anyway. So did he actually choose to get drunk? Yeah, I mean this all as devil's advocate. I absolutely believe that we should throw the book of drunk drivers, but I apply the same logic to people allegedly intoxicated on psych meds, or on their own mental delusions, or on hormones from pregnancy or anything else. Recently, a woman in California avoided prison time completely after stabbing her boyfriend a hundred times, killing him. And the judge decided stated that she was the victim of cannabis-induced psychosis. She was not herself, you see. She was not in her right mind. Even though she chose to pack a bong with weed and smoke it. So there is no consistency at all in how this idea of temporary psychological impairment is applied in court. The only consistent theme is that women are much more likely to be the beneficiaries of it. Go back to Clancy. The sympathy for this child killer goes even deeper. In fact, in this case, as in other recent cases, it's turned into its own kind of tick-tock psychosis. Women and a relatively small number of men, most of them probably gay, are spending hours dissecting the case, looking for evidence of a vast conspiracy that proves Lindsey Clancy is not, is actually entirely innocent. Not just innocent by reason of insanity, but actually innocent, as in she didn't commit the crime at all. And I don't think this phenomenon is entirely unrelated to the fact that many women are hopped up on psychoactive drugs, by the way. When you're giving mind altering substances to a third of women and women suddenly become interested in psychotic theories, well, maybe there's something to explore there. Most of these deranged theories conclude based on fake evidence and immense logical leaps that her ex-husband is really responsible. You'll find women claiming that the voice that Clancy claims to have heard in her head was, in fact, the voice of her ex-husband. So they're writing these like movie scripts in their minds. Here's one example. No, because what in the Chris Watts is happening right now? Welcome back to another episode of Creepy Corner with Ken. If you are a true crime lover, then I know you have been seeing everything about this Lindsey Clancy case. And we're going to talk about why I think and know allegedly, allegedly, Patrick did it. Not her. It was her husband, 100%, but let's get into it. I have a bunch of notes on my computer here that I'm going to be looking at because I didn't want to miss anything I found important. So let's start with number one. This one really just kind of pissed me off more than anything and it's that stupid doctor that went on the stand to testify. All this doctor kept saying was, "I don't recall, I don't recall. I don't know." It got so ridiculous to the point that Kevin Reddington, the guy that was asking her these questions, was like, "Man, you know you're on a murder trial, right? Like, did you not even look at your notes?" Like, "Hello, what are we doing? Seems suspicious. I don't like it." She is sometimes with Patrick's new wife, but we'll get into that in a minute. Number two, they said that her body temperature when the meds got there was at 82 degrees. And so many doctors here on TikTok have talked about how that's almost impossible for even a dead body to get to 82 degrees within 55 minutes. That doesn't add up. Now, these women are so smug, like I can't even take these videos. This is just, it's like a very difficult thing to discuss and do the research to talk about. First of all, because of the crime, it's all which is horrifying, but also these women are so mind-numbingly stupid and smug, these dumb women on TikTok, that doesn't add up. Sorry, that doesn't add up. I know. I've watched some TikTok videos and I know exactly what's happening here. I'll tell you, the first point she makes has nothing to do with whether Clancy committed the murders. Yes, as we discuss, the psychiatrist is an unimpressive witness. Most psychiatrists are unimpressive. That's part of the profession. That doesn't mean Clancy's husband framed her for murder. And as for the second point about the body being too cold, this is something you'll hear a lot on social media. All the TikTok doctors are weighing in. The idea is that the official narrative doesn't make sense because Clancy's body, after she jumped outside the second story window and crumpled on the ground, was far too cold for the time that she spent on the ground. And therefore, she must have spent much longer on the ground and the prosecutors are claiming, which means the murders may have happened at a different time, which means the husband is guilty. Here's another example of this just profoundly stupid argument. Those are really starting to not add up specifically her body temperature, even if Lindsay went out the window the moment Patrick drove away, which obviously didn't happen. That means she would have been laying in the snow for 55 minutes. How did her body temperature drop 16 degrees in less than an hour? I've spoken to many ICU nurses about this, one of them being my cousin. It's physically impossible. One nurse that I spoke to said she literally cared for someone, who passed out in the snow, cold drunk in three degree weather for three hours. And their temperature only dropped down to 88 degrees, but this woman laying in the snow, even with a spinal injury for less than an hour, gets down to 82 degrees. I don't know, guys, timelines not making sense for me. Never mind the other major inconsistencies that I'm starting to see, but the body temperature seems the most perplexing. I want all these people deported. I can't share a country with people like this. We can't do it. It's the stupidity. You brain dead clowns, your brains are mush, you're a CQ convert, okay? You're barely sentient. We cannot, none of these people should be allowed to vote. None of them should be allowed to be in the country. We can't do it. We can't share a country with these people. Oh, this random guy talked to a nurse. He literally talked to a nurse, guys. I talked to a nurse, okay? I'll tell you what the, no, discard everything that everyone else has said, like in cord and all the forensics and all the detectives and, no, I talked to a nurse, you guys. And the nurse literally said that the body was too cold. Hang on, everyone. Hang on. Stop the trial. Stop it. Shut it all down. This guy talked to a nurse. Hang on. Stop everything. Run into the courtrooms. Shut it all down, everybody. You're on her. You're on her. You're on her. This, do do do. Hang on a second. Hang on. Yes. This unnamed nurse who spoke to this unknown guy on TikTok anonymously is a more reliable expert than every Dr. Law enforcement officer and every other expert involved in the trial. Why should we believe that? Who knows? Because, just because, there's a very common on social media now, of course. The internet's fluths get together. They reject the theory of the case that all of the evidence points to. They can cock the new theory, which, with much less evidence, or none at all. And they assert that the new theory is somehow more credible, despite being based on evidence that is astronomically worse and less credible by every metric. Now, the thing is, when somebody jumps from a second story window and sustains a spinal injury, as Clancy did, all kinds of things can go wrong in the body. You might lose your ability to shiver, for example. Your blood vessels might not be able to narrow and constrict. These are major ways that your body preserves heat when you're out in the cold. And before long, if you don't have those basic mechanisms, you get a lot colder than normal. Blood loss has the same effect. These are all things that I found from a little bit of research. I am not an authority on the subject of how long it takes for a body to lose heat after somebody jumps out of a window. In fact, I never even thought about that question until this very moment. And the same is true for every TikTok detective. All of these dumbasses never even considered any of this until right now. They know nothing about it. They have no relevant base of knowledge at all. And yet they suddenly know enough to dismiss every piece of evidence being presented in court, evidence that defense itself does not dispute. In fact, these TikTok detectives are so brilliant, they're such geniuses, that they apparently have a better understanding of who killed Lindsey Clancy's kids than Lindsey Clancy does. Because Lindsey Clancy, again, confessed. And there's a lot of that going around too. As you notice, the Tyler Robinson case is an example that springs to everybody's mind. That's yet another case where the defendant confessed, admitted their own guilt, and yet the internet detectives believe that they are greater authorities on the defendant's guilt or innocence than the defendant himself. So in this case, the TikTok doctors have it all figured out. Even though there's been no testimony in this case to support their theory, they're confidently telling the audience that, indeed, the official narrative is impossible because the body was too cold. And the hysteria continues from there. Watch. Number three, Patrick claims that when he went to CVS, which is three minutes away from their house, that he called his wife Lindsey, asked if it was okay to buy the off-brand of Lexiffs because the name brand wasn't in stock. However, he'd been showing us footage of the CVS and where he was standing. And it looks pretty stock to me, but whatever. But here's why this is interesting to me because he claims that he talked on the phone with her about this, and she said that the off-brand was fine. Now, when she jumps out of the window from their room, her thyroid had been crushed, and so she wasn't able to speak to them. But somehow, this man not only spoke to his wife on the phone about the Lexatives, but that when he found her outside, he went up to her and said what happened, and she responded with, "I tried to myself." And then when he asked her where the kids, she said another whole sentence and said, "The kids are in the basement." And her thyroid was crushed, and she wasn't able to speak. So how were you speaking to her in all of this? The other thing is that she only had a limited amount of time to do this because he was just going to the CVS to get food and back. So I find it hard to believe that during this limited amount of time, she picked up the phone to talk to you about the Lexative while she's trying to murder her three kids and herself. Another thing that didn't make sense to me about her being a certified nurse with something that they're saying that she did was that when she went to cut her wrist, that she cut horizontally. Now in nurse would know if they wanted to get the job done to do it vertically, but hers were found horizontally. Once again, it's giving someone that knows nothing about any of this. Now let's focus a little bit more on her jumping out of the window and what that entailed. The main thing you need to know is that this woman did not jump out the window, okay? She was dangled by her feet. I think this because of two different things. One, they were investigating the crime scene. They found these two blood spots on the side of the house. Didn't make sense at first, but when you picture Patrick dangling her by her legs out this window, it makes perfect sense where two blood spots would be on that wall if she's dangling. Number two, when they found her, her head was closest to the side of the house. Her feet were the furthest from the house, which wouldn't make sense if someone is like jumping out the window. They would be head furthest away with their feet towards the house, and also they would be on their stomach. She was found on her back with her head closest to the house, and not only make sense if he was dangling her outside of the window. Another thing that's suspicious is that it shows that he sent an email out from his house at 5.24 p.m., which doesn't make sense because he said he left his house at 5.15. How are you sending an email out? Also, also, they have nanny cams in this house, but you guessed that nanny cams weren't working due to no Wi-Fi, but that's weird because you must have had Wi-Fi to send your email out at 5.24 at your house. It's not adding up Patrick. If none of that convinced you at all, this man got married four months after this. Mm-hmm. Yeah, and has a new baby already. That's weird. That's weird. What's weird is that you're able to breathe and talk. What's weird is that you're able to tie your shoes. You. And we want to dismiss this kind of thing, but like these videos have felt like millions of views, thousands of women watching them, like taking notes. Oh, my gosh, that's an interesting. Get out of my country. I get out of my country. You are a wart on the ass of society. You are stupid and bad. You know, these are also bad people because on top of all this, like this is also a case where three children were brutally murdered and you are turning it into like. It's entertainment for you. You're treating it like it's a, you know, like it's a Netflix show. Not to mention implicating an innocent man based on nothing. Like his children were killed. You scum. His children, he lost three children and you're like, "I think he did it. No, you're scum. That's what you are." Anyway, the last part isn't even remotely true, by the way. Well, everything she said is true. She'd say, "Clancy's husband got remarried three years after murder. Not four years. Or not four months." Or a pretty big fact to get wrong. And even if he got married the next day, that would not be evidence that he committed the murder of Lindsey Clancy confessed to. And, no, he didn't send the email from his home as far as we know. As the testimony made very clear, he sent emails all the time from his iPhone. People can do that these days, you know? And this particular email based on the evidence that's been presented was probably one that was sent from an iPhone. The whole video is like this, as you saw. It's just an onslaught of stupidity. This woman apparently found a picture of the CVS and it was stock with certain laxatives. And therefore, there's no way in her mind the laxative was out of stock when the husband called Lindsey to inform her the item was out of stock. So apparently, if an item is in stock at one particular moment in time, it must always be in stock forever. It can never be out of stock. And therefore, he's lying about everything. Again, this isn't, this is not an argument that the defense is making because it's absurd on its face. It doesn't prove that he actually saw that the item was in stock or that it was in stock at that moment he called. But she moves on from this point very quickly because she understands that if you think about it for five seconds, you'll realize it's total nonsense. And she also claims at one point that because the husband's DNA was on the exercise bands that were used to strangle the kids. Therefore, he must have done it. Never mind the fact that it's a common household item that everybody was touching. His DNA could be found on most of the stuff in his house probably because it's his house. She moves on to claiming that there's no way Clancy could have confessed to their husband because her throat was crushed from the fall. But again, plenty of reasons why somebody who sustains a serious injury might be able to speak one minute and then be incapacitated afterwards. Swelling is one of them. We have dying declarations for a reason. It's extremely common for people who are gravely injured to lose their ability to speak very quickly. But again, we're meant to conclude that this is simply impossible. Never mind the fact that Clancy can speak now. She can speak now, but she's still refusing to identify her husband as the perpetrator. Instead, she is now herself who can speak admitting her guilt. Then she makes the extraordinary claim that Clancy couldn't have really tried to kill herself because she slashed her wrists in an ineffective manner. And as a nurse, she would have known the right way to do it. At some point, sticking with the same wireless company stops being about loyalty just becomes inertia or even laziness, especially when there's an alternative as easy as pure talk. Right now, you can get any pure talk plan for just $15 a month for your first three months. That applies to any plan, including their unlimited high speed data plans and their top tier $65 plan. By now, just $15 a month for three months to get this. There's no service contract and there's no cancellation fee. So if you've been hearing me talk about pure talk over the years and think that you want to check it out eventually, well, now is the time. You can potentially save up to $150 just in those first three months. Families save more than $1,000 per year. You get reliable service, a 100% U.S.-based customer service team and three months to decide for yourself whether pure talk makes more sense than whatever you're paying for now. And I'm sure it does. For a limited time, you get any pure talk plan included, which is includes unlimited data for just $15 a month for your first three months. Simply go to puretalk.com/walls to claim this offer again. It's puretalk.com/walls to start saving today. So understand what's happening here. We have a woman who's so psychotic and evil and unstable that she just murdered her own kids one by one in her basement. She just deceived her husband to get him out of the house while she committed these crimes. And despite all that, we're supposed to assume, first of all, that she didn't actually intend to kill herself and secondly, that she couldn't possibly have made a mistake in this deranged homicidal state of mind. There's just no way that she wouldn't have slashed her wrists at the ideal angle. Therefore, there's a vast conspiracy and the husband did it. This is not idle speculation. By the way, again, accusing a man of murder without any evidence is despicable. If you're watching this garbage content yourself, you are just as culpable as this vulture. And I'm not even going to discuss her retarded theory about how the woman must have been dangling from the house because of the blood spots that were found on the outside wall. Or if she jumped out of a window, she would have landed on her stomach. What? Where are you getting that from? It's impossible for someone to jump out of a window and land on their back. What? You just made that up. Makes no sense and we're all dumb or for having listened to it. But it's incredibly popular content. That TikTok video is something like 40,000 likes. And believe it or not, it's actually one of the better pieces of Lindsey Clancy content you'll find on social media. Most of these videos don't even bother to lie about the evidence. Here's another one. I think that we are all watching Lindsey Clancy, realize she actually didn't kill those kids. Why did he need a go fund me? Is he paying for her lawyer? $1.7 million for what? How much does a funeral cost? He is panicking right now. He's got a family member in law enforcement. The new wife's husband is connected to Hollywood. He's living in a high rise in Manhattan with a new doctor wife and a new baby. This man has not shed one tear. Okay. Anyway. Yeah, shut up. Shut up. You scumbag, filth. Well, there you have it. The ex-husband, and note how she talks about the kids, by the way, those effing kids. The kids were killed. Those effing kids. This ex-husband, well, he didn't cry on the stand, so he probably murdered his own kids and framed his wife. And then he cast a spell on her that forced her to confess. There's another common theme among the TikTok detectives. They formulate wildly implausible alternative theories fueled mainly by the feelings and vibes they get from watching facial expressions. The internet is now suddenly full of body language experts who have the psychic ability to solve murder cases just by looking into somebody's eyes. That's really what these women think. Many of them have implicated Erica Kirk on the same basis. As we know, something just feels off. Something feels off. I don't know, something feels off. All the forensic evidence, all the witness testimony, all the data on the ground, even the confession of the murderer. All of that can be dismissed, disregarded, because women on the internet think something feels off. Something's just off. My spidey sense. You know, I'm a psychic. This is X-Men. Not convinced? Well, on top of that, the police didn't fingerprint anything, she says. At some point in that video, we might have cut off before she said it. It doesn't matter. She says they didn't fingerprint anything. Can you imagine that? I mean, it sounds pretty bad. Almost like they wanted to frame Lindsey Clancy from murder. Then you realize that actually they did process the entire scene for fingerprints. They didn't recover usable prints from the main pieces of evidence, but that's very different from not fingerprinting anything. I mean, this is all moot because she confessed to the crime. And her defense has never attempted to argue that she didn't do it, but maybe I'm being too harsh on this woman. I mean, there's even worse content out there if you can imagine it. The more you look at these videos, the worse they get. Somehow the bar continues to go lower and lower with each one. A large percentage of these videos don't even talk about the case at all. They just straight up worship Lindsey Clancy because she killed her kids. Watch. How many other New England girlies would like to take the day off from work and drive up to the courthouse to show our support and advocacy for Lindsey Clancy? You ride at dawn seriously. Like let me know if you're down for that. I have decided I'm going to send Lindsey Clancy a letter of encouragement. Of course I'm not going to mention anything about like the case or anything like that. But I did want to write to her and tell her that there are so many women that are out here praying for her. I think some words of encouragement might bring a smile to her. I don't know if she's able to receive any mail or not, but at least I want to try. Do you guys think that Lindsey Clancy is going to like know about us? Like that we're all here like standing behind her. Like is she going to ever find out about us? Like her little army? Like do you think we'll ever become her friends? Like? Like will she talk to us? Okay. Shut up. Tell me that was a cat in the background. I heard something in the background. I was a cat or a kid. I would assume cat. Gotta hope these women don't have kids. These women that are like on her side after she murdered her children, that's that's startling. Social media is the worst thing that ever happened to women. I don't know how else to put it. There's been a lot of hand wringing and dire warnings and breathless lectures about how the internet has sent young men down a dark path to extremism and led them into the clutches of, you know, Andrew Tade and Nick Fuentes and whoever, but at a certain point, we need to have a very serious conversation about the full-blown, psychotic break, TikTok and Instagram and other social media apps have provoked in not all but many women and not necessarily just young women either. The middle-aged women are spending all day developing schizophrenic theories about murder cases and posting videos about them informing communities of support for mass murderers and child killers. But in a way, at least these are the more honest videos in the genre. These women are at least being transparent about their motives. They revere Lindsey Clancy because she murdered her children because because she murdered her children. That is the unspoken reality of the Clancy case. Some of her advocates are unstable women with a bad case of TikTok brain, but others, you know, there's something else going on. She is a folk hero among some leftist women because leftist women believe that mothers have the right to execute their children at any point, whether it's the moment of birth or eight months after the fact or five years after the fact. Leftist women don't quite have the political capital to formally legalize these post-birth abortions, so they'd settle on an alternative solution. The insanity defense and it's working out very well for them. That's why Massachusetts, the state where this trial is taking place, it just so happens, just this week passed a law permitting abortion up until the moment of birth. It's not because they believe that children become human once they're born and they aren't before. It's because they want to continue pushing the envelope further and further until post-birth abortion is legal. That is the goal. No matter what you may hear in the media, the Lindsey Clancy case is not just about post-part and depression, it's not even about SSRIs, at least not in isolation. It's yet another referendum on the legality of post-birth abortion in this country and the lengths that millions of modern American feminists will go in order to avoid facing the consequences of their own actions. Quite a few of these feminists truly believe that if their life isn't going well, a drug can fix it and if a drug doesn't fix it, maybe murder will. Is there a constitutional right to execute your own child if they become inconvenient even years after their birth? That's the question. And with the Lindsey Clancy case, at least in the state of Massachusetts, we're about to find out. I'll do the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed. Your country is beneath contempt. We who love and serve Allah fought back against the Americans and the Zionists from the scourge of secularism and the lands of unbelief. Anyone going to listen to Captain Saunders tomorrow, they retired out the four-soldier with a new book out. He's the polar opposite of those brain-dead protestors. Hi. Get an occurrent claim. Should police Saunders even be allowed on campus? Mr. Saunders is a close personal friend of Joshua Friedman. This is a decision I cannot follow. There are three ways Islam will conquer the West. Through immigration, through the wombs of our women, and by using our nation's freedoms against us. Are you paying attention? Honoured. Oh, Lord. Listen carefully. The great Satan America will fall. Your infidels. The bodies of women are not pure and men's souls are unclean. What makes them so dangerous, their goals are not in this life, but the next. We got friends here, our kids just don't listen to me in the law. We cannot run or hide from what is coming. We have to fight. I will be rewarded 10,000 times in the next life. When you die, you are nothing. Boy, one way to find out. That's the American way. [Music]